Talk:Thomas E. Bearden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Contents

[edit] External Links

The Tom Bearden Website

G33K 20:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category "Pseudoscientists"

Hello - I've added the Category:Pseudoscientists to the article due to the speculative nature of the claims, lack of empirical evidence, and complex nature of some of the models. This does not mean that the ideas of Mr. Bearden are wrong, neither does it amount to an endorsement. It barely highlights the state of his research and puts it into perspective. I hope this category to be agreeable. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 01:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second law of thermodynamics

[edit] Explanation of apparent Thermodynamics violations

I've deleted a paragraph that read as follows:

Bearden's critics almost uniformly point to the Second Law of Thermodynamics to justify their assertion that his theory is unworkable. Bearden and his supporters point to the growing body of evidence [1] [2] [3] that the Second Law is more of a statistical representation of a wide range of thermodynamical possibilities, some of which include localized negentropy, than a bona-fide physical law like the First and Third Laws of Thermodynamics. Research done in 1945 [4] by Ilya Prigogine shows that Second Law violations are quite common in Non-Equilibrium Steady State systems (of which little was known prior to his research).

This is misconceived. It presents as news the fact that the 2nd law is statistical, and that there can therefore be violations. This is misleading in two ways. First, this is a straightforward consequence of the standard understanding (see [[1]]. Second, these violations are overwhelmingly unlikely to occur on anything other than a small scale (as noted in the SciAm reference). The Ilya Prigogine reference is to his CV and list of published papers. The other two references are of limited relevance: one is a fortunecity personal website; another is a blog making an unrelated point about creation/evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeContexte (talk • contribs)


if this energy comes from beyond the sub atomic level, then why would Newtonian 'laws' even be mentioned? don't we already know that those 'laws' don't apply to the sub atomic? just wondering... 86.154.116.128 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Electromagnetic Warfare

This section made way too many extreme claims to have no citations, so I softened it up a bit. I also removed the erroneous reference to microwave weapons in Iraq, since that has nothing to do with Bearden's claimsPrebys (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I also added a paragraph about Bearden's weather conspiracy theories. Question: should there be a whole separate section about Bearden's conspiracy theories? Prebys (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I've moved all his non-perpetual motion theories into one section, although it could probably do with a more appropriate heading. I'm not sure I'd have separate section for the conspiracy theories - none of this stuff is particularly notable, and it's really relevant only as it goes to Bearden's reliability and, perhaps sanity, which is of course relevant in assessing the believability of his somewhat notable MEG claims. LeContexte (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. In looking up these references, it became clear to me what a central theme these theories are to Bearden's thinking, so I really thought they rated their own section. See below Prebys (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems sensible. NB would be great if you could help keep an eye on this page, as there's a history of POV-pushing by Bearden's supporters. LeContexte (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed. That's what got me started. As a PhD physicist, I was pretty alarmed by the original tone of the page. I'll keep in on my watchlistPrebys (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I was alarmed by the $11 million dollars that are required for some purpose. That's a lot of money. Koeplinger (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Particularly for something that he claims already works :) Prebys (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, right. I don't have a problem with anyone building anything, even if it doesn't make sense. That's not my concern, because I would not be interested. As you've pointed out, Mr. Bearden has added lots of shocking allegations, including murder, to certain conspiracy ideas, paired with the $11 mio dollar claim that stops short of becoming a fundraiser; that is indeed something I'm interested in and concerned with: One might feel intimidated or even endangered if ignoring his work, but there is help if there would be more money available. - Well, you can put me on the "endangered" list then. - Seriously, as for the actual scientific claims, anybody can build anything for whatever reason (as long as it doesn't harm others or is illegal). It may or may not work, and the experiment will be the judge. I have no opinion with regarding "free energy" claims, and I'm currently not interested in becoming more proficient in this field. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The silly thing about the MEG and all "free energy" conspiracy theories is how little effort it would take to prove them true, if there was any truth in them. I can build a working conventional electric generator from random crap around my house, or from $10 work of parts from the hardware store, and I can connect it to a windmill or hand-crank and prove it generates electricity. But somehow, every "free energy" system requires millions of dollars to build a working model. High school kids have built primitive IEC fusion reactors for science fairs, but Bearden and the other "free energy" gurus can't manage to build a working 1 watt generator for less than $11m. This despite claiming to be smarter than all the real physicists in the entire world. Disposableman (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theories

Since conspiracy theories are such a pervasive theme in Bearden's writing and thought, I created a separate section cataloging some of them. It needs a bit more work, and some of the material from "Other Views" can probably be moved there.Prebys (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theoretical Justification

It's important that anyone reading this article understand just how little support these "theories" have in the physics community.

Yes. I still feel though, that we didn't hit the perfect tone yet, not sure myself how to hit the spot. In independent publications (namely publications that don't have a declared target of promoting free energy models), there is no support whatsoever, to my knowledge. Since "independent", "neutral", etc are each vague terms in themselves, it's hard to hit the spot: One might ask why there couldn't be a window for "new physics" here (or anywhere else), knowing that there are open problems in physics. That's really a question of where one should invest effort in, what has the most promises, and what sort of experiments would fall in the category of watching clouds to see whether they turn green one day. Irony, politics, conspiracy theories, and other overhead aside: It is my personal opinion that the machine(s) proposed by Bearden are not related to a working model or theory. They are not intended to verify or falsify a prediction, they just "are". That's where it becomes unscientific: There's no working (or consistent) model. Even the Michelson–Morley experiment, as "weird" and unexpected its results were back then, was probing a class of models that were consistent within itself. --- So, what's the correct wording for the current article? I'll think about it some more, too. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, after re-reading the article a couple of times, it sounded very good; all I did was move the already existing "theoretical justification" section as a subsection to the MEG, so that it comes immediately after describing the machines. The tone is very good and to the point, so I was wrong in what I wrote earlier. Thank you for the very good work, Prebys! Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

DISCUSSION ON DEGREE MILL MOVED TO APPROPRIATE SECTION... --Theoversightcommittee (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would now like to focus on his claims. That is were we can make progress either by figuring out how to harness the elusive "free" electromagnetic flows from the primordial vacuum with MEGs, or conclusively debunk the possibility of ever doing so. I have his 57page outline of how we can achieve unlimited free electromagnetic energy and would like to refute each point, one-by-one. Here it is...

Rapid and Decisive Solution of the World Energy Crisis and Global Warming

 T. E. Bearden Dec. 2007 Slightly updated Feb. 2008

Summary of the Problem

(1) Most of our EM energy production also produces lots of “dirt” in the process of obtaining the energy.

(2) The solution has to be to produce our EM energy without producing dirt at all.

(3) Other than small contributions by wind, hydro, geothermal, and solar power, presently there is no really “clean energy” process in widespread usage { }.

(4) Science has no truly effective way to “clean” the dirt (or dispose of it) that is produced to get the energy, even if we “catch” the dirt and hold it. Catching carbon byproducts from the combustion of coal, e.g., and then calling for “sequestration” does not get rid of the dirt. Putting the carbon dirt in the ocean merely acidifies the ocean (its acidity is already beginning to harm and kill ocean life forms) and eventually puts it right back into the atmosphere again { }.

(5) The central problem is: We presently produce most of our EM energy by simultaneously producing harmful dirt that we simply cannot render harmless.

(6) The only real solution is: We must produce all the EM energy we need, cheaply and cleanly, essentially without the production of any dirt at all.

(7) Ironically, all EM energy is already produced cleanly from the vacuum via the source dipolarity of the generating system itself. It is not produced by consuming fuel to crank the shaft of the generator, although a hundred years of electrical engineers and professors have taught and been falsely taught that it is { }. So burning the hydrocarbon fuel or consuming nuclear fuel rods has nothing to do with the direct production of EM energy { }.

(8) Hence the specific problem is to catch and use the free EM energy flowing from its universal vacuum source, without consuming fuel and without cranking the shaft of the generator—and without depending on the wind, sun, or water. Any dipole already does exactly this, because of its proven broken symmetry known since 1957 and the award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang { }.

(9) This now surfaces the real problem: Our electrical engineering process has to be doing something “diabolical” that deliberately forces each and every EM energy system to destroy its source dipolarity faster than it powers its load. Otherwise, no further physical input of mechanical shaft energy to the generator would be necessary, once we had initially forced the generator to form its own internal source dipole { }. Instead, the EM energy would flow freely and forever from the sustained dipole, without ever another “cranking” of the generator shaft.

Next Section Under Discussion: Facts Bearing on the Problem --Theoversightcommittee (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

At the request of the participants on this page I removed everything after this point, which will be presented in manageable chunks to help keep the discussion focused. This content can be downloaded from Bearden's website at http://www.cheniere.org/

Here is the link to download his paper in its entirety: http://www.cheniere.org/articles/Solution%20to%20the%20World%20Energy%20Crisis%20-%20final%20draft2a.doc

--Theoversightcommittee (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Degree Mill

I beefed up the section on Bearden's purchased PhD. The original seemed to imply that the Skeptical Inquirer was alone in branding "Trinity College and University" a degree mill. There's really no question about it.Prebys (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The following was moved from the above section of Theoretical Justification...

I just wanted to state my position here since I have made some additions. I dont know or support this guy or his work, BUT since it is in such a critical area of technological development that the world could and needs to benefit from, I want to see that he gets a fair chance. He may be a crook, a fraud, misled or ignorant, BUT maybe he is not and maybe he will make a valuable contribution someday? He is sitting on the bleeding edge so I don't mind keeping the sceptics' POVs in, but let's not go overboard. Since when did a scientific discovery depend on holding an accredited degree? Yet I want to also leave that grain of salt about his credentials in the article JUST IN CASE. I am personally just watching and waiting (and not investing), as I believe with the earlier observation that the economy of producing an MEG should be far under $100K (value aside). Yet, whoever is going to build and demonstrate this thing is going to want to get paid for it up front and I suspect this is where the $11m comes in. With ICTech mushrooming MEGs will be up and running globally within 48 hrs (assuming they are possible, which is not proven yet, if ever).

--Theoversightcommittee (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In matters of science, the NPOV of Wikipedia was never meant to imply that all claims are treated with equal credulity, and Bearden has already gotten more of the benefit of the doubt than he deserves. The controversy regarding his PhD isn't that he doesn't have one, it's that he lied about having one. Since Bearden has never allowed an independent evaluation of his device or published in reputable journals ("Foundations of Physics" doesn't count), his personal integrity is a very central issue, and lying about his education certainly weighs in very negatively.
Bearden's had more than a "fair chance", and now he's asking for $10-12 million to "develop" a product that he claimed was "delivering 100 times more energy than was input" six years ago, and the MEG was just the latest in a string of "over unity" devices that Bearden has been pushing for decades. All they have in common is that none of them work. Anyone who does have a background in physics (I have an actual PhD, for example) recognizes his "scientific explanations" as just random scientific terms and famous names strung together with no meaning whatsoever. Sorry, the guy is either a fraud, sincerely self-deluded, just mentally ill. There is no fourth option.Prebys (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know which of the companies that call themselves "ICTech" you're referring to, but - on first look - cannot find a published reference that would link both "ICTech" with Mr Bearden. A perceived positive outcome may be a good motivation, personally, but has no meaning whatsoever with respect to verifiability of the original claim. One's personal views become secondary here, and Wikipedia should stick to what was said. Mr Bearden claimed to have academic credentials, and others have pointed out problem. Wikipedia records who said what, and the ultimate decision of what to make out of this lies with the reader. You wonder whether I support Mr Bearden or not; just to clarify: I don't support Mr Bearden, as I am not interested in his work. If you (or anyone else) find something that drew notable public attention to Mr Bearden, then this would be good material to describe and reference in Wikipedia. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I should have just said the Net. I meant Information, Communications Technology (not a specific org). My reading of the text revealed that he HAS academic credentials, just not very impressive ones related to this field. Saying you have a degree from a degree mill is not dishonest or illegal, but neither it is prestigious or confidence-building. Therefore, I am not against leaving it on the record. In my view he REALLY needs to prove himself. He may have thought it was going to help his cause, and he may have justified it as a shortcut to save time for his work (knowing that he had developed the expertise anyway), but it has back-fired and created a greater credibility gap for his cause, agreed. This is the best case analysis (benefit of the doubt) I can give him at this point. It would have been better to just gone public without it. An unaccredited PhD is still a PhD, and that's why everyone asks, "Where did you get your degree?" So the lesson is to always ask. But beyond that we need to ask the tough questions that challenge the person's understanding of the subject matter. I admit that I would not like to sit on the jury of this trial, but I do want to see a fair trial. That's my bottom line. With all due respect to Prebys, I feel you are too emotionally involved to be fully neutral here, though you may have a good basis for your position (I suspect you do, but can't ascertain it fully). It looks to me like you are in the mood of a "hot prosecutor" who wants to bust this guy and send him away up the river. (and I know you are gonna say I am in the mood of an ACLU defense attorney)...so at least Bearden can't complain that he didn't get the best ;) possible representation! lol. I have read up on Tesla and I am impressed by the man. I am very open to the possibility of E=tc2 and the fourth time dimension of electromagnetic energy flows, and the possibilities of tapping into that "anywhere in the universe". If this guy doesn't make an MEG soon, then I am contemplating a midlife career change to make one myself! I have the determination and innovative mind to do it (assuming it is possible). I will need a lot of PhDs to bring me up to speed FAST and I wont use a degree mill to sell you my MEG, I promise! --Theoversightcommittee (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The statement "A PhD from a degree mill is still a PhD" may be correct in the strictly legal sense, but certainly in common usage "I have a PhD" implies a path of research, a proper thesis, and an accredited university. Tacking "PhD" on your name because you paid money to a degree mill is deliberate deception. In the same way, if a person obtains a family discount for "his brother" at his place of employment, I would claim he was being deceptive if he didn't specify fraternity brother. As for your comment about "emotionally involved", that's kind of a catch-22. I challenge you to find someone who actually understands terms like "curved spacetime", "Aharonov Bohm Effect", "U(1) symmetry", "quaternion", etc, who doesn't get a bit emotional when he hears Bearden muddle and butcher them. In this case, in order to remain dispassionate, you would have to completely restrict the discussion to people who didn't understand the issues. By way of comparison, imagine the reaction of a historian if someone claimed Ulysses S. Grant started his military career in Julius Ceasar's army. Finally, can't anyone discuss Bearden without bringing up Tesla? Bearden may invoke Tesla's name like a talisman, but in fact there's no relationship at all between Bearden's claims and Tesla's work.Prebys (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I support Prebys' views and edits. Discussion about the value of purchased degrees is inappropriate on a personal wiki page, but should better be described and referenced, e.g., at Degree mill. I'll flag it as needing reference, i.e., public attention received specifically with Mr Bearden's mention. Thanks, Koeplinger (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I am hearing you all on the degree mill issue, but I fail to see the deception in it if he is stating the name of the university he got it from. If he got it from Trinity but said it was from Harvard, then that would be deception in my view. These seem to be more subjective valuations. That a PhD denotes institutional value and accreditation is questionable in my mind. How can you discredit him for "deliberate deception" by claiming he has a PhD (which was issued to him) just because his college is not accredited or prestigious?
Maybe Trinity didn't teach him anything of value, but maybe he had to demonstrate his qualification to them in order to get it. Like the difference between a high school degree from an Ivy League prep school and a GED. A GED issuing body doesn't impart any education to you, they just give you the rubber stamp after you demonstrate your ability, and it is just as good for purposes of qualification, but not as prestigious. The difference is that the GED is accredited and the Degree Mill is not, granted. But you really don't know for a fact that he just paid money without having to document his qualifications for the degree, do you? Where is the evidence of this in HIS case?
Another example is someone using CEO on their business card. They may be a CEO of a private family business that is bankrupt and not even registered with a business license. You can say deception, but CEO doesn't mean anything. It is a title given by some org. like PhD. Titles only have value in a specific context, which every buyer must beware.
ANYWAY, my point is to get away from ad hominims and focus on the science behind his claims and works. Now Prebys started doing that in his last post, which I appreciate more than attacks on his PhD claims. It is a catch22, just as his degree mill degree raises doubts about his integrity, so does ad hominim attacks against his degree raise doubts about the integrity of the arguments against his science. I say better to stick to the science arguments for a sound defeat. Only RWAs Right Wing Authoritarianism (even those with PhDs) are going to be influenced by such side issues anyway and they are not people who are likely to be surfing WIKIs. So by all means defeat his science. Otherwise, stand-by and let the guy do his work (careful guarding your wallet). lol.
Positively, I say we narrow down the argument, keep the focus on him to produce results, and get him to cough it up...whatever, if anything, he has in his pocket. He is playing a poker game and wants to maximize his returns. That much is clear to me. If he has nothing, then it is up to people like you to count the cards and determine what he might be holding, if anything, by eliminating his claims one-by-one, unless he has no more valid claims, or must produce something, or fold. He wants us to anti-up and build the pot (by at least $11m). But clearly this is not in anyone's best interest other than his.
If he becomes convinced that no funding will come (thanks to the Wicked WIKI Consortium...all u heroes in here! I'm 1/2 joking), then he will play his hand. If he has something of value then he will either get wealth or fame or both. But if he waits for money, then he risks losing both money and fame should someone else come along and deliver the goods before him (although he has a patent--how he got it I don't know!). As Tesla initially lost the credit for the radio, so too can Bearden lose becoming the first to the market with an MEG-type device. I think he just needs a little old-fashioned competition to motivate him to speed up his delivery schedule. Which, by the way, I recently read of a guy who was making similar claims to Bearden's about something along of the lines of an MEG. So let's see who wins the race! :)

--Theoversightcommittee (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I just read the linked page (ref #21) to the degree mill issue and it really makes you want to remove the whole section on the degree mill issue and this discussion about it. The core arguments there were very similar to mine made here. Anyahoo. It hardly matters. What matters is the MEG...where is that rascal? --Theoversightcommittee (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, it's clear from your comments you don't really understand what a degree mill is, because you still talk about some sort of "qualifications". We're not talking about the difference between Harvard and State here, or even State and a community college. Degree mills don't exist. There is no campus, no professors, no courses, nothing. It's just a website, with some picture of a real college somewhere else. You pay them money and you get a degree. The more money, the higher the degree. For a little extra, they provide transcripts from classes you never took and glowing reference letters from imaginary professors. When Bearden began tacking "PhD" to his name, the general public hadn't heard of degree mills yet, and he was confident no one would check. If he were really sincere, then why hasn't he produced his thesis? That's unheard of (it's not like he's shy about talking). Pointing this out is not an ad hominem attack. Since Bearden has never, ever, offered any proof of his claims, his integrity is very much at issue. Where is the MEG? You can look up the patent and build one yourself. It's basically a fancy transformer. These people use complex waveforms so that you get inaccurate power readings if you slept through physics class. Perpetual motion machine claims have been around since at least the "Persian Wheel" in 1159, and modern free energy scams are all variants of the "Keely Motor", which was debunked 110 years ago (although people still believe it). Three things are certain: (1) the MEG doesn't work, (2) the MEG will never work, and (3) complete lack of evidence will never stop people from believing in it.Prebys (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have noted your comments, and his personal testimony (at footnote #21 and his website which includes the following paper), and it seems that he was approached by Trinity and offered a type of honorary degree from them that required him to spend some months preparing his paper, etc. As you are saying people were not generally aware of degree mills at that time, perhaps neither was he. Perhaps Trinity duped him into thinking he was getting something of value. But I think I want to end the discussion here at this point on his degree. You have expressed your doubt and the doubt stands in regard to the integrity of the degree issued by Trinity to him, the integrity of the college and the integrity of the scientist. I believe all possible sides have been explored.

--Theoversightcommittee (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original content (on this talk page)

Please refrain from posting original content (in excess of mere quotes) on this talk page; rather post a reference or link. Original content is inappropriate and will be removed. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I put it in here because it is not easily referenced as it is a file that required downloading. I want people to see and address these points. They are directly relevant to the discussion, and because they have not been substantially addressed and only superficially talked about, I feel they need to be put on the table. Your point is that it is a large amount of content, so I will concede that and break it up into smaller chunks and present the points systematically in order to be handled until they are exhausted. I will present the first section of the paper and then link to the remainder. Once we dispense of the first section, then I will post the second section, and so on. Certainly this will help us stay focused. (By the way, why are your comments on the talkpage not showing up on my watch list?)--Theoversightcommittee (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

CC: From My Talk Page...

The entire material needs to be removed very soon. Wikipedia is not a discussion board or forum. Wikipedia is a reference to notable material. Please remove all material quickly. Also, please do not modify or alter the order or content of other user contribution on talk pages. Your entries are becoming a disruption to Wikipedia, please do not continue discussing your original research, or post primary sources. Thank you for adding the reference to the Free Energy news site; this was a valuable addition. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey! If you chose to quote me, don't drop the preceding text I wrote there: You have just posted a large amount of original content at Talk:Thomas E. Bearden, which is inappropriate, even on a talk page. Please remove this content and replace with a link or reference. Koeplinger (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Jens, I disagree as these are allowable "quotes" for discussing the issue of the Theoretical Justification of the claims made by Bearden, which effect the basis of your claims that he is presenting "pseudo-science", which you are clearly on an openly stated crusade against[5]. I don't believe you have the ability to prove or state these opinions at this juncture, since you are not even a PhD yourself and have not take the pains to prove him wrong through any scientific process or even review.
Since you have an openly stated agenda, I am here to make sure you stick to a NPOV. At this point, I EQUALLY suspect the integrity of the arguments made by Bearden and his detractors like your good self and Prebys. I am not impressed by the way Bearden went about his PhD, not the way you are going about suppressing the discussion about the integrity of his science. You curiously have no qualms about discussing the integrity of his character, however. REG FLAGS are flying all over my screen here. I suspect you are not being neutral or fair on this page.
This is my frank and honest humble opinion. So far as the accepted consensus information contained on this subject in Wikipedia (specifically in relation to 2nd law of thermodynamics) suggests that you may again be in error (reference your talk page on theories you initially suspected psuedo-science by Charles Musè an admitted friend of aliens) of your unprovable contention that these people are pseudo-scientists. Clearly your initial judgments have a proven (self-admitted) tendency towards error. So why should I be moved by them, and why should you post them?
Why you, a person who claims no interest whatsoever in Bearden's work, would take all this time and effort to discredit and suppress an open debate on his biography is spurious in the very least. Truly no offense is intended here. But neither am I obliged to turn a blind eye to what I am seeing, or mute my observations. I feel obliged to do so for the sake of maintaining the NPOV of this encyclopedia. I feel your time would be better spent proving your claims and personal judgments against Bearden BEFORE posting them here (in the Wiki and/or talk page for Bearden).
Now, if you want to remove the quotes of Bearden that serve the discussion on the matter of your claim of his propagation of psuedo-science, then remove all the references to his propagating psuedo-science. Otherwise defend your claims by defeating his claims point-for-point. I am all for discrediting psuedo-science. I am not at all defending or attacking Bearden. Prove he is a pseudo-scientist and I will personally begin his biography with those very words.
Neither am I inordinately impressed by any degree, but by well meaning and reasonable statements (which I stick to without the need to make blatant self-serving references to my advanced degrees; which is why you will never see me do so...let my statements swim or sink on their own merit).
It is funny that you make the statement that "Wiki is not a discussion board" on a page titled "Discussion" (which exists on every Wiki page, as we all know). You are trying to stifle a legitimate discussion on relevant topics concerning the validity of a living person's biography, which is a very sensitive matter. I believe Bearden (and even you) deserve more consideration than that. I would do the same for you if you hypothetically came under fire as a RWA right wind authoritarian scientist with an atheistic elitist agenda (not that you are). I wouldn't let someone flagrantly discredit and bury you and the potential value of your work,which may hold great value to the world. So don't mistake me as your enemy or the enemy of Wiki and science. I am just really neutral and have a great aversion for BS and high handedness.
How is moving a discussion on Bearden's degree from an irrelevant section on theoretical justification to the relevant section titled "Degree Mill" considered "disruptive"? Am I just supposed to swallow that one? Well, I disagree with you. I did not change the sequence of comments made in that discussion, I just put them in their proper place like any good editor would do. And where do I discuss my original research?
You say "Wiki is a reference to notable material", and what is more notable in the discussion of your claims of "pseudo-science" against a scientist other than his scientific claims (the material i posted that you say "needs to be quickly removed")? I feel you are disturbing the discussion on the debate of Bearden's credibility as a scientist and I request you to immediate cease and desist from making such obstructive demands that will not be heeded.
Finally, I suggest that you need to chill out (and I will follow my own advice by not trying to suppress your contributions or make baseless claims against you either). Fair? --Theoversightcommittee (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed you slipped in there (above in this section) was "Also, please do not modify...the...content of other user contribution on talk pages." Where did I do that? Where did I modify any other user's contribution on any talk page? You are getting libelous here. I request you immediately retract this highly objectionable statement. Now your integrity in your attack against Bearden is seriously being questioned. You have demonstrated a pattern of making baseless and false claims against people for things they never did or said (see your personal talk page where you openly admit this in the case of Charles Musè). Your ability to make assessments and judgments is clearly flawed, which is okay, as it doesn't reduce your value as a human being (we can still be friends), only as a NPOV editor. --Theoversightcommittee (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles Muses openly stated his belief that the scientific method is insufficient. As for the rest, all I respond to is: "Why you, a person who claims no interest whatsoever in Bearden's work, would take all this time and effort ..." According to Mr Bearden, millions of people are dieing, and researchers are putting themselves at risk of murder, only because Mr Bearden does not have $11mio in funding. That is alarming to me, and is the reason for my purely editorial interest in this article. Koeplinger (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refuting the Claims of FREE ENERGY

This is from the page on Second Law of Thermodynamics:

Perpetual motion of the second kind
Before 1850, heat was regarded as an indestructible particle of matter. This was called the “material hypothesis”, as based principally on the views of Isaac Newton. It was on these views, partially, that in 1824 Sadi Carnot formulated the initial version of the second law. It soon was realized, however, that if the heat particle was conserved, and as such not changed in the cycle of an engine, that it would be possible to send the heat particle cyclically through the working fluid of the engine and use it to push the piston and then return the particle, unchanged, to its original state. In this manner perpetual motion could be created and used as an unlimited energy source. Thus, historically, people have always been attempting to create a perpetual motion machine so to disprove the second law.
Accepted that 2nd law of thermodynamics is not 100% enforced (being made for MACROSCOPIC systems not MICROSCOPIC systems).
Microscopic systems.
Thermodynamics is a theory of macroscopic systems at equilibrium and therefore the second law applies only to macroscopic systems with well-defined temperatures. On scales of a few atoms, the second law does not apply; for example, in a system of two molecules, it is possible for the slower-moving ("cold") molecule to transfer energy to the faster-moving ("hot") molecule. Such tiny systems are outside the domain of classical thermodynamics, but they can be investigated in quantum thermodynamics by using statistical mechanics. For any isolated system with a mass of more than a few picograms, the second law is true to within a few parts in a million.[1]
"The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum."
This statement is the best-known phrasing of the second law. Moreover, owing to the general broadness of the terminology used here, e.g. universe, as well as lack of specific conditions, e.g. open, closed, or isolated, to which this statement applies, many people take this simple statement to mean that the second law of thermodynamics applies virtually to every subject imaginable. This, of course, is not true; this statement is only a simplified version of a more complex description.
Also...
It should be noted that statistical mechanics gives an explanation for the second law by postulating that a material is composed of atoms and molecules which are in constant motion. A particular set of positions and velocities for each particle in the system is called a microstate of the system and because of the constant motion, the system is constantly changing its microstate. Statistical mechanics postulates that, in equilibrium, each microstate that the system might be in is equally likely to occur, and when this assumption is made, it leads directly to the conclusion that the second law must hold in a statistical sense. That is, the second law will hold on average, with a statistical variation on the order of 1/√N where N is the number of particles in the system. For everyday (macroscopic) situations, the probability that the second law will be violated is practically nil. However, for systems with a small number of particles, thermodynamic parameters, including the entropy, may show significant statistical deviations from that predicted by the second law. Classical thermodynamic theory does not deal with these statistical variations.
It appears to me that there is SCOPE for making a case for the possibility of creating FREE ENERGY or OVER UNITY systems at the atomic or NANO level. I'll be looking for anyone attempting this.

--Theoversightcommittee (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is OT for the Bearden page. Please move it to the Perpetual motion page, if you choose to pursue it.Prebys (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Today's revert (13 May 2008)

Hello - I just reverted a large amount of changes to the article. I do notice that new external references were provided (links, a video production, a supporter's name), which is good material. But it was embedded in changes that reworded e.g. "His ideas have received no noteworthy support in the scientific community" to "His ideas have received some very noteworthy support in the scientific community". And many others. By glancing over some of the changes, here are my 2 cents worth: The amount of funding Mr Bearden requires is notable, in my view, and should not be removed. A discussion of the Aharonov-Bohm effect is inappropriate here, even if were a correct one. Koeplinger (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)