How can a same concept (hydrino) be a seen as dark matter that does not react with normal matter except gravitationally and a cause of nuclear reactions that are required to produce 10^20 reactions per second? This does not make sense to me.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Jeff Driscoll <[email protected]> wrote: > I tried to summarize a few reasons why I believe Randell Mills's theory of > the atom. > > ============================================== > For decades, physicists have struggled with how to interpret the fine > structure constant, alpha = 1/137.035999 > Physicist Richard Feynman said this decades ago: “It has been a mystery > ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good > theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.” > Feynman also said: ”It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: > A magic number with no understanding by man” > > In my view, the value of the fine structure constant is explained by > Randell Mills’s model of the hydrogen atom. > In Mills’s model, the principal quantum number n can take on fractional > values with the smallest being n =1/137. For purposes of the following > energy calculations, assume an electron is orbiting around the proton in a > stable orbit at the principal quantum number n = 1/137.035999 (i.e. the > fine structure constant, alpha) and has a radius R based on Mills's > theory. An electron orbiting at this radius R has the following 5 energy > calculations related to it and they *all* equal exactly 510998.896 eV or > the rest mass of the electron (this is to 9+ significant digits!). > The energy equations are: > 1. Resonant energy of the vacuum for a sphere having radius R. > 2. Capacitive energy of a sphere having radius R. > 3. Magnetic energy for an electron orbiting a proton on the infinite > number of "great circles" (as described by Mills) on the surface of a > sphere having radius R. > 4. Planck equation energy for a photon having a wavelength that matches a > sphere having radius R. > 5. Electric potential energy for an electron evaluated at infinity > relative to a sphere having radius R with a proton at the center. > > The amazing thing is that these 5 energy equations above are classical, > meaning no quantum theory is involved and it uses Newtonian dynamics and > Maxwell’s equations. The 5 energy equations are exactly the same as found > in physics textbooks. > The energy equations are related to Mills's "Pair Production" (where a > photon is converted into an electron) and to have an organized, logical > theory have such a coincidence where they all equal the rest mass of the > electron would be impossible in my view. > > Mills's equations for the radius of the orbiting electron can be derived > using the same methods as Niels Bohr but with slightly different > postulates. > > 1. Bohr postulated that the momentum of the electron was equal to the > principal quantum number multiplied by the reduced Planck constant for all > stable orbits. Mills postulates that the momentum of the electron is equal > to *only* the reduced Planck constant at all stable orbits (i.e. it is not > a function of principal quantum number). > 2. Bohr postulated that the electric charge experienced by the electron > due to the proton is equal to e (the elementary charge) for all stable > orbits. Mills postulates that the electric charge experienced by the > electron due to the proton *and* the trapped photon is equal to e/n or the > elementary charge divided by the principal quantum number for all stable > orbits. > > You can find out more about Randell Mills's theory at my website here: > > http://zhydrogen.com > > Side note: Mills's lowest allowed orbit is 1/137 not 1/137.035999 and (I > think) the difference between the two numbers is related to a small > magnetic interaction between the electron and the proton. You can see more > detail in Mills's book, Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP) > which is streamed here: > > http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/book-download/ > > >
