Interestingly, two of the top 9/11 truth scientists, A.K. Dewdney and Steve Jones, were tangentially involved in the P&F cold fusion controversy - Jones in the original scientific debate, and Dewdney in a chapter in his book Yes We Have No Neutrons. Both are skeptical of P&F. But neither is AS skeptical as advertised, whether by those who claim "Steve Jones killed cold fusion" or by the publicists who wrote the promo material for Dewdney's book.

Expand full comment

Josh, thanks for reply.

The interesting edge here is perhaps not the physics details but the general topic of how to discuss things outside of the scientific paradigm (that are not experimentally reproducible and not predicted by accepted theoretical models). I think this is done not by appealing to the scientific paradigm.

Part of the wariness that your interview brought up was that you mentioned so many emotionally loaded issues--that many conventionally accepted scientific understandings where manipulated by evil conspiracies. Of course there is non zero probability that this is true. But for newcomers to Kevin’s site such claims function as cognitive infiltration to degrade the credibility of his platform. Also, personally I just don’t wish to spend my attention time on something with such a small probability (that all of these conspiracies are true), and I don’t trust anyone who claims that this is credible.

In this reply I’ll just concentrate of two scientific areas: cold fusion and “free energy”.

Regarding your links, I don't have a huge time and energy to devote to this, however I would be very interested in reading an actual physics paper (with the math) written by Schwinger on cold fusion and would be happy to discuss the details with you afterwards.

In my own mind CF is not in question anymore. As I recall P & F were chemists and used a chem-lab setup involving palladium metal and hydrogen. They observed a a large energy release. Hot fusion was a big topic in the public discourse in those days, and P & F, because of the Fellow of the Royal Society connections of one of them, had credibility with the media. P & F reported their work, not in a scientific arena (starting with discussions with colleagues), but in the big-time media (I recall them in Time magazine saying, “unlike hot fusion that has done nothing but burn money…”). I recall the ernest unsuccessful attempts to repeat their work (done by a collaboration and reported upon by a researcher from CalTech--which was not involved in hot fusion experimental research). Theoretically, the energy transformation in this case was supposed to involve a thermonuclear reaction. It came out soon after that the Germans had long before developed a cigarette lighter based on hydrogen stored in palladium metal.

It was in regard to “free energy” that I brought up the law of conservation of energy. The natural question is where does this “free energy” come from. I have time and energy to study one primary physics paper by an established physicist on this subject if you could provide a link and would be happy to discuss details with you.

Expand full comment

General impression of Josh Mitteldorf: I worry that he is a cognitive infiltrator. Or maybe he is just another creature of the capitalist system who has found a nitch by emotionally manipulating his audience, appealing to their ignorance (therefore he can't fully explain what he is talking about)

and morbid fascination with evil conspiracies. Either way this is very dangerous for a community

attempting to get better understanding of reality through talking together. Unqualified association with such people makes it easier to brand us all as kooks.

In regard to overturning the law of conservation of energy in physics:

"After looking at the physics of various proposed free energy technologies..."

sorry, but JM has little credibility for me. Rather he should cite, in his opinion, the ONE paper by

a creditable scientist, which gives the strongest argument for violation of the law of conservation of energy. This could be studied by physicists and they would comment on it for non physicists.

Regarding cold fusion, most scientists believe Pons and Fleischmann's work was a a high-school-chemistry level error rushed into publication, simply because it could (and did) grab the limelight (because of the credentials on one of them). If someone still believes cold fusion can produce energy, let them communicate it in a responsible way (by publishing a scientific paper). This statement by JM is a red flag issue for me--"cold fusion is well established in hundreds of labs around the world". Sorry Kevin, I’m not sure can continue to support your program if you let these kind of statements pass unchallenged.

Similarly about Tesla's notebooks.

Other red flags here: 1) scattered criticisms at the same time of many hugely important pillars of conventional understanding--this is the strategy of cognitive infiltration. 2) appeal to superheros (Tesla, Pons & Fleishman, Freud..) that have understanding that others are not capable of. This disempowers us in our quest for greater understanding.

"The more radical your message the more conservative your presentation." Yes.

The interesting edge here is how to talk about things outside of conventional science. Not by unconscious invocation of evil and appeals to arcane, now lost, science, I think.

Expand full comment

Rupert Sheldrake got the jab!

Similar to Dave Chappelle bolstering his excellent truth-about-jews jokes with ignorant Ukraine propaganda, I would love to know if the need for dissidents to go along with establishment views is consciously complying, purposefully ignorant, or totally unwitting.

Expand full comment