Exposing PseudoAstronomy

November 10, 2011

Mike Bara’s New-Agey Anti-Science Beliefs, from Bad Geometry to Astrology to Exploding Planets


Introduction

In the latest episode of my podcast, I interviewed a man, “Expat,” about some of the claims of another man, Mike Bara. In setting up the interview with Expat, I agreed to limit the scope of the interview to just cover his call into the show and very closely related claims.

However, during Mike Bara’s interview on Coast to Coast AM on November 10, 2010, he made many many basic science claims, errors, and outright pseudoscience statements. On this “Baraversary” of his interview on Coast to Coast, I wanted to delve a little more in-depth into some of his other claims.

About the Man, Mike Bara

I rarely go into someone’s detailed past or give a short biography, but since this post is about him and his claims, I thought it would be informative to give a little bit of context. My background on him is that he hooked up with Richard Hoagland a few years ago and co-authored Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA. Already by this point, you know the man is a conspiracy hypothesist, believes pareidolia-based observations are the real deal, and employs some magical thinking and numerology as he agrees with Hoagland’s mythos (which I’ve written about before and will write about again).

After listening to him talking for three hours and taking copious notes about what he says, I can also tell you that he can be classified in general as “new agey” and a general “modern science denialist.” That latter classification is not one I make lightly, but I do for him.

That’s my impression. In complete and total fairness, I’ll also give you what he says in his own words, copied and pasted on November 10, 2011, from his about page:

“A self-described “Born Again conspiracy theorist,” Mike’s first book Dark Mission-The Secret History of NASA (co-authored with the venerable Richard C. Hoagland) was a New York Times bestseller in 2007 for Feral House books. His essay “The Occult History of NASA” appears in Secret and Suppressed II, also from Feral House. Mike has made numerous public appearances lecturing on the subjects of space science, NASA, physics and the link between science and spirit, and has been a featured guest on radio programs like Coast to Coast AM with George Noory. He began his writing career after spending more than 25 years as a “Card carrying member of the Military-Industrial complex” where he worked for a wide variety of aerospace companies as an engineering consultant and designer. In 2010, Mike returns with “The Choice” a new book for New Page Books which he describes as “The unified field theory of physics and metaphysics.” He promises that “The Choice” will peel back the layers of mystery around the Mayan calendar, 2012 and the future we can expect if we don’t heed nature’s warning signs.”

So you can see that I’m not being unfair in my painting of him as a new-ager nor a conspiracist.

He also looks kinda badass in his photo, like he’d be at home on a noisy motorcycle — much cooler than I do. This is a totally irrelevant point, but since I rarely talk specifically about a person, I thought I’d bring it up in the rare case when I do.

The next several sections are my attempt to organize the basic statements made by him during his Nov. 10, 2010, C2C interview.

Hyperdimensional Physics

Bara is an ardent believer in Richard Hoagland’s hyperdimensional physics. Starting in hour 2 at 12 minutes 29 seconds in, he claims that hyperdimensional physics means that everything is connected to something higher, a higher spatial dimension, which is where energy comes from. At 13:16 into hour 2, he states, “I can back up all this stuff that we’ve all believed in … with some actual physics and physical experiments that pretty much prove that the so-called ‘laws of physics’ that we’re taught in school, really aren’t real, they don’t really work, and they kinda fall apart when you get into them a bit, and there’s something much richer and much more beautiful … a more elegant solution, and that’s the theory of hyperdimensional physics.”

This is a very bold claim, to be able to turn over all of modern physics. It would be nice if he presented actual evidence of this that were well documented. Unfortunately for him, he does not. Throughout the episode when asked about this, what he does seem to harp on is that during eclipses, pendulums will move backwards or change their rate of swing. Bara presents this, for example, at 11:15 into the third hour: “Free-swinging pendulums [before eclipses will] be swinging with the rotation of the earth suddenly start going very rapidly backwards against the rotation of the Earth.”

I actually assumed this was total nonsense, but I was intrigued to find, after 5 seconds on Google, that it’s only total nonsense the way he explained it. There is an actual named effect, the Allais effect (named after frenchman Maurice Allais who later won a Nobel Prize in economics). You can read more about it on everyone’s favorite website, Wikipedia. The effect is that Allais observed that during a total solar eclipse, the rate of swing of a pendulum changed very slightly.

To summarize, experiments about a decade ago on normal pendulums found that the very very very slight differences in period could be easily accounted for by changes in temperature and air currents during an eclipse. The effects on a torsion pendulum (one that twists rather than swings) have been unreplicatable after they’ve been reported. This can really be summarized (as Wikipedia nicely does) by: “No unambiguous detections [of an Allais effect] within the past 30 years when consciousness of the importance of [experimental] controls was more widespread” (original source, subscription required).

So, the evidence for this seems to be a tiny effect that can be explained conventionally or an effect that does not exist.

But perhaps I’m closed-minded about hyperdimensional physics because I don’t believe in God. Bara states at 21:47 in hour two, “[Scientists] don’t want to admit that there’s a god, and that’s another reason why hyperdimensional physics is not accepted.” Um … sure. Not.

Bara 0, Science 1.

Astrology

And auras and crystals and consciousness. He believes in all that, clearly explicitly states it, but I want to focus in this section more on the astrology (though this will be short). I’ve written quite a bit about astrology before. If interested in the short version, I recommend this post first. If interested in reading more, I recommend this post second. Or, if you’d rather listen, I can now link you to my podcast episode on astrology (ep. 6 for those who already subscribe but want to re-listen).

Anyway, there are several short quips about astrology in the C2C interview, so it’s a bit hard to pull out a true gem. I’ve chosen the one at 37:55 in hour 2:

George Noory: “I mean, you’re even a believer in astrology now, aren’t you?”

Mike Bara: “Yeah well you know again, that goes back – that goes back to the hyperdimensional physics because the idea is that the planets are generating energy, which is traveling through these higher dimensions, and it is like this wave after wave of energy affecting us here on this planet. And, uh, there’s lots of, uh, interesting cases, there’s lots of experiments that show that-that this is really the case. That the planets and their positions relative to the Earth do have an effect, not just on physical instruments here, but actually on the way we think! And our consciousness.”

As an example – “the best example” – he tells a story of John Nelson in the 1950s who tried to find out why short-wave radio signals went wonky sometimes. Bara claims that he (Nelson) found a correlation with planetary positions and activity on the sun which Bara says is evidence for this: When the astrology for the planets said good things should happen, the sun was quiet, and then the opposite was the case. If you do a Google search for this (as I just did), you will find this study reported on astrology sites and … yeah, Richard Hoagland’s site in an article written by Bara. A bit more digging and you can actually find a PDF of the article Nelson wrote which was NOT in a peer-reviewed journal, but it was in a technical memo for RCA. The abstract clearly does state that Bara is not misrepresenting the basic findings from Nelson:

“An examination of shortwave radio propagation conditions over the North Atlantic for a five-year period, and the relative position of the planets in the solar system, discloses some very interesting correlations. As a result of such correlations, certain planetary relationships are deduced to have specific effect on radio propagation through their influence upon the sun. Further investigation is required to fully explore the effect of planet positions on radio propagation in order that the highly important field of radio weather forecasting may be properly developed.”

There are several important things to note here. First, this was not peer-reviewed meaning that there was no external unbiased rigorous check of his work. Second, correlation does not equal causation. Third, this was a single study, and even if 100% true and valid, it has not been replicated by anyone else that I have been able to find (I searched for about a half hour). Fourth, it has not been used to actually make predictions, which all testable hypotheses must.

Fifth, there is overwhelming science showing that astrology does not work, that it is nothing but magical thought and cold (and sometimes hot) reading. I don’t even think I need to refer to argument from authority vs. scientific consensus here (but I did anyway …). At 12:22 in the third hour, though, Bara stated, “If the planets can affect radio signals, then they can also affect our brainwaves.”

At the absolute very least, one can conclusively state that this does not prove astrology affects our “consciousness.” And if this is the best evidence, well, that’s sad.

Bara 0, Science 2.

2012 Galactic Alignment

It’s nice when one’s research involves going back into their own blog archives. In this case, for background in why the 2012 purported galactic alignment is not worth the electrons its printed on, I’ll refer you to this post of mine.

With that out of the way, Bara stated during the second hour at 27:48 into the hour: “We do get hit by a pulse of energy from the center of the galaxy right around this December 21[, 2012] period, in fact it goes for about a month before and a month after that where we’re really in this energetic pulse from the center of the galaxy at this time.” Then he went on to say that the energy is neutral and we can choose whatever we want to come out of it and it’ll happen. (Did I mention that the tagline for his book, The Choice, is, “You’ve heard of The Secret, now you can make The Choice”?) He also states around 10 minutes into the third hour, “We are aligned with the center of the galaxy [around the winter solstice].” Again, see my post linked in the paragraph above. And he brings in astrology. See the section before this one.

I’m not even going to go into detail on this. For this claim, it’s up to him to provide the evidence for this energy blast. What it is, what it’s made of (since “energy” is not a nebulous thing that just passes through stuff like new-agers think), why we need to go through an alignment that isn’t actually happening, etc. Otherwise …

Bara 0, Science 3.

Planets: Burped at Birth, Exploded at Death

In addition to this other stuff, Bara is a fan of the idea “planets were given birth to by the sun, the sun spewed the plants out, kinda from her belly” (16:31 into hour 2). Because of this, the planets are connected, and all our woes today are because there are missing planets, “quite obviously” the missing one between Mars and Jupiter (“Planet V”), of which Mars used to be a moon. When you lose planets in the system, you have less life energy and the “system gets out of harmony.” As evidence, “What happens is the Earth is tilted off its vertical axis by about 23°, and that makes us vulnerable to different waves of energy that are created when different planetary geometries – that is, the orbits of the planets around the Earth affect what’s going on here, they affect physical instruments, things like pendulums, they swing backwards during eclipses” (starting at 18:46 into hour 2).

So yeah, back to pendulums with a really really wonky idea of solar system / planetary formation, including the completely fallacious idea that the asteroid belt was once a planet and Mars was somehow its moon (“Mars itself which was absolutely devastated by … Planet V, the signatures are all over Mars” (18:20)). I actually do plan to go into the whole “exploding planet ‘hypothesis'” in some future blog post and likely in some future podcast episode, as well. For now, I hope that most people recognize that this is very hard to make happen by any known process, and the onus is on Mike Bara to really provide VERY convincing theory and evidence for why it’s the case. Yeah, I’m punting, but this is a LONG post.

I’ll forgo scoring this one for now. Someone remind me when I do that future post to add a link here.

Scientists Don’t Know Not’in’

This is very common in many new-ager claims or those of pseudoscientists or “amateur scientists:” Professional scientists are too entrenched in their thinking to really “get it.” Bara talks about this quite a bit starting around 22.5 minutes into hour two of the program. Among other gems are that evolution is wrong and Lloyd Pye is the guy to believe on this. (Lloyd Pye is the infamous “caretaker” of the “Starchild Skull” as well as the author of Everything You Know is Wrong (where “You” refers to him if you even get a page or two into the book), and he believes that ancient ETs were what created or at least modified us to be as we are today. Yes, that’s the person whom Bara would like us to believe about human origins and evolution.)

One particular gem was spoken starting at 24:03 in hour 2:

“There was only about 30% of the matter necessary to be holding the universe together. What does the physicist and the astronomer do? Do they say, ‘Oh, well gee, maybe our ideas are wrong.’ Um, no, they say, ‘Well the matter must actually be out there, it’s just invisible, we can’t see it, we can’t measure it, we’ll call it “dark matter” and we’ll start to look for it.’ [laughs] It’s just ridiculous ’cause what’s holding everything together is what’s literally the hand of god through a force that I talk about a lot in The Choice which is called ‘torsion.'”

Yeah, that’s right, instead of an extra term in Newtonian gravity or there being material out there that does not interact with light but does interact with other matter (that is the definition of dark matter), it’s God. It’s really difficult to know where to start here. So I won’t bother. I’ll refer you to wiki to get an overview of dark matter, and then for laughs I’ll refer you to my post on how Conservapedia calls dark matter a liberal pseudoscience.

As I noted with the galactic alignment, at the very least, Bara needs to provide evidence at least as convincing as the conventional explanation for his ideas to be even considered. Though I guess you can always claim “God can do anything” (by definition, right?), but that’s not science.

Bara 0, Science 4.

Ellipses in Planetary Orbits

It seems fitting that the section after I talk about Bara’s claim that is summarized as “scientists don’t know anything,” that I should come to this last one about ellipses that shows Bara knows less than the average middle school geometry student. I discussed this with Expat in the podcast, but it really bears repeating here, with diagrams.

On page 34 of The Choice, Bara states: “Many of the planet’s orbits, which … should be perfectly circular by now, are highly elliptical. In fact, Mars’s orbit is so eccentric that its distance from Earth goes from 34 million miles at its closest to 249 million miles at its greatest.”

It’s really simply incredibly stupid of Mike to claim that Mars’ orbit is highly eccentric because it comes as close as about 0.38 A.U. (“astronomical unit” is the distance between the sun and Earth) but goes as far as 2.67 A.U. (Actually, in fairness, the numbers that he gives equate to 0.37 A.U. and 2.68 A.U.; he and I rounded slightly differently.) Therefore it’s an eccentric orbit that’s evidence for his fission model of solar system formation.

The problem here, for those who didn’t listen to the podcast or don’t remember their middle school geometry is that you measure the long and short axis of an ellipse from the center of the ellipse. Not some crackpot arbitrary point inside or outside of it. In this case, the sun is one of the foci of the ellipse that is Mars’ orbit. The sun is one of the foci of ALL solar system objects that are in orbit. Earth is not. Measuring your axes from Earth is just stupid. It’s made up. It makes no sense. It has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve ever talked about on this blog, and that’s saying a lot.

It’s as though Bara missed math classes after 5th grade, missed the Copernican Revolution that started over 500 years ago, heliocentrism in third grade, and then he simply lies about it that he didn’t claim he said what he did, and then he makes the original claim again.

Bara 0, Science 5. Though I’d like to count this last point more as ∞ because of its shear stupidity, so … we’ll just wrap it up with Bara 0, Science ∞.

Final Thoughts

This was a long post and took me over two hours to write. There’s a lot in here. I return, though to what I wrote in the background on the man. I think he is anti-science and is so clouded by his sense of new-ageyness that he clearly refuses to admit that he may be wrong about something or that the conventional explanation is real.

His many claims that are related to astronomy are, well, many. I’ve gone over six in this post in some detail. Every single one is wrong. But when challenged, as was clear in my interview with Expat, Bara goes on the attack and defense, lashing out at the accuser, calling them a stalker, crazy, obsessed, etc., that nothing he said is wrong, and then refuses to address it in any way. From a psychology standpoint, it’s quite interesting. From an intellectual standpoint, well, there simply is none. There is no sense of intellect there that can be addressed.

About these ads

17 Comments »

  1. “It would be nice if he presented actual evidence of this that were well documented.”

    No, it would not be nescient, ocsýmòron. And about “little bit”, do you say “jacket coat” or “door gate”?

    Comment by Autymn D. C. (@alysdexia) — November 11, 2011 @ 7:46 am | Reply

  2. Hyperdimensional physics is a con, pure and simple. An invented concept that Hoagland adopted from Crazy (and Fraudulent) Tom Bearden because it sounds sciency and appeals to people who think mysticism probably has better answers than science if only we could see the full picture.

    Mike Bara, of course, does not come within light years of comprehending Maxwell’s quaternion equations, which Bearden himself cites as the basis of this nonsense. Here’s what Bara actually wrote in “The Choice” by way of explaining HDP:

    “A rotating sphere pulls energy from its higher state.”

    That’s IT, folks.

    Here’s another gem I didn’t get around to including in my podcast interview:

    “An annular eclipse means that the Moon and Sun are in perfect alignment, but the Sun is not totally blotted out because the Moon is a little too close to the Earth…” (p. 214, “The Choice”)

    You could be kind and say that’s just a proof-reading error but there’s so much collateral evidence that Mike knows nothing that it’s probably worse than that.

    Comment by Expat — November 11, 2011 @ 8:23 am | Reply

    • And to clarify for those who don’t know, the annular eclipse is when the moon is near apogee – its farthest distance from Earth – and so it appears slightly smaller and can’t block as much of the sun. If it were near perigee – its closest, as Bara claims – then it would appear larger and so block out more than just the sun’s disk.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — November 11, 2011 @ 11:17 am | Reply

      • Yes indeed. I created an ASCII visual aid on my blog to show the range of apparent sizes of both Sun and Moon. It’ll only work on desktop computers, I think.

        http://dorkmission.blogspot.com/2011/02/whos-right-mike-bara-or-every.html

        Comment by Expat — November 11, 2011 @ 11:43 am

      • Did anyone actually point out of the mistake to him, or is everyone just having fun speculating on whether he made the error intentionally? I remember several college lectures where we’d have a laugh when the professor switched some basic fact around as he was speaking. Sometimes we’d get his attention and he’d correct himself; other times we’d just let it pass. The important thing is whether he reacts like “oh sorry, yeah” or not.

        He’d have to have Down’s Syndrome not to realize on object appears larger (not smaller) as it approaches you – and I don’t believe he’s special in that way – so it’s hard to believe this is anything but a simple typo/dictation error.

        Comment by Captain Crunch — October 8, 2013 @ 3:25 pm

      • Captain Crunch – Try pointing out an error that Mike has made to him. Let me know how you fare.

        Comment by Stuart Robbins — October 8, 2013 @ 3:30 pm

      • I was going to reply inline above, but apparently the “reply” links disappear after a few levels of nesting.

        I posted to Mike Bara’s website a friendly suggestion on why the orbital minima/maxima approach distance was not the best way to indicate eccentricity, and another suggestion about “order of magnitude”. When I say friendly I’m not being sarcastic – you can see several other comments (on his blog) are full of cussing and insults, but mine was positively calm and friendly.

        I saw it be accepted as from Anonymous with OpenID. At that time there were 7 comments listed on his blog, and nothing changed for a while. Now I see there are 9 comments, and mine never showed up. I’m not sure why he would approve rude comments but reject mine.

        Anyway, there does appear to be problem. I’d like to think it’s an innocent mistake, but it’s also possible you (this page owner) was right about him not being open to discussion. I’m not sure what happened at this point.

        Comment by Captain Crunch — October 18, 2013 @ 12:06 pm

      • Mike used to not accept any comments to his blog, and I have never (and I’ve watched a lot) seen him take any criticism (polite or impolite) to heart and answer it in a rational manner. That’s why I suggested you try, so you can see for yourself. Saying that Mars’ orbit is highly eccentric therefore the fission idea of planets being birthed in pairs from the sun is correct is just wrong. No amount of double-talk or trying to get around it is going to change basic facts of geometry. This has been pointed out to him numerous times by many different people, but he has yet to accept it and instead continues to claim he’s correct.

        This is why I don’t really bother to engage him in anything because it’s a very one-sided engagement. You can see this if you have a few hours to kill and read the saga of the lunar ziggurat on this blog (wherein I also include several of Mike’s responses from his blog). Responding to Mike with science and rational explanations produces insults and side-stepping.

        So, if you continue to try to engage him, I wish you luck and success in getting him to correct his (numerous) errors. But, I don’t think you’ll be very successful based on my past experience and observations.

        Comment by Stuart Robbins — October 18, 2013 @ 12:18 pm

    • John Bedini on the other hand (a 30 year friend-colleague of Tom Bearden) is not a con. I own a number of his inventions and their results are absolutely beyond any ‘current theory of relativity’.

      I wonder if anyone here has anything to relate about the individual above? I have read that British Civil List scientist Myron Evans wrote a paper on the “pulse-charging mechanism” used in Bedini chargers. Mr. Evans is the third link in an advancement of the little-known and private discussions between Albert Einstein and the famed French mathematician Eli Cartan and is the progenitor of “ECE Theory” a modern theory of relativity.

      If you’ve been wondering where the middle ground is between those dyed in the wool of ‘conventional, archaic & corrupted electrodynamics theories’ and those bleeding the wool of ‘outrageous advancements in science without much of a bibliography or hands-on experience’,

      Then ECE Theory (in my opinion) is riding your dividing line. Mr. Evans website is absolutely chock-full of long and boring white papers. Oh sure, they’re peer-reviewed and all that. But if you really want to see the future of electrical power generation and forward thinking ideas in the ‘real’, then google John Bedini & Renaissance Charge and prepare to be inspired.

      Comment by J — November 13, 2011 @ 11:10 pm | Reply

      • Sorry J,
        But free energy machines and perpetual motion are a con as well.
        And many people have been swindled out of a lot of money by them.

        Comment by Trebor — November 18, 2011 @ 5:12 am

      • Trev,

        I wonder, is English your first language? First of all, I completely agree that there is no such thing as ‘free’ energy and nowhere in my comment did I mention “perpetual motion or free energy”, YOU DID.

        Don’t put words in my mouth.

        I will take issue with the bland notion that ‘perpetual motion isn’t possible’. What I mean is, if a hydroelectric dam is maintained and rain keeps falling, those turbines will turn in ‘perpetual motion’ forever. If a wind turbine is maintained and the trade winds continue to be trade winds, those turbines will turn in ‘perpetual motion’ forever. If a sea-snake farm is maintained and the oceans don’t dry up, those internal turbines will roll about (generating electricity) in ‘perpetual motion’ forever.

        If we zoom out a little further, the Earth itself has been moving through space and turning on it’s axis ‘perpetually’ since you & I were born. Some would even argue that the Earth has been in ‘perpetual motion’ since before you & I were born. And wasn’t it our favorite physicist Albert Einstein who postulated that an object set in motion will continue to be in motion until acted upon by an external force? Yes it was and that is the very definition of being ‘perpetually in motion’.

        Anyways, back to John Bedini, your baseless comment will not overcome the actual two-fold increase in battery capacity that I routinely get from using a Renaissance pulse charger. Yes that’s right, my brand new batteries display an increase in charge density over time and the unit will also rejuvenate dead rechargeable batteries. From AAA’s to deep cycle marine batteries. THAT IS SOMETHING, and no self-respecting skeptic would comment on these devices without using them first (as I did). And now I have to accept that something unique is going on within the circuitry of his inventions. And it does not appear to be an accident, in fact the product manual states that this will probably happen. Therefore and following through to a logical conclusion; I have lost zero dollars which is contrary to your universally self-assured response.

        I asked for someone to comment on John Bedini & his personal work and/or ECE Theory and all you’ve got is
        “nope, not possible”???

        Even though you said it politely I’m afraid it still smacks of a cave-man level argument. I apologize for my negative comment if that’s what you genuinely believe (even without any personal experimentation) but there are a lot of ‘big-energy’ hired hacks out there who troll these forums looking to smear anybody or anything that could threaten their profit & power monopolies.

        Perhaps anyone here is familiar with the well known skeptic and fraud buster Eric Krieg? He and I have a personal dialog going back almost five years now because I queried him on his money incentive based challenge for anyone to prove to him that John Bedini’s inventions actually do what he says they will. The first thing I told him is that there was already a commercial enterprise selling his inventions and that he could buy one himself. No need to build an experimental unit if you don’t want to. That is the very Renaissance Charge pulse chargers that I am talking about here. And today I’m still asking for anybody out there (like on this forum) to submit a fact worthy argument that I have been duped. So please, don’t use misleading terms like free energy and perpetual motion on me, c’mon.

        As far as Tom Bearden goes…

        Let us all not discount the very actual reality that even university level electrodynamics professors do not disagree with the various known flaws in our entrenched models. Of which, all these flaws are taught to every aspiring electrical engineer, on every continent. I found that Tom Bearden happens to have them listed on his website for which I have copied & pasted them here for everyone to acquaint and reacquaint themselves with. Anyone with a serious interest in helping to solve the catastrophically inefficient & wasteful electricity generation and distribution system(s) we have should be concentrating on these known flaws.

        As in the famous words of Dennis Miller, “that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong”.

        The 34 Known Flaws in Classical EM Theory are;

        1. Eliminates the Internal EM Inside the
        Scalar Potential.

        2. No Definition of Electrical Charge or
        of Scalar Potential.

        3. Equations Still Assume Material Ether
        Per Maxwell (Unchanged).

        4. Use of Force Fields in Vacuum is False
        (and Known to be So).

        5. Treats Charge q as Unitary Instead of
        Coupled System q=ø(q)m(q).

        6. Confuses Massless Potential Gradients
        as Forces (See #3, #4).

        7. Does Not Utilize Mass as a Component
        of Force (See #23).

        8. Erroneously Assumes EM Force Field as
        Primary Causes.

        9. Topology of EM Model Has Been Substantially
        Reduced.

        10. Does Not Include Quantum Potential or Action
        at a Distance.

        11. Does Not Include Superluminal Velocity of Inner
        EM Components.

        12. Does Not Utilize Extended Near-Field Coulomb
        Gauge Effects.

        13. Does Not Include EM Generatrix Mechanism
        For Time Flow.

        14. Does Not Unify Photon and Wave Aspects
        (Requires 7-D Model).

        15. Does Not Include Electron Spin and Precession
        (See #19, #24).

        16. Treats EM Energy As Existing in “Chunks,”
        Instead of as Flow.

        17. Confuses Energy and Energy Collection
        (See #16).

        18. Discards Half of Every EM Wave in Vacuum
        (See #22).

        19. Erroneously Uses Transverse Vacuum Wave;
        It’s Quasi-Longitudinal.

        20. Arbitrarily Regauges Maxwell’s Equations to
        Eliminate Overunity Maxwellian Systems.

        21. Omits Phase Conjugate Optics Effects
        (Which are the Rule in Internal EM).

        22. Does Not Include EM Cause of Newtonian
        Reaction Force.

        23. Erroneously Assumes Separate Force Acting
        on Separate Mass.

        24. Confuses Detected Electron Precession Waves
        as Proving Transverse EM Waves in Vacuum
        (Remnant of Old “EM Fluid” Concept).

        25. Due to Error in String Wave, Omits the
        Ubiquitous Antiwave.

        26. Assumes Equilibrium; Not True Unless Include
        Vacuum Interactions.

        27. Higher Topology Required, to Model
        Electromagnetic Reality.

        28. Lorentz surface integration discards giant
        Heaviside curled energy transport component.

        29. Has nothing at all to say about form of
        EM entities in massless space.

        30. Eliminates the infolded general relativity using
        EM-force as curve agent.

        31. Does not include longitudinal EM wave phase
        conjugate pairs as time domain oscillations.

        32. Does not include EM mechanism that generates
        time flow and flow rate.

        33. Does not include time-excitation charging
        and decay.

        34. Does not include time-reversal zones.

        Comment by JAson — November 18, 2011 @ 1:49 pm

      • Perpetual motion describes “Motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy.” So your assessment of perpetual motion is incorrect. Secondly, if you assert that free energy doesn’t exist, then why do you buy into the premise of this product? It clearly states on the website that this device supposedly uses free energy to charge the battery and can output more energy than it can input. This is ludicrous and violates the first law of thermodynamics. As i stated below (i accidentally made a new post rather than reply):

        The fact is that free energy as is being described by the people at Renaissance Charge is a con. A few things are disconcerting. There is nothing on any reputable scientific website or any reputable retailer for that matter on this product. There is no publishing of the specifications by the company even though they have supposedly patented this product.

        A contradiction I found is the use of the term “radiant energy” in conjunction with “free energy.” Radiant energy is the energy of electromagnetic waves and can be inserted into a system only if the system is an open system (i.e. earth’s atmosphere). The only case in which the two terms overlap is if one is speaking specifically about thermodynamic free energy, which is the portion of the energy according to the first law of thermodynamics that is “free” to do work on a system. In this case, yes free energy can be radiant energy. This typically presents in the form of heat energy. However, none of this is mentioned on the website or any videos made by the company on this technology. Also the “free energy mentioned by this company is not thermodynamic free energy, but rather the pseudo-scientific bastardization of the term which refers to energy being created essentially out of thin air. In fact, it is all extremely vague and they keep making the same claims over and over without any evidence to back it up. It seems to me that this product is nothing more than a slightly more efficient battery charger (although there is no way to know since the company refuses to give an in-depth technical explanation of the device or the tech).

        On John Bedini’s website, I managed to find a rather summary explanation of how his “free energy” concept works, but again he does not go into much depth about the results of his experiment or even about the theory behind the technology. Also, I have been unable to find any other person that has been able to repeat the experiment with similar results even though Bedini claims that it would only take “several thousand dollars” and “persistence.” If that is so, why has no one been able to recreate his experiments? In fact, some of his claims about the theory behind his experiment are impossible at worst and dubious at best. He does not show any of the math ( I don’t even think he has any form of degree in engineering or physics), which he claims works out perfectly and does not violate any physical laws. I highly doubt that. According to his website, other people have discovered this using various methods but I have been unable to find anything on the subject.

        It seems as though one of two possibilities has occurred: The first is an elaborate scam and the second is that results generated by experiments have been assessed incorrectly by a self proclaimed engineer with a distinct lack of knowledge in the field of electrodynamics, electrical engineering and thermodynamics.

        I also was able to find a wikipedia entry that states that Bedini has been making these claims for years but refuses to allow any sort of peer review.

        Please let me know if you find anything that proves any of his theories or validates the science behind his “inventions” so that I can call everyone in the scientific community and let them know that they have been incorrect about everything for the last 400 years. The fact that they are even using this guys’ name in the same sentence as Tesla should be a crime.

        Comment by P — May 15, 2012 @ 3:43 am

  3. People like Hoagland and Bara never need to worry about taking offence; after all they fail in stealing the gate already so why should that bother them?

    Comment by F.C. Trevor Gale — November 11, 2011 @ 3:55 pm | Reply

  4. Yeah, science and math (along with pretty much anything else connected to reality) aren’t Bara’s best subjects. That’s why he gets so defensive when questioned. While other pseudo-scientists (yes, I’m look at you Hoagland) would just try throwing up a crap storm of techno-babble nonsense to cover the issue, Bara knows he’s in no position to make that work. So instead, he just becomes the bigger A**hole in the debate. He goes there because he has no where else to go.

    Comment by Chris L — November 12, 2011 @ 1:17 pm | Reply

  5. expat didn’t sound insane like Bara claimed. After the podcast I was left to conclude Bara’s definition of “insanity” is anyone that points out the facts to him. Bara could prove us wrong he’s not the one pissing his pants in public by allowing an actual debate with expat, vs relying on the power of the dump button and slander.

    Comment by karl — November 15, 2011 @ 8:58 am | Reply

  6. I think I finally worked out what Bara was going on about with the ellipses. Clearly, in his mind, all the planets in the solar system should have the same orbital period, but different speeds.

    If all the planets were locked in a straight line, a convergence, then the variation in distance between the Earth and Mars would be exactly the same as the variation between Mars and the sun.

    Not that that makes any kind of sense either, (think about how fast Pluto would have to be moving to take 1 earth year instead of 248) but it felt like the one idea that wasn’t touched upon when discussing Bara here and in the podcast.

    Comment by Alexander — November 16, 2011 @ 6:51 pm | Reply

  7. @ JAson: First off, don’t get so defensive when no one is arguing with you. The fact is that free energy as is being described by the people at Renaissance Charge is a con. I’m not doubting the usefulness of this product, as my research as shown that many people actually find it useful. A few things are disconcerting, however. There is nothing on any reputable scientific website or any reputable retailer for that matter on this product. There is no publishing of the specifications by the company even though they have supposedly patented this product. The company even goes on to contradict itself (or uses the term “free energy” incorrectly): from the faq on their webpage: “In most cases the charger uses no more than 6-10% more energy than conventional chargers.” This means that they assert that their product is not operating overunity (more output than input). The section has since been taken down. However in the “Unique Process” section of the website, it clearly states that the device uses free energy, which is a pseudoscientific concept that asserts that energy can be drawn from nowhere. This violates the first law of thermodynamics.

    Yet another contradiction I found is the use of the term “radiant energy” in conjunction with “free energy.” Radiant energy is the energy of electromagnetic waves and can be inserted into a system only if the system is an open system (i.e. earths atmosphere). The only case in which the two terms overlap is if one is speaking specifically about thermodynamic free energy, which is the portion of the energy according to the first law of thermodynamics that is “free” to do work on a system. In this case, yes free energy can be radiant energy. This typically presents in the form of heat energy. However, none of this is mentioned on the website or any videos made by the company on this technology. In fact, it is all extremely vague and they keep making the same claims over and over without any evidence to back it up. It seems to me that this product is nothing more than a slightly more efficient battery charger (although there is no way to know since the company refuses to give an in-depth technical explanation of the device or the tech). It does not violate any thermodynamic laws.

    On John Bedini’s website, I managed to find a rather summary explanation of how his “free energy” concept works, but again he does not go into much depth about the results of his experiment or even about the theory behind the technology. Also, I have been unable to find any other person that has been able to repeat the experiment with similar results even though Bedini claims that it would only take “several thousand dollars” and “persistence.” If that is so, why has no one been able to recreate his experiments? In fact, some of his claims about the theory behind his experiment are impossible at worst and dubious at best. He does not show any of the math ( I don’t even think he has any form of degree in engineering or physics), which he claims works out perfectly and does not violate any physical laws. I highly doubt that. According to his website, other people have discovered this using various methods but I have been unable to find anything on the subject.

    It seems as though one of two possibilities has occurred: The first is an elaborate scam and the second is that results generated by experiments have been assessed incorrectly by a self proclaimed engineer with a distinct lack of knowledge in the field of electrodynamics, electrical engineering and thermodynamics.

    Please let me know if you find anything that proves any of his theories or validates the science behind his “inventions” so that I can call everyone in the scientific community and let them know that they have been incorrect about everything for the last 400 years.

    Comment by Parham — May 14, 2012 @ 6:37 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,310 other followers

%d bloggers like this: