What a bunch of horse shit. I'm so sorry I went to follow up, and it's like being a Dem shouted down at a Tea party rally. Example quote: "Alas, those are ideal conditions for crackpots to flourish". I'm not much of a debater, but what do you say to that? If you ever study logic, this statement is load. It's a statement of what the author is basing her article upon, and then trying to prove it.
NOT ONE WORD OF WHAT THE AUTHOR SAYS HAS ANY SCIENTIFIC BACKING BEHIND IT! Not a single counter claim was made that refutes what Jed has argued for, nor has any specific example been shown to fault the science. I challenge the skeptics to find a paper in the Library found on LENR.org archived in the past 5 year that is falsified, plagiarized or otherwise deceitful in respect to the reported effects. If there is even one paper you can sight with an arguable science behind it (I mean like poltergiest or some BS like that), lets hear about it. Here is the problem with the skeptics, in physics there is an imaginary barrier between EM and quantum mechanics and the sub-atomic world of nuclei, the quark worlds of neutrons an protons. That barrier only exists in the mass, charge and color of QM equations. So while color is very... very ... short range, it can not be excluded in condensed matter QM! Just like Nature did a hatchet job on F&P, SciAm seems to have done the same hack job; 20+ years later. On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > Ah, Ouellette deleted Yugo's copy as well. > > Good grief! > > - Jed > >
