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 10th February 2020, 11:01 AM   #801
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,653
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
So the two new validations are actually not validations at all, but instead someone checking Mills' maths?
Nansteel has been co-authoring with Mills for twenty years now.

Tse writes explicitly that all he had were the numbers provided by Mills.

What do you think?
__________________
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 10th February 2020, 03:58 PM   #802
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,972
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Nansteel has been co-authoring with Mills for twenty years now.

Tse writes explicitly that all he had were the numbers provided by Mills.

What do you think?
By "two new" I meant the ones from Tse. I pointed out that Nansteel was a long-time collaborator when I posted the link to his validation.
__________________
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 11th February 2020, 09:00 AM   #803
HappySkeptic99
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
So the two new validations are actually not validations at all, but instead someone checking Mills' maths?
It seems like they 'observed' an experiment, were given some measurements, and they went over the math.

This is perfectly convincing. Shut up and take my money!
HappySkeptic99 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 11th February 2020, 09:01 AM   #804
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,564
Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99 View Post
It seems like they 'observed' an experiment, were given some measurements, and they went over the math.

This is perfectly convincing. Shut up and take my money!


If we assume everything he tells us is correct, it turns out he was right!
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 11th February 2020, 09:23 AM   #805
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,803
Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99 View Post
This is perfectly convincing.
Spell check doesn't recognize "conniving"?
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 16th February 2020, 10:10 PM   #806
brevvo
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 1
Hydrinos Samples are Available !!!

Page 24 of Mills' Feb 8th "Short Business Presentation" on the BrLP website says "Hydrino product samples are now available for independent testing". Do I smell some desperation? Which shill will he use for this? Shucking, jiving, hand waving and misdirection to follow....
brevvo 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 16th February 2020, 10:56 PM   #807
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,971
Originally Posted by brevvo View Post
Page 24 of Mills' Feb 8th "Short Business Presentation" on the BrLP website says "Hydrino product samples are now available for independent testing". Do I smell some desperation? Which shill will he use for this? Shucking, jiving, hand waving and misdirection to follow....
Well that certainly happened last time he promised samples.

But lets see what happens this time. I honestly doubt too many labs even take Mills seriously anymore, but there might be someone out there who is curious about what it is exactly Mills has collected.

My best guess is it will be yet again welding slag of various types..but lets see what turns up?
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms 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 17th February 2020, 03:25 AM   #808
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,822
Originally Posted by brevvo View Post
Page 24 of Mills' Feb 8th "Short Business Presentation" on the BrLP website says "Hydrino product samples are now available for independent testing". Do I smell some desperation? Which shill will he use for this? Shucking, jiving, hand waving and misdirection to follow....
Hope he's weighted down the anti-gravity ones this time, that was rather embarrassing last time when he realised someone had left the skylight open in the store room!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 17th February 2020, 09:56 AM   #809
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,803
Originally Posted by brevvo View Post
Page 24 of Mills' Feb 8th "Short Business Presentation" on the BrLP website says "Hydrino product samples are now available for independent testing". Do I smell some desperation? Which shill will he use for this? Shucking, jiving, hand waving and misdirection to follow....
He's been claiming that for 3 to 4 years now. Several of the last annual reports have mentioned "Product Hydrino in a Bottle".
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 17th February 2020, 02:50 PM   #810
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
He's been claiming that for 3 to 4 years now. Several of the last annual reports have mentioned "Product Hydrino in a Bottle".
I recall that this claim is even older - hydrino crystals in 1999! To put his work on more solid ground, he manufactured hydrino-based crystals in mass, he said.
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 17th February 2020, 03:06 PM   #811
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,803
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I recall that this claim is even older - hydrino crystals in 1999! To put his work on more solid ground, he manufactured hydrino-based crystals in mass, he said.
Yes, but I like to focus on the claims that are more obvious failures. When he claims to have done something secretly in his lab he can get his true believers to defend him by claiming he needs to have trade secrets.

So I focus lately or two more specific claims:
1. His fall of 2016 claim that functional units were currently shipping to a third party for mass production.
2. His claim of hydrinos available for sale which was announced simultaneously with a company goal of showing them to the world within the year, which is now years ago. He claimed at that time that he considered proving them to world to be vital to his companies health. That kind of undercuts (shreds) the "need for secrecy" argument.
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 18th February 2020, 04:03 PM   #812
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,972
Claimed independent replication of the generation of excess energy from a chemical reaction described by Mills
__________________
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 18th February 2020, 04:07 PM   #813
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,972
A quick search of Selke being connected to Mills has for me only turned up this paper from 2015, arguing that electrons are black holes and therefore quantum mechanics is wrong and therefore Mills is right.

Could be a true believer rather than a shill.
__________________
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 18th February 2020, 04:14 PM   #814
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,972
This is the lab that did the actual testing. Seems legitimate.
__________________
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 18th February 2020, 04:28 PM   #815
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,564
Quote:
arguing that electrons are black holes

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and assume his analysis of the experimental results probably isn't reliable.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 18th February 2020, 04:37 PM   #816
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,803
Am I correct that the lab cited just ran the experiment they were told to and did not make the judgement of what expected theory says about maximum energy to expect?
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 18th February 2020, 04:53 PM   #817
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,972
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Am I correct that the lab cited just ran the experiment they were told to and did not make the judgement of what expected theory says about maximum energy to expect?
Correct, but he explains how he calculated what the energy should have been, so that's easy to check. The lab results detail the amount of each material tested and what the energy readings were, so the actual data can be assumed to be accurate.

The only questions about the expected energy (and I don't know enough about this stuff to answer them myself, but they do seem easy questions to answer for someone who does have the relevant knowledge) are a) whether his method of calculation is legitimate and b) whether he calculated it honestly and/or competently.

Then, of course, there are questions about whether he's representing the data honestly and/or accurately, but since he does provide the data and the data is from an independent source, that's easy to check. Again, by someone who knows more about this stuff than I do.
__________________
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 18th February 2020, 05:13 PM   #818
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,803
I just wanted to clarify that ATS did not make the judgement that this is a successful replication of BLP work. I realize you weren't meaning to imply they did.
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 18th February 2020, 05:28 PM   #819
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
A quick search of Selke being connected to Mills has for me only turned up this paper from 2015, arguing that electrons are black holes and therefore quantum mechanics is wrong and therefore Mills is right.

Could be a true believer rather than a shill.
David L. Selke shows signs of being a true believer and either very ignorant or a liar.
His major lie/ignorance is that a point particle is a particle that is physically a point!
A point particle is an idealization. Theoretically and experimentally there are justifications for treating particles as points. When we measure that electrons are extremely small, we treat them as points. When we calculate that extended electrons have to have surfaces moving faster than light, we treat them as points. We treat electrons as points and get one of the most precisely tested theories in physics (QED) !
  • "A black hole does not radiate." is a lie or ignorant (Hawking radiation).
  • A "every amount of mass has its Schwartzchild radius" lie or ignorance.
    Every amount of mass has a Schwarzschild radius in GR. Quantum mechanical particles are not part of GR. We can calculate (but he cannot!) a "Schwarzschild radius" for an election and get 1.35310^−57 m. This is 13 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length where we need a theory of quantum gravity.
  • Selke thinks that spectral lines or synchrotron radiation are Hawking radiation !
    Spectral lines come from electrons changing orbitals.
    Synchrotron radiation comes from accelerating electrons.
A absurdly short PDF on Google Drive called "Hydrino Experiment Independently Replicated" by David L. Selke is automatically dubious when Selke shows ignorance about basic physics.
We read a few lies about Mills' GUTCP. There is no derivation of quantization from classical physics simply because that is impossible ! Mill's grabs quantization from QM and inserts it into what is supposed to be a classical theory. Mill's delusions about "current loops " etc. are parroted. A massive lie that Mills has calculated "hundreds of ionization energies" when they are all wrong!
The 3 paragraphs about the experiment is the idiocy of a single chemical reaction that are done in a way that looks irrelevant to Mills deluded 2014 paper! That paper put FeBr2 and Cu(OH)2 into a gold crucible and heated them. Selke just mixes them. Selke takes heats of formation of 3 compounds from Mills rather than researching the published values for those and other reactions.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th February 2020 at 05:58 PM.
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 19th February 2020, 01:39 AM   #820
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,972
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
[list][*]"A black hole does not radiate." is a lie or ignorant (Hawking radiation).
[...][*]Selke thinks that spectral lines or synchrotron radiation are Hawking radiation !
TBF, he qualifies the first and says the opposite of the second:

Quote:
A black hole does not radiate.

[...]

The third statement has the exception, perhaps, of Hawking radiation. However, Hawking radiation is insufficient to be the source of such phenomena as spectral lines or synchrotron radiation which electrons exhibit.
__________________
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 19th February 2020, 03:54 PM   #821
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,428
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
TBF, he qualifies the first and says the opposite of the second:
Selke's delusion is thinking that Hawking radiation could be the source of spectral lines or synchrotron radiation and then saying it is "insignificant". Spectral lines and synchrotron radiation have textbook sources that are not Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is black-body radiation and so cannot be spectral lines or synchrotron radiation. Using "insignificant" hints that he is talking about too small, i.e. a viable mechanism but not detectable.

Even the "perhaps" is wrong. Black holes are predicted to radiate Hawking radiation under the known laws of physics. Selke might have written: "The third statement has the definite exception of Hawking radiation" because his list is supposed to be based on mainstream physics. But that makes "A black hole does not radiate" obviously wrong.

FYI: Mills' GUTCP book (2016 edition) has 1 deluded reference to Hawking radiation on page 16: "These aspects render QED fatally flawed in terms of predicting a corresponding inescapable infinite cosmological constant and the unobserved requirement of particle emission by blackholes called Hawking radiation. [refers to previous work]".
QED does not predict any cosmological constant at all. GR has a cosmological constant. QFT says there will be a finite vacuum energy and there is a conflict between the measured dark energy as a cosmological constant (GR's vacuum energy) and the QFT value.
Hawking radiation comes from applying general quantum mechanics (not QED itself) to the space close to an event horizon. This can be visualized as the uncertainty principle gives us pairs of virtual particles, one of which can enter the event horizon.

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th February 2020 at 03:55 PM.
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 20th February 2020, 03:26 AM   #822
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,972
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Selke's delusion is thinking that Hawking radiation could be the source of spectral lines or synchrotron radiation and then saying it is "insignificant". Spectral lines and synchrotron radiation have textbook sources that are not Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is black-body radiation and so cannot be spectral lines or synchrotron radiation. Using "insignificant" hints that he is talking about too small, i.e. a viable mechanism but not detectable.

Even the "perhaps" is wrong. Black holes are predicted to radiate Hawking radiation under the known laws of physics. Selke might have written: "The third statement has the definite exception of Hawking radiation" because his list is supposed to be based on mainstream physics. But that makes "A black hole does not radiate" obviously wrong.

FYI: Mills' GUTCP book (2016 edition) has 1 deluded reference to Hawking radiation on page 16: "These aspects render QED fatally flawed in terms of predicting a corresponding inescapable infinite cosmological constant and the unobserved requirement of particle emission by blackholes called Hawking radiation. [refers to previous work]".
QED does not predict any cosmological constant at all. GR has a cosmological constant. QFT says there will be a finite vacuum energy and there is a conflict between the measured dark energy as a cosmological constant (GR's vacuum energy) and the QFT value.
Hawking radiation comes from applying general quantum mechanics (not QED itself) to the space close to an event horizon. This can be visualized as the uncertainty principle gives us pairs of virtual particles, one of which can enter the event horizon.
"Insufficient", not "insignificant". But fair enough.
__________________
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
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 02:06 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.