Operators Are Standing By,.

Via the Friendly Atheist who gakked it from someone else. I laughed so hard when I watched this I just had to share: Become an Atheist Today.

I don't usually talk much about religion because, like sex, yours is none of my business and mine is none of yours. I'm officially Agnostic, and I'd thank you very much to capitalize that or quit capitalizing every other branch of belief. I'm sick of being relegated to an adjective and not a proper noun just because I'm not obnoxious and egotistical enough to think I have answers beyond my cranial capacity. The truth is, I have an idea based on an experience about ten years ago and Agnosticism is really the closest to explaining it. But I was always leaning in that direction anyway, based on an uneasy balance of logic and intuition. This sets me apart from most of my friends who are either self-professing or closet Atheists (and don't tend to capitalize the term, but I do. It's a belief system as well, even if it is founded on science instead of mythology. But then again, so is cold fusion.) It also sets me apart from many of the people I grew up with, who are either propagandizing or closet Christians. I have practicing missionaries, ministry and, much to my chagrin, Jonathan Edwards in my family line. I've read the Bible cover to cover many times and, in case you haven't, the actual wording makes for a social system at least as restrictive as Islam. Being a woman I like to rate above the beasts of burden, which means the true Judeo-Christian belief system is not for me, thanks. Besides, I really like lobster and crab. So I tend to keep my mouth shut and let those around me believe what they want.

Except where evolution is concerned. I'm not going there today, because you don't want me to. Suffice to say I'm a freaking GEOLOGY major. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and if you don't want to believe that I'm sorry. I'm sorry because you are being either stubbornly idiotic or hopelessly gullible and you should really stop for a moment and think things through. I'm willing to compromise. If you want to think that God or Yahweh or YVWH or the invisible pink unicorn was just being a bit allegorical with the whole seven days thing when they created the universe, fine. That at least shows some reasoning and the clockwork theory is fine Deist form that goes back centuries. (And while I'm on the subject, Deism is not Christian in any way, shape or form and I'm getting really sick of right wing conservatives talking about how our country was founded on Christianity. Read the list and weep, folks. Many of our founding fathers were not Christian no matter how many times O'Reilly says they were. Ahem.) But that's as far as I'll go. It just gets too silly after that. Consider gods and days, for instance. Rumor has it, gods hang out in the heavens. Well, what is a day when you're not on Earth? And how fast was the Earth spinning back then anyway? Where exactly did that eternal clockmaker duct tape the sun in relation to the Earth? Perhaps those seven days really were days, but because of design problems there were delays that lasted, oh, maybe 4,499,994,000 years. I've seen contractors work- it could happen. If that sounds ridiculous to you, you now know precisely how I feel when someone tries to tell me fossils were buried as is in the Earth's crust as a test. Yes, precisely. It's a test of just how far someone will go to deny reality. I love wondering what these people must tell themselves when they fill up their tank at the pump. Anyway, like I said: you don't want the whole diatribe. It could fill a book. But again, my business/your business. You want to raise kids in the old ways that's fine, move to Lancaster County and they can be taken out of school after sixth grade. Just don't try to get the whole world to follow you into the dark.

Comments

[Jed Rothwell]

You are correct that cold fusion is founded on science. I believe you meant this to be a sarcastic remark, but in fact cold fusion is entirely scientific.

It is conducted by legitimate scientists, including many distinguished ones, such as the late Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger; the late Heinz Gerischer, the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin; Dr. P. K. Iyengar, director of BARC and later became the chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission; Prof. Melvin Miles, Fellow of China Lake; three editors of major plasma fusion and physics journals; a retired member of the French Atomic Energy Commission, and many top researchers from U.S. national laboratories. These scientists have published hundreds of positive replications in long-established, mainstream journals. You will find a bibliography of these papers, and ~3,000 others from conference proceedings here:

http://lenr-canr.org/

There is widespread opposition to cold fusion, especially in U.S., but by the standards of experimental science -- replication and publication in peer-reviewed journals -- it is as scientific as any other subject. It is far better established than, say, the Top Quark experiments, which cannot be replicated because it is so expensive and difficult.

- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

[Stephanie]

Oh, I have nothing against anyone believing in cold fusion. I just personally don't think it's viable and that is why I used it with Atheism. It's a belief system until there is proof. Also, names (no matter how famous or title-laden) mean nothing to me, give me their theories. In fact, give me yours. I don't like debate- I like discussion. Convince me in your own words.
And if Americans are a little touchy on the subject, it could be we're still paying the interest on the debt from the cold fusion scam in the late eighties. It could also be that Americans are unbearably ignorant of science in general, which is a truly depressing concept. Personally, I'd rather my abused tax dollars and contributions to corporate profit to go toward the pursuit of unproven or unlikely science than toward unwarranted military aggression. But I'd like the dollars spent in more promising areas most of all.

[Lila]

Well, in regards to cold fusion... huh?

The Atheists of America set up on campus, right down from the LDS, the Campus Crusade for Christ etc. They are all missionary. The difference between radical Atheists and Evangelical Christians is what they believe. They sound the same and their methods are the same.

As far as "The Bible" is concerned, what you really read was a Christian translation of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament. (Tangent- The Hebrew Bible does not forbid lesbianism and the Qu'ran does not address homosexuality at all.)

The Qu'ran is actually progressive when it comes to women. The first and last wives of the prophet had quite a bit of power. It's some of the cultures that have adopted Islam that are really extremely sexist.

When are we going to the Creationism museum in Elizabethtown? That's the important part. I need to get someone a t-shirt.

[Jed Rothwell]

You wrote:

"Oh, I have nothing against anyone believing in cold fusion. I just personally don't think it's viable and that is why I used it with Atheism. It's a belief system until there is proof."

Here is the proof: The effect has been replicated hundreds of times at high signal to noise ratios in many different labs, using many different instrument types, and these replications were published in peer reviewed journals. You cannot ask for better proof than that. Actually, you cannot ask for any other proof; replicated experiments are the only standard of truth in science.

"Also, names (no matter how famous or title-laden) mean nothing to me, give me their theories."

Their claims are not based on theories. Researchers have performed and published experiments. Until you read about these experiments, I do not think you have any basis to judge whether they are correct or not. Furthermore, I do not think you should casually dismiss research performed by hundreds of distinguished professional scientists worldwide over 18 years.

The experiments use mainly 19th and early 20th century techniques to detect excess heat, tritium, neutrons, gamma rays, transmutations, and other nuclear effects. The only theory involved in calorimetry are the laws of thermodynamics, which I trust you do not dispute.

"In fact, give me yours."

I have no theory. As I said, cold fusion is based entirely on experimental evidence. I have uploaded over 500 papers. I suggest you read some of them at LENR-CANR.org.

"I don't like debate- I like discussion. Convince me in your own words."

You must read the literature. If you understand thermodynamics, calorimetry, autoradiographs and mass spectroscopy I expect you will be convinced.

"Personally, I'd rather my abused tax dollars and contributions to corporate profit to go toward the pursuit of unproven or unlikely science than toward unwarranted military aggression. But I'd like the dollars spent in more promising areas most of all."

In my opinion cold fusion is extremely promising. Since you believe cold fusion is based on theory rather than experiment, I expect you are not familiar with subject, and you have not carefully evaluated the literature. Therefore, excuse me for saying this, but your opinion has no scientific basis and no merit.

- Jed Rothwell

[Stephanie]

"Therefore, excuse me for saying this, but your opinion has no scientific basis and no merit."

You're perfectly excused. But wrong. My opinion has merit here based on the singular fact that this is my blog. If you don't like what you read, why do you return? You are also mistaken that I am not familiar with the subject at hand. I have a passing knowledge of physics, which is all you should expect from any lay person. In fact, thermodynamics and nuclear activity have quite a bit to do with geology so I might have more than you think. I have used a bit of calorimetry and mass spectroscopy, but confess I have not actually used autoradiography in any capacity I remember. But by refusing to state when and where there were results, you are coming across like any Bible-thumper who quotes verse out of context when they have no other argument. You know, I used to do that right back to them, and when they particularly annoyed me, I would make verses up to see if they could catch it. No one ever did because zealotry tends to blind one from rational observation. I appreciate you have a crusade. But I do not share your beliefs and you are doing nothing to persuade me.

[Stephanie]

And, Lila, I *know* you're just trying to get me to learn Hebrew with you...

I am very torn about that stupid museum. On the one hand, how great would a shirt be? On the other, I can't in good faith (haha) give any money to that whacko. I've heard the polls on how many Americans believe in Creationism and believe the question was skewed ('Do you believe in Bibilical origins' as opposed to 'Do you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old?') But giving that particular nutjob cash is tacit approval of his attempt to occlude knowledge of the world. So I don't think I could. Are there any Freethought groups making parodies of the shirts yet?

[Jed Rothwell]

You wrote:

"My opinion has merit based on the singular fact that this is my blog."

An opinion unsupported by technical arguments has no merit in science. You have to tell us why and where the experimenters made mistakes.

"If you don't like what you read, why do you return?"

Why not? What harm?

"You are also mistaken that I am not familiar with the subject at hand. I have a passing knowledge of Physics, which is all you should expect from any lay person. In fact, thermodynamics have quite a bit to do with geology . . ."

Obviously you must be familiar with thermodynamics, mass spectroscopy and so on, because you studying geology. I am saying that it seems you are not familiar with cold fusion, because your statements about it are incorrect. (You thought it was based on theory, but that is wrong; it is based on experiment.) No one can be familiar with a particular subject without first reading papers on that subject; general knowledge of physics does not count.

I encourage you to apply your knowledge of these subject to the published papers on cold fusion. I assumed you agree that in science, peer-reviewed, replicated experiments are the gold standard of truth. Perhaps I was wrong about that.

"But by refusing to state when and where there were results . . ."

I have stated quite clearly when and where there were results! I repeat, my web site lists 3,500 papers published since 1989, and it has over 500 full-text papers. Just click on LENR-CANR.org and you will see hundreds of results from laboratories worldwide, including, for example: the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake, Amoco, SRI, Texas A&M, Los Alamos, Mitsubishi Res. Center, BARC Bombay and Tsinghua U. I think the results from these labs is particularly impressive, and their work is well documented in our library, but there are hundreds of others to choose from, and I would not want to slight other researchers.

If you would like to see a list of the first 92 labs that reported positive results as of September 1990, see Will, F.G., Groups Reporting Cold Fusion Evidence. 1990, National Cold Fusion Institute: Salt Lake City, UT.:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf

“. . . you are coming across like any Bible-thumper who quotes verse out of context when they have no other argument.

. . . But I do not share your beliefs and you are doing nothing to persuade me.

The arguments are published in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals, and I invite you to read papers from these journals. I have made some of them available to you at the click of a mouse. What more can I possibly do to persuade you? As a scientist, what more can you ask of me?

- Jed

[Stephanie]

I can ask for YOUR OWN WORDS as to why you think cold fusion works. I can ask for results on X date that showed a low temperature exothermic nuclear reaction with viable energy transference within our capabilities. This is a blog, not a peer-review site. Therefore, it is up to you to do the work if you wish to contribute, please summarize and expound on the papers you're referencing. Many of the people who visit this site have little knowledge of this particular branch of science. In case you haven't read my blog, I have a wide circle of friends in many walks of life and areas of interest. The only thing you can really expect of them is that they think. Therefore I prefer that relevant information is contained within this site to make these in-depth tangents easier to follow. Create an argument within these parameters, without alluding to generalized works, without dropping of names and particularly without allusions that anyone who disagrees with you simply can not understand the situation. There are many intelligent people in the world who do not agree. So I ask of you one more time: convince me.

[Jed Rothwell]

You wrote:

"I can ask for YOUR OWN WORDS as to why you think cold fusion works."

I have no idea why it works! You would have to ask a theoretician. I only know that it does work, based on experimental evidence.

Actually, I doubt anyone knows why it works. That hasn't been discovered yet. This would be like asking how cells reproduce before the discovery of DNA 1952, or how fusion in the sun works, before the discovery of solar fusion in 1939. The answers back then were: "we don’t know, but we can see that it does work, and there has to be a reason."

In any case, most scientists are not interested in MY OWN WORDS. They prefer to see replicated data from professional researchers. I am a little surprised -- and flattered -- that you are prepared to be convinced by MY WORDS rather than, say, this autoradiograph published by India’s preeminent nuclear physics laboratory, which shows roughly 7 orders of magnitude more radiation than can be explained by plasma fusion theory:

http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#AutoradiographsMSrinivasan

That seems more convincing than any words I could muster.

"I can ask for results on X date that showed a low temperature exothermic nuclear reaction with viable energy transference within our capabilities."

You sure can! There are tons of results like that at LENR-CANR.org. Take your pick. As I said, you can see, for example, the results from the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake, Amoco, SRI, Texas A&M, Los Alamos, Mitsubishi Res. Center, BARC Bombay and Tsinghua U. Just look 'em up in the search box on the front, or one of the indexes. Here is a quote from one that I like:

"The calorimetry conclusively shows excess energy was produced within the electrolytic cell over the period of the experiment. This amount, 50 kilojoules, is such that any chemical reaction would have had to been in near molar amounts to have produced the energy. Chemical analysis shows clearly that no such chemical reactions occurred. The tritium results show that some form of nuclear reactions occurred during the experiment. . . . The main point of the tritium in this experiment is then that there are some nuclear processes involved. . . "

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Lautzenhiscoldfusion.pdf

"Therefore, it is up to you to do the work if you wish to contribute, please summarize and expound on the papers you're referencing."

Well, it is a complicated subject. I can't imagine anyone summarizing it satisfactorily in a few paragraphs. I recently finished editing a 311 page book on the subject by Storms, which I think is the best summary yet written, but it sure wouldn't fit in your website. I also recommend the books by Beaudette and Mallove. All three are solid introductions to the field.

As I said, the effect produces excess heat, tritium, neutrons, gamma rays, transmutations, and other nuclear effects. I suppose that is a quick summary, but how can anyone "believe" it? In what sense will you "believe" in "tritium"? You have to read about the various ways they measure tritium in different labs. Go to our front page, type in "tritium" in the search box, and you will find ~310 papers on that subject. I recommend Storms, Radhakrishnan, Will & Cedzynska, and Claytor, but there are lots of others worth reading.

I summarized some of the results in detail. I have written 5 papers, one book, and I have edited and translated three books and roughly 50 papers. See, for example:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofmc.pdf

"Therefore I prefer that relevant information is contained within this site to make these in-depth tangents easier to follow."

Cold fusion is not easy to follow. It requires considerable effort just to understand what is being claimed, and even more effort to judge whether the claims are correct or not. It is easier to grasp than, say, the top quark, but not easy.

"Create an argument within these parameters, without alluding to generalized works . . ."

Cold fusion is not based on "an argument." I do not think it is possible to prove that it exists or even to define what it is except by pointing to the totality of replicated results. There is no other proof. That totality will not fit in your web site. It fills the 311 pages of Storms book to overflowing. You must read dozens -- or hundreds -- of papers to grasp it. The only way to convince a scientist that the results are not experimental error is to have him or her read several papers from different authors, describing different experiments with a variety of instrument types, such as isoperibolic, flow and Seebeck calorimeters. The paper by Lautzenhiser and Phelps I quoted above is convincing, but only because so many others have reported similar results. If this were the only paper ever published about cold fusion, or if there were only five others, I would not be convinced.

". . . without dropping of names and particularly without allusions that anyone who disagrees with you simply can not understand the situation."

I do not assert that you cannot understand. I assert that you cannot *know*. Knowledge must proceed understanding. You cannot do science by ESP. You must read a paper and learn about the instruments and techniques and other particulars before you can judge whether it is right or wrong. The only way for you to judge Lautzenhiser and Phelps is to read their paper. There are no shortcuts.

"There are many intelligent people in the world who do not agree."

Well, unless these intelligent people have read the papers and they can cite technical errors, their opinions do not count. I have not met an intelligent person who has read the papers yet who remains unconvinced.

Science is not a popularity contest. Majority opinions unsupported by facts have no merit, no matter how big the majority may be. A negative opinion does not get a free pass; it must be supported as rigorously as a positive opinion.

"So I ask of you one more time: convince me."

I cannot convince you, and I would not if I could. If you are a scientist, only the experiments will convince you. You must read about them and think carefully. If you would be "convinced" by a few paragraphs written by web site librarian (me) then you are a gullible fool, not a scientist.

- Jed

[Stephanie]

"A negative opinion does not get a free pass; it must be supported as rigorously as a positive opinion."

Sadly, I'm sure we both know that is antithetical to the most basic of scientific reasoning, back to null and alternative hypotheses. I would gladly continue this conversation with you, but you really must refrain from statements such as; "Well, unless these intelligent people have read the papers and they can cite technical errors, their opinions do not count."
You and I have a different opinion of intelligence. I believe intelligence lies in the basic ability to understand, you believe it lies in someone's ability to read the papers you have compiled and archived and agree with you. We have many more mis-communications here. I am asking for what you must tell those around you in social situations. Surely, you don't tell friends at a party that low energy reactions work because you say they do and you don't bring leaflets out to dinner. So, and I think I'm more than extending basic hospitality and consideration here when I ask you one more time: why do YOU support it? Hard data, not theses to dig through. Frankly, I'm not that interested and you won't be convincing me or anyone else reading this by your condemnation of me for that. If you truly believe there are no shortcuts to understanding, then you may have a rough road ahead of you. Investors have even less tolerance for the unexplained and they prefer to read proposals and earnings reports.

[Lila]

The point is to see the statue of Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs. We NEED to see that.

[Jed Rothwell]

You wrote:

"You and I have a different opinion of intelligence. I believe intelligence lies in the basic ability to understand, you believe it lies in someone's ability to read the papers you have compiled and archived . . ."

Please explain how anyone can understand an experiment they know nothing about! That is an extraordinary claim. If a person have not learned what kind of instruments were used, and what was measured, how can that person "understand" the result? This makes no sense to me.

"Surely, you don't tell friends at a party that low energy reactions work because you say they do and you don't bring leaflets out to dinner."

I would never try to explain cold fusion over dinner! I can't begin to explain it without graphs, schematics and data. It is too complicated. I wouldn’t know where to begin. That would like trying to explain Japanese verb forms while juggling oranges while riding a bicycle.

"So, and I think I'm more than extending basic hospitality and consideration here when I ask you one more time: why do YOU support it? Hard data, not theses to dig through."

The hard data is in the papers I cited. Where else would it be? I copied the abstract from the paper Lautzenhiser and Phelps. That abstract alone has lots of hard data that I find very convincing: 50 kJ of energy, no chemical changes, plus tritium. That is rock solid proof that a nuclear reaction took place. I do not see how you can dispute that, but on the other hand if I were you I would want to know how they measured the energy and tritium.

But if you are convinced by a mere summary, that's a good one. See also the abstracts published by SRI, Los Alamos and the U.S. Navy labs. Some examples:

"RESULTS Three conditions were found characteristic of all cells yielding episodes of excess heat: (1) a D/Pd ratio >0.9, (2) initial appearance times of 8 to 23 days, and (3) cathodic current densities above 0.1 A/cm2. Excess powers ranging between a few percent to ~350% were observed, measured to an accuracy of ~0.5%. These excess powers integrated to a total of ~0.1 to 1.1 MJ for a ~2.5 g (1/40 mole) palladium cathode. Thus, the excess heats ranged between 4 to 44 MJ/mole of palladium, which was well above the largest known heats of chemical transformation in this or any other metal. The largest heat of chemical transformation in palladium is to the bromide at 0.9 MJ/mole. . . .

EPRI PERSPECTIVE This work confirms the claims of Fleischmann, Pons, and Hawkins of the production of excess heat in deuterium-loaded palladium cathodes at levels too large for chemical transformation. . . ."

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf

Here's another convincing one:

"Tritium up to fifty times background has been observed upon electrolyzing 1N D2SO4 in four out of four cells when using Pd cathodes "of a certain type". No tritium was detected in four control cells, containing H2S04 in H2O, employing Pd cathodes cut from the same wire spool. Tritium amounts were from 7 x 10 to 2.1 × 10^11 atoms, corresponding to average generation rates from 5.1 × 10^4 to 2 × 10^5 atoms/sec/cm2. In all cases, D/Pd and H/Pd loadings of 1 ± 0.05 were attained. A cyclic loading/unloading regime rather than the usual continuous constant current regime was applied to attain these high loadings. Tritium analysis was performed in Pd, electrolyte and the gas head space of the sealed cells. Maximum tritium concentrations of 8.9 × 10^10 atoms/g Pd, 180 times the detection limit, were found in the D-loaded Pd cathodes, none in the Η-loaded Pd, Also, no tritium within detection limit was found in 150 unused Pd pieces. Of these, 13 were cut randomly from the same wire spool as the four D-loaded Pd cathodes. The probability that the tritium in the latter was due to random spot contamination is computed as 1 in 2,380. It is concluded that the tritium was generated by nuclear reactions in the Pd. . . ."

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGtritiumgen.pdf

"Frankly, I'm not that interested and you won't be convincing me or anyone else reading this by your condemnation of me for that. . . ."

I am not condemning anyone! I am merely stating that it is impossible for a person to know about an experiment without first learning about that experiment. Of course if you are not interested you should not take the trouble to learn. But in that case, you should refrain from passing judgment on the research. The only thing you can say is: "I have not studied this subject so do not know."

"If you truly believe there are no shortcuts to understanding, then you may have a rough road ahead of you."

That wasn’t me. It was Euclid who said there is no royal road to geometry. Or any other subject. You must know what was done before you can understand it. You are correct that understanding science or any other worthwhile subject is always a rough road. I am surprised you have not already realized that from studying geology. Surely you did not learn geology by rubbing a textbook with your hand, or by closing your eyes and chanting, or any other magical method. The only way is to study the facts, conduct field research, think hard, and learn what is observed and what conclusions are drawn. It is never easy and there are no shortcuts. If someone who knew nothing about geology demanded that you give them a single paragraph to convince them that the geological principle of faunal succession is true, I trust you would respond by saying something like: "you will have to read an introductory textbook to familiarize yourself with the general principles first."

"Investors have even less tolerance for the unexplained and they prefer to read proposals and earnings reports."

I'll take your word for that! I know nothing about investing, and I probably could not make head or tail of an earnings report.

- Jed

[Jed Rothwell]

Let me add an important point. This is not about me. You wrote:

"You and I have a different opinion of intelligence. I believe intelligence lies in the basic ability to understand, you believe it lies in someone's ability to read the papers you have compiled and archived . . ."

The fact that I compiled and archived these papers is irrelevant. I did not write them.

To learn about cold fusion you MUST study some of the papers listed in our bibliography because there are no other papers. This is the entire corpus; it is everything the cold fusion researchers have claimed. In other words, yes, it does all depend on "someone's ability to read the papers" because this is the complete list of 3,500 papers that have ever been published.

You cannot depend on mass-media secondary sources. The Scientific American, the New Scientist, the Washington Post, Time magazine and many other publications have published garbled descriptions of cold fusion, but when you compare these descriptions to the original source documents, you will see at a glance they are wrong. They are worse than wrong; the Scientific American version in particular is imaginary nonsense, as summarized here:

http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#SciAmSlam

(Note that bibliography lists ~3,500 papers in English. There are ~500 full text papers in the library, which is a good representative sample. But many other fine papers are listed in the bibliography. You will have to go to a university library to read them.)

- Jed

[Stephanie]

Surely these experiments weren't run without theory behind them. And yet you claim the results of the papers and state there is no way to discuss the mechanisms. That smacks of zealotry. I have been patient. I believe you believe. I do not and I know we are at loggerheads here- and if this is truly moot, the discussion has gone on too long. My final question to you is: are these papers of yours really much different from Watchtowers? There are 66 books in the KJV Bible with another 15 in the related Apocrypha. They are all very persuasive- IF you believe the underlying argument that the Bible (and in particular the KJV) is the word of God. Reading the Bible with and without that viewpoint results in significantly different experiences.

You're right in that geology isn't easy in a country that is trying to persuade its populace that the Earth is 6,000 years old. But I can give clear answers. I can explain tectonic plate movement and how petroleum deposits form under salt domes to a lay person. These are the kind of concepts you have yet to provide.

[Jed Rothwell]

You wrote:

"Surely these experiments weren't run without theory behind them."

You are wrong: these experiments are run entirely without theory. Except, of course, for 19th century theories such as thermodynamics, which govern the performance of calorimeters; or the theory that tritium can only be produced from a nuclear reaction, not a chemical reaction.

The authors say clearly that they are running without theory. They are certain this is a nuclear reaction, because they measure nuclear products such as tritium and gamma rays, but as yet no one can explain how or why the nuclear reaction occurs. The purpose of doing the experiments is to discover the nature of the reaction.

Scientific research often begins by investigating a mystery and later developing a theory. As I pointed out previously, nuclear fusion in the sun was a complete mystery until 1939, and cellular reproduction was a mystery until the discovery of DNA in 1952. All of the theories to explain cell division developed before 1952 were completely wrong, as Watson pointed out. People thought that genetic information was stored in proteins. At present, high temperature superconductors (HTSC) are unexplained. We can observe that HTSC exist, but no theory can account for them yet. Schwinger gives an example from your field. Quote:

A totally unexpected phenomenon has been discovered in a certain field of science. It could have significant implications for the future of mankind, and especially for the Japanese. The overwhelming reaction of the experts in the field is rejection, based on the absence of other effects that are considered to be necessary companions of this new phenomenon. To quote one expert: “We know a lot about what happens. . . . We no longer have the latitude to say ‘Well, some strange event occurred and generated those things.’” Nevertheless, this new possibility seems to have enough validity that one skeptic said: “It’s hard to believe it. But there seems to be something to this.” And he went on to say: “It should not be necessary, however, to understand the mechanism before embracing the concept. If a proven track record can be established . . . you have to believe it.”

To which scientific field does all this refer? In view of the title of my lecture, the question may seem surprising. In fact, the object is seismology. The new phenomenon is the occurrence of electromagnetic effects just prior to the onset of an earthquake. The most striking event happened on 17 October, 1989. The apparatus of a team of radio detection specialists, which was situated in the Santa Cruz mountains of California, received an unprecedented blast of radio power. . . Scientists in Athens, Greece, have established a track record of 75% success in predicting earthquakes.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SchwingerJcoldfusiona.pdf

"And yet you claim the results of the papers and state there is no way to discuss the mechanisms."

The mechanism is not yet known. There are many unsolved mysteries in science, such as why different radioactive elements decay at different rates.

"That smacks of zealotry."

No, this is new science, which is often unknown. Frankly, you seem to be insisting that all new discoveries be explained by theory before we accept them. *That* is zealotry, and it violates the most fundamental rule of science, which is that experiments are the only valid basis for scientific knowledge. Replicated experiments always overrule theory. If, as some people claim, cold fusion experiments violate theory, that proves the theory is wrong, and it proves that we are confronted with yet another new, unexplained mystery.

"I have been patient. I believe you believe. I do not and I know we are at loggerheads here- and if this is truly moot, the discussion has gone on too long."

Do you mean you do not believe the data? In that case you must show an error in the instruments or technique. If you believe that a discovery must be supported by a theory then you have turned your back on the scientific method itself. You have pre-modern, pre-Renaissance mindset. You must learn that the experiment is the only standard of truth. Theory can be wrong; replicated experiments are always right.

"My final question to you is: are these papers of yours really much different from Watchtowers?"

Yes, much different. The Watchtower literature is based on empty speculation and superstition. Cold fusion papers based on long-established, rock-solid experimental techniques such as calorimetry and mass spectroscopy. They report objective data replicated in many laboratories, using the best instruments available. Tritium is not a figment of anyone’s imagination, and it is not debatable. I am certain that all nuclear physicists agree that tritium is certain proof that a nuclear reaction of some sort is occurring. They do not all realize that cold fusion produces tritium, but that is because they have not read the literature and they do not know what it does.

Frankly, I am shocked that you cannot tell the difference between calorimetry and mass spectroscopy on one hand, and religion on the other. They seem as different as any two things can be!

"You're right in that geology isn't easy in a country that is trying to persuade its populace that the Earth is 6,000 years old. But I can give clear answers. I can explain tectonic plate movement and how petroleum deposits form under salt domes to a lay person."

If we were back in 1950, you could not explain tectonic plate movement because no one understood it yet. The movement of the continents was still a mystery back then. In fact, most geologists denied that continents move. In 50 years, people will be able to give clear answers about cold fusion, but at present it is an unsolved mystery, just as plate tectonics used to be.

Actually, plate tectonics is an excellent example for you to think about, because it was largely discovered by Alfred Wegener in 1912. Unfortunately, no one believed him, and he was attacked and ridiculed his whole life, until in the 1960s Dietz and Hess were given credit for his work. This shows the danger of ignoring data, and assuming that the majority is right.

"These are the kind of concepts you have yet to provide."

Yes, because these are the kind of concepts which have not yet been discovered. If you are not convinced by overwhelming, replicated experimental evidence of tritium and other nuclear effect, then you are not a scientist and there is nothing more I can point to that will convince you.

- Jed

[Stephanie]

I know all about poor Wegener, dying unloved on a glacier. However, he had a poor mechanism. Therefore, he had a belief system. Plate tectonics are still in their infancy and is something I personally believe in- I can explain the logical mechanism for it and the supporting evidence. That is science. But I do not force it down other's throats, nor do I scour the web all day for references to 'plate tectonics' just to make sure everyone is thinking correctly. In other words, just like me.
Evidently, since I am not a believer in your tracts, I am not a scientist. Much like if I do not believe what is written in the Bible/Torah/Koran is the word of God, I am not worthy of the 'truth.' I can live with both accusations because personal attacks are always the last defense of the fanatic.

[Kimiakane]

Kewl! See, Steph, all this complainin' about no one ever taking the time to reply to your blog was not necessary. All ya have to do is post about religion (or the lack thereof, whatever) and it brings forth massive postage!!! Once this runs a little dry, then post something political or maybe the aforementioned topic of "sex" and I'll bet the commentary will continue flowing like a free tap at a frat party!

[Lila]

However, he had a poor mechanism...

Ho ho ho ho ho ho

I hear that happens with age.

[Stephanie]

Nah, this one had nothing to do with religion- although everything to do with faith. I was asked (politely) to quit winding the poor guy so I ran this one down myself.