;-) maybe that is trolling? or is it sincere and full delusion? I don't take video as evidence. Neither Nature or Science editor as evidence. Nor opinion from people who did not look at the subject, which include all critics except a handful of people like Huizenga and Cudes.
I take a network of experimental scientific paper by many (thousands) scientists included reputed professional (dozens) from varied and mostly reputed organization (dozens), showing various connected phenomenons, and some correlations of phenomenons, as evidences. I take lack of evidence when criticizing, bad reasoning, lack of ethical behaviors, acceptance of such anti-scientific behaviors despite claiming support of scientific methods, as evidence of pathological denial. I take theoretical question as secondary, except when it shows pure incompetence and lack of honesty (like applying two-body free space assumption inside a solid, or calling CoE violation for nuclear energy). Good experiments have been done with bad theory, while the opposite is not true. Why is that question raising a troll attack, on a list where many more shocking claims (even for me - I'm very mainstream) are made ? is it because the answer have to be fogged by sterile debate? My question was whether Nature/Science & similar were caught making claim of rejecting Cold Fusion whatever are the qualities of the paper. Is that question so inconvenient? There is not even a question whether it is a fact... only question is whether it is official, or at least leaked. 2013/12/17 John Franks <[email protected]> > It's because cold fusion is rubbish.There's no data, no mechanism, it's > inhabited by cranks with a bunker mentality. You talk lies about 100% > repeatability and offer youtube videos as evidence, instead of proper > conferences, attended by professionals (for and against) with questions > from the floor to the presenters. You're just playing at science, like a > children's tea party. > > >
