In prompto of your argument I try to get a discussion about especially the
nature of charge and that of a charge at a orbitsphere.
Maybe you'll find the argument interessting, have fun!
Hi,
Many people have fundamental issues with accepting that the law of the atom
is following a non smooth
rule
Nice pictures!
With data fitted theory you still can make predictions when you
interpolate, I use it all the time. No need to throw away anything. But it
is
dishonest of society to ignore Mills, as I pointed out there is nothing
written that are pointing towards an error e.g. ed. 2014 page 12 equa
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yep, this is exactly the problem, you have two incomplete models that same
> the same thing. It's a mystery ...
>
Allow me to point to some additional, beautiful images of excited Rydberg
states that one wi
Axil,
Some of the best evidence for Mill's hydrinos come form his plasma
experiments...no condensed matter involved.
Ron
--On Sunday, January 11, 2015 11:38 AM -0500 Axil Axil
wrote:
The lack of proof that anti-hydrinos exist tells me that the hydrino is
not a fundamental particle but a
Yep, this is exactly the problem, you have two incomplete models that same
the same thing. It's a mystery, Mills did research a lot of how QM has been
used
and claim to found serious iissues. But I'm not too sure that they are
incomplete either, there are a bunch of math theorems that states that s
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
Did you look at the address, goes to blacklight power!!!
>
I have no reason to doubt that the rebuttal came from Blacklight Power. My
guess is that an employee or fan wrote it up, and Mills signed off on i
wanted to look into it theory of R.Mills. I tried for
about 10 years!
Peter
From: Jones Beene
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 6:55 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
From: pjvannoor...@caiway.nl
I couldnt agree more with what you say. It is really strange that almost
: Sunday, January 11, 2015 11:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
wrote:
Did you read my last email? Rathke stated a critique, Mills answered it.
Interesting PDF file. It has Mills as the author, and it talks about
Did you look at the address, goes to blacklight power!!!
If you does not trust the rebutal, let me than explain what the problem
with rathkes paper is.
Mills patches solution to the Maxwell equation inside and outside the
sphere, or an ellipsoid if the
hydrogene is moving, The patch is so that yo
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did you read my last email? Rathke stated a critique, Mills answered it.
>
Interesting PDF file. It has Mills as the author, and it talks about Mills
in the third person. Looks like ghostwriting, but t
Did you read my last email? Rathke stated a critique, Mills answered it. To
me that doesn't look like Mills is mute. You would not get a debate like
a presidential debate though, that's a stupid way to debate. No there would
of cause be an exchange of letters postings or papers. Mills has indeed
an
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is a shame that we don't have a serious heated debate between nobell
> lauriates and Mills regarding these matters, it would be a great show. In
> stead there is a speaking nothing.
>
Mills would not say
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 9:07 AM, leaking pen wrote:
Experimental evidence always trumps theory.
>
> I need that on a bumpersticker.
I might want one of those.
Eric
do we know as
>> compared to that which we do not know nor have any concept about? If we
>> understand a mere 1% of the total I am in awe of the field of study.
>>
>> Just my few cents worth.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>&g
rth.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Sun, Jan 11, 2015 12:47 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
>
> The thing this is a mystery, How come you get so good and accurate
> results from both the theori
ginal Message-
From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Jan 11, 2015 12:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: QM rant
The thing this is a mystery, How come you get so good and accurate results from
both the theories, if you are correct they would be an epsilon appart and the
first
See Goedecke's 1964 paper.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe <
stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The thing this is a mystery, How come you get so good and accurate results
> from both the theories, if you are correct they would be an epsilon appart
> and the first
> thing
From: pjvannoor...@caiway.nl
I couldnt agree more with what you say. It is really strange that almost nobody
is looking into the theory of R.Mills.
That is not correct. Several commenters here give Mills some credit - at least
partial credit. But maybe we are “nobodies” so OK, no pro
The thing this is a mystery, How come you get so good and accurate results
from both the theories, if you are correct they would be an epsilon appart
and the first
thing theoretical physics should do is to try understand this epsilon and
be able to deduce it, i tried, and could not find that epsilo
Quantum mechanics applies to fundamental particles. A special case of QM
applies to hydrinos in the same why that a special case of QM applies to
cooper pairs of electrons, CQM is analogous to super conductor theory.
Care in thinking must be applied to applying this sort of theory.
Mis-application
Yes or even better, KISS = KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID. this is what I'm
head banging to.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:07 PM, leaking pen wrote:
> *Experimental evidence always trumps theory.*
>
> *I need that on a bumpersticker. *
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:19 AM, wrote:
>
>> Hello Stefan
>>
>>
*Experimental evidence always trumps theory.*
*I need that on a bumpersticker. *
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:19 AM, wrote:
> Hello Stefan
>
> I couldnt agree more with what you say. It is really strange that almost
> nobody
> is looking into the theory of R.Mills. I presented Mills theory a f
The hydrino is a variant of the hydrogen atom. It is never claimed by Mills
to be a fundamental particle. Hence it needs so low energy so that you can
maintain the bound
You can't find it using collisions of high energy, which is where most
bucks these days is targeted at. If you knock the hydrino
The lack of proof that anti-hydrinos exist tells me that the hydrino is not
a fundamental particle but a quasi-particle produced under the interactions
of other multiple electrons. This is also true for cooper pairs of
electrons. A fundamental particle always has an anti-particle. This hydrino
quas
Hello Stefan
I couldnt agree more with what you say. It is really strange that almost nobody
is looking into the theory of R.Mills. I presented Mills theory a few years ago
to
a Nobel price winner in the Netherlands. He got angry.
Somehow Quantum Physics took the wrong way. It was really at the
25 matches
Mail list logo
