|
USPA is
A
Non-Profit,
All Volunteer,
501(C)(3) Organization
|
Precursor Engineering: Directly Altering
Physical Reality
©2004 T. E. Bearden (with
permission)
Abstract and Summary.
We discuss the
abbreviated background of Maxwellian electrodynamics, including how the model’s
erroneous “force field in massfree space” construct came to be. The field in
space is not a force field, as is well known, but is merely
spatiotemporal energy structuring and patterning. It can be considered as a
curvature of spacetime (general relativity view) or as a change in the
virtual particle flux of the vacuum (particle physics view).
The field in space
is only a precursor of the force field in matter; no force is present or
involved until the precursor field interacts with charge and mass to produce a
force field with mass as a component.
Technically, the
change and structuring of massless spacetime/vacuum to produce a net precursor
field is asymmetric regauging, and it requires no work because of
the well known gauge freedom axiom. One is permitted to freely change the
potential—and the potential energy—of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations (and
thus of any physical Maxwell-Heaviside system) at will; e.g., as shown by
Jackson {[1]}
and many others.
Thus, changing the
force-free “EM field”—as it exists in space in its precursor form (energy
field form) prior to its interaction with charge and matter—is work-free.
Very large changes
in the precursor field state of a Maxwell system can be done by paying only a
bit of work for timing and switching the technological systems performing the
regauging. Once formed “nearly for free”, the large precursors can then be
interacted with charged mass to freely form very large force fields and their
dynamics (i.e., precise sets of very large forces, including dynamics, in the
interacting material system or medium as desired).
Spacetime is
identically energy, and a curvature of spacetime is identically an energy field
available to interact with mass to form force.
Vacuum is
identically energy, and a change in the virtual particle flux density of vacuum
is identically an energy field available to interact with mass to form force.
Let the term
engine refer to either a set of forces or a set of precursors, with
the dynamics of the set included. One can almost freely produce strong
precursor “engines” and dynamics, and then interact these precursor engines
with charged mass (the system medium) to produce very powerful force
engines and dynamics in the material system. In this way, one can very
powerfully (and almost freely) produce and engineer all fundamental forces of
nature, by first engineering the precursors and their dynamics, then
allowing free precursor interaction with charged matter so that the “primary
forces” are produced as desired.
In this way,
physical reality itself—on any and all levels—can be very powerfully engineered
at will, without large exertion of operator-furnished power, once
precursor engineering technology is developed. This is a negative entropy
operation violating the present second law of thermodynamics (which artificially
excludes such negative entropy processes). The second law is already totally
refuted by gauge freedom itself, as well as by every charge, EM field, and EM
potential in the universe.
The first law of
thermodynamics also contains an error in its present form, when it assumes that
a change of energy magnitude (as in the change of a system parameter such
as the potential) is work a priori. To the contrary, work is performed
only if the form of the excess input (regauging) energy is changed. Mere
transfer of additional energy in the same form is not work. The first law must
be slightly corrected, since as written it prohibits gauge freedom and thus
prevents precursor energy field engineering.
We briefly discuss
some relevant historical background and several small examples that demonstrate
the overwhelming importance of this work and its future dramatic extensions of
science and technology, hopefully for the great benefit of all humanity.
Development of Maxwell-Heaviside
EM Theory.
The Maxwell-Heaviside
theory of electrodynamics is now well over a century old. It may be taken as
dating from Maxwell’s 1865 theory {[2]}
of 20 quaternion and quaternion-like equations in 20 unknowns—although Maxwell
had written earlier papers on Faraday’s lines of force and on the
characteristics of the medium. More than a decade earlier, quaternions had been
founded by Hamilton {[3]},
but there were exceedingly few scientists who understood them or even liked
them. Most could hardly tolerate Hamilton’s quaternions!
Maxwell published
his famous Treatise in 1873 {[4]}.
Because it was "tainted" with a higher group symmetry algebra (quaternions),
even Maxwell himself came under intense pressure from his publisher to simplify
the material in his Treatise. Consequently, Maxwell began rewriting and
greatly "watering down" his own theory, having finished rewriting and greatly
reducing some 80% of it at the time of his death in 1879. The posthumous later
editions published in 1881 and 1891 represent a very serious truncation of the
original Maxwellian theory.
In the 1880s, a
further great "simplification" was generated by several scientists after
Maxwell's death—and notably by Heaviside, Hertz, and Gibbs, with regauging by
Lorentz. Vector algebra—whose group symmetry is much lower than that of
quaternion algebra—was formed {[5]}
and became the accepted algebra in which the reduced equations were recast. The
lowered group symmetry of vector algebra further reduced the operationalism
described by the theory in its quaternion-like form. Even the tensor algebra of
today is still of lower group symmetry than quaternions.
The equations taught
today at university as "Maxwell's theory" are thus pale shadows, and those
equations themselves are actually the equations and notations of Heaviside,
having been further "symmetrically regauged" by Lorentz {1,[6]}.
The symmetrical regauging imposed by Lorentz very neatly threw out all
COP>1.0 Maxwellian systems taking their excess energy from the active vacuum in
the form of free asymmetrical regauging {[7]}.
It also discarded precursor engineering.
At the time these
truncated (mutilated may be a better word!) Maxwell equations were
adopted in general, it occurred in a short "debate" (mostly in the journal
Nature) where the vectorists simply discarded the quaternionists' work, etc.
{5} It was not done by "sweet science", but by dogma and
individual preference for "greater simplicity". Its driving force was the
near-universal dislike of quaternions and a strong drive to simplify things as
much as possible.
Material Ether and “Force Fields in Space”.
The "Maxwellians" as
they are often referred to, all originally assumed the material ether filling
all space (and so do electrical engineers today, unwittingly!). Thus they
assumed there was not a single point in the entire universe that was devoid of
mass. Consequently, the EM fields were—to them—obviously very material fields
indeed; i.e., to the Maxwellians they always occurred in mass (e.g., in
the material ether or in common matter). They were therefore erroneously assumed
to be force fields, and in the view of the Maxwellians a
“force-free field” was not possible.
By F º ¶p/¶t
= ¶/¶t
(mv), we know that mass is actually a component of force (though
inexplicably that is still erroneously ignored in both classical mechanics and
electrical engineering). There is no separate mass-free force acting upon
a separate mass, because the phrase "mass-free force" itself is an
oxymoron. Many foundations physicists such as Wheeler, Nobelist Feynman, etc.
have thoroughly discussed this "material origin of force", so it is well known
by leading scientists (though seldom known to electrical engineers whose flawed
model still blithely assumes EM force fields in mass-free space).
Today, our Maxwell-Heaviside
classical EM theory still implicitly retains the old material ether more than
100 years after that type of ether was specifically falsified by the
Michelson-Morley experiments {[8]}.
Not a single material-ether-assuming EM force field equation was changed
after those experiments! By retaining the material ether, the theory has
actually concealed the precursor mass-free fields and the astounding
ramifications of developing precursor engineering technology {[9]}.
Oddly, we therefore
we have a peculiar scientific situation and one of the great stalemates in human
scientific history: The most primary kind of physics has been largely
ignored in the West. It has not been ignored in some other places, but
unfortunately there it has only been used for development of weapons in secret.
We do not discuss the weaponry in this paper.
Nobelist Feynman certainly understood there were no force fields in space. He
made the following observation {[10]}:
"…the existence of
the positive charge, in some sense, distorts, or creates a "condition" in space,
so that when we put the negative charge in, it feels a force. This potentiality
for producing a force
[i.e., this
distortion of spacetime]
is called an electric field."
Yet Feynman himself
did not adequately define force, and in fact despaired of finding such a
definition—apparently because he did not connect the change produced by
observation. He stated {[11]}:
"One of the most
important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin, and this is
not just a definition. … If you insist upon a precise definition
of force, you will never get it!"
In modern physics
terms, a "force" is generated in, on, and of a mass (e.g., a charged
mass). It is generated when the volumetric mass-free fields (as curvatures of
spacetime relativistically, or as altered virtual particle flux of the vacuum
region in particle physics) in mass-free space interact with and on a charged
mass. That ongoing interaction of a 4-space massless entity (the
precursor) with a previously observed 3-space mass is what a "force"
identically is, prior to its observation by invoking a ¶/¶t
operator. Observation results in a frozen 3-space snapshot at that
instant—as is well known, time is not an observable, even in principle.
Precursor Engines
and a Physical Mechanism of Regauging
We now have added a
physical mechanism to the abstract notion of "asymmetrical regauging", where a
potential (and the potential energy) of the system (i.e., the magnitude of the
spacetime curvature/altered vacuum virtual particle flux interacting with the
charged mass) is freely changed. Further, this physical mechanism can be
engineered rather directly. Suddenly we are not trapped in “force field
engineering” as the primary causative action, but in “spacetime/vacuum energy”
engineering as the primary causative interaction.
In short, now we
have moved from the hoary old entropic force field engineering to negentropic
precursor engineering as our primary interest.
Let STC be
“spacetime curvature(s)”. Let VPF be “virtual particle flux” of the vacuum.
Consider any
physical system and its dynamics. There is a specific set of forces and their
dynamics, involved in that system functioning. Call this set of forces and their
dynamics a force engine. But we know that, for any force, there is
a precise massless 4-spatial precursor interacting with the mass component of
the force.
Prior to observing
the system, consider the 4-spatial characteristics. At any instant, there is a
set of mass-free 4-spatial STC/VPF dynamics interacting with the previously
observed system masses at all levels, changing the observable system masses and
their dynamics as time passes.
Now separate the
masses from the STC/VPF dynamics—which separates force into its components of
mass and precursor energy field. Call this set of STC/VPF dynamics a
precursor engine. Rigorously this precursor engine and each part of its
structure is what we refer to as energy. The precursor engine has
the capacity (potential) to cause work, since it has the capacity to make a
force engine by its interaction with mass, and W = ò
F ·
ds for any force F in the force engine.
We have now solved
one of the additional problems which gave despair to Feynman: the definition of
energy. Feynman also said {[12]}:
"It is important
to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is."
Yet to change the
precursor engine itself requires no work, since there is no mass and hence no
F, and thus ò
F ·
ds º
0 because F = 0. Prior to its interaction with mass to form
a force engine and generate work, the precursor engine is merely structured
potential energy with dynamics.
Here is the great
shocker: Merely changing the structured potential energy—i.e., changing the
precursor engine, in magnitude or function or whatever—is work-free a priori
because of the total absence of force. Changing the precursor engine is
changing some potential energy (magnitude, direction of flow, dynamics, etc.)
and that is mere regauging. It is work-free by the well known gauge
freedom axiom, widely used and accepted in physics.
By engineering the
precursor engine itself, and then applying the altered precursor engine to an
appropriate mass system, real work can freely be produced in the physical
system. In the real world, the scientist may have to pay a little to do the
switching and timing, but he need not pay to furnish the regauging potential
energy required to change the precursor system and thereafter produce the force
engine.
Thermodynamics and Entropy.
We have all been
taught that a dynamic system is like a leaky diode. I.e., one pays to input some
energy to the system, it spills some of it in its internal operations, and one
gets out (as energy or useful work) less than one put in. In short, we have
erroneously been taught that all engineering is entropic. The second law
of thermodynamics has stated that, in progressive operations, the system can
either at best keep the entropy (energy of which control and use is lost) the
same, or have the entropy increase with time. It is known, of course, that
second law violation does occur for small systems and relatively small times,
due simply to fluctuation of the statistics on which it is based.
With precursor
engineering, however, we have totally violated the second law of thermodynamics,
since we ourselves need input only a tiny bit of control and switching energy,
to control and use a much larger amount of working energy. The environment
freely inputs a great deal more regauging energy for usage, and we need only
control it. In short, we have moved from the “leaky diode” type engineering to
the “triode” type engineering. Now we have to pay a little for the “control”
grid signal, but the cathode energy flow that is controlled, gated, and shaped
to provide the plate energy (plate force engine) is freely input by the
environment (by regauging).
We have moved from
“entropic engineering” to “negentropic engineering” because triode engineering
is also a process for re-ordering disordered energy. It is a process for
consuming entropy and producing negative entropy.
Precursor
engineering focuses attention on a much more primary cause of forcible actions
than the presently considered “fundamental forces of nature” approach. Instead,
it focuses upon the fundamental precursor engines that, once formed by free
regauging, then freely produce forces that perform work upon systems to alter
them, do useful work, etc. That is a purely negative entropy function,
totally engineerable. It alters and completes the presently crippled Second Law
of thermodynamics (which presently only allows entropic processes, although
inherently assuming that its own contradiction has first occurred).
Specifically, it changes the Second Law to permit negative entropy processes and
functions in addition to positive entropy processes and functions.
In the not too
distant future, hopefully precursor engineering will completely revolutionize
science and engineering in a myriad of areas, from physics to medicine. In
theory, any operational functioning in material physical systems can be directly
engineered by pure regauging, simply by freely changing the precursor engine
involved in that system in a fashion that interacts to create the necessary
force engine and dynamics.
This new and
revolutionary negative entropy engineering, will eventually be
developed to replace the present hoary old entropic engineering. It now lends
real substance to the theoretical proof by D. Evans and Rondoni {[13]}
that nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) systems can indeed—at least in
theory—produce continuous negative entropy. Evans and Rondoni were so startled
at their theoretical results that they felt no real physical system could
exhibit such a Gibbs entropy—i.e., starting negatively at the onset and
thereafter continuously decreasing toward negative infinity as time passes. To
the contrary, every source charge and dipole in the universe exhibits precisely
that action {[14],[15],[16]}.
Unknown to Evans and
Rondoni, Leyton {[17]}
has also originated and published the higher group symmetry geometry necessary
to replace the more limited old Klein geometry {[18]}
of 1872. Now a hierarchy of symmetries results in Leyton object-oriented
geometry. A broken symmetry at one level does not lose information at that level
a la Klein. Instead, it retains the information and also automatically generates
a new symmetry at the next higher level—a purely negative entropy operation from
first principles! So the proper geometry necessary to allow revision of the old
Second Law has been advanced by Leyton.
The dramatic
extension of the Second Law of thermodynamics to add negentropic processes due
to precursor gauge freedom also resolves the very vexing present major time
asymmetry problem of thermodynamics itself: If in a given set of processes
the entropy either remains the same or increases, then how was the entropy of
the universe ever so low in the first place, and how is it so low now? This
“greatest thermodynamics problem” {[19]}
cannot be solved in Klein geometry, but it is solved when Leyton geometry and a
unified field theory separating force field and precursor field are utilized.
What Gauge Freedom Has Been Trying to Tell
Us.
In short, the
universality of gauge freedom has more to it that simply changing some equations
so they are easier to solve, as Lorentz did to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations
by symmetrically regauging them. In symmetrically regauging the
equations, unwittingly Lorentz first evoked precursor engineering, but
then locked up the extra free energy by allowing it to produce only equal and
opposite forces and stress in the system, never useful work. He did this
by eliminating all asymmetrical regauging which would produce a net force field.
In that astounding and crippling limitation, Lorentz chose only that subset of
Maxwellian systems and precursor engineering that cannot and does not produce
energy available to do useful work in the load. Instead, it bottles up all the
energy freely received by regauging, as additional stress in the system. To say
that this is short-sighted is the understatement of the century! It was done
merely to make the equations “more tractable” and amenable to closed solution
methods.
Asymmetrical
regauging is the wave of the future, for it also is identically work-free
precursor engine engineering. It does freely produce a net precursor
field and a net force field, thus allowing useful work to be done “for free” or
“nearly for free”.
Gauge freedom
directly assures us that the potential energy of any EM system can be freely
changed at will. If we put our minds to it, we can take in all the EM energy we
wish, directly from the local vacuum VPF and curvature of local spacetime,
anywhere in the universe by developing and utilizing asymmetrical regauging.
As a trivial
example, merely changing the voltage of a system—while freezing the electrons so
no current flows—changes the collected energy in the entire circuit; because it
changes the potential intensity in which each Drude electron is embedded and
with which it is interacting. The solution to the entire energy crisis, for all
time, simply waits for scientists to discard symmetrical regauging (no
net force fields produced, even though two new free force fields are
produced but in equal and opposite fashion). In symmetrical regauging, all the
excess free energy in the two new fields freely produced is locked up as
stress energy, causing additional stress in the system. However, none
of the excess free energy can be used to translate electrons as current, so the
energy so freely received cannot perform useful external work in the load, by
deliberate design!
To borrow a phrase
from Nikola Tesla, this will one day be recognized as “one of the most
inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind” in recorded history!
By going directly to
asymmetrical regauging, which also is precursor engine engineering, one
produces both excess free EM energy and a free net force field that can be then
freely dissipated to perform free work in a load, paying only for switching and
timing costs, etc. Of course one has to employ circuitry other than the
closed current loop, common ground circuit! That circuit automatically
self-enforces symmetrical regauging (and deliberate crippling of precursor
engineering) regardless of how much extra free regauging field energy is added
to the system.
The Precursor Is Nonobservable.
As pointed out, the
problem of the "force field" not existing as such in space is further
complicated by the nature of observation itself. Observation is a ¶/¶t
operator imposed upon that ongoing interaction of the precursor and the charged
mass in 4-space. The result is the stripping away of the time dimension
momentarily, producing a frozen 3-spatial snapshot. A rapid series of such
continual 3-snapshots, and their recall from memory and comparison, gives us the
sensation and experience of "change" and "persistence in time" or "change in
time".
We never
observe the precursor causes, but only the effects of those precursor causes
in mass. From observing the effects, we always have to extrapolate the
unobservable precursors that are the unobserved causes. One cannot "see" the
accelerated frame one may be in, but one can measure the effects of that
nonobservable frame on one’s physical system and surroundings.
Additional Shortcomings of Classical
Maxwell-Heaviside Theory.
The present Maxwell-Heaviside
theory is completely unable to deal with the massless interactions and the
force-free entities that interact with mass to produce force. The present EM
does not even calculate "the" spatial fields or potentials
themselves, but only their "point intensities" when interacting with static
matter, as defined by the assumed interaction of the actual geometrical fields
with a unit point static charge at every point. To see how this remains
confused, we quote Jackson {[20]}:
"Most classical
electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the notion that the EM force field
exists as such in the vacuum, but do admit that physically measurable quantities
such as force somehow involve the product of charge and field."
So the precursor
spatial “field” is actually not defined in classical EM, but only its intensity
as indicated by a unit point static charge’s scattering of energy from
the Whittaker flows comprising the spatial field itself. What is scattered
from a river’s flow by a fixed static rock is not the river! And what is
scattered varies as the condition of the rock. The same rock, placed in violent
churning motion to and fro, will scatter much more energy from the same river’s
flow.
As an example of
violating that static indication of “field intensity”, if the interacting
charges of an absorbing medium are in particle resonance at the frequency of the
input field energy bathing them, the very "definition" of the classical field
intensity is thereby altered. Then one can extract more energy from the
intensity than is theoretically predicted by the Poynting theory—i.e., by
standard "static charge" definitions of field and potential intensities. It has
been in the physics literature for some decades, without scientists realizing
the true implications.
The same charge in
particle resonance at UV or IR will absorb and re-radiate some 18 times as much
energy as we input to it (by standard calculations), from the same classical
field, as it does when totally static and not in particle resonance {[21]}.
That area of physics is of course well known as negative resonance
absorption of the field. It is a noted example of the direct extraction
of excess EM energy from the "vacuum" or from curved spacetime, long proven on
the bench. Physicists in that field, however, carefully refrain from using the
term "excess emission of energy from the resonant medium", or the thermodynamics
term of coefficient of performance (COP). The
COP = 18, of that EM system, but the scientists only carefully write and speak
of the change in the reaction cross section of the resonant particle
versus that of the static particle.
Importance of the Supersystem.
In modern physics,
we might add the term supersystem {[22]}.
The supersystem consists of three components, which are (1) the physical system
and its observed dynamics, (2) the unobserved but active local vacuum and its
dynamics, and (3) the local curved spacetime and its dynamics. All three
elements of the supersystem constantly interact with each other, in modern
physics.
In the present
classical Maxwell theory, both of the two unobserved supersystem components (the
actual force-free precursors that act on the system to generate all its forces
and dynamics) are arbitrarily assumed away. The crippled Maxwell theory
assumes an inert vacuum (falsified since the 1930s) and a flat spacetime
(falsified since 1916). By using force fields and potentials only defined in
terms of intensity of the interactions in static charged matter, it only
considers effects of the precursors after their interaction with
static mass. These effects then further generate other forces in collisions
and interactions.
The fact that force
fields are still erroneously assumed in space, by standard classical EM and
electrical engineering, retains the material ether in the model. Thus the
standard model has already discarded (erroneously) the precursor engines and
precursor engineering (deliberate use of asymmetric regauging as a simple and
universal means of taking and using enormous EM energy from the active
vacuum/curved local spacetime).
Because of this
continued assumption of the material ether by ordinary EM models, we have missed
the ability to directly (and work-free) engineer the massfree precursor to
force. We have therefore been unable to rigorously define force (as
pointed out strongly by Nobelist Feynman {11}, by Wheeler, and many others) or energy {12}. Force is the interaction of precursor field with mass, and
energy identically is the precursor field.
Classical
electrodynamicists just continue to dispose of the “no force-in-space”
problem, with a remark similar to that of Jackson previously quoted {20}.
Higher group
symmetry EM theory, however, can get directly at all those long-ignored
electrodynamic entities and mechanisms, including the precursors, precursor
engines, and their free (regauging) generation of forces and force engines in
matter As an example, the Evans model {[23]}
is a unified field theory, and quite capable of modeling the interactions
between the three components of the supersystem. The present classical
electrodynamics cannot and does not do that.
In short, precursor
engineering can be developed whenever the scientific community will move off
dead center, fund the sharp young graduate students and post doctoral scientists
to do it, and allow them to do it.
Example of Applying
Precursor Engineering to Medical Therapy.
We now speak of a
future medical capability that can benefit all humanity. It can follow directly
from Evans’ work {23}, and the effect has already been proven experimentally in
France in the 1960s {[24]}.
Until now, however, its free alteration of the cellular regeneration system’s
precursor bioengine has remained a total scientific mystery because it lies
outside the conventional classical EM model. That model, of course, erroneously
excludes the precursor engine and gauge freedom.
Visualize a
biological system and its dynamics, such as the human body in all its
complexities. All the body dynamics may be visualized as a great special "bioengine",
which consists of (1) the precursor engine—that set of precursor causes (the
structured bioenergy we refer to as massfree biofields) interacting with the
body charges and masses at every level, and (2) the bioforce engine produced as
a result of those precursor interactions and dynamics.
The bioforce engine
is secondary, and it consists of two interacting parts: (1) the precursor
bioenergy engine—i.e., the virtual particle fluxes of the local vacuum/ST
curvatures and their exact specific dynamics, interacting with the body charges
and masses at every level, and (2) the resulting biosystem and its dynamics at
every level, The massless precursor bioenergy engine continuously interacting
with the physical system produces the force bioengine and its dynamics as
the resulting effect of that interaction. Note that the primary (precursor)
causal bioengine is not comprised of forces until it interacts with the
physical matter of the body and generates the resulting bioforces as primary
effects produced in the body. In that ongoing interaction, all bioforces
everywhere in the body, at every level, are generated by the precursor bioenergy
engine interactions.
It is strongly
stressed that this makes a profound and fundamental change to biophysics:
Instead of seeking fundamental bioforces (force bioengines) of nature as
primary causes, one now seeks fundamental precursor bioenergy engines as
primary causes. The great impact is that it requires little or no work to
engineer the master precursor bioengines at will, in any fashion desired. In
simple language one directly engineers and structures the primary bioenergy (the
biofields) and its dynamics, then that structured bioenergy and dynamics
interacts on and with physical biosystems containing mass, to freely produce the
desired bioforce engine and thus any conceivable kind of physical change of the
biosystem. It can, e.g., induce stabilization and maintenance of the cellular
system in any conceivable form desired.
Simply put,
bioenergy fields interact with biomass of the biological system, producing all
bioforce fields, physical biosystem dynamics, and physical functioning.
Structuring and Changing the Precursor
Bioengine.
We examine the
structuring of the precursor bioenergy engine and how to freely change it at
will.
It can be shown from
Whittaker's work in 1903 and 1904 {[25]}
that this precursor "bioengine" is naught but a complex set of longitudinal EM
waves with added differential functions. Any scalar potential decomposes into a
harmonic set of bidirectional phase conjugate longitudinal EM wave pairs
(Whittaker 1903), and any field or wave pattern decomposes into two such scalar
potentials with differential functions imposed. Hence all normal EM potentials,
fields, waves, etc.—including those in biological systems—decompose into a far
more primary electromagnetics comprised of longitudinal EM wavesets and their
differential functions. Further, this more primary electromagnetics is directly
engineerable.
As an example: For a
given living body, there is a precise bioforce engine ongoing for that
body in its intended healthy state. Hence there is a precise precursor
bioenergy engine for that body also, in its intended healthy state.
For any disease or
disorder change in that body whatsoever, there is an exactly specific delta
precursor bioenergy engine for that disease change and all its actions and
interactions, now present and also acting on the body to its detriment.
For any
disease-specific delta precursor bioenergy engine, there is a specific precursor
bioenergy antiengine. The antiengine can be made and amplified by pumping. By
introducing the amplified precursor bioenergy antiengine, a specific amplified
bioforce antiengine is produced. This bioforce antiengine then acts upon the
biosystem, specifically reversing the detrimental condition and healing the
biosystem.
In other words, a
damaged body has a damaged bioforce engine, consisting of the normal
bioforce engine and a delta bioforce engine added to it. Hence the damaged body
is being continuously interacted by a damaged precursor bioenergy engine,
consisting of the normal precursor bioenergy engine and a delta precursor
bioenergy engine added to it.
It follows that, if
one were to time-reverse (phase conjugate) the total precursor bioenergy engine
of the damaged body, the new precursor “bioenergy antiengine” would consist of
two parts: (1) the amplified time reversal of the normal precursor bioenergy
engine—which antiengine would just tend to make the body cells, etc. a bit
younger, and (2) the amplified time reversal of the detrimental precursor delta
bioenergy engine, which antiengine would gradually erase that detrimental
precursor bioenergy engine and the disease itself!
Though simply put,
that is in fact the mechanism used by the human cellular regenerative system
(very poorly studied!) that generates the healing process in the body. It
has long been obscured in biology by use of the terms " differentiation" and "
dedifferentiation" of cells. Those terms refer to effects, not primal causes.
Becker’s Important Work.
Becker, e.g.,
clearly showed that potentials placed across intractable bone fractures directly
generated such effects in red blood cells entering the injury site {[26]}.
First the cells "dedifferentiated" back to an earlier form, growing a nucleus
and shucking their hemoglobin. Then these new cells "differentiated"
forward to form the type of cells that make cartilage. Then those cells
further differentiated forward to form the type of cells that make bone. The
resulting bone cells were then deposited in the fracture site to heal the
fracture.
Becker received
multiple nominations for a Nobel Prize for this incredible work. He also
attempted to model the cellular regenerative system itself {[27]},
using the normal EM model—which failed him because it cannot model the precursor
bioenergy engines at all. Had Becker had access to Evans' present work, he would
have produced a gigantic revolution in medicine, and would have very probably
been awarded a Nobel Prize. The bone healing work did survive quietly, and today
it is used in a number of hospitals to continue to treat and cure otherwise
intractable bone fractures.
We again stress
that, using free asymmetrical regauging, the precursor engine and antiengine can
be directly amplified, essentially work-free. One pays for a little switching
and timing for control, but pays nothing at all for the excess energy utilized
and structured and controlled, which is pure regauging. Regauging to increase
the energy is pure negative entropy engineering, not previously
recognized or utilized.
Precursor Engineering Was Demonstrated in
France.
The precursor
engine, antiengine, and amplification approach was in fact demonstrated
experimentally and rigorously in France by Antoine Prioré, although he was
unaware of its nature. His work was personally presented to the assembled French
Academy by its Secretaire Perpetuel, Dr. Robert Courrier {[28]}.
In the 1950s and
1960s, working with eminent French scientists, Antoine Prioré discovered how to
directly amplify the "cellular regenerative" process in the laboratory, In
short, he unwittingly discovered how to form antiengines for specific
diseases and disorders, amplify the antiengines, apply them to the body,
and directly heal the body via the resulting “amplified cellular regeneration”
process.
Prioré
used a huge plasma tube fed with a mix of transverse EM waves, unwittingly using
a characteristic of plasmas that can transduce transverse waves to longitudinal
EM waves {[29]}.
Hence he had introduced a longitudinal EM wave structure inside the plasma,
adding to its field structures. With a large coil around the plasma tube, he
produced a large rippling magnetic field whose inner “Whittaker structure” was
deliberately modified (by controlling the frequency, and phasing of transverse
waves induced in the plasma). The amplified bioenergy antiengine was embedded
inside the longitudinal EM wave Whittaker structure of that rippling magnetic
field.
Unknown to practical
plasma technicians and to classical electrodynamicists, in quantum field theory
the longitudinal photon and the time-polarized (scalar) photon exist and are
individually nonobservable. However, their combination is observed as the
instantaneous scalar potential—i.e., as common voltage. This tells us that, when
we produce voltage, we produce not only Whittaker’s 3-spatial longitudinal
waves, but also their time-polarized (scalar) counterparts also. In short, by
subjecting an object to simple voltage, one subjects it to a special form of
phase conjugation by optical-type pumping. The “input” to the pumping is the
resident precursor bioenergy engine, and the output of the pumping (i.e.,
the “time reversed wave counterpart”) is an amplified precursor bioenergy
antiengine. The interaction of the amplified precursor bioenergy antiengine
and the living body’s mass produces the amplified bioforce antiengine
that physically reverses the disease.
Suddenly Becker's
work with voltage and its unexpected generation of radical change of red blood
cells into new kinds of cells comes alive, because something magical was truly
going on in the use of a simple potential across a fracture site (pulsing
enhances the effect also). That potential was comprised of longitudinal EM waves
and scalar EM waves (time-polarized EM waves) in combined phase conjugate pairs,
slightly altering Whittaker's 1903 and 1904 work. So in nonlinear optical terms,
Becker was "pumping" those red cells (and the fracture vicinity) in both the
time domain and the 3-space domain. He thus time-reversed both the 3-space
longitudinal wave components and the time-polarized scalar wave components. The
result was to produce an amplified time-reversed precursor "engine" (i.e., an
antiengine) of the resident precursor bioengine actually present in, and acting
on, that body to produce its resident force bioengine! This accounted directly
for the much more rapid cellular dedifferentiation and redifferentiation
effects, compared to the relatively slow and much weaker effects achievable by
the feebly amplified cellular regenerative system.
Surrounding Prioré's
plasma tube was a very large coil, which—stimulated by the plasma—then produced
an oscillating magnetic field that further contained in its Whittaker
longitudinal EM wave internal composition that "engine" that Prioré had caused
to be introduced. The patient then laid on a table under the magnetic field
beam, and the entire body was bathed in this emission. The rippling magnetic
field insured that the internal “amplified precursor bioenergy antiengine” was
carried down to even the bone marrow cells of the body, affecting everything. As
proved for millennia in the living body, if the carried "engine" is the
antiengine of the specific disease, then this produces an amplified bioforce
antiengine that is directly an amplification of the body's own cellular
regeneration mechanism for healing that disease.
The rippling
magnetic field carried the "internal new precursor antiengine" to all parts of
the body, even through the bone marrow to the primitive cells, etc. Thus the
total force engine of the body was directly altered, leading to physical changes
in the body that reversed the specific disease and healed the patient. Thousands
of rigorous lab animal experiments were performed and are duly reported and
documented in the French medical literature {[30]}.
As many researchers have suspected, when the body is sick, it is "sick all
over", since the disease “precursor bioengine pattern” is in all the potentials
and fields of the entire body, at every level.
Prioré’s method
added a new and amplified "antiengine" to the diseased body's own precursor
engine, in turn directly altering the body’s own force engine responsible for
maintaining its present state and dynamics containing the physical disease. He
simply reversed the body from a “diseased state” back to a “normal state”.
Hundreds of cases of terminal tumors, certain infectious diseases, clogging of
the arteries, etc. were cured in laboratory animals, in some of the most
sensational medical research of all time.
Results Obtained by Prioré’s Method.
When the added
amplified bioengine was the reversal or near reversal of the detrimental
bioengine portion already in the body, this process reduced and eliminated the
detrimental delta bioengine, within the limits that the scientists had learned
how to adjust the input signals for a given disease.
Consequently,
unparalleled healing of disease occurred, in thousands of laboratory animal
experiments rigorously performed at the University of Bordeaux by famous French
scientists such as Raymond Pautrizel {[31],[32]}.
Dr. Robert Courrier, Secretaire Perpetuel of the French Academy and head of its
biology section, personally presented the astounding results of the Prioré work
to an assembled and stunned French Academy {28}. Terminal cancers, some specific infectious diseases,
atherosclerosis, etc. were cured with alacrity and remarkable effectiveness. The
results were so astounding that they caused a sensation in France and in some
other scientific communities also. Sadly, there was not a single scientist
available anywhere openly, who had developed or even knew of the science of
engines and therefore might recognize and state the mechanism used in the Prioré
work.
The Prioré team also
experimentally showed that the internal patterns or "internal precursor engines"
inside a given EM field or potential (in its Whittaker decomposition) do diffuse
from one potential or field into another that is superposed, and these internal
precursor engine changes remain there and only gradually diffuse away over a
period of time (such as a few weeks or months).
It was shown that a
drop of blood—taken from a rat successfully healed of a terrible terminal
cancer—could then be injected into another rat with the same disease, and that
rat would also start to get well and get rid of the cancer. This "pass it along"
precursor bio-antiengine diffusion effect lasted for some weeks. But the
experiments clearly showed that the necessary "antiengine" had been created in
the original treated rat, and that it was actually present everywhere in that
rat, in its blood and elsewhere, and only gradually "dissipated" by diffusion
reactions as time passes. It also showed that transferring some of the blood
containing the new bio-antiengine spread the bio-antiengine into the receiving
animal.
This work is all
documented in the hard French scientific literature. It has required 30 years
for the present author to even be able to explain the primary mechanism.
The End of the Prioré Work.
The Prioré group
itself (and the French scientific community as well) could not understand the
mechanism because they only had the flawed old Maxwell-Heaviside theory to
apply. That theory cannot model the elemental precursor engines, how they
produce the force engines, and how such operations are the key to the healing
process itself. Consequently, today we still have a medical science using the
highly obsolescent electrodynamics of more than a century ago. Present medical
therapeutics largely deals with killing and removal processes (such as the
immune system's warlike work), while almost totally ignoring the actual healing
mechanism and regenerative system of the body. Medical science has thus produced
a largely “intervene and destroy” therapeutics, with the real healing work then
largely just “left to the body” in the hopes that it can somehow do the
regenerative job required after the destruction and intervention.
The Prioré work
showed that, not only can that fundamental cellular healing process be used in
advanced new technology, but it can be highly amplified to allow very rapid
healing of dread diseases. The Prioré work was ruthlessly suppressed in the
mid-70s when the French government changed to a leftist government and quit
funding the work. In 1984, not long after Prioré's death, the University of
Bordeaux did accept a doctoral thesis on that work by one of its students (Perisse)
{32b}—after having been forced to reject Prioré’s own doctoral
thesis {[33]}
in the early 1970s.
So a great medical
cure for cancer, hardening and clogging of the arteries, infectious diseases,
etc. was brought to the very brink of being born and utilized, and by the proper
scientific community. Then because of the lack of a proper physics and
electrodynamics model, it could not be scientifically understood. So, sadly, it
was strongly opposed and "parked on the shelf" primarily because there was no
available electrodynamics known to the scientists that would allow modeling and
development of a total technology including both theory and application. The
French government and the French scientific community continue to strongly
oppose the Prioré work to this day.
Electrodynamics Must be Modernized.
The Prioré case is
one dramatic example among many, of how the present terribly inadequate model of
electrodynamics (used in electrical engineering) has long inhibited our
scientific progress by blocking the development of precursor engineering and
negative entropy engineering. That terribly flawed model and its continuing use
are also directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of persons
worldwide who did not have to die, had a better EM model been available and
used, and had the scientific community not continued to adamantly propagate and
uphold such a seriously flawed EM model.
The source charge
solution {14} also entails a coming great impact on thermodynamics. The
charge continuously consumes positive entropy (disordered energy) in the active
vacuum’s virtual state, coherently integrates it, and produces negative entropy
in the observable universe by continuously re-emitting the ordered energy (real
observable photons), by a now-specified self-ordering criticality process
specified by the present author. The resulting macroscopic EM fields and
potentials produced and continuously maintained while spreading at light speed
are ordered as a function of radial distance.
There are no
“static” EM fields and potentials anywhere in nature! Instead, there are
steady-state flows of EM energy that establish and continuously maintain steady
state dynamic EM fields and potentials, in the sense explained by Van Flandern
as follows {[34]}:
“To retain
causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the term ‘static’. One
meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving parts. The other meaning is
sameness from moment to moment by continual replacement of all moving parts. We
can visualize this difference by thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is
static in the first sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the second
sense. Both are essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving
parts capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that propagate.
Hence every charge
in the universe is a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system, continuously
consuming positive entropy (disordered energy) of the virtual particle flux of
the vacuum and producing negative entropy (ordered energy) of its macroscopic EM
fields and potentials, along the lines theoretically shown by a startled Evans
and Rondoni {13}. The original charges have been producing negative entropy
steadily for some 13.7 billion years, and they are still continuing.
The use of STC/VPF
engines as precursors to forces and to material dynamics, thus opens an exciting
and more fundamental vista for the environmentalists: The vision of a new kind
of engineering in science and the electrical power industry. The breathtaking
capability is to develop and use a negentropic engineering that will replace the
old entropic engineering that has so sorely poisoned our planet and damaged our
biosphere. The present entropic form of the Second Law is and always has been an
oxymoron implicitly assuming that its own contradiction has first occurred. This
total falsification of the present second law by the source charge completes the
work of falsifying that law—work that is ongoing by D. Evans and his colleagues
{[35]}
and by many others. It also solves the century-old, vexing “time asymmetry”
problem of thermodynamics, because negentropic processes are now permitted and
experimentally validated.
Conclusion
As one can see,
there is a marvelous new science of the future already in sight, desperately
trying to get born. To be born, however, there must exist a growing recognition
and use of higher group symmetry electrodynamics and application of a unified
field theory that is engineerable by these unusual electrodynamic means. There
must accordingly be a growing recognition of the very few great pioneers in this
field. Most of all, there must be funding of doctoral programs and post doctoral
programs in the area of precursor engineering for negentropic processes and
systems.
When this is
accomplished, a revolutionary new science of precursor engineering will be born.
The positive impact on humanity, the biosphere, and the progress of science will
also benefit untold generations yet unborn, from now throughout all the
foreseeable future of humankind.
References
[1].
J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, New
York, 1975, p. 219-211; 811-812.
[2].
James Clerk Maxwell, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field,"
Royal Society Transactions, Vol. CLV, 1865, p 459. Read Dec. 8, 1864.
[3].
William Rowan Hamilton, Lectures on Quaternions, 1st Edn., Hodges and
Smith, Dublin,1853. See also William Rowan Hamilton, Lectures on
Quaternions, 3rd Edn., Chelsea, New York, 1969.
[4].
James Clerk Maxwell, Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1873
[5].
For a history of the development of vector algebra and vector analysis, see
M. J. Crowe, A History of Vector Analysis: The Evolution of the Idea of a
Vectorial System, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana,
1967. Also corrected edition, Dover, New York, 1985.
[6].
In symmetrically regauging the Heaviside-Maxwell equations,
electrodynamicists assume that the system potential (and thus the potential
energy of the system) can be freely changed at will (i.e., they first assume
that the system can be asymmetrically regauged). This is also assumed
under one of the major principles of quantum field theory, known as gauge
freedom. Electrodynamicists arbitrarily do two asymmetrical
regaugings of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations in succession, but carefully
selected just so that the two new free EM fields that emerge are
equal and opposite. Thus they sum to a vector zero resultant. There is thus
no net force field which can be used to push current against
impedance, to dissipate the free excess system energy to perform work in a
load. Instead, the excess free regauging energy is “locked up” as a change
in the stress of the system—as stress energy. So the
electrodynamicists arbitrarily discard that entire class of Maxwellian
systems which asymmetrically regauge by changing their own potential energy
and also producing a net nonzero force field along with it. In short, the
electrodynamicists deliberately assumed away all the Maxwellian systems
which can freely produce coefficient of performance (COP) of COP>1.0.
[7].
Ubiquitous use of the closed current loop circuit with the “external” power
source in it, rigorously enforces symmetrical regauging, since the circuit
equalizes forward emf in the external circuit and back emf inside the
dipolarity of the generator. Hence half the energy collected in the external
circuit is used to destroy the dipolarity of the generator, while the other
half is dissipated in the external circuit’s losses and the load. To restore
generator dipolarity, one must input to the shaft of the generator at least
as much energy as was dissipated in destroying the dipolarity. And this
input energy will thus be greater than the amount of energy dissipated to
power the load. Such a circuit thus self-enforces COP<1.0.
[8].
Michelson, A. A. and E. W. Morley, "Influence of motion of the medium on the
velocity of light," Am. J. Sci., Vol. 31, Series 3, 1886, p. 377-386;
— “The relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous aether,” Am. J.
Sci., 34(3), 1887, p. 333; — “On the relative motion of the earth and
the luminiferous aether,” Phil. Mag. 24(4), 1887, p. 449.
[9].
In the West, precursor engineering has been ignored. In highly classified
Russian weapons projects controlled by the KGB (today called the FSS or
Federal Security Services), it has been developed and weaponized as what is
known as energetics. Elsewhere (e.g.,
www.cheniere.org) we have reported on the status of such weapon
developments, and do not further discuss them here.
[10].
Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 2-4.
[13].
D. J. Evans and Lamberto
Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J.
Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920.
[14].
T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proceedings of
Congress 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000 , p. 86-98.
Also published in Journal of New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23.
Also carried on website
www.cheniere.org and on DoE restricted website
http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/.
[15].
T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles,
Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, Chapter 3: Giant Negentropy, Dark
Energy, Spiral Galaxies and Acceleration of the Expanding Universe.
[16].
See also M. W. Evans, T. E. Bearden, and A. Labounsky, "The Most General
Form of the Vector Potential in Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics
Letters, 15(3), June 2002, p. 245-261.
[17].
Michael Leyton, A Generative Theory of Shape, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 2001.
[18].
(a) Felix Klein, "Vergleichende Betrachtungen über neuere geometrische
Forschungen," 1872. Klein's Erlanger program was initiated in 1872 to
describe geometric structures in terms of their automorphism groups. It has
driven much of the physics development in the twentieth century. See also
(b) I. M. Yaglom, Felix Klein and Sophus Lie: Evolution of the
Idea of Symmetry in the Nineteenth Century, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA,
1988.
[19].
See Huy Price, Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point, Oxford University
Press, 1996, paperback 1997, p. 78.
[20].
J. D. Jackson, ibid., 1975, p. 249.
[21].
E.g., see Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light
incident on it?" American Journal of Physics, 51(4), Apr. 1983, p.
323-327.
[22].
T. E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, 2002,
Chapter 9. The Supersystem and Remarks on Gravity, Antigravity, and Testing.
[23].
See (a) M. W. Evans, “A Generally Covariant Field Equation for Gravitation
and Electromagnetism,” Found. Phys. Lett., vol. 16, 2003, p. 367-377;
(b) — A Generally Covariant Field Equation for Grand Unified Field Theory,”
Found. Phys. Lett. 16(6), Dec. 2003, p. 507-541; (c) — “The Equations
of Grand Unified Field Theory in Terms of the Maurer-Cartan Structure
Relations of Differential Geometry,” Found. Phys. Lett. 17(1), Feb.
2004, p. 35-47; (d) — “Derivation of the Dirac Equation from the Evans Wave
Equation,” Found. Phys. Lett. 17(2), Apr. 2003, p. 149-166; (e) —
“Derivation of the Evans Wave Equation from the Lagrangian and Action:
Origin of the Planck Constant in General Relativity,” Found. Phys. Lett.,
17(3), Jun. 2004, p. 267-276 (in press); (f) — “New Concepts from the Evans
Unified Field Theory. Part One: The Evolution of Curvature, Oscillatory
Universe without Singularity, Causal Quantum Mechanics, and Covariant Force
and Field Equations,” Found. Phys. Lett. (in press).
[24].
A complete exposé of the Prioré affair is given by Jean-Michel Graille,
Dossier Prioré: A New Pasteur Affair, De Noel, Paris, 1984 [in French].
A succinct summary of the Prioré affair is given by Christopher Bird, "The
Case of Antoine Prioré and His Therapeutic Machine: A Scandal in the
Politics of Science," Explore, 5(5-6), 1994, p. 97-110.
[25].
(a) E. T. Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical
Physics,” Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355; (b) — “On an
Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two
Scalar Potential Functions,” Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol.
1, 1904, p. 367-372.
[26].
(a) R. O. Becker, “The control system governing bone growth in response to
mechanical stress,” J. Ark. Med. Soc., Vol. 62, 1966, p. 404; (b) —
and David G. Murray, "The electrical control system regulating fracture
healing in amphibians," Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research,
No. 73, Nov.-Dec. 1970, p. 169-198; (c) — and D. G. Murray, “A method for
producing cellular dedifferentiation by means of very small electrical
currents,” Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci., Vol. 29, 1967, p. 606-615.
[27].
(a) R. O. Becker, "The direct current field: A primitive control and
communication system related to growth processes," Proceedings of the.
XVI International. Congress of Zoology, Washington, D.C., Vol. 3, 1963,
p. 179-183; (b) — and Joseph A. Spadaro, "Electrical stimulation of partial
limb regeneration in mammals," Bulletin of the New York Academy of
Medicine, Second Series, 48(4), May 1972, p. 627-64; (c) R. O. Becker,
Carlton F. Hazlewood, Abraham R. Liboff, and Jan Walleczek,
Electromagnetic Applications In Medicine," NIH-OAM Electromagnetics
Panel Report, Jan. 15, 1993.
[28].
R. Courrier, "Exposé par M. le Professeur R. Courrier, Secretaire Perpetuel
de L'Academie des Sciences fait au cours d'une reunion a L'Institut sur les
effets de la Machine de M. A. Prioré le 26 Avril 1977," [Presentation by
Professeur R. Courrier, Perpetual Secretary of the Academy of Sciences, made
at the meeting of the Academy on the effects of the machine of M. A. Prioré.]
[29].
See (a) T. E. Bearden, "Vacuum Engines and Prioré's Methodology: The True
Science of Energy-Medicine, Parts I and II," Explore, 6(1), 1995, p.
66-76; 6(2), 1995, p. 50-62. Prioré’s patents are: (b) Antoine Prioré,
"Apparatus for producing radiations penetrating living cells," U.S. Patent
No. 3,368,155, Feb. 6, 1968; (c) — "Method of producing radiations for
penetrating living cells," U.S. Patent No. 3,280,816, Oct. 25, 1966; (d) — "Procede
et dispositif de production de rayonnements utilisables notamment pour le
traitement de cellules vivantes," [Procedure and Assemblage for Production
of Radiation Especially Serviceable for the Treatment of Living Cells],
Republique Francais Brevet d'Invention P.V. No. 899.414, No. 1,342,772, Oct.
7, 1963.
[30].
A considerable number of these French references are given in T. E. Bearden,
Energy from the Vacuum, 2002, p. 546-547.
[31].
E.g., R. Pautrizel, M. R. Riviere, A. Prioré, and F. Berlureau, "Influence
d'ondes électromagnétiques et de champs magnétiques associés sur l'immunité
de la souris infestée par Trypanosoma equiperdum," [Influence of
electromagnetic waves and associated magnetic fields on the immunity of the
mouse infected with the Trypanosoma equiperdum], Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci.
(Paris), 1966, Vol. 263, p. 579-582. [in French].
[32].
See (a) Michael Graille, ibid. Also see (b) Eric Perisse, Effets
des Ondes Electromagnètiques et des Champs Magnètiques sur le Cancer et la
Trypanosomiase Experimentale [Effects of Electromagnetic Waves and Magnetic
Fields on Cancer and Experimental Trypanosomias], Doctoral thesis,
University of Bordeaux No. 83, March 16, 1984.
[33].
A. Prioré, Guérison de la Trypanosomiase Expérimentale Aiguë et Chronique
par L’action Combinée de Champs Magnétiques et D’Ondes Electromagnétiques
Modulés. [Healing of intense and chronic experimental trypanosomiasis by
the combined action of magnetic fields and modulated electromagnetic waves],
thesis submitted in candidacy for the doctoral degree, 1973. Thanks to the
late Christopher Bird, the present author has the actual thesis document
submitted by Prioré and rejected by the University.
[34].
Tom Van Flandern, “The speed of gravity – What the experiments say,”
Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 8-9.
[35].
(a) D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, "Equilibrium microstates which generate
second law violating steady states," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 50, 1994, p.
1645-1648; (b) D. J. Evans, D. J. Searles, and E.
Mittag, "Fluctuation theorem for Hamiltonian systems: Le Chatelier's
principle, Phys. Rev. E., Vol. 63, 2001, 051105/1-4; (c) D. J.
Evans, E. G. D. Cohen, and G. P. Morriss, "Probability of second law
violations in Nonequilibrium steady states," Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol.
71, 1993, p. 2401-2404; "Erratum", ibid., Vol. 71, 1993, p. 3616; (d)
G. M. Wang, E. M. Sevick, Emil Mittag, Debra J. Searles, and Denis J. Evans,
"Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales," Phys. Rev. Lett.,
89(5), 29 July 2002, 050601.
Psychotronics
Articles
Select
the Subject You Wish To Study:
|