| Sounds like pseudoskepticism to me. > incompatible with established principles of physics. Appeal to tradition > contradicts the known laws of quantum mechanics, which are well-supported by experimental evidence. Saying it doesn't make it so. > mathematical errors This one I approve of if demonstrated. It does seem odd for people to keep saying that for 2 decades while the research progresses. It requires demonstration. > unjustified assumptions You can have as wild an hypothesis as you like. > copied from other texts grasping at straws > claims of breakthroughs... poor claims of refutation! > ....and imminent commercialization haha, yes! he has been claiming this for decades and continues to do so. There are even contracts with utility companies from what I understand. > the company has faced significant challenges in gaining acceptance from the scientific community How did we end up here? I thought it was simply in violation of well-established experimental evidence, rife with mathematical errors, assumptions, plagiarism, false claims, etc etc? How do we get from all that to gaining acceptance? > not independently verified Wait, does that mean that all of the hit pieces, all of the moaning and all of the HOAX screaming littered all over the web is not actually based on anything? Let me get this straight, so we are burning our world to a crisp, trying to ban food production and energy usage to save our precious environment. People cant pay their energy bills. Everything we consume and do seems to be made from energy primarily. Then there is a privately funded research project, 20 years ongoing, burned 140 m euro. But we are sure non of it is real based on nonsense clap trap rather than verification? ~Woah!~ It works like this: There are things you know to be true, things you know to be false and then there are things you just don't know. If Undefined evaluates as false there is something wrong with your code. I don't believe a word Mills says but that isn't the same as knowing he is wrong. |