-
#220 by Bob012345 on 16 Jun, 2017 17:06
-
What Mills calls dark matter is probably not what you think of as dark matter, it's not exotic matter. He explained that in some of his recent video talks.
QuoteMills hydrino reactions produce way more than normal hydrogen reactions per atom, some 204ev per atom in the transition from H to H(1/4). What conventional reaction produces 204 electron volts per atom with hydrogen?
Nothing, which is why I said not hugely much more energy that normal reactions. The point is that there should be significant amounts of hydrinos in the waste. For example, with 204 eV per reaction, a 10kW reactor operating for an hour should produce about 3.6 grams of hydrinos. I don't see how all that could be hidden so that their presence wouldn't be obvious to other scientists if they were allowed to study the waste products.
Agreed. Nobody said they were hidden. They would be created at a rate of about 1 milligram per second at the rate you quote. Mills has measured the spectrum of hydrino's forming which looks like the first slide below and any scientist could also measure this. The second to the last plot shows the ro-vibrations spectra of DiHydrino has in the H2(1/4) state.
-
#221 by Bob012345 on 16 Jun, 2017 17:53
-
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.
Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth. And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.
Mills concept of dark matter is hydrogen in stable lower states, not exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter. Even so, why would hydrino's fall through the earth? Mills says they float off into space as diHydrino gas as hydrogen gas does.
Why would you think I meant "exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter"? It wouldn't fall through the Earth if it didn't interact gravitationally. It would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth if it *only* interacted gravitationally with normal matter. If you think it's going to "float off into space" then you have to believe that it doesn't interact gravitationally with normal matter (and hence isn't an explanation for dark matter).
Anyway, whether it drops through the Earth or floats into space or whatever, my point remains: either the hydrinos produced would stick around and they could be provided to other scientists as proof it works, or they leave somehow and the reactor loses significant mass. It has to be one or the other, and either should be a simple way to provide strong evidence of hydrinos. But we've never been given such evidence. Why not?
It's been suggested by some that have no knowledge and give no support to Mills' ideas that dark matter may be just a strange form of hydrogen that doesn't radiate or are just very hard to detect. In any event, I hope you at least admit the possibility that if you eventually are convinced the hydrino state exists, that it has to be at least considered as a potential candidate for dark matter.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/421111/fulltext/
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/sep/21/is-dark-matter-mostly-dark-atoms
https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.03592
I also agree hydrino's can readily be studied as byproducts of the reaction as I showed they have been in a response above. My understanding of the process is that the individual hydrino atoms thus formed bind together as diHydrino gas which has a mass very close to molecular hydrogen gas which tends to float off into space. Mills has studied it directly as it forms and also has "gettered" some gas into crystals for study. The point is that it does appear relatively easy to form and study them so the main reason I see for the dearth of corroborating evidence must be related to the belief that hydrino's aren't worth studying because they simply "don't exist" in the minds of most scientists who would be in a position to do so. A stalemate of sorts. In fact Mills has in the past sent out hydrino hydride compounds for study and a few scientists at a few labs looked at them and they showed highly unusual properties but nobody really believed them either.
Regarding your last comment, why not? Perhaps because they haven't, and adamantly won't, ask. -
#222 by gospacex on 16 Jun, 2017 22:16
-
I also agree hydrino's can readily be studied as byproducts of the reaction as I showed they have been in a response above. My understanding of the process is that the individual hydrino atoms thus formed bind together as diHydrino gas which has a mass very close to molecular hydrogen gas which tends to float off into space. Mills has studied it directly as it forms and also has "gettered" some gas into crystals for study. The point is that it does appear relatively easy to form and study them so the main reason I see for the dearth of corroborating evidence must be related to the belief that hydrino's aren't worth studying because they simply "don't exist" in the minds of most scientists who would be in a position to do so.
This is total nonsense. We are not in 1600s anymore when new ideas were punished.
And more recently, since birth of quantum mechanics (circa 1920) physicists are even more willing to look at "weird" ideas (because history has proven that sometimes "weird" ideas are actually right).
If someone has a repeatable experiment, and it is confirmed by others, scientists _will not_ ignore it, no matter how "weird" it is. It will be studied. Theories will be developed to explain it. There is no "cabal" to suppress such things.
But hydrino people don't have verified experimental data. They have only "trust us, it's real!" PR and "experiments" made by them. Not independently verified.
Basically, what you are doing in this thread is more hydrino PR. -
#223 by Bob012345 on 17 Jun, 2017 17:11
-
I also agree hydrino's can readily be studied as byproducts of the reaction as I showed they have been in a response above. My understanding of the process is that the individual hydrino atoms thus formed bind together as diHydrino gas which has a mass very close to molecular hydrogen gas which tends to float off into space. Mills has studied it directly as it forms and also has "gettered" some gas into crystals for study. The point is that it does appear relatively easy to form and study them so the main reason I see for the dearth of corroborating evidence must be related to the belief that hydrino's aren't worth studying because they simply "don't exist" in the minds of most scientists who would be in a position to do so.
This is total nonsense. We are not in 1600s anymore when new ideas were punished.
And more recently, since birth of quantum mechanics (circa 1920) physicists are even more willing to look at "weird" ideas (because history has proven that sometimes "weird" ideas are actually right).
If someone has a repeatable experiment, and it is confirmed by others, scientists _will not_ ignore it, no matter how "weird" it is. It will be studied. Theories will be developed to explain it. There is no "cabal" to suppress such things.
But hydrino people don't have verified experimental data. They have only "trust us, it's real!" PR and "experiments" made by them. Not independently verified.
Basically, what you are doing in this thread is more hydrino PR.
I agree it will be studied but sometimes it takes a very long time. And it is taking a very long time but slowly it's happening. I never said there was a cabal suppressing it. I said there is a dearth of corroborating evidence which is a fact. It's also a fact that there seems little interest in investigating the hydrino. Hydrino science isn't being suppressed as much as it's being ignored. -
#224 by as58 on 17 Jun, 2017 18:21
-
I agree it will be studied but sometimes it takes a very long time. And it is taking a very long time but slowly it's happening. I never said there was a cabal suppressing it. I said there is a dearth of corroborating evidence which is a fact. It's also a fact that there seems little interest in investigating the hydrino. Hydrino science isn't being suppressed as much as it's being ignored.
Why wouldn't it be? It's just yet another theory that makes no sense with no independent evidence to back it up. The only difference to many other theories is that it's well-marketed. -
#225 by hop on 17 Jun, 2017 19:16
-
Hydrino science isn't being suppressed as much as it's being ignored.
Which leads to the obvious question, why?
New physics is what most physicists get really excited about. New physics that can be explored for less than gigabucks AND has potential near term real world benefits AND addresses major questions in cosmology is pretty much unheard of these days. If it was even vaguely plausible, interest from the wider physics community should be off the charts. Who would want to spend years putting another decimal point on some obscure corner of the standard model when they could pioneer a whole new field?
If BLP could demonstrate that the supposed underlying physics worked, they'd have the richest nations in the world breaking down their doors to throw money at them to bring it to industrial scale, plus a Nobel and global recognition on a par with Einstein. Everything CERN has ever done would be small potatoes in comparison. Given the supposedly easily observable macroscopic effects, demonstrating the effect is real should not be a high bar.
Yet back in the real world, BLP have spent the last quarter century doing dog and pony shows aimed at investors, and essentially no one outside of Mills immediate circle has found it interesting enough to pursue. This doesn't guarantee Mills is wrong, but for anyone without an physics degree trying to evaluate the situation, it should be a pretty strong prior. -
#226 by Bob012345 on 18 Jun, 2017 01:06
-
Hydrino science isn't being suppressed as much as it's being ignored.
Which leads to the obvious question, why?
New physics is what most physicists get really excited about. New physics that can be explored for less than gigabucks AND has potential near term real world benefits AND addresses major questions in cosmology is pretty much unheard of these days. If it was even vaguely plausible, interest from the wider physics community should be off the charts. Who would want to spend years putting another decimal point on some obscure corner of the standard model when they could pioneer a whole new field?
If BLP could demonstrate that the supposed underlying physics worked, they'd have the richest nations in the world breaking down their doors to throw money at them to bring it to industrial scale, plus a Nobel and global recognition on a par with Einstein. Everything CERN has ever done would be small potatoes in comparison. Given the supposedly easily observable macroscopic effects, demonstrating the effect is real should not be a high bar.
Yet back in the real world, BLP have spent the last quarter century doing dog and pony shows aimed at investors, and essentially no one outside of Mills immediate circle has found it interesting enough to pursue. This doesn't guarantee Mills is wrong, but for anyone without an physics degree trying to evaluate the situation, it should be a pretty strong prior.
People get excited by new physics that fits their conceptions of what new physics should be true. They ignore evidence that flies in the face of established theory like states below the ground state they just "know" must be wrong. Science is littered with examples of correct ideas having a real hard time getting traction. -
#227 by meberbs on 18 Jun, 2017 12:35
-
They ignore evidence that flies in the face of established theory like states below the ground state they just "know" must be wrong.
Like you "know" hydrinos are real. Despite all of the evidence that they aren't:
-NASA has tested devices and found Mills' measurements to have been wrong, actual generated power levels are consistent with classical explanations.
-The theory is self-contradictory nonsense.
-There are multiple ways that given results matching what Mills claims to have gotten, clear demonstrations should be available by now. (working power generation, hydrino samples, hydrogen disappearing from the samples, etc.) -
#228 by ChrisWilson68 on 18 Jun, 2017 23:36
-
People get excited by new physics that fits their conceptions of what new physics should be true. They ignore evidence that flies in the face of established theory like states below the ground state they just "know" must be wrong.
That's nonsense. Most scientists love learning new things. They particularly love the idea of getting in on something new in the early days and beating their colleagues to the new stuff.
The only one ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their world view here is you. Look at the past century of progress that has come directly from mainstream science. Now look at what has come from what mainstream science calls pseudo-science. Every bit of evidence suggests our mainstream science establishment is looking for new ideas all the time and embraces new ideas quickly when there is reason to think they are valid.Science is littered with examples of correct ideas having a real hard time getting traction.
Not at all. Most correct ideas in science took no time at all getting traction. The few that didn't were in areas where evidence is subjective and hard to interpret, not areas such as physics where evidence is very easy to interpret and experiments are very easy to replicate.
-
#229 by Bob012345 on 19 Jun, 2017 16:02
-
They ignore evidence that flies in the face of established theory like states below the ground state they just "know" must be wrong.
Like you "know" hydrinos are real. Despite all of the evidence that they aren't:
-NASA has tested devices and found Mills' measurements to have been wrong, actual generated power levels are consistent with classical explanations.
-The theory is self-contradictory nonsense.
-There are multiple ways that given results matching what Mills claims to have gotten, clear demonstrations should be available by now. (working power generation, hydrino samples, hydrogen disappearing from the samples, etc.)
It's not that I "know" or that I'm a "believer", it's that I'm convinced by the data I've seen so far and unimpressed by the arguments of the critics. I always reserve the right to change my mind with further evidence.
You can't use twenty year old NASA results based on an electrochemical effect many orders of magnitude less powerful to argue Mills power levels are just conventional chemistry while ignoring twenty years of progress in reaction kinetics and power. If there are multiple ways to explain Mills hydrino reactions, what is happening here?;
Clear demonstrations are available now. You just don't believe them yet.
Here is a presentation of an independent academic on the validation process;
But more importantly, how do you explain this;
-
#230 by Bob012345 on 19 Jun, 2017 16:24
-
People get excited by new physics that fits their conceptions of what new physics should be true. They ignore evidence that flies in the face of established theory like states below the ground state they just "know" must be wrong.
That's nonsense. Most scientists love learning new things. They particularly love the idea of getting in on something new in the early days and beating their colleagues to the new stuff.
The only one ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their world view here is you. Look at the past century of progress that has come directly from mainstream science. Now look at what has come from what mainstream science calls pseudo-science. Every bit of evidence suggests our mainstream science establishment is looking for new ideas all the time and embraces new ideas quickly when there is reason to think they are valid.Science is littered with examples of correct ideas having a real hard time getting traction.
Not at all. Most correct ideas in science took no time at all getting traction. The few that didn't were in areas where evidence is subjective and hard to interpret, not areas such as physics where evidence is very easy to interpret and experiments are very easy to replicate.
Sure, most do. Scientists do love new things but not controversy. They worry about their careers. I think Mills' case is somewhat unique in that he contents a major discovery was missed a century ago. That really galls folks. Do you believe that it is impossible that physics and chemistry could have missed the hydrino state a century ago? Mills has done the experiments so someone has to do the same experiments and show they get the same energy and power levels but explaining it by some conventional reaction. I'd be happy to read such a paper but as far as I know, nobody's even bothered to do that.
You see to have a romantic view of the history of science. I have a realist view. -
#231 by whitelancer64 on 19 Jun, 2017 17:42
-
Mills is either a hero, or a crackpot following a delusion, or a scam artist.
It's very difficult to see how a "hydrino" state could have been missed - atoms have been very thoroughly studied, after all.
An alternative explanation for what's going on in the demonstrations is pretty hard to give, since nobody has been allowed to independently study his experimental setup. That's a huge red flag, by the way. All BLP has allowed in are observers who have been allowed to measure the output of the apparatus during brief demonstrations, but they have never been allowed to actually use the equipment itself.
All of the supposed hydrino catalysts have been observed so often under so many conditions - and yet, no anomalous energy has even been noticed before. But according to Mills, we should be seeing tons of it.
How is it that nobody has ever independently verified the existence of the hydrino?
The "realist" view is that Mills is a scam artist who has taken millions of investment dollars and never produced a working product. -
#232 by Bob012345 on 19 Jun, 2017 18:05
-
Mills is either a hero, or a crackpot following a delusion, or a scam artist.
It's very difficult to see how a "hydrino" state could have been missed - atoms have been very thoroughly studied, after all.
An alternative explanation for what's going on in the demonstrations is pretty hard to give, since nobody has been allowed to independently study his experimental setup. That's a huge red flag, by the way. All BLP has allowed in are observers who have been allowed to measure the output of the apparatus during brief demonstrations, but they have never been allowed to actually use the equipment itself.
All of the supposed hydrino catalysts have been observed so often under so many conditions - and yet, no anomalous energy has even been noticed before. But according to Mills, we should be seeing tons of it.
How is it that nobody has ever independently verified the existence of the hydrino?
The "realist" view is that Mills is a scam artist who has taken millions of investment dollars and never produced a working product.
It's true Mills does things differently and is highly protective of his methods and procedures for archiving his reactions. Note that doesn't mean secretive, just protective as he publishes all his methods so in principle anyone could do the experiments. Mills will allow researchers to reproduce his reactions as long as they sign an NDA. I believe some independent scientists have reproduced Mills results in their own labs and with their own equipment. But I agree he could be more open and would possibly gain more support.
It's easy to see how the hydrino state could have been missed with the science of the late nineteenth century. It's a non-radiative stable state. You only see it when it's forming. It would be hard for that science to notice a continuum spectrum like the following in the UV and EUV range if they didn't even suspect it was there and if it wasn't happening with massive reaction kinetics, the kinetics it took Mills over twenty years to figure out how to create.
-
#233 by meberbs on 19 Jun, 2017 20:33
-
It's true Mills does things differently
Only if by "differently" you mean "exactly the same as crackpots and frauds."Note that doesn't mean secretive, just protective as he publishes all his methods so in principle anyone could do the experiments. Mills will allow researchers to reproduce his reactions as long as they sign an NDA.
These sentences are contradictory. Also the second is just stupid, since if a researcher signed an NDA, then they wouldn't be able to publish, so that would immediately prevent independent verification.I believe some independent scientists have reproduced Mills results in their own labs and with their own equipment.
At this point you seem like you are living in a dream world. You have already admitted you have no evidence to back up this claim, and there has been independent refutation by NASA.It's easy to see how the hydrino state could have been missed with the science of the late nineteenth century.
Maybe the 19th century (1800s), but it would have been a bit hard to miss in the 20th century.It's a non-radiative stable state. You only see it when it's forming. It would be hard for that science to notice a continuum spectrum like the following in the UV and EUV range if they didn't even suspect it was there and if it wasn't happening with massive reaction kinetics,
Besides the other contradictions in the theory, Mills' claim includes multiple states, so it should be radiative. It includes discrete states, so why should it be a continuous spectrum? Hydrogen has UV spectral lines, so you are claiming scientists are blind.the kinetics it took Mills over twenty years to figure out how to create.
What 20 year period? 20 years ago he claimed to have been creating hydrinos. Had he started 20 years before that? -
#234 by Bob012345 on 20 Jun, 2017 16:03
-
It's true Mills does things differently
Only if by "differently" you mean "exactly the same as crackpots and frauds."Note that doesn't mean secretive, just protective as he publishes all his methods so in principle anyone could do the experiments. Mills will allow researchers to reproduce his reactions as long as they sign an NDA.
These sentences are contradictory. Also the second is just stupid, since if a researcher signed an NDA, then they wouldn't be able to publish, so that would immediately prevent independent verification.I believe some independent scientists have reproduced Mills results in their own labs and with their own equipment.
At this point you seem like you are living in a dream world. You have already admitted you have no evidence to back up this claim, and there has been independent refutation by NASA.It's easy to see how the hydrino state could have been missed with the science of the late nineteenth century.
Maybe the 19th century (1800s), but it would have been a bit hard to miss in the 20th century.It's a non-radiative stable state. You only see it when it's forming. It would be hard for that science to notice a continuum spectrum like the following in the UV and EUV range if they didn't even suspect it was there and if it wasn't happening with massive reaction kinetics,
Besides the other contradictions in the theory, Mills' claim includes multiple states, so it should be radiative. It includes discrete states, so why should it be a continuous spectrum? Hydrogen has UV spectral lines, so you are claiming scientists are blind.the kinetics it took Mills over twenty years to figure out how to create.
What 20 year period? 20 years ago he claimed to have been creating hydrinos. Had he started 20 years before that?
The spectrum I showed you has continuum in the EUV and UV. That happens when hydrino's form because it's a complex process. It's not jumping between discreet lines. I showed a picture recently of the process. There are multiple stable states like a staircase has multiple stable eqilibrium states. Which state it goes to depends on the catalyst. Currently, the typical reaction goes to H(1/4). Hydrino formation would still be easy to miss in the 20th century because people were indoctrinated against it by quantum orthodoxy so any conforming evidence would be assumed artifacts. Mills discovered how to first make hydrino's with a low power electrolytic process similar to a so -called 'cold fusion' cell being studied at the time. In fact he argued the cold fusioneers were likely seeing hydrino's in some cases of excess heat. Then, he gradually developed higher power processes but the real breakthrough came about four years ago when the reaction kinetics were enhanced a million fold by a high current that separated charges which were limiting the kinetics. Now he gets megawatt level power as the spectrum I showed indicates and hopefully, commercialization is imminent but it's a complex development problem so if it takes some time, that is not proof nothing's there. -
#235 by ChrisWilson68 on 20 Jun, 2017 16:33
-
Hydrino formation would still be easy to miss in the 20th century because people were indoctrinated against it by quantum orthodoxy so any conforming evidence would be assumed artifacts.
Convenient, isn't it? Just assert, without evidence, that all of the scientific establishment missed the obvious evidence because they're all "indoctrinated". They're all part of the "orthodoxy". It explains away anything, and you don't have to confront the uncomfortable fact that thousands of different people at hundreds of different institutions who spend their whole lives studying this kind of thing and are responsible for all the wonders of technology all disagree with your world view.
-
#236 by Bob012345 on 20 Jun, 2017 17:30
-
Hydrino formation would still be easy to miss in the 20th century because people were indoctrinated against it by quantum orthodoxy so any conforming evidence would be assumed artifacts.
Convenient, isn't it? Just assert, without evidence, that all of the scientific establishment missed the obvious evidence because they're all "indoctrinated". They're all part of the "orthodoxy". It explains away anything, and you don't have to confront the uncomfortable fact that thousands of different people at hundreds of different institutions who spend their whole lives studying this kind of thing and are responsible for all the wonders of technology all disagree with your world view.
Whether or not an argument is convenient is irrelevant. I'm merely speculating on how such a thing could be missed. You seem to think that's impossible. 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. Science simply could not have failed that big over the last century. The stakes are huge. You may think I'm attacking the process of science but I'm really not. Correction and retrenchment are also part of the process. It's not linear.
It will be interesting to hear your reaction when hydrino's are either confirmed and accepted by scientists you trust. What would you say?
-
#237 by ChrisWilson68 on 20 Jun, 2017 17:49
-
Hydrino formation would still be easy to miss in the 20th century because people were indoctrinated against it by quantum orthodoxy so any conforming evidence would be assumed artifacts.
Convenient, isn't it? Just assert, without evidence, that all of the scientific establishment missed the obvious evidence because they're all "indoctrinated". They're all part of the "orthodoxy". It explains away anything, and you don't have to confront the uncomfortable fact that thousands of different people at hundreds of different institutions who spend their whole lives studying this kind of thing and are responsible for all the wonders of technology all disagree with your world view.
Whether or not an argument is convenient is irrelevant.
Then you're missing my point.
I'll lay out my point in more detail. One chemist claims evidence for the hydrino. He has claimed evidence for it for decades. You find his evidence compelling. The scientific community does not find his evidence compelling. So, either you're wrong or the entire scientific mainstream is wrong.
Your claim that the scientific mainstream is so biased that it missed clear evidence for decades is not based on any external evidence. There's no other phenomenon that modern physics ignored the evidence for for decades, then was eventually proven true. So your belief that mainstream science is biased enough to miss clear evidence is based entirely on you deciding your judgement about the current evidence for the hydrino is better than the judgement of the entire scientific community about the same evidence.
That's convenient for your continued belief in your own judgement, but not persuasive to anyone else.I'm merely speculating on how such a thing could be missed.
And you're speculating that because you don't want to accept the idea that if you think one thing and the entire scientific community thinks another, it's more likely that you're wrong than that they're wrong.You seem to think that's impossible.
Not impossible, just extremely unlikely. I'm making that judgement based on the evidence.I think you are mistaken when you claim thousands of people have studied "this kind of thing"
By "this kind of thing" I mean physics.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 fundamentally misunderstand scientists. Nearly every scientist follows the evidence, even if that evidence contradicts what they thought they knew. Nearly every experiment in physics today is looking for evidence to contradict existing theory. Physicists want that. Just confirming the existing theory doesn't garner much glory. Success in physics comes much more from uncovering evidence of something outside what current theory predicts.I sense the very possibility that hydrino's exist and were missed offends your rosy view of science.
Not at all. If there was convincing evidence that they exist, I'd be thrilled.Science simply could not have failed that big over the last century.
No, I don't believe it could not have. I think it's unlikely. The claim that it did requires persuasive evidence. I'm not persuaded by the current evidence, and neither is the scientific community.The stakes are huge. You may think I'm attacking the process of science but I'm really not.
No, you're not attacking the process, but you're attacking scientists. You are claiming they are heavily biased and unable to see clear evidence. And your basis for claiming that is that you disagree with their evaluation of the evidence.Correction and retrenchment are also part of the process. It's not linear.
It will be interesting to hear your reaction when hydrino's are either confirmed and accepted by scientists you trust. What would you say?
If they were confirmed, I'd be happy to hear it.
See, there's the difference. I'm willing to accept the judgement of people who know more about the subject than I do. You are not. The scientific establishment has judged the evidence and found it lacking. You are not willing to accept that.
-
#238 by meberbs on 20 Jun, 2017 17:58
-
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? -
#239 by Bob012345 on 20 Jun, 2017 18:26
-
Hydrino formation would still be easy to miss in the 20th century because people were indoctrinated against it by quantum orthodoxy so any conforming evidence would be assumed artifacts.
Convenient, isn't it? Just assert, without evidence, that all of the scientific establishment missed the obvious evidence because they're all "indoctrinated". They're all part of the "orthodoxy". It explains away anything, and you don't have to confront the uncomfortable fact that thousands of different people at hundreds of different institutions who spend their whole lives studying this kind of thing and are responsible for all the wonders of technology all disagree with your world view.
Whether or not an argument is convenient is irrelevant.
Then you're missing my point.
I'll lay out my point in more detail. One chemist claims evidence for the hydrino. He has claimed evidence for it for decades. You find his evidence compelling. The scientific community does not find his evidence compelling. So, either you're wrong or the entire scientific mainstream is wrong.
Your claim that the scientific mainstream is so biased that it missed clear evidence for decades is not based on any external evidence. There's no other phenomenon that modern physics ignored the evidence for for decades, then was eventually proven true. So your belief that mainstream science is biased enough to miss clear evidence is based entirely on you deciding your judgement about the current evidence for the hydrino is better than the judgement of the entire scientific community about the same evidence.
That's convenient for your continued belief in your own judgement, but not persuasive to anyone else.I'm merely speculating on how such a thing could be missed.
And you're speculating that because you don't want to accept the idea that if you think one thing and the entire scientific community thinks another, it's more likely that you're wrong than that they're wrong.You seem to think that's impossible.
Not impossible, just extremely unlikely. I'm making that judgement based on the evidence.I think you are mistaken when you claim thousands of people have studied "this kind of thing"
By "this kind of thing" I mean physics.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 fundamentally misunderstand scientists. Nearly every scientist follows the evidence, even if that evidence contradicts what they thought they knew. Nearly every experiment in physics today is looking for evidence to contradict existing theory. Physicists want that. Just confirming the existing theory doesn't garner much glory. Success in physics comes much more from uncovering evidence of something outside what current theory predicts.I sense the very possibility that hydrino's exist and were missed offends your rosy view of science.
Not at all. If there was convincing evidence that they exist, I'd be thrilled.Science simply could not have failed that big over the last century.
No, I don't believe it could not have. I think it's unlikely. The claim that it did requires persuasive evidence. I'm not persuaded by the current evidence, and neither is the scientific community.The stakes are huge. You may think I'm attacking the process of science but I'm really not.
No, you're not attacking the process, but you're attacking scientists. You are claiming they are heavily biased and unable to see clear evidence. And your basis for claiming that is that you disagree with their evaluation of the evidence.Correction and retrenchment are also part of the process. It's not linear.
It will be interesting to hear your reaction when hydrino's are either confirmed and accepted by scientists you trust. What would you say?
If they were confirmed, I'd be happy to hear it.
See, there's the difference. I'm willing to accept the judgement of people who know more about the subject than I do. You are not. The scientific establishment has judged the evidence and found it lacking. You are not willing to accept that.
First, thanks for the discussion. I enjoy the dialog and appreciate your time.
Planck said science advances one funeral at a time. Science is not about absolute consensus. If it were, few advances would be made. I may be wrong, Mills may be wrong, yet I'm just not convinced at this point. I'm more convinced that the process is not complete and Mills discovery hasn't been given an honest assessment. 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. We shouldn't make assumptions about what would have happened or what cannot be true. We should let the data speak. People are letting their theory disprove the data. They claim good data must agree a-priori. That's a problem for me. You can't prove a negative. One null test doesn't disprove a possibility. But you can show something works which is what Mills is currently doing. I've not seen any answers here regarding the megawatt power Mills gets out of his reaction or the extreme UV spectra.
I think we are in the midst of the process of science working but it takes a lot longer I wish precisely because of the human factor. I think in the end it will work.