The physics of the Casimir effect don't involve any "negative energy." I suppose you can say that the space in the Casimir gap has a deficit of zero-point energy, but that's not the presence of "negative energy."

The concept of "negative energy" has meaning only within the models. In order for a phenomenon to exist, it has to have parameters to measure. Energy itself is, when it comes down to it, measurable only through movement (change in space and time of something). For example, "nuclear energy" has no meaning until there is a decay, at which time we measure the momentum of the "decay products" and work backwards to find the "nuclear energy" that was a "potential energy" stored within the material. Thermal energy is the same thing, just lattice vibrations (periodic changes in space and time of the atoms, or chain of atoms).

"Negative energy" has no such parameters. It isn't even something that can be defined, much less measured, not even in theory. I mean, what does "negative movement" mean? Other than going in the "opposite direction" (which is not applicable here) It doesn't mean anything at all. It would probably be better to call it "imaginary movement" (literally and mathematically), where 1/2mv^2 gives a negative value (1/2m(iv)^2)

GR says that the curvature of spacetime is determined by the energy contained within it. If the curvature of "empty space" is indeed flat (which is by no means certain, even locally), then that flat curvature is determined by the Zero Point Energy contained within it. The zero point energy is defined to be zero. Any energy in a space that would be less than that would be by definition of the model less than zero. This "less than zero" energy would expand space when filtered through the model, thus, from the perspective of all models, it is negative energy. So not only is it negative by definition, it is negative with regards to how all of our models (all of physics) react.

All of these statements are "arguments from the model". Your objection is philosophical. But the only philosophical premise from which to object is to state that "there is no such thing as negative energy period, because there is no phenomenon to attach to it."

If you want to make that objection, I'm good with that. That doesn't negate the definitions of negative energy nor the models that support that definition.

All you are saying is that you have no way to tell a promising idea from a complete loser. Or logical fallacies from legitimate induction or deduction

That is most certainly not all I am saying. That does seem to be all you are hearing however. You have selective hearing, and very set beliefs. That's OK, but it does make it difficult to have a conversation with you.

I do not think you are an agent provocateur. I can't imagine anyone pursuing a conversation like this just for that purpose. I do however think you are a True Believer. Until you see overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are quite set in your certainties. Nothing I say can change that, because you selectively listen, filtered through your true beliefs. For example:

Science is performed by human beings. Human beings are prone to corruption of honesty by professional, social, and financial inducements to "go along to get along." This is ancient history.

These are true statements, however, what you are missing is that the system that encourages these behaviors were all created by the same person (Rockefeller). All of science funding, all of science publication, all of academia, all of science industry, all of government science funding and investigation all have the exact same source: Rockefeller. Even the agencies that create the NDAs that people must sign for Top Secret clearance were created by Rockefeller.

That isn't in any way believable, but the evidence is overwhelming. Until you are willing to look at the evidence, you can only conceive of a world that exists within the boundaries of what you've seen. My report shows the beginnings of that evidence. What is there right now shows fairly clearly that there is one single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. It is not yet complete. It's not even half way done, but it is a very clear start into that evidence.

Next up (hopefully very soon, I'm putting it together now) is an exposure into what I stated above: the creation of academia and science in general. The system is designed to control science, everything filtered through a single controlling body. Looking into the actual development and "debunking" of Cold Fusion is an excellent example of this control structure. The two people that were assigned by the government to investigate corroborating evidence after the initial exposure by Fleischman and Pons have direct ties to Rockefeller (through their academic funding and previous employment). That by itself is far from a complete argument. It isn't even scratching the surface, but this pattern of direct financial ties to Rockefeller (usually through the Rockefeller Foundation or the Carnegie Corporation) exists in every situation where the narrative was led in the "wrong direction".

That's not intended to convince you. Of course it won't. A complete argument takes time and direct evidence. That is what my report is for. Academia, science, and medicine are next. If you want to see the argument and evidence, you will have to read my report.

The physics of the Casimir effect don't involve any "negative energy." I suppose you can say that the space in the Casimir gap has a deficit of zero-point energy, but that's not the presence of "negative energy."

The concept of "negative energy" has meaning only within the models. In order for a phenomenon to exist, it has to have parameters to measure. Energy itself is, when it comes down to it, measurable only through movement (change in space and time of something). For example, "nuclear energy" has no meaning until there is a decay, at which time we measure the momentum of the "decay products" and work backwards to find the "nuclear energy" that was a "potential energy" stored within the material. Thermal energy is the same thing, just lattice vibrations (periodic changes in space and time of the atoms, or chain of atoms).

"Negative energy" has no such parameters. It isn't even something that can be defined, much less measured, not even in theory. I mean, what does "negative movement" mean? Other than going in the "opposite direction" (which is not applicable here) It doesn't mean anything at all. It would probably be better to call it "imaginary movement" (literally and mathematically), where 1/2mv^2 gives a negative value (1/2m(iv)^2)

GR says that the curvature of spacetime is determined by the energy contained within it. If the curvature of "empty space" is indeed flat (which is by no means certain, even locally), then that flat curvature is determined by the Zero Point Energy contained within it. The zero point energy is defined to be zero. Any energy in a space that would be less than that would be by definition of the model less than zero. This "less than zero" energy would expand space when filtered through the model, thus, from the perspective of all models, it is negative energy. So not only is it negative by definition, it is negative with regards to how the models react.

All of these statements are "arguments from the model". Your objection is philosophical. But the only philosophical premise from which to object is to state that "there is no such thing as negative energy period, because there is no phenomenon to attach to it."

If you want to make that objection, I'm good with that. That doesn't negate the definitions of negative energy nor the models that support that definition.

All you are saying is that you have no way to tell a promising idea from a complete loser. Or logical fallacies from legitimate induction or deduction

That is most certainly not all I am saying. That does seem to be all you are hearing however. You have selective hearing, and very set beliefs. That's OK, but it does make it difficult to have a conversation with you.

I do not think you are an agent provocateur. I can't imagine anyone pursuing a conversation like this just for that purpose. I do however think you are a True Believer. Until you see overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are quite set in your certainties. Nothing I say can change that, because you selectively listen, filtered through your true beliefs. For example:

Science is performed by human beings. Human beings are prone to corruption of honesty by professional, social, and financial inducements to "go along to get along." This is ancient history.

These are true statements, however, what you are missing is that the system that encourages these behaviors were all created by the same person (Rockefeller). All of science funding, all of science publication, all of academia, all of science industry, all of government science funding and investigation all have the exact same source: Rockefeller. Even the agencies that create the NDAs that people must sign for Top Secret clearance were created by Rockefeller.

That isn't in any way believable, but the evidence is overwhelming. Until you are willing to look at the evidence, you can only conceive of a world that exists within the boundaries of what you've seen. My report shows the beginnings of that evidence. What is there right now shows fairly clearly that there is one single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. It is not yet complete. It's not even half way done, but it is a very clear start into that evidence.

Next up (hopefully very soon, I'm putting it together now) is an exposure into what I stated above: the creation of academia and science in general. The system is designed to control science, everything filtered through a single controlling body. Looking into the actual development and "debunking" of Cold Fusion is an excellent example of this control structure. The two people that were assigned by the government to investigate corroborating evidence after the initial exposure by Fleischman and Pons have direct ties to Rockefeller (through their academic funding and previous employment). That by itself is far from a complete argument. It isn't even scratching the surface, but this pattern of direct financial ties to Rockefeller (usually through the Rockefeller Foundation or the Carnegie Corporation) exists in every situation where the narrative was led in the "wrong direction".

That's not intended to convince you. Of course it won't. A complete argument takes time and direct evidence. That is what my report is for. Academia, science, and medicine are next. If you want to see the argument and evidence, you will have to read my report.

The physics of the Casimir effect don't involve any "negative energy." I suppose you can say that the space in the Casimir gap has a deficit of zero-point energy, but that's not the presence of "negative energy."

The concept of "negative energy" has meaning only within the models. In order for a phenomenon to exist, it has to have parameters to measure. Energy itself is, when it comes down to it, measurable only through movement (change in space and time of something). For example, "nuclear energy" has no meaning until there is a decay, at which time we measure the momentum of the "decay products" and work backwards to find the "nuclear energy" that was a "potential energy" stored within the material. Thermal energy is the same thing, just lattice vibrations (periodic changes in space and time of the atoms, or chain of atoms).

"Negative energy" has no such parameters. It isn't even something that can be defined, much less measured, not even in theory. But GR says that the curvature of spacetime is determined by the energy contained within it. If the curvature of "empty space" is indeed flat (which is by no means certain, even locally), then that flat curvature is determined by the Zero Point Energy contained within it. The zero point energy is defined to be zero. Any energy in a space that would be less than that would be by definition of the model less than zero. This "less than zero" energy would expand space when filtered through the model, thus, from the perspective of all models, it is negative energy. So not only is it negative by definition, it is negative with regards to how the models react.

All of these statements are "arguments from the model". Your objection is philosophical. But the only philosophical premise from which to object is to state that "there is no such thing as negative energy period, because there is no phenomenon to attach to it."

If you want to make that objection, I'm good with that. That doesn't negate the definitions of negative energy nor the models that support that definition.

All you are saying is that you have no way to tell a promising idea from a complete loser. Or logical fallacies from legitimate induction or deduction

That is most certainly not all I am saying. That does seem to be all you are hearing however. You have selective hearing, and very set beliefs. That's OK, but it does make it difficult to have a conversation with you.

I do not think you are an agent provocateur. I can't imagine anyone pursuing a conversation like this just for that purpose. I do however think you are a True Believer. Until you see overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are quite set in your certainties. Nothing I say can change that, because you selectively listen, filtered through your true beliefs. For example:

Science is performed by human beings. Human beings are prone to corruption of honesty by professional, social, and financial inducements to "go along to get along." This is ancient history.

These are true statements, however, what you are missing is that the system that encourages these behaviors were all created by the same person (Rockefeller). All of science funding, all of science publication, all of academia, all of science industry, all of government science funding and investigation all have the exact same source: Rockefeller. Even the agencies that create the NDAs that people must sign for Top Secret clearance were created by Rockefeller.

That isn't in any way believable, but the evidence is overwhelming. Until you are willing to look at the evidence, you can only conceive of a world that exists within the boundaries of what you've seen. My report shows the beginnings of that evidence. What is there right now shows fairly clearly that there is one single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. It is not yet complete. It's not even half way done, but it is a very clear start into that evidence.

Next up (hopefully very soon, I'm putting it together now) is an exposure into what I stated above: the creation of academia and science in general. The system is designed to control science, everything filtered through a single controlling body. Looking into the actual development and "debunking" of Cold Fusion is an excellent example of this control structure. The two people that were assigned by the government to investigate corroborating evidence after the initial exposure by Fleischman and Pons have direct ties to Rockefeller (through their academic funding and previous employment). That by itself is far from a complete argument. It isn't even scratching the surface, but this pattern of direct financial ties to Rockefeller (usually through the Rockefeller Foundation or the Carnegie Corporation) exists in every situation where the narrative was led in the "wrong direction".

That's not intended to convince you. Of course it won't. A complete argument takes time and direct evidence. That is what my report is for. Academia, science, and medicine are next. If you want to see the argument and evidence, you will have to read my report.

The physics of the Casimir effect don't involve any "negative energy." I suppose you can say that the space in the Casimir gap has a deficit of zero-point energy, but that's not the presence of "negative energy."

The concept of "negative energy" has meaning only within the models. In order for a phenomenon to exist, it has to have parameters to measure. Energy itself is, when it comes down to it, measurable only through movement (change in space and time of something). For example, "nuclear energy" has no meaning until there is a decay, at which time we measure the momentum of the "decay products" and work backwards to find the "nuclear energy" that was a "potential energy" stored within the material. Thermal energy is the same thing, just lattice vibrations (periodic changes in space and time of the atoms, or chain of atoms).

"Negative energy" has no such parameters. It isn't even something that can be defined, much less measured, not even in theory. But GR says that the curvature of spacetime is determined by the energy contained within it. If the curvature of "empty space" is indeed flat (which is by no means certain, even locally), then that flat curvature is determined by the Zero Point Energy contained within it. The zero point energy is defined to be zero. Any energy in a space that would be less than that would be by definition of the model less than zero. This "less than zero" energy would expand space when filtered through the model, thus, from the perspective of all models, it is negative energy. So not only is it negative by definition, it is negative with regards to how the models react.

All of these statements are "arguments from the model". Your objection is philosophical. But the only philosophical premise from which to object is to state that "there is no such thing as negative energy period, because there is no phenomenon to attach to it."

If you want to make that objection, I'm good with that. That doesn't negate the definitions of negative energy nor the models that support that definition.

All you are saying is that you have no way to tell a promising idea from a complete loser. Or logical fallacies from legitimate induction or deduction

That is most certainly not all I am saying. That does seem to be all you are hearing however. You have selective hearing, and very set beliefs. That's OK, but it does make it difficult to have a conversation with you.

I do not think you are an agent provocateur. I can't imagine anyone pursuing a conversation like this just for that purpose. I do however think you are a True Believer. Until you see overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are quite set in your certainties. Nothing I say can change that, because you selectively listen, filtered through your true beliefs. For example:

Science is performed by human beings. Human beings are prone to corruption of honesty by professional, social, and financial inducements to "go along to get along." This is ancient history.

These are true statements, however, what you are missing is that the system that encourages these behaviors were all created by the same person (Rockefeller). All of science funding, all of science publication, all of academia, all of science industry, all of government science funding and investigation all have the exact same source: Rockefeller. Even the agencies that create the NDAs that people must sign for Top Secret clearance were created by Rockefeller.

That isn't in any way believable, but the evidence is overwhelming. Until you are willing to look at the evidence, you can only conceive of a world that exists within the boundaries of what you've seen. My report shows the beginnings of that evidence. What is there right now shows fairly clearly that there is one single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. It is not yet complete. It's not even half way done, but it is a very clear start into that evidence.

Next up (hopefully very soon, I'm putting it together now) is an exposure into what I stated above: the creation of academia and science in general. The system is designed to control science, everything filtered through a single controlling body. Looking into the actual development and "debunking" of Cold Fusion is an excellent example of this control structure. The two people that were assigned by the government to investigate corroborating evidence after the initial exposure by Fleischman and Pons have direct ties to Rockefeller (through their academic funding and previous employment). That by itself is far from a complete argument. It isn't even scratching the surface, but this pattern of direct financial ties to Rockefeller (usually through the Rockefeller Foundation or the Carnegie Corporation) exists in every situation where the narrative was led in the "wrong direction".

That's not intended to convince you. Of course it won't. A complete argument takes time and direct evidence. That is what my report is for. Academia, science, and medicine are next. If you want to see the argument, you will have to read my report.

The physics of the Casimir effect don't involve any "negative energy." I suppose you can say that the space in the Casimir gap has a deficit of zero-point energy, but that's not the presence of "negative energy."

The concept of "negative energy" has meaning only within the models. In order for a phenomenon to exist, it has to have parameters to measure. Energy itself is, when it comes down to it, measurable only through movement (change in space and time of something). For example, "nuclear energy" has no meaning until there is a decay, at which time we measure the momentum of the "decay products" and work backwards to find the "nuclear energy" that was a "potential energy" stored within the material. Thermal energy is the same thing, just lattice vibrations (periodic changes in space and time of the atoms, or chain of atoms).

"Negative energy" has no such parameters. It isn't even something that can be defined, much less measured, not even in theory. But GR says that the curvature of spacetime is determined by the energy contained within it. If the curvature of "empty space" is indeed flat (which is by no means certain, even locally), then that flat curvature is determined by the Zero Point Energy contained within it. The zero point energy is defined to be zero. Any energy in a space that would be less than that would be by definition of the model less than zero. This "less than zero" energy would expand space when filtered through the model, thus, from the perspective of all models, it is negative energy. So not only is it negative by definition, it is negative with regards to how the models react.

All of these statements are "arguments from the model". Your objection is philosophical. But the only philosophical premise from which to object is to state that "there is no such thing as negative energy period, because there is no phenomenon to attach to it."

If you want to make that objection, I'm good with that. That doesn't negate the definitions of negative energy nor the models that support that definition.

All you are saying is that you have no way to tell a promising idea from a complete loser. Or logical fallacies from legitimate induction or deduction

That is most certainly not all I am saying. That does seem to be all you are hearing however. You have selective hearing, and very set beliefs. That's OK, but it does make it difficult to have a conversation with you.

I do not think you are an agent provocateur. I can't imagine anyone pursuing a conversation like this just for that purpose. I do however think you are a True Believer. Until you see overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are quite set in your certainties. Nothing I say can change that, because you selectively listen, filtered through your true beliefs. For example:

Science is performed by human beings. Human beings are prone to corruption of honesty by professional, social, and financial inducements to "go along to get along." This is ancient history.

These are true statements, however, what you are missing is that the system that encourages these behaviors were all created by the same person (Rockefeller). All of science funding, all of science publication, all of academia, all of science industry, all of government science funding and investigation all have the exact same source: Rockefeller. Even the agencies that create the NDAs that people must sign for Top Secret clearance were created by Rockefeller.

That isn't in any way believable, but the evidence is overwhelming. Until you are willing to look at the evidence, you can only conceive of a world that exists within the boundaries of what you've seen. My report shows the beginnings of that evidence. What is there right now shows fairly clearly that there is one single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. It is not yet complete. It's not even half way done, but it is a very clear start into that evidence.

Next up (hopefully very soon, I'm putting it together now) is an exposure into what I stated above: the creation of academia and science in general. The system is designed to control science, everything filtered through a single controlling body. Looking into the actual development and "debunking" of Cold Fusion is an excellent example of this control structure. The two people that were assigned by the government to investigate corroborating evidence after the initial exposure by Fleischman and Pons have direct ties to Rockefeller (through their academic funding and previous employment). That by itself is far from a complete argument. It isn't even scratching the surface, but this pattern of direct ties to Rockefeller (usually through the Rockefeller Foundation or the Carnegie Corporation) exists in every situation where the narrative was led in the "wrong direction".

That's not intended to convince you. Of course it won't. A complete argument takes time and direct evidence. That is what my report is for. Academia, science, and medicine are next. If you want to see the argument, you will have to read my report.

The physics of the Casimir effect don't involve any "negative energy." I suppose you can say that the space in the Casimir gap has a deficit of zero-point energy, but that's not the presence of "negative energy."

The concept of "negative energy" has meaning only within the models. In order for a phenomenon to exist, it has to have parameters to measure. Energy itself is, when it comes down to it, measurable only through movement (change in space and time of something). For example, "nuclear energy" has no meaning until there is a decay, at which time we measure the "decay products" and work backwards to find the "nuclear energy" that was a "potential energy" stored within the material. Thermal energy is the same thing, just lattice vibrations (periodic changes in space and time of the atoms, or chain of atoms).

"Negative energy" has no such parameters. It isn't even something that can be defined, much less measured, not even in theory. But GR says that the curvature of spacetime is determined by the energy contained within it. If the curvature of "empty space" is indeed flat (which is by no means certain, even locally), then that flat curvature is determined by the Zero Point Energy contained within it. The zero point energy is defined to be zero. Any energy in a space that would be less than that would be by definition of the model less than zero. This "less than zero" energy would expand space when filtered through the model, thus, from the perspective of all models, it is negative energy. So not only is it negative by definition, it is negative with regards to how the models react.

All of these statements are "arguments from the model". Your objection is philosophical. But the only philosophical premise from which to object is to state that "there is no such thing as negative energy period, because there is no phenomenon to attach to it."

If you want to make that objection, I'm good with that. That doesn't negate the definitions of negative energy nor the models that support that definition.

All you are saying is that you have no way to tell a promising idea from a complete loser. Or logical fallacies from legitimate induction or deduction

That is most certainly not all I am saying. That does seem to be all you are hearing however. You have selective hearing, and very set beliefs. That's OK, but it does make it difficult to have a conversation with you.

I do not think you are an agent provocateur. I can't imagine anyone pursuing a conversation like this just for that purpose. I do however think you are a True Believer. Until you see overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are quite set in your certainties. Nothing I say can change that, because you selectively listen, filtered through your true beliefs. For example:

Science is performed by human beings. Human beings are prone to corruption of honesty by professional, social, and financial inducements to "go along to get along." This is ancient history.

These are true statements, however, what you are missing is that the system that encourages these behaviors were all created by the same person (Rockefeller). All of science funding, all of science publication, all of academia, all of science industry, all of government science funding and investigation all have the exact same source: Rockefeller. Even the agencies that create the NDAs that people must sign for Top Secret clearance were created by Rockefeller.

That isn't in any way believable, but the evidence is overwhelming. Until you are willing to look at the evidence, you can only conceive of a world that exists within the boundaries of what you've seen. My report shows the beginnings of that evidence. What is there right now shows fairly clearly that there is one single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. It is not yet complete. It's not even half way done, but it is a very clear start into that evidence.

Next up (hopefully very soon, I'm putting it together now) is an exposure into what I stated above: the creation of academia and science in general. The system is designed to control science, everything filtered through a single controlling body. Looking into the actual development and "debunking" of Cold Fusion is an excellent example of this control structure. The two people that were assigned by the government to investigate corroborating evidence after the initial exposure by Fleischman and Pons have direct ties to Rockefeller (through their academic funding and previous employment). That by itself is far from a complete argument. It isn't even scratching the surface, but this pattern of direct ties to Rockefeller (usually through the Rockefeller Foundation or the Carnegie Corporation) exists in every situation where the narrative was led in the "wrong direction".

That's not intended to convince you. Of course it won't. A complete argument takes time and direct evidence. That is what my report is for. Academia, science, and medicine are next. If you want to see the argument, you will have to read my report.

The physics of the Casimir effect don't involve any "negative energy." I suppose you can say that the space in the Casimir gap has a deficit of zero-point energy, but that's not the presence of "negative energy."

The concept of "negative energy" has meaning only within the models. In order for a phenomenon to exist, it has to have parameters to measure. Energy itself is, when it comes down to it, measurable only through movement (change in space and time of something). For example, "nuclear energy" has no meaning until there is a decay, at which time we measure the "decay products" and work backwards to find the "nuclear energy" that was a "potential energy" stored within the material. Thermal energy is the same thing, just lattice vibrations (periodic changes in space and time of the atoms, or chain of atoms).

"Negative energy" has no such parameters. It isn't even something that can be defined, much less measured, not even in theory. But GR says that the curvature of spacetime is determined by the energy contained within it. If the curvature of "empty space" is indeed flat (which is by no means certain, even locally), then that flat curvature is determined by the Zero Point Energy contained within it. The zero point energy is defined to be zero. Any energy in a space that would be less than that would be by definition of the model less than zero. This "less than zero" energy would expand space when filtered through the model, thus, from the perspective of all models, it is negative energy. So not only is it negative by definition, it is negative with regards to how the models react.

All of these statements are "arguments from the model". Your objection is philosophical. But the only philosophical premise from which to object is to state that "there is no such thing as negative energy period, because there is no phenomenon to attach to it."

If you want to make that objection, I'm good with that. That doesn't negate the definitions of negative energy nor the models that support that definition.

All you are saying is that you have no way to tell a promising idea from a complete loser. Or logical fallacies from legitimate induction or deduction

That is most certainly not all I am saying. That does seem to be all you are hearing however. You have selective hearing, and very set beliefs. That's OK, but it does make it difficult to have a conversation with you.

I do not think you are an agent provocateur. I can't imagine anyone pursuing a conversation like this just for that purpose. I do however think you are a True Believer. Until you see evidence to the contrary, you are quite set in your certainties. Nothing I say can change that, because you selectively listen, filtered through your true beliefs. For example:

Science is performed by human beings. Human beings are prone to corruption of honesty by professional, social, and financial inducements to "go along to get along." This is ancient history.

These are true statements, however, what you are missing is that the system that encourages these behaviors were all created by the same person (Rockefeller). All of science funding, all of science publication, all of academia, all of science industry, all of government science funding and investigation all have the exact same source: Rockefeller. Even the agencies that create the NDAs that people must sign for Top Secret clearance were created by Rockefeller.

That isn't in any way believable, but the evidence is overwhelming. Until you are willing to look at the evidence, you can only conceive of a world that exists within the boundaries of what you've seen. My report shows the beginnings of that evidence. What is there right now shows fairly clearly that there is one single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. It is not yet complete. It's not even half way done, but it is a very clear start into that evidence.

Next up (hopefully very soon, I'm putting it together now) is an exposure into what I stated above: the creation of academia and science in general. The system is designed to control science, everything filtered through a single controlling body. Looking into the actual development and "debunking" of Cold Fusion is an excellent example of this control structure. The two people that were assigned by the government to investigate corroborating evidence after the initial exposure by Fleischman and Pons have direct ties to Rockefeller (through their academic funding and previous employment). That by itself is far from a complete argument. It isn't even scratching the surface, but this pattern of direct ties to Rockefeller (usually through the Rockefeller Foundation or the Carnegie Corporation) exists in every situation where the narrative was led in the "wrong direction".

That's not intended to convince you. Of course it won't. A complete argument takes time and direct evidence. That is what my report is for. Academia, science, and medicine are next. If you want to see the argument, you will have to read my report.

The physics of the Casimir effect don't involve any "negative energy." I suppose you can say that the space in the Casimir gap has a deficit of zero-point energy, but that's not the presence of "negative energy."

The concept of "negative energy" has meaning only within the models. In order for a phenomenon to exist, it has to have parameters to measure. Energy itself is, when it comes down to it, measurable only through movement (change in space and time of something). For example, "nuclear energy" has no meaning until there is a decay, at which time we measure the "decay products" and work backwards to find the "nuclear energy" that was a "potential energy" stored within the material. Thermal energy is the same thing, just lattice vibrations (periodic changes in space and time of the atoms, or chain of atoms).

"Negative energy" has no such parameters. It isn't even something that can be defined, much less measured, not even in theory. But GR says that the curvature of spacetime is determined by the energy contained within it. If the curvature of "empty space" is indeed flat (which is by no means certain, even locally), then that flat curvature is determined by the Zero Point Energy contained within it. The zero point energy is defined to be zero. Any energy in a space that would be less than that would be by definition of the model less than zero. This "less than zero" energy would expand space when filtered through the model, thus, from the perspective of all models, it is negative energy. So not only is it negative by definition, it is negative with regards to how the models react.

All of these statements are "arguments from the model". Your objection is philosophical. But the only philosophical premise from which to object is to state that "there is no such thing as negative energy period, because there is no phenomenon to attach to it."

If you want to make that objection, I'm good with that. That doesn't negate the definitions of negative energy nor the models that support that definition.

All you are saying is that you have no way to tell a promising idea from a complete loser. Or logical fallacies from legitimate induction or deduction

That is most certainly not all I am saying. That does seem to be all you are hearing however. You have selective hearing, and very set beliefs. That's OK, but it does make it difficult to have a conversation with you.

I do not think you are an agent provocateur. I can't imagine anyone pursuing a conversation like this just for that purpose. I do however think you are a True Believer. Until you see evidence to the contrary, you are quite set in your certainties. Nothing I say can change that, because you selectively listen, filtered through your true beliefs. For example:

Science is performed by human beings. Human beings are prone to corruption of honesty by professional, social, and financial inducements to "go along to get along." This is ancient history.

These are true statements, however, what you are missing is that the system that encourages these behaviors were all created by the same person (Rockefeller). All of science funding, all of science publication, all of academia, all of science industry, all of government science funding and investigation all have the exact same source: Rockefeller. Even the agencies that create the NDAs that people must sign for Top Secret clearance were created by Rockefeller.

That isn't in any way believable, but the evidence is overwhelming. Until you are willing to look at the evidence, you can only conceive of a world that exists within the boundaries of what you've seen. My report shows the beginnings of that exposure. It shows fairly clearly that there is one single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. It is not yet complete. It's not even half way done, but it is a very clear start into that evidence.

Next up (hopefully very soon, I'm putting it together now) is an exposure into what I stated above: the creation of academia and science in general. The system is designed to control science, everything filtered through a single controlling body. Looking into the actual development and "debunking" of Cold Fusion is an excellent example of this control structure. The two people that were assigned by the government to investigate corroborating evidence after the initial exposure by Fleischman and Pons have direct ties to Rockefeller (through their academic funding and previous employment). That by itself is far from a complete argument. It isn't even scratching the surface, but this pattern of direct ties to Rockefeller (usually through the Rockefeller Foundation or the Carnegie Corporation) exists in every situation where the narrative was led in the "wrong direction".

That's not intended to convince you. Of course it won't. A complete argument takes time and direct evidence. That is what my report is for. Academia, science, and medicine are next. If you want to see the argument, you will have to read my report.

The physics of the Casimir effect don't involve any "negative energy." I suppose you can say that the space in the Casimir gap has a deficit of zero-point energy, but that's not the presence of "negative energy."

The concept of "negative energy" has meaning only within the models. In order for a phenomenon to exist, it has to have parameters to measure. Energy itself is, when it comes down to it, measurable only through movement (change in space and time of something). For example, "nuclear energy" has no meaning until there is a decay, at which time we measure the "decay products" and work backwards to find the "nuclear energy" that was a "potential energy" stored within the material. Thermal energy is the same thing, just lattice vibrations (periodic changes in space and time of the atoms, or chain of atoms).

"Negative energy" has no such parameters. It isn't even something that can be defined, much less measured, not even in theory. But GR says that the curvature of spacetime is determined by the energy contained within it. If the curvature of "empty space" is indeed flat (which is by no means certain, even locally), then that flat curvature is determined by the Zero Point Energy contained within it. The zero point energy is defined to be zero. Any energy in a space that would be less than that would be by definition of the model less than zero. This "less than zero" energy would expand space when filtered through the model, thus, from the perspective of all models, it is negative energy. So not only is it negative by definition, it is negative with regards to how the models react.

All of these statements are "arguments from the model". Your objection is philosophical. But the only philosophical premise from which to object is to state that "there is no such thing as negative energy period, because there is no phenomenon to attach to it."

If you want to make that objection, I'm good with that. That doesn't negate the definitions of negative energy nor the models that support that definition.

All you are saying is that you have no way to tell a promising idea from a complete loser. Or logical fallacies from legitimate induction or deduction

That is most certainly not all I am saying. That does seem to be all you are hearing however. You have selective hearing, and very set beliefs. That's OK, but it does make it difficult to have a conversation with you.

I do not think you are an agent provocateur. I can't imagine anyone pursuing a conversation like this just for that purpose. I do however think you are a True Believer. Until you see evidence to the contrary, you are quite set in your certainties. Nothing I say can change that, because you selectively listen, filtered through your true beliefs. For example:

Science is performed by human beings. Human beings are prone to corruption of honesty by professional, social, and financial inducements to "go along to get along." This is ancient history.

These are true statements, however, what you are missing is that the system that encourages these behaviors were all created by the same person (Rockefeller). All of science funding, all of science publication, all of academia, all of science industry, all of government science funding and investigation all have the exact same source: Rockefeller. Even the agencies that create the NDAs that people must sign for Top Secret clearance were created by Rockefeller.

That isn't in any way believable, but the evidence is overwhelming. Until you are willing to look at the evidence, you only show your ignorance. My report shows the beginnings of that exposure. It shows fairly clearly that there is one single corporation in the world, and a single body of people that run it. It is not yet complete. It's not even half way done, but it is a very clear start into that evidence.

Next up (hopefully very soon, I'm putting it together now) is an exposure into what I stated above: the creation of academia and science in general. The system is designed to control science, everything filtered through a single controlling body. Looking into the actual development and "debunking" of Cold Fusion is an excellent example of this control structure. The two people that were assigned by the government to investigate corroborating evidence after the initial exposure by Fleischman and Pons have direct ties to Rockefeller (through their academic funding and previous employment). That by itself is far from a complete argument. It isn't even scratching the surface, but this pattern of direct ties to Rockefeller (usually through the Rockefeller Foundation or the Carnegie Corporation) exists in every situation where the narrative was led in the "wrong direction".

That's not intended to convince you. Of course it won't. A complete argument takes time and direct evidence. That is what my report is for. Academia, science, and medicine are next. If you want to see the argument, you will have to read my report.