At 10:27 AM 10/1/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Sep 30, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Really, did Storms (2007) actually have to mention spontaneous
human combustion? It was speculation upon speculation. (p. 142.) He
does have much more reason to discuss Mills, and he does it in
quite some depth. For some unknown reason, the more extensive
discussion (p. 184-186) is missing from the index; he actually
gives much more ink to Mills than to any other proposed explanations.
I think spontaneous human combustion (SHC) is worthy of consideration
in relation to cold fusion because (a) there is solid evidence it
exists and (b) it may provide clues as to how to achieve a robust
free or nuclear energy process in a chemical environment.
What I don't see is any evidence *at all* that a nuclear effect is
operating with SHC, even if I were to accept that "there is solid
evidence it exists." What's "it"? That's one of the problems with
anecdotal evidence. I don't believe cold fusion is real because of
occasional meltdowns. Those are adequate to convince those who
witnessed them and those inclined to believe those reports, but not
to rule out and eliminate that routine cause of a great deal of our
experience: "Unexplained."
"Unexplained" never proves any explanation.
This has
been discussed in this forum in past years. A summary of my comments
here is provided at:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/SHC.pdf
I'm like most people, indeed "most people" are like "most people," by
definition! If the first paragraphs of a document don't lead me
somewhere I want to go, if they don't establish rapport, I'm not
likely to read the rest unless some agenda takes me to it.
SHC isn't simple wicking, that's obvious; if it were, exposing the
body to enough heat, any part of it, would then cause combustion of
the whole. Some unusual precondition would have to exist; therefore
the experiment with a "large ham" would normally fail and it would
mean nothing about SHC.
Quite simply, as far as I can see, we don't know nearly enough about
SHC to even develop a theory. The reports are all over the map.
*Some* reports have *some* consistencies. So far, there isn't enough
basis for the scientific method to operate on theories, not even the
theory that SHC exists other than as a rough classification of a set
of phenomena, much less a theory that NAE is involved.
But, hey, this is Vortex-L. I didn't see, in that paper, any reason
why I should personally look into SHC, nothing where I could expect
anything but a large set of dead ends, mystery upon mystery. I like
my mysteries in small packages, not large unorganized ones. Except,
of course, for the mystery of mysteries: consciousness. Descartes was
wrong: that I think does not prove that I exist, the more accurate
observation is "Thinking, therefore thinking exists." There are
mysteries that I do not expect to be resolved and understood, ever.
