Just one article? maybe thats why:
Next, 'Lowell Morgan's choice words' are not confirmed to actually have come from Lowell Morgan, only from someone online claiming to be Dr. Morgan. The community of plasma physicists surrounding SAFIRE are skeptical that the individual actually is Dr. Morgan. Dr. Morgan is a conventional plasma physicist. Though the gods of plasma science (such as Dr. Hannes Alfven for instance) knew that fusion was likely an emergent phenomenon in plasmas, contemporary physicists shy away from cold fusion, which is likely the source of Dr. Morgan's genuine consternation, as it is a historical fact that he quit the team, as soon as it got exotic results - results that are deeply inline with the prior research on LENR. Keep in mind that Dr. Michael Clarage did stay onboard, however.
source:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ElectricUniverse/comments/r3iftn/do_you_think_safire_iswas_legit/
You refine it, you get new data, etc... Scientists do that every day with 'mainstream', they keep putting them to the test with new data and observations, from new telescopes for instance, and more modern and powerful equipment.
so you basically contradict yourself XD before the first half of your statement you criticize the fact that the Electrical Theory changes its position on various details and then you write something like this about conventional science XD
So how about this scientific process, can you or can't you change your position on various issues?
The funniest thing is that you are dismissing the fact that you stopped following then, or to sum up, you were put off by the most scientific of all processes ever because, for example, mainstream science, despite overwhelming evidence in many issues, does not change its position and still sticks to its bullshit spending a lot of money on it
I'll tell you why for the third time, despite what you say, you are returning to this discussion :P Because you only pretend that it is not interesting, and in fact you feel threatened by what I say and feel the need to defend your inner beliefs against my arguments so that by chance my remarks do not lead to the creation of uncertainty in your head that could turn on something called independent thinking and intuition :P.
You used to have it, but as a result of the farts provided to you by the enemies of this theory, you lost it in favor of sticking to the scientific status quo :P It is safer this way, because there is no risk that someone will laugh at you even if the theories are wrong. And that's why you keep coming back and coming back because you have to kill your uncertainty that is born in you when you talk to me in the bud :P Maybe you'll kill the question why you're doing this?
Do you know how many thousands of different projects similar to safire have been created over the years as science has developed? Do you know how many of them had inaccuracies in financing or were accused of unscientific approach, fraud or money-grabbing?
In times when the idea of flight was considered impossible, many aviation pioneers faced criticism, skepticism, and accusations of unscientific approaches or wasting resources.
Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier (1754–1785)
A French physicist and chemist who, along with the Marquis d'Arlandes, completed the first manned hot-air balloon flight in 1783, using a balloon designed by the Montgolfier brothers.
At the time, many people believed that flight was a fantasy or even a dangerous endeavor. Rozier's attempts were met with skepticism, with critics claiming that humans were not meant to ascend into the sky and that such efforts were frivolous.
Sir George Cayley (1773–1857)
A British engineer, widely regarded as one of the founding figures of modern aerodynamics. He designed the first aircraft concept with distinct lifting and control surfaces in 1799.
In the early 19th century, the idea of heavy-than-air flight was seen as pure fantasy. Cayley's theories were dismissed as impractical, and many engineers of his time considered his experiments a waste of effort. Although not widely recognized during his lifetime, Cayley's work was fundamental in proving that heavier-than-air flight was theoretically possible. His designs directly influenced later aviation pioneers, including the Wright brothers.
Otto Lilienthal (1848–1896)
A German aviation pioneer known for developing and testing gliders in the late 19th century. He was the first to systematically study aerodynamics through repeated experimental flights.
Many scientists and engineers of his time considered Lilienthal's glider experiments reckless and lacking scientific credibility. Some dismissed his efforts as dangerous stunts rather than legitimate research.
Lilienthal's numerous successful glider flights demonstrated that controlled human flight was achievable. However, his fatal crash in 1896 was used by skeptics as evidence that flight was inherently too dangerous. Despite this, his work greatly influenced the Wright brothers, who credited him as an inspiration.
Samuel Pierpont Langley (1834–1906)
An American scientist and aviation researcher who attempted to develop powered flight. His experiments were funded by the U.S. government, making him one of the first publicly financed aviation pioneers.
After his failed attempts to launch a powered aircraft in 1903, he was ridiculed in the press, with some critics accusing him of squandering government funds on an impossible endeavor. His failures reinforced the widespread belief that heavier-than-air flight was unachievable.
Langley’s reputation was severely damaged by his failures, and his research was largely abandoned. However, just weeks later, the Wright brothers successfully achieved powered flight
You are simply one of those skeptics and have a similar mentality to people who criticized the idea of flying 200 years ago. According to their current "mainstream" knowledge, these ideas were also nonsense. and they found similar arguments in the explanations of the "experts" of that time just as easily as you are quoting them here :P the problem is that there is one fundamental feature of all great human discoveries:
until someone does it, it always seems unscientific, impossible or fraudulent.
Because if it weren't so, someone would have already done it. Are you keeping up?
small "improvements" based on current science such as current science are not controversial and never expose themselves to criticism of unscientificity because they are based on what we know. But they never change anything in our lives to a significant degree.
Great discoveries are always overturning a known paradigm and always start with something that at first seems to be just fantasy and the first theses usually have to evolve a lot before they allow for reasonable answers. Nevertheless, it is precisely these that make us discover something new.
Such bullshit as you are doing at the top only slows it down and does not contribute anything constructive because once the first "wright brothers" wil fly, your scribbling will be worthless 🙃.
Give safire project atlast 1/10 of the budget that has the hadron collider, give them 30 years for research (like those from the collider) and if it still will be shit( like with colider) then I will admit you are right. OK?