I agree with Joshua well explained arguments. In particular I don't believe for a second that there is a overall scientist conspiracy against LENR. Maybe some strong skepticism due to the past of the field and the nature of the claims made that go beyond known physics but not outright close mindedness.
As I said, nobody would be believe a claim of gravitational wave detection unless it was triple checked, present in multiple detectors and verified by different groups and maybe coincidental electromagnetic counterpart (a supernova explosion, gamma ray burst and so on). And we are not talking about a humanity saving device here but a pretty subtle astrophysical phenomenon. There have been people claiming possible applications for gravitational waves (the speculative high frequency type) but while theoretically possible until I see a working gravitational wave cell phone I would consider this aspect of gravitational wave science belonging to the fringe together with LENR and other very speculative scientific enterprises. Giovanni On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> I didn't say that being reproducible by amateurs would be the only way I >>> would take LENR seriously. >>> Multiple tests done by respectable scientists, with high sigmas, and >>> blind methods would be acceptable. >>> >> >> This has been done for 22 years. High sigma data has been reported by >> hundreds of researchers. >> > > You've often said that Rossi's results are the best so far, and most > people don't even believe Rossi's results, so that says that all the > previous results are even less convincing. > > >> If any other claim were so widely replicated with so much high-sigma >> data, every scientist on Earth would believe it. They would be no >> controversy. This is only controversial because it is cold fusion, and >> people ignore the usual standards of science and invent countless reasons >> to deny the facts. >> > > > And what is it about cold fusion that it gets treated differently from > every other claim? The fact that no one wants cheap, clean, and abundant > energy? > > The response in 1989 proves that everyone is desperate for what cold > fusion claims to offer. The experiments all over the world, the standing > ovations for Pons, the crowded theaters, the front-page coverage, all show > that the world would love nothing more than for the cold fusion claims to > be valid. They just didn't hold up to scrutiny. And there is no other claim > with similar dubious and marginal results that have been widely accepted as > valid. At least not claims that stood the test of time. > > > > > > > > >> That is what you are doing, now. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
