It was reasonable for mgspan to have queried you on the sources for the claim about Mills and NMR scans.

indeed.... and it is reasonable to ask that someone communicate clearly that they are distinguishing themselves from someone who is placing the burden of responsibility for proof sufficient to meet their own chosen belief / acceptability criteria onto someone else as opposed to making it clear that they fully take responsibility for such proof / belief themselves.

which (thank you mgspan, apologies for referring to you in the 3rd person, now switching to 1st person) you did very well in your second message.

mgspan: as a reverse-engineer who has had to quite literally look for six to eight WEEKS for a single bit change in amongst literally thousands of network packets that, once found, makes a black-box reverse-engineered piece of software talk to another unknown piece of software where it previously would not, i have a completely different mindset and approach from the average person.

please allow me to be colloquially clear: i genuinely do not give a flying **** who mills actually is. i don't even care if his hydrino work is accurate or not. there *is* no one thing on which i will "pass judgement". i look at the algorithms, i look at the data, i look HOLISTICALLY at the entire picture, from as many sources as i can possibly get my hands on, and i apply "weighted statistical probability" WITHOUT JUDGEMENT of each piece of data. it's taken literally years for me to do that, i won't bore you with the sheer tedium of the hundreds of papers i had to read.

if you are unfamiliar with the technique(s) that reverse-engineers apply (it's not exactly a course you can apply for at university), you can look up "Demster Shafer Theory" and "Kolmogorov Complexity", as well as "error bars". Demster Shafer Theory is a generalisation of Bayes Theorem, and allows probabilistic statistical inference to be made based on extremely large sparse data-sets. Kolmogorov Complexity is about entropy, and allows one to assess the "value" of an algorithm.

by combining all these three i am able to assess a particular mathematical model based on its accuracy, simple, and whether it has independent supporting similarity and/or evidence... *without* actually needing to *actually* understand the *actual* mathematics or anything else.

using these criteria, Mill's work - just on the algorithm that he developed for the g/2 electron magnetic moment alone, is OFF THE CHARTS.

*everything* else pales into total insignificance - by several orders of magnitude - and that *includes* the Standard Model due to the insane level of complexity and computational resources needed *and* the 27 "Magic Constants".

i *genuinely* do not care who he is. he could be named Mr Magic Fluff MacDuffin, he could be someone who was locked up in a loony bin for trying nearly successfully to hijack the moon and drop it into Low-Earth Orbit for all i care. he could be someone who managed to steal Fort Knox and i *don't care* because it's *not relevant to the fact that even just one of the formulae he came up with is accurate to within 12dp* and has a rational mathematical trail / explanation with ZERO postulation behind it.

have you *any idea* how significant that is? it's... i cannot emphasise enough how amazing a mathematical achievement the electron g/2 factor work truly is. and he did the same thing for the mass of the electron! and the muon! four of science's most accurately-measured experiments and he got them *EXACTLY RIGHT* to within their experimental uncertainty!

now whether people quotes believe quotes his work into hydrinos or not, that too is again as far as i'm concerned utterly irrelevant! i can't tell you anything about it because i don't care, it's not my primary focus.

i mentioned his work into NMR because it allowed *me* to understand Mill's motivation from a historical perspective. it was part of *my* trail into the "black box named Mills Work".

bottom line is: you, yourself, need to choose your own criteria by which you make decisions as to what to spend your time and energy to investigate, and to what purpose. is your life's purpose and reason for being here on this forum to choose whether to *BELIEVE* in Dr Mill's work? is your life's purpose here to CHOOSE whether to spend your time understanding his work? or is your life's purpose here to choose whether to CONTRIBUTE to that work? all of these are very starkly different questions.

my purpose in being here is something i am very clear about: it is my desire to "see completed" a particle physic theory that has zero postulation and has an exact and precise match for every single known particle to within current experimental uncertainty, and accurately predicts the existence of new ones. Dr Mill's work - nothing to do with Hydrinos in ANY WAY - is the closest that i have been able to find which stands a chance of forming the basis of the theory that i desire to "see completed" (note the very deliberate and very very careful 3rd person emphasis and wording, there).

along the way i hope to have some very interesting conversations, both here and on other forums across the world.