Thanks for the kind words.

Often one can be in the position of one's mathematics having become very rusty, e.g. as may happen to a military officer who gets assignments following his degree where he does not use it.  However, one still can "read the literature" and think along the mathematics routes involved where he has had training.

But in foundations work, one is dealing with "what do the physics concepts mean, that the mathematics is manipulating?"

So one does quite a bit of search and reflection on questions such as, "What is time?"  "What is energy?"  "How is it that mind operations occur simultaneously in time with physical phenomena, and the physical phenomena can be observed but the mental dynamics cannot?"  Etc.

Eventually what one finds is that the foundations are still on very shaky ground, in many parts of physics.  Feynman particularly had very cogent comments on what we think we know versus what we actually know.

Then one finds certain things that got altered along the way, or just arbitrarily changed because it presented a problem.  An example is the huge Heaviside energy flow component (a circuital flow of energy, rather than linear, so its divergence is normally zero --- in the flat spacetime limit). Lorentz originated the little trick still used to get rid of it, because he (and no one else at the time) could not explain how a generator actually outputs enormously more energy than we input into its shaft.  It was not possible to explain it, with the state of knowledge in physics at the time. So he just got rid of the problem, rather than solving it.

It is those things that one seeks to find and discover, for errors were indeed made along the way.

Then one focuses on those things, because they do contain some "extra physics" that just got assigned to the shelf or to the trash can, arbitrarily.

The notion is that some very important physics -- some of it could even be astounding -- got dropped along the wayside inadvertently.  We desperately need to retrieve that, so we can clean up the biosphere, have cheap clean electrical energy, and get the present economically depressed poor nations up and moving, with a future and opportunity and a more decent human life. Modern economy is based on cheap energy, which till now has largely been equated as "cheap oil".  That is coming to an end, and it also has polluted the biosphere and is poisoning the planet.  So we desperately need a new and better solution, and one that removes the dependence on fuel.  The only practical means is to extract the energy directly from the local vacuum, which contains an inexhaustible supply of cheap clean electrical energy if we but set our minds to getting it developed.

If one can do this exposé sufficiently and correctly, then the interested young fellows (sharp young grad students and post doctoral scientists now being produced with excellent mathematical tools and physics knowledge) who have that particular bent will eventually pick it up and take it to its fruition.  If we cannot get the scientific community to produce electrical energy from the vacuum on my watch, perhaps those young persons can do it on their watch, using better skills than I personally possess.

That at least is my hope.  I'm trying to set down and pass on what I think I uncovered in 30 years of hard work, so they can examine it, check the references, make up their own minds, correct any errors I may have made, and go from here.  The real purpose, for that which is found valid, is to try to save them from having to repeat all that search and hard work again.  They should be able to just start here and go forward.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Attn: Tom Bearden

Sir,

Your web site truly is a treasure trove of new and challenging ideas. Thank you for making this material available. Upon reading your CV, I am struck by the variety and depth of your work. Your brief CV states that you are a "theoretical conceptualist". Yet you are also clearly very practiced in the rigour of mathematics. I am intrigued. Which comes first, the concepts or the mathematics? Do you think in concepts and then work out the mathematics, or vice versa? You mention Tesla often and I have heard it said that his insights came from an innate ability (a "gift") in understanding electrical phenomena. Such mysterious capacities for innate understanding seem to be at the heart of many great scientific breakthroughs.

Regards,

Paul Howson (B.Elec.Eng)

AUSTRALIA.

PS: I'm saving up for your new book. Unfortunately due to our poor exchange rate it is very expensive in Australia (over $200).