Oh. "The bankers"? Which ones? Marconi was funded by Italians. And how would you know this about "the bankers"? What "Tesla technology"? This whole thread is based on the release of Dr. Trump's assessment report, which reveals there was no "Tesla technology," just a lot of fanciful projections.
Radio does not require line of sight, as we think of it, for it is refracted over the horizon by the atmosphere. And, beyond that, for certain wavelengths, it is reflected by the ionosphere to travel around the world. This is how it was in use to communicate with ocean liners out in the middle of the ocean, totally beyond line-of-sight. Tesla was unable to get his Wardenclyffe installation to radiate any significant distance, thereby failing to beat Marconi to the prize of first long-distance message transmission. And radio waves do not travel through rock.
The "speed limit" was never "imposed" by Einstein. It was "imposed" by the fact that all measurements wound up with the same result, conforming to Maxwell's equations. Maxwell arrived at the conclusion that it was determined by the dielectric and diamagnetic constants of the vacuum. Einstein tried to elaborate the physics of objects that approached the speed of light. A fact (the speed of light) does not require us to invest in any other idea. Your idea that Tesla was able to transmit anything faster than light is sheer fancy. There is nothing to support it. No measurements. You really need to learn more physics.
JP Morgan, who, following the Tesla episode, dismantled the silver diodes at Wardenclyffe, then proceeded to corner the market on silver only to inexplicably sit on the silver and yet actively suppress the price of silver to discourage others from acquiring large amounts of it. Don’t you think the largest owner of silver in the world would want its price to go up?
Indeed, have you never considered why gold and silver have been valuable since before antiquity? They had no use for its electrical properties if you believe the history of the matrix. And they had access to other scarce materials that were nevertheless not adopted as money. What are the odds they picked two metals that are ideal conductors, and only two metals that are ideal conductors?
I said radio requires direct line of sight, or to be reflected. It can also pass through the earth but with insufficient bandwidth for widespread use.
“You need to learn more physics” says the guy who believes with religious fervour in a theory that can’t even predict the orbits of planets around the sun, the sun around the galaxy, and the galaxy around the centre of gravity of the local cluster of galaxies. Your theories don’t work yet you become angry at others who question them. You are the ideal matrix denizen.
Any text on monetary metals will present the reasons for the use of such elements as gold, silver, and even copper at valuable objects: resistant to tarnish, malleable, rarity, desirability for jewelry. They are good conductors along with copper. And, since its extraction by electrolysis, aluminum (which, before the Hall process, was deemed more valuable than gold). Scarcity alone has no value, unless there is some positive value associated with it (such as for gems, as opposed to stones).
I don't agree that radio passes through the Earth. Maybe through soil and shallow rock.
The theory of gravity indeed predicts the orbits of planets around the Sun. Learning more physics means learning more astronomy as well.
Your argument seems to be "Well, you don't know everything---and, as I don't know everything either---I am as smart as you!" Good luck with that. I presume you do not have a job in technology?
Silver tarnishes though. There are other scarce metals, and other malleable metals. Desireability for jewelry comes from its inherent value, which we can’t really explain we just accept that it is. Like gravity.
GR cannot predict planetary orbits without dark matter, which is just a mathematical fiction equivalent to putting one’s thumb on the scale to get the “right” result. A greater extremes it breaks down without another fiction, “black holes.”
My argument is that our modern science breaks down at the extremes and thus, while they might be useful models for limited situations, they are NOT an accurate explanation of what is happening. Your argument by contrast, seems to be that we can make nifty doodads with these models and so, despite their fundamental flaws, if I doubt these models I must be less intelligent than you.
Wow, you seem to have a job in technology. I bet you make many neat gadgets and doodads. And yet you still can’t explain what the ancients were up to with the incredible gadgets and doodads they built. And yet! You still assume you’re smarter than they were. Hubris.
Look, read up on monetary metals. They have all the reasons. An attractive sheen and luster comes from the fact that these metals are good electrical conductors. For a related reason, they are also good thermal conductors. There are reasons. It is not arbitrary.
General Relativity does not predict planetary orbits with dark matter. That whole subject arises from problems understanding galactic motion, which is an open subject. I disregard "dark matter" as being a hobgoblin. So also with "black holes."
What accuracy do you need, where? I don't think any life on Earth will be affected one way or the other depending on our understanding of galactic astrophysics. How do you know that there are "fundamental flaws" when the theories work perfectly in the environments where they work? You are just grousing over the absence of perfection. I predict you will be unhappy to your last day.
I can't explain a lot of what the ancients did. I have problems even understanding what my ancestors did. So what? I can explain what I did. And if you like, look up YAL-1A to find an example. You seem pretty clearly NOT to have a job in technology, and it afflicts you with an inferiority complex. Which you cope with by placing technologists in the sphere of Not Knowing Everything, which puts you on an even level. The lapse in logic is really amusing, but it escapes you.
Oh. "The bankers"? Which ones? Marconi was funded by Italians. And how would you know this about "the bankers"? What "Tesla technology"? This whole thread is based on the release of Dr. Trump's assessment report, which reveals there was no "Tesla technology," just a lot of fanciful projections.
Radio does not require line of sight, as we think of it, for it is refracted over the horizon by the atmosphere. And, beyond that, for certain wavelengths, it is reflected by the ionosphere to travel around the world. This is how it was in use to communicate with ocean liners out in the middle of the ocean, totally beyond line-of-sight. Tesla was unable to get his Wardenclyffe installation to radiate any significant distance, thereby failing to beat Marconi to the prize of first long-distance message transmission. And radio waves do not travel through rock.
The "speed limit" was never "imposed" by Einstein. It was "imposed" by the fact that all measurements wound up with the same result, conforming to Maxwell's equations. Maxwell arrived at the conclusion that it was determined by the dielectric and diamagnetic constants of the vacuum. Einstein tried to elaborate the physics of objects that approached the speed of light. A fact (the speed of light) does not require us to invest in any other idea. Your idea that Tesla was able to transmit anything faster than light is sheer fancy. There is nothing to support it. No measurements. You really need to learn more physics.
JP Morgan, who, following the Tesla episode, dismantled the silver diodes at Wardenclyffe, then proceeded to corner the market on silver only to inexplicably sit on the silver and yet actively suppress the price of silver to discourage others from acquiring large amounts of it. Don’t you think the largest owner of silver in the world would want its price to go up?
Indeed, have you never considered why gold and silver have been valuable since before antiquity? They had no use for its electrical properties if you believe the history of the matrix. And they had access to other scarce materials that were nevertheless not adopted as money. What are the odds they picked two metals that are ideal conductors, and only two metals that are ideal conductors?
I said radio requires direct line of sight, or to be reflected. It can also pass through the earth but with insufficient bandwidth for widespread use.
“You need to learn more physics” says the guy who believes with religious fervour in a theory that can’t even predict the orbits of planets around the sun, the sun around the galaxy, and the galaxy around the centre of gravity of the local cluster of galaxies. Your theories don’t work yet you become angry at others who question them. You are the ideal matrix denizen.
Any text on monetary metals will present the reasons for the use of such elements as gold, silver, and even copper at valuable objects: resistant to tarnish, malleable, rarity, desirability for jewelry. They are good conductors along with copper. And, since its extraction by electrolysis, aluminum (which, before the Hall process, was deemed more valuable than gold). Scarcity alone has no value, unless there is some positive value associated with it (such as for gems, as opposed to stones).
I don't agree that radio passes through the Earth. Maybe through soil and shallow rock.
The theory of gravity indeed predicts the orbits of planets around the Sun. Learning more physics means learning more astronomy as well.
Your argument seems to be "Well, you don't know everything---and, as I don't know everything either---I am as smart as you!" Good luck with that. I presume you do not have a job in technology?
Silver tarnishes though. There are other scarce metals, and other malleable metals. Desireability for jewelry comes from its inherent value, which we can’t really explain we just accept that it is. Like gravity.
GR cannot predict planetary orbits without dark matter, which is just a mathematical fiction equivalent to putting one’s thumb on the scale to get the “right” result. A greater extremes it breaks down without another fiction, “black holes.”
My argument is that our modern science breaks down at the extremes and thus, while they might be useful models for limited situations, they are NOT an accurate explanation of what is happening. Your argument by contrast, seems to be that we can make nifty doodads with these models and so, despite their fundamental flaws, if I doubt these models I must be less intelligent than you.
Wow, you seem to have a job in technology. I bet you make many neat gadgets and doodads. And yet you still can’t explain what the ancients were up to with the incredible gadgets and doodads they built. And yet! You still assume you’re smarter than they were. Hubris.
Look, read up on monetary metals. They have all the reasons. An attractive sheen and luster comes from the fact that these metals are good electrical conductors. For a related reason, they are also good thermal conductors. There are reasons. It is not arbitrary.
General Relativity does not predict planetary orbits with dark matter. That whole subject arises from problems understanding galactic motion, which is an open subject. I disregard "dark matter" as being a hobgoblin. So also with "black holes."
What accuracy do you need, where? I don't think any life on Earth will be affected one way or the other depending on our understanding of galactic astrophysics. How do you know that there are "fundamental flaws" when the theories work perfectly in the environments where they work? You are just grousing over the absence of perfection. I predict you will be unhappy to your last day.
I can't explain a lot of what the ancients did. I have problems even understanding what my ancestors did. So what? I can explain what I did. And if you like, look up YAL-1A to find an example. You seem pretty clearly NOT to have a job in technology, and it afflicts you with an inferiority complex. Which you cope with by placing technologists in the sphere of Not Knowing Everything, which puts you on an even level. The lapse in logic is really amusing, but it escapes you.