It is said that he who admits wrong is the fastest to learn.
I would prefer find my self incorrect sooner than to find I was wrong all the time.
May this year be an eye opener for all.
Giantkiller: I am not really sure what you are saying here. Is it perhaps that you linked to a paper written by somebody that challenges certain aspects of quantum mechanics and we are all supposed to roll over and just assume that your link is the "truth?" Admitting that you are wrong takes critical thinking skills and you really have to know the material that you are looking at. I don't think anybody that has commented on your linked paper knows enough about quantum mechanics to make a call on the veracity of what's stated in that paper and that includes you and me. So I did a bit of poking around. Lane Davis has a YouTube page. He is 24 years old. His clips include his treatise on quantum mechanics, plus all of the usual alternative fare. There is stuff about anti-gravity, the NWO and the Illuminati, 9/11 conspiracies, cold fusion, fluoridated water, false flag operations, H1N1 conspiracies, etc. In other words, the whole nine yards. http://www.youtube.com/user/seattle4truthI came across this in his paper: But in the realm of known laws of electrical engineering, 100% energy
transfers require a 100% impedance match. Impedance is a measure
of resistance, and can be applied not only to electrical systems, but
to mechanical ones as well (such as a clutch in a manual transmission
car). Impedance matching is required to transfer electrical power
from power stations to your house. The job of the massive trans-
formers that are seen near power stations (or the smaller ones going
from the power line to your house) is to match the impedance of one
set of lines to the next set of lines. If this doesn't happen, the en-
ergy from the lower impedance line will bounce o the line with the
higher impedance and the energy will not transfer e ciently. In order
to get all of the energy to transfer, the impedances must be matched
100%. Guess what, this is garbage. Lane is just parroting what he has heard about impedance matching and applying it to high tension electrical power transmission lines without really knowing what he is talking about. So, based on my poking around and without reading the paper, I am not prepared to give any credence to it at all. I don't have the desire to read it nor do I have the background to be able read it and appreciate it anyways. My feeling is that if I truly did have the proper background, I would be able to poke so many holes through it that it would be beyond a Swiss cheese. I am prepared to filter it out ahead of time without doing a full investigation into it as pseudoscience junk. You can call it a qualified prejudgment of your linked paper if you want to. Dumped: May I also add my thanks for the input Killer of Giants.
When our minds become loaded down with all manner
of "accepted knowledge" a return to simplicity is often
all that is needed to break us out of a loop of circular
thinking and spinning wheels...
The great lengths that are gone to in defense of long
held beliefs in order to postpone admission of error
is somewhat amusing. I advise you to think critically about where the potential multiple sources of error are and who is believing what and what "accepted knowledge" you are talking about. Just because something is "alternative" doesn't necessarily mean that it's true or right. MileHigh
|
feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
Author
Topic: Ether - Does it Exist? (Read 154939 times)
