I am glad to hear someone articulate this.
A lot of the problem, is that most people get the idea in their head that there is no contrary evidence, that there are no facts to weigh. But, for right or wrong, there is plenty of contrary evidence. It is not nearly so clear cut as people like to simplify it. Simple problems are easy, but this is not one of them.
And a reliance on models! Hilarious. Anyone who has worked with a model knows that there is not the least guarantee that they are accurate. And the more complex the system, the more uncertain modeling is. A model is only good IF AND ONLY IF it gives accurate results. Frankly, climate models have a ways to go.
When I worked at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, our solar physics group objected to an AGU (American Geophysical Union) statement whole-heartedly supporting anthropomorphic warming. The problem, we see a lot of correlation of climate and solar activity. But nobody wants to talk about that. Partly it is because we don't understand those dynamics like we wish we did, and that is understandable. But to gloss over the issue because you don't want to acknowledge it is not scientific.
We need to stop uncritically believing everything the missionary/ Media (including Gore) tell us on the subject. Don't condemn me for not believing your authorities, until you have studied both sides as well.
I am not denying global warming - I am just not convinced it is anthoropogenic.
For instance, there as a period of around a 150 years called the Maunder Minimum where there were very few if any sunspots, and this correlates with the "Mini-Ice Age" in Europe. There were 2 previous minimums, called the Wolff and Spoerer (sp?) minimums. And this is correlated with similar changes on earth. Right now, the sun is more active than it has been in a very long time.
So either we have one very big coincidence, or something is going on that is not understood. None of us have any idea how it is happening, because the actual total solar irradiance seems to be pretty constant, though the UV portion has increased. But that should not make too much of a difference.
I agree that this administration is treating this in a dreadful manner. But please stop marginalizing opposing opinions. I am not saying I have all the answers, because I dont'. I could even be wrong. But I would like to see an honest debate on the matter, and not just a lot of shouting down of others.
Thanks for the link on Mars. Is there a similar one for Jupiter?
I am not a climatologist, but I have spent time with the solar physics community. From the records we look at, there is a relation between solar activity and climate, but no one outside of the field will listen. We can even point to evidence of rising temperatures on Mars and Jupiter.
I don't know why global warming is happening, but I weary of people presenting part of the evidence, and then shouting down any who don't completely agree.
All of this assumes, of course, that the physics we know and love will remain forever without any modifications. Newton's laws have been superceded and there is no reason to think that Einstein's will not either. Even the modern theoretical physics community is not convinced Relativity will remain completely intact. Rememeber, it still does not mesh with Quantum Mech.
But regardless, the same philosophy that would kill any idea that seems odd, would kill any real advancement, because it will not jive with current thought.
I never said that where were no informed people. But if you mean for me to believe that they are in the majority, I will remain incredulous. If the common man's opinion is as worthwhile as you say (we agree there) then why do we defer to authorities? And if we can each judge for ourselves, why is my opinion less than yours? Why is it dreadful heresy if I interpret evidence differently from you? Since when does the scientific method allow for crushing other paradigms? Authority by majority is politics, not science.
Sure there is a lot of evidence for evolution. There is also evidence for creation, but that is not why I believe it. Nor, do most supporters of evolution, in my opinion.
The problem is that the Theory of Evolution is that it is so engrained, that all evidence must be filtered through that lens. Anyone who suggests otherwise is not merely told they have an insufficiently supported theory, they are publicly mocked. Are there any theories since Newton that have not been discarded or modified after a few hundred years? I would guess that Newton himself probably holds the record. Yet, any suggestion of any alternatives to evolution or a suggestion that God is real, is met with hostility and extreme prejudice. One man was so disturbed by the Paluxy River Fossils (dinosaur and human footprints side-by-side, not fossils really), that he began to destroy them.
Do we enjoy freedom of religion, or do we merely tolerate it? Alas, I think most people merely tolerate it and would like to see it gone, provided their beliefs were the official ones.
Well now, let's look at this. The creationists have been accused of blindly believing with out proof. I will be the first to admit that the Intelligent Design people are weak and faltering - neither able to firm one way or the other.
It seems to me that the most vicious here have forgotten something about the venerated scientific method - it gathers evidence but never, ever confers proof. Want proof? talk to a mathematician. But even assuming Science did offer proof, how many here are really evolutionary biologists? And how many are merely cheering the authorities along.... blindly? Oh, could it be, that the loudest of the FSM cult have not seriously examined and weighed the evidence? Are they simply relying on other authorities?
Then I suppose it is very appropriate that the FSM cult is a religion, for only a very few have looked critically at the evidence. Many people, many more that you would care to admit believe in evolution or FSM for simply emotional reasons and not for carefully considered scientific ones.
I won't attempt to argue with you about how martial arts work, but to say that chi has no existence, is incorrect and demonstrates a lack of understanding of acupuncture.
That aside, even if we accepted that it did not exist, there most certainly is NOT a proper and sufficient explanation. Yes, that is right, the nerve explanation does not begin to cut it as a real theory. It may be the best explanation is terms of modern medicine, but it lacks the one true credential of true good theories, predictive power. Right now, about all we can say, is that there are nerves at pressure points - and no one can tell you if that is cause, effect or correlation.
I have felt chi move when I have give massage, or when I have had acupuncture done on me. Dismiss my experience if you will, but we just don't have a real scientific explanation yet. But that DOES NOT make it nonexistent. The proper scientific attitude is to observe the phenomena (hard because it is subjective, and not just belittle it because it is contrary to popular opinion) and then to model it. As weird as chinese medicine is, that is what they have done. They just have not done it in ways modern science likes to measure.
Oddly, I had the opposite experience. I think that movies 1 and 2, didn't have the spirit or feel of the books, but had all the details right. But the 3rd, had the feel of the books, even if some of the details were sacrificed.
And well, teenagers are teenagers. Remember, most of the students there are not pure-blooded wizards and witches, they were muggles like the rest of us. People will act the same no matter how they turn on a light, be it a wand or central lighting. They are still teenagers
Not all conspiracies are intentional. What I mean is, public opinion tends to reinforce itself. Scientific opinion likewise - whether or not there is an intential conpiracy. Most of my work experience comes from working with scientists in the solar physics community. And by and large, we do not think that global warming is man-made. It isn't that we are all politically of the same mind, it is just that you can only look at sunspot charts (and the like) of times like the Maunder Minimum and of today so many times, before you realize, this is a solar effect.
Yet, when the AGU (American Geophysical Union - of which we are a part) issues a statement stating that there is unanamous support for man-made global warming. We are ignored. Even though a letter was sent with the signatures of our best and brightest minds.
Regardless of why it happens, there is an artificial consensus being maintained. Maybe my scientific opinion is wrong, but please, I am tired of either being ignored or vilified for holding a dissentent opinion.
To be honest, I am not sure where this 'homophobic' label came from. I gathered from his books that he was very much the same way. And just because you disagree iwth someone, does not make you *-phobic. So he disagrees... So What?
And are we condemning his writing or his opinions? Let's not get into the trap of "I don't like you so I will criticize everything I can". Yes, I agree, his writing does get weak at the end of a book or series, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
How on earth do you define a "major world event"? Just ones that are well publicized? Or ones that are truly significant to future history? And what kind of history? Are we leaving news of celebs out? Why would the laws of physics discriminate between the significant and the trivial?
If (suspendion of disbelief here) it could see anything, then of necessity you should be able to see everything. Full vector information of the future through a mere scalar output.
But we all realize that the real question is, can this tell us what will happen with Number-One-Celebrity-Of-The-Week?
I am no Seismologist, but if I recall, the 9.0 Earthquake in the early 1800's in Missouri was not near a fault line either, but smack in the middle of a plate.
You cite something by Randi? Heavens, I hope I never have to stoop so low. Randi's purpose in life is to rid the world of everything he considers less than proven scientifically. He has no respect in my book.
But if Peer-reviewed studies are what you want, yes there are some. There are not alot, but certainly enough to demonstrate something other than the placebo effect. For starters, try http://www.homeopathic.org/meta.htm for some good meta-analyses references in respected journals.
Of course not, don't take an arguement to an absurd conclusion, if that is not what is intended. I do not believe everything I hear, but nor do I dismiss things that fly in the face of conventional wisdom. Taking a historical view, since when is conventional wisdom so great? Or do we live in a unique period of time where all the common wisdom of the experts just happens to be right?
One lab test tells you very little, especially a null one. Experiments can fail in so many ways, it is scary. Perhaps, though you are right. I can't tell whether it works. Chew on this... often times it does work.
PS. In defence of your above study, prescribing homeopathics is not as straight-forward as conventional medicine. Which preperation is right for you would probably be useless for me. Also, I checked out the link, but it doesn't seem to have any pages about homeopathy.? It probably just got updated.
K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al.,
Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials
Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843.
This state of the art meta analysis reviewed 186 studies, 89 of which fit pre-defined criteria. Rather than count and compare the number of trials which show efficacy of treatment, the researchers pooled the data from the various studies to assess data. The results showed that patients taking homeopathic medicines were 2.45 times more likely to experience a positive therapeutic effect than placebo.
J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet,
Clinical Trials of Homeopathy
British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323.
This is the most widely cited meta-analysis of clinical research prior to 1991. This meta-analysis reviewed 107 studies of homeopathic medicines, 81 of which (or 77%) showed positive effect. Of the best 22 studies, 15 showed efficacy. The researchers concluded: "The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications." Further, "The amount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a surprise to us."
A good place to start would be http://www.homeopathic.org/controlled.htm They have a number of papers listed from peer-reviewed journals, meta-analyses, and other clinical studies.
Or, if you prefer, here are a few more.
Title:
Homoeopathic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation by double-blind clinical therapeutic trial.
Abstract:
Twenty-three patients with rheumatoid arthritis on orthodox first-line anti-inflammatory treatment plus homeopathy were compared with a similar group of twenty-three patients on orthodox first-line treatment plus an inert preparation. There was a significant improvement in subjective pain, articular index, stiffness and grip strength in those patients receiving homoeopathic remedies whereas there was no significant change in the patients who received placebo. Two physicians were involved in prescribing for the patients and there were no significant differences in the results which they obtained. No side effects were observed with the homoeopathic remedies.
Title:
Salicylates and homoeopathy in rheumatoid arthritis: preliminary observations.
Abstract:
This paper reports the results of a pilot study in which 41 patients with rheumatoid arthritis were treated with high doses of salicylate, 3.9 g per day, and the results compared with a further 54 similar patients treated with homoeopathy. Both groups were compared with 100 patients who received placebo. 2 The patients who received homoeopathy did better than those who received salicylate. The design of the trial was such, however, that it was not possible to distinguish between the effects due to the physicians and the effects due to the drugs and a further trial is planned to elucidate this point. 3 Patients on homoeopathic treatment did not experience toxic effects.
A physicist's view on homeopathy
on
Bad Science Awards
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The problem with too many people is that they take 'experts' opinion as gospel truth.
I have a Master's in physics. I try to be careful to apply the scientific method when dealing with unknown subjects. Frankly, homeopathy works. Before you criticize, I am as baffled by it as you are. There is no reason it should work, but it does. And yes, there are studies. But because it is 'kooky', it is rejected out-of-hand.
If you have not experimented and studied it yourself, how can you dismiss it?
Linux is to Microsoft what Alternative Medicine is to Conventional Medicine/AMA. Right now it is relatively a fringe movement, but beginning to make inroads that the establishment(s) can't stop. Sure, there are many things that are nonsense, but there is enough good stuff not to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. The beauty of it all, it that homeopathy is good at solving problems that conventional medicine isn't - and vice versa.
Perhaps you will say, "It is just the placebo effect". For you or for me, that could be true, but what about babies with colic? I have yet to see anything else that would work. I know many mothers who would swear by it. What about animals? People use it on pets too - though I have not.
I sound like a kook when I argue against accepted wisdom and what seems to be obvious theory, but I have seen too much success with it to laugh- and yes, I can tell when it is working and when it isn't. So, before you laugh too long, look into it. Revolutions never begin with the masses.
That said, I am far from convinced of an AIDS homeopathic, though I do know an excellent one for the flu.
I am afraid to say, I see study as a biased result. I say this because my own research involves the Sun.
There is a lot of evidence regarding a link between solar activity and climate, eg. the oft cited Maunder Minimum and the Mini-Ice Age in Europe. A lot of work has been done on it, but the only thing keeping most scientists where I am at (National Center for Atmospheric Research) from talking about it more is the fact we done understand why. The fact is, they correlate quite nicely.
A few months ago the AGU (American Geophysical Union) issued some statement supporting the majority view that the problem is CO2. The solar physics community collected signatures from all around protesting that.
People can call a lot of names, but the fact is that there are a lot of intelligent people who disagree, and not because they like to drive a SUV. Disagree if you will, but realize there is evidence BOTH ways. Even so, my bet is on solar/space (magnetic? high energy particle?) weather.
PS. I have also read of evidence of warming on one of the outer gas giants.
Perhaps I don't understand you. The nucleus is only in an excited state either in Hot Fusion, or after an successful CF reaction, which is what I suppose you mean.
If so, how can you relate excess energy to halflife. There are many isotopes that are both energetic and longlived. I believe that has to do with the more complicated nuclear shell structure.
I think that the kind of catalyst would be more important than the fact nuclear amounts of energy are involved.
But then, until we get some funding for more experiments, or we develop an expensive hobby, it is going to be your word versus mine.
It seems so simple really... if we understand the basic laws then we understand everything, right?
What about the Mossbauer effect (I think that is the one) where the momentum of a nuclear decay is absorbed by the lattice as a whole. What I am suggesting is the same thing in reverse.
I hate to break it to you, but simultineity is a feature of quantum mechanics and it closely related to the entanglement used in "quantum computers", or will be when they work it out. As you might imagine, this is a sticking point when it comes to combining QM and Gen Relativity.
I can't say if CF exists or not, but using theory to argue against theory, is like so many philosophers argueing - it needs to be settled by experiment, not arguement.
And yes, we have a decent idea of the GENERALS of how nuclear physics works, but the "devil is in the details", as usual, and that will make all the difference.
Give me a break. We have an example of new physics here - a new sort of reaction and you already have it all figured out, how it works?
Remember, according to standard nuclear physics, the deuterium should not be doing anything either. So, what is there to forbid and H-H reaction? It would have to be something like,
H + H = D+ positron
OR
H + H + electron = D + Energy
Where the energy is released into the lattice as a whole, which is one of the better CF theories out there, imho. If we don't know how something works, we can't say much about how it works. H-H reaction is not forbidden.
I understood (please correct me if I am wrong) that things broadcast over public airwaves could be legally recorded. If so, how is any of this wrong? Or is this just common practice and not law as all?
I thought public airwaves meant public property. Can someone shed some legalese light on this?
I think we can summarize our differences thus; what is natural. Certainly martial sex is natural, but I disagree that porn and extra-martial sex is.
And certainly, bad science is a terrible thing. I believe many things I can't prove physically, both religious and academic, but I would never resort to make-believe reasons.
Unfortunately, because of the prevalance of porn and sex in our society, I am compelled to judge (issues, not people). As a single dad, I don't want my young children exposed to that but I don't have much of a choice as it seems to saturate our culture. Others freedom to act as they like, impedes on my freedom to not.
Slashdot Mirror
I am glad to hear someone articulate this. A lot of the problem, is that most people get the idea in their head that there is no contrary evidence, that there are no facts to weigh. But, for right or wrong, there is plenty of contrary evidence. It is not nearly so clear cut as people like to simplify it. Simple problems are easy, but this is not one of them. And a reliance on models! Hilarious. Anyone who has worked with a model knows that there is not the least guarantee that they are accurate. And the more complex the system, the more uncertain modeling is. A model is only good IF AND ONLY IF it gives accurate results. Frankly, climate models have a ways to go. When I worked at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, our solar physics group objected to an AGU (American Geophysical Union) statement whole-heartedly supporting anthropomorphic warming. The problem, we see a lot of correlation of climate and solar activity. But nobody wants to talk about that. Partly it is because we don't understand those dynamics like we wish we did, and that is understandable. But to gloss over the issue because you don't want to acknowledge it is not scientific. We need to stop uncritically believing everything the missionary/ Media (including Gore) tell us on the subject. Don't condemn me for not believing your authorities, until you have studied both sides as well.
I am not denying global warming - I am just not convinced it is anthoropogenic. For instance, there as a period of around a 150 years called the Maunder Minimum where there were very few if any sunspots, and this correlates with the "Mini-Ice Age" in Europe. There were 2 previous minimums, called the Wolff and Spoerer (sp?) minimums. And this is correlated with similar changes on earth. Right now, the sun is more active than it has been in a very long time. So either we have one very big coincidence, or something is going on that is not understood. None of us have any idea how it is happening, because the actual total solar irradiance seems to be pretty constant, though the UV portion has increased. But that should not make too much of a difference. I agree that this administration is treating this in a dreadful manner. But please stop marginalizing opposing opinions. I am not saying I have all the answers, because I dont'. I could even be wrong. But I would like to see an honest debate on the matter, and not just a lot of shouting down of others. Thanks for the link on Mars. Is there a similar one for Jupiter?
I am not a climatologist, but I have spent time with the solar physics community. From the records we look at, there is a relation between solar activity and climate, but no one outside of the field will listen. We can even point to evidence of rising temperatures on Mars and Jupiter.
I don't know why global warming is happening, but I weary of people presenting part of the evidence, and then shouting down any who don't completely agree.
All of this assumes, of course, that the physics we know and love will remain forever without any modifications. Newton's laws have been superceded and there is no reason to think that Einstein's will not either. Even the modern theoretical physics community is not convinced Relativity will remain completely intact. Rememeber, it still does not mesh with Quantum Mech. But regardless, the same philosophy that would kill any idea that seems odd, would kill any real advancement, because it will not jive with current thought.
Sure there is a lot of evidence for evolution. There is also evidence for creation, but that is not why I believe it. Nor, do most supporters of evolution, in my opinion.
The problem is that the Theory of Evolution is that it is so engrained, that all evidence must be filtered through that lens. Anyone who suggests otherwise is not merely told they have an insufficiently supported theory, they are publicly mocked. Are there any theories since Newton that have not been discarded or modified after a few hundred years? I would guess that Newton himself probably holds the record. Yet, any suggestion of any alternatives to evolution or a suggestion that God is real, is met with hostility and extreme prejudice. One man was so disturbed by the Paluxy River Fossils (dinosaur and human footprints side-by-side, not fossils really), that he began to destroy them.
Do we enjoy freedom of religion, or do we merely tolerate it? Alas, I think most people merely tolerate it and would like to see it gone, provided their beliefs were the official ones.
Are you saying that there is a degree of uncertainty in the theory of evolution? Usually it is refered to as assailable truth.
It seems to me that the most vicious here have forgotten something about the venerated scientific method - it gathers evidence but never, ever confers proof. Want proof? talk to a mathematician. But even assuming Science did offer proof, how many here are really evolutionary biologists? And how many are merely cheering the authorities along.... blindly? Oh, could it be, that the loudest of the FSM cult have not seriously examined and weighed the evidence? Are they simply relying on other authorities?
Then I suppose it is very appropriate that the FSM cult is a religion, for only a very few have looked critically at the evidence. Many people, many more that you would care to admit believe in evolution or FSM for simply emotional reasons and not for carefully considered scientific ones.
Mathematics can not prove itself.
That aside, even if we accepted that it did not exist, there most certainly is NOT a proper and sufficient explanation. Yes, that is right, the nerve explanation does not begin to cut it as a real theory. It may be the best explanation is terms of modern medicine, but it lacks the one true credential of true good theories, predictive power. Right now, about all we can say, is that there are nerves at pressure points - and no one can tell you if that is cause, effect or correlation.
I have felt chi move when I have give massage, or when I have had acupuncture done on me. Dismiss my experience if you will, but we just don't have a real scientific explanation yet. But that DOES NOT make it nonexistent. The proper scientific attitude is to observe the phenomena (hard because it is subjective, and not just belittle it because it is contrary to popular opinion) and then to model it. As weird as chinese medicine is, that is what they have done. They just have not done it in ways modern science likes to measure.
And well, teenagers are teenagers. Remember, most of the students there are not pure-blooded wizards and witches, they were muggles like the rest of us. People will act the same no matter how they turn on a light, be it a wand or central lighting. They are still teenagers
Yet, when the AGU (American Geophysical Union - of which we are a part) issues a statement stating that there is unanamous support for man-made global warming. We are ignored. Even though a letter was sent with the signatures of our best and brightest minds.
Regardless of why it happens, there is an artificial consensus being maintained. Maybe my scientific opinion is wrong, but please, I am tired of either being ignored or vilified for holding a dissentent opinion.
And are we condemning his writing or his opinions? Let's not get into the trap of "I don't like you so I will criticize everything I can". Yes, I agree, his writing does get weak at the end of a book or series, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If (suspendion of disbelief here) it could see anything, then of necessity you should be able to see everything. Full vector information of the future through a mere scalar output.
But we all realize that the real question is, can this tell us what will happen with Number-One-Celebrity-Of-The-Week?
I am no Seismologist, but if I recall, the 9.0 Earthquake in the early 1800's in Missouri was not near a fault line either, but smack in the middle of a plate.
But if Peer-reviewed studies are what you want, yes there are some. There are not alot, but certainly enough to demonstrate something other than the placebo effect. For starters, try http://www.homeopathic.org/meta.htm for some good meta-analyses references in respected journals.
One lab test tells you very little, especially a null one. Experiments can fail in so many ways, it is scary. Perhaps, though you are right. I can't tell whether it works. Chew on this... often times it does work.
PS. In defence of your above study, prescribing homeopathics is not as straight-forward as conventional medicine. Which preperation is right for you would probably be useless for me. Also, I checked out the link, but it doesn't seem to have any pages about homeopathy.? It probably just got updated.
K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843. This state of the art meta analysis reviewed 186 studies, 89 of which fit pre-defined criteria. Rather than count and compare the number of trials which show efficacy of treatment, the researchers pooled the data from the various studies to assess data. The results showed that patients taking homeopathic medicines were 2.45 times more likely to experience a positive therapeutic effect than placebo.
J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, Clinical Trials of Homeopathy British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323. This is the most widely cited meta-analysis of clinical research prior to 1991. This meta-analysis reviewed 107 studies of homeopathic medicines, 81 of which (or 77%) showed positive effect. Of the best 22 studies, 15 showed efficacy. The researchers concluded: "The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications." Further, "The amount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a surprise to us."
A good place to start would be http://www.homeopathic.org/controlled.htm They have a number of papers listed from peer-reviewed journals, meta-analyses, and other clinical studies.
Or, if you prefer, here are a few more.
Title: Homoeopathic therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation by double-blind clinical therapeutic trial.
Author: Gibson RG; Gibson SL; MacNeill AD; Buchanan WW Address
Source: Br J Clin Pharmacol, 1980 May, 9:5, 453-9
Abstract: Twenty-three patients with rheumatoid arthritis on orthodox first-line anti-inflammatory treatment plus homeopathy were compared with a similar group of twenty-three patients on orthodox first-line treatment plus an inert preparation. There was a significant improvement in subjective pain, articular index, stiffness and grip strength in those patients receiving homoeopathic remedies whereas there was no significant change in the patients who received placebo. Two physicians were involved in prescribing for the patients and there were no significant differences in the results which they obtained. No side effects were observed with the homoeopathic remedies.
Title: Salicylates and homoeopathy in rheumatoid arthritis: preliminary observations.
Author: Gibson RG; Gibson SL; MacNeill AD; Gray GH; Dick WC; Buchanan WW
Source: Br J Clin Pharmacol, 1978 Nov, 6:5, 391-5
Abstract: This paper reports the results of a pilot study in which 41 patients with rheumatoid arthritis were treated with high doses of salicylate, 3.9 g per day, and the results compared with a further 54 similar patients treated with homoeopathy. Both groups were compared with 100 patients who received placebo. 2 The patients who received homoeopathy did better than those who received salicylate. The design of the trial was such, however, that it was not possible to distinguish between the effects due to the physicians and the effects due to the drugs and a further trial is planned to elucidate this point. 3 Patients on homoeopathic treatment did not experience toxic effects.
I have a Master's in physics. I try to be careful to apply the scientific method when dealing with unknown subjects. Frankly, homeopathy works. Before you criticize, I am as baffled by it as you are. There is no reason it should work, but it does. And yes, there are studies. But because it is 'kooky', it is rejected out-of-hand.
If you have not experimented and studied it yourself, how can you dismiss it?
Linux is to Microsoft what Alternative Medicine is to Conventional Medicine/AMA. Right now it is relatively a fringe movement, but beginning to make inroads that the establishment(s) can't stop. Sure, there are many things that are nonsense, but there is enough good stuff not to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. The beauty of it all, it that homeopathy is good at solving problems that conventional medicine isn't - and vice versa.
Perhaps you will say, "It is just the placebo effect". For you or for me, that could be true, but what about babies with colic? I have yet to see anything else that would work. I know many mothers who would swear by it. What about animals? People use it on pets too - though I have not.
I sound like a kook when I argue against accepted wisdom and what seems to be obvious theory, but I have seen too much success with it to laugh- and yes, I can tell when it is working and when it isn't. So, before you laugh too long, look into it. Revolutions never begin with the masses.
That said, I am far from convinced of an AIDS homeopathic, though I do know an excellent one for the flu.
There is a lot of evidence regarding a link between solar activity and climate, eg. the oft cited Maunder Minimum and the Mini-Ice Age in Europe. A lot of work has been done on it, but the only thing keeping most scientists where I am at (National Center for Atmospheric Research) from talking about it more is the fact we done understand why. The fact is, they correlate quite nicely.
A few months ago the AGU (American Geophysical Union) issued some statement supporting the majority view that the problem is CO2. The solar physics community collected signatures from all around protesting that.
People can call a lot of names, but the fact is that there are a lot of intelligent people who disagree, and not because they like to drive a SUV. Disagree if you will, but realize there is evidence BOTH ways. Even so, my bet is on solar/space (magnetic? high energy particle?) weather.
PS. I have also read of evidence of warming on one of the outer gas giants.
Perhaps I don't understand you. The nucleus is only in an excited state either in Hot Fusion, or after an successful CF reaction, which is what I suppose you mean. If so, how can you relate excess energy to halflife. There are many isotopes that are both energetic and longlived. I believe that has to do with the more complicated nuclear shell structure. I think that the kind of catalyst would be more important than the fact nuclear amounts of energy are involved. But then, until we get some funding for more experiments, or we develop an expensive hobby, it is going to be your word versus mine.
If there were something in the Constitution mandating it, then they would not be doing it.
What about the Mossbauer effect (I think that is the one) where the momentum of a nuclear decay is absorbed by the lattice as a whole. What I am suggesting is the same thing in reverse.
I hate to break it to you, but simultineity is a feature of quantum mechanics and it closely related to the entanglement used in "quantum computers", or will be when they work it out. As you might imagine, this is a sticking point when it comes to combining QM and Gen Relativity.
I can't say if CF exists or not, but using theory to argue against theory, is like so many philosophers argueing - it needs to be settled by experiment, not arguement.
And yes, we have a decent idea of the GENERALS of how nuclear physics works, but the "devil is in the details", as usual, and that will make all the difference.
Remember, according to standard nuclear physics, the deuterium should not be doing anything either. So, what is there to forbid and H-H reaction? It would have to be something like,
H + H = D+ positron
OR
H + H + electron = D + Energy
Where the energy is released into the lattice as a whole, which is one of the better CF theories out there, imho. If we don't know how something works, we can't say much about how it works. H-H reaction is not forbidden.
I understood (please correct me if I am wrong) that things broadcast over public airwaves could be legally recorded. If so, how is any of this wrong? Or is this just common practice and not law as all?
I thought public airwaves meant public property. Can someone shed some legalese light on this?
And certainly, bad science is a terrible thing. I believe many things I can't prove physically, both religious and academic, but I would never resort to make-believe reasons.
Unfortunately, because of the prevalance of porn and sex in our society, I am compelled to judge (issues, not people). As a single dad, I don't want my young children exposed to that but I don't have much of a choice as it seems to saturate our culture. Others freedom to act as they like, impedes on my freedom to not.