• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates on Sunday 10th November 2024.
    Little to no downtime is expected.
  • We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Aether Science

Aha, but the main thing driving Ghostisfort's argument is that this is not the case ;)
 
Once again my return to topic is unheeded, but we will continue as long as no one else accuses me of not giving evidence for aether theory.

In fact, thinking about it, Keely is a prime example of a latter-day Faraday.

Keely's motors were inspected by countless engineers and scientists of the day who never found a shred of evidence of fraud.

He formulated an atomic theory very like the standard theory we use today, although it was some ten years in advance. Strange behaviour for a confidence trickster.

http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/ ... plishments

Maybe we could examine the evidence found on debunking sites and see if any of it is true?

Clues to the origin of the Keely debunking can be found here:

http://keelynet.com/keely/danart1.txt

Also Wilbert B. Smith is certainly a candidate, as he outlined a whole new approach to science that has never seen the light of day.

http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/newsci~1.htm

If we include Tesla, we have three candidates for self-taught (Faraday's), the three being self-taught by their own experiments and subsequently ignored and debunked by the establishment.

Being part of the scientific establishment was no help to Tesla or Smith, both were "sidelined".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm - none of them seem comparable to Faraday and his work. Keely isn't modern, as such. Tesla always gets banded about but was not really excluded. And Smith's stuff is conjectural. Your argument still needs to show individuals more like Faraday in scope to really cut it as a support for your argument.
 
Faraday is just one of the people who have been awarded a superstar status by academia. In the contemporary report below he gives credit for his experiments to a Padre Bancalari (see link below). Academic self-history is somewhat unreliable, revision being permanently in vogue.

GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE. MDCCCLI.

Nov. 28. The Bakerian Lecture was
delivered by Professor Faraday, illus-
trated by experiments. After alluding
to the experiments of Padre Bancalari,
the lecturer showed the opposite magnetic
oondition of oxygen and nitrogen ; the
former, when indosed in a bubble of
glass, is always attracted by the magnet,
the latter repelled. In common with iron
and some other metals, oxygen loses its
magnetism on the application of heat, and
regains it on again becoming cold. In
this fact Professor Faraday finds the
cause of the diurnal movements of the
magnetic needles all over the world, as
exhibited at the respective observations,
and he explains the apparent anomalies
which occnr at St. Helena and Singapore
on the hypothesis induced from the whole
of the phenomena. http://www.archive.org/stream/gentleman ... g_djvu.txt

C.1830 Francesco Zantedeschi suggested a connection between light, electricity and magnetism. In 1829 and again in 1830, Zantedeschi published papers on the production of electric currents in closed circuits by the approach and withdrawal of a magnet, thereby anticipating Michael Faraday's classical experiments of 1831..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_ ... xperiments

(Faraday)... similarly discovered electromagnetic induction, diamagnetism, and laws of electrolysis. He established that magnetism could affect rays of light and that there was an underlying relationship between the two phenomena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday

Padre Bancalari (fl. 19th century) was professor of natural philosophy at the University of Genoa.[1] In 1847, he discovered that flames were diamagnetic by showing that there (they) were repulsed by a strong magnetic field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padre_Bancalari

However, the term diamagnetism was coined by Michael Faraday in September 1845, when he realized that all materials in nature possessed some form of diamagnetic response to an applied magnetic field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism
Click to expand...
 
Hmm- that sounds like you're moving the goalposts again. You start off saying that Faraday is a good example, and now you're saying that his work suffers from some hype. Is this an excuse not provide convincing examples of modern people like Faraday?
 
Ghostisfort said:
The press cutting below is in support of Keely by Ackerman, the president of the Keely Motor Company who spent large amounts of money on his motors. Written at a time when Keely was being attacked and besmirched by academics and the press.

Keely was obviously doing valuable work and all of the debunking that occurred at the time and continues to today can be shown to be a complete fabrication.

I posted this on page 3 as a clear example of aether science and technology by Keely.
There has been no discussion what-so-ever on this and little on the subject of aether science itself, apart from what I've contributed myself.
Each example is sidetracked by another topic.

DENIES KEELY WAS AN IMPOSTOR

PRESIDENT OF THE MOTOR COMPANY DEFENDED THE DEAD INVENTOR.

NYT -January 26, 1898 - President B. L. Ackerman of the Keely Motor Company, after a meeting of the Board of Directors of the company held yesterday at the office of the Treasurer of the company at 31 Broad Street, gave out a statement denying the published assertions that compressed air or electricity was the force used by Keely in his much-talked-of motor. The statement claims that the tubes spoken of were discarded by Keely many years ago and that in all his experiments since 1887 solid wires only have been used. Up to that time, it is stated, he was working upon a theory of etheric or vaporic force and used the tubes for the conveyance of this force; but after 1887 he became convinced that he had discovered something still more perfect in what he called vibratory sympathy. It was said that a concealed electric wire was found when Keely's workshop was recently cleared out. This President Ackerman states was the remnant of the wires of a burglar alarm, and was in no way connected with the force used in the Keely motor. The statement reviews at length the various assertions recently made tending to show that Keely was nothing more than a successful impostor, denies all these assertions and declares positively that there was no trickery about any of the results that Keely claimed to have obtained.
http://www.svpvril.com/svpweb6.html
Click to expand...
I can well understand why no one wants to discuss such things considering the amount of debunking that's gone on over the years, all based on false reports by academia.
Click to expand...

The section I've highlighted might explain why no-one bothered to comment on this statement. As I read it, up to 1887, Keely was involved in aetheric research (for want of a better phrase), but after 1887, he abandoned said research to pursue a different path. This, to me at least, doesn't move your argument forward.
 
Jerry_B said:
Hmm- that sounds like you're moving the goalposts again. You start off saying that Faraday is a good example, and now you're saying that his work suffers from some hype. Is this an excuse not provide convincing examples of modern people like Faraday?
Click to expand...
Faraday was a convenient example for the job at the time, but when you insisted that I find someone his equal, I had to point-out that he was not as special as you presume.
The world and his wife were doing electrical research at the time (see rynner's link to the electrical history video) and Faraday was singled out as a superstar for the purpose of academic textbooks.

You will recall we recently looked at Tim Berners-Lee, who received accolades for simply loading someone else's software onto the Cern computer...a star is born?
 
Ghostisfort said:
Faraday was a convenient example for the job at the time, but when you insisted that I find someone his equal, I had to point-out that he was not as special as you presume.
The world and his wife were doing electrical research at the time (see rynner's link to the electrical history video) and Faraday was singled out as a superstar for the purpose of academic textbooks.
Click to expand...

So you're back-tracking. I didn't presume anything about Faraday. He was your nomination as a back-up to your argument. So even if we say that he's still a good example, you still have to come up with modern Faradays who are being excluded.

I suspect, after all, that you can't - hence the backtracking with Faraday so that he's painted now as a somewhat lacking example, and then you can also blame his reputation on academic hype. It seems your argument is not at all cohesive. You set up examples, then move the goalposts when you're caught out not being able to prove your point.

So please just prove it, or at least just admit that your statements are really just your opinions and ideas and not based on actuality. Otherwise we're going to have another thread started by you that goes nowhere because you refuse to engage in constructive discussion with people here.
 
Ghostisfort said:
You will recall we recently looked at Tim Berners-Lee, who received accolades for simply loading someone else's software onto the Cern computer...a star is born?
Click to expand...
No, I don't recall. It's not on this thread. (Perhaps if you didn't keep starting new versions of your main obsession, we wouldn't keep losing the thread...) Are you implying that the WWW wasn't a new idea? Explain please.

Anyhow, he's a computer expert, familiar with Cern and its systems, and no doubt loads of other stuff. So he was ideally placed to see the possibilities of a new combination of hardware and software. And he got a 'K' for it, which isn't the sort of thing they give away with cornflakes boxes.

Or perhaps you've taken against him because he's involved with Artificial Intelligence research? ;)
 
Tim Berners Lee was on the thread before the farewell fantastic venus thread, whatever that was called.

And yes GisF does appear to be saying that the WWW wasn't anything new. I notice though, that he skipped the question about whether lasers are novel post-Tesla discoveries.

BTW the chairman of the Keely Motor Company was bound to defend Keely, people have a great capacity for denying the obvious when they've been conned.
 
You're right GisF (Cheers Timble), I know very little about Keely. However, I don't think I need to, to participate.

The point of the thread is Aether Science and your proposition that since the 'debunking' of said theory and dominance of Einstein et al's theories, there has been a dramatic decline in the development of new technologies. Am I right so far?

I guess I missed the post that explained what Aether is, however, Google is me mate, so I've had a bit of a looksee.

Aether (or ether) is the medium or framework that electrickry [sic] moves through. Keely and Tesla based their experiments in the theoretical framework of Aether

The whole of this technology was theoretically based in the aether theory
Click to expand...
http://www.n-atlantis.com/ether.htm (How ma doin' so far?)

In essence (see what I've done there?) aether is a quasi solid that probably exists, although as yet, has not been isolated and measured. Or, aether is what's left in a vacuum.

Relativity and Special relativity don't necessarily debunk aether theory, they just don't need it to function.

I have to say, I'd not come across aether theory prior to this thread, but it does seem a tad similar to dark matter/flow theory. Y'no, quasi solid, unmeasured, unisolated, probably full of 20 odd different bits, what's left in a vacuum, the bits n bobs between matter, the stuff being looked for at CERN?

To deny the ether is ultimately
to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever.
Click to expand...
SIDELIGHTS ON RELATIVITY

By Albert Einstein

Contents

ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY

An Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/slrtv10.txt

MY big question is this then...

If a substance has no measurable properties, how can the conclusion that a technology is dependant upon said substance be true?
 
Jerry_B said:
So you're back-tracking. I didn't presume anything about Faraday. He was your nomination as a back-up to your argument. So even if we say that he's still a good example, you still have to come up with modern Faradays who are being excluded.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that this is what this thread is all about? With the ending of aether theory, there is no more research by "the world and his wife".
This is exactly what I've been saying from the start of the thread. The very attraction of Einstein's theories to physicists is that no one knows what they are talking about. A disincentive to would-be inventors and a bar to would-be investors. So that never again would there be a Keely or a Tesla.
 
Ghost, maybe you accidentally skipped over CultJunky's very interesting question at the end of the last page.

If a substance has no measurable properties, how can the conclusion that a technology is dependant upon said substance be true?
Click to expand...
 
Still not working.
A search doesn't yield the appropriate text file.
Odd.
 
I had a most useful conversation with a good friend of mine today. He used to be a radio operator for the Dutch merchant fleet. If you want to know the shortcomings of Tesla's broadcast power experiments, ask someone with a good grounding in electronics and radio, who spent a good few years sitting in a metal radio hut on board ship, surrounded by high tension radio equipment.

As to Keely, I'm sure more Keely's will turn up, with, or without, five ton metal spheres, used to contain compressed air, hidden in their basements.
 
Timble2 said:
Tim Berners Lee was on the thread before the farewell fantastic venus thread, whatever that was called.

And yes GisF does appear to be saying that the WWW wasn't anything new. I notice though, that he skipped the question about whether lasers are novel post-Tesla discoveries.

BTW the chairman of the Keely Motor Company was bound to defend Keely, people have a great capacity for denying the obvious when they've been conned.
Click to expand...
Yes, indeedee, when the insults start to come, thick and fast, I know I'm on to something.
If you consider, TBL had to have a version of the Internet to load his software onto. And, it was a ruddy child, cooing and chuckling at all the porn and the forums. The very first versions used the teletype systems and the FAX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... nd_an_ARPA
(It was) 1945, when Vannevar Bush wrote an article in The Atlantic Monthly called "As We May Think", about a futuristic device he called a Memex. Starting in 1963, Ted Nelson developed a model for creating and using linked content he called "hypertext" and "hypermedia" (first published reference 1965. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext#History
Click to expand...
Theodor (Ted) Holm Nelson (born June 17, 1937) is an American sociologist, philosopher, and pioneer of information technology. He coined the terms "hypertext" and "hypermedia" in 1963 and published it in 1965. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nelson
Click to expand...
The Internet Protocol Suite resulted from research and development conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the early 1970s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol_Suite

DNS-Domain Name System
"At the request of Jon Postel, Paul Mockapetris invented the (DNS) Domain Name System in 1983 and wrote the first implementation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_system
Click to expand...
"Dr. Paul V. Mockapetris ( Engineer) is the inventor of the Domain Name System...In 1983, he proposed a Domain Name System (DNS) architecture in RFCs 882 and 883 while at the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) of the University of Southern California."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Mockapetris
Click to expand...
It seems that TBL loaded the software and invented the WWW letters. But I'm keeping an eye on that one. Remember that by loading software, I mean putting a disk in the drive and letting it run. Just like when we update our security.
If there's a K in it, then everyone who loads their own software deserves one.

In Berners Lee's own words: "I just had to take the hypertext idea and connect it to the Transmission Control Protocol and domain name system ideas and ta-da! the World Wide Web." Roll-up and read it for yourselves folks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee
He's so modest, but good luck to him if he can get away with it!
 
Ghostisfort said:
In Berners Lee's own words: "I just had to take the hypertext idea and connect it to the Transmission Control Protocol and domain name system ideas and ta-da! the World Wide Web." Roll-up and read it for yourselves folks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee
He's so modest, but good luck to him if he can get away with it!
Click to expand...

Not quite...TBL created the first web browser and first web server software. He brought together various technologies to create the WWW. This meant that it was a lot easier to find stuff on the Internet. Before, 'the Internet' was a lot of separate bulletin board services with lots of different ways of accessing information (it was anarchy, pretty much).
 
Cultjunky said:
You're right GisF (Cheers Timble), I know very little about Keely. However, I don't think I need to, to participate.

The point of the thread is Aether Science and your proposition that since the 'debunking' of said theory and dominance of Einstein et al's theories, there has been a dramatic decline in the development of new technologies. Am I right so far?
Click to expand...
You seem to have the idea sewn-up.
It may come as a shock to the purists on this thread, but prior to Einstein, aether was historically taken for granted by most scientists...it was an assumption with no seeming escape. The basic was that if light waved, it had to have something to wave in.
*In essence (see what I've done there?) aether is a quasi solid that probably exists, although as yet, has not been isolated and measured. Or, aether is what's left in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
Tesla said that it was an ultra-dense fluid, but you're doing fine. Being so incredibly dense infers faster than light travel of waves, like the theoretical super dense star structures.
Relativity and Special relativity don't necessarily debunk aether theory, they just don't need it to function.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but, technology based on aether does need it when an inventor tries to sell his wares and this is why we don't get cheap energy.
I have to say, I'd not come across aether theory prior to this thread, but it does seem a tad similar to dark matter/flow theory. Y'no, quasi solid, unmeasured, unisolated, probably full of 20 odd different bits, what's left in a vacuum, the bits n bobs between matter, the stuff being looked for at CERN?
Click to expand...
"Dark matter/flow theory" ZPE and even Dirac's Ocean etc. are aether by the back-door, because physics cannot function without it.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
I had a most useful conversation with a good friend of mine today. He used to be a radio operator for the Dutch merchant fleet. If you want to know the shortcomings of Tesla's broadcast power experiments, ask someone with a good grounding in electronics and radio, who spent a good few years sitting in a metal radio hut on board ship, surrounded by high tension radio equipment.

As to Keely, I'm sure more Keely's will turn up, with, or without, five ton metal spheres, used to contain compressed air, hidden in their basements.
Click to expand...
Fort had something to say about hiding things in the cellar and how impossible it was, what with meter readers and nosey milkmen.
A pressure vessel needs a very noisy compressor and such was not found.
 
Ghostisfort said:
I was under the impression that this is what this thread is all about? With the ending of aether theory, there is no more research by "the world and his wife".
This is exactly what I've been saying from the start of the thread. The very attraction of Einstein's theories to physicists is that no one knows what they are talking about. A disincentive to would-be inventors and a bar to would-be investors. So that never again would there be a Keely or a Tesla.
Click to expand...

Wow - you are back-tracking. You said previously that you could cite some examples of excluded modern-day Faradays. Now you seem to be saying that there aren't any because they've been disincentivised by the ideas of that nasty Einstein chap and his acolytes.
 
Well, now I know I'm singing from the same hymn sheet as you. :)

However, the Ducks not too happy about the use of fine and dense in the same paragraph.

I have oodles of questions, but I don't want to take the thread off on a tangent, so I'll wait for you to answer my first one and see where that takes us.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Ghostisfort said:
In Berners Lee's own words: "I just had to take the hypertext idea and connect it to the Transmission Control Protocol and domain name system ideas and ta-da! the World Wide Web." Roll-up and read it for yourselves folks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee
He's so modest, but good luck to him if he can get away with it!
Click to expand...
Not quite...TBL created the first web browser and first web server software. He brought together various technologies to create the WWW. This meant that it was a lot easier to find stuff on the Internet. Before, 'the Internet' was a lot of separate bulletin board services with lots of different ways of accessing information (it was anarchy, pretty much).
Click to expand...
Quite. GisF seems not to know the difference between the Internet and the WWW. But then, as he's shown before, he doesn't really understand much science or technology anyway. And what's the meaning of this...?
If you consider, TBL had to have a version of the Internet to load his software onto. And, it was a ruddy child, cooing and chuckling at all the porn and the forums.
Click to expand...
Anyhow, the fact that a lot of inventors believed in the ether back in some mythical golden age is not proof it exists. We still await such proof from GisF, together with some concrete examples of how various inventions 'relied on it' to work (assuming they worked as advertised, that is).
...technology based on aether does need it when an inventor tries to sell his wares and this is why we don't get cheap energy.
Click to expand...
This sounds as if the aether is just part of the spiel of a con-artist trying to flog some dodgy idea. And perhaps the reason we don't get cheap energy is not because we no longer believe in the aether, but because the alleged 'cheap energy' machines never worked in the first place.
 
I find the discussion very interesting and highly relevant to Fortean views of science. The reputation of Tesla, the continuing defence of the likes of Keely, by some and the question of the existence of the Luminiferous Aether, are definitely Fortean subjects. For me, it's been an eye opener. For one thing, it now seems even more obvious to me that Tesla's work probably showed diminishing returns in the 20th century, not because shadowy forces were ranged against him, but because his science was wrong. I'm now getting a better understanding of exactly why and where, his science was wrong. Since I'm interested in the history of science, that's very interesting.


Just a reminder. Please keep the discussion on this thread civil and try to avoid name calling and aspersion casting.


P_M
 
rynner2 said:
Not quite...TBL created the first web browser and first web server software. He brought together various technologies to create the WWW. This meant that it was a lot easier to find stuff on the Internet. Before, 'the Internet' was a lot of separate bulletin board services with lots of different ways of accessing information (it was anarchy, pretty much).
Click to expand...
Quite. GisF seems not to know the difference between the Internet and the WWW. But then, as he's shown before, he doesn't really understand much science or technology anyway. And what's the meaning of this...?
Click to expand...
The mystification and glamorisation of simple engineering technology on this forum has reached epidemic proportions.
The http://www has more to do with teleprinters than computers as reading Berners Lee will tell you. Our computer address that we usually see is a number, just like a telephone number as in: 86.143.47.247. Internet Protocol ( IP ) address. He did not create anything, he used already existing technology and I've already given some of the names of those who did complete with links. This includes the most significant improvement Hypertext which gives us the pages we use today rather than the old ones with no formatting and return symbols all down the page.
In 1963, Ted Nelson coined the terms 'hypertext' and 'hypermedia' in a model he developed for creating and using linked content (first published reference 1965[2]). He later worked with Andries van Dam to develop the Hypertext Editing System in 1967 at Brown University. Douglas Engelbart independently began working on his NLS system in 1962 at Stanford Research Institute, although delays in obtaining funding, personnel, and equipment meant that its key features were not completed until 1968. In December of that year, Engelbart demonstrated a hypertext interface to the public for the first time, in what has come to be known as "The Mother of All Demos".

The first hypermedia application was the Aspen Movie Map in 1977. In 1980, Tim Berners-Lee created ENQUIRE, an early hypertext database system somewhat like a wiki. The early 1980s also saw a number of experimental hypertext and hypermedia programs, many of whose features and terminology were later integrated into the Web. Guide, the first significant hypertext system for personal computers, was developed by Peter J. Brown at UKC in 1982. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext
Click to expand...
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
I find the discussion very interesting and highly relevant to Fortean views of science. The reputation of Tesla, the continuing defence of the likes of Keely, by some and the question of the existence of the Luminiferous Aether, are definitely Fortean subjects.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to explore the areas of Tesla science that you seem to think are wrong.
Something is not proven wrong by a hand-waving dismissal as was the case with mainstream science.
All of his technology that was used was found to be of high quality. The fact that other of his discoveries were not used does not automatically disqualify them.

I have to mention about when I was working. I went to a company, as part of my job, that built and serviced electrical generators Having been there a few weeks became friendly with the guy who serviced customers older equipment.

I asked him if he had come across a bladeless turbine, the type Tesla invented. He immediately recalled that they did service one or two and eventually was able to show me drawings of a Tesla bladeless.

He said it worked as well as any other turbine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top