>> MC: >> Granted, there are problems, as with LENR phenomena which don't >> make sense either. Nature is trying to tell us something.
> Ed: > Yes, and I'm trying to listen. In the same msg, Ed also writes: >> This fact is not based on speculation, assumptions, or theory. >> This is a simple fact of nature that is well understood. As Sherlock once said, "you see Watson, but you do not observe". I have to wonder that if you came across something that contradicted a 'simple fact of nature', would you be able to observe it? It's just a 'gut feeling', but I sense that all of science has been developed with observations of particles and/or energy (what ever those things really are) in their incoherent, non-resonant interactions; the bulk properties and interactions. When you have a large number of oscillators, of differing non-resonant frequencies, in a somewhat confined area, you have the 'standard model'. When conditions are such that a small number of those oscillators, in a local area, somehow all come into resonance (sub/super harmonic relation), then throw the standard model out the freaking window -- shit hits the fan -- duck and cover -- can you say 'anomalous' -- oh dam, I must have done something wrong, those numbers just don't make sense! :-) It's so easy to dismiss it as 'error' when you've been conditioned to know what to expect... I remember reading somewhere, "The properties of the ultra pure are, in many cases, quite different from those of just the pure." Nature does not reveal her innermost secrets easily... And I will add, "and only when VERY specific conditions are met". -Mark No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.3/1744 - Release Date: 10/24/2008 6:08 PM
