Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003
18:13:15 -0500
Dear J. B.,
Glad to see you're
struggling with the basic questions; none of them are really "solved"
yet, but at best only "modeled".
Just one fundamental
problem.
Mass is an observable,
and thus does not persist in time as such. Using "d" for the partial
(can't make that correct "partial with respect to" symbol in this
medium), any observable is the frozen 3-snapshot of an ongoing 4-space
process, achieved by forcing a d/dt operation to be performed on that
4-process. Of course this d/dt "observation" process is very rapidly
iterated, but not a single observable in the universe persists in time
or can persist in time, in that observable form, a priori. The
mechanism for the so-called "march of a mass through time" is the
fundamental photon interaction, as we stated in the book and showed by
using the neglected delta t component of the photon in its interaction
with mass (in both absorption and emission).
So nothing actually
"travels through "3-space" or "persists in 3-space", even though we seem
to "observe" it that way. Unless it has an actual extension in the time
domain, an entity does not persist (does not have an extension in the
time domain!) nor can it "travel" between successive points in 3-space.
It is the assumption
of "persistence of observables" that is one of the fundamental problems
of physics. Leads to all sorts of substitution of effect for cause; as
an example, the notion in mechanics that a separate 3-space force "acts"
on a separate (persisting) 3-space mass. Nothing "acts" in 3-space
alone, and 3-mass alone is not "persisting" (changing its location on
the time axis). It is not even connected to the time axis! Mass is
actually a component of
force; no mass component, no force. At best, a massless field or
massless potential, etc.
Further, no model is
perfect now, nor will one ever be perfect --- so long as Godel's theorem
and its proof holds. All models should be spoken of in terms of their
usefulness, never even suggesting an "absoluteness". That includes my
own stuff! Everything is a model, and not an 11th commandment that
Moses brought down off the mountain on those stone tablets.
Finally, Aristotelian
logic itself is flawed and incomplete; simply look at the Venn diagrams
used to "prove" logic theorems, and insist on removing all the boundary
lines since on that line both A and not-A are identical. Or, I
particularly like Morris Kline's book, Mathematics: The Loss of
Certainty. Really lets some of the cats out of the mathematics bag.
So I prefer to
approach things as just "models", and the best model being the one that
fits (predicts) the observed results the best.
And two different
models can be used successfully to describe the same "thing",
particularly at different levels. Witness the use of different
fundamental units to make a model, including a very successful model
build from a single fundamental variable, and used in physics today.
Much of all this sort
of stuff, I think, will wash out from some very fundamental new work by
Michael Leyton. In 1872 Klein formed his geometry and also his Erlanger
program. Much of physics since then has been driven by that geometry
and program. Leyton has formed a new object-oriented geometry, with
rigorous group theoretic methods, of which Klein geometry is but a
subset. Leyton's work has already been successfully applied in
robotics, pattern recognition, and in some other areas, where it works
when the Klein geometry methods fail. In Leyton's geometry, there
emerges the hierarchy of symmetries, not as something that one just
meets curiously happening in the universe for some unfathomable reason
(as particle physics views it right now, per Weinberg and others).
Instead, when there is a broken symmetry at one level, it GENERATES a
new higher level symmetry, but one which infolds all the geometric
information that preceded it at the lower levels.
I have fitted Leyton's
effect to my proposed source charge solution, and it generates all the
symmetries and broken symmetries involved, in the exact order involved,
while nothing else does. Doesn't prove it of course, but gives powerful
support by excellent group theoretic methods. Note that the present
classical Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics and electrical engineering
assume that (1) all EM fields and potentials and their energy come from
their associated source charges, and (2) the source charge freely
creates all those fields and potentials and all that EM energy out of
thin air, from nothing at all. This used "problem of the fields and
their source charges" used to be acknowledged as the most formidable
problem in electrodynamics, but was not solved and became embarrassing,
so it was just scrubbed out of the texts and out of the literature.
Sen referred to it as
"The connection between the field and its source has always been and
still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum
electrodynamics."
Bunge put it even more
strongly:
"...it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both classical
and quantal, are in a sad state."
Feynman
pointed out that . "It is important
to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy
is." He also was well aware of the force problem, and
stated: . "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!"
If the Leyton effect
holds, then he has already written a most profound revolution in
physics, electrodynamics, and thermodynamics, and one that will equal
the original revolution that arose from Lee and Yang's prediction of
broken symmetry in 1956-57, and the experimental proof of it in 1957 by
Wu and her colleagues. So revolutionary was broken symmetry that, with
unprecedented speed, Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1957.
For about five months
I've been looking into the ramifications of Leyton's work (and of some
other things) in thermodynamics, and they are remarkable. Much of the
present formulation would appear to need serious reformulation to remove
non sequiturs and errors.
Anyway, I think that
there is much to say of encouragement, since many scientists are still
struggling with the nature of things and not just repeating the "status
quo". What I wish they would do more, is accent the "it's still just a
model" aspect, instead of turning it into dogma by proclaiming some
model "absolute". It isn't, and any good scientist is supposed to know
that. The struggle with scientific dogmatists is still one of the
greatest problems in science, and it has been directly responsible for
seriously delaying the progress of science in many fields. It is for
that very reason that often the military will go outside the scientific
community and form a "skunk works" to get something done, instead of
just watch the scientists passionately argue their favorite theories and
interpretations. If the Manhattan Project had been done by the "open"
scientists, it would have fared no better than hot fusion. Or more
accurately, it would have been lumped in the "crackpot" category, as was
cold fusion.
It is indeed odd that
in July last year Evans et al. proved experimentally that little zones
do occur in fluid electrolytes where "reactions run backwards" and
negentropy occurs. That has always been true for "one or a few"
entities, in statistical mechanics (used as the basis for much of modern
thermodynamics). But statistical fluctuation was thought to apply only
to "just a few" entities and only for just a fragment of a moment at
best. What was shocking was that fluctuation occurs for up to two
seconds, at cubic micron level -- and in water, e.g., a cubic micron
contains about 30 billion molecules and ions. Well, a little group of
30 billion or so ions, where REACTIONS CAN AND DO RUN BACKWARDS, tears
the guts right out of the coulomb barrier in hot fusion, and the
presence of that barrier is what necessitates that high temperature is
required in order for fusion to occur. The present hot fusion assumes
that one must always overcome that same coulomb barrier -- and that is
now revealed as a false assumption, or certainly one that is not
absolute. In a little region where the law of attraction and repulsion
of charges is momentarily reversed, then two D+ ions can attract each
other so closely that each enters the strong force region of the other,
forming a quasi-nucleus. Then (from some recent work), once the
quasi-nucleus forms (beating that old coulomb barrier bugaboo), there is
still one more probability to work through, the probability of that
quasi-nucleus then tightening just a bit into a fully conventional
nucleus, and bingo! One has a nucleus of He4, known as an alpha
particle. Many other similar fusion reactions exist, once the Coulomb
barrier vanishes.
The only reason that
transmutation does not usually occur chemically at low energies and low
temperatures is the coulomb barrier. Since that barrier can now be
occasionally changed into the "coulomb attractor", then the new work
actually puts a solid experimental demonstration of why low temperature
fusion is not only possible but does experimentally occur. With more
than 600 successful cold fusion experiments now, worldwide, it is just a
matter of time before the iron dogma of "big nuclear science" gets
forcibly changed and overhauled, for the basic change and overhaul of
their assumption that sheer kinetic energy of the particle is necessary,
that it requires such a high temperature before two like charges can be
"forcibly driven together". Now one thinks the exact opposite, in that
at low temperature in a momentary reversal region, the two like charged
ions or particles can and will attract together, forming that quasi
nucleus. It still requires further work on the second probability (not
yet too well understood), where the quasi-nucleus passes into the formal
nucleus.
And thanks for the
kind words and concern. My physical condition will not get any better,
but hopefully it will also not get any worse. So my continued
"persistence" is a matter of whatever chances to happen, from the next
hour to possibly the next 10 years. Anyway, it gives one a different
kind of perspective on life and what one should do. One starts not
sweating the small stuff so much, and concentrates mostly on the more
important stuff. For myself, I simply plan to continue along the lines
of my present 3 projects, particularly concentrated on two projects:
(1)
To finish the energy project, working closely with Bedini
we will --- if we live --- get out the information on inverted circuits
(how to use a circuit completely backwards from the textbook), and also
taking all the energy one wishes from a zero reference potential. (The
zero reference potential is another sadly misunderstood thing). This
area turns out to be one of the areas that some very powerful folks have
spent a great deal of money and effort in suppressing, since shortly
before 1900. They still are doing intensive suppression of it today.
The reason is that, if this area can be properly understood and a decent
math model developed, then extracting from the vacuum and using all the
electrical energy one wishes becomes almost absurdly simple. But the
"reasoning" is mind-wrenching, quite different from everything one has
been taught. So hopefully we'll just put out a small book with the
information in it, and containing a couple of working Bedini circuits
that those interested can build. I'll have to wait till John files his
patents, of course, and I'll do everything I can to help him on that
one. The actual discovery is John's, not mine. I'm must struggling to
contribute a "reasonable" explanation in terms of physics and
thermodynamics.
(2)
Thermodynamics of COP>1.0 and COP = infinity circuits and
devices. Oddly, most persons have a knee-jerk response to the phrase
"perpetual motion", not realizing that Newton's first law is indeed the
law of perpetual motion. A thing initially placed in motion will remain
perpetually in that state of motion, until or unless interrupted and
changed by an external force (Newton's second law, essentially). If a
thing did NOT stay perpetually in its initially induced motion until
forcibly changed, there would be no stability at all in the entire
universe -- and the organized macro-universe as we experience it could
not even exist, since all would be chaotically changing totally
haphazardly, without stability. In other words, there would be no
"persistence", no inertia, etc.
So we just plan to
keep on working in those two main areas, and hopefully will get out
(eventually) sufficiently definitive initial information on them that
the young fellows can take over those two projects from there. The
third project I'm continuing to work on is the business of how the
cellular regenerative system actually heals a damaged cell, and how to
amplify that mechanism electromagnetically (requires higher group
symmetry EM). This is an extension of Priore's proven work in France.
Priore discovered how to do it, and his team's work was done by rigorous
protocols and is fully documented in the French literature. Eminent
French scientists worked with him on the project, and in fact later
(very privately) the French Government secretly weaponized part of the
background basis. The Priore work was suppressed in the early 1970s,
because of its revolutionary cures of some dread diseases (such as
terminal cancers in lab animals) under rigorous scientific protocols.
It was just that no one could explain the perplexing fundamental
mechanism. Now I think we can, and also I think we have been able to
extend it. Here the human need around the Earth is so great, that one
simply must do whatever one can in this area, in the time one has left,
and get it out so the young fellows can start from there.
So yes, we will
continue so long as we can, as so long as there's any life left in the
old carcass. But we are trying to use the time remaining to set up a
passage of the information, for whatever it is worth, to those who come
after and can hopefully see these things through to the finish. Then
they can just start from where I am, correct any errors I may have
inadvertently made (all my pencils still need their erasers), and go
much further.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
|