Cont: Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 3

[HappySkeptic99]

If only, LOL. People here - perhaps including yourself - wouldn't believe such measurements if they were provided! What skeptic here - besides perhaps SB - is on record as even believing what Mills has already said for months: that large current, low voltage is being fed into liquid gallium stream electrodes, and that there is a trace amount of gallium oxide in the gallium stream to serve as the source of H2O catalyst, that the cell atmosphere is mostly argon gas, with hydrogen gas fed into the cell as primarily fuel (and a small amount goes into making the H20 catalyst from the fixed trace oxygen inventory) ?

Answer: Nobody. Because if a skeptic believed that he would have to propose a conventional mechanism to explain the massive power output that is observed and how it could be distributed to the SunCell containment vessel as it is, as if a highly energetic plasma from within were heating it. This is why skeptics here are proposing alternative scenarios to explain where the heat is coming from, all of which involve blatant deception by Mills and BLP staff. If skeptics here can feel shame, they're about to feel it. Just saying.

I have no doubt that Mills' team is quite adept at creating fireworks shows.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that someone would lie? I think Mills is a true believer in his own theories, and will do anything to keep up the impression that he is the most brilliant person in the world, and will be the savior of mankind. He has you and others as adoring fans, and is making a good living.

As for the 'demonstrations', they are useless shows. I worked through one of the validation reports and presentations once, and I admit that, based on their numbers and claims about the conditions, I couldn't explain the energy. But, I am not a chemist, and I am skeptical about the conditions.

The energy claims were especially bad, as they were very indirect ways of measuring, that could easily be flawed (a temperature gauge on some part of the apparatus near the plasma, or a U-V meter with no convincing way of accurately calibrating it).

BLP is an example of how not to do science and the engineering.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

As for the 'demonstrations', they are useless shows. I worked through one of the validation reports and presentations once, and I admit that, based on their numbers and claims about the conditions, I couldn't explain the energy. But, I am not a chemist, and I am skeptical about the conditions.

And let me emphasize the word "claims" here. The energy could be explained simply by a power supply running some place you can't see it. Given the completely shady nature of these "demonstrations" we simply can't rule out that level of deceit.

 

[halleyscomet]

 

[markie]

[qimg]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/physics_suppression.png[/qimg]

The Nobel was for the discovery of universe acceleration, not for dark energy per se.

No "mafia" is required to suppress disruptive theories in physics. Simple human nature is enough.

https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/mavericks-and-heretics/

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

No "mafia" is required to suppress disruptive theories in physics. Simple human nature is enough.

And what does simple human nature feel about the possibility of winning a Nobel prize for a disruptive theory which actually works?

 

[Reality Check]

Some dark energy delusions and lies in Mills book

The Nobel was for the discovery of universe acceleration, not for dark energy per se.

Correct, markie. The 2011 Nobel prize was given "for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae”. The cause of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is called dark energy, usually attributed to a positive cosmological constant.

That is not the point of the cartoon. It is a character complaining about suppression and another character emphasizing the absurdity of the complaint.

The cartoon is not really applicable to Mills delusions and lies. Mills has touted his deluded theory in many papers so there has been no suppression. However some dark energy delusions and lies in Mills book !

• Preface xxvi: A deluded lie of "separate theories for cosmology such as the Big Bang, inflation, and dark energy are artificial, internally inconsistent, incorrect, incomplete, and not based on physical laws."
  
• Page 7: A lie that dark energy is explained by QM (the best solution is GR). Followed by inane gibberish.
  
• Page 1519: A "no evidence of the identity of dark energy" lie.
  
• Page 1519: A "its mechanism of causing the accelerated expansion is unknown" lie (cosmological constant => pressure => acceleration).
  
• Page 1519: A "The rate of the acceleration caused by dark energy cannot be predicted by the model." lie.

 

[Myriad]

No "mafia" is required to suppress disruptive theories in physics. Simple human nature is enough.

https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/mavericks-and-heretics/

Who designed that graphic?

I'm pretty sure the Wright brothers weren't pariahs due to people rejecting or ignoring the idea that human flight is possible until after Orville's death in 1948. I imagine at least a few people noticed all the human-piloted aircraft flying around during World War II, for instance.

 

[Reality Check]

No "mafia" is required to suppress disruptive theories in physics. Simple human nature is enough.

You do not understand what you cited, markie. This is an interesting but mostly wrong Mavericks and Heretics. Ideas rejected, later proved to be correct infographic.

Svante Arrhenius wrote an accepted 1884 dissertation giving a mechanism for the known conductivity of salt solutions. It was not rejected!

John Logie Baird work on television was not ridiculed. The graphic author has misrepresented 1 offhand rejection by a news editor as being general ridicule.

Alfred Wegener's continental drift was not ignored. The idea was initially not accepted widely because he did not have a mechanism and it was outside of his area of expertise.

Fritz Zwicky's observations of "unseen, dark matter" in 1933 was not rejected. It was accepted as evidence of normal matter that had not been detected by the technology available in 1933. Astronomers knew that their instruments could not detect some of the visible matter in the universe because the coverage of the spectrum was incomplete.

What learning about the scientists in the infographic reveals is the normal scientific criteria of having supporting evidence for scientific theories.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

No "mafia" is required to suppress disruptive theories in physics. Simple human nature is enough.

This has got to be the absolute stupidest claim you make. Human nature includes greedy people, people lusting after fame, people lusting after power. With hundreds of competing countries, thousands of competing universities, tens of thousands of competing companies and millions of engineers capable of understanding this stuff that they ALL have this very weird form of human nature that causes them not to want to get in on the 8 trillion dollar market that Mills claims he can dominate?

How in the world do you not die of shame from this level of public stupidity?

And while we here, are you ever going to address how come Mills wasn't able to live up to very simple promise a year ago to show hydrino compounds to the world? If what he's been saying for a decade or more now is true about actually having the damn things, why in the world did he fail to take the extremely simple step of showing them to someone capable of verifying them?

 

[markie]

Who designed that graphic?

I'm pretty sure the Wright brothers weren't pariahs due to people rejecting or ignoring the idea that human flight is possible until after Orville's death in 1948. I imagine at least a few people noticed all the human-piloted aircraft flying around during World War II, for instance.

Yeah some of the information on that graphic seems off. Nevertheless it conveys the principle that real discoveries are not all so quickly embraced as one might think. It might be worthwhile considering why this is, and why people are prone to think their generation is relatively immune to such errors of judgement.

 

[Reality Check]

Yeah some of the information on that graphic seems off. ....

Most of the information on the graphic is just wrong, markie. I gave examples that anyone that can read Wikipedia can see are wrong.

Myriad wrote I'm pretty sure the Wright brothers weren't pariahs .... The graphic author partially lies here. The rejection by the Smithsonian was not the Wright Brothers being ignored by the world: Debate with the Smithsonian.

Including the Wright Bothers is especially idiotic because the idea of powered, controlled flight did not start with them. People had the idea of adding engines to gliders decades before the Wrights succeeded.
Sir George Cayley was first called the "father of the aeroplane" in 1846 (rubber band engine!), then steam engines, then internal combustion.

 

[Hans]

Who designed that graphic?

I'm pretty sure the Wright brothers weren't pariahs due to people rejecting or ignoring the idea that human flight is possible until after Orville's death in 1948. I imagine at least a few people noticed all the human-piloted aircraft flying around during World War II, for instance.

There should be balancing graphic - how many ideas were presented, ignored or not immediately accepted and then proved wrong in the long term?

Compare that result to the earlier graphic.

This book lists 5,000 theories - it's remarkable how many of them failed initially or were considered real but later were found to be wrong. General rule most theories are wrong. Anybody have a number of failed versus existing theories?

https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-T...=8-3&keywords=dictionary+of+theories+jennifer

 

[Hellbound]

I've stated this before, but perhaps it's time again. I've always compared scientific method to vehicle crash testing. The goal isn't to ram your car (theory) into soft piles of pillows and strands of rubber bands to make sure it doesn't get hurt. The idea is to slam it head-on into the brick wall of existing knowledge at high speed, and see what breaks. If your theory is correct, what breaks will be the wall.

All the excuses, the made-up explanations, the just-so stories, the bad and incomplete data, the equations that don't give correct answers, the refusal to get truly independent testing or to release the data that would allow such; these are all piles of pillows. It can only lead one to question why he claims a 5-star crash rating when his theory has never hit anything more rigid than warm jello.

 

[halleyscomet]

The Nobel was for the discovery of universe acceleration, not for dark energy per se.

No "mafia" is required to suppress disruptive theories in physics. Simple human nature is enough.

https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/mavericks-and-heretics/

If that's the case then explain why the Flat Earth and anti-vax movements are GROWING despite the mountains of evidence against them?

 

[Hans]

5-star crash rating when his theory has never hit anything more rigid than warm jello.

I'd disagree more like tepid pudding

 

[Hellbound]

I'd disagree more like tepid pudding

Tah-may-to, tah-mah-to, they both spell junk science

 

[markie]

If that's the case then explain why the Flat Earth and anti-vax movements are GROWING despite the mountains of evidence against them?

I'm really referring to human nature within the intellectual institutions where findings such as Mills' discoveries can be reasonably expected to be properly accessed. There is something about the dynamic of human nature within an institutional setting that can lead to dysfunctions that would not normally occur.
Some might call it a failure of the institutions, but it is both.

But regarding 'populist' opinions ; flat earth popularity reveals failures in our educational institutions among other things. Conspiracies do exist, just not flat earth ones. Vaccines? Why call it an anti-vax movement when probably most within the movement like the idea of vaccines when they are proven to be safe. I've seen no such study for their safety, in the way they are actually administered. I'm not talking about safety for individual vaccines but safety of vaccines when multiple vaccines are administered at once.
Given the whistle blowers at CDC and near zero autism rates among children of paediatric doctors who don't vaccinate in the conventional way, yeah, we should be alarmed and fighting for answers in the present autism epidemic.

https://soundcloud.com/user-507883655/6-dr-paul-thomas-interview-how-to-end-the-autism-epidemic

 

[HappySkeptic99]

I'm really referring to human nature within the intellectual institutions where findings such as Mills' discoveries can be reasonably expected to be properly accessed. There is something about the dynamic of human nature within an institutional setting that can lead to dysfunctions that would not normally occur.
Some might call it a failure of the institutions, but it is both.

But regarding 'populist' opinions ; flat earth popularity reveals failures in our educational institutions among other things. Conspiracies do exist, just not flat earth ones. Vaccines? Why call it an anti-vax movement when probably most within the movement like the idea of vaccines when they are proven to be safe. I've seen no such study for their safety, in the way they are actually administered. I'm not talking about safety for individual vaccines but safety of vaccines when multiple vaccines are administered at once.
Given the whistle blowers at CDC and near zero autism rates among children of paediatric doctors who don't vaccinate in the conventional way, yeah, we should be alarmed and fighting for answers in the present autism epidemic.

https://soundcloud.com/user-507883655/6-dr-paul-thomas-interview-how-to-end-the-autism-epidemic

Great, markie isn't a flat-earther, but is swallowing anti-vaxer talking points.

Science doesn't suppress truth. Science does hold claims to scrutiny. The more extraordinary or outside-the-mainstream the claim, the more scrutiny.

This is a feature, not a bug. Most paradigm-breaking ideas are crap. Only by looking at new ideas through the lens of ALL existing data, can it be properly vetted. No scientist knows the entire field of work, and may not even be aware that their theory is already invalidated by other evidence (or that it is simply wrong).

 

[Reality Check]

markie is really referring to his fantasies about human nature etc.

I'm really referring to human nature within the intellectual institutions where findings such as Mills' discoveries can be reasonably expected to be properly accessed.....

markie is really referring to his fantasies about human nature and intellectual institutions.

markie derails into irrelevant "CDC whistleblowers" conspiracy theory, a "near zero autism rates among children of paediatric doctors who don't vaccinate in the conventional way" delusion, vaccine/autism stupidity and ignorance of basic medical practice (the known concerns with vaccines are explained by doctors ).

There is no known link between vaccinations or their schedule and autism. The only correlation is that the age at which autism can usually be diagnosed happens to be around the period of childhood vaccinations. There is the well known MMR vaccine and autism debacle. Any one can search PubMed to find studies on the alleged vaccine and autism link.

Dr. Paul Thomas is a an anti-vaccine activist as is obvious just from the title of the podcast "How to End the Autism Epidemic". This is autism. We do not know what causes autism. We do know that autism has a strong genetic component and is not caused by vaccines ("numerous epidemiological studies have shown no scientific evidence supporting any link between vaccinations and autism").

ETA: Make this almost irrelevant!
What this post indicates is that is not science or evidence that convinces markie that a theory is correct. It is rhetoric in podcasts or bells and whistles and pretty lights in videos .

In the real world of the scientific community, scientists are trained to expect scientific theories to be supported by scientific evidence. Higher levels of evidence are needed for theories making bigger claims. That is basis of the aphorism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" popularized by Carl Sagan (Sagan standard).
The key is that someone with a new scientific theory has to be able to convince other people that the theory is correct. Thus the signature of a valid, new scientific theory is that it gains support from the scientific community ("intellectual institutions").

Someone claims the Earth is flat? Then they need an enormous amount of evidence that not only explains all of the evidence that is a globe but also gives falsifiable, testable predictions that only a flat Earth can match.

Someone claims that QM is wrong and they have a better theory? Then they need an enormous amount of evidence that not only explains all of the evidence supporting QM but also gives falsifiable, testable predictions that only their theory can match.

 

[halleyscomet]

near zero autism rates among children of paediatric doctors who don't vaccinate in the conventional way

Citation needed.

Seriously, back that claim up.

And I mean back it up with evidence, not a podcast.

ETA: Make this almost irrelevant!
What this post indicates is that is not science or evidence that convinces markie that a theory is correct. It is rhetoric in podcasts or bells and whistles and pretty lights in videos .

Amen. I suspected I'd touch a nerve by mentioning obvious BS like the flat Earthers and the anti-vax nutters. I'm not surprised he also swallows the long-debunked claims of a vaccine / autism connection.