On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Mark Gibbs <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing simply because there are > too many unknowns but the arguments that it is just a hoax are getting > harder to believe ... it would have to be the biggest, most elaborate hoax > in science history and would require a lot of people to keep it going and > they'd have to keep quiet. > Putting my lateral thinking cap on, I see these four possibilities: 1. Rossi and the "third-party" testers are in cahoots, and we have been punked. 2. Rossi, like the Amazing Randi, has pulled off a fantastic magic trick and fooled everyone, including the authors of the recent paper. 3. Rossi and all involved in the testing are unqualified, and what was seen was powered solely by the input power, resulting in a COP <1, and the observations and conclusions were inaccurate and flawed. 4. Rossi is operating something that probably has at least ~2.6+ COP. Anyone care to attempt to calculate the conditional probabilities of each of these four scenarios, given that we know the affiliations of the people involved in the testing? For the lateral thinkers out there -- is there a fifth or sixth possibility that has not been mentioned? It seems to me that (1) is vanishingly small, and (2) and (3) seem far-fetched, although not as much as (1). Eric
