The Tom Bearden



From: "Tom Bearden"
Subject: RE: Question
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:26:42 -0600


Actually those were just steps along the way.  It has turned out to be lots
more complicated.  The real problem is that rigorously no observable -- none
whatsoever -- can or does persist in time, a priori, regardless of what is
in the physics books or electrical engineering books -- else we have to
discard quantum mechanics altogether.  Observation is a d/dt operator
imposed on LLLT, and it yields a totally frozen instantaneous LLL snapshot
at one single moment.  Time is not an observable in quantum mechanics, not
even in theory.  It is just a parameter.  And yes, the quantum  physicists
themselves violate their own prescription for what observation does and an
observable is!  They themselves mistakenly continue to use the notion that
"observables persist as such".  Not so at all, from first principles.

In physics, this is perhaps the greatest non sequitur that is ubiquitously
used: the notion that observables persist, or travel, etc.

Actually this was a great problem of the ancient philosophers, called the
"problem of change".  Heraclitus said it more or less like this: "For a
thing to change, it has to turn into something else.  But how can a thing be
itself and something else also?"  So he concluded that change was an
illusion.  Other philosophers (most of them) just went on assuming the
identity of opposites, which of course violates all three of Aristotle's
laws.  However, many of the philosophers referred to this problem as "the
accursed necessity for the identity of opposites".

The problem has not been resolved in modern physics.  We still treat a
"thing", e.g., as both a particle (frozen 3-space snapshot) and also a wave
(NOT a frozen 3-space snapshot).  Duality was never resolved; the physicists
just finally agreed to quit arguing, treat it however it was convenient in a
particular case, and get on with it.  There are four major models for the
photon, e.g., and they do not agree with each other.  Physicists just "plug
in" whichever one has been found to give the right answers in a particular

The best approach to gravity is that it is the energy (where "mass", EM
energy, mass-energy, kinetic energy, potential energy, time-energy,
whatever) that is responsible for generating the gravity.  However, that
also has flaws, since usually only 3-spatial energy is being referred to by
the physicists, and that is an "effect" and an output of observation, not a
cause of anything.  Simply read Feynman's statement that "we really do not
know what energy IS!".

Indeed, the entire foundations area needs terrible revision.  As Bunge put
it in the 1960s, it is not commonly realized that electrodynamics -- both
quantal and classical -- are seriously flawed and in need of major revision.
The universal error in physics -- and particularly in electrodynamics -- is
the substitution of the effect for the cause.  This exists in mechanics,
e.g., from the outset with the notion of a separate force acting on a
separate mass.  No such thing exists in nature.  Also, in electrodynamics
the standard illustration of a planar wavefront (in x and y) traveling along
the z axis is total nonsense -- as also pointed out in Feb. 2001 by the
Editor of American Journal of Physics.

So one must not "lock in" on some kind of absolute as the "cause of
gravity".  What can be done is to model it in some certain way, and in that
model one can say that the "cause of gravity" is such and such.  I
particularly like the general relativity model, IF it is extended to
recognize that time itself is energy compacted by c-squared, but compacted
into the time-axis rather than in 3-space.  Thus in this view time has the
same energy density as mass, and the low "spatial" energy photons (low
frequency photons) are actually the most energetic, when the time-energy
carried by them is transduced and unleashed (expanded) into normal spatial

That's why Sweet was able to do such a revolutionary and controlled
antigravity experiment at 60 HZ.  He was handling enormous time-energy in
his low frequency photons. Try it at, say, radar wave frequency and you have
such little antigravity that you will be hard put to even measure it with
very sensitive instruments.

I also no longer work in gravity and antigravity at all.  Everything I'm
doing is now in energy and in potential medical applications of higher
symmetry electrodynamics.  We just have to leave the gravity to others, as
we have an approaching world economic collapse (and resulting unleashing of
the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction worldwide) unless we solve the
energy crisis quickly.  It makes little sense to work afield on
"interesting" things outside energy, if the world is likely to blow up about
2007 or so unless we get that energy crisis solved in time.

These days, for gravity and antigravity I would point out that the EM wave
in spacetime is actually longitudinal anyway.   The transverse wave notion
came from Faraday's assumption of the field lines (lines of force) being
physical and material, and like taut strings -- so that, when perturbed,
they oscillate laterally like plucked tight strings.  We can rationalize the
longitudinal waves since spacetime is a 4-potential and thus has energy
density -- in both the time aspects and spatial aspects.  Actually when we
correctly reinterpret Whittaker's 1903 decomposition of the scalar potential
(which can therefore apply to spacetime or "the vacuum" treated as a
powerful scalar potential), the EM wave in spacetime is comprised of a
coupled longitudinal EM wave in 3-space (i.e., as an "effect" or "as
observed repeatedly" kind of thing) with an incoming EM longitudinal wave in
the time domain.   So any longitudinal EM wave in 3-space is also
accompanied by a time-polarized EM wave (a longitudinal EM wave in the time
domain, not in 3-space).  Most of the gravity effects are the result of that
time-polarized EM wave (that EM longitudinal wave in the time domain).

We measure in our circuits, instruments, and wires a transverse wave, of
course, but we measure the precessing electrons!  The electrons (we know
now, but Maxwell did not know because the electron was not discovered until
well after Maxwell's death) do not move longitudinally down the wire like
water in a pipe.  Instead, they "drift" down (average nominal speed in a
simple circuit of a few inches per hour) while moving laterally (precessing
because of spin, if we do not push that analogy too far) at a far greater
rate.  The old pioneers thought of electrical current as a thin material
fluid (without particles!) flowing through that wire like water.  Hence if
that "fluid" was measured as "shaking sideways", it had to be because the
incoming perturbation was also "shaking sideways" and thus "moved the
electrical fluid in the wires accordingly".  That and Faraday's concept
(which Maxwell just accepted by assumption) are the only real reasons for
the notion of the transverse EM wave in space.  It doesn't really exist that
way, but unless the system decides to do massive corrections, they simply
are not going to change the transverse wave model, right or wrong.

Gravity then is primarily due to the time-energy (continually being
transduced in any potential into 3-space energy) involved in "interaction"
with the 3-spatial mass (say, the nucleons in the nucleus, ignoring the
electrons).  In my view, adjusted from the original view, incoming excess
time-energy interacts with the nucleus/nucleons to produce excess gravity.
The way to produce antigravity is to have excess time-energy coming in, but
intercept it via quantum mechanical wave-to-wave interaction, redirecting
the energy back away from the nucleus without interacting with it.  The
excess time energy in the local spacetime then produces the negative
gravity.  This immediately implies that, in a pumped phase conjugate mirror
material, no matter how strongly pumped, the pumped mirror DOES NOT RECOIL
when a highly amplified phase conjugate replica wave is emitted.  And that
is experimentally proven.  In quantum mechanics it is "because" a quantum
number reverses sign. In more classical EM terms, one gets the "frustrated
pumped phase conjugation" explanation I gave.

The Sweet device most certainly did it that way.  It reduced the weight of
the VTA by 90%, on the lab bench.  I designed the experiment and convinced
Sweet to do it, and even predicted that floatation would occur somewhere
about 1500 watts (though it was very risky to go beyond 1,000 watts in the
device because magnetic monopoles were deposited in the magnets during
operation).  Sweet actually "blew up" several magnets; they would go off
like hand grenades if the unit's power output was pushed too far.
Incidentally, the projected curve obtained by Sweet's measurements in that
experiment (he was reading them on the phone to me, with me here in
Huntsville and Sweet in California) showed that levitation would have been
achieved at about 1250 watts.  So the 1500 watt "back of the envelope"
estimate was not too bad, at least for such gross first order cut at it.

Anyway, that's my present understanding and view.  Hope that helps.  I
rarely think of it anymore, since there is such a tremendous urgency in the
energy area and that occupies most of  my time.

Tom Bearden

-----Original Message-----
From:     Mike
Sent:     Tuesday, March 20, 2001 8:48 PM
To:       T. E. Bearden
Subject:          Question

Hi Tom,

I've been reading and rereading your papers.  Before I start I want you
to know that I tried not to contact you about such things until I read
and reread your papers, I know that your bandwidth is limited in these
matters.  I just wanted to ask you some questions about the QMV.

1)  Is gravity caused by the "spin-2 graviton" which is the product of
the time reversed and time forward waves coupling, or is it cased by the
time reversed wave (alone) acting on the nucleus of the atom?  It's not
clear to me what exactly creates gravity in your paper(s).  On one hand
you seem to say the two types of waves coming together creates spin-2
gravitons (creates a gravity wave(s)?) and on the other hand it says it
is the nucleus of the atom that 'separates' or 'attracts' the time
reversed component of the VPF.  If the time reversed wave acts on the
nucleus can I assume that it causes a kind of graviton 'wind' thus
sucking everything that is in the way of this wind down toward the mass
(toward the Earth)?  If it's not that, then is it the spin-2 graviton
wave that does this?  If so, how does this graviton wave act on matter?

2)  When a coil is passed through a magnetic field, as I recall, you say
the magnetic field is decomposed into the two (time forward and time
reversed) waves.  One half of which motivates the electrons to move, and
the other half causes the nucleus of the atom to repel al la Newton's
law - at least this is what I think you're saying.  What I don't
understand is this: the two poles in a magnet, as fare as I understand,
cause the VPF to separate into the two types of waves (time reversed,
time forward) which, as far as I can understand, want to come back
together to maintain an equilibrium (at some point) in the magnetic
filed.  Is this equilibrium (coming back together) instantaneous at each
end of the magnet, i.e. do we have an instant recombination (into
gravatons?) of the two waves (at the speed of light), or do the waves
stay separated at each end of the pole?  If the waves stay separated how
can the coil of wire separate (decompose) that which has already been
separated in the dipole?  In my mind, one end of the magnet would act on
the nucleus of the atom and the other end of the magnet would act on the
electrons of the atom.

I think I'm missing something or I have obviously confused the language
in some way.  I need to understand how a magnet acts on a conductor, and
how gravity works (within the confines of your theory) in order to work
more effectively with this science.