Tesla gave to the world:

- The AC energy generation and distribution grid, that lighten the world,
including long haul transport by using high voltage and local distribution.

- The brushless AC motor/AC generator, which allowed industrialization in
scales never thought before him.

- The tuned radio, which augmented the efficiency of "brute-force" giant sparks. He even conceived the ionosphere as a mean to carry signals worldwide.

- Remote control.

- Hundred of subsystems stand-alone systems using electricity.

He did all of this in 15 years.

Meanwhile, in the same period, Einstein gave the world two relativity theories: the one that's widely used at this forum and the general relativity,
pretending to replace newtonian physics.

Measuring their importance as of today: Who shaped this world?

Tesla or Einstein?

In terms of education, both had more or less the same amount of education.
Only one excelled in mathematics, physics and engineering, ON HIS HEAD,
working COMPLETELY ALONE.

The other required the assistance (documented) of no less than 25 brighter
minds TO DO HIS WORK, which he posed as HIS OWN work, and still is claimed
as the most important scientific ever.

The first has been conveniently buried by the cabal.

El lunes, 25 de abril de 2022 a las 17:47:43 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:
> Tesla gave to the world:

>
> Measuring their importance as of today: Who shaped this world?
>
> Tesla or Einstein?
>

I think you have the wrong comparison. You should confront Tesla to Edison.

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 7:14:51 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

<snip>

> I think you have the wrong comparison. You should confront Tesla to Edison.

I don't think so.

Tesla was a true polymath: experimental physicist, mathematician, engineer, philosopher, poet, humanist and more, who wanted
to be an inventor, make money and give to the world a better life.

Edison was a self-educated inventor, who became a ruthless, merciless businessman. He was an ungrateful SOB, who made
people work for him for pennies, without due rest or compensations. He wanted, with his dirty dozen investors, to rule the new
markets that technologies opened. ALL OF THEM. Curiously, he had a cut in Tesla intellectual growth, while being at Europe.

Even when orders of magnitude above, Tesla's thought processes were close to that of Graham Bell.

It's not for nothing that the fame of Tesla was worldwide, and Einstein did pay tribute to his incredible intellect, when he visited USA.

Have in mind that Tesla did EVERYTHING on his mind, along years and systemically. After he was finished, he filed for a patent.
There are books written by scholars, trying to figure out HOW did Tesla's mind worked. Some say, above genius, like a space alien.

El lunes, 25 de abril de 2022 a las 18:58:13 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 7:14:51 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I think you have the wrong comparison. You should confront Tesla to Edison.
> I don't think so.
>
> Tesla was a true polymath: experimental physicist, mathematician, engineer, philosopher, poet, humanist and more, who wanted
> to be an inventor, make money and give to the world a better life.
>
> Edison was a self-educated inventor, who became a ruthless, merciless businessman. He was an ungrateful SOB, who made
> people work for him for pennies, without due rest or compensations. He wanted, with his dirty dozen investors, to rule the new
> markets that technologies opened. ALL OF THEM. Curiously, he had a cut in Tesla intellectual growth, while being at Europe.
>
> Even when orders of magnitude above, Tesla's thought processes were close to that of Graham Bell.
>
> It's not for nothing that the fame of Tesla was worldwide, and Einstein did pay tribute to his incredible intellect, when he visited USA.
>
> Have in mind that Tesla did EVERYTHING on his mind, along years and systemically. After he was finished, he filed for a patent.
> There are books written by scholars, trying to figure out HOW did Tesla's mind worked. Some say, above genius, like a space alien.

At the end, Edison was more succesful than Tesla, who died almost broke having wasted all his money in not so good inventions . He however, was instrumental in the creation of the Westinghouse company and his main victory over Edison was the use of AC, intead of the DC Edison was pushing on. Edison created General Electric and bought the licenses from Westinghouse to use AC. Both companies continue to exist (with changes of names and directions).

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:18:18 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 25 de abril de 2022 a las 18:58:13 UTC-4, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 7:14:51 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > I think you have the wrong comparison. You should confront Tesla to Edison.
> > I don't think so.
> >
> > Tesla was a true polymath: experimental physicist, mathematician, engineer, philosopher, poet, humanist and more, who wanted
> > to be an inventor, make money and give to the world a better life.
> >
> > Edison was a self-educated inventor, who became a ruthless, merciless businessman. He was an ungrateful SOB, who made
> > people work for him for pennies, without due rest or compensations. He wanted, with his dirty dozen investors, to rule the new
> > markets that technologies opened. ALL OF THEM. Curiously, he had a cut in Tesla intellectual growth, while being at Europe.
> >
> > Even when orders of magnitude above, Tesla's thought processes were close to that of Graham Bell.
> >
> > It's not for nothing that the fame of Tesla was worldwide, and Einstein did pay tribute to his incredible intellect, when he visited USA.
> >
> > Have in mind that Tesla did EVERYTHING on his mind, along years and systemically. After he was finished, he filed for a patent.
> > There are books written by scholars, trying to figure out HOW did Tesla's mind worked. Some say, above genius, like a space alien.
> At the end, Edison was more succesful than Tesla, who died almost broke having wasted all his money in not so good inventions . He however, was instrumental in the creation of the Westinghouse company and his main victory over Edison was the use of AC, intead of the DC Edison was pushing on. Edison created General Electric and bought the licenses from Westinghouse to use AC. Both companies continue to exist (with changes of names and directions).

Did you know that Tesla saved Westinghouse from bankruptcy, during his duel with Edison for Niagara, by ripping off the $ 1 million
document that Westinghouse had signed for part of his patents?

This was about 1895, and Tesla never recovered from that, economically.

In turn, Westinghouse and the company that he left when he died, did pay the hospitality of Tesla in a hotel, plus a monthly allowance
for almost 30 YEARS (1915-1943). And that was the gratitude that Tesla inspired on others.

Even when Westinghouse was a monster company, and long after his founder died, kept paying EVERYTHING that Tesla needed until
his death, after which FBI stormed the other room at the hotel he was living, which was full of undisclosed documents that Tesla
generated since mid 1920s to his death. A mystery never revealed.

Did some of them contained revelations about scalar direct energy generation and capture?

Some Google results on the famous comment of Tesla, unmasking Einstein's useless relativity:

Both Tesla and Einstein were brilliant scientists. Tesla said the following on the theory of relativity in a 1935 New York Times interview: "The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors.

"The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A02EFDD1E39E33ABC4952DFB166838E629EDE&legacy=true

In addition, Tesla claimed to have simple thought experiments that disproved relativity, and he disliked relativity on aesthetic, philosophical, and religious grounds:

Tesla contradicts a part of the relativity theory emphatically, holding that mass is unalterable;
otherwise, energy could be produced from nothing, since the kinetic energy acquired in the fall of a
body would be greater than that necessary to lift it at a small velocity.

-Hugo Gernsback, Science and Mechanics, November 1931

What is 'thought' in relativity, for example, is not science, but some kind of metaphysics based on abstract mathematical principles and conceptions which will be forever incomprehensible to beings like ourselves whose whole knowledge is derived from a three-dimensional world.

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties.
It might as well be said that God has properties.

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:47:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Tesla gave to the world:
>
> - The AC energy generation and distribution grid, that lighten the world,
> including long haul transport by using high voltage and local distribution.
>
> - The brushless AC motor/AC generator, which allowed industrialization in
> scales never thought before him.
>
> - The tuned radio, which augmented the efficiency of "brute-force" giant sparks. He even conceived the ionosphere as a mean to carry signals worldwide.
>
> - Remote control.
>
> - Hundred of subsystems stand-alone systems using electricity.
>
> He did all of this in 15 years.
>
> Meanwhile, in the same period, Einstein gave the world two relativity theories: the one that's widely used at this forum and the general relativity,
> pretending to replace newtonian physics.
>
> Measuring their importance as of today: Who shaped this world?
>
> Tesla or Einstein?
>
> In terms of education, both had more or less the same amount of education..
> Only one excelled in mathematics, physics and engineering, ON HIS HEAD,
> working COMPLETELY ALONE.
>
> The other required the assistance (documented) of no less than 25 brighter
> minds TO DO HIS WORK, which he posed as HIS OWN work, and still is claimed
> as the most important scientific ever.
>
> The first has been conveniently buried by the cabal.

This is a wonderful post, Richard. You have brilliantly personified the more abstract question: Science or Technology? Even though both rely on the experimental method, Science and Technology are very different mindsets. The experimental method is as old as the wheel. Technologists employed it long before the first theory was every propounded.

Paparios wrote:

>> Have in mind that Tesla did EVERYTHING on his mind, along years and
>> systemically. After he was finished, he filed for a patent.
>> There are books written by scholars, trying to figure out HOW did
>> Tesla's mind worked. Some say, above genius, like a space alien.
>
> At the end, Edison was more succesful than Tesla, who died almost broke

idiot. This is *ww3* already. You are an idiot. Did anybody armed
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc when attacked and occupied by
the nazi nato, no. So arming the nazi "ukraine", a russian province
territory, *IS_ww3*.

Did Macron abandon French military to die in Azovstal to protect his
election campaign? https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=252706 Russia
regained control of Mariupol, Ukraine. It was learned that
*_50_high_ranking_French_officers_* were trapped at the Azovstal
Metallurgical Plant. It was learned that Putin opened a safe corridor, and
Macron sent an order to ‘do not surrender’ in the election rush.

If true, I guess russia may easily start bombing the frogs.

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:13:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:47:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Tesla gave to the world:
> >
> > - The AC energy generation and distribution grid, that lighten the world,
> > including long haul transport by using high voltage and local distribution.
> >
> > - The brushless AC motor/AC generator, which allowed industrialization in
> > scales never thought before him.
> >
> > - The tuned radio, which augmented the efficiency of "brute-force" giant sparks. He even conceived the ionosphere as a mean to carry signals worldwide.
> >
> > - Remote control.
> >
> > - Hundred of subsystems stand-alone systems using electricity.
> >
> > He did all of this in 15 years.
> >
> > Meanwhile, in the same period, Einstein gave the world two relativity theories: the one that's widely used at this forum and the general relativity,
> > pretending to replace newtonian physics.
> >
> > Measuring their importance as of today: Who shaped this world?
> >
> > Tesla or Einstein?
> >
> > In terms of education, both had more or less the same amount of education.
> > Only one excelled in mathematics, physics and engineering, ON HIS HEAD,
> > working COMPLETELY ALONE.
> >
> > The other required the assistance (documented) of no less than 25 brighter
> > minds TO DO HIS WORK, which he posed as HIS OWN work, and still is claimed
> > as the most important scientific ever.
> >
> > The first has been conveniently buried by the cabal.
> This is a wonderful post, Richard. You have brilliantly personified the more abstract question: Science or Technology? Even though both rely on the experimental method, Science and Technology are very different mindsets. The experimental method is as old as the wheel. Technologists employed it long before the first theory was every propounded.

It can be said of science that it is either right or wrong [ actually, ALL science eventually becomes wrong, given enough passage of time ]. We never speak of Technology as being right or wrong. Technology simply is. Technology is a particular technique used to do some new thing or to do some old thing better. Technology is either obsolete or new; it is never right or wrong.

Here is the brilliant Leo Smith waxing poetic on the comparison of science and technology:

Honestly, are not all discoveries, chance?

Development - engineering development, is a a directed purposeful activity, but discovery is almost always - indeed I can’t think if any discovery that was not made - by chance. Science consists on investigating odd random facts that don’t fit in with the current world view., The photo electric effect that was one of the things that lead to quantum physics for example.

Technological progress is a composite of three things - novel technology that is ‘discovered’, novel theories that explain them and ingenuity in deploying them,

Consider say aircraft and computers, in both cases the ideas had been around a fair time (Babbages computing engine, and Daedalus’ wax wings) but needed a new technology (the internal combustion engine, and the thermionic valve) plus a bit of inspired theory (aerodynamics, and Turings theory of computing machines) to build the first successful one.

Really no discoveries are involved in the machines themselves. Only in some of the parts - thermionic valves arose out of experiments with electrical apparatus. IC engines arose out of steam engines.

Even serious technology like semiconductors which although they work along quantum lines were in fact discovered before quantum physics - the ‘cat’s whisker crystal’ used in pre war radio sets was an early form of diode. The Wright brothers flew before aerodynamics could really tell them why. In fact technology is usually way ahead of the theory of it. A lot of thermodynamic theory arose out of trying to make better steam engines. Structural theory was way behind bridge,house and tower construction. Metallurgy was preceded by secret lore in how to make good swords and armour..

In short technology is always serendipitous exploitation of random events: metals discovered (apart from gold) by building wood fires on or bearing rocks. People eating willow bark with a fever felt better. And science tends to follow technology. Science has to be useful . Once we see that illness can be cured by eating stuff we develop medical science. Once we see that physical events can be predicted we develop physics and so on

In short human progress tends to follow the path of

random event + need - > rule of thumb based practical ‘lore’ -> close mathematical inspection and the dreaming up of theories that explain and predict -> attempts to refute the theories, that fail -> established scientific theory.

Science does not lead technology though. Nearly all pure research by itself does not lead to any useful technology. Perhaps the only exception is the atomic bomb. Here theory was slightly ahead of the technology, but theory here was itself chance - we noted radioactive decay and the rest is history.

In the end you have to ask, what is the meaning of ‘discover’ - to disclose something that you did not know was there? If that is the case how could discovery of anything be except by chance?

You might go turning over every stone you can find to see if something hidden is underneath I suppose, but if you do find something would it not still be ‘by chance’?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tesla gave to the world:

Once again confusing technology with fundamental science.

You are simply blind to the value of each.

>
> - The AC energy generation and distribution grid, that lighten the world,
> including long haul transport by using high voltage and local distribution.
>
> - The brushless AC motor/AC generator, which allowed industrialization in
> scales never thought before him.
>
> - The tuned radio, which augmented the efficiency of "brute-force" giant
> sparks. He even conceived the ionosphere as a mean to carry signals worldwide.
>
> - Remote control.
>
> - Hundred of subsystems stand-alone systems using electricity.
>
> He did all of this in 15 years.
>
> Meanwhile, in the same period, Einstein gave the world two relativity
> theories: the one that's widely used at this forum and the general relativity,
> pretending to replace newtonian physics.
>
> Measuring their importance as of today: Who shaped this world?
>
> Tesla or Einstein?
>
> In terms of education, both had more or less the same amount of education.
> Only one excelled in mathematics, physics and engineering, ON HIS HEAD,
> working COMPLETELY ALONE.
>
> The other required the assistance (documented) of no less than 25 brighter
> minds TO DO HIS WORK, which he posed as HIS OWN work, and still is claimed
> as the most important scientific ever.
>
> The first has been conveniently buried by the cabal.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some Google results on the famous comment of Tesla, unmasking Einstein's
> useless relativity:

You have no concept of the usefulness of fundamental science. None.

>
>
> Both Tesla and Einstein were brilliant scientists. Tesla said the
> following on the theory of relativity in a 1935 New York Times interview:
> "The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in
> magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people
> blind to the underlying errors.
>
> "The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in
> magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people
> blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in
> purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very
> brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a
> single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A02EFDD1E39E33ABC4952DFB166838E629EDE&legacy=true
>
>
> In addition, Tesla claimed to have simple thought experiments that
> disproved relativity, and he disliked relativity on aesthetic,
> philosophical, and religious grounds:
>
> Tesla contradicts a part of the relativity theory emphatically, holding
> that mass is unalterable;
> otherwise, energy could be produced from nothing, since the kinetic
> energy acquired in the fall of a
> body would be greater than that necessary to lift it at a small velocity.
>
>
>
> -Hugo Gernsback, Science and Mechanics, November 1931
>
> What is 'thought' in relativity, for example, is not science, but some
> kind of metaphysics based on abstract mathematical principles and
> conceptions which will be forever incomprehensible to beings like
> ourselves whose whole knowledge is derived from a three-dimensional world.
>
> I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties.
> It might as well be said that God has properties.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:13:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:47:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> Tesla gave to the world:
>>>
>>> - The AC energy generation and distribution grid, that lighten the world,
>>> including long haul transport by using high voltage and local distribution.
>>>
>>> - The brushless AC motor/AC generator, which allowed industrialization in
>>> scales never thought before him.
>>>
>>> - The tuned radio, which augmented the efficiency of "brute-force"
>>> giant sparks. He even conceived the ionosphere as a mean to carry signals worldwide.
>>>
>>> - Remote control.
>>>
>>> - Hundred of subsystems stand-alone systems using electricity.
>>>
>>> He did all of this in 15 years.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, in the same period, Einstein gave the world two relativity
>>> theories: the one that's widely used at this forum and the general relativity,
>>> pretending to replace newtonian physics.
>>>
>>> Measuring their importance as of today: Who shaped this world?
>>>
>>> Tesla or Einstein?
>>>
>>> In terms of education, both had more or less the same amount of education.
>>> Only one excelled in mathematics, physics and engineering, ON HIS HEAD,
>>> working COMPLETELY ALONE.
>>>
>>> The other required the assistance (documented) of no less than 25 brighter
>>> minds TO DO HIS WORK, which he posed as HIS OWN work, and still is claimed
>>> as the most important scientific ever.
>>>
>>> The first has been conveniently buried by the cabal.
>> This is a wonderful post, Richard. You have brilliantly personified the
>> more abstract question: Science or Technology? Even though both rely on
>> the experimental method, Science and Technology are very different
>> mindsets. The experimental method is as old as the wheel. Technologists
>> employed it long before the first theory was every propounded.
>
> It can be said of science that it is either right or wrong [ actually,
> ALL science eventually becomes wrong, given enough passage of time ]. We
> never speak of Technology as being right or wrong. Technology simply is.
> Technology is a particular technique used to do some new thing or to do
> some old thing better. Technology is either obsolete or new; it is never right or wrong.

Interestingly, though, what results in horrible ethical abuses is
technology.
Bombs are technology, not science.
Technology is about application, fundamental science is not.
When the application is Sarin gas, when it is lead in gasoline, when it is
OxyContin, when it is malware, then we understand the knife edge of
technology.
Understanding how stars work on the inside is science. Unleashing the same
in Tsar Bomba is technology.

>
> Here is the brilliant Leo Smith waxing poetic on the comparison of science and technology:
>
> Honestly, are not all discoveries, chance?
>
> Development - engineering development, is a a directed purposeful
> activity, but discovery is almost always - indeed I can’t think if any
> discovery that was not made - by chance. Science consists on
> investigating odd random facts that don’t fit in with the current world
> view., The photo electric effect that was one of the things that lead to
> quantum physics for example.
>
> Technological progress is a composite of three things - novel technology
> that is ‘discovered’, novel theories that explain them and ingenuity in deploying them,
>
> Consider say aircraft and computers, in both cases the ideas had been
> around a fair time (Babbages computing engine, and Daedalus’ wax wings)
> but needed a new technology (the internal combustion engine, and the
> thermionic valve) plus a bit of inspired theory (aerodynamics, and
> Turings theory of computing machines) to build the first successful one.
>
> Really no discoveries are involved in the machines themselves. Only in
> some of the parts - thermionic valves arose out of experiments with
> electrical apparatus. IC engines arose out of steam engines.
>
> Even serious technology like semiconductors which although they work
> along quantum lines were in fact discovered before quantum physics - the
> ‘cat’s whisker crystal’ used in pre war radio sets was an early form of
> diode. The Wright brothers flew before aerodynamics could really tell
> them why. In fact technology is usually way ahead of the theory of it. A
> lot of thermodynamic theory arose out of trying to make better steam
> engines. Structural theory was way behind bridge,house and tower
> construction. Metallurgy was preceded by secret lore in how to make good
> swords and armour..
>
> In short technology is always serendipitous exploitation of random
> events: metals discovered (apart from gold) by building wood fires on or
> bearing rocks. People eating willow bark with a fever felt better. And
> science tends to follow technology. Science has to be useful . Once we
> see that illness can be cured by eating stuff we develop medical science.
> Once we see that physical events can be predicted we develop physics and so on
>
> In short human progress tends to follow the path of
>
> random event + need - > rule of thumb based practical ‘lore’ -> close
> mathematical inspection and the dreaming up of theories that explain and
> predict -> attempts to refute the theories, that fail -> established scientific theory.
>
> Science does not lead technology though. Nearly all pure research by
> itself does not lead to any useful technology. Perhaps the only exception
> is the atomic bomb. Here theory was slightly ahead of the technology, but
> theory here was itself chance - we noted radioactive decay and the rest is history.
>
> In the end you have to ask, what is the meaning of ‘discover’ - to
> disclose something that you did not know was there? If that is the case
> how could discovery of anything be except by chance?
>
> You might go turning over every stone you can find to see if something
> hidden is underneath I suppose, but if you do find something would it not
> still be ‘by chance’?
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 6:38:55 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:13:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:47:43 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>> Tesla gave to the world:
> >>>
> >>> - The AC energy generation and distribution grid, that lighten the world,
> >>> including long haul transport by using high voltage and local distribution.
> >>>
> >>> - The brushless AC motor/AC generator, which allowed industrialization in
> >>> scales never thought before him.
> >>>
> >>> - The tuned radio, which augmented the efficiency of "brute-force"
> >>> giant sparks. He even conceived the ionosphere as a mean to carry signals worldwide.
> >>>
> >>> - Remote control.
> >>>
> >>> - Hundred of subsystems stand-alone systems using electricity.
> >>>
> >>> He did all of this in 15 years.
> >>>
> >>> Meanwhile, in the same period, Einstein gave the world two relativity
> >>> theories: the one that's widely used at this forum and the general relativity,
> >>> pretending to replace newtonian physics.
> >>>
> >>> Measuring their importance as of today: Who shaped this world?
> >>>
> >>> Tesla or Einstein?
> >>>
> >>> In terms of education, both had more or less the same amount of education.
> >>> Only one excelled in mathematics, physics and engineering, ON HIS HEAD,
> >>> working COMPLETELY ALONE.
> >>>
> >>> The other required the assistance (documented) of no less than 25 brighter
> >>> minds TO DO HIS WORK, which he posed as HIS OWN work, and still is claimed
> >>> as the most important scientific ever.
> >>>
> >>> The first has been conveniently buried by the cabal.
> >> This is a wonderful post, Richard. You have brilliantly personified the
> >> more abstract question: Science or Technology? Even though both rely on
> >> the experimental method, Science and Technology are very different
> >> mindsets. The experimental method is as old as the wheel. Technologists
> >> employed it long before the first theory was every propounded.
> >
> > It can be said of science that it is either right or wrong [ actually,
> > ALL science eventually becomes wrong, given enough passage of time ]. We
> > never speak of Technology as being right or wrong. Technology simply is..
> > Technology is a particular technique used to do some new thing or to do
> > some old thing better. Technology is either obsolete or new; it is never right or wrong.
> Interestingly, though, what results in horrible ethical abuses is
> technology.
> Bombs are technology, not science.
> Technology is about application, fundamental science is not.
> When the application is Sarin gas, when it is lead in gasoline, when it is
> OxyContin, when it is malware, then we understand the knife edge of
> technology.
> Understanding how stars work on the inside is science. Unleashing the same
> in Tsar Bomba is technology.

Bodkin, Science is merely the corpus of myths we compose about Technology to explain it. Every culture through history has had its myths. The Norse had their Sagas. The Persians had Gilgamesh. The subcontinent had its various and sundry Gitas. We have Science. As myth, Science is neither sinister nor benignant. It is benign. Like the myths of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Lorentz Transform, Natural Selection operating on random mutation, or the square root of -1. These tales delight but are easily deconstructed by a fully functional mind. For some however, these tales seem to be a psychological necessity and a substitute for a sense of the transcendent which they lack (Sylvia comes to mind here).
> >
> > Here is the brilliant Leo Smith waxing poetic on the comparison of science and technology:
> >
> > Honestly, are not all discoveries, chance?
> >
> > Development - engineering development, is a a directed purposeful
> > activity, but discovery is almost always - indeed I can’t think if any
> > discovery that was not made - by chance. Science consists on
> > investigating odd random facts that don’t fit in with the current world
> > view., The photo electric effect that was one of the things that lead to
> > quantum physics for example.
> >
> > Technological progress is a composite of three things - novel technology
> > that is ‘discovered’, novel theories that explain them and ingenuity in deploying them,
> >
> > Consider say aircraft and computers, in both cases the ideas had been
> > around a fair time (Babbages computing engine, and Daedalus’ wax wings)
> > but needed a new technology (the internal combustion engine, and the
> > thermionic valve) plus a bit of inspired theory (aerodynamics, and
> > Turings theory of computing machines) to build the first successful one..
> >
> > Really no discoveries are involved in the machines themselves. Only in
> > some of the parts - thermionic valves arose out of experiments with
> > electrical apparatus. IC engines arose out of steam engines.
> >
> > Even serious technology like semiconductors which although they work
> > along quantum lines were in fact discovered before quantum physics - the
> > ‘cat’s whisker crystal’ used in pre war radio sets was an early form of
> > diode. The Wright brothers flew before aerodynamics could really tell
> > them why. In fact technology is usually way ahead of the theory of it. A
> > lot of thermodynamic theory arose out of trying to make better steam
> > engines. Structural theory was way behind bridge,house and tower
> > construction. Metallurgy was preceded by secret lore in how to make good
> > swords and armour..
> >
> > In short technology is always serendipitous exploitation of random
> > events: metals discovered (apart from gold) by building wood fires on or
> > bearing rocks. People eating willow bark with a fever felt better. And
> > science tends to follow technology. Science has to be useful . Once we
> > see that illness can be cured by eating stuff we develop medical science.
> > Once we see that physical events can be predicted we develop physics and so on
> >
> > In short human progress tends to follow the path of
> >
> > random event + need - > rule of thumb based practical ‘lore’ -> close
> > mathematical inspection and the dreaming up of theories that explain and
> > predict -> attempts to refute the theories, that fail -> established scientific theory.
> >
> > Science does not lead technology though. Nearly all pure research by
> > itself does not lead to any useful technology. Perhaps the only exception
> > is the atomic bomb. Here theory was slightly ahead of the technology, but
> > theory here was itself chance - we noted radioactive decay and the rest is history.
> >
> > In the end you have to ask, what is the meaning of ‘discover’ - to
> > disclose something that you did not know was there? If that is the case
> > how could discovery of anything be except by chance?
> >
> > You might go turning over every stone you can find to see if something
> > hidden is underneath I suppose, but if you do find something would it not
> > still be ‘by chance’?
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:38:54 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Some Google results on the famous comment of Tesla, unmasking Einstein's useless relativity:

> You have no concept of the usefulness of fundamental science. None.

<snip>

Yes I do.

And relativity is not a science and, even less, a fundamental science.

Relativity is METAPHYSICS, a mathematical delusion, PSEUDOSCIENCE.

I correlate the efforts to impose relativity with those around the "science of gender self perception" with a 100% attempt to derail society.

And such evil attempts corrupted the values and purposes of fundamental science developments, and should be CANCELED NOW.

Crap like these movements are pushing mankind evolution to an ABSOLUTE HALT.. Then CHAOS will reign.

It's happening right now, under your eyes, but your indoctrination has no cure, Bodkin.

At any case, IMHO, it's too late. Stupidity won, and we are heading to a total, brutal, inhuman RESET.

I wrote here, several times, that 99.99% of people is IDIOT. And, as time pass, a new decimal 9 value is added (accelerating).

Good luck in your "experience" during the next years. I'm sure that your herd mentality will be forced to be that of lemmings falling of the cliff, because YOU are an idiot too, and you made a choice to be one (and I'm being generous here, conceding you the intelligence to choose).

Mathematics was first a "technology" and, after a while (thousand of years ago), part of it become "a science".

So, science is a by-product of technology.

Except relativity.

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 9:58:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Mathematics was first a "technology" and, after a while (thousand of years ago), part of it become "a science".
>
> So, science is a by-product of technology.
>
> Except relativity.

My screen time with Professor Wildberger has led me to the conclusion that our modern mathematics (e.g. negative quantities, real & complex continuums, i, infinities, etc.) just like all our other modes of semiotic communication, can be employed as a rhetorical tool to express falsehoods just as effectively as to express the truth. I ask the court's permission to enter the Lorentz Transforms as Exhibit "A".

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 9:58:51 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Mathematics was first a "technology" and, after a while (thousand of years ago), part of it become "a science".
>
> So, science is a by-product of technology.
>
> Except relativity.
This too, is well-typed.

On 4/26/2022 12:58 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> Mathematics was first a "technology" and, after a while (thousand of years ago), part of it become "a science".
>
> So, science is a by-product of technology.

The other way around.

Science is where scientists discover interesting relationships of nature.
Technology is when engineers (working with scientists) take those
natural relationships and make really cool devices from it.
>
> Except relativity.
>
>

Relativity is yet another of those fascinating relationships of nature,
discovered by scientists (plural, not just that one whom you despise).

Engineers have created some cool devices from that science, particle
accelerators, atomic clocks, and especially the GPS system.

This will continue to happen, no matter how much you cry about it.
Rather you'll be left behind as science and technology progresses
without you.

On Tuesday, 26 April 2022 at 07:35:59 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/26/2022 12:58 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > Mathematics was first a "technology" and, after a while (thousand of years ago), part of it become "a science".
> >
> > So, science is a by-product of technology.
> The other way around.
>
> Science is where scientists discover interesting relationships of nature.

Science is a brain programming technology; it's crafting
informational constructs that, after downloading into a brain, can
give it some interesting abilities.
Making a religion of it and creating a bunch of fanatic, obedient
worshippers is an effective technique inside the technology.

> Relativity is yet another of those fascinating relationships of nature,

Clocks, time and observers aren't even a part of nature.
They're artificial.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tesla gave to the world:
>
> Once again confusing technology with fundamental science.
>
> You are simply blind to the value of each.

In the end Tesla was blind to both. He became an all-out crackpot.
His theory of atmospheric electricity was wildly wrong too,
(but there are still crackpots who believe in it)

Jan

Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> wrote:

[-]
> At the end, Edison was more succesful than Tesla, who died almost broke
> having wasted all his money in not so good inventions.

Tesla survived for a long time on the royalties
of his commercially most succesful invention:
the first accurate and reliable car speedometer.

> He however, was instrumental in the creation of the Westinghouse company
> and his main victory over Edison was the use of AC, intead of the DC
> Edison was pushing on.

But Americans are still stuck with their puny 120 V power systems.

> Edison created General Electric and bought the
> licenses from Westinghouse to use AC. Both companies continue to exist
> (with changes of names and directions).

The problem with Edison was that he was just too dumb
to understand the complex number arithmetic and vector diagrams
involved in three-phase AC systems.

Jan

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 6:19:08 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > Once again confusing technology with fundamental science.
> >
> > You are simply blind to the value of each.

> In the end Tesla was blind to both. He became an all-out crackpot.
> His theory of atmospheric electricity was wildly wrong too,
> (but there are still crackpots who believe in it)

Interesting comment. Curiously, in his last 35 years, Einstein did the same thing.

Very enthusiast of the planetary model of the atom, developed by Bohr (mathematically), enhanced by Sommerfeld
by 1920-1922 and perfected by Max Born around 1925, Einstein went for a Grand Unified Theory (gravity in the quantum world
and in the entire universe), until Heisenberg came out with his Matrix Mechanics. Schrödinger followed suit with his Wave Mechanics.

Born didn't hesitate to drop everything that he had worked on (he wrote a book by 1926, of which I have a copy), and jumped on
the bandwagon of discrete multi-state statistical models for the atom. He did well, but Einstein refused to support that movement.

Mainly, because he didn't have a clue about how to marry a "deterministic" universe with a "probabilistic" quantum realm.

He went all-out-crackpot for the next 30-35 years, trying to merge both worlds. But the scientific world revered such ever lasting devotion,
while quickly downplayed Tesla's view of the existence of direct scalar energy (lightning anyone?, plasma anyone?).

West, driven by political, economical and religious bias, didn't hesitate to threw Tesla under the bus and push Einstein's figure as
the icon of science, a truly inspirational figure, at least for laymen and outspoken scientists.

But, when doors are closed, the scientific community can speak freely about the Einstein hoax. And yet, nobody demotes the genius of Tesla.

Hypocrisy at its fullest. But this world has always been based on low moral, ethical and scientific values. Since ever.

It doesn't matter what is most true or beneficial, but what may allow TPTB to engulf the most of the money from "the suckers".

Specially in the last 32 years. And there is a reason for such time-lapse, which now is in conflict with reality.

In the end, only Newton and a few more enjoyed a prolific and long life. But it was in older, calmer times.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 6:38:55 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Interestingly, though, what results in horrible ethical abuses is
>> technology.
>> Bombs are technology, not science.
>> Technology is about application, fundamental science is not.
>> When the application is Sarin gas, when it is lead in gasoline, when it is
>> OxyContin, when it is malware, then we understand the knife edge of
>> technology.
>> Understanding how stars work on the inside is science. Unleashing the same
>> in Tsar Bomba is technology.
>
> Bodkin, Science is merely the corpus of myths we compose about Technology
> to explain it. Every culture through history has had its myths. The
> Norse had their Sagas. The Persians had Gilgamesh. The subcontinent had
> its various and sundry Gitas. We have Science.

Well, Pat, I know you’re trolling. But perhaps you could venture a guess as
to what marks the distinction between religions, mythologies, and science.
If you can’t, might I ask what the hell you’re doing on a science
newsgroup?

> As myth, Science is neither sinister nor benignant. It is benign. Like
> the myths of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Lorentz Transform,
> Natural Selection operating on random mutation, or the square root of -1.
> These tales delight but are easily deconstructed by a fully functional
> mind. For some however, these tales seem to be a psychological necessity
> and a substitute for a sense of the transcendent which they lack (Sylvia
> comes to mind here).

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:38:54 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Some Google results on the famous comment of Tesla, unmasking
>>> Einstein's useless relativity:
>
>> You have no concept of the usefulness of fundamental science. None.
>
> <snip>
>
> Yes I do.
>
> And relativity is not a science and, even less, a fundamental science.
>
> Relativity is METAPHYSICS, a mathematical delusion, PSEUDOSCIENCE.

This further cements that you do not know what fundamental science even is.
Perhaps you could venture a guess as to how to characterize *fundamental*
science. If you can’t, perhaps you should include yourself in the 99.99% of
humanity you call idiots.

>
> I correlate the efforts to impose relativity with those around the
> "science of gender self perception" with a 100% attempt to derail society.
>
> And such evil attempts corrupted the values and purposes of fundamental
> science developments, and should be CANCELED NOW.
>
> Crap like these movements are pushing mankind evolution to an ABSOLUTE
> HALT. Then CHAOS will reign.
>
> It's happening right now, under your eyes, but your indoctrination has no cure, Bodkin.
>
> At any case, IMHO, it's too late. Stupidity won, and we are heading to a
> total, brutal, inhuman RESET.
>
> I wrote here, several times, that 99.99% of people is IDIOT. And, as time
> pass, a new decimal 9 value is added (accelerating).
>
> Good luck in your "experience" during the next years. I'm sure that your
> herd mentality will be forced to be that of lemmings falling of the
> cliff, because YOU are an idiot too, and you made a choice to be one (and
> I'm being generous here, conceding you the intelligence to choose).
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mathematics was first a "technology" and, after a while (thousand of
> years ago), part of it become "a science".
>
> So, science is a by-product of technology.

Well, yes, given that tool-making by primates and early hominids preceded
anything resembling science. So?

Coal preceded nuclear power, and peat preceded coal. I doubt you would say
then that peat has more value to modern society.

Science as it is understood today was first initiated in the 16th century.
The “science” of the Greeks, in contrast, really had more to do with
philosophy and speculation, without the benefit of experimental test. See
Democritus, for example, and Zeno.

>
> Except relativity.
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables