On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Berke Durak <berke.du...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Right. Anything can be explained that way... > > Thank God you weren't there when they came up with quantum theory. > Cude could not have impeded much less stopped quantum theory. Unlike Rossi's story, decent experiments were independently performed and reported. > > Maybe with new physics, but with old physics, the EM fields Rossi > > used do not control nuclear reactions. > > What do you know about the EM fields Rossi used? Are these described > somewhere? An X-ray tube produces directional photons using EM > fields. You cannot a priori assume spherical symmetry about an > unknown system that is known to be non spherically symmetrical. > > As usual, you are making lots of implicit assumptions to debunk > something we don't have much information about. It's OK to complain > about lack of information, but it's not enough to debunk. But let us > know if you find actual contradictions in the reported data. > Debunking is important -- unless you like bunk. And debunkers rarely if ever will meddle about experiments which are properly performed and replicated independently. They are interested mostly in extravagant claims without proper proof. Fortunately, there are always plenty enough of those to stop even the most ardent debunker from getting bored. Just see Sterling Allan's free energy cell phone recently for an example. And his web site is a fertile source of bunk all the time. So is Craig Brown's Free Energy Truth blog. Remember that guy who measured a gamma spike while Rossi was adjusting > a reactor in the other room? > I don't. Is there a link or citation? (thanks)
