MOTTO
The hallmark of our times is change and acceleration, but we have to provide the history. (Jim Leach)
The hallmark of our times is change and acceleration, but we have to provide the history. (Jim Leach)
Finding out that something you have just discovered is considered all but impossible is one of the joys of science.” -(Mike Brown)
taken from:http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2016/01/20/not-so-fast-why-there-likely-isnt-a-large-planet-out-beyond-pluto-synopsis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScienceblogsPhysicalScience+%28ScienceBlogs+Channel+%3A+Physical+Science%29
DAILY NOTES
Ideas re. reframing LENR
You can read the comments however here I want to extract the essential in minimum of words of the suggestions:
- reframe focused on the solutions, not on the problem (Lennart Thornros)
- events coming soon will refrain LENR completely, in an unexpected way (MD)
- theoretical physicists eem to be unable to contribute to the reframing (SE Grimm)
- a huge obstacle to reframing is what I call memecracy - the power of the dominant worldview (Axil) - see the complete textsin his column AXIL DIXIT
- the present education system does not create reframers (Lennart Thornros)
- Physics has lost its fizz not favorable for progress and radical reframing; (AXIL)
It is not directly about reframing LENR , however David Cola has sent an original poisoned compliment to Rossi:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/01/jan-21-2016-how-to-reframe-lenr-problem.html?showComment=1453466491465#c6650560593694042451
A real contribution to the most negative side of the opinion spectrum.
Thanks for the contributions! I hope to receive more suggestions regarding reframing of LENR;
QUESTION: can it be built a new common frame for such opposed views as Surfce vs Bulk, N.A.E. vs LATTICE- in PdD? Or the conflict is irreconcilable and eternal?
DAILY NEWS
MSA-talk] More on the Rossi Reactor and the reasons for its dismissal by reputable scientists
^ days to Randy Mills DEMO!
The Peak Oil Crisis: Return of the Hydrino
DAILY NOTES
Ideas re. reframing LENR
You can read the comments however here I want to extract the essential in minimum of words of the suggestions:
- reframe focused on the solutions, not on the problem (Lennart Thornros)
- events coming soon will refrain LENR completely, in an unexpected way (MD)
- theoretical physicists eem to be unable to contribute to the reframing (SE Grimm)
- a huge obstacle to reframing is what I call memecracy - the power of the dominant worldview (Axil) - see the complete textsin his column AXIL DIXIT
- the present education system does not create reframers (Lennart Thornros)
- Physics has lost its fizz not favorable for progress and radical reframing; (AXIL)
It is not directly about reframing LENR , however David Cola has sent an original poisoned compliment to Rossi:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/01/jan-21-2016-how-to-reframe-lenr-problem.html?showComment=1453466491465#c6650560593694042451
A real contribution to the most negative side of the opinion spectrum.
Thanks for the contributions! I hope to receive more suggestions regarding reframing of LENR;
QUESTION: can it be built a new common frame for such opposed views as Surfce vs Bulk, N.A.E. vs LATTICE- in PdD? Or the conflict is irreconcilable and eternal?
DAILY NEWS
MSA-talk] More on the Rossi Reactor and the reasons for its dismissal by reputable scientists
The Peak Oil Crisis: Return of the Hydrino
https://fcnp.com/2016/01/21/the-peak-oil-crisis-return-of-the-hydrino/
Andrea Rossi daily update
January 22nd, 2016 at 8:39 AM
Cathleen Lakes:
at 08.40 of Friday January 22 2016:
1 MW E-Cat: stable
E-Cat X: in operation, good standing
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Cecil Schnebly
January 21st, 2016 at 11:08 PM
Dr Rossi,
I am one of those that think that the E-Cat will never go to the market and I think there are many that think as I think.
Regards,
Cecil.
Andrea Rossi
January 22nd, 2016 at 8:25 AM
Cecil Schnebly:
I hope you are wrong, but I must say that you could be right. We are fighting to succeed. I am sure you too will have an advantage if we will succeed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi
January 22nd, 2016 at 8:22 AM
D. Coltrane:
What counts is not what some scientists say; what counts is if a product will be working in the market. At the dawn of the car-technology ( around 1890-1905) many scientists said that a speed of 20 miles per hour could damage permanently the cardiovascular system of humans; others said that cars could never substitute horses: how could cars overcome all the hurdles in a countryside? The car sellers had to say, to convince the buyers, that a car is better than a horse “because cars don’t eat when they are not marching”. To change things have not been the biased minds of scientists during their eventual evolution, but the products, the cars invading the market.
The comment of Axil Axil is intelligent, though.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi is very permissive to negative ideas and pessimistic predictions re his test. He knows why.
Andrea Rossi daily update
January 22nd, 2016 at 8:39 AM
Cathleen Lakes:
at 08.40 of Friday January 22 2016:
1 MW E-Cat: stable
E-Cat X: in operation, good standing
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Cecil Schnebly
January 21st, 2016 at 11:08 PM
Dr Rossi,
I am one of those that think that the E-Cat will never go to the market and I think there are many that think as I think.
Regards,
Cecil.
Andrea Rossi
January 22nd, 2016 at 8:25 AM
Cecil Schnebly:
I hope you are wrong, but I must say that you could be right. We are fighting to succeed. I am sure you too will have an advantage if we will succeed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Andrea Rossi
January 22nd, 2016 at 8:22 AM
D. Coltrane:
What counts is not what some scientists say; what counts is if a product will be working in the market. At the dawn of the car-technology ( around 1890-1905) many scientists said that a speed of 20 miles per hour could damage permanently the cardiovascular system of humans; others said that cars could never substitute horses: how could cars overcome all the hurdles in a countryside? The car sellers had to say, to convince the buyers, that a car is better than a horse “because cars don’t eat when they are not marching”. To change things have not been the biased minds of scientists during their eventual evolution, but the products, the cars invading the market.
The comment of Axil Axil is intelligent, though.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
AXIL DIXIT
Most people in science get their world view from years of school and countless TV documentaries and conversations. If that world view is wrong, then experiments that show conflicting ideas are considered pseudoscience. Once a world view is set in place in a person’s brain it is near impossible to change. The world view of current science is wrong and that is the reason why many unanswered questions about the cosmos go unanswered. Randel Mills is a prototypical example. He has constructed a world view that bars him from making progress in his inventions. Holmlid is another guy that is convinced that his reaction is hot fusion. I fear that unless the data that Holmlid collects changes his views underlying assumptions that underpin his experiments that he performs, he is driving toward a dead end. Problem solving requires some flexibility in how we view the world at its deepest level.
Many people think that the world is just 6,000 years old. Science is difficult for these people to understand.
As another example, if our view of how the sun works can be changed to look in it as a ball of liquid rather than a ball of hot gas, then many enlightening ideas spring from the new opinion. Problems like the solar neutrino problem might be solved correctly.
As neutrino detectors became sensitive enough to measure the flow of neutrinos from the Sun, it became clear that the number detected was lower than that predicted by models of the solar interior. In various experiments, the number of detected neutrinos was between one third and one half of the predicted number. This came to be known as the solar neutrino problem.
If the sun is viewed as a cold fusion reactor, then all kinds of fusion reactions can take place all throughout the entire volume of the sun and not just in the hot gas in the core involving just PP hot fusion. This bad hot fusion assumption gums up neutrino science and the standard model. In general, unless science takes cold fusion seriously, it is headed for disaster. Problem solving needs to be based on the understanding about the correct foundation of the structure of the universe. Some flexibility in the way we think can help greatly.
Many people think that the world is just 6,000 years old. Science is difficult for these people to understand.
As another example, if our view of how the sun works can be changed to look in it as a ball of liquid rather than a ball of hot gas, then many enlightening ideas spring from the new opinion. Problems like the solar neutrino problem might be solved correctly.
As neutrino detectors became sensitive enough to measure the flow of neutrinos from the Sun, it became clear that the number detected was lower than that predicted by models of the solar interior. In various experiments, the number of detected neutrinos was between one third and one half of the predicted number. This came to be known as the solar neutrino problem.
If the sun is viewed as a cold fusion reactor, then all kinds of fusion reactions can take place all throughout the entire volume of the sun and not just in the hot gas in the core involving just PP hot fusion. This bad hot fusion assumption gums up neutrino science and the standard model. In general, unless science takes cold fusion seriously, it is headed for disaster. Problem solving needs to be based on the understanding about the correct foundation of the structure of the universe. Some flexibility in the way we think can help greatly.
and also:
How Physics Lost Its Fizz
Physics, which decades ago seemed capable of answering the deepest mysteries of existence, is now just recycling once-exciting ideas
By John Horgan on January 18, 2016
To recapture its fizz, physics desperately needs not new ideas but new facts. Discoveries, not inventions. Ideally, physicists will stumble on something so startling that they abandon their pursuit of multiverses, strings and other fantasies and return to reality.
In the late 1990s, astronomers studying supernovas deduced to their astonishment that the expansion of the universe is speeding up. But this discovery, the most exciting since I became a science writer, has not forced radical revisions of the big-bang paradigm.
Similarly, the Higgs boson, detected a few years ago by the Large Hadron Collider, merely confirmed the standard model of particle physics. Ho hum.
Things have gotten so bad that physicists are openly fretting about the future of their field. In a recent TED Talk, “Have we reached the end of physics?”, Harry Cliff states that “for the first time in the history of science, we could be facing questions that we cannot answer, not because we don't have the brains or technology, but because the laws of physics themselves forbid it.”
I still keep an eye on physics, but I doubt it will ever thrill me as it once did. My go-to source for fizzy ideas now is research into the brain and mind. Science’s wildest frontier is inside our heads.
Physics, which decades ago seemed capable of answering the deepest mysteries of existence, is now just recycling once-exciting ideas
By John Horgan on January 18, 2016
To recapture its fizz, physics desperately needs not new ideas but new facts. Discoveries, not inventions. Ideally, physicists will stumble on something so startling that they abandon their pursuit of multiverses, strings and other fantasies and return to reality.
In the late 1990s, astronomers studying supernovas deduced to their astonishment that the expansion of the universe is speeding up. But this discovery, the most exciting since I became a science writer, has not forced radical revisions of the big-bang paradigm.
Similarly, the Higgs boson, detected a few years ago by the Large Hadron Collider, merely confirmed the standard model of particle physics. Ho hum.
Things have gotten so bad that physicists are openly fretting about the future of their field. In a recent TED Talk, “Have we reached the end of physics?”, Harry Cliff states that “for the first time in the history of science, we could be facing questions that we cannot answer, not because we don't have the brains or technology, but because the laws of physics themselves forbid it.”
I still keep an eye on physics, but I doubt it will ever thrill me as it once did. My go-to source for fizzy ideas now is research into the brain and mind. Science’s wildest frontier is inside our heads.
LENR IN CONTEXT-1
Replication: Marrying Scientific Virtues with Scientific Practice
Replication: Marrying Scientific Virtues with Scientific Practice
Best wishes to our Replicators!
Just had to say how much this comment from John Horgan, tickled my fancy esp the last sentence - I love well grounded pragmatism :)
ReplyDeleteDSM
******************************
"To recapture its fizz, physics desperately needs not new ideas but new facts. Discoveries, not inventions. Ideally, physicists will stumble on something so startling that they abandon their pursuit of multiverses, strings and other fantasies and return to reality."
Over the last 12 years, the writer, starting from information theory rather than physics, has developed a model which he calls "The Oscillators in a Substance Model of Existence" which offers a comprenensive, simplified view point of basic physical science which one mignt say ranges from "A to Z." That is, from the content of the "Void" to a revision of the idea of a first instant (from one "Cosmic Cannon Shot" to a "continuously operating cosmic machine gun."
ReplyDeleteOn the way it casts grave doubt, to say the leasst, on many accepted "scientific truths;"however, as I am an elderly outsider, the ideas have been, for the most part, ignored.
(One of my friends remarks, "You know, there are people who con't care where the ideas come from, if they are good they will use them, and you can bet that you have been watched from your first publication." He feels that I have a small fan club among scientists in some of the super secret aero-space labs. That deesn't help much, however, in sparking any revision of thinking in the monolithic physical science community which seems to have locked kup its thinking on a number of issues some half century or more ago.
Dean L. Sinclair (BA, MS, PhD) 1-605-290-2154
I sincerely wish you more and better feedback from the physicists. But I see it is difficult.
DeletePeter
Over the last 12 years, the writer, starting from information theory rather than physics, has developed a model which he calls "The Oscillators in a Substance Model of Existence" which offers a comprenensive, simplified view point of basic physical science which one mignt say ranges from "A to Z." That is, from the content of the "Void" to a revision of the idea of a first instant (from one "Cosmic Cannon Shot" to a "continuously operating cosmic machine gun."
ReplyDeleteOn the way it casts grave doubt, to say the leasst, on many accepted "scientific truths;"however, as I am an elderly outsider, the ideas have been, for the most part, ignored.
(One of my friends remarks, "You know, there are people who con't care where the ideas come from, if they are good they will use them, and you can bet that you have been watched from your first publication." He feels that I have a small fan club among scientists in some of the super secret aero-space labs. That deesn't help much, however, in sparking any revision of thinking in the monolithic physical science community which seems to have locked kup its thinking on a number of issues some half century or more ago.
Dean L. Sinclair (BA, MS, PhD) 1-605-290-2154