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.
Dollard's Klingon fairy dust is "longitudinal waves." No such beast. I've not read any Tesla material where such were proposed. Scientists can no more make a meaningful test for them than for fairy dust.
I normally prefer not to get personal with the use of "you" in posts, but you seem to be doing that as a debate tactic, so I call you out for that by using the technique on you:
What makes YOU an expert on electricity?
What makes YOU an expert on Tesla?
Why are YOU criticizing the people with scientific knowledge that dismiss Dollard as a fraud?
I have no need to defend my qualifications regarding electricity and electronics. Suffice to say they are superior to yours. If you wish to criticize me or other naysayers, it is your responsibility to step up to the plate and at least learn the basics, rather than arguing from the stance of "cult of personality" or that of "true believer." Such arguments are a waste of time, worthless, and give credence where none is warranted.
By NOT believing in Klingon fairy dust, and stating without proof it doesn't exist, you most certainly ARE criticizing me! What qualifications do you have to do so? Have you done any scientific experiments to find those Klingon fairies? Can you just not be silent until scientists do the proper full research into Klingon poop fairies? It isn't my problem if you don't think Klingon poop fairies are real.
Dollard's Klingon fairy dust is "longitudinal waves."No such beast. I've not read any Tesla material where such were proposed. Scientists can no more make a meaningful test for them than for fairy dust.
And you know this how? If you have not read any of Teslas material, then you cannot really judge whether there are or are not longitudinal waves.
OK, I am sorry you do not believe in longitudinal waves, firstly because a lot of Tesla's work was research into and use of those, and secondly there are practical real-life applications which make use of them today. If you have come across John Bedini, and some of the battery chargers he developed, then his experiments also discovered some non-standard ways electricals work.
I dont understand why you are denying something exists when you admit to not having read anything about it? To me, it does not make sense why you would do that.
Longitudinal waves may well be the replacement for nuclear technology and I suspect (only speculation) that the government took teslas notes and further developed his research in black projects.
We say this because thats what we know happens in our nulear fusion experiments.
...
The point is, we observe our sun and we interpret its behaviour according to what we know of our science.
...
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'.
We haven't observed nuclear fusion with the naked eye, either. For several reasons:
Our senses are developed for the purpose of staing alive on the savannah. They are extremely ill-equpped to observe subatomic phenomena.
People who experience nuclear fusion close-up die.
So if we observe a process a mere 8 light-minutes away that gives every indication of acting as we'd expect hydrogen fusion to act, I'd argue that someone throwing out random other possibilities will need to come up with some evidence of a fault in the existing theory.
So if we observe a process a mere 8 light-minutes away that gives every indication of acting as we'd expect hydrogen fusion to act, I'd argue that someone throwing out random other possibilities will need to come up with some evidence of a fault in the existing theory.
You could argue that but it is not likely to be scientific thinking because part of science's job is to put forward new hypotheses and to prove or disprove them. It is not to declare "This looks like something we already know about, so we'll just assume it is the same." That is a lazy man's science, one who doesn't want to be bothered to think any further.
What if we had said to ourselves, "The horizon looks flat. We know a table is flat and if we go far enough on a flat surface we will fall off the end. So, the world must be flat because it looks flat to us, and we will fall off the end if we head out in that direction."
What if we had said to ourselves, "The horizon looks flat. We know a table is flat and if we go far enough on a flat surface we will fall off the end. So, the world must be flat because it looks flat to us, and we will fall off the end if we head out in that direction."
There's a ton of robust evidence for a spherical Earth, just as there is for the sun being powered by fusion. But - to harken back to the OP - no one has ever observed a spherical Earth with the naked eye. It takes instruments and measurements and math. Our immediate naked-eye senses have a hard time identifying curvature. The process works - better evidence leads to corrected model.
The alternate viewpoint these days is in fact the flat earth hypothesis, and the followers of that line of thought are using the exact arguments being put forth in this thread: That just because the evidence points to a spherical Earth orbiting the Sun, we're lazy not to investigate their more-or-less half-baked theories.
You want to argue that the sun isn't powered by fusion? Good luck to you. Come up with a testable (that means falsifiable) hypothesis that explains the observed data better. There's no better model being proposed here.
There's a ton of robust evidence for a spherical Earth, just as there is for the sun being powered by fusion. But - to harken back to the OP - no one has ever observed a spherical Earth with the naked eye. It takes instruments and measurements and math. Our immediate naked-eye senses have a hard time identifying curvature. The process works - better evidence leads to corrected model.
The alternate viewpoint these days is in fact the flat earth hypothesis, and the followers of that line of thought are using the exact arguments being put forth in this thread: That just because the evidence points to a spherical Earth orbiting the Sun, we're lazy not to investigate their more-or-less half-baked theories.
But there wasn't a ton of evidence in our Western science when humans first proposed a flat Earth. There maybe now, but not then - otherwise they would have discovered it was not flat.
Quote:
You want to argue that the sun isn't powered by fusion? Good luck to you. Come up with a testable (that means falsifiable) hypothesis that explains the observed data better. There's no better model being proposed here.
We dont know what the Sun is and how it is powered, and we certainly do not know it is powered by fusion. As has been said previously, it might be a white hole where the mass captured by a black hole in a different part of the universe spews out here. It could be a hole in space which emits orange-coloured energy. It could be all kinds of things, but the fact is you have just admitted you are going with "It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, so it must be a duck" hypothesis. How scientific is that?
We dont know what the Sun is and how it is powered, and we certainly do not know it is powered by fusion. As has been said previously, it might be a white hole where the mass captured by a black hole in a different part of the universe spews out here. It could be a hole in space which emits orange-coloured energy. It could be all kinds of things, but the fact is you have just admitted you are going with "It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, so it must be a duck" hypothesis. How scientific is that?
I don’t follow your logic. If you are already questioning well established facts in science, why are you then bringing black holes into the discussion? You do realize that black and white holes were both proposed by science. For starters white holes are actually hypothetical objects. Their existence hasn’t been proven.
There is a possibility that what we describe as black holes are something else entirely, but as of right now the theory proposed surrounding them is the best we’ve got. Black holes are formed when a massive star goes supernova. Not all supernovae lead to black holes though, as there is another type of stellar remnant known as a neutron star that forms from less massive stars (still bigger than the Sun).
Basically it boils down to this:
-Stars like our Sun become White Dwarfs
-Stars more massive than the Sun (>8x) become Neutron Stars
-The most massive Stars become Black Holes
Im with snowball here. First, at this time with all the observations unexplained from the sun.. if you still believe it is a nuclear reactor up in the sky.. then you are not a science person. More like a religious person to me.
The sun could easily be a fully electrical phenomena and it may or may not emit visible light. The issue here is that it cannot be proven neither of the theories. 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.
I must admit, THE SUN IS JUST A BIG LIGHT BULB! is one I have not heard before.
Im with snowball here. First, at this time with all the observations unexplained from the sun.. if you still believe it is a nuclear reactor up in the sky.. then you are not a science person. More like a religious person to me.
The sun could easily be a fully electrical phenomena and it may or may not emit visible light. The issue here is that it cannot be proven neither of the theories. 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.
The electric sun hypothesis is pseudoscience and is part of the electric universe hypothesis promoted by the Thunderbolts Project.
But there wasn't a ton of evidence in our Western science when humans first proposed a flat Earth. There maybe now, but not then - otherwise they would have discovered it was not flat.
A spherical Earth was established pretty much the moment we started delving into the question. Erathostenes and all those guys. Took 21st-century arrogance and insistence that "my ignorance is as valid as your evidence" to even bring the question up outside a few isolated crackpots.
Quote:
We dont know what the Sun is and how it is powered, and we certainly do not know it is powered by fusion.
Inasmuch as we "know" anything about the observable universe - yeah, we kind of do.
Quote:
It could be all kinds of things, but the fact is you have just admitted you are going with "It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, so it must be a duck" hypothesis. How scientific is that?
Highly. Science means building your theories based on the best evidence. If someone insists that ducks are actually 3-D projections of a 5-dimensional hyper-mallard named "Lawrence", they better present some evidence that it is so. Until then, the Lawrentians don't get to sit with the actual ornithologists.
And if you want to argue that the Sun is "a hole in space which emits orange-coloured energy", I suggest you come up with some sort of evidence to back it. Because right now, it exactly matches what we'd expect to see from a giant fusion reactor that converts hydrogen to helium.
Here's Lord Kelvin (well, he wasn't Lord Kelvin yet) explaining how the sun works without fusion. (Incidentally, that neatly proves Darwin wrong because the age of the Sun wouldn't provide for sufficient time for evolution.) It's coherent, logical, and 100% wrong.
That theory wasn't overturned by some dreamer insisting that his more-or-less random alternate view should be considered. It was overturned by people finding evidence that Kelvin was wrong. Solid, boring work. Observation piled on observation, hypotheses suggested and discarded. We learned of the composition of the Sun. We learned of the nature of atoms and of subatomic particles. We learned of matter/energy equivalence. And as it happens, the Sun acts in away that meshes exactly with what we'd expect.
This is how it works. This is the barrier you have to clear. Until someone does the work, comes up with a way of determining that the the sun is a white hole or a hole in space filled with orange energy an electrical phenomenon or whatever, and then presents some evidence - no, I'm not taking them seriously.
Even the Flat-Earthers had members who at least tried to come up with some empirical evidence. They failed, but there was an attempt.
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.
