Wardenclyffe - Tesla's true intention

[barbosi]

What is the cause of gravitation?

You delivered the answer with Tesla's words:

The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.

The cause is the primary substance which Walter Russell called Universal Mind.

It is not mass, as you have been taught at high school.
You'll find it explained (very briefly) here.

The same way as is described at the beginning of the clip with the flat Earth, there is an intoxicating assumption at 2:04 time mark: "Cosmic Speed Limit". And this assumption is our limitation. As the science could not prove the existence of "Ether", the same science measured the speed of light. Relative to what? moving objects in space? What exactly have science proved is perfectly still in space?

[Ernst]

This is the source of the extra power that Wardenclyffe would have generated. I am sure because it fits Tesla's own description perfectly. The equivalent of temperature in our electric analogy is the cause of mass. So in a way, energy is derived as in E=mc2.

Some quotes.
When describing his work, developing his MT:

...early in 1892, when I went to London, where I saw Professor Dewar's admirable experiments with liquefied gases. Others had liquefied gases before, and notably Ozlewski and Pictet had performed creditable early experiments in this line, but there was such a vigor about the work of Dewar that even the old appeared new. His experiments showed, though in a way different from that I had imagined, that it was possible to reach a very low temperature by transforming heat into mechanical work, and I returned, deeply impressed with what I had seen, and more than ever convinced that my plan was practicable....

Tesla quite often refers to prof. Dewar. He must indeed have been "deeply impressed". This is the year after he met prof. Dewar:

So, the atom, the ulterior element of the Universe's structure, is tossed about in space eternally, a play to external influences, like a boat in a troubled sea. Were it to stop its motion it would die: matter at rest, if such a thing could exist, would be matter dead. Death of matter! Never has a sentence of deeper philosophical meaning been uttered. This is the way in which Prof. Dewar forcibly expresses it in the description of his admirable experiments, in which liquid oxygen is handled as one handles water, and air at ordinary pressure is made to condense and even to solidify by the intense cold: Experiments, which serve to illustrate, in his language, the last feeble manifestations of life, the last quiverings of matter about to die. But human eyes shall not witness such death. There is no death of matter, for throughout the infinite universe, all has to move, to vibrate, that is, to live.

And this how he sees it connected to ether:

According to an adopted theory, every ponderable atom is differentiated from a tenuous fluid, filling all space merely by spinning motion, as a whirl of water in a calm lake. By being set in movement this fluid, the ether, becomes gross matter. Its movement arrested, the primary substance reverts to its normal state. It appears, then, possible for man through harnessed energy of the medium and suitable agencies for starting and stopping ether whirls to cause matter to form and disappear. At his command, almost without effort on his part, old worlds would vanish and new ones would spring into being. He could alter the size of this planet, control its seasons, adjust its distance from the sun, guide it on its eternal journey along any path he might choose, through the depths of the universe. He could make planets collide and produce his suns and stars, his heat and light; he could originate life in all its infinite forms. To cause at will the birth and death of matter would be man's grandest deed, which would give him the mastery of physical creation, make him fulfill his ultimate destiny.

This is the kinetic energy that he refers to in:

Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic—and this we know it is, for certain—then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.

We must not think in terms of atoms and electrons. That only complicates things and keeps us from a deeper understanding. This model of an atom, with its nucleus and electron cloud is NOT a true representation of reality as is so generally assumed.
IT IS A MODEL!
An atom behaves (in most cases) as if it has this structure, but that does not mean that it HAS this structure. There are many situations, especially in chemistry, where it becomes very difficult to maintain this model.
The 'ether whirls' probably describe the actual situation much better.

Ernst.

[TeslaSecrets]

The 'ether whirls' probably describe the actual situation much better.

They sure do.

You have to realize, science is looking mostly at the matter or mass, not at the space within which such matter is suspended. We consider and know mass to be 99.9% empty space, and yet ascribe no properties or purpose to that space, in the formation of mass and gravity. The 99.9% empty space within the atom, and even the space around the atom, obviously plays just an important role ( or more important role )in the atoms nature, as does the subatomic particles like the electron, neutron and proton we prescribe to the atom. Is it not entirely plausible, the motion or whirls of the 99.9% so called empty space of the atom, is what actually causes and defines the sub atomic masses form and motion?

Realize the equation E=mc^2 is only one side of the problem. This equation as shown, is actually defining Kinetic Energy E as a function of mass and velocity of light. E=mc^2 is the amount of energy in mass. To define mass, we must apply some simple algebra and get m = E/c^2. Mass is kinetic energy divided by units of speed of light squared. This tells us much more about mass, then E=mc^2 as it is commonly shown. As it is commonly shown, we are defining energy not mass.

Realize, we can release energy stored within an atom and mass, and yet still to this day, we cannot create an atom or mass or gravity. There are always two sides to any mathematics equation. Just as we can use electromagnetic energy to create mechanical force in a motor, and can likewise use mechanical force to create electrical energy. In the same fashion, if we truly understand how to release the energy in mass, then it should be simple to reverse the process and pump energy in to create mass and gravitational field. Except we do little research into this other aspect of E=mc^2. Its like we can build motors, but not generators.

I think it is very likely the ancients had no knowledge of atoms as we do today, nor did they require such knowledge, they were masters of Force-Field technology and this was there top accomplishment. The ancients may have understood the concept of "ether whirls" better than we do today.

A quote I have read which to me seems very similar to this whole idea.

"You can think of Magnetic Inductors and of Gravity as "air" as thought of in Jet propulsion. Know gravity & Magnetism can be drawn into a ship, built up to High Power, and be converted & used as a Propulsive Force. "

[Farmhand]

Don't Lead Acid Batteries get heavier when charged as compared to depleted ?
Does this change in weight relate directly to the specific gravity of the battery ?

It seems we can in fact pump energy into a "matter" and increase it's "mass" and
alter it's "gravity".

The same should be true for all matter giving and taking energy even temporarily
such as a capacitor or coil or piece of steel (magnetic field).

Cheers

[TeslaSecrets]

Consider a clear cylindrical container containing water, sand and some small pebbles or stones. If we swirl the water into a vortex, an interesting situation arises. The water is forced outwards against the walls of the container, rising against them, creating a higher pressure nearest the inside walls and the lowest pressure at the center. Thus under the influence of the water pressure and motion, the sand and pebbles are actually forced towards each other and towards this region of lower pressure in the center. When we swirl the water the sand and pebbles collect in the center.

We could look at this two ways. If we couldn't see the water or otherwise easily detect its presence, we could easily conclude there was some attractive force, in and of the sand and pebbles themselves, by which they are drawn together towards the center.

Or we can see the effect of the water on the particles, and realize there motion is due to some greater influence.

[TeslaSecrets]

It seems we can in fact pump energy into a "matter" and increase it's "mass" and alter it's "gravity".

We sure can. My point exactly, m=E/c^2 proved we can pump energy in as much as it proved we can get energy out. Except we do not see many applications of the former case, as the latter. |It is no coincidence the velocity of light appears in the mass energy equivalence formula.

Realize you can substitute "c" or the velocity of light, with 1 over the root of the permeability of free space times the permeativity of free space. In layman's terms, the velocity of light is the same as 1 over the root of the impedance of free space. The velocity of light is related to the physical properties of free space. Thus according to Einstein's famous equation, mass can also be related to the physical properties of free space itself.

In fact, since E is Kinetic Energy, and squaring a value can be representative of a plane surface, Einstein's famous formula is essentially telling us the same thing, mass is kinetic motion in space in a plane or around an axis. A whirl of Space.

You likely haven't heard it explained this way, but can anyone follow this?

[Ernst]

@ Teslasecrets,

I like your ideas on this, although not directly related to this topic....
Try this one: why do planets with an atmosphere have a hot core?
It is important to get the relationship between various forces clear now.

Ernst.

[barbosi]

Does light has a mass? Depending who you ask...

1. If yes (the photon has a mass) then we can calculate its energy. And from here is just a step to conclude that the energy of universe is static (what Tesla said? )
2. If no, the energy of light is zero according to Einstein (E=Mc^2). Not only false, but static again.

How Tesla sought the dynamics of energy? Again with his own words:

The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.

Crystal clear and any eventual distortion comes from the walls of the box of our own thinking.

It is hard to walk in Tesla's shoes while embracing Einstein's theories. Tesla disagreed with Einstein to the point he did not want to be in the same picture and did not go for the photo shooting of scientists of that time.

BTW did anyone studied the reasoning and the math leading to the famous formula? First, it does not appear to be widely in Internet. Secondly, there are too many assumptions and mathematical "tweaks" for my taste. But I bet, the majority of the Einstein "fans" have no idea of it, instead they like the beauty of simplicity. Also they have no idea he had second thoughts (one example) and made them public. But too late. The perversity was out in the open and he could not undo it.

Tesla's mind was conditioned by Boskovitch, Goethe... also he recognised and been in touch with the talents in science of his time. Einstein was not in his contact list.

[GSM]

Does light has a mass? Depending who you ask...
1. If yes (the photon has a mass) then we can calculate its energy. And from here is just a step to conclude that the energy of universe is static (what Tesla said? )
2. If no, the energy of light is zero according to Einstein (E=Mc^2). Not only false, but static again.

How Tesla sought the dynamics of energy? Again with his own words:

But surely the mass equivalent of a photon is E/c^2, and its non static energy is also related to frequency ?
Thus neither (1) nor (2) are entirely correct in isolation, and the propagation path of distantly radiating starlight may be modified by gravity of closer stars and black holes etc.

Cheers ......... Graham.

[Ernst]

Ah, the usual misunderstandings about Relativity....
I have been a great fan of Einstein for many years until I started discovering flaws in his theory. And after I read Tesla's work, I forgot all about that hairy Austrian. What's his name again?
If you are interested in Relativity you should read 1 book and 1 book only written by Einstein himself. Here you can find it. It is written so clear and simple that if you have finished highschool, you can understand it. It is short and to the point, from a mathematical point of view it is brilliant. E= mc2 is derived in chapter 15.

Does light has a mass? Depending who you ask...

In a way, yes, but anyone educated on this matter will give you the same answer:
A photon does not have mass when at rest, but since it is travelling at the speed of light this zero mass gets multiplied by infinity and it appears to result in a little mass (from experiments). This results in momentum (mv) which can be measured.

1. If yes (the photon has a mass) then we can calculate its energy. And from here is just a step to conclude that the energy of universe is static (what Tesla said? )

We can always calculate its energy ( E=hf ), and from here it is just 1 step to conclude that the energy is kinetic! It is moving, isn't it?

The book that I recommended above shows a very peculiar thing:
The basis for Relativity is that the speed of light is constant, yet on page 125 he comes to the conclusion that gravity deflects light, in other words gravity alters the speed of light!
This is in my opinion the point that ruins the entire theory, and it has not been solved yet. It has been 'accepted'.

Ernst.

[madhatter]

Ah, the usual misunderstandings about Relativity....
I have been a great fan of Einstein for many years until I started discovering flaws in his theory. And after I read Tesla's work, I forgot all about that hairy Austrian. What's his name again?
If you are interested in Relativity you should read 1 book and 1 book only written by Einstein himself. Here you can find it. It is written so clear and simple that if you have finished highschool, you can understand it. It is short and to the point, from a mathematical point of view it is brilliant. E= mc2 is derived in chapter 15.

In a way, yes, but anyone educated on this matter will give you the same answer:
A photon does not have mass when at rest, but since it is travelling at the speed of light this zero mass gets multiplied by infinity and it appears to result in a little mass (from experiments). This results in momentum (mv) which can be measured.

We can always calculate its energy ( E=hf ), and from here it is just 1 step to conclude that the energy is kinetic! It is moving, isn't it?

The book that I recommended above shows a very peculiar thing:
The basis for Relativity is that the speed of light is constant, yet on page 125 he comes to the conclusion that gravity deflects light, in other words gravity alters the speed of light!
This is in my opinion the point that ruins the entire theory, and it has not been solved yet. It has been 'accepted'.

Ernst.

I thought gravity just changed our rulers
The constant C is needed to hold it all together, pull it out and it all comes crumbling down. I don't have a problem with C being a constant for a photons velocity but it's not a limit as borne out by electrostatic plasma langmuir waves traveling faster than C, pulsars and the goofy event horizon gymnastics for SR.

As I've pointed out, the turning point was the 1927 solvay conference, that's where physics made a left turn.

[TeslaSecrets]

I would like to try to explain exactly where I stand on Einstein and hopefully bring this discussion back to Tesla.

We know Relativity is incomplete, there is no argument from me there. In this regard Tesla was correct.
Relativity is a gravitational theory, it completely fails when were dealing with electromagnetic quanta. Relativity cannot explain quanta, thus it must be missing something, or is incomplete.

However, in regards to gravity, we cannot disregard Relativity theory, it has been proven to be accurate, as far as it goes. It just doesn't go all the way.

By this I mean, Relativity as its presented today deals primarily with mass and gravity and does not really discusses the relationship of electromagnetism to mass and gravity. Relativity discusses the effect of mass on space, but does not really discuss the effect of space on mass.

... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena...Nikola Tesla

So for Relativity to be complete we need to understand both sides of the transform, the effect of Space on mass, not just mass on Space. To do this, we must except as Tesla says, the existence of Space as a physical medium or an ether, and the function such a medium would have in our Universe.

We should not be so focused on whether or not light has mass. We know electromagnetic field carries momentum through Space, whether there is mass or not, so more to the point here, we know Free Space can have momentum. What is momentum if not some form of motion? A flow or force. There is very likely a

field of force

in space as much as there is an electromagnetic field in space.

[TeslaSecrets]

Can we possible use this "field of force" for an energy source? Could we not convert "field of force" into electric field or magnetic field somehow?

Consider this simple battery invented by Mr. Townsend Brown himself:

http://www.ovaltech.ca/pdfss/townsend_battery.pdf

Essentially this device is a simple electret doped with a heavy metal oxide, which allows one to draw usable current, indefinitely. Electric power coming from where or what? Could the source not be exactly as Townsend Brown claims. Townsend claims in this patent, the source is "extraterrestrial, coming to the Earth from Cosmic space in the form of penetrating gravitational radiation." and is of "ultra-high" frequency.

Whereas, it appears to be a fact of nature that rocks and similar dielectric and semi-conducting materials spontaneously produce electricity, it is the purpose of this invention to apply the means to extract that electricity so that it may be utilized. This application specificially excludes piezoelectric (pressure related) and pyroelectric (heat related) effects commonly observed in materials of this type and well known in the art. This application relates exlusively to the phenomenon of "petroelectricity" (a new terminology) which is relatively "steady state" and not dependent upon temperature, pressure or chemical action. The origin of petroelectric energy is not presently known. It is obvious that this energy does not reside in the material itself but must, it appears, have an external, perhaps even extraterrestrial origin. Incident radiation from space (neutrino flux or optical-frequency gravitational radiation has been proposed) but, at present, no adequate explanation exists.

The earmarks of the incoming radiant energy which appear to cause the petrovoltaic effect are the clearly-evident diurnal cycles and occasional strong pulses of short duration. A research program is presently underway to study the possibility that a new energy source (perhaps cosmic in nature) may have been discovered.

Does this not match extremely well, what I have been suggesting up to this point?

To all the doubters, build this "battery" as described, measure the output power over time, and then we can talk about "free energy". There are detailed instructions on building an electret on the net, and I can provide you with papers and links as to how to do so as well. Doping such an electret, is not a difficult process nor are there any exotic materials or insurmountable, technical difficulties to reproduce this device. It is just not widely known you can do this.

This "battery" is probably the simplest means to demonstrate the reality of this "field of force" as a source of electrical energy. This "battery" is in effect a "gravitationally powered generator".

[boguslaw]

General Theory of Relativity is not incomplete, it's just a mathematical trick.
It works but Newton theory also works (maybe in small area of physical effects)

The problem is not what we can compute, but what we can understand , and we cannot understand the universe without knowing the origin elements used for building it. No, not particles like Higgs boson. We have to purely understand what is mass, space, time,energy,force,charge and why we see different kind of forces having troubles connecting them together....
Like sound and light. We still don't know the basis...

[madhatter]

Can we possible use this "field of force" for an energy source? Could we not convert "field of force" into electric field or magnetic field somehow?

Consider this simple battery invented by Mr. Townsend Brown himself:

http://www.ovaltech.ca/pdfss/townsend_battery.pdf

Essentially this device is a simple electret doped with a heavy metal oxide, which allows one to draw usable current, indefinitely. Electric power coming from where or what? Could the source not be exactly as Townsend Brown claims. Townsend claims in this patent, the source is "extraterrestrial, coming to the Earth from Cosmic space in the form of penetrating gravitational radiation." and is of "ultra-high" frequency.



Does this not match extremely well, what I have been suggesting up to this point?

To all the doubters, build this "battery" as described, measure the output power over time, and then we can talk about "free energy". There are detailed instructions on building an electret on the net, and I can provide you with papers and links as to how to do so as well. Doping such an electret, is not a difficult process nor are there any exotic materials or insurmountable, technical difficulties to reproduce this device. It is just not widely known you can do this.

This "battery" is probably the simplest means to demonstrate the reality of this "field of force" as a source of electrical energy. This "battery" is in effect a "gravitationally powered generator".

seems to be a type of supercap, the high voltage charge that is initially given may be the source of energy recovered over the long term. the high dielectric and conductive medium in a fine powder and crystal structure of carnuba wax has massive surface area, the initial charge will align the polarity of the mix while also leaving a charge within. I'd be very curious as to the internal temps and structure of the material after that high voltage charge.

Any device that utilizes batteries via chemical or pressure reactions is always suspect as to how efficient the device really is.

I'll say though that is a very novel approach for a battery, however it does sound very much like a supercap and is constructed similarly.