Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (323062)	1/25/2007 9:11:30 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577031

"Perhaps "fad" in your mind implies such uselessness or stupidity. I'd be open to using another word." Ok. "Fad" has a lot of negative connotations. I don't think that really covers the type of thing you are describing. The closest thing to a fad in recent history was Fleischman-Pons. An earlier one out of the 1970s was polywater. Both had several characteristics in common. And both burned out in about a year. Neither got to the point of being accepted, but merely were considered a new promising possibility. GW is a lot different. Usually where science errs is when generally accepted theories are challenged by better ones. General Relativity wound up tossing out Newtonian physics. But it was a struggle, and GR itself is likely to supplanted at some point. But that doesn't mean that Newtonian physics is a wrong model for the regimes it was developed for. Its flaws aren't apparent at the speeds, masses and scales which are close to human experience.