cold fusion really have a problem. I've seen very conservative science forum like future science, bloggers start with a bang, or goatguy being unable to accept anything on cold fusion , despite busines, circumstantial, kilowatt, 50 sigma, isotopic, varied or identical replications... while they were considering EmDrive with skepticism, and accepting dark matter, or well known consensus based on recently experimentally refuted theories...
i was shocked to see the way FTL neutrino were considered more easily while it was simply one instrument making one measurement my vision is to propose two fact : - cold fusion is now a meme and like belief in god, or cholesterol from food theory, it cannot be refuted despite any evidence without huge shocks to the population (of scientists) - globally moderns science focus more on theory, on models, on mathematics, than on experimental results - globally modern science trust more big and complex instruments and scientific teams, and less simple and small science. - globally modern western society support negative vision more than positive possibilities. if you see current consensus science, and scientific debates, you see that is is a general problem. cold fusion is not so specific, but by it's importance, and by the fact that it accumulate all the reason to be rejected : - no theory (moreover material science facing high energy physics) - small science (moreover chemistry facing physicists) - positive - officially debunked 2015-03-01 16:03 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>: > Isn’t it bizarre how most physicists will embrace that load of cosmic crap > (FTL expansion) without the least bit of real evidence for it (other than a > brain-dead theory) … yet … in the next breath they reject out-of-hand the > dozens of successful LENR experiments, simply because those experiments are > not successful 100% of the time? > > > From: Bob Cook > > Eric brings up a good point… > > > From: Eric Walker <mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com> > About the big bang theory -- my understanding is that it requires faster > than light expansion in the earliest period. A theory that says the rules > change at some point in time seems a bit ad hoc to me. >
