I do not have enough knowledge of physics to say I could give Mill's hydrino theory any credence, but then, I have yet to see unequivocal proof of dark matter, either.

So we could see this wind up quickly. Either BLP announce they've found an unexpected insurmountable problem (and exit stage left with the research money) or they change the world in the next few months.

There is no such thing as a "hydrino" - it's simply fiction. You can't make up your own science - no matter how slick and appealing - and then expect things to work in real life.

And to those so certain of quantum theory, as well as regular visitor to Advanced Concepts, may I humbly point out that there's no actual Force of Gravity - therefore no such thing as Gravitons (a requirement of quantum field theory) or the possibility of anti-gravity. Gravity is an observed force, not an actual one. The actual "force" is the distortion of spacetime from energy and it's condensed form - matter. What we observe as gravity is the movement of energy (and its condensed form) through spacetime.

Your second statement is exactly what happened when the theory of electron shells was replaced by electron probability lobes as statistics, probability and quantum theory began replacing math and physics as our "understanding" of the Universe.Yet after 100yrs of "making up science", it's become apparent again that electrons ARE shells - the science and proven function of spintronics depends upon it. Likewise most of Quantum Theory is fallacious, based upon malleable mathematics and supported only be baseless leaps in "reasoning".

1)... It's not that GR is right and QM is wrong - it's that they are two different explanations for the same phenomenon from different viewpoints. We know both theories will need to give somewhat before they can be unified. 2) EG loop quantum gravity suggests that particles are just distortions in spacetime that happen to have knotted up (particles and anti particles are just complementary knot pairs). Gravitation is the bulk outcome of many planck-scale distortions. Cheers, Martin

3) I'm not sure what you mean by "replacing math and physics". Quantum mechanics is certainly still governed by mathematics, and generally requires more of it than classical physics.4) It is also the foundation for all modern physics. ... Any theory that tries to describe the world has to reproduce the results of the experiments that QM accounts for.5) In particular, Bell's inequality (entanglement) which has been experimentally confirmed many times means that it is impossible to describe the universe with a classical theory. You HAVE to either introduce quantum mechanics or alternatively something much more complicated in order to describe the world. ... Attempting to replace quantum mechanics with a classical theory is doomed to fail from the start.

Science is about coming up with models capable of making predictions, and falsifying models whose predictions end up being false.

it might be to protect humanity from itself.when if just one terrorist, psychopath, intoxicated or otherwise disturbed or careless person gets access they can literally destroy a building, a city. a state, a nation, a continent and even all life on earth? if you had made such a discovery how would you safeguard it?

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer. Nuts don't need anti-gravity weapons to kill people.

Quote from: Nilof on 02/16/2014 06:09 pmScience is about coming up with models capable of making predictions, and falsifying models whose predictions end up being false.There's plenty of science which is not predictive in any way.

What do you have in mind?Virtually every fact or hypothesis has implications. If A is true, then B cannot be true, or C will behave in a certain manner, and so on. These implications predict that if you test these propositions, you test the truthfulness of A.

(snip).. and there's whole fields of science where "test" has no sensible definition.Heck, Mathematics? (snip)