Unusual, that sounds like an important postulate of the Mills theory. For those who know it well, where can I find it written in the 2,000 some odd pages that explains the theory; it takes energy to lose energy.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:13 PM, H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > I am guessing there is some sort transition state (of slightly higher > energy) that must be overcome before the hydrogen atom can fall below the > ground state into a hydrino state. If an input of energy was not required > hydrinos would form spontaneously. > > Harry > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I cannot yet understand why a 12,000 amp arc is required to build >> hydrinos in the Solid Fuel-Catalyst-Induced-Hydrino-Transition (SF-CIHT) >> device. These electrons are lower in energy then most when holes from a >> catalyst remove energy from them. And when their energy gets really low >> then fusion happens. There seems to be a logical disconnect here. >> >> On the other hand in the nanopasmonic theory, the arc builds >> nanoparticles out of cooling plasma after arc discharge. This nanoparticle >> explanation seems like a better explanation to me. >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Mike Carrell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dave, Mills cites Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as reference for his >>> classical theory. QM had its origin in the “ultraviolet catastrophe” of 19 >>> th century physics. Accelerated electrons must radiate, according to >>> theory. Orbiting electrons continuously accelerate; there for they should >>> radiate. A heated black body has a well define spectrum – the energy does >>> not radiate in an ultraviolet flash. To resolve this problem, it was >>> assumed that radiation could occur only at specific wavelengths. Upon this >>> foundation an edifice was created which has many problems which theorists >>> simply get used to. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mills study with Haus at MIT led him to new criteria for non-radiation >>> based on the orbitsphere model and the work of Maxwell. It also led him to >>> the possibility of extracting energy from hydrogen atoms by catalysis, >>> which he has demonstrated many times. GUTCP is Mills’ attempt to apply his >>> insight to the great problems of physics. I expect that it will be debated >>> for decades, possibly leading to new insights. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike Carrell >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]] >>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 9:37 PM >>> >>> *To:* vortex-l >>> *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement >>> >>> >>> >>> http://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html >>> >>> >>> >>> Why Einstein will never be wrong >>> >>> >>> >>> A new theory does not replace a old theory, in improves it. Einstein >>> improved the old theory of gravity. But we still use the old theory because >>> it is valid in its own context. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mills cannot replace the quantum dynamics, he must replace it with an >>> improved theory that leads to new insights into the quantum world. The old >>> theory of quantum mechanics is still valid its own context, but Mills >>> should only add to it. >>> >>> >>> >>> This is why Heisenberg and quantum mechanics will never be wrong. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Mike Carrell <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Dave, I am happy that you are digging in the right places. I’m no expert >>> in this area. I suggest you join the Society for Classical Physics, >>> moderated by Dr. John Farrell [a former mentor of Mills]. Mils monitors >>> this forum and frequently makes terse, cogent comments. Mills asserts that >>> his **classical physics** can do everything better than Quantum >>> Mechanics. I am sure this point will be argued for decades. Read the >>> introductory sections of Vol. 1 of GUTCP. The SCP is a place for those who >>> do homework, not just hacking with misunderstanding. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike Carrell >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]] >>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 19, 2014 2:19 AM >>> >>> >>> *To:* vortex-l >>> *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement >>> >>> >>> >>> Mills states: >>> >>> >>> >>> *The BEC is incorrectly interpreted as a single large atom having a >>> corresponding probability wave function of quantum mechanics.* Since >>> excitation >>> occurs in units of ¥ in order of to conserve angular momentum as shown >>> previously for electronic (Chapter 2), vibrational (Chapter 11), rotational >>> (Chapter 12), and translational excitation (Chapter 3) and Bose Einstein >>> statistics arise from an underlying deterministic physics (Chapter 24), >>> this state >>> comprised of an ensemble of individual atoms is predicted classically >>> using known equations [110]. As in the case of the coherent state of >>> photons in a >>> laser cavity (Chapter 4), the coherency of the *BEC actually disproves >>> the inherent Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle *(HUP) of quantum >>> mechanics since >>> the atomic positions and energies are precisely determined >>> simultaneously. Furthermore, it is possible to form a BEC comprising >>> molecules in addition to >>> atoms [111] wherein the molecules lack zero order vibration in >>> contradiction to the HUP. The classical physics underlying Bose Einstein >>> statistics was >>> covered in the Statistical Mechanics section. >>> >>> >>> >>> These are some of my favorite ideas wahed away by Mills theory. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It must be possible under Mills theory to form a BEC out of ground state >>> hydrinos. Are there ground state hydrinos? These things are Atoms( bosons) >>> aren't they? Let 's see an experiment that produces a hydrino BEC and look >>> for absolute certainty and determinism. That would be something to see. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:48 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Mike, >>> >>> I honestly hope that Mills has come up with a new theory that eliminates >>> the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Do I read that correctly, or does >>> his theory still allow for quantum like unknowns? >>> >>> It would seem that much of the recent quantum computing, etc. fairly >>> well establishes that qbits exist. What is your take on them? >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Mike Carrell <[email protected]> >>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Sat, Jan 18, 2014 9:50 pm >>> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement >>> >>> Beauty indeed comes from truth, ad Mills’ GUTCP is very beautiful. >>> >>> >>> >>> What is easily missed is the tradition that a pioneer in science should >>> carefully document his discovery so others can follow, and that he should >>> address the principal features of accepted knowledge if his discovery >>> impacts those features. This **is** what GUTCP is all about. Many have >>> attempted a GUT and failed, including Einstein. An introduction and the >>> orbitsphere derivation are in Vol.1, along with much else. Experimental >>> evidence for hydrinos is outlined in the Technical Presentation on the >>> website, with details in journal papers. >>> >>> >>> >>> The salient beautiful feature of Mills’ work is that he has a consistent >>> system of mathematical description over 85 orders of magnitude using only >>> measured constants. This supersedes the complexities of Quantum Mechanics, >>> which has been fashionable for the last century. Acceptance of Mills’ work >>> may be quite gradual. Einstein, for example got his Nobel Prize not or >>> Relativity, but for earlier elucidation of the photoelectric effect. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike Carrell >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]?>] >>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:16 PM >>> *To:* vortex-l >>> *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:BLP's announcement >>> >>> >>> >>> Beauty comes from truth. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:47:17 -0500: >>> Hi, >>> [snip] >>> >>> >We must accept that hydrinos exist because Mills has experimentally >>> >demonstrated them. But we do not need to accept the 1700 pages of theory >>> >that Mill uses to explain them. There are other explanations that are >>> >easier to swallow. >>> >>> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ;) >>> >>> >>> > >>> >http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.5194v1.pdf >>> > >>> >Fractional spin and charge is a result of delocalization of the >>> electron in >>> >strongly correlated systems. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >The spin and charge seem to wander away from the electron in condensed >>> >matter systems do to wave function sharing among many electrons. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >It is well known, this fractional spin and charge causes problems in >>> >chemistry associated with the dissociation of molecular ions, >>> >polarizabilities, barrier heights, magnetic properties, fundamental >>> >band-gaps and strongly-correlated systems. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >Could what Mills sees is a electron delocalization condition in a >>> strongly >>> >correlated chemical system? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >The paper above lays the conditions for fractional spins, charge and >>> >orbitals. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:38:39 -0500: >>> >> Hi, >>> >> [snip] >>> >> >>> >> I meant individual atoms, and I realize that clusters would probably >>> have >>> >> somewhat different energy levels, however it would be very >>> coincidental if >>> >> these >>> >> exactly matched Hydrino energy levels. >>> >> The author of the paper on IRH, that has previously been mentioned on >>> this >>> >> list, >>> >> claims that it has only one level, whereas the Hydrino has over a >>> hundred. >>> >> >>> >> >Don't you mean to say that Rydberg clusters don't have multiple >>> energy >>> >> >levels and characteristic transition energies, which are seen in >>> Hydrino >>> >> >experiments? >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> In reply to Axil Axil's message of Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:26:06 >>> -0500: >>> >> >> Hi, >>> >> >> >How does Mills theory distinguish been orbitals in a atom verses >>> >> orbitals >>> >> >> >in small atomic Rydberg cluster of 10 atoms or less. I say the >>> Mills >>> >> >> >experiments can't. >>> >> >> [snip] >>> >> >> Rydberg atoms don't have multiple energy levels and characteristic >>> >> >> transition >>> >> >> energies, which are seen in Hydrino experiments. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Regards, >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >>> >> >> >>> >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Regards, >>> >> >>> >> Robin van Spaandonk >>> >> >>> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >>> >> >>> >> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Robin van Spaandonk >>> >>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>> This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. >>> Department. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>> This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. >>> Department. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________________________________________ >>> This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. >>> Department. >>> >> >> >
