On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint < zeropo...@charter.net> wrote:
> The END RESULT is brute force smashing things together… there is NO > resonance in that! That is, and always has been, my point. The actual > interaction of the particles is by brute force, NOT RESONANCE. > Collisions can be resonant too, but the goal of the experiments is energetic collisions, so accelerators use resonance to achieve the goal. And again, if you have an idea of how to produce exotic particles or probe the subatomic world in another way, I'm sure you'd find an audience. But if you just say "use resonance", you're gonna get ignored. ** ** > > JC writes:**** > > “And I maintain that you're saying resonance like a magician says abbra > cadabra. Without specifics, it's meaningless.”**** > > ** ** > > To answer this sad excuse for a rebuttal, the specifics comes from > proposing a hypothesis, and then following that hypothesis to see where it > leads and whether it could be reasonable from a physics perspective; and > then conducting experiments to test the hypothesis. > So, you've got nothin'. > Your attitude reeks of closed-minded, > theoretically-impossible-so-why-bother-even-thinking-about-it. We’d all be > living in caves and throwing spears with that attitude… > No. You have this the wrong way round. It's the cold fusion experiments that haven't changed significantly in 20 years. The rest of physics has moved on. I'm no more skeptical of cold fusion than the vast majority of scientists, and progress in science has kept pace since 1989. On the other hand, all the scientists who are not appropriately skeptical have made no progress at all. They're spinning their wheels. Zawodny's slides are an indication. He can't find a single definitive thing to say about the field. It's all sporadic detection of this and energy needed for that. Nothing is ever measured or identified consistently. The way science progresses is that knowledge already established is used as a guide. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. QM and relativity could not have been developed without carefully cataloged and reproduced experimental results, just as Newton needed Kepler and Braha. Skepticism is a critical filter in science. Planck himself made great contributions to physics, but it took him a decade to accept the idea of photons, a concept his ideas led to. Cold fusion advocates just throw everything out and say resonance glorp chumble spuzz and hope something works out. "Systematic" is not in their vocabulary. Nothing should be regarded as impossible, but if you give every idea equal probability of being right, you will get nowhere. Which is where cold fusion has gotten.
