Saturday, 14 May 2022

Why did Bessler Use Embedded Codes?

It seems clear enough that Bessler had always intended to insert coded information embedded within his publications, because by applying a simple code to his name, Orffyre in place of Bessler, he draws our attention like a magnet to see what else is to be found. He adopted his pseudonym immediately he began to exhibit his first wheel at Gera, and we can infer that he was following a carefully thought out plan of action. Even his first publication Grundlicher Bericht contains a number of ciphers, and a large variety of codes becomes apparent in his subsequent publication Apologia Poetica.   Even his last and most impressive work, Das Triumphirende follows the same trajectory, containing a number of pieces information veiled in innocent looking text.

So the question is, why?  What reason prompted him to spend what must have occupied his mind for many hours, presumably also at the same times as working on his wheels?  He was certainly fascinated by ciphers of all kind, having been taught about them by the Jesuit priest and the Rabbi he met in Prague.  I have argued that the information was embedded in all his publications in case he was forced to prove his priority in designing a perpetual motion machine, but this would not be necessary if he had sold his machine and he certainly expected to do so. If, as happened, he didn’t sell it, perhaps he needed the proof of his precedence if someone else demonstrated the secret before he had acquired a buyer. Even then what possible benefit to him would that be?  Ultimately he hinted that he would prefer to die without selling it than give it away while he still lived.

He sought fame and fortune, and some might suggest that perhaps the fortune part was not as important as the fame, but I don’t think so.  The sum of money he asked for was huge.  He wanted acknowledgement of his discovery and even if someone else won the prize, Bessler could still prove he was first in the search for a successful perpetual motion machine.  But he must have had a plan to provide the means of either deciphering his clues and codes, or publishing a full explanation showing how to unravel them. Yet the codes and ciphers are so obscure as to practically defeat the efforts of most people, so we are left with the same question - why?

I think that the whole field of codes, ciphers, secret messages, chronograms, alphabetic substitutions, alphanumerics etc, absolutely fascinated him and he was an inveterate showman, performer and egotist.  Perhaps he looked forward to explaining to his future rapt audience how he cleverly hid all the information needed to build his machine, under the very eyes of those who sought out his secret. 

JC

Friday, 6 May 2022

Shouldn’t Observation Support Theory?

Bear with me in what follows it has a point to it. Empiricism seems to comes second to the current paradigm.  It shouldn’t do but that’s the way it usually ends up. Empiricism is the belief that all knowledge is based on real experience derived from observation or experimentation rather than theory. This thinking was stimulated by the rise of experimental science, which developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. But as time passed and presumptions flowed from the original experience, unsupported assumptions occasionally diverted from the observed facts and errors swayed the latest beliefs.

I was reading an article on a website dedicated to the history of archaeology, and I was interested to note that during the 19th and 20th century there were numerous finds of early man-made tools. The archaeologists involved included both professional and amateur scientists. They published literally hundreds of papers in all the most respected archaeological journals of their time and they are still available.  These finds number in the thousands. The articles were peer reviewed and the dating of the finds were, in the majority accepted.  But guess what?  At some point in the last century a huge number of those finds were either described as fraudulent or mistaken.

The reason for this volt-face was that in almost every case that was rejected, the date assigned to the substratum in which the tools were found along with the remains of apparently modern human bones, was said to be too early for them to have been genuine man-made tools - therefore their findings have been dismissed.   This did not fit in with the paradigm accepted throughout the world of archaeology that modern man could not have existed so long ago therefore the finds were fake or mistaken. 

The article was written by a highly respected and knowledgeable expert on prehistoric man-made tools and, using the latest scientific methods to re-examine a number of these tools which lie in dusty cupboards in many museums around the world, he declared the finds genuine and argued that the current paradigm was wrong and modern humans had existed many thousands of years longer than the current archaeological system allows.

The reason I have mentioned this, reminds me of our own case.  The archaeologists rejected those early findings because they didn’t agree with what they had been taught.  Modern science rejects our finding because doesn’t fit in with what we have been taught.  We believe that the evidence that Johann Bessler’s perpetual motion was genuine and there is excellent evidence in the form of direct observation supporting this conclusion, but this evidence was dismissed because it didn’t fit within the current belief both then and now.

JC

Why did Bessler Use Embedded Codes?

It seems clear enough that Bessler had always intended to insert coded information embedded within his publications, because by applying a s...