If any of you guys want to really understand Tesla, you better understand one thing.
TESLA DID NOT BELIEVE IN ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES!
Until you can understand this simple fact that goes against most of modern science, you can NOT understand Tesla.
Read his article here that goes over this.
"The True Wireless" by Nikola Tesla
To quote the editor:
In this remarkable and complete story of his discovery of the "True Wireless" and the principles upon which transmission and reception, even in the present day systems, are based, Dr. Nikola Tesla shows us that he is indeed the "Father of the Wireless." To him the Hertz wave theory is a delusion; it looks sound from certain angles, but the facts tend to prove that it is hollow and empty. He convinces us that the real Hertz waves are blotted out after they have traveled but a short distance from the sender. It follows, therefore, that the measured antenna current is no indication of the effect, because only a small part of it is effective at a distance. The limited activity of pure Hertz wave transmission and reception is here clearly explained, besides showing definitely that in spite of themselves, the radio engineers of today are employing the original Tesla tuned oscillatory system. He shows by examples with different forms of aerials that the signals picked up by the instruments must actually be induced by earth currents—not etheric space waves. Tesla also disproves the "Heaviside layer" theory from his personal observations and tests. EDITOR.
This is where people like Bearden get it wrong. Smart guy for sure but too brainwashed by modern "science" to really convey the truth about Tesla.
In the end, Tesla didn't buy into Hertzian waves. When people try to combine EM wave theory with Tesla, they are showing a lack of basic understanding of Tesla.
-
I think this diagram explains sunspots, not sure though.
Seems plausable
I'll have to see if there are some more of his interveiws, he makes some sense to me.
Those guys at CERN annoy me. They should have read walters book they could have saved a lot of money.Leave a comment:
-
If you're going to go to the great master Tesla, you better also go over the fact that he did not believe in so called Hertzian waves (ie Electro-Magnetic waves). So that part of your reason as to why Relativity is wrong is not congruent with Tesla. Tesla said those ideas are not with his observations.
Tesla believed that so called EM waves were really longitudinal waves in the ether. They were basically sound waves in the ether. He eventually came to say that transverse Hertzian waves were non-existent. There are no EM waves according to Tesla.
This is where people go wrong when they start buying into the modern concepts of physical reality and try to interpret Tesla through these ideas. Tesla is 180 degrees opposite to the modern ideas.
The more higher "education" you have, the tougher time you're going to have understanding Tesla. You've been too brainwash with misinformation to even begin to grasp the reality Tesla was presenting. So when someone with some degrees starts to say he understands Tesla, I know he probably doesn't even understand enough basics to know he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's been lied to so long that he has a hard time coming out of his mental cage. His mind has been carefully mishandled.
Originally posted by lamare View PostLast edited by SilverToGold; 07-06-2011, 03:57 PM.Leave a comment:
-
Interveiw link
YouTube - ‪MrSuperpotatotomato's Channel‬‏
Excelent interveiw lamare. It often strikes me that a lot of these guys say similar things. The way he spoke of the atom reminded me of this drawing of Walters. It has curved spikes which are the two parts to the wave. And the zero point in the middle he says is like a wallnut.
It fits his desciption perfectly. Oh dear me. Coincidence ?
And the sun and planet pole reversals.
Diagrams from "The Universal One" by Walter Russell.
More and more it seems these things may infact be true, the key may be in studying the works of These controversial old guys. It is good that people like Maurice are pushing these new ways of looking at things he may have had some inspiration from elsewhere that he does not mention but nevermind, main thing is getting it out there and accepted.
The junction of the electron and the proton = neutron = semiconductor
Last edited by Farmhand; 07-06-2011, 03:59 PM.Leave a comment:
-
At columbia university there should be an account
of how and why modification to Einstein's theory
were made. Dr. Chein-Shiung Wu would have wriiten down
what happened about the time Lee and Yang were writting
there papers. Need to go to the source.Leave a comment:
-
I see this topic get thrown about a lot, but this was a well posed argument with some good information to follow, thank you!Originally posted by lamare View Post
There is an interesting concept brought forth by Einstein, and that was the fundamental observation of the inseparability of space and time, Perhaps the treatment of this concept was poor, but hey, looks like its starting to straighten itself out.Leave a comment:
-
Why Einstein's relativity theory is plain wrong
A colleague pointed me to the thunderbolts project, who have some very interesting documentaries on their YouTube channel regarding the Electric Universe:
summary
YouTube - ‪ThunderboltsProject's Channel‬‏
They also have a forum, where I posted this, explaining why Einstein's relativity theory is plain wrong:
Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - General Relativity "slightly" Wrong?
-:-
Hi all,
Since this is my first post on this forum, let me first introduce myself briefly. I hold a masters degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Twente, The Netherlands, and have been interested in alternative science for quite some time, especially regarding free energy technology. I have studied quite a bit of theory on ether physics, like for example Nikola Tesla, Tom Bearden, Konstantin Meyl and Claus Turtur.
I have come to the conclusion that Einstein's general relativity theory is plain wrong. It is essentially based on the erroneous assumption that the electric and magnetic fields are caused by matter (charge carrierrs), while we know from Quantum Mechanics that it's the other way around.
The root of the error can be found in the Maxwell equations in their currently accepted form. These equations are the foundation for our current understanding of the electro-magnetic fields. Maxwell, a mathematician, formulated his theory on electromagnetic phenomena based on the experimental results by Faraday. At some point, he postulated that the fields he was describing mathematically were being caused by so-called charge carriers, matter. The essential mistake with that is that this assumes that the electric and magnetic fields cannot exist on their own, while we now know for decades that is not the case.
Updaet: refinement based on question at TB forum:
I must admit this statement is a bit sloppy. The fields can exist in the medium we used to call the ether. So, I should have said:
The root of the error can be found in the Maxwell equations in their currently accepted form. These equations are the foundation for our current understanding of the electro-magnetic fields. Maxwell, a mathematician, formulated his theory on electromagnetic phenomena based on the experimental results by Faraday. At some point, he postulated that the fields he was describing mathematically were being caused by so-called charge carriers, matter. The essential mistake with that is that this assumes that the electric and magnetic fields cannot exist without being caused by some kind of particle, while we now know for decades that is not the case, because from QM we know that particles and electro-magnetic waves are one and the same thing and are nothing more than alternating/vibrating electric and magnetic fields.
So, essentially the error is that the same fields that cause electromagnetic waves (and thus particles when alternating/vibrating in a certain way) supposedly cannot exist without being caused by some kind of electromagnetic waves (particles). Or, the Maxwell equations say electromagnetism and thus electromagnetic waves are caused by particles while at the same time QM says particles are nothing but electromagnetic waves.
And you simply cannot have it both ways at the same time. Either particles cause the electro-magnetic fields, or the electro-magnec fields cause the particles, but not both.
One of the consequences of this error is that current theory does not accept the existence of longitudinal electric waves trough the vacuum, because .... there are no free charge carriers in the vacuum. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Konstantin Meyl went back to Faraday's experiments and formulated a more general version of the Maxwell equations by deriving them directly from Faraday's laws, while at the same time describing matter (from atomic to cosmic level) as vortexes in the ether: http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Mat...or-Maxwell.pdf
So, with Meyl's theory we have an alternative set of Maxwell equations which are more general, because they put cause and effect in the correct order.In the commutability of electric and magnetic field a duality between the two is expressed, which in the Maxwell formulation is lost, as soon as charge carriers are brought into play. Is thus the Maxwell field the special case of a particle free field? Much evidence points to it, because after all a light ray can run through a particle free vacuum. If however fields can exist without particles, particles without fields however are impossible, then the field should have been there first as the cause for the particles. Then the Faraday description should form the basis, from which all other regularities can be derived.
Now we have that in place, we head over to Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill (any relation to the Thornhill from the Thunderbolds project?) : Dr Charles Kenneth Thornhill
Even though Thornhill did not re-derive the Maxwell equations along the lines of Meyl, he comes to the same conclusion, from a mathematical perspective:
http://etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf :
More importantly, he lays bare the core of the matter in the same paper:The real space-time of Newtonian mechanics and the ether concept is contrasted with the imaginary space-time of the non-ether concept and relativity. In real space-time (x, y, z, ct) characteristic theory shows that Maxwell’s equations and sound waves in any uniform fluid at rest have identical wave surfaces. Moreover, without charge or current, Maxwell’s equations reduce to the same standard wave equation which governs such sound waves. This is not a general and invariant equation but it becomes so by Galilean transformation to any other reference-frame. So also do Maxwell’s equations which are, likewise, not general but unique to one reference-frame. The mistake of believing that Maxwell’s equations were invariant led to the Lorentz transformation and to relativity; and to the misinterpretation of the differential equation for the wave cone through any point as the quadratic differential form of a Riemannian metric in imaginary space-time (x, y, z, ict). Mathematics is then required to tolerate the same equation being transformed in different ways for different applications. Otherwise, relativity is untenable and recourse must then be made to real space-time, normal Galilean transformation and an ether with Maxwellian statistics and Planck’s energy distribution.
So, because Maxwell postulated the fields to be caused by matter and the assumption was made that the vacuum is void, even of EM fields, they "fixed" this obvious error by the introduction of the "freak" Lorentz transform, which demands a universally constant velocity, the speed of light.It was the mistaken idea, that Maxwell’s equations and the standard wave equation should be invariant, which led, by a mathematical freak, to the Lorentz transform (which demands the non-ether concept and a universally constant wave-speed) and to special relativity.
Now we know the vacuum is not void, but filled with the so-called zero-point energy field (ZPE). We also know that the speed of light is not constant when matter is present, which is why light breaks in a lens, for example. And since we know matter is caused by EM fields and we also know the vacuum is filled with all kinds of EM radiation, how can you possibly maintain that the speed of light is fixed?
And then the idea that space is supposedly curved. Think about that. You have defined an abstact concept yourself mathematically, which you call a "space" which is nothing more nor less than a way to express what is located where. Like locating the point where a treasure is buried "10 steps east, 25 steps south". But let me just quote the great master himself, Nikola Tesla on this:
Tuks DrippingPedia : Tesla Gives View On Power
And of course, Tesla actually measured speeds greater than that of light and shows he had the common sense that seems lost by main stream science today: Tuks DrippingPedia : Tesla No High Speed LimitIt might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.
One final quote from Tesla to sum things up:Stating that the Einstein theory is erroneous in many respects, Dr. Tesla stated as early as 1900, in his patent 787,412, that the current of his radiopower transmitter passed over the surface of the earth with a speed of 292,830 miles a second. According to the Einstein theory, the highest possible speed is 186,300 miles a second.
Tesla indicated knowledge of speeds several times greater than light, and had apparatus designed to project so-called electrons with a speed equal to twice that of light.
Tesla disagreed with the part of the Einstein theory which states that the mass of an object increases with its speed. The mass of a body is unalterable, contended Dr. Tesla, According to the article, "otherwise energy could be produced from nothing, since the kinetic energy acquired in the fall of a body would be greater than that necessary to lift it at a small velocity."
Tuks DrippingPedia : Tesla Promises To Transmit Force
He described relativity as "a beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a king." In support of his statement he cited a number of experiments he had conducted, he said, as far back as 1896 on the cosmic ray. He has measured cosmic ray velocities from Antarus, he said, which he found to be fifty times greater than the speed of light, thus demolishing, he contended, one of the basic pillars of the structure of relativity, according to which there can be no speed greater than that of light.
[...]
The theory of relativity he described as "a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense."
"The theory, "he said, "wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."
Leave a comment: