Will you join Chevron

[GhostBoi]

http://willyoujoinus.com/

This is basically Chevron saying that oil is going to be scarce soon, and we have no ideas for the next alternative, so how about you guys? This is in the politics forum because energy is the topic of this century.

 

[baxter]

Seems to be a lot in reserve.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

What the heck....Canada second , you guys kept quiet

 

[CptStern]

Seems to be a lot in reserve.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

What the heck....Canada second , you guys kept quiet

not really:

" Includes 174.5 billion barrels of oil sands reserves"

oil mixed with sand is extremely expensive to process and usually isnt included in oil reserves

http://www.answers.com/topic/tar-sands

 

[Click-Click-Boom]

But with the rising price of oil, Tar-sands will become a viable solution. When we do start using it for oil it won't lower prices drastically, but it will enable us to continue our current way of life.

On-topic, i will join chevron in helping them look for new alternatives, but i think my idea of burning hair will not help the much.

 

[clarky003]

We all know our current way of life needs to change, Yes we are creatures of habbit, however... it's unviable, destructive, polluting short term sustainment at best with a constantly growing population, its crude, it relies on an aging power grid that is hurrendous to maintain, not to mention ugly, It puts alot of us so called 'free' people in a strong dependancey on one type of energy generation (one type, where are our choices, we are entitled to them)

The longer its left the harder it will be to transition the billions who depend on energy. Not enough is being done to spearhead new energy technologies, the beurocracey of the system is killing that progression, It needs to change or there needs to atleast be more cost effective viable alternatives.

Its a losing struggle, we have to face the fact that the oil and gas industry will start to collapse when demand start's outweighing production.. not when oil runs out. By habbit its a futile attempt at squeezing every last viable peny, and along with that every last ounce of CO2 emission, before the buisness executives in oil move elsewhere or go bankrupt.

 

[The Monkey]

Hydrogen is the way of the future, I tell you!

 

[Korgoth]

I actually thought that in the past they had considered hydrogren and done studies and etc. They came to the conclusion that I would cost around 2.00 a gallon here, if we made the switch or something. That sounds pretty good to me right about now lol Of course i may be dellusional, this lsd hasn't made my mind up yet muahaha...

Ok, i'm not really on lsd, but wouldn't it be lovely.

 

[clarky003]

oh wouldn't it be lovely , if people took alternate energies more seriously right about.... now.

I really actually wish people would stop being so ingnorant to claim's and many pantent application's for the successful utilisation of zero point energy (dark energy) from vacuum into usable electricity.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

I wish the people claiming these alternate energies could actually back up their claims.

 

[The Monkey]

I actually thought that in the past they had considered hydrogren and done studies and etc. They came to the conclusion that I would cost around 2.00 a gallon here, if we made the switch or something. That sounds pretty good to me right about now lol Of course i may be dellusional, this lsd hasn't made my mind up yet muahaha...

Ok, i'm not really on lsd, but wouldn't it be lovely.

But then you have to ask the question, how far can you drive on one gallon/litre of hydrogen?

 

[specialmax]

hurry! everyone to the bubble-car!

 

[Korgoth]

But then you have to ask the question, how far can you drive on one gallon/litre of hydrogen?

True that, but like I said I have no idea how that shiz works, I just wish someone did

 

[clarky003]

I wish the people claiming these alternate energies could actually back up their claims.

Thats what the granted patent is partly for, describing construction and priciples etc, they have to have atleast a 3rd party signature for validity of the invention's function.. you cant apply and achieve a valid patent without that. Mainstream Scientist's just arnt interested, they ridicule and harrass without studying the devices, they try to 'debunk' the claim purely on statistic's of an incomplete flawed theory, then dogmatically citing it as impossible often to protect their interest's, career, and belief's religously linked or otherwise.

Ridiculing your peers is also a great way of never getting them taken seriously and ensuring that they dont get any government funding diverted away from their field. The level of science behind these devices would also make a mainstream government scientist look like an ignorant fool, put them out of the spotlight and possibly ruin their career.

Edison ridiculed Tesla, preaching that direct current was safer than alternating. He put enormous effort into trying to debunk Tesla, showing fake set ups of his alternating systems electricuting animals infront of crowds to try and scare people away from trusting it, Alternating was proven safer in the end, the truth came to the surface. Humans are devious, Edison was no exception, neither are alot of scientist's today, there still as ruthless and as money and success hungry as they have ever been, the truth only matters to the few, others are captivated by the materialistic lifestyle's of wealth and popularity.

You have to understand... where the money flows, the credit goes. Alot of Scientist's especially dont care about exotic world changing idea's and technology if it mean's government substitutes for wages being decreased or diverted, or anything for that matter that threaten's their reputation and job.

Bearden and a few scientist's around the world growing in numbers have seen something wonderful, and the BOHM-AHARONOV EFFECT proves that, confirmed by science in 1959. It's occurance has overwhelming implication's.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Aharonov-BohmEffect.html

Classical theory is forced to admit that it has to consider a virtual potential as a real entity.. something that is never admitted to as being a real contributing factor, admitting the fundemental error of classical and quantum theory, yet to this day it hasnt been changed in the text book's. http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0404031

The motion of a system of particles under electromagnetic interaction is considered. Under the assumption that the force acting on an electric charge is given by the sum of the electromagnetic fields produced by any other charged particles in its neighborhood, we prove that the vector potential of the electromagnetic field has to be considered for the balance of kinetic momentum. The theory cannot be quantized in the usual form -- because it involves a mass matrix that depends on spatial variables -- and the Hamilton's function becomes singular at a distance equal to the geometric mean of the electrodynamic radiuses of electrons and protons

Trying to put this so everyone understand's.. basically the virtual particles (potentials) are only virtual in appearance but are infact real influencable entities, that are sub components of all EM waves and masses in the universe. These virtual elements are our scalar wave patterns (stesses) in vacuum, which provides a real virtual energy that can be artificially manipulated by destructively cancelling out 2 normal detectable EM waves to result in a zero vector virtual wave component, this component is hyperdimensional and does 'not' obey physical 3 space laws (travelling around 3 space at superluminous speed) , interference of these waves respectively creates a non zero vector creating EM wave energy (if desired) in 3 space at a selected distance hyperdimensionally at the source.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Thats what the granted patent is partly for, describing construction and priciples etc, they have to have atleast a 3rd party signature for validity of the invention's function.. you cant apply and achieve a valid patent without that.

AHAHAHAHA

Sorry, but have you actually seen the state of the US patent office these days? The most ridiculous patents are being granted without any validity or checking for prior art.

Lots of blah snipped

Proof, not hearsay.

 

[kirovman]

Trying to put this so everyone understand's.. basically the virtual particles (potentials)

virtual particles are NOT potentials

are only virtual in appearance but are infact real influencable entities,

virtual means they have NO appearance.

that are sub components of all EM waves and masses in the universe

No they aren't. You can't say the particle is a component of the wave like this. They only have a mass for as long as they exist, which is a very short time indeed. The higher their mass, the less time they exist for.

These virtual elements are our scalar wave patterns (stesses) in vacuum, which provides a real virtual energy that can be artificially manipulated

Stresses in a vaccuum? Is a vaccuum a malleable material which responds to forces? Nope.
Real virtual energy? What is that, an oxymoron? Like good bad energy I suppose.

by destructively cancelling out 2 normal detectable EM waves to result in a zero vector virtual wave component,

The waves cancel out, but they don't create a virtual wave, the decreased amplitude wave is very real indeed. A zero vector implies that it has no direction, which is not the case with EM waves.

this component is hyperdimensional and does 'not' obey physical 3 space laws (travelling around 3 space at superluminous speed) ,

What are the 3 space laws? I've never heard of them.

interference of these waves respectively creates a non zero vector creating EM wave energy (if desired) in 3 space at a selected distance hyperdimensionally at the source.

Most of this seems to be pseudoscience designed to woo people, but with no real substance


You say that scientists are influenced by the dollars and the money to supress theories, which simply isn't true. Being a research scientist can be a very poorly paying job, and if scientists didn't feel passionately about the research and understanding new theories, they'd probably have become an investment banker instead. They want to understand the truth, not suppress it.


And classical theory is not forced to admit anything, classical theory is unchanging. However, we do apply new theories that either complement classical theory, or that contradict it within certain quantum or relativistic limits.

But being a scientist is about theorising and experimentation to realise the truth. It's not about marketing dubious (at best) products in order to try and con people.
If this Bearden fellow really had some substance, he'd be able to find Universities around the world that would accredit his work and spread the word, because not every scientist is driven by the oil economy.

Argh see what you've made me do now, you've forced me to come out of retirement from physics!

 

[jverne]

We all know our current way of life needs to change, Yes we are creatures of habbit, however... it's unviable, destructive, polluting short term sustainment at best with a constantly growing population, its crude, it relies on an aging power grid that is hurrendous to maintain, not to mention ugly, It puts alot of us so called 'free' people in a strong dependancey on one type of energy generation (one type, where are our choices, we are entitled to them)

The longer its left the harder it will be to transition the billions who depend on energy. Not enough is being done to spearhead new energy technologies, the beurocracey of the system is killing that progression, It needs to change or there needs to atleast be more cost effective viable alternatives.

Its a losing struggle, we have to face the fact that the oil and gas industry will start to collapse when demand start's outweighing production.. not when oil runs out. By habbit its a futile attempt at squeezing every last viable peny, and along with that every last ounce of CO2 emission, before the buisness executives in oil move elsewhere or go bankrupt.

amazying...you didn't try to include that EM scalar waves theory in this post! :rolling:



i'm already buying solar cells!

oh wouldn't it be lovely , if people took alternate energies more seriously right about.... now.

I really actually wish people would stop being so ingnorant to claim's and many pantent application's for the successful utilisation of zero point energy (dark energy) from vacuum into usable electricity.

usp...sorry...i knew you would...sooner or later!

 

[clarky003]

Im sorry Jverne, i guess I just cant help it

And classical theory is not forced to admit anything, classical theory is unchanging. However, we do apply new theories that either complement classical theory, or that contradict it within certain quantum or relativistic limits.

Of course it is, something anomalous is occuring so it has to include a virtual vector as a real acting component to explain it. When it usually doesnt consider virtual element's to be real atall, which is obsurd considering without these virtual element's quantum mechanic's wouldnt logically work, and it would all break down.

Your not seeing it.. the BOHM-AHARONOV EFFECT proves virtual vectors can have a quantifiable effect in an observable system, which means there's a real active energy at work, active virtual state vacuum influencing a system, what your citing is classical ignorance of this fact, Yes classical theory hasnt changed and neither has quantum, thats the problem it's not acknowledging virtual vectors as real influencing component's. If it's correct it should beable to predict the effect without being modified or added to, but it cant.

This is why we cant explain gravity classically or even in quantum. The localised stress on mass from vacuum of virtual particle flux creates the gravitational field, (curved space time) It's why the force is so weak, you need alot of localised stress (mass, velocity) to exibit any noticeable macroscopic effect's.

But im all for supporting the research of Bearden, and I know he does do lecture's at certain universites, and his books are very popular with student's. This all fits with classical and quantum, its fundemental changes that need to occur to unify the theory.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

You forgot to say "in my opinion"

 

[kirovman]

Virtual - to exist only in essence, but not in a directly measurable way. ie it nearly exists, very briefly, but is cruelly eliminated from this universe.

I'm not going to go too much into this but:

something anomalous is occuring so it has to include a virtual vector as a real acting component to explain it

Why must it? I could just as easily and just as justifiably have said "Something anomolous is occuring so it must have included pink elephants"
The Aharonov-Bohm experiment comfirmed that the vector potential of the B-field was not zero even when the B-field itself was zero. Which seemed counter-intuative at the time, but this was accounted for by the Gauge Transformation. The Gauge Transformation allowed a vector potential component to be added on, which accounted for the difference observed. Gauge Transformations are very useful when experimenting with theoretical particles.

Something about Aharonov-Bohm expt.

I also recommend reading Richard Feynman's lectures for an easy to comprehend explaination (he was a genius, for he simplified the most complicated stuff so well).

I'm citing classical ignorance of the fact? We use classical theory in classical situations (simply because it's far easier than quantum theory). Otherwise we refer to the more advanced and modern theories. Modern science makes full use of Quantum ElectroDynamics. But we can't change classical theory, as it is in the books that have been printed years ago. But we can augment it with new theories, as quantum has done. Rather than disprove classical theory, it complements it, and adds understanding in the boundary limit areas. Quantum physics does not work against classical theory, rather, it mends it.

Also the Aharonov-Bohm effect is an QED effect. But:

This is why we cant explain gravity classically or even in quantum

That doesn't have any relation to the gravitational field you're citing. Gravity is associated general relativity. The A-B effect is to do with quantum theory. There's no firm unification theories between them in modern science. So you can't just use quantum theory like that to explain space-time curvature, like you've made the missing link while others like Einstein and Hawking...or Bearden have failed to do so.

 

[clarky003]

"Something anomolous is occuring so it must have included pink elephants"

lol , what!?

Pink elephant's arnt a variable in explaining particle behaviour, you clearly now being daft. We dont know what they are, we cant see them but we can note that there has to be a real acting force to sustain quantum behaviour, you cant see the wind yet you can see and feel its effect's, does that not make it real?.

that PDF is great though thanks. It's no different to the link I posted earlier, just more inclusive calculation's, much clearer.

Youve just said it yourself, 'in modern science' there is no link because there appears to be no active process in shedding any light on the situation, To me it's totally obsurd that we concieve of virtual element's that are needed for fuctional realisation, and then say that they have no quantifiable effect, its totally hypocritic. You must understand that they dont even consider zero vector's because again they are 'believed' to be unquantifiable.

Bearden actually shed's light on the situation, and I know you still dont 'believe' in scalar waves, but there are replicateable experiment's that prove their existance. Its constructive to critique and contrast against our present understanding.. but however its destructive to simply stand by and wash it off as impossible, the concept of inert vacuum was falsified long ago, even Einstein knew vacuum had to be active, but classical theory still consider's it inert, that is the error, rendering the causal function's as unreal and imaginary and no more.

Since when did general relativity practically explain the direct cause of gravity? conceptualising that ST curvature's cause gravity, fine light's observed bending because of that, it works, why and what causes ST curvature.. woops cant really verify that practically with relativity, In theory we go as far as mass creates gravity and then were stumped.

They are seperate theories but you make it out like they are in universes of their own, they all apply to the same universe.. to try to make them work together and to verify that is progress to understanding the fundemental function of everything, if they fit then we must have something right, if they contradict then there must be something missing or at error.

you can quantify a zero vector with this RF experiment.

 

[kirovman]

lol , what!?

Pink elephant's arnt a variable in explaining particle behaviour, you clearly now being daft. We dont know what they are, we cant see them but we can note that there has to be a real acting force to sustain quantum behaviour, you cant see the wind yet you can see and feel its effect's, does that not make it real?.

the quantum effects are uncertainties associated with the quantum particles eg the electron in the atom is not a defined point but a 'cloud' of negative charge. That is not to say it is orbiting the electron, we just don't know exactly where it's position is. However the real forces involved are shown to conserve energy, while the virtual forces associated with the particles - there is energy popping into existance, yes, but it must be repaid within the time limit. You can't get something for nothing. If you want this virtual particle to become real, you must invest at least the equivilent amount of energy. Otherwise this particle will disappear. Remember virtual particles appear in pairs.

that PDF is great though thanks. It's no different to the link I posted earlier, just more inclusive calculation's, much clearer.

Glad you liked it.

Youve just said it yourself, 'in modern science' there is no link because there appears to be no active process in shedding any light on the situation, To me it's totally obsurd that we concieve of virtual element's that are needed for fuctional realisation, and then say that they have no quantifiable effect, its totally hypocritic. You must understand that they dont even consider zero vector's because again they are 'believed' to be unquantifiable.

They only have quantifiable effects if we invest the energy to make these particles real. Or else they vanish with no interaction in the universe. For better information about virtual particles, Feynmann diagrams really explain them best.

Bearden actually shed's light on the situation, and I know you still dont 'believe' in scalar waves, but there are replicateable experiment's that prove their existance. Its constructive to critique and contrast against our present understanding.. but however its destructive to simply stand by and wash it off as impossible, the concept of inert vacuum was falsified long ago, even Einstein knew vacuum had to be active, but classical theory still consider's it inert, that is the error, rendering the causal function's as unreal and imaginary and no more.

I neither believe or disbelieve anything, I take it upon myself to have an open, but critical mind. Therefore I will greet any new theory with the appropriate skeptisism, but not disregard it. If this theory indeed turns out to explain phenomena then it goes up in my credibility ratings. It must also follow logical train of thought.
I'm just not optimistic about this scalar waves thing because I don't find a lot of consistency within the websites, and I often find a lot of misinterpretations of physics that I have studied.

Since when did general relativity practically explain the direct cause of gravity? conceptualising that ST curvature's cause gravity, fine light's observed bending because of that, it works, why and what causes ST curvature.. woops cant really verify that practically with relativity, In theory we go as far as mass creates gravity and then were stumped.

Mass is responsible for gravitational fields. Their may be a way to link quantum theory and general relativity. But if you want to know why space-time is bended by a mass, that's a question of philosphy.

They are seperate theories but you make it out like they are in universes of their own, they all apply to the same universe.. to try to make them work together and to verify that is progress to understanding the fundemental function of everything, if they fit then we must have something right, if they contradict then there must be something missing or at error.

But to make them work together, a solution needs to be found that agrees. So far they haven't made the astronomical world coincide with the microscopic world. It's the same universe yes. The theories don't contradict each other, they just happen to apply within different boundaries. Getting a unified theory would involve these boundary conditions being overcome into a general theory. The rules of GR and Quantum would still apply, and they are still very valid special solutions, but they aren't general solutions (despite GR being called GENERAL relativity).

you can quantify a zero vector with this RF experiment.

Should I be building WMD in my own home?

 

[clarky003]

- there is energy popping into existance, yes, but it must be repaid within the time limit. You can't get something for nothing. If you want this virtual particle to become real, you must invest at least the equivilent amount of energy.

I can see that your not quite getting this, It's becoming real anyway in the case that its coming out of 'nothing' naturally (which isnt nothing atall, its active vacuum that explains that misunderstanding) there's a natural driving mechanisim, an extreme non linearity of virtual flux which creates the vibrational patterns (nuceli, particles) that we as biological reciever's, are tuned into. Because its constantly being created and destroyed over and over again, you have a seemingly infinite supply of virtual flux around you to direct at changing a 'localised area', in theory you simply use the natural power supply of normal EM waves in the surrounding space to directly increase the non linearity in that area even more to exite it.
As we know when an electron is exited the potential of pulsing between exited and normal emits a photon , you pump the vacuum in the vacinity using vacuum energy from another location, conservation isnt being broken the unseen natural source of energy just makes it seem that way.

Or else they vanish with no interaction in the universe

do they? they vanish 'out of detection yes', yet they need to still be there to explain the constant behaviour of particles, that suggest the interactions have to be there all the time. So as you can see this is the main reasoning behind why your finding what im saying a bit perplexing, there's a duality, they are there and there not, but that is illogical. What makes more sense... there not there but they are when 'we' can detect them under certain conditions.., or they are there all the time and we can only detect them under certain conditions. Is the universe lieing to us or are we lieing to ourselves... lol

They only have quantifiable effects if we invest the energy to make these particles real

Exactley, but that energy already exist's with our artificially generated EM waves, which would theoretically carry the virtual component's with it, if you get rid of the hertzian EM component by cancelling it out, in theory what is left is your virtual zero vector wave with the same frequencey, interfere two virtual waves and the nonlinearity if the virtual interaction is to be proven should create other vector component's influencing the nuclei which can be detected as the same normal EM signal in the interference zone.

I neither believe or disbelieve anything, I take it upon myself to have an open, but critical mind. Therefore I will greet any new theory with the appropriate skeptisism, but not disregard it. If this theory indeed turns out to explain phenomena then it goes up in my credibility ratings. It must also follow logical train of thought.
I'm just not optimistic about this scalar waves thing because I don't find a lot of consistency within the websites, and I often find a lot of misinterpretations of physics that I have studied.

thats good, thats all im doing aswell im not entirely convinced myself, but in situation's where new energy alternatives are extremely useful Id like to try to understand and perhaps prove to myself that what Bearden is saying is true rather than outright dismiss it like some scientist's. The reason I'm compelled by this is because it does follow a logical train of thought. That the hidden effect's (virtual) are the missing link in obtaining a workable unifed grand theory.

Im exited , because ive realised, if indeed i can replicate the experiment's taking place, (already bought my oscilloscope) It proves a third derivative effect, which would be astounding, because it's a precursor to realising that at low energy level's it would be possible to engineer nuclei, and indeed reality itself, engineering general relativity may become a distinct possibility, which as you can imagine has vaste implication's.

 

[kirovman]

I can see that your not quite getting this,

:rolling:

It's becoming real anyway in the case that its coming out of 'nothing' naturally (which isnt nothing atall, its active vacuum that explains that misunderstanding) there's a natural driving mechanisim, an extreme non linearity of virtual flux which creates the vibrational patterns (nuceli, particles) that we as biological reciever's, are tuned into. Because its constantly being created and destroyed over and over again, you have a seemingly infinite supply of virtual flux around you to direct at changing a 'localised area', in theory you simply use the natural power supply of normal EM waves in the surrounding space to directly increase the non linearity in that area even more to exite it.
As we know when an electron is exited the potential of pulsing between exited and normal emits a photon , you pump the vacuum in the vacinity using vacuum energy from another location, conservation isnt being broken the unseen natural source of energy just makes it seem that way.

This is all about the Uncertainty Principle, and virtual particles exist yes, but they are not strictly real (perhaps real is the wrong word to use to describe it) - what I'm getting at is that they only exist within the constraints of the uncertainty principle - the more energetic the particles, the less time it can exist for. It's one of the basic foundations of quantum physics, so I'd say that I am "getting this".

do they? they vanish 'out of detection yes', yet they need to still be there to explain the constant behaviour of particles, that suggest the interactions have to be there all the time.

Yes interactions are there all the time, but there are plenty of new virtual particles, they're not the old ones.

So as you can see this is the main reasoning behind why your finding what im saying a bit perplexing, there's a duality, they are there and there not, but that is illogical. What makes more sense... there not there but they are when 'we' can detect them under certain conditions.., or they are there all the time and we can only detect them under certain conditions. Is the universe lieing to us or are we lieing to ourselves... lol

Uncertainty Principle
I can't emphasise enough the importance of the Uncertainty Principle.


I'm afraid that's the world of quantum physics. Illogical, maybe, but it's something you're going to have to wrap your head around. Particles maybe simultaneously there and not there at a defined location. Look at the electron shell in an atom for a good example.

Exactley, but that energy already exist's with our artificially generated EM waves, which would theoretically carry the virtual component's with it, if you get rid of the hertzian EM component by cancelling it out, in theory what is left is your virtual zero vector wave with the same frequencey, interfere two virtual waves and the nonlinearity if the virtual interaction is to be proven should create other vector component's influencing the nuclei which can be detected as the same normal EM signal in the interference zone.

Destructive inteference should occur, or a standing wave?

thats good, thats all im doing aswell im not entirely convinced myself, but in situation's where new energy alternatives are extremely useful Id like to try to understand and perhaps prove to myself that what Bearden is saying is true rather than outright dismiss it like some scientist's. The reason I'm compelled by this is because it does follow a logical train of thought. That the hidden effect's (virtual) are the missing link in obtaining a workable unifed grand theory.

There's no reason to dismiss something if it's mathematically sound and/or produces definate experimental results. Check out what Richard Feynmann has to say on virtual particles.

Im exited , because ive realised, if indeed i can replicate the experiment's taking place, (already bought my oscilloscope) It proves a third derivative effect, which would be astounding, because it's a precursor to realising that at low energy level's it would be possible to engineer nuclei, and indeed reality itself, engineering general relativity may become a distinct possibility, which as you can imagine has vaste implication's.

And oscilloscope is expensive, I would have used a virtual (no pun intended) oscilloscope on my PC to record the measurements.

Engineering reality itself? :cheese:
Engineering General Relativity via virtual particles would require a theory connecting GR to the Graviton. The graviton has not been discovered, simply because gravity is such a weak force - a huge amount of energy is needed to establish a link between the electro-strongweak force and gravity.

 

[clarky003]

Id get a computer software Oscilloscope, but i dont really fancy putting dangerous RF experiment's anywhere near my PC. besides i could do with a real unit.

Well imo the uncertainty principle is borked, because they are needed all the time to keep the process going and yet they are treated as just a convieniance in the math, it's just a bizarre concept. Its real and its not real, you cant work with that which is why conventional working fail to realise that they have a constant quantifiable interaction, even though it isnt always quantum or macroscopically detectable the virtual elements are still there.

The energy required already exist's all around us, the very energy that's needed to keep the electron going. Bearden's work found Gravity and EM are produced by the same underlying process, gravity is weak because it is collective stress on vacuum by non linear vector interaction in Nuclei.. which creates an ST curvature. Gravity is a subspace distortion which bleed's off into our 3 dimensional universe through the non linearity of nuclei.. the source charge in EM force is a potential between linear and non linear vacuum which creates what we detect as particles, this is flux coupling to an observable mass flow (because we can detect these potential's and they have observable effect's in the macroscopic they are defined as strong) In a magnet, ordering increases the potential flux density increasing the observable mass flow, giving us observable magnetic flux. Gravity and EM are different manifestation's of the same underlying process.

The failure to realise that virtual element's have a constant quantifiable effect naturally powered by the vacuum discard's the underlying process, so the link cant be made with conventional theory and model's, which most noteably is why we struggle with present understanding to rigorously define force, understand gravity and its relationship with EM effect's, and solve the source charge problem.

http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/s23.htm

 

[GhostBoi]

You know this is great and all, but can this replace the current oil infastructure without the use of massive ammounts of oil, I am doubting it, so even if what you are saying is true its all really null.

 

[jverne]

You know this is great and all, but can this replace the current oil infastructure without the use of massive ammounts of oil, I am doubting it, so even if what you are saying is true its all really null.

yep...that's tottaly true!!

 

[clarky003]

what's that.. ignorance is a virtue?, dont strain your brain's. I'll bring up something else that is being reconsidered by government institution's, and has great potential.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1855672.stm

http://www.alternativescience.com/cold_fusion.htm

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/html/cfrdatas.htm

http://newenergytimes.com/Audio/2005KrivitS-ICENES-2005.mp3 - speaker at the start isnt clear, it clears up after about 20 seconds after the introduction.

http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/NET9.htm

http://pesn.com/2005/04/28/6900089_Taleyarkhan_and_Lahey_Sonofusion/

http://pesn.com/2005/04/28/6900088_UCLA_Cold_Fusion/

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/04/03/6900077_Leslie_Pastor_on_ColdFusion/index.html

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1444306,00.html



http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/ColdFusion/index.html


and I stress.. please read the links thoroughly.

edit: Pi, i know that, thanks for reminding me.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Yeah, can Scalar EM energy lubricate my engine? Does it create plastic? Can you drink it?

Oh, and stop patronising people clarky. You haven't earned the right - people disagreeing with you aren't automatically wrong or stupid.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

What makes me laugh is that New Scientist constantly rips on pseudoscience in the Feedback section.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[kirovman]

Id get a computer software Oscilloscope, but i dont really fancy putting dangerous RF experiment's anywhere near my PC. besides i could do with a real unit.

How much did you pay for it? I'd like an oscilloscope, but they're pretty sophistocated, therefore expensive. You wouldnt need the experiment near your pc, you could have a long cable hooked up to your soundcard.

Well imo the uncertainty principle is borked, because they are needed all the time to keep the process going and yet they are treated as just a convieniance in the math, it's just a bizarre concept. Its real and its not real, you cant work with that which is why conventional working fail to realise that they have a constant quantifiable interaction, even though it isnt always quantum or macroscopically detectable the virtual elements are still there.

It was the conventional and classical people who were against the uncertainty principle because "it just wasn't common sense", they cited the same reasons as you. Eventually this theory gained favour however as evidence emerged to support it.

Same with relativity, it wasn't believed for similar reasons

Notice how you're against the Uncertainty principle, in the same way most people are against scalar waves. However the uncertainty principle has a lot of experimental evidence behind it.

The energy required already exist's all around us, the very energy that's needed to keep the electron going. Bearden's work found Gravity and EM are produced by the same underlying process, gravity is weak because it is collective stress on vacuum by non linear vector interaction in Nuclei.. which creates an ST curvature. Gravity is a subspace distortion which bleed's off into our 3 dimensional universe through the non linearity of nuclei.. the source charge in EM force is a potential between linear and non linear vacuum which creates what we detect as particles, this is flux coupling to an observable mass flow (because we can detect these potential's and they have observable effect's in the macroscopic they are defined as strong) In a magnet, ordering increases the potential flux density increasing the observable mass flow, giving us observable magnetic flux. Gravity and EM are different manifestation's of the same underlying process.

The electron doesn't keep going like you think. Another classical error. It's movement will be induced due to local field affects. It doesn't orbit the atom though in the classical sense (classical implying that it is a ball bearing point - not true at all), it just has a probability distribution about it.

The failure to realise that virtual element's have a constant quantifiable effect naturally powered by the vacuum discard's the underlying process, so the link cant be made with conventional theory and model's, which most noteably is why we struggle with present understanding to rigorously define force, understand gravity and its relationship with EM effect's, and solve the source charge problem.

http://www.cheniere.org/books/ferdelance/s23.htm

Virtual particles can sometimes change to real/permenant particles, but most of the time they don't have any interaction.
We use virtual particles to describe force, because the particles carry the appropriate properties, eg charge. This is especially evident in the weak force.
For the strong force, there are 8 different kinds of gluons.
Virtual particles are virtual because they are not directly observed, we just say they must exist for the purposes of symmetry (conservation laws).
This virtual particle model is a vital part of CPT theory.