Strange

No it doesn't.

As no one knows what the initial condition was (or even if there was one) and I don't know what fundamental means in that context, the only answer is: boh. Also, with not quantitative predictions to test, this is all just random and rather pointless speculation.

And just to be clear: he is not wrong because he is being rubbished on the web; he is being rubbished on the web because he is wrong.

There is no evidence that fundamental particles can split in two. That is what fundamental means.

As I said before, I have read his "scientific" ideas before. They were trash then and they are trash now. It doesn't even require a huge level of physics education to work that out. Apart from that, his reasons for doing it are irrelevant (whether it works or not). Here is an article by someone who is wlling to spend more time on this than I am: http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2014/01/14/the-latest-update-in-the-hydrino-saga/

For example, the gravitational effect of the "black box" would be the same before and after. In other words, the total mass of the black box would be the same. (Sorry if that confuses you further.)

You said it was "patent pending" technology (and that was why you could not test it). If his originally patented ideas were valid, then you (anyone) could implement those ideas. Oddly, no one is. You are getting pretty heated about defending it though. Even though the "science" is not "fringe" it is completely and utterly bogus. Stop wasting your time on it.

Yes. Nothing "happens to its gravity". Mass and energy are equivalent; they both contribute to gravity. Yes. Nearly all the mass of the matter around you comes from the energy binding it together, not from the mass of the particles.

I didn't say that. He has been spouting this crap for years. All these "free energy" nuts do the same. None of them quietly go into business selling energy and become billionaires. It is some sort of ego trip, I guess ("look at how clever I am"). 1. I have read about this crap before. I don't particularly want to submit myself to it again, it is too brain-numbingly stupid. 2. Video? I wouldn't watch it anyway. Because its a video. Show me a peer-reviewed paper on the science involved. It doesn't. As for the "validators" ... I guess some people are easily fooled. He has been filing patents on this for years. Some of the oldest ones have already expired. They should provide enough information for anyone to reproduce the technology (that is the purpose of patents) so knock yourself out.

Then why mention it? The it isn't science. Maybe he is just deluded. Who cares. Nope. Just bollocks. Why don't you buy one and set yourself up as a power company and make a fortune. Hang on, why don't they do that? Why doesn't anyone? Why isn't there one of these boxes in every town across the world?

It is up to you to show that a classical model of the atom works.

I never said either of those things.

Only if you treat it as a classical object. There are dozens of interpretations. Take your pick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics I am not going to recommend one because I don't really like any of them. They are just stories (fairy tales, lies) to try and make reality fit our expectations. That is your problem; you want the universe to act as you think it should based on your intuition and expectations as a highly evolved ape. There is absolutely no reason to think that the universe should be comprehensible in those terms.

I have no idea what you did there because I am not really sure what the symbols in your equation mean (I could guess some of them) and I don't know where the numbers in your example come from. So: 1. Why not explain what you have done 2. Showing that a single example works (if it does) is not a proof that the equation is correct. 3. If you can do it for a single value, then you it should be easy to show a general proof (substitute the variables, rather than numbers). 4. Even if you show the equation is equivalent to the Lorentz transform (if it is) doesn't make it meaningful.

I would insist that what is "right" (i.e. works) is what matches observation and evidence. Classical theory doesn't.

I never said that. That would be a ridiculous thing to say. How: annihilation of antimatter, fusion, fission, breaking chemical bonds, etc. Why: energy and matter are equivalent. I honestly don't understand what sort of explanation you are looking for. Because we know anti-matter exists and how it behaves. There is no such thing (as far as we know) as "the anti-gravity". You might as well ask, "why not unicorns?" Anti-matter are particles with opposite values for various properties. This does not include mass because there is no such thing as negative mass. Apparently not. Obtains the energy of the photon (photons are massless, remember). It may be a question, but I'm not sure what it means. The two opposite charges cancel, sum to zero, or "annihilate" (if you must, although that has a more specific meaning). That cannot be a property of matter as anything with mass cannot move at c.

There's a sucker born every minute.

If you really mean "accurate" then it would simply depend which had the better instruments. The time experienced by each could be different but measured equally accurately.

Who knows. If you can't provide any justification for making it up, and you have no supporting evidence, then probably it is wrong. Or at best meaningless.

And how about the data this thread is about. (Your results are obviously bogus, but I am not going to waste any more time on it.)

You seem to be missing the point. I am not asking you what predictions your hypothesis makes. But ... can you show us how well your predictions match observation (now you have some anomalously bright data to work with)? And, as you are apparently claiming that everything should be brighter than expected from existing theory, can you show that this is the case? You know, correlation, error analysis, etc. The sort of things scientists do when they want to test their hypothesis.

They are a hypothetical type of neutrino which doesn't even interact through the weak force. This makes them tricky to detect. They could be candidates for dark matter, if they have the right mass. They could also (apparently) explain why the other neutrinos have mass (which was not expected). And they could also explain why the known neutrinos are all right handed. (Please don't ask me any more; I don't understand most of those things!)

I'll take that as a No, then.

The speculation in the article is "sterile neutrinos" (which, I gather, would be useful for other reasons).

And lost.