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.
IF I were in your shoes, I'd be claiming there's fusion going on in my basement, and telling everyone else that they need to provide the mechanism, because "experiment trumps everything." [As silly an absolutism as any ever written on FR.]
Unfortunately, the BECNF theory as advanced doesn't hold up in exactly the experimental region where the theory itself predicts it will be most pronounced; in fact, in that region is isn't seen at all. This isn't my claim. This is affirmed in the very paper where Kim lays out BECNF.
The proposition that ordinary low-energy reactions can produce fusion requires extraordinary proof. 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.
Congratulations. This puts you in the same class as believers in Astrology, Psi-phenomena, and Phlogiston.
Yeah, that silly absolutism that experiment trumps theory as put forth by Nobel Prize Winning Nuclear Physicist Richard Feynman is the WORST ever written in FR.
Actual quote:
In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.
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.
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.