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.

 

Schumann Resonances, Electro Magnetism, and the Brain.

page: 24
120
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
US Patent



Assignee: Dorne & Margolin Inc. (Bohemia, NY)


Regarding this corporation:

From janes.com:


Dorne & Margolin Inc (United States), Space industry - Major sub-contractors

Current Status
Design, development of antennas for communications and navigation: GPS, Satcom (UHF, Ku, Inmarsat) telemetry, DF and EW for 1.5 to 18 GHz. Capabilities include base and mobile antennas for wireless markets. New directional adaption for multiple inputs capable of giving operators selected relay satellite terminals. Diversified into recreational uses for navcom systems and for ship and airborne satellite or terrestrial communication systems. Has developed parallel applications for tracking and for vehicle location.




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by pianopraze


On heterodyning...

skip down to the "how it works" part and lo! you will discover that without a 4 quadrant multiplier or a non-linear junction as I said, you won't get a frequency product as described in the patent. It is not sufficient to simply have two radio wave frequencies in one volume to achieve mixing.

Mixing two frequencies to get sum and difference frequencies is known as modulation, or heterodyning. Both are very similar. Both require something a piece of wet meat cannot provide.

Then proceed to look up your own references on heterodyning, or "radio frequency mixer" or whatnot, and again and again you will rediscover that I am correct.

Sorry, but it just doesn't work the way the patent describes.

Oh, btw, I'd have thought you'd be the LAST one to care if they're followers of old school science, isn't that your gig?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
It makes you wonder… maybe our whole view of Science is being purposefully kept in the dark, and EM has the possibility of opening whole new worlds… quite literally.


On cheniere.org is a link to a 62 page .pdf download to Word. The document is entitled "Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons and their Terrorist Use: Immediate Strategic Aspects of the Asymmetric War on the U.S." by T.E. Bearden dated October 13, 2004. From page 4:


Quoting Tesla [17]:

"...I showed that the universal medium is a gaseous body in which only longitudinal pulses can be propagated, involving alternating compressions and expansions similar to those produced by sound waves in the air. Thus, a wireless transmitter does not emit Hertz waves which are a myth, but sound waves in the ether, behaving in every respect like those in the air, except that, owing to the great elastic force and extremely small density of the medium, their speed is that of light.”

If one replaces the words “gaseous body” with the modern term “virtual particle flux (active virtual state gas) of the vacuum”, one sees Tesla’s words in agreement with the basic view of the modern active vacuum.


The reference to [17]:


Nikola Tesla, "Pioneer Radio Engineer Gives Views on Power," New York Herald Tribune, Sep. 11, 1932.

Keywords:


If one replaces the words “gaseous body” with the modern term “virtual particle flux (active virtual state gas) of the vacuum”, one sees Tesla’s words in agreement with the basic view of the modern active vacuum.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
On cheniere.org is a link to a 62 page .pdf download


Continuing on page 4:


Discovery of EM longitudinal waves — which actually comprise all normal EM waves, fields, and potentials [18,19] — leads to a much more fundamental electrodynamics, including sophisticated altering of ordinary EM waves, potentials, and fields to contain hidden internal Whittaker field vectors and their dynamics.


The references 18 and 19:


18. E. T. Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics,” Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355.

19. E. T. Whittaker, “On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions,” Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol. 1, 1904, p. 367-372.


edit on 03/24/12 by Mary Rose because: Format



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
On cheniere.org is a link to a 62 page .pdf download


Page 6:


To explain longitudinal EM waves in the vacuum, and also to explain their detection as transverse waves in a receiving conductor [25], one merely points out the known severe longitudinal flow restraint on the Drude electrons in a conductor. . . .


The reference to [25] is:


P. Drude, Ann. Physik, Vol. 1, p. 566; Vol. 3, 1900, p. 370, 869.


Page 7:


Those measured waves in our measuring instruments really are transverse EM force field effect waves in and of the interacting Drude electron material medium in the conductors of the intercepting instrument. But the causative interacting EM field entities in the vacuum are themselves force-free longitudinal EM wave disturbances of the curvature of spacetime (general relativity view) and of the local VPF [virtual particle flux] of the vacuum (particle physics view).



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


What you quoted:


If one replaces the words “gaseous body” with the modern term “virtual particle flux (active virtual state gas) of the vacuum”, one sees Tesla’s words in agreement with the basic view of the modern active vacuum.


was written by an exceptionally ignorant person. What they do is a typical dictionary highjack (why am I not surprised, this is a hallmark of any ignoramus). Virtual particles in modern science are a way to describe and account for multiple path integrals, and in case of EM oftentimes they are virtual photons, which ultimately trace their origin to Maxwellian physics and what some like to call "Herzian waves". So as much as you try, you can't have it both ways. What's more, propagation of EM waves again "in modern active vacuum" (sounds childish but all right, let's move on) has nothing to do with compression of anything gaseous. So the statement is false on multiple levels. Duh.

If I try to paraphrase an old Russian joke:
- Is it true that John won a car in that lottery?
- Of course it's true. But it's not that John, but the other one, and it was not a lottery, but a poker game, and it was not a car, but $200, and he actually didn't win but lost it.

Same in that analogy.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
A brief, but unfortunate end of every claim that "all EM is longitudinal through the ether" lies here

When you understand why, you will have learned wisdom. At least in this very narrow way.

And yes, when confronted with it, Bearden does actually say something containing the phrase "cur dog" and runs off.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
When you understand why, you will have learned wisdom.


I grant you this sounds very Zen. I'm not sure if you noticed though that Mary has been pelted with the polarizer argument for months now, and neither polarizers, Zen, wisdom or any combination thereof seem to stick.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I actually got the chance to drop this into the discussion with Tom many years ago while we were at lunch. We used to go en mass to lunch in Huntsville, and we had hit the Logan's and were busy munching peanuts and drinking beers (yes beer is allowed at my company for lunch since we own it), when Tom and the rest of his guys came in and sat at the next table over.

We recognized him, said hi, and he went off into the usual "the yakuza stole my homework" thing, and when he got to the part of the story about how all em was longitudinal, I said "Tom, you know, we design a lot of comm stuff, and I polarize antennas all the time. Polarizers are on lots of optical stuff too, and you know, I don't see how you can polarize longitudinal signals, but it works just fine on transverse EM"

I actually got the cur dog thing with some 'we don't know everything yet about the aether' sauce and off they went in a huff.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
I actually got the cur dog


What's the cur dog? I must have missed that definition.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
A 2007 four hour presentation by Eric Dollard:




posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Bedlam
I actually got the cur dog


What's the cur dog? I must have missed that definition.


Oh, sorry. It's a Beardenism. His website, www.cheniere.org, actually has some interesting stuff on it, if you pick out the interesting bits and ignore the scalar stuff. In amongst it are letters and essays he's written. In them, you'll see that he often reacts by calling people that question him a "cur dog" as in a mongrel dog pack trying to pull him down.

One way, apparently, to instantly get the cur dog seal of approval is to bring up polarization.

edit to add:

He's also a regular at the Huntsville area MUFON chapter - I had a recording of a speech he gave about a friend of his that had resurrected a German Shepherd using a bizarre twist on a really arcane bit of optical physics. He didn't know the recording had happened, since Jeff had the camera in his sekret double-naught spy briefcase as he always did when we went to MUFON meetings (another long and funny story - not related to the thread. Yes, sometimes you ARE being watched, but I digress...). I asked him years later how the dog was doing, and boy was he taken aback, apparently he doesn't do the dog story very often. That, actually, goes along with some of the more interesting bits of the site but it's not presented there.

There's another tech-urban myth in town, I don't think it's in print although he's got some books I definitely won't pay to buy, wherein the Bearden crew instantiated a virtual critter using the same rig.
edit on 25-3-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
A 2007 four hour presentation by Eric Dollard


The presentation was sponsored by The San Francisco Tesla Society and the title of it was "A Symbolic Representations [sic] of Electrical Induction and its Implications to Dimensions of Energy."



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
From pesn.com, "Aether Flow -- The True Electric Current?" by Hank Mills:


Could it be that the flow of aether in the form of electric field is the true "electric current", and electron flow is only a byproduct? Some researchers, including potentially Nikola Tesla, seem to think so!

The modern day concept of electricity is pretty straightforward. Electrical current is defined by the motion of electrons traveling through a conductive material -- usually a metal such as copper. With a few basic formulas engineers are able to electrify our world, keeping our lights and appliances running.

However, there are some researchers who argue that mainstream science ignores the "true" nature of electricity, and what really constitutes electric current. They claim mainstream science incorrectly eliminated the concept of the aether, or the all pervasive medium in which electromagnetic waves were originally thought to travel. By ignoring the work of the early pioneers of electromagnetism, and dumbing down the original equations of Maxwell (the father of electromagnetism) they are obscuring the aether as the true source of electricity.

Nikola Tesla is an example of an individual who was convinced the aether existed, and built systems to harness it for the benefit of mankind. Some of his systems (today known as Tesla coils) used high frequency, high voltage discharges from capacitors to create disturbances in the aether. In some of his writings, he called these disturbances "impulses", because he could feel radiant effects from them. Typically, he would have a primary coil of a few turns of wire that would direct these impulses towards a secondary coil. The secondary coil in the system was a flat pancake coil of many turns of wire that was placed inside of the primary. When in operation, the secondary coil would increase the "voltage" produced to very high levels. In his systems, the "tension" as he called it, could reach millions of volts.

What is even more interesting is that his system seemed to be utilizing a transformer effect without electric current or magnetism being the driving force. . . .








posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From pesn.com, "Aether Flow -- The True Electric Current?" by Hank Mills:

Continuing:


It was operating due to an electrostatic induction mechanism that increased the voltage of the system. To explain what was happening in his setup, here is an excerpt from the book, Cold War Technology: Project HAARP and Beyond, written by Gerry Vassilatos.

He had discovered a new induction law, one where radiant shockwaves actually autointensified when encountering segmented objects. The segmentation was the key to releasing the action. Radiant shockwaves encountered a helix and "flashed over" the outer skin, from end to end. This shockwave did not pass through the windings of the coil at all, treating the coil surface as an aerodynamic plane. A consistent increase in electrical pressure was measured along the coil surface. Indeed, Tesla stated that voltages could often be increased at an amazing 10,000 volts per inch of axial coil surface. This meant that a 24-inch coil could absorb radiant shockwaves, which initially measured 10,000 volts, with a subsequent maximum rise to 240,000 volts! Such transformations of voltage were unheard with apparatus of this volume and simplicity. Tesla further discovered that the output voltages were mathematically related to the resistance of turns in the helix. High resistance meant higher voltage maxima.

He began referring to his disrupter line as his special "primary', and to the helical coil placed within the shockzone, as his special "secondary". But he never intended anyone to equate these terms with those referring to magneto-electric transformers. This discovery was indeed completely different from magneto-induction. There was a real and measurable reason why he could make this outlandish statement. There was an attribute which completely baffled Tesla for a time. Tesla measured a zero current condition in these long copper secondary coils. He determined that the current, which should have appeared, was completely absent.

Pure voltage was rising with each inch of coil surface. Tesla constantly referred to his "electrostatic induction laws", a principle which few comprehended. Tesla called the combined disrupter and secondary helix a "Transformer". Tesla Transformers are not electromagnetic devices; they use radiant shockwaves, and produce pure voltage without current. Each transformer conducted a specific impulse duration with special force. Therefore each had to be "tuned" by adjusting the disrupter to that specific impulse duration. Adjustments of arc distance provided this control factor. Once each transformer was tuned to its own special response rate, impulses could flow smoothly through the system like gas flowing in a pipe.



edit on 03/25/12 by Mary Rose because: Fix tags



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From pesn.com, "Aether Flow -- The True Electric Current?" by Hank Mills:

Continuing:


Interestingly, it is alleged by many researchers that in addition to magnifying the input voltage, these systems were magnifying the total power -- producing overunity. However, some of these same researchers deny that any significant amount of "conventional" current travels through a well optimized Tesla coil. Since "mainstream" physics teaches power (watts) is the product of volts times amps (current or electron flow), how could the system magnify the total power if little or no current was present?

The only way we can find an answer is if we are willing to accept the possibility our present understanding of electrical current is not correct. One reason it is likely the mainstream understanding of electricity could be in error is because we do not use the original equations of Maxwell. Instead we use "dumbed down" versions that are easier for electricians and engineers to utilize while designing conventional power systems.

In his paper, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" Maxwell listed eight equations (that when broken down to their bare components equaled twenty equations) that would explain all of electromagnetism. Later, Oliver Heaviside reduced these twenty equations down to only four, in a simpler form of math. In doing so, he eliminated all the possibilities that were allowed for in the original work of Maxwell. For example, the aether and longitudinal waves.

If we are willing to admit that the dogma taught by mainstream science is not divinely inspired, then we should be open to the possibility our understanding of electricity is wrong. When it comes to Tesla's systems, many propose that the "voltage" flowing through his system was actually a pure form of aether. Perhaps by a combination of high switching rates and other methods of preventing current from flowing (he often quenched his spark gap with blowing air or a magnetic field) he was able to isolate the aether. Then using his secondary coil, he was able to "suck in" aether from the surroundings, and intensify the overall aether pressure in the system.

It seems Tesla found a way to magnify "power" without needing to utilize electrical current. What this could potentially mean is that what we call current (defined by the motion of electrons) is actually just a by-product of the aether. The electron flow could actually be impeding or killing the flow of aether, which is the true source of power. . . .



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
The following is the Conclusion of a paper by physicist Frederick David Tombes entitled "Maxwell's Original Equations." It is from a 12 page .pdf file:


The electromagnetic wave propagation mechanism depends upon the existence of a sea of tiny molecular vortices as advocated by James Clerk-Maxwell in 1861. Maxwell’s equations were derived using hydrodynamics and elasticity on the basis of the existence of such a physical medium, and these equations therefore cease to have any meaning in physics once that medium is removed. Weber and Kohlrausch first made the connection between electromagnetism and the speed of light in 1856 by discharging a Leyden jar (capacitor) and measuring the ratio of electrostatic to electrodynamical units of electricity. The significance of Maxwell’s original papers is that they provide a physical meaning to this experimental result in terms of an elastic solid which acts as the medium for the propagation of light. It is a common error to believe that the equation c² = 1/με follows from Maxwell’s equations, having been derived theoretically by Maxwell, and it is generally forgotten that the equation c² = 1/με, equivalent to E = mc², exists in the first place only because of the 1856 Weber/Kohlrausch experiment and Newton’s equation for the speed of a wave in an elastic solid. Unless we establish the electric permittivity, ε, experimentally using a discharging capacitor, we can have no basis whatsoever to assume the existence of an equation of the form c² = 1/με. The main weakness with Maxwell’s theory is the fact that he didn’t distinguish clearly enough between the rotational magnetization mechanism on the one hand, and the linear polarization mechanism on the other hand, in relation to the physical nature of the displacement that is involved in electromagnetic radiation. Nevertheless, Maxwell’s original works are pioneering works of enormous value which pointed us in the right direction, and any shortcomings within these works pale into insignificance when compared with the errors that followed in Maxwell’s wake. A series of derailments culminated with Einstein taking us into a mad world of relativity where two clocks can both go slower than each other, and where electromagnetic waves can propagate in a pure vacuum without the need for any physical displacement mechanism. Since 1983, the situation has degenerated even further still. The speed of light is now a defined quantity rather than a measured quantity, and the equation c² = 1/με has become a meaningless conversion formula without enquiry as to its physical origins. Hence the physical elasticity (electric permittivity ε) that is connected with the electromagnetic wave propagation mechanism has been eaten up by one big mathematical tautology, and to make matters worse, those supporting Einstein’s theories of relativity have the audacity to claim that they are a natural consequence of Maxwell’s work, when in fact Maxwell and Einstein were not even remotely working along the same lines. Maxwell is quite clear about the fact that the μv×H force is a centrifugal force (more precisely a compound centrifugal force (Coriolis force)), and that the velocity, v, is measured relative to the physical medium for the propagation of light. Modern physics is languishing in a totally misguided relativity based paradigm in which physicists have been brainwashed into believing that neither centrifugal force nor the aether exist [6], [7]. This nonsense needs to end. We need to go back to Maxwell and start again.


References cited:

[6] Tombe, F.D., “The Centrifugal Force Paradox”, (2011)
www.wbabin.net...
[7] Tombe, F.D., “Centrifugal Force”, (2011)
www.wbabin.net...


Interesting:


a sea of tiny molecular vortices as advocated by James Clerk-Maxwell in 1861.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Eh...could you summarize this?

There's a reason I never read my physics book from cover to cover.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Yeah. The aether is real and our engineers need new training in how electricity and magnetism work.

No, I can't put the physics into my own words. I can only choose good sources.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
No, I can't put the physics into my own words. I can only choose good sources.


If you can't put physics into your own words, you don't know any. Therefore, you are unable to distinguish goood sources from utter cr@p. You seem to be inclined to choose the latter in majority of cases.




top topics



 
120
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join