[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Kaluza and Klein
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Kaluza and Klein
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:55:39 -0700
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Old-return-path: <email@example.com>
- Resent-date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:57:22 -0700 (MST)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <77PpxC.A.P-F.QgETCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: Paul Nicholson <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Kaluza and Klein showed in the 1920's that the Maxwell's
> equations can be derived by extending general relativity
> into five dimensions.
That's not quite right. They showed that Maxwell and relativity
can live side by side in a five dimensional framework with certain
properties. But what's that got to do with anything here? Is that
a reason to allow pseudoscience to go unchallenged on the list?
> Jared is right from this stand point. Maybe you and Paul
> should lighten up a bit and cut him a little slack.
That's weird reasoning: Somebody once had a theory unrelated to
anything being discussed here, therefore we should accept Jared's
elementary errors? Do you want us to humour him? To cut Jared
some slack, we would have to pretend he was giving the right
answers, we would have to ignore a good many well established
laws of physics and ignore our own measurements. What would be
People come to the list to find reliable advice. "What frequency
will my coil work at" is a straightforward question. Do you want
us to let wrong answers go through unchallenged? What would be
the point of misleading people like that? We wouldn't be doing
anyone any favours, it would just move coiling a step backwards
towards the dark ages.
There's a strong and commendable cultural tradition in our society
to stand up for the little man battling against authority. I guess
that's at work here. But this isn't a religious or political
issue, it's a scientific issue because it can be tested and placed
somewhere on a continuous scale between correct and incorrect.
Besides, we've already been very kind to Jared, explaining
carefully and thoroughly the faults with his conclusions. It's
not as if he's posting complete nonsense as some cranks do, we can
follow his reasoning (just about) and what he's saying is at least
testable - which is why we know it is wrong.