On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote:
> Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly: The theory was that nuclear > reactions cannot occur in a system such as P&F's. This theory was falsified > which means that nuclear reactions can (and did) occur. > > Correct? If it is correct, then my original statement stands: There is no > theory yet that explains what is called cold fusion. > Close. It is the most widely-accepted *interpretation* of currently accepted physical theory that was falsified. The theory itself is subject to many interpretations, otherwise known as "*conjectures*" in more rigorous fields such as mathematics. The conjecture "Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as P&F's." is no more a product of theory than is the conjecture "Nuclear reactions can occur in systems such as P&F's." So it is not the theory that has been falsified -- because as an axiomatic system there is no proven theorem of modern physics which asserts "Nuclear reactions cannot occur in systems such as P&F's." One can, of course, posit any number of arbitrary axioms and then call the hodge-podge a "theory" in which one of the axioms is trivially proven true because it is axiomatic. This appears to have been the approach to "science" taken by folks who receive the vast majority of funding for science and technology.
