On Oct 25, 2009, at 8:13 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 08:09 PM 10/25/2009, you wrote:
On Oct 25, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
This is also a preliminary response to Horace. I agree that the
Galileo Project is a "poor kit to offer," or whatever you wrote.
However, it was designed for simplicity. Make it complicated, and
"replication" becomes less likely.
Why would anyone go to the trouble to produce a "poor kit to offer"?
BTW, those are not my words.
Sigh. I believe I was clear that the quotation marks indicated not
an exact quote, but a sense.
You utterly missed the point. My point was that you agreed to the
fact it was a poor kit to offer. That has nothing to do with who
said it, only that you agreed to it. It has only to do with the fact
you are willing to sell something that not even the fringe physics/
chemistry population constituting experts in the CF field agree to as
demonstrative. (I say fringe even though the field has had a
comparatively high proportion of Nobels and other distinguished
fellows.) This could of course, at minimum, be damaging to the field.
I have no doubt that CF is real. There is a vast pool of evidence
that collectively demonstrates it is real beyond any reasonable
doubt. The problem is for experts to obtain enough funding for
research to pin down a useable theory and reliable results. What is
missing is a single utterly convincing experiment that is readily
replicated. No such experiment yet exists as far as I know, even as
accepted by the community. I'm not the only one to tell you this, so
you must be getting some kind of clue that it is true.
In regards to the Galileo protocol, I again suggest you read:
http://www.earthtech.org/CR39/index.html
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
