Energy from the Vacuum

"Energy from the Vacuum - Concepts & Principles"

Order Now!



The Tom Bearden


America at the Brink

new book being released in October 2005
by Tom Bearden

Order Now!

Subject: RE: recent solar storms caused by Scalar Tech
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 14:02:43 -0500


Many thanks for the kind words; they are much appreciated.

It appears that there may be a new artificial involvement in some of the recent solar storms, but we are still working on it. In addition to an "evocation" phenomenon, the new type involvement would be a quite dramatically extended technology that so far one has only been able to catch vague glimpses of -- a technology whose mechanism of operation is extraordinarily difficult to even think about in our ordinary physics terms.

It involves what is meant by "state of a system", negative energy, and a "law of nature" as expressed in physics.

E.g., take Newton's first law of motion. An object placed in a state of motion will thereafter remain in that state of motion unless acted upon by a force to change it. Or, An object placed in a state of motion through space will thereafter remain in that state of motion in a straight line unless the environmental content interacts upon the system to produce a force in that system that changes its previous state.

That has an implied "sublaw" that the change in condition of a system state is independent of the system environment state, UNLESS the system environment state does make an action upon that system to change the system state.

Here we point out there is no "force in space" (Feynman even discusses this in his three volumes of physics). The present basic mechanics totally errs in assuming an independent "force vector" in mass-free space, acting upon a separate mass. What is true is that a force-free vector or field in space acts upon matter, and that ONGOING INTERACTION is what a "force in that interacting matter" identically is.

E.g., there are no EM force fields in space, in total falsification of the standard CEM/EE model taught at all our universities, and widely used across industry, government, laboratories, science, etc. There is not now and there never has been a single EE department, professor, or textbook in any of our universities that has calculated the EM field in space -- though all purport to do so. Instead (simply check the "field definitions"), the calculate the EFFECT IN CHARGED MATTER of the ongoing interaction of that true force-free EM field in space, with that charged matter.

The field in space is actually just a condition of space(time), as Feynman points out. It is NOT a force field. We could just call it "energy" or "potential energy", considering it as a curvature or torsion in spacetime (general relativity view) or a change in the virtual particle flux of vacuum (in the particle physics view).

The oddity is that one is permitted to change the potential energy of a system (one of its external parameters, such as voltage), absolutely work-free -- so long as the form of the potential energy is not changed. (Half the thermodynamics books, by the way, are wrong when they state that a change of the MAGNITUDE of an external parameter of a system is work a priori. That is false. The rigorous definition of force is a change of form of energy. FORCE IS NOT ENERGY. AND WORK, BEING F dot DS INTEGRATED, IS NOT INVOLVED IN MERELY CHANGING THE MAGNITUDE OF SOME ENERGY.

(Incidentally, that use of "force in mass free space" is how the huge cartels controlling science keep that power meter on our houses and offices, and keep us buying and paying for all that fuel. ENERGY IS FREE, AND EM ENERGY OCCURS IN FREELY FLOWING ONGOING STREAMS OF REAL PHOTONS -- REAL OBSERVABLE EM ENERGY -- FROM THE ASSOCIATED SOURCE CHARGES.

The energy crisis can be solved in two years or less, cheaply and permanently and quickly, anytime the scientific community will allow and fund some sharp young post doctoral scientists and doctoral candidates to work in this area and correct that horribly flawed old CEM/EE model that contains numerous absolute falsities, pointed out by eminent scientists such as Feynman, Wheeler, Margenau, Bunge and many others. See my paper "Errors and Omissions in the CEM/EE Model".  

The only reason we have not had self-powering, fuel free electrical power systems long ago was that circa 1892 Lorentz symmetrized the already-sharply reduced Maxwell-Heaviside equations, just to get simpler equations easier to solve algebraically, so that numerical methods usage was minimized. IN A SINGLE STROKE, LORENTZ ARBITRARILY DISCARDED ALL ASYMMETRICAL MAXWELLIAN EQUATIONS. Nature did not and does not discard them, but our electrical engineering departments like parrots continue to teach that horrid more-than-a-century-old mutilated SYMMETRIZED theory.

Rigorous proof that discarding that arbitrary Lorentz condition does allow systems that receive usable free energy currents from their active vacuum environment is given by M. W. Evans et al., "Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517.

In that same "Errors and Omissions..." paper, we also show a magnetic Wankel engine (suppressed from the world market by the Japanese Yakuza) that can readily be built by any electrical engineering department or physics department, and tested at COP>1.0 to one's heart's content. The system is also easily close-looped for self-powering - fuel free, continuous use of the energy from the vacuum, at will.

What we are saying is that the standard electrical engineering model is riddled with falsities -- actually known blatant lies -- and cannot be trusted to give us any analysis that is "most fundamental". It always gives us the "force effects in charged matter" of the ongoing interaction of something far more fundamental, with that charged matter.

Hence the standard EM analysis of sunspots, solar phenomena, etc. is also riddled with a pack of false assumptions and notions. When the Soviets corrected all those lies and falsities shortly after WW II, to arrive at their superweapon science called "energetics", they bypassed the restrictions we place on phenomena with that silly old century-old horridly flawed EE analysis. Including the EE analysis done by our intelligence agencies -- none of whom has the foggiest notion of what energetics is.

But back to the sunspot.

Now -- just for an exercise -- consider that it may be possible to "associate" the state of the system environment with the state of the system, in such a manner that, regardless of any "single" change of environmental state, that environmental change remains totally isolated from the system state. I.e., it is almost as if the space in which the system environment exists is "insulated completely" from the space in which the system itself exists, so that actions in the two are quite independent. (We have some very strange phenomenology experience -- hostile weapons type -- where something related to that has been demonstrated on several occasions by at least two "hidden groups").

As an example, if an aircraft were using such a technology (assuming it were possible), it could calmly fly right through a violent tornado, and a glass of water sitting on the table in the aircraft would not even ripple. The pilot would experience no pitching and bucking at all, but just a really nice calm flight. In short, all "interference" from the "normally interacting environment" would be nullified BEFORE FORCES ARE EVEN CREATED AND INVOLVED. And that would be possible in a "work-free" manner, at least theoretically.

It tentatively appears that something like that may be being gingerly tested on those sun's flares, very gently. As a first hypothesis, if that technology has been developed and such a weapon can be "zeroed in" on something like a flare on the sun's surface or a particular part of that flare that at its creation is pointed directly at the Earth or a specific area on the Earth, then -- e.g. -- the effects of that flare could be "focused" upon that specific area of the distant Earth, at some particular area such as the United States or North America. In that case, the effects of that portion of the flare now used as "the system" would unwaveringly (like a laser beam) cross unscathed and unchanged through all the usually intermediating "environmental phenomena" surrounding the earth and fields in space, and strike that specifically targeted earth area. In that way, a large solar flare could produce specifically focused very powerful "antistate" (or some such term) energy effects directly upon a desired target at great distance. It would yield a crazy but incredibly powerful weapon system that would be capable of focusing normally rather incoherent powerful phenomena (or selected pieces of them) on specific distant targets, as if one had implemented an extraordinarily laser beaming from the phenomenon to the target, regardless of what type of "normally interfering environmental effects" would normally be met along the way.

If fairly good control of the process had been achieved and demonstrated, then that weapon becomes a weapon having a single-shot strategic knock-out capability against the U.S. or other targeted nations. No nuclear weapons, missiles, ICBMs, etc. need be involved.

Now that's a lot of "ifs". So I am still working along that line of endeavor and thought, as a very strange and startling hypothesis, to "match" some of the oddities occurring and that have occurred.

Don't know how it will turn out eventually; we'll just have to see. But at least we already know that two groups have indeed been working in an area quite related to that, for several decades, and have at least developed preliminary devices and effects part way along that direction.

Such a weapon would also add an adjunct, so to speak, to just about every present known law of physics.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:00:48 -0400

Subject: recent solar storms caused by Scalar Tech

Hello is the 2nd best site on the net ( my Bible study site is #1)

Could the recent solar storms be caused by this scalar technology? if so, ho do we come to that conclusion?