Dear Matthew,

 

I continue to recommend the study of as much physics and mathematics as possible. Also, while in the courses, do not argue with the instructors. Just learn it as they put it forth, and reproduce it back on the tests, until you get your doctorate firmly in hand. All the rest - knowledge of what has been deliberately done to physics to cripple it, and what has been deliberately done to electrical engineering to horribly restrict it - just keep to yourself. There will be time later to go back in and sort it out for yourself.

 

And always keep in mind Gödel’s 1931 proof that no model is ever perfect; all will eventually fail. All are simply “part meal” and to be used only for what they produce good results for, that fit the experiments one can do in that area. In an area where one’s model no longer gives the correct results shown by experiment, one will always have gone beyond that model. Quoting the noted scientist Stephen Hawking:

 

"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 given by George Zebrowski, "The holdouts," Nature, Vol. 408, 14 Dec 2000, p. 775,]

 

Hawking struggled to find the “perfect, final model” for two decades, then later realized that this is impossible, but that it also meant that physics is never finished; there will always be new discoveries necessitating change of old models or building of new ones to fit the new phenomena. Quoting Hawking:

 

“Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I am now glad our search for understanding will never come to an end, and we will always have the challenge of new discovery.” [Stephen Hawking, as posted on his website in early 2004].

 

As one example of a model failing and something deemed sacrosanct no longer holding true, consider the fundamental conservation laws (energy, momentum, etc.). These are perfectly valid in a special relativistic situation. But if you deliberately add in a synchronized general relativistic situation, then the conservation laws (any of them) can indeed be violated. This truth is anathema to most ordinary scientists, and most of our experimental situations are indeed special relativistic (in a single fixed frame) so that the conservation laws do apply. But we are always free to change that situation to general relativistic, and thus to violate the conservation of energy, for example.

 

The great Hilbert pointed this out as a result of Einstein’s new theory of general relativity, very shortly after Einstein’s theory was published. Quoting Hilbert:

 

"I assert... that for the general theory of relativity, i.e., in the case of general invariance of the Hamiltonian function, energy equations... corresponding to the energy equations in orthogonally invariant theories do not exist at all. I could even take this circumstance as the characteristic feature of the general theory of relativity." [D. Hilbert, Gottingen Nachrichten, Vol. 4, 1917, p. 21.].

 

Seventy years later, Logunov and Loskutov commented on Hilbert’s deep insight as follows:

 

"In formulating the equivalence principle, Einstein actually abandoned the idea of the gravitational field as a Faraday-Maxwell field, and this is reflected in the pseudotensorial characterization of the gravitational field that he introduced. Hilbert was the first to draw attention to the consequences of this. - Unfortunately, - Hilbert was evidently not understood by his contemporaries, since neither Einstein himself nor other physicists recognized the fact that in general relativity conservation laws for energy, momentum, and angular momentum are in principle impossible." [A. A. Logunov and Yu. M. Loskutov, "Nonuniqueness of the predictions of the general theory of relativity," Sov. J. Part. Nucl., 18(3), May-June 1987, p. 179].

 

A very good summation of the situation is given by the eminent scientist Sir Roger Penrose. Quoting him:

 

“We seem to have lost those most crucial conservation laws of physics, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum!” [Penrose then adds the Killing symmetry arbitrarily, to get conservation again, when the Killing vector applies and gravity is separated.]. “These conservation laws hold only in a spacetime for which there is the appropriate symmetry, given by the Killing vector ĸ-. [These considerations] do not really help us in understanding what the fate of the conservation laws will be when gravity itself becomes an active player. We still have not regained our missing conservation laws of energy and momentum, when gravity enters the picture. ... This awkward-seeming fact has, since the early days of general relativity, evoked some of the strongest objections to that theory, and reasons for unease with it, as expressed by numerous physicists over the years. - in fact Einstein’s theory takes account of energy-momentum conservation in a rather sophisticated way - at least in those circumstances where such a conservation law is most needed. -Whatever energy there is in the gravitational field itself is to be excluded from having any representation-” [Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2005, p. 457-458.]

 

Our comment is this: Note that the “solution” accepted by many general relativists is to just arbitrarily toss out the gravity and gravitational energy density of spacetime in a given troublesome case, and the problem of nonconservation of energy and momentum then vanishes. In short, separate the spacetime itself from the fields, and there is no problem! However, simply avoiding the problem itself is not solving the problem! As a single example, considering the neglected and unaccounted giant Heaviside curled energy flow component always accompanying every tiny Poynting EM energy flow, the gravity effect is always at least of importance, and this “solution” itself is in general nearly always untenable.

 

Again quoting Penrose:

 

“Such a picture was abhorrent to Einstein, who believed there must be a physical objective world, even at the minutest scale of quantum phenomena- (he thought that) perhaps underlying probabilistic behaviour of quantum systems would be the statistical action of smaller ingredients or parts to the system, abut which one had no direct knowledge. David Bohm developed the viewpoint of ‘hidden variables.’ The most successful hidden variable theory is that known as the de Broglie-Bohm model (de Broglie 1956, Bohm 1952). Hidden variables are consistent with all the observational facts only if the theory is, in an essential way, non local, in the sense that the hidden parameters must be able to affect parts of the system in arbitrarily distant regions instantaneously!” [Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press, 1989, p. 362].

 

Our comment is as follows: The patented Fogal semiconductor has in fact demonstrated (in at least four independent and highly qualified laboratories) the ability to communicate between any number of widely separated points in the universe, with absolutely no “time delay” at all. In short, by using multiply-connected spacetime, so that the multiple points - so widely separated in normal spacetime - also so are directly superposed in multiply connected spacetime.

 

The Fogal semiconductor can directly do “precursor engineering” - i.e., it can directly engineer the actual spacetime itself (and that is also engineering the local virtual particle flux of vacuum) without pushing very many electrons at all - and thus it can do forms of engineering and performance that are unheard of in our present electrodynamics and electrical engineering (and in most of our present “ordinary” physics). So the Fogal chip can be used to generate a wide range of phenomena that can presently only be modeled in multiple highly advanced and unusual models such as Bohm’s hidden variable theory, and the theory of multiply-connected spacetime. That is precisely why Fogal and his chip have been suppressed for nearly 20 years.

 

Another example is the appearance of negative energy and negative probabilities in the most basic formalisms of physics, to the absolute consternation and disapproval of most physicists and mathematicians (who are aghast at the very notion of statistically applying negative probabilities in the underlying more subtle statistical physical processes that set up and produce any observable phenomena. It means, e.g., that by deliberately engineering and manipulating those negative probabilities, one can “unhappen” a thing even after it has already “occurred” (reached 100% probability, and thus certainty).  The cancer process uncovered by John Kanzius uses this mechanism (apparently unknown to Kanzius himself) to perform direct cure of cancers, merely by using tiny RF pulses to “tickle” the local vacuum in which the cancers reside, so that electrons pop out of the Dirac Sea therein, leaving behind the emptied Dirac sea holes which are negative mass-energy electrons (the dark matter so avidly sought by our astrophysicists with their telescopes) which - as source charges - are also so producing negative energy EM fields (the dark energy so avidly being sought by our astrophysicists).

 

Actually, Nikola Tesla discovered negative energy way back there about 1880 or so - before the term “negative energy” was even born - and called it “radiant energy” to differentiate its unique characteristics from those of normal positive energy. Tesla had also discovered how to use this “active medium” in order to get free “energy from the active medium” - in short, EM energy directly from the activated local virtual state vacuum (from alteration of local spacetime itself).

 

Tesla thus had learned to build and utilize some asymmetric Maxwellian systems, instead of just the symmetric systems remaining in Heaviside’s truncation - the very fact which required J. P. Morgan to arrange for Lorentz to arbitrarily “fix” those Heaviside equations (which were being used to set up the thing later called “electrical engineering” and teach it in our universities) in 1892. Lorentz merely (arbitrarily) symmetrized those Heaviside equations, thereby discarding the remaining asymmetric systems from the model and dooming our EEs to always build only symmetrical EM systems which can never take excess free energy from their seething local vacuum and use it to freely power loads.

 

To Morgan’s consternation, then Oliver Heaviside discovered that Poynting’s small “diverged” component of EM energy flow through space around the conductors of the external circuit is always accompanied by a vast nondiverged curled component whose astonishing magnitude is more than a trillion times the magnitude of the feeble little Poynting component diverged into the conductors to power up the electrons! Morgan realized that, if our young new electrical engineers were to know that every generator and battery etc. already puts out more than a trillion times as much EM energy flow from its terminals as we input to the generator by turning the shaft, or as the battery receives from its internal chemical processes, then sooner or later some of those bright young fellows would figure out a way to diverge at least some of that enormous Heaviside curled EM energy flow after all and use some of it.

 

So again, Morgan directed that this problem “be fixed”. And again Lorentz did the dirty work in 1900, conjuring up the notion of first arbitrarily integrating the entire energy flow vector itself (containing both the feeble Poynting diverged component and the vast nondiverged Heaviside curled component) around a closed surface assumed surrounding any and every volume of space. That neatly zeroes out and discards the troublesome giant Heaviside curled energy flow component because of its nondivergence, while retaining the diverged Poynting energy flow component that enters the circuit to actually power it.

 

For this reason, the Poynting EM energy flow is not really “the” energy flow component! As the eminent classical electrodynamicist J. D. Jackson put it:

 

"...the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the extent that the curl of any vector field can be added to it. Such an added term can, however, have no physical consequences. Hence it is customary to make the specific choice -" [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, 1975, p. 237].

 

Jackson is correct as long as the situation is special-relativistic, for then the gradient of the curl is zero. But he can be wrong when the situation is general-relativistic, because then the gradient of the curl is not necessary zero and at least some of that huge Heaviside curled EM energy flow component can be diverged into the circuit after all and used.

 

A case where it is so diverged, because the frame of a self-oscillating charged particle is rotating to and fro rhythmically, is the “negative resonance absorption of the material” (NRAM) effect in optical physics. There the self-oscillating particles do absorb (in the optimized case) some 18 times as much EM energy from their “input energy flow input” as is in the Poynting energy flow component of that input. So they sharply restrict those optical physicists, never allow them to say “excess emission” but always only “negative absorption”, and never allow them to discuss the thermodynamics of the situation where COP = 18 by the standard calculations using input Poynting component versus output Poynting component. Instead, they are only allowed to say that “the reaction cross section” is increased.

 

And with such changes and restrictions as the two Lorentz “fixes” of Heaviside’s equations, electrical engineering was “fixed” so it cannot, will not, and does not contain any of those confounded  “Tesla circuits” that are asymmetric and thus can produce COP>1.0 (and even self-powering) because of the free excess energy they receive from their surrounding active vacuum.

 

Now from Dirac’s general relativistic extension of the fundamental Schrodinger equation and his original theory of the electron contain negative energy and negative probabilities. At first Dirac retained the negative energies and negative probabilities. Quoting Dirac:

 

“Negative energies and probabilities should not be considered as nonsense. They are well-defined concepts mathematically, like a negative of money." [P. A. M. Dirac, “The physical interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, Vol. 180, 1942, pp. 1-40.]

 

But powerful scientists (such as Pauling and Heisenberg and others) pounded the daylights out of Dirac, and viciously attacked any and all attempts to retain negative energy and negative probabilities.

 

So finally Dirac relented and continued to search for a way to eliminate the negative energy. He did so by adopting some artifices to seemingly remove it artificially from his own theory of the electron etc. Quoting Dirac many years later:

 

“I remember once when I was in Copenhagen, that Bohr asked me what I was working on and I told him I was trying to get a satisfactory relativistic theory of the electron, and Bohr said ‘But Klein and Gordon have already done that!’ That answer first rather disturbed me. Bohr seemed quite satisfied by Klein’s solution, but I was not because of the negative probabilities that it led to. I just kept on with it, worrying about getting a theory which would have only positive probabilities.”

 

The end result was that the physicists themselves flatly and arbitrarily forced the removal of negative energy and negative probabilities from physics, simply because most of the physicists and mathematicians hated them!

 

To see the story of this great faux pas in physics, see the two-part article by D. L. Hotson, “Dirac’s Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy, Part 1, Infinite Energy, issue 43, 2002, pp. 1-20; Part 2, Infinite Energy, Issue 44, 2002, pp. 1-24. These may be downloaded from http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf  and http://www.openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf.

 

Quoting Dotson:

 

“I think if one had to point to a single place where science went profoundly and permanently off the track, it would be 1934 and the emasculation of Dirac’s equation.” [D. L. Hotson, “Dirac’s Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy, Part I, New Energy, Issue 43, 2002, pp. 1-20. Quote is from p. 1.]

 

Today, a few excellent physicists are restoring recognition that the vacuum can indeed take on negative energy and thus retain those negative probabilities. Dr. Dan Solomon, (Dean of the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University) has rigorously and theoretically shown that throwing out negative energy from physics (the relativistic extension of the Shrödinger equation, Dirac’s theory, and from quantum field theory) was and is a serious mistake. One may Google quite a few important papers by Solomon, many published in high quality scientific journals.

 

E.g., see Dan Solomon, "Some new results concerning the vacuum in Dirac’s hole theory," Physica Scripta, Vol. 74, 2006, p. 117-122. Quoting Solomon:

 

“In Dirac’s hole theory (HT), the vacuum state is generally believed to be the state of minimum energy. It will be shown that this is not, in fact, the case and that there must exist states in HT with less energy than the vacuum state. It will be shown that energy can be extracted from the HT vacuum state through application of an electric field.”

 

See also (1) Dan Solomon, “Some differences between Dirac's hole theory and quantum field theory.” Can. J. Phys., Vol. 83, 2005, pp. 257-271; (2) “Mathematical Inconsistencies in Dirac Field Theory,” 1999. Available at quant-ph/9904106.

 

Particularly see Dan Solomon, “Negative energy density for a Dirac-Maxwell field.” 1999. Available at gr-qc/9907060. See http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/so/Solomon.

Abstract: It is well known that there can be negative energy densities in quantum field theory. Most of the work done in this area has involved free non-interacting systems. In this paper we show how a quantum state with negative energy density can be formulated for a Dirac field interacting with an Electromagnetic field. It will be shown that, for this case, there exist quantum states whose average energy density over an arbitrary volume is a negative number with an arbitrarily large magnitude.

 

Anyway, take all the electrical engineering you wish, keeping very silent about all these things till you get your final degree firmly in hand.

 

But simultaneously take lots of physics, recognizing that it too has been “fixed” to prevent our physicists from developing the startling use of negative energy and negative probabilities to “unhappen” something that has already happened - and thus be able to cause the water molecule to fall apart in water, so that the resulting H2 and O2 gases can be burned for fuel in one’s car, a train, or a ship etc. One then inputs water, and outputs water - nothing else, thereby also helping to dramatically clean up our steadily polluted biosphere. And one is able to “unhappen” any disease (as the technology is developed), so that it is cured. As you can see, the big pharmaceuticals absolutely do not wish to tolerate that!

 

Anyway, good luck to you and best wishes along your path!

 

Cheers,

Tom Bearden

 

 

Subject: Remarks of extreme gratitude and other comments for Tom Bearden
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:16:41 +1000
Attn: The webmaster of cheniere.org
 
To Whom It May Concern:
 
I writing an email that could hopefully be forwarded to Mr Bearden if possible. It is simply my
expression of gratitude for the work he has done and a few comments related to it.
 
Aside from that is the question of whether an international money order can be used a set of
books and DVDs as described on the website. I am currently a resident in Australia and if
possible would prefer to purchase items through a money order over using a credit card based
system.
 
Enclosed now is the letter to Mr Bearden
 
Tom Bearden,
 
First of all I would like to thank you for providing me a path to start on for obtaining knowledge and
more importantly understanding of a variety of physical phenomena and the true nature of our
universe. I feel my debt to you from the information you have shared has probably undoubtedly
saved me countless years of time trying to put together what is fact and what is fiction.
 
On that very issue of fiction I am beginning to realize as I read information and/or data on corresponding physical phenomena or experiments that outline our "understanding" of such phenomena that a lot of people are being deluded on purpose (and not on purpose as well) in such a way that our understandings of physical processes are based entirely on speculative assumptions that are based on frameworks that are essentially invalid.
 
A generic suppression of science and in a failure for what seems to be our population not truly understanding what they are taught but merely accepting it as doctrine or law helps keep real understanding from ever being recognized.
 
I was actually planning to study physics but I have instead decided to do a high level electronics
diploma that also provides the basis for electrical engineering. However since learning of your work, I have decided to instead start from your work, Tesla's work, and my own experimental
efforts. I think that the major reason for not doing physics or even engineering in a university based environment has to do with the fact of suppression and the known culture of these learning
institutions. Outlining some of my prior learning experiences briefly, I have been in a college style learning environment and in a university. I found the college to be a lot more fresh minded and open to new ideas of which knowledge flourished and recycled itself among a group of people in a very productive way. On the other hand universities seem to more or less put things in a mould and it takes quite a long time before people become "productive" in a particular area.
 
I am also concerned that people are just accepting what they are taught simply because a) they
can not reason with or really understand the concepts therein and hence invalidate them and hence are afraid to speak up or b) they actually believe so strongly what they are taught or know or what they think they know is fact and not fiction.
 
I am however a little concerned about the consequences of science and knowing too much
especially when it concerns weapons and who are able to understand science and have the resources to manufacture such weapons. I can understand in one way for the suppression of
science as to hinder such developments of which I and hopefully many others would be grateful that we are bound to things more primitive such as guns and god forbid nuclear weapons.
 
I will conclude this letter (and hence my rant) by asking for your thoughts on a few questions.
 
1) After the qualification of an electronics diploma and a mathematics degree do you think that getting any further qualifications in the field of engineering or physics are worth pursuing especially when the learning faculties themselves do not teach (or make an effort to teach) any
theories that are current and supported by new experimental data / overunity effects etc? (Perhaps there are other reasons that I may want to pursue a degree even if the incorporated knowledge is not of too much benefit)
 
2) I have started (and I should emphasize my commencement of learning in this area to be extremely recent) to learn the ideas of graduate physics such as that of classical mechanics and how this framework is used in analyzing problems and how to work them accordingly when dealing with the known forces of EM, gravity, and the nuclear forces. I have no experience in learning the other "laws" of physics such as thermodynamics, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, optics and so forth since I wanted to understand the framework for working with modern physics and general forces so that the models for these forces are separate to the
framework for working with them.
 
My actual question is how much of this do you think with your expertise is necessary? I know this may sound like a stupid question but after reading numerous accounts of relativity being wrong, the formulation of EM being mangled and the results of many failed attempts to unify theories that are in hindsight "simply incorrect and far any description of reality". Since I do have sufficient knowledge/understanding or apparatus to test known theories I currently have to rely on
what is said or taught rather than what I can independently verify (and because of what I am learning I am a lot more skeptical of what is real science and what is pseudo-science).
 
My plan was to learn and understand all the math and hence the mechanics as well as other contextual features of physics (for example a mathematical representation may imply a medium
or a representation that the model refers to) that the particular mathematical representation
implies.
 
On top of that I planned to then separate mathematics from physics and take the mathematics at
face value and given what many have said simply incorporate what you and many other related
researchers in this area have found as well as doing my own further experiments to build upon rather than taking these perfect mathematical models as "law" or absolute.
 
I'm going to be brutally honest with you however. Although I may understand mathematics I do not understand physics and this is a huge shortcoming. If you have any advice on this matter I would sincerely appreciate it.
 
I thank you for your time and thank you so much for doing what you have done with your life's work. I know that many people appreciate what you have done with getting other people up to speed with what real science is and what the world should know. I just hope that if the human race is to have real understanding that they are able to be mature enough to use it.
 
Yours Sincerely
 
Matthew