Stephen, > What makes you think they're "spinning" it, rather than merely looking for what seems the most likely explanation given what is currently known?
That is a bit idealistic, since there is a direct physical observation, and the spinners are trying to deny the validity of observation by imposing what is really an invention. That is not the way it should be done. Lightspeed and its limitation is a prop for the "standard model", and like CoE it has become an article of faith for many in the physics establishment. It analogous to the perpetual virginity of Mary for Roman Catholics, in a way. Rather than accept observation which is contrary to a cherished belief, at least as putative evidence which could be valid (but which would imply that the belief itself must be modified) it is far more comforting for some to invent a more complex rationale which preserves the belief. The standard model of physics, from the PoV of a few vorticians, is akin to the "religion-substitute" for many skeptics - who most often reflexively deny experimental findings in LENR based not on fact but on conviction ... just as with any disciple citing scripture. That model however, their book of dogma, can also be viewed as a fragile "house of cards" - with the speed of light limitation at the very foundation of that house ... and yes, admittedly, some of this sentiment really flows back from two decades of unwarranted skepticism towards LENR. That is the nature of spin, isn't it? What goes around, comes around. Jones
