Never Mind: Junk Science and All That
An Exercise in Satire
Tom Bearden
September 11, 2007 Copyright
Foreword
Recently we’ve all been able to get a good laugh from Gord Sellar’s article in Nature
on being careful about the junk you throw away {1} and Steve Longworth’s article in
Nature, dealing with succussion as a radical solution {2}. These were great satires poking
fun at silly ideas and proposals in biology.
Sellar’s tongue-in-cheek description of keeping a child born with gills in a tank of
water was particularly a riot. Never mind that what’s called a “genetic throwback” is
indeed born at extremely rare intervals, and that such genetic accidents have been secretly
“policed up” and hidden for nearly a century. Never mind that the actual throwbacks are
supposedly kept in a totally obscure but highly secure hospital facility in the greater
Chicago area, unknown and unseen by the public at large and by officialdom.
Never mind that the mother of a well-known aerospace engineer—an engineer for
whom the present author worked, for several years—was a nurse in this actual facility for
many years. Everyone certainly knows that such “throwbacks” do not ever really get
born, much less live to adulthood. And a secret facility in Chicago! C’mon!
So we had a good laugh, and that was the end of it!
“Free Energy” and “Negative Energy” Delusions
There’s another humorous pseudoscience area which should give us all a good belly
laugh as well! That’s the silly notion that in the field of EM energy we really can get
“something from nothing”, and that we can extract EM energy directly from the active
vacuum/spacetime. What a laugh! In short, it’s the insane idea that the universe is a “free
energy lunch”, just waiting for us to easily consume—e.g., as (obviously mistakenly)
pointed out by Hawking {3}—if we involve both positive and negative energy.
Everyone knows that negative energy is blasphemous and totally fictitious!
Fortunately, most of our scientists for many decades have rightfully hated negative
energy, and they have protected our public sensitivity by arbitrarily getting rid of such
blasphemy as negative mass-energy. Everyone knows of the superb though ad hoc
“quality numbers” principle imposed upon Dirac’s theory—which theory was a
relativistic extension to Schrödinger’s equation. This vital correction to such silliness
rightfully assumes mass-energy must always be positive {4}! That correction is quite
important, because it restores religious purity to our science.
Never mind that this important principle has us accepting the unusual notion that
0  1 = + 1. That is only a simple little violation of common arithmetic, to be invoked
when we pop an electron out of a Dirac hole in the Dirac Sea. That remaining hole
cannot and must not be a negative-mass-energy electron! A simple arithmetic violation is
certainly permissible in order to hide a truly ugly and nondoctrinal condition of nature
1
that would otherwise be blasphemous! Of course Dirac himself {5} also hated negative
energy, and as a true protector of the faith he rightfully insisted that one of his “holes” in
the zero-mass-energy of space still had positive mass-energy.
Never mind that this converts a “hole” to a “hill”. That’s a very small price to pay for
a principle of such theological importance in science!
Never mind that sharp young scientists such as Solomon {6} still demonstrate that
negative energy in fact can and does exist. Never mind that Tesla {7} discovered and
used negative energy but called it “radiant energy” to differentiate its behavior, long
before we had a Shrödinger equation {8} or a Dirac equation {9} or even the very notion
of “negative energy”. And never mind that the binding energy holding together the
nucleus of an atom is negative energy! That is, the mass of the nucleus is less than the
sum of the masses of the separated nuclear particles that comprise it. I.e., the total massenergy of a certain group of particles decreases when they are bound together as a
nucleus. It is obviously of no importance that an ensemble of particles with positive
mass-energies loses some of its mass-energy when bound in a nucleus.
Never mind that the output of the VTA (Vacuum Triode Amplifier) built by Floyd
Sweet was negative energy. The unit demonstrated COP = 1,500,000, and also could be
“pushed” to produce antigravity {10}, smoothly reducing its weight on the bench by
90%.
Never mind that negative mass-energy electrons as well as their associated negative
energy EM fields can be experimentally evoked by sharp energy gradients across a small
region of space, thus “popping out” some of the Dirac’ sea’s electrons as a sort of Lenz’s
law effect. This leaves leaving behind a “Dirac Sea hole” which arithmetically is a
negative mass-energy electron, not a positron! But of course everyone knows that it really
is a positron, and its mass has to be positive—arithmetic be hanged!
So we simply have to momentarily change the laws of arithmetic to eliminate that evil
negative mass-energy. That dirty concept of “negative energy” {11} is still against
everything that most physicists hold dear, and it must be rooted out and discarded at all
cost.
Fortunately most of our scientists for several decades have been dedicated to
maintaining the purity of the faith, and they have nobly scourged that blasphemous
“negative energy” right out of there, by whatever means was necessary!
Never mind that the postulated “dark matter” so avidly sought by our astrophysicists
through their telescopes is naught but such negative mass-energy electrons (Dirac sea
holes) produced by sharp gradient processes in galaxies, suns and stars, planets, etc. And
never mind that the negative energy “EM fields” produced by such dark matter (and
sought so fiercely as the “dark energy” our astrophysicists seek) are made of photons
comprised of (E)(+t), i.e., quanta of negative action rather than positive action. Every
fool knows that, since energy cannot be negative, a photon (which is a quantum of action)
cannot have that (E) component!
Just because such silly dark matter and dark energy can actually be evoked and
studied in lab systems and circuits on the bench—as Bedini has done for nearly two
decades in his marvelous but unconventional battery chargers—is of no consequence.
Obviously we must uphold our beloved “quality numbers” principle when speaking of
mass, even though its contradiction can purportedly be shown on the bench. We must
2
continue to rid ourselves of all crackpot suggestions for negative energy states and
negative mass-energy electrons!
Usable Energy Requires Fuel Consumption
As any elementary school student already knows, we must also consume fuel of some
kind in order to obtain usable EM energy. Either that, or else we have to take a little free
energy from the familiar but undependable winds, water currents, geological heat, or
solar radiation of our physical environment.
Meanwhile, never mind about Nikola Tesla’s wild excursions into the inventions of
the rotating magnetic field, AC power, radio, and negative (“radiant”) energy, and into
“energy from the active medium”. Any fool knows that the vacuum/spacetime medium is
inert and cannot be active at all; all our EE textbooks since 1900 already very properly
assume and prescribe an inert medium. This is in fact so well known that it is
unnecessary to have any EE textbook that lists and discusses the assumptions of the
CEM/EE model. The 1880s/1890s EE model is obviously long since proven—all our
television sets and radios work, don’t they?
But for more than a century we’ve been beset by itinerant inventors, frauds, and
charlatans (such as the flamboyant Tesla, who happened to accidentally discover and give
us the rotating magnetic field, modern generators and motors, AC power, radio, and
many other things), who pretended to have discovered magic sources of freely flowing
EM energy—sources just waiting for us to exploit so we can use the energy either freely
or very cheaply obtained. We are absolutely certain that neither spacetime nor the virtual
particle flux of the vacuum can provide any usable quantity of real usable energy; never
mind that the Casimir effect {12} does show that the jitter of small particles can furnish
“enough energy to flap a butterfly’s wing,” to use Puthoff’s analogy {13}.
And never mind that folks such as Nobelist Feynman have erroneously pointed out that
we really don’t know what energy itself is {14}. Why, everyone knows that energy is just
the capacity to perform work! Never mind that scientists and scientific associations have
claimed that this assumption is false, as, e.g., Physics Teacher and Lehrman {15}.
Of Course “Work” and “Entropy” Are Already Completely Understood
One crackpot {16} has even “defined” work as the change of form of energy, due to
the conservation of energy law itself. This nut insists that, when work is done, the energy
still remains but is just changed in form, and it may or may not be lost to the system!
Why, everyone knows that energy that does work is always dissipated and totally leaves
the system, and therefore is nonrecoverable by that system!
This crackpot has even stated that there is no “conservation of work” law, but only a
conservation of energy law stating that the energy can change form but never be lost.
This of course is the height of idiocy! The energy that does the work is lost from the
system, of course—that’s what the concept of “production of entropy” is all about! Never
mind that, using this well-known conventional approach, then the universe is continually
losing energy as it (the universe) performs work! Never mind that the telescopes reveal
that the kinetic energy of the universe is apparently increasing, because the galaxies are
accelerating apart from each other and that acceleration is increasing! That’s obviously
just an accident of our telescopes.
The sacred second law of equilibrium thermodynamics tells us that the potential
3
energy of a system can only remain the same or be lost (dissipated), which loss is called
the “production of entropy” by the system. So the second law tells us that a system can
either produce zero or positive entropy. Never mind how a system, once in equilibrium
(state of maximum entropy) ever gets its entropy reduced so that it can again perform
work, etc. and production of positive entropy!
Never mind that the definition of the forbidden “production of negative entropy” by
the system would thus simply mean “potentialization of the system with potential energy
from an outside energy source”. Why, that definition would mean that mere voltage
amplification in the absence of current would constitute the “system’s production of
negative entropy”, since it freely increases the collected potential energy W on the system
charges q by the little formula W = Vq. And never mind that Australian
thermodynamicists {17} have proven theoretically (and obviously erroneously!) that a
real system is indeed permitted to produce negative entropy!
But particularly do not fall for the trap of thinking that, if the second law is rigorously
true, then a system once in equilibrium (state of maximum entropy) could never be
excited thereafter, to again lower its entropy so it could do some more work and produce
some more positive entropy. Never mind that some thermodynamicists have just moved
this problem to the entire universe itself, and called it the “greatest unresolved problem in
thermodynamics.” {18}
As we all know, the “conservation of energy” law is obviously a “conservation of
energy and work” law. The notion that one can perform work in a subsystem with some
input energy, and then still have the energy left in different form to do still more work in
another subsystem, is obvious lunacy.
Why, if that were true (and of course it isn’t!), then after doing work in part of one’s
system one could “shuttle” the still-remaining spent energy in its second form to another
part of the system, and do additional work by changing its form yet again—even back to
the original energy input form, feeding it again back to the original subsystem to cycle
again! And again and again! Ludicrously, if the “change forms” are properly selected at
each of the two work-sites, then one could shuttle the energy remaining after “work two”
production, back to the original subsystem, repeating the cycle. For a theoretical 100%
efficient system containing two such interlocked 100% efficient subsystems, one could
initially input 100 joules of energy in form one, and it would do 200 joules of work in
every cycle—and that same 100 joules of energy would just keep right on cycling over
and over, doing more and more work at the rate of 200 joules of work per cycle as time
passes and the number of cycles steadily increases.
That is obviously the most insane “energy-work” proposal ever erroneously hatched
up in a fevered brain. Never mind that it perfectly well complies with the conservation of
energy law and with thermodynamics; it is a crazed notion of no merit whatsoever. If that
were true, then theoretically one could input an initial 100 joules of energy, and as time
passes get continual work, steadily increasing without limit as time passes—without ever
having inputted any additional energy!
Never mind that Einstein’s well-confirmed theory of Brownian motion {19} already
finds this is precisely what happens in Brownian motion.
And of course modern optical physicists are well aware of phase conjugation (time
reversal) and the fact that a phase conjugated wave (or group of them) return(s) precisely
over the previous path. But only a lunatic would suggest that this could be used to take
4
dissipated and scattered EM energy that has just performed work by being scattered, and
phase conjugate the scattered energy back to its , for reuse! Why, that would be direct and
intentional production of negative entropy, which is known to be impossible. And of
course, pumped phase conjugation could also amplify the returned energy—which,
according to the crackpots, would constitute “free regauging” and furnishing of excess
energy without fuel or “paying” for it.
The crackpots actually claim that any amount of energy can be collected from a single
nonequilibrium steady state energy flow, in a totally work-free manner, so long as the
form of the energy is not changed in intercepting and collecting it. Never mind that the
lunatics say it is simply regauging and it is covered under the gauge freedom law.
The Important Skeptical Community Provides Our Watchdogs
Fortunately our scientific community has also spawned a professional watchdog
Skeptical Community, which acts repeatedly and nobly to viciously attack all such
crackpots and perpetual motion nuts and all such silly ideas. Our professional Skeptics
thus guard the true scientific faith and the proven status quo, particularly by condemning
all the wild schemes purporting to (a) offer bizarre “solutions” to the escalating “energy
from oil” crisis, (b) offer the impossible production of negative entropy, (c) advance the
silly notion of negative energy, etc.
Never mind that the original concept of “production of entropy by a system” merely
referred to that system’s dissipation and loss—without replacement—of its initial usable,
ordered excess potential energy. And yes, that would seem to mean that simple
potentialization of a system is—with respect to that system—production of negative
entropy by (in) it. But today no self-respecting thermodynamicists define it that way,
even though the negative of “production of positive entropy” (depotentialization) is
“production of negative entropy” (potentialization). Only “rogue” or very confused
thermodynamicists even think such thoughts! Not to worry!
Entropy, Negative Entropy, and “Statics”
So it’s ludicrous to point out that “production of negative entropy” would then merely
mean free “potentialization” of the system from any source of outside energy. Why, if
that were really true, then every time we statically (i.e., with dq/dt = 0) potentialize an
external EM system or circuit from a static voltage source, that would represent a
“lowering of the positive entropy of the system” and therefore—to the system—it would
be its production of negative entropy, in total violation of the sacred second law of
equilibrium thermodynamics. And of course everyone knows such a thing is impossible!
To speak of common potentialization alone—pure voltage amplification of the potential
energy collected on the potentialized q of the receiving system—as being a true negative
entropy operation easily demonstrated—is obviously sheer insanity!
Never mind that such a static, current-free potentialization V of an external circuit or
system containing charges q, results in the interception and collection of additional
energy W = Vq in that potentialized system, in work-free and dissipation-free manner.
Never mind that the taking on of additional usable potential energy lowers the “entropy”
of the system, and it does it “freely” from a static voltage source if no current is
simultaneously drawn.
5
Never mind that such “free electrostatic potentialization without draw of current and
power” can readily be demonstrated on the bench. Such thoughts are erroneous and
unimportant. To suggest that such a simple and well-known operation violates the holy
second law of equilibrium thermodynamics—because it violates the assumption that only
positive or zero entropy can be produced by the system—is blatantly false. And it is
unmitigated insanity to suggest that—after such “static potentialization and free
production of negative entropy—the static voltage source can then be switched away, the
freely potentialized external circuit can be recompleted (as with a diode and a resistor),
and that the now-separated, statically potentialized, closed external circuit can be
permitted to develop current flow normally and dissipate its freely collected potential
energy to produce some “free” EM power in its loads.
Why, by use of the word “static”, we obviously mean that a “static” voltage cannot
even flow, as everyone knows. Never mind the fact that, if we place a static voltage onto
the middle of a transmission line, the “static” voltage takes off down the transmission line
like a scalded hog in both directions simultaneously! That’s just a novel happenstance.
And never mind Whittaker’s 1903 proof that any static potential actually decomposes
into a bidirectional set of flowing longitudinal EM waves {20}. Everyone knows that
Whittaker was simply “off his feed” that day, perhaps having a bit too much to eat and
experiencing uncomfortable stomach trouble.
Never mind that Whittaker’s 1903 decomposition, plus his 1904 decomposition of the
EM field into two scalar potentials with differential functions applied {21}, led to
developing the area of superpotential theory {22}—and even to secret superweapons
using “scalar interferometers” to produce EM fields and their field energy effects at a
great distance {23}. The idea that a dozen nations today secretly have developed such
scalar interferometry weapons, and using them to generate earthquakes, engineer the
weather, etc. is ludicrous, even though Secretary of Defense Cohen (apparently in a
totally deluded moment) actually confirmed these weapons in 1997 at a major conference
on terrorism {24}. Secretary Cohen’s temporary loss of sanity is unfortunate but of no
consequence. And never mind that the proof of scalar interferometry was rigorously
demonstrated mathematically by Evans et al. {25}. Only crackpots and scoundrels speak
of “scalar interferometry”!
But we continue to be exposed to these crackpots and scoundrels and their sad
misunderstanding of accepted physics. Somehow their misguided and nutty advocacy of
(a) producing EM fields and energy at a distant interference zone and using the process
for powerful weapons, and (b) their insane advocacy of taking usable EM energy freely
from the seething energetic vacuum seems to still be slowly increasing. And of course, in
the interest of protecting the purity and gospel of science, this disdainful progress must be
stopped.
The Perpetual Motion Idea Is Obviously Insane
It’s difficult to understand how such foolish scientific digressions as perpetual motion
are even tolerated in the modern science age! For a century, our Professional Skeptics
have unceasingly pointed out that all such things as “overunity energy systems” would
involve the insane old notion of perpetual motion. Many leading Professional Skeptics
have pointed out the silliness of advocating impossible perpetual motion machines!
Never mind that a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system such as a windmill,
6
with constant free energy input (potentialization) from its active environment, does
indeed maintain a continuous (perpetual) free work output and steady continuous
operation without the operator himself furnishing any of the primary energy input. Any
fool knows that this cannot be perpetual motion, even though the motion and system
operation will be sustained indefinitely as long as no mechanical or electrical breakdowns
occur and the environment continues to furnish its free energy “wind”.
Even Thermodynamics Has Been Contaminated
Everyone knows that, in providing several effects already known to permit violating
the old equilibrium second law of thermodynamics at will, Nobelist Prigogine and other
leading nonequilibrium thermodynamicists {26} are severely confused and very much
mistaken. Their theory and experimental demonstration {27} that increasing the disorder
of a nonequilibrium system also produces order at a higher level is the absolute height of
lunacy.
Also, of course Newton himself was obviously quite confused when he proposed his
first law of motion as a system perpetually maintaining its initially induced state of
motion, unless and until there is a subsequent intervention by an external force.
Our noble defending Skeptics have admirably attacked any possible violation of the
second law of equilibrium thermodynamics although—in a moment of temporary
insanity—even Maxwell {28} mistakenly pointed out its statistical nature and its
continual violation by the tiny components of any macrosystem. Of course, Maxwell was
simply deluded and didn’t know what he was talking about!
Of course, everyone with an ounce of sanity left already knows that the hoary old
second law is absolutely inviolate, precisely as the noble Eddington pointed out {29}, and
even though D. J. Evans et al. inanely advanced a miserable transient fluctuation theorem
predicting the temporary violation of the second law {30}. It is known that Crooks {31}
erroneously extended that illucid theorem, and then Wang et al mistakenly claimed to
have demonstrated its violation experimentally {32}. Since the second law is justifiably
the strongest and “purest” law in all of physics, then that entire leading Australian school
of thermodynamicists has inexplicably “gone over the edge”.
One of the known and certified crackpots {16} pointed out that, according to physics,
every charge (together with its polarized vacuum) is a part of a dipolar ensemble, and
hence involved in a broken symmetry continually demonstrating the actual consumption
of virtual state positive entropy and the production of observable state negative entropy.
Of course, the source charge problem is a known, unsolved, and very difficult problem.
But one does not take leave of one’s senses by suggesting that the virtual state vacuum is
highly energetic and that the observable charge’s broken symmetry is a Maxwell’s demon
{33} that continually sorts and absorbs virtual photons, coherently integrating the virtual
excitation energy to quantum size and re-emitting real quanta of EM energy continually.
Also, Einstein obviously made some serious mistakes when he strayed from his
beloved relativity. Why, he mistakenly believed he had violated the sacrosanct second
law of thermodynamics with his theory of fluctuations in Brownian motion {34}. More
recently, in perhaps the greatest scientific faux pas of all time Evans and Rondoni were
erroneously recognized as mathematically proving that a physical system is theoretically
permitted to produce continuous negative entropy {35}. Total nonsense and insanity!
And of course the fore-mentioned crackpot {16} also continually refers to the
7
previously-mentioned so-called source charge problem wherein the charge sits there and
continually pours out observable EM energy at light speed, without any observable
energy input. And that particular perpetual motion nut has the audacity to state that the
asymmetry of the charge is continually and coherently converting virtual energy absorbed
from the vacuum into quantum size, and re-emitting those quanta as real observable
photons. He even cites Nobelist Lee’s unfortunate and unseemly statement that, when we
have a broken symmetry, something previously observable has become observable {36}.
Everybody Knows that “Static” Means “Fixed”, and That’s Final!
Following Van Flandern’s inexplicable and unfortunate error {37}, this same forementioned lunatic alleges that the ongoing conversion of virtual energy to observable
energy by every charge continually establishes and replenishes the associated “static” EM
fields of that source charge or dipolarity. Why, everyone knows that a “static” EM field
involves no movement and hence no energy at all, and that it just springs “full blown”
into existence around the source charge or dipole, whenever the charge (or dipole) is
suddenly formed or presented.
Never mind that this does not answer the question of where all that “EM field energy”
in the static field came from, and how. That is quite unimportant!
Why, the perpetual motion nuts even believe that we can simply place an electret on a
permanent magnet so that the E-field and the H-field are orthogonal, and that this silly
gadget will then continuously and freely pour out real Poynting EM energy flow S, given
by S = E×H, a harmless little formula taught in the energy flow section of every EE
textbook. The crackpots claim that this gadget freely provides an EM energy flow “wind”
that is observable and in theory usable, and that this continuously flowing “EM photon
energy wind” has been extracted from the seething virtual state vacuum!
To the crackpots, any dipole is erroneously thought to be a broken symmetry a priori.
That of course is total delusion; Never mind that Wu her colleagues {38} are mistakenly
alleged to have proved it in 1957.
And unfortunately since 1957 Nobelist Lee and his followers would have us
mistakenly believe that a common dipole (and any other broken symmetry) converts
something previously virtual to something observable {36}! We are supposed to accept
that this so-called “proven” {38} asymmetry of any source dipole—including the charge
and its vacuum polarization—will freely pour out observable EM energy extracted from
the virtual state vacuum and integrated into a stream of observable photons, forever, until
something destroys the dipole! Obviously the Nobel Committee was completely “off its
rocker” for a bit back there in 1957 when they awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang
with such unprecedented speed for Lee and Yang’s prediction of broken symmetry and
the resulting major revolution in physics. All erroneous!
Everyone already knows that this particular S = E×H of a crossed electret lying on a
permanent magnet is just the “static field” from that contraption, and that Van Flandern
{37} was way off base when he pointed out that a static field is actually a continuous
flow of internal moving parts, such as—in this case—real observable photons.
Why, this would mean that every joule of observable EM field energy in the universe
is and has been extracted directly from the seething virtual state vacuum!
We realize that when Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the Heaviside equations back in
1892, on J. P. Morgan’s instructions he gratifyingly also threw out all remaining
8
asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, so that our electrical engineers would not build such
monstrosities. After all, asymmetry is very ugly and symmetry is mathematically
beautiful, so any fool knows that nature is beautiful and therefore we must adhere to
symmetry!
And any fool knows that generations of electrical power engineers since 1900 have
never built asymmetric electrical power systems, but only symmetrical systems. What of
it? They have conclusively proven—with jillions of systems built and tested—that there
is no such thing as an asymmetric overunity COP system unless the physical environment
inputs some excess free mechanical or radiation energy to force the system to be
asymmetric. Never mind that the type of system required (to tap this so-called “free EM
energy wind” from the virtual state vacuum) is just such an asymmetric Maxwellian
system, as is contained in Maxwell’s original horrible theory {39}! Since Lorentz’s
beautiful symmetrization and correction of the Heaviside equations in 1892, from the
very beginning of electrical engineering our electrical engineers have very properly only
designed and built symmetrical power systems.
Thus all our electrical power systems are mathematically beautiful and they remain in
accord with the symmetrized Heaviside-Lorentz equations, with respect to extracting and
outputting (and using) usable EM energy from the virtual state vacuum. That we have to
pay to continually input energy to them, is just one of the somewhat humbling costs we
must pay for maintaining our esthetics and beautiful symmetry.
The Insane Notion that Conservation of Energy Can Be Violated
One thing that every student in our universities knows full well is that the
conservation of energy law is sacrosanct. Never mind that the noted mathematician
Hilbert {40} mistakenly pointed out in 1917 that general relativity allows violation of
conservation of energy and conservation of momentum laws. Understandably Hilbert
must just have had a “very bad day”. We of course must also completely disregard the
inane comment along the same lines by Logunov and Loskutov {41}. And we must
remain firm in upholding conservation of energy, even though eminent physicists such as
Sir Roger Penrose {42} still erroneously state its violation due to general relativity and
also point out how physicists go to tortuous length to step around the problem and avoid
it. Everyone knows that such folks as Hilbert and Penrose must have been—or are—
simply lacking in their knowledge and perspective.
The Perpetual Motion Nuts Will Not Give Up
Even though infuriating, it’s laughable that this seeming loss of sanity by the crackpot
inventors and perpetual motion nuts continues to occur, over and over. Fortunately, our
watchdog serious Skeptics continue to castigate such ridiculous non-science, which is
more appropriately called “perpetual motion machines” and “nonsense”.
Again, never mind that perpetual motion is Newton’s first law of motion. Everyone
knows that, if in deep space if we place an object into motion, then it will remain in that
state of motion indefinitely (perpetually), unless and until an external force comes along
and interacts to change it, but of course that is just a casual happenstance.
Never mind that the crackpots stupidly point out that, without the perpetual motion
principle, all motion would be chaotic a priori, and so our ordered macroscopic world
9
could not even exist because all macroscopic order would be destroyed. They are simply
deluded.
And never mind that a superconducting current evoked in a closed superconducting
loop will slowly decay over an infinite time, and that its “half value” point is estimated
by our solid state physicists in standard textbooks at some 1023 years {43}. Why, that is
many, many orders of magnitude longer than the accepted present age of the universe,
which is only about 14 billion years! And never mind that eminent scientists and
Nobelists such as Feynman {44} have pointed out that such a superconducting current
just runs forever. Even eminent scientists and Nobelists have their moments of silliness!
The Insanity that There are No Force Fields in Massless Space
Any fool in his right mind knows that there are force fields in mass-free space,
because such has been taught in conventional classical electrodynamics and electrical
engineering for more than a century. These disciplines still nobly and properly assume a
thin material ether filling all space.
Never mind that, with the destruction of the material ether concept, those force fields
in space also disappeared.
Never mind that force exists only in mass, since mass is said to be a component of
force by the silly formula F = d/dt(mv). The fact that substituting m = 0 in that equation
provides F = 0 is a sheer accident of the expression, and not to be taken seriously by
anyone. Nor are we to believe Nobelist Feynman {45} when in one of his illucid
moments he points out that the precursor EM field in space is just a “condition of space”,
and force-free, and that the EM force does not exist except as an ongoing interaction of
that precursor force-free “field as a condition of space” with a charged mass or masses
that we introduce.
Why, if there is no force in the EM field in space, then if we learned to directly
manipulate or engineer that “force-free precursor field” it would be work-free since
 F  dS is zero because F is zero. It would mean that we could simply manipulate the
precursor fields (i.e., spacetime itself), learn to directly engineer them work-free, build up
very large “energy flows” etc. in the precursor state, and then let them interact with
matter to form the requisite forces in that matter to move it. That would mean selfpowering systems, taking their energy directly from spacetime via force-free energy
current “inputs”—obviously a notion that is totally insane.
And we could write [VPF]  [energy]  [spacetime], to give a unified field theory.
We could engineer force field patterns by engineering the corresponding force-free
precursor field in a work-free manner, and then interact this precursor field with charged
matter to produce force fields acting in any desired manner in that charged matter.
Literally we could easily produce force fields of any magnitude, and work-free in that
manner. Why, the insanity of that notion is obvious!
Never mind that the Fogal semiconductor {46}, suppressed now for nearly two
decades, already can demonstrate the ability to directly manipulate the precursor field
itself. Never mind that this has been clearly indicated in rigorous independent laboratory
tests by external agencies. The keepers of the scientific faith are insuring that the silly
Fogal semiconductor is never going to get into production anyway, so its insane
“supposed capabilities” are of no interest or importance.
Never mind that M. Evans et al. {47} already mathematically proved that, if we rid
10
ourselves of Lorentz’s 1892 arbitrary symmetrization of the Heaviside equations, the
resulting asymmetric systems do have “energy currents from the vacuum” available for
use. The fact that the presently missing Maxwellian asymmetric systems have a built-in
broken symmetry a priori and are thus permitted to demonstrate self-powering by energy
currents freely received from the vacuum/spacetime (similar to the operation of a
windmill), is obviously of no importance.
So we should never mind the silly “junk science” that so besets us from all sides. We
must be ever on our guard against the crackpots and nuts who wish to give us “garbage
science” under the pretence that it would be of assistance or help to our civilization, our
nation, the long-suffering impoverished peoples of the earth, etc. Or that it would make
us independent of oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and even coal—and that it would solve
the escalating world energy crisis while also dramatically cleaning up our biosphere and
lowering our contributions to global warming.
Our Scientists Have Properly Advised Our Leaders
We are long since past such lunatic proposals, as is clearly shown in the important
scientific advice given to President Bush in 2006 by his scientific advisors {48}. Here we
obviously see the true scientific answer: build lots of new nuclear power plants, and
never mind the little problem of disposing of the increased nuclear wastes; we will solve
that later, or we can always just dump it in the ocean as the Russians quietly do. Never
mind that the nuclear folks have requested permission to increase their blasting of spent
uranium etc. into the local atmosphere {49}. We must divert much of our corn into
production of ethanol, using more “dirty energy” to make the ethanol than the “cleaner
energy” obtained when the ethanol is burned, and using lots of water for irrigation and for
the refineries {50}. Never mind that this also is driving up our meat and food prices by
increasing the costs of animal feed due to the increase in cost of corn. Never mind that in
many places it is also leading to a dramatic water shortage.
There Is No Problem in Our Century-Old Electrical Engineering Model
Everyone knows perfectly well that today’s highly successful electrical engineering
model, put together in the 1880s and 1890s after Maxwell was already dead, and already
severely truncated in Heaviside’s emasculated subset {51} {52} {53} and with two
subsequent further truncations by Lorentz {54} {55}, is perfect and well-fitted.
Never mind that one of the energy crackpots {16} has compiled a listing of “known
falsities” in the CEM/EE model {56}, pointed out by eminent scientists. Never mind that
this compilation paper had a successful review by the National Science Foundation {57}.
Electrodynamicists have pointed out that this fictitious giant Heaviside curled energy
flow component can have no physical significance {58}. Never mind that Lorentz’s “no
physical significance” statement only applies to a special relativistic situation, since in a
general relativistic situation the divergence of the curl is not necessarily zero.
Also, never mind that in 1931 Gödel {59} proved mathematically that no
mathematical model is ever complete and perfect, but may always fall short, and
additional phenomenology will always be found that violates our models. Never mind
Einstein’s exhortation {60} that we must always examine and re-examine the
assumptions of our favored models, and have no hesitation in changing them as our
physics advances and we learn that some of those assumptions get falsified.
11
The ultimate test is the experiment! And any fool knows that experimentally our
lights, our TV sets, and our cell phones continue to work magnificently.
So never mind the junk science that the perpetual motion crackpots, a few nutty
inventors, and a few crazed scientists are trying to foist on us. Our electromagnetic model
is already perfect and well-fitted.
The Purity of Our Science Is Secure and Rigorously Maintained
The comedian Will Rogers is reported to have once remarked that there is nothing
wrong with our politicians; we have the best politicians that money can buy. Some
maverick scientists (and the crackpots of course) feel that we also have the best scientists
that money can buy. Obviously such a viewpoint is totally deranged.
So, even though today most of our scientific funding is poured only into the
“accepted” and “approved” scientific areas, we must never even entertain the possibility
that we also may have the best and most forward-looking “advisory” scientists and
Watchdog Professional Skeptics that money can buy, thus determining that the Ship of
Science shall mostly stay on its present tried and true course. Sadly, a few scientists in
illucid moments have even reinforced that vein. In the middle 1800s Louis Agassiz
stated: "Every great scientific truth goes through three stages. First, people say it
conflicts with the Bible. Next they say it had been discovered before. Lastly they say they
have always believed it."
Max Planck {61} said: "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by
gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul
becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the
growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning."
So never mind all the strange notions and fallacies continually produced by maverick
scientists, rogue researchers, and crackpot inventors. The rigorous policing of our
scientific faith, ideas, and discoveries nobly continues, so that the purity of our scientific
beliefs remains secure against continual blasphemy.
Never mind that the clock ticking away to the Western World’s catastrophic economic
collapse over the escalating world “energy from fuel” crisis is showing 15 minutes to
midnight. Not to worry; our scientific faith will hold steady. The blasphemers are being
steadily and sorely chastised, and those insane notions such as cold fusion, energy from
the vacuum, self-powering steam boilers using negative resonance absorption of the
medium (NRAM), asymmetric electrical power systems, negative energy, antigravity,
and dirty old self-powering perpetual motion machines are firmly buried on the trash pile
of science. They will stay buried.
Our noble scientific skeptical watchmen each night sound the calming message that
“It’s midnight and all’s well!” And we shall continue to have the best scientific
watchmen that money, prestige, power, position, and control can buy.
References:
1. Gordon Sellar, “Junk. Be careful what you throw away.” Nature, Vol. 448, 2 August
2007, p. 622.
2. Steve Longworth, “Succusion. A radical solution.” Nature, Vol. 448, 16 August 2007,
p. 838.
12
3. Stephen D. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantam, 1998. Quoting: “Thus in a
sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is
approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy
exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the
universe is zero. …now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount
of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without
violation of the conservation of energy.” …"It is said that there's no such thing as a free
lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch."
4. For a rigorous exposé of the scientific suppression of the notion of negative entropy
including even in quantum field theory, see Chapter 1: Historical Introduction, in Steven
Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. 1: Foundations, Cambridge University
Press, New York, 2005, pp. 1-48.
5. Quoting Dirac: “I remember once when I was in Copenhagen, that Bohr asked me
what I was working on and I told him I was trying to get a satisfactory relativistic theory
of the electron, and Bohr said ‘But Klein and Gordon have already done that!’ That
answer first rather disturbed me. Bohr seemed quite satisfied by Klein’s solution, but I
was not because of the negative probabilities that it led to. I just kept on with it, worrying
about getting a theory which would have only positive probabilities.” From a
conversation between Dirac and J. Mera, quoted by Mera in Aspects of Quantum Theory,
ed. by A. Salam and E. P. Wigner, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1972.
6. Dan Solomon, "Some new results concerning the vacuum in Dirac’s hole theory,"
Physica Scripta, Vol. 74, 2006, p. 117–122. Quoting: “In Dirac’s hole theory (HT), the
vacuum state is generally believed to be the state of minimum energy. It will be shown
that this is not, in fact, the case and that there must exist states in HT with less energy
than the vacuum state. It will be shown that energy can be extracted from the HT vacuum
state through application of an electric field.”
7. (a) Nikola Tesla, “Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy,” US Patent No.
685,957. Issued 5 November 1901. (b) Nikola Tesla, “Method of Utilizing Radiant
Energy,” US Patent No. 685,958. Issued 5 November 1901.
8. (a) E. Schrödinger, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), vol. 489, 1926, p. 79; (b) E. Schrödinger,
Phys. Rev. Vol. 28, 1926, p. 1049.
9. Dirac’s equation is a special relativistic extension to Schrödinger’s 1926 equation. In
1928 Paul Dirac provided this quantum mechanical wave equation to provide a
description of elementary spin-½ particles such as electrons, consistent with both
quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity. But Dirac’s original relativistic
equation involves negative energy states, abhorred by physicists and even by Dirac
himself. Schrödinger rejected such a solution, as have most physicists because of their
strong distaste for negative energy. Nevertheless, negative energy states were resurrected
in what is known as the Klein-Gordon equation, describing particles of spin-0. For
Dirac’s equations, see (a) P.A.M. Dirac, “The Quantum Theory of the Electron,”
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Containing Papers of a
Mathematical and Physical Character, Volume 117, Issue 778, 1928, pp. 610-624; (b)
P.A.M. Dirac, "The Quantum Theory of the Electron, Part II. Proceedings of the Royal
13
Society of London Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical
Character, Volume 118, 1928, pp. 351-361.
10. The antigravity experiment’s results are given in Floyd Sweet and T. E. Bearden,
"Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy," Proc. 26th Intersociety
Energy Conversion Eng. Conf. (IECEC '91), Boston, Massachusetts, 1991, p. 370-375.
Sweet's device produced 500 watts of negative power for a 330 microwatt input (of
normal power) and was pushed to 1 kilowatt output for the antigravity demonstration
reported in the paper. Unfortunately Sweet never fully revealed the activation secret by
which the nuclear binding energy of the barium nucleus in barium ferrite magnetic
materials could be set into self-oscillation at 60 Hertz, so that the entire magnetic field of
a permanent magnet also self-oscillated to and fro at the same frequency.
11. For the typical view of physicists, see Ian D. Lawrie, A Unified Grand Tour of
Theoretical Physics, CRC Press, First Edition, 1990. Quoting from p. 130: “The negative
energy solutions are an embarrassment, because they imply the existence of singleparticle states with energy less than that of the vacuum. Intuitively, this is nonsensical. In
fact, there is no lower limit to the energy spectrum. This means that the vacuum is
unstable, since an infinite amount of energy could be released from it by the spontaneous
creation of particles in negative energy states. … it is the negative energy states which
give rise to a negative probability density.”
12. (a) H. B. G. Casimir and D. Polder, “The influence of retardation on the London-van
der Waals Forces,” Physical Review, 73(4), Feb. 15, 1948, p. 360-372; (b) H. B. G.
Casimir, “On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates,” presented at a
meeting of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences on 29 May, 1948.
Published in the same year in Proceeding. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van
Wetenschappen, Amsterdam, vol. 51(7), 1948, p. 793-796.
13. William B. Scott, “To the Stars,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, Mar. 1,
2004, p. 50-53. Scott quotes Hal Puthoff: “So far, the embodiments are pitifully small.
[Experiments] have produced about the same amount of energy as a butterfly’s wing –
picowatts [of power] or so. But the potential is there.”
14. Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 4-2. Quoting: "It is
important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."
15. R. L. Lehrman, "Energy is not the ability to do work," Physics Teacher, Vol. 15,
1973, p. 15. Because work is rigorously the change of form of energy, we cannot “define”
energy as its own change of form! We can say that energy has the capacity to do work (to
change its form), but we cannot say that it identically is the capacity to do work. E.g., we
can say that a man has the capacity to do work, but we cannot say that a man identically
is the capacity to do work!
16. The present author, Tom Bearden.
17. D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium
Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920. This paper rigorously
proves theoretically that real physical systems can produce continuous negative entropy,
14
in total violation to the flawed old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics. While the
startled authors themselves felt that real systems will have difficulty doing this, they also
pointed out that the “problem” still exists for deterministic systems. Actually every
charge and dipole in the universe already does this, by taking the potentializing
(excitation) energy directly from the virtual state and turning it into observable
excitation, because of the broken symmetry of the dipole and of a charge together with its
polarized vacuum (the two constitute a dipole and hence also a proven broken symmetry).
18. This leads to the greatest unsolved problem in thermodynamics. See Huw Price,
Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point, Oxford University Press, 1996, paperback 1997, p.
78. Quoting: "A century or so ago, Ludwig Boltzmann and other physicists attempted to
explain the temporal asymmetry of the second law of thermodynamics. …the hard-won
lesson of that endeavor—a lesson still commonly misunderstood—was that the real
puzzle of thermodynamics is not why entropy increases with time, but why it was ever so
low in the first place."
19. Einstein, A. “On the movement of small particles suspended in stationary liquids
required by the molecular-kinetic theory of heat,” Ann. der Physik, Vol. 17, 1905, pp.
549-560.
20. E. T. Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics,”
Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355.
21. E. T. Whittaker, “On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by
Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions,” Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol. 1,
1904, p. 367-372.
22. See (a) A. Nisbet, “Source representations for Debye’s electromagnetic potentials,”
Physica, Vol. 21, 1955, p. 799-802; (b) W. H. McCrea, “Hertzian Electromagnetic
Potentials.” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, Vol. 240, No. 1223, July 16, 1957, p. 447-457. (c)
A good summary of superpotentials is given by Melba Phillips, “Classical
Electrodynamics,” in Principles of Electrodynamics and Relativity, Vol. IV of
Encyclopedia of Physics, edited by S. Flugge, Springer-Verlag, 1962.
23. The history and background of scalar interferometry weapons and other
superweapons is given in Thomas E. Bearden, Oblivion: America at the Brink, Cheniere
Publishing, 2005. Also see reference 22.
24. Secretary of Defense William Cohen at an April 1997 counterterrorism conference
sponsored by former Senator Sam Nunn. Quoted from DoD News Briefing, Secretary of
Defense William S. Cohen, Q&A at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass
Destruction, and U.S. Strategy, University of Georgia, Athens, Apr. 28, 1997. Cohen’s
actual statement is quoted: "Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism
whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the
use of electromagnetic waves… So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are
at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations…It's real, and
that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important."
25. Rigorous mathematical proof of scalar interferometry is given by M. W. Evans et al.,
"On Whittaker's Representation of the Electromagnetic Entity in Vacuo, Part V: The
15
Production of Transverse Fields and Energy by Scalar Interferometry," Journal of New
Energy, 4(3), Special Issue, Winter 1999, p. 76-78.
26. Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines
to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999.
Quoting from p. 459, on areas that violate thermodynamics: "Some of these areas are (1)
"... rarefied media, where the idea of local equilibrium fails. The average energy at each
point depends on the temperature at the boundaries. Important astrophysical situations
belong to this category." (2) "...strong gradients, where we expect the failure of linear
laws such as the Fourier law for heat conduction. Not much is known either
experimentally or theoretically. Attempts to introduce such nonlinear outcomes ... have
led to 'extended thermodynamics' ." (3) "...memory effects which appear for long times
(as compared to characteristic relaxation times). ...non-equilibrium processes may have
'long time-tails'...".
27. Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, ibid, p. xii. Quoting: "One aspect is common to
all these nonequilibrium situations, the appearance of long-range coherence.
Macroscopically distinct parts become correlated. This is in contrast to equilibrium
situations where the range of correlations is determined by short-range molecular forces.
As a result, situations which are impossible to realize at equilibrium become possible in
far-from-equilibrium situations. This leads to important applications in a variety of
fields.”
Also quoting, p. xv: "Equilibrium thermodynamics was an achievement of the
nineteenth century, nonequilibrium thermodynamics was developed in the twentieth
century, and Onsager's relations mark a crucial point in the shift of interest away from
equilibrium to nonequilibrium. … due to the flow of entropy, even close to equilibrium,
irreversibility can no more be identified with the tendency to disorder… [since it can] …
produce both disorder … and order…”
28. J. C. Maxwell, “Tait's Thermodynamics II,” Nature, Vol. 17, 7 February 1878, pp.
278–280. Quoting: "The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical,
truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of
molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and
that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a
real body."
29. A. S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, Macmillan, New York, 1929, p.
74. Quoting: "The law that entropy always increases—the second law of
thermodynamics—holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of nature. If
someone points out that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s
equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be
contradicted by experiments—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes.
But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you
no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
30. D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, "Equilibrium microstates which generate second law
violating steady states," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645-1648. This paper advances
the transient fluctuation theorem which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of
16
the second law of thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. The theorem
relates the relative probability of delivering negative versus positive work to an
experimental vessel. The theorem applies to systems in a constant-temperature
environment and initially at equilibrium.
31. See Gavin E. Crooks, "Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the
nonequilibrium work relation for free energy differences," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 60, 1999, p.
2721-2726. This is a further generalized form of the transient fluctuation theorem, which
applies when one manipulates a system so as to change its free energy.
32. G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J. Searles, and Denis J. Evans,
"Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for
Small Systems and Short Time Scales," Phys. Rev. Lett., 89(5), 29 July 2002, 050601.
Wang et al. experimentally demonstrate the integrated transient fluctuation theorem,
which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second law of
thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. Entropy consumption is shown
to occur over colloidal length and time scales, for up to two seconds and at cubic micron
size scales.
33. A fairly good discussion of Maxwell’s Demon is given in Wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon .
34. A good discussion article is Giorgio Parisi, “Brownian motion,” Nature Vol. 433, 20
Jan. 2005, p. 221. The article is published on line and is available for reading and
download at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7023/full/433221a.html.
35. D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium
Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920. This paper theoretically
proves that real physical systems are permitted to produce continuous negative entropy,
in total violation to the flawed old second law of equilibrium thermodynamics.
36. T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, Harwood Academy
Publishers, Chur, New York, and London, 1981, p. 181. Quoting: “…the violation of
symmetry arises whenever what was thought to be a non-observable turns out to be
actually an observable.”
37. Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity—What the experiments say,” Physics
Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9. Quoting him 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.”
38. C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes and R. P. Hudson,
"Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay," Physical Review, Vol. 105,
17
1957, p. 1413. Reports the experimental proof that the weak interaction violates parity
(spatial reflection). This was a rather immediate proof of broken symmetry, as predicted
by Lee and Yang in 1956-57. One of the asymmetries is that of opposite charges, hence
for any dipolarity. This startling proof of Lee and Yang’s prediction resulted in the
almost immediate award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang, in December of the same
year, 1957.
39. James Clerk Maxwell, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field," Royal
Society Transactions, Vol. CLV, 1865, p 459. Read Dec. 8, 1864. Also in The Scientific
Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, 2 vols. bound as one, edited by W. D. Niven, Dover,
New York, 1952, Vol. 1, p. 526-597. Two errata are given on the unnumbered page prior
to page 1 of Vol. 1. In this paper Maxwell presents his seminal theory of
electromagnetism, containing 20 equations in 20 unknowns in quaternion and quaternionlike algebra. His general equations of the electromagnetic field are given in Part III,
General Equations of the Electromagnetic Field, p. 554-564. On p. 561, he lists his 20
variables. On p. 562, he summarizes the different subjects of the 20 equations, being
three equations each for magnetic force, electric currents, electromotive force, electric
elasticity, electric resistance, total currents; and one equation each for free electricity and
continuity.
40. D. Hilbert, Gottingen Nachrichten, Vol. 4, 1917, p. 21. Quoting: "I assert... that for
the general theory of relativity, i.e., in the case of general invariance of the Hamiltonian
function, energy equations... corresponding to the energy equations in orthogonally
invariant theories do not exist at all. I could even take this circumstance as the
characteristic feature of the general theory of relativity."
41. A. A. Logunov and Yu. M. Loskutov, "Nonuniqueness of the predictions of the
general theory of relativity," Sov. J. Part. Nucl., 18(3), May-June 1987, p. 179. Quoting:
"In formulating the equivalence principle, Einstein actually abandoned the idea of the
gravitational field as a Faraday-Maxwell field, and this is reflected in the
pseudotensorial characterization of the gravitational field that he introduced. Hilbert
was the first to draw attention to the consequences of this. … Unfortunately … Hilbert
was evidently not understood by his contemporaries, since neither Einstein himself nor
other physicists recognized the fact that in general relativity conservation laws for
energy, momentum, and angular momentum are in principle impossible."
42. Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2005, p. 457-458.
Quoting: “We seem to have lost those most crucial conservation laws of physics, the laws
of conservation of energy and momentum!” [Penrose then adds the Killing symmetry
arbitrarily, to get conservation again, when the Killing vector applies and gravity is
separated]. “These conservation laws hold only in a spacetime for which there is the
appropriate symmetry, given by the Killing vector ĸ…. [These considerations] do not
really help us in understanding what the fate of the conservation laws will be when
gravity itself becomes an active player. We still have not regained our missing
conservation laws of energy and momentum, when gravity enters the picture. ... This
awkward-seeming fact has, since the early days of general relativity, evoked some of the
strongest objections to that theory, and reasons for unease with it, as expressed by
numerous physicists over the years. … in fact Einstein’s theory takes account of energy18
momentum conservation in a rather sophisticated way—at least in those circumstances
where such a conservation law is most needed. …Whatever energy there is in the
gravitational field itself is to be excluded from having any representation…”
Our comment: This “solution” accepted by many general relativists is to just
arbitrarily toss out the gravity and gravitational energy density of spacetime in a given
troublesome case, and the problem of nonconservation of energy and momentum then
vanishes. In short, separate the spacetime itself from the fields, and there is no problem.
However, simply avoiding the problem itself is not solving the problem! Considering the
neglected and unaccounted giant Heaviside energy flow that always accompanies every
Poynting EM energy flow, the gravity effect is always at least of importance, and this
“solution” itself is in general nearly always untenable
43. E.g., see Charles Kittel. Introduction to Solid State Physics, Seventh Edition, Wiley,
New York, 1996, p. 359-360. On p. 359, Kittel calculates the time required for a single
fluxoid to leak out of a typical superconducting ring with zero resistance. The leakage
calculation gives the time required for a fluxoid to leak out as about 10exp(4.34 x 107)
sec. Since the age of the present universe is only about 1018 sec., it would require an
enormous number of “present universe lives”—indeed, some 10exp(4.34×107  18) of
them—for the leakage of a single fluxoid to statistically occur. From this calculation, one
can understand a typical estimate for the half-value point (when half of the fluxoids will
have leaked away from a chosen “typical” shorted superconducting ring) of 10exp23
years.
44. Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Vol. III, Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Third Printing
1966, p. 21-08. Quoting: “First, there is no electrical resistance. There’s no resistance
because all the electrons are collectively in the same state. ... A current once started, just
keeps on going forever.”
45. (a) Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 2-4. Quoting:
"…the existence of the positive charge, in some sense, distorts, or creates a "condition"
in space, so that when we put the negative charge in, it feels a force. This potentiality for
producing a force is called an electric field." (b) Ibid, vol. II, p. 1-3. Quoting: "We may
think of E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t) as giving the forces that would be experienced at the
time t by a charge located at (x, y, z), with the condition that placing the charge there did
not disturb the positions or motion of all the other charges responsible for the fields."
46 (a) William Jay Fogal, "High Gain, Low distortion, Faster Switching Transistor,"
U.S. Patent No. 5,196,809, issued Mar. 23, 1993. (b) William Jay Fogal, "High Gain,
Low Distortion, Faster Switching Transistor." U.S. Patent No. 5,430,413, issued July 4,
1995.
47. M. W. Evans et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition:
Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517.
Quoting, p. 513: A demonstration is made of the existence of a time dependent classical
vacuum polarization which appears if the Lorentz condition is discarded. Vacuum charge
and current appear phenomenologically in the Lehnert equations but fundamentally in
19
the O(3) Yang-Mills theory of classical electrodynamics. The latter also allows for the
possibility of the existence of vacuum topological magnetic charge density and
topological magnetic current density. Both O(3) and Lehnert equations are superior to
the Maxwell-Heaviside equations in being able to describe phenomena not amenable to
the latter. In theory, devices can be made to extract the energy associated with vacuum
charge and current.”
48. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), The Energy
Imperative: Technology and the Role of Emerging Companies, 2006, presented to
President Bush in 2006 by PCAST Co-Chairs Floyd Kvamme and John Marburger.
49. (a) See John Upton, “Dust Up,” Tracy Press, Tracy, CA, 21 April 2007. Earlier this
year (2007) the Department of Energy’s Livermore Lab requested permission to detonate
up to 4,500 pounds of depleted uranium and 60 other hazardous materials each year in
open-air bomb tests with no control technology to reduce airborne emissions. See also (b)
Cathy Garger, “Depleted Uranium Poison Explosions Target US Citizens,” AxisofLogic,
Jan. 23, 2007.
50. See Joe Barrett, “How Ethanol is Making the Farm Belt Thirsty,” Wall Street
Journal, Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2007, pp. B1, B16.
51. Oliver Heaviside, "Electromagnetic Induction and Its Propagation," The Electrician,
1885, 1886, 1887, and later. A series of 47 sections, published section by section in
numerous issues of The Electrician during 1885, 1886, and 1887.
52. See also Oliver Heaviside, Electrical Papers, Vol. 2, 1887, p. 94. Quoting: “It [the
energy transfer flow] takes place, in the vicinity of the wire, very nearly parallel to it,
with a slight slope towards the wire… Prof. Poynting, on the other hand, holds a different
view, representing the transfer as nearly perpendicular to a wire, i.e., with a slight
departure from the vertical. This difference of a quadrant can, I think, only arise from
what seems to be a misconception on his part as to the nature of the electric field in the
vicinity of a wire supporting electric current. The lines of electric force are nearly
perpendicular to the wire. The departure from perpendicularity is usually so small that I
have sometimes spoken of them as being perpendicular to it, as they practically are,
before I recognized the great physical importance of the slight departure. It causes the
convergence of energy into the wire.”
53. Oliver Heaviside, "On the Forces, Stresses, and Fluxes of Energy in the
Electromagnetic Field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 183A, 1893, p. 423-480.
Heaviside discusses the Faraday-Maxwell ether medium, outlines his vector algebra for
analysis of vectors without quaternions, discusses magnetism, gives the EM equations in
a moving medium, and gives the EM flux of energy in a stationary medium. On p. 443,
he credits Poynting with being first to discover the formula for energy flow, with
Heaviside himself independently discovering and interpreting this flow a little later by
himself in an extended form.
54. H. A. Lorentz, "La Théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell et son application aux
corps mouvants," [The Electromagnetic Theory of Maxwell and its application to moving
bodies], Arch. Néerl. Sci., Vol. 25, 1892, p. 363-552.
20
55. H. A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik an der Universität Leiden,
Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft
M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931, "Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld," p. 179-186. Figure
25 on p. 185 shows the Lorentz concept of integrating the energy flow vector around a
closed cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric element. This is the procedure which
arbitrarily selects only the small diverged component of the energy flow associated with a
circuit—specifically, the small Poynting component being diverged into the circuit to
power it—and then treats that tiny component as the "entire" energy flow. Thereby
Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all the giant Heaviside circuital energy transport component
which is usually not diverged into the circuit conductors at all, does not interact with
anything locally, and is just wasted.
56. T. E. Bearden, “Errors and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model,” available from link
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc .
57. For a letter from the National Science Foundation showing the errors paper passed
NSF review, see http://www.cheniere.org/references/NSF%20letter%20Bearden.jpg .
58. E.g., see J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, 1975, p.
237. Quoting: "...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 …"
59. Kurt Gödel, "Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principa Mathematica und
verwandter Systeme" ("On Formally Indeterminable Propositions of the Principia
Mathematica and Related Systems)," in Monatshefte fur Mathematik und Physik, Vol.
38, 1931. This is the publication in which Gödel's Proof first appeared, which states that
within any logical mathematical system there are propositions or questions that cannot be
proved or disproved on the basis of the axioms within that system. Therefore, it is
uncertain whether or not the axioms of arithmetic will give rise to contradictions, since
they can.
60. Albert Einstein, "Foreword," in Max Jammer, Concepts of Space: The History of
Theories of Space in Physics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1969, p. xi-xii. Quoting: "...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which
he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever is he aware of the
eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or,
speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something obviously,
immutably given; something having an objective value of truth which is hardly even, and
in any case not seriously, to be doubted. ...in the interests of science it is necessary over
and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we
may not unconsciously be ruled by them."
61. Max Planck, as quoted in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.
21