E-Cat Likelyhood?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:21 pm

Skipjack wrote:Well at the beginning of every scientific process should be an observation.
So far I have not observed anything in this matter other than odd human behaviour. So for me the scientific process has not even started yet.

Maybe it is just a great big psycological experiment!

Ivy Matt · Post by **Ivy Matt** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:12 pm

Well, didn't Rossi get his degree in the philosophy of science? Maybe it's all just an elaborate prank, and before too long Rossi will publish his findings in the European Journal for Philosophy of Science or some such.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:59 pm

I remember some sceptics doing pranks to see how they could fool the media. Maybe this is a prank to see how the scientific community can be fooled?
I have no idea. As I said, so far I have not even gotten to the "observation"- part yet.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:02 pm

chrismb wrote:Ah! But you see the issue is that the E-cat will NEVER be proven to NOT work, because no-one will agree.

Had a few spare minutes and was going back thru the responses.
CMB, please note that I do not ask about proof that it is NOT true. If you think it is not true then you must be pretty sure it will never be proven true. You should vote zero, no way!

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:24 pm

KitemanSA wrote:CMB, please note that I do not ask about proof that it is NOT true. If you think it is not true then you must be pretty sure it will never be proven true. You should vote zero, no way!

Yes, I understand that. But what I am trying to say is that this can only ever be proven true, never false, unless there is some measure available that might one day show it to be false. It is unfalsifiable.

How can I judge if someone might make something like this work in 35 trillion years time? I consider that the outcome can only ever be determined and known if either 'work' or 'not work' shall be determinable. 'Work' will be determined once everyone runs their hot water systems off of it, but this is not going to be after whatever date Rossi is currently suggesting for his MW plants. So thereon we end up in an eestore/BLP type scenario. Endless guessing. Forget it. I don't wanna play...

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:39 pm

Greetings folks.

I added a time limit phrase to the question. Would that change anyone's answer?

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:51 pm

Rather than a time-line, I was rather hoping someone in the Pro-Rossi brigage would add "the way this would be proven false would be X and/or Y, &c.".

If they cannot do that, then I see no motivation to try to make any 'probability' judgements.

I'll give an answer once someone suggests a means to establish falisification of the Rossitron.

bool · Post by **bool** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 4:33 pm

Sorry guys, this is a bizarre discussion. Of course it will never be possible to prove that E-cat does not work. It will not be possible to prove that nuclear power does not work either. Or that cars don't work.

University of Bologna believe in E-cat, and most scientists that have seen it in use. We don't know for sure how it works, but the evidence is piling up. If you don't believe in it, just don't use it when it becomes available

I voted for 100 percent that it works, in a year or so you will join me.

/Bool

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:05 pm

bool wrote:Sorry guys, this is a bizarre discussion. Of course it will never be possible to prove that E-cat does not work. It will not be possible to prove that nuclear power does not work either. Or that cars don't work.

err... and you suppose to suggest to us that the prior posts are bizarre!!!?!

Let me know once you figure out the difference between 'falsifiable' and 'does not work', then maybe the discussion need not be so bizarre that it upsets you enough to want to sign up just to say that!

in a year or so you will join me.

Also, if you have not noticed, you've just joined us. The forum is about real, established physics in an experimental device that has had journal publications written about it.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:08 pm

Yes, listen to Chris, what he says usually makes the most sense!

chrismb · Post by **chrismb** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:31 pm

Skipjack wrote:Yes, listen to Chris, he is among the brightest on this board.

Flattery only draws my suspicious attention!

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:33 pm

Flattery only draws my suspicious attention!

There I fixed it.
Better?

bool · Post by **bool** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:52 pm

chrismb wrote:Also, if you have not noticed, you've just joined us. The forum is about real, established physics in an experimental device that has had journal publications written about it.

So why do you discuss e-cat then? Wait until someone has proven what it is. You're not discussing stuff that is unproven right?

Anyway, by now it should be clear that if it is a fraud it is one of the most fantastic frauds to date.

I'll leave you guys alone, but you should make up your mind if you discuss unproven stuff or not....

Cheers
Bool

Talk-Polywell.org

E-Cat Likelyhood?

How likely do you think E-Cat is to be real?

Bizarre discussion

Re: Bizarre discussion

Re: Bizarre discussion