At 08:15 PM 12/9/2009, you wrote:
Steve,
Well - you have effectively raised up on the www horizon, a large and
fluttering "call me" flag - and every investigative journalist should do
this on a cherished subject - and I suspect that if anyone out there has
specific details that they would like to share with you, they will contact
you off-list.
Over the course of years, any good observer will get an "impression" of what
is going on in the larger community, but this will often come without a
time-stamp. If I read the ideas of x,y and z, and then notice that from my
perspective z seems to be echoing the ideas of x and y over and over again -
that is not "proof" of anything, without more. In fact x and y could have
borrowed the ideas of z inadvertently (or not).
However, if I personally know x and y from a long history, and at the same
time heard negatives about z,
"heard negatives about z" > Sometimes that's called the "grapevine."
Sometimes that's called gossip. Sometimes it refers to facts. Most often is
character attack. You would not believe some of the negatives that *I* have
heard about Larsen -- that are completely false, from Bev Barnhart of DIA,
no less. The rumor mill about him is in a feeding frenzy. Larsen appears to
have no shortage of enemies.
this will slant the picture - yet it does not
prove or disprove anything. The negatives could relate to something else.
These things will usually tend to always work themselves out in the end -
maybe it takes decades. In an age of 'instant messaging', however, many in
the general public may want quicker answers.
If you want to hasten the process as a cutting-edge reporter - all the
better, so long as accuracy is not compromised.
If my accuracy gets compromised, I'm sure (and I hope) you'll be the first
to let me know. ;)
You *do* get credit, by the way, for being the first to find the
transposition error in my recent RSC paper.
That is what the internet is
for - but it is unwise to try to limit what is 'informed opinion' on
newsgroups, even if it happens to contradict a preconceived notion that may
be equally premature or ill-conceived. Heck "they" (meaning big-shots in
general) let bimbos like Palin pretend to write OpEd pieces in a major
newspaper, but that does not mean they don't care about truth (since they
know the piece came from a staff of hired guns anyway).
You seem to be leaning towards the WL theory, others may like some of it but
not all; I may be leaning to a variation on the fractional hydrogen theory,
and Horace has a good deflation model; and all theories have evolved
considerably over time and often towards common focal points along the way.
As a result, all theories develop crossovers and cross-connections. The
general idea of an energy depleted neutron, however is very old (Mills and
Dufour circa 1993?) ... but his was not a 'real' neutron YET neither is the
WL variety, if it differs from the known 'cold neutron'. And that is a most
apt example, and the reason for my original posting - this is to say -
because the known ultra-cold neutron is very different from that of WL.
Yet the important thing here Steve, is that you did NOT hear this bit of
information from them.
I think you are saying that WL did not disclose that an ultra-cold neutron
doesn't work the way WL suggest it does? Am I understanding you?
A top-rate scientist (in my dreams) always
acknowledges not only the source of ideas he borrows, but explains the
evidence going the other way. We (some of us) suspect that the proponents
are far from top-rate, but they could still be close enough to get major
credit. So it goes ....
Let's hope that in the end, P&F get the lion's share of the credit, even for
the theory that they may have missed, since they took most of the hits in
getting us there.
Jones
