RE: Teslas Ball Lightning

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "David Thomson" <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Brett,

> Saying you say a beachball or basketball sized luminous orb
> float around, pass through a door or wall and then later
> dissolve with a "bang" is a pretty outrageous claim,
> especially if you cannot provide a mechanism.

This is where the problem resides.  People were not making claims
about the scientific validity of ball lightning, they were
describing their experiences.  It would indeed be outrageous to
claim ball lightning is an established fact, but that is not what
a sighting is.  A sighting is merely a report of what someone
saw.

> It is then up
> to the claimant to demonstrate compelling evidence of
> existance, and generally the phenominon is considered likely
> to be nonexistant until then.

Sneering at first hand reports is not a scientific view.
Scientists assumed atoms existed long before evidence of their
existence was quantified.  It's called a hypothesis.  Since there
are numerous visual witnesses of ball lightning, we can properly
hypothesize that the phenomenon does exist.  We don't need to
have all the answers just yet.

You'll find the Higgs Boson has never been directly detected.
Ball lightning has been visually witnessed by thousands of
individuals, but the Higgs Boson has never been seen by anyone.
And yet, just because it appears as a mathematical entity on
paper, the Higgs Boson is considered to be a valid hypothesis.
If we can hypothesize the Higgs Boson, which nobody has ever seen
(and likely never will), then we can certainly hypothesize ball
lightning, which members of this list (along with thousands of
others) have witnessed first hand.

There is no need to discount personal observations just because
we don't know everything about ball lightning, yet.  Science is
"the study of."  We can study the Higgs Boson, even though it
doesn't exist.  We can also study ball lightning, even though we
don't know exactly what it is.  It is still valid science.

In addition, it is premature to be offering your unfounded
opinions as to what others actually saw.  Your lack of seeing
ball lightning impedes you from offering an informed opinion as
to what others directly witnessed, it doesn't make you more of an
expert.  You have neither the science to disprove their
observation, nor the observation itself.  And once again, nobody
has to prove their observation.  Their witnessing IS the proof.
Unless you want to call these people a liar outright, you must
humbly accept their first hand account as valid data.  What they
observed is up to science to scientifically figure out.

Dave