Antigravity Research

MORE ENTROPIC DISTORTIONS OF TIME:

"Scientists zero in on why time flows in one direction

Sean Carroll, Assistant Professor in Physics, and Jennifer Chen, graduate student in physics at the University of Chicago. They are co-authors of a paper presenting a theory about how our universe could give rise to new big bangs from quantum fluctuations in empty space.

{PROBLEM: MODEL OF UNI TIME UNIVERSE EXPANDS TO INFINITY THEN EXACTLY HOW DOES THIS UNI TIME UNIVERSE HAVE CAUSE FOR SUDDEN RE-ENERGIZING AT WHAT CENTER, WHEN ACCORDING TO THIS MODEL NONE EXISTS)
Photo credit: Lloyd DeGrane/University of Chicago News Office
[print-quality version]

---

In the News:
“Physicists Say Big Bang was 'Nothing Special'”
Space.com
Oct. 27, 2004
“Scientists Zero in on Why Time Flows in One Direction”
Newswise
Oct. 26, 2004



The big bang could be a normal event in the natural evolution of the universe that will happen repeatedly over incredibly vast time scales as the universe expands, empties out and cools off, according to two University of Chicago physicists.

“We like to say that the big bang is nothing special in the history of our universe,” said Sean Carroll, an Assistant Professor in Physics at the University of Chicago. Carroll and University of Chicago graduate student Jennifer Chen will electronically publish a paper describing their ideas at arxiv.org/ .

Carroll and Chen’s research addresses two ambitious questions: why does time flow in only one direction, and could the big bang have arisen from an energy fluctuation in empty space that conforms to the known laws of physics?

The question about the arrow of time has vexed physicists for a century because “for the most part the fundamental laws of physics don’t distinguish between past and future. They’re time-symmetric,” Carroll said. {THE UNIVERSE HAS TO BE TIME SYMMETRIC OR IT WOULD NOT EXIST. THUS FORWARD TIME, STOPS DIES, EXPLODES, INTO FORWARD TIME IS IMPOSSIBLE. BECAUSE ZERO TIME, ENTROPIC DEATH, EQUATES TO ZERO CAUSATION FOR LOOPED OCCURANCE UNLESS THERE WERE DUAL REVERSE FLOW OF COUNTER BALANCING FORCES}
And closely bound to the issue of time is the concept of entropy, a measure of disorder in the universe. As physicist Ludwig Boltzmann showed a century ago, entropy naturally increases with time. {CONDITIONED RESPONSE, WHEN VISUALLY THE UNIVERSE APPEARS TO BE INCREASING SPEED OF EXPANSION OVER TIME) “You can turn an egg into an omelet, but not an omelet into an egg,” Carroll said.

{ONLY A DUAL FORWARD AND REVERSE TIME MODEL OF UNIVERSE ALLOWS FOR MASS FLUCTUATIONS TO EVEN EXIST. BECAUSE MOTION CANNOT BE DRIVEN BY UNI DIRECTIONAL FORCES, THERE IS ZERO CAUSE AND ZERO TIME WITHOUT REVERSE TIME BALANCING FORWARD MOTION OF TIME)

But the mystery remains as to why entropy was low in the universe to begin with. The difficulty of that question has long bothered scientists, who most often simply leave it as a puzzle to answer in the future.

{ENERGY DYNAMICS IN UNIVERSE REMAIN CONSTANT, YOU CANNOT EMPTY AN INFINITE UNIVERSE INTO ANOTHER INFINITE UNIVERSE. IT IS CIRCULAR LOGIC AND WILL NOT COMPUTE}
Carroll and Chen have made an attempt to answer it now.

Previous researchers have approached questions about the big bang with the assumption that entropy in the universe is finite. Carroll and Chen take the opposite approach. “We’re postulating that the entropy of the universe is infinite. It could always increase,” Chen said.

To successfully explain why the universe looks as it does today, both approaches must accommodate a process called inflation, which is an extension of the big bang theory. Astrophysicists invented inflation theory so that they could explain the universe as it appears today. According to inflation, the universe underwent a period of massive expansion in a fraction of a second after the big bang.

But there’s a problem with that scenario: a “skeleton in the closet,” Carroll said. To begin inflation, the universe would have encompassed a microscopically tiny patch in an extremely unlikely configuration, not what scientists would expect from a randomly chosen initial condition. Carroll and Chen argue that a generic initial condition is actually likely to resemble cold, empty space—not an obviously favorable starting point for the onset of inflation.

In a universe of finite entropy, some scientists have proposed that a random fluctuation could trigger inflation. This, however, would require the molecules of the universe to fluctuate from a high-entropy state into one of low entropy—a statistical longshot.

“The conditions necessary for inflation are not that easy to start,” Carroll said. “There’s an argument that it’s easier just to have our universe appear from a random fluctuation than to have inflation begin from a random fluctuation.”

{IF ANYTHING THE UNIVERSE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT RANDOM, THE DUAL NATURE OF FORWARD AND REVERSE TIME IS THE PRIME CREATIONAL FORCE GENERATING ALL FORM, LIFE, MASS AND ATOMIC STABILITY ALLOWING ALL CHEMICAL PROCESSES. UNI TIME UNIVERSE IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY BECAUSE THERE IS ZERO INITIATORY STIMULUS TO CAUSE CREATIONAL FORCES TO EVEN TAKE PLACE}
Carroll and Chen’s scenario of infinite entropy is inspired by the finding in 1998 that the universe will expand forever because of a mysterious force called “dark energy.” {HOW DOES ENTROPY EVEN EQUATE WITH A MYSTERIOUS DARK FORCE? ESPECIALLY ONE THAT HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED EXCEPT AS THEORY IN A WORK AROUND TO EXPLAIN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXPANSION OF UNIVERSE WHICH IS AN OBSERVATIONAL ARTIFACT OF EXTREME CURVATURE OF LIGHT FIELDS. ALL MASS IS CONSTANTLY BEING RE-FORMED IN MASS FLUCTUATIONS BECAUSE OF THE EXTREME FREQUENCIES OF FORWARD AND REVERSE TIME WAVES INTERSECTING WITH IN NUCLEUS OF ATOMS}
Under these conditions, the natural configuration of the universe is one that is almost empty. “In our current universe, the entropy is growing and the universe is expanding and becoming emptier,” Carroll said. {PROBLEM WITH EXPANSION AND SHAPE OF UNIVERSE: IT IS LIKE EXAMINING BLOOD CELLS IN A MICROSCOPE AND THEN STATING THAT WE NOW KNOW WHAT A HUMAN LOOKS LIKE. THE SLICE OF SKY IS SO SMALL IN COMPARISON TO THE INFINITE VASTNESS OF UNIVERSE THAT WE CANNOT SEE THE ACTUAL SHAPE OF UNIVERSE.}

But even empty space has faint traces of energy that fluctuate on the subatomic scale. As suggested previously by Jaume Garriga of Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona and Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University, these flucuations can generate their own big bangs in tiny areas of the universe, widely separated in time and space. Carroll and Chen extend this idea in dramatic fashion, suggesting that inflation could start “in reverse” in the distant past of our universe, so that time could appear to run backwards (from our perspective) to observers far in our past.

Regardless of the direction they run in, the new universes created in these big bangs will continue the process of increasing entropy. In this never-ending cycle, the universe never achieves equilibrium. If it did achieve equilibrium, nothing would ever happen. There would be no arrow of time.

{FALSE WRONG, AGAIN WITHOUT EQUILIBRIUM NOTHING WOULD EXIST!!! THERE WOULD BE ZERO TIME. WITHOUT A BALANCED FORWARD AND REVERSE TIME WAVE THAT OPERATED AT HYPERDIMENSIONAL SPEEDS AND IS SCALABLE AT MACRO AND MICRO PHASE CONJUGATED LEVELS AND ENABLED MASS FLUCTUATIONS TO OCCUR, THEN THERE WOULD BE ZERO ROTATION, ZERO GRAVITY, ZERO ELECTRIC CURRENTS, AND ZERO ENERGY. ALL FORCES ARE BALANCED IN THE UNIVERSE.}

“There’s no state you can go to that is maximal entropy. You can always increase the entropy more by creating a new universe and allowing it to expand and cool off,” Carroll explained.

{CREATIONAL FORCES REQUIRE ENERGY, HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN IF UNIVERSE "COOLS OFF."}

www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041027.time.shtml

It is hard to imagine that our cosmological science is so far away from a true understanding of reality. But, when you build an astrophysics based on untrue assumptions then the overall structure is weak and untenable. When will this house of cards finally fall? It is time that we finally understand how time and energy are related at all scales. This will require re-examining all physics and seeing finally that a big bang could not possibly have formed an entire universe and that the universe has always existed as a system of energetics in motion. Just like atoms.

John

TIME WAVES, FIELD RESONANCE, AND GRAVITY:

Here is an article by Tom Bearden that studies the possibility of controlling time wave interactions for creating an antigravitational effect:

"This superb paper was sent out by Tom Bearden recently and I think it is one of his best explanations of how phase conjugation can be used to tap into anomalous forces....Jerry (KEELYNET)

---

On Internal Work and Antigravity
with Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell
T.E. Bearden - 08/08/97
Internal work is an eerie kind of thing! There are several things involved. I will try to discuss one or two briefly.

First, Faraday believed fervently that his lines of force existed as taut physical strings (everyone at the time, Faraday included, believed in a MATERIAL ether). So he thought that EM disturbances were simply the disturbances of these taut strings. That was then a transverse string wave.

So to Faraday, "EM shaking" in the ether was just these physical lines of force shaking (like a transverse twanging string wave). NOTE that he just assumed away the body of any string holder to provide the tensile forces on that string! In short, without realizing it he threw away Newton's third law reaction forces from his material strings.

Maxwell stated point blank that he would read no other EM theory until he had thorougly studied Faraday's work. He also wrote a paper on those physical lines of force. He mathematized them with a tube of force concept.

But he also ASSUMED away the body of the mysterious missing string holder, and also thereby discarded Newton's third law reaction from his electrodynamic theory. The third law is STILL missing from the theory today!

When electrodynamicists do an experiment, say by introducing some EM energy to be absorbed, etc., the third law recoil force and energy DOES appear. It is GENERATED in their experiment, but the cause for it does not appear in their model! So they piously raise their eyes to heaven and say, "Oh, yes, we know that will occur. That's due to Newton's third law."

Well, Newton's third law is a DESCRIPTION of what happens. It is not the CAUSE of anything, being instead of a cause, an EFFECT.

In short, there never were any twanging strings in the vacuum ether, and Faraday's lines of force are not even lines of force! THERE ARE NO FORCES IN THE VACUUM.

In the first place, force is not the primary CAUSE of acceleration of a mass! Force is not SEPARATE from mass. Rigorously, the definition of force is F is identically d/dt (mv). As can be seen, mass is a COMPONENT of force. In the vacuum, all that exists are changes in the vacuum potential. In other words, you get gradients of scalar potential and swirls which we identify as vector potentials or currents of potential.

There is no E-field in the vacuum, for example, in the sense presently used.

Electrodynamics assumes that at every point in the vacuum, there exists
(1) a point unit north pole,
(2) a point coulomb of positive electrical charge, and
(3) a point unit mass.
Electrodynamics theory then describes how those assumed point entities move and react. THAT's what the equations actually describe, the movements of those three entities. They do NOT prescribe what exists in the vacuum, WITHOUT that observable matter being there!

Classical electrodynamics still completely and erroneously assumes the MATERIAL ETHER. You would think they would have got the message since the Michelson Morley experiment in 1888 destroyed the MATERIAL ether. All that happened was that one day the electrodynamicists said, "Okay, so there's no ether! Okay, we are not using one!" And they never changed a cottonpicking equation!

What really happens with a scalar potential at a point, e.g., is that it increases or decreases. Look at the points in the neighborhood around that point of interest.

If the potential increases at the focal point, then it has not yet increased at the points around it at an infinitesimal distance from it. So it has a set of radial gradients all around, with respect to the ambient vacuum potential points in its neighborhood.

Well, each one of those radial gradients is (erroneously) called a force in classical EM. But for each radial there is an opposite and equal radial. Try increasing or decreasing the potential at that point any way you wish, you still produce a set of equal and opposite (bidirectional) EM "forces".

The point is, the waves are always created as PAIRS of equal and opposite waves. It's more like a "rhythmic squeeze" wave than anything else. In the real world, the antiwave portion is actually a phase conjugate, and superposed spatially upon the wave, in each biwave pair.

That's how Whittaker came to show that any scalar potential is a set of biwave pairs. And in each pair, there is a wave and its antiwave (true phase conjugate). But that means that this doesn't generate any NET force!

Voila! It contains excess or minus energy at that point, but it did not translate anything. That increase in the local energy density of vacuum spacetime is ruthlessly a CURVATURE of local ST, in the GR sense.

So what is produced in the vacuum is a GRAVITATIONAL wave, not an EM wave at all! This is consistent with modern gauge theory, when one thinks long enough about it, because gauge theory regards gravity itself as simply the "restoration of symmetry" when a force of any kind is formed.

In other words, Sakharov's hypothesis is true; gravity is not a separate field in the sense of Maxwell, but is always made from other fields. In fact, it is just NEWTON's THIRD LAW revealing itself, particularly in electrodynamics!

Now let's look a little deeper. Suppose we have this harmonic set of wave/antiwave pairs (this scalar potential) coming onto an atom of matter.

Well, the time-forward wave halves get s*****ed off and interact with the time-forward part of the atom (i.e., the electron shells).

The atom can be regarded as a set of dynamic dipoles, where a positive charge in the nucleus and a negative charge in the electron shells comprise one of the dynamic dipoles.

The dipole is a "splitter" of the G-wave incoming. It splits that thing into two EM waves momentarily.

The forward time wave half interacts with an electron in the electron shells, and the reversed time wave half interacts with the positive charge end of the dipole down in the nucleus.

That generates Newton's third law recoil of the nucleus, which is admitted but usually ignored in electrodynamics.

Point is, for all the energy interactions ongoing in the electron shells, there are equal and opposite EM energy interactions ongoing in the nuclei. We ignore the latter.

NOW to the inner work. As you can see, when you do some work on the atom with EM radiation, you simultaneously do some equal and opposite inner work in the nucleus. (One can use this to get antigravity and free energy and all sorts of goodies).

Now in nonlinear optics, one interacts that G-wave (i.e., with its EM biwave pairs) as it is coming in, by nonlinear EM wave interactions such as four-wave mixing. The time-reversed wave half doesn't get to reach the nucleus; instead, it is flipped right back toward where it came from. And along with it goes up to all the energy in any additional pump waves on the atom.

So a phase conjugate mirror, no matter how powerfully pumped, DOES NOT RECOIL when it emits the powerfully amplified phase conjugate replica wave!

The reason is that the MECHANISM generating Newton's third law recoil of the nuclei, did not happen because the cause (the incoming "missing" time-reversed wave half) was redirected before it reached the nucleus.

Now that's an interesting way to intercept the "cause" of internal work, and redirect and use it, BEFORE it comes into its causative interaction to generate internal work.

Now if you continue to do the POSITIVE work half (in the Sweet device, the work done in the load), and in fact increase the positive work half, while simultaneously rejecting the excess negative half, you have a missing "Newton's third law" reaction for the excess positive work being done in the load. That means you have a missing restoration of symmetry, for the excess positive power being done in the load.

That means you have just exactly that much ANTIGRAVITY formed. That is, if restoring symmetry is what exhibiting gravitational force is, then DENYING the restoration of symmetry is what dis-exhibiting (denying) so much gravitational force is.

So by denying the restoration of symmetry for extra power in the load, you create ANTIGRAVITY by just that amount of power.

Let us reason together. Gravitational energy is already known to be (embarrassingly) negative energy. Well, what is "negative energy" in layman's terms? It's just energy that was never there, but does work against you. Again, it's just our old friend Newton's third law, hiding in disguise.

So we get gravity when we let the time-reversed half of the EM waves interact with atomic nuclei.

We get an absence of gravity when those waves come in but the antiwaves do not reach the nucleus and do not interact with the nucleus.

READ THAT AGAIN, THAT'S PURE MAGIC!

So to get antigravity, you bring in some EXCESS phase conjugate (time- reversed) EM energy, together with some excess energy (the other half accompanying it, since you bring them in, in pairs. You let the time-forward half go to the external circuit and the load, and do excess work in the load.

But you do not let the excess part of the incoming time-reversed energy reach the nucleus. Instead, you multiwave-interact with it before it reaches the nuclei. You send it back on its way. So what does that do?

Well, if you bring in extra gravitational energy (cause), and then REPEL it, WHILE LETTING ITS INCOMING FORWARD-TIME MATCHING ENERGY BE DIVERTED TO THE LOAD AND DO WORK IN THE LOAD, that's the exact thing as creating that much ANTIGRAVITATIONAL energy.

In short, that's how you produce antigravity. Or, if you wish, that's how you get a unilateral thrust.

Just point that antigravity thrust in the correct direction, and the unilateral antigravity thrust force will occur in that direction.

For propulsion, then you fly it like a helicopter. With thrust upward, you lift straight up or hover, or lower down gently. By angling the direction to have a forward component, you also move forward while hovering, climbing, lowering, etc..

That was the gist of my theory of gravitation that I got Sparky Sweet to test with the vacuum triode amplifier. I had estimated that it would levitate at about 1500 watts.

But one would get magnetic charges (monopoles) deposited in the barium ferrite magnets as one increased the power above the nominal 500 watts design. So I warned him not to go above 1,000 watts, because the magnets might explode and kill him. (They go off like hand grenades when the yield point is reached, and Sparky did explode a few magnets at various times this way!)

Anyway, he increased the load in 100 watt increments, to 1,000 watts, and that thing reduced its weight on the bench nicely and smoothly by 90 percent. If the experiment had failed, I would have had to go back to the drawing board. But it worked beautifully.

So the gist of the internal work is that you directly involve
(1) Newton's third law being added back to classical EM,
(2) turning EM into G and vice versa, <;i>(3) putting Faraday's missing string holder back in there,
(4) increasing the potential cause for internal work, then rerouting it back out before it interacts in the nucleus, and
(5) finding Maxwell's missing "tensioning agent" in the vacuum.

Maxwell actually pointed out, carefully, that his theory was not finished because he had assumed this stress in the ether, but had not been able to account for it, and therefore further work had to be done.

Heaviside also warned that the present EM theory was just first order, and suitable for first order effects, but was not to be considered as finished.

In his opinion, initially the engineers would have sufficient trouble learning that first order theory and applying it. So the refinement of the theory could come later.

Hope this is a little clearer. - Tom Bearden"

www.keelynet.com/gravity/beargrav.htm

NEW OBJECT IN SOLAR SYSTEM:



"(BUFFY)XR190, however, follows a nearly circular path. And it is too distant to have come into direct contact with Neptune, travelling between 52 and 62 AU from the Sun. Its orbit is also too circular - and too small - to have been tilted (47 DEGREE TILT)by a passing star, says Allen.

These traits make the object, nicknamed "Buffy" after the US television series about a vampire slayer, hard to explain. "Maybe Buffy is going to be a bit of a theory slayer," Allen told New Scientist.

But she suggests one theory that might account for the space rock's strange orbit. It involves a commonly held notion that early in the solar system, Neptune itself moved outward into its present orbit, from around Uranus's current location.

Gravitational kick
As it did so, its gravitational reach extended outwards, as well. This reach comes in the form of zones, or resonances, where an object's orbital period happens to be an integer multiple of Neptune's. So when one of these outward-expanding resonances swept past 2004 XR190, it could have kicked the object out of a fairly circular, flat orbit into a more elongated, tilted one.

Then, over time, the orbit might have grown more circular as the tilt increased. "These interactions can cause some Kuiper Belt Objects to circularise and tilt," says Allen. But she remains cautious: "We don't know if Buffy's orbit really was created in this manner - because it could be too far away from a resonance or the resonance could not be strong enough - but this seems like the best shot."

www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8455

If all orbits are in balance with the greater resonance fields of universe, then is it also possible that at ultra micro scales there are even greater levels of unknown resonance flux fields in motion that may redefine just how UNIVERSE communicates? Graviton absorption, and Antigraviton emmissions may be just the tip of the iceberg. We may be looking at extreme frequencies of resonance fields that operate at quantum incredibly small scales yet operate at universal wide resonances that also are absorbed and emmitted between multiple universes in balanced flux.

John

<Large amount of duplicate material (the entire previous post) deleted by moderator LB>


John could not the this "greater resonance fields of the universe" be electric fields, rather than EM fields?

Dr. Randell Mills and Blacklight Power



The following is based partially on a Dow Jones story written by Erik Baard:
U.S. GRANTS PATENT ON HYDROGEN ENERGY SOURCE Source: New York (Dow Jones)

U.S. Patent 6,024,935 has been granted to Dr. Randell Mills and his company, BlackLight Power, Inc. The patent is unusually large with 60 pages and 499 claims. The patent is for Lower-Energy Hydrogen Methods and Structure.

Dr. Randell Mills discovered in early 1989 that the hydrogen atom could be collapsed below its ground state and give up significant amounts of energy.

At first, it was thought that he had a new form of cold fusion.

However, in an early paper he showed that his discovery was indeed a new form of energy from the collapse of the hydrogen atom (which he calls hydrinos). Mills early report showed as much as 1,000 times as much energy out as input energy. This excellent amount of thermal energy was attributed to the catalytic reactions that provide a receptor for the energy emitted when the hydrogen collapses. The newsletter Fusion Facts named Dr. Mills as Scientist of the year for his work.

It has been a long struggle to get acceptance by the patent office for this excellent work of Dr. Mills. To obtain acceptance, Dr. Mills arranged for the following:

An independent verification by Johannes Conrads, Institute for Low Temperature Plasma Physics at the Ernst Moritz Arndt University in Greifswald, Germany.
Had articles peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in both Fusion Technology and the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.
Presented his findings at a meeting of the American Chemical Society.
One of the most compelling reasons (to this writer) to believe that this is an important new-energy technology is because Dr. Robert Park (a so-called spokesman for the American Physical Society) stated, "I am shocked that they issued a patent on this! This indicates that the troubles at the patent office continue."

Parks likened the process to "a perpetual motion machine."


Brigid Quinn, replying to Park for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, said, "We do not give patents on perpetual motion machines. That this patent was granted means it met the criteria that it is new, useful, and non-obvious, and fully disclosed as to how it works."

Perhaps, she could have added that her department did not have a patent office employee placed to deny patents in this technical category as has been done for an estimated 300 patents in the category where patent applications for cold fusion inventions are handled.

Dr. Robert Park is well know among the new-energy community for his valiant efforts to destroy the credibility of any new-energy developments that might threaten the flow of funds into the hot-fusion community. Therefore, if he is distressed, it must be a worthy new-energy discovery.

Mills explains that his process creates high-temperature gases (plasmas) without the use of large amounts of heat, microwave energy, or electricity.

The hot plasma will be a source of energy to drive turbines and provide thermal energy for other useful purposes. As an example Mills states the further development of a plasma-to-electricity system may be capable of providing a 5 Kw home unit for under $2,000.
The recent high prices paid for shares in companies producing fuel cells may suffer due to the potential competition from this new hydrogen-collapsing energy development. This announcement will most certainly provide intense interest in the IPO planned for Mills company later this year.


This writer has been stating for many months that the most important part of Mills' discovery is the production of new forms of hydrogen (Mills' hydrinos). A vast array of new chemical compounds is likely to be developed from this new type of chemistry. A new and important chemical industry is expected to develop.

From a scientific view, the impact of Mills discovery will cause
a dramatic re-evaluation of the long-supported and strongly-defended mainstream quantum theory. This, of course, is an unacceptable concept to folks like Dr. Robert Park, who is a highly-vocal defendant of the current paradigms in Physics.

What will be the impact on the rest of the new-energy world? That is a question that only events will answer. However, it will be interesting to see if the patent office continues to prevent cold-fusion inventors from being able to protect their intellectual property. The impact from the proven, and well-funded new-energy developments from BlackLight Power, Inc. are a much greater threat to the continued funding of hot fusion projects than the perceived threat from cold fusion devices.
This special news release was prepared by Hal Fox, for New Energy News, the newsletter for members of the Institute of New Energy.

---

Tom Bearden comments:

This is an unprecedented bit of good news from Hal Fox, inclosing the article by Erik Baard. With 499 claims recognized by the Patent Office, the Mills invention becomes a great "Pioneering" patent, which is fully justified since Mills pioneered the entire field.

It is significant that Mills demonstrated under independent tests the results that he claimed. The scientific method USED to be that, if the experiment refutes the theory, the theory must be changed. As one can see, that is no longer the case, and many scientists are far more dogmatic than the old medieval Aristotelian metaphysical system that scientists struggled for 300 years to get out from under. So they will defend a falsified theoretical model to the death. In short, they would throw away the experiment and retain the theory. And that is dogma, not science.
When you think of it, what is so unbelievable in having an energy density (potential) state below the ground state (the ground potential level?" For decades particle physics has used the fact that such negative energy states do exist, e.g., the Dirac sea of negative energy states, usually considered filled with Dirac electrons. We know you can lift electrons out of there by adding energy; that has long been established.

Well, classical electrodynamics already assumes (and widely uses) the fact that one is free to regauge the potentials (change the energy density of the system) at will, freely! Electrodynamicists already do that, particularly in applying the Lorentz symmetrical regauging. There they do it twice, and very carefully so that the two are 'equal and opposite' so that you get no excess net force with which you could do free work.

So what mighty commandment says that one cannot have just a single asymmetrical regauging? Since Lorentz, everyone already assumes you can have such, anytime you wish. So what "law" forces us to always seek and use two equal and opposite regaugings? What fool seeking useful energy from the vacuum potential, would use TWO self-defeating free energy changes? Obviously, if you wish the vacuum to GIVE you something for free, you must use only ONE regauging, which will a priori be asymmetrical. Then you get a free energy-density change in the local vacuum, and you can certainly get a "potential state" that is below the ground level potential state. That is just making a negative potential, and that is just performing a selected asymmetrical regauging of the system.

Apparently Mills has done precisely that. The hydrogen atom and its parts do not care what energy state the local vacuum is in. If you externally regauge that state, and put it below the normal "ground state" potential level, then certainly the hydrogen atom and its proton and electron will react and change!

Okay, so we haven't ever used that before in conventional science. So what! One is only asking whether or not it is permissible. And the answer is, it's permissible in spades, and implicitly contained in experimentally established regaugings already used and known. So it becomes just a matter of finding out "how to do it and how to do it well". That's where the creative inventor comes in. Apparently that is just what Mills found out how to do.

Even so, since he did it in 1989, he has been 11 years getting his patent granted. And he had to prove the results all the way. Which he did.

Any scientist worth his salt should be delighted that Mills has found how to do something new in science, and therefore advanced the field. That is what science is supposed to be all about!

Many closed-minded arch skeptics seem unaware that the Heaviside-Maxwell equations, prior to arbitrary symmetrical regauging by first Lorenz and then H.A. Lorentz, do indeed include open electrodynamic systems far from equilibrium in their vacuum energy exchange. But these critics seem to have only classical equilibrium thermodynamics in their minds, with its second law, and of course that does not even apply to open dissipative systems. Someone should explain to such strident critics why Prigogine was awarded a Nobel Prize. However, Lorentz's arbitrary symmetrical regauging gave them just exactly what they wish. It discards all those permissible overunity Maxwellian systems, and retains only those which are forcibly in equilibrium with their active environment. Once in equilibrium, then classical thermodynamics DOES apply, as does that old second law, and that system will never exceed COP = 1,0.

Interestingly, every power system our engineers and scientists have ever built, has been designed and built in accord with the Lorentz-regauged subset of Maxwell-Heaviside theory. NEVER with the full theory, and NEVER with asymmetrical self-regauging and thus a violation of the Lorentz condition.

Finally, let us return the skeptics' own stuff back to them. The classical EM they so staunchly defend, after Lorentz's arbitrary symmetrical regauging, has simply discarded that entire vast subset of permissible Maxwellian systems that are open dissipative systems and therefore permitted to (1) self-organize, (2) self-oscillate or self-rotate, (3) power themselves and their loads (all the energy is just received from the active vacuum environment), and (4) exhibit negentropy. The Lorentz regauged CEM retains only those systems which HAVE BUILT INTO THE PHYSICAL SYSTEM ITSELF TWO EQUAL AND OPPOSITE ASYMMETRICAL SELF-REGAUGINGS, SO THAT THE SYSTEMS DELIBERATELY IMPLEMENT TWO "LORENTZ DEMONS" TO FORCIBLY REGAUGE THEMSELVES SYMMETRICALLY AND THEREFORE FORCIBLY MAINTAIN THEMSELVES IN EQUILIBRIUM IN THEIR VACUUM EXCHANGE.

In short, all power systems to date have been built so that they themselves forcibly keelhaul themselves continuously into equilibrium with their active external environment. Little wonder that none of them exhibits COP > 1.0!

Now let us turn to the "cherished" old CEM so loved by the skeptics. CEM is well-known to be riddled with foundations errors, limiting assumptions, and non sequiturs -- see Wheeler, Feynman, Bunge, Margenau, Barrett, Cornille, Evans, Vigier, Lehnert, etc. Since CEM omits the active vacuum exchange, then it is faced squarely with its totally unresolved problem of the "source charge". Implicitly CEM considers that the source charge CREATES all that energy it pours out across the universe in its fields and potentials, in fact altering the entire vacuum potential of the universe. Well, that violates the most sacrosanct law of all: energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

So if anyone is going to point fingers and cry "perpetual motion nuts", let him point the first finger at himself. At least we overunity researchers know we must have open dissipative systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium. But in our wildest nightmares, we could never dream of the vast array of perpetual motion machines already assumed by classical CEM and its elimination of the vacuum energy exchange.

One can in fact show that every electrical load ever powered, has always been powered by energy extracted from the vacuum, NOT by the energy we input to the shaft of a generator or the chemical energy in a battery. We have adequately addressed that in full elsewhere.

In case the critic thinks the "scalar" potential is a scalar entity, he should be introduced to Whittaker 1903. For nearly a century it has been rigorously shown that the "scalar" potential is not a scalar entity at all, but is a harmonic set of bidirectional EM longitudinal wavepairs. It is composed of a vast set of multiple wave energy flows, in both directions (radially out from the source charge, and radially back into it). We can also replace fields and waves with two scalar potential functions, since Whittaker in 1904 showed that any EM field or wave -- any whatsoever -- is just two such dynamic scalar potentials with dynamics functions imposed. So everything in the classical EM text anyway is comprised of sets of bidirectional EM longitudinal wavepairs, with imposed dynamics. Everything is comprised of dynamic sets of internal longitudinal EM energy flows. A whirlpool in a river may appear completely static, but inside it is highly dynamic, with water constantly flowing through it. So is a "static" potential or field.

So the electrodynamics that the skeptics are so certain of, already implicitly describes every charge in the universe as a PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE OF THE WORST KIND, CREATING ENERGY RIGHT OUT OF NOTHING.

Even worse, as a residue of the old material ether assumed by Maxwell (and still in the equations; nary an equation was ever changed after the material ether concept was falsified), CEM then "defines" a potential as its own reaction cross section with a unit point static charge, and "defines" a field as its own reaction with a unit point static charge. Well, that is a gross non sequitur because it totally confuses the cause (the EM entity prior to interaction) as the effect (the small EM entity diverged after interaction). In fact, not a single CEM textbook or paper in the Western world shows the form in which an EM wave exists in space, prior to interaction. All illustrations are of the E-H effect wave in matter after interaction, not the Et-Ht impulse wave that exists in spacetime prior to interaction.

What a way to run a railroad!

When the arch skeptics explain how the source charge produces those fields and potentials and their energy, WITHOUT interaction with the vacuum and WITHOUT broken symmetry in that interaction (which two things have been known and experimentally proven in particle physics for more than four decades), then one should consider listening to them, AND NOT BEFORE. When they correct the "definitions" of field and potential, and use the field and potential themselves rather than the reaction cross sections of each of them at a point, then one can believe they may understand EM energy flow. But not till then.

Anyway, slowly the experimentalists are showing that the old EM theory is not finished yet, and electrodynamics is still very much an embryonic science that is still developing, with a long way to go.

Mills put one solidly on the scoreboard, and that is simply delightful. For once the "good guys" won one.

I'm reminded of the same kind of pontificators who blasted the very notion of an amorphous semiconductor. They thundered that every fool knew that a semiconductor had to be crystalline. They crucified Ovshinsky, calling him every kind of charlatan and scoundrel. Then one day they suddenly woke up to find that Ovshinsky had put his amorphous semiconductor into Xerox copy machines, under contract, and they were working just fine, thank you! Not too long after that, students began doing Ph.D. theses in amorphous semiconductors. So how many of the ardent critics then apologized to Ovshinsky? Not a one.

You can tell a true scientist from a dogmatist easily. When the scientist makes an error, he admits it straightforwardly and corrects it. When the dogmatist makes an error, you never hear a peep from him, only more of the same, just louder.

Understand, everyone needs a friendly skeptic, to keep him honest and point out his errors. Such a scientist friend is one of the most valuable friends one can have. But one sometimes cannot help feeling harshly toward "scientists" of strongly bigoted ilk. In the long run they delay, harangue, and suppress far more innovative science than they allow down the pike. As a result, science often requires 40 to 100 years to do what can be done in four years in the proper environment, with funding and the proper team. The literature is full of vivid examples, as every historian of science knows well. Even Max Planck, at the time the most prestigious scientist in the world, pointed out wryly that one finally gets a new science not by sweet reason, but by the old diehards who so bitterly oppose it finally dying off and getting out of the way.

In the overunity EM systems area, it has often appeared that we would indeed have to wait until the "diehards" died away. We've had more than our share of them.

Now maybe, just maybe, an end run around them has been accomplished -- at least in one new area where they had failed to set up their usual strong suppression routine.

The energy problems of the entire earth can be solved in four years, anytime the organized scientific community will permit it and fund it. But at least the good guys finally won one. Let's hope it is the first of many wins yet to come.

---

Randell Lee Mills et al., "Lower-Energy Hydrogen Methods and Structures," U.S. Patent 6,024,935, Feb. 15, 2000 with 499 claims recognized. Randell Lee Mills, "Energy/Matter Conversion Methods and Structures," Australian Patent No. 668678, Nov. 20, 1991. See also Art Rosenblum, "Randall L. Mills — New Energy and the Cosmic Hydrino Sea," Infinite Energy, 3(17), Dec. 1997-Jan. 1998, p. 21-34.; Eugene Mallove, "Dr. Randall Mills and the power of BlackLight," Infinite Energy, 2(12), Jan.-Feb. 1997, p. 21, 35, 41.

Can MI absorption of Gravitons be interferred with? Take a look at the latest video of the Hutchison Effect:

www.americanantigravity.com/articles/346...on-Effect-2006-Remix

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />Can MI absorption of Gravitons be interferred with?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not with present-day technology. -|Tom|-