*“Obviously, these theories can explain anything even if the observation has no relationship to reality.”*
A theory that does not explain the experimentally observed magnetic field has no relationship to reality. Is it not a fact, if a presenter at ICCF states an experimental finding in their presentation, then this data should be considered “real data”. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > Axil, the question is, Exactly what behavior did the experiment show?. DGE > claims to have measured a magnetic FIELD of 1.6 T. Such an intense magnetic > field cannot form under the circumstances. Therefore, they misinterpreted > the behavior. The problem is to discover just what they actually observed. > Instead, people assume the claim is correct and proceed to explain it by > applying a theory. Obviously, these theories can explain anything even if > the observation has no relationship to reality. Consequently, this exercise > is a waste of time and the so called theories have no value. Until DGT > provides real data, we have no reality to discuss. > > Ed > > On Aug 12, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > Regarding your theories and the magnetic behavior of the Ni/H reactors of > both Defkalion and Rossi: > > "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how > smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong". > > Richard P. Feynman > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Why do you discuss any thing on vortex? Why do you even comment since we >> are all engaging in random curiosity about everything? >> >> You make no sense. RF is not identified as a magnetic field. The >> impression given is of a constant magnetic field being generated. If you >> know this is not true, why would you not say so? >> >> Ed >> >> On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >> >> Why should I do anything to satisfy any random curiosity! There is public >> knowledge of magnetic field, at least in the form of RF from ICCF - 13, >> which is correlated with COP enhancement by over 10x. >> >> >> 2013/8/12 Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >> >>> The time out refers to discussion by people on Vortex who have no >>> knowledge about the issue. Do you have inside knowledge that you will >>> kindly provide? >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >>> >>> The only fact it is that you do not accept. There is no error and since >>> this is a random complaint, don't expect them to them to listen to you any >>> time soon. There is no time out and no delay in business. >>> >>> >>> 2013/8/12 Edmund Storms <[email protected]> >>> >>>> The time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and >>>> corrected. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Rocha - RJ >> [email protected] >> >> >> > >
