Sympathetic Vibratory Physics - It’s a Musical Universe
SVP Web indexWhat’s New FAQ SVPbookstoreContact Who
Please visit the SVPwiki
Check out the SVPwiki SVP Cosmology 2.3

Frequently Asked Questions 7 of 7
concerning SVP, John Worrell Keely and His Discoveries

Answers given by Dale Pond.   FAQ1 - FAQ2 - FAQ3 - FAQ4 - FAQ5 - FAQ6 - FAQ7

  Pond: Dear FD,

Thank you for your questions, comments and accusations. While you make numerous dispersions, libels, false assumptions, harassments and bullying comments these will be more or less ignored (for the present) for obvious reasons. As I address your assertions one by one I find this is as an opportunity to address some of these points because other people also bring some of them up on occasion. (However, this is the first time I've ever been accused of damaging individuals and society as a whole or of being 'evil' and responsible for others' failings). I will do my best to respond and hopefully put some of your doubts, illusions, presumptions, uncertainties and fears to rest. Some few links are provided to additional information that have already been posted elsewhere and are deemed pertinent the topics covered. It appears you don't have much faith in the creativity of humanity and its abilities to solve its problems but choose to blame innocent others for those problems. I believe humanity can solve its problems in direct proportion as science forthrightly and responsibly expands its old paradigms and provides the new techonologies to do so. DP

    Subject:     Your website info.
    Date:     April 18, 2010 1:25:07 AM MDT

Hi Dale,

Q174) FD: I was at your site and it was really weird. i mean, nothing made any sense. It seems that words are being created or used without any meaning in describing other meaningless things. Just really weird claims which are never really elucidated or fully expressed in rational terms. Bizarre!

A174) Pond: How long were you at my site? Which site? There are several. Since developing the SVPwiki I've come to regard the information on the web site as introductory, notes, history and the like. It is a site where a lot of material has been accumulated. The "real" work is being done in the SVPwiki - which I doubt you spent much time on if at all. This is not to be misinterpreted that everything concerning SVP is fully explained in the SVPwiki so a 5th grader could understand it but what is there is considerably more advanced than what is on the and other sites. All new subjects of great complexity seem "weird" or "meaningless" to those not studied in them. How long did you say you were on my site? Were you studying the material or just browsing around? A complex and intricate subject as Sympathetic Vibratory Physics (SVP) takes some time to pick up the pieces and understand them. This is especially difficult when so much of this subject may at times appear contrary to some accepted scientific, religious and philosophical dogmas and doctrines. These web sites are part of my sincere effort to organize, reference and link all seemingly applicable materials in order that any opened minded and intelligent person can make sense of it - with time, effort, study and application of course. In this development process, of course, there will be things not fully addressed and will appear as you infer. Eventually, it is hoped, SVP will become clear and practical to those who apply themselves to its study, completion and application. That is my hope and one day we will see a more developed presentation. Over the years, though, I've found few truly willing and able to work intelligently with SVP.

Q175) FD: The math seemed to be missing. Why?

A175) Pond: The "math" is being developed as we are able. What math has been done to date is located within the SVPwiki or on my personal computer and substantial hard copy notes. Standard math pretty much is limited to discriptions of phenomena (effects) and show little if anything about cause or causitive dynamics. SVP is devoted to knowing Cause as opposed to describing Effects or symptoms. Phenomena witnessed in the sense world (observables) does not come even close to revealing the hidden dynamics (non-observables or scalar) that make things what they are. Besides, as far as I know, all standard math models are already presented somewhere else on the web and I see no reason to repeat what others have done - especially since I feel what SVP is about to reveal is somewhat more in depth than standard models. People already have enough to unlearn... A good web site for physics models and some math is HyperPhysics. Do some research (googling) and you can probably find just about any information you may be curious about. Please don't attack me because I don't have everything you 'might' be looking for already posted and in the way you expect it.

Q176) FD: Does 2 + 2 still equal 4 in your reality? Do you know how to do the math required for engineering (trig, calculus, etc.?)

A176) Pond: See A175 above. In my opinion there appear to be inconsistencies in some standard math models and especially their use hence their constant relying on "coefficients", "approximations" and "fudge factors". SVP is concerned with Cause and not so much Effect and it is presumed an entirely new math (or newly arranged old math) will be required to make such mathematical models/descriptions of those things, forces, dynamics and relationships. It has taken nearly 30 years to find and disentangle what we've been able to so far. It will take more time to put details and finishing touches on our understandings and hence mathematical models/descriptions. I'm not in any hurry - why are you? There is time and I am patient although I'm sure no one lifetime is sufficient to complete this task - hence the wiki approach where qualified others can maybe contribute. See Sympsionics

Q177) FD: As a musician (I have taught at the top liberal arts college in the country) I find you are using the musical terms incorrect. Take "enharmonic" for instance: It's really used to describe the nature of two notes which are spelled differently yet have the same pitch (such as a B-flat and an A-sharp.) Enharmonic notes are really the same pitch, but just called by a different name, ...which makes sense considering that every note has more than one name.

A177) Pond: SVP uses terms as defined by others and in some cases just different than you are used to doing. The definition you use for the term "enharmonic" is correct. But as we've seen there are other definitions and other uses for this and other terms. You may find a few of the many definitions and uses of this term within this page. We've spared little effort in finding this information because it is obvious from studying Keely, Russell et al their use of these terms is not confined to a single "accepted" and narrowly defined single-purpose use. Further expansions on this term and its many uses are being comprehensively developed with the SVPwiki and appropriately linked pages.

Q178) FD: You seem unaware of the musical scales in use by western music. Or at least don't quite understand how the various notes are assigned pitch. The even-tempered scale simply is a little off from the ideal but due to our perception it still works, ...rather well if you ask me.

A178) Pond: Have you read everything I've read, studied and written on and about scales? Not likely since I have put very little of my work on scales on the web site. Which scales are you referring to? There are many scales and their variations. Actually, I've spent roughly 17 years studying the western and other scales. I've even developed a few rather novel scales of my own just as so many other people have done down through the centuries. My studies were not so much confined to music as melodic or "playing and listening music" but mostly into the natural phenomena and function of sound and vibration. These we know are not sensorially pleasing melodic music (music scales) but natural phenomena derived from natural principles and laws such as for instance the natural overtone series which is not a music scale but a naturally ocurring phenomena. I've gone to great lengths to explain this difference of focus in my writings. Your presumption we are developing music as melodic or "playing and listening music" shows you have not read the material (SVP) upon which you insist on commenting and passing judgement.

Q179) FD: There is no definition of discord. It is subjective and has various meaning depending upon the composer. Generally when larger numbers are used in a pitch ratio it is more of a sour sound as opposed to small ratios (such as 1:2.)

A179) Pond: You may find various definitions of "discord" here. You are correct in saying discord as found in melodic or "playing and listening music" is subjective - people know it when they hear it. But SVP is not directly concerned with melodic or "playing and listening music. For SVP purposes, in developing a useable science and technology, we make distinction between chords that form harmony and chords that do not and the chords in between. It turns out there are "degrees" of discord and concord. As mentioned before this is more developed in the SVPwiki.

Q180) FD: The word 'octave' really makes sense only in a western scale musical sense.  It refers to the diatonic scale which has 7 notes, with the next note (the octave) being the start of the same letter designation series with a ratio of 1:2.

A180) Pond: As mentioned in A178 SVP is not so much concerned with music as melodic or "playing and listening music" but more into the natural occuring dynamics of sound and vibration. You would know this if you'd studied the SVP materials. As SVP is interested in natural phenomena and not artificial constructs we find the definition of "octave" to be a bit more general as also as a doubling or halving of pitch or frequency. Diverse definitions of 'octave' can be found here. As mentioned before this is more developed in the SVPwiki.

Q181) FD: Anyway, while I wish you no harm, I am appalled that you are harming others by confusing them or filling their heads with utter non-sense. Is that your intention?

A181) Pond: "Harming others"? Hardly. "Harming others" is your opinion which we do not share in the least. SVP is liberating people from narrow mindedness and past superstitions (false knowledge held as the only truths). If people wish to be non-thinking conformists to status quo dogma and doctrine that is their business and they wouldn't gain much from SVP which is irreverent to conformity, status quo and other forms of regimented non-thinking. Those who wish to expand humanity's capabilities and potential would do well to peruse SVP (step out of the box) knowing it is not yet a complete science and technology. I think keeping people locked in past old, worn and incomplete dogmas and doctrines is harmful. This too has been extensively covered in the SVPwiki.

Q182) FD: Documenting Keely's work may be amusing, but let's face facts: A century later we are pretty much assured that Keely was a big time fraudster.

A182) Pond: Facts? Just what exactly are the facts? The only fact is someone found some nondescript tubing in the walls and floors of Keely's lab. So? What the tubing was actually used for is pure conjecture. Every shop and lab I've ever been in has tubes and pipes running all over everywhere. Where are all these "facts"? The only material any of us have had to work with (other than a few articles by Keely, Bloomfield-Moore and a few scientists) were created by yellow journalism or other similarly incompetent small minds. These incompetents knew nothing of what Keely developed and how he did it. Yet they all enthusiastically passed judgement as though they knew what they were talking/writing about on Keely and SVP. Of couse, they knew nothing but that didn't slow them down in their baseless and vicious attacks. As far as Keely being a "fraudster" I've answered that within the SVPwiki and post a version of that response here:

Was Keely a Fraud?

People ask me all the time about the "discovery" of compressed air pipes and tubing in Keely's lab. I get tired of this question. (Does anyone ever do their own research or do they simply defer to the "experts" or whoever is passing themselves off as "experts"?) There were a number of factors, facts and conjectures playing upon this supposed "discovery". Let's list some of them:

• Every work shop of any consequence has all kinds of pipes and tubes in the walls, ceiling and floors. These conduct water, compressed air, various gases and fluids, vacuum, electricity, etc. to name a few. What, factually, was being conveyed in the 'discovered' tubing?

• Keely developed his Etheric Vapor (various kinds of plasma) which he would have wanted to be available at many points in his shop just as we develop compressed air and vacuum and want it available around the shop. He would have installed pipes and tubes for this distribution to work places just as we do today.

Bloomfield-Moore's son, Clarence, was notoriously petulant, jealous and envious of all the funds and support his mother lavished upon Keely thus reducing his coveted inheritance. My opinion of Clarence was he did not like his mother as they had ongoing feuds mostly over money. So was his "discovery" of the tubing an act of spite or personal (egoic) triumph over his strong willed Mother?

• Much of the information we have today about Keely and his work came from uneducated reporters of questionable motives. As Keely developed a unique form of quantum mechanics? and science there was not a single reporter who had the slightest idea of what Keely was working. The quantum world Keely discovered and developed was his alone - the electron, first entity of the quantum world, was not acknowledged to exist until 1893 - well after Keely's researches into the causitive structure of electrons and electricity. So who could have written accurately about anything Keely did - even if they wanted to? The legitimate scientists and engineers who examined Keelys Machines all stated they were genuine and without fraud. So which are you going to believe - the uneducated sensationalist reports or the studied and preceptive scientists and engineers? It is a well known fact of human nature it is far easier to vilify, invalidate and condemn someone they do not understand than to put forth effort to understand them or to admit ignorance. This deplorable attitude and small-mindedness continues today...

• Keely implied his work was not for that time period so he and others made efforts to hide or safe-guard his work for a distant future. A way to do this was to sacrifice himself to look like a "humbug" so his work would be ignored. Is this true or not? The future will tell. See Dashed Against the Rock

• I concur with the idea humanity is not yet ready for SVP. Some bits and pieces, yes, but not the whole of it. Especially not the Mind Force implications and applications. Until and unless a more developed mind-set or consciousness prevades all of society this knowledge will simply not be absorbed by Mankind and reflected in his environment and machinery. We see governments devoting large percentages of their people's money into weapons and killing their neighbors and little into raising up those they claim to represent. This insane state of affairs will only reverse as humanity awakens its consciousness - which we do now see beginning to happen with the advent and use of the internet.

• Additional insights to be added later.

See Keely's Accomplishments and Keely's Inventions.

Q183) FD: A good friend of mine (who calls himself a scientist although he has no science degree, and who is adept at electronics) has wasted decades of his life distracted by this nonsense. It has taken me years to debunk his notions about vibration and physics. (Luckily I am very patient and so one thing at a time we have gone over modern physics and math and slowly he is abandoning many of the things he accepted as truths.) He quotes you quite a bit too.

A183) Pond: Scientific discovery is an expansion of currently held "truths" - which then are, as science moves forward, shown to be not so true or complete. We are all confronted with standing on the staid and accepted or we can ask the really tough questions and make our efforts to forge ahead. Science does not know all there is about everything that exists. Any real scientist will readily admit there is more to unlearn and learn. As mentioned above SVP is a developing science and technology. We do not have all the answers but answers are coming slowly but surely.

Q184) FD: What is really disturbing to me is that you use all these 'big words' without concern for the reader.

A184) Pond: Actually I am exhaustively and acutely concerned about readers especially those who wish, are willing and are able to learn something new. More than 20,000 pages/entries of my own personally generated notes and references have been provided FREE to the readers so they won't have to do all the thousands of hours of search and compiling I did to find and organize them. (Not all 20K are on SVP.) It is my position SVP readers are as much interested in unraveling Keely et al as I am and know it takes time, effort and expense (mostly mine). Keely (one of the many people SVP explores) spent more than 30 years developing his work - almost all of which (his books, notes and writings) has been lost. Russell spent a similar time and effort - so have I. If you don't understand a word, term or phrase look it up. A dictionary web site I use quite frequently is OneLook Dictionary Search. Of course I provide a Compendium of Terms and Phrases founded in and presumed useful in understanding how some terms and phrases have been and are being used in SVP. More detailed definitions and uses of SVP-specific terms and phrases is being developed in the SVPwiki, now exceeding 3000 pages and is being expanded nearly everyday.

Q185) FD: Showing a drawing of a sine wave is fine but why not include the math? I'll bet your readers would be happier if you actually told them something true and useful. The blend of non-sense with pseudo scientific jargon may dazzle the ignorant and sell books but it's a evil thing.

A185) Pond: After studying (nearly 30 years) the natural dynamics and structures of sound and vibration it has occured to me there are severe discrepancies in the standard model of a vibration or sine wave. But that is just my view. (IMHO) I've gone over some of these discrepancies in several of my lectures. Much more detail is being presented in the SVPwiki. I consider this expanded awareness of the inner workings of vibrations to be proprietary as it has come at great cost to myself in terms of research and development time. While the standard model of a sine wave works for what people use it for it does not come close to evidencing work we wish to do in SVP. A sine wave is a graphical representation of what happens in a microphone or similar device in response to an external stimulus. SVP is not so much concerned about a microphone's internal response to external stumulus as it is interested in what is moving, how and why it moves and of course all the relative and reciprocal structures and dynamics in those motions. While a typical sine wave basically represents three values; i.e., Phase, Amplitude and Time (from which can be extrapolated other values: Frequency and maybe Sound Power and Pressure), the SVP model has identified (so far) more than 18 distinct parameters associated with periodic or aperiodic motions in dense or tenuous matter that then creates the disturbances affecting a microphone/accelerometer. SVP wants to know what is actually going on the moving matter and not so much in what a distant microphone may indicate about such movement. A computer model is in the works that will show these relative and reciprocal parameters and their values. All this type of research and development takes time and resources. Sine wave math and descriptions can be found by anyone in standard texts on the matter, on the web and in one of my favorite physics sites: HyperPhysics. Eventually the SVPwiki will have similar but custom and proprietary content as HyperPhysics. PS: All of our books and materials (sans digital products) have an unconditional 30 day money back return policy.

Q186) FD: Take my friend for example: If he had not devoted his time to the study of Keely and Pond he might have made some valuable contributions, ...he is a very clever person highly skilled in many technical areas.

A186) Pond: Generally, I do not dwell on "what ifs" or "might haves" as they are of the dream world and have little bearing on reality. For instance, "what if" your friend dug deeper and harder would not it be equally possible for him to have developed something new? Your presumption implies I'm responsible for someone else's choices, goals and results. That presumption is non-sense.

Q187) FD: I could go on forever on this topic but I expect that you are not yourself fooled by Keely's works and are intentionally misleading the public for your own gain.

A187) Pond: Do you realize your presumptions are somewhat arrogant? I am no fool. I would not have spent the better part of my life, which I value, on nonsense. In 1984 when I first 'discovered' Keely I stopped my enthusiasm long enough to test a premise Keely put forth. After all, I said to myself, I didn't want to devote my life to something of little value or "nonsense" as you choose to call it. So I took a premise of his and tested it to the best of my ability and with what resources I had available. Any legitimate scientist would want to test premises, right? The Keely premise I chose to test was "vibrate an atomic substance with an atomic vibration and heat and light will be liberated". Sounds weird, right? An atomic substance I presumed to be a pure element - not an alloy (molecule) of multiple elements. (This presumption proved accurate and is now more fully explained in the SVPwiki along with many other points of interest to SVP.) What I could readily put my hands on of this "atomic" nature was an ordinary light bulb containing a more or less pure gas (partial vacuum) and a more or less pure element (tungsten). (This has all been presented in several of my lectures available at nominal cost (or FREE on the web) to all those desiring to learn something new beyond what they currently think they know.) The only source of high frequency vibration that was available to me was a high powered Amana microwave. (The usual small low-powered kitchen microwaves will not give the same results.) Insert light bulb into microwave oven, turn it on. I'll leave it for you to do an actual experiment. So for me Keely was for real - even though I was not qualified at that time to directly ascertain much of what he was about. Experiments work. You should try one or two.

Q188) FD: This gain is an illusion. You could perhaps have gained more by being truthful as my friend just might have created some very cool device that would have made your life better, but no, you went for the immediate selfish personal financial gain achieved by selling books etc. Sad. Sad for the world, and sad for you too.

A188) Pond: More baseless accusations or is it libel? Personal gain? Selfish? That's a laugh. Are you libeling me or just don't know the facts? Those who've known me over the years would not support your unresearched and therefore unfounded and baseless accusations. In all these years I have yet to receive a single pay check for all my efforts, time and expense to develop SVP so the world can benefit. Book sales are a meager income that does not quite offset the monthly expenses to research and develop SVP and my very modest life-style. You try typing 20,000 notes, pages, books, articles, databases and then tell me I'm out to get for self... be sure you do this with the intent of giving it all away for FREE when you're done typing. While you're doing that do something additional to earn enough to pay some bills, buy groceries, fix your teeth, etc.
PS: I have no investments other than my SVP work, no life insurance policies, no stocks or bonds, no gold or silver or precious stones, no savings, no IRA or retirement accounts and no stuffed mattress. So there you have a short summary of my "selfish" and "get for self" lifestyle. You would do well to investigate before holding forth on your unsubstantiated assumptions, baseless opinions and accusations....

Q189) FD: I just hope that the cure for cancer is not lost by your confusing someone who was destined to otherwise to learn real science and find that cure.

A189) Pond: Are you evidencing White Knight syndrome or do you have everyone's Power of Attorney to act in their behalf? I find it amusing you feel you know better than everyone else about what they "should" be thinking and doing. People of course have and make their own choices. I'm not responsible for other peoples' choices nor am I guardian for them. PS: Cures for cancer are all over the internet. Do some open-minded research into and learning of those things which you are not yet expert. There is far more knowledge unknown to science than that which science claims is the already known absolute truth.

Q190) FD: I'm all for freedom of speech and free thinking and experimentation, ...don't get me wrong, but what you are doing is not right by anyone including yourself.

A190) Pond: "Not right" by your 'expert' opinion? Right by mine and others. Don't you think it presumptuous to be telling people what is "right" and what is "wrong" (judgementalism)? I do what I do. People can review it, like it, dislike it, go elsewhere or do nothing. What people choose to spent their time on is none of my business and unless you are the nanny-state government - not much of your business either, I would presume.

Q191) FD:
The world is in trouble right now and we need all the rational help we can muster to solve these problems.

A191) Pond: That's what I'm doing - extended the currently insufficent paradigms to new discoveries, science and technologies. I'm walking my talk....

Q192) FD: Please review your information and realize that it does influence folks. The harm (while probably not something that will cause you legal problems) is very real. I think you should denounce it and remove it, or at least present the info rationally and point out the these non-sense statements are derived from a person who lived a life if fraud.

A192) Pond: I've spent nearly 30 years studying this and associated materials. Having done all this research I can say with confidence I definitely do not agree with your unsubstantiated opinions. While the development of SVP is yet in its infancy I see immense promise and potential. It is not rational or reasonable to expect such a large body of involved and complex knowledge to be readily understandable to people who refuse to apply themselves to understanding it. I'm doing my part - I can't pour it into someone's head. A large portion of the synthesis I do is from/with the work of many people, scientists, inventors, etc. As I see much of what these creative and talented people accomplished is similar and support each others' works I doubt any of them are frauds. There may be minor mistakes, misstatements and errors but so is strewn the usual path to greater insights and understanding.

Q193) FD: Dude, it just ain't the right thing to do. (Watch "A beautiful mind" video to be introduced to Nash who mathematically proved that sometimes we should do what is best for the group to have the most personal gain, ...not just follow our own selfish interests.)

A193) Pond: There you go again with your "right" and "wrong" judgementalism. If I remember that movie correctly Nash was totally out of his mind. I learned a long time ago that if I wanted to learn something I did not at the time understand the best way to learn it was to voraciously read, study, contemplate and then teach, share or otherwise present what I knew of it to whomever wanted to listen. By giving insight and understanding I got in return the same only more. You should try this technique as it really works. Russell called this the "giving for regiving" principle spelled out in his many books and lectures. You have spent time studying Russell, right?

Q194) FD: It's not harmless. I have (as mentioned) personally spent oodles of time trying to un-confuse one of the Keely-Pond disciples. Truth is very important to me, as are my friends. But this has taken away from my inventing etc. (Yes, I am a patented inventor too.) In turn, this has slowed my company growth and diminished what could have been added to the local and US economy. (Many thousands of dollars were spent by Americans on foreign products which I should rightly be producing here.)

A194) Pond:
It is really none of my business to know on what you choose to spend your time and resources. If your business is failing it can't be laid at my feet. You think your own thoughts, make your own decisions and are therefore fully and completely responsible for your own life's experiences - good, bad or otherwise. Own up to your self and your responsibilites and stop trying to lay your failings onto others. Instead of distracting yourself attacking others why not concentrate on your own issues and projects? After all it's none of your business what others do - just as it is none of my business. If you choose to spend your time and efforts not taking care of your personal and business life you should know your personal life and business may well suffer for such negligence. BTW: Productivity in this country has been progressively crippled since beginning about 50 years ago - I've had nothing to do with such destruction. SVP expands potentials and possibilites. You would know that if you had actually spent legitimate and open-minded time on it instead of promoting regimentation to the old and staid dogma and doctrine.


FAQ1 - FAQ2 - FAQ3 - FAQ4 - FAQ5 - FAQ6 - FAQ7

SVP Cosmology cover image
SVP Cosmology 2.3
on CD
John Keely portrait
Dale Pond portrait
SVP Tulsa Seminar
on CD
SVP Tulsa Seminar photo
SVP Web indexWhat’s New FAQ SVPbookstoreContact Who
Please visit the SVPwiki