In EM theory, use of the del operator produces an electric field E given by E = - Ñ f . An electrical field is also generated by the time rate of change of the magnetic vector potential A, where it is given by E = - dA/dt.

Since the collected energy is also usually the energy dissipated as work, this expression often yields the work performed in the circuit by the energy its charges collected from the impinging S-flow.

One form of displacement current.

One form of displacement current.

A force is defined as a time rate of change of momentum, or F = dp/dt.

Polarization displacement current.

Represents the normal current flow i of charges in a conductor, i.e., i = dq/dt.

...where i = dq/dt in that "load loop" is isolated from the current i = dq/dt in the source loop containing the power source.

The notion is that, even though current cannot pass from the source loop to the load loop, Poynting energy density flow S= E´ H can pass. This is in fact the definition of bridging, if in addition the rigid field coupling is broken between energy dissipation (power) in the source loop and energy dissipation (power) in the load loop. In that fashion, overunity operation of the load can readily be achieved.

This does not at all represent the Poynting flow along the circuit, which may be very, very much greater, on the order of 10¹³ times as great.

Instead of just using "q" and assuming it to be unitary, we must include the fact that charge is a system of two coupled component: (i) the mass m_q of the charge q, and (ii) the virtual photon flux exchange (i.e., f _q) of the charge q. In particle physics it is already well-known that there is no symmetry of a mass system anyway, unless the vacuum's exchange with the mass is included. So the expression m_{qf q} captures the vacuum-mass exchange. By continuing to assume that charge is unitary, physics inadvertently holds to the hoary old notion of the luminiferous ether (thin material ether) that permeates all of space. Maxwell and everyone else in his time firmly believed in a material ether, and Maxwell firmly embedded that notion in EM theory. Inexplicably it has not been rooted out to this day, even though the notion of the material ether (not the ether per se!) was destroyed by the Michelson-Morley experiment over 100 years ago. Foundations physicists continue to point out such terrible defects in physics -- and continue to be ignored. We quote Mario Bunge, "A mathematical theory of the dimensions and units of physical quantities," in Problems in the Foundations of Physics, edited by Mario Bunge, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1971, p. 7: "The question 'What are dimensions?' is seen to be ill conceived, for there are two concepts of dimension, namely those of dimension function and dimension value. The correct question is: 'What are [] and d?' " {Note: [] is dimension function, and d is dimension value.}

Quoting ibid., p. 8: "The concept of a unit is one of those scientific notions that has remained obscure for want of a theory and excess of a coarse philosophy. Indeed we know how to manipulate units but we do not seem to know what kind of mathematical object they are. As a consequence units are sometimes confused with dimensions, at other times with standards, and they are often introduced in relation to measurement rather than to concept formulation."

And quoting Mario Bunge, Foundations of Physics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1967, p. 176: "Different theories of CED are called for, both for charged particles that can to a first approximation be regarded as electromagnetically structureless (e.g., the electron and the m -meson) and for extended systems with a charge distribution and spin (e.g., the proton). If fairly satisfactory classical theories were available they could guide the construction of the corresponding quantum theories. But no such theories are in sight -- partly because it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both classical and quantal, are in a sad state."

Again, p. 182: "...the best modern physicist is the one who acknowledges that neither classical nor quantum physics are cut and dried, both being full of holes and in need of a vigorous overhauling not only to better cover their own domains but also to join smoothly so as to produce a coherent picture of the various levels of physical reality."

Contrary to conventional physics, we recognize that the local energy density of the ambient vacuum can vary, including seasonally within and close to the solar system, etc. In fact the interplanetary radar probes "ranges" do show precisely such variation in the speed of light, with weekly and monthly and seasonal variations, etc. In order to comply with the terrible dogma in physics with respect to the constancy of c, the scientific staffs average the readings over the entire month. This zeroes out the variations, upholds the notion that space is a fixed type of thing, and that the speed of light in it is also a ruthlessly fixed constant.

The Russians have known and openly printed for nearly a century that the speed of light in a hard vacuum in deep space, far removed from solar and planetary masses, is slower than the speed of light in a hard vacuum near the Earth or any other large charged mass. The jillions of charged particles in the earth have tiny separations, so that looking at the Earth as a collection of tiny dipoles, one sees a collection of enormous Poynting energy density S-flow generators. The intensity of this Poynting flux in the vicinity of a massive planet or sun changes the local energy density of the vacuum itself, increasing it in the vicinity.

EM waves in vacuum are actually longitudinal (sound-type) waves. Just as sound speeds up, say, in steel as a denser medium than air, the EM "sound waves" in the ambient vacuum potential speed up when that vacuum potential's flux density is increased. Consequently light does move a little faster in a hard vacuum on Earth than it does in deep space, because the vacuum itself has higher energy density near the earth than in deep space. The comings and goings and orbitings of planets and the solar mass, etc. do affect the local energy density of the vacuum between the planets, and hence the speed of light through that interplanetary space. So the interplanetary radar does show the periodic variations of the local energy density of vacuum that are induced by these factors. For a critical paper on this, see Bryan G. Wallace, "The Unified Quantum Electrodynamic Ether," Foundations of Physics, 3(3), Sept. 1973, p. 381-388. His discussion of the interplanetary radar measurements of Venus, which did not fit relativity, are particularly interesting, with respect to his finding that the data were simply "averaged" to eliminate the variations and hence the diurnal, lunar, and synodic periodic components actually measured in the variations of the speed of light. See particularly Bryan G. Wallace, "The great speed of light in space cover-up." Scientific Ethics, 1(1), Feb. 1985. p. 2-3; ------"Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space," Spectrosc. Lett. Vol. 2, 1969. p. 361.

In empty space there are always myriads upon myriads of interfering fields and potentials, from charges all over the universe, via Puthoff's cosmological feedback principle [see H.E. Puthoff, "Source of Vacuum Electromagnetic Zero-point Energy," Physical Review A, 40(9), Nov. 1, 1989, p. 4857-4862.] Thus any EM wave traveling through space is always involved in enormously active interferometry. This alone results in violent momentary variations in the speed of that wave, even from 0.01 c to 100.00 c. For a paper showing this kind of "galloping" travel of an EM wave, see William G. Harter, John Evans, Roberto Vega, and Sanford Wilson, "Galloping waves and their relativistic properties," American Journal of Physics, 53(7), July 1985, p. 671-679. While the average speed of the wave is c(g ), where g is the local energy density of the vacuum, the instantaneous speeds of the wave vary violently from instant to instant.

The point is, the speed c is not an "iron dictum" of nature, nor is is an "unchangeable constant"! Nature herself routinely violates that notion (as an example, de Broglie waves from any mass always move at v>c.) EM "surface" waves (so-called transverse oscillations or upheavals and depressions in the magnitude of the local ambient vacuum potential), move at a discretized average speed c(g ). The longitudinal component, if freed from the transverse component, can move much faster because it is a sort of "tunneling" movement. In actual quantum tunneling experiments, e.g., music (Beethoven's 40th symphony) has been transmitted through quantum mechanical tunneling between two separated points at speed v>4c. We discuss superluminal communication elsewhere in this glossary.

A lower case c represents the speed of light in ambient vacuum.

Force per unit electric charge; i.e., force per coulomb. Note that the E-field does not actually exist at a point unless there is a unit point charge (a point coulomb) of positive electric charge located at the point. Hence contrary to classical electrodynamics, communications theory, and whatnot, no electric force field (and no magnetic force field either) exists in the vacuum, at least of the kind prescribed by Maxwell's equations and by the Heaviside-Hertz reduction of Maxwell's equations. These equations and models all still erroneously assume a material ether filling the vacuum, in which case there would be matter and charges, and there would then be force-fields in the vacuum.

Conventionally, this is thought to be defined, analogously to E, by the force it exerts. The force exerted on a point charge moving in the magnetic field B is at right angles to the velocity vector of the charge and also at right angles to B. Actually, the H-field was originally named the magnetic field and the B-field was named the magnetic induction (and is still sometimes called that.) This is an annoyance because it is B which produces or involves the force, and hence B should be named the magnetic field. Other writers have noted this discrepancy, and Sommerfeld called H the magnetic excitation -- which correctly describes its role -- rather than calling it the magnetic field. As the reader can see, lots of things in physics are still untidy! In Kaluza-Klein unified field theory, all electromagnetics is in the 5th dimension, which is wrapped around each and every point in our normal 3-dimensional space. At any rate, further pursuit of this discussion is something which we will pass on to the foundations physicists!

Note we have redefined charge q as q º m_{qf q}. The term f _q captures the vacuum's violent virtual energy interaction with the mass m_q of the charge, which is presently missing in classical EM theory and is an exceeding great flaw of omission. It has been known for decades in particle physics that there exists no equilibrium in mass systems, unless the interaction of the vacuum with the masses is included. It is eerie and inexplicable why this known total glitch in EM theory has not long since been corrected, when every university physics department in the country already knows it is wrong!

The S-flow is actually comprised of an organized, structured flow of virtual photons and itself is not observable. Its interaction with charged particles and magnetic poles, however, is observable by the translation of the charge or pole.

The photon is considered to be (unit-wise) composed of (D E)(D t). However, in our view (as we explain in energy, energy collection, and energy dissipation) energy does not occur in "little chunks" at all. One only has "little chunks" of energy when one is collecting energy. In electromagnetics, the "collection" of energy is actually the ongoing collecting of energy. It is a dynamic, ongoing process whereby a collector such as a charged particle intercepts and interacts with (undergoes virtual photon flux exchange with) an impinging Poynting energy density flow S= E´ H. If that Poynting flow is removed, then there is no excess collecting going on. EM energy collection/collecting is always like a rock in a high wind. As long as the wind is blowing on the rock, the rock has a force field on and of it, and wishes to move. It also has "excess collected energy", and a gradient in this "excess collected energy" determined by the wind flow direction. When the wind ceases to blow, the rock goes back to being just a rock, and forgets it had all that excess wind energy collecting and any desire to move.

An action (effect) occurring in a local system, for which no separate local 3-space cause exists, but for which a causal correlation exists between a distant cause and the local effect.

To the local 3-space observer, the effect is baffling. In electromagnetics, action at a distance can be considered a higher topology phenomena, occurring through hyperspace or through subspace, or through "multiply connected spacetime." Action at a distance is absolutely required by quantum mechanics, and experiments establish its truth. Such action was implicitly included in Maxwell's quaternion theory, but was unknowingly discarded by Heaviside, Hertz, and Gibbs when they formulated a much more restricted vector interpretation of Maxwell's theory, after Maxwell's death.

For this specific purpose.

Tentative formulation, not intended toward general application and not yet firm because there is still not a comprehensive, tested demonstration of the "fit" of the model to the complex phenomenology.

Vector magnetic potential.

The A-field is a real field -- not a mathematical convenience as was originally thought -- as detailed in the second volume of Feynman's three volumes of physics. Indeed, it may be separated from the magnetic field, as reported by Feynman, and used for instrumentation effects in the manner patented by Gelinas. When separated, it is often referred to as the "curl-free vector potential," since the B-field is modeled as being created from the A-field. In other words, B is defined as the curl of the magnetic vector potential, if we use B º Ñ ´ A. The curl-free vector potential is particularly interesting because (1) it is a unique and independent field of nature, (2) its curl produces a magnetic field, (3) its time derivative produces an electric field, and (4) its magnitude does not fall off inversely as the distance squared, but only inversely as the distance.

In mathematics: "A connection on a manifold, whose form is unchanged under affine changes of parameter along curves, e.g., when the original parameter t of a curve g (t) is replaced by t = as + b."

Dictionary of Science and Technology, Academic Press, Christopher Morris (Ed.), 1992. Ugh! We'll let the mathematicians take it from there.

"Transformation on a linear space to itself which can be expressed as the sum of a linear transformation and a fixed vector.

The affine transformations form a group. In the plane, the group is six-dimensional, consisting of translations, rotations, stretchings and shrinkings, reflections, simple elongations and compressions, and simple shear transformations, as well as compositions of these."

Dictionary of Science and Technology, 1992, ibid.

Renowned Israeli quantum physicist and former student of David Bohm.

Co-discoverer of the Aharonov-Bohm effect: Even when the electromagnetic force fields reduce to zero in a charged particle system, the potentials may still exist and interfere to cause real physical effects. Together with Bohm, Aharonov authored a fundamental paper in 1959 which pointed out the primary importance of the potentials rather than the force fields. Indeed, the force fields are only made in and of the charged particle system itself, by interference there of potentials, and do not exist as such in the vacuum. The forcefields are thus not primary electromagnetic causes at all, but are secondary effects due to the interference of potentials in a particular charged particle system. [See Aharonov-Bohm Effect] In his three volumes of physics, Feynman pointed out that the forcefields do not exist as such in the vacuum, and that only the potential for the forcefields exists in vacuum. The primary causative agents for electromagnetics are thus the potentials. This has been proven both theoretically and experimentally in quantum mechanics, but still does not appear in present classical electromagnetic theory taught in universities.

Phenomenon theoretically pointed out in 1959 by Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm whereby interfering electromagnetic potentials can produce effects on charged particle systems, even at a distance and in the absence of the electromagnetic force fields.

Chambers experimentally demonstrated the effect one year later. When E- and B-fields are zero in a region, their potentials still may exist and thus be stable and persistent. Being gradient-free, a force-free potential is not changing; no bleed-in or bleed-off of its magnitude or of its internal structure is occurring. Interference of the potentials produces real electromagnetic effects (energy) in the interference zone, even at a great distance, without transmission of "field energy" per se through the intervening 3-space. [Rigorously, the potential's EM energy can be considered to be hyperspatially transmitted, or subspatially transmitted (tunneled) via the Whittaker internal EM biwave mechanism. See discussions under action at a distance.]

In 1897-8 Stoney showed (in Philosophical Magazine) by physical reasoning that all the disturbances of the ether arising from sources of certain kinds can be resolved into trains of plane waves. This was extended and the general and special equations written by E.T. Whittaker in 1903 in Mathematische Annalen. In 1904 (delivered orally in 1903) Whittaker's second paper dealing with the subject was published in the Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, and showed that scalar EM potential interferometry is in fact what generates the classical EM force fields.

The two Whittaker papers may be interpreted to show a startling hyperspatial arrangement in a potential or EM wave. (1) any wave in a particular 3-space is due to interfering potentials in that space, which is the same as interfering multiwave sets in a hyper-3-space; (2) any single potential in a particular 3-space is due to a single harmonic biwave set in hyper-3-space. And so on ad infinitum, in infinite-dimensional spacetime.Take a single EM potential in a given 3-space. It is decomposable into a hyper-3-space bidirectional EM wave set, in an infinite harmonic phase-locked series. Take any EM wave in that hyper-3-space. It is composed of the interference of two or more scalar EM potentials in a separate 3-space. Each of these potentials is then decomposable into a multiwave pair set again, in yet another 3-space, and so on.

Anything that is composed of virtual particle flux is a potential.

Whittaker's work shows that, contrary to present assumptions in quantum physics, a particular potential has its virtual particle flux formed into a beautiful bidirectional wave structure. The apparent disorder at any local point in the local vacuum potential is due to the constant arrival of myriads of potentials, from charged particles all over the universe. The violent interference and re-interference of these potentials results in the creation of violently changing virtual photons -- or in terms of waves, violently changing EM waves and fields. In other words, the statistical disorder of the vacuum is actually composed of continually and rapidly changing perfect order. [Here we have confronted 3-law Aristotelian logic with its missing 4th law, because at the limit opposites are identical!] The continual violent interferometry results in the zero-point EM fluctuations of vacuum. Each EM fluctuation is completely deterministic, as shown in Puthoff's cosmological feedback mechanism. However, the macroscopic observer has no knowledge of the cause or of the arrival, and of the myriads of interferences that produced the final EM field fluctuation. Hence although the zero-point fluctuations of vacuum are completely deterministic one-by-one, the observer has no information on their causality. Hence to the observer these fluctuations are completely statistical and seemingly without local order. However, because of their hidden determinism, these fluctuations are chaotic rather than random -- contrary to the Gibbs' thermodynamics statistics assumed and adopted by quantum mechanics. That statistics should be changed to an "already chaotic" statistics containing hidden order. This would appear to be the real solution to the recognized major QM problem of the missing chaos.

Since their changes and appearances are completely in one-to-one correspondence to all distant features of the macroscopically ordered universe, then their integration yields macroscopic order. Further, as can be seen, Mach's principle -- so near and dear to the heart of Einstein -- arises directly from the foregoing discussion. In such fashion, integration of statistical quantum changes results in the familiar, ordered macroscopic world. This removes the great error in QM: that heretofore it has failed to predict the ordered macroscopic universe we observe and inhabit.

Part that is analogous.

At root, an analogue of something is a second something that functions in similar fashion to the first something.

180 degrees out of phase (contrary-wise in timing).

The secret of practical antigravity is to form, time-reverse, and thereby expel a gravity-producing potential gradient in the object or mass for which antigravity exhibition is desired, before that potential can interact with the mass.

In other words, the formation of a gravity-producing potential gradient and its interaction with the mass, produces gravitational force in, on, and of that mass.

If we form excess gravity-producing potential gradient in the immediate vicinity of a mass and then sharply expel it without its interaction with the mass, that produces antigravity force on the mass! It does so because, when the excess gravity potential gradient was formed, the local spacetime potential was altered, although the mass had not yet produced G-force because interaction had not occurred. Then when the G-potential gradient was quickly removed without dissipation, the local excited spacetime G-potential gradient was reduced.

Note that EM and G forces can be decomposed into two scalar potentials, per Whittaker 1904. So instead of focusing on forces, we must focus on potentials as more primary. Since all EM potentials are also gravitational because of their trapped energy, we need only consider EM potentials or their analogues.

We have previously discovered that almost all EM reactions in circuits come from the Newtonian 3rd law EM reactions (which were erroneously omitted from electrodynamics by Faraday and Maxwell) in the nuclei. This is also true of events or potential events in the local vacuum potential in which the nucleus is embedded. The nucleus is in a violent "electric circuit" energy exchange with its local vacuum potential. If you suddenly stop doing something that is ongoing in that interaction, or something already potentially looming in that interaction, the nucleus must emit its "reaction" to try to prevent that stopping action, out to the "external circuit" where the stopping action is being initiated, as a special case of the (erroneously) missing 3rd law reaction in electrodynamics. It's rather like having a current running through a coil with lots of turns, and then suddenly opening a set of magneto breaker points in the circuit. Momentarily the coil will react with a large surge of voltage to try to keep the current flowing and prevent the change. While electrodynamics certainly describes this well, it has previously had absolutely no notion of the mechanism that actually generated the sudden EM reaction in the coil, resisting the change. The reaction comes directly from the "nuclei gas" in the conductors and materials of the circuit, not from the Drude electron gas.

Fortunately almost all the mass of an atom is in its nucleus, so we need only consider the nucleus. The conventional photon interaction with atoms is almost always a graviton (photon/antiphoton pair) interaction. In fact, all potentials are made of gravitons that are constantly forming and unforming. So the virtual "photon" flux exchange of the vacuum with mass actually includes both photons and antiphotons, and can be characterized as a graviton flux also

An atom may be regarded as an assemblage of dynamic dipoles, each consisting of a negative charge in the electron shells and a positive charge in the nucleus. When a vacuum virtual graviton approaches the atom, the asymmetry of the dynamic dipoles separates the graviton into photon and antiphoton halves. The photon half by-and-largely interacts with the electron end of a dipole. The accompanying (and now separated) antiphoton "half" by andlargely reaches the nucleus end of the dipole, and interacts with it.

Suppose we have built up an excess of incoming antiphotons, as a special "looming" potential that unless otherwise redirected will reach the nucleus and interact with it. Now suppose that excess incoming antiphoton energy is suddenly reversed just prior to reaching the nucleus and redirected back out into the vacuum, away from the nucleus and without interacting with it. An interesting thing emerges: (i) the potential for excess mass (and the gradient excess gravitational force) in the nucleus was deliberately created and potentialized, but not allowed to deterministically occur (i.e., the "wavefunction did not collapse, so-to-speak), (ii) that "excess gravity potentiality" is actually a real potential in the "external circuit" connected to the nucleus, where the external circuit is that nearby vacuum flux, (iii) that "excess gravitation potentiality" was expelled from the region of the nucleus, without having interacted with the nucleus, (iv) this expulsion engenders the missing Newton's third law reaction from the nucleus, which momentarily and strongly attempts to prevent the change. In other words, the nucleus is suddenly evoked to furnish some of its own gravity force reaction and potential back to the vacuum, in an attempt to resist the sudden interruption and change in its "external circuit," and (v) this "expulsion of some of its normal gravity potential and force from the nucleus, is a priori a production of antigravity potential and antigravity force in, on, and of the nucleus.

Simply put, you can look at it like this. Form a positively changing excess gravity potential in the vacuum adjacent to the nucleus, as its "external circuit". [Remember, that's a dynamic, ongoing thing, and not just a "static formation."] Then sharply repulse that excess gravity potential, away from the nucleus. The ongoing initial action had begun the "circuit" process of furnishing excess gravitation to the nucleus. That was suddenly stopped and reversed. The nucleus was forced to react in order to try to prevent that action, which means it had to furnish some of its own "in processing" gravitational potential out to the interruption region. Well, ejection of some "gravity action" is exactly the same as production of some "antigravity action."

So local antigravitation actually is a fairly straightforward process: (i) formation of the immediately incoming potentiality for increased gravitation and gravitational force in the nucleus, (ii) sudden rejection of that potentiality prior to its consummation in the nucleus as gravitational force therein, and (iii) the subsequent (electrodynamically omitted in error!) Newtonian third law electrogravitational reaction by the nucleus to try to resist the change in its connected external "virtual vacuum flux circuit".

The point is, this is not just a speculative theory, but it has been demonstrated at least once in the laboratory (unfortunately in a device over which I had no control, and whose scientific exposé I also had no control of). The antigravitation theory, however, was and is totally my own. E.g., see Floyd Sweet and T.E. Bearden, "Utilizing Scalar Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy," Proceedings of the 26th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (IECEC '91), Boston, Massachusetts, 1991, p. 370-375. That paper shows the results of Sweet's successful laboratory experiment in which the weight of an object was smoothly and controllably reduced by 90% on the laboratory bench. For a 10% efficient process, it requires about 250 watts to levitate one pound at the earth's surface.

For every particle there exists an "antiparticle" with opposite properties such as the sign of its electrical charge.

Also refers to matter consisting of atoms which are composed of antiparticles (positrons, antiprotons, and antineutrons). Also loosely refers to the antiparticle corresponding to a particle. The antiparticle may be regarded as the particle traveling backward in time, or "phase conjugated." In present physics, the photon is recognized as its own antiparticle.

A counterpart to an ordinary fundamental particle, having identical mass lifetime and spin, but with charge and magnetic moment reversed in algebraic sign.

Note that when the charge is reversed, parity and time are also reversed. Thus, properly, the antiparticle is the phase conjugation of the particle, or just conjugate particle for short.

A time-reversed photon.

In physics presently, the photon is considered its own antiparticle, so that photon and antiphoton are one and the same. In the new approach, that is not quite true. First, one considers that a photon -- as is well known -- has the units of angular momentum. Thus it is made of "energy multiplied by time." We consider that the time-forward photon (i.e. a normal photon), is made of (+D E)(+D t). For some inexplicable reason physicists have neglected the fact that a photon carries an increment of time as well as an increment of energy! In our approach the antiphoton, being a time-reversed entity, must be composed differently. We have tentatively considered the antiphoton to be comprised of (- D E)(- D t). It will probably initially be necessary to take into account the fact that Minkowski geometry treats the T dimension as imaginary rather than simple arithmetic. We haven't had the lengthy time to work all of that out; perhaps one of the better theoreticians or one of the sharp young graduate students will do that and save us the trouble. At any rate, the requirement is that -- in a coupled photon-antiphoton pair (a graviton) -- the energies of photon and antiphoton must add spatially, while electromagnetically the translation forces (actually translation impulses) of photon and antiphoton must cancel or thwart each other. One insists on a strong interpretation of the distortion correction theorem in phase conjugate optics. In other words, we consider the "wave" as composed of photons, while the "antiwave" (phase conjugate replica) emitted by a phase conjugate mirror is composed of antiphotons. And we consider that the distortion correction theorem must apply to the wave's photons, so that the antiphotons are precisely superposing (coupling) and then decoupling as the wave and antiwave pass through each other in perfect spatial superposition. We feel that this "totally in phase spatially but totally antiphased temporally" concept is important; it is well-known, e.g., that in certain cases protons can pass right through other protons, as shown in certain colliding beam experiments.

Radiation emitted from an intensely scattering medium that is of greater intensity than the input radiation.

In other words, the medium gives off more energy than we have to put into it. This has been known since the 1930s and proven experimentally, but no real explanation has been forthcoming prior to now (where we have now explained it).

The radiation coming from an anti-Stokes emission process from an intensely scattering medium, where more energy flux is emitted than is input by the experimenter-operator.

In the past, there has just been "arm-waving" that the excess energy must come from the internal energy of the molecules. There seems to be no explanation at all of where the excess energy of the molecules must come from! Tacit silence on this "apparent" violation of energy conservation is held.

We quote from H.C. Dake and Jack DeMent. (1941) Fluorescent Light and Its Applications, Chemical Publishing Company, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, 1941. p. 51-52: "When a phosphor or other luminescent substance emits light, it gives in most cases an emission according to Stokes' Law. This law states that the wavelength of the fluorescent (emitted) light is always greater than the wavelength of the exciting radiation. It was first observed in 1852 in the memoir "On the Change of Refrangibility of Light," by Sir G.G. Stokes. In terms of energy the relationship states that e em < e ab. While Stokes' Law holds for the majority of cases, it does not hold in certain instances. In some cases the wave length is the same for both the absorbed and the emitted radiation. That is, the efficiency appears to be perfect or unity. This is known as resonance radiation. In other cases Stokes' Law does not hold where the energy emitted is greater than the energy absorbed. This is known as Anti-Stokes emission. In 1935 Prileshajewa showed that there is an energy difference as much as 1.1 v between the exciting light and the fluorescence of aniline vapor. This added energy is attributed to additions from the internal energy of the molecule."

There is no real problem of identifying the source of the excess energy, once one realizes that (i) every dipole is a broken symmetry in the vacuum exchange with the end charges of the dipole, and thus extracts virtual energy from the vacuum, integrates and orders it, and outputs it as Poynting energy density flow S = E´ H. One then adds multiretroreflection and multiple passes of the S-flow, so that charges that intercept and collect energy from the S-flow can multiply connect from the same energy flow (on a given pass, only a tiny, tiny fraction -- nominally about 10- 13 -- of the Poynting energy flow is intercepted and interacted with by the collecting particle). Thus multiple collections from the same S-flow can be accomplished, if the S-flow is iteratively rerouted (as by retroreflection or phase conjugate reflection) across the collecting charges again and again.

In this fashion additional energy is collected in the collected volume, which increases the local collected energy density in that volume. In turn this increases the local potential of that volume. In turn that increases the Poynting S-flow from that potential acting as a dipole, because it increases the dipole strength and consequently the magnitude of the dipole's broken symmetry in its vacuum flux exchange.

The inefficiency of the process increases nonlinearly with increasing local potential, and faster than the buildup of local energy density occurs from multipass multicollection. When the inefficiency curve reaches the increasing broken symmetry energy extraction curve, then a point of equilibrium is reached. At that equilibrium point, the rate of energy diffusing out of the multipass region and escaping from the periphery of the system is equal to the rate of extraction of energy from the vacuum and flowing it out into as Poynting S-flow into the multicollection region and collecting it.

So we have described an open thermodynamic system, where there are two inputs of energy flow: (i) that by the operator-experimenter, and (ii) that from the vacuum via the dipolar broken symmetries. At equilibrium condition the total input energy rate is equal to the total energy escaping rate, and the conservation of energy law is rigorously upheld. However, this is an open thermodynamic system far from equilibrium, and so rigorously the nonlinear thermodynamics of such systems applies, rather than the normal equilibrium thermodynamics. As is well-known, the coefficient of performance for such open systems in disequilibrium, may permissibly be overunity, even greatly overunity.

Properly utilized, the overunity anti-Stokes emission can be made very large -- such as COP » 1200 in Patterson's adaptation. Puthoff (Hal is a good friend of mine!), here is the rigorous answer to your cogent "1 watt challenge" to free energy system inventors! The process and its overunity certification already exist in the hard science literature, being known and experimentally demonstrated for at least three decades.

The time-reversal (phase conjugation) of a reference wave.

A phase conjugate replica wave is a time-reversed replica of its referent wave. Hence it is the antiwave of the referent wave.

A scalar potential which is composed of, or partially contains, an artificially assembled bidirectional wave set.

See E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 for proof that a "scalar potential" is actually a harmonic set of hidden bidirectional EM wave pairs. Each wavepair consists of a wave and its antiwave (true time-reversed replica wave).

If the external observer could see the waves in a hidden wavepair, he would see the "wave" going in one direction and the antiwave passing precisely through it in the other direction. In addition to Whittaker's sum set of biwaves, Ziolkowski added the product set in the mid-1980s. E.g., see Richard W. Ziolkowski, "Exact solutions of the wave equation with complex source locations," Journal of Mathematical Physics, 26(4), April 1985, p. 861-863; Rod Donnelly and Richard Ziolkowski, "A method for constructing solutions of homogeneous partial differential equations: localized waves," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A., Vol. 437, 1992, p. 673-692. Particularly see I.M. Besieris, A.M. Shaarawi, and R.W. Ziolkowski, "A bidirectional travelling plane wave representation of exact solutions of the scalar wave equation," Journal of Mathematical Physics, 30(6), 1989, p. 1254-1269.

Another way of defining an artificial potential is: A potential formed by or containing a subset formed by, deliberately summing nonzero force field vectors to a zero vector resultant. [Note that electrodynamicists routinely discard vector systems that sum to a zero resultant; not realizing that in doing so, they are discarding vacuum engines and a vastly extended electrogravitational dynamics!] The vector zero system of infolded nonzero vectors has a deterministic, internal stress pattern that is macroscopic. The type of potential made by the zero summation depends upon the type of force vectors summed. For example, summing electric field vectors to zero produces an electrostatic scalar potential; summing magnetic field vectors to zero produces a magnetostatic scalar potential of vacuum.

All potentials represents local warps or curvatures in vacuum/spacetime, and all artificial potentials contain internal, deterministic templates of nested internal spacetime curvatures. Curvature of spacetime interacts directly upon mass and physical systems embedded in it. Thus these deterministic, internested local spacetime curvatures of the artificial potential represent vacuum engines, or spacetime engines, and the artificial potential is said to be a dimensioned or activated potential. Any system exposed to and placed in such a vacuum spacetime engine, will have these hidden vacuum flux asymmetries interacting upon each and every part of it, down to and including the nuclei, the nucleons, and the quarks in the nucleons.

Change of either the scalar potential f or the vector potential A, but not both, so that a single excess force and a single change of system energy occurs in the system.

This violates the assumed Lorentz condition, and thus excess energy can enter the system, and an excess "free" force appears which can (if the system is adroitly designed) then translate to perform work upon the system to increase its (e.g. kinetic) energy, exhausting the excess regauging energy in the process and restoring symmetry.

In conventional EM theory, Maxwell's equations in potential formulation are in terms of two potentials, f (the scalar potential) and A (the vector potential). When Heaviside retranslated Maxwell's quaternion set of 20 equations in 20 unknowns, he transformed it (in potential form) into two equations where main variables f and A are not separated. Electrodynamicists, who until recently considered the potentials as not even real, but just mathematical figments and conveniences, then simply arbitrarily changed both f and A just precisely so that the extra force appearing in the system by the change of f was countered by an equal and opposite extra force also appearing in the system by the change of A. This type of symmetrical (no net force) regauging is known as the Lorentz condition.

Each asymmetrical (produces a nonzero excess net force) potential change (each half of the two asymmetrical regaugings that comprise the symmetrical regauging) also altered the overall energy of the system. However, that total energy change is "bottled up" as increased stress in the system, because no net translation force is available to be translated and produce excess "free work."

The Lorentz condition is just an assumption that the designer will be such a fool that he will not allow the equilibrium of the system to be broken! In that case, of course, ordinary equilibrium thermodynamics applies, and the system cannot produce COP>1.0. Prior to this Lorentz condition assumption and its absolutely arbitrary regauging, Maxwell's equations do include asymmetrical regauging and therefore open EM systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium; precisely those which violate the Lorentz condition (symmetric regauging) assumption.

Unknowingly the electrodynamicists arbitrarily discarded the entire Maxwellian class of overunity EM engines and circuits -- which class incorporates making a change in one potential(s) such that the Lorentz condition does not hold.

This is standard particle physics, although it appears to be totally missing from classical electrodynamics and it is not considered at all by circuit designers and analysts!

Every electric charge is a broken symmetry in the virtual particle flux exchange between the quantum mechanical (energetic) vacuum and the mass of that electric charge. The dipole is two different such asymmetries. As is well-known in particle physics (not in classical EM theory!) each such broken symmetry must "gate" out some of the vacuum energy. In short, the charge asymmetry "extracts" some vacuum energy from its normal "energetic exchange" with the vacuum flux, and puts it out in some form we call "observable" (capable of being measured; specifically, of being intercepted by electric charges so as to produce a force field across the charge and translate it).

Well, an electrical charge produces a flow of Poynting energy density S = E´ H, which we (a little bit mistakenly) call "observable." [Actually it is an organized flow of virtual entities]. The spinning electron has its own magnetic moment and its ownE-field. Since (in one form) also E= - Ñ f , an "extracted and formed S= E´ H is output by the charge asymmetry. This output S-flow also produces the f of the charge.

In classical electrodynamics (formed long before the notion of charged particles, atoms, and Poynting energy flow!) it is just recognized that "charge is the source of a potential." Actually charge extracts the energy flow from the vacuum flux, by its asymmetry in that flux, and puts it out as Poynting S-flow. That S-flow contains and carries the E-field, the H-field (spin field), and the f . Also, in particle physics and gauge theory it is well-known that no mass system can be in equilibrium anyway, unless the vacuum-to-mass interaction is incorporated! After CEM was formed, much later the atom was discovered and the electron was discovered. Much later then, particle physics and quantum mechanics came along. CEM theory has never been altered to include the necessary vacuum interaction, although it has been known for decades that CEM is totally wrong in this respect.

Here one poses a question to the sharp young graduate students: Why on earth does every university continue to teach a seriously flawed electrodynamics which does not include the vacuum/mass interaction, when the physics department at the same university knows full well that it must? Why is not such a fundamental and universal issue strongly raised and intensively discussed by our large, tax-exempt scientific organizations at their annual symposia? Why do not the national science foundations demand that serious work be done at all speed, to correct such known scientific deficiencies? What happened to science as the search for physical truth, and replaced it with "status quo" models or -- in some cases -- even dogma? It is an inexplicable mystery to me, and one to which I do not know the answer.

Suppose we run a normal EM wave into a phase conjugating mirror (PCM) with a gain of 1. By ordinary phase conjugate optics, the mirror then emits a backwards-traveling phase conjugate replica wave (PCR wave). According to the so-called "distortion correction theorem," that backwards traveling wave will travel backwards (as seen by the external observer) back over the exact route taken by the previous wave, and it will reappear in space precisely superposed spatially with the previous waves. If you examine the impulse (density) fields (i.e., Edt), then the forward-time wave contains Edt while the backward time wave contains E(- dt), which is just - Edt. So electromagnetically the E-fields seem to cancel, although they are still there and their energy is still there. One thus (simple case) will have a strange kind of standing wave wherein the local energy density of the vacuum varies (e.g., sinusoidally) as a function of distance, but a charged particle placed in it will not be translated! Rigorously, that is a gravitational standing wave. Since change in local energy density is also a curvature of spacetime, that is also a standing sinusoidal wave of the local curvature of spacetime. This is where electromagnetics and gravitation actually meet, and where electromagnetics can be utilized to produce gravitational waves. (Much more complex waves can be produced; this is just the simplest example).

E-fields (and B-fields) being propagated in a pair of opposite waves traveling "through" each other in opposite directions,

...where the two are "locked together" as a wave and its antiwave; i.e., as a "Whittaker biwave pair".

Gating (of energy flow, e.g.) in both directions simultaneously.

A wave and its antiwave, where each wave is moving in an opposite direction (standard assumption in phase conjugate physics).

In short, to the external observer the waves seem to be "moving through" each other; one from left to right, and the other from right to left; or one radially outward and the other radially inward. All scalar potentials were shown by Stoney and Whittaker to be comprised of a harmonic series of such "bidirectional traveling wave pairs."

In the charge-barrier semiconductor functioning, stopping or partially stopping the flow of current in a circuit, or between two points, without stopping the Poynting S-flow.

In ordinary usage, "stopping the progress of."

World renowned physicist and originator of the hidden variable theory interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Together with his student Aharonov, he co-authored a fundamental paper on the Aharonov-Bohm effect wherein interfering electromagnetic potentials can produce effects on charged particle systems, even at a distance and in the absence of the electromagnetic force fields.

A major interpretation of quantum mechanics, formulated by David Bohm and published in Physical Review in 1952.

See David J. Bohm, "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of 'Hidden' Variables, I and II," Physical Review, 85(2), Jan. 15, 1952, p. 166-179 (Part I); 180-193 (Part II). Bohm's theory makes all the correct predictions and also eliminates many problems in quantum mechanics, such as the "measurement problem" and the -- now alarming -- problem of the missing chaos (i.e., the missing "hidden order.").

Ironically, the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation of the QM theory predicts that the organized macroscopic world does not exist, while Bohm's theory predicts it. [Question to the sharp young graduate student: How can one defend a scientific model which predicts that he himself does not exist? If one keeps one's sense of humor, it would seem that this has to be the greatest scientific faux pas of all time!] It may be that one unconscious reason that most physicists still oppose HVT is that it implies that physical reality can in fact be deterministically engineered. Most physicists would seem to fervently wish physical reality to stay "solid as a brick," with fixed "laws of nature," which can be leisurely discovered and then utilized comfortably, predictably, and sanely. The advent of HVT (which is just a matter of time; for decades the Russians have highly weaponized the HVT area!) dramatically alters our perception of "fixed physical reality" into that of an "engineerable, changeable" physical reality! I tentatively believe that the terrible psychological implications of such a potential development is something that most scientists do not wish to cope with -- we simply do not have the Gestalt for it. On the other hand, the Russian national psychology is such that they do have the Gestalt for it. The Russian energetics -- which I have long referred to as scalar electromagnetics -- basically utilizes the infolded ordering inside the potential to create "direct patterns of vacuum flux", hence vacuum engines. And it also utilizes the quantum potential, including internally structuring the QP, to enable instantaneous action-at-a-distance in multiple simultaneous locations and nodes, with stupendous and automatic energy amplification.

By deterministically "patterning" the internal structuring of the scalar potential, one can directly form such vacuum engines. Whittaker showed in 1904 that any EM field pattern whatsoever can be expressed as two scalar potentials, rather than thecommon f and A representation. This means that any EM wave is simply the "interference" (between the hidden biwave structures) of two scalar potentials, even at a distance. By properly structuring an EM signal (i.e., structuring the two potentials into which it can be decomposed), the resulting EM signal -- appearing normal on the surface -- nonetheless now transports special vacuum engines deliberately designed to perform some particular internal task in mass systems, electronic systems, or humans when it strikes a target at a distance. I refer to this "internal structuring" of the Stoney/Whittaker/Ziolkowski internal biwaves and their products, as dimensioning of the potential(s), and hence of the EM carrier wave. The Russians call it the information content of the field; but our own scientists tend to erroneously interpret that phrase as ordinary spectral analysis. In other words, they erroneously continue to regard EM vacuum engines as if they were ordinary EM signals.

A component or process which passes Poynting S-flow between two isolated circuits, but does not pass dq/dt between them, and which breaks the normal rigidly field-locked power dissipations in the two circuits.

Space itself would appear to be one such bridge.

The function of passing Poynting S-flow between two isolated circuits, but not passing dq/dt between them, while simultaneously breaking any normal rigidly field-locked power dissipations in the two circuits.

Simply a change in the amplitude of the entire potential,

(i.e., to every internal biwave pair comprising it) at some point or in some region of space, as compared to changing the amplitude of only one or a few of the internal biwave pairs of the potential, without changing all the rest.

In electrical theory, a resistor to pass current by (in parallel to) some other component.

If other effects such as use of the overpotential, pumped phase conjugate reflection, quantum wells, quantum tunneling, and charge blocking are added, the function of the bypass resistor becomes extremely complicated.

Electrical charge q is defined as q º mqf q, to first order.

The second term, f _q, can be further broken down into a set of dipoles if the gathering of a virtual charge screen in the vacuum, surrounding the mass of the "bare charge" inside the gathering, is included. At first order, f _q can be expressed (particle view) as a change in the local vacuum virtual photon flux (VPF), due to the VPF exchange between vacuum and m_q. The f _q component is actually the "electrical charge" and massless of itself, since it is totally a virtual photon flux.

A charged particle of mass is thus a little energy flow generator. It is a broken symmetry in the local VPF, and therefore has an "observable" energy flow output, extracted and gated from the asymmetry in the VPF. This "observable" energy flow outputs the well-known Poynting energy flow S in classical EM, though CEM does not recognize or include this vacuum interaction. It does just assume that the "charge" q is the source of a potential. When originally formed as a concept, q was just a "quantity of electric fluid," like a "cubic centimeter of fluid," etc. The atom and the electron had not yet been discovered.

Anything which contains charges and can move.

Can be an electron, a bunch of electrons fixed in a moving dielectric, etc.

The moving charge (i.e., the current dq/dt) with an S-flow streaming onto it and on beyond, carries its interaction with that S-flow right along with it in the current i = dq/dt. This is what the charge's "excess collected energy" consists of, and this is how the collected/collecting, repeat collected/collecting energy in the circuit is transported to the collected-energy dissipation sites (loads and losses).

Holding charges "pinned" or "trapped" by a barrier or force, so that they do not flow as i = dq/dt.

A process or component or function which blocks the movement of charges q as current dq/dt.

A quantum well which has more charge-blocking action in one direction than the other, and is thus "asymmetric" in its function.

It may also be dynamic, so that it changes in its degree (and/or its direction) of action as a function of time.

Classical EM theory is simply classical electrodynamics.

Quantal Electrodynamics is known as quantum electrodynamics. These are standard terms for standard disciplines.

Ordinary electromagnetics, of the kind used in ordinary EM circuits.

e.g. Primarily refers to Maxwellian electrodynamics as reinterpreted by Heaviside, Gibbs, Hertz, and a few others.

Classical electrodynamics theory.

Essentially Maxwell's electrodynamics at root basis, with the background supporting classical theory.

A system that does not communicate with its environment, and does not exchange energy or matter between system and environment.

Ordinary thermodynamics is applied to a closed (isolated) system or one in equilibrium in its exchange with its environment. A priori, such an equilibrium system can output only what excess energy is input into it and collected by the system. When the system collects the excess input energy, this momentarily breaks the equilibrium (the system is not isolated) and breaks the symmetry (it is an asymmetrical regauging). Subsequent output of that excess collected energy (as power in the loads and losses) from the system is a second, equal and opposite asymmetrical regauging of the system which restores symmetry, equilibrium, and the Lorentz condition.

Occurring or existing together.

Every photon remains perfectly ordered! A conglomerate (group) of photons, however, may be arranged in almost an infinite variety of orderings, groupings, directions, etc. -- which we refer to as templates and as hierarchies (group orderings) of photons.

In a pure energy flow (energy transport), the "herd" of photons is organized along the flow direction. Regardless of how one scatters or "disorders" this patterning of the "herd" or "hierarchical ordering" of photons, not one single bit of the underlying energy and individual photon ordering is lost. So when one "uses" energy (e.g., scatters the hierarchical ordering of a photon herd from a resistor as heat), one does not lose any energy at all, but simply has "scrambled" the hierarchical ordering of the photons into a new herd configuration (which may be varying every which way!). The point here is the real meaning of the fundamental conservation of energy law: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed!

When you "use" one joule of energy to perform one joule of work (say, in a single-pass, scattering), you still have exactly that one joule of energy left. It can still do another single pass joule of work, then another, then another, and so on. If you plan things right, you can use a single joule of work to perform many joules of work, contrary to what we were so strongly taught in the "single-pass, single collection, single dissipation" examples given to us in university as the "law" of God and electrodynamics.

Note that the conventional work-energy theorem assumes single pass, single collection, and single dissipation of a joule of energy to perform a single joule of work. The point is, that is not a limitation of nature, but a limitation of a single process! Nature regularly uses a joule of energy to do multiple joules of work, because after you dissipate or scatter the energy the first time, it's still there and later will be intercepted to do some more work.

Anti-Stokes emission, the Patterson Power Cell, Lawandy's lasing without population inversion, and some gas-filled tubes with anti-Stokes emission are examples of known, validated overunity processes (processes with coefficient of performance greater than unity). These all use multipass, multicollection, multidissipation in iterated manner, to increase dipole asymmetry and therefore produce excess extraction of energy from the vacuum. Patterson's unit, e.g., has been independently measured by universities at efficiencies of some 1200 or so. This absolutely does not violate the laws of physics nor the nonequilibrium thermodynamics of open systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

A scalar potential formed without use of artificial substructuring of its internal biwaves and their products.

In other words, one in which it is assumed that its virtual particle flux has no ordering, but is just a randomized flux. This assumption (e.g., of quantum mechanics indirectly) is incompatible by the Whittaker demonstration that (i) a scalar potential is a bunch of bidirectional EM wave pairs, and thus not a scalar entity at all, and (ii) perfect ordering of its wave components exists inside the scalar potential. If one then insists that these hidden EM waves are comprised of hidden photons, then it follows that the photons exist as continually coupling and uncoupling photon/antiphoton pairs, or continually forming and unforming gravitons as the wave and antiwave continually pass through each other.

Ratio of energy out, divided by that portion of the total energy input that is input by the operator or experimenter.

The COP is thus a measure of "efficiency of using the operator or experimenter's input energy" to produce -- or direct the production of -- useful work. Note that he can direct the use of his own input energy, as almost all our present systems do. Better yet, he can also direct the use of some external free flow of energy into the system, so that he gets lots more work out of the system than he has to put in himself. Only a few of our systems -- such as solar cells, sails on sailboats, waterwheels to power mills, and windmills -- are such Maxwell's demons (open systems

Refers to concepts of fields as the curl of some vector potential;

e.g., the B field as the curl of the A-potential, given by B = Ñ ´ A.

Consideration, or data considered, or information considered, or action considered, or result considered.

A matter wave, conceived by Louis de Broglie.

The quantum mechanics wave associated with a particle of matter, which can give rise to interference effects. An orbital electron in an atom is associated with a standing de Broglie wave on a Bohr orbit. De Broglie waves always move faster than the speed of light, the speed being given by c²/v, where c is the velocity of light in vacuum and v is the velocity of the particle of mass. De Broglie wave velocities thus vary from the speed of light to infinite speed (everywhere at once). In his speech accepting the Nobel Prize, de Broglie emphasized that, since these waves produce real physical effects, they are real and must not be regarded simply as mathematical conveniences.

In space of dimensions greater than four, the rotating of an object or entity away from its line of motion, in the direction of a dimension at right angles to the line of travel in the observer's three-space.

The Lorentz transform in special relativity, e.g., is just a formula for this kind of rotation. The notion is that, if you allow a spacetime of greater than four dimensions, by continuing to rotate ever more away from the original line of travel, the rotated object loses one observable dimension for every orthorotation. Hence with three "departing" orthorotations it becomes a "nonobservable point" to the normal observer, but one that would be moving at speed c³. A single orthorotation would make the 3-dimensional object a two-dimensional plane moving at speed c. In short, a photon is just a particle (such as an electron) that is orthorotated once (toward the time axis). The concept was originally formed to allow a physical modeling grasp on a "mental" object as compared to a "physical" object. Such an approach can be used to model both mind and matter, and such approaches have been used by Russian energetics in that branch of it called psychoenergetics. It is possible to directly engineer the mind, thought, and memory also, but that is the realm of Russian energetics and beyond our consideration in this paper.

The exact arrangement, by plan and deterministic action, of a group of entities.

E.g., of the photons in a "herd" or "group" of them. Or by the virtual photons in the vacuum flux, or comprising a change to that vacuum flux that is called a "potential." I have called this function -- of a deterministic patterning or templating of the virtual flux (particle view) of the potential -- dimensioning the potential.

Literally, "against electric (current),"

...originally coined to mean "opposes the flow or conduct of electric fluid."

Non-conducting material used to oppose or prevent the flow of electric charges. Even empty vacuum exhibits a dielectric resistance. "Dielectric" is also used to refer to a nonconducting material (often used between the metal plates of a capacitor or elsewhere) which can (i) sustain a change in potential across a distance (i.e., an E-field), and (ii) serve as an insulator. Space itself is a dielectric, or at least it is said to exhibit certain dielectric qualities.

A certain primary geometrical physical attribute,

...such as length, used to describe the separational relationships of physical phenomena. By "geometrical" we mean that the "dimension" is considered to "exist" in either the presence or absence of the observable physical phenomenon; however, by agreement the dimension itself is not directly observable. It can be inferred ("measured"), however, by comparative operations of simple devices such as clocks and metersticks, and its simplistic definition is usually given as "that which has measurable magnitude." Prescribed measuring procedures are used to assign magnitudes to these inferred dimensions, using specific scales. Actually, "dimension" just means "fundamental quantity of separation" and "geometry" in the most general sense. The number of dimensions taken in advanced physics usually represents a somewhat arbitrary choice for good modeling fit. In modern Kaluza-Klein theory, for example, it becomes necessary to accept some 10 or 11 dimensions in the usual case. General relativity has incorporated the interaction of the abstract geometry (spacetime) with mass, but has not included the internal structuring of potentials and energy, necessary to complete the GR description as an engineering science. Consequently it has largely remained a nonexperimental discipline, at least in the laboratory.

This is an artificial term I use to mean "forming a pattern or 'template'

(i.e., deliberate form or structure) in the virtual photon flux of the vacuum or of the virtual photon flux comprising a scalar potential."

Dimensioning potentials or signals or carrier waves also involves adding hidden vacuum engines to them. I chose the descriptive term dimensioning because adding such templates (hidden vacuum engine structures) is equivalent to increasingthe EM topology by adding dimensions. Since an EM wave or field or vector potential can be decomposed into two scalar potentials, then by "dimensioning" one or both of the scalar potentials one can "infold" the desired hidden structures or patterns (vacuum engines) inside an EM carrier wave, EM field, or vector potential. So I called this dimensioning those entities. Russian energetics refers to it simply as adding the information content of the field. The importance of the dimensioning concept is that one has not formed mere "signals," instead, one has formed vacuum engines. If a receiving object receives a signal, it may or may not act upon that "signal information." If it receives a vacuum engine, however, the engine (structured local spacetime flux) directly acts upon it. The receiving object has absolutely no choice in that action occurring. The only way in which the action of a vacuum engine (dimensioned carrier entity) can be resisted is to create and simultaneously introduce the exact antiengine for it.

In the simplest case, two separated charges of (usually equal and) opposite sign.

As a general definition, a localized positive charge or charge distribution, and a localized negative charge or charge distribution, such that the net charge summation is zero, but wherein the positive and negative charge distributions do not superpose. We point out, however, that in regular physics electrical charge has no proper definition. Try looking it up in several physics dictionaries. Then check our definition of electrical charge. Each end of the dipole is a broken symmetry in the virtual photon flux of the vacuum, and each end produces a Poynting energy density flow S. Of the two simultaneous flows, one flows outward and the other flows inward.

Occurring in a finite size, fixed as a function of one or more variables.

So long as the same value(s) of the variable(s) are selected, the discretized entity is always the same size. However, if the value(s) of the determining variables are changed, the value of the discretized quantity may change so that it is not a whole number multiple of the former entity. Compare this to a quantized entity, where the values of the variable(s) are held to those wherein the entity will always be a multiple of one of a fixed size.

"If a scalar wave E1(r) propagates from left to right through an arbitrary but lossless dielectric medium, and if we generate in some region of space [say near z = 0] its phase conjugate replica E2(r), then E2 will propagate backward from right to left through the dielectric medium, remaining everywhere the phase conjugate of E1."

Quoted from Amnon Yariv, Optical Electronics, 3rd Edn., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1985, p. 500-501.

The "free" electrons that have broken loose from their atoms in a conductor, and are thus free to "wander around" and "migrate" -- or flow as current when exposed to an emf.

Also called the electron gas, or Drude electron gas. Named after the German physicist Paul Drude who died in 1906, who formulated Drude's theory of metallic resistance based on EM theory and his own theory of electrons.

Electronic Countermeasures.

Electric Field.

(1) All the laws of physics are equally valid in all inertial frames of reference,

(3) the observable local effects of a gravitational field are indistinguishable from those arising from acceleration of the frame of reference.

The first is called the special relativity principle, the second is called the law of light propagation, and the third is called the equivalence principle. It is now known that postulates (1) and (2) are not independent of each other. Note that the third postulate implies that any local force is due to a "gravitational field" (acceleration of the frame of reference). It also implies that gravitational force has a mechanism, since quantum mechanics assigns a differential operator, operating upon a potential, to create every force. By extended inference, it can be seen that the third postulate also implies that there should exist a method to turn any type of force (field) into gravitational force (field).

The Russian physicist Sakharov has strongly postulated that gravitation is not even a fundamental field of physics, of the kind used by Maxwell in his electrodynamics. Instead, G-field is always comprised of, and made from, other fields and interactions upon them. Indeed, such has always been implicit in general relativity, it just took the courage of a Sakharov to formally propose it. E.g., see A.D. Sakharov, "Vacuum Quantum Fluctuations in Curved Space and the Theory of Gravitation," Soviet Physics Doklady, Vol. 12, No. 11, 1968, p. 1040-1041 [English translation.] Sakharov's article (in Russian) in Doklady. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Vol. 177, 1967, p. 70-71.

Now let us do a little "tinkering" with Einstein's postulates. For the first one, we point out that the notion of an inertial frame now has acquired additional complexity! The "gross translation" effects -- which tends to be what physics ultimately focuses upon -- can remain the same, and yet vacuum engines be buried up inside the inertial frame. Everything translation-wise can remain the same, but now matter can be transmuted and transformed, etc., still right there in an inertial frame. It is as if the notion of "inertial frame" has acquired a higher topology. Special relativity can remain special relativity on the surface, and yet effects occur "within" the objects postulated to exist in this inertial frame. The "inertial frame" itself is now a sort of special "equilibrium case" of a higher topology "frame" notion.

For the second one, that postulate now stands as a "special case" of a far more general postulate. It actually defines (and limits) "light" to bulk changes in the entire vacuum potential magnitude. It only applies to light signals which are "bulk upheaval" disturbances of the vacuum potential (spacetime). Specifically it need not apply to the "inner realm" infolded inside the vacuum potential, other potentials, signal carriers, etc. Superluminal communication is now included in this "hidden variable" communication. So the second postulate needs to be restated to include the present statement as a special case. Notice that the concepts "light" and "speed of light" have now taken on much richer, extended meanings. Light now is not just the "external perturbation wave" in the medium, it can also be an "internal perturbation wave" which does not show on the "surface" at all. It now includes the transmission of an extraordinary "vacuum engine" as well as the usual transmission of just an ordinary signal.

The third postulate has also been dramatically extended and requires revision. As presently stated, the antigravity effect we specify in this glossary has not been included in present physics heretofore. The "gravitational effects and external accelerated effects" notion is still founded purely on ordinary bulk translation. Now it need not be. For example, the system can appear to be an ordinary system, as judged by normal "external light" observation. Yet its internal vacuum engines can cause local violation of most so-called "laws of nature." The reason a "law of nature" can be violated is that one is now able to violate the premises upon which it is postulated, and which are required to hold if the law is to hold.

So as we've said so many times before, the internal EM dramatically changes the present theories of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, and general relativity. Further, for the first time it allows an engineering approach which simultaneously crosses, includes, and extends all three disciplines. The approach can be placed into good models, and the models can be tested and verified or falsified.

Mathematical theory of gravitation in which the gravitational force is mathematically described by a curvature in space or spacetime.

In other words, the geometry and its dynamics have become physical agents.

The conventional definition is this: "1. a region in space in which a stationary electric charge experiences a force due to its charge. 2. the electric force per unit test charge." Dictionary of Science and Technology, ibid., p. 720. Well, that definition is very, very flawed. Take part 1. An electric field is not a region in space. Period. That would make field and "region in space" synonymous. The part 1 describes what happens if this field is present at a point in space , and if a charge (with mass) is there. That has nothing to do with what an electric field is; it just tells one thing that it does to charged mass. Further, the force on a particle is not due to its charge; it has that charge always, whether or not there is a force evidenced on it!

Part 2 is a little better. Only problem is, it totally disagrees with part 1! in other words, here it's a "force on a charge", which does not necessarily have to follow from "region of space." Hopefully the reader can now begin to see what terrible difficulties await one who seriously attempts foundations definitions. An additional difficulty is that the very notion of a separate massless force independent of the mass on which it operates, is fictitious. Let us start with the definition of force: F º d/dt(mv). As can be seen, force is a system comprised of (i) a mass component and (ii) a nonmass component. The force is not something separate from the mass, at all! Further, force is not even unitary! It's a system comprised of two coupled components; the mass and a coupled (interacting) gradient in a potential flux. Note that v involves motion through, and interaction with, the virtual flux comprising the vacuum potential. Note that dv/dt involves a gradient in that flux interaction with the mass. Unfortunately mechanics is still using the medieval concept of a "separate force acting upon a separate mass." That is wrong, unless we change the fundamental definition of force itself. See, e.g., Robert Bruce Lindsay and Henry Margenau, Foundations of Physics, Dover Publications, New York, 1963, p. 283, where the authors emphasize that a "field of force" at any point is actually defined only for the case when a unit mass is present at that point.

See Dipole.

A specialist in electrodynamics,

...the physics of the relationships between electric, magnetic, and mechanical phenomena -- and especially a specialist in electrodynamics theory.

Extremely Low Frequency.

Electromagnetics.

The notion that there exist forces in the vacuum, so that the set of forces at a set of spatial points forms a force field.

This ignores the fact that mass is a component of force, and the presence of a force requires the presence of a mass. When Maxwell formed his electrodynamics theory, he and almost everyone else believed a thin material ether pervaded empty space. Thus there was a "material medium" in which electromagnetic fields existed, and so it followed that real forces existed in this material medium, from point to point. Heaviside, Hertz, and Gibbs reduced Maxwell's 20 quaternion equations to the present four, but did not change the force field assumption used by Maxwell. Heaviside detested the "mystical" potentials favored by Maxwell, and believed they were figments of one's imagination. He regarded the forces as the primary EM causes. Yet even while Heaviside et al. were retranslating and topologically reducing Maxwell's theory dramatically, the Michelson-Morley experiment in the 1880s had already destroyed the material ether on which those same force fields were based. For a succinct discussion of potentials versus forcefields as the primary EM causes, see Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, "Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory," Physical Review, Second Series, 115(3), 1959, p. 485-491. See also Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, "Further considerations on electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory," Physical Review, 123(4), Aug. 15, 1961, p. 1511-1524.

Whatever generates electromagnetics, particularly the fields.

Whittaker showed in 1904 that the interferometry of two scalar potentials (i.e., of their hidden multiwave structures) can create all classical EM fields, no matter how complex.

The Russian term for what I have called scalar electromagnetics,

...using artificially constructed Whittaker internal biwave structures to make activated potentials that have specific, desired "vacuum engines."

The activated potential containing these vacuum engine structures is said to have been dimensioned. These potentials can be combined to form EM carrier waves which contain the hidden vacuum engines. These vacuum engines, scalar Whittaker EM interferometry, and activation of vacua and matter are used to perform unified field engineering.

Russian energetics also adds the formation and use of the quantum potential, enabling (i) instantaneous action at a distance with multiple separated target nodes, (ii) essentially limitless direct energy amplification in the assembly of receiving nodes, without additional energy input at the initiating node, and (iii) engineering of hidden variables inside distant targets, instantaneously, without transmission as such through space. In addition, the quantum potential itself can be dimensioned, so that vacuum engines can be instantaneously transmitted into distant targets, altering their local spacetimes to contain the desired engine(s). Note that no intervening barrier can "impede" or "shield" a quantum potential because it does not travel through space as such; it just appears everywhere at once that it will be.

Adding to classical EM theory, general relativity, and quantum mechanics the internal EM energy in the scalar EM potential will generate a superset of each discipline. These three new supersets are unified in their common internal EM energy subset. As a bonus mind, personality, memory, and deep biological cellular and system control are also available, since the internal energy domain is used by biological systems for these living functions. Energetics thus is an engineerable, unified field theory of physics and metaphysics.

Russian energetics is largely still a "secret" science, developed over the last five decades and highly weaponized. In the Russian scheme the overall area is called energetics. It consists of three subsets: (i) energetics, which applies to nonliving systems, (ii) bioenergetics, which applies to the physical bodies, cells, chemistry, genetics, etc. of living organisms, and (iii) psychoenergetics, which applies directly to the minds, personalities, memories, emotions, and perceptions of living systems.

Well, here we have a real bucket of worms. This term is either totally misdefined (as in the nostrum that "energy is the capacity to work") in physics, which defines energy as the "ability to scatter itself or change its own form" which obviously are not identities! A common definition is given as "a quantity that describes the capacity to do work; commonly divided into three major classifications: kinetic (dynamic) energy, potential (static) energy, and radiant (electromagnetic) energy.

E.g., see R.B. Lindsay, "The concept of energy and its early historical development." Foundations of Physics, 1(4), 1971, p. 383-393. Lindsay investigates the concept of energy from its early historical origin. The root of the concept is the notion of invariance in the midst of change. Lindsay covers the concept and its evolvement (or lack thereof!) from ancient times through the 18th century.

The real problem is that the notion of energy implicitly involves the age-old unresolved philosophical problem of change, posed by Heraclitus over 3,000 years ago and unresolved to this day. It cannot be solved within the realm of Aristotelian logic! One way of posing it is something like this, after Heraclitus: "For a thing to change, it must turn into something else. How can a thing be itself and something else also? How can a thing have changed, and yet not have changed?" The problem is that Aristotelian logic has a serious flaw of omission; it actually implicitly assumes a fourth law, which is the age-old philosopher's nightmare that, when a thing is pursued to the limit, it invariably turns into its own oppositive. So in anguish the philosophers spoke of this nightmare as the "accursed necessity for the identity of opposites."

I did resolve the philosophers' nightmare some years ago, by adding a fourth law of logic to the Aristotelian three, which completes and extends Aristotelian logic. E.g., see Appendix III: "A Conditional Criterion for Identity, Leading to a Fourth Law of Logic," in T.E. Bearden, AIDS: Biological Warfare, Tesla Book Company, Chula Vista, California, 1988, p. 428-443. A simple proof of the fourth law is given in the reference. For a much more elegant treatment of a higher topology logic, which is also practical and useful, see G. Spencer Brown, Laws of Form. Julian Press, New York, 1972. For a proper perspective on mathematics and on Aristotelian logic, see Morris Kline, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, Oxford University Press, New York, 1980.

What this all means is that, since "energy" involves a logical contradiction in Aristotelian logic, we must "define" energy in two oppositive ways: (i) in the wave view and (ii) in the particle view. However, we point out that the notion of a "moving particle" is the notion of something considered momentarily as fixed (i.e., the particle), but which is immediately thereafter (in time snapshot #2) considered as moving. The notion of a "moving wave" is also a similar thing; i.e., "a wave" momentarily considers the entity as static and not changing (in time snapshot #1), and in the next moment (time snapshot #2) considers it as moving (changing). We can only point out this dichotomy for the reader to reflect upon and hopefully to grasp. The conscious mind is a serial processor; it is extremely fast but still perceives snapshot by snapshot, serially. The problem is in the operation of conscious perception itself, not in nature which is not limited to just serial processing.

The unconscious mind is a massively parallel processor, so it can have many "different slides in the slide projector" at the same time. So with our conscious mind's perception (Aristotelian logic is just a model of that, using single photon interaction as the physical observation mechanism) we see in terms of "either-or". On the other hand, with our unconscious we can also grasp the fact that single snapshot A can be the same thing as a totally different snapshot B, if the rules of "decision as to identity" are changed between snapshot A and snapshot B. Suppose that by "identity" we mean "incapable of being discriminated between." Is a black marble identical to a red marble, e.g.? It is perceived so if you are color blind. It is perceived not to be identical if you are not color blind.

The unconscious (massively parallel) perception can handle both snapshots simultaneously. The conscious mind only can see a single marble at a time, so it will see one or the other. In a third time interval it will recall from memory the first perception, compare it with the memory of the second perception (say, by simple detailed subtraction), and then decide whether object A is perceived to be identical to object B. The unconscious (massively parallel processor) can handle both snapshots at the same time. It can see both the identity of the two, to a color-blind "identity decision process" and also the nonidentity of the two, to a color-sensitive "identity decision process." Again, nature is not limited to the single-snapshot, serial perception process of our conscious (serial) processor!

Unfortunately, in physics and mathematics we seem to still be thoroughly confused on this very perception issue. Brown's work may be the first work to straighten that thing out satisfactorily. My own independent effort was successful but much cruder than Brown's. We bring all this out because when you deeply look into foundations and true definitions, you will directly confront the philosopher's nightmare and your conscious mind will never be able to resolve the problem. Your unconscious can easily resolve it.

Just as a small example, the question of "is it a wave or a particle" once raged as a great debate in physics, and was never resolved. Instead, physicists just finally shook hands and agreed to quit arguing and fighting about it, and accept that the same entity could sometimes act as a particle, and in other cases it could act as a wave, and that as it existed in the present, before observation, it was somehow both a wave and a particle but we couldn't see its true nation (in that fashion). The key, of course, is that the question was posed in "either-or" form (Aristotelian logic form), and it cannot be answered in that reduced logic. Instead, a higher topology logic is required. Brown's logic answers it easily, as does my own four law superset of Aristotelian logic. In the present, e.g., we have masstime and not mass. Just after a photon is emitted, we have mass and not masstime. The latter process consumates "observation." The point is, the true entity does exist in a small increment of time, and is not a spatial entity but is a spatiotemporal entity. If the "interaction" process tears off its "time-tail," it is converted to a "spatial entity" and therefore seems to be a particle. If the "interaction" process does not remove the time-tail, it remains a spatiotemporal entity and therefore seems to be a wave. The concept of particle is 3-spatial concept. The concept of wave involves time also. No wave can exist and "be a wave or wavelike" unless it has some time to "be waving" in!

So we define energy (particle view) as any virtual particle flux, where that automatically considers a single particle in translation as well as multiple particles in their myriad of translations. We define energy (wave view) as any wave flux, where that automatically considers a single wave in translation as well as multiple waves in their myriad of translations. Now note that one is going to have to deal with, and discriminate between, energy, energy flow, energy collection, and collected-energy dissipation.

The passage of energy, in any form, in one direction or generally in one direction.

Note that this flow may be the overall movement of an omnidirectional energy flux, or it may be the movement of waves, or both. If the flow is everywhere the same, or even approximately the same, we often speak of the entire "flow" as just "energy." Often energy flow is also considered to have occurred from a region of more intense energy flux to a region of less intense energy flux, and vice versa. In other words, energy divergence or convergence is also considered as energy flow. As can be seen, the usage of the term "energy flow" is not quite so precisely defined in physics! It isn't going to be, at least not in ordinary Aristotelian logic terms.

The passage of energy flow, in any form, through a unit area, and in any direction (usually all directions).

This includes both passage in a single direction, or passage in multiple directions at once.

In electromagnetics, exposure of an interceptor/collector, e.g., a charged particle, into an impinging Poynting S-flow.

Energy collection is not a thing which "has been accomplished" and finished; instead, it is an ongoing process.

Note now that, if you perform or consider or impose any sort of ordering at all in the energy flow/flux, rigorously you have just implied an energy collection/collecting process. The energy part of a photon, e.g., would seem not to be "energy" per se. Instead, it is an energy collection/collecting, and a time collection/collecting as well. Yet that energy part is energy also! [Not to worry! Energy and energy-collecting, contrasted as oppositives, become identities at the extreme boundary separating the two concepts. That boundary is the photon concept. Aristotelian logic does not apply on the boundary, which violates the Aristotelian law of the excluded middle.] More reasonably, a charged capacitor does not have "stored energy" per se in it, in the sense of "so many chunks of energy called joules". Instead, it has an ongoing energy collection/collecting process, where the asymmetry in the local vacuum flux exchange, of the dipole across the capacitor plates, continually extracts and "gates" a Poynting flow of energy from the capacitor dipole. That S-flow bathes all the trapped charges in the capacitor. The S-flow interaction with the trapped charges creates the E-field and all the rest.

This is a misnomer, broadly used in physics and somewhat erroneous.

There is really no such thing as "energy dissipation" per se. Instead, there is the dissipation of collected/collecting energy, to be more precise. It is the collecting process, not the energy, that is dissipated. Only collected/collecting energy can be dissipated. With that understood, then dissipation of collected energy is simply removing the "collector" from the Poynting energy density flow impinging upon it to cause the collecting process to occur.

There are two ways in which this "collected energy" dissipation can occur: (i) the collector is moved out of the impinging S-stream, or (ii) the S-stream impinging on the collector is reduced to zero. Note that "changing the form" of the energy -- i.e., changing the collector and the type of collecting -- involves both conditions (i) and (ii). Thus energy is dissipated when the collector/collecting is changed. In the conventional, less accurate statement, work is performed when "the form of the energy is changed." That now should be stated as "work is performed when the collector in the S-stream is changed to a different collector, because the first collector must be removed from the S-flow or the S-flow removed from it.

In physics we also consider that "positive" work by a body is work it does on something else, while "negative" work is work done upon the body by something else. We specifically emphasize that collection/collecting need not be a unitary, one-time occurrence! The Poynting S-flow impinging upon a collector roars on by it at something like the speed of light. The S-flow is diminished by only about 10- ¹³ (the nominal energy collecting fraction) as it flows onto, and on beyond a coulomb of charge. If that departing S-flow is then retroreflected or otherwise returned to roar back through again, additional energy collection/collecting can and does occur from it. This can be repeated many times. Also, after the collected fraction of energy is dissipated, we can also retroreflect it back and reuse it again. This too can be repeated many times.

So we must be careful of the present work-energy theorem, which is a special case and assumes only a single pass of the S-flow in the "collection/collection" of energy that "changes form." If we institute additional passes, with additional "collection/collecting of energy, then we can collect and "use" a little more energy from all that enormous S-flow that otherwise would escape us. If we dissipate some of the collected energy, then also intercept the departing dissipated energy flow and return it, we can collect some of the S-flow again and then dissipate that new collection again. And so on. One can permissibly get many joules of "work" from a single joule of energy by iterative retroreflection, iterative collection, and iterative dissipation, without violating the conservation of energy law. This is one of the major secrets of overunity energy processes. It is proven by the overunity anti-Stokes emission from an intensely scattering, optically active medium, as in the Lawandy experiment and in his patented process for lasing without population inversion. It is also proven by Patterson's adaptation of anti-Stokes emission.

Let's do a gedanken experiment, where we do not even apply the nominal 10- ¹³ energy collection fraction. Let's just conventionally say "energy flow," "energy collection," and "energy dissipation," and ignore the "collection fraction." Since we are talking theoretically, we can have a perfect system. So we have a closed system, which we open to input some energy into. The system then opens in the load to dissipate all the energy back to the environment, thereby doing work. Now suppose I passively (i.e., without any input energy of my own, by perfect retroreflection) return all the dissipated energy back to the input once again. We simply let it flow back in, the system collects it again, and then dissipates it again -- giving us the same amount of work we had the first time. Then we do it again. And again. I think you get the picture. The fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed, but only changed, means that the "same energy" can be recycled over and over. One has to have two different actions: one that dissipates the energy so we get some work, and the other that retroreflects and recovers the dissipated energy so that we can recycle it and dissipate it again. In principle, by recycling of energy one can get many joules of work from a single joule of energy. Nature does it every day! Every joule of energy formed at the initial "Big Bang," is still with us. Every joule of it has on the average already performed many joules of work since then. And as we stated, the anti-Stokes emission process is a concrete example and demonstration that the energy recycling process can be accomplished in physical systems, so that the systems permissibly exhibit COP>1.0.

Thermodynamics term representing a measure of a system's capacity to undergo spontaneous change.

Entropy is given by dS = dQ/T, where dS is an infinitesimal change in entropy for a system absorbing an infinitesimal quantity of head dQ at absolute temperature T. In statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the disorder in a system and is given by S = k lnP + C, where S is the value of entropy (disorder) for a system in a given state, P is the probability of that state's occurrence, k is a fixed constant, and C is an arbitrary constant. Intuitively, the concept of entropy corresponds to the concept of disorder. We specifically call attention to the fact that the "S" used in representing entropy is not at all the S used for Poynting flow.

An extremely fine substance theorized to exist in lieu of the sheer vacuum of space.

Discussed by Tesla, Einstein, Whittaker, and others. Originally conceived as the luminiferous ether, a thin material fluid pervading all space. Maxwell, e.g., believed in this material ether, and formulated his theory accordingly. Thus he mistakenly provided forces in the vacuum, which requires a material vacuum. I.e., mass is a component of force; there is no force without mass, since F º d/dt(mv). The hoary old medieval notion that the force is separate from the mass that it affects, is completely in error, though still universally utilized in mechanics! Modern field theory knows better, but correction of this massive error in physics has not been accomplished.

Originally, the ether was seen as a ghostly-thin, material, fluid medium postulated to fill space and carry electromagnetic waves, similar to the way in which a gas carries sound waves. Faraday and Maxwell added the assumption that EM fields existed as material taut strings (Faraday's lines of force) with conveniently missing endholders to provide the tension on the strings. The Michelson-Morley experiments eliminated any such material ether, but not a Lorentz-invariant nonmaterial ether (of which vacuum itself is one example, in the modern view). Maxwell's equations were derived from a mechanical ether theory. Einstein once proposed that the vacuum, complete with its electromagnetic fields, should be called the ether. In our own approach we have come full circle back to Einstein's suggestion, since the so-called "fields" are really just potential gradients and operations on them, and thus are included in our use of the vacuum as a giant potential comprised of virtual particle flux.

Today the word "ether" is again acceptable in the literature in context of its modern quantum mechanical meaning. The "ether gas" -- the quantum mechanical vacuum -- is considered to be composed of virtual particles. The particles spontaneously come into being and then vanish so quickly they cannot be individually detected. That is, today the ether is a virtual particle gas -- sort of a gas of "effervescent bubbles", so to speak -- where the individual particles are continually being created and annihilated at a fantastic rate. Ives appears to have derived most of special and general relativity, Newton's laws of motion (relativistic form), and the square law of gravitation from a Lorentz-invariant nonmaterial ether theory. The Russians have secretly applied and advanced the quantum mechanical vacuum theory to produce their present theory of energetics, which is still highly classified and has driven enormous, secret, superweapons development, deployment, and testing for five decades.

Collection by an interceptor/collector of a greater fraction of the Poynting energy flow impinging upon it, than is normal.

Any electric or magnetic charge, e.g., with a Poynting energy density flow impinging upon it, has excess "energy collection" or "energy collecting" upon it, due to the altered vacuum virtual photon flux that is now exchanging with it. In a nominal electric circuit, e.g., a single "pass" of the Poynting flow from the source dipole, along the circuit conductors and across the conduction electrons, causes an "excess energy collection" and subsequent dissipation in the loads (and losses) of about 10- ¹³ of the Poynting energy that actually was extracted by the source dipole from the vacuum and sent down the conductors of the external circuit.

That is a single-pass energy collection fraction. Almost all the Poynting energy flow passed on beyond the circuit "collectors" in one pass-by at essentially the speed of light, on out into deep space and beyond. On the other hand, if the already-passed Poynting flow is retroreflected, so that it returns for another pass along the circuit, then an additional amount of the Poynting energy can be collected again by those sluggish electrons (in the nominal circuit being used as an example, the electrons travel only about 5 or 6 inches per hour longitudinally down the conductors!). So multiretroreflection, multipass, multicollection can be used to provide excess energy and overunity efficiency. This is a change to the present statement of the work-energy theorem, which up to now has assumed single pass, single energy collection. The well-known anti-Stokes emission from certain highly scattering, optically active media, e.g., produces more energy radiating back out of the media than the amount of stimulating radiation energy input into the media.

In mathematics, a set with two binary operations.

Designated addition and multiplication, satisfying the conditions that the set is a commutative group with respect to addition, that the set with the identity of the additive group omitted is a commutative group with respect to multiplication, and that multiplication distributes over addition for all elements in the set. Ugh!

Well, in plain language the fundamental notion is that a "field" is a sort of cleared, level space or place where things can be placed and actions can occur amongst them, to them, on them, and of them. What the "place or space" is, can get a bit complicated, as can what is placed there and what actions are permitted.

In physics, "a region of space marked by a physical property, as gravitational or electromagnetic force or fluid pressure, having a determinable value at every point in the region."

[Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary.]

Ugh! There are no observable forces in space, regardless of the common practice of assuming such in electrodynamics and much of physics! But maybe we can work with that definition; it's not really too bad. Here one must not think of "space" as emptiness, as mathematicians do, but as a virtual particle flux and a dynamic entity. A field then is a set of entities and their relationships and operations in a region of that kind of space, where the entities and operations are themselves "space stuff". They are all "virtual" in that they are not individually observable. However, their impact upon or interaction with mass -- particularly charged mass -- can be and often is observable, in that we can see some change of the mass (its direction of travel, translation, acceleration, deceleration, rotation, generation of current, etc.). If the entities are point-like and are naively supposed to have magnitude only, or if we only specify their energy density magnitude at each point, then that "marked space region" is said to be a scalar field. If the entities are point-like but have both magnitude and direction, they are said to be a vector field. Further the deponent saith not because even the foundations physicists are in hot water in trying to define this one, and if the deponent saith more he will surely deep fry in hot oil!

A vacuum/spacetime whose virtual particle flux intensity -- and therefore its local energy density -- does not change as a function of spatial position or averaged time.

That is, a flat spacetime is a quantum mechanical vacuum whose virtual particle flux and energy density are constant in magnitude and internal constitution with respect to spatial position and in averaged time. Note that a flat spacetime (vacuum potential) can still contain vacuum engines, and thus still be dimensioned. In that case, contrary to normal physics, the flat spacetime itself will still interact with an embedded object and change it, even though it may not translate it. This dimensioning or activation of the local flat spacetime can result in an otherwise unexpected, seeming violation of one or more laws of nature in the dimensioned region.

The amount of some quantity (such as energy, particles, volume of fluid, etc.) flowing across a given area (usually a unit area perpendicular to the flow) per unit of time.

The term flux density is now more commonly used. Loosely, "flux" refers to the perpendicular flow through an area, while "flux density" refers to the magnitude or intensity (rate) of the flux. In some cases such as a flux of particles of different velocities, the number of particles may be multiplied by the average velocity to give an average flux density that is weighted.

In mechanics, identically the time derivative of momentum.

Simply, changing of mass-motion. One must realize that it is not the mass in motion, but the single undivided quantity "mass-motion" or "mass-velocity" (momentum) that is changed. In present EM theory, force fields are erroneously taken to exist in empty, massless vacuum. However, the mechanical definition is an identity, not an equality. Thus force does not separately exist in contact with a mass, but consists of a changing "mass-motion." Since this force can be induced into and of the mass-motion target at a distance, in the new approach one is confronted with the fact that there is a more fundamental mechanism that produces force itself. This mechanism is coupling of a scalar potential gradient, by and on a spinning charged particle, and the interaction of that particle with the virtual particle fluxes comprising the scalar potential gradient. The induced force consists of the particle's change in mass-motion per unit of time, and contains both a mass component and a massless component.

An effect that exists as a local vacuum virtual particle flux interaction upon and with a unit mass whereby a particular type of matter is affected.

The force field has two components, one the mass and the other massless. In electrodynamics, one normally thinks (erroneously!) of the massless component, and refers to that component alone as "the force field." This considers the "force field" as a separate entity, acting upon a separate "mass." Whether it is logically correct or not, that is the prevailing way physics and electrodynamics uses it! So in this definition, let us momentarily accept the common incorrect usage, for convenience, while pointing out the real definition as we need to.

For example, conventionally the EM force fields can affect and change the state of motion of any charged particle or any magnetic particle. In classical physics, the force fields are considered the primary causative agents; when these fields are zero, then the motion of the particle or system is unaffected. Consequently, conventional EM theory assumes that all the EM phenomenology ceases once the force fields are absent. Today we know that is not true at all, as we explain in this glossary.

Propagation of force-free disturbances in the vacuum flux

(i.e., infolded inside the ambient vacuum potential, or inside a constant DC voltage.) Such "infolded" propagation is not limited to the speed of light, but may even travel in the Coulomb gauge so that it is instantaneous. More usually, it can travel superluminally. Beethoven's 40th symphony, e.g., has been experimentally transferred between two points in a physical circuit by such "quantum tunneling" at over four times the speed of light in vacuum.

A spatial, organized, measured lattice placed in "emptiness" (space, spacetime).

Normally refers to a 3-dimensional, spatial frame. All objects and points in the "universe" or spatial frame are considered to simultaneously coexist at separate, measured points in the frame. Differs from the vacuum in that, rigorously, vacuum has no existing definite lengths and no existing definite time intervals, as these appear only after measurement or detection, and are relative to the observer and to the detection process. The "laboratory frame" is the static reference frame of the observer or measurement. A separate reference frame may be assumed to exist for any fixed or moving object, or centered on any point in another frame. When a type of frame is assumed, the entire class of physical interactions that can occur has been restricted to an assumed set or type. In other words, given the frame, the conventional physics has been assumed. One of the greatest restrictions of an assumed "frame" is to rule out the consideration (existence) of other higher dimensions. Note that, in the new approach, the other higher dimensions are always there and cannot be ruled out in general, but only in some special case. Normal inertial frames, e.g., may still contain vacuum engines, which will not affect the normal translation rules, but may affect any or all of the nontranslation mechanisms, including the very laws of nature in many cases.

Excess energy freely received from an external source by an open system that is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.

To use this free excess energy, it must be collected, transported to a load or loads with minimal losses, and then dissipated in the load(s) to power them, without any substantial portion of the free energy being used to close the system's "gate" through which the excess energy is input to it.

Any open system not in thermodynamic equilibrium, which freely receives excess energy from an external source,

...and collects and utilizes this free excess energy to freely power external loads, so that a permissible system COP>1.0 is achieved, as allowed by the nonlinear thermodynamics of open systems in disequilibrium with their environment.

Implicit in the notion of free electromagnetic energy systems are six key concepts: (1) the local vacuum/spacetime is known to be filled with hidden (i.e., virtual) energy in violent motion, i.e., the local vacuum/spacetime is a violent virtual energyflux and therefore a scalar potential, (2) a broken symmetry -- i.e., some sort of organizing and gating mechanism, such as the common dipole -- in this hidden (virtual) energy flux of the vacuum is utilized as a source, to cohere the virtual energy and divert it as Poynting flow S= E´ H, from the broken symmetry initiation point onto the external circuits or load parts of a device, (3) the coherent gated extra virtual energy flow available in the external circuits or load parts couples to (interacts with) the mobile charges in those circuits or load parts, so that gradients developed in the interacting virtual flux form force fields on and of the particle masses, driving the mobile charges along the circuit and through current-impeding circuit components such as loads, (4) in the interaction of the driven charges with the driving virtual energy flux, their spin and erratic motions integrate a tiny "coupling fraction" of the driving virtual energy into observable (i.e., macroscopic field) energy, thus creating the E-fields and B-fields, (5) the current-impeding external components or load parts scatter or dissipate the coherence of the driven charges, and thereby dissipate the collected energy or change the form of the collected field energy, thereby producing useful work, and (6) little or none of the excess collected energy in the circuit is split off and dissipated in the gate (asymmetry component serving as the Poynting S-flow source) to destroy the gate and thereby destroy its asymmetry in the vacuum flux, which is what is extracting and producing the free energy flow.

Refers to something (a component or function) which extracts some part of a flux or flow, compacting it into a stream, and "sending it out."

A moving board wall or gate may be swung into a river, e.g., to divert or "gate" some of the river's flow out into a sluice ditch and on to a waterwheel powering a mill. Similarly, a dipole extracts some of the energy from the vacuum virtual photon flux exchange with the end charges of the dipole, and "gates" (diverts) the extracted portion of energy out from the ends of the dipole as Poynting flows. This creates the scalar potential surrounding each charge, and also the E-fields. Even a "static" dipole does this "gating" of vacuum energy into a Poynting energy flow.

The effect of extracting part of a flux or flow, compacting it into a stream, and "sending it out."

See gate.

In electromagnetism, a possible choice for an electric scalar potential or a magnetic vector potential, that satisfies Maxwell's equations.

Abstract mathematical symmetry of a field, that relates to the freedom to regauge (change the value of ) potentials, without affecting the values of the field quantities.

Note that this arbitrarily eliminates overunity functioning of the regauged system in which the potential(s) exist(s).

A field theory using a field that has one or more gauge symmetries.

The quantum (smallest piece) of the gravitational field.

In t