Beardens Proposed Antigravity Mechanism
Any EM process that produces a COP»1.0 condition, such as can be done in intensely abrupt ionic discharges and other processes, will also produce intense causal (4space) Dirac sea holes in the immediate surrounding vacuum. This is the negative energy mechanism, conceived by the author in the 1970s and finalized in the 1980s, for producing a negative energy causal (unobserved) EM field228 in the immediate space surrounding a system. The overunity system must be the "source" of that negative energy EM field. So the negative energy EM field in surrounding local space is "attached" to the mass and energy dynamics of the "unit's supersystem" as being its "source or generatrix". Its attachment to the system mass produces the antigravitational force upon that mass.
Negative energy state charges (Dirac holes) are also source charges. Prior to observation converting them (as observed) to 3space positive massenergy positrons with positive energy and going the opposite direction, they must be accepted as negative energy source 4electrons "pouring out negative energy" in all directions in 3space, continuously, via the giant negentropy process for source charges. Since they pour out "negative" energy, we may consider that negative energy field action at any point in 3space to be a continuous absorption of positive energy from 3space and a return of that extracted energy to the time domain as increased time — in short, time dilation.
Either way one considers it, the 4space Dirac holes do produce negative energy EM fields, potentials, and spacetime curvatures and these must be accounted during their existence prior to observation and interaction. Further, their accompanying giant Heaviside negative energy flow component must also be accounted. In other words, do not reverse the spatial direction and thus the location and direction of these fields, do not turn them into positive energy fields by such reversal of direction, do not turn the negative mass into positive mass, and do not reverse the sign of
228 We strongly stress that the continuous, dynamic, ongoing causal 4field before it interacts with charge and is observed, is a totally different entity from the iteratively and continually observed frozen "effect" 3field in matter after the 4field has interacted with charged matter to produce an observation or "event". The great barrier to using electromagnetic fields in practical antigravity application has been due to the substituting, in electrodynamics, of the iterative "effect" 3field of the observed positron for the continuous "causal" 4field of the unobserved negative energy 4electron (the Dirac sea hole). The "effect" 3field is simply the iterative, continual energy gradient of the diverted EM field energy flow around the assumed intercepting unit charged particle.
the source charge (the Dirac sea hole). All that happens after interaction of the Dirac sea holes with matter, forming the usual lattice holes or observed 3positrons.
Therein lies the magic secret ofantigravity. Instead of thinking of the fields interacting on the craft or system that is producing them,229 think of these negative energy fields interacting upon the local spacetime surrounding the craft or system, and curving that spacetime negatively. Then think of this negative curvature of spacetime interacting back upon the craft or system in general relativity fashion. That is what will and does produce practical antigravity upon the interacted craft or system, once the Heaviside energy flow component is accounted! But to understand its magnitude and the practicality, one must also account for the long neglected Heaviside nondiverged component.
The mechanism is also consistent with general relativity and Wheeler's succinct statement that mass acts on spacetime to curve it, and curved spacetime acts back on that mass to move it or produce a translation force upon it. We are simply applying that fact of general relativity to produce a local antigravity effect of a locally curved spacetime upon the source system (in this case, the power system itself, which is the source of the negative field energy in the vacuum.
The entire notion of "curvature in spacetime" — and indeed of spacetime itself— is a notion applying before observation and interaction to produce the observed effect — i.e., prior to the d/dt operation occurring upon an ongoing 4space process to produce a momentary frozen 3space snapshot (an observed effect). Think carefully. Wheeler's rule does not mean that 3space acts back on the mass (actually on the masstime), but that 4space (spacetime) acts back on it. Spacetime does not exist in the observed object after the application of observation's d/dt operation has occurred and until a new causal interaction begins. The d/dt operation strips away the time,
229 The ongoing interaction of the vacuum/spacetime with the source of the unobserved 4fields is their cause, and the observed 3fields are the effect. The effect a priori does not interact upon the cause! So thinking that "one should make a 3
field in a craft or system that will interact with it and produce antigravity force upon it" is a non sequitur. Instead, one more correctly thinks that "one should make a 4field from a craft or system which will interact with the local spacetime to curve it negatively. Then that negative curvature of spacetime is itself a negative energy 4field that will interact back upon the observed craft or observed 3system to produce observed antigravity force upon it.
and hence most of the energy (i.e., all the timeenergy) of the spacetime that is to do the interacting.
As source charges, the Dirac sea holes — before observation and in their vacuum state condition — produce a locally curved spacetime around the source unit. That induced (negative energy x time) curvature interacts back upon the physical system that is the source of the field producing the negative spacetime curvature. It specifically acts upon the mass of the 4system when it exists as (mass x time) form. That interaction produces antigravity force and momentum upon the system, rather than positive gravity force and momentum230. Adding negative EM field energy (in the causal, unobserved state) is precisely the same as adding extra negative masstime, i.e., extra (m)t, since the 4field is being used in unobserved state.
Using the principle of superposition of fields231, the external observer sees the "weight" of the unit (the force developed on it by the net gravitational field — see again our discussion of the Newtonian approach under paragraph 8.2.1 above) — as being reduced. The intensity of the negative energyx time (negative angular momentum or negative action) EM field (including with the Heaviside component accounted) produced by the unit determines the intensity of the antigravity produced, and hence determines the fraction of the unit's weight232 that is observed to be "lost". See again Figures 614 and 615 in Chapter 6.
230 Note that, if the Dirac hole interacts with the mass lattice of the system, it converts to a "hole" that is attached to the positive mass of an ion. Hence the "observed" positron is said to have "positive mass", which is a non sequitur for the state in which the "positron" exists prior to observation or interaction. The lattice hole 3positron and the true spatiotemporal "4positron as still a negative energy 4electron'" are two very different entities, and their fields and concomitant field effects are very different.
231 Note that identification of spacetime and field in general relativity extends the notion of superposition of multiple fields to the notion of superposition of multiple curvatures of spacetime. Thus, it is the net superposed curvature of spacetime that interacts back upon the physical mass system, to produce gravity (either positive or negative, depending on the sign of the net curvature).
232 We remind the reader that the "weight" of an object on Earth is a measure of the force developed on the object by the (Earth's) gravitational field. "Loss of weight" is simply "reduction of that net force" due to the combination of the Earth's positive (attractive) gravitational field and the Dirac hole curvature of the object's local spacetime producing a negative (repulsion) gravitational field.
At sufficient intensity of this local negative energy 4field in spacetime with the unit as its source, the back interaction upon the unit will balance the action of the earth's gravitational field. At that point, the unit will hover and "float" against the force of terrestrial gravity.233 By further increasing the intensity of the negative energy EM field, the unit will accelerate upward, now being repelled by the local earth more than it is attracted by it. By "angling" the negative energy EM field direction — or by producing a second such negative energy EM field from the source unit as an "angled add on" superposed on the first one — one also provides unilateral propulsion in a given direction.
As can be seen, all the requirements for a practical antigravity vehicle and negative energy propulsion system are met. The only real problem in this approach is the requirement to first attain a COP»1.0 EM power system at ELF frequencies.234 There is, however, an additional problem of correcting one's thinking to be along the lines indicated.
Antigravity becomes straightforward if one first does overunity discharges or steady output in a system with COP»1.0 and understands the difference between the observed "effect" 3field and the unobserved "causal" 4field. Sweet's VTA unit had a beginning COP = 1,500,000 at 500 watts output. The unit was pushed to nearly double its COP, by connecting additional load so that the output was now 1,000 watts. The additional input draw was minimal.
Designing the experiment with that in mind, I convinced Sweet to build a new output load unit, and to perform the experiment. In advance, I roughly predicted levitation of the 6pound device at about 1500 watts output power, by some backoftheenvelope estimates assuming a 10% efficient
233 Sweet later did push the VTA to hovering and upward acceleration, with the unit on a tether. After he was shot at by a distant sniper, thereafter he was very fearful and refused to show many experiments, including the antigravity experiment and particularly its extension to the hover point and upwards acceleration extension. In my opinion he had good reason for his paranoia and his fear for his life.
234 The reason for ELF frequencies is simple: for the most powerful curvatures of spacetime, one wishes to use EM fields whose photons have the greatest total energy (including timeenergy). That of course is the lower frequency photons, not the higher frequency photons. So ELF is the way to go, not gamma rays etc.
process. The projected curve (again see Figure 614 in Chapter 6) shows that levitation would have occurred at about 1250 watts or so.235
Here is why we advocate a Dirac sea hole's negative energy field as a practical antigravity inducing mechanism.236 At COP»1.0, there is a very appreciable vacuum energy density difference between the operator's energy input and the energy output of the system, particularly when the Heaviside nondiverged energyflow component is taken into account as well as the Poynting energyflow componentz237 There is a production of negative EM massenergy x time (causal Dirac sea holes) in the immediately surrounding vacuum. That represents the production of a causal, unobserved antigravitational field (curvature of spacetime) with the systemassociated anticharge as its source.
Meanwhile, the Earth's causal, unobserved gravitational field is still normal and unchanged. Now the two causal fields superpose, and interact with the system mass. As seen by the external observer, the net effect is a reduction in the weight of the object — the effect of the interaction of the system mass with the two superposed causal gravitational fields simultaneously.
Reasoning that increasing the COP of the Sweet unit should increase the ratio of output negative energy to output positive energy even further, 1
235 I strongly warned Floyd not to exceed a 1 KW load, no matter what. In the resulting local curved spacetime surrounding the barium nuclei in the magnets, it appears that magnetic monopoles are deposited or appear. Since these barium ferrite magnets were made by pressed powder metallurgy, they had little tensile or torsion strength, and under sufficient stress they would explode violently like a fragmentation hand grenade. In his little lab (a converted bedroom), Floyd had no explosive facility. He did explode several magnets, but while cautiously remaining some personal distance from the unit as its output was increased. We warn the reader that experimentation with such procedures is at his own risk, and all proper laboratory safety precautions must be utilized.
236 A provisional patent application has now been filed on the process in 2002.
237 In a nominal circuit, the unaccounted Heaviside energy flow may be up to 1013 times as great as the Poynting energy flow component. This is a completely unaccounted, vast EM energy flow accompanying every field and particle interaction. Hence one can understand why such an energy density for a macroscopic system with C0P»1.0, is sufficient to achieve on a macroscopic scale what LaPointe is attempting on a microscopic scale. The total macroscopic scale energy density is so great that the required LaPointe microscopic energy density {535} is present or approached.
calculated that doubling the output of the device would result in a sufficiently intense negative massenergy field in the immediate space around the unit, to approach or reach levitation of the unit. However, as the increasing curvature of spacetime would further increase the deposition of magnetic monopoles in the magnets,238 at some point the magnets would simply explode like hand grenades if the unit were pushed too far. With no explosive control facilities available, it appeared that doubling the output was the maximum that could safely be done under the circumstances. My own estimate showed that 1500 watts output would be required for levitation, but one dared not go beyond 1000 watts or one would risk a fragmentation explosion and injury or death.
I convinced Sweet to build a 1,000watt output load box, which simply contained ten sockets for ten 100watt light bulbs. This was a modification to the 500watt VTA unit shown in Figure 68 in Chapter 6. By successively installing the bulbs one by one, the load could be adjusted in 100watt increments up to 1 kilowatt.
The foregoing is the reasoning behind how I designed the experiment, and the purpose was to show very substantial and smooth weight loss of the VTA unit itself. The experiment was performed in that 100watt incremental manner, with highly successful results as shown in Figure 614 in Chapter 6.
With each 100watt increase in power output past 500 watts, the fraction of negative energy produced was greater. Hence the unobserved 4positron fields (Dirac sea hole negative energy fields) were stronger, because there were more unobserved 4positrons. This meant that the local negative massenergy curvature of spacetime was increased also.
In turn, this negative curvature of spacetime interacted back upon the mass of the VTA to add negative mass equivalent, or more simply, antigravity force. The observed weight of the unit was the sum of the normal gravitational weight (due to earth's gravity curvature of the local spacetime), and the abnormal antigravity weight (negative weight) due to the antigravity curvature of the local spacetime superposed. So as the fraction of negative curvature of spacetime increased, the net weight of the VTA was observed to decrease.
238 Contrary to popular opinion, one does meet with effective magnetic monopoles in a magnetic field — including in the magnetic field of a permanent magnet — in a strongly curved local spacetime. The stronger the field, the greater the magnitude of the effective monopole charge.
As stated, Sweet was performing the experiment on the bench in California, and reading the instrumental results over the phone (I was in Huntsville, Alabama) where I recorded them. The spectacular results are shown in Figure 614 in Chapter 6.
The high COP (corresponds to gain) of energy density present in the Sweet VTA system's output section — with a greater percentage of it being negative energy — versus input energy one inputs to the input section, is what is important. In short, increasing the load effectively increased the gain, which further increased the ratio of the negative massenergy to the positive massenergy. This in turn steadily decreased the observed weight of the object.
Anything outside the system mass of that very high COP system will "see" the weight of the system mass as having decreased. Weight is just so much mass making so strong a net G field (spacetime curvature) in the surrounding spacetime. Reduce the net Gfield that the system mass is normally making (by having it simultaneously make the additional antigravity field which then vectorially adds to the mass's normal Gfield), and the external observer, external scales, etc. will see the object as having very much reduced its weight.
Positive spatial EM energy density of a system makes positive gravity (as seen by the external observer in the lab frame) because of the way it curves the immediately surrounding spacetime and the way that curved spacetime interacts back on the system's massenergy. Negative spatial EM energy density makes negative gravity because it curves the immediate spacetime the opposite way. A system under those "high negative energy field" conditions will produce a great deal of antigravity, because the immediate spacetime surrounding is dramatically curved by the negative energy. That was my concept when designing the experiment, and it worked beautifully. So that is how the Sweet device reduced its weight on the bench by 90%, for a 1 kilowatt total output and minuscule input power {544}.
If one were dealing with the source in a flying vehicle system, there is another effect due to momentum. Note that force F is defined as That is in a positive energy density local spacetime. When an extra negative energy density is added to the local spacetime, then there are two forces, a new one being F =  d/dt (mv) and the normal one being These forces are created by any change in momentum in space containing an extra increment of negative EM field energy.
If the two forces balance, then there is essentially no net centrifugal force produced on the object (or any occupants in it) in a turn. In theory, maneuvers that are far more powerful can be made, without undue Gstress to any occupants inside. This of course remains to be tested in future work and experiments, and so must be taken as a strong hypothesis at present. It could be tested, given availability of the proper COP»1.0 energy system or process on board a test vehicle. Laithwaite's demonstration of the dramatic reduction in force necessary to lift a rotating gyroscope compared to lifting the same heavy gyroscope when not rotating, may have been a partial test of this "inertial resistance decrease" effect.
The Sweet device was the only available COP»1.0 device which could have been used for the experiment. That is why I designed the experiment and convinced Sweet to perform it. Had it not worked, much of what I had worked out for more than a decade would have been falsified — which of course is one of the purposes of experiment: to validate or falsify a thesis. In this case, I breathed a great sigh of relief because — in my view — the spectacular results completely validated my approach to antigravity, and also much of my approach to COP>1.0 systems.
Sweet was never in a position to be able to go with this to the scientific community. The VTA was completely fouled legally, by various entangling agreements Sweet had made with different backers, without ever changing or resolving any previous agreement. Also, he realized that his life really was in danger should he try to take the system openly to the scientific community. Consequently, he never tried and in fact adamantly turned all further work away from the antigravity effects.
Aging and rather defenseless, Sweet also began playing all sorts of games to prevent having to have the project validated independently, even for its COP>1.0 capability. He was mortally fearful of being killed if he had it resoundingly validated. He was motivated by the necessity to survive and not be killed, and he firmly believed that any such attempt for full scientific validation and open publicity would absolutely guarantee his quick death. His fears appear to have been well founded.
His most carefully guarded secret was his activation process for the barium ferrite magnets, which he guarded with his life. He also began telling different persons all sorts of different stories and "mechanisms" for the activation, which were clever ruses and disinformation designed to throw them off the true trail and prevent his activation secret from being uncovered. I made a personal videotape of the activation process, or what he released of it, before he began such disinformation. So we do know much of the activation process, though not all of it.
Eventually, with changes in backers yet once again, Sweet died and never revealed the full secret of strong selfoscillation activation in permanent magnets to anyone. I knew and know part of it, even most of it, but still not all of it. What I understand about it has been briefly included in this book. From there, the interested researcher must find his own way.
The VTA was real, my gravitational mechanism is real, and — in my opinion — validated. However, it has not been independently validated in formal order, which is the proper scientific requirement. I did try very hard to convince Sweet that we should take this to the leaders of the scientific community and have it independently verified (e.g., by UCLA), but he would not hear of it after the assassination attempt. By that time, he was so afraid from the constant threats and constant stalkers that he had totally decided against any such releases. He also would not permit it to be taken to a major scientific conference and demonstrated, even though several scientists and engineers knowledgeable and experienced in measurement engineering did measure and certify the device's operation. But they were never allowed to see it in the antigravity mode. He would not discuss it with them, and he would not allow it.
Sadly, with the death of Sweet there passed away the VTA and its major secrets. I regard the VTA as one of the great scientific accomplishments of all time, and I regard Sweet as one of the most capable lab experimenters I ever met and one of the greatest inventors I ever met. The loss of the VTA and the absence of its full, independent scientific testing and validation were in my opinion two of the greatest losses to science of all time.
8.4.3 Discussion
Particle physicists speak of antimass and antigravitational field, but do not speak of antielectromagnetic field and do not like negative mass. Antimass is actually "antimassenergy". When did one hear any scientist speak of a negative energy electromagnetic field or negative energy force field (except possibly as a hypothetical "tractor beam")? Or a negative energy electrical or magnetic potential? Yet the EM fields from an accumulation of Dirac sea holes (causal state) as a source charge are precisely negative energy EM fields. The EM potentials from an accumulation of Dirac sea holes are precisely negative energy potentials. Further, these fields and potentials produce opposite curvatures of spacetime as compared to positive energy causal EM fields and potentials from conventional source positrons and electrons.
Conventionally, scientists speak and think of the positive energy electromagnetic field. In our view, they do not apply the implications of the negative energy state part of the Dirac 1930 electron theory {545}, because of a builtin horror of negative mass (and antigravity!). Recall again our discussion of Laithwaite; a promising career was cut down in mid stride because he "mentioned the unmentionable": antigravity and possible failure of Newton's laws (they do fail in a curved spacetime!). His exhibiting to the Royal Society a very heavy gyroscope, very difficult to lift when placid, but easy to lift with one arm when spinning, was the final straw. The British scientific community simply cut him down and ostracized him from the rewards and positions he would otherwise have been given.
To conceal the relationship of the negative energy fields, hide negative mass, and pretend it does not exist, much scientific effort is exerted to consider the positive energy, positive mass positron only after it has been observed. So scientists can assign this "observed" 3positron a positive mass and positive energy but with spatial direction reversal. That immediately moves to an effect field and an effect positron, not a causal field or a causal Dirac sea hole. It effectively eliminates the antigravity field of the negative mass of the unobserved negative energy Dirac electron, which is produced by the causal (unobserved) Dirac sea hole's electromagnetic field, not the effect (observed) positron field which then is "seen" to have positive mass but with field direction reversed.239
The positron is quite a different beast before it is observed, just as is a mass (and just as is any other observable, and just as is a field). For one thing, the positron before observation and the positron after observation have different dimensionalities; the unobserved causal entity is 4spatial and continuous,240 while the observed effect entity is continually and
239 Note also that the causal field, being unobserved, is a 4field, while the observed (effect) field is a 3field. By reversing the parity, one has made the antigravity field into a gravity field, by substituting the effect for the cause and erroneously using the old non sequitur of a separate 3force acting upon a separate 3mass. Also, when one reverses its spatial direction, one converts a positive gravity field into an antigravity field.
240 Along with Bohm, we point out that — strictly speaking — in 4space one does not have "things", but only "processes". To speak of a "4space field" is to redefine the field as an ongoing process, rather than as an observed frozen 3snapshot or "3thing". The solution to the longvexing duality problem is there, but we leave its solution to the reader. It is necessary to extend Aristotelian logic itself if one is to resolve the duality problem.
iteratively 3spatial. Mass before it is observed exists as masstime, not mass.
Simply consider the delayed choice twoslit experiment and Wheeler's famous comment that no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. Once the observation occurs, one can even change the "if it had been observed but was not" previous past. One gets the magic from the delayed choice two slit experiment without the observation, and then by making the observation such that the "magic" is not revoked after the fact:. The whole experiment proves that, if one insists on applying the observation, one kills the magic, even if one thinks the magic has already occurred and must have already occurred, but it has not been observed to have occurred.
Causal 4spatial "things" are not things at all, but are ongoing processes and their cessations have not "occurred" to yet produce a "thing"! The observed event is 3spatial and has occurred. It is something in the past, not the present. That is different from something ongoing (happening or unhappening)241 in 4space, before having been observed and therefore a frozen snapshot taken in 3space. As is well known in quantum mechanics, observation is a physical interaction and it indelibly changes and stops the "ongoing 4process", converting it to a momentarily frozen "3thing" as an effect of the observation process at that particular instant. So any "thing" is continual and iterative, not continuous, in its travel through time, and in its "observed existence in 3space".
Because of such, physicists also have difficulty realizing that mass — being an observable — does not and cannot exist continuously in time. It cannot even continuously exist! No observable can. Masstime exists in time, but mass does not, as we previously discussed. Observation is a dldt operator imposed upon an ongoing 4space process, destroying the time
241 When a frozen instant 3space snapshot (observable) interacts with a second causal process to generate another frozen snapshot (observable), the first observation "unhappens" because it is thereby moved into the "past", disappearing from 3space forever. With every change of an observable (with every observation), even if the new effect appears identical to the previous one, it is still a new observable (a new effect) where a former effect "seems" to have recurred (been created, happened). Even if it is spatially the same as the previous observation output, it is at a different point in time and hence is the result of the d/dt observation operator being iteratively applied. The serial outputs — even of what we loosely call an "entity existing in time with no 3space change" — are successive and different serial outputs from a serial timedifferentiating process.
portion and producing an instantaneous, frozen snapshot at that instant. It's just d/dt (LLLT) => LLL. That is why all observation is 3spatial, as is well known in physics. We long ago pointed out how the common photon interaction — the total photon interactions (both virtual and observable) with a mass — is what drives the mass through time, so to speak {15}. But it does it iteratively, frozen snap after frozen snap —just like progressively showing the frames of a movie film.
What really has to be changed is the old notion by Heaviside and Poynting that 3energy propagates continuously through 3space.242 No observable can propagate continuously in 3space, but only in 4space and then only during its nonobservable state! So a "mass propagating through time" (i.e., just sitting still and "existing", so to speak) is doing so in an iterative fashion by recurring iteratively in observation output at the same spatial position. The mass turns to masstime, then to mass, then to masstime, etc. Or mi => m,t => m2 => m2t => nn... etc. In short, observation continually recurs at an enormous rate, so an observable (effect or output ofthat observation process) continually recurs at an enormous rate, destroying the previous observation as the next one occurs.
Because of the history of thinking in 3space terms rather than 4space terms, one of the ubiquitous errors widespread in physics is the substitution of the effect (the frozen output of the observation process) for the cause (that 4space initiator process which continuously exists prior to observation, hence unobserved). So causes (4space initiators which are unobservable a priori) interact with a previous "frozen 3space snapshot" or observable, to produce a change (either a temporal change or spatial change or both) in or to or of that observable (that 3snapshot) to a new observable (3snapshot). If the object is seen to iteratively change in time but not position or form, it is said to "exist" or "persist" at rest continuously in time. It doesn't. It continually recurs243 in that form, but does not continuously exist in that form!
242 And also the hoary old mistaken notion that the "same observable thing" can continuously exist in time or persist.
243 More rigorously, the continual recurrence is at the quantum level. So a larger mass or other observable actually is a great horde of very small "continual recurrences" of tiny incremental pieces of itself. At any time interval of observation via observable photons, a vast number of nonobservable (virtual) "continual recurrences" occur in the "observed object". In short, the "observed object" is the end summation and result of a vast number of infinitesimal changes. Hence the entry of statistics and the uncertainty principle. Each one of the infinitesimal
The antigravity mechanism has been implicitly present in the Dirac theory of the electron since his 1930 paper {497}, where he brought forth the Dirac sea and the antielectron, if the causal Dirac sea negative energy states are applied to general relativity before they interact with charge and are "observed". General relativity deals with spacetime and spacetime curvature. Therefore, it is concerned with causal 4fields, 4potentials, and 4waves in 4space prior to observation.
As we stated previously, there is really no such thing as a "3space EM wave", e.g., as rather strongly pointed out by Romer {546}.
One can produce and have an EM field of negative EM energy in spacetime, coming from the 4positron charges of the anticharged mass of a system, as well as one can produce and have an EM field of positive EM energy in space, coming from the charged mass of a system. But negative energy EM fields have been swept away from our minds by interpreting the negative energy 4electron as the 3positron, after the negative energy 4electron has interacted with charged matter (been observed as the effect), rather than how it exists in spacetime prior to observation (as the cause).
So physicists reverse the direction and the charge, and make the mass positive, which is how the Dirac sea hole is "seen" after observation. That makes it a material lattice hole and a special kind of positive ion. Before observation, it is not seen at all, but it exists as negative action (energy x time) and therefore in "negative masstime" state form. Before it has been observed, it's still there in spacetime, as a curvature of spacetime. It's just a negative energy state curvature in the vacuum/spacetime.
Make lots of these negative massenergy state Dirac holes from a source system, such as one producing a very powerful negative energy EM field, and voila! That's it. The system is producing — and surrounding itself by — its own negative energy EM field (negative curvature of 4space), which is also its own local antigravity field. That antigravity field superposes with the prior local curvature of spacetime, altering it. The net curvature of local spacetime is itself a field which interacts back upon the mass system to produce "net gravity" whose sign may be positive or negative, depending on the sign of the net spacetime curvature. If the two backacting curvatures of spacetime are opposite and equal, that represents the source object existing in a zero gravitational field, and thus "hovering" in the Earth's gravitational field, for example.
changes may be modeled causally, but since there is no individual information available on each one of them, they can only be calculated statistically.
The use of negative energy EM fields and Dirac sea holes to alter the curvature of the local spacetime in a negative direction provides the present author's engineering approach to practical antigravity. Note that our approach gathers in the gist of both of the major two approaches to antigravity: (1) the shielding theory as typified by Modanese {547}, and (2) the opposing force theory as typified by Ling Ni and Torr {548}. The opposing force, considered as a field that is identically a curvature of spacetime, is also a "gravity shielding" force via superposition of fields. We state unequivocally that a theoretical model of the new approach can be constructed from Sachs's theory {510}, and implemented in the 0(3) electrodynamics of Evans and Vigier {549}. Further, it is a directly engineerable theory, without the necessity for superconductivity, spinning wheels, etc. as demonstrated by the highly successful Sweet experiment previously discussed.
We quote Evans {550}, on the appearance of the B(3) field in general relativity, to indicate the nature of such a future theoretical model:
"Ihave chosen a metric that gives circular polarization (as observed), but in the framework ofgeneral relativity using the irreps of the Einstein group according to the Sachs theory. This is a closed field theory which is analytical, using a Lie group, the Einstein group. As such there are no particles, only spacetime curvature, so everything in physics reduces to spacetime curvature, i. e. to a metric vector and its components. This is then incorporated in the Sachs theory to produce a metric fourvector which is a generally covariant component ofa quaternionvalued metric with sixteen components, the most generalform ofthe metric allowed by general relativity and topology. The EinsteinSachs equationsfor electromagnetism are six metrical equations in six unknowns, the components ofan antisymmetric field tensor ofelectromagnetism. By choosing a metric that corresponds to circularpolarization, B(3) appears automatically.
This method gives the B(3) fieldfrom Einstein's theory of general relativity applied to electromagnetism by a consideration ofthe irreps ofthe Einstein group. It follows that whenever the conjugate product gA(1) x A(2) is observed, the B(3) field must also be observed, otherwise general relativityfails. Examples of the B(33 field at work are the inverse Faraday effect and RFR [Radiatively induced fermion resonance].
Evans and the AIAS have already taken the first theoretical steps showing that antigravity does indeed arise from Sachs's theory {551a551c}.
We are convinced that practical antigravity only occurs at extremely low frequency (ELF) for reasons244 explained previously. Certainly that seems to be true for our approach to it. The highest "total energy" photon is the low frequency photon with low spatial energy and a larger time increment. The larger time component has the same energy density as mass. So one multiplies the time component increase (in seconds) by roughly 9x1016 to get the increase in spatial energy equivalency. Halve the frequency of a photon, and one increases its total energy by 4.5xl016 {552}.
High energy physicists have not realized that the time component of the photon has enormously more energy than the spatial component, and that low frequency photons contain enormously more trapped energy than do high frequency photons. So they largely ignore the timeenergy component, focus on the spatial energy component, and erroneously consider high energy physics as high frequency photon physics. Instead, present high frequency photon physics is only a high spatial energy physics, not a high total energy physics at all. Today's high energy physics is really still a very low total energy physics, compared to what can be done with the timeenergy component of the photon rather than its spatialenergy component. By transducing and using the highly compressed timeenergy, experiments can be done on the lab bench with fairly simple and cheap equipment, that actually utilize higher total energy nuclear reactions (though at low spatial energy) than are presently obtained in the largest accelerators.
That is also why there is presently no understanding in the conventional community of the "low spatial energy transmutations" of cold fusion, where the experiments unwittingly use the high timeenergy component. The scientific community has not even recognized the timeenergy aspects,
244 Dramatic increase in the magnitude of the timecomponent, hence an enormous increase in the timeenergy component with only a small decrease in the spatial energy component total energy of the photon. The total energy thus dramatically increases, when the spatial energy equivalent of the timeenergy is considered. The present conservation of energy law in physics is inadequate because it does not account time energy at all; thus completely discards the most fundamental EM energy mechanism of all: the giant negentropy of source charges and source dipoles.
and has not recognized that timeenergy physics is an ultrahigh total energy physics, where the present "high energy physics" is tame by comparison.
The previously unknown timeenergy induced transmutation interactions are the precursors to, and the opening salvo of, a new ultrahigh total energy physics struggling to be born in spite of the adamant opposition of the conventional scientific community. Allowing for the timeenergy component, for the mechanism generating the flow of time, and for formation and decay of timereversal zones, we previously wrote the exact new nuclear reactions for the production of the excess deuterium, tritium, and alpha particles {553} in numerous cold fusion experiments. We also explained the highly anomalous nuclear instrument effects — due to (i) timecharging, (ii) the slow decay of timecharge with radiation of Whittaker longitudinal waves, each accompanied by its phase conjugate twin timepolarized wave, and (iii) the previous timecharge history of the instrument. These puzzling anomalies have been observed at U.S. Navy research facilities at China Lake now for some years in rigorous electrolyte experiments {198}. We summarize that work in Chapter 10 of this book.
With a little effort and development, practical antigravity appears to be straightforward for any good modern laboratory. But the lab physicists should first (i) rethink the entire subject, from its very fundamentals, to include considering the positron before observation and not after observation, (ii) remove the Lorentz symmetrical regauging from electrodynamics and recover the presently missing COP >1.0 and COP»1.0 Maxwellian systems again, and (iii) rapidly develop COP»1.0 systems and processes to use in antigravity experiments and development. At least in this approach, the COP»1.0 EM systems — once developed — are an immediate gateway to practical antigravity devices, unilateral thrust propulsion systems, and antigravity vehicles. And of course they are the immediate gateway to practical transport vehicle power systems, fuelfree, clean, and selfpowering.
Hopefully, such a scientific reassessment will be performed, and it may provide the gateway for practical transportation and travel to the ends of the solar system and beyond, to be achieved in the first two decades of this century.
Saving Power, Saving The World
Get All The Support And Guidance You Need To Be A Success At Helping Save Power. This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To How To Use Renewable Energy As Your Alternative Power Suppliers.
Responses

t goodbody3 months ago
 Reply