There are many possible mechanisms that might produce the raw experimental data that Mills uses as a basis for his theory. As a scientist, Mills needs to exclude all the other possible causes for his data before he assumes that his data is caused by factional electron orbits, especially since his theories contradicts 100 years of quantum mechanics.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Eric Hermanson <[email protected]> wrote: > Axil, I don’t believe your question is valid. What Mills has done is > derive a set of equations based on electronic transitions that have nothing > to do with muons, or even coupling to muons. The question you ask is no > better than, “has Mills accounted for ‘grapes' causing fractional orbital > behavior”. The classical force balance equations describing the initial, > intermediate, and final states are all defined, and the transition > mechanism is clearly defined. I’m not sure where you’re going with > muons... are you attempting to raise the subject of muon catalyzed fusion > or something akin to that? > > - Eric > > > > On Aug 19, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > > That theoretical explanation is what it may look like, but it is near > impossible to tell what is happening in subatomic particles. CERN has > spent billions of dollars to find out what subatomic particles are doing in > detail. As a result, Many early theories of particle physics have been > incorrect and revised over decades. > > Has Mills ever put in the effort to see if muons were causing the > experimental results that he thinks is causing fractional orbital behavior. > > If he has, please site the references. > > > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Eric Hermanson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hydrino transitions regard resonant energy transfers that depend on >> multiples of the potential energy of Hydrogen, 27.2 eV (one Hartree), where >> the potential energy of Hydrogen is due to the proton and its bound >> electron alone. See Chapter 5, specifically. The Introduction is also a >> good primer. >> >> - Eric >> >> >> >> On Aug 19, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Can you be kind enough to site the relevant passage by extracting that >> material here in the reply to this email? >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Eric Hermanson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Yes, in Volume I: >>> >>> >>> http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 19, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Has Mills ever proved that the experimental observations he has used to >>> support factional orbital states are due to electrons? This states may be >>> the result of muon capture by atoms. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Eric Hermanson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Thu Aug 14, 2014, Beene, Jones wrote: >>>> >>>> > In posts yesterday you have raised a number of good observations - >>>> and there >>>> > is a bit more information floating around cyberspace this week about >>>> the >>>> > putative single Dirac (KG) ground state, which can refine the idea of >>>> a >>>> > stable fractional state for LENR, which is also the identical state >>>> of dark >>>> > matter. Thus - a new subject heading, as this is not Mills territory >>>> > anymore. >>>> >>>> Clearly you’re joking. Mills introduced the Hydrino to physics in >>>> 1988, a solid 10 years prior to the DDL presentation you refer to, and a >>>> solid 5 years prior to the first DDL paper. Furthermore, Mills identified >>>> dark matter as the Hydrino circa 1990. Attempts to re-write history don’t >>>> work. Even without the Internet keeping tabs… >>>> >>>> Also, for the correct explanation of the “newly” discovered 3.5 keV >>>> astronomical line, see: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Chapter-5_3.5_keV_feature.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> - Eric >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
