Author Topic: Blacklight Power  (Read 190077 times)

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #240 on: 06/20/2017 06:43 pm »
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.
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.

I 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.

It 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 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.

« Last Edit: 06/20/2017 06:55 pm by Bob012345 »

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 186
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #241 on: 06/20/2017 06:59 pm »
I'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?

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #242 on: 06/20/2017 07:21 pm »
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.
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.

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 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.

I 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.

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.
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.
« Last Edit: 06/20/2017 07:25 pm by meberbs »

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #243 on: 06/20/2017 07:39 pm »
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.

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).

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #244 on: 06/21/2017 01:16 am »
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 06/21/2017 01:18 am by Bob012345 »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #245 on: 06/21/2017 01:30 am »
I'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.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #246 on: 06/21/2017 01:41 am »
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.
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.

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 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.

I 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.

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.
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.

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.


Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #247 on: 06/21/2017 01:59 am »
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.

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.

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.

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.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #248 on: 06/21/2017 02:45 am »
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.

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.

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.

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. 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.
« Last Edit: 06/21/2017 02:51 am by Bob012345 »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #249 on: 06/21/2017 02:52 am »
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.

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.

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.

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

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 186
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #250 on: 06/21/2017 03:09 am »
I'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?

Offline CharlieWildman

  • Member
  • Posts: 53
  • A small island north of Seattle
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #251 on: 06/21/2017 03:30 am »
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.

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!



Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #252 on: 06/21/2017 04:43 am »
I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke,
You accuse scientists of abusing Mills when they raise technical objections, yet you can put down Rathke by referring to his analysis as a "joke."

radii led with misunderstanding and errors.
Name one error. And requiring a wavefunction to actually be square integrable, so that it has physical meaning, or noting that the universe has 3 macroscopic spatial dimensions are not errors, so if you are going to point back to Mills response you are going to have to find something in there that doesn't depend on those points.
 
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.
That is sure an  ... interesting ... interpretation of events.

Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year.
You mean me applying critical thinking when presented with theory, and wanting evidence to back assertions? Speaking of which:
But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
At this point I can only consider this statement to be objectively false, because you have been asked for evidence of this repeatedly and provided none. The only explanations I can come up with for why you continue to repeat this without evidence are:
- that you are just outright lying, because you are a troll or similar,
- you are simply incapable of sufficient rational thought to understand that you have provided no supporting evidence,
- or there is supporting evidence that only exists in delusions within your mind.

If it is the first, good job, you got us all to bite, now please stop. If it is one of the others, please do yourself a favor and get professional help from a psychiatrist. If it is none of the above, then please explain.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #253 on: 06/21/2017 12:55 pm »
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.

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!
« Last Edit: 06/21/2017 12:57 pm by gospacex »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #254 on: 06/21/2017 06:12 pm »
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.

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.

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.

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

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
« Last Edit: 06/21/2017 06:14 pm by Bob012345 »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #255 on: 06/21/2017 06:17 pm »
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.

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!

Hydrino theory is gaining traction albeit slowly. Being defensive, which is what Mills' critics are doing, doesn't tell for correctness or error. It's just a human response.

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #256 on: 06/21/2017 06:42 pm »
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.

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!

Sorry about your blood pressure. That's how I often feel.

It's all laid out in chapter nine of Brett Holverstott's book on Amazon;

https://www.amazon.com/Randell-Mills-Search-Hydrino-Energy-ebook/dp/B01LDVWJ0I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1498069619&sr=8-1&keywords=Hydrino

Also a Village Voice article from 2000 is here;

https://www.villagevoice.com/2000/04/25/the-empire-strikes-back/

It patent 6030601.
« Last Edit: 06/21/2017 06:51 pm by Bob012345 »

Offline Bob012345

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #257 on: 06/21/2017 07:06 pm »
I'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?

Exact conditions of these kinds of experiments are here;

http://www.brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Hydrino-Blast-Power-Paper-060817.pdf

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #258 on: 06/21/2017 07:29 pm »
*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.

Who has?

Name names.

Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Blacklight Power
« Reply #259 on: 06/21/2017 08:06 pm »
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

Again what errors? If you had read my post, you would already realize that response is simply wrong.

As I already said multiple times, requiring a wavefunction to actually be square integrable, so that it has physical meaning, or noting that the universe has 3 macroscopic spatial dimensions are not errors.

Also: RathkeMills made basic math errors in his analysis  and misunderstands Mills'existing theory both of which millsRathke pointed out.
When I can keep doing this to your sentences, it is probably because you aren't communicating anything with them. Unlike you I can point out a specific error made by Mills. He allowed wavefunctions that don't go to 0 at infinity. When you normalize such a wavefunction, you get the equation 1 = infinity. I hope you can see the problem there.

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.
He says more than that, and anyway, if Mills theory is inconsistent with the many quantum mechanics results that have been experimentally tested, then it is obviously wrong. The time put in is simply irrelevant: 2 centuries of theory based on 1+1 = 3 would still be wrong.

Quote
“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?’ ”
Is this where you claims Rathke hedges? This isn't a hedge, it is a clear statement that the entire theory of hydrinos in nonsensical, and if there is any excess energy in the experiments, it is not due to hydrinos.

In a universe that is almost certainly not ours where hydrinos turn out to be real, it is easy to predict the kind of statements that Rathke would say, such as "these clear independent replications show that there is <insert value> energy produced by this reaction", and "This new theory of the hydrino is significantly different from the original to actually be consistent with known results in quantum mechanics, and to be internally self-consistent."

Meanwhile, your use of the word "will" in the sentence about Rathke admitting hydrinos exist indicates that you do not care about evidence and refuse to accept any possibility that they don't.
« Last Edit: 06/21/2017 08:11 pm by meberbs »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0