On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Randy wuller <rwul...@freeark.com> wrote:
> ** > What he can't explain is why anyone would run around the internet trying > to stop people from investigating a phenomenon. > I think cold fusion is a pipe dream, and I like people to agree with me. You can't seriously be unaware that all manner of trivial subjects are argued with equal or greater passion on the internet. The simple truth is that good argument can be invigorating. > It makes no sense and is probably a symptom of the very negative period (I > would describe it as the age of pessimism) we find ourselves living > through. > Other than in the field of cold fusion, progress in science has continues apace. Shechtman (who should be sensitive to inertia in science because his discovery of quasicrystals was ridiculed by Pauling) identified 3 surprising discoveries on the structure of matter in the 80s: quasi-crystals, fullerenes, and high temperature superconductivity. Conspicuously absent: cold fusion, which would be the most surprising of all. > When the pendulum shifts > pendulums swing, they don't shift > and we enter an optimistic age, everything will seem possible and as such > being for something will be much more productive (it always is) than being > against something. > Everything? It will be much more productive to be for perpetual motion research? You will find a lot less Cude's running around, thank goodness. > > I don't know. Skepticism of cold fusion seems to pretty common among the very best physicists. What has a cold fusion true believer done for the world lately? > Personally, while he is obviously bright, Cude's position is just about > the dumbest fool thing I have ever read. > > But shared by a lot of smart people like Gell-Mann. > > In answer to your question, of course we should investigate a phenomenon > of the significance of Cold Fusion even if the chance of it being real is > miniscule. > Our main difference is in the magnitude assigned to miniscule. > I also think it is absurd to believe we have an adequate understanding > of physics today to rule it out. > There is a reason lawyers are not consulted about the adequacy of current physics understanding.
