Tesla's Longitudinal/Scalar Wave

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


It doesn't have to work as an equation, it just has to look impressive. His target audience won't spot it. Usually they don't bother to get basic things like the dimensional analysis right.




posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Mary Rose
In addition to verifying Tesla's longitudinal wave, Meyl has discovered a third type of wave, so there are three types of waves:

  1. The traditional, transverse electromagnetic wave (Hertz)
  2. Electric longitudinal wave (Tesla)
  3. Magnetic longitudinal wave (Meyl)


Regarding Meyl's unified theory, here is a technology blog post by blogger Mark Zive, "Unified Field Theory Developed by German Professor Meyl."

It is based on the same YouTube video I have been posting about.

It references Poisson's equation rather than Laplace's, but I see the two are related:




Konstantin Meyl is a German professor who developed a new unified field theory based on the work of Tesla. Meyl’s unified field and particle theory explains quantum and classical physics, mass, gravitation, the constant speed of light, neutrinos, waves and particles, all explained by vortices. The subatomic particle characteristics are accurately calculated by this model. Well known equations are also derived by the unified equation. He provides a kit replicating one of Tesla’s experiments which demonstrates the existence of scalar waves. Scalar waves are simply energy vortices in the form of particles. Here is an interview with Konstantin Meyl on his theory and technologies.

Here are some highlights from the interview:

At the antennae of a transmitter in the near field (a fraction of the wavelength), only scalar waves (potential vortex) exist. They decompose into EM in the far field and further. The near field is not described by Maxwell’s equations and the theory is only postulated. It is possible to pick up only scalar waves from radio transmissions. Receivers which pick up EM waves are actually converting those waves into potential vortices which are conceived as “standing waves.”

The unified field theory describes the electromagnetic, eddy current, potential vortex, and spacial distributions. This combines an extended wave equation with a poisson equation. Maxwell’s equations can be derived as a special case where Gauss’s law for magnetism is not equal to 0. That means that magnetic charges do exist in Meyl’s theory. That electric and magnetic fields are always generated by motion is the fundamental idea which this equation is derived from. The unipolar generator and transformer have conflicting theories under standard theories. Meyl splits them into the equations of transformation of the electric and magnetic fields seperately which describes unipolar induction and the equation of convection, relatively.

Meyl says that the field is always first, which generates particles by decay or conversion. Classical physics does not recognize energy particles aka potential vortices so they were not included in the theory. Quantum physics effectively tried to explain everything with vortices, which is why it is incomplete. The derivation of Schrodinger’s equation from the extended maxwell equations means they are vortices. For example, photons are light as particle vortices and EM light is in wave form which depends on the detection method which can change the form of light.

Gravitation is from the speed of light difference caused by proximity, which proportial to field strength decreases the distance of everything for the field strength. This causes the spin of the earth or other mass to move quicker farther away from the greatest other field influence and thus orbit the sun or larger mass. The closest parts of the bodies have smaller distances because of larger total fields and thus slower speeds of light. These fields are generated by closed field lines of vortices and largely matter. Matter does not move as energy because the speed of light is 0 in the field of the vortex due to infinite field strength within the closed field. The more mass in proximity something has the greater the field strength and the shorter the distances, which causes larger groups of subatomic particles to individually have smaller sizes.

The total field energy in the universe is exactly 0, but particle and energy forms of vortices divide the energy inside and outside the vortex boundary. When particles are destroyed no energy is released. No energy was produced when large amounts of matter was destroyed at MIT with accelerated natreum atoms. This is what Tesla predicted but contradicts Einstein’s E=MC^2. Einstein’s equation is correct as long as the number of subatomic particles is only divided, energy comes from mass defect, not from destruction.

There are kinds of waves. EM which are fields, scalar electric or eddy currents or magnetic vortex which Tesla started with, and magnetic scalar or the potential vortex which Meyl focuses on and is used in nature. EM is fixed at the speed of light at that specific closed field strength. Scalar vortices can be any speed. Neutrinos travel at 1.6c or higher and do not decay to EM. Tesla type scalar are between c and 1.6c and decay at distances proportial to their speed(used in traditional radio near-field). Under the speed c, the scalar vortex acts as an electron.

Black holes may produce and emit neutrinos by condensing and transforming matter into massive fast particles with apparently no mass or charge due to their very high frequency of fluctuation. Neutrinos oscillate in mass and charge. When neutrinos hit matter and have a precise charge or mass they produce one of 3 effects: a gain in mass, a production of EM, or emission of slower neutrinos.

Resonance requires the same frequency, same modulation, and opposite phase angle. Once (scalar)resonance is reached, a direct connection is created from the transmitter to the receiver. Signal and power will pass through a faraday cage.

My notes . . .


I don't know whether all of the above comes from the highlights of the interview, or whether this blogger has added his own knowledge to the blog post. The blogger apparently has his own theory, which is referenced in his notes at the end.
edit on 12/06/13 by Mary Rose because: Add a space
edit on 12/06/13 by Mary Rose because: Add a space
edit on 12/06/13 by Mary Rose because: Capitalization
edit on 12/06/13 by Mary Rose because: Change URL



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Mary Rose
  • The traditional, transverse electromagnetic wave (Hertz)
  • Electric longitudinal wave (Tesla)
  • Magnetic longitudinal wave (Meyl)



  • There are kinds of waves. EM which are fields, scalar electric or eddy currents or magnetic vortex which Tesla started with, and magnetic scalar or the potential vortex which Meyl focuses on and is used in nature.


    Are those two saying exactly the same thing, or not?

    Mark Zive seems to be saying:

    • EM waves/fields
    • Scalar electric/eddy currents (Tesla)
    • Magnetic vortex (Tesla)
    • Magnetic scalar/potential vortex/used in nature (Meyl)



    posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 07:36 AM
    link   



    posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 07:40 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Mary Rose
     

    Who are you asking? Most of the responses in this thread by people that know what they're talking about seem to agree that Meyl doesn't (know what he's talking about).

    As for Mark Zive, I followed this link:


    Mary Rose
    Regarding Meyl's unified theory, here is a technology blog post by blogger Mark Zive, "Unified Field Theory Developed by German Professor Meyl."
    I didn't see what is referenced there but the first post is titled:

    "Plants React to Physical Contact and Human Intent Confirmed on Mythbusters"

    This demonstrates that Zive isn't the brightest bulb either when he says "other explanations are unknown".


    An original polygraph machine which is hooked up to a plant to measures conductivity showed electrical reactions to 2 types of actions. Electronics were kept outside of a shipping container to block EM waves. One action was physical contact by hand or fire extinguisher blast. The other was intent to harm the plant without physical contact. Both showed electrical reaction consistent with a reaction from the plant and other explanations are unknown.
    On the contrary, polygraph measures conductivity and it is known that conductivity changes with temperature (which is affected by spraying with a fire extinguisher), as shown in this resistivity versus temperature graph for copper (resistivity is the inverse of conductivity so it would be the same graph sort of flipped upside down so to speak):



    Zive tries to imply that there is something special abut this "reaction" but if you hooked up the polygraph up to a copper wire and sprayed that with a fire extinguisher, it would also "react" depending on how you define the term "react".

    Mary if your true intention is to learn the ultimate truth, you are not going to learn it from people that don't know what they're talking about. I'm familiar with lots of experiments and I've done quite a few myself, and I while I can't guarantee that every single thing bedlam, mbkennel, ErosA433, dragonridr, and other knowledgeable people who have posted here say is true, I can say their batting average in being consistent with experiments is more than a thousand times greater than the cranks you find who don't seem to know what they're talking about because their claims are inconsistent with experiment. Of course I don't blame Zive entirely for this oversight because the mythbusters guys aren't the brightest bulbs either but I still watch their show sometimes and find it entertaining because they like to blow stuff up which is usually fun as long as nobody gets hurt and they are pretty safety conscious. But their lack of education also shows in the way they design some of their experiments...however they are not nor do they claim to be scientists...they are producing entertainment, and at that they are successful because I find it entertaining, even if sometimes, it's wrong.

    So the stoners who watched that episode and now feel guilty about mowing their lawn, really don't have to feel that way.
    edit on 6-12-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



    posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 07:43 AM
    link   

    Arbitrageur
    Who are you asking?


    I'm asking everybody.

    Put yourself on record.



    posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 09:27 AM
    link   

    Mary Rose

    Arbitrageur
    Who are you asking?


    I'm asking everybody.

    Put yourself on record.


    Everyone has and there telling you this guy is a quack. Did you know his own university released a statement involving his theory? They issued a press release disavowing his theory and actually made it clear his theory would not be taught at the university. If this guy had a unified field theory like he claims the university would be nuts to not take advantage of that. It would be like having Albert Einstein on your campus princeton still brags to this day.As i looked around his reviews are no better and it seems inconsistent in his theory. Hes trying to make money with a theory that im afraid makes no sense.

    Now in the future i want to tell you if you see someone talking scalar waves discovered by Tesla or Tesla waves your being scamed. Most people dont understand what Tesla was playing with so let me explain it to you. Ok if run electricity through a wire we generate an electromagnetic field. You know an example of this its called radio.Now what Tesla learned was that you can pick up this EM field at a distance and found by grounding the reciever actually transfer power. This is called Resonant inductive coupling its not a mystery there are no magical waves involved. In fact you may not be aware of this but they use this in pacemakers so they dont need to change batteries. This is why in some respects Tesla was also an idiot he was ahead of Marconi but he didnt realize he invented radio. If he removed the ground and attached a speaker instead you have a radio. So see there was no magic there no hidden technology from Tesla we fully understand how he was transferring power. It just looked like magic to people back then when he lit up a bulb with no wires.

    His trick of lighting up a bulb with no apparent power source got people convinced he was taping in to some secret energy somewhere. He wasnt he was broadcasting it as i said things havnt changed much today either. If someone tries to play off the mysticism of Tesla there scamming you.



    posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 09:35 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Mary Rose
     


    Mary Rose
    Are those two saying exactly the same thing, or not?
    The first one says nothing about vortices, the second one does so obviously they can't be saying exactly the same thing. My bigger point was, there are more productive things to do than to try to make sense out of nonsense.

    bedlam, dragonridr and mbkennel have already addressed many inconsistencies of these types of claims and I'm in agreement with most of what they said, the only exceptions would be that they tried to dumb it down for low level consumption when there are esoteric exceptions. mbkennel even pointed out one of these exceptions that longitudinal waves can occur in a plasma because there is a medium to conduct them. The problem is with claims of longitudinal waves in a vacuum and with vortices. both longitudinal waves and vortices exist, but probably not in the contexts being referenced or if so, where are the experiments demonstrating them? As already said, Tesla and Meyl had ideas that were inconsistent with experiment and apparently so does blogger Zive.



    posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 06:41 AM
    link   

    Mary Rose
    . . . researchers seeking to verify Tesla's longitudinal/scalar wave.


    See "Scalar Waves"



    posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 12:05 AM
    link   
    From the description of one of the vids on the first page...


    He detected that every vortex has a counterpart, a so-called potential vortex, being able to form matter. He shows that electrons, protons, neutrinos etc. are double vortexes, without needing a postulate.


    That's Edward Leedskalnin's Magnetic Current!




    Now I will tell you what magnetic current is. Magnetic current is the same as electric current is a wrong expression. Really it is not one current, they are two currents, one current is composed of North Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams and the other is composed of South Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams, and they are running one stream against the other stream in whirling, screwlike fashion, and with high speed. One current alone if it be North Pole magnet current or South Pole magnet current it cannot run alone. To run one current will have to run against the other.


    www.leedskalnin.com



    posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 08:17 AM
    link   
    reply to post by The Cusp
     

    Apparently the only thing preventing you from getting a Nobel prize is the fact you can't prove there's any such thing as "North Pole individual magnets". Nobody has been able to prove such a thing even exists. So this poses a great difficulty with the passage you quoted.

    Leedskalnin had no shortage of wrong ideas, like thinking magnetism held the moon in orbit instead of gravity. If Leedskalnin wrote about invisible dragons, or flying spaghetti monsters, would you believe those too?

    There's no evidence for magnetic monopoles or invisible dragons, so I don't see why people believe in either one (though there are pretenders).



    posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 08:48 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Arbitrageur
     


    A rose by any other name...

    No matter what he called it, what he was attempting to describe does sound very similar to these binary vortex systems. He may have been off in his description, but he still knew enough to use it.



    posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 08:52 AM
    link   

    The Cusp
    No matter what he called it, what he was attempting to describe does sound very similar to these binary vortex systems.
    What binary vortex systems?



    posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:08 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Arbitrageur
     


    Again, from the fist page...


    He detected that every vortex has a counterpart, a so-called potential vortex, being able to form matter. He shows that electrons, protons, neutrinos etc. are double vortexes, without needing a postulate.


    Every vortex has an inverted counterpart. It's commonly used in industrial heating and cooling systems, heat goes one way, cold goes the other.



    posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 11:37 AM
    link   
    reply to post by The Cusp
     

    A real vortex forms when you drain a sink full of water, or in a tornado. I haven't seen any discussion of real vortices in this thread. Are you continuing the pseudo-babble by throwing that word around without having any peer-reviewed scientific evidence for what you're talking about? I didn't see any evidence earlier in the thread so referring there doesn't help. Vortex is a popular buzzword for pseudoscience cranks to throw around without understanding what it really is, like "quantum", "frequency", "vibration".



    posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 11:47 AM
    link   

    Arbitrageur
    reply to post by The Cusp
     

    A real vortex forms when you drain a sink full of water, or in a tornado. I haven't seen any discussion of real vortices in this thread. Are you continuing the pseudo-babble by throwing that word around without having any peer-reviewed scientific evidence for what you're talking about? I didn't see any evidence earlier in the thread so referring there doesn't help. Vortex is a popular buzzword for pseudoscience cranks to throw around without understanding what it really is, like "quantum", "frequency", "vibration".


    arbitrageur...isn't a black hole a vortex on a grand scale?



    posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 12:36 PM
    link   
    reply to post by jimmyx
     

    It depends. If there's something going into the black hole, vortices can form from as a result of incoming matter, but the supermassive black hole at the center of the milky way hasn't had anything going into it until lately. We are going to watch the gas cloud it's pulling in and see what happens. Maybe a vortex will form, but before that happens, I'm not aware of us having observed any vortex around it. We've observed stars in very tight orbits around it but they don't look like evidence of vortices that I know of, just elliptical orbits.

    And there's no black hole in my heating or air conditioner that I know of, so I have no idea why those were brought up in a vortex discussion.

    Here's an artist's conception of a black hole sucking in stars, planets, and spaceships in a vortex:



    Rodin claims there's a black hole at the center of a Rodin coil but I've seen people pass their hands through the center of the coil without any of the effects in the above graphic. You'd think if light can't even escape a black hole, a hand moving much slower wouldn't have a chance. But it's just another case of people claiming vortices where they don't exist, in that case because of a claim of a black hole where none exists.
    edit on 10-12-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



    posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:33 PM
    link   

    Arbitrageur
    reply to post by The Cusp
     

    A real vortex forms when you drain a sink full of water, or in a tornado. I haven't seen any discussion of real vortices in this thread. Are you continuing the pseudo-babble by throwing that word around without having any peer-reviewed scientific evidence for what you're talking about? I didn't see any evidence earlier in the thread so referring there doesn't help. Vortex is a popular buzzword for pseudoscience cranks to throw around without understanding what it really is, like "quantum", "frequency", "vibration".


    Ugh, you're trying too hard.

    en.wikipedia.org...

    The counter vortex in your sink that you're not seeing is made of air coming up while the water goes down.



    posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 06:40 PM
    link   
    reply to post by The Cusp
     

    You're not trying hard enough.

    You post a link to some random explanation of a vortex that has absolutely no relation to the claims you're making. If you had said vortices exist in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube, I wouldn't be questioning you about what you're talking about.

    I already admitted vortices existed in particular situations. I'm accusing you and others who are into woo of making some up that don't exist or at least have never been documented that I know of. You still haven't provided any documentation of the fictitious vortices.



    posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 08:35 PM
    link   
    Eddy currents exist in specific situations
    and they are not vortexes in any way shape or form,
    why would a circulating current in a medium form vortices.
    I think the german professor is using wrong words.



      exclusive video


    new topics
     
    7
    << 4  5  6   >>

    log in

    join