Let's start from the bottom, on the same page there is a link: http://www.exposingtruth.com/mit-scientists-discover-secret-cold-fusion/ Basically, regarding the “cold” fusion no one really knows similar like with the Em Drive or gravity or dark energy/matter. I will write sometime in future a separate article about our perception (just conceptual thinking I am far from being physicist) about our understanding of the room temperature and on the other hand what may be happening within the material). Regarding “Argument from authority” my point is that we are rallying on trust, and trust is all we have, and personally trust is not enough. Science should be about evidence, and questioning everything all the time. As most of us do not have time or/and money/resources to study/test everything we rely on “common sense” that tells us we should believe people with “more knowledge”. But what if those people are just very good at faking, as you already pointed? Most of the time we do not know is “our” authority person really right or not, we just accept things for granted, because they have "more" knowledge. For instance there is about dozen quantum theories, because no one knows what is exactly going on, they have to give something in order to justify money they are spending. Entire article is not something where I am saying, “look guys this is solution”, I am more saying something like “Hmm guys this is strange what do you think about this?” So, thank you for your thoughts!
First of all as I have said I am not authority in physics, my background is in information science, and as I have said I do not even have a tendency to say I am the one. I am not claiming anything, in the about page I said reasons I write, more or less I am trying is to say let’s do bit of critical thinking before we take things for granted. Fair point for "exposing truth" I was not looking at source, my bad, but let’s give more "credible" source http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup But again that defeats the purpose, I am not saying that argument from authority is good, I am saying it is bad because we have to use it, and we have to use is as we do not have choice, it because we are limited with time, money, brain (cpu/memory) for all subjects ... what I am saying is more wishful thinking ("it would be good if we could have") "generous 40 million grant" let's compare it with fusion grants of $29.1 Billion over 57 years, and "running from 2014 to 2020 with an €80 billion ($104 billion) budget" did it produce results? http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-EU_to_raise_nuclear_research_spending-0111124.html So now compare 130000 million plus with 40 million, yes 40 million is quite generous. If there is something interesting going on, go and explore it, find the source of an error or what is going on, do not discard something just because your bias toward rooted thinking. Go and try, and fail... but learn what is the reason of failure, and spread the word about your fail ... This is more of a comment to people with training not without it, it seems they have lost courage to try bold ideas. On the other hand "independent researcher with no formal training" did Thomas Edison had formal training? "a dozen quantum theories," - was figure of speech, sorry now I know I have to be prices even in comments (although dozen=12 it was exaggeration), yes formulations, on the other hand "the paper Ron Maimon found looks like the source of the '11 formulations' " but even with 9 isn't that look as mess to you? Does reality have 9+ behaviours? Regarding "EM drive is going through exactly the process of evidence and testing (and, not really showing the expected results)" http://www.sciencealert.com/the-em-drive-still-producing-mysterious-thrust-after-another-round-of-nasa-tests We must be reading different news, or you are working for NASA and you have completely different inside info? ... Can I ask you politely for your background, how long are you in that field? Maybe I can ask you to clarify few things, or maybe you can help me to resolve few dilemmas?
Thank you that was extensive answer, do you work currently in the field and what is your field of research if you are employed? This is the thing I wanted to write about: http://phys.org/news/2015-11-phase-carbon-diamond-room-temperature.html in title they are mentioning "make diamond at room temperature" and just in the next sentence they are saying, "During this pulse, the temperature of the carbon is raised to 4,000 Kelvin (or around 3,727 degrees Celsius) and then rapidly cooled." 4000 Kelvin :) (I understand it is pulse but ...) A perception what the room temperature means is to say the least strange in that article ... Now let's speculatively jump to that palladium rod and its space between molecules being filed with the deuterium, if you pass high voltage, how can you measure temperature inside of material? And what is the way you know to tell what is going on within those cavities?
Thank you very much, for your answer I think we drifted away from the main subject but still exciting. This is exactly a type of discussion I like. Regarding those things I would rather discuss about them in some other "ask physicists" oriented subject. I would like know more about temperatures inside of material sometime in future, but I have to focus now on what I have already started, as soon as I finish that I will return to find out more.
Not that I've read all of the articles, but I agree that the "about" section is pretty refreshing. Your motivations for blogging are interesting and it's nice to see them laid out that way.