On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:31 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
Not so fast with doing away with CoE. I have not seen any proof that it is > violated in any of these reactions. My suspicion is that it remains valid. > I don't have any compelling hunch against COE at this point, either generally or in the context of LENR. I guess my question is a more general one, about assumptions in science. On one hand, it's fine to say that everything that we've seen up to now is in conformity with COE and that it has been a fruitful methodological assumption. On the other, we did sort of conjure neutrinos from out of nowhere in order to retain COE (as I understand things). So we were able to keep COE only by going back and revising the books after the fact. There's some creative accounting going on there. Although I'm happy to continue assuming that COE holds, I do not see grounds for making it a fixed point that cannot be moved in the way that I would some other basic assumptions in science. Eric
