BLP news
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
When I wrote what you're quoting, it was true. I have no idea if it is still true. It is possible that BLP is looking for investors again, just as it is possible they did not pay anything for the endorsements. My reading of the 6 various papers was that those parties had been retained by someone else to determine whether BLP should be provided funding in order to develop the CIHT technology. I have no confirmation of this, but the language in the reports seemed to say it was written for a specific answer on this issue. I sincerely doubt that BLP paid those 6 parties. It looks like they were retained as hired guns to do an analysis for investors.chrismb wrote:GIThruster wrote:Try to bear in mind that BLP does not need to post this info any longer. It is years since they were looking for investors. They are now selling licenses so they don't need to worry about convincing people 5 years after the fact.
- Why pay for endorsements, then?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
There's a world of difference between demonstrating a small understanding of what the theory says and believing/proposing it.chrismb wrote:GIThruster wrote:Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about anyone accepting Mills' theory. I don't even accept Mills' theory. Before you even begin to look at the consequences of the evidence, you need to have a firm handle on the evidence. No one at Rowan, or Harvard, or MIT, or Cal-Tech is going to stick their neck out and say they believe Mills' theory. I certainly am not going to and I haven't pressed anyone here to do so nor ever offered anything like that sort of argument or conclusion.seedload wrote: It is NOT glowing acceptance of BLP and the Mill's hydrino theory despite how you characterize it.
All I've said is "here is the evidence. . ."
- really?
GIThruster wrote:Yes. The process can be used for any element for which a suitable catalyst can be found. The theory does predict that in some circumstances, a catalyst will come in contact with an element under the very low pressure and otherwise special conditions necessary for a fractal energy state to be obtained, and in Mills' book you'll find discussion of this.D Tibbets wrote:Further, if hydrogen can drop an electron below the ground state, I would expect any other element to also do so. There would be a whole zoo of unexplained phenomena.
Lets line you up with some remedial reading classes, Chris. Most elementary schools can help you.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote: There's a world of difference between demonstrating a small understanding of what the theory says and believing/proposing it.
No 'ifs', no 'buts', no 'maybe's'!
(Yet, he says he has not 'accepted' it!!??)
GIThruster wrote:Yes. The process can be used for any element for which a suitable catalyst can be found.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Chris, anyone reading the quote in context I'm sure understands that I was reporting on the claims of the theory, not my own beliefs.
I don't know how many times I need to say it, Chris. I've said it at least a half dozen times in this thread alone and yet you still act like a douchbag and insinuate I'm lying.
I don't believe or disbelieve Mill's theory. I think it bears fair investigation and I don't think it's ever seen this because people understand this would require a radical shift in scientific understanding. These sorts of paradigm shifts are always opposed by the masses and especially by cowards and other small-minded people like Chris.
I don't know how many times I need to say it, Chris. I've said it at least a half dozen times in this thread alone and yet you still act like a douchbag and insinuate I'm lying.
I don't believe or disbelieve Mill's theory. I think it bears fair investigation and I don't think it's ever seen this because people understand this would require a radical shift in scientific understanding. These sorts of paradigm shifts are always opposed by the masses and especially by cowards and other small-minded people like Chris.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
- Context makes it worse still:
GIThruster wrote:Yes. The process can be used for any element for which a suitable catalyst can be found. The theory does predict that in some circumstances, a catalyst will come in contact with an element under the very low pressure and otherwise special conditions necessary for a fractal energy state to be obtained, and in Mills' book you'll find discussion of this.D Tibbets wrote:Further, if hydrogen can drop an electron below the ground state, I would expect any other element to also do so. There would be a whole zoo of unexplained phenomena.
The current state of the art is to drop hydrogen to 1/7 of its base state, releasing energy in the UV spectrum, which is where the moniker "BlackLight" comes from, but in Mills book you'll find several other examples of this process, and even cosmological observations he states are of this process occurring in nature.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
You know Chris is no troll. You are sounding desperate. It doesn't change the argument (what ever that is) but it is bad for the atmospherics (casual observers).GIThruster wrote:Like I said, no value added. Only a troll could come to a forum equipped with a gif intended for the use above. Can't you go find a dog to kick or a baby to steal candy from, Chris?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
No it doesn'tGIThruster wrote:Mill's theory. I think it bears fair investigation and I don't think it's ever seen this because people understand this would require a radical shift in scientific understanding.
You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them. | What I want to do is to look up S. . . . I call him the Schadenfreudean Man.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Simon, every time I return to this forum, Chris stalks me and posts some sort of assault. Without cause he insults and annoys and the fact he came prepared with an animated gif just to insult others is demonstration enough he is a troll. Emotionally mature people don't make preparations specifically to antagonize others. Chris is a troll.
Betruger, I'm a little shocked you're this far off in understanding the subject. Just so we understand each other--people don't find Mills theory offensive just because he says he found answers that others passed over for many decades. That happens periodically in science and doesn't cause the fuss we've seen with Mills' theory.
The problem with Mills theory is that for it to be correct, things we accept such as the Bohr model of the electron and the Schrodinger equation would both be shown incorrect. Mills is proposing a precise classical calculation of quantum events and chemical bonding energies that is inconsistent with the notion of a probability wave. Mills is therefore saying everyone is wrong. That, in a nutshell, is enough to have him castigated and ostracized by the scientific community, just as was Galileo.
(Before anyone notes that Galileo was persecuted by the religious community let me point out that these were the scientists of their day. All academics in the West was at that time done inside the church and so it was indeed the scientists who persecuted Galileo, just as has been done dozens of other times, as documented by Kuhn.)
The emotional resistance and general angst generated by revolutions in scientific understanding have been well documented by Thomas Kuhn in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Also in epistemology, we accept that any pressure to change a foundational belief will generate angst and an emotional reaction response, identical to what we're seeing with Mills' theory.
It's important to note that just because scientists are like everyone else, in that they have emotional responses when their deeply held beliefs are challenged, this is no measure whether the challenge has real value. It's not a test for truth. The only way to get to a truth test is for scientists and others to set aside their angst and deliberately deal with the challenging theory. It's this that I believe has never been done before as regards Mills.
In the past when I've looked at the arguments against Mills, they've been pretty shabby and to the best of my knowledge, all have been answered by Mills. Most times, people merely make rhetorical responses such as those posted above where people are simply hand-waving their responses. It's good to recognize that this is exactly how Galileo was treated as well as many others. It takes time, and attention, and some skull sweat to get to the bottom of these sorts of issues.
That's why I have said from the start and will continue to say, that I do not have a belief either for or against Mills. I think the issue needs to be examined on a base level and answered. I haven't seen this done thus far.
And just saying, if one looks at the quality and content of the responses to Mills, it's obvious he is not getting fair consideration. As posted above in this thread, respected scientists make blanket statements that Mills is wrong in too many places to count, and to date no one has counted them. These arguments from authority are most assuredly not scientific in nature. They deftly sidestep all the real issues.
Likewise, look at the quality and content of the arguments against in this thread. During this last decade, we've seen:
--Mills publish almost 100 times.
--We've seen NIAC fund an experiment and get a decent paper from.
--We've seen the creation of the Millsian program, that uses Mills' theory to calculate specific chemical bonding energies and had these calculations confirmed hundreds of times as more accurate than those predicted through methods stemming from other means.
--We've seen BLP and outside sources perform 6 different kinds of well established chemical analysis tests verifying one is seeing an hydrino.
--We've seen BLP come up with their own reactor and publish about it.
--We've seen that reactor replicated and run for 2 years by an academic institution, with an open invitation for anyone who wants to come examine that work.
--We've seen that team at Rowan do a chemical analysis and claim that the heat generated cannot come from normal chemical reactions--there is too much heat.
--We've seen BLP go on to develop a fuel cell that generates electricity and form a plan to scale up the cell to useful size within 2 years.
Now what have we seen in response? Count the comedy! Seriously, were I to again start to recount all the silly and stupid kinds of responses to all this, I think all I'd do is make people here angry. The responses have been childish, ignorant and useless and have generally avoided the real issues at every turn, instead embracing pathetic rhetorical and fallacious arguments that ever fail to come to the real issues.
I'm not here siding with Mills and I don't believe he is right or wrong. I believe the scientific community is acting very unscientific when it comes to providing a response to Mills' theory. The fact I have my own personal stalker with Chris, ought to be proof enough that what I'm saying is true about this issue. The responses to Mills are NOT scientific.
Betruger, I'm a little shocked you're this far off in understanding the subject. Just so we understand each other--people don't find Mills theory offensive just because he says he found answers that others passed over for many decades. That happens periodically in science and doesn't cause the fuss we've seen with Mills' theory.
The problem with Mills theory is that for it to be correct, things we accept such as the Bohr model of the electron and the Schrodinger equation would both be shown incorrect. Mills is proposing a precise classical calculation of quantum events and chemical bonding energies that is inconsistent with the notion of a probability wave. Mills is therefore saying everyone is wrong. That, in a nutshell, is enough to have him castigated and ostracized by the scientific community, just as was Galileo.
(Before anyone notes that Galileo was persecuted by the religious community let me point out that these were the scientists of their day. All academics in the West was at that time done inside the church and so it was indeed the scientists who persecuted Galileo, just as has been done dozens of other times, as documented by Kuhn.)
The emotional resistance and general angst generated by revolutions in scientific understanding have been well documented by Thomas Kuhn in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Also in epistemology, we accept that any pressure to change a foundational belief will generate angst and an emotional reaction response, identical to what we're seeing with Mills' theory.
It's important to note that just because scientists are like everyone else, in that they have emotional responses when their deeply held beliefs are challenged, this is no measure whether the challenge has real value. It's not a test for truth. The only way to get to a truth test is for scientists and others to set aside their angst and deliberately deal with the challenging theory. It's this that I believe has never been done before as regards Mills.
In the past when I've looked at the arguments against Mills, they've been pretty shabby and to the best of my knowledge, all have been answered by Mills. Most times, people merely make rhetorical responses such as those posted above where people are simply hand-waving their responses. It's good to recognize that this is exactly how Galileo was treated as well as many others. It takes time, and attention, and some skull sweat to get to the bottom of these sorts of issues.
That's why I have said from the start and will continue to say, that I do not have a belief either for or against Mills. I think the issue needs to be examined on a base level and answered. I haven't seen this done thus far.
And just saying, if one looks at the quality and content of the responses to Mills, it's obvious he is not getting fair consideration. As posted above in this thread, respected scientists make blanket statements that Mills is wrong in too many places to count, and to date no one has counted them. These arguments from authority are most assuredly not scientific in nature. They deftly sidestep all the real issues.
Likewise, look at the quality and content of the arguments against in this thread. During this last decade, we've seen:
--Mills publish almost 100 times.
--We've seen NIAC fund an experiment and get a decent paper from.
--We've seen the creation of the Millsian program, that uses Mills' theory to calculate specific chemical bonding energies and had these calculations confirmed hundreds of times as more accurate than those predicted through methods stemming from other means.
--We've seen BLP and outside sources perform 6 different kinds of well established chemical analysis tests verifying one is seeing an hydrino.
--We've seen BLP come up with their own reactor and publish about it.
--We've seen that reactor replicated and run for 2 years by an academic institution, with an open invitation for anyone who wants to come examine that work.
--We've seen that team at Rowan do a chemical analysis and claim that the heat generated cannot come from normal chemical reactions--there is too much heat.
--We've seen BLP go on to develop a fuel cell that generates electricity and form a plan to scale up the cell to useful size within 2 years.
Now what have we seen in response? Count the comedy! Seriously, were I to again start to recount all the silly and stupid kinds of responses to all this, I think all I'd do is make people here angry. The responses have been childish, ignorant and useless and have generally avoided the real issues at every turn, instead embracing pathetic rhetorical and fallacious arguments that ever fail to come to the real issues.
I'm not here siding with Mills and I don't believe he is right or wrong. I believe the scientific community is acting very unscientific when it comes to providing a response to Mills' theory. The fact I have my own personal stalker with Chris, ought to be proof enough that what I'm saying is true about this issue. The responses to Mills are NOT scientific.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
-
randomencounter
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:49 pm
@GIThruster:
The *hypothesised* existence of hydrinos is a violation of quantum theory that has thus far stood up to a great many very precise and stringent tests. I am totally unsurprised that you are being called out on it.
It is also totally irrelevant to the question of whether BLP has a viable product.
If they can produce a power cell that performs better than conventional batteries, all they have to do is make it. Standard acceptance tests capable of being performed by any competent engineer will then determine whether what they have made is better than what anyone else makes. That is really the only question of importance.
It doesn't matter at that point whether what they produce is powered by hydrinos, dark matter, or invisible unicorns, it will be a real thing that people can analyze and try to explain.
It also doesn't matter what the mechanism is if they don't produce anything that can be tested, because there is nothing to explain.
Until then, trying to get people to accept that BLP is legit just because their theory is neat isn't going to meet muster in any legitimate forum.
The *hypothesised* existence of hydrinos is a violation of quantum theory that has thus far stood up to a great many very precise and stringent tests. I am totally unsurprised that you are being called out on it.
It is also totally irrelevant to the question of whether BLP has a viable product.
If they can produce a power cell that performs better than conventional batteries, all they have to do is make it. Standard acceptance tests capable of being performed by any competent engineer will then determine whether what they have made is better than what anyone else makes. That is really the only question of importance.
It doesn't matter at that point whether what they produce is powered by hydrinos, dark matter, or invisible unicorns, it will be a real thing that people can analyze and try to explain.
It also doesn't matter what the mechanism is if they don't produce anything that can be tested, because there is nothing to explain.
Until then, trying to get people to accept that BLP is legit just because their theory is neat isn't going to meet muster in any legitimate forum.
His theory is a hodge-podge of previous theories and work, some found to be untrue, while others ambiguous enough that answers may never be found. Funny thing about his book on the theory, if you randomly select paragraphs from it and search them, they come back as from other peoples works, papers, etc. Copy and paste does wonders I suppose.randomencounter wrote:@GIThruster:
The *hypothesised* existence of hydrinos is a violation of quantum theory that has thus far stood up to a great many very precise and stringent tests. I am totally unsurprised that you are being called out on it.
It is also totally irrelevant to the question of whether BLP has a viable product.
If they can produce a power cell that performs better than conventional batteries, all they have to do is make it. Standard acceptance tests capable of being performed by any competent engineer will then determine whether what they have made is better than what anyone else makes. That is really the only question of importance.
It doesn't matter at that point whether what they produce is powered by hydrinos, dark matter, or invisible unicorns, it will be a real thing that people can analyze and try to explain.
It also doesn't matter what the mechanism is if they don't produce anything that can be tested, because there is nothing to explain.
Until then, trying to get people to accept that BLP is legit just because their theory is neat isn't going to meet muster in any legitimate forum.