Physics is a church whose piety is established by government funding. If you specialize in physics you must give up your intellectual independence to demonstrate your piety.
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Google Alerts alerted me to this: > > > http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43060/what-are-the-challenges-to-achieving-cold-fusion > > I decided to post a response. This turned out to be a waste of time. This > is yet another site run by anonymous trolls, like Wikipedia and the > Scientific American. The trolls delete anything they disagree with. I wish > these places would self-identify. A message at the top would be handy: > "ANYTHING WE DISAGREE WITH WILL BE ERASED -- THE MANAGEMENT." > > For the record, my messages are copied below. This is what I usually > write. Why anyone considers this controversial I cannot imagine. These > people are like that nutty women at Sci. Am. who thinks it is beyond the > pale to say: "Replicated, high sigma experiments are the only standard of > truth." > > Cold fusion has been suppressed. Not by powerful people at oil companies. > Not by evil people trying to preserve academic funding. No, it has been > suppressed by stupid people. Very Stupid People. > > "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." - Friedrich > Schiller > > > -3down vote > > Cold fusion has been replicated in over 200 major laboratories, often at > high signal to noise ratios. For example, tritium has been measured at > millions of times background. I have a collection of 1,200 peer-reviewed > journal papers on cold fusion, copied from the library at Los Alamos, and > 2,000 other papers published Los Alamos, China Lake, the NRL, Mitsubishi, > the NSF and various other mainstream organizations. This literature proves > beyond question that cold fusion is real. You will find the bibliography > and hundreds of full-text papers here: > > http://lenr-canr.org/ > share > <http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/43370/15649>editflag<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43060/what-are-the-challenges-to-achieving-cold-fusion#> > locked by Community <http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community>♦ > yesterday > deleted by Community <http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community> > ♦ yesterday > *Why was your post deleted?* See the > faq<http://physics.stackexchange.com/faq#deletion> > . > answered 2 days ago > <http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/15649/jed-rothwell> > Jed Rothwell <http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/15649/jed-rothwell> > 1 > 1 > Perhaps you'd like to declare your own connection to the site you're > advertising, Jed? – > EnergyNumbers<http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4066/energynumbers> > 2 days > ago<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43060/what-are-the-challenges-to-achieving-cold-fusion#comment89306_43370> > 1 > My name is listed on every page of the site, along with my address and > telephone number. So I do not think I need to "declare" anything. It is > hard to imagine how I could make it any more clear. – Jed > Rothwell<http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/15649/jed-rothwell> > 2 days > ago<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43060/what-are-the-challenges-to-achieving-cold-fusion#comment89309_43370> > > 1 > I see the people here are voting down the peer-reviewed experimental > literature in mainstream journals, in favor of Wikipedia. This is new-age > science. I am suggesting you should read papers by accredited, > distinguished scientists such as the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy > Commission, and the world's leading expert on tritium at the PPPL. Others > here think you should ignore this literature and read an article in > Wikipedia written by anonymous amateurs who name themselves after comic > book characters. – Jed > Rothwell<http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/15649/jed-rothwell> > 2 days > ago<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43060/what-are-the-challenges-to-achieving-cold-fusion#comment89310_43370> > > +1: your website is a godsend, and there is no way to thank you enough > for it. I was wondering if you read the answer I gave to the older cold > fusion question here: > physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3799/…<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3799/why-is-cold-fusion-considered-bogus> > . > I am pretty confident that this explains the phenomenon, but there might be > something more interesting regarding the deep energy levels that I missed. > The idea that the d atoms are fusing at 10s of KeVs, and making a chain > reaction through charged particle ionization I think is sure. – Ron > Maimon<http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4864/ron-maimon> > > yesterday<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43060/what-are-the-challenges-to-achieving-cold-fusion#comment89357_43370> >
