When we say "Cold Fusion" they are almost justified in assuming that it should
work the same way as hot fusion. We will get much further with more people if
we emphasize that "something" is new and different, and can THEY explain THAT.
If we get them thinking enough to come up with something---anything as an
explanation, then we have gotten past their knee-jerk response to the
appearance that we are claiming that it is identical to hot fusion.
(Casimirically & Relativistically-speaking, they really might be identical.)
But the point is to engage them in a discussion, not to cram our
interpretations down their throats with an "In your face!" kind of
rhetoric--whether or not this attitude is real on our part, this is what many
of them are perceiving. Nothing shuts down the rational part of people's mind
faster that making them feel slighted, relationally speaking!
Scott
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 00:31:17 -0700
From: thesteornpa...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Non-Chemical Heat Phenomenon" Label more neutral.
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
I like the term cold fusion better. The skeptics have been challenging cold
fusion for decades. We need to shove cold fusion in their face.
From: Wm. Scott Smith <scott...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, May 1, 2011 6:18:00 PM
Subject: [Vo]:"Non-Chemical Heat Phenomenon" Label more neutral.
The Label: "Non-Chemical Heat Phenomenon" is more neutral than LENR.
Assuming that this is some kind of fusion is like when people presume that the
Sun is Fusion, just because they cannot imagine any other sufficiently great
source of energy, but as far as we know, the Second Law might actually be
correct, meaning that the Hot Corona (millions of degrees) heats the Cold Sun
(Mere thousands of degrees.
Embracing genuine ignorance is far better than drinking the strong drink of
delusion!!!
Scott
