Anyone making broad declarations I would ask about the level of depth they have on the subject. ...
If you were to use your method, you would have to admit that academic theories are the best representations of the universe since they come from those who have the best "level of depth" on the subjects. For example, the scientists defined what electrons or magnetic fields are and all the concepts of physics, and were at the origin of all the technology used today, from electric motors to radio transmitters to nuclear power plants. Just because some free energy joker will play with coils for years, and then produce a bunch of gibberish on the subject, doesn't make it relevant. Almost all free energy people use the words of scientists like "electrons" or "magnetic field" rather than creating their own concepts. They would be unable to do so, and in any case, it would be pointless, as scientific concepts are the most judicious. Those who reject academic science are imitating it, but without understanding it. They should be more modest and study what works before theorising about what doesn't exist. From what I read, neither you nor AC have any facts to support the myths about Tesla, only vague urban legends with no reproducible or measurable results except in the heads of those who believe them. Again: I'm not here to discuss beliefs, only the facts (a fact is a reality, therefore accompanied by evidence) and the logical relationships between them. Do you have any?
---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
|