Quote"Physics will allways ask for theory first, then repeatabil experiements that confirms theory. Something that don't conform to theory can't be, since all physists knows theory rules over nature, not the other way around (haha)."
Oystla - such statements are dangerous - you know very well I can prove you wrong.(1) HTSC - definite experimental evidence, enthusiastically embraced by scientists, although there was at the time no theory for how it could exist. Discovered 1986, Nobel Prize 1987.(2) Dark energy. From observation, unexpected, generally agreed, still no theoryDo I need more?Cold Fusion/LENR is not accepected generally because:(1) the evidence is so weak(2) people have been collecting evidence for 25 years - if it were true you'd expect stronger evidence by now(3) when you look at the (weak) evidence it is incoherent. Returning to the same experiment with better instrumentation does not, as would be expected, lead to definite results.
Well Thomas, i think you missed my point and the whole point of the Cold Fusion history. It seems you never have read anyhing of the historic Events of CF...
And the point was discoveries which are hard to replicate and at the same time seems to contradict theory, not like HTSC or expansion of the Universe....
( by the way the latest finding on Dark Energy is consistent with Einstein's explanation for what dark energy is, Einstein's "cosmological constant" idea, which he called his biggest blunder and later rejected, turned out to be the same thing that scientist now see as the repulsive form of gravity called dark energy. )
A much better example of these hard-to-replicate and hard-to-explain phenomenons may be antimatter generated in out own atmosphere in thunderstorms ....or ball lightning.
Until the 1960s, most scientists argued that ball lightning was not a real phenomenon but an urban myth, despite numerous reports throughout the world. Laboratory experiments can produce effects that are visually similar to reports of ball lightning, but whether these are related to the natural phenomenon remains unclear.
Many scientific hypotheses about ball lightning have been proposed over the centuries. Scientific data on natural ball lightning are scarce, owing to its infrequency and unpredictability. The presumption of its existence is based on reported public sightings, and has therefore produced somewhat inconsistent findings. Given inconsistencies and lack of reliable data, the true nature of ball lightning is still unknown. The first ever optical spectrum of what appears to have been a ball lightning event was published in January 2014 and included a video at high frame rate.
So here you have a phenomen that have been described and observed in nature for centuries, but was considered by science a non believable UFO phenomenon until recently
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/03/20/2194630.htm?site=science&topic=latest
https://www.newscientist.com/a…probed-for-the-first-time
But physisists struggles with the phenomenon since they need a theory to be tested in Laboratory that replicates the phenomenon
Cold Fusion/LENR is not accepected generally because:
1. It is not considered part of science, since 1989. Therefore Mainstream physisists are unwilling to investigate the field, which is compared to being interested in UFO's
2. Mainstream physisists that may be interested in CF research would not get funding from their Institute, since it is discredited field, like hunting UFO's
3. No consensus on theory result in no guidance from theory and No clear protocol that secures repeatable success....
4. Lack of funding results in slow progress wrt indentifying the correct theory of cold fusion, and few researchers interested makes the rest loos interest. "Follow the pack"