[extropy-chat] Elvis Sightings (2)

[Keith Henson]

At 01:43 PM 2/8/2007 -0500, John wrote:
>"Keith Henson" <hkhenson at rogers.com>
>
> > The problem with CF or whatever it is, is that (as far as I know) nobody
> > has a theory about why this should occur.
>
>No, that is not the problem. High Temperature Superconductors were
>discovered about the same time cold fusion was "discovered". At the time
>there was not a theory to explain either phenomenon

There might not be a really detailed theory, but superconducting was fairly 
well understood.  (BCS model as I remember.)

>and the same is true
>today, but today you could not find a scientist who thinks High Temperature
>Superconductors do not exist.

It's quick and easy to replicate HTS.  Heck, you can do it in a few 
hours.  If HTS had taken hundreds of hours to anneal and still been 
intermittent I doubt it would have faired any better.

> > places like Stanford and the U of Hawaii are some I remember.
>
>And it what rag were those remarkable results published it? Or was it just a
>website?

That long ago?  What I saw were research preprints that went into details 
and bitched about how hard it was to get repeatable results, but when they 
got a cell that decided to turn on, there was no question about it.

> > I remember with near horror a time when a very senior scientist (not in
> > geology) went off on a disjointed emotional rant that was scary to
> > behold. (He was shaking with rage.) I was reading *his* copy of
> >_Scientific American_ at his house and made some innocent comment
> > about an article on plate tectonics.  Clark's "BULLSHIT" doesn't compare
>
>You are quire correct, it does not compare.

You missed the point.  I was comparing *emotional* levels between you and 
this senior scientist.  But then maybe you are shaking with rage and 
ranting while you write your posts.  If so, you do compare and I apologize 
for belittling your intensity.

>Plate tectonics was a theory and
>until the mid 60's the evidence for it really wasn't very good.

This was at mid to late 70s.  It's been 30 years now.  Still, it would not 
surprise me one bit to get the same reaction now.  Not that I would try it, 
one of those experiences was more than enough.

>Nevertheless
>it would have been inappropriate to go into a rant about it

snip

>I would rate the possibility of seeing pro cold fusion about as likely as
>seeing a pro Scientology article. Why? Because they are both BULLSHIT!

You are sadly misinformed.  There are thousands of pro scientology 
articles.  Most have been written by scientologists, but a significant 
number were written by outsiders with poor critical thinking skills who 
wrote about scientology based on what they were told.

Keith Henson