JoJo, Jed is correct, experimental data and the models based upon them can be incorrect, just like weather and climate data and models.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> It took me some time to find it but here are some: >> >> >> 1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, >> pp634-637 >> >> 2. Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6, >> Sept-Oct `971 p.211 >> >> 3. Shells from Living snails dated 27,000 years old - Science Vol 224, >> 1984 p58-61 >> > > You can find problems with any instrument or any experimental technique. > Any instrument has limitations. Any instrument can be used incorrectly. I > have seen thermocouples register room temperature as hundreds of degrees. > The Defkalion setup registered a flow rate when the flow was zero. Some > types of mass spectrometers show complete nonsense when the sample does not > conduct electricity, or when it is made up of small particles not in good > contact with one another. > > Even the tools used in industry and in critical control applications > sometimes produce false data. That is why Air France flight 447 fell out of > the sky and crashed in the Atlantic. No instrument is perfect. > > This is why experimental findings have to be independently replicated > before we can be sure they are real. > > What you are describing will not surprise anyone familiar with science and > technology, or for that matter anyone who know how to cook, drive a car, or > use of a blood pressure monitor. Blood pressure monitors often come up with > wild readings, completely off the scale, for no apparent reason. You ignore > these readings and try again. You seem to be concluding that because > instruments sometimes fail to work, we can never believe them, and we > should dismiss all the findings from them. I do not think you would say > that no one can measure blood pressure, so we should ignore a diagnosis of > hypertension. You would not say that because on rare occasions automobile > speedometers fail, we should not have speed limits, and everyone should > drive as fast as they like. > > The fact that carbon dating sometimes fails with some types of samples, in > the hands of some people, does not mean that carbon dating never works or > that it is meaningless. This means that archaeologists have be careful when > they do carbon dating. They have to run some samples twice; they have to > run some samples with known ages; and they have someone else do an > independent reading on some samples. Every cold fusion experiment I have > investigated was checked independently by several others, for similar > reasons. > > - Jed > >
