[/quote]
Giorgio wrote: KitemanSA wrote:Giorgio wrote: No, I am saying that one should be rational enough to have an open mind and at the same time to be able to classify the "potentially possible" from the ridiculous.
For some reason, you seem beholden to make a decision about this. I find that a bit irrational. I need not make that decision now. Till I DO have to,
I will seek information, real, solid, information upon which to make a decision. None has been provided, so I remain undecided. I have an opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. It will do until I must decide. Until then, I seek.
Seek on making a decision on LENR or on Rossi?
Both, actually. On Rossi, my current leanings are toward the negative. On LENR, more toward the positive. But,,, I don't know, so I seek.
Giorgio wrote:
On the first I agree, on the second I am amazed that you still think there is room to give him the benefit of doubt.
AMAZE away to your hearts content!
Giorgio wrote: This has been a grotesque gallery of scientific horrors, starting from the January test with a dosing pump delivering (according Rossi of course) 250% more flow than the model rated amount (A DOSING PUMP!!!), with ignorance in understanding the difference between Energy and Power, with an RH probe used to measure a gas phase density while attempting to determine a steam dryness fraction (so many illogic statement here I laughed for 2 hours), public tests with no public data, NASA tests that fails to give any meaningful result, invisible customers, reports plenty of errors, sorry, of horrors...........
I suspect this is where we differ. I see nothing "scientific" about anything Possi has done. Thus I see no "scientific horrors". In truth, I kind of see a guy who has a VERY uncooperative tiger by the tail. But my sight is VERY foggy and that may not be a tiger but a lyin.
Giorgio wrote: When is enough nonsense enough for you to take a decision? Should I continue the list?
Until there is definitive scientific evidence one way or the other, or until I must personally make a decision because something of value is on the line.
No amount of YOUR discomfort will cause me to choose, one way or the other.
When you say, "In my opinion, it is all a scam", I reply, "you are entitled to your opinion, and I tend to sympatize with your opinion".
When you state, "it is all a scam", I request your data, the REAL proof that is the basis for your decision. So far, everyone's "proof" amounts to "I don't understand it and I don't like him, so he must be a scammer".
Giorgio wrote: KitemanSA wrote:Giorgio wrote: Let me ask you straightly, do you believe in Fortune tellers and in Astrology? If you do not, how do you reconcile this with the principle you expressed?
No, but then I don't "believe" in Rossi either.
But do you now see where you have gone? It has become a matter of BELIEF to you, hasn't it. We are starting to argue religion. Your faith vs my lack of it.
Nice attempt at twisting my logic, but I am not going to fall for it.
This is not a matter of faith and it has never been. This is a simple matter of judging what one is offering as support to his claims against what he is claiming.
Faith is blindly believing (or objecting) him without weighting the positive and negative information he supplied to support his claims.
You SEEM to blindly believe that your understanding of the universe is full and complete and you know that his process doesn't fit in to it, so he lies. Oh and by the way, you don't understand his reasons for acting the way he does and thus his odd behavior is more proof that he lies. This APPEARS to be a matter of faith to me. I have faith in the long term scientific process, and not much else. Certainly not Rossi, nor you! I seek DATA, not opinion, not faith.
Giorgio wrote: KitemanSA wrote:Giorgio wrote:
No is not obvious at all,
Really? Do you REALLY think that it is not obvious that people used gravity to their benefit before Galileo? Really? Honestly?
Maybe I am wrong, but I feel you are just trying to be polemic here.
You are mixing the use of an unknown phenomena without claiming to understand it, with the claim to have mastered an unknown phenomena while being unable to show how to use it.
It seems unlikely to me that Rossi has MASTERED anything. My analogy might be that Rossi is like the first caveman that hurled a stone he could lift blindly over a cliff down upon a herd of Ms (mastadon, mammoth, whatever) and found one dead at the bottom when he got there. What he DIDN'T notice was that his stone hit an outcrop and dislarged a large bolder on the way down. It was the bolder that killed the M. He goes back and tells the tribe, hey, I've discovered a great way to kill Ms. When trying to do it again, all he does is piss off an M with the rock he could lift. He is obviously a scammer, right?
Giorgio wrote:KitemanSA wrote: Giorgio wrote:
Let me put it in another way.
A BEC is the result of a series of state of matter. If one of these conditions is missing you cannot call it a BEC.
Lasers are missing some of the conditions to be called BEC.
Please provide more info on the conditions missing. I see none, but I am not an expert. Illumination please.
Just one will be enough. No ground state.
Nice statement, evidence? Aren't photons ALWAYS effectively in their "ground state"?