New Evidence Supports Claim of Bubble Fusion (It's baaaack)

The math and the physics frequently follow behind unusual experimental results. If there is anything to bubble/cold fusion or sonoluminescence the physicists and mathmaticians will get around to explaining it if they ever are able to obtain consistent lab results.

21 posted on 09/12/2006 5:06:10 PM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)

I thought you were a little un-clam there.

Maybe I was wrong.

22 posted on 09/12/2006 5:10:35 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The state board will meet in closed session to discuss whether it violated an open meetings law)

To: freedumb2003

I agree on both counts.

23 posted on 09/12/2006 5:16:13 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))

To: Physicist; RadioAstronomer

Any insight you can bring to bear here?

24 posted on 09/12/2006 6:01:47 PM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)

To: saganite; freedumb2003

> If there is anything to bubble/cold fusion or sonoluminescence the physicists and mathmaticians will get around to explaining it if they ever are able to obtain consistent lab results.

Yes. We are in complete agreement in that regard. (Given the "if".)

As an aside, having obtained my physics degree long ago (early 70's), I'm quite used to the idea of new models coming along, old models being thrown out, assumptions being revised, all that. The 30 years since I was in school have turned a number of things I learned as "the best we know" into so much mush.

I don't expect our models of the universe to stabilize in my lifetime, and that's okay.

We each reach our "understanding" of the universe in our own way, and even then have only a fraction of a sliver of an inkling of a clue of how the universe actually works, but it's enough to appreciate the magnificence of Creation.

If these folks' work contributes meaningfully to our collective understanding, then regardless of whether they've got a perpetual motion machine or just a nice toy, it will have been worth it.

25 posted on 09/12/2006 8:01:38 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)

Sympathetic? Didn't you even read the first sentence of the article?

26 posted on 09/12/2006 9:36:09 PM PDT by timer

27 posted on 09/12/2006 9:42:17 PM PDT by CollegeRepublican

Any insight you can bring to bear here?

Suggesting contamination in a previous experiment one was unable to reproduce does not constitute an allegation of fraud, not even indirectly.
"The wicked flee when no man pursueth" (Proverbs, 28:1)
Demonstrating that that particular mode of contamination is insufficient to explain the results of the first experiment, is a very weak defense, and does not in any way constitute a reproduction of the first experiment.
Suggesting that a team altered their results to deny research funding to another group is a direct allegation of fraud.

28 posted on 09/13/2006 5:16:57 AM PDT by Physicist

Yep, and the writer spent the rest of the article refuting that view.

29 posted on 09/13/2006 3:50:07 PM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)

To: Hebrews 11:6

I think I'd like to own a scintillation detector.

It's kind of like a BS detector, only for a different part of the conversation spectrum.

30 posted on 09/13/2006 4:02:27 PM PDT by LexBaird (Another member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/NWO/Illuminati conspiracy for global domination!)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794