| |||||||
| Intention-Manifestation Manifesting intentions, law of attraction, vibrational harmony, synchronicities, luck, share your intentions, practice group manifesting |
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
03-29-2007, 02:55 AM
| #1 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 136
 |  PATHS and Quantum Physics
The Aether... Hi all, I'll start with a few quotes to think about and I'll follow up with more... “The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance”… – Aristotle (340BC) “…It finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along without metaphysics.” – Albert Einstein (Remarks on Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge) “The Great One produces the two poles, which in turn give rise to the energies of the dark (yin) and the light (yang). These two energies then transform themselves, one rising upwards, and the other descending downwards; they merge again and give rise to form.” – Book 5, Chapter 2 from Lu-sih ch'un-ch'iu (Spring and Autumn Annals) To understand thoughts, the mind and its consciousness, it is important in my opinion to understand the substance of which the mind is made of. I use the term the Aether. There was a flawed Michelson-Morlay experiment about a hundred years ago that "disproved" a material (with mass) aether but it didn't disprove anything since the experiment was flawed. It has been replicated and it showed there IS an aether. I will post references later. The aether I refer to is a massless aether composed of a "virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum". 1957 Lee and Yang were given the Nobel prize in physics for particle symmetry. In 1959 it was experimentally proven. Basically meaning that a particle has a counter or anti-particle companion. One is going forward in time and the other is going backward in time in the opposite direction at the same time. You can move one particle and its counter particle will move and it doesn't matter what the distance is. Vacuum doesn't mean a container with air sucked out or a device to pull dirt off the floor. Vacuum space literally is all time and space. You can be sitting in your chair reading this now and you are in vacuum space....all x,y,z axis (3 dimensions) with time "flowing" is vacuum space so you are in a vacuum. There is a debate...or an opinion dealing with semantics that it should be called a Plenum since it isn't empty but full of infinite potential. People look at the universe and see almost all dark and very little light but the reverse is true. In all space and especially away from mass, it is filled with potential...infinite potential. With an atmosphere (gases) or not, there is always this potential. "Virtual photons" are popping in and out of our dimension at ridiculous speeds...once they pop in, they instantly pop out so are referred to as only being virtually here and therefore "virtual photons" or unobservable photons, which has the potential to become observable and do real work in this dimension. There are positive virtual photons doing this as well as their counter anti-photon time reversed companions also fluxing in and out. In one cubic centimeter of space, there is more unorganized virtual photon potential than all the mass in the known universe combined. We are submerged, every fiber of our being is, in this aether just like a fish is in water. This is the source of all potential as it is, literally, potential. Many think the universe is filled with energy but this is not true. There isn't much energy in the universe, however, it is filled with potential. Basically, there is no such thing as energy, it doesn't exist as a thing. Truly energy is an adjective to describe an event. That event is when potential moves from one potential to another, from high to low OR, and yes it can, move from a low to a high potential as happens in nature all the time...will discuss this later...when one of these events happens, one can say that is energy as one can point to a car going down the street and say that it is moving. But the moving is not what the car is, it is what the car does. The dictionary says energy is the capacity to do work. Capacity is a potential to do something. The dictionary says energy is potential and this is a contradiction so don't get caught up in ridiculous bogus dictionary definitions, which most dictionary companies are owned by multi-national corporations who have been eroding accurate meanings based on the root origins of the words for decades. I do respect education and academia but believe it is more suited for those who have a passion for the pursuit of scholarly knowlege but of course not to be successful in the world. People with degrees in physics are only learning a sliver of the truth however. Much of what I'm going to share is really in the realm of time-energy physics. How many physicists in the world are knowlegable about time-energy physics? You can probably count them on your fingers on your two hands if even that many. Most of the people actually applying this knowlege getting results are not physicists. It is well known that most of the people who are the top in the world in their own fields either never went to college and/or are just plain self taught. Bill Gates dropout and you all know the story. Ted Turner, clown who used to dress his dog in a raincoat and interview him on the news channel he worked out, now look at him. Albert Einstein even said that education is what he received AFTER he got out of school. It has been well known that traditional status quo academia holds people back, gives them limited knowlege so as to not be able to compete in any real sense with those who are in positions of power and control and the same applies to physics where people are led to believe we are in a universe that is lacking and we are running out of resources instead of being taught the truth that were are sitting in infinite potential and there is plenty of abundance. If people were taught that, it wouldn't justify consumable "energy" sources like oil, etc... Anyway, the "virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum" is a term or technical jargon in quantum physics and now it isn't jargon anymore because virtual photons, flux and vacuum have been defined. it is the substance of the mind, intention, is responsible for LOA working as a matter of fact, it supplies source charge potential to light a bulb when you connect it to a battery, it is responsible for "thought forms", etc... I'll leave this for now...how does PATHS fit in? I'll do it in baby steps but it really comes down to the subconscious mind utilizing more potential per thought per unit of time to really get results. The next logical step from undestanding the aether is how is it tapped by batteries, generators, every cell in the body, every nerve ending to supply potential for electrical actions in the nervous system and brain, how are thoughts tapping it, etc... it requires a DIPOLE, which I'll get into next. |
|     |
|
03-29-2007, 02:58 AM
| #2 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 136
| PATHS continued discussion
This thread is a continuation of what apprears to be the most popular thread on this entire website: PATHS - Unbelievable Results |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 03:18 AM
| #3 (permalink) |
| Member Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 62
| a continuation....
I understand why the previous thread was closed and am very frustrated that it has been. I think alternative courses of action could have been taken as this thread was frequented by a lot of people who genuinely posted legitimate questions/thoughts etc on paths and due to the comments of a couple of people, it has been closed...anyway I have PM'd Dan and expressed my thoughts. Separate to that, I just thought of a positive thing to come of it...the other thread was becoming incredibly looooooooooooong and for someone new (and even those following from the beginning), I would say very difficult to follow, as there were so many various points/questions/thoughts/intentions being made. So by starting a new thread, it means a fresh start on the continuation of questions/thoughts etc on the concepts and mechinisms behind this hotly debated topic! May this thread be kept in light and respect. Many smiles! |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 03:46 AM
| #4 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 136
| Tom Bearden
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... Overunity is a common term that people in the "free energy" field use and it is commonly made synonymous with over 100% efficient. The distinction is that anything overunity really means it is over 1.0 COP and NOT over 100% efficient. If you have a refrigerator, it is probably about 5.0 COP and is overunity, however it is probably 50% efficient. 5.0 COP is 5 times the work done compared to the input in electricity provided...the rest of the input comes from the environment and in the case of a refrigerator, the heat in the environment that the operator did not have to input. But compared to the electricity provided to the system compared to the output, it is 5 times the input, which is still not over 100% efficient. If total input including free input from the environment in the form of heat, etc... including the operator input of electricity is 10 parts and the output is 5 parts, that is 50% efficient. If there is 1 part input of electricity and 9 parts in heat from the environment and 5 parts of work is being done and output from the system...1 part from the operator input of 1 part electricity that is 5 times the input. Over 1.0 copi yes, over 100% efficient, NO. Total in compared to total out is what efficiency is. Operator input compared to total output is COP. Big difference. Overunity is NOT over 100% efficient. 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. An old Office of Transportation Technologies website by the Dept. of Energy is in an archive here: OTT - Advanced Electromagnetic Theory: Contact Information Tom Bearden is listed as the project manager...they aren't going to involve peole in advanced projects unless they are qualified and qualified is exactly what Tom Bearden is in this field of scalar electromagnetics. 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.  |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 05:29 AM
| #5 (permalink) |
| Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Belleair Florida
Posts: 53
| A Fabulous New Start!
Hi Aaron, I am very pleased you have started this thread. I am always grateful to learn more about this subject matter.  “The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance”… – Aristotle (340BC) I'm hooked already! Last edited by Grace.Haeusler; 03-29-2007 at 05:33 AM. |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 06:02 AM
| #6 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
|
Thank you for sharing this, this is awesome stuff! 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. The quote by Socrates seems very relevant here: "All I know is that I do not know anything." 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. I'm really grateful to be learning about this cutting-edge stuff without having to go through all the arduous work you've done, Aaron. Many thanks and much appreciation! |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 06:40 AM
| #7 (permalink) | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 136
| posting links to papers Quote:
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 think most people do this anyway to some degree and of course some have a difficult time accepting anything that is threatening to the belief system. To not do this is to preserve dogma and it 'may' be true that Bearden has said that overunity is over 100% efficient in the past...I don't know if he did or not but if he did and the distinction is now very clear the difference between efficiency and COP, this shows a lot of integrity on his part that regardless of his standing in this science, he allows himself to grow and learn on an ongoing basis. Bearden and others in the field will be the first to point out that there really are no "experts" in the field because essentially, it is a new science at least with modern day understandings. The principles in pieces have been around for ages, in the literature in accepted journals, textooks, etc... but it hasn't been until the last decade or so that much of it has been holistically tied together to show an accurate picture of "free energy technologies" and so forth. There have been exponential growth in the understanding of these science of scalar electromagnetics in the last decade and especially in the last few years...mostly outside of the United States I believe but that isn't suprising considering the implications of these sciences on the established paradigm that we in a world of poverty with no abundance. I agree, pointing to papers is not the way to go but did because of the request in the thread that was closed. I will however point to specific literature that my explanations are based on and will do my best to keep it simple so no technical background is needed. But the references will remain as documentation to the scientific validity of the concepts. Great quote. I realize that the more I learn the more I realize I do not know. Each new thing shows me an entire new universe of learning. This is because most knowledge is in the realm of us not knowing what we don't know, or our blindspots. Pursuing this field has its share of phonies, crackpots and cranks and I know who most of them are and I know who most of the legitimate ones are who have taken idea to the bench and achieved results. These are the ones I pay attention to and to the point of learning it to the point to replicate it myself with results. I can understand why some people are skeptical of this field especially when claims of achieving more output than an operator inputs...sounds like perpetual motion has nothing to do with perpetual motion. Sounds like over 100% efficiency but when knowing the difference between COP and efficiency, it almost becomes common sense. I'll clearly explain the difference between open and closed systems because it is the distinction that clearly shows there are two very different system of thermodynamics that explain two totally different systems...open vs closed... and they are very different and still, neither one is over 100% efficient not even open systems. The whole concept of the aether is an entire science on its own and is a profound one that in my opinion should be required study for most sciences since at the fundamental level, it is the source of everything. The human mind is an open system as well as every biological component from molecules to cells to organs and so forth. The physics behind the energy technologies are just as relevant to consciousness sciences and applications such as PATHS or any other technology that stimulates increased use of potential by the mind. For now, enjoy this eye candy of a machine that outputs 12 times what the operator inputs. I will get in to the distinction of open vs closed systems soon. So in other words this machine has a COP of 12.0, most refrigerators are probably around 4.0-5.0 and every single closed system electrical motor or anything else operating on closed system principles are ALL less than 1.0 COP. Veljko Milković - Home Page - Zvanična prezentacija istraživača i pronalazača Veljka Milkovića This violates Newton's 3rd law of motion. There is a reaction, however it moves to help the mechanism continue to propogate "forward" instead of entropically beating it down head first. | |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 06:46 AM
| #8 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
|
Lol! My post wasn't directed at you Aaron, but to the posters on the other thread  Oh well  life goes on  edit: I can see why though, from all the harsh attacks from people here. I'm amazed you're still able to patiently bear all of it. Last edited by ethereal; 03-29-2007 at 06:53 AM. |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 07:17 AM
| #9 (permalink) | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 136
| posting to papers Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 07:20 AM
| #10 (permalink) | |||||||
| Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 52
|
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. Quote:
Quote:
As you are, I'm asking questions based on analysis to the best of my ability.Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Good lord man. Why do they all have to host their own material? Do you really consider these credible sources? Last edited by One; 03-29-2007 at 07:22 AM. | |||||||
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 07:38 AM
| #11 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
|
Based on my own personal experience, real experiential (and even scientific!) truths are usually not credible, for the sole fact that most of the world are not living in truth. As the sages say, the world is under the spell of Maya. Add that fact to the government/academia/business having their own vested interests, and you basically have a flawed system churning out flawed (or at least, politically-motivated) theories/products/laws/opinions/EVERYTHING to people who have been socially conditioned to believe flawed stuff. It is the same phenomenon as the self-help/spiritual world. I've lost almost all my friends when I took this path, and they all think I'm crazy. I bet it's the same with you guys, too? The further along you go, the more pronounced this effect. I can see why real breakthrough technology, by definition, must be something so far out from the norm that nobody will ever believe it -- if they do, then it must not be real breakthrough disruptive technology. Nowadays, I'm way more inclined to believe crazy people than normal people Anyway, not trying to derail the thread (perhaps we should have another separate thread for PATHS discussion instead?), please continue with the lectures Aaron |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 07:49 AM
| #12 (permalink) | |
| Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 52
| Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 08:14 AM
| #13 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
|
Have you checked the current state of affairs with how research grants are given, or how project proposals are accepted in academia? Almost all the money is going into projects that ultimately show very limited results with very limited applicability. At worse, they show no results at all but are done for political/personal purposes. Same with Ph.D. theses, people care more about getting the doctorate than in working on something truly revolutionary. Not everyone, but most. I recently went to a software engineering conference with my dad, and almost ALL of the papers submitted dealt with abstract theoretical stuff with no practical basis and very limited applicability. A lot of it was incremental research into either highly specialized fields or over-researched topics. Nothing disruptive or breakthrough at all. We submitted our papers and did a presentation dealing with core essential problems in software engineering -- how all of software engineering is focused on finding and fixing bugs, but not on prevention of bugs. We have already developed a product with an order-of-magnitude increase in efficiency, so it wasn't just airy-fairy ivory tower stuff. Nobody understood the importance of it, except a few who ended up staying after the presentation to talk more. Another personal example: my dad has another idea dealing with integrated circuit design. Right now IC chips are designed sequentially in stages, and if you screw up one stage you have to start all over. This basically leads to an exponential number of tries before you get a working chip design. My dad found a way to do it optimally in parallel, in one single process. He presented it at a research symposium with the top researchers in all of China's universities, and after a week-long debate they unanimously agreed it was a revolutionary idea and supported getting a research grant for it. What happened? Due to lack of connections (guanxi) with the top dogs in government / military / academia, it lost the research grant to some other projects that had barely any importance to society. I think great people like Einstein, Newton, etc. are the exception and not the rule. We tend to see them as all the geniuses there are in the world, but for every Einstein there are a thousand unrecognized geniuses working in the background trying to get their work noticed for the benefit of humanity, despite the government/academic world trying to push them out of the way to protect their own interests. I believe Aaron, PATHS, and the rest of his crew belong to the latter category. edit: to answer your post directly, one can only try for so long to get something accepted by a system that does not appreciate changes to the status quo or attacks on their vested interests. If I were them I'd give up a long time ago and try some other route (which seems to be what most of them have done, anyway  )2nd edit: do you know how many scientists and professors would be out of a job if something like this was commonly accepted? Especially if this is something that they can't even understand? I think that should answer your questions about peer-review and publication Last edited by ethereal; 03-29-2007 at 08:27 AM. |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 08:33 AM
| #14 (permalink) | |
| Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 52
| Quote:
I'm a single thread processor, I don't think this discussion can handle the load of debating the merits of the current state of academia and the inroads of political corruption. I have no doubt that grants are heavily political, but which areas of research get the most funding isn't very relevant to the veracity of academic communities across the world. As it is grants are made by politicians, businesses, and institutions.Don't forget that for every thousand unrecognized geniuses there are ten million loud crackpots. I'm not saying our friend Aaron belongs in that category of course, but to quote Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." | |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 08:36 AM
| #15 (permalink) | |
| Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 52
| Quote:
*Objective Modern science in the Popperian sense -Galileo's time had the influence of the faith-based church. Last edited by One; 03-29-2007 at 08:39 AM. | |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 08:38 AM
| #16 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 305
|
Most, if not all, of the greatest inventions/discoveries in human histroy flew completely contrary to the accepted science of the time. World is flat anyone? How about penicillin? Flight? The Automobile? Lets not forget that the guy who invented radio was put into a mental institute initially when he claimed to be able to send words through the air without wires! All of these things were deemed 'impossible' by the academia of the time. Why couldn't this also be true? I haven't made a decision on the validity of the material yet, but to be honest I don't give a flying fig about the Doctor who bought his degree. Why? Because I bought my own, and I was one of the top programmers in my field when I lived in Australia. I knew all the other guys in my area, and there is only one I would consider to have been better than me. (partially because I trained at least 30% of the others) And suprise suprise, he didn't have a degree either. I bought mine purely because it is convenient to have one, when it comes time for things like visas, organisation applications etc. A lot of those activities and actions require a degree, regardless of your actual knowlege or skill in a particular area. I am a bit offended at your implications about the moral fiber of a person who buys a degree, One, and I don't offend easily. They are a requirement for many things in this world, but they mean absolutely nothing except that you can spit back at your teacher whatever they say to you. I can program rings around just about any 'legit' uni graduate without breaking a sweat, but I can't get a working visa in a foreign country without a degree regardless of skill level. So I got one. I for one (hehe pun not intended) want to hear some more from Aaron. Please desist from turing this thread into a flame fest. Last edited by Dani; 03-29-2007 at 08:42 AM. |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 08:48 AM
| #17 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
|
Sorry I got my own ego worked up too. Bowing out of the thread once again.More, Aaron! Though actually it seems like your time would be better spent elsewhere, working on PATHS or talking to other scientists who actually understand this stuff. Thanks for everything, though PATHS has already changed my life.
|
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 08:55 AM
| #18 (permalink) | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 136
| physics sources Quote:
If someone has a degree in physics it can almost be guaranteed that anything under non-equilibrium thermodyamics is out of their expertise to the point they will most likely fight tooth and nail even admitting the concepts are possible. There are a few I'm sure as not all are personally threatened. But, having them review anything is like having a Greek professor give an opinion on Chinese as the two systems are very, very different. I agree with you that experimental results can't be argued with. Tom Bearden's MEG device has nothing to do with the devices I have replicated. Tom Bearden has solved for the source charge problem considered one of the most difficult of all mysteries in physics to solve. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The source charge problem—“the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics”*—solved by Tom Bearden. *— Prof. Emeritus Dipak K. Sen, Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Toronto" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Some of the breakthrough understandings Bearden has solved for cover the devices I have replicated and the inner workings of the batteries being charged in this manner are explained in the paper you have in your possession. The technology and innovations from these accredited universities are all 100% encompassed by closed system thermodynamics...at least as far anything relevant to energy production, etc... obviously their science is useful and has its place for a lot of practical applications like this computer I'm typing on so please don't take what I say out of context. It has its place but their accredidation is useless when it comes to science that is not practiced or admitted by them. There are at minimum about 25 fundamental flaws in all of their physics especially in electromagnetic and electrical sciences. "“It is not possible to understand the magnetic effects of materials in any honest way from the point of view of classical physics.” —Richard Feynman 1965 Nobel Prize winning physicis" I believe Feynman's credibility is not in question as he is a truly accepted pioneer in various areas of physics and his opinion is not only credible but highly revered especially by conventional physics schools of thought. His quote is reflecting the inability of classical physics to even encompass magnetics. The accredited schools you seem to hold in high esteem revolve around this science that it cannot explain for the fact that the books on electromagnetic and electrical science have not been updated for about a hundred years! lol It is your opinion Bearden is trying to deceive anyone. You're not willing to hear it directly from him in the documentary so be it. You're entitled to your opinion and I don't believe it needs to be restated by you as I have read it clearly in your post what your opinion of his degree is. So we can consider this matter settled as well I suppose. I agree we disagree on his qualification possibly. I already posted a link to the OTT site from www.archive.org it is no longer available to the public and is for members only now. It is in this thread towards the beginning or towards the end of the closed thread. Evans standing according to your source is nothing but an opinion. I have already posted a link to countless published papers by Evans as he probably has around 600 published papers in peer reviewed journals so we can consider this matter solved as well. Posting someone's opinion and saying it seems his science isn't in good standing isn't really a credible way in my mind to debate Evans as there will always be people for or against anything and anyone especially when it comes to anything that challenges the established way of thinking. Host their own material? Like I said, Evans has hundreds of published papers in peer reviewed journals and pointing to something like them hosting their own information is absolutely irrelevant. I do not believe that you are as sincere as you claim to be considering your method of analysis because it is distracting from the explanations that I felt I wanted to share and you are picking at someone hosting their own material, pointing to someone disagreeing mentioning it seems to not be in good standing, etc... maybe you are trying to prevent me from expanding the horizons as you are for the most part only point focusing on everything but the actual content of the science at hand. So, thank you for your contribution, it has been noted that you have an issue with anything I reference so I doubt you will find anything in this thread of interest to you so have a nice day. So, I agree to disagree with you and what you believe to be worthwhile sources of information. I'm sure you will find a thread elsewhere in this forum or in another forum more to your liking and in alignment with what you feel is a valid reference. Since these concepts violate the established paradigm's belief system as taught in your favored accredited university, I'd recommend finding another topic that refers to these sciences that pefectly fit in the box of what they find acceptable...you probably won't find much acceptable information in this thread. You are already insulting two people I admire, trust and respect and know for a fact their integrity and honesty and passion for truly expanding these sciences so I don't think there is much more for us to discuss. You can also read rebuttals by them that seem to be missing from your analysis. AFTER the Wright Brother's were flying their plane, mathematicians with their accredited degrees from accredited universities were busy scribbling equations on the board proving that it can't happen even though it did. AFTER my friend who has an electromagnet that can PICK UP ANY NON-FERROUS METAL like aluminum, brass, gold, silver, etc... took it to the university he received his degree in physics with and took it to one of his physics professors to demonstrate it, the professor, AFTER seeing the demo with his own eyes began scribbling "Maxwells" equations on the board telling my friend not to waste his time because it won't work! The professor has an accredited degree in physics from an accredited university. LOL So thank you very much my friend but I have no use for this accredited university mindset who thinks that if they don't know it, then it can't be true. This mentality is more common than you think. I respect your opinion that you give credit to established institutions of higher education as I do for what they are useful for, but when it comes to the development of new sciences outside of their box, their accredidation is useless. It is very, very, very rare to find any of them who are open minded enough to take a real scientific approach at the science. In addition to this, none are even qualified to take measurements on these systems. LOL Take care... Last edited by Aaron; 03-29-2007 at 09:06 AM. | |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 08:57 AM
| #19 (permalink) | |||
| Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 52
|
Nary a flame in sight Dani. Though I confess I am rather perplexed. Quote:
Also, I don't believe science has ever claimed the automobile was impossible. I've never heard of your mental institution example, but I believe the first wireless transmission was by David E. Hughes. Who was sane. Also it's interesting how far back one must go for examples. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by One; 03-29-2007 at 09:15 AM. | |||
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 09:15 AM
| #20 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 136
|  examples of scientific quackery by the accredited establishment
The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics - webpage by Stephen J. Crothers. General Relativity. |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 09:18 AM
| #21 (permalink) | |
| Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Durban, South Africa
Posts: 30
| Quote:
As a person who spent 8 years studying at accredited universities I know what a degree is. The reason institutions want to hire people with PhD's (and no, I don't have one) is not for what they learnt directly during their studies. The reason they want people with PhDs is because those are the people who have demonstrated that they have the ability and perseverance to do the work and to understand it well enough to defend their theses in front of their peers. I have worked with a few people who had phoney degrees, and every one of them displayed the same lack of moral fibre suspected by One. If you think you can short circuit this process and buy a PhD then I would be suspicious of everything you do. In fact, based on all your other rantings I am not surprised that you are the sort of person who would buy a degree. Do you sell them too? | |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 09:23 AM
| #22 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 136
| The Tom Bearden Website "Subject: RE: Tom Beardens PhD... Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:11:07 -0600 Tony, Yes, I was awarded the Ph.D. for life experience and for life accomplishment (from Trinity College - Ed.), and I make no attempt to conceal it. I was awarded the Legion of Merit in Vietnam for similar reasons. If that makes it "bogus", so be it. I was also listed in Who's Who in Aviation and Aerospace, 1983, National Aeronautical Institute. I don't know what others may have done, but to obtain the doctorate for experience, I first was required to prepare a formal Ph.D. thesis, as is normal, and do several months of additional work for it. As might be expected, my thesis advanced the first legitimate theory of COP>1.0 EM systems, freely extracting energy from the vacuum. It also contained the first formal correction to Aristotelian logic since Aristotle advanced it. My M.S. in nuclear engineering was awarded by Georgia Tech under full rigor, as was my B.S. in mathematics from what is today Northeast Louisiana University. Those are the credentials, and one can take it or leave it. One might point out that Heaviside --- whose equations are studied in university as "Maxwell's equations", and who originated some powerful mathematical methods as well --- never even attended university but was totally self-taught. Today, a very great many people for more than a century have happily used Heaviside's work, not really caring whether he had a Ph.D. or not. The real judge is what a fellow does and the worth or non-worth of it. My book, Energy from the Vacuum, speaks for itself. My years of work in scalar interferometry --- trying desperately to get this nation to develop adequate defenses --- has in fact now been verified, both experimentally and theoretically, and scalar interferometry was the basis for Secretary of Defense Cohen's public statement in 1997 at a conference in Athens, Georgia --- the first confirmation of those weapons by a high U.S. government official. We do have adequate defenses today, at least a little bit as a result of some of my own hard work in convincing the system. Unfortunately the energetics weapons have now spread to even more powerful quantum potential weapons and negative energy EMP, so my weapons efforts are still continuing in that respect. Defending this nation comes first; after that comes the rest. I'm quite willing to let that be the final arbiter. Best wishes, Tom" Case Closed |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 09:24 AM
| #23 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
|
I move that only posts and questions pertaining to the actual science of PATHS be kept, and all other posts wiped out. Can the mods do this? If not, let this policy start from this post forward. Thank you all and have a nice day! |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 09:36 AM
| #24 (permalink) | ||
| Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 305
| Quote:
That was my point. Go do some research on Mr Benz, you will find he was cast out of his research circles and even his own partner abandoned him ashamed of his mad idea for a 'mechanical horse'. As for going far back. I wouldn't call less than a hundred years that far. Plus, there have been very few truly paradigm shifting discoveries in recent years, despite our massive recent technological advancements, they have almost all been in fields that are part of the current paradigm. Electronics advancements all build upon pre-establish ideas of previous discoveries, few truly new things are being discovered, existing things are just getting smaller, faster and more powerful. Same with medical discoveries, they just mix the same old drugs around and look for new effects. A friend of mine works for a drug company and he agrees with me on this. He says all they do is semi-randomly mix established drugs and chemicals and then test to see what effects are. They don't do research outside of that. Why? Because it's not financially viable to be a ground breaker unless you succeed. Finance generally drives science these days. A couple of more recent examples - Windows Bill was also told he was mad.Men in outer space Antibiotics Even the internet wasn't a paradigm shift, it's all built upon phone, computer and television technology and ideas essentially. Quote:
I used to work in Universities, and I have met and worked with a lot of 'Doctors' with big accredited degrees. I found that I knew more than almost every one of the IT 'doctors' at these universities, but I didn't have a degree. Degrees prove you can learn and repeat. Little else. Even getting a doctorate requires you predominantly to provide references for your work and opinion rather than free new thought. If you did no research and went out on a limb to propose a completely new theory, you would get laughed at and failed. You get a doctorate by showing old knowlege reformatted, edited and resubmitted. Either way. I want to some hear more from Aaron, not you, so please follow his advice and find a thread where people agree with you. EDIT: oops everyone posted before I finished. I am with you Ether. I am goign to stop talking to One from now on. Aaron please continue with the information! Last edited by Dani; 03-29-2007 at 09:47 AM. | ||
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 09:51 AM
| #25 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
|
All non-scientific discussion should now be moved to: PATHS - Credibility, Gripes, Stories, Theories? Aaron may choose to read and respond there or not, as he wishes. Frankly I think he is wasting his time answering non-integrous queries (including some of mine!), which can be better spent helping humanity. However, his posts on the science of PATHS is something that can be copied/pasted without much effort, and sincere questions in this thread can be answered without much distraction, if this thread is kept clearly focused. Thank you all and have a nice day! |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 09:53 AM
| #26 (permalink) | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 136
| virtual photons and vacuum space Quote:
Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles VIRTUAL PHOTON STRUCTURE Virtual photons Virtual photon exchange and charge sign Energy Citations Database (ECD) - Energy and Energy-Related Bibliographic Citations You question the validity of the concept? The virtual particles are not considered real in a physical sense as they are unobservable but DO have observable properties...the effects can be measured and quantified...where source charge comes from...from these virtual photons in their symmetrical state in vacuum space interacting with a dipole breaking their symmetry and causing movement from one potential to another producing real work in the real world. LOL The term vacuum space is also something not made up by me LOL electron positron lattice, the crystal universe Phys. Rev. 164 (1967): Werner Israel - Event Horizons in Static... (don't read this one, it is a peer reviewed published journal actually making a reference to vacuum space - LOL) The Petrov type of a static vacuum space-time near a normal-dominated singularity (another peer reviewed journal actually saying "vacuum space"????) Again, please keep your insults to yourself I don't appreciate it especially when it is implying that I am lying so you indirectly call me a liar. So be it. Good luck in your search, no point in you hanging around here when I'm making stuff up about virtual photons and vacuum space...you'll just waste your time here and I wouldn't want to do that. | |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 09:55 AM
| #27 (permalink) | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 136
| I second this Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 09:59 AM
| #28 (permalink) | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 305
| Quote:
(sorry ether, last post) For info, It wasn't a PHD just a Bachelor Degree. I had to sit an exam for it, submit several assignments and examples of my work. Provide proof of work history and references, who were contacted, confirming my experience in the industry. So it wasn't just handed out for cash. As I said above I worked with PHD'd people and found them virtually clueless in a real world situation. I guess we both hung out with the wrong people. I put my approval on results and performance and not on a piece of paper that anyone who can just stick it out can get. FYI I left uni originally because I was bored. I was acing all my classes but learning nothing usefull. Everything they taught us was years out of date, and not used in the real world. So I stopped -studying- at a university and started -working- at one. | |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 10:03 AM
| #29 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
|
Pre-emptive warning: Yev, if you choose to respond to Dani (or Aaron for that matter), do so in the other thread. Not being biased against you, but Dani has already responded, to the thread's detriment Thank you and have a nice day! edit: there has got to be a better way to do this, besides open forums? it is spiritual naivete to assume that people will play nice. Last edited by ethereal; 03-29-2007 at 10:07 AM. |
|
| |
|
03-29-2007, 10:41 AM
| #30 (permalink) | |
| Member Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 52
|
Aaron, I am having an exceedingly difficult time keeping incredulity from affecting my posts. Now you seem to have asked me to butt out for the questions I've asked. You've made some very grand claims. I should hardly be expecting you to pay for electricity at home. After all, so far you've claimed: *Physicists everywhere are totally wrong. *You have devices which prove this. *Physicists are incapable of seeing this. *You have (in effect) free energy. *You can neutralize radioactivity by 95%+ in just a few minutes. *You have discovered the universal language of the subconscious. *PATHS can modify human DNA. *PATHS can enhance your sex life *PATHS Make me look younger *PATHS can increase my intuition and psychic abilities *PATHS can modify gland secretions in the body. *There is currently a cure for diabetes. *PATHS can lessen diabetes symptoms. On further investigation I've found that you've also claimed: *You can turn tap water into a powerful gasoline. Tom Bearden has in his writings claimed: *He has unified physics (Einstein failed at this!) *He can cure cancer *He invented a device that outputs 7-100 times input power For all this, you've been unable to provide me with any evidence short of a few crackpots who have to toot their own horn because their work would not stand up in any real journal. People, who after decades of claiming to have fantastic machines, have failed to produce them for anyone to actually see or test. Mr. Bearden was not 'awarded' anything. He purchased a degree. I wonder if he had to pay for the Vietnam metal as well. Aaron, some may consider this an insult, but after long and careful consideration and comparison with the dictionary definition, I am forced to conclude that Aaron Murakami is a charlatan. Quote:
One can only do so much in the service of the consumer. If the nature of your claims have not been made obvious now to those reading there is nothing further I can do. Thanks for the ride. Last edited by One; 03-29-2007 at 08:29 PM. | |
|
| |
|
| Bookmarks |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| PATHS - Unbelievable Results | TheColonel | Intention-Manifestation | 531 | 03-29-2007 02:17 AM |
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:41 AM.