Re: Scalars

Alan Schneider ( alansch@zip.com.au )
Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:51:42 GMT

I'm glad this thread has come up; maybe now we can agree on a
common definition that is somewhere approaching correct.
This argument has raged before on freenrg-l@eskimo.com without
in my opinion, reaching a satisfactory resolution. At least
*I'm* still confused <grin>.

On the face of it a "scalar wave" *does* seem to be a
contradiction in terms, doesn't it.

On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 23:18:05 -0800 (PST), Hexslinger
<hexslngr@internet-frontier.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Jerry W. Decker wrote:

>> I'm glad you didn't say 'scalar waves' because scalar literally means
>> 'without vector'...so IMHO it's basically a bubble floating in space but
>> in the form of a 'stress' or depression in the space fabric.

>Uhm, I think a better way of describing this would be a "omnidirectional
>stress". A scalar is, to my knowledge, simply a difference in the charge
>of the aether itself - right? It is without direction (hence why it's
>coined a scalar - duh). :)

And if the magnitude of this "stress" is modulated, any
hypothetical "ether" could be reasonably expected to
transmit a longitudinal wave in sympathy with this
modulation. Is this what is meant by the term "scalar wave"?

>> I once saw an excellent description of transverse waves as opposed to
>> longitudinal waves.....don't recall the details, but I think it was
>> transverse waves go up and down like ripples in water, longitudinal waves
>> move sideways like a snake crawling along.

>Uh - better look up those details again, Jerry. :) Longitudinal waves are
>waves of compression and rarefaction - like sound. The way I look at it is
>this: longitudinal waves compress/rarefact along the vector in which they
>travel - while transverse waves compress/rarefact at an ANGLE (90 degrees,
>in the case of magnetic fields) to the vector of travel.

Agreed.

>This still
>doesn't explain the difference between what Tesla's longitudinal waves
>were and Bearden's scalars (since supposably longitudinal waves can be
>detected using conventional equipment - while Bearden's scalars cannot).

Can we take it for granted that they are different? You say
"*supposedly* longitudinal waves can be detected using
conventional equipment". Has this experiment actually been
done? Do you have details of the equipment and the results?
What was Tesla using to generate his alleged longitudinal
waves?
Is it possible in this context that Tesla's longitudinal waves
were not pure and had a parasitic transverse component which
was what was actually being detected?

Cheers,
Alan