If one example can be found, it means there will definitely be more. And, if Whittle’s ideas had not been ignored the first time around, the whole picture of WWII would have changed, and who knows where we would be now? I hope you are not suggesting J.K.Rowlings writing could have the same influence?
Those are waves in the electron field, not the photon field. “Electromagnatic” is a misnomer.
You’re still not getting the point.
Of every 10,000 interesting technologies that someone wants money to further from prototype stage, probably 9990 never survive the transition to market. (The same with every 10,000 interesting scientific hypotheses.) You can never know which are the ones that will make it in the long run. (You can, however, tell instantly if someone is babbling nonsense.)
Hindsight is a wonderful clarifier of which ones actually make it. The trick is to look at what’s happening around you today, this minute, and know which are good. Can you do that? Neither can anybody else. The world makes its decisions and goes forward because we don’t have second sight. There is only one thing more futile than saying “we should have known” when it comes to technology. All you’re doing is slamming people for not being able to see the future. Unless you have that power, you shouldn’t be accusing others of lacking it.
What’s that one thing more futile? The game of “what if” applied to history. Absolutely utterly a waste of everyone’s time. You can never know what million changes would have resulted from the change you suggest, and so no prediction of what would have happened is worth the photons you waste in the process. (There’s definitely some usefulness to looking at history and learning from it, but that’s almost never how the “what if” game is played.)
I understand and accept your point, but I think you are missing mine. Whittle’s ideas were rejected not because of lack of merit, but because the person he showed them to had a vested interest in not accepting them. I’m not scientifically equipped to deal with Bearden’s claims, and I doubt many on this forum are, but there might be those on here who DO understand him, and are opposed for the wrong reasons! Human nature being what it is, and all that!
(Soz about repeating the post!)
No, he’s a crank, the fields doesn’t exist and you’d be better off reading the suggested “scientific paper”. It at least has a drinks section.
Instead I recommend the electric sun theory. Far more likely.
Well, it may be true that some great ideas are rejected at first, by a sizeable part of the scientific community, but that doesn’t lend any more credence to the next person piping up with some ‘revolutionary’ idea – the ratio of kooks to geniuses is a pretty big number, so that with anyone claiming to upset the whole scientific framework as we know it (or even just a part of it), one is probably on the safe side to assume that it’s just another nutcase, rather than another Einstein. Besides, if a controversial theory turns out to be right, it’ll usually assert itself in time – think of continental drift, for example.
In other words, if one kook proves to be a misunderstood genius, this doesn’t (and can’t!) have any bearing on the likelihood for the next kook to be right; reasoning along the lines of ‘nobody believed x, but x turned out to be right, and nobody now believes y, so y might be right, too’ is outright fallacious. Every idea, concept, or theory has to stand or fall on its own merits, and, in the case of Bearden, those merits are definitely few and far between, if, indeed, there are any.