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.

 

Bearden gets busted.

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   
^^Thanks for that 2nd link!




posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Yeah he talks a good talk but far from agreement on how free is here
now and using it.


Maybe you could download or order some of his books in which he explains his ideas and work in more detail than you will be able to understand...


I do like how his Einstein gibberish leads into Lyne's discovery of
the 1 Hydrogen 2 2 Hydrogen 1 hidden energy, but check how
Lyne uncovered it in spite of organized efforts to cover energy
sources for the advantage of others.


So what exactly are you trying to say here?


Bearden's interview about Tesla, oouuu such a good guy.

the interview

Bearden's page on Lyne's discovery

Not surprised he might be supported by the science establishment or
oil companies or a group of talkers without evidence.


Why do you think there is no evidence for what he presents? Have you actually read any of his work?


He and others, including Lyne, know what not to talk about unless
approved by a higher authority. After all talk about Tesla is ok since
not much has exited the boxcars full of his notes and works.
But no matter, many things are known with out Tesla, such as will
the Helium or Hydrogen Cycle engine ever make an appearance.


Hard to follow what your trying to say but i can agree that we never needed Tesla or any of his work to be able to build 'free' energy devices for a hundred years or more. It it quite evident that a number of inventors in that era employed the foundation work of Maxwell and others to build functional devices as the patent record proves.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Bust this:

video.google.com...

Lyne has found out more about Tesla than any regular non Security Clearance individual in the past 60 years and
for the last 100+ that was used by spies and financial institutions.

Don't find comments or slander amusing with regard to Tesla because they as baseless.
See Part6 Lyne goes into the slander because Tesla's work was hot hot hot and diverting attention
is part of the job.

If you can understand at all the conspiracy behind the technology you will find more.
I sometimes link to a web page of Tesla's EXPERIMENTS but basically he demonstrated Jacob's Ladder effects
(see them at YouTube) and one wire aether lamps. Those are constant plasma flows and required for anti gravity
or for the electrical force against gravity. DC plasma pulse will provide velocity in the horizontal direction.
This is what Lyne is talking about and only he is allowed because of National Security leaks found by him accidentally.

See Part5 for how American technology was given, stolen by spies or traitors , to foreign countries.
America should initiate a technology containment policy and wipe the slate clean.


See Part1,Part2 and Part3 for atomic gases release energy, work in electrical devices, require hight electric fields
to activate. However a physics or electrical engineering degree might help just to get started and actual research
if clarity or documentation is needed.


See Part4 for momentum, mass times velocity, that is imparted on a object by electrical forces, ten to the fortieth power
greater than gravity. And the 1943 remote navigator that was still confidential as Sandia Based workers sought to sell
off items on the side. The next time they did it they got caught.

See Part7, Part8 and Part9 for a sum up on saucers and and how they work, who was involved, and where they might be:
SWITZERLAND just like a James Bond Movie.


If Bearden knows any thing wait 20 years after his signed any National
Security agreement. I don't think he know squat. Lyne knows and
tells it like it is.

Has anyone read anything about Lyne.

Perhaps little under a National Security agreement have, or wish to investigate.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Bearden might very well be sincere, but he doesn't know much about science. His so-called over-unity theories are crap. I looked into this, and the reason he claims he can get over-unity is because he defines the mathematical concept differently than everyone else. I'd have to do some digging to find it again, but he flat out stated that this was the case. It is analogous to taking a test from a teacher who marks out of 200%, and getting a 100% (half right) on the test, when in any other class it would have been a 50%. Before I found that, I had some faint hope that Bearden knew what he was talking about, but after that, I just ignored everything he said.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
Bearden might very well be sincere, but he doesn't know much about science.


I especially liked how Dr Rodrigues sliced Bearden and Evans a new arsehole.

It's tough going, but here is a superb arse-busting, in terms of physics.

You might like this one too, wherein Dr Crowell is struggling to get his name un-linked with Bearden.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   
I find this interesting. If Bearden is linked with Steven Greer, and he's linked with the rockafellers, what does this mean? Seems he is really sincere, so is this all a scam for money? Is Greer perpetrating a grand hoax or disinformation plot against real disclosure of free energy, and the alien situation? Is the purpose for money, or steering people in the wrong direction?



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
Bearden might very well be sincere, but he doesn't know much about science.


Please go ahead and note your objections to his claims and since i know you have not actually studied his claims your free to pick the first one...


His so-called over-unity theories are crap. I looked into this, and the reason he claims he can get over-unity is because he defines the mathematical concept differently than everyone else.


Why are his over-unity theories crap when he is simply employing the conclusions of men that died a hundred years ago? These theories are for the most part not Beardens but that may not be so obvious when you are not used to reading science texts were they are almost always trying to create the illusion that they came up with it all. Bearden is no different and does not deserve more scorn than the rest of them. Bearden shows that over-unity is real not because his mathematical concepts are different but because it's observable and all our electricity already comes from these sources.


I'd have to do some digging to find it again, but he flat out stated that this was the case.


Well feel free to dig trough the one 'hit-piece' you have read so far.


It is analogous to taking a test from a teacher who marks out of 200%, and getting a 100% (half right) on the test, when in any other class it would have been a 50%.


Lol. "

It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."

Richard Feynman


The 'fact' here is that physicists, and more specifically electrodynamicists, have assumed their own 'standards' for more than a hundred years and even back then it could be showed that it did not correspond with observed reality.


Before I found that, I had some faint hope that Bearden knew what he was talking about, but after that,


So have you gotten his books and if not how much have you actually read? Have you ever gone to his website and considered his ideas in his own words?


I just ignored everything he said.


It's surprising that people still think anything good comes from ignoring other people completely but i suppose your going to do the self interested thing and try.


Stellar



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   


Please go ahead and note your objections to his claims and since i know you have not actually studied his claims your free to pick the first one...


Okay, then, here's a few to have fun with.

from www.nuscam.com...
Firstly, Bearden claims to have a Ph.D. He does not have a legitimate Ph.D, although he did buy one from a diploma mill. While that says nothing for or against his intellectual abilities, it does say a great deal about his character.

from www.phact.org...
Secondly, Bearden does not understand basic physics. Specific examples of physics and engineering concepts that he does not understand include:

-displacement currents
-transformers
-magnetic flux
-Poynting equation
All of which are taught in basic physics courses, and all of which every legitimate holder of a Ph.D in physics will know.

from www.phact.org...
Thirdly, he does not understand university level calculus, as shown here.

from www.cheniere.org...
Fourthly, Bearden claims that a negative resistor can be used as a free energy device. He does not know what a negative resistor is, if he really believes that.
en.wikipedia.org...
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

If you wish to continue believing in Bearden's false ideas, then so be it; I will not stop you. Anyone with even rudimentary training in the subject can see, however, that Bearden is wrong.

I have not wasted my money on Bearden's books, because I have seen from his own website and from the works of others that he has no idea what he is talking about. Any respectable physicist would place as much trust in Bearden's 'physics' as they would in numerology.

I will add one final point for you to consider. Bearden claims that he has unified physics, solved free energy, and even cured cancer. Why then, is physics still un-unified, why isn't Bearden selling free energy, and why isn't Bearden curing cancer? If Bearden truly had unified physics, he would show his work to leading scientists and be hailed as the greatest scientist to ever live. If Bearden had solved free energy, he would be able to power the entire world, or at the very least his own house. If Bearden truly had cured cancer, he would have published his work in medical journals, and doctors would be curing cancer patients right now. None of these things have happened.

It is always wise to keep an open mind when new ideas come along. However, when those ideas turn out to be false, it is time to move along to another idea, and learn from the mistakes of the wrong idea.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
Okay, then, here's a few to have fun with.

from www.nuscam.com...


I'm not following. What does that add have to do with this topic?


Firstly, Bearden claims to have a Ph.D. He does not have a legitimate Ph.D, although he did buy one from a diploma mill. While that says nothing for or against his intellectual abilities, it does say a great deal about his character.


www.cheniere.org...

Well the Ph.D is entirely 'legitimate' ( at least in the legal sense) but if you do not wish to consider a Ph.D that was awarded for 'life experience' and the like that's your right. As you admit this obviously does not prove much about his theories although i will readily admit that i can't imagine why he thought he should have a Ph.D and then gain it under circumstances which leaves him open to ridicule and worse.


from -----
Secondly, Bearden does not understand basic physics. Specific examples of physics and engineering concepts that he does not understand include:

--
--
-- EDIT: Saving space
--
and all of which every legitimate holder of a Ph.D in physics will know.


Well the 'paper' you provide does not prove any of this so i suggest we start with basics. Do you believe there is any proof to be found in conventional science text books that validates Bearden and or Tesla's basics claims?


from -----
Thirdly, he does not understand university level calculus, as shown here.


Well i will readily admit that i would have to take their word for it, due to a lack of a Ph.D on my part, but since i know that Bearden, and so many before him, are accurate when it comes to his conclusions about the validity of free energy devices and largely accurate when it comes to the physics employed in explaining in.


from www.cheniere.org...
Fourthly, Bearden claims that a negative resistor can be used as a free energy device. He does not know what a negative resistor is, if he really believes that.
en.wikipedia.org...
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...



. The apparent negative resistance was also observed in metal wires (silver-coated copper), but was not observed for a single fiber crossing another single fiber. The paper claims that this phenomenon is useful because the forward flow and backflow of electrons in the same piece of material can be reproducibly controlled by external forces.

It was initially reported on July 9, 1998 by the University as a breakthrough in room temperature superconductor research, in the press release Superconduction At Room Temperature: Negative Electrical Resistance Seen In Carbon Composites, claiming that the discoveries "have enabled carbon-fiber materials to superconduct at room temperature", because of measurements of "zero apparent resistance" at certain pressures.[2] This was quickly seized upon by the free energy community as a working example of a device that supplies energy with no apparent source, claiming it to be a true, absolute negative resistance[3][4][5], and was reported in the popular press as a breakthrough.[6] The original press release was later pulled from UB's website, on July 16, 1998, and replaced with one which stated "her findings do not indicate that the combination is itself a superconductor."[7][8]

Chung's paper itself says:

True negative resistance in the former sense is not possible due to energy consideration. However, apparent negative resistance in the former sense is reported here. ... Although the negative resistance reported here is apparent rather than true, its mechanism resembles that of true negative resistance (which actually does not occur due to energetics) in that the electrons flow in the unexpected direction relative to the applied current/voltage.

– Wang, Chung, Apparent negative electrical resistance in carbon fiber composites

en.wikipedia.org...


So once again the MOMENT a highly trained scientist finds evidence of something unexpected they are attacked based on the logic that it's not possible because it's against the laws of physics is just disproved by observation. I have no interest in this specific bit of evidence but it is striking how quickly main stream scientist can be silence when they speak out after doing everything they know how to validate their claims.


If you wish to continue believing in Bearden's false ideas, then so be it; I will not stop you.


Oh i do believe in many of his claims and don't know what you could possible do to convince dissuade me. This idea is not Bearden's alone and it certainly does not stand or fall on his credibility; this is science and unless you wish to address the science itself i can easily just admit that Tom has a lot to say without always being able to produce the type o evidence i like.


Anyone with even rudimentary training in the subject can see, however, that Bearden is wrong.


Well i don't even have rudimentary training ( just high school and plenty of interest and stack of books) yet i can prove to you have vacuum energy extraction is perfectly logical based on our knowledge of physics.


I have not wasted my money on Bearden's books, because I have seen from his own website and from the works of others that he has no idea what he is talking about.


I think the books might supply the type of reference material you might like but that's your choice.



Any respectable physicist would place as much trust in Bearden's 'physics' as they would in numerology.


Luckily reality does not care what the majority of respectable ( by who one might ask) physicists think, say, do or believe so i suggest you do not confuse Beardens possibly incorrect proofs, for this observed reality, with a absence of said reality.


I will add one final point for you to consider. Bearden claims that he has unified physics,


He wont be the first or last and certainly people with supposedly great credentials have fallen flat on their faces...


solved free energy,


I don't think he claims that as he is well aware of the many known scientist who have managed to build working devices. What he does claim is that he can explain the physics involved....


and even cured cancer.


And? We know that diseases can be induced by EM means so what scientific evidence would you employ to p[rove that we can not heal by similar means?


Why then, is physics still un-unified,


Well that depends entirely on who you believe as it may very well be unified already.



why isn't Bearden selling free energy,


Because he is the type they would surely kill if he gets much further than he currently is.


and why isn't Bearden curing cancer?


Why are 40% of Americans eating themselves to death despite the so called advances in western medicine? How easy do you think it would be for such revolutionary technologies to break into the controlled corporate environments? Why are nations forced to stop producing very cheap generic anti aids/malaria/ etc etc drugs if they wish to become part of the World trade organization?


If Bearden truly had unified physics, he would show his work to leading scientists and be hailed as the greatest scientist to ever live.


Darwin, Newton, Wegener, (and a hundreds others i can't seem to remember atm) and so many others can attest to the futility of being right when the consensus is against you.

www.suppressedscience.net...


If Bearden had solved free energy,


He simply did not as we had working vacuum energy extraction devices a hundred years ago. Bearden does not claim to have solved 'free energy' but does claim to have made some breakthroughs in compiling the scientific specifics of how it all works.


he wouldd be able to power the entire world, or at the very least his own house.


Tesla tried that a hundred years ago and even a man of his credentials where prevented from completing the construction and implementation work. Why do you think that Bearden has not managed to power his own house on occasion?


If Bearden truly had cured cancer, he would have published his work in medical journals, and doctors would be curing cancer patients right now. None of these things have happened.


Bearden has gotten published in physics journals but obviously that does not change the world in itself.

adsabs.harvard.edu...
www.iop.org...

I swear i had more but as with good stuff you hardly ever find it when you wish to.


So maybe you need to go ask those premier journals how they can accept papers that makes the basic flaws you suggest Bearden makes?


However, when those ideas turn out to be false, it is time to move along to another idea, and learn from the mistakes of the wrong idea.


I will be waiting for you to admit your arrogance and general ignorance.


In conclusion this is a thread about Bearden ' getting busted' but as i can and will show he is on the whole correct and saying what he does in defense of a reality that desperately needs to be exposed. I like to defend physics and facts instead of people but i don't believe Bearden deserves this kind of treatment when his assailants are attacking the observed reality by trying to undermine the credibility of one of it's proponents. Vacuum energy is not only real but it already powers EVERYTHING we normally assumes powered by fossil fuels.... Fossil fuels does nothing but seperate charges creating dipoles and if anyone here wishes to impress me they can explain to me why we require dipoles for electricity.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 02:50 AM
link   
In regards to the Nuscam link, its relevance is that it mentions several of the mistakes Bearden has made in his work.

In regards to the Ph.D, does that mean it is more of an honorary degree? He readily admits he got it from Trinity, which Bearden's critics claim is a diploma mill. I haven't seen anyone attack his Master's degree, though.


So once again the MOMENT a highly trained scientist finds evidence of something unexpected they are attacked based on the logic that it's not possible because it's against the laws of physics is just disproved by observation. I have no interest in this specific bit of evidence but it is striking how quickly main stream scientist can be silence when they speak out after doing everything they know how to validate their claims.


I concede the possibility (and indeed the historical reality) that so-called 'fringe scientists' can and do develop new technologies and discover new physics. However, the vast majority of people like Bearden are either frauds or idiots. We have Tesla and Arrhenius and Planck and many others whose theories were initially laughed at, but turned out to be correct. We have many, many more whose theories were laughed at because they were laughable and wrong. Heat is not a fluid. The Sun does not orbit the Earth. Mars does not have 'canali'.

In regards to Bearden's books, it is entirely possible that they do have things I would be interested in, as you surmise. I have a lot on my reading list, though, and I'm more likely to spend my time on something widely considered reliable rather than a book that might well be a waste of my time. If I can find a used copy of his books (or free ones on p2p) I will have a look at them. I've been interested to see his calculations for some of his more controversial work, which never seems to show up on his website or even on his critics websites. I have an engineering degree, and a lot of science books, so I should be able to tell if he's on to something or not.


I will be waiting for you to admit your arrogance and general ignorance.


I find that rather offensive, but you do have something of a point, nonetheless. I have done some research on Bearden from his own website in the past, and seen him personally speak in various videos, but I have relied a great deal on what others have said of him, and probably haven't done enough checking in to what he himself has done and said.

Sometimes people like me with a few letters after their name think that they know it all, but it isn't true. I've been known to act like that from time to time, and I've probably done a little of it here. Still, everything I've learned in school and everything I've read on my own leads me to conclude that Bearden is most likely wrong. Could he be right? Maybe; I just don't think so. I'd need to see some hard mathematical proof or a working vacuum energy device before I could be convinced otherwise. If you have that, or can point me to it, I'd love to see it. I don't expect it to exist, but I hope it does. *IF* Bearden is right about his claims, they are extremely important for us all.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
In regards to the Nuscam link, its relevance is that it mentions several of the mistakes Bearden has made in his work.


I just lack the technical background to validate if their claims are in fact on the level and the best i can do is ask why so many prominent journals have in fact published the work of Bearden and colleagues. The math and stuff i can only follow in the most basic of ways so i try stick to widely admitted fundamentals that the establishment already admits as accurate.


In regards to the Ph.D, does that mean it is more of an honorary degree?


He said that he had to prepare a thesis

"I first was required to prepare a formal Ph.D. thesis, as is normal, and do several months of additional work for it."
as normal and can not validate that any better than you can.


He readily admits he got it from Trinity, which Bearden's critics claim is a diploma mill.


Bearden critics claim a great many things and in this case they have at the very least exposed that he used what i would consider pretty bad judgement in trying to get a Ph.D in this suspicious way.


I haven't seen anyone attack his Master's degree, though.


Well i'm pretty sure they would if they saw any opening at all...


I concede the possibility (and indeed the historical reality) that so-called 'fringe scientists' can and do develop new technologies and discover new physics.


It's pretty much a fact, yes, and it's scale of the contribution to science by 'uneducated' ( formally at least) scientist is pretty spectacular.


However, the vast majority of people like Bearden are either frauds or idiots.


And as Bearden repeatedly states in his book, ' it only takes one white crow to prove that not all crows are black'. I understand the reality that capitalism and western celebrity culture tends to encourage these type of people but all that can logically result in is added skepticism and less trust.


We have Tesla and Arrhenius and Planck and many others whose theories were initially laughed at, but turned out to be correct.


But what is not often admitted is that there were very little reason to question their claims in the first place! The only reason they were laughed at is because they were saying things that were contrary to the establishment line; it's not that they their ideas were not 'sold' well or 'easily validated' but that their findings and evidence were just plainly suppressed to maintain the 'reality' that suited the elites of the time.


We have many, many more whose theories were laughed at because they were laughable and wrong. Heat is not a fluid. The Sun does not orbit the Earth. Mars does not have 'canali'.


And the majority of stupid, ignorant, deluded theories that ever gained wide credence were propagated by establishment forces; scientist or otherwise.


In regards to Bearden's books, it is entirely possible that they do have things I would be interested in, as you surmise.


Well i found it to be a fascinating read and it certainly lends him far more credibility than his website does. What you would not so easily notice on his website is the 100 pages of end notes that he includes in his 950 page book " Energy from the vacuum; Concepts&Principles".


I have a lot on my reading list, though, and I'm more likely to spend my time on something widely considered reliable rather than a book that might well be a waste of my time.


I envy people who still keeps reading lists as i abandoned due to it's exponential growth.



If I can find a used copy of his books (or free ones on p2p) I will have a look at them.


You should be able to find the books that way and i got mine for free when a electrical engineering student friend of mine ordered it for me. I am not sure if that special offer is still good thought.


I've been interested to see his calculations for some of his more controversial work, which never seems to show up on his website or even on his critics websites. I have an engineering degree, and a lot of science books, so I should be able to tell if he's on to something or not.


I think the fundamentals are more than enough to make the point but if it's calculations your looking for there are published papers that will give you plenty of that.


I find that rather offensive, but you do have something of a point, nonetheless.


I so sometimes forget that being offensive&rude wont contribute to making the point i do have. Considering this post it seems i misjudged you so do accept my apologies.


I haveve done some research on Bearden from his own website in the past, and seen him personally speak in various videos, but I have relied a great deal on what others have said of him, and probably haven't done enough checking in to what he himself has done and said.


Bearden did not convince me that vacuum energy extraction is real but was the one that made me understand that the principles it's based on is over a hundred years old and by no means 'mystical' or badly understood by those who care to work from observation alone. That being said Bearden has certainly been affected by the numerous attempts on his life and this has not helped him to become the type of person that will easily convince others of his ideas.


es people like me with a few letters after their name think that they know it all, but it isn't true. I've been known to act like that from time to time, and I've probably done a little of it here.


Well in the cultures we are raised in it's easy to believe that a degree in whatever really means you know 'it all' and i do not blame scientist/graduates for getting away when they have gone trough a additional 3-4 years of highly specialized indoctrination. If a few posts by myself can lead you to admit what you so far have i think that indoctrination pretty much failed on you and i hope you have manage to reconcile yourself with the fact that at least some of what you spent three years on is patently false and known to be so.


Still, everything I've learned in school and everything I've read on my own leads me to conclude that Bearden is most likely wrong.


Everything? Doesn't that bother you in the least?


Could he be right? Maybe; I just don't think so.


Why think about this when you could turn to documented proofs that validated the basic tenant 125 years ago?

Where is the evidence that energy is not being conserved if that is the rallying cry against these technologies?


I'd need to see some hard mathematical proof or a working vacuum energy device before I could be convinced otherwise.


Why the fascination with 'mathematical' proof when math is but a tool employed to quantify what is being observed? Do we need math to prove that objects are attracted to each other or that the Earth revolves around the sun? How much math do we really need?

Is it not enough to observe how permanent magnets do what they do or how bulbs can light up without a closed circuit?

science.uniserve.edu.au... I think the diagram on page 9 clears up the reality that energy flows radially and in all planes from the terminals of the battery/dipole and that we are only measuring what is being attracted into close proximity to the circuit wires by the current being induced.


If you have that, or can point me to it, I'd love to see it. I don't expect it to exist, but I hope it does.


I am pretty sure i have posted the following before but there it is again.

Bearden

USPO

meg patent

www.rexresearch.com...

peswiki.com...:MEG

-------------

Alfred Hubbard

USPO Hubbard

www.rexresearch.com...

------------

John Huston

USPO

www.rexresearch.com... Houston

www.rexresearch.com...

-----------

Meyers

'Power from the Air' Patent Found!

www.rexresearch.com...

www.rexresearch.com... No us patent

-----------

T Henry Moray

www.rexresearch.com...

-----------

Kawai

USPO

Continued



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Tesla

USPO

Tesla's patent for an "Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy," number 685,957

freepatentsonline.com...

USPO

----------

James H. Rogers

USPO

958,829, Method and Apparatus for Producing High Frequency Oscillating Currents. J. Filed Jan. 20, 1910.

www.rexresearch.com...

That is obviously not a complete list but it should be sufficient.


*IF* Bearden is right about his claims, they are extremely important for us all.


This is NOT about Bearden or what he has to say as this issue is simply far older and more involved than one person or their views; while this thread is about his credibility some are unjustifiably employing it to attack the credibility of vacuum energy itself.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Thanks for the links; all those guys are new to me except for Thomas Moray.

I took a look at Bearden's patent for the MEG. He mentions that he can't get EEs to invest in it because they think it looks like a transformer, and at first glance, that is what it looks like to me, too. I'd have to get a lot more in-depth to figure out the subtle differences, more time than the 15 minutes I spent reading it, that's for sure.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
If Bearden knows any thing wait 20 years after his signed any National
Security agreement. I don't think he know squat. Lyne knows and
tells it like it is.


I would be interested to know why you think Bearden knows so little as apparently is widely shared by those who don't know anything.



Has anyone read anything about Lyne.


Was unaware of his existence until i read your post...


Perhaps little under a National Security agreement have, or wish to investigate.


Do you really believe this has anything to do with something as mundane and superficial as 'national security'? It might apply for government contractors and scientist that works within the defense infrastructure but frankly they long ago had it working and implemented thus shutting down the type of research that could expose them further. The effort outside government agencies are far larger and the people who keep such suppressed have no reason to resort to 'the law' and have the abilities and resources to make good on whatever threats and violence they must resort to when payoff's and the like do not bring silence. Sometimes they have to contend with high profile people who break ranks but as is evident from Eugene Malloves murder not so long ago they will find a way even if they have to make it look 'random' and thus lose the added capacity to scare the ignorant into silence. Those who have been following events obviously do not need suicides by automatic weapons fire to tell the story so we got the message loud and clear.

en.wikipedia.org...

Stellar



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
I especially liked how Dr Rodrigues sliced Bearden and Evans a new arsehole.

It's tough going, but here


Most of that did go right over my head but it's interesting that the author admits the following:


Detailed proofs of the above statements will be given due
to the fact that Evans and the AIAS group have succeeded in publishing
in some journals (including, e.g., Found. Phys. Lett., Optik, Physica A
and B, etc.) a remarkable potpourri of nonsense mathematics and physics.
Most recently Evans has announced widely that new papers are in publication
and others are submitted. Among the many lies told by Evans -
representing AIAS - is that of the paternity of the superluminal X-waves
solutions of the homogeneous and Maxwell wave equations. This issue is
discussed in an Appendix.


So they get are incompetent and worse get published in journals who's refereeing process have destroyed so many reputations trough burying scientific evidence that could damage the believes we all at one time had in establishment science? I don't understand the logic that suggests these journals are run by incompetents that will allow 'incompetent work', that undermines the reality these journals defends, to derail their plans for a monopoly on scientific theory.

Please explain why Myron Evans received a civil list pension


Prof Myron Evans - Scientist

Prof Evans was appointed to the Civil List for distinguished contributions to Britain and the Commonwealth in science in Spring 2005. By Reform Act of 1837 the appointment is intended to "express the gratitude of the Nation" and is upon recommendation to Parliament by the Prime Minister, and for science, the Royal Society. Currently he is the only scientist on the Civil List and the only person from Wales. This is a High British Honour akin to Order of Merit or Companion of Honour. Scientific predecessors on the Civil List include Newton, Dalton, Faraday and Joule. Other poets on the Civil List include Byron, Wordsworth and Tennyson. Myron Evans was born in Craigcefnparc, educated at Pontardawe Grammar School and the then University College of Wales Aberystwyth from 1968 to 1974. Junior Resaerch Fellow of Wolfson College Oxford, elected 1975. Studied under Prof. Mansel Davies for a Ph. D. degree and awarded the D. Sc. degree in 1977 for major contributions to science. Harrison Memorial Prize and Meldola Medal of the Royal Society of Chemistry with a research group consisting of Gareth Evans, Colin Reid and Mauro Ferrario, with guest workers Jozef Moscicki, Barbara Janik and Ahmed Hasanein. Thereafter worked at IBM in Kingston New York State, Cornell and Zurich Universities. Formed the Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies in 1998 and currently directs it voluntarily from Craigcefnparc using the web. Interests (published in about 750 papers and books) cover areas such as far infra red spectroscopy, molecular dynamics computer simulation, field applied simulation, group theoretical statistical mechanics, non linear optics, gauge theory, and unified field theory. The latter, known as Einstein Cartan Evans (ECE) theory, has attracted great international interest from 2003 to present. Prof Evans published a book of poetry in 2005, (Arima), and permanent exhibition of prints from the New World in the Library of University of Wales Swansea.

www.bbc.co.uk...


Scientific predecessors on the Civil List include Newton, Dalton, Faraday and Joule so it's interesting that the Royal society considers him part of this group. Do you have a problem with fundamentals those scientist laid down and if not what do you believe to be purpose of including a fraudster, according to your views, in such a group of people?


is a superb arse-busting, in terms of physics.


Well i sadly lack the knowledge , and certainly the credentials, to understand the math involved but when i comes to principles i do have some ideas and as far as i am concerned Rodrigues is misrepresenting reality on a far more basic level than Myron Evans may be. Vacuum energy is a observed reality and ALL our electricity comes from there to start with , by means of dipolarities, so i don't understand why people like you wish to disregard a hundred years of more of patents that proves the existence of these devices and thus the fundamental 'free' nature of energy.


You might like this one too, wherein Dr Crowell is struggling to get his name un-linked with Bearden.


And i respect the fact that not all scientist are revolutionaries and that this man may not have understood that he was risking his very life, and certainly his livelihood, and have now decided that the 'truth' at any cost is simply too high a price to pay for some including myself. I am not about to try saving the world on my own, especially not by running in front to get mowed down first, and i respect the fact that other clear thinking people share my sentiments.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Please explain why Myron Evans received a civil list pension...do you have a problem with fundamentals those scientist laid down and if not what do you believe to be purpose of including a fraudster, according to your views, in such a group of people?


I was really more referring to Bearden, I notice you avoid defending him and turn to Evans. Ok.

Well, first off, that's a superb bit of illogic - his association in an organization with great scientists of history doesn't allow him to arrogate their discoveries as some sort of shield against criticism.

Next, he's a chemist, not a physicist, and I find it intriguing that the chemists nominated him. As I suspect they wouldn't for physics, it leaves me to wonder if he was not a superb chemist. This nomination may not speak for his AIAS contributions.

In another light, you DO know that he was dismissed from UNCC for incompetence and denied tenure at the University of Wales, amongst other academic slaps in his face?

It doesn't take much looking to find people ranking on him in terms of his work either, 10 seconds look found this.





Well i sadly lack the knowledge , and certainly the credentials, to understand the math involved but when i comes to principles i do have some ideas and as far as i am concerned Rodrigues is misrepresenting reality on a far more basic level than Myron Evans may be. Vacuum energy is a observed reality and ALL our electricity comes from there to start with , by means of dipolarities, so i don't understand why people like you wish to disregard a hundred years of more of patents that proves the existence of these devices and thus the fundamental 'free' nature of energy.


Rodrigues is slapping Bearden in the chops, primarily, because Bearden isn't competent to do this sort of work, and gets a lot of it wrong. You can find other physicists that dissect it in detail than just Rodrigues. I seem to recall you defending the Trinity diploma mill upthread - I know you're a Bearden fan boi but come on. You can buy yourself a PhD at their newest incarnation on the cheap. That doesn't make you a physicist. If I purchase a JD from them, it won't make me a lawyer. That only works at the end of Wizard of Oz.

Next, I doubt that Rodrigues is "denying the existence of vacuum energy" as an effect, but while Bearden claims it, I am not so sure you can mathematically relate the Heaviside flow to vacuum energy. It's the latest thing to claim that any effect in the OU community is magical vacuum energy, but you don't get to do that in physics. If you like Poynting vectors, why not go read up on the Drude model? It's the reason we use current flow and not Poynting vectors now.

And that would be "dipoles", and patents are not scientific proof of anything.



And i respect the fact that not all scientist are revolutionaries and that this man may not have understood that he was risking his very life, and certainly his livelihood, and have now decided that the 'truth' at any cost is simply too high a price to pay for some including myself. I am not about to try saving the world on my own, especially not by running in front to get mowed down first, and i respect the fact that other clear thinking people share my sentiments.


Or what he was running to try to save was his credibility and reputation.

Do you feel that agreeing with you is the hallmark of clarity of thought?



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
I was really more referring to Bearden, I notice you avoid defending him and turn to Evans. Ok.


Just trying to keep you focused as it seems you will lash out at anyone who you suspect of questioning the reality you seem to have a vested interest in defending at all cost.


Well, first off, that's a superb bit of illogic - his association in an organization with great scientists of history doesn't allow him to arrogate their discoveries as some sort of shield against criticism.


Sure but i intended you to address EVERYTHING i said and not just this part. Bearden and Evans have both been published in major journals at best this means these journals regularly publish material of the low quality you somehow see in their work. Explain to me how these journals would allow the establishment truth they protect by hook and by crook to be questioned in a incompetent manner in THEIR OWN JOURNALS. You are doing nothing to resolve this conundrum and all you seem to be saying is that their work is crap and that no one should pay it any attention while somehow managing to ignore the reality that many major journals do!


Next, he's a chemist, not a physicist, and I find it intriguing that the chemists nominated him.


So how does his degree in another primary field disqualify him from doing research in another field? You only find it 'intriguing' that he was nominated in this way?


As I suspect they wouldn't for physics, it leaves me to wonder if he was not a superb chemist.


So what has he contributed to the field of chemistry that would lead him to be considered in league with Newton,Joule,Dalton and Faraday?


This nomination may not speak for his AIAS contributions.


You don't have to tell us what you want to believe as that is very obvious.


In another light, you DO know that he was dismissed from UNCC for incompetence


Oh i am sure that's what they claimed but i doubt they hired him for his degree as physicists so explain the civil list pension assuming he is so bad at chemistry that he gets fired?


and denied tenure at the University of Wales, amongst other academic slaps in his face?


There are few scientist with revolutionary ideas that are denied tenure somewhere for some reason and you know this well.


It doesn't take much looking to find people ranking on him in terms of his work either, 10 seconds look found this.


Right and last time i checked the norm is to first attack the competence of those scientist who makes revolutionary claims and only to move towards attacking the idea itself when all else fails. We are currently observing the continuing attempts to assasinate his credibility as per norm ( They after all laughed at Wegener for making even that obvious point ) but they will eventually have to move on to this theory when they have wasted a few decades or years.


Rodrigues is slapping Bearden in the chops, primarily, because Bearden isn't competent to do this sort of work, and gets a lot of it wrong.


Yet Bearden gets published in the type of journals who HATES ideas that conflict with their established realities? Are the journals conspiring to lie to us by publishing Beardens work? Is this another communist/liberal conspiracy theory?


You can find other physicists that dissect it in detail than just Rodrigues. I seem to recall you defending the Trinity diploma mill upthread - I know you're a Bearden fan boi but come on. You can buy yourself a PhD at their newest incarnation on the cheap.


Unless this is a badly organized smear campaign you should be able to find dozens of nobody scientist that attacks Bearden's math/physics directly trying to mire him in pointless wastes of time and we will have to wait some time before the more well known people starts to lend him credibility by trying the same thing. This is the way it works in all areas of science and what is happening to Bearden is the norm for dissident scientist. Bearden freely admits that some may not consider his Ph.D worth much but he insists that he had to present all the same materials one would normally have to but i agree that this was a pretty stupid idea on his behalf and why a otherwise smart guy would make this type of mistake i just don't know.


That doesn't make you a physicist. If I purchase a JD from them, it won't make me a lawyer. That only works at the end of Wizard of Oz.


Fact is Bearden does get published so he does know what he is talking about unless you wish to argue the communist/liberal conspiracy angle. Feel free to purchase a JD and try to present a case without getting it thrown out or yourself into jail; judges are a self righteous bunch and they tend not to take kindly to people who waste their time without the proper 'standing'.


Next, I doubt that Rodrigues is "denying the existence of vacuum energy" as an effect, but while Bearden claims it, I am not so sure you can mathematically relate the Heaviside flow to vacuum energy.


I am pretty sure i saw Rodriques just that and why would he not when he still believes in something as stupidly irrelevant as the conservation of energy 'laws' that may at best be ascribed to the universe at large? Fact is all fossils fuels do is create dipoles and unless your willing to explain why the dipoles are required , or for that matter why they are destroyed and recreated to result in a symmetrical input-ouput equilibrium for the circuit, in the first place your not addressing the primary points.


Near the end of his career Faraday proposed that electromagnetic forces extended into the empty space around the conductor. This idea was rejected by his fellow scientists, and Faraday did not live to see this idea eventually accepted. Faraday's concept of lines of flux emanating from charged bodies and magnets provided a way to visualize electric and magnetic fields. That mental model was crucial to the successful development of electromechanical devices which dominated engineering and industry for the remainder of the 19th century.

en.wikipedia.org...


Even Faraday understood that not all the energy flow were being intergrated into the circuit.


It's the latest thing to claim that any effect in the OU community is magical vacuum energy, but you don't get to do that in physics.


Ideally you get to do whatever you want in physics as long as observations corresponds to your claims. We have long known that energy flows from dipoles radially and in all planes so until we can account for that energy flow , by not pretending that it does not count because there are no circuits to intercept it, all claims about FE devices are too be carefully inspected.


If you like Poynting vectors, why not go read up on the Drude model? It's the reason we use current flow and not Poynting vectors now.


This is not a question of 'liking it' but a question of observation and you still have not addressed the diagram i pointed you to. That is OBSERVATION and if you wish to ignore it in your efforts to believe what you have chosen to we are going to be at this for a long time,


And that would be "dipoles", and patents are not scientific proof of anything.


Actually i can use the word 'dipolarities' and unless you wish to explain why not i would rather you concentrate on the very significant issues raised so far. If you can show that they do not work or why they could not work you may ignore them but up to now all you have done is ignore them. Why were the scientist involved so easily fooled and why do you think is so much energy expended to prevent more discussion in this area?


Or what he was running to try to save was his credibility and reputation.


And considering all the other things Bearden claims i can respect that some may not want to be associated with him however accurate his statements on vacuum energy and the like. Few scientist have the type of fortitude that being right when everyone else is wrong requires so i am not surprised that so many run from the 'opportunity' to brave the excesses the establishment frequently metes out.


Do you feel that agreeing with you is the hallmark of clarity of thought?


Only when i say something that is very obvious but normally i happy to involve myself in discussion when the other party bothers to address my questions and claims.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Just trying to keep you focused as it seems you will lash out at anyone who you suspect of questioning the reality you seem to have a vested interest in defending at all cost.


More like you're trying to keep the spotlight off of your hero, I suspect. And of course, it's off with the insults right from the first post. Shrug. Get it off your chest - join with esecallum! I'm obviously a disinformation agent, work for the NWO, bla bla bla. There, did it for you.

No, the vested interest I have is in not believing a bunch of malarkey.



Sure but i intended you to address EVERYTHING i said and not just this part. Bearden and Evans have both been published in major journals at best this means these journals regularly publish material of the low quality you somehow see in their work. Explain to me how these journals would allow the establishment truth they protect by hook and by crook to be questioned in a incompetent manner in THEIR OWN JOURNALS.


Actually, it seems like a lot more of a problem for you. If this is the "suppressed truth" then why would they allow it to be published? More like the reviewers let it get by. Then the readers started picking it to bits, that's where Dr. Rodrigues' paper comes from, as well as the refutation in the link above.

That's how science works, by the way.



You are doing nothing to resolve this conundrum and all you seem to be saying is that their work is crap and that no one should pay it any attention while somehow managing to ignore the reality that many major journals do!


And you seem to be ignoring the fact that they are getting chewed to pieces in those same journals -



So how does his degree in another primary field disqualify him from doing research in another field? You only find it 'intriguing' that he was nominated in this way?


Yes. Because you really don't get the education in quantum physics to be a first class theoretical physicist in chemistry. Physicists generally mock chemists.

I don't suppose there's any reason that a lawyer can't write papers on brain surgery, but they're generally ill prepared to do so.




So what has he contributed to the field of chemistry that would lead him to be considered in league with Newton,Joule,Dalton and Faraday?


A good question. You tell me. What HAS he done to merit this?



You don't have to tell us what you want to believe as that is very obvious.


Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.



Oh i am sure that's what they claimed but i doubt they hired him for his degree as physicists so explain the civil list pension assuming he is so bad at chemistry that he gets fired?

There are few scientist with revolutionary ideas that are denied tenure somewhere for some reason and you know this well.


Einstein wasn't. Nor Bohr, nor Fermi, nor any one of hundreds of others. You're overlooking the obvious - he's simply incorrect, and his colleagues have proved it to be true.




Right and last time i checked the norm is to first attack the competence of those scientist who makes revolutionary claims and only to move towards attacking the idea itself when all else fails...


That paper I cited makes some really telling points. As did the one by Rodrigues.



Yet Bearden gets published in the type of journals who HATES ideas that conflict with their established realities? Are the journals conspiring to lie to us by publishing Beardens work? Is this another communist/liberal conspiracy theory?


Back to your logical problem - if it's a conspiracy by the journals, then why publish it at all? Simpler answer - the referee let it slip.

Truthfully, Evans has published a lot of papers that seem to be accepted as reliable, it's in his "Bearden" phase when people started running away from him.

Rauscher-Bise used to be a good nuclear physicist, but these days she's all into Atlantis and fairies and got canned from Berkeley, which will put up with damn near anything.

I had a prof that went mad in the classroom for that matter, maybe physics isn't good for you.




Unless this is a badly organized smear campaign you should be able to find dozens of nobody scientist ...


Rodrigues was Bearden's idol until Rodrigues got tired of having it pointed out to him. Bearden certainly didn't think him a "nobody".



...that attacks Bearden's math/physics directly trying to mire him in pointless wastes of time and we will have to wait some time before the more well known people starts to lend him credibility by trying the same thing.


Probably quite some time - I suspect most of them don't bother reading anything he has to say.



This is the way it works in all areas of science and what is happening to Bearden is the norm for dissident scientist.


How do you know? You've admitted you have no science background.

String liquid and loop quantum gravity are pretty radical, and their adherents have a lot to prove before the theories are taken seriously, but you don't see a lot of people rubbing their faces in the technical sand like you see with Bearden and Evans.



Bearden freely admits that some may not consider his Ph.D worth much but he insists that he had to present all the same materials one would normally have to but i agree that this was a pretty stupid idea on his behalf and why a otherwise smart guy would make this type of mistake i just don't know.


I have an idea why but you won't want to hear it. It's the simple solution.




I am pretty sure i saw Rodriques just that and why would he not when he still believes in something as stupidly irrelevant as the conservation of energy 'laws' that may at best be ascribed to the universe at large? Fact is all fossils fuels do is create dipoles and unless your willing to explain why the dipoles are required , or for that matter why they are destroyed and recreated to result in a symmetrical input-ouput equilibrium for the circuit, in the first place your not addressing the primary points.


Don't you need an "external" tag for your direct quotes from Bearden's web site? You need potential to move electrons. There's your answer. Again, you should read Drude theory.

That's not to say that the Poynting vector and Heaviside flow aren't there - Drude attempts to reconcile both views. But to pop "vacuum energy" out of your arse to explain it is a bit specious - show me the math.



Even Faraday understood that not all the energy flow were being intergrated into the circuit.


You misunderstood what was being stated in the link - the existence of electric and magnetic fields in free space is not co-equal to the Heaviside energy flow. Go get a few semesters of calculus based fields and physics.



Ideally you get to do whatever you want in physics as long as observations corresponds to your claims.


Really, no, you don't. If you say "elven energy" flows from the underworld into your circuit, you're not going to be taken seriously. What happens is that you have to establish how it fits into the rest of physics. You can't wave your hands frantically and scream "vacuum energy" and that's solved. "Vacuum energy" has mathematical representations that have lots of other observations that fit other models. If you claim the energy comes from there (and Heaviside didn't) then you have to show how. Or you're pulling it out of your arse.




We have long known that energy flows from dipoles radially and in all planes so until we can account for that energy flow , by not pretending that it does not count because there are no circuits to intercept it, all claims about FE devices are too be carefully inspected.


Yeah, you always quote that from Bearden's website. But you don't know what it means. That's not vacuum energy either.

See if you can explain in your own words about the dipole energy issue. You're going to find you can't, but it should be interesting. No energy actually "flows", it's more of a creepy bookkeeping issue. One that probably tells us something's off in the maths.

I'm not saying it's all perfect, it's obviously not. But Bearden's off haring around with physics where he's not even getting his units right.



Actually i can use the word 'dipolarities' and unless you wish to explain why not i would rather you concentrate on the very significant issues raised so far. If you can show that they do not work or why they could not work you may ignore them but up to now all you have done is ignore them. Why were the scientist involved so easily fooled and why do you think is so much energy expended to prevent more discussion in this area?


Hey why not do like gridkeeper and whup out the Big Book O' Terms, and start modifying a few and just make up some nonsense? Neologisms are fun!

I'm sure the real secret is ta-chi-ion solitron energy spirals!




And considering all the other things Bearden claims i can respect that some may not want to be associated with him however accurate his statements on vacuum energy and the like.


Or, he's just incorrect.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
More like you're trying to keep the spotlight off of your hero, I suspect.


I don't have any hero's and i am not looking for one.


And of course, it's off with the insults right from the first post. Shrug. Get it off your chest - join with esecallum!


You started it! It's supremely insulting when you dismiss all the evidence and simply insist that i am 'wrong'.


I'm obviously a disinformation agent, work for the NWO, bla bla bla. There, did it for you.


There is the off chance that your just plain ignorant and since that's something i can help with that's what i am hoping for.



No, the vested interest I have is in not believing a bunch of malarkey.


I could not care less what you 'believe' and i am calling you what i am because it's clear that you can not prove what you believe.


Actually, it seems like a lot more of a problem for you. If this is the "suppressed truth" then why would they allow it to be published?


Because you can't suppress everything all the time and forever; they have been at this for a hundred years and the can't hide it forever.


More like the reviewers let it get by.


Only because they absolutely had to and because they could not find anything wrong about it and no means to block it without arousing even more suspicion? Do you think that something so revolutionary somehow 'slips past' the reviewers that has so successfully blocked so much for so long?


Then the readers started picking it to bits, that's where Dr. Rodrigues' paper comes from, as well as the refutation in the link above.


Oh they try but excuse me if i rather go with the journal referees on this one.
Feel free to question the fundamentals instead of praying for bad math!


That's how science works, by the way.


The scientific process rarely works anywhere near as well as advertised and you should be the first to admit that.


And you seem to be ignoring the fact that they are getting chewed to pieces in those same journals -


That's as it should be as these guys are trying to upset a very large applecart.
Did you expect it to easy? Poor Wegener only introduced the idea of continental drift and look what they did to him in those famed journals?

www.amasci.com...


Few examples are more striking than this one. For five years, from December 1903 to September 1908, two young bicycle mechanics from Ohio repeatedly claimed to have built a heavier than air flying machine and to have flown it successfully. But despite scores of public demonstrations, affidavits from local dignitaries, and photographs of themselves flying, the claims of Wilbur and Orville Wright were derided and dismissed as a hoax by Scientific American, the New York Herald, the US Army and most American scientists. Experts were so convinced, on purely scientific grounds, that heavier than air flight was impossible that they rejected the Wright brothers' claims without skeptics mocked the Wright brotherstroubling to examine the evidence. It was not until President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public trials at Fort Myers in 1908 that the Wrights were able to prove conclusively their claim and the Army and scientific press were compelled to accept that their flying machine was a reality. In one of those delightful quirks of fate that somehow haunt the history of science, only weeks before the Wrights first flew at Kittyhawk, North Carolina, the professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Simon Newcomb, had published an article in The Independent which showed scientifically that powered human flight was 'utterly impossible.' Powered flight, Newcomb believed, would require the discovery of some new unsuspected force in nature. Only a year earlier, Rear-Admiral George Melville, chief engineer of the US Navy, wrote in the North American Review that attempting to fly was 'absurd'. It was armed with such eminent authorities as these that Scientific American and the New York Herald scoffed at the Wrights as a pair of hoaxers.

In January 1905, more than a year after the Wrights had first flown, Scientific American carried an article ridiculing the 'alleged' flights that the Wrights claimed to have made. Without a trace of irony, the magazine gave as its main reason for not believing the Wrights the fact that the American press had failed to write anything about them.

www.alternativescience.com...


I am supposed to take the word of the same establishment would told us that powered flight were impossible a year after people actually proved it was very powerful? It's this type of denial of the history of the science establishment that leads me to think that a otherwise intelligent person such as yourself must be acting in someone elses interest. I don't really believe that you are working for the NWO but one does not have to to defend their propaganda.


Yes. Because you really don't get the education in quantum physics to be a first class theoretical physicist in chemistry.


So the fact that so many self taught physicist made such stunning breakthroughs just somehow went by you?


Physicists generally mock chemists.


Scientist mock whoever disagrees with them no matter their education or standing. You only need to read some science history to understand how great reputations have been destroyed by going against the establishment view.


I don't suppose there's any reason that a lawyer can't write papers on brain surgery, but they're generally ill prepared to do so.


Generally yes but how well do anyone do anything they have not invested time in?


A good question. You tell me. What HAS he done to merit this?


Well they don't really say and you know what i am assuming this to be related to.
I did however expressly ask you what you thought as your the one that is suggesting him to be a fraudster or worse.


Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.


Sure but only one of is 'right'.



Einstein wasn't.


Because Planck stood to gain from it and few people were going to risk question Planck at the time. The only thing Eistein did was to use this opportunity very well .


Nor Bohr,


And why wouldn't he when he was saying something evolutionary rather than evolutionary? Do you know how far back the model of atomic structures goes ( lets just pretend Dalton started it in 1803) and that he had the patronage of Rutherford who had a clear vested interest in defending this theory?

[quote[ nor Fermi,

So what did the brilliant Fermi do that would inspire others to deny him access to the establishment machine?


nor any one of hundreds of others.


Pick some more try actually pick people that were in fact allowed to introduce revolutionary theories.


You're overlooking the obvious - he's simply incorrect, and his colleagues have proved it to be true.


I am very likely overlooking many things but that hardly matters when vacuum energy extraction has proven itself. Were the people who attacked Galileo ( not the church btw) or Wegener, Lister, Tesla, Ohm, Goddard their 'peers' and why where their peers ( the vast majority) so very wrong? Why are the majority almost always wrong when they say that something is impossible? Why does the science establishment resist change for as long as possible?


That paper I cited makes some really telling points. As did the one by Rodrigues.


It makes no telling points as i am talking about vacuum energy claims and not EVERYTHING they ever said.


Back to your logical problem - if it's a conspiracy by the journals, then why publish it at all? Simpler answer - the referee let it slip.


Because you can't hold him history forever and that's why after 60 years Wegener's ideas got accepted and why it normally takes decades for revolutionary ideas to become accepted. They have been covering up the reality of vacuum energy for more than a century and just how long do you think they can refuse to publish papers that are obviously accurate?


Truthfully, Evans has published a lot of papers that seem to be accepted as reliable, it's in his "Bearden" phase when people started running away from him.


Because associating with those who make revolutionary claims is almost always fatal to one's standing. What happened to Duesberg when he started asking questions and how much of a career did he have left after it? Why can a establishment figure lose so much 'credibility' for contradicting the establishment view just once?


Rauscher-Bise used to be a good nuclear physicist, but these days she's all into Atlantis and fairies and got canned from Berkeley, which will put up with damn near anything.


He is STILL a good nuclear physicist but the establishment does not lend it's credibility to those who questions their views on anything.


I had a prof that went mad in the classroom for that matter, maybe physics isn't good for you.


Maybe the pressure of keeping silent when you know your teaching nonsense is too much for some?


Rodrigues was Bearden's idol until Rodrigues got tired of having it pointed out to him. Bearden certainly didn't think him a "nobody".


You seem to like the word 'idol' ( Bearden? My idol? You go to be joking.... ) but i am sure it's as accurately applied here as elsewhere. Provide us with the links if you will.



Probably quite some time - I suspect most of them don't bother reading anything he has to say.


That's what the science establishment does when it does not wish to address the contradictions that some points out.


How do you know? You've admitted you have no science background.


I read, you know, books?

Continued



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

String liquid and loop quantum gravity are pretty radical, and their adherents have a lot to prove before the theories are taken seriously, but you don't see a lot of people rubbing their faces in the technical sand like you see with Bearden and Evans.


Because they are building on a foundation that is so hopelessly flawed that even the stupidest claim imaginable will get traction for some time? How many reasons and 'facts' did they have to invent to show that powered flight were simply not possible? Don't you realise that you can say almost anything if it supports the establishment view and can not be disproved until it suddenly is at which point it's as if no one ever suggested it?


I have an idea why but you won't want to hear it. It's the simple solution.


Not from you as i know just how twisted your views on this issue have become.


Don't you need an "external" tag for your direct quotes from Bearden's web site?


You have a very big mouth so i suggest you read all his books and texts and then apologise for being as wrong as ever before. Maybe this is your chance to finally read some of Beardens work?


You need potential to move electrons. There's your answer. Again, you should read Drude theory.


Which does not matter as electrons simply do not move fast enough to get anything done even if they were the 'energy' carriers. Why do not know this?


Objection 1 is that that electrons are just too slow to carry the energy fast enough! When the switch
is closed the light globe comes on almost at once. Many text books discuss a model of electrical
conduction in which a “gas” or “sea” or electrons is pushed slowly along a wire by an electric field.
If you know the density of electrons (the number of conduction electrons per volume of wire), the
diameter of the wire and a typical current you can work out how fast the electron sea moves along.
In a typical example of a 1mm copper wire carrying a current of 100 mA the answer turns out to be
about 0.01 mm.s-1 which is much slower than a tortoise. If those electrons were picking up energy
from the battery and then carrying it all the way to the light globe, you would have to wait an
awfully long time to see the globe light up.

science.uniserve.edu.au...



I have discussed this fallacy in detail in the proceedings of a previous workshop (Sefton, 2002) so
I will give only a short explanation here. The idea that an electric current, or the electrons which
constitute the current in a wire, pick up energy from a source and carry it along wires to some
load such a light globe is an attractive one but it is clearly wrong. It’s wrong because the
electrons don’t actually get far enough fast enough. In an alternating current the electrons don’t
go anywhere at all, they just jiggle about and in a direct current they just drift along very slowly
indeed. In view of these well-known ideas, it is a surprise to me that writers of school-level texts
can still get away with perpetuating this fallacy.
The origin of the fallacy may be traced to a common but spurious derivation about the power
(VI) delivered by a battery. The argument involves following a charged particle from one
terminal of a battery to the other and calculating the change in PE of that particle. That is fallacy
1 (above)! The particle does not own the PE – the whole system does. The derivation is also
spurious because, as already pointed out, charges in circuits don’t behave like that. (Nevertheless,
P = VI is a valid equation; it’s just the common derivation that is a fudge.)

science.uniserve.edu.au...



That's not to say that the Poynting vector and Heaviside flow aren't there - Drude attempts to reconcile both views. But to pop "vacuum energy" out of your arse to explain it is a bit specious - show me the math.


There is NO reason to show math when it's readily OBSERVABLE. It has been since Maxwell's day and the only reason Lorentz and Heaviside did not regurly talk about the massive excess energy flow is because they could not explain it and did not wish to be ridiculed for 'supporting' 'perpetual motion'. THAT is what establishment terrorism managed even a hundred years ago and it's only gotten worse.


Objection 3: although some books say that you have to have a complete conducting loop before a
current can exist, that is just another misconception. Electrons do not travel across the insulating
gap in a capacitor nor do they jump across the space between the primary and secondary windings
of a transformer. This is so even when the energy source is a battery; I have constructed circuits like
those in figure 2 that show that the lamp lights up briefly when the switch is closed. No matter how
the energy travels in those examples, it must be able to get through empty space. (It is true that if
you want to maintain a steady current in a circuit, then a continuous conducting loop is required.)

science.uniserve.edu.au...



In the battery, the Poynting vector is outward, indicating
the direction of energy flow. ~Note the sensitivity of this
result to the sense of the current through the battery.! In the
vicinity of the conducting wires and next to the positive terminal
of the battery, S is parallel to the wire. Perhaps surprisingly,
S is directed from the battery on both sides of the
battery. Along the resistor R, the change of direction of E
outside the resistor causes S to change as well, gradually
turning from parallel to perpendicular to the resistor axis
~and entering it!, at its middle point ~zero surface charge!.

sites.huji.ac.il...


The energy flows from the battery or generator terminals in all directions so how can what finally falls into the circuit is not all there is. No one pretends that that the wind that does not turn a windmill does not exist yet it's EXACTLY what physicists have been selling us for more than a hundred years.


You misunderstood what was being stated in the link - the existence of electric and magnetic fields in free space is not co-equal to the Heaviside energy flow. Go get a few semesters of calculus based fields and physics.


I don't care about your opinion so please show me some links. The existence of electric and magnetic fields anywhere proves that energy is changing form; that work is being done. To pretend that this work is not taking place is simply a denial of reality in defense of beliefs that are not scientific or even observable.


Really, no, you don't. If you say "elven energy" flows from the underworld into your circuit, you're not going to be taken seriously.


Not unless you can at least show that energy is flowing from somewhere. If you are stupid enough to claim to know where it comes from when you can not prove it you deserve some scorn.


What happens is that you have to establish how it fits into the rest of physics.


Such a blatant lie. Powered space flight did not fit in with physics at the time hence the massive denial and campaign of vilification. You do not have to 'fit' into the rest of physics as your physics might very well be proving that the rest is junk.


You can't wave your hands frantically and scream "vacuum energy" and that's solved. "Vacuum energy" has mathematical representations that have lots of other observations that fit other models.


Point me to some.


If you claim the energy comes from there (and Heaviside didn't) then you have to show how. Or you're pulling it out of your arse.


Heaviside did not pretend to know where it came from and how could he at the time? Would you have been brave enough to go up against the establishment if you were brilliant yet self-taught?
The idea that a observation should be dismissed because it can not be explained by current scientific theory is LUDICROUS and it just goes to show how dogmatic you are.


Yeah, you always quote that from Bearden's website. But you don't know what it means. That's not vacuum energy either.


I don't quote directly and you free to try show that i do. I think i know what it means but as always you free to post sources that shows otherwise.


See if you can explain in your own words about the dipole energy issue.


I am already using my own words but i suppose i can find alternatives that would not get you all worked up.



You're going to find you can't, but it should be interesting. No energy actually "flows", it's more of a creepy bookkeeping issue.


Well it does 'flow' ( i get to pick after all; it's not like i came up with the idea) as i showed earlier and it seems to be flowing in all directions as can be shown by lighting up some bulbs and the way the energy enters the circuit.


Continued




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join