On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To put it another way, older laws trump newer ones. > You mean like Newton's laws trump relativity and QM? > If calorimetry and thermodynamics prove that cold fusion does exist, you > cannot point to the newer laws governing plasma fusion to prove it does not > exist, and that calorimetry does not work. > You know, the laws have always been around. It's just that we learn about some sooner than others. And precedence has nothing to do with validity. It's all about what is supported by evidence. And since evidence is cumulative, usually newer laws trump older laws. And you know that you're using what's been learned about nuclear physics to even postulate cold fusion in the first place. But of course, you just take the part you like. What's been learned about nuclear physics makes cold fusion very unlikely. So, to accept it would require some pretty radical surgery, and so, strong evidence is needed. No matter how much you like calorimetry, the evidence to date doesn't cut it, because the claims would be far more manifest than we've seen so far, if real. > You have to conclude that a metal lattice is nothing like the sun. > Well, that's the point. Fusion works in the sun. > His measurements are reliable enough to be sure the effect is real. > For you to be sure. And for a few others. Most of whom have no relevant background. For most qualified scientists, they're not.
