truedeity

"Because I wanted too. " I just preferred it that way, I wanted the experiment to provide as much information as possible so that if any technical issues came out that bookkeeping it would be embedded in the experiment. Suppose for example the experiment is not null, and particles pass through the slit, and in doing so the spin direction is changed. (Side note- perhaps it is possible that this does not cause decoherence, e.g. when a magnetic fields changes the spin of the particle, I think we have to get deeper into conservation laws to identify that this does indeed decohere just to ensure this experiment is truly null.) If the results on the wall display an interference pattern, one may prefer having more information, like to have the ability to measure the spin direction, of each particle, and knowing which particle it corresponds with on the wall, is like the Rosetta stone version of this experiment. It gives you bits of accounting that you might want to have. Because we sill need to answer the fundamental questions of the experiment, as to the nature of particles and its wave like behavior, etc...

I did not explain why I added the serial numbers, that's why you guys don't understand it completely. It's really a waste of energy to spend time on it though, I will not need it since the experiment is null. Serial numbers are for tracking, and I wanted to do tracking. The reason it is this way is because as particles are being sent one-at-a-time, we know which particle we are sending and when we are sending it. So when it lands on the back wall, I could point to that specific particle and say, "this particle was the 4th particle we sent, this particles pair is in this box."

I understand why interacting will destroy the entanglement. But I am thinking that this interaction will not destroy the interference pattern. The double-slit experiment has never been invoked in this manner. Partly, this is why I came up with Experiment #1. What is it about your knowledge that makes you think this type of interaction will collapse the wave function? Can you elaborate on that? If what your saying is true, adding a magnetic field around either of the slits will always result in a double band. Has that ever been tested? Because I only need to measure the particle once, after the results are in, I don't care if I destroy the entanglement. Strange- The significance is just that my version is different. There may be fundamental similarities but a totally different setup. This is a technical impediment not necessarily an impossibility. A lot will have to be designed and worked out to configure Apparatus 4. Something like a CD changer, once you select which pair you want to send a carton containing the particle is loaded and ready to be fired. I won't be putting serial numbers on the particles themselves. The serial numbers will correspond to a particular entangled pair, or one of the Apparatus 3 boxes. Each box contains one of the pair particles. The serial number will be written on the box. The image below taken from Wikipedia shows how the particles accumulate when being sent one-at-a-time, the result is single particles appearing on the screen. This is the version of the experiment Apparatus 4 performs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#/media/File:Double-slit_experiment_results_Tanamura_2.jpg

I am thinking of two different experiments. The first experiment does not involve entangled particles. The second experiment does. In the first experiment the purpose of flipping the spin of a non-entangled particle is to demonstrate simply that the spin can change, and that it is an isolated event, and this spin change should not cause the wave function to collapse. There is no way to know which slit the particle passes through, and 'which-path' cannot be known. Since 'which-path' is not known, we should expect to see the interference pattern. The first experiment is not a quantum eraser, also a difference in the quantum eraser experiment is that prisms are used. I am not using prisms in either the first, or second experiment. My second experiment is similar to the delayed choice quantum eraser but different because it will involve different equipment and a different way of conducting the experiment. Second experiment works like this- Aparatus 1) Is a "magnetic field generator capable of flipping the spin of a particle to spin up" Aparatus 1 simply creates a magnetic field which is directed twoards the right slit. *This aparatus does not measure a particles spin direction. It is just a magnetic field. Aparatus 2) Is a "magnetic field generator capable of flipping the spin of a particle to spin down." Aparatus 2 simply creates a magnetic field which is directed twoards the left slit. *This aparatus does not measure a particles spin direction. It is just a magnetic field. Aparatus 3) Is a device which can measure the spin of an entangled particle. It has two buttons, red and blue The red button measures the spin The bule button causes the device to self distruct, and releases the particle into the atmosphere so it can never be measured. Aparatus 4) Responsible for sending particles into the slits. It is a box with entangled particles inside, attached to the box is a computer which allows the user to type in the serial number of the entangled particle we want to send. We will need to buy enatngled particles from a lab who can manufacturer them and seperate each entangled particle into aparatus 3, and aparatus 4. I want to be able to send a specific entangled particle on-demand. The configuration and setup is exactly the same as the double-slit experiment, except that aparatus 4 is customized to fit our needs of sending specific particles. The double slit experiment will be tested exactly as it has been in the past where particles are sent one-at-a-time. At the end of an experiment an hour later, we will observe what the results are. Once the results are in, we will decide whether or not to press the red button, or the blue button, or neither.

Swansont - Correct, that is not the scenario I described initially, I proposed a new scenario because I did not know that you can only measure the entangled pair once. Initially, I described continuously measuring the entanglement which would not work. I updated my understanding a bit and then revised the experiment. The revision is basically the same as the delayed choice quantum eraser. Except I have a different idea about how to conduct that experiment. I am seeing a bit of miscommunication or misunderstanding about what I am trying to describe, and I think at least 1 potentially false assumption on the opposing side. So in order to discuss this we need to agree about some minor technical details. If I cannot clear up these technical details, a case for predeterminism cannot be made. (Also, I would not call it predeterminism... I would not make a case for predeterminism. I would would presume that the particles are able to travel "forwards" not just backwards in time.) So lets try to work out this issue in our thinking, here is how I view this- 1st there is no information to reconstruct the path. There is only information when you measure the entangled pair spin direction. The particle travels forwards in time to when you made the choice to measure the spin, then travels backwards in time to behaving like a particle instead of a wave. If the device measuring the particle is destroyed before measuring the particle, no information is obtained, and 'which-path' cannot be known. So I may be making a case for forward in time travel of quantum particles. To start, someone could devise a basic/simple experiment which uses a magnetic field to change the non-entangled particle spin direction as it enters the slit., and we would only be sending non-entangled particles in order to validate that this alone does not affect the interference pattern. There is no way to know which slit the particle goes through, we just create a device and emit a magnetic field at the slit which we know will affect its spin. In passing particles will not be relaying any information to outside consultants. No body will be calling these particles and asking for a status report, so there is no reason to expect that the double experiment will change its behavior.

As Swansnot said previously its not about changing the spin, its about knowing 'which-path' information. For example, magnetic fields at the slits should not destroy the interference pattern if we are sending non-entangled particles, because it would be impossible to know 'which-path' since there are no entangled particles. So the same should be true for entangled particles as well, because it is based on 'which-path' information. A particles passing through a magnetic field will not have any impact on the experiment since 'which-path' is still unknown. It should be business-as-usual for particles to pass through magnetic fields, its just that magnetic field is changing the spin, if there is no entangled particle it should not impact the experiment, if it is entangled it also should not so long as measurement on the spin is not performed. Because measuring gives you 'which-path' information. For the last part of your sentence, I am not sure why you say this "The same interaction breaks the entanglement." How do scientists influence the spin in prior experiments? The reason this seems unlikely to me is because they have to be able to know the particle is entangled to begin with, the only way you can know that is to be able to change the spin, and then perform the measurement of both particles to verify they are entangled. If what your saying is true, how did we ever figure out that particles are entangled to begin with?

The particle passes through a magnetic field, in doing its spin is changed. Changing the spin does not mean you have to perform the measurement on the entangled pair. We can wait, and suspend our decision to measure after the results on the experiment are in. The experiment will tell you whether or not you do, even though you have control to measure the entangled pair, or not. Results come in- A) A interference pattern shows on the back wall. Even though we have control to measure the entangled pair, we do not. The experiment told us what our decision was before we made the choice. B) The interference pattern is not shown on the back wall (just the two bands). Even though we have the choice not to measure the entangled pair, we "will" and do. The experiment told us what our decision was before we made the choice. What does it say about fate? The quantum eraser experiment seems similar but different somehow. I actually want to perform the measurements after the results. It seems that in quantum eraser is the measurement is performed after the particle passes through the slit, but BEFORE it his the back wall. My version is a little different- I want to do defer the choice of measurement to after the results come in.

The which path information is only gathered after the fact, after the particle has hit the back wall. I want to clarify my thoughts on that detail. The particle is simply passing through a magnetic field, and in passing we are NOT measuring its spin. Its just that we know the magnetic field around each slit imposes on the spin, of any particle passing through each slit. At that point no measurement is taking place, the particle is passing through a magnetic field, that's it and nothing else. Particles pass through magnetic fields all the time, its just business as usual for particles... since there is no observation on the slit, and the measurement has not been performed, the observer is left out of the experiment and there is no reason the wave function would collapse. I think the way the experiment has been claimed is that as soon as we try to measure which slit the particle passes through, means that the interference pattern goes away (as a result of wave function collapsing due to some observer). Since the particle is entangled, and we have a choice of whether or not we want to measure that entanglement. We can decide any future time to measure the particle spin. For example, 3 hours after the particle hits the wall. If you see a interference pattern on the wall, does that mean that we never get to measure the spin?

Why do you think that changing the spin at the slit will destroy the interference pattern?

Hmm, Since continuous measurement renders the entanglement null. Could the experiment be revised to measuring the particle only once after the particle passes through the slit? Perhaps the wall could have a sensor which triggers the measurement? I'm just not sure if it would be considered unreliable, does spin change too frequently? A particle passing through a slit should be affected by some magnetic field which changes the particles spin. At some point after the particle passes through the slit a measurement can be done on the entangled pair to recover the direction of the spin. Since we have labeled right/left slits for up/down spins respectively we can theoretically know which slit the particle passes through by doing the measurement. So we can have one device for each particle, once the particle hits the back wall (a detector of some sort) a signal can be sent to perform the measurement on that pair. So, we would be sending 1 particle at a time, waiting for the signal, and then measuring spin. Because we are not "observing" which slit the particle passes through the wave function should not be collapsed. If it does collapse, are there any implications?

I have an idea for an experiment, I will try to explain the setup. Here goes- The experiment is exactly the same as the double-slit experiment, except the only particles which will be sent will be entangled pairs. For each entangled pair, we have a monitoring device which measures its spin continuously, and logs the spin direction to a database along with the time that the spin was measured Near each slit there is some device which influences the magnetic field around the slit in such a way as to change the spin of the particle passing through the slit Since there are two slits, the slit on the right will change any particles passing through it to "spin up", similarly, the slit on the left will change any particles passing through it to "spin down" Lastly, the particles will have to be ordered and indexed to its respective pair in such a way that we can send a stream of particles towards the slit and be able to identify which entangled pair passed through the slit. The idea behind this experiment is to see if it affects the role the observer plays. As the experiment is explained, the observer measures which slit the particle passes through and as a result of that observation the particles wave-like behavior is collapsed. Will logging the entanglement allow us to know which slit the particle goes through without collapsing the wave function?

Mass is calculated using electron volts as its units. In the case of proton/neutron/electron its (Megaelectron volts), so mass is not related with size its related with energy content. Below are masses of the bunch- Neutron = 939.56563 MeV Proton = 938.27231 MeV Electron = 0.51099906 MeV

This books title is misleading, Krauss does not propose a universe from nothing, he refers to "primitive beginnings", which is not "nothing", I think nothing is a technical impossibility. The reason I say this is a technical impossibility is because dimensionlessness is just a crackpot concept. "Absolute nothing" implies lack of dimension so people need to be specific about the word nothing, by nothing you really mean "still something"

Matter cannot come from nothing

I want to find out what the minimum distortion (or curving) of space should be to prevent light from escaping that distortion. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8477/why-cant-light-escape-from-a-classical-black-hole I am not aware of any way of measuring the "amount" of distortion a mass imposes on space. Can anyone shed some light? If so, would you be able to tell me the minimum amount of distortion needed to capture photons such as in the case of an event horizon.

The poll should also include "Both".

When you consider philosophers such as david chalmers it would be very unlikely that consciousness would ever be explainable using classical explanations. When chalmers speaks about qualia and the hard problem it really hit's home for me, I don't see anything in terms of classical that can account for consciousness. In my view Orch-OR is currently the best theory to explain consciousness, the theory is holding up still and remains to be the ONLY testable hypothesis. Computational and AI groups do not produce a testable hypothesis. An example that I like to use to point out the problem with computational theories of consciousness is deep blue vs. gary kasparov. A computer can be programmed to play chess, and even defeat the best human chess player but the difference between the human player, and the computer is the human knows he's playing chess and the computer doesn't. However, if the Orch-OR model is correct one day computers could become conscious but they won't be classical, it will have to be a truly quantum based computer and certain questions emerge such as how many q-bit's would it require? It should also not be bizarre that quantum processes take place in the brain. Plants use quantum processes during photosynthesis, and human smell is another example which employs quantum tunneling. But to only look at human brain neurons would be a mistake (almost as bad as thinking animals aren't conscious.) There is a "quality" to all life that is ineffable, you can see it even in the smallest living organisms. The single celled Amoeba is able to swim, find food, learn, and multiply. I would argue that there is a primitive consciousness or proto consciousness there, and I think the correlation with that and Orch-OR is that Amoebas are part of the eukaryote domain, and all Eukaryotic cells have microtubules and I find this to be an important correlation. In Orch-OR Microtubules play the key role in brain neurons, inside microtubules there are dendrites which act as effective q-bits, e.g. they are either open, or shut, and or the super position (open and shut). I'll leave it here for now, and redirect most of the difficult questions to hameroff and penrose most of which has been answered if you google it or watch the multide of videos that are avail surrounding the subject. On the other hand what I found to be interesting coming form the classical perspective was rudolfo llinas, on "i of the vortex". There will have to be a marriage of classical and quantum perspectives on consciousness in order for there to be a working model on consciousness. hameroff/penrose + rudolfo best complete picture on consciousness it's a good marriage IMO.

Just to clarify- My understanding is that Aether theories have never been and can not be "debunked" entirely. The issue is they are simply "written off" in main stream science because of ongoing theories that conflict with the basis of the theory. This does not mean there is no aether. It could turn out that we are fundamentally wrong in many categories of science regardless of GR incredible accuracy, also the two may not necessarily be exclusive. Mainstream science takes a long time to change, even if you have a solid idea and are correct. One problem that exists in this category is lack of creativity in individuals unable to come to grips with said theory in accordance with their ongoing world view. It also seems somewhat irresponsible to adopt theories of lesser tenure. Though this stubbornness serves a good purpose to science, it also has a negative latitude. We have to protect the integrity of science. Aether based theories have been persistent over the years and accepted by many accomplished cosmologists/scientists tentatively with this stubbornness in their peripheral. As for Teslas ideas about it, we will never know the details of his theory unless they are declassified and restored to the public view in full form.

in order to address dimension we must understand what it is not... it has been theorized that there are infinite parallel universes and every possibility of your life that could exist already exists we have come to a threshold in science where the answers we have been looking for, for thousands of years are staring us right in the face the question of the origins of consciousness is no longer a mystery, the inescapable fact is that consciousness and matter are interdependent aspects of each other it must be that one cannot exist without the other, so in a sense it is because of parallel universes that we have physical matter because it was not until consciousness existed that matter became physical parallel universes expresses the fact that all possibilities can exist and be infinite, this allows for consciousness to exist it is not until the moment of observation that the wave function collapses, and there it was the moment of consciousness became the moment of existence in the beginning there was nothing, the inconceivable nothing. then infinite possibilities of inconceivable nothing the existed, if only a single possibility that something could be observed exists matter would then have to exist so possibility itself is the reason why existence exists because there cannot be a possibility for inconceivable nothing because nothing cannot be dimensionless dimension or space is an inescapable fact of existence because inconceivable nothing is inconceivable therefore it is impossible therefore dimension must be observable because it is observable it has the possibility of being observed which introduces the existence of possibility, and because something is observable matter must exist but it cannot exist until the moment of observation but because the path to create something from nothing is inconceivable, something inconceivable is needed to explain it. amen

Here is for anyone who has time for a long winded article I found on the topic of Tesla and his theory- Summation of Tesla’s Dynamic Theory of Gravity An excerpt from: Occult Ether Physics by William R. Lyne From: Don Allen dona@amigo.net According to Tesla’s lecture prepared for the Institute of Immigrant Welfare (May. 12, 1938), his “Dynamic Theory of Gravity” was one of two far reaching discoveries, which he “…worked out in all details”, in the years 1893 and 1894. The 1938 lecture was less than five years before his death. More complete statements concerning these discoveries can only be gleaned from scattered and sparse sources, because the papers of Tesla are concealed in government vaults for “national security” reasons. When I specifically asked for these papers at the “National Security Research Center” – now the “Robert J. Oppenheimer Research Center” – in 1979, I was denied access because they were classified, even though on that same day I discovered the plans for the hydrogen bomb on an open shelf, and told a Harvard graduate student about it later in the day at a Santa Fe restaurant. The guy went to Los Alamos, copied the plans, and wrote an expose at Harvard. In his 1938 lecture, Tesla said he was progressing with the work, and hoped to give the theory to the world “very soon”, so it was clearly his intent to “give it to the world”, as soon as he had completed his secret developments. 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. The usual Tesla birthday announcement – on his 79th birthday (1935) – Tesla made a brief reference to the theory saying it applies to molecules and atoms as well as to the largest heavenly bodies, and to “…all matter in the universe in any phase of its existence from its very formation to its ultimate disintegration”. Those imbued with relativist theory often refer to “pure energy” in some “form”, but there is no such thing, since “energy” is an abstract “ability” which is always in the future. Who’s to say what “form” is “pure”, and what form is not? My favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, said. “In reality, there are no contradictions. Things are what they are irrespective as to whether we know it or not. Check your premises.” If the term “energy” is only a convenient abstraction, then it does not exist in physical form, and really describes the potential to perform work as a by-product of matter and electromagnetic radiation in perpetual motion, some of the force of which has been diverted through a path where it performs the desired work, as it goes on its merry way through the universe. Every change of form of either matter or radiation involves the “work” which induces the change, or the “work” which is induced by the change. Without work there is no change, but all work is ultimately the product of the universe in perpetual, self-sustaining motion, as a rule and not an exception. As for Tesla’s theory, we have hints, such as, that the earth is the “star of human birth”. In poetic expressions, he hid scientific meanings in statements such as, that using the “thunderbolt of Jove” (the Indo-European sky god), man “annihilates time and space”, an allusion to the use of electro-propulsion (“thunderbolts”), to travel so fast, that time and space are “annihilated”. Where the government has stolen his papers, we must search for meaning elsewhere. In an article, “Man’s Greatest Achievement”, Tesla outlined his Dynamic Theory of Gravity in poetic form (as paraphrased by me): * That the luminiferous ether fills all space * That the ether is acted upon by the life-giving creative force * That the ether is thrown into “infinitesimal whirls” (“micro helices”) at near the speed of light, becoming ponderable matter * That when the force subsides and motion ceases, matter reverts to the ether (a form of “atomic decay”) That man can harness these processes, to: -Precipitate matter from the ether -Create whatever he wants with the matter and energy derived -Alter the earth’s size -Control earth’s seasons (weather control) -Guide earth’s path through the Universe, like a space ship -Cause the collisions of planets to produce new suns and stars, heat, and light -Originate and develop life in infinite forms Tesla was referring to unlimited energy, derived from the environment. Several of his major free energy discoveries have been the exclusive stolen property of our Secret Government. The conversion of energy to a stronger force – electropulsion – used to control the much weaker gravity force, would accomplish more work in the same amount of time, and produce “over unity” results. Some of Telsa’s unusual conceptualization of the ether had been nonetheless expounded piecemeal, in his preceding 1890′s lectures. He later railed against the limited and erroneous theories of Maxwell, Hertz, Lorentz, and Einstein. Tesla’s ether was neither the “solid” ether with the “tenuity of steel” of Maxwell and Hertz, nor the half-hearted, entrained, gaseous ether of Lorentz. Tesla’s ether consisted of “carriers immersed in an insulating fluid”, which filled all space. Its properties varied according to relative movement, the presence of mass, and the electric and magnetic environment. Tesla’s ether was rigidified by rapidly varying electrostatic forces, and was thereby involved in gravitational effects, inertia, and momentum, especially in the space near earth, since, as explained by Tesla, the earth is “…like a charged metal ball moving through space”, which creates the enormous, rapidly varying electrostatic forces which diminish in intensity with the square of the distance from earth, just like gravity. Since the direction of propagation radiates from the earth, the so-called force of gravity is toward earth. Tesla commenced to complete his Dynamic Theory of Gravity at the same approximate period of time that his experimental results and theories had been revealed in the three lectures, often illustrated with demonstrations using Tesla-invented equipment, as revealed in the following eight excerpts, in pertinent part (emphasis mine): 1. “The most probable medium filling the space is one consisting of independent carriers immersed in an insulating fluid”. 2. “In his experiments he dwells first on some phenomena produced by electrostatic force, which he considers in the light of modern theories to be the most important force in nature for us to investigate.” 3. “He illustrates how mechanical motions are produced by a varying electrostatic force acting through a gaseous medium.” 4. “One of the most interesting results arrived at in pursuing these experiments, is the demonstration of the fact that a gaseous medium upon which vibration is impressed by rapid changes of electrostatic potential, is rigid”. 5. “If through this medium enormous electrostatic stresses are assumed to act, which vary rapidly in intensity, it would allow the motion of a body through it, yet it would be rigid and elastic, although the fluid itself might be devoid of these properties”. 6. “…on the assumption that the independent carriers are of any configuration such that the fluid resistance to motion in one direction is greater than in another, a stress of that nature would cause the carriers to arrange themselves in groups, since they would turn to each other their sides of the greatest electrical density, in which position the fluid resistance to approach would be smaller than to receding.” 7. “If in a medium of the above characteristics a brush would be formed by a steady potential, an exchange of the carriers would go on continuously, and there would be less carriers per unit volume in the brush than in the space at some distance from the electrode, this corresponding to rarefaction”. 8. “If the potentials were rapidly changing, the result would be very different; the higher the frequency of the pulses, the slower would be the exchange of carriers; finally, the motion of translation through measurable space would cease and, with a sufficiently high frequency and intensity of the stress, the carriers would be drawn towards the electrode, and compression would result.” The eight above excerpts are further reducible to the following four statements pertinent to electro-propulsion technology: 1. Mechanical motions can be produced by varying electrostatic force acting through a gaseous (ether) medium, which thereby becomes rigidifled, yet allows solid bodies to pass through. 2. Under influence of stress in one direction (under the polarizing influence of light or heat), the carriers may group together, forming tubes of force, creating greater ease of movement in that direction. 3. When a (D.C.) brush is created by a steady potential, a continuous exchange of carriers is created corresponding to ether rarefaction, as the tubes of force are drawn into the conductor. 4. With a sufficiently high frequency and stress intensity in the opposite direction, carrier exchange is blocked by ether compression, forcing the tubes of force to dissolve in the conductors of the ship, imparting electromagnetic momentum. The system, using the two kinds of potentials (D.C. and A.C.), is known as “p2″. The steady potential of the brush creates the required exchange of carriers, ‘rarifying’ (stretching) the elastic, rigidified medium (composed of the carriers immersed in the insulating fluid) in advance of the ship, as the high frequency A.C. to the rear compresses them, blocking exchange from the rear, dissolving the tubes of force (my “microhelices”), creating instant momentum, normal to the surface (which is at right angles to the electric and magnetic fields). In 1884, John Henry Poynting’s theorem had been that the flux of energy at any place is represented by the vector product of the electric and magnetic forces, multiplied by C/4(pi symbol) 3rd power. This implied that forces in a conductor could be transformed there into other forms. In 1893, J. J. Thomson stated practically the same thing, saying “…the aether is itself the vehicle of mechanical momentum, of amount (l/4 (pi symbol)C (D*B) per unit volume. (Using e.-s. Units for D and E and e.-m. Units for B and H.) E = electrical force D = electrical displacement H = magnetic force B = magnetic induction Heinrich Hertz’s theory was that two systems of varying current should exert a ponderomotive force on each other due to the variations. Tesla’s disagreement was apparently based on the fact that he proved that the “ponderomotive force” is due not to mere “varying currents”; but to rarefaction and compression of the ether carriers, respectively, produced by different kinds of currents (D.C., A.C., rapidly varying electrostatic). J.J. Thomson had extensively developed the theory of the moving tubes of force, both magnetic and electric, saying that the magnetic effect was a secondary one created by the movement of electric tubes, and assumed: * that tubes exist everywhere in space, either in closed circuits or terminating on atoms; * that electric force becomes perceivable only when electric tubes have greater tendency to lie in one direction; * that in a steady magnetic field, positive and negative tubes may move in opposite directions with equal velocity; * that a beam of light is a group of electric tubes moving at C at right angles to their length (providing a good explanation for polarization of the plane of rotation). Tesla said his “dirigible torpedo” would fly at a maximum 300 miles per second, perhaps since its forward velocity would be some maximum fraction of C. Thomson’s later publishings on this subject followed Tesla’s 1891 lectures before the Royal Society in London, and appear to shed light on Tesla’s work, stating: * that a ponderomotive force is exerted on a conductor carrying electric current, consisting of a transfer of mechanical momentum from the agent which exerts the force to the body which experiences it; * that, if moving tubes entering a conductor are dissolved in it, mechanical momentum is given to the conductor; * that such momentum must be at right angles to the tube and to the magnetic induction; * that momentum stored in a unit volume of the field is proportional to the vector product of electric and magnetic vectors. “Thomson’s” “Electromagnetic Momentum” hypothesis was later developed by H. Poincare’ and by M. Abraham. By 1910, it was said that the consequence of these pronouncements left three alternatives: 1. Modify the theory to reduce to zero the resultant force on an element of free aether (as with Maxwell, Hertz, and Einstein); 2. Assume the force sets aether in motion (as with Helmholtz); 3. Accept the principle that aether is the vehicle of mechanical momentum of amount [D*B] per unit volume (as with Poynting and J. J. Thomson). Whittaker’s greatest error was in omitting Tesla’s theory entirely. After Tesla’s experiments verified it, right in front of the esteemed members of the “Royal Academy”, the “three (later) alternatives” were moot, and a new law existed, that of Tesla. Tesla’s Secrecy Due to his pacifist sympathies, Tesla originally contemplated giving his electric flying machine to the Geneva Convention or League of Nations, for use in ‘policing the world’ to prevent war. Later disillusioned after WWI with the collapse of the League, he said he’d “…underestimated man’s combative capacity”. In 1919, his reason for increased secrecy emerged in an interview with Frederick M. Kerby, for “Resolution” magazine, while discussing a “three-hour” airplane between New York and London: “…we have here the appalling prospect of a war between nations at a distance of thousands of miles, with weapons so destructive and demoralizing that the world could not endure them. That is why there must be no more war.” With the government’s spurning of his defense suggestions, Tesla’s only recourse was to withhold his secrets from the world, and to dissuade discovery in their direction. In 1929, Tesla ridiculed Heinrich Hertz’s 1887-89 experiments purportedly proving the Maxwellian “structureless” ether filling all space, “of inconceivable tenuity yet solid and possessed of rigidity incomparably greater than the hardest steel”. Tesla’s arguments were to the contrary, saying he had always believed in a “gaseous” ether in which he had observed waves more akin to sound waves. He recounted how he had developed a “new form of vacuum tube” in 1896 (which I call the “Tesla bulb”), “…capable of being charged to any desired potential, and operated it with effective pressures of about 4,000,000 volts.” He described how purplish coronal discharges about the bulb when in use, verified the existence of “particles smaller than air”, and a gas so light that an earth-sized volume would weigh only 1/20 pound. He further said sound waves moved at the velocity of light through this medium. Tesla mentioned using his special tube to investigate cosmic rays, saying that when its emanations were impinged upon a target material, radioactive emissions resulted, and that radioactive bodies were simply “targets” continuously bombarded by “infinitesimal bullets projected from all parts of the universe”, without which “all radioactivity would cease.” His description of these “bullets” was similar to the ZPR. On Apr. 15, 1932, Tesla said Einstein’s theory regarding changing matter into force, and force into matter, was “absurd”. He compared this to the difference between body and mind, saying force is a “…function of matter”, and that, just as a mind could not exist without a body, “…without matter, there can be no force.” On Sept. 11, 1932 (New York Herald Tribune), Tesla derided the Maxwellian/Hertzian ether, while saying that higher frequency waves “…follow the curvature of the earth and bend around obstacles”, yet in an Apr. 8, 1934 New York Times letter, said that short waves for “power purposes” of the ‘wireless art’, were inappropriate, and that power will travel in “long waves”. His 1929 attack on the Maxwellian/Hertzian ether theory – 39 years afterward, during the advent of Relativism – seemed relevant only to his concealed theory, not to disclose it or promote it, but to conceal it. THE NATURE OF ELECTRICITY What were the old ether physicists referring to when they attempted to describe “an incompressible, perfect fluid”? What would a “perfect fluid” do? It would be able to “wet” everything it came into contact with, such as protons, and could flow everywhere without resistance. One “fluid” – the ether – could flow everywhere, and because of its density and ultra-fineness, nothing could stop it, and it felt no resistance, but only matter felt resistance, depending on the circumstances. Another fluid – electricity – could flow in certain places, and wet only certain things, but often met resistance. In order to understand the ether, we must get to know electricity more intimately. Just like water, a proton will hold only so much electricity on its surface, but the ‘surface’ of the proton is probably similar to the outer area of a ball-shaped swarm of hovering mechanical bees, powered by the ZPR, with a denser agglomeration of “bees” toward the ‘ball’s’ center. If this swarm of bees is subjected to a wave of rainy mist (the etheric ‘wind’), the bees must all turn to face into the etheric wind to maintain their formation. The ‘water’ droplets – electric sub-charges carried by the etheric wind – tend to agglomerate around the front side. Each bee, as he flaps his wings, will get wet only so much, so that excess ‘water’ is thrown off and carried to the next bee, or the next swarm of bees, by the etheric wind, and so forth, so that a ‘current’ of droplets continues to flow through the ball of bees due to its motion through the etheric wind, and transfers momentum between masses. The ‘water’ tends to come off in larger drops, which have formed from smaller droplets accumulated on each bee. As in fluid mechanics, the ‘drop’ size is the result of cohesiveness of the electric ‘fluid’, the surface area of each ‘bee’, and the space between each bee, all of which influences the final size of each larger ‘drop’ (the “electron”) which accumulates enough to form it. If one were to mathematically analyze the flow of “drops” (i.e., “quanta”) per mass unit, they would have an average rate of the flow of charges/cm3 of etheric wind, for the momentum, as determined by the “current” flow rate. Much like the bees, as a body (its many electrons, atoms, and molecules, with plenty of ‘space’ within and between) sits at rest on the earth, it moves at fantastic speed through the universal ether field, due to the earth’s revolution, orbit, and other motions. In his 1891 A.I.E.E. lecture at Columbia College, Tesla said in pertinent part (emphasis mine): “What is electricity, and what is magnetism? “…We are now confident that electric and magnetic phenomena are attributable to the ether, and we are perhaps justified in saying that the effects of static electricity are effects of ether in motion”. “…we may speak of electricity or of an electric condition, state or effect”. “…we must distinguish two such effects, opposite in character neutralizing each other”. “…for in a medium of the properties of the ether, we cannot possibly exert a strain, or produce a displacement or motion of any kind, without causing in the surrounding medium an equivalent and opposite effect.” “…its condition determines the positive and negative character.” “We know that it acts like an incompressible fluid;” “…the electro-magnetic theory of light and all facts observed teach us that electric and ether phenomena are identical.” “The puzzling behavior of the ether as a solid to waves of light and heat, and as a fluid to the motion of bodies through it, is certainly explained in the most natural and satisfactory manner by assuming it to be in motion, as Sir William Thomson has suggested.” “Nor can anyone prove that there are transverse ether waves emitted from an alternate current machine; to such slow disturbances, the ether, if at rest, may behave as a true fluid.” In his statements, Tesla was balancing the various arguments in preparation for his decision: “…Electricity, therefore, cannot be called ether in the broad sense of the term; but nothing would seem to stand in the way of calling electricity ether associated with matter, or bound ether; or, in other words, that the so-called static charge of the molecule is ether associated in some way with the molecule.” “…It cannot differ in density, ether being incompressible: it must, therefore, be under some strain or in motion, and the latter is the most probable.” Tesla therefore believed in an ether which was in motion relative to earth, because the earth is in motion. The thing which Tesla had realized, was that ether possesses electric charges which are deposited on atoms. In supporting the “dynamic” ether concept, he was supporting the “stationary ether” concept, since the “motion” he referred to was “apparent” motion of the ether perceived by an observer on earth, relative to a stationary ether. The importance of cosmic motion to the electromagnetic effects of static charges was brought up by Tesla in his lecture: “About fifteen years ago, Prof. Rowland demonstrated a most interesting and important fact, namely, that a static charge carried around produces the effects of an electric current.” “…and conceiving the electrostatically charged molecules in motion, this experimental fact gives us a fair idea of magnetism. We can conceive lines or tubes of force which physically exist, being formed of rows of directed moving molecules; we can see that these lines must be closed, that they must tend to shorten and expand, etc. It likewise explains in a reasonable way, the most puzzling phenomenon of all, permanent magnetism, and, in general, has all the beauties of the Ampere theory without possessing the vital defect of the same, namely, the assumption of molecular currents. Without enlarging further upon the subject, I would say, that I look upon all electrostatic, current and magnetic phenomena as being due to electrostatic molecular forces.” In these statements, Tesla showed he was aware that any “stationary” locale on earth is actually in fantastic motion (“70,000 mph”). The electrostatic charges “carried around” are currents between atoms and the ether, which produce magnetism. The phenomena of ‘permanent magnetism’ or ‘cosmically induced’ magnetism are apparently due to electrostatic charges ‘carried around’ by cosmic motion, in the universal ether field. Since no one can hold an atom or molecule perfectly still—because it is in fantastic motion—all atoms and molecules carry currents producing magnetic fields. Since a magnetic field is the product of a current, no one can produce a magnetic field without electricity, moving through or along a conductor, or as electrostatic charges in local or cosmic motion. Tesla’s Dynamic Theory of Gravity and MHD method of Spacial Electropulsion brought a cosmic crowning achievement to the works of Faraday, Wm. Thomson, J. J. Thomson, and Edmund Hall. CONCLUSION The ether is a universal medium, which fills all space. It appears to be “dynamic” relative to an earth moving thousands of miles per hour through space. The ether is normally electrically neutral, ultra-fine, and penetrates all solid matter. There is also an ultra high frequency, ubiquitous radiation, normally in equilibrium, called Zero Point Radiation (“ZPR”), which interpenetrates the ether, and represents electromagnetic radiation in its finest, densest form, which, in conjunction with the ether, conserves universal perpetual motion. The ether in conjunction with the ZPR, is the source of all matter and force. “Energy” does not exist in physical form, but is “the ability to do work”, which is equal to “force over time”. The word “energy” is a convenient fiction, like “time”, which is an arbitrary measurement of the rate of motion of matter through ether-filled space. All events occur in the present, and the “past” and “future” are merely metaphors. Electromagnetic disturbances in the ether extract “energy” from the ZPR, which is explainable only by an ether theory. This “free energy”, which is virtually unlimited, is universally at work, created by the perpetual motion of matter, and the perpetual exchange of stronger and weaker forces, through which the equilibrium of the universe is maintained, the sum total of all processes equaling zero. Since all solid matter is continually hurling through space, always in motion, it is always subjected to the “etheric wind” and ZPR interactions. These effects are not perceived except during changes in the orientation of mass or its velocity. All mass and space have dielectric properties. Differences in dielectric properties cause changes in the electromagnetic displacement within mass and the etheric wind. Earth’s electric field creates dielectric displacement effects within ether and mass within earth’s electric field. The difference between the dielectric displacement within a mass and the dielectric displacement outside the mass in the etheric wind, creates a down-force in the direction of the negative polarity, as the etheric wind ‘blows’ through a mass. This is called “gravity”. Since all mass is in motion, all mass has momentum, even when apparently “at rest” relative to earth. Momentum is a body’s resistance to change in its state of motion. Since inertia is also the resistance of a body to changes in its momentum, inertia and momentum are due to the same thing, the resistance of electromagnetic micro helical tubules to changes in velocity (and relative “pitch”), direction, and lateral motions or orientation. Since all space and mass is composed only of “electric content”, momentum/inertia is electromagnetic in nature, and can be electromagnetically synthesized. All mass contains electrostatic charges, which when “carried around” in the ether/ZPR-filled space by celestial or ‘local’ movement, constitute currents. These currents actually flow between mass and the ether, and are integral to the mechanism by which momentum is imparted to mass in motion. The currents create magnetic fields as their equal-and-opposite counterparts, and give a rotatory motion to combined, bi-directional electric and magnetic fields and currents, around irrotational vacuous ether cores. This rotatory electromagnetic action creates momentum, as the force-free “screw-type” reaction within mass, creating its motion relative to the ether cores, from which the mechanical force is transferred to the atomic mass with which the electromagnetism is associated. Since these phenomena are electromagnetic in nature, they are synthesized by recreation of the electromagnetic conditions which a body would exhibit due to a particular kinetic state. Just as electromagnetic waves of low frequency can penetrate a body, waves of higher frequencies – above I.R. and below U.V.- can cause the ether to “assert its inertia resistance”. The technology involves high voltage D.C. ‘brush’ currents, high frequency currents, rapidly varying electrostatic forces, and light/heat beams. The rapidly varying electrostatic forces “rarify” (stretch) the ether carriers, as the light/heat beams polarize the medium in the desired direction, as the D.C. brush currents induce the exchange of carriers, creating a vacuum in that direction, inducing motion. At the opposite end of the ship, high frequency currents draw the carriers through the ship, and creates a compression of the ether, as it penetrates the solid mass and synthesizes the rotatory micro helical tubules, which whirl around the ether cores along the polar axis, at a pitch corresponding to a particular rate of momentum. Since the strength of the electromagnetic interaction is 10/40 time greater than the gravitational interaction, that much more work can theoretically be done in the same time, using the same “energy”. Since “seeing is believing”, and I have seen, I believe. The behavior of man-made flying saucers proves the existence of these “free energy” inventions of Nikola Tesla, which show that he was right in his opposition to Relativism, and that the prevalent theories taught in the scientific institutions of the world are patently _fraudulent_. Consistent with the idea that “dynamite comes in small packages”, this small book, along with my prior book, “Space Aliens From the Pentagon,” initiates the rediscovery, reconstruction and publication of Nikola Tesla’s Dynamic Theory of Gravity and related electropulsion technology, the greatest invention of mankind. The Secret Government – a fraudulently concealed, unconstitutional, corporate-state entity – has heretofore controlled electropulsion technology by concealing it and other advanced free energy technology, on behalf of international, coercive, corporate-state monopolists. Electropulsive ships are concealed through “special effects”, and “stealth technology” (also based on Nikola Tesla’s inventions)- as they fly and hover in the sky, and by “psycho-political” means – the dissemination of false “alien” and “extraterrestrial origin” propaganda – through “UFOlogy” groups led by covert government agents. While official government spokesmen deny the existence of flying saucers, covert government agents, posing as “skeptics”, “UFOlogists”, and “paranormalists”, engage the public’s attention in a phony debate. The “skeptics” ridicule the UFOlogists and paranormalists, lumping them together with rational witnesses, as if “…to see a flying saucer” is as ridiculous as “…to see a ghost or alien”. This phony debate based on false logic fits nicely into the overall cover-up system, designed to conceal “advanced human technology”, not “alien” technology. The grip of this secret socio-economic dictatorship, depends on coercively extorted income, by forcing us to buy archaic fuel and power – which funds their control of our communications, political and monetary decisions, enforcement of unjust laws, regulations, and procedures expanding its powers, while limiting or excluding our individual human rights, and denying our access to information, materials, and technology which is ours because we paid for it with our taxes. Our access to the truth is necessary for our independence and survival as a free people. Despite the confusion, concealment, BIG LIES, and judicial and socio-economic abuse by the corporate state, we can resurrect the TRUTH, determine the correct technology, circumvent obstructions, and use our creative ingenuity to build these ships for ourselves, to free our society from the Secret Fascist Corpocracy. ** end excerpt **

This is not a debunking of aether theories, nor does it address any of the ideas brought forth by Tesla being that the experiment predates the concept. EM is not particle based. As I understand it is a fundamental force, the essence of EM is truly unknown.

what methods were used to debunk it? please be specific that sounds like an argument from authority.

space-time curvature is described with a form of math called stress energy tensors, this math requires the existence of a hypothetical particle called the "graviton" which has no mass and 2 spin as described in einsteins field equations. without this graviton we would not have gravity, this is the theory of relativity which describes the curving of space that gives rise to gravity. what i cant seem to grasp is how particles can describe gravity? i seem to prefer gravity as described by interactions of electromagnetism, it was nikola tesla's announcement of his supposed "dynamic theory of gravity" which first proposed that space is interpenetrated by electromagnetism (as if it is the fabric of everything), in his time they used the term "Ether" or "Aether" derived from the greek word that means "material that fills the universe", he further exclaims that matter has an inherent dielectric property that creates attraction and thus describes gravity. other notions that might seem to support this view e.g. -the electric universe -the revised grouping of the fundamental forces (e.g. the grouping of gravity with electromagnetism) -and others... (youtube videos included) im interested to see how people respond to this notion and to see what responses may come?

i remember thinking this when i was a kid. so i wanted to ask this question because i think it's still a theoretically stable question that someone with some background in theoretical physics should address. based on our current understanding we cannot travel beyond the speed of light because Einstine said its not possible, as we approach the speed of light our mass would increase and the energy required would also be greater, the only way it could be done is if we had an infinite energy which cant happen. (though, it is said that black holes have an intense enough gravity to pull objects in near the speed of light.) we already established this understanding... my question is more of a theoretical question that i'm just now remembering from my childhood. (yeah i knew all this before i was 10) it's sort of a 'what if' that i think still applies. one thing that bothered me is supposing that we can travel faster than the speed of light. what would happen if you tied an infinitely long rope to a jet that travels beyond the light barrier? would part of that rope be in the future and the other part of that rope be in the past? if you follow the rope from beginning to end you should be able to find the jet right? so, let me rephrase lets say the rope is made out of some speical material that can sustain the travel, and it has plenty of length for the jet to take off and get to the speed of light and pass the speed of light. one end of the rope is tied to the statue of liberty in new york city, the other end of the rope is tied to the jet that travels beyond light speed. would the rope still be tied to both the jet and the statue? or would that rope hold open some sort of einstine-rosen bridge between past and future?

no one can understand the big bang theory.