On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:54:04 +0100, "Carsten Sinclair"
<ufo@telefona.dk> wrote:
>Jeg har i min besiddelse en videooptagelse med denne
>Thomas E. Bearden hvor han taler om denne 0-punkt's
>energi som vistnok N.Tesla var ret tæt på at få patenteret,
>men på grund af manglende økonomisk støtte stoppede
>man hans forskningsprojekt - synd og skam eller en
>forbrydelse fra det petro-kemiske / militær-industrielle
>kompleks'es side.
Er det "Free Energy: The Race to Zero Point" videoen du tænker på?
I alt fald taler han også en hel del om nulpunktsenergien på denne
video. Og iøvrigt om hvordan denne energi er relateret til bevidsthed.
Det sidste er vigtigt for at forstå tingene til bunds, og som bindeled
imellem videnskab/religion materie/ånd, efter min mening.
Tom Bearden er iøvrigt fornylig begyndt at lægge alle sine teorier og
forskningsresultater ud på et nyt website:
http://www.cheniere.org/
>
>Er du bekendt med forskningen i denne teknik herhjemme og om
>hvorvidt der er nogen der tager det alvorligt ?
>Der må jo næsten ligge en Nobelpris og vente på den
>forskergruppe der får sat et kraftværk op at køre på denne teknik.
>
Hvis stemningen i dk.videnskab over vor kold fusion og lignende
fænomener afspejler den generelle holdning herhjemme, så skal man nok
ikke forvente alt for meget. Generelt er Danmark et u-land når det
gælder forskning i kontroversielle fænomener. Her i landet er det nok
ikke så meget modstand fra kommercielle interesser der er problemet,
som manglende evne eller vilje hos videnskabsfolkene til at tænke i
utraditionelle baner. Men i udlandet foregår der jo som bekendt en hel
del forskning inden for området.
Generelt så har man allerede inden for videnskaben så megen viden at
man kunne gøre nogle virkelig revolutionerende opdagelser, hvis man
gad kigge lidt på nogle utraditionelle (eller traditionelle, alt efter
hvor man ser tingene fra) teorier og principper, som f.ex. Yin Yang
princippet. Niels Bohr var allerede inde på det - han var så
fascineret af Yin Yang princippet og østlig filosofi og videnskab i
det hele taget at han valgte Yin Yang symbolet til sit våbenskjold, da
han modtog Elefantordenen. Men ingen inden for videnskaben herhjemme
har tilsyneladende fulgt op på hans tanker i den retning (det har man
derimod i udlandet, bl.a. har kvantefysikeren Fritjof Capra analyseret
nogle af Bohrs ideer i bogen "Fysikkens Tao").
Som Ohsawa lidt barskt udtrykker det i "Book of Judgement":
"The law of mass and element conservation cannot be accepted by Far
Easterners. When a traditional Oriental learns for the first time the
laws of Occidental [Western] science, he is stricken at every step,
for these laws appear to him to be dogmatic and inflexible.
If these two fundamental laws are set aside, chemistry has lost its
two mightiest weapons: qualitative and quantitative analyses. It is
due to these faulty weapons that there are so many uncertainties,
sometimes with tragic results, in pharmacology. The chemical industry,
the food industry, agriculture, etc., all of which are grounded in
modern chemistry, claim to have a scientific, logical and definite
basis. They depend upon chemistry which is not in any way equipped
with any concrete and logical foundation. These two fundamental laws
of modern chemistry are, on the whole, only an illusion or
speculation.
All the other fundamental laws of chemistry which are opposed to the
Unique Principle [Tao, Yin Yang] will be abandoned and very shortly
will fall into disuse, one after the other.
Example 3. What is chemical Affinity?
Answer: There has been much discussion about affinity. Chemists have
tried to define it mathematically through the power of chemical or
ionical reaction of the, elements, similar nowadays to Lechatelier's
law of action and reaction. According to this law, to obtain a given
reaction, we only have to change one or several physical factors
(heat, pressure, proportion, etc.).
By a great many experiments, the chemists managed to control some
reversible reactions, as in the following cases.
(1) N2+3H2 -> 2NH3 + 12,500 Cal.
(2) N2+02 -> 2NO - 43,200 Cal.
In the first case (ammoniac synthesis), heat is released, while in the
second case, there is absorption of heat. The scientists do not know
why. They do not want to know the reason for it. By experimentation
one can discover the best conditions and means to a synthesis or a
division, but apparently it is not important to know the reason why
one reaction produces heat whereas another one absorbs it.
And the more deeply they study, the more intricate the question
becomes. All kinds of analytical, mathematical, energetical and
electronic means are used. They find, eventually, some provisional
principles which they claim is law, but later they discover a great
contradiction. Then they begin all over again. It is a roundabout way
- like looking for the center by means of tearing down peripheries, or
travelling in the darkness, blindly, without any compass and without
knowing one's destination.
Why not look first of all and with all our power for a universal
compass? By knowing that N (nitrogen) and 0 (oxygen) are Yin and that
H (hydrogen) is their Yang antagonist, many research projects could be
greatly simplified.
With the knowledge of only the first two theorems of the Unique
Principle, they would already be able to say that synthesis between a
very Yin and a very Yang element is much easier to accomplish than
that between two Yin elements. For Yin and Yang attract each other,
whereas Yin and Yin or Yang and Yang repel one another.
The scientists depend entirely upon inductive, dichotomic or Kantian
logic and upon the quite false theory of English empiricism. That is
the reason why they seek in vain to understand natural laws.
But all depends upon our judging ability, which is not in the least
inductive or empirical. The empiricism theory, being simple and
seeming likely, received support from such learned men as Locke,
Darwin, Malthus and others who were very dedicated but simplistic and
preoccupied only with the world of relativity and materiality."
--
Rado
Religion and science are opposed ... but only in the same sense
as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between
the two, one can grasp everything.
- Sir William Bragg