On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm glad to hear that NI donated a PCMCIA card. Did they go out on a limb > and say (as with Cold Fusion) "There is an unknown physical event"? > Nope. > > It's self evident that there are images of an unknown physical entity. > I trust physicists who are skeptical. I don't trust physicists who are > pathologically skeptical, > … where the difference depends on whether they agree with your preferred truth or not. > who refuse to look at the data in the same way that Galileo's detractors > refused to look through the telescope. > Skeptics have looked at the evidence in 2 formal DOE panels, and every time they're asked to review papers or grant proposals. We know they'd love for it to be true from the events of 1989, and if it were, it would provide an opportunity for fame and glory, and it is the business of scientists to be aware of credible work in their field of interest. You do know that Galileo's detractors were religious, not scientific, and that the modern physics revolution was embraced as quickly as it could be developed. You don't seem to be very familiar with the body of evidence from the 90s. You just want cold fusion to be true, and you see some scientists saying it is. I think that's pretty characteristic of many of the unwashed groupies. Like the LENRproof web site that contains no proof at all. Instead it argues: look at all the people who think it's true, so it must be, and isn't that swell. > And yes, I do think it's because of their greed, self-interest, hubris and > various other things. > >> >>> >> > Which remains implausible to me because cold fusion is in virtually everyone's interest, and because of the explosion of interest and activity in 1989. Greed ought to work the other way, as is evident from Storms' statement: "…many of us were lured into believing that the Pons-Fleischmann effect would solve the world's energy problems and make us all rich."
