On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:50 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
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
On Jul 23, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
Horrace- My mistake, It was Steven's comment I took offense to
when he
made inquiries without reading the references and then remarked "I'd
like to see some of your terms defined a bit better before I take
time to read your blog or look at animations." I stopped answering his
questions when I read that and then saw your comments this AM in a
similar vein and just assumed the same author.
Sorry
Fran
Actually, you probably took offense at *both* Steven's and my
comments. We are both saying similar things from different
perspectives. If you look at our comments carefully, you can see
that they are actually constructive and provide some meaningful
questions. My comments are repeated below, with no one else's text
quoted to confuse things.
On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:49 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
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?
Yes, my "Touring test" comments can be construed as condescending.
My apologies for that. However, they also provide you with an honest
first impression of at least one reader upon reading your material.
If you want to continue to leave this kind of impression, that your
writing is either confused or intentionally confusing, then don't
bother attempting to refine it or respond to questions. If you do
want to improve the clarity of your communication, then the implied
constructive comments are:
1. When introducing new physical mechanisms or not commonplace
concepts, provide an adequate reference, derivation, or precise
description.
2. When using unconventional or new terminology provide clear
definitions.
3. Where possible provide formulas or numerical values that assist in
making testable predictions or demonstrate that your concepts have
some utility.
I really would like to know, 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/
