Quote from: meberbs on 07/06/2017 07:23 AMQuote from: particlezoo on 07/06/2017 04:19 AMFortunately Mills' predictions of the hydrino's properties as well as the properties other, more established, chemical compounds does not depend on this numerological tangent. What does? His attempt to unify gravity with the rest of physics. If Mills were to drop the numerology, it would leave Hydrino theory unscathed.That would be true if the underlying math of his "predictions" was any more sound. I put predictions in quotes because it isn't a prediction when you start off by assuming the result you want. Since the hydrino is the central part of Mills theory, it seems like he has put more work into covering his tracks there, but the underlying logic seems equivalent.Serendipity, fortuitous accidents and intuitive guessing 'hunches' and plain bad math have all led to great discoveries in science.

Quote from: particlezoo on 07/06/2017 04:19 AMFortunately Mills' predictions of the hydrino's properties as well as the properties other, more established, chemical compounds does not depend on this numerological tangent. What does? His attempt to unify gravity with the rest of physics. If Mills were to drop the numerology, it would leave Hydrino theory unscathed.That would be true if the underlying math of his "predictions" was any more sound. I put predictions in quotes because it isn't a prediction when you start off by assuming the result you want. Since the hydrino is the central part of Mills theory, it seems like he has put more work into covering his tracks there, but the underlying logic seems equivalent.

Fortunately Mills' predictions of the hydrino's properties as well as the properties other, more established, chemical compounds does not depend on this numerological tangent. What does? His attempt to unify gravity with the rest of physics. If Mills were to drop the numerology, it would leave Hydrino theory unscathed.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 04:28 PMQuote from: ppnl on 07/05/2017 10:25 AMYeah, two things strike me about Mills theory. First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "Now this is so wrong it hurts. First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on. And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences? This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?Fine but Mills is the wrong person to ask about Bell's theorem. It is a very simple thing that an average high school student should be able to understand. The fact that you don't understand it means you absolutely are not qualified to judge Mills' theory. You cannot proceed until you have an understanding of it. And by understand I mean an understanding separate from vague mental images gleaned from Mills wall of text. Understand the real thing before you bother with the crap.There are many pages on the internet that explain it. Or we could discuss it here.

Quote from: ppnl on 07/05/2017 10:25 AMYeah, two things strike me about Mills theory. First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "Now this is so wrong it hurts. First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on. And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences? This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?

Yeah, two things strike me about Mills theory. First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "Now this is so wrong it hurts. First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on. And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences? This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Quote from: meberbs on 07/05/2017 08:29 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:37 PMQuote from: gospacex on 07/05/2017 06:39 PMNew mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-meanAgain, you lack basic reading comprehension skills. You can have a spacelike interval. The problem is that mills didn't define an interval, he defined an event.Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:45 PMQuote from: meberbs on 07/05/2017 07:32 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:13 PMI was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?No, that doesn't help your case.Please read this then. Thanks.How does that make any of the following true?2 = 32 = 3*i2 = 2*ia = b*i, where a and b are both pure realMills' particle production is an interval between the two particles created. You certainly can think of it as two events and a interval. The spacelike condition guarantees they don't immediately annihilate. Mills' adds physics to quantum mechanical 'creation operators' which amount to symbols on paper with no physics content.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:37 PMQuote from: gospacex on 07/05/2017 06:39 PMNew mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-meanAgain, you lack basic reading comprehension skills. You can have a spacelike interval. The problem is that mills didn't define an interval, he defined an event.Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:45 PMQuote from: meberbs on 07/05/2017 07:32 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:13 PMI was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?No, that doesn't help your case.Please read this then. Thanks.How does that make any of the following true?2 = 32 = 3*i2 = 2*ia = b*i, where a and b are both pure real

Quote from: gospacex on 07/05/2017 06:39 PMNew mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-mean

New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)

Quote from: meberbs on 07/05/2017 07:32 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:13 PMI was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?No, that doesn't help your case.Please read this then. Thanks.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:13 PMI was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?No, that doesn't help your case.

I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 04:46 PMQuote from: meberbs on 07/05/2017 08:29 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:37 PMQuote from: gospacex on 07/05/2017 06:39 PMNew mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-meanAgain, you lack basic reading comprehension skills. You can have a spacelike interval. The problem is that mills didn't define an interval, he defined an event.Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:45 PMQuote from: meberbs on 07/05/2017 07:32 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:13 PMI was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?No, that doesn't help your case.Please read this then. Thanks.How does that make any of the following true?2 = 32 = 3*i2 = 2*ia = b*i, where a and b are both pure realMills' particle production is an interval between the two particles created. You certainly can think of it as two events and a interval. The spacelike condition guarantees they don't immediately annihilate. Mills' adds physics to quantum mechanical 'creation operators' which amount to symbols on paper with no physics content.Mills describes it as an event, not an interval. If your description is what he intended, but failed to communicate, it would break what was previously claimed here as one of the fundamental principles of his theory, that conservation laws are always held, since one particle would be created before the other (variable between frames). To avoid this, he would have to let them start on top of each other, which then explains the "event" but leaves the problem with the "spacelike".I think the point that Mills' theory is contradictory on every level has been well made here. The biggest flaws like in my post quoted here about real and imaginary numbers have simply been ignored by the supporters, sometimes by starting a tangent that just makes it look like they are responding while missing the main point. To any who would ignore the basically endless list of contradictions, and absence of any accurate math in support of Mills, I don't think any further discussion will do any good, so don't expect to hear much or anything more from me.

*snip*What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.

Quote from: ppnl on 07/05/2017 06:24 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 04:28 PMQuote from: ppnl on 07/05/2017 10:25 AMYeah, two things strike me about Mills theory. First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "Now this is so wrong it hurts. First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on. And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences? This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?Fine but Mills is the wrong person to ask about Bell's theorem. It is a very simple thing that an average high school student should be able to understand. The fact that you don't understand it means you absolutely are not qualified to judge Mills' theory. You cannot proceed until you have an understanding of it. And by understand I mean an understanding separate from vague mental images gleaned from Mills wall of text. Understand the real thing before you bother with the crap.There are many pages on the internet that explain it. Or we could discuss it here.Thanks for permission to sent this to Mills. No, I think Mills can respond himself. The only question is do you want me to strip out the fraud comments at the end or not? I'm sure Mills doesn't appreciate being called a fraud in a public forum but I'm willing to send it as is if that's what you want.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 05:55 PMQuote from: ppnl on 07/05/2017 06:24 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 04:28 PMQuote from: ppnl on 07/05/2017 10:25 AMYeah, two things strike me about Mills theory. First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "Now this is so wrong it hurts. First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on. And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences? This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?Fine but Mills is the wrong person to ask about Bell's theorem. It is a very simple thing that an average high school student should be able to understand. The fact that you don't understand it means you absolutely are not qualified to judge Mills' theory. You cannot proceed until you have an understanding of it. And by understand I mean an understanding separate from vague mental images gleaned from Mills wall of text. Understand the real thing before you bother with the crap.There are many pages on the internet that explain it. Or we could discuss it here.Thanks for permission to sent this to Mills. No, I think Mills can respond himself. The only question is do you want me to strip out the fraud comments at the end or not? I'm sure Mills doesn't appreciate being called a fraud in a public forum but I'm willing to send it as is if that's what you want.I don't care. I have no interest in what Mills thinks of me. You don't produce work that bad and still get to be taken seriously. You just don't. And you don't produce work that bad, have your patents revoked and spend tens of millions of dollars of other peoples money and not deal with suggestions of fraud. It would be irresponsible for anyone not to consider fraud. No rudeness is intended. Just a cold look at the facts.And this shouldn't be about Mills. This should be about you. You said that you didn't understand Bell's theorem. You need to understand Bell's work and you need to get that understanding separate from Mills. Only then will you be able to judge this part of his work. Only knowledge can protect you.I'm sorry if the discussion of fraud violates the forum rules. But this section of the forum was created to contain these types of discussions. It will naturally attract nonsense and fraud. It would be ironic and perverse to defend the discussion of impossible things like hydrinos on the grounds of free speech while preventing the very real possibility of fraud by a man who has spent tens of millions of other peoples money. The mods are free to edit or delete my messages as they see fit. I stand by them as written.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 06:36 PM*snip*What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math. If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.

Quote from: whitelancer64 on 07/06/2017 07:25 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 06:36 PM*snip*What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math. If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.Honestly, if hydrino's exist, you really think the physics police are going to argue Mills gets no credit if he made a math error? Nobel prizes aren't given for math, they are given for physics.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 08:06 PMQuote from: whitelancer64 on 07/06/2017 07:25 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 06:36 PM*snip*What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math. If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.Honestly, if hydrino's exist, you really think the physics police are going to argue Mills gets no credit if he made a math error? Nobel prizes aren't given for math, they are given for physics.Except for the overarching issue of there being no evidence whatsoever that hydrinos exist at all. Physics IS math.

Quote from: whitelancer64 on 07/06/2017 08:12 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 08:06 PMQuote from: whitelancer64 on 07/06/2017 07:25 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 06:36 PM*snip*What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math. If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.Honestly, if hydrino's exist, you really think the physics police are going to argue Mills gets no credit if he made a math error? Nobel prizes aren't given for math, they are given for physics.Except for the overarching issue of there being no evidence whatsoever that hydrinos exist at all. Physics IS math.That's a very good illustration of the attitude difference between men like Mills and his critics. Mills believes physics is real and math is merely a tool and many of his critics believe the math first and foremost above all, even to the exclusion of data. Physics is not math, math is a tool. If it were we have no need of expensive science budgets as we could vet all ideas by math alone.

I forgot that I wanted to include in my last post a partial list of what has been determined about Mills' claims in this thread as a summary. (Wording below assumes he isn't a fraud, though there should be clear reason to question that.)-Mills does not understand anything about quantum mechanics. (His list of complaints about quantum are not actually true about quantum)-Mills has no actual predictive theory ---He doesn't have a list of central assumptions---Generally he just pulls equations from thin air, sometimes using results of theories he discounts---If you parse through it, often his results are obtained from an original assumption that those are the results.-Experimental evidence (measurements of electron position) disagrees with Mills' claim the electron is a 2d sphere.-Claims that Mills can simply solve problems that are complex in quantum mechanics have not been accompanied by the supposed derivation---The one response to this was a slide Mills had made that claims to support his theory, this slide shows an experimental picture with the fuzziness expected by quantum, and overlays a "prediction" to show it matches. The prediction looks like a result from standard quantum, and it is unclear how it could ever have come from Mills' "theory" (ignoring that he has no real theory)-Deeper investigation of Mills' claims reveal direct contradictions, such as a real number equaling an imaginary number, or straight numerology.-Claims that scientists are starting to support Mills have no real evidence backing them.---at best a few people looked at Mills' device and say it seems to be producing some power.---no independent replication or papers at all, except some old ones (e.g. NASA) which find less excess heat than Mills had claimed.I may edit this post later, since I am likely forgetting a few important points.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 08:25 PMQuote from: whitelancer64 on 07/06/2017 08:12 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 08:06 PMQuote from: whitelancer64 on 07/06/2017 07:25 PMQuote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 06:36 PM*snip*What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math. If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.Honestly, if hydrino's exist, you really think the physics police are going to argue Mills gets no credit if he made a math error? Nobel prizes aren't given for math, they are given for physics.Except for the overarching issue of there being no evidence whatsoever that hydrinos exist at all. Physics IS math.That's a very good illustration of the attitude difference between men like Mills and his critics. Mills believes physics is real and math is merely a tool and many of his critics believe the math first and foremost above all, even to the exclusion of data. Physics is not math, math is a tool. If it were we have no need of expensive science budgets as we could vet all ideas by math alone. The opposite is equally true. Physics cannot live on experimentation alone. If you can't mathematically describe what's happening in your experiments, you may as well be practicing witchcraft.

This scam has been ongoing for 26 years now, and still no undeniable proof in sight. That alone proves that there is nothing of substance to see here.

Quote from: blasphemer on 07/06/2017 08:34 PMThis scam has been ongoing for 26 years now, and still no undeniable proof in sight. That alone proves that there is nothing of substance to see here.Proves? It doesn't prove anything except its a hard problem. Very hard. Also that Mills is tenacious.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 07/06/2017 08:50 PMQuote from: blasphemer on 07/06/2017 08:34 PMThis scam has been ongoing for 26 years now, and still no undeniable proof in sight. That alone proves that there is nothing of substance to see here.Proves? It doesn't prove anything except its a hard problem. Very hard. Also that Mills is tenacious.Or that he likes fleecing money from investors while perpetually never delivering on his promises.