Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
• From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
• Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:01:25 -0800

Tesla List wrote:
> 
> >From lod-at-pacbell-dot-netSun Nov 10 21:41:32 1996
> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:34:46 +0000
> From: GE Leyh <lod-at-pacbell-dot-net>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
> 
> Ed Harris wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > If you don't believe in conventional physics explanations,
> > why should you even believe in energy and energy conservation anyway?
> 
> Excellent point.  This should be emphasized.
> 
> -GL


No reason to throw out the baby with the wash water.  I swallow what 
works and can be seen to repeatedly respond to experiment.  I do not 
necessarily swallow all that I am told MUST BE SO.

  Conservation of energy seems like a good idea and works for me time and 
time again.  A portion of the rest of physics needs some review, I fear.

  As we drift farther and farther away from the definitively knowable and 
readily observable, the more we drift into a gray zone of official, 
scientifically sanctioned conjecture.  Science is becoming as the church 
was in the 1400s.  Rife with Officially sanctioned dogamtic beliefs held 
by those enviously called "the blessed" and "the faithful".  Any one 
who dares question the belief system is just laughed at.  Science at 
least respects human life but not the spirit of disagreement the way it 
once did.

Richard Hull, TCBOR

• Prev: Re: Capacitor charge, were is it?
• Next: Re: Real data from real experiments.
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread