Re: Ball Lightning from high-amp discharge

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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.