Bearden and Hoagland
By Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Critical Notes on
Tom Bearden and Richard Hoagland  NOTES on AIAS: This page consists mostly
of quotes from other sources. I have added only a few remarks, as the
material is generally selfexplanatory. The first two pages are here
and here.
US
Department of Energy has an Office of Transportation Technologies. This
Office, as it seems, hosts AIAS, and Tom Bearden is AIAS Program Manager.
Here are the links (Note: the links are valid as of December 12,
2001):
http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/goal.shtml
Department of
Energy
Office of Transportation
Technologies
Advanced
Electromagnetic Theory
Program
Goal
The goal is to develop
an improved, higher topology electromagnetic theory that pulls together
patches and threads used in chemistry, astrophysics and elsewhere to
explain experimental and theoretical anomalies into a single model
that leads to advanced understanding of time, space, energy and matter
and unique energy sources and transportation systems.
Contact
Information
DOE Program Manager
David Hamilton
email: david.hamilton@ee.doe.gov
phone: 2025862314
address: EE32, 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington DC 20585
AIAS Program Manager
Tom Bearden
What
does AIAS stand for? AIAS  "Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced
Study." Where does "Alpha" come from? I don't know.
A collection
of AIAS papers was published in the winter of 1999 by the "Institute
of New Energy"
Higher
Symmetry Electromagnetics: A Collection of AIAS Papers
This
collection has been critically analyzed in a recent paper by A.L. Trovon
de Carvalho and W.A. Rodrigues Jr, published in "Random Operators
and Stochastic Equations" (ROSE),
Volume
9, No. 2, pp. 161206, 2001. Short quotes from the paper are provided
below. The paper itself can be downloaded
in pdf format from Brazilian "Centro
de Pesquisa e Tecnologia" site. According to this paper, at the
time of writing, the AIAS group included
P. K. Anastasovski,
T. E. Bearden,
C. Ciubotariu,
W. T. Coffey,
L. B. Crowell,
G. J. Evans,
M. E. Evans,
R. Flower,
S. Jeffers,
A. Labounsky,
B. Lehnert,
M. Meszaros,
P. R. Molnar,
J. P. Vigier
S. Roy
A short description
of activities of AIAS from Tom Bearden's website:
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/012201.htm
"Our work with
the Alpha Foundation's Institute of Advanced Study (AIAS) has for some
time been laboring on a more effective, dramatically extended electrodynamics
known as O(3) gauge symmetry electrodynamics, or just O(3) for short.
This electrodynamics has been spearheaded by Dr. Myron Evans, who has
over 600 papers in the refereed literature, and is the editor of several
prestigious scientific volume series."
What more can we learn
about Dr. Myron Evans?
In Tom Bearden's article
on Free Republic's "Conservative
News Column" we find:
"Dr. Myron
Evans, Founder and Director of the Alpha Foundation's
Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS). Dr. Evans was hounded from his
professorial position, has had his life threatened, has been without
salary for several years, and fled to the United States for his very
life. He has some 600 papers in the hard literature, and is presently
producingin accord with Dr. Mendel Sachs' epochal union of general
relativity and electrodynamicsthe world's first engineerable unified
field theory, and an advanced electrodynamics fully capable of dealing
with and modeling EM energy from the vacuum. Yet, Dr. Evans lives in
the United States (where he recently became a naturalized citizen) at
the poverty level. He can afford only one meal a day, has no automobile,
no air conditioning, and continues epochal work under a medical condition
that would stop any ordinary person less scientifically dedicated. He
continues to be vilified and viciously attacked by elements of the scientific
community, even though other elements are of much assistance in publishing
and reviewing his papers, etc."
Aside from the fact
that the same individuals who are providing assistance in publishing and
reviewing might consider providing a second meal a day, what is the opinion
of other scientists, from outside of AIAS circles? We will quote below
from a paper by W. Rodrigues et al..
But first, we might
ask: who is Rodrigues? Let us quote from Tom
Bearden's web pages where Col. Tom writes:
"Note that
every major weapons lab on earth has now "discovered" longitudinal
EM waves and the potential for weaponization. Simply download papers
by Rodrigues and Lu from the Los Alamos
National Laboratory web site. "
On another
web page (also in Col. Bearden's paper)
we have two papers by Rodrigues quoted by Bearden:
Rodrigues, W. A.
Jr. and J.Y. Lu, "On the existence of undistorted progressive
waves (UPWs) of arbitrary speeds in nature," Foundations of Physics,
27(3), 1997, p. 435508. A slightly corrected version is downloadable
as hepth/9606171
on the Los Alamos National Laboratory web site.
Rodrigues, W. A.
Jr. and J. Vaz Jr., "Subluminal
and Superluminal Solutions in Vacuum of the Maxwell Equations and the
Massless Dirac Equation," Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras,
Vol. 7(S), 1997, p. 457466.
On yet
another web page we meet Rodrigues again. Tom Bearden writes:
"Present physics
has erroneously omitted the time increment carried by the photon. The
overemphasis on the socalled transverse wave (which does not exist
as such in vacuum, fairly readily shown) has led to our missing the
greatest and most important part of electrodynamics: the longitudinally
polarized EM wave and the timepolarized EM wave. For example, mind
and mind operations are totally electromagnetic, but use time polarized
EM waves rather than the standard stuff. Overtly we do not even have
detectors for LPWs and TPWs yet; the Russians do. However, every major
weapons lab on earth now is aware of longitudinal EM waves and their
powerful characteristics. Simply read some of the summary material on
Undistorted Progressive Waves (UPWs) on the Los Alamos National Laboratory
website, e.g. by Rodrigues et al. A UPW is an "imperfect"
longitudinal EM wave with some remaining transverse wave residue (that
is the way it is modeled).
So, we are getting
an idea that Tom Bearden considers Rodrigues as the first class expert
on "longitudinal EM waves", "suprerluminal communication"
and other parts of electromagnetism that relate to "potential weaponization."
What does Waldyr Rodrigues
have to say about all of this? Well, now it gets more interesting:
"The
non sequitur mathematics and physics of the ''New Electrodynamics'' proposed
by the AIAS group." (Download
as pdf)
"Abstract:
We show that the AIAS group collection of papers on a ``new electrodynamics''
recently published in the Journal of New Energy, as well as other papers
signed by that group (and also other authors) appearing in other established
physical journals and in many books published by leading international
publishers (see references) are full of misconceptions and misunderstandings
concerning the theory of the electromagnetic field and contain fatal
mathematical flaws, which invalidates almost all claims done by the
authors."
What follows is an
extensive quote from the Introduction, skipping the technical jargon 
interested readers can consult the full text here.
The text has been slightly edited to compensate for the change of form
from LaTeX to Html:
"A group of
15 physicists (see footnote 64), hereafter called the AIAS group,
signed a series of 60 papers published in a special issue of the journal,
J. New Energy (JNE) with the title: `The New Maxwell Electrodynamic
Equations'' and subtitle: ``New Tools for New Technologies''. Here we
mainly review the first paper of the series, named ``On the Representation
of the Electromagnetic Field in Terms of Two Whittaker Scalar Potentials'',
hereafter called AIAS, but we also present comments on other
papers of the series that pretends to have created a new electrodynamics
which is a gauge theory based on the O(3) group.
Before presenting
the main claims of the AIAS group which we will criticize it
is important to know the following. If the material concerning the ``new
electrodynamics'' were published only in the JNE we probably
would never have had contact with it. However, almost all the material
of that papers appeared in one form or another in established and traditional
physical journals [1317,34] and in several books [4,6670] published
by leading international publishing houses. It happens that on May,
1999, one of the present authors (W.A.R.) was asked by the editor of
the journal Foundations
of Physics to referee the first three papers published in JNE.
Of course, the papers were rejected, the reason being that these publications
can be categorized as a collection of mathematical sophisms [71], i.e.,
are full of nonsense mathematics.
We felt that something
must start to be doing in order to denounce this state of affairs to
the public and to stop the proliferation of mathematical nonsense in
scientific journals.
[Note: The present
paper is based on a referee's report written for Foundations
of Physics, under request of Professor
A. van der Merwe, the editor of that journal. We emphasize here
that Professor van der Merwe has been authorized to inform the AIAS
group who wrote the report, but according to him he didn't. Also, the
contents of the present paper has been presented in an invited lecture
given by W.A.R. at the meeting of the Natural
Philosophy Alliance entitled: "An Introduction to 21st Century
Physics and Cosmology", hold at the University of Connecticut,
Storrs, CT, June 59, 2000. Dr. Hal Fox, the editor of the JNE
announced by June,1999 in the internet site of his journal that he intended
to publish a series of papers siged by the AIAS group. He has
been discretly advised by W.A.R. that publication of that material could
damage for ever the reputation of the JNE. Dr. Fox did not follow the
advice and published that papers. After attending W.A.R. presentation
at Storrs, he invited us to publish our criticisms in his journal, but
we decline to to that, since we do not want our names to be in any way
associated with that periodic. However, since all this affair is an
important one, from several points of view, we decide to publish our
criticisms in ROSE, with the hope that it will be read by physicists
and other scientists interested in mantaining science in the highest
possible level.]
The first version
of AIAS papers was signed by 19 people and Professor J. P. Vigier
was not one of the authors. The other people that `signed' the first
version of the manuscripts MSs and did not signed the version of that
papers published in JNE
are: D. Leporini, J. K. Moscicki, H. Munera, E. Recami and D. Roscoe.
These names are explicitly quoted here because we are not sure that
they knew or even agreed with Evans (the leader of the AIAS group)
in participating as authors of that papers , although the situation
is very confused. Indeed, some of the people mentioned above signed
other papers as members the AIAS group which have been published
in several different journals [1317], i.e., are full of mathematical
sophisms.
[Note: At the meeting
of the Natural Philosophy Alliance quoted in footnote 2, Dr. Munera
was present. He confirmed to the public attending W.A.R. lecture at
that meeting that his name has been used withouth his consent in some
publications of the AIAS group.
These papersdespite appearing in established physical journals and
in books published by traditional publishing housesare like the ones
published in JNE.]
This is an indication
of the low level of significant part of the present scientific
literature. We will elaborate more on this issue on another paper. We
quote also here that while preparing the review for the Foundations
of Physics , W.A.R. received a new ``improved version'' of the manuscripts.
There, some (but not all) of the absurdities of the papers published
in JNE (that
indeed correspond to the first version of the manuscripts received for
review) have been deleted, but unfortunately the papers continued a
potpourri of nonsense. More important is to register here that
three authors `decided' not to sign the `improved' version of the manuscripts.
Eventually they realized in due time that they would compromise their
careers if the physics or mathematics community would know about their
participation in that papers..
All these facts
show that there are ethical problems at issue in this whole affair and
they are in our opinion more serious than it appears at a first sight,
deserving by themselves a whole discussion. However we will not consider
this enterprise here, and simply concentrate ourselves in analyzing
the mathematics behind some of the main claims of AIAS
[Note: For other
important criticisms concerning B3 theory as originally formulated
by Evans, see [58,59,8183] and references therein.].
For those of you who
have read this far, let me just say that we have actually skipped the
technical part follows, and we will here jump to page 54 of the paper
where the final conclusion tells us:
"We could continue
pointing many other errors in the papers of the AIAS
group published in the special issue of the JNE or in other publications,
but after our analysis of AIAS it should be clear to our readers
that such an enterprise should be given as exercises for the training
of advanced mathematical and physical students in the identification
of mathematical sophisms.
We think that our
critical analysis of AIAS and of some other papers of the \emph{AIAS}
group and also of some papers by other authors quoted by them serves
our proposal of clearly denouncing that very bad mathematics
is being used in physics papers. Worse, these papers are being published
in international journals and books. Someone must stop the proliferation
of so much nonsense
[Note: Believe it
or not, the fact is that Evans ``imagination'' now is promoting his
B3 theory as a SU(2)xSU(2) gauge theory. This new
theory is described in [63], and this fact constitutes proof that the
quality of many articles published in standard orthodox journals is
very
bad indeed.]
In spite of the fact
that his favorite expert has dissed his claims, on his homepage
Col. Tom writes:
"Whether a
particular model is "right" or "wrong" is not the
question; the question is, is it useful and does it predict some new
and useful results?"
My, my. What a revealing
remark. We wonder what kinds of results are desired in Col. Tom's program?
In fact, in my humble
opinion, Science is all about right and wrong models, right and wrong
theories. Right theories accelerate progress. Wrong theories slow it down
or stop it completely. Morover, deciding which are "right" and
which are "wrong" models is objective to a large extent, but
deciding what is useful and what is not, is largely subjective. Useful
for "whom" and for what purpose? For instance, in a military
environment wrong theories can be useful for disinforming "enemies."
We also read
some more philosophizing by the good Colonel:
"abstract
mathematics is a wonderful exercise and set of models, but the physics
is in the concepts which the mathematical symbols represent and which
the mathematical operations manipulate. The physics is not in
the mathematics itself, per se."
Certainly here I agree,
but the point is that AIAS is discussing mathematical models. And
in mathematics wrong is wrong.
Finally: while trying
to find about mythical role of quaternions, propagated by Richard Hoagland
and AIAS group program manager Tom Bearden, I contacted the members of
the AIASrelated mailing list ("FishnChips",
also here)
maintained by Myron Evans, Tom Bearden being on the list as well. They
were very friendly and helpful. We had pleasant exchanges that led to
the discovery that they know nothing about mythical quaternions except
the following:
"Yes, no question
about it, that there are just a few pages in he 3rd
edition expressing the equations in quaternionic form. What is not
readily apparent from Maxwell's 3rd is the matter of what physical
significance is placed on and what physical role is played by the
scalar part of the quaternions that he uses for the Electric and
Magnetic fields?"
and
"OK! I figured
that if he introduced the quaternion format of equations
late in vol 2, then any text pertaining to the use of Quaternions
would more likely be after. And I knew from Tom's papers that stress
was involved. So that's how I quickly narrowed down a few applicable
pages. "
All of this I knew
anyway, and there is no mystery there at all. Myron Evans was kind enough
to include me on the list and send me the complete
AIAS list of publications.
Waldyr Rordrigues kindly send me the ROSE paper long enough before its
publication, which gave me the opportunity to suggest a number of changes
aimed at improving its logical precision.
In closing these remarks,
let us have one
more snip from the Colonel:
"We have within
our grasp the final technology. It is a twoedged sword of nearly unlimited
power. We can overcome the cosmos, and conquer physical reality itself
 or we can utterly destroy ourselves and our planet. From the tree
of knowledge, we have eaten the final fruit that deals with this physical
world. We can mold our physical reality as we will, and make of it a
utopia or a hell."
"WE" who?
More
on Richard Hoaxland
A reader
on the Casschat egroup wrote the following:
"I
had asked [Michael] Bara to comment on Ark's critique of Bearden and Hoagland.
Here's what Bara said:
Please, what garbage.
This guy has his head up his ass. As soon as someone accuses Hoagland
or profiteering from this, you can usually dismiss it. Richard barely
makes ends meet. What crap."
Prof.
Ralph Greenberg, Mathematics, University of Washington comments on
Hoagland's Disinformation.
Mr. Hoagland and his
"handler," Michael Bara, are clearly, in our opinion, part of
a vast cointelpro operation designed to create and maintain an adversarial
stance between legitimate scientists and the further exploration of the
Universe.
The general trend
of cointelpro is counter intelligence program started by certain agencies
in the 60's to root our radicals and disrupt organizations. It usually
consists of a 'he said  she said' manipulation until everything is thrown
into chaos and everyone looks like fools.
Mr. Hoagland and his
sidekick are doing a very good job of it. If there is anything significant
about Mars and its structures, it is a certainty that no REAL investigation
of the matter will ever proceed because all scientists who have looked
at the WILD and IRRATIONAL claims of Hoagland and his gang have been thoroughly
disgusted by their obvious agenda and tactics.
Mr. Hoagland and company
seem to be part of the same spider web of conspiracy we have discovered
in our investigations regarding the Most/Storm
Bear Williams situation. And all of them seem to be part of the Stargate
Conspiracy as exposed by Lyn Pincknett and Clive Prince.
Notes added: October
2003:
1) Announcement
of Rodrigues' new paper is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SarfattiScienceSeminar/message/4094
2) The paper itself
"W.A.R vs. AIAS" is here:
http://www.ime.unicamp.br/rel_pesq/2003/rp2803.html
3) Elementary
error showing that Myrons Evans do not understand simple mathematical
notation:
Evans states repeatedly
that U(1) is isomorphic to O(2). And he quotes from a textbook by
Ryder, where Ryder writes
U(1) ~ O(2). If
Ryder understands "~" as "isomorphic"  then it
is wrong. (Errors do happen in textbooks too)
If Ryder understands
"locally isomorphic but not isomorphic"  then Ryder is
right. But Evans states "isomorphic", not just "locally
isomorphic", and that is WRONG. Locally isomorphic, for Lie groups,
may mean "open neighbourgoods of identity are isomorphic".
Here are the details:
SO(2) stands for
"Special Orthogonal Group in 2 dimensions"
O(2) stands for
(full) orthogonal group.
SO(2) matrices
may have determinant =+1 or determinat = 1
O(2) must have
determinant =+1 only
O(2) is, roughly
speaking, twice that big as SO(2)
SO(2) consists
only of "rotations"
O(2) consists
of both: rotations AND inversions (mirror reflection
with respect to a lign through the origin)
U(1) are rotations
in complex plane. They do not contain
"inversions".
Complex conjugate
operation, on the other hand, is an inversion. It
changes the sign of the imaginary part. Complex conjugate operation
is NOT an operation within U(1).
Summary:
U(1) AND "Complex
Conjugate" together generate group isomorphic to O(2)
U(1) alone is
isomorphic to SO(2)  but NOT to O(2)
4) My email to the
Editor of Physical Review Letters journal:
Dear Dr. Malenfant,
In fact, there
is another argument showing the eroor in Evans'
"elementary mathematics". Whenever we have a matrix of the
form
T sub ab = (q
sub a) x (q sub b)
then its determinant
is always zero and so it does not have an
inverse (as required for a metric tensor). To see this just notice
that
det (T) = (epsilon
sub abcd)x(g sub a0)x(g sub a1)x(g sub a1)x(g sub a2)x
(g sub a3) = (epsilon sub abcd)x(q sub a)x(q sub 0)x(q sub b)x(qsub
1)....
which is zero
because the Kronecker epsilon is antisymmetric
in all indices while (q sub a)x(q sub b)x... is symmetric in "a"
and "b"
Regards,
Sincerely,
Arkadiusz Jadczyk
5) From my email
to the Editor of Foundations of Physics Letters
Dear Prof. van der
Merwe,
In a latter from
Dr Evans to you, copy to Waldyr Rodrigues, Evans
writes:
> My original comment to FPL is none of your business, it
> is a Comment, and a stand alone submission to FPL.
There is nothing wrong with the
> mathematcis of AIAS.
Recently I had a long correspondence with Dr X (memeber of AIAS).
I will quote
from X's email of July 6. X wrote to me:
"I looked
at Evans' rebuttal and basically skim read it, for I
dislike reading Myron's writing. I agree it is pretty jumbled up
and
often at times nonsense. But who cares? Little or nothing that Myron
has
done for the last number of years is going anywhere. Bad theories
fade
into the dark. "
and in the second
email on the same day X added:
"As I see
it this stuff is doomed to head off into the night. There is no
future to the Bearden nonsense. So why worry about it? It will all
sail
off into the abyss of falsehood. "
This opinion of
X is in contrast
with the above statement of Dr Evans himself.
Therefore, I believe,
an extreme prudence, care and objectivity are
needed in dealing with this case.
Regards,
Yours sincerely,
Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Readers
are encouraged to check also this link: Tom
Bearden  A Critical Examination of His Claims
[ Previous
5 Sites  Skip
Previous  Previous
 Next
]
This RingSurf The
Scepticism Webring Net Ring
owned by Cassiopaea.
[ Skip
Next  Next
5 Sites  Random
Site  List
Sites ]
