Scientific Disagreement or Street Fight

It is one thing to scientifically disagree — even strongly — in a technical and courteous fashion, and quite another to engage in ad hominem attacks. The first is science; the second is a cur dog fight. Unfortunately the history of science far too often reveals "cur dog fights" instead of respectful scientific disagreements {66}.

A recent modern example of legitimate research and qualified researchers still being savaged in a "cur dog fight" manner is cold fusion (low energy nuclear reactions). Quoting one learned orthodox scientist, whose name is withheld, speaking to a learned scientist in cold fusion:

"How stupid do you think we are? My assessment of you and your colleagues is that you are complete frauds or totally mad. There is no known physical principle that would support the kind of results that you claim your technology can accomplish, nor is there any credible argument why there should be such a principle."

We answer that "cur dog attack" unemotionally and scientifically. The key is in the scientist's own phrase: "no known physical principle." If the experiments work and are replicated, but are not understood by the conventional theory, then they refute the prevailing theory, whether the physical principle is understood or not. Else scientific method has been totally abandoned in favor of "truth by authority and dogma". The experiments clearly show that a previously unknown physical principle is at work. The real task then is to rediscover this new principle — that being one of the primary ways that science advances. We propose new principles in this book as a possible explanation of those experiments.

The dogmatic scientist's statement was made in spite of some two hundred (200 at that time; now more than 600) scientific experiments worldwide, in many nations, many at prestigious institutes, where dozens of scientists have reported positive and anomalous results in cold fusion experiments.

So yes, there is indeed a very "credible argument" — the results and replicability of the experiments, which are supposed to be the decisive statement of science. If that view in science has changed, then we are no longer practicing the scientific method. Instead of accepting successful and replicable experiments and seeking to change the model, the scientist is insisting that we must first understand the principle and thus have a model. This of course is a total violation and reversal of the scientific method. We used aspirin effectively for decades without the slightest notion as to the mechanism enabling its beneficial actions. The mere fact that "there is no known physical principle" for the results achieved has nothing to do with the validity of the replicated experimental results. Instead, it merely substantiates that there should be a vigorous scientific program to uncover the new principle or principles obviously involved, since the old model has either failed or been revealed as too limited.

The derogatory statement by the dogmatic scientist is also made from the viewpoint of the conventional nuclear physics model. The conventional physics has not taken into account that all 3-spatial electromagnetic energy associated with charges and dipoles and their fields and potentials in fact comes from the time domain {85, 86, 12, 19}. It has also not taken into account that time itself (as in the time component transported by the time-polarized photon or a time-polarized EM wave) may be comprised of extraordinarily dense energy. Indeed, time appears to be spatial EM energy compressed by the factor c2, so it has the same energy density as mass {67}, which we pointed out earlier. The smaller the spatial energy of the

photon, the greater its time component and hence its time-energy in seconds expressed in decompressed spatial energy joules26. The highest energy particle physics is not spatial-energy physics as presently practiced, but time-energy physics, where some of the time-energy of photons is transduced into spatial energy. One second of time transduced (decompressed) into spatial energy yields approximately 9x1016 joules. Further, every negative charge in the universe continuously accomplishes that decompression, and every positive charge continuously accomplishes the recompression.

In other words, not all physical principles were discovered in the particle physics of, say, five years ago, as the literature since then clearly shows. To assume that everything is already known today is ludicrous; science is never completed. The new principles reported in the present book now are at least "candidates" for the physical principles that do support cold fusion results. There is also another powerful argument for these hypothesized principles: they have produced the final resolution of the source charge problem — something for which the arch skeptic quoted has no solution whatsoever, and which he himself cannot explain. If the arch critic cannot produce an alternate solution to the source charge problem, and is unaware of that new principle that may solve it, let him go and learn the new principle. Until then, he unwittingly assumes that every charge in the universe is a perpetual motion machine, continuously creating and pouring out EM energy in all directions at the speed of light. So we return his own argument and approach to him: he should attack the conventional scientific community for accepting the source charge, while having absolutely no principle to explain how it continuously pours out observable EM energy without any observable EM energy input. In short, he should practice what he preaches; else he brands himself a total hypocrite. The alert reader will note that none of the arch skeptics doing all the ad hominem attacks on cold fusion and COP>1.0 EM systems are practicing what they preach.

26 The spatial energy of the photon decreases linearly as the frequency is lowered, while the time component in seconds increases linearly. But the highly compressed time energy, comprising that time component, increases nonlinearly (by the factor c2At). Hence the highest energy photons are actually the low frequency photons —

something completely alien to particle physicists — and not the high frequency photons chased by "high energy physics". Indeed, high energy physicists are practicing a high spatial energy physics, which — overall — is a much lower energy physics than radar, microwave, VHF, or ELF, if the total energy of the photon, to include its time energy, is considered.

What we are saying is this:

(a) If one's physics knowledge was current five years ago, it may be stale today. A few years ago, no one believed the expanding universe was accelerating. Today we know that it is, rather unequivocally. And by "no known physical mechanism". We will later present a strong candidate for that missing mechanism. The results of experiments will substantiate or refute it.

(b) The proposed principles in this book, e.g., are newer, and may shed light on the mechanism for the cold fusion results as well as other phenomena. The experimental results themselves are irrevocable; any proposed explanation requires validation.

(c) The new principles do explain cold fusion and are consistent with the phenomena encountered in multiple experiments by multiple researchers in many laboratories. We readily admit that the stale and incomplete principles presently utilized in nuclear physics do not explain cold fusion. Neither do they explain how a charge continuously pours out EM energy. So do the skeptics attack all those physicists who believe in source charges and their provision of the fields and potentials and all EM energy? Of course not. They themselves believe in that greatest of all "perpetual motion" faux pas.

(d) The proposed new principles also solve the source charge problem, which is still ignored by most conventional physicists and electrodynamicists, even though often referred to as the "most difficult problem in electrodynamics" {68}.

(e) Scientists should not be close-minded, but should consider new proposals and let the experimental results decide their validity or falsity — precisely the position taken by the journal Science in publishing the results of some new cold fusion experiments. That is the scientific method in action.

(f) Those scientists who remain close-minded, and viciously attack experimentally demonstrated new processes and mechanisms, are guilty of practicing dogma and not science. They are in fact guilty of being what they so frequently charge: pseudo-scientists.

When science does not allow proposed new mechanisms and principles to be considered in science following demonstration of new phenomena inexplicable by present models, then science is no longer practicing scientific method. When any scientist rejects these demonstrated new

experimental phenomena out-of-hand, he is practicing dogma rather than science. The "friendly skeptic" attitude is welcomed and appropriate. The cur dog attack has no place in science, but only among cur dogs — and those who behave like them.

Solar Stirling Engine Basics Explained

Solar Stirling Engine Basics Explained

The solar Stirling engine is progressively becoming a viable alternative to solar panels for its higher efficiency. Stirling engines might be the best way to harvest the power provided by the sun. This is an easy-to-understand explanation of how Stirling engines work, the different types, and why they are more efficient than steam engines.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment