Posted on 08/14/2015 12:22:28 PM PDT by Normandy
his is an interesting comment written by Jean-Francois Geneste, Vice-President Chief Scientist of Airbus Group Innovations on his LinkedIn page yesterday.
13. Aug. 2015 I made a major theoretical breakthrough in the field of energy creation. This will be presented at the 11th workshop on anomalies in hydrogen loaded metals which will be held next October in Airbus, Toulouse. http://www.iscmns.org/work11/. What it basically consists in is a global theorization of energy creation which includes all known means up today, that they be chemical, nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. Against all expectations, it is proved that there is potential room for cold fusion or so in a breakthrough approach of building a burner and making a (new) fuel. As a consequence, even if the burden of proof remains to cold fusionists to experimentally prove, at least, they are right, on a theoretical point of view, I completely revert the burden of proof to orthodox physicists who now will have to prove the non-existence of cold fusion, if they can, since they have been claiming it for years if not decades. The only way my theory leaves them, is to find a counter example to our theory. I sincerely think this will be very hard, the physical foundations being quite obvious and demanding less than orthodox physics itself.
I hope this theoretical work will allow a more objective approach concerning cold fusion in particular and will encourage young physicists to invest in the field.
(Excerpt) Read more at e-catworld.com ...
Power plant for trasportation?
“I completely revert the burden of proof to orthodox physicists who now will have to prove the non-existence of cold fusion, if they can, since they have been claiming it for years if not decades. The only way my theory leaves them, is to find a counter example to our theory.”
This is kind of an odd statement. He has a theoretical proof and now the burden is on everyone else to disprove his theory?
"Theoretical" being the operative word.
And why doesn't anybody use proper punctuation at the end of a sentence with quotes? Did they pass a law against it or something?
Wonder what next year's world-changing breakthrough will be?
He’s an incredibly brilliant super-scientist, not a logician.
If the theory works, make a reactor, collect free energy, get rich, who cares what anybody else thinks.
“Theoretical” being the operative word.
Yeah. I think the next time a bill collector calls me I’ll tell them I made a “theoretical” payment last week.
Because the proper punctuation feels so counter intuitive?
What was it Yogi Berra said about the difference between theory and practice?
They combined mayonnaise with Miracle Whip?
Back in high school I learned that energy, like matter, can be neither created nor destroyed, but can be transformed into the other.
That principle has not changed.
I don’t believe there is any possibility that cold fusion is possible. If you measure the energy output of a glass of water, and there appears to be a surplus, fusion is not the most simple answer. You would have to see other atoms besides hydrogen and oxygen. A more likely explanation would be the decay of heavy hydrogen within water molecules. You would still have the same amount of water.
Ah, spice.
I'll stick with the "turn matter into energy" people.
I remember my fist time creating energy. It involved a plate of beans, a few beers and egg salad.
Am I crazy, or did this guy just say, “Cold Fusion exists because I said it exists...go prove it doesn’t”?
Isn’t that like Adam’s shirt on “Mythbusters”?
“I reject your reality, and substitute my own!”
As a consequence, even if the burden of proof remains to cold fusionists to experimentally prove, at least, they are right, on a theoretical point of view, I completely revert the burden of proof to orthodox physicists who now will have to prove the non-existence of cold fusion, if they can, since they have been claiming it for years if not decades.
How can anyone be "right" on a theoretical point of view? Indeed, you can't be wrong on a theoretical point of view, but the only way to certify you are right, is to prove it, making it a fact, not a theory.
I don't know if the writer is using what many call a "British style," but it calls for placing that period outside the quotation mark. I've seen multiple examples from countries that tend to follow that style. (The rest of the quotation has other things that I'd edit: for example, I'd remove the comma from "The only way my theory leaves them, is to find a counter example to our theory.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.