Re: 7.1Hz, how the heck did Tesla succeed?

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: William Beaty <billb@xxxxxxxxxx>

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: Mddeming@xxxxxxx
>
> Or the failures could as easily be because it just doesn't work. The fact
> that his funding was cut off and system dismantled before he got it fully
> up and running in no way validates the underlying assumptions. All the rest
> is an act of faith, which by its very nature must lie outside the realm of
> rational discourse.  (ergo O.T.)

Exactly!  This is all about faith and about wild speculation.

Do I personally think that Tesla's World System was as feasible as Tesla
claimed?  Some days yes, some days no.  On the whole, I see the
probability is small but significant that Tesla was right.  I love
longshot betting, but I try not to lose sight of the fact that I'm going
to fail a lot.  It's sort of along the lines of "The best way to have good
ideas is to have a lot of ideas."  It might get you the Nobel prize, or it
might lead you to religious belief in vitamin C.  Or both.  What Pauling
should have said is "you have to have a lot of bad and crazy ideas." Those
who thoughtlessly censor their own ideas are the types who never have
original ones. For me, science is a brainstorming session where I come up
with unfiltered crazy stuff, and then the real world (experiment) renders
judgement.  (Or sometimes the people on forums will ferret out the flaw
that stabs an apparently crazy idea and kills it dead.)



SO, if for our own entertainment we make the strange assumption that Tesla
was not just fooling himself, then this assumption has consequences
we can explore.


> "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily"
>          William of Occam in Quodlibeta Septem. c.1320
>
> "'Maybe and Perhaps' though repeated a thousandfold, bring us not one iota
> closer to any truth."
>      Wm. F. L. Alcock Jr. c.1958

Ah, but scientific research divides naturally into two general parts;
normal science and revolutionary science.  Some call this "the plodders"
versus "the visionaries."  Others see it as common sense vs. dangerous
craziness.  But both techniques are valuable:  slow careful exploration of
every nook and cranny, as well as crazy giant leaps that can open up
entire new fields of research.  It's the difference between informed
longshot betting with large prizes, versus betting only on sure things
that have tiny returns.



I think some of the arguments on the list involve a missing concept:

  "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea
   without accepting it."  - Aristotle

In my experience many people seem unable to entertain unproven ideas,
instead they must either accept them or reject them.  They seem to lack an
area in their minds which is roped off as a playground for provisional
ideas;  for stuff that could easily turn out wrong or even crazy.  So they
have to attack all ideas which they don't just accept.   This situation
can be changed.  Practice believing six impossible things before
breakfast.


(((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-789-0775    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci