Applied Scalar Wave Technology - Tom Bearden interview 1of8

Transcript

Later we'll explain why the potential is such an important thing. The ambient conditional that something is sitting in or is charged to. But uh normally the earth the surface of the earth and the electrosphere above it are charged to a different potential. And so uh depending on the particular conditions and all anywhere from 150 to probably maximum of about 300 volts per meter you have an increasing voltage as you go up to the electrosphere from the surface of the earth with respect to the surface of the earth. So in the average thunderstorm the clouds the bottom parts of the clouds are charged oppositely to the electrosphere.

So when a thunder cloud is moving in as it starts to pass over you first of all your potential starts to decrease. this 150 volts per meter starts to decrease, turns to zero, and then reverses. The charge sign reverses while that thunder cloud is over you. Um, this this decreasing background potential that your body is comfortable in, normally working. When it starts changing like that, that's the stuffy uncomfortable feeling you have just before a thunderstorm.

You say, "Well, it must be fixing the storm. It sure is getting stuffy now." After the thing goes on off the um as it starts leaving the potential starts changing back towards zero and then goes back up to the normal potential and you feel a great sense of relief and freshness and all your back. It's really nature's uh rotorooer form to clean out biological systems that you sort of just been rotorooed by the thunderstorm. Uh when you're dealing with this system here, the potentials are key. And so when you have a dramatic change of potentials where you have a fluid which does not operate internally in the fluid does not operate in a flat space time but a curved spaceime the change of its ambient potential is very significant.

potential is a and we as we've shown in a paper or two and as quantum field theory will agree with uh the standard old potential pure voltage if you will is actually an inflow of energy from the time domain and fourth axis manowski axis translation of it into three space and output is longitudinal wave energy in three space and that's quantum field theory and you can transform that into wave theory and you got the solution to the so-called source charge problem that I published in the year 2000 so when you involve potential potentials you involve a very powerful set of changes between the time energy coming in the fundamental time energy which is where we get all electromagnetic energy in space comes right out of the time domain and then what is actually being given out by the object. So when you change the time aspect and you change that other aspect you make profound changes in the in every charge in the body every single one of them. And in a liquid like this where you're maintaining a certain charge because of the time relationship, you make a a profound change in it which will be expressed as probably electrostatic charge on the outside of it. Something like that. It act like it were a capacitor or something charging up.

Exactly what it does. It acts like what you've what you've done is you've encountered a capacitor and it it discharges upon you touching it. Yes. See uh I looked at for another machine of another inventor. I looked at a process he was using once and came to the conclusion that he was charging in a rotated frame.

He had found that he a certain way to when you make change potentials in ambient potentials you actually change the rotation of the frame. It's not a simple change like it's treated electromagnetics. Go to special relativity and you have actually rotated the frame out of the lab frame and capacitance changes and charge changes when you rotate the frame and then if you snatch it back real quick or it is snatched back and you've got real charge appearing um apparently out of nowhere, but it's actually a process from a rotated frame. The energy in a of a given particle or charge is different depending on what frame it's measured in. And of course, that's just standard physics.

But nobody ever thought about using that. Force it over into a frame, a rotated frame, charge it. Takes a lot less to charge it. Discharge it back in the lab frame. You got a lot more charge coming out of there than what you had to put in there.

And you haven't violated any laws of nature. You have violated the um the a special case set of laws of nature where the spaceime was never rotated. It was always flat. No rotation. But if you go to the rotation, yes, you get energy changes.

you get charge changes. So that's why I don't like this because unless they actually add the time domain into back into the equation and if they don't if they don't use curved spacetime see the standard electronamics which standard chemistry uses they use the U1 model group symmetry electronamics that's the standard model electronamics everybody uses and supposed to be the greatest thing since life jeez it isn't uh that model assumes a flat spacetime time local spaceime that was falsified by general relativity you know now almost 100 years ago. It also assumes no net interaction with the active vacuum that's been falsified in physics for almost 50 years particularly since 1957 and the discovery of broken symmetry and the award of the Nobel Prize to Leon Yang. So it is a limited model. But unfortunately where you turn science into dogma is when you lock in on a given model and you assume your model is perfect and therefore anything that doesn't agree with that model cannot possibly exist in nature.

See that's where the dog where science becomes dogma. If we practice scientific method scientific method requires a couple of things. First, experiments must be done to show the results of what you're talking about. Second, these experiments must be replicatable. That is, you must be you can't do it one time as a fluke and never able to do it again and claim it science.

That was some kind of fluctuation that happened and nobody knows what the hell caused that. What came through Hinnenburg, right? But if if it happens every time you do it and you can control it and show that it is a repeatable experiment. Now if that disagrees with the model the scientific method is after we ensure that the experiment is for real and we must do that ourselves by performing the experiment we can't dodge the experiment. If we do that then as scientists we're morally bound by the scientific method to go change the model. Something is wrong with our model.

That's no problem. No model is perfect. We've known that since the godell theorem. Uh it's always going to be a better model and we're going to find other things that don't fit the model. we're going to make another one, a better one.

That's the way science progresses. But the problem today is that we have a great movement. You might call it fundamentalism in science where we lock in on the accepted models and we shove out anything else that's ever going to be discovered or anything because it couldn't possibly exist if it violates our model. That is a total violation of scientific method. For example, in cold fusion, there's now some 600 or so experiments by many different laboratories by many different scientists in several countries of the world.

You cannot ignore 600 repeatable experiments. If you do, it's dogma, not science. It's also against the big nuclear community. So, you can imagine all those accelerators and everything saying you can do the transmutations at low spatial energy. Uh they'd be out of business.

So you have a great resistance because of the I would like to use the word culture of the present scientific community. The scientific culture the mindset the mindset is what you're up against. Yeah. This paper is a I really like the fact that you're quoting numbers and you know I assume that what you have behind this is good solid experiments or you wouldn't you wouldn't be actually trying to go forth with it. Given anybody can do it.

It's repeatable. Given it's repeatable and given that the experiments, you know, are there and repeatable, then scientific method says we have to question the model. The proper response at this point is not to argue about the experiments. If enough of them been done to be sure it's replicable and it's repeatable, we have to quit arguing about the experiment and we have to argue now about the model. What we have just done is falsified the present model.

That's what you've done. Okay? We got to look at the characteristics of that model if we see where the weakness of the model may be. Well, the weakness of the standard U1 electronamics model that's used in the chemistry almost exclusively for example is two things. The first thing that it does is false is it assumes a flat local spacetime. You can't even have an energy change in in a flat spacetime by definition.

If the energy changes, the energy density changes. You've just curved spacetime. So if you didn't have curved spacetime, you couldn't have any chemical reactions at all. I mean it's ludicrous after 100 years almost from the discovery of general relativity and the fitting of it. The other thing is uh we know from particle physics that any charge any dipole any dipolarity for example which that's the whole thing in chemistry charge and charge distribution and all the dipolarities the multipolarities and all this all the ions and all that stuff is driven by the charge and charge distribution and uh the moment we have that uh situation we know that we have broken symmetries everywhere.