Applied Scalar Wave Technology - Tom Bearden interview 2of8

Transcript

And uh the moment we have that uh situation we know that we have broken symmetries everywhere. There's tremendous exchanges between the local vacuum activity energy and the actual chemistry itself. So uh that's been falsified. the fact that there was no such activity that's been falsified now for almost 50 years in physics particularly with the award of the Nobel Prize to Lean Yang for broken uh for the discovery prediction of broken symmetry in 1957. It was so profound to change the physics that they awarded the prize the same year it was proven by Woo and crew earlier that year that later that year they awarded the Nobel Prize.

I mean it was a profound revolution in physics. It hasn't quite worked its way into electronamics yet because people keep defending this obsolete model, the U1 model. Now, over in particle physics, where the U1 model often falls up, falls apart and and won't work. And a lot of the esoteric things that are studied in particle physics, they have developed better systems of electromagnetics that don't fall apart. They're called nonabalian electromagnetics.

They use nonabelian sets and so forth and operations instead of the the uh aelion and they are also higher group symmetry. Well, the more variable that a model variable things that a model covers and can model then it can model a greater number of phenomena. uh if you have one that's very limited in its variability in in prime key areas then I'll take all the reactions that is that fits that model there will still be other interactions occurring from the other things it does not consider or even contain and you will have to go to the higher model to explain those models are there they are built they're available and they are unified field theory models okay let me introduce you to another concept If you hear someone talking in the type of work you're doing and they're talking about system analysis, that's the wrong term. They must use something that means super system analysis. Now, let me precisely define the superystem.

The super system consists of the normal system. So that is assuming that flat spacetime and no interaction with the vacuum and its dynamics like in the standard model. It also includes the second component which is the local active vacuum and its set of interactions with that system. All the charges, all the dipoles, all the dipolarities. The third component is the local curvatures of spacetime.

We already know that a curvature of spaceime interacts on all the masses where they charge or not in the entire system. And all three components of the super system interact with each other. If you have not done a super system analysis from at least a set of models or one model that's capable of doing that, the the uh phenomena that's represented by those experiments has not been analyzed. There's no need to examine it in the same model you've already got that says it can't happen. That's foolish.

If it is happening and you can prove it's happening, you've got to look for a model that allows it to happen. It's as simple as that. The models exist, but not many people work in them. You'll have to go to some for electronamics you would have to go somebody to someone like Amirin Evans uh using 03 group symmetry electromagnetics to Sax who has a very successful theory of unified field theory that is engineerable or to something like Barrett's higher symmetry SU2 group symmetry electronamics all of those systems are capable of modeling what you're doing uh none of the standard models are capable of modeling these set of experiments none which explains the resistance resistance that we're getting. The resistance you're getting is because unfortunately in the present scientific community, the present climate uh we have gone to a point where we declare the model to be perfect so to speak.

It becomes a fundamentalist kind almost a religion. It's a we would say dogma in science when we defend the model in spite of the experiments that refute it. That's dogma. That's scientific dogma. That's the technical definition.

But unfortunately the reaction of uh most of the scientific community is precisely that. Now they do have a right to demand careful experiments. They do have a right to demand replicable experiments. They do not have a right under the scientific method to then insist that you're wrong and the experiments wrong and the model is correct. What has just been presented to them is the reputation in a certain area of phenomena that does not fit their model.

It doesn't say you throw away the model. you use it for all the other stuff. But in this new area, you cannot use that model. And people trying to judge this area from the standpoint of that model are not valid judges at all. And it's the place so rigid because everyone in even uh undergraduates in physics understand the coexistence between Newtonian and Einsteinian principles.

When Einstein came along, it didn't mean that that for certain uh very basic physical phenomenon that you threw out all of your Newtonian equations. If you're going to build a house, you need Newtonian physics. You don't need general relativity. But if you're if you're going to like in an old vacuum tube, if you're going to calculate what actual voltage is generated when the electrons accelerate and hit the plate, you're going to have to take special relativity into account. And if you get into very esoteric situations like plasmas and everything like that, very rapid discharges, very high energy, you're going to have to take general relativity into account.

If you don't, you won't get the right answer. the model does not contain the right answer. Here's a here's a fundamental pillar that we happen to be meddling with wittingly or unwittingly that's causing a lot of angst among chemists that we talk to in the world of chemistry. The idea of properties, the idea of distinctive properties is closely connected to the chemical model. Now what we're doing here is we're taking situations where by applying scalar wave technology we're actually changing the the the properties which these chemicals manifest without changing the chemical itself.

Modern chemistry says that's not possible. That's that's a that's readily explained but not in their model. Let me give you an explanation of it. Uh first of all there are several things that have to be faced. The standard U1 electronamics and quantum electronamics have one serious flaw in them.

One terrible flaw. They have absolutely no solution to what's called the source charge problem. Now we assume from Maxon that the fields and the potentials come from charges generated by charges and including all the energy in them. Now the field and the potential if the charge has been around long enough may reach across all space. If it's been around only a short time it reaches out at a radius of you know whatever is determined by the speed of light.

But anytime I have a charge or I have a dipole I produce them suddenly on in the laboratory at a little point they start to radiate electromagnetic energy in all directions. Observable energy in three space at the speed of light and that continues so long as the charge of dipole exists. That's giant neg entropy. Forget it. It's negotropy.

Now we have a problem because of that. That makes the energy pouring out establishes all the fields. And let me be specific because people have to be specific. If I make suddenly the dipole or the charge in the laboratory and I have a set of very precise instruments, let's play perfect. Let's play God in the Gdakan experiment and I have the instruments every one along a radial line out across the universe.

every 1 second of time of the travel of electromagnetic energy in a flat space. Okay. The moment and suppose I make this charge or dipole instantly 1 second later the first instrument will read and that reading will remain. It's not a pulse front but not just a disturbance that passed it because if that were true the after the disturbance pass the instrument would return to zero. It does not.

If it's a field energy detectant, it remains at a certain value of the field and the field energy density. If it's a potential energy density detector, it remains at that value that it took once it once it read another second later, the second instrument reads and remains and so forth right on across the universe if you wait long enough. In other words, you prove conclusively this thing is pouring out energy continuously in three space. Now, regardless of what instruments you set up, you can find absolutely no input in energy in three space to the charge or to the dipole. Well, we got a problem like uh in the space industry now Houston, we have a problem.

It's called the source charge problem. It's called the problem of the association of the fields and potentials with their source charges. You know, how do you explain all that energy continuously pouring out and making those fields and producing those fields and potentials reaching on out across the universe and nobody put any energy in there after you made the thing or produced it? Made a little bit of energy and a lot of energy keeps going for the rest of time. So, how do you explain that? Well, let's think very simply. We either have to give up entirely the conservation of energy law because we now have creation of energy by the source charge and source dipole.