As Norman Ramsey pointed out in his preamble to the DoE's original review of cold fusion: "However, even a *single* short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary."
We are so far beyond that benchmark as to render Mark's criterion absurd. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark Gibbs writes: > "You completely miss my point … Ruby’s argument dimisses Ethan’s argument > by simply saying “you’re wrong” and citing experimental evidence that isn’t > accepted outside of the LENR community. You’re right, experiment trumps > theory but only when you have an experiment that can be replicated and has > unarguable results. Unless I misunderstand, the catalog of successful LENR > experiments doesn’t include one that you could hand to Ethan and say “here > you go, try it, it works.” > > > No, Mark, I am not saying simply "you're wrong" to Siegel. > > We have experimental results that do not fit the Standard Model of > conventional nuclear theory first formulated a century ago. > > Siegel is saying that this Standard Model rules today. It doesn't, and > the experimental evidence proves it. > > > > > > > On 5/30/13 10:33 AM, Ruby wrote: > > > Yes, thank you Mark. I agree with Jed. > > Mark Gibbs is wrong in his reasoning > > It should be clear that there are experimental results that have no > confirmed model to explain them. > > This is the history of revolutionary science, which Gibbs should be aware > of. > > > > > > On 5/30/13 8:27 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > > Ruby:**** > > ** ** > > I don’t think Jed was criticizing your statement, **** > > "Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the experimental > evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur > within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a > table-top"**** > > ** ** > > it was Gibbs’ statement after it which was:**** > > “Unfortunately that’s not a sound argument…”**** > > ** ** > > Jed rightfully criticizes Gibbs’ statement because it implies that without > a definitive theory, experimental evidence has little weight.**** > > It is a sore point with all LENR followers because it is the opposite of > what science is all about; if repeatable experimental evidence contradicts > theory, then theory may need to be revised/replaced.**** > > ** ** > > Keep up the fight!**** > > ** ** > > -Mark Iverson**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Ruby [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2013 8:14 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, > He Isn't!**** > > ** ** > > I wrote that quote... > > "Cold fusion has no definitive theory – as yet, but the experimental > evidence is overwhelming: anomalous heat and transmutations can occur > within metallic-hydrides systems contained in small cells that sit on a > table-top" > http://coldfusionnow.org/discovery-news-misinforms-on-cold-fusion-again/ > > .. and stand by it.-- > > Ruby Carat > [email protected] > Skype ruby-carat > www.coldfusionnow.org > > > > -- > Ruby Carat > [email protected] > United States 1-707-616-4894 > Skype ruby-carat > www.coldfusionnow.org > >
