* It doesn't get past first base as there is no data and when there is claims of data, that data is flawed. There is no theory base too to make the real scientific community *suspect* that anything will come out of it.*
What is "wrong with the data" Mr. Franks? Specifically the Excess Heat data. What artifacts are present in the calorimetry? Point out to me the peer reviewed critiques of researchers' calorimetry that have stood the test of time. Don't bring nonsense complaints that no theory can account for the effect. Who demanded a theory right away for superconductivity? How about excess heat coming off radium in early 20th century? Show me how the heat measurements are wrong. I asked you this in the your orphaned thread on recombination, which you quickly abandoned. I pointed out to you that the "Big 3" objections (recombination, stirring, cigarette lighter effect) had all been accounted for and answered between 1989 and 1994. Just the fact you had no idea that the recombination issue in cold fusion cells had been long settled speaks volumes about your ignorance of this subject generally. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:51 AM, John Franks <jf27...@gmail.com> wrote: > What has hope got to do with science? > > Your assertion below is incorrect. We know that physical diseases have a > biochemical basis, so we are correct to apply the scientific method and > *suspect* that greater knowledge and/or a cure will result. This is why > people fund the science of cancer research. It is based on the good > reputation, good education, legacy of discoveries in the subject. > > In the case of CF, there is none of this. It doesn't get past first base > as there is no data and when there is claims of data, that data is flawed. > There is no theory base too to make the real scientific community *suspect* > that anything will come out of it. > > You're on the same level as the RAR people, though with a little more > knowledge of science but it's all ad-hoc and you attempt to blind people > with science on things like BECs, lanthanide contractions, relativistic > effects on f-shells, plasmids because it sounds flash and like I said, you > are playing at science, it's Cargo Cult Science. > > If the RAR/Besslers wheel people started talking all kinds of fancy > Quantum Gravity, wormhole through space into extra dimensions, you'd > suspect immediately that they had been watching too much Stargate and that > a little bit of knowledge can fool all the people all the time. It's all > Rodney Mackay bar the Canadian accent and comedy acting. This is how people > who know about nuclear physics feel about the CF crowd - wannabes, > amateurs, people mixing science fiction with science fact. > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Nigel Dyer <l...@thedyers.org.uk> wrote: > >> It was, and is the hope that we will find cures for cancer that provides >> the funds for many people such as myself to do the research that I am >> doing. In a number of cases there was no scientific basis for the hope >> when the research was started, but it funded the scientific research, and >> science produced results. >> >> In other cases the hope has (to date) proved to be unfounded. >> >> Nigel >> > >
