In his later years, Einstein was asked his thoughts about the huge numbers
of short-lived heavy particles, kaons, pions, quarks, mesons, etc. found
using high-energy accelerators and enormous amounts of time and money. These
physicists thought they were finding important basic matter. The
interviewers wanted to know what Einstein thought of their work.
Einstein was a careful thinker and not given to theatrics so he was very
serious when he replied, "I would just like to know what an electron is."
During the early investigations of Atomic and Sub-Atomic physics, it
initially appeared that these miniature worlds might mimic the celestial
one. A molecule's core might be ringed with miniature satellite-like
elements - electrons.
Unfortunately, all the planetary models fell apart for numerous reasons. And
physics ground to a semi-standstill, since no one had a complete
understanding of the single most important component: the electron.
The only model that seemed to "fit" -- for the Hydrogen Atom, and, less-so
for anything else -- was a model based on Schroedinger's Wave Equation.
But even though Schroedinger - himself ridiculed the idea through his famous
Schroedinger's Cat anomaly, this model seemed to be the "only game in town."
And Quantum Mechanics (QM) was born.
However, with QM -- just like with Ptolemaic models of the universe -- it
was impossible to obtain correct calculations unless empirically derived
(and hence non-physical) "parameters" were added to the equations. In my
last Physical Research position, at EiMac, we called those: "fudge factors,"
At last count, there are some 20+ non-physical parameters that must be
applied in order for calculations to match measured data.
And this severely limits the predictive capabilities of QM
Clearly, QM is not a complete model of the Atomic/Sub-Atomic world.
That unhappy situation has changed. And that is because of the
well-established principle that
Experimental Data Trumps Theory.
In simple terms, this means that, if measured (and verified) Experimental
results are in conflict, and especially dramatic conflict, with results
explained by the current theory, then the current theory must be either
discarded or modified.
So. please examine the information found at this address:
http://brilliantlightpower.com/suncell/
and this one :
http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/
At these locations, you will find videos showing dramatic amounts of power
being produced by a catalytic process that transforms H2O - plain water -
into huge amounts of radiant energy. The only other by-product is hydrinos.
You will also find links here:
http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-report/ to numerous peer-reviewed
experiments that also (in less dramatic fashion) yield energy outputs that
are not consistent with *any* conventional chemical reactions.
None of these results are even remotely consistent with QM. All of these are
predicted as consequences Of Dr. Randell Mills' model of the electron.
So. for those that have accepted QM as a valid theory, please comment on any
or all of the following:
1. Identify the experimental data that you believe to be in error and refute
it using whatever empirical evidence you choose to present.
2. Identify any QM explanations for the excess power output of *any* (but
especially the "Bright Light" plasma results) of the power generation
experiments contained at this site.
3. Identify any QM explanations for the "blips" of spectra that are
consistent with hydrino transitions, but not consistent with any other known
entities.
Extra Credit: Please present reasons (creativity is rewarded) for why QM
should not be completely discarded.
All the best,
Bill