Nope, Gold was actually competent. Cahill is not. His paper was demolished elsewhere for basic errors- like no error bars and incorrect error analysis.
Do you have a URL for this or are you basing your claim on hearsay? When I searched I found a guy from Lucent saying that Cahill's take on the MMX (done in 1887 I think) was flawed because the error bars were too big - fair enough if so. But to claim that a guy's incompetent for the size of the error bars on someone else's experiment doesn't to me look reasonable. Its not as if that paper depended on those results - if its the one I think it is, he went into much much greater detail on Dayton Miller's later work.
there is also the marketplace of products, processes, and profit making companies
if exploiting a "suppressed" idea would result in profit there are high risk investors and they really don't care about anything but real world results
even DARPA and SBIR fund some fairly "alternative" areas of research
of course I wouldn't place much weight on commercial success in High End audio as a measure of the "truth" behind say Bybee quantum purifiers
"If ... Voudoun blessings delivered results corporations and the military would be hiring Voudoun priests by the tens of thousands, own chicken factory farms... "
if exploiting a "suppressed" idea would result in profit there are high risk investors and they really don't care about anything but real world results
even DARPA and SBIR fund some fairly "alternative" areas of research
of course I wouldn't place much weight on commercial success in High End audio as a measure of the "truth" behind say Bybee quantum purifiers
"If ... Voudoun blessings delivered results corporations and the military would be hiring Voudoun priests by the tens of thousands, own chicken factory farms... "
Last edited:
Yes, I know the 'this is how science has been going down the wrong path for the past 100 years' stuff is just editorial gloss, not experimental results. But that's understandable as its not a mainstream journal he's writing for - the readership presumably like that kind of commentary. I don't let it get to me as his ideas are really rather exciting, but I can easily understand how others would find it off-putting.
Did Tommy Gold give you this rule of thumb or if not, how did you derive it? Oh, and you last time didn't tell me how to define a crank, you just linked to a Wikipedia article. That just set out some characteristics of people called cranks by some but didn't give any kind of definition.
I'm a Brit. We're quite famous for them.
Or, more likely, considering the contents of some historical documents, it is due to these memberships in secret (and not so secret) societies that they have these agendas to begin with, though the shaping may be so subtle that the elite cadre of offenders aren't overtly aware of that influence other than in a general abstract way.
But Josephson's "clear statement" is very rightly "misunderstood" by Mr.Catt, as it describes the charge at conductor B not as occuring in contradiction of Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnatism, but instead as an action created (on the conductor's surface" by a series of "nudging" actions by electrons nudging each other in a kind of domino effect, so that in the conductor one electron is introduced into the conductor and nudges another which nudges another ad infinitum untill finally the end-of-the-line electron is nudged and displaced off of the conductor.
Though the "misunderstanding" seems to have been published as early as 1998 in the IEE
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A DIFFICULTY IN ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Arnold Lynch and Ivor Catt[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Arnold Lynch and Ivor Catt[/FONT]
the IEE hasn't appeared to be in any rush to eliminate the controversy by showing the problem to be a comprehension limitation on Catt's part.
Catt explains his "confusion" as follows in this excerpt from the above referenced IEE publication:
Catt explains his "confusion" as follows in this excerpt from the above referenced IEE publication:
That would be a subject I'm not profficient in.
That doesn't mean to say that I can not understand that Mr.Catt has exposed a major flaw in EM Theory.
Nor would I insist that Catt's theory is correct.
However, I will propose that even if Catt's theory is flawed itself, that would not necessarily lead to any implications dismissing any arguments made alluding to the general suppression of science.
Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions
Predicted fundamental force strengths, all observable nuclear particle masses, and cosmology from a simple causal mechanism of vector boson exchange radiation, based on the existing mainstream quantum field theory
Unified field theory
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook.htm
A scholarly compilation of papers on the subject by various PHD's scattered around the planet: (PDF format)
Against the Tide
This "nudging" is a fundamentally flawed way to look at conduction and leads nowhere.
haven't learned much about physics, but following the 'crank' links I came across this interesting read (It hasn't allayed my apprehensions about my competence though )
http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=883&fileName=Psych.20090100004_39584049.pdf
)http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=883&fileName=Psych.20090100004_39584049.pdf
The big trouble I see in all the secret science ideas is the people doing the suppression are having to live in a crippled world where their own quality of life is being diminished because the rest of the world can't use it. Gain = -0. Nobody does nothing for nothing. Unless you think the "people" doing the supression are The Martians, or similar, it doesn't make sense. The fact that it just doesn't work seems a heck of a lot more likely.
I read the summary and realised the research must have been done in USA. Where I train its the other way around - most students' ability exceeds their self-evaluation.
You just claimed 'nobody does nothing for nothing' - but why did you post this?
Because I think it's a little embarrassing that for all the billions of people who would do anything so long as they don't have to suffer the consequences there are some who believe that a profoundly useful theory or technology could survive unexploited by man any longer than some easily comprehensible number of years. If there is a group of People capable of conspiring on such a scale as to either forego the technological advances themselves or even use them without being discovered for dozens to hundreds (thousands?) of years there's probably good reason. However, you have to admit, it plain old doesn't work is brutally more likely.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.