Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
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,
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
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
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
Yes or even better, KISS = KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID. this is what I'm head banging to. On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:07 PM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote: *Experimental evidence always trumps theory.* *I need that on a bumpersticker. * On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:19 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
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
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
[Vo]:Re: QM rant
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 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
Re: [Vo]:Report on Mizuno's Adiabatic Calorimetry revised
Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Most pumps do quite well at converting electrical energy into mechanical energy. When they do only 35% or 40% conversion they are called inefficient. The specifications for this family of pumps says they are ~15% efficient as I recall. That is for the larger ones. This is a small one and the tests show that it is less efficient. 10.8 watts is considerably below the pumps specified need for power. I do not think it would operate at this low level. No, it is not. The specifications for this pump are shown on the side of the pump. I listed them in the paper, on p. 24: Iwaki Co., Magnet Pump MD-6K-N Maximum capacity: 8/9 L/min Maximum head: 1.0/1.4 100V 12W/60Hz, 12W/50Hz Please READ THE PAPER before commenting, for crying out loud. It is annoying that I went to the trouble to give you this information, but you ignore it. 10.8 W is pretty close to the maximum input power of 12 W. Since there is very little resistance from a 6 m tube 1 cm in diameter, it is reasonable to assume the flow rate is 8 or 9 L/min. This is a professional grade pump costing about $100 as I recall, so it probably works according to specifications. I respectively disagree with Jed's conclusions. I await a independent confirmation test. These are not my conclusions. I am reporting facts measured by experiment. You are saying that Fig. 19 does not prove what it clearly does prove. Unless you can point to a reason for this, you have no case. This is not a matter of opinion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
*Experimental evidence always trumps theory.* *I need that on a bumpersticker. * On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:19 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
RE: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
From: pjvannoor...@caiway.nl I couldnt agree more with what you say. It is really strange that almost nobody is looking into the theory of R.Mills. That is not correct. Several commenters here give Mills some credit - at least partial credit. But maybe we are “nobodies” so OK, no problem. Mills theory looks like a partial fit, but could be incomplete or partly inaccurate. For the record, I have been promoting the idea on this forum from day-one that both the Parkhomov and Rossi reactors are powered by hydrogen going into the DDL – or Deep Dirac Level. This is the Dark Matter state which has an emission line at 3.56 keV. There is no evidence of a nuclear reaction in Parkhomov. The DDL methodology is indeed similar to Mills,’ as it is a deep stable state - but it is based on Dirac. Muhlenberg and others have been promoters of parts of this mechanism, which is inspired by Mills but not Millsean. The version, or “refinement”, which I’m favoring - if it proves correct - depends on SPP formation to take the hydrogen all the way to the lowest ground state - by spin/spin interaction. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
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
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
It is going to take a very long time and a lot of research before Mills' theory will be accepted by mainstream physics provided it is a better match for reality than quantum mechanics. I would love to see the hokus pokus of quantum mechanics replaced with a more classical approach. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen under the current conditions due to vested interests if nothing else. In my limited opinion we know very little about the deep dark underlying physics of nature. So far all I see is curve fitting with a little calculus thrown in for good luck. A problem is found and someone comes up with a patch to cover that issue, but no one really knows how many more unknowns will appear as we dig deeper into the fundamental operation of nature. Theories are always clinging on until the next better one comes along. I can see very little reason to believe that this will change in the near future. Sometimes I ask myself how much knowledge of physics do we know as compared to that which we do not know nor have any concept about? If we understand a mere 1% of the total I am in awe of the field of study. Just my few cents worth. Dave -Original Message- From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 11, 2015 12:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant 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
[Vo]:LENR- at singular or plural?
Dear Friends, Just started to discuss how many LENRs exist and how much unity exists in diversity. Great LENR activity in Ukraine. http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/01/lenr-census-how-many-species-exist.html More next week... Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
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
Re: [Vo]:Mourning zunzun.com's passing
In reply to James Bowery's message of Tue, 30 Dec 2014 16:24:50 -0600: Hi James, [snip] This is what I find really useful:- http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=differential+equation+solverlk=4num=1 Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
Wherever you dig up papers info about critiques of Mills theory they generally refers to Rathke, to show that Mills is all wrong, even today you can find references that Mills just corrects a sign error and not have any serious rebutal to the critique see http://www.worldwizzy.com/library/Hydrino_theory Well, I surely found that crtique very very ignorant, the response from the doctor was a good laugh, http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/theorypapers/Mills%20Rebuttal%20of%20RathkeS.pdf So, again, what we have is pure stupidity, crime and farse in an unholy mix. You just can't follow what supposedly knowledgable people are saying in these matter, you need to consult with math wizes and go to the sources yourself, that's the sad story. On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 7:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is going to take a very long time and a lot of research before Mills' theory will be accepted by mainstream physics provided it is a better match for reality than quantum mechanics. I would love to see the hokus pokus of quantum mechanics replaced with a more classical approach. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen under the current conditions due to vested interests if nothing else. In my limited opinion we know very little about the deep dark underlying physics of nature. So far all I see is curve fitting with a little calculus thrown in for good luck. A problem is found and someone comes up with a patch to cover that issue, but no one really knows how many more unknowns will appear as we dig deeper into the fundamental operation of nature. Theories are always clinging on until the next better one comes along. I can see very little reason to believe that this will change in the near future. Sometimes I ask myself how much knowledge of physics do we know as compared to that which we do not know nor have any concept about? If we understand a mere 1% of the total I am in awe of the field of study. Just my few cents worth. Dave -Original Message- From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 11, 2015 12:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant 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
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
Just to spam for your fun, the above was quite ok and a freeze of wikipedia at 2006, no go to the this years edition and enjoy the intelligent society we are living in, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackLight_Power On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Wherever you dig up papers info about critiques of Mills theory they generally refers to Rathke, to show that Mills is all wrong, even today you can find references that Mills just corrects a sign error and not have any serious rebutal to the critique see http://www.worldwizzy.com/library/Hydrino_theory Well, I surely found that crtique very very ignorant, the response from the doctor was a good laugh, http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/theorypapers/Mills%20Rebuttal%20of%20RathkeS.pdf So, again, what we have is pure stupidity, crime and farse in an unholy mix. You just can't follow what supposedly knowledgable people are saying in these matter, you need to consult with math wizes and go to the sources yourself, that's the sad story. On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 7:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is going to take a very long time and a lot of research before Mills' theory will be accepted by mainstream physics provided it is a better match for reality than quantum mechanics. I would love to see the hokus pokus of quantum mechanics replaced with a more classical approach. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen under the current conditions due to vested interests if nothing else. In my limited opinion we know very little about the deep dark underlying physics of nature. So far all I see is curve fitting with a little calculus thrown in for good luck. A problem is found and someone comes up with a patch to cover that issue, but no one really knows how many more unknowns will appear as we dig deeper into the fundamental operation of nature. Theories are always clinging on until the next better one comes along. I can see very little reason to believe that this will change in the near future. Sometimes I ask myself how much knowledge of physics do we know as compared to that which we do not know nor have any concept about? If we understand a mere 1% of the total I am in awe of the field of study. Just my few cents worth. Dave -Original Message- From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jan 11, 2015 12:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant 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
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:07 AM, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com wrote: Experimental evidence always trumps theory. I need that on a bumpersticker. I might want one of those. Eric
Re: [Vo]:LENR- at singular or plural?
To my tastes, Ken Shoulders ran the quintessential LENR experiment when he photographed the development of what Ken called charge clusters (also called exotic vacuum objects or EVOs). A spark had penetrated a sheet of aluminum where an aluminum plasma was condensing into aluminum nanoparticles resulting in the formation of two EV types, a bright one and a dark one. Ken analyzed the magnetic field coming off the dark EV and he found that this type of EV acts as a magnetic monipole. In subsequent years, Nanoplasmonics pushed the analsys of these coherent balls of EMF further and determined that their structure was actually solitons or frozen and persistent EMF waveforms. The bright soliton is formed when a infrared photon and an electron from a dipole match energies and become entangled. The Surface Plasmon Polariton thus formed gets a spin of 1 from the photon and a greatly reduced mass of one millionth of that of the electron. These almost massless complex particles form a Bose Einstein Condensate at the drop of a hat. The dark soliton is more interesting and hard to understand. It is a composite particle of a infrared photon and the :Hole” (lack of charge) in the dipole. It has a positive charge and a spin of 2. I speculate that it is this type of soliton that has been seen by Frederic Henry-Couannier when he says: “If it succeeds to actually reach the metal it will recover neutrality (catch free electrons around) and disappear (evaporate) in a very short time. But the mlb has also a huge magnetic moment so it could in principle be trapped in a ferromagnetic material inside a zone with an appropriate magnetic field configuration : this is probably what happens in Ni cracks (NAE) “ For all those interested in the formation of dark solitons in cracks I recommend this paper: Effects of Spin-Dependent Polariton-Polariton Interactions in Semiconductor Microcavities: Spin Rings, Bright Spatial Solitons and Soliton Patterns http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3872/1/SICH_eThesis.pdf As the father of the crack theory of palladium LENR theory, I hope Ed Storms reads this paper and takes it seriously. I like this paper because it contains a lot of words and not many equations. To my mind, in this line of thought is where the truth of LENR can be found On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Friends, Just started to discuss how many LENRs exist and how much unity exists in diversity. Great LENR activity in Ukraine. http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/01/lenr-census-how-many-species-exist.html More next week... Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Re: QM rant
Hello Jones Therefore I added the word almost. “Nobodies” :No ofcourse that is not what i meant. You and Meulenberg are certainly promoting the idea of DDL`s. In my last post which i just sended I left the word “almost” out bcs i couldnt find any quantum physicist in the Netherlands who wanted to look into it theory of R.Mills. I tried for about 10 years! Peter From: Jones Beene Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 6:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: QM rant From: pjvannoor...@caiway.nl I couldnt agree more with what you say. It is really strange that almost nobody is looking into the theory of R.Mills. That is not correct. Several commenters here give Mills some credit - at least partial credit. But maybe we are “nobodies” so OK, no problem. Mills theory looks like a partial fit, but could be incomplete or partly inaccurate. For the record, I have been promoting the idea on this forum from day-one that both the Parkhomov and Rossi reactors are powered by hydrogen going into the DDL – or Deep Dirac Level. This is the Dark Matter state which has an emission line at 3.56 keV. There is no evidence of a nuclear reaction in Parkhomov. The DDL methodology is indeed similar to Mills,’ as it is a deep stable state - but it is based on Dirac. Muhlenberg and others have been promoters of parts of this mechanism, which is inspired by Mills but not Millsean. The version, or “refinement”, which I’m favoring - if it proves correct - depends on SPP formation to take the hydrogen all the way to the lowest ground state - by spin/spin interaction. Jones Deze email is gecontroleerd door CAIWAY Internet Virusvrij. Voor meer informatie, zie http://www.caiway.nl/
Re: [Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere.
take a look at Appendix 2 starting on page 62 of this, it is very similar to what you did: http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20150105175045/blacklightpower/images/3/33/BLP-e-long-1-5-2015.pdf this comes from the summary of pair production on this page http://blacklightpower.wikia.com/wiki/Pair_Production the website is a wikia for Blacklight Power's theory, On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Lane Davis seattle.tr...@gmail.com wrote: I just released a new paper on modeling the Atom and photon as a capacitor and producing the correct energy levels. This work corresponds perfectly to Andre Michaud's paper which was also released the same day. Turns out that we had been working on similar equations with the photon, although he had never formulated the ground state energy of hydrogen like I did. Frank Znidarsic's model is also closely related to this. Here is a link to my paper, as well as Andre's. I had never spoken to him before the day both our papers were released. YouTube video explaining the paper here: http://youtu.be/PSsVI53auAI My Paper: http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5862 Andre's: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5789 Let me know what you think if you read it. Lane -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
[Vo]:Re: QM rant
I would like to add the following: How can anyone seriously say that R.Mills is wrong and standard Quantum Mechanics is right if QM gives no explanation for the stability of the hydrogen atom, but only postulates it. Mills managed to do this very elegantly. This shortcoming in the current atom model is so fundamental that it is really shocking to see that no theoretical physicist wants to look into it. I really tried to let them look into it. It was all in vain. They say that this problem was solved by Bohr many years ago so it cant be wrong and they dont want to look into it. The mistake in the current atomic model is based on the fact that the electron is described as a pointparticle with no dimensions. It leads to absurd consequences. Quantum physicists are very busy trying to explain the so called weird effect of the current QM theory and present even more absurd explanations for it. I can assure you that this attitude will be looked upon by future generations as being unbelievable but more probably it will be rediculed in the same way as we have witnessed in the past when other major paradygma shifts in science took place. Peter From: Eric Walker Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 11:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Did you read my last email? Rathke stated a critique, Mills answered it. Interesting PDF file. It has Mills as the author, and it talks about Mills in the third person. Looks like ghostwriting, but that's immaterial, I suppose. So you are dead wrong, it's the QM folks that are mute. You want to conclude from a rebuttal with Mills's name on it, probably written on his behalf, to a single critic of Mills, establishes that Mills does not stonewall criticism of his theory. Allow me to suggest this isolated counterexample does not prove what you want it to prove. Beyond this, let's agree to disagree about Mills. :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
Did you look at the address, goes to blacklight power!!! If you does not trust the rebutal, let me than explain what the problem with rathkes paper is. Mills patches solution to the Maxwell equation inside and outside the sphere, or an ellipsoid if the hydrogene is moving, The patch is so that you can't take the derivative of the solution two times and get a normal function in the whole space, you actually get a distribution which is a generalization of functions. Now Rathkes approach to show that Mills theory does not follow Einsteins special relativity is to use a method that may work only if you can assume to take the derivative two times and get a function in return in hole space. This mistake is easy to do by a physicist and does not demand harsh words. But failing to continue and find out what error Mills does in his derivation is unacademic, typically when you find that a student get's a wrong answer, you find out how he thought and exactly what his error is. No such effort from rathke and hence he is a jerk in my eyes. He probably searched for a mistake but was not able to find it. He should then accepted that this was over his head and call in a real mathematician, which should have spotted all this in a sec. And now all is referencing him lol. But sure we can agree to disagree, no hard feelings. On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Did you read my last email? Rathke stated a critique, Mills answered it. Interesting PDF file. It has Mills as the author, and it talks about Mills in the third person. Looks like ghostwriting, but that's immaterial, I suppose. So you are dead wrong, it's the QM folks that are mute. You want to conclude from a rebuttal with Mills's name on it, probably written on his behalf, to a single critic of Mills, establishes that Mills does not stonewall criticism of his theory. Allow me to suggest this isolated counterexample does not prove what you want it to prove. Beyond this, let's agree to disagree about Mills. :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
Did you read my last email? Rathke stated a critique, Mills answered it. To me that doesn't look like Mills is mute. You would not get a debate like a presidential debate though, that's a stupid way to debate. No there would of cause be an exchange of letters postings or papers. Mills has indeed answered Rathke, there is no acknowledge of this rebutal and he looks mute. Again that is an illusion as I just showed you. Now Mills has gone out and published his critique of QM in a paper, many years ago, I did a search for any paper that referenced his claim to get a view what the proponents has to say, Nothing. So you are dead wrong, it's the QM folks that are mute. On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Mills would not say anything. There would be no debate. My take on this is therefore that Mills is right. ?? Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Did you read my last email? Rathke stated a critique, Mills answered it. Interesting PDF file. It has Mills as the author, and it talks about Mills in the third person. Looks like ghostwriting, but that's immaterial, I suppose. So you are dead wrong, it's the QM folks that are mute. You want to conclude from a rebuttal with Mills's name on it, probably written on his behalf, to a single critic of Mills, establishes that Mills does not stonewall criticism of his theory. Allow me to suggest this isolated counterexample does not prove what you want it to prove. Beyond this, let's agree to disagree about Mills. :) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
Yep, this is exactly the problem, you have two incomplete models that same the same thing. It's a mystery, Mills did research a lot of how QM has been used and claim to found serious iissues. But I'm not too sure that they are incomplete either, there are a bunch of math theorems that states that some propoerties is invariaint even if you have a vast different set of geometries, we maybe see something similar here that can cook the two together, maybe not. On the other hand I tend to be less worried about the thin orbit sphere there might be physical processes that can create those. On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Did you look at the address, goes to blacklight power!!! I have no reason to doubt that the rebuttal came from Blacklight Power. My guess is that an employee or fan wrote it up, and Mills signed off on it, or allowed his name to be placed on it. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Perhaps Mills talks about himself in the third person. If you does not trust the rebutal, let me than explain what the problem with rathkes paper is. I admit upfront that I do not have the domain knowledge to form more than an impressionistic opinion of Mills's work. My objections are purely aesthetic. He wants to turn QM inside out, but he does not seem to want to take on the burden of relating his work to existing practice (let's set aside the question of theory for the moment). Existing practice in solid state physics proceeds from the assumption that electron orbitals are three-dimensional and are often not not spherical shells. Non-spherical electron orbits overlap, and the electron density can be modeled as a function of time and location within the solid, and the DFTs tell you something about things like band gaps in semiconductors. Mills postulates an infinitely thin, spherical orbitsphere for the hydrogen atom [1]. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it. Do we assume an orbitsphere for hydrogen atoms, and in some cases three-dimensional, non-spherical orbits in more complex atoms? This pedagogical aid suggests that we should assume only orbitspheres [2]. But in the following diagram of a benzene molecule, six p-orbitals are shown and are presumed to affect the chemical behavior of the molecule [3]. Someone should go tell the man or woman who made this diagram that they're living in error. You have proposed that what Mills is saying is dual with what the solid state physicists are saying. The two descriptions do not sound dual; they sound mutually incompatible. This is one problem I have identified, and for which I am proud, given that I do not have the domain knowledge to comment on the specifics of the mathematics that are used. Simple, common sense can go pretty far, it turns out. Eric [1] http://www.millsian.com/images/theory/Orbitsphere-Poster-medium.png [2] http://www.millsian.com/images/theory/Periodic-Table-Poster-medium.png [3] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Benzene_Orbitals.svg/2000px-Benzene_Orbitals.svg.png
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: Did you look at the address, goes to blacklight power!!! I have no reason to doubt that the rebuttal came from Blacklight Power. My guess is that an employee or fan wrote it up, and Mills signed off on it, or allowed his name to be placed on it. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Perhaps Mills talks about himself in the third person. If you does not trust the rebutal, let me than explain what the problem with rathkes paper is. I admit upfront that I do not have the domain knowledge to form more than an impressionistic opinion of Mills's work. My objections are purely aesthetic. He wants to turn QM inside out, but he does not seem to want to take on the burden of relating his work to existing practice (let's set aside the question of theory for the moment). Existing practice in solid state physics proceeds from the assumption that electron orbitals are three-dimensional and are often not not spherical shells. Non-spherical electron orbits overlap, and the electron density can be modeled as a function of time and location within the solid, and the DFTs tell you something about things like band gaps in semiconductors. Mills postulates an infinitely thin, spherical orbitsphere for the hydrogen atom [1]. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it. Do we assume an orbitsphere for hydrogen atoms, and in some cases three-dimensional, non-spherical orbits in more complex atoms? This pedagogical aid suggests that we should assume only orbitspheres [2]. But in the following diagram of a benzene molecule, six p-orbitals are shown and are presumed to affect the chemical behavior of the molecule [3]. Someone should go tell the man or woman who made this diagram that they're living in error. You have proposed that what Mills is saying is dual with what the solid state physicists are saying. The two descriptions do not sound dual; they sound mutually incompatible. This is one problem I have identified, and for which I am proud, given that I do not have the domain knowledge to comment on the specifics of the mathematics that are used. Simple, common sense can go pretty far, it turns out. Eric [1] http://www.millsian.com/images/theory/Orbitsphere-Poster-medium.png [2] http://www.millsian.com/images/theory/Periodic-Table-Poster-medium.png [3] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Benzene_Orbitals.svg/2000px-Benzene_Orbitals.svg.png
[Vo]:Calculating the Energy of an atom using the equation for an isolated conducting sphere.
I just released a new paper on modeling the Atom and photon as a capacitor and producing the correct energy levels. This work corresponds perfectly to Andre Michaud's paper which was also released the same day. Turns out that we had been working on similar equations with the photon, although he had never formulated the ground state energy of hydrogen like I did. Frank Znidarsic's model is also closely related to this. Here is a link to my paper, as well as Andre's. I had never spoken to him before the day both our papers were released. YouTube video explaining the paper here: http://youtu.be/PSsVI53auAI My Paper: http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5862 Andre's: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5789 Let me know what you think if you read it. Lane
Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe stefan.ita...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Mills would not say anything. There would be no debate. My take on this is therefore that Mills is right. ?? Eric
