>>>The problem now-a-days is that the R&D persons foster mistakes, since more
>>>mistakes mean more money to make more mistakes.
same method as used by mainstream theorists: keep piling on mistakes to
existing theories to create things like dark matter, dark energy et al that
then need more add-ons; generating more money needed for theoretical research.
When from History of physics it was simple matter to workout what the theory
was to replace Aristotelian physics once the decision was made to go for the
replacement; unified field theory presented 1758 by Fr.Boscovich
Introduction to Boscovich talk by Stoiljkovich + existential crisis in physics
R Anderton ANPA 2016
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
| |
Introduction to Boscovich talk by Stoiljkovich + existential crisis in phys...
Copernician Revolution led to Existential crisis, the fall-out of which we
still suffer. Boscovich's theory ... | |
|
|
>>I have found that it is possible to find out some of the failures by going to
>>conferences and talking with people. For every field there is usually
>>someone who knows what has been done, and what has worked and what has not.
when I did that I found Hector Munera knew more than me. His talk on
Boscovich's theory:
Unified field theory Hector Munera July 2016
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
| |
Unified field theory Hector Munera July 2016
| |
|
|
On Sunday, 16 April 2017, 17:21, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
#yiv1831252689 #yiv1831252689 -- _filtered #yiv1831252689 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5
4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv1831252689 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2
4 3 2 4;}#yiv1831252689 #yiv1831252689 p.yiv1831252689MsoNormal, #yiv1831252689
li.yiv1831252689MsoNormal, #yiv1831252689 div.yiv1831252689MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext;}#yiv1831252689
a:link, #yiv1831252689 span.yiv1831252689MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1831252689 a:visited, #yiv1831252689
span.yiv1831252689MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1831252689
.yiv1831252689MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv1831252689 {margin:1.0in 1.0in
1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv1831252689 div.yiv1831252689WordSection1 {}#yiv1831252689
Jones and Nygel— I worked for a good engineer for 18 years. His moto was:
“It takes a $M worth of mistakes to make a good engineer,” and that was 50
years ago and applied to engineers and scientists, mostly engineers. The
problem now-a-days is that the R&D persons foster mistakes, since more mistakes
mean more money to make more mistakes. Look at the hot fusion R&D situation.
I have found that the “devil is in the details.” The article Harry and
Nigel have noted is right on IMHO. Mistakes AND null experiments should be
made public by those who want to further technical development and all
scientists to further understanding nature—this being the objective of
authentic scientists. Keeping the natural laws secret is the role of paid
investigators of natural laws or commercial pseudo- scientists so to speak.
Bob Cook .
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 6:59 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures The problem is
that with many experiments, the result may clearly be not successful, or the
experiment may have ended prematurely, but it is NOT a complete failure and has
an avenues for improvement. Null results often point to avenues for
improvement. Most often, this is not an "either/or" situation.Since the
experimenter may want to see the work repeated, and may have plans to do it
better himself, he is not willing to label it as a failure and in the end - may
take the easy route ... which is doing nothing. "Doing nothing" preserves his
ability to seek additional funding with improvements added, whereas a negative
report makes continuation less likely.In LENR, this kind of thing can be seen
clearly with the Parkhomov "replications" or lack thereof. There were many null
results, but several of those appeared to have slight gain, or else some other
redeeming value such as a radiation burst.Of course, the equivocal results
could be written up in a way that does not prejudice future work - but then we
are asking that the experimenter be both an expert in the Lab as well as an
excellent writer. Nigel Dyer wrote:
Excellent article.I have found that it is possible to find out some of the
failures by going to conferences and talking with people. For every field
there is usually someone who knows what has been done, and what has worked and
what has not. The problem is that this is very hit and miss and the
information is not very accessible, which is not a good way to do scienceNigel
H LV wrote:
Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures
We don’t ask people in other professions to do it, but it’s vital for speeding
up progress in crucial areas of research from climate to medicine and public
health
By Ijad Madisch on April 13, 2017
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/why-scientists-must-share-their-failures/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_POLE_BLOG
