Amazing Tesla experiments! Totally new science

[Cyberdragon]

Yes, that is a fair point...LEDs are harmeless...tesla coils can kill.

How are they 180 degrees out of phase? I thought even in a pure capacitative system the phase difference would be a maximum of 90 degrees.

Ok, I'm gonna stop you right there for mistaking a voltage phase shift for a current phase shift (capacitors shift current 90° in an AC circuit and voltage 180°).

You have shown a DANGEROUS lack of understanding over many posts now, so it's time for a disclaimer.

DO NOT personally experiment with mains or higher voltages! The Dunning-Kruger effect is funny in some other areas but when it comes to electricity IT CAN KILL! Not joking, we've all heard of the Darwin Awards.

[Cerebus]

If we talk about induction, remember that there is electrostatic induction (induced charges due to potential gradients) as well as electromagnetic induction (induced currents due to changing magnetic fields). A dielectric material like glass is not a barrier to electrostatic induction.

A dielectric like glass is transparent to electromagnetic fields but will actively participate in transferring electrostatic fields by induction. An electrostatic field going 'through' a glass plate will induce an opposite charge on the 'out' side, this will generate another field across the glass and that will induce a same value (versus the original field) charge on the 'in' side.

[RandallMcRee]

There is new science being discovered all the time you can find it in places like this site:
www.phys.org or https://www.sciencenews.org/

For example, anyons are fascinating:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01988-0

I find that there are several indicators that anyons are real science;
1) it was predicted in theory some time ago but not confirmed,
2) it has recently been confirmed by experiment
3) it was predicted and confirmed within our existing physical framework.

These three things are missing from the site that the OP asks us to look at. For my part, I cannot even fathom how someone can take that site seriously when the explanation for the phenomena do not even talk about known quantities of physics, like induction, volts, amps, charge etc. etc.

Now the rebuttal could be (seems to be) that the new science is so different that current physics cannot explain it. But there are many good reasons not to take this seriously. First the site shows common equipment --light bulbs, induction coils, etc. that we know can be explained with current physics. So, at the very least, all aspects of the experiment in that regard should be explained on that site using the standard nomenclature--yet that explanation is completely missing. (What? Did the light bulb morph into another dimension where it's behaviour is now completely different?!) If there is actually new science then the site would carefully explain where the jumping off point might be. Instead, the site comes up with completely new terminology for its explanations seemingly without justification. It seems to be a science fiction novel.

[Cerebus]

Party poopers! I'm all for free energy too. 240 euros my last electricity bill, sheesh.

I can sell you a device, which will cut your electricity bills, by 50%, and it really works.

 

I have a simple mechanical device in my living room, that plugged into the electricity supply has, for years, enabled me to 100% shred my electricity bills.

[Deco56]

Yay! Look at us! Let us repeat what our authorities  in the field say! It gives us great confidence to repeat what they said without knowing wtf they are talking about! I can parrot what the "experts" say and claim complete confidence. Then, when they find out they are incorrect I can change my tune immediately when they do so as well and claim complete confidence!

We already know it all! There is nothing new in the universe unless our appointed experts tell us so! Hooray!

Can you tell me why none of you so called engineers know anything about our cutting edge gauge theories, string theories and the like? It's a shame none of you know anything about those theories but claim complete confidence in them. A person with so much confidence but zero direct knowledge is a fool.

I'll leave you with Tesla quote and maybe then you can understand why none of you are string theorists or quantum field theorists (yet claim complete knowledge with absolute confidence):

" Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. "

-Nikola Tesla


If you don't agree, then you should easily be able to explain to me what a Chimerian bundle is in gauge theory and how and why renormilzation was justified in quantum field theory 

*waits for the minions to do various Google searches to parrot the "experts" *

[AVGresponding]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

In this case, proof is lacking in any real form, which is the norm for the oevre.

[joeqsmith]

Yep, a nut job for sure.   

I have to be careful not to play with the trolls too much or Simon may give me another timeout for upsetting the masses.       

[Cerebus]

So throwing around a bunch of areas of study that have not been discussed at all, and claiming that the participants know nothing about them (which you don't and couldn't know) somehow disqualifies everybody from discussing, understanding or criticising the matter at hand?

OK. So, using your logic, you know nothing about operons or chaperone proteins, haven't even studied biochemistry and couldn't tell us about Michaelis–Menten kinetics without Googling it but claim complete confidence in them, which obviously disqualifies you from having an opinion on anything.

Glad we've got that sorted out; I presume that you'll be following your own logic and following Wittgenstein's 7th proposition from the Tractatus and "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."

[BU508A]

Yay! Look at us! Let us repeat what our authorities  in the field say!

[the rest of this stupidness deleted]

Yes, we engineers are following some authorities. These authorities are called the laws of physics, written in the language of mathematics.

And here are some laws for you and even you can not escape them.

1. You can't win. (consequence of first law of thermodynamics)
2. You can't break even. (consequence of second law of thermodynamics)
3. You can't even get out of the game. (consequence of third law of thermodynamics)

[Deco56]

You guys claimed to be the experts by parroting experts. You'll freely reference what they say, but you have no idea what they are talking about or what has been done in the past. Did you know quantum theorists got rid of all sorts of infinities that came out of their equations just because it looked bad?

So you'll quote what the experts say, have no idea what they are talking about or how certain they are, but will pass it off as fool proof and the truth. Quote experts, claim superior knowledge, and change your stance only if the experts agree. Repeat.

     areas of study that have not been discussed at all,   

Edit: we weren't discussing physics? 

[BU508A]

So throwing around a bunch of areas of study that have not been discussed at all, and claiming that the participants know nothing about them (which you don't and couldn't know) somehow disqualifies everybody from discussing, understanding or criticising the matter at hand?

OK. So, using your logic, you know nothing about operons or chaperone proteins, haven't even studied biochemistry and couldn't tell us about Michaelis–Menten kinetics without Googling it but claim complete confidence in them, which obviously disqualifies you from having an opinion on anything.

Glad we've got that sorted out; I presume that you'll be following your own logic and following Wittgenstein's 7th proposition from the Tractatus and "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."

[BU508A]

You guys claimed to be the experts by parroting experts. You'll freely reference what they say, but you have no idea what they are talking about or what has been done in the past. Did you know quantum theorists got rid of all sorts of infinities that came out of their equations just because it looked bad?

So you'll quote what the experts say, have no idea what they are talking about or how certain they are, but will pass it off as fool proof and the truth. Quote experts, claim superior knowledge, and change your stance only if the experts agree. Repeat.

     areas of study that have not been discussed at all,   

Edit: we weren't discussing physics? 

We are experts. But not because we are parroting but we have understood the mathematics and physics behind. Which you are lacking.

And yes: we are discussing physics, because everything is about physics.

[Cerebus]

You guys claimed to be the experts by parroting experts.

I challenge you to quote, using the forum's quote mechanism, the examples of people doing that. When you can't (you do understand what "parroting" means don't you) you should go write 1000 lines like a naughty little schoolboy would have to, because that's the level of your "argument" and your "logic". When you're done give the proctor your 1000 copies of "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."

Right, I'm gonna go and hit the "ignore topic" button, and I suggest everybody else does as well and leave the little man to talk to himself - which is all he's been doing all along anyway, desperately trying to distract from hearing that little voice inside that's trying to tell him the truth.

[Cerebus]

And yes: we are discussing physics, because everything is about physics.

The physicists at college used to love winding up the chemists and biochemists by saying something like "Oh well, that's just a tiny sub-branch of the whole of physics". (The usual response was "Well, perhaps. But we've got girlfriends and have had actual sex.")

[Deco56]

We are experts. But not because we are parroting but we have understood the mathematics and physics behind. Which you are lacking.

If you're the expert, let's see your published research papers then 

I challenge you to quote, using the forum's quote mechanism, the examples of people doing that. When you can't (you do understand what "parroting" means don't you)

This is possibly the easiest thing I had to do all day...

There is new science being discovered all the time you can find it in places like this site:
www.phys.org or https://www.sciencenews.org/

For example, anyons are fascinating:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01988-0

If quoting some authority as to what is new in physics isn't parroting then I don't know what is....

Notice he says you can find new things are these authoritative sites, no where else!

Edit: Can someone please explain to me why quantum theorists chose to arbitrarily get rid of the infinities that came out of their sacred equations in a process called renormalization ?

[Cyberdragon]

You guys claimed to be the experts by parroting experts.

I challenge you to quote, using the forum's quote mechanism, the examples of people doing that. When you can't (you do understand what "parroting" means don't you) you should go write 1000 lines like a naughty little schoolboy would have to, because that's the level of your "argument" and your "logic". When you're done give the proctor your 1000 copies of "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."

Right, I'm gonna go and hit the "ignore topic" button, and I suggest everybody else does as well and leave the little man to talk to himself - which is all he's been doing all along anyway, desperately trying to distract from hearing that little voice inside that's trying to tell him the truth.

He is acting exactly like a child that refuses to behave in class.

Mods, can we get a block user button as well? Before he proliferates like a weed (or hopefully he just gets banned).

[Deco56]

Those who disagree must be silenced!

[Cyberdragon]

Those who disagree must be silenced!

Indeed. MODS, lock this thread!