Forget I said that.
Posted on 05/30/2013 5:41:53 PM PDT by Kevmo
Is he soliciting money from you?
***No.
What’s it to ya?
***Umm, it would be a terrible thing to see fraud happen.
You and Rossi are the ones making the claims.
I can't prove that David Copperfield didn't make the Statue of Liberty disappear either.
Report it to the moderators. You've tried it before and we're turned down.
Almost as impressive as the initial reports that came out for perpetual motion machines of long ago.
Your stalking warms my heart
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
Were any of those independently verified? Were the results replicated 14,700 times like LENR?
Report it to the moderators. You’ve tried it before and we’re turned down.
***You’re so confident that what you say is true? Then I challenge you to a debate on Vortex-L where my comments won’t be removed, my threads won’t be pulled. And your huge contributions which bring so much light to the subject will stand on their own brilliance.
Oh, I know. You won’t do it because you know that your comments don’t bring anything of value for furtherance of science. You know this. Your anti-science baloney is safe here. I get it. But it isn’t because your positions are defensible; otherwise you’d jump at the chance to defend them and spread your sunshine where it would do the most good.
But T4BTT.
Forget I said that.
Yes, but what if it was working ?
They’d be silent. And lookie here, things are silent.
But arguing from silence is a classic fallacy, doncha know? So we just await further datapoints in that regard. But on an inductive level, Rossi’s energy density was verified when he wasn’t even at the scene. It is no longer a stretch to accept that he actually did send units like these to a paying customer. That’s an inductive datapoint sticking its head above the sea.
What if there is no customer to squawk?
Here’s a better idea. Keep the Rossi nonsense on Vortex where it belongs. You’ll be happier and FR will be a better place.
I knew you would decline the invitation to debate LENR and promote science. I had faith in you being on the side of anti-science.
Thanks 4 Bumping The Thread T4BTT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2965392/posts?page=19#19
Let’s assume Rossi’s device is working.
Now... in your opinion is there any way that the testing could be faked? Or that what we see on the internet about it is being faked ?
Remember, thousands of ‘scientists’ around the world still believe in the ‘global warming/carbon credits’ scam.
This is a purely hypothetical question, and not meant to reflect on Rossi and his device.
Unless it's true.
"What?"
Well... then his 'goose' is cooked.
Obama was in bed during Benghazi. What's the difference?
(sorry ole chum. No offense meant. It was just so funny I couldn't keep it in)
I think the only remaining possibility of the testing was for some DC to be fed through the wires. But it turned out that Hanno Essen said they tested for it.
Another way is to have weapons grade plutonium inside the box, but then the radiation would be... shall we say... inconvenient because there wasn’t near enough volume for a Pb containment. I think it was Levi who had brought a Geiger counter to some earlier Rossi demo, and Rossi had no control over what measurement equipment these guys would bring. Also, it would be a hugely expensive fake, costing $millions, so the risk/benefit ratio is terrible for someone looking to scam others.
Then when you examine the evidence in light of 14,700 prior replications of the Anomalous Heat Effect, the data starts to fit a very definitive Cold Fusion pattern rather than a Scam pattern.
Even if Rossi is a scam artist, LENR is still worth looking into.
And keep in mind some simple inductive reasoning. At this point, the scam theory means that Rossi would be the greatest scam artist in history. If LENR is a conspiracy, it is the widest conspiracy conspiracy in history. But my hypothesis only requires that Rossi is a mediocre scientist, a crappy demonstrator, an Edisonian experimenter, has a shady reputation that requires the independent scientists to quadruple check their results, and was possibly even just lucky to have found this catalyst in the first place. Which hypothesis obeys Ockham’s razor? There is no deductive proof in inductive reasoning; there is the preponderance of the evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.