"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
You're serious??

In that graphic??

Bearden has tons of information on his website and you demand detail like that in that graphic?

How quickly you have drawn a conclusion! Unbelieveable!

And decidedly unscientific.

Mary, I have asked you for this information several times. Both your inability to provide it and the fact it is not to be found easily using Google made me come to this conclusion. You may call it quick, other may say I am very patient.

Originally posted by -PLB-Oh, really?

Just like that. Case closed. No further research necessary on your part?

Okay. Whatever.

Correct, unless of course you provide some actual information that back the claims made by Bearden. I tried looking for it, could not find it, now I am done. I am not going to waste hours of my time on every wild claim made on the internet.

Originally posted by -PLB-You're not curious enough to research whether or not observations are limited by what is being looked for in the first place because of what is believed to be possible?

In other words, you're not curious about what has been omitted or ignored?

Of course I am curious about that, and I enjoy reading about unexplained observations, or when status quo turns out to be wrong about something.

What observations did Bearden make that should catch my interest? Which experiments did he do where these observations can be repeated?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Start with the claim that Maxwells equations are "truncated". Show that the current notation is missing something compared to the original notation.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


He also talks about why he prefers the vector notation:

In HAMILTON'S system the quaternion is the fundamental idea, and everything revolves round it. This is exceedingly unfortunate, as it renders the establishment of the algebra of vectors without metaphysics a very difficult matter, and in its application to mathematical analysis there is a tendency for the algebra to get more and more complex as the ideas concerned get simpler, and the quaternionic basis forms a real difficulty of a substantial kind in attempting to work in harmony with ordinary Cartesian methods.

Now, I can confidently recommend, as a really practical working system, the modification I have made. It has manyadvantage3, and not the least amongst them is the fa.ct that the quaternion does not appear in it at all (though it may, without much advantage, be brought in sometimes), and also that the notation is arranged so as to harmonise with Cartesian mathematics. It rests entirely upon a few definitions, and may be regarded (from one point of view) as a systematically abbreviated Cartesian method of investigation, and be understood and practically uaed by anyone accustomed to Cartesians, without any study of the difficult science of Quaternions. It is simply the elements of Quaternions without the quaternions, with the notation simplified to the uttermost, and with the very inconvenient minus ~ i g n before scalar products done away with.

Quite the opposite of what Bearden is claiming. Ironically, in case of the "giant curled EM energy flow component" he makes an appeal to Heavisides authority.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Perhaps if you did not think Bearden is a criminal, you might be interested in reading his information.

He has on his website a glossary with four terms related to "scalar":

• Scalar
  
• Scalar (Quantity)
  
• Scalar Electromagnetics
  
• Scalar Potential
  

There is a great deal of information under "Scalar Potential" - too much to quote. And my sense is that the entire thing must be read and it would be misleading to try to excerpt it.

People reading this thread who are willing to spend some time with an open mind should read what Bearden has to say: "Annotated Glossary."

Originally posted by Mary Rose
People reading this thread who are willing to spend some time with an open mind should read what Bearden has to say: "Annotated Glossary."

Thanks Mary. I spent time reading this material and I changed my view of Bearden. He's not a fraud! He's a mental case.

Without further discussion, we also somewhat extend the general relativity notion of spacetime as dynamic geometry, as follows: In a special sense, spacetime º geometry º potential º "trapped " or collected/collecting energy. So when we engineer the internal structure of the potential, we also engineer the internal structure (subspace) of spacetime and spacetime geometry. Curvature of spacetime, e.g., becomes simply a change in the energy density of the vacuum, from the ambient value, and it can be internally structured so as to contain "engines".

I also read the previous link you posted (thanks again), and it's painful to see that he doesn't have the capacity to actually read the physics papers he links to.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Perhaps if you did not think Bearden is a criminal, you might be interested in reading his information.

He has on his website a glossary with four terms related to "scalar":

• Scalar
  
• Scalar (Quantity)
  
• Scalar Electromagnetics
  
• Scalar Potential

Sorry but asking for 11 million dollars for an unintentional or intentional hoax is a probably criminal act and that is relevant. However I read those four definitions.

-The first two definitions of scalar are defined exactly as I used the term in my previous post.

-The last definition, Scalar potential, says it's synonymous with electric potential. Wouldn't it be more clear to just call it electric potential if that's what it means? And yes he goes on a rant in what is supposed to be a glossary, not a rant-fest, but electrical engineers seem to be doing just fine in spite of his rant. Regarding his MEG demonstrating he knows something they don't, it doesn't. It only demonstrates he's a nut, or a fraud, or a nutty fraud.

-This leaves the third definition, scalar electromagnetics, which appears to be sort of a "catch phrase" he invented to have something to refer to in order to describe how his motionless electromagnetic generator can create free energy. Since I've posted the article which shows it doesn't do that, it's kind of a moot point to discuss this definition. However note that this definition insists that EM like light can propagate like sound waves which require a medium like air that can be compressed. As early as 1881 experiment showed there was no such luminiferous ether, and we have since confirmed that EM waves cannot propagate as they might in luminiferous ether because there is no luminiferous ether.

We can get electromagnetic waves to propagate like sound waves in certain unique non-vacuum situations which were discussed back on pages 84-86 of this thread which include things like plasma (which in effect provides the propagation medium like air does for sound waves), but there is no evidence of plasma in Bearden's MEG so it seems beyond silly for Bearden to claim such waves are in his device. Moreover where such waves are found in plasma, there is no evidence that free energy is involved, it's just a case of waves traveling like sound waves do through air, it's not magic that creates free energy. It is physics which has largely been discarded since the luminiferous ether has been shown to not exist, so this is something Bearden can use to bamboozle the uninformed, by accurately claiming that this is "discarded science". It was in fact discarded when evidence convinced people that there's no luminiferous ether in a vacuum.

Also included in that mishmash catch-all of his third definition is electrogravitation, which is something that was researched extensively in the 1950s, but no evidence for it was ever demonstrated, and the only people who seem to believe it today are people such as those who believe Searle's story that he can't demonstrate his antigravity device because it flew off into outer space. This is just more evidence of Bearden's disconnect from reality.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
There is a great deal of information under "Scalar Potential" - too much to quote. And my sense is that the entire thing must be read and it would be misleading to try to excerpt it.

Mary, you can probably learn more about electric potential from this schoolboy Timmy Chu, than you will from Bearden, because Timmy Chu explains the source of electric potential in this experiment, so he probably doesn't think it's the mysterious enigma that Bearden tries to portray in that glossary.

"(The Orange Juice Clock) - a NJCO Demo"


In a classroom experiment these schoolboys demonstrate electric potential, and explain the chemistry which creates a single cell electric potential of 2.37V and a multi-cell potential of 12.88V.

Do you realize what this means? You can charge your cell phone completely off the grid, you don't have to pay a penny to the electric company to do it!

Orange Fruit Batteries Power An iPhone

It takes approximately 2380 orange slices to charge an iphone

I suspect you can do it with less but I don't have an iPhone so that's at least one reason I haven't tried. But you'd probably end up paying your grocer more than you would have paid the electric company, so I'm not sure it's really "Free" energy, but at least it's off the grid.

It looks pretty funny anyway. Now, how many orange slices will I need to power my whole house, can anyone calculate? I can probably get by with a peak of 2400 watts and an average of 600 watts.

reply to post by Mary Rose


If you knew what a dot and cross product is, you would know vectors are another way to look at the same thing. You will not educate yourself on this, even though I gave a paper which shows it. Because you'd rather quote something you have no clue about.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Dude... I have exact same knife as in that orange video LOL.

And of course, the oranges can be substituted by cheap and available vinegar, at a fraction of the cost.

From page 140, I hear Bearden saying that CEM defects are that it prescribes force fields in a vacuum, and that it falsely prescribes that potential gradients are forces.

He's saying that potential gradients are misunderstood.

He's also saying that Maxwell's original equations required the coupling of a scalar component with three directional components.

Also from page 140, quoting the article from page 84, I hear the author saying that the great flaw in mainstream physics today is that no one seems willing to look at the effects of accelerating fields. He says that a fourth term needs to be added to electromagnetic equations.

reply to post by 23432


I hear Lipton saying that Newtonian physics has been outdated by quantum physics in that the body is not a machine made out of chemicals and controlled by genes; rather, the atom is made out of vibrational energy; thus, matter is made out of energy and everything in the universe is made out of energy. Further he's saying that Newtonian physics says matter can only be influenced by other matter, but this is not so; matter can be influenced by the invisible energy field.

This points to a new kind of healing: using energy vibration rather than physical chemicals.

Lipton says that our institutions need to be changed to reflect this new knowledge, and he's right.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Using Rodin's Math to Design a Coil"
Leedskalnin is mentioned in the above:

Your probably asking "what would a shorted out, series circuit of 6 iron coils do?". My thoughts are that they will carry magnetism as described in Ed Leedskalnin's books. In his Perpetual Motion Holder experiments he describes how "North and South pole magnets" will travel faster in soft iron. The north and south flow in opposite directions at the same time. They also flow forever, as long as the iron circuit is connected.

Continuing, this open-source R&D participant states:

In the above picture you can see that the infinate loop has two paths. I think this could be the different directions of the "North and South Magnets" that Leedskalnin talks about. He also said in his book, that he could create a stronger electromagnet with a coil of iron than copper.

Leedskalnin's work should be studied by open-minded scientists for the lessons about magnetism that might be learned.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Regarding suppression:

Originally posted by playswithmachines
Buckyballs!

On Adam Trombly’s website, in his bio, it states:

Taking the advice of his friend and mentor, R. Buckminster Fuller, Adam has maintained a "synergistic, global view" within a multi-disciplinary scientific background. From this perspective, Adam offers unique insights into the changes humankind has effected on our environment, and the adjustments our future requires of us now.

Taking blinders off is essential to making the changes humankind needs to make.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Lipton says that our institutions need to be changed to reflect this new knowledge, and he's right.

And yet what's the institutional response to Bruce Lipton from folks like this medical doctor, David McKee?

disapppointng nonsense

Lipton misrepresents his opponent (primarily Darwinism), misstates scientific and theological history, confuses basic concepts such as natural selection and evolution (he doesn't appear to realize the two are not interchangeable terms) all with a complete disregard for balanced logical analysis. ...

And from Mary's synopsis Newtonian physics is among the scientific history Lipton misstates...where did Newton say "matter can only be influenced by other matter"?

David McKee continues:

I have read several thousand books; this is one of only two that went straight into the trash on finishing the last page.

I don't get the impression that most institutional folks like that MD are gullible enough to believe that Lipton's current work is in any way scientific. This elicited the response:

All alternative or new age treatments rely on two aspects of human nature: wishful thinking and the capacity for self-delusion. That's it. And as long as these aspects exist in humans, there will be those who will exploit them. There is a defense to quackery, but it is highly unattractive to most of humanity: critical thinking.

Critical thinking, what's that?

Besides his book doesn't really tell you how to cure yourself, you apparently need to go to one of his expensive seminars to learn that.

By the way I'm not in favor of drugs or big pharma in general, but vitamin O isn't really a drug, and won't a greater level of oxygen in the body from vitamin O be all most people need for better health?

R-Garden continued to use testimonials to promote "Vitamin O." A new booklet, accompanied by an order blank dated 7/7/99, contained more than 150 testimonials claiming benefit for asthma, canker sores, chronic bronchitis, cough, diabetic ulcers, ear infections, fatigue, glaucoma, hemorrhoids, arm and shoulder pain, immune weakness, lung emobolism, memory loss, obesity, prostate problems, shingles, and many other problems. One write-up even claimed that the user was able to stop using a breathing machine [3]. The booklet stated that, "as the research continues, and more people use the product, the results will be even more rewarding."

Of course the stodgy old FDA had to come in and suppress this alternative medicine, so now that we don't have that anymore what are we left with besides attending Bruce Lipton seminars to find out how quantum entanglement can cure us instead, over the phone?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Leedskalnin's work should be studied by open-minded scientists for the lessons about magnetism that might be learned.

Mary, have you ever read Leedskalnin's work?

I have, it's really childish. He did hands-on experiments with magnets all by himself and wrote up what he found in pamphlets and sold them. But any college graduate of his time probably knew far more about electromagnetism than Leedskalnin, who was apparently unfamiliar with the science of electromagnetism.

So if someone knows absolutely nothing about magnets, they might actually learn something from reading about Leedskalnin's simple experiments. But they don't contain the secret to free energy I'm afraid. Someone being impressed with Leedskalnin's pamphlets reminds me of someone who tests a Rodin coil on youtube and says "wow, look at that", apparently unaware that's what all coils do.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by 23432

 

I hear Lipton saying that Newtonian physics has been outdated by quantum physics in that the body is not a machine made out of chemicals and controlled by genes; rather, the atom is made out of vibrational energy; thus, matter is made out of energy and everything in the universe is made out of energy. Further he's saying that Newtonian physics says matter can only be influenced by other matter, but this is not so; matter can be influenced by the invisible energy field.

This points to a new kind of healing: using energy vibration rather than physical chemicals.

Lipton says that our institutions need to be changed to reflect this new knowledge, and he's right.

Lipton is quite correct it seems .

Rupert Sheldrake has some overlapping research going on into these areas :

2.1 Morphic field
2.2 Morphic resonance
2.3 Morphogenetic field


Information from the field is the main common point .

Originally posted by 23432
Lipton is quite correct it seems .

Rupert Sheldrake has some overlapping research going on into these areas :

2.1 Morphic field
2.2 Morphic resonance
2.3 Morphogenetic field

Information from the field is the main common point .

Rupert Sheldrake, like Bruce Lipton, is a scientist who seems to have strayed from science into things which can no longer be characterized as scientific.

Sue Blackmore tried to personally help validate Sheldrake's theory but concluded it's not supported by evidence:

The question: Are Rupert Sheldrake's theories scientific? If not, why not?

The idea behind morphic resonance is that memory is inherent in nature, so that when a certain shape or structure has occurred many times, it is more likely to occur again – not through any conventional interaction but through the new distance-defying process of "formative causation". If this were true, newly synthesised chemicals would soon become easier to make, puzzles would become easier to solve, and video games would become easier to play as more people played them. Paranormal powers, such as psychokinesis and telepathy, would be explained because ideas in one person's mind could be shaped by morphic resonance with another mind. This does indeed sound scatty....

...the scientist's reaction is to ask whether the theory is testable, and if so, to test it. I was involved in the furore near the beginning and this is exactly what happened. New Scientist said that, if true, this theory would be extremely important, and in 1982 put out a competition for experiments to test it. Richard Gentle won with an idea using Turkish nursery rhymes and I came second with a proposal involving babies' behaviour. Sheldrake himself designed experiments in which large numbers of people looked at ambiguous drawings, and hypothesised that the hidden image within them would become easier to see. I was one of the experimenters who took these drawings to a large conference and showed them to hundreds of people, and then helped Sheldrake with the statistical analysis. This analysis was far from clear-cut and the results did not, in my opinion, support the theory.

Nor have results since then. Newly synthesised chemicals do not become easier to make, puzzles have not been found to become easier to solve, or video games easier to play. And as for the paranormal, I spent the best part of 30 years trying to find evidence of paranormal phenomena and failed. My initial belief was wrong, I concluded, and so I changed my mind and became sceptical.

This is one of those things that many of us would like to believe, because I think it's in our nature to do so.

But when the scientific evidence doesn't support the idea, you can either go into denial and keep believing it anyway, or you can do what Sue did and admit it's something we'd like to believe, but it's not supported by evidence.

Originally posted by 23432
Information from the field is the main common point .

I think information from the field - or consciousness -is the same thing as the energy of a free energy device. It's powerful. Instead of focusing on the material world, focusing on the invisible energy that permeates the universe - consciousness - will bring about a paradigm shift in society. It's badly needed.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by 23432
Information from the field is the main common point .

I think information from the field - or consciousness -is the same thing as the energy of a free energy device. It's powerful.

You mean we can disconnect our house from the grid and power it by thinking about it with our consciousness?

Unless you have any evidence for that, it sounds like wishful thinking.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You mean we can disconnect our house from the grid and power it by thinking about it with our consciousness?

Use imaginative thinking.

Think in a new paradigm. This would be the world of tomorrow I'm talking about.

This would be after humanity raises its consciousness enough that it no longer caves in to suppression of new energy.

If and when this happens, the new paradigm will not only be free energy - meaning only the devices cost money - but we would have energy healing rather than the abomination we have now called healthcare.

This world that I'm describing is a better world. That's what I'm talking about. Wishful thinking? Not in the sense that it won't ever happen. It'll probably happen. Maybe not in my lifetime. But, I'm working on it!! (Doing my small part.)

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I think information from the field - or consciousness -is the same thing as the energy of a free energy device.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I've just finished listening to the 2nd Hour of Red Ice Creations' May 12, 2011 interview of Ralph Ring. It was emphasized that smashing things is not the way to produce energy; rather, precise aligning with the natural flow that energy wants to go - aligning with it - is the way to produce energy. This is what Tesla did; this is what Rodin talks about. Sacred geometry is the study of natural law regarding the flow of energy.

To explore this idea of consciousness and what it is in the universe, I recommend investigating the work of Ralph Ring. He is a technician who in the late 50s and early 60s worked closely with Otis T. Carr, who was a protegé of Tesla. Ring co-piloted a 45 foot disk a distance of ten miles, arriving at the destination instantaneously. Government agents ended the project Ring was working on.

Ring is associated with a network of open-source R&D participants who are working on alternative energy. This video is an interview of Ring based on questions from those participants: