The ultimate secret of free energy: Split the postive AND the negative

[Jbignes5]

More of what? Electrons? I don't quite understand your ideology here. Even if electrons could manifest from nowhere, what would be the benefit of more electrons than what we started with? If the original theory is of separating the dipole, does not an electron/s work against that charge separation or "Kill the dipole"?

Yes I agree Hairbear. Electrons are actually non existant. There is only a shell that gets formed from the wake of the wave being radiated from matter. This shell is actually a boundry between the charges that collect around a static potential provided by matter(neutral) only passing the potential of the real charges inside of matter much like iron passes a magnetic field. If you could imagine a bucky ball or Buckminster Fuller around matter like the atom. At every intersection of the lines there is a 90 degree radiative line coming out of it. like a quasi pom pom. This is the virtual connection to the source charges inside of all matter. The shells are tiered from highest potential to lowest on the outside of the shells that can be maintained by the sources charge potential.

These shells are pure charges separated by a dielectric of the medium of all spaces. This medium is so fine that it passes through even matter it is that small. When organized which only takes potential static charges to organize it forms very very fractal based connections. These are not direct connections but a dielectric one. This is the connection. A conductor of not real charges but is motivated to organize to become a super highway of real charges. meaning the charges actually are attracted weakly to the conductors and visa versa. But it is an attraction none the less. This guides the charges and they can bind to the original host charges or with enough force can pass right through the matter or even bind to the shell of the atom making it more energetic.

The electron is a myth created by men who did not understand the simplicity of the method that nature uses to power her machine. It's all one big system and there can never be an outside of that system. Meaning if space is involved it has to have the whole shebang to work. So to the dudes who proclaim open systems that is as false as there is an electron. What you don't include in your system is everything outside of that "system" of yours and to tell you the truth that is as misleading as electron theories or any other that is so complicated to understand when you look at the outside of that "system". Proof the eternal spin of the atom.

Let me pose this. If you have to make up rules thats fine but when you have to modify those rules to fit in larger or smaller scales then those rules are voided. Obviously the extra rules are to modify the current set because of a translation error. It all comes down to this. We all live in this space if I make a "System" then it should include all of that universe and the rules that apply to everything in it in that category because that is what nature does.

As for the twinkling Aaron is talking about I had a lot of time to think about that. If there is a network allowing charges to move very long distances without deviation then obviously the twinkling is just them either bumping a tad from the path and slowing down for a brief instance in time or they are just escaping from the network and fading into the background medium of that space.

[Aaron]

dipole

More of what? Electrons? I don't quite understand your ideology here. Even if electrons could manifest from nowhere, what would be the benefit of more electrons than what we started with? If the original theory is of separating the dipole, does not an electron/s work against that charge separation or "Kill the dipole"?

If your goal was to bombard something with electrons for example, it would
be highly desirable.

Any "ideology" I'd have here is transformable or is able to be evolved in
one way or another - always.

The reason I mention that they can manifest out of the vacuum,
which they can, is just to point out and define that all the "electrons"
are not limited to just that which is provided by the material of the circuit
itself.

The reason I mention more than we start with is simply a reference to
a gain. What good is the extra electrons? That is another topic, but
my point is just to throw out another concept valid concept that defies
the idea that capacitance is some specific finite amount of "electrons"
for example. Or even current - which is thought to be what is powering
the entire system, when it is really our measurement of the loss of
the circuit.

But a benefit of extra electrons, if they really exist and there is no proof
that they do, would be for example, if there are extra electrons available
that didn't have to be supplied by the circuit, they would cause extra
resistance during their jiggle dance in an inductive resistor circuit for
example meaning more heat would be measurable than could be
accounted for by the measurable watt per time.

And if the circuit was built as a non-equilibrium circuit meeting all the
basic parameters of one, then the extra amount of electrons does not
have to be proportionately related to the dipole's potential difference
during the powering of a load. Or for example, the battery or other source
dipole could maintain a certain potential difference or voltage, yet
there could be an increase in measured current at a current sensing
resistor. Meaning that measuring the current can show more current than
what is being instigated by the power source.

[Aaron]

open not closed

More of what? Electrons? I don't quite understand your ideology here. Even if electrons could manifest from nowhere, what would be the benefit of more electrons than what we started with? If the original theory is of separating the dipole, does not an electron/s work against that charge separation or "Kill the dipole"?

In other words, locking the output to the input assumes a closed loop
system and ideally, we want an open one.

[HairBear]

In other words, locking the output to the input assumes a closed loop
system and ideally, we want an open one.

Ok, what is ideal about an open system? Are you suggesting an open system can harvest "vacuum energy" more efficiently than a closed system?

[Aaron]

@HairBear

Ok, what is ideal about an open system? Are you suggesting an open system can harvest "vacuum energy" more efficiently than a closed system?

Hi HairBear,

Can you define in your own words the difference between a closed loop
equilibrium system and an open loop non-equilibrium system?

[lamare]

Actually, I don't believe in a static potential since it is a very dynamic
flowing aetheric fluid of mass free "charge" of both polarities. And the
use of the term potential literally means that when you have the
voltage potential, there is no work being done until "current" is caused.
Current being nothing more than the loss in a system.

The gravitational potential is a moving potential for example and the
only time work is done is when the positive potential causes a push on the
proton of mass causing a resistance.

The definition of potential and energy are all 100% incorrect in the
textbooks as there is no such thing as a static potential - the textbook
definitions are talking about an abstract concept because they don't
understand what potential even is.

In principle, you are right in that what you call potential is a more precise description of reality as what is written in the textbooks. Still, the textbook model is a good model to work with, as long as you stay within its limits, just like Newton still gives good results in mechanics. So, the point is that by applying a different meaning to an existing word in a different context, you are getting yourself into useless discussions about the meaning of a word, because both meanings are right within a certain context and/or model. The problem with that is that it hurts you, because it confuses people.

IMHO, you could avoid a lot of confusion by talking about a "potential field" instead, which also connects directly to the electric potential you mean, the electric field. That way, you not only avoid confusion, but you're also in line with more advanced "field theory" textbooks. And you can apply it to gravity too, which is actually one and the same thing as the electric field.

Update:

Let me go one step further, and do this correct. If you want to bring what you mean by potential in line with the textbooks, you would have to call it a "propagating potential field". Then you are completely in line with the textbooks, and you have three layers of models, with increasing level of detail.

1. Potential is just a static force -> Newtonian mechanics, Ohm-law like electronics, hydraulics and its electronic analogy as found in most textbooks.

2. "Potential Field" - a static field -> Recognition that potential is not bound to a conductor, but spread out in space. Classic field theory describes this and you can go a long way with that.

3. "Propagating Potential Field" -> Hey guys, what you have written in your textbooks about "field theory" goes a long way, but you have missed something. Your field is not static, it is dynamic, it is flowing, it is propagating, it is transporting energy. You need to update your models, guys, so you can take this into account!

So, when you are talking about "potential", what you mean IMHO is a "propagating potential field", which is just not the same thing as "potential" in the context of Newton derived science models.

[Aaron]

dynamic fluid potential

Lamare,

I intentionally prevent myself from using the term field for various
reasons - I like to stick with the concept of an ocean of swarming
potential that everything is engulfed in like a fish is in water.

Anyway, the "propagating potential field" is more along the lines
of what potential really is and below is a quote from Tom Bearden -
the waterfall analogy is pretty self evident:

" Now suppose you suddenly place a potential on the surface of the plates
(between the two plates) of a battery. That potential takes off like a
scalded hog in both directions. It flows across the ions in the battery
between the plates in one direction, and simultaneously it flows out into
the external circuits to "push the charges" in the other direction.

In short, if you time things correctly, you can DEPHASE and DECOUPLE the
two currents in the battery powered system, simultaneously adding potential
energy to both of them, "for free". You can add potential to BOTH the
ions and the electrons. The ions can be moving backward in charging mode,
while the electrons will be driven in the opposite direction in the external
circuit --- in powering direction.

Before one gets bent out of shape about the potential being regauging and
all that, and free additional potential energy and all that, one should go
look up what the "gauge freedom" axiom of quantum field theory means. All
electrodynamicists --- and even the electrical engineers --- assume that
the potential energy of any Maxwellian system can be freely changed at will.
However, they usually assume you will be a gentleman and do it twice
simultaneously, and will also do it just exactly so that the two new free
EM forces produced in the system are equal and opposite. Well, that assumes
that you take in free excess potential energy to the system, but precisely
lock it up so that it cannot translate electrons and therefore push
current and do work in an external load. However, it continuously performs what is
called "internal work" in the system, in opposing directions but equal
magnitude. That work continually forms and maintains excess "stress
energy" in the system, and that is all.

So the first problem for a COP>1.0 system is how to break up that "stress
energy only" assumption. John's way is one way. He actually "splits" the
potential into two directional fields (which it is; see Whittaker 1903,
cited in numerous of my papers), one going in one direction to push the
ions in charging mode, and the other going in the other direction out into the
external circuit to push electrons in powering mode.

That's about as simple as it can be explained. At that point, one either
understands it or one doesn't.

Also, bear in mind that from any nonzero scalar potential phi, regardless
of how small in magnitude, you can collect as much energy as you wish, if you
just have enough charge available to intercept it. That's the simple
equation W = (phi)q, where W is the amount of energy collected in joules
from potential phi, by charges q in coulombs. For a given phi and a
desired W, just include the necessary q. A potential is a set of bidirectional
rivers of flowing energy, as proven by Whittaker in 1903. We do not have
to REPROVE that at all; it's already well known and accepted by every
electrodynamicist worth his salt.

Any potential is automatically a true negative resistor, since it is a
free harmonic set of bidirectional flows of EM energy (due to its dipolarity
and the broken symmetry of same; it takes the energy right out of the vacuum
via the broken symmetry of the source charge or dipolarity). Hence you can
collect as much energy from it as you wish, from its "flowing rivers of
energy", if you arrange for enough charges (buckets) to collect it (to
collect the water). Nothing says you have to use just one kind of charge
(the electron). You can use -- as Bedini does -- both the ions between the
plates and the electrons in the external circuit. And you can use them
both, and potentialize them both simultaneously with the same potential.
HOW MUCH EXCESS ENERGY YOU CATCH IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DEPENDS SOLELY ON THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PHI AND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE Q's.

There's no mystery as to how he makes a negative resistor, because ANY AND
EVERY DIPOLARITY AND POTENTIAL ARE ALREADY TRUE NEGATIVE RESISTORS. As is every charge. The energy flows are coming freely from the vacuum, via the proven (in particle physics, NOT in EE) broken symmetry of the source
charge and source dipole. Remember, the first requirement for an overunity
system or true negative resistor is TO GET OUT OF CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING. If one cannot think outside those boxes, one will never get or understand overunity, because IT IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THOSE TWO BOXES.

Every charge in the universe is already a true negative resistor of the
purest and most definitive (and easily demonstrated experimentally) kind.
It freely absorbs virtual photons from the seething vacuum, transduces
that into OBSERVABLE (real, detectable, usable) photons, and pours them out in
all directions in 3-space at the speed of light. One doesn't have to
reprove that; it's been proven in physics since 1957.

You want to make a true MACROSCOPIC negative resistor for peanuts? Just
lay a charged capacitor on a permanent magnet so that the E field of the cap
is at right angles to the H-field of the magnet. That optimizes EXH, which
is the expression for the Poynting energy flow S = f(EXH). That silly thing
sits there and steadily pours out real observable usable EM energy EXH at
the speed of light, with no OBSERVABLE electromagnetic energy input into
it. The fact that it is a continuous flow of energy is usually just "mumbled
away"; e.g., with some version of this quotation: "[Poynting's result]
implies that a charged capacitor in a constant magnetic field which is not
parallel to the electric field is the seat of energy flows even though all
macroscopic phenomena are static." [Jed Z. Buchwald, From Maxwell to
Microphysics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1985, p.
44.]

Before one falls for that "static" nonsense, one must understand what
"static" really is. That's expressed beautifully by Van Flandern, as
follows: "To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings
of the term 'static'. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving
parts. The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual
replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by
thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first sense,
and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are
essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts capable of
transferring momentum, and is made of entities that propagate. [Tom Van
Flandern, "The speed of gravity - What the experiments say," Physics
Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p.8-9. ]

From the Whittaker papers of 1903 and 1904, we have known for just about a
century that all static EM fields and potentials are in fact "static"
fields of Van Flandern's second kind --- analogous to an unfrozen waterfall.
There is a continuous bidirectional movement of an internal EM structure of
longitudinal waves inside (and comprising) all EM fields and potentials.
So the "static envelope" of the field exists, but the "inside" components are
in violent change and motion, in BOTH directions. Again, that's been known
and in the literature since 1903.

But that does not appear in the hoary old seriously flawed electrical
engineering, which continues to try to consider the static potential and
static field as a "frozen waterfall" analogy."

[lamare]

I intentionally prevent myself from using the term field for various
reasons - I like to stick with the concept of an ocean of swarming
potential that everything is engulfed in like a fish is in water.

Anyway, the "propagating potential field" is more along the lines
of what potential really is and below is a quote from Tom Bearden -
the waterfall analogy is pretty self evident:

You do make me curious about the reasons not to use the term field, because as far as I can tell the term "propagating field" would be a very accurate description for what you might call "an ocean of swarming potential that everything is engulfed in like a fish is in water" and a description that is in line with the textbooks, cause the only difference with the textbooks about "field theory" is a matter of how many details you choose to neglect....

Update: I mean, I really don't see why you would want to get into a collision course with the scientific community about the definition of what is what, if really all we are trying to say is: "Your force fields are dynamic, they are propagating, they are sources of energy! Take that into account!".

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Diagram

Mike,

Did you post schematics? You mentioned this to me on Skype but I
didn't see it.

The schematic. A FWBR could be used but does not give the best results and is confirming that there is something in using a vacuum tube.

Mike

[Slovenia]

Thanks!!

Thanks for posting the schematic!!

The schematic. A FWBR could be used but does not give the best results and is confirming that there is something in using a vacuum tube.

Mike

[Jbignes5]

Yes...

The schematic. A FWBR could be used but does not give the best results and is confirming that there is something in using a vacuum tube.

Mike

Tesla was convinced that tubes needed more exploration. Aluminum was another curiosity of his.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Tesla was convinced that tubes needed more exploration. Aluminum was another curiosity of his.

Yes, aluminium is an interesting metal

Mike

[Aaron]

Steap?

Mike,

How many ah's are each of those batteries?

I did a similar battery arrangement with a couple Gray circuit
type tests.

Is the circuit/transformer only two windings - just input and output?
Custom made or are you using some off the shelf transformer like a
centertap or something - like the original Steap?

----------

It was thought in Ancient China that only mirrors and aluminum could
reflect Qi that waas directed at someone with ill intent.

Aluminum also has reflective properties other metals don't have and
is probably the easiest non-ferrous metal to polarize the atoms by high
frequency microwave pumping - aligning the atoms - causing a weight
loss.

[lamare]

Update: I mean, I really don't see why you would want to get into a collision course with the scientific community about the definition of what is what, if really all we are trying to say is: "Your force fields are dynamic, they are propagating, they are sources of energy! Take that into account!".

Let me add that by saying just this, you are actually kicking at the foundation of the whole "general relativity" idea of Einstein. See my post here:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post109117

--::--
The Holographic Universe - Crystalinks

If you read this, you have a second reason why General Relativity should go to the trash can.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light.

The first reason is given by Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill : http://www.etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf - The whole idea of a fixed speed of light basically originates in a mathematical error. Because they got the Maxwell equations wrong, they used some freak coordinate transform known as the Lorentz transform, which can only work if the speed of light is constant. Now, we *know* the speed of light is not constant in the vicinity of matter. So, really, this is a piece of junk. Sorry, Einstein, you were wrong on this one.

But, you were quite something too:

Albert Einstein quotes

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

So, I'm sure you'll forgive me for what I said just here.

Update 2: And of course, Tesla got it right all along:

PowerPedia:Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity - PESWiki

"... 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."
"My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment."

--::--

You see, if the fields are dynamic, propagating and contain energy, which they do, then there is no way to account for that, but by adapting the Maxwell equations the way both Bearden and Meyl are saying: You have to remove the postulation that the fields are caused by charge carriers, cause otherwise varying electrostatic fields, aka "longitudinal electric waves", cannot exist in vacuum, as "they" are saying.

And when you do that, the whole Lortentz transform idea goes with it, and with that you can kiss "general relativity" goodbye.

And beside that, we *know* it's the fields that are the cause matter exists and not the other way around. So "they" will have to make a choice. Either it's quantum mechanics and thus the fields cause the matter, or it's the current Maxwell equations with the postulation that it's the matter (charge carriers) that cause the fields. You just can't have them both at the same time!

So, really, ye can kick some **** with this stuff, but choose your battles! Fight about the content, not about what would be the best term to call the content!

Update:
One more thing. So QM says matter is just a localized electromagnetic wave. Two counter-rotating vortices in the ether. That's what it is. Nothing but an electric phenomenon. So, what on earth would gravity be, if it's not simply an electrostatic phenomenon, a longitudinal electric wave, "they" say do not exist, because they got the Maxwell equations wrong in such a ***** way that "they" contradict their own QM theory?
Yes that's what gravity is, nothing but an electrostatic phenomenon. And that's why you have this "Unexplained Mystery" known as the "Biefield-Brown Anti-Gravity Effect":

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post108591

--::--
Unexplained Mysteries - Biefield-Brown Anti-Gravity Effect

While researching the effects of X-rays generated from a Coolidge tube, American physicist, T. Townsend Brown found a relationship between gravity and high voltage. Press reports state that a 2 foot diameter disc was made to fly around a central pole when tethered and excited with a potential of 50 KiloVolts. The disc circled the pole at almost 12 MPH. Later improvements using 3 foot discs driven by potentials of 150 KiloVolts and up yielded results so spectacular that the test results were classified. Working in conjunction with Dr. P.A. Biefield, Brown found that highly charged capacitors when properly suspended showed a tendency to move relative to the gravitational force. When the poles of a freely suspended charged capacitor were placed on a horizontal axis a forward thrust would be produced which would move the capacitor in the direction of the positive pole.

IceStuff.com: The electrostatic Lifter v3.0 experiment from The Encyclopedia of free energy,energy21.org,energy 21 org Geoff Egel

The Lifter v3.0 uses nine asymmetrical T.T. Brown capacitors joined ( called cells ) so as to form a triangle assembly. Each asymmetrical capacitor is built with one electrode made with a thin corona wire placed at 30 mm from the main rectangular electrode constructed "ala" Townsend Brown.

--::--

[Jbignes5]

Let me add that by saying just this, you are actually kicking at the foundation of the whole "general relativity" idea of Einstein. See my post here:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post109117

--::--
The Holographic Universe - Crystalinks

If you read this, you have a second reason why General Relativity should go to the trash can.



The first reason is given by Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill : http://www.etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf - The whole idea of a fixed speed of light basically originates in a mathematical error. Because they got the Maxwell equations wrong, they used some freak coordinate transform known as the Lorentz transform, which can only work if the speed of light is constant. Now, we *know* the speed of light is not constant in the vicinity of matter. So, really, this is a piece of junk. Sorry, Einstein, you were wrong on this one.

But, you were quite something too:

Albert Einstein quotes




So, I'm sure you'll forgive me for what I said just here.

Update 2: And of course, Tesla got it right all along:

PowerPedia:Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity - PESWiki


--::--

You see, if the fields are dynamic, propagating and contain energy, which they do, then there is no way to account for that, but by adapting the Maxwell equations the way both Bearden and Meyl are saying: You have to remove the postulation that the fields are caused by charge carriers, cause otherwise varying electrostatic fields, aka "longitudinal electric waves", cannot exist in vacuum, as "they" are saying.

And when you do that, the whole Lortentz transform idea goes with it, and with that you can kiss "general relativity" goodbye.

And beside that, we *know* it's the fields that are the cause matter exists and not the other way around. So "they" will have to make a choice. Either it's quantum mechanics and thus the fields cause the matter, or it's the current Maxwell equations with the postulation that it's the matter (charge carriers) that cause the fields. You just can't have them both at the same time!

So, really, ye can kick some **** with this stuff, but choose your battles! Fight about the content, not about what would be the best term to call the content!

Update:
One more thing. So QM says matter is just a localized electromagnetic wave. Two counter-rotating vortices in the ether. That's what it is. Nothing but an electric phenomenon. So, what on earth would gravity be, if it's not simply an electrostatic phenomenon, a longitudinal electric wave, "they" say do not exist, because they got the Maxwell equations wrong in such a ***** way that "they" contradict their own QM theory?
Yes that's what gravity is, nothing but an electrostatic phenomenon. And that's why you have this "Unexplained Mystery" known as the "Biefield-Brown Anti-Gravity Effect":

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post108591

--::--
Unexplained Mysteries - Biefield-Brown Anti-Gravity Effect



IceStuff.com: The electrostatic Lifter v3.0 experiment from The Encyclopedia of free energy,energy21.org,energy 21 org Geoff Egel


--::--

A few things I would to redirect you on Lamare with all due respect to you.

Firstly the laws that are written do conform to the invention of electrons and electricity. If you don't go looking beyond those laws they accurately describe both.

The second thing is this. Matter is the organizing factor of the fields. Neither can exist without the other and the only way charges(energy) flow is because of the highway they follow. Much like we can make magnets we also can make our own networks to provide any amount of flow we shall desire. But there is a distinct difference between the two networks. One is held in place by matter. ie our planet. Most of which was formed as this space cooled down and locked in the network or hardened. The second is very dynamic and that is what fields are. Fields are a combination of a dielectric medium with real charge networks that cross each other at 90 degree fashion.

Turtur does an excellent job of stating this but veers away from trying to put math to it. But thats the process that one needs to do to get a paper published I guess.

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf

As for the connected Whatever they think is connected I suggest that they separate whatever it is and try the 1 billion mile experiment. I know they have not and this would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are correct.

As for your comment about the static nature of gravity. Man I have been saying that for quite a long time. I am glad you understand this concept. I have a question for you though. How does this process work in your concept?

Mine is very simple. Molten whatever is in the center of our planet. The churning of the molten material causes the static potential that is held inside our planet. And when you have a standing potential like that it draws charges into itself. This real charge flow is both responsible for our weather and gravity. Ever seen a tornado or any other storm you can imagine? What happens when you pull the plug on the drain in the tub? Those charges are actually going into our core and the resulting drag it has on the other charges in our planets shells get drawn down and form our weather. Ever heard of ley lines? What shape are they when viewed in Google earth (there is a plugin for that) ? Remember that our atmosphere is very fluid like. What about the peculiar shape at Saturn's north pole? Are you starting to see the direction here.

You don't need complicated math yet to connect the dots. That will be left to explain where all the geometric clues come from.

Here is a thought experiment to ponder. What happens when you don't discharge a layden jar and keep packing charges in that? Isn't our planet and atmosphere and ionosphere exactly what a layden jar is when combined all together? Refer to Tesla when he talks about exceeding the capabilities of matter to hold together when pulsed with huge amounts of static potential. BANG.
It seems to me that man knew at one point what this energy was and is. I believe that a device was built to pull charges away from our core and control how much and when to draw them. This I believe was the Great Pyramids. How it was done I have not worked that out fully but all the materials and geometric shapes are there. Including the biggest part is the shape of the most fundamental particle known ever. The dielectric shape. Crystaline pyramid but sooo small that it effortlessly passes through matter given enough inertia. What material is the Great pyramids made out of? Mostly rose granite? <<--Big hint thats a crystaline material). Those pyramids and there are more then three in that general area on the order of 6 smaller pyramids that could have been built by hand quicker and then used those drivers to get the energy to build the larger ones. Lets look at the placement of where they are next.

"The Great Pyramid (the Pyramid of Khufu, or Cheops in Greek) at Gizeh, Egypt, demonstrates the remarkable character of its placement on the face of the Earth.

The Pyramid lies in the center of gravity of the continents. It also lies in the exact center of all the land area of the world, dividing the earth's land mass into approximately equal quarters. "

That quote was from here: World Mysteries - Mystic Places - The Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt

Hmm mere coincidence? Nah...

The one thing that bothers me is that even with all that knowledge they could not survive as a race. It seems that they had the tools but not the wisdom to use those tools to do good. Is that our curse? To blindly do and not care about what is left to the future? I'm sorry but this whole issue needs to be addressed. Do we have the ability to not weaponize anything we find? Can we use it for good or will the powers that be use it pro quo?