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.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 104
39
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


BS, please understand that you're stating an invalid argument, due to your non-acceptance of the evidence of suppression.

You're simply repeating yourself. I already know you think there's no suppression. There is no sense is arguing back and forth about it.




posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
So what if he sells things?
His selling DVDs about the wonders of his invention borders on criminal, that's so what. If the invention worked, he'd be selling that, not DVDs about how great it is.


Perhaps the following excerpt, from wanttoknow.info/beardenmeg, suggests what is remarkable about the MEG:


Due to its “heat pump” type operation, the MEG becomes a NESS system, freely receiving excess energy from its second (environmental) energy reservoir that is furnished “for free” by the Aharonov-Bohm effect.
See there, we do agree on something once in a while. Thanks for confirming what I already said:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Bearden may be (and apparently IS) making more dramatic sounding claims OUTSIDE of his patent, but that's all his patent claims, and it's not anything remarkable.
The US patent office now requires a working model for free energy/perpetual motion machines, and despite Bearden's claim he has one, it appears that he does not, at least not one he's patented. You'll notice that claim isn't in his patent. Now if someone can come up with a working model of an over-unity device, then presumably it would be eligible for a patent.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


BS, please understand that you're stating an invalid argument, due to your non-acceptance of the evidence of suppression.


Thanks but no thanks. His schematics, write-ups and videos are out there for everyone to see and read. What kind of suppression is that?


You're simply repeating yourself.


I'm repeating myself because you do. There is no evidence at all that any of these contraptions work. Hell, there is even a photo of Bearden's set-up in this thread and you still are grasping the straw of "suppression"? No seriously?

How was Rodin suppressed? He speaks nonsense and that's clear from get go. I can smell idiocy in this but it goes unabated, w/o suppression and all. When one says that they found the fingerprint of God...

Sorry I can't stop laughing and that interferes with my typing.

And no, number 9 is not a particle, not any more than your toilet paper is a piece of the Shroud of Turin.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Mary,
This is what the link you provided says:

peswiki.com...:Suppression#Orion_Project


The Deliberate Curtailment of Nikola Tesla's Primary Energy Source - Tom Bearden and Leslie Pastor discuss how the present electrical engineering model (and practice) was severely curtailed to exclude overunity (COP>1.0) electrical power systems that take their excess electromagnetic energy directly from their interaction with the active medium (vacuum/spacetime).
That's not really suppression.

The electrical engineering models used determine all the electrical and electronic infrastructure and devices used today.

If Bearden or anyone else has a way to extract energy from the vacuum, it's up to them to demonstrate that it can be done, and then the necessary models can be revised to account for the demonstrated evidence. I'm not married to the current models, so I have no problem changing them if evidence suggests that's needed. But I've seen no such evidence.

The burden of proof is on Bearden, and he hasn't met the burden of proof. So until he (or anyone else) does, there's no need to revise models that seem to work well given all the electrical gadgets in our lives that also seem to work well.
edit on 28-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
This is what the link you provided says:

peswiki.com...:Suppression#Orion_Project


Yes, I provided a PESWiki link, but not to the page you linked to. Also, I can't find your excerpt on the page.

Additionally, I'm not familiar with the Orion Project and I don't care to comment on it.

As far as my belief that people have been killed to suppress free energy technology, based on interviews I've listened to over the past five years or so and things I've read, I scanned through the updated Gary Vesperman document looking for names, because I don't recall specific names, just that people have been killed.

The document says that 20 inventors, activists, and associates are dead, missing or injured. I found 3 names regarding murders: Gianni A. Dotto of the Dotto Ring; Dr. Timothy Trapp of World Improvement Technologies (WITS), whose salesman was killed; and Dr. Paul Brown, inventor of a device to neutralize radioactive waste - here I'm not sure what the connection to free energy is.

Anyway, I'm not going to debate whether these were murders or not.

The prevalent suppression is harassment and threats. I think the extensive Table of Contents provided by Gary Vesperman illustrates this.

edit on 10/28/11 by Mary Rose because: Typo



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Mary, both of my knees are badly injured. I'm not kidding. Do I need to assume that whatever I happen to be working on, is suppressed technology?

Still, that has nothing to do with the simple fact that Bearden, Searl and Rodin are not dead, murdered or mutilated, and they FREELY SELL DVDs and what not on the Web, to some stupid people. Sorry but claims of extraordinary suppression require extraordinary proof of extraordinary suppression, and these gentlemen prove exactly the opposite.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, both of my knees are badly injured. I'm not kidding. Do I need to assume that whatever I happen to be working on, is suppressed technology?






Have you had a long day?



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary, both of my knees are badly injured. I'm not kidding. Do I need to assume that whatever I happen to be working on, is suppressed technology?




Have you had a long day?


Not really, just the usual. Why?

I mean you don't think twice before posting that X number of supposed "free energy" proponents were "injured". So are many people traveling on the Long Island Expressway. So am I. One of my friends was stabbed to death. Does this mean he had anything to do with all that?

You found yourself a new hobby horse. No matter how unsubstantiated or plain stupid the claims of these "inventors" are, you would just say that's all because of suppression. Weak. You never told me how specifically Rodin was suppressed. You are obviously posting tons of links to videos and what not, from this clown, without much fear for your life. Falsehood.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
How was Rodin suppressed?


As far as I know, he hasn't been.

The subject of suppression applies only to the sweeping generalization that if free energy were possible, we'd have it on the market by now.

In Rodin's case, I remember seeing a video where he talked about a conflict with endorser Russell Blake because Blake wanted his own patent. That's all I know.

We will see whether the Rodin coil gets developed or not. Rodin is the inventor of the math. Others will have to develop the coil. Rodin says this on the video in the OP.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You are obviously posting tons of links to videos and what not, from this clown, without much fear for your life. Falsehood.




What are you talking about?



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Yes, I provided a PESWiki link, but not to the page you linked to. Also, I can't find your excerpt on the page.
Sorry you can't find it but it's there, and it's the same page. I just verified it. I had to scroll up a bit.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Why are you linking to a different page?

What's the point?

Why are you zeroing in on the Orion Project?

The point of the PESWiki website reference I posted is to show the overall picture of suppression in free energy technology - represented on the site in a lengthy Table of Contents with links to specifics.

Again, I have not researched the Orion Project so I don't have anything to say about it.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Why are you linking to a different page?
It's the same page. It just takes you to a different spot on that page.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Originally posted by Mary Rose
From PESWiki: "Directory:Suppression"


The above looks like this:





Originally posted by Arbitrageur
peswiki.com...:Suppression#Orion_Project


But the above link looks like this:




They’re not the same.

But it doesn’t matter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Due to its “heat pump” type operation, the MEG becomes a NESS system, freely receiving excess energy from its second (environmental) energy reservoir that is furnished “for free” by the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

See there, we do agree on something once in a while. Thanks for confirming what I already said


You already talked about a second environmental energy reservoir?

Well then, my excerpt is not the answer, I suppose. Or, it is, but you're being facetious. I don't know which is the case.

Anyway, there’s more technical info about the MEG on the page I linked.

And there’s a lot of info about electromagnetism and Maxwell’s original equations, etc,. that Bearden provides and you don’t recognize as valid.

edit on 10/28/11 by Mary Rose because: Add link



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The US patent office now requires a working model for free energy/perpetual motion machines, and despite Bearden's claim he has one, it appears that he does not, at least not one he's patented. You'll notice that claim isn't in his patent. Now if someone can come up with a working model of an over-unity device, then presumably it would be eligible for a patent.


Are you saying that patent law has changed since 2002 when Bearden's patent was granted?

And are you saying that Bearden's patent documentation shows that there was no working model?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


He hasn't invented squat. The divisibility test is known and has been known for a long time. Of course most people think algebra and calculus are the pinnacles of math. But there is a branch called number theory which studies these things.
edit on 29-10-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Putting the numbers on a circle and using them to model circuits is new, isn't it?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Since you find Mendel Sachs to be an interesting read, I'm curious to know what your comments might be about the following, from Bearden's document "EXPLANATION OF THE MOTIONLESS ELECTROMAGNETIC GENERATOR BY SACH'S THEORY OF ELECTRODYNAMICS" page 2:




edit on 10/29/11 by Mary Rose because: Typo



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Additionally, BS, please tell me where I'm wrong in my notes on the essay:

1. Atomism dominated thinking about matter from the time of the ancient Greeks until Michael Faraday introduced field theory in the 19th century.

2. Atomism sees a system of a collection of singular things interacting in space, whereas the field view sees a system that is continuous and holistic.

3. The field view sees protons, people, planets, stars, galaxies, etc. as correlated modes of the continuum.

4. Faraday tried unsuccessfully to show empirically that the gravitational field of force was included in the electromagnetic field.

5. .Einstein's theory of general relativity extends from Faraday's, but Faraday's is an open system, while Einstein's is closed. Faraday's had test particles that probe fields; Einstein's had no discrete particles.

6. Relativity holds that the apparent "things" we respond to are the infinite distinguishable, correlated, modes of the continuum which is the universe.

7. The way these modes interact with each other in terms of force depends on the circumstances of their coupling in a continuous way. There are no sharp cut-offs.

8. Present day claims in elementary particle physics that search for a grand unified theory are attempts to generalize the categories of data with more "boxes." This approach does not have the meaning of unification put forth by Faraday and Einstein as interpreted by Mendel Sachs.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


But it's not science, I can model circuits based on sacred geometry byt I have not discovered new math.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join