First of all, ***How long did it take for you to generate a 4 point list rather than
answer a simple 40k foot inductive question? your question was not about my theory. ***It sure as hell was. It points to one theory being more consistent with the evidence than the other. The BEC theory possibly competes with yours at that point. It was about how I would expected a BEC would behave, ***No, it is about how a fusion event would absorb in a lattice and how such absorption would necessitate lots of lattice be between the event & the observer. which has no relationship to my theory ***It has plenty of relationship to your theory. You just choose to not see it. Second, I explained ***Explained? Your supposed lack of time was the "explanation". But you have plenty of time for denigration, dismissal, 4-point lists, etc. And by doing so you violate Occham's Razor, "multiplying entities beyond necessity". to you why I did not answer your question and you replied with demanding arrogance. ***I don't "demand" anything. I just point out how you're avoiding answering the question while you have "time" for other stuff. You won't answer it because you can't -- that isn't a demand, it's an observation of your behavior. If you want to find evidence of "demanding arrogance", simply look through the last few weeks of your own vortex posts and search for the word "must". Now, that is demanding arrogance. One simple recent example: "Kevin, gefore suggesting explanations, a person must..." In a discussion group, interaction with other people is voluntary ***then volunteer an explanation. and based on a pleasant and fruitful interaction. ***It isn't based on pleasant & fruitful interaction, not to put too fine a point on things. The RESULT is SUPPOSED to be pleasant & fruitful interaction. BUt your decision to not answer questions lacks fruit and has generated some unpleasantness. Third, when I say I do not BELIEVE ***Yeah, that's something I notice about your writing, how you appear to have this almost religious outlook about how things are supposed to be in terms of science & LENR. For instance you wrote to me that I "accept reality" according to KP Sinha rather than from you. What kind of polemic nonsense is that? We MUSt approach things a certain way... that kind of thing. BEC has a role, perhaps I can translate this belief into English you can accept. ***There you go again. I have seen no evidence to support the claim. ***You choose not to see it. People in this state of mind can look across the sky and fail to see the sun. I have seen no plausible justification that a BEC based on hydrogen atoms can occur at room temperature. ***YE Kim sees it. Others see it. Experimental evidence suggests it. You prefer, you choose not to see it. I have seen no evidence of how a BEC can produce results that are consistent with observations attributed to LENR. ***YE Kim sees it. Others see it. Experimental evidence suggests it. You prefer, you choose not to see it. I have seen no explanation of how a BEC can produce results that are consistent with observations attributed to LENR ***YE Kim provided it. Others see it. Experimental evidence backs it up. You prefer, you choose not to see it. Are these statements clear? ***Your statements are about as clear as mud. These statements are based on my study ***baloney. Those statements are based on your emotional attachment to your theory. and reading of all the evidence I can find. ***What about getting in touch with YE Kim, KP Sinha, and others and having a pow-wow about how to test each others' theories? How is it you read all the same stuff as me about laser cooling and concluded it was not used for LENR even though KP Sinha told me directly that was EXACTLY his approach? What else have you got wrong in your approach to your theory? The world may never know... because you choose this path of not defending your theory because you "don't have the time". I'm not interest in debating this information. ***Then it is likely that your theory will become a fish out of water, struggling for what you refuse to provide it by not defending it. I suggest you do this with people who care about a possible role for BEC. ***I suggest you defend your theory. Fourth, your understanding of how lasers behave when applied to a solid material conflicts with what I have observed ***yup. That's because you got it wrong. Go ahead & give KP Sinha a call and come up to speed. You might even get some insight against the formation of BECs because his theory conflicts with it. Read how Dr. Chu got his Nobel Prize in physics by forming BECs with laser cooling. Then tell us again how laser cooling hasn't been used for LENR. and shows a confidence on your part that has no justification. ***Let me know how that conversation goes with KP Sinha, and also with YE Kim. If my confidence is unjustified then I'm perfectly willing to push your theory as long as it fits the facts. I really don't care whose theory works, I care that SOME theory works and is testable and leads us to the next level of "flight testing". If you want an example of why I want no further discussion with you, simply look at the way you insist that only you understand this interaction. ***Where did I insist that? Straw argument. If ONLY I understand this "interaction" then why would I suggest that you get in touch with 2 other prominent LENR scientists? Perhaps you intend to mean, only me and YE Kim and KP Sinha? Then how do you explain that their theories conflict with each other? I think that the reason why you want no further discussion is because you cannot defend your theory even at the 40k foot inductive level. > Theoreticians take their ideas very personally and criticism, either >>> implied or real, is not usually taken kindly. >>> >> >> ***It would appear to be the case. >> >> >> >
