Damned / Rejected Science (Miscellaneous)
- Thread starter almond13
- Start date
No, I’m sure that they wouldn’t and there is a good reason for this. I have other such examples that have been tested by modern methods and were found not to work. The reason for this in at least one case was because they thought they were replicating the experiment but weren’t actually doing so. This was pointed out, but was ignored and a null result maintained. Another more up-to-date example was the replication of the cold fusion experiment at MIT where the results were altered. I suggest you look at Google video “It Runs on Water” where a technology is actually being marketed and is up and running and still being denied by scientists. You will hear one of them say that there is no theory for this and therefore nothing to study.
I still do not understand this paranoid attitude to modern science Almond. You seem to view 'scientist' as some kind of collective organism out to refute anything that doesn't fit into their world view.
This certainly does not hold true for academics I know - they have dedicated their lives to increasing understanding of the universe around else and readily accept new concepts that are more than ill-informed speculation or the modern snake-oil.
If science was the barrier to progress I'm sure we wouldn't be communicating the way we are at the moment.
This certainly does not hold true for academics I know - they have dedicated their lives to increasing understanding of the universe around else and readily accept new concepts that are more than ill-informed speculation or the modern snake-oil.
If science was the barrier to progress I'm sure we wouldn't be communicating the way we are at the moment.
Timble2
Imaginary Person
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6,047
- Location
- In a Liminal Zone
Another view of some and dammed/rejected science and technology.
THE KEELY MOTOR COMPANY
Link is dead. The MIA webpage can be accessed at the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20061105053948/http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/keely/keely.htm
The Museum of Unworkable Devices
Link is dead. The MIA webpage can be accessed at the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20061105053948/http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/keely/keely.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
eburacum
Papo-furado
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,813
Crosse, Weeks and Faraday probably were infested with Acari mites back in those far off unhygenic days, and contaminated their samples themselves. In some ways it is a good thing that those experiments fail nowadays; it implies that hygiene has improved.
As far as this goes;
I would suggest that you are wasting your time looking into energy-for- nothing tech; it is all shite, and almost all deliberate fraud (the rest of it is explained by honest mistakes). If one- just one device really produced over-unity energy we could make millions of them, and produce enough energy to (say) move the Earth into interstellar space and live in the infinite dark, growing crops by artificial light powered by over-unity energy.
I submit to you that this will never happen.
As far as this goes;
My sweet, that video dates from 1995; none of those technologies have been confirmed to produce over-unity energy in the intervening eleven years, and Stan Meyer was eventually prosecuted for fraud.
I would suggest that you are wasting your time looking into energy-for- nothing tech; it is all shite, and almost all deliberate fraud (the rest of it is explained by honest mistakes). If one- just one device really produced over-unity energy we could make millions of them, and produce enough energy to (say) move the Earth into interstellar space and live in the infinite dark, growing crops by artificial light powered by over-unity energy.
I submit to you that this will never happen.
“”If science was the barrier to progress I'm sure we wouldn't be communicating the way we are at the moment.
The internet......””
I think that I’ve already mentioned that the (electronic) computer was invented by a Post Office engineer, at his own expense after being rejected by science. This is typical of most history changing innovative events. The transistor that is its basis today has a strange history, in that the picture of the original that has been on show for all these years is an early microwave device. The inventor never noticed - in 50 years is it?
“”What's your take on N-rays almond? Suppressed or tosh?””
Hi Timble2, I don’t have an opinion on that - yet.
Another view of some and dammed/rejected science and technology.
THE KEELY MOTOR COMPANY
The Museum of Unworkable Devices””
I have never given support to ‘perpetual machines’, as running with no power source is impossible. However, the phrase is applied to machines that science is not prepared to investigate and I’d need to make a list. Dale Pond has studied Keelys’ motor and says that it works.
http://www.svpvril.com/
You will see that Keely laid out an atomic physics, years before science and its frighteningly similar to the modern one.
His motors seem to have run on cavitation driven by the water-hammer effect, but that’s an opinion so don’t quote me. Both of these are well know to science, but never used for anything useful. Science seems to be opposed to anything useful.
“”If one- just one device really produced over-unity energy we could make millions of them, and produce enough energy to (say) move the Earth into interstellar space and live in the infinite dark, growing crops by artificial light powered by over-unity energy.
I submit to you that this will never happen.””
-
I don’t think that I’ve ever mentioned “over unity”, but its an interesting concept that’s not at odds with scientific theory.
Now if you would care to look for the reason that Teslas’ funding was withdrawn at Wardencyffe, I think you will find it was because of problems with metering and not viability? You can’t stick a meter on something that comes out of the blue, especialy if you happen to live in a third world country.
“”By July 1904, Morgan (and the other investors) finally decided they would not provide any additional financing. Morgan also encouraged other investors to avoid the project. Wiki””
Morgan funded it because he thought it was a radio transmitter, while Tesla intended to supply the world with inexpensive power. As a direct consequence of Morgans actions, Tesla went bust.
The internet......””
I think that I’ve already mentioned that the (electronic) computer was invented by a Post Office engineer, at his own expense after being rejected by science. This is typical of most history changing innovative events. The transistor that is its basis today has a strange history, in that the picture of the original that has been on show for all these years is an early microwave device. The inventor never noticed - in 50 years is it?
“”What's your take on N-rays almond? Suppressed or tosh?””
Hi Timble2, I don’t have an opinion on that - yet.
Another view of some and dammed/rejected science and technology.
THE KEELY MOTOR COMPANY
The Museum of Unworkable Devices””
I have never given support to ‘perpetual machines’, as running with no power source is impossible. However, the phrase is applied to machines that science is not prepared to investigate and I’d need to make a list. Dale Pond has studied Keelys’ motor and says that it works.
http://www.svpvril.com/
You will see that Keely laid out an atomic physics, years before science and its frighteningly similar to the modern one.
His motors seem to have run on cavitation driven by the water-hammer effect, but that’s an opinion so don’t quote me. Both of these are well know to science, but never used for anything useful. Science seems to be opposed to anything useful.
“”If one- just one device really produced over-unity energy we could make millions of them, and produce enough energy to (say) move the Earth into interstellar space and live in the infinite dark, growing crops by artificial light powered by over-unity energy.
I submit to you that this will never happen.””
-
I don’t think that I’ve ever mentioned “over unity”, but its an interesting concept that’s not at odds with scientific theory.
Now if you would care to look for the reason that Teslas’ funding was withdrawn at Wardencyffe, I think you will find it was because of problems with metering and not viability? You can’t stick a meter on something that comes out of the blue, especialy if you happen to live in a third world country.
“”By July 1904, Morgan (and the other investors) finally decided they would not provide any additional financing. Morgan also encouraged other investors to avoid the project. Wiki””
Morgan funded it because he thought it was a radio transmitter, while Tesla intended to supply the world with inexpensive power. As a direct consequence of Morgans actions, Tesla went bust.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
Anonymous
Guest
almond13 said:
Almond - that stuff you wrote seems to suggest Morgan was an investor and not a scientist.
Investors, scientists are all humans (so far as we know)
If a human does not want his empire unsurped, he may well do as Morgan did.
:?
feen5
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,350
Wrong. He was not rejected by science but by the War time British Government who didn't believe that it was worth the expence (and despite them being completely wrong they were in the middle of a war and had to spend their money on what they believed were better projects. Hindsight is always a great thing.)
feen5
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,350
No wrong again. Governement officals. They never rejected the idea, rather the time and cost it would take. They felt the money could be spent else where (which is understandable given the world situation at the time) Giving a substantial sum of money to an idea that may not have worked would have been a big risk.
And using a smilie and flipant comment does not take away from the fact that your using this example for science rejecting ideas is just plain wrong. How do you expect people to take your posts seriously when you won't (or can't) accept other posters pulling you up on inaccuracies.
Morgan was very rich and used his money for power to increase his money… Much of his money was accrued using the ideas of Tesla and others. He was himself a “usurper” but with more clout than most. His objection as I have said above was not any suggestion that Teslas' power generation didn’t work, it was because he would have trouble collecting money from it. This was partly in answer to the assertion that low cost power is impossible. The term Free Energy is a little daft as at least the equipment and its upkeep has to be paid for. At the time, Tesla wrote reams of articles not least about the present situation of global warming. He was the first to do so and hence his urgency to find a clean source of energy that the Wardencyffe Project would have provided. The legacy that you see today is the direct result of the Morgans’ of the world protecting their investment.
OK, you’re telling me that the government rejects such things without consulting scientific advisors. If that’s the case then you are right and I’m a twat.
And also on the advice of his science and sales team:
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943. ""
If you think that this is a bad example of crap science and lack of foresight, then stick around - I have better ones. It was written in answer to a question and not really my choice. It does prove the point though, that people suppose that computers are the result of science without bothering to find out the facts. I think that its this that’s got you so pissed off.
A
Anonymous
Guest
almond13 said:
I agree with that wholeheartedly.
A
Anonymous
Guest
almond13 said:
I feel the compulsion to stick my oar in here.
I do not think that Feen was irritated.
I do think that Feen was saying what I was saying - scientists are not necessarily the only ones surpressing science.
Investors may withdraw funding, governments may block patents or confiscate research or findings.
This has been done, and will continue to be done unless I make a couple of things.
1) A perpetual motion machine (may already exist in nature and all I have to do is tap into it)
2) An alternative to electricity - it is high time we got away from this primative energy form and used something better, for many reasons.
3) A way of producing and distributing enough food of high quality, nutritional value and variety that would satisfy the human population in perpetuity without harming natural resources.
Once I do this - then presumably everything will be ok.
In order to make it all work though, I would need to send my designs all over the world via the internet to prevent anybody blocking it.
It would get cult status, then be investigated as Fortean phenomena, and then proven.
Just one problem stands in my way - I am not a genius, and my middle name is Mud.
feen5
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,350
I was making a point that you shouldn't be using examples that don't stand up. Maybe the government did have scientific advisours saying that it was not worth the money but that was not because they did not believe the idea but because they could not justify the cost. I can't understand how you cannot see the difference.
For example if Tesla had said that he had schematics for a device that could go faster than light but that it would cost the entire worlds combined budget for the next 50 years to build would you say that scientists are rejecting the science because governments refused to build it? No you wouldn't so using Tommy Flowers as an example of science being rejected is just plain wrong on the same principles. The government had legitmate concerns about spending a large sum of money on the project simple as that.
And the next example is also a bad one. At the time computers were huge enormously expensive items so maybe there was only a market for 5 computers. It was bad foresight thats all. It was scientific breakthroughs in computing that allowed Mr Watson to be proved wrong. As far as i can see that is not science rejecting ideas at all. In fact it was further scientific breakthroughs that lead to the explosion in computer technology.
[/quote]It does prove the point though, that people suppose that computers are the result of science without bothering to find out the facts. I think that its this that’s got you so pissed off.
For example if Tesla had said that he had schematics for a device that could go faster than light but that it would cost the entire worlds combined budget for the next 50 years to build would you say that scientists are rejecting the science because governments refused to build it? No you wouldn't so using Tommy Flowers as an example of science being rejected is just plain wrong on the same principles. The government had legitmate concerns about spending a large sum of money on the project simple as that.
And the next example is also a bad one. At the time computers were huge enormously expensive items so maybe there was only a market for 5 computers. It was bad foresight thats all. It was scientific breakthroughs in computing that allowed Mr Watson to be proved wrong. As far as i can see that is not science rejecting ideas at all. In fact it was further scientific breakthroughs that lead to the explosion in computer technology.
[/quote]It does prove the point though, that people suppose that computers are the result of science without bothering to find out the facts. I think that its this that’s got you so pissed off.
You are absolutely right, but the thread is about science. I notice that you don’t mention the international law that can confiscate anything that may be of use to the military.
Someone told me in the seventies that they had an idea for radio communications that scanned up and down the bands and could only be received by something that could synchronise. The idea was confiscated apparently for just this reason. I think that something similar is in use today.
There is no need for anything like this in science as the very rules that govern it are sufficient to rule out any danger of discovering anything new. Your “natural perpetual motion machine” wouldn’t be considered because there is no existing theory to cover it and the laws of thermodynamics say it can’t exist. You would be ridiculed and called a crank…
Heckler
The unspeakable mass
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2004
- Messages
- 5,232
almond13 said:
But isn't the point of 'science' to produce replicatable results and have them reviewed by peers?
No doubt if you stuck a website up and just claimed you'd created just such a machine, the ridicule would come not just from scientists but from most people. Advances are made with replication of results that disprove a previous explanation that are available for peer scientists to review.
As I recall, Flowers paid for it out of his own pocket and as an engineer myself I don’t think his bank account would stretch the National Debt.
""It was scientific breakthroughs in computing that allowed Mr Watson to be proved wrong.""
No, it was Flowers.
""And if you can't see the error in that statement then there really is no hope. If you believe that computers are not the result of science then will you please explain to me what exactly it is the result of?""
Flowers?
""Now before answering your going to have to explain why all the laws of physics, maths, thermodynamics, optics etc etc as well as the work of renowed scientists such as, and every other scientist who contributed in some small way to these fields of science and indirectly to the invention of computers, is wrong.""
I think Newton, Kelvin, Dalton, Boyle are all OK, no problem, but it was Flowers who invented the computer. Are you saying that he used the combined knowledge of all those that contributed to electronics? Yes, I would agree there, but the application of the knowledge in order to produce something like the computer is hardly ever done by a scientist. This is the point I am trying/failing to make. I happen to think that the credit should go to the inventor and not to science in general, because it gives a false impression of who does what.
""Thomas Newcomen (baptised 24 February 1664; died 5 August 1729) was a blacksmith, plumber, and tinsmith by trade, and a Baptist lay preacher by calling. He was born in Dartmouth, Devon, England, near a part of the country noted for a number of tin mines. Flooding was a major problem, restricting the depth at which the mineral could be mined. Newcomen's contribution was to perfect a practicable steam engine for pumping water. In consequence, he is often referred to as a father of the Industrial Revolution, as the inventor of the Newcomen steam engine.
Wiki""
eburacum
Papo-furado
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,813
Without Turing's algorithms Flowers' computer would have been little more than a fancy telephone exchange. As a 'government scientist' Turing certainly didn't hesitate to back Flowers and his little gadget;
mind you, the government rewarded Turing by driving him to suicide eventually.
mind you, the government rewarded Turing by driving him to suicide eventually.
feen5
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,350
No it wasn't Flowers that proved Mr Watson wrong. Tommy Flowers computer came before Mr Watsons comment. It was the work of subsequent scientists and engineerers that proved Mr Watson wrong. The invention of the silicon chip being the biggest reason for the explosion in computing power.
Look i am not totally in disagreement with you (but we are still miles apart almond so don't start posting msgs with hugging smilies just yet). I think you don't help yourself by the you put yourself across. Even your total derision of science seems to be melting slightly in recent times. Your last quote is a perfect eample of the way you should have been putting your point across.
In this i'm in total agreement with you, of course Flowers should get the credit for the invention but as you have pointed out he could not have done it without the work of those that have gone before (Scientists). The problem i had with you is that In this and previous threads you have completley derided science and scientists and never given them any of the credit at all.
A
Anonymous
Guest
almond13 said:
Erm - I think that computers were formlated based on the idea that a machine can react to various electrical currents to produce a given result.
Therefore the process by which machine code was developed and the physical circuits to make use of transistors might have been trial and error.
But what of vacuum tubes and cards?
Don't remember how that might have come about...
Engineering perhaps? Similar number crunching and possibility narrowing process to scientific research...
Perhaps engineering can work in conjunction with science?
Does engineering not require physics and maths as some science does?
As regards my natural perpetual motion machine I was thinking that some things move all the time by themselves, and so can be regarded as natural perpetual motion mechanisms.
Can anybody tell me if a black hole has died? Is it perpetual?
No science to support it...I disagree.
In that last post I suppose you are refering to animals. Well, they are not perpetual motion machines as they recieve energy from outside. What makes a perpetual motion machine special is that it is meant to be a closed system, running continually on energy from within.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2006
- Messages
- 319
Black holes radiate energy (Hawking radiation) so most are actually evaorating.
What about the Faraday chap mucking about with coils of wire and magnets? All very interesting, but what practical use could it have? OK, you move a magnet through a coil of wire and you get a tiny current, but so what?
Bloody scientists, they just tinker about and never come up with anything practical.
What about the Faraday chap mucking about with coils of wire and magnets? All very interesting, but what practical use could it have? OK, you move a magnet through a coil of wire and you get a tiny current, but so what?
Bloody scientists, they just tinker about and never come up with anything practical.