As I am in contact with many lower layers skeptics among the planet, i can say that it is a standard behavior.
what is standards - to parrot wikipedia without any understanding - not to have read any paper... exceptionally to have read one and misinterpreted all - to focus on a punny detail missing the key question - to focus on theory, while not understanding the problem of collectives behaviors in solids. some even have competence to see it but clearly refuse to see it (some if not most of those I describe are clearly physicist, not teens, with good culture). - to give one narrow critic to justify all is artifact, while not accepting to add new phenomenons to the list of evidences - incapacity to see the logical fallacies in their arguments (like on lack of reproducibility, or catch22)... despite often huge culture and absolute knowledge of those fallacies. - critic on the number of citation one gives, whil moaning there are not enough data - claim there is non peer-review, then critic of the journals, then silence It is hard to understand how the most educated people on earth can be so unable to use their competence in easy question... unless you understand it is not incompetence but self-manipulation in context of Mutual Assured Delusion. They are like those sect member who suicide with the leader just not to admit they have been fooled, and be killed by their peer afterward. Mr franks is not below average. maybe above. by the way, I still wait data on nature and Science public claims about Cold Fusion and their internal policy. 2013/12/18 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > Mr. Franks, you exhibit one of the most closed minds that I have > encountered in quite a long time. You should realize that physics is > always being changed as answers to difficult problems reveal holes in the > theories. It is quite humorous to read your posts that suggest that all > the answers to the cold fusion debate can be so simply disregarded when > many experiments suggest otherwise. > > You are entitled to your opinion, but it is obvious that you are not > willing to give the supporting data serious consideration. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Franks <jf27...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Tue, Dec 17, 2013 7:32 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Official policy of Nature/Science/SciAm on cold fusion > publishing > > >> ... like applying two-body free space assumption inside a solid >> > > In a lattice, scale order of 0.1nm, nuclear processes at the sub pm even > fm level are effectively free space. There is no overlap of wavefunctions > or fields to make all the nuclei behave in some collective manner such that > neutrons and gamma rays aren't produced (even then, what would be the > branching ratios - you mean absolutely no neutrons or gamma!?!!). Any form > of mass coherence would be disrupted by thermal energy. > > No lanthanide or relativistic effects will make electrons shells > appreciably shrink below the about 0.1nm radius of the ground state to be > getting into the territory of the known muon catalysed CF. No fancy > cavities or electrical fields will produce bare nuclei in the lattice, the > work function of the material would be exceeded and you'd never get bare > nuclei. > > For these reasons, scholarly journals like Nature won't publish CF > because it clearly shows lack of knowledge of the literature base (and I > don't mean bogus literature like CF/LENR/LANR). Lack of knowledge of what > came before shows you are incapable of making a contribution to knowledge > and precious journal space should not be wasted ahead of the efforts of > serious science. You do not own Nature and have no right to inflict > yourselves on them. > > >>> I take a network of experimental scientific paper by many (thousands) > scientists included reputed professional (dozens) from varied and mostly > reputed organization (dozens), showing various connected phenomenons, and > some correlations of phenomenons, as evidences. > > Mass hysteria, mass incompetence, corrupt practices, delusions. To be > getting the results they claim must mean they've made an error and are > deluding themselves much as those bessler's wheel italians. *You have no > rationale* so it must be wrong. Don't give me that blind empiricism carp, > how can you be so naive? > >
