plate tectonics evidence where overwhelming much before they were accepted. there was explanation for the moving mechanisme decades before.
all what happens is well described by thomas kuhn and nassim nicholas taleb. about unreliability if you were not illiterate you will know the result of ENEA published at ICCF15 that link reliability to crystallography, and make a strong correlation. or find many others papers... you can forget errors. errors dont correlate with crystallography, like He4 errors don't correlate with heat... anyway i don't hope you change your opinion, because as explain Benabou the more your delusion is attacked yo more violent are the defence, which is mostly refusing to open the eyes or the brain. one positive experiment is enough to validate the fact. that it is complicated, hard to understand, to control is not a new fact. we just learn how insect fly (not like planes nor birds), and not yet how human swim (3 imperfect theories compete) ... yet they fly and swim. absence of theory, unreliability is a non argument and any scientist using that argument should be fired and send to college school to learn ... ah dunno... sure not science, nor engineering, nor mechanic, lor law, nor anything impacting humans or money... maybe aromatherapy... because I would not like them even as plumber or lawyers. 2013/5/8 Joshua Cude <[email protected]> > Plate tectonics were accepted when the evidence became overwhelming, > particularly the fossil and seismologic evidence. Yes, it took a a long > time, because geology yields its secrets greedily, but it had nothing to do > with attrition. > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: > >> A good example of the validity of Planck's observation to "fit reality" >> is to look at how plate tectonics were initially rejected, then embraced a >> generation later. >> >> >> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck >>>> >>>> Max Planck: >>>> >>>> A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and >>>> making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, >>>> and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. >>>> >>>> >>>> The irony is that not only is this not true, and that cold fusion is >>> seeing it work the other way, but Planck himself is a counter-example. >>> >>> >>> Some pathological beliefs, like N-rays and the planet vulcan, only >>> really disappeared when the believers died. In cold fusion, the strongest >>> and most active proponents are still the ones that were there from the >>> beginning (There are some exceptions like Duncan and Zawodny). Cold fusion >>> is likely to continue to fade away by attrition, although it clearly has a >>> surprising staying power. >>> >>> >>> Planck was slow to accept the idea of photons, but he did not have to >>> die to increase their acceptance: about 10 years after Einstein introduced >>> them, Planck came around. And of course, all the architects of modern >>> physics, including Planck, were alive and well before they could conceive >>> of relative time or discrete energy. So, the statement really doesn't fit >>> reality, and I suspect he said it in jest. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
