parallel wrote:References to these analyses would be helpful.
I'm only going to provide you with 'One (1)', link to a paper that was mentioned in the Wikipedia article. All the others you can do on your own time and money.
parallel wrote:I don't recall that any have been peer reviewed.
It's simple that you do not recall, it's because you have not seen, read or heard of these papers. In addition, when papers are published, it's assumed they have been peer reviewed. Whether the papers have been peer reviewed or not. Is not the point. It is up to others to invalidate these papers.
parallel wrote:Of course Mills theory is "inconsistent with quantum mechanics." He says Quantum mechanics is wrong.
He can say what ever he likes, but his "Extraordinary Claim" that quantum mechanics is wrong requires "Extraordinary Evidence".
parallel wrote:His GUT, that is developed entirely from standard physics, does a better job of forecasting a number of physical constants and things like the size of small particles than quantum mechanics does.
So you say (but anything you say I would use a fine tooth comb to go through your statements), however this thread is about 'energy' and the production of thereof. Therefore the above quote is a Ignoratio elenchi (red herring).
parallel wrote:You say that Mills is "full of shit."
Yes, I do say, "Mills is full of shit" and others do so as well, Ladajo, for example also says "Mills is full of shit". Why do we say "Mills is full of shit", because he is a scammer and others who happen to read about Mills are at least informed as to the true nature of his intentions.
parallel wrote:Lets see you show that Mills is wrong with the several examples he gave in the video where QM is in error. (If indeed you did view the video)
Again, let me reiterate what I said above, "He can say what ever he likes, but his "Extraordinary Claim" that quantum mechanics is wrong requires "Extraordinary Evidence". Until Mills actually provides hundreds of working energy devices and the publications mentioned in the Wikipedia have been overturned. Then I will continue to say "Mills is full of shit"
parallel wrote:Or do you just quote your favorite consensus and can't do it yourself?
let me proceed with this quote:
Michael Chricton wrote:Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
Guess what I follow?
parallel wrote: I don't think an electron is a point and there are growing numbers who agree with that.
You are right an electron is not a point. An electron has the wave particle duality property. However, in physics a point particle is used heavily in physics. In other words, a point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whose size, shape, and structure is irrelevant in a given context. This has been known for years and is based upon the work of Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Niels Bohr and many others. So your quote above is half correct, (first part that is, which I have acknowledged is correct.). The second half is wrong and what was the 'point' of the above quote?
Unable to watch it. Why? Because I do not use 'Windows', I use Linux. In addition you do not even give a brief description on what it's about and I will not waste my time, effort or breath on something you have recommended.
parallel wrote:can't do it yourself?
Does not matter whether I can or cannot, it is irrelevant. BLP has been going on for 25 years and the production of the energy device has not materialised . It has been said that it will be ready by the end of 2017 (correct me if I'm wrong on this). Then it will be 26 years. How many more years will it take for you Parallel to realize that what Mills says, in particular "Will be ready at the end of the year", that Mills is full of shit?
Three sets of conditions that need to meet, before I will apologise to you and everyone who believes in Mills energy device.
1) There are hundreds of Mills energy devices that have been sold to the general public
2) The critical analysis (papers) mentioned in my article or Wikipedia have been refuted.
3) Independent researchers, not related to Mills in any shape or form have completed a thorough investigation of Mills energy device.
Let me make it abundantly clear that, Condition 1 and Condition 2 and Condition 3, must be meet before the apology is given.
Having said all the above, I'm not going to engage any further in the discussion of Mills and BLP. Why? Because, "Mills is full of shit"
 A critical analysis of the hydrino model