Echoes of Townsend Brown: Larry Reed and Quantum Wave Mechanics

Long-time Townsend Brown inquirer Jan Lundquist – aka 'Rose' in The Before Times – has her own substantial archive to share with readers and visitors to this site. This forum is dedicated to the wealth of material she has compiled: her research, her findings, and her speculations.
Post Reply
Keeper of the Flame
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:35 am
Location: New Zealand

Echoes of Townsend Brown: Larry Reed and Quantum Wave Mechanics

Post by natecull »

Over the last couple of weeks I've been reading some papers by Larry Reed, a self-described "retired aerospace engineer" from Los Angeles, formerly of Lockheed Martin, who has since 2018 been self-publishing a fringe physics theory called Quantum Wave Mechanics in a book of the same name. The book is now up to its 4th edition as of 2022. Chapters from the book are available on his page:

Reading some of his chapters, his material gave me a very strong sense of Townsend Brown, as it also appears to be synthesising ideas from various Townsend-adjacent physics theories I've read going back to the 1980s, in the Antigravity Handbook and Psychotronics Association circle (the group that I've called "Townsend's 1970s Fan Club"). Reed also references Oleg Jefimenko a lot.

(I don't know what Jefimenko's link to Townsend was, but at the risk of sounding like a broken record on the subject, since I've said this several times already: Stan Deyo in 1978, who after Shaffranke and right around the same time as Moore was one of the early movers in the 1970s wave of linking Townsend to a "suppressed US gravity control" program.... named Jefimenko along with Townsend. Where did Deyo get that link from? I still don't know the answer to that. Who else was thinking about Jefimenko in the 1970s? Why was Jefimenko famous among the physics underground?)

And then tonight I read chapter 32, "Nonuniform Force Fields", and guess what: Larry Reed is another person to add to the list who talked directly to Townsend himself! ... rce_Fields
A paramagnetic body immersed in a non-uniform magnetic field displaces a volume of the medium of permeability m and undergoes a change in potential energy. For a diamagnetic material, the translational force is repulsive. In a superconductor, as a result of the Meisner effect, Cooper pairs of electrons form creating a magnetic field in response to the externally applied magnetic field, the superconductor becomes perfectly diamagnetic expelling magnetic fields. The Biefeld-Brown effect associated with force effects of non-ionic nonuniform electric fields and graded, high K dielectrics in asymmetrical capacitors may be attributed in part to dielectrophoresis consistent with the comprehensive nonuniform dielectric field theory developed by Dr. H. A. Pohl. This was further confirmed in communications and visit with T. Townsend Brown at his Catalina island laboratory by the author.
(Emphasis on the last sentence added by me).

So that's interesting!

I want to be clear that while I love trying to get my head around fringe physics theories, I'm not an actual physicist, so I don't know if Reed is actually on the right track. What I do say is that I think Reed is very clear and precise in his thinking and is following the obvious signs left by many of the thinkers on the edge of physics who have been either influenced by Townsend, or who independently came to similar conclusions as Townsend did. Specifically, Reed is following those who (like Townsend did at one point) think of "the curvature of spacetime" as actually being the variable electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability of space - the "stress of the vacuum dielectric" - which of course implies a speed of light that varies from place to place, and is not at all the immutable physical constant it is believed to be in Relativity. I think, but I'm not 100% sure, that this is what Townsend asserted in "The Structure of Space".

I'd also like to say that if I understand the Lorentzian Relativity / Euclidean / "ether physics" ideas of the type that Reed is following (they're a lot easier to understand than mainstream physics, which is what makes them attractive to non-physicists like me whose brain just glazes over at relativity and quantum mechanics), then I'm not at all sure that you can get to "therefore time travel" from them. One of the main features of this class of physical theory is that the "time dilation" effects in Einstein's Relativity are illusory and that in the absolute ether frame, no time distortion takes place.

I know that Townsend talked about time travel, or at least that's what "Morgan" told Paul that he talked about. But in my opinion, while there seems to be a stubbornly recurring ghost of experimental support for the idea that electromagnetic fields have extra components (Jefimenko's "electrokinetic" field, or perhaps Tesla's "longitudinal waves") and could also possibly warp gravity at lower power output than conventional GR thinks is possible, I think you can can only get from gravity control to time travel in an Einsteinian General Relativity or Unified Field framework, not in these rebel Euclidean frameworks. So to be intellectually honest, I have to point out that if Townsend's research points to these Euclidean/ether physics theories which are so beloved by Townsend's Fan Club -- then it cannot also point to time travel.

I mean time travel might exist - lord knows there's plenty of evidence from the esoteric / psi / ESP / spirit communication world that "outside of the physical" there is no such thing as time and space - but, it would not be logically permissible to infer any gravity control -> time control connection from a physical theory whose core assumption is that spacetime is always flat and that it's light, not time, that bends. At least that's my impression without having yet finished reading Reed.

This logical disconnect is one of the things I've always found confusing about trying to reconstruct Townsend's thinking. He seemed to believe in the Unified Field Theory (but which one?) and in non-Einsteinian ether theory, both at the same time. And while I respect that he was apparently a clear and logical thinker, I simply don't understand the thought process that could get from "not A" to "therefore A" in the same premise.

However, Townsend's "fat pony" speech to Linda is not an example of him rejecting Einstein: he was referring in that speech to the mainstream Einsteinan concept of "tachyons", which, while possibly nonphysical, are a perfectly legitimate mathematical solution of the Special Relativity equations. The reason we know this is because he said they "never go slower than lightspeed", which is the defining feature of tachyons, and which is very much not a defining feature of theoretical non-Einsteinian faster-than-light particles. See eg:

Going on a journey, somewhere far out east
We'll find the time to show you, wonders never cease
Post Reply