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.

 

Anti-Gravity & Zero Point Energy Device Confirmed by Measurements in Morningstar Energy Box

page: 8
31
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


The first few words of Haisch's video on that website answer all the questions in this thread. He states:

* you'll find hundreds of claims online of extraction of ZPE

* you'll find hundreds of conspiracy theories, coverups, etc.

* he doesn't believe ANY of those

* he claims to be presenting the real thing

* they CANNOT currently demonstrate a working device

The rest of the video is basically a description of ZPE and the Casimir force. He points out that quantum noise in a circuit basically has been measured and this demonstrates the existence of ZPE.

This doesn't mean that every crackpot claim of extracting ZPE that comes along has any scientific basis.

Note Haisch talks about the Casimir force, the ground state of hydrogen, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics, wavefunctions, NOT electromagnetic devices like motors and generators, free energy antennae or any of these other crackpot devices.

If you don't put any meat in the grinder, you don't get sausages out. This is how you distinguish a crackpot from a qualified scientist -- which unless I have also been severely hoaxed, Bernard Haisch probably is.




posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeeGee

Originally posted by boncho



"Bernard Haisch, who is a co-inventor, is quick to point out that this is all purely speculative at this point and that they have not yet been able to prove anything in the laboratory. The sporadic signals they have seen can't be ruled out as experimental error. That said, the model is still "well worth pursuing"."


This is exactly why I said it's wrong to label Jovion Corp as frauds. They're real scientists, not psuedoscientists. They understand what they're doing is very controversial and high risk/high gain. Puthoff, Haisch, Rueda and others are some of the most credible scientists that seriously investigate fringe ideas. In fact, Puthoff runs Earth Tech International - a research organization which falsifies (or replicates) breakthrough energy/propulsion claims.


I'll give them 2 pts for not outright declaring they have a free energy machine. The problem is when you start looking into this free energy stuff you get plastered with bogus crap from all over the place. If you want people to have an unbiased critical view, number one, I would not have them be part of this FE circuit.

There are legitimate labs in Japan, China, Russia (Ok, well it is Russia so quasi) the US, and India, (possibly more) that work with LENR. These labs you do not find on this FE web circuit.

Sorry, but most of these places look like fraud. And when I questioned the one in the OP I got nailed with references to dozens of these stupid semi-professional labs. Maybe you argue, "But universities got linked too". Well I already posted an example of how the entire physic community was conned and that included Universities.

The point is, if you want an unbiased discussion on a real technology that has evidence to back up any claims it has made, post a new thread with evidence. This thread has been scamming from its inception.

All the labs I a



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
We keep going back to "The laws of physics" and such to stop us moving forward, So lets look at the world around us...

We use solar panels, which is abstracting free energy from our surroundings, only we think we can only use this energy when the sun is hitting the earth....But at night-time don't we have the light from billions of suns hitting us...although very weak ?

We humans are like solar panels in that we can only see when the sun shines, and are pretty much blind once it goes down.

But just as many animals have learnt to do, that is to be able to use the available light from the distant stars to see in the dark....So i believe it could only take a step in technology to put that available light to use....Who knows, it might just take a big enough area to capture and then focus / magnify that light so that it may be possible to get a usable energy.

We know there is energy there, we just need to find out how to harness and use it.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I don't even know what this applies to. Can you elaborate?



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

LOL That is awesome. So you found his credentials for me to prove the dis-info agents wrong?

Because you know, any legitimate Scientist will acknowledge their credentials if they have them, that should be something we can all agree on.


From twm.co.nz...


Lieutenant Colonel U.S. Army (Retired). President and Chief Executive Officer, CTEC, Inc. MS Nuclear Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. BS Mathematics, Northeast Louisiana University. Graduate of Command & General Staff College, U.S. Army. Graduate of Guided Missile Staff Officer's Course, U.S. Army (equivalent to MS in Aerospace Engineering). Numerous electronic warfare and counter-countermeasures courses.


And we don't know how much education he received in the electronic warfare and counter-countermeasures courses... FYI, just because someone has no degree does NOT mean they are uneducated. But whatever.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


Oh and energy from the Sun is not 'free energy' unless because of the fact we don't have to operate it. But there is a massive nuclear reaction going on in the Sun and it is burning its fuel reserves, which we can harvest.

That is a big difference compared to harvesting quantum energies that we cannot interact with, no?

And if you want to use a solar panel analogy, than plants are like solar panels and we eat the panels.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by boncho

LOL That is awesome. So you found his credentials for me to prove the dis-info agents wrong?

Because you know, any legitimate Scientist will acknowledge their credentials if they have them, that should be something we can all agree on.


From twm.co.nz...


Lieutenant Colonel U.S. Army (Retired). President and Chief Executive Officer, CTEC, Inc. MS Nuclear Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. BS Mathematics, Northeast Louisiana University. Graduate of Command & General Staff College, U.S. Army. Graduate of Guided Missile Staff Officer's Course, U.S. Army (equivalent to MS in Aerospace Engineering). Numerous electronic warfare and counter-countermeasures courses.


And we don't know how much education he received in the electronic warfare and counter-countermeasures courses... FYI, just because someone has no degree does NOT mean they are uneducated. But whatever.


Actually, I think that would be the definition of uneducated.


Maybe you meant intelligent?



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by boncho

LOL That is awesome. So you found his credentials for me to prove the dis-info agents wrong?

Because you know, any legitimate Scientist will acknowledge their credentials if they have them, that should be something we can all agree on.


From twm.co.nz...


Lieutenant Colonel U.S. Army (Retired). President and Chief Executive Officer, CTEC, Inc. MS Nuclear Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. BS Mathematics, Northeast Louisiana University. Graduate of Command & General Staff College, U.S. Army. Graduate of Guided Missile Staff Officer's Course, U.S. Army (equivalent to MS in Aerospace Engineering). Numerous electronic warfare and counter-countermeasures courses.


And we don't know how much education he received in the electronic warfare and counter-countermeasures courses... FYI, just because someone has no degree does NOT mean they are uneducated. But whatever.


That is really awesome, so now that we have established his education than why would someone like that make a claim a decade ago and not produce anything on that claim?

I don't know one person with character that would make statements that they couldn't back up. Government yes, businessmen and scientists, no. It tends to make people discredit you.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Well you are taking the stance that free energy is impossible ......No ?

So I have shown that there is an energy source in our surroundings that we currently use for a free energy source, and that there is potential to harness that same energy from a weaker source....It just takes a breakthrough.

So i wouldn't discount other ideas.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by ken10
 


Oh and energy from the Sun is not 'free energy' unless because of the fact we don't have to operate it. But there is a massive nuclear reaction going on in the Sun and it is burning its fuel reserves, which we can harvest.

That is a big difference compared to harvesting quantum energies that we cannot interact with, no?

And if you want to use a solar panel analogy, than plants are like solar panels and we eat the panels.


Nor is ZPE "free" in the sense of energy from nothing. There's a huge something pumping energy into the universe such that is accelerating in its expansion - so obviously it does interact with ZPE... We don't know WHY the energy is there or what that something is yet, but we know it is there and it can interact/be interacted with. But that something pumping the energy in is equivalent to the sun in the solar energy illustration you offer.

And the energy is there to be used. The PTB, however are VERY threatened by its presence (relying on oil to control others), however, and it would be naive to assume that They wouldn't suppress it as best They could.

In fact, they might send out people to argue, character assassinate, nay-say, disparage, insist it's nothing, and otherwise shill for Them. Oh, but I'm sure no one here fits that category.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by XtraTL
 





If you don't put any meat in the grinder, you don't get sausages out. This is how you distinguish a crackpot from a qualified scientist -- which unless I have also been severely hoaxed, Bernard Haisch probably is.


They are trying to get meat out of a grinder that doesn't interact with the rest of the world. I would remain very skeptical if I were you.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Well I watched Haisch's video. Now, I haven't done a PhD in quantum physics, though I did study quantum physics at Uni. I didn't personally see anything that smelled of crackpottery in Haisch's video.

Of course, I don't know any better than Haisch does whether his device will work. But at least he is playing with an area of physics where there actually is room for something to work. In all the other cases I've looked at, the technology is completely standard and well-understood.

My strong suspicion is that Haisch may demonstrate that his effect (on the orbitals of atomic Hydrogen or some noble gas) does exist, but that there is no way to extract energy from the effect. Physics unfortunately has a way of doing that to us.

Anyhow, back to the OP. I still don't know what we are talking about. Can someone link me to what is being discussed here. Where is the diagram of the device, the readings from the equipment, the description of the experimental setup, the scientific paper, the proposed explanation for how this works, including equations, statements from scientists who have examined this and their credentials, etc.

Also, I didn't read the entire thread through, but what did Haisch's concept have to do with the OP? Sorry to not be keeping up with every post.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by XtraTL
 





My strong suspicion is that Haisch may demonstrate that his effect (on the orbitals of atomic Hydrogen or some noble gas) does exist, but that there is no way to extract energy from the effect. Physics unfortunately has a way of doing that to us.


This is probably the most rational thing said in this thread.




posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 





Nor is ZPE "free" in the sense of energy from nothing. There's a huge something pumping energy into the universe such that is accelerating in its expansion - so obviously it does interact with ZPE... We don't know WHY the energy is there or what that something is yet, but we know it is there and it can interact/be interacted with.


Interacting with it and exploiting it are two separate things.





But that something pumping the energy in is equivalent to the sun in the solar energy illustration you offer. And the energy is there to be used. The PTB, however are VERY threatened by its presence (relying on oil to control others), however, and it would be naive to assume that They wouldn't suppress it as best They could.



Please back these assumptions up with facts. You are going back into fiction. Why don't you just read Twilight for your fix. Why make stuff up?

Explain this to me, if I made a FE device tomorrow, than would "TPTB" come knocking on my door? How would they know, what if I gave working models and blueprints to hundreds of people, would they come for all of us?

And tell me, you never explained why Tom Bearden never released the device he claimed was ready for production, why was that again?



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by 46ACE
ohhh.... no ...you
di'nt! you din't just mention "Tom bearden"up in heah dijooo??
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Oh THAT's definitve. First reply:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So clearly the disinfo people are trying to discredit him in any asinine way they can. Good luck with that.



if somebody were of a mind to want'to mislead or Dis info " this board all they would have to do is sit on their hands and watch the b.s. fly no effort necessary.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I looked up one of the references provided at the OP's link "Integrity Institute". It's a nature article.

Well, naturally, as a scientist, I have access to Nature. Not only do they give the wrong year for the "publication" and from what I can tell, a defective link, but the actual "article" referred to was on the Nature News site, i.e. a science aggregator website. So I didn't need my Nature subscription at all. This is open content:

www.nature.com...

No surprises there.

It was written a year earlier than claimed, and it is *completely misquoted*. The article on the "integrity website" says the effect should be a few centimetres per hour. The actual article says a few tenths of a millimetre per hour.

Compare the "integrity" website version here:

www.integrityresearchinstitute.org...

The actual article being referred to by the Nature News aggregator is:

Feigel, A. Quantum vacuum contribution to the momentum of
dielectric media. Physical Review Letters, 92, 020404,
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.020404 (2004).

(I guess the article had not actually appeared when the Nature News piece was written.)

And just in case there is any doubt that this article is misquoted, here is the abstract:

prl.aps.org...

Note it states 50nm/s which is 0.18 mm/hr.

Any response to this OP?



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by XtraTL
 


I bet I know how this happened. A total guess to be sure, but I would bet the good professor put out a press release before his article had been refereed. The news media lapped it up and published it. It was picked up by Nature News and reported on with incorrect figures.

The paper subsequently got peer reviewed and the reviewer found an error in the paper or the calculations (or the author subsequently found an error and had to correct it).

After publication of the actual paper, Nature News corrected their article, also moving the web page that was originally linked to by the OP's favourite company, who don't correct their article (or link). From their perspective this random article supports their thesis that some theoretical device they didn't bother to keep up with can extract ZPE in quantities that could gently disturb the wing of a flea suffering from hypersensitivity disorder and that's enough for them.

From this one supposes that they extrapolate very large dollar signs.


edit on 6-3-2011 by XtraTL because: Slightly clearer wording



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by XtraTL
 


Great job on the research.




posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Go on; you were"denying ignorance" I believe; Don't let me interrupt::
b52 wing loading at maximum take off weight 488,000lbs/4000sqft. wing area =122lbs load/sq ft on take off.

B-2stealth maximum take off weight: 376,000lbs/5,140 sqft=wing area=73lbsload/sq ft
So obviously the B-2 with59.8% less loading and more modern computer designed aerodynamics uses "anti-farkin-gravity" to take off. it s a plain as the nose on my face well everyone just "knows" about scalarweapons/ antigravity and supressed technology .

You just, you know "know" its true.
all specification open source (wiki)...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

You have chosen to believe what ever you have chosen to believe.



edit on 6-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join