It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Brilliant Light Power Achieves Self-Sustaining Reaction

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

So which it's it oh believer if scams?

1, There are 100 peer reviewed papers

2, It's all been covered up

3, Science has got it all wrong (even though there's evidence, literally all around you, to prove otherwise)

I'm still waiting for at least ONE per reviewed paper to prove Mills right. So far there's been a big fat zero.




posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
Then suddenly along came Einstein.


Well, it was more 'suddenly along came Planck'. But what a difference! Quantum theory took off like a bat out of hell.

But not 'hydrino theory'.

Why?

Because quantum theory

1) is falsifiable
2) is replicable
3) gives testable numbers
4) experimentation gives results that match the predictions closely
5) predicts results that you couldn't get with Newtonian physics and
6) experimentation concurs with THOSE predictions

That's something hydrino theory doesn't do. And Mills does his very best to look like a huckster, and succeeds.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: GetHyped


You are being very selective. A PHD at Rowan University, is on record as saying more power is generated than what went in. After checking it out, he has put his professional reputation on the line. Prof Mark Jansson. So you are saying he is a fraudster as well?



Do you not remember the late 80s/Early 90s?

Drs Pons and Fleischmann, Cold Fusion? I believe they stacked their entire professional Reputation on this experiment, do I have to tell you what happened there...?

Because of those 2 people the research in low energy Physics is frowned upon and any mention of anything regarding that field is dismissed almost instantly, not funded, not listened to, ridiculed, made a joke about and the people research into it doing it in secret in fear of having their reputations and careers thrown out by the wider academic community.

It's only been very recently that the subject of LENR and the like is slowly being very cautiously looked at.

Again, you are looking silly.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: MuonToGluon


I bet they all s'n-word'ed and had beer at their expense. As I remember it, some experiments got an energy gain, some didn't. At least Mills has got the character to push on and not give up.


(post by TerryDon79 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity


a reply to: ErosA433
The only thing Mills is getting wrong is the timing , I don't think it will be ready for about five years. Its had about a hundred peer reviews. So we will see who ultimately has egg on their face.



I thought I'd quote and bold what you said over a day ago.

Still waiting on, well, any!

LOL



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


Ok Faradays laws have already been violated. I suppose he's scamming as well. lenr-canr.org...



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Totally irrelevant to the "100 peer reviews" you say Mills has.

Why can't you just admit you made it up? It's quite obvious you did, otherwise you would have posted some of them.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


Suck on this..www.esa.int...



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity
Ok. Your source:

Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis.



edit on 3/19/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: TerryDon79


Suck on this..www.esa.int...



Why do you think this helps you in any way, shape or form?

For starters, let's look at the conclusion from YOUR link(bold is mine)....



Conclusion
In this paper we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hy- pothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis. This strongly suggests that the experimental evidence put forward in favour of the existence of hydrinos should be reconsidered for interpretation in terms of conventional physics. This reconsideration of the experimental data is beyond the scope of the current paper. Also, to understand properly the experimental results presented by Mills et al., it would be helpful if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups.


It's almost like you didn't understand what you posted. The above is the complete opposite of what you thought the paper was about. LOL!

Still waiting on any of the "100 peer reviews" you said there are on Mills work.

ETA: I see phage beat me to it. Still, posting that was just hilarious. Thanks for the laugh!
edit on 1932017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


No I am preparing you for a paradigm shift, if you read it right it said Hydrinos would have to be explained in classical physics. Now here is a peer review ireport.cnn.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: TerryDon79


No I am preparing you for a paradigm shift, if you read it right it said Hydrinos would have to be explained in classical physics. Now here is a peer review ireport.cnn.com...



Please look up what "peer review" is.

An iReporter writing a story, isn't a peer review.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity


Now here is a peer review
That is not a peer review. It is, pretty much, a blog post.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

you keep repeating this phrase " peer review " - i have a sinking feeling that you have no idea what it really means



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape


I know what it means, but if he had someone else going over it he looses the financial advantage. America needs a miracle, but historically that's what the West does. Theirs enough big names saying it works. If the spectrograph was right Hydrogen is showing lines that shows another state for hydrogen. Sceptics that have looked at it have changed their minds. We will see.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

America needs a miracle
More than one, actually. But science isn't about miracles.



If the spectrograph was right Hydrogen is showing lines that shows another state for hydrogen.
Did it? Is the state of an atom determined by its spectrum?




edit on 3/20/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Dunno but according to the blurb, the atomic signature for the hydrogen showed it at a lower energy rate. Well an Isotope would have a different line than the stable state of the Element I suppose.


edit on 20-3-2017 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

wow - you have now admitted there is no peer review - we are done



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ignorant_ape


I know what it means


No you don't. Case in point: your post history in this very thread.

The correlation between scientific illiteracy and buying into Mill's scam is strong. Case in point: your post history in this very thread.


The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive incapacity, on the part of those with low ability, to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their competence accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: high-ability individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.[1]
Dunning and Kruger have postulated that the effect is the result of internal illusion in those of low ability, and external misperception in those of high ability: "The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."[1]


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 20-3-2017 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)







 
14
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join