Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

[Flash]

Well, in my life, I have seen designs, calculations, graphs, mini demos, name it, based of things similar to which Adams is talking about, with a dad that had not finish primary school. Yet, he was able to explain, demonstrate, design, calculate, make samples and show it. A shame my mom has thrown them 20 years ago. He was very bright (showing me higher maths when I was at College). I know Adams has such if he worked as much as he says he did.

I do expect something similar, due to this background of mine, that shows the work in a comprehensible manner, even if not standard whatsoever. At least, comprehensible for great minds. Because, at the time, I would not comprehend either. But test us, we understand much more than you can imagine Adams.

[observer]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Simonm (here)
So Paul, to what extent do you want 7Redorbs to "explain himself?" I have no physics degree and, until reading about tesla's work had no idea of such things. However, I found Adam's description intriguing, hence me asking him for further proof of his work. If he expanded, would you have enough understanding to be able to dissect his work in methodical manner?

From your last post it appears evident you would be as blind as I in that respect?

My undergraduate studies were in math (my major) and physics, and I have read in various physics subjects since then, both "conventional" and "alternative." Physics has been one of my several interests while on this forum the last couple of years. While I certainly don't understand all the physics presented here (hi, Carmody ), I like to think I have a pretty good idea whether someone is presenting material in a manner conducive to fruitful discussion amongst those who do are ready to understand that particular material.

With regard to Paul's observation regarding "fruitful discussions", from my earliest participation in this thread (comments #s 19, 31, 38, 46, & 59) up until now, I have regularly felt the OP was condescending in his replies. I've never been quite sure where 7redorbs is going with this course of study, therefore, I've kept quiet for some time.

I draw attention to my comment #38 to reiterate a foundational understanding regarding the electromagnetic nature of the universe as a necessary building block to understanding:

Posted by observer (here)

Posted by wavydome (here)
[....snip]

I'll end this coverage here in hopes it sparks some discussion. Let better minds input more action-thoughts. I expect my constitution is too integrative and builder-creative. Please someone, present this anew, a new breath, a new spark.

I'm not quite sure if this will help, wavydome, but if you have looked at the video I offered from Dr. Tom Bearden in comment #31, and, of course, what 7redorbs said in his OP, and combine that understanding with the knowledge of cutting edge plasma physics, it might give you a grasps of the foundational physics involved in this Tesla technology.

"THUNDERBOLTS OF THE GODS"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+of+the+gods+#

I realize this is a long research project, but there is something yet to be discovered in combining all this knowledge into one cohesive scientific understanding.

I would also recommend an extremely relevant workshop series of five videos on the holographic nature of our universe:

http://www.holographicuniverseworkshops.com/

Part 1: http://www.holographicuniverseworksh...m/partone.html
Part 2: http://www.holographicuniverseworksh...m/parttwo.html
Part 3: http://www.holographicuniverseworksh...partthree.html
-edit-
[I have removed the last two parts of the "Holographic Universe Workshop" as links because after the middle of Part Three, the producer gets away from the objective laws of quantum physics and ventures into the world of subjective interpretation. However, the first two and one half parts are an excellent explanation of the Laws of Quantum Physic.]

The videos linked in this comment (including the earlier #38 comment) are foundational in understanding the mechanisms associated to the function of 'this particular reality'. The links are cutting-edge physics. Without these foundational understands it is impossible to speculate on what Tesla was doing.

[Hervé]

All right,

Let's start the dismantling of "Einsteinian," "conventional" physics and his "constant" "C"

Some smart ass in the 50s asked that question about that speed of "light" as a "constant": "Which light?"

To understand that question and the answer that gets all Einsteinian mathematics tumbling down, check this out:

C in E=MC^2 is supposed to be a constant... which it isn't except arbitrarily.

Now, as far as FTL (Faster Than Light) goes, well it should have been known ever since this thing was discovered:

That's called "refraction" of light through a prism. Therefore, per the computed laws of refraction:

Refraction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Light on air–plexi surface in this experiment mainly undergoes refraction (lower ray) and to a lesser extent reflection (top ray).

Refraction is the change in direction of a wave due to a change in its speed. This is most commonly observed when a wave passes from one medium to another at any angle other than 90° or 0°. Refraction of light is the most commonly observed phenomenon, but any type of wave can refract when it interacts with a medium, for example when sound waves pass from one medium into another or when water waves move into water of a different depth. Refraction is described by Snell's law, which states that the angle of incidence θ1 is related to the angle of refraction θ2 by
where v1 and v2 are the wave velocities in the respective media, and n1 and n2 the refractive indices. [...]


From the prism experiment, one can therefore deduce that violet and red are travelling at different speed... violet an UV being the "fastest" in that spectrum.

Therefore anything having a higher frequency/speed than UV is FTL... by definition!

So, I guess that a neutrino would go straight through the base of the above prism. Yet it doesn't... goes right straight through in a straight line!

Reverse the above and you get that "white light" is a composite of different light wave lengths travelling at different speed. Hence the question "Which Light?" to be chosen as the constant for the speed of light?

[Dennis Leahy]

I don't have a physics background, but I did get an A in high school physics.

Here's what I got out of this (so far):

• The speed of light is not the fastest speed possible. (I'm not sure if this is presented as a useful construct/building block for the discussion, or if it presented to show that conventional physicists are stuck in a paradigm using the speed of light as the fastest possible theoretical speed - and any models that use that limitation are wrong.)
• Electrons don't really exist as discrete entities (perhaps a better way to think about electrons is a form of plasma rather than discrete rotating particles)
• A fixed magnet and fixed coil of copper can be made into an electrical generator. [OK, this didn't come from this thread, but Adam's prodding to think about the perpetual energy of the spinning electron (cloud? plasma?) made the following video more easily explainable to me (rather than moving the magnet, or the coil, as in a typical generator, the movement is happening at an atomic level in the electron-orbits of the copper and are moving the magnetic fields of the electron-plasma enough to excite the NSNSNSNSNSSN poles in the computer hard drive magnet used in the video. I'll post eaglespirit's post in the Here and Now thread so you can also read his words. The video itself is boring and too rough, but should make you think about how this arrangement can possibly produce electricity, since it does not have the spinning magnets or coil (rotor) of a typical generator:

Source: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post610953

Adam, in the world of software development, it is accepted that the very worst possible candidate for the job of creating documentation and especially "help" files for the software is the lead programmer. Why? Because the lead programmer is immersed and fully aware of every nuance of the software - and cannot possibly look with a "fresh pair of eyes" that a "newbie" to the software will have. So, the job of creating "help" files is always given to someone else (in anything bigger than a one-man programming firm.)

As someone said a while ago, you need an assistant. You need a non-physicist (not even an amateur physicist) to explain your ideas. You need only explain the ideas to this one person, this one well-organized person capable of producing a simple text description (at least) and multimedia presentations (at best.) As Flash said, the history of where the ideas came from is interesting, but is dragging down the thread's promise of new (or hidden/forgotten) energy science.

The video you posted of your experiments is terribly boring and has no explanations whatsoever. Again, it is so obvious to you that you are forgetting to bring the viewer along on the ride. Are there coils wrapped around empty soda bottles, or are the bottles full of dilithium crystals? If there are coils, is the direction of the wrap an important detail? Gauge? Composition? What other components are there? Is there a big capacitor hidden in one of the bottles? I have this sense that you are trying really hard to show something really interesting, and that you do not realize that you are either not explaining it at all, or explaining it poorly. I think that is why you are getting raspberries from some folks. I'm being completely honest - not trying to hurt your feelings but trying to be helpful (and dammit, I wanna see if you really do have a breakthrough on the synthesis of this information!)

Dennis

[Flash]

I am going for one week, no internet access I think, but ski slopes yahou

So I will follow up when I am back,

Flash

[avid]

Oh thank goodness for Pink Floyd, that animated graphic is amazing - thank you Amzer Zo - passing it on to my scientific OH!!! :-)

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Flash (here)
I am going for one week, no internet access I think, but ski slopes yahou

I pray you will not descend the ski slopes at anything approaching the speed of light; that would be way too dangerous .

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
Therefore anything having a higher frequency/speed than UV is FTL... by definition!

The constant "speed limit" in "conventional" physics (relativity) is the speed of light in a vacuum. Prisms are not vacuums, so light travels at various slower speeds through them, and across the prism-to-air boundary.

[sandy]

Hi Paul,

To be honest with you i do not like the way you are handling this thread and your sarcastic humor does nothing for you as a moderator and or a human being with compassion and empathy for your fellow human being.

I do not know Adam or have any concept of what he is attempting to inform us of but I check in with hopes one day someone will be able to decipher his knowledge into an everyday comprehension that the lay person can grasp, such as Dennis Suggested in his post. Until that time I see no need for put downs from anyone including Adam.

It will be sad if Adam has left for good because it will just be one more experience and example of intellectual bullying in my opinion and something not of value or befitting to such a wonderful forum as Avalon.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by sandy (here)
To be honest with you i do not like the way you are handling this thread ...

You may be right, and I appreciate your stating your concerns.

So far, I don't think you're right. I don't know Adam (7redorbs), and have intended to comment on his manner of presenting his material here, not on Adam himself. If you noticed some places where I put down Adam himself, you're welcome to let me know.

It continues to be my present understanding of this situation that the manner of Adam's presenting his material here was seriously limiting his effort here, frustrating both him and us, and that furthermore he has been misjudging these limitations, thinking they are due primarily to the rest of us being "stuck in the mud" of conventional physics.

I see no way that might overcome these limitations that doesn't begin with calling them out, as plainly and directly as we are able.

[eaglespirit]

I have called Adam out with a pm...today is the first I saw of this whole thread.

If he has enough practical hands-on workable knowledge to help show us how to possibly/continually run a 5000 watt generator without fuel and power a home...the ways and means will be film documented and put out there. I(we) will do this for that reason alone....the credit going to no one and everyone....however Adam wishes to handle it.

It will be an important start, imho, understanding the possibilities are more or less endless...
but showing the practicality in real life in real time is so important now.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post611723

[Hervé]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
Therefore anything having a higher frequency/speed than UV is FTL... by definition!

The constant "speed limit" in "conventional" physics (relativity) is the speed of light in a vacuum. Prisms are not vacuums, so light travels at various slower speeds through them, and across the prism-to-air boundary.

Sorry, quoted the wrong post... corrected now.

Reverse the above and you get that "white light" is a composite of different light wave lengths travelling at different speed. Hence the question "Which Light?" to be chosen as the constant for the speed of light?

... remains true when reversed back to vacuum... right?

The prism only demonstrates that "white light" is made of different frequencies/wavelengths propagating at different speed whether in vacuum or refracting medium.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
The prism only demonstrates that "white light" is made of different frequencies/wavelengths propagating at different speed whether in vacuum or refracting medium.

Prisms cannot be constructed out of a vacuum and nothing more.

Placing a prism in a vacuum would (I suppose) allow splitting white light into various colors of light. That splitting occurs within the prism or (more likely I think) at the boundary between the prism and its surrounds. Once split, the various colors of light would then each proceed through the surrounding vacuum at the same speed, c, the speed of light in a vacuum.

[Hervé]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
The prism only demonstrates that "white light" is made of different frequencies/wavelengths propagating at different speed whether in vacuum or refracting medium.

Prisms cannot be constructed out of a vacuum and nothing more.

Placing a prism in a vacuum would (I suppose) allow splitting white light into various colors of light. That splitting occurs within the prism or (more likely I think) at the boundary between the prism and its surrounds. Once split, the various colors of light would then each proceed through the surrounding vacuum at the same speed, c, the speed of light in a vacuum.

The splitting occurs BECAUSE white light is composed of various frequencies of light having inherent different propagating speed to start with. Otherwise there wouldn't be any diffraction via a prism but just white light in, white light out. The prism allows the decomposition of light into their different speeds/frequencies/wavelength. Hence, which light speed does one sets as the constant "C?" Red or violet?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
The splitting occurs BECAUSE white light is composed of various frequencies of light having inherent different propagating speed to start with. Otherwise there wouldn't be any difraction via a prism but just white light in, white light out. The prism allows the decompositon of light into their different speeds/frequencies. Hence, which light speed does one sets as the constant "C?" Red or violet?

In various mediums, yes, different frequencies of light have different velocities, and Snell's Law works, as you observed.

In a vacuum, all frequencies of light travel at the same speed.

The various speeds of light, of various frequencies (colors) in various media, are all less than the single constant speed of light in a vacuum. That speed of light in a vacuum is what we label 'C', and that speed is greater than all light speeds in any non-vacuum medium.

Newton's mechanics are a simplification of reality, providing a model quite useful and accurate over some wide range of circumstances, but not everything, everywhere, for all time ... not even close. Similary, the Relativistic model of light I am using above is a model, simplifying reality in a useful way, but a sufficient way for what we're discussing here.

[Hervé]

Posted by Paul (here)
[...]

In a vacuum, all frequencies of light travel at the same speed.

[...]

That's where I disagree because... says who? On what experiment?

To me, white light in vacuum is still composed of different wavelength/frequencies of light traveling at their own different max-speed.

I guess a test of this could be designed with coherent, uni-wave light beams from lasers between red ones and blue ones; bounced back off the Moon or Mars

Conversely, if that statement were true, all laser lights in vacuum should be "white" or of the same color/frequency/wavelength... are they?

[Tesseract]

Red, violet, microwave, x-ray, radio - they all travel at the same speed unless you have a medium in which they interact non-equally.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
That's where I disagree because... says who? On what experiment?

To me, white light in vacuum is still composed of different wavelength/frequencies of light traveling at their own different max-speed.

If light from distant galaxies and quasars traveled at different speeds, depending on its color (frequency) then our view of those distant objects would be increasingly smeared, the further the object was from us. We don't see this.

We do see a "red shift" that seems to effect all frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum, slowing them all down at great distance, either because distant objects are receding from us in an expanding universe, or because of some affect involving the "vacuum" between here and there. But this red shift is a lowering of frequency, lengthening of wave length, lowering of energy ... all the various frequencies from any single remote event arrive here on earth simultaneously.

If something from a galaxy far far away blows up "real good", we don't see the high frequency gamma rays before the indigo/violet colors, and those before the red/orange colors, ... There is no temporal smearing by color.

[Hervé]

Posted by Paul (here)
[...]

If light from distant galaxies and quasars traveled at different speeds, depending on its color (frequency) then our view of those distant objects would be increasingly smeared, the further the object was from us. We don't see this.

We do see a "red shift" that seems to effect all frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum, slowing them all down at great distance, either because distant objects are receding from us in an expanding universe, or because of some affect involving the "vacuum" between here and there. But this red shift is a lowering of frequency, lengthening of wave length, lowering of energy ... all the various frequencies from any single remote event arrive here on earth simultaneously.

If something from a galaxy far far away blows up "real good", we don't see the high frequency gamma rays before the indigo/violet colors, and those before the red/orange colors, ... There is no temporal smearing by color.

May be the "Doppler shift" as applied to light needs re-interpreting?

I am not sure if it's Laviolette of someone else who mentions "precursor waves" of distant events that have happened. I don't have the reference for it but, IIRC, such precursors have been recorded. If I am wrong in my recollection then I'll have to leave it at that.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
I am not sure if it's Laviolette of someone else who mentions "precursor waves" of distant events that have happened.

It was indeed Paul LaViolette. He anticipates that the superwave from a big explosion our galactic core would first arrive here as a gravity wave, followed perhaps a day later by the gamma (and other electromagnetic frequencies, aka light) burst.

He speculates that the December 26, 2004 Indonesian earthquake (magnitude 9.0) provided such an example of this, when a gamma ray burst hit earth about a day later. By this speculation, the quake itself was not caused by our earthly black ops guys blowing up nukes off the Indonesian island of Sumatra, but rather by a gravity wave that arrived ahead of the associated electromagnetic burst.

This is one of the reasons that I reminded us above that the Relativistic model of mass, gravity and light (electromagnetism) is but a model. In particular, it models gravity as a warp in the geometry of space-time, which rather begs the question of what "really" causes gravity, and presents what I presume is a rather over simplified model of gravity.

It would not surprise me if gravity waves (whatever they are) travel slightly faster than the speed of light, whether in a vacuum or in any media.