This is the heart of my criticism. I do not see this progression of deliberate interference at first by trial and error. The most powerful accelerators can reach energies that interact at the nuclear and sub atomic scale. The most powerful lasers like Vulcan and the Petawatt laser in Austin, to name a couple, can just barely interact at these scales. To make an argument that chemical, any chemical processes concentrate enough energy in time or space to influence nuclear events is daunting. But if you or one of these researchers tries then the onus is on you to provide a convincing mechanism. Too much of the discussion goes like... "I've got some A and some highly purified B and combining them in a vacuum while exposing them to a high voltage pulse is really intense. I've produced more heat than I should have and this is how I can harness it."the quantum world I see a
highly 'chaotic' sea of particle critters who are not all that stable and whose equilibrium is more and more subject to deliberate interference,
at first by trial and error, then more controlled.
Despite my criticism, I love radical thinking. Way too many of my colleagues consider it a waste of time compared to applying conservative principals and generating predictable results. Yet, radical thinking still needs to be rigorous. We need a mechanism then a test of the mechanism and finally, an explanation of the mechanism.


Reply With Quote



.... or will it be crossing the pond 


