It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“Dr.” Bearden is fond of putting PhD after his name. An Internet check revealed that his doctorate was given, in his own words, for “life experience and life accomplishment.” It was purchased from a diploma mill called Trinity College and University—a British institution with no building, campus, faculty, or president, and run from a post office box in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The institution’s owner, one Albert Wainwright, calls himself the college “registrant.”
originally posted by: hellobruce
Well, Bearden is very wrong there again.
. . . Insofar as questioning the "dual field concept" is concerned, the problem certainly has been long debated, but not resolved. As we mentioned, there is fundamental duality involved even in the notion of force itself. E.g., quoting Feynman:
"…in dealing with force the tacit assumption is always made that the force is equal to zero unless some physical body is present… One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin, and this is not just a definition. … If you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get it!" [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2.]
Even in recognizing the duality of a theory, however, physicists often have not clearly recognized that they confuse effect as cause in their use of the field concept itself. So they have not resolved the issue, even with the "duality" principle which was just an agreement to quit fighting and use either the particle view or the wave view, as one wished, if it worked. It did not address or solve the confusion of wave and particle, and of cause and effect.
The field concept itself is perhaps the most primary example of dual use of a concept for two precisely contradictory things. The concept of a force—which is an effect and never a cause, but is used nearly universally as a cause—is also a fundamental part of the confusion. Force is an observable, and all observables are effects of the observation process a priori. The d/dt operation of the observation process was also not properly taken into account. . . .
ok so explain how it is the chinese are or are going to be flying this thing if it's worthy of ridicule? huh? poke! poke! huh?
originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: 2012newstart
New theories are not ridiculed AS LONG AS they fit the observations.
If you have to twist the observations to fit your theory then the theory is probably no good.
People who say science isn't open to new ideas are idiots. Every single theory we have now was once a new idea. Science picks the fittest theories and kills the weak ones. It's like evolution. (Which is probably why so many idiots can't understand it!)