Horace,
I don't recognize you as qualified to make such assertions, Most
physicists I communicate with made some effort but you appear incapable
while both demanding and condescending. I don't know how your persona
developed but it is annoying and is destroying your karma.
Hope it is not too late for you
Fran
-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 2:50 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrino represents Lorentz contraction in the opposite
direction from event horizon
On Jul 22, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> I'm sorry, I can't make sense of this.
Yes, so far it is just seemingly a random word salad. My first
inkling was it might be a Touring test. It is indeed a problem when
a new theory is unnecessarily cloaked in an author's personal and
inadequately defined vocabulary. It is further a problem when a
miracle of physics must be accepted almost once per paragraph,
without an adequate reference, derivation, or even clear
description. A complete lack of quantification or formulation is a
possible indication of the application of a purely linguistic
computational process, though the development of relevant figures is
admittedly quite outside that realm. You have to check out the
references to see the figures, though, so they didn't affect my
initial impression.
One of the problems with cold fusion theories, especially in the
early days, was that two or three "miracles" had to be accepted for
any of them to be workable. One criteria for evaluating competing CF
theories was the number of miracles required. The more miracles
required, the worse the theory.
Frank, perhaps a useful thing to do is avoid a lot of work trying to
unravel all this and just jump to the conclusions. Does your theory
make any testable quantitative or qualitative predictions? Does it
provide any assistance with engineering a practical energy producing
device?
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
