In a sense, the _scientific_ source of the cold fusion debacle was a
conflict over _interpretation_ of existing theory. When establishment
scientists repeated their catechisms that it flies in the face of theory,
not only were they denying the cardinal rule of science, which is that
theory is
At 09:01 AM 3/21/2012, James Bowery wrote:
In a sense, the _scientific_ source of the cold fusion debacle was a
conflict over _interpretation_ of existing theory. When
establishment scientists repeated their catechisms that it flies in
the face of theory, not only were they denying the
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
In the peer-reviewed journals, though, the debate, for now, is over. Cold
fusion survived. What's dead is the highly skeptical position.
I'm grateful cold fusion research has survived. But it seems like the
Physicists Simulate Strongly Correlated
Fermionshttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120318143936.htm
ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2012) — Combining known factors in a new way,
theoretical physicists Boris Svistunov and Nikolai Prokof'ev at the
University of Massachusetts Amherst, with three
Maybe they will discover my megahertz-meter relationship.
Frank
ensed matter and ultra-cold atoms.
5 matches
Mail list logo
