It's not that often that one can engage with someone who is demonstrably off by 4400 orders of magnitude. That's like saying a flea can fly fast enough to knock over an elephant. Oops, scratch that, the flea would need to be able to destroy 8 or 9 planets in a row. Well, actually, it's more like 50 planets, but what's a few orders of magnitude between friends?
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > I sincerely do not understand this collective exercise in masochism > based on discussion with a bravo as Joshua Cude. > He simply makes intentionally the error that considers CF's temporary > problems as a sign that. CF does not exist > Let's better concentrate on the problems of reproducibility and > upscalability > and if these cannot be solved in the Pd-D system then we have to solve > them in other systems.With Joshua we can build only parallel monologues not > a dialogue > > Peter > > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> Edmund Storms [email protected] >> via<http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&ctx=mail&answer=1311182> >> eskimo.com >> 7:48 AM (2 hours ago) >> to vortex-l >> >> Joshua, ...You argue that it is not real, but simply the result of many >> mistakes made repeatedly by many well trained scientists. >> >> ***In order to avoid a straw argument, I ask Joshua if you do argue >> this? If so, let's examine the mathematical possibility of so many >> positive results arriving by virtue of mistakes. >> >> I would estimate the chance of making a mistake that leads to positive >> result to be 1 in 4. You can use whatever estimate suits your fancy >> afterwards. That means 3 in 4 are genuine, mistake-free positive results, >> right? So let's be even more generous to the argument and make it 1 in 3. >> So if 3 independent labs generate positive results due to mistakes, it's 1 >> in 3^3 or 1 in 27 chance of happening. In my book, if there was a 1 in 10 >> chance of a professional scientist generating such errors, he should be >> fired; but that's just me. >> >> Since there have been more than 14,700 replications (see below), the >> chance of measuring errors or noise causing false positives in replication >> would be 1/3 ^ 14700, which is ~10^-5000 >> >> Perhaps you do not realize just how ignorant this statement is. The >> mathematical definition of Impossible is if something has a chance of >> 10^-50. Such a position is a whopping, gigantic, humungous four thousand >> Five Hundred and fifty ORDERS OF MAGnitude less than impossible. I tell >> you what, I’ll grant you 3 levels of impossible to be “conservative” with >> the numbers (which is about on the order of the number of molecules in the >> universe), that is 4400 orders of magnitude less than impossible. >> >> >> >> * >> https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com >> *<https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/8k5n17605m135n22/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=xwvgza45j4sqpe3wceul4dv2&sh=www.springerlink.com> >> >> >> >> >> Jing-tang He >> • Nuclear fusion inside condense matters >> • Frontiers of Physics in China >> Volume 2, Number 1, 96-102, DOI: 10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8 >> This article describes in detail the nuclear fusion inside condense >> matters—the Fleischmann-Pons effect, the reproducibility of cold fusions, >> self-consistency of cold fusions and the possible applications. >> >> >> >> Note that Jing-tang He found there were 14,700 replications of the >> Pons Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Effect. >> * >> http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22) >> *<http://www.boliven.com/publication/10.1007~s11467-007-0005-8?q=(%22David%20J.%20Nagel%22)> >> > > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
