[Vo]:Mark Gibbs - Forbes- on LENR January 20th blog
Greetings Vortex-l, Here is the latest from Mark Gibbs. http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/01/20/cold-fusion-theory-or-fact/ Perhaps, when advertisements are placed in Forbes for LENR devices, then they will accept the notion...that LENR ..might... work. mgi...@gibbs.com ..a Colleridge quote: Like a painted ship..upon a painted ocean. Ron Kita, Chiralex
Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs - Forbes- on LENR January 20th blog
Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here is the latest from Mark Gibbs. http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/01/20/cold-fusion-theory-or-fact/ This is the worst column he has written. He is a professional science writer yet he makes a hash of basic terminology! He does not understand the difference between an experimental observation, a hypothesis and a theory. He uses the word theory in the everyday language sense meaning hypothesis or vague possibility. Many ignorant people opposed to science make the same mistake. Creationists often say that the theory of evolution is only a theory meaning (in professional terms) it is only an unproven hypothesis. In the profession sense of the word there is nothing doubtful about major theories such as the atomic theory, the germ theory, special relativity, or evolution. These things are as well established as laws such as Newton's first law (inertia). I believe that is called a law because there is nothing below it. As far as I know, there is no deeper understanding of inertia yet. When it can be explained I guess it will become a theory of inertia. In his previous column, Gibbs wanted to know what is the difference between cold fusion and LENR. He was petulant about that, demanding to know the difference. I didn't bother posting a message telling him they mean the same thing. He knows how to reach me or anyone else in this field. He could read Nagel's introduction to the terms cold fusion LENR FP effect etc. He is putting on an act. A petulant, 3-year-old act: They won't tell me anything! Like Mary Yugo he reads nothing and then complains that no one tells him what he wants to know. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs - Forbes- on LENR January 20th blog
Gibbs seems utterly desperate to explain LENR away as just an unrepeatable anomaly and as usual Mary is one of the first to get the word scam in there somewhere. I find it curious how the noisy negativists get so over the top obsessed with ramming their opinions down everyone's throat. I can imagine them sitting at their PCs, literally foaming at the mouth while typing. You do wonder what sort of mindset you have to be in to dedicate your life to trying to kill off frontiers of research that could save this planet. That's a pretty dark set of values. From: Ron Kita [mailto:chiralex.k...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 23 January 2012 5:44 AM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs - Forbes- on LENR January 20th blog Greetings Vortex-l, Here is the latest from Mark Gibbs. http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/01/20/cold-fusion-theory-or-fact/ Perhaps, when advertisements are placed in Forbes for LENR devices, then they will accept the notion...that LENR ..might... work. mgi...@gibbs.com ..a Colleridge quote: Like a painted ship..upon a painted ocean. Ron Kita, Chiralex
Re: [Vo]:Mark Gibbs - Forbes- on LENR January 20th blog
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM, *** Craig Brown *** cr...@overunity.cowrote: Gibbs seems utterly desperate to explain LENR away as just an unrepeatable anomaly I'm not so sure. I would have guessed the opposite to be the case. In this instance he might be responding to pressure as a journalist to keep a professional distance from LENR and not become too associated with what has been called junk science. Perhaps he's worried about his credibility in the eyes of his readers or his editors. But in any event he does not appear to have taken the time to read the literature, or at some deeper level he doesn't take it seriously. There are multiple reports of reproducibility. and as usual “Mary” is one of the first to get the word “scam” in there somewhere. I find it curious how the noisy negativists get so over the top obsessed with ramming their opinions down everyone’s throat. In referring to people by name like this and in using this kind of language, no doubt out of an understandable wish to limit or prevent negativism, you're resorting to it yourself. I'm new to this forum and defer to those who have been here for years for direction on this kind of thing, but I think we should try to maintain a respectful tone.
