The Science behind the Paranormal - Tom Bearden

The Science behind the Paranormal  - by Tom Bearden

Tom Bearden - Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:00:24 -0600

Dear Wendy and Graham,

At an earlier age, I put in some 15 years of hard study into anomalous phenomena, including investigation and strange phenomena of just about all kinds. We eventually got what I regarded as a “few” answers or tentative answers, but raised still more questions than answers. Since I had some years of aikido etc., there were also experiences sometimes occurring which could not be explained by normal material science or electrical science. We did attend a “metal bending party” by Dr. Jack Houck, and my wife and I – as well as lots of other folks there – did successfully bend metal by merely stroking it gently with one finger or between two fingers. Mechanically, there was absolutely no way that could have happened. But then neither could the cold molding being demonstrated by some Russian scientists, whom I directed some British associates to. The Russians easily made metal into liquid at room temperature, without heating, and just poured it into molds and waited for the effect that had dissolved the lattice bonds to wear off, so the metal hardened again. This was the way, e.g., they were pouring the terribly thick titanium hulls of their subs. I also furnished an explanation of the mechanism (how the lattice bond forces were dissolved), but it appeared the British were not ready to believe it.


Related: Confidential files about PSI - ESP

Next thing I knew, the whole ball of wax was highly classified by the Brits, and apparently still is. But the Russian scientists did come to Britain in person, and they did flatly demonstrate there some very interesting things, including cold molding, Tesla’s “massive power down a single wire”, etc. It goes without saying that proper U.S. agency folks attended those demonstrations as well.

During all those years we were investigating anomalous phenomena, we were also intensely following the developing Russian superweapons work, and the demonstrations and testing incidents in that area as well. Contrary to popular view, there are hundreds of reported incidents of these weapons tests worldwide, including the test of Russian weapons right here in the U.S. (against NASA shuttle launches from Cape Canaveral, Minuteman launches, kill of the Arrow DC-8 at Newfoundland, etc.). We even published a picture of the Russian practice weapon strike offset from a U.S. shuttle launch at Cape Canaveral in November 1985, and that was the same weapon that killed the Arrow DC-8 at Gander Newfoundland two weeks latter, with more than 250 on board. The Soviets were actually preparing for full war in 1986, and were not hesitating to commit hostile acts. A little friendly nation saved our collective bacon the next year, 1986, or the Soviets would have destroyed us in 1986. And so on. The so-called “Cold” War was never quite as cold as it was made out, or as the news media believed.

A close colleague, Joe Gambill (now sadly deceased), also highly developed and did tremendous experiments with the type of abnormal photography that Trevor Constable used for a while. The notion is that, by blanking out the visible spectrum between the IR and UV, but having the lens open to IR and UV selected for one harmonic interval, one has just found a way to filter in one harmonic interval of the internal electrodynamics comprising normal EM fields and potentials, as shown by Whittaker in 1903 and 1904. Photos taken by that process can reveal some very unusual things that normal photography and instruments never see. (Interestingly, there is again some activity in the popular press, by the invention of ways to “see through walls and matter” etc. The “internal longitudinal EM wave” stuff comes through the matter anyway, since matter is a wonderful superhighway for the transmission of longitudinal EM waves. So with the right detectors on the other end, one can indeed “see through walls” and “see through intervening objects such as buildings”, etc. The patented Fogal transistor, e.g., could be used in video cameras that were capable of “focusing” at ranges beyond intervening objects masking the normal “view”, so that those distant but “hidden” objects could be photographed and viewed. Back there quite a ways, I also found a very fine scientist, Dr. William Tiller, former head of the materials science department at Stanford, who had experimented intensely with such photography, and had also obtained rigorous but rather astounding results.

The major problem in everything we looked into, wound up being the incredible inadequacy of the standard electrodynamics we are all taught in university, particularly in electrical engineering. No way could it explain the EM phenomenology in either field – the “strange phenomena” field or the superweapons field.

Eventually we slowly and painfully started seeking out and compiling what appeared to be known (though sometimes obscured in the literature) flaws in the CEM/EE model. We continue along that line even today. Many of those flaws have been pointed out by eminent scientists (such as Wheeler, Nobelist Feynman, Bunge, etc.) but our own scientific leadership such as National Science Foundation, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Department of Energy, national laboratories, and universities simply will not correct this archaic CEM/EE that is still taught to all our electrical engineers. Indeed, to my knowledge none of those agencies or groups has even published the results of a rigorous investigation to list the specific foundations assumptions in the horrid old CEM/EE model, then point out which ones are known to be false because modern physics in the intervening century since that model was formulated has discovered many additional things.

A few of the major problems with the CEM/EE model are:

The model assumes:

1. A flat local spacetime environment, falsified since 1916.

2. An inert local vacuum environment, falsified since at least 1930.

3.  A static material ether filling all space -- falsified since 1877.

4. That every EM field, EM potential, and joule of observable EM energy in the universe is and has been freely produced by its associated source charges. So far okay. But it also assumes that this steady outpouring of real photons and thus real EM energy from every charge or dipolarity, occurs without any input of energy at all from the external vacuum environment or the external curved spacetime environment, because of assumptions one and two, and indeed there is no observable input of energy detectable by any instrument as is well known. 

5.  No input of virtual state energy to the source charge, and no mention of the charge’s consumption of positive entropy in the virtual state to provide its continuous production of negative entropy in the observable state. Therefore the CEM/EE model falsely assumes that every EM field, EM potential, and joule of observable EM energy in the universe is freely created (by the source charges) out of nothing at all -- in total violation of the conservation of energy law. In short, the CEM/EE model thus assumes a ubiquitous and rather universal violation of the conservation of energy law. Either the conservation of energy law is false, or there must be the necessary nonobservable (virtual state) energy input, and then that requires falsifying the present old second law of thermodynamics. Note we have indeed falsified the second law (starting from a system in equilibrium, if the system is then excited (lowering its entropy) so it can then decay and produce entropy, and does so, the second law describes the entropic decay of the nonequilibrium state, back to equilibrium, but it forbids the previous negative entropy operation that excited the system in the first place. The old second law is thus an oxymoron assuming its own self-contradiction has previously occurred. We have therefore corrected and extended the second law to account for that initial unaccounted negative entropy operation, so that now the new second law is consistent with experiment and with nature. It also now includes all the previously accepted violations (such as sharp gradients, memory of materials, transient fluctuations, etc.).

6. That Lorentz symmetry exists and is continuously maintained in the dynamics of its circuits and systems, so that Lorentz invariant equations (much simpler equations) can be used to describe the systems and their dynamics. That assumption excludes all permissible Maxwellian systems that violate Lorentz symmetry and thus cannot be described by Lorentz-invariant equations. Hence if implemented in the circuits and systems, this enforced assumption guarantees that the COP<1.0 because it makes the back emf of the circuit equal to the forward emf. The forward emf powers the external loads and losses of the system, so some of that "half" of the available power is lost in the system losses. That means that less than half the available energy gets out as power in the loads, even if the loads themselves are 100% efficient (which they are not). The other half of the available energy collected in the external circuit is dissipated to force the current backwards through the back emf inside the generator and between its terminals. That is work inside the generator to power the scattering and destruction of its dipolarity, thereby cutting off the free flow from that dipolarity of the extracted real EM energy from the vacuum. Consequently, to resume operation, we have to restore the dipolarity, and in a 100% efficient generator that requires as much shaft energy input as was used on the dipolarity to destroy it. So the operator always has to input more shaft horsepower, to power restoring the dipolarity that he also builds the stupid circuit to destroy. If X is half the total energy that was collected in the external circuit, the operator has to input at least X energy to keep restoring the dipole, while the external circuit has Y other internal losses, meaning that X-Y energy is furnished to the load to power it. If the load and generator are 100% efficient systems, this guarantees a system whose overall thermodynamic COP = (X - Y)/X. Since Y>0 in any practical system, then COP<1.0. And that is due to the arbitrary actions of CEM/EE engineers in design and building of systems. It is not due to any law of nature or law of physics or law of thermodynamics. In short, we pay the present power companies to engage in a fruitless wrestling match inside their generators and lose.

7. Uses the ubiquitous closed current loop circuit, with the source of freely flowing potential (and thereby potential energy) from the vacuum wired into the external circuit as a load while the current in said circuit is flowing. That rather stupid practice implements the entire severely limited and arbitrarily restricted operational regime described briefly in assumption #6.

8. Arbitrarily discards all accounting of the giant Heaviside curled energy flow that accompanies every accounted Poynting energy flow, but usually does not interact with anything and does nothing (so long as the local spacetime is nearly flat). The magnitude of the unaccounted Heaviside energy flow component is on the order (roughly) of a trillion times the magnitude of the accounted Poynting energy flow component. That means that an automobile battery actually outputs enough energy flow to power New York City, were it all captured and interacted and utilized. To the contrary of opinion, it is possible to force part of the Heaviside energy flow to interact after all. Without understanding the thermodynamics of the mechanism that occurs, the scientists working in "negative resonance absorption of the medium" since 1967 are doing just that. At IR or UV, standard experiments produce 18 times as much usable energy radiated from the absorbing medium, as the operator puts into it with his accounted Poynting energy flow component. Of course he also unwittingly inputs that enormous Heaviside component, and that gives him plenty of extra available energy. The scientists cannot explain it except in terms of "increased reaction cross section" and "negative resonance absorption", because the standard definition of the E-field is point intensity of the force field created in static charged matter (with a static unit point charge -- with mass -- assumed at every point in space). By simply inputting the energy at a given frequency (say, IR), onto a medium that has charged particles (in this case, charged dielectric particles) cut to size so that they go into self-oscillation at the IR frequency, that oscillating charge sweeps out a greater geometrical reaction cross section in the set of energy flows that comprise any EM field in space (Whittaker 1903 and 1904). Hence the same charge now intercepts and diverges more EM energy than that charge would do in static condition, and so the particulate self-resonant medium absorbs 18 times as much energy as the operator (with the puerile static charge collection assumption) assumes he inputs. As you can see, there's a real foundations mess spread across physics in the "electromagnetic interactions" area. And that spreads on into chemistry, etc.

9. That EM force fields exist in mass-free (empty) space (note that this "logically follows" from the false assumption of a thin material static ether filling all space, but is still false because it reasons from a false premise). That is false, and no EM force fields exist in space, as has been pointed out by eminent physicists (e.g., Feynman, who points out in his three volumes of sophomore physics that only the potential to make a force field exists, should some charged matter be made available and interacted with). Mass is a component of force. Since a definition requires an identity statement rather than an equation, take the identity equation of F => dp/dt = d/dt(mv) where I use the => as an identity symbol due to the plain text. By expanding d/dt(mv), one has a mass component existing in both terms. Hence that demonstrates that mass is a component of force. Forces exist only in and of mass system dynamics. They cannot and do not exist in the presence of mass. Instead, a force-free precursor  exists in space – a precursor of that force  that will be created in charged mass, once the massless and force-free field in space is interacting with it. That precursor, e.g., is merely a change in the local virtual particle flux of the vacuum (if you prefer the particle physics view), or a change in the local curvature of spacetime (if you prefer the relativity view). In short, we hopefully have also answered Feynman's complaint that we really do not know what "energy" is. Now, if we are careful and follow the example shown by the Soviets, energy can ultimately be defined as a change in the local curvature of spacetime or as a change in the local virtual particle flux of the vacuum.  The EM force field can now be accurately defined as the ongoing interaction of the precursor EM energy field in space with charged static mass. As an example, for the E-field he point intensity of that interaction with static mass is E = F/q. Voila! Now the nature of the behavior of that interacting mass also affects the total "magnitude" of the EM force fields (and their dynamic energy) resulting.

10. That "static" EM fields and potentials exist and are associated with static charges and dipoles. That is false if we mean "absolutely static", since all EM fields and potentials are dynamic sets of energy flows (Whittaker 1903 and 1904, as augmented by modern scientists such as Ziolkowski). Any so-called "static" EM field is actually a NESS (nonequilibrium steady state) system, continually created and replenished by the steady outflow of real observable photons at light speed, from the static charge or dipolarity. Easily shown experimentally. For the word "static" one must use Van Flandern's analogy of an unfrozen waterfall, where every molecule component is in continuous motion through the waterfall pattern or volume. The pattern in space appears static, but nothing in the system is static. If we think the waterfall is frozen, that is not what a "static" field is. That "unfrozen waterfall analogy" of course is a good analogy of a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) thermodynamic system -- which is what an EM field or potential actually is.

The jist of all that is that the “subtle energies” and “subtle fields” (or other terminology) used from time to time are actually describing aspects of nature’s vastly extended electrodynamics, that are not in our present CEM/EE textbooks at all.

The Russian highly classified work to correct our present EM and to thus go beyond it to a much higher EM, is known as “energetics” and it has been very successful for them. (Most of our guys still have not the foggiest notion as to what energetics is all about, or even what it is). This has been the basis for the development of the superweapons, with aspects of it – usually under other names – now in quite a few nations in their own weapons programs.

It is obvious that the superweapons are there, because they have been tested and used in occasional confrontations for some decades.

The point is, such science could also be used for the great benefit of humankind, instead of just for its detriment. But presently, it’s being used for killing folks, and preparing to kill them on a scale undreamed of before.

So we’ve tried to focus on using parts of it to get at obtaining useful EM energy from the vacuum, and to some extent for medical healing mechanisms. But honestly, to make much of a dent in the present scientific ansatz, it will require a tremendous team of scientists and also rather substantial funding – and then some years of struggle and conflict with the prevailing dogma.

Isn’t it sad, when one is attacked as a “perpetual motion nut” as a “knee-jerk reaction” to the mere mention of electrical systems taking their energy from the vacuum? Perpetual motion is supposed to be the epitome of foolishness – when it fact it is Newton’s first law. Place an object or system into a state of motion, and it will remain forever in that state of motion unless and until some external force is brought in to forcefully change it into a different state of motion. Then that SECOND one is eternal, until the intervention of an outside force again. Further, in any good university, solid state physics students in their sophomore year actually perform valid perpetual motion experiments in their laboratory work. A superconducting current induced into a superconducting ring, will then circulate perpetually unless interrupted by an external intervention. Some have been kept circulating and observed for multiple years. The calculations – best statistical estimates that can be made – usually yield a “half-life” of some 10exp23 years for that current. That means that to the BEST of our knowledge and ability to estimate it, it will reduce by half only in 10exp23 years. The age of the present universe is believed to be about 1.4 x 10exp10 years. So that silly current will go for an incredible period of time that is many, many orders of magnitude greater than the presently accepted age of the observable universe.

And researchers in energy-from-the-vacuum systems are still being attacked as “perpetual motion nuts”! In the century that researchers have been “branded” with that “perpetual motion nut” label, it appears that not a single “skeptic” has ever before did a simple sophomore logic analysis on the standard statement asserting that perpetual motion is the same thing as a machine doing continuous work without any energy input. The standard statement, as I showed, contains a true premise and a false premise, then arbitrarily equates the two and claims that this then proves the false premise. In short, a simple logical non sequitur.

There are many other examples of the dogmatic defense of the status quo, but you can see what I mean. 

These days, life for me is much more limited, so I confine what little work I can do to the energy field, and a little sometimes for the potential medical applications. Those I think are the most pressingly needed beneficial things that could be developed, if it were simply funded at the doctoral thesis level and the young post doctoral level. If our scientific community would permit and fund our young doctoral candidates and post docs to work in these two fields – and to dramatically correct and overhaul and extend the sad old CEM/EE model, then in two to three years there would never again be an energy problem anywhere. And medical science would be off and running with the breathtaking mechanism the cellular regenerative system uses for healing in our own bodies – and with amplification of that mechanism for very quick healing of most dread diseases etc.

Alas! We tried very hard in 1998 to get the U.S. government to go into a crash development in that medical arena, for effective and prompt treatment of the coming mass casualties once the terrorists go into their operations phase in heartland U.S. Sadly, we got nowhere at all. No one knew what we were talking about, and no one cared. The prevailing attitude was that, yes, anthrax and smallpox and all that is in the threat, but it won’t happen on our watch, maybe in 2050 or some such. Etc. Etc. Etc.

But anyway, we continue to do what we can, in anyway we can, and we are leaving as much written down as we can for the young scientists now coming on in our universities. I must say that as a nation we have as sharp a group of youngsters now as this nation has ever produced. All that is necessary is to give them a little funding, and let them work these vital problems without destroying their careers if they even dare suggest a program of such work. Given a chance, they can and will quickly get the job done.

So we will see what happens. Meanwhile, the terrorists recently have changed from the two-decades-long insertion phase of asymmetric war against us, to the final operations phase. The appalling tsunamis in Indonesia and Asia are the result of the first test operations. More are to come.

The next two to three years will therefore likely determine whether we live or die as an entire nation. The scientific dogmatists and defenders of the status quo can sit there smugly if they wish, and they themselves will go down with the ship if it sinks. At this point, it appears that our fate again lies in the hands of another friendly country that previously saved our bacon in the late 1970s, in 1986, twice in 1997, and at the end of 1999 and first few days of 2000.

One thing is certain. We shall see very shortly whether or not they can pull our bacon out of the fire one more time. If not, we will simply fry and that will be that.

Best wishes,
Tom Bearden