Wherever you dig up papers info about critiques of Mills theory they generally refers to Rathke, to show that Mills is all wrong, even today you can find references that Mills just corrects a sign error and not have any serious rebutal to the critique
see http://www.worldwizzy.com/library/Hydrino_theory Well, I surely found that crtique very very ignorant, the response from the doctor was a good laugh, http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/theorypapers/Mills%20Rebuttal%20of%20RathkeS.pdf So, again, what we have is pure stupidity, crime and farse in an unholy mix. You just can't follow what supposedly knowledgable people are saying in these matter, you need to consult with math wizes and go to the sources yourself, that's the sad story. On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 7:17 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > It is going to take a very long time and a lot of research before Mills' > theory will be accepted by mainstream physics provided it is a better match > for reality than quantum mechanics. I would love to see the hokus pokus of > quantum mechanics replaced with a more classical approach. Unfortunately, > that is not going to happen under the current conditions due to vested > interests if nothing else. > > In my limited opinion we know very little about the deep dark underlying > physics of nature. So far all I see is curve fitting with a little > calculus thrown in for good luck. A problem is found and someone comes up > with a patch to cover that issue, but no one really knows how many more > unknowns will appear as we dig deeper into the fundamental operation of > nature. > > Theories are always clinging on until the next better one comes along. I > can see very little reason to believe that this will change in the near > future. Sometimes I ask myself how much knowledge of physics 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----- > From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe <stefan.ita...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > 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 > thing theoretical physics should do is to try understand this epsilon and > be able to deduce it, i tried, and could not find that epsilon. Mills is > going head to head with > QM and is claiming that much of the exactness of QM is an illusion and a > result of bad physics e.g they picked some terms in an asymptotic expansion > and dropped > others just to fit to the measured data. Mills can be right or not. > However for high energy physics, probably the Standard Model is more exact > cause it is a data fir with so > many unknowns. 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. My take on this is therefore that Mills is > right. QM is a datafit to reality, quite useful if you don't extrapolate. > Mills model is more physical, but maybe > not developed fully, so I would expect a new Einstein to show up and find > corrections to MIlls theory more than saying that QM and the standard model > is superior. > > Also, Once upon the time, a curious figure came up and showed his neat > calculations, he could estimate the astronomical observations with 6 > digits. Nah, the lauriates said, > our method, that is so complex and well developed, fits with 7 digits, > experimental observations triumph theory, you go away! And Keppler went > back. The telling is that the > old ones needed to die off until science could appreciate good reason and > beautiful simplicity. It's maybe even worse today. > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 of theory when such a hierarchy of theory exists is easy to >> do. >> >> Mills would do better is he says that CQM is a special case of QM in >> the same why that Newtonian physics is a special case of >> general relativity. Mills is wrong to reject QM whole cloth as invalid to >> be replaced by CQM. In this he has a problem in the way he thinks. >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < >> stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 you will get a >>> proton and an electron. So to find >>> a antihydrino you need to cool down a produced anti proton and an anti >>> electron and reach a hydrino state, which you need some chemical reaction >>> to achieve because the >>> cool down system would go to the normal anti hydrogen su you need to >>> create a bunch of anti compounds and do chemistry with them. Good luck with >>> that. >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 quasi-particle is produced under special multiple electron >>>> interactions and is also not a fundamental particle. Hydrinos are a special >>>> case produced in condensed matter. They are not produced as virtual >>>> particles because they have no associated anti-particle. >>>> >>>> LENR exists in a special state of condensed matter and energy where >>>> multiple interactions among electrons acting in a special way exists. The >>>> same is true for hydrinos, they are quasi-particles, a special state of >>>> matter like the SPPs, not fundimental. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 10:19 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
