On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Great crowds of people, including many scientists, opposed Edison, the > Wrights, > People were skeptical of the Wrights, they did not "oppose" them. And they certainly didn't oppose powered flight. > the laser, > There were no crowds of people who opposed the laser. A few academics were briefly skeptical, and the department head frowned on the research. One of those briefly skeptical was von Neumann, but he was convinced over a beer. > the telegraph, the telephone, > Crowds of opposition? Really? > Semmelweis's method of reducing disease, the germ theory, > This is, I think, the best example you have of a theory actively rejected by much of the mainstream for an extended period. But you have to go back 150 years for it. And it is very much the exception. None of your other examples are at all similar to cold fusion. > evolution, > religious objections; don't apply to cold fusion > the MRI, and just about every other major breakthrough. > What about the 2 biggest breakthroughs in physics in the last century (or for all time maybe)? Relativity and quantum mechanics were both accepted almost immediately, even though they were in direct violation of classical theories. > They didn't just oppose these things; they were livid with anger at them. > Livid with anger about the laser, the telephone, MRI, Edison? Can you provide some quotes? > They worked tirelessly to prevent them. Without a shred of proof, they > ranted and raved that the discoverer is a fraud. > Who ranted and raved that Edison was a fraud? If a large group of people, especially scientists, make a good living > researching or selling a rival technology, there will be strong opposition. > This is cold fusion's favorite excuse for not making any progress in 20 years, but it's just not true. Most scientists earn university salaries, and they can shift their research with the wind. In fact, if cold fusion were right, there would be a lot to do for people trained in nuclear physics. The number of people directly involved in hot fusion research is pretty small, and they have little or no influence over the rest of scientists. And if they really believed cold fusion had merit, they wouldn't be so naive to think they could suppress it indefinitely. Pons & Fleischmann's research budget skyrocketed after they went public. They had their own lab in France, and more funding than either of them had had before, and they still made no progress. And for the few that would temporarily lose as a result of cold fusion's success, the vast majority of people, including scientists would benefit enormously. Why would they be complicit in such a suppression. No, this is nothing more than a cold fusion fantasy. All physicists were making a good living researching classical physics when relativity and quantum mechanics came along. They did not oppose it. They got involved, changed their research, made contributions, and many became famous. > No one was invested in anything like the x-ray in 1895, so it sailed > through without opposition. A century later, many people were selling > x-rays machines, so they pulled out the stops to prevent the MRI. > Could you provide a reference to the history of MRI that describes opposition from x-ray researchers. I am not familiar with that. In every example you look at, this is about money and political power. > Nothing else. > But cold fusion would make everyone *richer*, and solidify many developed countries political power, by making them less dependent on the middle east for oil. Just like the industrial revolution raised the standard of living for everyone. If it's about money and power, cold fusion, if real, would be embraced by western governments. If you think a few eggheads could prevent something like that to preserve research grants, that they can't even use to buy sports cars, you're sadly mistaken. There is one overriding metric (notwithstanding religious influence) that determines whether a technology is quickly accepted or not. Evidence. The better the evidence, the faster the acceptance. Relativity had it. Quantum mechanics had it. X-rays had it. Hand-washing, probably not as strong. Superconductivity has it. N-rays didn't have it. Polywater didn't have it. Homeopathy doesn't have it. Evidence for continental drift was initially weak, and only accepted when it became much stronger. Likewise for black holes. Rossi does not have the evidence. That's why people are still skeptical. If he heated an olympic pool to boiling with a 30 kg ecat disconnected from the mains, no one would care if it violated theory. He's be catapulted to fame overnight. > The plasma fusion program is the locus of opposition to cold fusion. > But the most famous debunkers were not plasma fusion researchers. Nathan Lewis is a chemist. Steven Koonin was not a plasma fusion researcher, and he probably gave the most dramatically crushing talk, when he called P&F deluded or incompetent or both. Seaborg is a chemist. Which plasma fusion scientists are you thinking of? Swarms of other people join in because they enjoy attacking people, or > because they hate and fear any change, or any challenge to their world > view. > Scientists become scientists because they love and embrace change, and love to challenge the current world view. That's why awards in science, selected *by* scientists, are given to scientists who discover *new* things, not those who fear them; they are given to scientists who bring about change, not those who prevent it. The most famous and honored scientists are those who brought revolutions in thought and practice.
