interesting stuff:Sheldrake's morphogenetic field?

Aw come-on, where's your open mind?

Ringo, you are misrepresenting Tesla. You are describing Edison really in the way he worked, which Tesla scoffed at since he said he could be more effective applying theory rather than just experimenting.In terms of the claims of non-Hertzian waves through the vacuum, called aether, back then. That is a claim Tesla maintained his entire life from his discovery in the 1800s until his death in 43 or 44'. Tesla demonstrated his claims, which is to his credit, not against it.Btw, Lord Kelvin visited Tesla and agreed that Tesla was demonstrating non-Hertzian waves.

Also, the claims he didn't have much use for things he had not built is somewhat silly. First off, Tesla had an unusual capacity for envisioning things, such as particle beam weapons designs systems he offerred to the Allies in WW2, but only Stalin took him up on it. He designed the Niagra falls power plant, btw, and we are still relying on his over 100 year old first generation technology in the power grid when Tesla claimed he had already obsoleted it by 1901.

Wrong. Tesla scoffed at Edison's "1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" - i.e. he said that Edison could have saved himself a lot of work if he applied existing theories.Tesla put his theoretical knowledge to practical use - e.g. the AC motor. He did not grasp at every straw like you do.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Ringo, are you denying that Tesla claimed to harness non-Hertzian waves, that he had a different and from his perspective, a more fuller perspective and theory on energy?The fact he could demonstrate his theories, which people like you rejected and reject today, is not a sign he held no theories, and no, he did not merely accept existing theory, and was severely criticized because existing and current theory today for the most part denied that what he demonstrated could actually occur, which shows you something of the bigotry often of mainstream science.I gave you the example of over-the-horizon radar which Tesla developed around 1900. All the mainstream people like you denied it was physically impossible and so just refused to accept it, period, experiments, demonstrations or not.We actually had to rediscover it in the 1950s because of such stupidity and slander by mainstream thinkers.

The problem was that Tesla was a really lousy self-promoter. His more out-there ideas weren't so much "rejected" as invisible. It was only the ones that were commercially viable - e.g. the AC motor - that were known and accepted.So, are you saying that we should swallow every nutty idea hook,line and sinker like you do, just because one or two of them might turn out to be a "Tesla"?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I don't think things like quantum entanglement are nutty, but real, observed phenomena. I also think the nuttiness is clinging to an outdated view of "material" which has essentially been redefined by quantum physics.I'll grant you that Tesla was not a great self-promoter, and go as far as to say, perhaps mainstream science is not as intellectual pursuit as some believe it is, and that self-promotion is required, and so a poor salesman who is right may well lose out to an inferiour scientist and academic who knows how to sell himself. I do think of mainstream sciencem unfortunately, partly functions in this manner, but I hardly see how that discredits Tesla and his ideas.Basically, financial interests discredited Tesla's 2nd and 3rd generation technology because we were just building out his first generation stuff, and it would have bankrupted that enterprise, which is incidentally the largest industry in the world.So we still rely on Tesla's oldest technology, and we fight wars and such over scarce materials as a result.

I seriously doubt that. Tesla died in 1943, and I'm pretty sure that Bearden's nonsense is far more recent.Are you not aware that there is something of a cult of Tesla worshippers. Here are a couple of quotes from the wikipedia article on Tesla:

In his later years, Tesla was regarded as a mad scientist and became noted for making bizarre claims about possible scientific developments.

However, many of his achievements have been used, sometimes inappropriately and with some controversy, to support various pseudosciences, UFO theories, and New Age occultism.

nwr, Tesla was maligned out of fear of his technology, especially it's capacity to bankrupt the power grid, which was also Tesla's technology. Additionally, as one of the greatest genuises in our nation's history, he was also very eccentric, probably neurotic.But despite his personal failings, the guy invented radio, the induction motor, the AC/DC power system we use, and invented and pioneered and an early researcher a whole host of other things such as tesla coils widely used (probably in your pc), flourescent lighting, x-rays, efficient turbines, an early key aspect of the transistor, over the horizon radar, and a system of wireless distribution of power (something I am not sure anyone knows how to do today but he demonstrated), plans for particle beam weapons, etc,...The fact some so easily dismiss the guy when we still use his most primitive stuff, his early inventions, is very telling.In terms of non-Hertzian waves or energy from the vaccuum, no, Bearden did not originate this, but picked it up from Tesla and others that had picked it up from Tesla. That's just a fact.Why if we can tap the energy of the fabric of space-time (the vaccuum or aether) have we not done so? Simple, Tesla came out with it way too early.....land-line development and transmission of power (also Tesla) was still in it's infancy and too many massive financial interests had put too much money into it to lose it all just because Tesla, who had just worked very hard to prove his system was better than Edison's and they just adopted it, well now he was developing something that would bankrupt his already cutting edge technology.The man was just way too ahead of his times, but had we as a soceity appreciated him, we wouldn't be in the energy crisis we are in today, and we'd have a lot less environmental degradation and be far more advanced technologically.

nwr, read the link you provided. The term "longitudinal waves" is the same term Bearden often uses and quotes Tesla.
This is how they bankrupted him. Tesla didn't worry about money because he knew he had the right patents and would therefore be due royalties, but his lab was burned down with over a million dollars lost, and then they took away his radio patents, but interestingly awarded the patents back to him after his death.....a good look at real political power in action. So he was made broke, and the US courts refused to uphold his patents, especially for radio, until after his death. it's quite clear what happened.Note: he also developed if not invented radar. ....This message has been edited by randman, 03-17-2006 04:03 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 03-17-2006 04:14 PM

They took his papers for a reason.....call him mad if you want, but the bottom line is he was right on most things.

That couldn't be true. Most of the science Beardan is discussing (aside from being wrong) Tesla either didn't accept or didn't live to see.randman, you've just turned this into a thread about how maligned against Nikola Tesla was.
However this doesn't impact what Bearden is saying.

Tesla's technology was better than Edison's, and that got him into a fight. I'm not dismissing Tesla. I was trying to caution you about the Tesla cult. But I see that is too late. You are already part of that cult.Linus Pauling did some great science. He also came out with a silly theory about vitamin C. The lesson from Pauling, Tesla, and many others, is that we should value the science on its own merit, and not become idolizers of the scientist.Even great scientists can make mistakes. You cannot assume that, because a scientist has done good work, therefore everything he does is good. You must evaluate each theory or invention on its own merits. When you instead evaluate it on the reputation of the scientist, you are becoming part of a cult following. I have more respect for Tesla, than to blame him for the absurdities in Bearden's web page.

This does not appear to discuss the morphogenetic field. That is the topic.Untitled Documentan example of another great scientist often derided, but proven correct on some points though maybe wrong on the Big Bang or others Service UnavailableThis message has been edited by randman, 03-18-2006 04:03 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 03-18-2006 04:08 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 03-18-2006 04:13 AMThis message has been edited by AdminNosy, 03-18-2006 10:22 AM

Ironic you would say that, since I thought you were John Barrow based upon reading your posts. Though you seem too young to actually be Barrow.This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-24-2006 01:32 PM