It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are scientists stealing our electricity?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Hello all,

Why are names like Tesla and Faraday - treated as though they are traitors? Faraday being the pioneer that demonstrated that electricity flows from a moving magnetic field.

Why did NASA try to hide the fact that a wire they trailed from one of the shuttles generate a current that damaged most of the computers on board.

Why is it kept secret that in WW II, the German navy drained small portions of the French wetlands using a process called "electro-osmosis" - where metal rods were placed in the soil and small electric currents applied that drove the water out of the area so footings could be laid?

Why is it kept secret that the same methodology was used by German engineers who applied currents to the tracks of tanks when mired.

Why is it kept secret that the most probable explanation for earthquake is that they are earthbound lightning?

Why is it kept secret that the most probable explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon was an electrical discharge?

There is one article on this that I know of: Janet Raloff, "Managing water pollutants in soil with electric currents." Science News, Vol. 148, September 9, 1995, Pg. 168

bc
.\




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   
While I will agree that a lot of Tesla's workings are being withheld, you also have to keep in mind that he, himself destroyed a lot of his work for fear it would be used for nefarious purposes.

As for Faraday? A lot of his workings are used in the modern world. The main example would be the Faraday Cage. There's also his law of induction, his invention of the dynamo, and discovered the laws of ectrolysis, to name a few more.

As for the other claims you staked, could you provide links backing them up? The one you provided about the Grand Canyon being created by an electrical discharge doesn't say anything about that happening.

You mentioned one article, but you didn't say anything about it other than you "know of" it. Does it answer the questions you posed, or did it pose them, or what?

[edit on 6/5/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I dont understand what the title of this thread means of what you mean by Tesla and Faraday being treated as traitors.

Also your examples of electricity range from the interesting to the wildly implausible. I like the sound of Nazis draining wetlands by using electrolysis but I'm not sure how well this would work in the real world.

I would be interested to here your NASA story, which mission was this?

Unfortunately you seem to be forgetting that the Grand Canyon is a perfect example of water erosion which can be seen anywhere else in the world and has absolutely NOTHING to do with electrical discharge. Where would this charge build up? And how would this discharge erode rocks?

And earthquakes being some form of earth borne lightening is also very strange since there is a perfectly applicable and proven explantion for earthquakes in any book on techtonics.

Do you have any sources?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Unfortunately you seem to be forgetting that the Grand Canyon is a perfect example of water erosion which can be seen anywhere else in the world and has absolutely NOTHING to do with electrical discharge. Where would this charge build up? And how would this discharge erode rocks?

And earthquakes being some form of earth borne lightening is also very strange since there is a perfectly applicable and proven explantion for earthquakes in any book on techtonics.


Gfad,

you'll save yourself a lot of time and typing if you research previous threads by the poster "beforebc". He seems to be very fond of all kinds of pseudo science. Oh, and by the way, according to him, tectonics is a completely manufactured and wrong theory, so your last question is completely moot



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I too would like to know which NASA mission this was. As for the Grand Canyon it does seem doubtfull that this feature was created by water erosion. The rocks are sharp and jagged not smooth as one would expect from erosion. Also water flows downhill and the summit of the canyon is higher than any of the surrounding terrain.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:31 AM
link   
The Grand Canyon could have become sharp and jagged over the years due to weathering, such as exfoliation due to the contraction and expansion of the rock between night and day causing layers to fall off, and since there is not water running through the most of the rock (water not v deep) it cannot become smoothed again. Does this sound ok?
i dont think freeze-thaw (frost shattering) can happen? I don't think it goes cold enuogh.


I'm not really sure about eathquakes being earthbound lightning. I think the tectonic late theory is quite sufficient - why change this explanation if it does work in most cases, most theories assume things and don't apply to everything, especially when you talk about physics. (Difference between macroscopic and microscopic and on the qauntum levels)



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Except that if it be that water gradually wore the canyon one would expect that any subsequent destruction over time would be greater nearer the top and gradually less the farther down on the canyon face. As it is it apppears the river came later after a catastrophic event.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
---Why did NASA try to hide the fact that a wire they trailed from one of the shuttles generate a current that damaged most of the computers on board.---

This wasn't a secret, I read about this in a science magazine before it was carried out. Although I never heard about it damaging anything on the Shuttle.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

.. according to him, tectonics is a completely manufactured and wrong theory, so your last question is completely moot



Please don't forget that plate tectonics is merely discriptive and (so far) doesn't attempt to explain why these continents move.


As for the question of the original poster, electricity is too much like magic, intangible, you know ?!



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Check these links out:

www.nasa.gov...

istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
Please don't forget that plate tectonics is merely discriptive and (so far) doesn't attempt to explain why these continents move.


I dont think thats true, techtonics says that the continental plates move as they are propelled by the convective currents in the liquid magma.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
Please don't forget that plate tectonics is merely discriptive and (so far) doesn't attempt to explain why these continents move.


Please don't forget to research before you post.

Sources of Plate Motion covered in the Tectonic Theory



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
That's OT now, but why not, it's remotely on topic when you consider that plate tectonics was once thought of as a fringe theory...



Originally posted by Thousand

Please don't forget to research before you post.

Sources of Plate Motion covered in the Tectonic Theory



Now i understand it all
. maybe i shouldn't have said 'don't attempt' because they surely do, but i have a huge problem with 'deep mantle convections'.

Source


Current research considers the motion of the crust associated with plate tectonics as the surface manifestation of a much deeper mantle circulation.


Consider the Hawaiian hotspot, its position relative to the crust is undoubtedly moving, if the mantle moved along with the crust, as this model would imply, then it would a) have to cut through thousands of miles of rock instead of just a few miles and b) maintain precise alignment to something else (the core??), an unlikely event, barring magick, of course.

Even your original link mentioned 'hotspot reference', so the concept is apparently accepted. That said, what i posted may have been sweeping and partially incorrect, but i doubt casual research would have changed my general view on the subject or the overall content of my original post...

PS: note that i am not writing with any authority, so this post is provided 'as is' - just food for thought.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
please explain this "earthbound Lightning" How could there be a charge buildup from one spot to enother that would be strong enough to cause these land movements. True lighting is like 15 megavolt with alot of AMPS, but the todal amount of power is not near enough to lift the ground by measures of feet as has been recorded after earthquakes. If there was large, static charges in the earth like that, we would be getting electricuted everytime we take a shower, dig a hole, etc.

BTW any lighting that strikes the earth is "earthbound"



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join