It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Beginning to Understand the Work of Tom Bearden re. Energy from the Vacuum

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   
The content of this thread started out on the Science and Technology forum, but the scientific community here at ATS is too mainstream to appreciate the work of Tom Bearden; thus, a new thread in Skunk Works to discuss the first section of a lengthy document by Bearden entitled “Engines and Templates: Correcting Effects Confused as Causes.”

I am intrigued by this document because I like trying to get to the core of any subject matter – in this case physics foundations.

In the first section Bearden is talking about the confusion that is caused when terms in physics are not clearly defined, resulting in physicists using terms with double meanings, and that essentially this means that what they’re actually then doing is confusing cause and effect.

He says that physicists have spoken of wave-particle duality but that in doing so they have not recognized that they’re not resolving the core issue of which one is cause and which one is effect.

He quotes the book Fields and/or Particles by D.K. Sen, where Sen points out that particles with their characteristic masses and charge, etc. are treated as a separate entity apart from the field which they generate – and that this is an either or dichotomy that is not helpful.

Bearden seems to be interpreting Sen’s point as also indicating a confusion of cause and effect because fields, as associated with waves, in wave-particle duality, where physicists agreed to stop fighting and use either the particle view or the wave view, as one wished, if it worked – is a solution that is not really a solution because the essential need to identify cause and effect is left unaccomplished – which is also not helpful.

Bearden states that


The field concept itself is perhaps the most primary example of dual use of a concept for two precisely contradictory things. The concept of 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 effect of the observation process a priori. The d/dt operation of the observation process was also not properly taken into account.

www.cheniere.org...


Bearden seems to be saying that force is never a cause, but that you wouldn’t know that by the way the word is used in physics, and that time is also not clearly understood.

Bearden goes on to say that Feynman’s writings point to saying that the field – an effect – is also its own cause – which, of course, doesn’t make sense.

He says that a problem in physics of the lack of an association of a field with its source is a longstanding one.

He then references his paper “Giant Negentropy of the Common Dipole,” which addresses it. It does so by reinterpreting and extending Whittaker’s 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential. What is that? Bearden links to a 24 page file of a paper by E. T. Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics.”

Separately, I see on Bearden’s website some posted correspondence alluding to the same thing. He states:


. . . On the scalar waves: With additional research they have become a bit more complicated. First, if one reinterprets Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential, it is a harmonic set of bidirectional longitudinal phase conjugate EM wavepairs. Interestingly, at least prior to observation (reaction with charged matter), one of his bidirectional phase conjugate longitudinal wavepairs --- in 4-space --- would seem to be a paired set of waves, but consisting of (1) a longitudinal EM wave on the time axis (which is a time-polarized EM wave) and (2) a longitudinal EM wave in 3-space.

This would then be consistent with quantum field theory, where (in photon terms) the time-polarized (scalar) photon combined with the longitudinal photon is observable as the instantaneous scalar potential. Neither the scalar photon nor the longitudinal photon is individually observable.

So it appears that what I called "scalar waves" back in 1983 is indeed such a revised Whittaker pair, which is slightly different from Whittaker's original interpretation.

Evans et al. have also published several papers dealing with the Whittaker work, one of which shows that scalar interferometry does indeed produce "ordinary" transverse EM waves as we assumed in the late 1970s. That paper is in the group of 60 AIAS papers by M.W. Evans et al., comprising the Journal of New Energy, 4(3), Special Issue, Winter 1999.

I hope you enjoy the Energy from the Vacuum book and find it useful.

www.cheniere.org...


So far I’m only on page 5 of 49 pages, copied into Word without the references, of the piece by Bearden “Engines and Templates: Correcting Effects Confused as Causes.”

But I think that is enough to give a tiny glimpse of the thinking behind his alternative physics pointing to the ability to tap energy from the vacuum, based on his recognition of work that has been left undone and unrecognized by mainstream physics.


edit on 09/02/14 by Mary Rose because: Typo

edit on 09/02/14 by Mary Rose because: Remove extraneous space




posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   
So you should have your anti-grav spaceship running on water in no time right?
edit on 2-9-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: boncho

Is that all you think about?

Why not do some intellectual work on principles and concepts for a change?

Might be good exercise for you.




posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: boncho

Is that all you think about?

Why not do some intellectual work on principles and concepts for a change?

Might be good exercise for you.



I did do intellectual work on Bearden's principles and concepts. He makes claims he can't back up. Intellectual investigation over.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   
I'm just about to put together my MEG. I'll let you know how well it works. I've read many of Tom Beardon's books. They're absolutely fascinating! But until I saw his videos I couldn't understand most of it. Spooky stuff- action at a distance.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Great minds are rarely recognised in their lifetime... the majority are too stuck within the walls of their own mental limitations to comprehend their revelations.
I've got little doubt Bearden is a genius, and I understand he has a lot of respect behind closed doors, but unfortunately mainstream can not (or will not) accept his brilliant body of work at this time.
This technology is secreted away and weaponised while we burn fossil fuels evermore



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Andromedabound

As you probably know, Bearden is elderly now. But I heard him say recently that he is encouraged and thinks that we are going to see free energy become a reality in his lifetime - within the next five years.

This was at the Secret Space Program and Breakaway Civilization Conference 2014, which was hosted by Red Ice Radio host Henrik Palmgren. Col. Bearden was interviewed on Skype during one of the roundtable discussions.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: Andromedabound

As you probably know, Bearden is elderly now. But I heard him say recently that he is encouraged and thinks that we are going to see free energy become a reality in his lifetime - within the next five years.


What happened to his MEG he claimed would roll of the assembly lines 12 years ago, in 2002?

He is just another scammer.
americanloons.blogspot.com.au...



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

No, he's not.

The problems with the MEG have to do with lack of funds to develop a prototype, I guess the term is.

I believe it is correct to say that inventions start with a proof of concept, or a prototype, but that is only the beginning. They have to be engineered and fine-tuned after that. They don't get mass produced until a process has been gone through step by step.

Maybe someone who has gone through the process I'm describing can post about this.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
The problems with the MEG have to do with lack of funds to develop a prototype, I guess the term is.


No, the problem is it is just a scam, exactly like the QEG


They don't get mass produced until a process has been gone through step by step.


First of all they have to work.... which the MEG does not even reach first base!



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Well, honestly, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

But I hope there are some inventors on ATS who will comment about their own first-hand knowledge of how these things come about. Also the pressures from the business world and from those whose vested interests are threatened.



posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: hellobruce

Well, honestly, I don't think you know what you're talking about.


Wrong again - Both the MEG and QEG are just scams, they do not produce overunity.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: Andromedabound

As you probably know, Bearden is elderly now. But I heard him say recently that he is encouraged and thinks that we are going to see free energy become a reality in his lifetime - within the next five years.

This was at the Secret Space Program and Breakaway Civilization Conference 2014, which was hosted by Red Ice Radio host Henrik Palmgren. Col. Bearden was interviewed on Skype during one of the roundtable discussions.



There is now available on YouTube a video that includes the call that was made to Col. Bearden at that conference:




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
There is an interview of Tom Bearden on DVD called Engineering Physical Reality.

In the description of it, spacetime sounds very much like the aether to me, despite the fact that Einstein supposedly got rid of the aether with his theories:


An underlying theme of this video is Einstein's thesis that there is no empty space, as it is in fact the fields and their dynamics in which everything that is, is. There is no emptiness, and general relativity is based on this fact. Spacetime indeed is very, very active. Quantum physics for example, as Tom points out, has it as being filled with “tiny bubbles” fiercely bubbling all the time, beneath the observable state.

energyfromthevacuum.com...



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: hellobruce

Well, honestly, I don't think you know what you're talking about.


Wrong again - Both the MEG and QEG are just scams, they do not produce overunity.

Ding, ding, ding...We have a winner!



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
There is an interview of Tom Bearden on DVD called Engineering Physical Reality.


Here is another interesting excerpt from the description:


As Tom points out, acceptance of the existence of negative energy is only just starting to creep into obscure backwaters of the scientific literature, as for many decades its existence has been rigorously purged from the public scientific landscape—despite the fact that it is hidden in plain sight within nuclear engineering as the nuclear binding force.

energyfromthevacuum.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   
There is an interesting article on rense.com entitled "Simplification - Tom Bearden And 'Free Energy'" by Leslie R. Pastor. An excerpt:


The crux of Tom Bearden's published work, ultimately, is to reveal that the current 'energy' system is and has been deliberately flawed and curtailed preventing the acquisition of using 'free and abundant' sources of energy freely from the 'vacuum of space-time.' . . .

Tom Bearden explains: The real problem is, of all things, the sadly flawed old electrical engineering model. That horrible model used today was put together by Oliver Heaviside and others in the 1880s after James Clerk Maxwell was already dead (in 1879). Today it is actually Heaviside's highly reduced vector equations, further severely reduced by Lorentz in 1892 and in 1900. Most EE's have never even seen Maxwell's actual theory (in quaternion-like mathematics) of 20 equations in 20 unknowns. They are lied to and told they are studying "Maxwell's theory", which actually is not taught in any of our universities. . . .

Any system freely taking and using excess EM "energy from space" to power itself or to produce more power in the loads than the operator himself inputs and pays for, is an asymmetric Maxwellian system a priori. As is known today since 1957, any dipole is a broken symmetry - and that means that "something formerly nonobservable (virtual) becomes observable". Any charge is also a dipole, since it polarizes its surrounding virtual state vacuum with opposite charge. Then it takes (absorbs) virtual state EM energy from that seething virtual state vacuum medium, and re-emits it as real, observable EM energy (real photons) in all directions."

Borrowing work previously done by Lorenz (without the "t"), Lorentz (with the "t") further symmetrized the already sharply curtailed Heaviside vector equations in 1892, thereby arbitrarily discarding all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems. Nature did not and does not discard them. Lorentz did, and all EE departments, professors, and textbooks still blindly discard them to this very day by continuing to teach only the symmetrize Heaviside-Lorentz equations.

rense.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Dont mind me. Just posting so I can come back and keep up with reading this thread. Flag n star btw



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: hellobruce

No, he's not.

The problems with the MEG have to do with lack of funds to develop a prototype, I guess the term is.

I believe it is correct to say that inventions start with a proof of concept, or a prototype, but that is only the beginning. They have to be engineered and fine-tuned after that. They don't get mass produced until a process has been gone through step by step.

Maybe someone who has gone through the process I'm describing can post about this.


Do inventors start with a proof of concept, followed by getting funds to produce a prototype, which then has to be engineered and fine tuned to work at a larger scale?

Do we have any inventors on ATS?



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

There are several inventors on ATS. One of them has even sat and talked with bearden, although if i read correctly, I think he was being ordered to by the military cause of a classified power point slide he was showing in one of his lectures years ago, but whatever.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join