OK Kevin, I hurt your feelings. Sorry ***I don't care about hurt feelings. You can hurt my feelings every day next week and twice on Sunday if you'll answer the simple question.
You are asking a question that requires a great deal of my time to fully > answer. > ***I'm not asking for it to be fully answered. That's why I'm asking at the 40k foot high Inductive level of Occham's Razor. If I leave a gap in my answer, other questions follow. ***If you are not going to answer questions as they pertain to your theory, then what are you doing? Trolling for groupies? I simply do not have the time to answer all questions. ***You take the time to answer questions you like, and you don't take the time to answer the questions you don't like. I get it. It aint very scientific, but I get it. Besides, I have also made my opinions about the role of BEC clear in the past, so this idea is not of interest to me. ***If it turns out to be the breakthrough, the idea will be of interest to you. And if you could find the silver bullet that destroys BECs as a viable theory, you'd be interested. Since we have neither of these, we rely on inductive reasoning to move us forward and now you don't even want to pursue inductive reasoning. You seem to prefer to engage in opinionation. Now, admittedly, your opinion is worth more than mine due to your 23 years of effort in this area. But it just so happens that in the case of laser cooling (which Dr. Chu got his Nobel Prize for in creating BECs), you happened to be wrong as it pertained to LENR. So it's in the best interest of LENR science to close the loop on that line of inquiry, if only at the 40k foot level. I do not believe the BEC plays any part in LENR. ***Science aint about belief. > Theoreticians take their ideas very personally and criticism, either > implied or real, is not usually taken kindly. > > ***It would appear to be the case.
