Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter "Replications"

[Farmhand]

Yes I think you're right, but I hope you're not Because I must again come back to the question how did Tesla intend to power cars and aeroplanes etc wirelessly since none of them would be connected to the earth. An aeroplanes is something else as far as I'm thinking because of the altitude so I'm not really concerned with that at the moment, I don't mean the earth radiates the energy to that extent, but maybe (hopefully) a little bit at the surface, to power a car or something. Although maybe that would be a little bit like trying to get the incandescent bulb to somehow work from the top terminal without actually touching it The point of the earth as far as I'm concerned is like what an AV plug shows with the top terminal - me standing between the AV plug and the coil makes the LEDs brighter, so replace my body with the earth to make the contact. Things get difficult when you want to move around.

I think my coil including the extra coil is working at about 3MHz, it's hard to tell for sure because the scope is all over the place. But among the chaos 3MHz kept showing up so I'll go with that. This was with the probe near the tub of water.

I was getting good results with the small receiver with 22 SWG primary on it. But this was too thick to fit in the submarine so I replaced that with the same length of 26 SWG, and now it's not as good No amount of adjusting it will yield the same output as before, so I'm going to try with about 2 turns of 22 SWG primary and experiment from there. Covering the whole secondary with the primary seems to reduce the output so it looks like the primary should be at the bottom like a regular TC. I wasn't expecting such a small coil to work at all though to be honest, I'm surprised it's doing this much. It should be very interesting with bigger RC models able to fit bigger coils. Boats and submarines at least, dunno about cars and choppers

Either way, I found this to be the case:



The efficiency or effect of metal plate capacitance C is increased when brought into proximity with container of water W. C in direct contact with W shorts out the coil, but when C is placed on the outside of the container W it seems to form a condenser and output is increased.

Interesting

[edit] I'm not using any capacitors because it will be impossible to fit the ones I'd need to use inside the sub, so I'm using nothing from the start.

Hi dr, Nice work, Interesting experiments again. 3 Mhz sounds about right.
I think with planes and stuff Tesla could have intended to use an un-grounded
receiver, I think he shows a drawing in the notes, I see if I can find it again,
I should take notes when reading the notes. Keep forgetting.

It's a pity you can't fit a very small capacitor across the DC of the FWBR,
the motor might run better from a cap even a very small one should work with
HF not a tuning cap just a cap to smooth the lumps.

The increased output by forming a capacitor with the tank and the plate
would indicate the receiver coils res frequency is high, maybe you need a
really high frequency transmitter for the sub so everything can be small.

Just thinking aloud here - If the sub was built from scratch and made from
plastic the inside of the hull or part of it (waterline) could be coated with foil
so to be a capacitor or terminal.

Also did you try putting the primary in series with the secondary on the
receiver coil ? I like the way you experiment so I would be interested to hear
your observations of any differences doing that, I'll be winding coils for some
days yet, it is quite an ordeal to wind 4200 tuns neatly on a ring core.

Cheers

[dR-Green]

Yes, I understand what you mean; and that is what I said outside the brackets. The part that gets tricky with that idea is: how do high-frequency waves move through a capacitor then? You can connect the grounds using a capacitor and the system will still work. So there must be some energy moving across that gap. In electronics capacitors are still able to pass "voltage-current" waves across them, so even a "virtual capacitor" (free space) must be capable of doing that.

Yes, but not as efficiently. I mean, the range drops off quickly for these purposes. So while it might work with a capacitor, it's not of any practical use unless your loads are all dangling near the top terminal.

Also excuse me if I begin to ramble. I'm not a physicist either, more of a drifter, a beatnik

So if aether is flowing into you, then aren't you being both pushed and pulled at the same time?

Well I dunno. Technically of course it's both, but also technically to be able to push you down the source would need to be above you. It's not like a rotating wheel and the question being is it going up or down, when it is in fact both.

If you fall into a flowing river and get swept away, are you being pushed, or are you being pulled? Or neither? You are still, there is no resistance, no force to be felt from any particular direction, nothing pushing against you, and nothing pulling you. Yet you are moving with the flow of the river in relation to the environment surrounding you and the river. But you are still in relation to the river. So is there any force acting on you at all? Is the question even a valid question to be asking in the first place...

You are also a part of that though. Maybe you're not meaning it like this, but the way I read it at least implies that you are something that the universe is having this effect on, as if you're not a part of the universe and the cause that's affecting itself. "Aether" to me meaning the invisible or whatever energy that expresses itself as the physical universe, so it doesn't show up as any particular form, it expresses itself as anything that's observable, including "an observer". Something similar to this

In Aristotle's system aether had no qualities (was neither hot, cold, wet, or dry), was incapable of change (with the exception of change of place), and by its nature moved in circles, and had no contrary, or unnatural, motion.

Aether (classical element) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not a subscriber of the idea that the aether is anything physical or even directly observable, at least not while one is himself manifest in physical form. It's like the unseen cause behind the whole observable universe as effect. I am the aether pretending that I'm not the aether (or whatever fundamental energy of the universe) focused into manifestation expressing and experiencing itself. Just that I wouldn't use the term aether to describe it like that.

Either way, whatever effect gravity is having, atmospheric pressure is also pushing on you, but you're not flattened. Viktor Schauberger proposes there are always two "opposing" or cooperating forces involved in anything. While gravity is going down, levity is equally going up, similar to Walter Russell's gravity and radiation I think.

Also while one might think that if they suck a liquid through a straw they are actually sucking it up, what's actually happening is they are producing a vacuum or a lower pressure at the top of the straw, the atmospheric pressure tries to cancel it or fill it back up, it pushes on the liquid in all directions and the liquid flows via the path of least pressure into your mouth. The environment is doing the work, you just reduce the pressure. The liquid goes up and seemingly counters gravity but gravity hasn't changed and you're doing nothing but creating a simple vacuum. So there are interesting things going on here even when we think the answer is obvious. The same when you put a coaster over a glass of water and turn it upside down and the coaster just stays there. There is equal pressure pushing on it in all directions and no opening anywhere to relieve the vacuum within the glass, so the water can't fall down to the ground.

As far as "nothing" goes, I believe it's like a game I used to play, Monster Truck Madness. I used to try and reach the end of the map, but they programmed it so that the further you went, the terrain would continue to repeat itself so you could continue to drive forever and never reach the end of the map, because there is no end. It's programmed to put something there as soon as you arrive. If there is an end, then your arrival requires something to exist beyond it, so it's no longer the end. It's finite, yet infinite.

The way I see it, to put it simply, all "things" (people, planets, everything, the universe itself) are focused into manifestation. Consciousness, or "conscious energy" if you will, focusing itself into various imagined forms, the "matter" arising from continued focusing.

Rather than being static objects, I would describe it like Tom Bearden's "steady state dynamic flow", or whatever he calls it. The aether expressing itself as "matter" is like iron filings on a piece of paper, all fixed to their individual points. The focusing consciousness is a magnet on the other side of the paper. As long as the focused field of the magnet exists, the iron filings will all move as a wave, arranging themselves and expressing a particular form temporarily, only as long as the focusing magnet is present. When the energy/magnet moves the iron filings arrange themselves to express it, where the observable form once was is now "flat" or expresses "nothing", it has no form, but nothing moved from their points, nor does it express any form without the focusing device behind it, without some energy to arrange them.

So in the same way I see "matter" as "appearing" when the analogous "magnetic field" happens to pass through that particular piece of "empty space", and so you see your hand in front of you. When you supposedly "move your hand" you are "moving your consciousness" (or in consciousness, thought), and this focused intention is expressed in the physical universe through manifesting the form of a hand "in real time", just as the iron filings express the energy of the magnet, and the expressed observable form follows the direction of the energy behind it.

No doubt the physicist would have me burned at the steak for that one, but it makes sense to me anyway

Wavelength and pulses (delay lines and transmission line):
The inverse of frequency is period. Electrical length refers to time it will take for the pulse to move from the start to the end of that coil (period). If your secondary + extra coil = 1 wavelength then the pulse reach the far end of coil and reflect of the capacitive ball after 1 wavelength. It will then take 1 wavelength to return to the primary arriving at the exact moment you send another pulse. The new pulse will add to the old pulse and increase it's amplitude.

Is that closer to what you're thinking? It's all the same theory, just a slight different perspective. What I'm talking about is the efficiency of harvesting the pulse/standing wave back off the line, which is what I am calling "receiving"

I believe so That description of electrical length makes a lot more sense, thanks. I didn't do any electrical or radio training or anything so I don't know of these basic radio related things

[dR-Green]

Colorado Springs Notes PDF pages 148 and 149, shows a couple of primary circuits that interest me.

That does look interesting, good stuff to try

I'm testing two motors and the sub. One motor has a cap soldered on to the terminals. The sub is 4.7v I think, one motor is 12v and fairly meaty and won't work with the 26 SWG primary, and the motor with the cap on it is 6-15v. In fact, it's model no RE360 here

General Purpose Motors : Motors & Gearboxes : Maplin Electronics

Nom Speed Current Output
(V) (rpm)* (mA)* (W)*
12 8321 460 4.04

Yes I intend to somehow have some metal on the inside of the hull, I'll probably use a piece of aluminium foil and roll it a bit to fit inside. I thought of this a while ago but didn't think the basic idea of making a condenser through the hull would actually end up working to benefit the whole thing I'll probably spray the outside of the hull with the zinc spray so it might turn out quite well, even better than I originally hoped for. Certainly the results I've seen so far are better than I was expecting.

Anyway I just tried this



I do believe that the results got a lot better again I'll go back and experiment with the 22 SWG primary tomorrow, should be good I think

Yeah winding a piece of wire is all well and good. Making it kink-free and tidy is another matter. Good luck

[edit] Reminder to self: Try this tomorrow

[LetsReplicate]

Yes, but not as efficiently. I mean, the range drops off quickly for these purposes. So while it might work with a capacitor, it's not of any practical use unless your loads are all dangling near the top terminal.

Also excuse me if I begin to ramble. I'm not a physicist either, more of a drifter, a beatnik

The capacity increases with space, but the influence between the plates decreases. A high amplitude, high frequency signal should be able to jump the gap. This would be entirely prevented by placing an insulating material on the ball, then adding an outside plate (the "cap" ends). By adding a second plate that is insulated from the ball you're placing a small value capacitor in series (which reduces the capacitance like resistors in parallel) which should remove the effect (according to Tesla's documentation: it does).

Well I dunno. Technically of course it's both, but also technically to be able to push you down the source would need to be above you. It's not like a rotating wheel and the question being is it going up or down, when it is in fact both.

If you fall into a flowing river and get swept away, are you being pushed, or are you being pulled? Or neither? You are still, there is no resistance, no force to be felt from any particular direction, nothing pushing against you, and nothing pulling you. Yet you are moving with the flow of the river in relation to the environment surrounding you and the river. But you are still in relation to the river. So is there any force acting on you at all? Is the question even a valid question to be asking in the first place...

It depends ENTIRELY on your frame of reference (your "ground point"). From the perspective of the Earth (using draining aether = gravity, and aether density = magnetism), you're a standing in a waterfall. The Earth is not pulling you down, the water falling passed you is pushing you down. If you flip your "ground" point around to being the sun, you're being held up and away from it by the same waterfall. There is no such thing as being stationary in space, everything is always moving. Lack of motion implies lack of energy which is a state that can not exist inside the universe (hydrogen NEVER becomes solid, even at absolute 0).

My point was that the frame of reference can be "flipped over" and the ideas still work. Way, way back when Benjamin Franklin found electrons he defined the current system backward to the way we define it now (electron flow). The error lasted a few hundred years until the invention of semi-conductors when the standard needed to be re-defined.

You are also a part of that though. Maybe you're not meaning it like this, but the way I read it at least implies that you are something that the universe is having this effect on, as if you're not a part of the universe and the cause that's affecting itself. "Aether" to me meaning the invisible or whatever energy that expresses itself as the physical universe, so it doesn't show up as any particular form, it expresses itself as anything that's observable, including "an observer". Something similar to this

Aether (classical element) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not a subscriber of the idea that the aether is anything physical or even directly observable, at least not while one is himself manifest in physical form. It's like the unseen cause behind the whole observable universe as effect. I am the aether pretending that I'm not the aether (or whatever fundamental energy of the universe) focused into manifestation expressing and experiencing itself. Just that I wouldn't use the term aether to describe it like that.

Either way, whatever effect gravity is having, atmospheric pressure is also pushing on you, but you're not flattened. Viktor Schauberger proposes there are always two "opposing" or cooperating forces involved in anything. While gravity is going down, levity is equally going up, similar to Walter Russell's gravity and radiation I think.

The classical aether created by the Greeks is just as incomplete as the classical atom created by them.

Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work on general relativity, Lorentz wrote a letter to him in which he speculated that within general relativity the aether was re-introduced. In his response Einstein wrote that one can actually speak about a "new aether", but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether. This was further elaborated by Einstein in some semi-popular articles (1918, 1920, 1924, 1930).

In 1918 Einstein publicly alluded to that new definition for the first time.[A 18] Then, in the early 1920s, in a lecture which he was invited to give at Lorentz's university in Leiden, Einstein sought to reconcile the theory of relativity with his mentor's cherished concept of the aether. In this lecture Einstein stressed that special relativity took away the last mechanical property of Lorentz's aether: immobility. However, he continued that special relativity does not necessarily rule out the aether, because the latter can be used to give physical reality to acceleration and rotation. This concept was fully elaborated within general relativity, in which physical properties (which are partially determined by matter) are attributed to space, but no substance or state of motion can be attributed to that "aether" (aether = curved space-time).

In the extension of the theory that I believe in, the "curvature" is given by the density of the aether which is directly proportional to the magnetism in the area and directly connected to gravity. Gradient variance in the density of a medium causes the wave passing through it to change speed. Without this effect we would see no "gravitational lensing".

Einstein has been proven wrong about the motion of the aether (dark energy proves is has motion that is independent of light, but likely caries light with it), but the "curvature" (density) concept has been proven true.

Also while one might think that if they suck a liquid through a straw they are actually sucking it up, what's actually happening is they are producing a vacuum or a lower pressure at the top of the straw, the atmospheric pressure tries to cancel it or fill it back up, it pushes on the liquid in all directions and the liquid flows via the path of least pressure into your mouth. The environment is doing the work, you just reduce the pressure. The liquid goes up and seemingly counters gravity but gravity hasn't changed and you're doing nothing but creating a simple vacuum. So there are interesting things going on here even when we think the answer is obvious. The same when you put a coaster over a glass of water and turn it upside down and the coaster just stays there. There is equal pressure pushing on it in all directions and no opening anywhere to relieve the vacuum within the glass, so the water can't fall down to the ground.

Vacuums are only produced as a result of removing positive pressure. The boilers I used to design all had fans to blow air. The vacuum produced at the inlet of the fan ALWAYS has less force than air blowing out of the fan. The vacuum force is a resulting force of the blowing, not the other way around. The same is true for sucking on a straw: first you have to empty your lungs, which takes more energy than sucking on the straw.

That is why I say aether draining make more logical sense than vacuum expansion.

As far as "nothing" goes, I believe it's like a game I used to play, Monster Truck Madness. I used to try and reach the end of the map, but they programmed it so that the further you went, the terrain would continue to repeat itself so you could continue to drive forever and never reach the end of the map, because there is no end. It's programmed to put something there as soon as you arrive. If there is an end, then your arrival requires something to exist beyond it, so it's no longer the end. It's finite, yet infinite.

The issue with that is the repetition. Imagine you left Earth at an extreme speed in any direction. Because there are a finite number of arraignments for the structure of space, at some point it will begin repeating. That means you will at some point reach another Earth that is indistinguishable from this one. Does that means you've gone in a circle? Or have you reached a "parallel reality"?

The way I see it, to put it simply, all "things" (people, planets, everything, the universe itself) are focused into manifestation. Consciousness, or "conscious energy" if you will, focusing itself into various imagined forms, the "matter" arising from continued focusing.

I've seen that idea many times before, it is a self-defeating argument though. The concept requires that Schrodinger's Cat "is both alive an dead until observed". A "mass consciousness" would act as a universal observer though, allowing observation of the cat ensuring it's dead.

This is further complicated by the issue that all on the consciousness in the known universe is on Earth. Back when humans believed the Earth was flat, was it really flat?

I'm sure you'll find this interesting: Athene's Theory of Everything - YouTube

[dR-Green]

The issue with that is the repetition. Imagine you left Earth at an extreme speed in any direction. Because there are a finite number of arraignments for the structure of space, at some point it will begin repeating. That means you will at some point reach another Earth that is indistinguishable from this one. Does that means you've gone in a circle? Or have you reached a "parallel reality"?



I've seen that idea many times before, it is a self-defeating argument though. The concept requires that Schrodinger's Cat "is both alive an dead until observed". A "mass consciousness" would act as a universal observer though, allowing observation of the cat ensuring it's dead.

This is further complicated by the issue that all on the consciousness in the known universe is on Earth. Back when humans believed the Earth was flat, was it really flat?

I'm sure you'll find this interesting: Athene's Theory of Everything - YouTube

I don't mean that the physical universe literally repeats itself, using the game as an analogy was just the easiest way to explain it The programmers of the game haven't programmed an infinite variety of landscapes, and they haven't programmed anything to produce random landscapes, they just made what they had repeat itself. My point was that the game puts "something" there so you can continue driving forever without falling off the end of the map or crashing into a wall.

As for the cat, the cat is aware. Consciousness isn't limited to humans or even what humans call living beings. A rock knows how to be a rock, all the atoms and what not know how to arrange themselves and what to be in any given circumstance. It's not whether the cat is alive or dead, because which are you if no one is observing you? That's an impossible situation. You are being observed by yourself. You know you are here and the environment is there, so you can't not exist.

But from another perspective, there is no "cat" until the human observes it. The concept "cat" is a human idea, so if there is no human observing this particular expression of the universe, aware of it as "cat", then there is no "cat". There is only the continuous universe. YOU recognise it as the concept "cat".

When a tree falls in a forest, it doesn't produce "sound" unless there are ears to hear it. The falling releases energy and waves, but those waves don't become "sound" until they interact with another aspect of the universe that is able to respond to those frequencies and translate them, and recognise it as a "sound".

I'll watch that video now, thanks.

[LetsReplicate]

I don't mean that the physical universe literally repeats itself, using the game as an analogy was just the easiest way to explain it The programmers of the game haven't programmed an infinite variety of landscapes, and they haven't programmed anything to produce random landscapes, they just made what they had repeat itself. My point was that the game puts "something" there so you can continue driving forever without falling off the end of the map or crashing into a wall.

As for the cat, the cat is aware. Consciousness isn't limited to humans or even what humans call living beings. A rock knows how to be a rock, all the atoms and what not know how to arrange themselves and what to be in any given circumstance. It's not whether the cat is alive or dead, because which are you if no one is observing you? That's an impossible situation. You are being observed by yourself. You know you are here and the environment is there, so you can't not exist.

But from another perspective, there is no "cat" until the human observes it. The concept "cat" is a human idea, so if there is no human observing this particular expression of the universe, aware of it as "cat", then there is no "cat". There is only the continuous universe. YOU recognise it as the concept "cat".

When a tree falls in a forest, it doesn't produce "sound" unless there are ears to hear it. The falling releases energy and waves, but those waves don't become "sound" until they interact with another aspect of the universe that is able to respond to those frequencies and translate them, and recognise it as a "sound".

I'll watch that video now, thanks.

No matter how much "something" is put in front of you, if you go far enough the space must repeat. Even with a completely random system that has millions of variables will still arrive at a duplicate of it's start point eventually. There isn't really infinite variety of landscapes.

I believe that Schrodinger's Cat is dead because it witnessed it's own death too. The extension of that being: I reject the idea that the future (or past) can be changed and must be on a fixed timeline. I also believe that consciousness does have some effect on the structure, but since the structure of the universe itself is eternal (contains its own time demension) then the structure is a required cause before the consciousness effect.

If a tree falls and produces a pressure wave, it is still "sound" because sound is a structure that has already been defined into existence. That's like saying that the universe itself is limited to the "known universe" (which is all looking backward in time due to the speed of light): so the sun doesn't exist until 8min after it sends us light. Also dark matter is borderline un-observable and complicates things by its existence which begs the question: why does it exist at all if the point of everything is to be observed?

[dR-Green]

No matter how much "something" is put in front of you, if you go far enough the space must repeat. Even with a completely random system that has millions of variables will still arrive at a duplicate of it's start point eventually. There isn't really infinite variety of landscapes.

Why?

Actually I just realised that the condition you described is in fact impossible. It can never repeat itself exactly, because your knowledge of it "now" in order to be able to know that it's repeating itself was not present "before". So it's not the same as before, because you are different.

That is, let's say you're seeing it for the first time. It's a new experience. Now if you move forward and finally end up in supposedly the same place again, this time you have an awareness of it "in the past", so it's all changed. You are as much an extension of the landscape as the landscape is an extension of you. So it's not the same landscape as it was.

Also when you watch a whirlpool in a river for example, the form of the whirlpool remains pretty much constant so you can recognise the pattern, but the water is flowing, it's not the same water as it was 10 seconds ago, therefore it's not the same whirlpool. All the "stuff" by which you define it has gone and replaced with new "stuff". It's an "activity", something that's happening, not a "thing".

I reject the idea that the future (or past) can be changed and must be on a fixed timeline.

"There was a young man who said damn
For it certainly seems that I am
A creature that moves in determinate grooves
I'm not even a bus, I'm a tram."

If a tree falls and produces a pressure wave, it is still "sound" because sound is a structure that has already been defined into existence. That's like saying that the universe itself is limited to the "known universe" (which is all looking backward in time due to the speed of light): so the sun doesn't exist until 8min after it sends us light. Also dark matter is borderline un-observable and complicates things by its existence which begs the question: why does it exist at all if the point of everything is to be observed?

It still exists, it still happens. It's just not "sound". Because until the universe has grown ears to hear it then it can't be "sound". There are no senses for it to vibrate and to register those vibrations as "sound". If there were no ears growing out of the universe then one might instead call it a trembling of the earth. Or whatever effect would be perceived. But if there are no ears, then there is no "sound". The point I'm trying to get at is that the tree still falls and sends out shock waves, but until those waves vibrate a ear drum then it's not "sound". It's just a bunch of waves in the universe, among an imperceptible number of others as far as a human is concerned.

No one said the point of everything is to be observed, also that presumes that it must be observed or perceivable by humans alone. You at this moment can only perceive things that the human idea has evolved senses for up until this point that allow "you" as the awareness of those sensations to interact with the universe like radio receivers. If you don't possess that receiver then you won't see anything, you won't even know that you're not seeing something. Maybe dark matter is very useful for other creatures, or maybe they're trying to get rid of it from their cities like smog And if there was no use for it at all then it wouldn't exist in the universe. Also the "unobservable" nature of dark matter is simply down to the fact that it absorbs light, when our senses that we call "eyes" require that matter reflects light. Like with the tree and the sound, the waves are still there. But there are no senses present that are able to perceive it, if we're referring to humans.

[dR-Green]

I've uploaded a video of the motor and two circuit configurations. The first one appears to be the best of all the ones posted on this page. Still got the 26 SWG primary on it, haven't got round to replacing it with the 22 SWG yet. The 6mm copper rod spark gap terminals are also expanding and after about 5-10 mins use it becomes very unreliable. It gets difficult to demonstrate the 2nd setup in the video, but it's definitely not as good.

Tesla Wireless DC Motor Experiment-01 - YouTube

... The inevitable zap comes at 2:50

[LetsReplicate]

Why?

Actually I just realised that the condition you described is in fact impossible. It can never repeat itself exactly, because your knowledge of it "now" in order to be able to know that it's repeating itself was not present "before". So it's not the same as before, because you are different.

That is, let's say you're seeing it for the first time. It's a new experience. Now if you move forward and finally end up in supposedly the same place again, this time you have an awareness of it "in the past", so it's all changed. You are as much an extension of the landscape as the landscape is an extension of you. So it's not the same landscape as it was.

Also when you watch a whirlpool in a river for example, the form of the whirlpool remains pretty much constant so you can recognise the pattern, but the water is flowing, it's not the same water as it was 10 seconds ago, therefore it's not the same whirlpool. All the "stuff" by which you define it has gone and replaced with new "stuff". It's an "activity", something that's happening, not a "thing".

The universe is a fractal: it has a repeating shape (vortex) on multiple "levels". An atom is analogous to a solar system, which is analogous to a galaxy, which is analogous to a galactic cluster, ect. By the time you've passed a few hundred trillion of whatever "shape" is above galactic clusters you will start to see patterns emerge in their layout. These patters will be akin to atomic structure. When you find one with the same structure as this one (which would be like encountering a "duplicate" hydrogen atom: very common), then all you need to do is go to the same point in it that Earth is located in this one and you'll find a duplicate Earth. This is the basic idea surrounding "parallel realities". I don't particularly agree with it, but the logic is sound for a "holographic universe" like the one you're describing.

I'm talking about traveling an "impossible" distance, at an "impossible" speed. Time does not apply in this scenario because time would "stop" if you were moving that fast. You are correct about the whirlpool, but everything literally changes 3 trillion times per second anyway (mesons). Since the water particles are identical to each other over those 10sec so the water would be assumed in physics to be the same water. The same concept applies to the Earth itself, is "the past Earth" made of the same parts as "the present Earth"? Technically no, but we don't talk about it being a "new Earth" just because it's moving.

"There was a young man who said damn
For it certainly seems that I am
A creature that moves in determinate grooves
I'm not even a bus, I'm a tram."

It was already a certainty that you were going to say that.

It still exists, it still happens. It's just not "sound". Because until the universe has grown ears to hear it then it can't be "sound". There are no senses for it to vibrate and to register those vibrations as "sound". If there were no ears growing out of the universe then one might instead call it a trembling of the earth. Or whatever effect would be perceived. But if there are no ears, then there is no "sound". The point I'm trying to get at is that the tree still falls and sends out shock waves, but until those waves vibrate a ear drum then it's not "sound". It's just a bunch of waves in the universe, among an imperceptible number of others as far as a human is concerned.

A common misconception:

Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations.

It doesn't have to be heard to be sound; but it does need hear-able to be sound. The waves are still sound without an observer as the surrounding trees "feel" the sound, which is the same as hearing it anyway. And ears would not have evolved if sound didn't already exist to be heard.

No one said the point of everything is to be observed, also that presumes that it must be observed or perceivable by humans alone. You at this moment can only perceive things that the human idea has evolved senses for up until this point that allow "you" as the awareness of those sensations to interact with the universe like radio receivers. If you don't possess that receiver then you won't see anything, you won't even know that you're not seeing something. Maybe dark matter is very useful for other creatures, or maybe they're trying to get rid of it from their cities like smog And if there was no use for it at all then it wouldn't exist in the universe. Also the "unobservable" nature of dark matter is simply down to the fact that it absorbs light, when our senses that we call "eyes" require that matter reflects light. Like with the tree and the sound, the waves are still there. But there are no senses present that are able to perceive it, if we're referring to humans.

If the universe is the "sum of consciousness" (egregor), then everything in the universe is the result of consciousness and was therefore created to entrain (entertain) consciousness. Since something must be observed (I wasn't just counting humans but the entire "known universe", which is mostly humans ) to entrain consciousness, it has a requirement that it must be observed. It was then created to be observed, and needs to be observed for it to be created: a catch 22 (unless the future is already determined, but there's still a cause-effect argument about it).

I disagree with the brains being "radio receivers". That implies consciousness is external to the brain. The theories that underpin that are all based on a individual level ("my perception being my reality" as opposed to "sum of perception being everyone's reality") and internal to the brain itself. If we were really "receivers" we wouldn't need transducers to gather data (eyes, ears, nose, skin).

If dark matter absorbed light, we could detect it (red object absorb the color red, and black objects adsorb all colors). Light passes right through it and only changes in speed slightly while it's passing thought it (much like a wave passing though a dense spot in its medium, physicists call it a "gravitational footprint" of the dark matter).

...And back on topic for a moment:
Have you tried replacing your C block with a diode that re-feeds the pulse into the coil? If you match the timing of return to the incoming pulse you should get a build up like a Tesla coil.

[dR-Green]

The universe is a fractal: it has a repeating shape (vortex) on multiple "levels". An atom is analogous to a solar system, which is analogous to a galaxy, which is analogous to a galactic cluster, ect. By the time you've passed a few hundred trillion of whatever "shape" is above galactic clusters you will start to see patterns emerge in their layout. These patters will be akin to atomic structure. When you find one with the same structure as this one (which would be like encountering a "duplicate" hydrogen atom: very common), then all you need to do is go to the same point in it that Earth is located in this one and you'll find a duplicate Earth. This is the basic idea surrounding "parallel realities". I don't particularly agree with it, but the logic is sound for a "holographic universe" like the one you're describing.

I'm talking about traveling an "impossible" distance, at an "impossible" speed. Time does not apply in this scenario because time would "stop" if you were moving that fast. You are correct about the whirlpool, but everything literally changes 3 trillion times per second anyway (mesons). Since the water particles are identical to each other over those 10sec so the water would be assumed in physics to be the same water. The same concept applies to the Earth itself, is "the past Earth" made of the same parts as "the present Earth"? Technically no, but we don't talk about it being a "new Earth" just because it's moving.

Yes, but that last part is just a matter of definition. It's a convenient "constant" that allows humans to do whatever it is that they're doing. Like with the god hypothesis and aether etc, it makes no difference to scientific prophecy, so you don't need to include it in the equations. That's why it gets discarded. It's not a matter of reality at all, it's whether it affects your prediction. If it doesn't then you don't need to think about it, you don't need the hypothesis. That has no bearing on whether it's actually there or not.

The bottom line or cause/"need" of that is like Alan Watts says, reality is far too complicated for us to understand in terms of words. So we use simplified symbols that allow us to talk and think about it. But we have already disconnected reality from what we think about reality.

Alan Watts - A Conversation With Myself (Full)

I'd still say that you never come back to exactly the same place. If it's a fractal then the entire thing has changed to include the "new you", which includes everything that you've learned since the last time. So it's not the same place as last time.

Time does not apply in this scenario because time would "stop" if you were moving that fast.

Are you sure? Because unless time doesn't exist in the first place, then how could you perceive anything when you are travelling at that speed?

If you are in a space ship travelling at this "impossible" speed, then within what dimension or context would you be perceiving anything? I expect that you would still be aware, time or no time. And in that case, the time hypothesis is not necessary whatever speed you are travelling.

You are aware of "now" whatever speed you are travelling, so if time was to "stop", you would still be aware of that "now" moment, so is the time hypothesis necessary or correct? Either time would still continue to flow, or there is no time in the first place. I would rather say that "time" is like an unfolding or continued awareness of the universe, it's just one flowing unfolding "now moment". It can never stop.

It was already a certainty that you were going to say that.

Lol. Perhaps

Anyway, there can't really be any deterministic thing. Again it comes down to definition, and how you define "yourself". If "I" is not the universe but rather an ego in your head, then you're just a passenger. From that perspective you don't even choose to log in and move your finger muscles and type. It's all automatic. Your "free will" is automated in the same way.

But if "I" is not an imagined ego inside your head, then it's not something that's happening to you. You are doing it. You just don't need to be conscious of doing things like beating your heart, forming mountains, producing suns and galaxies. It's all far too complex for the "I" to understand, it would get in the way.

As the Alan Watts quote in my signature: "What you took to be the thinker of thoughts was just one of the thoughts."

Sound is a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations.

I suspect they included that definition because deaf people can feel the sound, as a matter of interaction or social reasons.

The point I was trying to get at is to imagine ears hadn't evolved in the universe and you'd never seen a speaker. Someone comes along and puts a massive speaker in front of you and puts out a 50Hz signal. You feel vibrations. Remember there are no such things as ears. Is it "sound"?

Let's use light. When you are in the sun and it begins to burn, do you say "hey, I'm feeling a lot of light today"?

Based on the fact you are here sensing the light through your skin and not your eyes, you don't define it as "light", you define it as "heat". But it's still the same thing. It all depends how you are perceiving it. And if you are not there to perceive it, then it's neither "light" nor "heat".

If the universe is the "sum of consciousness" (egregor), then everything in the universe is the result of consciousness and was therefore created to entrain (entertain) consciousness.

Well one could say that. But everything is consciousness. It's like "pure awareness" if you will thought "I wonder what it would be like to be a rock, or a planet, or a tree, a planet to have a tree growing on it" etc. It's experiencing itself in all these ways. Then at one point it imagined itself into "self-aware" creatures who can express the same creative potential, but not knowing the true nature of the game so it can truly know what it's like to experience all these infinite varieties. This makes it a lot more fun and sincere to not know. If the point of arguing is for the fun of it and to find out what arguing is all about, the only way the truth will be revealed is if we forget the purpose of arguing in the first place, we need to be consumed by the argument and go for it. When the truth is revealed then we may congratulate each other for a job well done, now we truly understand the experience of arguing in all ways. But without the belief of being in opposition, the argument won't be sincere. You can't do certain things if you know a greater truth. As with wars, that's just taking it a bit further. How could there be any evolution unless these games are played, how could you play the game and do that to each other if you knew the truth? You have to forget the truth and fully believe in the role that you're playing. The pantomime always requires a bad guy, each side flexes their muscles and all adapt and get better at it. When people are fed up of killing each other then they'll stop playing that game, nothing more can be learned from it. Although one might think that the lesson is already learned, but obviously not

That implies consciousness is external to the brain.

I'd say the brain is an expression of consciousness. It's an expression of the universe.

If we were really "receivers" we wouldn't need transducers to gather data (eyes, ears, nose, skin).

I don't mean the brain or any particular "part" is the receiver. These senses are like receivers, the brain translates and synthesizes all the incoming signals, and disregards others etc. Your body and "physical sensations" is just one frequency or one radio station.

If dark matter absorbed light, we could detect it (red object absorb the color red, and black objects adsorb all colors).

Good point. I'll have to go back and look through that again.

Have you tried replacing your C block with a diode that re-feeds the pulse into the coil?

Not yet, but sounds like a good thing to try

[LetsReplicate]

Yes, but that last part is just a matter of definition. It's a convenient "constant" that allows humans to do whatever it is that they're doing. Like with the god hypothesis and aether etc, it makes no difference to scientific prophecy, so you don't need to include it in the equations. That's why it gets discarded. It's not a matter of reality at all, it's whether it affects your prediction. If it doesn't then you don't need to think about it, you don't need the hypothesis. That has no bearing on whether it's actually there or not.

The bottom line or cause/"need" of that is like Alan Watts says, reality is far too complicated for us to understand in terms of words. So we use simplified symbols that allow us to talk and think about it. But we have already disconnected reality from what we think about reality.

Alan Watts - A Conversation With Myself (Full)

I'd still say that you never come back to exactly the same place. If it's a fractal then the entire thing has changed to include the "new you", which includes everything that you've learned since the last time. So it's not the same place as last time.

I do not agree with Alan Watts since the moral of the video is: you are stupid, give up on science. The video was from a time before the internet, it was also from a time before CAD. I am completely able to visualize objects as a 4-dimensional thought (hypercubes and other motion-required visuals, even complicated ones). I have no trouble with "wiggly things", or "strange objects" and I have no need to make things "straight lines" or "rectangles" for me to understand them. Words are simply means to describe how arrive at a 4-dimensional thought, as are mathematical equations (all of which are all approximations).

lol, you never "come back" because "You" never left. "You" are a collection of electrochemical reactions happening inside your brain. Those reactions can not happen outside your brain, and they are subject to the physics that govern reality (like relativity).

Are you sure? Because unless time doesn't exist in the first place, then how could you perceive anything when you are travelling at that speed?

If you are in a space ship travelling at this "impossible" speed, then within what dimension or context would you be perceiving anything? I expect that you would still be aware, time or no time. And in that case, the time hypothesis is not necessary whatever speed you are travelling.

You are aware of "now" whatever speed you are travelling, so if time was to "stop", you would still be aware of that "now" moment, so is the time hypothesis necessary or correct? Either time would still continue to flow, or there is no time in the first place. I would rather say that "time" is like an unfolding or continued awareness of the universe, it's just one flowing unfolding "now moment". It can never stop.

I'm not talking about putting a human in a spaceship, the observer in this scenario is a theoretical "universal observer", much like Einstein's "train moving close to the speed of light" explanation. If you were really moving that fast you would be compressed into being 2D, which would kill you.

To be completely technical: time flows backward. It is a requirement of math when calculating distance. The "new You" is really you from a moment ago, and the "previous You" doesn't exist yet.

Anyway, there can't really be any deterministic thing. Again it comes down to definition, and how you define "yourself". If "I" is not the universe but rather an ego in your head, then you're just a passenger. From that perspective you don't even choose to log in and move your finger muscles and type. It's all automatic. Your "free will" is automated in the same way.

But if "I" is not an imagined ego inside your head, then it's not something that's happening to you. You are doing it. You just don't need to be conscious of doing things like beating your heart, forming mountains, producing suns and galaxies. It's all far too complex for the "I" to understand, it would get in the way.

As the Alan Watts quote in my signature: "What you took to be the thinker of thoughts was just one of the thoughts."

Actions are taken by your "sub-conscious" (the preferred term these days is "other than conscious") brain without consulting your "ego". The "ego" is the conscious rationalization that happens after the action was taken. The conscious part of your brain is just a passenger, and the actions you take are taken without the consent of "You". Therefore free will does not exist.

I suspect they included that definition because deaf people can feel the sound, as a matter of interaction or social reasons.

The point I was trying to get at is to imagine ears hadn't evolved in the universe and you'd never seen a speaker. Someone comes along and puts a massive speaker in front of you and puts out a 50Hz signal. You feel vibrations. Remember there are no such things as ears. Is it "sound"?

Let's use light. When you are in the sun and it begins to burn, do you say "hey, I'm feeling a lot of light today"?

Based on the fact you are here sensing the light through your skin and not your eyes, you don't define it as "light", you define it as "heat". But it's still the same thing. It all depends how you are perceiving it. And if you are not there to perceive it, then it's neither "light" nor "heat".

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Sound was a "natural selection" requirement for predators though (as was sight), so had ears not evolved humans would not have evolved.

Well one could say that. But everything is consciousness. It's like "pure awareness" if you will thought "I wonder what it would be like to be a rock, or a planet, or a tree, a planet to have a tree growing on it" etc. It's experiencing itself in all these ways. Then at one point it imagined itself into "self-aware" creatures who can express the same creative potential, but not knowing the true nature of the game so it can truly know what it's like to experience all these infinite varieties. This makes it a lot more fun and sincere to not know. If the point of arguing is for the fun of it and to find out what arguing is all about, the only way the truth will be revealed is if we forget the purpose of arguing in the first place, we need to be consumed by the argument and go for it. When the truth is revealed then we may congratulate each other for a job well done, now we truly understand the experience of arguing in all ways. But without the belief of being in opposition, the argument won't be sincere. You can't do certain things if you know a greater truth. As with wars, that's just taking it a bit further. How could there be any evolution unless these games are played, how could you play the game and do that to each other if you knew the truth? You have to forget the truth and fully believe in the role that you're playing. The pantomime always requires a bad guy, each side flexes their muscles and all adapt and get better at it. When people are fed up of killing each other then they'll stop playing that game, nothing more can be learned from it. Although one might think that the lesson is already learned, but obviously not

I'd say the brain is an expression of consciousness. It's an expression of the universe.

The problem is that the brain is the product structures required to produce it. Without the natural laws that resulted in it's structure, it would do nothing. It's commonly thought that individual cells have consciousness and even "intent". The reality is they are mechanical "parts" that can be completely reprogrammed. A cell does not have emotions, or memories, and it can't produce any internal structure that it doesn't have the pattern for (DNA). By the same token a rock has no preference for being a rock, if I come along and grind the rock into sand it doesn't "feel sad" that it is now sand or turn back into a larger rock when I leave the sand on the beach (or around larger rocks). The grains of sand don't summon the wind that blows them either, that happens on its own. Even if I were to get struck on the head and forget that I ground the rock into sand, it doesn't magically change back into a rock. Even if I place the sand in a box labeled "a large rock" and go around announcing that I have a large rock in a box without letting anyone look inside the box, it still won't turn the sand back into a rock. How can the rock have "consciousness" if it lacks a desire to exist?

I don't mean the brain or any particular "part" is the receiver. These senses are like receivers, the brain translates and synthesizes all the incoming signals, and disregards others etc. Your body and "physical sensations" is just one frequency or one radio station.

I suppose you are somewhat correct (they are sensors, not receivers). But if I replaced your sensors with a super-computer that was feeding you a fully convincing false-reality (the matrix), then are you still part of the universe? Your description implies that you wouldn't be, and since a second universe can't exist, then where would you go?

[dR-Green]

You're not a fan of philosophy I take it?

Actions are taken by your "sub-conscious" (the preferred term these days is "other than conscious") brain without consulting your "ego". The "ego" is the conscious rationalization that happens after the action was taken. The conscious part of your brain is just a passenger, and the actions you take are taken without the consent of "You". Therefore free will does not exist.

It depends how you define "you". Alan Watts is not saying you are stupid at all. He is saying the universe is not stupid, and are you not the universe?

Alan Watts - Myth and Religion - Not What Should Be, Not What Might Be, But What Is. Pt 1/6 - YouTube

[Farmhand]

Hey dR, I went to the plumbing supply store and managed to get 6 meters of
6mm copper tube it weighs about 150 grams per meter, I'll weigh it more
accurately later. I also got a 3 meter length of expandable 130 mm diameter
aluminium ducting which can be made into toroidal terminals.

If I want copper strip I'll have to work out the width of the strip i want and go
to the sheet metal shop and have it sheared to width for the length of a
sheet of copper plate. After the new year I will also visit the motor rewinding
shop to see what kind of wire I can get from them, they rewind very large
motors there.

I'm still keen on the 300mm diameter primary and secondary, as it turns out
22 turns of 1 mm wire would weigh about the same as one primary turn.
:thinking

Cheers

[LetsReplicate]

You're not a fan of philosophy I take it?

Philosophy is fine, but the basic nature of all philosophical arguments is to attempt to force a stalemate. They are all supposed to be "questions without answers" went in reality there are answers to them now.

It depends how you define "you". Alan Watts is not saying you are stupid at all. He is saying the universe is not stupid, and are you not the universe?

"You" are a collection of electrochemical reactions happening inside your brain. Those reactions can not happen outside your brain, and they are subject to the physics that govern reality (like relativity).

To say you are ANYTHING more than that is arrogant. Humans are not special in any way, and the universe would continue without us without even a hiccup. That is what bugs about Alan Watts: the arrogance. Humans are not capable of "destroying the environment" because the environment has FAR more power than we do, it is also more adaptive. The WORST humans could possibly do is kill off all the humans, at which point nature would "recover" (even though it never needed to). If humans were suddenly gone, nature would wipe out most of the signs of our existence in less than 300 years: "infrastructure" is fragile, the only thing left over would be ancient stone buildings (we sure don't build 'em like we used to). Nature is truly awesome, but it doesn't need "intellect" to be such. The assumption that it has intellect is caused by your mirror neurons personifying it.

George Carlin - Arrogance of mankind - YouTube

You didn't address what happens in your belief system if I were to put you into a false-reality. You would adapt to that reality like it were real. So by your definition, you'd be in a different universe. The extension of that logic is that there is no way to know if our reality is really a "computer simulation" or not. If it is a simulation then you were not "built for the universe" but "defined as a structure within it via genetic algorithms". That doesn't make you an "expression of the universe", it makes you a component in it: a cell amongst trillions of other cells, an "array of variables in the program". You are not "the universe" any more then "the electron" (technically, every electron in the universe might be the same one since they are all identical) is.

I'm still keen on the 300mm diameter primary and secondary, as it turns out 22 turns of 1 mm wire would weigh about the same as one primary turn.

"Metal Mass" is a factor in inductance, but not "self-inductance". The difference between the 2 is poorly defined. A coil of wire's "inductance" is all self-inductance and the metal mass of the wire is its "real inductance". The "real inductance" has no hard definitive calculations that I'm aware of (like self-capacitance" so making them equal weights is a pretty good bet for maximum power transfer (more mass on the primary side will result in more current, less mass will result in more voltage).

I would still suggest making the primaries and secondaries close to the same inside diameter because of the coil's "magnetic aperture": maximum transfer of the magnetic field happens when the aperture is the same size. It looks like you're doing that so you should get some good power transfer results.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, I AM the universe and WE all are the universe.
One could liken it all to a hologram, though it is all energy in vibration, graduating to a point of zero vibration.
And yet this zero is still and all that is and ever was.
peace love light
tyson
Arguing with anything or anyone, is arguing with yourself.