Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> Don't be ridiculous! Of course it is controversial. >> > > Sorry, I misspoke. The RE may be controversial, but the idea that nuclear > reactions, specifically nuclear decay cannot be affected by the chemical > environment, isn't controversial. Ah yes. That is true. As long as the effect is already in the textbooks it will be accepted. I meant that you are not allowed to do any experiment that demonstrates something similar which is new, unexpected, or which might call into question established theory. > If the effect is *actually controversial* among those who understand the > issue, all the more reason to encourage replication. > That would be science. What the DoE and other agencies nowadays fund is more a form of religion, as I said. Only uncontroversial experiments are allowed. You are only allowed to do things which theory predicts will work. If your experiment does not confirm theory, they will say you must have made a mistake. The only place that funds controversial stuff is DARPA, because they are more interested in winning wars than bolstering the egos of the Jasons, the journal editors, and other Big Dogs of science. Sorry to be cynical, but that is how things work. Many scientists have told me so, both in cold fusion and in other fields. LENR-CANR is a sort of listening post. I hear a lot of complaints. - Jed
