"Thrive" is amazing must watch!

[Namaste]

The circle, the toroid, the spiral, phi, pi, fibonacci sequence, golden mean, tetrahedrons, pyramids, etc. being held up as the 'solution to our energy problems', with no cogent research work, is BS - plain and simple.

Torus (magnetic) based free energy. Skip to 7:33 for the demonstration.

More builds using the technology.

[Ruth]

Thank you, Namaste! Wonderful information!

Light and love!

[zenmaster]

More builds using the technology.

I've seen it demo'd before and this looks like the more of the same. I don't see anything special? Is there supposed to be an implication there?

[Conifer16]

Zen how do you know it is BS?

[zenmaster]

Zen how do you know it is BS?

Because 'it' is never defined. There is a certain treatment of an idea (as a claim) that may serve as a basis for validation, and that was not provided although it was indeed purposefully suggested. That's "BS" or "hearsay". Has nothing to do with being "omniscient" (lol).

[Conifer16]

So what are you saying?

---

I have a hard time understanding your post sometimes due to the way you write them.

---

I can try and explain what I mean if you want.

[Namaste]

I've seen it demo'd before and this looks like the more of the same. I don't see anything special? Is there supposed to be an implication there?

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression these generated energy due to the implementation of the torus shape.

Zen how do you know it is BS?

Because 'it' is never defined. There is a certain treatment of an idea (as a claim) that may serve as a basis for validation, and that was not provided although it was indeed purposefully suggested. That's "BS" or "hearsay". Has nothing to do with being "omniscient" (lol).

Knowing the 'truth' is limited by your own experiences and current level of understanding.

For example, the ex CEO of Skunk Works (Lookheed Martin) would tell you -if he were still alive- that free energy is indeed already a reality, a truth.

For one to label something 'untrue' directly implies you know everything. It's inherent in the statement. Perhaps the term which would suit better is 'not discovered or understood in my personal experience'.

Labeling something 'untrue' is an attempt to be objective in a subjective universe.

[_X7]

I wonder if those who are unimpressed with "Thrive" the film are also disliking it's use of the term "awaken"? As in "awaken to imminent issues" which it attempts to address. (Not to immediately accept their interpretations of the issues of the film, but rather to compare it's interpretations with somewhat parallel issues like waking up in general. Namaste brings up toroid geometry (thanks there). I love geometry but meet almost no other people who personally explore science through geometry.

Waking up to the bigger pictures is another issue, which Thrive-the-film does touch upon. For those who enjoy bigger picture films, that are related. Let me recommend this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SARcJBlu8cc
Or it's parent web site: http://www.nohoax.com/

This guy really steps on some big-brother toes. Which likely will turn off deniers of immanent perils threatening humanity. Yet George Green speaks very rationally, both technologically and spiritually. I feel Ra sort of touch's on STS purposes correspondingly. Concerning the nature of and the intents of the Orion Group.

With perhaps only 5% of the population prepared to study these subjects deeply, it might seem hopeless. Yet George also points to hopes that humanity's concience could potentially awaken to the parallels. Separately, there's assertions that 80% of our world's population is intensively occupied with family or group support and care. Should awakening even begin, this large population could save the planet easily, almost by consciousness alone. Take care :-)

[Namaste]

I'll give that a pop, X7, thanks for the recommendation.

[zenmaster]

I can try and explain what I mean if you want.

Explain away.

---

I've seen it demo'd before and this looks like the more of the same. I don't see anything special? Is there supposed to be an implication there?

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression these generated energy due to the implementation of the torus shape.

No. They create turn electricity into a magnetic field. They do not generate energy, that's already coming out of the electrical socket.

Zen how do you know it is BS?

Because 'it' is never defined. There is a certain treatment of an idea (as a claim) that may serve as a basis for validation, and that was not provided although it was indeed purposefully suggested. That's "BS" or "hearsay". Has nothing to do with being "omniscient" (lol).

Knowing the 'truth' is limited by your own experiences and current level of understanding.

Why yes it is, of course.

For one to label something 'untrue' directly implies you know everything.

They claim the toroid device is providing free energy, when it is not. One doesn't need to "know everything" in order to point out the obvious - that they're not providing some workable free-energy device or free-energy principle. We're not "blinded" by being ignorant of the toroid.

A magnetic field is a toroid shape. Big deal.

---

Have you ever read any studies on Gestalt Psychology or read any work by Michael Polayani, Zenmaster?

I've talked to someone that attended some Gestalt Psychology workshops. Seemed to be of great therapeutic help.
Have not read Polayani. Why?

[Namaste]

I've seen it demo'd before and this looks like the more of the same. I don't see anything special? Is there supposed to be an implication there?

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression these generated energy due to the implementation of the torus shape.

No. They create turn electricity into a magnetic field. They do not generate energy, that's already coming out of the electrical socket.

In the TED talk, the presenter mentions it wasn't connected to an electrical source.



Skip to 7:30.

For one to label something 'untrue' directly implies you know everything.

They claim the toroid device is providing free energy, when it is not. One doesn't need to "know everything" in order to point out the obvious - that they're not providing some workable free-energy device or free-energy principle. We're not "blinded" by being ignorant of the toroid.

A magnetic field is a toroid shape. Big deal.

That's not the point. No one is an authority that can pronounce that 'it is obvious' that energy from a torus is untrue. It could well be true, just not part of the paradigms of science/understanding at this point in time.

Had Ra not mentioned the metaphysical time/space energy created by a pyramid (and not even a precision built object, simply four poles in the pyramid shape will suffice) was energetically beneficial, you would quite probably claim that as 'BS' if a living scientist or inventor was suggesting something similar :¬)

[zenmaster]

I've seen it demo'd before and this looks like the more of the same. I don't see anything special? Is there supposed to be an implication there?

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression these generated energy due to the implementation of the torus shape.

No. They create turn electricity into a magnetic field. They do not generate energy, that's already coming out of the electrical socket.

In the TED talk, the presenter mentions it wasn't connected to an electrical source.



Skip to 7:30.

I'm not ignoring your suggestion. I've seen the video and the device before. The spinning ball is just spinning very fast and has a great deal of momentum and very little friction. I'd speculate that there is a boundary layer effect between ball and glass dish which helps.

For one to label something 'untrue' directly implies you know everything.

They claim the toroid device is providing free energy, when it is not. One doesn't need to "know everything" in order to point out the obvious - that they're not providing some workable free-energy device or free-energy principle. We're not "blinded" by being ignorant of the toroid.

A magnetic field is a toroid shape. Big deal.

That's not the point. No one is an authority that can pronounce that 'it is obvious' that energy from a torus is untrue. It could well be true, just not part of the paradigms of science/understanding at this point in time.

But, that's not the point. You can't suggest a belief or an unsubstantiated vision as a workable free-energy solution, something people have been ignoring while working on something else, while being closed minded to the obvious. That's what is called 'superstition' a 'vague notion', and/or disingenuous, plain and simple. That's what I meant by 'untrue'. You don't HAVE to be omniscient to evaluate an unsupported claim.

We're not talking about a toroid shape never possibly being involved in some potential future energy solution, and denying that possibility.

In order for learning to take place, there has to be experience shared. "There is no experience which is not purchased by effort of some kind..."

[Richard]

These magical energy systems have been out there for a long, long time. Not a single one of them has ever come to fore as a viable alternative to anything.

If you are of a conspiratorial bent, you can say they are being suppressed. But there is plenty of capital out there provided by enlightened organizations who would do anything for a workable alternative energy source.

Or...maybe, they just don't work?

Richard

[Namaste]

[_X7]

ZM, I didn't find the film's toroid presentations particularly impressive. I felt they were simply introductory for non technical people. Perhaps to inspire people to investigate the general subjects further. In that there is more to toroidal structure, than has been widely considered.

The digitally-rendered-overlay-torus actually has other references. I could offer some examples in much older plasma physics, as one example. In case this forum is not burdened with big images from older photocopies. Or if you like big libraries, i can look for the book ref... Separately, there is also some 'spiritual' stuff to be found... The movie could have dug deeper.

As to rattling balls inside energized coils, that can be fun for experimenters. Though the winding shown is only one of many which can rattle balls and likely not a ready-over-unity-devices as is.

PS-- Separately, here is another free-downloadable book which has very detailed info on some free energy devices.
http://www.free-energy-info.com/PJKBook.html

PPS-- Richard, Do you claim to have personally tested anything or do you rather rely on words from other people?

[Richard]

Doesn't matter what I rely on X.....point me to viable alternative past the dream phase and into real world production, then I'll jump on the bandwagon. Otherwise its all hearsay and BS backed up by that shining tower of truthfulness....Youtube.

Richard

[_X7]

Richard, Here is another: http://ahealedplanet.net/energy.htm despite the shadows out there.

[Richard]

Richard, Here is another: http://ahealedplanet.net/energy.htm despite the shadows out there.

Thats a very interesting site, X...One that I will save. But until someone makes the jump from theory to the drawing board and beyond? At its very essence, its still just treatise on Free Energy on the web. And there are hundreds just like it.

Yet nothing has ever gotten beyond a few showcased "highly secretive" contained units whose authors and inventors refuse to let others see the inner workings of to validate what they are claiming.

But, everyone is trying to make a zillion dollars along with (so they say) saving the planet. If they are the Philanthropists they claim to be, then throw open your device to world scrutiny, and let everyone begin to copy if it really works.

Sort of like Free Energy open source programming...if its out there in reach of everone, it can't suppressed.

Richard

[_X7]

Rich, I certainly agree that comprehensiveness is key. I also expect there is nothing on hand to immediately present to every eye and ear. Nevertheless, as a man of the trades myself, the engine of "Mr Mentor" and others mentioned in this website do seem readily build-able to me.

From the "Why Is There No Alternative Energy?" section of http://ahealedplanet.net/energy.htm#why
"The point of this essay is not if free energy is possible or not, with what Dennis is promoting or not. The point is that there is an energy establishment, and any move to try bringing innovation to the marketplace is met with the sledgehammer, Dennis’ adventures being a historic example. With what happened to a relatively mundane effort to bring alternative energy to the marketplace, who can confidently say what else has, or has not, been suppressed? What happened to us was fairly typical, but harsher, because Dennis’ efforts threatened to have an immediate impact in the marketplace. That is when they take the gloves off. Inventors tinkering in their garages are largely left alone, unless they try getting something market-ready, or begin making noise. "

One of my favorite Ra 'dispositions' concerning STS evil is: It provides a tremendously charged polarity for life experiences. I thought Ra suggested something to the effect: that on evolutionary planets seeded with excessive STO populations, their Harvest was insufficient. Perhaps this implied sort of a soul entrapment by laziness there. Whereas if consciousness of STS actions are verified widely enough, then the STOs will have a better chance at a smooth Harvest. X7

[zenmaster]

If they are the Philanthropists they claim to be, then throw open your device to world scrutiny, and let everyone begin to copy if it really works.

Sort of like Free Energy open source programming...if its out there in reach of everone, it can't suppressed.

Conspiracists would of course claim that each and every invention 'discovered' was suppressed, rather than adequately developed to a testable phase and adequately described to the extent of allowing someone to reproduce it. Instead, the conspiracy theorists resort to fantasizing about remote thought reading (of the entire population) and remote mind control (of the entire population) as a means to actively suppress these efforts. The conspiracists would also claim that the STS elite has, throughout history, participated in our educational system and fields of science and philosophy in order to distort our scientific models of the world so that an understanding of free-energy principles would not be forthcoming.

These are the same people that claim that people are unable to balance their higher chakras due to water flouridation, or immunization, rather than lack of genuine effort. The blame game is propagated as yet another idea-distraction which takes responsibility away from the individual.

The victim mentality promoted by the millions of wanderers (i.e. in films such as this) is a 'depolarizing' meme. http://freeenergy.tv/orion-project/the-o...ppression/ . The ones who claim suppression are, unsurprisingly (99% of the time), not practicing physical scientists and engineers themselves. They are from other fields or are 'tinkerers' or hobbyists who are interested in the general subject from the standpoint of 'what could be'.

Meanwhile, 'free energy' principles, whatever they may be, have never changed as matter and energy dynamics are archetypal in nature. If they are discovered, it will seem obvious. It will be unlikely that we will retrospectively gasp at how the STS interests cunningly engineered the cover up of nature as it has been understood by scientists and philosophers.

[_X7]

My impression of the Ra material emphasizes that STS activities utilize "conspiracies" more than STO activity utilizes "conspiracies" . Belief in what is fact or falsity, ultimately rests in free will, so be it. Proofs one can hold in hand or take to the bank might not be easily had. Proving, or experiencing STS suppression inwardly is not desired by anyone, methinks. Should we explore the extremes of engineering evidence? Only if you insist:

Regarding professional, highly referenced publications on what might be interpreted as "free energy use in America" (huh?), see here... This book was not yet refuted professionally: "Where Did The Towers Go?", 2010, 500 pages with much evidence analyzed. Full details here: http://drjudywood.com/towers/ Recent interview here: http://blip.tv/checktheevidence/where-di...11-5696277 .... Dr Judy Wood, B.S.,M.S., Ph.d. has characterized "dustification" as "free energy", in this case horribly and utterly misused. At minute 4 or so, in this vid, the slow-motion sequence reveals what she means by "dustification". Judy mentions that large network reviewers have not reviewed her evidence.

My interest in this thread was rather that a captain of industry produces a video which examines "conspiracy" and "free energy", at all! That even one skeptical person saw "Thrive" and then rebalanced points-of-view, at all! Also, that Ra seems to provide few details beyond general terms like "STS" or "Orion Group"... That Ra explanations "why" STS exists at all. May free will guide one's own judgement.

[Diana]

Thrive was a great movie. Very much like Zeitgeist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

---

Zen how do you know it is BS?

Because 'it' is never defined. There is a certain treatment of an idea (as a claim) that may serve as a basis for validation, and that was not provided although it was indeed purposefully suggested. That's "BS" or "hearsay". Has nothing to do with being "omniscient" (lol).

I agree that there are a lot of unsubstantiated claims out there. But don't "throw the baby out with the bath water." The fundamental messages are good.

For me, it is vital to keep envisioning, and working toward with whatever small steps possible, the world I want to live in.

[AnthroHeart]

Good words Diana. I'm already seeing the world I choose starting to manifest, good, bad and ugly all of it.

[zenmaster]

For me, it is vital to keep envisioning, and working toward with whatever small steps possible, the world I want to live in.

That's just it. Where's the baby. We can say whatever is possible to say, attempting to steer society in any direction our unbalanced prejudice wants with utter disregard for honesty and practicality. The means will always justify the ends if ego gets what it wants. If the emotional attachments to spiritual themes/hopes ('the baby') are stimulated enough by vague ideas, music, buzzwords, mystical talk, etc. people will endorse and propagate all manner of 'evidence' used to support them. That portrayal of evidence, the victim-oriented conspiracy theories, the tacit innuendo, the transcendental framing is the 'bathwater'.

One can present vision without the "oh yeah, but we can't do it because we are blinded to the obvious" or "can't do it because we are being suppressed" The former plays upon the la-la land, seeing-shapes-in-clouds imagination and the realm of possibilities (inherently endless), the latter plays upon rampant victim mindset. Combine the two presentation styles, and it looks like you've actually offered something workable (which is what is being claimed). The show is basically unconscious, self-referential thinking - it is an attempt to portray the inner dynamic - along with "what the bleep" and similar green-vMeme "magical thinking" movies. The repressed, libido filled, numinous, inner themes are projected, symbolically, as certain outward technologies and associated science discoveries are 'highjacked' to support viability and possibility. So the transcendent associations are made (as above, so below), accepted, and something is made strangely compelling to a certain audience who crave a peek at that aspect of themselves. That's all there is.

[Diana]

The show is basically unconscious, self-referential thinking - it is an attempt to portray the inner dynamic - along with "what the bleep" and similar green-vMeme "magical thinking" movies. The repressed, libido filled, numinous, inner themes are projected, symbolically, as certain outward technologies and associated science discoveries are 'highjacked' to support viability and possibility.

Yikes! I disagree. In some ways I see what you're saying. But most people, in my opinion, are still asleep; so movies like this may help awaken them out of their unconsciousness. As for What the Bleep, I thought it was excellent. The science in it was very sound.

And in general, if you know anything about quantum physics and the subatomic world, you will be familiar with the quantum field of "possibilities," and many strange things such as the double-slit experiment, that suggest the observer changes the outcome (we are the creators of our reality). When I envision the future, it has nothing to do with my ego, and everything to do with helping to create a more balanced and evolved existence.

[zenmaster]

Yikes! I disagree. In some ways I see what you're saying. But most people, in my opinion, are still asleep; so movies like this may help awaken them out of their unconsciousness.

Who is not asleep and who is not awake? The "sleeping/awake" dichotomy is one designed to create separation between someone's notion of what it means to be conscious and what it means to be unconscious.

When I envision the future, it has nothing to do with my ego, and everything to do with helping to create a more balanced and evolved existence.

That's just it, there is a difference between what one vaguely hopes for and what one is currently creating, experientially now, which actually serves to promote consciousness and 'polarity' for oneself and for others. I disagree that you have actually transcended your ego. That's a 'I want to do it' position which you have confused with your 'hope' for something more, which you have associated with these shows. Such hopes are necessarily ego-based.

[Diana]

Yikes! I disagree. In some ways I see what you're saying. But most people, in my opinion, are still asleep; so movies like this may help awaken them out of their unconsciousness.

Who is not asleep and who is not awake? The "sleeping/awake" dichotomy is one designed to create separation between someone's notion of what it means to be conscious and what it means to be unconscious.

I see your point here. I was succumbing to cliche language to explain myself. I agree that the concept creates separatism and elitism. I can't help wishing that humans do wake up, however, to the suffering caused from things like mindless consuming. By awake, I mean conscious of wanting to be conscious, if that makes sense.

---

When I envision the future, it has nothing to do with my ego, and everything to do with helping to create a more balanced and evolved existence.

That's just it, there is a difference between what one vaguely hopes for and what one is currently creating, experientially now, which actually serves to promote consciousness and 'polarity' for oneself and for others. I disagree that you have actually transcended your ego. That's a 'I want to do it' position which you have confused with your 'hope' for something more, which you have associated with these shows. Such hopes are necessarily ego-based.

I never said that I have transcended my ego, far from it. I do not consider myself very evolved. I do however endeavor to create my reality consciously. I do not think that my envisioning a future without cruelty is ego-based. Perhaps I'm wrong; I don't have to be right; this just makes sense to me. And for the record, just because I said the movies were good, does not mean I "follow" them, or get on their bandwagons. I think for myself.

If you had a child, and the child was cruel to animals or a pet, would you allow the cruelty so the child could have free will? Would you not desire that the child stop being cruel and kindly teach and guide? This is the way I see our present-day situation. There is so much suffering. Suffering may be what humans have chosen. I am not so certain about the animal and plant life, or even the Earth. I can't help wanting (and if this is ego so be it) humans to wake up to the cruelty and selfishness of the destruction we have caused. But I don't go around preaching; I envision a better future.

[zenmaster]

Yikes! I disagree. In some ways I see what you're saying. But most people, in my opinion, are still asleep; so movies like this may help awaken them out of their unconsciousness.

Who is not asleep and who is not awake? The "sleeping/awake" dichotomy is one designed to create separation between someone's notion of what it means to be conscious and what it means to be unconscious.

I see your point here. I was succumbing to cliche language to explain myself. I agree that the concept creates separatism and elitism. I can't help wishing that humans do wake up, however, to the suffering caused from things like mindless consuming. By awake, I mean conscious of wanting to be conscious, if that makes sense.

When someone wants to be conscious, and uses their will to that aim, they can accelerate their growth to some extent.
Our wakefulness criteria tends to be selective, however.

When I envision the future, it has nothing to do with my ego, and everything to do with helping to create a more balanced and evolved existence.

That's just it, there is a difference between what one vaguely hopes for and what one is currently creating, experientially now, which actually serves to promote consciousness and 'polarity' for oneself and for others. I disagree that you have actually transcended your ego. That's a 'I want to do it' position which you have confused with your 'hope' for something more, which you have associated with these shows. Such hopes are necessarily ego-based.

I never said that I have transcended my ego, far from it. I do not consider myself very evolved. I do however endeavor to create my reality consciously. I do not think that my envisioning a future without cruelty is ego-based.

That's because you've just abstracted an idea from that vision, separating from your experience right now.

Perhaps I'm wrong; I don't have to be right; this just makes sense to me. And for the record, just because I said the movies were good, does not mean I "follow" them, or get on their bandwagons. I think for myself.

Just like no one has a vision that they effectively participate in that is without 'ego', no one thinks for themselves entirely. The idea of 'if it gets people to wake up' is basically cut and pasted, for example.

If you had a child, and the child was cruel to animals or a pet, would you allow the cruelty so the child could have free will? Would you not desire that the child stop being cruel and kindly teach and guide? This is the way I see our present-day situation. There is so much suffering.

You don't see our present-day situation for what it is, no one does. So we resort to manufacturing circumstances, such as your child guidance situation abstraction, which then have rules for more appropriate behavior.

"It is a necessary balance to the intention of law, which is to protect, that the result would encompass an equal distortion towards imprisonment. Therefore, we may say that your supposition is correct. This is not to denigrate those who, in green and blue-ray energies, sought to free a peaceable people from the bonds of chaos but only to point out the inevitable consequences of codification of response which does not recognize the uniqueness of each and every situation within your experience."

There is a limitation of 3rd density knowing which is incapable of adequately addressing unique needs of the moment for another's 'good'. The balance 'correction' we may authoritatively apply quite often, instead of showing one to 'the light', might shelter, discourage, embitter, sidetrack, confuse, or stifle growth. That is the system or culture which dictates conventions for our relationships, what we are using right now to evolve, from home, work, or in society. This happens constantly, and that treatment is the 'cause of suffering' here. A show that points fingers outside the self for 'action' ain't gonna help. We crave and demand all manner of surrogates to avoid our self-determined Opus: a saviour - be it an inventor, an alien race, a leader, distractions, a show that points out 'the truth', whatever. 'NASA is lying to us!' Truly, what is NASA hiding that is suppressing our spiritual development? We are the authority.

Suffering may be what humans have chosen.

Yes, it's what we've chosen. It is indicative of the level of discomfort we are willing to tolerate in exchange for supporting our collective vision. We think it's a 'good' vision of course. (So did those from Maldek, if you want an extreme case of working towards a hopeful vision).

I am not so certain about the animal and plant life, or even the Earth. I can't help wanting (and if this is ego so be it) humans to wake up to the cruelty and selfishness of the destruction we have caused. But I don't go around preaching; I envision a better future.

Who doesn't envision a 'better future', seriously? Who actually knows 'better', seriously? Really, for the most part we're 'along for the ride', selectively cheering shows like "Thrive" when they successfully induce a numinous feeling of transcendence over popular, 'new-age' focused social or environmental problems or remind the sleeper that 'anything is possible' as far as imagining shapes in clouds and letting emotion fill in the blanks with personal meaning.

[Diana]

There is a limitation of 3rd density knowing which is incapable of adequately addressing unique needs of the moment for another's 'good'. The balance 'correction' we may authoritatively apply quite often, instead of showing one to 'the light', might shelter, discourage, embitter, sidetrack, confuse, or stifle growth. That is the system or culture which dictates conventions for our relationships, what we are using right now to evolve, from home, work, or in society. This happens constantly, and that treatment is the 'cause of suffering' here. A show that points fingers outside the self for 'action' ain't gonna help. We crave and demand all manner of surrogates to avoid our self-determined Opus: a saviour - be it an inventor, an alien race, a leader, distractions, a show that points out 'the truth', whatever. 'NASA is lying to us!' Truly, what is NASA hiding that is suppressing our spiritual development? We are the authority.

It seems to me that you only speak of suffering in regards to humans. What about the other life forms on the planet and the planet itself? I don't like the idea that children--or anybody--starve in this world, but I can see that all humans have chosen their existence and I can certainly agree to their free will to experience it. I am not so sure about the other life--plants, animals, everything else here not human. Did they choose to be used and abused by humans? This is where it gets sticky for me.

[Oceania]

it does indeed. also those 3d people who haven't chosen their life events. even those who have, it's sticky. there should be an out if you wanna end the game. but suicide gets you reincarnated. death gets you reincarnated.