Thank you Peter, I'll try to answer the critique in the slides for Mills theory shortly. But, I just wanted to support the rant that you do not need to explain new phenomena to develop a new theory and it is advisable to drop that principle as a lone principle. The reason is, of cause if you assume a very limited number of facts and can deduce and all atom physics and a good part of particle physics is deduced it's a slam dunk, physics department should stay in line to get a spoon of hydrinos to validate their existence and develop science, a good part of the theoreticians should consider developing new particles and such and then maybe we can find the evidences as people indicates when you don't explain the new unknown. anything else is stupid, really stupid.
Over to the critique, 1. All the axioms of Quantum Mechanics are violated; Answer: it does look like these two theories is incompatible and quantum mechanics seam to be a theory that can be tuned to approximate reality to a high degree so there should be a link between the two theories probably through some limit theorem. Theoretical physics should try to find this link. Note to deduce the quantum theories a search has been done with the assumption like the axioms of quantum mechanics, lorenz invariance fitting with current observation etc. So what is the axioms? Basically you can take solutions of linear combinations and get a new solution. to find the expected value you sum the square the resonans values for a quantity. The thing is that you can take a theory take an aproximate theory and then mathematically transform it so that you get the axioms of quantum mechanics, that Mills theory can put through such a machinery is not dissproved or anything close to be not possible in order to take this critique seriously atm. Also you cannot just add solutions ontop of each other, you do have the pauli exclusion principle that violate that e.g. for normal atoms the axioms of quantum mechanics is not valid. So you need to add the pauli priciple that there can only be one particle at a certain number of quntum numbers, something i find disturbing and unclean. 2. The major part of solutions contains singularities and they are not normalisable. Why not singularities? We have basically tuned out of theories that are lorenz invariant and regular. What's left is lorenz invariant and unregular. For example the creation of particles from photons comes from sheering the space so much that the nature of space basically shifts like a continental drift. This means that information that is normally not interacting will interact at this anomaly, and that anomaly is through a surface. The good question is why on earth this is stable and maintains it's state e.g. Mills theory set's up a fine balance and any disturbance of this balance looks like it will destroy it, there are no mathematical truths so what on earth makes it stable, that is the real good question. My suggestion are that we do have a higgs like field that have the same booring intensity at all directions, it can be a soup of solutions to the actual wave equation of nature but you cant see them, because there is no variation in the electrical potential, Because we can't see them we does not take it into account when we deduce the Maxwells equations, Think of a B field with no electrical potential, you can invent it and add it to the maxwell equations if you have the same value in all directions, it will sum to zero and not be detectable. But hang on, what about the anomaly at the continental shaft, there it might interact and you would nicely get some extra physics that can with some play of the mathematics create a reason that stabalizes the Mills solution and voila it is not unthinkable to have a non normalized theory, on the contrary all things speaks for the theory not to be regular e.g. normalisable. 3. It is not yet clear, why the Bohr orbits electrons did not fall down into the hydrino orbits during the whole life of the universe. hydrino are dark matter, there are plenty of dark matter that indicates that the hydrgene, to a good part have declined the ladder to a hydrino state, it is unclear that you have so much chemistry so that you will produce so much dark matter that all hydrogen declines, Mills have tried for 24 yrs, it does look like it's difficult to get to these states. After all there is a barrier that needs to be overcome, it looks like the electrical field is morphologically different than for the normal and excited states, forcing this change is like getting cold fusion to work - not easy, but perhaps easier. 4. Up to now the hydrino states were not discovered in the direct experiments. Detectors for spectra that you can get from hydroinos is not common, and also the energys used in quite many experiments is too high, you need the correct chemistry at moderate energies in the bouncing, you need to call a mechanic, not a billiard player to see the hydrinos. I want' to see a list of done experiments where hydrinos should be detected, any such list out there, it could help in the discussion. 5. There are no convincing independent confirmations of the Mills experiments. I think that if you are interested and want to verify the existence of hydrinos and talk to Mills, he can probably be helpful. I don't see people complaining that they are hindered. No this is probably hindered with a lack of funding and interests, It's a valid point but it's a critique against main stream physics that does not take Mills theory seriously. Cheers! Stefan On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Steven, > > see here paper no 1- is in English: > > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/01/russian-cnt-seminar-of-january-29.html > > The author is a world class physicist. > Peter > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *From:* Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson >> >> Ø Of more interest to me was Dr. Mills' response: "*A device that >> runs on its own requires the sophistication equivalent to being a >> commercial device.*"… Are there any Vorts who might want to add their >> two cents to this matter? Pro or con. >> >> Randell Mills sounds and acts defeated. He may end up being remembered >> as his own worst enemy, should LERN prevail – which is most ironic since >> the new LENR looks a lot like the old hydrino-tech. >> >> Mills seems to have put most of his resources into the SunCell of late. >> Therefore, even though he could be correct on the point that you mention: >> that >> to make a SunCell self-powered is equivalent to a commercial device --- >> it is equally true that the glaring lack of anything at all, other than hot >> air and vapor-ware, is the main characteristic of BLP in 2015. They >> appear to have missed the boat. >> >> There have been many other BLP devices which were as highly promoted as >> the SunCell but then dropped off the planet with no explanation. Many of >> these could have led to the self-powering proof you seek - if they were >> not total BS. But apparently they were BS. We are still waiting to see >> some of that gigawatt of electrical power that BLP licensed to several >> New Mexico Utilities. See this 7 year old evidence of Mills propensity >> to overstate his capabilities: >> >> >> *http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/blacklight-power-signs-first-commercial.html* >> <http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/blacklight-power-signs-first-commercial.html> >> >> This kind of unexplained failure mode has happened half a dozen time in >> recent memory. I do not envy his investors. They seem to have >> misunderstood what “due diligence” is supposed to mean. >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
