|Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003
Dear J. B.,
Glad to see you're struggling with the basic questions; none of them are really "solved" yet, but at best only "modeled".
Just one fundamental problem.
Mass is an observable, and thus does not persist in time as such. Using "d" for the partial (can't make that correct "partial with respect to" symbol in this medium), any observable is the frozen 3-snapshot of an ongoing 4-space process, achieved by forcing a d/dt operation to be performed on that 4-process. Of course this d/dt "observation" process is very rapidly iterated, but not a single observable in the universe persists in time or can persist in time, in that observable form, a priori. The mechanism for the so-called "march of a mass through time" is the fundamental photon interaction, as we stated in the book and showed by using the neglected delta t component of the photon in its interaction with mass (in both absorption and emission).
So nothing actually "travels through "3-space" or "persists in 3-space", even though we seem to "observe" it that way. Unless it has an actual extension in the time domain, an entity does not persist (does not have an extension in the time domain!) nor can it "travel" between successive points in 3-space.
It is the assumption of "persistence of observables" that is one of the fundamental problems of physics. Leads to all sorts of substitution of effect for cause; as an example, the notion in mechanics that a separate 3-space force "acts" on a separate (persisting) 3-space mass. Nothing "acts" in 3-space alone, and 3-mass alone is not "persisting" (changing its location on the time axis). It is not even connected to the time axis! Mass is actually a component of force; no mass component, no force. At best, a massless field or massless potential, etc.
Further, no model is perfect now, nor will one ever be perfect --- so long as Godel's theorem and its proof holds. All models should be spoken of in terms of their usefulness, never even suggesting an "absoluteness". That includes my own stuff! Everything is a model, and not an 11th commandment that Moses brought down off the mountain on those stone tablets.
Finally, Aristotelian logic itself is flawed and incomplete; simply look at the Venn diagrams used to "prove" logic theorems, and insist on removing all the boundary lines since on that line both A and not-A are identical. Or, I particularly like Morris Kline's book, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty. Really lets some of the cats out of the mathematics bag.
So I prefer to approach things as just "models", and the best model being the one that fits (predicts) the observed results the best.
And two different models can be used successfully to describe the same "thing", particularly at different levels. Witness the use of different fundamental units to make a model, including a very successful model build from a single fundamental variable, and used in physics today.
Much of all this sort of stuff, I think, will wash out from some very fundamental new work by Michael Leyton. In 1872 Klein formed his geometry and also his Erlanger program. Much of physics since then has been driven by that geometry and program. Leyton has formed a new object-oriented geometry, with rigorous group theoretic methods, of which Klein geometry is but a subset. Leyton's work has already been successfully applied in robotics, pattern recognition, and in some other areas, where it works when the Klein geometry methods fail. In Leyton's geometry, there emerges the hierarchy of symmetries, not as something that one just meets curiously happening in the universe for some unfathomable reason (as particle physics views it right now, per Weinberg and others). Instead, when there is a broken symmetry at one level, it GENERATES a new higher level symmetry, but one which infolds all the geometric information that preceded it at the lower levels.
I have fitted Leyton's effect to my proposed source charge solution, and it generates all the symmetries and broken symmetries involved, in the exact order involved, while nothing else does. Doesn't prove it of course, but gives powerful support by excellent group theoretic methods. Note that the present classical Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics and electrical engineering assume that (1) all EM fields and potentials and their energy come from their associated source charges, and (2) the source charge freely creates all those fields and potentials and all that EM energy out of thin air, from nothing at all. This used "problem of the fields and their source charges" used to be acknowledged as the most formidable problem in electrodynamics, but was not solved and became embarrassing, so it was just scrubbed out of the texts and out of the literature.
Sen referred to it as "The connection between the field and its source has always been and still is the most difficult problem in classical and quantum electrodynamics."
Bunge put it even more strongly: "...it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both classical and quantal, are in a sad state."
Feynman pointed out that . "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is." He also was well aware of the force problem, and stated: . "One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin, and this is not just a definition. … If you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get it!"
If the Leyton effect holds, then he has already written a most profound revolution in physics, electrodynamics, and thermodynamics, and one that will equal the original revolution that arose from Lee and Yang's prediction of broken symmetry in 1956-57, and the experimental proof of it in 1957 by Wu and her colleagues. So revolutionary was broken symmetry that, with unprecedented speed, Lee and Yang were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1957.
For about five months I've been looking into the ramifications of Leyton's work (and of some other things) in thermodynamics, and they are remarkable. Much of the present formulation would appear to need serious reformulation to remove non sequiturs and errors.
Anyway, I think that there is much to say of encouragement, since many scientists are still struggling with the nature of things and not just repeating the "status quo". What I wish they would do more, is accent the "it's still just a model" aspect, instead of turning it into dogma by proclaiming some model "absolute". It isn't, and any good scientist is supposed to know that. The struggle with scientific dogmatists is still one of the greatest problems in science, and it has been directly responsible for seriously delaying the progress of science in many fields. It is for that very reason that often the military will go outside the scientific community and form a "skunk works" to get something done, instead of just watch the scientists passionately argue their favorite theories and interpretations. If the Manhattan Project had been done by the "open" scientists, it would have fared no better than hot fusion. Or more accurately, it would have been lumped in the "crackpot" category, as was cold fusion.
It is indeed odd that in July last year Evans et al. proved experimentally that little zones do occur in fluid electrolytes where "reactions run backwards" and negentropy occurs. That has always been true for "one or a few" entities, in statistical mechanics (used as the basis for much of modern thermodynamics). But statistical fluctuation was thought to apply only to "just a few" entities and only for just a fragment of a moment at best. What was shocking was that fluctuation occurs for up to two seconds, at cubic micron level -- and in water, e.g., a cubic micron contains about 30 billion molecules and ions. Well, a little group of 30 billion or so ions, where REACTIONS CAN AND DO RUN BACKWARDS, tears the guts right out of the coulomb barrier in hot fusion, and the presence of that barrier is what necessitates that high temperature is required in order for fusion to occur. The present hot fusion assumes that one must always overcome that same coulomb barrier -- and that is now revealed as a false assumption, or certainly one that is not absolute. In a little region where the law of attraction and repulsion of charges is momentarily reversed, then two D+ ions can attract each other so closely that each enters the strong force region of the other, forming a quasi-nucleus. Then (from some recent work), once the quasi-nucleus forms (beating that old coulomb barrier bugaboo), there is still one more probability to work through, the probability of that quasi-nucleus then tightening just a bit into a fully conventional nucleus, and bingo! One has a nucleus of He4, known as an alpha particle. Many other similar fusion reactions exist, once the Coulomb barrier vanishes.
The only reason that transmutation does not usually occur chemically at low energies and low temperatures is the coulomb barrier. Since that barrier can now be occasionally changed into the "coulomb attractor", then the new work actually puts a solid experimental demonstration of why low temperature fusion is not only possible but does experimentally occur. With more than 600 successful cold fusion experiments now, worldwide, it is just a matter of time before the iron dogma of "big nuclear science" gets forcibly changed and overhauled, for the basic change and overhaul of their assumption that sheer kinetic energy of the particle is necessary, that it requires such a high temperature before two like charges can be "forcibly driven together". Now one thinks the exact opposite, in that at low temperature in a momentary reversal region, the two like charged ions or particles can and will attract together, forming that quasi nucleus. It still requires further work on the second probability (not yet too well understood), where the quasi-nucleus passes into the formal nucleus.
And thanks for the
kind words and concern. My physical condition will not get any better,
but hopefully it will also not get any worse. So my continued
"persistence" is a matter of whatever chances to happen, from the next
hour to possibly the next 10 years. Anyway, it gives one a different
kind of perspective on life and what one should do. One starts not
sweating the small stuff so much, and concentrates mostly on the more
important stuff. For myself, I simply plan to continue along the lines
of my present 3 projects, particularly concentrated on two projects:
(1) To finish the energy project, working closely with Bedini we will --- if we live --- get out the information on inverted circuits (how to use a circuit completely backwards from the textbook), and also taking all the energy one wishes from a zero reference potential. (The zero reference potential is another sadly misunderstood thing). This area turns out to be one of the areas that some very powerful folks have spent a great deal of money and effort in suppressing, since shortly before 1900. They still are doing intensive suppression of it today. The reason is that, if this area can be properly understood and a decent math model developed, then extracting from the vacuum and using all the electrical energy one wishes becomes almost absurdly simple. But the "reasoning" is mind-wrenching, quite different from everything one has been taught. So hopefully we'll just put out a small book with the information in it, and containing a couple of working Bedini circuits that those interested can build. I'll have to wait till John files his patents, of course, and I'll do everything I can to help him on that one. The actual discovery is John's, not mine. I'm must struggling to contribute a "reasonable" explanation in terms of physics and thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics of COP>1.0 and COP = infinity circuits and
devices. Oddly, most persons have a knee-jerk response to the phrase
"perpetual motion", not realizing that Newton's first law is indeed the
law of perpetual motion. A thing initially placed in motion will remain
perpetually in that state of motion, until or unless interrupted and
changed by an external force (Newton's second law, essentially). If a
thing did NOT stay perpetually in its initially induced motion until
forcibly changed, there would be no stability at all in the entire
universe -- and the organized macro-universe as we experience it could
not even exist, since all would be chaotically changing totally
haphazardly, without stability. In other words, there would be no
"persistence", no inertia, etc.
So we just plan to keep on working in those two main areas, and hopefully will get out (eventually) sufficiently definitive initial information on them that the young fellows can take over those two projects from there. The third project I'm continuing to work on is the business of how the cellular regenerative system actually heals a damaged cell, and how to amplify that mechanism electromagnetically (requires higher group symmetry EM). This is an extension of Priore's proven work in France. Priore discovered how to do it, and his team's work was done by rigorous protocols and is fully documented in the French literature. Eminent French scientists worked with him on the project, and in fact later (very privately) the French Government secretly weaponized part of the background basis. The Priore work was suppressed in the early 1970s, because of its revolutionary cures of some dread diseases (such as terminal cancers in lab animals) under rigorous scientific protocols. It was just that no one could explain the perplexing fundamental mechanism. Now I think we can, and also I think we have been able to extend it. Here the human need around the Earth is so great, that one simply must do whatever one can in this area, in the time one has left, and get it out so the young fellows can start from there.
So yes, we will continue so long as we can, as so long as there's any life left in the old carcass. But we are trying to use the time remaining to set up a passage of the information, for whatever it is worth, to those who come after and can hopefully see these things through to the finish. Then they can just start from where I am, correct any errors I may have inadvertently made (all my pencils still need their erasers), and go much further.