On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote: > > 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the > experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses). > > > I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with > behavior in LENR or with established natural law. I suggest we need to > start over. > Assuming that by "present accepted theories" you refer to the hysterical attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease: "If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then its no good. If your theory does have an explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results. Enumerate said modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of competing theories. If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut up." > > 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of these > hypotheses as practical. > > > Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories. > What next? > > 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these > experiments. > > > What good are the results from a flawed theory? > I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail answers to these last two questions.
