Rowan University Publishes Further Confirmations of BLP

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Post by Kahuna »

kurt9 wrote:
TallDave wrote:I believe Rowan has been working closely with BLP for some time.

As I've said before, I suspect they have a moderately novel chemical reaction here. I very much doubt they have created fractional electron states, as they claim.

Mills' theory is crazy, and the sensible portions of his published work were largely plagiarized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power
I agree. I'm no physicist. But try as I might, I can't wrap my head around fractional quantum states. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I guess I will have to see a working generator before I'm convinced. You do know that these guys claimed last year to have a working generator sometime this fall.
Yes, BLP apparently has six contracts to provide generators to various utilities.

See:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/Press%20 ... 073009.htm

I assume they will have to perform on those in the not too far distant future or suffer a big credibility hit. It seems like the BLP story has got to take a turn in some direction before too long.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

kurt9 wrote:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If this were true, trivial claims would only require trivial evidence.

In science all claims (however trivial and even if in apparent agreement with accepted theory) require properly reviewed evidence.

Period.
Ars artis est celare artem.

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

alexjrgreen wrote:
kurt9 wrote:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If this were true, trivial claims would only require trivial evidence.

In science all claims (however trivial and even if in apparent agreement with accepted theory) require properly reviewed evidence.

Period.
An extraordinary claim is one that appears to contradict a lot of existing evidence, hence it requires extraordinary proof.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

TallDave wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:
kurt9 wrote:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If this were true, trivial claims would only require trivial evidence.

In science all claims (however trivial and even if in apparent agreement with accepted theory) require properly reviewed evidence.

Period.
An extraordinary claim is one that appears to contradict a lot of existing evidence, hence it requires extraordinary proof.
It doesn't require extraordinary proof.

It requires exactly the the same quality of properly reviewed, independently replicated evidence as any other claim.
Ars artis est celare artem.

dnavas
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:59 am

Post by dnavas »

alexjrgreen wrote: It doesn't require extraordinary proof.

It requires exactly the the same quality of properly reviewed, independently replicated evidence as any other claim.
Are you really saying that obtaining a quality review and independent replicated evidence for extraordinary claims is not more burdensome than for lesser claims?

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

alexjrgreen wrote:It doesn't require extraordinary proof.

It requires exactly the the same quality of properly reviewed, independently replicated evidence as any other claim.
Would that that were true. But putting a dent into the Clovis First theory has required HUGE amounts of evidence, far more than seems went into generating the theory in the first place.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof because most folk won't even LOOK at ordinary proofs in such cases.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

dnavas wrote:Are you really saying that obtaining a quality review and independent replicated evidence for extraordinary claims is not more burdensome than for lesser claims?
KitemanSA wrote:Would that that were true. But putting a dent into the Clovis First theory has required HUGE amounts of evidence, far more than seems went into generating the theory in the first place.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof because most folk won't even LOOK at ordinary proofs in such cases.
There aren't two different standards of evidence in Science.

Refusing to properly consider evidence because it might undermine the status quo is Politics, pure and simple.
Ars artis est celare artem.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

alexjrgreen wrote: Refusing to properly consider evidence because it might undermine the status quo is Politics, pure and simple.
Your conclusion is based on the premise that politics plays no role in science, which is clearly a bad premise.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

Helius wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote: Refusing to properly consider evidence because it might undermine the status quo is Politics, pure and simple.
Your conclusion is based on the premise that politics plays no role in science, which is clearly a bad premise.
Politics plays a part in all human activity...

Rigorous scientific method identifies and excludes such bias.
Ars artis est celare artem.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

alexjrgreen wrote:
Helius wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote: Refusing to properly consider evidence because it might undermine the status quo is Politics, pure and simple.
Your conclusion is based on the premise that politics plays no role in science, which is clearly a bad premise.
Politics plays a part in all human activity...

Rigorous scientific method identifies and excludes such bias.
Respectfully Disagree. Any single experiment, regardless of rigor, is not necessarily sufficient to cause a paradigm shift it the existing world view of the science being challenged. Don't be so quick to dismiss politics.

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

Helius wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:Politics plays a part in all human activity...

Rigorous scientific method identifies and excludes such bias.
Respectfully Disagree. Any single experiment, regardless of rigor, is not necessarily sufficient to cause a paradigm shift it the existing world view of the science being challenged.
Properly reviewed, independently replicated evidence is enough. Eventually.
Helius wrote:Don't be so quick to dismiss politics.
As a former politician, that's rather unlikely...
Ars artis est celare artem.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

alexjrgreen wrote:
TallDave wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote: If this were true, trivial claims would only require trivial evidence.

In science all claims (however trivial and even if in apparent agreement with accepted theory) require properly reviewed evidence.

Period.
An extraordinary claim is one that appears to contradict a lot of existing evidence, hence it requires extraordinary proof.
It doesn't require extraordinary proof.

It requires exactly the the same quality of properly reviewed, independently replicated evidence as any other claim.
OK. This is absolutely (and mathematically provably) not true. It is a simple matter of Bayes theorem. An extraordinary claim has a much lower prior probability than one which is compatible with existing theory. So for it to be preferred stronger evidence is required. the framework here is inductive, not deductive, and all evidence is probabilistic.

It is more subtle of course to evaluate prior probabilities. For example, Kepler's use of elliptical orbits to explain planetary motion, which overthrew existing ideas of multiple circles, had a higher prior, provably, because a given correspondence with observations could be obtained with fewer free parameters.

Where there is a whole theoretical framework with interlinked theories and observations it is not simple to evaluate priors but the principle remains. In no way is Hydrino Theory a simpler explanation of anything than classical QM, because it is not theoretically consistent.

Best wishes, Tom

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

I've been told that it was Newton that proved elliptical orbits [whereas Kepler, as you say, 'demonstrated' the possibility] and is a relevant inclusion in this discussion because in Newton's day all such proofs were done by graphical means, after Greek geometry. He firstly proved elliptical orbits by his newly invented calculus, but had to then go back and repeat the proof geometrically before disseminating it into the public domain, which he did using his calculus as a guide.

The point being, you can't use your own sited ideas to prove themselves (as per BlackLight) but you have to frame them in the conventions of the day. This is not unreasonable and provides the contiguity of evidenced logic required for well-founded modern science.

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

There aren't two different standards of evidence in Science.
No, but there are competing theories. If two theories contradict each other and one has massive evidence and the other has scant evidence, which is more likely to be correct? It is simply a fact larger samples are generally more likely to be representative.

Kepler overturned Ptolemaic models based on massive evidence compiled by Tycho Brahe. His extraordinary claim had extraordinary proof.
alexjrgreen wrote:Refusing to properly consider evidence because it might undermine the status quo is Politics, pure and simple.
Heh. It's not "the status quo" it's a giant pile of contrary evidence. Properly reviewed, independently verified experiments do sometimes reach wrong conclusions.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tomclarke »

chrismb wrote:I've been told that it was Newton that proved elliptical orbits [whereas Kepler, as you say, 'demonstrated' the possibility] and is a relevant inclusion in this discussion because in Newton's day all such proofs were done by graphical means, after Greek geometry. He firstly proved elliptical orbits by his newly invented calculus, but had to then go back and repeat the proof geometrically before disseminating it into the public domain, which he did using his calculus as a guide.

The point being, you can't use your own sited ideas to prove themselves (as per BlackLight) but you have to frame them in the conventions of the day. This is not unreasonable and provides the contiguity of evidenced logic required for well-founded modern science.
Proof is a slippery word, and in science often relative.

Kepler's analysis of Tycho Brahe's observations was enough to make ellipses the preferred explanation over epicycles. Graphical or not, I can call this proof, though Kepler did not have a complete theory.

Newton went one step further, and showed that ellipses were the result of a much simpler theory, which also explained other phenomena - planetary gravity. This theory thus becomes massively more likely. It has a lower prior because F=-Grm1m2/r^3 is very simple, and it explains very precisely (though not perfectly) multiple observations which would otherwise require independent ad hoc explanations with a combined much lower prior.

And Newton with Leibnitz and others developed the framework to prove that ellipses were the result of this theory - and many other things.

Scientists are limited by the ideas that are current, no doubt, so that 'best' theories are not necessarily obvious. One clear example now would be a GUT-gravity unification where things look complex now but the correct theory, when understood and presented in the correct framework, may turn out to be very simple. Then again, it may not...

I don't alas think the BLP excess heat is likely to be the result of any such theoretical advance. The BLP 'theories' could of course be preferred to existing ones if they had stronger weight of interlinked confirmatory evidence - impossible - and would at least be interesting if they made significantly better predictions than existing theory (they do not). Coming up with new independent theories that will be taken seriously is difficult when the evidence for the existing theory is so strong, and much easier when there is no well developed existing theory (e.g. GUT-gravity).

Best wishes, Tom

Post Reply