The theory behind the existence of the triad-lepton we
are calling electronium (*e-), the previously
undescribed �heavy electron� (but not a muon), whether
it is transitory or a fairly stable particle, is based
upon *basic theory* in particular, the overlap with
the quark formative process.
But there appears to be a further and most interesting
cross-connection to the hydrino. Mills' CQM does have
many appealing features and is significant because it
is the "other" theory building upon a revised form of
quantum mechanics which is able to provide a workable
deterministic model for the paradox of wave-particle
duality. String theory is the first such theory,
although its proponents usually scorn normal QM as
much as Mills does. Funny how that works.
Can the electronium (*e-) hypothesis benefit from
Mills' insight? And can the hydrino theory benefit
from a total divergence away from Mills� intransigence
at some point in the deveopment of that theory into
something which is more workable, at least towards a
free-energy device (sooner-rather-than-later)?
Mills may have been the 'wunderkind' of the past few
decades, being the only student EVER to graduate from
Harvard Medical in three years, ect. ect. but his
intellect pales in comparison to the greatest mind of
the century - P.A.M. Dirac.
Mills, having been grounded early-on in chemistry
rather than physics, has chosen to not only neglect
Dirac but totally poo-poo the idea of ZPE, which
cannot be distinguished from Dirac's sea. IMHO, it is
a no-no to impugn Dirac in any way... update him, yes,
but to ignore him is to your severe detriment.
Consequently, I have no problem in hiding behind
Dirac's enormous coat-tails in poo-pooing the
"second-part" of Mills' theory. IOW it is my
contention that Mills got it right up to to the point
of the shoreline of Dirac, but failed to take the
plunge, as it were.
In Mills' CQM, electrons are not infinitesimal points
nor probability waves surrounding infinitesimal point
particles but are spinning 2D (electric and magnetic)
flux surfaces ("orbitspheres") that deform into
various geometries under different conditions. This
is not at all different from string theory... up to
the point of the "deform" part.
But if there is one thing that Frederick Sparber
believes in even more than string theory, it is NOT to
"fall in love" with any one emerging theory to the
exclusion of all else. Therefore, I will take the
liberty of extending the electronium (*e-) concept
into the realm of the hydrino, by incorporating the
"deformation" part - but is it deformation of the
triad-lepton (not simply the electron) which provides
the glaring difference - and eventually, the resultant
anomalous energy. IOW Mills was correct up to a point
of accounting for the appearance of free-energy, and
then, by disregarding Dirac, he has ventured more
egregiously into compounding his errors, ever since.
Even though Mills' experimental work is superb ! ...it
seems a clear case of "so close but so far away" as
the pundits like to opine.
The original impetus for the existence of electronium
(*e-) comes from the string theory and from
analogizing the quark formative process extending to
leptons, but at that point, FS imagines the (*e-)
triad to have the appearance of a tight stack of three
rings (2-D discs), the center being counter-spin to
the other two but with an aligned axis of the three
discs(electron positron electron)into a unit. However,
lets revise that a bit and consider the (*e-) which
has NOW been "captured" by a hydrino after the
transitory hydrino has ventured over into
reciprocal-space and come back into our 3-space as a
different entity - i.e. it has returned from the EPO
flux, which is Dirac's coastline (interface), but not
as hydrogen or a more severely shrunken hydrino but as
a proton surrounded by the new (*e-)"OS" IOW not as an
'entity' but as a three-layered orbitsphere.
The newly emerged hydrogen isomer will have a compound
(*e-) triad particle but NOT in an "orbital" per se,
but will have a layered probability-smear which
represents the deformation of the captured Ps which is
newly formed into the (*e-) triad (e-p+e-).
This is one way (of three or four ways) that a hydrino
coheres anamalous energy from the EPO field. The
process can also operate "in reverse" to replenish a
local deficits in the EPO field, but that deficit can
be replenished naturally also. (Perhaps that is why
hummingbirds need to keep 'on-the-move' so as not to
loose the benefit of the heavy-hydrino, which is one
way to describe this hydrogen isomer.
The formative process begins with a "hole" which can
be an energy hole or a geometric one, especially a
topological charged hole such as might be found in ATP
or other proteins. Once the atomic dimension of
monatomic hydrogen become far less (even if it is a
transitory shrinkage) when it gets near the
"interface" between our 3-space and reciprocal space,
probably about 50 picometers, then the result is that
there is a greatly increased probability of either the
proton, or its shrunken electron, or both, tunneling
far enough into the EPO field - i.e. the "other side"
of the interface, where it will then disrupt the
"quantum foam" of "virtual positronium"... after which
it can either bring back into our 3-space the 6.8 eV
ionization energy, or else an electronium itself
(*e-), or else disappear into the EPO field (should
there be a large accumulated deficit on that side of
reciprocal space).
Again, as far as experimenters are concerned, the
important thing is not whether Mills is correct
about the details of CQM but whether he or others can
improve upon it, and whether or not it can be made
useful by some kind of reappraisal.
To that end, perhaps it is prudent to determine if
nature herself has chosen to use this methodology
through evolution, whether it be in the hummingbird,
or the Monarch butterfly that Terry mentioned or
whatever. Birds are the descendents of dinoasurs and
have been evolving for 300 million years, so it stands
to reason that if the EPO field can be accessed
naturally, it would be flying birds or insects which
are able to do it. Need is a mother, as they say. That
interplay of form and time might also point to why
*iridescence* is a necessary step along the way.( BTW
are Monarchs iridescent?)
Life may have been evolving for even longer elsewhere.
If Dirac's sea is exploitable, nature may have chanced
upon that methodology long before now... or even if
not here on earth, perhaps it is the meme-information
of such a methodology, arriving here �from elsewhere�
(my favorite cop-out) which humans are just now, as we
emerge into 2005, understanding how to decode.
Jones
