16
posted ago by SwampRangers ago by SwampRangers +17 / -1

2NaCl + CaCO3 -> Na2CO3 + CaCl2

The power of this simple formula was realized by Ernest Gaston Joseph Solvay (1838-1922, industrialist, Belgian senator 1892-1900). Brine salt, plus limestone calcium carbonate, yields washing soda plus road salt. Since brine and limestone are cheap, but washing soda can be sold as detergent, borax, water softener, or food coloring, he knew he was onto something as big as Cecil Rhodes. As Solvay process production grew in Brussels 1872-1874, Royal Fellow (1891) Ludwig Mond MMN Levinsohn bought in and formed his own branch of Solvay & Cie (now Solvay SA, billions of euros). The new Brunner Mond & Co improved the process to lucrative levels and by 1900 became the world leader in soda ash (now Tata Chemicals Europe).

With Mond's help, Solvay had the luxury to create a lockstep control mechanism over the physical and chemical sciences via the near-annual Solvay Conferences (currently in viral hiatus). In Oct 1911 his first conference, "Radiation and the Quanta", assembled Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Frederick Lindemann, Hendrik Lorentz, Max Planck, Henri Poincare, Ernest Rutherford, Emil Warburg, and others to begin the cold war between classical physics and quantum theory. Also in 1911, young Niels Bohr was brought to England, and quickly latched onto Rutherford as having a superior atomic model to Thomson and Kelvin. Bohr, the "Great Dane", succeeded in infiltrating every great physics advance for the next 50 years.

Now the Bohr orbitals are brilliant, but they're all old quantum theory. Once Bohr controlled the periodic table instead of Mendeleev, it became a very ugly squared-up priestcraft rather than the intended mnemonic aid it was designed to be. He continued networking toward locking a critical mass of all science into a monolith around which a meaning-draining new quantum theory could be imposed. In 1922, spotting the brilliance of young Werner Heisenberg (a Goethe enthusiast), Bohr invited him to join him climbing a mountain, upon which Bohr confided that atoms were not things and his new theories were beset with difficulties. Heisenberg understood the angst, and was inspired to complete work on what we call the matrix interpretation of quantum theory. The night he got the math to work, Heisenberg climbed another mountain to watch the sunrise and meditate on what he called a gift from heaven. But Heisenberg's work was seized by Bohr and Max Born and given the name "matrix" that both Heisenberg and I reject. Similarly, Schrodinger's wave explanation of the same events was seized by Lorentz, still the Solvay chair, who pressured Schrodinger to reconcile it with Heisenberg. Born had published the probability theory saying it was all that could be known about the atom, which Schrodinger rejected by reducing it to the absurdity of the half-dead half-living superimposed cat, a paradox that stands today. Paul Dirac wrote his own brilliant response to Heisenberg, which too was snapped up by Born in the quest for a unified statement of nonreality theory.

By the famous fifth Solvay physics conference of Oct 1927 Einstein's foundation had made him the champion of Newtonian-Einsteinian physics, with the support of his friends in Berlin, Planck and Schrodinger; while Bohr (then in Copenhagen, with Heisenberg and Dirac), emerged as the face of new quantum physics and Bohr atomism with a new presentation on probability and "complementarity" that shook everyone. It appears that all the present and future Nobel laureates but Einstein were willing to give Bohr tacit acceptance, but they secretly hoped that Einstein was right and the bizarre madness of "new" quantum theory without the quantum would abate. With the help of Heisenberg Uncertainty, Bohr was prepared to say that two contradictory things (wave-particle duality, or a cloud of electron states) can both be true at the same time, rather than Einstein's view that the thing measured is itself different from either incomplete model (which would entail that Uncertainty speaks an attempt to measure something that isn't actually there, i.e. isn't an attribute of the thing itself). Einstein dramatically announced that the theory was counterintuitive, distasteful, and temporary, and the two engaged in challenges and rebuttals. Einstein continued to challenge the 1927 revolution until his death in 1955 at his refuge of Princeton; he was often answered but never out of ammunition.

In 1935 the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox demonstrated a fundamental problem with quantum theory, namely that it predicts that reality is nonlocal and apparent faster-than-light entanglement occurs; work on refining this model continued by David Bohm. Not until the Alain Aspect experiment of 1982, based on John Bell's CERN math, was a test established, and the interpretation of the test still hasn't answered Einstein's objections; the experiment allowed interpretive loopholes. This leads to the occasional "Einstein's revenge" article showing that yet again another of his minor predictions was right, leading to the question of whether he will be proven right about the EPR paradox too. Science author J.P. McEvoy comments, "The famous 'dead and alive cat' and the EPR paradox ... both remain unresolved." M-theory with Yang-Mills folding has assisted in better modeling the wave-particle duality but has not yet been brought to bear to answer the meaning of nonlocality as Bohr's work implied. The fact is that the competing models of reality are either "homo mensura" (only what we observe has meaning) or "res ipsa loquitur" (everything has meaning without our observation). Einsteinian distaste for solipsism over realism exists today; Schrodinger's cat has nine lives, not 4.5.

All the same, looking back, conspiracy theory would suggest that the preferred model is to fund both sides of a war, indebting both to yourself. Hadn't Einstein been watched closely by his friend, physicist Emil Warburg, who was not only the father of a Nobelist but also the fifth cousin once removed of Fed founder Paul Warburg (common ancestors Jacob and Rahel Warburg)? Wasn't Einstein's haven of Princeton previously presided over by the unknown scholastic Woodrow Wilson, a Carnegie Foundation trustee with Wall Street support? Carnegie and Warburg were very interconnected over this time. So Einstein was sheltered from Hitler but also constantly pressured by the cabal's eye. And certainly "publish or perish" dependency of scientists upon research funding has continued. So is it possible that the modern Solvay bloc, and the remaining contrasting tension from modern Einstein followup such as condensate and gravity waves, are both controlled by elites? That seems unlikely to be disputed. If any power or cogency were to arise from building on the outsider work of Tesla or Dirac, wouldn't the powers who control scientific inquiry and who particularly shut out intelligent design be already onto it? The cabal's motive is to watch for anything of value in the wild and to "civilize" and "rehabilitate" it under a central-control "Borg" banner. If we assume that many unsolved problems are privately solved and that a constant review of research is engaged by a world cabal so that any fresh discoveries can be rerouted, not unlikely to presume at all, the only solution would be a parallel society in which research can be conducted secretly until the work can be released in such way as to prevent Solvay-Mond central-control (such as it exerted over the anhydrous sodium carbonate process). Capitalists do have secret research, but it's generally directed toward bottom line even when there is sufficient profit to give back to humanity; and "public" research is directed by government, which tends toward its own secrecy and cabal infiltration for very similar self-preservative purposes.

So we can start with the clear trending in control over scientific speech expressed in the Solvay Conference (similar controls come from other nameable education clusters like the Carnegie Foundation). Funding and management of these modern-science chutes has been investigated in detail and can be built on the narrative herein. Exposure is good but solutions are better. It's clear that everyone should have the research freedom that Royal Fellow Mond enjoyed and then withheld from others, namely, the ability to profit reasonably from one's discoveries, which also entails the duty to uplift less privileged society, in one's reasonable judgment. The internet helps, and perhaps the elites had no power to keep it from getting out of hand. An amusing question becomes which suppressed result will first break out and take on an uncontrolled life of its own. But more consoling is the fact that the universe takes care of itself and suppression cannot continue indefinitely (a corollary of the laws of thermodynamics). Since sooner or later the discovery that will break the conspiracy will certainly arise from somewhere, we must work every day toward making it more of a reality. Perhaps the humility of Ernest Rutherford, when alpha scattering shockingly proved atoms were orbitals rather than puddings, will return to inquiry, and free-energy phenomena will be available to all, as history indicates they once were. Truth will out.

More.

Comments (23)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
2
Love_Over_Fear 2 points ago +2 / -0

I can only point you to natural sciences. Did you know that, in history, famous scientists learnt all available sciences as one and understood the world through this? Your extremely boring statement, sorry, but I have to be truthful, is reaching no conclusion. It only gives a very complex suggestion to all the people that are looking for the answers. It is not valuable, nor conclusive. It is just a "want", not a "solution".

Your examples of paradoxes and ideas are just showing irrelevant information. If you want to reach a conclusion on a simple case, you must be seeking the simple answer, not the complex one. I can give you many theories on string theory and they are all wrong as proven in the last years. That brings no value to anyone. That is what I am pointing at. You probably think that these examples grant you knowledge, but can you be 100% aware that knowledge is not false? There is a lot of false information and you seek complex solutions to simple problems. That is not mathematically balanced and will only prove incorrect in core.

So think about it this way. What is the point that all PROVEN facts point at? What is the one similar thing between them, or most notable trait? That would be the key that you need to open this door. Not complex-stated nonsense, sorry but if you rationally think about the information you've presented it is simply a simple state expressed by the most complex way. It is not helping, it is only confusing.

Your whole statement is banking on unconfirmed information or hearsay. That is NOT scientific. Not even close. It is a good-sounding story, nothing more. It may sound scientific to the rest, but it is actually just a fairy tail to anyone who understands science. I've spend a lot of time in science. I have reached great places in math, psychology, and physics. And only in 6th grade. But how can they be combined? What is similar in all of these? What is not similar? You should seek the simple answer, not the nonsense you wrote or copied from somewhere... To a scientist, it looks dull and phrased like a story, not at all scientific. So, to reach a scientific level, prepare your experimentation tools, test and observe, reach a conclusion that is not contested by any other theory. Then you will understand facts. And I can share many examples of what you seek. But you don't seek what I offer. You seek a contest, a challenge to modern physics. You seek someone first to explain how your examples and theories are wrong and then explain how the "other" theories are correct. And any scientist will view this as a waste of time. It is the same as the expression: It is hard to fill a cup that is already full. The answer to the challenge is to spill the cup before filling it up. So that means that your current knowledge is obstructing you to view the world, or current problems as they are. You seek the complex solution where the most simple one is the right answer. So seek the easy solution. Study natural physics or natural sciences. Great tomes by Agrippa on that. If you are willing to study and think, not just read and memorize. Right?

1
SwampRangers [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're mostly right, except where you make statements about my motive. In this post I was indeed telling a story rather than advocating a theory: the story was that scientific inquiry is so often tainted by political control rather than free expression. It was my own story and research and presentation, though I admitted that some events were taken from McEvoy. I proposed generic solutions so that my story would have an ending rather than a complaint.

If I were to speak more directly of theory I would align with your thoughts. Many of us had conquered central math, psych, and physics in 6th grade. The simple explanation is to refer to the harmony of the totality of the cosmos. Any phenomenon is an expression of that, and when interpretations conflict then each one is incomplete and organically growable. I've already alluded that the new measurement of W boson mass is not the starting point for solving the observational problem, the starting point is the holistic picture of the cosmos in which the alleged discrepancy was observed, and having pursued that method since yesterday I already have new rippling conceptual models, to flow toward solving the present discrepancy.

If I were to characterize my seeking it would indeed be to spill off the mistakes of any theory so that its truth can remain in the cup. The truth will continue to resonate with the cosmos while the lies fail. Then everyone will see that they are holding the same Platonic cup.