ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brilliant Light Power , free energy , Randell Mills

Reply
Old 24th February 2019, 04:08 PM   #41
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,658
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Mills' work has held up to the scrutiny of third parties quite well. Unlike armchair skeptics here, the validators are qualified people who have actually visited BLP and checked out the various experiments for themselves. They are confident enough in their evaluations to put their names down as validators.


You repeat that I have a financial investment in BLP, when I have stated at least twice in this thread that I have none.


There you go, mindlessly swatting away two decades of validated work and dozens of papers published.
If so, why aren’t you a billionaire? Why haven’t you independently replicated the work, written it up independently, made a deal with {insert your fave here}, etc?

If not you, why not michalesuede? Brett H.? Any one of the thousands of people who have read Mills/BLP material, etc?

Why has no one nominated Mills for a Nobel?

The mind boggles.
JeanTate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 04:36 PM   #42
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,617
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
If so, why aren’t you a billionaire? Why haven’t you independently replicated the work, written it up independently, made a deal with {insert your fave here}, etc?

If not you, why not michalesuede? Brett H.? Any one of the thousands of people who have read Mills/BLP material, etc?

Why has no one nominated Mills for a Nobel?

The mind boggles.
Because it is a conspiracy of <insert villain of choice here> to suppress Mills in order to protect <insert vested interest of choice here>.

Perfectly obvious. Just look at how Steorn was suppressed and destroyed. Err, failed dismally.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 05:00 PM   #43
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,902
Remind me please what is suppose to happen on 26 February?
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 05:10 PM   #44
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,717
Thumbs down A "held up to the scrutiny of third parties quite well" lie

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Mills' work has held up to the scrutiny of third parties quite well. ....
A "held up to the scrutiny of third parties quite well" lie, markie, when paid "validators" mostly working at Mills premises with Mills employees and using Mills equipment are not actual third parties.

The "validation" reports have not been published by the validators - they are on Mills company web site. That allows Mills to alter them to add his delusions.

A delusion of "armchair skeptics" when there will be posters here better educated than Mills in physics, e.g. me with an M.Sc. in physics. Not that it takes a high degree of science education to understand Mills' ignorance, lies and delusions. Anyone who can read and understand Wikipedia science articles can much of Mills. ignorance, lies and delusions.

Real third parties (independent scientists) have debunked Mills work.
Real third parties with high school science level education can see the ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills work.
Real third parties with undergraduate physics level education can see the ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills work.
Real third parties with postgraduate physics level education can see the ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills work.

2 years of analysis of Mills book listing the ignorance, lies and delusions in it
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 05:30 PM   #45
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,717
Originally Posted by MEequalsIxR View Post
If Mills science was real all he'd have to do would be to ask for help to resolve the supposed issues he claims he has to resolve and there would be a cadre. Graduate students, PHD candidates looking for a dissertation, lots of people looking to build a career would be lined up around the block.
This is a fundamental part of the scientific process that markie has not been able to understand since whenever he joined, MEequalsIxR.
markie knows that Mills has been churning out published papers about Mills delusion of hydrinos for almost 30 years.

If Mills had credible evidence that hydrinos existed then he would have a growing "cadre" of scientists doing independent research (for free!) to test Mills results. As far as we know, he has not gained any support in the physics community during those 30 years. None of his "validators" were convinced enough to do research and publish papers.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 05:31 PM   #46
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,658
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Remind me please what is suppose to happen on 26 February?
The source is, obviously, markie. Even though he’s wimped out.

IIRC, the first commercial prototypes will be shipped from BLP that day (or maybe be available for shipping). Prototypes of what? Power generation units, hydrino powered of course. Not sure if markie ever specified the wattage ...
JeanTate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 06:13 PM   #47
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,755
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
The source is, obviously, markie. Even though he’s wimped out.

IIRC, the first commercial prototypes will be shipped from BLP that day (or maybe be available for shipping). Prototypes of what? Power generation units, hydrino powered of course. Not sure if markie ever specified the wattage ...
And markie has replaced that with a new claim that something will happen to cause skeptics to feel shame real soon.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 06:19 PM   #48
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,755
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Remind me please what is suppose to happen on 26 February?
Prototype SunCell proven to work is what he claimed. Thanks to jrhowell for having recently dug up the link. It was supposed to be by two days from now but markie has already walked that back

Quote:
OK, yes four years is too far out. It's just I'm 'skeptical' of a closed loop prototype released so soon. (Note: this is *not* a commercial device.)
I'll take a chance on it for two years from yesterday.

The entry on Tuesday, Feb 26 2019 of my Google Calendar reads:

"Visit International Skeptics Forum and Eat Humble Pie if prototype SunCell is not proven to work."

No doubt I'll be visiting and posting here sooner with updated news, unless Michael S or Peter W or Brett H beats me to it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post11735987
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 24th February 2019 at 07:44 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 06:49 PM   #49
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,617
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Remind me please what is suppose to happen on 26 February?
Sure. In a comeuppance for all of us horrible skeptics, a commercial generator will be released by Mills unto an unsuspecting energy market. We will all be left with foot in mouth and markie will collect on some bets.

All of that is utter fantasy, yet markie simply first doubled down and then kicked the can so far down the road that we need Hubble.

Are we clear?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 07:14 PM   #50
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,617
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Remind me please what is suppose to happen on 26 February?
Sure. In a comeuppance for all of us horrible skeptics, a commercial generator will be released by Mills unto an unsuspecting energy market. We will all be left with foot in mouth and markie will collect on some bets.

All of that is utter fantasy, yet markie simply first doubled down and then kicked the can so far down the road that we need Hubble.

Are we clear?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 07:17 PM   #51
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,902
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
The source is, obviously, markie. Even though he’s wimped out.

IIRC, the first commercial prototypes will be shipped from BLP that day (or maybe be available for shipping). Prototypes of what? Power generation units, hydrino powered of course. Not sure if markie ever specified the wattage ...
Ah of course. Thanks

Yes yes thirty years of fake predictions of progress!
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 07:18 PM   #52
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,902
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Sure. In a comeuppance for all of us horrible skeptics, a commercial generator will be released by Mills unto an unsuspecting energy market. We will all be left with foot in mouth and markie will collect on some bets.

All of that is utter fantasy, yet markie simply first doubled down and then kicked the can so far down the road that we need Hubble.

Are we clear?
Oh goodie a double post - perhaps caused by hydrino poisioning?
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 07:21 PM   #53
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,755
Here's an article written in 2016 about Mills by the person who started the original thread in this series.

https://www.libertariannews.org/2016...esla-combined/ (Title of the article: "Randell L. Mills – A Living Legend, Greater Than Einstein and Tesla Combined")

Quote:
I’m telling you now that such an invention exists, and in the next year or so, it’s going to change the face of humanity forever.

Dr. Randell L. Mills, a Harvard trained medical doctor, who developed this generator and the physical theory behind it, will be remembered throughout the remainder of human history as the single greatest being to ever have lived. A billion trillion years from now, people will still be discussing his theories and his invention. Mills invention is no less transformative than the discovery of fire. It’s a far greater achievement than the combustion engine or the telephone.

In one fell swoop, Mills will have overturned the standing theories of physics, dismantled the power grid, put an end to virtually all air pollution, put an end to poverty, put an end to wars over energy resources, opened up the entire planet to human habitation, put a serious dent in the ability of politics to control people, and saved limitless lives in the future due to a lack of power.
Quote:
Homes could be flying recreational vehicles that never have to land.
That is some first class insanity. At the time of that writing BLP and Mills were claiming to actually be shipping working prototypes to a company that was going to mass produce them. Guess what? It was a lie.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 24th February 2019 at 07:30 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 07:38 PM   #54
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,617
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Oh goodie a double post - perhaps caused by hydrino poisioning?
Crap, but doesn't that make it doubly true???
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2019, 09:36 PM   #55
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,902
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Crap, but doesn't that make it doubly true???
Well it is the first evidence we've actually had (unverified) that hydrinos even exist!
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 12:04 AM   #56
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,953
Originally Posted by markie View Post
You repeat that I have a financial investment in BLP, when I have stated at least twice in this thread that I have none.
Why on Earth not? If you genuinely believed that Mills is for real you would have surely invested every penny you have and can borrow in BLP. So why have you not put your money where your mouth is?
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 02:01 AM   #57
PeterWol62
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 14
Pixel42 and others:
It is impossible for most of us to invest in BLP. Under current legislation the SEC only permits investment by “accredited investors” whose must be fairly wealthy or professionals. There was an attempt to relax the rules (HR1585 I think) but after the HR sent it to the Senate it vanished in a committee. Further details easily found on Google.
So one can believe Markie on this point.
PeterWol62 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 06:25 AM   #58
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,705
Originally Posted by PeterWol62 View Post
Pixel42 and others:
It is impossible for most of us to invest in BLP. Under current legislation the SEC only permits investment by “accredited investors” whose must be fairly wealthy or professionals. There was an attempt to relax the rules (HR1585 I think) but after the HR sent it to the Senate it vanished in a committee. Further details easily found on Google.
So one can believe Markie on this point.


He’s just being lazy and making excuses. He and the other potential investors could easily pool their funds in a variety of finically products to qualify. Alternately, he could set up a legal entity in Canada that meets the criteria and invest from there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accredited_investor

There are so many ways markie could get around the hurdle of being an accredited / sophisticated investor without being a millionaire himself it’s hilarious.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 07:12 AM   #59
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,574
Originally Posted by markie View Post
I've noticed a trend with 'skeptics' here, a behaviour that exhibits low inhibition in ascribing the foulest of motives to those who challenge the status quo.
Speaking for myself, because my own behavior is yet another thing I understand better than markie does, I start out by ascribing the most benign of motives to those who challenge the status quo in science.

After all, I have done time in disciplines (such as science) where challenging the status quo is part of the job. On a small number of occasions, I have had some modest success in doing so.

And so, when I see someone challenging the status quo in science, my first reaction is "Could they be right?" In this subforum, where so many bad ideas go to linger, the most common answer is "obviously not", but "I don't know" does come up often enough to sustain my interest. In such cases, the next question is "How could we find out?" Finding out can be educational, even when (as usually happens) that process of discovery leads to nothing more than better understanding of why the status is quo.

When it becomes clear that those challenging the status quo are relying on poor arguments or feeble knowledge, as was clear from the very beginning of this sequence of threads, I generally ascribe that failure to ignorance. Ignorance is not inherently benign, but it is a benign motive.

When I see those who challenge the status quo reject all attempts to help them repair their ignorance, I begin to suspect a less benign motive: willful ignorance.

But willful ignorance, though far from benign, is not as malign as intellectual dishonesty or misrepresentation or prevarication or fraud. I ascribe those motives to those who challenge the status quo only after they have convinced me that their behavior cannot be explained by honesty, ignorance, or even willful ignorance.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
You repeat that I have a financial investment in BLP, when I have stated at least twice in this thread that I have none.
I am sorry to hear that. I had hoped you were looking forward to a wealthy retirement after investing your entire life savings in BLP.

Originally Posted by PeterWol62 View Post
Pixel42 and others:
It is impossible for most of us to invest in BLP. Under current legislation the SEC only permits investment by “accredited investors” whose must be fairly wealthy or professionals. There was an attempt to relax the rules (HR1585 I think) but after the HR sent it to the Senate it vanished in a committee. Further details easily found on Google.
So one can believe Markie on this point.

PeterWol62 is repeating what he wrote on 5 January, in what was until today his most recent post at ISF. As I responded at that time:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger
On 25 January 2017, PeterWol62 wrote:
Originally Posted by PeterWol62
And by the way, I totally support every word posted here by MichaelSuede.
But you probably guessed that.
Today, in his ninth post at ISF, all within this sequence of threads, PeterWol62 wrote:
Originally Posted by PeterWol62 View Post
It has never been possible to invest in BLP unless you were in some way an “accredited investor” which means already wealthy if you are an individual rather than a company.
According to Investopedia:
Originally Posted by Investopedia
To be an accredited investor, a person must have an annual income exceeding $200,000, or $300,000 for joint income, for the last two years with expectation of earning the same or higher income in the current year....

A person is also considered an accredited investor if he has a net worth exceeding $1 million, either individually or jointly with his spouse.
The article goes on to give an example, from which it is clear that 401(k) accounts count toward the net worth....So I'm sure some of the folks participating in this thread qualify as accredited investors, even if they might have to sell some of their Apple or Microsoft stock before making a major investment in anything more esoteric.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 25th February 2019 at 07:15 AM.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 11:20 AM   #60
MEequalsIxR
Critical Thinker
 
MEequalsIxR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 424
Originally Posted by markie View Post
[snip]
You repeat that I have a financial investment in BLP, when I have stated at least twice in this thread that I have none.
[snip]
You've also represented hydrinos as real...

But assuming you don't have any investment you are still very close to this whole thing. You argue too strongly not to have some connection so you would seem to be some kind of insider.
__________________
Never trust anyone in a better mood than you are.

It's a sword they're not meant to safe.
MEequalsIxR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 11:44 AM   #61
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Prototype SunCell proven to work is what he claimed. Thanks to jrhowell for having recently dug up the link. It was supposed to be by two days from now but markie has already walked that back

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post11735987
Finally someone, the yuppy, gets it right. By tomorrow I was hoping for a closed loop unit, as that would be something people here could understand as generating excess energy. Jean Tate continues to misremember, as usual.

My original judgement was that BLP would have such a device in four years, but I deferred to protests of excessive length and made it two years. Not the first time I've been wrong. Still I am thrilled with the SunCell's progress in the last five months or so, since the reaction environment became closed. Now that Mills is very recently back to using capacitors I think he is in preparation for a closed loop unit, free of the grid.

I don't mind the extra wait. In fact I find it invigorating.
People here see twenty five years without a commercial product and think failure and fraud. I see twenty five years of incredible fortitude and progress. Dr. Mills is the Man, and I remain, a fan.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 12:19 PM   #62
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,755
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Still I am thrilled with the SunCell's progress in the last five months or so, since the reaction environment became closed.
And how do you know progress is being made?

BTW he said BLP was shipping functional units to a third party back in 2016. Sure doesn't look like progress is being made even if you trust the pernicious liar.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 12:55 PM   #63
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
And how do you know progress is being made?

BTW he said BLP was shipping functional units to a third party back in 2016. Sure doesn't look like progress is being made even if you trust the pernicious liar.
What do you mean by functional units? Columbia Tech was working to get the SunCell on commercial track but were stymied by the temperature differentials surrounding the molten silver pump as I recall.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 01:01 PM   #64
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,717
Originally Posted by markie View Post
.... Dr. Mills is the Man, and I remain, a fan.
Blind hero worship never a good reason to believe in a documented ignorant and deluded liar: 2 years of analysis of Mills book listing the ignorance, lies and delusions in it

People here see the real world where Mills has failed to produce promised products several times over the last 30 years. A history of failed promises is evidence that this is yet another failure in the making. Mills being an ignorant, deluded liar in his book is evidence that he is ignorant, deluded and maybe lying about his current fantasy. The stupidity of propaganda videos rather than actual analysis with numbers is evidence of yet another probable failure.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 01:08 PM   #65
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,658
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Finally someone, the yuppy, gets it right. By tomorrow I was hoping for a closed loop unit, as that would be something people here could understand as generating excess energy. Jean Tate continues to misremember, as usual.

My original judgement was that BLP would have such a device in four years, but I deferred to protests of excessive length and made it two years. Not the first time I've been wrong. Still I am thrilled with the SunCell's progress in the last five months or so, since the reaction environment became closed. Now that Mills is very recently back to using capacitors I think he is in preparation for a closed loop unit, free of the grid.

I don't mind the extra wait. In fact I find it invigorating.
People here see twenty five years without a commercial product and think failure and fraud. I see twenty five years of incredible fortitude and progress. Dr. Mills is the Man, and I remain, a fan.
Thank you for setting the record straight, markie; indeed I mis-remembered.

Aside from the boring (poor memory), there’s one aspect you may find interesting.

You see, I did actually consider that your claim related to some commercial prototype, but I discounted it.

Why?

Because then your claim would have been unverifiable! Even if BLP issued a PR making exactly the claim you made, no one could check it. And Mills/BLP’s track record of false claims would have made your claim hard to accept. So, I thought, you would not have made a claim so weak, one that you could easily spin away, on something as important as humble pie.

Ah well, all moot now ... no SunCell, no prototype, no hydrinos, no independent testing, no commercial contracts, ... and there never will be.

BTW, the (apparent) fact that you have no financial skin in Mills/BLP’s game is, to me at least, very, very telling.
JeanTate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 01:10 PM   #66
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,407
Originally Posted by markie View Post
I've noticed a trend with 'skeptics' here, a behaviour that exhibits low inhibition in ascribing the foulest of motives to those who challenge the status quo. Venom is directed towards the individuals, the mavericks, who buck the system. It's like skeptics don't want to believe the story from the maverick point of view ; they prefer the safety of the incumbent, institutional view, despite evidence. Yes, despite evidence. The evidence is simply not believed, is dismissed and mindlessly swatted at as one would a persistent fly at a picnic.
Why would any of that have even the slightest influence on Mills?

Why would any of that have even the slightest influence on the production of any of Mills' devices?

Is my(our) lack of belief holding Mills back?

Did my lack of belief cause Mills to make all of those promises that went unfulfilled?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 01:11 PM   #67
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,658
Originally Posted by markie View Post
What do you mean by functional units? Columbia Tech was working to get the SunCell on commercial track but were stymied by the temperature differentials surrounding the molten silver pump as I recall.
Ah yes ... it’s just so incredibly difficult to turn heat/a strong temperature gradient into useable energy (of any form).

Engineers have been struggling to do that for at least 200 years.
JeanTate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 01:13 PM   #68
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,407
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Consider that large, transparent cuboid - in which a wire was exploded and a weblike substance formed - to be the "bottle". There it is : hydrino in a bottle. If you care to look, the substance is characterized in the early 2019 version of his GUTCP.
If I ever need such a wire exploding web producing device, I'll be sure to call Randell.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 02:28 PM   #69
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,705
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Consider that large, transparent cuboid - in which a wire was exploded and a weblike substance formed - to be the "bottle". There it is : hydrino in a bottle. If you care to look, the substance is characterized in the early 2019 version of his GUTCP.
Seriously? THAT swayed you? I could make an identical wispy web appear from my fingertips when I was in fourth grade thanks to a magic trick I got from the Johnson Smith Catalog.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_wire_method

https://usamagictricks.com/product_i...ducts_id=32004
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 02:33 PM   #70
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,755
Originally Posted by markie View Post
What do you mean by functional units?

I'm referring to the lying that BLP was doing during the fall of 2016.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 03:58 PM   #71
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,717
Originally Posted by markie View Post
I've noticed a trend with 'skeptics' here, a behaviour that exhibits low inhibition in ascribing the foulest of motives to those who challenge the status quo...
Wrong, markie, the actual skeptics here ascribe "he foulest of motives to those" who give us evidence of having the "foulest of motives".
Mills record of broken promises is evidence that this is probably going to be yet another broken promise.
Mills record of ignorance, delusions and lies is evidence that this is just more ignorance, delusions and lies.

Some people here concede that this suggests Mills is purposely running a scam. Some people here concede that this suggests Mills is just another deluded crank.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2019, 05:58 PM   #72
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,377
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Crap, but doesn't that make it doubly true???
Nope. Only triples count.

Quote:
I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true.
"The Hunting of the Snark"
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 02:32 AM   #73
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,240
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Dr. Mills is the Man, and I remain, a fan.
You're thinking of Becky Lynch.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 02:49 AM   #74
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,240
I've been away from this thread for a while, so I don't know if this has been covered, but it's amusing. You remember that subreddit that was linked to a while back? The top thread there right now is entitled "If Markie supports Dr. Mills I’m a talking cat". The post from the OP:

Quote:
Skeptics hate Dr. Mills and have spent years trying to debunk him. One site has benefited from a series of men defending Dr. Mills. The longest serving such defender posts with the name Markie.

I think Markie is a deep cover skeptic. His defenses of Dr. Mills are ignorant and stupid. He pretends to speak for Dr. Mills and often contradicts him. Now he’s turning the thread about Hydrino power into a discussion about vaccinations. He’s failing at this even worse. I think he’s trying to poison the well by making us all look like gullible morons.
Shame we don't have more people from there posting here, and it's a shame that those that do come receive a hostile welcome. The people who post over there seem to know Mills' stuff inside out, but the sub has basically no dissenting voices. Those few that come along tend to be treated the way that true believers are here and so don't stick around for long.

It seems to me that if we could get the more knowledgeable people from here and the more knowledgeable people from there having civilised discussions with each other, working on the assumption of good faith and trying to ignore the assumption that the people with opposing viewpoints are stupid/deluded/frauds/etc., then that could be a lot of fun.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 26th February 2019 at 02:50 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 02:52 AM   #75
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,018
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Remind me please what is suppose to happen on 26 February?
**** all, apparently. To nobody's surprise.

How's the pie, markie?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 07:25 AM   #76
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,755
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
It seems to me that if we could get the more knowledgeable people from here and the more knowledgeable people from there having civilised discussions with each other, working on the assumption of good faith and trying to ignore the assumption that the people with opposing viewpoints are stupid/deluded/frauds/etc., then that could be a lot of fun.

I don't want to have any part in making Mills look acceptable and that seems to be what you mean by civilized. Conclusions of deluded and/or fraud simply flow from the available facts and we should not avoid saying so. Further we should go to some length to avoid making any significant part of this thread focused on rebutting his science because it makes it look like he's being taking seriously and BLP could cherry pick the thread for that purpose.


Of course it's OK to occasionnaly point out that his science has been taken seriously and rejected and even go in to the reasons for it but a 40 page stretch of that is likely to help BLP look legitimate.


And frankly, even though it's OK to occasionally discuss the science, it's not really necessary. For one thing BLP has been proven not to be doing science. We could declare the whole thing off topic for this subforum based on available evidence. For another thing, there is good evidence that his science is wrong even without delving in to science details that might go over the head of newcomers: He's failed to deliver on promises multiple times; he's failed to demonstrate things he's claimed he's already done even when he's claims he wants to demonstrate them to the world when it should be easy for him to demonstrate what he claims are already established accomplishments; His theory and his patents (even the rejected ones) are public and have been for decades, and no one has replicated his work and that should be possible now even if BLP doesn't want to cooperate.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 07:58 AM   #77
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,240
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I don't want to have any part in making Mills look acceptable and that seems to be what you mean by civilized.
No, I mean not immediately going into attack mode.

Quote:
Conclusions of deluded and/or fraud simply flow from the available facts and we should not avoid saying so.
I haven't suggested we should.

Quote:
Further we should go to some length to avoid making any significant part of this thread focused on rebutting his science because it makes it look like he's being taking seriously and BLP could cherry pick the thread for that purpose.
I think you think too highly of this place. I think "some random people on the internet discussed my work" is beneath even Mills.

Besides, Mills has recently shut down his own forum because he doesn't want people discussing it, so your assertion here is contradicted by the evidence.

Quote:
Of course it's OK to occasionnaly point out that his science has been taken seriously and rejected and even go in to the reasons for it but a 40 page stretch of that is likely to help BLP look legitimate.
Again, I think you think too highly of this place. This is just an insignificant backwater populated by a few random people.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 08:06 AM   #78
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,755
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I think you think too highly of this place. I think "some random people on the internet discussed my work" is beneath even Mills.

Wow. We have some experts posting in this thread. And Mills certainly is not above that even if it was just random people on the net.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 08:24 AM   #79
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Why would any of that have even the slightest influence on Mills?

Why would any of that have even the slightest influence on the production of any of Mills' devices?

Is my(our) lack of belief holding Mills back?

Did my lack of belief cause Mills to make all of those promises that went unfulfilled?
Skeptics on a forum like this of course have little influence on Mills' work.
My posts here aren't meant to help Mills' work. They are here to help skeptics escape from a dark place.
The other day I mused and posted that skeptics here exhibit little inhibition in attributing malicious character traits to people like Mills.
Truly, I consider it a puzzling phenomenon. Why such venom?
Well today something occurred to me. People here are primed to expect deceit. How? Deceit is the premise of James Randi himself, who specialized in finding deceit since he himself was in the magic business where deceit (of the entertaining kind) was his art.
From the relatively little I've seen of Jame Randi, he doesn't seem like a bitter fellow. His skepticism doesn't reach the emotional level, or so it seems.
With skeptics here, it's different. I feel the invective. I conclude that for many people here, skepticism doesn't bring out their best. They don't wear it well. The graces of human nature flee in its presence.
Just thinking out loud. I charge 5 cents per minute. Now get off my couch.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2019, 08:28 AM   #80
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,018
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Just thinking out loud. I charge 5 cents per minute.
Which would only add up to $788,940 over thirty years, so at least it's a hell of a lot less than Mills charges for doing nothing and spouting nonsense.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.