AOH :: POLARIZE.TXT
A paper by Rick Andersen. The polarized nature of EM waves tends to confirm that EM is transverse, not longitudinal ala Tesla/Bearden.
|
(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2)
Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
PO BOX 1031
Mesquite, TX 75150
There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS
on duplicating, publishing or distributing the
files on KeelyNet except where noted!
April 2, 1993
POLARIZE.ASC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This excellent file shared with KeelyNet courtesy of Rick Andersen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
POLARIZE.ASC
by Rick Andersen, April 5, 1993
This file is an account of some of my investigations into what is
popularly known as Scalar Electromagnetics, specifically as
conceptualized by Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden (ret.), Huntsville,
Alabama. This file assumes that you are already familiar with
Bearden's works as published by Tesla Book Company and as listed on
many of the BBS's. But a brief synopsis of his views are presented
for the benefit of those who are not familiar with Bearden's
writings.
Tom Bearden's version of electromagnetics is a direct challenge to
the electromagnetics that physicists and electronics engineers are
taught.
His understanding of EM, if correct, would open up a vast new
physics in which reality itself could be manipulated in ways that we
in this last decade of the 20th century can still only call
"magical".
As an electronics tech with a broad interest in "fringe science" in
general and in such things as the Philadelphia Experiment in
particular, I have had to familiarize myself with several
"unconventional" ideas and hypotheses.
Tom Bearden's Scalar Electromagnetics could explain many
"paranormal" mysteries in terms of a scientific model. We need to
evaluate his work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TOM BEARDEN'S SCALAR ELECTROMAGNETICS
Very briefly, Bearden's main points of disagreement with classical
EM are these:
* Quantum physicists consider the Potentials in the vacuum to be
the primary causal agents. Force fields (E and B fields) are
EFFECTS of the interference of potentials. Classical EM has it
the other way around:
Page 1
Force fields CAUSE and potentials are the (abstract) EFFECTS.
It may seem to be an ivory-tower semantics game, but if Bearden
and Quantum Physics are right, the implications are tremendous.
* Classical EM fails to distinguish between CHARGE and CHARGED
MASS. The classical EM man says "Show me some 'charge' without
some mass to contain that charge!" Bearden replies, "Define for
me what charge is!
You can't. You confuse charged mass with charge itself. Ditto
with most other fundamental definitions in Physics, such as
Vector, Energy, Mass, Vacuum, etc." Bearden EQUATES Massless
Charge, Potential, Vacuum, Spacetime, 'Ether', Virtual Photon
Flux.
* Classical EM describes the Electric and Magnetic "fields" in
terms of Vectors and Scalars. On the simplest level, a vector
is an abstract way of describing something in terms of its
MAGNITUDE and DIRECTION. Like "one mile due North". A scalar
is described by MAGNITUDE ONLY.
Like the temperature of the air in your living room, or the
pressure of a gas inside a flask. Of course, Bearden expands on
these definitions considerably.
Bearden claims that history has pulled a fast one on us:
What we call 'Maxwell's Equations' are in fact not his equations
at all! Maxwell, says Bearden, wrote his equations in
QUATERNIONS, a complex number system devised by the
mathematician Hamilton, which involved "multi-dimensional" math.
On this basis, Maxwell's ORIGINAL EM theory is said to have had
implications for more than our three spatial dimensions; TIME as
the supposed FOURTH dimension would enter the equations, and, as
Bearden claims, had the original quaternion theory been left
intact, Einstein might have found his long sought-after
Unification of EM with Gravitation.
Bearden says of quaternions what Italians say about Prego
spaghetti sauce: "IT'S IN THERE!!"
What is "in there" is the mathematical basis for all of the
magic things we fringe science aficcionados have always wanted
proof of: the means to produce antigravity, time-travel,
teleportation, age and disease regression, etc.
* All of these possibilities, says Bearden, were aborted because
Oliver Heaviside (and to some extent, Willard Gibbs), a late
19th-century physicist, did not understand Maxwell's quaternion
theory, and so he 'cleaned up' the theory, condensing
quaternions into an abbreviated and emaciated "vector" theory,
which still contains a scalar component, but which component is
largely de-emphasized.
And it worked! EM until now has functioned very well, on the
technological level, using the deficient Vector theory. Toward
the latter half of this century, Quantum physicists such as
Feynman began to realize that "Maxwell's" EM (Heaviside's) was
flawed in several respects at its foundations. Among the
Page 2
phenomena that Physics has discovered that Classical EM
apparently fails to account for is the Aharonov-Bohm effect,
which essentially allows action and instantaneous
intercommunication between widely separated particles in some
mysterious way.
* Bearden points to the two seminal papers of mathematician E.T.
Whittaker, written in 1903 and '04, just as Albert Einstein was
about to publish his famous Relativity theory in 1905.
Whittaker's math shows how any scalar potential can be analyzed
and considered to be composed of a harmonic series of
bi-directional waves, flowing into and out of the potential.
Something like our concept of "standing waves" but with some
important differences. Conversely, Whittaker's other paper
shows that any EM wave can be considered to be the effect of
interfering two or more scalar potentials in a given area.
Since these potentials exist in more than our three dimensional
world (as we perceive it), if we know how to properly engineer
and combine such potentials artificially, we can perform some
mighty magical feats, such as to transmit EM energy "around" our
normal spacetime, to have it appear out of nowhere at a distance
from our special transmitter. Much of Bearden's writings go on
to describe (speculate on, actually) ominous Soviet scalar
weaponry based on this technology. (Since the collapse of the
Communist Soviet Union, Bearden's emphasis has shifted toward
the extraction of "free" energy from the vacuum and how diseases
such as cancer and AIDS may be cured using spinoffs of this
Scalar EM.)
* Based on the points mentioned above, Bearden sees an EM wave a
bit differently than did Maxwell. Although he faults the world
for not going back to the REAL Maxwellian quaternion theory, and
thereby continuing to miss the boat that would finally unify EM
with gravitation (which Einstein searched in vain for,
supposedly), yet Bearden departs from his hero Maxwell on the
subject of just what an Electromagnetic wave is; specifically,
whether it propagates TRANSVERSELY or LONGITUDINALLY through the
vacuum. Maxwell, quaternions or not, assumed a transverse EM
wave, because, says Bearden, he assumed a MECHANICAL ETHER, as
did most of the 19th century physicists.
Nikola Tesla, on the other hand, did not agree. Tesla believed
that EM waves propagated longitudinally, as do sound waves in
air, through a gaseous ether.
Bearden emphatically states that, despite popular opinion, Tesla
was right and all of our present physics is wrong on this point.
There are many other points made by Bearden about Scalar
Electromagnetics that differ sharply with the present Classical
EM; I think I have brought out the main ones here. (See
Bearden's works for further detail, especially the file
THEORYBE.ASC on the KeelyNet and other BBS's.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
MY OWN COGITATIONS
Now that I'd spent about a year reading and re-reading Bearden's
papers, and trying to understand just what he was talking about, I
was beginning to ask myself, 'Just how DO we know what we think we
know' in Classical EM? Are some of our "doctrines" just uncorrected
mistakes of history that have achieved sainthood? Probably. After
all, Bearden cites many references from Quantum Physics to support
his views. Of course, QP is not without problems of its own, just
as is every other MODEL of reality. Ah, how painful and
disappointing it had been for me when I first realized that WE KNOW
NOTHING IN THE ABSOLUTE 'TRUTH' SENSE.
All we do is spin elaborate yarns that we call "Models", which we
try to disprove when we are being true scientists, but mostly try to
defend fanatically when we revert back to being regular human
beings.
And yet, these flawed models have enabled us in one century to
conceive and apply a technology that has literally transformed the
world. So we like to keep telling ourselves that we're "getting
there", little by little. Our models may be quite erroneous, but if
they work, we use them until somebody comes along with something
better.
And this is what Tom Bearden is doing, except he is claiming that
his model is NOT something new; it has been around for at least 100
years but we've been too stupid to see it, because we allowed Oliver
Heaviside and his vector oversimplification to blind us.
Well, I've bought a lot of snake oil over the years, and as we all
know, the field of speculative science is overflowing with snake oil
salesmen,' so I try to temper my tendency to rejoice over the
promises of magic with the caution I have had to learn the hard way
by having one 'scheme' after another turn out to be hot air.
Scientific method involves testing any new hypothesis rigorously; if
the promoter of the idea can't take the heat, he shouldn't jump into
the frying pan.
So I found Bearden's telephone number and decided to give him a
call. (I've found that writing is too frustrating: either they're
too busy to answer or they just don't. Either way, you end up
waiting for weeks.)
To my surprise, Tom Bearden seemed more than happy to talk about his
work over the phone. I noticed that he tended to talk so much that
it was sometimes hard to get a word in edgewise, but I appreciated
his willingness to spend time on the phone and figured he might be
able to clarify for me whatever I couldn't understand from his
writings.
We talked of the 'primacy of the Potential', about phase-conjugate
waves in non-linear materials, about his friend Frank Golden who
appears to be a 'silent source' of a lot of his ideas and who has
allegedly built several proprietary scalar devices (no, Bearden
wouldn't tell me anything of substance about them).
My first call to Bearden was sometime in November 1992, if I recall,
and I waited until March '93 to call again, when I had some (I
Page 4
thought) real questions about stuff I couldn't figure out on my own.
I didn't want to abuse his phone hospitality by calling more often.
So the 2nd call was in late March. My question was about his latest
papers on Free Energy - The Final Secret (see KeelyNet files
FREENRG1 & FREENRG2) that had come out around March 16.
The bottom line on free energy was that you needed a "Degenerate
Semi-conductor" between your source of potential (battery, etc.) and
your switching function; from there on to the load you could use
regular conductive copper wiring. Bearden was saying here that the
reason most of the earlier attempts at building "free energy"
devices had given inconclusive results was that none of the previous
inventors were using this "degenerative semiconductor" material that
Bearden had finally figured out was the missing link, after 30 years
of intensive research into the subject.
At this point, of course, I was beginning to wonder just what this
latest revelation meant as regards all of Bearden's PREVIOUS books
announcing free energy inventors and their WORKING devices, happily
extracting free energy from the vacuum.
Hadn't Bearden endorsed John Bedini's battery-motor-generator-
flywheel device, claiming that when the battery electrolyte was
pulsed at the resonant frequency of the ions in it, free energy was
being 'coupled' into the circuit and that the battery was recharging
itself?
There was no mention of any "degenerate semiconductor" material
there. Bearden's advice (in the Introduction to the Bedini book,
available through Tesla Book Co.) was to "have at it" and build the
thing, all of you eager experimenters out there, in order to prove
once and for all to the "establishment" en masse, which "they"
couldn't deny, that free energy extraction is both possible and
practical. (Be careful, though: Your battery will explode if you hit
it too hard with a voltage spike; the hydrogen gas inside is
particular about the magnitude of the charge-pulse. But don't let
that stop you. Let's work out the bugs.)
Then there was Floyd Sweet, Bearden's subject of his 1992 papers.
(See SWEET1-4D.ASC on KeelyNet for further details on this device.)
Sweet allegedly built a device exploiting the properties of
ferromagnetic materials to exhibit non-linear phase-conjugate mirror
properties.
This thing was supposed to have actually levitated off the bench
during a demonstration, but they stopped it before it blew apart
from all that "negative energy" it was producing. No mention of any
degenerate semiconductor here, either. Just the magic of pumped
phase-conjugate mirror theory, integrated into Bearden's earlier
explanations of Scalar Electromagnetics as the engineering of
spacetime stresses.
Hell, I'd be happy to have PROOF that one of these earlier devices
actually levitated or distorted time or recharged itself forever
with no drain on the battery. (How about a demonstration on "20/20"
or full schematics for the Sweet device? Oh, that's right: it's
proprietary!)
Page 5
But now Tom Bearden has even better info -- The Final Secret.
Golly! When that weird metal called Nitinol first came out, eager
experimenters could buy it through mail order. Surely I can expect
to see someone marketing "Tom Bearden's Old Fashioned Degenerate
Semiconductor Elixir" in sample quantities real soon?
My point is, he encourages inventors and tinkerers accross America
to stop believing everything they've been taught in Classical EM and
to go and build "free energy" motors such as Bedini's, because, as
he puts it, he 'cares about that poor little old lady down the block
who is being ripped-off by the Power Companies that be.'
Okay, so now he tells me I'll get erratic results unless I use some
genuine "degenerate semiconductor", such as doped copper wire.
How does a basement tinkerer like me accomplish this? I know, I'll
call and ask. Thus my March phone call.
Bearden's immediate reply was that I needed to "use that mass of
gray matter between my ears" and engage a good materials scientist
to come up with a degenerate semiconductor for me. Oh. I thought I
could put the power company out of business just using parts from
Radio Shack. So no one had ever BUILT a device based on this doped
copper or whatever; it was simply Bearden's latest CONCEPT which
would tend to validate his view of the Potential. Hmm.
A few days later I decided to press my luck and call again. This
time I had been thinking hard (I thought) on just how and why we
traditionally believe in the transverse EM wave, whereas Bearden and
Tesla say, no, there is only a longitudinal wave in the vacuum.
Specifically, I was thinking about POLARIZATION in an EM wave. How
does Bearden's Scalar EM account for the OBSERVATION that EM waves
can be polarized, if polarization is DUE to the ORIENTATION of the E
field which Bearden denies even exists outside your antenna? I
wanted an honest answer to this problem; I was not pursuing this
with an ulterior motive, such as to disprove Bearden. Not at all.
I really wanted to understand. Remember, our Model must
satisfactorily account for all observed phenomena. If another model
can explain it better, then "more power to it!" But any Ham radio
operator can verify the fact that something we call polarization
does indeed affect the transmission and reception of EM waves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
MAXWELL and TRANSVERSE vs. LONGITUDINAL WAVES
You see, the genius of Maxwell's insight was this:
Maxwell knew that a changing magnetic field around a wire (which
we can measure at low frequencies with a compass placed near the
wire) will induce a changing electric field (and an electrical
current) in another wire nearby. Faraday had explored this
phenomenon. It stood to reason that a changing electric field
ought to produce a magnetic effect.
Unfortunately, Maxwell could not verify that experimentally. He
assumed that the measuring devices of the time lacked the
sensitivity required to prove the SYMMETRY of induction between
electricity and magnetism.
Page 6
However, Maxwell was a mathematician with enough faith in such
symmetry that he stuck an extra term into the equations that
described this complementary electric-to-magnetic effect which was
as yet unproven. This led to the extrapolation of a see-sawing
pattern of electric-magnetic-electric-magnetic... etc., one type of
effect generating the other, forming an ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE whose
fields would "chase" each other out into the space surrounding the
wire in which the AC current flowed back and forth to generate these
changing fields.
Evidently it was because a magnetic field (as sensed by a compass
needle) forms at right angles to a current of electrons in a wire,
that it was assumed that this 90 degree relationship continued out
into the space surrounding the wire.
So the Transverse EM wave, according to Classical EM, consists of an
alternating Electric field and Magnetic field at right angles to one
another, and at 90 degrees to the direction that the waves are
moving out toward (the direction of Propagation).
Sound waves, by contrast, are Longitudinal; that is, the air
molecules through which sound travels are, at a given point, first
COMPRESSED, then DECOMPRESSED or RAREFIED, such that the density of
the air at any given point varies at the sound frequency. The
molecules themselves wiggle back and forth in the direction of
propagation, first a little bit out and away from the sound source,
then a little bit back in toward the source. Overall, the air
doesn't FLOW from the sound source to your ear, but the waves of
compression and rarefaction are what propagate through the medium
from source to ear. You could say that the air "pressure" hitting
your ear drum at any given moment is varying--and this is the
mechanism by which sound "waves" are transduced into your hearing
organs, the ears.
The waves on the surface of a pond also travel out from the
disturbing source; but observe closely and you will see that, for
the most part, the water itself merely bobs up and down in one
place--the horizontal movement is in the WAVE (the position of one
vertical slice through the water relative to the next adjacent
slice). Water waves, as well as the waves in a plucked guitar
string, are Transverse; that is, they move at right angles to the
direction of the wave travel itself.
Well, Maxwell's insight was that his postulated Electromagnetic
wave, being composed of two 90 degree separated fields "chasing"
each other through space, would, like water waves, be a Transverse
wave. Unlike water, which only bobs up and down, the EM wave would
contain (at least) TWO components (electric and magnetic) at right
angles to one another.
If you can visualize a water wave which "waves", not only "up and
down", but also "side to side", then you have some idea of what
Maxwell was describing.
Tom Bearden disagrees that there are transverse waves outside of the
antenna of your transmitter or receiver. Like Nikola Tesla, he
holds to the model of a longitudinal propagation (electrical "sound"
waves) of "ripples" in the charge density of the 'ether' or vacuum.
He credits Frank Golden, his engineer/scientist friend, with
Page 7
pointing this out to him. (Incidentally, Bearden is NOT referring to
what he calls a 'scalar' wave only, when he holds to a longitudinal-
only view. He states emphatically that this applies both to his
special "scalar" stress waves, per se, AND to what we call a normal
EM wave, which he considers to be a 'special' subset of a scalar
wave.)
Well then, why do our instruments appear to MEASURE these right-
angled components if they're not even there?
Bearden invokes the analogy of a gyroscope. Spin a gyroscope, then
try to tilt it in a given direction. What happens? The gyroscope
PRECESSES and tries to tilt on an axis 90 degrees away from the
direction you intended for it.
Bearden says that that's what happens inside a wire. The electrons
in a conductor are "free", capable of being knocked down the wire
from atom to atom as a "current". Physicists refer to them as an
"electron gas" in the wire. But one more thing: They're spinning,
just like little gyroscopes. So when a "force" pushes on them from
a certain direction, they precess at right angles, forming
"precession waves" whose instantaneous direction or polarity depends
on the changing density of the incoming longitudinal wave that
caused them to precess.
Invoking the Quantum Mechanics "paradox", if you will, that whenever
we MEASURE something, we cannot help but perturb it (and screw up
the measurement to that extent), and thus we NEVER ACTUALLY MEASURE
ANYTHING in an UNBIASED WAY, Bearden maintains that we are, in fact,
measuring ONLY WHAT GOES ON INSIDE OUR INSTRUMENTS AS A REACTION TO
WHAT'S GOING ON OUTSIDE OF THE PROBE; we never measure things
directly. So we THINK we see transverse waves in the vacuum, when
actually all we're doing is seeing the transverse PRECESSION of the
electrons in our measuring devices. Interesting, right? Well, is
Tom correct? He may well be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT WHAT ABOUT POLARIZATION?
If Bearden is correct, that there is no electrical "field" going "up
and down" (using the example of vertical polarization), and there is
no magnetic field going "back and forth" at 90 degrees to the E-
field, both TRANSVERSE or at 90 degrees to the direction of
propagation ("out" from the antenna), but that there is ONLY a
COMPRESSION/RAREFACTION (longitudinal) action on the density of the
'ether', spreading out from transmitter to the surrounding space,
then my question is:
WHY DOES THE VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL ORIENTATION OF THE RECEIVING
ANTENNA WITH RESPECT TO THE ORIENTATION OF THE TRANSMITTING
ANTENNA, AFFECT THE RECEPTION OF THE TRANSMITTED SIGNAL AT ALL?
A longitudinally oriented wave CONTAINS NO INFORMATION THAT WOULD
"TELL" THE RECEIVING ANTENNA THAT IT OUGHT TO BE ORIENTED ONE WAY
OR THE OTHER, yet that is precisely what we find in the real
world! Does Tom Bearden deny this?
Let's refresh ourselves quickly on what we mean by Polarization.
Simply this: Following the Classical EM model, we define the
Page 8
polarization of a wave by measuring the ORIENTATION OF
THE ELECTRIC FIELD COMPONENT at the antenna of the
transmitter.
Simply put, if the antenna consists of a horizontal
wire, parallel to the ground, we have a horizontally
polarized wave. Rotating the wire into the vertical
makes the wave polarization vertical.
Is this just theory, based on Maxwell's transverse concept? No. It
is an observable phenomenon in radio and TV transmission/reception.
In fact, if you've ever worn a pair of Polaroid sunglasses, you've
experienced the effect yourself. Much of the glare outside in the
sun can be cut by wearing these glasses, since they filter out all
light waves that are scattered about with different polarizations
than the one they're designed to respond to. If you don't mind
popping a lens out of your glasses, place it in front of the other
lens, look through it, and rotate it. You will find a place where
all the light is shut out -- you're looking at a black, opaque lens.
Continue turning the popped out lens, and you'll begin to see the
view through the lenses re-appearing, first dimly, then back up to
normal brightness.
When you had the polarizations of the two lenses at 90 degrees
apart, your view went black. Light could not penetrate the lens
pair.
This same effect happens at radio frequencies (RF, of course, is an
EM wave just as light is). When a transmitting antenna is oriented
in the vertical direction, and the receiving antenna is horizontal,
a MINIMUM of energy is received at the receiver. TV stations'
antennas are usually horizontally polarized -- that's why your home
TV antenna is a series of horizontal metal tubes mounted on a boom
at right angles to the vertical mast holding it up.
VOR (VHF OMNIRANGE) antennas on airplanes are horizontal for the
same reason. Radio stations tend to use vertical towers (vertical
polarization).
It is even possible to produce circularly- and elliptically-
polarized EM waves using suitable antennas.
Even more exotic is POLARIZATION MODULATION, used in some advanced
systems, where the polarization of the carrier wave varies in step
with the information, just as in AM the Amplitude of the carrier is
modulated.
My point is that polarization OCCURS, like it or not, and the
Transverse Wave Model seems to explain it most satisfactorily, as
far as I am aware.
How does Bearden's denial of the transverse wave in vacuum square
with this known phenomenon of polarization?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 9
BEARDEN WANTS US TO UNDERSTAND AND BELIEVE; SO I'LL CALL HIM!
Well, my 3rd call was cut short because Mr. Bearden was having a
meeting that night and he had no time. Already feeling a bit
guilty, I said I'd call back in a few days when he wasn't busy.
About 3 days later, feeling just a little bit like a pest, I dialed
Bearden's number again on Sunday evening, April 4th. Bearden
answered the phone. As politely as I could, I announced who I was
and that I just had one more question that I needed help with, and
that I'd promise not to call too often after that. Not that Bearden
had indicated that I was becoming a nuisance; just that I'd talked
to him for a half-hour the previous week, and maybe three days after
that, I'd called him again, only to have him tell me he was too busy
to talk -- he was in a meeting at the moment. So here I thought I'd
try one more time on this fine Sunday evening to ask Tom Bearden how
he would reconcile the phenomenon of radio wave polarization with
his view of a solely LONGITUDINAL wave propagation through the
"vacuum" between a standard radio transmitter and receiver.
Bearden began by asking me if I knew what Newton's Third Law was. I
answered that I thought it was the 'action-reaction' law, which he
agreed that it was. He then began saying that the present
electromagnetics is flawed because it violates that Newtonian law.
That we DO detect transverse waves-- but only in the electron gas of
our antennnas and instrument probes. That 'not one of the equations
attributed to Maxwell were actually written by him' etc., etc.
Having read three of his books and all of his papers as downloaded
from the BBS's, I'd heard these phrases many times before. I
understood the phrases. Bearden knew who I was by now, and
therefore didn't need to keep parroting them every time we talked.
What I wanted to know was, How does the longitudinal propagation
theory account for the KNOWN FACT that EM waves are polarized one
way or another, and so your receiving antenna's polarization (or,
ORIENTATION) must match that of the transmitter for optimum
reception.
That's all I wanted to know. I just wanted Bearden to explain
polarization in terms of his longitudinal model.
Evidently I pissed him off.
He told me that I was just regurgitating what "they" had taught me
in the standard electromagnetics courses. That I shouldn't believe
them. That I should read and re-read his books to get straightened
out on these points.
I felt he was evading my question. I was asking about polarization.
If he didn't know the answer, or if he hadn't considered the
question before, or even if he didn't feel like talking to me about
it, he could have politely told me so. I would have accepted that.
Everyone who has a theory is allowed to develop it. Rome wasn't
built in a day.
Next, Tom Bearden was attempting to tell me that polarization itself
was "a bunch of bullshit"! Trying to get a word in edgewise, while
trying to remain polite (after all, I was making the phone call,
intruding on his time), I reminded him that his books didn't DEAL
with polarization. He said he didn't HAVE to, because it was all
Page 10
bullshit. That I needed to THINK (emphasis his), and that if I were
really paying attention to what he was saying, I would understand
and wouldn't be asking these ILLOGICAL questions!
Still hearing no attempt to answer my question about polarization, I
tried to define what I meant by it. I tried to use the illustration
of a TV station, whose antenna is usually horizontally polarized --
and thus your home TV antenna on your roof is also horizontally
polarized.
But Bearden doesn't let you finish most of your sentences. Instead,
he is parroting more phrases such as you find throughout his books.
By this point, he was actually telling me that, sorry, but when a
caller such as myself constantly repeats the same question over and
over, or from a different angle, then he must get tough with the
caller and tell him point blank that his questions are bullshit
questions. And that I was 'not going to get him to ADMIT' to there
being such a thing as wave polarization, as if doing so was to
'surrender' to those people who hold to the Transverse EM wave
theory. God forbid!
Now I was beginning to wonder if this guy was paranoid. I thought
of ufologist Jacques Vallee who would try and try to ask simple,
polite but firm questions of people like Bill Cooper or Bob Lazar.
When they would begin to squirm, he would press them just a little
bit more. Not to be an S.O.B., just to cut through the fluff and
get to see if there was really anything to the whole thing. Vallee
recounts how he would sometimes be accused, afterwards, of working
for the CIA or some other "government" group hated by the UFO 'true
believers'.
So now, here I was, being informed by Tom Bearden that I was
attempting to get him to 'admit' to a 'doctrine' of classical EM,
which he would not. I was a Roman Catholic Inquisitor trying to get
Galileo to recant his position and admit that the heavens do revolve
around a stationary earth. Oy vay!
Feeling exasperated, I paused for a moment. Bearden paused, too. I
then said, "Mr. Bearden, I am not trying to get you to 'admit'
anything. I'm just trying to understand how to fit polarization
into your longitudinal view..."
"It's NOT just my view. Nikola Tesla himself held to 'sound waves'
in the ether..."
"I didn't mean that it was just YOUR view, Mr. Bearden..."
"It is the CORRECT view..."
Now I was thinking of my boss at work. He never lets me finish what
I'm saying, either.
Finally I asked him, "Mr. Bearden, may I make a REQUEST of you then?
In your future writings, would you please at least ADDRESS this
problem of how polarization is explained in the longitudinal
model..."
"No I will NOT!" Bearden said with some conviction. "I get letters
Page 11
all the time from people with fifty questions and who want all their
questions answered..."
I interrupted HIM this time: "Yes, and when you go public as you
have and write books that challenge the present 'system ', and
encourage a new generation of bright young physicists to embrace
this Scalar EM and thereby "overturn the present Physics", YOU HAD
BETTER EXPECT TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS TO BACK UP YOUR ASSERTIONS
when people call or write, asking for more detail..."
He told me once more to read his books again, because he would not
answer anyone's questions if (like mine) they were repetitions of an
ILLOGICAL question to begin with.
There was no more to be gained by pressing this conversation. I
said, with a sigh, "Thank you for your help, Mr. Bearden", and hung
up the phone.
Obviously, I won't be 'pestering' the honorable Mr. Tom Bearden with
my silly phone calls again, unless he decides to lower himself down
to my humble intellectual level and, in his great mercy, throw me
but a crumb from the table on which sits the bounteous feast of
Beardenian Electromagnetics.
I guess since I'm not a member of the Mensa Society, as Bearden is,
I can only be classified as lower than a "degenerate semiconductor".
I suppose it's the slow "drift velocity" at which knowledge
propagates through the electron gas in my cerebral cortex. And it
keeps precessing sideways, instead of sinking in.
Anyway, Be it known both to Mr. Tom Bearden and to you, good reader,
that I hold nothing against Bearden personally. The man definitely
seems to be a genius in many ways, even if his table manners could
use some polishing up.
I believe he is on to something real and with big consequences for
21st Century Physics, once we take up his challenge to test his
theories in the lab. Just don't call him up with any questions that
tend to rock his boat, or you may be branded "illogical". He is a
rugged Pioneer; we 'young-uns' are going to have to be the ones who
bring methodical, point-by-point analysis and proof to bear on this
Scalar Electromagnetics.
Pioneers are lone trail-blazers who have had to fight off the
establishment for all of their pioneering careers, and they've got
to be committed to their cause, even to the point of religious
dogmatism. The upside of this is that lesser souls have a shining
light to follow. The down-side is that the pioneer creates a dogma
that rivals the one he broke away from and made a career of
criticizing. It's human nature, I guess.
It seems to me that, even if Bearden (and, yes, Tesla also) is wrong
on the mode of propagation-- if EM does have transverse components
through the vacuum, and not solely longitudinal-- most of his other
gripes with classical EM have the solid support of Quantum Physics
behind them and show the classical EM model to be useful, yet quite
wrong in many of its fundamentals.
In the meantime I want to remind those of you who, like me, think
Page 12
that Bearden is mostly correct and that the scientific community
needs to re-examine the foundations of Electromagnetics: This
"copping an attitude" bullshit as exhibited by Tom Bearden just
won't wash with the real world. We need to come up with an
electromagnetic theory that properly explains empirical
observations, such as the phenomenon of wave polarization. As of
this writing, April 1993, the Transverse Wave model of Maxwell's
Electromagnetics continues to be the best explanation of wave
polarization. I was hoping to find out that Bearden's EM theory
explains it better; unfortunately, he refuses to discuss it at all.
This is kid stuff and has no place in a respectable scientific
theory. As long as honest inquirers keep getting rebuffed the way I
did by Bearden, he cannot expect to be taken seriously by anyone.
Can anyone explain wave polarization via Tom Bearden's Scalar EM
theory?
I welcome correspondence on this and related subjects. I also
promise to treat you politely! My address is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Andersen
RD1 Box 50A
Newport, PA 17074
Aside from the many files by Tom Bearden available for download from
the BBS's, his books are sold through:
Tesla Book Company
P.O. Box 121875
Chula Vista, CA 91912
---------------------------- End of file ---------------------------
If you have comments or other information relating to such topics
as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the
Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page.
Thank you for your consideration, interest and support.
Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson
Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can be of service, you may contact
Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 13
The entire AOH site is optimized to look best in Firefox® 3 on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986- AOH
We do not send spam. If you have received spam bearing an artofhacking.com email address, please forward it with full headers to abuse@artofhacking.com.
