On Mar 15, 2014, at 2:37 PM, James Bowery wrote: > 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."
I could not say it better! Ed Storms > > >> 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. >
