Dear Tom, I agree completely with Wheeler about the observation of a phenomenon, and urge the Department of Energy to back your own grat efforts. The point I was making to Dr. Barrett is that the vacuum property A x A* makes itself felt in the IFE. Your own investigations of the vacuum are back up this point of view. I advise all recipients to study your thoughts very carefully even though they are not in mathematical language. Ultimately, as Barrett shows, mathematics follows the phenomenon. Myron ------------------ FROM: INTERNET:Tebearden@aol.com, INTERNET:Tebearden@aol.com TO: (unknown), INTERNET:4kenmoore@sprintmail.com CC: (unknown), INTERNET:barrier@csranet.com (unknown), INTERNET:Exec-Sec-Central@hq.doe.gov (unknown), INTERNET:gjohnson@ksu.edu (unknown), INTERNET:bscott@metz.une.edu.au (unknown), INTERNET:thornt_m@motsat.sat.mot.com Prof. G. Kalbermann, INTERNET:HOPE@vms.huji.ac.il (unknown), INTERNET:TCupolo@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:science@mail.frii.com (unknown), INTERNET:shelburne_john@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil (unknown), INTERNET:alexander.s.labounsky@boeing.com Robert G. Flower, INTERNET:chronos@mail.enter.net (unknown), INTERNET:aiken@chem.columbia.edu (unknown), INTERNET:reed15@marshall.edu (unknown), INTERNET:mps@internetmci.com (unknown), INTERNET:orbitx@ois.com.au (unknown), INTERNET:btillman@colsa.com (unknown), INTERNET:jhayes@colsa.com Dr Fred Woods Sr., INTERNET:csiri@igc.apc.org Dr Fred Wood, INTERNET:fwood@igc.apc.org Dr. Terence Barrett, INTERNET:Barrett506@aol.com (unknown), FishnChips (unknown), cliveleach (unknown), [76570,2270] (unknown), steveferguson (unknown), [70403,3645] DATE: 17/11/97 14:45 Re: Fwd: Evans' Seminal Discussions With Barrett Sender: Tebearden@aol.com Received: from mrin43.mail.aol.com (mrin43.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.153]) by hil-img-8.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.9) with ESMTP id OAA17938; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:44:33 -0500 (EST) From: Tebearden@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by mrin43.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA14990; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:40:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:40:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971117144047_2005005376@mrin43.mail.aol.com> To: 4kenmoore@sprintmail.com cc: Barrett506@aol.com, FishnChips@compuserve.com, cliveleach@compuserve.com, fwood@igc.apc.org, csiri@igc.apc.org, jhayes@colsa.com, btillman@colsa.com, orbitx@ois.com.au, mps@internetmci.com, 76570.2270@compuserve.com, reed15@marshall.edu, steveferguson@compuserve.com, aiken@chem.columbia.edu, chronos@mail.enter.net, alexander.s.labounsky@boeing.com, shelburne_john@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil, 70403.3645@compuserve.com, science@mail.frii.com, TCupolo@aol.com, HOPE@vms.huji.ac.il, thornt_m@motsat.sat.mot.com, bscott@metz.une.edu.au, gjohnson@ksu.edu, Exec-Sec-Central@hq.doe.gov, barrier@csranet.com Subject: Fwd: Evans' Seminal Discussions With Barrett Ken, For your information. It looks as if this new approach will tie together the "overt" or "outfolded" EM with formal gauge theory. Even this is quite a fight, as shown by the harsh treatment of Evans (and, as you recall, by former harsh treatment of ultrawideband radar theorists and pioneers). Hopefully the new gauge will survive, however, and not just continue to be treated as zero. Those scientists braving the fray and taking all the flak deserve all the support they can get, not the hostile fire they continue to experience. If the new gauge and its implications do persevere, then lots of theorists and experimentalists will leap into the fray to pursue this area. Perhaps eventually we can also nudge some of them into incorporating the "infolded" EM (i.e., the infolded longitudinal EM waves inside fields and potentials anyhow, as shown by Whittaker in 1903). I.e., to incorporate "topology infolded within topology". If that can happen, then at long last we will have an EM-based engineerable unified field model of vacuum engines and vacuum engineering, including action at a distance, as contrasted to the present rather feeble signal engineering and signal propagation at c. As an aside, tentatively the "Plasma connection" -- for which, as you know, I under nondisclosure agreement -- seems to have experimentally established my extension to the work-energy theorem. Since I am not knowledgeable in plasmas, however, I hesitate to state this too positively at the present time. But phenomena that completely violate all combustion theory , electromagnetic theory, and -- for such little as I know -- seemingly conventional plasma theory, can still be explained by the new EWE theorem based on dramatically improving the "single pass" energy collection endemic to conventional systems, into multipass, multicollection (asymmetrical self-regauging). And the modified plasma seems to be working and working magnificently. It may very well also be that the electronuclear reaction is prominently involved, because of the nearly total cessation of input fuel once the full reaction (4th plateau) is reached, even as exhaust material continues and even increases. My tentative impressions so far are that (1) the plasma connection is viable, (2) those phenomena are probably real, and (3) they do at least to first order fit the EWE theorem. So, at least tenuously, presently we have hopes of eventually establishing the EWE theorem, which as you know will then pose a possible explanation of the exact energetics mechanism ongoing in violent astrophysical phenomena such as gamma bursters. At least this thing is something working in the private laboratory, albeit closely guarded. But at some point commercialization will obviously be required, to preserve the connection's funding and ability to continue research. And at that point much of this can then be released openly. Presently he is still securing proper patent coverage. For the benefit of CC recipients, I cannot answer any questions at all regarding the plasma connection, because of the nature of my nondisclosure agreement. Meanwhile, I am much encouraged by our own two small CTEC projects, which already take up all the manpower bench capability we have. We will have patent coverage on the "left hand" project shortly, but due to the extreme simplicity of the base concepts we must continue to protect the approach until viable working models and funding are secured. Wheeler stated something significant when he pointed out that "no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." In our case, no overunity project is a successful overunity project until a working model is produced and independently tested and verified in a full-up government approved (to NIST standards) test laboratory. We are all very pleased by the new associate who is joining us, and I will get cracking on that just as soon as I return from presenting the seminar. I have already sent him an initial package of energy material. An awesome thing has emerged from my intense work on the Priore mechanism, once it was broken into its two major submechanisms. Summarizing broadly, some potential (hypothesized) impact on the present EM models, etc.: (1) transverse EM waves involve signal propagation at the speed of light, largely single-pass interaction and therefore the standard work-energy theorem, and oscillation of energy collected/bunched in 3-space. In much of the theory for power systems, relativistic effects are largely ignored. Further, there is no consideration at all of the internal longitudinal biwave (graviton) structuring and dynamics infolded inside the potentials and fields. (2) The photon (basic quantum of EM field, so to speak, although that may be a somewhat inaccurate statement) is comprised of both energy and time, with canonical coupling. The photon IS NOT a little piece of energy; instead, it is a little piece of angular momentum (or action). Waves are considered to be comprised of photons, in the particle view. So EM waves carry and transport not only energy components, but time components as well -- something missing from conventional physics. Photon interactions -- including virtual photon reactions (charge) also are involved in time and time stream and time dynamics interactions. (3) Since energy and time are EM-canonical, then the so-called photon interaction creates not only energy changes, but also time changes as well. I've worked that out a little deeper, but it's too involved to go into here and it's also immature as yet. In other words, anytime one has EM spatial energy changes, one also has canonical time-stream changes also involved. When one has spatial EM structuring, one has time-structuring. When one has energy translation through space, one has canonical time translation. And so on. (4) Transverse EM waves are postulated as made up of coupling and uncoupling spin-2 photon/antiphoton pairs, by adopting a rigorous interpretation of the distortion correction theorem and applying it to photons and antiphotons as well as to waves. The photons and antiphotons are transverse, in normal NLO theory. (5) The longitudinal EM waves seem to be made up of coupling and uncoupling (spin-2? One hesitates to use the term spin here, unless it is a new kind of spin) longitudinal photon/antiphoton pairs. Since its "energy amplitude" is seemingly infinite because it can have infinite velocity, the longitudinal EM wave is describeable in 3-space only as an interaction or intersection, largely determined by time interactions. Instead, to the 3-space observer, the longitudinal EM wave must otherwise appear time-like. All longitudinal EM waves seemingly are "infolded" waves inside scalar potentials. Considering the normal EM fields and waves as simply two such scalar potentials in the Whittaker 1903 sense, all EM transverse fields and waves are comprised of these infolded longitudinal waves WHICH USE POTENTIALS, FIELDS, AND WAVES AS THEIR NORMAL "PROPAGATION" MEDIUM. Thus they can easily propagate right through a dielectric or a concrete wall, by propagating through the internal conglomerate potential thereof. They can propagate through the H-bonding potential in the ocean, or the Earth conglomerate potential in the ground. As Gorshkov stated, "We have made the oceans of the world transparent." These infolded longitudinal EM waves are also electrogravitational waves, as well as oscillations in the local rate of flow of time. The "frequency" of one of these infolded longitudinal EM waves represents a sort of velocity-modulation about its particular average velocity through its potential medium (wrt the normal external observer) or a sort of phase modulation. (6) Nonlinear optics seems to be dramatically changed and extended by a shift from use of transverse (spatial energy oscillating) EM waves to longitudinal (time-stream rate oscillating) EM waves. Now one is not working in SIGNAL matters at all. Instead, one has involved full general relativity and perhaps then some. One is working with VACUUM ENGINES, or SPACETIME ENGINES -- internested curvature and dynamics of the local spacetime potential itself. The spacetime/vacuum itself is structured, altered, and engineered by these waves. (in my view, potential = spacetime = vacuum anyway, and it is EMPTINESS that is an unacceptable logical notion.) This leads to "internesting" dynamics inside any base spacetime used as a departure for the curvature geometry. In other words, "topologies within topologies." (7) When pumped by infolded longitudinal EM waves, all matter is nonlinear in the nonlinear optical sense. However, it is COMPLETELY nonlinear in this case (i.e., any spatial mass with structure and energy dynamics is obviously totally nonlinear to the time-domain!). Nonlinear optical-type functioning applies at all frequencies, even ELF. Further, any spatial mass -- as we know from GR theory -- down to its most precise internal structure and dynamics -- has a precisely corresponding structuring and dynamics the local vacuum/spacetime in which the mass is embedded. That is, it carries its own "precise vacuum engine" with it always. (8) For optical pumping in the infolded longitudinal EM domain, it seems (hypothesized) that a mass's own vacuum engine corresponds to its "input signal" (terminology of ordinary phase conjugate optics, but now in the GR nested ST curvature sense). When the mass is pumped with longitudinal EM biwaves inside the infolded EM domain (i.e., purely in the time domain), it is pumped along the time axis, not the spatial energy axes. It is pumped in the VACUUM ENGINE domain, and the object already carries its own vacuum engine. So the mass as a pumped phase conjugate mirror (PPCM) now produces an amplified vacuum antiengine (phase conjugate replica or VACUUM ANTIENGINE. In otherwords, it now restructures and alters its own local spacetime, based on time-reversal of the exact present vacuum engine (local spacetime structuring) initially present in the mass as its "input signal". The mass and every piece of it -- at least in living cells -- will therefore be directly changed by the interaction of this new and powerful ANTIENGINE, which simply (applying the distortion correction theorem and stretching things a bit) reverses the mass back along its PREVIOUS TRAJECTORY THROUGH THE EXTERNAL OBSERVER'S TIME FLOW. (9) The background time-considered-as-a-kind-of-space may be considered to be digital, but many many digital dynamics ongoing at once, in both the virtual state and the observable state. A mass immersed in interaction with this is actually in continual interaction with the entire variety of transverse and longitudinal photons and antiphotons, including both the energy-portion of those photons and the time-portion of them. So it has many time streams and many "dynamic structurings" along the time axis, as well as along the spatial energy axes. The end result is that every mass has a "memory" in this time-space, of where it has been. When the mass is pumped along the time axis, the extended distortion correction theorem now causes the formation of a vacuum anti-engine (spacetime antiengine) that causes the entire mass and all its parts to "move back along its past time-track toward a previous state". (10) But even more exciting vistas await. One is free to "tailor" the situation by simply introducing a set of longitudinal biwaves (Whittaker) and their products (Ziolkowski) into the time-like longitudinal EM wave pumping in the internal domain. In that case, one can alter and even "steer" the interaction. (11) From that approach there then falls out the ability to directly go in and engineer the atomic nucleus at will, by use of "tailoring" internal domain vacuum engines and "pumping" internal domain longitudinal biwaves. Eventually one ought to do almost anything one wishes with the atomic nucleus, and with nuclear reactions in general. Perhaps, even clean up the atomic wastes and change the excess plutonium into something harmless. Of course that is much in the future, and requires extensive phenomenology investigation. (12) But I believe that all this give a good background for the Priore mechanisms and also for the anomalous nuclide changes now found by some hundreds of "cold fusion" researchers, as well as the production of anomalous heat. I suspect that eventually the electronuclear interaction will be found to be the general mechanism for the cold fusion results, and the anomalous energy excess will be an application of the extended work energy theorem. Certainly I feel very strongly that the Patterson device already proves the presence of the extended work energy theorem. Definitely the Patterson device or versions of it produces not only excess energy but also changes in the nuclides. Anyhow, it's a great time to be alive. With tremendous scientists such as Barrett and Evans (as contrasted to my own woefully inadequate mathematical preparation) working in this area, it will almost surely evolve. Now if we can just get the Department of Energy to wake up and reconsider the foundations of EM theory, and turn their attention to the foundations of energy flow, collection, and dissipation theory rather than big nuclear processes and equipments! One thing is obvious. The only things presently stopping a real revolution in power systems and overunity EM systems are (1) the lack of strong research funds, (2) the wrong focus by the large power system research funds made available, (3) lack of focussing sufficient strategic (Shipov's classification) physicists and electrodynamicists onto the problem of completely overhauling electrodynamics, and (4) as Max Planck pointed out, the adamant opposition by the operationalists (Shipov's classification) in control of funding, research, publication, tenure, et al. Cheers, Tom Bearden --------------------- Forwarded message: From: FishnChips@compuserve.com (Evans) Sender: FishnChips@compuserve.com (Evans) To: arp@MPA-Garching.MPG.DE (Prof. Halton Arp), tebearden@aol.com (Dr. T. E. Bearden), bergia@bologna.infn.it (Prof. Silvio Bergia), rsc@europa.com (Dr Roger Scott Cathey), andrew@cantera.reduaz.mx (Prof. Andrew Chubykalo), ciubotariu@ica1.uni-stuttgart.de (Pr. Corneliu Ciubotariu), wcoffey@tcd.ie (Prof. W. T. Coffey), aquarius@t-link.net (Alastair Couper), croca@cc.fc.ul.pt (Prof. J. R. Croca), cyganski@ece.wpi.edu (David Cyganski), ghed@linux1.mec.utt.ro (Prof. G. Draganescu), selis@thsun1.jinr.dubna.su (Prof. S. M. Eliseev), vanenk@mpq.mpg.de (Prof. Dr. S. J. van Enk), ernst@compsci.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Prof. David Ernst), sesposito@na.infn.it (Prof. Salvatore Esposito), tvf@gibbs.umd.edu (Dr. T. van Flandern), lance.fletcher@freelance.com (Dr. Lance Fletcher), chronos@mail.enter.net (Robert G. Flower), jhf3@cornell.edu (Prof. Jack Freed), rsf1@ebicom.net (Bob Fritzius), gabriel@ce.ifisicam.unam.mx (Dr. Gabriel German), f40c005@ksu.edu.sa (Ahmed Hasanein), franz.hasselbach@uni-tuebingen.de (Prof. Dr. Franz Hasselbach), pr-holland@wpg.uwe.ac.uk (Prof. Peter Holland), physjch@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Prof. Justin Huang), ignatovi@nfsun1.jinr.dubna.su (Prof. P. Ignatovich), fs300017@sol.yorku.ca (Prof. S. Jeffers), hope@vms.huji.ac.il (Prof. G. Kalbermann), sfkapusc@cyf-kr.edu.pl (Prof. E. Kapuscik), apeiron@vif.com (Roy Keyes), kim@umdhep.umd.edu (Prof. Y. S. Kim), LALJR@CRPP.U-BORDEAUX.FR (Jean-Rene Lalanne), deleos@le.infn.it (Prof. S. de Leo), LEPORINI@mailbox.difi.unipi.it (Dino Leporini), gclie@flash.net (Dr. George C. Lie), avanderm@du.edu (Prof. A. van der Merwe), milan.meszaros@usa.net (Prof. Milan Meszaros), mignani@amaldi.fis.uniroma3.it (Prof. Roberto Mignani), louise@alarmix.net (Dr. Pal Molnar), pozhar@cheme.cornell.edu (Dr. Liuda Pozhar), rhprince@yorku.ca (Prof. R. H. Prince), schori@math.orst.edu (Prof. Richard Schori), franco.selleri@ba.infn.it (Prof. Franco Selleri), stuckeym@acad.etown.edu (Prof. Mark Stuckey) Date: 97-11-17 11:52:29 EST TO: Dr. Terence Barrett, INTERNET:barrett506@aol.com Re: Yang Mills Electromagnetism Dr. Terence Barrett, ex Naval Research Laboratory and NASA, Dear Dr. Barrett, I can confirm that the B Cyclics and B(3) theory come from an O(3) gauge theory, fully equivalent to yours. I have thought through what is meant by your scalar to vector commutator, in my notation it is: A bold sup 0 x G tilde bold sub 30 = A sup 0 G tilde sub 30 - G tilde sub 30 A sup 0 and it is easy to show that given the B Cyclics, the O(3) gauge theory is consistent with the Maxwell equations as usually written (your local situation maybe) and with the equation of motion for B(3), showing no Faraday induction under any circumstances. This is also self consistent because the B Cyclics are derived from plane wave solutions of the Maxwell equations. I will send you by mail the detailed calculations. The great advantage of this O(3) gauge theory is that it leads to a unified representation of electrodynamics with other gauge field theories of SU(2) type. The overall conclusion is that A(1) x A(2) is a gauge invariant observable of the inverse Faraday effect that signals the existence of an O(3) (or SU(2)) gauge theory for electrodynamics under all conditions. Obviously, those who have chosen to criticise my own O(3) gauge work also by implication criticise all SU(2) gauge work in electrodynamics, including yours. This is entirely misplaced and erroneous because the criticism takes place inside a U(1) gauge structure, whereas the theory being criticised has an O(3) = SU(2) form. The fact that the B(3) theory is consistent with the Maxwell equations for (1) and (2) is obvious, because B(3) is derived from B(1) x B(2), which is an observable. So this means that B(3) is actually consistent with all the novel work carried out recently by people such as Chubykalo, Smirnov Rueda, Munera, Guzman, Roscoe, Dvoeglazov, Bearden et alia, Lehnert, Roy, Recami et al. and many others who all show the limits of electrodynamics, as well as many of the contributors in your own book with Grimes. Therefore the following can now be said about the critics: 1) Barron, Buckingham et alia are incorrect because an O(3) gauge theory conserves CPT. Barron's attempt to apply CPT theory to classical electrodynamics is completely erroneous, as pointed out by Huang and Vigier. 2) Lakhtakia and Grimes are incorrect because they again criticise within a U(1) form, whereas an O(3) form is needed for B(3) theory without any doubt. Actually I am not sure whether these colleagues are saying that B(3) is zero or not. Perhaps you can talk with them and clarify the situation to them. They are surely familiar with your work, which is structurally identical with mine. 3) Comay is incorrect on these grounds and is also trivially (i.e. algebraically) erroneous in his Stokes Theorem paper. All three of the Comay papers are conceptually erroneous. In particular, an O(3) gauge theory is Lorentz covariant in the manner of general gauge field theory and B(3) is consistent with the Maxwell equations as well as the new equation showing lack of Faraday induction due ot B(3) under all conditions. This is all neatly and quite simply shown by O(3) gauge theory. 4) The comments by van Enk apply again to a U(1) electrodynamics, in which B(3) is zero by definition. Otherwise van Enk leaves the door open for B(3) and is actually a careful supporter rather than a critic as far as I can see. In any case these terms "critic" and "supporter" become superfluous once one realizes that we are within an O(3) gauge theory. The mathematics take over and leave no room for doubt unless one rejects all gauge theory of the Yang Mills type as does Kiehn. In view of the overwhelming evidence for quarks, massive boson, etc. I think it is foolish in the extreme to reject Yang Mills gauge theory and much better to try to apply it to the electromagnetic sector in an attempt to clear the way for a unified field theory of all four fields. 5) The way in which B(3) interacts with matter is governed by the way in which A(1) x A(2) is observable, as in the inverse Faraday effect. So this deals with the papers by Raja et alia and by Rikken, who yet again work within U(1) electrodynamics and make the deadful error repeated by Jeffers recently, of asserting that B(3) is a U(1) magnetic field. It is an O(3) magnetic field proportional to A(1) x A(2). Unless people take the time and make the effort to understand Yang Mills theory will never properly understand B(3). I know that this is very difficult perhaps, at first, but the alternative is a kind of endless argument which can get quite personal as the Hunter papers show. These were incredibly nasty attacks on my character and sanity made in public on several occasions, and scientifically riddled with errors. This kind of thing is very bad for science, after all, no one questions Penrose's advice in your exellent volume with Barrett and the radicals are simply trying to follow that kind of advice. Finally the surprising comment by Jeffers that B(3) has not been observed is of course incorrect in an O(3) electrodynamics, it has been observed many times through A(1) x A(2). So what comes through all this is that the critics, not surprisingly, use the traditional U(1) form theory in an attempt to criticise O(3) form theory. A great deal of education and patient argument is needed to overcome this intellectual inertia. I have been most unfortunate in bearing the brunt of all this and I cannot help feeling that much of it is not really scientifially motivated, being personally motivated perhaps because of the originality of the work. The personal nature of these criticisms become very clear in the case of Hunter, and to his credit, Jeffers HAS tried to counter this in a professional manner, but the damage, unfortunately, has been done. Putting together your reasoning and mine, and bearing in mind that our theories are structurally identical, real progress should now be possible. I appreciate from personal experience the intellectual courage needed to try to push forward electrodynamics as advised by Penrose. MWE cc colleagues.