Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst 1 11 15 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 285

Thread: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

  1. Link to Post #201
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    8th December 2012
    Posts
    126
    Thanks
    148
    Thanked 402 times in 101 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    Well since you are an admin endorse by the streering group, I will say only this, your attitude is indeed non-objective, stubborn and truly sad.

    Wish you and all the best.

    I will not ignore unfairness, denials, aversions and power trip, therefore, I am leaving.

    Snowy Owl

  2. Link to Post #202
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    12th May 2012
    Posts
    131
    Thanks
    99
    Thanked 947 times in 126 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    Quote your attitude is indeed non-objective, stubborn and truly sad.
    Agreed.

    Quote I will not ignore unfairness, denials, aversions and power trip,
    These are things which I find appalling and offensive myself.


    I wont ignore it either but it does seem a shame that people will suffer not having the benefit of hearing my free expression, thoughts and perhaps wisdom , without unfounded accusations against me of idiocy or profiteering. A great deal of effort went into doing this work. I have given up literally years of career time, and am now destitute.

    Did I ask for money? No. Did I want to advertise my book? Yes, to help get this information out there, not to make profit. Yes I self published my book. What of it. I made no effort to approach any publisher, I simply gave up work, and believe me it has upset many friends, colleagues and family doing something that basically nobody was doing, or wanted me to do. I wanted to do it, for you, for you all. What I know is big stuff and the world will be a terrible place if it does not become aware of it. Truly. It is not remarkable, I see that I have already partially failed to save off the old stories of suppression, deception, hearsay, speculation and true human ignorance for want of a better word. Humanity.


    Not naming names but these people know who they are. They are the people that have made up their mind already and choose to slander me. Nothing wrong with a question right. Clearly it's the way people ask the question. I feel like my effort to communicate this information has been taken over by irrelevant argumentative and generally low minds. I share what I have at great cost, and likely at peril to my livelyhood - it is worth noting if the massive criminal conspiracy exists as I have witnessed, explained and testified is true, I may pay the ultimate price.

    Some greeting for me huh?

    So whilst people continue to argue here about who said what or did or didn't offend who, I can go out fully knowing that I tried to convey my thoughts and researches, and can go away in the full knowledge that the scientific facts, historical and technical facts I have shared are true. I tried to do a good thing, and I can walk away from this feeling alright. The people who can't, Truly they have my deepest sympathies and apologies that I could not help further. Truly.

    You will not hear a more genuine word or story than mine.

    It is a fact that the electromagnetic wave everyone is talking about here has absolutely nothing to do with my work. The comments made by some one about have been most preposterous, as we are not talking about light we are talking about those so-called electrons, or rather electricity, traveling faster than the constant square of light to energy and mass exchange. Somebody mentioned that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in any media. I wish that were true or I would not be here in the first place. In the vacuum of space cosmic rays travel between 292,000 and 9,300,000 miles per hour. The electromagnetic theory is by definition criminally and socially useless. This is what I have repeated throughout this thread in numerous different ways. All on deaf ears? Not all. Thank you to those people, you know who you are. You have my respect and appreciation and it is with sincere greetings I am glad to have yours. This is how it should be, should it not?

    Some waves travel well in excess of 50 times the speed of light, they will go through absolutely anything, and are tiny. Indeed, whilst light has a limited amount of mass, and comprises of a great deal of wave particle energy, the electron consists greatly of mass in it's conveyance of charge, and it is a fundamental principle of relativity and the famous einstein equation that nothing with mass can travel faster than the speed of light. This includes the so-called electron, the thing that is conveying our so-called electricity, as modern scientists and anyone academically trained will declare.

    Of course the electron, as professed by the so-called experts cannot travel faster than the speed of light, because of it's mass, but what if the thing that caused the electron to rotate around it's atom was not consisting of mass, nor was it constrained by the speed of light. Then all the completely appalling attitudes that did rear their ugly heads can take a bite of biscuit for why I repeatedly asked them to explain why an electron, with it's mass, and therefore requiring energy, according to einsteins equation to rotate around the atom, yet this is not accounted for. There is no place we know that the energy comes from, and we do not know what makes the electrons spin like they do.

    In fact if the thing scientists call electrons were not in perpetual motion around atoms, no conductors would conduct electricity. So, the thing limiting the mass of the electron with it's negative charge traveling from point A to B is not the mass of the electron is it, nor is it it's energy , power or charge, it is the perpetual motion.

    The energy to account for the perpetual motion of the electron is missing, and conveniently ignored by relativitsts, but quantum physicists are not so deluded. Feynman, nobel prize winner was not fooled, he realised this early on, hence why he invented the modern phase diagram for quantum wave theory, because he knew that thinking inside the ordinary box of singular energies was wrong, the straight line and energy of any photon and electron actually consists of an almost infinite amount of energy, which in quantum superposition almost completely cancel out. If there was a way to deflect and bend, like a prism can split light, but for some of the quantum paths of the photons and electrons, we could all have free energy, right now. It is likely if this was possible that the energy gained, would come from somewhere, perhaps the thing that gives the electrons their perpetual motion.

    It is interesting to note that it is the motion of the MEDIA and it's PERPETUAL negative electron orbits is the true thing that allows the electromagnetic waves of electron particle mass to travel at the speed of light through the medium at approximately the speed of light. The electron conveyed at point B at the end of a transmission line electron-conveyer is in fact a different electron than the one that went in the transmission line at point A. This must be the case because Einsteins theory says the electron has mass, and anything with mass cannot travel so close to the speed of light. This proves that it is the media that is the thing that is doing the work, and allowing an electron going in point A to create the appearance of a new electron at point B at light speed. So A electron is traveling at about walking pace or less, but B came out instantly. The pressure and motion of the valent media is the thing that caused the velocity of the output at B, and indeed the electron was an electron out of the atomic wire, pushed out because of the pressure of the mass charge A entering in between the sub divided atomic media. Or rather, for every ampere there is an equal and opposite ampere.

    It is well worth noting the Copenhagen interpretation of spooky action at a distance (which is proven) shows instant transmission from point A to point B. Therefore accounting that the motion and energy that carried it there must be of an infinite velocity and infinite energy.

    Poor einstein. You can see why he hated the idea and looked so grumpy in the Copenhagen picture I presented to you all. He'd LOST, and that's a fact. All day he spent trying to disprove it, and inventing reasons for why it "couldn't be". Scientsits do that all the time. But the great Einstein died, still without a solution. Poor Einstein, indeed.

    This is all proof that it was the pre-existing electron motion of the sub divided atoms we call the transmission media that were truly responsible for the media's ability to conduct and transmit. It also means that einstein's theory of relativity and the theory of maximal limit of light in a vacuum ignores space as a media, and a dimension, and fails to understand the true non electromagnetic nature of the electrostatic discharge as professed by Tesla and Wheatstone. It is also proof that all light speed propogations in Q.E.D result from faster than light propogations of a multitude of other waves of different velocities and positions. (AKA Heisenberg uncertainty and Feynman).

    The evidence is staring many of you in the face. But many of you would rather rattle on in self exorbitance. I am glad many steersmen and hijackers of this thread feel good and confident about themselves. I however have never been confident in any of the ideas I propose, as, I have often learnt that being too quick to judge is an embarassing endeavor. It has taught me to be thorough, to not act quickly, to think before judging, and most importantly of all, to respect all human beings of all kinds. Maybe this explains why I tried to bring this information to you all in the first place.


    I would add that human ignorance is the greatest and most destructive force on this planet. And having re-read this thread thoroughly, and the facts that I have stated, I can say firmly and confidently myself that it was not I who has been ignorant here.

    Some people ought to know better, but others want to make sure of it , that is, that "other people ought to know better" - and they are not afraid to speak and assert their theories no matter how droll, conservative or outright ridiculous they are. Many of the theories I have proposed seem difficult for the scientist, and I think that has been demonstrated here.

    I will not partake in a massive "hoo haw" appealing to authority - I do my own research and experiments, and people here would do well to do the same. I cannot recount the number of times that people have told me "what are you doing, playing with sparks, idiot, this teaches me nothing" . Invariably they are always men that have accepted the description of the electron, and the neutrino, and the neutron, and so and and so on, and stringently believe things like radioactivity "take care of themselves". The truth is that radioactivity COMPLETELY CEASES when shielded from cosmic rays, that is, starlight to the folks that find it difficult to keep up with my "badly presented" posts.

    Perhaps it is not what I present, but the competence, and the self centered and self assuredness of some of the people here leaping to conclusions. That is the opinion my technical experience lends me to consider strongly after witnessing this debacle. Before attempting to understand the advanced ideas that I have laid to rest here, they are quick to quote what they believe and only know to be right. Do not think that I am not familiar with your explanations. I have shown that I am.

    The reason why I continuously asked for relativists to account for perpetual motion of the electron has been asserted.

    Because it can't be explained. Yet electrical theory, the whole of relativity and spooky action at a distance may very well be deeply, or entirely dependent on perpetual motion. Ironically it is outlawed, that is perpetual motion, and every academic is told to hunt down and slay anyone who suggests otherwise, more often than that, making continuous demands for "extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims".

    My friends I have backed up my extraordinary claims with the patent of Nikola Tesla himself, giving the speed of his waves as 292,000 miles per second, a full 105,000 miles per second faster than light. It remains a FACT that I have actually provided quite a lot more than that. and my God I wish I could convey to you how difficult it has been. This is not a new reaction you know. Look what they did to Wilhelm Reich, they wanted to "help him" and save peoples lives from fake cancer cures. Ya think? This stuff has been around for decades, more people would be using it if people were more competent or even less ignorant.

    Nothing will be good enough, these people have already decided. It now remains to be seen whether I will be allowed to explain it to the people that haven't without these infernal and unsupported accusations largely claiming the same of me. I beg to differ, and I will leave it at that.

    People have judged incorrectly in many cases, and for that, I am truly sorry that my best was not good enough for them. I am also truly regretful that my plight to help people, at great risk and deep and personal sacrafice to my body , mind and spirit could be confused with the appalling suggestions and frankly very rude and upsetting behavior of some people here.

    I was warned not to try, and was warned that this would happen, but I am a scientist and I do believe in free commune, but when so many might jump to these conclusions, it is really no wonder that the things I have been speaking about here, the forgotten electricity systems of Nikola Tesla have been lost and deleted. - you let it - you let idiots lead you. You were greedy instead of competent, self absorbed rather than world-centric. You thought small, instead of big, and so your world reflected it. The small man, that is all that is left. Regardless that we had free energy in 1914.

    Make no mistake I attempted to expose this , (and I did quite admirably) that Radio Corporation America is a criminal enterprise expressly designed and enacted by the U.S military government to takeover tesla's last remaining works and funnel them into government and military projects. Now most are classified - removing quietly the multiple loaded flat top antenna and replacing it with the rhombic-D. There will be no more special scalar waves, and faster than light waves mr marconi and mr tesla, there will be no more longitudinal magneto dielectric tesla coils or wardenclyffe towers mr tesla and marconi, there will be only the electromagnetic, the billions of times more wasteful electrical system, and boy will we make a killing!

    Literally - a killing! More have died because of this than in the last world war. International poverty is a terrible thing.

    Make no mistake, these technical details outlay the greatest criminal conspiracy to ever happen. And to all those completely bemused how something could be so true, we only need to look at some of the reactions from people here to see how quickly a fool will lap up a commendation or some false sense of "helping" and "protecting people against the ideas of liars and con artists"; we stand to now observe this reaction is in fact venom from the liars and con artists themselves. These people are the ones that are to blame for things like this going unnoticed.

    Perhaps if you have to "save people" maybe they weren't saving. Or maybe you can't accept an alternative point of view, and answer a few basic questions yourself.

    A truly shocking memorandum I have.

    Best,
    A


    Remarks:

    Quote

    It is however, that the Telluric Transmission Networks of N. Tesla are completely engineer-able. This is also true for the U.S.N. Alexanderson systems of transmission. The Rogers U.S.N. system also should be noted. The Tesla “thru the Earth” radio has been rendered mere technical details by the writings of L.V. Bewely, Blume, Steinmetz, and Dollard. In particular note Bewely, “Traveling Waves on Transmission Systems,” chapter on single winding waves, and Dollard, “Condensed Introduction to the Tesla Transformer”, and “Theory of Wireless Power” section on coil Coil Calculations.

    The Tesla Magnifying Transmitter is now an engineer-able reality, this for any competent radio engineer. The 160 meter Ham Band, (1.8 – 2.0 Megacycle per sec.) is the perfect spot for our “International Contest.” My longitudinal videos show the construction of a “160 meter” flat spiral transformer.

    These medium wave frequencies along with large paths of transmission on a quadrant of the Earth make velocity determination possible.

    Note that Tesla’s drawing indicates that velocity depends on the cosecant of the latitudinal angle, it is infinity at the poles and luminal at the equator, if anyone ever bothered to look at the fine print. The pi over two is the effective velocity between the limits of c and infinity.

    There is no longer any excuse for not implementing Tesla Transmission on the Ham Bands, none!
    Eric Dollard 12-05-2011

    A bad Situation

    Quote Lieutenant Junior Grade, U.S.N. Albert Einstein is seated before five senior officers at a Judge Advocate General Board of Inquiry. It has been convened at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. Lt. J.G. Einstein is the defendant and the Board is about to issue it’s verdict. The charges are very serious.

    It seems that Mr. Einstein utilized a college physics textbook, in lieu of Bureau of Ships directives, in performing operations on a shore power connection. Mr. Einstein employed “his understanding”, as derived from Physics, “Maxwell’s Equations”, in determining the connections for a shore power transformer bank (480V at 1500 KVA). Seaman Lopez was directed by Lt. J.G. Einstein to make the “backward” connections, but Lopez knew the outcome would spell disaster. He learned in his Naval Electricians Mate training that the connection would cross phase, however Mr. Einstein berated Lopez, as Einstein’s Princeton University education overshadowed “Electricity Schools”. Lopez was reminded that to refuse orders would result in a Captains Mast and possible Court Martial under the U.C.M.J. A terrified Lopez closed the switch and was killed in the blast. Four more were injured and the Shipyard was without power for several hours.

    Lieutenant Junior Grade Albert Einstein was pronounced –guilty- by the Board. He received a life sentence at Leavenworth Federal Prison. The next day the Chief of Naval Operations issues the following directive to all Fleet Commanders. It reads in part; At 0000 hours U.T.C. Dec 21, 2012 the following order is in effect: The use of Physics Texts in any and all Naval Operations is henceforth PROHIBITED. The next day a Presidential Order is signed abolishing the practice of teaching Electrical Principles by Physicists. (But the Mayan Calendar says we will not make it that far)

    We have reached the Final Proclamation. It can no longer be avoided. It is that the “Laws of Physics” find no application in the understanding of Electricity for the Electrical Scientist. The Physicist is best regarded as a subversive from an enemy country, and his efforts best suited for the development of “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

    The entire system of “Units and Dimensions” for electrical work as they exist today are an incongruous quagmire force fit to Einstein’s E equals mc square. Electricity is a “mass free” phenomena. This is given by Dr. Wilhelm Reich in his “Cosmic Superimposition”. Mass has no place in Electrical Units and a directive is issued to remove it from said units and dimensions. The question of mass is touched upon by Oliver Heaviside in his “Electro-Magnetic Theory” Vol I, pages 337 to 339.

    Art. 189, Internal Obstruction and Superficial Conduction
    On page 339, “In the limit, with no resistance (perfect conduction) it never gets in at all. Where then is the current?” There is none.

    It is further found that the existing system of units are infected with useless constants such as 4*pi and one over c square, as well as a multitude of arbitrary powers of ten. The systems of units as they exist today are pure N.F.G. This is given by Heaviside, same Volume I, pages 116 to 123.

    Art. 90, “The eruption of the 4*pi”

    Art. 91, “The origin and the spread of the Eruption.”

    Art. 92, “The cure of the Disease by Proper Measure of the Strength of the Sources.”

    Art. 93, “The Obnoxious Effect of the Eruption.”

    Art. 94, “A Plea For the Removal of The Eruption by the Radical Cure.”

    Here now the Primary Directive is issued: Rationalize the system of units and dimensions. Remove all “pathogenic” dimensional relations, MASS IN PARTICULAR. This will follow shortly. (Also, on this matter see “Impulses, Waves, Discharges”, Steinmetz, pages 14 & 15.)

    Lamare has pushed forward these writings in order to accommodate the “Moon-bounce Initiative”. Hence certain introductory material for the “Youngsters” must be passed over for now. This “act of genius” on the part of Lamare must in itself be pushed forward; An International Ham Contest to disprove Einstein, (but do not ask the A.R.R.L.). Wow Mr. Wizard, that sounds like loads of fun. Lets get started today.

    It should be noted however that Lamare is taking a most difficult path. His route lacks any definite engineering formulation but let me draw his attention to C.P. Steinmetz and the treatment of a related situation. It is found in “Theory and Calculation of Transient Electric Phenomena”, “Transients in Space” and section on “Velocity of Propagation of the Electric Field, Capacity of a Sphere”. When the one over c square and the 4*pi*10^-9 are eliminated, the velocity of propagation of the dielectric field is an independent variable. These relations were given by myself at the International Tesla Society in my lecture “Hysteresis of the Aether”. The P.E.E.E., QRM and Dis-infos were conspicuously absent from this presentation! I wonder why?

    It is however, that the Telluric Transmission Networks of N. Tesla are completely engineer-able. This is also true for the U.S.N. Alexanderson systems of transmission. The Rogers U.S.N. system also should be noted. The Tesla “thru the Earth” radio has been rendered mere technical details by the writings of L.V. Bewely, Blume, Steinmetz, and Dollard. In particular note Bewely, “Traveling Waves on Transmission Systems,” chapter on single winding waves, and Dollard, “Condensed Introduction to the Tesla Transformer”, and “Theory of Wireless Power” section on coil Coil Calculations. The Tesla Magnifying Transmitter is now an engineer-able reality, this for any competent radio engineer. The 160 meter Ham Band, (1.8 – 2.0 Megacycle per sec.) is the perfect spot for our “International Contest.” My longitudinal videos show the construction of a “160 meter” flat spiral transformer. These medium wave frequencies along with large paths of transmission on a quadrant of the Earth make velocity determination possible. Note that Tesla’s drawing indicates that velocity depends on the cosecant of the latitudinal angle, it is infinity at the poles and luminal at the equator, if anyone ever bothered to look at the fine print. The pi over two is the effective velocity between the limits of c and infinity. There is no longer any excuse for not implementing Tesla Transmission on the Ham Bands, none!

    Now the Coyote has to puke. Up comes the goo & mucus of undigestable matter, what a mess. Forget the Bearden fecal matter, Forget the Corum carrion. IT IS ABSOLUTELY USELESS. This material is Pathogenic, also from another standpoint. There are Journalistic Interest, such as the B.B.C. & etc. that sometimes turn a favorable ear to Tesla concepts. For these interested to get mired in a concatenated sequence of falsehoods & misconceptions is the “Kiss of Death” to any public awareness. It also illegitimizes “The Work” in the eyes of Scientists & Engineers. Puke it up once and for all!

    The Bearden zealot stands at the bottom of the utility pole, exclaiming to the lineman on top, replacing a missing cross-arm brace, “You lose half your power in that 33KV line (50% efficient) because you don’t pump the Scalar Waves.” The irritated Lineman drops the brace and now must climb down to retrieve it. Angered, the Lineman slams his fist into the mouth of the yac-yac, knocking him to the ground and shouts, “This Line is 98% efficient you moron.” What more can I say, Heaviside E.M. Theory, Vol III, page 1, art. 450.

    Adagio. Andante, Allegro Moderato.

    “There is a time for all things: for shouting, for gentle speaking, for silence; for washing of pots and the writing of books. Let the pots go black, and set to work. It is hard to make a beginning, but it must be done.” Oliver Heaviside

    73 DE N6KPH
    Eric Dollard, 12-05-2011
    Last edited by 7redorbs; 7th January 2013 at 07:01.

  3. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to 7redorbs For This Post:

    eaglespirit (7th January 2013), Gardener (7th January 2013), Jean-Luc (7th January 2013), mosquito (7th January 2013), SnowyOwl (7th January 2013), Swan (7th January 2013)

  4. Link to Post #203
    Belgium Avalon Member Jean-Luc's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Location
    near Brussels
    Age
    64
    Posts
    628
    Thanks
    5,382
    Thanked 5,182 times in 591 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    I am sorry I have no time at the moment to delve more into the discussion. But my general feeling is that the understanding on this thread is particularly difficult and that we are talking at different levels.

    And I believe it’s more related to feelings (and at times perhaps lack of...) that any hard core stubbornness from either parties.

    If I may...

    Our dear Paul’s attitude – which I so often appreciate as being to the point and subtle with this unique British gentleman flavour – is here at times received, and I can and do understand that, given the context, as condescending and even arrogant. Would I be in Paul’s shoes, I would feel neither one nor the other, for all sorts of good factual reasons which indeed can be traced back in very single post of this thread. The fact remains that this is how it is felt and it is unfortunately not conducive to the advancement of this topic.

    This being said, I value Dennis’s very good advice here to have Adam try and find an assistant to help him convey his (most probably) brilliant theories for the layman.

    Quote Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
    Adam, in the world of software development, it is accepted that the very worst possible candidate for the job of creating documentation and especially "help" files for the software is the lead programmer. Why? Because the lead programmer is immersed and fully aware of every nuance of the software - and cannot possibly look with a "fresh pair of eyes" that a "newbie" to the software will have. So, the job of creating "help" files is always given to someone else (in anything bigger than a one-man programming firm.)

    As someone said a while ago, you need an assistant. You need a non-physicist (not even an amateur physicist) to explain your ideas. You need only explain the ideas to this one person, this one well-organized person capable of producing a simple text description (at least) and multimedia presentations (at best.) As Flash said, the history of where the ideas came from is interesting, but is dragging down the thread's promise of new (or hidden/forgotten) energy science.
    Also, as this would be such a catalyst, I would really urge you, Adam, to consider Eaglespirit’s suggestion for collaboration. This is also what this community is here for.

    Quote Posted by eaglespirit (here)
    I am going to send some pm's out to people I am close to here...it really is time to get together some how and put these things to work...even if it is a lone cabin in the woods right now. I really feel if we put this to work in a simple household set up we will not be hindered by those people and things that have stopped many in their tracks. We are on the verge of a big breakthrough.
    Simply showing how a small home can be run with this while other 'advanced' things are being freed up all around us in every facet of our lives as these changes occur more rapidly now will be a powerful catalyst.
    That is what we are here for.

    And I am grateful for all of you here trying so hard to do something here at Avalon in each and all of those 'facets' of life that we need to change, pronto!

    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post611712

    ......
    edited to add current reply:
    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post611724

    As Adam put’s it:
    Quote Posted by 7redorbs (here)
    Time is short.
    And the time is now.

    Let’s take some deep breath, some time to ponder and meditate, leaving our turmoil and irritations on the side. And go for it.
    ___________

    Post Edit

    Meanwhile, the "Keshe" classroom is currentlty being prepaired : cf. this thread "Homemade laboratory" here:

    http://forum.keshefoundation.org/sho...ull=1#post6196

    Quote The response to the


    The truth seeker;6078]Here is my list of what I believe will be needed (Mr. Keshe can comment/advise if I make a mistake):

    1) probably the most important!! a GEIGER COUNTER!! (to make sure that you are not harming yourself in the process of the experiments) yes
    2) Vaccume pump (Mr. Keshe advises that a pump able to reach -7 BAR is needed and probably costs ~1000 EU, his pumps are ~10000 EU) yes
    3) Multi-meter (digital is probably the best) yes
    4) Tanks of certain elements (the list of elements to be provided during the teaching, as I do not want to advise anyone "what elements" to get) H, He, N, C, O,
    5) Empty tanks to hold new materials/elements and to provide a safe way of "flushing" the reactor: yes
    6) Oscilloscope (probably a good idea, but not known if it is required) not realy as there is no oscillation in plasma conditions
    7) (this is for people that are going to create the reactor from scratch) - Brazing/welding materials to construct the core. (a nicely equiped shop would be great!) get the tanks made or buy of the shelves for about 100_300 euros
    8) a florecent light tube, for testing the magnetic fields outside the reactor (as per the study group and comments Mr. Keshe posted) not needed

    and probably THE most important "check" to make:

    9+10) UNDERSTANDING the technology!!! You could do so much good by creating the reactor, but could also do so much harm if not understood the principles behind what you are doing, and the do's and don'ts of the system (again, Mr. Keshe to advise during the teachings, but your job is to understand what he is teaching). Read, read, read, but most of all, understand!!!!

    We will start showing of the reactors and systems on lab condition in the first weeks of the this year; we are waiting for webmaster to put things in order for live presentations from the lab.

    From this point on everything will put across directly.

    You can ask questions during the lab tests too.

    M.T. Kehse - Jan 6, 2012.
    Adam, can you help?
    Last edited by Jean-Luc; 7th January 2013 at 11:26.

  5. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Jean-Luc For This Post:

    7redorbs (9th January 2013), eaglespirit (7th January 2013), Eram (7th January 2013), Gardener (7th January 2013), Hervé (7th January 2013), Kristin (8th January 2013), Marianne (7th January 2013), mosquito (8th January 2013), SnowyOwl (7th January 2013), Swan (7th January 2013), ThePythonicCow (7th January 2013)

  6. Link to Post #204
    UK Avalon Member Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th January 2011
    Age
    77
    Posts
    1,063
    Thanks
    29,152
    Thanked 5,131 times in 997 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    There is something rumbling around in my thoughts which I think is relevent to this thread, I need to exress it. Getting energy from the void, zero point energy, free energy (in an economic exchange sense) in a consistent perhaps non random way may have a consciouness component. I could even say 'must' have by necessity. In any event I 'think' thought is energy which does indeed travel in an instant! But in a general sense 'we' are not at all (yet) in control of our emotional 'thinking'. The damaged ego has indeed a lot to answer for in its need to be right in the preservation of itself, and its need to profit the self from its actions.

    This is not a criticism of human kind, it is a heartfelt plea for introspection without judgement to observe who and what we are at this moment, and what we might become when indeed we can bring these wild horses under willing control. An example might be that the thinking head part is doing the work of the emotional heart and getting it wrong, 'render unto Ceaser...' and all that. The Ego antipathy fears lack, its predatorial tendency fears identification, and rejects and dismisses anything non-same.

    The monolith which is the energy economy of the world is in this space. Collectively we reside there too until we are able to move forward and de-bug the personal psyche. It is a painful road. There is not a scientist in the world who can in fact collect data and make correlations except within him/herself. Somewhere along the road there will be that meeting place the lines will cross and there will be a collective 'Aha' moment which will manifest this energy into current science.
    Here is where zero point energy is waiting, here we will find acceptance, knowing of an abundant life. For the time being those expressing creative possibility in this area are the jewel of our future. I feel we should nurture it.
    "Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves" C. G. Jung

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Gardener For This Post:

    eaglespirit (7th January 2013), Jean-Luc (7th January 2013), mosquito (8th January 2013), SnowyOwl (7th January 2013)

  8. Link to Post #205
    United States Avalon Member Dennis Leahy's Avatar
    Join Date
    14th January 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Language
    English
    Age
    71
    Posts
    6,865
    Thanks
    48,684
    Thanked 50,139 times in 5,941 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    Quote Posted by SnowyOwl (here)
    ...I agree with all the above Paul but you have to admit that you, dennis and teaseract knowcked on the same nail one after another, this can not be consider fair nor Fair Tribune expression. Please do not come on the admin problems of managing a thread I have been an administrator of few forum of wich two where Vanilla. Such convergence of conceptual opposition is indeed coercive bullying....
    Perhaps English is a second language or I have not expressed myself well, but I have been encouraging, not bullying, Adam. Adam knows this.

    Dennis
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 7th January 2013 at 16:21. Reason: fix quoting


  9. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Dennis Leahy For This Post:

    7redorbs (7th January 2013), eaglespirit (7th January 2013), Marianne (7th January 2013), mosquito (8th January 2013), SnowyOwl (7th January 2013)

  10. Link to Post #206
    Avalon Member eaglespirit's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th November 2010
    Posts
    2,720
    Thanks
    50,159
    Thanked 25,183 times in 2,653 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.


  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to eaglespirit For This Post:

    Dennis Leahy (7th January 2013), Marianne (7th January 2013), modwiz (7th January 2013), SnowyOwl (7th January 2013)

  12. Link to Post #207
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    8th December 2012
    Posts
    126
    Thanks
    148
    Thanked 402 times in 101 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    Quote Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
    Quote Posted by SnowyOwl (here)
    ...I agree with all the above Paul but you have to admit that you, dennis and teaseract knowcked on the same nail one after another, this can not be consider fair nor Fair Tribune expression. Please do not come on the admin problems of managing a thread I have been an administrator of few forum of wich two where Vanilla. Such convergence of conceptual opposition is indeed coercive bullying....
    Perhaps English is a second language or I have not expressed myself well, but I have been encouraging, not bullying, Adam. Adam knows this.

    Dennis
    Salutations Dennis, First I truly appreciated your reaching out and your statement concerning ''my confusions in languages'', I am aware of it and it is normal when you get into deep understanding of languages that are coherent but not at all the same cohesive methodology has in English, and it is «truthfull, English is not my first language, it is the third. For me your post above is like the calling bol gong up in Nepal and eastern Tibet. Without prejudice I will read again the whole thread. Backing off indeed allow me to see better the whole picture of course. Backing off from a branch of tree allows me to see better the forest than the trees hiding it. Frankly, for now, I still have the same opinion but I must do this retrospective homework again and I am aware that a Second Reading will certainly reinforce or attenuated, or as we say in French bring forth some ''Nuances'' (Fine TUning). Anonymity has its privileges too but authenticity has its duty. And here I am talking about Bill, a couple of decade ago Bill Dared to Care enough to share what I considered important informations despites the backlash he was aware that was incoming. So, Thank you Dennis, your expression in the above post is respectfull, and for Snowy Owl, When a Perch is brought towards you, just go on it, Perch and reflect. Thank you from a former Téton neighbord. Already you have removed the sadness that emerged within me to have the privilege to give back a piece of my expetise and a piece of my heart to Bill via this forum «take 2» since in the forum first draft, despite being a member and a poster it was not possible, then to give back goodness to Bill. Paul, yes I was surprised that you have persist and sign on your evaluation, but knowing where you are, having immersed for awhile in your surrounding, swiftly and impulsively bowing to pressure ain't what must be done impulsively. Texas, as Québec are the two most stubborn Euro-American Cultures of North America after the First Nations of course. Objectively, and few people knows that, Texas bear on its ''intra muros'' energy production layout the responsability of being the dispatcher-coordinator of all the electrical energy west of the Missisipi way up to western Canadian Provinces, just has Québec bear the responsability of all the East energy from Florida to Nova Scotia. Regional narrow relations in our both regions has made us bashing spacegoat, but still, not only we are both autarcic in electric energic, we both export and have agreed to support our respective Western and Eastern neighbords notwhitstanding of the Country. LOL, probably this is a direct consequences of being the two annoying stubborn Souverignists region of US and Canada. Salutations Adam, Since we agree that our attitude is a determinant in what we are bound to live, may I ask you, please, to avoid putting the light on the nasty greedy ones that have used science as a propaganda tool, coz, you know as I know that we can share a lot of informations, helpfull, pragmatic and pratical ones from the Leonardo Da Vinci of the 20th Century. Aware or not, we indeed need to restore Tesla Genius farsight visionnary testimony. Thank you all, Now time for me to do my homework. The " Knight Path " is a Path of gracefull empowerment for all. It is a Path that trigger the reflex to head straight to the essentials, not choosing flying away in adversity, courageously daring to stand the Ground knowing full well that believing to be the bearer of Certitude is immature and medidation and revision without renouncing Mindset layout is Noble and is part of the Kathas of the ''Knight Path''. Sincerely and truly, Snowy Owl
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 7th January 2013 at 16:58. Reason: fix quoting

  13. Link to Post #208
    Avalon Member Tesseract's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th October 2012
    Posts
    834
    Thanks
    1,740
    Thanked 3,418 times in 744 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    My questioning of the OP on several points is completely legitimate, Dennis’s very reasonable advice is also legitimate, and Paul’s management of this thread has been reasonable beyond objection IMO. If one takes such input, and the fact that on occasion our comments chronologically happen to fall next to one another, and you call that bullying, then you bankrupt that very word of all substance.

  14. Link to Post #209
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    12th May 2012
    Posts
    131
    Thanks
    99
    Thanked 947 times in 126 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    Dennis throughout this thread you have done nothing but your best to support and understand what it is I am trying to do, and for that I truly thank you,


    Best Wishes,
    A

  15. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to 7redorbs For This Post:

    Dennis Leahy (7th January 2013), eaglespirit (7th January 2013), Gardener (7th January 2013), modwiz (7th January 2013), mosquito (8th January 2013), SnowyOwl (7th January 2013)

  16. Link to Post #210
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    8th December 2012
    Posts
    126
    Thanks
    148
    Thanked 402 times in 101 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    Quote Posted by Tesseract (here)
    My questioning of the OP on several points is completely legitimate, Dennis’s very reasonable advice is also legitimate, and Paul’s management of this thread has been reasonable beyond objection IMO. If one takes such input, and the fact that on occasion our comments chronologically happen to fall next to one another, and you call that bullying, then you bankrupt that very word of all substance.
    Jean-Luc ist right, let's do deep breathing.

    Harfang des Neiges
    Last edited by SnowyOwl; 7th January 2013 at 18:19.

  17. Link to Post #211
    Avalon Member Tesseract's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th October 2012
    Posts
    834
    Thanks
    1,740
    Thanked 3,418 times in 744 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    I didn't wait for a revision from you, SnowyOwl, because I had no reason to expect one - I posted my above comment before your comments to Dennis appeared on my screen.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Tesseract For This Post:

    SnowyOwl (7th January 2013)

  19. Link to Post #212
    Avalon Member eaglespirit's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th November 2010
    Posts
    2,720
    Thanks
    50,159
    Thanked 25,183 times in 2,653 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    Adam, Good Day to You!

    The planet is harboring a sickness that has integrated itself into every facet of our lives here by ways and means that are of a higher-penetrable-dark-dimension and there are now massive people/spirits waking up that are connecting to their own higher energies above and beyond the manipulative/deceiving/distorting dimension that most all of this diatribe energy we hurt one another with comes from and has been here and coming onto earth for a very long time. We are at a turning point, for real, right now...no more finger pointing is necessary....many of us are fully aware of it all, We must live in every moment as though a spiritual evolution has taken hold, because it in fact has.

    Science and Spirituality are one and the same and until we start riding this wave consciously and deliberately together there will remain a 'stall' in our transforming this penetrated-manipulated-deep-embedded sickness.
    I am sharing from personal experience and have lived what I spout...many, many more are doing the same now and helping to clear this all up, it is happening in real time in front of us and going exponential all around the earth.

    Do you have practical hands-on experience with the hard work and research that has brought you to the full uncovering of this mess?...let's do something with it..in a full spiritual/scientific context. Forget what has happened to others in the past, we can help move this forward in a big way.

    People on this thread are trying...we have never been here before on this planet...we are learning fast now to integrate both rhythms...let's create something with it.

    Every moment is spiritual...even in disagreement and even in learning to quiet the ego from hard lessons...every single moment is spiritual now...this is the only way to correct all of this, living in this insight....and we can do this together nowso more than ever.

    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post611695

    .......
    from a recent post by Carmody:

    http://www.bsmhturk.com/gallery.php

    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post612249
    Last edited by eaglespirit; 7th January 2013 at 19:51.

  20. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to eaglespirit For This Post:

    7redorbs (8th January 2013), Eram (7th January 2013), heyokah (12th January 2013), Jean-Luc (7th January 2013), Marianne (7th January 2013), modwiz (7th January 2013), mosquito (8th January 2013), PurpleLama (8th January 2013), RunningDeer (7th January 2013), SnowyOwl (8th January 2013)

  21. Link to Post #213
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    12th May 2012
    Posts
    131
    Thanks
    99
    Thanked 947 times in 126 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    I just saw about 10 posts disappear from this thread?

    Can someone tell me why they were removed?


    Best,
    A

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 7redorbs For This Post:

    eaglespirit (8th January 2013)

  23. Link to Post #214
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,616
    Thanks
    15,960
    Thanked 15,009 times in 2,541 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    I've moved the Gamma Ray conversation to it's own thread to create the space for this thread to continue to flourish. You can find this new thread concerning gamma rays here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...a-conversation

    From the Heart,
    Kristin

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Kristin For This Post:

    7redorbs (8th January 2013), Dennis Leahy (8th January 2013), eaglespirit (8th January 2013), SnowyOwl (8th January 2013)

  25. Link to Post #215
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    12th May 2012
    Posts
    131
    Thanks
    99
    Thanked 947 times in 126 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    Thanks I appreciate that Kristin.


    Best,
    A

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 7redorbs For This Post:

    Dennis Leahy (8th January 2013), eaglespirit (8th January 2013), Kristin (8th January 2013)

  27. Link to Post #216
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    12th May 2012
    Posts
    131
    Thanks
    99
    Thanked 947 times in 126 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    An excerpt from Technology For a New Future p79-84
    General Principia of a new periodic table and energy physics defined not by atomic number but by atom particle motion
    and a commentary on the explanation of the evolving scientific method in the scientific principle


    The truth about the "great Einstein" and the "great relativity theory" on which all electromagnetic assumptions of the only existent features of waves are evidently based




    Dewey B Larson (Transcription)
    The best lost lecture on Scientific Theory Ever

    5000 years ago when the invention of writing on clay tablets by the Sumerians first gave the human race an opportunity to make a permanent record of its thoughts and actions. Already in existence was a sophisticated science of astronomy. The priests who were the scientists of those days were not only familiar with elementary astronomical facts such as the apparent movements of the sun, moon and planets, but they had also advanced to the point where they were able to predict eclipses and were able to predict the year within a half hour of its accepted value. The premises, on which these calculations and others of the same kind were made, were the fundamentals of the science of that day. In the sense in which I am using the term tonight. That is they are the most basic of the relations, the principles - that were used by the science of that day. These principles were originally derived by a simple application of what we now call inductive reasoning - that is they were generalisations from experience. And that is the most reliable method at arriving at scientific principles, fundamental or otherwise. But unfortunately it is limited by the amount of empirical information that’s available and by the extent to which that information has been analyzed. So the result is of that an inductive science, such as that of the ancient peoples, has a tendency to fall behind the progress of empirical discovery, and ultimately it acquires a rather embarrassing accumulation of unsolved problems. Now that was the situation in Egypt, Babylonia and the far East about 3000 years ago. The time was clearly right for some new approach, and that was provided by a remarkable group of thinkers that flourished in Greece, during the golden age in that country’s history. The source of order in the universe these men said was mind, and the proper way of arriving at general principles was to apply insight and reasoning. A result of that change in policy was to concentrate attention on the CAUSES of physical phenomenon, rather than on the phenomena themselves; where the Egyptians only saw that a rock would fall from a height, the Greek's looked for the cause of the fall. The Greeks reasoned that everything must have their natural place. So the rock falling was seeking its natural place. In this way the Greeks by providing an explanation they remedied the chief defect of the previous inductive theories. Similarly they reasoned that whilst the earth is obviously imperfect the heavens are perfect - and all heavenly motions must then take the perfect form, that of a circle. So the orbits of the planets are undoubtedly circular. Now observation and experiment were definitely relegated to secondary position by the Greeks, but they were not disregarded altogether. So when the observation shown that the planetary orbits were not circles, it was recognised, that this was an awkward discrepancy that we have to do something about. But one of the strong points of an inventive science, such as that of the Greeks, is that it can easily accommodate new discoveries simply by more invention. So they assumed that the planets move in small circles called epicycles, and these epicycles then move around the main planetary orbit. Then when further observational refinement disclosed still more discrepancy, those could be taken off in exactly the same way, by adding more epicycles. This ptolemaic theory of planetary orbits, is typical of inventive theories in general, and since we see it in a historical perspective, by taking a look at this ptolemaic theory, we can get an idea of the general characteristics of inventive theories.

    1. That theory was mathematically correct, within the existing observational limits. The Then existing limits. That is a general characteristic of all inventive theories because they are invented for that specific purpose. They are specifically designed to fit mathematics that are already known
    2. The second significant point is that that theory, the Ptolemaic theory was conceptually wrong. The interpretation of the mathematics was wrong. And that again is a general characteristic that applies to all inventive theories because of the circumstances under which they are invented. As many observers have pointed out, long standing problems in science do not continue to exist on a lack of competence of those who are trying to solve them. Nor do they continue to exist as a result of a lack of methods to go about solving them. They exist because some piece, or pieces of information that are essential, are missing. In the cases of the Ptolemaic theory there were two such pieces of information. The Greeks did not realise that the planets revolved around the sun, rather than around the earth. And they did not know that there was a force of gravitation controlling those movements. Without those two pieces of information neither the Ptolemaic theory, or any other theory that was invented to explain the mathematics could have been correct.

    Now that is a general characteristic of inventive theories. If all of the information is available, if all of the information is there, then there is no need to invent a theory, then we can achieve it by inductive means. If the essential information is not there, then any theory we invent cannot be conceptually be right. In view of the practically unlimited opportunity for making ad-hoc assumptions, that is adding epicycles. An inventive theory never comes to the fate of the inductive systems of theories. The inventive system may fail to account for a few things at any given time, but there is never the big accumulation that characterises an inductive system of theory that has fallen behind the progress of discovery. But the inventive theory, ultimately an inventive system of theories, an inventive science I might call it, ultimately encounters a fate of its own. Sooner or later we just have too many epicycles, and in the meantime the progress of observation and construction of inductive theories of lower rank has continued. So that ultimately we get to the point when the scope of those theories is broad enough to challenge the prevailing inventive (specific) theory. And then the inventive theory goes to the boards. That is what happened to the Greek inventive system, about 500 years ago, and at that time the perfection of the heavens and the natural places of objects and the other governing principles that the Greeks had invented were discarded and replaced by other principles that were derived by such men as Kepler and Newton, from factual foundations by inductive reasoning. Now the benefit of the 2500 years of accumulated scientific knowledge, since the demise of the first inductive theories, this new science of Newton and his contemporaries was a vastly improved product, and it scored some very impressive successes. At one time the practitioners of that science were pretty thoroughly convinced that the knowledge of the entire physical universe was within their grasp, but here again the inherent weakness of an inductive theory then asserted itself. And Newtonian science found itself faced with a series of problems for which it had no answers. So then the present day inventive science took over.

    When an idea, or a set of ideas gains general acceptance and becomes a familiar feature of thought, its origins recede from view, now I wouldn't be surprised that you may be reluctant to accept the idea that the basic theories of modern day physics, such as the relativity theory for example, belong in the same category as the Ptolemaic theory of planetary orbits. But they were all inventive theories. The originators of the present day theories don't deny that, in fact they emphasise it. We might even say they glory in it. Einstein told us that pure invention is the "only way by which these basic principles can be obtained". He was highly critical of Newton’s attempt to ascertain them inductively. Here is what he said "Newton believed that the basic laws and concepts of his system could be derived from experience. The tremendous practical successes of his doctrines may well have prevented him and the physicists of the 18th and 19th centuries from recognising the fictitious character of his system". Einstein's own view was that the basic concepts and laws of physics, what I am calling the fundamentals are quote "in a logical sense free inventions of the human mind". He elaborates this view in these statements that I have taken from his book the "World as I see it".


    "Since However space perception only gives information of this external world of physical reality indirectly we can only grasp the latter by speculative means. The theoretical scientist is compelled in an increasing degree to be guided by purely mathematical, formal considerations, in his search for a theory, because the physical experience of the experimenter cannot lift him into the regions of highest abstraction. The axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be an inference from experience but must be free invention". There is a rather general tendency to believe that Einstein and the other architects of modern physics could not have been as casual about the foundations of their system as these words indicate. That they must have been tied into something solid somewhere, but that’s not true as Rudolf Carnap puts it "they were constructed flowing the air so to speak". Einstein gives us enough information about the origin of his own theories to make it clear when he talks about free inventions he means free inventions, nothing else.

    For instance the propagation of electromagnetic radiation plays a very significant part in his theories, and the comments that he made about the theory that he invented to account for that propagation have a considerable bearing on what we are talking about now. In one of his books he goes on at considerable length about what a difficult problem this is and he concludes with this statement "I only way out seems to be to take for granted the fact that space has the physical property of transmitting electromagnetic waves and not to bother too much with the meaning of this statement".

    The point of all this is, that all invented theories share the same defect they are all mathematically correct but they are all conceptually wrong, not because of any errors in the construction, but because of their inherent characteristics. Now this statement may seem to be in direct conflict with many of the confident assertions we find in present day scientific literature that tells us that the validity of present day theories have been established beyond any reasonable doubt. But if you look at the evidence in support of those assertions, you will find that it is all mathematical. What has been done is to establish that those theories are mathematically correct, just as I have said all along that they are - because of the way they were constructed. But those theories that are mathematically correct are not unique, none of them are. In every case there are other theories that are also mathematically correct and as Richard Feynman tells us "we can’t distinguish between any two of them on any scientific basis and say which is correct because they both agree with experiment to the same extent. So two theories, although they may have deeply different ideas behind them maybe mathematically identical, then there is no scientific way to distinguish them.

    Now Feynman goes on to say this "Every theoretical physicist who is any good knows 6 or 7 theoretical representations for exactly the same kind of physics". What Feynman does not say that those statements only apply to the present day and other day inventive theories. They do not apply to inductive theories - that is theories that have been derived by induction from factual premises. For example the kinetic theory of gases is a theory that relates to gas laws to the motions of the particles that compose the gas. No one tells us that he has half a dozen equally valid representations for what the kinetic theory tells us, in fact there is not another one alternative - because the kinetic theory is an inductive theory that is tied into the facts both mathematically and physically, so that it is both conceptually and mathematically correct. Whereas the inventive theories are correct mathematically only. Now that raises an interesting philosophical question as to whether there is actually any net gain by using these inventive theories during a period when we would have otherwise have no theories at all to account for some important physical phenomenon. Actually we don't need them, we could equally well use the mathematical explanations we have, without any theoretical explanation. So the whole thing boils down to a question as to whether it is better to have a wrong theory than no theory at all. Now there is a very widespread belief that that’s true, that it is better to have a wrong theory and it dates back to at least Sir Francis Bacon. The idea behind it is that a plausible theory, even if it is wrong, may suggest some lines of inquiry that in the end will be productive, on the other hand we know that continued adherence to the Greek inventive theories particularly during the last few years of the Greek era was a very serious roadblock in the way of scientific process, and we have pretty good reason for believing that much the same is going on now. In any event the fact that needs to be recognised at the moment is that we have again arrived at a kind of situation that existed in the middle ages, the present day inventive theories have accumulated too many epicycles, and at the same time inductive theory has caught up with observation and experiment so that as we enter the 21st century shortly we are in a position to GO BACK FROM THE INVENTIVE THEORY to a SOLIDLY BASED INDUCTIVE THEORY AGAIN. Now the eminence of such a change could be deduced simply from an examination of the times involved in the cycle of reversals that I have been talking about. The first inductive theories lasted for thousands of years before they were overthrown by the Greek inventive science. Now that the first of the inventive sciences indulged for 2500 years before it met its fate at the hands of Newtonian inductive science. The accelerating pace of science is shown by the fact that in spite of its greatly superior character, the science that’s normally associated with the name of Newton only lasted for 400 years before it in turn succumbed to the "2nd inventive science" now if we consider the same rate of acceleration we can see that since another 100 years have passed we are about due for another reversal that will take us back into an inductive theory, but we don't have to depend entirely on inferences of that kind because there is plenty of direct evidence to show that we are again in exactly the same kind of situation in which Greek science found itself during the middle ages. At which point the accumulation of epicycles had reached the point of absurdity in a great many cases, and the quantum theories have a long history of one ad-hoc modification or interpretation after another, until it's very questionable now if the theory is even intelligible. In fact Richard Feynman says "it isn’t". Feynman says this "I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics".

    The situation in the field of atomic structure is much the same the favourite past time there is inventive properties for the illusive particles called quarks. Now nobody has seen or otherwise observed a quark or anything that could be a quark. In fact the most urgent problem for the theorists right now is to invent some theory in which it can be said that the quarks are inherently unobservable, but nevertheless we are told just what kind of quarks could exist and what their properties are. Such interesting properties as colour, charm and so on. In order to fit this situation into the proper perspective lets bear in mind that not only are the quarks themselves unobservable but the particles that are supposed to be constructed out of quarks have never been observed either. now those particles are given familiar names such as electrons for instance but the hypothetical electron constituent of the atom has a doubly different set of properties from the OBSERVED electron, and there is actually no adequate justification for calling them by the same name. The same is true for the other hypothetical constituents, the hypothetical neutron constituent of the atom for instance has to be "stable" or else the observed neutron is very much unstable. The truth is that there is no definite evidence that the atom is constructed of particles at all, now that may seem to be rank heresy but a great many of our foremost scientists have said the same thing in different words. For instance Erwin Schrodinger "once we have become aware of this state of affairs, the epistemological question do the electrons really exist in these orbits within the atom is to be answered with a decisive NO unless we prefer to say that the putting of the question itself has absolutely no meaning. Here we have a good example of the difference between induction and invention, in the construction of a theory. Since I am making this my principle point I want to elaborate on it a little.

    Such men as Newton and Einstein were very much aware of that difference. Newton insisted time and time again that he did not resort to invention. Einstein on the contrary criticised Newton for trying to get his theories inductively. I am afraid that a great many people do not recognise the difference because they both start in the same way. The both start with a hypothesis. That is the only way we are going to end up with something more general than we already have. But the Newton’s looked upon that hypothesis of something to be tested, and they test that hypothesis and if it doesn’t fit the facts they throw it out and try a new hypothesis or at least a greatly modified hypothesis, they test that and if that doesn’t work they try another one. The Einstein’s take that hypothesis and test it and if it doesn't work they invent something to make it work, and if that doesn't work quite right they invent something to help the first invention make it work. You may think I'm being funny on this, but if you read Einstein yourself he tells you exactly that same thing in different words he says it "has to be pure invention". But that's the difference between induction and invention. In the one case it is HYPOTHESIS TEST DISCARD HYPOTHESIS TEST DISCARD until we finally don’t have to discard, and in the other case it is HYPOTHESIS TEST INVENT TEST INVENT until we get something we don’t have to invent anymore.

    When it was first discovered that atoms disintegrate under certain appropriate conditions and emit particles in so doing, it was a very natural hypothesis that the atoms were constructed of such particles, but now we have found out that those particles do not have the properties that are necessary to be constituents of atoms we have a totally different situation. We no longer have any justification for inventing something that we can find no base of.

    But the general opinion still stands that this , these atoms, must be constructed of particles. The present day theories are obsessed with the idea that they have to keep on dividing and sub dividing until they get to something they can call an elementary particle. In fact the whole situation with the physical particles is beginning to resemble the status of the flees and that popular little verse. Big flees have little flees upon their backs to bight them, the little flees have still smaller flees. The impetus for this frantic search for an elementary particle of matter, comes from the present day concept of the nature of the universe - which sees it as one in which the basic entities are elementary particles of matter existing in a framework provided by space and time. But the modern discovery that matter can be converted into non matter and vice versa has completely destroyed that concept. It is now obvious that matter cannot be the basic constituent. That there must be some common denominator underlying matter and non matter. And since that is the situation there must be some level below which matter does not exist, and that which exists , is this common denominator, whatever it is, for the moment let’s call it x. This again is nothing particularly heretical, some of our foremost scientists have emphasised it quite strongly. Heisenberg for instance was very clear on the subject and tried to figure out what this entity x could be, he suggests energy but he has no idea he admits or did admit, how energy could fit the bill.

    Let’s consider further this question of inventive vs. inductive theories and how they sound now. At the beginning of this century when the modern inventive theory took over from Newtonian inductive science, the necessary information for constructing a inductive theory, that would account for the new discoveries that had been made around that time was entirely inadequate. The information that could be collected was not enough to extend the existing inductive theories into what we may call the far out regions. The regions of the very fast, the very small, and the very large. There were a few of the essential building blocks in place. The discrete nature of the units of energy had already been established. Radioactivity had already been discovered, and the status of electrical current as a movement of "electrons" had been determined, but there was still an immense amount of information that had to be collected before an inductive theory was capable of being extended into these far out regions, could be constructed. That information has now been accumulated and the final inductive step that was necessary in order to construct the theory that would extend into all these regions has been taken by the development that is the subject of discussion at this conference.


    That development like a great many other results of scientific research was a totally unexpected result at a project aimed at an entirely different objection. The original objective was to construct a theory or some means whereby physical properties could be calculated from the chemical composition. IN some respects, it is not a very good subject for examination, because it’s been very thoroughly combed over by previous investigators, but on the other hand it is also something that has a definite answer, because obviously those physical properties are determined by the chemical composition. I want to say at this point that while I may be regarded as a heretic that’s not be intonation, I started from a purely conventional base and my first work was directed entirely along conventional lines, the base from which I started was the idea that is embodied in the periodic table, the idea that the principle properties of the chemical elements are determined by two variables represented horizontally and vertically in the tables. The first really important advance that I made at least that is important in view of what turned up later on, was the finding that one of these variables takes both POSITIVE and NEGATIVE values, whereas the other one takes POSITIVE values only.

    When after a good deal of traditional trial and error I found that there were actually 3 variables rather than two. Now whilst all these efforts to determine the form of the mathematical relations were going on, I was also struggling to determine the meaning of the terms of those relations, that is the other essential for an inductive theory, one that will be conceptually valid. Here again I didn't stray off the reservation for quite a while. I started from the purely conventional idea that the atom is made up of a group of particles and that the properties and the differences in properties between the elements are due to differences in the number an arrangement of those particles, but after some years of work I got nowhere. Exactly nowhere. So I had to try some different approach or quit the job. I tried a number of things and discarded them, the old trial and error process. And finally I got the idea that perhaps some of the differences in the properties might be due to different properties due to motions of the particles, rather than the differences in the actual number and arrangement of the particles themselves, and well that didn't work either, but in the process there were some indications that I might be on the right track, so I didn't throw that away immediately, and I worked on it. And as I worked on it, the more emphasis I put on the motions and the less emphasis I put on the number of particles the more of these indications there were I was getting somewhere. So eventually I simply discarded the idea that the motions might account for some of the properties in the atoms, but they might account for all of the properties in the atoms. Now that was the first really radical conceptual jump that I had made in the whole project, and it led to some important consequences. Since I had determined that there were only three main variables, then if we attributed them to motions, it follows that they must be motions of the atom, rather than large motions of constituents. Then one comes to the conclusion that the motions of the atom, and then of objects of that kind almost certainly be rotations, and the number 3 then suggested that these were rotations around 3 perpendicular axis.
    In that event the differences in the magnitudes of the properties can be very easily explained in the differences in the speed of rotation. SO I have come then to the point then of an atom constructed entirely of motions with 3 rotational motions around the 3 perpendicular axis and different speeds in the different dimensions. SO I had identified this quantity x, quantity x is motion. When we subdivide matter we subdivide down to a certain point which we find is the atom, and we subdivide further and we have motion, not matter. With this understanding of the general nature of the atom, of matter, the stage was set for the final conceptual jump in this inductive phase of the original project.

    In the work I had done in some 20 years or so up to this time I would arrive at some rather interesting mathematical expressions connecting some of the physical properties of matter, with the atomic numbers, now all I had to do was connect the atomic numbers to motions, this was another long and difficult task, and was very often a frustrating task but it finally dawned on me one day that one of the most interesting of these expressions, one that connected the inter atomic distances in the solid state, or the atomic number, could be very easily and simply explained if I assumed a general reciprocal relation between space and time. Now those of you are encountering this idea for the first time my find it rather weird. So did I , I can quite understand how you might feel that way. In fact when I first thought of it, the idea of a reciprocal of space struck me as about as reasonable as the idea of a reciprocal of a soft boiled egg. But when I took a second look at it, it wasn't so unreasonable after all, the only relation between space and time of which we have any knowledge is motion, and in motion space and time are reciprocally related. So of course having come that far I had to go on farther and see what else I could put this relation to use with. And very much to my surprise it was almost immediately evident that this relation gives us the answers, simple and logical answers to no less than a half a dozen of the longstanding problems of science. Now any of you who have ever done research work will realise this is the kind of a breakthrough that we see in our most rosy dreams, and obviously it called for an immediate start on a full scale investigation to see how far this clarification could go, or physical picture would extend. By the time of my first publication in 1959, I had arrived at a set of two postulates from which it is possible, I showed then that it was possible to derive the principle features of the major branches of physical science by pure deduction without any supplementary assumptions and without drawing on anything from experience. In the meantime, the members of this organisation that are meeting here today and other scientists around the world joined in this effort, and we have extended the scope of the theory to the point where we now feel fairly confident that we will ultimately reach the goal that the Newtonian scientists were aiming at and couldn’t quite make, that is a general explanation of the physical universe.

    For those who shudder at the thought of having to reconstruct all of the scientific ideas I want to say that probably 90% of what passes for scientific knowledge today will be incorporated into our new system without any significant change other than perhaps the language in which the ideas are expressed. Another 5% will take only a change in the interpretation of the mathematics, because the mathematics is OK, and another 5% or so we will have to reconstruct. And all of those items are in what I call the "far out regions" , regions where the scientific theory are having difficulty with now.

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to 7redorbs For This Post:

    Dennis Leahy (8th January 2013), eaglespirit (8th January 2013), Hervé (8th January 2013), SnowyOwl (8th January 2013)

  29. Link to Post #217
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    12th May 2012
    Posts
    131
    Thanks
    99
    Thanked 947 times in 126 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    Patents & Copyright Buying & Selling Your Nature
    an excerpt from page 96 of Technology For a New Future


    The science men, political men and business men, the founders and caretakers of this planet and our people, they all can agree in telling us that everything is right about patenting and copyrighting one‘s idea. I have noticed that all of my ideas, and not just my best ideas do not come from me, they come from a keen observation of nature and their systems and so it has always seemed backwards to me that an observed effect present in the universe, that is then recreated by me in ingenuity can be monopolized to my name and my personal effects as if I possessed the very currents of the rain and the thunder. One might scoff at such a basic description, but if every invention, and thus copyrighted trademark and patent, is based on a natural system that already exists, then ownership was taken of the nature and then it was sold back to the people. In my mind this can never be right; this is like taking the land from underneath the elephants and asking them to pay for their industrial revolution that is land ownership. This sort of copying and segregation of nature is like stealing the electricity from the sky, and charging the rain for it. There can be no glory or logic in copying nature and claiming it as our own, there can be only our own greed and our own money, because of this my care for patents and copyrights is limited to the means by which they can be useful as ideas, and not by this apparent and fictional connection with the ownership of natural effects and the fictional material power that is contained within their so-called patent exploitation, and, so-called intellectual protection offered by them, condemning surely any man without a penny to a life of pain and regret, and those men of wealth and material ideology, that of the greatest ignorance and greed. Had they thought ahead, they would realise that there can be no profit in others doom.

    Indeed, the only thing that man truly owns is his tendency to claim as his what he observed, and to build a machine based on it that nobody else can have without paying a fee. Other men to enforce it to ensure that the barbarity and the suppression of this great planet nations venturing into the far reaches of space, and accomplishing worthwhile endeavors. The thing that is enforced is akin to a prison. Where men whom could make a difference are unable to afford to make anything of it, and the ones who cannot make any difference but preserve the hypocrisy that exists is able to afford to make anything that he so chooses. And so the blind are leading the capable, and the capable are unable to lead the blind – and this is what we call free enterprise. The condemnation of other men because of one man‘s good thought and observation, and the exploitation of them for money represents a high discourtesy that will one day be a criminal action not unlike slave labour. These same men condemn the very idea of a student copying another‘s work, a high intellectual sin, yet, this is what we see in the highest of scientific and engineering thinking today – copying natures work, and claiming it as his own.

    About the man that deserves the Nobel Prize: He is the man that deserves the Nobel Prize. That man is Tesla. That man is Eric Dollard. The Nobel Prize is not for them. Irrespective of their contributions of an electrical system with 0 losses - that can transmit to any point in the universe. Telluric waves they call it. There will be no Nobel Prize for them. It‘s just too damn useful and practical, it‘d be hard to sell anything afterwards.

    By Adam Bull
    Last edited by 7redorbs; 8th January 2013 at 02:37.

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 7redorbs For This Post:

    Dennis Leahy (8th January 2013), eaglespirit (8th January 2013), SnowyOwl (8th January 2013)

  31. Link to Post #218
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    12th May 2012
    Posts
    131
    Thanks
    99
    Thanked 947 times in 126 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    The Stars, Their Planets. The Plants & Their Animals
    An excerpt of Technology For a New Future, page 112

    The sun creates light rays from above and they are dropped below to the earth. The earth has the plants and they take up the light rays and they convert some of the light into their mass. So the sun converted its mass into light energy and the sun is in deconstruction, the plant converted the light energy into its mass in construction. Then the animal comes along, and eats the plant and drops it below into his stomach, acid there deconstructs the mass of the plant, and releases the energy. So the plant uses the energy of the light to magnetically bond its mass together, and the animals stomach uses the acid to take the light energy back out of the plant. Animals that do not believe their survival depends on the light going in the plant should go to Africa and ask the farmers to grow food for energy and surviving without the light. The truth is there is no energy without the light. And if there was not light, there would not even be petrol. So the same thing that is driving your car and your batteries, is also driving you and all the life of all kinds on this planet and in the universe. It is the light.

    The sun giving off the light rays in energy lost some of its mass in its deconstruction and the earth gains some of its energy for its perpetual construction and transformation. Einstein tells us that energy and the mass are exchangeable, and, they are exchangeable by the constant square ratio of light. So the suns energy is converted into supposed-light. The plants turn the light into energy by constructing its matter. The animal eats the plant, and so it takes apart the energy in the bonds that were put together by the sun, and the acid in the animals stomach is working like a battery. The light rays from the sun are working like a radio. And the plants themselves, they are acting like transformers. The plants will perpetually create new mass from the sunlight , at the square ratio of light to the energy gradient of light provided. The animals will perpetually live and grow their mass from the sunlight too. It was the sunlight remember that built up the mass of the plant. So without the light to build the mass of the plant, the animals cannot eat the mass of the plant or other animals. So the real thing that gave the plant its mass was the light. We know this is true because the plant cannot built it‘s mass without the light. So the animal cannot unbuild the mass and take the energy the light put in it without the plant. And that is why the light creates the animals and the plants, and not the plants and then the animals. I am not saying that there was a plan, I am saying that the light is how the energy is taken by the plant and the animal. So plant is taking the energy from the light to build itself up, and the animals take the energy from the plants built up mass, to get the energy to build themselves.

    Many are wondering how it was possible for the plants to start at all. The minerals and vitamins. These vitamins build their mass up from the light. You will find the vitamins and minerals in the plants now. The vitamins and minerals are created by the plant. So if the light going in the plant can build up the minerals and the vitamins mass in the plant, then it bares common sense that vitamins and minerals that were created from light alone made up the first plant. Darwin and his evolution theory, it is not wrong. It is basic. My theory is much more basic than his but look how far mine went. This is the difference between discovery and patience. Darwin speaks about species. MY theory talks about the universe and how it designed minerals, then plants, and then how the larger animals could derive their energy from them, and where the energy to take Darwin‘s evolutionary process came from. Whilst Darwin‘s Evolution theory tells how the environment cause & effects the species and they are naturally selected by that environment. My evolution theory shows how the cause and effects of the environment are varied by cosmological constants. So my theory bears a resemblance to Einstein‘s, Tesla‘s and Darwins without a large degree of bias or condemnation. All observation is correct, but all definitions are never what was observed. For to explain what was observed would require a comprehension as great as the universe. Or God.

    By Adam Bull

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 7redorbs For This Post:

    Dennis Leahy (8th January 2013), eaglespirit (8th January 2013), SnowyOwl (8th January 2013)

  33. Link to Post #219
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    12th May 2012
    Posts
    131
    Thanks
    99
    Thanked 947 times in 126 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    CRIMINALS & THE GOOD LITTLE BOY that never came to prosper
    An article written by Adam Bull

    i feel that patents are criminal, they are not free enterprise at all, they represent the struggling vestige that is man. When one is ignored continuously such as Tesla was, and his basic models, the remarkable question to the inventor or natural philosopher is, that it is suffered by the truth of his own ignorance or that of his surrounding men. I see how Tesla must have felt. I explained a theory , a working theory for manipulating gravity by sufficiently shielding it from cosmic rays. I see this was missed. I should say ignored, as was all of the remarkable work of Tesla. I hear people talking about electrons like a matter of fact. The truth is nobody has ever seen an electron, not now, or ever. In fact electrons are only produced by the dielectric 2 pole condition found in all conductors.

    The proof is very simple, the electron with mass going in point A start of transmission line cannot travel at the speed of light. So the electron conveyor belt of motion traveling at the speed of light out of point B, the end of the transmission line can be held to account on the perpetual electron motion of non electrified atoms.

    All atoms have spinning negative bound charges on them. It is so simple. No battery could generate any charge if the iron atoms were not moving already, and the zinc atoms were moving already. As well as the Acid.

    Here we have proof that perpetual motion of atoms is responsible for the speed of light charges.

    Just as Dollard and Tesla claimed.

    Why on earth is it so easily missed I seriously fail to fathom, my patience for society runs short. What hope can there be for people who dismiss ideas suggested by pioneers, even amateur ones such as myself, using non existent particles as a basis of description.

    Electrons are produced by 2 poles, or rather resistance, in the same way a light bulb produces light from 2 currents. Yes, 2 currents. It's not electrons doing the work as I have previously explained time and time again. Does this disagree with the pi /2 *C constant? No, it rather remarkably confirms it.

    My apologies for my rant. My heart is with you all, but if people's minds are governed by non existent inventions, there is little hope for inductive scientists such as myself. Very little hope.

    Eric will send my letter and package to you shortly.

    Jesus spends his life in hell. But I am not Jesus or governed by invented ideas of religion or science. I like, Eric, am just an ordinary man that has given up everything and encouraged a life of almost penniless servitude, trying to do the right thing. The story of the good boy that never came to prosper by Mark Twain does come to mind. And I feel as if we are all surrounded by people who are the embodiment of the bad little boy that never came to grief.

    That is the problem with electrons. They never come to grief. They only return back to where they came from. Bohr and Einstein.

    Here is some real criminal activity sometimes mistaken for forward thinking science, or even something as ridiculous as to be called "free enterprise".

    IT never fooled me for a minute. We have betrayed ourselves and called it logical scientific debate. And rejected truth and called it fallacy and hearsay, using nothing but the inventions of einsteinian fallacy itself. Many electrical men here should be ashamed of themselves, and others should work harder to help Eric as I and others such as Techzombie do. Fools quoting non existent electrons accusing fallacy reaches no bounds and represents the most intolerable handicap of such great men as Eric, Tesla, Reich, Carson & Leedskalnin.

    By Adam Bull


    The Unexplained Power Station Explosions
    Quote ―This really led to a lot of confusion in the early attempts of G.E laboratories to ascertain why these complex wave forms they were experiencing in their substation transformers were causing them to explode for unexplainable reasons. The standing waves would build up and appear at the centre of the windings and puncture the insulation but yet from terminal to terminal there was no voltage difference. The process was basically started off by Steinmetz. And then Buley which was the one that really developed all the differential equations for describing this stuff kind of forgot about mutual inductance and its proper dimensions, and even though quantified all of these things very admirably in his book called traveling waves on transmission systems, probably one of the best books on electric waves ever written, he still failed to understand the true nature of the longitudinal wave and the dimensionality of mutual inductance. Now of course at the double energy flows when these things combine we have the longitudinal wave, the wave of Tesla and the transverse electromagnetic wave, the wave of hertz. The hertz wave is the wave we use today for transmission, the longitudinal wave has been completely forgotten, unless it incidentally appears in case you have too big of a loading coil".
    - Eric Dollard, SBARC Ham Radio Conference



    The Holistic system of Electrical Systems and the Extinct "Shamanic" Representation of Nature
    Thanks to the crimes of the church and the west globalist agendas to "bring science to all"

    All they brought was death and the destruction of sacred art and knowledge, even civilisations. Anybody who disagree's with this and has trust in his government looking after him should seek advice from a Native American Indian.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	projectavalon.jpg
Views:	264
Size:	189.4 KB
ID:	19972
    Last edited by 7redorbs; 8th January 2013 at 02:33.

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 7redorbs For This Post:

    Dennis Leahy (8th January 2013), eaglespirit (8th January 2013)

  35. Link to Post #220
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    78
    Posts
    30,483
    Thanks
    36,887
    Thanked 153,164 times in 23,386 posts

    Default Re: Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

    Quote Posted by 7redorbs (here)
    Dewey B Larson (Transcription)
    The best lost lecture on Scientific Theory Ever

    5000 years ago when the invention of writing on clay tablets by the Sumerians first gave the human race an opportunity to make a permanent record of its thoughts and actions.
    The above lecture can also be found at THE FUNDAMENTALS OF SCIENCE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, by Dewey B. Larson, Principal Address to the Third Annual NSA Conference, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, August 18, 1978
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Dennis Leahy (8th January 2013), eaglespirit (8th January 2013), mosquito (8th January 2013)

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst 1 11 15 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts