Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 05:30 pmI think you are mistaken when you claim thousands of people have studied "this kind of thing" and use that as a statement to prove your case that hydrino's simply don't exist because they would have been found. I can't accept your argument of equivalence. You can't find below ground states if you already know below ground states do not exist. You apparently have no concept of the number of people doing scientific research. We have discovered many things that we didn't know exist before we discovered them. Claiming that doing so is impossible is simply wrong. Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 05:30 pmI sense the very possibility that hydrino's exist and were missed offends your rosy view of science. You seem to be offended by any implication that Mills is wrong. The only difference between this and a pot/kettle/black situation is that you have effectively no supporting evidence, and there is a lot of evidence against Mills that you continue to ignore.Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 05:30 pmIt will be interesting to hear your reaction when hydrino's are either confirmed and accepted by scientists you trust. What would you say?Accepted by scientists implies that strong evidence exists, and every reasonable person here would also accept it.Now a simple question for you: Given the lack of sound theory, the lack of any supporting evidence, the replications that failed to replicate claimed power levels, and the mountain of historical science that conflicts with the concept, why do you still support Mills?Relatedly, why are you convinced that replications exist when there is no evidence that any replications exist?
I think you are mistaken when you claim thousands of people have studied "this kind of thing" and use that as a statement to prove your case that hydrino's simply don't exist because they would have been found. I can't accept your argument of equivalence. You can't find below ground states if you already know below ground states do not exist.
I sense the very possibility that hydrino's exist and were missed offends your rosy view of science.
It will be interesting to hear your reaction when hydrino's are either confirmed and accepted by scientists you trust. What would you say?
I've not seen any answers here regarding the megawatt power Mills gets out of his reaction or the extreme UV spectra.
I don't know where you get your supposed facts. One (supposedly) null test by NASA of one type of hydrino reaction doesn't disprove hydrino's exist.
Later tests by other people, whom for whatever reason you discount or disqualify, does show evidence. I can understand you not agreeing the tests are convincing but don't keep claiming no one else has tested this. That's simply not the case.
I cannot accept your assertions as valid statements of fact so I can't accept them as valid reasons for not supporting Mills' claims.
But maybe this helps a little. When I listen to a critic such as yourself, I compare that to what Mills himself says in print and in person. I find his arguments and the way he presents his case far, far more compelling that I do your counter arguments. In science, it boils down to straightforward scientific arguments rather than numbers of people, personalities or even previously accepted theory. At this point, Mills convinces me by his scientific arguments, copious amounts of experimental data and tenacious pursuit of truth while your counter arguments don't.
It is a fact that Mills' work has been highly ridiculed in public by many famous scientists. I do attack those people for poisoning the well based on their gut feeling rather than objective scientific analysis. Specifically, Bob Park, who famously jibbed hydrino's can't exist because below ground states are like being "south of the South Pole". That's not a professional dispassionate discussion of the facts. That has happened and it's an embarrassment to science. So no, I do understand science. Science is done by people and people have faults and make mistakes. They form cultures and exhibit biases. They can have closed minds.
Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 06:26 pmIt is a fact that Mills' work has been highly ridiculed in public by many famous scientists. I do attack those people for poisoning the well based on their gut feeling rather than objective scientific analysis. Specifically, Bob Park, who famously jibbed hydrino's can't exist because below ground states are like being "south of the South Pole". That's not a professional dispassionate discussion of the facts. That has happened and it's an embarrassment to science. So no, I do understand science. Science is done by people and people have faults and make mistakes. They form cultures and exhibit biases. They can have closed minds.The point is, since 1600s and especially since ~1900, scientists _will not_ dismiss the evidence, however contradictory it is to currently accepted theories, when it is independently reproduced. This was happening centuries ago, but not today. Facts speak louder that words.But Mills need to provide these facts: he should tell others exactly how to duplicate experiments, others should succeed in doing so (and interpretation of results should match what Mills says it is, not "well, we got spectra, and after analyzing it this looks completely normal, no unexpected lines")._Anything else_ does not cut it. No amount of flashy web pages, videos and graphs produced by Mills would help. No amount of defensive blog and forum posts. And alleging that there is a great cabal which suppresses evidence of hydrinos is not only not helping, it quickly destroys whatever credibility remains (since that is exactly what frauds do, and honest scientists do not).
Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 06:26 pmI've not seen any answers here regarding the megawatt power Mills gets out of his reaction or the extreme UV spectra. What is it in these spectra that points to anything like hydrinos? Why couldn't the spectral lines be from inner shell transitions in some other atoms?
Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 06:43 pmI don't know where you get your supposed facts. One (supposedly) null test by NASA of one type of hydrino reaction doesn't disprove hydrino's exist.Nothing "supposedly" about it. And it clearly demonstrates that Mills has large experimental errors, to the point that his basic competency is called into question.Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 06:43 pmLater tests by other people, whom for whatever reason you discount or disqualify, does show evidence. I can understand you not agreeing the tests are convincing but don't keep claiming no one else has tested this. That's simply not the case.I discount them because as best I can tell they don't exist. I will stop claiming this when you point to a single case of someone testing this with positive results.Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 06:43 pmI cannot accept your assertions as valid statements of fact so I can't accept them as valid reasons for not supporting Mills' claims.I cannot accept your assertions as valid statements of fact so I can't accept them as valid reasons for not supporting Mills' claims.See how this works? Although I am not sure what assertions I have made that I didn't provide supporting evidence for, meanwhile you have not provided any evidence.Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 06:43 pmBut maybe this helps a little. When I listen to a critic such as yourself, I compare that to what Mills himself says in print and in person. I find his arguments and the way he presents his case far, far more compelling that I do your counter arguments. In science, it boils down to straightforward scientific arguments rather than numbers of people, personalities or even previously accepted theory. At this point, Mills convinces me by his scientific arguments, copious amounts of experimental data and tenacious pursuit of truth while your counter arguments don't.Name one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.
It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.
Quote from: meberbs on 06/20/2017 07:21 pmName one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.I've read Mills book. Almost any page is far more convincing that anything you have said. But the spectrum, and the ro-vibration data is a gold standard that perfectly fits hydrino transition. All you have done is claim Mills hasn't convinced you. I reject your claim of fundamental inconsistencies in Mills work. I reject your argument that Mills should reinterpret his experimental discovery, probably the discovery of the century and worthy of a Nobel prize, because you claim his math is inconsistent.
Name one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.
Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 01:16 amIt's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.That is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of opinion. Whether his treatment was mistreatment or not is a fundamentally subjective issue. Whether you consider it mistreatment or not, you should be able to recognize the differences between questions on which the answers are objective and questions on which the answers are subjective.Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 01:41 amQuote from: meberbs on 06/20/2017 07:21 pmName one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.I've read Mills book. Almost any page is far more convincing that anything you have said. But the spectrum, and the ro-vibration data is a gold standard that perfectly fits hydrino transition. All you have done is claim Mills hasn't convinced you. I reject your claim of fundamental inconsistencies in Mills work. I reject your argument that Mills should reinterpret his experimental discovery, probably the discovery of the century and worthy of a Nobel prize, because you claim his math is inconsistent.You're missing the point. It's not your opinion versus that of meberbs. It's your opinion versus the opinion of the entire scientific establishment. meberbs was quoting the fundamental inconsistencies from a reputable expert in the field who did the analysis and concluded Mills' theories are unsound.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/21/2017 01:59 amQuote from: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 01:16 amIt's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.That is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of opinion. Whether his treatment was mistreatment or not is a fundamentally subjective issue. Whether you consider it mistreatment or not, you should be able to recognize the differences between questions on which the answers are objective and questions on which the answers are subjective.Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 01:41 amQuote from: meberbs on 06/20/2017 07:21 pmName one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.I've read Mills book. Almost any page is far more convincing that anything you have said. But the spectrum, and the ro-vibration data is a gold standard that perfectly fits hydrino transition. All you have done is claim Mills hasn't convinced you. I reject your claim of fundamental inconsistencies in Mills work. I reject your argument that Mills should reinterpret his experimental discovery, probably the discovery of the century and worthy of a Nobel prize, because you claim his math is inconsistent.You're missing the point. It's not your opinion versus that of meberbs. It's your opinion versus the opinion of the entire scientific establishment. meberbs was quoting the fundamental inconsistencies from a reputable expert in the field who did the analysis and concluded Mills' theories are unsound.I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke, radii led with misunderstanding and errors. If he represents the whole community it just proves my point.
Quote from: as58 on 06/20/2017 06:59 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 06:26 pmI've not seen any answers here regarding the megawatt power Mills gets out of his reaction or the extreme UV spectra. What is it in these spectra that points to anything like hydrinos? Why couldn't the spectral lines be from inner shell transitions in some other atoms?Because the conditions to make those transitions are not there while the conditions theorized for hydrino transitions are. The spectrum has EUV continuum radiation. It's a signature of the hydrino transition.
I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke, radii led with misunderstanding and errors. If he represents the whole community it just proves my point. And Mills mistreatment involved back room underhanded dealings to revoke a patent already granted when Peter Zimmerman and Bob Park harassed the head of the USPTO. Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke,
radii led with misunderstanding and errors.
And Mills mistreatment involved back room underhanded dealings to revoke a patent already granted when Peter Zimmerman and Bob Park harassed the head of the USPTO.
Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year.
But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
Quote from: gospacex on 06/20/2017 07:39 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 06:26 pmIt is a fact that Mills' work has been highly ridiculed in public by many famous scientists. I do attack those people for poisoning the well based on their gut feeling rather than objective scientific analysis. Specifically, Bob Park, who famously jibbed hydrino's can't exist because below ground states are like being "south of the South Pole". That's not a professional dispassionate discussion of the facts. That has happened and it's an embarrassment to science. So no, I do understand science. Science is done by people and people have faults and make mistakes. They form cultures and exhibit biases. They can have closed minds.The point is, since 1600s and especially since ~1900, scientists _will not_ dismiss the evidence, however contradictory it is to currently accepted theories, when it is independently reproduced. This was happening centuries ago, but not today. Facts speak louder that words.But Mills need to provide these facts: he should tell others exactly how to duplicate experiments, others should succeed in doing so (and interpretation of results should match what Mills says it is, not "well, we got spectra, and after analyzing it this looks completely normal, no unexpected lines")._Anything else_ does not cut it. No amount of flashy web pages, videos and graphs produced by Mills would help. No amount of defensive blog and forum posts. And alleging that there is a great cabal which suppresses evidence of hydrinos is not only not helping, it quickly destroys whatever credibility remains (since that is exactly what frauds do, and honest scientists do not).Science and scientists have and do make mistakes. It's the process of correction that defines the scientific process, not the adamant defense of whatever is the status quo. It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.
Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 02:45 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/21/2017 01:59 amQuote from: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 01:16 amIt's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.That is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of opinion. Whether his treatment was mistreatment or not is a fundamentally subjective issue. Whether you consider it mistreatment or not, you should be able to recognize the differences between questions on which the answers are objective and questions on which the answers are subjective.Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 01:41 amQuote from: meberbs on 06/20/2017 07:21 pmName one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.I've read Mills book. Almost any page is far more convincing that anything you have said. But the spectrum, and the ro-vibration data is a gold standard that perfectly fits hydrino transition. All you have done is claim Mills hasn't convinced you. I reject your claim of fundamental inconsistencies in Mills work. I reject your argument that Mills should reinterpret his experimental discovery, probably the discovery of the century and worthy of a Nobel prize, because you claim his math is inconsistent.You're missing the point. It's not your opinion versus that of meberbs. It's your opinion versus the opinion of the entire scientific establishment. meberbs was quoting the fundamental inconsistencies from a reputable expert in the field who did the analysis and concluded Mills' theories are unsound.I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke, radii led with misunderstanding and errors. If he represents the whole community it just proves my point.Rathke's analysis was published in the New Journal of Physics, a peer-reviewed publication. So his analysis was reviewed by independent experts who agreed with his conclusions.http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PHY/ACT-RPR-PHY-Rathke-hydrino.pdf
Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 01:16 amQuote from: gospacex on 06/20/2017 07:39 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 06:26 pmIt is a fact that Mills' work has been highly ridiculed in public by many famous scientists. I do attack those people for poisoning the well based on their gut feeling rather than objective scientific analysis. Specifically, Bob Park, who famously jibbed hydrino's can't exist because below ground states are like being "south of the South Pole". That's not a professional dispassionate discussion of the facts. That has happened and it's an embarrassment to science. So no, I do understand science. Science is done by people and people have faults and make mistakes. They form cultures and exhibit biases. They can have closed minds.The point is, since 1600s and especially since ~1900, scientists _will not_ dismiss the evidence, however contradictory it is to currently accepted theories, when it is independently reproduced. This was happening centuries ago, but not today. Facts speak louder that words.But Mills need to provide these facts: he should tell others exactly how to duplicate experiments, others should succeed in doing so (and interpretation of results should match what Mills says it is, not "well, we got spectra, and after analyzing it this looks completely normal, no unexpected lines")._Anything else_ does not cut it. No amount of flashy web pages, videos and graphs produced by Mills would help. No amount of defensive blog and forum posts. And alleging that there is a great cabal which suppresses evidence of hydrinos is not only not helping, it quickly destroys whatever credibility remains (since that is exactly what frauds do, and honest scientists do not).Science and scientists have and do make mistakes. It's the process of correction that defines the scientific process, not the adamant defense of whatever is the status quo. It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.Yeah, more defensive posts, and more accusations that there are evil forces at play. I'm telling you, this is not what needs to be done if hydrino theory wants to get traction.Flat Earthers are also routinely "terribly mistreated".How dare we to attack their theory? How dare we mock them? So what that it contradicts current knowledge? We should keep an open mind! Conspiracy!
Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 01:16 amI hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke, radii led with misunderstanding and errors. If he represents the whole community it just proves my point. And Mills mistreatment involved back room underhanded dealings to revoke a patent already granted when Peter Zimmerman and Bob Park harassed the head of the USPTO. Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.Okay... just jumping in here. Please provide evidence to support your claims. Patent numbers, Links to articles, publications etc. So I can make up my own mind about what you say. If you do not, I will have to assume you are a conspiracy crackpot with an axe to grind. Mods. Sorry, I know this post probably falls outside the 'be awesome to each other' goal of NSF but this post from Bob0 really got my blood pressure up!
Quote from: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 01:30 amQuote from: as58 on 06/20/2017 06:59 pmQuote from: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 06:26 pmI've not seen any answers here regarding the megawatt power Mills gets out of his reaction or the extreme UV spectra. What is it in these spectra that points to anything like hydrinos? Why couldn't the spectral lines be from inner shell transitions in some other atoms?Because the conditions to make those transitions are not there while the conditions theorized for hydrino transitions are. The spectrum has EUV continuum radiation. It's a signature of the hydrino transition.And how do we know that? What exactly were the conditions where the spectra were measured?
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
Mills has published peer reviewed papers also. So his theory was reviewed by independent experts who deemed the papers worthy of publication. Rathke made basic math errors in his analysis and misunderstands Mills' theory both of which mills pointed out and really all he says it that Mills' theory is not quantum mechanics. Of course it's not! But Rathke implied that means it's wrong. So why should I or anyone compare the hours Rathke spent on his paper vs. The lifetime Mills spent on his work? There is no comparison. Science always advances by the guy with the new idea, not the shill who shoots them down. Here is a link to a Scientific American article that mentioned Mills works last year and has a recent Rathke quote. It seems he's hedging just a bit on Mills energy creating reactions while still claiming Mills theory could not predict them. It will be interesting to see what he says when he admits hydrino's exist. Perhaps he will argue Mills doesn't deserve any credit for a mere lucky guess. It also put the NASA report in context, it wasn't a refutation, they did see some positive results, just not enough to stop what they were doing and focus on that.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-fusion-lives-experiments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/Mills claims Rathke made nine errors.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253308848_Mills_Rebuttal_of_Rathke_Regarding_Hydrinos
really all he says it that Mills' theory is not quantum mechanics. Of course it's not! But Rathke implied that means it's wrong. So why should I or anyone compare the hours Rathke spent on his paper vs. The lifetime Mills spent on his work? There is no comparison.
“I think there is general agreement that the theory Dr. Mills has put forward as the basis for his claims is inconsistent and not capable of making experimental predictions,” Rathke continues. “Now, one could ask the question, ‘Could he have been lucky and stumbled upon some energy source that experimentally just works by following a wrong theoretical approach?’ ”