Re: renewable energy / quantum mechanics refutation

[John M <***>]

Steve,
I jumped on your communication, because renewable and
available energy sources are my bugs. I looked at your
URLs for finding the hoax, but did not. 
A new model of H? So what, the old one is also funny.
I am not impressed by the amount of reductionistic
literature it triggered, it is still upon a limited
model-view.
I looked up Google for 'blacklight' - the name of
Mills' Co. and found 2,400,000 entries - which I did
not read all. 

I was unaware of RR's refutal of the BB, my own one is
- I think - on adifferent basis (maybe not?):

1. the redshift has not been rigorously scrutinized
for other originative possibilities than Hubble's
ingenious "optical Dopler effect" (1921) so it is IMO
a "maybe". 
The universe MAY as well expand....(or not?)

2. The 10 million (at least) physicists who jumped on
the idea and designed experimetns or justifications
ONLY to prove it and the cosmologists led by them made
the big mistake of "counting back to zero"  - (to
establish the age of the universe) - linearly,
starting from the present state of physical system
while by now it is known that physical evoilution
occurred chaoticly
 
3. The BB theories apply physical rules (OOps: laws)
of the present (cool abd expanded(?) knowledge we so
far discovered, and apply them to zillion degree
concentrated world-variations where they are NOT valid
for sure. 

4. When they ran into trouble (eg. the time
1.10^-43sec after the Bang) for the initial formation,
they invented the fairy-tales of the 'initial
inflation' and mathematics therefor, to explain the
faulty theory's truthfulness. 

5-2000. Let me skip those.

QM is the other 'nice try' which fooled the
generations of physicists all over the 20th c., a
"linear" theory of not understandable theorizings. QM
is like Tao: who states that he understands it, does
not know what it is. Said a physicist to me "I can
live with paradoxes". Einstein was not SOOO stupid and
he did not deny QM only as a competitive theory to his
relativity.
(Not that I find Rel. more reasonable, it is also a
restricted model-based explanation for the unknown.)

What I disliked in the URL was the survey of alternate
energy-possibilities - AGAIN - leaving out the use of
the deep-Earthly geothermic resources. But that is
personal, only because I own the Earth... 

Thanks Steven for the communication, besides all that
biological stuff (also interesting, of course) this
one is IMO a good contribution to our complexity
thinking.

John Mikes


--- Steve Johnson <***> wrote:

> Sorry if this is not entirely related to the subject
> matter of the list. 
> 
> This guy has a patented process that claims to
> produce
> energy from cold water by turning hydrogen into
> "hydrinos" a state prohibited by standard QM. He's
> been riduculed on and off since about 1991 but now
> seems to have many highly reputed mainstream
> scientists that support at least his experimental
> data
> if not his explanation of it. 
> 
> In addition he has $25 million in backing from
> houshold name companies and has a plant in New
> Jersey
> that expects to produce and market a commercial
> heater
> in 4 years. 
> 
> In more extravagant claims he says his "classical
> QM"
> disproves the Big Bang theory.  The reason I decided
> to  post this to the list is I recall Judith
> mentioning that Rosen always regarded Big Bang
> theory
> kind of simplistic with its linear causality and
> direct analogies to bubbles. (Sorry Judith, if I'm
> misquoting or misremembering)
> 
> Has anyone heard of this guy? What do you make of
> his
> claims. Is this another cold fustion debacle in the
> making or a revolution?
> 
>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/renewable/Story/0,2763,1627425,00.html
> 
> 
>
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/blacklight_power_000522.html
>