Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why Cold Fusion (or something like it) Is Real (Score 1) 349

by Baldrson (#48214889) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real

Khallow writes:

And it's worth noting here that despite whatever the American Physical Society or the US Department of Energy has said about cold fusion in 1989, research continues.

In the US it continues among professors emeritus that are dying off now at an epidemic rate.

They aren't really in the way now. I don't expect conservative, perhaps hide-bound institutions to embrace every new concept that comes along, even if in theory, that's their job.

A graduate student who attempts to so much as replicate an existing experiment is putting his entire career in jeopardy, starting with the Texas A&M fiasco where the APS took seriously allegations of fraud against such a graduate student's thesis of fraud. Those allegations were made by a "science journalist" whose main claim to fame is a diet book

There is a huge distance between embracing speculative theories and blanket rejection of experimental results.

It may well have been that no one ever actually refused to look through Galileo's telescope. But the behavior of the scientific establishment toward experimental results is clearly a pattern which, even if nothing of substance is behind cold fusion phenomena, is indictable. (Read "Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed" by Charles Beaudette for multiple examples of such behavior.)

Theories are not experiments. Popperian falsification applies to experimental falsification of theory -- not theoretic falsification of experiment, which is impossible. Indeed, even experiments do not falsify other experiments except to the extent that they demonstrate a hypothesized explanation of experimental error is true. Here again the pattern of behavior by the true believers in fashionable interpretation of physical theory demonstrate time and time again they have made errors reckless that they make the errors of Fleischmann and Pons in their neutron measurements look trivial.

Where do you think, for example, the APS "embraced" experiments by Caltech et al sit on Fig. 3 of Storms's paper?

Clue: They're so far outside anything remotely intellectually honest that they fall way off to the left of the figure -- and _this_ is what your estemed authorities used to claim Fleischmann and Pons were guilty of fraud, incompetence and/or delusion.

Comment: Re:Voter Recruitment Commissioned by NPR (Score 1) 196

by Baldrson (#48190639) Attached to: Developers, IT Still Racking Up (Mostly) High Salaries

High income college educated whites vote Republican.

73% of Asian Americans voted for Obama in the last election.

If NPR can put even more college educated white techies out of work by importing even more Asian techies, they'll get more of existing whites voting Democrat and more immigrants who are known to vote Democrat even at high income levels.

Comment: Re:Why Cold Fusion (or something like it) Is Real (Score -1) 349

by Baldrson (#48173491) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real

The prediction market Intrade judged cold fusion to be replicated.

One might argue that because Intrade is a real-money prediction market, that it is less valid than Ideosphere.

However, what is going to happen to Ideosphere's reputation if it judges cold fusion to be false and, later, the NYT, WSJ, WashPo and the Secretary of Energy along with all of its national labs is saying it is true -- when a real money exchange had it right years before?

Comment: Re:Why Cold Fusion (or something like it) Is Real (Score 0) 349

by Baldrson (#48173347) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real

The paper is a statistical survey of experiments reporting excess heat.

What's "nutty" is claiming that Popper's fasifiability criterion pertains to experiments rather than theories. Experiments that are not reproduced successfully by some others merely evidences the incompetence of those others relative to those who have reproduced.

However, it is not clear that what is being falsified by experiment here is the current physical theory, rather than merely the currently fashionable interpretation of physical theory.

Comment: Why Cold Fusion (or something like it) Is Real (Score 0, Flamebait) 349

by Baldrson (#48173021) Attached to: The Physics of Why Cold Fusion Isn't Real

Ethan Siegel writes: "All good science is repeatable: set up an experiment, tell me how you did it, report your results, and with the proper equipment, I should be able to set up a similar experiment, do the same things you did and get the same results. If I can’t, and others can’t, you didn’t do good science."

Oh yeah?

The preamble to the DoE's 1989 cold fusion review panel's report reads:

"Ordinarily, new scientific discoveries are claimed to be consistent and reproducible; as a result, if the experiments are not complicated, the discovery can usually be confirmed or disproved in a few months. The claims of cold fusion, however, are unusual in that even the strongest proponents of cold fusion assert that the experiments, for unknown reasons, are not consistent and reproducible at the present time. However, even a single short but valid cold fusion period would be revolutionary." --Norman Ramsey

Dr. Norman Ramsey Jr., Nobel laureate and professor of physics at Harvard University was the only person on the the 1989 Department of Energy cold fusion review panel to voice a dissenting opinion. Ramsey insisted on the inclusion of this preamble as an alternative to his resignation from the panel. The committee acquiesed because he was its co-chair and the only Nobel laureate on the committee.

Dr. Ramsey's condition has been fulfilled hundreds of times over the last quarter century and there has been absolutely no acknowledgement by the APS of its crime.

Los Alamos nuclear chemist Ed Storms's peer reviewed paper published in the German counterpart of the British "Nature":

Status of Cold-Fusion (2010)

Comment: Re:The Real Criminals: The APS (Score 1) 986

F&P clearly did not have an adequate theory and even they admitted as much. Even with an adequate theory, development is orders of magnitude more expensive than research. WIthout an adequate theory, you have to have an industrial laboratory the size of GE running in an Edisonian mode of scattershot trial and error.

Comment: Re:The Real Criminals: The APS (Score 2) 986

It could be demonstrated to be fusion by either producing enough heat that it couldn't possibly be a chemical reaction (which didn't happen), or observing neutrons (which were not being generated).

There are lots of peer reviewed papers reporting excess heat well in excess of chemical levels -- papers that have not been even so much as criticized by the true believers in current interpretation of physical theory. See

Once we realize that, we realize that Oriani was claiming to violate a whole lot of physical theory with scanty evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Oriani apparently didn't provide that.

You can't have it both ways. You either can have scientific method where experiment is permitted to be published that falsifies currently fashionable interpretation of physical theory, or you can have theocracy. Its that simple. Oriani's experimental evidence was sufficient for Nature's own peer reviewers. It was not a peer-review rejection. It was an editor veto of Nature's own peer reviewers. This is scientific misconduct, pure and simple.

Nature could indeed publish a "cold fusion" paper if somebody definitely had cold fusion going and had good evidence for it.

Nature then proceeded to block additional empirical-only papers from Oriani on the grounds that he offered no theory to explain the results -- results that falsified currently fashionable interpretation of physical theory. Science starts with observation and theory ends with observation that fasifies theory. Nature is engaging in gross scientific misconduct and it is a pattern of behavior.

Comment: Re:Not Just Ebola (Score 1) 279

by Baldrson (#48137415) Attached to: Who's In Charge During the Ebola Crisis?

Yeah you know what's _really_ outmoded?

Control groups as a means of teasing causation out of correlation.

I mean, just think what would happen if *shudder* there were 50 different governments each controlling their own borders, testing out different social theories?

People with bad social theories might leave you and those that agree with your good social theory to benefit only yourselves, while they would go off and form another experimental group providing additional human ecology data for the social sciences.

They might figure out that you are the slimy parasite you are and that would be bad .

This is a good time to punt work.