Jed, you are describing a gentleman that has supreme confidence in his knowledge of physics and believes that there can be nothing new under the sun. I consider this the height of ignorance that many attain in their lives to their detriment. Thanks God that he was not in charge of just about every other endeavor that has advanced knowledge. Where would electronics be had someone with that outlook held the purse strings?
In my experience, people with the attitude that you are suggesting are not capable of understanding new concepts since they waste most of their effort hiding their ignorance from the people around them. They dare not ask questions which might show weakness and they run from any challenge to their beliefs. What a waste of good organic material. Gibbs on the other hand should not be blamed too severely. In his case, it would be a major embarrassment to his career if he went out on a limb and declared LENR as real and later was found to be in error. He will most likely not change his position until a product is accessible and/or the main physicists acknowledge it is proven. He is acting in his best interest in this way although some of us may think it is shallow. Do you think that the investment world is frozen in a similar manner when new technologies emerge? Who is willing to be the first brave guy to take that step into the unknown and risk being labeled stupid? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 11:25 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gibbs does not understand that physics are empirical Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote: Why speculate that he would say something stupid like that? Because I have heard it countless times from Piel, Huizenga and Many Distinguished Scientists, including several of the ones on the 2004 DoE panel, and most of the Jasons. This is a widely held point of view. That does not mean that Gibbs holds it! Look, he said right here, in this forum, that he wants to see a "testable theory." He said that again, and again, and again. I pointed to the testable claim made by EPRI. A claim, not a theory. I pointed out that to an experimentalist, confirming that claim is as good as confirming a nuclear theory. Gibbs did not respond. I assume he is saying the same thing as I have heard from ten-thousand theorists since 1989: "We will not believe this until you show us a complete nuclear theory that we agree with." I assume he is parroting that point of view. Okay, so ahead and ask Gibbs what he meant. If I am wrong, he can say so. Also because that is what Gibbs is saying when he repeatedly demands a "testable theory." Had he "demanded a testable theory" you'd be right. It is right here!!! Here is an example: Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote: > Sure, there's lots of interesting experiments but is there a testable > theory? Maybe. The DoE may easily be in bed with the hot fusion projects, it was in 1989. So? Huizenga's book is *still* embarrassing, and is more and more visible that way. In recent years, Chu and many others have cited Huizenga and his book as proof that cold fusion does not exist. Most mainstream physicists agree with Huizenga completely, that cold fusion violates theory and it cannot possibly exist, and that all reported results are mistakes or fraud. I have heard that from HUNDREDS of leading scientists such as Chu. I am certain that is what they believe. I am also certain they have not read any papers on this subject. That is what they tell me. You may think the book is embarrassing. I think it is a hatchet job. However, Chu and others think it is the truth. But he was an old man, and, unfortunately, probably losing it. He wrote most of the book while conducting the ERAB panel investigation. It was published soon after ERAB was published. He was still at the peak of his intellectual power, and political power. He repeated the statements in the book many times, in person, and in letter to me and to others. What you saw with the Amoco situation would be how he responded when he couldn't understand what was happening. He'd flee. He understood perfectly what was happening. I am sure he did not think the results were real. I am pretty sure he thought: "Another damn fake result! More nonsense to contend with!" He did not say that. He refused to talk to the authors. But that is what other leading skeptics said, and I am sure he agreed. As for his statements about Miles in his book, he was posturing to make himself seem open minded. He never took those results seriously, or any of the similar helium results from Italy. He knew about those results, because he attended ICCF conferences. I think that was before the second edition of the book. He might have written about them or spoken about them any time. For that matter, he might have described the tritium from Bockris or Storms, or the excess heat results from McKubre. But he never said ONE WORD ABOUT ANY OF THAT. Not in his book, not in public, not in his letters. Never. He said only "it is all bunk" (to me). He did not talk about these results not because he wanted to hide the truth, or he was afraid he was wrong. Only because he was sure it was bunk, and he thought that even mentioning these results would confuse the issue and make some people imagine there might be something to cold fusion after all. He knew he was right. He was supremely confident of that. He saw it as his job to present the facts which proved he was right, and not to present any of the lies and nonsense published by McKubre and the others. That was his point of view, and he made it 100% clear to me and to many others. Steven Chu and many others have said the same thing, almost word for word. These people do not hide their opinions on this matter. - Jed
