Re: Continue the "Nonsense"

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Darren Freeman by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <free0076-at-flinders.edu.au>

At 10:56 AM 15/02/2002, you wrote:
>Original poster: "Richard Wayne Wall by way of Terry Fritz 
><twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com>
>
>
>David Thomson - list,
>
>David, here is another encouraging post.
>
>It's my opinion that only about 10% of list members post on a regular basis
>(60 - 70).  Most just lurk.  Only a few percent post often.  Some of the

I personally tend to lurk. Whenever I do read from the list, I find very 
often that
the post is a self-assured answer to somebody's question, but it's wrong.

So I stop reading. This list has been for me a waste of time for a while 
because
I get frustrated when I read crap that is being discussed.

>most frequent posters are the "No Nonsense Naysayers".  Curiously some of
>the brightest are fearful to lay it on the line because of the barrage of
>demeaning criticism that is aimed at them.  I know because I've had

Yet the dimmest keep on posting anyway.

>demeaning post leveled at me by the pious self anointed and appointed
>keepers of the EM point of view when my experiments and view points clashes

I would argue that if it can be disproved with classical electrodynamics then
that is enough. Why use quantum electrodynamics (or something even harder
to understand or explain) when it has been known for a long time that the
idea is wrong.

I don't mean the idea is thought by the nasayers to be wrong. I mean the
idea has a prediction (like light flattening into a pancake distribution) that
is known experimentally to be wrong, and conflicts with well-tested theories.

By the way, what's wrong with the EM point of view if we are dealing with
EM devices at less than 1 MHz?

>with theirs.  Science, physics and electrical history is littered with
>Naysayer corpses.  But, the "No Nonsense Naysayers" have existed through
>out history and continue to exist.  Please consider them valuable if not

I take mild offence to being placed in that category, if that is indeed 
what you are saying.

>expendable. Since science is never finished they provide good juxtaposition
>from which good ideas, experiments and new scientific knowledge evolves.
>Do not be weakened or discouraged, but quite the contrary, be heartened,
>encouraged and fortified to carry forward.  Even if all your ideas are not

It's not a religious quest. Nobody around here is Joan of Big Arc.

>ultimately verified at least you've had the courage to ignore your critics
>and advance the science.  Their presence will make you stronger and more
>resolute.

Yes it does take courage. But many ideas should and will be abandoned after
reading a textbook. Don't anybody have the arrogance to defy something that
they haven't read, or don't understand.

>So David, I hope you reconsider moving this thread exclusively to another
>web site.  I for one and I'm sure many other less vocal list members
>appreciate you patience, hard work and sharing your knowledge.

Or those supporters who appreciate the discussion can be on both lists at the
same time. It's not that hard to do, yet relieves those who really can't stand
technobabble. I want the pseudoscience thread to stay away from the
serious coiling list.

>RWW


Have fun,
Darren Freeman