A very good question. Realize that Mills magnum opus, GUTCP is *classical
physics*, not quantum physics now fashionable in physics circles. He claims
a consistent system of mathematics over 85 orders of magnitude. He has
applied the 'orbitsphere' reasoning to nuclei, but has not published much in
that direction. Read carefully the introductory pages of Vol.1, where he
discussed quantum mechanics in relation to GUTCP. For many reasons, Mills
wants no association with LENR at the present time even as some members of
the LENR community insist that BLP is "really" LENR, which it not.

Mike Carrell

 

From: Stefan Israelsson Tampe [mailto:stefan.ita...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 1:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mill's theory behind the hydrino

 

Hmm,

 

Actually I'm not entirely after hydrinos, it's the mathematical tool that
Mill's developed that interests me. What if you can use that math to prove
LENR? He does use an elegant way to calculate a lot of chemestry, why not
apply it to condensed matter?

 

/Stefan

 

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have a hard time in accepting the way that the hydrino is formed and what
it can do. First of all according to the Mills doctrine, hydrogen and/or
water is/are required. But LENR can occur without hydrogen and/or water. We
can produce transmutation in a pure element; say copper or titanium by
exploding it with an electric spark or hitting it with a high powered laser.

 

So the cause of LENR must be contained in that spark or laser beam and not
is some special form of hydrogen.

 

I asked why a spark was required to produce the Mills reaction; the
response: some special nascent form of pure water must be formed.

 

This is not the case in my mind. Let us get things down to the basics, to
the ultimate cause of things. The magic of LENR is in the spark, and only
the spark, it's that plain and simple.

 

A theory of everything must cover all the cases perfectly without exception
and the Mills theory leaves many things unexplained.

 

 

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
<stefan.ita...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

 

After skimming Mill's book about how he treats the atom physics, I am pretty
amazed.

 

Folks, his theory is really accurate, and we should not dismiss it just
because of the hydrino prediction. He actually calculates the g factor to
the same level as QED, but he indicates it took two decades of fiddling with
the QED equations to reach that level of accuracy. So the Math is as right
as what we can get by using ordinary QED/QM but Mill's math is much more
elegant.

 

One hydrino state is predicted by QED too, but the spinnors are not
integrable in QED although

probably by combining them lead to an acceptable solution. Also the other
states may as well be there but it's probably hard to find them because of
the convoluted math. Also we should expect that these hydrino states have as
well non integrable spinors. The interesting thing to understand now is what
paths the QM/Mill's theory allow to go from a normal state to a hydrino
state. In a sense it is degenerate and it looks like these states are
locked. In a sense atoms must interact strongly e.g. get really close
together and act in a precise way in order to mediate

the forming of a hydrino. It is not unlikly that the conditions are very
special and rarely happens in normal physics/chemistry.

 

In a sense it's crazy how people treat his work all over the intertubes.
They say that his results are wacko. It could be that the math is correct
but there is a some extra conditions for the solutions to be physical, that
is missing that relates to the integrability conditions for the spinors.

 

Also if there any serious issues with his math I would like to know, else he
deserves respect, with or without the hydrino.

 

/Stefan

 

 


________________________________________________________________________
This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.

Reply via email to