UFOSeek Forum

Community for discussion of UFO, Paranormal and mysterious topics
It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:27 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:13 am 
Offline
Moderator

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

My good grief, I was having a look at Bearden's website and even I am taken aback by some of his claims.....sort took by breath away you might say.

The Russians took the Challenger down in 1980 and some Japanese folks trigger killer earth quakes and are plotting to blow Yellowstone....good grief, I wonder how he feels on a really bad day.

Okay, he is making a lot of claims with no actual demonstration and he has no proof of principle in a working model.

Also he is using conventional physics and attempting to equate aether energy in terms of a linear evaluation, as in respect to the energy density per cubic centimeter etc. He goes on to point out the high density of energy in space, but unfortunately this is not energy, far from it.

Look, it would be really helpful if some of these people knew exactly what energy was and what it looked like, but they don't.

That alone would be one hell of a big step in the right direction.

But back to Tom for a second, has it occurred to anyone that this guy is an intelligence officer and that the whole thing could just be a disinformation exercise.

It takes quite a bit to find me saying; Oh shit!, but that was my response to some of his more outrageous remarks...so I can see why good laugh was using the word paranoid.

Holy crumb trays Batman, this sounds like helter skelter.

Standard science equates energy as being proportional to mass regardless of the material, with no consideration given to an underlying force of energy in the form of aether energy, zero point or non-linear time field frequency acceleration etc.

In reality the ratio of energy per unit of mass is different for each and every material.

If we have two different masses of the same material, the smaller mass of the two will have the higher ratio of energy per unit of mass.

In relation to the elements listed on the periodic table.... hydrogen has more energy per unit of mass than any other element.

In relation to the very massive elements such as uranium, the ratio of energy per unit of mass is extremely low, which is why uranium is in a state of decay. Uranium is unstable and attempting to balance or find a balance which allows for stability through the process of atomic decay.

This is why you find both hydrogen and uranium and or plutonium being used in combination to produce nuclear weapons.

In the case of a nuclear detonation there is said to be an energy yield, but no energy is yielded, quite the opposite.

**********************************************************************************************************

In Tom's case I find it difficult to understand why he would be selling plans with parts lists and not have a working model of his own to demonstrate the concept.

His patent makes no claim as to providing over unity or much else, which is also a bit strange.

I'm not sure Tom knows what aether energy is or how to go about accessing it. In fact you can be quite sure he does not know what aether energy is.

Mallove on the other hand was onto something extraordinary and preparing to work with the Japanese on cold fusion when he has murdered. You cannot compare Bearden with Mallove as the two are not in the same league. Mallove was a well respected PhD.

Yes, the underlying energy of universe can be accessed...it drives everything involved in the universe. Without which there would be no interactions or reactions and no physical materials.

If you know what aether energy is you can see it at work at any given time, 24/7.

He is quite right to say an electrical charge is the result of aether energy, but not in the context of how he describes it. He has the wrong end of the shovel in the ground.

If you look at Project Unity, and the new drawings when they are posted will be very helpful, you will see a field frequency modulator, which is simply a magnetic frame used to focus the underlying force of universe and by increasing and or decreasing the intensity of focus the underlying force of energy can be modulated in a controlled fashion.

Does this produce a charge.......you bet it does, on the outside, across the shell. Enough to power just about anything.

But power, electrical power, is not energy.....it is a differential in the underlying force of energy which provides electrical power. This is why a turbine produces electric power.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:30 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 1853
Location: Canada
A good example of free energy, aether energy etc. is frozen food at the super market.

Why does frozen food not decay and why does it retain its freshness?

Cold is high energy and the process of freezing increases and or intensifies the energy of the frozen food whereby it cannot spoil or rot. The structure of the frozen food is maintained by this high energy, but once the temperature rises and the food thaws it will once again be subject to decay.

This is why a frozen super conductor allows a magnet to hover above it, as the increased energy of the frozen super conductor provides an increased outflow of resistance which keeps the magnet at a distance suspended in the air. It is the increasing energy which supports the space between the super conductor and the magnet.

An increasing differential in energy causes masses to separate, which is why the moon is slowing moving away from the earth. In the distant past the moon was much closer than it is today and moonlight was much more intense.

The same is true of the earth and sun, as in times past the earth was closer to the sun, but due to the dynamic nature of universe the increasing differential in energy existing between the sun and the earth causes the earth to periodically shift its orbit further from the sun.

The force of aether energy is awesome.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:07 pm
Posts: 38
Hello David, thanks for the detailed replies.

Tom does sound crazy doesn't he! It sure is a crazy world! Reminds me of the books Remote Viewing by Tim Rifat and Pyschic discoveries behind the iron curtain which explain some of the research done into the kinds of stuff Tom talks about.

I found a few links off Toms site and I would be interested in your comments.

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/083101a.htm

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/120200.htm

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/120900.htm

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/010702a.htm

Thats alot of reading! You might find some answers to things you weren't sure about. Tom and John bedini have been studying free energy for years, I don't mean this in a rude way, you said that I can be quite sure that Tom doesn't know what aether energy is but why would you know?

Thanks for the info david and I'm looking forward to your reply.

All the best

J


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:07 pm
Posts: 38
Just looking around Toms site still and found

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/041002.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:47 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 1853
Location: Canada
Interesting indeed, but nothing for public demonstration.

Energy...aether energy does not flow out, never ever flows out.

It flows in only, so what you get out is not energy...its the exact opposite, resistance which gives you electricity.

Some of what Bearden says is true, no question about that, but this is also true of many in the new energy field, yet not one of them has an accurate way of explaining aether energy.

If you read the book Unity and connect a few dots you will figure out what I am talking about and what it all means to the new energy field.

Tom says he breaks no known laws of physics, good for you Tom, but that tells me you are on the wrong road because you should be breaking rules all over the place.

Fundamental basics don't come out of thin air and rarely come out at all, but when they do you can be sure very few are going to be paying attention.

As a side note to the way things work today, if Einstein were a young man today and wanted to get his theories published in a peer reviewed journal it is very doubtful they would ever be published. In fact he did have some problems way back when and at first was flatly rejected for publication.

Not one of the new energy crowd I have encountered talk about the distortional effects of electromagnetic radiation, which is a very serious problem, maybe one of the biggest health issues facing us today.

Where is reference to new energy affording a cure for cancer etc., which leads me to believe there is insufficient basic knowledge available or understood by these well meaning folks to get the job done.

You will notice that Tom and his crowd are still very much alive and have been granted patents, which they would not get if they had the real deal...they would be classified right along with all the other thousands of patent applications that are side tracked on a regular basis.

Applying for a patent is not the way to go, you are better to simply give it away. In that way the patent office can't stop you, because they will if you have the right stuff.

And once you are classified you can no longer work on your own material or discuss it openly with anyone. End of the trail so to say. So if you really got something you offer it free of charge and take your chances.

Ground breaking stuff is not about making money, because no amount of money could equal the kick that comes from original discovery, the high of highs, the best fun in the whole world and even if the only one who really gets it is the one who did it........they know what they did and no one can take that away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:48 am 
Offline

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

I don't know if you read all the links I gave you so I copied abit just incase you missed it :

"With that patent status, notice how extraordinarily sensitive we have to be with respect to public demonstrations. The patent laws determine what we can and cannot do at this stage, not public opinion. Else a single demonstration could unwittingly lose all the remainder of one's patent rights. The proper people to call that kind of shot are our excellent and long-suffering patent attorneys. And they are calling it precisely the way we are playing it.!"

" With the patent laws what they are today, no small inventor group will do
what you are suggesting unless they are total fools. As an example, we have
filed two patent applications, will be filing a couple more, and there is no
such permissible thing as a "public demonstration" in any detail until (1)
one's patents are granted in the U.S., and (2) until one also files and is
granted his foreign patents. That is, unless one wishes to void his
intellectual property rights and have them pass into public domain."

" We have also deliberately violated classical equilibrium thermodynamics,
since it applies only to systems in equilibrium or so close to it that their
tiny disequilibrium can be neglected."

Tom says he has given enough information about the MEG that it would be possible to build one, and he is trying to get all the patents. The physics of how the MEG works is what can't be destroyed so maybe killing Tom and the other inventors isn't going to do much now everyone knows how to build one.
Can you say if there is anything similar in Toms work and MEG device in that unity book? And what laws of physics do you think need breaking for free energy to be possible? Tom says that there are discoveries in physics which prove getting this free energy is possible, like what he mentions here http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/083101a.htm could you say where specifically he is wrong, and can you give me a link to that unity book.

Thanks alot David.

All the best


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:16 am 
Offline
Moderator

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

Yes, I did read that stuff and a bit more besides.

I'm not sure if you are paying close attention to what is being said, he is talking about energy being proportional to mass which is not the case at all, only in a very general sense.

Physics is very particular about this sort of thing and having the ratio of energy per unit of mass different for each material is breaking the rules.

Having the smaller mass of a similar material have the higher ratio of energy per unit of mass is breaking the rules.

Having energy on a one way street is breaking the rules, because energy does not radiate, but Tom says it does.

You can manipulate zero point energy through a process of focus...the electromagnetic route is not the way to go as the electromagnetic factor is an effect and not a force or a cause.

Whether Tom's patents will do the job has yet to be seen, as no public demonstration has been made.

Look at Electro-gravitics, this is highly classified stuff but you can get the basic idea of what this is all about and it has nothing to do with any real control over energy. It has to do with mucking about with effects without knowing the cause of the effect or having control over the cause.

I myself want to see progress in new energy methods and one worth checking out is Charles Watson's magnetic motor and yes it has a patent. He is now going to scale it up in the hope it will drive a car. It is self generating and self regulating and if you check the gravity control blog you can watch the video demo, while a new updated version is being made.

http://www.gravitycontrol.org

Here at this site you can link to the video and you can also read and or download a free copy of Unity right from the web site, not from Lulu.

So what is taking Tom so long to get his demo on video.....and why does he need so many millions of dollars, because if his MEG works the money will be there. The money is a secondary consideration to a working protype or proof of principle.

Tom is not new at this and the lawyer talk is in my mind sounding a bit like an excuse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 2:18 am 
Offline

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

Thanks for the reply. I am just posting a quick reply here for now but will be back later. Thanks for the link, I had a quick look but will have a proper read later. Looks good.

Maybe Tom is full of it and there is no MEG, or there is a MEG and it doesn't work, or there is a MEG which works but doesn't gain extra energy from the vaccuum. If what Tom was saying about the MEG was impossible and all the physics of the device he explains is wrong I would expect someone to have pointed this out to be wrong, explaining why the physics he mentions is wrong and why the MEG wouldn't work using them and I haven't seen this yet. Thats why I asked you to specifically explain where he is wrong, what physical process he mentions isn't correct and why. I do find this very interesting and will keep reading from Toms site as I think he wants to get clean free energy, same as John bedini who is selling the radiant battery chargers. And I will be back later after I have had a look on Toms website and project unity and I will post anything I think we could talk about.

Please have a look on his site yourself and post anything you think is interesting or answers your questions, wrong or right and tell me what you think.

Thanks alot David.

All the best

Jamie


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:39 pm 
Offline

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

I have just had another look on the project unity site and have a few questions. Is this all just your theory or have you built a working machine? If so have you applied for a patent on it? Have you found people who have offered to invest in this amazing machine which would create anti gravity and free energy? Or have you found people who want to invest in your idea and get it working? Tom says he has had his MEG device discussed in leading journals, could you say if you have had your theory discussed in leading journals?

I'm still looking around the site and Toms and will post back soon.

Thanks for the help.

All the best

J


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:07 pm
Posts: 38
I just found this in your open letter to president obama page. You said :

"Mary, Why is this your first reaction?

First off you don’t sound like you build magnetic motors but you do believe in magic.

Poor old Charles has been beating himself stupid trying to get someone to test his motor, but no one is the slightest bit interested.

Oh it works alright, that’s not the problem, the problem is trying to get someone to even look at it.

He should be a billionaire? More magic, because if no one will even look at a patented devise where is all this money going to come from?

There is enough negative opinion to stop him from doing much of anything beyond building his magnetic motor.

But why is this the case, disinformation, bad pr, lack of trust, jealousy……..please I’d like to understand this knee jerk reaction so many people have."

This should apply to Tom as well. On one of the links I provided in my other post I found :

In the MEG, there are four unusual areas of physics involved, in addition to the standard electrical engineering aspects. Consequently, to ramp up the MEG to production size units, considerable research and development is required, which includes those unusual areas of physics (such as geometric phase and nonlinear oscillation control theory) also involved. It will require considerable funding to set up a proper lab in both the PHYSICS aspects and the electromagnetic aspects and finish the MEG. It isn't just electronics and electromagnetics equipment and staff that are required; that part is a piece of cake. It is the PHYSICS equipment, instruments, and staff that are required that are so expensive and critical. The MEG is a highly nonlinear unit, and there is no such thing as a "linear scale-up" factor for it, nor a linear functioning for it. It is also a nonlinear oscillation device, and ordinary linear oscillation theory does not hold. Neither does ordinary control theory. It is not a simple electromagnetics problem; that part of it we can easily handle. It's those four specialized areas of physics where the hard work really has to be done --- with VERY expensive instrumentation and technicians --- and it must be done if we are to evolve it to a practical and production unit.
We are in serious negotiations with several major financial groups at present, in an effort to raise the funding for the lab and final development of the MEG to systems ready for mass production. All our guys are seasoned and experienced aerospace engineers, and we have been in all sorts of space and defense programs, systems, projects, simulations, etc. We know the technical development game inside out; our careers have been and are based on it and all its aspects. To even build a decent engineering model and simulation of the highly nonlinear MEG involving multidisciplinary functions is a formidable (but doable) undertaking; our guys have done exactly such projects in ballistic missile defense, various missile systems, space defense, NASA space hardware and systems, electronic warfare, directed energy weapons, ABM defense, etc. on a variety of projects. We have indeed developed and managed all the various aspects of development of just such highly nonlinear, multi-disciplined models and simulations. So we know what is required, what must be done, how to do it, and how much it will cost on a "bare bones" program. Bare bones for the MEG development and finishing is $29 million. There are partial programs that can be done for less, but that is what the finishing program costs.

So our efforts are concentrated exclusively on obtaining a major financial partner, so we can set up the necessary physics and electrodynamics lab and staff with alacrity, and also obtain the services of four quite rare and very expensive specialists, one required in each of those special physics disciplines. We have some very hard but satisfying physics work to do, not publicity work and not just electrodynamics work.

If we deviate from that path, then like so many others the MEG will simply wash away like a wave on the beach, just as has every other legitimate COP>1.0 system when it reached that "sheer cliff" of the major funding needed for the extraordinary nonlinear research to finish it and go from lab experiment devices to production units. Sadly, most of the folks managing the COP>1.0 systems that reached that cliff did not fully appreciate the formidable technical problems they faced, nor were they skilled enough to recognize the full nature of the beast and what exactly was required to finish it. We intend to do everything in our power to see that such does not happen to the MEG, if it is humanly possible to prevent it. If we succeed, we succeed. If we fail, we fail --- but we will have given it our very best shot.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 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

cron
Powered by phpBB