RE: Teslas Ball Lightning

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Brett Miller <brmtesla2@xxxxxxxxx>


> Sneering at first hand reports is not a scientific
> view.

No one is sneering here, it is okay if I (and other
rational minds) believe ball lightning may be just a
rumor.  That is healthy to the learning process, you
will find it throughout the history of science.  I can
criticise an idea, without criticising an individual.

> It's called a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is what Terry came up with.  You are
talking about a vague notion based on heresay.  It
could turn out to be a real phenominon, however, it is
perfectly fine for me to lament a lack of evidence.
If you noticed, I supported Terry's optimism and ideas
for ball lightning lab research.

> Since there
> are numerous visual witnesses of ball lightning, we
> can properly
> hypothesize that the phenomenon does exist.

That's not true at all...especially since the
statements "ball lightning" and "phenomenon" mean
nothing taken alone.  As someone else on the list (was
it Matt?) pointed out, you have quantified nothing.
People saw some stuff.  What was it?  The accounts
differ greatly.  What you have is an "urban legend",
not a hypothesis.

> 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.

Exactly.  If there was a mathematical model which
described many quantities in the universe, and also
made testable successful predictions....and in
addition, if this model implied the existance of an
exotic spherical lightning discharge, then I can
assure you that many more scientists (both amateur and
professional) would take it seriously.

> There is no need to discount personal observations
> just because
> we don't know everything about ball lightning, yet.

I am not sure what you mean by "discount", but if
personal observations serve as the inspiration (which
we all need) to perform serious scientific work (such
as what Terry proposed, attempts by the Corums, and
what Bill Beaty mentioned with the microwave) then
they  have served a useful purpose.  However,
anecdotal evidence is not worth much alone.

> doesn't exist.  We can also study ball lightning,
> even though we
> don't know exactly what it is.  It is still valid
> science.

Well, we can hardly study something that we can't
harness or reliably observe, however, we are free to
continue speculating as to its method of production
and whether or not it can be harnessed in the lab,
which is the hot subject nowadays.

> 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.

Well praise the lord.  I believe.  Ok, Terry I guess
you failed to notice that the above paragraph
constitutes a flame.


> Unless you want to call these people a liar
> outright, you must
> humbly accept their first hand account as valid
> data.

I'm sorry but it does not work that way, why do you
think 99.9 percent of ghost encounter reports, alien
abductions, and fairy sightings go uninvestigated by
credentualized scientists.  There are very few people
who have the time and money to run around the globe
"disproving" outrageous claims.  I am not sure why you
have the burden of proof system reversed.

> What they
> observed is up to science to scientifically figure
> out.
>
> Dave