--- Hi Robin Most provocative.
I think the biggest problem you will have with mainstream criticism is the idea that all circularly polarized photons have the same angular momentum irrespective of their "energy." As much as I like the idea, there seems to be an inherent contradiction there. Everything seems to hinge on that notion, correct? What are some of the further ramifications of it? That is actually the most appealing part of your hypothesis to my thinking (therefore, I hope you are correct, even if you do not agree with the following interpretation of it). Let me nibble around the edges one at a time ... and the main difference on a first reading, and the one you will probably not agree with - is that the underlying energy source would need to be ZPE. To keep this thread simpler, let me ask a few basic questions, one at a time, to see if it leads there. Is the following a correct verbalization of the practical differences of your view with the Mills theory on the first drop to n=2: The orbital radius drops more severely in shrinkage radius (by the square), and therefore, its effective spatial volume is already 1/64 of the original (with implications for mean free path)- but since its binding energy to its nucleus does not change, and its angular momentum is less, even with the tighter-orbital, the hydrino can still lose that electron easily to a bare proton? If so, this tends to present a situation where in a hydrogen plasma, getting to a lower shrinkage (than the first step) is most difficult and improbable, no? The reason would be that any free proton will continually "steal" the lower orbital electron of any adjacent hydrino (as often as half the time they interact perhaps). That would be because they have a near identical binding potential yet the bare proton would have electrostatic attraction to the near-field of the hydrino, and this happens often in time, due to the spatial proximity of the tighter orbital. And of course, bare protons come "free" easily, even in ambient water on a femtosecond scale; therefore, even the in the lowest temperature plasma or even non-plasma, there will be "temporarily" free potons. What I am attempting to get at here (crudely) is the correleation between QM space and time on the sub-angstom spatial scale and the femtosecond time scale However, a bare proton would not necessarily "steal" any hydrino electron in such a way that it remains in the same orbital, which is unique to the initial formative conditions. Plus, the mean free path for this "stealing reaction" would be incredibly small in a normal plasma, therefore the net result should appear nearly instantaneously as "reinflation". That is probably why Mills needs extremely thin (high vacuum conditions in millitorr range) to get to deeper shrinkage levels (assuming he does get there with decent probability). The major point here is whether the electron, once "stolen" from a new hydrino, assumes the normal Bohr radius. Since it cannot retain any of the Lissajous orbital momentum and special formative conditions, IMHO - it effectively appears to "reinflate" most of the time. Occasionally it could shrink even more, but that would demand new conditions which are unknown and most likely of low probability. If this is correct so far, then it would appear that the energy given up initially must be be supplied by ZPE on the reinflation. If not, where does it come from? Jones > Hi, > > I have placed a pdf file at > http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/theory-paper.pdf, > and would be grateful for > any constructive criticism. > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >
