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: 80
39
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Regarding the MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator), invented by Stephen L. Patrick, Thomas E. Bearden, James C. Hayes, Kenneth D. Moore, and James L. Kenny, on Bearden’s website there is a 7 page document entitled “EXPLANATION OF THE MOTIONLESS ELECTROMAGNETIC GENERATOR BY SACH'S THEORY OF ELECTRODYNAMICS” available. It is stated that it is published in Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2001.


Here's an invitation to those who consider themselves knowledgeable in electrodynamics. Read and comment on the above. Show your expertise.




posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Any intelligent comments from our experts on this document?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You need to be much more specific.

You're just making a general pronouncement, throwing in an ad hominem in the process.

Show your expertise.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From "Where Electrical Science Went Wrong" by Bruce DePalma


How about the above document? Which of you experts cares to post intelligently about it?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You need to be much more specific.

You're just making a general pronouncement, throwing in an ad hominem in the process.

Show your expertise.



And what shall we say about your circumstantial ad hominems?

Maybe someday someone you know can enlighten you to why physics uses math and why it is the best language to describe physical phenomenon. This insight can only come by solving problems and using it in experiments.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
And what shall we say about your circumstantial ad hominems?





Originally posted by 547000
Maybe someday someone you know can enlighten you to why physics uses math and why it is the best language to describe physical phenomenon. This insight can only come by solving problems and using it in experiments.


I have not been arguing that we don't need math and experiments.

Maybe someday someone will actually read the quotes from experts I've posted and intelligently discuss them instead of ridiculing the experts and me.

There are reasons why the establishment denies our ability to tap the free energy in the vacuum. Those reasons are what need to be explored.

The fact is, there is a New World Order agenda, and it's not pretty. Holding back free energy is a piece of it. People need to decide whether they want to help the powers that be accomplish their goal, or not.

This is not a joke.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Link.

Ignoring whether a NWO is true, you are creating a false dilemma, that you are either for them or against them.

At any rate, why do you think it is people who understand science and math blasphemy these prophets of progress? I think it's because anyone educated in these matters know the wool they pull over scientifically ignorant people's eyes to fool them into thinking that what they're pimping has value. You could really actually study physics and understand it, and then see for yourself what nonsense they're presenting. Just go to the library or bookstore and get a book on calculus-based physics for first year college students. You don't need to know tensor calculus, calculus of variations, or integral equations to have a modicum of knowledge. Just that would suffice to have some idea of what you're talking about.
edit on 2-5-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
Link.


I see the link but you're going to have to explain what you mean.



Originally posted by 547000
Ignoring whether a NWO is true . . .


That is not advisable in my opinion.


Originally posted by 547000
At any rate, why do you think it is people who understand science and math blasphemy these prophets of progress? I think it's because anyone educated in these matters know the wool they pull over scientifically ignorant people's eyes to fool them into think what they're pimping has value.


Anyone educated in these matters has been educated by the mainstream.

As I've pointed out, that's the problem.

You are making a false assumption about the experts I've quoted in my opinion. You're hurling ridicule again. I reject it.


Originally posted by 547000
You could really actually study physics and understand it . . . .


Mainstream physics? No, thanks.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


You often accuse people of being wrong simply because they have an inclination to agree with a point of view. What more is there to explain?

What does whether something is mainstream or not have to do with the validity of a concept? The authors you approve of give facts that are blatantly wrong, but you wouldn't be able to know that, now would you?

You seem to appreciate non-mainstream things simply because they're not mainstream--not about whether what they say is true or not.
edit on 2-5-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
You often accuse people of being wrong simply because they have an inclination to agree with a point of view. What more is there to explain?

Give me an example.


Originally posted by 547000
The authors you approve of give facts that are blatantly wrong, but you wouldn't be able to know that, now would you?


Yes, I would know that, because I can read.

You apparently are assuming everything you've been taught in school is right and I am wrong because I have not been taught what you've been taught.


Originally posted by 547000
You seem to appreciated non-mainstream things simply because they're not mainstream--not about whether what they say is true or not.

Since 9/11, and the research I've done on the internet, yes, I appreciate non-mainstream immensely.

If the subject is controversial, more truth will probably be found in the non-mainstream than in the mainstream, in my opinion.

And trying to communicate with people who are immersed in the mainstream is extremely challenging.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by 547000
You often accuse people of being wrong simply because they have an inclination to agree with a point of view. What more is there to explain?

Give me an example.


Whenever you say mainstream scientists are funded by TPTB.



Originally posted by 547000
The authors you approve of give facts that are blatantly wrong, but you wouldn't be able to know that, now would you?


Yes, I would know that, because I can read.

You apparently are assuming everything you've been taught in school is right and I am wrong because I have not been taught what you've been taught.


No, I assume you are so swept away by the hype, that the existence of basic scientific phenomena that anyone can verify is assumed to be false so long as you can justify psuedo-science. Or are you admitting you are ignorant?



Originally posted by 547000
You seem to appreciated non-mainstream things simply because they're not mainstream--not about whether what they say is true or not.

Since 9/11, and the research I've done on the internet, yes, I appreciate non-mainstream immensely.

If the subject is controversial, more truth will probably be found in the non-mainstream than in the mainstream, in my opinion.

And trying to communicate with people who are immersed in the mainstream is extremely challenging.


How would you know which is more true if you don't even know the most basic of facts and have no inclinations to get educated in anything that challenges conspiracies?






posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
Whenever you say mainstream scientists are funded by TPTB.


What is your counter-argument to this? Are you saying they're not, or are you saying the powers that be have our best interests at heart? Or something else?



Originally posted by 547000
No, I assume you are so swept away by the hype, that the existence of basic scientific phenomena that anyone can verify is assumed to be false so long as you can justify psuedo-science. Or are you admitting you are ignorant?


What hype? I have posted quite a few serious documents that have been ignored.

What psuedo-science? This is a pronouncement without justification.

You're calling me ignorant? More ridicule. Really tiresome.


Originally posted by 547000
How would you know which is more true if you don't even know the most basic of facts and have no inclinations to get educated in anything that challenges conspiracies?


Your trusted "most basic facts" are addressed and moved beyond in the documents I've posted . There is no need to learn obsolete material. Not that I would want to learn the nuts and bolts of the math. Unlike you, I'm not a math nerd, as you described yourself.

But I am very interested in technology and what it can do for humanity.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   



What hype? I have posted quite a few serious documents that have been ignored.

What psuedo-science? This is a pronouncement without justification.

You're calling me ignorant? More ridicule. Really tiresome.


The hype of free energy, cures for cancer, inexhaustible food supply, etcetera.

There has been tons of posts that show what they're saying is not in accordance with science.

Ignorance can be cured with knowledge, but foolishness cannot. I did not insult you; I stated what's true. You're ignorant of the facts.



Originally posted by 547000
How would you know which is more true if you don't even know the most basic of facts and have no inclinations to get educated in anything that challenges conspiracies?


Your trusted "most basic facts" are addressed and moved beyond in the documents I've posted . There is no need to learn obsolete material. Not that I would want to learn the nuts and bolts of the math. Unlike you, I'm not a math nerd, as you described yourself.

But I am very interested in technology and what it can do for humanity.


They're not obsolete because what they're saying is BS. And you don't understand that what they're saying is BS because you do not know the facts.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by 547000
Whenever you say mainstream scientists are funded by TPTB.


What is your counter-argument to this? Are you saying they're not, or are you saying the powers that be have our best interests at heart? Or something else?


Read up on circumstantial ad hominem again. Interests do not invalidate the truth of what they're saying.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


The alternative science and its implications remains to be addressed rather than avoided and ridiculed.

You simply continue to avoid and ridicule – repeatedly. Like a robot.

reply to post by 547000
 


You didn’t answer my question so I’ll ask it again: What is your opinion regarding mainstream science in relationship to TPTB?



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by 547000
 


The alternative science and its implications remains to be addressed rather than avoided and ridiculed.

You simply continue to avoid and ridicule – repeatedly. Like a robot.

reply to post by 547000
 


You didn’t answer my question so I’ll ask it again: What is your opinion regarding mainstream science in relationship to TPTB?


Mary, they are not robots. Robots need to be commanded. They are high intellectual who want extraordinary evidence to believe in something new. Have you been eating hanbeneros?



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
Mary, they are not robots. Robots need to be commanded. They are high intellectual who want extraordinary evidence to believe in something new.


No, they are refusing to acknowledge the flaws in mainstream science and technology.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Regarding the MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator), invented by Stephen L. Patrick, Thomas E. Bearden, James C. Hayes, Kenneth D. Moore, and James L. Kenny, on Bearden’s website there is a 7 page document entitled “EXPLANATION OF THE MOTIONLESS ELECTROMAGNETIC GENERATOR BY SACH'S THEORY OF ELECTRODYNAMICS” available. It is stated that it is published in Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2001.
You might be interested in this letter from one of the "authors" of that paper, Mary. Unlikely (because it's relevant, and I know you don't like relevant things) but have a look anyway.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 
Same question as ever, from Wikipedia (with sources):

In 2001, Bearden predicted that the first commercial products based on the MEG would be "rolling off the production lines in about one year", and as early as 2002 claimed to have a prototype of the device that produced "100 times more power out than was input". It was promoted through JLNlabs, Cheniere.org, and an Egroup called "MEG Builders". In May 2008, with the MEG still not in production, Tom Bearden claimed he needed about $11 million to develop it to a viable commercial form.

Why do these people claim so much so readily, and ALWAYS produce NOTHING apart from publicity and requests for more funding? Do you think they are perhaps too incompetent to make a good idea work? Or is it that they are making a living by playing the public like pieces in a game?

Answer please. For once.
edit on 2-5-2011 by Bobathon because: ...



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
You might be interested in this letter from one of the "authors" of that paper, Mary. Unlikely (because it's relevant, and I know you don't like relevant things) but have a look anyway.


Who are Lawrence B. Crowell and Tim Harwood?



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join