Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The sun could easily be a fully electrical phenomena and it may or may not emit visible light.
That's silly. We have a pretty damn good handle on what the sun does and doesn't do. The emissions from the sun (no just mere light) have been well studied for centuries - so well, in fact, that we detected the presence of helium on the sun almost 30 years before helium was isolated on Earth.
If you're going to say that the sun could "easily" be an entirely different thing (what does "fully electrical phenomena (sic)" mean, in the first place?), you'd better be prepared to explain solar wind, protuberance and the emission spectrum, for starters.
Quote:
If you look at it at free space with naked eye.. you dont live to tell the story. If you use a visor.. you couldn´t tell if your are looking at visible light thats generated at the sun surface or at the visor. This would also happend with any type of instrument used to test this.
Wait. Are you saying that the only way to determine the presence of visible light is a literal naked eye?
I think most people would agree that Tesla was a genius and discovered many things which were totally out there and wacky. However, they worked - which is probably why it is said his notes and papers were not found after he died, they disappeared, "someone" took them.
Eric Dollard is working to replicate some of Teslas experiments and to rediscover the science he was doing. So, by claiming Eric Dollard does not know what he is doing, means you know what he is doing, and why the things he is doing will not work. Do you?
Bear in mind that the science of Teslas day did not acknowledge many of the inventions which Tesla discovered and so today, many of you probably do not accept those discoveries too - because you are too limited and blinkered in your thinking.
Today, there is a whole science based on the types of longitudinal waves which Tesla and others discovered. It is aether technology. It is the basis of post-nuclear technology and is far, far more dangerous and powerful than nuclear technology is. It encompasses EMP weapons and this is what HAARP is used for and helped develop.
Why do you think we had/have nuclear treaties with Russia, and other countries IF there were NOT other technologies which made them old hat?
Read Gary Vassilatos Secrets of Cold War Technology where he documents the rise and fall of nuclear technology and what was developed to replace it.
If you disagree with me, show me I am wrong and that we do not have this technology and more.
If you disagree with me, show me I am wrong and that we do not have this technology and more.
Not my burden of proof, sorry.
I'm merely here to point out the silliness of insisting that the sun isn't powered by nuclear fusion if your best argument is "No one has seen it with the naked eye, so it could be anything." Because no, it couldn't.
So electrons, photons and all manner of other things are streaming away from the sun and we say "Oh, that must be working by nuclear fusion".
We say this because thats what we know happens in our nulear fusion experiments. However, it may be working by some other process which also emits these radiation, particles, energy, etc. Some other process which we do not know about yet.
For example, our sun may be the 'white hole' from another black hole somewhere and the particles streaming out from our sun may be the particles and matter captured by that black hole somewhere else in the galaxy. The point is, we observe our sun and we interpret its behaviour according to what we know of our science.
Quote:
Not my burden of proof, sorry.
OK, given that we have not been to the sun, we only have data from instruments and interpretations from scientists of that data. The the burden of proof is on you to show how you know the sun is powered by nuclear fusion - Since you are the one calling the speculation/hypothesis 'silliness'.
"Eric Dollard is working to replicate some of Teslas experiments and to rediscover the science he was doing. So, by claiming Eric Dollard does not know what he is doing, means you know what he is doing, and why the things he is doing will not work. Do you?"
Dollard is working on doublespeak and obfuscation. I watched/listened and he is clueless or a charlatan. If you understand Tesla's multi-phasic power transmission science, his nonsense becomes transparent. I suggest you first study that proven science, and then revisit his talks. Then you too will understand. I'm not about to explain multiphase power to you, nor prove the negative of why Dollard's stuff doesn't work. That is your burden.
Really? Well no. The Apollo astronauts navigated using the stars. Some unmanned vehicles do the same. They wore helmet filters to screen out the sunlight.
"Eric Dollard is working to replicate some of Teslas experiments and to rediscover the science he was doing. So, by claiming Eric Dollard does not know what he is doing, means you know what he is doing, and why the things he is doing will not work. Do you?"
Dollard is working on doublespeak and obfuscation. I watched/listened and he is clueless or a charlatan. If you understand Tesla's multi-phasic power transmission science, his nonsense becomes transparent. I suggest you first study that proven science, and then revisit his talks. Then you too will understand. I'm not about to explain multiphase power to you, nor prove the negative of why Dollard's stuff doesn't work. That is your burden.
It seems to me that if someone criticizes another then the burden of proof should lie with the one who criticizes NOT with the one who claims to have found something new. If we generalise and criticise then we will NEVER discover anything new and science will mainly stand still. The claim will be proven or not by other scientists when they attempt to replicate the experiments.
OK, so scientists claim stuff which is not correct due to errors and misunderstandings, BUT there are also many scientists who try out experiments because of hunches, or a sense that something might be the path to follow to achieve new discoveries. Possibly you need to be less critical and get out there, do some original work and be criticized yourself - then you will understand a little better.
As I said, look at Tesla, he was a genius in his day and there are still many of his discoveries which are not understood by our science today.
It seems what you are saying by your criticism is that people should NOT try to replicate Teslas work. Isn't that going against some of what science stands for?
It seems to me that if someone criticizes another then the burden of proof should lie with the one who criticizes NOT with the one who claims to have found something new. If we generalise and criticise then we will NEVER discover anything new and science will mainly stand still. The claim will be proven or not by other scientists when they attempt to replicate the experiments.
OK, so scientists claim stuff which is not correct due to errors and misunderstandings, BUT there are also many scientists who try out experiments because of hunches, or a sense that something might be the path to follow to achieve new discoveries. Possibly you need to be less critical and get out there, do some original work and be criticized yourself - then you will understand a little better.
As I said, look at Tesla, he was a genius in his day and there are still many of his discoveries which are not understood by our science today.
It seems what you are saying by your criticism is that people should NOT try to replicate Teslas work. Isn't that going against some of what science stands for?
The communication problem is your understanding is backwards. Those who understand science understand what Tesla did. Nothing mysterious or magic. It's those who don't understand that assume no one else does.
It seems to me that if someone criticizes another then the burden of proof should lie with the one who criticizes NOT with the one who claims to have found something new. If we generalise and criticise then we will NEVER discover anything new and science will mainly stand still. The claim will be proven or not by other scientists when they attempt to replicate the experiments.
OK, so scientists claim stuff which is not correct due to errors and misunderstandings, BUT there are also many scientists who try out experiments because of hunches, or a sense that something might be the path to follow to achieve new discoveries. Possibly you need to be less critical and get out there, do some original work and be criticized yourself - then you will understand a little better.
As I said, look at Tesla, he was a genius in his day and there are still many of his discoveries which are not understood by our science today.
It seems what you are saying by your criticism is that people should NOT try to replicate Teslas work. Isn't that going against some of what science stands for?
*sigh* Here is a hypothetical:
I believe that poop is actually fairy dust that is made by Klingon fairies in our guts that are the real controllers of our thoughts and dreams.
The burden of proof is for you to prove me wrong. Please spend all the time you need. Please answer my every whacko counter to your disbelief. Please devote your life to it and don't do anything productive on your own except trying to prove me wrong.
NOW do you understand why the burden of proof is placed where it is?
*sigh* Here is a hypothetical:
I believe that poop is actually fairy dust that is made by Klingon fairies in our guts that are the real controllers of our thoughts and dreams.
The burden of proof is for you to prove me wrong. Please spend all the time you need. Please answer my every whacko counter to your disbelief. Please devote your life to it and don't do anything productive on your own except trying to prove me wrong.
NOW do you understand why the burden of proof is placed where it is?
Just because I do not believe it, I am NOT the one criticising your belief that poop is fairy dust as you were doing a few posts ago where you appear to be criticising Eric Dollard. Why should you care if what he says is wrong? When other scientists do the replication of his experiments they will find out whether he is correct or not. Why dont you do the same rather than sitting there and criticising? Do you have relevant qualifications which allows you to have an authoratative opinion?
As I said, if he writes papers about it and articles then I expect other scientists to do experiments to replicate the results to find out if what he claims is true - as I understand it, thats what happens when scientists find something new or try to replicate the work of others(Teslas).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
