So you demand that all science is explained or you would not accept a theory. Is that fair, wouldn't it be prudent to accept that Mills is spot on in so many theoretical question, where it outperforms what we do in quantum mechanics, that we simple must put scientific effort into explaining the world, using e.g. what Mills have and develop it further. My point is that his calculation of the g-factor alone is enough to treat his theory well, put high profile researchers on to the quest of developing it further. That both quantum mechanics and Mills very different theory is spot on the g-factor is a huge mystery, to investigate this mystery should be top priority especially since Mill's himself claim that the QM effort is just an advanced numerology and simply bad physics. I have not seen anyone dig into this and counter his argument. There is absolutely no way that Mills can get so many decimals right of the g-factor just by chance, maybe by numerolgy, but no one have found that he uses that, it is all derived from a basic assumption of a trapped photon with charge boundary condition so that it does not radiate.
Not all this, but Mills theory has a very attractive feature. It is just Maxwells equations with charge, the charge could be the result of unknonw nonlinear terms added to Maxwells equation in free space, that we don't know for sure. My current guess is that space works like a channel e.g. it can carry information up to a certain strength after that some of the information bounces back. Look at the charge distribution in Mills equations, it's a spherical shell. It has the property that no information passes that shell. if it could then it would radiate. So there is very good arguments that we need to be open minded and understand this mystery. Oh and quantum entanglement and those double slit experiments, that is just all crap and follows from an assumption that the initial distribution must follow a probability density at the initial state, it does not follow probability theory, it follows Mills theory or the data fitted model of quantum mechanics. If you can accept that then nothing is mysterious, and the speed of light is not broken (Einstein smiles). On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > The existence of hydrinos are open to conjecture, but I am concerned with > the question of their place in the ordering of things; are they fundamental > or emergent, and how are they related to the other fractional bits of > matter and energy that might be more basic in their nature? > > When the fractional charge of the quark was shown to exist, a new theory > of quark interaction was developed to describe quark behavior. > > The appearance of fractionally charged vortex pairs of magnetic flux were > shown to exist in the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect. This shocked the > world of science. How do hydrinos relate to this strange behavior of > magnetism? > > Mills has not yet connected the dots placing hydrinos in the Pantheon of > other quantum violating mechanisms of nature. To be more widely respected > among natural theorists, Mills must go deeper into fundamental natural > causality and make new connections to widely held theory by breaking new > ground to explain how the hydrino emerges from more fundamental quantum > mechanical violating reality. > > Are hydrinos a example of one of the 500 unique states of matter as > defined by quantum mechanics. Can they become entangled? How are their > spins related to their charge? What is the most fundamental states of > reality and how does the hydrino fit into that framework? > > These are the things I want to know. > > On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> It can be fun to tease out responses, here is a rant, take it for what it >> is: >> >> All science history shows that if you can express things a magnitude of >> order more elegantly and easily and less convoluted you have a better >> theory, this is what Mills theory does compared to quantum mechanics. That >> clever science people does not understand this simple fact, that their pet >> theory is a guesswork and data fit, that has been ongoing since the start >> of the development of quantum mechanics, and fail to see that they are of >> the same intellectual mind as those supporting the earth centric model when >> Keppler showed up ( and forced him to rework his theory for anotther 10 >> years) - is beyond me. This fact is a death blow to my admiration of our >> scientific community, it's a bloody crime, Einstein is probably turning in >> his grave and was again right: QM is a shit theory and a huge joke. Now >> hydrinos are real, and the question is not if they can exists, but how >> practical the are. Mills say it's so, shows some arguments, tests that can >> be done to verify it and so on. The science community answer to this is >> quite apethetic, just a la la la la sound and looks the other way. Now you >> may argue that Mills has not been able to show it working for 20 years or >> so. Yeah so what, how do you know how to create these things? From the >> theory we know that you must pass quite a barrier to produce a hydrino from >> normal hydrogen, the electric field of the trapped photon is fundamentally >> different in hydrinos than in normal hydrogen, you have to get over >> something similar like a coloumb potential (not as extreme though) to do >> the transform, so the quest from the beginning was not written in stone >> although Mills had great hopes because he knew that the theory is correct. >> The time to achieve reproducible and good over unity take long with some >> promising tries that fell out badly (so what this happens to typical >> research as well in 9 out of 10 cases) he needs to milk in money so he >> can't keep quite about it, he need to think positive to perform unhuman >> achievements, and he does. Everything is fitting. Now if you think that >> Mills should have gotten a Nobel price by know if I am correct, you are >> right, but what got him is the bad mouthing of some lesser brained people >> and the internet is just a huge litter box of misstakes and shit academic >> arguments like the "scientist" in the new movie about Moses and the exodus >> out of Egypt. That he comes out arrogant is just a natural progression of >> the event of history. I end this rant with a hint for those who know >> calculus worthy of a normal electrical engineer, lookup his calculation of >> the g-factor. It's a neat simple exercise. The quest is horrendously >> difficult in QED (quantum mechanics) and could be the result of wishful >> thinking. This QED quest is put on a pedestal as one of the greatest >> achievements of modern science, and a quality mark of QM, so again, as >> history has shown, most people are stupid and does not do their groundwork, >> not Einstein though, that's a hero. >> >> Cheers! >> > >
