Hydrino Energy

[Hypercube]

What do you guys think about this technology that's supposedly been developed by Blacklight Inc.? I for one hope very much that it's not a scam.

[insane_alien]

hydrinos do not and cannot exist. it's a scam.

[timo]

We all hope that the mail from the african who just came into a lot of money and offers you 10% of it if you help him to get his money from <place where you are> is not a scam. Yet, we all know that it almost certainly is.

[Hypercube]

Why? Because it contradicts Quantum Theory? We all know that Quantum Theory is incomplete since it doesn't work on large scales. And what about cold fusion? That was supposed to be a big scam years ago, until there was an actual demonstration of it a few weeks ago. I know that there are a lot of companies and scientists out there who would do just about anything for more money; including publishing bogus discoveries. But I'm inclined to believe that if the company "Blacklight" really was just looking for more money then they would have chosen a less fantastic story to do it with. I mean any company claiming to have discovered a method that can produce cheap energy using only water, and then claiming to have actually developed an actual working generator using this technology, AND going commercial with it has to know that if they are lying, the company is dead, or at the very least disgraced from the scientific community. Maybe I'm being naive, but I for one believe them until it is proven otherwise.

[swansont]

Moved to Pseudoscience. FTL, even.

 

———————

 

 

Maybe I'm being naive, but I for one believe them until it is proven otherwise.

 

In science, however, the protocol is reversed. Demonstrate the claim in a repeatable fashion is first, before acceptance. The more outlandish the claim, the more rock-solid and plentiful the evidence has to be.

Edited June 2, 2008 by swansont
multiple post merged

[Klaynos]

There's a significant difference between something being incomplete and something contradicting it.

 

And it's not that QM doesn't work on large scales it's that there's no quantum gravity.

 

Cold fusion is still unreproducible, and not currently mainstream.

 

People are more likely to get caught up in the fantastic.

 

They where lieing, everyone knows it.

[John Cuthber]

"Maybe I'm being naive, but I for one believe them until it is proven otherwise."

Feel free to send them your money. I don't plan to.

[Graviphoton]

Seriously you guys, you should know by now that because something contradicts our physics, it doesn't mean it is bogus. For years, it was generally accepted by the larger chunk of the mainstream, that peeps could jump into black holes, despite it ''contradicting'' quantum physics.

[Klaynos]

We don't have a quantum theory of gravity so I don't get your above comment.

[Graviphoton]

Maybe because i wasn't taking about gravity in geneal at all.

The information paradox of quantum mechanics was violated for a good few decades. Why? Because we where using models where things can move through black holes and into other universes...

 

... but did that stop the rationale?

[iNow]

Stay on topic for once, will you please?

[Klaynos]

Maybe because i wasn't taking about gravity in geneal at all.

The information paradox of quantum mechanics was violated for a good few decades. Why? Because we where using models where things can move through black holes and into other universes...

 

... but did that stop the rationale?

 

We where then? I thought information paradox was considered quite early on in black hole theories?

[Graviphoton]

INow

 

Be quite please. You are talking nonesense. Of course i am on topic. I am talking about the nature of theories that contradict.

 

Now, K

 

Yes it was considered very early on... thing is though, scientists ignored it for even longer.

[Klaynos]

INow

 

Be quite please. You are talking nonesense. Of course i am on topic. I am talking about the nature of theories that contradict.

 

Now, K

 

Yes it was considered very early on... thing is though, scientists ignored it for even longer.

 

Scientists working in the area? Is there some reason it can be ignored, most things can you know... Like air resistance....

[Graviphoton]

Your point being?

 

My point was, that we have theories that contradict the standard model of physics and cosmology, and dispite what anyone says, they can be accepted very readily. It may be correct, it may not. Usually, when something contradicts science, it will turn out to be false, but some things require extra attention, just to make sure, just like the black hole transportation and information paradox situation.

[Klaynos]

Your point being?

 

My point was, that we have theories that contradict the standard model of physics and cosmology, and dispite what anyone says, they can be accepted very readily. It may be correct, it may not. Usually, when something contradicts science, it will turn out to be false, but some things require extra attention, just to make sure, just like the black hole transportation and information paradox situation.

 

Theories that contradict them? or areas where they're incomplete? Like neutrino mass?

 

My point being that the people working in the area (who if you're talking about something with supposed knowledge you should at least be familiar with) tend to have taken most things into account and everything anyone on the outside would be able to think of...

[Graviphoton]

Yes, and the problem is our ability to distinguish what is acceptable and what is an oxymoron.

 

But that's even hard, since quantum physics is incomplete.

[Klaynos]

All physics is incomplete... and probably always will be.

 

One of my lectures once told us he loved physics because no matter what you found out, nature is always one step ahead with more complicated things....

[Graviphoton]

Id agree with the lecturer.

[mooeypoo]

Id agree with the lecturer.

Any lecturer? What makes you agree with him? His credentials? What if he says something that is against what you believe in? Will you agree with a lecturer then?

 

That's the point, Graviphoton. You seem to take a lot of things for granted from people with titles or lecturing positions. Believing the contents of someone's speech just for their title is a fallacy not because it's "inconvinient", but because you should just by the CONTENTS and not by the person who SAYS said contents.

 

Read a bit about logical fallacies, I think it will do you good.

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

Well, i agree, because i believe in the same thing -- that's why. Nothing more, nothing less.

[iNow]

Ah... Faith-based physics. That's always a good way to go.

[Graviphoton]

You can be quite ignorant from time to time can't you, not just to me, but especially concerning physics? Did you know that quantum physics was incomplete, and will require scientists of my generation to come along and make a speculation on a matter of physics, purely through the faith it is correct?

 

Did Einstein have faith the universe was static?

[mooeypoo]

Well, i agree, because i believe in the same thing -- that's why. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Well, we are a SCIENTIFIC community, not a faith based community.

 

Don't expect anyone to follow your faith-based logic when it has no root in reality, physics, or uses logical fallacies.

 

~moo

 

You can be quite ignorant from time to time can't you, not just to me, but especially concerning physics? Did you know that quantum physics was incomplete, and will require scientists of my generation to come along and make a speculation on a matter of physics, purely through the faith it is correct?

 

Did Einstein have faith the universe was static?

 

Einstein, unlike you, didn't just base his theory on faith, he spent his life basing it on observation, fact and LOGICAL theses.

 

Don't compare your theory to his without the work that it involves.

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

Bottom line moo, you like to distinguish too much

 

secondly, it was an example. A lot of physics is built up on faith, like parallel universe theory, for one.

 

And why shouldn't anyone follow my logic, and when did you control what they thought?