*Experimental evidence always trumps theory.* *I need that on a bumpersticker. *
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:19 AM, <pjvannoor...@caiway.nl> 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 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 start of > the first formula > to describe the atom with the Quantum theory where they went wrong. > They couldnt explain the stability of the atom in a classic way and Bohr > postulated > the stability of the atom. Mills found the solution to that problem. He > proposed that the electron is a shell of current which > is flowing in such a way that there are solutions to the Maxwell equations > who correspond to the stable > quantum levels of the electron in the hydrogen atom. What is more he found > that with his model fractional quantum levels > where also possible. He found these stable fractional quantum levels in > his experiments, when he followed his theory > that predicted that the groundstate of a hydrogen atom can be destablized > by using catalyst which can take away n x 27.2 eV > from atom through collision. > > Peter van Noorden > > *From:* Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, January 10, 2015 7:20 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:QM rant > > I would like to see a grants and target institution targeted to answer > your questions. Also it is good to remember that the standard model was > fitted to high energy > particle data, typically advanced theories degenerates at limits to a > limited set of possible solutions, the standard model QED etc could very > well be spot on at those > high limits. Also you don't get to see hydrinos at thise limits so it is > unclear if it is wise to try what your suggest, jMills does take care to > try explain quarks, electorns > etc as well in his book to hint on the nature of these particles. I can't > judge those efforts, but for sure it is not certain that everything that > needs to be developed have been done so > using his ideas as a base. But if he does not have developed something > there are possible a permutation of ideas to try ranging from simple > modifications to what > Mills is doing to actually add further terms and additions to maxwells > equations. Again we need to put manwork and grants into this to get > anywhere. > > On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I would like to see Mills rewrite the dirac equations for the electron >> to reflect his hydrino theory. This includes the experimental verification >> of a fractionally charged positron. There should be gamma rays produced to >> account for hydrino anti-hydrino annihilation. How does the anti-hydrino >> interact with the electron? What neutrino is produced when a hydrino is >> emitted in beta decay? There are 101 other permutations and combinations of >> interactions that could be experimentally demonstrated involving the >> hydrino as a fundamental elementary particle. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < >> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Orionworks, >>> >>> Yes experiments is all good, i'm more concerned why we don't get any >>> replication / debunks and from more independent sources. Is'n there >>> enough to verify the evidences? Also what if it's too difficult to >>> create hydrinos, and Mills theory would be better suited to explain for >>> example >>> cold fusion or high temperature super conductors. Mills theory can with >>> great certainty help humanity even if the hydrino effort fails. Why can't I >>> hire engineers who know how to model atoms like Mills is doing, are we >>> servicing our society as well as we should via our institutions or are the >>> folks there cooked into their theory that is wrong. I think that there >>> is huge base of prediction of experiments that Mills does so already >>> experiments have triumphed via the well fit between what we know about >>> atoms and what his theory does with almost no assumptions at all. >>> Our current knowledge may very be faulty and a retake on the whole >>> fundamentals of nature might be needed, not seeing this and not feeling >>> excited about this opportunity, is amazing. >>> >>> Have Fun >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < >>> orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Stefan, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please correct me if I am mistaken but I assume you are the same >>>> "stefan" who has posted similar complaints out at the SCP discussion group. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As has frequently been stated out in the Vort Collective... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Experimental evidence always trumps theory. * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I must confess the fact that I personally find Mills' CQM interesting, >>>> perhaps even tantalizing, see: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://personalpen.orionworks.com/blacklight-power.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ...where I wrote a personal report on Dr. Mills' audacious CQM theory. >>>> I need to stress the fact that this is a NON-SCIENTIIC report & analysis. >>>> It is my personal take on an upstart brave new theory which seems to have a >>>> lot going for it. I tried to remain as objective as I could concerning a >>>> highly controversial theory for which I have insufficient mathematical >>>> expertise to either confirm or disprove. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Let me change gears here. To be honest I am getting tired listening to >>>> yet another argument that Mills' CQM theory is better than QM. Such >>>> arguments will resolve nothing. The solution is both paradoxically simple >>>> while admittedly being technologically challenging. BLP needs to cobble >>>> together an experimental prototype which definitively verifies the fact >>>> that the technology is capable of self-running while generating lots of >>>> excess electricity. I have repeatedly suggested BLP demonstrate an >>>> EXPERIMENTAL prototype as a precursor to creating a commercial prototype. I >>>> have done so because I am under the opinion that assembling the first >>>> commercial system may still be many years off into the future. BLP bravely >>>> implies that a commercial system is just around the corner... but I don't >>>> believe it. Nevertheless, I would love to be proven wrong on this point. >>>> But until I'm proven wrong, I have to continue to rely on my own gut >>>> instincts based on my own 36 years of personal experience in the software >>>> industry. In my experience developing brand new software (and hardware), >>>> particularly a new product that has never developed before tends to take a >>>> lot longer than originally anticipated. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> See my personal posts: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4330 >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> >>>> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/4345 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So far, Dr. Mills as repeatedly ignored the primary concerns expressed >>>> in my above posts. He has said nothing about the possibility of assembling >>>> a more definitive experimental prototype within BLPs' lab walls. IMO, he >>>> seems to be evading the question. Mills has instead deflected conversation >>>> towards the fact that BLP continues to accumulate independent scientific >>>> reports that appear to verify various aspects of his CQM theory. All the >>>> peanut gallery knows at the moment is the fact that BLP has contracted with >>>> outside engineering firms to assemble the first commercial system. The >>>> first delivery was supposed to have occurred in December of last year. >>>> That, of course, never happened. We have yet to hear when a new revised >>>> delivery date is to be expected. We have, in fact, no idea. That is another >>>> reason why I tend to think the actual delivery date for a real commercial >>>> system is likely to be years, not months off into the future. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Let me end by saying I don't fault BLPs' efforts. I have no reason to >>>> think BLP or Mills are acting in less honorable ways. My primary concern is >>>> that, IMHO, if BLP wants to be taken more seriously, sooner rather than >>>> later, then I suggest the company cobble together an experimental prototype >>>> that self-runs and produces excess electricity ASAP. The prototype does not >>>> have to run long. Just long enough to prove their point. I say this because >>>> I am under the impression that the anticipated commercial system is >>>> probably going to take a lot longer than BLP had originally anticipated... >>>> perhaps as long as several more years. I say this because I suspect that if >>>> BLP attempted to cobble together nothing more deceptively simple as just an >>>> EXPERIMENTAL prototype (a prototype not meant for commercial applications) >>>> such attempts will also likely to turn out to be an equally formidable >>>> challenge. In fact I suspect the challenge is precisely why Mills has not >>>> directly replied to my suggestion. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would nevertheless be thrilled to be proven wrong on these last >>>> points. ...and perhaps Mills doesn't care to be taken more seriously sooner >>>> rather than later. Focus on developing the commercial system, and be damned >>>> with assembling another intermediate experimental demo. If BLP's financial >>>> backers remain in the loop... if they remain satisfied with the progress >>>> they are seeing, running a more stealthy operation is a perfectly >>>> legitimate strategy. Granted it's a bummer for the rest of us who reside in >>>> the peanut gallery, but it's not my call. ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Steven Vincent Johnson >>>> >>>> svjart.orionworks.com >>>> >>>> zazzle.com/orionworks >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
