|
wingedsuperyak (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
LOL, Tom Bearden has no credentials. Why do these people dislike the concept of free energy so much? I don't get the ferocity with which they spew bile. 1/2 the people come to learn something and get exposure to new concepts to begin investigating for themselves, and the other half hate for the sake of it.
innominatedude (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I said that vacuum states are currently thought of as the bed upon which propagation and expression of forces occur, _akin to_ propagation along a substrate. I never said the luminiferous aether is valid, in either rigid or fluidic hypotheses, entrained or not, etc. (And I've read plenty of the "etc.") I said only that some feel Einstein was hasty in saying, in effect, that light propagates on NOTHING at all, when in the course of time it seemed required to say there is a *something* involved.
innominatedude (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Though - LAWDY! - don't it sometimes be coy.
ycalm (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
there is mountains of evidence-some of it about one hundred years old-that the luminiferous ether does not exist. I think that what you are eluding to is the Quantum Electrodynamics notion of particles. Partcles, according to QED, are "distubances of the electromagnetic field" or, one could think, "local curvatures of the electromagnetic equivalent to spacetime". Its good to play devils advocate, but it is, frankly, wrong to say that the ether exists.
innominatedude (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
A frequently heard observation is that "vacuum states" as being a bed upon which quantum phenomena operate means that some kind of aether is acknowledged, a "something" upon which electromagnetic energy propagates. Beardon's statement is consistent with many other commentators, that Einstein's insistence on NO aether -no substrate of propagation - was hasty.
It isn't the rigid aether nor the fluidic aether speculated upon in the late 19th and early 20th century, that's all.
innominatedude (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre mins" - Albert Einstein
"And, oy vey, you should see the trampling at Thanksgiving to get some of the white meat before it's all gone. They all go completely mishuga!!" - Mrs. Einstein
innominatedude (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Academia is constantly playing "king of the hill", and it is at its keenest state of play in cutting edge sciences. No one is suppressing any winner, rather an alleged "winner" is failing to sway people for lack of cogency.
It isn't that anyone in the physics department doesn't grasp scalar expressions of electromagnetism. That is an UNDERGRADUATE piece of instruction in electromagnetism - not any obscure field waiting to be discovered by dense academics.
innominatedude (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Virtually any text book meant for junior-senior year college electromagnetism (discussing and elaborating on Maxwell's equations with advanced analytic geometry to touching on electromagnetic radiation as by antennas and such) will give you a complete working knowledge of how to solve electromagnetic problems using scalar functions, where appropriate.
Sometimes a scalar frame of reference is the easiest and most informative form of analysis, sometimes vector expressions would be more helpful.
bondurango (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The problem is not the claims of engineers who've built working prototypes of devices that produce more energy than they take in. The problem is that the academics refuse to accept the evidence because they can't explain the phenomena using flawed, outdated electrodynamic physics. Tesla was one of those engineers who never accepted relativity because Einstein used a streamlined version of Maxwell's original equations that eliminated the aether thereby precluding it as a source of free energy.
Abrin19 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
i couldnt agree with you more. |
