It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
When Carl Sagan says "think for yourself", he does encourage people to get educated and learn to think critically. Then challenging authority, even if it's mainstream science, can at least be done rationally, and let's face it: science has advanced over the years because great scientists have challenged the authority of mainstream science and ultimately our views changed as a result. However I'm trying to think of cases where our mainstream world views have changed as a result of people like Rodin, who can't even seem to formulate a scientifically testable idea, and I'm not coming up with any examples.
So the moral of the story is, even if you think the mainstream science view is totally, utterly wrong, you're unlikely to change it if you can't even communicate in the same language of science which has developed this scientific world view. The way to change it is to educate yourself, learn the language scientists use, conduct experiments and present your scientific findings. Then you can join the ranks of the great scientists in history, who have challenged mainstream science, and won. I'm not saying it was easy, but they did it.
Barring such effort, Rodin's proclamations that he's solved the dark matter problem with the number 9 will be taken as seriously as cow flatulence; correction...less seriously. Cow flatulence may lead to global warming so at least scientists are willing to consider that.
I know we've had our differences, but i'm with you on this one.
Sagan is right, and i even though i do challenge mainstream science, i use their tools, their language.
Only then can it be viewed subjectively.
For instance, i would need to see some kind of proof that the number 9 is more relevant than cow's farts
However, from Wiki; Equatorial anomaly
"Electric currents created in sunward ionosphere.Within approximately ± 20 degrees of the magnetic equator, is the equatorial anomaly. It is the occurrence of a trough of concentrated ionization in the F2 layer. The Earth's magnetic field lines are horizontal at the magnetic equator. Solar heating and tidal oscillations in the lower ionosphere move plasma up and across the magnetic field lines. This sets up a sheet of electric current in the E region which, with the horizontal magnetic field, forces ionization up into the F layer, concentrating at ± 20 degrees from the magnetic equator. This phenomenon is known as the equatorial fountain."
I bet that 'approx 20 degrees' translates to 19.5 degrees
edit on 8-1-2012 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)
It seems like it was always a year away, right? For the last 15 years, at least?
Originally posted by playswithmachines
My only communication with Bearden got a reply to the effect that he appreciated my interest, & will have his MEG on the market next year.
That was back in 98 i believe...
Did you see the report I posted in this thread about the analysis of Naudin's replication? It used Naudin's own data to show there was no over unity.
Both Naudin & myself tried to replicate the MEG, i can't vouch for Naudin (although he did admit the plans that were supposed to come from Bearden had some basic flaws) as I found with my model.
Yes, the "secret recipe". Rossi plays that card too, but it doesn't make his claim any more credible to the skeptics...however the gullible seem to eat it up. If there was any truth to it, he would have done what he told you he was going to do, and released his working machine in a year or two, or three...but here we are 14 years later....not even waiting anymore.
Since i could not find the exact composition of the core, i can't replicate the MEG.
I've seen some interesting anomalies in my day too, one of which I showed my university professor in the university lab and he couldn't explain it either. I think I might have been able to explain it if I had a couple of months to work on it but my course load at the time didn't permit that. But if you do enough experiments, you can see some unexpected things, no doubt.
Originally posted by playswithmachines
BUT; My MEG tests did show up some interesting anomalies, which i won't go into detail about, but gave some credence to his theory......
And i certainly agree that there is far too much hype & scamming going on, it makes my work that much harder
And the significance of the 19.5 degrees is? I don't get it, though I do understand the article you linked to.
Originally posted by playswithmachines
I bet that 'approx 20 degrees' translates to 19.5 degrees
As for the 19.5 Degrees, don't you ever read the sacred geometry/illuminati/mars threads
This example shows how the number 9 is encoded within the structure of the alphabet itself. It is revealed by essentially folding the alphabet in half; that is, by combining the alphanumeric value of the first letter "A" with the alphanumeric value of last letter "Z", and adding them together. Do the same with each pair of letters from the opposite ends, working inward toward the center where M(13) meets N(14). Thus, [A]1+ [Z] 26 = 27. Reduced, 2+7=9. The same with B added to Y, and C added to X, and so on.
RESULTING PATTERN (each instance reduced to single digit): A+Z=27=9, B+Y=27=9, C+X=27=9, D+W=27=9, E+V=27=9, F+U=27=9, G+T=27=9, H+S=27=9, I+R=27=9, J+Q=27=9, K+P=27=9, L+O=27=9, M+N=27=9
It's easy to change them if you know how, I didn't upload anything.
Originally posted by playswithmachines
Here is Bearden's MEG;
Here is Naudin's;
And here is my micro-meg during second trials with a barium magnet;
As you can see, it was never developed for any 'power' applications, more as a proof of concept.
I am not finished with the MEG, but my charge system gives far better results
Apologies for the too-big pictures, i'm too tired to change them.
Poor Edward Current is going to have a nervous breakdown when I tell him there's even more sacred stuff he didn't even mention in this video:
Originally posted by playswithmachines
As for the 19.5 Degrees, don't you ever read the sacred geometry/illuminati/mars threads
A stunning report written by the late Eugene Mallove details the efforts of professors, researchers, and even the former President of MIT to squash cold fusion at all costs. If you have any doubt that Pons and Fleischmann had enemies desperately trying to discredit them, this article will erase it! A funeral party or wake to mock cold fusion was held by biased hot fusion scientists at MIT before their experiment to replicate Pons and Fleischmann’s results was even complete
So, the people discrediting him were right, and he admits it.
LOS ANGELES -- One of the two scientists who set off an international furor by claiming to have achieved nuclear fusion in a jar of water says that a key result of their experiment, which they had taken as a sign of fusion, was in error.
So other scientists said he was wrong.
In response to a question from Stanley Luckhardt of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology about whether neutrons were produced in the experiment, as would be expected according to conventional fusion theory, Fleischmann said a graph in their published paper indicating that neutrons were created was wrong because his neutron detector was faulty.
``We are well aware that peak (in the graph) is wrong ... . It disturbs me greatly,`` Fleischmann told the audience of hundreds.