The Tom Bearden
Website

Help support the research

 

Subject: RE: note for Tom Bearden
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:48:11 -0600

 

Dear George,

 

I always had much sympathy with the Wheeler-Feynman absorber approach.  One of my main objections is that they missed the mechanism that generates the flow of a mass through time.  In my view, no observable -- being a frozen instantaneous 3-space snapshot -- exists continuously in time, but only RECURS CONTINUALLY in the continual iterative application of the d/dt observation process.

 

I also fault any theory which continues the "separate force acting on a separate mass" non sequitur.  If we accept the definition of force as identically the time rate of change of momentum --- of F => d/dt(mv) --- then mass is a component of force.  The "force" consists of the massless causal field (4-space entity) prior to observation, interacting with a previous "frozen point" observable (m).  Feynman understood, of course, that the force field does not really exist in mass-free space, but only the "potential" for a force, should a unit point charge (with mass) be made available and interacting with the field).  So he had the essence of this part.  But in mechanics, the global teaching of the "separate force acting on a separate mass" is still a non sequitur.

 

There are many other foundations difficulties, and no one has the solution to all of them!  The solutions to a few are, I believe, available.

 

What I recommend is needed is a "Manhattan style" rework of the very foundations of physics, adequately funded, and with our best and brightest (some of whom may be bright-eyed newcomers with deep thinking minds).

 

I expect that more scientific progress could be made in five years with such a program, than all our national laboratories will make in the next decade.

 

The beauty of using the mechanism that generates the "rate of flow of time" is that it is engineerable on the bench.  One is able to generate the reaction equations, e.g., for the production of the excess deuterium, excess tritium, and alpha particles in cold fusion.  These are transmutations at low spatial energy (but very high time energy).

 

When addressing fundamental issues, it is often helpful to think in terms of a physics model using only a single fundamental unit.  Since I work in novel energy systems, I particularly prefer the model where the joule is the only fundamental unit.  Mass then becomes a total function of energy (which is comfortable to everyone, since the dawn of the nuclear age and E = mc(2)  But the fact that time (the second) is also now totally a function of energy, seems startling to most, who still think of time as a "mysterious river" down which we float.  It isn't that at all.

 

In my favored model, time has the same energy density as mass.  One takes some EM spatial energy, e.g., and compresses it by the factor c-squared.  If one leaves that compressed energy in 3-space, it is known as mass.  If one moves it over to the fourth axis and places it there, the only variable in ict is the t.  So it becomes "time".  In that view, one second is some 9 x 10exp(16) joules of compressed spatial energy.

 

From that, consider a photon, which is a piece of energy welded to a piece of time, so to speak.  The present "high energy" photon is really the photon with the "highest spatial energy" component.  That is of course the high frequency photon.  But the low frequency photon has far higher TOTAL energy, if the time-energy component's spatial energy equivalency is considered.

 

Hence the present "high energy physics" featuring high frequency photons is quite puerile compared to low frequency photons and their extraordinarily high EM energy.

 

The importance of cold fusion is that it uses a bit of that time-energy to achieve easily the nuclear transformations at low SPATIAL energy (but using a much higher total energy physics than the present high energy physicists know or use).

 

We will have all that in the book, plus the use of time-reversal zones to enable the use of that time-energy component.

 

However, let me point out that any model is just a model, and it is also known to be imperfect (by Godel's theorem and its proof, alone!).  So one must not worship a particular model, even one's own!  Each will come up short as additional phenomena are discovered.

 

Some of your cogent observations are very close to some other things I will have in the book, but cannot discuss presently.  As an example, we will nominate candidate mechanisms -- laboratory bench testable -- for the cause of the excess gravity holding the arms of the spiral galaxies together, and also for the excess negative gravity that is accelerating the observed expansion of the universe.  Then of course those will either be validated eventually, or refuted.  That is the way science progresses.  There is nothing wrong with proposing a hypothesis, just so long as one labels it that.  Then experiment decides whether it hit the mark or missed the boat.

 

In the future I will also have less time for answering correspondence, so wanted to get this to you while I had a little bit of time.  I very much encourage those who are thinking deeply about these areas, and particularly those who have more capability than I personally have.  It will take many persons, doing lots of thought and discovery, before we have the new science I think is trying to get born.  And one freely admits one advances such things on the shoulders of giants, such as Feynman, Wheeler, Hawking, Einstein, and many others. My own particular interest is in getting COP>1.0 EM power systems developed and onto the world market, and also getting a better type of medical therapy established along the lines pioneered by Priore, but never understood.  The rest I have to leave to others better versed than I am.  But physics is such a marvelous and broad field, and there are so many really great things now unfolding and possibilities envisioned, that it is a truly great time for the young physicist to be alive.  For the first time, I think, he or she has the opportunity to help develop a physics that will free us from the energy crisis forever, uplift those poor nations that will have to have cheap clean energy to ever have a good economy, and eventually provide the ships that take us to the other planets and perhaps even the stars.

 

So I may not see it in my lifetime being an old dog but the young ones can.  And hopefully will.

 

Very best wishes,

 

Tom Bearden

 

-----Original Message-----
From: A.J. Craddock [mailto:craddock@west.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 4:30 PM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: Fwd: note for Tom Bearden

 



 

Delivered-To: craddock@west.net
X-Originating-IP: [66.81.70.112]
From: "G. LoBuono" <globuo01@hotmail.com>
To: <webmaster@cheniere.org>
Subject: note for Tom Bearden
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:23:20 -0800
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Feb 2002 22:29:01.0324 (UTC) FILETIME=[005B64C0:01C1B5A7]

Dear Tom,

Your work on scalar energy and the broken symmetry of the dipole is much appreciated. I've read your writings and have referred them to others. You take a courageous stand. Never fear, there are thousands and thousands of others who both support and would defend you, and others like yourself! Surely, the people, as a whole would agree--if they only knew more.

Apparently, you disagree with Wheeler Feynman's absorber theory, in part. I think the Wheeler Feynman model was a breakthrough, but that the "half wave" in the absorber may be mistaken. Instead, the atom itself is probably composed of a more detailed variety of fractional wave functions, in a deeper dimensional (if not multiversal) sense. The dynamics of negative energy are important. To get others going on the subject, I mention the following:

One must remember that the entire energy condition of the universe is premised on faster than light transitions: whenever an electron changes energy levels it does so instantaneously--faster than light, and when electrons tunnel through a semiconductor [presumably because of "a negative cycle" relationship between the "mass" of beryllium, the dopant in the silicon, and a heavy atomic mass/event horizon (singularistic)] they do so instantaneously--also faster than light. Or, consider the Einstein Podolsky Rosen effect... In short the energy condition of the entire universe is premised on faster-than-light transitions, which, of course, are inherently multi-dimensional.


We may need to forget the old 20th century model of the atom, and, instead, think in terms of the depths of the nucleus as simply manifesting negative, or alternate-cycle Quantum Cosmological relationships (not "things," but relationships of a much greater, yet finer sort connecting all quanta through time).

>From such perspective (actually a multiplicity of perspectives), a black hole would be a kind of quantum, a discrete of sorts. As such, in conjunction with deeper dimensional negative energy (gravity) fluctuations, they would literally (and quantitatively) define the (negative energy flux) thinglessness of quanta/other quanta of the universe. Hence the idea of a negative cycle, a fractional wave function connectedness of fluctuations within all deeper "curvatures," or quanta of the universe. [one is minded of Hawking's tidal uncertainties within black holes--which would extend more deeply as negative energy fluctuations among similar quanta, i.e. all black holes/singularistic conditions (deeper dimensionality)]. This might suggest that the massless particles are actually extra-dimensional, inverted absorber functions of the "visible" increment between contiguous particles/universalities, in a sense--from the perspective of the atom as literally being multiversal.
(from a letter I wrote to Richard Boylan)

Also, the perspective above (essentially a kind of multiversal absorber theory of sorts), implies that the borrowing of deeper energy fluctuations from the vacuum would entail a kind of flipped dimensionality whenever the stress on flat space-time exceeds the old Einstein limit (a reversal of space and time, as is modeled to occur in black holes, but with mixed constraints---extra dimensionally reintegrated). As such, in a negative energy stretching of the fabric of space-time, the deeper borrowing of energy would inherently require a speeding of the time flow in the space-time immediately surrounding the deeper pull across space, i.e. in the case of a seemingly faster than light stretch across great distances of a Telsa-configured negative energy craft (see Bob Lazar's sports model, for example); also in the more basic use of electrogravity. To use negative energy would marginally speed the flow of time in the surrounding continuum. As such, the new negative energy technologies would pose one important risk---the speeding of time and depletion of the near-gravitational environment, i.e. the sun, and perhaps more.

This might seem a minor risk, yet, assuming that negative energy systems intrinsically relate to different types of gravities (corresponding to the deeper non-visible dimensionality--*this assumes one of Einstein's mistakes was to assume that there was but one kind of gravity), any Tesla system of the sort would marginally relate to the earth's iron core (a large, near-gravitic mass/also a capacitor). A global power system of the sort would thus affect the magnetic dynamics of the earth's iron core, possibly pulsing the planetary magnetic arcs further out into outer space--creating a risk to the containment of the earth's atmosphere. A global negative energy system would require the use of a countervailing electrogravity on a global scale--to contain any atmosphere loss. There might also be a risk of increased electon rain at the poles, which depletes ozone. We would probably do best to reduce to less than half the current global population in order to do such a thing more sustainably.

In short, up to this point I have gathered from various sources that the new physics (based on a quantum cosmological kind of black hole/white hole dynamic, in one sense) is more an integration of multiple effects, rather than a linear physic of forces. If such is the case, your mention that the virtual photon "bullet strikes" that accrue to manifest the observable photon (near a broken dipole) may actually be a kind of absorber function relating to a tiny, negative energy fluctuation-hyperspace in between deeper dimensions of the virtual continuum.

--George