[One]

I'm not sure how respectful it is of the site's moderation team to essentially reopen a thread that was closed. We'll have to see what Dan says.

Originally Posted by etherreal

As for the people demanding "proof" and trying to argue the validity of PATHS scientifically...I just want to say that unless (and until) we personally have thorough knowledge of the subject matter, I don't see how it's possible to argue about anything. Copying and pasting links of "papers" by other supposed "authorities" does not count.

Anyway, not trying to ruffle feathers but maybe instill a sense of humility in us all, at least so that we can try to understand the technology underlying PATHS (and possibly our entire reality!!), without interjecting our own personal beliefs and problems with it.

Exactly etherreal. My very point is humility. I'm certainly not qualified to meaningfully examine theories in the realm of Quantum Physics. I am interested in knowing the thoughts of people who have spent years in intense study of the field. Flawed or not, their advanced knowledge of math and physics makes them much more qualified than I.

Originally Posted by Aaron

I have zero interest in preserving my own understandings and am not threatened by something that challenges my belief system. It is what it is in my opinion and that is it...when something different comes along I analyze it to the best of my ability and if it makes sense it makes sense and I integrate it into my understanding.

I'm glad you're not threatened Aaron and agree wholeheartedly! I hope you don't think I'm 'challenging' you. Rather violent sounding word. As you are, I'm asking questions based on analysis to the best of my ability.

Originally Posted by Aaron

One,

Despite the slight ring of sarcasm in your responses to me, I'll answer anyway.

I don't thing there is much relevance to where a paper is linked from because any paper can be posted anywhere and linked to anywhere. You can feel free to check every reference listed in that paper and other papers as virtually every reference is published in peer reviewed journals, in the textbooks, etc...

I apologize, I didn't intend to sound sarcastic, however you must admit that what I found was quite alarming.

Submitting to Peer review is to open yourself to criticism. If the paper can't stand that then we probably shouldn't trust it. Granted, he may be far beyond anyone else in the field, but as I said, you can't argue against experimental results. If Mr. Bearden included instructions on how to build his device in the paper then it wouldn't very much matter that they couldn't understand his math.

Originally Posted by Aaron

Bearden clarifies the issue with his degree in the documentary by William Gazecki so go ahead and buy it. An unaccredited university? I personally don't give much credit to any body actings as an authority as who can say who does or doesn't have valid information especially considering the fact that most of this dispells what is taught in most "accredited" universities as being half-truths and some is outright bogus misinformation as evidenced by experimentally proven results that are published, all references exist and some up to over a hundred years old. Has nothing to do with "if that is true it would be in school" because I think we are all smart enoughto know better. Besides this, anyone having a degree doesn't give automatic credibility. Einstein worked in a patent office originally, Ford had a 4th grade education or so but would be considered an authority on auto manufacturing so the point is moot in my opinion.

Einstein had a degree from a Zürich university when he worked in the patent office, and I don't think auto manufacturing is quite equivalent to quantum physics. As Edison said: "To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk."

I'm not quite willing to buy a DVD to hear Mr. Bearden's explanation. The alleged poor quality of accredited universities (which are the source of many modern innovations and technology) does not seem relevant to what is essentially a deception on Dr. Bearden's part. I could at this moment buy a degree from Mr. Bearden's Trinity College and University in any field I wished. This makes it meaningless. That Mr. Bearden feels it necessary to deceive us about his education by affixing 'Doctor' before his name is enlightening as to his character.

Originally Posted by Aaron

It was innacurately pointed out that the term overunity means over 100% efficient.

I apologize, I was using the primary dictionary definition. My reference must be out of date. I've updated my understanding and we can consider the matter settled.

Originally Posted by Aaron

A little of guage theory: OTT - Advanced Electromagnetic Theory: What is a Gauge?

The goal of OTT's project:
OTT - Advanced Electromagnetic Theory: Program Goal

AIAS has their website here: Alpha Institute for Advanced Study - Home
and Myron Evans is the leading physicist in the world and is considered by many even conventional authorities as the most important physicist alive. He has the most accurate and most full comprehension of a grand unified field theory to date. Much of his work ties into Bearden's and you will find more of his work is published compared to Bearden to my knowlege.

Here are some of Myron Evan's published papers of which much encompasses "overunity" devices:
Alpha Institute for Advanced Study - Omnia opera

This is only a handful by Bearden in Textbooks, etc... and it is a matter of opinion what is a qualified journal... and DOE websites mostly closed to members only some old references to the public are only available in the archives now:
Bearden, T. E., "Energy from the Active Vacuum: The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator," in M. W. Evans (Ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, Wiley, 2001, Vol. 2, p. 699-776.

14. Bearden, T. E., "EM Energy From The Vacuum: Ten Questions With Extended Answers," restricted DOE Website http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/ , September 2000. Also on The Tom Bearden Website website (Bearden's website).

15. Bearden, T. E., Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, (World Scientific, Singapore, 2002) (in process).

16. Bearden, T. E. "Extracting and Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum," in M. W. Evans (ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, Wiley, 2001, Vol. 2, p. 639-698.

17. Bearden, T. E., "The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly," ADAS Position Paper, June 2000. http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/ . Also on The Tom Bearden Website.

18. Bearden, T. E. "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23. On DoE website http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/ and The Tom Bearden Website.

19. Bearden, T. E. "Bedini's Method For Forming Negative Resistors In Batteries," Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 24-38. Also carried on DoE website http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/ and on The Tom Bearden Website.

20. Bearden, T. E. "Dark Matter or Dark Energy?", Journal of New Energy, 4(4), Spring 2000, p. 4-11.

21. Bearden, T. E., "EM Corrections Enabling a Practical Unified Field Theory with Emphasis on Time-Charging Interactions of Longitudinal EM Waves," Journal of New Energy, 3(2/3), 1998, p. 12-28.

I'm getting a 'Page Not Found' error for http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/

Originally Posted by Aaron

Myron Evans is the leading physicist in the world and is considered by many even conventional authorities as the most important physicist alive. He has the most accurate and most full comprehension of a grand unified field theory to date. Much of his work ties into Bearden's and you will find more of his work is published compared to Bearden to my knowlege.
Here are some of Myron Evan's published papers of which much encompasses "overunity" devices:
Alpha Institute for Advanced Study - Omnia opera

Alpha Institute for Advanced Study is Myron Evan's personal website. Mr. Evan's theories don't seem to be in very good standing either.

Good lord man. Why do they all have to host their own material? Do you really consider these credible sources?