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.

 

"Water, Plasmoids and the Zero-Point Energy" by Moray B. King

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Miccey
IF, im not saying its real, but IF it
comes, free energy (ZPE) will render all economy
invalid...


There is no question that harnessing ZPE would be revolutionary and a paradigm shift. There is also the consideration that it could be used for weapons and that will have to be faced.

But we can handle a paradigm shift if we put our human energy into better things.




posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Miccey

How long ago did mankind learn to grind sticks together
just to make fire?



How do i "tap" the aether??

Well, i have no clue...And niether do you boncho.

 


You don't.

But when something is ruled out, it's ruled out. Which means a new angle is needed. Sure, we learned how to rub sticks together, but we didn't try starting fire with water once we figured that out.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Mary Rose
From pages 1 and 39 of a 39 page .pdf "NanoSpire Water Conference 2012":


From page 7:




posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:57 AM
link   

boncho
reply to post by Miccey

How long ago did mankind learn to grind sticks together
just to make fire?



How do i "tap" the aether??

Well, i have no clue...And niether do you boncho.

 


You don't.

But when something is ruled out, it's ruled out. Which means a new angle is needed. Sure, we learned how to rub sticks together, but we didn't try starting fire with water once we figured that out.


When something is "ruled" out, it´s because no more information
has been obtained. Meaning we DONT know all... No one can
rule out the existance of paranormal mindcontrol... Because
we dont have ALL the information..

And as for starting fire "with" water, its more of how you see
it... Hydrogen is highly flamable, but you need water...

As long as we can think and theorize, we will try to come up
with soloutions. And as long as there are ppl theorizing, there
will be ppl like you. Trying to either step on them, put them
out, kill them, or ridicule...

Out of fear of loosing control....



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
So you don't have to read anything:




posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


Here is what the YouTuber "Quantum Atom Theory" says on the channel's "About" page:


This channel has been set up to promote Quantum Atom Theory an artist theory on the dynamics of light and time. This theory is based on just two simple postulates

1. The first is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ or probability function explained by Schrödinger's wave equation represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π or Arrow of Time itself within each individual reference frame with the future unfolding photon by photon.

2. The second is that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the wave function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event within our own ref-frame that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual.

This process of continuous energy exchange, continuous creation we see and feel as the flow of time itself and can interact with it creating our own future relative to our actions!

Those that look upon this theory (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ and comprehend will see their own infinity without end.


How can that be related to water, plasmoids, or zero-point energy?



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

edit on 12-11-2013 by ALOSTSOUL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Miccey


When something is "ruled" out, it´s because no more information
has been obtained. Meaning we DONT know all... No one can
rule out the existance of paranormal mindcontrol... Because
we dont have ALL the information..

 


Kind of my point, if we have a working theory, backed by empirical evidence, we need a new one on a new process. I was highlighting the fact that we need further study for new understanding. What I was also emphasizing, is that when we have nuclear power, we don't waste our time trying to find nuclear power from peat moss. As our understanding on nuclear power rules that out.




And as for starting fire "with" water, its more of how you see
it... Hydrogen is highly flamable, but you need water...


No you don't actually. Water needs hydrogen not the other way around. Basic understanding of chemistry tells us this. Case in point.




As long as we can think and theorize, we will try to come up
with soloutions. And as long as there are ppl theorizing, there
will be ppl like you. Trying to either step on them, put them
out, kill them, or ridicule...

Out of fear of loosing control....



Do you mean hypothesizing? Or were you under the impression that only non-scientists have lead the march on scientific discovery?



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Mary Rose
Can you give an example?



f4andHALFtoads
"exactly"
spill them beans !


They could, essentially, find a lot of what they need to know by learning about physics.

Examples of cavitation are numerous; everything from power station turbines to pistol shrimp to boat propellers.

It is not tapping into a new "undiscovered" energy source. At best, it would be using the energy that is already "here" with greater efficiency.

But as long as they refuse the characteristics of mainstream science, such as experimentation, the scientific method, peer review, repeatability of results, utilization in the forms of machines, and optimization of the utilization... They will continue to be more like philosophers than scientists regardless of what degree they might hold.

Heck, wikipedia has more information on the subject than any "ZPE" style presentation I have seen.

The "alternative science" group tends to distance itself completely from mainstream science, and willingly. Its a false division, imo, and they should be performing experiments and gathering data so that everyone can interpret them instead of actively discluding large portions of the scientific community based on some bias (mainstream science does the same in many arenas).

Most are more concerned with proving the nebulous entity of "mainstream science" wrong than actually performing science for themselves, and thats really too bad because there is a lot of creativity that goes to waste because of it.

Oh well.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


I meant quoting the particular open-source project that I linked to on Sterling Allan's website to show us your justification of the criticism you posted of them. Specifically, what did you base it on?



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I based it on what they said they were doing and the references they state?

Many in the alternative science community intentionally use different terminology for things that have been explored and studied for decades. However, the people who strictly follow "alternative science" will rarely see that the math used is exactly the same as "mainstream science" in a vast majority of cases. They just use different words and interpretations of the same math. However, the general public isnt very good at math, so they rarely even look into that portion of it.

Thats not to say there isnt market domination at play, or special interests involved in experimental outcomes/interpretations in "mainstream science."

It should all just be viewed as 'science' and the division between the two opposing sides doesnt change the math of the patterns in play, nor does it change the actual method behind the exploration. It seems like more of an ideological battleground than actual scientific discourse and exploration.

Would it be an accurate assumption that you have issues with Einstein but probably none with Pythagoras?



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Serdgiam
I based it on what they said they were doing and the references they state?


Why are you answering my question with a question?

Quote something from the page to justify your criticism.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Bubbles, they form and pop right? If you look closely, QA theory mirrors what I set forth back in '07 for the general audience.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


Please flesh that out a little bit. I'm very interested.

He talked about a sphere in the video but I don't think he described a toroid. Did he?



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by Americanist
 


Please flesh that out a little bit. I'm very interested.

He talked about a sphere in the video but I don't think he described a toroid. Did he?



QA theory nearly has the concept... That's why I sought the guy out. The cavitations spiral out based on the fib sequence only to reform on a photon by photon basis. Sound familiar?


Our reality is merely the resistance (or radiation) of a single point. Reality is the center at which matter churns itself inside the vortex. Traditionally speaking time/ motion does not exist. It's an assembly/reassembly from one center to the next. We are static in particle form while the entire Universe is kinetic in nature. Information/consciousness grants us the control to manifest (assemble/reassemble) reality.



image. Mathematics . the point or set of points in the range corresponding to a designated point in the domain of a given function.

Also called frontier. Mathematics . the collection of all points of a given set having the property that every neighborhood of each point contains points in the set and in the complement of the set.


FB page

QA theory lacks the vehicle to said cavitations, so I've introduced him to the whole of it. His name is Nick Harvey btw. He posted recent comments on my FB page and personal profile.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


I see you've quoted your "Unified Theory for the Universal Structure: System of Truth" posted on Facebook June 12, 2013.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by Americanist
 


I see you've quoted your "Unified Theory for the Universal Structure: System of Truth" posted on Facebook June 12, 2013.


My first ever post on ATS - System of Truth

I linked to the original myspace blog on your Rodin Vortex Math Model thread posted in 2010 was it? Anyhow, this has been thoroughly covered in the past.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 




And as for starting fire "with" water, its more of how you see it...
Hydrogen is highly flamable, but you need water...


Ah that was for ME to use hydrogen as flamable object...



No you don't actually. Water needs hydrogen not the other way around. Basic understanding of chemistry tells us this. Case in point.


So we dont need water to get hydrogen... What way other than splitting
water do you know, that would get me hydrogen to burn... As a human
beeing HERE on earth...



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Miccey


So we dont need water to get hydrogen... What way other than splitting
water do you know, that would get me hydrogen to burn... As a human
beeing HERE on earth...

 


C12H24 + 6 O2 → 12 CO + 12 H2
C24H12 + 12 O2 → 24 CO + 6 H2

/| - No H2O in that formula.

Almost forgot chemicals:


Fluorides

Hydrogen fluoride: HF
Chlorides

Hydrogen chloride: HCl
Bromides

Hydrogen bromide: HBr
Iodides

Hydrogen iodide: HI

Sulfides

Hydrogen persulphide: H2S2
Hydrogen sulphide: H2S
Selenides

Hydrogen selenide: H2Se
Tellurides

Hydrogen telluride: H2Te
Nitrides

Ammonia: NH3
Hydrazine: H2NNH2

*

Woah, no water there. Blasphemy right? But then you could argue the hydrogen once came from water (since it's the most stable form in the universe. )

To which I would answer, the power to split the water came from fossil fuels.

Oops.

Kills that that argument before it starts dun nit?

- - -

Water isn't fuel. No matter how you want to work it.


edit on 13-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   
I didnt say the water IS the fuel.
And sprouting your "inteligence"
doesnt help...

I as in ME still need water to get to the hydrogen,
so i can burn it. Right

Cause you gave no example whatsoever in
OTHER ways of getting it. Did you...

And as for the link for a viable/economical use
of hydrogen, so??
I havent said it is... I do understand the
requirements to get it...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join