[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wireless Transmission
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Wireless Transmission
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:05:34 -0700
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Old-return-path: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Resent-date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:06:45 -0700 (MST)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <m9OL9D.A.PmD.j2U6BB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: Mark Fergerson <mfergerson1@xxxxxxx>
Tesla list wrote:
Original poster: stork <stork@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This is an excellent post and mirrors my sentiments exactly. This
particular topic seems like it surfaces about every year or so on the
Tesla list and is usually initiated by a relatively new member who is
unaware of previous discussions. You are right that there are two camps
who vehemently defend their positions. This is how science has progressed
for eons and won't ever change. On this list there is one group who
proclaims that this is how science is, we've discovered all there is to
know and and their ad hominem charge that if you hold other opininons you
are a wierd, pseudo science protagonist. The other group tends to have
an open mind and a let's see what is possible attitude.
I was pretty much with you up to that point. To me (and AFAICT most of
the members), the dividing line isn't vehement adherence to a particular
theory or belief, but experiment. If it works, investigate. If it doesn't,
drop it (barring stupid hardware screwups etc).
Last year it was flat spirals that were supposedly "best" at producing
scalar waves, but the reproducibility wasn't there.
Terry, God bless him, tries to keep the discussion civil , but after a few
days usually closes the topic. Like all people he has his biases and
other than when he admittedly unnecessarily censors posts, does a great
job as moderator. He feels compelled to not ruffle the feathers of
certain list members.
ISTM Terry tends to drop threads when they get off-topic to coiling.
This thread is rapidly headed that way. ;>)
An example of closed minded science is Paul Nicholson's explaination of
charge, et cetera, referred to by Bert Hickman. Paul who I generally
repect, starts out by setting the arguement that there are only certain
things allowed as goverened by 100 year old EM physic . And that's it.
He gives absolutely no reason or hard data as to why he imposes such
Uh, the "hard data" is exactly the reason that supports adherence to
"100 year old EM physics" in this case. There simply are no repeatable
counterexamples (except those that demonstrate what we already know, that
under "extreme circumstances" Maxwell is a subset of QED). And yes, I've
looked hard at "fringe" stuff. So-called "loopholes" are always instructive
one way or the other. Some lead to new paths of knowledge, but most are
Scalar enthusiast may turn out to be right in the end, but so far,
there's no "reason or hard data" to support their beliefs.
Mind you I _want_ it to be real too, but show me the hardware...
I must point out that there are many other phenomena well known to physics
that fall well outside Paul's arbitray restrictions. All the obseved
magical quantum effects.
Can you suggest how quantum effects might be observed and accentuated in
Tesla coils? Remember, experimentalism trumps opinion.
Ultimately we will travel through ot the Universe by teleportation base on
this rudimentary science now in place.
Maybe, maybe not. But we won't know without solid, reproducible macro
effects at "shirtsleeve" temp and pressure, which conditions preclude most
of the effects you cited.
My plea is to allow others to express their opinions openly and freely on
this list rather than insist on very pedantic closed minded applications
of tighly guarded opinions.
Opinions are irrelevant to hardware. If it works, it works; if it
doesn't, it just doesn't.
Tesla also got seriously pedantic and closed-minded on how he thought
his stuff worked and most times he was right, but too often he was just
Mark L. Fergerson