>From Axil:
> Let the quibbling begin... Quibble away! > Correct theory is important in advancing the engineering and design of the > system > that underlies that theory. IMHO, the reason that Mills fails to get his > project to > 100% completion is that he does not depart from his theoretical > preconceptions when > experimental experience demands it. This is not good science. It seems to me that you are making unfounded assumptions about BLP failures. How do you know that Mills and BLP are in the process failing. Where to you see failure? ...Because you personally believe Mills refuses to depart from his theoretical preconceptions? Well, ok, that's your opinion. But it sure as hell doesn't look like BLP is in the process of failing to me. It looks to me as if BLP may very well achieve a closed-loop prototype, possibly within 6 - 12 months. Actually, BLP predicts much sooner than that. I'm however allowing for Mr. Murphy to make an unexpected visit - to slow things down a tad. I goes without saying that a correct (perhaps I should say: more accurate) theory is indeed extremely important. However, experimental evidence always trumps anyone's pet theory. It seems to be that BLP has been doing a diligent job collecting experimental evidence to support the ultimate objective of generating a massive amount of energy. I realize some here might disagree with me on that point, but at present that remains my personal opinion on the matter. If BLP can pull the rabbit out of the hat, CQM theory will need to be look at more closely. It will earn the right to be looked at more seriously - warts or not. I don't think that would be a stupid idea. CQM needs to be given the chance to be falsified just as any other new theory should be handled. > Mills just can’t bear to see his beloved CQM changed in any major way. Once > QCM theory > gets into that 2000 page book, it will not be changed come hell or high water > no matter > what his test equipment is telling him. In my experience, predicting the psychological behavior of others can often result in a nasty tendency of backfiring in unflattering ways onto the predictor of such behavior. BTY, I noticed that Ed Storms finally gave after countless attempts in trying to reason with you. Just saying... ;-) > There is a back and forth feedback loop required to advance both theory and > experimentation. > Good science is always looking for the experiment that does not fit the > theory so they can > develop new science. > My favorite example is the fractional quantum Hall effect. When that seminal > experiment hit > physics, the entire community was distressed that fractional charge could > exist. This > experiment showed that confinement of electrons could produce very strange > effects. > Fractionalization of the electron is also weird but experimentally > demonstrated. But Mills > does not pay heed to those types of experiments since he tries his best to > undercut quantum mechanics. > I don’t think Mill will succeed, because his theory will blind him to what > experimentation is > telling him is true. Ok, you have stated your opinion. And now my POV: I would like BLP to succeed. I want BLP to succeed not because I'm invested in CQM but because I would like to pay a lot less for my electric and heating bills. Granted, if BLP succeeds it would force the scientific establishment to look more closely at Mills controversial CQM theory. I certainly don't have a problem with that. Do you?. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks ________________________________________________________________________ This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
