On Feb 20, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Kevin, gefore suggesting explanations, a person must know something
about how radiation and LENR behave.
***Perhaps you should take it up with the owners of this list. I
got an A in calculus-based Nuclear Physics when I was in college, so
if you're knocking out that much of a level of interest, you'll be
removing most Vorts.
I'm not trying to discourage you or anyone. You are asking a question
that requires a great deal of my time to fully answer. If I leave a
gap in my answer, other questions follow. I simply do not have the
time to answer all questions. Besides, I have also made my opinions
about the role of BEC clear in the past, so this idea is not of
interest to me. I do not believe the BEC plays any part in LENR.
Your suggestion is not consistent with this knowledge. I know it is
fun to speculate and I don't want to insult your interest, but
describing the reasons why this suggestion is not correct would
require too much time.
***You have enough time for some of us to see how dismissive you
are, and you even have enough time to have been flat wrong about
laser cooling with respect to LENR. But you don't have enough time
to explain this little aspect of your theory. Got it.
OK Kevin, I hurt your feelings. Sorry
I'm afraid you either need to take my word for this or undertake a
study of how radiation and LENR actually behave.
***I doubt taking your word for it will be productive.
Fine, your choice.
I describe the observed radiation in my book and the behavior of
radiation as it passes through matter can be obtained from many text
books about nuclear physics.
***Sounds like Occham's Razor is too good for you. Sorry to see you
rejecting my humble "small and imperfect description of a plausible
part of the process".
I still believe this and I have been patiently answering questions and
engaging in lengthly discussions for years, most recently on Vortex.
I could have just as easily ignored your question. Instead I respected
you enough to tell you that I did not have time to give you the answer
you wanted and suggested you attempt to find the answer on your own.
Apparently, that approach was not useful. Sorry.
Ed
Maybe you just need a vacation. Here's something you wrote in 2007:
Reply to my message (11/24/07):
Theoreticians take their ideas very personally and criticism,
either implied or real, is not usually taken kindly. Criticizing
theories that are either wrong or not useful gets us nowhere. The
only useful activity is finding out from Nature what is actually
happening, rather than making assumptions about the process. I made
my previous comments only because a few people showed interest and
because I object when theories are presented as real and useful when
they are obviously wrong. I have no problem when people make efforts
to understand the phenomenon with humility and an acknowledgment
that their efforts are only a small and imperfect description of a
plausible part of the process. Such an approach allows us to work
together to achieve a sincere understanding, rather than an ego trip
for a few people.
