Btw, when we're fiber optic multiplexers invented?
Using of diffractional gratings to mux and demux lights of different colors fall even to 19 century. Fiber optic also used long before networking times, from multifiber flexible image transmitting "cables" to single-fiber applications.
Cellular transmitters?
Transievers of cellular equipment are no different from other transievers. 1G NMT/AMPS and 2G GSM transievers have no specific at all. 2G CDMA / 3G / 4G / 5G transievers was slightly different, due to wide band and channel division technology, but they are no very different from DSSS transievers from late 1940s (yes, it could be hard to accept that digital DSSS is so old, but it is).
every technology is just a refinement or adaptation of previous technology, it is a ladder not a springboard.
No. Back to the laser. There was no any previous device that was somehow similar to the laser at all. There existed separate knowledge of different things that works in laser, but nobody even predicted the properties of laser beams. Same with nuclear reactors, all semiconductor devices, and many other pre-70s inventions and discoveries.
Ladder is what we have now. Only technological improvements, no any new effects, no new principles, nothing. Internal combustion engine in your car use same theory, principles and effects as century ago. All semiconductors "miracle" around is nothing more than miniaturization of pre-70s semiconductor devices. Even in nanometer scale manufacturing process of all that GHz 64bit processors that magnitude orders more powerful than all pre-70s computers nothing new is used.
IDK, if you get the point, but I'm talking about things never existed before. Again with laser - nobody nowhere saw anything like laser beam. And after few scientists mixed some theories, here it is. Same with all other stuff I'm talking about. You will not find anything post-70s that never existed before and come to existence after some scientific work.
I even have an explanation of how that was done - imagine, that some scientists today want to explore some mix of science things that never was explored before. They don't know what they will get eventually (like that laser beam with unusual and unpredicted properties), they even don't know will it work at all. They only suppose that they could find something new and interesting. How do you think, what are their chances to get a grant?
Steam eninges existed since at least Archimedes' time, he made designs for them, yet not until the 18th century did they cause a "breakthrough"
The breakthrough was in using cylinder-piston system to convert steam energy to the movement. Unlike previous designs cylinder-piston system was useable. IIRC it was Huygens at the end of 17 century, who proposed first cylinder-piston design. It was question of only decade when first steam engine that used cylinder-piston design was made and was really useful, unlike that ancient toys.
No. Back to the laser. There was no any previous device that was somehow similar to the laser at all. There existed separate knowledge of different things that works in laser, but nobody even predicted the properties of laser beams.
This is patently false. The propagation and amplification of waves in a medium was well known with water and sound a hundred or two years before the laser was theorized (if we want to give Einstein the credit, more than 100 years ago.) The technology and tools to use this same theory on light simply had not been developed yet. Lasers do not use some revolutionary or novel physical process, rather an evolution of already known physical process into a new medium. It was not anything like you say, that lasers just sprung up from nowhere.
Out of curiosity, why do you choose the 1970's? It appears to me you could say 1950s for your main focal points... both lasers and semiconductors were being developed by then, what came in the 1970's?
(Also, btw, I would posit that quantum computers, if they ever become practical, will be the next "breakthrough" equivalent to semi-conductors. There is controversy about them and they are clearly only in a development stage, but so was laser technology in the 50's...)
Also, as a generalized answer to your questions, we are entering a collapse stage of society right now, new breakthroughs generally occur after collapses, not at the beginning.
The propagation and amplification of waves in a medium was well known with water and sound a hundred or two years before the laser was theorized
Resonators was known long before too. But nobody before tried to combine that two things and get something completely new. That is the point.
The technology and tools to use this same theory on light simply had not been developed yet.
Nitrogen laser using air (search it, it is simple as fuck device) could have been be made right at the moment when scientists start to experiment with electricity. There is nothing special in technologies of making lasers. Ruby laser could have been made even without electricity at all, just ruby crystal with parallel sides excited with any bright flash.
Been meaning to get back to you on this...
We seem to disagree about certain things but it is nice to have an actual intelligent discussion here.
As for the Laser, I still conjecture that it was not "out of the blue" but was an evenly ruin of known principles that was made at precisely the time that the knowledge and technology required became available... we have know about manipulation of waves such as water and sound for a long time, and we (humans) made instruments to manipulate, amplify, and focus these waves for centuries even before we understood exactly why this worked (musical instruments, building acoustics, water management structures, etc).
The Laser required first, the knowledge that light also is a waveform (as well as other levels of radiation such as microwaves which were used before light in the Maser). Although others also postulated this, Einstein ends up getting the credit for bringing it mainstream in science and was also theorizing the basic concept of lasers in the early 20th century (1917 according to Wikipedia).
But to make one, the advances in electronics were also required that would not happen until around the post war period. And the first examples of lasers were made in the 1950's-early 1960's at the precise time when it became feasible to make them.
Not saying it was not incredibly useful or revolutionized many industries, but there was a clear build up to the technology and nothing anomalous about the progression.
About the nitrogen laser: once a technology has been developed, it is easy to look back and see how it could have been made before... whether or not you think the ancient Egyptians or Greeks or Persians actually used the primitive batteries some have theorized, we can say for a fact that any culture who had achieved the ability to smelt iron and copper COULD have made batteries and used electricity. Again, hindsight is 20/20. There is also the theory that the lost "Greek Fire" was an unrefined version of thermite. The Greeks were known to trade in salts containing aluminum and iron oxide was trivial to obtain.
I want to ask again, because I get what you are saying about new "breakthroughs" but why do you choose the 1970's when all the breakthroughs you cite occurred before the 1970's?
Are you mixing up scientific advances with economic and social policy change? Because there is a huge shift for known reasons in 1971, but that does not correlate to scientific discovery. For this it would be more accurate to say "Since the 1950's"
We seem to disagree about certain things but it is nice to have an actual intelligent discussion here.
I like it too.
As for the Laser, I still conjecture that it was not "out of the blue" but was an evenly ruin of known principles that was made at precisely the time that the knowledge and technology required became available...
You almost here. Laser is a consequence of fusion of different things that are available at the time - knowledge, technologies and curiosity.
was also theorizing the basic concept of lasers in the early 20th century
The basic concept you mean was not about lasers at all. Einstein can't even imagine that thing. The same concept is behind luminiscence and other stuff.
Also, the properties of laser beam was not predicted theoretically, they was figured out only after discovery.
But to make one, the advances in electronics were also required
Electronics is not a requirement for lasers. Some lasers even don't use electricity at all.
but there was a clear build up to the technology and nothing anomalous about the progression.
Exactly. The trinity of knowledge, technologies and curiosity worked out pretty well. And guess what? Thigs that born from that trinity added to that trinity. So, number of combinations of obtained knowledge and available tech to explore become larger, and different "laser-like" inventions and discoveries should appear with growing rate, may be even exponentially.
But they are not.
why do you choose the 1970's when all the breakthroughs you cite occurred before the 1970's?
Did you read my post I linked to about 1970? If not, shortly - I think, that around 1970 those who ruled that world make a decision to shut down scientific progress among many other things they changed significantly. If you like, it could be some "agreement with reptiloids to screw humans in exchange for unlimited power over people" or whatever theory you like.
Are you mixing up scientific advances with economic and social policy change?
Because science and technology makes people free. Today, to create everything you need for decent life, you need less than a dozen man-hours a week. When you have free time, you get an ability to self-develop, think about what's going around and all that stuff. And you will inevitablyl come to conclusion that you don't need elites. So, to prevent that, elites not only defeloped a system for extracting that free time from people, but also prevent further scientific advaces that could suddenly make elites ways of opression not just ineffective, but completely senseless.
Using of diffractional gratings to mux and demux lights of different colors fall even to 19 century. Fiber optic also used long before networking times, from multifiber flexible image transmitting "cables" to single-fiber applications.
Transievers of cellular equipment are no different from other transievers. 1G NMT/AMPS and 2G GSM transievers have no specific at all. 2G CDMA / 3G / 4G / 5G transievers was slightly different, due to wide band and channel division technology, but they are no very different from DSSS transievers from late 1940s (yes, it could be hard to accept that digital DSSS is so old, but it is).
No. Back to the laser. There was no any previous device that was somehow similar to the laser at all. There existed separate knowledge of different things that works in laser, but nobody even predicted the properties of laser beams. Same with nuclear reactors, all semiconductor devices, and many other pre-70s inventions and discoveries.
Ladder is what we have now. Only technological improvements, no any new effects, no new principles, nothing. Internal combustion engine in your car use same theory, principles and effects as century ago. All semiconductors "miracle" around is nothing more than miniaturization of pre-70s semiconductor devices. Even in nanometer scale manufacturing process of all that GHz 64bit processors that magnitude orders more powerful than all pre-70s computers nothing new is used.
IDK, if you get the point, but I'm talking about things never existed before. Again with laser - nobody nowhere saw anything like laser beam. And after few scientists mixed some theories, here it is. Same with all other stuff I'm talking about. You will not find anything post-70s that never existed before and come to existence after some scientific work.
I even have an explanation of how that was done - imagine, that some scientists today want to explore some mix of science things that never was explored before. They don't know what they will get eventually (like that laser beam with unusual and unpredicted properties), they even don't know will it work at all. They only suppose that they could find something new and interesting. How do you think, what are their chances to get a grant?
The breakthrough was in using cylinder-piston system to convert steam energy to the movement. Unlike previous designs cylinder-piston system was useable. IIRC it was Huygens at the end of 17 century, who proposed first cylinder-piston design. It was question of only decade when first steam engine that used cylinder-piston design was made and was really useful, unlike that ancient toys.
This is patently false. The propagation and amplification of waves in a medium was well known with water and sound a hundred or two years before the laser was theorized (if we want to give Einstein the credit, more than 100 years ago.) The technology and tools to use this same theory on light simply had not been developed yet. Lasers do not use some revolutionary or novel physical process, rather an evolution of already known physical process into a new medium. It was not anything like you say, that lasers just sprung up from nowhere.
Out of curiosity, why do you choose the 1970's? It appears to me you could say 1950s for your main focal points... both lasers and semiconductors were being developed by then, what came in the 1970's?
(Also, btw, I would posit that quantum computers, if they ever become practical, will be the next "breakthrough" equivalent to semi-conductors. There is controversy about them and they are clearly only in a development stage, but so was laser technology in the 50's...)
Also, as a generalized answer to your questions, we are entering a collapse stage of society right now, new breakthroughs generally occur after collapses, not at the beginning.
Resonators was known long before too. But nobody before tried to combine that two things and get something completely new. That is the point.
Nitrogen laser using air (search it, it is simple as fuck device) could have been be made right at the moment when scientists start to experiment with electricity. There is nothing special in technologies of making lasers. Ruby laser could have been made even without electricity at all, just ruby crystal with parallel sides excited with any bright flash.
Very short answer - https://conspiracies.win/p/11RNy8tZCy/conspiracy-of-conspiracies/ And it is not only me who noticed that something huge happened around 1970.
Been meaning to get back to you on this... We seem to disagree about certain things but it is nice to have an actual intelligent discussion here.
As for the Laser, I still conjecture that it was not "out of the blue" but was an evenly ruin of known principles that was made at precisely the time that the knowledge and technology required became available... we have know about manipulation of waves such as water and sound for a long time, and we (humans) made instruments to manipulate, amplify, and focus these waves for centuries even before we understood exactly why this worked (musical instruments, building acoustics, water management structures, etc).
The Laser required first, the knowledge that light also is a waveform (as well as other levels of radiation such as microwaves which were used before light in the Maser). Although others also postulated this, Einstein ends up getting the credit for bringing it mainstream in science and was also theorizing the basic concept of lasers in the early 20th century (1917 according to Wikipedia).
But to make one, the advances in electronics were also required that would not happen until around the post war period. And the first examples of lasers were made in the 1950's-early 1960's at the precise time when it became feasible to make them.
Not saying it was not incredibly useful or revolutionized many industries, but there was a clear build up to the technology and nothing anomalous about the progression.
About the nitrogen laser: once a technology has been developed, it is easy to look back and see how it could have been made before... whether or not you think the ancient Egyptians or Greeks or Persians actually used the primitive batteries some have theorized, we can say for a fact that any culture who had achieved the ability to smelt iron and copper COULD have made batteries and used electricity. Again, hindsight is 20/20. There is also the theory that the lost "Greek Fire" was an unrefined version of thermite. The Greeks were known to trade in salts containing aluminum and iron oxide was trivial to obtain.
I want to ask again, because I get what you are saying about new "breakthroughs" but why do you choose the 1970's when all the breakthroughs you cite occurred before the 1970's?
Are you mixing up scientific advances with economic and social policy change? Because there is a huge shift for known reasons in 1971, but that does not correlate to scientific discovery. For this it would be more accurate to say "Since the 1950's"
I like it too.
You almost here. Laser is a consequence of fusion of different things that are available at the time - knowledge, technologies and curiosity.
The basic concept you mean was not about lasers at all. Einstein can't even imagine that thing. The same concept is behind luminiscence and other stuff.
Also, the properties of laser beam was not predicted theoretically, they was figured out only after discovery.
Electronics is not a requirement for lasers. Some lasers even don't use electricity at all.
Exactly. The trinity of knowledge, technologies and curiosity worked out pretty well. And guess what? Thigs that born from that trinity added to that trinity. So, number of combinations of obtained knowledge and available tech to explore become larger, and different "laser-like" inventions and discoveries should appear with growing rate, may be even exponentially.
But they are not.
Did you read my post I linked to about 1970? If not, shortly - I think, that around 1970 those who ruled that world make a decision to shut down scientific progress among many other things they changed significantly. If you like, it could be some "agreement with reptiloids to screw humans in exchange for unlimited power over people" or whatever theory you like.
Because science and technology makes people free. Today, to create everything you need for decent life, you need less than a dozen man-hours a week. When you have free time, you get an ability to self-develop, think about what's going around and all that stuff. And you will inevitablyl come to conclusion that you don't need elites. So, to prevent that, elites not only defeloped a system for extracting that free time from people, but also prevent further scientific advaces that could suddenly make elites ways of opression not just ineffective, but completely senseless.
Something like that.