Just to spam for your fun, the above was quite ok and a freeze of wikipedia at 2006, no go to the this years edition and enjoy the intelligent society we are living in,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackLight_Power On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
