Michele, a bumblebee might be a better example since it defies the laws of aerodynamics and it must therefore be a figment of our imagination and really can't fly from this sort of skeptical perspective. We don't have to accept anyone's theory when the experimental results are proven. Even if the results demand new physics the skepticism doesn't erase the results. Mary is well to object to unproven theories but that doesn't put the genie back in the bottle - the anomaly exists and the tipping point is past. The effect will be optimized and enhanced into a product line BEFORE the theory is fully understood. A spreadsheet of metrics and methodical testing can stand in for a proper theory to develop the hardware.
Fran A bee can fly. An eagle can fly. Different animals, different evolutionary paths. Both don't give a bit to theory of flight, still they fly. mic 2012/1/13 Mary Yugo <[email protected]>: > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 2:18 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> In reply to Mary Yugo's message of Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:11:08 -0800: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >If NASA's theory is wrong, how are they any form of competition? This >> >"doesn't compute". >> >> It does if they use the same method and get similar results, even with the >> wrong >> theory. >> >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk > > > > I suppose so but how would they get to the right method with the wrong > theory? They have no way to know what Rossi's supposed secret sauce is, do > they?
