Ark's Homepage

Publications

Curriculum Vitae

What's New

Physics and the Mysterious

Event Enhanced Quantum Physics (EEQT)

Quantum Future

My Kaluza-Klein pages

Links to my other online papers dealing with hyperdimensional physics

QFG Site Map

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 self-explanatory. The first two pages are here and here.

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: 202-586-2314
address: EE-32, 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. 161--206, 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 producing-in accord with Dr. Mendel Sachs' epochal union of general relativity and electrodynamics-the 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. 435-508. A slightly corrected version is downloadable as hep-th/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. 457-466.

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 so-called 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 time-polarized 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 [13-17,34] and in several books [4,66-70] 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 5-9, 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 [13-17], 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 papers---despite appearing in established physical journals and in books published by traditional publishing houses---are 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 pot-pourri 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 [58,59,81-83] 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 AIAS-related 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 two-edged 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/rp28-03.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

Last modified on: June 27, 2005.