However, if you want me to believe you, it IS your job to substantiate your claims.

If you care to disagree, then I can only say that I am right because I am an ancient eldritch being from the previous universe. Do your own research and you'll see for yourself.

It's not my job to substantiate anyone else's claims. Have a nice day.

Hints? Seriously? The only hints I'm seeing here is that you get off on trolling gullible people. I'm done here. This is seriously the lowest hanging fruit I've ever seen. I've got bigger fish to fry.

Yeaaaaaaah... ok... That's supposed to convince me of what, exactly? All I'm seeing is intentionally vague claims... "build a better mousetrap" is weasel words, it lets him claim to have predicted literally anything that comes of it, even though he literally predicted nothing, and if nothing comes of it, it's just a matter of putting "yet" on the end... At least Bob Lazar had the balls to name the exact isotope of that element that he claimed produces the antimatter via atomic decay that powers the UFOs he allegedly reverse engineered... Turns out that isotope doesn't produce the antimatter decay particles he claimed... But he at least had the balls to make a falsifiable claim.

I don't know about hilariously entertaining, but I agree, his debunking of the hyperloop is spot on...

Ok? Are you just gonna speak in metaphore? I mean, what's your deal here?

Ok, I have zero clue what you're on about now... what I am 100% certain about is that Dr Phil Mason's metallic water only shares a name with what you're on about.

Ah, I see. In other words it has nothing to do with what you're talking about. This is not water that's made metallic while still being just water... it's a solution of alkali metals in ionized water. You are indeed correct that pure, unionized water does not conduct electricity. However, what Professor Mason (Thunderf00t) and his colleagues created is neither pure water, nor is it unionized water. It's highly negatively ionized, and is a very heavy solution of actual metallic elements.

A star is not born in a vacuum, it's born in a nebula. A nebula is a gas cloud. It has pressure. The formation of a star makes the pressure increase by orders of magnitude in a run away effect until the star is born... Even a fully formed star does not exist in a vacuum as the star exists inside of a corona, which is composed of hot gasses that dramatically increase in pressure as you approach the surface of the star. From here, any logic that could be used to excuse the claim would also necessitate the claim that the surface of the Earth also exists in a vacuum, and that when you step outside of your home, you're in a vacuum... as the pressure on the surface of the Earth is much lower pressure than at the surface of a star.

Not saying that you're a crackpot, just playing devil's advocate here. The existence of a substance with the same name as a substance imagined by an uneducated crackpot doesn't mean the existing substance has the properties said crackpot imagined.

There was a science fiction book posited a substance called "Ice 9" that was just a form of ice crystal... that converts all other forms of water into Ice 9 upon contact. It destroys entire eco systems and can render entire planets thriving with life into frozen, lifeless husks.

Decades later, scientists discovered a new form of ice crystal whose structure indicated the name "Ice 9". This ice crystal does not exhibit any of the properties of the aforementioned imagined Ice 9 crystal.

Can you demonstrate that Thunderf00t's "metallic water" has useful properties that you claim your "metallic water" has, or are you withholding rubbing too much salt in the wound simply because you know that it's most likely not the same substance you were positing?