[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ball Lightning from high-amp discharge

Original poster: Mddeming@xxxxxxx

Actually, if the results are duplicated, they can claim to have reproduced the "Brazilian phenomena", but I still contend that until the nature of ball lightning is identified, no one can honestly claim to have reproduced ball lightning. There is no way of knowing if what was produced in the lab was the same "stuff" that was produced in nature, so the question still stands. Until then, these "Unidentified Floating Objects" (Natural Ball Lightning) might be exactly like those reported from that lab or...

Matt D.

In a message dated 1/16/07 10:16:29 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
Original poster: William Beaty <billb@xxxxxxxxxx>

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: Mddeming@xxxxxxx
>       This new group was scientifically rigorous enough NOT to call
> their observed phenomenon ball lightning, but to indicate that it may
> have a similar type of  mechanism of formation. and some similar behaviors.
> This brings up an interesting epistemological question.Is it possible
> to RE-create something in a laboratory if you don't know what IT is
> to start with?

Yes, and this is simply an issue of theoretical science versus
experimental science.  Go search on the phrase "Experimenter's Regress."
If the details of an experiment are made clear in the published papers,
and if other labs can then use that "recipe" to produce the same unique
phenomenon, then that's a replication.  Even better is if they can make
some measurements which agree.