|Subject: RE: Satellite to Test
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:35:45 -0500
Only in a general sense. I.e., we can expand on it appreciably, once GR is considered firmly proven.
E.g., we can DEFINE energy itself as spacetime. This solves Feynman's dilemma that "we really do not know what energy IS!" Then any curvature or twisting (torsion) of that spacetime (ST) in a local region in which a system is located, freely produces a change in the local energy of the spacetime environment of that system (a tautology!). This ST change then interacts directly back upon the system to inject energy. With a dynamic system, there are various local curvatures of spacetime that are generated by the displacement of energy in those system dynamics. So the system interacts directly upon spacetime to curve and twist it in work-free manner, and the resulting curvature of spacetime interacts directly back upon the system to inject energy.
In such an exchange, we point out that the system now is a system far from equilibrium, freely receiving excess energy from its active environment. If the feedback of free energy from the environment (of the regauging energy transfer) is accurately directed and deliberately controlled by the design of the system, then that system is now far from equilibrium in its energetic exchange with its active environment. In nonequilibrium thermodynamics, such a system is permitted to exhibit those five "magic" functions! Such a system can permissibly (1) self-order, (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) output more useful energy (as work in the load) than the conventional energy the operator himself inputs and pays for (the excess energy is freely received from the external environment), (4) power itself and its loads simultaneously (all the energy input is freely received from the external environment), and (5) exhibit negative entropy.
The present EM model simply assumes an inert vacuum and a flat, inert spacetime. Hence it arbitrarily discards all COP >1.0 Maxwellian systems.
Since spacetime is identically energy, the curvature or torsion of spacetime also produces a force-free pure "energy field", which is a necessary precursor to any and all force fields being produced in matter. The interaction of that precursor and its dynamics upon matter produces the force fields in that matter and acting upon it to drive, shape, translate, stress, and influence it.
Note that this reveals a 400 year old error in mechanics: Mechanics presently uses the notion of a separate force in massfree space, acting upon a separate mass. That is totally false, and is KNOWN to be false (see pertinent discussions by Feynman, Wheeler, Margenau, Lindsay, Bunge, and many others). Yet we have no effort by the organized scientific community (i.e., National Science Foundation, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, the national laboratories, Department of Energy, etc.) to change this foundation flaw in mechanics, or to change the particularly serious flaws in the classical Maxwell-Heaviside model and electrical engineering.
Further, changes in the spacetime energy density in a region (i.e., the production of pure force-free energy fields in that region) is work-free since there are no forces present in massfree space to be translated. In short, that is pure regauging (by energy transfer in the same form), and so it is work-free by the gauge freedom principle.
The implication of all this, simply put, is that ENERGY IS FREE FOR THE ARRANGING AND STRUCTURING AND COLLECTING; that is just the arranging and structuring and collecting of spacetime energy density in the same form. That is regauging, in spacetime alone. To regauge does not require work, but only a change in potential energy without form change of the energy. And that changes the local spacetime to give it structure and dynamics. One may have to pay a little bit for switching and control and directing, but one does not have to pay for the energy itself.
The obvious use of this is to pay a little for control and switching, and first set up very large precursor spacetime energy fields and dynamics. All the energy gathered and structured is "for free". Call that creation a "spacetime engine", or just "an engine" for short. Once the precursor engine is made, then interact that engine with the appropriate material system, and voila! One then creates tremendous forces and displacements and dynamics in the material system.
One does not have to pay for the ENERGY to do work, if one uses what nature freely provides. Instead, one has to pay a little for control and switching, and then one has to introduce the engine into the material system, to produce a great deal of work.
Note that this is totally consistent with the conservation of energy law. One can control the flow and shaping of lots of energy as pure directed energy transfer, without furnishing the energy itself, and simply letting the environment furnish that required energy. Nonetheless, the energy for the work IS furnished, but by the environment with only a little "overhead control" cost to the operator.
Note that this also exposes a small error in the presently accepted statement of the first law of thermodynamics. In the conventional statement, any change in the MAGNITUDE of an external parameter of a system, such as changing the magnitude of one of its potentials -- say, the electrostatic scalar potential which is just a change of voltage -- is said to be work a priori. That is false. Changing the magnitude of a potential by simply flowing in more potential is work-free, by the gauge freedom principle discovered long after the hoary old thermodynamics statement was formulated.
And the beauty is that any dipolar source of potential will pour out potential unceasingly, freely, if one does not allow the destruction of that dipolarity. That is how an electret maintains is electric field, and that is how a permanent magnet maintains its magnetic field. In both cases, there is a precursor engine (set of curvatures of spacetime and their dynamics) that has been created in the electret or the magnet, and that engine is continuously furnishing the energy flow into the electret or the magnet.
Look at it this way. Spacetime is just a very powerful potential, hence pure potential energy. It has tremendous energy density (as proven by modern physics), and therefore it can jolly well be taken as a giant potential. But as such, it is also a set of energy flows, as is any scalar potential or field (that was shown by E. T. Whittaker in 1903 and 1904). This is the part that seems to have been only touched on in classical general relativity. There they tend NOT to treat a curvature of spacetime as a source of energy flow, but as something static. But once one equates spacetime as identically energy, then it becomes a scalar potential of enormous energy density, and any curvature becomes a field that is also a flowing radiation of that field outward at light speed, of course diminishing more or less by the inverse square law with radial distance.
In another sense, the curvature of spacetime is fundamentally massless charge, as an engine prior to its attachment to a given mass to form a charged particle.
If the energy input to change that ST potential (one that is the external parameter of an electrical power system) is simply a flow of that same potential, then no work is done because the FORM of the input energy is not changed. Work is rigorously the changing of the FORM of energy, not the changing of the MAGNITUDE of the same form of energy.
That present statement of thermodynamics -- if it were true -- thus would prohibit gauge freedom, and that would falsify much of modern physics.
But it serves to hide the fundamental secret of free energy systems: If the system designer will add energy freely by gauge freedom and regauging, he will be taking the excess energy work-free from the active external environment. In that case, the second law of thermodynamics is totally transcended, because the system is no longer a system in equilibrium, and the second law rigorously applies to equilibrium systems. As is well known and recognized in thermodynamics, a system in equilibrium always has lower entropy than the same system in equilibrium. Simply see any text on nonequilibrium thermodynamics.
But since we can (1) make the external spacetime environment curve and structure at will, and work-free, and (2) at least in principle we can then control and direct the reaction of that curved spacetime back upon the electrical power system, then it follows that electrical power systems taking their energy directly from the vacuum are not only possible but practicable.
But our engineers will never build or even consider such, so long as they continue to use a very archaic and seriously flawed old electrodynamics model riddled with foundations errors, and not even modeling an active spacetime/vacuum environment.
As Einstein pointed out, we have to always check the assumptions we are making in our science (and particularly in our mathematical models!). We literally inherited them with our mother's milk (Einstein's phrase), but we have not changed the serious errors we have inherited in them.
Sadly, there does not seem to be a single book or paper out there in the hard literature that points out the rigorous assumptions in the classical Maxwell-Heaviside model used by electrical engineering, and so there are none which point out the very serious errors in those assumptions.
The NAS, NAE, NSF, DoE, etc. do not have any apparent programs ongoing to correct these terribly flawed models our power system engineers accept and use. None even seem to recognize the importance or the implications of doing so.
But if the precursor work-free engineering based on general relativity ever gets put together and strongly looked at by some of our better theorists, then we may get at last a correction to the long-vexing serious flaws of our present electrical power system engineering.
And then and only then will we get the burden of that power meter dramatically reduced for our homes and industries, get the serious pollution of the biosphere dramatically reduced and cleaned up, and get cheap clean energy available to those large populations of the Earth still living in poverty, misery, abject disease, and with little hope of a decent life.
The overwhelming moral imperative alone ought to trigger out scientific community into making such an effort its top priority.
Does this have any significance with respect to extracting energy from the vacuum?