Mark Iverson wrote:
"So, it looks to me like Naudin's playing games with his measurements.
His setup's interesting but I would hesitate to trust a single
measurement on that page."
You guys are pathetic... You're looking for any little discrepancy
in other people's work, and when
you find one, YOU IMMEDIATELY accuse the person of some conscious
attempt at fakery or nefarious
intentions.
I think you are wrong. Lawrence was not accusing Naudin of falsifying
data. He is only saying that Naudin substituted one graph for another
for reasons that are unclear. I will grant that "playing games"
sounds suspicious. He could have described it better. It reminds me
of the "climategate" scandal where someone referred to a legitimate
processing technique as a "trick." That's programmer jargon; don't
read too much into it. Melich pointed out that it tends to be
antisocial or even autistic, with expressions such as "abort the process."
More to the point, you should never trust one observation or dataset
from one experimentalist. Nothing is true until it is replicated.
Although I guess Naudin is a partial replication of the Steorn claim.
By the way, Lawrence should ask Naudin what he is up to. He is a very
friendly fellow.
- Jed
