Topic: Tom Bearden and Scalar Physics

Bearden has come up several times on the Hurricane Charley thread:
http://montalk.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=542

He's written a new article discussing the terror applications of scalar weapons:
http://www.cheniere.org/articles/index.html  (first link there, MS Word document)

I found a short article by Bearden that sums up his theory regarding scalar waves:
http://www.rhfweb.com/scalarwv.html 

And here are some articles by Rick Anderson (and others) discussing both sides of the issue, with some more down-to-earth explanations:
http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/sclrmenu.htm

I find this subject interesting, but unfortunately Bearden wraps his concepts up in overcomplicated language. Not sure why, maybe he wants to sound academic or maybe it's just a habit. With the terminology decoded, one can follow his reasoning. In my opinion, he knows what he's talking about but doesn't talk about all he knows, leaving the rest disguised or omitted.

Anyone interested in physics will find his stuff entertaining. I know Bearden gets a bad rap for making up things, refusing to talk about other things, and being shady at times. But he's the only living science dude I've seen extensively discussing what's beyond mainstream physics with some semblance of originality and coherence.

If the basics of what he says is true, then that would go a long way to explaining how to produce free energy, antigravity, time travel, and superluminal communication.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

Re: Tom Bearden and Scalar Physics

Yeah. Good for him. Though I'd like to know what you make of the bit on this site entitled:"On Trying to Reason With Tom Bearden
POLARIZE.ASC By Rick Andersen, April 5, 1993"
http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet … denmeg.htm
Unfortunately my physics isn't good enough.

3 (edited by montalk 2004-11-17 19:32:45)

Re: Tom Bearden and Scalar Physics

Thanks, I read this once before and is another example of Bearden being a questionable and evasive guy. Probing what he's being evasive about can reveal either baloney or something too significant for him to talk about. And looking at what is not questionable in his material reveals things that are worth paying attention to.

This article asks a good question, how EM waves can be filtered through polarizers if Bearden says they are longitudinal rather than transverse. Transverse waves are the kind that travel up and down like a rope being shaken. Longitudinal waves are compressive, like a slinky being shoved inward from one end sending through a compression wave to the other end. A polarizing filter is like a fence of vertical bars, where the rope can only be shaken vertically and all side-ways waves are eliminated. Rick Anderson was asking, how can a polarizing filter still work if the waves going through it are like the slinky example? The compressive waves in a slinky don't go up and down or left and right, but forwards and backwards. Stick a slinky through a fence and sending through these longitudinal waves will leave them unaffected by the orientation of the bars, and yet experiments prove that polarizing filters do cancel out part of the light that has a definite sideways movement.

According to the article, when confronted Bearden sidestepped the question and was irritated. This could mean one of several things.

1) he was caught unable to defend a flaw/lie,

2) he's arrogant and refused to explain what his articles already explained but Rick Andersen did not pick up on, or

3) he is not "allowed" to talk about it, and his articles hint at the answer for those who can read between the lines.

Is there a way for longitudinal waves to be filtered by a polarizer? Only if the wave carries information about the polarization in some 'nonphysical' dimension that unloads upon the physical when it interacts with matter. So say an electron wiggles up and down in the y direction. This becomes a longitudinal wave with the "y" direction information stored in another dimension. When it hits another electron, it unloads the energy into making that electron also wiggle in y direction. Restrict the electron's motion to the x direction and the information can't unload, so it's not affected. 

A guy by the name of Dewey Larson postulated that whereas spacetime has three dimensions of space and one of time, timespace has three dimensions of time and one of space.  What Bearden talks about during EM transmission would be energy transferring from spacetime to timespace and back again. That means while longitudinal, an EM wave will have one space component (the z direction, that in which the wave travels) and three of time. One of those time dimensions is our clock-time. The other two would thus contain polarization information, each one a counterpart to spacetime's x or y directions. Now, Bearden doesn't mention this in his writing because this is purely my speculation. But it shows that #3 above could be possible.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

4 (edited by Atlantis 2004-11-23 01:01:17)

Re: Tom Bearden and Scalar Physics

montalk wrote:

Thanks, I read this once before and is another example of Bearden being a questionable and evasive guy. Probing what he's being evasive about can reveal either baloney or something too significant for him to talk about. And looking at what is not questionable in his material reveals things that are worth paying attention to.

Yes, worth attention., that's true.

I'm sorry to say ... again... Tom Bearden is an agent of the Illuminati.

He's attracting people with a lot of things i.e. free energy devices.
- To waste the time of the serious people
- Being vague in technical terminology
- Putting some popular "New Age" like stuff in his theories

Tom Bearden is the Drunvalo of the Free Energy world.

According to the article, when confronted Bearden sidestepped the question and was irritated. This could mean one of several things.

1) he was caught unable to defend a flaw/lie,

He is an Illuminati puppet.

2) he's arrogant and refused to explain what his articles already explained but Rick Andersen did not pick up on, or

He can't, his knowledge is limited to what the Illuminati did put in him.

3) he is not "allowed" to talk about it, and his articles hint at the answer for those who can read between the lines.

He is allowed to say what he MUST say.

Is there a way for longitudinal waves to be filtered by a polarizer? Only if the wave carries information about the polarization in some 'nonphysical' dimension that unloads upon the physical when it interacts with matter. So say an electron wiggles up and down in the y direction. This becomes a longitudinal wave with the "y" direction information stored in another dimension. When it hits another electron, it unloads the energy into making that electron also wiggle in y direction. Restrict the electron's motion to the x direction and the information can't unload, so it's not affected.

I think you put to much effort in the "official" explanation the way like how EM-science is built up.

A guy by the name of Dewey Larson postulated that whereas spacetime has three dimensions of space and one of time, timespace has three dimensions of time and one of space.  What Bearden talks about during EM transmission would be energy transferring from spacetime to timespace and back again. That means while longitudinal, an EM wave will have one space component (the z direction, that in which the wave travels) and three of time. One of those time dimensions is our clock-time. The other two would thus contain polarization information, each one a counterpart to spacetime's x or y directions. Now, Bearden doesn't mention this in his writing because this is purely my speculation. But it shows that #3 above could be possible.

That's one of the disinfo-traps of all these theories:
convincing people talking about energy fields in 4th, 5th, etc dimensions.

However there is some truth in speaking about converting spacetime in timespace.
It depends on the relative "illusion" i.e. solar system or galaxy.

Time/Space are illusions. It's the MIND of species who/which creates.

i..e. the light/energy of the Sun is co-created by our THOUGHTS.
The light of the sun is the REFLECTION of thoughts/mind, what we see as the SUN is a mirror.

It's better to use a kind of holographic model, however people tend again to be focused on official physics science.

Atlantean Magic: safe, simple and enjoying a good lifetime.

Re: Tom Bearden and Scalar Physics

Official physics has its value. The Logos (universal consciousness) sets the rules that we know as physical laws and constants. These rules and constants are precise enough that a science and mathematics can be built upon them, and it's knowing these rules that allows one to put theory into practice. There are false assumptions and blindspots in official physics preventing it from making real progress, but what progress it has made should be examined for possible use under a new radical context. In other words, it's more about changing the bathwater than throwing out the baby.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

6 (edited by Atlantis 2004-11-24 08:02:17)

Re: Tom Bearden and Scalar Physics

montalk wrote:

Official physics has its value.

Yes of course, depends on the kind of application.
The lower based on Earthly mechanical lineair applications, the better the use of conventional official physics laws.

The Logos (universal consciousness) sets the rules that we know as physical laws and constants.

I am not so sure with this. "Constants" are no so constant as we think.
Interesting is what Dr. Rupert Sheldrake wrote about the "constants" in some of his books.

And ... there is a difference between fysical laws (exoteric) and esoteric (occult) laws.

The esoteric laws are overruling everything.

i.e. more concrete: the manipulated mind-matrix has impacts on the quantum-mechanic behaviour of matter, space and time on the Earth Plane.

These rules and constants are precise enough that a science and mathematics can be built upon them, and it's knowing these rules that allows one to put theory into practice. There are false assumptions and blindspots in official physics preventing it from making real progress, but what progress it has made should be examined for possible use under a new radical context.

Yes, however the blindspots often are masked by (abused) mathematical formulas.

Mathematics is not the same as physics. Mathematics doesn't need an official label, however I'm convinced a lot of strategic Mathemical Science is secretly hidden; and the occult sciences can be seen as a subset of mathematics

In other words, it's more about changing the bathwater than throwing out the baby.

smile  ok, ok.

What about changing the baby ?

Or what I suggest: change the way we look at the baby and the water.

Atlantean Magic: safe, simple and enjoying a good lifetime.

Re: Tom Bearden and Scalar Physics

Though the website it's referenced from is heavily christian and heavily much fear-mongering, here is info and a link to Bearden's book, which looks fairly new:

Oblivion: AMERICA At The Brink -- Scalar Weaponry Explained, Illustrated

http://cuttingedge.org/detail.cfm?ID=1201

cheers

"The unknown does not incite fear, but dependence on the known does." - J. Krishnamurti

Re: Tom Bearden and Scalar Physics

Atlantis wrote:

I am not so sure with this. "Constants" are no so constant as we think.
Interesting is what Dr. Rupert Sheldrake wrote about the "constants" in some of his books.

From Rupert Sheldrake online

http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/constants/


The fall in the speed of light from 1928 to 1945

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant: it is an absolute constant. Much of modern physics is based on that assumption. There is therefore a strong theoretical prejudice against raising the question of possible changes in the velocity of light. In any case, the question is now officially closed. Since 1972 the speed of light has been fixed by definition. The value is defined as 299,792.458 ± 0.001 # 2 kilometers per second.

As in the case of the universal gravitational constant, early measurements of c differed considerably from the present official value. For example, the determination by Römer in 1676 was about 30 percent lower, and that by Fizeau in 1849 about 5 percent higher.

In 1929, Birge published his review of all the evidence available up to 1927 and came to the conclusion that the best value for velocity of light was 299,796 ± 4 km/s. He pointed out that the probable error was far less than in any of the other constants, and concluded that 'the present value of c is entirely satisfactory, and can be considered as more or less permanently established.' However, even as he was writing, considerably lower values of c were being found, and by 1934 it was suggested by Gheury de Bray that the data pointed to a cyclic variation in the velocity of light.

From around 1928 to 1945, the velocity of light appeared to be about 20 km/s lower than before and after this period. The 'best' values, found by the leading investigators using a variety of techniques, were in impressively close agreement with each other, and the available data were combined and adjusted by Birge in 1941 and Dorsey in 1945.

In the late 1940s the speed of light went up again. Not surprisingly, there was some turbulence at first as the old value was overthrown. The new value was about 20 km/s higher, close to that prevailing in 1927. A new consensus developed. How long this consensus would have lasted if based on continuing measurements is a matter for speculation. In practice, further disagreement was prevented by fixing the speed of light in 1972 by definition.

How can the lower velocity from 1928 to 1945 be explained? If it was simply a matter of experimental error, why did the results of different investigators and different methods agree so well? And why were the estimated errors so low?

One possibility is that the velocity of light really does fluctuate from time to time. Perhaps it really did drop for nearly twenty years. But this is not a possibility that has been seriously considered by researchers in the field, except for de Bray. So strong is the assumption that it must be fixed that the empirical data have to be explained away. This remarkable episode in the history of the speed of light is now generally attributed to the psychology of metrologists:

The tendency for experiments in a given epoch to agree with one another has been described by the delicate phrase 'intellectual phase locking.' Most metrologists are very conscious of the possible existence of such effects; indeed ever-helpful colleagues delight in pointing them out! . . . .Aside from the discovery of mistakes, the near completion of the experiment brings more frequent and stimulating discussion with interested colleagues and the preliminaries to writing up the work add fresh perspective. All of these circumstances combine to prevent what was intended to be 'the final result' from being so in practice, and consequently the accusation that one is most likely to stop worrying about corrections when the value is closest to other results is easy to make and difficult to refute.

But if changes in the values of constants in the past are attributed to the experimenters' psychology, then, as other eminent metrologists have observed, 'this raises a disconcerting question: How do we know that this psychological factor is not equally important today?' In the case of the velocity of light, however, this question is now academic. Not only is the velocity fixed by definition, but the very units in which velocity is measured, distance and time, are defined in terms of light itself.

The second used to be defined as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day, but it is now defined in terms of the frequency of light emitted by a particular kind of excitation of caesium-133 atoms. A second is 9,192,631,770 times the period of vibration of the light. Meanwhile, since 1983 the meter has been defined in terms of the velocity of light, itself fixed by definition.

As Brian Petley has pointed out, it is conceivable that:

(i) the velocity of light might change with time, or (ii) have a directional dependence in space, or (iii) be affected by the motion of the Earth about the Sun, or motion within our galaxy or some other reference frame.

Nevertheless, if such changes really happened, we would be blind to them. We are now shut up within an artificial system where such changes are not only impossible by definition, but would be undetectable in practice because of the way the units are defined. Any change in the speed of light would change the units themselves in such a way that the velocity in kilometers per second remained exactly the same.

Re: Tom Bearden and Scalar Physics

Montalk,

I'm happy to see you have researched Bearden's material. He has worked with John Bedini for years and John is a good friend of mine who is the real deal. His devices work and I have duplicated several myself and they do as claim. My new book some are saying is like a "Bearden for Dummies" because I put it in such simple language that almost any junior high school kid will even understand what a dipole is smile Peter Lindemann has also been into the real science in this field for many years and has known John for a long time. Peter is also a good friend of mine so I have had some incredible mentors in this field. I will post more here:
http://forum.noblerealms.org/viewtopic.php?id=5082

With Gratitude,
Aaron Murakami

PATHS http://www.energypaths.com
White Dragon Press http://www.whitedragonpress.com
Energetic Science Ministries http://www.esmhome.org
Energetic Forum http://www.energeticforum.com