Hawking radiation from dark matter has been around a loooonnnnggg time. Very low red-shifted energy, weak effects, Neutrinos. Good stuff if you can contain it...
Stewart Darkmattersalot.com On Tuesday, October 23, 2012, Harry Veeder wrote: > sorry it was an american, not an englishman. I should reread my own posts. > ;-) > Harry > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Harry Veeder > <hveeder...@gmail.com<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > I can't let this go. Last year I posted this revealing investigation > > of how N-rays were "debunked" in > > an unprofessional, psuedo-scientific manner. > > > > An englishman plays the role of chief debunker. > > > > You should read it jones. > > Harry > > > > > > > > The Theatre of the Blind: Starring a Promethean Prankster, a Phoney > Phenomenon, > > a Prism, a Pocket, and a Piece of Wood > > > > Social Studies of ScienceFebruary 1993 vol. 23 no. 1 67-106 > > > > > http://www.gesctm.unal.edu.co/CMS/Docentes/Adjuntos/099037209_20080313_054242_theatre%20of%20the%20blind.pdf > > > > > > Abstract > > One of the most notorious cases of full-blown scientific error is the > > `non-existent' form of radiation known as `N-rays', discovered in the > spring of > > 1903 by the French physicist Blondlot. After a short but full and > interesting > > life, N-rays were killed off (so the story goes) in the autumn of 1904 > by the > > American physicist Wood, who, after visiting Blondlot's laboratory in > Nancy, > > published in Nature a damning report of what he found (or didn't find). > In this > > paper, I look at the way in which these events have been represented in > > subsequent commentaries (including a later one of Wood's), concentrating > > particularly on `the tale of the removal of the prism'. I also examine > the > > source of the effectiveness of Wood's `rhetoric of undiscovery' which I > claim > > lies in his construction and operation of a `theatre of the blind', in > which > > only we who were not there can see the nothing that is there. Throughout > the > > text, Wood's credibility as a reporter is questioned in the interest of > > providing a symmetrically sceptical account of Wood's scientific claims > and > > status, as a counter to the standard story. > > > > Social Studies of ScienceFebruary 1993 vol. 23 no. 1 67-106 > > > > > >
