Talk-Polywell.org

KitemanSA wrote:And no, I don't think your inability to understand his game plan is necessarily evidence that he is a SDPsScGT.

You mean that you are really seeing a game plan in his actions?
I'll be happy to hear what (according you of course) his plan is than, because till now nothing of what he made makes any sense to me, let alone looks like part of a plan.
IMBW of course, so any extra detail (that I might have ignored and that you can supply to me) might change my consideration of him.

KitemanSA wrote:

Giorgio wrote:

KitemanSA wrote: 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.

Read back my statement in bold and tell me how it differs from what you just stated.

Again, the difference seems to be that you think that no scientific evidence of existance equals scientific evidence of non-existance, and I do not.

Again, seems you like to think that this is what I think, but I am writing something different.
If you don't get it than it probably means that we are using definitions that are too different to find a common ground of discussion.

KitemanSA wrote:

Giorgio wrote: Evidences of what? That is the way a BEC is formed. Take any paper on BEC and you get al the evidences you need.
I think you are making some confusion on how a Laser works.

It is possible. But you SEEM to be defining something by how it is formed, and I define something by what it is. It is almost like saying that ice isn't ice unless it freezes from a liquid. Sorry, I don't agree. Ice is solid water no matter HOW it got that way.
You do realize we may be arguing inconsequetial minutia here.

By any chance do you work in politics?
Because you ability to take words and twist them to give them a different meaning is as good as the one of a seasoned politician

Ice is solid water, but to get it you need a specific level of temperature and pressure, or, if you prefer, you need a specific energy level of the surrounding medium to get solid H2O.
So no, ice IS NOT simply solid water, is the result of a series of preconditions without whom you will not have solid water.
Same goes for BEC and for the majority of physics phenomena known to date.

MSimon wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:

MSimon wrote: I think he doesn't get the bit about the population standing on its head.

You are right, I don't get that. Explain?

Look up "Laser population inversion". Heh.

You shouldn't have told him so easily

Giorgio wrote:

MSimon wrote:

KitemanSA wrote: You are right, I don't get that. Explain?

Look up "Laser population inversion". Heh.

You shouldn't have told him so easily :wink:

It appears he is in more than sufficient pain. I thought I'd do a little to ease it.

Giorgio wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:And no, I don't think your inability to understand his game plan is necessarily evidence that he is a SDPsScGT.

You mean that you are really seeing a game plan in his actions?
I'll be happy to hear what (according you of course) his plan is than, because till now nothing of what he made makes any sense to me, let alone looks like part of a plan.
IMBW of course, so any extra detail (that I might have ignored and that you can supply to me) might change my consideration of him.

My perception is sort of "Grab uncooperative tiger, hold tight!"

Giorgio wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:

Giorgio wrote: Read back my statement in bold and tell me how it differs from what you just stated.

Again, the difference seems to be that you think that no scientific evidence of existance equals scientific evidence of non-existance, and I do not.

Again, seems you like to think that this is what I think, but I am writing something different.
If you don't get it than it probably means that we are using definitions that are too different to find a common ground of discussion.

Maybe so. I'm writing American, how bout you?

Giorgio wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:

Giorgio wrote: Evidences of what? That is the way a BEC is formed. Take any paper on BEC and you get al the evidences you need.
I think you are making some confusion on how a Laser works.

It is possible. But you SEEM to be defining something by how it is formed, and I define something by what it is. It is almost like saying that ice isn't ice unless it freezes from a liquid. Sorry, I don't agree. Ice is solid water no matter HOW it got that way.
You do realize we may be arguing inconsequetial minutia here.

By any chance do you work in politics?
Because you ability to take words and twist them to give them a different meaning is as good as the one of a seasoned politician

Ok, why did you take a quiet, considerate conversation and inject insult like that. Politician! Hump.

Giorgio wrote: Ice is solid water, but to get it you need a specific level of temperature and pressure, or, if you prefer, you need a specific energy level of the surrounding medium to get solid H2O.
So no, ice IS NOT simply solid water, is the result of a series of preconditions without whom you will not have solid water.
Same goes for BEC and for the majority of physics phenomena known to date.

What would the Tc be for Photons? Since the equation contains a mass term in the divisor, and a photon's mass is zero, the Tc should be dang near infinite. (I'd say infinite but I suspect there are second order terms so... The equation also contains a PARTICLE COUNT term (not pressure) but since the mass is zero, the # term is fairly meaningless. With all the points that YOU have provided suggesting that a laser is a BEC, just not commonly called one, why does it upset you to think of it as one?

MSimon wrote:

Giorgio wrote:

MSimon wrote: Look up "Laser population inversion". Heh.

You shouldn't have told him so easily

It appears he is in more than sufficient pain. I thought I'd do a little to ease it.

Again, you are talking about a laser's creation path, not the thing itself. A laser is a laser no matter how it is made.
And here is a discussion of how you can get a laser without population inversion.
Lasers without inversion and electromagnetically induced transparency By Sher Alam

Now, do you have anything NEW to throw at me to PROVE a laser is not a BEC?
Not that it really matters, but it is an interesting thought to play around with.

With all the points that YOU have provided suggesting that a laser is a BEC, just not commonly called one, why does it upset you to think of it as one?

For the same reason that a horse is not commonly called a cow.

BTW did you leave out a link to the laser without population inversion?

I'd really love to see a paper on a laser that operates from the ground state. That would be VERY interesting.

Ah. It is not lasing from the ground state . There is a population inversion. So the guy is describing something using terms bound to confuse you. He has done his job well. You are confused.

BEC of photons was reported in nature last year.

Keep up with the literature people.

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/update/20 ... te-of.html

The BEC behavior of polaritons was reported in science in 2002.

MSimon wrote: BTW did you leave out a link to the laser without population inversion?

No link, just the title of the book.

Crawdaddy wrote: BEC of photons was reported in nature last year.

Keep up with the literature people.

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/update/20 ... te-of.html

Looks kind of like the guy is pumping a poor dye laser wtih another laser and calling it a BEC, which IMHO it started out as to begin with. Neat!

Crawdaddy wrote: The BEC behavior of polaritons was reported in science in 2002.

I will look for this.

KitemanSA wrote:Maybe so. I'm writing American, how bout you?

Define "American." What is it to "write American?" Last time I checked, we write English and America includes both North and South with quite a few languages.

Idioms and connotations and so on. "Weasel words" at wikipedia had me scratching my head till I put on my "American state of mind" filter.

ScottL wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:Maybe so. I'm writing American, how bout you?

Define "American." What is it to "write American?" Last time I checked, we write English and America includes both North and South with quite a few languages.

Perhaps I should have said "Murkin" as in the "Eunated Staits ovva Murka".
Brits write "boot", I write "trunk", Brits write Aluminium, I write Aluminum (usually), they write "subject of the Queen", I write "slave". ( )etc., ad-nauseum.

The Brits and the Americans are two people seperated by a "common" language.

K?

ScottL wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:Maybe so. I'm writing American, how bout you?

....America includes both North and South with quite a few languages.

Well you see there is
Latin American (Mexico and south (cept Brazil)
British American (which them Kanaks got ALL mixed up with Quebecoise, eh?)
And then there is American. Pretty much the entire world recognizes the term "American" as a language, though many might slip in the Canucks.