Remi,
Most of the problem you are having with this is that for Mills,electrons are
not infinitesimal points nor probability waves surrounding infinitesimal point
particles.
To quote the introductory material on HSG: electrons are "spinning 2D electric
and magnetic flux surfaces ("orbitspheres") that deform into various
geometries under different conditions. This insight into the resolution of
wave-particle duality leads to practically obvious explanations of mysterious,
counter-intuitive quantum particle behaviors - explanations for which were
previously the sole domain of quantum theory and its offspring."
Most of your objections have been argued over the years, and the threads can be
followed on:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/
I can understand why you may not want to wade through this old material or to
join the discussion group at this late stage. Mills himself was responding to
objections up til about 2003 and has at one time or another, responded to
almost everything, but not to the satisfaction of the skeptics.
There can be no clear resolution of this situation, since Mills diverts from
normal physics so early and so drastically; and from then on, there is no
turning back. He pretty much intends at this point in time to present to the
world a device which derives energy from the orbitsphere's reduced angular
momentum and let the results do most of the talking wrt to his idiosyncratic
methods and assumptions - which seem strange to you, or to everyone who has
been taught the consensus viewpoint.
Is everyone out of step but Randy?
Hard to say,but in such a situation, juxtapposed to the 'big picture' need of
world energy resources; and the mounting experimental evidence which has been
accumulated - it would be foolish from a societal POV for this to be overlooked
becasue "so-and-so" even a Feynman, or a Zimmerman, or a Cornwall, etc. etc.
does not like the way that it differs from what they have been taught.
Jones
