Any solutions to these problems ?

[mapuc]

Via IFL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cgGFU6rprMc

Science and technology may be achieving increasingly incredible innovations and discoveries, but there are still things out there that just can't be explained by todays knowledge or understanding.

Markus

[Torplexed]

Via IFL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cgGFU6rprMc



Markus

I guess I fail to see why it's surprising that science doesn't have all the answers to all the questions. We inhabit a tiny mote of dust in an infinite universe and have only started using the scientific method comparatively recently in human history.

I'm surrounded by things that science hasn't explained yet. But, despite the large number of things that are still unexplained, I can't think of anything better to use than science to explain them. Well, I suppose just making stuff up would be an easy way, like we did through most of human history, but it's not an especially useful method.

[Oberon]

If science could explain everything, there would be no need for science. :03:

[Jeff-Groves]

Any solutions to these problems ?

Time.

[Betonov]

Usually the ivention of a proper energy source pushes solutions forward.

Current technology only improves itself, anything new will have to wait for something better to power it.

[mapuc]

When I saw one of these unsolved problems Cold fusion

I made a search for it, to read more about and I found this

http://ecat.com/

Want to know more about ecat

Through wiki I was told....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

What shall I, how aren't any expert in that field, believe ??

Markus

[Oberon]

Well the key is, when someone says they have done something and publishes a paper on it, whatever they have done should be able to be reproduced by following the procedures indicated in the paper. If it cannot be done then the initial claim is judged as being baseless.

[mapuc]

Well the key is, when someone says they have done something and publishes a paper on it, whatever they have done should be able to be reproduced by following the procedures indicated in the paper. If it cannot be done then the initial claim is judged as being baseless.

Thank you. So this E-cat is nothing more than "Propaganda"

Markus

[Oberon]

Thank you. So this E-cat is nothing more than "Propaganda"

Markus

Time will tell.

[Torplexed]

Thank you. So this E-cat is nothing more than "Propaganda"

Markus

Andrea Rossi, who pushes this e-cat technology, does not act like he's trying to convince anyone, and he's not acting like a guy sitting on a real technology. Rossi acts precisely like he's trying to convince the marks in some sort of penny-stock scam.

The evidence favoring "Rossi is a scammer" is much, much stronger than the evidence saying "Rossi has discovered cold fusion". I would tend to believe the stronger evidence. There's no dishonor in distrusting someone who won't do proper experiments, challenging that person and assuming, if it smells like a scam, it's probably a scam. Now, subsequently, if that person turns out to be correct, it's no fault of the scientific community that they couldn't do a proper demonstration to begin with.

[TorpX]

I took a quick look at the Wiki page on 'cold fusion'. I think this sums it up nicely:
There is currently no accepted theoretical model which would allow cold fusion to occur.

Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes fell with the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-5) By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBrowne1989-6)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-most_scientists-7) and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science).[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#cite_note-nytdoe-8)