James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: Well, by "exceedingly costly" I wasn't referring to the scientific research > program. I was referring to the development program. You _really_ don't > want to do engineering in the absence of validated theory. >
Why not? Most technology was developed without a theory. Most of the machines and structures you see around you were developed in ancient times when they had no idea what elements are, never mind atoms. I mean things like knives, concrete, steel, wooden houses, water pipes . . . People can use models, intuitive methods or Edisonian methods in place of a theory. It is more art than science, but art will take you a long way. > Development is costly enough with a validated theory. > True, but cold fusion will pay back at rate somewhere around $1 billion per day. So it will be worth the cost. More to the point, once it begins to succeed by Edisonian methods, people will rush to find a comprehensive theory. Will they find one? Probably. Why? During a long rainy spell, someone said to Mark Twain, "do you think it will ever stop raining?" He said, "it always has." - Jed
