Tesla's Radiant Energy

First, the ether/aether was not falsified by Michelson-Morley, as mainstream science claims. One source for this: "Michelson-Morley & the Story of the Aether Theory" by Richard Milton.

Basically, Tesla's radiant energy is the ether.

Gerry Vassilatos is a science teacher who had the motivation and the patience to thoroughly research Tesla's work and write about it. The first chapter of his book Secrets of Cold War Technology, "Nikola Tesla and Radiant Energy," outlines the history of Tesla's experiments related to the ether. The beginning of the story is Tesla's work replicating Hertz's experiment and coming to a different conclusion than Hertz did because Hertz had not taken into consideration the effect that air had on what he was doing. Source: keychests.com...

Eric Dollard is an electrical engineer who is a Tesla expert. Peter Lindemann talked about Eric's work replicating Tesla in a presentation given to a private audience in 2000 but recorded and put on DVD entitled The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity. Here is a screenshot from the DVD showing a photo taken in 1986 of Eric's result replicating Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter:



A closeup:



That is what radiant energy looks like.

That close-up image is playing with my eyes! its radiating!

Funny how high energy seems to always form like roots or branches. Even the nerves in our body form that way. Same with blood vessels.

It must be a shape that is associated with an energy signature of some kind. Growth follows the path of the energy signature..

Even our hair looks like that under a microscope, yet we cut it off and it never develops right.

reply to post by rickymouse


Possibly Fractals?

rickymouse
Funny how high energy seems to always form like roots or branches. Even the nerves in our body form that way. Same with blood vessels.

It must be a shape that is associated with an energy signature of some kind. Growth follows the path of the energy signature..

Even our hair looks like that under a microscope, yet we cut it off and it never develops right.

edit on 24-1-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

Plants do the same thing. Their roots go down like lightning does when it comes down. And the branches go up as if lightning reversed. It could be that plants themselves follow along radiant energy pathways. Our nervous and circulatory system also mimic similar patterns. We could be collectors of this radiant energy ourselves. We have a type of electro-magnetic harmonic to us and our brains give off certain frequencies as well.

This radiant energy might truly be everywhere around us, and the entire universe could actually be electrified.

reply to post by Fromabove


Lightning fixates nitrogen making it available. Maybe nitrogen use in the tree has something to do with this. In the human body, nitrogen compounds expand bloodvessels and they form like tree roots and lightning. Also, nitrogen is needed by the nervous system for proper growth and utilization.

I don't think this is a coincidence myself. What it means, I don't know though.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Sounds just about right. I watched a small part of the movie. I have to watch the rest now Somehow I feel that copper has something to do with this. Maybe other ions of metals in the air and environment are also involved. Copper is one of the things that is necessary for blood vessel and neuronal growth. Too much is a problem in our bodies as is not enough. I bet that this is the same with everyting.

Fromabove
This radiant energy might truly be everywhere around us, and the entire universe could actually be electrified.

I have been listening to what the Thunderbolts Project says about the Electric Universe and comparing it to what free energy/Tesla researchers say about the ether. I've never heard the Thunderbolts Project talk about the ether. I wish they would.

It seems that Tesla's electricity that he discovered later, after he had lost interest in his polyphase alternating current, has nothing to do with magnetism, and the waves are longitudinal rather than transverse. I would like to hear how that fits in with Electric Universe theory.

Mary Rose
The first chapter of his book Secrets of Cold War Technology, "Nikola Tesla and Radiant Energy," outlines the history of Tesla's experiments related to the ether.

From that chapter:

Every professional Tesla aficionado secretly knows that Tesla electrical energies were more like luminous beams of gaseous light than radiowaves or electrified particles.

rickymouse
Funny how high energy seems to always form like roots or branches. Even the nerves in our body form that way. Same with blood vessels.

It must be a shape that is associated with an energy signature of some kind. Growth follows the path of the energy signature..

Even our hair looks like that under a microscope, yet we cut it off and it never develops right.

edit on 24-1-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

Tree of Life.

God Bless,

Mary Rose
From that chapter . . .

Another quote:

What Mr. Dollard has successfully demonstrated is the absolute separation between Tesla's Polyphase period and the Impulse Technology which explains his fifty years of experiments conducted until his passing.

. . . Impulse Technology . . .

I had not heard the term "Impulse Technology" before.

It's not in the dictionary, but googling it, I see there are companies that use the term in the name of the company.

However, it looks like they're Information Technology companies.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Pardon the off-topic question: Is the PBS series "NOVA" simply a reference to the word "nova," as in a star that suddenly becomes much brighter and then gradually returns to its original brightness over a period of weeks to years, or is it supposed to be an acronym?

Mary Rose

Fromabove
This radiant energy might truly be everywhere around us, and the entire universe could actually be electrified.

I have been listening to what the Thunderbolts Project says about the Electric Universe and comparing it to what free energy/Tesla researchers say about the ether. I've never heard the Thunderbolts Project talk about the ether. I wish they would.

It seems that Tesla's electricity that he discovered later, after he had lost interest in his polyphase alternating current, has nothing to do with magnetism, and the waves are longitudinal rather than transverse. I would like to hear how that fits in with Electric Universe theory.

I think the aether, as it was actually called, isn't a substance in and of itself but rather the static electric field pulling on all bodies of matter no matter how large or small. I don't believe in gravity but energy. I don't think gravity holds matter together but rather energy does. The electric field, static or otherwise. Space, I don't think is curved as relativity states but that it is either more or less charged.

It may be, that the whole universe is nothing more than energy, and either positively or negatively charged. Even atoms arrange themselves into molecules based on their polarity. It is amazing to say the least. Imagine if the idea of gravity as only a misconception of what the universe really is. Electrified with the vacuum of space serving as the dielectric.

Fromabove
I think the aether, as it was actually called, isn't a substance in and of itself but rather the static electric field pulling on all bodies of matter no matter how large or small.

Could it be that it's pushing rather than pulling?

I've been reading that gravity is really the aether and that it pushes rather than pulls.

Fromabove
Imagine if the idea of gravity as only a misconception of what the universe really is. Electrified with the vacuum of space serving as the dielectric.

I have a very hard time with that term "dielectric." I have to keep looking it up in the dictionary over and over again.

What does it mean in the context of how you've used it?

f0xbat
That close-up image is playing with my eyes! its radiating!

Just like a tree.

In fact similar to mri scans of the brain and certain images of the universe.

Do you think they see yet.

Mary Rose

Fromabove
I think the aether, as it was actually called, isn't a substance in and of itself but rather the static electric field pulling on all bodies of matter no matter how large or small.

Could it be that it's pushing rather than pulling?

I've been reading that gravity is really the aether and that it pushes rather than pulls.

Fromabove
Imagine if the idea of gravity as only a misconception of what the universe really is. Electrified with the vacuum of space serving as the dielectric.

I have a very hard time with that term "dielectric." I have to keep looking it up in the dictionary over and over again.

What does it mean in the context of how you've used it?

In the local sense, the dielectric helps to separate positive from negative charges of electricity. It's an insulator and causes an imbalance in the flow of energy. In a universal sense, it would insulate to a point, the electric field of the earth from other bodies and so on even to a galactic scale. Opposites attract, so the moon having a different charge than the earth would be attracted to the earth, yet it's speed would keep it in transit so that it doesn't come closer nor fall away.

Galaxies would do the same. Opposites would attract to each other and collide, others would just pass on by. I'm not sure if they've studied that yet as most subscribe to the gravity theory.

On the dielectric, a capacitor is a good example. Only in the universe, it is what we call the vacuum of space, even though there is a slight balanced electric field in it all the time from all of the matter around us.

Another avid Tesla researcher is William Lyne, author of Occult Ether Physics.

In Chapter Five, there is a section "Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity." In it Lyne says that Tesla announced that he had made two far reaching discoveries in his life in a lecture that he gave in 1938, less than five years before his death.

Quoting Lyne:

The “two great discoveries” to which Tesla referred, were:

1. The Dynamic Theory of Gravity - which assumed a field of force which accounts for the motions of bodies in space; assumption of this field of force dispenses with the concept of space curvature (ala Einstein); the ether has an indispensable function in the phenomena (of universal gravity, inertia, momentum, and movement of heavenly bodies, as well as all atomic and molecular matter); and,
2. Environmental Energy - the Discovery of a new physical Truth: there is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Isn't it hilarious that science can say there's gravity. But they just can't tell you what gravity is.

reply to post by Fromabove


Here is what The American Heritage Science Dictionary says:

gravity

The fundamental force of attraction that all objects with mass have for each other. Like the electromagnetic force, gravity has effectively infinite range and obeys the inverse-square law. At the atomic level, where masses are very small, the force of gravity is negligible, but for objects that have very large masses such as planets, stars, and galaxies, gravity is a predominant force, and it plays an important role in theories of the structure of the universe. Gravity is believed to be mediated by the graviton, although the graviton has yet to be isolated by experiment. Gravity is weaker than the strong force, the electromagnetic force, and the weak force. Also called gravitation.

A Closer Look

With his law of universal gravitation, Sir Isaac Newton described gravity as the mutual attraction between any two bodies in the universe. He developed an equation describing an instantaneous gravitational effect that any two objects, no matter how far apart or how small, exert on each other. These effects diminish as the distance between the objects gets larger and as the masses of the objects get smaller. His theory explained both the trajectory of a falling apple and the motion of the planets—hitherto completely unconnected phenomena—using the same equations. Albert Einstein developed the first revision of these ideas. Einstein needed to extend his theory of Special Relativity to be able to understand cases in which bodies were subject to forces and acceleration, as in the case of gravity. According to Special Relativity, however, the instantaneous gravitational effects in Newton's theory would not be possible, for to act instantaneously, gravity would have to travel at infinite velocities, faster than the speed of light, the upper limit of velocity in Special Relativity. To overcome these inconsistencies, Einstein developed the theory of General Relativity, which connected gravity, mass, and acceleration in a new manner. Imagine, he said, an astronaut standing in a stationary rocket on the Earth. Because of the Earth's gravity, his feet are pressed against the rocket's floor with a force equal to his weight. Now imagine him in the same rocket, this time accelerating in outer space, far from any significant gravity. The accelerating rocket pushing against his feet creates a force indistinguishable from that of a gravitational field. Developing this principle of equivalence, Einstein showed that mass itself forms curves in space and time and that the effects of gravity are related to the trajectories taken by objects—even objects without mass, such as light. Whether gravity can be united with the other fundamental forces understood in quantum mechanics remains unclear.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

I don't believe mass attracts mass. Intuitively, it doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think planets formed because mass attracts mass.

There's no such thing as a graviton. I think the idea is ridiculous. The terms "strong force" and "weak force" are also kind of comical, I think.

Isn't it possible for math to work but the theory behind it to be wrong?

Lyne writes:

The Cause of the Apparent “Inverse Square” Law of Gravity?

As earth spins, the surface velocity— and the atmospheric velocity with it—at any point varies according to its distance from the earth’s axis. An object sitting at sea level moves slower than a body on top Mt. Everest. The voltage potential between the atmospheric gases at higher altitude and the ionosphere is lower, but the voltage potential between the atmosphere and the surface of Mt. Everest is higher, which, along with lower air pressure explains the increased coronal discharges on mountain tops.

The differences in these electrical potentials illustrates why there are differences in relative displacement of the ether within both earth’s “gravity field” and within bodies moving within that field, with a degree of displacement which is directly proportional to difference in so-called “gravitational force” and the dielectric strain.

This comparison suggests that a body at a higher altitude and velocity has a lower gravity because the electric field has a lower displacing influence on the ether . This is pertinent to electropropulsion because we must diminish, reverse, magnify and otherwise control this displacement in order to instantly synthesize and control inertia, momentum, and “gravity”. This displacement influences the momentum because it affects the vibrating microhelical tubules and the way they “bore” through etheric space. “Gravity” appears to be a product of the resistance to a change in ether displacement. The reason why a moving sphere when charged experiences an increase in its “virtual mass”— that is, an increase in the work required to move it, but not an increase in its gravity— is because the “Faraday cage” effect of the increased charges tends to increase the resistance to the movement of the mass through the ether, apparently effected by the negative surface charges on the sphere.

Lyne, William (2012-04-09). OCCULT ETHER PHYSICS: Tesla's "Ideal Flying Machine" and the Conspiracy to Conceal It. Creatopia/Wm. Lyne. Kindle Edition.

And I agree with you that space does not curve.