On 2 May, 15:47, Keith Dysart wrote:
On May 2, 5:23 pm, (J. B. Wood) wrote:

In the
case of the CFA, cold fusion or anything else for that matter,
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Most of us would be happy with just ordinary evidence:
bigfoot - a specimen, or some bones. Just the normal stuff.
paranormal - just a repeatable controlled experiment
cold fusion - just a repeatable controlled experiment
CFA - the same

Not anecdote, however. That never counts.

...Keith

No Kieth that is not true. A month ago we had a Doctor from MIT who
gave
a descision on this newsgroup with respect to the Maxwells law. He
made an
mathematical analysis of an antenna that complied via mathematics.
Only one person agreed with his analysis. All others on this
newsgroup
denied the existance of this analysis as "proof". The Doctor gave an
analysis of a
conservative field that was transformed to a non concervative field by
the addition of
a unit of time. In that case it was a Gaussian field that followed
Gaussian law and the Doctor
showed by the addition of time to a conservative field it complied
with Maxwells laws by changing to a non conservative field that
allowed for a design of a radiating array of maximum efficiency. I
also saw it as an explanational truth of Poyntings Vector.
We have many different types of experts on this newsgroup and all but
one person dissed the idea of conformaty to Maxwell. So something
simple is not want this group wants it is something to diss and
degenerate. As J B Wood stated the truth eventually will come out,
but it will not be via this newsgroup. By the way, there was nobody
except one familiar enough with Maxwells laws to mount a professional
response and many who one would have assumed had the required
knoweledge either dissed or stayed quiet to stay on the safe side.
Art