Scalar Interferometry = Godlike Kurzweilian Singularity

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
According to Wikipedia:"the definition for scalar energy is a type of hypothetical waves, which differ from the conventional electromagnetic transverse waves...


Are you sure you're not quoting PESWiki, which is a woo site? A quick pass of wikipedia showed nothing except fairly proper definitions of scalar and vector.

The definition of scalar energy is "...something that Tom Bearden made up, which has no proof, either mathematical nor physical, and which Tom cannot demonstrate"

edit: searching for your literal text, I see two woo sites that have the cut and paste you put down, but it does NOT appear on wikipedia. I do love the cute "scalar energy pendant" that one of the two sites has where this quote appears. Do you have one? Tell the truth.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Bedlam]




posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by __rich__
According to Wikipedia:"the definition for scalar energy is a type of hypothetical waves, which differ from the conventional electromagnetic transverse waves...


Are you sure you're not quoting PESWiki, which is a woo site? A quick pass of wikipedia showed nothing except fairly proper definitions of scalar and vector.

The definition of scalar energy is "...something that Tom Bearden made up, which has no proof, either mathematical nor physical, and which Tom cannot demonstrate"

edit: searching for your literal text, I see two woo sites that have the cut and paste you put down, but it does NOT appear on wikipedia. I do love the cute "scalar energy pendant" that one of the two sites has where this quote appears. Do you have one? Tell the truth.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Bedlam]


The definition I gave is the general meaning of the term, and the source is irrelevant.

You seem to be intent on "debunking" Beaden, et al, which is fine by me.

I only suggest an open mind on a subject matter which is far from cut and dried and which humanity has barely scratched the surface of. (Which is probably a good thing considering human nature)



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
The definition I gave is the general meaning of the term, and the source is irrelevant.



No, indeed, it is relevant. If your definition is from a site selling 'scalar biomagnetic protection pendants', and it is, then it's not exactly what you'd term technically accurate.

Tom is FULL of bunk. He needs to be debunked regularly to allow him to walk without waddling. And since he's the initiator and prime purveyor of the scalar bs, he's a front line target.

Scalar EM waves don't exist. Because EM isn't scalar.

Long ago we had a joke site selling RadGuard 2000, which was a lead block you bolted onto your AC meter to filter out radioactive electricity from nuclear power plants, complete with "proof" that radioactive electricity was the reason that you saw more cancer around high voltage power lines and substations. That was a lie - electricity isn't radioactive. But we had a site that said it was. It was a good one, too, we had all sort of animated graphics and faux quotes using Real Physics Terminology®, it was convincing enough that lots of people tried to buy one.

That to say, guys selling you the MST Scalar Wave Energy Pendant are hucksters by definition, don't get so wound up in their nifty Real Physics Sounding Terminology® that you believe it's true.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Have they patented the Pendant?

Because Bearden was granted a patent for his device.

I thought any devices had to actually do what they claim to be patentable?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
Have they patented the Pendant?

Because Bearden was granted a patent for his device.

I thought any devices had to actually do what they claim to be patentable?



You mean his little MEG transformer rig? Ever see him actually produce power with it? Because last time he was really pushing it, he was trying to use a sine wave RMS meter on a very non-sinusoidal waveform, which is not that rare of a mistake for a beginner.

However, I thought the dog ate his homework in 2005, when his only working prototype was destroyed by a MIB. (also a fairly common statement for a huckster)

And no, it doesn't actually have to work. You can patent anything that appears to be functional and meets the other criteria, such as not being obvious to people skilled in the art. We've filed patents before we had the thing working before, and didn't file fast enough in others, which is a big dammit either way - both waste your time, but doing it too slowly wastes your money.

Now had Tom said "it's a perpetual motion machine" he'd have been denied up front, but there are few technically apt patent examiners, and as long as you don't come off like a total idiot or use certain key phrases, you'll likely get the patent as long as it's not blatantly the same as someone else's.

edit: I think the only case in which you have to produce a working model and demonstrate it to the examiner is the one where you claim to have a perpetual motion machine. For all else, it's how you sell the examiner on the merits of the thing. If it looks reasonable, they don't question it.

I'm not sure where people pick up the concept that "if it's patented, it must be REAL!", because it's nothing of the sort. However, you can at times pick up some real good info there, with the proviso that a lot of people occasionally leave out some bits and insert others that are not so conducive to the thing working if you try to replicate it.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Bedlam]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Just wondering. I thought Patent Claims had to be proven.

As in..."this new machine can turn apples in to oranges".

The specifics of how it achieves the claim are then laid out.

Certainly the Patent Office must have verified Bearden's claims about his MEG?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
Just wondering. I thought Patent Claims had to be proven.

As in..."this new machine can turn apples in to oranges".

The specifics of how it achieves the claim are then laid out.

Certainly the Patent Office must have verified Bearden's claims about his MEG?



Nope. They never do.

Now, if you had "this new machine turns apples into oranges" and it looked halfway feasible, you'd likely get a barrage of previous work you'd have to refute, and that's it.

If you had claims that the keebler elves were doing it, you'd be refused.

It all depends on the pitch you write.

I've never been turned down for technical non-feasibility. I have generally had to refute a few dozen counter examples, most of which had no bearing at all on what I was doing. The examiner was just picking out key words and doing text searches on the patent database and the net.

edit: a number of patents I've come across are blatantly non-functional, at least to someone halfway skilled in physics. I have, for example, seen a patent for transforming radiation into electrical power by ionizing metal in a wire. Since they were supposedly increasing the charge carriers, that was supposed to just magically turn into potential. Never mind the fact that it's the same as just splicing in a bit of somewhat more conductive wire. No power created at all.

Oh, and a conductive metal doesn't HAVE bound charge carriers, you have a drude gas, you can't make holes and electrons in it, really, if you did the recombination time would be in the picoseconds. So the patent was really neat looking, lots of nice artwork and hand waving, not so much math, blatantly wrong physics, and they got a patent. The MEG patent actually has math in, although it's not good physics, it's really impressive looking though, and he never ever says it makes more power than you put in.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Bedlam]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
and he never ever says it makes more power than you put in.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Bedlam]


so..basically it's just a box that steps up or down voltage?

How can he call it a "generator"? What does it generate?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Kalki11
Scalar Interferometry (SI) is the next laser, but to an even greater extent - it will be responsible for fantastic Star Trek technologies.


There is no such thing as a scalar interferometer. Tom Bearden not withstanding.


whatcha talkin bout Willis?

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by __rich__
You don't remember his "death ray"? Some speculate the Tunguska event was accidentally caused by him testing it.


That wasn't really "scalar fields" though. At the risk of invoking MB Kennel asking questions I'm not going to answer, it ended up being a neat weapon system, but it's not a scalar weapon.

Funny i've been playing Mass Effect 2 last couple of months.
Anyway, my philosophy is that if it whacks you like a vector, it's a vector.

masseffect.wikia.com...

iopscience.iop.org...



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

whatcha talkin bout Willis?


Heh. I hadn't considered that one.

Bearden is a really interesting guy, just a bit whack - one too many projects at Kirtland I guess. And then there was that last pre-forced-retirement ZOG paper.

It's not a good idea to present your peers/superiors in the military with a research paper that pushes your opinion that an all-powerful godlike force comprised of humanity's collective subconscious minds is controlling the universe.

At least not if you want that full bird instead of a fast retirement.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__

Originally posted by Bedlam
and he never ever says it makes more power than you put in.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Bedlam]


so..basically it's just a box that steps up or down voltage?

How can he call it a "generator"? What does it generate?


Well, by avoiding saying that it was a perpetual motion machine, it generated him a patent grant.

In practice, it typically generates a lot of very spiky non-sinusoidal output waveforms, which is ok, I suppose, but they're very difficult to measure for total power, especially when they're delivering power into a reactive or non-linear load.

What happens next is that people use RMS power meters on that and lo! they conclude that they've created Free Energy® when in fact they are just instrumenting badly, either on purpose to fool others or they're incompetently fooling themselves.

Actually, along that line, you get a lot of people that will then try to determine the power output calorically, find they don't have much, if any, then conclude that their magic free energy power must be "radiant energy", i.e. some magic new force that reads as a big power output on an RMS meter but doesn't produce much heat in a load.

In fact, they're not producing much energy, the heat number is right, and they're mismeasuring the power output.

Which is the hallmark of the MEG.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Another important thread Bedlam is trying to disrupt. Keep an eye on Bedlam... I think he might be employed by the people actually USING this tech...

Bearden might be wrong about the details but he definitely seems to be on the right track... All it may really be though is interfering waves... why it has sudh strange effects? Who knows.. who cares.. the point is it has some spectacular effects...

If you dig deep enough in any subject of science there are questions completely unanswered... so it isn't as interferometry/scalar is alone here.
edit on 3-7-2012 by 8311-XHT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by 8311-XHT
Another important thread Bedlam is trying to disrupt. Keep an eye on Bedlam... I think he might be employed by the people actually USING this tech...


I looked at this thread briefly and it appears that Bedlam is saying that Bearden is misleading the public. This, in my opinion, is a true statement, so please apologize to Bedlam.

If anyone is misleading the public, it is this nut Bearden, who've claimed that he had a working prototype but "it was destroyed promptly". Yeah right. Sure. I'm in. Not.

And this is the same Bearden who said that he can deliver a working industrial model in 2 years or something like that. And that was like 10 years ago. Now he wants $11M to do that. I'm, like, so totally there. Not.

Anyone who takes this seriously is an idiot.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Bearden may be a disinfo agent as well. This is what the government does. They put disinfo agents like Bob Lazar and John Lear out there who mix truth with lies... I suspect Bedlam may be the ATS affiliate.

The point is though that interferometry is key to all these technologies. As are other things Bedlam seems to be trying to discredit.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


It is refreshing to hear factual statements about HAARP.

Thanks, Bedlam!



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by 8311-XHT
Bearden may be a disinfo agent as well. This is what the government does. They put disinfo agents like Bob Lazar and John Lear out there who mix truth with lies... I suspect Bedlam may be the ATS affiliate.


Oh, I get it! Just about everybody is an agent! And they all spread disinformation! Wow! Look at my signature.


The point is though that interferometry is key to all these technologies. As are other things Bedlam seems to be trying to discredit.


Interferometry is a very generic term and it seems to indicate a specific scientific method of looking at energy patterns resulting from interaction of a few sources of coherent radiation. Roughly speaking. No less, but no more. No, it's not a branch of magic and it's not a key to everything.

I read Bearden's materials and the guy is a fool. What he describes is a sheer impossibility on many levels, and I'm making this statement from my experience with math and building electronic equipment.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 8311-XHT
Bearden may be a disinfo agent as well. This is what the government does. They put disinfo agents like Bob Lazar and John Lear out there who mix truth with lies... I suspect Bedlam may be the ATS affiliate.

The point is though that interferometry is key to all these technologies. As are other things Bedlam seems to be trying to discredit.


so an agent is anyone that has a dissenting argument?

I guess I'm one too!



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Submarines

Originally posted by 8311-XHT
Bearden may be a disinfo agent as well. This is what the government does. They put disinfo agents like Bob Lazar and John Lear out there who mix truth with lies... I suspect Bedlam may be the ATS affiliate.

The point is though that interferometry is key to all these technologies. As are other things Bedlam seems to be trying to discredit.


so an agent is anyone that has a dissenting argument?

I guess I'm one too!


Anyone that attacks people like an a-hole on a conspiracy site is certainly suspect. Also if they are vehemently opposed to something without any real evidence or coherent argument. Especially when they are keying on topics that I personally know are legitimate.

It's shocking to me how no one seems to consider these possibilities on a site like this. How else do people think they keep a lid on things?

Just look at how this site operates. It's quite clear that nothing of value is allowed to get accomplished here. This site is flooded with an immense amount of nonsense 24-7-365



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Interferometry is a very generic term and it seems to indicate a specific scientific method of looking at energy patterns resulting from interaction of a few sources of coherent radiation. Roughly speaking. No less, but no more. No, it's not a branch of magic and it's not a key to everything.

I read Bearden's materials and the guy is a fool. What he describes is a sheer impossibility on many levels, and I'm making this statement from my experience with math and building electronic equipment.


Interferometry is the method that was used to take down the twin towers as well as what is responsible for the Hutchinson effect and field effects in tornadoes... which is why it is so imperative people such as the ones on this site should be focusing on it and precisely why that is being prevented by people like Bedlam it seems..





top topics
 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join