+5!
While I don't think Putin is 'batshit crazy' (batshit is a very good fertilizer by the way), I think for the rest you might be spot on, and I'd have you modded up if I had the points and hadn't already commented so much.
I think instead of playing the usual political games he just appealed directly to 'the people'.
A populist? Well maybe, but after all, in a democracy it's exactly the 'vox populi', not 'vox politici' that decides.
Right, and all in favor of the sitting president/premier/Bundeskanzler.
Al Qaeda was under control of the CIA and helped Bush gain acceptance through 9/11.
The 'Syrian immigrants' in Germany constitute in fact a foreign invasion by ISIS, also created by secret services, and are now aligning the Germans behind Merkel with their 'terrorist' attacks.
Make no mistake, everything is literally 'under control'.
There will be no peace while that administration holds office.
On the contrary, I think he's less of a warmonger than Hillary.
I prefer internal war in the USA and peace abroad over mushroom clouds over both USA, Russa and China.
Hillary is good for war, Trump is good for business, which is preferable.
It was not up to them to make results 'easily replicable' and I don't equate enthusiasm with 'completely irresponsible'.
So, let me observe that our opinions differ, I still think the ridicule they received was quite too much.
You also forget the mass amplification factor which made the response so destructive to their careers:
It was only two of them that published the results so loudly to the community. But that community massively responded just as loud back, and that is a tad too loud for me, for them, and for the subject. So I still think they were treated unfairly, especially now that it seems they indeed were up to something, although their interpretation may have been lacking.
And how could they possibly have given the right explanation if even now people still don't know what exactly is going on?
I'm trying really hard to see how this would be a valid scientific way of reasoning in any way.
Was this maybe meant as an excuse?
Didn't they teach math in them days? Could this 'scientific medical community' not work out the numbers and see how incredibly more important than their own egos this was?
People have no idea yet in what kind of theoretical framework to see this, yet to be established--let's be fair--phenomenon, and you already 'know' it's an over-unity drive? Maybe you're triggered by the reports that there was some thrust being claimed at standstill at a certain power consumption, but nobody can tell yet how thrust would depend on speed. And with respect to what kind of reference frame. And you even might have a point.
However, physics is rife with examples of researchers being told that what they were investigating was impossible (Wright brothers?).
I think it's a bit too early to call 'morons' on people, and you really should stick to using physical argumentations in order to keep the debate clean, thank you.
Your professor was wrong and equating the reaction of your professor to what I stated is one more example of the false equivalence fallacy.
Your reasoning--if it even was something like that--is flawed.
What about the careers, not to speak about personal lives, of Pons & Fleischman?
What about the taboo on further investigation of this subject with physics wanting to do so risking to have their career damaged/destroyed as well?
This must have had a negative influence on the further development of LENR science.
Although the current mechanism might be such, the way they presented their results should never have had any influence on the way the findings would have been received. I wouldn't have been surprised if some malice would have been in play as well.
The point is that Ignaz Semmelweis had empirical data.
You are wrongly equating empirical data with 'crap' in the same way as the (medical) 'scientists' in his time did, as a better look at it could have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of women.
Is someone comes with falsifiable data, and his claim is interesting enough, then a scientist tries to reproduce the data and may express his doubts if he can't, but most certainly has to shut his mouth as long as he hasn't engaged in any such experimental activity.
Comparing people with ununderstood scientific claims ad initio with clowns and bozos is absolutely counter productive.
Fools laugh at anyone...
Not really.
What is required, is that people who didn't put any effort in trying to verify or falsify the given claim shut their mouth.
Then if nobody is trying to repeat the experiment, then science will just be delayed until someone finally does, not destroyed as in the case of Pons & Fleischman.
Right on! A bit milder formulated: His empirical data was dismissed without any attempt to reproduce and confirm it, because there was 'no theoretical framework explaining the results'.
A showcase of how criminally stupid (medical) scientists 'en masse' can be.
As you said, there's nothing wrong with trying and it seems that NASA is willing to do that in space in order to escape that noise floor.
No cognitive dissonance here...
In the meantime I'm eagerly awaiting the results of the next experiment.
I've learned that if there is no understanding, you HAVE TO rely on the experimental data.
Verify, confirm, and reproduce them, but DO NOT dismiss them as 'impossible', or say something like:
"There is no theoretical framework explaining 'your claim'.".
If the data shows nuclear effects, 'boiling' of titanium, then something clearly has happened.
And if there is no understanding then that is the more reason to allocate funding to it.
Not to destroy the messengers...
Ignacio Semmelweis is a sad example of what can go wrong if this principle is not followed.
And soon we'll see what wrong has been done to Pons & Fleischman.
Slashdot Mirror
If climate change is indeed caused by increasing CO2, the CO2 will increase agricultural output and will do the opposite of becoming scarce...
You're suffering of election anxiety.
Take a break and a beer, then come back when you're more relaxed.
It's not worth it...
+5!
While I don't think Putin is 'batshit crazy' (batshit is a very good fertilizer by the way), I think for the rest you might be spot on, and I'd have you modded up if I had the points and hadn't already commented so much.
I think instead of playing the usual political games he just appealed directly to 'the people'.
A populist? Well maybe, but after all, in a democracy it's exactly the 'vox populi', not 'vox politici' that decides.
...we must nuke Russia immediately...
I'm so happy your candidate didn't win...
Now, please go back to the the comments section where you seem to be coming from.
Right, and all in favor of the sitting president/premier/Bundeskanzler.
Al Qaeda was under control of the CIA and helped Bush gain acceptance through 9/11.
The 'Syrian immigrants' in Germany constitute in fact a foreign invasion by ISIS, also created by secret services, and are now aligning the Germans behind Merkel with their 'terrorist' attacks.
Make no mistake, everything is literally 'under control'.
There will be no peace while that administration holds office.
On the contrary, I think he's less of a warmonger than Hillary.
I prefer internal war in the USA and peace abroad over mushroom clouds over both USA, Russa and China.
Hillary is good for war, Trump is good for business, which is preferable.
Nah, I think Clinton lost because during the preliminaries it became clear what scumbags she and the DNC are.
That liar whose treacherous testimony to the UN gave us the war in Iraq?
Hillary destroyed Lybia
No, then I'd prefer a Trump.
As in: 'constitution'?
No no, can't do that! Superdelegates are guarding the interests of the elite. Somebody has to do it...
It was not up to them to make results 'easily replicable' and I don't equate enthusiasm with 'completely irresponsible'.
So, let me observe that our opinions differ, I still think the ridicule they received was quite too much.
You also forget the mass amplification factor which made the response so destructive to their careers:
It was only two of them that published the results so loudly to the community. But that community massively responded just as loud back, and that is a tad too loud for me, for them, and for the subject. So I still think they were treated unfairly, especially now that it seems they indeed were up to something, although their interpretation may have been lacking.
And how could they possibly have given the right explanation if even now people still don't know what exactly is going on?
The discussion was not about EM drive.
Then why do you keep going on about it? ;)
No, wait, don't answer that rethorical question.
...they were gentlemen...
I'm trying really hard to see how this would be a valid scientific way of reasoning in any way.
Was this maybe meant as an excuse?
Didn't they teach math in them days? Could this 'scientific medical community' not work out the numbers and see how incredibly more important than their own egos this was?
If you put an EM drive in space and it accelerates, then I think it would be difficult to deny that 'it works'.
People have no idea yet in what kind of theoretical framework to see this, yet to be established--let's be fair--phenomenon, and you already 'know' it's an over-unity drive? Maybe you're triggered by the reports that there was some thrust being claimed at standstill at a certain power consumption, but nobody can tell yet how thrust would depend on speed. And with respect to what kind of reference frame. And you even might have a point.
However, physics is rife with examples of researchers being told that what they were investigating was impossible (Wright brothers?).
I think it's a bit too early to call 'morons' on people, and you really should stick to using physical argumentations in order to keep the debate clean, thank you.
Your professor was wrong and equating the reaction of your professor to what I stated is one more example of the false equivalence fallacy.
Your reasoning--if it even was something like that--is flawed.
What was destroyed?
What about the careers, not to speak about personal lives, of Pons & Fleischman?
What about the taboo on further investigation of this subject with physics wanting to do so risking to have their career damaged/destroyed as well?
This must have had a negative influence on the further development of LENR science.
Although the current mechanism might be such, the way they presented their results should never have had any influence on the way the findings would have been received. I wouldn't have been surprised if some malice would have been in play as well.
The point is that Ignaz Semmelweis had empirical data.
You are wrongly equating empirical data with 'crap' in the same way as the (medical) 'scientists' in his time did, as a better look at it could have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of women.
Is someone comes with falsifiable data, and his claim is interesting enough, then a scientist tries to reproduce the data and may express his doubts if he can't, but most certainly has to shut his mouth as long as he hasn't engaged in any such experimental activity.
Comparing people with ununderstood scientific claims ad initio with clowns and bozos is absolutely counter productive.
Fools laugh at anyone...
generally requires lots of
Not really.
What is required, is that people who didn't put any effort in trying to verify or falsify the given claim shut their mouth.
Then if nobody is trying to repeat the experiment, then science will just be delayed until someone finally does, not destroyed as in the case of Pons & Fleischman.
Right on! A bit milder formulated: His empirical data was dismissed without any attempt to reproduce and confirm it, because there was 'no theoretical framework explaining the results'.
A showcase of how criminally stupid (medical) scientists 'en masse' can be.
As you said, there's nothing wrong with trying and it seems that NASA is willing to do that in space in order to escape that noise floor.
No cognitive dissonance here...
In the meantime I'm eagerly awaiting the results of the next experiment.
Or: "but but but... let's just try."
Huh? Now how is that supposed to happen?
I've learned that if there is no understanding, you HAVE TO rely on the experimental data.
Verify, confirm, and reproduce them, but DO NOT dismiss them as 'impossible', or say something like:
"There is no theoretical framework explaining 'your claim'.".
If the data shows nuclear effects, 'boiling' of titanium, then something clearly has happened.
And if there is no understanding then that is the more reason to allocate funding to it.
Not to destroy the messengers...
Ignacio Semmelweis is a sad example of what can go wrong if this principle is not followed.
And soon we'll see what wrong has been done to Pons & Fleischman.
Of course this won't work on anything in a geostationary orbit where it doesn't experience any change in magnetic field.