Signs your "theory" might be wrong....

Post Reply New Topic

Nikola Tesla was a genius. However he did not accept Maxwells theory of electro magnetic radiation fully and he also believed in the existence of light carrying aether, which was disproved conclusively by the negative results of the Michelson Morley Experiment. So being a genius does not insulate one from being in error.

There is no no way of carrying electrical energy efficiently through the earth. One either needs wires to guide the electromagnetic field or one needs to beam the energy with a focused beam of photons.

ruveyn

Sometimes people can be wrong and still be right... they may have a wrong explanation of why something works but still have a understanding of how the effects manifest themselves.

Einstein himself was considered to be a dottering old fool for not accepting quantum mechanics but some still think Einstein could have gotten it right and the quantum theorists wrong. Yet we don't see Einstein ignored like Tesla was for being considered oblivious to quantum mechanics.

That could be true. For example, Sadi Carnot got the second law of thermodynamics right even though he based on the incorrect theory of caloric ( i.e. heat is some kind of indestructible fluid substance). The correct theory is that heat is a form of energy what will go from a body of higher temperature to a body of lower temperature with no work necessary to make the transfer.

In any case the only "through the air" transmission of high energy we have, is by means of photon beams. For example microwaves and lasers.

There are crackpots who think Tesla's mistakes are right. They aren't. However he may very well have produced effects for which he did not have a correct explanation.

But there is no doubt that Tesla gave us alternating current technology and that Tesla is the true inventor of radio, not Marconi. Even so, his belief in aether was incorrect. There is no aether, at least not the kind that 19 th century physicists believed in.

ruveyn

I was'nt citing to a specific theory, I was citing to a pattern of "Signs your "theory" might be wrong". I did'nt want to add a "reference" list because that would be asking for refutations of particular theories based on some obscure point.

A poster, who shall go nameless, has apparently decided to hijack this thread and use it to argue his views as well.

Last edited by AgentPalpatine on 17 Jun 2013, 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

You can't expect to post your claims and not have them critiqued with relevant examples.

All the scientific evidence gathered thus far shows that Einstein was wrong about quantum theory. Furthermore there is no evidence supporting the existence of "hidden variables" i.e. undetected deterministic causal agents that could account for some of the weirdness of quantum physics.

It is ironic, that Einstein's Nobel Prize winning work on the photo-electric effect put quantum physics "on the map".

ruveyn

I don't expect any thread in PPR not to have some sort of critque. I do expect that the "critique" actually have some basis in documented facts.

I don't understand that stance.. why isn't theory valid? A thought experiment?

Go to a site called Blacklight power.. a scientist there named Randell Mills has a free PDF book on his theory there that supports Einstein's classical physics. He also has a yahoo group devoted to his theory.

Mills is a crackpot. None of his theory has been supported by experiment. He denies ground states in the hydrogen atom which are readily observable. He thinks he can shrink atoms down in an unlimited fashion. It is plain BS and crackpot nonsense. Quantum Field Theory, so far, is the most accurate physics theory every formulated. And any branch of science that has a forum of non-qualified people pushing it is suspect. There is also a group that supports aether and another group that supports room-temperature fusion. Not to say anything of the groups that support perpetual motion machines.

ruveyn

ok,cool

Trolls are everywhere; don't feed them.

Continuing...

11. No one with a real education and real-world experience in scientific research and/or its applications takes your "theory" seriously.

* Circumstantial and rhetorical "evidence" that can not be demonstrated are irrelevant when compared to valid physical principles that have been repeatedly demonstrated to work, each and every time.

* Ranting about how unfair it is that quack science gets no respect proves nothing, and is as worthless as a fourth-string team-member complaining how unfair it is that he never gets to play in the Super Bowl.

* You will never earn respect by claiming that the only science that actually works is all wrong.

More name calling.. lol

Mills is a certified genius... and he is certainly qualified to speak on physics.. yet you "skeptics" mock him as well....

He has been verified by a impartial university headed by a MIT trained scientists.. he has had his materials verified by military scientists...

But none of that matters to the "skeptic"

Randell Mills has so far presented no valid demonstration of his theories, yet he has obtained millions of dollars in funding.

I feel sorry for those who've lost money on his "research", but it does prove that practically anybody can find someone, somewhere seeking to fund even the most unproven and unprovable of ideas.

... and there is a seeker born every minute...

I'd be careful if I was you.. you may want to retract your statement above....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2645159/posts

TESTING VALIDATES HYDRINO THEORY

There is something else very interesting about Mills

Do you know he came out not long after Pons & Fleischmann went public with cold fusion? Not unlike Bob Lazar.

Do you know that he has many military personnel on his board of directors? He has energy companies who have invested in him....

He has verified materials and testing AND he is also considered a crackpot

Hmmm.. what do you think might be going on here....

Last edited by CAL_1138 on 17 Jun 2013, 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this ain't it.
That's the first time I've ever seen anyone attempt an 'argument from proximity,' the idea that someone *must* be right because these other smart (dead) guys worked in the same state!

thus, wrt. the OP:

-You use proximity to unrelated smart people in an attempt to make yourself look smarter.
-You cite the fact that you're considered a crackpot as evidence that you are actually a genius.