Thread: Eric Dollard
View Single Post
Old 08-09-2013, 04:34 AM
Tenaus Tenaus is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by madhatter View Post
Versors are also in linear algebra, however given the context and Erics informal education I'd also assume that it's stemmed from quaternions as well. that said though a couple yrs ago there was a discussion on this between me and a couple others on quaternions and Erics stance is that quaternions are nfg.

Early on I took a step back and instead of honing in on the technical irregularities and differences from Eric's notes and works to mainstream physics, I looked at what he was trying to convey, where he was coming from and then set about reading up on the books and references he gave. It was then that I was able to get where he was coming from, the confusion over terms is a roadblock to mainstream science, now weather that's is intentional or just a by product of his autodidact education, I can't say.

For most that are not educated in a formal setting they would never know, for those who have been, present company included, it was honestly at first a bit of a roadblock, sure I could have simply discarded all of it as balderdash and moved past it for technical and prejudicial reasons, but that's not really fair to science when in the case of Eric, the proof is in the pudding with his lab work and hands on experience that has been able to re-create Tesla's work.

It was really for that reason I took a deeper look into what Eric has written and spent some time going over it, there is/was another poster here who's a mathematics professor and we spent a fair amount of time going over his work, took some back and forth correlation to current physics and mathematics but it panned out.

for what it's worth I still hold that quaternions are better suited to the task of the electric field in hyper-dimensional planes.

Well, I don't have much of a problem with the way Eric chooses to word things. The problem here, is that most people who try to look at Eric see him making all these mistakes, but they frustrate themselves because of their own lack of knowledge.

I know a physicist who absolutely refuses to acknowledge anything Eric does because he seems to think that Eric doesn't know any math (because of an apparent mistake he made in one of his presentations), and then he refuses to acknowledge any experiment he does. He gives a WIDE variety of excuses ranging from "the video is poorly done" to "he didn't make sure to reduce statistical noise", and although I understand these claims, that he is making excuses that he is wrong, rather than looking at it objectively, shows that he is letting his opinion get in the way of analysis.

I showed him time and time again how he let himself fall into so many traps, but he refused, insisting that I was childish.

My point in all of this is, because Eric chooses to word things so differently, other people get angry because they don't understand. But these people might not get angry if the issue was recognized.
Reply With Quote