On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote:
The third section is titled "Concealed nuclear products". Notice he says > concealed rather than non-existent which suggests to me he is considering > the possibility, however improbable, that the products are present but have > been disguised, altered or hidden somehow. > Possibly. If I had to guess, however, I'd guess that he's just being a little facetious in his use of terminology -- i.e., he's saying "concealed" in an ironic sense. I could be mistaken, though. > However, if ,as you say, he is certain that CF is impossible because it > violates the conservation of momentum why does he go through this > exercise? Since certain key pieces of evidence are missing which would make > the phenomena obey conservation of momentum, he is duty bound by his faith > in the conservation of momentum to dismiss or explain away all the evidence > as error or delusion. > Again, if I had to guess, it would be that he's going to great lengths to appear neutral and fair-minded in order to persuade anyone who might be on the fence, but he really doesn't put any stock in CF as a possibility. I think Huizenga would be correct in insisting on conservation of momentum, and it seems like any CF theory that violates it would be incorrect. But there are various CF theories that do not violate it -- Takahashi's, for example; presumably ones that make use of the Mossbauer effect; and so on. So if he did argue that CF must violate conservation of momentum (I'm not sure that he did), he may have set up a straw-man argument. I'm not sure if it was apparent at the time the book was written that this was the case, as there may have been sincere proposals that did violate conservation of momentum. Eric
