Higgsy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:38 amSo you'll be able to prove that none of those elements were present in the chamber beforehand?
Me personally? Of course not. I'm not part of the SAFIRE team. I have however paid attention to the arguments they've made with respect to their efforts to spectroscopically measure the elemental compositions throughout their experiments, and I have no particular reason to doubt them.
There is no proof,
There's no such thing as 'proof" in science in the first place, just 'evidence" at best case. I assume you're railing over the concept of *published* evidence?
no argument.,
Sure there is. The argument is quite well articulated. They're measuring the elemental composition of the chamber and the various things they've put into the chamber, and noticing the production of different elements that shouldn't be there. It's a pretty simple argument to understand regardless of whether or not one chooses to "believe" the argument. I can't personally speak to their efforts at eliminating every other potential source of elemental contamination, but their basic argument is pretty simple to understand.
hell, there is no data, no science to support the proposition that fusion is occurring in that little plasma up to z=58. It's simply incredible.
Well, I'd grant you that there's nothing *published* yet, but they certainly have "data" from their experiments. Whether you find it credible or not is another issue entirely.
And so when I see a burst of energy in the laughably uncontrolled data,.....
Laughably uncontrolled data? Huh? How would you even know that?
They certainly seem to have all the necessary probes and equipment to measure the spectroscopic output of the experiments they are preforming, as well as the temperatures, voltages, current flow, etc. It seems to be pretty "controlled" with respect to the claims they are making. I don't personally have a lot insight into all the steps they've taken to eliminate the possibility of contamination from the chamber itself, and/or items introduced into the chamber, but I'd have to assume they've checked for possible sources of contamination. It's not as though they're seeing only *one* or *two* new elements in the chamber either, rather they're seeing several of them.
I say that, if indeed a burst of energy occurred, it was simply a straightforward chemical reaction.
Which chemical reaction would that be? How did it result in new elements showing up in the spectroscopic data?
And that either the spectroscopic identification of those elements was flawed or that they were present beforehand.
You have absolutely no evidence to support any of that speculation.
That is my position. I am not misquoting or misrepresenting Childs. I am saying that what he is claiming is not credible.
I gotta say Higgsy, that at this point in our conversation, I have no clue how you personally decide how to apply the concept of scientific integrity and/or scientific misconduct to any particular issue or debate.
https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct
(a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
(b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
(c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
(d) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
Apparently you're accusing not just Childs, but the entire SAFIRE team of research misconduct, but your accusation is not based upon anything specific that you can actually offer, rather it seems to be based on a 'gut feeling' of some sort and what amounts to wild speculation on your part.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/E ... fbf96907cc
On the other hand, you willingly turn a blind eye to the fact that LIGO flat out omitted vital and relevant data in their published paper, and they did not accurately represent that data in their published paper. They misrepresented the data that is in the research record. That conflict of interest and that accusation is not based on simply a "gut feeling" of mine, but rather it's based on *printed materials which were provided by LIGO itself! They falsely claimed in their published paper that no vetoes were present within an hour of the event, when it fact their own magazine account reported that the specific signal in question was vetoed within 18 seconds of being uploaded to the GraceDB database. When questioned out this omission of relevant facts, LIGO basically handwaved at the problem and refused to provide any of the relevant details associated with that veto, including the type of hardware involved, what that hardware and software was designed to detect and "veto" out in the first place, which channels were involved, the software involved, etc.
You even got all huffy at me for even pointing out their blatant omission of relevant facts, and their lack of transparency with respect to that veto.
What's up with that huge double standard Higgsy? I'm not "guessing" at whether or not LIGO omitted relevant data. I know for a *fact* that they omitted relevant data based on their own internal magazine accounts of that signal and that veto and the fact it's not mentioned in the paper.
Sure I'm curious. I should have been delighted if SAFIRE had done what it set out to do, and produced and published scientific papers with the usual controls, noise and data analysis.
SAFIRE has produced some published work related to their experiments and I'd have to assume that they'll publish more work when it's convenient and financially sound and logical for them to do so. I don't think that SAFIRE actually set out to produce the "transmutation" results they've measured however. They seem to be quite surprised by it in fact.
I think you're a bit ahead of yourself in the sense that SAFIRE Is a *for profit* institution, not a government owned research facility. They have somewhat different responsibilities as it relates to investors and shareholders. Some of their findings would fall into the "proprietary" category at this point in time, particularly as it relates to any potential for fusion. I think you're overlooking some of the political and financial implications of doing such research as a for profit institution. As a businessman myself, I can appreciate the complications.
I would have been even more delighted if SAFIRE had produced some revolutionary insights about plasma physics or solar physics that were replicated in other labs.
I suspect that they'd prefer to patent the process before that happens.
Contrary to what you think of me, I welcome challenges to the status quo and new physics - but that new physics has to be done properly and not based on some easily demonstrable error.
But you didn't actually show any 'demonstrable error". You simply "speculated" about what you *thought* they might have overlooked and complained about the fact that they haven't released all of the details of their work yet. That's not a demonstrated error, that's an unfounded accusation. LIGO on the other had made *many* demonstrable errors in their methodology and at least one *gigantic* omission of vital information. Those are "demonstrated"" problems that are well spelled out in my paper.
I also don't even see any evidence that the 'status quo' physics was ever done properly in the first place. What evidence do you have for exotic forms of matter? There's already 5.3 sigma tension with respect to the Hubble constant claims of the LCMD model. Every dark matter experiment has been a dismal failure. Where the hell does dark energy come from, and how does it retain a constant density (or increasing density?) throughout the expansion process? You won't even address or discuss the *huge* and serious problems associated with the 'status quo", so it's hard to believe you're actually looking for any alternatives.
I should love to live to see JSWT set the cat among the pigeons regarding LCDM. I'd like to see new exciting physics in the last few decades of my life, and the most exciting physics is done when observations disrupt current theories. I'd like it but do I think JSWT is going to do that? No.
*Exactly* what type of evidence from the JWST would you accept as evidence to disrupt current theories? We're already seeing massive and mature galaxies and huge quasars at redshift distances that defy the predictions of the "status quo" model. Doesn't that bother you at all?
https://www.newsweek.com/massive-invisi ... es-1453007
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ae3a ... -are-quazy
We even see recent evidence to suggest that the universe is connected by gigantic Birkeland currents:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmj7 ... structures
What could JWST show us that would make you stand up and take notice of the numerous problems in the LCDM model and actually start discussing them with us here?
Turning back to Aureon, what irritates me isn't that SAFIRE exists or is trying to do new physics - I applaud that. What irritates me is that before any significant physics is published, the principals have decided they are going to cash-in with absurd claims. Aren't you disappointed? You should be.
Not in the least. I'm a businessman and I understand how business works. I'm not ticked off at Microsoft for cashing in on my operating system needs, or irritated at Toyota for building my car. Why would I be upset about a for profit company trying to make a profit from their own research? That's pretty much par for the course in business, otherwise you don't remain in business for very long.
Don't you think the absurdity of the claims on transuranic waste remediation calls the rest of the presentation into question? It's not careful physics. It's not even a sober investor prospectus. It's pure hype a la Mills.
I don't really understand enough about their experiments to understand their motivation for discussing that particular topic. The 'rub' from my perspective is that I know of no experiment that they've preformed with radioactive materials inside their chamber, so I don't know how they could possibly have any actual data to support that kind of speculation. Does that bother me? Ya, a little. Then again they wouldn't be the first company or research institution to "hype" their research or their profit potential to speculators. Remember that Bicep2 fiasco? Even public institutions tend to hype their results and over extend themselves at times.
Now you guys can stop that right away. I have no idea who this RC is, so I can't possibly be listening to him or quoting him. What I say is my view not someone else's.
Well, you're clearly not basing your beliefs on what Childs has said publicly either, so apparently you're just making it up as you go. Like I said before, it's odd to me that you'd choose ignore the fact that LIGO omitted *vital* information from their published work, as evidenced from the different internal account of the very same event. Meanwhile you're all up in SAFIRE's face over what amounts to wild personal speculation. I just don't get it.
The other thing that's bothering me about our discussions is that you only seem willing to discuss topics and models that you disagree with, and you refuse to discuss the *glaring* problems with the "status quo" models, like that five plus sigma problem with the Hubble constant, the fact that the LCMD model violates the conservation of energy laws in two different ways, the fact that dark matter "tests" have been a multi billion dollar laboratory failure and the fact that recent high redshift observations defy the predictions of the LCDM model. What is up with that selective nonsense? Why do you refuse to address the problems with the "status quo" models?
