John Collins wrote:By your dismissal of my identification of clues as well as my interpretation of them I fear that you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
That 'baby' was malformed and not long for this world.
Stewart's 'issue' (as you refer to it) is certainly legitimate. If you had quoted yourself in context, you could see you are stressing "
my interpretation" because you are telling people why you are calling it "The Bessler-Collins Gravitywheel". But this does not address all of your speculation, and you go right on to make it sound as though there are actual clues you have used to arrive at your conclusions, when really they are also your opinions.
John, I think you would have to agree that you have placed yourself in
the public eye and you have set yourself up as a
Bessler expert. In your own words
"have been studying Bessler and for even longer, and I believe I am more closely attuned to his way of thinking than you are, certainly in the interpretation of his clues".
Yet also in your own words you illustrate your authority.
John Collins wrote:Hmmm - MT 142 nd 143 [sic] are interesting and yet I don't feel as though they are relevant. I can't give you a reason Mike, but for some reason I don't find them interesting. They don't seem to be saying anything that isn't obvious.
John Collins wrote:And in fact I suggest that if my hypothesis turns out to be correct and the path I showed as being representative of the double curve which I maintain also matches that of the path of the kiiking swinger, it will still not be possible to show that the drawing was deliberate and a clue, as I have suggested. But do we then just dismiss it as a clue simply because we can? I am sure that given the comparative crudeness of the design and the particular placement of it that it was intended as a clue.
Uh, yes. It's called causality, but show me a real working solution and I'll grant you all the ad hoc clues you want.
John Collins wrote:I'm sorry that you don't recognise my clues as valid, Stewart,...
I'm sorry that your clues aren't valid either, John. What is the level of accuracy of this next statement?
John Collins wrote:...but I am trying to throw some light onto the problem of solving Bessler's wheel and given that Bessler himself suggested that close study of the drawings, including those in Das Tri and the Apologia,as well as Maschinen Tractate, might lead to an understanding of the movement in the wheel I am at a loss to understand your refusal to accept any of them.
Let me help you be found. Can you show us where Bessler says this? His note in MT does indicate (so yes suggest, unless you are just trying to be crafty) close study of the drawings within MT, since Bessler says "taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind". But you are conflating DT and AP into Bessler's words when he was clearly talking in context about MT. You make that statement with no references, resting it simply on your authority. This has the added benefit of making the DT doodle you are enamored with seem more important, apparently thus providing reinforcement for your hypothesis.
I hope you realise that some people will listen to you unquestioningly and spend loads of time focusing on certain things and rejecting other things based on what you, the 'expert', say. Think about all the time and money you could be costing people, all the while supposedly trying to help them. At least you should better warn them of the magnitude of your speculative methods. If your hypothesis was just a few posts in a forum then the policing of your statements wouldn't necessarily be so harsh.
John Collins on orffyreus.org wrote:"...clearly this is my interpretation of the many Bessler clues found widely distributed throughout his published works, and I know that there will be many who will disagree and maybe find their own interpretations."
John, you are missing the point. It's not a matter of interpretation. True, on the odd occasion you cite that something is your opinion or interpretation of "the clues", but can you please enumerate these clues and provide facts to their existence? So far they seem to be a big bunch of nebulous nonsense!
A clue is "
a piece of evidence that leads one toward the solution of a problem", but even giving you the benefit of doubt, a squiggle in a doodle or the number five does not lead one to a solution. Certainly you have not shown how. It seems more like you are trying to force things to explain your hypothesis (hunch?).
John Collins wrote:And yet it is clear that the one we are discussing was handmade by someone, presumably him. Why go to such trouble if there were other more professionally finished ones available?
First, as you know, there was no CAD back then, so of course it was hand made by someone! Second, you are really pushing it to suggest that there is anything different in the way that doodle was produced. Done by hand it's going to vary compared to others.
Some people have suggested more esoteric reasons for their presence but in my opinion we can apply occams razor to this feature and find the most obvious reason.
Along with hypothesis,
another basic expectation of the scientific method is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them, but much of the time, John, you hold back information and say it will be delivered "in due course", which is fine but then you can't expect people to wait and take your word that you have not made a mistake and that there is evidence to back up your claim. At least not for as long as you like to wait.
Reputation rusts when it rains on speculation.
You are the one making extraordinary claims and inferences. If you can't provide proof, and I mean show-your-work kind of proof (in lieu of a working device), then don't get defensive when people pick them apart or ignore them.
Also, you've watered down the words
parametric oscillation into just buzz words. The mechanism you've come up with has no chance of replicating the in-built muscle energy and timing of the real Kosk mechanism, no matter how many times you write or say those words. When you work in a vacuum, all the manhandling of a Swiss cheesed two foot disc will not get you to the solution.
I wish you the best of luck with your research, I just ask that you be more clear for the sake of your followers. Now you can choose to reject this hopefully constructive (somewhat sarcastic) criticism and throw it back in the form of "...where are your own concrete clues and deciphered texts?", but just remember we are not the ones jumping into the limelight with a great new hypothesis. If one of us does that, then you are welcome to have your say. :-)
