Never Mind: Junk Science and All That

An Exercise in Satire

Tom BeardenSeptember 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 mass-energy 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 continue to rid ourselves of all crackpot suggestions for negative energy states and negative mass-energy electrons!

2

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 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

3

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

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.

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.

4

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.

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 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 single-particle 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.”

5

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

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, 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

6

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 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

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.

7

“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. 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

8

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

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 Production of Transverse Fields and Energy by Scalar Interferometry," Journal of New Energy, 4(3), Special Issue, Winter 1999, p. 76-78.

9

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, 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

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…”

10

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 {Error: Reference source not found} 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 {Error: Reference source not found} also continually refers to the 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}.

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."

11

Everybody Knows that “Static” Means “Fixed”, and That’s Final!

Following Van Flandern’s inexplicable and unfortunate error {37}, this same fore-mentioned 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!

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 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.

12

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 {Error: Reference source not found}! We are supposed to accept that this so-called “proven” {Error: Reference source not found} 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 {Error: Reference source not found} 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.

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.”

13

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 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.

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, 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 quaternion-like 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.

14

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 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

15

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 self-powering 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 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

16

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

50. See Joe Barrett, “How Ethanol is Making the Farm Belt Thirsty,” Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2007, pp. B1, B16.

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 energy-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

17

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 {Error: Reference source not found} 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.

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.

18

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. 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.

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 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.

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.

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

19

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.

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.

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

20

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.

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

References:

22