The Tom Bearden

Help support the research


Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:37:49 -0600

Well, that is really about what I would expect; actually your advisers are treating you very gently and very nicely!  In this country, almost certainly they would be much harsher, and would simply advise the student to cease and desist or prepare to have his thesis plans totally refused, destroying his career.  In the U.S., the prevailing attitude is that, if it doesn't already exist in academia, it doesn't exist.
I personally would advise a more mundane thesis topic, but if you are determined to try to do a "gingerly" one on scalar interferometry, then what your advisers have tried to communicate (between the lines) is that it has to be made very "academic" so that it is "within proper bounds".
In that case, e.g., one does it strictly by the academic book!  One cites hard literature references from superpotential theory, a theory which was initiated  from the Whittaker paper of 1904 -- showing that any EM field or wave pattern can be decomposed into differential functions of two base scalar potentials. (Other researchers also showed other bases, but the scalar potential one is good enough and very convention to one's approach). One then cites the Whittaker paper of 1903 which showed the internal structuring (and decomposition) of a scalar potential itself. W-1904 shows that any EM field or wave can be decomposed into two scalar potentials and differential functions of same. It follows that, prior to imposing the differential functions on the two base scalar potentials one will use, one can first decompose each of those two potentials via Whittaker 1903, into harmonic sets of bidirectional EM phase conjugate longitudinal wavepairs.
So one now has two sets of LW biwaves that, interacting (that is scalar interferometry!), do produce any EM field or wave pattern once the necessary differential functions are also applied.
One also cites the rigorous paper in higher group symmetry O(3) electrodynamics by Evans et al., directly showing with beautiful theory  exactly how scalar interferometry works, enabling the production of real, ordinary EM fields, waves, etc. at a distance (in the distant interferometry zone).
To further "temper" the Whittaker work, one can cite the additional work by Ziolkowski. He and a colleague added the product set to Whittaker's sum set, thus covering the case of modulation and completing what is needed for a signal theory.
That's the basic approach to get at the reality of scalar interferometry. Then merely point out that, hey, this also makes possible interferometry weapons. A good place to tie into that one, then, is Secretary of Defense Cohen's statement in 1997 confirming the electromagnetic engineering of the weather, stimulation of earthquakes, and stimulation of volcanoes into eruption. In short, the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America stated publicly that those things are being engineered!
Then "suggest" how each might be accomplished (that still ties you to a strong statement) by scalar interferometry. Since one can create fields and field energy at a distance in the interferometry zone, one can also (at least in theory, you say) create "divergent" (heating) fields and "convergent" (cooling) fields. In that case, the weather engineering to first order is easily explained: (1) use both heating interferometry and cooling interferometry, focused into selected little zones in the atmosphere over the targeted continent. Heating the air in an area "thins" it, making a "low pressure area" at will. Cooling the air in an area "densifies" it, making a "high pressure area" at will. Then just slowly move these controlled highs and lows around to entrain and steer the jet stream, and thereby "steer" the weather. Steering air flow in from the warm Gulf, e.g., brings in moisture. Having that stream meet or collide with a "cold" stream brought down from Canada generates quite a fuss and furor and storms, etc. And so on.
Then refer back to the basic scalar interferometry and advance some more potential mechanisms that may lead to weapons. Such as focusing intense energy, fields and waves on a missile or aircraft, knocking out its electronics or jamming them. Same for tanks and other modern ground combat vehicles. Same for surface ships, etc.
Your final recommendation would be very bland; suggesting that the total cumulation of the theory and the evidence (e.g., from superpotential theory) is sufficient that it warrants further work and exploration, both theoretically and experimentally. You might wish to even point out some of the areas of experimentation and further investigation that are "suggested" by the thesis material and conclusions.
Anyway, that's one way to make it potentially acceptable as a "proper academic thesis". Just pepper it with all the good, hard references from the regular literature (and include meteorological references for how jet streams are diverged and steered by highs and lows, etc. in standard weather). That way, you show directly that the bits and pieces are already in the literature, and have just not been drawn together. Also, that not much work has been done with EM longitudinal waves (at least openly).
Hope that helps. It's at least a way to start, and certainly it is worthy of a solid Master's Degree thesis acceptance, for example.
Just extract most of the references you need from my own list of references in the books etc. But be sure to do it correctly; go to the library and also personally copy and view each reference you cite, to assure I have not made a typo error or something, and to insure that those papers are really there and really do say what I say. That way you give a VERIFIED set of reference citations. My stuff has been 95% verified or so, anyway, but once in awhile I do make a typo or just a plain old error. All my pencils still need erasers -- as do those of everyone else that I know of!
I'm sending a copy of this correspondence to Marcia Stockton, who can directly advise you regarding forms of payment for the books, etc.
Best wishes on your studies,
Tom Bearden