There are some very well qualified Ph.Ds from top 5 academic institutions that have validated the energy being produced which is impossible according to QM or whatever "theories" to which you so pathetically cling. Prepare to eat the horsecrap and libel that you've been toxically spewing all these years while scientists such as Dr. Mills and his team have been pushing forward despite all of the arrogance and blind hate by the group of illiterate closed-minded buffoons that you represent.

QM represents the naked emperor up on his horse.Enjoy very soon becoming a poster child of what's wrong with science today.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/technology/validation-reports/

http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Publications.pdf

]]>In a classical ternary system, you've got three values; 0, 1, and 2. (Or A, B, and C, or ...). Ternary doesn't have a maybe state - it has three specific, distinct, discrete states.

Probabilistic systems have a sort-of "maybe", but it's not like the third state in a ternary system. A probabilistic third state doesn't have a single value. It's a range.

A quantum machine is something even different. Quantum isn't yes/no/maybe. It's yes and no *at the same time*, with a probabilistic distribution that's captured in the quantum state until you collapse it. That's nothing like ternary computation.

Even quantum computing doesn't change the fundamental limits of what a computing device can do - but it does dramatically improve the performance of certain specific classes of problems.

]]>http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one-556.html#post27247

Also two interesting comments on countable sets and Cantor's Diagonal Argument:

http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/math/4507-0-999-equal-one-505.html#post26575

Anyone seen these?

]]>