Home About Helping Us Your Order Contact Mailing List
Nanobiology Aether Motor Alternative Energy Gravity Relativity Climatology Cosmology

Dr. Eugene Mallove, May 15, 2004
Homage to a Peerless Friend



1.   The silence and the protest

This website has been down in silence and protest. Silence, because this alone may begin to face the unnameable upon which life is built at every instant, and the unnameable that has senselessly robbed us, this website, and the organization responsible for it, of our dear friend, collaborator, co-worker, ISFA founding member, ally and supporter, companion in laughter and in combat, Dr. Eugene Mallove.

Silence, because we do only speak for ourselves - and there is nothing that can and should be said yet about his brutal murder, about the mowing down of a life full of knowledge, of joy and promises still, about the pain, the sadness and the anger that his family and those who loved him feel, about the difficult situation now facing Infinite Energy and the NEF (New Energy Foundation), or about the loss for science and, in particular, for alternative physics that his premature death entails. We cannot speak for the world. It is not even a notion that we think has any reality or substance. But those who speak of it and in its name also say that his death is a loss for the world.

Yet, the news of his death, the commentary around it, the fact that it did not receive any even remotely adequate national coverage - all this tells us that the world which lost this brave scientist, this American pioneer, certainly is not the world we hear about and in whose name so-called great communicators so often speak.

Thus there must be another world for which this loss is irretrievable, inexorable and unforgivable. We have been told repeatedly in these past weeks that this is the world that wants this website to continue, that looks forward to our courage in ploughing ahead, that lets us know that now is the time not to give up.

This brings us back to the protest. For this silence has also been one of protest - and certainly not directed at those who have tried to encourage us. It is a protest against only too many reactive and reactionary forces - culminating with those behind this senseless murder. It is a protest against this unacceptable event, against its sordid nature, against a society that permits the thriving of individuals capable of acts like this one.

It is also a protest against all those who have used, or tried to use, this despicable event to gain notoriety, attention, to profit in some way from the murder of an outstanding human being, Dr. Eugene Mallove. From conspiracy-theory addicts to thinly disguised enemies who dared, on the very day of Dr. Mallove's funeral, to circulate a list of aspiring candidates for Editor-in-Chief of Infinite Energy with their names at the top, the denunciation of such opportunists would be long and predictable - and certainly in bad taste right now. But their lack of shame is hardly forgivable or forgettable - and we must protest it, as we have.

Yet, let us be clear - the protest is also much more than this. It comes from a triple realization - that, effectively, the average civilized human being is not equipped, morally, psychologically, politically and scientifically, to deal with the consequences of a new knowledge of social and natural reality, including that portion that one designates as a New Physics or a New Bio-Physics; that introduction of a complex pioneering technology which entails multiple and correlated paradigm shifts (what we have called a 'continental shift') depends, above all, not upon an 'earth-shattering experiment', or its reproduction, but upon the learning of a new art of thinking, a new scientific methodology, a new language, including new sets of functions; and the realization that existing social institutions - of power and research - create a tremendous barrier or obstacle to the freedom of scientific pursuit designed to prevent any such 'continental shift'. Technical machines and technological breakthroughs have always been subject to political, military, moral and marketing choices. The question of the technological breakthroughs - even if they were as varied and frequent as 'believers in free energy' would like to imagine - will always be secondary to the scientific question, and the latter - in what concerns its institutional status - always secondary to the political and moral choices made by groups of human beings. We have been far too steeped in research and education all these years not to know that the desire to learn, test and compare a new knowledge does not come from utilitarian necessities or so-called use-value; more rapidly it comes from military need - but even then, it is always perforce something truncated and deformed. No, the desire to learn, to know, comes from a moral and political stance. It comes from a desire to live, to put knowledge in the service of Life - to permit knowledge, art and science to develop finer perceptions and sensations, and to serve as the teachers of beauty, elegance and lightness. Without this desire to live, there is no functional knowledge - there is no adequate learning of the functions of nature, in us and all around us. And without a healthy desire to know, there is simply no way that the best of technologies will be discovered - and even if they were handed on a platter, there is no way for even the best of technologies to be employed other than to cause further harm and find malignant uses. Technology will never lead, in and of itself, to benign social use or consequences. That is what we have learned.

Scientists bear the responsibility for their discoveries. They cannot simply ignore the question of what social, political, libidinal, etc, uses these discoveries will be put to. There have been scientists who held on to discoveries that could have resolved the so-called 'perpetual energy crisis of civilization'. They felt that their epoch was not materially, spiritually and morally equipped to make good use of the knowledge that might solve that crisis. They were few and far between, and have become surrounded by veritable troupes of imitators, or apes (in the sense of Thus Spake Zarathustra's ape or baboon), that constantly devalue these hidden discoveries and the lives of their makers. And there have been only too many scientists who later regretted the consequences of their discoveries - and tried, to no avail, to close the Pandora's box that had spilled chaotically open.

Silence, then, as a protest is also more than merely a protest - it is an active doing, the doing of not-doing. By burying his atmospheric electric Aether Motor, John Galt - in the unforgettable Atlas Shrugged of Ayn Rand - stops the motor of the world, the world of our human history and our social institutions:

"You told them that you would stop the motor of the world!"
"I have."
"What have you done?"
"I've done nothing, Miss Taggart. And that is the whole of my secret!"
Doing nothing, the not-doing whereby we stop the world within ourselves, in our heads, bodies and spirit, is also at once a 'brain-strike' of scientists and artists against this world, against a human and social world that desires - massively and with a suicidary passion - the consequences of its ills; it is a protest against the sordid accomplishment of such a generalized moratorium on brains.

Those who adopted a position of permanent strike in one area or another, certainly knew and were aware that technological developments are political and moral choices of an epoch, not mere irreversibilities that randomly thrust themselves upon social formations. Precisely they verified that their epoch was not prepared to put certain discoveries to good use, to the furtherance of life and the living. And as Galt put it - "that kind of indifference toward a world which should have been ours was the hardest thing to attain."

Some have said that Eugene's murder was connected to 'something big' that he had supposedly hinted was about to break out. It wasn't. All that might have been 'big' had already collapsed. There can be, to our best understanding, no sensical explanation along these lines for the murder of Eugene. It is a conspiratorialist myth. And since that's what it is, we denounce it, right now, as simply an obstacle designed - consciously and unconsciously - to avoid the simple truth that the pursuit of truly new methods and technologies cannot be severed from the desire to grasp a different and more adequate description of natural reality which alone affords them. One may not learn without changing one's morality and micro-politics.

For nearly nine months, and constantly since January of this year, we, Eugene, and our co-workers, were involved in intense negotiations that appeared to be very promising indeed but, one week before his murder, had collapsed entirely. We were, it is true, also expecting approval of our Aether Motor patent(s), and did receive a notice of allowance on the Monday before his death. But Eugene would not have revealed this to anyone, or hinted about it. Some may think that the 'something big' refers to the upcoming DOE review - but it suffices to read Eugene's own last editorial in IE to realize that he had very little hope for such a review to be anything other than, in all likelihood, another whitewash. Besides, we know very well that Eugene had become only too aware of the implications of Aetherometry to the proper understanding and utilization of nuclear processes. A difficult-to-reproduce phenomenon can only be accepted as a fact worthy of further investigation and development if its physics are properly understood (note that's an 'if', not a 'when').

For many years now there has been a growing consent which developed between us and Eugene and with certain other special friends and collaborators. Our friends have always encouraged us to proceed with our work, and to find ways to have it published. We have always had our doubts about its impact, and the documented history of resistance to it, of gratuitous and slanderous attacks, of the constant combat against sects and sectarianism that Eugene and we waged together and had to wage, speaks mountains for the incapacity of an epoch to comprehend the simple science of Aetherometry. Without that comprehension, there can be no proper testing of its multiple discoveries, no proper development of its technologies, and no proof of an ethical and micro-political shift in desire.

In our creative process, there has always been a productive tension focused on whether we would pursue our effort of dissemination to the point of publishing the papers on the Aether Motor. We had always reserved the option that, if we failed to obtain a sponsor to ensure its proper development, we would suppress its patent(s) and not publish the papers detailing its functioning, not even those referring to its least-advanced embodiment. And about two years ago, Eugene came to understand the reasons for this choice. He had held such high hopes that all those whom he had taken the painstaking time to directly introduce to Aetherometry would take it seriously and begin to learn its methods and how to use its tools, rather than jump to malignant and ignorant conclusions and caricature what they had imagined we might have written, in order not to read - as so many who should have known better, did. This, not to mention the pursuit of countless negotiations with prospective sponsors that over 8 years had led nowhere. Yet, Eugene still managed to keep a faith in the community of human beings - and was only too happy when he thought a more intelligent sponsor might still be found or that we might, after all, proceed with the publication of the patent(s), at least the basic one, and of some of the other material on the Aether Motor.

2.   Our minimum programme

Would publicization of the Aether Motor still be what Eugene would have wanted us to do in the present circumstances? We have no idea. And we have not yet made up our minds about what to do, either. But we have made up our minds about maintaining this website in its present form for a while longer and restoring access to it, in the hope that others will take this as a chance to learn something of import to their lives which they will find nowhere else, in no other virtual space - public or private - for science or philosophy. And we commit to a minimum plan of action which will include publication of The Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy - a book on nanobiology for which Eugene had just written a most beautiful introduction; completion of the book version of the first volume of aetherometric philosophy, with a tribute to Nietzsche and Spinoza; and to the release of the second volume of the Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, on the subject-matter of gravitation and antigravity, for ISFA members. This last part will also contain our own work on 'degravitation' and experimental refutation of the so-called Brown-Biefeld effect - which Gene so often pressed us to release.

The Labofex laboratory was closed last year, though we have retained the means to continue, through the summer, research at ABRI on the half-lives of beta-emitters, a research project partially sponsored by NEF. Eugene was so much looking forward to presenting this work himself, in a lecture at the upcoming ICCF-11 conference which will be held in Marseilles. We would like to complete the first part of this work, and - if we obtain confirmation of the initial phenomenon - still have it presented there, in his memory, as an homage to him and to his tireless dedication, and as an expression of our gratitude for his unwavering support of our work. Unfortunately we will not be able to attend, nor do we have the funds that would permit us to send someone trusted and capable of delivering that address.

There is one last commitment, quite outside of the frame of this website. For years, Eugene kept asking us to write a rebuttal to Feynman's famous lecture on waves and particles - the one so often quoted as having had the effect of changing the Physics paradigm of an epoch, and which, in the guise of introducing Quantum Electrodynamics, ushered in, instead, the age of the imaginary and fantastic that culminated in the present dogmas of Quantum Chromodynamics. Through many of our lectures, Eugene had come to understand the radical implications of our discoveries - of finite, geometric and physically "fine structures" for the electron and the proton, of discrete structures for all manifestations of kinetic energy associated with such mass-bearing particles, of the electric and nonelectric functions and structures of massfree energy, of the real speed of apparent propagation of gravity, etc - and, amongst these implications, those which presented an entirely novel resolution to the so-called problem of the duality of wave and particle behaviors. For the latter implied also a revolution in the way that we conceptualize and can analyze energy - as a function and the substance of all motion. This did not go without a radical alteration of the scientific functions purportedly designating the wave-functions of particles.

So, one day in the lull between the recent negotiations, and a few days after Eugene had taken the trouble to fax us his underlined copy of the said Feynman lecture, we were moved to write our counter-lecture - one that would expose the false premises behind the so-called particle-wave paradox, and provide - in condensed form - the new physical and mathematical tools that permit a greater accuracy in the analysis of the transmission problems responsible for the so-called paradox than uncertainty taken as a principle could ever have permitted. We were filled with joy when it was completed, and later next day, when Eugene phoned a propos of other matters, we were still so thrilled that we could not contain ourselves. After a long talk about the nitty-gritty of this counter-lecture, we promised to send him - in a few weeks - a preliminary copy that would have "fermented" a little, as we put it. When we returned to the topic a few days later, we had already put in some minor corrections. But we wanted it to sit a little longer, to permit a preliminary revision with fresh eyes. Because we knew Eugene was irrepressible in his desire to read it, we are immensely sorry he never got the chance to do so. And we feel obliged to release it, sometime soon, in the appropriate forum.

These are, for now, the tasks that we propose for ourselves and for Akronos to take up.

3.   A final note

Continuation of our research, publication and educational processes is now in more severe jeopardy than ever. The closure of our laboratories appears now to be a definitive situation. We had considered organizing a conference on New Physics and Radical Power Technologies, in honor of our departed friend, that would jointly benefit Eugene's family and NEF. The sponsors that were approached have also failed to come through, yet some of the speakers who have been contacted have gone as far as writing up their addresses. We could, and perhaps should, organize a conference that would also be of benefit to our work and our technologies - in support of Akronos and ABRI. We would appreciate the input that any readers of this site might want to contribute to the organization of either of these events.

We would like to finish by saying that the educational task of ABRI is not one that we think has failed. Eugene was an active member of this organization, and a member of ISFA and its organizing and founding committee, and had wished these structures would mushroom into open forums for the exploration of aetherometric biophysics. ISFA has demonstrated that it is possible for Aetherometry to be discussed intelligently and critically amongst those who take the time and effort to learn it. And there are other worlds, both inside ISFA and outside of it, where the challenge of a new knowledge is not lost - and where the task of scientific education is carried out. Also, we are sorry that we have had to turn away so many people from ISFA because that effort was missing. We would like to encourage them to persevere, and perhaps a conference on aetherometric science and technology might convince them that the study of this new science is a must, not a luxury. It is a challenge and a task that all those who purport to want to save some world should take up seriously and of necessity, or else cease speaking of it. But above all, it is a challenge to each one of us, to carry out the only deliverance which is possible - a deliverance from ourselves, from the internal monologue which the world has imprinted in our heads, from the phony moralisms and opportunisms of our eulogy of survival, from our history - personal, human and social - and, above all, a deliverance from the wrong ways of understanding nature. We cannot save the world, and have no intention of attempting to do so. We and every one of us can only save him or herself, and the world each calls his or hers, by learning the ways of nature. The gates of change open to here, and to nowhere else.

Paulo Correa
Alexandra Correa
Malgosia Askanas

July 6th, 2004