View Full Version : Harvard MD challenges the Big Bang

2002-Mar-31, 09:44 PM

2002-Mar-31, 10:03 PM
Two questions:

1) What's a Havard MD doing plasying around with quantum physics?

2) Has anyone else tried this?

The Incubus
2002-Mar-31, 10:03 PM
On 2002-03-31 16:44, Dunash wrote:

Interesting, though I'm a bit suspicious of why a medical doctor should be an authority of an area of quantum physics.


The Incubus

"Give a man a fire, and he's warm for a night. But set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life." - Terry Pratchett

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Incubus on 2002-03-31 17:04 ]</font>

2002-Mar-31, 10:42 PM
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. (dont' remember the source of this quote)

By the way, I know the cause of cancer /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


"Crackpot theories one. Regular Theories one billion." - Fry

2002-Mar-31, 10:50 PM
They've got 25 million from investors, and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter wants to do their IPO.

David Simmons
2002-Apr-01, 12:11 AM
So what? If this idea, and I am totally unqualified to assess it, turns out to have merit it will be just another scientific revolution. Science has been through others, and will go through more in the future.

Dunash, you keep posting these things with an implied "so there." Even if this turns out to be true it won't disprove the theory of evolution, or prove that the earth is the stationary center of the universe or have an effect on any of the other causes you beat the drums for. You seem to think that if the Big Bang could only be shown to be wrong, your dreams will come true. And, of course, "hydrinos" are nowhere mentioned in the Genesis, so it won't prove that to be a scientific document either.

Many scientists will do their best to poke holes in any work that seems to confirm it and will work hard to confirm evidence that casts doubt. They are only human and don't want to unlearn a whole bunch of stuff. But if the idea is the real McCoy it will finally come to the top and science will sail on on a new basis. That's the process and you don't seem to grasp that.

2002-Apr-01, 01:11 AM
Well, it sounds like there are excellent ways to test the physics of Mill's hypothesis. Given that an excellent way to advance one's career in science is to recognize and investigate revolutionary but correct new theories, I suspect that if initial tests are consistent with the hydrino theory there will be a mad rush to explore it.

On the other hand, if experiment disproves it I would not be surprised if Mills falls back on the old 'science is a conspiracy against change' claims--a position I think is utterly bogus.

--Don Stahl

2002-Apr-01, 01:15 AM
On 2002-03-31 17:42, Hale_Bopp wrote:
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. (dont' remember the source of this quote)
Carl Sagan, I think it was in Broca's Brain, and I think it's actually, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

2002-Apr-01, 01:37 AM
Randall Mills and BlackLight has a website.

Somebody want to go read this tech stuff and see if it makes any sense? I have no clue.

Everything under "Development" is a .pdf file, which invariably causes my computer to lock up. :rolleyes:

Except for "battery"--which is still "under development". In other words, they haven't gotten it to work yet.

Under "profile" and "history", there's nothing new that wasn't in the OP's link.

The latest update I could find was March 2001, on this website (http://www.ctrl.org/sutton/FTIR.March2001.html), where I also found this:

After years of fighting politics, a science establishment more interested in cash than science,
and the Patent Office, Dr. Randall Mills has succeeded. His Blacklight patent, one of the
longest ever submitted, has been APPROVED.

Mills moves from here to Initial Public Offering, coming up this year through one of the major
Wall Street houses.

Part of the delay was engineered (not by Mills!) to give time for utilities to scramble out from
under their debt load and dump debt onto the States and the public. The politicians, the
utilities and the Sacramento Bee in California, all worked together to hide the truth.
(Almost) free energy is here. The utilities need to get out from under their massive fixed plant.
So we are seeing an all-time scam to shift soon-to-be-worthless assets onto the public. Not one
of California's public servants has told the truth.
Eh, I dunno about y'all, but when I hear somebody start saying that "the reason this product hasn't been able to get off the ground is because it's all a conspiracy!", I tend to get real suspicious. I mean, hey, either the process works or it doesn't. And it looks like it's still very much "in development", still just a theory, without a working prototype.

And the IPO, when last heard from, was predicted for Fall 2001, but evidently has failed to materialize.

BTW, Randall Mills is featured in Robert Park's Voodoo Science, which should tell you something. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

2002-Apr-01, 01:54 AM
On 2002-03-31 20:37, Jigsaw wrote:
And the IPO, when last heard from, was predicted for Fall 2001, but evidently has failed to materialize.

Oops, missed the date on the article. Well, that certainly changes things, don't it?

Or maybe they just lost out in the dot-com deflation.

2002-Apr-01, 05:41 PM
On 2002-03-31 16:44, Dunash wrote:

Excellent article, but it really had much less to do with the Big Bang than anything else. And, as pointed out elsewhere, if the BB was disproved in favor of this dude's matter-energy periodic universe, it would (in my opinion) go farther away from a strict Biblical explination for the universe, not closer to it. At least the Big Bang implies a moment where the universe began.

But I look forward to seeing the results of these experiments. Most likely, they will poke holes in his theories and send him packing. If not, we get to re-examine the roots of high energy physics, and we advance some more.

That's what's lovely about science.

2002-Apr-01, 08:59 PM
Interesting, but apparently the hydrino theory has already been supplanted by the doofusino theory: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~aaronson/doofusino.html.

The author of http://www.phact.org/e/blp.htm has gathered information from several sources to try to make sense of Mills' theory. Three things stand out:
1. Mills math is error-prone, especially when it comes to selecting the right units.
2. Mills demonstrates a misunderstanding of basic science, especially chemistry.
3. The entire theory may have been plagarized from someone else's master's thesis.