> If I understand this, it appears to be the orbitsphere with differential charge density across the surface of the sphere. I have seen a few diagrams in Blacklight's promotional literature to this effect. It appears to be an ad hoc > modification to account for something that was lost when Mills set aside the geometric form of spherical harmonics and went with a sphere. No it is not arbritary. It is a simple matter to prove that these charge distribution would lead to non radiation for certain internal standing waves. Mills derivation is overly complex just use the expansion of exp(i k x) in sperical harmonics and the orthogonality of the spherical harmonics. You will then see that essentially these are the only valid charge distribution that allow a standing em wave that will not radiate for certain combination of w and r.
> I don't take issue QM. I take issue with orbitspheres. You are a proponent of Mills's theory, and you are using spherical harmonics. I'm trying to better understand this situation. Ok, try read: c-lambda.se/maxwell.pdf You will see that spherical harmonics is natural and also it is actually used all over the places in GUTCP, e.g. for calculation of atoms with higher order shells. > In addition to the idea that you are seeking feedback on (which I don't weigh in on here), an important question is whether Mills's theory is self-consistent and consistent with the experimental evidence. I'm trying to probe this > somewhat unrelated question. Discussion threads on Vortex are allowed to go all over the place. Ok, I validated that non radiaiton is correct and that the ionisation energies for hydrogen and one electorn atoms are correct if you don't count the mass correction which really looks like hokus pokus and the derivation don't add up in GUTCP. I find that GUTCP a bit too creative many times but it's creative, there are strange argument but the conclusions seam to bare truth if you work hard and explain it too yourself sidesteping what Mills is saying. Actually sometimes I tend to get a feeling that the whole thing is obfuscated. Regards Stefan On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe < > stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Now really what you have in Mills is Re(Ylm(e)exp(iwt) but that means that >> this photon field inside >> the orbitsphere is a standing wave. >> > > If I understand this, it appears to be the orbitsphere with differential > charge density across the surface of the sphere. I have seen a few > diagrams in Blacklight's promotional literature to this effect. It appears > to be an ad hoc modification to account for something that was lost when > Mills set aside the geometric form of spherical harmonics and went with a > sphere. > > The nucleus is a more complex setup of EM + boundary conditions. Not sure >> that you could rule out >> a spherical wave. >> > > Yes. Nuclei can have spherical waves (s-waves), and many other kinds of > waves (p, d, etc.). > > Also forget Mills, use QM if you don't like it. >> > > I don't take issue QM. I take issue with orbitspheres. You are a > proponent of Mills's theory, and you are using spherical harmonics. I'm > trying to better understand this situation. > > Smell it and tell me what you don't like or like about it - the mills >> versus QM, is really of less importance here >> > > In addition to the idea that you are seeking feedback on (which I don't > weigh in on here), an important question is whether Mills's theory is > self-consistent and consistent with the experimental evidence. I'm trying > to probe this somewhat unrelated question. Discussion threads on Vortex > are allowed to go all over the place. > > Eric > >
