Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005
18:00:24 -0600
Dear Wendy and
Graham,
At an earlier age, I
put in some 15 years of hard study into anomalous phenomena, including
investigation and strange phenomena of just about all kinds. We
eventually got what I regarded as a “few” answers or tentative
answers, but raised still more questions than answers. Since I had
some years of aikido etc., there were also experiences sometimes
occurring which could not be explained by normal material science or
electrical science. We did attend a “metal bending party” by Dr. Jack
Houck, and my wife and I – as well as lots of other folks there – did
successfully bend metal by merely stroking it gently with one finger
or between two fingers. Mechanically, there was absolutely no way that
could have happened. But then neither could the cold molding being
demonstrated by some Russian scientists, whom I directed some British
associates to. The Russians easily made metal into liquid at room
temperature, without heating, and just poured it into molds and waited
for the effect that had dissolved the lattice bonds to wear off, so
the metal hardened again. This was the way, e.g., they were pouring
the terribly thick titanium hulls of their subs. I also furnished an
explanation of the mechanism (how the lattice bond forces were
dissolved), but it appeared the British were not ready to believe it.
Next thing I knew,
the whole ball of wax was highly classified by the Brits, and
apparently still is. But the Russian scientists did come to
During all those
years we were investigating anomalous phenomena, we were also
intensely following the developing Russian superweapons work, and the
demonstrations and testing incidents in that area as well. Contrary to
popular view, there are hundreds of reported incidents of these
weapons tests worldwide, including the test of Russian weapons right
here in the U.S. (against NASA shuttle launches from Cape Canaveral,
Minuteman launches, kill of the Arrow DC-8 at Newfoundland, etc.). We
even published a picture of the Russian practice weapon strike offset
from a
A close colleague,
Joe Gambill (now sadly deceased), also highly developed and did
tremendous experiments with the type of abnormal photography that
Trevor Constable used for a while.
The notion is that, by blanking out the visible spectrum between the
IR and UV, but having the lens open to IR and UV selected for one
harmonic interval, one has just found a way to filter in one harmonic
interval of the internal electrodynamics comprising normal EM fields
and potentials, as shown by Whittaker in 1903 and 1904. Photos taken
by that process can reveal some very unusual things that normal
photography and instruments never see. (Interestingly, there is again
some activity in the popular press, by the invention of ways to “see
through walls and matter” etc. The “internal longitudinal EM wave”
stuff comes through the matter anyway, since matter is a wonderful
superhighway for the transmission of longitudinal EM waves. So with
the right detectors on the other end, one can indeed “see through
walls” and “see through intervening objects such as buildings”, etc.
The patented Fogal transistor, e.g.,
could be used in video cameras that were capable of “focusing” at
ranges beyond intervening objects masking the normal “view”, so that
those distant but “hidden” objects could be photographed and viewed.
Back there quite a ways, I also found a very fine scientist,
Dr. William Tiller,
former head of the materials science department at Stanford, who had
experimented intensely with such photography, and had also obtained
rigorous but rather astounding results.
The major problem in
everything we looked into, wound up being the incredible inadequacy of
the standard electrodynamics we are all taught in university,
particularly in electrical engineering. No way could it explain the EM
phenomenology in either field – the “strange phenomena” field or the
superweapons field.
Eventually we slowly
and painfully started seeking out and compiling what appeared to be
known (though sometimes obscured in the literature) flaws in the CEM/EE
model. We continue along that line even today. Many of those flaws
have been pointed out by eminent scientists (such as Wheeler, Nobelist
Feynman, Bunge, etc.) but our own scientific leadership such as
National Science Foundation, National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering, Department of Energy, national laboratories,
and universities simply will
not correct this archaic CEM/EE that is still taught to
all our electrical engineers. Indeed, to my knowledge none of those
agencies or groups has even published the results of a rigorous
investigation to list the specific foundations assumptions in the
horrid old CEM/EE model, then point out which ones are known to be
false because modern physics in the intervening century since that
model was formulated has discovered many additional things.
A
few of the major
problems with the CEM/EE model are:
The model assumes:
1. A flat local
spacetime environment, falsified since 1916.
2. An inert local
vacuum environment, falsified since at least 1930.
3. A static
material ether filling all space -- falsified since 1877.
4. That every EM
field, EM potential, and joule of observable EM energy in the universe
is and has been freely produced by its associated source charges. So
far okay. But it also assumes that this steady outpouring of real
photons and thus real EM energy from every charge or dipolarity,
occurs without any input of energy at all from the external vacuum
environment or the external curved spacetime environment, because of
assumptions one and two, and indeed there is no
observable input of
energy detectable by any instrument as is well known.
5. No input of
virtual state energy to the source charge, and no mention of the
charge’s consumption of positive entropy in the virtual state to
provide its continuous production of negative entropy in the
observable state. Therefore the CEM/EE model falsely assumes that
every EM field, EM potential, and joule of observable EM energy in the
universe is freely created (by the source charges) out of nothing at
all -- in total violation of the conservation of energy law. In short,
the CEM/EE model thus assumes a ubiquitous and rather universal
violation of the conservation of energy law. Either the conservation
of energy law is false, or there must be the necessary nonobservable
(virtual state) energy input, and then that requires falsifying the
present old second law of thermodynamics. Note we have indeed
falsified the second law (starting from a system in equilibrium, if
the system is then excited (lowering its entropy) so it can then decay
and produce entropy, and does so, the second law describes the
entropic decay of the nonequilibrium state, back to equilibrium, but
it forbids the previous negative entropy operation that excited the
system in the first place. The old second law is thus an oxymoron
assuming its own self-contradiction has previously occurred. We have
therefore corrected and extended the second law to account for that
initial unaccounted negative entropy operation, so that now the new
second law is consistent with experiment and with nature. It also now
includes all the previously accepted violations (such as sharp
gradients, memory of materials, transient fluctuations, etc.).
6. That Lorentz
symmetry exists and is continuously maintained in the dynamics of its
circuits and systems, so that Lorentz invariant equations (much
simpler equations) can be used to describe the systems and their
dynamics. That assumption excludes all permissible Maxwellian systems
that violate Lorentz symmetry and thus cannot be described by
Lorentz-invariant equations. Hence if implemented in the circuits and
systems, this enforced assumption guarantees that the COP<1.0 because
it makes the back emf of the circuit equal to the forward emf. The
forward emf powers the external loads and losses of the system, so
some of that "half" of the available power is lost in the system
losses. That means that less than half the available energy gets out
as power in the loads, even if the loads themselves are 100% efficient
(which they are not). The other half of the available energy collected
in the external circuit is dissipated to force the current backwards
through the back emf inside the generator and between its terminals.
That is work inside the generator to power the scattering and
destruction of its dipolarity, thereby cutting off the free flow from
that dipolarity of the extracted real EM energy from the vacuum.
Consequently, to resume operation, we have to restore the dipolarity,
and in a 100% efficient generator that requires as much shaft energy
input as was used on the dipolarity to destroy it. So the operator
always has to input more shaft horsepower, to power restoring the
dipolarity that he also builds the stupid circuit to destroy. If X is
half the total energy that was collected in the external circuit, the
operator has to input at least X energy to keep restoring the dipole,
while the external circuit has Y other internal losses, meaning that
X-Y energy is furnished to the load to power it. If the load and
generator are 100% efficient systems, this guarantees a system whose
overall thermodynamic COP = (X - Y)/X. Since Y>0 in any practical
system, then COP<1.0. And that is due to the arbitrary actions of CEM/EE
engineers in design and building of systems. It is
not due to any law of
nature or law of physics or law of thermodynamics. In short, we pay
the present power companies to engage in a fruitless wrestling match
inside their generators and
lose.
7. Uses the
ubiquitous closed current loop circuit, with the source of freely
flowing potential (and thereby potential energy) from the vacuum wired
into the external circuit as a load while the current in said circuit
is flowing. That rather stupid practice implements the entire severely
limited and arbitrarily restricted operational regime described
briefly in assumption #6.
8. Arbitrarily
discards all accounting of the giant Heaviside curled energy flow that
accompanies every accounted Poynting energy flow, but usually does not
interact with anything and does nothing (so long as the local
spacetime is nearly flat). The magnitude of the
unaccounted Heaviside
energy flow component is on the order (roughly) of a trillion times
the magnitude of the accounted
Poynting energy flow component. That means that an automobile battery
actually outputs enough energy flow to power
9. That EM force
fields exist in mass-free (empty) space (note that this "logically
follows" from the false assumption of a thin material static ether
filling all space, but is still false because it reasons from a false
premise). That is false, and no EM force fields exist in space, as has
been pointed out by eminent physicists (e.g., Feynman, who points out
in his three volumes of sophomore physics that only the
potential to make a
force field exists, should some charged matter be made available and
interacted with). Mass is a component of force. Since a definition
requires an identity statement rather than an equation, take the
identity equation of F => dp/dt = d/dt(mv) where I use the => as an
identity symbol due to the plain text. By expanding d/dt(mv), one has
a mass component existing in both terms. Hence that demonstrates that
mass is a component of force. Forces exist only in and of mass system
dynamics. They cannot and do not exist in the presence of mass.
Instead, a force-free precursor
exists in space – a precursor of that force that will be created in
charged mass, once the massless
and force-free field in space is interacting with it.
That precursor, e.g., is merely a change in the local virtual particle
flux of the vacuum (if you prefer the particle physics view), or a
change in the local curvature of spacetime (if you prefer the
relativity view). In short, we hopefully have also answered Feynman's
complaint that we really do not know what "energy" is. Now, if we are
careful and follow the example shown by the Soviets, energy can
ultimately be defined as a change in the local curvature of spacetime
or as a change in the local virtual particle flux of the vacuum. The
EM force field can now be accurately defined as the ongoing
interaction of the precursor EM energy field in space with charged
static mass. As an example, for the E-field he point intensity of that
interaction with static mass is E = F/q. Voila! Now the nature of the
behavior of that interacting mass also affects the total "magnitude"
of the EM force fields (and their dynamic energy) resulting.
10. That "static" EM
fields and potentials exist and are associated with static charges and
dipoles. That is false if we mean "absolutely static", since all EM
fields and potentials are dynamic sets of energy flows (Whittaker 1903
and 1904, as augmented by modern scientists such as Ziolkowski). Any
so-called "static" EM field is actually a
The jist of all that
is that the “subtle energies” and “subtle fields” (or other
terminology) used from time to time are actually describing aspects of
nature’s vastly extended electrodynamics, that are not in our present
CEM/EE textbooks at all.
The Russian highly
classified work to correct our present EM and to thus go beyond it to
a much higher EM, is known as “energetics” and it has been very
successful for them. (Most of our guys still have not the foggiest
notion as to what energetics is all about, or even what it is). This
has been the basis for the development of the superweapons, with
aspects of it – usually under other names – now in quite a few nations
in their own weapons programs.
It is obvious that
the superweapons are there, because they have been tested and used in
occasional confrontations for some decades.
The point is, such
science could also be used for the great benefit of humankind, instead
of just for its detriment. But presently, it’s being used for killing
folks, and preparing to kill them on a scale undreamed of before.
So we’ve tried to
focus on using parts of it to get at obtaining useful EM energy from
the vacuum, and to some extent for medical healing mechanisms. But
honestly, to make much of a dent in the present scientific ansatz, it
will require a tremendous team of scientists and also rather
substantial funding – and then some years of struggle and conflict
with the prevailing dogma.
Isn’t it sad, when
one is attacked as a “perpetual motion nut” as a “knee-jerk reaction”
to the mere mention of electrical systems taking their energy from the
vacuum? Perpetual motion is supposed to be the epitome of foolishness
– when it fact it is
And researchers in
energy-from-the-vacuum systems are still being attacked as “perpetual
motion nuts”! In the century that researchers have been “branded” with
that “perpetual motion nut” label, it appears that not a single
“skeptic” has ever before did a simple sophomore logic analysis on the
standard statement asserting that perpetual motion is the same thing
as a machine doing continuous work without any energy input. The
standard statement, as I showed, contains a true premise and a false
premise, then arbitrarily equates the two and claims that this then
proves the false premise. In short, a simple logical non sequitur.
There are many other
examples of the dogmatic defense of the status quo, but you can see
what I mean.
These days, life for
me is much more limited, so I confine what little work I can do to the
energy field, and a little sometimes for the potential medical
applications. Those I think are the most pressingly needed beneficial
things that could be developed, if it were simply funded at the
doctoral thesis level and the young post doctoral level. If our
scientific community would permit and fund our young doctoral
candidates and post docs to work in these two fields – and to
dramatically correct and overhaul and extend the sad old CEM/EE model,
then in two to three years there would never again be an energy
problem anywhere. And medical science would be off and running with
the breathtaking mechanism the cellular regenerative system uses for
healing in our own bodies – and with
amplification of that
mechanism for very quick healing of most dread diseases etc.
Alas! We tried very
hard in 1998 to get the U.S. government to go into a crash development
in that medical arena, for effective and prompt treatment of the
coming mass casualties once the terrorists go into their operations
phase in heartland U.S. Sadly, we got nowhere at all. No one knew what
we were talking about, and no one cared. The prevailing attitude was
that, yes, anthrax and smallpox and all that is in the threat, but it
won’t happen on our watch, maybe in 2050 or some such. Etc. Etc. Etc.
But anyway, we
continue to do what we can, in anyway we can, and we are leaving as
much written down as we can for the young scientists now coming on in
our universities. I must say that as a nation we have as sharp a group
of youngsters now as this nation has ever produced. All that is
necessary is to give them a little funding, and
let them work these vital problems
without destroying their careers if they even dare suggest a program
of such work. Given a chance, they can and will quickly
get the job done.
So we will see what
happens. Meanwhile, the terrorists recently have changed from the
two-decades-long insertion phase of asymmetric war against us, to the
final operations phase. The appalling tsunamis in
The next two to
three years will therefore likely determine whether we live or die as
an entire nation. The scientific dogmatists and defenders of the
status quo can sit there smugly if they wish, and they themselves will
go down with the ship if it sinks. At this point, it appears that our
fate again lies in the hands of another friendly country that
previously saved our bacon in the late 1970s, in 1986, twice in 1997,
and at the end of 1999 and first few days of 2000.
One thing is
certain. We shall see very shortly whether or not they can pull our
bacon out of the fire one more time. If not, we will simply fry and
that will be that.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden |