A rebuttal of the notion that the great electrical engineers of our history and their formulae and experiments are outdated, obsolete or are in any way invalidated by contemporary scientific theories. – A brief exposé of quantum mechanics’ critical errors.
I’ve been accused of being intentionally reductive in my scientific reasoning, with implications this is not a productive pursuit. I prefer the term retroductive myself, theoria apophasis, and find it a near infallible method of logical deduction, personally. I’ve been told i listen to the ‘wrong kinds of scientists’, with implications that people of the past, specifically the great minds of electrical theory and engineering who paved the way for all the technology we have today, somehow have little to no bearing in our modern era, and are overshadowed by these radical new quantum theories of the insane atomistic relativists. Atomism was destroyed by the Greeks thousands of years ago but since then it has reared it’s ugly head again. My intention is to vindicate these men and dispel the illusion that they couldn’t possibly have debunked our modern theories long before they came about.
“Tesla? That was almost 100 years ago, times change. It’s all about Neil Tyson and Richard Feynman now”
Yes times change, but truth is immutable. ‘The caveman’ who discovered fire isn’t an idiot because he is our ancestor when such knowledge will always have practical applications and an observable basis in reality. If anyone is at fault for perpetuating wild, hypothetical, speculative, over-imaginative, logically absurd theoretical conjecture and who fails to deliver empirical evidence of their claims it is The Cult of Quantum. If you think you’re smarter than Tesla show me your tons of patents revolutionizing the world’s electrical grid. No? Didn’t think so.
There is a crisis in cosmology today. (PRELIMINARY ARTICLE, PLEASE READ AND WATCH DOCUMENTARY)
Moreover, these over popularized fallacies of quantum mechanics repeatedly fail to concede to their scrutiny, despite having been debunked so long ago by these minds the majority consensus has chosen to mostly overlook and dismiss, even given their accomplishments.
Instead, a foolish and malicious agenda in our scientific industry seemingly unfolds as they constantly refuse to admit their mistakes, let alone adequately address the scrutiny that has been gathering dust in the libraries for over a hundred years. The reprecussions are that we ALL lie in their wake on their denial, holding ourselves back from advancements that should have already been achieved. And, who’s to say they haven’t been and we just haven’t been told, but i digress.
It is unfortunate for us that corporate greed and self interest impeded those who were ahead of their time, suppressed and resisted them, but sooner or later society always catches up. One major point i want to put forth is that these people are STILL ahead of their time, but in our current arrogance we have not the vision or humility to see or accept it. If not for the pioneers outlined in this article, you wouldn’t even be reading it right now.
Eric Dollard. The only man known to be able to accurately reproduce many of Tesla’s experiments with Radiant Energy and wireless transmission of power. This is because he understands that conventional electrical theory only includes half of the story.
Watch this video below, and maybe you will learn something!
James Clerk Maxwell. Gave us the rudiments, field equations over time variables. His work is taken grossly out of context by modern quantum.
Michael Faraday. Gave us the principles underlying electromagnetic induction, diamagnetism and electrolysis. Also helped coined the term ‘dielectric’.
Oliver Heaviside. Gave us the coaxial cable, and the TRUE understanding of light.
Charles Proteus Steinmetz. The smartest genius you never heard about.
Nikola Tesla. The smartest genius you have heard about.
Oleg Jefimenko. Numerous PHDs, master of electromagnetic theorem.
Walter Russell. Expanded on and unified much of the works before him.
I suppose i should give an honourable mention to that slimey cretin Edison, as i do believe in giving credit where it is due.
Moving swiftly on, each of these individuals have a piece of a very significant puzzle pivotal to humanity’s advancement in understanding our natural world. Together, i propose actually not far off from The Grand Unified Theory. If this was the case, such a conspiracy to withold this revelation (for whatever reason, perhaps stalled for the ‘right time’) isn’t entirely implausible, and worth some consideration. Assumptions mean nothing. Implications are everything. Truth reveals truth reveal truth, it doesn’t just stop. If it does that is human error alone. Everything connects.
“Too bad, Sir Isaac, they dimmed your renown and turned your great science upside down. Now a long haired crank, Einstein by name, puts on your high teaching all the blame. (he) Says: matter and force are transmutable and wrong the laws you thought immutable. I am much too ignorant, my son, for grasping (crazy) schemes so finely spun.” – N. Tesla (Fragments of Olympian Gossip. by Nikola Tesla regarding Einstein)
Einstein and his ilk reified space as ‘something’ that ‘did things’ and ‘acted upon things’. This is the fallacy of attribute reification, and is a titanic error of thought and theory. Einstein has blamed the flies (forces) on the horse feces (space), completely ignoring the horse (fields) entirely. This brain wasting idiocy can and must come to an end given time and intelligent minds to see clearly. Nobody who has ever lived has seen space ‘do’ anything.
Einstein was once asked what it was like to be the smartest man alive, he replied “I don’t know. You’ll have to ask Nikola Tesla” – Ok, I’ll do that.
“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
The history of science shows that theories are perishable. With every new truth that is revealed we get a better understanding of Nature and our conceptions and views are modified. There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine.
Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter – for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way.
The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence. If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” – N. Tesla
You may wish to read that again as for most people it goes in one ear and out the other. This really encapsulates the essence of the motive for this article. I wish to rectify this ludicrous mentality that plagues modern science. Fortunately for me, all the work has already been done, the issue is trying to bring it to light.
“It is a difficult thing to do, to give unlimited energy to limited minds” – N. Tesla
It is time we shatter this farcical paradigm of modern quantum by absorbing only what is useful and rejecting what is useless (the majority, which contradicts current electrical theory). This involves moving The Ego out of the way, we must humble ourselves and admit that we’ve spun a long road for ourselves for a long time which had no relevance to reality whatsoever, and we must not be ashamed to turn back and start again on a sensible route of understanding that actually does have empirical standing and a tangible basis in reality.
“The notion exists that the electro-motive force, E.M.F. in volts, is established by “cutting” lines of magnetic induction via a so called electric conductor. This “cutting” is then said to impel the motions of so-called electrons within the conducting material. It is however that a perfect conductor cannot “cut” through lines of induction, or flux lines, Phi. Heaviside points out that the perfect conductor is a perfect obstructer and magnetic induction cannot gain entry into the so-called conducting material. So where is the current, how then does an E.M.F. come about? Now enters the complication; it can be inferred that an electrical generator that is wound with a perfect conducting material cannot produce an E.M.F. No lines of flux can be cut and the Ether gets wound up in a knot. Heaviside remarks that the practitioners of his day “do a good deal of churning up the Ether in their dynamos”. – E. Dollard
You cannot say that stretching a trillion rubber bands nailed to the floor and releasing them or breaking their “force lines” is the “flow of electrons”; discharge is a terminal movement in systems of inductance or dielectric capacitance.
There are no discrete particles in the universe and certainly none that mediate charges, discharges, magnetism, electromagnetism, gravity, and radiation, only fields, all modalities of the Ether. The so-called ‘electrons’ are not particles, not objects or subjects but are the dynamic principle of discharge, and are certainly not charge-carriers, fields are not particles, are not “electrons”, nor assuredly are there energy discharges in the vacuum of space involving ‘electrons’; the ‘electron’ is a fiction of fallacious observation and an even more faulty mental acuity, spawned naturally from the minds of materialists, or an Atomist. Electricity is Ether in a state of dynamic polarization; magnetism is Ether in a state of dynamic circular polarization upon itself, is the radiative termination of electrical discharge; dielectricity is the Ether under stress or strain. The motions and strains of the Ether give rise to electrification. Phi times Psi gives Q; ‘electrons’ do not mediate these electrical and magnetic forces or their likewise the Ether fields.
There are no electrons, negative charges, special-dimensions, warped space (resoundingly denied by Tesla and others), and no photons; only charge, induction and radiation/discharges and their relational spins, all as mediated through the Ether. Quantum and Relativity is a quack religion of mathematical physics based upon the absurd premise that the universe is a giant sea of interactive massless tiny invisible beads and that space itself, nothing, mediates interactions and can be genuinely ‘warped’. Such conceptual Atomistic reifications as amplified by GR (Relativity) cannot be enjoined, and the only genuine warping occurring is not out in the cosmos of space, but in the empty spaces between the ears of those who reify such absurdities; warped minds rationally would invent warped space; its purely logical in its insanity that the former produce the later. One must move away from the (rehashed) atomistic fallacies of the cult of quantum that propose the universe is a big bag of particles bumping into each other. Mother Nature is not a cross-eyed crack whore with a calculator processing some mathematically ineffable chaos. On the contrary, nature is simple and works of simplex pressure gradient meditations. Everything in the universe is fields fundamentally and fields are nor particles, they can not be quantified because they are incommensurable. This is why modern science has never defined a field. They can’t and won’t.
“JJ Thomson developed the “Ether Atom” ideas of M. Faraday into his “Electronic Corpuscle”, this indivisible unit. One corpuscle terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not and electron, it is a constituent of what today is known incorrectly as an “electron”. (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W. Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether.” – E. Dollard
Space has only one dimension, space, which is a metrical dimension. The use of cubic notation is habit-based, any number of coordinates in any number of geometries can serve to define the boundaries of space. Nature is not governed by the irrational pontifications of GR and QM, rather it is governed by mutually interactive reciprocal conjugates of charges-discharges, centripetalcentrifugal movements, both spatial and counterspatial. Instantaneous action at a distance, and fields are all Ether modality mediations as propagated by counterspace-in-disturbance, the Ether, its pressure gradients and perturbations. No other mediator can be logically hypothesized, much less theorized. The very same Ether of Tesla, Heaviside, C.P. Steinmetz, and even originally from Einstein before logic fled his mind completely, was correct and remains so. Tesla outright denied our current definition of the electron as a ‘discharge particle’.
All electrons are a motional terminus of a quantity of dielectric pressure gradients of force (as reified by the incorrect understanding of the definition of a ‘field’), these pressure gradients, or “lines” are contracting and stretching like rubber bands, giving motion to the terminus ‘electron’. The thermionic ‘electron’ contracts, pulling the ‘electron’, the cathode ray stretching, pulled by the ‘electron’. In the former case the lines of force are dissipated, in the latter case the line of force are projected, in both cases these so called ‘electrons’ assume radial motions, with non participating pressure gradients, or forces filling the ‘voids’, directing the ‘electrons’. Hence, it is the so-called ‘electrons’ (dielectric radial discharges) that travel in straight lines, that is, radially. ‘Electrons’ have nothing to do with the flow of electricity; the so-called ‘electrons’ are the rate at which electricity is destroyed. ‘Electrons’ are in fact the resistance. From extensive experimental work into atomic electrical science by J. J. Thompson, and Nikola Tesla, it is established that the so-called electron is only a shadow; its apparent-only physical mass is merely an electrical momentum (ejected by the dielectric inertia in disturbance). There is no rest mass to an electron nor could there be logically, a rest-electron ‘bead’; such notions are absurd and evidence proven non-existent. The very premise is logically impossible and contradicts the rational physics of atomic charges and discharges.
The loss of inertia necessitates polarity. The rest point in the center is a result of pressure meditation. It is concentrated there because it is the inverse of space (force and motion) it is counter-space (inertia and acceleration). What we call a magnetic field is a reciprocating precessional hyperboloid resultant of a coherent dielectric object. The loss of inertia is magnetism, from this ‘loss’ of inertia, space is ‘created’, as well as the field (Ether)- in which the three components of the field, are always present. Those three components being, magnetism, electricity, and the dielectric plane.
I digress on the issue of electrons, but it’s just one of many examples that can be used to illustrate my points. I’ll cover this in more detail and satisfy your dependencies on calculations soon, don’t worry about that. I merely paste in some of my notes here intended for a more comprehensive article. For those who have been paying attention however, the tangible experimental observational proofs and the according calculations are published already. These are not my ideas, i only bring them to light again now in this most crucial time in humanity’s quest for understanding and truth. Arrogance is a blindfold, humility is enlightening.
I’ve been told by physicists that they don’t use the term field, it is ‘reudctive’ and would never be used in a scientific debate. Don’t you find that interesting?
I ask them very simply “How does one define a ‘Field’ necessitatively? And by that i mean, can you give me the absolute denotation of the quantification of a field in principle?” – As blunt, precise, and straight-forward as that question is, apparently it’s filled with jargon and makes no sense. So i simplify it down again to the best of my ‘reductive’ capabilities and put forth that I’m merely asking for the scientific definition of a field.
It seemed to me like a significant term to truly comprehend in our modern era on science. They use terms like magnetic field, gravitational field, electromagnetic field, quantum field… all these different types of ‘fields’ and yet asking these highly trained academics what a field actually is in principle is fascinating because you never get a straight answer, because they don’t know. I’m told that i must chose a type of field, and only then can they define what a field is. So for the sake of debate i chose ‘magnetic field’ which is a vague and inaccurate term in and of itself by the very denotation of a field, but for simplicity and communication i have to make these sacrifices.
Here is the definition i was offered: “It’s a region around an object or force when speaking of magnetism also when speaking of electro-magnetism.”
Oh i see, different fields define in different ways apparently. haha, how can you explain something or claim to understand it if you use the term itself to define itself to accommodate merely a description? Talk about a cop-out. If i had said gravitational field what do you think the response would be? Let me hazard a guess; “The region of space surrounding a body in which another body experiences a force of gravitational attraction”
Do you see the issue with this? It’s not just a scientific fallacy but a linguistic one also. Hypothetically if you knew nothing about animals and had never seen one before, and i introduced you to one cat a time, each a different breed, and i called them black cat, white cat, fuzzy cat, tabby cat, ginger cat etc. How long before you ask me what a cat actually is? Would you buy my explanation if i told you the word cat doesn’t mean anything by itself but is only applied when speaking of the attributes of a cat?
What is a ginger cat can be answered by “A cat which has the properties of ginger fur” but a child can tell you that, not only are these kind of definitions vague but they are purely descriptive not explanatory. The are NOT scientific denotations or quantifications. They tell you nothing.
If you do the sensible thing and gather up all these separate definitions you can reduce their understanding of a field to “A region of space” and nothing more. NOTHING could be further from the truth. Describing types of fields and defining them by their own attributes matched against the principle term itself is utter nonsense.
Understanding the truth of how all the technology around you works is to understand the secrets of nature. What’s inconceivable to most people is that our contemporary physicists don’t understand how all these things work. They understand them well enough to replicate a technology, and they seem to be somewhat capable of DESCRIBING what is occurring with that technology, but as far as explaining the fundamentals go, they mostly (the humble ones) admit to being clueless along with the rest of the scientific industry.
Anybody can follow a manual and build an electromagnet and give you a description of all the parts and what they do, but that tells you nothing fundamentally about what is actually occurring. Descriptions are not explanations. The technology of these electrical giants was swindled and consequently their true understanding lost.
What is Gravity? Light? Magnetism? Electricity? Dielectricity? Electromagnetism? What is A FIELD? Fundamentally in principle if you can not denote these things by a scientific explanation you have no right using them at all. They are not arbitrary concepts, and they ARE unified. There is no need for a unified field theory; all fields are already unified. What is not unified is human comprehension of the nature of field modalities in relationship to one another. It’s embarrassing i admit, but the irony softens the blow and it’s time to see reason and stop digging ourselves deeper into a hole of nonsense that bares no relevance to reality.
Modern science is biased by design, there is no incentive for debunking, in fact that would potentially interfere with the funding of your colleagues, let alone open yourself up to ridicule. The scientific industry is controlled just like all other information. The main method which this is accomplished is through the design of the system itself which psychologically and emotionally manipulates the individuals towards biased, un-scientific behavior. Peer reviewed circle jerks for example. I’ll give your paper the stamp of approval if you give one for mine. Nobody in their right mind would attempt to publish a paper discrediting Einstein’s bunk theories of relativity because of the backlash of repercussions and lack of funding you’ll receive for challenging the status quo. What we understand as the true and humble scientific method is NOT being implemented in modern society, get it out of your heads that the industry is receptive to new information and quick to admit their mistakes and invalidate their life’s work based on new evidence. It does not work that way,
QM and GR do not explain fields, they denied Tesla’s understanding of the universe even though the EM greats gave us all our technology, and Einstein gave us none of that. He knew jack about electromagnetism, his role was only to plug in the math to turn their bunk theories with bunk mathematics into bunk theories with accurate mathematics. Let me tell you friends, math is not reality. Not unless it actually has applicability first and foremost. If everything in nature worked in trinities for example, society would herald the mind who first thought up the equation 5 – 9 = -4, but scoff at the mind who said 1+2=3. In this scenario, while both sets of math are correct and work out within their own context, only one can be applied to nature with relevancy, and it would explain everything but be dismissed in it’s simplicity. That is the situation we have in my opinion.
Dark matter for another example, is simply QM’s attribute reification fallacy of inertia, the ether, counter-space. They must turn everything into a ‘particle’ otherwise it will not plug into their paradigms because it can not be quantified. Refer back to Tesla’s point about non-physical phenomena, frequency and vibration. Everything is fields, not particles. They are all one field, in truth. Gravity, dielectricty, magnetism, and electricity, are all simply just different attributes of how the reciprocating torus field moves and works.
Fields are not physical, they can not be ‘quantized’ and you can’t measure them in the way QM wants to understand everything, because not everything is phenomena, and not everything is within ‘space’. – They don’t even really understand space.. thanks to Einstein. Wave-particle duality was a false conclusion that we never let go of. I’ve covered that extensively already. The grand unified theory is simple, you just need to know what a field is, that is what unified all these seemingly separate forces… it’s the same thing. All fields are already unified.
Having said that, now you should be able to completely understand the responses i get from the physicists. They are clueless and battling with their own cognitive dissonance. They deny the intrinsic nature of a field, they deny the existence of the ether, and then propose the grand unified theory is so complex its beyond anyone.
We don’t understand what we ‘see’ because we have no real comprehension of the cosmic metaphysical reality, that compliments our physical ‘space’ we observe. We’re all like fish in an ocean, and sometimes we see bubbles in front us, and we say those bubbles are things, they exist and are physical.. but then sometimes we see them vanish, and we don’t really know why or how that is possible, but we know is has something to do with oxygen. Hmmmmm.
Fatal flaw for the fish, they have NO idea they are in an ocean, their comprehension of space is abstract and undefined. They don’t understand the ‘wholeness’ of the medium they exist within therefore they can never truly explain their observations, only describe them.
That’s modern science in a nutshell, for me anyway. Separating the field modalities and denying the ether is akin to saying steam, ice and water are all different things entirely and then denying the existence of the hydrous oxide molecule. Then they call those people who say “it’s all just water”, crazy loons.
In my next article I’ll focus on debunking the religion that is quantum quackery, specifically wave-particle duality and explaining in greater detail what a field actually is in principle.
Also, refer to: Debunking Relativity