|
Part
01 - Overall General View Part 02 - Origin of Polar States Part 03 - Polarity Creates Rotating Vortex Part 04 - Rotation on Three Planes Part 05 - Three Rotating Planes Become Spheres Part 06 - Formation of Cubes Part 07A - Origin and Formation of Matter - Part 1 Part 07B - Origin and Formation of Matter - Part 2 Part 08 - What Vibration Is. - Part 1 Part 09 - What Vibration Is. - Part 2 Part 10 - What Sympathy Is Part 11 - SVP Music Model Part 12 - Russell's Locked Potentials Part 13 - Rotation from Vibration/Oscillation Part 14 - Keely's Mysterious Thirds, Sixths and Ninths Part 15 - Dissociating Water Acoustically Part 16 - Electricity and Magnetism Part 17 - Gravity Part 18 - Mind as an Engineerable Force Part 19 - Musical Dynasphere, Historical Part 20 - Musical Dynasphere, Current - - - - - - - - - - - -Addenda - - - - - - - - - - - - 01 - Bjerknes Effect 02 - Chart of Locked Potentials 03 - Ether 04 - Origin of Matter 05 - Indig Numbers 06 - One Phase of Keely's Discoveries... 07 - Pond's Original Notes on the Scale of Infinite Ninths 08 - Laws of Being 09 - Table of the Elements 10 - Keely's Forty Laws 11 - Russell's Laws and Principles 12 - What Electricity Is. 13 - Puharich, Water Dissociation via AC 14 - As a Man Thinketh 15 - Genero-Radiative Concept 16 - The Action of Force is Spiro-Vortex 17 - Russell's Optic Dynamo-Generator 18 - Etheric Vibratory Scale 97 - Disclaimer 98 - Footnotes 99 - Compendium and Definitions |
SVP
Cosmology Footnotes
Part 1
1.
"Next come Æther and Chaos, Spirit-Matter, the Bound and Infinity of
Plato (Proc., Tim., ii. 117), the Purusha-Prakriti of the Sânkhya.
Orpheus calls this Æther the Mighty Whirlpool (Simplicius, Ausc.,
iv.123); called Magna Vorago by Syrianus (Metaph., ii.33a). And Proclus
(Tim., ii.117), speaking of Chaos, says: 'The last Infinity, by which
also Matter is circumscribed--is the Container, the field and plane of
ideas. About her is "neither limit, nor foundation, nor seat, but
excessive darkness".' This is the Mûlaprakriti or Root-Matter of the
Vedântins, and Æther is the so-called first Logos, Æther-Chaos being
the second. 'And dusky Night comprehended and hid all below the Ether;
[Orpheus thus] signifying that Night came first.' (Malela, iv.31;
Cedrenus, i.57, 84.) Then comes the Dawn of the First Creation. In the
Unaging Time, Chaos, impregnated by the whirling of Æther, formed
itself into THE COSMIC EGG Apion (Clement, Homil., VI.iv.671) writes
that: 'Orpheus likened Chaos to an egg, in which the primal "elements"
were all mingled together. . . . This egg was generated from the
infinitude of primal matter as follows. [The first two principles were]
primal matter innate with life, and a certain vortex in perpetual flux
and unordered motion – from these there arose an orderly flux and
interblending of essences, and thus from each, that which was most
suitable to the production of life flowed to the centre of the
universe, while the surrounding spirit was drawn within, as a bubble in
water. Thus a spherical receptacle was formed. Then, impregnated in
itself by the divine spirit which seized upon it, it revolved itself
into manifestation--with the appearance of the periphery of an egg."
[Meade, G.R.S., Æther, Chaos and Night]
2.
"Radiation is the
normal death principle. Every thing in Nature dies normally by slowly
radiating its heat. Radioactivity is the explosively quick death
principle. Radioactivity is man’s discovery of how the human race can
die quickly, and not be able to propagate its kind for many long
centuries.
There is your complete answer in
a few words. MULTIPLIED DEATH is the new boon which this age of man
believes he is giving to the furtherance of life. Naturally you do not
understand it, but instinct and intuition in you are strong enough to
make you fear it. The reason you do not understand it is because you
are not yet aware of what makes things live and what makes them die.
The entire answer to this supreme question lies in knowing exactly WHAT
MAKES BODIES LIVE and WHAT MAKES BODIES DIE. This cannot be briefly
told. In telling it we must tell you how God constructs and dissolves
matter electrically. If answered briefly you would not comprehend it.
The greatest minds among men have been trying to discover this life
principle for centuries. When we do fully answer it for you and all
mankind, you will also fully comprehend your universe and all of its
mysteries. The telling must be a step by step process, however, and
must keep in mind the purpose of this book, which is to dynamically
explain in convincing language, and undebatable postulates, that the
price man will pay for the use of atomic energy is his own inevitable
extinction." [Russell, Atomic Suicide?, Chapter 1]
1. Quimby,
Phineas Parkhurst
Phineas Parkhurst Quimby
http://www.ppquimby.com/
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. Quimby
(entire content online)
http://masonc.home.netcom.com/quimby/quimby.html
The Quimby Manuscripts (entire
content online)
http://www.ppquimby.com/hdresser/manscpts/manscpt.htm
The Complete Writings
http://www.ppquimby.com/the_complete_writings.htm
Quimby's Science of Happiness
by Collie, Erroll Stafford
DeVorsss & Company, 1980
ISBN: 0-87516-410-2
3. Synergetics - Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking; Buckminster Fuller, page 761
4. Quadrature of the Circle, John A. Parker
5. Is
A Brain Really Necessary?
http://www.alternativescience.com/no_brainer.htm
Copyright Richard Milton © 1992-2002
Alternative Science Website
http://www.AlternativeScience.Com
ADDENDUM 99
1.
Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth
10.30.2008
During
the time it takes you to read this article, something will happen high
overhead that until recently many scientists didn't believe in. A
magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles
away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before
it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page.
"It's
called a flux transfer event or 'FTE,'" says space physicist David
Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Ten years ago I was pretty
sure they didn't exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible."
Indeed,
today Sibeck is telling an international assembly of space physicists
at the 2008 Plasma Workshop in Huntsville, Alabama, that FTEs are not
just common, but possibly twice as common as anyone had ever imagined.
![]() |
Right:
An artist's concept of Earth's magnetic field connecting to the
sun's--a.k.a. a "flux transfer event"--with a spacecraft on hand to
measure particles and fields. [Larger image]
Researchers have
long known that the Earth and sun must be connected. Earth's
magnetosphere (the magnetic bubble that surrounds our planet) is filled
with particles from the sun that arrive via the solar wind and
penetrate the planet's magnetic defenses. They enter by following
magnetic field lines that can be traced from terra firma all the way
back to the sun's atmosphere.
"We used to think the connection
was permanent and that solar wind could trickle into the near-Earth
environment anytime the wind was active," says Sibeck. "We were wrong.
The connections are not steady at all. They are often brief, bursty and
very dynamic."
Several speakers at the Workshop have outlined
how FTEs form: On the dayside of Earth (the side closest to the sun),
Earth's magnetic field presses against the sun's magnetic field.
Approximately every eight minutes, the two fields briefly merge or
"reconnect," forming a portal through which particles can flow. The
portal takes the form of a magnetic cylinder about as wide as Earth.
The European Space Agency's fleet of four Cluster spacecraft and NASA's
five THEMIS probes have flown through and surrounded these cylinders,
measuring their dimensions and sensing the particles that shoot
through. "They're real," says Sibeck.
Now that Cluster and
THEMIS have directly sampled FTEs, theorists can use those measurements
to simulate FTEs in their computers and predict how they might behave.
Space physicist Jimmy Raeder of the University of New Hampshire
presented one such simulation at the Workshop. He told his colleagues
that the cylindrical portals tend to form above Earth's equator and
then roll over Earth's winter pole. In December, FTEs roll over the
north pole; in July they roll over the south pole.
![]() |
Sibeck
believes this is happening twice as often as previously thought. "I
think there are two varieties of FTEs: active and passive." Active FTEs
are magnetic cylinders that allow particles to flow through rather
easily; they are important conduits of energy for Earth's
magnetosphere. Passive FTEs are magnetic cylinders that offer more
resistance; their internal structure does not admit such an easy flow
of particles and fields. (For experts: Active FTEs form at equatorial
latitudes when the IMF tips south; passive FTEs form at higher
latitudes when the IMF tips north.) Sibeck has calculated the
properties of passive FTEs and he is encouraging his colleagues to hunt
for signs of them in data from THEMIS and Cluster. "Passive FTEs may
not be very important, but until we know more about them we can't be
sure."
There are many unanswered questions: Why do the portals
form every 8 minutes? How do magnetic fields inside the cylinder twist
and coil? "We're doing some heavy thinking about this at the Workshop,"
says Sibeck.
Meanwhile, high above your head, a new portal is opening, connecting
your planet to the sun.
Additionally:
In a presentation at the 2008 Plasma Workshop, Robert Fear of the
University of Leicester, UK, presented some alternatives for the
magnetic topology of FTEs. Possibilities include ropes (left column),
cylinders (middle column), or bubbles (right column):
![]() |
Flux transfer events: Bursty
reconnection at the Earth’s magnetopause
R. C. Fear (1)
S. E. Milan (1)
A. N. Fazakerley (2)
C. J. Owen (2)
r.fear@ion.le.ac.uk
(1) Radio & Space Plasma Physics Group, University of
Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, United Kingdom
(2) Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London,
Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, Surrey, RH5 6NT, United Kingdom
A
flux transfer event (FTE) is a burst of reconnection at the Earth’s
magnetopause (the boundary between terrestrial magnetic field lines and
the interplanetary magnetic field). FTEs can be observed either via
their in situ signatures (in the magnetic field and plasma
distributions) or by the effect they have on the ionosphere (pulsed
flows and poleward-moving auroral and radar features). Early work
showed that FTE occurrence at the dayside magnetopause is correlated
with intervals of southward-directed interplanetary magnetic field
(Rijnbeek et al., 1984; Berchem and Russell, 1984). In this talk, we
present an overview of recent work that we have carried out on FTEs
using in situ observations from the European Space Agency’s
four-spacecraft Cluster mission, supported by ionospheric observations
from the SuperDARN radar network. We examine three main topics. First,
we discuss the occurrence of FTEs when the interplanetary magnetic
field is northward. Under such conditions, magnetopause reconnection
may occur at high latitudes, but the net force exerted on the FTE
structures may drag them equatorward, where they can be observed in the
post-terminator region (Fear et al., 2005). Second, we consider the
more general matter of FTE motion in a range of interplanetary magnetic
conditions. We compare the velocities of FTE structures (deduced from
multi-spacecraft observations) with a simple model of open field line
motion developed by Cooling et al. (2001), and find that the model
explains the observed motion of open field lines across the
magnetopause reasonably well (Fear et al., 2007). Finally, we present
some observations of FTEs made by the Cluster spacecraft at their
largest separation of the entire mission (~10,000 km), along with
supporting ionospheric observations, which show that FTE structures at
the magnetopause can exist with a variety of azimuthal extents, either
extending further azimuthally than they do poleward, or existing as
more spatially localized features (Fear et al., 2008a,b).
2. Lolisko,
L., Spirit in Matter - A Scientist's Answers to the Bishop's
Queries, 1948.
Part 13.
HOW AN EM CIRCUIT
POWERS ITS LOAD -- AND SOLVING THE WORLD ENERGY CRISIS
T. E. Bearden
Sept. 15, 2008
To: Correspondent
Thanks
for all the hard work you and everyone in your organization (and your
colleagues outside the organization) are doing on resolving this
increasing world energy crisis. It is sorely needed, as the strike of
Hurricane Ike quite vividly illustrates in its effects (thank God, not
too severe!) on our oil facilities and refineries and pipelines in
Texas etc.
You also need to be aware of the presently
unrecognized actual cause of the present world energy crisis, since
it's almost entirely unknown. The world was deliberately placed on this
"eventual giant energy crisis" course just before the birth of
electrical engineering, when in 1892 Lorentz was specifically elicited
by J. P. Morgan's science advisors to "fix" (deliberately symmetrize)
the Heaviside equations that were going to be used for the "new
technology" to be called "electrical engineering" and to be taught in
all our universities.
In the late 1880s Nikola Tesla -- who gave
us AC power, the rotating magnetic field that made modern generators
possible, radio, and many other things -- had discovered what the group
symmetry specialists would call "asymmetric EM circuits". In other
words, he could shuttle energy around in some of his circuits as he
wished, and dissipate it where he wished. In this way, he could make a
circuit that, once the source dipole and its BROKEN SYMMETRY was
produced, would continually and freely radiate EM energy extracted
(taken) directly from the "active medium" (Tesla's term for the "active
vacuum" since special relativity, general relativity, quantum
mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, gauge field theory, and quantum
field theory were still unborn. Indeed, the electron had not yet even
been discovered, and particle physics as we know it was unborn).
[For the proof of this "shuttling" ability by actual Tesla circuits,
see T. W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC)
Theory," Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p.
23-41. Barrett shows that EM expressed in quaternions allows shuttling
and storage of potentials in circuits, and also allows additional EM
functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis cannot reveal.
He shows that Tesla’s patented circuits did exactly this. The paper is
carried on the cheniere.org website at internet link
http://www.cheniere.org/references/TeslaOSC.pdf . ]
One should
realize that we have had group theory in our leading universities since
1870. So in 1890 Morgan had no difficulty having his science advisors
(he had the best that money would buy, including Fleming in England)
examine the Heaviside equations and tell him whether or not these
equations still contained any of those confounded Tesla "energy from
the active medium" systems -- i.e., whether they still contained
asymmetric EM systems, since Maxwell's equations definitely contain
both symmetrical and asymmetrical EM systems).
Their group
theory analysis showed that Heaviside's original equations (already a
tremendous curtailment of Maxwell's theory) were still asymmetric.
And
so Morgan -- who had already conceived and was implementing a plan to
utterly crush Tesla and his backer George Westinghouse -- simply
directed his advisors to "Fix it!"
Lorentz was a very great
scientist, but he was noted for something odd: He loved to appropriate
other scientists' work and take credit for it. So "one could deal with
Lorentz", in Morgan's terms. [To view a bit of this characteristic of
Lorentz, see J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, "Historical roots of gauge
invariance," Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680.
Jackson and Okun discuss roots and history of gauge invariance, verify
that Ludwig Lorenz (without the “t”) first symmetrically regauged
Maxwell's equations, although it has been misattributed to H. A.
Lorentz (with the “t”) as being first. This is an excellent coverage of
the history of who did what and when, and who got credit for it.]
And
so they did. Lorentz simply "borrowed" (and took credit himself)
Lorenz's (without the 't') previous symmetrization of those equations,
and applied them. In short, he deliberately and knowingly further
restricted even the original truncated Heaviside equations by
symmetrizing them so that the now-symmetrized Heaviside-Lorentz
equations no longer contained any asymmetric systems at all. This was
just before electrical engineering was born.
And those
Heaviside-Lorentz equations were then the ones used in the new
technology called "electrical engineering" that was set up and
gradually spread through the world's universities. All electrical
engineers are still taught that horribly crippled and mangled tiny
derivative of Maxwell's theory, deliberately so they will not and
cannot think, conceive, develop, build and deploy ASYMMETRIC Maxwellian
EM power systems (the kind of system that can deliberately accept and
use excess EM energy from its local vacuum, so it can produce
COP>1.0 and even self-powering where all input energy comes entirely
from the vacuum interaction, and freely).
[In the hard physics literature, rigorous proof that eliminating the
arbitrary Lorentz condition provides EM systems having free additional
energy currents from the vacuum is given by M. W. Evans, P. K.
Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without
the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica
Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517.]
That way, Morgan insured
that Tesla's dreams of taking all our necessary EM energy directly from
the "active medium", for free, would not ever be realized. Morgan was
an empire builder and a dastard, but he was a very thorough one!
Here are some direct quotes from Tesla to show what we are speaking of:
"Ere
many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power
obtainable at any point in the universe. This idea is not novel... We
find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the
earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid
mathematicians...Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy
static or kinetic? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic – and
this we know it is, for certain – then it is a mere question of time
when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very
wheelwork of nature." [Nikola Tesla, in a speech in New York to the
American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1891. Quoted from back
cover of his biography, Margaret Cheney, Tesla: Man Out of Time].
“Electric
power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the
world's machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other of
the common fuels." [Nikola Tesla].
“We have to evolve means for
obtaining energy from stores which are forever inexhaustible, to
perfect methods which do not imply consumption and waste of any
material whatever. I now feel sure that the realization of that idea is
not far off. ...the possibilities of the development I refer to,
namely, that of the operation of engines on any point of the earth by
the energy of the medium...” [Nikola Tesla, during an address in 1897
commemorating his epochal installation of AC generators at Niagara
Falls.].
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the
future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any
material." [Nikola Tesla, 1900].
As you are aware, Morgan's plan
did devastate George Westinghouse, Tesla's backer, who went broke and
lost his company not long thereafter. It thus forced Tesla to come to
him, J. P. Morgan, for the financing for his further projects. Morgan
forced Tesla to sign over control (51%) of his patents, and then
advanced only half the money Tesla needed -- and would not advance him
any more funds thereafter. Tesla then went broke, with no control of
his own patents etc., and was reduced to living in a small hotel room
in New York for the rest of his life.
To see how this despaired Nikola Tesla, we quote him writing to J. P.
Morgan in 1904:
“....Since
a year, Mr. Morgan, there has been hardly a night when my pillow is not
bathed in tears, but you must not think me a weak man for that. I am
perfectly sure to finish my task, come what may. I am only sorry that
after.... acquiring a special knowledge and ability which I now alone
possess, and which, if applied effectively would advance the world a
century, I must see my work delayed.” [Nikola Tesla, in a letter to J.
P. Morgan, Oct. 13, 1904].
But before the turn of the century,
Morgan had also received another shock. Two men -- simultaneously and
independently -- had discovered EM energy flow through space. They were
Poynting and Heaviside. Poynting never considered anything except that
EM energy flow component in space outside and along the external
conductors that gets diverged into the conductors to power up the
electrons. But as Heaviside discovered, that is an incredibly small
fraction of the overall gigantic energy flow that is actually pouring
from the terminals of the generator (or any other dipolar source's
broken symmetry). The remaining huge unused flow is in curled form, and
so -- in any special relativistic form -- we now know it will not
diverge to be used at all.
So several trillions times as much EM
energy actually pours forth from the terminals of every generator and
out through space outside the external conductors, as the amount of
energy we crank into the generator shaft. And almost all that energy
flow -- the giant Heaviside energy flow -- is just wasted and usually
does not interact with anything.
When this new discovery was
made known to Morgan, again he was set to fuming. He did not wish those
future young electrical engineers to ever know that cranking the shaft
of the generator has nothing at all to do with directly furnishing the
energy to power the external circuit's loads and losses! Or to know
that the generator actually pours out trillions of times more EM energy
flow than the mechanical shaft rotation energy flow we input to the
generator. He reasoned that, if that were made known to all the sharp
young future electrical engineers, then some of them would inevitably
find out how to tap some of that giant curled EM energy flow anyway,
and this -- together with clamped positive energy feedback -- would
lead immediately to self-powering electrical power generating systems,
taking all their input energy directly from the seething vacuum
(Tesla's "active medium").
And that would eliminate the tremendous
and growing need for consuming fuel in order to "get our electrical
power". He had watched Tesla destroy the huge financial empire he and
Edison were preparing to set up with DC power, and he had no intention
of letting Tesla destroy his (Morgan's) future fuel empire intentions.
Morgan simply considered control of things -- people, nations, science
and technology, whatever. And since the future rising need of humanity
would be electrical power and such, then that need would be manipulated
and controlled by the need of those systems to consume fuel. And then
he who controlled the fuel would financially control the electrical
power, and thus humanity itself.
So again he directed his science advisors to "Fix it!" And again
Lorentz was elicited to do the dirty work.
Lorentz
easily originated the clever little integration trick where one simply
integrates the energy flow vector (containing both the small Poynting
diverged EM flow component and the gigantic non-diverged Heaviside
curled EM flow component) around a closed surface arbitrarily assumed
around any volume element of interest. That neatly disposes of the
giant nondivergent Heaviside energy flow component, while retaining the
diverged Poynting energy flow component. This will in fact match our
measured "energy collected and used in the circuit" since that energy
is a priori the diverged component. Lorentz "justified" this procedure
by deliberately stating that this foolish giant Heaviside energy flow
component "had no physical significance".
So in 1900 Lorentz
taught all our classical electrodynamicists and electrical engineers to
just "integrate that pesky and bothersome huge Heaviside curled energy
flow component away" and discard it quite arbitrarily. Today hardly a
single EE hears of such a giant energy flow from the terminals of every
generator and battery, and most certainly none of them really believe
it even if they have heard its history.
And so Lorentz "fixed"
the problem, and so they still do in all EE departments in every
university. And they have done so for more than a century.
[But
reflect a moment: In a general relativity situation, the divergence of
the curl need not be completely zero after all, so in the proper GR
situation one can indeed diverge (and use) a tiny bit of that giant
curled Heaviside EM energy flow that accompanies every Poynting
diverged flow but is unaccounted.
In
optical physics since 1967 (as released by the Soviet Union) there is
indeed already such a process used to tap a wee bit of that giant
curled Heaviside component by indeed deliberately adding a general
relativity situation -- the self-oscillation of the charged particles
in the receiving section of the system, at the frequency of the input
energy flow. The self-oscillating particles obviously rotate their
frames to and fro a bit, thus violating special relativity a bit.
But those particular physicists are never allowed to say "excess EM
energy emission", but only "negative resonance absorption of the
medium" (NRAM). They are never allowed to discuss their repeated COP =
18 process when a laser input (of either IR or UV is properly used),
but instead they must say only that self-oscillation "increases the
reaction cross section". Any deviation from those terms and conditions
will immediately result in the offending physicist losing stature, his
inability to get his reports published, and will destroy his career.]
[For proof of the NRAM process, see Craig F. Bohren, "How can a
particle absorb more than the light incident on it?" American Journal
of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a
particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it.
(Actually it can absorb more energy than is in the Poynting component
incident on it). Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one
class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared
frequencies are another. See also H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on
“How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am.
J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327. The Bohren experiment is repeatable
and produces COP = 18.]
But electrodynamicists still use
Lorentz's sly statement that the giant curled Heaviside energy flow
component has no physical significance. Quoting the eminent classical
electrodynamicist Jackson:
"...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].
Note
that Jackson repeats the "logical justification" used by Lorentz.
Jackson is correct in any special relativity situation (the usual
case). He can be quite wrong in a proper general relativity case
deliberately introduced to be able to diverge and use some of that
curled EM energy flow component after all. And it that case, the
diverged component of the giant Heaviside energy flow component
definitely has real physical consequences.
-----------------------------------
With
these two "fixes" by Lorentz, electrical engineering -- from its very
birth -- has been and is deliberately restricted to only symmetrical EM
systems, the ones that guarantee COP<1.0 electromagnetically and
self-enforce it! They do that by building only systems (symmetrized) by
having their forward and back emf/mmf equal and opposite to their
forward and back emf/mmf. Such an EM system thus destroys its own
internal source dipole (and the BROKEN SYMMETRY of that dipole) faster
than it powers its load.
All EM energy in every electrical
circuit is extracted directly from the vacuum via the proven asymmetry
of its internal source dipolarity, once formed. Any charge, considered
with its polarized vacuum of opposite sign, is also part of such a
"dipolar ensemble" with concomitant broken symmetry.
Broken
symmetry's giant occurrence in nature was predicted by Lee and Yang,
and -- because of its revolutionary implications if true -- the
experimentalists immediately leaped on it to prove it or disprove it.
In Feb. 1957, Wu and her colleagues published very decisive
experimental proof. Again, so great a revolution was this in physics,
that with unprecedented speed the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel
Prize to Lee and Yang in the same year, in Dec. 1957.
So what is so important about the broken symmetry of a dipole?
As Lee pointed out, whenever we have a broken symmetry, then something
previously virtual has become observable.
Take
a source dipole -- which is a proven asymmetry. Once the charges are
separated to form that dipole, its broken symmetry continually absorbs
virtual photon energy from the seething virtual vacuum interaction with
its charges, coherently integrates that virtual energy to quantal size,
and then re-emits the absorbed vacuum energy as real observable EM
photons steadily pouring out from the dipole. And contrary to EE texts,
this outpouring includes the necessary energy for both the accounted
Poynting (divergent) energy flow component and the unaccounted
nondivergent giant Heaviside energy flow component.
Every joule
of observable energy in the universe comes from the source charge (and
its vacuum polarization) or a source dipole. In every EM system. It
always has, and it always will. We live in the midst of an incredible
number of "free EM energy emitters", called "charges and dipoles", that
continually extract and outpour EM energy directly from the seething
vacuum.
So every EE already builds circuits that already freely
extract EM energy from the vacuum -- real, observable, quanta that
continuously pour out, so that the charge or dipolarity and its emitted
EM energy flow form a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) thermodynamic
system. Quoting Van Flandern on the question of a static field actually
being made of finer parts in continuous motion:
“To retain
causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term
‘static’. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts.
The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual
replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by
thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first
sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are
essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts
capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that
propagate. …So are … fields for a rigid, stationary source frozen, or
are they continually regenerated? Causality seems to require the
latter.” [Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What the
experiments say,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9].
Further,
in modern physics a single classical charge -- e.g. an electron -- is
actually composed of two infinite and opposite charges, each with
infinite energy! The difference between the two infinite charges is
finite, as is the energy difference between the two infinite energies.
And so our instruments, peering through the external screening infinite
charge and infinite energy at the bare infinite charge and infinite
energy inside, see only that finite difference -- which gives the value
of the "classical electron" listed in all the classical textbooks.
To see what the electron really is and really involves, however, we
quote Nobelist Weinberg:
"[The
total energy of the atom] depends on the bare mass and bare charge of
the electron, the mass and charge that appear in the equations of the
theory before we start worrying about photon emissions and
reabsorptions. But free electrons as well as electrons in atoms are
always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the electron's mass
and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge are not the same
as the measured electron mass and charge that are listed in tables of
elementary particles. In fact, in order to account for the observed
values (which of course are finite) of the mass and charge of the
electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be infinite. The
total energy of the atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite:
the bare energy that is infinite because it depends on the infinite
bare mass and charge, and the energy shift … that is infinite because
it receives contributions from virtual photons of unlimited energy."
[Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random
House, 1993, p. 109-110.].
I hope you are beginning to see just
how archaic and erroneous the present day electrical engineering model
and practice -- and power systems -- are. We are still applying a hoary
old physics of the 1880s, that has not been modernized by anything that
has happened in the entire rise of modern physics from the discovery of
the electron forward.
And this is REALLY the problem generating
the world's energy crisis -- the arbitrarily symmetrized EM model and
systems. To show how easy it is to evoke a continuous and steady flow
of EM energy that will last forever, simply lay an electret across a
permanent magnet so that the E-field of the electret is at right angles
to the H-field of the magnet. Then by every EM textbook in every EE
department in every university, that silly two dollar gadget will sit
there and freely pour out a real Poynting energy flow S, given by the
simple equation S = EXH (constants of proportionality neglected).
Now
of course that accounts the DIVERGED component of the flow, but it does
not account the also-present giant Heaviside curled EM energy flow,
which is several trillion times greater in magnitude as S. And we
ourselves do not have to consume any fuel or furnish any further energy
to that silly gadget, once it is simply assembled.
So there is
no problem at all in evoking a "free and unending EM energy wind"
anywhere in the universe, quickly and easily and for peanuts, that will
also flow freely until the end of time.
Thus the only "energy"
problem is how to build a proper "EM energy windmill" to sit there
independently in that flowing wind, divert and collect a bit of that
free energy wind and collect the energy, and then dissipate that
collected EM energy SEPARATELY in the loads to power them.
You see, that type of EM system is a priori an ASYMMETRIC Maxwellian
system.
And
our EEs can only think, produce, and deploy a SELF-SYMMETRIZING system
that uses half the "collected" energy to do nothing but destroy the
source of the wind itself -- the internal source dipole inside the
generator.
Again, shaft energy cranked into the generator has
nothing to do with furnishing EM energy to the external loads to power
them, but only with restoring the internal source dipole that the
stupid circuit keeps destroying faster than it powers its loads.
Let's follow the input crankshaft mechanical energy to see that this is
true.
When
we crank the shaft, we start to rotate the rotor. Its rotation energy
-- courtesy of Nikola Tesla -- then is transformed into internal
rotating magnetic field, completely inside the generator. The rigorous
definition of "work" is transformation of the form of some energy. So
we have done work, but we still have the energy left, since it has
remained (in its new form) inside the generator as the rotating
magnetic field energy, instead of escaping from the generator system.
Then
all this rotating magnetic field energy is dissipated on the internal
charges inside the generator, forcing positive charges in one direction
and negative in the other, and thus producing the "internal source
dipole" by that separation of opposite charges. The energy also is
dissipated from the generator in the process, so it escapes the system
and is lost.
So that is all that the input shaft mechanical
energy does. It forms the internal source dipole, and nothing else
before it escapes the system.
Once formed, however, the source
dipole is a proven broken symmetry (known rigorously since 1957) and as
such it continually transforms virtual state energy from its vacuum
interaction into real observable photon energy that pours from the
terminals of the generator out along through space outside the external
circuit conductors. In any special relativity situation, only the small
Poynting (diverged) component enters the wires to power up the
electrons.
But the electrical engineer has deliberately built a
symmetrical circuit, by hooking the external current circuit (the
forward emf circuit) in a closed circuit loop with the internal source
dipole itself (the back emf circuit).
So half the collected EM
energy is used to power the external circuit's loads and losses in the
"forward emf" region of the current flow. That means that less than
half is used to power the loads, since all real circuits have some
losses.
The other half of the collected EM energy is expended to
forcibly pump the spent electrons (in the current) back through the
source dipole against its back emf, thus scattering its charges and
destroying that dipole -- and thus cutting off the free extraction and
flow of real EM energy from the vacuum.
So to continue
furnishing its energy flow from the vacuum and out of its terminals,
the system has to continually have its internal source dipole restored
because the symmetrized circuit is continually and forcibly destroying
that source dipole. And so we have to continually crank the shaft to
continually put in some more mechanical energy to continually transduce
into some more rotating magnetic field energy to be continually
expended in restoring the source dipole and thus sustaining the free EM
energy flow from the vacuum and pouring out the generator terminals.
Even
in a 100% efficient dipole-restoring input process, we would have to
input as much energy as was used to destroy and scatter the dipole.
That means we have to input at least half as much energy as was
collected in the external circuit. And we get less than half the
collected energy in the external circuit to power our loads.
It
is easily seen that we thus always have to input more mechanical shaft
energy than the useful energy we get out there in our loads to power
them. This inane symmetrized EM circuit therefore self-enforces
COP<1.0.
And that is the only kind of circuit an EE can build or even think
about, and it has been so since 1892.
The
only reason we have to consume fuel is to crank the shaft of that
generator to restore its source dipole -- it is NOT to directly power
our loads for our usage! The energy that actually powers the loads
freely comes from the local vacuum, via the broken symmetry of the
source dipole inside the generator once it is built (and then
continually restored).
So the world energy crisis is due to the
world fuel crisis. And the only reason we need to consume all that fuel
is because of our horribly mutilated electrical engineering model and
technology, which only can think and build SYMMETRICAL electrical power
systems.
Thus we force all our EM systems to continually require
fuel consumption from the nuclear power plant, the coal power plant,
the natural gas power plant, etc. We can take a little bit of this
required "source dipole restoring energy input" from the wind or from
water currents or from solar radiation, but it is a mere pittance of
what we need. For the brunt of what we need, the arbitrarily
symmetrized EE circuit forces us to continually consume fuel.
So
oddly the real reason for the world energy crisis and its coming giant
economic collapse is our own inane symmetrized electrical engineering
model, used in all our electrical power systems.
But all is not
lost. Once we know this and realize it, we can very quickly solve the
world energy crisis -- quickly, cheaply, cleanly, and permanently -- if
we will but recognize that it is a physics problem, and not a standard
electrical engineering problem. Electrical engineering is the problem,
and it can thus never offer the "solution" in its present form.
For
your information, we attach a Decision and Situation Briefing and a
Briefing on a Manhattan Project to quickly and permanently solve the
world energy crisis -- and sharply reduce global warming, carbon
wastes, etc. world wide and thus very sharply start cleaning up our
fragile and long-polluted biosphere.
I hope you give very serious attention to the attached two Briefings
and to this little write-up for your information.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
P.S.
the Decision Brief and the Manhattan Project Brief are also posted on
my website www.cheniere.org, along with lots of other material on the
subject.