True skepticism is founded by an emotional basis of "disbelief" ontop of which a whole lot of rationalization, and argumentation is heaped. The argumentation when heaped on enough starts to sound reasonable, even when it is a bunch of lies. CSurveyGuy isn't so much interested in the truth but as much as arguing that the subject is full of landmines and you should "be careful." He doesn't care about hydrinos since isn't discussing experimental evidence for them which is absolutely unequivocal - he stays away from that topic and fills the air with doubt.

But make no mistake: "mainstream physics" is in the dark about the subject, both for and against. Mainstream means the millions of people with physics degrees, and of course in that total perhaps only 0.1% have every heard of Mills theory - so of course, both "belief in" or "belief against" Mills is totally outside Mainstream physics. The same number of mainstream professional practicing physicists / electrical engineers have heard of Mills theory. When 99.9% of people haven't heard about something, making arguments that suggest the "weight of opinion" is one way or the other is SLEIGHT OF HAND argumentation.

​

When it comes to facts, a skeptic will never be dissuaded by facts, they will slither to some other fact that justifies their position. Let's watch this process in action now.

CSurveyGuys says this: He has shown no interest in engaging with physicists on the theory.

There are two published books which talks about the extreme efforts to promote a new understanding in physics. America's Newton available on Amazon is a good one. Here are 3 pieces of evidence (of probably 100s one could produce that show CSurveyGuy's statement is TOTALLY FALSE:

1. Two Penn State professor Jonathan Phillips drove down to meet Mills right away in 1990. He said, "I thought it was more likely to meet a talking giraffe in Malvern, PA than someone overturning quantum theory." Dr. Phillips is on the Navy's Energy Academic Group, worked at Los Alamos National lab, has produced hydrinos in his independent lab, and even wrote a paper on how quantum mechanics is not a validate theory (anybody who reads this paper will have to agree). He's basically saying it is a bunch of concotions that are LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT with each other and with experimental data (e.g. energies).
   
2. Mills visited many professors in 1990s. One said to me: Randall Mills was trained at MIT in the EECS department prior to becoming a medical doctor.  He has no training in theoretical physics.  His approach to theory starts by throwing out quantum mechanics and most of the associated physics which people have worked really hard on since the 1920s.   In the 1990s he visited me at MIT twice... Such states are ruled out in quantum mechanics, but not in Mills model.  Mills and collaborators claim to have observed some spectral lines which are identified as being due to transitions to these shrunken orbital states.  Now, were this actually true, then matter would be unstable... The stability of matter which is the starting point for Mills work is one thing this professor mentions as a flaw. You can't make this up! The MIT professor hasn't done the work to understand it. Perhaps more relevant is this phrase: "people have worked really hard on since the 1920s." It suggests a high degree of disruption - like Mills is throwing out the baby with the bathwater - physicists don't want to throw out their baby. Further, there is the sleight "no training in theoretical physics." Mills has a degree in Chemistry, advanced grad courses in electrical engineering, worked with a HP physicist on the mathematics of an alternative to MRI, and we have know from insiders he has a photographic memory for much of physics and chemistry. He can read almost anything in physics and integrate it (why do you think he has a a thousand page opus which is logical and solves many topics across both physics and chemistry). People who turn over a new leaf in mankind don't normally go to MIT and get a PH.D - learning how to disrupt everything from their mentor.
   
3. Boots on the ground, Mills engaged tons of labs in the 90s to get independent production of hydrinos. I can assure you that for them to start testing and reproduce these results required TENS OF CONVERSATIONS IF NOT HUNDREDS with physicists. Here are some of the labs (Brookhaven, MIT Lincoln, Chalk River, Idaho National, NASA- Lewis, SDIO - Wright Patterson) - for a full list see "Randell Mills and The Search For Hydrino Energy. Here is a snippet of the energy gains. You can also watch a 1994 movie "Too Close To The Sun" which features Mills. BTW, in that movie the top scientists in the nation say on camera they took Mills seriously and he is onto something, but the work on hydrinos was stopped for political reasons (too close to cold fusion work so the lab may lose funding).
   
   ​
   
   To recap CSurveyGuy said: This evasive, non-engaging behavior puts him outside of mainstream physics.
   
   Mills based on the above evidence is not evasive, and totally engaging.
   
   True skeptics never apologize, never do the work to really understand. Like an obstreperous child, people put up with their behavior and let them get away with it. They have no accountability for their words which quickly border on slander. The words do have affect because many physicists are not system thinkers and they also do the same thing - jump on reddit for evidence that justifies their preconceived notions.
   
   I hope we all cite this message the next time CSurveyGuy posts. I admit it is hard for those who don't know the subject to catch the corruption of the truth he fabricates. Pathological skepticism or criticism is an actual phenomenon in evidence here.
   
   We'll look for an apology. We'll look such doubters to read "America's Newton" which is extremely well documented book about a transformational figure in history. The interest of all should be the facts, the evidence, the papers not opinions. I'll end with this:
   
   

   “In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man.”
   

   
   ― Galileo Galilei

America's Newton: The Reception of the Work of Randell Mills, in Historical and Contemporary Context https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439202273/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_Z9ETCbVTZR3JT