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.
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.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
From "Where Electrical Science Went Wrong" by Bruce DePalma
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.
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.
Originally posted by 547000
Link.
Originally posted by 547000
Ignoring whether a NWO is true . . .
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.
Originally posted by 547000
You could really actually study physics and understand it . . . .
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by 547000
Whenever you say mainstream scientists are funded by TPTB.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.