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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > [email protected]> 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 > >
