Wormhole Drive Propulsion!.

trouty · Dec 30, 2003

It's almost a new year - so time to get the thinkingcaps onb again to see what we've overlooked in 2003.

Obviously i havent been inundated with cash offers or any professorship honorariums at any leading physics universitys for my plasmoidal induction drive system utilising MEGS (motionless electromagnetic generators) for propeelling vessels across the vast expanses on our oceans in 2003, despite the fact I single handedly discovered a new fundamental law of the universe...

troutys GUt (Thats grand Unification theorem to you non physics type plebicites!).

Yes, yes, yes, M = Δ T was my contribution to the world of physics for 2003 but 2004 holds yet more potential for quantum vessel propulsion improvements.

You see I haven't exactly been asleep at the Helm...

No, indeed, far from it...

2004 will be the year of troutys Wormhole Drive system.

We all know - that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line...right?

Well? - right?

Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The shortest distance between any two points is in fact NOT a straight line - the shortest distance between any two points is.......

Ta Daaaaaahhh

A curved space / time continuum line!

Two points are in fact closer together in a corkscrew wormhole phase conjugate waveform pair...than a staright line.

This revolutionary discovery - will be the basis of my new wormhole drive propulsion system...all of course made possible by my unique discovery earlier in the year of the trouty GUT M = Δ T

Without this revolutionary discovery - I would never have seen the potential in wormhole drive / warped space - time continuum that I'm about to share with you all.

Take a look first at my rough workings to "get a feel" for where I'm heading with this...

trouty · Dec 30, 2003

Ok

Now - ya'll still with me so far?

Sheesh, listen up now and pay close attention, coz I ain't gonna be typin this twice!

Sooo - here we can see that in a wormhole of warped (curved) space - time...two points can in fact be closer than in a straight line!.

I hope we've at least got that much clear - just remember back to my previous postings where I posited that theres as much energy 'trapped' (or compressed if you prefer) within TIME as there is within MASS.

So - when we split the atom (Read Mass) we got Hiroshima & Nagasaki - Nuclear power stations and the & nuclear fleets of the US Navy (not to mention a nuclear arms race and subsequent cold war, and MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction).

Man thats a whole lotta energy, from something so small you can't even see it with the naked eye (the atom that is).

So - when I tell you that theres as much energy available within TIME as what there is within Mass, you'll just have to trust me or look back to my previouys posts about plasmoidal induction propulsion.

In fact there is somewhere in the vicinity of 9 x 10 ^ 16 Joules (90 thousand Billion Billion Joules) of potential energy within each second (roughly give or take one or two).

Now - the curious thing with wormhole propulsion is this...

trouty · Dec 30, 2003

OK so lets.....

take a broad conceptual look at this.

What I'm saying in terms of vessel propulsiuon between any two points....is that if we can warp space - time into a wrmhole - THEN the shportest distance between any two points ISN'T a Straight Line!.

So - from a largely conceptual point of view - lets consider say a jump across the universe from one galaxy to another...

Straight Line travel - it would take forever - even at lightspeed (which by the way isn't constant...but more on that later) However if we warp space - time then it becomes a mere jaunt..

Consider the box within a box twin galaxys model, connected by wormhole (warped space - time curvature)...a relatively short jump thus:-

yipster · Dec 30, 2003

trouty,

i'm reading, i was just gonna ask in the "modern paddlewheels" thread for systems other than a prop.
there are sails, (steam)jet, paddlewheel, snowmobile, jezus lizard, oars, sails, wave energy, rockets, and what else do we do?

thats new, your meg's are moving into wormhole drive propulsion by curved space / time continium. pro and neutrons in the electron peels, any fusion? i get back in the reading mode!

yipster

trouty · Dec 30, 2003

We Can

manipulate my GUT, M = Δ T to prove that the amount of potential energy within both Mass & Time is the same...

If M = Δ T then we can divide both sides of the equation by Δ T to leave...

M/Δ T = 1

We know that the only thing that can = 1 when divided, is by itself! Anything divided by itself = 1, thus in energy terms = Mass & Δ T are = to each other - or in more simple terms as I stated:-

There is as much potential energy trapped withing time as there is within mass and we know how much there is in mass - theres a hiroshima and nagasaki hatfull...

So - with a wormhole propulsions system - we will harness that energy trapped or compressed within Δ Time, to warp the space - time continuum, thus bringing our departure point and desored destination much closer together - meaning that actual staright line travel times will be dramatically shortened to but mere fractions of there current duration.

OK, now - back up just a wee bit.....

We have to remember I porposed a ion propulsions system that LOOKED on the surface to be a potentially relativelt "slow" propulsion method....BUT - utilising the wormhole propulsion method, the actual elapsed straight line time between any two points will be vastly reduced.

Tortiose and the Hair people...tortoise & the Hair...

Plasmoidal induction propulsion will blow anything else away when wormhole drive is coupled to it, powered of course by MEGS (Motionsless Electromagnetic Generators).

Of course - there will be a 20 question test at the end of this....

You'll be asked to explain how I got to the new Wormhole drive theorem...

F = GME -1/12

Force = Gravitational Mass Energy -ve 1/12th

No brain Pharts please!

Cheers!

trouty · Dec 30, 2003

Yipster

I knew you wouldn't dissapoint me...

We need to of course to always be looking far ahead of where we are going on the radar to see clearly when navigating and so it is with inventing new propulsion technologys - if we can't imagine it - we can't invent it, now can we?

What we need to look at is outside of the classical maxwellian vectior theory into something known as Leytons geometery & methods and heirarchy of symmetry.

If you paid atention all that time ago when I posted my discovery of M = Δ T by resolving:-

Einsteins special theory or relativity E = MC ^2

And

Beardens Theory of Time. E = Δ TC^2

to reveal my GUT

M = Δ T

You'd recall that Bearden is the leader in Overunity energy production from the vacuum - the Father of "Megs" development (and holder of US partents for same) as it were.

This is what he recently had to say to me about Leytons Geometery & methods and Heirarchy of symmetry:-

You pose a true and very disturbing problem, particularly when China's vastly growing needs for oil, gas, etc. are factored in. The demand and competition for cheap oil is steadily increasing, while the supply of CHEAP oil is steadily declining.

Sadly, the scientific "leadership" toward solutions has been rather totally misdirected. Our policy makers and high government officials have already been advised that all that can be done is to

(1) vigorously pursue finding and drilling and exploiting more sources of oil and gas,
(2) develop and force the use of fuel cells and a "hydrogen" economy (never mind all the problems that cannot be solved prior to 2020 or even 2050),
(3) open up the building of new nuclear reactors again, and
(4) continue to fund hot fusion research, even though in the nearly half century it's been ongoing it has not added a single extra watt to the power line, and will not do so for at least the next 50 years.

That's basically the "sage energy advice" given to our leaders from the scientific community.

The standard electrical engineering and classical Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics model does assume that all EM fields and potentials are generated freely from their associated source charges. But those models do not even model the active vacuum and its exchange, or local curved spacetime. So the model being used for electrical power engineering is so inane as to boggle the mind: it implicitly assumes that every EM field, every EM potential, and every joule of EM energy in the universe is and has been freely created out of nothing at all, by those source charges in the
universe.

In short, the REAL "perpetual working machine with no energy input" advocates unwittingly are -- guess who -- the electrical engineering departments, professors, and textbooks, as well as the classical Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamicists and their textbooks.

This "source charge problem" more than a century old, has also been rather deliberately "scrubbed out" of the texts, so that the students will not know the problem exists, and that they have been taught a model that implicitly assumes the total falsification of energy conservation, by every charge in the universe. You can simply separate some charge quickly, and with instruments preset up, watch the rapid advance at light speed of the
appearance of the associated fields and potentials, radially outward at light speed. Also, once a potential or field suddenly "reads" at a point reached in that outflow of energy, it remains and IS SUSTAINED thereafter.
This shows that a continuous flow of real EM energy pours from that charge in all directions, continuously, from the moment of formation or separation of the charge.

Yet none of our instruments will or can detect any OBSERVABLE energy input to the source charge.

Voila! Either we have to totally surrender the conservation of energy law, as being violated by every charge, EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe, or we have to find a NONOBSERVABLE (virtual state) energy input to that source charge. If we can find such a virtual state continuous energy input to the charge, then we also have to find the exact
method or process whereby the disordered virtual energy absorbed by the charge from the vacuum, is coherently integrated into real, observable EM energy that is emitted as real photons outgoing in all directions.

We of course already published the solution to that source charge problem, as well as to the exact coherent integration mechanism. The source charge also does exhibit the continuous production of negative entropy, and all EM energy in every circuit and device is indeed extracted directly from the local vacuum by the asymmetry of the source charge in its exchange with the
vacuum flux.

Oddly, all the energy in a circuit or device comes directly from the local active vacuum exchange, NOT from cranking the shaft of the generator or dissipating chemical energy in a battery.

It turns out that the fundamental problems with the old electrodynamics are
(1) the assumption of an inert local vacuum (falsified in physics for some 70 or 80 years, and PARTICULARLY since the discovery of broken symmetry in 1957 and the prompt award of the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in December of the same year, 1957),
(2) the assumption of a flat local spacetime (falsified by general relativity since 1916),
(3) failure to recognize that gauge freedom means clearly that the potential energy of the system can be freely changed at any time, which in turn implies that this already freely collected regauging energy can then be simply dissipated into the loads to power them freely,
(4) incorporation of the diabolical Lorentz symmetrical
regauging just to make the equations amenable to solution, when the forced symmetry arbitrarily discards all Maxwellian systems which could and would exhibit use of excess energy from the vacuum,
(5) the ubiquitous use of the standard closed current loop circuit, which self-enforces symmetrical regauging in the system and thus enforces COP<1.0;
(6) still assuming the old material ether, falsified more than 100 years ago by the Michelson-Morley experiments. This latter is still incorporated by the totally invalid assumption of force fields in the vacuum;
(7) acquiring from the older mechanics the notion that a separate mass-free force operates in space on a mass to "forcibly move" it. Indeed, a mass-free entity does act on the mass, but the notion of a "mass-free force" is an oxymoron. Mass is a component of force, by the definition F = d/dt(mv). Both the expansion terms
have mass as a COMPONENT. This is known and stated by many leading physicists (Feynman, Wheeler, etc.) but continues to be ignored and the equations are not changed accordingly; and
(8) continued use of the 1872 Klein geometry and group theoretic methods, by which all negative entropy processes are excluded a priori and arbitrarily. The result is that broken symmetry at a given level loses the "information" and "ordering" at that
level, and reduces the overall group symmetry. That excludes negative entropy, and continues to lead to the total farce of the present second law of thermodynamics, which has several limited violations experimentally proven, certain areas which do not obey the second law are also known, and the source charge violates it for any size level desired and for any length of time desired.

What is required is the Leyton geometry and group symmetry
methods. Under Leyton rules, a broken symmetry at a given level does not lose the information on ordering at that level, and it also generates a new symmetry at the next higher level -- a beautiful negentropic process!

I attach a short little fact paper on the Leyton geometry and its
implications.

If we can just get the scientific community into Leyton's geometry and methods, and working with his hierarchies of symmetry, then the energy crisis can be solved fairly quickly. One can take all the energy one wishes from the seething local vacuum, once the methods are known and utilized.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden
Click to expand...

Anyone interested can delve into Beardens work on energy from the vacuum on www.cheniere.org

Anyway, I can email you a copy of Leytons latest published work Yipster of your keen - or post it here of people prefer?

All very interesting in as far as what it promises for propulsion and energy physics - even down to vessle propulsion.

Cheers!

yipster · Dec 30, 2003

trouty

very interesting site and please keep me informed, your a visionair!
must admit i was reading miner brotherton's 12 volt bible for boats, a nuts and bolts primer when your message materialised on the screen here. may take me a little mindbogling but i'll try to understand your vacuum space warp influences on the meg theory. vacuum diffusion is used in core manipulation. some 10? years back there were rumors of cold fusing sea water, in time these theory's will be science.

yipster

duluthboats · Dec 30, 2003

I think this all has a lot to do with solar energy. My only input is you need to get a good sun cover for your boat.

Gary

SailDesign · Dec 30, 2003

trouty - step away from the bong.

NOW!

;-)

gonzo · Dec 30, 2003

What's the HP to weight ratio? Also, like most conspiracy theorists, you have the inside to all these mistery secret "facts". Do you have any serious info? I haven't seen any from you.

yipster · Dec 30, 2003

solar cells

offcourse there is solar cell propulsion i forgot to mention!
reading about those cells again in the so far quiet beagle mars lander an old thought came up: can solar cells be made into a fiber? than in sails or a sunbrella?

yipster ;-)

Tad · Dec 30, 2003

Trouty;

Thanks for posting the Bearden letter, and I would be very interested in Leytons recent work. You can post it here if it's not too big, otherwise just send it along.

tadroberts@shaw.ca

Many thanks, Tad

trouty · Dec 31, 2003

Tad

You have mail.

Gonzo - oh yeah of little faith!

Sun struk indeed Gary

Bong?...well my area is kinda famous for its hooch plantations sail design! ;o)

Horsepower to weight ratio?

Well - lets see that'd be 90 thousand, billion billion Joules divided by whatever weight vessel you wanna put this sucker wormhole drive plasmoidal induction meg drive into wouldn't it?

WEither way at warp factor 9 Mr Zulu - it's gotta be a whale of a lot of Hp / weight ratio is how I see it!

Cheers & have a happy new year one & all!!

SailDesign · Dec 31, 2003

trouty - I hope you saved something REALLY good for April 1st... ;-P

trouty · Dec 31, 2003

trust me SD

when I confidently say...

"Yain't seen nuthin yet!"

Cheers n counting!

Leightons heirarchy of symmetry!

LEYTON’S HIERARCHIES OF SYMMETRY: SOLUTION TO THE MAJOR ASYMMETRY PROBLEM OF THERMODYNAMICS.

© T. E. Bearden, August 22, 2003; updated Dec. 7, 2003

THE PROBLEM: THERMODYNAMICS HAS A TEMPORAL ASYMMETRY PROBLEM, RECOGNIZED FOR A CENTURY, BECAUSE THE SECOND LAW EXCLUDES NEGATIVE ENTROPY PROCESSES AND NATURE DOES NOT.
 Starting with some controlled available system energy, the second law provides that, in subsequent interactions, the entropy S of a system can only remain the same or increase. Or, S  0, once the subsequent interactions start.
 The recognized major problem in thermodynamics arises from the present Second Law. As Price states {1}:
"A century or so ago, Ludwig Boltzmann and other physicists attempted to explain the temporal asymmetry of the second law of thermodynamics. …the hard-won lesson of that endeavor—a lesson still commonly misunderstood—was that the real puzzle of thermodynamics is not why entropy increases with time, but why it was ever so low in the first place."
 This problem particularly arises in prevailing notions of the origin of the universe, whether “big bang” or “steady whimper”. A great deal of organization and energy came from somewhere or somehow, in a relatively short time cosmologically, to initially generate enormous negative entropy {2} shortly after the beginning.
 If the energy of our observable universe somehow came from “outside” it (thus saving energy conservation), then it represented “loss” of available energy (positive entropy) to that outside source, and “negative entropy” to our gaining universe.
 This suggests a possible clue to the solution: Look for a lower or “outside” broken symmetry generating a higher negative entropy (higher symmetry) across an interface between the outside source and our observable universe. We will find precisely this required characteristic in Leyton’s geometry and in his hierarchies of symmetry {3}, as well as in the broken symmetry of particle physics.
 Our observable state universe is separated by a quantum threshold interface from its associated virtual state vacuum. The vacuum has extraordinary virtual energy density and continuously exchanges energy with the observable state. This exchange in fact generates all observable forces of nature, in the modern physics view.
 We are thus focused directly upon the disordered virtual energy of the vacuum, and some required process to coherently integrate virtual vacuum energy into observable energy, crossing the quantum threshold boundary—a negative entropy process.
 Price also states {4}:
"…the major task of an account of thermodynamic asymmetry is to explain why the universe as we find it is so far from thermodynamic equilibrium, and was even more so in the past."
 A theoretical process for producing negative entropy will of course solve the problem, if a physical system continuously producing negative entropy by that process can also be exhibited experimentally. Leyton provides the process {3}, and every charge in the universe is already just such a required physical system obeying it {5}.
 We have given the exact mechanism by which the charge coherently integrates virtual photon energy absorbed from the vacuum, into observable photons {5}, which are re-emitted in all directions as real EM energy without any observable EM energy input. The charge continuously consumes positive entropy of the virtual state vacuum, and produces negative entropy at the next higher level, the observable state.
FACTS BEARING ON THE PROBLEM: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SECOND LAW AND ITS EXPERIMENTAL FALSIFICATION.
 The Second Law is statistical, so it need not apply to just a few involved entities where statistical analysis is inapplicable. This is the “small number” violation of the Second Law, which is well-known.
 The Second Law is also violated in statistical fluctuations {6}, where usual entropic reactions may run backwards and produce negative entropy for a time.
 Wang et al. {7} have experimentally shown such fluctuation violations in chemical solutions at cubic micron level and for up to two seconds. In water, e.g., a cubic micron contains some 30 billion ions and molecules. In that ensemble, negative entropy reactions can occur for at least two seconds and sometimes longer.
 Evans and Rondoni {8} showed that systems continuously producing negative entropy are possible in theory. Startled, they felt that real physical systems could not exhibit such behavior. However, every charge does it {5}, as we have pointed out.
 Our proposed solution to the source charge problem {5} is based on the accepted quantum field theory view of the charge and its vacuum polarization as a special dipolar ensemble. The bare charge in the middle is surrounded by virtual charges of opposite sign in the polarized vacuum. Both charges are infinite, but their difference is finite and is the textbook value of the “classical charge”—what the external observer sees or measures of the internal bare charge through its external screening charge.
o The ensemble exhibits the known broken symmetry of opposite charges.
o The charge ensemble thus continuously absorbs virtual photons from the seething vacuum, and pours out real photons in all directions, establishing and continuously replenishing its fields and potentials, spreading outward at light speed.
o The fields and potentials are deterministically ordered as a function of radial distance.
 This process produces ordered macroscopic energy from the vacuum’s disordered virtual energy flux. Thermodynamically the charge is a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system, continuously fed by vacuum energy, and continuously performing work to transduce the form of the absorbed virtual energy into emitted observable energy. It is also a deterministic process, since the emitted photon energy intensity is ordered with respect to radial distance from the source charge.
 Every charge continuously produces negative entropy as shown theoretically possible by Evans and Rondoni {8} for deterministic NESS systems.
 Simply regauging a system—ubiquitously permitted and used in gauge field theory and by every electrodynamicist—also totally violates the second law at any size level and for any period of time. This follows since the potential—and therefore the ordered, available potential energy—of an EM system can be freely changed at will.
o As an example, voltage amplification without current flow is work-free and involves only energy transfer in the same form. We strongly stress that work is the changing of the form of some energy, not the changing of its magnitude.
o The present second law is falsified by the gauge freedom axiom of gauge field theory. Regauging is a negative entropy operation, where the sysem’s available potential energy can be freely increased (or decreased) at will.
 The Second Law is already an approximate and “very leaky” law at best, and in some cases it is demonstrably wrong {13}. In the case of regauging, the freely altered potential of the sytem may extend outward in space to infinity. Hence regauging can apply to any macroscopic size and time duration desired.This is a total violation of the second law of thermodynamics, and it also is experimentally verified.
 Since the Second Law excludes negative entropy, and negative entropy processes and systems do experimentally exist, we conclude that the present form of the Second Law is experimentally falsified.
 The task, then, is to correct the Second Law to permit the production of either positive or negative entropy. For this general correction, we require Leyton’s object-oriented geometry and his hierarchy of symmetries {3}.
MORE FACTS: LEYTON’S NEW OBJECT-ORIENTED GEOMETRY AND HIERARCHIES OF SYMMETRY VS. THE OLDER KLEIN GEOMETRY.
 Since 1872, much of physics and most of thermodynamics are based on Felix Klein’s geometry {9,10} and his group theoretic methods. Leyton’s object-oriented geometry and advanced group theoretic methods {3} include Klein geometry as a subset.
 In Klein’s geometry and more limited group methods, a broken symmetry at a given level loses the symmetry information and reduces the overall group symmetry.
 In Leyton’s geometry and with his more advanced group methods, a broken symmetry at a given level generates a new symmetry at the next higher level. The information of the lower level is also retained and not lost. Hence in Leyton’s approach, a broken symmetry retains the symmetry information of that level, creates an additional higher symmetry, and increases the overall group symmetry.
 This automatic generation of a higher symmetry by a lower level broken symmetry is the Leyton effect. At the new higher level, symmetry can then be broken to again generate a yet higher level symmetry. And so on. Hence the Leyton effect generates a hierarchy of symmetries, increased and knit together by broken symmetries.
 The Leyton effect is a general negative entropy process. It converts disordered energy at one level into ordered energy at the next level.
 The Leyton effect and resulting hierarchies of symmetry, knit together by negative entropy processes, falsify the present Second Law of thermodynamics. Hence the Second Law must be revised to include the Leyton effect (negative entropy, negative entropy processes, and negative entropy-producing systems).
THE RESULTING SOLUTION: ADOPT LEYTON’S MORE ADVANCED OBJECT-ORIENTED GEOMETRY, APPLY LEYTON’S HIERARCHIES OF SYMMETRY, AND REWRITE THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
 The present Second Law of thermodynamics can be stated as:
“Given some available controlled order (available controlled energy), this initial controlled order will either remain the same or be progressively disordered and decontrolled over time by subsequent entropic interactions.” Or, simply put, dS/dt  0.
 In accord with Leyton’s geometry and methods, the revised Second Law can be stated as:
"First a negative entropy interaction occurs to produce some controlled order (available controlled energy). Then that initial available controlled order will either remain the same or be progressively disordered and decontrolled by subsequent entropic interactions over time, unless additional negative entropy interactions occur and intervene." Or, simply put,    dS/dt  + .
 The revised Second Law is now consistent with experiment {6,7,13}, with the source charge solution {5}, with theoretical proof that negative entropy producing systems can exist {8}, and with Leyton’s geometry and hierarchies of symmetry {3}. It is inconsistent with Klein geometry {9,10} and Klein group methods, but these are only a subset of the Leyton geometry and thus cannot limit the Leyton effect and Leyton’s hierarchies of symmetry.
 In addition, the new second law statement resolves the asymmetry problem of thermodynamics {1,4}, given that negative entropy processes occurred at or during the formation of the present universe. And the evidence supports it.
IMPLICATIONS: WE ARGUE THAT:
 This adoption of Leyton’s geometry and his group theoretic methods {3} heralds a new revolution in physics, electrodynamics, thermodynamics, and chemistry.
 The coming revolution will be as profound as was the prediction of broken symmetry by Lee and Yang {11}, and its quick experimental proof by Wu et al. {12}.
 Leyton’s geometry and methods have already been very successfully applied to robotics and pattern recognition. They work in many cases where the Klein geometry and methods fail.
 The Leyton change now thermodynamically prescribes EM power systems such as the source charge, which freely extract useful and observable EM energy from the virtual energy of the vacuum.
 The new approach thus leads directly to a great new re-examination of the present theory of electrical power systems. EM systems that violate the present thermodynamics are quite possible and several areas where the processes violate the second law are already known {6,7,13,14}. The Bohren-type experiment {14,15} involving negative resonance absorption of the medium provides a well-known and experimentally proven, replicable process in which 18 times as much energy is re-emitted by the absorbing medium as is directly input to it by Poynting energy flow calculations. The excess input energy, of course, comes from the local active vacuum environment.
 The new approach leads toward the rapid development of negentropic engineering {16}, contrasted to the present highly wasteful and polluting positive entropy engineering universally used in electrical power systems because of the present limited Second Law of thermodynamics and the use of Klein geometry and group theoretic methods.

References:
1. Huy Price, Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point, Oxford University Press, 1996, paperback 1997, p. 78.
2. Boltzman’s suggestion was that the world is simply a product of a chance fluctuation into a state of very low entropy. Little or no real progress has been made on the problem since then.
3. Michael Leyton, A Generative Theory of Shape, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.
4. Price, ibid., p. 36.
5. See (a) T. E. Bearden, "Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole," Proc. Congr. 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000 , p. 86-98; also published in J. New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 11-23. (b) — Fact Sheet, “The Source Charge Problem: Its Solution and Implications,” Aug. 18, 2003. In this fact sheet, we give the exact physical mechanism that coherently integrates absorbed totally disordered virtual photon energy into real observable photons. The energy of each absorbed virtual photon is changed to a differential change of the mass m of the absorbing charge(s). Iterative changes thus algebraically sum since mass is unitary. When the mass differential reaches sufficient magnitude to constitute the energy for an observable photon, the zitterbewegung of the vacuum causes expulsion of an observable photon, decaying the mass back down to base level to start the process again. We have nominated the source charge (using this mechanism) as the first known physical system that continuously produces negative entropy, along the lines theoretically predicted by Evans and Rondoni {8}. We have also nominated the coherent summation by the mass of the charge as the first known physical mechanism continuously producing negative entropy and thus falsifying the present form of the Second Law. See also (c) M. W. Evans, T. E. Bearden, and A. Labounsky, "The Most General Form of the Vector Potential in Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 15(3), June 2002, p. 245-261.
6. A most useful and rigorous transient fluctuation theorem is given by 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Also see I. M. Yaglom, Felix Klein and Sophus Lie: Evolution of the Idea of Symmetry in the Nineteenth Century, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 1988.
11. (a) T. D. Lee, "Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions," Phys. Rev., 104(1), Oct. 1, 1956, p. 254-259; (errata in Phys. Rev. 106(6), June 15, 1957, p. 1371); (b) T. D. Lee, Reinhard Oehme, and C. N. Yang, "Remarks on Possible Noninvariance under Time Reversal and Charge Conjugation," Phys. Rev., 106(2), 1957, p. 340-345.
12. C. S. Wu et al., "Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay," Phys. Rev., Vol. 105, 1957, p. 1413.
13. Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, Chichester, 1998, reprinted 1999 with corrections, p. 459. Present thermodynamics is violated in rarefied media where local equilibrium fails, in strong gradients (about which little is known, either theoretically or experimentally), and in long-lasting memory effects occurring in materials and in many nonequilibrium processes. Other violations due to fluctuations are shown by Wang et al. (cited above).
14. (a) Craig F. Bohren, “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. See also (b) H. Paul and R. Fischer, “{Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am J. Phys., ibid. Scientists in the area just use a change of reaction cross section. EM field and potential intensities are defined in terms of a “static unit point charge’s” scattering. If the same charge is resonant , it scatters more energy, much like a strongly churning rock on the bottom of a river displaces more water than does the same rock fixed on the bottom. Thermodynamically, that gives COP > 1.0—in fact, COP = 18.
15. Scientists in the area do not speak of the thermodynamic coefficient of performance of their experiments. Instead, they speak of the change in reaction cross section. EM field and potential intensities are defined in terms of a “static unit point charge’s” reaction cross section and resulting diverting of energy from the energy flows comprising the field or potential. If the same charge is resonant at the input light energy frequencies, its reaction cross section changes and it “collects” or diverts more energy than when static. The situation is roughly analogous to the diverting of a river’s flow around a rock that is being churned violently back and forth at right angles to the flow, as compared to the diversion of water flow around the same rock when the rock is fixed stationary. Thermodynamically, the free 18-fold increase in reaction cross section gives COP > 1.0—in fact, in that case COP = 18.
16. A close colleague and I are just filing a rather formidable patent application for possibly the first practical negative entropy engineering application of electromagnetic circuits. The circuitry is employed in an entirely different manner from that prescribed in the textbooks. The invention coverts seemingly ordinary components and sections into true negative resistors freely receiving excess EM energy from their active external vacuum environment. This results in the output of much more EM energy than the operator himself inputs—by evoking free asymmetrical regauging which increases the potential energy circulating in the circuit and then dissipated in the loads to power them. Conservation of energy is obeyed at all times, since the excess energy is freely input from the active environment, much like a common home heat pump process. Negative entropy processes are quite real in nature, and they can also be evoked and utilized in otherwise somewhat ordinary electrical circuits. In short, Leyton’s epochal work has very practical application, and we expect to see it vigorously applied to electrical power systems in the future.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

Wormhole Drive Propulsion!.

trouty Guest

Attached Files:

wormhole drive 1.jpg

trouty Guest

Attached Files:

wormhole drive 2.jpg

trouty Guest

Attached Files:

wormhole drive 3.jpg

yipster designer

trouty Guest

trouty Guest

yipster designer

duluthboats Senior Dreamer

SailDesign Old Phart! Stay upwind..

gonzo Senior Member

yipster designer

Tad Boat Designer

trouty Guest

SailDesign Old Phart! Stay upwind..

trouty Guest

Surface drive with large diameter propeller

Jet ski conversion to sail drive

Pliant fin drive

stuffing box for pedal drive

confusing tandem pedal drive

Nautica rib jet 10. Plowing, undriveable

Mercruiser Sterndrive exhaust system with additional watermuffler and high gooseneck?

Hubless Rim Driven Propeller

Reasonable efficiency estimate for a pedal drive

Flexi driveshaft for full sized boat