Telsa was a genius.

Tom Bearden is just perverting his science and discoveries for his own gain. Longitdutal EM waves or whatever aren't mentioned in Telsa's inventions and discoveries.

[edit on 5-1-2005 by Kozzy]

Originally posted by titus

Hertzian waves are tranverse waves, and longitudinal-EM-waves are longitudinal. big difference.

Uh, ho. Hertzian waves are just an old fashioned term for EM waves. All EM waves are longitudinal.

The problem here is the fact that Tesla, Bearden, and others who chase this silly myth is that they fail to understand that there is no medium here. Classical mechanical waves (transverse, longitudinal, surface, etc.) travel through a medium. EM waves do not. They get tripped up by the classic duality of the photon. Is it a particle or a wave? It all depends on how you look at it.

Close to the same death ray theory are Ion Weapons. The US is investing heavily in those at the moment.

Basically they would be a decent step up from our current laser prototypes.

I haven't read anything really about Scalar weapons but my research on Ion weapons shows they need advances in pulsed power technology and magnetic shielding to come to light.

Basically the theory on them is to take a hydrogen atom and strip it of electrons, protons, or nuetrons. Whichever one is selected (based on usage of the weapon, range of suspected targets, and available power) is loaded into a "cartridge". Upon firing the cartridge opens and discharges the particles into the barrel. The barrel uses differing charges to propel the particles in a compressed beam to almost half the speed of light. Depending on range the beam can be quite devastating with not only the initial impact of particles on the surface of the target but it also causes secondary effects of large amounts of heat, a small em field, and maybe worst of all the ability to rip some of the the particles out of the atoms that make up the target.

Using Nuetrons would lower the projectile speed signifigantly as it is much harder to accelerate a non-charged particle. On the other hand they would have hundreds of times the range for the exact same reason. While traveling through the atmosphere electrons and protons will tend to be attracted to and attract particles of the opposite charge in the atmosphere. That causes rapid depreciation in the size and speed of the ion beam.

As of now the ability to shoot particles at high speeds has been tested publicly, but it requires large amounts of power to accelerate just a handful.

Theories exist though to negate atomospheric effects by either shielding the core beam of electrons/protons with a outer shell of nuetrons or by creating a oppositly charged EM field that would travel along with the beam. Both would require substantial advances in known technology and in power production.

In any amount DARPA has in its mandate to produce a prototype weapon by 2020. It also has in its mandate to produce a field ready laser weapon by 2015. (Boeing's 747 chemical laser being the favorite at the moment.)

Originally posted by titus

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Hertzian waves are just an old fashioned term for EM waves. All EM waves are longitudinal.

as far as i know, EM waves are Transverse:

OOPs , You are right, I had that backwards.

In any case, there is a difference between EM waves and waves through a medium. While EM waves can be described mathematically using the same formulas that describe waves through a fluid or a solid medium, they are not at all the same thing.

What is the “subspace” referred to in that last picture?



Also, I find your concept of an “interference zone” interesting in an amusing sort of way. How come the greatest “interference zone” isn’t located exactly midpoint between the two transmitters?

As a very shy person, I almost never stick my nose into scientific / engineering conversations, but just this once, I thought I’d make c omment or two.

Howard Roark says: “Tom Bearden is a nut job. All of the psuedo scientific gobeldygook that he spouts is nothing but a grandiose, Buck Rodgers fantasy.”

…To which titus replies: ”thats same as saying: Nikola Tesla is a nut job. All of the psuedo scientific gobeldygook …”

Well, yes and no. While Nikola Tesla was a brilliant engineer, given his work with alternating current, induction motors, etc., he was, even at his peak, an unstable individual (read about his thirty-seven napkins at each meal and other … different … mannerisms sometimes). After losing his wars with other inventors whom he saw cash in on “his” work, became more and more grandiose in his beliefs and projections (see his “world system”) and finally pretty much lost it mentally.

In a way, it’s sort of similar to Edward Teller’s trajectory, but in the latter’s case, it was probably more related to Teller’s age-related dementia.

titus goes on to say: ”just cuz you think its impossible, dont label it as a fantasy.”

What would you label it as, then? If I believe in the Little Fairies of the Moonlight coming to rescue me from the IRS audit, wouldn’t you consider that a “fantasy”? There’s as much evidence for Bearden’s belief in scalar waves as there is for my belief in the Little Fairies of the Moonlight, i.e., none.

”i researched, and came to conclusion that tom does lie a bit just to make his story look more dramatic. but the technology exists, and is not fantasy.”

Titus, what kind of “research” have you done? Has any of it been serious review of scientific literature, and evaluating and perhaps repeating any of the experiments? Did you build a replicate of the Naudin’s machine and test it under rigorous conditions? Did you check the tensor calculus to make sure there was a sound mathematical background to the hypotheses?

Because if you didn’t do that, you didn’t do any research. It is not “research” if you go to a bunch of web-sites which repeat thes same stuff over and over again without any evidence on their part. That’s not research, that’s back-yard gossip.

And I’m not implying that I have done that kind of research myself; I haven’t. Even an engineering degree doesn’t give anyone enough math to determine the feasibility of that stuff, and I haven’t built any of the machines.

But then, I never claimed to have done research. You have.

”here is what i found: Scalar XMTR “ (by JL Naudin)

Jean-Louis Naudin was doing ‘prototypes’ of an antigravity machine three or four years ago, until it was found by a lot of folks who claim to have made them that they simply didn’t work.

And finally, all this “aether” or “ether”stuff:

Do the names “Michelson” and “Morley” mean anything to anyone here?

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Titus, what kind of “research” have you done? Has any of it been serious review of scientific literature, and evaluating and perhaps repeating any of the experiments? Did you build a replicate of the Naudin’s machine and test it under rigorous conditions? Did you check the tensor calculus to make sure there was a sound mathematical background to the hypotheses?

Because if you didn’t do that, you didn’t do any research. It is not “research” if you go to a bunch of web-sites which repeat thes same stuff over and over again without any evidence on their part. That’s not research, that’s back-yard gossip.

no, i didnt do any experiments. i roamed internet in search of scientific papers and similar stuff that had at least something to do with scalar electromagnetism. i read many of them and came to conclusion that i'm not smart enough to conduct my own experiments. thats why im taking calculus/physics/elecronics and other college classes. i still have long ways to go. i plan to conduct experiments in the future.

maybe, by your definition of RESEARCH, i didnt do the reasearch. but i definetely did something in that direction.

you said something about jnaudin experimenting with antigravity and ... came to nothing. That scalar transmitter device actually came to something.


PS: the topic was wheather russians used any scalar weapons. i'm not saying that thet did or they didnt. all i'm saying that the tech exists and russians MOSTLIKELY used it.

My point is that I believe the Russians or anyone else don't have the technology, because it doesn't exist.

And the reason I don't believe it exists is that all of the evidence for these scalar waves is based on what I consider bad science.

For example, in order to come up with an explanation, the explainers have to make up "magic" words (which don't mean anything). Some of these words are "sub-space" or "# dimentional space".

When you look at Bearden's diagram, there is a little box called "subspace". What does that mean? Is it the same as "the scalar waves go through this area where they are blessed by Xochimilco the Rain Goddess"?

For all practical purposes, they mean the same thing. Bearden uses the term "subspace" (even though he doesn't tell us what it means because he just made it up) because it sounds impressive. But it means the same thing as "blessed by Xochimilco the Rain Goddess", which is to say: nothing.

When Howard Roark asks you what that means, you say, "...most likely... our # dimentional space". What does that mean? Is it the same as "cursed by an incantation muttered by the Queen of the Raggle-Taggle Gypsies"?

For all practical purposes, they mean the same thing. You use the term "# dimentional space" because it sounds impressive. But it means the same thing as "cursed by an incantation muttered by the Queen of the Raggle-Taggle Gypsies", which is to say: nothing.

This is not research. This is not an explanation.

Some of these explanations don't even pass the "boolsht" test. For example, there are people who believe that the high-altitude research program in the subarctic ("HAARP") are designed to change the weather.

How can an experiment which makes changes to the ionosphere change the weather, which is developed in the troposphere?

Here's another example of bad science:

(1st guy): "What makes you think there's such a thing as working anti-gravity?"

(2st guy): "Because Naudin has the diagrams and all available on the Internet for us to see!"

(1st guy): "Then why hasn't anyone actually built one of these whizz-bangs and demonstrated it?"

(2st guy): "Because the Government has taken the technology and concealed it!"

(1st guy): "If it's concealed, then why are all those diagrams still floating around the Internet?

(2st guy): ...uuhhhh....

Our job here, near as I can figure out, is to research, study, and, above all deny ignorance. If we try to explain things using magic words, or read something somewhere and "proving" it by reading the same story somewhere else, we are not doing our job.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

When you look at Bearden's diagram, there is a little box called "subspace". What does that mean? Is it the same as "the scalar waves go through this area where they are blessed by Xochimilco the Rain Goddess"?


Bearden uses the term "subspace" (even though he doesn't tell us what it means because he just made it up) because it sounds impressive. But it means the same thing as "blessed by Xochimilco the Rain Goddess", which is to say: nothing.

thats why bearden stinks.

maybe these 'magic' words mean something to him, so he uses them.

i wish he used some standard english language, but sometimes thats not possible when talking about complex technologies.