Then we can just disagree about how science works, sure.
I found this quote interesting from the book I'm currently reading, "Spinning Magnet," about the earth's magnetic field and the history of electromagnetism. The book talks about how science works when people discover new things, and how those things are just about never accepted at first, and the discoverers are ridiculed. Cambridge's Sir Edward Bullard, an eminent geophysicist, resisted the work and data of Wegener's theory of continental drift. Here's how he describes things:
"There is always a strong inclination for a body of professionals to oppose an unorthodox view. Such a group has a considerable investment in orthodoxy: they have learned to interpret a large body of data in terms of the old view, and they have prepared lecures and perhaps written books with the old backtround. To thik the whole subject through again when one is no longer young is not easy and involves admitting a partially misspent youth." Alfred Wegener introduced his theory of continental drift in 1912. For 40 years, believing in Wegener's theory was "unusual and a little reprehensible," wrote Bullard (after he wised up and accepted the data and theory in the 1960s).
Not to mention the group-think at universities today (and throughout history). Going against the mainstream view can be career suicide, and lead to ostracizing and lack of funding. No, it takes courage to think outside the box and go outside the orthodoxy to advance science. Only a genius like Mills, outside of the university setting with lots of private funding, could advance physics like he has. Wegener himself could not find a job in Germany after he published his controversial book in 1915. He had to go to Austria to find a job, and died in 1930. His theories wouldn't be accepted for another 20 years after his death. The history of science is full of stories like Wegener's. I'm pretty sure Mills will be vindicated within the next several years. We'll see.
Anyways, enough about science. This forum is about investment. As always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. NNVC hasn't even yet provided proof to the FDA that their drugs are safe to go into humans for trials, let alone work in humans as in preclinical models to treat and prevent viral disease. Likewise with Mills, once he perfects his prototype, he will have to show it to the world and provide incontrovertible proof in the form of excess energy production with strict monitoring of the system in terms of energy inputs and such.
Thanks for the commentary regarding your view of me (whereas I have been called a stupid moron and paid shill by others here). Indeed, I am overly optimistic and naive about investing in general in my youth. Assets continue to grow so I suppose I am not doing too horribly overall. Hopefully we all learn a thing or two along the way.
Regards, and best of luck to all investors in the difficult task of discerning prospects for new technology and where, how much, and how long to invest in something.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
