Re: Searl Rotation, Sweet VTA, Negative electricity

Jerry W. Decker ( (no email) )
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 01:12:33 -0500

Hi Doug et al!

This morning about 1:10AM, I got this back from Tom Bearden on his
reading your post;
------------------
Hi Jerry,
Thanks for the info. Doug is quite close to the effect involved, but
still a little off. Here's just a bit of explanation; will prepare more
sometime in the future (horribly busy right now).

Go back to where the notions of electromagnetics were formed, when
Maxwell was studying Faraday's work with Faraday, and putting it
together. At that time, the atom had not been discovered and neither
had the electron. "Charge" meant something quite different that it does
today. It was just a piece of "electrical fluid," much like a cubic
centimeter, etc. That's all it meant!

Also, to those old guys, there was no place in all the universe where
mass was absent. All of space was thought to be filled with a thin
material fluid - the luminiferous ether (material ether). Electricity
flow through a conductor was just rather like water or thin fluid flow
through a pipe. The EM disturbances in space were actually the material
disturbances of the ether.

I.e., what we call "EM waves" in space today, was MATERIAL WAVES.

Faraday thought his "lines of forces" were therefore thin material
"strings" under tensile stress. (He just assumed the stress right out
of nowhere). He thought that EM disturbances in space were just the
"twanging of those physical strings." THAT's where the notion of the
"transverse wave in vacuum" came from. Maxwell bought it, and just
changed those taut strings to taut "tubes" of force, where these tubes
were still material.

So when they saw the "electric fluid" in the wire (we would say antenna
today), that fluid was shaking sideways. That's really because the
spinning electrons cannot move down the wire hardly at all (nominally in
a simple circuit they move at about 4 or 5 inches per hour
longitudinally down the wire).

So they precess like gyros. When pushed longitudinally down the wire,
they precess laterally to the surface, and only occasionally "slip" a
little longitudinally. Since all our instruments measure these electron
precession waves, then we "measure" transverse waves -- but they are the
electron precession waves, NOT the disturbance that came in from the
vacuum.

By eliminating the agent providing the tension in the "strings" or
'"tubes" of force, Maxwell eliminated (erroneously) Newton's third law
from electrodynamics -- and it's still missing today. He eliminated one
half the energy and one half the wave actually produced when you
transmit an EM wave.

Let me explain:

Today, we know about the atom and its nucleus, and the positive charges
down in the nucleus. Those positive charges are electromagnetically
coupled to the electron shells. For simplicity, visualize a set of
dynamic dipoles, where the negative end is an electron in one of the
shells, and the positive end is a proton down in the nucleus.

Now when you disturb that electron end, you also couple to the positive
end. It moves exactly opposite to how the electron moves, in a given
field disturbance.

In the Drude electron gas, some of the electrons (in copper,
approximately one per atom on the average) has broken loose from the
atom and is enroute to hitting another one to grab. But the Drude gas
is still coupled to the nuclei, just statistically. So now we speak of
"statistical" dipoles, but dipoles nonetheless.

The end result is that, in a transmitting wire antenna, when you disturb
the Drude electrons with so much energy, you also disturb the protons
with equal and opposite energy, but antiparallel.

Since the nuclei are so much heavier than an equal charge of electrons,
the nuclei waves (disturbances) are highly damped in amplitude -- but
they are still of EQUAL ENERGY disturbances as the electron gas
disturbances.

In electrodynamics, this "nuclear disturbance" always occuring with
equal energy and in opposite direction from the Drude electron gas wave,
has just been ignored and is omitted from the theory. When pressed, the
physicists say, "Oh yes, we know about that, that is just Newton's third
law."

Well, the perturbation agent is what CAUSES Newton's third law, and it's
always part of electrodynamics.

So when you launch a wave from an antenna, the Drude electrons slap the
vacuum laterally (after all, go to particle physics; they are COUPLED to
the vacuum by intense virtual photon exchange, out to the end of the
universe). So when they wiggle laterally, they perturb that entire
vacuum flux laterally.

However, at the same time the protons in the nuclei perturb it in the
opposite direction with equal energy. In the vacuum, that disturbance
of the protons, being equal energy reverts to equal amplitude.

Now put those two waves together. You have an expansion perturbation
outwards in the flux, and a compression inwards simultaneously. You get
a wave of compression and rarefaction of the photon flux density of
vacuum. That's a LONGITUDINAL disturbance, rather like a sound wave.

Any medium, when perturbed, oscillates according to its own
characteristics.

So once perturbed by this compression and rarefaction wave, the flux
density of the vacuum is what is "oscillating". This is NOT a force or
force field oscillation contrary to electrodynamics. Electrodynamics
HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO SAY ABOUT WHAT FORM EM ENTITIES EXIST IN, IN SPACE
DEVOID OF MASS.

Everything in your textbook (potential, field, and wave) are totally
defined upon some point coulomb of charge and unit point mass, assumed
at each and every point of the vacuum! That's the MATERIAL ether
assumption, the one that was destroyed by the Michelson-Morley
experiments in the 1880s (after Maxwell was already dead).

Well, the EQUATIONS of Maxwell ASSUME that mass in all of space, so to
those fellows the equations described HOW THE ETHER MASS MOVED AND WAS
PERTURBED AND EFFECTED.

Let me speak rigorously.

Electrodynamics equations consist ONLY of mass-to-mass transforms.
There are two major transforms MISSING from the equations. They are:
(1) the mass-to-spacetime (i.e., mass to vacuum) transform, and the
follow-on (2) spacetime-to-mass transform.

In other words, electrodynamics equations consist only of the
mass-to-mass transforms, where each mass-to-mass transform CONSISTS OF
two hidden, infolded transforms: the mass-to-spacetime transform and the
spacetime-to-mass transform.

Voila! Here is magic; let him who has ears hear. What is general
relativity?

All of general relativity is nothing but just those two missing
transforms!

You know, Wheeler's principle of relativity: mass (energy) tells
spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells mass (energy) how to
move. Well, allow for structured mass, and it becomes: structured mass
(structured energy) tells spacetime how to curve and internest
additional curvature structures inside that overall curvature.
Internested curvatures of spacetime tell mass how to structure and move
at all its levels.

So what has prevented the union of EM and GR till now, is that properly,
GR must be infolded inside EM! And that is what got left out of
electrodynamics.

Blunt truth is, for every current you have in the electron gas in a
wire, you also have an equal and opposite energy current running through
the nuclei, where all the nuclei are considered as a special kind of
lattice. Here is what Doug's "negative electricity" really is. Since
the charge is phase conjugated (time reversed) then what diverges to the
electrons, converges to the nuclei. Heating in one is cooling in the
other, etc. But this "energy current through the nuclei" is a general
relativistic current of the curvature of spacetime (in GR terms). But
it's also good electrodynamics -- just the kind that Maxwell and
everyone since him have left out.

Now due to their mass, the nuclei interactions exhibit "overshoot", when
viewed as servomechanism responses. During all overshoot in their
perturbation, that amount of energy can be "had" for free. It's also
"negative" kind of energy, so you can use it to get gravitational
effects.

Remember, when we add this current, we have actually added GR infolded
inside EM. We are using a unified field theory. But it's still EM,
just a dramatically extended EM.

And that also restores Newton's third law to electrodynamics. It was
always there, it just got eliminated erroneously by Maxwell and those
before him. I still find it eerie that all the electrical folks, in
countless experiments for all the decades since the discovery of the
nucleus, observe in each experiment

(1) the undescribed EM perturbing entity come in and interact
with the wire antenna,
(2) detect the resulting disturbance of the electrons as electron
precession waves, in all their instruments,
(3) admit (and observe if they use special instruments) the
simultaneous recoil of the nuclei with equal energy but damped
amplitude, AND YET say that the electron disturbance was
caused by the interacting vacuum disturbance, but the
nuclear disturbance was not!

They have thrown away -- and continue to do so -- exactly half the wave,
half the energy, and half the action. Or, they have invoked a "mystical
demon" known as Newton's third law, to come in there out of nowhere and
"shake up that nucleus".

He's a smart demon, because he always measures the electron disturbance
exactly down to a gnat's eyebrow, and then shakes up that nucleus by
just that precise amount of energy, and he always precisely calibrates
the direction. Hey! 100% correlation is all that "causality" really
is!

Event one happens, event two ALWAYS happens, is pure causality. Why did
we discard that in electrodynamics?

The energy current flow through the nuclei (I'm still not decided on a
proper good name for it), can be used to provide energy from the
vacuum, as Sweet did in his VTA. Since it involves "negative" energy
vis a vis the accepted EM energy we measure in the electron gas, it also
can be utilized to provide antigravitational effects -- as Sweet did in
his antigravity experiment at my strong urging. We then got a paper
published in IECEC on that experiment.

However, Sweet was mortally afraid (he was threatened repeatedly, and
once was shot at with a silenced rifle). He was always afraid to go
forward with the device, although he also wished to and would always
plan on it. But he never could do that, because of his fear. So he
never did anything with it.

His fear was fully justified, but that is another thing that has no
bearing on this discussion.

I suspect Searle may have tapped into the same "missing current and
missing energy flow", and be using it for antigravity effects. However,
I have not studied his work in detail, so do not feel qualified to
comment upon it. It speaks for itself.

But to me, he is describing a different way to get at using the same
"negative energy flow" that is omitted from electrodynamics in modern
theory, but is present in nature's electrodynamics and in fact in all
the experiments.

Perhaps this helps in the discussions you have on the net just now.
Doug was quite close, and certainly I believe his intuition is on the
right track.

Best wishes and keep up the good work,
Cheers,
Tom Bearden

--                Jerry W. Decker  /   jdecker@keelynet.com          http://keelynet.com   /  "From an Art to a Science"       Voice : (214) 324-8741   /   FAX :  (214) 324-3501   KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187