Quotehe's [Rossi] very entertaining but totally unscientific so none of it is worth arguing about
OK. Not until he swindles some other individual or organization out of a few more million dollars though I have to admit that is a bit implausible at this point...
BTW, if you thought Rossi was interesting, you probably believed that Madoff was a lot of hoots.
You might not agree worh Madoff, but you have to acknowledge: a) He was pretty good at what he did, and b) One should diversify one's investments.
It is abundantly clear that there are individuals here who are quite confident that their tireless scouring of fringe websites provides far greater scientific acumen than advanced degrees and decades of research experience.
Indeed.
Or even 5 minutes of experience often.
I can’t even get any of the Brown’s Gas/HHO aficionados to ‘put their money where their mouth is’ and put the ‘cold flame’ torch to their hands properly.
Or even a pseudo-hand made of chicken.
This is the worst of the lenr field. It isn't really the fakers (Hutchison, Rossi) who do the damage, it is the uncritical self-deluded fans who
This is exactly how I feel. I believe the standard model and even quantum physics is generally needing a new approach. But the word salad ECW chief physicist, along with the self appointed LENR Forum expert who explains how easy LENR is and how everyone else just needs to tune the negative resistence regime EVOs, thats the real problem, because it hurts acceptance of the real researchers.
This is exactly how I feel. I believe the standard model and even quantum physics is generally needing a new approach.
Can you provide any details about what needs to change in the standard model and quantum physics?
Can you provide any details about what needs to change in the standard model and quantum physics?
I'll do that. quantum physics at the moment has no connection with GR. That needs to change. There is much work (many different people) showing how spacetime (and spacetime curvature as in GR) can emerge naturally from quantum entanglement in a physically realistic way:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1807/1807.06433.pdf (a more speculative one in)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.04554.pdf ( better recent one)
But it does not quite yet work - or rather "much work needs to be done to fill in gaps and make it solid".
Even so this approach has now developed sufficienctly that it would be very surprising if some better "theory of everything" understanding did not emerge from it. Whatever your views about standard model you would have, if you looked at it, to agree with that.
it is not unreasonable to think that when we understand the connection more deeply we will also have an underlying mechanism from which all of the standard model structure can be derived, and possibly a bit more.
Note though that from what we already know, that QM is essential, that the universe was once much hotter, we expect symmetry breaking to introduce arbitrary constants into the world that now appear immutable physical constants.
So looking for answers to "why is this fundamental constant this value" other than on amthropomorphic selection basis will often be fruitless.
A better understanding of the fundamentals will make it clearer to everyone when that is so.
Even so this approach has now developed sufficienctly that it would be very surprising if some better "theory of everything" understanding did not emerge from it.
You still have your Sunday dreams. The mathematical proof that QM math must fail to describe the reality is simple and straightforward. A closed formalism cannot - never - describe a stateful communicating 3 body system. This is basic understanding of calculous theory.
Either you understand the difference between complete and closed (groups math) or you will continue to dream...
Who wants to give Mario the bad news (or maybe just not bother)?
It is abundantly clear that there are individuals here who are quite confident that their tireless scouring of fringe websites provides far greater scientific acumen than advanced degrees and decades of research experience.
Anyone who recognizes the evidence that LENR does indeed exist is already in possession of far greater scientific acumen that 99% of physicists on the planet who still think it's impossible. If you can't accept a mountain of evidence because of a lifetime of being taught dogma, then you are not really a scientist at all. For example, look at how so many "mainstream" scientists instantly dismissed the discoverer of quasi crystals despite the irrefutable evidence he presented. The Linus Pauling institute made him resign because they couldn't mentally handle the fact that he had evidence of something that went against their cultish religion. I could go on and on with many examples, but the truth is that there's plenty of space for people to look through accumulated scientific evidence over the last hundred years and make vitally important observations that 99% of PhDs on this planet would never have a chance of making because they would never be willing to view the evidence.
I would say that someone willing to look at all the evidence with an open mind without a single degree is more of a scientist than a closed minded MIT graduate with a dozen degrees still determined to make hot fusion work.
Director, I realize that I am a trigger for your pent-up rage, but I am confident that many of us here are genuinely curious whether there are any fringe claims of any sort that you do not automatically assume are valid?
Either answer the question or ignore this post. Don’t go off on another of your ad hominem rants please.
Can you provide any details about what needs to change in the standard model and quantum physics?
I think fully untethering the assumtions of fundamental particles as points and the "orbit cloud" as the most accurate representation of electron orbits would be a good place to start. Also, we need to move to a model that allows more accurate defined dense matter and sub atomic understanding. If possible, this would allow mainstream to accept and dive into post-combustion hydrogen energy research without the veil in the way.
I think fully untethering the assumptions of fundamental particles as points and the "orbit cloud" as the most accurate representation of electron orbits
Children like their toys especially when they had to pay it with at least 2 years live time for learning higher math... For a priests live it takes much longer to get to the same level of mental "perturbance".
But point particles work fine in simple approximations and electrons clouds too. It's the religion behind these models that damages physics. It's the all mighty believe, as my physics prof said it 40 years ago. We exactly know how it works - about Schrödinger and Hydrogen... Most older members of this physics prof.- elite do still believe that they are the most bright people in the world and that they are the treasurers of the holy knowledge...Despite 90 years of failure to deliver a working model for dense matter.
Children like their toys especially when they had to pay it with at least 2 years live time for learning higher math... For a priests live it takes much longer to get to the same level of mental "perturbance".
But point particles work fine in simple approximations and electrons clouds too. It's the religion behind these models that damages physics. It's the all mighty believe, as my physics prof said it 40 years ago. We exactly know how it works - about Schrödinger and Hydrogen... Most older members of this physics prof.- elite do still believe that they are the most bright people in the world and that they are the treasurers of the holy knowledge...Despite 90 years of failure to deliver a working model for dense matter.
I agree but I wouldn't be so disparaging of religion in general, I don't have a fundamental negative association with it. Mainstream scientific institutions can be at times a hyper-conservative and stagnant gerontocracy. Would love if approaches like your's, Jacques Dufours, some of what Santilli proposed and Randal Mills' stuff got more serious eyes. Alright, so an accurate analogy would state we need a completely refreshed tub of mopping water, (errors and assumtion) pouring out what's accumulated to move forward.
Director, I realize that I am a trigger for your pent-up rage, but I am confident that many of us here are genuinely curious whether there are any fringe claims of any sort that you do not automatically assume are valid?
Either answer the question or ignore this post. Don’t go off on another of your ad hominem rants please.
You are intentionally attempting to antagonize me. But that's okay, because you expose your agenda more and more with every post.
First of all, I obviously do not assume anything is valid without doing research on the topic. I read and do a lot of research. Quite often, I stay up all night long until the next morning attempting to track down information on the topics I find interesting. If I don't feel the evidence is there, then I ignore it and move onto something else. Unlike the pseudo-skeptics (paid and unpaid), I don't harp on the topics and claims that I can't find enough information to come to a conclusion about. If I don't think something is real, I'm not going to waste my time on it. Why? Because it's far better for me to try and contribute towards phenomena that I think at least could be real. The accusation that I "automatically" accept any claim as one hundred percent valid shows your question isn't valid at all. I would say almost no one "automatically" accepts every claim as legitimate. Some people do more research than others. I'd say that I do much more than the average person.
The EVO pheonomena is a topic that has a huge amount of supportive evidence going back a very long time. I can look at a wide array of inventions and devices, learn how they worked, and then come to the conclusion that Rossi is likely utilizing the same phenomena. In fact, I would say I'm certain due to the fact he's using the negative resistance regime, he's producing self organizing plasma balls, he had the same problem with overheating as others have had, etc.
“You are intentionally attempting to antagonize me. But that's okay, because you expose your agenda more and more with every post.”
Thank you for the civilized answer. Now I am curious about my agenda. I didn’t know I had one.
“You are intentionally attempting to antagonize me. But that's okay, because you expose your agenda more and more with every post.”
Thank you for the civilized answer. Now I am curious about my agenda. I didn’t know I had one.
Observer,
Sure you have an agenda, exposing Andrea Rossi as a charlatan and a fraud and anyone who believes his drivel as a gullible fool.
Your agenda is clear.
Can you provide any details about what needs to change in the standard model and quantum physics?
I feel the current standard model is not, as a practical matter, predictive enough, particularly with respect to particle mass and any more complex atomic models beyond helium. With all the magic numbers, it almost seems like a curve fit. I'm always hoping some brand new approach, such as Mills GUTCP or Wyttenbach's SO(4) investigations may lead to some new breakthrough. If I knew what needed to change, I would be a true physicist, perhaps the best in the world. Unlike a couple of people here, I never professed to have superior (or even average by lenr forum standards) understanding of the standard model or quantum mechanics, just a lapsed undergrad engineering physics degree, with a good deal of practical algorithm development. That practicality I strive for is why the standard model and quantum mechanics in general rub me the wrong way.
Observer,
Sure you have an agenda, exposing Andrea Rossi as a charlatan and a fraud and anyone who believes his drivel as a gullible fool.
Your agenda is clear.
How boring. My agenda is belaboring the obvious.
This is a simplistic approach. The barriers are more than scientific but psychological, egotistical, and based on entrenched theories that may have flaws on a fundamental level... whether intentionally left that way or not. These problems even exist within the alternative energy researching community 🤷🏽♂️. A free flowing of experimental/theoretical consideration within reason is needed. Im not saying that measured transmutation is indicative of literal nuclear transmutation with wonky energy balancing. Maybe it isn't predominantly nuclear but something else is going on (that isn't "free energy")? Also, some fundamental theory tweaks could open doors to a lot.
This statement does not add credibility to the entire "research subject"...
@Siccario ........so why does a Nobel prize-winning B. Josephson still advocate further cold fusion research or why is NASA still filing new patents on LENR? We all are aware that there are people like Rossi involved that we know are eccentric blatant frauds and have fiddled the evidence to obtain positive results but there are enough solid data from years of other research to make it worthwhile to continue ..... e.g. the Mizuno reactor / transmutation of elements / NASA space research. This last patent shows a methodology to combine the electron screening effect of transition metal lattice on confined D atoms with elecron/neutron beam technology at energies more usually associated with particle beam accelerators and hot fusion. Then there is muon catalysed fusion researched by Holmlid etc with his ultra dense theories which cannot be easily dismissed by even top physicists like F. Winterberg. And other nutty professor characters like Santilli or Mill's! There's a lot more to it than the plasma - based EVO theories and if at the end of the day we need to borrow some of the principles underlying hot fusion and nuclear fission to generate a new type of fission/fusion reactor then the research on the cold fusion side would still have been valid.
You are free to post some links, which undermine this:
Quotebut there are enough solid data from years of other research
... but someone told me that Mizuno's lab was th ONLY one, which was damaged by the latest earthquake, ove there, in Sapporo. The nearby university for example had no damage...
STRANGE ?
