Bearden gets busted.

One that probably tells us something's off in the maths.

The problem with people like you is that you think everyone wants to partake in the bookkeeping that has been used to eliminate all the energy that is not falling into the circuit. Does anyone spend time working out how much wind goes unused every year?

I'm not saying it's all perfect, it's obviously not.

There is nothing perfect about it.

But Bearden's off haring around with physics where he's not even getting his units right.

Funny that your so stuck on Bearden when i can defend my views without ever using a bearden reference. I think you are far more interested in him than i am; his been useful but i have moved on.

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!

Since this came up in one of my very early discussion i checked and i can use the word dipolarity/dipolarities as much as like. If you wish to post a actual reason , sourced as your opinion is entirely worthless to me, why i should not feel free!

Or, he's just incorrect.

Sure he could be but not when it comes to vacuum energy. Bearden is not the free energy movement , but reading the work of many pioneers would have you believe they alone came up with it all, and i hate the fact that you disengenious pretend that the movement falls or stands on his claims.

Stellar

Well, that's sort of creepy. I posted a big reply before I left last night but it's not here. One of the occasional features of ATS that I just love. I guess I am going to have to start copying them to notepad again.

Will try again tonight.

reply to post by Tom Bedlam


It's a liberal/communist conspiracy and you shouldn't let them get you down. Jokes aside it happens to the best of us and i have about 80% of my ATS posts in notepad. It normally takes me a few days to work up the energy to say the same thing twice so you don't have to rush it on my account.

I would say good luck but i would be lying so i hope you manage no more or less than you deserve to.

Stellar


[edit on 21-8-2007 by StellarX]

reply to post by StellarX


Darwin was wrong, see answersingenesis.org... or read this:

snipurl.com...

And if you think that review with about 300 ratings counts for anything, see my reply to it.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by chosenbygrace]

Originally posted by chosenbygrace
Darwin was wrong, see answersingenesis.org... or read this:

snipurl.com...

In the interest of moving this 'discussion' ( i can hope can't i) along you should be a bit more specific as in my opinion he got very little 'right'.

And if you think that review with about 300 ratings counts for anything, see my reply to it.

I don't really but your reply was by no means more enlightening. Don't you think you should ask what views and information i support before calling me a darwinist of sorts?

Stellar

I just spent the last hour or so reading the bantering back and forth about Tom Bearden. I have studied Mr. Bearden's writings and videos for more than 25 years now. I do not find them to be anything but a sincere attempt to enlighten future generations to the prospect that we can and will discover, research, and develop the means of energy conversion which, to date, have been ignored and/or suppressed.

I do not have a Phd, an MS, or a BS. I am merely a technician that likes to experiment with non-conventional electromagnetic phenomena. Mr. Bearden has given the experimenters some things to think about when we are working to discover those things that have yet to become common place in our technological society.

Much of the discussion thus far has amounted to baseless mudslinging. If you can mathematically prove or disprove Bearden's theories, then, by all means, share with the rest of us. We kind of like the math, also. If all you want to do is baselessly deride a fellow thinker, then, maybe you are in the wrong forum.

For what it is worth, I have found that most of our current batch of engineers, physicists, and the like, have not taken it upon themselves to actually learn their trade. A good example is the cooking down of Maxwell's original quaternion algebra formulas to simple, easy to understand and fit into 4D spacetime, equations. Once you exclude most of the interesting work of Maxwell, then, even a simpleton can get bored with the limitations that are imposed.

Thinking 'outside of the box' requires that one not reject ideas that seem at first foreign without being able to mathematically disprove the validity of such, using multiple methods, with regard to the frame of reference to the subject matter being analyzed.

Tom Bearden shows his work, mathematically. Can you?

Don't see the big problem finding cseti, try .org instead of .com, very easy.

cseti.org...

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Aquarius1]

reply to post by wnettles


I agree with you, I have also followed Mr. Bearden for years, still have a signed copy of his book, Aids: Biological Warfare, also have the interview he did with Art Bell on a CD somewhere in my collection.

It is now 5 years after the first post in this thread, and Bearden is still unable to show a working device, yet some people still believe him!

Make it eleven.