Dear Tom, Sorry for the delay in replying. I have a busted right hand due to inexpert use of the mouse. I will study your remarks very carefully and as is my habit, am relaying them to the colleagues. The FRS comes to much the same conclusion as you do using the language of metrics and so forth, and using a computer to do all the heavy algebra. This seems very sensible to me, and I see my role as a catalyst for the real experts, being a chemist by training. I can't say more at present due to confidentiality, but the paper ought to be out shortly. More later, Myron. FROM: INTERNET:Tebearden@aol.com, INTERNET:Tebearden@aol.com TO: (unknown), FishnChips CC: (unknown), INTERNET:jbenveni@lbn.org (unknown), INTERNET:orbitx@ois.com.au (unknown), INTERNET:RRudo710@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:alexander.s.labounsky@boeing.com (unknown), INTERNET:chronos@mail.enter.net (unknown), INTERNET:aiken@chem.columbia.edu (unknown), INTERNET:henry.monteith@enmu.edu (unknown), INTERNET:shelburne_john@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil (unknown), INTERNET:Reed15@marshall.edu (unknown), INTERNET:Puthoff@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:Mhermanns@aol.com Dr Fred Wood, INTERNET:fwood@igc.apc.org Dr Fred Woods Sr., INTERNET:csiri@igc.apc.org (unknown), INTERNET:mps@internetmci.com (unknown), INTERNET:emre@texas.net (unknown), INTERNET:randyd@ro.com (unknown), INTERNET:btillman@colsa.com (unknown), INTERNET:jlhayes@colsa.com Dr. Terence Barrett, INTERNET:Barrett506@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:4kenmoore@sprintmail.com (unknown), cliveleach (unknown), steveferguson (unknown), [70403,3645] DATE: 18/10/97 12:24 Re: Re: Rodriguez' paper on Ziolkowski-like waves Sender: Tebearden@aol.com Received: from emout03.mail.aol.com (emout03.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.94]) by dub-img-8.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.7) with ESMTP id MAA10279; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:24:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Tebearden@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout03.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA01951; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:18:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:18:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971018121653_847173499@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: FishnChips@compuserve.com cc: 4kenmoore@sprintmail.com, Barrett506@aol.com, jlhayes@colsa.com, btillman@colsa.com, cliveleach@compuserve.com, randyd@ro.com, emre@texas.net, mps@internetmci.com, csiri@igc.apc.org, fwood@igc.apc.org, Mhermanns@aol.com, Puthoff@aol.com, Reed15@marshall.edu, shelburne_john@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil, henry.monteith@enmu.edu, steveferguson@compuserve.com, aiken@chem.columbia.edu, chronos@mail.enter.net, alexander.s.labounsky@boeing.com, RRudo710@aol.com, 70403.3645@compuserve.com, orbitx@ois.com.au, jbenveni@lbn.org Subject: Re: Rodriguez' paper on Ziolkowski-like waves Dear Myron, Thanks very much indeed for the succinct explanation of how the B(3) is derived. To me that is tremendously important. In my simple-minded way, I view the vacuum as just one giant potential, and I view THAT as identically spacetime itself. In other words, if the geometry is going to be active and all that, then we jolly well have to model it as a real something. And that means that it can't just be "flat." If the geometry is to be active, then it is dynamic and changing. By using the curvature in your derivation, it seems to me that you have now fundamentally shown this or something very close to it(of course I'm using simple terms!) So to me your derivation of B(3) directly shows "vacuum engines". I think it is direct evidence that we can indeed treat spacetime as just a giant potential. But then you get it all, particularly electromagnetics! First, by Whittaker 1903, any scalar potential can be decomposed into a harmonic series of bidirectional LONGITUDINAL wavepairs. Hey! If I consider ST as such a scalar potential, then this means that dynamic spacetime itself is further decomposable into LONGITUDINAL wavepairs. Further, these longitudinal waves are now analogous to the pressure waves inside a fluid or "ocean", as compared to the "surface" transverse waves on that ocean. The pressure waves are not at all limited to the speed of the surface waves. Similarly, these longitudinal waves are not limited to the speed of light c. Now ultimately every "normal conversation" potential is just an alteration of the fundamental background vacuum potential; in short, it's just a direct curvature of spacetime. Immediately B(3) surfaces itself! And as shown by Whittaker 1904, all normal EM fields and waves are in fact CREATED by the interference of two scalar potentials. I think that, if that could be properly expressed rather than in the crude language I use, it would also positively show the absolute reality of B(3) and directly confirm your work. Well, that sort of thing IS a new field of endeavor! Because one has now involved a unified field theory, and one has extended general relativity (GR) well beyond what its practitioners utilize. Here's a short insight: First, one has the gross, overall ST curvature just as the potential itself (actually a delta to the vacuum/ST potential). But one also has a deterministic pattern of infolded curvatures (energy density changes) inside the overall ST curvature. Indeed, one can then just add a simple negative potential corresponding to the negation of the OVERALL ST curvature of the first one, and get what looks like a "flat spacetime" region, but one with a decidedly different internal Whittaker structure. That "flat" ST region now becomes quite different from a normal "flat" ST curvature (which implicitly assumes a randomized internal structure, whenever it is even considered). So now the term "flat spacetime" must also be expanded. There is an "overall flat" spacetime that is not at all "normal" inside. Any mass placed in that spacetime will undergo deep and fundamental alterations (such as flipping one quark in a U235 nucleus and moving it one element up or down the isomer chain). Yet our gross "electron wiggle" detectors will not even see an EM forcefield there, because they only sense the bulk curvature (net potential gradient, or net force). They do not wiggle to show us the altered internal structure. The beauty of an "overall flat" spacetime (i.e., net zero potential) is that the internal structure of that modified flat spacetime potential now will mix and spread slowly (as if by diffusion) with "normal" spacetime potential. So one can now condition an entire region, etc. with hidden internal "vacuum engines" that nonetheless will pass right through the Faraday shielding of the electron shells of an atom, into the nucleus itself. There these "infolded forces" will go to work on the "infolded" items, such as the quarks comprising a proton or a neutron. By deliberately forming the internal structuring used in the "artificial flat spacetime", at least in theory one can directly engineer the atomic nucleus and its components and interactions at will. Just treat those items as if they were capacitors being "charged up." It takes a time delay for the diffusion of the internal structure of ST to alter the local ST in which those nuclear components are embedded. But as the local ST charges up with the new internal structure, then the phenomena will start to happen. Note also that, since any charge has its own self-potential, it is a broken symmetry in the energetic exchange with the active vacuum potential, as is well-known in particle physics. But what is missing from particle physics is that this same charge can have the internal structure of its self-potential altered, by being imbedded in an internally altered "net flat spacetime potential". In that case, one electron is not necessarily the same as another electron. As can be seen, one has introduced a sort of "internal topology" and structure of ST, in addition to the present "external" topology and structure of ST. I think your work with B(3) will eventually open up all these areas and lots more I have not even thought of! E.g., we can crudely model velocity as a rotation away from the velocity vector in flat 3-space, toward a hyperdimensional right angle. We need not limit ourselves to 4-space; it is better to work in n-dimensions, and choose n to fit the particular situation. So in special relativity the Lorentz transform is just capturing the notions that (1) speed c is just a right angle rotation, and (2) any lesser speed is a partial rotation. The reason the "mass" of a moving object seems to increase is actually mistated, I think. What really appears to happen is that one's force vector applied to the mass to accelerate it is given in observer 3-space. But the object itself is in a rotating frame as it picks up speed. So only the projection of the 3-space force into that rotated frame (at any particular observer time) gives the component of the force that actually acts upon the mass. It is the FORCE that is losing its ability to influence the mass's acceleration! Since mass is most often considered as the resistance to a disturbing force, then WITH RESPECT TO THAT FORCE SENSOR, the mass seems to be increasing (where we assume the force has remained unchanged). I think we have just not thought deeply enough, but just assumed the same old force in 3-space as being the force acting upon the speeding mass. At any rate, Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction also results from this rotating frame notion. The object appears (to the 3-space observer) to get shorter along its line of motion. Just at a full orthogonal rotation (just at speed c), its length reaches zero. So now its a transverse plane moving at speed c -- something very akin to a photon or an EM wavefront. Now in n-space if you rotate one more orthogonal turn, the object now will appear as a line in 3-space, moving at speed c(exp2). With a third orthogonal turn away, it will be a point moving at speed c(exp3). But if it's a point in space moving at c(exp3) then it is one of the fundamental constituents of spacetime itself! With additional departing orthogonal turns, one gets a series of ST points moving at speeds of c(exp k), where k = 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... n, ... etc. And something like that is what I think ST is composed of, geometrically speaking. Mathematically and logically it is interesting also, because a point is a "discontinuity" in geometry. You cannot logically derive a line as being "composed" of points, unless you make an assumption that recognizes the identity of zero length and "very close to zero but finite" length. What is really argued is that the two notions (length and nonlength) become indistinguishable at sufficiently small lengths. But then one can always "trap" another point in there to begin with, inside the decreasing length in the limit process, and so get another discontinuity. All of this sort of thing is due to the absence of a necessary fourth law from Aristotelian logic's three laws, which are incomplete. Now back to Whittaker's decomposition of the scalar potential into bidirectional longitudinal wavepairs (each pair consisting of a longitudinal wave and its true phase conjugate replica). That decomposition was done by W-1903. But in 1904, Whittaker also showed that any field, wave, etc. can be decomposed into two scalar potentials. Let us now additionally apply that rule. We choose any one of the longitudinal waves comprising the scalar potential's decomposition. Now we apply W-1904, and decompose that internal wave into two more scalar potentials! We go ahead and do that for all the internal biwaves. Now we have transformed that one scalar potential into jillions of internal scalar potentials! Let us take now any one of those infolded scalar potentials. We reapply Whittaker 1903, and decompose this internal potential into a new set of bidirectional longitudinal wavepairs. I think you see the point. We can increase the internesting and the "levels of decomposition" without limit. We have fields within fields, and waves within waves, and potentials within waves, and waves within potentials, etc. That to me is what ST really is. And with some difficulty and care, every bit of that internal vast structuring can be engineered, shaped, altered, and utilized. And any part of that "smooth" mathematical ensemble that you alter when you assemble a "scalar potential" or "ST potential" or "specific ST geometry", will constitute a "vacuum engine" in the new region. Even when the overall bulk ST potential is the same, and the local ST is quite flat overall. I suspect that ultimately your triumph with B(3) is going to usher in all this sort of "vacuum engineering" or direct "ST engineering", as envisioned briefly but in far less detail by Nobelist Lee in his important book on particle physics and field theory. So I am extremely grateful just to be along on the fringes to see this new thing come in and give us a breathtaking new physics. Very best wishes and warm regards, Cheers, Tom The fact that you derived the B(3) directly from alterations