Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
You do know that the dyed-in-the-wool skeptics think the article is
hopelessly biased toward cold fusion, right?
Sure, and creationists think the Wikipedia article on evolution is
hopelessly biased. However, they are wrong and their opinions count
for nothing. In
I finally got a chance to finish the W-L article and subsequent series of
neutron absorptions and beta decays following the ULM neutron formation. I
would agree with Ed’s assessment that a rose by any other name is still a rose.
If a neutron absorption is normally considered “fusion” then this
Unspeakable . . .
I can't bring myself to read this.
See:
Witness: Mallove asked for help before he died
At 09:27 AM 5/27/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
You do know that the dyed-in-the-wool skeptics think the article is
hopelessly biased toward cold fusion, right?
Sure, and creationists think the Wikipedia article on evolution is
hopelessly biased. However, they are
At 09:27 AM 5/27/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
You do know that the dyed-in-the-wool skeptics think the article is
hopelessly biased toward cold fusion, right?
Sure, and creationists think the Wikipedia article on evolution is
hopelessly biased. However, they are
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
No argument can be settled and no progress made unless you abide by
this rule: experiments are the only authority.
There is a problem with your view, Jed. You are proposing an
absolute standard for deciding issues but no mechanism for the
decision. You left out
At 04:28 PM 5/27/2010, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
No argument can be settled and no progress made unless you abide
by this rule: experiments are the only authority.
There is a problem with your view, Jed. You are proposing an
absolute standard for deciding issues but no
7 matches
Mail list logo
