Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote: > 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? > > Perpetual

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On 16 December 2011 02:47, Joshua Cude 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 > breakthroughs, not those who

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On 16 December 2011 02:56, Giovanni Santostasi 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 bang with Lisa, Lis

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

Charles Hope 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 work. Are there any examples o

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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 > On 1

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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 wrote:

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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 gi

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On 16 December 2011 03:22, Giovanni Santostasi 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 conventional matter. Of

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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 wrote: > Charles Hope wrote: > >> Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without >> being properly debunked? > > > Not to

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Charles Hope 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 > You'd bette

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Jed Rothwell 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 scienti

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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 wrote: > On 1

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On 16 December 2011 03:39, Giovanni Santostasi 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 spaces. No, There i

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On 16 December 2011 04:15, Giovanni Santostasi 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 speed limit. Special

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Mary Yugo 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 > disease labs... d

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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 wrote

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On 11-12-15 08:33 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: Charles Hope mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com>> wrote: Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without being properl

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence 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. As to MRI and CT studies of the same phenomenon, I'm pretty sure they've been done

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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/

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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 wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> ** >>

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > 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 concept has never be

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Charles Hope 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 acupunctu

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Jed Rothwell 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 scienti

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > Geocentrism took over 1000 years to "debunk". > But considering it was accepted by the mainstream, it was not a pathological science.

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On 11-12-15 11:46 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence > 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. As to MRI and

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Joshua Cude 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 medicine acupuncture is mu

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > ** > > 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 be that way

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

Mary Yugo 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 noteworthy beca

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > 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 convoluted papers numbering

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

Mary Yugo 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: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Mary Yugo 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 k

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On 11-12-16 03:13 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Jed Rothwell > wrote: Mary Yugo mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com>> wrote: Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read long and convoluted papers numbering i

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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 PM,

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

Stephen A. Lawrence 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: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRIdevelopmen.pdf > It

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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

RE: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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 . thes

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jones Beene 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 > decades and th

RE: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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 disc

Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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, Yo

RE: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon

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