Harry Veeder wrote: >Right. And that is a weird idea! It is axiomatic that you cannot prove > something is impossible, only that it is possible. > > Couldn't you say the amount of excess heat "proves" it is impossible to be > chemical in origin? >
I guess I should have said 'you cannot prove something does not exist, only that it exists.' Or that something can happen. Some things appear to be ruled out by fundamental physics, such as a person who can jump over tall buildings. But if you see someone do that, you would have to admit it can happen after all. And once you see it happen repeatedly, with no tricks, you cannot "un-see" it. Once something is firmly established nothing can disprove it. As I said in the first message, it is hypothetically possible to disprove cold fusion but you have to overthrow a large amount of established science going back hundreds of years. There are some shortcuts, such as showing that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong, and that electrolysis cells can magically suck in energy from cooler surroundings, without measurably cooling things down even more. - Jed
