UFOSeek Forum

Community for discussion of UFO, Paranormal and mysterious topics
It is currently Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:01 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:07 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 1853
Location: Canada
Good Luck is good...you mean you don't want to dance with me?

I admit I'm not a very good dancer, but I was kind of hoping you'd overlook my two left feet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:07 pm
Posts: 38
Hello everyone.

I started this thread about Tom Bearden and free energy hoping people would comment about the subject but then I completely forgot about this thread until last night, I am happy to see 5 pages worth of comments!

I am no expert in anything but it seems that there is energy everywhere, vaccuum/zero point energy, and experiments like the Casimir effect prove it so is it possible to tap into this energy?

I quote Bearden :

"Burning all that fuel to crank the generator shaft has nothing at all to do with directly powering the external circuit! All it does is to continue to restore and remake the internal source dipole and its broken symmetry, that then extracts that energy from the local vacuum and pours it out of the generator terminals.

Ha! Electrical engineers are not even taught what actually powers the electrical system, even though the basis for it was predicted by Lee and Yang more than a half century ago, immediately experimentally proven by Wu and her colleagues in Feb. 1957, and which sparked such a vast revolution in physics that with unprecedented speed the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in the same year, in Dec. 1957."

If this is wrong could someone please point out why. If there is no vaccuum energy and no Nobel prize for Lee and Yangs discovery then please show this to me, I find this very interesting.

Cheers

J


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:14 am 
Unregistered
Calling me out David, I'm impressed. OK, lets see how well you dance.

You say I am not qualified to make psychological evaluations on people. Fine, your right, I am not a qualified psychologist. All I was doing was pointing out paranoid behavior in someone claiming to be an authority in a scientific field that requires clarity of thought. Or do you believe clarity of thought is not an issue?

Next. While we are on the subject of qualifications, I have been a certified technician for over 20 years. I am fluent in electronics and the control and use of electricity and energy in general.
I have worked on airport radar, wireless communications, landline communications, and backup electrical power generation. I am familiar with doppler weather radar, GPS location systems and satellite communications and most standard meteorological systems. What are your qualifications in regards to evaluating technology?

Visitors from another planet. Would not rule it out. To think that this planet is the only one with intelligent life is to me, a big waste of universe. But that is not my area of interest.

Build a conductive tower. I can go one better. I followed Teslas patent and attached a collector plate to a weather balloon. Sent it about a thousand feet into the air. Indeed I did get a small electrical current. Enough to charge a small capacitor that in turn lit an LED for about a second.
If you would like to offer some technical advice on how to make more current flow, I would be more than happy to discuss technical details.

Grounding of radio towers and the like. This is more for lightning protection and not static buildup. Hence the name, lightning rods. Indeed lightning is an electric current and it does indeed arc through the atmosphere. Lightning only happens under certain conditions. A storm needs to build up enough potential difference to overcome the "relative non conductance" of the atmosphere. Again, if the atmosphere was a good conductor, no static charge or potential difference would be able to build up because it would immediately be grounded out.

If you have some references that you could provide me with regards to linear approach to evaluating the universe. I am not sure what you mean by that. I would love references to books, scientific papers, what have you. Or are you the sole expert?

You mentioned light speed. I am familiar with that because RADAR systems and accurate distance measuring devices depend on an accurate value of for the speed of light to be known.

Chinese back the technology. Again, do you have any references that I can look up on the net to verify your statement?

Water powered car. You have personally seen it in action? You are a qualified automotive engineer and you have personally analyzed the technology and submitted a detailed scientific paper to the world with your personal endorsement?

Who is going to test any scientific discovery? How about the qualified scientific community.
It seems the only people that say OU works are people that have no qualifications to say OU works.

If I missed any points, feel free to point them out. I will endeavor to be less negative and confrontational. I just get irritated by people with no technical background claiming that something works because it looks like it works. Again, OU would be the simplest thing to prove and demonstrate.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:40 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 1853
Location: Canada
Let's start with something I really do know something about, when I refer to linear I am talking about 1 foot, 1 gram, 1 second, 2 seconds or any equal portion thereof.

As linear measure is important to engineering and or any other aspect of the various trades and commerce of the world we would be in a bit of a mess without such standards.

However, science has taken it upon themselves to borrow this linear system of measure in attempting to define universe, whereby the speed of light is determined on the basis of a clock, (an atomic clock) and a measuring stick.

In turn it is assumed that this value is not only constant locally but constant throughout the universe, whereby it should be possible to determine the size and age of universe.

The problem with this is that it is based upon a very critical assumption and that assumption is that it should be possible for light to be in motion in a linear fashion, as mass-less particles called photons.

This leads us to believe light travels from distant stars to the lens of the receiver and that this traveling light takes a certain length of time to reach the lens.

This perception is no different than our perception of speed related to trucks, trains, buses and planes etc.

The big problem is a basic; we have concluded that the values given are absolute, such as 1 second or 1/1,000,000th of a second, where each second or portion of a second is of the same exact duration. And according to a clock (atomic clock) this can be shown to be true in relation to the perception of the observer.

But, if we examine this more closely we will find that there is no limit to the number of equal portions a second can be divided, which is also true of any other linear method of measuring, such as applying grams, meters etc.

There are in fact an infinite number of equal portions into which any of these units can be divided. Therefore they are not absolute and no two portions are in fact absolutely the same.

So, when we say light travels one meter in exactly 1/299,792,458ths of a second we are not being totally honest about the situation because no two of the 299,792,458 portions are of the same absolute duration.

An element of error comes into play and the more we attempt to refine our measure the greater the factor of error.

The second part of the situation is that we have made one hell of a big assumption in perceiving light to be in linear motion in the first place.

If the light, any light, is not in linear motion and is simply an effect of the field condition in which the light is situated we have changed our whole understanding of universe.

TTBrown who worked for the US Navy during the second war, discovered that the universe was actually simultaneous, which means we see things at a distance as they exist at the moment of observation, not as some historical element of universe.

Unfortunately much of his work remains classified and his family has been fighting for years to have at least some of his patents declassified.

I am putting this in bold text because it is important; yes you have expertise in your field and I respect that knowledge you employ, but be aware I do not agree with most new energy experimenters or over unity folks as they are going about this in the wrong manner, including Mr. Bearden. Much of what is being advertised is far from over unity and not even in some cases close to a new energy devise. This does not mean I think they are less than intelligent, but that they are working with a handicap in that they only have a small part of the whole picture.

I am sure you have seen the things they call lifters, where an electrical charge is applied to create lift and many attempts are made to explain why.

This is not gravity control or anything close to gravity control, as there is no control other than the control over the electrical charge.

Any physical mass has both an inside and an outside, which suggests there may be a difference between the inside and the outside, simply because the inside is always on the inside and the outside is always on the outside. Consequently the internal dynamics are hidden from view and all we see is the external effect of the external dynamics.

In that most physical mass remains relatively stable over time it would appear that there is a balance between the inside and the outside. If this is true a balance in the dynamic structure of any physical mass must be inversely proportional in relation to the internal and external dynamics.

This might cause us to ask what exactly maintains this balance as some factor of force is required. And if we were to consider the existence of an underlying force of energy we might begin to clearly understand how physical mass is structured in relation to energy.

This might eventually lead us to consider that the ratio of energy per unit of mass is not the same for all materials and that the smaller mass would have a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass than a larger mass of the same material.

And as all physical mass has an associated charge it might be possible to construct a devise capable of modulating the underlying force associated with its structure, which in turn could provide an electrical power supply.

You will not find this written in a scientific text book nor will you find much agreement in scientific circles, but some are starting to question the accepted perception of mass and energy.

I too see a lot of claims being made, but some of them when you actually take the time to see for yourself the actual set-up find it hard to understand why there is not more media coverage.

No I am not a certified mechanic, but I do know one of the two guys who built an engine from scratch in Vancouver BC several years ago and it was specifically designed to run on brown/gas. It was an aluminum cast engine with a total weight of 100 pounds that produced 400hp on nothing but brown/gas. They both thought they were on the verge of the big time and cut a deal with an outfit in California who would promote this fine little engine and then it all went south and no more talk about this amazing engine.

If you think none of this suppression talk is for real I think you are wrong, because yes there is suppression. I have experienced this myself and I am not delusional or paranoid, but at the same time I also refuse to allow threats to control my life and no I do not own a gun and do not want anything to do with guns or any other type of weaponry.

Granted Tom does sound extreme and I know very little about him other than I find him to be a cranky old man who is not interested in what anyone else has to say, but this is also true of many people.

What they call free energy, zero point etc. is not gibberish, but it is going to take a lot of work to make it into a usable product. And that I believe is worth the effort if it can be done, but it hasn't been done yet. At least not by any of us.

However, all this garage and basement tinkering is causing questions to be asked and causing accidental discoveries to take place. Such as the guy in Florida who recently ignited sea water inadvertently with a radio frequency. Not the best way to start your day, but it is causing more questions and more research.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:10 am 
Unregistered
OK, I'm not sure why, but my last posting got dumped. That annoys me.
And I am not typing that out again.

I am quickly coming to the concussion that I have better things to do.

Interesting ideas on your last post David.

At this point, I have come to the conclusion that the only real perpetual motion in the universe is the debate about perpetual motion. I am sure it will go on for ever.

And at this point, I think I will let time be the deciding factor.

Have a good one.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:03 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 1853
Location: Canada
I just checked and its still there, unless you posted something more or since that I did not see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:07 pm
Posts: 38
Hello.

David, could you explain why you think Tom Bearden is going about this free energy subject in the wrong manner?

Thanks

J


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:22 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 1853
Location: Canada
Jupiter,certainly.

I don't know if you have read my book Unity, which you can read for free over at http://www.gravitycontrol.org

The basic dynamics determining the form and function of physical structure are key to free energy research and Tom is attempting address free energy by adapting conventional science to the situation and it wont work.

If you don't know how and why the dynamics of our planet work, you are not going to get a handle on aether energy either. And aether energy does not function on the basis of accepted science.

I'll give you one example; pick any applicable science text you want and it will tell you that gravity increases to the core of our planet. How would anyone know this you might ask?

Actually they don't because it is impossible to access the internal structure of our planet, as we are confined to the outside even if we dig a very deep hole. All digging or drilling does is extend the external dynamics inward...drill and blast to your hearts content and you will still be on the outside.

However its not that difficult to figure it out because our planet has remained relatively stable for a very long time. And stability requires balance.

But we are getting too far ahead already......conventional science does not acknowledge internal and external dynamics being different, never mind being inversely proportional.

Yet the internal and external dynamics must be inversely proportional to affect a stable structure which remains balanced.

Of course our planet is not a black hole, nor is it apt to collapse inward at any moment, but it would if conventional science was spot on.

The gravity at the center of the earth's core is virtually zero, as the greatest gravity is across the surface curve.

How can we know this for sure; take a gravity reading at the top of a high mountain and you will find it is greater than at sea level...but if you take a reading from a ship located over a deep part of the pacific ocean you will find that gravity is greater than it is close to shore.

The great dip in the ocean bottom and the rise in elevation on the mountain corresponds to the ups and downs of the surface curve, so at these high and low points we get extreme gravitational readings.

If gravity increased to the core of the earth this would not occur. As gravity would decrease in proportion to the square of the distance from the center of the earth outward into space.

In relation to an electrical charge there is no charge at the center of the earth as there is no resistance allowing for a charge to exist. Resistance increases isometrically to the surface curve, where we find an electrical charge.

Aether energy is an accelerating non-linear force, the only actual force of universe, and the closer you get to the center of an enclosed system like our planet the greater the rate of acceleration.

It takes a differential in aether energy to create an electrical charge and the greater the differential the greater the charge.

As aether energy is accelerating symmetrically to the core, the aether energy is less resistant to a further increase in acceleration the closer you get to the core or the center of the core. This causes the aether energy to take a very steep climb close to the center of the core.

You might say this sounds like cold fusion or a super conductor, which is very true.

Mallove was an authority on cold fusion, and for those who do not know the facts Fleischmann and Pons were right the first time with their cold fusion experiment.

The sun is not a fusion furnace, its electric. And at the core it is extremely cold.

If Tom thinks he can develop free energy devises without knowing any of this important info he is not going to get very far other than repeating the same errors over and over again.

Nature does not function on a linear scale as many would like to believe. But realize that our linear based system is a man made system originally intended as a convenience for trade and commerce. It does not work so well for basic science.

Focus is the key to tapping the aether energy of any system, not spin and not zap, simply focus.

It is of course possible to modulate the aether energy of any modular system,(man made), in order to affect an electrical charge.

This is along the lines of a hydrogen power cell but minus the hydrogen.

The potential for generating electrical power this way is unlimited in scope. So a modular system anywhere on the planet could provide a localized electrical supply sufficient to run a town or city.

So why is this not being developed, because it is not beneficial to the present economic system.

A level playing field in terms of the energy required to power our human industry is possible but not yet desirable to those with a vested interest in more conventional methods.

I hope this is helpful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:43 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 1853
Location: Canada
Jupiter,

You may be aware that Dr. Ballard was the one who developed the hydrogen power cell.

Sadly he too is gone, but some years back he and I connected and I suggested the possibility of skipping the hydrogen, as per the hydrogen power cell, and achieving the same thing.

After reading what I had to say he was interested enough to advise me that a meeting would be arranged so I could discuss this further with some of his research staff. Such a meeting never took place because it was not in the best interest of the share holders to shift gears in midstream. At least that was my take on the situation and I believe close enough to the truth.

The point being that Ballard was no fool and he knew his business, so I am not blowing smoke.

There is much resistance to new energy, free energy, zero point and aether energy etc. as Mallove so sadly discovered and why the Japanese are reluctant to market a free energy devise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:07 pm
Posts: 38
Thanks very much David for all the info.

Just a quick reply for now, you said :

"If Tom thinks he can develop free energy devises without knowing any of this important info he is not going to get very far other than repeating the same errors over and over again."

I think it would be really helpful if you had a look on the Tom Bearden website and look at why he thinks we can get this free energy. He explains why he thinks his MEG device works and, for me with my lack of in depth knowledge about phsyics, if you could say why his reasons could be wrong for his device working and other devices like his then that would be really interesting and helpful to me.

When I go on the Bearden website, instead of going on the main page I have to go to the table of contents section below the main page icon on google.

Thanks alot for the help David, this is such an interesting subject.

All the best

J


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB