On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
gsantost...@gmail.comwrote:
There is an example that is interesting.
Gravitational wave detection.
As a practical field was created more than 40 years ago and no detection
has been done yet.
Doesn't fit the question though, since the
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without
being properly debunked?
Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and
revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments;
they
crave them.
This is complete bullshit. Most
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Geocentrism took over 1000 years to debunk.
But considering it was accepted by the mainstream, it was not a
pathological science.
On 11-12-15 11:46 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Were those experiments done *before* or *after* onset of rigor mortis?
Fresh cadavers-- and it was quite a while ago for the study I
remember.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
It's very difficult in the case of acupuncture to do blank controls; you
know when someone sticks a needle in you.
Yes, which makes testing sticking needles in you very difficult to test.
But traditional Chinese
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
**
As it happens, once breast cancer has metastasized into the bones it's
considered stage 4, incurable by conventional means, so she may not have
missed much by failing to have it properly diagnosed...
It used to
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe.
Nice broad brush indictment which is mostly wrong. Consider Jonas Salk as
an example -- he gave the world the Salk polio vaccine without royalties
and without a patent.
He is
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Normally I encourage people keep reading when they encounter difficulties
and are confused, but in your case perhaps it was best to stop.
Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read long and
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read long and
convoluted papers numbering in the thousands.
So you are looking for short, well-written, and highly convincing papers?
Most people I know would say these two fit the bill:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read long and
convoluted papers numbering in the thousands.
So you are looking for short, well-written, and highly
On 11-12-16 03:13 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read
Note, by the way, that the original (hard copy) paper came with a data
disk in a pocket in the back cover, with all their raw data. Now THAT
is the way to publish research!
Unfortunately the PDF doesn't include the CD.
On 11-12-16 04:02 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-12-16 03:13
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
If you're looking for interesting CF papers, and if you're looking for
papers that show evidence that the researchers knew what they were doing,
you might take a look at this honker . . .
A direct link:
Jed sez:
...
(By the way, I did not love the challenge of making programs work
in 4 kB, but I did meet it.)
Back in the 70's I was hired by the State of Wisconsin to work on an
IBM 360 Model 20, with 32k of memory. This was a mainframe computer. I
was in charge of the edit check program that
One point worth reiterating on this thread (although someone will be sure to
get in the last bit of negativism) is about the bogus argument of Lawrence
and Yugo . that belittles an LENR experiment which was only successful one
time in ten, or produced only 68% gain at most.
GET REAL . these
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
** **
The Yugo-esque mentality of years past, firmly pronounced that quantum
tunneling was either an observational error, or a freak exception of
extremely low probability that will stay in the lab. Fast forward three
From: Mary Yugo
I think you're misreading my intent. I am only arguing against some
people's apparent certainty regarding Rossi and Defkalion.
Well, I completely agree that such certainty is both rampant - and misplaced
(and sometimes silly). With one major caveat.
Although Rossi has
On 11-12-16 05:27 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
One point worth reiterating on this thread (although someone will be
sure to get in the last bit of negativism) is about the bogus argument
of Lawrence and Yugo ... that belittles an LENR experiment which was
only successful one time in ten,
You
MY wrote:
I can also determine if proper scientific method has most likely been
followed. Rossi and Defkalion fail *miserably* in both categories I know
about.
You can't fail at something that you never agreed to achieve.
Rossi has said from the out-set (i.e., January 2010) that he was
Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without
being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on the
fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream?
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Charles Hope
lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.comwrote:
Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without
being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on
the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the
There is an example that is interesting.
Gravitational wave detection.
As a practical field was created more than 40 years ago and no detection
has been done yet.
The theoretical prediction of gravitational waves by Einstein happened
about 90 years ago. He claimed it was an interesting theoretical
On 16 December 2011 02:47, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and
revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they
crave them. Fame, glory, funding, and adoration come to those who make
On 16 December 2011 02:56, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
There is an example that is interesting.
Gravitational wave detection.
This is also sad thing. Because once we had to chance to disprove
Inflation theory once and for all by detecting gravitational wave
signature of big
Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without
being properly debunked?
Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory, which may
be real after all, and acupuncture and chiropractic, which seem to
No, that was not accepted very well at all. Only a small quantity of open
minded theoretical physicists (most of them are considered fringe by the
mainstream) are publishing papers just in case the phenomena exists but it
will take a few more years to confirm it.
2011/12/15 Jouni Valkonen
Well, there is a reason why neutrinos travel faster than light and not
other particles. Starships are not made of neutrinos so even if the results
would be proven to be right for neutrinos it would not apply
to conventional matter.
Giovanni
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Jouni Valkonen
Joshua Cude wrote:
Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and
revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they
crave them.
This is complete bullshit. Most scientists neither fear nor celebrate
disruptive experiments. They do not give a
On 16 December 2011 03:22, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there is a reason why neutrinos travel faster than light and not other
particles. Starships are not made of neutrinos so even if the results would
be proven to be right for neutrinos it would not apply
to
Geocentrism took over 1000 years to debunk.
The Law of CoE might take as long to debunk.
Harry
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without
being properly debunked?
Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude wrote:
Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and
revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments;
they
crave them.
This is complete bullshit. Most
It is not that simple. Relativity would not be completely dismissed by
these superluminal results. We don't know yet what is going on exactly. SR
and GR have been proven right in many instances and for large parameter
spaces.
Giovanni
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Jouni Valkonen
On 16 December 2011 03:39, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not that simple. Relativity would not be completely dismissed by these
superluminal results. We don't know yet what is going on exactly. SR and GR
have been proven right in many instances and for large parameter
You have to assume something funny about the mass of the neutrino no matter
what even in Lorentz theory.
You would still need infinite amounts of energy for a massive object to
reach the speed of light.
I don't see how switching to Lorentz theory would help to make a massive
body going faster than
On 16 December 2011 04:15, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how switching to Lorentz theory would help to make a massive
body going faster than light.
I am sorry if you have trouble with the eye sight. This why it is more
important to ask, why we have such a cosmic
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
You'd better hope it's not, says the water in my toilet, the water in the
sewers, the water exposed to toxic metals in mines, and the water used to
clean slaughter houses, after accidents, in mortuaries and infectious
I don't follow.
Sorry if the neutrinos results are true we need to admit the violation of
Lorentz-invariance is possible.
How your creation of strong artificial fields would do that? How neutrinos
accomplish the same?
Can you explain?
Giovanni
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Jouni Valkonen
On 11-12-15 08:33 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com
mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any examples of pathological
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote:
**
Were those experiments done *before* or *after* onset of rigor mortis?
Fresh cadavers-- and it was quite a while ago for the study I remember. As
to MRI and CT studies of the same phenomenon, I'm pretty sure
On Dec 15, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
The only metric that matters is moola.
A memorable phrase with catchy alliteration.
Many applications too. 8^)
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Abraham H. Maslow (1962), *Toward a Psychology of Being*: *I suppose it is
tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if
it were a nail.*
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence
43 matches
Mail list logo
