[Kevmo]

The Cold Fusion Ping List

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles

http://medicine-science.com/as-cold-fusion-events-demonstrate-modern-science-is-ruled-by-conformity-not-the-search-for-scientific-truth/

[Kevmo]

The Cold Fusion Ping List
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/coldfusion/index?tab=articles

http://medicine-science.com/as-cold-fusion-events-demonstrate-modern-science-is-ruled-by-conformity-not-the-search-for-scientific-truth/

[allmost]

The term “cold fusion” is the restraint.

[hinckley buzzard]

Ignorant gibberish. Stop wasting time and space.

[aruanan]

I’ve often wondered why it is that conventionally trained medical doctors are so reluctant to venture outside the limited thinking of conventional medicine. Why are they hesitant to adopt new ideas and new theoretical models for the underlying causes of human health or disease? I think I have at least a partial answer to this question: Doctors only succeed in medical school or in acquiring publication of their studies when they conform with the views and beliefs of their peers. In other words, becoming a successfuldoctorin today’s political-medical environment requires being a conformist. People who are independent thinkers are filtered out of the process early on .

This is a caricature of medical science and science in general. There are always new ideas, models, and theories being proposed and adopted. The cynicism of the above quote is a means of saying, "Hey, you won't listen to what I believe to be true because you want to hold on to what you believe to be true. Therefore, what you claim to be true, unlike what I claim to be true, is only rationalized self-interest, and the fact that you oppose me means that I'm the truly independent thinker and more likely to be right." In spite of examples, even in science, of people behaving like people, it's still a fairly juvenile argument to make.

[Ronin]

Everything that is in this article can be said about the “settled” science of global warming as well.

[djf]

There are emerging theories that may totally change (well, majorly change) the way we look at physics.

IF - and I said IF - Brandenburgs theories on GEM are verified, we will be entering a new realm.

Anti-gravity generated by electromagnetic fields.
Faster than light travel.

The early parts of it seem to have been published in about 2000, he did alot more detail work in 2006, and has been getting peer-reviewed since then and nobody seems to be able to refute it.

As an interesting side note, he predicts the answer to the universe is not 42, it’s 42.85xxx

I am reading his book now, will have more to say when I finish it and do more web research.

[Diogenesis]

Thank you for posting this and ignoring the ‘Luddites’.

[Teacher317]

True science can be stand-offish to new ideas. The entire idea f the scientific model is that there are facts that you can build from.... and accepted ideas that seem to fit that model very well. It is incumbent upon the newcomer with the strange ideas to either show how these ideas fit into the accepted ideas, or how they change them. It is NOT up to the scientific community to “accept new ideas” BEFORE they are proven! Either create repeatable scientific evidence, or create a new working model... or shut up an keep working in the dark. In the end, if your ideas are valid, you’ll reap your rewards. Expecting the scientific community to accept unproven and as-yet-unprivable ideas is simply NOT science. Expecting anything else seems to indicate that your science is poor, your idea is not valid, and that you ought to be ignored.