Bose-Einstein condensate created at room temperature

Vortex-L ^ | Feb 6 2013 | Axil Axil

[Kevmo]

You seem fundamentally incapable of arguing without resorting to straw argumentation & classic fallacies.

Observation:
Rocks fell from the sky

Scientists:
That’s impossible.

Result:
Science was revised, not the observation.

Where did I EVER say it was “caused by” volcanoes, or God, or Giant Ogres or ANYTHING? I didn’t. But you inserted those claims and argued against them. Straw argumentation.

Your credibility is zero.

[Kevmo]

There’s heat and helium in my basement. One of them comes from a space heater. The other comes from the Radon decay chain.
***Yet ANOTHER straw argument. Explain the heat & helium in the LENR experiments. That is what is at issue here, not the heat nor helium in your basement. You won’t because you can’t. But you’ll come up with some other deflecting straw argument unworthy of a freshman humanities major.

[FredZarguna]

Quote Feynman all day, and you still don't grasp how you aren't even following his recommendation.

There are (widely disputed) claims of an experimental result. Fine. But YOU are going farther: YOU claim the result is from nuclear fusion. You are now OUT of the realm of experiment, and INTO the realm of theory. Now YOU must provide proof that your theory agrees with the (widely disputed) experimental results. But you CAN'T, because your theory DOESN'T.

Derp.

Buy a clue.

[FredZarguna]

Explain the heat & helium in the LENR experiments.

First, I don't need to. YOU are making the affirmation that these are products of nuclear fusion. Therefore, the ENTIRE burden of proof is on you. Not me. I don't claim there is fusion.

Second, not a straw argument at all. It's the most likely source of the lack of reproducibility of these experiments and the artifacts seen: the heat is from ambient sources and the helium is already there. Just like in my basement.

[Kevmo]

But YOU are going farther: YOU claim the result is from nuclear fusion.
***Where do I claim that? The BECNF isn’t my theory, it’s YE Kim’s theory. That’s why I said you should contact him. But you didn’t. You prefer to argue against me, saying that I claim it, that it’s somehow MY theory. That’s because you can’t hold your own against other physicists. Simple quotes by Feynman prove you to be utterly wrong in your approach.

There are (widely disputed) claims of an experimental result. Fine.
***then do you acknowledge what National Instruments calls an “anomalous heat effect” has been replicated as many times as they claim (more than 180)? If it’s been replicated so many times, how is that “widely disputed”? Why would a $multibillion corporation like NI, or Toyota, or Mitsubishi, or STMicro stick their necks out? Because they like bigfoot-level controversies to ruin their reputations? To use your words, you’re completely full of crap.

[Kevmo]

First, I don’t need to.
***Yes you do. Because you chose to use the classic fallacy of straw argumentation, again and again, so you no longer have any credibility.

It’s the most likely source of the lack of reproducibility of these experiments and the artifacts seen: the heat is from ambient sources and the helium is already there.
***And those “most likely sources” of helium have been accounted for in these peer-reviewed papers. To use your ridiculous analogy, it would be as if your basement was filled with 100% helium. But you won’t be addressing this any time soon. How do I know this? Because of your pattern of arguing fallaciously. You seem utterly incapable of arguing without using classic fallacies. You should send your professor of the critical thinking class that you took that you have failed his class, again and again as evidenced on this thread.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Someone who says "it certainly looks like fusion" is lecturing me (or anyone else) on the scientific method.

Apparently you need that lecture, and possibly an entire remedial course. What does a decrease in deuterium coupled with emission of heat and an increase in helium-4 look like to you??? Peanut butter?

"Once more: IF for the purposes of advancing a hypothetical we agree there is experimental evidence of heat and helium that doesn't prove it's been created by fusion. There's heat and helium in my basement. One of them comes from a space heater. The other comes from the Radon decay chain."

Nice strawman. We're not talking about my (or your) basement, but a series of carefully carried out experiments, in which deuterium appears to react generating heat and helium. Samples were taken isolated from any other source, and analyzed simultaneously with ongoing calorimetry. The excess heat correlated with the increase in helium. Potential sources of interference were corrected for (or eliminated by apparatus design). And, interestingly enough, the heat evolved was a pretty reasonable quantitative match for the mass defect between 2D2 and HE4 as PREDICTED BY THEORY.

"The proposition that ordinary low-energy reactions can produce fusion requires extraordinary proof."

No, actually it doesn't. The meme "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" has never been part of the lexicon of science. It was originated by a professional skeptic about psychic phenomena. The meme was widely popularized by another practitioner of pseudoscience.....Carl Sagan.......who pissed away any claim he had to being a true scientist with his "nuclear winter" fiasco.

But the meme is a convenient smokescreen for those who wish to deny data that disagrees with their pet notions. Simple question.....who gets to define "extraordinary proof", and what does it consist of? This is very much like the liberal's constant calls for "common sense gun laws"....who gets to define what that might be.

"You don't have any that actually connects the artifacts seen in an experiment to any plausible model, so you resort to lecturing people about keeping an open mind.

Actually, I'm trying to get people to actually look at the experimental evidence. Apparently you haven't.

Here's a classic physics example.....detection of the microwave background of the universe. There was NO theory about that, yet it was completely accepted by the overall science community as "real" SOLELY on the basis of replicated experimental evidence.

"In the "scientific" world of Kevmo and Wonder Warthog, all of these statements are valid ... because ... wait for it ... wait for it ... please roll drums for our two "scientists" ... THEORIES DON'T MATTER AND EXPERIMENT TRUMPS EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL. More strawmen.

"I" certainly never said "theories don't matter", and I seriously doubt that Kevmo did. What I said was theories don't provide proof. Experiment provides proof. Theories are VERY useful ONCE EXPERIMENT HAS SHOWN THE EXISTENCE OF PHENOMENA, as they can allow one to choose between possible explanations for phenomena.