1

##### New Physics for Space Technology / Re: Blacklight Power

« Last post by**Bob012345**on

*»*

**Today**at 07:11 PMOf course, it depends on what you mean by quantum. Schrodingers equation does a very poor job with the ground state of Helium.Simply false, please stop making things up.HF methods amount to curve fitting with many arbitrary basis functions.The solutions to the Schrodinger equation generally can't be written in elementary functions, so scientists use approximate methods to do some analysis, but this has no bearing on the actual solution.Mills model does describe simple systems correct.Mills claims the electrons live on fixed radius spheres. The data shows this is untrue. The pictures that you attached do not seem consistent with his claims, but do seem consistent with standard quantum. This is where it seems like he is making things up so badly that it is hard to see how he could do so without realizing that his statements are straight up false. This is why people start thinking about words like "fraud."

The image paper doesn't resolve anything. Mills model has the same complex patterns projected on the bubble which would show up by microscopy techniques. Mills shows the same thing. Even if you considered Mills model as just an 'engineering' model, it still would be useful.Mills is hard. It takes more than glancing.See what as58 said. Mills' theory is basically a bunch of non-sequiters, it isn't worth more than a glance.If the SunCell is developed and deployed, that should convince you Mills did discover something real even if you don't like his math.And that something would still almost certainly not be the hydrino.P.S. It's not Mills theory, but classical physics can now reproduce those weird 'quantum' phenomenon including tunneling and double slit experiments and even quantum orbital patterns. Nature may indeed be deterministic and not probabilistic at its core. Electrons may indeed be small classical systems as Mills believes.You seem to entirely misunderstand everything you just referred to. Analogous classical systems help make the quantum seem less weird to human intuition, but don't make quantum be equivalent to classical. Whether quantum is deterministic or probabilistic is undetermined, but phenomena like entanglement, which is clearly demonstrated in tests of Bell's inequality, show that quantum effects are very real in a way no classical theory could describe.

Quantum and Classical are invented distinctions while Nature just is. Since once purely quantum phenomenon are now known to have classical analogues, I wouldn't be surprised if even entanglement has macroscopic analogues too. Mills' claims his model can explain all quantum effects including so-called entanglement. So no, I didn't misunderstand what I read. Mills isn't the only neo-Classicist. But of quantum theories, at least the deBroglie- Bohm version of is based in reality.

Regarding the issue of computing, one can make errors small with wavefunctions made of dozens of parameters that you make up but it's a mathematically absurd wavefunction that takes enormous work to compute. Mills can get close on one page with exact functions which indicates he may have a better model. They are all models.

Regarding the previous discussion on the classical wave equation and the demand that Mills solutions pop out of it, it occurred to me that in thinking of the physics of bubbles, soap bubbles exist, surface waves can exist on the bubbles which are the solution to the classical wave equation yet we don't demand the bubble pop out of the classical wave equation, we construct the bubble by other means, a balance between pressure and tension as a mills has done equivalently.

Would your world explode if major scientists confirmed it was hydrino's?