Discussion of the hydrino theory of Dr. Randell Mills

Clark Whelton | 3 May 2008 00:16

The Bohr paradox

 The Bohr paradox

 Robert P. Crease explains why Niels Bohr's towering role in the history of
 physics can be difficult to appreciate

 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/33963

 
 Passing of a legend

 The death of John Wheeler has robbed physics of one of its last links with
 Bohr and Einstein

 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/33961

------------------------------------

Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
 Web Site      http://www.hydrino.org
 Post message: hydrino@... 
 Subscribe:    hydrino-subscribe@... 
 Unsubscribe:  hydrino-unsubscribe@... 
 List owner:   hydrino-owner@...
 Complaints:   hydrino-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/

<*> Your email settings:

(Continue reading)

headers

Shane | 3 May 2008 09:36

Re: Dr. Mills the Future Needs to Be Now

> N. Hercun wrote:

> EXPERIMENT HAS SHOWN THAT HYDRINOS ARE FOR REAL
> THEREFORE ENERGY SHOULD BE CHEAP
> 

Experiment has shown that fission and fusion and photovoltaic 
materials and coal and tides and wind are real therefore energy should 
be cheap. 

------------------------------------

Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
 Web Site      http://www.hydrino.org
 Post message: hydrino@... 
 Subscribe:    hydrino-subscribe@... 
 Unsubscribe:  hydrino-unsubscribe@... 
 List owner:   hydrino-owner@...
 Complaints:   hydrino-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/join

(Continue reading)

headers

minofd2 | 4 May 2008 08:10

Re: The Bohr paradox

Too much attention is made of Bohr's contributions to Science.  When
he submitted his dissertation for his Ph.D., the committee debated
whether to award Bohr the Ph.D., since is was the shortest dissertation
ever submitted, less than 20 pages.  Bohr was lucky to have a lot of
great work done by his contemporaries and he put several theories
together.  The Bohr model works only for hydrogen and is overly
simplistic. I think that it is unfortunate that he won a Nobel Prize for
it.  I believe theories should have more staying power than to explain
one atom (I would have settled for a row in the periodic table).   I
also believe too much is made of Nobel Prizes and their importance.  For
example, Penzias won it for supposedly finding the background radiation
from the big bang.  When Penzias joined Bell Labs, he did not design the
radio telescope. He was not looking for background radiation rather he
was investigating the atmosphere for telecommunication research (radio,
television, and satellite) No matter where they pointed the radio
telescope, they kept finding noise. What was remarkable was that the
noise was a constant level.  First they thought the electronics or the
telescope design were faulty.  Then they believed it was pigeon
droppings.  Penzias Had no Clue.  His partner Clark worked out the math
and tied it to predictions of a university group who predicted the
remnant radiation would be 3 degrees Kelvin.  Respectfully,  minofd2

------------------------------------

Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
 Web Site      http://www.hydrino.org
 Post message: hydrino@... 
 Subscribe:    hydrino-subscribe@... 
 Unsubscribe:  hydrino-unsubscribe@...

(Continue reading)

headers

operationquest | 3 May 2008 20:23

Re: Density

--- In hydrino@..., "novel_compound" <novel_compound <at> ...>
wrote:
>
> operationquest wrote,
> 
> << an orbitsphere is a 2-D object. It has surface area; but it has 
> zero volume, so by definition it has infinite mass density. >>
> 
> See message 10616 for a discussion of areal vs. volumetric density, 
> and how the orbitsphere model does better than the point model.
>

So one divergence is better than two? If you object to a model on the
basis of divergence, surely any pathological behavior is cause for
alarm? Even if it gets +1 for this aspect, I can't see the orbitsphere
as "better" overall, given its other considerable failings (which have
already been discussed).

The message you refer to has a list from Mr. Barchak:

<< For John C. to claim that the single point electron of SQM makes
more sense than the OS is a real side-splitter:

1. It has an infinite charge density.
2. It has an infinite mass density.
3. It changes position instantaneously.
4. It changes velocity instantaneously.
5. With the instantaneous changes in position and velocity,
it does not radiate.
6. It can be in multiple places at the same time.

(Continue reading)

headers

John E Connett | 3 May 2008 23:59

Re: Stony Brook Dialogues

--- In hydrino@..., "john_e_barchak" <john_e_barchak <at> ...>
wrote:
>
> The 4-space unification of CQM is totally compatible with the long 
> term goals of C. N Yang (of Yang-Mills fame) who has been greatly 
> intrigued by the similarities between the math of general relativity 
> and the math of gauge fields.  See
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/message/13093
> Much of the effort that had been applied to string theory is now 
> being applied to 4-space unification through the study of topology 
> and geometry as exemplified by the work of Edward Witten. Yang 
> appears to be a true Einsteinian with about as much tolerance for non-
> sense as Gell-Mann and 't Hooft.
> 
> From the Nucleus to the Cosmos
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/message/12684
> 
> The 1950s work of Yang and Mills led to the 1970s work of 't Hooft 
> who recognized the importance of Yang-Mills theory.  In the 1980s, 
> Donaldson created his astounding theory connecting 4-space to very 
> amazing properties through Yang-Mills theory.
> A Very Special Universe
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hydrino/message/12626
> 
> Peter Woit, in Stony Brook Dialogues in Mathematics and Physics
> http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=674
> describes the past and bright future of 4-space unification.
> 
> The famous paper "Concept of Nonintegrable Phase Factors and Global 
> Formulation of Gauge Fields," Phys. Rev. D12, 3845

(Continue reading)

headers

Eugene Wagner | 3 May 2008 12:30

Re: What is Mills reason for his new model of the electron?

minofd2 wrote:

> Scientists are very competitive and have many different beliefs
> and opinions.  As a group, they can't conspire if they wanted to.

You seem to be assuming that they would have to as a group, for
reality to be markedly different from how it is being presented.
Consider that in a hierarchical system, the few can influence
the beliefs and set the agenda for the many. When there is
misrepresentation of the truth, those consciously participating
in that may themselves be mislead, or be kept unaware of the
full agenda. And the true and ultimate intent of any such
misdirection may be rather far removed from science or the
goals one would assume scientists to pursue.

Always check your assumptions. For example, when you consider
the scientific method from a philosophical perspective, you
have to admit that it assumes an objective reality on which to
operate. This physical reality certainly gives the superficial
appearance of being objective. But what if it is not really so,
at a deeper level?

------------------------------------

Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
 Web Site      http://www.hydrino.org
 Post message: hydrino@... 
 Subscribe:    hydrino-subscribe@... 
 Unsubscribe:  hydrino-unsubscribe@...

(Continue reading)

headers

Peter Wolstenholme | 3 May 2008 09:52

Re: What is Mills reason for his new model of the electron?

--- In hydrino@..., "minofd2" <minofd2 <at> ...> wrote:
>
> I have been monitoring this site, the Black Light Power site,
> Wikipedia's site and other sites that discuss Mill's hypothesis
> of the electron orbitsphere model.  One of the hydrino study group's
> principles is that hypothesis and theory should be based on hard
> physical data.  I agree with this as the very foundation of modern
> science.  Every since Prince Henry the Navigator, the father of modern
> science who proclaimed "Experiment, Experiment, Experiment",
> science took a momentous leap and changed into the science we know
> today.  This leads me back to Mills work.  What experiment leads him to
> change the model of the electron?  What is the physical observable?  I
> have read though much of what has been written on this subject, and    I
> have found nothing to compel anyone to change our current understanding
> and model of the electron as a point charge, which is a particle.   I
> have worked with electrons in a multitude of experiments in many
> scientific disciplines and have yet to see a reason to believe that an
> electron is not a particle.  My specialty is measurement science (PhD in
> Analytical and Solid State Chemistry).  I have over 25 years of
> experience in this field (beyond the Doctorate).  I have a very curious
> nature.   So if anyone has the data, please share it with the group. 
> Using Hydrinos as an example does not count since none have ever been
> observed.  I believe the Hydrino group is providing a valuable service. 
> However, please stop discussing conspiracies in the scientific community
> to discredit Mills work.  I worked in one of the world's largest
> laboratories and attended many conferences.  Scientists are very
> competitive and have many different beliefs and opinions.  As a group,
> they can't conspire if they wanted to.  Respectfully,  minofd2
>
    Well, there is a sort of experimental evidence, in the stability

(Continue reading)

headers

V | 3 May 2008 07:25

Re: What is Mills reason for his new model of the electron?

Hi minofd2,

As a rank amatuer and non professional I have my own thoughts as to what electrons are. I see them not as
particles. what electrons are is an interference pattern caused by the protons in the nucleus. the proton
creates a wave front coming off of it in a spherical shape, this wavefront has a small vibration to it due to
the movements of the protons. when there is more than one proton in the nucleus it creates two wave fronts
with slightly offset focal points and when they create an interference pattern the actual points where
the wave fronts reinforce each other it creates the illusion of a particle, which is just a charge density
difference. this process also makes it appear the electrons are orbiting or forming a cloud around the
atom. This cloud is nothing but the virtual movement of th
e interference patterns moving around.
All of what we call physical matter is just a travelling wave front of interference patterns that work in
three and four dimensions. the entire earth is that as is every atom. what keeps earth going in space is just
a traveling wavefront of interference patterns. It similar to a hologram. you have the reference beam
created by the sun and the information beam comes at us from all directions in space from all the other stars
to form spherical interference patterns that appear solid.
The frequencies cover such a broad spectrum, that the detail is incredibly fine.
to affect matter just requires counter acting the frequencies of the local area of the hologram.

Take care,
V

------------------------------------

Hydrino Study Group (HSG):
A serious look at the novel theory of Dr. Randell Mills.
Web Site http://www.hydrino.org
Post message: hydrino@...
Subscribe: hydrino-subscribe@...
Unsubscribe: hydrino-unsubscribe@...

(Continue reading)

headers

nherc | 5 May 2008 17:12

Re: Dr. Mills the Future Needs to Be Now

--- In hydrino@..., "minofd2" <minofd2 <at> ...> wrote:
>
> N. Hercun makes several good arguments. If Mr. Mills has had an approach
> to providing a clean source of renewable energy since 1991, what is he
> waiting for? Our planet is dying and is in dire need of a clean source
> of energy. Both the U.S. and China have publicly stated that they will
> not be denied access to oil (meaning they are willing to go to war over
> it).  The most important thing a scientist can do today is to provide
> a clean source of energy. It will help heal our planet and save
> countless millions of lives.  It will also bring Mills all the fane
> and wealth he could ever desire.  His work on the Universe can
> wait.  In fact if the energy issue is not resolved, he may never get
> the chance to finish his work on the theory of everything. 
> 
> It is time to focus. Mr. Mills needs to deliver on his promise of a
> clean and renewable energy.  Mills has yet to produce a single device
> to for manufacturing.  It is time to get off the pot.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> minofd2
>

I truly appreciate all of the (mostly positive) feedback and support
of my initial post here posing some tough questions to Dr. Mills.  It
has been a few years coming.

In any case, I TRULY hope to get a response from Dr. Mill's himself as
this will tell me a lot about the man I have a lot of (wavering)
respect for.

(Continue reading)

headers

mystic606 | 7 May 2008 09:52

Re: Stony Brook Dialogues

--- In hydrino@..., "John E Connett" <jeconnett <at> ...> wrote:
>
> --- In hydrino@..., "john_e_barchak" <john_e_barchak <at> >
> wrote:
> >
> > The 4-space unification of CQM is totally compatible with the long 
> > term goals of C. N Yang (of Yang-Mills fame) who has been greatly 
> > intrigued by the similarities between the math of general relativity

etc., etc., etc.,

> > The famous paper "Concept of Nonintegrable Phase Factors and Global 
> > Formulation of Gauge Fields," Phys. Rev. D12, 3845
> > by Yang appears in the fabulous book "Selected Papers(1945-1980) With 
> > Commentary" by Yang.  This book will provide fodder for my upcoming 
> > posts.
> > 
> > Preparation for Gauge Theory
> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/math-ph/pdf/9902/9902027v3.pdf
> > 
> > http://www.qinfo.org/people/nielsen/blog/yang_mills.pdf
> >
> 
>   Hey, John.  Before you start shoving us all this 
> upcoming fodder, maybe it's time to call your bluff.  Time 
> to do some mud-wrestling.  This forum is about Mills'
> theory, not general relativity.  The page on Hydrino Theory in 
> Wikipedia says that the CQM model of the free electron (a 
> zero-thickness charged spinning disk) cannot be right because 
> it contradicts the virial theorem.  Please explain to me and

(Continue reading)

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

59	December 2008
72	November 2008
101	October 2008
89	September 2008
146	August 2008
118	July 2008
192	June 2008
166	May 2008
67	April 2008
37	March 2008
45	February 2008
80	January 2008
39	December 2007
123	November 2007
36	October 2007
50	September 2007
29	August 2007
90	July 2007
27	June 2007
56	May 2007
71	April 2007
84	March 2007
40	February 2007
53	January 2007
41	December 2006
48	November 2006
119	October 2006
40	September 2006
95	August 2006
278	July 2006
124	June 2006
171	May 2006
186	April 2006
309	March 2006
191	February 2006
307	January 2006
214	December 2005
395	November 2005
56	October 2005
64	September 2005
171	August 2005
35	July 2005
96	June 2005
131	May 2005
115	April 2005
91	March 2005
25	February 2005
63	January 2005
35	December 2004
64	November 2004
454	October 2004
122	September 2004
221	August 2004
188	July 2004
60	June 2004
116	May 2004
137	April 2004
20	March 2004
32	February 2004
41	January 2004
71	December 2003
130	November 2003
239	October 2003
320	September 2003
206	August 2003
162	July 2003
261	June 2003
524	May 2003
118	April 2003
120	March 2003
154	February 2003
193	January 2003
103	December 2002
32	November 2002
31	October 2002
66	September 2002
50	August 2002
92	July 2002
110	June 2002
93	May 2002
176	April 2002
209	March 2002
104	February 2002
207	January 2002
128	December 2001
102	November 2001
37	October 2001
51	September 2001
164	August 2001
521	July 2001
460	June 2001
320	May 2001
103	April 2001
177	March 2001
42	February 2001
124	January 2001
37	December 2000
76	November 2000
194	October 2000
161	September 2000
157	August 2000
33	July 2000
232	June 2000
203	May 2000
157	April 2000
45	March 2000