On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: > > So, your considered and thoughtful way to address what you see as >> someone's misunderstandings and to educate them is to be insulting and to >> attack the man while you address the argument? >> > > Look, I am sorry, > No, you're not. You can't get over your emotionality. > ... I cannot think of a way to say that politely. > Oh, I'm sure you could if you tried. But you don't want to. > You have failed to grasp this! Again and again, you have ignored these > fundamentals. You need to stop, read what the people at EPRI wrote, and > think carefully. Pay close attention to this! EPRI said *nothing* about > theory. Fleischmann, Pons and the others said nothing about theory. This is > not about theory. Theory does not enter into this discussion. This is > experimental science, not theory-based science. (There are theory-based > sciences, but this is not one of them.) > Ye gods, man. Calm down. Nobody is going to die over this ... well, maybe you from a heart attack if you insist on being so wound up > > You cannot demand that an experimentalist propose a theory before you > accept his results. That is not his job. That is not how it is done. > Er, I didn't. I answered Peter's question. > > (snip, snip, snip) > > You cannot demand a practical device before you accept a scientific > observation. You can't demand practical devices when we are still trying to > control the reaction in the laboratory. That is like demanding a fully > cooked wild turkey dinner before we leave the house with the shotgun. We > have to find the bird and shoot it before we cook it!!! Why is that so hard > for you to grasp? > It's not hard to grasp and it's not what I wrote in response to Peter. > (snip, snip, snip > Let me state, once again, my understanding: 1. There are phenomena that people call CF or LENR or whatever. 2. No one yet has a theory about these phenomena that has been tested. 3. Whatever these phenomena are, they are apparently not explainable by conventional physics. 4. The phenomena are hard to control. 5. Despite many claims, as far as is known, the phenomena have not been turned into a useful technology. What's wrong about any of that? And remember, this whole discussion is Peter's fault ... he originally asked "when will enter LENR such lists as [Greatest Inventions: 2012 and 1913 Editions]?" My answer was "When there is a testable theory or a demonstrably practical device." Again, I wasn't asserting that LENR doesn't exist, I was answering Peter's question. [mg]
