Perhaps this thread has deeper meanings then anyone realizes. I have been dealing with certain observations for a while and digesting them. Putting them in a format for observation. Trying to understand things that seem to have little or no meaning. Then later they seem to have greater meaning. An inductive pursuit? Yes indeed. Words can have two meanings. I will make more comments later. Just to appear totally insane let us suppose God is the source of vibrations. We put up certain instruments to detect these vibrations. But our instruments give us different answers. Which is the correct answer and why does that happen? I shouldn't be posting about this right now so I will retire until I can make my case. HDN
Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ On Monday, December 2, 2013 10:38 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3097515/posts?page=62#62 What is amazing to me is that it’s OBVIOUSly an inductive pursuit right now to figure out LENR, otherwise WE WOULD BE BUYING THEM. But skeptopaths come onto inductive threads like this and act like their post is the end-all, be-all that answers all questions: I’ll believe it when I can buy it. It simply adds ZERO substance to the investigation. It is a form of trolling, because you add in all kinds of snarky comments along the way. Do you log onto other inductive threads the same way? Do you DEMAND to know who’s going to win the 2014 elections? Do you log onto those threads and say, “I’ll deal with this guy when he’s president, until then you all are all just wasting your time.” No. Because such behavior is obvious trolling. And if you DID post such nonsense, everyone would know you are a fool. But here, you act like your foolishness is some kind of virtue. It’s totally ridiculous. You can’t even answer one simple question about an established scientific fact in the number of times this effect has been replicated. You are a FOOL. And you can’t even see it. 62 posted on Mon 02 Dec 2013 07:07:40 PM PST by Kevmo On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: >I don’t know if these claims are ‘real’, I haven’t seen the device, nor personally ‘tested’ it. >***Raising the bar for cold fusion, lowering it for other things like hot fusion. You haven’t seen nor tested a huge range of scientific findings, but you aren’t engaged in hypercriticism of those developments. By such a standard you should be absolutely apoplectic over AGW > > > > >When I can buy a $289 Cold-Fusion Water Heater, I'll believe it. (Or various >versions of technology). > >***Raising the bar for cold fusion, lowering it for other things like hot fusion. Where is our hot-fusion flying car or jet pack? Why is controlled hot-fusion always 50 years away, and has been for the last 50 years? >
