Clearance Items

  • You might not like your results, but you need to learn to live with them

    Richard Feynman:

    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

    What I cannot create, I do not understand.

    For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.

    Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.

    It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

    I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there.

    Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.

    If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize.

    Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which 'are' there.

    Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation.

    You want to beleive that LENR is particles smashing into each other an fusing. But in reality, this is not the case. LENR involves the creation of particles that gain energy and imparts that energy to the matter that surrounds. You might not like it, but get real, nature is going to do what it needs to do no matter what you think.

  • The Nature article closes this way:


    It is unclear whether the project will restore the salmon. A bumper run of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in 2010 came two years after a volcanic eruption in Alaska sent a layer of iron-rich ash over the ocean, fertilizing a plankton bloom3. But many scientists remain sceptical.

    Whether the Haida experiment worked won’t be known for two years, when the youngest of the salmon feeding in the ocean today return home to spawn. John Nightingale, president of the Vancouver Aquarium in Canada, says that will be a chance to glean some science from the project. The work may have lacked scientific rigour, he says, but the HSRC has now agreed to make all of its data available to scientists. It has “done something unique”, Nightingale says. “I want the maximum information, the maximum analysis, the maximum debate.”

    Seems perfectly calm and reasonable to me, hardly defamatory or corrupt. Perhaps this could be discussed in a new thread or in the clearance section? I don't understand Mr. George's virulent animosity nor why it is directed at the messenger ( Ahlfors ). He didn't write the article.

    ETA and also OTC: That was 2010. What did the research since then show? Has the experiment been extended or repeated? Do lab tests say anything that helps elucidate the issue?