Talk:Randell Mills

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to Hydrino theory.

Why is R.M. put in a category of pseudoscientists?Lakinekaki 17:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Because, quite simply, his views challenge the orthodoxy and could, if proven, challenge the oil-based status quo... :-)
Perhaps that is true, but it is more likely that he was placed in that category because the vast majority of the scientific community believes he belongs there. --Nat 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Some historical footnotes -- Alfred Wegener proposed the geological theory of plate tectonics in 1912. It began to be adopted in 1961 (sadly, decades after he had passed away). The first powered flight by the Wright brothers was still being described in Scientific American as a "hoax" two years later (after they had made a flight of 24 miles). Dave Fafarman 22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Do see my user page, under 'Objection 4'. Michaelbusch 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You have missed the point. It is not that Wegener or the Wrights were 'authoritative persons'. It is that disregarding experimental evidence of scientific anomalies causes the wheels to come off of science. These particular citations are not in themselves evidence one way or another for any particular theory -- they merely suggest that some humility is appropriate. Dave Fafarman (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This person, JohnAspinall, following this entry, is blatantly contentious and doesn't supply a single bit of supporting evidence to his claims in actuality, whereas if you followed Mills debate including his style, you would see that he adheres to convention and has the humility, consistency, and credentials that are long overdue in the field, and he is not a pussycat. This holds true in all fields of the scientific community for now. Mills is not the only one who is swimming upstream, plus he is unflinching. Mills, again, does not share the religious-like dogma by elitists calling themselves scientists, nor is he antagonistic like them manipulating sparse information which is, clearly, disinformation. He supplies rebuttals to anyone who has even the slightest point to contend with, more thorough than any request for a wikipedia entry, but JohnAspinall's every word, every point from the beginning is merely an assertion instead of an argument. It is based on lies with no proof he rages for, when all he says is proof, proof, proof. And so, it is reflective of his ill-fated illusion leading to being incapable of engaging in a real debate on the topic, and is only ignorance meant to harm the cause itself, but it takes literacy to see this. Mills' work represents, perhaps, the first time in history that science and Nature combine both, the ecological and the powerful. This is the true nighmare that JohnAspinall sees, or what forms his monopod-like sensibility, and this is being kind.RobertMStahl (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Because (among many, many other problems) his "theory" is inconsistent with even the bits of classical physics that Mills says he is consistent with. I invite you to take Mills' Chapter 3, about the free electron (the simplest possible physical system he describes) and actually try to verify his claims. Mills gives you the charge distribution and then claims the electric field is perpendicular to the surface. Well, you can calculate the potential, given the charge distribution. And the result is not what Mills says. Mills gives you the current distribution and them claims that the centrifugal force balances the magnetic force. Well, you can calculate the force balance, given the current distribution. Again the result is not what Mills says. If your tastes run more to comparing theory against experiment, you can take Mills' charge distribution and calculate the electric quadrupole moment he predicts, and compare against observed values. You can guess what will happen. Mills has written a physics textbook for people who don't understand physics to wave in other peoples' faces. The only people who believe Mills' theory are those who are incapable of evaluating it. JohnAspinall (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Why don't we have anything about the times he (reportedly)disappeared when his earlier companies were investigated?67.161.166.20 03:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Mills' "disappearance", this is discussed at length in Tom Stolper's book (see the article). Dave Fafarman 22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no such disappearance. Mills moved his company, BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP), to its current headquarters building, built by RCA and formerly owned by Lockheed, in 1999, and has been there ever since. BLP bought the building from Lockheed after Lockheed moved out of the Princeton area. Tom Stolper. TStolper1W (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The comment and edit by "Father Inire" are similar to comments by a friend of mine. I yield and have responded thereto in the spirit of the Wikipedia policy on "biographies of living persons". Dave Fafarman 22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User "71.174.94.146" made two edits with the following comments: (1) "Removed links with no information about Randell Mills", and (2) "Remove POV comment about entire patent system, not specific to Randell Mills." The first of these edits is a stunningly sloppy error, as it deleted the link regarding the book "Genius Inventor". That book, entirely about Mills, is the best and most thorough independent reference on him in existence. As for the other links regarding the U.S. patent system, it is true that they do not discuss Mills directly. However, they supply further background regarding the issues in "Genius Inventor" and in the Erik Baard article. Mills' case may be the most important example of the Patent Office problems. I'm therefore undoing these edits, particularly since they reduce rather than add information. Dave Fafarman 06:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Cleanup tag

I've tagged the article, because it needs some work to properly adhere to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. In particular, so of the wording of Mills' claims is in need of cleanup. Michaelbusch 04:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Thank you.

The edit by Michaelbusch, for starters, contains a spelling error, a grammatical error, and references to external links left dangling. But more importantly, it also contains factual errors and literally goes out of its way to try to disparage and belittle Randell Mills.

For example, Mr. Busch's first edit was to change "scientist and inventor" to "inventor". That is absurd. A fair-minded person reading Mills' GUT/CQM would agree that it is about basic science, the tone of the work is scientific (and original), and the extensive footnoting is in customary academic style. (BTW, it is not necessary for a scientist to be infallible to be considered a scientist -- for instance, William Thompson Lord Kelvin made many notorious gaffes yet was still a great scientist.)

Another example of just plain mean-spirited anti-Mills editing was deleting Mills' Summa Cum Laude honor and his Phi Beta Kappa membership. This is supposed to be a biographical article -- is Michaelbusch implying that this information doesn't belong in a biography?

When I edited this article previously to fix even more flagrant violations of Wikipedia's BLP policies, I bent over backward in the direction of NPOV by retaining the adjective "controversial" for hydrino theory. That adjective actually better describes the "quantum mechanics" theories that Michaelbusch cites. Those QM theories deny causality. They also postulate point particles, resulting in infinite charge and mass densities, which are simply ignored. It’s been pointed out that, were it up to the quantum theorists, the laser would never have been invented (it has yet to be reconciled with quantum mechanics).

Here are some excerpts from the article to which both Mr. Busch and I linked (I with NPOV tone, he treating it as holy writ); emphasis added:

The time evolution of wave functions is deterministic in the sense that, given a wavefunction at an initial time, it makes a definite prediction of what the wavefunction will be at any later time. During a measurement, the change of the wavefunction into another one is not deterministic, but rather unpredictable, i.e., random.

The Copenhagen interpretation, due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr, is the interpretation of quantum mechanics most widely accepted amongst physicists. According to it, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics predictions cannot be explained in terms of some other deterministic theory, and does not simply reflect our limited knowledge. Quantum mechanics provides probabilistic results because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic.

Even the helium atom, which contains just one more electron than hydrogen, defies all attempts at a fully analytic treatment.

Mills’ GUT/CQM provides analytic solutions for ground and ionized states for atomic numbers 1 through 20, as well as for numerous molecules.

Michaelbusch states that, “no naturally-occuring (sic) hydrogen has ever been observed in a hydrino.” (It’s unclear what “naturally-occurring” is supposed to mean here.) Mills’ company offers free samples of hydrino compounds (under NDA) to researchers, along with help in making more themselves, but the Guardians of the Status Quo are remarkably incurious about them. (In this respect they are much like the clerics who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope.)

I accept Michaelbusch’s replacement of the fluffy “has served as president, director, etc.” with the straightforward “which he formed” wording; a huge improvement (thanks).

Now to address a separate subject, and along with it the earlier edit by Lewisjaggers (which I conditionally accept). This concerns the relevance and meaning of the background info I provided for the Patent Office’s rejection of Mills’ patent 6030601.

It is helpful to first understand the importance that America’s founding fathers placed on patents. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought. Patents however are part of the original main Constitution (Article 1, Section 8); note the context:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; … To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; …

This provision, which did indeed “promote the progress” etc., helped the United States to become the most technologically advanced and wealthiest country in the world. It was, therefore, a Big Deal for the Patent Office to deny Mills’ patent on spurious grounds (that were in fact similar to those presented by Mr. Busch).

The edit by Lewisjaggers was to delete a phrase of mine that he probably construed as opinion (which it was) and as such disallowed by Wikipedia policy. Since he likely was correct about this, I accept his edit provided that the links to external discussion remain; I believe careful readers will then come to the same conclusion I did.

Regarding the patent 6030601, I know that it was there at one time because I read it at the USPTO while it was still up.

BTW, I believe that anonymous edits made 10/23 by 71.174.94.146 were in fact Michaelbusch. If he does not want them counted toward a 3RR complaint he should disown them. I am tired of fixing this attempted censorship.

Dave Fafarman 05:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fafarman's recent blanket revert

My edits: Fafarman, please don't attempt to wikilawyer, and also do not make false accusations of vandalism. I have attempted to clean up this article in accordance with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and the ArbCom ruling on pseudoscience, as well as general readability and relevance grounds. If you have particular concerns, we may discuss them. However, blanket reverting is inappropriate (especially restoring links to webpages that don't exist). Re. your false accusation that 71.174.94.146 was me: that IP traces to a Verizon Internet Services server farm in Reston Virginia. I'm in Pasadena California, and have not edited Wikipedia from an IP in roughly a year. If I were to do so, it would show up in the 131.215.*.* block, which is owned by Caltech. Do also note that 3RR limits reversion to three reverts in 24 hours, unless there is a clear long-term pattern of abuse. Michaelbusch 05:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the matter of the 71.174.94.146 edits. I withdraw my "false accusation" based on your affidavit. -- Dave Fafarman (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Busch's gold-medal-winning blanket revert

Time of my last article edit: 05:16, 14-NOV

Time of MB's blanket revert: 05:29, 14-NOV

Elapsed: 13 minutes.

It appears from subsequent events that I was on to more than I suspected here. Note the times in the following excerpts from the article's edit log:
* 06:07, 23 Nov Michaelbusch m (minor typo)
* 23:00, 22 Nov 71.174.94.146
Comment -- Well, it appears that Mr. Busch does sometimes sleep. However, it is arguable that he hasn't a life outside of trashing everything he considers "bollocks" -- look at the rest of these (btw, this is a 3RR violation):
* 21:55, 3 Dec Michaelbusch (rvv)
* 21:55, 3 Dec TStolper1W (Mills is the author or co-author of dozens of published, peer-reviewed articles in the archival scientific literature.)
* 21:50, 3 Dec Michaelbusch (rvv)
* 21:43, 3 Dec TStolper1W (But you seem to want to make that egregiously hostile generalization yours by repeatedly putting it back in, Michael.)
* 21:28, 3 Dec Michaelbusch (rvv - and if you consult the record, it was not I who originally put this here)
* 21:27, 3 Dec TStolper1W (Deleted Michael W. Busch's sweeping and egregiously hostile characterization of Mills' work.)
* 21:15, 3 Dec Michaelbusch (rvv)
* 21:07, 3 Dec TStolper1W (Deleted a sentence that was an especially hostile violation of the NPOV guideline.)
* 19:31, 3 Dec Michaelbusch (rv stating of fact is not considered a violation of NPOV)
* 18:58, 3 Dec TStolper1W (Deleted a sentence that was a violation of the NPOV guideline.)
Dave Fafarman (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Doggone! Too bad we can't all think that fast. But if we could, we could achieve 55 revert cycles in 24 hours, which could well be a Wikipedia record.

You have incorrectly called my edit a "blanket revert". I responded to the issue you raised, linked to the article that you considered relevant, and explained what the problem with it was.

In the meantime, you still have not responded to even one of the substantive issues I raised. Beginning with the deletion of content, which is specifically contrary to Wikipedia policy except when there is unsourced derogatory content in a Biography of a Living Person. What you have done is IMO a violation of the BLP policy, although subtler. Removing description of a person's achievements isn't as blatant as inserting defamatory material, but it is similar in spirit and about as damaging.

Related to that, you have changed "scientist and inventor" to "inventor". For the sake of discussion, let's say you are correct and that Mills is just an "inventor". In that case, what goes on in the Patent Office is of crucial importance to him and his story. But it seems you have discovered a Wikipedia policy on "Biographies of Living Bureaucracies", wherein nothing critical may be said of USPTO.

Your version of the article states (paraphrasing slightly) "this (hydrino) energy state (lower than the ground state) does not exist in the hydrogen atom." (It's outside the range of the QM wave function.) So the electron can't go closer to the proton than the 13.6 EV Bohr orbit, right? The "South Pole", as Park puts it.

Oops.

It seems there is a way the electron can approach more than 1000 times closer to the proton. If you supply an antineutrino, you can even get that configuration to be semi-stable as a neutron. Throw in another proton or strong gravitational field and it's fully stable.

Please don't tell me that the unspecified QM wave function (there are four of them in your cited article) covers this case. If it did, the neutron would likely have been predicted from it, as the positron was. As it is, lest we forget, there was a time in living memory when neutrons didn't exist ... because they hadn't been discovered.

It is not at all unusual for mathematical scientific formulae to have a range of applicability. In hydraulics, for instance, there is laminar flow. If the flow width or velocity increases, or the viscosity decreases, the regime changes to turbulent flow with different rules. In theory of elasticity, behavior is very different once the elastic limit is exceeded.

Finally, a quote from Mills that might shed some light on where the "pseudoscience" is:

"Why is it that claiming dark matter is normal matter trapped in other dimensions is okay, but saying that it's normal matter trapped in a lower energy state is considered nuts?"

-- Dave Fafarman (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of your last several paragraphs, as they seem to be an attempt to justify Mills' work and are are confusing amalgamation of disconnected physics terms more than anything else. Any detailed debunking of Mills' work is not necessary here: it is redundant with other article on Wikipedia and my writing out a physics text on Wikipedia is time-consuming. However, in deference to your concerns, I will prepare a detailed explanation of my changes in another section. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup of article

Here follows a summary & explanation of my attempt to clean up the article, itemized:

  • External links: I removed a large number of these. Some were flagged 'unavailable on net' and so shouldn't be there at all. Others were critiques of the patent system that had little to do with Mills himself. Finally, a couple of media appearances seemed less notable than the others.
  • Patents: I removed an unsourced list of areas in which Mills was said to have received or filed patents. If citation and relevant patent numbers can be provided, then they may be added back. However, I'd be against that if only because Mills is notable only for his 'hydrino' claims. I also removed some speculation associated with the patent that the Patent Office withdrew.
  • Professional background: I removed the 'summa cum laude' and 'Phi Beta Kappa' after his BA, as being largely extraneous to the article. This is standard for professional biographies.
  • Lead section: I largely removed discussion of Mills' work, because it is covered in the hydrino theory article. This is independent of the details of Mills' claims - here we are talking about Mills, not about his work. That said, that there is no verification of Mills' claims and that the scientific community views his work as pseudoscience is very relevant here, because that is what Mills is known for.
I note that Fafarman's proposed rewrite, which attempts to describe (and, in my opinion, to falsely defend) Mills' work, is also invalid on physical grounds - and I can't say how well it matches Mills' work, but that would be more properly addressed on Talk:Hydrino theory.
  • Categorization: Placing Mills in Category:Scientists seems ill-advised, because if it were possible to poll the entire scientific community on the matter, he would be immediately excluded - his work violates many physical laws and has not been verified by anyone. Category:Inventors is less bound by the scientific consensus. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Since you are citing Wikipedia's pseudoscience, I present three relevant excerpts therefrom (some emphasis added; note that these are not controversial):

Neutral point of view as applied to science 1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Passed 7-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Hydrino theory is hardly a 'significant alternative to scientific orthodoxy'. It is pseudoscience and bollocks. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Questionable science 17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Mills' work does not have a substantial following. It is generally considered pseudoscience. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternative theoretical formulations 18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no following for Mills within the community. As reference of this, observe that no journal, regardless of its quality, has accepted his work for publication, and also the debunking as described on hydrino theory. He is only notable because most bollocks doesn't get to the point of venture capitalists investing money. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"This is standard for professional biographies." Reference?

Consult WP:BLP. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I point out that this reply is non-responsive to the issue I had raised. Once again: this (censoring mention of Mills' scholastic honors) exemplifies Mr. Busch's agenda of character assassination against Mills. Busch said, "This is standard for professional biographies." When challenged to justify it, he waved his hands in the general direction of BLP as if to say that BLP endorses this activity. It doesn't. Dave Fafarman (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dave Fafarman (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I apologize for my abbreviated edit summary in an earlier edit in which I deleted three external links; I said that the links I was deleting had no information about Randell Mills, while in fact only two of the three had no mention of Randell Mills, and the third was a broken link.

Had they not been relevant to Mills, they would not have been mentioned here. Dave Fafarman (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I have some suggestions for improving this article. I think it is important to keep in mind that this is a biographical article, not a scientific article. Information about hydrino theory more likely belongs in the hydrino theory article than here. Similarly, discussion of the many flaws of the U.S. patent system is likely best concentrated in an article devoted to those problems.

The Hydrino Theory article has been censored. See below. Dave Fafarman (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that if someone has received patents in genome sequencing, artificial intelligence, drug delivery, radiation therapy, and MRI, that's certainly notable and unquestionably belongs in a biographical article. I hope it isn't too difficult to demonstrate those patents by directly citing them?

The wording that was used here was "Mills has received or filed patent applications ..." These were not my words, but I understood them to mean that those that had patent numbers were "received" and those without were only "filed". Patents pending are often not completed for various reasons, the most common being that the patent examiners detect infringement (their most important function). The formal filing of a patent application is a significant event that IMO is appropriate in a biographical article. Dave Fafarman (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A link to a book-length biography would be an excellent addition to this article, and it's unfortunate that the previous link was broken.

No kidding. Dave Fafarman (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Village Voice article by Erik Baard seems highly relevant, and a link to it also seems appropriate.

As a biography, there seem to be some gaps. Why, after receiving an M.D., did he go to grad school in electrical engineering? Why did he only complete one year? Has he ever practiced as a doctor? What other companies has he founded, and in what fields? The article says that after his one year at MIT, he began research in energy technology; when did the patents in AI, genomics, and MRI happen, and were they associated with a larger research program? Who were his collaborators?

In general, the more of this article that is about its subject, and the less about electron orbitals, the more biographical it will be. 71.174.94.146 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is supposed to be a biographical article and details of hydrino theory should be only cursory here (which indeed was the case). There was a fairly NPOV Wiki article about Hydrino Theory that this article linked to, which has been censored and which now redirects to this bowdlerized article. Dave Fafarman (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The High Costs of Censorship

(Note: This was written yesterday in response to the activities of user Michaelbusch. User ScienceApologist is better, at least addressing substantive matters and the Claims of Consensus, though still quite biased.)

A few weeks ago I received an email from a friend, part of which described the death of the Italian Renaissance:

The sun and the planets revolved around the Earth embedded in crystalline spheres, the circle being the most ideal of all shapes. To make the observed data fit the presumption of circularity, the Alexandrine astronomer Ptolemy elaborated a baffling system of "epicycles," with smaller spheres embedded within larger spheres. ... In the conventional wisdom of 1600, the moon, like all heavenly bodies, had to be a perfect sphere. "The dark spots on the moon that been visible to man throughout the ages were explained away as parts of the moon that absorbed and emitted light differently than other parts -- the surface itself was perfectly smooth." [Galileo's Moon--Then and Now (Rice University)] When Galileo pointed his new telescope at the moon in 1609, however, he observed changing shadows that could only be cast by mountains. He announced: "The Moon certainly does not possess a smooth and polished surface, but one rough and uneven, and just like the face of the Earth itself, is everywhere full of vast protuberances, deep chasms, and sinuosities." This, and much other new evidence discovered with his telescope, caused Galileo to doubt that the celestial and sublunary spheres were fundamentally different. There aren't two spheres, just one. Adopting the heliocentric theory of the solar system, Galileo began to develop a theory of mechanics that, unlike Aristotle's, would work for both the heavens and the earth. At first, Galileo was the toast of Italy, long the most intellectually sophisticated land in Europe, and a friend of the Pope. Gradually, though, the political and ideological climate changed. In 1633, the Inquisition forced Galileo to recant his belief that the Earth went around the sun. ("And yet it moves," he was later reported to have muttered in defiance.) Perhaps heliocentrism had seemed to the Inquisition to be an esoteric issue of little practical importance ... Yet, the cost to Italian science of the Galileo affair proved immense. The English poet John Milton visited Galileo in Arcetri where the now-blind astronomer was confined. Six years later, Milton wrote in Areopagitica, his defense of a free market in ideas: "That this was it which had damped the glory of Italian wits; that nothing had been there written now these many years but flattery and fustian. There it was that I found and visited the famous Galileo, grown old, a prisoner to the Inquisition, for thinking in astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican licensers thought." Maybe Milton exaggerated the speed of the downfall of Italian science. But he got the trend right. According to the database Charles Murray sent me of the 4002 eminent artists and scientists he compiled from authoritative reference books for his 2003 book Human Accomplishment, from 1000 AD to Galileo's arrest in 1632, Italy furnished 34.7% of the world's scientific eminence. From then up through 1950 (the end of Murray's database), Italy only accounted for 3.46%. The transition of intellectual leadership from Southern to Northern European is famously symbolized by the year 1642, when Galileo died under house arrest in Italy, while Newton, who would go on to describe "the system of the world" explaining movement in both the heavens and on the earth in 1687, was born in England. ... Lies, ignorance, and wishful thinking are dead ends. But if you follow one truth far enough, it will eventually lead you to others. That's why the impact of the censorship of any one scientific fact is as unpredictable, and as potentially immobilizing, as removing one part from your automobile's engine.

Returning to Wikipedia, Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source has already been tarnished by the antics of the "pseudoscience" mafia.

Claims of Consensus Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

(Thank you, ScienceApologist; you at least appear to be following this.)

Instead we find articles like the following from people who have given up on Wikipedia, for cause: [1].

Or this, from [2] --

School officials unite in banning Wikipedia By Lynn Olanoff Express-Times (Easton, Pa) EASTON, Pa. — Linda O'Connor regards Wikipedia the same way former first lady Nancy Reagan campaigned against drugs. She urges people to "Just Say No." The Great Meadows (N.J.) Middle School librarian hasn't been a fan of the online encyclopedia for years. This fall, she decided it was time to make others at her school aware of the Web site's pitfalls. She put up a sign saying "Just Say 'No' to Wikipedia" over the computers in the school library. Several other school officials feel similarly about the Web site. Wikipedia is blocked on all computers in the Warren Hills Regional School District. Some teachers at Easton Area High School discourage its use, as do officials at Centenary College and Lehigh University. "We don't see it as an authoritative source," said Nancy Madasci, Centenary's library director. The problem with Wikipedia, the school officials said, is it can be modified by anyone. There have been many cases of incorrect information on the Web site, some of which has been biased. Egregious errors ... (etc.)

Speaking for myself, I made a donation to Wikipedia a while back, but if the shenanigans that I have described here are actually endorsed by Wikipedia's management, it'll be the last one. Dave Fafarman (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed "Facts"

The following excerpt from the article is disputed:

This energy state does not exist in the hydrogen atom, according to quantum mechanics, and no naturally-occurring hydrogen has ever been observed as a hydrino. Due to lack of verification, the scientific community generally considers Mills' work to be pseudoscience.

From the "FAQ" section of the article on quantum mechanics:

Q1 Who believes in many-worlds?
"Political scientist" L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" about the "Many-Worlds Interpretation" and gives the following response breakdown [T].
1) "Yes, I think MWI is true" 58%
2) "No, I don't accept MWI" 18%
3) "Maybe it's true but I'm not yet convinced" 13%
4) "I have no opinion one way or the other" 11%

I suppose just 51% (discounting the undecideds) supports a claim of "consensus" (and by implication, "truth"). The "consensus", we are told, is that MWI is "true" whereas the electron in a lower orbital is "pseudoscience". (BTW, what does the phrase "naturally-occurring hydrogen" in that excerpt mean? Is there another kind?) <-- I see, from one of the references, what this was trying to say. It is quite misleading (simply disputatious) and needs to be rephrased. DF added 11-DEC.

I'll spare you my own opinion of MWI, but I am so tickled at the references to Lorentz. His view of the "consensus":

"Lorentz was the dean of physicists in the early 20th century, much admired by Einstein, but raised in the classical tradition, and unhappy about the way that quantum theory contradicted so much of it .. just as unhappy about ... the model of the hydrogen atom as Mills was. Lorentz found himself saying on one day that an electron following a curved path radiated energy, and on the next day saying, in the same lecture hall, that the electron orbiting the hydrogen atom didn't. The many contradictions ... weighed heavily on him ... in 1924 he told Abraham Joffe, 'I have lost the conviction that my work has led to objective truth, and I don't know why I have lived. I only regret that I didn't die five years ago, when everything still appeared clear to me.'"

Turning to the supposed "lack of verification": I have personally seen what Mills claimed to be hydrino compounds. He didn't flash them to me on a street corner; this was in a formal presentation he and several colleagues gave to the American Chemical Society. To be quite honest, I can only vouch for their seeming unusual. I have not analyzed them, so my opinion as to hydrinos' existence is actually of little value (along with the even less-founded opinions of others posting here). The important point is that this should be an easily falsifiable claim if it is not true (a lot more than I can say for MWI).

Douglas Osheroff (Controversy/2000) is quoted as saying:

[Mills] may be creating compounds with unusual properties. This is obviously a rather clever guy, and he may be onto something, but he seems to think it's more fundamental than it really is.[3]

This is rather disingenuous to say the least. In the first place, the referenced article is more favorable than this quote would suggest (indeed, it is not a "reliable source" for the way this is quoted -- I urge readers to view it in context at the link). But also, it sounds like Osheroff noticed or replicated something that he was unwilling to accept. In the context, if hydrinos exist they are pretty "fundamental" all right.

Bob Park (Controversy/2002) is quoted as saying:

" ... discussion from Mills's Hydrino Study Group."

This should have a "sic" added. The HSG was not created by Mills and does not belong to him. It is (overall) a good source for the NPOV that is missing here (but you have to dig quite hard); both sides are presented fairly and have to defend their positions. Dave Fafarman (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This next item is really rather incredible. I should appoint User:Michaelbusch my Ammunition Assistant -- he furnishes such awesome material that I'd otherwise have to dig hard for!

2004-2005 Andreas Rathke of the European Space Agency published an evaluation that appeared in the New Journal of Physics.[7][8] He concluded:

We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states!
No formal rebuttal has been published by Mills or his supporters. However, through other channels, Mills pointed out that Rathke had made a sign error.[9] (The sign error does not affect the main conclusions, as Rathke notes in a corrigendum added 23 June 2006.)

(Emphasis added.)

Dear readers, please review the following two links (especially the second one):

Rebuttal to Rathke by Mills [4] and Rebuttal to Rathke by Dr. Jonathan Phillips [5]

Now, it'd be easy to get lost in the details of the controversy here. So please evaluate this exchange simply with a view towards selecting one of the following:

(A) User:Michaelbusch has fairly characterized this controversy from a NPOV, or
(B) This is the most incredible POV hatchet job you've ever seen.

Dave Fafarman (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Dragging in the many worlds interpretation is a gigantic red_herring. The subject of the disputed sentence is doing quantum mechanical calculations on a model of the hydrogen atom. There is no quantum mechanical calculation under dispute here that would be done any differently whether you believe in MWI or not. JohnAspinall (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"There is no quantum mechanical calculation under dispute here that would be done any differently whether you believe in MWI or not."
That is correct, but it needs to be phrased a little differently:
There is no quantum mechanical calculation under dispute here that would be done any differently whether MWI is true or not.
The context of the reference to the FAQ question on MWI was not a particular calculation, but whether Mills is a "pseudoscientist". Both MB and I have been at pains to retain the link to the quantum mechanics article -- MB because he believes it all, myself because I do not arbitrarily trash relevant references. So if we search the QM article to find evidence for whether Mills is a pseudoscientist, we notice that the very first FAQ shows a "scientific consensus" for a view that is certainly not science. It is not even pseudoscience, which would imply making testable predictions like (e.g.) phlogiston theory. It is simply irrational. This is derived at its core from the fundamental irrationality of the Bohr model, which is also reflected in numerous other symptoms. The point I intended was that QM, in its current form, does not support any charges of "pseudoscience" against anyone. Dave Fafarman (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your personal phobias about quantum mechanics are, they are irrelevant to the evaluation of Mills' theory as pseudoscience.JohnAspinall (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. My views are "phobias", whereas yours are "consensus". Well, I'm proud to share my "phobias" with Lorentz, Einstein, Gell-Mann, Feynman (IIRC), and many others. Dave Fafarman (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I will rephrase. Whatever your views on anything are, you drag in an irrelevant topic and try to characterize criticism of Mills as being "based" on that irrelevant topic. The computation of the electron distribution in atoms: (1) doesn't require MWI, (2) explains the observed results, and (3) thereby invalidates Mills.JohnAspinall (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why then is MWI a "feature" of quantum mechanics (rhetorical question)?
I previously cited (under that wonderfully descriptive heading "Cleanup Tag") the following:
QM article: Even the helium atom, which contains just one more electron than hydrogen, defies all attempts at a fully analytic treatment.
DF comment: Mills’ GUT/CQM provides analytic solutions for ground and ionized states for atomic numbers 1 through 20, as well as for numerous molecules.
What do you make of that? Here's what I make of it: Of course if you try to do a somersault through Multiple Worlds (!) in order to add another electron, you're going to get derailed. Dave Fafarman (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The only person doing somersaults through Multiple Worlds is you. I'll repeat my previous words since you don't seem to have grasped them. The computation of the electron distribution in atoms doesn't require MWI. The absence of an analytic solution to the 3-body problem simply means you reach for an approximation with well known error bounds. The approximation is still to the tested-for-three-quarters-of-a-century plain old wave equation.

There is no analytic solution to the 3-body problem in classical mechanics either. Which brings me to my rhetorical question. I can see that all of quantum mechanics somehow bothers the HSG. Whatever. But why on earth anoint Mills the savior of classical mechanics? His theories are not consistent with classical mechanics either. Maxwell could have shown that Mills was nonsense. Poincare could have shown that Mills was nonsense. Even if you throw away a century of scientific progress and go back past 1900 you still have not discarded enough to make Mills credible. JohnAspinall (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"The absence of an analytic solution to the 3-body problem simply means you reach for an approximation ..."
OK, we agree that the "3-body problem" (derived from QM's point particle model) is central to conventional QM. The 3-body problem is known to be unstable and produce chaotic solutions. Thus you admit that it cannot be used as the basis for calculations. Thank you for proving my point.
This is not a "distinction without a difference" -- Mills correctly derives the elastic electron scattering from helium, for example (compared to QM which does not) [[6]] Pg.356, pdf Pg.20/32.
"... why ... anoint Mills the savior of classical mechanics?"
Very well, whom do you nominate for the job? And why would anyone want it, given the kind of reception Mills has received?
Dave Fafarman (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't "agree that the 3-body problem ... is central to conventional QM." I don't admit that it cannot be used as the basis for calculations. (In fact I said the very opposite.) After several attempts in engaging at the factual level, I can see that whatever I say, you will deliberately misinterpret. You have deliberately confused MWI and the ordinary wave equation. Then you went on to deliberately confuse "analytic solution" with "solution". Now you are proceeding to confuse "has chaotic solutions" with "has no regular solution". This is trolling, pure and simple. You are wasting everyone's time. JohnAspinall (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure what is going on here but,

I tried to figure out what is going on here but my head almost exploded :). Whatever the case, please try to use reliable sources for any contensious(sp) material. I removed a source that linked to a yahoo group's message board since that certainly doesn't help the article and is not a RS. Anyways, --Tom 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is what is going on: Mills is a pusher of pseudoscience, and has been roundly debunked, and the article now properly reflects that. However, since Wikipedia is a good way to bring out the supporters of any cause, he has a few advocates here - including Tom Stolper, his biographer. Now, I consider this to constitute a conflict of interest, but Stolper continues his editing, inserting blatantly POV statements which I have removed. This is the last several days of editing to this page. David Fafarman has been making long posts to this page, but has not edited the article. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
ok, thanks for the quick game summary. Both "sides" please play nice and include reliable sources for any additions going forward. Is that reasonable? I saw that an editor just added "longtime enemy" to the front of a person's name. Can that be sourced? That seems pretty inflamitory. Again, I don't care about what folks "truth" is, just that sources can be provided to back up material. Good luck, --Tom 19:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
"I tried to figure out what is going on here but my head almost exploded :)."
Not a good sign, as you don't seem to have addressed anything substantive as yet.
"longtime enemy" "Can that be sourced?"
This is presently moot, as MB has already deleted it per his agenda of removing anything that is insufficiently derogatory toward Mills (with a remarkable elapsed time of just 10.5 minutes each, average over 6 instances). However, here are two sources. [7] [8] Dave Fafarman (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid POV-pushing like that is pretty much every single edit Stolper has made - I've reverted it again.
Stolper seems to have a mis-understanding regarding WP:NPOV and Bob Park. I noted Stolper's COI, which he admits to while continuing his editing. His POV problem is obvious - removal of the cited statement regarding pseudoscience, and his continued nonsensical statements regarding Park. Park isn't a 'longtime enemy' of Mills - he is a vocal debunker of many different forms of pseudoscience and happens to have debunked Mills. Stolper seems to think that is equivalent to a declaration of vendetta, and also confuses Wikipedia noting the plagiarism accusation in the article with Wikipedia supporting it - without original research we can do neither. Re. the scientific consensus being that Mills' work is bollocks: it is explained and cited in the first two sentences of the second paragraph. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: I have contacted Aaron Barth, who had the fortitude to read Mills' book. He clarified the situation regarding plagiarism: Mills has copied large blocks of text from various sources, in each case giving a single footnote citing the original source. He does not distinguish between the text he has copied and the text he has written - so this is indeed plagiarism. It just isn't the blatantly obvious form. Bob Park is un-subtle in his phrasing (Barth would prefer something more cautious), but many pages of Mills' book were copied from 'General Relativity' by Wald, and other cosmology textbooks - one by Fang & Ruffini and one by Fock. Barth gives the particular examples in posts to the Yahoo group on hydrinos - dated 2000-2002. I've linked the group again, but haven't had time to list the exact posts. Now, TStolper, is this enough for you? Michaelbusch (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Behavior that is unacceptable WP:Talk_page_guidelines
Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being banned from Wikipedia.
  • Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:
...
  • As a rule, don't edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section.
Editing comments
Others' comments
It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission.
Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:
  • If you have their permission
  • Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details
...
  • On your own user talk page (emphasis added), you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred and removing comments without any reason is generally regarded as uncivil. ...
I (DF) do not have Stolper's alleged COI (for that matter, neither does he -- more on that later), and I am restoring his comment here:

Michael W. Busch, you just want to push your own POV and delete from the main article the POV that you don’t like, which is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. If writing a book about a subject were a COI, then an awful lot of cited people would have a COI. I followed the debate in the Hydrino Study Group (HSG) about how to cite and use quoted material, and I think that the false imputation of plagiarism against Mills is meant to distract people from Mills’ discoveries. I’m sorry to see Aaron Barth exacerbating what are probably the biggest mistakes of his career: the poor critique of Mills in Skeptic magazine (a rebuttal can be found in Vol. 9 (2002), No. 4), and Barth’s attacks on Mills in the HSG. As for Park, he’s been attacking Mills ever since 1991. Mills has dozens of peer-reviewed, published articles in the scientific literature, so the sweeping claim of a general consensus that his work is wrong is itself wrong (I won’t use the British obscenity that you seem to prefer, Michael). Those who want further reasons and details why Mills' critics are so wrong about him can read my extensively-documented paperback book, Genius Inventor, which is finally available at Amazon free of royalty. Tom Stolper (Thomas E. Stolper). TStolper1W (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Emphasis added (DF)

TO MR. STOLPER: I am offended that you have stopped collecting your well-deserved royalties in a futile attempt to appease the implacable. No one else does that. You shouldn't either. I shall have more to say about COI later (I'm sure you all can hardly wait).
Regarding the "British obscenity" -- I was not aware that WP:Etiquette endorsed the use of profanity in these discussions (as User:Michaelbusch has done here on three occasions). It turns out that bollocks has its own "real" page, which says in part:
Not current in American English
Because the word "bollocks" is not generally understood in American English, it was used by one of the subjects in the 2004 reality television programme Brat Camp, in which troubled British and American teenagers were sent to an American wilderness reformation camp in the desert of central Oregon. The participants were forbidden by the camp rules from swearing, but since the supervisors did not recognize the term "bollocks" as a swearword, one member was able to use it with impunity to relieve his frustration. The programme included a brief segment in which he begged the (British) camera crew not to reveal the meaning of the word to the camp supervisors.
But wait -- it has an alternative deep scientific interpretation as cited by MB: WP:BOLLOCKS.
That page is a candidate for deletion IMO.
Dave Fafarman (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The Blacklight Power Web Page reeks of unsubstantiated and extremely improbable claims!

Has anyone read their claims on their web page? Blacklight Power's "Development" Page Shouldn't this be included in the main wiki page?

Here's a sample:

Prototype lighting devices comprising a cell similar to a conventional light bulb but containing a catalyst of the BlackLight Process as well as a source of atomic hydrogen have produced thousands of times more light for input power using 1% the voltage compared to standard light sources. Projected into a product, these results indicate the possibility of a light that could deliver the power of conventional fluorescent and incandescent lighting, but operate off of a flashlight battery for a year without an electrical connection.

'1% of the voltage'? Authors who confuse voltage with power don't exactly inspire confidence in their understanding of physics. One sees this sort of error commonly on scammer's pages. And isn't the overall claim ridiculous? Hey, if they can do it, let's see a public demonstration of a prototype. This whole thing smells bad. IMHO of course.--Maryyugo (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact the very low voltage, compared with the 60 to 200 v usual for gas discharges, is the significant point here.

PeterWol (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
These claims are over-optimistic hype. Keywords include "prototype", "projected", and "possibility". I believe they ran into some engineering problems in trying to scale effects from low-density gases to mixtures producing more practical power densities.
They're reminiscent of statements made regarding nuclear fission and hot fusion in the 1950s. Nuclear fission was to produce electricity "too cheap to meter". (Some of the projected economics were based on breeder reactors, which have had to be put on hold due to safety and security concerns.) Development of a viable commercial industry took decades.
As for hot fusion, no one doubted the existence of the desired reaction, it having been dramatically demonstrated at Eniwetok in 1952. A pushover for electricity generation, eh? So our government (and others worldwide) spent billions of dollars trying to make it practical. Well, here we are fifty years later (!), and we still can't expect commercial hot fusion power in our lifetimes. I think we'll see hydrino power sooner. Dave Fafarman (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)