Posts by Navid

They are nice people. Glad to have met them. They are straddling the new but known, and the totally unknown in the same experiments. Let's see where they take it.

Kert tracked Brilliant Light Power for years. He brought University of North Carolina scientists to independently validate hydrino energy. You can read about that here.

Kert has the vision on what hydrinos mean to climate, poverty, water, energy, and social equity. He wants to help foundations, politicians and impact investors become literate about a fossil fuel replacement.

I've known Kert for almost a year personally. What stands out to me is his character - after talking to him for a few minutes you trust him implicitly. He's worked first hand with corporations like Coca-Cola and Walmart, and political leadership in DC on climate change. Listen to him carefully - he understands science and people.

A public release will follow in the coming days (with better video!) But you can't miss watching this intro - you have to see what he says about how big this is.

Discussed here BLP update

Kert tracked Brilliant Light Power for years. He brought University of North Carolina scientists to independently validate hydrino energy. You can read about that here.

Kert has the vision on what hydrinos mean to climate, poverty, water, energy, and social equity. He wants to help foundations, politicians and impact investors become literate about a fossil fuel replacement.

I've known Kert for almost a year personally. What stands out to me is his character - after talking to him for a few minutes you trust him implicitly. He's worked first hand with corporations like Coca-Cola and Walmart, and political leadership in DC on climate change. Listen to him carefully - he understands science and people.

A public release will follow in the coming days (with better video!) But you can't miss watching this intro - you have to see what he says about how big this is.

Discussed here BLP update

Quote from Curbina

I have been following Mills saga for years, no need to lecture me on that. I maintain what I said, let the science stand on its own and stop blaming QMs predominance. I agree that is not easy to tell people QM is "wrong". Others agree with that assesment (Ruggero Santilli comes to mind, as one of many, he developped an alternative to solve QMs shortcomings and he is also ridiculed and dissed by mainstream), but in the end the only thing that will vindicate Mills or anyone else claiming to have made QM obsolete is independent replication without secrets or propietary ties, nor marketing campaigns to keep investors engaged.

Curbina Mills doesn't need "vindicating" - when you write you expose your bias. Vindication is needed for someone who has wronged another.

I started this thread by saying that in neuroscience - our brains use emotional cues to cement a position, and then logic (even broken logic) to rationalize oru position. You - I think - exposed yourself a bit.

I said understanding Mills the person - how he thinks, and what he's been doing for many years is important. Otherwise people fill in with a whole set of their own beliefs.

Your very words "vindication". "independent replication", "secrets", "proprietary ties" - totally expose you. Mills isn't under trial. Many people have independently replicated his work (a list of national labs is in the link above, did you read it?), I'm not sure what secrets you mean, you want him to publish plans to a reactor?, "proprietary ties" - what are you asking a private company to do?

If I am making you uncomfortable, we are making progress.... (I assure you this ends with you flaming out and attacking me, or sitting down and going "hmm...maybe this is not so easy a subject and I must look harder.")

@clarifier To simplify down what you said - I am an automaton - unhinged to reality - religious people are all automatons - religion is bad - you are bad - if you are promoting your ideas it may be a fraud just like there is no God.

I think there are people with more sophistication out there who will see something very different in what I wrote.

Curbina I am trying to serve as a guide. Having me focus on what you want to focus on isn't what you need, you need to open your lens.

I can see you didn't get it. You stepped right into "Please focus on the science of Mills claims." I said we need to establish what science is. And you ignored it. Science is not about a set of facts which are truths, easily proved. The very start of the article questions that very notion. This is a new idea for many.

I am not asking you to understand Mills personal quest - I never once said you need to understand that Mills was a farmer, or that he was raised in PA blah blah. It is about how paradigms and cultures work. Which is patently what we are dealing with, a change of a paradigm.

Curbina - not entirely accurate statements - since he has attracted great collaborators. If you read the paper I wrote - you will understand why "failure" to gather interest from the likes of MIT etc is not easy - science is like a culture - a MIT physicist to leave his culture is akin to moving to Zimbabwe for most of you. Alan Smith I'm not sure what you want him to do, but he's trying to change the world. He's given enough of his talents and ideas to push forward physics for 100 years. I'm not sure how LENR people are going to help him?

There is much you don't know, which we know since it is water under the bridge --- but let's just say it is not for lack of trying by Mills (even his early mentor Haus, said what he's doing looks correct, but that he could never support him cause the quantum guys would crush him). I've talked to MIT professor by email and he said "He has no training in theoretical physics. His approach to theory starts by throwing out quantum mechanics and most of the associated physics which people have worked really hard on since the 1920s." That may be true, in a very technical sense, but in fact he is known to have a totally photographic memory for everything in biology, physics, and chemistry that he reads --- and so you can ask, does it matter that he didn't get a Ph.D. from MIT? If these are the criticisms of a physics professor at MIT of Mills - and he goes onto totally botch any understanding of Mills, you can see -- we are dealing with a closed culture.

Once you understand what science is, then you can stop blaming Mills and closer to the truth. That is why I put that paper. Did you read it? Do you understand what I am saying?

As for keeping his work secret- um ya, you haven't read Brett's book. Can you imagine it is a little infuriating to put together the answers and have people just continue to echo their preconceived notions? Mills guided national labs to reproduce his work at scale in the 1990s. I'm including a short snippet. We aren't peddling books but you really want to have this one for the facts.

Drag Scroll to 2nd page

https://endofpetroleum.com/ear…ational-labs-bretts-book/

If I am making you uncomfortable, then we've made progress...

Too much. This is not for you but for the others.

Dear all,

It is important that those who have taken risks - intellectually, scientifically...with their lives be rewarded and recognized. I think having this forum is taking a risk. You have to be willing to look where very few are and be wrong and live with it. So I'm going to contribute a bit here...and your feedback may help me improve my thinking and turn this into a longer form real essay.

What is Science?

Many of your are scientists - who don't understand many things (no offense) about the history of science. You may not have ever even asked what science is... Science is if anything is a social pursuit - it is a culture, a group of people and what they think is important. The culture has a weak consensus about what are the questions of the day and what are the rightful next steps to take in inquiry. Scientists think highly about how what they do fits into their culture, their peers, how their inquiry will be evaluated by their peers. Every action is bound in a social context. Mills is out of the social context of academic science, and thus --- in a sense his world is isolated to the few tens of scientists (numbering on a ~100-200) with which he has close collaborations.

So imagine we have two worlds of science, since the two cultures don't interact much. BLP is nearing a commercial product (their challenge is engineering not "what is the energy and does it exist reproduceably"). Yet, the world is still NOT asking basic questions like what is an electron?

How can we live in a world like that? Well the answer I say is that we have different cultures. The problem isn't lab data, or reproducability, or any of that. That is a dullards way of making sense of the situation. We need to go big here, and re-ask the question what is science anyway?

In this paper Knoor-Cetina argues that science is a product, a constantly evolving product that is artificial - not some "pure" pursuit. It is like a craft, a sport, a business,a factory --- whatever you want, but it is not some "pure" philosophical pursuit in search of reality or the truth - even if it may at times correspond to reality or truth. NOBODY can argue with this paper, it is based on anthropological research - in actual labs, with actual scientists. You may NOT LIKE it, it may not correspond to the best spirit of what science could be. But we aren't interested in ideals. We are interested in the boots on the ground reality.

The Fabrication of Facts: Toward a Microsociology of Scientific Knowledge. Front Cover. Karin D. Knorr-Cetina.

https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/b…82/1/FabricationFacts.pdf

Who Is Randell Mills

You will realize that you can't understand hydrinos or GUTP science and the current state of affairs, if you try to take out the person from the equation. Why? Because we just agreed that science is a cultural and social pursuit. Duh!

Therefore, it is important to introduce you to Randell Mills - at least from a slightly closer perspective (we aren't BLP, we have no operating connection). I think what you all of you need to know is more about the person.

Some of you will stomp your feet in the ground and proclaim that if you can't understand his work, that it must not be worth understanding (even most of the work is peer-reviewed, and evidence-based, not abstract math!). Some of you have preconceived or outright damaged perceptions of who the person is. Be realistic - that influences your mind - it hijacks your ability to make serious progress (if in fact you are trying to tackle GUTCP).

Once you understand more of who Mills is, then you will be able to better understand and with more energy take what he says seriously. There are neuroscientific reasons why "knowing Mills" is important for your brain. We actually use our emotional systems to form our core beliefs, not our logical systems, and when a subject is fear-inducing we revert to a lower form of thinking which looks more for social cues for trust and safety. With Mills, you have some older cranks quantum guys saying "I'm going to beat you on the head with a stick if you look at this guy." Not good for your brain!

https://endofpetroleum.com/who-is-randell-mills

If I made you feel a little uncomforable, then we've made progress...