[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Noob question
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Noob question
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:20:55 -0600
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Old-return-path: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Resent-date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 13:23:19 -0600 (MDT)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <_1VRi.A.cRB.kqEODB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: Paul Nicholson <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> no experiment is ever a failure. It may give results that fail
> to support a particular hypothesis, but this is only a failure
> of the expectations of the observer.
Agreed, except that there is a sense in which an experiment can
be a failure from the outset: if the experiment is not capable
of deciding the truth/falsity of the hypothesis because it is
badly designed. This typically occurs when the hypothesis to
be tested is not sufficiently clearly defined or understood.
Hence my recommendation to Jim, posted earlier.
In this case, exactly what is meant by tapping radiant energy
from the aether? Does that mean drawing energy from the EM field,
or perhaps collecting fairweather currents? Or maybe the entire
hypothesis is just some pseudoscientific nonsense picked up from
a crank book on free energy?