It was brought to my attention the apparent fact that a prominent critic of R. Mills CQM theory, John Connett (aka Nora Baron - from the old Yahoo Hydrino group) has recently apologized to Randy for criticizing certain mathematical aspects of his CQM theory. I haven't found the direct source but an indirect source (if it can be believed) can be read out at SCP yahoo group: The Society for Classical Physics.
--------------------------------------------------- August 4 2010 SUBJECT: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/message/831 (from novel_compound) > Connett 's retraction > > A surprising development! > > Dr. Connett wrote, > > "I retract here recent comments I have made indicating that > Randell Mills' orbitsphere must radiate and therefore be unstable. > There are gaps in what I erroneously regarded as mathematical > proof of the flaws in the model. I regret having overstated my > conclusions and I recognize that there is merit in Dr. Mills' > extensively developed arguments. And again I apologize for > unwarranted and uncomplimentary statements I have made regarding > Dr. Mills himself, and wish him the best of luck in pursuing > his ambitious goals." --------------------------------------------------- R. Mills appears to have accepted Connett's apology: August 4 http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/message/834 > Dr. John Connett, University of Minnesota, has corrected his > analysis of the nonradiation issue and offered an apology > that I accept. I appreciate his well wishes for our progress. > I support fair, respectful, and open-minded scientific debate > for everyone's benefit. --------------------------------------------------- Several hours prior to either accepting and/or becoming aware of Connet's apparent apology R. Mills posted a critique of Connet's mathematical analysis. Of particular interest to me was Mills' final paragraph, which read: > Taking his responses at face value, I don't have time to > teach Dr. Connett E&M. He'll have to work that out on his > own as I get back to my work on one of the most important > discoveries in history. Tragically for all, Dr. Connett > included, I predict that he will continue his mission to > obfuscate same. Master Zimmerman beckons. --------------------------------------------------- I infer from this that R. Mills' might be preparing to place "master" Zimmerman in his cross hairs. Years ago I recall John Connett at one time criticizing some of my own posts out at the official Non-Yahoo CQM web site which I believe is still managed by Luke Seltzer. http://forum.hydrino.org/ Years ago Connett attempted to publicly analyze my psychological motivations - what he perceived to be my apparent undying and unwavering belief in BLP. It went on for pages. I'm not sure where he got that impression from. My perception of that particular post was that he might have been fishing - attempting to find something that he could use later as rhetorical fodder against me, to keep me at a disadvantage. In prior posts I noticed that when he addressed me it was often done in a manner that would raise unanswered questions meant to raise the specter of one's ability to properly analyze things in general. Whatever... I suggested he stick to his chosen profession, that of mathematics. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
