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.
fixall.org...
Seems that maxwell's four equations, famously used in every text book on physics and serving as the mathematical underpinning of all electromagnetic/static applications, are not the original Maxwell equations. They are, instead, simplifications by Oliver Heaviside. Simplifications he made after cropping out the quadternions which removed the scaler potential component because "It was too mystical"
Bearden is not "spot on", he is a crackpot who is completely debunked here, including his attempt to distort the history of Maxwell's equations and to use incompatible forms of math together to support his bogus claim of creating "free energy":
originally posted by: primalfractal
Spot on
fixall.org...
Seems that maxwell's four equations, famously used in every text book on physics and serving as the mathematical underpinning of all electromagnetic/static applications, are not the original Maxwell equations. They are, instead, simplifications by Oliver Heaviside. Simplifications he made after cropping out the quadternions which removed the scaler potential component because "It was too mystical"
So, contrary to showing the source for his free energy, what he is really showing us is his failure to apply math correctly, not too surprising for a guy who purchased his degree from a diploma mill.
what Bearden is arguing, ultimately, is that the viewpoint change represented by a shift of a reference-frame has real physical implications: by simply switching reference frames to one in which there is more energy, we can get energy. After all, if you do the relativistic reference-frame translation using quaternions, you get a non-symmetric translation where there is more energy than before the translation. So it's surplus energy, generated from nowhere.
The problem is that he's thoroughly botching the math. He's insisting on using the non-symmetric quaternion form of Maxwell's equations; but he's also insisting on using the symmetric translation of relativity - even though the two are completely incompatible... It's a basic math error - roughly like applying a theorem derived for an abelian group to an algebra on a non-abelian group...
Bearden is, quite possibly, the looniest crackpot I've found so far.
originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
What you have is a balanced ternary.
I'm afraid your understanding of the double slit experiments and of neutrinos is lacking. The double slit experiment has been performed with a variety of different particles, such as, photons, electrons, atoms and even some molecules, up to the size of a "buckyball" C(60) or 60 carbon atoms is a ball-shaped molecule.
originally posted by: blackcrowe
The experiment i would choose to confirm my hypothesis is the double slit exp. Where (-1, 0, 1) is a wave of a photon/light. Upon annihilation at the centre of the wall with slits. The neutrino/anti-neutrino pair become independent and make their way through the slits. They re-entangle on the other side of the wall to form the wave as the results show.
About 3 million billion solar neutrinos enter every square meter of the Earth’s surface facing the Sun every second, and pass out through the opposite surface unimpeded. Each second there are about 100 billion ghostly solar neutrinos passing through the tip of your finger, and every other square centimeter of your body, whether you are indoors or outdoors, or whether it is day or night, and without your body noticing them, or them noticing your body. At night they go through the entire Earth before reaching you.
en.wikipedia.org...
Maxwell's original equations are based on the idea that light travels through a sea of molecular vortices known as the "luminiferous aether", and that the speed of light has to be respective to the reference frame of this aether.
en.wikipedia.org...
Kozyrev was a bold thinker and was respected by prominent scientists of his time
No.
originally posted by: primalfractal
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Sure, Bearden is a crank, didn't mean to link his stuff.
That quote I pulled up was related to Maxwell's original equations, was Maxwell a crank also?
Kozyrev was imprisoned for so long that he lost touch with what was going on in physics so maybe it's not all his fault, but let's look at that statement in your source again with the passages before and after that highlighted to give a more balanced view:
How about Kozyrev and his torsion fields, who had similar ideas, and whose work invalidated the completely bunk aether drift experiments?
But in his isolation, he was unaware of the discovery of atomic energy. After his release, Kozyrev refused to believe the theory that stars are powered by atomic fusion.
Kozyrev was a bold thinker and was respected by prominent scientists of his time (Arkady Kuzmin, Vasily Moroz, and Iosef Shklovsky all speak highly of him), even though his work was often of a very doubtful nature.
I don't know if anybody but Heim understood it. Dr John Reid went back and forth from claiming the masses Heim theory predicted weren't impressive because they were somehow input into the predictions, to later changing his stance and saying he re-did an analysis where he doesn't think the masses are input. But it's hard to put much confidence in "It's very complicated and different from anything I'm familiar with. I have a Ph.D. in physics so I know something about physics."
Any comment on the preliminary experimental findings of Extended Heim Theory?
"I'm more convinced now that there is really something to his theory. I don't understand much of the math yet. It's very complicated and different from anything I'm familiar with. I have a Ph.D. in physics so I know something about physics."
I think I have some idea of what Heim did now. There is much talk in his book about “empirical data”. He took the particle mass data and cooked up his equations to make them correct. It certainly was a lot of work for him, but I don’t think it has much to do with physics. I’m sorry to say I wasted a lot of time on this but I hope I can save someone else some work.
I think some might say that 1992 experiment could be said to at least be a huge problem for the Heim model, maybe even showed it wasn't true. Heim's model certainly couldn't make the same successful predictions as QCD (quantum chromodynamics) due to his failure to acknowledge quarks.
Heim's theory also made other predictions as well, such as predicting other particles which have not been observed, and predicting excited states of elementary particles. These predictions do not fully correspond to measured values. (Even Heim's defenders admit "So far Heim has not succeeded in finding a criterion which would limit the number of exited states to those actually observed."[Auerbach and von Ludwiger, 1992]). Finally, the theory does not predict any substructure to the elementary baryons-- i.e., the theory does not include quarks, and this prediction is at odds with measurements in experimental high energy physics, in which the behavior of protons and neutrons at high energy can best be described by quantum chromodynamics. This theory has been extraordinarily successful in predicting the behavior of particles at high energy, a viable alternative theory would, most preferably, need to be at least as successful if it is to replace the standard model of high energy physics.