Re: HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed??
From: zzbunker (jimhunter1_at_comcast.com)
Date: 03/28/05
- Next message: PD: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Previous message: BH Bomb: "New earth quake, now on Easter, same place as on Christmas, is Jesus telling us something?"
- In reply to: Bohl: "HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:50:41 -0500
Bohl wrote:
> People are subject to make mistakes. Dr. Bearden may be wrong in
> the past but he has learned and as a result created a masterpiece.
> In this message is the first 25 pages of his worldwide
> bestselling "Energy from the Vacuum" book beng crazed over by
> European scientists which is also available for free (from 1-74
> pages of the 997 pages book) at
But was very previously known, though.
Physicists and magnets, are like chemists and hydrogen.
Both are stupid enough to believe that hydrogen energy
is different from Lithium energy, since they
are inseparable morons. Both are stupid enough
to believe that DNA is a mathematical code.
Both are stupid enough to believe that Dr is something
more than an honorary title conferred upon Jesuits.
>
> http://www.cheniere.org/books/efv/Chapter_1.pdf
>
> This message is shared for scrutiny and to encourage those located
> in hidden corners of the world with no direct internet to check
> the free Chapter 1 above as well as for quotation purposes when
> replying and addressing the possible fallacies in bearden's
> hypotheses. Many great scientists like Einstein, Feynman seek to
> know the answers and Bearden is just suggesting the answers many
> asked. Therefore let us treat Bearden as just an advanced student
> of physics and subject to mistakes as well as making sense at
> times and giving out wonderful insights at least.
>
> In our attempt in the coming years to unravel the hidden richness
> of electromagnetism, let us treat Bearden as just one material
> for reference and ensure we avoid the same pitfalls that may have
> befallen some of the wrong concepts he has made or may be making.
But the richness of electromagnetism has already
revealed by Maxwell, rather than by idiots like Feynmann.
Who believe that Quantum computers, Einstein refereed papyrus,
and Cantor\..... crap, are somehow pico-mysteriously anti-different
than mathematics.
What
> the mistakes are and what the theoretically possible ones are are
> what we are here to figure out. Should we found out Dr. Bearden
> is intentionally giving out false information or disinformation
> then we (or I) would construct an anti-bearden web site informing
> people of his motive. But before judging him. Let us judge his
> work first (note: there are many independent researchers
> unraveling the hidden richness of electromagnetism and Bearden
> is not representative of them so if he is wrong 90%, it doesn't
> mean there is no hope to learn the truth)
>
> Starting 1-25 pages quote from Dr. Bearden "Energy from the
> Vacuum" (1-75 pages are available free at his web site mentioned
> above) which is in demand in many scientific establishments
> around the world.
>
> Dr. Bearden, a future Nobel laureate (?) wrote:
>
> Chapter 1 Foundations and Scientific Mindset
>
> "...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which
> he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever
> is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his
> concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more
> exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something
> obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value
> of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to
> be doubted. ...in the interests of science it is necessary over
> and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental
> concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by
> them." [Albert Einstein]{1}
>
> 1.1 Introduction Einstein's quote is a beautiful statement that
> scientists should never take the present understanding - and the
> present models - as absolute. That is the approach the present
> author has taken for some 30 years, in a struggle to comprehend
> that class of electromagnetic (EM) systems that are open systems
> in disequilibrium in their virtual photon energy exchange with
> the active vacuum, and exhibiting a broken symmetry in that
> exchange. The statement beautifully expresses that the major
> problems encountered in grappling with such EM systems have been
> the existing errors and nonsequiturs in classical electrodynamics
> and other parts of physics. Many difficulties have resulted from
> the continued propagation of a 137-year old classical
> electrodynamics model formed before electrons, atoms, nuclei,
> positrons, the active vacuum, special and general relativity,
> quantum mechanics, etc. were discovered or known.
>
> 1.1.1 EM Foundations Are Incomplete and Contain Errors In any
> model, there are many assumptions. Even when a model is
> wellfitted and well-developed, it still applies only when the
> foundations assumptions on which it is based are true or are not
> too much in error. Whenever one or more of the fundamental
> assumptions is violated by phenomena uncovered, then there is a
> new class of phenomena where the model does not hold, or does not
> hold well and is only an approximation at best. In that case,
> either the existing unsatisfactory model must be improved and
> advanced, or a new model must be constructed.
>
> Great scientific minds continue to point out Einstein's beautiful
> principle in different words. E.g., expressing the thought of
> Stephen Hawking, one of the great physicists of our day:
>
> "All we ever know is our models, but never the reality that may
> or may not exist behind the models and casts its shadow upon us
> who are embedded inside it. We imagine and intuit, then point the
> finger and wait to see which suspect for truth turns and runs.
> Our models may get closer and closer, but we will never reach
> direct perception of reality's thing-in-itself." [As stated by
> George Zebrowski] {2}.
>
> Excellent scientists - Feynman, Wheeler, Bunge, Evans, Barrett,
> and many others - have indeed pointed out that classical EM
> theory is seriously flawed. In the words of Bunge {3}:
>
> "...it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both
> classical and quantal, are in a sad state."
>
> The author also found it imperative to return to many of the
> original seminal papers of physics, particularly in
> electrodynamics. The major concepts in those papers led to the
> present classical EM model. This was particularly true of the
> work of Poynting {4a, 4b} and Heaviside {5a-5c}, who
> independently and simultaneously arrived at the notion of the
> flow of EM energy through space5. Their work occurred in the
> 1880s, after Maxwell was already deceased. It also necessitated
> reviewing Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside
> equations, where Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all permissible
> COP>1.0 Maxwellian systems.
>
>
> (footnote 5 As we shall point out later, the concept of energy
> flowing through 3-space is a non sequitur and requires
> substantial revision today, to be consistent with the nature of
> observation and the fact that no observable continuously
> persists. Any observation is an instantaneous frozen 3-space
> "snapshot" at a single instant, gone the next instant when almost
> immediately replaced by another such frozen snapshot. In between
> observations, not mass but masstime exists. The same is true for
> 3-space, which only exists as the output of an observation
> process. Prior to observation, spacetime exists.)
>
> The science of this "EM energy flow through space" is
> controversial to this day. Which is the real "EM energy flow
> vector" as such has never been adequately resolved, and there
> continue to be polite debates about it {6}. One should also be
> aware that physicists really do not know what many things -
> including energy - are. The definitions of these fundamentals are
> still uncertain, as stated rather poignantly by Feynman {7} in
> this quote:
>
> "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no
> knowledge of what energy is."
>
> As another fundamental example, Feynman {8} also pointed out that
> we really do not know what force is6 either! Quoting:
>
> "One of the most important characteristics of force is that it
> has a material origin, and this is not just a definition. ... If
> you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get
> it!"
>
> 1.1.2 Physics Is Not the Mathematics, But What It Manipulates
> Following Feynman's ansatz, one should realize that the physics
> is not really in the mathematics itself, but in the physical
> meaning of the concepts that the mathematics manipulates. Here
> again, the inimitable Feynman {9} cautioned against
> over-attachment to the mathematics itself. He said it very
> clearly:
>
>
>
> (footnote 6 The problem is the ubiquitous and erroneous use of a
> "separate" force acting on a "separate" mass. Actually mass is a
> component of force, as can be seen from F .. d/dt(mv). Hence
> there is no such thing as a separate force in empty space, acting
> upon a mass. Instead, the massless 4-field in space acts upon
> mass to produce force in that interaction. Force is not a cause,
> but an effect of an ongoing interaction - as is any observable.
> An observable is a continuing series of frozen 3-space LLL
> snapshot entities given by the result of continual application of
> ../..t (LLLT) .. LLL by photon emission. The formation of the
> LLLT (spacetime and masstime) in between observed m as LLL, is
> produced by photon absorption of the previous m = ../..t (LLLT).)
>
>
> "Mathematicians or people who have very mathematical minds, are
> often led astray when "studying" physics because they lose sight
> of the physics. They say: "Look, these differential equations -
> the Maxwell equations - are all there is to electrodynamics it is
> admitted by the physicists that there is nothing which is not
> contained in the equations. The equations are complicated, but
> after all they are only mathematical equations and if I
> understand them mathematically inside out, I will understand the
> physics inside out." Only it doesn't work that way.
> Mathematicians who study physics with that point of view - and
> there have been many of them - usually make little contribution
> to physics and, in fact, little to mathematics. They fail because
> the actual physical situations in the real world are so
> complicated that it is necessary to have a much broader
> understanding of the equations."
>
> Such matters and similar thoughts had bothered me even back in
> the early 1950s, when I could not find a single professor or
> dictionary of physics that logically defined a field or a
> potential. Considered rigorously, the definitions all fell apart
> and violated elementary logic. Improper, insufficient, or just
> plain wrong definitions in physics have continued and are still
> widespread to this day. To give a single example from an
> excellent book by Kraus {10}: On p. 60, Kraus gives the formula
> for a potential referred to as the "absolute potential" of a
> charge source. Quoting:
>
> "This potential... is, by definition, the work per coulomb required
> to bring a positive test charge from infinity to the point r1."
>
> Kraus erroneously "defines" the scalar potential identically as
> work, which is equating the cause with the effect. The work that
> dissipating a potential does or can do, is not the potential
> itself! Else "human" means nothing but how well one can chew
> one's food or drive an automobile. Actually, Kraus gives one
> theoretical way to measure or calculate the effect of the
> potential's local intensity at a point.7 Note that what is
> measured is the energy diverted from the potential at that point,
> around that test charge. This does not specify the entity (the
> potential itself) at all, but only what has been diverted from
> it. It is rather like confusing the whirlpool (water diverged
> from the normal river flow) in a river as being the river itself.
>
> (footnote 7 To show the non sequitur, a million more positive
> test point charges could be brought from infinity to that same
> point, and the potential - without any change in it - would cause
> the same amount of work to be done upon each of those charges. As
> can be seen, even noted professors can speak rather casually when
> they "define" the potential's point intensity as "the" potential
> (which extends over all space, not just at that one point). There
> may be different intensities at different points in the
> potential, but the potential itself remains one-and-the-same
> thing regardless of which one or all of the point intensities are
> discussed. And neither the point intensity of the potential nor
> the potential is the work that is done upon a moving charge by
> that potential or its intensity.)
>
> Integrating what has been diverted from it does not yield the
> potential itself! At best, the measurement gives an indication of
> the intensity of the potential at a point, insofar as its
> reaction with charge is concerned. More rigorously, what is being
> utilized is the potential's reaction cross section presented to a
> unit point static charge at that point. The same unit point
> charge, if placed in particle resonance, will sweep out more
> geometrical area and exhibit a greater reaction cross section.
> That will increase the energy collected divergence of the energy
> flow that is being moved around the particle itself. By normal
> calculations, the resonant charge may collect some 18 times as
> much energy as is possible at the same point by the same charge
> in static mode - e.g., as shown by Bohren {24, 25}.
>
> A definition must present an identity. Examining the proposed
> definition as "the potential is identically ... work" one sees the
> problem immediately. The potential exists whether or not there is
> a positive test charge, or whether one moves such a charge in
> from infinity or not, and whether there is any work done or not.
> None of that is what a potential identically is, but only one
> aspect of what it does or can do or can cause. One leaves as an
> exercise for the reader the task of further examining
> dictionaries of physics and textbooks, to try to find a
> satisfactory definition of that common scalar potential.8 We do
> not believe the reader will find it.
>
> (footnote 8 The scalar potential identically is actually a
> harmonic set of phase conjugate longitudinal EM wavepairs, as
> shown by E. T. Whittaker in 1903 {85}. Even Whittaker, however,
> misinterpreted his wavepairs only after interaction with that
> ubiquitous unit point charge assumed at every point in space. He
> gave two effects of that interaction, not the cause (which exists
> prior to interaction) and the effect (which exists only after
> interaction). Reinterpreting to get at the causal wave, each
> wavepair is a matched set of two waves; an incoming EM
> longitudinal wave in the time domain prior to interaction with a
> charge, and - after the time-energy wave is absorbed by the
> charge, an emitted outgoing EM longitudinal EM wave in 3-space.
> The so-called "static" potential is not static at all, but is a
> dynamic, ongoing 4-space process. This follows the
> re-interpretation by the present author {12} of Whittaker's
> decomposition - a reinterpretation then found to be consistent
> with quantum field theory {19} and with broken symmetry of
> opposite charges in particle physics {73}.)
>
> Yet any good textbook will also contain some real gems of great
> insight, simply said. As an example from Serway {11}, we
> eventually took a most marvelous cue, of how to get around
> classical thermodynamics' prohibition against heat energy
> "running uphill" from hot to cold. In an insightful statement,
> Serway said {11}:
>
> "The second law [of thermodynamics] does not rule out the
> possibility of pushing heat uphill, as it were, from a cold
> object to a hot one, or of creating order out of disorder. It
> merely states that such a reversal of the natural flow requires
> an influx of energy..."
>
> (footnote 9 Now notice what Serway's statement means with respect
> to the classical thermodynamics "definition" of closed system.
> Thermodynamics defines a closed system as one in which mass is
> not exchanged across its boundary, but energy can be. That
> definition permits a closed system to receive excess energy from
> its active environment, and thereby reduce its entropy. A
> specific example is simply potentializing a circuit, prior to
> movement of the current. Hence the entropy of a closed system
> does not necessarily increase, but may decrease or increase if
> the system is in disequilibrium (difference in energy received
> from its active environment and energy escaping back to the
> active environment from the system. For the same system, if
> energy exchanges across its boundary equally in both directions,
> the system is said to be in "equilibrium" with respect to
> external energy exchange. One must be very careful in
> interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics! One has a
> very different "closed thermodynamic system" when it is in energy
> exchange disequilibrium, than when it is in energy exchange
> equilibrium. Equilibrium is the condition of maximum entropy. For
> substantial disequilibrium condition, entropy cannot be computed,
> but is less than the entropy of the same system in equilibrium.
> The entire ansatz of thermodynamics may be violated once
> time-energy is transduced into internal EM energy inside the
> system. That is a fundamental disequilibrium, performed by every
> charge in the universe. Hence of necessity we have advanced and
> utilized new definitions of "open system" and "closed system"
> in
> our approach in this book, as discussed in the Appendix.)
>
> This essentially states the law of entropy, where to reverse
> entropy (disorder), one must apply ordering (energy).9 We also
> note that the original concept of entropy was as dissipation of
> potential. There are of course different ways to apply the
> energy, and it need not be by the operator himself. Chapters 4,
> 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the present book give some unusual ways. A
> special paper {12} published by the author in 2000 gives another.
> Indeed, when the flow of time is predominantly reversed, so is
> the "entropy" of a situation, since the "videotape is running
> backward", so to speak. In that case, the entire classical
> thermodynamics must be extended to essentially include its own
> opposite. The making of a small timereversal zone where such
> things happen is as simple as involving a predominance of
> antiphoton interactions with the charged particles in that zone,
> rather than a predominance of photon interactions. What we are
> saying is that the notion of irreversibility in thermodynamics is
> not necessarily absolute. It usually assumes a "time forward"
> situation, and may not hold in a "time-reversed" situation. In
> our chapter on cold fusion, we will present some specific and
> quite startling nuclear interactions that occur as a result of
> the time reversal of the coulomb barrier (repulsion of like
> charges in a forward time situation) into a coulomb attraction
> between like charges in a time-reversal zone and time-reversed
> situation.
>
> If Serway's statement were reversed, it would then be a statement
> of the law of negentropy. It would state that self-ordering
> (i.e., freely receiving energy from the active environment) in a
> system could indeed "push heat uphill from a cold object to a hot
> one", and the system could simultaneously emit energy in the
> process. Every charge does it!
>
> We did find it necessary to correct the classical thermodynamic
> definitions of "open system" and "closed system". To define a
> closed system as closed only to mass transfer, but open to energy
> transfer, is a gross non sequitur. Since general relativity was
> published in 1915, energy and mass are known to be the same thing
> (mass is just a special form of energy), hence the term
> "mass-energy" (mass as energy) in physics. Whenever energy
> crosses the boundary of a system, the system's mass changes and
> mass (or certainly mass change) has also crossed that boundary.
> Indeed, as we shall point out, in 1917 Hilbert specifically
> pointed out that in general relativity there can be no energy
> conservation equations of the kind usually employed elsewhere.
> The fact that general relativity falsifies much of the present
> foundations of classical thermodynamics seems to have been either
> ignored or missed by most of the scientific community, although
> we will quote leading Russian scientists who have noticed it and
> are aware of it.
>
> The reader is thus warned that, henceforth, when we use "open
> system" we mean one where either energy or mass or both exchanges
> across the system boundary. When we use "closed system" we mean
> one in which neither energy nor mass exchanges across the
> boundary. In short, the notion of a "closed system" has been
> redefined into what classical thermodynamics calls an "isolated
> system". We already know from particle physics and the active
> vacuum (and from general relativity and the change of spacetime
> curvature with every change of spatial energy or mass-energy),
> and from the giant negentropy involving time energy transduced
> into 3-space energy and vice versa, that there is no such thing
> in all the universe as a truly closed system. In Appendix A, we
> have discussed how extension and change to classical
> thermodynamics must be made. We do this by extending the first
> law, refuting any absoluteness of the second law and third law,
> dealing with the zeroth law in a new way, etc. We also urge the
> better theoreticians to reexamine classical thermodynamics along
> such lines, to modernize and upgrade it. We believe that the
> present scientific work to extend thermodynamics so it fits those
> situations now known to violate it should include additional
> considerations such as we present in Appendix A. In short, with
> the new definitions Serway clearly states the difference between
> classical equilibrium thermodynamics, where no excess energy from
> the environment is received, and the thermodynamics of systems
> far from equilibrium with their active environment (using the new
> definition of open system for clarity), in which case excess net
> energy from the environment can be received and used in
> electromagnetic systems, providing COP>1.0 systems or even COP =
> .. systems. The windmill, sailboat, and waterwheel are age-old
> examples of disequilibrium systems where of course the energy of
> mass in motion is what is transduced. It is our objective in this
> book to point out the use of electromagnetic systems in energetic
> disequilibrium with their active environment (the active vacuum
> and curved spacetime) to provide just such negentropy.
>
> 1.1.3 Time Is Energy and Must Be Considered As Such In a physics
> model, one's choice of fundamental units is arbitrary.10 As an
> example, in one type of physics only a single fundamental unit -
> length - is employed. All other entities then become functions of
> length.
>
> We are also free to choose the joule as the single fundamental
> unit in our physics model. The result that mass is a function of
> energy is now familiar and quite accepted, by the famous formula
> E = mc2. Indeed, as can be seen, in that equation mass and energy
> are one and the same thing, since c2 is a dimensionless constant.
> However, in our new model time becomes a function of energy
> similarly, and thus time is identically energy.
>
> Let us perform a thought experiment. Suppose we take some spatial
> EM energy in 3-space, and compress it by the factor c2. What can
> we do with it? If we leave it there in 3-space, it is known as
> "mass". If we place it on the fourth Minkowski axis ict, it is
> known as time because t is the only variable on that axis, and
> the only "place we can set it".
>
> So to first order, time has the same energy density as mass.
> Multiplying an amount of time t (in seconds) by c2 gives the
> decompressed spatial energy E that the time t will transduce
> into. In short, E = tc2 also.
>
> (footnote 10 E.g., see Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd
> Edition, Wiley, 1975, p. 811- 812; ibid., 3rd Edition, 1998, p.
> 775. Jackson wryly remarks on how much excess heat and passion
> have been unnecessarily expended on that subject.)
>
> Now we notice what special relativity has to say about the
> relationship between time-energy and mass-energy. When the
> mass-energy increases (e.g., as a function of velocity), time
> "dilates" or "decreases". In other words (hint), there is a sort
> of special new extension to the conservation of energy law: If
> mass (3-space) gains some 3-spatial energy, then time loses some
> time-energy. Since time is spatial EM energy compacted by c2,
> then the relativistic energy changes in the time domain are
> enormously greater than the corresponding relativistic changes in
> spatial energy in the photon. To the external 3-space observer,
> this is the injection of negentropy with respect to the present
> 3-spatial conservation of energy law. In the reverse case (as
> when the object reduces its velocity), if mass (3-space) loses
> some energy, then time gains some time because the time dilation
> reduces - i.e., time contracts or densifies (less time has more
> energy). To the observer, this is the production of entropy with
> regard to 3-space energy conservation. Yet the observer misses
> the fact that, accompanying entropy in 3-space is negentropy in
> time energy on the 4th Minkowski axis, and vice versa.
>
> We believe this to be a rather dramatic extension to the previous
> concept of entropy in thermodynamics. We get 3-space entropy in
> physical processes only by gaining 4th dimensional negentropy
> accordingly. One can thus appreciate the impact upon the entire
> subject of thermodynamics, once time-energy is accounted and the
> new interplay of entropy and negentropy are accounted. We believe
> that this mechanism may involve the fundamental mechanism for
> both entropy and negentropy. Neither is produced alone; both are
> always produced in tandem. This of course is not what we
> "observe" since all observation is 3-spatial. Hence to observe
> the system and see 3-space entropy or negentropy is to hide the
> simultaneous 4th dimensional negentropy or entropy that
> unobservably accompanied the observable that we did see.
>
> Again we call attention to the original meaning of entropy: the
> dissipation of potential (i.e., potential energy).
>
> Once we understand that time is a special form of energy (we
> discuss this shortly), we may input the energy required to "move
> heat energy backwards" - i.e., we may directly engineer
> negentropy - by transducing some time-energy into 3-spatial
> energy. We can do it easily by time reversal, and every charge in
> the universe does it already. On the other hand, we can do it by
> breaking the symmetry of time-energy flow - which is as simple as
> forming a little dipole. The broken symmetry of unlike charges -
> and therefore the dipole - was discovered by Lee and Yang
> {13a-13c}, who strongly predicted it in 1956. Wu et al. {14}
> confirmed it experimentally in early 1957. This was such a
> revolutionary change to physics that Lee and Yang were awarded
> the Nobel Prize in the same year, 1957 - an almost unprecedented
> action.
>
> Its broken symmetry tells us that the dipole's unlike charges
> continuously absorb virtual photon energy from the active vacuum,
> transduce it into real observable energy, and pour out real,
> observable EM energy in all directions in 3-space. That puts an
> entirely different perspective on what really powers every
> dipolar EM circuit; i.e., what produces the flow of energy
> pouring from the terminals of every generator and battery,
> filling all space around the external circuit and its conductors.
> The EM energy pouring from the generator or the battery is not
> due to the generator outputting some of its own available
> internal energy (from the shaft energy input to the generator,
> transduced into magnetic field energy inside the generator, and
> then dissipated to separate the charges and form the source
> dipole between the generator terminals) or the battery
> transducing and outputting some of its available chemical energy
> (which is only dissipated inside the battery to separate the
> internal charges and form the source dipole between the battery
> terminals). We will explain that later, and explain how any
> dipole or charge simply pours out real, observable energy
> continuously in all directions, without any observable input of
> energy. The input energy is there, but it is in unobservable
> (virtual) form.
>
> In 1971 while a graduate student at the Georgia Institute of
> Technology, I realized the mechanism that generates the "passage
> of time" insofar as the observer is concerned {15}. With a little
> more work, this gave the clue in the 1990s for the mechanism
> generating little momentary time-reversal zones (TRZs) {16} in
> the electrolyte utilized in cold fusion experiments. Hence we
> proposed the use of little time-reversal zones forming
> momentarily in the electrolyte after loading of the palladium
> lattice of the electrodes with hydrogen or deuterium. Such
> time-reversal zones can form in the region of excessive positive
> charge accumulation, since positive charge can be said to receive
> negative EM energy from the time domain and output negative EM
> energy in 3-space.
>
> This led to uncovering an entire class of new nuclear reactions -
> fusion reactions at low spatial energy but high temporal energy -
> in these little temporary time-reversal zones (TRZs), in which
> like charges attract and unlike charges repel {17}, followed by
> rapid decay of the TRZs where the normal law of attraction and
> repulsion is restored again.
>
> In theory, a fermion cannot be time-reversed because the Pauli
> exclusion principle prohibits it. However, a boson can be
> time-reversed, so fermions can be time-reversed in pairs, where
> each pair acts as a quasi-boson. The TRZ completely overcomes and
> reverses the "coulomb barrier" between a pair of like fermion
> charges.11
>
> As an example, two deuterium ions in a little TRZ would
> momentarily form a quasi-nucleus of helium, since the two
> positive deuterons are attracted so closely that each enters the
> strong force region of the other. At the same time, the strong
> force is weakened by the partial time reversal of the gluon
> forces, so that the quarks are nearly freed. As the other ions in
> the surrounding solution then move to destroy the momentary
> timereversal zone, their movement forces the TRZ to decay back to
> a timeforward zone - with the decay action starting from every
> point in spacetime inside the nucleons themselves12. The TRZ
> decay-induced action thus strikes the nearly freed quarks first,
> and decay can occur by easy quark flipping while the gluon forces
> are still much reduced and not back to normal strength. Hence as
> the gluon forces return toward normal, the quasi-nucleus decays
> by the strong force increasing and overpowering and drawing the
> quasi-nucleus into a full-blown helium ion - i.e., an alpha
> particle -flipping the partially-freed quarks as necessary to do
> so (that is not necessary in equation [1] below.
>
> During decay of the TRZ, the weakened strong force grows much
> more rapidly than the Coulomb force zeroes and then increases.
> Consequently, the quasi-nucleus of two D+ ions merely draws
> together due to the rapidly increasing strong force, forming an
> alpha particle without quark flipping. Four H+ ions - four
> protons - in a quasi-nucleus in a TRZ will undergo quark flipping
> twice when the TRZ decays, thereby resulting in an alpha
> particle.). So that explained the anomalous formation of the
> alpha particles in the experiments. The interaction for two ions
> of deuterium is given by: 2H1^+ + 2H1^+ . 4He2^++ [1]
>
> (footnote 11 In a TRZ, the law of attraction and repulsion of
> charged particles is reversed. footnote 12 Any moment in time
> exists everywhere simultaneously throughout the universe. In
> short, time is a multiple connection in 3-space. Hence in any
> time-reversal zone (a TRZ) where time is reversed, then starts
> fading away and back to a time-forward zone (TRZ), the changes
> induced by the "fading back to TFZ" simultaneously involve every
> point in the 3-space of that TRZ that is changing (decaying). An
> easy change is quark flipping, since the quarks are almost freed
> in the TRZ to begin with. The reason the reaction proceeds in
> that direction is that the recovery of the strong force is much
> faster than the restoring of normal electrical repulsion, hence
> the quasi-nucleus is drawn further together into a full nucleus,
> constituting a legitimate nuclear transmutation at low spatial
> energy but high time-energy.)
>
> This interaction between two deuterons in solution does not occur
> in a normal time-forward zone because of the coulomb barrier
> preventing the two deuterons from entering each other's strong
> force region and acting as a quasi-nucleus of helium, so particle
> physicists have missed it. It does exist in a time-reversal zone;
> such zones form and then decay back into normal time-forward
> zones. This is possible because the coulomb barrier is
> momentarily reversed. The use of such TRZs in particle physics
> opens up thousands of new nuclear reactions, all at low 3-spatial
> energy, but involving very high time-energy. Because of the
> extreme energy density of time, these time-energy-induced
> reactions are actually much higherenergy reactions than
> high-energy physicists presently consider and utilize! Indeed, it
> opens up a new kind of far more energetic "high energy physics".
>
> Cold fusion experimenters have unwittingly opened a window upon a
> vast new particle physics, previously overlooked by our
> scientists because they have disregarded the use of time-energy,
> time reversal zones, and transmutation of time-energy into
> 3-spatial energy in their nuclear reactions. However, a few
> physical theorists attempting to better explain particle physics
> have recognized the importance of the time domain, and probing
> work in that respect is occasionally done {18}. In our view, it
> is not accidental that more than 600 successful cold fusion
> experiments have been obtained, by a variety of researchers in
> many labs in several nations. We strongly suggest that much of
> the conventional physics community has firmly placed its
> collective head in the sand, and is refusing to grapple with the
> startling new time-energy physics that is being initiated by cold
> fusion research.
>
> In 1999 (published in 2000) {12} we finally discovered a great
> new symmetry in EM energy flow, whereby time-energy flow symmetry
> and 3-space energy flow symmetry are each individually broken,
> while an overlooked and more fundamental 4-symmetry energy flow -
> between the time-domain and 3-space - is sustained. The result is
> that all EM energy in 3-space comes from the time domain locally
> and returns to the time domain locally, in a giant negentropic
> circulation.13 Together by the discovery of relevant quantum
> field theory work by Mandl and Shaw {19}, this now lends strong
> support to the use of time-energy in physics as a practical
> matter for strenuous investigation.
>
> (footnote 13 This is also understandable from the implications of
> the observation process, which yields a frozen 3-space snapshot
> existing only at a single instant. Thus any 3- space energy
> existing there in that frozen instant, had to just come from
> 4-space (from the time-domain via the giant negentropy process,
> if we take the view that "the past exists only in time itself".).
> For the frozen snapshot to "change", time must be added to it,
> which converts it to a 4-space process again. So the "3-spatial"
> observed energy must come from an immediately previous 4-space
> process, and must return to an immediately following 4-space
> process. )
>
> As an example, Mandl and Shaw {19} treat the four polarizations
> of the photon. Neither the longitudinal nor the scalar photon is
> directly observable, but in the presence of charge the two are
> observable in combination, where they manifest as the
> "instantaneous" Coulomb (i.e., electrostatic) potential. This
> argument, translated from particle terminology to wave
> terminology, directly fits our re-interpretation {12} of
> Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential {85}. For
> the combining mechanism of the fields of the photons, we must
> account for the field as a ubiquitously assumed interaction with
> the detecting/observing unit point charge. Thus we must account
> for the absorption of the incoming time-polarized wave or photon,
> the transduction of that excitation energy of the charge into
> longitudinal EM wave/photon energy, and subsequent emission of
> that excitation energy in 3-space. That is what happens for a
> negative charge. For the positive charge, the process is
> time-reversed, hence occurs in opposite fashion. Or as an
> alternative, the positive charge can be said to continuously
> receive negative time-energy from the time domain and emit
> negative spatial EM energy.14
>
>
>
>
> (footnote 14 As we will find in our chapter on antigravity, there
> is good reason to treat the positive charge as a source of
> negative energy and negative energy fields. However, this is
> pertinent only prior to observation of the charge, while it is
> still a 4-spatial unobserved negative energy electron entity. For
> the observable charge, one has already conjugated - after all,
> the positron is observed as if it were an electron going
> backwards in time, which we observe as an electron with its
> charge reversed and with parity reversal (of its spatial
> direction). For the observable charge, we have already reversed
> the negative energy fields into positive energy fields by simply
> reversing their direction and the time associated with the photon
> (quantum of the EM field).)
>
> There is an energy polarization transduction function of charge,
> whereby it transforms received time-polarized photon energy into
> emitted longitudinal photon energy in 3-space (for the negative
> charge, and vice versa, for a time-reversed positive charge).
> This transduction appears to have been overlooked in physics
> prior to our recognition of it. It can in fact be used to
> generate an acceptable definition of charge itself. Charge is the
> continuously active entity which performs that ongoing process or
> those ongoing processes of energy transduction between the time
> domain and 3- space (between the causal unobserved 4-space
> process and the observed 3space snapshot). Or in other words, it
> is an active process connecting 4- space cause and 3-space
> effect, and connecting the unobserved (such as virtual) to the
> observed (such as mass).
>
> So for a dipole, the "causal" time-polarized EM wave or photon as
> a 4- space entity comes to the dipole15 (3-spatial as observed)
> and is absorbed by the detecting negative charge or dipole, then
> is re-emitted as the longitudinally polarized EM wave or photon
> in 3-space. That absorption and remission is what charge does,
> since it is an entity for performing that process. The emitted
> energy in turn is absorbed by the nearby positive charge,
> retransduced into time-energy, and reemitted back to the time
> domain. This ongoing very special 4-space energy circulation
> (even with a virtual charge in the vacuum) is what a scalar
> potential identically is and is doing, at every spatial point of
> itself, inducing vacuum polarization and "point dipoles" in the
> virtual state in the process. Recognition of these missing
> functions allowed at last a solution to the long-vexing problem
> of the source charge and its associated fields and their energy,
> often called the most difficult problem in both quantum and
> classical electrodynamics {68}. We discuss that solution later.
>
> 1.1.4 The Search for COP>1.0 Circuits and Systems A very long
> search and much intense study and reflection eventually revealed
> the concepts and principles of those long-neglected
> disequilibrium Maxwellian systems that permissibly output more
> energy than the operator inputs. The active environment - not the
> operator - simply inputs the rest of the energy. Such
> disequilibrium systems are indeed permitted in Maxwell's theory
> {20}, and are also still prescribed by Heaviside's severe
> curtailment of it {21} into what is two vector equations with
> variables unseparated, rather than Maxwell's 20 equations in 20
> variables.
>
> (footnote 15 Prior to interaction of the incoming time-energy
> with the observable charge or dipole, it interacts with the
> virtual particles of the vacuum, generating vacuum polarization.
> Neither the virtual particles nor the time-energy are observable;
> only the effects of their conglomerate interactions with
> observable charges are observed. Hence one can take the particle
> view that virtual particle energy is continually absorbed, or one
> can also take a quantum field theory view that time-energy is
> continually absorbed. The two are always present in combination.)
>
> When Lorentz16 symmetrically regauged the Maxwell-Heaviside
> equations, he arbitrarily discarded the entire class of
> Maxwellian systems that are far from equilibrium in their
> exchange with their active (vacuum) environment. Lorentz revised
> (symmetrically regauged) the Maxwell- Heaviside equations to make
> them amenable to separation of variables and closed analytical
> solutions, thus reducing the onerous chore of numerical methods.
> This Lorentz symmetrical regauging is given in most EM textbooks
> {22}, and we show it in Chapter 2. The symmetrically regauged
> Lorentz equations are not Maxwell's equations, nor are they the
> truncation of Maxwell's theory by Heaviside et al. Considering an
> active environment, under our altered thermodynamics definitions
> Lorentz implicitly selected and retained only the equilibrium
> class of Maxwellian systems, while arbitrarily discarding the
> entire disequilibrium class. He thus discarded all those
> Maxwellian systems permitted to produce COP lying in the range
> 1.0 < COP .. ...
>
> Maxwell's electrodynamics is a material fluid flow theory and it
> assumes a material ether. Anything that fluid systems can do,
> electrodynamics systems can do, at least in theory, because their
> mathematical models are the same form. So when one cites known
> examples of fluid-driven physical systems where the energy to run
> the system is freely furnished by the active environment,
> analogous electrodynamic systems in active environments - and in
> disequilibrium exchange with that environment - must also exist
> in nature. Indeed, particle physics requires it and proves it.
> These are the very systems arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz
> symmetrical regauging in every university.
>
> So there exists a direct analogy between fluid systems and
> classical electromagnetic systems. The common windmill,
> waterwheel, and sailboat demonstrate by analogy that open EM
> systems far from equilibrium - powered by free EM "winds" and
> "energy flows" in the active vacuum environment - also exist in
> consonance with natural law. They are no more mysterious than a
> solar cell power system, which is after all a recognized "free
> energy" or "overunity" system, as is the humble charge (thought
> to be the source of all EM energy, fields, and potentials). In
> physics, the powering of systems by receipt and use of energy
> from their active environment leads directly to the
> thermodynamics of systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium in
> their energetic exchange with that active environment.
>
> (footnote 16 Actually first accomplished by Ludwig Valentin
> Lorenz in 1867, then by H. A. Lorentz much later. Lorentz was
> given the credit erroneously. Lorenz actually derived
> electromagnetic theory independently in his paper. See J. D.
> Jackson and L. B. Okun, "Historical roots of gauge invariance,"
> Rev. Mod. Phys, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680.)
>
>
> It follows that the seeming absence of such electrodynamic
> systems arises not because they are impossible but because
> present-day circuits and systems are ubiquitously designed to
> self-enforce an inherent energy equilibrium with their active
> vacuum environment. The closed-current loop circuit turned out to
> be the Lorentz self-regauging demon involved in destroying the
> COP>1.0 capabilities of every EM circuit. So little by little, we
> unraveled the long tedious trail of Maxwell's electrodynamics and
> what had happened to those missing Maxwellian-Heaviside systems
> far from equilibrium with the active vacuum.
>
> (footnote 17 For the discerning reader, of necessity we have
> revised the foundations of the ancient classical thermodynamics,
> as further discussed in Appendix A. We refer the reader to
> Bimalendu N. Roy, Fundamentals of Classical and Statistical
> Thermodynamics, Wiley, New York, 2002, and to any good book on
> the history of thermodynamics. Also particularly good is
> Kondepudi and Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines
> to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, Chichester, 1998, reprinted
> with corrections in 1999. The foundations of classical
> thermodynamics (and its fundamental definitions) were basically
> frozen prior to the advent of Maxwell's 1865 seminal theory, and
> well before the 1880s discovery (modeling) of the flow of EM
> force field energy through space. Some of the fundamental
> definitions of thermodynamics now will not withstand critical
> review in terms of "meshing" with the Heaviside/Poynting material
> fluid energy flow theory. Neither will they withstand the new
> concepts of energy such as mass-energy, timeenergy and
> transduction between time-energy and spatial energy by every
> charge. E.g., thermodynamics defines an open system as one that
> exchanges energy and mass with its surroundings. Yet it defines a
> closed system as one closed only to mass exchange, not to energy
> exchange. If the energy exchange is analogous to material energy
> flow and changes the mass of the system, then that definition of
> closed system is a non sequitur. From general relativity, mass is
> simply energy anyway, and so "mass" exchanging across the
> boundary of the system is actually energy exchanging, and vice
> versa. Since Maxwell's theory is a material fluid theory, the
> Poynting and Heaviside energy flow models are material fluid flow
> energy models by analogy. The specialized thermodynamics
> definition of closed system rigorously will not logically allow
> the exchange of "material fluid energy flow" (or energy as
> matter)) since it prohibits matter flow, but the specialized
> definition of open system would and does. In short, with respect
> to material fluid energy flow, the concept of the "closed system"
> in thermodynamics has forced itself to become the isolated system
> instead, which is unacceptable since we must model EM energy flow
> exchange between the environment and the system. So we must
> change the thermodynamic definitions of open system and closed
> system. Else there cannot be any EM energymass or mass-energy
> flow between environment and system, which totally violates what
> is well known to be happening in all EM systems. In modern
> physics, every charge and every dipole already have such energy
> exchange with the active vacuum environment, and it is never
> zero; instead, it is of enormously high magnitude. Without that
> exchange, as we advance in this book, there cannot even be a
> "source charge" or associated EM fields and potentials and their
> energy, reaching across space. In other words, without it we can
> have no electrodynamics at all. So we have uncovered a
> fundamental and major contradiction between classical
> thermodynamics and general relativity, as well as between
> thermodynamics and the "material EM fluid energy flow" model used
> in electrodynamics. What classical thermodynamics calls a "closed
> system" permitting energy flow exchange, we must now logically
> regard as an open system because it is open to energy exchange
> across the boundary! The previous notion of the isolated system -
> with no exchange of either energy or mass - is what we must treat
> as a truly closed system. And there is none such in the universe,
> as we know in particle physics (e.g., because of the discovery of
> broken symmetry in 1957 and because of the well known active
> vacuum exchange with every EM charge and dipole). So we have
> corrected these direct contradictions between "EM as a material
> fluid energy flow theory" and the old classical thermodynamics.
>
> As the reader will later see, this strongly affects our new
> definitions of efficiency and coefficient of performance. The new
> definitions we advance are rigorous, and they also apply to
> COP>1.0 EM systems, and even to self-powering (COP = ..) EM
> systems. They also hold for very novel new energy processes such
> as quantum potential energy in a multiply connected space,
> multiple retroreflections and re-use of the same energy,
> conversion between time energy and spatial energy, and 4-space
> giant negentropy energy flow circulation.
>
> But one can no longer be allowed to equate efficiency with
> coefficient of performance. Now they are never the same thing,
> just as a six-foot tall man and a six-foot tall doorway are never
> the same thing, even though they have the same height magnitude.
> We warn the reader that a great deal of thought and study must be
> put into appreciating these suddenly encountered changes to the
> quite old classical thermodynamics definitions. The changes are
> absolutely necessary. Bluntly put, in light of much more modern
> knowledge, a rigorous foundations analysis reveals the classical
> thermodynamics as well as disequilibrium thermodynamics to
> contain logical contradictions, such as its direct contradiction
> with general relativity and the EM material fluid energy flow
> theory. Either we give up or dramatically change the present EM
> energy flow theory, or we must make the necessary foundations
> changes to thermodynamics. We have chosen the latter option in
> this book, and the reader is forewarned of that dramatic change.
> The specific changes and rationale are discussed in Appendix A.)
>
> We learned how, where, and by whom those permissible overunity
> Maxwellian systems were discarded. That is, we found what
> happened to all those Maxwellian open disequilibrium systems -
> originally included in Maxwell's and Heaviside's theories - where
> such a system receiving and using excess energy from its active
> environment17 is permitted by the laws of physics,
> electrodynamics, and thermodynamics to: (1) self-order, (2)
> self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more energy than the
> operator inputs (the excess being freely received from the active
> environment), (4) power itself and its load simultaneously (all
> the energy being freely received from the active environment),
> and (5) exhibit negentropy.
>
> We vigorously pursued those long-lost Maxwellian systems, and we
> eventually found them. We also found real experiments {23, 24,
> 25, 26, 27, 28} and real devices {29a, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35a,
> 36a, 36b} that performed one or more of those fabulous five
> functions, though there was often no realization by the
> experimenters, inventors, and scientists of the actual mechanism
> involved. Eventually my colleagues and I were also able to
> produce a successful experimental device {37, 38a-38c, 39}, the
> motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG), which outputs more
> energy than we input to it. We cover the MEG in Chapter 7.
> Presently a cooperative research program is ongoing with the
> National Materials Science Laboratory of the National Academy of
> Sciences of a friendly foreign nation, to develop and market
> commercial power systems based on successful laboratory
> experiments with the MEG. At this writing, we are also strongly
> seeking the extensive funding required to set up a physics lab
> and complete the final research allowing production of power
> systems.
>
> 1.1.5 Additional Very Important Implications We also formally
> proposed {40} that the vast nondiverged EM energy flow component
> - Heaviside's "dark" nondiverged energy flow component,
> accompanying every reaction of a charge with a field or a
> potential, but arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz and modern
> classical electrodynamicists - is the generatrix for the extra
> gravity holding the arms of the spiral galaxies together, after
> all the dark matter is accounted.18
>
> (footnote 18 Heaviside himself recognized the gravitational
> implications of his extra component of energy flow, which is in
> closed circular loops. Beneath the floorboards of his little
> garret apartment, years after his death, handwritten papers were
> found where Heaviside used this component for a unified EM
> approach to gravitation. See E. R. Laithwaite, "Oliver Heaviside
> - establishment shaker," Electrical Review, 211(16), Nov. 12,
> 1982, p. 44-45. Laithwaite felt that Heaviside's postulation that
> a flux of gravitational energy combines with the (E..H)
> electromagnetic energy flux, could shake the foundations of
> physics. Quoting from Laithwaite: "Heaviside had originally
> written the energy flow as S = (E ..H) + G, where G is a
> circuital flux. Poynting had only written S = (E ..H). Taking p
> to be the density of matter and e the intensity of a
> gravitational force, Heaviside found that the circuital flux G
> can be expressed as pu .. ce, where u represents the velocity of
> p and c is a constant."
>
> In addition, my close colleague Bedini and I have filed a patent
> application upon a very special process to "freeze-frame and
> lock-in" a disequilibrium Maxwellian system in its otherwise
> far-from-equilibrium state, so the apparent disequilibrium
> operation of the system can be maintained stably as a new
> equilibrium condition. This appears to be a method to produce and
> utilize what Kondepudi and Prigogine refer to as a nonequilibrium
> stationary state. This stabilization is necessary in order for
> such a system to maintain its COP>1.0 excitation and steadily
> output more energy than the operator inputs, or to steadily power
> itself and its load {41}.
>
> We also found that COP>>1.0 EM systems (and some COP>1.0 systems)
> produce (as a function of the COP) a current of Dirac sea holes
> (positrons) in the local vacuum environment itself, from the
> output section back to the input section. At COP<1.0 and COP not
> too greatly above 1.0, a Dirac sea hole in the vacuum almost
> immediately interacts with an orbital electron in the material
> lattice of the system. This converts the negative energy,
> negative mass "vacuum hole or state" into a lattice hole, which
> is attached to the large positive mass of the ion left by the
> disappearance of the electron. This "lattice positron" type of
> problem has been known in semiconductor design for some decades.
> Normal EM circuits do not usually meet the phenomenon overtly
> because the semiconductor designers controlled it in the
> semiconductors themselves by use of appropriate donors and
> acceptors.
>
> There is a great difference between the actions of Dirac sea
> holes in the vacuum prior to observation, and lattice holes in
> materials (after observation). So there is a great difference
> between the action of a "positron" on spacetime before its
> interaction with mass and observation, and its action on
> spacetime after it interacts with mass and is observed.
>
> For COP>>1.0, significant phenomenology and novel effects occur
> because a substantial fraction of the Dirac sea holes (unobserved
> positrons) sweeping from output to input do not convert to
> lattice holes (observed and bound positrons) along the way. For
> substantial values of COP above 1.0, Bedini's invention (patent
> application filed by Bedini and the present author)19 covers the
> master process for intercepting and transducing this appreciable
> flow of negative energy from the output section back to the
> input. Otherwise, that flow - if not intercepted and not
> converted - will "eat" extra input electrons from the power
> supply, thus acting as a novel "extra load" appearing in the
> input section. That extra load then draws additional current and
> power from the external power supply by electronhole
> annihilation20.
>
> With the Bedini invention, the negative energy (unobserved
> positron) flow appearing at the input section is transduced into
> a flow of positive energy (a flow of electron current) from the
> input section back into the system. The process deliberately uses
> the "interaction and observation" process to phase conjugate the
> charge and reverse its direction of flow! In that case, the
> otherwise detrimental negative energy output back through the
> COP>1.0 system (which is nature's decay process for COP>1.0
> interactions) is changed to a beneficial positive energy input
> within the system itself, freely received from the vacuum
> environment. This process is then used to close-loop the system
> for self-powering in a "locked" and stabilized disequilibrium
> condition - a nonequilibrium stationary state. If we consider
> mass to be a special kind of positive energy state, then positive
> energy states represent curvatures of spacetime that are positive
> gravity. Negative energy states generate antigravity (the
> time-reversal of gravity).
>
> (footnote 19 Bedini personally discovered and implemented the
> solution before the exact nature of either the problem or the
> solution was recognized! My contribution was to recognize the
> nature of the problem and the mechanism used in the solution. We
> also stress that, contrary to conventional treatment, all EM
> circuits do involve not only lattice holes in the conductors and
> components, but also Dirac sea holes in the local vacuum. That
> the Dirac sea is involved whenever there are EM fields is clearly
> shown by Felix Finster, "Definition of the Dirac Sea in the
> Presence of External Fields," Adv. Theor. Math. Physics, Vol. 2,
> 1998, p. 963-985.
>
> footnote 20 With a proper change in the curvature of local
> spacetime, pair annihilation can occur with no accompanying
> photon radiation. The condition is that the part of the curvature
> of spacetime representing the energy change of the otherwise
> emitted radiation, does not "relax" even though it is an "excited
> state". Rigorously, the emission of the radiation from pair
> annihilation occurs in two steps: (i) first the local spacetime
> is curved for and by the energy excitation, as a static change of
> the curvature, and (ii) then that curvature relaxes back to its
> former value, propagating that specific curvature in space, which
> is recognized as the radiation propagating in space. If the
> spacetime curvature excitation does not relax, there is no photon
> emission and propagation.)
>
> Before their interaction and observation, the Dirac sea hole
> (positron) currents - produced in natural COP>1.0 processes in
> the universe - are still negative energy electrons in 4-space.
> They are not 3-positrons until interaction with matter has
> occurred. These "negative energy electrons" generate negative
> energy EM fields, including both the Poynting energy flow
> component and the Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component.
> These negative energy EM fields appear to be generating the
> antigravity whose effects are seen in the distant parts of the
> universe. They produce far more powerful effects than the
> accounted electrogravitation effects in astrophysics, which only
> uses the gravitational effects of the very much smaller Poynting
> energy flow component. Also, astrophysicists do not use the
> "positron before observation," when it is still a negative energy
> electron with negative mass. The accumulation of the negative
> energy (Dirac holes) in space (in the surrounding vacuum) is
> connected with massive objects and violent processes, where very
> strong gradients are produced.21 As a result, very large negative
> energy fields and potentials are produced. In turn, this results
> in cumulating antigravity. This cumulating and interacting
> antigravity appears to be the mechanism for the forces
> accelerating the expansion of the universe - rather than it
> decelerating as would be the case if the net gravity there were
> positive. In Chapter 8 we propose this explanation for the
> observed acceleration of the expanding universe - and the basis
> for the explanation can be and has been successfully demonstrated
> in a legitimate overunity EM circuit or system {42}. We offer
> this in honor of Heaviside, who first discovered the
> gravitational aspect of his huge nondiverged energy flow, but did
> not live to publish it. He also did not consider the Dirac sea
> prior to hole interaction with matter, as it was not yet
> formulated, so he had not yet recognized the way to produce and
> utilize the practical antigravity potential of his discovery.
>
> (footnote 21 Kondepudi and Prigogine, ibid., p. 459 already point
> out that strong gradients produce situations that violate present
> thermodynamics. Research in these and other situations violating
> present thermodynamics is going forward under the caption of
> "extended thermodynamics" research. A discussion of the area is
> given by D. Jou, Extended Irreversible Thermodynamics,
> Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996.))
>
> (<snip>)
>
> continued in
>
> http://www.cheniere.org/books/efv/Chapter_1.pdf
>
- Next message: PD: "Re: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?"
- Previous message: BH Bomb: "New earth quake, now on Easter, same place as on Christmas, is Jesus telling us something?"
- In reply to: Bohl: "HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
