I have physicist in my family,
and I know how the priest treat the cookers.
Question is not whether all are so, but nice and honest people have usually
less power and voice in debate compared to nasty egotic personalities.
2013/10/17 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com
Baudette's claim that the
Deciding why CF was rejected is difficult because so many variables
apply and each person only experienced part of the process. To start
the evaluation, the basic reasons need to be acknowledged. Once the
reasons are available, their importance needs to be determined. The
importance of
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Initially, the idea was not rejected by many people who later found
reasons to reject.
Some of them were standing by, nursing a grudge, waiting to speak out in
public. Especially the MIT plasma fusion group. That's what Gene Mallove
said. They hated
I agree, Jed, with your description of human nature. I see this same
behavior being applied by people even within the CF field. You would
think they would not be prone to this behavior. But, as you note,
humans are the same no matter the subject. Perhaps, this behavior is
beneficial
about human fear of change this join this study
http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/111212_creativity.htm
I think that sucess of failure of acceptance of something like LENR, is
partially determined, but hugely chaotic... few details could have make
LENR a success.
2013/10/17 Jed Rothwell
I suggest we are not dealing only with creativity here. What passes
for new ideas or creative thinking is more often nonsense or insane
rambling. We are shocked by the rejection only when the idea is later
found to be correct or is applied in a useful way. Most ideas that
might be called
The challenge in understanding LENR and its eventual acceptance by
mainstream science is that it is driven by a zoo of complex interacting
quantum mechanical phenomena. In order to make any progress in LENR,
original and out-of-the-box experimental techniques are required to provide
a reliable
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
...Perhaps, this behavior is beneficial because it slows progress enough
for people to adjust. Present progress, thanks to the computer that does
not suffer from this limitation, is starting to exceed the ability of
I did not see it, but from reaction
One point that have been reported is that the put the blame of that
scientific and human tragedy on FP bad communication... not on anything
about the community, paradigm change, conservatisme, hijack of brain by few
extremists, billions hunting...
In a way,
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
I did not see it, but from reaction
One point that have been reported is that the put the blame of that
scientific and human tragedy on FP bad communication... not on anything
about the community, paradigm change, conservatisme, hijack of brain by
Here is a review of The Believers that I wrote:
http://coldfusionnow.org/marvin-hawkins-i-will-defend-them-at-every-turn/
I found the use of Martin Fleischmann in a private medical situation
disturbing, among other elements.
Over the next year, Eli and I are making a documentary on the field
Hopefully you'll consult with Baudette.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Ruby r...@hush.com wrote:
Here is a review of The Believers that I wrote:
http://coldfusionnow.org/marvin-hawkins-i-will-defend-them-at-every-turn/
I found the use of Martin Fleischmann in a private medical situation
Thank you James. I would love to talk with Charles Beaudette and I will
try to do that.
He was at ICCF-18 and I wanted to talk with him, but unfortunately,
since we ended up filming the entire set of lectures, the interviews
were severely impacted.
On 10/16/13 5:13 PM, James Bowery
Baudette's claim that the problem was primarily one of difference in
scientific protocol between chemistry and physics must be respected given
the depth of his research, however, he, himself, points to events like
Oriani's rejection by the American editors of Nature early in 1990 as
pivotal -- and
Hmm, I will have to look into this that you are describing. I can see
how both issues could relate.
My thesis so far is that it was the MIT and Caltech negative results
which most influenced the APS, Nature magazine, the DoE report, and
subsequently the USPTO. Both public and private
I just saw this video for the first time:
http://thebelieversmovie.com/
It was nice to see Martin, Ed, Mike and a few others talk. However, overall
I find this video is appalling. It is 87 minutes of he-said, she-said
fact-free blather. It does not present any salient scientific fact about
cold
16 matches
Mail list logo
