On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote:
> > The key that something was really off was, though, that he'd make sweeping > statements that were clearly false, such as no peer-reviewed confirmation of > heat/helium after Miles in 1993. I cited the counter-examples. > > If those had been errors, I'd think he'd have pinned those, too. Perhaps > what I thought was peer-reviewed wasn't. [...] > > In any case, Cude did not respond to that, but simply continued to make the > original assertion. I did respond. Twice now. I concede the 1994 references, but that doesn't change the point. The only other refereed papers were from Arata, which I think showed helium but not quantitative correlation, and in any case did not represent enough of a confirmation for Storms to use their data in his calculation of energy per atom. All the rest of your references were conference proceedings or the Sourcebook, which is clearly not a peer-reviewed journal. So if I have to modify my statement, it would be that since 1994, no peer-reviewed confirmation has been regarded by Storms as quantitatively meaningful. Hardly weakened, I would say.
