| Subject: RE: The Kessler
Effect Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:59:00 -0500 Dear AMW,
Unfortunately the
fundamental premise is incorrect. What is described in II is simply how
to make a magnetic field in a coil, not electromagnetics per se nor the
"force of electricity". One does not have to have a coil or current or
voltage to have electromagnetics. Simply having a charge already
provides all the electromagnetics, since the fields and potentials are
produced by the source charges. In my forthcoming book we have lots to
say on the fundamental mechanism by which the fields and potentials are
produced by that source charge. Presently, the electrodynamicists
implicitly assume that the source charge creates energy out of nothing,
and pours it out continuously in all directions to make the associated
fields and potentials and their energy, reaching across the universe.
They freely admit that there is no observable EM energy input to the
charge. We accent the word OBSERVABLE energy input. The broken
symmetry answer to the source of the input energy and how it is input to
the charge, has been in particle physics since 1957, but classical
electromagnetics does not model the active vacuum, let alone a broken
symmetry in the active vacuum's virtual particle flux. In failing to
change their model to include the supersystem (the system, its active
local vacuum, and its local curvatures of spacetime), the classical
electromagnetics model already totally excludes gravitational and
electrogravitational effects. It assumes an inert vacuum (falsified for
decades by particle physics) and a flat local spacetime (falsified by
general relativity for nearly a century). It is the fundamental
classical model that is incomplete and seriously flawed. That does not
mean we kill the model, which is perfectly useful to build a radio or TV
or wire up a house, but it means we clearly state and specify its
limitations and its shortcomings. All models are imperfect and have
shortcomings; e.g., by the Godel proposition alone that is true.
Far better
electromagnetic models have long been developed in particle physics, but
they are not used in electrical engineering. These higher group
symmetry EM models allow many things to be done with electromagnetics
that are totally unthinkable in the standard electrical engineering
curriculum. That includes unified EM and gravity; there are several
very interesting "engineerable" unified field theories available also; I
particularly favor Sachs's theory. That unified field theory is
directly engineerable by Evans' O(3) electrodynamics, so it is possible
to do and model electrogravity in a proper higher symmetry EM model. As
an example, a beginning paper on the subject is M.W. Evans et al.,
"Anti-Gravity Effects in the Sachs Theory of Electrodynamics," Found.
Phys. Lett., 14(6), Dec. 2001, p. 601-605. We would hope there will be
more papers to come in that subject. With higher group symmetry EM
models, one can and does model the "supersystem" and thus can engineer
by electromagnetic means both local spacetime curvature and the local
energetic active vacuum, as well as the system itself. Since all three
of these components of the supersystem interact with each other, then
one actively seeks that interaction to produce practical and engineering
antigravity.
The electric force is
generated upon a charged particle whenever that charge interacts with an
electric field (a special curvature of spacetime with dynamics).
Similarly, for a magnetic force, it is generated upon a charged magnetic
charge (pole) when that charge interacts with a magnetic field (another
special curvature of spacetime with dynamics). The EM field (both its
electrical and magnetic aspects) is generated in actions on real
charges, because the charges have spin and any electrical reaction
producing an electrical force also involves a swirl or curl component
force as well as the linear force component. The appearance of the
electric force is because of the interaction stated, and that force is a
linear force. The magnetic field also occurs and exists, because of the
spin of the charged particle, and that is a "swirl" or "curl" force.
The electric force exists upon the interacting charge, whether or not
the charge is free to move. The charge is always spinning, so the swirl
component is there anyway. If the charge moves linearly, then one
speaks of "current". If it rotates about its axis or about an external
axis, then the "swirl force" or magnetic force is produced. In a
circuit, the electrons move down the wires at a snail's pace, e.g., in a
nominal little circuit they may move longitudinally down the wire only a
few inches per hour. The effect (force) of the interaction between
field and charge, however, moves down the wire at nearly light speed,
producing the force as it goes. The spinning electrons precess,
however, much more rapidly than they move linearly down the wire. So
most of their physical movement is laterally in the wire. The
oldtimer's measurements of the lateral movement of this "electric fluid"
before the electron or atom was discovered, together with Faraday's
notion of the lines of force as physical taut material strings, is the
only real basis for the notion of the transverse EM wave in space.
However, we point out
the extreme and nauseous error perpetrated by textbooks in drawing a
3-spatial illustration of the "transverse EM wave in space". No such
wave exists, and that beast is atrocious. E.g., Romer, former editor of
American Journal of Physics, castigates it in these words:
"…that dreadful diagram purporting to show the electric and magnetic
fields of a plane wave, as a function of position (and/or time?) that
besmirch the pages of almost every introductory book. …it is a horrible
diagram. 'Misleading' would be too kind a word; 'wrong' is more
accurate." "…perhaps then, for historical interest, [we should] find
out how that diagram came to contaminate our literature in the first
place."
[Robert H. Romer,
Am. J.
Phys.
69(2), Feb. 2001, p. 109, endnote 24.].
Probably the greatest
error of all in electrodynamics (and in the hoary old mechanics) is the
notion that a separate force acts upon a separate mass or upon a
separate charge. That is totally incorrect. Use the => symbol to mean
"is identically" (as the identity symbol). Then F => d/dt(mv) and both
terms of the expansion of the right side contain mass terms. So mass is
a COMPONENT of force, not separate from it. There is no force at all if
the mass is removed. Mechanics has been wrong for hundreds of years in
its separate force on a separate mass notion (which merely came from
medieval observation and experience of pushing on things with one's hand
and arm, etc.). So a very great work is needed in all physics models to
root out and change this ubiquitous assumption of a separate force
acting upon a separate mass or charge. Just look at leading texts which
try to define field, and the difference between field in matter (i.e., a
force field where matter is actually a component of it) and field in
mass-free space. Jackson, Classical Electromagnetics, 2nd
edition, 1975, p. 28 wrestles nobly with it (Jackson is one of my
heroes) but fails to resolve the problem. His statement is: ""...the
thing that eventually gets measured is a force..." "At the moment, the
electric field can be defined as the force per unit charge acting at a
given point. … In symbols we may write F = qE."
As can be seen, if we
write that as F => qE, then we have the electric force F consisting of
the mass-free field E interacting with charged q which also has mass.
Now divide both sides by q, and one has F/q = E, but there is NO MASS
TERM in E now. So E is not really a "force field", since it has no
force. Feynman stated that the field exists in mass-free space only as
the POTENTIAL to have a force created, SHOULD one bring in a unit point
static charge to interact with it. In other words, the assumption by
Maxwell and subsequent of a material ether and a material force field in
space was and is erroneous. Unfortunately the Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz
equations have never been changed to remove that material ether
assumption from them. Instead, one day the electrodynamicists just
announce, "Well, since there is no (material) ether, we are not using
one!" and did not change a single equation. This serious non sequitur
thus still exists in classical electrodynamics and especially in
electrical engineering. The model itself is flawed.
Jackson manfully
wrestles with that dilemma on p. 249 as follows:
"Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion that
the EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that
physically measurable quantities such as force somehow involve the
product of charge and field."
Here he frankly admits they still assume the force field in mass free
space, which is a non sequitur since a force field requires the presence
of mass. If one wishes, one could use the virtual particle flux model
of the vacuum (of space itself) and differentiate between a VIRTUAL
force field in space, which would be consistent with Feynman's statement
of the problem, and then use an OBSERVABLE force field in matter. That
would make a consistent theory, except it might change the "spatial EM
wave" to be a longitudinal EM wave instead of a transverse EM wave
(which I believe is proper anyway, and think it can be fairly
straightforwardly shown).
In general relativity,
if one changes the energy density of spacetime, one curves it and
thereby produces a gravitational change. If one curves it one way, one
has produced positive gravity. If one curves it the other way, one has
produced negative gravity or antigravitational field. (There is no
difference between field and spacetime in GR; the spacetime is comprised
of field(s) and the field is curved spacetime.) In the GR sense, all
forces --- whether mechanical, EM, or whatever, are gravitational in
nature since they are produced by the interaction of curved ST and
charge or some other entity.
In quantum field
theory, one of the axioms (stated or not) is the ability to freely
change the potential energy of any system, or the vacuum itself, at any
time and at any place. That is called "gauge freedom". The physicists
are usually very careful to do two changes at once, and just so that the
two free fields that are created (with all their energy also freely
created) are equal and opposite. That way, the "regauging" produces a
STRESS POTENTIAL and rotates the frame of the regauged system, but it
does not allow us stupid consumers to have a NET force field that could
forcibly move potentialized electrons through the external load and
power it freely. In short, they deliberately though unwittingly do the
"free changing of the energy" only in a manner whereby it does
continuous internal work upon the system, increasing its stress, and IS
NOT PERMITTED to do useful work in an external load for us. Our
comment on that one is that it's a helluva way to run the energy
railroad!
Note that the gauge
freedom principle does not prescribe the source of the energy -- which
has to come from the active vacuum, local curved spacetime, or both. It
has to come from the environment external to the physical system so
energized, and those two components make up that "external
environment". Else the gauge freedom principle of physics totally
falsifies the conservation of energy law, a priori.
Yet in the face of
that, the classical electrodynamicists and electrical engineers freely
regauge the Maxwell-Heaviside equations, continuously changing the
potential energy of the system in two mechanisms, and locking all that
excess free energy up in a stress potential, and having the external
environment continuously do internal work in the system to stress it,
and also rotating the frame of the system out of the lab frame. They
the textbooks and professors blithely state that "this is the same
system as before the regauging". That is a non sequitur of first rank!
All the above
discussion is simply to point out that the models have grown somewhat
haphazardly over the last century or more, and many non sequiturs are
contained in those models. Some of these non sequiturs are precisely
what discarded the ability to do antigravity and also to do overunity
systems. What is heartbreakingly needed is a massive program by our
very best theoreticians and foundations specialists to redo those
terrible old models, and give us something better to work with and
engineer with. Sadly, we see no recognition at all by the leaders of
the scientific community that this is the most critical task in all of
science. Instead, they will in fact literally crucify any young
graduate student who wishes to do such for his doctoral thesis, and any
young postdoctoral scientist who tries to do it. They also will now
allow funding of such a project. Instead, the scientific mindset now is
such that the hoary old models with all their errors are defended as if
Moses brought them down from the mountain on those stone tablets. The
real barrier to cheap, clean electrical energy and practical antigravity
is the prevailing mindset of science itself. So we will have to see
the usual grueling 50 year struggle of the young fellows against the old
mossybacks running science, before we can ever get a new science and a
new technology, no matter how much it is needed. The dogma has always
been far more important than the science, to many scientific leaders.
Hundreds of examples exist in the history of science, regularly pointed
out by scientific historians.
There presently is
much experimental work going on with lifters (e.g., see Jean-Louis
Naudin's website for up to the minute reports, results, instructions for
building your own, etc.) including the Biefield-Brown effect and
others. Even NASA has a patent assigned to it which it is hawking as
available for industry leasing. The patent is on a basic capacitor
effect, a sort of improved T. T. Brown effect. Extensive patenting
activity by the researchers in the field is also ongoing. Some of the
most advanced work is being done by parties here in Huntsville such as:
(1) Ning Li, who has returned to Huntsville Alabama and is still working
on gravitational and antigravitational effects with superconducting
circuits and materials (her little office is across from the Tom Bevill
Center), (2) Transdimensional Technologies,
http://www.tdimension.com/
[whose
earlier work has been replicated by Jean-Louis Naudin and other
associated researchers; their marvelous work is on Naudin's remarkable
website
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm ]; Transdimensional has
some very advanced work, is sweating out some of its filed patent
applications, and expects to have working transportation units in five
years or less, and (3) from time to time, Tim Ventura has worked with
Transdimensional Technologies, etc. Tim has a most interesting website
also, with some good results posted on it, and more being posted all the
time. Check out his really neat website at <http://www.americanantigravity.com>
The NASA Breakthrough
Propulsion Effort seems to be lagging a bit and woefully underfunded.
It could provide a real stimulus and driving force if it were
strengthened. Remains to be seen whether the bureaucracy will support
it, and develop something really far better than "big rockets", or stay
with its old standby rockets. Presently the bureaucracy is giving signs
of abandonment, by more or less expecting 20 years results to come from
ill-funded or unfunded efforts in a year or two. That is usually a sign
of preparing to write off a project. We hope that is not true in this
case, and we hope that NASA continues to fund this work.
But the real problem
in achieving electrogravity as a practical technology lies in undoing
the non sequiturs presently infesting our electrodynamics model and
partially infesting mechanics. I also think that can be done and hope
to get a chance to do it some day.
Meanwhile, the
experimenters are leading the way in a torrential rush, so to speak, and
they are pursuing the experiments and getting positive results. I
really think they will see to it that this genie does not get put back
into the bottle.
We will have more to
say in this area in the future, but not just at present. At present we
have to concentrate intensely on energy and the energy problem.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
-
Electro-Magnetism and Electro-Gravitity: The Kessler Effect |