On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Regardless of what is suggested as evidence, you will find a way to reject > it. > This is often stated, but of course it's nonsense. Who could reject a phenomenon that replaces fossil fuels? That powers a car without refueling? Energy densities in the range of GJ/g are not some subtle thing. And when they are claimed to be accessible from a small-scale experiment at ordinary conditions, the evidence should be unequivocal. But in fact, the evidence has not improved from the early 90s, and the requirement for good evidence has not changed. As Rothwell has said: "It is utterly impossible to fake palpable heat.... I do not think any scientist will dispute this. ...An object that remains palpably warmer than the surroundings is as convincing as anything can be.." A very clearly isolated device that produces more heat than ten or a hundred times its weight in gasoline would not be disputed as a new source of energy. And some claims of heat-after-death or gas-loading should be able to provide such a demonstration. But those claims are evidently not robust enough, or they would have plopped such a thing in front of the 2004 DOE panel (or as many as necessary to get at least one working one), and got all the finding they could use. While such an isolated system would surely be sufficient evidence, it would not be necessary. It's easy to imagine reproducible (even statistically) experiments that require external input that would be convincing, but when the quality of these experiments simply doesn't improve in 2 decades, when there is no quantitative, inter-lab reproducibility, then pathological science fits the evidence far better. The goal after any new phenomenon is discovered is to keep looking until it > is understood. Cude would stop that process. > > > The view of some skeptics, based on the weak and stagnant evidence, is that a new phenomenon was not discovered. That eventually it is more reasonable to accept that bigfoot probably doesn't exist, than to keep trying to get one clear picture of it. Others disagree, and they are free to keep hunting.
