The Most Amazing & Revolutionary, Theoretical Idea open for Discussion

Originally posted by Conflagrated
Funny that I am reading this. Today, while my teacher in math was teaching, I was day dreaming and thinking of the possibility to walk through walls/ pass through "solid" objects. When I was thinking this, I came across the idea you have come across that everything is just a bunch of atoms. Electrons and Protons. I think that our mind (or advanced technology that we don't have (or do?)) has the power to possibly break these apart, or possibly spread them out, manipulate them in a way that you want them too. I certainly enjoy thinking of this and will think about it more

just spreading an idea..

You are onto something here. We are all composed of atoms, no doubt of that, and atoms vibrate at a specific rate, do they not? The wall is also composed of atoms, vibrating at a much slower rate, so it is more solid. If you could raise your own vibrations to a level that would make you invisible to 3rd dimensional sight, you could walk through the wall with no problem.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
With plenum energy (ZPE), energy costs would be nil and we could create all the gold we wanted to - out of most anything.

Well, that's the impossible piece, or perhaps "practically impossible" (in the sense that it's impractical) is a better term.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Amaterasu
With plenum energy (ZPE), energy costs would be nil and we could create all the gold we wanted to - out of most anything.

Well, that's the impossible piece, or perhaps "practically impossible" (in the sense that it's impractical) is a better term.

Please enlighten me. What is "impractical" about it? Are you saying there are no methods of extraction? I know that is not true. Are you saying that there is no way to bring it all together? What?

Thanks.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Amaterasu
With plenum energy (ZPE), energy costs would be nil and we could create all the gold we wanted to - out of most anything.

Well, that's the impossible piece, or perhaps "practically impossible" (in the sense that it's impractical) is a better term.

Please enlighten me. What is "impractical" about it? Are you saying there are no methods of extraction? I know that is not true. Are you saying that there is no way to bring it all together? What?

Thanks.

As with most instances where people try to blend quantum level theoretical (or even demonstrable) physics with macro level applications, the differences are ignored and what works in one realm is applied to the other (invariably taking quantum to macro, though when people speak of "quantum weirdness", it's only weird because they're applying Newtonian physics to it -- once you move beyond that perception, it's no longer weird) in an unreasonable fashion.

Yes, Zero Point Energy exists, but it exists in a state that no practical application can utilize it. Even at the quantum level, thermodynamics still applies, and "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

The zero-point energy cannot be harnessed in the traditional sense. The idea of zero-point energy is that there is a finite, minimum amount of motion (more accurately, kinetic energy) in all matter, even at absolute zero. For example, chemical bonds continue to vibrate in predictable ways. But releasing the energy of this motion is impossible, because then the molecule would be left with less than the minimum amount that the laws of quantum physics require it to have.
-- Source

But, hey, proof's in the pudding. If such a gizmo exists, get it on the market, and I'll buy one straight away. Everything that I've investigated in the past (doing due diligence as an investor) had been predicated on claims that are inconsistent or contrary to the laws of physics. As such, I am a bit jaded towards claims that don't have a proven, peer-reviewed working model to back them up.

Originally posted by adjensen

As with most instances where people try to blend quantum level theoretical (or even demonstrable) physics with macro level applications, the differences are ignored and what works in one realm is applied to the other (invariably taking quantum to macro, though when people speak of "quantum weirdness", it's only weird because they're applying Newtonian physics to it -- once you move beyond that perception, it's no longer weird) in an unreasonable fashion.

Yes, Zero Point Energy exists, but it exists in a state that no practical application can utilize it. Even at the quantum level, thermodynamics still applies, and "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

The zero-point energy cannot be harnessed in the traditional sense. The idea of zero-point energy is that there is a finite, minimum amount of motion (more accurately, kinetic energy) in all matter, even at absolute zero. For example, chemical bonds continue to vibrate in predictable ways. But releasing the energy of this motion is impossible, because then the molecule would be left with less than the minimum amount that the laws of quantum physics require it to have.
-- Source

LOLOL! You use a comment posted on an article in Scientific American to prove this? You do know that SciAm was long ago made into a mouthpiece for the PTB, don't you? I take anything with any controversy attached with a good lump pf salt from them. Their role is scientific gatekeeper.

But, hey, proof's in the pudding. If such a gizmo exists, get it on the market, and I'll buy one straight away. Everything that I've investigated in the past (doing due diligence as an investor) had been predicated on claims that are inconsistent or contrary to the laws of physics. As such, I am a bit jaded towards claims that don't have a proven, peer-reviewed working model to back them up.

They won't come to market. They are suppressed for a very good reason. Free energy = no need for money. Money just represents energy expended in a paradigm of energy scarcity. Add this plenum energy (which has had numerous ways of extracting it found and suppressed) to the mix here on planet Earth, and money becomes unnecessary as the abundance of our planet pours forth. Have you read my two threads?

EDIT to add: A better and more honest look at ZPE...

Google Video Link

reply to post by TechUnique


It's an interesting idea. There are several problems with the theoretical machine that would have to be overcome. What happens to waste electrons and neutrons and where do the extra ones come from? The excess can't be held in containment indefinitely and you'll have to pull extra electrons etc out of the air or from other objects around you. The result would be a wasteful destruction of objects which would cause more wasteful material.

Look at fusion for energy for example. Yes you can get an extremely powerful energy discharge from the combination of particulates however there is a vast amount of waste that is produced.

In theory it sounds great but..

Originally posted by Amaterasu
LOLOL! You use a comment posted on an article in Scientific American to prove this?

No, I just cited it as an example of the practical limitations when the laws of physics are applied. Making a statement like that doesn't prevent you (or anyone) from doing it, but it explains why you couldn't when it doesn't work out.

They won't come to market. They are suppressed for a very good reason. Free energy = no need for money.

Well, I think that you're being a little naive about that, since energy is not all that there is. Yes, it would change the economy, but not to the extent that you're thinking it would. Resource scarcity would just move to something else, though a bit further in the distance.

The problem with conspiracy theories that are single sector economic issues is that for every BP or Texaco or Exelon that's out there, wanting to keep energy scarce, there are hundreds, if not thousands of more powerful companies who would welcome something like this. Not to mention nations who have no interest in sustaining the global oil market -- Japan has all that nuclear because they've no energy resources of their own, you think they'd not jump on something like this, and "TPTB" be damned?

Again, I've looked at this stuff for a long time as investment opportunities, but with an eye toward the practical science that's involved, and to a one, they've been either scams or amateurs (and even some pros!) who thought they were onto something on paper, but it was impractical or an utter failure once they tried to put it together, because the laws of physics don't allow it. Not within the Newtonian realm that it needs to function in, anyway.

Have you read my two threads?

No, I haven't, but I'll take a peek in a bit, thanks.

EDIT to add: A better and more honest look at ZPE...

As a rule, I don't watch linked videos, but if you'd like to summarize (or if it's covered in your other threads) that would be fine.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Amaterasu
LOLOL! You use a comment posted on an article in Scientific American to prove this?

No, I just cited it as an example of the practical limitations when the laws of physics are applied. Making a statement like that doesn't prevent you (or anyone) from doing it, but it explains why you couldn't when it doesn't work out.

A comment on an article, huh. If you say so. Many others - my husband included - say otherwise, and have experiments in the works. It is NOT an example of "practical limitations." It IS a comment that presumes much about ZPE that many dispute.

They won't come to market. They are suppressed for a very good reason. Free energy = no need for money.

Well, I think that you're being a little naive about that, since energy is not all that there is. Yes, it would change the economy, but not to the extent that you're thinking it would. Resource scarcity would just move to something else, though a bit further in the distance.

But in the final analysis, money just represents energy expended. How do I know that? Look at the world around you. Some people laid claim to the areas you see around you, put their energy - and the energy of others - into transforming it in some fashion. That may be in the form of tilling, planting, tending, harvesting and transporting the end result to market - but the seed, land, water and sun were there free before we came along and laid claim. It may be in the form of mining a resource - but the resource was just sitting there free until we laid claim. It could be the paycheck for your energy to push papers - but the initial materials - the trees and land were just sitting there free until we laid claim... In all instances, we pay for energy expended. How we value that energy - that fluctuates.

So you see... I have given this much thought - and have Jeremy Rifkin confirm that for me in his 1980 seminal work, Entropy. I don't think it is ME who suffers from naivete.

The problem with conspiracy theories that are single sector economic issues is that for every BP or Texaco or Exelon that's out there, wanting to keep energy scarce, there are hundreds, if not thousands of more powerful companies who would welcome something like this. Not to mention nations who have no interest in sustaining the global oil market -- Japan has all that nuclear because they've no energy resources of their own, you think they'd not jump on something like this, and "TPTB" be damned?

But it is the BP's, the Texacos, and every BIG corporation that, when any whiff of free energy crops up are jonny-on-the-spot, offering tons of money to shut up, or to buy the patent, or - if those don't work - threats and murder. Many, many free energy devices have had just these things happen to the inventors. So it doesn't matter how many peons want it - or even try to promote it - or where it is that the methods crop up (they are multinational, after all). They will step in and protect their money system.

Again, I've looked at this stuff for a long time as investment opportunities, but with an eye toward the practical science that's involved, and to a one, they've been either scams or amateurs (and even some pros!) who thought they were onto something on paper, but it was impractical or an utter failure once they tried to put it together, because the laws of physics don't allow it. Not within the Newtonian realm that it needs to function in, anyway.

I can assure you that those who get it wrong are left alone. The more "failure" people can point to, the better. It keeps Humans sure that these technologies do not and cannot exist. But I have some interesting memories from which I ascertain that in black ops the methods are well known. See my thread, Who are "They?" linked in my sig.

Have you read my two threads?

No, I haven't, but I'll take a peek in a bit, thanks.

I look forward to your input. Thank you. Again, they are The End of Entropy and The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform, linked in my sig.

EDIT to add: A better and more honest look at ZPE...

As a rule, I don't watch linked videos, but if you'd like to summarize (or if it's covered in your other threads) that would be fine.

Dr. Thomas Valone describes ZPE and its implications. Also the fact that it is quite a large amount of energy... It is a lecture and is very informative. The audience I believe has a fair amount of classical physics and electronics under their belts and also some quantum and classical physics - but in laymen's terms, some of it.

He resorts to few "squgglies" (equations) though I am sure if you pressed him on it he would easily provide the squigglies to go with the implications.

I'm curious... Are you aware that virtually all of the articles that achieve any fanfare in SciAm are based on only half of what Maxwell described in his quaternions? What do you suppose the implications are of those directions thrown out?

Also, are you aware of the work done by Whittaker and infolded potentials? They seem to be related.

reply to post by TechUnique


If a device like this existed, it would need a source of energy. You cannot make something into something else without using energy.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
A comment on an article, huh. If you say so. Many others - my husband included - say otherwise, and have experiments in the works. It is NOT an example of "practical limitations." It IS a comment that presumes much about ZPE that many dispute.

Well, that's fine and if you can demonstrate that he's wrong, more power to you. However, it's not just some random schmoe posting a "comment" and I posted it for a reason -- I happen to agree with him. Based on our understanding of quantum states, that vibration is not an optional attribute, so if you take the kinetic energy from the vibration, what are you left with?

But in the final analysis, money just represents energy expended.

Nope. Money is a valuation of resources, of which energy is just one example, and it's not even the biggest one. In manufacturing, for example, energy usage is not insignificant, but its not the largest cost, by far. If you wanted me to come engineer a system for you, I'd use little energy to do so, but I'd still charge you through the nose.

But it is the BP's, the Texacos, and every BIG corporation that, when any whiff of free energy crops up are jonny-on-the-spot, offering tons of money to shut up, or to buy the patent, or - if those don't work - threats and murder. Many, many free energy devices have had just these things happen to the inventors.

This sort of thing always seems on a par with urban legends -- lots of people have heard stories, but they're always "friend of a friend of a friend..." types of things. Tesla is one of the only examples of it that I'd give much credibility to, and I suspect that his predilection to goofiness has helped to build up the legend side of that.

I was reading an article in Wired earlier today about the DIY revolution in manufacturing and electronics. (Online version here) If someone was capable of doing something similar in the energy sector and open sourced it, then the risk of danger and/or bribery is gone.

I'm curious... Are you aware that virtually all of the articles that achieve any fanfare in SciAm are based on only half of what Maxwell described in his quaternions? What do you suppose the implications are of those directions thrown out?

Actually, I rarely pay any attention to mainstream publications. Wired is the only magazine that I read, and even that is a matter of a decade old habit.

Also, are you aware of the work done by Whittaker and infolded potentials? They seem to be related.

Whittaker, yes, if you mean E.T. Whittaker. I have no idea what an infolded (enfolded?) potential is or how it relates to Whittaker's work on the history of aether studies, which I assume is where your interest lies.

I truly don't pay a whole lot of attention to the specifics pitched by the free energy proponents because, as I said, the proof's in the pudding, and I've been disappointed enough times to just fall back on my belief that quanta phenomenon cannot be made applicable to the macro, at least not now.

reply to post by TechUnique


i've always sort of thought that religion (christianity in particular) was just influenced by a bunch of aliens that were so powerful and frightening that our words (the bible) could only hope to accurately describe them effectively.

The Bible teaches:


We are spirits living in bodies
Without the indwelling spirit, the body is dead.
At death the spirit leaves the body, and returns to God who gave it.
After death there is a judgement.
The spirit is indestructible, and lives on eternally, either in Heaven or in Hell.

The Bible does not deny the physical death of the human body, but states that there is more to the death of a human being than the death of the physical body.

The Bible states that a human being consists of a human body, a soul, and a human spirit.
The Bible states that the point of death, our human bodies die, and our human spirits leave our bodies.
It is important to understand that, according to the Bible, human beings are all human spirits living in physical bodies.
The Bible states that when we die our spirits leave our bodies to live in Eternity.
The Bible states that after death there is a judgement, and the indestructible spirit lives eternally either in Heaven, or in Hell.www.finalfrontier.org.uk...


www.snopes.com...

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Amaterasu
A comment on an article, huh. If you say so. Many others - my husband included - say otherwise, and have experiments in the works. It is NOT an example of "practical limitations." It IS a comment that presumes much about ZPE that many dispute.

Well, that's fine and if you can demonstrate that he's wrong, more power to you. However, it's not just some random schmoe posting a "comment" and I posted it for a reason -- I happen to agree with him. Based on our understanding of quantum states, that vibration is not an optional attribute, so if you take the kinetic energy from the vibration, what are you left with?

I'm having trouble grasping what you're saying. Taking energy from the seething energy pouring into the universe is the equivalent of extracting energy from a vibration? Sorry. Not seeing it.

But in the final analysis, money just represents energy expended.

Nope. Money is a valuation of resources, of which energy is just one example, and it's not even the biggest one. In manufacturing, for example, energy usage is not insignificant, but its not the largest cost, by far. If you wanted me to come engineer a system for you, I'd use little energy to do so, but I'd still charge you through the nose.

Those resources are valued based on the energy it took to produce them in usable form. Energy is not itself a resource, per se. It is more the grease for the machine built of resources. To distribute this grease, we use money to account for its expenditure. If we plug in energy directly, we don't need the money to distribute the effects of energy use.

But it is the BP's, the Texacos, and every BIG corporation that, when any whiff of free energy crops up are jonny-on-the-spot, offering tons of money to shut up, or to buy the patent, or - if those don't work - threats and murder. Many, many free energy devices have had just these things happen to the inventors.

This sort of thing always seems on a par with urban legends -- lots of people have heard stories, but they're always "friend of a friend of a friend..." types of things. Tesla is one of the only examples of it that I'd give much credibility to, and I suspect that his predilection to goofiness has helped to build up the legend side of that.

Well, I have a friend who worked with an inventor that was drawing on the Earth's magnetic field for energy. He knew the guy through the whole development of his invention and did a lot of hauling stuff around while his friend tried to interest investors. My friend lost his job when the FBI came in and closed everything down, and prosecuted his buddy for patent infringement. He's still in jail over that, the buddy is. And my friend knows the guy came upon the ideas on his own.

And if it's patent infringement...where's the tech from the patent?

Ok, that was a "friend" story. But I assure you, my friend is VERY convinced that there are efforts to suppress and hide useful energy tech. And then there's my story of tech pulled into black ops. It's in my sig under "Who are "They?" So given I know a lot from experience, I am convinced. Reading the many stories of inventors becoming very quiet after getting lots of money, stories of very weird deaths...they just add icing to the cake.

I was reading an article in Wired earlier today about the DIY revolution in manufacturing and electronics. (Online version here) If someone was capable of doing something similar in the energy sector and open sourced it, then the risk of danger and/or bribery is gone.

And some have - with the information disappearing and no way to prove it. The Joe Cell is the most surviving example so far. Here's a thread right here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Will he last?

I'm curious... Are you aware that virtually all of the articles that achieve any fanfare in SciAm are based on only half of what Maxwell described in his quaternions? What do you suppose the implications are of those directions thrown out?

Actually, I rarely pay any attention to mainstream publications. Wired is the only magazine that I read, and even that is a matter of a decade old habit.

Well, whether you read what you use to "prove" ZPE gives nothing or not, the fact remains that it is so. Now, What do you suppose the implications are of those directions thrown out?

Also, are you aware of the work done by Whittaker and infolded potentials? They seem to be related.

Whittaker, yes, if you mean E.T. Whittaker. I have no idea what an infolded (enfolded?) potential is or how it relates to Whittaker's work on the history of aether studies, which I assume is where your interest lies.

E.T. Whittaker wrote two papers, one published in 1903 called, On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics, and one published in 1904 called, On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions. As you can see, Whittaker had more on his mind than the history of aether studies. He also studied it. In these papers he mathematically describes the infolded nature of things.

Infolded potential can carry information. If you are interested, Tom Bearden's Gravitobiology is excellent at describing the meaning of Maxwell's quaternions in relation to Whittaker's infolded potentials. You can read it here if you care to:

www.scribd.com...

I truly don't pay a whole lot of attention to the specifics pitched by the free energy proponents because, as I said, the proof's in the pudding, and I've been disappointed enough times to just fall back on my belief that quanta phenomenon cannot be made applicable to the macro, at least not now.

Well, good luck with that. As I said, I have some very close information that leads me to a sense of knowing that the energy is there for extraction. I pay very close attention myself. Maybe that's why I have a different perspective as well.

Such a device would also have immense destructive capability.

Originally posted by GypsK

The OP even states that according to religion, Adam was made out of dust. Of course they are talking about Adams physical body.

i have a contention with the OP' statement...i believe the proper term is not dust...
but the Adamic man was fashioned out of 'clay'

(which is dust/dirt mixed with water...essentially)

but to gor further, the primordial clay needed to be hit with lightning of some form of energy
for the clay mass to come to life.... in religion, it is a metapphor that the creator 'God' breathed
the spark of life into this man creature which was called Adam


take the above events and connect the dots... it would be undoable to rearrange the atomic particles
into something that would get 'transmuted' into another thing/molecule/element.
there is a certain undefineable process/protocol that must be employed to make the
gigantic leap of changing a chunk of coal into a diamond for example,

perhaps its something like time-compression that is the secret.


& away i go....

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Those resources are valued based on the energy it took to produce them in usable form. Energy is not itself a resource, per se. It is more the grease for the machine built of resources. To distribute this grease, we use money to account for its expenditure. If we plug in energy directly, we don't need the money to distribute the effects of energy use.

Well, you're obviously not out of the same school of economics that I am, so we'll just have to disagree. But it is unreasonable to think that "free energy" means "free everything".

Well, I have a friend who worked with an inventor that was drawing on the Earth's magnetic field for energy. He knew the guy through the whole development of his invention and did a lot of hauling stuff around while his friend tried to interest investors. My friend lost his job when the FBI came in and closed everything down, and prosecuted his buddy for patent infringement. He's still in jail over that, the buddy is. And my friend knows the guy came upon the ideas on his own.

If you can provide names, I will be happy to investigate the circumstances of your friend's friend's imprisonment. One obvious problem is that patent infringement is typically a civil, not criminal matter. One would need to be prosecuted under "theft of trade secrets" law in order to be sent to prison. Most patent infringement law is associated with big pharmaceutical, though (see here.)

Well, whether you read what you use to "prove" ZPE gives nothing or not, the fact remains that it is so. Now, What do you suppose the implications are of those directions thrown out?

Huh? Sorry, I don't quite get that.

Infolded potential can carry information. If you are interested, Tom Bearden's Gravitobiology is excellent at describing the meaning of Maxwell's quaternions in relation to Whittaker's infolded potentials. You can read it here if you care to:

www.scribd.com...

Well, I got through the introduction of that, with plenty 'o red flags a flyin'.

These guys (whom I have no love for, personally,) associate Bearden with the Keely motor, which was already evident from that article on Scribd. I think that there is likely a PhD dissertation in the ongoing fascination with Keely and his followers, none of whom have ever produced a working unit that does what they claim it does.

Something similar was announced with great fanfare in January, and no results, likely for the reasons cited in that post.

Just trying to help a little since:
1) i see the threads are getting longer and
2) you have a naysayer and someone who supports fossil fuels as evidenced by their signature.
.
I have an uncanny ability to see ultimate truth. I rarely understand it all, but I know how to find what I need when I need it. However, I know that truth, like all things, is relative to our own point of view.
As a chemistry and physics major I developed very unorthodox methods that were not always considered scientific. But I managed to arrive at conclusions that were laughed at initially then taught years later. So I don't use the scientific method anymore. I leave it up to the sheeple to toy with while I move on.
.
It seems that there is sabotage involved in every case of free energy that actually comes forth along with the denial of patents for some reason. It also seems that many people witness the energy work and each case relies on a little black box that always disappears after the demo and right before the patent is denied.
.
Tesla papers link on ATS:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edward Leedskalnin (Coral castle)
oddculture.com...

Edward Leedskalnin papers
www.leedskalnin.com...


This is a group that is making a reality out of everything we are talking about. They are not taking any govt money so the group can maintain control. I have a thread (only 1) and it involves one of this groups projects. Here is their link.
www.thevenusproject.com...

Originally posted by LuisCyfer
2) you have a naysayer and someone who supports fossil fuels as evidenced by their signature.

You're either unfamiliar with North Dakota, or unfamiliar with the concept of a "joke".

As to the OP, we're very far offtopic (and apologies for that, I'll reserve future comments on free energy for Amaterasu's existing threads,) but as I originally stipulated -- quantum level manipulation for manufacturing and nanotechnology, very cool and early stages already happening. Alchemy? Still a pipe dream, for any number of reasons.

This is a group that is making a reality out of everything we are talking about. They are not taking any govt money so the group can maintain control. I have a thread (only 1) and it involves one of this groups projects. Here is their link.
www.thevenusproject.com..

If you like, you can go beat me up in my own thread on those guys:

Zeitgeist as a propaganda tool for a New World Order

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Those resources are valued based on the energy it took to produce them in usable form. Energy is not itself a resource, per se. It is more the grease for the machine built of resources. To distribute this grease, we use money to account for its expenditure. If we plug in energy directly, we don't need the money to distribute the effects of energy use.

Well, you're obviously not out of the same school of economics that I am, so we'll just have to disagree. But it is unreasonable to think that "free energy" means "free everything".

My school of economics is one of spending a decade and a half in banking, reading all I can, comparing and contrasting information over 50 years, and analyzing everything. My conclusions are that most economics are concerned with a whole lot of epiphenomena in the phenomenon of energy accounting - which, at that higher level, is a rather simple seed that fractalizes into all the epiphenomena that are studied.

I also have deduced that if energy is added into this system of energy accounting the need to account for it dissipates. Ergo, free energy = no need for money = "free" everything. Seems reasonable to me.

Well, I have a friend who worked with an inventor that was drawing on the Earth's magnetic field for energy. He knew the guy through the whole development of his invention and did a lot of hauling stuff around while his friend tried to interest investors. My friend lost his job when the FBI came in and closed everything down, and prosecuted his buddy for patent infringement. He's still in jail over that, the buddy is. And my friend knows the guy came upon the ideas on his own.

If you can provide names, I will be happy to investigate the circumstances of your friend's friend's imprisonment. One obvious problem is that patent infringement is typically a civil, not criminal matter. One would need to be prosecuted under "theft of trade secrets" law in order to be sent to prison. Most patent infringement law is associated with big pharmaceutical, though (see here.)

Well it was my friend's buddy and my friend recently took off traveling so I can't tell you the name of the guy in jail. Besides, my aim with that story is not to convince you. Just make you think a bit. It's true, but you don't have to believe it. The whole affair, apparently, was very rushed and brutal, it would seem. I mean, it WAS the FBI. And they did confiscate the apparatus and many things in the lab.

Well, whether you read what you use to "prove" ZPE gives nothing or not, the fact remains that it is so. Now, What do you suppose the implications are of those directions thrown out?

Huh? Sorry, I don't quite get that.

Sorry - I got distracted while typing and failed to reread closely - it is a bit dense. Whether you read the magazine you use to "debunk" ZPE or not, the fact remains that the articles that gain traction in SciAm are all based on the Heaviside/Briggs truncation of Maxwell's quaternions, which leaves us constricted in our understanding of the universe. This truncation ignores precisely 1/2 of what Maxwell originally described. Now, What do you suppose the implications are of those directions thrown out?

Infolded potential can carry information. If you are interested, Tom Bearden's Gravitobiology is excellent at describing the meaning of Maxwell's quaternions in relation to Whittaker's infolded potentials. You can read it here if you care to:

www.scribd.com...

Well, I got through the introduction of that, with plenty 'o red flags a flyin'.

These guys (whom I have no love for, personally,) associate Bearden with the Keely motor, which was already evident from that article on Scribd. I think that there is likely a PhD dissertation in the ongoing fascination with Keely and his followers, none of whom have ever produced a working unit that does what they claim it does.

I know there's a lot of issues in the FE community, but I also am aware of what was pulled into black ops in the late 1950's. I don't know Bearden's relationship with the Keely group. I just know that when I read Gravitobiology, if Keely was mentioned at all, it was in passing, and I don't think Keely came up at all. (Also, it is possible that the Keely group is being paid to be "bumbling idiots..." Not saying this is so, but that we should be aware that it is possible.) With the reading of the book, I feel I understand a great deal more than I did before.

Something similar was announced with great fanfare in January, and no results, likely for the reasons cited in that post.

Oh, I know. This happens regularly. Why is it that people with nothing to show keep making these announcements? What have they got to gain? Or is it a matter of being hushed? Hmmm. Things to think about.

@adjensen
posted on 6-4-2011 @ 06:24
.
Since it doesn't seem like a whole bunch of people are pouring in here anymore I thought I would reply.
.
I have never, nor do I now, have the intent to "beat up on anyone." I won't feed a victim mentality. The fact is I wasn't talking to you and never even mentioned you. Got to love that old fashioned guilt. I guess if the shoe fits. . . here is my reply:
.
I am very familiar with Fargo and I don't think the polar bears are laughing at your joke. I was just making the point that as a fossil fuel supporter one would not be interested in free energy.
.
I did as you asked and read your entire thread. I now doubt your knowledge of finance and I completely understand that you just watched the "subjective" zeitgeist video and didn't read the "objective" venus project text. 2 different things. Your information about people not owning anything is TOTALLY false. Your claim of the Venus project attacking christians is false.
.
It's a group of scientists that have nothing to do with religion. Its an earth friendly way of living based on technological advancement, contemplation of community decisions, availability and need instead of consumerism.
Actually when I think about it, they almost remind me of a group that lived oh around 2000 years ago by the dead sea making eco friendly clay pots and speaking out about the oppressive nature of the dominant Judaic religion of the time. In fact, they even had one of their members killed for it. Hmmm
.
Oh RIGHT the Essenes of whom Jesus was.
.
Glad I could bring some light. My heart goes out to you Wayseer.
.