David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: I think I know the reason why there is always a question in such a > demonstration. No one has ever performed an experiment that has completely > eliminated any optional explanation for the results obtained. >
On the other hand, some experiments are more convincing than others. The October 6 demo was very convincing to me, not because of the instruments. It was almost inadvertently good. > Those who accept the limited proof are convinced that the experiment was > successful . . . > You also have to look at the totality of the evidence. One experiment on its own seldom prove something beyond doubt. You have to other experiments, especially ones that are replicated in other laboratories. Rossi is weak in that respect. - Jed
