I don't know about the Tesla case but sometimes it's not about money. The details aren't coming to me but wasn't Thermodynamics held back for decades by the academic insistence heat exchange entailed a transfer of 'substance'? Decoding Mayan script certainly was slowed, the pre-eminent authority's interpretation of the hieroglyphics blocked the correct answer for a generation. Heck, on a tangential point I was reading recently a theory that universities driven to produce the students businesses wanted naturally tailored theory taught to business orthodoxy, a prime reason 'no one could see' the impending market meltdown.
At the end of the day the practice of science is still a human endevour. Science's staggering advantage is that it eventually overcomes even scientists.
Not much there, the Finnish funeral doom metal band looked interesting. Who would have guessed how many kinds of doom metal there were.
I hope you don't mean I'm being derisive! As well, if the OP were to get any form of cancer and begin using every combination of salt and soda he could come up with, I and people of like mind certainly woudn't be his main problem.
At every step of the way in human advance people that are unsure of the limitations are going to suspect that they may be easily overcome. I remember when I thought high performance audio amps should be cheap as any other, and that I could make them cheap. Well first I discovered that it couldn't be done cheap, and then that I could couldn't do it anyway. Without the programs that became freely availble on the internet in the last couple of years, I still wouldn't have any idea.
I don't know anything about aether. Apparently nobody else really does either.
At every step of the way in human advance people that are unsure of the limitations are going to suspect that they may be easily overcome. I remember when I thought high performance audio amps should be cheap as any other, and that I could make them cheap. Well first I discovered that it couldn't be done cheap, and then that I could couldn't do it anyway. Without the programs that became freely availble on the internet in the last couple of years, I still wouldn't have any idea.
I don't know anything about aether. Apparently nobody else really does either.
Last edited:
I'm going to propose Finnish funeral doom songs for the next fifteen-song album.
John
The big reason for the meltdown of the real estate market was the wishful thinking that real estate prices would rise almost exponentially forever. Unfortunately big companies like AIG ended up holding the hot potato. The orthodoxy is fine, but fantastic evaluations of securities won't hold up under any circumstances.
John
The orthodoxy is not fine - it says, as per Wikipedia on money that money is 'a store of value'. That's been cobblers ever since the Gold standard was abandoned.
The gold standard was abolished because it was exacerbating the Depression. I think we should move to the Western Electric Tube Standard.
John
Ah, terminological inexactitude
. I was actually thinking of Nixon's decree in 1971 here which ended the formal link between the dollar and gold.Nixon Shock - Wikipedia
Hi, I don't know how to wrangle this qoute Thang,
quote from jlsem
"That idea flies in the face of reason when you consider how much profit Tesla's workable inventions has generated for large corporations. If history has taught us anything, it's that in America if an idea has any possible chance to make money, money will be made."
Me below
Who invents and who profits???
The old story about a car that runs on water was true, when you can now buy a hydrogen converter for your car???
I remember seeing a Outer Limits episode or? about that.
I wandered into a website a while ago, when the gas prices were up, that talked about a guy that made powerboats. His gang wanted to see if he could run a speedboat on hydrogen. They fingered out how to make a fast converter and got a fast two v8 engines boat running.
Next thang that haps is that military and CIA show up....
They were not happy about a possible replacement for gas...
I have fuel books for race cars as I was into Hot Rods etc. and most race cars, mostly Grand Prix, have run alcohol since the 1930's due to low octane of the gas back then.
Germans had synthetic fuel..
I can try and find the site and post the urrl later.
But again, the inventors of much science, are not the profiteers, like the electricity traders that ransacked CA (I live in Sandy Eggo)
I have a old order book for mouser that has years of ordering parts etc. so I know the sales gang at Mouser pretty well.
When the trading power fracus happened, Mouser left CA except for a sales office down in El of the Cajons. I now have to get any parts from outside CA, except for a few places here.
I have another book, by Frank Herbert, 1966 or so, two stories, one is called "The Eyes of Heisenburg" and the other story is called "The Rose".
The story is about a future where no experiments are allowed because someone might prove reality false and the whole world fall apart.
So this one guy makes a perfect prism, and causes one photon to slow down and reality changes to the original world before the bad guys.
In "The Eyes of Heisenburg", all births are controlled by the state so everyone is "Designed" to fill needs.
Look here for a wiki on the book.
The Eyes of Heisenberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Read the plot, all about control of science....
I love this thread because after reading Sci-Fi for ages, I have seen all this in Sci-Fi and a lot of area 51 kind of bits and pieces.
The German friends were scientists, and very serious about Tesla.
Tesla invented a fluid turbine also.
Same as a torque converter now on a automatic transmission!
Buck Rodgers and more....
quote from jlsem
"That idea flies in the face of reason when you consider how much profit Tesla's workable inventions has generated for large corporations. If history has taught us anything, it's that in America if an idea has any possible chance to make money, money will be made."
Me below
Who invents and who profits???
The old story about a car that runs on water was true, when you can now buy a hydrogen converter for your car???
I remember seeing a Outer Limits episode or? about that.
I wandered into a website a while ago, when the gas prices were up, that talked about a guy that made powerboats. His gang wanted to see if he could run a speedboat on hydrogen. They fingered out how to make a fast converter and got a fast two v8 engines boat running.
Next thang that haps is that military and CIA show up....
They were not happy about a possible replacement for gas...
I have fuel books for race cars as I was into Hot Rods etc. and most race cars, mostly Grand Prix, have run alcohol since the 1930's due to low octane of the gas back then.
Germans had synthetic fuel..
I can try and find the site and post the urrl later.
But again, the inventors of much science, are not the profiteers, like the electricity traders that ransacked CA (I live in Sandy Eggo)
I have a old order book for mouser that has years of ordering parts etc. so I know the sales gang at Mouser pretty well.
When the trading power fracus happened, Mouser left CA except for a sales office down in El of the Cajons. I now have to get any parts from outside CA, except for a few places here.
I have another book, by Frank Herbert, 1966 or so, two stories, one is called "The Eyes of Heisenburg" and the other story is called "The Rose".
The story is about a future where no experiments are allowed because someone might prove reality false and the whole world fall apart.
So this one guy makes a perfect prism, and causes one photon to slow down and reality changes to the original world before the bad guys.
In "The Eyes of Heisenburg", all births are controlled by the state so everyone is "Designed" to fill needs.
Look here for a wiki on the book.
The Eyes of Heisenberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Read the plot, all about control of science....
I love this thread because after reading Sci-Fi for ages, I have seen all this in Sci-Fi and a lot of area 51 kind of bits and pieces.
The German friends were scientists, and very serious about Tesla.
Tesla invented a fluid turbine also.
Same as a torque converter now on a automatic transmission!
Buck Rodgers and more....
Sure; but isn't that a perfectly reasonable assumption given centuries-old economic dogma that fails to account for constraints imposed by the bounds of a closed system containing finite resources? Doesn't Adam Smith teach that we can just go on mutually increasing each other's worth forever regardless of the amount of gold in reserve? That was a good story but it didn't stop the medieval-spanish-style rush to control the world's resources top-down. I thnk the lesson of the current economic situation is that wealth can not be created out of thin air; it's only a sleight of hand to distract the victims of the pick-pocket. The wealth that was supposedly created and then destroyed was actually stolen from you and I, and replaced by yet another economic fairy tale... (since we're talking conspiricies)
Last edited:
So, in that case, general wave theory must be wrong as a model proposing that a wave moves through a medium without actually moving the medium itself?
Then one of those physicists friends should create a web page offering this explanation and obliging Mr.Catt to provide a link to that rebuttal as he promised so that the controversy that the International Society of Electrical Engineers, which has an admitted duty to resolve, seems unable to fulfill, trapped as they are by the limitations seemingly imposed by "electrons are like ping pong balls lined up analogies" types of restrictions.
I personally read almost all of of Mr Catt's pages on his site that I posted links to, and i couldn't help but consider into my judgement of the validity of his proposals that every time that Catt provided the promised link to any online refutation he also offered reasoning showing why the information provided at that link was flawed, after which time the it seems as if the page was taken down, perhaps to remove an embarrasment to the author of material purporting to show that Catt's observation that the current scientific accepted model of Electomagnetic Theory is fundamentally flawed?
I'm just curious as to how long your friends published scientific proposals might stay online after being subjected to Catt's counter argument, if any...
And, just think of the prestige that would come with finally settling this controversy once and for all. Methinks that a failure to desseminate publicly the knowledge possessed by those physicists which finally clearly and conclusively demonstrate Catt's error renders any explanation offered to you in which you can not understand or provide any details renders these explanations as being of fictional value, especially since readers can only view it as some great mysterious entity that we can't know any details about other than we should have faith here in it's existance based upon a trust by yourself which is in fact faith based in itself.
If there was some type of evidence provided showing that this mysterious explanation was offered to Mr. Catt and he refused to acknowledge same by ignoring his promise to post a link to that evaluation, nor has he made any type of argument against that explanation, well, then, I would not have to have any understanding of the actual explanation itself in evaluating it's validity as probably being correct.
On the other hand, I owe the same type of objective judgement to Mr. Catt, who has at least publicly made his claim which I do not really understand. But, under the standards described here, I don't really have to at this point, since the explanations offered to controvert him have thus far not been able to withstand the responsive scrutiny by Catt.
May I ask you why in a thread I began by asking if science is being suppressed (by scientists themselves, it seems, from information gleaned from links posted by myself which have not been controverted) you would expect me to place any trust at all in an explanation offered by yourself in which you do not understand the details, but you "trust" because it was relayed to you by a group of scientists who seem to be keeping this information to themselves (except from you, of course) as the controversy still rages after quite a few years without benefit of this mysterious explanation that could finally resolve it?
Let me see if I understand this correctly, as I'm not quite sure.
You brought up the subject of the protocols. I responded by explaining that I was not thinking of the protocols when I posted the post that you responded to by inferring that I was referring to the protocols. Additionally, I provided you the information that I did have in mind when I made that post, which you snipped from my quote that you used to imply that I was trolling.
I have at least five years of extensive google archived usenet posting (in my name, at that) in which I do not ever recall being accused of trolling. But then again, I've never engaged in the tactic of conveniently snipping text out of quoted posts that might be adverse to my point(s) being conveyed.
So excuse me if you consider it impolite of me to ask you the nature of the game you claim is being played here, and if it is the trolling game, exactly who is doing the trolling here.
Now I am so very curious as to how your "attack mode" can twist the reality of a document first published in a newspaper in 1903 as being anything other than an historic document!
Would you mind going into that attack mode for me, please?
However, if that "mode" would entail conduct not permitted here I will surely understand if you abstain from the invite.
In that case you could surely explain this "better point" offered by SY, as I am a little challenged comprehensive wise regarding that. The point I got out of that post was him completely ignoring the point I was making that he seemingly was posting a rebuttal to, said point somehow missing from my post that he was quoting in that very "better point" you claim was being made.
Since I am a little slow here, would you mind explaining to me your "point" of view that this "better point" is not upon it's face a disinformation tactic, as this "better point" in no way addresses the actual "point" I posted which was removed from the quote of myself used as material to make this alleged "better point" that I was "trolling?"
Continuing here now since you obviously wish to discuss a subject I never brought up by presenting your offer with the "point" of view implicating that you have knowledge in your possession that takes a derogatory view of my personal views towards the HISTORIC DOCUMENT in question here, in that I find it curious that a historic document published over a hundred years ago planning world conquest is quickly denounced as a forged instrument, yet the circumstances showing that most of the published plans have sequentially taken place during the ensuing century.
Interestingly enough, this superior "point" you claim as being made is also guilty of never addressing the one "point" I did make in regards to the controversial document, this being count two of the indictment npw made against this so called "better point."
Since my research upon this material has me limited to three possible viewpoints, and yours is the "better point" I would like to know exactly what "point" you are promoting here-the conspiracy, or the fiction?
Or, better yet, do you have information offering me a fourth, "better point" of view, or are you just blowing some disinformational smoke?
By the way, do you have anything instructional to say about my original and actual "point" I wished to make here which inspired you to go into attack mode here in the first place, even if my point had nothing to do with the protocols.
That point of course was relevant to thr CRU and the AGW scam, but, more importantly, my primary point was directed at the fact that a handful of influential scientists were able to promote their fraudulent science by restricting the scientific data available to the vast majority of the world's scientific establishment.This elite group of scientists were even able to resist FOI requests for supposedly public documents.
You probably have little to say about the way this bunch used the peer review system to prevent any sceptical view of the AGW hoax of being published in any accredited journals.
But if you do I would invite your commentary explaining also your view of the propriety of using the tactic of just discrediting a scientific journal for the editors sin of publishing an article calling into question the fraudulant hoax being promoted to the not only the planets public citizens, but the global scientific establishment as well.
Would it be proper to consider the "point" that after the referenced journal was discredited that this same elite group of "discreditors" then plotted on how to sustain a course of action so that they would not be again put in a position where it would become necessary to "lose" a credible scientific journal?
Though I may not understand the nature of this so called better point you are referencing here, I hope you by now understand that any point being made by me here in no way based upon a foundation consisting of so little structural support offered by the protocols. I do not even consider the topic necessary for this discussion.
In fact, I would like it to be understood that I consider it a liability to the truth of the matter, as the historic record invites fallecious arguments debating the merits between a conspiracy and a fiction while the true circumstances that might have some merit is pointedly ignored.
So, unless you have some information that does not fall into the catagory of the two fallacies mentioned above, consider these my last words on the subject:
Where, exactly, in any forum whatsoever prior to this particular post now being made, did I ever refer to the protocols as an "historic document?"
But, please, do not forget my request as to how you can view a newspaper article published in a 1903 newspaper as anything other than a historic document?
If it is proven fact that the Reichstag fire was a fraud upon the public* would that make it a non-historic event?
*(Though the author of my provided link may claim otherwise, it is not proved that the protocols are fraudulent. Though he presents enough of the historic record to establish that
his allegation immediately preceding this statement that makes the claim
fails to identify these "fictional texts" and his footnote marked as 30 is not relevant. Though I am aware that the material appears to be a continuation of earlier texts outlining a general plot against humanity, I don't recall viewing them as being fictional. I could probably find that information again and post it for you but it would almost certainly be pointless.
The author concludes with such an insightful truth to this matter that am thus going to make my final words on this subject here a quote of that concluding statement:
For the record now, what do you want to believe?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.