Dear Tom, I think that a device based on the theory would be very convincing. I hope that the Washington establishment takes some serious notice of you pretty soon, and it is a pleasure to receive your e mail, Myron. FROM: INTERNET:Tebearden@aol.com, INTERNET:Tebearden@aol.com TO: (unknown), INTERNET:bscott@metz.une.edu.au CC: (unknown), INTERNET:JLKenny@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:sorenbh@ibm.net (unknown), INTERNET:RRudo710@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:Federico.F.Pena@hq.doe.gov (unknown), INTERNET:chronos@mail.enter.net (unknown), INTERNET:btillman@colsa.com (unknown), INTERNET:jhayes@colsa.com (unknown), INTERNET:Puthoff@aol.com (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:rbrtbass@pahrump.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:john1@nidlink.com (unknown), INTERNET:FGolden238@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:emre@texas.net (unknown), INTERNET:orbitx@ois.com.au Dr. Terence Barrett, INTERNET:Barrett506@aol.com (unknown), INTERNET:4kenmoore@sprintmail.com (unknown), FishnChips (unknown), cliveleach (unknown), steveferguson (unknown), navtech DATE: 29/10/97 02:22 Re: Re: Flow of observable virtual energy in batteries Sender: Tebearden@aol.com Received: from emout40.mail.aol.com (emout40.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.74]) by dub-img-7.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.7) with ESMTP id CAA07650; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 02:22:06 -0500 (EST) From: Tebearden@aol.com Received: by emout40.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) id CAA16777; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 02:22:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 02:22:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971029012358_1723968108@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: bscott@metz.une.edu.au cc: 4kenmoore@sprintmail.com, FishnChips@compuserve.com, Barrett506@aol.com, cliveleach@compuserve.com, orbitx@ois.com.au, emre@texas.net, FGolden238@aol.com, john1@nidlink.com, mps@internetmci.com, csiri@igc.apc.org, fwood@igc.apc.org, Mhermanns@aol.com, Puthoff@aol.com, rbrtbass@pahrump.com, reed15@marshall.edu, steveferguson@compuserve.com, shelburne_john@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil, henry.monteith@enmu.edu, aiken@chem.columbia.edu, jhayes@colsa.com, btillman@colsa.com, chronos@mail.enter.net, alexander.s.labounsky@boeing.com70403.3645@compuserve.com, Federico.F.Pena@hq.doe.gov, RRudo710@aol.com, sorenbh@ibm.net, navtech@compuserve.com, JLKenny@aol.com Subject: Re: Flow of observable virtual energy in batteries Hi Brad, Don't mind answering your question (except for one tiny piece) because the answer is already covered by our patent applications. (We'll never be granted the patent, of course, until we get the unit working and have it independently tested and certified. That's the way it should be!). Answer: Yes. But it's coming directly from the vacuum, continually, and flowing "through" the poles' charges. NOT in EM theory, but well-known for 40 years in particle physics, is this: Any dipole (and any charge) is a broken symmetry in the violent virtual particle flux of the local vacuum. By definition of "broken symmetry", this means that a part of the virtual photons absorbed from the vacuum by the separated charges of that dipole, are NOT radiated back as VIRTUAL photons, but rather as potentially "observable" photons. Well, the only potentially "observable" energy flow from that dipole (and from its charges) is the Poynting flow. This means that the dipole is already a device that continually extracts EM energy from the vacuum and sends that extracted energy back to the vacuum as Poynting flow. The part of the violent virtual flux exchange between the vacuum and the charges of the dipole, that is NOT gated this way by the charge, is radiated back to vacuum as VIRTUAL energy. This exchange of energy between vacuum and the mass of charge q is actually the "massless electrical charge" of the mass of charge q. The vacuum interaction is the source of the energy for all potentially observable EM fields, energy flows, and potentials. < By connecting the battery to a circuit, the potential contained in the battery is allowed to leave, through free electrons moving off to reach a more desireable equilibrium.> Answer: No. Even if a free dipole is just sitting there in space, it is radiating Poynting energy, driven by the vacuum, and gating that energy flow out because of its asymmetry in its virtual particle exchange with the seething vacuum. Electron flow has nothing whatsoever to do with this process. The way you get electron flow in a circuit is this: Electrons can hardly move longitudinally down the conductors, but only with drift velocity (in a typical case, a few inches per hour!) Most electron movement is laterally, since it is longitudinally restrained and spinning, and acts as a gyro. So it gyro-precesses laterally (radially) in the wire, when a longitudinal force is applied to it. The EM wave in the vacuum is actually longitudinal, the texts are wrong. (Maxwell, based on an assumption by Faraday, discarded half the electromagnetics by just assuming the stress in the ether without anything producing that stress, which violates Newton's third law (which is why the electrodynamicists have missed the EM mechanism that generates the third law reaction!) Now normally electrodynamicists only use, for the magnitudes of phi and E , the amount of energy that will "pile up" (continually collect upon) an intercepting point coulomb of charge for phi, and the total force exerted across the particle (and therefore "on" it, by the pressure differential across it. Understand, we do not calculate and we do not mesure at all the magnitude of the POTENTIAL ITSELF or of the E-FIELD (more accurately, the gradient of the potential) ITSELF! No textbook does that, no professor does that, no student does that, no journal does that. What they calculate is the equilibrium distortion (divergence) in the Poynting flow from and by a point unit charge, with the energy flow impinging upon an intercepting point coulomb of charge. I point out that how much energy is collected in a standard bucket thrust into a flowing river at one point, has nothing at all to do with the magnitude of the RIVER ITSELF. So things out there have gotten highly distorted and misunderstood, although the really good electrodynamicists certainly know what we just stated. Just go look it up yourself! The problem is, they do not seem to connect it this way in the texts, and teach it this way to the students. You can easily show that, from any nonzero scalar potential, no matter how small, an unlimited amount of energy can be collected! That's just the equation W=(phi)q or, as usually written, W=Vq. We also know that V, contrary to what we were all taught and what is in the electrodynamics texts, is not even a SCALAR ENTITY. Now, the ENERGY THAT STEADILY COLLECTS FROM IT UPON AN ASSUMED INTERCEPTING POINT COLOUMB OF CHARGE, in equilibrium conditions, is certainly a scalar value. Again, that has nothing to do with (1) the magnitude of the potential itself, and (2) with what the potential AS AN ENTITY IDENTICALLY IS. Whittaker 1903 (extending Stoney 1897) showed that the scalar potential is actually a multivectorial, multiwave entity! It is a harmonic series of hidden LONGITUDINAL bidirectional EM wavepairs, all phase locked together into a bundle. In each wavepair comprising that potential, there exists a longitudinal EM wave and its true antiwave twin (i.e., its true phase conjugate replica, or its "time-reversed" replica. These two waves absolutely superpose spatially; and there is no "transverse amplitude change" to these longitudinal waves. What is actually varying or oscillating is the VELOCITY of the waves. Unfortunately, this tremendous internal electrodynamics ongoing infolded inside the staid old scalar potential, is omitted from electrodynamics (both from classical EM and quantal EM). Now you can see why W=(phi)q already tells you that, from the smallest V, you can collect as much energy as you wish, merely by increasing the geometrical interception and collection (divergence). Put more buckets collecting water from the river, you collect more water in the buckets! Phi (or V) actually is a whole mess of flowing rivers of energy. And the energy density at a given point in that flow, is about 10exp(13) times as big as we detect (i.e., the nondivergent portion of that energy flow is about 10exp(13) times as big as is the divergent portion represented by the small amount we "collect." In other words, charges only intercept, diverge, and "collect" steadily about 10exp(-13) of the Poynting flow in which they are placed. In short, that is the atrocious reaction cross section for energy collection by a point coulomb, and that is true whether we speak of phi or of the E-field. A coulomb placed in a Poynting flow is analogous to a rock placed in a violent wind. The wind geometrically distorts around the rock, so that there is a "pileup" of pressure on one side, and a "lesser pressure" on the other side. So there is a steady "pressure gradient" across the rock, from one side to the other. That "pressure gradient" on a standard rock (i.e., on a point positive coulomb), is defined as the E-field; i.e., as the "force generated by the virtual particle flux pressure differential between one side of an intercepting point coulomb and the other, when placed in a Poynting energy flow. " Any nonzero E-field, no matter how small, will generate as much force as you wish, just by intercepting/diverting more of it (putting in more rocks, i.e., more coulombs of charge). Here again you can see that you are always dealing with a dynamic, ongoing flow process. There is no such thing as true electrostatics. There is just a stabilized equilibrium form or blob, like a "static" whirlpool in a river. The river itself is always dynamic; the "collected" water, pressure, etc. in an ideal whirlpool is static due to equilibrium conditions. Note that what is really at issue in EM energy systems is the following: (1) the violent flux of the vacuum, (2) broken symmetry in that flux at, on, and around any charge, (3) the generation of potentially "observable" energy flow (i.e., Poynting flow) from that charge, (4) the distant reaction of intercepting charges placed in that resulting energy flow, (5) the pressure differential (i.e., the E-field) built up across a standard rock (point positive coulomb) placed in the fierce "Poynting wind," and intercepting and distorting its flow, (6) the geometrical distortion of the stream lines of the Poynting flow by an intercepting coulomb, with "more energy density" continually surrounding that "intercepting" coulomb being the "energy collected"/continually collecting upon that point coulomb, (7) the CONTINUAL creation of both phi of a charge placed in the vacuum flux, and the E-field of that charge, by the broken symmetry in the vacuum flux due to that charge, and (8) the absolute primacy of the vacuum as the primary source of all EM energy, energy collection, EM force fields, and potentials used in our circuits. That is the way that electrodynamics OUGHT to be taught, in my opinion. Hopefully someday that is the way it WILL be taught! Now the way the electrons get going in the current loop is this: The Poynting flow roars out of the terminals of the battery or generator, and roars along the outside of the conductors of the circuit attached to the terminals. This is a HUMUNGOUS flow of energy! Remember, it's about 10exp13 times as big as you measure, and as Lorentz taught us to calculate (He taught us a procedure to throw away all the energy flow we do not intercept and diverge and collect!) Imagine an infinite plane intersecting one of these conductors at right angles.The Poynting flow fills all the space surrounding the conductor, on out to an infinite radius before zeroing. This energy flow through all space surrounding the conductor is essentially parallel to the conductor, except for a tiny, tiny vertical component. So through your infinite plane, there is everywhere in surrounding space a Poynting flow of energy now, extracted directly from the vacuum and poured out of there by the source dipole (separated charges comprising it) of the battery/generator. Now the only part of that tremendous flow of energy filling all surrounding space, that is intercepted by the circuit, is that wee portion of the flow in a tiny sheath, touching the skin of the conductor and striking the surface charges in it. Those intercepting surface charges now are the "rocks in the Poynting wind" of that sheath to do the diverging of that little bit of energy flow, geometrically diverging it into the circuit, where it is intercepted by the "conduction electrons" (i.e., the electrons in the Drude electron gas) and forms j(phi). This creates a longitudinal E-field down the wire, in the wire, with energy collection gradients across each electron. There is thus a little "force" on each electron, longitudinally. The electron tries to move longitudinally, but is severely restrained in that direction. It is also spinning. So it acts as a gyro and precesses radially to the surface of the conductor. THE SURFACE CHARGES OF THE CONDUCTORS ARE CONTINUALLY CHANGING THEIR DISTRIBUTION, LIKE CRAZY, EVEN FOR A DC CURRENT AND A DC VOLTAGE ON THE WIRE. [Particularly see J.D. Jackson, "Surface charges on circuit wires and resistors play three roles," American Journal of Physics, 64(7), July 1996, p. 855-870). Well, every once in awhile those electrons on the surface or very near it, also slip longitudinally a little bit, from the longitudinal E-field on them. So they do progress slowly down the wire, at (typically) a few inches per hour, at the drift velocity. The signal, however, is the racing variations in the Poynting flow, and the variations in that small sheath striking the surface charges in the wire continually gets intercepted and collected, causing continual rearrangements of the charge distribution, particularly at the surface of the wire. Note that the battery or generator does not, repeat DOES NOT furnish any current (electrons) to the circuit; the electrons in the current come from the atoms in the wire and other materials. It also does not furnish any energy directly to the external circuit! That comes from the source dipole's asymmetry in its virtual particle flux exchange with the vacuum. The VACUUM powers every electrical circuit, not the battery or generator. What the battery or generator DOES do, is furnish energy to separate the charges and MAKE a dipole in the first place. So why do our circuits deplete our power sources, SINCE THOSE SOURCES THEMSELVES DO NOT FURNISH THE ENERGY THAT IS USED TO PERFORM WORK IN THE LOAD? Simple. We are trained like good little parrots, to form our circuits in a loop so that the current through the load passes back through the back emf of the source. In other words, enormous energy pours from our source dipole and down the circuit, once the source does a little work to MAKE the charge separation and therefore the dipole. THAT "WORKING ON THE CHARGES TO SEPARATE THEM, AND THEREFORE MAKE THE DIPOLE, IS THE ONLY ENERGY FURNISHED BY AND FROM THE SOURCE ITSELF. Now a tiny bit of this roaring Poynting energy flow is intercepted by the surface charges and diverged into the circuit to form (and drive) j(phi). J(phi) is the energy density flow that is dissipated in all "resisting elements" of the circuit (including the load, losses, and back through the source dipole against its back emf. Well, the V across the load is at least slightly less than the V across the terminals of the source, since the intervening lines have some resistance and losses and cause some "voltage drop." This means that it takes more work to get the spent electrons from the ground side of the source back up to the high side, than is given up in the load by its Vit (or Vq(t) (read: Vee que of t). So half the free energy collected in the load loop is expended against the source dipole TO DISSIPATE IT AND DESTROY IT. The other half of the free energy produced from the vacuum by the source dipole is dissipated in the external circuit loads and losses. But the "killer" for overunity is that first half that is used to kill the dipole, WHICH IS FURNISHING THE ASYMMETRY AND EXTRACTING THE ENERGY FLOW FROM THE VACUUM IN THE FIRST PLACE. Now you can see the point. WE ARE TAUGHT TO RIG OUR CIRCUITS -- ALL OF WHICH ARE "FREE ENERGY CIRCUITS" FREELY EXTRACTING ENORMOUS ENERGY FLOW FROM THE VACUUM -- SO THAT THEY CONTINUALLY KILL THEIR ENERGY-EXTRACTING ASYMMETRY! So since we continually are shutting off the flow of energy (killing the dipole "gate"), we must continually use more chemical energy from the battery or magnetic energy from the generator, to force those charges back apart again, therefore continually reforming our source dipole and vacuum flux asymmetry. E.g., we pay the inane power company to engage in a gigantic wrestling match in its own generators! We pay our engineers to keep doing it that way. We pay our professors to keep teaching us to do it that way. In our honest error of believing we have an energy SOURCE problem, we build BIG NUKE POWER PLANTS, reinforcing the crazy "killer EM circuits" approach as the natural and scientific way. We keep shoveling money to the big oil companies and standard electrical power research companies, etc. And that happily (for the cartels) keeps the power meter on your house, and the gas meter on your gas pump, and allows only a grossly inefficient and expensive electric car if you want to buy one. Never mind that the biosphere is being polluted. And heck! They have even got the power engineers in a logical nonsequitur in their use of the word "power!" Batteries and generators do not furnish power! Power is the time-rate of doing work, which means it is the time-rate of (1) dissipating energy (i.e., the steady equilibrium collecting process itself), or (2) changing the form of the energy (i.e., changing the type of steady equilibrium collecting process), or (3) both. Batteries and generators do none of that! The most intense energy flow in the universe has zero power, IF it has no divergence! Electrical engineers, however, are taught to use phrases such as "furnish power" and "furnish current" to apply to ENERGY FLOW PER SE. That's nonsense, but it is still universally used that way, even though in terms of physics it is WRONG. Just get a clear understanding of this in your head, and read any selected text (including the graduate texts) on electric power, and you will see what I mean (after you quit gagging!) You beat this mess with our "bridging" concept. We define a bridge as a component connected on its left to a sourcing circuit (current loop). The left side of the bridge thus receives Poynting energy flow and Slepian vector flow input by the source circuit. On its right, the bridge is connected to a load circuit (current loop) containing the load, where the current dq/dt in the left current loop is isolated from the current in the right loop, but where the Poynting flow in the left loop passes through the bridge component and couples onto the Drude electrons in the right (load) current loop, powering that right loop. We further define it such that the direct field coupling normally existing between the left side and the right side (and between the left current and the right current) of the bridge is materially reduced or eliminated. In short, a "bridge" can connect a source (energy transmitting) loop to a load (energy receiving and dissipating) loop with respect to emf flow and Poynting flow, but not with respect to current dq/dt flow. And by its lack or minimization of field coupling between transmitting and receiving loops, the reflection of the "load" impedance of the receiving (secondary) to the primary is either eliminated or substantially reduced. With such a bridge component [which a priori, you will find, has to partially achieve a time-reversal (phase conjugation) function on its load side] you can use a high voltage, very low current (and hence low power) sourcing circuit, and power a high voltage, very high current (and hence high power) load/receiving circuit. In other words, now the load current does not pass back through the primary power source dipole and kill it. Also, the power draw (conventional term!) is not reflected back into the primary circuit. This will produce an overunity circuit, without violation of any law of physics or thermodynamics. The entire system is an open system, freely extracting energy from an external source (the fierce flux of the vacuum) and collecting it, transferring it between two loops, and dissipating it in the load WITHOUT dissipating an equal amount of the primary source dipole that is the vacuum asymmetry and the "gate" through which the external energy flows continually into the system and powers it. By using clamped ordinary power feedback to power the input, a self-powering unit can be constructed. Again, no laws of physics are violated. Classical Thermodynamics does not apply; instead, the nonlinear thermodynamics of open system far from thermodynamic equilibrium applies. As is well known, the thermodynamics of such open dissipative systems permits (1) overunity operation, (2) self-oscillation, and (3) self-powering while powering a load simultaneously. Note that what we cannot share are our approaches to the bridge component. Our great interest in the Fogal semiconductor was because it can be utilized to form such a bridge. In the absence of that semiconductor, it is much, much harder with the components and materials presently on the shelf and available. There are also other ways to do overunity, but this is quite enough for this epistle! We will just list a logical analysis of "what does it take to produce an overunity EM system, i.e., one which outputs more usable energy than one himself must input to it to run it? (1) First one must have an open system; closed systems cannot do that (and in fact cannot even power a load, because a priori in a load energy is dissipated and thrown out of the system.) An open system is simply one which continually exchanges energy with its external environment. (2) Second, the system must be far from thermodynamic equilibrium. with respect to its energy exchange with its environment. If not, but in equilibrium, that means that any energy entering the system from the environment, is just passed immediately right back to the environment, without collecting or using any. (3) If the system is far from thermodynamic equilibrium, that means that a net gating can exist in the system. Either the system is gaining energy from its environment, or losing energy back to it, or a combination of the two (it can be gaining at one part, which becomes a "free source" of energy to the system, while simultaneously losing at another part, which can be in the "losses" and "loads" of the system, the loads being defined as entities which do useful external work of some kind.) (4) There must be a controlled operation of the system; i.e., explosive initiation will not do it. The fiber fuze, e.g., can be generated to destroy an optical cable even 100 kilometers in length, with just a tiny bit of heat introduced at one point, but this overunity process is not useful in that form. It does work, but not USEFUL work! (5) Some part of the system must allow the entry and collection of the excess energy from the environment. The entry point may differ from the collection point. (6) Some part of the system must provide for transfer of the collected energy to the load (i.e., to the point at which the useful work is to be done). (7) For self-powering, a portion of the excess colected energy can be used to run the parts of the system other than the load (i.e., to power all system losses other than the load). The remainder of the excess collected energy can then be used to power the load. (8) Less than half the excess free energy received from the environment is allowed to be used to "kill" the energy-receiving entry point (the gate). The less of the excess energy that actually degrades the gate, the better. If you will take these requirements, you will see how they logically extend directly into the electric circuit. Items 1 and 2 mean that the application of the Lorentz condition (regauging to force local symmetry, so that any excess force is negated by an equal and opposite excess force) to Maxwell's equations must not be permitted to occur in the system. Any working system must first be asymmetrically regauged [i.e., have its potential (collected) energy changed freely so that a net free force also is formed, thus allowing work to be done. Unless it so changes its energy, it has no excess collected energy with which to do work! It is just the choice of the designer as to whether this asymmetrical regauging is done by the operator having to furnish the excess collected energy himself, or that excess energy is freely input from the external environment. When you gas up a car, you "asymmetrically regauge" it. A sailboat in a wind is continually being asymmetrically regauged by its interaction with that wind. And so on. In the simplest case, asymmetrical regauging is just a switching change in voltage (potential). In ideal theory, switching is free. In the real world, it can be efficient and only cost a little. Voltage amplification can also be efficiently performed to enhance the process of asymmetrical regauging. All voltage is dipolar, i.e., between two points or potentials, etc. So when you make a greater voltage, you make a dipole of greater magnitude, and thus an asymmetry of greater magnitude in the local vacuum flux (local vacuum potential). All potentials are ultimately referenced changes to the vacuum potential. But a greater asymmetry means a greater Poynting flow, and a greater energy density of the flow extracted and output from the vacuum. In the ideal case, with loss-free switching and loss-free voltage amplification, you can directly change the potential (regauge asymmetrically) and thereby amplify the energy flow without cost. I.e., you can have a system asymmetrically self-regauge freely. In the real world, it will cost a little. But the gain can be made far higher than the cost. Such a system becomes an asymmetrically self-regauging system. And that kind of system can produce COP>1.0 because it extracts the excess energy flow directly from the vacuum, merely by increasing the magnitude of its source dipole. So from a joule of collected energy, you can have the system build up that collected energy to many, many joules, by asymmetrical self-regauging. This does not violate conservation of energy, because you are just diverting and ordering more and more of an energy flux furnished to the system from the external environment (the active vacuum). It is no more mysterious than a windmill or a paddlewheel, or putting extra sails on a boat to catch more wind, etc. Note in the above we just addressed a single pass of the energy flow across the collectors. We did not discuss recycling the energy diverged or scattered in the load, or iteratively retroreflecting the nondivergent portion of the energy flow that passes the circuit uncollected, to collect some more of it. In other words, we did not discuss the multipass, multiretroreflection, case where the asymmetrical self-regauging can continually increase up to some stabilizing threshold where disruption of the increase reaches the same rate as the increase rate. Previously I corrected (extended) the standard work-energy theorem of physics for such cases. The bottom line of that work was that a single "collecting" (not collected: collection is an ongoing process, not a chunk of dead energy lying there like a brick!) joule of energy can be "dissipated" (i.e., the collecting process can be dissipated) to perform work, with the energy of course still remaining but scattered. That scattered energy can be retroreflected back again, to collect some more and dissipate it again, recollect, etc. For any process that has a nonzero energy input, such a process if linearly maintained will result in a steadily increased asymmetrical self-regauging. Literally the system will continuously change and increase its own energy density. In the real world, the individual material system will have losses in the PROCESS start to occur, and increase as a function of the increasing system energy density. At some point the loss rate equals the gain rate, and so equilibrium is reached in the asymmetrical self-regauging process. This is the process, e.g., that exists in anti-Stokes emission, which is always overunity. For systems which can hold a higher energy density until rupture, or without rupture, the equilibrium condition can be reached at a much greater energy density level. The gamma burster in astrophysics is an example, I think, of just such a phenomenon. Recently a gamma burster was observed from its formation. It formed in an intense ball of exploding gas already ongoing. Suddenly this intense process kicked in, and asymmetrically self-regauging swiftly increased the energy density and the concomitant radiated emission. In short, it kicked in and generated a gamma ray burster. An even higher energy density from the same asymmetrical self-regauging process produces, I think, the even more energetic entity emitting with energy level characteristic of pair annihilation. At extremely rare intervals, in just the right dwarf star piece of material or something, the rise of energy density is so rapid and reaches such a great magnitude before equilibrium sets in, that spacetime itself is shattered. This, I hypothesize, is the actual mechanism that generates a big bang and a new universe, as a blow-out in one location of the old one. Hope this helps, Tom Bearden