Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

[Dennis Leahy]

It is extremely difficult not to fire back when you feel you have been attacked (actually, the credibility of your words has been attacked), but a "pissing contest" will only inflame emotional responses when what is called for is logic.

Adam, are you presenting something completely novel, or something that is a synthesis of others' work, or presenting others' work? Start there.

"I'm going to explain what Tesla meant by _______"

In your first post, you said:

For the last 10 years or so I have been involved in the researches and historic biography of several individuals involved in Electricity and free energy, including but not limited to the life of Nikola Tesla, Wilhelm Reich, Oliver Heaviside, Charles Proteus Steinmetz, Eric Dollard, Charles Wheatstone, Chris Carson, Kennely and James Clerk Maxwell and Faraday.

My work is really the sum total of a multitude of geniuses, and I take absolutely no credit for their work whatsoever. My work has broken me as a man, and challenged me as a soul, and I have the unfortunate duty of publishing my findings out to someone.

If you are explaining something novel that is the synthesis of the work of these people, maybe insert just enough info into each background piece of the concept (and its author) for a foundation for a monologue. We have to clearly see ALL of the pieces if you are revealing an assembled puzzle - especially if it is a novel concept where we cannot simply rely on the research of the sources and their explanations.

C'mon brother, I really want to hear you out. Take a deep breath, forget about fighting back, and use the energy to explain your concepts on a level - including the foundational constructs - so that us non-physicists can understand it. I'm guessing that this will also give the folks with physics training/knowledge a clear picture. Then, if they attack the concepts, there will be no nebulous dismissal of you and all you have said, but rather an opportunity to refine and refine the explanation of the sub-concept (smaller puzzle piece) that is misunderstood. Science is not belief, so your task is not to get them to believe you (or believe in you) but you need to help get those of us that are interested in learning enough so that we have a clear understanding.

I'm thinking that every "man of science" wants to be challenged and given the opportunity to prove the science or at least offer a theorem that appears to be the best current theorem.

Dennis

p.s. Thanks for the transcript!

[Gardener]

This is an awesome thread, thank you!
What I wanted to comment on was that mathemeticians, nay anyone, can do almost anything with numbers to make them fit a good idea, so yea I can go with they got the math wrong. Correct me if I am wrong but didnt Einstein make a fudge which later had to be removed when it was found his first idea was correct based on later discovries.
This forum is really on the sharp edge of lots of ideas many of which the monolith would like to expire, it therefore acts as a collection point where they can watch what 'folks like us' are on to. It therefore figures that there will be detractors, unable to change their functional fixedness.

Keep going please, the future is fluid, its a non linear universe, and we are due a quantum tunnel lol.

[Swan]

Hi Adam,

I have been following this thread since the beginning, although in all honesty I don´t understand alot.

I am reminded of a friend, and her partner who is IMO a creative genius. My point is - when I ask him about his latest theory, I do not understand. But when I ask my friend to explain it to me, I understand perfectly. He is an inventor, she is a talented communicator.

I am hoping there might be somebody who grasps your work, who could act as an intermediary.

[mosquito]

Agree with all the above - please keep posting Adam, and maybe follow Dennis's advice.

[SnowyOwl]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
OK, keep going, spill the beans. Give us all the info we need to produce working "free energy" devices. Right here, right now. Open source. The geniuses like Tesla did not understand the corrupt, self-serving nature of government in collusion with Big Energy. Sounds like you do understand this. Our only chance is someone putting the info on the Internet, open source.

Dennis

Salutations Dennis,

Back in the 80's at the UN I was destabilize by the stonewall of Power Forces of some Nations and the Narrow Path leading to tiny changes. A grain of sand put at the right place and at the right time can indeed jam all devices or achtechtonic systems.

I do have knowledge of many languages, both Occidental and Oriental and learning and studying these languages lead me to Ethymology, to the roots. Same goes with science my Friend, each fragments has his own language it a redux of Babel cf: Thoreau.

As an Humanitarian, a Public Health Officer, an Historian and a Communications ..... , as a Medicine Man and sometime Shaman I must share experience authenticity and I must be a vigil against any surge of speculation.

Here is how I teach sometimes;
The Micro World aka Science
The Mega World aka Monopoly

As Vortex Maths demonstrates Micro as Mega Realm is a endless close circuit and all confrontation to these are futile since over few centuries.

But what about the Meso Realm, that is the Realm of your own surrounding... That is the only Trail that leads to Perceptual, Pragmatic and Objective changes.

It took Tesla few decades to grasp this nuance, It is still not even acknowledge by European Americans. Ownership is a theft. Colonisation is a stealing act, PATENT is an GovernMental Admin process.

As for the Open Source option my Friend, b elieve me, there ain't no Open Source for Monopoly Rulers.

Transcendalists like those peoples who have humbly accept this reality are gems to be used personnaly and in one own surrounding.

The insatiable mind, the hungry ghost is always longing to adopt more and more concepts, notion, equations, etc...
But once you embrace pragmatism you progressively slide into the deductive MindSet.
Then a new Mind, Sky, unfold and a New ground work rise... and surprise, you come to realise that this new ground, this new earth, this new Noosphere as Thomas d'Aquin named, is the one left by our enlighted ancestors.

You certainly know the proverb that says, if you want to feed one person, do not spoon food him/her by giving a fish but teach them how to fish.

The same goes with the mental realm, we need to mature up, wake up those b rain systems, circuits that are idle and discover that within us reside the deductive Mind Faculties wich is not a scaffold.

Humility, gentleness is a norm in the Meso Realm, the thight rope on wicht many of us walk, if you fall on the left tiny parts of you will b e taking and put in a sort of film that can result in the conclusion of being a crazy erratic personna. If you fall on the right in the Mega Realm you are de facto a threat to monopolist and shall vanish,

The Trail is indeed naroow, the rope is tiny do no push please.

Snowy Owl

[SnowyOwl]

Posted by 7redorbs (here)
It's both Dennis. If I'm right, then anyone would be insane living with what I 'claim to be "so" ' .

It's well worth noting Tesla had several breakdowns. I wonder why.

Attachment 17062

Radio Corporation America 1921, Bolinas:

Nikola Tesla, Steinmetz, Einstein standing in front of the Marconi Wireless Plant.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=nfJm-ixWZN8

Best,
A

Concerning Tesla breakdowns..

Seems his first breakdown (after his father agree to support him in his study) occurs in Bonn prior to his coming in US. His deductive Mind perceived a possible, a probable a certainity fact that from now on electrification of military industrial complex was unfolding.

Then in Alsace, France when he perceived that retention of information was unfolding

Then in Paris and London, Kelvin, the Royal Society, L'académie and wife and chidren fate

Edison b etrayal

Morgan b etrayal

US betrayal

Serbia betrayal

And all his Life the Pretentious arrogant scorning scientific betrayal

Snowy

[SnowyOwl]

Posted by Chris82 (here)
Well isn’t this great?

Free energy explained and documented. The thing we’ve all been waiting for.


Except is not .

In my opinion no post of 7redorbes makes any sense or has any logic. An it’s sad because I really am interested in a new understanding of things but all his posts are a mix of ego, wishful thinking and a sick mix of physic laws and concepts and faulty conclusions…it’s just ugly.

Bang on , the truth is it can be taken further, the electron itself doesn't exist. The electron is visible because of a reaction with the observer. The North and south pole currents exist in-between all atoms. When we see an electron it's caused by the "photons" of observation from the viewing device or observers eye. Scientists have invented all sorts of names for this effect, including, action at a distance, phase variance, delta t, red shift, blue shift, it's some hilarious stuff - except for realising that the electron is a REACTION, not the EXISTENT thing it claims to be. In fact light itself requires more than the electron, but the fundamental basis of electricity - the north and south pole..

What’s with this atomic north and south anyway…? The existence of electrons has been proved in experiments over and over again. IT JUST MAKES SENSE.

After all we just proven inductively that all energy is magnetic at it's base. North and south poles, when we look the wave reacts with the poles producing an electron.

You never did prove anything, you only like big words . For the last time , north and south poles cannot exist in an atom made by protons , neutrons and electrons.

If this isn't proof that scientists are egotistical idiots that make it up as they go along via "inventive thinking" what the hell is?.

So scientists are egotistical idiots… I wonder what you are with your make belief physics , and your 60 quid book full of nonsense?

I’m sorry, I know I will be highly unpopular on this forum for posting in this manner . But threads like this hurt us more in the long run. Wishful thinking is not and will never be the answer.

Manas in Barath (Hindi), Mind in Brithish, Scientific Methodology is a rhetoric imbed in a tiny narrow path.

Having an Open Mind is not synonymous as having a fracture skull

Snowy

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by SnowyOwl (here)
Back in the 80's at the UN I was destabilize by the stonewall of Power Forces of some Nations and the Narrow Path leading to tiny changes.

I do not understand this sentence ... in particular the phrase "I was destabilize by the stonewall".

[7redorbs]

ATTENDANTS APPEAL


I , Adam Bull am writing to you to appeal to your dignity, your self respect, your common decency, your courtesy, your charity, and your heart, mind, body spirit and soul.

I am writing to you, at a time of grave misappropriations of planet earth's resources, and about a material deceit of humanity in the history of Radio. Please listen to this email carefully and heed the message it carries.

1) The maximum speed of a wave given by Nikola Tesla is faster than Einstein's speed of Light. It has been this way since Tesla invented radio in 1896.

2) Tesla gave the speed of his radio waves as pi / 2 * C which is equal to 1.57 times the speed of light.

3) Scientists today claim that 186,000 miles per hour, or 1.00 times the speed of light is the limit.

4) Tesla disagreed with this rigorously citing numerous experiments he had conducted showing cosmic rays to be moving at 50 times the speed of light from Antarus..

5) The speed that Tesla gives , if true completely disproves all of the modern science that exists today assuming the speed of light as a limit.

6) Free energy cannot ever exist according to the modern scientific age, simply because energy cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

7) Quantum Physics shows "instantaneous action at a distance" also known as "spooky action at a distance".

8) Einstein always had a problem with spooky action at a distance and instanteous action at a distance because it completely contradicts his theory of relativity, and the fundamental laws of conservation.

9) Tesla claimed he designed a communications and power transfer system that could transfer data or power accross the universe completely REGARDLESS OF DISTANCE, that is, the device had no approximate speed limit.

10) The advancements of Tesla claimed that he had overcome the theory and law of conservation, and had discovered a way to create a perpetual motion device.

11) The advancements of Edward Leedskalnin in his numerous books shows the same. And even calls the accomplishment "perpetual power" from the "perpetual motion holder".

12) A basic electromagnet I have here curves light and turns electrons around 180 degree's completely contrary to the Hertz Wave 1.0C speed of light theory and the theory of conservation.

13) Radio Corporation America tookover MArconi in 1917, and replaced the faster than light system with the inferior Hertzian speed of light Einstein system we see today.

14) Scientists, reluctant to accept the truth of history and the obviously cemented patents and descriptions, and nyt publications of nikola tesla on "the True wireless" continue to refuse the possibility of faster than light waves regardless.

15) Scientists will continue to refuse to accept this basic truth, irregardless that a working faster than light wave system, being the most advanced and the first radio system ever to exist, was present and accounted for in Bolinas California, at Marconi wireless and transmitted at 1.57C for 4 years between 1914-1917, and this cannot be taken away from humanity or from history, but it can and has been deleted.

16) DO not forget this. Or the future and the truth will die with me and people like Eric Dollard.

Time is short. This is part 1 of a 2 part email explaining how to generate perpetual motion and overunity effects including the synthesis of electricity, the isolation of cosmic rays to HALT radioactivity of radium INSTANTLY, and the isolation of dense matter from the cosmic rays preventing the equal and opposite gravity force from radiating from the earth.

These 2 emails will form a basis for a new theory of gravity as an EFFECT caused by external things, and NOT caused by the MASS of the earth.

Quite contrarily, the mass produces the equal and opposite effect of gravity, when the earth centre mass is hit by an equal and opposite cosmic force, which causes it's equal and opposite north and south pole magnets to be released in all directions, which attract about equally the electrons and protons of all atomic things.

Repeat, gravity is not a cause, it is an effect.

Repeat, radioactivity is not caused by unstable elements like radum. The radium will cease to be radioactive altogether when sufficiently shielded from the cosmic rays.

This proves that the scientists are only working with one sided instruments, equipment, models, conceptions and equations, and are negating 1/2 of the forces responsible for all things.

Memorandum : They are still looking for where this extra energy comes from.

And they also are looking for the scientific reason why the negatively charged electron seems to perpetually orbit around the positively charged proton and neutrally charged neutron. They are still trying to explain it, regardless that perpetual motion is outlawed as a crime in the scientific theory, and regardless to the fact that they fail to account it , the scientists of today can be seen as nothing less than true inexplicable fallacies that the world will one day see.

And that is the end of the first part.

Best Wishes,
Adam Bull

[Tesseract]

7RedOrbs, the ploy of trying to discredit anyone who disagrees with you by demanding that they explain the dynamics of an atom is inherently ludicrous and will not get you anywhere. I critically addressed a number of specific points to do with your writings here (none of them directly addressed by you), at no point did I claim or lead anyone to infer that I possess a full working model of atoms, molecules or sub atomic particles. I put it to the readers of this thread; at what point did I make any claim to have this knowledge?

On the other hand, you, 7RedOrbs, have made several high level claims including that you discovered electron spin (if I may paraphrase), that you have a high temperature liquid superconductor (that you have yet to disclose to us the composition of), and that you proved gravito-electro coupling (with a metal ruler and a table no less). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and rational explanation. The onus is on you, 7RedOrbs, to do the explaining because you are the one making the claims here.


This infantile mantra of yours that anyone who can not give you a full working theory of an electron orbiting a nucleus is somehow invalid as a scientist, investigator or critic is blaringly irrational. If you want a hand-waving argument (which seems to be your own preferred style) you will find plenty online, if you want more explicit arguments I suggest you turn to the quantum chemistry and physics literature.

Let me tell about my own preferred course of action following the completion of a successful experiment in my own little field and the development of an accompanying theory. I write up my results, as clearly as possible. I double check my facts and my reasoning as best as I can. Then, I send a manuscript to the appropriate journal for peer review and, hopefully, publication. If fate has it that my work is rejected because my arguments are poor, my writing too unclear, or my experimentation too incomplete, then I try to address those shortcomings and re-submit the manuscript. What I do not do is launch hysterical demands and accusations at the reviewers that have nothing to do with the shortcomings of my own work.

For the record, I do not enjoy the role of critic very much. I only take that role here because I feel that it could be in the interests of people reading this thread. If, after my efforts, people still want to purchase your book and believe your every word – so be it. I can’t guarantee that I will devote much more time to this thread, as I feel that people’s efforts here to promote rationality have all the chance of a cinder in snow.

[7redorbs]

No tesseract. Simply explain to us why the electron remains in perpetual motion. This is hardly "explaining the dynamics of the atom". What is the maximum speed of an electron? Another simple question.

In any case as I have asserted, the electron is a non existent invention. Nobody has ever seen one before. Yet most of our technology is using them. Do you not see the problem?

The science backs up what I am saying about the electron being un-observable - Heisenberg's uncertainty principle predicts it to be inherently un-observable. Indeed, an electron has never been observed, Scientific fact. What causes the negative charge to orbit perpetually? We use it to power all our technology - it's kind of important.

It's a simple question. Given than perpetual motion doesn't exist according to your mantra, there has to be a reason behind the electron perpetually spinning. Do you know what it is? For anything to be in perpetual motion it requires energy to do it,

I think you need to be able to explain why the electron has perpetual motion before using a theory that is intrinsically unable to explain the perpetual motion of electrons as a way to "disprove" 100 years of radio history.

As I have said for 4 years the marconi plant had 1.57C waves in use. They were non hertzian. I.e. most likely something you have never even heard of nor worked with. Am I correct in assuming?

The waves employed, were also non transverse hertzian type waves. This is a historical and scientific fact. The patents prove it. Perhaps If I give you the exact patent numbers you will cease your unfounded remarks? I shouldn't have to though. As I set out below, the science history speaks for itself.

Faster than light waves exist. Scientific Fact. Suppressed scientific fact. Whilst I would like to claim the "rationality" and "logic" of people like yourself helped the situation, I have to report that it hasn't. The world is still "in the dark" about it.



1) The maximum speed of a wave given by Nikola Tesla is faster than Einstein's speed of Light. It has been this way since Tesla invented radio.

2) Tesla gave the speed of his radio waves as pi / 2 * C which is equal to 1.57 times the speed of light. That's about 292,000 miles per second.

3) Wheatstone, pretty important guy, designer of the wheatstone bridge gave the velocity of the electrostatic discharge as 292,000 miles per second.


Problem? No these are scientific facts - Preserved in history. Most of the Aerial Ground Structure of the Marconi plant is intact. It's not like you can't go there and see it if you don't believe that 1.57 C waves were in use for 4 years until the military and government R.C.A project took over Marconi. This is more than a basic criminal conspiracy, it is a scientific history that is hard to ignore. That is what you are continuing to do if you fail to remedy these facts. Indeed, the onus is not on me at all. I have explained it several times in different ways in varying levels of depth and clarity. All on deaf ears I am afraid.

May people be the judge.

“When others asked the truth of me, I was convinced it was not the truth they wanted, but an illusion they could bear to live with.” ― Anaïs Nin

Best Wishes,
Adam


Footnote Memorandum :

"all of my investigations seem to point to the conclusions that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are jutsified in calling them n eutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light" - Nikola Tesla July 10, 1932

With Einstein’s universal speed limit in a jumble after CERN did what it does best, it appears Nikola Telsa could have saved the international science organisation some trouble. It’s a well-known fact the Serbian engineer was way ahead of his time. But close to 80 years? That’s quite a prediction.
No High-Speed Limit, Says Tesla *

(Following is a summary of the referenced article.)

Dr. Nikola Tesla asserted in an interview with Hugo Gernsback that speeds greater than that of light, which are considered impossible by the Einstein theory of relativity, have been produced.

Stating that the Einstein theory is erroneous in many respects, Dr. Tesla stated as early as 1900, in his patent 787,412, that the current of his radiopower transmitter passed over the surface of the earth with a speed of 292,830 miles a second. According to the Einstein theory, the highest possible speed is 186,300 miles a second.

Tesla indicated knowledge of speeds several times greater than light, and had apparatus designed to project so-called electrons with a speed equal to twice that of light.

Tesla disagreed with the part of the Einstein theory which states that the mass of an object increases with its speed. The mass of a body is unalterable, contended Dr. Tesla, According to the article, "otherwise energy could be produced from nothing, since the kinetic energy acquired in the fall of a body would be greater than that necessary to lift it at a small velocity."

[Tesseract]

I put it to the readers of this thread; at what point did I say perpetual motion does not exist?

And regarding charge, and mass? Should we refuse the opportunity to inquire upon electrostatics, inertia, gravity simply because we lack a perfect understanding of exactly what a particle is? And, how does any of this abrogate from yourself the responsibility to explain your own claims?

[7redorbs]

The copenhagen interpretation was created during this conference. Until this time on earth never had so many leading physicists been together.

Einstein is looking glum because he has lost the argument. Victory goes to Neils Bohr,. Heisenberg won a victory that day too. His Quantum Wave function and uncertainty principle resulted in the scientific model of spooky action at a distance.

Einstein mainly had a problem with it because it meant that things could travel not just faster than his relativity's speed of light, but regardless to it, in fact at infinite speeds. Instant speeds. As asserted, scientifically in the Copenhagen principle. Einstein looks rather gloomy here, because after attempting all day to discredit the work of Heisenberg and Bohr, he failed. This was when quantum physics was born.

Einstein would die "fighting relentlessly" the faster than light force.

It's still taking a long time to filter through. The speed of light is not a limit. As established by Tesla, Wheatstone and Dollard, and as expressed in the Copenhagen Principle. The whole conception of the atom changed during this conference. Relativity was trumped. Copenhagen predicts action at a distance. That is - instant interaction between entangled particles. Or rather, particles that effect each other REGARDLESS of distance, just as Tesla said his system was capable.

That is - faster than light, in fact, infinitely faster than light.

Again, all established science i'm afraid, and you are wrong. Very wrong. Faster than light is a reality, long since passed as a theoretical force.

What I'm suggesting is not new to science. Ignorance though, runs rife.


Best,
Adam

[ThePythonicCow]

I don't think 7redorbs is listening to us, Tesseract, except to provoke recitation of his points.

In my opinion, this is not a fruitful discussion. Until 7redorbs demonstrates more willingness and ability to listen to, learn from, and interact with the excellent advice given to him by several members above, I recommend that we focus our energies elsewhere, at least so far as this thread is concerned.

[7redorbs]

Paul, you and other "so called" scientists ignorance frankly is amazing.

I present facts.

You hear nothing.


Shocking. I shall not bother again.


Best,
A

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by 7redorbs (here)
This will be my last transmission. (June 30, 2012)

Posted by 7redorbs (here)
I shall not bother again. (Jan 5, 2013)

Fare thee well, Adam.

[7redorbs]

I would thank you if you meant it Paul.

FYI , I mean it this time.


Best,
A

[SnowyOwl]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by SnowyOwl (here)
Back in the 80's at the UN I was destabilize by the stonewall of Power Forces of some Nations and the Narrow Path leading to tiny changes.

I do not understand this sentence ... in particular the phrase "I was destabilize by the stonewall".

For an outsider like me then, witnessing that sec conceil rez where in fact dice alreasy cast was like falling off a pink cloud since the suggestion forwarded was humanitarian and not watsoever contrary to legitimate nat sec interest.

But there was, there is and certainly will b e always a solution despite stonewalling, a tiny one yes b ut it take a tiny snowball to create down in the valley a huge snowball when it all started at the Zénith of a resolution

Snowy

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by 7redorbs (here)
I would thank you if you meant it Paul.

FYI , I mean it this time.


Best,
A

If you do, Adam, it was your failure.

A stand-up comedian gets heckled - they don't quit.

Someone poking sharp sticks into orthodox science is heckled - they don't quit.

I'm glad Tesla didn't quit. I'll bet he got a few wedgies in his day.

OK, so Einstein was wrong. The speed of light was not the maximum speed. Great. We have one building block. Don't expect me to be able to see the tower of blocks you are envisioning. Your next step is to add one more block - probably another foundational block.

Your move. Quit, or ignore being heckled and get on with it.

Dennis

[Flash]

that is sad. This is the first time i read that thread, and although Adam's concepts were rehashed in quite a few posts, the basic concepts seemed interesting. What he is asking us is to wipe out everything we know and start thinking differently. My point would be, why not trying it? Discoveries often comes from out of the box thinking.

As Bill said, I do not understand what Adams says either, furthermore having no training in these fields, but as Bill said, those that did back engineering of aliens ships had to completely changed what they knew of physics. And my dad was saying something similar about magnetism and magnetic fields when I was young, but I could not follow him at the time and other's would say, well, not great things about his calculations and theories, not understanding (my mom amongst others), even if he nearly got killed for it (he is now deceased, but not from his pet work).

I would have asked however to Adams to give us his calculations, put the blackboard on the posts and get few of our geniuses in this forum revised numbers and calculations. Up to now, Adams had just given the basic premises, nothing more. Adams wanted us to believe before working on it, with us. Even if the calculations were wrong, it may give and create ideas and new solutions. And if they were right, well, we could go further.

Adams, you have the chance of a lifetime to work on your calculations with a group of open minded people. For this, you must want to collaborate too. And if not, well, we may all have missed an opportunity.