E=mc^2

[Aaron]

correct formula - different interpretation

So the formulas work great because they acount for aether already.

Taken in the context that I describe, the aether definitely appears to be accounted for in the simple formulas.

[Aaron]

big bang

I agree:

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNAQkM1FchQ

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHWYNydtrC0

3. Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift

3rd link is ever interesting! Classic case of the conventional school of thought just explaining everything away with lip service. Just like Johann Grander says, they have a "big bang in their heads".

The first video doesn't play but the second one does and I want to watch them in order.

[cikljamas]

3rd link is ever interesting! Classic case of the conventional school of thought just explaining everything away with lip service. Just like Johann Grander says, they have a "big bang in their heads".

The first video doesn't play but the second one does and I want to watch them in order.

I wonder why my first video doesn't play? If it persist let me know, until then maybe i could offer you one alternative video as kind of substitution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpJyfusm1xw

This guy sounds so convincing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHzvhxpAfig&t=9m20s

I wonder how could you've possibly known that these two videos of mine were not in order if you had not watched them both in the first place?

And you are right, they are not in order...you just have reminded me now, how i was pissed off when i got out of the cinema (20 years ago) after watching "Pulp fiction" because i had not been able to follow movie action (consecutive scene order) in classical time order so when i see comments like following one i can only laugh at that as well as at remembrance of me being so pissed off so long ago for the same reason:

The directing is one of the strongest that we've seen from Tarantino, as he makes his choices in pacing with shots in unconventional ways but never in a way that would be distracting.

Yes, "big bang in their heads", "theory of evolution in their heads", "moon landing in their heads", "9/11 in their heads", "CO2-global warming in their heads", "heliocentric parallax in their heads", etc...

Time to read again Orwell's "1984." and to watch "Truman show"...

Very interesting video too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_HvVgl62oM

[cikljamas]

Look at these numbers (NASA budget): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGvXWV65ESs

Someone would maybe reckon that this astronomic amount of money is gonna suffice to government agencies, but hell no, they have to charge people even the sunlight from the sky:

Arizona Wants to 'Tax' Solar Power | TakePart
Austria imposes first levy on directly consumed solar - Solar Energy - Renewables International
So Austria government is the owner of the Sun in their borders. What is next? People will have to pay energy levy for every hour of their lives because people do produce energy...

Next is air, i guess...

And we still dream about Stan Mayer water car?

Do not delude yourself slaves, here is the truth about your reality:

WW2 - The True Cause of World War 2, WWII

Northerntruthseeker: More Real History Revealed: The REAL Reason Behind World War II: Hitler's Freedom From International Debt Slavery!

So, free energy is not scientific problem, but political, so as science itself is...

As long as we enjoy our slavery, we are going to maintain our slavery, we just can't help ourself being delighted with our privileged status of stupid slaves, can we?

[Allcanadian]

@I_Like_Science

You get it, man. It's just that the implication follows due to lack of acceleration within the box then the sum of internal forces must equal zero. Essentially, the gyroscope (or whatever, a pair of kick boxing kangaroos) can't contribute to the downward rate of fall.

I would disagree, when Einstein was conceiving E=mc^2 one proof was a thought experiment whereby mass in a closed box was accelerated however before it reached the other end of the box part of it was converted into Energy. Thus we have one inertial force acting on the box on acceleration and a lesser force on deceleration at the other end of the box. So we should be clear that in fact the proof of E=mc^2 is based on the fact that the sum of internal forces in a closed system does not have to sum to zero. Either mass can be converted to Energy and the sum of the inertial forces does not have to be equal zero or mass cannot be converted to Energy... you cannot have it both ways.

AC

[Hrothgar]

Effective communication

Could you get anymore wordy? your entire response is a perfect example of ineffectual communication receiving and sending.

I say Bearden is to wordy to be understood by normal people and you seem confused and respond "What is questionable about what Bearden says in regards to these subject?" Guess what you answered your own question, "He does sometimes use 20 pages to explain something can take 1 page"
When I say that, I am implying that after a certain level you might just as well inscribe it in hieroglyph and drop it into the ocean. Language is meant to convey ideas, But talking from the sky down to the masses only obfuscates.

"What you are describing is that you do not see how entropy is prevented with comments about the ball going back to the original height"
no what I am saying is that for my purposes if you can't find a way to leverage any of that derived COP to reset the process then your ball merely represents a recounting of a decline added up in increments. Simply put, useless to ME in PRACTICAL terms. COP is fine for expendable fuel but sucks in terms of trying to make a point with electrical energy as someone will try to claim a COP>1 on a sparsely populated pulsed DC signal derived from a lower voltage yet higher density DC and not account for the dead time between pulses. My point is that COP can be duplicitous when used for electrical output.

"Regauging is a word to sound smart? lol"
OK you got me there it isn't wordy enough or have enough syllables how about "incremental vector evaluation" that's much more "jargony"

"When lifting the object, the real analogy to the bemf is that you lift it up against gravitational opposition - not the up then down. Your analogy is actually not representative of what I said."
If you claim total distance traveled regardless of direction then I can claim the same with the size of a field regardless of timing or orientation, after all I only have to claim my "work done is to create a magnetic field" and I validate my COP claim.

You say regauging is the key of FE, I say If it takes a genius to tell everyone else to measure all aspects of input output then common sense is dead. I see FE as finding exploits between 2 or more systems to offset a return to equilibrium in one or more of them.

I recognize Bearden as a great figure but I was put off when I had worked out my own observations on magnets and determined after six months a motionless generator was viable and then I discovered he and his posse had done years before me. No big, they left a lot of room for improvement.


"Bearden says the dipole breaks the symmetry of the virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum. Eric says the aether is polarized. Bearden says this virtual photon flow from the positive terminal of a dipole that moves over the wire is the Heaviside flow. Eric says the flow is moving over the wire with the wire acting as a waveguide for that aetheric flow. Both state that the electron current is not leaving the dipole (like a capacitor or battery), the list goes on. They both deserve Nobel Prizes in my opinion for their own contributions - for Bearden, it is solving the "source charge" mystery, which conventional science is completely clueless as to what it really is to begin with. Potential differences cause the aether to polarize, come into the points of potential differences and then do work by encountering resistances that dissipates it back to a symmetrical state or state of equilibrium in the active vacuum. 100% of every instance where there is potential energy > work done > disordering of that potential energy killing the dipole = there are no exceptions to this universal principle that has ever been observed - mechanical, chemical, magnetic, etc... "
When I read that my first thought is that Bearden seems to think of virtual space as being a stable entity for theory craft and Dollard thinks of aether in the terms of the flowing alteration of space time expansion as such aether can be viewed as having directional discharge that would seem to violate Beardens symmetry perspective.

This entire set of exchanges has been 3 blind men describing an elephant.

[Allcanadian]

@cikljamas

Arizona Wants to 'Tax' Solar Power | TakePart
Austria imposes first levy on directly consumed solar - Solar Energy - Renewables International
So Austria government is the owner of the Sun in their borders. What is next? People will have to pay energy levy for every hour of their lives because people do produce energy...

If it wasn't so serious it might be comical, here we have politicians who claim to be the champions of freedom and democracy and yet their actions consistently prove otherwise. In fact they are moving towards Communism whereby the state will micro-manage every aspect of everyone's lives.

I wouldn't worry too much as the time of the baby boomers is coming to an end and their child like infatuation with profit margins and their absurd sense of entitlement will be forgotten. Has anyone actually talked with their children lately?, lol, believe me they won't be putting up with this BS for much longer. We are simply seeing the death throes of the baby boomers grasping at whatever they can because they have finally come to realize their life has no real meaning or pupose, lifes' a ***** lol.

AC

[Ben2503]

Crazy

I wonder why my first video doesn't play? If it persist let me know, until then maybe i could offer you one alternative video as kind of substitution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpJyfusm1xw

This guy sounds so convincing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHzvhxpAfig&t=9m20s

I wonder how could you've possibly known that these two videos of mine were not in order if you had not watched them both in the first place?

And you are right, they are not in order...you just have reminded me now, how i was pissed off when i got out of the cinema (20 years ago) after watching "Pulp fiction" because i had not been able to follow movie action (consecutive scene order) in classical time order so when i see comments like following one i can only laugh at that as well as at remembrance of me being so pissed off so long ago for the same reason:



Yes, "big bang in their heads", "theory of evolution in their heads", "moon landing in their heads", "9/11 in their heads", "CO2-global warming in their heads", "heliocentric parallax in their heads", etc...

Time to read again Orwell's "1984." and to watch "Truman show"...

Very interesting video too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_HvVgl62oM

Hi Cikljamas.
I like a critical and skeptical attitude, but these videos are way over the top.

[BroMikey]

Running the world

@cikljamas



If it wasn't so serious it might be comical, here we have politicians who claim to be the champions of freedom and democracy and yet their actions consistently prove otherwise. In fact they are moving towards Communism whereby the state will micro-manage every aspect of everyone's lives.

I wouldn't worry too much as the time of the baby boomers is coming to an end and their child like infatuation with profit margins and their absurd sense of entitlement will be forgotten. Has anyone actually talked with their children lately?, lol, believe me they won't be putting up with this BS for much longer. We are simply seeing the death throes of the baby boomers grasping at whatever they can because they have finally come to realize their life has no real meaning or pupose, lifes' a ***** lol.

AC

Someone has to run the world when the old guys die, right? Each generation behind the next and all of them are manipulated, used and thrown away like a dirty rag. This is the basis of confusion.

However discussing the confusion that has been injected into science is the same thing. It is like one man said it is the experimental results that bring conclusions that can be a foundation for building on is the only way to finding real answers.

Mike

[Aaron]

perspective doesn't change the dynamics

Could you get anymore wordy? your entire response is a perfect example of ineffectual communication receiving and sending.

if you can't find a way to leverage any of that derived COP to reset the process then your ball merely represents a recounting of a decline added up in increments. Simply put, useless to ME in PRACTICAL terms. COP is fine for expendable fuel but sucks in terms of trying to make a point with electrical energy as someone will try to claim a COP>1 on a sparsely populated pulsed DC signal derived from a lower voltage yet higher density DC and not account for the dead time between pulses. My point is that COP can be duplicitous when used for electrical output.

"Regauging is a word to sound smart? lol"
OK you got me there it isn't wordy enough or have enough syllables how about "incremental vector evaluation" that's much more "jargony"

"When lifting the object, the real analogy to the bemf is that you lift it up against gravitational opposition - not the up then down. Your analogy is actually not representative of what I said."
If you claim total distance traveled regardless of direction then I can claim the same with the size of a field regardless of timing or orientation, after all I only have to claim my "work done is to create a magnetic field" and I validate my COP claim.

You say regauging is the key of FE, I say If it takes a genius to tell everyone else to measure all aspects of input output then common sense is dead. I see FE as finding exploits between 2 or more systems to offset a return to equilibrium in one or more of them.

I recognize Bearden as a great figure but I was put off when I had worked out my own observations on magnets and determined after six months a motionless generator was viable and then I discovered he and his posse had done years before me. No big, they left a lot of room for improvement.


"Bearden says the dipole breaks the symmetry of the virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum. Eric says the aether is polarized. Bearden says this virtual photon flow from the positive terminal of a dipole that moves over the wire is the Heaviside flow. Eric says the flow is moving over the wire with the wire acting as a waveguide for that aetheric flow. Both state that the electron current is not leaving the dipole (like a capacitor or battery), the list goes on. They both deserve Nobel Prizes in my opinion for their own contributions - for Bearden, it is solving the "source charge" mystery, which conventional science is completely clueless as to what it really is to begin with. Potential differences cause the aether to polarize, come into the points of potential differences and then do work by encountering resistances that dissipates it back to a symmetrical state or state of equilibrium in the active vacuum. 100% of every instance where there is potential energy > work done > disordering of that potential energy killing the dipole = there are no exceptions to this universal principle that has ever been observed - mechanical, chemical, magnetic, etc... "
When I read that my first thought is that Bearden seems to think of virtual space as being a stable entity for theory craft and Dollard thinks of aether in the terms of the flowing alteration of space time expansion as such aether can be viewed as having directional discharge that would seem to violate Beardens symmetry perspective.

This entire set of exchanges has been 3 blind men describing an elephant.

Being long winded has nothing to do with communication being effective - it is whether someone is or isn't clear about what they are saying whether it is long or short. I'm also intentionally redundant. It isn't like I'm trying to use some mysterious phd vocabulary based on some inner circle jargon. I'm using very simple language and very simple concepts and analogies to explain myself. And Bearden's work is not even intended for the laymen or average person, it is intended for the academics - that is who he is writing for.

"if you can't find a way to leverage any of that derived COP to reset the process then your ball merely represents a recounting of a decline added up in increments." - your statement here ignores my point.

All that lifting work may be useless to you, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether work is being done or not. Just because it doesn't suit your personal desires doesn't change the simple self-evident facts.

The mass of the ball is traveling a distance through space, that in and of itself is work since there is gravity opposing it. The DESIRED work is always going to be in the eye of the beholder but that doesn't change whether work is being done or not.

If you have a ball big enough to have passengers... take x joules to push that ball against a spring that is angled at 45 degrees for example, when the ball is released, it will go out at an angle and will repeatedly bounce and then roll until it comes to a stop. If it took x joules to compress the spring, all the impact losses on the ground on each bounce, rolling resistance, etc... will equal the same x joules.

That is 2 time what we expended - obviously the ground impact losses are not our desired work - DISTANCE is.

Just like the ball bounced into the air and you say it is useless to you. All the distance traveled by the ball bouncing is the desired work now and Fd work of the travel up and free fall distance beats what we put into compressing the ball against the spring or lifting it up in the air and letting it fall onto a platform angled at 45 degrees. That is a gravity assisted form of transportation - sure, all the passengers will need full body casts after the ride is over lol, but but it doesn't change the fact that all this upward bounce work accomplished something very practical, which is moving from point A to point B.

The only thing different between you stating that all the upward bounces are useless and the fact that we have an overunity transportation mechanism is simply how you look at it. You can't change the facts about what is going on here simply because the work isn't doing what you want it to do.

Not sure why you would be "put off" by finding out that Bearden's team was already doing what you did later on - maybe changing the perspective that maybe "great minds think alike" might be more useful to you?

Your comparison of Dollard and Bearden is a bit different that I see it obviously. But with Dollard saying the aether gets polarized, that means the aether can be depolarized and in a depolarized state, it is in fact a state of equilibrium or symmetry - no asymmetrical form to it. Obviously there can be forms that are symmetrical in themselves, but I'm talking about no form into form so even a symmetrical form is still asymmetrical compared to a homogenous aether.

[BroMikey]

Starting to understand

Being long winded has nothing to do with communication being effective - it is whether someone is or isn't clear about what they are saying whether it is long or short. I'm also intentionally redundant. It isn't like I'm trying to use some mysterious phd vocabulary based on some inner circle jargon. I'm using very simple language and very simple concepts and analogies to explain myself. And Bearden's work is not even intended for the laymen or average person, it is intended for the academics - that is who he is writing for.

"if you can't find a way to leverage any of that derived COP to reset the process then your ball merely represents a recounting of a decline added up in increments." - your statement here ignores my point.

All that lifting work may be useless to you, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether work is being done or not. Just because it doesn't suit your personal desires doesn't change the simple self-evident facts.

The mass of the ball is traveling a distance through space, that in and of itself is work since there is gravity opposing it. The DESIRED work is always going to be in the eye of the beholder but that doesn't change whether work is being done or not.

If you have a ball big enough to have passengers... take x joules to push that ball against a spring that is angled at 45 degrees for example, when the ball is released, it will go out at an angle and will repeatedly bounce and then roll until it comes to a stop. If it took x joules to compress the spring, all the impact losses on the ground on each bounce, rolling resistance, etc... will equal the same x joules.

That is 2 time what we expended - obviously the ground impact losses are not our desired work - DISTANCE is.

Just like the ball bounced into the air and you say it is useless to you. All the distance traveled by the ball bouncing is the desired work now and Fd work of the travel up and free fall distance beats what we put into compressing the ball against the spring or lifting it up in the air and letting it fall onto a platform angled at 45 degrees. That is a gravity assisted form of transportation - sure, all the passengers will need full body casts after the ride is over lol, but but it doesn't change the fact that all this upward bounce work accomplished something very practical, which is moving from point A to point B.

The only thing different between you stating that all the upward bounces are useless and the fact that we have an overunity transportation mechanism is simply how you look at it. You can't change the facts about what is going on here simply because the work isn't doing what you want it to do.

Not sure why you would be "put off" by finding out that Bearden's team was already doing what you did later on - maybe changing the perspective that maybe "great minds think alike" might be more useful to you?

Your comparison of Dollard and Bearden is a bit different that I see it obviously. But with Dollard saying the aether gets polarized, that means the aether can be depolarized and in a depolarized state, it is in fact a state of equilibrium or symmetry - no asymmetrical form to it. Obviously there can be forms that are symmetrical in themselves, but I'm talking about no form into form so even a symmetrical form is still asymmetrical compared to a homogenous aether.

Hello Aaron

You should be well pleased with your abilities to press the proper points without sounding like a broken record. Each time you repeat brings me closer to getting some of these great things you have given yourself to over the years.

It is so clear that it is almost embarrassing to think that 3rd grade science blows all of the high minded University level thinker out of the water.

When I sat in these type of classes I was frequently angry because no one teacher could answer just ordinary simple questions that they knew were contradictory to what the lesson was for that day.

The teachers know that the information and experimental data do not line up, many times and their answer was always "THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED IN ANOTHER CLASS AT ANOTHER TIME" because they did not want to address the conflicting results.

Bravo

Simplicity is such a great thing. The bouncing ball is a really cool mind blower.

Mike

[cikljamas]

Hi Cikljamas.
I like a critical and skeptical attitude, but these videos are way over the top.

These videos are way over the top or you just don't see the big picture yet...

On the major forum in Croatia (forum.hr) if you are creationist you are not welcome, if you admit your geocentric conviction you are not even allowed to write there, and if you are flat earther then you are dangerous person and 100 % crazy.

But who is a competent judge able to competently infer who is right and who is wrong in such eclatantly scientific issues?

I would just invite you to think for yourself, how stupid someone have to be to defy/resist any obvious - 100 % experimentally proved fact(s)???

Do you believe E=mc^2? Well, maybe i have asked wrong question? Let me try again: Do you know for sure that E=mc^2?

Is that a science or belief? What do you think?

I just have read yesterday one very interesting article which i would like to share with you: Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity, and the Flat Earth

Allow me to put here just a few excerpts from this article:

In his preface to the creationist textbook Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, John N. Moore says that “true science” requires that the data “simply be presented as it is,” and that “a philosophic viewpoint regarding origins” cannot be science.9

One prominent geocentrist, astronomer and computer scientist James N. Hanson, shows more candor. In a public lecture, he said of non-geocentric astronomers, “They lie a lot.”11 Charles K. Johnson, president of the Flat Earth Society, is absolutely vehement about scientific dishonesty. He regularly calls scientists “liars” and “demented dope fiends” and claims that the entire space program is a “carnie game.”12

Unlike most Christians, Bible-Scientists insist that if conventional science is true, the Bible must be false. Flat-earther John Hampden put it plainly: “No one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy, and accept Scriptures as divine revelation.”13

Since flat-earthism is the paradigm of Bible-Science, it should be discussed first. It’s difficult to see how the scientific creationists, some of whom claim to discern the laws of thermodynamics in the Bible, can fail to see its flat-earth implications.

While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.26

Rowbotham was widely known as a tiger on the platform, and he was seldom bested. (The good citizens of Leeds, England, once ran him out of town, being unable to make a more effective reply to his flat-earth arguments.) :lol:

Mentioning Rowbotham we can't evade this: The Bedford Level Experiments

Now, all you have to do is to scientifically disprove validity of the results of Badford level experiments, as well as validitiy of Michelson-Morley exp., Airy failure exp., Sagnac exp., Michelson-Gale exp., undeniable results of Dayton Miller's 200 000 interferometer observations etc...

You see, the good-solid-scientific evidence is on the side of Bible-Scientists, and all that typical modern astronomers possess are pure fantasies and lies, and one of their biggest lies is E=mc^2!!!

Did you see this: ARK on Mt. Ararat: WHY the media BLACKOUT on the real history of Ararat? - YouTube

And you have to here this too: Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate - Has Science Buried God? - YouTube

What is scientifically - mathematically - physically wrong with this argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jetPfsIi_pg

And if there is nothing wrong with this argument than in this argument you have 100 % proof that the earth is flat, not just immovable!!! If there is anyone who is not able to deduce earth flatness out of this argument i will gladly explain it in my next post...

[Ben2503]

creationist

These videos are way over the top or you just don't see the big picture yet...

On the major forum in Croatia (forum.hr) if you are creationist you are not welcome, if you admit your geocentric conviction you are not even allowed to write there, and if you are flat earther then you are dangerous person and 100 % crazy.

But who is a competent judge able to competently infer who is right and who is wrong in such eclatantly scientific issues?

I would just invite you to think for yourself, how stupid someone have to be to defy/resist any obvious - 100 % experimentally proved fact(s)???

Do you believe E=mc^2? Well, maybe i have asked wrong question? Let me try again: Do you know for sure that E=mc^2?

Is that a science or belief? What do you think?

I just have read yesterday one very interesting article which i would like to share with you: Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity, and the Flat Earth

Allow me to put here just a few excerpts from this article:

In his preface to the creationist textbook Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, John N. Moore says that “true science” requires that the data “simply be presented as it is,” and that “a philosophic viewpoint regarding origins” cannot be science.9

One prominent geocentrist, astronomer and computer scientist James N. Hanson, shows more candor. In a public lecture, he said of non-geocentric astronomers, “They lie a lot.”11 Charles K. Johnson, president of the Flat Earth Society, is absolutely vehement about scientific dishonesty. He regularly calls scientists “liars” and “demented dope fiends” and claims that the entire space program is a “carnie game.”12

Unlike most Christians, Bible-Scientists insist that if conventional science is true, the Bible must be false. Flat-earther John Hampden put it plainly: “No one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy, and accept Scriptures as divine revelation.”13

While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.26

Rowbotham was widely known as a tiger on the platform, and he was seldom bested. (The good citizens of Leeds, England, once ran him out of town, being unable to make a more effective reply to his flat-earth arguments.) :lol:

Mentioning Rowbotham we can't evade this: The Bedford Level Experiments

Now, all you have to do is to scientifically disproof validity of the results of Badford level experiment, as well as validitiy of Michelson-Morley exp., Airy failure exp., Sagnac exp., Michelson-Gale exp., resulsts of Dayton Miller's 200 000 interferometer observations etc...

You see, the good-solid-scientific evidence is on the side of Bible-Scientist, and all that modern astronomers possess are pure fantasies and lies, and one of their biggest lies is E=mc^2!!!

Did you see this: ARK on Mt. Ararat: WHY the media BLACKOUT on the real history of Ararat? - YouTube

And you have to here this too: Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate - Has Science Buried God? - YouTube

What is scientifically - mathematically - physically wrong with this argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jetPfsIi_pg

That forum.hr sounds like a real religion to me.
My believe is common-sense based:
1. If something is not created it doesn't exist. I know this leads to chicken <-> egg discussions. It also implies that energy can be created.
2. The wonders of nature are so intelligent that I do not believe in just evolution.
3. A theory is correct until it has been proven wrong. Flat earth and a stationary earth are disproved many times a day. A theory with an exemption is a bogus theory, but can be useful.
4. Misunderstandings are not lies.
5. Almost everything we use on a day to day basis is man-made and thus based on faulty physics???
6. Tesla was a great engineer that understood physics and made practical use of it. The others like Einstein but also Bearden, Lindeman, DePalma, Dollard etc.. produce nothing but theories. My heros are guys like UFOPOLITCS and Woopy and many others that build and test prototypes to check the theories.

I feel that an 'open mind' means that one has to accept that other people think differently and maybe right, wrong or partially right. At the end of the day we all want the same thing, free energy and a safer and cleaner world.

[indio007]

This is one of the better videos on youtube that illustrates the fact models don't always represent the physical reality.


the earth doesn't revolve around the sun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6jBK1ZV-qs

[cikljamas]

That forum.hr sounds like a real religion to me.

I do not know why it sounds to you like a religion, but it is indeed real religion, and the most dangerous and sinister one: atheistic religion.

1. If something is not created it doesn't exist. I know this leads to chicken <-> egg discussions. It also implies that energy can be created.

Correct, but partially: God was not created. The true meaning of the word "God" is: Absolute Being-One who can not not to be! Descartes said that notion of God is the most certain notion of all, and he was deeply right by saying that! The most profound philosophy (ontology) is simple-not hardly accessible at all, only obscure philosophies are incomprehensible cause the real purpose for inventing twisted philosophy is rather to confuse people then to cast some light in their understanding-insight of the world and his Creator.

2. The wonders of nature are so intelligent that I do not believe in just evolution.

Theory of evolution is the most disgusting idea ever, idea that came out as a result of the most sick reasoning which G.K.Chesterton demolished into nothing in the beginning of 20th century, not to mention what has happened with that shame of theory at the end of 20th century:

Naming Darwin’s Black Box to the National Review’s list of the 100 most important nonfiction works of the twentieth century, George Gilder wrote that it “overthrows Darwin at the end of the twentieth century in the same way that quantum theory overthrew Newton at the beginning.”

3. A theory is correct until it has been proven wrong. Flat earth and a stationary earth are disproved many times a day. A theory with an exemption is a bogus theory, but can be useful.

Well, we are still waiting for your disproof of the undeniable results of Bradford level experiment

I feel that an 'open mind' means that one has to accept that other people think differently and maybe right, wrong or partially right. At the end of the day we all want the same thing, free energy and a safer and cleaner world.

In order to get free energy and safer and cleaner world you first have to establish long forgotten morality in this maximally twisted and maximally perverted world, and to do that you have to abolish the slavery and again allow people to freely think and freely speak.

You haven't slightest idea in what kind of world you live in, and that (not having slightest idea about that fact) is how this tragedy of widely spreading and widely spraying utter lies and deceives preserves itself...

The hardest part is to begin to learn how to think independently, and people, at least those who are in quest for free energy, have to finally find enough courage in themself and start to practice independent genuine free thinking. That is the only way how we can establish the basis for better world...