Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Curvature of Space/Time

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
    STOP copy and pasting the same references over and over. You either don't know how to speak for yourself or you are probably affiliated with that department at Cornell and are trying to push their agenda of misinformation.

    If you continue to copy and paste these references, which you ALREADY did, I'll delete them.
    The article describes, "our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the metric field)". My interpretation of what they are describing is what is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically physically exists in nature as the deformation of continuous media, otherwise known as the state of displacement of the aether.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
      He just keeps quoting the same references from a single source. I agree with almost everything he says except he literally Einstein-izes it, which makes his premise fundamentally wrong.

      For over a century, the mainstream academics have denied the aether even though it is proven to exist. They disappeared the possibility of free energy by doing that.

      Because of the general lack of integrity or honesty in mainstream academic science, the science has shown what the funders of the "science" are looking for and it has been this way for many years.

      They will never admit they were wrong about the aether and instead change the language to dark matter / dark energy effects to explain all the effects. They could only push the illusion so long until it is inevitable that what is in front of our face will be apparent.

      So instead, they are in a position that they have to admit there is an aether but if they have to do that, they do it in a way that still supports the myth of conservation of energy, momentum, etc...so that even if there is an aether, it contributes no potential energy to mass - instead, all that energy is a property of the mass and therefore, Einstein is still right. It's truly sad.

      Adding up all the Force x Distance on a silly little rubber bouncing ball and any child can prove gravitational potential contributes to work being done!

      I lost count of the skeptics that tried to weasel around this fact by doing everything they can to maintain their delusion that there is no net work being done.

      Even when I point to very conventional definitions of lifting work - they are still in denial and come up with their own definitions so they don't have to be wrong.

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      http://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/...ergyBasics.htm

      Work is a transfer of energy so work is done on an object when you transfer energy to that object. The amount of work done on an object depends on the amount of force exerted on the object and the amount of distance the object moves.
      Work = Force x Distance
      According to Newton's Second Law of Motion, the net force on an object is dependent on the mass of the object, and its acceleration during the movement.
      Force = Mass x Acceleration
      mpc keep talking about force between the object and superfluid and I keep explaining there can be no force. Not only does his claims not jive with the aetheric model where the aether is the source potential, his claims completely defy many conventional definitions - he is literally making things up out of thin air to create confusion.

      An object on the ground is experiencing the acceleration of gravitational potential.

      An object moving at a constant speed through the aether way out in "space" is under zero acceleration so no force.

      There is only some force if the object has a rate of change - acceleration or deceleration - since the aether will induce a counter electrostatic force that opposes the movement of the mass - and there is the force. On Earth, the object is "still" relative to the moving aether accelerating downwards. An object in space accelerating is moving and the aether is "still", but has the same acceleration in relation to the mass. That is the gravity and inertia equivalence Einstein mentioned but never understood.

      I believe what I have laid out discards Einstein's relativity in a fairly simple and straightforward way, it is a significantly different theory and the equivalence of inertia and gravitation remains.

      ""My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
      — Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926. "


      So really looking at it, Einstein would disagree with mpc because he has destroyed the equivalence of inertia and gravitation since he claims there is some force when a mass moves through the aether at a constant speed - he is creating force without acceleration or inertia.

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      I used to believe in Einstein and was very positively influenced by pondering relativity, the speed of light, mass, etc... it made for some really great meditations.

      It was really Bearden pointing out Prigogine's work on open dissipative systems that I saw the whole thing was a scam and that the real pseudo-scientists and crackpots in the end were those that were pushing Einstein and conventional thermodynamics, etc.

      "They" can't defeat the math of a bouncing ball, Veljko's oscillator, Bedini's SG, etc. so they try to repeatedly maintain the paradigm of their delusional world by speaking it over and over and over because it puts people into a trance, literally. It programs a new ideomotor response so that the autonomic nervous system will respond favorably to the conventional claims. What mpc is doing is nothing more than practicing a subtle form of brainwashing. And it is more effective the more it has in common with an opposing view. Agree with 99% and throw in 1% misinformation and it slips right in.
      "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #78
        This thread is interesting, but only from one perspective - which is Aaron's. So thanks Aaron for hanging in there.

        I'm really getting peeved with mpc's "Siri" types of responses and wish he would post like an intelligent human rather than a programmed robot.

        At least I had the sense to realise I was punching above my weight way back on the first page of the thread and was humble enough to sit back and be taught.

        John K.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by John_Koorn View Post
          This thread is interesting, but only from one perspective - which is Aaron's. So thanks Aaron for hanging in there.

          I'm really getting peeved with mpc's "Siri" types of responses and wish he would post like an intelligent human rather than a programmed robot.

          At least I had the sense to realise I was punching above my weight way back on the first page of the thread and was humble enough to sit back and be taught.

          John K.
          Lawrence M. Krauss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss) says, "If you removed all of the particles, all of the radiation, absolutely everything from space and all that remained was nothing that nothing would weigh something."

          What weighs something has mass. If everything is removed then all that is left is spacetime. Meaning, mass is associated with spacetime.

          Casimir effect
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir...#Vacuum_energy

          "a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position"

          A 'field' in physics is the mass associated with spacetime and the strength of the field is the displacement of mass associated with spacetime from its relative rest position.

          In the following mass associated with spacetime is shortened to spacetime.

          Each of the plates in the Casimir effect displace spacetime. The displaced spacetimewhich exists between the plates is pushing back toward each of the plates which causes the force associated with spacetime displaced by each of the plates which exists between the plates to offset. This spacetime is more at relativistic rest than the spacetime which is displaced by the plates which encompasses the plates. The reduced force associated with spacetime which exists between the plates along with the displaced spacetime which encompasses the plates which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the plates causes the plates to be forced together.

          What occurs physically in nature in the Casimir effect is the same phenomenon as gravity.

          There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Spacetimephysically occupies three dimensional space. Spacetime is physically displaced by matter.

          The spacetime which exists between the Earth and the Moon is displaced by both the Earth and the Moon and is pushing back toward the Earth and toward the Moon. This displaced spacetime offsets and cancels each other out to some degree. Thisspacetime is more at relativistic rest than the displaced spacetime which encompasses the Earth and the Moon.

          The spacetime which encompasses the Earth and the Moon is able to exert more pressure on the solid matter Earth than it can the liquid oceans. This, along with the molecular bonds associated with the solid matter the Earth consists of, causes the solid matter Earth to be pushed closer to the Moon than the ocean water opposite the Moon. This causes the ocean to 'rise' opposite the Moon. The spacetimebetween the Earth and Moon exerts less pressure on the ocean water than it can the solid matter Earth. This, along with the the molecular bonds associated with the solid matter the Earth consists of, causes the ocean to rise between the Earth and Moon.

          In terms of relativity, spacetime is less curved between the Earth and the Moon and more curved encompassing the Earth and the Moon.

          In terms of what occurs physically in nature, spacetime is more at relativistic rest between the Earth and the Moon and more displaced encompassing the Earth and the Moon.

          Albert Einstein's 'First Paper'; a letter to his Uncle
          http://www.quora.com/Mike-Cavedon/Po...r-to-his-Uncle

          "The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

          Einstein is referring to the state of displacement of the mass associated with spacetime.

          The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass associated with spacetime displaced by these forces.

          Einstein: Ether and Relativity
          http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...ein_ether.html

          "Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

          if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by spacetime as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that spacetime consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

          The following image is theorized to represent the 'dark matter halos' which are anchored to the galaxy clusters. The 'dark matter halos' are theorized to travel with the galaxy clusters. This is incorrect.

          Think of the following image as being a piece of window glass where the space surrounding the galaxies represents the state of displacement of spacetime. Thespacetime surrounding the galaxies does not travel with the galaxies. The galaxies are moving through and displacing spacetime. Think of a bunch of submarines moving through the ocean. The submarines move through and displace the water. Galaxies move through and physically displace spacetime.

          http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8...3a36970b-800wi

          The halos surrounding the galaxy clusters is the state of displacement of spacetime. The spacetime displaced by the galaxy clusters, pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the galaxy clusters is gravity.

          The state of displacement of the mass associated with spacetime is gravity

          Comment


          • #80
            Look at this - http://www.physforum.com/index.php?s...c=41696&st=555

            mpc is Gravitational Aether, his other username that he used to post here as.

            He has been going around the internet as a "repeat offender", literally repeating verbatim what he is posting here regardless of the answers - all over the place.

            Look at this google search of just one of his trademarked phrases: https://www.google.com/search?q=Wher...been+displaced

            Unfortunately, that phrase is true and it looks like he is on a mission to give the entire aetheric displacement theory a bad name without even trying.

            OR, he is actually a part of that Arvix site and/or Cornell. I would find it hard to believe he is going to these lengths without some agenda.

            -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            xyzt
            Posted: Sep 6 2013, 02:46 AM

            Advanced Member


            Group: Power Member
            Posts: 1492
            Joined: 24-July 12

            Positive Feedback: 0%
            Feedback Score: 0

            QUOTE (gravitational_aether @ Sep 5 2013, 11:47 PM)
            Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by particles of matter.
            Spam.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Being accused of spamming the other forums.

            It is the same copy and paste over at our friends at overunity.com to - http://www.overunity.com/13594/aethe.../#.Uq0mPOLDu8p

            Looking through google, he has spammed the heck out of DOZENS AND DOZENS of websites with his copy and paste answers.

            mpc/gravitational potential is obviously suffering from monomania (a complete obsession with a single concept and cannot see anything else) and with the chronic spamming of forums all over the English speaking world, OCD on top of that (or a hidden agenda).

            This has the possibility of being a really good discussion, but mpc is irrational and cannot even communicate to me on any of the points I bring up about his claims. He is a historically documented non-commercial spammer and refuses to have a real conversation with anyone and this is the case EVERYWHERE - just see Google. I have no problem with his opposing viewpoints, but I do have a problem with talking to a brick wall.

            If he persists in this manner, I'm inclined to block him.
            Aaron Murakami





            You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

            Comment


            • #81
              From another forum replying to mpc755 - seems so many people around the worl:

              -------------------

              AlphaNumeric
              Posted: Jan 26 2011, 09:44 PM

              Professional mathematician


              Group: Power Member
              Posts: 10336
              Joined: 16-June 06

              Positive Feedback: 84.15%
              Feedback Score: 420

              You're not actually retorting my comments, you are just restating your initial claim,
              --------------------
              Aaron Murakami





              You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
                Look at this - http://www.physforum.com/index.php?s...c=41696&st=555

                mpc is Gravitational Aether, his other username that he used to post here as.

                He has been going around the internet as a "repeat offender", literally repeating verbatim what he is posting here regardless of the answers - all over the place.

                Look at this google search of just one of his trademarked phrases: https://www.google.com/search?q=Wher...been+displaced

                Unfortunately, that phrase is true and it looks like he is on a mission to give the entire aetheric displacement theory a bad name without even trying.

                OR, he is actually a part of that Arvix site and/or Cornell. I would find it hard to believe he is going to these lengths without some agenda.

                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                xyzt
                Posted: Sep 6 2013, 02:46 AM

                Advanced Member


                Group: Power Member
                Posts: 1492
                Joined: 24-July 12

                Positive Feedback: 0%
                Feedback Score: 0

                QUOTE (gravitational_aether @ Sep 5 2013, 11:47 PM)
                Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by particles of matter.
                Spam.
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Being accused of spamming the other forums.

                It is the same copy and paste over at our friends at overunity.com to - http://www.overunity.com/13594/aethe.../#.Uq0mPOLDu8p

                Looking through google, he has spammed the heck out of DOZENS AND DOZENS of websites with his copy and paste answers.

                mpc/gravitational potential is obviously suffering from monomania (a complete obsession with a single concept and cannot see anything else) and with the chronic spamming of forums all over the English speaking world, OCD on top of that (or a hidden agenda).

                This has the possibility of being a really good discussion, but mpc is irrational and cannot even communicate to me on any of the points I bring up about his claims. He is a historically documented non-commercial spammer and refuses to have a real conversation with anyone and this is the case EVERYWHERE - just see Google. I have no problem with his opposing viewpoints, but I do have a problem with talking to a brick wall.

                If he persists in this manner, I'm inclined to block him.
                Aether has mass. Mass is defined as that which physically occupies three dimensional space.

                The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
                  From another forum replying to mpc755 - seems so many people around the worl:

                  -------------------

                  AlphaNumeric
                  Posted: Jan 26 2011, 09:44 PM

                  Professional mathematician


                  Group: Power Member
                  Posts: 10336
                  Joined: 16-June 06

                  Positive Feedback: 84.15%
                  Feedback Score: 420

                  You're not actually retorting my comments, you are just restating your initial claim,
                  --------------------
                  Aether has mass. Mass is defined as that which physically occupies three dimensional space.

                  What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the aether.

                  Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie physical wave of wave-particle duality. Both are waves in the aether.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    I'm going to ban him - any objections?
                    Aaron Murakami





                    You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Fine by me. You always give them much more time and effort than I would. At some point it is just spam as far as I am concerned.

                      al

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
                        I'm going to ban him - any objections?
                        Fine by me...

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Here are a couple Tom Bearden quotes from a paper he has online.

                          http://www.cheniere.org/books/newtes...crepancies.htm

                          (1) In present electromagnetics theory, charge and charged mass are falsely made identical. Actually, on a charged particle, the "charge" is the flux of virtual particles on the "bare particle" of observable mass. The charged particle is thus a "system" of true massless charge coupled to a bare chargeless mass. The observable "mass" is static, three-dimensional, and totally spatial. "Charge" is dynamic, four-dimensional or more, virtual and spatiotemporal. Further, the charge and observable mass can be decoupled, contrary to present theory. Decoupled charge -- that is, the absence of mass -- is simply what we presently refer to as "vacuum." Vacuum, spacetime, and massless charge are all identical. Rigorously, we should utilize any of these three as an "ether," as suggested for vacuum by Einstein himself (see Max Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Revised Edition, Dover Publications, New York, 1965, p. 224). And all three of them are identically anenergy -- not energy, but more fundamental components of energy.

                          That is by Tom Bearden - 22 Discrepancies in Present EM Theory - from 1982 (wow!)

                          I want to break every one of these points down if I can but just want to share a couple - the ones very specifically relevant to this thread.

                          Exactly - charge and mass are made identical and they are not. The "charge" IS the aether and it doesn't have mass itself.

                          Tom Bearden uses the 3D terminology erroneously but it is obvious what he means.

                          He states "vacuum, spacetime and massless charge" are identical - exactly - that is the aether.

                          (2) Electrostatic potential is regarded as a purely 3-dimensional spatial stress. Instead, it is the intensity of a many-dimensional (at least four-dimensional) virtual flux and a stress on all four dimensions of spacetime. This is easily seen, once one recognizes that spacetime is identically massless charge. (It is not "filled" with charge; rather, it is charge!) Just as, in a gas under pressure, the accumulation of additional gas further stresses the gas, the accumulation of charge (spacetime) stresses charge (spacetime). Further, if freed from its attachment to mass , charge can flow exclusively in time, exclusively in space, or in any combination of the two. Tesla waves -- which are scalar waves in pure massless charge flux itself -- thus can exhibit extraordinary characteristics that ordinary vector waves do not possess. And Tesla waves have extra dimensional degrees of freedom in which to move, as compared to vector waves. Indeed, one way to visualize a Tesla scalar wave is to regard it as a pure oscillation of time itself.

                          Bearden says spacetime (already defined as aether) is massless charge. He says it is not "filled" with charge, IT IS CHARGE! That is one of the most important points I've been trying to make for years. Space is not filled with aether - space IS aether. Therefore, aether does NOT occupy "3d space", it IS space. I remember being excited to find this reference that Tom Bearden was saying the same thing long time ago when I found some of his references I was using to back my argument.

                          I do disagree with him saying charge can flow exclusively in time or space or a combo of the two. I'll have to ponder that. Time is just a local concept to measure the movement of mass through space from one coordinate to another and from an outside observer not subject to anything (God's eye view) - time is flowing slow in high density aether and slow in low density aether. My rubber band powered propeller example in water or Jello shows the point. That is really all that time is when using it as a mathematical dimension to multiply something by. And when multiplying a spatial dimension like distance - we only use one variable. We don't multiple an object by 3 dimensions (coordinates) because those are not real dimensions.

                          When we measure power, we take the work done and divide it by time. If we have a small cap and discharge it in a small enough time, we can get a megawatt for that small unit of time, but the work done is the same as if it were discharged over a long period of time. Time doesn't show work - it shows energy DENSITY. Whether it takes 10 years or 10 seconds to lift an object to the same height, the work done is the same, but the POWER will be much different.

                          If we measured something in local time, it would be absolutely incredible if we actually had a non-local frame of reference as a benchmark to compare it against to see what kind of local aetheric density we have.

                          SHORT TIME PERIODS for x amount of work appear to always be attached to high density aether or relative high density aether. If we lift an object in Earth's gravity to x height over a 1 hour period, there isn't that much relative density the object experiences. But if we lift that object in a nanosecond, imagine the density of the aether relative to the object's trip to that same height - it would be astoundingly DENSE (like high pressure).

                          If we pulse a coil and could connect a cap to the leads fast enough (like Paul Babcock) when we disconnect the power supply, the field collapses slowly (low pressure = low voltage). But if the field collapses without that, we get a high voltage spike. That spike has SHORT TIME PERIOD but the pressure of that spike is very high (high voltage). The organized aether that makes up that spike is very, very DENSE = high voltage.

                          The principle is universal from my own observations and my take on it is that it shows that time is variable and has an apparent proportional flow rate to the density of the aether. So although time is a mathematical dimension, time does not appear to be something that can be separated from the very space, which defines the time.

                          My perspective on charging a battery with spikes and having it be referred to as a TIME CHARGE, which it is - to me is literally that. It is filling the battery with cultivated time, which is locked up in that high density aether (hv spike). You put that compressed time into the battery and then you get work out of the battery, which we see as work at a lower voltage over a period of time. We got the time out of the spike by decompressing it. That is literally what time is made of - the aether. That is why time can't be separated from the aether so the pure massless charge (aether) cannot flow only in the dimension in time as Bearden mentions. If you read it carefully, Bearden contradicts himself here from my perspective. He already properly defined space as not being filled with source charge/aether, it IS source charge/aether. Therefore, "Further, if freed from its attachment to mass , charge can flow exclusively in time, exclusively in space, or in any combination of the two."

                          That is a contradiction. If massless charge (aether) is detached from a mass, which it can be, how does it flow exclusively in space? That makes no sense. He is saying the aether flows through itself and can do so separate from time. After properly defining space AS source charge, which it is, he speaks of the massless charge as if it is something different than itself if it flows through space. A little strange, but anyway... I think he is off on his explanation of the Tesla Wave as oscillating time itself (since Bearden speaks of time and space as being separate things. The Tesla Wave or longitudinal dielectric "wave" is oscillating the aether itself such as between two resonator coils in the Cosmic Induction Generator for example. That is oscillating time itself, but inseparable from the massless charge.

                          In any case, Bearden deserves a lot of credit for getting these general concepts, especially back in 1982! That is 32 years ago. Bottom line, he is right in my opinion about the massless characteristic of the aether.

                          Looking through that paper, I really have to spend some time on that. He hits on a quite a bit, some I disagree with, most I agree with, some is semantics, etc... Even though it is about EM concepts being wrong in the books, it is completely relevant to any discussion about space and time.
                          Aaron Murakami





                          You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
                            I'm going to ban him - any objections?
                            Please do, before I beat you to it

                            John K.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by John_Koorn View Post
                              Please do, before I beat you to it

                              John K.
                              LOL, ok he is gone.

                              If anyone really wants to follow him - he can be found through plenty of posts through this google link: https://www.google.com/search?q=mpc755+aether
                              Aaron Murakami





                              You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Hi Aaron,
                                I appreciate your explanations and examples you have written so thanks.

                                Most of this entire subject is beyond my pay grade but I do find it interesting. Without speaking directly about the content I would just say don't be to hard on Mr. Bearden, as you have fairly stated he wrote that stuff back in the 80's. He is much older than most of us and let's remember that he did not have the internet or the digitized world of resources that we have today back when he was doing his research. In fact you know you are the next generation to carry it forward. He did not have Aarons work to use as references right, so he did the best he could with what he had and gave everyone something to think about.

                                In any communication there are going to be at least two realities involved which can muck the message up. You have the message being given and the person giving it understands exactly what they think and that is their reality but on the other hand you have the message receiver who can only listen and form a comprehension of what is being said in their own reality. Eye of the beholder.

                                In lies the potential for either the speaker to lack in ability to present their reality in the right context ( wrong words, wrong examples, whatever) or the receiver to improperly interpret what the speaker has presented, the two realities just do not meet sometimes.

                                Not to bring religion into it but a good example of what I mean is reading a Bible. Most people will tell you that they have understood many different things at different times of their lives from reading the exact same book/chapter. That is why they read the same thing over and over because their reality is the filter. It doesn't have to be a religious book, any book will do.

                                Anyway I think you are a very fair person and I really appreciate your efforts.

                                @ ALL
                                Earlier in the post it seemed people started wanting to throw Mr. Bearden under the bus and I think that is quite shameful. He is not here to defend himself and nobody can actually prove any wrong doing by him. He worked very closely with Mr. Bedini so we are told, many phone conversations back in the 80's so we have all benefited from the mans work indirectly.
                                Last edited by BobZilla; 12-15-2013, 06:44 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X