Tomorrow a demonstration by BLP will take place. Energy will become very cheap if it works (10 to 100 times as cheap compared to other technologies). All components are off-the-shelf so it can become commercially very fast I assume.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
I read that the device will be activated by a leprechaun riding a unicorn.
Quote from: Todd on January 27, 2014, 07:25:32 AM
I read that the device will be activated by a leprechaun riding a unicorn.
That must be what Saul D. is doing now. ;)
8)
Don't hold your breath.
Quote"BlackLight has announced several times that it was about to deliver commercial products based on Mill's theories, and it has failed to deliver every time."
Hehe. The laws of thermodynamics apply even to "geniuses" like Randell Mills.
I've already used this blacklight lamp for years, it generates enough power to light a regular lamp...
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3816/9254593309_a76c39e70b.jpg)
This is pretty impressive. Sounds great as well! :)
https://www.youtube.com/v/D_bAUCjmHVA
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/1911
Quote from: Henk on March 03, 2014, 05:17:21 AMThis is pretty impressive. Sounds great as well!
What, did you invest in this thing?
Better to hold out hope for ITER.
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2014, 06:55:08 AM
What, did you invest in this thing?
Better to hold out hope for ITER.
Both I think. Why so skeptic? What are your arguments? The video is pretty convincing I think, unless they try to fool the public, which probably isn't the case. This is serious business.
Electricity powered by meditation... It's coming...
Ijust read about a girl who won a big inventing competition (Microsoft I think) for her age group. She built a flashlight that runs off your body heat. Pretty cool!
Quote from: mc ukrneal on March 03, 2014, 07:59:56 AM
Ijust read about a girl who won a big inventing competition (Microsoft I think) for her age group. She built a flashlight that runs off your body heat. Pretty cool!
A flu epidemic to solving power shortage? :o
Quote from: Henk on March 03, 2014, 08:48:10 AMAnd serious science & technology!
Sort of like cold fusion.
Quote from: springrite on March 03, 2014, 08:01:35 AM
A flu epidemic to solving power shortage? :o
Actually the story was interesting. She was part Philippino and had friends in the Philippines who had no electricity at night and could not do their homework. So she was sarching for a way they could see it without having electricity. The physics of it was pretty interesting too.
I'm saving my money for the helicopter that uses perpetual motion.
Quote from: North Star on March 03, 2014, 11:45:15 AM
I'm saving my money for the helicopter that uses perpetual motion.
Well I'm writing a
moto perpetuo for string quartet, to be performed aboard four perpetual-motion helicopters.
New items on BLP website:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
I've built a time machine that runs on Cheetos.
I've always wondered if a wind quintet could power a windmill and solve our energy problems.
Did you see the website? Or didn't you dare to click? Suckers.
I've seen it. Why shouldn't I dare click? But a fancy webpage proves absolutely nothing, if it did I could send you some really fancy links that you would be well adviced not to visit though they seem very convincing.
To quote: "The proposed theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. Critics say it lacks corroborating scientific evidence, and is a relic of cold fusion. Philip Warren Anderson said he is sure it's a "fraud", and Stephen Chu called it "extremely unlikely". In 2009 IEEE Spectrum magazine characterized it as a "loser" technology because "Most experts don't believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don't present convincing evidence". BlackLight has announced several times that it was about to deliver commercial products based on Mill's theories but has not delivered a working product."
Until something more substantial is put on the table, I consider it purely speculative and a puff of hot air. If one is about to disprove quantum mechanics, some pretty decisive proofs are needed. The history is full of speculative schemes falling flat on their face despite lots of hype and true believers. Most people are too gullible, mostly because it would be soooooo nice if it actually were true, and hence their willingness to put their normal, sceptical facilities aside. That is what has kept all schemers in business through the years. Read Kahn's very worthwhile book "Thinking fast and slow" for an understanding of how these mechanisms work.
After all, there are millions of people actually believing in the book of Mormon. If I needed 5 wives perhaps I would believe too. P. T. Barnum got it right. But in the real world there aren't that many free lunches (not that 5 wives are free - shudder!).
Quote from: mn dave on April 04, 2014, 05:48:13 AMI've built a time machine that runs on Cheetos.
You can expect to be hearing from my lawyers regarding patent infringement.
Quote from: Todd on April 04, 2014, 06:48:19 AM
You can expect to be hearing from my lawyers regarding patent infringement.
Oh no, now he'll disappear from the board again!
Quote from: mn dave on April 04, 2014, 05:48:13 AM
I've built a time machine that runs on Cheetos.
Puffed or Fried? 'cause if it's puffed, we can talk some business! :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on April 04, 2014, 06:52:03 AM
Puffed or Fried? 'cause if it's puffed, we can talk some business! :)
8)
Either! 0:)
Quote from: mn dave on April 04, 2014, 05:48:13 AM
I've built a time machine that runs on Cheetos.
You forgot to mention that the commercial release will be Real Soon Now.
Quote from: Pat B on April 04, 2014, 07:53:17 AM
You forgot to mention that the commercial release will be Real Soon Now.
I'd buy two, travel back in time with one of them, and start selling them first.
Quote from: North Star on April 04, 2014, 01:39:48 PM
I'd buy two, travel back in time with one of them, and start selling them first.
;D
Quote from: The new erato on April 04, 2014, 06:31:16 AM
I've seen it. Why shouldn't I dare click? But a fancy webpage proves absolutely nothing, if it did I could send you some really fancy links that you would be well adviced not to visit though they seem very convincing.
To quote: "The proposed theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. Critics say it lacks corroborating scientific evidence, and is a relic of cold fusion. Philip Warren Anderson said he is sure it's a "fraud", and Stephen Chu called it "extremely unlikely". In 2009 IEEE Spectrum magazine characterized it as a "loser" technology because "Most experts don't believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don't present convincing evidence". BlackLight has announced several times that it was about to deliver commercial products based on Mill's theories but has not delivered a working product."
Until something more substantial is put on the table, I consider it purely speculative and a puff of hot air. If one is about to disprove quantum mechanics, some pretty decisive proofs are needed. The history is full of speculative schemes falling flat on their face despite lots of hype and true believers. Most people are too gullible, mostly because it would be soooooo nice if it actually were true, and hence their willingness to put their normal, sceptical facilities aside. That is what has kept all schemers in business through the years. Read Kahn's very worthwhile book "Thinking fast and slow" for an understanding of how these mechanisms work.
After all, there are millions of people actually believing in the book of Mormon. If I needed 5 wives perhaps I would believe too. P. T. Barnum got it right. But in the real world there aren't that many free lunches (not that 5 wives are free - shudder!).
Mr Mills has published three books with original ideas of physics and cosmology. They are free to download: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/theory/
A updated video about their technology is on the website:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pv_princeton-video/
Quote from: Henk on May 06, 2014, 03:10:20 AM
Mr Mills has published three books with original ideas of physics and cosmology. They are free to download: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/theory/
A updated video about their technology is on the website:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pv_princeton-video/
I wouldn't read them or watch that video if you paid me.
Quote from: North Star on May 06, 2014, 03:25:07 AM
I wouldn't read them or watch that video if you paid me.
Why not??
Quote from: Henk on May 06, 2014, 03:26:46 AM
Why not??
Because I prefer technology that's based on science, and not on the doings of magical elves. I'm sure Yavanna could have created such a magnificent source of energy without the need to concern herself with conservation of energy or other mundane laws of science.
If anyone is interested
http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2011/12/29/hydrinos-impressive-free-energy-crackpottery/
And Henk, here is another energy company that is investable - the shares are a bargain at $0.0045 each.
QuoteSEFE, Inc. is a development stage company that is engaged in developing and marketing a renewable source of energy that naturally occurs in the atmosphere. It is designed to operate by capturing static electricity from the atmosphere and making it usable for mining, manufacturing and construction companies, utility companies and mining relief organizations. The company was founded on September 24, 2004 and is headquartered in Scottsdale, AZ.
Just email me a couple of days before you buy a bunch of the stock
(just kidding, seriously these things are scams)
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2014, 09:30:28 AM
Sort of like cold fusion.
or inertial confinement fusion
Quote from: XB-70 Valkyrie on May 06, 2014, 10:02:15 AM
or inertial confinement fusion
There's lots of internal confusion that should qualify for confinement at least in this thread.
I propose we start fusing atoms.. with Mahler!!!
https://www.youtube.com/v/2m9kC1yRnLQ
Quote from: The new erato on April 04, 2014, 06:10:58 AM
I've always wondered if a wind quintet could power a windmill and solve our energy problems.
Think of the possibilities! A wind ensemble could power a whole aeolian plant. Simple science.
Quote from: Wanderer on May 12, 2014, 10:36:49 AM
Amen.
yes, fusion is the power source of the future, and always will be. Commercial fusion has been 30 years away for the last 50 years
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 12, 2014, 01:00:31 PMyes, fusion is the power source of the future, and always will be. Commercial fusion has been 30 years away for the last 50 years
But this time is different. ITER will go live in 2027. Unless there are delays.
Quote from: Todd on May 12, 2014, 01:06:31 PM
But this time is different. ITER will go live in 2027. Unless there are delays.
Yep, even if it does its a long way off from being economic. A 500MW combined cycle plant currently costs a few hundred million dollars, say $0.60 / watt and by 2027 500MW of PV panels will cost a fraction of that, and have no fuel costs and virtually no maintenance. ITER's cost is over $40 million per watt and nobody really knows how to deal with the neutron radiation destroying the plant over a longer time period
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 12, 2014, 01:29:58 PMYep, even if it does its a long way off from being economic.
I doubt it will ever be economically feasible to utilize fusion. ITER is a poorly managed fantasy project. Solar is another technology that has been touted for a long time as an energy source for the future, and while it's costs are dropping and will continue to drop, it has the same intrinsic physical limitation as wind: Intermittency. Without enormous advances in large scale battery technology, integrating such power sources into the grid on a large scale will end up costing huge sums, and will still require carbon heavy energy sources (ie, coal and gas) to continuously meet demand. Hydro is the main renewable source of the past, present, and near-term and medium-term (and probably long-term) future.
Quote from: Todd on May 12, 2014, 01:57:05 PM
I doubt it will ever be economically feasible to utilize fusion. ITER is a poorly managed fantasy project. Solar is another technology that has been touted for a long time as an energy source for the future, and while it's costs are dropping and will continue to drop, it has the same intrinsic physical limitation as wind: Intermittency. Without enormous advances in large scale battery technology, integrating such power sources into the grid on a large scale will end up costing huge sums, and will still require carbon heavy energy sources (ie, coal and gas) to continuously meet demand. Hydro is the main renewable source of the past, present, and near-term and medium-term (and probably long-term) future.
sure, but gas + solar + wind is the future. I think just about any homeowner in TX would slap some PV panels on his roof to defray summer AC costs if it could be easily financed and pay for itself (without subsidy) in a few years
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 12, 2014, 02:03:27 PMsure, but gas + solar + wind is the future. I think just about any homeowner in TX would slap some PV panels on his roof to defray summer AC costs if it could be easily financed and pay for itself (without subsidy) in a few years
Primary renewable energy sources will vary by region to some extent. What will work great in Texas will not work so great in the Northwest. And solar has a long, long road ahead of it to become a significant source of energy. In 2012 in the US, only about 0.11% of total energy production was from solar, and about 6% or so total from non-hydro renewables. Updating generation capacity and upgrading the power grid to handle intermittency will take three or four decades and cost trillions. I have no problem with that, I just think people should be realistic in their expectations. And hopefully the US (and other countries) don't become too enamored of any one or two technologies and lavish obscene subsidies on favored industries, like Germany has done with solar, resulting in inflated prices that act as a heavily regressive tax. Of course, I suppose one could view the Fifth Fleet as an oil industry subsidy of sorts.
Quote from: Todd on May 12, 2014, 03:00:06 PMAnd hopefully the US (and other countries) don't become too enamored of any one or two technologies and lavish obscene subsidies on favored industries, like Germany has done with solar, resulting in inflated prices that act as a heavily regressive tax.
It works pretty well for them so far. And the subsidized headstart will pay off immensely in the long term.
Quote from: Rinaldo on May 13, 2014, 01:45:45 AMIt works pretty well for them so far. And the subsidized headstart will pay off immensely in the long term.
Not everyone is as convinced as you are. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/solar-subsidy-sinkhole-re-evaluating-germany-s-blind-faith-in-the-sun-a-809439.html) Of course, this is only one article, but there are others that have been published that are readily available online. And here's the thing, even the German government has started to scale back on its programs (http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/german-government-plans-rile-solar-industry-_100013997/#axzz31bPVAWeS). There are other articles that more adequately address the intrinsically regressive nature of electric rates under the existing subsidization programs. I'm not familiar with scholarly articles of the subject, but I have to think at least a few exist.
Even after years of subsidies, if you take one step up geographically, you will see that while Germany may be into solar, in the EU market as a whole, hydro remains far and away the largest source of renewable energy, providing something like fifteen times as much power than solar, just like other regions of the world. The cost per megawatt hour of hydro is still much lower, to boot.
Something else that must be considered as it pertains to German solar policy is the parasitic behavior of German firms overseas. For instance, Solar World has operations in the US, just a few miles from where I live, and they demand subsidies from the local government and have lobbied the US federal government to place sanctions on Chinese PV manufacturers, all while delivering far fewer jobs than promised, and those jobs are subject to cost cutting - ie, layoffs. It's no surprise, of course, that firms that rely so heavily on rent seeking behavior as part of their business model behave in such a way, but the results have not been up to snuff in terms of technology development, jobs, cost effectiveness, or power generation.
Quote from: Todd on May 13, 2014, 05:50:13 AMEven after years of subsidies, if you take one step up geographically, you will see that while Germany may be into solar, in the EU market as a whole, hydro remains far and away the largest source of renewable energy, providing something like fifteen times as much power than solar, just like other regions of the world. The cost per megawatt hour of hydro is still much lower, to boot.
Something else that must be considered as it pertains to German solar policy is the parasitic behavior of German firms overseas. For instance, Solar World has operations in the US, just a few miles from where I live, and they demand subsidies from the local government and have lobbied the US federal government to place sanctions on Chinese PV manufacturers, all while delivering far fewer jobs than promised, and those jobs are subject to cost cutting - ie, layoffs. It's no surprise, of course, that firms that rely so heavily on rent seeking behavior as part of their business model behave in such a way, but the results have not been up to snuff in terms of technology development, jobs, cost effectiveness, or power generation.
You raise valid points. Yet, I'm all for solar (while trying to solve fusion on the side), because the sheer volume of energy that's out there
all the time kinda makes it obvious. I find it highly reasonable to go after that energy and go after it hard, even if it causes short-term inconveniences. The BS that comes with politics and corruption obviously makes that transition much more painful than it should be, but the longer we hesitate, the deeper the hole we're currently digging under ourselves will be.
Quote from: Rinaldo on May 13, 2014, 06:21:39 AMYet, I'm all for solar (while trying to solve fusion on the side), because the sheer volume of energy that's out there all the time kinda makes it obvious.
I'm all for solar, too. And wind. And hydro. And geothermal. Being from a coastal state, I'm all for wave power, as well. Surely the ocean offers permanent energy. The problem is that cost effective wave power generation, which is over a decade into development now, is decades away, if it can ever be made cost effective. I also like nuclear, though my previous enthusiasm has been tempered somewhat by the fact that there simply isn't enough fuel to make it a viable really long-term (ie, centuries) primary energy source on the scale needed by the US or China. (Waste management is less of a concern; when I first learned of waste vitrification about twenty years ago from a cousin who was working on research at the Hanford plant, and he described the fascinating process in the mundane language of someone who spent many, many hours working on it, it became clear that the primary hurdle to successful waste management is emotion.) The only so-called green energy source I have an issue with is biomass, especially as it is being misused now, primarily by European countries which have taken to burning wood pellets to meet
political CO2 targets - forests are being felled to keep the lights on, and the supposed reduction of CO2 emissions will actually take decades to materialize. (Euro governments are cooking the books; many of the pellets used for fuel are generated in other countries, which has the benefit of keeping the CO2 generated in the conversion from lumber to pellets out of the official figures for CO2 generation in the countries that burn the pellets for energy.)
It strikes me as quite obvious that long-term energy policy must rely on a mix of energy sources, which will vary by location, and my point earlier was that all countries need to avoid excessively costly and inefficient subsidy programs that are the result more of politics than efficient power generation. This of course is a big challenge. People really ought to refrain from becoming too fixated on any one technology, too. Solar is but part of the mix, and for certain regions. I can't see solar being much of a boon during Nordic winters, for instance.
And of course, global CO2 output will rise before it falls; it will be decades before aggregate CO2 output begins to decline, if it does then. Of course, wealthier countries should move and are moving toward less carbon-intensive economies, but it will take decades more to move this technology to less advanced regions of the world. That means that wealthier countries also need to make choices regarding allocating public resources to adaptive policies as well as mitigation policies in the next few decades. We need to respond to the reality that coal will be the single largest source of power for many years to come.
Tying it back to this thread, pie in the sky technologies like ITER should certainly be funded, if only for spillover benefits, but policy making should be more concerned with what does and will work. Snake oil like Blacklight is a waste of time.
Blacklight Power has renamed itself to Brilliant Light Power.
Mills added some exciting new content on a new website:
Main site: http://brilliantlightpower.com (http://brilliantlightpower.com)
http://brilliantlightpower.com/suncell/ (http://brilliantlightpower.com/suncell/)
http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/ (http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/)
There's also a nice Kickstarter project going on. I pledged it.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1083188713/illustrating-the-search-for-hydrino-energy?ref=thanks_share (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1083188713/illustrating-the-search-for-hydrino-energy?ref=thanks_share)
Quote from: Henk on January 11, 2016, 04:36:39 AM
There's also a nice Kickstarter project going on. I pledged it.
Please, save your money instead of supporting the fraud.
Why are you guys so paranoid? Mills is a genius who has done much hard work and shows much persistence, he delivers a product and still he is blamed for being a fraud? Is there something wrong with you?
The guy has tamed the sun! And that with only a small team.
ITER is a fraud instead and also the LHC. Only wishful thinking.
Quote from: Henk on January 11, 2016, 04:58:08 AMWhy are you guys so paranoid. Mills is a genius who has done much hard work and shows much persistence, he delivers a product and still he is blamed for being a fraud? Is there something wrong with you?
The guy has tamed the sun! And that with only a small team.
You ask why? Because there is no evidence whatsoever supporting this wacko's business model that violates the laws of physics. It's not a good idea to invest money in a technology that is based on a violation of the best currently accepted science.
Quote from: North Star on January 11, 2016, 05:06:22 AM
You ask why? Because there is no evidence whatsoever supporting this wacko's business model that violates the laws of physics. It's not a good idea to invest money in a technology that is based on a violation of the best currently accepted science.
I have more confidence in genius that in a bunch of scholars.
Quote from: Henk on January 11, 2016, 05:10:13 AM
I have more confidence in genius that in a bunch of scholars.
Genius according to who?
Quote from: North Star on January 11, 2016, 05:11:27 AM
Genius according to who?
According to my own common sense and intuition and the fact that he amazes with his products whether it be science or technology.
Quote from: Henk on January 11, 2016, 05:13:58 AM
According to my own common sense and intuition.
First of all, I'm sure you have never studied physics - Newtonian mechanics, not to mention quantum mechanics, right? If that is the case, your common sense and intuition aren't worth much, since the modern physics (and Mills's rehash of cold fusion doesn't differ here) is essentially counterintuitive. Seemingly continuous matter and energy are quantifiable, and so on. I also find it alarming that while you'd rather trust your own 'common sense and intuition' and a business owner who has never done anything but seek funding, for 25 years, instead of anyone who has actually studied physics or empirically tested Mills's claims, and found that they don't hold up, thinking that everyone else is paranoid..
Quote from: North Star on January 11, 2016, 05:23:36 AM
First of all, I'm sure you have never studied physics - Newtonian mechanics, not to mention quantum mechanics, right? If that is the case, your common sense and intuition aren't worth much, since the modern physics (and Mills's rehash of cold fusion doesn't differ here) is essentially counterintuitive. Seemingly continuous matter and energy are quantifiable, and so on. I also find it alarming that while you'd rather trust your own 'common sense and intuition' and a business owner who has never done anything but seek funding, for 25 years, instead of anyone who has actually studied physics or empirically tested Mills's claims, and found that they don't hold up, thinking that everyone else is paranoid..
Of course I have had courses in physics. I did high school on highest level.
Mills continues the path of classical physics. He may be praised to do so. On the contrary so called modern science if it's counterintuitive well you can ask yourself if it can be maintained. I'm not against quantummechanics however, as Mills is, it should be made more intuitive.
Mills predications are proven and validated by independent parties as far as I know. It's easy for mainstream science to ignore somebody who has different ideas.
Quote from: Henk on January 11, 2016, 05:10:13 AM
I have more confidence in genius that in a bunch of scholars.
It's not about having confidence in people. You misunderstand what is science. Science is the best way to understand reality. Perhaps knowledgeable people here can explain about process, results, verification and falsification. I go with the scientific
process because it's reliable. This doesn't having anything to do with the people. Rather, it's the work these people do in their fields that give them credibility. Everyone in their field is constantly trying to prove the work wrong, including them.
Quote from: North Star on January 11, 2016, 05:23:36 AM
First of all, I'm sure you have never studied physics - Newtonian mechanics, not to mention quantum mechanics, right? If that is the case, your common sense and intuition aren't worth much, since the modern physics (and Mills's rehash of cold fusion doesn't differ here) is essentially counterintuitive. Seemingly continuous matter and energy are quantifiable, and so on. I also find it alarming that while you'd rather trust your own 'common sense and intuition' and a business owner who has never done anything but seek funding, for 25 years, instead of anyone who has actually studied physics or empirically tested Mills's claims, and found that they don't hold up, thinking that everyone else is paranoid..
What insulting words.
Quote from: milk on January 11, 2016, 05:36:56 AM
It's not about having confidence in people. You misunderstand what is science. Science is the best way to understand reality. Perhaps knowledgeable people here can explain about process, results, verification and falsification. I go with the scientific process because it's reliable. This doesn't having anything to do with the people. Rather, it's the work these people do in their fields that give them credibility. Everyone in their field is constantly trying to prove the work wrong, including them.
The mainstream of scientist are not aware of anything of what science is according to philosophy. They distantiate themselve from philosophy, which doesn't benefit the quality and reflection of/on their work much. For example they all suffer from the basic fallacy that their are laws in nature, there are not, science can only describe nature.
Quote from: milk on January 11, 2016, 05:36:56 AM
It's not about having confidence in people. You misunderstand what is science. Science is the best way to understand reality. Perhaps knowledgeable people here can explain about process, results, verification and falsification. I go with the scientific process because it's reliable. This doesn't having anything to do with the people. Rather, it's the work these people do in their fields that give them credibility. Everyone in their field is constantly trying to prove the work wrong, including them.
Could be, but with much biases and hiatus. A good scientist must be aware of this and not overestimate science. Also, define "best". One could say of philosophy that it's the most deep, pragmatic and enriching way to understand reality.
Arnold Cornelis offers a nice definition of science, namely: "science could be seen as the systematic approach to prevent humanity from madness." A nice one! :)
Quote from: Henk on January 11, 2016, 05:30:51 AM
Mills continues the path of classical physics. He may be praised to do so. On the contrary so called modern science if it's counterintuitive well you can ask yourself if it can be maintained. I'm not against quantummechanics however, as Mills is, it should be made more intuitive.
Mills predications are proven and validated by independent parties as far as I know. It's easy for mainstream science to ignore somebody who has different ideas.
First of all,
Mills's theory is not 'classical physics'. It uses quantum mechanics (the whole idea of the hydrogen atoms' hydrino energy level is purely a QM-based concept - there are no energy levels in classical physics), although quite wrongly.
Your suggestion that QM is wrong because it's counterintuitive doesn't make sense, either. Is Chinese wrong if it seems counterintuitive to me?
Quote from: Henk on January 11, 2016, 05:37:38 AM
What insulting words.
Truth insults those who despise it.
Quote from: Henk on January 11, 2016, 05:41:34 AM
The mainstream of scientist are not aware of anything of what science is according to philosophy. They distantiate themselve from philosophy, which doesn't benefit the quality and reflection of/on their work much. For example they all suffer from the basic fallacy that their are laws in nature, there are not, science can only describe nature.
In which case no inventions could ever be possible. Of course science is descriptive, but the descriptions has their scientific use (or abuse). But please continue, this is quite entertaining.
A scientist must make replicable and falsifiable claims, which Randall Mills has not - classic sign of charlatan
Quote from: North Star on January 11, 2016, 05:53:17 AM
First of all, Mills's theory is not 'classical physics'. It uses quantum mechanics (the whole idea of the hydrogen atoms' hydrino energy level is purely a QM-based concept - there are no energy levels in classical physics), although quite wrongly.
Well, Mills tells differently. Who should I believe? A guy writing on a forum called GMG or the genius himself?
Quote from: Henk on January 11, 2016, 05:59:40 AM
Well, Mills tells differently. Who should I believe? A guy writing on a forum called GMG or the genius himself?
It all hinges on the definition of genius. Have you reflected on why the change of name of his company?
Quote from: Henk on January 11, 2016, 05:59:40 AM
Well, Mills tells differently. Who should I believe? A guy writing on a forum called GMG or the genius himself?
neither - just check if there is independent verification of the claims of the 'genius'
Quote from: bwv 1080 on January 11, 2016, 06:07:54 AM
neither - just check if there is independent verification of the claims of the 'genius'
http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/ (http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/)
Quote from: Henk on January 11, 2016, 06:12:21 AM
http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/ (http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/)
these are testimonials, not peer reviewed science
Most importantly of course is the energy problem would be fixed and Mills gives hope which ITER can't provide. Mills provides an elegant solution to a world threatening problem. That's something to feel good about. It's about believe rather than truth. The taming of the sun. That's just awesome!
And I believe in universal peace and love. A laudable goal. Doesn't mean it's bound to happen!
Quote from: The new erato on January 11, 2016, 06:27:47 AM
And I believe in universal peace and love. A laudable goal. Doesn't mean it's bound to happen!
yet another proposition lacking empirical evidence...
Quote from: bwv 1080 on January 11, 2016, 06:30:32 AM
yet another proposition lacking empirical evidence...
Doesn't matter since I'm a genius!
All you guys should do some more study. Can't explain everything to you.. yet.
Quote from: Henk on January 11, 2016, 06:57:08 AM
All you guys should do some more study. Can't explain everything to you.. yet.
Having spent 5 years studying for a master in electrophysics including a 5 year stint as a scientist in Norwegian Telcom's research lab in the early 80'ies, I'm spent studying in that area. Took an MBA and turned to IT and Finance instead :-), much more fun (and much more loose money).
I sort of admire your strong beliefs, just make sure you don't invest money you can ill afford to lose.
Quote from: Henk on January 11, 2016, 06:57:08 AMCan't explain everything to you.. yet.
No, you certainly cannot:
Quote from: Henk on January 11, 2016, 05:30:51 AMI did high school on highest level.
For those interested.
https://www.youtube.com/v/R0PYe-4090g
Right now, I'm running on Black Pyramid power.
Quote from: Todd on March 03, 2014, 09:30:28 AM
Sort of like cold fusion.
Or inertial confinement fusion (a la "NIF" that is)