See Goedecke's 1964 paper. On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The thing this is a mystery, How come you get so good and accurate results > from both the theories, if you are correct they would be an epsilon appart > and the first > thing theoretical physics should do is to try understand this epsilon and > be able to deduce it, i tried, and could not find that epsilon. Mills is > going head to head with > QM and is claiming that much of the exactness of QM is an illusion and a > result of bad physics e.g they picked some terms in an asymptotic expansion > and dropped > others just to fit to the measured data. Mills can be right or not. > However for high energy physics, probably the Standard Model is more exact > cause it is a data fir with so > many unknowns. It is a shame that we don't have a serious heated debate > between nobell lauriates and Mills regarding these matters, it would be a > great show. In stead > there is a speaking nothing. My take on this is therefore that Mills is > right. QM is a datafit to reality, quite useful if you don't extrapolate. > Mills model is more physical, but maybe > not developed fully, so I would expect a new Einstein to show up and find > corrections to MIlls theory more than saying that QM and the standard model > is superior. > > Also, Once upon the time, a curious figure came up and showed his neat > calculations, he could estimate the astronomical observations with 6 > digits. Nah, the lauriates said, > our method, that is so complex and well developed, fits with 7 digits, > experimental observations triumph theory, you go away! And Keppler went > back. The telling is that the > old ones needed to die off until science could appreciate good reason and > beautiful simplicity. It's maybe even worse today. > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Quantum mechanics applies to fundamental particles. A special case of QM >> applies to hydrinos in the same why that a special case of QM applies to >> cooper pairs of electrons, CQM is analogous to super conductor theory. >> Care in thinking must be applied to applying this sort of theory. >> Mis-application of theory when such a hierarchy of theory exists is easy to >> do. >> >> Mills would do better is he says that CQM is a special case of QM in the >> same why that Newtonian physics is a special case of general relativity. >> Mills is wrong to reject QM whole cloth as invalid to be replaced by CQM. >> In this he has a problem in the way he thinks. >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < >> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The hydrino is a variant of the hydrogen atom. It is never claimed by >>> Mills to be a fundamental particle. Hence it needs so low energy so that >>> you can maintain the bound >>> You can't find it using collisions of high energy, which is where most >>> bucks these days is targeted at. If you knock the hydrino you will get a >>> proton and an electron. So to find >>> a antihydrino you need to cool down a produced anti proton and an anti >>> electron and reach a hydrino state, which you need some chemical reaction >>> to achieve because the >>> cool down system would go to the normal anti hydrogen su you need to >>> create a bunch of anti compounds and do chemistry with them. Good luck with >>> that. >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The lack of proof that anti-hydrinos exist tells me that the hydrino is >>>> not a fundamental particle but a quasi-particle produced under the >>>> interactions of other multiple electrons. This is also true for cooper >>>> pairs of electrons. A fundamental particle always has an anti-particle. >>>> This hydrino quasi-particle is produced under special multiple electron >>>> interactions and is also not a fundamental particle. Hydrinos are a special >>>> case produced in condensed matter. They are not produced as virtual >>>> particles because they have no associated anti-particle. >>>> >>>> LENR exists in a special state of condensed matter and energy where >>>> multiple interactions among electrons acting in a special way exists. The >>>> same is true for hydrinos, they are quasi-particles, a special state of >>>> matter like the SPPs, not fundimental. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 10:19 AM, <pjvannoor...@caiway.nl> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Stefan >>>>> >>>>> I couldnt agree more with what you say. It is really strange that >>>>> almost nobody >>>>> is looking into the theory of R.Mills. I presented Mills theory a few >>>>> years ago to >>>>> a Nobel price winner in the Netherlands. He got angry. >>>>> >>>>> Somehow Quantum Physics took the wrong way. It was really at the start >>>>> of the first formula >>>>> to describe the atom with the Quantum theory where they went wrong. >>>>> They couldnt explain the stability of the atom in a classic way and >>>>> Bohr postulated >>>>> the stability of the atom. Mills found the solution to that problem. >>>>> He proposed that the electron is a shell of current which >>>>> is flowing in such a way that there are solutions to the Maxwell >>>>> equations who correspond to the stable >>>>> quantum levels of the electron in the hydrogen atom. What is more he >>>>> found that with his model fractional quantum levels >>>>> where also possible. He found these stable fractional quantum levels >>>>> in his experiments, when he followed his theory >>>>> that predicted that the groundstate of a hydrogen atom can be >>>>> destablized by using catalyst which can take away n x 27.2 eV >>>>> from atom through collision. >>>>> >>>>> Peter van Noorden >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> >>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 10, 2015 7:20 PM >>>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:QM rant >>>>> >>>>> I would like to see a grants and target institution targeted to >>>>> answer your questions. Also it is good to remember that the standard model >>>>> was fitted to high energy >>>>> particle data, typically advanced theories degenerates at limits to a >>>>> limited set of possible solutions, the standard model QED etc could very >>>>> well be spot on at those >>>>> high limits. Also you don't get to see hydrinos at thise limits so it >>>>> is unclear if it is wise to try what your suggest, jMills does take care >>>>> to >>>>> try explain quarks, electorns >>>>> etc as well in his book to hint on the nature of these particles. I >>>>> can't judge those efforts, but for sure it is not certain that everything >>>>> that needs to be developed have been done so >>>>> using his ideas as a base. But if he does not have developed something >>>>> there are possible a permutation of ideas to try ranging from simple >>>>> modifications to what >>>>> Mills is doing to actually add further terms and additions to maxwells >>>>> equations. Again we need to put manwork and grants into this to get >>>>> anywhere. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I would like to see Mills rewrite the dirac equations for the >>>>>> electron to reflect his hydrino theory. This includes the experimental >>>>>> verification of a fractionally charged positron. There should be gamma >>>>>> rays >>>>>> produced to account for hydrino anti-hydrino annihilation. How does the >>>>>> anti-hydrino interact with the electron? What neutrino is produced when a >>>>>> hydrino is emitted in beta decay? There are 101 other permutations and >>>>>> combinations of interactions that could be experimentally demonstrated >>>>>> involving the hydrino as a fundamental elementary particle. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < >>>>>> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Orionworks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes experiments is all good, i'm more concerned why we don't get any >>>>>>> replication / debunks and from more independent sources. Is'n there >>>>>>> enough to verify the evidences? Also what if it's too difficult to >>>>>>> create hydrinos, and Mills theory would be better suited to explain for >>>>>>> example >>>>>>> cold fusion or high temperature super conductors. Mills theory can >>>>>>> with great certainty help humanity even if the hydrino effort fails. Why >>>>>>> can't I >>>>>>> hire engineers who know how to model atoms like Mills is doing, are >>>>>>> we servicing our society as well as we should via our institutions or >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> folks there cooked into their theory that is wrong. I think that >>>>>>> there is huge base of prediction of experiments that Mills does so >>>>>>> already >>>>>>> experiments have triumphed via the well fit between what we know >>>>>>> about atoms and what his theory does with almost no assumptions at all. >>>>>>> Our current knowledge may very be faulty and a retake on the whole >>>>>>> fundamentals of nature might be needed, not seeing this and not feeling >>>>>>> excited about this opportunity, is amazing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Have Fun >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson >>>>>>> <orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Stefan, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please correct me if I am mistaken but I assume you are the same >>>>>>>> "stefan" who has posted similar complaints out at the SCP discussion >>>>>>>> group. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As has frequently been stated out in the Vort Collective... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Experimental evidence always trumps theory. * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I must confess the fact that I personally find Mills' CQM >>>>>>>> interesting, perhaps even tantalizing, see: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://personalpen.orionworks.com/blacklight-power.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ...where I wrote a personal report on Dr. Mills' audacious CQM >>>>>>>> theory. I need to stress the fact that this is a NON-SCIENTIIC report & >>>>>>>> analysis. It is my personal take on an upstart brave new theory which >>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>> to have a lot going for it. I tried to remain as objective as I could >>>>>>>> concerning a highly controversial theory for which I have insufficient >>>>>>>> mathematical expertise to either confirm or disprove. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me change gears here. To be honest I am getting tired listening >>>>>>>> to yet another argument that Mills' CQM theory is better than QM. Such >>>>>>>> arguments will resolve nothing. The solution is both paradoxically >>>>>>>> simple >>>>>>>> while admittedly being technologically challenging. BLP needs to cobble >>>>>>>> together an experimental prototype which definitively verifies the fact >>>>>>>> that the technology is capable of self-running while generating lots of >>>>>>>> excess electricity. I have repeatedly suggested BLP demonstrate an >>>>>>>> EXPERIMENTAL prototype as a precursor to creating a commercial >>>>>>>> prototype. I >>>>>>>> have done so because I am under the opinion that assembling the first >>>>>>>> commercial system may still be many years off into the future. BLP >>>>>>>> bravely >>>>>>>> implies that a commercial system is just around the corner... but I >>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>> believe it. Nevertheless, I would love to be proven wrong on this >>>>>>>> point. >>>>>>>> But until I'm proven wrong, I have to continue to rely on my own gut >>>>>>>> instincts based on my own 36 years of personal experience in the >>>>>>>> software >>>>>>>> industry. In my experience developing brand new software (and >>>>>>>> hardware), >>>>>>>> particularly a new product that has never developed before tends to >>>>>>>> take a >>>>>>>> lot longer than originally anticipated. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> See my personal posts: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4330 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4345 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So far, Dr. Mills as repeatedly ignored the primary concerns >>>>>>>> expressed in my above posts. He has said nothing about the possibility >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> assembling a more definitive experimental prototype within BLPs' lab >>>>>>>> walls. >>>>>>>> IMO, he seems to be evading the question. Mills has instead deflected >>>>>>>> conversation towards the fact that BLP continues to accumulate >>>>>>>> independent >>>>>>>> scientific reports that appear to verify various aspects of his CQM >>>>>>>> theory. >>>>>>>> All the peanut gallery knows at the moment is the fact that BLP has >>>>>>>> contracted with outside engineering firms to assemble the first >>>>>>>> commercial >>>>>>>> system. The first delivery was supposed to have occurred in December of >>>>>>>> last year. That, of course, never happened. We have yet to hear when a >>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>> revised delivery date is to be expected. We have, in fact, no idea. >>>>>>>> That is >>>>>>>> another reason why I tend to think the actual delivery date for a real >>>>>>>> commercial system is likely to be years, not months off into the >>>>>>>> future. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me end by saying I don't fault BLPs' efforts. I have no reason >>>>>>>> to think BLP or Mills are acting in less honorable ways. My primary >>>>>>>> concern >>>>>>>> is that, IMHO, if BLP wants to be taken more seriously, sooner rather >>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>> later, then I suggest the company cobble together an experimental >>>>>>>> prototype >>>>>>>> that self-runs and produces excess electricity ASAP. The prototype >>>>>>>> does not >>>>>>>> have to run long. Just long enough to prove their point. I say this >>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>> I am under the impression that the anticipated commercial system is >>>>>>>> probably going to take a lot longer than BLP had originally >>>>>>>> anticipated... >>>>>>>> perhaps as long as several more years. I say this because I suspect >>>>>>>> that if >>>>>>>> BLP attempted to cobble together nothing more deceptively simple as >>>>>>>> just an >>>>>>>> EXPERIMENTAL prototype (a prototype not meant for commercial >>>>>>>> applications) >>>>>>>> such attempts will also likely to turn out to be an equally formidable >>>>>>>> challenge. In fact I suspect the challenge is precisely why Mills has >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> directly replied to my suggestion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would nevertheless be thrilled to be proven wrong on these last >>>>>>>> points. ...and perhaps Mills doesn't care to be taken more seriously >>>>>>>> sooner >>>>>>>> rather than later. Focus on developing the commercial system, and be >>>>>>>> damned >>>>>>>> with assembling another intermediate experimental demo. If BLP's >>>>>>>> financial >>>>>>>> backers remain in the loop... if they remain satisfied with the >>>>>>>> progress >>>>>>>> they are seeing, running a more stealthy operation is a perfectly >>>>>>>> legitimate strategy. Granted it's a bummer for the rest of us who >>>>>>>> reside in >>>>>>>> the peanut gallery, but it's not my call. ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steven Vincent Johnson >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> svjart.orionworks.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> zazzle.com/orionworks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
