KitemanSA wrote:And no, I don't think your inability to understand his game plan is necessarily evidence that he is a SDPsScGT.
You mean that you are really seeing a game plan in his actions?
I'll be happy to hear what (according you of course) his plan is than, because till now nothing of what he made makes any sense to me, let alone looks like part of a plan.
IMBW of course, so any extra detail (that I might have ignored and that you can supply to me) might change my consideration of him.
KitemanSA wrote:Again, the difference seems to be that you think that no scientific evidence of existance equals scientific evidence of non-existance, and I do not.Giorgio wrote:KitemanSA wrote:You SEEM to blindly believe that your understanding of the universe is full and complete and you know that his process doesn't fit in to it, so he lies. Oh and by the way, you don't understand his reasons for acting the way he does and thus his odd behavior is more proof that he lies. This APPEARS to be a matter of faith to me. I have faith in the long term scientific process, and not much else. Certainly not Rossi, nor you! I seek DATA, not opinion, not faith.Giorgio wrote: Nice attempt at twisting my logic, but I am not going to fall for it.
This is not a matter of faith and it has never been. This is a simple matter of judging what one is offering as support to his claims against what he is claiming.
Faith is blindly believing (or objecting) him without weighting the positive and negative information he supplied to support his claims.
Read back my statement in bold and tell me how it differs from what you just stated.
Again, seems you like to think that this is what I think, but I am writing something different.
If you don't get it than it probably means that we are using definitions that are too different to find a common ground of discussion.
KitemanSA wrote:It is possible. But you SEEM to be defining something by how it is formed, and I define something by what it is. It is almost like saying that ice isn't ice unless it freezes from a liquid. Sorry, I don't agree. Ice is solid water no matter HOW it got that way.Giorgio wrote: Evidences of what? That is the way a BEC is formed. Take any paper on BEC and you get al the evidences you need.
I think you are making some confusion on how a Laser works.
You do realize we may be arguing inconsequetial minutia here.
By any chance do you work in politics?
Because you ability to take words and twist them to give them a different meaning is as good as the one of a seasoned politician
Ice is solid water, but to get it you need a specific level of temperature and pressure, or, if you prefer, you need a specific energy level of the surrounding medium to get solid H2O.
So no, ice IS NOT simply solid water, is the result of a series of preconditions without whom you will not have solid water.
Same goes for BEC and for the majority of physics phenomena known to date.