On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > On 02/17/2011 11:41 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> I do not think this demo required any trust. >> > > But you said, if you trust... then there's no point. > > > Calm down, Joshua. Jed meant there's no need to trust the inventor, Rossi, > not "there's no need to trust anybody anywhere". Jed is a smart dude and > there's no call to talk to him like he's an idiot. > > If you really don't trust anybody then you must conclude that the moon > landings *could* have been faked (unless you happen to have been along for > the ride on one of them). So, Jed clearly didn't mean there's no need to > trust *anybody*. > OK. I do get that trust is not necessarily binary, and some trust is needed to believe the moon landing, because tagging along is not feasible, esp. not now. But it is possible to tag along with the good ship Rossi, and, at least for someone present, it should be possible to demonstrate the effect without any need for trust, just like trust is not needed to believe in many other technologies. If that someone is an avowed skeptic, then you could gain the trust of skeptics not present, at least until they can try one out themselves. The problem is that the witnesses they used were hand-picked, and really aren't very believable, and fail to even disclose the apparatus (pump) used, and many of the measurements made (RH vs time, mass of reservoir vs time), and many ordinary observations (what was the expelled fluid like? where did it go? how loud was it; was it consistent with claimed gas flow rate?), etc. > > And if Rossi believes in it, then the idea that there's chemical fuel on > board is a non-starter. > I'm not sure. The H-Ni system gives off chemical heat. He may be mistaking it for nuclear.
