NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation

page: 21
144
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:44 AM
link   
the mathematics of the standard model does not care what the sign of the time component is. in the math it is perfectly permissible for time to go back wards.

in feynman wheeler and Mach QM instantaneous effects are explained with time travelling waves called advanced waves or retarded waves. waves that either travel forwards or backwards in time.

in acoustics timer r reversed waves are not exactly time travellers but more analogous to it.

similar to mirror sector matter. where the signs or identities of particles including photons are reversed.

also it is invoked wrt to antimatter to try to explain the parity imbalance between matter and antimatter.

of course it also get evoked in kook science too. sort of like invoking tesla or quantum effects where not really necessary.




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Are you implying that Bearden is "kook science"?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

What I mean to say is that people always need to interpret terminology within the context that it is used in a particular instance.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

NASA never confirmed anything. This was talked about AGES ago on the forum, and even Zawaodny came out and publicly asked people like you to stop twisting his words.

From the horses mouth:


First the disclaimers: While I do work for NASA, I do not speak for them. They employ me for my professional capabilities and on occasion my professional opinion. Nothing I say should ever be construed as anything other than my personal opinion. As a NASA employee I am allowed and often times encouraged to say what I think. This and the exceptional people I get to work with every day are what make NASA great and a great place to work



As for what people are trying to read into this video, specifically my use of the word “demonstrated”, it is my professional opinion that the production of excess energy has been demonstrated when the results of the last 20+ years of experimentation are evaluated. There has been a lot of work done in the past 20+ years. When considered in aggregate I believe excess power has been demonstrated. I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable.


The reason the video was released was because of a patent that NASA made that involved components/techniques/equipment or otherwise related to LENR. Although, as Dr. Z states himself it doesn't mean its of any use.

Furthermore, NASA hasn't tested anything until they do the following:


Future test plans include independent verification and validation at other test facilities.


The reason being, is that how many in the past have set up a contraption and asked a researcher to come in and "validate" their work, while there mysteriously happens to be an unseen wire attached somewhere. I am not suggesting it in this case, only that it is not independently verified by NASA. Only that they saw favourable test results in their first investigation.

Rossi did the same thing and set up his rig under certain perimeters, knowing that as long as someone didn't touch XYZ, ask the question ABC, or find the hidden 123, his little jig wasn't up.

BLP and the rest included.

This kind of dishonesty, while it brings plenty of stars and flags to ATS, is the absolute lowest form of attention getting, and what makes most of the crowd wishing for future progress in energy and propulsion look like a bunch of lying ________s. You can fill in the blank.
edit on 26-8-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-8-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Are you implying that Bearden is "kook science"?


The kookiest of the kooky. Should be crowned King Kook of Kookville, of the Iron Clan of Kooks followed by the roundtable of Kook-Knights for the glory of Kook.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
"Engines and Templates: Correcting Effects Confused as Causes"

Removing the list of references from the document and copying it into Word, I see it's 49 pages long.

Here are the headings:


Foreword
Abstract
Introduction
Extended Electrodynamics Engineers General Relativity
The Notion of Space
The Notion of Time in Physics
Working in a General-Relativity-Based Unified Field Theory
Time-Reversal and Pumping
4-Space Pumping and Time-Reversal of Mass
Deviating the Time-Pumped Mass from Returning to Its Past Condition
Physical Engines and the New "Signal Wave" Input
Biological Dedifferentiation and Redifferentiation
The Cellular Regenerative System Pumps Damaged Cells in the Time Domain
Becker Was Suppressed for His Achievements and Courage
The Immune System Heals Nothing
The Unsuspected Dynamics of the "Scalar" EM Potential
Effect Wave Versus Causal Wave
How the Effect Wave Came to Be Confused as the Causal Wave
Only a Subset of Maxwell's Theory Was Selected and Retained
Dualizing the "Field" Concept
Extremely Limited Physics Knowledge At the Time
Whittaker's Decomposition Shows the Primacy of Longitudinal EM Waves
The Quiescent Vacuum as Spacetime and as a Scalar Potential
Requirement for Hidden Order and Its Implications
Observation/Detection Is a d/dt Operator
Implications for Electrodynamics
O(3) Electrodynamics Corrects the Duality Error
Reconsidering Whittaker's Decomposition
The Results of Reinterpreting Whittaker Decomposition
A More Primary 4-Symmetry in EM Energy Flow
Giant Negentropy
Present Quantum and Classical EM Models Grossly Violate Energy Conservation
Return to Time-Domain Pumping
Extending Nonlinear Phase Conjugate Optics
This Approach Extends the Template Approach in Nanotechnology
Reinterpretation of the "Lone" 3-space Longitudinal EM Wave
Pumping with Longitudinal EM Waves Accomplishes Time-Domain Pumping
Two Components of the Resident Engine and of the Generated Amplified Antiengine
The Prioré Procedure and Its Active Mechanism
Internal, Infolded EM Longitudinal Waves Inside Ordinary EM Entities
Example of Russian Weaponization
The Subspace of Infolded EM Inside Conventional EM Entities
The Biophysical Mechanism Utilized Empirically in Homeopathy
Application in Reverse for Healing
Energetics Causes Arise and Act from the Local Spacetime In Which the Target is Embedded
An Example: Russian Microwave Radiation of U.S. Embassy Personnel in Moscow
The Prioré Mechanism: Amplified Damage-Specific Antiengines
This Is the Logical "Next Great Extension" to Mechanical Nanotechnology Templating
An Example: Complete and Ready Cure of AIDS Would Be Possible
Rejuvenation of the Aged Is Practicable
Simplifying and Extending Prioré's Process
Briefing and Informal Proposal Sent to DoD and Other Government Agencies
The Major Present Defensive Response Is Triage
How Serious Is the Threat, Really?
The Need for Action

www.cheniere.org...


The document is dated 2001.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Are you implying that Bearden is "kook science"?
if it's the same Bearden i am thinking of he is right up there with richard hoagland. i was trying to be polite. now being on the fringe does not mean being incorrect. it means you need extraordinary levels of evidence to prove your theory or contention is correct to more mainstream science, peer review and so on.

If i were claiming for example that i had made an antigravity warp capable space ship i would think i would have to land in rockerfeller center kidnap one reporter from every media outlet working there and take off for alpha centauri. or else land on the NASA director's car and flatten it under my landing pads in the nasa parking lot before implanting his buttock prints in the lunar regeolith as proof. that way there is no question.

if your idea is kooky you have to "nuke the opposition from orbit just to be sure." Provide evidence so incontrovertible that the continued criticism itself becomes kooky and subject to ridicule. there is no reason why someone who has a real and true idea from the fringe cannot unfringify the idea if their idea is right.

if this is the beardon that talks incessantly about scalar waves he should put up trundle on down to radio shack for some parts, build a scalar wave device, develop the means to measure the claimed effects for scalar waves and run the experiment to scientific standards present his paper and ask for independent testing.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Putting all of that aside, are you capable of reading a document addressing issues in physics that are on record from textbooks and scientific papers - historically on record from bona fide physicists and authors - following along the train of thought and reasoning of said document, and then analyzing it?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Putting all of that aside, are you capable of reading a document addressing issues in physics that are on record from textbooks and scientific papers - historically on record from bona fide physicists and authors - following along the train of thought and reasoning of said document, and then analyzing it?


Mary, you aren't able to do that, why are you demanding such things from others?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701


Yeah its the same guy who thinks his scalar waves were used to control an A10 pilot and caused them to crash. HJe believes scalar waves have the ability to reverse our thought processes. And can even make a brain move backwards in time because he says time is truly just our perception of time and doesnt exist.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Mary time forward or backwards is possible, but to do that you must first enter the space where there is no time and in this place humans cannot survive and maybe neither can machines of any sort that we know of
a reply to: Mary Rose



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Bearden's paper is on correcting effects confused as causes - that the effect of force is confused as a cause.

And that "field" is assumed to be cause and "particle" is assumed to be effect.

I hear him saying that wave - particle duality in physics is just a cop out rather than dealing with the true, core issue of cause vs. effect.

And he says the d(differential operator)/dt(time) operation has not been properly taken into account, as well.

He mentions that Feynman said we can't define "force."

And that Feynman and Wheeler said the force field only exists where charged mass is interacting; therefore, it cannot exist in empty space.

And that they also did not include mass as a component of force.

Additionally, that they tried to correct electrodynamics with an EM model based on absorber theory, but the fields in the theory had a double meaning.

Bearden then points out that in essence, the field, an effect, has been presented in physics as its own cause.

At this point he introduces another of his papers, "Giant Negentropy of the Common Dipole," which is about


reinterpreting and extending Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential (as between the ends of a dipole) and by treating the charge with its clustered virtual charges of opposite sign as a set of composite dipoles.

www.cheniere.org...


He then says


Most electrodynamicists have taken a pragmatic approach to the "duality of the field concept" and simply "bypassed" that tough problem. . . . Since observation is a d/dt operator, actually the cause field has to differ in dimensionality by the unit of time.

www.cheniere.org...


Then he makes this statement:


This informal paper is certainly not intended to be the "definitive statement" on the matter! Instead, it is intended to merely point the way to a deeper consideration of the field, and to its present erratic and erroneous usage in a dualistic manner, and to how to solve the problem.

We use a simple "discriminating" notion: We use "observation" as a process occurring in ongoing spacetime, involving a cause acting on (interacting with) a previously observed effect, generating a change (effect) in that previously observed effect. Whenever one says the word "effect," one assumes (usually unconsciously) a continual iteration of observation. In short, we assume the continual iterative production of effects, each rigorously static and frozen, much like the frames of a movie film. The "progress of change" is added by perception, by our mind's normal operation which is innate. On the other hand, we point out the assumption, in that notion of continual iterative observations, of "time-forward" motion through time. In a time-reversed situation, the exact opposite happens, and we may think of the observation interaction as reversed in direction in the iteration of the d/dt operator. . . .

www.cheniere.org...


What I'm trying to determine is, what is the meaning of the term "time-reversed" in the context in which it appears in Bearden's paper?

Is it the same meaning as you're using the term in:


originally posted by: Nochzwei
Mary time forward or backwards is possible, but to do that you must first enter the space where there is no time and in this place humans cannot survive and maybe neither can machines of any sort that we know of


I don't think so.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: Nochzwei

Bearden's paper is on correcting effects confused as causes - that the effect of force is confused as a cause.

And that "field" is assumed to be cause and "particle" is assumed to be effect.


wrong he is creating a conflict thru a circular argument that just doesnt exist but he purposefully tries to confuse people in to believing his statements.




He mentions that Feynman said we can't define "force."


Here there are fundamental forces we dont have a theory to explain the fundamental forces yet but there are 4 the weak force the strong force electromagnetic and gravity. Now we can model them we understand their interactions but they are not a physical entity. He is trying once again to mislead you into thinking science sees this as a particle or matter of some kind they dont and hes wrong.



And that Feynman and Wheeler said the force field only exists where charged mass is interacting; therefore, it cannot exist in empty space.


True and false again hes being misleading because he doesnt explain to you a photon is a force carrier!


And that they also did not include mass as a component of force.



Here he plays a game with definition of mass which varies depending on what area of science is being discussed but mass is energy and it is indeed a component of force see Fenyman lectures.




Additionally, that they tried to correct electrodynamics with an EM model based on absorber theory, but the fields in the theory had a double meaning.

Bearden then points out that in essence, the field, an effect, has been presented in physics as its own cause.


Again wrong no field is its on cause fields indeed to have a cause and effect relationship that he tries to confuse into a misguided circular argument he creates. As for Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory he doesnt understand t symetry break an object doesny literally move backwards in time. Tsymetry basically states if youran an interaction forward or backwards it would look the same doesnt mean we can actually do it but it explains why interactions can be self propagating.

Now im not going to go into his papers which quite frankly our full of misconceptions either on purpose or he has no true understanding of physics beyond an introductory level not sure which nor do i care really. Just for kicks marry why dont you try to understand the fundamental forces, That way when someone comes along trying to convince you of magical waves that cure cancer or controls people minds and can travel back and forth in time you at least have the foundation to look at it critically.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
edit on 8/27/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Mary, you are right, I was talking differently about time than tommy.
I really don't pay much attention to him as I find him like Imafungi, way to gobbledygooky to make any sense of what he is saying. He may be truly knowledgeable in fringe or out of the box sciences, but he cannot put it across for anyone educated by MS means to understand him.
a reply to: Mary Rose



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Mary, you are right, I was talking differently about time than tommy.




edit on 08/27/14 by Mary Rose because: "Tommy" - are you ridiculing him, or what?



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Are there any garage type research groups to get involved with? The device doesnt seem that difficult to build, sure would be fun to be pioneering space drive!



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: magnecore
Are there any garage type research groups to get involved with? The device doesnt seem that difficult to build, sure would be fun to be pioneering space drive!
Lol fun? Nasa or any similar entity will not entertain you, if they know that you are breaking the laws of physics and to do that, it will be considered taking a step out of line and people get bumped off for doing that.



posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Well on the other hand. If NASA says it violates a law then Department of Justice could sue it. Id imagine they would bring God to the witness stand and Lawyers would be from New Jersey and West Virginia.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Heruactic
Well on the other hand. If NASA says it violates a law then Department of Justice could sue it. Id imagine they would bring God to the witness stand and Lawyers would be from New Jersey and West Virginia.
Lol that's a nice one.





new topics
top topics
 
144
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in

join