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.

 

Free Energy and its Political Economic Reality

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Oh, I'm sorry, what is the basis of your understanding of physics and electrical theory?

All I've been encountered with in this thread is lies, fantasies and misunderstandings. There is little reality to be found here.

Keep entertaining yourself with your belief in magic and delusions of persecution.

I, meanwhile, will concentrate on real crises.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by NRen2k5]




posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by NRen2k5
Oh, I'm sorry, what is the basis of your understanding of physics and electrical theory?


Reading scientific texts and sometimes the books of those who formerly believed it all but realised that there were glaring mistakes and worse.


All I've been encountered with in this thread is lies, fantasies and misunderstandings.


While reading your posts i felt exactly the same.


There is little reality to be found here.


I do try to help and if you stick around odds are i am eventually going to help closer to the truth.


Keep entertaining yourself with your belief in magic and delusions of persecution.


Magic? Why is it that so many pioneers end up dead and why so many more have their reputations destroyed for questioning establishment views? Why are so very many of them vindicated later on?


I, meanwhile, will concentrate on real crises.


You don't think access to ever cheaper energy could solve a majority of those crisis situations?

Stellar



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by NRen2k5
Oh, I'm sorry, what is the basis of your understanding of physics and electrical theory?


Reading scientific texts and sometimes the books of those who formerly believed it all but realised that there were glaring mistakes and worse.

I asked you for the basis of your understanding, not the literature you’ve been reading. Remind me again what your educational background is. My grandmother’s cat can stare at a page of Kant’s work for hours on end but that doesn’t mean it understands squat. But I’ve just insulted Kant by comparing him to the authors of the work you’re touting.




All I've been encountered with in this thread is lies, fantasies and misunderstandings.


While reading your posts i felt exactly the same.

You need to do a little less feeling and a little more thinking.




There is little reality to be found here.


I do try to help and if you stick around odds are i am eventually going to help closer to the truth.

True. The truth is usually not hidden very far behind the lies that are made to deny or obfuscate it.




Keep entertaining yourself with your belief in magic and delusions of persecution.


Magic? Why is it that so many pioneers end up dead

Pioneers ending up dead? Now you have something concrete to prove. Show me some dead pioneers.



and why so many more have their reputations destroyed for questioning establishment views?

“Establishment views” are typically an accurate reflection of reality. Loonies have destroy any reputation they had as sane people by being loonies.



Why are so very many of them vindicated later on?

Such as?




I, meanwhile, will concentrate on real crises.


You don't think access to ever cheaper energy could solve a majority of those crisis situations?

Not the ones that bother me most. But yes I do think that cheaper energy would solve many world crises. But I also think that there isn’t such a massive conspiracy to suppress new energy sources and technologies. I studied and work in the field of electrical engineering. I have technical knowledge and experience. You’ve read a couple of technical papers.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NRen2k5
I asked you for the basis of your understanding, not the literature you’ve been reading.


I provided it.


Remind me again what your educational background is.


Is it enough if i keep on saying that i do not have a degree in electrical engineering of physics? Why do you think this matters? Why attack my credentials instead of what i am presenting?


My grandmother’s cat can stare at a page of Kant’s work for hours on end but that doesn’t mean it understands squat.


Which is what a discussion between me and your grandmothers cat will probably reveal in short order.
Why don't we rather focus on the issues and would it help if i frequently admit that you do have a degree and that you should be far better informed than myself?


But I’ve just insulted Kant by comparing him to the authors of the work you’re touting.


By making these types of claims i would say your doing at least as much damage to your own credibility.



You need to do a little less feeling and a little more thinking.


I will take your feelings about this under advisement.



True. The truth is usually not hidden very far behind the lies that are made to deny or obfuscate it.


Sometimes it is in fact the polar opposite or just miles away.


Pioneers ending up dead? Now you have something concrete to prove. Show me some dead pioneers.


Well actually i am happy stating that as fact , without introducing any sources, and if you wish to dispute it please post some source material stating that scientist are not murdered for what they know and might tell.


“Establishment views” are typically an accurate reflection of reality. Loonies have destroy any reputation they had as sane people by being loonies.


A circular argument if i ever saw one.
Sane people become insane by virtue of disagreeing with the insane claims of the sane?


Such as?


For instance. Von Mayer for the conservation of energy, Alfred Wegener for proposing continental drift, J.J Watson for proposing a kinetic theory of Gases, Anesthesia suppressed for so long, Eistein were attacked for his proposal of a photoelectric effect. There are many more examples but you can start with those.


Not the ones that bother me most. But yes I do think that cheaper energy would solve many world crises. But I also think that there isn’t such a massive conspiracy to suppress new energy sources and technologies.


You keep saying that but you cant even bring yourself to admit that efficient electric car technologies are being suppressed. Why should your opinion on vacuum energy be taken seriously when even battery technologies have you beat?


I studied and work in the field of electrical engineering. I have technical knowledge and experience. You’ve read a couple of technical papers.


Which is preventing me from being on side of reality how? What you should be asking yourself is why you know so much yet still have such gaping holes in your knowledge. When will you address the source charge problem and how do you explain the fact that dipoles/batteries can power light bulbs without the aid of any circuits?

Stellar



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by NRen2k5
Yeah, there are hundreds of patents for flying machines that don’t work too.


And there are even more that work just fine.



And that doesn’t make “free energy” any more real.


No more so than it has been since the beginning of this universe...


No, it isn’t. We don’t see successes because there are none, not because their creators are silenced.


So Mallove was really just killed coincidentally? Have you looked at all the names Wade has provided?


Doesn’t it strike you as funny that the government / big oil would smack down Wade here so badly for trying to create a free energy machine, but now that he’s telling the whole world how they shafted him and exactly what their MO is, they’re not raising a finger?


Why did the Savings and loan scandal break? Why did the pentagon admit they don't know where 2 odd trillion dollars went? Why does the rich and powerful ever have setbacks? Do you think we still live in a world where they can just kill all the people that have something negative to say about them? Are we regular so powerless and stupid that we can never successfully expose any of the horrible things that are being done to us?


First you might want to actually confirm “vacuum energy” and or the like and tap into it.


I have and some have been doing it for a hundred years.


And yet people aren’t murdered because they develop alternative operating systems and programs. Hmm.


Oh they are but mostly they are killed for far less significant reason than this. The following list should serve as example as to what can happen when you get involved in the wrong types of scientific fields.

www.apfn.org...


Assuming vacuum energy can even be harnessed worth a damn in the first place.


As i keep saying;all our energy already comes from the active vacuum.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


Originally posted by NRen2k5
I asked you for the basis of your understanding, not the literature you’ve been reading.


I provided it.


Remind me again what your educational background is.


Is it enough if i keep on saying that i do not have a degree in electrical engineering of physics? Why do you think this matters? Why attack my credentials instead of what i am presenting?

Because you don’t have a flipping clue what you’re talking about. You just find people with anti-establishment views and assume they’re right because they’re anti-establishment.




My grandmother’s cat can stare at a page of Kant’s work for hours on end but that doesn’t mean it understands squat.


Which is what a discussion between me and your grandmothers cat will probably reveal in short order.
Why don't we rather focus on the issues and would it help if i frequently admit that you do have a degree and that you should be far better informed than myself?

Good idea. That would cut down on the bull and on unproductive exchanges like this.




But I’ve just insulted Kant by comparing him to the authors of the work you’re touting.


By making these types of claims i would say your doing at least as much damage to your own credibility.

Good thing nobody who I’ll ever have to prove my credibility to will care what you say.




You need to do a little less feeling and a little more thinking.


I will take your feelings about this under advisement.

(Emphasis mine.)

Thinking. Not feeling.




True. The truth is usually not hidden very far behind the lies that are made to deny or obfuscate it.


Sometimes it is in fact the polar opposite or just miles away.

And being the polar opposite of the lie, the lie leads you straight to the truth.




Pioneers ending up dead? Now you have something concrete to prove. Show me some dead pioneers.


Well actually i am happy stating that as fact , without introducing any sources, and if you wish to dispute it please post some source material stating that scientist are not murdered for what they know and might tell.

A fallacy of negative proof. And you wonder why you have no credibility?

My grandmother’s cat could defy gravity. To our great amusement the little bugger would soar into the attic and hunt bats. Since you can’t prove that my grandmother’s cat has never flown, my story must be true. Do you see how silly you are now?




“Establishment views” are typically an accurate reflection of reality. Loonies have destroy any reputation they had as sane people by being loonies.


A circular argument if i ever saw one.
Sane people become insane by virtue of disagreeing with the insane claims of the sane?

Not at all. People don’t intentionally “destroy your reputation” for challenging establishment views. You destroy your own reputation in doing so. For example, if I told you my grandmother’s cat could fly, you’d take me for a loony. You’re not calling me a loony because you’re afraid of it being proven that they do. You’re calling me a loony because cats can’t fly, period.




Such as?


For instance. Von Mayer for the conservation of energy, Alfred Wegener for proposing continental drift, J.J Watson for proposing a kinetic theory of Gases, Anesthesia suppressed for so long, Eistein were attacked for his proposal of a photoelectric effect. There are many more examples but you can start with those.

Ah, true.


[edit on 16-8-2007 by NRen2k5]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   


Not the ones that bother me most. But yes I do think that cheaper energy would solve many world crises. But I also think that there isn’t such a massive conspiracy to suppress new energy sources and technologies.


You keep saying that but you cant even bring yourself to admit that efficient electric car technologies are being suppressed. Why should your opinion on vacuum energy be taken seriously when even battery technologies have you beat?

I already explained about the EV1’s batteries. More than once, in fact.




I studied and work in the field of electrical engineering. I have technical knowledge and experience. You’ve read a couple of technical papers.


Which is preventing me from being on side of reality how?

Anybody can write a paper. It doesn’t make it the truth.



What you should be asking yourself is why you know so much yet still have such gaping holes in your knowledge.

Gaping holes?



When will you address the source charge problem

I’m not going the “source charge problem” because you don’t even understand it to begin with.



and how do you explain the fact that dipoles/batteries can power light bulbs without the aid of any circuits?

Show me a demonstration of that and I’ll try to explain to you how it works as shown, or if it doesn’t, why it’s a hoax.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by NRen2k5]



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NRen2k5
Because you don’t have a flipping clue what you’re talking about.


I think i do but i have been wrong before so if you start proving something other than your useless, to me at least, opinion who knows what might happen.


You just find people with anti-establishment views and assume they’re right because they’re anti-establishment.


Actually i have no problem with establishment views that corresponds to observed reality and instead focus on researching their totally contradicting statements on some issues.


Good idea. That would cut down on the bull and on unproductive exchanges like this.


I can hardly wait.


Good thing nobody who I’ll ever have to prove my credibility to will care what you say.


And i suspect that is why you have a degree; people who do not have or can not defend their own point of view select the majority one as strength by numbers has always been the recourse of both the weak and the opportunists.


Thinking. Not feeling.


I thought it best to give you the benefit of the doubt but if you want to call that thinking i suppose your free to do so.


And being the polar opposite of the lie, the lie leads you straight to the truth.


Few paths but establishment one's are so well beaten out. If you do not have the mental fortitude, or knowledge, to walk where there is no clear path that is your choice but i must advise you that highways are no safer than country roads. You might have more people to talk to while your walking but the accidents and disasters tend to be far greater.


A fallacy of negative proof. And you wonder why you have no credibility?


I am just tired of doing all the sourcing work and i would like to post some sources reasons as to why you are questioning my views. If you do not wish to do so that's fine and people may decide who they wish to believe.


My grandmother’s cat could defy gravity. To our great amusement the little bugger would soar into the attic and hunt bats. Since you can’t prove that my grandmother’s cat has never flown, my story must be true. Do you see how silly you are now?


Well it's in fact quite reasonable to expect those in power to sometimes kill those that threaten their positions; it's certainly not reasonable to compare establishment sponsored violence ( the church anyone?) with flying cats.


Not at all. People don’t intentionally “destroy your reputation” for challenging establishment views.


YES , they do. Have you not read any history?


You destroy your own reputation in doing so.


Not when you have hundreds of fellow 'scholars' who say the same thing. Why do you think people join establishments for anything but mutual defense of shared interests?


For example, if I told you my grandmother’s cat could fly, you’d take me for a loony.


Why? I can't prove otherwise so why waste time? What i would see if you regularly makes such claims and if my research can not reveal and substance i will just file it away for re-inspection at a later date.

[quote[You’re not calling me a loony because you’re afraid of it being proven that they do. You’re calling me a loony because cats can’t fly, period.

In my opinion the odds of running into a truly 'loony' person is quite low and i tend towards more specific analysis. Is the person uninformed, misinformed, lying, misrepresenting; that sort of approach is far more useful and it does not require any information to be dissmissed out of hand. I don't call people crazy, not that it's even supposedly allowed, but obviously i sometimes need to edit out what i do believe some people are.



Ah, true.


Rather obviously so and i wonder why anyone would pretend that our science establishments have a good record. If they were supremely insightful why do we take half a step back for every forward?


I already explained about the EV1’s batteries. More than once, in fact.


And i showed your claims to be patently false. You either don't know what your talking about or you are misrepresenting information you were well aware of.


Anybody can write a paper. It doesn’t make it the truth.


And you say you have a four year degree in electrical engineering?


Gaping holes?


The source charge problem, gravity, origin, if any, of the universe, origin of man/life on earth, solar system formation etc. We in fact know very little and many of the things the establishment pretends to understand is not understood at all.


I’m not going the “source charge problem” because you don’t even understand it to begin with.


Well when you one day admit that there is no credible accepted main stream solution you may feel free to apologise to me.


Show me a demonstration of that and I’ll try to explain to you how it works as shown, or if it doesn’t, why it’s a hoax.



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...


You can look up the corresponding diagrams and do your best to explain it based on the establishment line.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by NRen2k5
Because you don’t have a flipping clue what you’re talking about.


I think i do but i have been wrong before so if you start proving something other than your useless, to me at least, opinion who knows what might happen.
It’s not my opinion.




You just find people with anti-establishment views and assume they’re right because they’re anti-establishment.


Actually i have no problem with establishment views that corresponds to observed reality and instead focus on researching their totally contradicting statements on some issues.

Focusing on your misunderstandings without any actual intent to understand. It would be sad if it wasn’t so damned funny.




Good idea. That would cut down on the bull and on unproductive exchanges like this.


I can hardly wait.

Nor can I.



Good thing nobody who I’ll ever have to prove my credibility to will care what you say.


And i suspect that is why you have a degree; people who do not have or can not defend their own point of view select the majority one as strength by numbers has always been the recourse of both the weak and the opportunists.

No, I have a degree because I intend to do something with my life, and my degree demonstrates the understanding I have of the concepts which I need to understand to work in my profession. E.g. you can’t be an English teacher without speaking English.




A fallacy of negative proof. And you wonder why you have no credibility?


I am just tired of doing all the sourcing work and i would like to post some sources reasons as to why you are questioning my views. If you do not wish to do so that's fine and people may decide who they wish to believe.

Saying that something is true just because there is no proof that it isn’t will only convince fools.




My grandmother’s cat could defy gravity. To our great amusement the little bugger would soar into the attic and hunt bats. Since you can’t prove that my grandmother’s cat has never flown, my story must be true. Do you see how silly you are now?


Well it's in fact quite reasonable to expect those in power to sometimes kill those that threaten their positions; it's certainly not reasonable to compare establishment sponsored violence ( the church anyone?) with flying cats.

But it is more than reasonable to compare my imaginary reasoning to yours. Except to you, of course; you’ve demonstrated you’re unreasonable.




Not at all. People don’t intentionally “destroy your reputation” for challenging establishment views.


YES , they do. Have you not read any history?

Yes, I have. What I see is people whose challenging of establishment views stands as a black mark on their reputation until they are vindicated. It does not destroy their reputation.



You destroy your own reputation in doing so.


Not when you have hundreds of fellow 'scholars' who say the same thing. Why do you think people join establishments for anything but mutual defense of shared interests?
For peer review of their work.




For example, if I told you my grandmother’s cat could fly, you’d take me for a loony.


Why? I can't prove otherwise so why waste time? What i would see if you regularly makes such claims and if my research can not reveal and substance i will just file it away for re-inspection at a later date.

Exactly.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   


You’re not calling me a loony because you’re afraid of it being proven that they do. You’re calling me a loony because cats can’t fly, period.


In my opinion the odds of running into a truly 'loony' person is quite low and i tend towards more specific analysis. Is the person uninformed, misinformed, lying, misrepresenting; that sort of approach is far more useful and it does not require any information to be dissmissed out of hand. I don't call people crazy, not that it's even supposedly allowed, but obviously i sometimes need to edit out what i do believe some people are.

My point being, you wouldn’t be dismissing me because you’re afraid of it being proven that cats can fly. You’d be dismissing me because cats can’t fly.




Ah, true.


Rather obviously so and i wonder why anyone would pretend that our science establishments have a good record. If they were supremely insightful why do we take half a step back for every forward?

Such as when?



I already explained about the EV1’s batteries. More than once, in fact.


And i showed your claims to be patently false.

No, you didn’t.



You either don't know what your talking about or you are misrepresenting information you were well aware of.

You’re projecting.


Anybody can write a paper. It doesn’t make it the truth.


And you say you have a four year degree in electrical engineering?
What do you think my degree has to do with that statement?



Gaping holes?


The source charge problem

Nope. You sure are hung up on that one, aren’t you?



gravity

Bending of space caused by concentration of mass.



origin, if any, of the universe

The Big Bang.



origin of man/life on earth

Man evolved from primates. Life as we see it today evolved form earlier forms of life. The ultimate origin of life? Sure, we don’t know it. There are so many other things we don’t know.



solar system formation

Same as any other star’s system.




I’m not going the “source charge problem” because you don’t even understand it to begin with.


Well when you one day admit that there is no credible accepted main stream solution you may feel free to apologise to me.

They key word being credible. To you. Considering your poor understanding, I don’t suppose much can be credible to you.



science.uniserve.edu.au...

Sefton again!


What you lack in credibility you make up for in persistence, I’ll give you that.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by NRen2k5]



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by NRen2k5
It’s not my opinion.


This would be easier to believe if you started addressing the claims i have not shown you to be ignorant of.


Focusing on your misunderstandings without any actual intent to understand. It would be sad if it wasn’t so damned funny.


As you might not have noticed i employ only the claims from those who are actually professionals in the fields. This is not my opinions but the claims and contradictions that are being discussed by professionals in the varying fields.


Nor can I.


So when will you start addressing my sources and claims?


No, I have a degree because I intend to do something with my life, and my degree demonstrates the understanding I have of the concepts which I need to understand to work in my profession.


So you think doing something with one's life is based on studying the misrepresentations of others while studiously refusing the address the contradictions?


E.g. you can’t be an English teacher without speaking English.


You can in fact teach what you do not understand thus passing on your ignorance and not helping your students to understand the problems they might later have to address.


Saying that something is true just because there is no proof that it isn’t will only convince fools.


You have not sourced a single claim so i will source what i like when i like until you start showing that you know how to check your ideas and facts against reality.


But it is more than reasonable to compare my imaginary reasoning to yours. Except to you, of course; you’ve demonstrated you’re unreasonable.


Well i demonstrated with sourced material that people do get killed for their beliefs. I think it's far more unreasonable when someone like you make dozens of claims they never bother defending.


Yes, I have. What I see is people whose challenging of establishment views stands as a black mark on their reputation until they are vindicated. It does not destroy their reputation.


So more blatant lying from you?


Just a century ago, the German Nobel Prizewinning chemist Friedrich Ostwald was still successfully blocking acceptance of the reality of atoms, while the contention of the great American chemist Phoebus Levene that DNA was biochemically boring held back the discovery of DNA's key role in genetics for decades. The Cambridge geophysicist Harold Jeffreys managed to do the same for the "ludicrous" idea of continental drift.

The scientific community's method of choice for dealing with awkward questions is still to wheel out the great and good. In September, a slew of Aids experts gathered at the Royal Society in London in an attempt to "close" the controversy over whether the epidemic was started accidentally by the African polio vaccination campaigns of the 1950s and 1960s. Whether they succeeded or not is still unclear - much less whether they are right in dismissing the idea.

www.telegraph.co.uk...;jsessionid=4Q1YO252F5FUXQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/connected/2000/12/07/ecfein07.xml


Fact is the science establishment is all about protecting the views some at the top have decided as 'accurate' descriptions of observed reality; whoever says differently will be lucky to maintain credibility and even luckier to live long enough to be vindicated by the changing ( the old do die out) times and people.


Not when you have hundreds of fellow 'scholars' who say the same thing.


It does not matter how many agree when they are wrong and history shows that this is in fact the norm.


For peer review of their work.


Like any racket those who extract funds from others credibility and protection is required and that quickly gets them to work together against rivals who are demonstrably upsetting the applecart that is their dogma. Peer review is joke and if it in fact worked we would not have as much trouble as we do.


Mainstream orthodoxy routinely resists novelties that later become accepted. Throughout the 20th century there are examples: Bretz's Spokane flood, McClintock's recognition of "jumping genes", Mitchell's insights into biological energy mechanisms, Woese's Archaea, and McCully's homocysteine. Only late in the 20th century did science reluctantly grant that acupuncture can have some analgesic effect, that ball lightning exists, that the kraken is not myth but the real giant squid, that it is not foolish to look for intelligent life outside the Earth, that 5000-year-old megaliths incorporate substantial knowledge of astronomy, that human beings inhabited the Americas long before the days of the Clovis culture, and that living systems can sense not only electrical but also magnetic fields. Indeed, it may well be that the suppression of unorthodox views in science is on the increase rather than in decline. In Prometheus Bound (1994), John Ziman has outlined how science changed during the 20th century: traditionally (since perhaps the 17th century) a relatively disinterested knowledge-seeking activity, science progressively became handmaiden to industry and government, and its direction of research is increasingly influenced by vested interests and self-interested bureaucracies, including bureaucracies supposedly established to promote good science such as the National Academies, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. Parkinson's Law, it may be, applies to science as to other human activities: no sooner has an organization become successfully established than it is by that token already an obsolescent nuisance."

Henry H. Bauer



Exactly.


But your not inspecting anything as that would have required you to refute the claim , WITH SOURCES, or admit that you were inaccurate.


My point being, you wouldn’t be dismissing me because you’re afraid of it being proven that cats can fly. You’d be dismissing me because cats can’t fly.


I would in fact just have nothing to say and would be moving on without trying to 'prove' that a particular cat can or can not fly.


Such as when?


How many people died of heart attacks because 'doctors' and 'scientist' told us that Cholesterol was the telling factor? How many have died because of contaminated and toxic vaccines that have been killing , not saving, people for centuries?


No, you didn’t.


I suggest that those who are still reading refer back to earlier posts to see that this person have either no understanding of that issue or are lying to protect something or someone.


You’re projecting.


It's a statement of fact when i say you are lying and misrepresenting as i don't believe that educated people such as yourself can not arrive closer to the truth by mere ignorant accident. To be so misinformed one must be trying.


What do you think my degree has to do with that statement?


Your stating the blatantly obvious and i just wondering why you think you need to do that.


Nope. You sure are hung up on that one, aren’t you?


And you are still avoiding it.


Bending of space caused by concentration of mass.


That is, in part, what gravity supposedly does but certainly not what it is: there is a reason we don't say that water is waves. You got it all backwards.


The Big Bang.


Well earlier you said that it was 'untested' and i can add that all the major claims have in fact been show to be inaccurate or not yet proven.

metaresearch.org...


Man evolved from primates.


Man could not have evolved from primates as we have found modern human remains in geological strata that are far older than primates.


s we see it today evolved form earlier forms of life.


They can but in large part we just presume that they did. Can and must is certainly not synonymous.


The ultimate origin of life? Sure, we don’t know it. There are so many other things we don’t know.


That's accurate and we don't know where electricity comes from either.


Same as any other star’s system.


True

metaresearch.org...

metaresearch.org...


They key word being credible. To you. Considering your poor understanding, I don’t suppose much can be credible to you.


I consider you to quite ignorant or outright lying so until you start employing sources to people i do have respect for your just going to have to go on denying everything in sight.



science.uniserve.edu.au...

Sefton again!


I provided two sources but once again you dismiss one based on who he is and not what he is saying while COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that the same claims are being made in the following source. How long do you think you can go on avoiding a critical well sourced discussion on these issues?


What you lack in credibility you make up for in persistence, I’ll give you that.


If you want to see what persistence is stick around for a few more months and see what i do to people like yourself.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by NRen2k5
It’s not my opinion.


This would be easier to believe if you started addressing the claims i have not shown you to be ignorant of.

Pardon?




Focusing on your misunderstandings without any actual intent to understand. It would be sad if it wasn’t so damned funny.


As you might not have noticed i employ only the claims from those who are actually professionals in the fields. This is not my opinions but the claims and contradictions that are being discussed by professionals in the varying fields.
Your “professionals’” claims are junk.




Nor can I.


So when will you start addressing my sources and claims?

Cite some specific claims that I haven’t addressed.




No, I have a degree because I intend to do something with my life, and my degree demonstrates the understanding I have of the concepts which I need to understand to work in my profession.


So you think doing something with one's life is based on studying the misrepresentations of others while studiously refusing the address the contradictions?

Not at all. I think doing something wth my life involves accumulating and applying knowledge. Not just reading things and pretending I understand them and their relevance.




E.g. you can’t be an English teacher without speaking English.


You can in fact teach what you do not understand thus passing on your ignorance and not helping your students to understand the problems they might later have to address.

And whose ignorance do you think is greater: yours or mine?




Saying that something is true just because there is no proof that it isn’t will only convince fools.


You have not sourced a single claim so i will source what i like when i like until you start showing that you know how to check your ideas and facts against reality.

Your sources have so far all been unreliable.




But it is more than reasonable to compare my imaginary reasoning to yours. Except to you, of course; you’ve demonstrated you’re unreasonable.


Well i demonstrated with sourced material that people do get killed for their beliefs.

No, you didn’t.



I think it's far more unreasonable when someone like you make dozens of claims they never bother defending.

My claims are based on reality and clearly observable. They require little if any defense.




Yes, I have. What I see is people whose challenging of establishment views stands as a black mark on their reputation until they are vindicated. It does not destroy their reputation.


So more blatant lying from you?

Nope. Next question?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   


Just a century ago, the German Nobel Prizewinning chemist Friedrich Ostwald was still successfully blocking acceptance of the reality of atoms, while the contention of the great American chemist Phoebus Levene that DNA was biochemically boring held back the discovery of DNA's key role in genetics for decades. The Cambridge geophysicist Harold Jeffreys managed to do the same for the "ludicrous" idea of continental drift.

The scientific community's method of choice for dealing with awkward questions is still to wheel out the great and good. In September, a slew of Aids experts gathered at the Royal Society in London in an attempt to "close" the controversy over whether the epidemic was started accidentally by the African polio vaccination campaigns of the 1950s and 1960s. Whether they succeeded or not is still unclear - much less whether they are right in dismissing the idea.

www.telegraph.co.uk...;jsessionid=4Q1YO252F5FUXQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/connected/2000/12/07/ecfein07.xml


Fact is the science establishment is all about protecting the views some at the top have decided as 'accurate' descriptions of observed reality

To the layperson.



whoever says differently will be lucky to maintain credibility

To the layperson. You don’t want rumours and false information spreading, after all. You want the currently held understanding to hopefully be understood by more than just the scientific community. Remember how in the 1980s people thought that AIDS was a homosexuals’ disease or a blacks’ disease, and that it could be transmitted in ways other than blood and blood products?



and even luckier to live long enough to be vindicated by the changing ( the old do die out) times and people.

Many great people aren’t lucky enough to be fully recognized for their contribution(s) to society during their lifetime.




Not when you have hundreds of fellow 'scholars' who say the same thing.


It does not matter how many agree when they are wrong and history shows that this is in fact the norm.

No, just your biased reading of history.




For peer review of their work.


Like any racket those who extract funds from others credibility and protection is required and that quickly gets them to work together against rivals who are demonstrably upsetting the applecart that is their dogma. Peer review is joke and if it in fact worked we would not have as much trouble as we do.

My, but you hold such a negative opinion of the scientific community.



But your not inspecting anything as that would have required you to refute the claim , WITH SOURCES, or admit that you were inaccurate.

Your have yet to produce any legitimate scientific claims.


I would in fact just have nothing to say and would be moving on without trying to 'prove' that a particular cat can or can not fly.

That does sound perfectly within character for you, ignorant as you are.


How many people died of heart attacks because 'doctors' and 'scientist' told us that Cholesterol was the telling factor? How many have died because of contaminated and toxic vaccines that have been killing , not saving, people for centuries?

Why don’t you tell me?


I suggest that those who are still reading refer back to earlier posts to see that this person have either no understanding of that issue or are lying to protect something or someone.

You’re projecting again. It’s you that doesn’t understand battery technologies and is arguing on ignorance in favour of there being a conspiracy behind the EV1 project’s termination.



It's a statement of fact when i say you are lying and misrepresenting as i don't believe that educated people such as yourself can not arrive closer to the truth by mere ignorant accident. To be so misinformed one must be trying.

And you’re trying damned hard, I’ll give you that.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   


What do you think my degree has to do with that statement?

Your stating the blatantly obvious and i just wondering why you think you need to do that.

Fine, don’t answer the question.

That failure doesn’t hurt your credibility at this point anyway, since you can’t hurt something that’s already dead.




Nope. You sure are hung up on that one, aren’t you?

And you are still avoiding it.

Because I haven’t deemed it worthy of refutation. But fine.

Yes, batteries do emit weak EM fields. However so little energy is radiated that it’s practically useless.




Bending of space caused by concentration of mass.

That is, in part, what gravity supposedly does but certainly not what it is: there is a reason we don't say that water is waves. You got it all backwards.

Sure, you can always go one level lower in depth as to the physics of how something works. Kind of childish when you do it with an arbitrary bit of trivia like that, though.




The Big Bang.

Well earlier you said that it was 'untested' and i can add that all the major claims have in fact been show to be inaccurate or not yet proven.

Oh, and you have your own claim that is proven? And even if so, how would such trivia be relevant to the current discussion?



Man could not have evolved from primates as we have found modern human remains in geological strata that are far older than primates.

Show me the proof that this isn’t due to error or an incomplete or mixed geological record.



evolved from earlier forms of life

They can but in large part we just presume that they did. Can and must is certainly not synonymous.

The fossil record bears this out. The question is, before a certain point, do we know whether life developed on its own, or was it seeded?


That's accurate and we don't know where electricity comes from either.

It comes from the motion of electrons.




They key word being credible. To you. Considering your poor understanding, I don’t suppose much can be credible to you.

I consider you to quite ignorant or outright lying so until you start employing sources to people i do have respect for your just going to have to go on denying everything in sight.

With your track record so far, that sounds like a good idea.



I provided two sources but once again you dismiss one based on who he is and not what he is saying while COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that the same claims are being made in the following source.

No. I dismissed Sefton based on his poor tenure and on the incredibility of his claims and on his lack of empirical proof.

I didn’t bother to dismiss the second source because it’s more of the same.



How long do you think you can go on avoiding a critical well sourced discussion on these issues?
I don’t know, how long can you?



If you want to see what persistence is stick around for a few more months and see what i do to people like yourself.

Persuade us to use the forum’s “ignore” feature?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Hi Plumranch:

What you are describing is the immediate effect of a small, FE device. Over the years, one of the most common questions I have been asked is like this,” I want to live in the middle of nowhere (or already do), and I would like a FE machine to power my home. Do you know of one?”

FE can make the world radically different:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

www.ahealedplanet.net...

On this thread, I addressed similar observations.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks for your observation.

I’ll get to the other posts soon, and try to answer those that need them, this week. I am going to be scarce for the next few weeks.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Question from this page

www.ahealedplanet.net...

"Our energy-production methods would not be destructive to humans or the planet;"


Agree, quite obvious with the FE device


"Our water needs would be met with zero environmental impact;"


I can see the mass use of Desalination plants to satisfy our water needs. However wouldnt we eventually deplete the oceans as well ? Granted the oceans are huge and would last a loooong time. Im not sure how water replenishment works.


"There would be no exploitation of forests, either to use the forest products or raze the forests to make farmland;"


How exactly would Free Energy keep us from using trees to build homes or other structures ?


"All of our food would be produced with nearly zero environmental impact;"


Agree


"we would not dominate/exploit ecosystems to serve human needs;"


Agree


"People would almost exclusively be vegetarian (eating nothing with a brain);"


I would hope that FE would allow us meat eaters access to fresher cuts of healthy meat. Japan raises Kobe beef cattle with very little land use and no antibiotics. Surely FE would allow us to have healthy cuts of beef with no preservatives. Ive tried tofu, I prefer filet minion lol.


"We would not need to ravage the earth to obtain metal, glass and other materials;"


Agree and with FE recycling what we already have becomes 100% viable.


"The exchange aspect of economics would either disappear or become of minimal importance, as nobody needed or wanted to keep score anymore; money, accountants, lawyers and other exchange-related professions would largely disappear; if there was still scorekeeping taking place, it would account for the well-being of every living being, not just human welfare;"


I would hope so. Money in my opinion has got to go. I cant imagine any alien civilization visiting us uses money ( its probably totally "alien" to them).


"Concepts of right and wrong would largely disappear, because the cost of being “wrong” would not threaten anybody’s survival;"


I would agree. Any alien civilization must be appalled seeing how we imprison millions of humans over such silly issues



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by American Madman
 


it comes down to the money unfort. money controls our nation, and money is made by selling energy, not giving it away for free. end of story



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Hi admriker444:

Just being aware of the FE milieu and FE’s potential is plenty. If you can actually open the eyes of those around you to it, you are doing more than plenty. I enjoy your posts.

Hi RogerT:

You are scaring me. I get the strong impression that the first time you heard of FE was when you happened upon my site. If you read my work carefully, you will see that the Big Boys only act overtly when they perceive a threat (it does not have to be an immediate one, but one that they think might become one). There is a wide spectrum of tactics that they use. They have a cost/benefit analysis that they have honed over many years of keeping the lid on disruptive technologies, FE chief among them. If you are a college kid working in a lab by yourself, they may just walk in snatch it – and you.

www.ahealedplanet.net...

If you are a bit more formidable, they will study your effort, as Bearden has described:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

and find a way to subtly derail you. They bring out the big carrots and sticks only when the effort reaches the threatening level. Only when “fools” such as Dennis begin really going for it do they need to start getting overt. They take their efforts as far as they NEED to. Their methods are very efficient, although they can throw money around like confetti when they need to (they control the global monetary system, so making money is as simple as printing it for them). $100 billion in quiet money is not chump change. People far more experienced than you have scoffed at my warnings, and then found out the hard way:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

Everybody worth listening to in the FE field, and that includes, O’Leary, Bearden, Greer, Trombly, Comings, Manning and Valone, openly acknowledges the organized suppression that you call a “conspiracy.” Several of them have lived through it themselves. Methernitha lays low, so nothing needs to be done about them for now. FE “skeptics” have approached me and I have directed them Methernitha’s way, and I never hear back from them. I know of people hiding in shacks in the Pacific Northwest, experimenting with the radiant effect (another FE avenue). People hiding in shacks are not much of a threat, but the Big Boys also will not let any effort get too far along. Nobody can slip under their radar, and it is foolish to think so:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

I would almost rather read NRen2K5’s posts than posts by people who seem eager to rush in where many lives have been ruined and prematurely terminated, because they do not know how the world works and deny the reality that they are about to stumble into. Newbies are highly cautioned about getting involved in the FE and disruptive technology milieu. Learning this stuff the hard way can be fatal. That said, Methernitha can be a fairly safe way to look into FE, and when you return from there, you are invited to make a report here.

There is a mountain of chaff amongst the FE wheat. If you were you, I would find out what NEM, O’Leary, Bearden, Valone, Manning, Sterling Allan and others know about Methernitha. That commune is very well known in FE circles. James Gilliland has an scientist/inventor named Max that has a working FE prototype that seems to work like Sparky Sweet’s did (ice forms on it when it runs – totally counterintuitive, but that is common with this kind of stuff – Moray also had a cold cathode).

Many people who think that they have something in FE have fallen on their swords. It looks like Steorn may be the latest, and I write about their efforts here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The below linked article about the Wright brothers is a good one on the problems of getting new technology out there, be it Cold Fusion or planes, and the Wright brothers’ plane was NOT a disruptive technology

www.infinite-energy.com...

I advise you to tread VERY carefully, if you begin visiting inventors, etc.

Best of luck.

Hi LordBaskettIV

Thanks for the encouragement.

Wade


[edit on 20-8-2007 by wadefrazier3]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Hi admriker444:

About your questions on my abundance essay, thanks for asking them. Here goes…

Earth has what is known as its hydrological cycle. The cycle’s main component is ocean water evaporating largely due to direct solar radiation, and falling back to the oceans as rain. The evaporated water that hits land begins making its way back to the oceans, either as water or ice. Water also percolates into the landmasses. On land masses, a great deal of the water vapor that is reintroduced to the sky does so via plant respiration. As long as there is energy to power the process, the hydrological cycle is endless and you can never run out of water, unless you begin burning it up with Cold Fusion or some other nuclear reaction. With FE, implemented in an enlightened manner, ocean water could be desalinated with about zero environmental impact (think of the water source being two thousand feet down, past the continental shelf in a major current, and its source filtered, so marine life would not even be harmed. The water taken from such a current, even enough to flood the Western U.S., would be some small fraction of 1% of the current it was taken from). And then that water makes its way back to the ocean for a return trip. However, with FE, the water could be recycled on the same site it was used in, even sewage. The desalination/recycling plant would actually have a negative atmospheric pressure, so there would be NOTHING escaping into the atmosphere or local environment but water and natural atmospheric gases, and even that would be minimal.

I describe some of it here:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

Today’s prevailing scientific opinion is that trees are evolutionary adaptations by land plants to give their leaves a better chance of seeing direct sunlight than the plants that stand in their shadows. The energy absorbed by tree leaves largely go toward organizing air molecules, water, metals and trace elements brought by their roots (calcium, as with humans, is the primary metal used by trees to create a strong inner structure). Those organized molecules in a tree trunk were assembled by the energy captured by photosynthesis. Humans first began using wood by releasing the energy that bonds the wood molecules together and using it for tools. Eventually, humans were able to use trees to create shelter from the elements. Making forest products is a primitive way of stealing the solar energy that plants used for their lives, be it paper, wood for structure or burning, etc. With FE, every piece of land on earth can readily be made into glass and steel, with no real waste being created. I write about that here:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

Imagine glass and steel homes (FAR superior to wood), made in a factory and move by anti-gravity to wherever you wanted it, and you would not displace the local ecosystem to place it (underground, on “stilts,” hovering with anti-gravity, floating on the ocean). Those homes could have their food production facilities built right into them – a totally self-contained living system. With FE, it all becomes feasible, and every use of weed that we have today can be replaced with FE ways to achieving the same results (actually, far superior results in most instances)

On meat eating, you may have read my vegetarian essay:

www.ahealedplanet.net...

If humanity can muster sufficient integrity and effort to turn the corner, and FE was implemented wisely, then I think that there will be an opportunity for people to no longer be driven by survival needs (even Bill Gates looks over his shoulder) and their consequent justification of the way that the less fortunate are treated (those mind crutches again) to begin really caring for each other, in an altruistic fashion that humanity has yet to see. If that day dawns, few people will desire to take the lives of their fellow creatures if they do not NEED to. Tasting good is scant justification for killing and eating our fellow animals. That is part of my dream, and if FE can make it past all the many obstacles, then maybe I will see part of that vision manifest in my lifetime.

Thanks again for asking those questions. I hope those answers helped.

Wade



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   
The implication of FE continues to astound me. Desalination would have an amazing impact.

Especially here in the Pacific Northwest (Idaho). The rivers here are currently blocked by Dams or diverted to farm land. I cant even fish for salmon anymore because theyre so rare.

FE is like a domino effect. Fix the energy crisis and so many other problems just go away.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join