LENR experimenters tend not to adopt the same protocol because they do not apply appropriate skepticism to their own results
^ A slightly amusing cross-posting from another thread.
Although i guess its a fairly well known fact that people criticise in others what they don't like about themselves...
The thing is, Huxley, the source* you quote to argue that the flow in Mizuno’s pipe is less than he reported, itself contains no estimates of the magnitude of error in its own formulas. Which, seeing as how it’s essentially just a rehashing of empirical science from the 1800’s, is likely pretty large.
I think it’s well understood that a pathological skeptic is always minimally sceptical of his own claims, or the claims of others that agree with his preconceived notions...
That is a good point Zeus46, and one worth considering.
Skeptics would reckon the onus of proof is on those hypothesising an unphysical effect to do the error bounds and prove it exists, not the other way round. Where you have uncertainty, there you do not posit a new non-testable (because non-predictive) effect.
Why is LENR unphysical? Because there is as yet no predictive and realistic physical theory that encompasses it.
Previous new physics discoveries have not found such proof difficult. A good analogy would perhaps be cosmology where dark energy / dark matter are not a predictive theory. However the effects that they try to explain are reproducible and correspond to something that breaks existing theories, so something is needed. Thus I'd compare dark energy / matter to LENR when it comes to theory, but reckon the corresponding observations, because clearly reproducible are more interesting to science. I'd leave open - as do most pope, the possibility that those observations are just misinterpretation of evidence. Thus maybe the standard ways to estimate far object distance are wrong in some consistent way that corrupts our distance scales. That has happened in the past, and people remain on the lookout for it.
The difference in approach is that dark matter/energy is not seen by most people as a theory - just a convenient way to explain a set of consistently anomalous observations. Because of that everything around them is questioned, including the interpretations of data that lead to those anomalous results. And no-one is that enthusiastic about dark matter / energy - everyone expects it to end up being resolved as something else.
Short version: skeptics neither have nor claim results. They claim lack of certainty.
This is like asymmetric warfare. Totally unfair. I agree.
Bottom line: this transient is not what Mizuno observed, and these results do not replicate his. We appear to have two distinct anomalies/mistakes/errors (take your pick in each case).
LENR is an anomaly... looks like a starting mental disease...
Skeptics would reckon the onus of proof is on those hypothesising an unphysical effect to do the error bounds and prove it exists, not the other way round. Where you have uncertainty, there you do not posit a new non-testable (because non-predictive) effect.
The problem is that your reasoning is based on the widespread accepted SM of physics that itself is mostly unphysical as it has no exact relation to basic physics theories (mechanics & Maxwell) that are exact.
Thus you are not in a position to ask for a physical explanation if you yourself argue with an unphysical background.
SM is not able to give any basic exact relation between mass, energy, charge radius, magnetic moment etc, gamma spectrum. Thus SM is not a theory of dense matter it's just a model for colliding particles.
Unluckily for you normally LENR is not produced by colliding particles.
The problem is that your reasoning is based on the widespread accepted SM of physics that itself is mostly unphysical as it has no exact relation to basic physics theories (mechanics & Maxwell) that are exact.
Thus you are not in a position to ask for a physical explanation if you yourself argue with an unphysical background.
SM is not able to give any basic exact relation between mass, energy, charge radius, magnetic moment etc, gamma spectrum. Thus SM is not a theory of dense matter it's just a model for colliding particles.
Wyttenbach. On such time as you can predict LENR results, I will pay attention. Or, if you have theory that can reproduce all of SM from a better basis a whole load of theoretical physicists will love you - please publish, it is something everyone wants and there is lots of tolerance for speculative papers in that area. Till then, good luck!
Calorimeter is garbage, his paper reads like a first year high school student. Just saying.
Calorimeter is garbage, his paper reads like a first year high school student. Just saying.
Whose’s calorimeter? Which paper? Care to elaborate or you simply are a hit and run mud flinger?
Calorimeter is garbage, his paper reads like a first year high school student. Just saying.
Unless you can provide proper detail (just like a high school student could) your remark as my colleague Curbina said is just flinging mud. As a first time poster, you are 'ind of' forgiven, but if you continue making posts of this quality you will eventually become a former member.
QuoteCalorimeter is garbage, his paper reads like a first year high school student. Just saying.
Specificity and a lot more detail would clarify this weird post and maybe get you some respect or at least some interesting discussion. Just saying.
Unless you can provide proper detail (just like a high school student could) your remark as my colleague Curbina said is just flinging mud. As a first time poster, you are 'ind of' forgiven, but if you continue making posts of this quality you will eventually become a former member.
Just to get things going
THH
SM is not able to give any basic exact relation between mass, energy, charge radius, magnetic moment etc, gamma spectrum. Thus SM is not a theory of dense matter it's just a model for colliding particles.
Or, if you have theory that can reproduce all of SM from a better basis a whole load of theoretical physicists will love you - please publish, it is something everyone wants and there is lots of tolerance for speculative papers in that area. Till then, good luck!
Please THH: Give us the famous and exact SM formulas that produce the above mentioned relations for the e.g. proton. ... Good luck... Then please tell us what other SM garbage about dense matter physics I should try to reproduce...
Give us the famous and exact SM formulas
Of course THHnew has confidence in SM... QED/QCD because
THHnew stated that these predict proton/ neutron masses and moments to
six figure precision.. rather than 2 figure precision
perhaps there is some uneducated bias in THHnew's position..
Please THH: Give us the famous and exact SM formulas that produce the above mentioned relations for the e.g. proton. ... Good luck... Then please tell us what other SM garbage about dense matter physics I should try to reproduce...
RB: the standard model (all those particles) has checked out time and time again. If some better theory is to replace it - and everyone hopes for it, because those particles are a bit arbitrary, the theory most show why we have that set of particles with those properties. A semi-coincidental match with a constant does not cut it, unless you are explaining all that stuff.
THHnew stated that these predict proton/ neutron masses and moments to
six figure precision.. rather than 2 figure precision
I know it may be the fault of this site, but have you ever considered getting help for OCD?
Not helpful.
RB: the standard model (all those particles) has checked out time and time again
But the standard model as in QCD.QED does not have six figure precision for neutron and proton mass and moment etc...
as THHnew has asserted..
the best that Stephan Durr can do with it is 2 figure precision
after 7 years of teraflops with EU- financed supercomputers in Heidelberg.
Try finding the actual neutron-proton mass difference stated in this epic paper.
Ab initio calculation of the neutron-proton"mass difference
https://www.google.com/url?sa=…Vaw19HWwr9Sv34mFNDA49p6Jk
The value is not even stated... why not? after 7 years and plenty of euros,,
but the error is ... 300 KeV.
and the graph gives something like 1.6 MEV
What should be stated in writing after all those teraflops is
neutron-proton"mass difference= 1.6 +- 0.3 MEv
of course Stephan Durr told me that the point of the paper was not to find an accurate
neutron-proton mass difference... it was the higher energy particles which were the focus..
but the title is
Ab initio calculation of the neutron-proton"mass difference
The wording and presentation of this paper is typical of the funk that surrounds contemporary SM '' research''
There are at least three other theories that give much more precise ab initio calculation
But the standard model as in QCD.QED does not have six figure precision for neutron and proton mass and moment etc...
as THHnew has asserted..
the best that Stephan Durr can do with it is 2 figure precision
after 7 years of teraflops with EU- financed supercomputers in Heidelberg
Right (ignoring the OPR), but the standard model (the existence of that finite number of particles with given properties) is very well observed, and all that LHC collision data exactly coincides with the calculated statistics.
Against that enormous quantity of predicted data the fact that there are a few fundamental quantities not well predicted, but independently measured, is not the point.
(1) Any competitive theory to SM must first reproduce all of that SM prediction. An enormous amount.
(2) Any such theory more fundamental than SM should have something to say about why there are that set of particles and no other
(3) A theory that can predict fundamental constants is worth something: but it is difficult to be sure whether we have prediction or post-hoc fitting in the nature of things, unless predictions are made a long time in advance of the relevant observations. I've notices W saying that he has spent a lot of time trying to find a variant of his ideas "that works". If the only determinant of "works" is fitting one or two constants there is no protection against such post hoc fitting.
Dear mods.
Would you like me to use a more tactful way to remind posters that they are being obsessively and noisily repetitive? I realise OCD is perhaps impolite. Can we think of something short (because i will have to repeat it so many times) but clear that does the job?
I'm not one to cry foul at rules being not to my liking: your rules here are your rules. But, I don't notice RB's obsessive and multi-coloured repetition of OT and temporally inaccurate statements being green texted? More generally, I don't think i am the worst offender here when it comes to being impolite.
How about Obsessive Personalised Repetition (OPR)? Would that be green texted or would it be OK? It will be less understood and need more noise where from time to time I remind people what it means, but would not have the otherwise unfortunate connotation. I apologise for perhaps appearing to make a diagnosis: obviously I am not a psychiatrist and even if I were no-one could diagnose mental illness from such poor information as is got from a poster's comments here, nor would it be ethical to do so. (And, personally, I view diagnoses of mental illness as profoundly unhelpful and unscientific labels for the great variety of the human condition).
Just a thought.
Amateur diagnoses of mental health problems are totally off topic and have no place here. They are tolerated to a certain (and very limited) extent in the Rossi thread, but that is it. You can always ask the Mods for helpm such requests have never been ignored internally at least.
Amateur diagnoses of mental health problems are totally off topic and have no place here. They are tolerated to a certain (and very limited) extent in the Rossi thread, but that is it. You can always ask the Mods for helpm such requests have never been ignored internally at least.
Understood. OPR it is. No connection with mental health.
Dear mods.
Would you like me to use a more tactful way to remind posters that they are being obsessively and noisily repetitive?
Interesting.....
I got a ban for "repetitive posting" of a point! I guess it is only applicable if the posts are towards certain people? 
Is RB's juvenile and repetitive taunting allowed because of who it is directed to or because it supports the "Cause" although erroneously?
Regardless, RB's continuous juvenile actions are a black eye to this forum and very tiresome.
THH shows restraint that is quite astonishing. Yet he gets the green card for being correct!
Let no one say there is no bias here!!!
