| Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:37:49
-0600
Ron,
Well, that is really about
what I would expect; actually your advisers are treating you very
gently and very nicely! In this country, almost certainly they would
be much harsher, and would simply advise the student to cease and
desist or prepare to have his thesis plans totally refused, destroying
his career. In the U.S., the prevailing attitude is that, if it
doesn't already exist in academia, it doesn't exist.
I personally would advise
a more mundane thesis topic, but if you are determined to try to do a
"gingerly" one on scalar interferometry, then what your advisers have
tried to communicate (between the lines) is that it has to be made
very "academic" so that it is "within proper bounds".
In that case, e.g., one
does it strictly by the academic book! One cites hard literature
references from superpotential theory, a theory which was initiated
from the Whittaker paper of 1904 -- showing that any EM field or wave
pattern can be decomposed into differential functions of two base
scalar potentials. (Other researchers also showed other bases, but the
scalar potential one is good enough and very convention to one's
approach). One then cites the Whittaker paper of 1903 which showed the
internal structuring (and decomposition) of a scalar potential itself.
W-1904 shows that any EM field or wave can be decomposed into two
scalar potentials and differential functions of same. It follows that,
prior to imposing the differential functions on the two base scalar
potentials one will use, one can first decompose each of those two
potentials via Whittaker 1903, into harmonic sets of bidirectional EM
phase conjugate longitudinal wavepairs.
So one now has two sets of
LW biwaves that, interacting (that is scalar interferometry!), do
produce any EM field or wave pattern once the necessary differential
functions are also applied.
One also cites the
rigorous paper in higher group symmetry O(3) electrodynamics by Evans
et al., directly showing with beautiful theory exactly how scalar
interferometry works, enabling the production of real, ordinary EM
fields, waves, etc. at a distance (in the distant interferometry
zone).
To further "temper" the
Whittaker work, one can cite the additional work by Ziolkowski. He and
a colleague added the product set to Whittaker's sum set, thus
covering the case of modulation and completing what is needed for a
signal theory.
That's the basic approach
to get at the reality of scalar interferometry. Then merely point out
that, hey, this also makes possible interferometry weapons. A good
place to tie into that one, then, is Secretary of Defense Cohen's
statement in 1997 confirming the electromagnetic engineering of the
weather, stimulation of earthquakes, and stimulation of volcanoes into
eruption. In short, the Secretary of Defense of the United States of
America stated publicly that those things are being engineered!
Then "suggest" how each
might be accomplished (that still ties you to a strong statement) by
scalar interferometry. Since one can create fields and field energy at
a distance in the interferometry zone, one can also (at least in
theory, you say) create "divergent" (heating) fields and "convergent"
(cooling) fields. In that case, the weather engineering to first order
is easily explained: (1) use both heating interferometry and cooling
interferometry, focused into selected little zones in the atmosphere
over the targeted continent. Heating the air in an area "thins" it,
making a "low pressure area" at will. Cooling the air in an area "densifies"
it, making a "high pressure area" at will. Then just slowly move these
controlled highs and lows around to entrain and steer the jet stream,
and thereby "steer" the weather. Steering air flow in from the warm
Gulf, e.g., brings in moisture. Having that stream meet or collide
with a "cold" stream brought down from Canada generates quite a fuss
and furor and storms, etc. And so on.
Then refer back to the
basic scalar interferometry and advance some more potential mechanisms
that may lead to weapons. Such as focusing intense energy, fields and
waves on a missile or aircraft, knocking out its electronics or
jamming them. Same for tanks and other modern ground combat vehicles.
Same for surface ships, etc.
Your final recommendation
would be very bland; suggesting that the total cumulation of the
theory and the evidence (e.g., from superpotential theory) is
sufficient that it warrants further work and exploration, both
theoretically and experimentally. You might wish to even point out
some of the areas of experimentation and further investigation that
are "suggested" by the thesis material and conclusions.
Anyway, that's one way to
make it potentially acceptable as a "proper academic thesis". Just
pepper it with all the good, hard references from the regular
literature (and include meteorological references for how jet streams
are diverged and steered by highs and lows, etc. in standard weather).
That way, you show directly that the bits and pieces are already in
the literature, and have just not been drawn together. Also, that not
much work has been done with EM longitudinal waves (at least openly).
Hope that helps. It's at
least a way to start, and certainly it is worthy of a solid Master's
Degree thesis acceptance, for example.
Just extract most of the
references you need from my own list of references in the books etc.
But be sure to do it correctly; go to the library and also personally
copy and view each reference you cite, to assure I have not made a
typo error or something, and to insure that those papers are really
there and really do say what I say. That way you give a VERIFIED set
of reference citations. My stuff has been 95% verified or so, anyway,
but once in awhile I do make a typo or just a plain old error. All my
pencils still need erasers -- as do those of everyone else that I know
of!
I'm sending a copy of this
correspondence to Marcia Stockton, who can directly advise you
regarding forms of payment for the books, etc.
Best wishes on your
studies,
Tom Bearden
|