I dont see the slightest chance that Mathis model is ever going to be deeply studied unless he invents a new technology with it. Reading Mathis invokes the urge to punch him hard in the face in every physicist looking into it just because of his arrogant writing style

Sadly, I agree with you about his chances, even though his theory can tackle "the weird stuff that QM was conjured into being to tackle" like the double-slit experiment, etc. I have encouraged him to try to get involved in LENR, but so far without success. I realize that mainstream physicists like to think they have a monopoly on arrogance. I actually enjoy his tone and find his acerbic barbs against the illogic and absurdity of mainstream theories hilarious and entertaining. But to each his own.

You might say that establishment physicists have earned the right to be arrogant, but he hasn't. I disagree. His older papers don't have that tone; they tend to be more straightforward. If you look for example at his early work on relativity I don't think you'll find that. But here's the thing: the guy spent a good 15 years digging into established, bedrock physics equations and keeps finding one mistake after another after another. Like with Einstein's special relativity paper, he found a very simply algebraic error that led to a slight change in the calculation of gamma. And then he started to put QM and other theories under inspection showing how absurd many of their postulates are and how many leaps of logic are built into the theories. He has likewise showed how case-closed experiments have been badly interpreted. So at this point, yeah, he has very little respect for mainstream science, and it shows. But he has earned his right to be contemptuous. It might not serve the goal of gaining a wider following, but he doesn't view science as a popularity contest.

The size of an atom is on the order of Ångström. 100 times that is 10nm, today technologies discuss 5nm techniques for chip making and also there is plenty of "photos" of atoms that tell the story that the size is indeed on the order of Ångström. So I think that Miles is wrong here.

Geez, you really should try to read and understand his argument before saying he's wrong. And also show where he's wrong. I wish more people would do that. First of all, do you even understand what the "5nm technique" is for chip making? Or what they call the 5nm node? The "5nm" doesn't actually refer to any of the dimensions of the transistor. For example, the 14nm node has 20nm gate length, 42nm height and 42nm pitch. And although the 5nm node is still in early development stage, the wikipedia page on it indicates it will have between 32-44nm gate pitch and 20-32nm interconnect pitch (compared to 70 and 52 for the 14nm process). One article I found suggested the gate length could be as short as 10nm. In short, try as I might, I could not find anything suggesting the the 5nm chip has any element that is actually 5nm. If anything, the 5nm should refer to one of the dimensions of the channel that the electrons travel through. And since the channel is an empty space, its size is less limited by the size of the atom.

But all of this is rather beside the point. "Images" of anything at the atomic level (including the graphics you pasted) are not photographs, they are instead images constructed from data that comes from electron microscopes. The algorithms that turn that data into images and estimates of size are based, ultimately, on Rutherford's scattering equation (adjusted for Beta particles rather than Alpha particles as in Rutherford's original experiment). But because that equation doesn't take into account gravity at the quantum level, the data from alpha particles and electron scattering have been incorrectly interpreted:

"I have discovered that the math used to analyze scattering is incomplete. I say incomplete rather than false because it is correct as far as it goes. It simply fails to take into account the presence of gravity at the atomic level. This means that although its manipulations are done correctly, its assumptions are faulty. Rutherford assumes that the force can be expressed as the Coulomb force, and that therefore it is solely an electrostatic force. I will show that this is false.

"The intent of this paper is not to return to the Thomson model or to throw into question the usefulness of the Coulomb equation. As I admit above, the Coulomb equation allowed Rutherford to estimate the correct answer, so it must be correct as a heuristic device over some energies, at the very least. I am also not intending to question the experimental findings of the last century....

"If the force is not only electrostatic, then the mechanics cannot be what we have assumed it is. If we mis-assign forces, we end up with wrong numbers when we start calculating down from those forces. In these scattering equations, we are not calculating energies or forces from lengths or times, we are calculating lengths or times from energies or forces. Logically, that is upside down, and it is a dangerous mathematical manipulation. It requires an assumption of complete knowledge of the field mechanics, so that we can solve down in the correct way. Since I have shown that we do not have a complete knowledge of the field mechanics, we should not be able to solve down with such complete assurance. In fact, Rutherford and those who followed him have solved down using false assumptions, and have thereby gotten the wrong numbers for their lengths."

The results basically uses the following facts: 1) a sphere consisting of loops of spherical geodesics (large circles), all at the same velocity of constant resulting density. The loops added together yield the correct spin of the electron. To calculate the kinetic energy, use the velocities in the loop, not the resultants!! Assume the usual electrostatics. The mass is evenly distributed on the loops and results in the electronic mass....

The basic assumption of Mills is that there is a set of great circles or geodesics with mass flow that covers the sphere such that 1) the charge is constant and sum to the electron charge. With an even mass density so that the total mass equals the electron mass and also each great circle or loop have the same velocity, even charge, radius and even mass. Not only the set of loops have each a angular momentum that sum up to the spin of the electron.

I fail to see how this theory counts as classical. And by that I mean mechanical. If the electron is a particle, how can it exist as a sphere or geodisic or loop or whatever? How can a loop have an angular momentum or velocity? How can the properties of the electron be assigned to these geodisics and loops except by mathematical fiat? Don't properties like angular momentum and velocity belong to the electron? How can the great circle have a mass that sums to the mass of the electron?

I'm sorry but this is all gobbledygook to me. At the end of the day I believe Mills is guilty of many of the same things he accuses mainstream science of being. Although he has moved away from QM, his theory is still far from mechanical and he is guilty of the same kind of heuristic approach as QM theorists, even if his starting postulates are "classical."