Re: Wireless Transmission

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Terry Fritz <teslalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Rick,

At 09:33 AM 1/14/2005, you wrote:
> Mike,
>
> This is an excellent post and mirrors my sentiments exactly.  This 
> particular topic seems like it surfaces about every year or so on the 
> Tesla list and is usually initiated by a relatively new member who is 
> unaware of previous discussions.  You are right that there are two camps 
> who vehemently defend their positions.  This is how science has progressed 
> for eons and won't ever change.  On this list there is one group who 
> proclaims that this is how science is, we've discovered all there is to 
> know and and their ad hominem charge that if you hold other opininons you 
> are a wierd,  pseudo science protagonist.  The other group tends to have 
> an open mind and a let's see what is possible attitude.

We present both sides and the readers can decide for themselves...

> Terry, God bless him, tries to keep the discussion civil , but after a few 
> days usually closes the topic.  Like all people he has his biases and 
> other than when he admittedly unnecessarily censors posts, does a great 
> job as moderator.  He feels compelled to not ruffle the feathers of 
> certain list members.

Actually, I only kill the threads when the deteriorate into being 
"un"civil...  Threads sometimes get into heated arguments that the rest of 
us really don't care at all about...  Really, the EM vs. whatever wave 
thing is sort of boring to most of us...

> An example of closed minded science is Paul Nicholson's explaination of 
> charge, et cetera, referred to by Bert Hickman.  Paul who I generally 
> repect, starts out by setting the arguement that there are only certain 
> things allowed as goverened by 100 year old EM physic .  And that's it.
> He gives absolutely no reason or hard data as to why he imposes such 
> stingent restrictions.

I think his ideas are based on the same ideas that 99.9% of all electrical 
engineering is ;-)))  I don't think we can judge those that follow such 
overwhelmingly proven ideas as closed minded!!  Those that follow 
conventional EM theory can communicate with probes out at the far 
planets.  Those that rely on Tesla's Hertzonian waves have trouble lighting 
a florescent light tube across the street :o))  Of course, there might me 
more out there, but that does not mean that what we already know is irrelevant.


> I must point out that there are many other phenomena well known to physics 
> that fall well outside Paul's arbitray restrictions.  All the obseved 
> magical quantum effects.  And, even QED, quantum electrodynamics, invented 
> by the famous Nobel Laureate, Richard Feinman.  Super conduction and 
> Cooper electron pairs don't fall within his restrictions.  The Arenhov 
> Bohm or Bose Einsten condensates  fail to be considered also.  Maxwell's 
> equations utterly fail in expalining these phenomena.  These phenomena are 
> not just observed for single atomic pairs now, but have been 
> experimentally expanded to disparitly separated clouds of Cesium atoms 
> acting instantaneously in concert.
> Ultimately we will travel through ot the Universe by teleportation base on 
> this rudimentary science now in place.
>
> My plea is to allow others to express their opinions openly and freely on 
> this list rather than insist on very pedantic closed minded applications 
> of tighly guarded opinions.

That's fine :-))  But just lets not get into yelling at each other for 
being right or not seeing things they way we want them too.  When we are 
presenting the facts and putting the info out there for others it is 
fun.  When we just start name calling and turning the thread into an 
argument no one is going to win or cares about, that's when I kill it >:-)

Cheers,

        Terry



> Regards
>
> Stork  (aka  RWW)
........