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.

 

Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Again, you insist on bringing the occult into the discussion of what is (supposedly) physics, or a poor attempt at same.


The word "occult" means "secret."

You need to do some research. This thread is going to cover cutting-edge research and technology. It will deal with suppressed, advanced, technology. It's not old school. You need to be able to think outside the box.

Humility would be helpful, as well.




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Again, you insist on bringing the occult into the discussion of what is (supposedly) physics, or a poor attempt at same.


The word "occult" means "secret."


If the following doesn't sound like pure new-age healing crystal/occult/gibbersish to you, I don't honestly know what does!



1) Negative green.
2) A higher harmonic of ultra-violet.
3) A higher harmonic of gold.

Only shapes, which produce energy fields with all three components, are BioGeometrical.


Please don't call this "research", you'll just disrespect the word.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


There may be some truth to the value of crystals; I don't know. The New Age movement will have some truth mixed in with the crap. What I view as the crap is channelled messages, waiting for space brothers to come save the world, and creating a new, one-world, religion.

Colors have frequencies, and frequencies are very important to emerging technologies.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


There may be some truth to the value of crystals; I don't know. The New Age movement will have some truth mixed in with the crap. What I view as the crap is channelled messages, waiting for space brothers to come save the world, and creating a new, one-world, religion.

Colors have frequencies, and frequencies are very important to emerging technologies.


That post makes more sense than most of the others like claiming the word sacred doesn't involve religion. Actually if you deny all that other new age nonsense, that's a good sign that you are able to recognize some garbage as nonsense when you see it. Maybe your nonsense detector isn't broken completely and just needs a little tweaking.

And yes of course colors have frequencies. I had already uploaded this frequency chart which shows light and other EM frequencies almost a year ago for another thread, so what the heck I'll repost the image here:



The scale on that chart going left to right is frequency. So not only do colors have frequencies but so do other forms of electromagnetic radiation in that image.

I also see frequencies everywhere in emerging technologies. Our PCs have clock frequencies and I like to play with mine to see if I can get an extra 20% speed out of the CPU without it getting too hot. And of course stealth technology involves frequencies, like how they can make the plane invisible to radar reflections which operate at certain frequencies.

So Haramein says there are frequencies too? Of course there are, he mixes in a little fact with the fiction. You just need to fine tune your nonsense detector a little bit so you know which is fact and which is fiction.

Nobody has really defended him for bragging about his failure to understand the volume versus surface area problem in 8th grade geometry, and claiming it was an insight or discovery. So I'm hoping that set some nonsense detectors off because you know a cube does in fact have volume, by the very definition of a cube. And if he's having trouble with 8th grade geometry, anyone who thinks he can dabble in advanced physics with any degree of credibility needs some more tweaking to their nonsense detector.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That post makes more sense than most of the others like claiming the word sacred doesn't involve religion. Actually if you deny all that other new age nonsense, that's a good sign that you are able to recognize some garbage as nonsense when you see it. Maybe your nonsense detector isn't broken completely and just needs a little tweaking.


Who do you think you are?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Who do you think you are?
Someone who thinks you know that a cube has volume, in spite of Haramein's claim to the contrary, and who thinks you should recognize his claim for the nonsense it is, that's who.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . a cube has volume, in spite of Haramein's claim to the contrary . . .


Did you get the above from this video?




posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . a cube has volume, in spite of Haramein's claim to the contrary . . .
Did you get the above from this video?

No, I saw that when you posted it at the top of page 3, I got it in the post prior to that at the bottom of page 2, when sandwiches posted the Rogue theater link, that's Haramein himself speaking. He elaborates about why he didn't ask the teacher to clarify his confusion because he was afraid he'd get kicked out of class (again?). So because he didn't ask the teacher, he never cleared up his confusion and he remains confused in that presentation.

And then he claims it's some ancient mystery, but it's not, it's the 8th grade geometry problem I posted, the difference between surface area of a cube versus the volume of a cube.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Zero Point or Vacuum Energy is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

It is vibrating the entirety of space as far as we can tell.

Therefore - Cymatics and geometry is a natural consequence of this vibration providing natural geometry throughout the universe.

Why are we not engineering with this in mind?

Why are we not seeing results of black budget programs that have researched much further than this?

-----

Buddhasystem-

Learn what the occult(or hidden) actually is.

Try researching Theosophy.

But in order to do that you must read it from Blavatsky or anthroposophy with Steiner.

The "occult" is only associated with bad things and the devil through Vatican propaganda.

You know why they would do such a thing?

Because they don't want people to find out how much lies they have been pushing.

They know that if the average person has access to the 'occult', there is no way they can control us.

Deny ignorance.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Therefore - Cymatics and geometry is a natural consequence of this vibration providing natural geometry throughout the universe.


What the heck is the connection between vibration (of what, by the way) and "geometry", which is science? It's like saying there is connection between the whistle of my kettle and a bowl of cereal.



Learn what the occult(or hidden) actually is.

Try researching Theosophy.


Look, the threads starts and is about a wannabe physicist. We can discuss theosophy elsewhere. I just find it pathetic that one can mention Planck mass and try to talk about strong interaction, and then proceed to healing power of colors and "manifestation". This needs to be filed in "New Age" or "alternative medicine".



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Therefore - Cymatics and geometry is a natural consequence of this vibration providing natural geometry throughout the universe.

Why are we not engineering with this in mind?


Musical instruments have been engineered based on wave geometry for centuries.

Here's a wave experiment that physics students can do.

www.practicalphysics.org...

The standing waves generated in a vibrating string look a whole lot like the standing waves on the cover of that cymatics book, though they are a little bit easier to see in the liquid than in the string.

And it's not just used in engineering musical instruments.


Why are we not seeing results of black budget programs that have researched much further than this?
What we see from black budget programs is many decades old, obsolete technology. The reason we don't see newer stuff from black budget programs is because it's secret. But they are using wave geometry coupled with materials science to reduce the radar reflection of stealth aircraft. The F-22 isn't a black project so you can find some information about that:

F-22 stealth


While not invisible, the F-22's radar cross section is comparable to the radar cross sections of birds and bees.

Planform return lobe structure is defined by the radiation pattern lobes resulting from surface wave reflections which occur at the leading and trailing edges of the airframe's major surfaces. The objective of lobing is to concentrate this unavoidable radar return into specific directions so as to minimise frontal/aft/beam aspect return and maximise scintillation in the direction of the lobe.


Yes a lot of radar wave related engineering goes into giving the F-22 the same radar reflectivity as a bird. Makes you wonder what the black projects radar reflection is like, a mosquito?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . a cube has volume, in spite of Haramein's claim to the contrary . . .



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . the Rogue theater link, that's Haramein himself speaking. He elaborates about why he didn't ask the teacher to clarify his confusion because he was afraid he'd get kicked out of class (again?). So because he didn't ask the teacher, he never cleared up his confusion and he remains confused in that presentation.
. . . it's the 8th grade geometry problem I posted, the difference between surface area of a cube versus the volume of a cube.



Google Video Link


I have re-listened to Haramein’s words, and using the pause button, taken notes, beginning at 7:35 and ending at 13:28.

I don’t believe Haramein is confused about the difference between the surface area of a cube versus the volume.

I think he is saying that the teacher’s fundamental approach to the concept of dimensions from start to finish makes no sense.

Here are my notes:

“At the age of 7 I had a bunch of esoteric experiences, and we’re not going to get into that, but, I had an intuition, and I definitely had experience that told me, that there was something else . . . the reality we observe is just a little bitty part of what’s going on. Just like, the electromagnetic spectrum, there’s a section that we see, and there’s a whole bunch we don’t see. And the part that we don’t see has a huge impact on the physics of the part that we see. And I felt that very early. Until they discovered, for instance, x-ray and infrared, long wave lengths, and so on, they thought that all there was was the visible spectrum. And it became clear later on that there was more – there was much more – and I think it’s becoming clear now, in current physics, that there’s a whole bunch of stuff going on, that we’re not aware of, that is actually generating the part that we’re aware of.

“So when I was 7 I noticed this; I had experiences that made me notice this. So when I reached the age of 10 and I got into my first geometry class . . . The teacher went to the blackboard and said, “Today we’re going to learn about dimensions,” . . . Finally, someone is going to explain to me what’s this other world . . . these other dimensions that I felt were present. . . . What the teacher did was, he made a dot. He said, “The dot is the dimension zero and it doesn’t exist.” And I said to myself, okay, I can see it but it doesn’t exist. . . . Then he said that this is a series of dots and he made a line and he said this is dimension 1 and it doesn’t exist, either; it still doesn’t have volume. And I thought that seems consistent to me. Then he made a square of dots and said this is the dimension that your comic strip lives in. This is dimension 2D and it still doesn’t exist; it still doesn’t have volume. And I thought, although this is a bazaar approach, it was consistent so far. But then he did something that seemed like a miracle. He grabbed 6 of these planes and put them together on the blackboard – made a cube, and said this is dimension 3 – that one you exist in. . . .

“It doesn’t make sense; that was a mystery cube. If you make a dot that doesn’t exist that makes a line that doesn’t exist that makes a plane that doesn’t exist – you slap 6 non-existing planes together – you don’t get existence. All you get is non-existence to the 4th.”



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have re-listened to Haramein’s words, and using the pause button, taken notes, beginning at 7:35 and ending at 13:28.

I don’t believe Haramein is confused about the difference between the surface area of a cube versus the volume.

I think he is saying that the teacher’s fundamental approach to the concept of dimensions from start to finish makes no sense.

Here are my notes:.


Pretty good notes but you left out the part where he described his confusion and said "Oh my God, how can that be? ...I wasn't about to put my hand up because I knew the next thing that was going to happen was the door was gonna get opened and I was gonna get kicked out again. So I didn't want to do that" I added that in bold.


"he made a line and he said this is dimension 1 and it doesn’t exist, either; it still doesn’t have volume. And I thought that seems consistent to me. Then he made a square of dots and said this is the dimension that your comic strip lives in. This is dimension 2D and it still doesn’t exist; it still doesn’t have volume. And I thought, although this is a bazaar approach, it was consistent so far. But then he did something that seemed like a miracle. He grabbed 6 of these planes and put them together on the blackboard – made a cube, and said this is dimension 3 – that one you exist in. . . .

I was in the back of the room and I'm like...Oh my God, how can that be? And I could tell that all the other kids were like "huh?" But nobody was saying anything. I wasn't about to put my hand up because I knew the next thing that was going to happen was the door was gonna get opened and I was gonna get kicked out again. So I didn't want to do that.

“It doesn’t make sense; that was a mystery cube. If you make a dot that doesn’t exist that makes a line that doesn’t exist that makes a plane that doesn’t exist – you slap 6 non-existing planes together – you don’t get existence. All you get is non-existence to the 4th.” It's got nothing to do with existence.


Well, he should have put his hand up, because the 6 planes only form the outline of the cube, or enclose the cube. And they don't have volume. But the cube does have volume, and the cube isn't the 6 planes that form its surface as I explained back on page 3:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
He doesn't understand even the simplest concepts in geometry that most of us had figured out by the 8th grade. Look at 12:15 in his video. After drawing a dot, line, plane, he then says the cube is made out of 6 planes. This shows massive confusion on his part. The cube is drawn by a figure that is represented by 6 planes because this is how we visually represent 3D objects on a flat surface like a drawing board. But the cube is a solid block, NOT 6 planes. I have so say that part of his presentation confusing a 3D cube with 6 planes is something I'd expect from a 2nd grader, not a grown adult. It's just so laughable that he could claim to be a physicist. And then he says his work has been submitted for peer review....if you're holding your breath waiting for any real peers to review and approve his work, you can stop now. You should know the difference between 6 planes and a cube to even pass geometry, let alone physics 101. Yet he claims this is some great ancient unsolved mystery.

And if any of you are confused by this like Haramein is, six two-dimensional planes have never been claimed to be the same thing as one three-dimensional cube. Yet in his mind that is somehow the confused message he got from his teacher. And he said he was afraid to ask the teacher about it because he might get kicked out. Maybe he should have asked and gotten an answer so he wouldn't try to come up with some strange explanations for a non-existent paradox.


And of course the 8th grade geometry problem illustrates the fact that the surface area of the cube and the volume of the cube are two different things, so why should Haramein be confused and theink they are the same thing with no volume?


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Grade 8 Geometry Problems and Questions with Answers

3. A cube has a total surface area of the six faces equal to 150 square feet. What is the volume of the cube?

Anyone here know the answer to that?
But getting the answer isn't the point in posting it, the point is how it highlights that volume and surface area (which lacks volume) are two different aspects of the same object. How simple can that be and how can Haramein not grasp such a simple concept?

What is Nassim Haramein's answer to this 8th grade geometry question?

Haramein (paraphrased) "Because I don't know the difference between the surface area of the cube and the volume of the cube, I'm going to proclaim all mainstream scientists don't know what they're talking about because when I took a class in geometry, I thought maybe a cube really didn't have volume because the 6 planes that form the surfaces of the cube don't have volume, and I was too afraid to ask the teacher about it. So I proclaim everyone else in the world is wrong about the cube having volume and I hereby say the cube has no volume".

I think a lot of Haramein's followers are smarter than he is and can figure out that surface area and volume are two different things, and not the same thing as in Haramein's confused mind. Then again, I could be wrong. And it's not like it's some philisophical debate that has no right answer, it's the very definition of volume he's confused about.


I don’t believe Haramein is confused about the difference between the surface area of a cube versus the volume.
It seems quite clear to me that he's confused about exactly this. I don't see anything in your notes to contradict this conclusion, in fact they confirm it. But I noticed you omitted his comments about his confusion and the reason he didn't ask the teacher to clear up the confusion, so I provided those.

Personally, I wish he had raised his hand and asked.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You're grasping at straws.

And you have tunnel vision.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



What the heck is the connection between vibration (of what, by the way) and "geometry", which is science? It's like saying there is connection between the whistle of my kettle and a bowl of cereal.


Watch out... your ignorance is showing...


I have more than covered this in this thread.

You have chosen to be close minded, and not do your own research into the concepts being discussed.

You have also chosen to not add hardly anything substantial at all.

Why you are here in this thread... well I suppose you are here because you feel like you are knowledgeable and should tell people when they are wrong.

For the sake of your ego, I hope you will end up being the only sane one left when the whole world goes crazy.

-----

Regarding the black projects Arbitrageur-

Have you heard of the electrogravitics on the B-2?

Of course, I think that is declassified now. Some 'fringe' speculation has it that when a certain speed is reached(mach something) the electrogravitic technology actually creates an over-unity propulsion system that is warping the spacetime to create a wave behind the bomber so that the fuel efficiency increases by something like 60%. Think of surfing kinda.

I just uploaded to ATS the report on electrogravitics. First time doing that besides my Avatar(which I forgot to thank you for the compliment earlier, Arbitrageur)... so hope it works.

Notice Elizabeth Rauscher's involvement.

electrogravitics systems

That is a link to download it... I'm not sure of a better way to post it. If that didn't work, just search 'electrogravitics' on ATS media.

We could really use that on commercial flights...

And the Lockheed successful anti-grav test flights in the late sixties?

Boyd Bushman declassified that to David Sereda -- and also showed some significant experiments that are anomalies to previous physical paradigms.

Youtube it.

I'm in NM right now, so it is interesting to see how many people are working at LANL. Drove through Los Alamos just after 5, and there was a strong rush hour coming from the labs.



[edit on 17-6-2010 by beebs]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Regarding the black projects Arbitrageur-

Have you heard of the electrogravitics on the B-2?

Of course, I think that is declassified now. Some 'fringe' speculation has it that when a certain speed is reached(mach something) the electrogravitic technology actually creates an over-unity propulsion system that is warping the spacetime to create a wave behind the bomber so that the fuel efficiency increases by something like 60%. Think of surfing kinda.


The fact that there's an electric field may not be classified, but I think the purpose of it still is. It could be to improve fuel effeciency as you suggest, however the likely scenario there would be by reducing air resistance and drag, not electrogravitics. The other possibility is to aid in stealth capabilities, (or perhaps both stealth and fuel efficiency?) Until they declassify the reason we can't be sure.

Phage made this post a while back:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Phage
The reason for charging the leading edge and exhaust is secret. But there is no shortage of ideas.

For reasons not yet de-classified, the B-2 charges its leading edge to a very high electrical potential difference from its exhaust stream.
It has been suggested (by Jane's Defence) that it augments the B-2's low thrust main engines. It is also a well known phenomenon that an ionised gas (plasma) will scatter a radar beam far more effectively than a solid surface of any conceivable shape. This could be the purpose of the high voltage leading edge. Another possibility is that it is for the purpose of reducing drag, since the leading edge of the B-2 might then move through a partial vacuum of ionised air which may be ionised and repelled by the high voltage. In any case, it is however true that Northrop engineers conducted wind tunnel tests using high voltage on a testbed wing leading edge to reduce supersonic drag as far back as 1968. These tests were with a view to breaking up the airflow ahead of the wing using electrical forces in order to soften a sonic boom. How this applies (if indeed it does at all) to the B-2 after an interval of many years is uncertain.

en.allexperts.com...


Since we don't have our own B-2 to run tests on, we can only speculate until the real reason(s) are declassified, but I suspect it reduces drag and/or improves stealth.

If the purpose is to aid in stealth, I'm sure the electric field has an effect on the way radar waves do or do not reflect when they encounter the electric field.


Notice Elizabeth Rauscher's involvement.


I just downloaded that paper and started reading the foreword by Elizabeth Rauscher. It's a little behind the times, when she says there are four fundamental forces in the standard model. It's really only three now, but they did teach four for many years. It will take a while to read almost 100 pages so I'll have to get back to you on the rest.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Notice Elizabeth Rauscher's involvement.


I just downloaded that paper and started reading the foreword by Elizabeth Rauscher. It's a little behind the times, when she says there are four fundamental forces in the standard model. It's really only three now, but they did teach four for many years. It will take a while to read almost 100 pages so I'll have to get back to you on the rest.


Wait, right in the beginning she lays down the following piece of BS:


Standard physical models include four fundamental forces in
Nature. They are the nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, the
weak, nuclear decay force, and gravitational force.


As you mentioned, electromagnetic and weak are in fact one, and it's been accepted as a mainstay of physics not just recently, but for almost 40 years. FOURTY YEARS. It's mind boggling that her clock stopped working in mid-60s. But wait, there is more: what the heck is the "nuclear decay force"? Huh? Hint: it does not exist. Nuclear decay can be a manifestation of strong or weak interaction, or transitions between energy levels accompanied by emission of gamma rays (as one example). It's not a fundamental force, but combination of ones.

Read on:

In 1971, I published a book and several papers on a ten
dimensional geometric model of quantum gravity in which I treated
the four major force fields on an "equal footing" in such a manner
as to consider them as bi or duel polar, having both attraction and
repulsion.


so not only she treats the non-existent "nuclear decay force" on "equal footing" with gravity, she can't even spell the word "dual".

I'll pass.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
A website called Pure Energy Systems, in a report entitled "2009 ExtraOrdinary Technology conference report," has this to say about Haramein:

On Friday evening we had a surprise speaker, Nassim Haramein. His working title was "Black Hole Protons". We are all somewhat familiar with the behavior of electrons as they zip around the universe doing so many things. But little attention has ever been paid to protons, except for trying to break them apart in elaborate and expensive particle accelerators. Haramein has developed a working theory that delves into proton behavior and its connection with the phenomenon called "black holes". This theory should be examined closely because it has tremendous implications for free energy, implosion technology, and gravity control.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
But wait, there is more: what the heck is the "nuclear decay force"? Huh? Hint: it does not exist. Nuclear decay can be a manifestation of strong or weak interaction, or transitions between energy levels accompanied by emission of gamma rays (as one example).


Yes I did notice that she mentioned "nuclear decay force" instead of the weak nuclear force which I expected to see (well I only expected three fundamental forces as you said but if she was to mention a 4th I expected weak nuclear). But I was sleepy when I read that so I just wondered if it was a typo or something at the time. But after re-reading it after some sleep, yes, that's not even the 4th fundamental force in the old standard model, she just made that up.

I read some more of the articles and one section in particular I thought was noteworthy in the conclusions on page 25 of the pdf:


1. No attempts to control the magnitude or direction of the earth's
gravitational force have yet been successful. But if the explanation of gravity is to be found in the as yet undetermined characteristics of the very high energy particles it is becoming increasingly possible with the bevatron to work with the constituent matter of gravity. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the new bevatron may, before long, be used to demonstrate limited gravitational control.


As far as we know the first sentence is true, we've never seen antigravity. NASA even tried to investigate a researcher's antigravity claim but without success. And a further understanding of the nature of matter and therefore possibly of gravity may come from particle accelerators. However I don't see any logic in the last statement that it's reasonable to expect limited gravitational control may be a result of new bevatron experiments.

The entire field of electrogravitics seems to be based on the idea that since electrical forces have + and -, and magnetic charges have N and S, that maybe gravitational forces have attraction and repulsion. While I'm not opposed to doing research in this area, I think it's safe to say that a lot of research has ALREADY been done in this area and still with zero evidence that gravity has a repulsive side. Personally I would like to imagine that it might, however the logical part of my brain tells me not to believe in things for which there is absolutely no evidence. So I think it's at least as likely and probably more likely that gravity just doesn't have an opposite force like electricity and magnetism do. The reason I think that is we've looked quite a bit and found no evidence for it, so we have to accept the possibility and I would say at this point probability, that we could look forever and never find antigravity if it doesn't really exist. As the paper says:

"No attempts to control the magnitude or direction of the earth's
gravitational force have yet been successful. "

So for now I have to say, let me know when such an attempt has been successful.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Let me post a bit more from the page you quote, because it's a great testament of what sort of conferences Haramein likes to go to. I edited the excerpt for brevity and marked it as such:


Ranan Shahar, our first substitute speaker, explained in detail the anatomy of the atlas connection at the base of the skull. In many people this has, due to the difficulties of life, drifted from its proper place. His techniques focus on properly and vigorously re-aligning this area, bringing the entire body into play as he works.
...

Robyn Benson presented information about her magnetic healing pads and light and sound techniques. These were constantly being demonstrated in the exhibit area and were enthusiastically enjoyed by many attendees.
...
Over 20 years ago, Marko Rodin came on the scene with explosively compelling holographic mathematical ideas and a now rare book called "Aero". He spoke at several conferences and then receded from public view. During the intervening years he has quietly been working on further developments in math and finding ways to translate its potential into engineering. Now, he has an easily made coil that holds great promise. He brought a field engineer along, Jamie Butruff, who demonstrated how this coil behaves unexpectedly when energized. It measureably creates magnetic monopoles under some circumstances. We also were treated to a demonstration of how the coil can function on its own as a speaker, and how the sound was amplified dramatically by placing a simple ring magnet on it. Marko does not know whether or not he will be doing more such lectures and demonstrations. That depends on many factors. Therefore, if someone could only afford one DVD from this conference, it should be this one, which has true historical significance and high scientific value.
...
Paul Pantone gave another historically significant presentation. In many ways his appearance this year was cause for celebration. He had been unjustly confined to a mental hospital for the past few years.
...




top topics



 
17
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join