- Thank you received: 0
Quantized redshift anomaly
19 years 8 months ago #13462
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<center><b>THE BEST OF THOMAS BEARDEN...</b></center>
Tom Bearden is described by the mainstreamers as a crack pot. Having said that, I am reprinting below a key letter of his that states his position clearly. He certainly has made some astounding claims, one of which is that the Russians have worked tigether and researched the literature. His main claim I believe is that Maxwell's equations are incomplete, they are missing the connection with the ZPE. I think I found out where he got this idea -- from Thomas Kuhn in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. pp 107-109
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Space, in contempory physics, is not the inert and homogeous substratum employed in both Newton's and Maxwell's theories; some of its new properties are not unlike those once attributed to the ether; we may someday come to know what an electric displacement is." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
At this link are the notes from a university lecture on the mathematics of Maxwell
farside.ph.utexas.edu/~rfitzp/teaching/em1/lectures/node41.html
See equation (376)
where he writes:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The extra term is called the ``displacement current'' (this name was invented by Maxwell). In summary, we have shown that although the flux of the real current through a loop is not well defined, if we form the sum of the real current and the displacement current then the flux of this new quantity through a loop is well defined.
Of course, the displacement current is not a current at all. It is, in fact, associated with the generation of magnetic fields by time varying electric fields. Maxwell came up with this rather curious name because many of his ideas regarding electric and magnetic fields were completely wrong. For instance, Maxwell believed in the æther, and he thought that electric and magnetic fields were some sort of stresses in this medium. He also thought that the displacement current was associated with displacements of the æther (hence, the name). The reason that these misconceptions did not invalidate his equations is quite simple. Maxwell based his equations on the results of experiments, and he added in his extra term so as to make these equations mathematically self consistent. Both of these steps are valid irrespective of the existence or non-existence of the æther. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
And here we have the extended version by Bearden. I can't say I understand all or any of this - he uses many terms I haven't heard before, but it is the only place I found where he explains himself specifically.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> www.bright.net/~mrf/
Dear Pete,
Regauging basically is just changing the potential, which freely alters the potential (collected) energy of a system. Electrodynamics (Maxwellian) in potential form comes out in coupled equations in potentials A (magnetic vector potential) and phi (electrostatic scalar potential). The equations are coupled and variables are not separated. The electrodynamicists needed to separate the variables for mathematical convenience to ease solution of the equations.
Early electrodynamicists (Heaviside and after) considered the potentials as mathematical conveniences having no real physical reality. Today we know that is false, and that the potentials are the primary causes of all electrodynamic phenomena . In fact, e.g. the scalar potential phi's magnitude is oddly defined as the amount of energy collecting upon a unit point coulomb of charge placed at a point occupied by that potential (the potential is a bidirectional longitudinal wave flow, as shown by Whittaker in 1903. It is not even a scalar ENTITY. The collection of energy upon an intercepting point coulomb, however, is indeed a scalar value. So the "scalar" potential -- which is really a multivector entity -- has been mistakenly assumed to be a "scalar" ENTITY. A similar thing exists with the "definition" of the E-field magnitude, which is just the gradient in that "collected energy" on that point coulomb that is intercepting and diverging some of the energy flow involved. Notice that rigorously electrodynamics has thus defined electrodynamics (both fields and potentials) only as existing in, on, and of the intercepting mass. Rigorously, what we were taught DOES NOT EXIST AS SUCH in the vacuum!
But Maxwellian electrodynamics still has not been changed to alleviate those errors made so long ago (Maxwell wrote his seminal EM paper in 1864. He assumed a material ether. He threw away half the EM and half the energy, by discarding any agent that stressed his "tubes of force" under tensile stress in the vacuum, replacing Faraday's assumed "lines of force" under tensile stress. In not accounting for the stress-producing agent, he discarded Newton's third law from electrodynamics, and it is still erroneously missing from it today. Maxwell, however, carefully pointed out that his work was not finished BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN COMPLETELY UNABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR HIS ASSUMED STRESS IN THE ETHER! To this day electrodynamicists have not accounted for it.
Anyhow, to separate the variables, the electrodynamicists assumed an
arbitrary change of the phi potential. That was fine, except that it
produced an extra free force, which in their mind changed the electrodynamics because it changed the force fields which they thought were the primary causes. Changing the force fields was a no-no. So they accordingly arbitrarily changed the other potential A, but just precisely so that the extra force that THIS change made, was equal and opposite to the first extra force made by the arbitrary change in phi.
Well, they reasoned, the two forces being equal and opposite just "cancelled" each other. So they thought the electrodynamics was still the same. That separated the variables and gave them two equations that were now easy to solve.
However, consider a system and what you have done to it by such arbitrary assumptions. You have freely changed the energy of the system (regauged it) twice. And you have NOT accounted for where you received that energy FROM.
You have also arbitrarily created two extra forces out of nowhere, that are equal and opposite and therefore are stressing the system. So that is NOT the same system conditions at all that you started with! You freely changed its energy twice, and added lots of stress, and arbitrarily excluded jillions of regauging cases where the two extra forces produced ARE NOT equal and opposite.
What you did was forcibly bring the system into local thermodynamic
equilibrium. That means that classical thermodynamics rigorously applies to this ALTERED system, and so the second law applies and prevents overunity COP.
Yet it costs nothing -- as assumed by the electrodynamicists themselves -- to just freely change the potential energy of a system! I.e., to just "regauge" it, whether or not a net extra force is produced. They did it twice, in their assumptions. (In theory you do not have to do work to simply move energy!)
Regauging (changing the potential) so that no NET force results, is called symmetrical regauging and is known as the Lorentz condition. We have been trained to design all our systems this way, so they cannot ever go overunity, and cannot just freely output excess energy (which they extract from the ambient vacuum potential that is their ubiquitous external environment).
So let's reject that "highly special case" where there is no NET force
created by the regauging even though several excess forces may be created. Instead, let us freely change one or both of the potentials, but now in such a manner that there does result a net force. We are just as free to do that, by assumption, as the electrodynamicists are to do it the other way. Well, since a net force remains, we now have to call that "asymmetrical" (i.e., creates a net new force) regauging (change of the potential or potentials).
Well, now we have changed the energy of the system freely, and also we have got a new force which we can use to dissipate that excess free energy and do free work in a load. In other words, we have kept the Maxwellian system OUT of local thermodynamic equilibrium, and classical thermodynamics with its infamous second law DOES NOT APPLY. Instead, the nonlinear thermodynamics of an open system freely receiving excess energy from its environment, now applies. Voila! That type of system is permitted to (1) self oscillate, and
(2) produce more energy out than the OPERATOR HIMSELF has to input. The extra output energy, of course, is just received from the external
environment. It's just like a paddlewheel in a river, and no more strange.
To see how the electrodynamicists did the regauging, just check Jackson, second edition, Classical Electrodynamics. He very clearly shows what they did.
In particle physics, it has been known for 40 years that any charge or dipole -- either electrical or magnetic -- is a broken symmetry in the violent virtual particle flux (virtual gas) of the vacuum. In fact, it is a "Maxwell's demon" in that it too is an open system, freely receiving energy from the environment, and transforming part of that virtual energy into observable energy and radiating back to the vacuum this OBSERVABLE energy flow as well as the nonobservable virtual flow component. The observable flow is the well-known Poynting flow.
Ordinary electrodynamics makes a grave error of first magnitude in just assuming that the charge is the source of E-field, potential, Poynting flow, and all that energy filling space around it. Well, that assumption violates the most sacrosanct law of physics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Electrodynamicists already assume that charges and dipoles CREATE energy and energy flow right out of nothing, because they neglect the vacuum
interaction. Particle physics has known that to be wrong for 40 years, and proven it experimentally. But electrodynamic equations and theory have not been changed accordingly.
The end result is that every charge and dipole ALREADY is a free energy generator, which pours out energy steadily. It extracts that energy flow directly from the vacuum, and the E-field and phi-potential as defined in electrodynamics are secondary effects created in, on, and of an intercepting mass.
The blunt truth is that every power system we ever made already contains a free energy generator (a source dipole) freely extracting energy from the vacuum and pouring it out in a torrent. If we did not use half the free energy collected in the circuit to destroy the source dipole, we could readily have free energy devices. They DO NOT violate the laws of nature, physics, and thermodynamics.
For the perpetual motion skeptics, let them just go away and explain why electrodynamics assumes that the charge CREATES energy out of nothing, and pours it out and makes the E-field, the phi potential, the magnetic vector potential, the magnetic field, and so on. According to their skeptism (by the way, their "definitions" already are logically inconsistent and invalid) then all of electrodynamics is violently wrong because it already assumes gobs and gobs of perpetual motion (perpetual energy) machines called charges.
A priori, it follows that any electrodynamic argument against perpetual motion machines is invalid because the tool used to "refute" the concept already accepts it implicitly.
We just have to learn to collect and use that free energy flow, without passing load current back through the source dipole and scattering it, thereby shutting off the "energy gusher". We are carefully taught to pass all load current back through the source dipole's back emf, just so as to destroy the free energy generator we have already obtained when we separated the charges to make the dipole.
That's about as simple as I can say it, if one wishes to be correct and not just blase. One still does have to learn at least some electromagnetics, and what it is all about. There is no shortcut for that.
Hope this helps,
Tom Bearden<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr noshade size="1">
I also found a technical paper by Tom Bearden at
www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3354/megpaper.pdf
The point that these fellows are making has to do with the electric and magnetic fields of electromangnetic radiation. Maxwell's four equations explain how these fields work, the equations are said to work out very well. However, the equations do not describe the source of these fields. The equations say that the electric field gives rise to the magnetic field gives rise to the electric field and so on. They do not describe how the fields exist (I think I can put it this way)
What this means on the cosmological level is that all the "radiation" talked about in astronomy, photons of light, x-rays, gamma rays, all electromagnetic fields is being fed energy from the INSIDE of space. More specifically it means, I'm saying this as a conjecture, that the stars "produce" more matter than they use up...In other words, empty space is not empty.
Tom Bearden is described by the mainstreamers as a crack pot. Having said that, I am reprinting below a key letter of his that states his position clearly. He certainly has made some astounding claims, one of which is that the Russians have worked tigether and researched the literature. His main claim I believe is that Maxwell's equations are incomplete, they are missing the connection with the ZPE. I think I found out where he got this idea -- from Thomas Kuhn in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. pp 107-109
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Space, in contempory physics, is not the inert and homogeous substratum employed in both Newton's and Maxwell's theories; some of its new properties are not unlike those once attributed to the ether; we may someday come to know what an electric displacement is." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
At this link are the notes from a university lecture on the mathematics of Maxwell
farside.ph.utexas.edu/~rfitzp/teaching/em1/lectures/node41.html
See equation (376)
where he writes:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The extra term is called the ``displacement current'' (this name was invented by Maxwell). In summary, we have shown that although the flux of the real current through a loop is not well defined, if we form the sum of the real current and the displacement current then the flux of this new quantity through a loop is well defined.
Of course, the displacement current is not a current at all. It is, in fact, associated with the generation of magnetic fields by time varying electric fields. Maxwell came up with this rather curious name because many of his ideas regarding electric and magnetic fields were completely wrong. For instance, Maxwell believed in the æther, and he thought that electric and magnetic fields were some sort of stresses in this medium. He also thought that the displacement current was associated with displacements of the æther (hence, the name). The reason that these misconceptions did not invalidate his equations is quite simple. Maxwell based his equations on the results of experiments, and he added in his extra term so as to make these equations mathematically self consistent. Both of these steps are valid irrespective of the existence or non-existence of the æther. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
And here we have the extended version by Bearden. I can't say I understand all or any of this - he uses many terms I haven't heard before, but it is the only place I found where he explains himself specifically.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> www.bright.net/~mrf/
Dear Pete,
Regauging basically is just changing the potential, which freely alters the potential (collected) energy of a system. Electrodynamics (Maxwellian) in potential form comes out in coupled equations in potentials A (magnetic vector potential) and phi (electrostatic scalar potential). The equations are coupled and variables are not separated. The electrodynamicists needed to separate the variables for mathematical convenience to ease solution of the equations.
Early electrodynamicists (Heaviside and after) considered the potentials as mathematical conveniences having no real physical reality. Today we know that is false, and that the potentials are the primary causes of all electrodynamic phenomena . In fact, e.g. the scalar potential phi's magnitude is oddly defined as the amount of energy collecting upon a unit point coulomb of charge placed at a point occupied by that potential (the potential is a bidirectional longitudinal wave flow, as shown by Whittaker in 1903. It is not even a scalar ENTITY. The collection of energy upon an intercepting point coulomb, however, is indeed a scalar value. So the "scalar" potential -- which is really a multivector entity -- has been mistakenly assumed to be a "scalar" ENTITY. A similar thing exists with the "definition" of the E-field magnitude, which is just the gradient in that "collected energy" on that point coulomb that is intercepting and diverging some of the energy flow involved. Notice that rigorously electrodynamics has thus defined electrodynamics (both fields and potentials) only as existing in, on, and of the intercepting mass. Rigorously, what we were taught DOES NOT EXIST AS SUCH in the vacuum!
But Maxwellian electrodynamics still has not been changed to alleviate those errors made so long ago (Maxwell wrote his seminal EM paper in 1864. He assumed a material ether. He threw away half the EM and half the energy, by discarding any agent that stressed his "tubes of force" under tensile stress in the vacuum, replacing Faraday's assumed "lines of force" under tensile stress. In not accounting for the stress-producing agent, he discarded Newton's third law from electrodynamics, and it is still erroneously missing from it today. Maxwell, however, carefully pointed out that his work was not finished BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN COMPLETELY UNABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR HIS ASSUMED STRESS IN THE ETHER! To this day electrodynamicists have not accounted for it.
Anyhow, to separate the variables, the electrodynamicists assumed an
arbitrary change of the phi potential. That was fine, except that it
produced an extra free force, which in their mind changed the electrodynamics because it changed the force fields which they thought were the primary causes. Changing the force fields was a no-no. So they accordingly arbitrarily changed the other potential A, but just precisely so that the extra force that THIS change made, was equal and opposite to the first extra force made by the arbitrary change in phi.
Well, they reasoned, the two forces being equal and opposite just "cancelled" each other. So they thought the electrodynamics was still the same. That separated the variables and gave them two equations that were now easy to solve.
However, consider a system and what you have done to it by such arbitrary assumptions. You have freely changed the energy of the system (regauged it) twice. And you have NOT accounted for where you received that energy FROM.
You have also arbitrarily created two extra forces out of nowhere, that are equal and opposite and therefore are stressing the system. So that is NOT the same system conditions at all that you started with! You freely changed its energy twice, and added lots of stress, and arbitrarily excluded jillions of regauging cases where the two extra forces produced ARE NOT equal and opposite.
What you did was forcibly bring the system into local thermodynamic
equilibrium. That means that classical thermodynamics rigorously applies to this ALTERED system, and so the second law applies and prevents overunity COP.
Yet it costs nothing -- as assumed by the electrodynamicists themselves -- to just freely change the potential energy of a system! I.e., to just "regauge" it, whether or not a net extra force is produced. They did it twice, in their assumptions. (In theory you do not have to do work to simply move energy!)
Regauging (changing the potential) so that no NET force results, is called symmetrical regauging and is known as the Lorentz condition. We have been trained to design all our systems this way, so they cannot ever go overunity, and cannot just freely output excess energy (which they extract from the ambient vacuum potential that is their ubiquitous external environment).
So let's reject that "highly special case" where there is no NET force
created by the regauging even though several excess forces may be created. Instead, let us freely change one or both of the potentials, but now in such a manner that there does result a net force. We are just as free to do that, by assumption, as the electrodynamicists are to do it the other way. Well, since a net force remains, we now have to call that "asymmetrical" (i.e., creates a net new force) regauging (change of the potential or potentials).
Well, now we have changed the energy of the system freely, and also we have got a new force which we can use to dissipate that excess free energy and do free work in a load. In other words, we have kept the Maxwellian system OUT of local thermodynamic equilibrium, and classical thermodynamics with its infamous second law DOES NOT APPLY. Instead, the nonlinear thermodynamics of an open system freely receiving excess energy from its environment, now applies. Voila! That type of system is permitted to (1) self oscillate, and
(2) produce more energy out than the OPERATOR HIMSELF has to input. The extra output energy, of course, is just received from the external
environment. It's just like a paddlewheel in a river, and no more strange.
To see how the electrodynamicists did the regauging, just check Jackson, second edition, Classical Electrodynamics. He very clearly shows what they did.
In particle physics, it has been known for 40 years that any charge or dipole -- either electrical or magnetic -- is a broken symmetry in the violent virtual particle flux (virtual gas) of the vacuum. In fact, it is a "Maxwell's demon" in that it too is an open system, freely receiving energy from the environment, and transforming part of that virtual energy into observable energy and radiating back to the vacuum this OBSERVABLE energy flow as well as the nonobservable virtual flow component. The observable flow is the well-known Poynting flow.
Ordinary electrodynamics makes a grave error of first magnitude in just assuming that the charge is the source of E-field, potential, Poynting flow, and all that energy filling space around it. Well, that assumption violates the most sacrosanct law of physics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Electrodynamicists already assume that charges and dipoles CREATE energy and energy flow right out of nothing, because they neglect the vacuum
interaction. Particle physics has known that to be wrong for 40 years, and proven it experimentally. But electrodynamic equations and theory have not been changed accordingly.
The end result is that every charge and dipole ALREADY is a free energy generator, which pours out energy steadily. It extracts that energy flow directly from the vacuum, and the E-field and phi-potential as defined in electrodynamics are secondary effects created in, on, and of an intercepting mass.
The blunt truth is that every power system we ever made already contains a free energy generator (a source dipole) freely extracting energy from the vacuum and pouring it out in a torrent. If we did not use half the free energy collected in the circuit to destroy the source dipole, we could readily have free energy devices. They DO NOT violate the laws of nature, physics, and thermodynamics.
For the perpetual motion skeptics, let them just go away and explain why electrodynamics assumes that the charge CREATES energy out of nothing, and pours it out and makes the E-field, the phi potential, the magnetic vector potential, the magnetic field, and so on. According to their skeptism (by the way, their "definitions" already are logically inconsistent and invalid) then all of electrodynamics is violently wrong because it already assumes gobs and gobs of perpetual motion (perpetual energy) machines called charges.
A priori, it follows that any electrodynamic argument against perpetual motion machines is invalid because the tool used to "refute" the concept already accepts it implicitly.
We just have to learn to collect and use that free energy flow, without passing load current back through the source dipole and scattering it, thereby shutting off the "energy gusher". We are carefully taught to pass all load current back through the source dipole's back emf, just so as to destroy the free energy generator we have already obtained when we separated the charges to make the dipole.
That's about as simple as I can say it, if one wishes to be correct and not just blase. One still does have to learn at least some electromagnetics, and what it is all about. There is no shortcut for that.
Hope this helps,
Tom Bearden<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr noshade size="1">
I also found a technical paper by Tom Bearden at
www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/3354/megpaper.pdf
The point that these fellows are making has to do with the electric and magnetic fields of electromangnetic radiation. Maxwell's four equations explain how these fields work, the equations are said to work out very well. However, the equations do not describe the source of these fields. The equations say that the electric field gives rise to the magnetic field gives rise to the electric field and so on. They do not describe how the fields exist (I think I can put it this way)
What this means on the cosmological level is that all the "radiation" talked about in astronomy, photons of light, x-rays, gamma rays, all electromagnetic fields is being fed energy from the INSIDE of space. More specifically it means, I'm saying this as a conjecture, that the stars "produce" more matter than they use up...In other words, empty space is not empty.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 8 months ago #12533
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Earth calling Tommy
Maybe I should come back to the conventional, the INSIDE is not something we are used to hearing about. So how does the INSIDE manifest itself in our everyday Universe? Or is it magic just like all those other conjectures? Is it just another wild idea?
Plasma. The Sun is a plasma star. I didn't make this up, National Geographic said that. Plasma. Plasma is electrical current flow, but different from what lights our bulbs. Ordinary electrical current flow is a flow of electrons in a conductor. Plasma differs in that it is a flow of both electrons and ions (Protons) in space. What is unique about plasma is that when the electrons and ions are allowed to flow freely, they assume a natural for them configuration. They tend to flow together in what are called filaments. But because they differ in mass, they form a spirialing effect on the filament called birkeland braids.
On page 9 July 2004 National Geographic writes <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> "Magnetism made visible" That describes virtually every feature on the Sun, from sunspots to soaring structures called loops. Loops easily reach the heigth of ten Earths...Energy generatied by the dynamics of smaller loops is likely the source of the corona's mysterious heat. The superheated gases that form the sun, mainly hydgrogen and helium, exist in an eletrified state called plasma. Below the surface, plasma can push and drag magnetics field lines. But when lines are strong enough to arc out, widly conductive plasma follows."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No one knows how the stars formed, and the planets too, Many have theories, but no one really knows for sure. What do we know about our sun? They talk a lot about plasma. But there is an anomaly. Seems that the surface of the Sun, the photosphere is about 6000 degrees. The corona, however, can be hundreds of times hotter. The astrophysicists cannot explain this extra heat.
Well...here we go again.
Maybe I should come back to the conventional, the INSIDE is not something we are used to hearing about. So how does the INSIDE manifest itself in our everyday Universe? Or is it magic just like all those other conjectures? Is it just another wild idea?
Plasma. The Sun is a plasma star. I didn't make this up, National Geographic said that. Plasma. Plasma is electrical current flow, but different from what lights our bulbs. Ordinary electrical current flow is a flow of electrons in a conductor. Plasma differs in that it is a flow of both electrons and ions (Protons) in space. What is unique about plasma is that when the electrons and ions are allowed to flow freely, they assume a natural for them configuration. They tend to flow together in what are called filaments. But because they differ in mass, they form a spirialing effect on the filament called birkeland braids.
On page 9 July 2004 National Geographic writes <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> "Magnetism made visible" That describes virtually every feature on the Sun, from sunspots to soaring structures called loops. Loops easily reach the heigth of ten Earths...Energy generatied by the dynamics of smaller loops is likely the source of the corona's mysterious heat. The superheated gases that form the sun, mainly hydgrogen and helium, exist in an eletrified state called plasma. Below the surface, plasma can push and drag magnetics field lines. But when lines are strong enough to arc out, widly conductive plasma follows."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No one knows how the stars formed, and the planets too, Many have theories, but no one really knows for sure. What do we know about our sun? They talk a lot about plasma. But there is an anomaly. Seems that the surface of the Sun, the photosphere is about 6000 degrees. The corona, however, can be hundreds of times hotter. The astrophysicists cannot explain this extra heat.
Well...here we go again.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 8 months ago #12572
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Tommy, Things are screwed up in science and I aggree with you on some of the ideas you have. It seems to me your ZPE is the electronic charge(1.6x10E-19J)known to exist in everything. The electron is not this charge although it was before Maxwell's time. The electron is a piece of models not reality whereas the charge is real. You say you know why atoms are stable-would you share that?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 8 months ago #12541
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You say you know why atoms are stable-would you share that?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hmmm, not often someone asked to share with them. Thanks for asking!
I used "stable" once but Tom had a good point, it's a bad metaphor. Stable is so unchanging. Atoms are dynamic wholes.
Some scientists are for real, and it was Schroedinger who wrote about the atom and confirmed what was then just a poetic thought to me. He writes that when they went into the atom, they did not find a substance. He talks about Aristotle. Instead, he says, they found form or shape. "Pure shape"
Atoms are made of relationships. It is by these relatinships that a dynamic whole is formed. And I think the question you are asking in this context is why are atoms self-sustaining? OK, you said that I know why atoms are self-sustaining, would I share that with you?
It's a long story. But the beginning was very simple. I had realized, for the first time, the relationship between parts and wholes. I wanted to make a poem out of it and my first thought was the sides of a coin make up the whole coin. BUT, brilliantly, I surmised that I already knew that, and so did everyone else. There must be more to it than just the two sides. Then it came to me.
There are three sides to every coin...
We all knew that there are two sides to every coin, but hidden from view, and holding those two sides together is the between, the Inside, the third side of every coin.
Turns out this is basic stuff, every major system starts out this way. This is what they are all talking about. What they are talking about is a relationship between the relationsal elements that has this emergent property aspect which by definition creates new stuff.
In fact there is an entire "systems movement" which will celebrate it's fiftieth year. Originally it was called the Society for General Systems Research. They have since changed the name to International Society for System Science ISSS. (And subsequently killed all general system research) Hmmmm
Bertalanffy defines a system as elements in standing relationship. Usually this definition is extended to read further "...acting as a whole in an environment." The key is the interaction between the elements. The key is to look at the elements in terms of their interactions. The key is to think in terms of interaction.
The atom is a dynamic whole. The whole is usually how we experience the emergent property of the relationships. We experience the wetness of water as a whole, but actually we are experienceing the relationship between gases. Their emergent relationship. The atom is a integrated-system of positive and negative charges in a resonant configuration.
So how does this system sustain itself? Here's how I figured it out. I read that an electron has magnetic moment. I believe that this means a magnetic field. A magnetic field, I surmised, means movement. There is something about an electron that moves. So the question becomes how does it move forever? I wondered about that for a long time...then one day --
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In a message dated 5/31/99 4:39:07 PM, Thommandel writes to the quantum-mind list.
<< ...Which reminds me of a question: Does an electron radiate energy while in its "orbit?" I understand that it does at least enough to create magnetism. I also understand that the electron does not decay and fall into the nucleus because it is locked in its orbit, it can't fall. But that doesn't explain where all this energy is coming from to keep it in orbit whether or not it can fall in the first place. I think that all subatomic particles are fed energy continuously from the INSIDE of space.
tom >>
[Hal Puthoff ]
This is explained in my paper: H. E. Puthoff, "The Ground state of hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-determined state," Phys. Rev. D vol 35, p. 3266, 1987. It is as you say: absorption of energy from the vacuum fluctuations just balances radiation due to acceleration in the orbit. The balance exists (and is stable) only for the Bohr-orbit ground state.
[tom] << So what you are saying is that all radiated energy from atomic particles is balanced by an energy input from the vacuum!? How come this wasn't touted as a great discovery of quantum physics? tom >>
[Hal Puthoff]
Among a certain group of physicists (those interested in the physics of vacuum fluctuations) it is touted. I have provided over 500 reprints. A nice "tout" was presented in the 9 Jul 1987 issue of New Scientist, p. 26, in an article titled "Why atoms don't collapse."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<hr noshade size="1">
So where is all this today? check out NASA. They got dreams of inserting a spacecraft into the ZPE, and use it to pop up in distant galaxies. You can imagine what the free-energy people are trying to do with this. Cold fusion is still around, hosting an international conference in France this year.
But what grabbed me were the crop circles. The thing about crop circles is that some of them are for real. Here real means unreal. Scientific studies have been done and anomalous evidence has been found. The bending of the plant, the exploding nodes, the dry soil, the clay crystalization changes, nitrite increases are all indicative of extreme heat. But fast, fast enough to fuse a fly's wing to the plant, or mold molten iron onto a plants cell structure.
And here is the kicker. Hundreds of sightings have been made around the crop circles of Balls of Light. or Bol's as they call them. This basketball sized ball of light appears in one video tape hovering abovwe a crop circle. When a farmer approaches on his tractor, the BoL moves across the field toward the farmer, and as it passes over the farmer, the video shows clearly the farmer twisting his head to follow it.
Plasma! Balls of Plasma. But this is yet again another story. Balls of Light have been seen all over the place. How do they work? Through the ZPE of course. The question is who or what is controlling them...
Come to think of it, an atom is a plasma ball. It has electrons, it has ions, it has movement. It has a resonance. A standing wave. It might be called a stable dynamic resonating plasma system...
I didn't know that there was a cosmological plasma until I came here.
I wonder if they know that plasma can create extra heat in basement experiments...
Hmmm, not often someone asked to share with them. Thanks for asking!
I used "stable" once but Tom had a good point, it's a bad metaphor. Stable is so unchanging. Atoms are dynamic wholes.
Some scientists are for real, and it was Schroedinger who wrote about the atom and confirmed what was then just a poetic thought to me. He writes that when they went into the atom, they did not find a substance. He talks about Aristotle. Instead, he says, they found form or shape. "Pure shape"
Atoms are made of relationships. It is by these relatinships that a dynamic whole is formed. And I think the question you are asking in this context is why are atoms self-sustaining? OK, you said that I know why atoms are self-sustaining, would I share that with you?
It's a long story. But the beginning was very simple. I had realized, for the first time, the relationship between parts and wholes. I wanted to make a poem out of it and my first thought was the sides of a coin make up the whole coin. BUT, brilliantly, I surmised that I already knew that, and so did everyone else. There must be more to it than just the two sides. Then it came to me.
There are three sides to every coin...
We all knew that there are two sides to every coin, but hidden from view, and holding those two sides together is the between, the Inside, the third side of every coin.
Turns out this is basic stuff, every major system starts out this way. This is what they are all talking about. What they are talking about is a relationship between the relationsal elements that has this emergent property aspect which by definition creates new stuff.
In fact there is an entire "systems movement" which will celebrate it's fiftieth year. Originally it was called the Society for General Systems Research. They have since changed the name to International Society for System Science ISSS. (And subsequently killed all general system research) Hmmmm
Bertalanffy defines a system as elements in standing relationship. Usually this definition is extended to read further "...acting as a whole in an environment." The key is the interaction between the elements. The key is to look at the elements in terms of their interactions. The key is to think in terms of interaction.
The atom is a dynamic whole. The whole is usually how we experience the emergent property of the relationships. We experience the wetness of water as a whole, but actually we are experienceing the relationship between gases. Their emergent relationship. The atom is a integrated-system of positive and negative charges in a resonant configuration.
So how does this system sustain itself? Here's how I figured it out. I read that an electron has magnetic moment. I believe that this means a magnetic field. A magnetic field, I surmised, means movement. There is something about an electron that moves. So the question becomes how does it move forever? I wondered about that for a long time...then one day --
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In a message dated 5/31/99 4:39:07 PM, Thommandel writes to the quantum-mind list.
<< ...Which reminds me of a question: Does an electron radiate energy while in its "orbit?" I understand that it does at least enough to create magnetism. I also understand that the electron does not decay and fall into the nucleus because it is locked in its orbit, it can't fall. But that doesn't explain where all this energy is coming from to keep it in orbit whether or not it can fall in the first place. I think that all subatomic particles are fed energy continuously from the INSIDE of space.
tom >>
[Hal Puthoff ]
This is explained in my paper: H. E. Puthoff, "The Ground state of hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-determined state," Phys. Rev. D vol 35, p. 3266, 1987. It is as you say: absorption of energy from the vacuum fluctuations just balances radiation due to acceleration in the orbit. The balance exists (and is stable) only for the Bohr-orbit ground state.
[tom] << So what you are saying is that all radiated energy from atomic particles is balanced by an energy input from the vacuum!? How come this wasn't touted as a great discovery of quantum physics? tom >>
[Hal Puthoff]
Among a certain group of physicists (those interested in the physics of vacuum fluctuations) it is touted. I have provided over 500 reprints. A nice "tout" was presented in the 9 Jul 1987 issue of New Scientist, p. 26, in an article titled "Why atoms don't collapse."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<hr noshade size="1">
So where is all this today? check out NASA. They got dreams of inserting a spacecraft into the ZPE, and use it to pop up in distant galaxies. You can imagine what the free-energy people are trying to do with this. Cold fusion is still around, hosting an international conference in France this year.
But what grabbed me were the crop circles. The thing about crop circles is that some of them are for real. Here real means unreal. Scientific studies have been done and anomalous evidence has been found. The bending of the plant, the exploding nodes, the dry soil, the clay crystalization changes, nitrite increases are all indicative of extreme heat. But fast, fast enough to fuse a fly's wing to the plant, or mold molten iron onto a plants cell structure.
And here is the kicker. Hundreds of sightings have been made around the crop circles of Balls of Light. or Bol's as they call them. This basketball sized ball of light appears in one video tape hovering abovwe a crop circle. When a farmer approaches on his tractor, the BoL moves across the field toward the farmer, and as it passes over the farmer, the video shows clearly the farmer twisting his head to follow it.
Plasma! Balls of Plasma. But this is yet again another story. Balls of Light have been seen all over the place. How do they work? Through the ZPE of course. The question is who or what is controlling them...
Come to think of it, an atom is a plasma ball. It has electrons, it has ions, it has movement. It has a resonance. A standing wave. It might be called a stable dynamic resonating plasma system...
I didn't know that there was a cosmological plasma until I came here.
I wonder if they know that plasma can create extra heat in basement experiments...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 8 months ago #12575
by Tommy
Imagine what life was like before Google?
Trying to keep focused on the ZPE, I Googled ZPE again...There's so much going on actually, especially if one gets into the free energy aspect. Too much, who do we believe? Everyone is making astounding claims. Maybe the trick is to find the right person to believe. So I found one that I figured I could believe - electron clusters. EV's produce energy-- let's go with that...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<center>THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY
by
Ken Shoulders (1)</center>
Abstract
Electron clusters, or EVOs, are shown to be ideal candidates for electrical power generation using easily available methods for manipulation of electronic charge. The work to be done is described as manipulation of the exotic vacuum in a way that takes advantage of the ability to move the EVO against an electrical load using only a fraction of the input power usually used, resulting in an energy gain. However, the high intensity of the process and ease of applying it to mischievous ends portend future difficulties with its use.
Prologue It has long been known by the author that the best form of charge manipulation for the generation of electrical power involved the use of EVs, or EVOs, in a relatively free form in either vacuum or low gas pressure. This basic method was the subject of a patent issued to Shoulders in 1991(2) for anomalous energy conversion. It was also determined early on that this discovery opened an undesirable gateway to high energy misuse of such charge structures and the work was then turned to more benign solid state methods
of thermal energy production, closely related to what is called “cold fusion”. Unfortunately, the difficulty of designing an acceptable machine for anomalous energy production was unacceptably large, primarily due to the fundamental, self-destructive nature of the process and the inability to find a feasible way to automatically rebuild the machine for a useful lifetime. This difficulty has now redirected the work toward the original process of using EVOs in a near solid-state form while immersed in low-pressure gas
containers. The attendant difficulties of mischievous use of EVOs on an unprecedented level are the secondary subject of this paper, to which the author has no viable solutions.
www.svn.net/krscfs/The%20Good%20The%20Ba...And%20The%20Ugly.pdf
Well, this little essay pretty much summarizes the ZPE engineering aspect of it. I would have been satisfied with only acknowledgement of the INSIDE for more philosophical reasons, pragmatically it is scary. They say that truth is stranger than fiction. and this story would make one hell of a movie. Someone should write the novel. A novel about how science rose to the occasion and then was used by some for personal gain. I guess I should be more accurate -- how Western science lost the keys to the frontiers of science.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"The attendant difficulties of mischievous use of..." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There would no hope in our battle with the dark forces were it not for one relationship. There would be no hope that they are dumb, and they would have ignored all this stuff, they are smart. They will buy whoever they need. They will build whatever it takes. There is no hope were it not for----
INSIDE of us. You see, while the atom, all of them, have a connection with the INSIDE, so do we! We are, all of us, connected on the INSIDE. Not only connected but instantaneously. Non-localled entangled to be more precise.
The reason that there is hope, in spite of all that emerging, is that we can only access the INSIDE through our heart. Think metaphor. The mind, think really, has only itself as its basis, so there is no other basis for the mind. The heart is used here as a metaphor for the Self, that which we are. This is different from what the mind thinks we are. Because the products of the mind are at an abstraction level above reality, they have not got the direct connection to the INSIDE. But the Self is connected to begin with. Usually they say the Self is the INSIDE. And that brings us to Love and Hate - the eternal battle.
Ken Shoulders essay as excerpted demonstrates the work being done with the ZPE, and some of the pitfalls, when there is good there is bad. Will the time come when a mad scientist invents a death ray (or synchronized plasma ball vaporizor) and tries to rule the world with it? Or a government?
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Imagine what life was like before Google?
Trying to keep focused on the ZPE, I Googled ZPE again...There's so much going on actually, especially if one gets into the free energy aspect. Too much, who do we believe? Everyone is making astounding claims. Maybe the trick is to find the right person to believe. So I found one that I figured I could believe - electron clusters. EV's produce energy-- let's go with that...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<center>THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY
by
Ken Shoulders (1)</center>
Abstract
Electron clusters, or EVOs, are shown to be ideal candidates for electrical power generation using easily available methods for manipulation of electronic charge. The work to be done is described as manipulation of the exotic vacuum in a way that takes advantage of the ability to move the EVO against an electrical load using only a fraction of the input power usually used, resulting in an energy gain. However, the high intensity of the process and ease of applying it to mischievous ends portend future difficulties with its use.
Prologue It has long been known by the author that the best form of charge manipulation for the generation of electrical power involved the use of EVs, or EVOs, in a relatively free form in either vacuum or low gas pressure. This basic method was the subject of a patent issued to Shoulders in 1991(2) for anomalous energy conversion. It was also determined early on that this discovery opened an undesirable gateway to high energy misuse of such charge structures and the work was then turned to more benign solid state methods
of thermal energy production, closely related to what is called “cold fusion”. Unfortunately, the difficulty of designing an acceptable machine for anomalous energy production was unacceptably large, primarily due to the fundamental, self-destructive nature of the process and the inability to find a feasible way to automatically rebuild the machine for a useful lifetime. This difficulty has now redirected the work toward the original process of using EVOs in a near solid-state form while immersed in low-pressure gas
containers. The attendant difficulties of mischievous use of EVOs on an unprecedented level are the secondary subject of this paper, to which the author has no viable solutions.
www.svn.net/krscfs/The%20Good%20The%20Ba...And%20The%20Ugly.pdf
Well, this little essay pretty much summarizes the ZPE engineering aspect of it. I would have been satisfied with only acknowledgement of the INSIDE for more philosophical reasons, pragmatically it is scary. They say that truth is stranger than fiction. and this story would make one hell of a movie. Someone should write the novel. A novel about how science rose to the occasion and then was used by some for personal gain. I guess I should be more accurate -- how Western science lost the keys to the frontiers of science.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"The attendant difficulties of mischievous use of..." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There would no hope in our battle with the dark forces were it not for one relationship. There would be no hope that they are dumb, and they would have ignored all this stuff, they are smart. They will buy whoever they need. They will build whatever it takes. There is no hope were it not for----
INSIDE of us. You see, while the atom, all of them, have a connection with the INSIDE, so do we! We are, all of us, connected on the INSIDE. Not only connected but instantaneously. Non-localled entangled to be more precise.
The reason that there is hope, in spite of all that emerging, is that we can only access the INSIDE through our heart. Think metaphor. The mind, think really, has only itself as its basis, so there is no other basis for the mind. The heart is used here as a metaphor for the Self, that which we are. This is different from what the mind thinks we are. Because the products of the mind are at an abstraction level above reality, they have not got the direct connection to the INSIDE. But the Self is connected to begin with. Usually they say the Self is the INSIDE. And that brings us to Love and Hate - the eternal battle.
Ken Shoulders essay as excerpted demonstrates the work being done with the ZPE, and some of the pitfalls, when there is good there is bad. Will the time come when a mad scientist invents a death ray (or synchronized plasma ball vaporizor) and tries to rule the world with it? Or a government?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 8 months ago #12576
by north
Replied by north on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />
Imagine what life was like before Google?
Trying to keep focused on the ZPE, I Googled ZPE again...There's so much going on actually, especially if one gets into the free energy aspect. Too much, who do we believe? Everyone is making astounding claims. Maybe the trick is to find the right person to believe. So I found one that I figured I could believe - electron clusters. EV's produce energy-- let's go with that...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
NO, the trick is, to know!!
<center>THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY
by
Ken Shoulders (1)</center>
Abstract
Electron clusters, or EVOs, are shown to be ideal candidates for electrical power generation using easily available methods for manipulation of electronic charge. The work to be done is described as manipulation of the exotic vacuum in a way that takes advantage of the ability to move the EVO against an electrical load using only a fraction of the input power usually used, resulting in an energy gain. However, the high intensity of the process and ease of applying it to mischievous ends portend future difficulties with its use.
Prologue It has long been known by the author that the best form of charge manipulation for the generation of electrical power involved the use of EVs, or EVOs, in a relatively free form in either vacuum or low gas pressure. This basic method was the subject of a patent issued to Shoulders in 1991(2) for anomalous energy conversion. It was also determined early on that this discovery opened an undesirable gateway to high energy misuse of such charge structures and the work was then turned to more benign solid state methods
of thermal energy production, closely related to what is called “cold fusion”. Unfortunately, the difficulty of designing an acceptable machine for anomalous energy production was unacceptably large, primarily due to the fundamental, self-destructive nature of the process and the inability to find a feasible way to automatically rebuild the machine for a useful lifetime. This difficulty has now redirected the work toward the original process of using EVOs in a near solid-state form while immersed in low-pressure gas
containers. The attendant difficulties of mischievous use of EVOs on an unprecedented level are the secondary subject of this paper, to which the author has no viable solutions.
www.svn.net/krscfs/The%20Good%20The%20Ba...And%20The%20Ugly.pdf
Well, this little essay pretty much summarizes the ZPE engineering aspect of it. I would have been satisfied with only acknowledgement of the INSIDE for more philosophical reasons, pragmatically it is scary. They say that truth is stranger than fiction. and this story would make one hell of a movie. Someone should write the novel. A novel about how science rose to the occasion and then was used by some for personal gain. I guess I should be more accurate -- how Western science lost the keys to the frontiers of science.
truth is a struggle. not a gift.
____________________________________________________________________
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"The attendant difficulties of mischievous use of..." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There would no hope in our battle with the dark forces were it not for one relationship. There would be no hope that they are dumb, and they would have ignored all this stuff, they are smart. They will buy whoever they need. They will build whatever it takes. There is no hope were it not for----
is this a movie. are you in marketing?
____________________________________________________________________
INSIDE of us. You see, while the atom, all of them, have a connection with the INSIDE, so do we! We are, all of us, connected on the INSIDE. Not only connected but instantaneously. Non-localled entangled to be more precise.
the inside needs an outside to be the inside of.
_____________________________________________________________________
The reason that there is hope, in spite of all that emerging, is that we can only access the INSIDE through our heart. Think metaphor. The mind, think really, has only itself as its basis, so there is no other basis for the mind.
the basis for the mind, is the seat of the essentials for minds existence.
_____________________________________________________________________
The heart is used here as a metaphor for the Self, that which we are. This is different from what the mind thinks we are. Because the products of the mind are at an abstraction level above reality, they have not got the direct connection to the INSIDE. But the Self is connected to begin with. Usually they say the Self is the INSIDE. And that brings us to Love and Hate - the eternal battle.
emotion leads to non-thinking. life is a balance.
__________________________________________________________________
Ken Shoulders essay as excerpted demonstrates the work being done with the ZPE, and some of the pitfalls, when there is good there is bad. Will the time come when a mad scientist invents a death ray (or synchronized plasma ball vaporizor) and tries to rule the world with it? Or a government?
and this new?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<br />
Imagine what life was like before Google?
Trying to keep focused on the ZPE, I Googled ZPE again...There's so much going on actually, especially if one gets into the free energy aspect. Too much, who do we believe? Everyone is making astounding claims. Maybe the trick is to find the right person to believe. So I found one that I figured I could believe - electron clusters. EV's produce energy-- let's go with that...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
NO, the trick is, to know!!
<center>THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY
by
Ken Shoulders (1)</center>
Abstract
Electron clusters, or EVOs, are shown to be ideal candidates for electrical power generation using easily available methods for manipulation of electronic charge. The work to be done is described as manipulation of the exotic vacuum in a way that takes advantage of the ability to move the EVO against an electrical load using only a fraction of the input power usually used, resulting in an energy gain. However, the high intensity of the process and ease of applying it to mischievous ends portend future difficulties with its use.
Prologue It has long been known by the author that the best form of charge manipulation for the generation of electrical power involved the use of EVs, or EVOs, in a relatively free form in either vacuum or low gas pressure. This basic method was the subject of a patent issued to Shoulders in 1991(2) for anomalous energy conversion. It was also determined early on that this discovery opened an undesirable gateway to high energy misuse of such charge structures and the work was then turned to more benign solid state methods
of thermal energy production, closely related to what is called “cold fusion”. Unfortunately, the difficulty of designing an acceptable machine for anomalous energy production was unacceptably large, primarily due to the fundamental, self-destructive nature of the process and the inability to find a feasible way to automatically rebuild the machine for a useful lifetime. This difficulty has now redirected the work toward the original process of using EVOs in a near solid-state form while immersed in low-pressure gas
containers. The attendant difficulties of mischievous use of EVOs on an unprecedented level are the secondary subject of this paper, to which the author has no viable solutions.
www.svn.net/krscfs/The%20Good%20The%20Ba...And%20The%20Ugly.pdf
Well, this little essay pretty much summarizes the ZPE engineering aspect of it. I would have been satisfied with only acknowledgement of the INSIDE for more philosophical reasons, pragmatically it is scary. They say that truth is stranger than fiction. and this story would make one hell of a movie. Someone should write the novel. A novel about how science rose to the occasion and then was used by some for personal gain. I guess I should be more accurate -- how Western science lost the keys to the frontiers of science.
truth is a struggle. not a gift.
____________________________________________________________________
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"The attendant difficulties of mischievous use of..." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There would no hope in our battle with the dark forces were it not for one relationship. There would be no hope that they are dumb, and they would have ignored all this stuff, they are smart. They will buy whoever they need. They will build whatever it takes. There is no hope were it not for----
is this a movie. are you in marketing?
____________________________________________________________________
INSIDE of us. You see, while the atom, all of them, have a connection with the INSIDE, so do we! We are, all of us, connected on the INSIDE. Not only connected but instantaneously. Non-localled entangled to be more precise.
the inside needs an outside to be the inside of.
_____________________________________________________________________
The reason that there is hope, in spite of all that emerging, is that we can only access the INSIDE through our heart. Think metaphor. The mind, think really, has only itself as its basis, so there is no other basis for the mind.
the basis for the mind, is the seat of the essentials for minds existence.
_____________________________________________________________________
The heart is used here as a metaphor for the Self, that which we are. This is different from what the mind thinks we are. Because the products of the mind are at an abstraction level above reality, they have not got the direct connection to the INSIDE. But the Self is connected to begin with. Usually they say the Self is the INSIDE. And that brings us to Love and Hate - the eternal battle.
emotion leads to non-thinking. life is a balance.
__________________________________________________________________
Ken Shoulders essay as excerpted demonstrates the work being done with the ZPE, and some of the pitfalls, when there is good there is bad. Will the time come when a mad scientist invents a death ray (or synchronized plasma ball vaporizor) and tries to rule the world with it? Or a government?
and this new?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.360 seconds