We've been told that when the bankers decided on a plan, they would only execute it years, if not decades, after their original plan to demonstrate how thorough was their planning effort. To get the universities to chime in and assist at least half a century before the bankers swooped in to benefit from that preparation is a classic case of 20/20 hindsight -- unless the devil has been orchestrating all of this from behind the scenes. But I don't believe in the devil being that smart. Demons are casually clever and are severely lacking in smartness. And aliens are not up my alley anyway, not since William Lyne made my acquaintance. But it's oh so popular to blame everything on demons or aliens as if we're not that smart enough to muck up our collective life on our own without outside assistance. I don't know how else to explain to myself how such a coordinated effort could pull off what you have described if not by way of a conspiracy among thieves. It makes sense that university types would have a hand in this charade since universities get to bond all of those doctoral theses and sell them to foreign stock exchanges to float their value for commercial trade. By the looks of what you're saying, it looks as if someone figured out around the late 1800s that energy was a powerful liberation for the common man to rise up above the institutional matrixes which have conspired to thwart us into submission and that this liberation must be prevented. One of these days the truth will out, along with everything else. Because it doesn't have to be a conscientious conspiracy to be effective. It need merely be a subliminal conspiracy of like-minded thieves in which each of them are contributing to the overall welfare of all thieves, everywhere.
The paper documents something much simpler than a coordinated conspiracy. Heaviside simplified the math in the 1880s because it worked for the problems of his era. The next generation inherited the simplification without questioning it. The generation after that forgot a simplification had been made. That's three steps, no coordination required.
Institutional inertia doesn't need orchestration. Textbooks copy textbooks. Professors teach what they were taught. Funding follows established frameworks. The Lorenz-to-Lorentz misattribution (documented by Jackson and Okun in Reviews of Modern Physics, 2001) shows how a single physicist's name can be erased from the record within one generation through nothing more than careless citation. No conspiracy. Just sloppy scholarship compounding over time.
The liberation angle is real but the mechanism is mundane. If the full 16-component theory opens engineering domains the simplified version can't see (communication through barriers, energy transmission, gravity coupling), then yes, 140 years of potential innovation was left on the table. But "left on the table by accident" and "stolen by design" produce the same outcome with very different evidence requirements. The paper sticks to what's documented.
So the other way to interpret this is to cite the quotation the blind leading the blind in which we do not deserve this technology because we're not even paying attention to what we're doing. Maybe that should be scary? Or maybe we'll get what we deserve whatever that might be in addition to what we already have gotten out of it is substandard mediocrity. Okay, that makes sense. But what is not substandard mediocrity is the passion with which people whom I have argued with defend their position of tunnel vision. Very few argue against me with awareness but they become obvious because of the clever tricks they try to use and they get away with because everybody else is either too sheepish to call them on it when I call them on it or they're beyond sheepish – they're ignorant.
We've been told that when the bankers decided on a plan, they would only execute it years, if not decades, after their original plan to demonstrate how thorough was their planning effort. To get the universities to chime in and assist at least half a century before the bankers swooped in to benefit from that preparation is a classic case of 20/20 hindsight -- unless the devil has been orchestrating all of this from behind the scenes. But I don't believe in the devil being that smart. Demons are casually clever and are severely lacking in smartness. And aliens are not up my alley anyway, not since William Lyne made my acquaintance. But it's oh so popular to blame everything on demons or aliens as if we're not that smart enough to muck up our collective life on our own without outside assistance. I don't know how else to explain to myself how such a coordinated effort could pull off what you have described if not by way of a conspiracy among thieves. It makes sense that university types would have a hand in this charade since universities get to bond all of those doctoral theses and sell them to foreign stock exchanges to float their value for commercial trade. By the looks of what you're saying, it looks as if someone figured out around the late 1800s that energy was a powerful liberation for the common man to rise up above the institutional matrixes which have conspired to thwart us into submission and that this liberation must be prevented. One of these days the truth will out, along with everything else. Because it doesn't have to be a conscientious conspiracy to be effective. It need merely be a subliminal conspiracy of like-minded thieves in which each of them are contributing to the overall welfare of all thieves, everywhere.
The paper documents something much simpler than a coordinated conspiracy. Heaviside simplified the math in the 1880s because it worked for the problems of his era. The next generation inherited the simplification without questioning it. The generation after that forgot a simplification had been made. That's three steps, no coordination required.
Institutional inertia doesn't need orchestration. Textbooks copy textbooks. Professors teach what they were taught. Funding follows established frameworks. The Lorenz-to-Lorentz misattribution (documented by Jackson and Okun in Reviews of Modern Physics, 2001) shows how a single physicist's name can be erased from the record within one generation through nothing more than careless citation. No conspiracy. Just sloppy scholarship compounding over time.
The liberation angle is real but the mechanism is mundane. If the full 16-component theory opens engineering domains the simplified version can't see (communication through barriers, energy transmission, gravity coupling), then yes, 140 years of potential innovation was left on the table. But "left on the table by accident" and "stolen by design" produce the same outcome with very different evidence requirements. The paper sticks to what's documented.
(Trying to keep a positive attitude today :D)
So the other way to interpret this is to cite the quotation the blind leading the blind in which we do not deserve this technology because we're not even paying attention to what we're doing. Maybe that should be scary? Or maybe we'll get what we deserve whatever that might be in addition to what we already have gotten out of it is substandard mediocrity. Okay, that makes sense. But what is not substandard mediocrity is the passion with which people whom I have argued with defend their position of tunnel vision. Very few argue against me with awareness but they become obvious because of the clever tricks they try to use and they get away with because everybody else is either too sheepish to call them on it when I call them on it or they're beyond sheepish – they're ignorant.
Yes. It's scary. But luckily there's people like us pushing for truth!