GIThruster wrote:Yes well, we're talking apples and oranges again. Theory is not fact, and given Johan's theory is revolutionary science,
It is an experimentally established fact that dipoles form over interfaces to cancel an existing field by generating an opposite porarisation field. When extracting electrons from a diamond with an anode, such a dipole is formed to cancel the applied electric-field over the diamond's surface; and when the electrons are extracted further to reach and enter the anode the dipole still cancels the applied electric field.
Experimentally it is then found that a current keeps on flowing even though the
experimentally determined fact is that there cannot be an electric field between the diamond surface and the anode. Where does my theory of superconductivity comes into it? The facts are all exprerimental. Give me any other "superconducting" material for which the absence of an electric-field has been as directly proven experimentally as in my case!
So I am thus the first to
really prove experimentally that there
really need not be an electric-field! The probability is greater that all the other materials which had been claimed to be superconducting are, in contrast with my data, not treal superconductors since in not a single one of those cases there exists a direct experimental proof that the electric-field is or must be zero.
The way through this is with the facts, not with more theory. This is what makes issues like the previous attempts at validation so significant.
As I have pointed out time and again that my theory of superconduction came after the experimental fact that there is not and cannot be an electric field between the diamond and the anode, but that charge-transfer is still measured. It is a straightforward experimental fact.
If it were me, I'd have my lawyers writing the people with the substrate samples. A short note with the proper letterhead, delivered confirmed can accomplish a great deal, especially when these folks did not pay for the substrates. They're Johan's property.
This would be the wrong way. One cannot force people to talk when they are clearly unwilling to do so. Why they are unwilling, one can only speculate on. Usually it involves grant-money and position and prestige: PEER PRESSURE DETERMINES WHAT HAPPENS NOT LOGIC AND FACT!.
That's a stronger approach than more appeals concerning theory, IMHO.
My appeal is not about my theory, but about the experimentally establsihed fact that dipole-fields form to cancel an electric field with an opposite polarisation field. If people cannot understand this simple fact, and want to call it unproven theory, then they are so incompetent that one can only pray for them.
