Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.comwrote: There is an example that is interesting. Gravitational wave detection. As a practical field was created more than 40 years ago and no detection has been done yet. Doesn't fit the question though, since the concept has never been considered fringe. There are plenty of theoretical predictions that took decades to be observed, including neutrinos (26 years), quarks (20 years for top), Higgs boson (40-some years and counting), lasers (40 years, sorta), and others.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without being properly debunked? Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory, which may be real after all, and acupuncture and chiropractic, which seem to work. It's probably the case that most pseudo-sciences that survive 20 years or more are likely to maintain some following indefinitely, and so may not be considered debunked until adherents disappear by attrition. Evidently Blondlott continued to be convinced of N-rays until his death. And perpetual motion will likely have adherents for a long time. If by pathological you mean sciences not accepted (or rejected outright) by mainstream science, then there are very clearly *many* examples that have persisted far longer than 20 years, including perpetual motion, homeopathy (and other alternative medical treatments), and any paranormal or religious claims like astrology or scientology or creationism (intelligent design). Global warming denialism might also fit some characteristics of pathological science. Straight chiropractic based on vitalism also fits the pathological bill, although most chiropractors try to distance themselves from vitalism, and have found some legitimacy in the mainstream; after all, massage and certain exercises (physiotherapy) are undoubtedly beneficial. Acupuncture has also found some mainstream support, but conclusive evidence of efficacy is still not established, and the concept of meridians and qi is not scientifically accepted. It's very difficult in the case of acupuncture to do blank controls; you know when someone sticks a needle in you. There are not very many examples like cold fusion, where a rather simple non-paranormal phenomenon, claimed in a controlled experiments, is rejected for decades by the mainstream, but still maintains a substantial following. Perpetual motion is the obvious similar example, and it has in common with cold fusion, the profound implications for the betterment of mankind. Perhaps water dowsing is another, although that is often considered paranormal as well. Alien sightings are not considered paranormal (usually), but are not results of controlled experiments. Are there any examples of new science remaining on the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream? Genetics, photography and semiconductors. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf Countless others, such as electric motors, incandescent lights and and calculators took decades to be developed. They were considered laboratory curiosities with no future and no practical value. Taking decades to develop does not mean the principles or the basis were rejected by the mainstream. None of those examples are now,nor were they ever considered pathological or pseudoscientific.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they crave them. This is complete bullshit. Most scientists neither fear nor celebrate disruptive experiments. They do not give a damn how disruptive a result is, or how much it appears to violate theory. They care about one thing, and one thing only: FUNDING. Money. Status. Power. Maybe the scientists you know, but certainly not the vast majority. A career in science is not particularly lucrative in most cases. Incomes are typical of most professions, and probably lower on average than in medicine or law or finance. Considering that most scientists don't begin to earn a real salary (beyond post-doctoral stipends) until they are pushing 30, their lifetime earnings are often not much better than teachers or nurses or engineers or computer scientists. And they well understand the magic of the exponential function, and the value of money earned in the third decade. Academic scientists generally earn salaries that are fairly independent of the success of their research, at least to first order. That is to say, a minority generate income from inventions or patents or licenses and so on, though some clearly do. But even if it were true that they acted purely out of greed for money and status, the best way to achieve those things is to make revolutionary discoveries, so it does not contradict my claim. Regardless of what you say, awards in science are granted for novel discoveries, as is research funding, and with those come status and power. Einstein, Bohr, Planck, and Hawking did not gain their status by making shit up. They actually made discoveries. That's how you make an impact. As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe. A few scientists may make things up for financial gain, but I can't think of very many examples, and they certainly don't include the most famous and most prestigious scientists or the most wealthy scientists. The disgraced Andrew Wakefield is one example. But most scientists are pretty honest, and got into science because it is an interesting and agreeable career. And as I said, success in the career (including financial) is measured by novelty and discovery, not by confirmations of old ideas. You can set up a project with no hope of success, no scientific value, and which is a fantastic waste of money, such as Star Wars or plasma fusion. Scientist will flock to join. Scientists that flock to join don't agree with your assessment. And why should they? What do you know? Most scientist think of cold fusion research as a waste of time, and yet you wouldn't hold it against your friends if they accepted funding for the research, would you? Many scientists were strongly critical of the SDI, and many of those that became involved rationalized it by potential spin-offs, which have been borne out in things like x-ray laser imaging. Obviously many people who do not benefit from plasma fusion consider the research worth the gamble, your opinion notwithstanding. They will swear they believe in it. You can present theories with no basis, no means of verification, and no possible use, such as string theory. They will publish happily, and award prizes. But there's not a lotta moolah in string theory. People that go after it are interested in the aesthetics. The scientific validity and the degree of novelty has nothing to do with resistance to a new idea. The only metric that matters is moola. The least practical ideas often meet no resistance because no one is already being paid to do them. If the plasma fusion people had not been around in 1989, we would have cold-fusion powered aircraft by now. The only reason there was resistance, and continues to be, is because those people are making 6-figures for screwing the taxpayers, and they do not want the gravy train to stop. You can keep thinking this if it helps you sleep at night, and I suppose if you believe cold fusion, you will believe anything, but this is even less plausible than cold fusion. The plasma fusion people simply don't have that kind of power. How can they affect the research in Japan, Italy, and China? If cold fusion were valid, it would be in the government's interest, strategically, economically, and environmentally, to support it. And the money that supports plasma fusion is from the government. Why would they fund something contrary to their own interest? They are well aware of conflicts of interest, and know how to avoid it in funding the research they deem most productive and useful for their own benefit, and the benefit of the country. And why do the plasma fusion people not shut down research in fission or solar or wind? This sort of paranoid conspiracy theory gives your field a bad name. A single
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Geocentrism took over 1000 years to debunk. But considering it was accepted by the mainstream, it was not a pathological science.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On 11-12-15 11:46 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: Were those experiments done *before* or *after* onset of rigor mortis? Fresh cadavers-- and it was quite a while ago for the study I remember. As to MRI and CT studies of the same phenomenon, I'm pretty sure they've been done but I have not looked for them. Chiropractors also abuse and misuse and misinterpret and take inferior X-rays. I am not convinced chiropractic as practiced now should be legal. I once encountered a woman who had delayed breast cancer treatment because she had bone pain from metastasis and a chiropractor had treated it as a back sprain. A medical doctor would have been more likely to have done the right tests and made the right diagnosis because most will do a complete exam at least once with a new patient or a serious new complaint. If all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. As it happens, once breast cancer has metastasized into the bones it's considered stage 4, incurable by conventional means, so she may not have missed much by failing to have it properly diagnosed... OTOH such tales of totally retarded diagnoses by chiropractors are not so uncommon as all that. Someone my dad knew was being treated by chiropractor for a pinched nerve. He finally went to a regular doctor (due to the urging of his wife) and found out it was heart disease. (Lucky for him, he found out *before* the autopsy.)
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: It's very difficult in the case of acupuncture to do blank controls; you know when someone sticks a needle in you. Yes, which makes testing sticking needles in you very difficult to test. But traditional Chinese medicine acupuncture is much more than sticking needles. The claim is that sticking the needles in *very specific places* with fancy names is important to the end result. It's simple to design a control experiment in which one set of acupuncture points is in accord with the Chinese tradition and another set of points is not. The person who sticks in the needles is simply trained to do it correctly and to follow directions on where to place them. The individual scoring the result is a third party. The experiment is thus slickly double blind. When you do that, there is no statistical difference in choosing traditional spots vs random spots for the needles. Experimental design and proper, blinding, controls and calibrations are everything in science. Someone should confront Rossi with that fact every time he pipes up with a new claim or demonstration.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: ** As it happens, once breast cancer has metastasized into the bones it's considered stage 4, incurable by conventional means, so she may not have missed much by failing to have it properly diagnosed... It used to be that way but now there are many effective therapies for advanced breast cancer. They add years of comfortable life to many lives and it is important to start them as soon as possible. I think that chiropractor should have been arrested for manslaughter or at least assault, after the woman died. Similarly chiropractors have vigorously manipulated necks they thought were sprained but were in reality fractured resulting in paralysis. Those cases make it to the malpractice courts from time to time. Conventional physicians make mistakes to but at least they don't rely mainly on totally bogus premises from a previous century to treat their patients. Your example is also classical of the dangers of using chiropractors to diagnose and treat disease. Most simply have no clue how to do that. It's difficult enough to do after going to medical school and residency.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe. Nice broad brush indictment which is mostly wrong. Consider Jonas Salk as an example -- he gave the world the Salk polio vaccine without royalties and without a patent. He is noteworthy because he did this. If scientists routinely did that, no one would remember Salk for having done it. So my indictment is mostly right. Of course there are exceptions. . . . you get complex coordinate graphs with unclear labels done by poorly specified methods and not replicated by independent others. At least that's most of what I've seen before I stopped reading. Normally I encourage people keep reading when they encounter difficulties and are confused, but in your case perhaps it was best to stop. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Normally I encourage people keep reading when they encounter difficulties and are confused, but in your case perhaps it was best to stop. Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read long and convoluted papers numbering in the thousands. A single clear one and another replicating it would do just fine. So would a properly conducted demonstration. Instead we get the bizarre dog and pony shows the Rossi crowd has done and the extravagant but so far totally empty promises from Defkalion.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read long and convoluted papers numbering in the thousands. So you are looking for short, well-written, and highly convincing papers? Most people I know would say these two fit the bill: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf This describes the work at the National Cold Fusion Institute, which was established by the state of Utah. In the mass media, this institute has been widely portrayed as a waste of money and a mistake, but in fact, under Will's leadership, it produced definitive results. The work was superb. It was worth every penny. The state of Utah did a great thing. I hope it is recognized someday. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf In my opinion, these two papers should have convinced every scientist in the world that cold fusion is real and that it is a nuclear effect. All opposition to the discovery should have ended when they were published. If you find these papers difficult, convoluted or unconvincing, perhaps the problem is at your end, rather than in the papers. People who know much more about physics and chemistry than you do, such as Gerischer, found this work convincing. You should consider the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong, and you have not put enough effort into studying these results, or you are incapable of understanding them. For that matter, there is no reason to think that important breakthroughs are inherently easy to understand. Although as it happens I had no difficulty understanding these two papers, or their importance. I do have difficulty understanding many other cold fusion papers. Most of the theory papers are completely over my head. Unlike you, however, I would *never*dismiss a paper or a discovery because I have difficulty understanding it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read long and convoluted papers numbering in the thousands. So you are looking for short, well-written, and highly convincing papers? Most people I know would say these two fit the bill: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf This describes the work at the National Cold Fusion Institute, which was established by the state of Utah. In the mass media, this institute has been widely portrayed as a waste of money and a mistake, but in fact, under Will's leadership, it produced definitive results. The work was superb. It was worth every penny. The state of Utah did a great thing. I hope it is recognized someday. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf In my opinion, these two papers should have convinced every scientist in the world that cold fusion is real and that it is a nuclear effect. All opposition to the discovery should have ended when they were published. If you find these papers difficult, convoluted or unconvincing, perhaps the problem is at your end, rather than in the papers. People who know much more about physics and chemistry than you do, such as Gerischer, found this work convincing. You should consider the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong, and you have not put enough effort into studying these results, or you are incapable of understanding them. For that matter, there is no reason to think that important breakthroughs are inherently easy to understand. Although as it happens I had no difficulty understanding these two papers, or their importance. I do have difficulty understanding many other cold fusion papers. Most of the theory papers are completely over my head. Unlike you, however, I would *never*dismiss a paper or a discovery because I have difficulty understanding it. Thanks, I'll look. I make a sharp distinction between papers which involve cold fusion theory which I have no idea about and am not going to challenge and those which report calorimetry results which I *do* know about and can evaluate. I can also determine if proper scientific method has most likely been followed. Rossi and Defkalion fail *miserably* in both categories I know about. I do not dimiss discoveries because I don't understand the papers unless I've worked in the field under discussion and *still* don't understand the papers. Otherwise, I look for proper replication with suitable controls and calibrations -- all are lacking in the Rossi/Defkalion story. Take for example the neutrino faster than light story. I find it interesting and amusing but I am not about to chime in on it-- I have no way of evaluating the claims for myself so I read the various experts and chuckle a bit about the interesting controversy. But I fully understand what Rossi and Defkalion should do -- I could do the experiments myself. And they have done nothing conclusive to prove that their device is real and they repeatedly declined offers of help from friendly sources to do it right. That I understand and it's not encouraging.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On 11-12-16 03:13 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read long and convoluted papers numbering in the thousands. So you are looking for short, well-written, and highly convincing papers? Most people I know would say these two fit the bill: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf This describes the work at the National Cold Fusion Institute, which was established by the state of Utah. In the mass media, this institute has been widely portrayed as a waste of money and a mistake, but in fact, under Will's leadership, it produced definitive results. The work was superb. It was worth every penny. The state of Utah did a great thing. I hope it is recognized someday. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf In my opinion, these two papers should have convinced every scientist in the world that cold fusion is real and that it is a nuclear effect. All opposition to the discovery should have ended when they were published. If you find these papers difficult, convoluted or unconvincing, perhaps the problem is at your end, rather than in the papers. People who know much more about physics and chemistry than you do, such as Gerischer, found this work convincing. You should consider the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong, and you have not put enough effort into studying these results, or you are incapable of understanding them. For that matter, there is no reason to think that important breakthroughs are inherently easy to understand. Although as it happens I had no difficulty understanding these two papers, or their importance. I do have difficulty understanding many other cold fusion papers. Most of the theory papers are completely over my head. Unlike you, however, I would _never_ dismiss a paper or a discovery because I have difficulty understanding it. Thanks, I'll look. If you're looking for interesting CF papers, and if you're looking for papers that show evidence that the researchers knew what they were doing, you might take a look at this honker: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=trct=jq=epridevelopmen.pdfsource=webcd=1ved=0CB0QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-canr.org%2Facrobat%2FEPRIdevelopmen.pdfei=Xq_rTrXGEKjo0QGJq8TDCQusg=AFQjCNGCWQS7luczo8MaaKBigXcC6PessQ http://www.google.ca/url?sa=trct=jq=epridevelopmen.pdfsource=webcd=1ved=0CB0QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-canr.org%2Facrobat%2FEPRIdevelopmen.pdfei=Xq_rTrXGEKjo0QGJq8TDCQusg=AFQjCNGCWQS7luczo8MaaKBigXcC6PessQ It's over 300 pages, and you may find it less than conclusive, but it's a fascinating document, which makes it painfully clear just how difficult Pd/D CF experiments really are. They describe, in detail, everything they did in the course of trying to get a clear, solid result. (One obvious overwhelming conclusion is that Pd/D cells are 'way too touchy to be anything more than a curiosity, regardless of how real the phenomenon may be.) The process was excruciating; it's hard even to read about it -- calibration was difficult on this run; when we disassembled the cell we found the electrolyte had leaked through the gasket into the bathwater..., lots of that sort of thing. (And these are ballpark hundred-hour runs they're talking about: in a sentence or two, they describe a couple weeks of work going down the drain due to failure of one of the hundred or so custom made parts in a cell.) They documented what went wrong, as well as what went right, and when they got a good result they tried hard to find an artifact which could account for it, rather than just taking it at face value... And their positive results were obtained with such difficulty, after identifying and avoiding so many pitfalls, that it's not even slightly surprising that there weren't six labs out there replicating right after the report came out. McCubre, the lead author, is clearly the complete opposite of Rossi. They shouldn't even be compared, frankly.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Note, by the way, that the original (hard copy) paper came with a data disk in a pocket in the back cover, with all their raw data. Now THAT is the way to publish research! Unfortunately the PDF doesn't include the CD. On 11-12-16 04:02 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-12-16 03:13 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Robust and credible results would not require anyone to read long and convoluted papers numbering in the thousands. So you are looking for short, well-written, and highly convincing papers? Most people I know would say these two fit the bill: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf This describes the work at the National Cold Fusion Institute, which was established by the state of Utah. In the mass media, this institute has been widely portrayed as a waste of money and a mistake, but in fact, under Will's leadership, it produced definitive results. The work was superb. It was worth every penny. The state of Utah did a great thing. I hope it is recognized someday. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf In my opinion, these two papers should have convinced every scientist in the world that cold fusion is real and that it is a nuclear effect. All opposition to the discovery should have ended when they were published. If you find these papers difficult, convoluted or unconvincing, perhaps the problem is at your end, rather than in the papers. People who know much more about physics and chemistry than you do, such as Gerischer, found this work convincing. You should consider the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong, and you have not put enough effort into studying these results, or you are incapable of understanding them. For that matter, there is no reason to think that important breakthroughs are inherently easy to understand. Although as it happens I had no difficulty understanding these two papers, or their importance. I do have difficulty understanding many other cold fusion papers. Most of the theory papers are completely over my head. Unlike you, however, I would _never_ dismiss a paper or a discovery because I have difficulty understanding it. Thanks, I'll look. If you're looking for interesting CF papers, and if you're looking for papers that show evidence that the researchers knew what they were doing, you might take a look at this honker: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=trct=jq=epridevelopmen.pdfsource=webcd=1ved=0CB0QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-canr.org%2Facrobat%2FEPRIdevelopmen.pdfei=Xq_rTrXGEKjo0QGJq8TDCQusg=AFQjCNGCWQS7luczo8MaaKBigXcC6PessQ http://www.google.ca/url?sa=trct=jq=epridevelopmen.pdfsource=webcd=1ved=0CB0QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-canr.org%2Facrobat%2FEPRIdevelopmen.pdfei=Xq_rTrXGEKjo0QGJq8TDCQusg=AFQjCNGCWQS7luczo8MaaKBigXcC6PessQ It's over 300 pages, and you may find it less than conclusive, but it's a fascinating document, which makes it painfully clear just how difficult Pd/D CF experiments really are. They describe, in detail, everything they did in the course of trying to get a clear, solid result. (One obvious overwhelming conclusion is that Pd/D cells are 'way too touchy to be anything more than a curiosity, regardless of how real the phenomenon may be.) The process was excruciating; it's hard even to read about it -- calibration was difficult on this run; when we disassembled the cell we found the electrolyte had leaked through the gasket into the bathwater..., lots of that sort of thing. (And these are ballpark hundred-hour runs they're talking about: in a sentence or two, they describe a couple weeks of work going down the drain due to failure of one of the hundred or so custom made parts in a cell.) They documented what went wrong, as well as what went right, and when they got a good result they tried hard to find an artifact which could account for it, rather than just taking it at face value... And their positive results were obtained with such difficulty, after identifying and avoiding so many pitfalls, that it's not even slightly surprising that there weren't six labs out there replicating right after the report came out. McCubre, the lead author, is clearly the complete opposite of Rossi. They shouldn't even be compared, frankly.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: If you're looking for interesting CF papers, and if you're looking for papers that show evidence that the researchers knew what they were doing, you might take a look at this honker . . . A direct link: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRIdevelopmen.pdf It's over 300 pages, and you may find it less than conclusive, but it's a fascinating document, which makes it painfully clear just how difficult Pd/D CF experiments really are. Yup. This is one of the best descriptions of research I know of, in any field. (One obvious overwhelming conclusion is that Pd/D cells are 'way too touchy to be anything more than a curiosity, regardless of how real the phenomenon may be.) That seems likely to me, but sometimes with a lot of money you can make touchy technology robust. Semiconductors and color televisions, for example. McKubre, the lead author, is clearly the complete opposite of Rossi. They shouldn't even be compared, frankly. They are indeed polar opposites. But bear in mind that McKubre is impressed by Rossi. Because he knows an expert who attended some of the tests, he is convinced that Rossi's results are real. He thinks that Rossi is deliberately obfuscating his results for business reasons. I agree that is likely. It is also Rossi's nature to obfuscate things. There have been many superb scientists and engineers like that. Arata is an example. As I've pointed out before, Harrison, who invented the chronometer, was one of the best examples. Perhaps he had to be this way. What he was trying to accomplish was inherently complicated. It was a tremendous challenge given the tools of the day. The only way to do it was to use indirect means and convoluted methods. It was similar to making a supercomputer in the 1950s and 60s. His personality happened to be an ideal fit to this problem. He took decades and he never did it the easy way when some clever but difficult method was available. His love of intricacy and complexity also meant he had difficulty communicating with others, and simplifying the design. Other people simplified the design, and made the thing practical, as he himself recognized. (See: http://www.rmg.co.uk/harrison http://www.rmg.co.uk/server/show/conMediaFile.2757 Harrison's friend reduced this design to practice in the form of a pocket watch! He gave the watch to Harrison.) Convoluted techniques were common in computer programming in the 1970s because of hardware limitations such as 4 kB RAM. There were programmers who loved the challenge and came up with ingenious methods of overcoming these limits. Their programs were difficult to understand and impossible to maintain, yet they were works of genius. (By the way, I did not love the challenge of making programs work in 4 kB, but I did meet it.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Jed sez: ... (By the way, I did not love the challenge of making programs work in 4 kB, but I did meet it.) Back in the 70's I was hired by the State of Wisconsin to work on an IBM 360 Model 20, with 32k of memory. This was a mainframe computer. I was in charge of the edit check program that processed State Income Tax returns after they had been keyed onto tape. Every time my user would stop by and ask for a modification to the edit check program I had to determine whether there were enough free bytes left in memory in order to do what they wanted me to do. The program was written in BAS, Basic Assembler Language. Near the end I was down to around 20 free bytes of memory. If you want me to do that, what do you want me to take out? I feel your pain. Those were the days. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
One point worth reiterating on this thread (although someone will be sure to get in the last bit of negativism) is about the bogus argument of Lawrence and Yugo . that belittles an LENR experiment which was only successful one time in ten, or produced only 68% gain at most. GET REAL . these are fundamental Laws of Physics under scrutiny. A fundamental Laws of Physics that is wrong one time in a million - is in fact wrong forever and in fact NOT fundamental at all. Hundreds of thousands of physicist will share in that agony, and they do not want to see this happen. Therefore, any paper from NASA in 1996 is going to be circumspect about ultimate possibilities. However look at it another way. An experiment that produces clean excess energy of only 68% over input, or that does it only one time in a thousand - is in fact the most important invention in the history of science ! . since, if and when we discover the precise circumstances and theory which led to the rare anomaly, and then put it into the system (turn it over to the product engineers) . then what was formerly a freak occurrence, but a proven freak, suddenly becomes the standard method. The Yugo-esque mentality of years past, firmly pronounced that quantum tunneling was either an observational error, or a freak exception of extremely low probability that will stay in the lab. Fast forward three decades and the same pompous skeptical mentality using computers that performs several trillion impossible quantum tunneling operations per second via their CPU. So much for the bogosity of only one proved success in ten tries (or 10,000) in an early trial. The one proved success, even if it is one in many - represents the metaphorical straw . you know, the one that broke the camel's back. Jones
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** The Yugo-esque mentality of years past, firmly pronounced that quantum tunneling was either an observational error, or a freak exception of extremely low probability that will stay in the lab. Fast forward three decades and the same pompous skeptical mentality using computers that performs several trillion “impossible” quantum tunneling operations per second via their CPU. I think I know what you meant there but I'm not sure you said it. Missing word or two maybe after skeptical mentality? Anyway, I never said anything negative about quantum tunneling. I think you're misreading my intent. I am only arguing against some people's apparent certainty regarding Rossi and Defkalion. And I am not terribly interested in cold fusion and LENR *in general*. Not yet, anyway. And I am open to the possibility that there may be something to it. It's just that nobody has yet shown me the real beef unless it's Rossi and Defkalion and we know those are arguable. I prefer to address my time to the weird phenomenon of Rossi and Defkalion and their mostly unsupported claims that so many people seem to be willing, literally, to take to the bank. That's interesting, troubling, and sometimes fun.
RE: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
From: Mary Yugo I think you're misreading my intent. I am only arguing against some people's apparent certainty regarding Rossi and Defkalion. Well, I completely agree that such certainty is both rampant - and misplaced (and sometimes silly). With one major caveat. Although Rossi has discovered a way to intensify an energy anomaly (the same one as Thermacore) I doubt that it is economically viable in his device. He went from pre-prototype to end product in a year and skipped dozens of necessary intermediate steps. He is probably two to four years away from a commercial device, minimum. To that narrow extent, it could be a secondary-scam, but IMO there is a fundamental anomaly at the base of it - so I am offended by anyone who wants to write-off the entire story off as a complete scam. * And I am not terribly interested in cold fusion and LENR *in general*. Well to be honest - that is the attitude that makes many of us oppose your negativity. We are convinced from personal experience, either in the Lab or through other research that there is something very vital here which will be the next big thing even if it takes a little longer than expected. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On 11-12-16 05:27 PM, Jones Beene wrote: One point worth reiterating on this thread (although someone will be sure to get in the last bit of negativism) is about the bogus argument of Lawrence and Yugo ... that belittles an LENR experiment which was only successful one time in ten, You didn't read, or didn't understand, what I said, nor what the researchers themselves said. And in fact McCubre's results were one cell in five, not one in ten.
RE: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
MY wrote: I can also determine if proper scientific method has most likely been followed. Rossi and Defkalion fail *miserably* in both categories I know about. You can't fail at something that you never agreed to achieve. Rossi has said from the out-set (i.e., January 2010) that he was NOT INTERESTED in performing scientific tests and/or submitting results to peer-review. what part of NOT INTERESTED don't you understand? At the most, he has failed to meet YOUR requirements. so what, he also never agreed to your requirements. He leaves it up to his customers, and if they are too stupid to determine whether the E-Cat is producing the claimed energy amplification, then that's their problem. A fool and his money. or they will have a head start in what will be the most interesting race to profitability in the history of the planet! -m
[Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream?
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.comwrote: Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream? Perpetual motion fits the first question. There are adherents to it that will claim it has not been debunked, and that's been centuries. There are a lot of medical claims that would also fit. Homeopathy, (straight) chiropractic, acupuncture, the vaccine-autism connection, psychic healing, or any paranormal phenomena. None of these are accepted by mainstream science, but will probably never be debunked to the satisfaction of their adherents. I have posed the latter is a question frequently, albeit qualified, and without a good response. There are some examples of theories or phenomena that took decades to be accepted, but not small-scale, bench-top type experiments. Examples include Wegener's continental drift, maybe black holes, and Lawrence cited a dinosaur theory. These are in fields that give up data greedily. The closest example of a small-scale theory that I have seen is Semmelweis's disinfection (hand-washing), which was ridiculed for a long time. But you have to go back 150 years for that example. I think most phenomena (especially in the physical sciences) that can be tested on a bench top, and that turn out to be real, were accepted pretty quickly. And revolutionary theories to explain a lot of well-established experimental results, like relativity and quantum mechanics were accepted almost as quickly as they were proposed. QM took time to be developed of course, but who could doubt that Bohr was on to something when quantization of the angular momentum reproduced the empirically determined Rydberg formula for atomic spectra? Rothwell likes to list various technologies that took time to develop, like the transistor and the laser (which did see some skepticism), but none of his favorite examples are anything close to case of cold fusion where the concept is rejected out of hand by the mainstream for 20 years. This year's nobel prize in chemistry represents another case of skepticism proved wrong. Shechtman's proposed quasicrystals were ridiculed (most vociferously by Linus Pauling who said there were no quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists), and he was kicked out of his research group. But the derision lasted only a couple of years, and he was published in PRL, at the height of it, and began getting awards soon after, culminating, in less than 20 years, in the nobel prize. Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they crave them. Fame, glory, funding, and adoration come to those who make breakthroughs, not those who add decimal places. The problem is, the revolutionary science has to be right...
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
There is an example that is interesting. Gravitational wave detection. As a practical field was created more than 40 years ago and no detection has been done yet. The theoretical prediction of gravitational waves by Einstein happened about 90 years ago. He claimed it was an interesting theoretical prediction but humankind would not ever be able to detect gravitational waves. A sociologist wrote a book on this field of science because it has been around for so long without a positive detection. Giovanni On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.comwrote: Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without being properly debunked? Are there any examples of new science remaining on the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream?
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On 16 December 2011 02:47, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they crave them. Fame, glory, funding, and adoration come to those who make breakthroughs, not those who add decimal places. The problem is, the revolutionary science has to be right... I think that the new superluminal neutrino finding was the best possible example, how fast revolutionary claims are accepted. And it was taken very joyfully by the scientific community, because they are eager to see new things. Of course there were some grey heads from the last century, even some Nobel laureates, who opposed the finding, because they believe that Einstein is the Truth, but they are very minority among scientist. (Although sometimes they are loud) I think that the nicest thing with this is, that we can rewrite many scifi books, because superluminal travelling is after all possible. And we do not need to invent silly fairy tales about Einstein-Rosen bridges (E.g. Carl Sagan in 'Contact'). –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On 16 December 2011 02:56, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: There is an example that is interesting. Gravitational wave detection. This is also sad thing. Because once we had to chance to disprove Inflation theory once and for all by detecting gravitational wave signature of big bang with Lisa, Lisa was cancelled by Nasa. I just hate people, who are investing less than half of their wealth into big science projects. James Webb telescope is also delayed by a decade, and it is threatened to be cancelled. I hope that cold fusion will come into rescue and save Earth's space exploration projects from science-haters. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without being properly debunked? Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory, which may be real after all, and acupuncture and chiropractic, which seem to work. Are there any examples of new science remaining on the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream? Genetics, photography and semiconductors. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf Countless others, such as electric motors, incandescent lights and and calculators took decades to be developed. They were considered laboratory curiosities with no future and no practical value. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
No, that was not accepted very well at all. Only a small quantity of open minded theoretical physicists (most of them are considered fringe by the mainstream) are publishing papers just in case the phenomena exists but it will take a few more years to confirm it. 2011/12/15 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com On 16 December 2011 02:47, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they crave them. Fame, glory, funding, and adoration come to those who make breakthroughs, not those who add decimal places. The problem is, the revolutionary science has to be right... I think that the new superluminal neutrino finding was the best possible example, how fast revolutionary claims are accepted. And it was taken very joyfully by the scientific community, because they are eager to see new things. Of course there were some grey heads from the last century, even some Nobel laureates, who opposed the finding, because they believe that Einstein is the Truth, but they are very minority among scientist. (Although sometimes they are loud) I think that the nicest thing with this is, that we can rewrite many scifi books, because superluminal travelling is after all possible. And we do not need to invent silly fairy tales about Einstein-Rosen bridges (E.g. Carl Sagan in 'Contact'). –Jouni -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Well, there is a reason why neutrinos travel faster than light and not other particles. Starships are not made of neutrinos so even if the results would be proven to be right for neutrinos it would not apply to conventional matter. Giovanni On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: On 16 December 2011 02:47, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they crave them. Fame, glory, funding, and adoration come to those who make breakthroughs, not those who add decimal places. The problem is, the revolutionary science has to be right... I think that the new superluminal neutrino finding was the best possible example, how fast revolutionary claims are accepted. And it was taken very joyfully by the scientific community, because they are eager to see new things. Of course there were some grey heads from the last century, even some Nobel laureates, who opposed the finding, because they believe that Einstein is the Truth, but they are very minority among scientist. (Although sometimes they are loud) I think that the nicest thing with this is, that we can rewrite many scifi books, because superluminal travelling is after all possible. And we do not need to invent silly fairy tales about Einstein-Rosen bridges (E.g. Carl Sagan in 'Contact'). –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Joshua Cude wrote: Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they crave them. This is complete bullshit. Most scientists neither fear nor celebrate disruptive experiments. They do not give a damn how disruptive a result is, or how much it appears to violate theory. They care about one thing, and one thing only: FUNDING. Money. Status. Power. As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe. You can set up a project with no hope of success, no scientific value, and which is a fantastic waste of money, such as Star Wars or plasma fusion. Scientist will flock to join. They will swear they believe in it. You can present theories with no basis, no means of verification, and no possible use, such as string theory. They will publish happily, and award prizes. The scientific validity and the degree of novelty has nothing to do with resistance to a new idea. The only metric that matters is moola. The least practical ideas often meet no resistance because no one is already being paid to do them. If the plasma fusion people had not been around in 1989, we would have cold-fusion powered aircraft by now. The only reason there was resistance, and continues to be, is because those people are making 6-figures for screwing the taxpayers, and they do not want the gravy train to stop. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On 16 December 2011 03:22, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Well, there is a reason why neutrinos travel faster than light and not other particles. Starships are not made of neutrinos so even if the results would be proven to be right for neutrinos it would not apply to conventional matter. Of course it allows us starships. That is because neutrino finding falsifies the principle of relativity (»The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.») and thus allows us superluminal starships. That is because neutrino finding verifies the Lorentz's theory of relativity where Earth's gravity field is the fixed frame of reference and thus causes the time dilation. This means that if we create strong artificial gravity field, we can shield starship from time dilatation. And thus we have easy theoretical principle for warp drive. And science fiction is now on easy! This is all because superluminal neutrinos makes theoretically possible! –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Geocentrism took over 1000 years to debunk. The Law of CoE might take as long to debunk. Harry On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without being properly debunked? Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory, which may be real after all, and acupuncture and chiropractic, which seem to work. Are there any examples of new science remaining on the fringe for 20 years before being finally accepted into the mainstream? Genetics, photography and semiconductors. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf Countless others, such as electric motors, incandescent lights and and calculators took decades to be developed. They were considered laboratory curiosities with no future and no practical value. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without being properly debunked? Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory, which may be real after all You'd better hope it's not, says the water in my toilet, the water in the sewers, the water exposed to toxic metals in mines, and the water used to clean slaughter houses, after accidents, in mortuaries and infectious disease labs... do I really need to continue? and acupuncture Acupuncture is a real intervention in which needles are stuck into people. I'd expect it to have some effect yet after millenia of use, nobody is sure what it does much less why. And all the classical stuff about Yin and Yang and meridians which antedates modern medicine is nothing but nonsense. Some people may get mild pain relief from it. It's claims to provide surgical anesthesia are probably based on bad experiments or fraud. and chiropractic, which seem to work. Chiropractic manipulation done very cautiously and gently may make people feel a bit better from minor muscle spams, aches and pains. The theory of chiropractic, namely that disease is caused by misalignment of the spine, is absurd. Nor can manipulation change the alignment of the spine which is held in place by steel-strong ligaments. Experiments in cadavers verify that manipulation would have to tear off your head to reach the strength required to do what chiropractors claim.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: Contrary to popular argument, science actually celebrates novelty and revolution, and scientists are not afraid of disruptive experiments; they crave them. This is complete bullshit. Most scientists neither fear nor celebrate disruptive experiments. They do not give a damn how disruptive a result is, or how much it appears to violate theory. They care about one thing, and one thing only: FUNDING. Money. Status. Power. As Stan Szpak says, scientists believe whatever you pay them to believe. Nice broad brush indictment which is mostly wrong. Consider Jonas Salk as an example -- he gave the world the Salk polio vaccine without royalties and without a patent. He went on to be immensely successful simply because he was a great man, a superb scientist, an accomplished scholar, and a humanitarian. There are many like him. Maybe not enough but many. If the plasma fusion people had not been around in 1989, we would have cold-fusion powered aircraft by now. The only reason there was resistance, and continues to be, is because those people are making 6-figures for screwing the taxpayers, and they do not want the gravy train to stop. The main reason there are no cold fusion powered aircraft is because when you ask for a robust demonstration that runs a long time, you get referred to papers that are hard to read and understand, even with related backgrounds, and don't really answer the key questions of measurement reliability and data quality. Instead of a gadget on a desktop that anyone can test, you get complex coordinate graphs with unclear labels done by poorly specified methods and not replicated by independent others. At least that's most of what I've seen before I stopped reading.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
It is not that simple. Relativity would not be completely dismissed by these superluminal results. We don't know yet what is going on exactly. SR and GR have been proven right in many instances and for large parameter spaces. Giovanni On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: On 16 December 2011 03:22, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: Well, there is a reason why neutrinos travel faster than light and not other particles. Starships are not made of neutrinos so even if the results would be proven to be right for neutrinos it would not apply to conventional matter. Of course it allows us starships. That is because neutrino finding falsifies the principle of relativity (»The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.») and thus allows us superluminal starships. That is because neutrino finding verifies the Lorentz's theory of relativity where Earth's gravity field is the fixed frame of reference and thus causes the time dilation. This means that if we create strong artificial gravity field, we can shield starship from time dilatation. And thus we have easy theoretical principle for warp drive. And science fiction is now on easy! This is all because superluminal neutrinos makes theoretically possible! –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On 16 December 2011 03:39, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: It is not that simple. Relativity would not be completely dismissed by these superluminal results. We don't know yet what is going on exactly. SR and GR have been proven right in many instances and for large parameter spaces. No, There is not even single empirical observation that would differentiate Lorentz theory of relativity from Einstein's special theory of relativity. Both of the are deeply verified, therefore either one of the is the right theory. There is no doubt about that. But this is the first empirical finding that can draw the line between, where Einstein fails and Lorentz prevails. General relativity is of course deeply verified in solar system scale that it works fine. Although it may be wrong in galactic scale due to quantum anomaly of space accumulated in long distances, thus Newton's inverse square law fails. General relativity has nothing to do with special relativity, but it is just a refined version of Newton's gravity theory. As general relativity is an Aether theory, it will welcome Lorentz's theory of relativity, because it is also an Aether theory. Also what is very important to understand, that when you do relativistic quantum mechanics, e.g. you are calculating muon's flight paths, you actually do not use Einstein special relativity for corrections, but you are actually using Lorentz's relativity. Usually just Einstein is credited for inventing relativity, although all the credit should go to Lorentz. –Jouni Ps. it is somewhat ironical, that we remember Lorentz from Lorentz contraction, but contraction is probably wrong idea. Theory does not necessarily require contraction, only that in different frame of references observers measures different value for speed of light due to time dilatation. This way interpreted, there is no need for contraction of spatial dimensions.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
You have to assume something funny about the mass of the neutrino no matter what even in Lorentz theory. You would still need infinite amounts of energy for a massive object to reach the speed of light. I don't see how switching to Lorentz theory would help to make a massive body going faster than light. Giovanni On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: On 16 December 2011 03:39, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: It is not that simple. Relativity would not be completely dismissed by these superluminal results. We don't know yet what is going on exactly. SR and GR have been proven right in many instances and for large parameter spaces. No, There is not even single empirical observation that would differentiate Lorentz theory of relativity from Einstein's special theory of relativity. Both of the are deeply verified, therefore either one of the is the right theory. There is no doubt about that. But this is the first empirical finding that can draw the line between, where Einstein fails and Lorentz prevails. General relativity is of course deeply verified in solar system scale that it works fine. Although it may be wrong in galactic scale due to quantum anomaly of space accumulated in long distances, thus Newton's inverse square law fails. General relativity has nothing to do with special relativity, but it is just a refined version of Newton's gravity theory. As general relativity is an Aether theory, it will welcome Lorentz's theory of relativity, because it is also an Aether theory. Also what is very important to understand, that when you do relativistic quantum mechanics, e.g. you are calculating muon's flight paths, you actually do not use Einstein special relativity for corrections, but you are actually using Lorentz's relativity. Usually just Einstein is credited for inventing relativity, although all the credit should go to Lorentz. –Jouni Ps. it is somewhat ironical, that we remember Lorentz from Lorentz contraction, but contraction is probably wrong idea. Theory does not necessarily require contraction, only that in different frame of references observers measures different value for speed of light due to time dilatation. This way interpreted, there is no need for contraction of spatial dimensions.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On 16 December 2011 04:15, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see how switching to Lorentz theory would help to make a massive body going faster than light. I am sorry if you have trouble with the eye sight. This why it is more important to ask, why we have such a cosmic speed limit. Special relativity does it all the wrong way, because it assumes a priori that we have cosmic speed limit, but it explicitly forbids anyone for seeking answer why we seem to have such an apparent speed limit. But I think that understanding such deep philosophical aspects of the theory is too hard for many. Lorentz's theory of relativity however explains that we have speed limit, because matter interacts with gravity field. And causes it to slow down, or in the case of muon, it's clock is slowing down, what is essentially the same thing. This is also the reason, why we must always think causal reasons behind laws. And we should never accept anything in a priori axiomatic level. –Jouni PS. Mathematics and reality has nothing to do with each other, therefore there are no such thing as infinities in real world.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: You'd better hope it's not, says the water in my toilet, the water in the sewers, the water exposed to toxic metals in mines, and the water used to clean slaughter houses, after accidents, in mortuaries and infectious disease labs... do I really need to continue? Indeed, homeopathy implies that the detoxification of water invloves more than simply removing the material contaminants. Conventional water treatment might make the water safe to drink, but from the standpoint of homeopathy the water might need to undergo further reconditioning before it is good to drink. Chiropractic manipulation done very cautiously and gently may make people feel a bit better from minor muscle spams, aches and pains. The theory of chiropractic, namely that disease is caused by misalignment of the spine, is absurd. Nor can manipulation change the alignment of the spine which is held in place by steel-strong ligaments. Experiments in cadavers verify that manipulation would have to tear off your head to reach the strength required to do what chiropractors claim. The assumption here is that cadavers provide an accurate model of the living. Wouldn't catscans or MRI's of the living be a better way to test the claims? harry
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
I don't follow. Sorry if the neutrinos results are true we need to admit the violation of Lorentz-invariance is possible. How your creation of strong artificial fields would do that? How neutrinos accomplish the same? Can you explain? Giovanni On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: On 16 December 2011 04:15, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see how switching to Lorentz theory would help to make a massive body going faster than light. I am sorry if you have trouble with the eye sight. This why it is more important to ask, why we have such a cosmic speed limit. Special relativity does it all the wrong way, because it assumes a priori that we have cosmic speed limit, but it explicitly forbids anyone for seeking answer why we seem to have such an apparent speed limit. But I think that understanding such deep philosophical aspects of the theory is too hard for many. Lorentz's theory of relativity however explains that we have speed limit, because matter interacts with gravity field. And causes it to slow down, or in the case of muon, it's clock is slowing down, what is essentially the same thing. This is also the reason, why we must always think causal reasons behind laws. And we should never accept anything in a priori axiomatic level. –Jouni PS. Mathematics and reality has nothing to do with each other, therefore there are no such thing as infinities in real world.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On 11-12-15 08:33 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any examples of pathological science persisting 20 years without being properly debunked? Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like water memory, which may be real after all You'd better hope it's not, says the water in my toilet, the water in the sewers, the water exposed to toxic metals in mines, and the water used to clean slaughter houses, after accidents, in mortuaries and infectious disease labs... do I really need to continue? and acupuncture Acupuncture is a real intervention in which needles are stuck into people. I'd expect it to have some effect yet after millenia of use, nobody is sure what it does much less why. Probably because the endorphin system was unknown until relatively recently, and traditional practitioners of Chinese medicine are still largely ignorant of the theory which would let them understand what they do. (I mean, they use acupuncture, which pretty clearly works for at least some stuff, and at the same time they prescribe reindeer antlers for fertility problems, 'cause they're long and pointy ... mixing plausible folk medicine with sympathetic magic, the ones I've encountered are not strong on theory.) The meridian nonsense is no doubt just that, but for inflammation relief there appears to be little question that acupuncture does something quite useful -- just as onions and garlic on a sore back may relieve the ache. It's not magic, it's just NSAIDs that don't happen to come from a drug company. And all the classical stuff about Yin and Yang and meridians which antedates modern medicine is nothing but nonsense. Yeah. For sure. Some people may get mild pain relief from it. It's claims to provide surgical anesthesia are probably based on bad experiments or fraud. and chiropractic, which seem to work. Chiropractic manipulation done very cautiously and gently may make people feel a bit better from minor muscle spams, aches and pains. My understanding is that it's been approved in the U.S. in large part because it works better than allopathic medicine when treating muscle and joint injuries. (Of course, given what most conventional doctors know about treating muscle and joint injuries, it's quite possible that doing nothing at all would typically work better.) The theory of chiropractic, namely that disease is caused by misalignment of the spine, is absurd. No argument there. Nor can manipulation change the alignment of the spine which is held in place by steel-strong ligaments. Experiments in cadavers verify that manipulation would have to tear off your head to reach the strength required to do what chiropractors claim. Were those experiments done *before* or *after* onset of rigor mortis? Just wondering...
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: ** Were those experiments done *before* or *after* onset of rigor mortis? Fresh cadavers-- and it was quite a while ago for the study I remember. As to MRI and CT studies of the same phenomenon, I'm pretty sure they've been done but I have not looked for them. Chiropractors also abuse and misuse and misinterpret and take inferior X-rays. I am not convinced chiropractic as practiced now should be legal. I once encountered a woman who had delayed breast cancer treatment because she had bone pain from metastasis and a chiropractor had treated it as a back sprain. A medical doctor would have been more likely to have done the right tests and made the right diagnosis because most will do a complete exam at least once with a new patient or a serious new complaint.
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
On Dec 15, 2011, at 4:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: The only metric that matters is moola. A memorable phrase with catchy alliteration. Many applications too. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:CF as a historical phenomenon
Abraham H. Maslow (1962), *Toward a Psychology of Being*: *I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.* On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: ** Were those experiments done *before* or *after* onset of rigor mortis? Fresh cadavers-- and it was quite a while ago for the study I remember. As to MRI and CT studies of the same phenomenon, I'm pretty sure they've been done but I have not looked for them. Chiropractors also abuse and misuse and misinterpret and take inferior X-rays. I am not convinced chiropractic as practiced now should be legal. I once encountered a woman who had delayed breast cancer treatment because she had bone pain from metastasis and a chiropractor had treated it as a back sprain. A medical doctor would have been more likely to have done the right tests and made the right diagnosis because most will do a complete exam at least once with a new patient or a serious new complaint.
