No, no, no. Argue what we know and extend the argument if there is anything new.
I am not prepared to read one more line of Mills until he sorts out his premises and those howlers. "Your honour, as the court knows we are assuming a system of justice based on English common law and 1500 years of tradition. Let us ignore that and go on the basis that what I say is right because I say it is and you should read up on the law according to me in an easy to digest 1000+ page volume for only £1000 download, because your education is obviously deficient (tsck!) if you display any ignorance." Or "As you know in the past it has been suggested that a sphere is infinitely symmetrical thing which is the locus of constant distant from a centre (tsck!) but this is not the case for I have actually proven that a sphere is spiky and irregular..." Come off it Jones. Dont worry, the cosmic censor will get him. -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 October 2008 23:23 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Mills' recapitalisation of energy levels Remi, Most of the problem you are having with this is that for Mills,electrons are not infinitesimal points nor probability waves surrounding infinitesimal point particles. To quote the introductory material on HSG: electrons are "spinning 2D electric and magnetic flux surfaces ("orbitspheres") that deform into various geometries under different conditions. This insight into the resolution of wave-particle duality leads to practically obvious explanations of mysterious, counter-intuitive quantum particle behaviors - explanations for which were previously the sole domain of quantum theory and its offspring." Most of your objections have been argued over the years, and the threads can be followed on: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/ I can understand why you may not want to wade through this old material or to join the discussion group at this late stage. Mills himself was responding to objections up til about 2003 and has at one time or another, responded to almost everything, but not to the satisfaction of the skeptics. There can be no clear resolution of this situation, since Mills diverts from normal physics so early and so drastically; and from then on, there is no turning back. He pretty much intends at this point in time to present to the world a device which derives energy from the orbitsphere's reduced angular momentum and let the results do most of the talking wrt to his idiosyncratic methods and assumptions - which seem strange to you, or to everyone who has been taught the consensus viewpoint. Is everyone out of step but Randy? Hard to say,but in such a situation, juxtapposed to the 'big picture' need of world energy resources; and the mounting experimental evidence which has been accumulated - it would be foolish from a societal POV for this to be overlooked becasue "so-and-so" even a Feynman, or a Zimmerman, or a Cornwall, etc. etc. does not like the way that it differs from what they have been taught. Jones
