Apparently it is possible to “unlist” a post, which makes it close to invisible. Since Brett Holverstott has chosen to hid his comment, I will post what I wrote in response, since a response to an “unlisted” post is also unlisted.
Perhaps you could provide some references that you consider particularly strong. I have seen some articles that claim spectragrahic evidence, but there are others that claim that these results are misinterpreted.
If the hydrino state actually exists and Mills’ process can convert hydrogen into a hydrino state, it should be possible to provide strong experimental results.
For example, start with some known and measurable amount of hydrogen, convert it to the hydrino state, then re-run the measurement. If I understand Mills’ claim correctly some hydrogen will be converted to the hydrino state and will be “dark matter” and will not be measurable. It will, in effect disappear (although it will still have mass).
Then there is the claim that Mills has a better model than quantum mechanics. Such a model would have to encompass a wide variety of quantum behavior which has been measured again and again and is part of our everyday world (e.g., in computer chip transistors, photosynthesis and chemical bonds). This includes quantum superposition, quantum teleportation and quantum entanglement.
I have not waded through your book or Mills’ book to evaluate whether the theory does, in fact, explain what quantum theory does. I will be willing to invest the time that it would take to do this when there is strong experimental evidence for Mills’ theory. The sort of evidence that exists for quantum theory.
In your reply to my comment you did not address the issue of Mills’ claims over almost twenty years that the hydrogen to hydrino process can be used to build energy producing systems. Millions of dollars have been invested in Mills’ companies. So far these energy systems have not been shipped to end users.
Mills’ theoretical claims are heavily intertwined with his claims about energy production. Even if there is no accepted experimental evidence for hydrinos, energy producing systems that are delivered to end users will make everyone take a serious look at Mills’ hydrino model and Mills’ claims about replacing quantum mechanics.
The idea that there is some quantum cabal that is trying to suppress Mills’ work is misplaced. There is an old saying: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far extraordinary proof has not been provided. When it is, people will change their view.
The human mind has a hard time with certain aspects of quantum theory. However, this theory has been extremely robust in explaining many decades of experimental results.
You are, of course, welcome to block me. That will hide my articles from you, but not others. Nor will it block my comment on your original article to those who read the article. Blocking me will suggest to readers that you don’t want to address dissenting opinion (of which there is a great deal when it comes to Mills).
