On Mar 21, 2013, at 4:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
As you note, ultracold neutrons are an old and respected niche of
physics - and these known cold neutrons are easily detectable and
bear not the slightest resemblance to the W-L concoction – which
IMHO is almost in the category of brain-dead.
I think this feeling about the W-L theory is widespread, which
explains the animosity towards it. Most other theories are more
plausible and therefore not the target of such comments.
Perhaps there is some measure of professional jealousy as well,
because the W-L theory has garnered so much mass media attention,
and attention from places such as NASA.
Perhaps jealousy fuels some rejection, but in my case the problem is
different. A person trained in science at the Ph.D. level has a basic
understanding about how Nature behaves. The W-L theory violates this
understanding in several important ways. These violations have no
relationship to how skeptics view CF. The violations result from
conflict with logic and basic behavior. When people trained in
physics state that they think the theory is correct, a person has to
wonder why. Did these people not obtain conventional training? Are
these people unable to recognize flawed logic? These deficiencies are
expected in untrained people, but how can they exist at NASA?
Furthermore, when the challenges to the theory go unanswered, why
would a serious scientist continue to claim it explains anything? A
person has to question the effectiveness of the scientific method in
this case.
Ed
- Jed
