It is a waste of energy to be against scientific investigation no matter how you perceive the chance of success. It is a sign of the times, just like Parks book "Voodoo Science". It smacks of Dogma and Religious belief and the lack of openmindedness. Go get a life.
Sent from my iPhone On May 8, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Randy wuller <rwul...@freeark.com> wrote: >> What he can't explain is why anyone would run around the internet trying >> to stop people from investigating a phenomenon. > > I think cold fusion is a pipe dream, and I like people to agree with me. You > can't seriously be unaware that all manner of trivial subjects are argued > with equal or greater passion on the internet. The simple truth is that good > argument can be invigorating. > > >> It makes no sense and is probably a symptom of the very negative period (I >> would describe it as the age of pessimism) we find ourselves living through. > > > Other than in the field of cold fusion, progress in science has continues > apace. Shechtman (who should be sensitive to inertia in science because his > discovery of quasicrystals was ridiculed by Pauling) identified 3 surprising > discoveries on the structure of matter in the 80s: quasi-crystals, > fullerenes, and high temperature superconductivity. Conspicuously absent: > cold fusion, which would be the most surprising of all. > > >> When the pendulum shifts > > pendulums swing, they don't shift > >> and we enter an optimistic age, everything will seem possible and as such >> being for something will be much more productive (it always is) than being >> against something. > > Everything? It will be much more productive to be for perpetual motion > research? > > >> You will find a lot less Cude's running around, thank goodness. > > I don't know. Skepticism of cold fusion seems to pretty common among the very > best physicists. What has a cold fusion true believer done for the world > lately? > > >> Personally, while he is obviously bright, Cude's position is just about the >> dumbest fool thing I have ever read. > > But shared by a lot of smart people like Gell-Mann. > > >> >> In answer to your question, of course we should investigate a phenomenon of >> the significance of Cold Fusion even if the chance of it being real is >> miniscule. > > Our main difference is in the magnitude assigned to miniscule. > > > >> I also think it is absurd to believe we have an adequate understanding of >> physics today to rule it out. > > > There is a reason lawyers are not consulted about the adequacy of current > physics understanding. > >
