Free energy researcher death/murder #1XXX:
http://pesn.com/2007/12/05/9500463_self-powered_battery_inventor_dead/
http://pesn.com/2007/12/05/9500463_self-powered_battery_inventor_dead/
"murder" is quite speculative.
....Bearden also speculates about the cause of death, citing a technology that shoots an electromagnetic beam that destroys the body's control of its heartbeat. He said there are two basic sizes of the Venus ECCM technique. One has a range of around thirty feet, and the other, about the size of a bazooka, has an effective range of around 200 feet.....
....Bearden also speculates about the cause of death, citing a technology that shoots an electromagnetic beam that destroys the body's control of its heartbeat. He said there are two basic sizes of the Venus ECCM technique. One has a range of around thirty feet, and the other, about the size of a bazooka, has an effective range of around 200 feet.....
It's not quite free. He had to write the stuff.
Even Einstein made money off his equations, no matter how you look at it. We have to be careful how we color things.
Plausibility in mental weighting can be indicative, but as we all hopefully know - does not always work out.
More importantly, do no make jokes or light, of the death of man..who happened to be working in a 'interesting field of research', when those folks drop like flies. We're into a number in modern record (last 200 years), that is somewhere in the 1000+ range. Joking about such is morally and ethically ill done, in my opinion -very dismissive. Not a good sign.
Even Einstein made money off his equations, no matter how you look at it. We have to be careful how we color things.
Plausibility in mental weighting can be indicative, but as we all hopefully know - does not always work out.
More importantly, do no make jokes or light, of the death of man..who happened to be working in a 'interesting field of research', when those folks drop like flies. We're into a number in modern record (last 200 years), that is somewhere in the 1000+ range. Joking about such is morally and ethically ill done, in my opinion -very dismissive. Not a good sign.
Pondering the imponderable
An out-of-this-world plunge into liquid helium, December 15, 2004
By Jill Malter (jillmalter@aol.com) - See all my reviews
What is the Universe made of?
I remember that long ago, I read "Geometrodynamics," which hypothesized that the Universe might be made entirely of empty space! Curved space, of course. "Imagine," I told a cosmologist friend. "Mass without Mass! Charge without Charge!"
"Yes," said my friend. "Equations without Solutions. Theories without Content."
My friend continued, sarcastically, "To say the Universe is empty is a mistake, caused by making a sign error in the equation 1 + 1 = 2, and getting 1 + 1 = 0. That's the problem when you make an odd number of sign errors instead of an even number of them. After all, there are only three kinds of cosmologists, those who can count and those who can not."
Since then, I've read books that got me to picture the Universe in other ways. As a collection of harmonic oscillators. As real poles in a complex plane. As strings. As a cellular automaton. As a set of binary values. And as an n-dimensional brane.
Now we have a very interesting and award-winning monograph which gets us to think of the Universe as a droplet of superfluid Helium. And I was reminded of my earlier conversation when the author began by saying:
"A number of different vortices with an intricate structure of the multi-component order parameter have been experimentally observed in the superfluid phases of Helium-3, but the mathematics which is used to treat them is as simple as the equation 1 + 1 = 0."
Of course, by this Volovik means that two soliton walls annihilate each other.
In any case, this is a book for some of you Acoustics People out there. Yes, you. Ahoy! You who work with waves and oscillations in superfluid liquid Helium! Abandon your futile searches for Sixth Sound. And Fifth Sound. Switch to Cosmology! Here is a Model you can all understand!
The idea of this book is to find a condensed matter system analog to support the idea that elementary particles are excitations of a more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. And superfluid Helium3-A comes closest. When the temperature is non-zero, this "vacuum" is excited. The helium quasiparticles are very similar to the chiral elementary particles of the Standard Model. The helium "collective modes are very similar to gravitational, electromagnetic, and SU(2) gauge fields, and quanta of these modes are analogs of gravitons, photons, and weak bosons."
This comparison can remove the need for the ultraviolet renormalization we see in quantum field theory. And it may get us to dispose of quantum gravity entirely, and conclude that gravity simply is not fundamental.
James Bjorken, in a paper on Emergent Gauge Bosons, said that he likes the fact that Volovik's model supplies a solution to the cosmological constant problem (without having to invoke supersymmetry or any fine tuning). After all, a cold quantum liquid in equilibrium will have a pressure due to surface corrections, and that pressure will scale as an inverse power of droplet size. Bjorken tells us in the introduction to this book that "the vacuum dark pressure scales with the vacuum dark energy, and thus is measured by the cosmological constant, which indeed scales as the inverse square of the 'size' of the universe." Volovik says the cosmological constant is not a constant but a dynamical quantity which is either continuously or in a stepwise manner adjusted to perturbations.
This is how the helium droplet model serves to explain why the cosmological constant is so small, 120 orders of magnitude less than predicted by relativistic quantum field theory, and solves the coincidence problem of having the cosmological constant on the order of the present mass of the universe. The model also provides a (non-inflationary) rationale for the Universe being flat and answers the question of why the vacuum is (almost) non-gravitating.
Volovik explains that his model can also be used to construct analogs of black holes in the laboratory. "Quasiparticles cannot escape from the region of liquid which moves faster than they can propagate. Such regions serve as black holes." Two superfluid liquids sliding along each other can be used to construct an analog of an event horizon. And we might deduce something about collapse of black holes from this.
One problem for me is that this model would make the speed of light other than a fundamental constant. After all, the analogy is to the speed of sound in Helium3-A, which varies between 3 centimeters per second and 10,000 centimeters per second, depending on the direction of propagation! In our world, we wouldn't notice that. But there could be "external" observers who would. It all sounded too eerily similar to Tom Van Flandern's discussion of the speed of light. Van Flandern said that while the speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their velocities, that's true "for any wave in any medium, if one uses only waves of various types in that medium for the measurement." And I had given only two stars to Van Flandern's book!
More seriously, as Volovik admits, when one goes from microscopic theories to a more phenomenological approach, one runs into problems of non-locality.
The author tells us that so far, there has indeed been a success in using a superfluid Helium3 simulation. The Iordanskii force has been experimentally identified in rotating superfluid Helium3-B. And it provides verification of the analog of the gravitational Aharonov-Bohm effect!
You'll learn quite a bit about particle physics, cosmology, and even liquid helium if you read this book.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198507828/104-8070945-8907940
Here's a collection that some don't believe exists.
http://www.geocities.com/sciliterature/RelativityDebates.htm
An out-of-this-world plunge into liquid helium, December 15, 2004
By Jill Malter (jillmalter@aol.com) - See all my reviews
What is the Universe made of?
I remember that long ago, I read "Geometrodynamics," which hypothesized that the Universe might be made entirely of empty space! Curved space, of course. "Imagine," I told a cosmologist friend. "Mass without Mass! Charge without Charge!"
"Yes," said my friend. "Equations without Solutions. Theories without Content."
My friend continued, sarcastically, "To say the Universe is empty is a mistake, caused by making a sign error in the equation 1 + 1 = 2, and getting 1 + 1 = 0. That's the problem when you make an odd number of sign errors instead of an even number of them. After all, there are only three kinds of cosmologists, those who can count and those who can not."
Since then, I've read books that got me to picture the Universe in other ways. As a collection of harmonic oscillators. As real poles in a complex plane. As strings. As a cellular automaton. As a set of binary values. And as an n-dimensional brane.
Now we have a very interesting and award-winning monograph which gets us to think of the Universe as a droplet of superfluid Helium. And I was reminded of my earlier conversation when the author began by saying:
"A number of different vortices with an intricate structure of the multi-component order parameter have been experimentally observed in the superfluid phases of Helium-3, but the mathematics which is used to treat them is as simple as the equation 1 + 1 = 0."
Of course, by this Volovik means that two soliton walls annihilate each other.
In any case, this is a book for some of you Acoustics People out there. Yes, you. Ahoy! You who work with waves and oscillations in superfluid liquid Helium! Abandon your futile searches for Sixth Sound. And Fifth Sound. Switch to Cosmology! Here is a Model you can all understand!
The idea of this book is to find a condensed matter system analog to support the idea that elementary particles are excitations of a more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. And superfluid Helium3-A comes closest. When the temperature is non-zero, this "vacuum" is excited. The helium quasiparticles are very similar to the chiral elementary particles of the Standard Model. The helium "collective modes are very similar to gravitational, electromagnetic, and SU(2) gauge fields, and quanta of these modes are analogs of gravitons, photons, and weak bosons."
This comparison can remove the need for the ultraviolet renormalization we see in quantum field theory. And it may get us to dispose of quantum gravity entirely, and conclude that gravity simply is not fundamental.
James Bjorken, in a paper on Emergent Gauge Bosons, said that he likes the fact that Volovik's model supplies a solution to the cosmological constant problem (without having to invoke supersymmetry or any fine tuning). After all, a cold quantum liquid in equilibrium will have a pressure due to surface corrections, and that pressure will scale as an inverse power of droplet size. Bjorken tells us in the introduction to this book that "the vacuum dark pressure scales with the vacuum dark energy, and thus is measured by the cosmological constant, which indeed scales as the inverse square of the 'size' of the universe." Volovik says the cosmological constant is not a constant but a dynamical quantity which is either continuously or in a stepwise manner adjusted to perturbations.
This is how the helium droplet model serves to explain why the cosmological constant is so small, 120 orders of magnitude less than predicted by relativistic quantum field theory, and solves the coincidence problem of having the cosmological constant on the order of the present mass of the universe. The model also provides a (non-inflationary) rationale for the Universe being flat and answers the question of why the vacuum is (almost) non-gravitating.
Volovik explains that his model can also be used to construct analogs of black holes in the laboratory. "Quasiparticles cannot escape from the region of liquid which moves faster than they can propagate. Such regions serve as black holes." Two superfluid liquids sliding along each other can be used to construct an analog of an event horizon. And we might deduce something about collapse of black holes from this.
One problem for me is that this model would make the speed of light other than a fundamental constant. After all, the analogy is to the speed of sound in Helium3-A, which varies between 3 centimeters per second and 10,000 centimeters per second, depending on the direction of propagation! In our world, we wouldn't notice that. But there could be "external" observers who would. It all sounded too eerily similar to Tom Van Flandern's discussion of the speed of light. Van Flandern said that while the speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their velocities, that's true "for any wave in any medium, if one uses only waves of various types in that medium for the measurement." And I had given only two stars to Van Flandern's book!
More seriously, as Volovik admits, when one goes from microscopic theories to a more phenomenological approach, one runs into problems of non-locality.
The author tells us that so far, there has indeed been a success in using a superfluid Helium3 simulation. The Iordanskii force has been experimentally identified in rotating superfluid Helium3-B. And it provides verification of the analog of the gravitational Aharonov-Bohm effect!
You'll learn quite a bit about particle physics, cosmology, and even liquid helium if you read this book.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198507828/104-8070945-8907940
Here's a collection that some don't believe exists.
http://www.geocities.com/sciliterature/RelativityDebates.htm
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198507828/104-8070945-8907940
>>
>> http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/8/6/16
>>
>> http://boojum.hut.fi/personnel/THEORY/volovik.html
>>
>> You can download a PDF of the book from the last link.
>>
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2004-07/2010.html
>>
>> http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/8/6/16
>>
>> http://boojum.hut.fi/personnel/THEORY/volovik.html
>>
>> You can download a PDF of the book from the last link.
>>
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2004-07/2010.html
No one here was making light of DeGeus' death. Poking fun at the ridiculous character Bearden is another matter. My restaurant tab ducking comment was aimed at this incident:
"My colleague Ken Moore and I were struck with just such a beam from a small Venus beam shooter, in the inside breast coatpocket of the assassin, in a restaurant here in Huntsville several years ago. We both felt the beam and the instant fibrillation. I personally saw the assassin, about 20 feet away from us and well-dressed in suit and tie, pull back his coat front and point that book-sized shooter at us. Fortunately we were seated right beside the emergency exit from the dining room, and I knew about Venus technique shooters and their drastic effects. So we just immediately jumped right through that exit, setting off all the alarms, but getting out of the beam in just a few seconds. So we lived to tell the tale."
What's as shameful if not more so than making light of someone's death is inventing conspiracies concerning that person's death, especially for financial gain. There is not a more sickening aspect of American culture than the Kennedy assassination conspiracy phenomenon.
John
Don't bring up Kennedy. Please. Or it will get ugly. 
I do appreciate the sentiment about Kennedy. The cash/book/etc angle is a result of the origins and directions of America. Reflection of culture, etc. But I'm sure you get it.
As for what Bearden is speaking of, I have no reason to doubt him, one way or another. Ie, I will keep it under advisement. Not because I am foolish, but because I am wise. I have seen and understand too many things in this world to dismiss what he says. Nor do I have the direct experience of what he specifically says - to accept. Therefore, what he says will be held in a 'mental holding area' for further study.
For example, I fundamentally and forcefully reject the idea of linear time, with no exception. This, from direct personal experience, for reasons of far too many of experiences that are directly in conflict with such. For the individual who understands such, the 'mental block' on such considerations is removed, and thus, that given individual is handed the opportunity to study and absorb facets, understandings, and subjects that the individual that does not have such experiences..cannot reach. Scientifically..this puts the non-believer and non-accepting of such phenomena... behind the scientific 8 ball.
Here's one for the books.
Eat crap and live:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/26/nbug126.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
I do appreciate the sentiment about Kennedy. The cash/book/etc angle is a result of the origins and directions of America. Reflection of culture, etc. But I'm sure you get it.As for what Bearden is speaking of, I have no reason to doubt him, one way or another. Ie, I will keep it under advisement. Not because I am foolish, but because I am wise. I have seen and understand too many things in this world to dismiss what he says. Nor do I have the direct experience of what he specifically says - to accept. Therefore, what he says will be held in a 'mental holding area' for further study.
For example, I fundamentally and forcefully reject the idea of linear time, with no exception. This, from direct personal experience, for reasons of far too many of experiences that are directly in conflict with such. For the individual who understands such, the 'mental block' on such considerations is removed, and thus, that given individual is handed the opportunity to study and absorb facets, understandings, and subjects that the individual that does not have such experiences..cannot reach. Scientifically..this puts the non-believer and non-accepting of such phenomena... behind the scientific 8 ball.
Here's one for the books.
Eat crap and live:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/26/nbug126.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
Theodore Roszak and Floyd W. Matson (The Broken Image, The Making of a Counterculture) wrote brilliantly and with passion about our need to embrace the sensual, spiritual and intellectual elements of our being as an integrated whole. The danger of accepting, without challenge, the reductive reasoning of objectivist scientists (who claimed knowledge of behavior and being through experimentation and observation of these elemental pieces), was the misunderstanding that human physical elements could be accurately partitioned, analyzed and observed outside the context of the whole person.
Not only was it impossible to not change and objectify the observed, therefore changing the true nature of our understanding of any phenomena exhibited by same, the very act of observation established an “I/Thou” relationship, which was hierarchical in nature. This falsely imposed hierarchy automatically relegated the observed to a subordinate status within this relationship, distorting the validity of any information extrapolated. They called this “The Myth of the Objective Consciousness.” They weren’t anti-science, psychology or research, they just asked that we look carefully at our methodology and not discount the importance of a more holistic approach when attempting to understand man’s complex nature. Reductionism was too limiting and incomplete a process to accurately describe our being.
Not only was it impossible to not change and objectify the observed, therefore changing the true nature of our understanding of any phenomena exhibited by same, the very act of observation established an “I/Thou” relationship, which was hierarchical in nature. This falsely imposed hierarchy automatically relegated the observed to a subordinate status within this relationship, distorting the validity of any information extrapolated. They called this “The Myth of the Objective Consciousness.” They weren’t anti-science, psychology or research, they just asked that we look carefully at our methodology and not discount the importance of a more holistic approach when attempting to understand man’s complex nature. Reductionism was too limiting and incomplete a process to accurately describe our being.
KBK said:
There was some coverage on the CBC about this a couple weeks ago. It's supposed to be administered rectally, not orally. An Asian-Canadian doctor in Calgary wanted to practice this procedure at his hospital. His cohorts deemed it "Un-Canadian", so he does house calls instead.
How come when I quote I can read the censored word?
maxro said:
I'm surprised they just didn't give her acidophilus or related probiotic. There's plenty of different types on the market. My doctor knew what it was when I asked him about it. He never recommended it to me, but he said I can use it and it will do no harm (in his words). I asked him if I could try putting some in my nose to treat colds and sinus infections and he said it was OK.
One problem with antibiotics is that they tend to kill off the good bacteria as well as the bad bacteria. Doctors usually don't tell you about that.
I discovered some patents related to the burning salt water thing that was posted a number of posts back.
US 3089983 Ionization chambers of plasma generators at high temperatures
US 4061991 Seeded flame microwave power load
KNO3
US 6337540 High brightness point ion sources using liquid ionic compounds
http://www.pat2pdf.org
US 3089983 Ionization chambers of plasma generators at high temperatures
US 4061991 Seeded flame microwave power load
KNO3
US 6337540 High brightness point ion sources using liquid ionic compounds
http://www.pat2pdf.org
