Blacklight Power Sues Wiki Trolls

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist


No, I'm not shilling, I'm just enjoying all the standard model people having a hissy fit over this. I think the standard model is a joke.

.....but but but you just posted earlier a claim that Mills papers are published and asserting that made them 'real' but thousands of standard model papers have also been published - so doesn't that make them real too?

lol

I posted the papers that support his theory.

Of course, this isn't about theory, this is about what Mills can prove. The standard model is a theory, just as Mills hydrino model is a theory, but theory does not constitute fraud.

A jury is going to care about what Mills can prove. A jury isn't going to care what Mills theory, or the standard model theory, says one way or the other.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist
I think you need to read up on what a theory means in science. Mills ideas are not a theory.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist


No, I'm not shilling, I'm just enjoying all the standard model people having a hissy fit over this. I think the standard model is a joke.

.....but but but you just posted earlier a claim that Mills papers are published and asserting that made them 'real' but thousands of standard model papers have also been published - so doesn't that make them real too?

lol

I posted the papers that support his theory.

Of course, this isn't about theory, this is about what Mills can prove. The standard model is a theory, just as Mills hydrino model is a theory, but theory does not constitute fraud.

A jury is going to care about what Mills can prove. A jury isn't going to care what Mills theory, or the standard model theory, says one way or the other.

But without a working model and 23 years of claiming to be close - it comes down to who the jury believe, the guys on one side saying x and the other side saying y...no working model but just claims

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

No, you posted his/your papers regarding a hypothesis. But evidently he's/you're beyond the hypothesis stage as he's/you've made tangible claims about a working unit. Should be easy enough to demonstrate in court, right? Or rather, fraudulent claims about a working unit. Gonna sue me?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

No, you posted his/your papers regarding a hypothesis. But evidently he's/you're beyond the hypothesis stage as he's/you've made tangible claims about a working unit. Should be easy enough to demonstrate in court, right? Or rather, fraudulent claims about a working unit. Gonna sue me?

They have working CIHT Cells. Mills never claimed to have a working SunCell. And it's not a hypothesis, it's a full theory. It's a theory because Mills has supporting experimental evidence.

In fact his Millsian software can predict chemical bonds far more accurately than standard model based software.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Hi Mills, where is this "supporting evidence" outside of a BLP press release?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Hi Mills, where is this "supporting evidence" outside of a BLP press release?

It's in the three independent university lab tests and the numerous peer-reviewed publications I listed.

Here's a good one from the Journal of Plasma Physics, vol. 79, issue 05, pp. 489-507

Under a study contracted by GEN3 Partners, spectra of high current pinch discharges in pure hydrogen and helium were recorded in the extreme ultraviolet radiation region at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) in an attempt to reproduce experimental results published by BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) showing predicted continuum radiation due to hydrogen in the 10–30 nm region (Mills, R. L. and Lu, Y. 2010 Hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 35, 8446–8456, doi:10.1016?j.ijhydene.2010.05.098). Alternative explanations were considered to the claimed interpretation of the continuum radiation as being that emitted during transitions of H to lower-energy states (hydrinos). Continuum radiation was observed at CfA in the 10–30 nm region that matched BLP’s results. Considering the low energy of 5.2 J per pulse, the observed radiation in the energy range of about 120–40 eV, reference experiments and analysis of plasma gases, cryofiltration to remove contaminants, and spectra of the electrode metal, no conventional explanation was found in the prior or present work to be plausible including contaminants, electrode metal emission, and Bremsstrahlung, ion recombination, molecular or molecular ion band radiation, and instrument artifacts involving radicals and energetic ions reacting at the charge-coupled device and H2 re-radiation at the detector chamber. Moreover, predicted selective extraordinarily high-kinetic energy H was observed by the corresponding Doppler broadening of the Balmer α line.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

yeah, we've been through this multiple times already. Where do these "independent university lab tests" exist outside of your imagination?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

yeah, we've been through this multiple times already. Where do these "independent university lab tests" exist outside of your imagination?

It's fun watching you deny reality.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Where's these primary cites for the "independent university lab tests"?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Where's these primary cites for the "independent university lab tests"?

Look, pretending that the university professors didn't actually do the tests and didn't actually make video statements testifying as much is cute and all, but at this point you're just making yourself look foolish.

I admitted I was wrong about the burden of proof, why is it so hard for you to admit you're wrong about the testing?

It is not unsual for people to file lawsuits simply as a tool provide positive PR and as threat. You this often from people trying to make some money off pseudoscience and are getting bash by scienced based blogs, journal etc. Hoping the cost will make them back off. These seems to be one of those cases.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Just post up the sources. Shouldn't be hard, right?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Just post up the sources. Shouldn't be hard, right?

I did, several pages ago, and on this page here.

I gotta give it to you AC, you've got some thick skin!

And did admit you were wrong re: the burden of proof thing.

Personally I don't think BLP is doing what they say they are, but it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

originally posted by: TommyD1966
I gotta give it to you AC, you've got some thick skin!

And did admit you were wrong re: the burden of proof thing.

Personally I don't think BLP is doing what they say they are, but it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Yeah, I'm just enjoying the show.

I get a kick out of the responses on here.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

We've been through this already. Mills/your papers are not independent and certainly aren't evidence of concrete claims. Posting claims from BLP is also not independent.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

We've been through this already. Mills/your papers are not independent and certainly aren't evidence of concrete claims. Posting claims from BLP is also not independent.

You might not consider those sources to be independent, but I doubt a jury will agree with you on that point.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

How much have you invested in BLP?

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

How much have you invested in BLP?

Nothing.

BLP is not a publicly traded corporation.

To invest in BLP you have to be an accredited investor, which requires a million dollars in net worth.