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 <itsat...@gmail.com> wrote: > *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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
