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.

 

Iran warns of $200 oil if US pursues sanctions

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Please do not attack me and doubt my understanding of quantum physics when you do not even know me, especially when it is you who does not know the correct defintion of zero-point energy. If you do not believe me then you can do some research on the subject in something other than some psuedoscience paper.

Considering that 50-100 years is within/about one lifetime i would consider it a short amount of time. It may or may not be a problem for me, but i certainly don't want it to have to be a problem for my children. I am not suggesting that we completly stop our use of oil because it is likely that oil, merely that it would be a good idea to to invest time and money into research for oil alternatives so that it can be gradually phased out.




posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Truth2006
If iran starts charging a hundred bucks a barrel, wouldnt it spur the us to look elsewhere for other fuels anyway which would up the research for another source of fuel by like a 1,00,000%? If im wrong someone please correct me.


The US does not have to look elsewhere as oil is not scarce or hard to find. Iran can not ask what they want as the Saudi's can bankrupt just about anyone by lowering their prices to whatever levels required. If prices rise it is not because of OPEC but because larger powers like Russia/USA/Britain sufficiently manipulated the world situation to result in such. It is no accident and it's got nothing to do with oil 'running out' as even that old liar Greenspan admits.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 05:12 AM
link   
You know, even if there are other alternatives available, we modern humans can't go completely without petroleum. A lot of products we use in our daily lives are made from petroleum. It's not just fuel for the car.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
Please do not attack me and doubt my understanding of quantum physics when you do not even know me,


I do not HAVE to know every fine detail of your life story to realise what category you fall under when it comes to scientific exploration.


especially when it is you who does not know the correct definition of zero-point energy.


Well you got me there and your definition was the text book one; you have my apology.


If you do not believe me then you can do some research on the subject in something other than some psuedoscience paper.


Pseudoscience being everything the science establishment decides can't be true even if they are always wrong in the long run. Check their record if you like.


Considering that 50-100 years is within/about one lifetime i would consider it a short amount of time.


There is no reason for oil prices to go from 8 dollars to 70 in at least another five decades.


It may or may not be a problem for me, but i certainly don't want it to have to be a problem for my children.


Then do some real science for the rest of your life and help bring well known theoretical and technological achievements to the market place.


I am not suggesting that we completely stop our use of oil because it is likely that oil, merely that it would be a good idea to to invest time and money into research for oil alternatives so that it can be gradually phased out.


We have had better theoretical alternatives for more than century now and since it's not getting to the market one can quite logically assume that they do not want it to happen. Read the paper by Bearden and check out his website for a brief introduction to all the things you had no idea about.

www.cheniere.org... Check out his book " Energy from the vacuum" as i believe you can read chapters 1-4 on his site.

Make a difference by being open minded; science never manages progress in any other way.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Oh yes, I forgot you can know every one of a person's scientific beliefs by talking to them on an internet forum for a few days. By Psuedoscience i mean that which is HIGHlY unlikely based on our current understand of quantum mechanical systems. Until it can be proven there is no one you can say it is true, maybe slightly possible, but how you can insist that it is true without having seen it work or heard of a demonstation just doesn't make sense. It's ok if you wan't to have your beliefs that it works (doesn't mean it does), but your insistance that it is true without acknowledging that the opposition could be correct sounds more like you HOPE it works, so you have convinced yourself that it does.

Also, there are many things that could or will be a problem for my children, I cannot solve them all, so i can only do my part. By that i mean by I could buy a car that can run off ethanol or a hybrid and not wasting electricity and talking to people about these issues.

Why is it that everyone says that big oil companies would not allow it to happen? There would still need to be companies that manufacture, produce, and/or distribute these new energy sources, correct? Why could the oil companies not take over this role?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
Oh yes, I forgot you can know every one of a person's scientific beliefs by talking to them on an internet forum for a few days.


I do pretty well when it comes to summing up people and i can spot a archetype when i see one.


By Psuedoscience i mean that which is HIGHlY unlikely based on our current understand of quantum mechanical systems.


Highly unlikely based on the knowledge mainstream science has chosen to disregard. .... By employing said tactics ANYTHING can be made to look unlikely ( like earth revolving around the Sun) for as long as the science community chooses to exclude certain areas of knowledge.


Until it can be proven there is no one you can say it is true, maybe slightly possible, but how you can insist that it is true without having seen it work or heard of a demonstation just doesn't make sense.


Because in theory it is possible and thus people have had more than a hundred years to implement the knowledge. I am convinced that both ZPE/vacuum energy and Cold Fusion is reality and that both have been marginalised by your our government sponsored science establishments.


It's ok if you wan't to have your beliefs that it works (doesn't mean it does), but your insistance that it is true without acknowledging that the opposition could be correct sounds more like you HOPE it works, so you have convinced yourself that it does.


The opposition to the truth ( mainstream science) needs no encouragement or funding so i am not going to spare them any. If you want to help humanity by agreeing with scientific norm i guess your not interested in discovering anything new.


Also, there are many things that could or will be a problem for my children, I cannot solve them all, so i can only do my part. By that i mean by I could buy a car that can run off ethanol or a hybrid and not wasting electricity and talking to people about these issues.


One can not 'waste' electricity any more than it already is as the whole energy generation infrastructure is a farce to start with.


Why is it that everyone says that big oil companies would not allow it to happen?


I am not sure why they say that ( i think it's the government doing it trough their science establishments) but i can agree that big oil will do it's best to aid government in preventing such technologies from reaching the market place. They can however not change scientific norm so they are not the prime /suspects/culprits in this case.


There would still need to be companies that manufacture, produce, and/or distribute these new energy sources, correct?


For ZPE/ vacuum energy and Cold fusion they would only be required to build the devices ( if their at all complex ) and would thus lose control in that there involvement is no longer required in 'distribution' which is their main business.
Since there is no longer a 'supply chain' to manipulate government lose control ( it's government who really control industry ; not the other way round ) over energy distribution and use. When people have whatever energy they might require there is no resource/food shortage and thus no longer any reason for competition and by extension no need for government 'organization' of the society. Most 'choices' we need government for has to do with energy and the rulers of mankind knows very well that losing control of energy distribution means losing control of their primary method of manipulating humanity.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Cold fusion I would agree with you is possibly a viable option for energy generation in the future, although i do not know quiet enough about it to make a for sure statement on it one way or the other. Many scientists are having renewed interest in cold fusion and are starting to realize that they may have been wrong in their intial judgements of it. Even the US Navy has said that it does exist and that it has potential. I wonder why if zero point energy can be "tapped" as you say it can it has not had similar interest surrounding it? I am not one who is close minded to new ideas, but I refuse to believe something that is not possible. Zero point energy is the lowest amount of energy that a quantum mechanical system can have, you cannot take this energy away from the system, it just can't happen.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
Cold fusion I would agree with you is possibly a viable option for energy generation in the future, although i do not know quiet enough about it to make a for sure statement on it one way or the other.


It was conclusive proven to be reality in March 1989( well known event) with good indication that it was very VERY likely as early as 1959 ( he might have shared his information sooner far sooner had anyone shown interest) when the early work of Louis Kervran suggested as much.

experts.about.com...

www.rexresearch.com...

www.cheniere.org...

www.lasarcyk.de...


Many scientists are having renewed interest in cold fusion and are starting to realize that they may have been wrong in their intial judgements of it. Even the US Navy has said that it does exist and that it has potential.


Well it's been blatantly obvious since 1989 at latest...


I wonder why if zero point energy can be "tapped" as you say it can it has not had similar interest surrounding it?


Because they could not damage the credibility of the scientist involved enough at the time and the technology involved is just so very simple to duplicate the basic proof. That and the fact that the basic reality has been in evidence for so very very long.


I am not one who is close minded to new ideas, but I refuse to believe something that is not possible. Zero point energy is the lowest amount of energy that a quantum mechanical system can have, you cannot take this energy away from the system, it just can't happen.


How long does the average fridge magnet last? Explain where the flow of observable EM orginates from that continuously pours from every dipole in this universe? Fact is ZPE really does not assume that the remaining energy can not be 'gated' where it can be used to power loads.

Stellar

[edit on 17-8-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Who is repressing this information if it truly is the answer to all energy problems? Is it the government as you suggest? What proof do you have that the government is preventing this information from being well known? If you have none, then this theory assumes much and proves nothing.

What does this "free energy" theory assume then? The article written by Thomas Bearden is rather long and I have things to do. You offered to explain the paper and I'd like you to do so or summarize it in some way if you don't mind.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
Who is repressing this information if it truly is the answer to all energy problems?


Follow the money ( and money is just a means of control) and it's obvious the 'organizations' that stands to lose most from extremely cheap energy is our various governments and vested power interests.


Is it the government as you suggest? What proof do you have that the government is preventing this information from being well known?


Science establishments are dependent on their scientist and scientist comes from the education system that our governments fund and decide policy for. The 'proof' is in the fact that any sane government would invest in ALL manner of research and not spend all it's funds on just a particular very expensive project like stupid old high energy fusion.


If you have none, then this theory assumes much and proves nothing.


I do not have to 'proof' anything as cold fusion ( LENR) has been proven beyond any true scientific doubt. I believe that it's destruction as a field of research was destroyed purposefully but i have no specific interest in trying to convince you of that fact. I will not mind if you want to consider it 'some kind of oversight' as it's clearly not a very important thing to have cheap energy for everyone.


What does this "free energy" theory assume then?


It assumes that beside initial construction of small 20 - 50 pound machines there will only be maintenance costs involved in perpetual energy generation.


The article written by Thomas Bearden is rather long and I have things to do.


So do i ( things to do ) and i can not make you learn anything new. My purpose here is to counter you arguments so that it will not seem to the uninitiated that your view is the only one around.


You offered to explain the paper and I'd like you to do so or summarize it in some way if you don't mind.


I don't think i offered to try educate a stubborn mind from the bottom up and i do you expect you to contribute at least SOMETHING towards your further education. If you want to keep posting and asking questions i will respond but i am not going to just spend hours to condense the information a true expert in the field already did his best to. The paper i pointed you to is a presentation and thus represents all the elements a convincing arguments requires if it is to be made at all.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Your theory still assumes a lot and if you don't have any specific interest in explaining it to me then i have no specific reason to believe it.

You did actually offer to explain it:

Originally posted by StellarX
Look for Bearden's paper and see if the theoretical aspect of it makes sense to you. If it does not please get back to me and i will explain as best i can why it's perfectly 'good' science.


Of the limited free time i have right now, reading that paper is not number 1 on my list of things I want to do. Not because I don't think it's important for everyone to have free energy, but because if I wanted to read every article/paper out there that claims to solve the energy problem I would be reading for the rest of my life.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
Your theory still assumes a lot and if you don't have any specific interest in explaining it to me then i have no specific reason to believe it

You did actually offer to explain it:


I offered to explain it to you based on the apparent mistaken assumption that you want to learn something new instead of just going around sharing your uninformed opinions on this matter. If you are not willing to get some background i am not willing to bother doing all the work and will just continue responding to your posting with the alternative view everyone should be aware of.


Of the limited free time i have right now, reading that paper is not number 1 on my list of things I want to do. Not because I don't think it's important for everyone to have free energy, but because if I wanted to read every article/paper out there that claims to solve the energy problem I would be reading for the rest of my life.


The type of nonsense appeal to emotion i have no time for when their made by otherwise intelligent people. If you have no interest in doing ANYTHING but attack anothers point of view with your opinions then your wasting your time and mine. I wont leave you the floor to spread your ignorance but i am not going to try do any more than i have to educate a clearly uninterested party either.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Actually I am quiet willing to learn about your so called free energy device otherwise I wouldn't even be bother asking. I see no reason why you would assume that you would explain it to me after I had read the entire article. The paper may contain all the necessary arguements for a free energy device, but it also contains a lot of other unnecessary information which makes up it's bulk. You can think it's a "appeal to emotion" if you want to, but the truth is I do not have much time and I have need to explain why.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
Actually I am quiet willing to learn about your so called free energy device otherwise I wouldn't even be bother asking.


If you were really interested you would be going to the websites in question and learning instead of wasting my time.


I see no reason why you would assume that you would explain it to me after I had read the entire article. The paper may contain all the necessary arguements for a free energy device, but it also contains a lot of other unnecessary information which makes up it's bulk.


And you would know that how exactly how considering your vast experience in this field?


You can think it's a "appeal to emotion" if you want to, but the truth is I do not have much time and I have need to explain why.


You don't have to explain why you do not have time as it's perfectly obvious that you would rather spend time reinforcing your ignorance than investing something revolutionary. All i notice is talking and until you know what your talking about it's pretty silly for you to use words like 'bulk' to describe your own ignorance.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

If you want to keep posting and asking questions i will respond but i am not going to just spend hours to condense the information a true expert in the field already did his best to. The paper i pointed you to is a presentation and thus represents all the elements a convincing arguments requires if it is to be made at all.

Stellar


I don't understand what you are trying to do by attacking my knowledge when it was you who told me that the paper contained all the necessary points for an arguement to be made. I also said that the paper in question was rather long, which I thought would imply that I had at least looked at the paper a bit (which I had). If you had read the entire paper you would notice that 90% of it has nothing to do with this vacuum energy device. It was obvious that you do not intend to explain the paper as you had said you would do so I went ahead and read the parts of the article that pertained to vacuum energy.

Have you bothered to even look up the information the paper cites? The article seems to imply that much of the phyiscs the device is based on is accepted in quantum physics and that it just has been implemented by electrical enginers. The theory that electrical devices operate on vacuum energy IS NOT widely accepted as the article seems to imply. Where is the proof of such a theory? Have you searched for how well Bearden's project has been going? I'll save you the time, it has so far completely failed. All of the put into the projet has gone no where, he admits to not even having a working prototype. Actually, he says he had one but then it was destroyed: www.cheniere.org... . He also remarks that if these vacuum energy powered devices aren't being mass produced by early 2004 we will be past "the point of no return" and spiraling towards nuclear armagedon which will occur within a decade. As I'm sure you already know, 2004 already came and went so if we are to believe him we might as well not even try this vacuum energy device since we are surely doomed.

The few points I have made are a small fraction of the problems with Bearden's "theory". Bearden is no expert (and you saying this just shows how little you actually know about the subject), he doesn't have the Phd that he claims and he makes numerous absurd claims on his website and in his paper. I urge you to read these two links as they list some of these numerous problems that I have not:
www.phact.org...
www.phact.org...

Bearden does believe that Russia shot down both of the space shuttles, that he unified physics, that he has already proven anti-gravity to exist (if you didn't know, general relativity says that doesn't), and that electromagnetism is a longitudal wave. All of these claims can be validated by just doing some looking around on his own website.

While I believe that Bearden had good intentions it is obvious that as it just isn't possible. As I said earlier, we must continue to pursue alternative sources of energy which are in the realm of possiblity.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
I don't understand what you are trying to do by attacking my knowledge when it was you who told me that the paper contained all the necessary points for an arguement to be made.


It does.


I also said that the paper in question was rather long, which I thought would imply that I had at least looked at the paper a bit (which I had).


If the only thing you could discover was that it was 'long' then you could just aswell not have bothered.


If you had read the entire paper you would notice that 90% of it has nothing to do with this vacuum energy device.


And the reason we do not have vacuum energy generators has little to do with science and everything to do with the science establishment and the powers that be. The paper deal with what is most important with the most volume ; suppression.


It was obvious that you do not intend to explain the paper as you had said you would do so I went ahead and read the parts of the article that pertained to vacuum energy.


Awesome!


Have you bothered to even look up the information the paper cites?


No, i'm just trying to waste your time with pointless blather?


The article seems to imply that much of the phyiscs the device is based on is accepted in quantum physics and that it just has been implemented by electrical enginers.


Yes.


The theory that electrical devices operate on vacuum energy IS NOT widely accepted as the article seems to imply.


The priciples that allow it is well known and understood even if the dots have not been connected by very many people.


Where is the proof of such a theory?


All around you.


Have you searched for how well Bearden's project has been going?


I am reading his book " Energy from the vacuum: Concepts&principles" so yeah, i know what's going on.


I'll save you the time, it has so far completely failed.


No it has not even if that was the most important aspect of all of this.


All of the put into the projet has gone no where, he admits to not even having a working prototype.


Not currently as i understand as the last one was destroyed while it was undergoing testing by a supposed independent lab.


Actually, he says he had one but then it was destroyed: www.cheniere.org... .


Thanks, i know.


He also remarks that if these vacuum energy powered devices aren't being mass produced by early 2004 we will be past "the point of no return" and spiraling towards nuclear armagedon which will occur within a decade.


I have sympathy with that point of view.


As I'm sure you already know, 2004 already came and went so if we are to believe him we might as well not even try this vacuum energy device since we are surely doomed.


America is doomed ( which was the country he was trying to save) and it has been for a long time. He was just hoping to be able to put off the inevitable decline/death.


The few points I have made are a small fraction of the problems with Bearden's "theory". Bearden is no expert (and you saying this just shows how little you actually know about the subject),


He is very much the expert he claims to be. Do some research.


Dr. Thomas Bearden (Lieutenant Colonel U.S. Army - Retired) is presently the President and Chief Executive Officer, CTEC, Inc., a Fellow Emeritus of Alpha Foundation's Institute of Advanced Study (AIAS) and a Director of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists (ADAS). He has a Science PhD, a MS in Nuclear Engineering, BS in Mathematics, with minor in Electronic Engineering as well as a graduate of C&GSC, U.S. Army and graduate of the U.S. Army Guided Missile Staff Officer's Course (equivalent to MS in Aerospace Engineering). He also has graduate courses in statistics, electromagnetics and numerous missile, radar, electronic warfare, and counter-countermeasures courses. He had twenty years of active service in the U.S. Army. His field Artillery, Patriot, Hawk, Hercules, Nike Ajax, and technical research experience was followed by nineteen years of technical research in re-entry vehicles and heat shielding, computer systems, C4I, wargame analysis, simulation and analysis, EW, ARM countermeasures, and strategy and tactics. He has spent more than 20 years personal research in foundations of electrodynamics and open EM systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium with the active environment, as well as novel effects of longitudinal EM waves on living systems and founded the beginning of a legitimate theory of permissible COP>1.0 electrical power systems. He is the author or co-author of approximately 200 papers and books and has been connected with four successful COP>1.0 laboratory prototype EM power systems. He is one of the world’s leading theorists dealing with the hard physics of over-unity energy systems and scalar weapons technology.


Would you lie to senate commission about your qualifications when your proposing something that they do not want to hear anyways? Don't answer that as i can see your probably vain enough to try.


he doesn't have the Phd that he claims and he makes numerous absurd claims on his website and in his paper.


That STUPID site you use talks about ONE of his degrees NOT the rest and is thus completely biased considering their obvious attempt to hide the scale of this mans education. Do some RESEARCH and stop trying to get rid of this situation as if it will just go away when you finally decide to provide some links to vapid claims you have not studied.


I urge you to read these two links as they list some of these numerous problems that I have not:
www.phact.org...
www.phact.org...


"You' do not have these problems as 'you' do not understand the math or have the background to really establish the truth of the country claims. They are attacking his ENTIRE life's work with a few mathematical objections which is very likely based in their own ignorance instead of his. Mostly lies and deception but feel free to avoid the science by picking a hit piece to attack his person.


Bearden does believe that Russia shot down both of the space shuttles,


And there is evidence for that if you cared to check.


that he unified physics,


He wont be the first to claim it and he proposed it as 'theory' for investigations by others.


that he has already proven anti-gravity to exist (if you didn't know, general relativity says that doesn't),


General relativety says nothing of the sort and if you somehow managed to drag it out of there that's a VERY bad idea considering that we know it exsists and works.

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.janes.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.wired.com...

And that is just mainstream; you should see what is happening beyond it. Care to take the journey?


and that electromagnetism is a longitudal wave.


And?


All of these claims can be validated by just doing some looking around on his own website.


I have and no serious objections to them.


While I believe that Bearden had good intentions it is obvious that as it just isn't possible.


Saying it isn't possible basically disqualifies your being on this forum and makes my job of teaching you about reality so much harder.


As I said earlier, we must continue to pursue alternative sources of energy


You cleary have no interest in any science that goes beyond your meager grasp of reality.


which are in the realm of possiblity.


Reality thus extends no further than you care to look? Arrogance abounds...

Stellar



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
What do you guys think about drilling in Alaska? I remember a long time ago in 6th grade our class had to write a letter to a senator. I never got a reply, so go figure. I chose the topic about ANWR, that Alaskan wildlife refuge deal and wether to drill in it or not. I wrote against the drilling because of the nature part and i had not yet come upon economy and politics yet. But now i believe it would be a good idea. I do realize that if it was started now it would be something like 15 years before any useful amount of oil would be availabe. This is the part that has to do with the $200 a barrel part. The US i feel is becoming dependent on countries for oil, or at least that is the jist i am getting accustomed to.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by vicarious]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Where is this proof that you say is all around me? Tell me how do one test that vacuum energy is what powers gives batteries and generators energy? You actually believe him that he had a working prototype and it was destroyed even though there is no evidence of this? Large amounts of money that have been dumped into this project and he has NOTHING to show for it, where is the point where we say that he was wrong? Despite what Bearden (and you) suggests it is NOT widely accepted by most scientists. He claims this numerous times but fails to provide a link to a website from which he obtained this evidence. I doubt it's due to the their lack of willingness to accept new ideas, most of the time scientists are hesitant to accept a theory as fact when it has no testable evidence. I have doubts that you have not even read the entire articles. How is it that they are "STUPID" as you say? It offers large evidence that Bearden really has no idea what he is talking about. Can you show me a few instances where the website I listed gives false information? Even if we ignore Bearden's other theories, show me information that says that the math used by Bearden is correct and the websites wrong. I should have said that General Relativity does not allow anti-gravity without the existance of negative mass, which has never been detected. The sources you use do not prove the existence of anti-gravity, they simply say that Boeing (and a few others) are researching into it for it's potential use in aircrafts. Perhaps you are aware of NASA's now cancelled project which researched into the possibility of some sort of "warp drive" ala star trek. Again, the true definition of a warp drive, an "engine" which allows a ship's occupants to travel beyond the speed of light, is said, for the most part, not to be possible in a universe which is restricted by General Relativity (the user of a wormhole is not actually traveling faster than light, wormholes also would allow for time travel which would lead numerous paradoxes). NASA was simply looking for a way to transverse large distances within small amounts of time, which is exactly what Boeing is doing. I am confident that Boeing's project will end similarly to NASA's No where in any of the articles is it explained how this anti-gravity comes about. Reality is that which is possible, I have looked and I have not found. There is nothing to find, Bearden has nothing to show.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by vicarious
What do you guys think about drilling in Alaska?


No economic or environmental reason not to.


“As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assistin reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline.”

Internal Texaco document, March 7, 1996

“A senior energy analyst at the recent API (American Petroleum Institute) convention
warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn’t reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins…However, refining utilization has been rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low.”

Internal Chevron document, November 30, 1995

wyden.senate.gov...


You would have every right to claim that you are 'well informed' on this topic after reading that report.


I remember a long time ago in 6th grade our class had to write a letter to a senator. I never got a reply, so go figure.


Writing only one letter tends to get you that response.



I chose the topic about ANWR, that Alaskan wildlife refuge deal and wether to drill in it or not. I wrote against the drilling because of the nature part and i had not yet come upon economy and politics yet. But now i believe it would be a good idea. I do realize that if it was started now it would be something like 15 years before any useful amount of oil would be availabe.


The 15 year garbage is a lie to destroy hope and you should not buy into it.


This is the part that has to do with the $200 a barrel part. The US i feel is becoming dependent on countries for oil, or at least that is the jist i am getting accustomed to.


The US government is becoming 'dependent' on others so that it will always have 'economic' reasons to bomb people. If the American government invested American military resources into home grown oil production they would not only have plentiful cheap oil but would lose much of their bargaining power towards causing death and destruction all around the world. Americans will sanction the use of violence for as long as they believe that others would do the same to get the resources their government assumes to steal in their name. It's all about power and control and at related to economics only in the sense that it is destroying the American middle class at some pace.

Stellar

[edit on 27-8-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquid Swords1
Where is this proof that you say is all around me?


The scientific literature your not reading i suppose? Can you think of another reason why your so uninformed?

www.iop.org...

www.physica.org...

adsabs.harvard.edu...

peswiki.com...:LRP:A_Proposed_Proof_of_an_Overunity_Asymmetric_System_to_be_Tested


Tell me how do one test that vacuum energy is what powers gives batteries and generators energy?


Because both Maxwell, Heaviside and Lorenz observed a vast energy flow coming ( apparently) from the terminals of the generator - and it's in their math and principles ,before Lorentz simply discarded it because he argued that it contributed nothing towards powering the load as it was diverged into the circuit. Science has never been able to explain that energy flow and considering the fact that it's thousands or hundreds times 'larger' than what the fossil fuels should impart into the circuit. Lorentz with no more than his pencil wrote out of scientific existence power enough to change this earth into a paradise beyond anything so far imagined.


You actually believe him that he had a working prototype and it was destroyed even though there is no evidence of this?


Well actually there are photo's of the prototype and it's patented with the USPT so i don't see what your objections are all about.

www.cheniere.org...


Large amounts of money that have been dumped into this project and he has NOTHING to show for it, where is the point where we say that he was wrong?


The science is solid and if the technology and implementation of this specific device is not rock solid ( i believe it is based on what i have seen) then that is a SEPARATE issue.


Despite what Bearden (and you) suggests it is NOT widely accepted by most scientists.


How frequently are the science community in agreement when a theory is first proposed? How long did it take them to admit plate tectonics, 50 years? They could somehow NOT come to realise that things were moving beneath them so i am quite astounded that you put so much faith in these rather average people.


He claims this numerous times but fails to provide a link to a website from which he obtained this evidence. I doubt it's due to the their lack of willingness to accept new ideas, most of the time scientists are hesitant to accept a theory as fact when it has no testable evidence.


You have done NO research and it shows. Science is as closed minded as any other well established field of human endeavour and i can provide you with quotes from some of the best minds to prove it.


I have doubts that you have not even read the entire articles. How is it that they are "STUPID" as you say? It offers large evidence that Bearden really has no idea what he is talking about.


The only thing it proves is that you have as little idea about the technicalities as i do.
I suggest you check the hard science ( published in scientific journals) for reference and not to find just anyone on the net who disagrees.


Can you show me a few instances where the website I listed gives false information?


Yes i can but i do not have any more time than you do to waste on what is clearly not science.


Even if we ignore Bearden's other theories, show me information that says that the math used by Bearden is correct and the websites wrong.


Check hard science journals for confirmation of what Bearden claims and please do not rely on just anything involving math you do not understand to start with.


I should have said that General Relativity does not allow anti-gravity without the existance of negative mass, which has never been detected.


Well in fact anti gravity has been detected and it's what's probably causing the massive accelerated expansion of the universe. Where do you get the idea from that GR denies the possibility of anti gravity?


The sources you use do not prove the existence of anti-gravity, they simply say that Boeing (and a few others) are researching into it for it's potential use in aircrafts. Perhaps you are aware of NASA's now cancelled project which researched into the possibility of some sort of "warp drive" ala star trek.


Right and you think they would make such things public without actually being able to do anything? There are any number of papers in science journals proving that anti gravity effects can be caused on the lab table but if you refuse to search you can not possible find them. Why am i forced to teach you what is already accepted?


Again, the true definition of a warp drive, an "engine" which allows a ship's occupants to travel beyond the speed of light, is said, for the most part, not to be possible in a universe which is restricted by General Relativity (the user of a wormhole is not actually traveling faster than light, wormholes also would allow for time travel which would lead numerous paradoxes).


Actually we already know that gravity propagates instantaneously and clearly at faster than light speeds if one can even call that effect 'speed'. IT seems more likely that every point in the universe is already connected to every point in some fundamental way. Check out the published material ...


NASA was simply looking for a way to transverse large distances within small amounts of time, which is exactly what Boeing is doing. I am confident that Boeing's project will end similarly to NASA's


No kidding and what on earth do you base your claims against anti gravity on? It's clearly not on any understanding of it so what is your inherent bias against anything you are not yet familiar with?


No where in any of the articles is it explained how this anti-gravity comes about. Reality is that which is possible, I have looked and I have not found. There is nothing to find, Bearden has nothing to show.


You have NOT looked and that is why you will likely never find. You make a mockery of the scientific method ( I am supposed to teach you what you clearly do not wnat to know?) and your close minded ignorance of what you could so easily discover is quite disappointing.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join