Re: Teslas Ball Lightning

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I hesitate to respond to this thread but here I go.

Your point 1) is not a flaw in the psychological effect. It simple shows the
open mindedness or interests of some scientists.

Your assuming your points 2) to 5) are accurate and that an after image can
not be interperated in any of those ways which is incorrect.
After-images can disappear suddenly if your attention is distracted or the
background makes them less visible.  The perceived size of an object is very
dependent on the context. So a moving after-mage could readily be perceived
as varying in size.  As to the 'loud bang' that could be coincidence or
simple an expectation of a bang.

We have explored the unreliability of eyewitness accounts and that is a well
documented.  It can be either be accepted or not.

We have also done the closed minded versus the open minded thing to death in
a variety of threads.
Unlike length mass etc that attribute is too undefined to have serous
discuss about it.
I assume we can all agree that most people fall in to an intermediate value.
They are not totally closed minded nor are they totally open minded or
gullible.
Perhaps we can also agree that a persons experiences and knowledge may also
effect their open-mindedness.
Putting this an other way the less you know the more open you will be to new
ideas as there is less chance that they will contradict something you
already know.

Closed-mindedness is a good attribute because it avoids us wasting time on
what we assume is impossible.
Open-mindedness is also a good attribute because it allows is to learn new
things.
A person  needs to have a balance of both.  Collectively we also need a
range of that quality so even if the majority think something is impossible
there is at least one person that investigates it anyway.

We need scientific initia or we would waste huge amounts of time and yes its
also a disadvantage because when something new is discovered it will not be
immediately accepted.


Robert (R. A.) Jones
A1 Accounting, Inc., Fl
407 649 6400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Teslas Ball Lightning


> Original poster: "Chris Rutherford" <chris1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi All,
>
> Were all entitled to our own opinion, and in the absence of
> reproducible lab evidence I can understand your argument.  However,
> there are a number of flaws in the psychological explanation which I
> will attempt to highlight.
>
> 1) By 1977 there were no less than 82 academic papers on ball
> lightning.  A lot of scientific interest for a so called psychological
effect.
>
> 2) Globes have been reported to disappear with a loud bang behind a
> closed door.
>
> 3) Globes can pass behind objects disappearing from view and obscures
> those objects that it passes in front of.
>
> 4)  There is a marked change in its angular diameter as it approaches
> from 2m to 50cm
>
> 5)  It can abruptly disappear, where as afterimages fade away.
>
> In conclusion, efforts to classify ball lightning as an illusion
> represents an undesirable philosophy in science.  This philosophy is
> the rejection of difficult problems in nature by denying the
> existence of phenomenon and its evidence, providing a physiological
> or psychological explanation.
>
> I've never seen ball lightning, other than my spherical discharges,
> but as a true scientist, I can not deny its existence just because I
> cant see it.
>
> Some more graphite particles:-
>
> http://www.hackinghardware.com/tesla/graphite.jpg
> http://www.hackinghardware.com/tesla/graphite1.jpg
>
>
> Before the discovery of electron tunnelling stars could not exist
> because they were not hot enough to allow particles to overcome the
> electrostatic repulsion.
>
> Thanks
>
> Chris R
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 2:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Teslas Ball Lightning
>
>
> >Original poster: "Peter Terren" <pterren@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >I concur with Steve here.  People don't tend to consider this simple
> >physiological explanation.  I get ball lightning every time I go to
> >the ophthalmologist and have bright lights shone in my eyes.
> >Last time I was there however I photographed free air ionisation
> >from a Q-switched ophthalmic laser which is a small spark like spot
> >in the air. This is true ball lightning (unconnected ionised air)
> >but only lasts nanoseconds. There are 8 pulses in a train at 8mJ
> >each at 1064nm.
> >http://tesladownunder.com/Lasers_%20HeNe_YAG.htm#Nd:YAG%203%20W%201069nm
> >
> >PeterPeter (Tesla Downunder)
> >
> >
> >>Original poster: Steve Conner <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>My own view is that ball lightning that seems to float
> >>around and persist, is just an after-image burnt into
> >>the retina of the extremely bright point where the
> >>lightning attached to the target. There may well be a
> >>ball of light there, but only for fractions of a
> >>second, which is just what people observe in lab
> >>experiments.
> >>
> >>Eyewitness accounts of how ball lightning moves and
> >>passes through solid objects are (imo) consistent with
> >>how your brain behaves when it tries to look at an
> >>"object" that is actually inside your eye and moves
> >>with it.........
> >>Steve Conner
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>