No announcement yet.

What Is Teslan Energy?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What Is Teslan Energy?

    Hello folks. I am a longtime reader of science and things scientific, including matters pertaining to scientific development and conceptuality. I've spent some time thinking about Tesla energy, aka radiant energy, etc. I thought I would begin a thread devoted to questions about what this energy is. To that end, I offer the following opening speculations.

    Let's begin with the base Newtonian conception, action, and work our way into Teslan conceptuality. Action, for me, is the name of the resolving third that resolves the binary opposition of electro and magnetic energies, thus is a ✼ dualistic ✼ configuration of energy (magnetism, wave) and information (electrons, particles). Action, in other words, is a particular EM configuration. In its essence, and referencing the basic idea itself, it is thing-movement ✧through✧ space and time ~~ an externally, causally conceived local-space/linear-time ~movement~ to capture the singleness of this concept.

    Counterpoint to this Newtonian conceptualization and configuration is Tesla EM configuration. Here, movement is not movement ~through~ space and time ~~ it can't be given its open-circuit nature (no current!) ~~ but movement ✧as✧ space and time. It goes without saying that ~movement as~ must by definition operate in non-local space and non-linear time. Teslan energy movement is accordingly based on synchronistic vibration, otherwise known as resonance, which is an internal phenomenon contrasting directly with the Newtonian externalized conceptual view.

    I believe it is a mistake of a still-Newtonian mind to conceive that energies Tesla worked "travel" through space and time. Yes these energies manifest in externally observable movements and changes, but this observationality is implied by the internal nature Teslan energy, which by definition subsumes the external and not the reverse! The operation of these energies as the being and movement of space and time themselves is by its space-time-constituting nature not action, ie, not movement through, therefore non-active. Newton's action-reaction third law therefore does not apply, nor does the so-called law of entropy, two true observations of the Teslan realm.

  • #2
    But hang onto your hat, this is where things get truly interesting, and trippy. I like how Bearden, following Whittaker, characterizes scalar EM energy. He first says there exist two kinds of EM energy:

    1) translation (externally acting) EM energy and 2) stress (internally acting) EM energy.
    I differ with his "internally ~acting~" though in other respects agree with his understanding. He thus says stress EM energy is trapped translation EM energy (E and B fields) ~~ ie, that translation EM energy appears as the ~interior~ of scalar, is the structured interior of it.

    This understanding corresponds to my statement above that interiority, being the basis of exteriority, actually surrounds the latter and subsumes it. This is an interesting reversal of interior-exterior, but appears conceptually correct to me. Tesla scalar interiority, which I above called an internal phenomenon, cannot be conceived as a subset or quality of exteriority. Why? Because Tesla scalar interiority by definition exists ✦outside space and time✦ as a nonlocal, nonlinear phenomenon. The interior of space and time is therefore, given the nature of space and time itself and the necessary character of its opposite, exterior to it.

    This in-out reversal appears to me to carry through into the very characterization of these two forms of energy. They are opposites:

    ✼ Newtonian ✼
    motion through
    spatially local
    temporally linear

    ✼ Teslan ✼
    motion as
    spatially nonlocal
    temporally nonlinear

    Bearden goes further to say that trapped translation EM energy, as a scalar potential, is "nominally composed of spin-2 gravitons" which are themselves composed of photon-antiphoton (+EM and –EM) pairs. Light and gravity, in other words, become at the level of Teslan interiority, the external show of what EM actually in its interior-exterior is.


    • #3
      And of course consistent with characterizing Teslan energy as existing outside space and time, Tesla himself demonstrated this energy is not subject to Einstein's speed of light limitation. Meyl has demonstrated the same. So, too, Bearden, Podkletnov, Dollard, etc., etc. This is of course not to mention that Teslan energy can, among many other things, constitute or deconstitute matter. It is the energy, if you can call it that, or the deep implied aspect of that which is called energy that is constitutive of matter itself, therefore constitutive of space and constitutive of time. It exists outside space and time in a true and technical sense as a non-local (non-spatial) and non-linear (non-temporal) phenomenon.


      • #4
        Self induced high frequency energy from the vacuum, or the ether.


        • #5
          some good concepts here, i like it, have you looked at Walter Russell and how this applies? matter and space being opposites, and how you can alter matter by altering space and vis-vis as they are a reflection of each other


          • #6
            Bigmotherwhale, Walter Russell wrote of altering matter by shifting frequency. Walter Russell stated in 'The Universal Mind pg.34 "All motion is action and reaction."
            (ibdi. by stating this Russell may or may not have been giving notice that there are two forms of electricity; the positive and the negative, but we can rest assured that one form can not exist without the other. This is why the SG motor/generator circuit as built by Bedini shows the circuit going to ground. The earth is negative or passive, the space above (atmosphere) is active or positively charged. The positive form of electricity is always in motion looking for a resting point, that resting point is negatively charged in nature and provides impetus for electrical motivation. High frequency energy is obtained when the two electricity's interact with one another. A study of the Stubblefiield coil will bear this point out. When there is no negative electricity, the positive electricity in the air wanes and dies to nothingness. It is as Bedini has stated, that there is are male and a female components to electricity, positive and negative. As for altering space time, pure conjecture...


            • #7
              Teslan Energy is not rocket science but understanding it does require one's attention and a little research.

              The following is from a book published in 1876, a simpler era, operating with honor, integrity and frank honesty.

              "Whenever a conductor is in electrical equilibrium, it has the same potential throughout the whole of its substance, and also through any completely inclosed hollows which it may contain. When a conductor is not in electrical equilibrium, currents set in, tending to restore equilibrium; and the direction of such currents is always from places of higher to places of lower potential. In like manner, when a small positively electrified body experiences electrical force tending to move it, the direction of this force is from higher to lower potential. When flow of electricity is compared with flow of heat, potential is the analogue of temperature. Heat flows from places of higher to places of lower temperature. The precise direction of the force exerted upon a positively electrified particle (or upon an element of positive electricity), when brought to a place where potential has not a constant value from point to point, is the direction in which potential diminishes most rapidly. A negatively electrified particle (or an element of negative electricity) will be urged in the opposite direction, which is the direction in which potential increases most rapidly. We here use the words increase and decrease in the algebraical sense."

              Quoting: Electricity and Magnetism, Augustin Privat-Deschanel; author. pg. 560. SEE:

              This quote bears out my last comment for those with discernment.


              • #8
                longhorn, I go a bit of a different direction re positive and negative electricity. But first Russell, which will also answer bmw's question also. I find that Russell hasn't gone far enough in his conceptual understanding of polarity. Russell appears to confine his polar understanding to symmetrical polarity, which imo is only half the polar reality. If you take any pair of polar opposites, those poles will have both symmetrical and asymmetrical aspects to their opposition. Take wave and particle. Wave is extended in space, particle inextended. True to opposition generally, these two are inside-out (negative) versions of each other. This inside-outness applies symmetrically to either in relation to the other, which can be understood to be the symmetrical sameness aspect of the two. True to polar opposition, opposites are also asymmetrically opposite. Accordingly, wave's experience and view of a particle is entirely and incomparably unlike a particle's experience and view of a wave. This asymmetry is the difference aspect of their opposition, rendering a total picture of opposites as both symmetrically (same-ly) and asymmetrically (different-ly) opposite. In other words, polar opposition is itself comprised of the polar opposition called symmetrical-asymmetrical.

                Russell imo only does the symmetrical element of polarity. Look at any of his drawings. They represent opposition as symmetrical opposition only. I don't know Russell's writings very well for this reason, because I feel a kind of fundamental dissonance when I read him, this despite his otherwise awesome insights. It's as if he has one foot in the post-Newtonian (polar) world, and one foot remaining in the Newtonian. I suspect the latter is the reason why he would pen the sentence as he did, that "all motion is action and reaction." That is a Newtonian, closed-system, linear causal zero-sum entropic point of view. That point of view is polar opposite (!) the Teslan view of movement, which is not movement ~through~ space, but the movement of space itself (which accordingly requires no transmission, which is a through-space concept).

                Regarding negative and positive electricity ~~ the Russellian symmetrical kind ~~ yes, I believe these are essentially symmetrical matter-antimatter opposites in a symmetricality certain quantum physicists have extrapolated into their (wrong) supersymmetrical quantum view. I also believe that magnetism is the asymmetrical opposite to electricity, giving the fuller view that electricity has both symmetrical and asymmetrical opposite forms: +e, -e, +b, -b. It seems to me that Tesla electricity is an entirely different configuration of what is typically called electricity. Tesla electricity, as I tentatively now view it, appears to be currentless charge in complementary relationship with a field of chargeless current. Currentless charge appears to me to be a configuration of electro and magnetic with magnetic on the interior, completely shielded and thus undetectable with normal means. Chargeless current would be the opposite: magnetic exterior, electrical interior. I believe, and this is just a hunch, that this formatting of e and b is very different from the formatting of these two in an entropic closed circuit, where they work against each other. After all, didn't Dollard recently state he believes that dielectricity (ie, currentless charge) has no measurable magnetic field?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bigmotherwhale View Post
                  matter and space being opposites, and how you can alter matter by altering space and vis-vis as they are a reflection of each other
                  My current understanding is that matter is space ~~ two words for the essentially same reality. I think space's opposite is time. Thus where space(matter) is:

                  • discrete
                  • visible/exterior
                  • locally distinguishable

                  time(energy) is:

                  • indiscrete
                  • invisible/interior
                  • non-locally indistinguishable.

                  Space is essentially the finite aspect of the finite-infinite duality, time being the infinite, if you will. Bend time and you bend the entirety of what space(matter) is.


                  • #10
                    Click image for larger version

Name:	Electricity resides upon the surface.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	95.8 KB
ID:	46519

                    serengetiplains your assertions that currentless charge appears to be a configuration of electro and magnetic with magnetic on the interior, completely shielded and thus undetectable with normal means is partially right, but there is an experiment to prove the assertion (SEE: included image). In the classic Teslan world of high tension electricity, Tesla depended heavily upon the fact of currentless charge, as it takes a magnetic field to attract the flow of electrons to it which you term as the electro. Without the magnetic there would be no electro is a correct world view both pre as well as post Newtonian. Kudos.


                    • #11
                      To further digress on the importance of what serengetiplains has interjected is the fact that the earth with its molten iron core, is a large magnet in an electron field provided by the sun known as the vacuum.

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	The earth a large magnet.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	102.8 KB
ID:	46521

                      Which fact Tesla relied upon heavily to forward his electrical theories.


                      • #12
                        longhorn, that's an interesting experiment, and deserves some thought. And good to have your agreement which, on my side, I came to largely through a study of polarity and wondering, for an Tesla-style open-circuit configuration, where did the magnetic of EM go? It seems to me Tesla's original early observation of a blue spiky light appearing for an instant when a DC circuit was closed contains the seed of his entire later understanding of what I like to call the non-linear configuration of EM energy (as opposed to the action-reaction linear Newtonian config). According to Tesla himself, that light would appear only at the outset of closing the circuit before current was allowed to flow. He was perhaps able to observe this because maybe his materials were sufficiently impure as to cause sufficient resistance in the conductor to impede current flow for that instant of observed blue light generation.

                        In any event, absence of current seemed to be the key. Looking at a Tesla coil, the open-circuit secondary is also a zero-current configuration with a frequency component configured in standing-wave dynamics. This raises the question, what is current? Whatever it is, it seems to be a particular (closed-circuit) configuration of the necessarily dual-pole polarity of E and M. And in that configuration, doesn't E energetically oppose M? And wouldn't this "self-working-against" be a Newtonian action-reaction net-zeroing of overall usable energy, thus rendering the circuit entropic? These are questions that appeared to me when attempting to understand the difference between a closed and open circuit EM configuration.

                        So following this through, and sensing that the M must be somewhere in a Tesla circuit, that somewhere I think must be inside E. Where else would it be? And if M is inside E (and E inside M as the field complement to currentless charge), would they not complementarily support each other instead of working against each other? Non-linear EM configuration? I think the answer to this question is yes.


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by longhorn View Post
                          To further digress on the importance of what serengetiplains has interjected is the fact that the earth with its molten iron core, is a large magnet in an electron field provided by the sun known as the vacuum.

                          Which fact Tesla relied upon heavily to forward his electrical theories.
                          Right, sun-earth then being an open-circuit EM configuration. It might interest you that a good body of evidence exists to say the earth and sun (and other bodies in our solar system) are growing. Try:


                          Konstantin Meyl supports this theory. Meyl posits that, because ferrous metals lose their magnetism at temperatures below molten, the earth's core must be something else, which Meyl says is a plasmatic electron core spinning at absolute zero superconductive temperature, which perpetual E-movement then creates earth's magnetic field. Would this understanding not show earth as a electrical-interior/magnetic-exterior body? And wouldn't the sun be opposite, ie, electrical-exterior/magnetic-interior, just like the sphere of a Tesla coil? Appears so! And in this fully non-linear EM configuration, where Tesla-coil-sun is mated with an oppositely configured Mrs.-Telsa-coil-earth, and with a currentless space-dielectric between them, everything grows! Like a child inside a mother's womb. Macro over-unity, yes? I call it creation.


                          • #14
                   the sun is a dynamo

                            Tom C

                            experimental Kits, chargers and solar trackers


                            • #15
                              Nice link. On the theory I'm toying with, earth's inner density grows in proportion to its intensifying dual expansion-contraction energies. Those energies apparently increase with greater distance from the earth's core. When certain energy thresholds are crossed in this (continuous?) increase, the matter-state produced by those energies changes in true quantum form: from plasma —> gas —> liquid —> solid. We run around on the solid layer, the densest "gravity" layer. Our oil, btw, comes from the liquid layer (not dinosaurs, ridiculous).

                              If this view of progressive densification is close to being correct, and if the sun is opposite in character, I would expect the sun to become denser the closer to its centre. Your link seems to make this out in part. I'm also aware that the temperature on the surface of the sun is considerably less than off its surface. This suggests, per my progressive densification speculation, that the sun's least dense layer, its finest plasma layer, is off-surface where the real (electronic) energetic action is. Material (magnetic) action is ~inside.~