Brilliant Light Power Achieves Self-Sustaining Reaction

a reply to: GetHyped


Methinks you protest to much vwww.cheniere.org...

a reply to: anonentity

Ahahahhaha now you're citing a blog post on the fraudster Tom Bearden's website! Priceless.

Thanks, your inept attempts at scientific discourse only serve to keep underscoring the point myself and others have been making all along.

a reply to: anonentity

I've got a question for you.

Have you found any of the "100 peer reviews" you said there were?

If you have, why not post them instead of blogs and people wanting to sell books?

a reply to: TerryDon79



You just don't like the idea that QM could be shaky, yes he has got a lot of endorsements, from what would be considered good scientists. vbrilliantlightpower.wikia.com...

a reply to: anonentity

I didn't ask for endorsements (anyone can endorse anything. It doesn't make it real, true or effective).

Let's go back over what you said, shall we?

2 days ago you said.....

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

Yet in those 2 days you haven't managed to post a single one.

What you HAVE done is post blogs, links to people who work for BLP, stories and a whole list of other nonesense that hasn't been 1 of the "100 peer reviews".

It's VERY clear that you made it up and are now stuck because you got called out to back up your (false) claims.

a reply to: TerryDon79


Did you read the bit about the patent application when it said it was independently verified.? They don't grant patents for PM .Time will resolve this argument. Since from now on the device is getting assembled with off the shelf tech. It wont be long.

originally posted by: anonentity
They don't grant patents for PM .

Oh, SURE they do. They don't intentionally do it, but there are a number of patents I've run into where the inventor intentionally obfuscated the claims and description to slide a perpetual motion machine past the examiners.

a reply to: anonentity

Yes they do. You obviously don't know much about patents and the human beings who make mistakes.

I see you still failed to post ANY of the "100 peer reviews". Guess we should lump you in with the likes of Mills and his ilk who like to make up stories.

And I love the "it won't be long" comment. I wonder where I've heard that before? Oh, that's right. Mills, every year for the past 20+ years.

a reply to: TerryDon79


The wiki has a list of peer reviews . www.sciencedirect.com... I seriously cant be bothered anymore, other things to do.

a reply to: anonentity

Then you should be able to link to full peer reviewed papers.

Not abstracts or papers put on sites that anyone can submit.

The full peer reviews.

So far all you've done is show that you made up your statement of "100 peer reviews".

a reply to: anonentity

that the best you have ? - its been cited ONCE [ mills own self cite doesnt count ]

originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: Bedlam

Nah, the Yakuzza threatened to kill 2 young Mitsubishi engineers who had a PMM ready for the market.

Anyway, i thought this Blacklight thread was dead already....

Let's be clear, while there are many scams,so-called 'overunity' is entirely possible, and while Bearden & Bedini have come up short in some areas, their circuits do show 'overunity' results.Bearden's math IS good, i would like to see any formulas that prove otherwise...

My own research has led me (several times) to a 'true' OU value of 4.85:1
I am still trying to find the mathematical explanation for this. Many Tesla researchers also claim a similar value, i believe it has to do with the physical boundaries of our current technology, at least it fits the pattern, according to materials analysis.

Let's be clear, if 99% of what you spout wasnt made up, you would show us all your over unity device.

Yet here we are, years later, still the same bragging in your posts with nothing to back anything up.

Cool..nice work mate.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: TerryDon79



You just don't like the idea that QM could be shaky, yes he has got a lot of endorsements, from what would be considered good scientists. vbrilliantlightpower.wikia.com...

Why would anyone interested or invested in physics not like the idea that QM is not true?

?????

Very odd. I would imagine most scientists would be excited about the new things they were going to uncover if that were the case.

Too bad for you QM is one of the most verified and tested theories ever.

Oh...and the transistors that make up your computer chips are purely quantum mechanical devices. Sorry to burst your little bubble mate.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

It's what people who don't know anything about scientists imagine how scientists think, not realising that the complete opposite is true.

crickets

a reply to: GetHyped

there is a NEW thread - 2018 is the NEW date

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
Hopefully no one sponsors these fraudsters, this is worse then the e-cat scam/fraud.


Here's a read up for anyone interested: Brilliant Light Power

I mean; the peer reviewed counter-argument to why it's bogus boils down to this;

If this is true; then certain theories in Quantum Mechanics aren't, and because we know these to be true; it cannot be.

Quantum mechanics proven true? Since when?

In fact; we know intrinsically that Quantum Mechanics has to be faulty, if it weren't, we wouldn't be looking for a unifying theory. So they just basically said in those published articles the exact opposite as a proof to why it cannot be real. If it is real; that would bring us a unified theory.

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
Hopefully no one sponsors these fraudsters, this is worse then the e-cat scam/fraud.


Here's a read up for anyone interested: Brilliant Light Power

I mean; the peer reviewed counter-argument to why it's bogus boils down to this;

You don't need a peer-reviewed paper to counter an evidence-free claim.

Quantum mechanics proven true? Since when?

You know that thing you're using to browse this forum? QM is responsible for the technology for it.

originally posted by: SRPrime
Quantum mechanics proven true? Since when?

In fact; we know intrinsically that Quantum Mechanics has to be faulty, if it weren't, we wouldn't be looking for a unifying theory. So they just basically said in those published articles the exact opposite as a proof to why it cannot be real. If it is real; that would bring us a unified theory.

Many aspects of QM have been extensively proven and and empirically used to make devices that we know and love every day. As GetHyped said... if QM doesn't work or we don't have knowledge of it, then yes, how exactly are you browsing this forum? You understand that semi-conductor transistors don't work in classical mechanics? Ever used a CD/DVD/Blue-ray drive?

You appear to make statements and request things without actually understanding anything about the core of the subject. Knowing about QM and the basics doesn't at all require that is brings us to a unified theory. The universe doesn't owe us anything and there may not actually be a unified theory.

Unified theory is something of a buzz word that people don't actually understand half of the time, but it sounds good.