E=mc^2

[Ben2503]

cop=-6

You are only fooling yourself.

When you are lifting something, gravity isn't doing any work.

when you lift it, you do the work.
when you drop it, gravity is doing the work

Correct?

[cikljamas]

1. Sleeping people have their eyes closed
2. Dead people have their eyes closed.
thus all dead people are just sleeping.

or
1. my coat comes in a small plastic bag. So it fits in a small plastic bag.
2. I fit in my coat.

thus I fit in a small plastic bag.

Oh, you are in laughing mode, i like that mode very much, so, with such a good sense for humor i'm sure you couldn't miss the point reading chapter 7.0 Special Relativity After Einstein from the article i offered to you in one of my recent posts: Herbert Dingle Was Correct!

When i was reading that very same chapter i just Don't you think it's just hilariously preposterous chapter? Really preposterously hilarious chapter, you have to admit!!!

To pity you haven't read it, but i am sure you wouldn't have refused to look through Galileo's telescope had you been such honoured by Galileo, wouldn't you?

Another funny (older one) twin brothers paradox here:
http://zaslike.com/files/5vzr8ia9ileb0tgy4wyy.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/wem6038vkweh04mkwm90.jpg

People usually put small pieces of certain things for medical analyses in a small plastic bags too...

Regarding gravity and these Aron's words...

You are only fooling yourself.

When you are lifting something, gravity isn't doing any work.

...i would like to remind you to these words of mine:

Try to free unbiased think about planet Earth traveling 30 km/s around the Sun, rotating 1600 km/h on it's axis, and by same measure of identically strong gravitational force keeps us on it's surface and in the same time BY SAME MEASURE OF IDENTICALLY STRONG GRAVITATIONAL FORCE holds on all the enumerable billions of tons of ocean waters and rivers and lakes in their places and holds them (oceans) on the same see level all across such a hastening sphere as Earth should supposed to be...

That same measure of identically strong gravitational force would instantly smash people in a small plastic bags as a pancake or it would not suffice to hold enumerable billions of tons of liquids in their basins, it couldn't be both in the same time, i'm sure you have figured it out in your first attempt...

Higgs boson, my ass...just one more Nobel price for nothing...

[Ben2503]

cop=-8

Oh, you are in laughing mode, i like that mode very much, so, with such a good sense for humor i'm sure you couldn't miss the point reading chapter 7.0 Special Relativity After Einstein from the article i offered to you in one of my recent posts: Herbert Dingle Was Correct!

When i was reading that very same chapter i just Don't you think it's just hilariously preposterous chapter? Really preposterously hilarious chapter, you have to admit!!!

To pity you haven't read it, but i am sure you wouldn't have refused to look through Galileo's telescope had you been such honoured by Galileo, wouldn't you?

Another funny (older one) twin brothers paradox here:
http://zaslike.com/files/5vzr8ia9ileb0tgy4wyy.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/wem6038vkweh04mkwm90.jpg

People usually put small pieces of certain things for medical analyses in a small plastic bags too...

Regarding gravity and these Aron's words...



...i would like to remind you to these words of mine:

Try to free unbiased think about planet Earth traveling 30 km/s around the Sun, rotating 1600 km/h on it's axis, and by same measure of identically strong gravitational force keeps us on it's surface and in the same time BY SAME MEASURE OF IDENTICALLY STRONG GRAVITATIONAL FORCE holds on all the enumerable billions of tons of ocean waters and rivers and lakes in their places and holds them (oceans) on the same see level all across such a hastening sphere as Earth should supposed to be...

That same measure of identically strong gravitational force would instantly smash people in a small plastic bags as a pancake or it would not suffice to hold enumerable billions of tons of liquids in their basins, it couldn't be both in the same time, i'm sure you have figured it out in your first attempt...

Higgs boson, my ass...just one more Nobel price for nothing...

This is an open discussion forum. Right?

If you're impressed by the tremendous powers of gravitation, just imagine that electrical powers are 10^40 (10 with 40 zero's) stronger! Can you believe that.
Some people even say that gravity is electrical by nature. And that gravity is just a minor electrical imbalance?
Others claim that the natural shape of fluids, gases and plasma's in space is a sphere!!! And therefore the sun, the planets around it, are all sphere shaped.
Some people say that god created man as a clone of himself.
Some say the CO2 follows the average temperature on earth, others say it's the other way around.

My question: Which strategy will bring us further: Discuss until you drop or build something that actually works?

[cikljamas]

This is an open discussion forum. Right?

If you're impressed by the tremendous powers of gravitation, just imagine that electrical powers are 10^40 (10 with 40 zero's) stronger! Can you believe that.
Some people even say that gravity is electrical by nature. And that gravity is just a minor electrical imbalance?
Others claim that the natural shape of fluids, gases and plasma's in space is a sphere!!! And therefore the sun, the planets around it, are all sphere shaped.
Some people say that god created man as a clone of himself.
Some say the CO2 follows the average temperature on earth, others say it's the other way around.

My question: Which strategy will bring us further: Discuss until you drop or build something that actually works?

This is an open discussion forum, of course, who says it isn't? I'm wondering why do you ask such a bizarre-weird questions anyway?

I suppose you think you really know anything at all about gravitation?

Let's see this:

Take a moment to try a jump into the air. Have you ever thought about how remarkable it is that so little effort is required to jump a few inches off the ground. Your puny muscles, weighing just a few kilograms, can overcome the gravitational force of the Earth, all 6 × 10^24 kilograms off it. Gravity is a real weakling - 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic force that holds atoms together.

Although the other forces act over different ranges, and between very different kinds of particles, they seem to have strengths that are roughly comparable with each other. Gravity is the misfit. Why should this be so?

So far, our best explanation comes from string theory, the leading candidate for a "theory of everything". String theory requires that the universe has more than the three spatial dimensions ...

Their best explanation comes from string theory!!!

Excerpt (last sentence) from this article: Do Multiverse Scenarios Solve the Problem of Fine-Tuning? | :Physicists, cosmologists, and philosophers must either accept the laws of nature and basic premises of inflationary cosmology and string theory as metaphysical brute facts or seriously entertain the possibility of the fine-tuning hypothesis; that is, the possible existence of a fine-tuner.

Another weird set of sentences about gravity:

The feebleness of gravity is something we should be grateful for. If it were a tiny bit stronger, none of us would be here to scoff at its puny nature.

We should be grateful to whom?

The moment of the universe's birth created both matter and an expanding space-time in which this matter could exist.

So we should be grateful to The Moment of the universe's birth...The Moment of the universe's birth created matter and an expanding space-time. I didn't know that new word for God is "The Moment", did you?

What do you think about this number: Roger Penrose on Cosmic Fine-Tuning: "Incredible Precision in the Organization of the Initial Universe" - Evolution News & Views

Well, next number is 10^23 times smaller than Penrose's number:

In the PBS science program Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, Episode 9: "The Lives of the Stars", astronomer and television personality Carl Sagan estimated that writing a googolplex in standard form (i.e., "10,000,000,000...") would be physically impossible even if every character would not be bigger than a proton, since doing so would require more space than is available in the known universe.

But, that is just story about beguiling, fraudulent numbers, the real truth is in these words:

http://zaslike.com/files/g4si1gzwcgbhuqi0ad5u.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/t20gdbz4ro4q1y7gtfx.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/znbjicinttvxkbx2dyw3.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/jlvae5zlh50gi3r4b0.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/nik0gkaqyvw72vu2uju.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/8epqwm0u6cgi3czbxsm.jpg

In second link there is the best answer to difficult philosophical question about the possible reasons that could lie behind the fact of your suitability to the size of small plastic bags!!!

Don't forget, this is an open discussion forum. It means that if you enjoy full right to entertain the forum's public with very funny jokes, other members of this open forum enjoy that very same right too... At least that is how i see the true meaning of the word "equality"...

Bonus video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2mjoI7bgXM

[Aaron]

@Ben

when you lift it, you do the work.
when you drop it, gravity is doing the work

Correct?

Ben,

I already answered this several times.

I agree with your statement that you're not going to automatically believe anything and you shouldn't - but it is helpful to be reasonable in your rebuttals.

Yes, what you are saying is correct, but that does NOT validate any point you have made. So you're not setting me up to prove your point as you tried to do before.

Actually, most conventional beliefs are that gravity does not do work, it came from work you put into the mass but for the FACT that we can get more work means that the source of that potential does not come from us showing that it is externally sourced.

Yes, do you do work when lifting the object. Work is done by gravity when the object falls and then impacts the ground. You need to learn what entropy is before making false arguments that one work is positive and one is negative.

Summing vectors is a crackpot argument to determine work. The same would have to apply if I drove to the store and back - according to some of the goofball logic stated around here, that would be a net amount of no work since going to a store and returning to my original location would sum to 0. Whether an object is lifted or pushed across the ground, there is force and distance and a direction so that argument would have to apply to any situation where there are two situations of force, distance and direction.

No matter what you claim, you cannot erase the indisputable facts that work is an entropic process and both situations are entropic meaning both are energy dissipation events and to get the total work done, you add up all the entropy.

You mention about building things - what have you built that actually works in over 1.0 COP mode that is not a heat pump?

[BroMikey]

Entropic Definition

Here are some definitions for the "Entropic Process"





A measure of the amount of energy in a physical system not available to do work. As a physical system becomes more disordered, and its energy becomes more evenly distributed, that energy becomes less able to do work. For example, a car rolling along a road has kinetic energy that could do work (by carrying or colliding with something, for example); as friction slows it down and its energy is distributed to its surroundings as heat, it loses this ability. The amount of entropy is often thought of as the amount of disorder in a system.

1. a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature or pressure, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work in a thermodynamic process. Symbol: S
2. (in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal.
3. (in cosmology) a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature.
4. a state of disorder, as in a social system, or a hypothetical tendency toward such a state.

1. (General Physics) a thermodynamic quantity that changes in a reversible process by an amount equal to the heat absorbed or emitted divided by the thermodynamic temperature. It is measured in joules per kelvin. Symbol: S See also law of thermodynamics
2. (General Physics) a statistical measure of the disorder of a closed system expressed by S = klog P + c where P is the probability that a particular state of the system exists, k is the Boltzmann constant, and c is another constant
3. lack of pattern or organization; disorder



1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.


Thermodynamics .
a.
(on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.


Definition of ENTROPY
1
: a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
2
a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity
b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder


Mike

[cikljamas]

And now for those who hate "mysteries", something totally tenable-measurable-tangible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZUP6FwZff8

And one valuable, not so old Aaron's post:
http://www.energeticforum.com/250045-post80.html

Technology is here, but is suppressed, and it is suppressed because there is no morality and honor and trueness in modern-day world!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E46Rlw4GuFs&t=1h30m20s

[Ben2503]

Cop=-10

Ben,

I already answered this several times.

I agree with your statement that you're not going to automatically believe anything and you shouldn't - but it is helpful to be reasonable in your rebuttals.

Yes, what you are saying is correct, but that does NOT validate any point you have made. So you're not setting me up to prove your point as you tried to do before.

Actually, most conventional beliefs are that gravity does not do work, it came from work you put into the mass but for the FACT that we can get more work means that the source of that potential does not come from us showing that it is externally sourced.

Yes, do you do work when lifting the object. Work is done by gravity when the object falls and then impacts the ground. You need to learn what entropy is before making false arguments that one work is positive and one is negative.

Summing vectors is a crackpot argument to determine work. The same would have to apply if I drove to the store and back - according to some of the goofball logic stated around here, that would be a net amount of no work since going to a store and returning to my original location would sum to 0. Whether an object is lifted or pushed across the ground, there is force and distance and a direction so that argument would have to apply to any situation where there are two situations of force, distance and direction.

No matter what you claim, you cannot erase the indisputable facts that work is an entropic process and both situations are entropic meaning both are energy dissipation events and to get the total work done, you add up all the entropy.

You mention about building things - what have you built that actually works in over 1.0 COP mode that is not a heat pump?

Hi Aaron
I am looking for something to build that has proven to be generating energy and that can power my home.
So far I haven't been able to find one that is actually able to do so. I came across many promising designs, 'almost there' statements, semantic discussions, confusing definitions of COP and 'work', polarizing name calling statements, banning of critics and all kinds of smoke screens and mirrors (entropy being the latest).

In my view the COP of this discussion is -10 and I am quite disappointed and totally fed-up with it. I don't know what your problem is, but I do know this is not the way to achieve anything against the well organized and structured conventional science.

Best of luck to you all!

[Ernst]

truce?

I think I have found a way so we can all close this discussion happily. It has taken up far too much of our kindness as our dearly beloveth brother already mentioned.

For the sake of clarity I will write energy (A) for energy according to Aarons definition; meaning "work done", and energy (C) for the conventional definition; the laws of thermodynamics.

Energy (A) is "work done", meaning that it belongs to the past, implying that things/media can not hold energy (A). In other words, you can not hold something that has been spend.
So a canon ball with a mass m and velocity v, holds a kinetic energy (C) of mv²/2 but it does not hold any energy (A).
Energy (A) = Energy (C) transferred.
In order to give the canon ball its speed, energy (C) has to be transferred to it, work has to be done, energy (A) has to be spend.
The laws of thermodynamics state that if I spend energy (C),
1 - I need to have it first
2 - the object that I spend it on will have it afterwards
The law of Aaron says;
1 - I can spend energy (A) that I never had
2 - the energy (A) that I spend is lost forever

Energy (C) requires a medium to hold it, this goes for every single kind of energy (C).
Energy (A) can not be held in any medium, it comes from nothing and returns to nothing.

I think up to here we can agree on that we disagree.
Now, only one question is still bothering me;
The conventional definition and laws have proven to be very valuable to science, what advantages are offered by Aarons definition. In other words: why should we abandon a concept that has proven to be very useful for the Aaron definitions?

What I am seeing in this discussion looks to me like the following analogy:

I say: the definition of the word animal (C) is wrong and everything we were told in our biology lessons is wrong. The proper definition of animal (E) is cow.
Now I can prove that a lion is not an animal (E), because it does not eat grass.
Also the notion that animals (E) can have feathers is absurd, as I have never seen a cow with feathers.
There are even people who believe that some animals can swim and exist under water. Well, take any cow and hold it under water for a few minutes and it will die, obviously.

Of course we CAN change the definitions but to what end? What is gained?

Ernst.

[Ben2503]

truce or win - win?

I think I have found a way so we can all close this discussion happily. It has taken up far too much of our kindness as our dearly beloveth brother already mentioned.
Ernst.

If 2 (a and b)parties are discussing an issue then there are 4 possibilities:

1, a is wrong and b is right.
2. a is right and b is wrong.
3. both are wrong.
4. both are right.

If one of the parties cannot accept possibility 4 as a viable and perhaps the most desirable outcome, the issue will always remain.
And this is exactly what oil and electricity compagnies want, while the 'renewable energy' community is fighting amongst themselves, they just continue.
I have no doubt that when the fossil fuel sources are becoming depleted, some major breakthroughs will be achieved and patented by the same companies that so effectively put Tesla out of business.

So if we want renewable or free energy, we have to work together or burn the fossil fuels ASAFP.

[BroMikey]

It is a start

If 2 (a and b)parties are discussing an issue then there are 4 possibilities:

1, a is wrong and b is right.
2. a is right and b is wrong.
3. both are wrong.
4. both are right.

If one of the parties cannot accept possibility 4 as a viable and perhaps the most desirable outcome, the issue will always remain.
And this is exactly what oil and electricity compagnies want, while the 'renewable energy' community is fighting amongst themselves, they just continue.
I have no doubt that when the fossil fuel sources are becoming depleted, some major breakthroughs will be achieved and patented by the same companies that so effectively put Tesla out of business.

So if we want renewable or free energy, we have to work together or burn the fossil fuels ASAFP.

We are at the beginning of something else. Look for something different than the trash force fed as the only true light and we then just might get this.

It is time to grow past the preschool Gov run bologna.

We must stop trusting blindly and do some investigating once again only shut out all of the preconceived notions concocted by by our controllers.

I hope we make it.

Mike

[BroMikey]

Jumping Ship

I think I have found a way so we can all close this discussion happily. It has taken up far too much of our kindness as our dearly beloveth brother already mentioned.

For the sake of clarity I will write energy (A) for energy according to Aarons definition; meaning "work done", and energy (C) for the conventional definition; the laws of thermodynamics.

Energy (A) is "work done", meaning that it belongs to the past, implying that things/media can not hold energy (A). In other words, you can not hold something that has been spend.
So a canon ball with a mass m and velocity v, holds a kinetic energy (C) of mv²/2 but it does not hold any energy (A).
Energy (A) = Energy (C) transferred.
In order to give the canon ball its speed, energy (C) has to be transferred to it, work has to be done, energy (A) has to be spend.
The laws of thermodynamics state that if I spend energy (C),
1 - I need to have it first
2 - the object that I spend it on will have it afterwards
The law of Aaron says;
1 - I can spend energy (A) that I never had
2 - the energy (A) that I spend is lost forever

Energy (C) requires a medium to hold it, this goes for every single kind of energy (C).
Energy (A) can not be held in any medium, it comes from nothing and returns to nothing.

I think up to here we can agree on that we disagree.
Now, only one question is still bothering me;
The conventional definition and laws have proven to be very valuable to science, what advantages are offered by Aarons definition. In other words: why should we abandon a concept that has proven to be very useful for the Aaron definitions?

What I am seeing in this discussion looks to me like the following analogy:

I say: the definition of the word animal (C) is wrong and everything we were told in our biology lessons is wrong. The proper definition of animal (E) is cow.
Now I can prove that a lion is not an animal (E), because it does not eat grass.
Also the notion that animals (E) can have feathers is absurd, as I have never seen a cow with feathers.
There are even people who believe that some animals can swim and exist under water. Well, take any cow and hold it under water for a few minutes and it will die, obviously.

Of course we CAN change the definitions but to what end? What is gained?

Ernst.

Hey we are all blind pigs for the Gov run blind faith. Are you trying to tell me we can't make it whatever we want just like our controllers did.

I mean these controller taught us to blindly follows to their own dismay for now we can turn this faith to something else. Anything but their game.

That's how you do it. Look outside for more or go on thinking that we have it all and there is nothing more. It is there. It is a wonder and only YOU can find it by experimentation.

Peace.

Michael

[cikljamas]

However, another idea which Tesla discussed was abandoned by modern physicists, and that was the concept of the all pervasive ether. This led to a number of key differences between Tesla’s view of the world as compared to that of Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Tesla disagreed with the findings of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in a number of ways. As far back as the turn of the century, Tesla thought that he had intercepted cosmic rays emanating from the sun that attained velocities “vastly exceeding that of light.” In the last decade of his life he also claimed that these cosmic rays could be harnessed to generate electrical power. Tesla also saw radioactivity as evidence of the material body absorbing energy as much as it was giving it up.

On a separate front, the inventor stated that the impulses transmitted from his turn of the century Wardenclyffe wireless transmitting tower would also travel at velocities in excess of the speed of light. He likened the effect to the moon’s shadow spreading over the Earth.

It is very difficult to explicate the first two speculations concerning tachyonic (faster than lightspeed) cosmic rays and radioactivity. However, with regard to the third claim, this suggestion that he transmitted energy at speeds in excess of the speed of light can be discussed from a variety of points of view. As the Earth has a circumference of roughly 25,000 miles, and light travels at about 186,000 miles/second, one can see that it would take light approximately 1/7th of a second to circle the Earth. But does the Earth itself exist in its own realm, that by the nature of its size transcends the speed of light? For example, does the north pole, interact/exist with the south pole instantaneously? If so, in a sense the theory of relativity is violated as nothing, accordingly, can “travel” faster than the speed of light, yet the Earth’s very electromagnetic unity belies that theory.

Concrete proof that relativity can be violated can be found in George Gamow’s watershed book Thirty Years That Shook Physics. Gamow, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, tells us that in the mid-1920’s, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered not only that electrons were orthorotating, but also that they were spinning at 1.37 times the speed of light. Gamow makes it clear that this discovery did not violate anything in quantum physics, what it violated was Einstein’s principle that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Paul Adrian Dirac studied the problem. Following in the footsteps of Herman Minkowski, who used an imaginary number i, (the square root of -1) to be equivalent to the time coordinate in space-time equations, Dirac assigned the same number i to electron spin. In this way he was able to combine relativity with quantum mechanics and won a Nobel Prize for the idea in the process (1966, pp. 120-121). That was the upside. The downside was that the finding that elementary particles spin faster than the speed of light as a matter of course went the way of the passenger pigeon. No physicist talks about this anymore. What this means is that the entire evolution of 20th and nascent 21st century physics is evolving ignoring this key Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck finding. The ramifications suggest that elementary particles, by their nature, interface dimensions. Because they are spinning faster than the speed of light, the idea is that they are drawing this energy from the ether, a pre-physical realm, and converting the energy into material form.

In an obscure paper I discovered on the web published by M. Shapkin but supposedly written by Tesla, Shapkin/Tesla states that the reason why light only travels at one speed, 186,000 mph, is because the ether, its medium of transfer, slows down photonic energy to that rate the same way air slows down sound to its constant speed.18 According to this view, the ether is a specific medium that restricts the speed of light to exactly the speed that it is. This is a very exciting theory because it suggests that the energy which manifests itself as light ultimately exists in a tachyonic realm, that is, in a realm that exceeds the speed of light.

If we look at the structure of matter, we see that it is comprised of atoms, which is, essentially, electrons orbiting protons and neutrons. But neutrons are, by definition, protons sandwiched to electrons. So the fundamental structure of matter is just two particles, electrons and protons and a glue that binds these atoms into molecules, which are photons. These particles spin. What keeps them spinning? Ether theory suggests that elementary particles are absorbing ether all the time to maintain their spin. And when they do this, they emanate the absorbed energy as electromagnetic fields. That is the link between gravity and electromagnetism.

Take the Earth, for instance. Classical physics sees the force of gravity as some type of almost magical attractive force between stars and planets. Ether theory has a totally different view. The reason we fall back to the Earth when we jump up is not this mystical force of gravity, but rather it is because the Earth is constantly absorbing a tremendous amount of ether to keep all of its elementary particles spinning. We are just in the way of this influx. This view explains what gravity is, and also explains Tesla’s seemingly odd statement that the sun is absorbing more energy than it is radiating. The more you think about it, the more this seemingly nutty idea makes perfect sense. The sun requires a gargantuan amount of etheric energy to keep its integrity.

Once it is realised that electrons spin at speeds in excess of the speed of light, a new paradigm is born. The idea simply is that the elementary particles, by their nature, are absorbing ether all the time. This influx is what gravity is. As ether is absorbed two things happen. (1) The process enables the elementary particles to maintain their spin, and (2) Simultaneously, this etheric energy, probably stemming from what some physicists call the zero point energy realm, which is a vast reservoir of untapped energy, is transformed into electromagnetic energy. That is Grand Unification, Einstein’s dream of how to combine gravity with electromagnetism.

Tesla understood ether theory a lot better than Einstein did, and he dismissed Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 as mathematical poppycock.

A large number of thinking physicists believe that an ether of sorts exists, and that forces of some type may transcend lightspeed. Once one begins to study ether theory, profound new insights concerning such things as particle spin, zero point energy, the fundamental structure of matter and space, the constancy of lightspeed and the link between gravity and electromagnetism begin to emerge.


The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. Nikola Tesla

Fights between individuals, as well as governments and nations, invariably result from misunderstandings in the broadest interpretation of this term. Misunderstandings are always caused by the inability of appreciating one another's point of view. This again is due to the ignorance of those concerned, not so much in their own, as in their mutual fields. The peril of a clash is aggravated by a more or less predominant sense of combativeness, posed by every human being. To resist this inherent fighting tendency the best way is to dispel ignorance of the doings of others by a systematic spread of general knowledge. With this object in view, it is most important to aid exchange of thought and intercourse. Nikola Tesla

[Ben2503]

great post.

If we look at the structure of matter, we see that it is comprised of atoms, which is, essentially, electrons orbiting protons and neutrons. But neutrons are, by definition, protons sandwiched to electrons. So the fundamental structure of matter is just two particles, electrons and protons and a glue that binds these atoms into molecules, which are photons. These particles spin. What keeps them spinning? Ether theory suggests that elementary particles are absorbing ether all the time to maintain their spin. And when they do this, they emanate the absorbed energy as electromagnetic fields. That is the link between gravity and electromagnetism.

Take the Earth, for instance. Classical physics sees the force of gravity as some type of almost magical attractive force between stars and planets. Ether theory has a totally different view. The reason we fall back to the Earth when we jump up is not this mystical force of gravity, but rather it is because the Earth is constantly absorbing a tremendous amount of ether to keep all of its elementary particles spinning. We are just in the way of this influx. This view explains what gravity is, and also explains Tesla’s seemingly odd statement that the sun is absorbing more energy than it is radiating. The more you think about it, the more this seemingly nutty idea makes perfect sense. The sun requires a gargantuan amount of etheric energy to keep its integrity.

Once it is realised that electrons spin at speeds in excess of the speed of light, a new paradigm is born. The idea simply is that the elementary particles, by their nature, are absorbing ether all the time. This influx is what gravity is. As ether is absorbed two things happen. (1) The process enables the elementary particles to maintain their spin, and (2) Simultaneously, this etheric energy, probably stemming from what some physicists call the zero point energy realm, which is a vast reservoir of untapped energy, is transformed into electromagnetic energy. That is Grand Unification, Einstein’s dream of how to combine gravity with electromagnetism.

Tesla understood ether theory a lot better than Einstein did, and he dismissed Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 as mathematical poppycock.

A large number of thinking physicists believe that an ether of sorts exists, and that forces of some type may transcend lightspeed. Once one begins to study ether theory, profound new insights concerning such things as particle spin, zero point energy, the fundamental structure of matter and space, the constancy of lightspeed and the link between gravity and electromagnetism begin to emerge.


The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. Nikola Tesla

Fights between individuals, as well as governments and nations, invariably result from misunderstandings in the broadest interpretation of this term. Misunderstandings are always caused by the inability of appreciating one another's point of view. This again is due to the ignorance of those concerned, not so much in their own, as in their mutual fields. The peril of a clash is aggravated by a more or less predominant sense of combativeness, posed by every human being. To resist this inherent fighting tendency the best way is to dispel ignorance of the doings of others by a systematic spread of general knowledge. With this object in view, it is most important to aid exchange of thought and intercourse. Nikola Tesla

Great post Cikljamas

I have seen the theory that influx of ether causes gravity in more places. It seems to solve many 'problems' known with other theories.
What I don't yet fully understand is what happens to this ether. Is it converted into energy, or is it flowing in at the equators and out at the poles??

If you look at the shape of galacties, this seem to be like that.
I came across https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOZP9SyKMos. Quite an impressive theory and great video's.

Keep thinking clearly.

[BroMikey]

Heavy Duty Science

However, another idea which Tesla discussed was abandoned by modern physicists, and that was the concept of the all pervasive ether. This led to a number of key differences between Tesla’s view of the world as compared to that of Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Tesla disagreed with the findings of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in a number of ways. As far back as the turn of the century, Tesla thought that he had intercepted cosmic rays emanating from the sun that attained velocities “vastly exceeding that of light.” In the last decade of his life he also claimed that these cosmic rays could be harnessed to generate electrical power. Tesla also saw radioactivity as evidence of the material body absorbing energy as much as it was giving it up.

On a separate front, the inventor stated that the impulses transmitted from his turn of the century Wardenclyffe wireless transmitting tower would also travel at velocities in excess of the speed of light. He likened the effect to the moon’s shadow spreading over the Earth.

It is very difficult to explicate the first two speculations concerning tachyonic (faster than lightspeed) cosmic rays and radioactivity. However, with regard to the third claim, this suggestion that he transmitted energy at speeds in excess of the speed of light can be discussed from a variety of points of view. As the Earth has a circumference of roughly 25,000 miles, and light travels at about 186,000 miles/second, one can see that it would take light approximately 1/7th of a second to circle the Earth. But does the Earth itself exist in its own realm, that by the nature of its size transcends the speed of light? For example, does the north pole, interact/exist with the south pole instantaneously? If so, in a sense the theory of relativity is violated as nothing, accordingly, can “travel” faster than the speed of light, yet the Earth’s very electromagnetic unity belies that theory.

Concrete proof that relativity can be violated can be found in George Gamow’s watershed book Thirty Years That Shook Physics. Gamow, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, tells us that in the mid-1920’s, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered not only that electrons were orthorotating, but also that they were spinning at 1.37 times the speed of light. Gamow makes it clear that this discovery did not violate anything in quantum physics, what it violated was Einstein’s principle that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Paul Adrian Dirac studied the problem. Following in the footsteps of Herman Minkowski, who used an imaginary number i, (the square root of -1) to be equivalent to the time coordinate in space-time equations, Dirac assigned the same number i to electron spin. In this way he was able to combine relativity with quantum mechanics and won a Nobel Prize for the idea in the process (1966, pp. 120-121). That was the upside. The downside was that the finding that elementary particles spin faster than the speed of light as a matter of course went the way of the passenger pigeon. No physicist talks about this anymore. What this means is that the entire evolution of 20th and nascent 21st century physics is evolving ignoring this key Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck finding. The ramifications suggest that elementary particles, by their nature, interface dimensions. Because they are spinning faster than the speed of light, the idea is that they are drawing this energy from the ether, a pre-physical realm, and converting the energy into material form.

In an obscure paper I discovered on the web published by M. Shapkin but supposedly written by Tesla, Shapkin/Tesla states that the reason why light only travels at one speed, 186,000 mph, is because the ether, its medium of transfer, slows down photonic energy to that rate the same way air slows down sound to its constant speed.18 According to this view, the ether is a specific medium that restricts the speed of light to exactly the speed that it is. This is a very exciting theory because it suggests that the energy which manifests itself as light ultimately exists in a tachyonic realm, that is, in a realm that exceeds the speed of light.

If we look at the structure of matter, we see that it is comprised of atoms, which is, essentially, electrons orbiting protons and neutrons. But neutrons are, by definition, protons sandwiched to electrons. So the fundamental structure of matter is just two particles, electrons and protons and a glue that binds these atoms into molecules, which are photons. These particles spin. What keeps them spinning? Ether theory suggests that elementary particles are absorbing ether all the time to maintain their spin. And when they do this, they emanate the absorbed energy as electromagnetic fields. That is the link between gravity and electromagnetism.

Take the Earth, for instance. Classical physics sees the force of gravity as some type of almost magical attractive force between stars and planets. Ether theory has a totally different view. The reason we fall back to the Earth when we jump up is not this mystical force of gravity, but rather it is because the Earth is constantly absorbing a tremendous amount of ether to keep all of its elementary particles spinning. We are just in the way of this influx. This view explains what gravity is, and also explains Tesla’s seemingly odd statement that the sun is absorbing more energy than it is radiating. The more you think about it, the more this seemingly nutty idea makes perfect sense. The sun requires a gargantuan amount of etheric energy to keep its integrity.

Once it is realised that electrons spin at speeds in excess of the speed of light, a new paradigm is born. The idea simply is that the elementary particles, by their nature, are absorbing ether all the time. This influx is what gravity is. As ether is absorbed two things happen. (1) The process enables the elementary particles to maintain their spin, and (2) Simultaneously, this etheric energy, probably stemming from what some physicists call the zero point energy realm, which is a vast reservoir of untapped energy, is transformed into electromagnetic energy. That is Grand Unification, Einstein’s dream of how to combine gravity with electromagnetism.

Tesla understood ether theory a lot better than Einstein did, and he dismissed Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 as mathematical poppycock.

A large number of thinking physicists believe that an ether of sorts exists, and that forces of some type may transcend lightspeed. Once one begins to study ether theory, profound new insights concerning such things as particle spin, zero point energy, the fundamental structure of matter and space, the constancy of lightspeed and the link between gravity and electromagnetism begin to emerge.


The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. Nikola Tesla

Fights between individuals, as well as governments and nations, invariably result from misunderstandings in the broadest interpretation of this term. Misunderstandings are always caused by the inability of appreciating one another's point of view. This again is due to the ignorance of those concerned, not so much in their own, as in their mutual fields. The peril of a clash is aggravated by a more or less predominant sense of combativeness, posed by every human being. To resist this inherent fighting tendency the best way is to dispel ignorance of the doings of others by a systematic spread of general knowledge. With this object in view, it is most important to aid exchange of thought and intercourse. Nikola Tesla

Nice going cikljamas

Those old bar magnets are not the whole world not are they? The bowl shaped magnetically generated field closely resemble toroidal paterns and 2 toroid's one on top of the other one south and one north might do the same thing.

Basket style coils many times look like bowls. Thanks 4 the video.

Michael