RE: TESLA'S WIRELESS TRANSMISSION SCHEME (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:50:33 +0100
From: Colin Dancer <colind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Tesla list' <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: TESLA'S WIRELESS TRANSMISSION SCHEME (fwd)

Agreed, and exceptional claims require exceptional proof.

If I tell you "I've seen a white horse" then my word or maybe a picture of
me standing next to said horse might well suffice for most people.  It's not
absolute proof, but it's not a claim that contradicts the most commonly
accepted view of reality, so you might give me the benefit of the doubt.

If I tell you "I've seen a white horse with wings that can fly" then my word
or even a picture of a flying horse is unlikely to be sufficient to convince
other people it's not a hoax.  Similarly any further statements along the
lines of "I know what I've seen, it's up to you to prove I'm wrong" wouldn't
cut much ice either.

In the case of these "longitudinal waves", I'm afraid Dave's "explanations"
lack self-consistency, and he's failed to come up with good justifications
for why the many objections raised to his ideas (damping from neutral
particles, the very low ion density in air, random thermal motion, charge
conservation in the metal cylinders, etc.) don't apply.

I'm not going to claim that he's a charlatan (though he might be), but at
best I believe he's self-deluded.

My personal view is the topic has no place on the list, but that is
obviously entirely up to Chip to decide.

Colin.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 02 August 2007 15:57
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: TESLA'S WIRELESS TRANSMISSION SCHEME (fwd)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:46:38 -0400
From: "Mccauley, Daniel H" <daniel.h.mccauley@xxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: TESLA'S WIRELESS TRANSMISSION SCHEME (fwd)

 

I think its important to remember, that those making the scientific claim
are responsible for providing the burden of proof.  I have yet to see any
evidence presented by Dave Thompson that validates any of his ideas /
theories.

Dan

 
Colin,
 
    What a "party pooper"!!  If you continue to  insist on injecting reason
and reality into otherwise rousing discussions of  longitudinal waves, folks
will start to suspect you of being a Muggle ;^))
    While for myself, I was unable to see any  connection to longitudinal
waves in the URL cited below, perhaps we should take  a more Jungian
approach. To paraphrase old CJ: "If a man claims to have had a  religious
experience, the only valid conclusion you can draw is that he has had  a
religious experience." Likewise, if one person claims they have seen a
likeness of Elvis in a Rorschach test, or another claims he has seen
evidence of  longitudinal waves in his TC experiment, you can only conclude,
according to  Jung, that that was their experience. 
    When a person says,"There is no question in my mind  that I am
correct.." 
you must accept that as THEIR reality. That  others do not see a reasonable
connection does not change this  subjective truth. This is precisely why
science demands independent,  disinterested corroboration, and in many cases
even double-blind tests. As Will  Alcock once said, "Convincing yourself of
your own correctness is trivially  easy. It's that rest of the world that's
a bitch and a half."
 
Matt D.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 8/1/07 1:48:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007  12:40:09 -0500
From: David Thomson <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Tesla  list' <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: TESLA'S WIRELESS TRANSMISSION  SCHEME (fwd)

Hi Colin,

> If you want to keep putting forward  the same old line about
longitudinal
> ion/plasma waves in air (which  I believe many on this list consider
to be
> blatant  pseudoscience),

Many on this list do consider it to be pseudoscience,  but that is just an
unfounded personal opinion.  There are others on  this list who see it as
valid, verifiable science.

> then I'd ask  you to reconsider providing an explanation for why the 
> easily  demonstrated damping effects of
neutral
> collisions and thermal  motion don't dominate the very weak
electrostatic
> forces between  the low density of ions in air.

I would have to see the actual  experiments you are talking about to respond
to this request.  As for  actual experiments demonstrating electrostatic
standing waves (longitudinal  waves of ions) in a three coil system, I
present my own  work:
http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/FlatSpiralSolenoidCombo.htm

There  is no question in my mind that I am correct since I can physically
produce  the phenomenon to which I am referring.  Have you considered that
before forming your own personal opinion?

Dave

David W. Thomson
Quantum AetherDynamics Institute







************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL
at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour