• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Split Thread] Mainstream vs. fringe science

SkepticalTheorist

Critical Thinker
S
Joined
May 18, 2017
Messages
418
Split from this thread.
Posted By: jsfisher


Aepervius said:
Hydrogen spectra and hydrogen plasma, as well as the hydrogen potential well, was something i studied, measured and was published at the lab i was. It is not where i ended but thus is where i started.

The fact you call it mainstream science rather than science, is very very revalatory btw.
Click to expand...

Do you think cutting edge revolutionary science is done in the mainstream?

Look at Einstein.. was he mainstream? Who predicted Einstein would revolutionize theoretical physics? He was considered a failure from my understanding. This is a perfect example of how mainstream science is not cutting edge science.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SkepticalTheorist said:
Do you think cutting edge revolutionary science is done in the mainstream?

Look at Einstein.. was he mainstream? Who predicted Einstein would revolutionize theoretical physics? He was considered a failure from my understanding. This is a perfect example of how mainstream science is not cutting edge science.
Click to expand...

Then your understanding is wrong.
Einstein was mainstream and while of course noone could predict it was him of the various scientists working to solve a known problem, he was not considered a failure.
People did of course challenge his theories, but he managed to prove them by letting others look at every detail of his theory (unlike Mills), by adapting his theory when criticism turned out to be right (unlike Mills) and by having a sound mathematical and experimental basis which combined to a predictive model (unlike Mills).

As I and many others have pointed out. Mills claims a problem where there is none, his mathematics are wrong on a level any grad student can spot, and if he were right any chemistry involving Hydrogen would simply not work. Which would mean we would not exist.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the persecuted loner who is hounded by the evil mainstream scientists for overturning their theories while being right all along is a myth belonging to comic books and movies. There are literally no examples in actual science.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
Do you think cutting edge revolutionary science is done in the mainstream?

Look at Einstein.. was he mainstream? Who predicted Einstein would revolutionize theoretical physics? He was considered a failure from my understanding. This is a perfect example of how mainstream science is not cutting edge science.
Click to expand...

Yes he was mainstream science, used the way and avenue of the time to publish, and even proposed way to falsify his own hypothesis, and while he revolutionned physic, he was wrong on some points, and i contend that seeing at the way physic was evolving at the epoch, it was a question if time before somebody else was going this direction too.

There is simply no comparison between einstein and mills.

And for one einstein there are many hundreds of schrödinger, gibbs, pasteur, and so forth.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
Correct me if I am wrong but are there people from Steorn involved with Brilliant Light Power? If not then it's stereotyping to lump them together, no? That's not scientific.
Click to expand...
Mills gets lumped in with Steorn because their MO is exactly the same.

And the only reason you are able to post here is "mainstream" science.
 
abaddon said:
Mills gets lumped in with Steorn because their MO is exactly the same.

And the only reason you are able to post here is "mainstream" science.
Click to expand...

Actually I would disagree with that. No one has convinced me Einstein was a part of mainstream science when he made his discoveries which are most responsible for the technology we have today. If Einstein had forced himself to conform to mainstream science I highly highly doubt he would have ever achieved what he did. And that shows how flawed mainstream thinking is.

I feel the same about the Wright brothers as well. Immense paradigm shifts don't come from the mainstream from what I have seen.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
Actually I would disagree with that. No one has convinced me Einstein was a part of mainstream science when he made his discoveries which are most responsible for the technology we have today. If Einstein had forced himself to conform to mainstream science I highly highly doubt he would have ever achieved what he did. And that shows how flawed mainstream thinking is.
Click to expand...
You are simply wrong. Have you any clue how many scientists were working on the very same problem at the time?

SkepticalTheorist said:
I feel the same about the Wright brothers as well. Immense paradigm shifts don't come from the mainstream from what I have seen.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. The Wright brothers shifted no paradigms. None. Try reading up on the history of flight. They were preceded by at least 100 years of previous work.

And I wonder why this argument is strangely familiar?
 
abaddon said:
You are simply wrong. Have you any clue how many scientists were working on the very same problem at the time?
Click to expand...

Then why was Einstein the one responsible for so many incredible discoveries at that time? If what you were saying was remotely true he shouldn't have been the lone super star of his era. Not only that.. but then you have mainstream science quickly move us away from Einstein and throw us back into the dark ages where we currently remain...

Wrong again. The Wright brothers shifted no paradigms. None. Try reading up on the history of flight. They were preceded by at least 100 years of previous work.
Click to expand...

From what I read their biggest competition - who was part of mainstream science and was considered much more of a safe bet to achieve what the Wright brothers did - had a completely different approach - more of a brute force approach.

Also, didn't the Wright's almost single handedly develop aeronautical engineering techniques still used to this day?
 
Last edited:
SkepticalTheorist said:
abaddon said:
You are simply wrong. Have you any clue how many scientists were working on the very same problem at the time?
Click to expand...

Then why was Einstein the one responsible for so many incredible discoveries at that time? If what you were saying was remotely true he shouldn't have been the lone super star of his era. Not only that.. but then you have mainstream science quickly move us away from Einstein and throw us back into the dark ages where we currently remain...
Click to expand...
That isn't right, it isn't even wrong. (See if you can figure out the irony there)

Einstein was one of many working on the problem. One of them had to be first to figure it out. It happened to be Einstein. If you can't figure out happenstance, I can't help you.

"Mainstream" science has not moved us away from Einstein. Whatever makes you think that? Are you claiming GPS doesn't exist?

SkepticalTheorist said:
From what I read their biggest competition - who was part of mainstream science and was considered much more of a safe bet to achieve what the Wright brothers did - had a completely different approach - more of a brute force approach.

Also, didn't the Wright's almost single handedly develop aeronautical engineering techniques still used to this day?
Click to expand...
Nope. Their genius lay in creating a synthesis of ideas that worked.
 
abaddon said:
Einstein was one of many working on the problem. One of them had to be first to figure it out. It happened to be Einstein. If you can't figure out happenstance, I can't help you.
Click to expand...

I don't see Einstein's work as a logical step that others were certain to achieve in the same era. I think it could have taken decades to reach the understanding he had at that time. And I think it was because Einstein wasn't constrained by working in mainstream science that allowed him to see the big picture.

"Mainstream" science has not moved us away from Einstein. Whatever makes you think that? Are you claiming GPS doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about quantum mechanics. From what I know he was considered out of touch with the mainstream quantum movement that he thought was going down the wrong path.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
I don't see Einstein's work as a logical step that others were certain to achieve in the same era. I think it could have taken decades to reach the understanding he had at that time. And I think it was because Einstein wasn't constrained by working in mainstream science that allowed him to see the big picture.



I'm talking about quantum mechanics. From what I know he was considered out of touch with the mainstream quantum movement that he thought was going down the wrong path.
Click to expand...
You remain wrong. You seem to believe that Einstein was incapable of error. He wasn't.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
I'm talking about quantum mechanics. From what I know he was considered out of touch with the mainstream quantum movement that he thought was going down the wrong path.
Click to expand...
In 1905 Albert Einstein interpreted Planck's quantum hypothesis realistically and used it to explain the photoelectric effect, in which shining light on certain materials can eject electrons from the material. He won the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for this work.

So exactly how would this be considered fringe or out of touch? :confused:

And how exactly does this prove Mills correct when it is Mills basically claiming Einstein's work in Quantum Mechanics fundamentally wrong?:confused:

And how exactly is Mills supposed to overturn Einsteins work in quantum mechanics thus falsifying the photoelectric effect...yet build a new power generator including solar panels?:boggled::boggled:

You are completely boxed in by your own ignorance.:boxedin: Seems the reason you buy the Emperor's new clothes scam is that you really are susceptible to the fear of appearing unfit or intelligent!
 
Last edited:
SkepticalTheorist said:
I never said Einstein couldn't be wrong. I am just saying I trust Einstein much more than the mainstream.
Click to expand...



And the point you're missing is that Einstein is the mainstream. Relativity is one of the major building blocks of the modern understanding of physics, and as has been pointed out, his work was also fundamental to establishing the reality of the quantization of energy, upon which Quantum Mechanics was built.

You'd be hard pressed to find a physicist who was/is more mainstream than Einstein.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
Why can't mainstream science succeed for the same reason? Look back all through history.. the mainstream has always been incompetent in hindsight. Why does anyone think our modern era would be any different?
Click to expand...


Incompetency "in hindsight" infers some current, well, competency.


SkepticalTheorist said:
Why is modern mainstream science exempt from this?



Society has always advanced in spite of being completely backwards in their thinking. It seems to simply be trial and error that allows us to advance.
Click to expand...

The Scientific method is "trial and error".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

SkepticalTheorist said:
Mainstream science having a completely inaccurate model of the universe is just the most glaring error. All these bizarre theories from quantum mechanics that never produce any real working technology such as quantum teleportation seem to be examples of this as well. Yet the people here seem to ignore this kind of thing from what I have seen. It doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

"never produce any real working technology"? Just look around you, find anything with microchips in it? They were produced using quantum mechanics. Heck, if you got a NOR flash drive just erase some data on it and you are using quantum tunneling.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory#NOR_flash
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
I never said Einstein couldn't be wrong. I am just saying I trust Einstein much more than the mainstream.
Click to expand...

Einstein IS what you call "mainstream". Your problem is that you have a term in search of a viable definition. GPS works BECAUSE of relativity, not in spite of it. And where did relativity come from?
 
abaddon said:
Einstein IS what you call "mainstream". Your problem is that you have a term in search of a viable definition. GPS works BECAUSE of relativity, not in spite of it. And where did relativity come from?
Click to expand...

I don't deny most of Einstein's work is mainstream now - outside of quantum mechanics.

But I think that era when Einstein went from outsider to superstar they were desperate for new ideas. Now it's the opposite.. everyone is trying to be like Einstein and come up with these ideas that seem to be as weird as Einstein's were early on... but they don't have the ability Einstein did so it's just fantasy. And they won't let any other ideas that conflict with theirs enter the discussion. Like a religion.
 
Last edited:
SkepticalTheorist said:
I don't deny most of Einstein's work is mainstream now - outside of quantum mechanics.

But I think that era when Einstein went from outsider to superstar they were desperate for new ideas. Now it's the opposite.. everyone is trying to be like Einstein and come up with these ideas that seem to be as weird as Einstein's were early on... but they don't have the ability Einstein did so it's just fantasy. And they won't let any other ideas that conflict with theirs enter the discussion. Like a religion.
Click to expand...

It wasn't "most of Einstein's work" and see that's the problem. If "everyone is trying to be like Einstein and come up with these ideas that seem to be as weird as Einstein's" then they've got it all wrong. Einstein utilized and relied on the work of others both previous and current. Planck, De Broglie, Galileo and Maxwell just to name a few off the top of my head. Heck, it was even Minkowski not Einstein who first came up with the concept of space-time.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
I don't deny most of Einstein's work is mainstream now - outside of quantum mechanics.

But I think that era when Einstein went from outsider to superstar they were desperate for new ideas. Now it's the opposite.. everyone is trying to be like Einstein and come up with these ideas that seem to be as weird as Einstein's were early on... but they don't have the ability Einstein did so it's just fantasy. And they won't let any other ideas that conflict with theirs enter the discussion. Like a religion.
Click to expand...



And here you display your ignorance of the history of relativity. Einstein wasn't some maverick outsider who wasn't allowed to play with the "Cool Kids" of science. His work built on earlier work just like every other scientist's work has. Heck, he was so "mainstream" even at that time that there are people out there who claim he didn't really do much at all, and just copied other's work. I don't personally agree with that assessment, but the fact that an argument can even be made along those lines tells you how mainstream it was.
 
Horatius said:
Because people like you exist, and in far greater numbers than actual working scientists. That is, people who, despite the vast evidence of the benefits of mainstream science they see all around them, still persist in some fantasy that mainstream science is "all wrong", or "misguided", or "arrogant", or any other pejorative they might use as as excuse for their lack of understanding.
Click to expand...

Without people like us there would be no Einsteins Wright brothers.. do you really want a world like that?

Seriously, these people are everywhere. Christians who refuse to accept evolution, or the age of the Earth.
Click to expand...

You seem to be stereotyping again.

Climate change deniers who refuse to accept that the Earth is heating up. Moon landing deniers who refuse to accept that spaceflight is possible. Vaccine deniers who refuse to accept that vaccines have vastly reduced the incidence of many infectious diseases. Any number of magical medical believers that refuse to accept that modern medicine works far better than mumbo-jumbo. Free energy believers who refuse to accept the first law of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...

Those people sound like skeptics... funny you would have a problem with that being a skeptic. How can you know all those people are wrong?

Scientists have been trying for decades to try to explain to these people why they are wrong, and yet, these people persist in laughing off the scientists and spending their money on all this crap.
Click to expand...

Again, I think it's very telling you lump all these people into one group. It's almost as if your brand of skepticism is a religion in itself...

The question isn't why Mills hasn't been stopped yet; the question is, are people like you ever going to listen? Because that's really the only thing that will ever stop him. The minority of people who are scientists just aren't powerful enough to do it on their own.
Click to expand...

More stereotyping and condescension.. You assume you can't be wrong.. that people shouldn't even question the things you present.

It still doesn't explain how a scam could avoid being outed by people like yourself. The legal system must be completely broken to allow people to be bilked out of millions of dollars and no one can do anything about it. If the legal system can be so broken in modern society why can't the scientific establishment be just as broken? And that's the reality.. people know it's all broken. And you are blaming them for pointing out the elephant in the room.
 
Horatius said:
And here you display your ignorance of the history of relativity. Einstein wasn't some maverick outsider who wasn't allowed to play with the "Cool Kids" of science. His work built on earlier work just like every other scientist's work has. Heck, he was so "mainstream" even at that time that there are people out there who claim he didn't really do much at all, and just copied other's work. I don't personally agree with that assessment, but the fact that an argument can even be made along those lines tells you how mainstream it was.
Click to expand...

This seems to be a straw man argument... I don't claim Einstein had to completely invent science to revolutionize it.

The Wright brothers copied birds... they used elements that were all around them put together in new ways. That doesn't mean that they didn't make incredible contributions. Interestingly it was their process of invention in both cases that may have been so innovative. The Wrights with their wind tunnel experiments and Einstein with his thought experiments.
 
The Man said:
It wasn't "most of Einstein's work" and see that's the problem. If "everyone is trying to be like Einstein and come up with these ideas that seem to be as weird as Einstein's" then they've got it all wrong. Einstein utilized and relied on the work of others both previous and current. Planck, De Broglie, Galileo and Maxwell just to name a few off the top of my head. Heck, it was even Minkowski not Einstein who first came up with the concept of space-time.
Click to expand...

To me it's not just what you take or what you use it's how you use it. A chef doesn't have to create all his ingredients to get credit for making the perfect dish. It's how he uses them.. In an era when things are so complex that seems to be the only way to come up with ground breaking discoveries. (I believe this is the major problem with science and society today - that we are too specialized. This may be what allowed Einstein to be so successful because he could survey everything from afar rather than missing the forest for the trees like most people who are so caught up in their little corner of the scientific world.

If you want to be successful in science today you can't be a jack of all trades. You have to specialize. It's very risky to not specialize. You won't get conventional success if you don't follow the conventional path. If you don't follow the conventional path and don't get conventional success then like Mills few will take you seriously.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
To me it's not just what you take or what you use it's how you use it. A chef doesn't have to create all his ingredients to get credit for making the perfect dish. It's how he uses them.. In an era when things are so complex that seems to be the only way to come up with ground breaking discoveries. (I believe this is the major problem with science and society today - that we are too specialized. This may be what allowed Einstein to be so successful because he could survey everything from afar rather than missing the forest for the trees like most people who are so caught up in their little corner of the scientific world.
Click to expand...

Great so a lot of the work wasn't Einstein's. Ever consider that all this work having already been done that there are a lot fewer areas open to just general advancement thus requiring a certain degree of not only specialization but connected coordination just to advance further?


SkepticalTheorist said:
If you want to be successful in science today you can't be a jack of all trades. You have to specialize. It's very risky to not specialize. You won't get conventional success if you don't follow the conventional path. If you don't follow the conventional path and don't get conventional success then like Mills few will take you seriously.
Click to expand...

Well, "few will take you seriously" if you just spout nonsense even if you enjoyed "conventional success". Just look at Linus Pauling.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling

If Mills could perhaps take himself seriously first then others might be inclined to do likewise.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
Without people like us there would be no Einsteins Wright brothers.. do you really want a world like that?
Click to expand...
Oh You were there in 1906, is that your claim? Airflight is simply down to you?

SkepticalTheorist said:
You seem to be stereotyping again.
Click to expand...
Why not? You are making claims out of whole cloth, everyone else has evidence. How do you explain that?

SkepticalTheorist said:
Those people sound like skeptics... funny you would have a problem with that being a skeptic. How can you know all those people are wrong?
Click to expand...
Wow. How do know they are right?

SkepticalTheorist said:
Again, I think it's very telling you lump all these people into one group. It's almost as if your brand of skepticism is a religion in itself...
Click to expand...
Cranks have a pattern every time. You seem to think your claims are new. They are not.

SkepticalTheorist said:
More stereotyping and condescension.. You assume you can't be wrong.. that people shouldn't even question the things you present.
Click to expand...
Wrong. If you have a claim, it is your job to demonstrate that you are correct. So far, you have tried to demonstrate that everyone else is wrong.

Suppose that is true for a moment. Everybody else is wrong.

You still have not made any effort to demonstrate that you are right.

SkepticalTheorist said:
It still doesn't explain how a scam could avoid being outed by people like yourself. The legal system must be completely broken to allow people to be bilked out of millions of dollars and no one can do anything about it. If the legal system can be so broken in modern society why can't the scientific establishment be just as broken? And that's the reality.. people know it's all broken. And you are blaming them for pointing out the elephant in the room.
Click to expand...
No. I am pointing out your failure. However. on this site we are constrained to be within the MA of this site. You do not want to hear what I really think of mills. You dont want a PM from me either.

If you want to defend Mills nonsense go right ahead. You have yet to do it.

From first principles, prove that a hydrino lower state exists. You can't do it. Even Mills can't do it. Mills promised to hand out samples for testing, and then those vanished without without trace.

Why is that?
 
Lurch said:
The credulous non-scientist sees Mills as an elevated, inspired outsider.

The scientific literate sees Mills as at best an incompetent operating outside his area of expertise, and at worst a cynical scammer.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the scientific literate are brainwashed. And they have too much to lose to go against the mainstream. Look at Pons and Fleischmann.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
The problem is that the scientific literate are brainwashed. And they have too much to lose to go against the mainstream. Look at Pons and Fleischmann.
Click to expand...
May I ask, how many scientists do you know, personally?

It's been said, here, many times before, that most if not nearly all physicists and chemists would leap at the chance to have their names associated with a revolution as dramatic as what Mills' claims imply. Not to mention hundreds of "dark actors" who'd devote lots of resources into weaponizing hydrinos (in secret).

Clearly, neither has happened, despite the ideas being out in the open for several decades.

Why not?

One reason - yours? - involves a conspiracy to suppress the truth.

Another, posited by many here, is that there are no hydrinos, that it's just a long-running scam.

Curiously, or not, none of those who have posted here subscribing to the former reason seem to have any significant contact with real scientists. OTOH, the "scam subscribers" seem to include real scientists, and those very familiar with how science works.

An odd dichotomy, wouldn't you say?
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
The problem is that the scientific literate are brainwashed.
Click to expand...
The whole point of the scientific method is that any scientist can replicate any other scientist's work. Hard to brainwash someone when they can check what you say for themselves, and pride themselves on doing so. The motto of The Royal Society, the original scientific academy, is "Take nobody's word for it".

And they have too much to lose to go against the mainstream.
Click to expand...
Those who go against the mainstream and prove themselves right usually gain a Nobel prize and a place in the history books.

Look at Pons and Fleischmann.
Click to expand...
An excellent example. An intriguing possibility, thoroughly and fairly investigated, shown to be unfounded.
 
JeanTate said:
May I ask, how many scientists do you know, personally?
Click to expand...

This is irrelevant. Scientists are humans. They are as susceptible as anyone to brainwashing. Maybe even more so because they have so much at stake and it is so easy to have your career destroyed by going against the mainstream.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
This is irrelevant. Scientists are humans. They are as susceptible as anyone to brainwashing. Maybe even more so because they have so much at stake and it is so easy to have your career destroyed by going against the mainstream.
Click to expand...

Nothing could be further from the truth. The scientific method is the very antithesis of brainwashing, and going against the mainstream will not destroy anyone's career as long as they adhere to the scientific method whilst doing so.

One of my favourite scientists was Fred Hoyle, who went against the mainstream on many occasions and was frequently wrong (he was the main proponent of the Steady State Theory, and continued to argue for it even after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background pretty much proved the competing Big Bang Theory). He was greatly admired throughout the scientific community.
 
Last edited:
SkepticalTheorist said:
This is irrelevant. Scientists are humans. They are as susceptible as anyone to brainwashing. Maybe even more so because they have so much at stake and it is so easy to have your career destroyed by going against the mainstream.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Let me see if I understand ... Mills fans are human. They are as susceptible as anyone to brainwashing. Maybe even more so because they have so much at stake and it is so easy to have your credibility (and investment) destroyed by going against Mills.

Not perfect, but with a few tweaks the logic could be made to be exactly the same, couldn't it?

How to break out then? I have an idea ... look at the objective evidence, ask about independent verifiability, that sort of thing ... :)
 
Pixel42 said:
Nothing could be further from the truth. The scientific method is the very antithesis of brainwashing, and going against the mainstream will not destroy anyone's career as long as they adhere to the scientific method whilst doing so.
Click to expand...

I know of someone who was fired just for publicly pursuing something that was deemed politically incorrect. This refutes your claim.
 
JeanTate said:
Fair enough.

Let me see if I understand ... Mills fans are human. They are as susceptible as anyone to brainwashing. Maybe even more so because they have so much at stake and it is so easy to have your credibility (and investment) destroyed by going against Mills.

Not perfect, but with a few tweaks the logic could be made to be exactly the same, couldn't it?

How to break out then? I have an idea ... look at the objective evidence, ask about independent verifiability, that sort of thing ... :)
Click to expand...

I never said we weren't susceptible to brainwashing.. believe it or not but I am someone who is very skeptical about things myself. A lot of my views on things were totally turned upside down. This Mills saga played into that. Things I learned from watching debates like this and people's psychology.

So I was brainwashed. I may still be brainwashed about a lot of things. It is my view that if you and other critics here weren't so brainwashed you would realize how all the arguments you hold onto so dearly aren't built on anything solid.
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
I know of someone who was fired just for publicly pursuing something that was deemed politically incorrect. This refutes your claim.
Click to expand...
Even if that is true - and it does sometimes happen - it is because the scientific method is being corrupted in the service of a political agenda, and it is easily identified by outside observers. There is no reason to think this is happening in the case of Mills, his work simply does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny by anyone with the knowledge to assess it, regardless of any agenda they might have (and most would have considerably incentive to jump on board if there was anything to it).
 
SkepticalTheorist said:
I could show you who the person is but I don't want to open that can of worms.



I just thought of another example in that can of worms.
Click to expand...


Yes. Vague claims of unspecified evidence are TOTALLY going to convince us that the theories that guided the development of the semiconductors in the very computers we're using to communicate are bunk, and a guy who has spent close to 30 years producing NOTHING but easily doctored crap is the real deal.
 
Pixel42 said:
I'm still mystified as to why anyone would brainwash anyone into doubting Mills' claims if they were true. There can't be many people who wouldn't think it was totally awesome, and want to jump straight on the bandwagon.
Click to expand...

Why did mainstream science crucify Pons and Fleischmann and then later their work was shown to be legitimate?

Why would they jump to such a premature conclusion when something was so incredibly important? And at that time they even accused P&F of jumping to a conclusion when they themselves jumped to a conclusion immediately that was later proven wrong.
 
Last edited:
SkepticalTheorist said:
Why did mainstream science crucify Pons and Fleischmann and then later their work was shown to be legitimate?
.
Click to expand...
Shown to be legitimate? This is not a claim that aligns with reality.

ETA. Because it wasn't legitimate?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom