greetings all, I would like to echo Fran's comment. As one of the interested, enthusiastic, alert Vort cheerleaders, I'd encourage all you young (ish) players capable of playing the game to keep right on (nicely!). I am a scientist, but an old retired biologist who, like many are Physics challenged and Mathematically helpless in this game. Having just read Dr. Hagelstein's excellent essay on Theory -making, I'd encourage all to also give his wise counsel serious heed. PLAY BALL!
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > Jones, Axil,**** > > Like many here yours, Robin’s, Ed’s and Jed’s are all > “must reads” for insight and out of the box ideas.. please don’t suspect > any malice on the part of either of yourselves… yours is an exchange of > ideas that benefit all.. please don’t take offense or change your recipies > for posting .. the tone is very productive right where you have it.**** > > Best Regards**** > > Fran**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] > *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 10:14 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Serendipity, Hexavalency and E-Cat**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Axil says:**** > > > What is the difference between “connect the dots” and “conflate”. I > believe it is spin…What gives you the license to ”connect the dots” and > then allows you to accuse me of conflating a relationship between two > experimental results.**** > > No one on this forum needs a license to try to promote cutting-edge > scientific discovery, nor to find hidden relationships if they are > historical, nor to challenge any conclusion that others make. But please do > so with facts or logic, not vague generalities. And do not expect you own > contentions to go unchallenged when they are so not supported by the > references cited, as with gamma thermalization. In fact I welcome your > challenges and that is one of the reasons I post here. If you are too > thin-skinned to welcome challenges from others, my suggestion is to go > elsewhere.**** > > Correspondingly, I do not “accuse” you of anything other than occasionally > not understanding the papers you cite. Several times recently you have > cited papers that completely negate the point you were trying to make. > Deliberately conflating relationships which do not exist should always be > challenged, but instead of defending, or retracting, a silly error > (confusing a bosonic Josephson junction with a quasi-particle room > temperature BEC) you seem to want to respond with some kind of appeal to > unfairness. **** > > I only connected two dots whereas you conflated six items > some rejected by science as invalid. **** > > No, you did not connect any dots at all. You confused a bosonic Josephson > junction with a room temperature BEC (of quasiparticles) when in fact LENR > involves temperature way above room temperature and quasiparticles cannot > form Josephson junctions at all. You did this in order to promote an > outlandishly incorrect hypothesis that the BJJ is involved in > “thermalization of gammas” which is something that never happens to begin > with.**** > > I want to see a specific experiment that explicitly shows such a direct > relationship between these six items before you are allowed to “connect the > dots”.**** > > What six items are you talking about? I am happy to address your concerns, > but note: if there was an obvious relationship in Rossi’s previous work > with Petroldragon to the E-Cat, then someone would likely have seen it > before now – going on several years. At any rate, this was a suggestion and > not a claim.**** > > IOW, I’m suggesting a possible historical connection, with the explicit > proviso of “if there was a thermal anomaly with Petroldragon” - which is a > bit different from promoting an absurdity - misquoting references, and then > whimpering that you are being treated unfairly. **** > > Jones**** > > ** ** >
