Merged Cold Fusion Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
catsmate1 said:
If you'd boithered to actually check you'd know this simply isn't true.
Click to expand...

In 1905 the three epochal papers of the hitherto completely unknown Albert Einstein were published in the journal Annalen der Physik. Planck was among the few who immediately recognized the significance of the special theory of relativity. Thanks to his influence this theory was soon widely accepted in Germany. Planck also contributed considerably to extend the special theory of relativity.
 
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Erm. Evidence please. As far as I'm aware, he got his 1905 papers published in a peer reviewed journal prior to any kind of endorsement from Planck.
Click to expand...

In 1905 the three epochal papers of the hitherto completely unknown Albert Einstein were published in the journal Annalen der Physik
Click to expand...

So... basically you are saying that both Tubbythin and Catsmate1 are correct.
 
Originally Posted by attaboy View Post
WRONG!! Please read more carefully and thoroughly.
They're dishonest, attaboy. Forget it.
Click to expand...

Wrong on both counts.

1. Tubbythin said...
Erm. Evidence please. As far as I'm aware, he got his 1905 papers published in a peer reviewed journal prior to any kind of endorsement from Planck.
Click to expand...

2. attaboy said...
In 1905 the three epochal papers of the hitherto completely unknown Albert Einstein were published in the journal Annalen der Physik.
Click to expand...

Ergo, Einstein was previously unknown, then published in the journal before coming to Planck's attention. Annalen der Physik is a peer reviewed journal.

Conclusion, Einstein was published in a peer reviewed journal before coming to Max Planck's attention and Tubbythin is correct.


Sadly it is you Farsight who is dishonest... and still irony impaired.
 
Farsight said:
They're dishonest, attaboy. Forget it.
Click to expand...
Farsight; I have invited you to recall the subject of this thread, and inform us what you think about Andrea Rossi's claims of achieved nuclear fusion in his ecat machine. To Illustrate your superior integrity to attaboy and the rest of us, could you please deign now to do so.
 
attaboy said:
In 1905 the three epochal papers of the hitherto completely unknown Albert Einstein were published in the journal Annalen der Physik. Planck was among the few who immediately recognized the significance of the special theory of relativity. Thanks to his influence this theory was soon widely accepted in Germany. Planck also contributed considerably to extend the special theory of relativity.
Click to expand...
Even though there is no copyright issue, is it not generally considered good manners to attribute cut and paste quotations from Wikipedia?

So which came first, the publication or Planck's endorsement?
 
bruto said:
Even though there is no copyright issue, is it not generally considered good manners to attribute cut and paste quotations from Wikipedia?

So which came first, the publication or Planck's endorsement?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that it matters. Planck's endorsement wouldn't have meant a thing if the math hadn't made accurate predictions.
 
Craig B said:
Farsight said:
They're dishonest, attaboy. Forget it.
Click to expand...
Farsight; I have invited you to recall the subject of this thread, and inform us what you think about Andrea Rossi's claims of achieved nuclear fusion in his ecat machine. To Illustrate your superior integrity to attaboy and the rest of us, could you please deign now to do so.
Click to expand...
Deign? I replied yesterday. See post #2797. I said I thought Rossi's claim was dodgy. But I also said that as regards the subject as a whole, I take a baby-and-bathwater view. LENR/cold fusion is potentially of save-the-planet importance, I think it's wrong to sneer and dismiss. I think it's wrong to be dishonest too. Given my link to Annalen der Physik and "In these times, peer-review was not yet standard. Einstein just sent his manuscripts to Planck who gave them into print", this really takes the biscuit:
Robdegraves said:
Conclusion, Einstein was published in a peer reviewed journal before coming to Max Planck's attention and Tubbythin is correct.
Click to expand...
It's so patently blatantly dishonest it's bizarre.
 
Just trying to keep things on-topic....:)
Out of curiosity, I just went over to Rossi's website to see what the evidence for this amazing device actually was. To say I was disappointed would be an understatement! The entire site seems to be an exercise in 'fogging', with copious amounts of Farsight's "wouldn't this just be soooo great if it worked?" justifications.
I did find some telling inconsistancies - for example, the "New Demo" article, where we find the following telling lines....

"A new set of control electronics was used and the system was started just pushing a button. However, no energy measurement was performed."

and

"Independent testing of his technology has not yet been performed.”

If, after all these years, no independent testing has yet been done, then I would have to err on the side of extreme skepticism and strongly suspect some kind of scam/fraud.

Merely wishing something to be true (because, you know, wouldn't it be just great!) doesn't necessarily make it true!
 
nathan said:
But wouldn't it be great if that were true!
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm not so sure!

First, imagine the tremendous economic and political disruption this could engender - major wars have been started over less!

Second (and more worryingly), the virtually uncontrolled release of heat into the environment could make the very worst climate-warming nightmares pale into insignificance. Imagine 10MW per household in China alone :eek:
 
Farsight said:
Deign? I replied yesterday. See post #2797. I said I thought Rossi's claim was dodgy. But I also said that as regards the subject as a whole, I take a baby-and-bathwater view. LENR/cold fusion is potentially of save-the-planet importance, I think it's wrong to sneer and dismiss.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I missed that. But we disagree absolutely about grounds for dismissing things. The importance or value of something if it happened to be true is no reason for being inclined to believe it. The sensible course to take in assessing its probability is completely the opposite.

Liars and swindlers are more likely to invent attractive or important things than they are to invent ugly or trivial things. So the former must be examined more closely before being accepted. Not attractiveness, not importance: evidence, evidence, evidence!
 
beelzebub said:
Actually, I'm not so sure!

First, imagine the tremendous economic and political disruption this could engender - major wars have been started over less!

Second (and more worryingly), the virtually uncontrolled release of heat into the environment could make the very worst climate-warming nightmares pale into insignificance. Imagine 10MW per household in China alone :eek:
Click to expand...

What would you do with 10MW at home?
 
beelzebub said:
Actually, I'm not so sure!

First, imagine the tremendous economic and political disruption this could engender - major wars have been started over less!

Second (and more worryingly), the virtually uncontrolled release of heat into the environment could make the very worst climate-warming nightmares pale into insignificance. Imagine 10MW per household in China alone :eek:
Click to expand...

I was too subtle. I was making a recursive joke about your comment that wishing something were true doesn't make it true.

Kind of like the Practice Effect, but without the practice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom