Jump to content

Hydrino Energy


Hypercube
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bottom line moo, you like to distinguish too much

I just point out logical fallacies when they're committed and state against them. It's called SCIENCE.

 

You are in a science forums.

 

secondly, it was an example. A lot of physics is built up on faith, like parallel universe theory, for one.

Indeed. I just pointed out it was a bad example.

Do you have any other example for a scientist that ONLY followed his own faith? Please give it.

 

And why shouldn't anyone follow my logic, and when did you control what they thought?

 

Because it's illogical. I don't control anyone's thoughts, I follow the scientific method to analyze theories, as do most of the forum users. I don't speak for anyone, you're just not listening. Read the other posts, and you will see that people are arguing the validity of your logic.

 

Not just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EVERY SCIENTIST, in their lifetimes, have made speculations based on the faith they have on a subject.

 

And now you are just being rude. Point out where i am illogical, please. And you acted as a boycott when you spoke on behalf of other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EVERY SCIENTIST, in their lifetimes, have made speculations based on the faith they have on a subject.

INCORRECT.

 

Every scientist that had a SUCCESSFUL THEORY has spent a LOT of time (usually many years) *PROVING* and *BASING* it.

 

NO SUCCESSFUL SCIENTIFIC THEORY was accepted on the basis of the scientists' "faith" in it.

 

Not one.

 

And now you are just being rude. Point out where i am illogical, please. And you acted as a boycott when you spoke on behalf of other people.

Saying you are illogical is not rude, it's an observation, and I DID say where -- jumping from "Photons HAVE energy" to "Photons ARE energy" is NOT a valid leap.

 

Base it on other facts or logical processes and we can keep on talking about this concept scientifically. Until then, you're churning water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does any of this have to do with Hydrino Energy? This is known as trolling.

Actually, I think that specific violation is called thread hijacking. Though there's been quite a lot of trolling too.

 

Emmm... what the ****?>>

 

You telling me a scientist in his lifetime, never speuclates on a theory, and by working on it, he or she does not do so by faith of the theory? You think scientists are unbiased?

Nitpicking, much?

 

Reported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

INow

 

Be quite please. You are talking nonesense. Of course i am on topic. I am talking about the nature of theories that contradict.

 

Now, K

 

no... you`re NOT on topic, this thread is about Hydrinos, nothing else.

 

now either talk about hydrinos, or be quiet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

secondly, it was an example. A lot of physics is built up on faith, like parallel universe theory, for one.

 

One needs to distinguish between theory, speculation and metaphysics. Theories are built up on evidence.

 

What is the evidence that hydrinos exist? That there is a state below the ground state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the reason that theories like hydrino's end up classified as pseudoscience (thanks a lot for that by the way Swansont, you're so open minded...NOT!!!) is because people automatically think they are nonsense? And don't even bother trying to understand or prove them?

 

Yes, Blacklight's process may turn out to be wrong, but until it's been proven to be a scam, it is not right to assume that Blacklight is a con job. How many things throughout history were thought to be nonsense at first? Gravity, the fact that the Sun is in the center of the solar system, the fact that the Earth was not formed on the 23rd of October in the year 4004 BC at 9:00 A.M, evolution, the possibility of extraterrestrial life, String Theory, higher dimensions; the list is endless. Maybe Hydrinos are like that, one day they are pseudoscience, the next they are the breakthrough of the century.

 

My point is that we shouldn't automatically conclude that something is impossible just because it doesn't fit perfectly with the current theory, leave that to the fundamentalists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the reason that theories like hydrino's end up classified as pseudoscience (thanks a lot for that by the way Swansont, you're so open minded...NOT!!!) is because people automatically think they are nonsense? And don't even bother trying to understand or prove them?

 

Yes, Blacklight's process may turn out to be wrong, but until it's been proven to be a scam, it is not right to assume that Blacklight is a con job. How many things throughout history were thought to be nonsense at first? Gravity, the fact that the Sun is in the center of the solar system, the fact that the Earth was not formed on the 23rd of October in the year 4004 BC at 9:00 A.M, evolution, the possibility of extraterrestrial life, String Theory, higher dimensions; the list is endless. Maybe Hydrinos are like that, one day they are pseudoscience, the next they are the breakthrough of the century.

 

My point is that we shouldn't automatically conclude that something is impossible just because it doesn't fit perfectly with the current theory, leave that to the fundamentalists.

 

You got the process wrong. We don't need to prove it's a scam, the theory-giver needs to prove it's well-based in science.

 

I think that saying we "dismiss this" out of hand is quite unfair, considering we spent 30+ posts discussing it. The point, however, is that despite the 'comfortability' of such claims, they are NOT proven. If you think they should be, the responsibility is on you to do so.

 

We're waiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay, here is a simple reason why we can tell it is a scam. if there is an energy level below the ground state then it would be more stable than the ground state. so, electrons would be falling down to it all the time. and science would call that lower level the ground state. so, when it all comes round the claims can be nothing other than total bollocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypercube, perhaps you would care to enlighten me about hydrinos.

 

The first thing I'd like to know is whether or not there is any scientific (ie repeated by an unbiassed 3rd party) evidence for their existence.

 

If so please let me know what.

 

I know that there are some theories- string theory is one, where the "experimental" evidence is a bit thin. It tends to involve things like "it's internally consistent, requires no singularities and doesn't predict a half life for the proton of less than 10^30 years" But, on the other hand, lets be fair- the strings are pretty small and hard to observe.

I have never actually seen an atom, but I know that, as a model, they explain things I can see.

The same goes for the theoretical physicists strings. At least they provide a model that explains real observations.

 

What do hydrinos explain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay, here is a simple reason why we can tell it is a scam. if there is an energy level below the ground state then it would be more stable than the ground state. so, electrons would be falling down to it all the time. and science would call that lower level the ground state. so, when it all comes round the claims can be nothing other than total bollocks.

 

And the Sun can't be in the center of the solar system because why would god put man anywhere but in the center of his universe.

 

Higher dimensions can't exist because we can't see them.

 

Dinosaurs couldn't have existed because the Earth is less than 6000 years old.

 

String theory has to be wrong since it doesn't involve point particles.

 

Elvis can't be dead because after all, he's Elvis.

 

Evolution must be wrong since humans don't have fur.

 

Aliens can't exist since that would mean that mankind doesn't own the universe.

 

 

Hydrino's can't exist since it would be counter-intuitive.

 

May I remind you that there is nothing about Quantum Theory that isn't

counter-intuitive? One particle being in two places at once, the idea that particles are zero-dimensional points yet have energy, mass, charge, and yet are not black holes. Again, the list is endless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the Sun can't be in the center of the solar system because why would god put man anywhere but in the center of his universe.

 

Higher dimensions can't exist because we can't see them.

 

Dinosaurs couldn't have existed because the Earth is less than 6000 years old.

 

String theory has to be wrong since it doesn't involve point particles.

 

Elvis can't be dead because after all, he's Elvis.

 

Evolution must be wrong since humans don't have fur.

 

Aliens can't exist since that would mean that mankind doesn't own the universe.

 

You're setting up lots of strawmen, but other than that, you need to take into account that out of the theories that *WERE* accepted, they were not accepted on the merit of nothing. They were accepted because there was a large amount of proof and basis to support them.

 

Hydrino's can't exist since it would be counter-intuitive.

No one said hydrino CAN'T exist, we say that in light of the lack of evidence, they seem to not exist.

 

You're not helping your cause by attacking the method. Instead, I suggest you answer John Cuthber's questions so we can go back to a scientific debate, rather than a silly argument about whether or not science is open minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one said hydrino CAN'T exist, we say that in light of the lack of evidence, they seem to not exist.

 

actually, i did.

 

i said that on the basis that there is no orbital predicted by QM below the ground state and no evidence has been observed that indicates such.

 

the hydrino hypothesis uses classical mechanics in a situation where classical mechanics breaks down. the whole thing hinges on electrons behaving in a classical manner which it has been observed they do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually, i did.

 

i said that on the basis that there is no orbital predicted by QM below the ground state and no evidence has been observed that indicates such.

 

the hydrino hypothesis uses classical mechanics in a situation where classical mechanics breaks down. the whole thing hinges on electrons behaving in a classical manner which it has been observed they do not.

 

Even worse for the theory, then.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

All the more work for the OP to prove and provide.

 

~moo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually, i did.

 

i said that on the basis that there is no orbital predicted by QM below the ground state and no evidence has been observed that indicates such.

 

the hydrino hypothesis uses classical mechanics in a situation where classical mechanics breaks down. the whole thing hinges on electrons behaving in a classical manner which it has been observed they do not.

 

Agreed, he'd need reproducible experimental evidence to be taken seriously as it breaks QM in an area where QM has proven to be very valid indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hydrino's can't exist since it would be counter-intuitive.

 

This, like your other strawmen, is not what is being claimed. The conclusion that hydrinos don't exist is because of the evidence and the well-established theory that does exist. "Counter-intuitive" wasn't in the picture until you photoshopped it in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear... If there is a stable, lower-energy state for the electron in the hydrogen atom as theorised ("In his 'hydrino', the electron sits a little closer to the proton than normal"), then electrons would indeed be falling to that level all the time. Plus, the idea of the specific shells and orbitals and quantisation of the energy emitted by electrons moving between them is the very core tenet of Quantum Theory. It's not as if this violates some incomplete vagary, it completely turns the past 60 years of demonstrated and re-demonstrated theory on its head.

 

~

 

Quote taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/nov/04/energy.science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randell Mills hydrino theory papers are here:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/techpapers.shtml

 

and Andreas Rathke's critique of hydrino theory is here:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1367-2630/7/1/127

 

iNOW commented that the posters are not staying on topic. I agree.

 

Have any of you posters actually read any of the above material? The math is pretty simple.

 

So instead of rants about the theology of science and how Mills' theory MUST be wrong since it doesn't use modern QM, how about commenting on Rathke's critique? Has he got any valid points?

 

Then there's the issue of Mills' experimental work. Has there been any published experimental data that rebuts this work?

 

How about a Cold Fusion scenario: that there is a repeatable experimental effect but no theory to explain the data (at least not Mills' hydrino theories)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised how many people dismiss this completely when it's obvious they haven't even read the abstracts/intros to the various papers.

 

There is no claim of anything related to cold fusion - hydrinos as predicted are atomic state with the electron in a lower energy orbitsphere - nothing nuclear/fusion-related.

 

As for a scam - that implies deliberate intent to defraud and writing a dense 1600-page 3 volume Grand Unified Theory is not the easiest way to go about this. A standard sales letter would be much easier. Plus they are not asking for big money - at least not beyond the $50 million start up capital. It's clear Mills believes his theory is true.

 

And there are lots of reasons to believe it - mostly the astonishing array of measurable quantities that can be derived from the theory in closed form - things QM will never be capable of. You can't invent this stuff - the formulas for particle mass ratios in terms of fine structure constant only.

 

Think about electrons - which seems more plausible, a point charge that has a finite probability of being anywhere and everywhere in the universe, or a fluid-like disc of charge, that in the presence of a proton bends into a spinning charge shell in a sphere around it?

 

The ground state argument, that if there were a lower state then most matter would already be there doesn't make sense - the ground state is stable also. Presumably the equilibrium between the states depends on the local circumstances. Given the trouble Mills seems to have had in creating hydrino-producing prototypes, it's not like falling off a log.

 

The primary experimental evidence seems to be the anomalous line broadening in H spectra as well as the calorimetry experiments that produce significant excess heat - not just a few degrees - the latest stuff gets up to 700 degrees in 35 seconds. It also predicted the accelerating expansion of the universe which seems to be gaining experimental support, although early days, and the mass of the top quark before it was measured.

 

As for the math - the published critique by Rathke itself contained a sign error which in my opinion suggests it was a fast hatchet job designed to stifle debate rather than a serious challenge. Mills has responded to Rathke.

Many critiques are insufficiently detailed to be refutable - stuff like "whole thing is nonsense" and so on.

 

QM didn't make much sense to me when I got my bachelors in physics 35 years ago, although I could parrot enough to get by, but now hydrino theory seems obvious, elegant, simple, powerful and so on... all the things you want a good theory to be.

Edited by lazydaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there's the issue of Mills' experimental work. Has there been any published experimental data that rebuts this work?

 

Um, everything rebuts it? AFAIK, nobody else has been able to reproduce the hydrino results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Alternate theory for hydrino based on Casimir cavity and relativistic hydrogen is less controversial than GUT of Dr Mills but remains only a theory unless Jan Naudts equation for 1 stable state of a relativistic hydrogen atom can be substituted into 2 body energy equations for molecules or compounds and proved stable. animation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.