Jed
This is getting too diverted. What you were saying sounded like a
conspiracy theory. Titanic sounds to me a conspiracy fact - it left port
with a fire in its coal bunker that could not be put out - that sounds
to me that didn't want the Titanic to survive the journey. A series of
unfortunate events that happens - is usually arranged by someone to
happen. Thanks for the links. But as far as I am concerned from my
observations of people - they often say one thing and do the opposite;
so, in case of scientific method - yes scientists are supposed to follow
the scientific method, but when it comes down to what they actually do -
its usually the opposite.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Jed Rothwell" <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: "Vortex" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 Jun, 22 At 01:59
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bearden dead and cheniere.org gone
ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com
<mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:
sounded like conspiracy theory.
What sounded like a conspiracy theory? What do you refer to?
As I said, not everything that sounds like a conspiracy theory, is a
conspiracy theory. Not everything that sounds implausible is false. The
Titanic disaster was caused by a whole series of unlikely events that,
taken together, sound like a third-rate pot-boiler disaster movie. Quite
unbelievable. Too much sulphur in the metal; the captain ignoring radio
warnings of ice; not enough lifeboats; a ship nearby ignoring distress
rockets and not waking up the radio operator . . . it is a long list. If
even one of the causes had been missing, no one would have died. It
sounds extremely improbable, but it happened.
As for cold fusion -
Criticism of cold fusion claims generally take one of two forms: either
pointing out the theoretical implausibility that fusion reactions have
occurred in electrolysis setups or criticizing the excess heat
measurements as being spurious, erroneous, or due to poor methodology or
controls. There are a couple of reasons why known fusion reactions are
an unlikely explanation for the excess heat and associated cold fusion
claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion>
The first sentence is correct and at the same time, idiotic. Theoretical
implausibility is never a valid reason to reject replicated, high-sigma
experimental results. That violates the scientific method. There are no
actual critiques of the excess heat measurements, but only stupid,
groundless assertions by people who do not know the difference between
power and energy, such as Morrison and Taubes. See p. 18 and p. 27:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf
<https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf>
See also:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf
<https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf>
That is the best -- and only -- skeptical experimental "critique" there
is. There are no others.
The second sentence is bullshit. There are no valid "reasons why known
fusion reactions are an unlikely explanation for the excess heat and
associated cold fusion claims." Not a couple. Not one. None.
