Dear Ross

> Think about how water compression waves give rise to the higher level of
> organization of surface ocean waves.  The compression energy heads to the
> sea floor, reflects, and converges coherently into the wave front.
>
> EM and ocean waves are both transverse waves.  But EM are more like a
smoke
> ring vortex.  Still, it is the same phenomena.

The problem with EM waves is that I can't see any equivalent to the sea
floor, so I think we must forget that analogy, and  I can't imagine how
there can be much reflection in open space of the basic compression waves.
Smoke rings are too complicated to be a suitable analogy, and they dissipate
so quickly.  Whatever the mechanism is for EM waves, if you believe that
"photons" retain any identity (and as you know I don't even think they
exist) in their travels from distant stars to here, it has to be
fantastically neat and accurate.  Even without the photon concept, the fact
that light reaches us at all seems to demand a very neat method of
propagation.

Isn't it more likely that purely longitudinal compression waves crosse great
distances, then our instruments make comparisons with
neighbouring/overlapping waves and interpret what they find as transverse?

I am still waiting, incidentally, to be convinced that light from distant
stars does have any transverse component.

(I know that radio signals from Jupiter's rings do, but these are on a
larger scale.  I have also read that there is supposed to be some kind of
anisotropy in the polarisation of distant star-light, but I don't know the
details.  I do not know if all likely artifacts have been ruled out.  Can
anyone tell me the facts?)

Cheers
Caroline

PS: I'm away from Saturday for a week.

At 10:23 PM 5/31/00 +0900, you wrote:
>Cher Ross,
>
> >Think about how water compression waves give rise to the higher level of
> >organization of surface ocean waves.  The compression energy heads to the
> >sea floor, reflects, and converges coherently into the wave front.
> >
> >EM and ocean waves are both transverse waves.  But EM are more like a smoke
> >ring vortex.  Still, it is the same phenomena.  There is nothing but
> >compression waves when you break it down to the most basic level.
>
>Yes this I understand but why compression wawes in the aether leads to em
>waves,while sound waves in matter remain sound waves?

Sound waves in matter also lead to surface transverse waves.  Sound waves
in air are what drive smoke ring vortices.  Sound waves in all materials
with reflecting surfaces lead to the formation of wave patterns.  All
material interactions are due to sound interactions, or more basically,
simple atomic or molecular collisions, which is all sound really is
anyway.  Sound drives it all, or more to the point, collisional interaction
is what drives everything in matter, and in aether.

Sound is what forms the surface waves on the ocean, and it is what forms
photons in aether.

rt

Dear Ross

The really fundamental difference in our points of view is this matter of
whether or not "photons" really do retain any identity when they travel from
distant stars to us.

My work on the EPR experiments taught me just a little about how
photomultipliers work, and the ones used there seem to depend on the
addition of local noise.  This seems especially evident when you think about
a coherent laser beam, which, according to QT, consists of a stream of
randomly spaced photons.  But when you consider all the facts on the
assumption of a pure wave model of light, they fall happily into place if
you assume instead that all the randomness comes in at the detection stage.
The laser beam itself is a very neat beam, of constant amplitude.

Now when you detect starlight, the situation is different. You use CCDs or
something and I don't know much about these.  Before the signal reaches
them, though, it has to be focussed.  The wave front over a large area is
forced to converge to a point.  Thus you cannot prove that what is detected
is an individual photon: it is a condensed wave.  The QT argument is that
the act of focussing merely increases the probability of detection, but I
just don't believe a word of it!

> >The problem with EM waves is that I can't see any equivalent to the sea
> >floor, so I think we must forget that analogy, and  I can't imagine how
> >there can be much reflection in open space of the basic compression
waves.
>
> OK, either this is a problem with the concept, or it is a problem with
your
> ability to grasp the concept.  I DO see how the waves can reflect and
> re-converge.  Ergo, I don't think it is a problem with the concept.

OK, so they COULD do this, but I see further problems when it comes to
thinking about how various light signals can cross each other with so little
interference.  Even with straight compression waves I have a little
difficulty, but to imagine two smoke rings crossing?  Impossible!  Or do you
know otherwise?

> Related (known) phenomena are gradient index optical fibers, solitons in
> air and other media, light bullets, and of course, smoke rings.

None of these attempt to cross each other!

> But in addition to that, you have to grasp the notion that spacetime
> itself is a structure of standing wave energy.

I'm not so sure that it can be "standing" waves, though I'm in full
agreement that it is all waves.

> With that, the nodes and anti nodes of the spacetime acoustic
> structure interact with the tiny compressional waves that en masse make up
> the macroscopic geometry of the photon and other EM waveforms.

Almost agreed.


> >Isn't it more likely that purely longitudinal compression waves cross
great
> >distances, then our instruments make comparisons with
> >neighbouring/overlapping waves and interpret what they find as
transverse?
>
> No.  Pure compression waves dissipate and cannot do many of the things
that
> photons do.  They don't result in coherent interference patterns such as
> are required to form holograms, for example.

I don't see why not.  But perhaps this problem is related to my sneaking
feeling that we are not talking about ordinary compression waves.  These
waves manage to operate in just the one dimension, with virtually no
tendency to spread.

> Compression waves expand
> spherically from the original source of compressional energy, and with
> distance, fade into oblivion.  Photons don't work that way.

Agreed.  There is a mystery, but then why should there not be?  Why should
we expect any analogy to be possible?

> > convergent in more than one way, and hence the difference between
photons
> and other massive particles.  But that is another (complicated) story.

I'd like to hear it some time.  Off to my conference soon, though, and
family matters to attend to.

Thanks very much for all your explanations.  I don't think we are really
very far apart.

Caroline
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat

Dear Ross

> >when you consider all the facts on the
> >assumption of a pure wave model of light, they fall happily into place if
> >you assume instead that all the randomness comes in at the detection
stage.
> >The laser beam itself is a very neat beam, of constant amplitude.
>
> This isn't a very happy situation any longer when you study holograms with
> your same lasers, and you look under a photo mictrograph at the patterns
> formed in the emulsions.  You get interference patterns from those nice
> neat lasers, and that means that you must have interference of some wave
> energy with some other wave energy, and it must be at the same wavelength,
> ie, coherent.

That's precisely what I said!   What did you think I meant?

> >Now when you detect starlight, the situation is different. You use CCDs
or
> >something and I don't know much about these.  Before the signal reaches
> >them, though, it has to be focussed.  The wave front over a large area is
> >forced to converge to a point.
>
> This is completely in error.  The wave energy NEVER is focused into a
> point.  It is focused into a fuzzy region that is always larger than the
> wavelength of the light being focused.

Again, that is what I meant.  A large area is reduced to a small one.

> Focusing collects photons from a greater cross sectional area, and causes
> them to converge ideally to a single pixel.  The larger the light
> gathering, the more photons accumulated, one from over here, one from over
> there, etc.  So the number count goes up.

Sorry, but this is a matter of faith.  It is tied to your acceptance of the
QT idea that all light is associated with individual atoms - this despite
the fact that the wavelength might be much greater than the dimensions of an
atom.

Here again my studies of the Aspect experiments seem relevant.  Aspect
argued that all the atoms in his source region (ionised calcium atoms,
flowing out of an oven) were acting independently and the signals he
detected were the individual photons they emitted.  On the basis of this
assumption, he reasoned that he was justified in throwing away some
inconvenient data - the "accidentals", thereby confirming QT and keeping
physics on the wrong track for the next millennium, it seems.

The actual observations are compatible with the idea that the light is
produced collectively and comes from possibly the whole source region.  It
is a wave, of coherence length a few nanosecs.

When it is detected, there is no evidence that this is done by individual
atoms.  All that is seen is that the instrument produces a pulse of
electricity, which, as he says, is of very variable size and shape.  QT says
the variations are due to the random nature of the electron shower processes
within the instrument.  Maybe, maybe not.  They cannot be seen.

In any case, the only sensible way to interpret his experiments is, in my
view, to assume that the energy of each emission is reduced according to
Malus' law as it passes through the polarisers.  If it passes through as a
complete "photon" you are stuck with the QT interpretation and the result is
that you have to accept that the experiments demonstrate instantaneous
action at a distance!  I take it you do not.

Anyway, the net result is that I consider the EPR experiments to be
conclusive proof that photons do not retain their identities.  Fortunately I
don't think this is entirely incompatible with your model - after all, a
smoke ring can gradually disappear!

> >OK, so they COULD do this, but I see further problems when it comes to
> >thinking about how various light signals can cross each other with so
little
> >interference.  Even with straight compression waves I have a little
> >difficulty, but to imagine two smoke rings crossing?  Impossible!  Or do
you
> >know otherwise?
>
> Yes, I know otherwise.

Hmmm ... I still find it hard to believe that transverse waves of any kind
can pass through each other as easily as longitudinal ones.

> What you need to recognize here is that the wavelength of spacetime is on
> the order of E-35 meters, whereas the wavelength of light is on the order
> of E-10 meters.  So, there are E25 tiny spacetime waves across a single
> photon smoke ring.  That is such a huge number than none of the individual
> spacetime waves will even know there is a photon in the vicinity.

That's part of my point!  Each individual spacetime wave has access only to
local information.  It is very hard to see how any large structure (apart,
that is, from a plane wave-front) formed from them manages to be
self-perpetuating.

> Also, you need to know that photons DO NOT always pass through one another
> innocently.  If the energy is too large, ie gamma rays, they can smack
into
> one another and condense into particles (electron and positron pairs).

High energy "photons" may be different ...

> >
> > > With that, the nodes and anti nodes of the spacetime acoustic
> > > structure interact with the tiny compressional waves that en masse
make up
> > > the macroscopic geometry of the photon and other EM waveforms.
> >
> >Almost agreed.
> >
> >
> > > >Isn't it more likely that purely longitudinal compression waves
> > > >cross great distances, then our instruments make comparisons with
> > > >neighbouring/overlapping waves and interpret what they find as
> > > >transverse?
> > >
> > > No.  Pure compression waves dissipate and cannot do many of the things
> > > that photons do.  They don't result in coherent interference patterns
such as
> > > are required to form holograms, for example.
> >
> >I don't see why not.  But perhaps this problem is related to my sneaking
> >feeling that we are not talking about ordinary compression waves.  These
> >waves manage to operate in just the one dimension, with virtually no
> >tendency to spread.
>
> No such thing as a one dimension piece of aether.  You are working in an
> ocean and cannot escape that fact.  The only simple compression wave that
> does not dissipate is one of an infinitely extensive plane.

Aha!  We're getting there!   I think we are always dealing with extended
sources, so that the compression wave is coherent over quite a large
transverse area.  It dissipates only at the edges of the "beam".

Caroline
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat

Dear Ross

I haven't time to answer all your points - and in some cases it is evident
that you know more than I do - but there are a couple of instances in which
you are still misinterpreting me.

You seem to understand something different by the word "coherent".  My
definition of coherence length comes from an article by Denis Gabor.  Being
self-taught, I have always assumed it was the standard classical one,
invented long before QT.  It is defined to be that path length difference
such that if the beam is split and then recombined you get interference.

> > > >The laser beam itself is a very neat beam, of constant amplitude.

Again, you do not seem to accept the standard classical idea of the
amplitude of a wave.

> > > This isn't a very happy situation any longer when you study holograms
with
> > > your same lasers, and you look under a photo mictrograph at the
patterns
> > > formed in the emulsions.  You get interference patterns from those
nice
> > > neat lasers, and that means that you must have interference of some
wave
> > > energy with some other wave energy, and it must be at the same
wavelength,
> > > ie, coherent.
> >
> >That's precisely what I said!   What did you think I meant?
>
> You said........."of constant amplitude".  You need cyclic amplitude to
> generate an interference, ie, sinusoidal intensity at some level.

I take "amplitude" to mean the maximum displacement of whatever it is that
is waving.  The displacement varies periodically whilst, in a uniform laser
beam, I am saying that the amplitude remains constant.

Re detecting starlight:

> > > This is completely in error.  The wave energy NEVER is focused into a
> > > point.  It is focused into a fuzzy region that is always larger than
the
> > > wavelength of the light being focused.
> >
> >Again, that is what I meant.  A large area is reduced to a small one.
>
> A "point" is NOT a small area, it is zero area.  And the "small area" is
> huge by comparison to the wavelength of light (typically).  So the
focusing
> is essentially irrelevant, whereas you make it out to be extremely
important.

How can you say this?   Why do they want the biggest mirrors they can
construct?

And why is light so different from water waves in this respect?  Isn't a
lens acting rather like a funnel?  The amplitude of the wave increases.

Must break off now.  Back in 10 days or so.

Caroline

Ross Tessien thinks that it is possible to produce "aether" waves,namely
scalar waves.

This opens the way,maybe,to controlled induced flow of aether?

Remember the idea of cumulative quarters of sound waves? Now replace this
by cumulative quarters of scalar waves...
If we can produce such cumulative quarters of scalar waves,then we might
"push" a "point"
of aether within the aether which,in different terms,looks like displacing
"coordinates"
within the aether.

So we produce a directional flow of an aether "point"/"coordinates"!

Nor let us apply the same ideas to a collection of "points" in a volume:we
will produce
displacement of a volume of aether within the aether and any material
"object" situated within this volume of aether will "flow" within the aether.

Opinions?

Claude

Claude -

Ross wanted to build some sort of aether propeller a while back.

Unfortunately this idea could easily be weaponizable. If you can
reach out and selectively displace something with a sort of standing
wave with some noticable force, perhaps you could also shake it back
and forth rapidly, maybe at the resonant frequency of some dominant
molecule in the structure, thereby disrupting it. These devices
should never be set above "stun" for most purposes.

On the opposite side of the coin, the medical possibilities of
remotely manipulating a given area of matter with prewcise fine
detail (if that's possible - scalar 'lasers'?) are mind boggling.
Surgery without incisions of any kind. Virtual instruments
temporarily built inside the body on the spot from tissue or fluids.
Instantly clamp off or support a damaged artery, clear clots, etc.
Broken bone healing, realigning/reshaping, orthodontia. Brain surgery
& tumor removal. Eye surgery and lens reshaping. On and on.

(I wonder if some of these things might even be achieved with
ordinary sound. The focussed targeting of lithotripters seems to
suggest something along these lines might be possible with standing
waves.)

And of course, the propulsion system for vehicles we all dream of.

If Ross can design or build a device that can produce measurable
effects, he opens the door to all these things. It would be wonderful
- and kind of scary.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

>Ross Tessien thinks that it is possible to produce "aether" waves,namely
>scalar waves.
>
>This opens the way,maybe,to controlled induced flow of aether?
>
>Remember the idea of cumulative quarters of sound waves? Now replace this
>by cumulative quarters of scalar waves...
>If we can produce such cumulative quarters of scalar waves,then we might
>"push" a "point"
>of aether within the aether which,in different terms,looks like displacing
>"coordinates"
>within the aether.
>
>So we produce a directional flow of an aether "point"/"coordinates"!
>
>Nor let us apply the same ideas to a collection of "points" in a volume:we
>will produce
>displacement of a volume of aether within the aether and any material
>"object" situated within this volume of aether will "flow" within the aether.
>
>Opinions?
>
>Claude

[Rick]:
Ross wanted to build some sort of aether propeller a while back.

[Jhan]:
Jack Sarfatti has written from time to time about the "quantum propellor"
he's developing.  To which I usually reply with a quip about using it on
ships we build to cross the Dirac Sea!

[Rick]:
...Unfortunately this idea could easily be weaponizable. If you can reach out
and selectively displace something with a sort of standing wave with some
noticable force, perhaps you could also shake it back and forth rapidly,
maybe at the resonant frequency of some dominant molecule in the structure,
thereby disrupting it. These devices should never be set above "stun" for
most purposes.

[Jhan]:
I understand the LASER to be just that kind of weapon, within the context of
the aether we're discussing here.  We use them to cut steel where I work, and
corneal tissue and anything else that gets in the way.  My understanding of
the LASER is that it induces heat in the target material by inducing an
oscillation, which becomes a destructive resonance in the electromagnetic
structure of the target (result of coherent wavefronts passing-by), with
resultant disassociation of valence bonds and subsequent boiling-off of the
material as it shakes loose from its e-m matrix.
/end/

Dear Rick,

>Ross wanted to build some sort of aether propeller a while back.

He is going to do it!!! I think we should expect first preliminary results
within one to three years,if I understand.

>Unfortunately this idea could easily be weaponizable.

Yes but unfortunately all the things we do can be transformed into weapons.
I conceived of a machine to record dreams...and,I am sure now that one day
it will be fabricated.In fact,preliminary work could be started anytime if
I had the funds!
Can you imagine how dangerous such a machine would be if placed into bad
hands?

>If you can
>reach out and selectively displace something with a sort of standing
>wave with some noticable force, perhaps you could also shake it back
>and forth rapidly, maybe at the resonant frequency of some dominant
>molecule in the structure, thereby disrupting it.

Yes this looks possible,of course if such "aether waves" can be produced at
will and engineered at will.

>These devices
>should never be set above "stun" for most purposes.
>
>On the opposite side of the coin, the medical possibilities of
>remotely manipulating a given area of matter with precise fine
>detail (if that's possible - scalar 'lasers'?) are mind boggling.

I got this idea just 2 days ago while half asleep so I did not think about
what you write!
Indeed such things might well achieve "miracles" as you just write!!!

Who knows then? Perhaps some miracles are indeed true and have been made in
the way you suggest?
I do not know.

What is interesting with these scalar waves is that they might open a whole
new way of looking at reality and impossibilities.

>Surgery without incisions of any kind.

Yes.Amazing if this became true,one day.
Bizarre "miracles" happen,apparently,in some "chosen" places like
Lourdes,in France,where the "Virgin Mary" "appeared".

They are very rare but difficult to explain.

Virtual instruments
>temporarily built inside the body on the spot from tissue or fluids.
>Instantly clamp off or support a damaged artery, clear clots, etc.
>Broken bone healing, realigning/reshaping, orthodontia. Brain surgery
>& tumor removal. Eye surgery and lens reshaping. On and on.

Mama mia! I did not think about all this,just how to move a volume of Space
within Space!

As you say the implications are extraordinary.
I read,recently,that some people hypothesised that the Moon might have been
put here by some kind of advanced civilisation.

I thought the idea crazy but,if we can displace things with scalar
waves,who knows what is possible from impossible?


>(I wonder if some of these things might even be achieved with
>ordinary sound. The focussed targeting of lithotripters seems to
>suggest something along these lines might be possible with standing
>waves.)

But sound does not act on the aether.

>And of course, the propulsion system for vehicles we all dream of.
>
>If Ross can design or build a device that can produce measurable
>effects, he opens the door to all these things. It would be wonderful
>- and kind of scary.

He is predicting that his "aether engines" will produce very strong
magnetic fields,something which is interesting to compare with reports
about flying discs.

I hope he succeeds because he promised me a ride!!!!!!

All the best in Havai'i,

Claude

PS:I have been,once,in Honolulu and ate delicious food at the university
there!!!

>X-eGroups-Return:
sentto-482536-408-960075411-cyrano=aqua.ocn.ne.jp@returns.onelist.com
>To: IndustrialMonism@egroups.com
>X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 106
>From: jhandavis@...
>Mailing-List: list IndustrialMonism@egroups.com; contact
IndustrialMonism-owner@egroups.com
>Delivered-To: mailing list IndustrialMonism@egroups.com
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:IndustrialMonism-unsubscribe@egroups.com>
>Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 19:36:42 EDT
>Reply-To: IndustrialMonism@egroups.com
>Subject: [IndustrialMonism] REF Instantiator: Original Concept
>
>Listfolk -
>I sent this to John Schnurer a few months ago.  Since then, I still haven't
>got it to work yet the way it's supposed-to, though the kids love it when I
>put metal objects on top of the coil and push the wires over against the
>objects, creating great looking sparks with the usual zapping noises.   To
>which I have to tell the kids "that's not electromagnetics, that called
>spot-welding!"
>
>Also, since then, I've written the other half of the theory, which is spread
>out among the "Reverse-Engineering ..." posts.  The fact that I haven't got
>it to work is probably because the field-effect I'm trying to capture
>requires gapping-tolerances much more tight than I'm able to build-in to the
>device.  If you've read the "Reverse-Engineering..." posts you know the
>theory behind the construction of this thing.  Maybe one of you can get it
to
>work.  If so, let us all know.  Then we'll duplicate the blasted thing for
>use as party-favors and door prizes at a party we'll throw to commemorate
the
>re-invigoration of a currently moribund physics paradigm!  Jack Sarfatti,
the
>quintessential physicist, might even get excited if we could get this thing
>to work.  I have a great deal of respect for him, his work, and would like
to
>surprise him the least when this thing actually functions.
>
>Since writing this, I've refined the application to define the blue or
purple
>swirlie we're looking for as the "difference" frequency created by having 2
>or more electromagnetic resonances in progress at once.  The inner, or
>baseline resonance, would be instantiated by having the gap of the
>"capacitor" (heavy-guage wire coming off of the coil), set "inward" a bit
>more than the gap for the "outer" or "beat-frequency" resonance.  The outer
>capacitor would be the one connected to the positive terminal of the battery.
>
>Allow me to reiterate the warning I gave to John:  The chances of getting
>this thing to work are about the same as the chances of SETI turning-up
>intelligent life "out there."  But we're human.  So we've got to do this
>thing.  The search for the "cosmic swirlie" continues!  As does the SETI
>search.
>
>Subj:   Re: Jhan's Theory Completely Cool
>Date:   4/2/00
>To: <A
HREF="mailto:herman@...">herman@...</A>
>
>[John]:
>    You have my undivided attention ...
>    You wrote the magic words  "Prove it by hardware"
>    What is the task?  Should I set up a cold plasma rig?
>    Tell more about the hardware, please!
>
>[Jhan]:
>John, think of this as SETI on a workbench.  And then consider the odds of
>success in about the same ballpark!  Only we're not looking for intelligent
>life, we're looking for the primary self-sustaining E-M field loops which
>define the structure of the universe.  We want to capture an "extent" of
that
>field as the lemniscate-loops sweep past.
>
>OK!  You've got to understand that the theory, now 6 pages of fine print and
>not even near half-written, is *impelling* the construction of the hardware,
>but not *dictating* with total precision how to do it.  So there's a lot of
>leeway in the construction of this device.  The next paragraph describes the
>*next* iteration of the device, which I'm going to try building some warm
day
>soon.  If you want to waste your time on it, I'd feel honored!  I'm not
>making any guarantees that it'll do anything but waste your time, but if you
>build this, it'll at least serve as a static model: a visual-assist to
>understanding the attached theory.
>
>If by any chance this thing works, you may wish to disseminate the
>construction-specifics as far and as fast as possible.  Then I'll have to
get
>off my butt and write the other half of the theory, which I've been
>putting-off.
>
>Obtain a piece of plywood about 18" square.  Wind a coil around the
>carbon-rod out of a flashlight dry-cell.  Wind it first to one end, then
>back, so that the two leads come out of it positioned on the same end of the
>coil.  Wind electrical tape around it so that just the leads stick out, a
>short lead of about 3" and a long lead of about 8."  Mount or glue this
>"solenoid" coil to the center of a piece of plywood, sticking up from the
>plywood.  Taking some fairly stout bare copper wire (I like to use
12-guage),
>staple the middle section of about a two foot long piece of it to the board,
>detouring around the solenoid, with the middle of that segment close to the
>bottom of the solenoid.  This wire is configured as one "leg" of an "X"
>leaving several inches on each end of the leg unstapled-down.  Do this again
>for the other leg of the "X" making sure you cross the first leg at
>right-angles on the board, and then bend the second copper conductor up a
bit
>where it crosses over the first conductor at its closest approach to the
>solenoid (to avoid a short).  Stick a small (3" - 4") aluminum sphere on top
>of the coil so it stays put.  Bend those 4 free ends of the "X" conductors
so
>that they stick straight up, then bend them again so that they point at the
>"equator" of the sphere.  You may have to do some trimming, but leave enough
>of each wire so that you can adjust the gap, coming next. Leave a very small
>gap between the conductive sphere and the ends of the pointer wires.  This
is
>the capacitor-element of the tuned L-C resonant circuit.  The coil is
>obviously the other required element!  Now, solder the short coil lead to
one
>of the cross-conductors.  Connect the long coil lead to the negative pole of
>a battery.  Connect another small piece of wire from the positive pole of
the
>battery to a switch (optional) and then wire from the other end of the
switch
>to the other cross-conductor.  Solder that joint, too.
>
>With the aluminum ball securely atop the coil, you should now be able to
>perform any adjustments you need to make to the 4 gaps.  This will probably
>have to be done several times, as small differences in measurement between
>gaps may be critical.
>
>In theory, when you close the switch, there should be a momentary surge of
>power through the L-C circuit, but not for more than a few nanoseconds.
This
>L-C oscillator won't take long to charge because we're talking at most
>picofarads here.  Now it gets interesting.
>
>The theory states that the surge of juice through the coil will excite the
>four outer electrons of the carbon atom (read the first half of the theory,
>attached, to see why I use the singular here) into momentary
hyperextension.
>This action defines the outer boundary of the bound-field electromagnetic
>resonance effect which should then take over, surrounding the sphere with a
>blue or purple glow.  Haven't got it to happen yet, but, that's the theory!
>
>I call the effect we're looking-for the resonating electromagnetic field.
>Resonance is the only proper word for it, because it's definitely not
>self-sustaining (although if it works, it would appear to be
>self-sustaining).  The theory states that the physical capacitor dimensions
>define the boundary of the field, and that the inductor initiates the
>hyperextension.  Think of the theoretical result, the electromagnetic
>resonance, as a really large electron, since the theory states explicitly
>that the universe is just a big atom!  If this thing works, you'll have
>"instantiated" a big electron at one of the "user-available" energy-levels
of
>the electron.  (The theory also says that photons are the "propagating"
>variety of these electronic hyperextensions.)   What'll make it possible for
>you to see the field-effect is the photons generated by the field as a set
of
>sidebands: harmonics generated by the field.
>
>In the event it does work, the resonance-effect may get a mind of its own
and
>try to drag the apparatus off somewhere.  You may want to secure the entire
>project to the workbench with some C-clamps.  I'd consider such an effect a
>nuisance.  Personally, I just want to see the blue swirlie, not have it
>frame-drag the generating equipment!
>
>Please promise me that you won't get bored-to-death reading the attachment.
>And, if this thing works, let me know!
>
>And, God bless you as you try to capture a piece of His machine!
>
>- Jhan Davis
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
>Remember the good 'ol days
>http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/3/_/807917/_/960075400/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>IndustrialMonism-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>
>

Listfolk & CCfolk -
While on active duty with the Air Force at Wright-Pat last year and living at
Page Manor (base housing), I watched one of those fireballs take a path from
west to east, dropping out of line-of-sight behind the base housing units on
the east side of Spinning Road and so, out of view.

I was working on my car at the time, and just happened to glance up as the
fireball did its thing.  My impression at the time was that it was definitely
not a pyrotechnic device, since kids around the neighborhood were always
launching fireworks and setting off firecrackers.  I didn't notice any tail.

My view of it was as it traversed about 100-degrees of view (until it
dropped-out of line-of-sight).  It was the most incredible brilliant,
"living" green I've ever seen.  I'd never seen such a green before and
haven't since.  I didn't report it up the chain-of-command at the time
because I had no idea where it had come down, if it in fact did, so I was
unable to recover it.  I'd have loved to have gotten hold of a fragment or
whatever generated the glow so I could have put it in a vice and taken tongs
or drill to it.  Also, it appeared to be several miles up and traveling quite
fast, which would have put it down probably somewhere east of Yellow Springs.

Also, my take on any UFO experience is that officialdom will only recognize
the reality of the thing if they see physical evidence layed-out on the news
desk as broadcast by a national affiliate TV station!

If you happen to have the experience of seeing a UFO it's a real treat, and a
paradigm-changer (at the individual level).  That green fireball is the only
UFO I've ever seen which I couldn't explain as something natural, manmade, or
sent up by a teenage prankster!
/end/

In a message dated 6/4/00 11:34:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jhandavis@... writes:

<< While on active duty with the Air Force at Wright-Pat last year and living
at
  Page Manor (base housing), I watched one of those fireballs take a path from
  west to east, dropping out of line-of-sight behind the base housing units on
  the east side of Spinning Road and so, out of view.
   >>
Hi Jahn--
    In my work for the US Psychtronics group, I have often given talks in
Ohio--Columbus & Dayton to be exact. I have several confidential tales from
persons working at Wright-Patterson about a "black world" area there and also
some delightful tales from civilioans in the area about seeing fireballs and
other unidentified objects aloft. My conclusion is that--as in the Tobyhanna
, Pa. Materials Depot Sightings investigation I have written about in my DR.
FU MAN CHU MEETS THE LONESOME COWBOY:SORCERY & THE UFO EXPERIENCE book and in
an article for MUFON about a decade ago--these military bases are sometimes
being buzzed by "things that go bump in the night" not by anything top secret
they can envision at all.
   Best--Eugenia Macer-Story

4 juin

Eureka! Scientists break speed of light

Jonathan Leake, Science Editor

SCIENTISTS claim they have broken the ultimate speed barrier: the speed of
light.
In research carried out in the United States, particle physicists have shown
that light pulses can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal
velocity of 300.000 km per second.

The implications, like the speed, are mind-boggling. On one interpretation
it means that light will arrive at its destination almost before it has
started
its journey. In effect, it is leaping forward in time.

Exact details of the findings remain confidential because they have been
submitted to Nature, the international scientific journal, for review prior
to possible publication.

The work was carried out by Lijun Wang, of the NEC research institute in
Princeton, who transmitted a pulse of light towards a chamber filled with
specially treated caesium gas.

Before the pulse had fully entered the chamber it had gone right through it
and travelled a further 20 m across the laboratory. In effect it existed in
two places at once, a phenomenon that Wang explains by saying it travelled
300 times faster than light.

The research is already causing controversy among physicists. What bothers
them is that if light could travel forward in time it could carry
information. This would breach one of the basic principles in physics -
causality, which says that a cause must come before an effect. It would also
shatter Einstein's theory of relativity since it depends in part on the
speed of light being unbreachable.

This weekend Wang said he could not give details but confirmed: "Our light
pulses did indeed travel faster than the accepted speed of light. I hope it
will give us a much better understanding of the nature of light and how it
behaves."

Raymond Chiao, professor of physics at the University of California at
Berkeley, who is familiar with Wang's work, said he was impressedby the
findings. "This is a fascinating experiment," he said.

In Italy, another group of physicists has also succeeded in breaking the
light speed barrier. In a newly published paper, physicists at the Italian
National Research Council described how they propagated microwaves at 25%
above normal light speed. The group speculates that it could be possible to
transmit information faster than light.

Guenter Nimtz, of Cologne University, an expert in the field, agrees. He
believes that information can be sent faster than light and last week gave a
paper describing how it could be done to a conference in Edinburgh. He
believes, however, that this will not breach the principle of causality
because the time taken to interpret the signal would fritter away all the
savings.

"The most likely application for this is not in time travel but in speeding
up the way signals move through computer circuits," he said.

Wang's experiment is the latest and possibly the most important evidence
that
the physical world may not operate according to any of the accepted
conventions.

In the new world that modern science is beginning to perceive, sub-atomic
particles can apparently exist in two places at the same time - making no
distinction between space and time.

Separate experiments carried out by Chiao illustrate this. He showed that in
certain circumstances photons - the particles of which light is made - could
apparently jump between two points separated by a barrier in what appears to
be zero time. The process, known as tunnelling, has been used to make some
of the most sensitive electron microscopes.

The implications of Wang's experiments will arouse fierce debate. Many will
question whether his work can be interpreted as proving that light can
exceed its normal speed - suggesting that another mechanism may be at work.

Neil Turok, professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge University, said
he awaited the details with interest, but added: "I doubt this will change
our view of the fundamental laws of physics."

Wang emphasises that his experiments are relevant only to light and may not
apply to other physical entities. But scientists are beginning to accept
that man may eventually exploit some of these characteristics for
inter-stellar
space travel.


Copyright 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd.

Dear all,

It's about time it was made more generally known that what is referred to as
the "speed of light" is the speed of light through the ether. The speed of
light through any other medium will of course be different as I hope Lijun
Wang has demonstrated and his conclusions are upheld.
Cheers,
Gareth
PS From the planetary information I have, I do not believe the recent
earthquake in Indonesia was caused by planetary activity and therefore it
will be an "isolated" quake. If I am wrong then it will be followed by
another of about equal magnitude in the Columbia / Panama region in about 2
to 3 weeks.

At 9:05 PM +0900 6/5/00, milo wolff wrote:

>The only new step of thinking required is to replace the impossible
>Democritus point-particle concept of matter with quantum wave
>structures of advanced and retarded waves. i.e. the WSM.

Does anyone know why Feynman rejected advanced/retarded wave solutions?

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

Claude -

At 12:18 AM +0900 6/4/00, cyrano@... wrote:

>But sound does not act on the aether.

That was an 'aside', a slightly off topic comment on the notion that
similar things might also be accomplished with ordinary acoustic
sound - and it is. After I wrote that, I followed some lithotripter
links and found that they are using lithotripters in experimental
cancer treatment to help transport drugs into tumors. Also I
remembered that there are some rather spectacular levitation tricks
done now with powerful acoustic standing waves. Last I heard they
were up to floating a 1" diameter steel ball on sound alone in the
open air! But they've got a long way to go to figure out how to
transport giant stones like the Tiahuanaco megaliths, quarried up to
200 miles away over very mountainous terrain and transported in the
air via "trumpets". Oh well. But I think the conventional techniques
with standing and slow moving acoustic waves would likely apply to
engineered aether manipulations.

I wish Ross all luck and support in his effort too, by the way. I'm
not really sure why, perhaps it's just wishful thinking, but I think
maybe he can do it.

- Rick Monteverde
Honolulu, HI

> At 9:05 PM +0900 6/5/00, milo wolff wrote:
>
>>The only new step of thinking required is to replace the impossible
>>Democritus point-particle concept of matter with quantum wave
>>structures of advanced and retarded waves. i.e. the WSM.
>
> Does anyone know why Feynman rejected advanced/retarded wave solutions?
>
> - Rick Monteverde
> Honolulu, HI

Dear Rick,

Feynman, like most quantum theorists, often worked with advanced and
retarded waves, especially for QED calcs. But again like most, he
assumed that point particles  existed and that the wave functions of QM
were only math probabilities to guess where the particles might be
found. Quantum waves were not real in their minds.  This error of
thinking lasted for 50 years!

I was a bit surprised because all you need to do is look at a x-ray
photo of a crystal array and ask yourself,

  "What keeps the atom's centers neatly spaced in arrays? They cannot
just be suspended in space?"

The simple answer is that quantum waves are REAL and their standing
waves are the source of atom spacing in crystals.  Tradition dies
slowly.

Both Wheeler and Feynman were top mathematicians and KNEW there are NO
SOLUTIONS to the e-m wave equation in spherical coordinates. Yet in
their writing they assumed that spherical e-m waves exist. Feynman even
did his PhD thesis using them  - with Wheeler.  Tradition dies slowly.

If he had used the quantum wave equation in spherical coordinates, which
has solutions, he would have discovered the quantum Wave Structure of
Matter, 40 years before anyone else. They didn't.  Tradition dies
slowly.

Cheers,

Milo


"When the subway jerks, it is the fixed stars which throws us down"
(Mach,1895)

   http://members.tripod.com/mwolff

Not at all.  In order that it be flat, there must be some outward going
push, the cosmological constant as it is called.  That outward thrust is
due to aether emission.

In many billions of years, as the extent of the universe we can observe
increases, we will be able to see beyond the CBR out into the rest of the
Omniverse.  And eventually, the outward expansion will reverse into an
inward collapse.

So to the contrary, the finding that it is flat, is a surprise to
physicists who expected that it should be closed if gravity was pulling
everything back inward and slowing it down.

rt


At 10:22 PM 6/5/00 +0900, you wrote:
>Dear Ross,
>
>The recent discovery that the Cosmos is flat seems to exclude your idea
>that our sub-universe is an electron.
>
>Claude

Cher Claude,

> particle physicists have shown
> that light pulses can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal
> velocity of 300.000 km per second.

Particle physicists lack the appropriate formation to aver such statement.

>The implications, like the speed, are mind-boggling.

Certainly the commentarist have no idea of what they indeed are.

>On one interpretation it means that light will arrive at its destination
>almost before it has started its journey.

This expression is ridiculous, in addition of its being wrong.

>In effect, it is leaping forward in time.

This is even more ridiculous, since all transformation does it.

> Exact details of the findings remain confidential

Absurd; if sincere, any pretension so inordinate lacks every motive to
establish a confidentiality.

> because they have been submitted to Nature, the international
> scientific journal, for review prior to possible publication.

Every crackpot does ever submit to Nature his best lucubrations.

"The work was carried out by Lijun Wang, of the NEC research institute in
Princeton, who transmitted a pulse of light towards a chamber filled with
specially treated caesium gas.
Before the pulse had fully entered the chamber it had gone right through it
and travelled a further 20 m across the laboratory. In effect it existed in
two places at once, a phenomenon that Wang explains by saying it travelled
300 times faster than light."

It looks as a pathological rendering of Chapter II in PAM Dirac's "Principles
of Quantum Mechanics" presented as novelty.

>It would also shatter Einstein's theory of relativity since it depends
>in part on the speed of light being unbreachable.

"In part"??? Egad!!! This guy has not the least idea of what he is talking
about!

>This weekend Wang said he could not give details

Simply ridiculous, as no such constraint could in the least be justified.

>but confirmed: "Our light
>pulses did indeed travel faster than the accepted speed of light. I hope it
>will give us a much better understanding of the nature of light and how it
>behaves."

More ridiculous, as if it were true the implications are far broader than
"understanding of the nature of light and how it behaves"

>Raymond Chiao, professor of physics at the University of California at
>Berkeley,

Who is a serious researcher,

>who is familiar with Wang's work, said he was impressedby the
>findings. "This is a fascinating experiment," he said.

Thus, it cannot be talking about what was pretendedly portrayed in the
preceding lines of this note.

"In Italy, another group of physicists has also succeeded in breaking the
light speed barrier."

The reporter has no idea of what he is saying; if it were indeed the
purpose, the physicists would have expressed it by themselves in a
far deeper way.


" In a newly published paper, physicists at the Italian
National Research Council described how they propagated microwaves at 25%
above normal light speed. The group speculates that it could be possible to
transmit information faster than light."

This seems to allude to the well-known issue of the entanglements.


>Guenter Nimtz, of Cologne University, an expert in the field,

Which field?

> agrees. He believes that information can be sent faster than light

It is a completely different issue.

>and last week gave a paper describing how it could be done to a
>conference in Edinburgh. He believes, however, that this will not
>breach the principle of causality because the time taken to interpret
>the signal would fritter away all the savings.

" "The most likely application for this is not in time travel but in speeding
up the way signals move through computer circuits," he said.

Wang's experiment is the latest and possibly the most important evidence
that the physical world may not operate according to any of the accepted
conventions."


Of course not; suppossing that is again ridiculous.

"In the new world that modern science is beginning to perceive, sub-atomic
particles can apparently exist in two places at the same time - making no
distinction between space and time."

The second statement is the Pythagoric-Parmenidean basic tenet.


"Separate experiments carried out by Chiao illustrate this. He showed that in
certain circumstances photons - the particles of which light is made - could
apparently jump between two points separated by a barrier in what appears to
be zero time. The process, known as tunnelling, has been used to make some
of the most sensitive electron microscopes.

The implications of Wang's experiments will arouse fierce debate. Many will
question whether his work can be interpreted as proving that light can
exceed its normal speed - suggesting that another mechanism may be at work.

Neil Turok, professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge University, said
he awaited the details with interest, but added: "I doubt this will change
our view of the fundamental laws of physics."

Wang emphasises that his experiments are relevant only to light and may not
apply to other physical entities."

Thus, Wang is not talking about what it is pretended in this newspaper notice.

"But scientists are beginning to accept that man may eventually exploit
some of these characteristics for inter-stellar space travel.

Copyright 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd."

Absurd. Could you ascertain about what do they indeed attempt to talk about?

           Amities, M.


=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
        Prof. Mariela Szirko,
      <postmaster@...

        Centro de Investig. Neurobiologicas, Ministry of Health
& Welfare, Argentine Republic; and
        Lab. of Electroneurobiological Res., Neuropsychiatric
Hospital "Dr. Jose Tiburcio Borda", Buenos Aires City Govt.,
        Office:  Phone/Fax (54 11) 4306 -7314
        Electroneurobiologia: Pagina de Red
                 http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/
                 http://contenidos.ciudad.com.ar/borda
        Standard disclaimer: Las opiniones de este mensaje son
personales y no comprometen las dependencias a cargo de la firmante
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

Dear Folks,

	 Let us propose a thought experiment:

	 1] three separate pathways are set up
		 a] beam of light, one color, not required to be
			 coherent, in air at STP for an on duration of 1
			 second
		 b] a series of repeating waveforms on coaxial cable,
			 with and arbitrary frequency of 500 kcps to 1 meg cps

		 c] A series of waveforms, as above, along some
			 different path, such as 1 inch by 3 inch
			 silver plated wave guide.

	 All three are set in motion at the same time.  The triggering and
propagation latencies for all three are measure ...say... 10 times, before
hand.
	 At the start end all three signal methods are battery supplied,
regulated and isolated.

	 Q:  If one of the three exceeds C ... will this be an acceptable
demonstration of FTL?

	 Q: If not, why not.

	 Q: WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE TO MAKE THIS A BULLET PROOF
EXPERIMENT?


On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Administrador del Nodo wrote:

> Cher Claude,
>
> > particle physicists have shown
> > that light pulses can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal
> > velocity of 300.000 km per second.
>
> Particle physicists lack the appropriate formation to aver such statement.
>
> >The implications, like the speed, are mind-boggling.
>
> Certainly the commentarist have no idea of what they indeed are.
>
> >On one interpretation it means that light will arrive at its destination
> >almost before it has started its journey.
>
> This expression is ridiculous, in addition of its being wrong.
>
> >In effect, it is leaping forward in time.
>
> This is even more ridiculous, since all transformation does it.
>
> > Exact details of the findings remain confidential
>
> Absurd; if sincere, any pretension so inordinate lacks every motive to
> establish a confidentiality.
>
> > because they have been submitted to Nature, the international
> > scientific journal, for review prior to possible publication.
>
> Every crackpot does ever submit to Nature his best lucubrations.
>
> "The work was carried out by Lijun Wang, of the NEC research institute in
> Princeton, who transmitted a pulse of light towards a chamber filled with
> specially treated caesium gas.
> Before the pulse had fully entered the chamber it had gone right through it
> and travelled a further 20 m across the laboratory. In effect it existed in
> two places at once, a phenomenon that Wang explains by saying it travelled
> 300 times faster than light."
>
> It looks as a pathological rendering of Chapter II in PAM Dirac's "Principles
> of Quantum Mechanics" presented as novelty.
>
> >It would also shatter Einstein's theory of relativity since it depends
> >in part on the speed of light being unbreachable.
>
> "In part"??? Egad!!! This guy has not the least idea of what he is talking
> about!
>
> >This weekend Wang said he could not give details
>
> Simply ridiculous, as no such constraint could in the least be justified.
>
> >but confirmed: "Our light
> >pulses did indeed travel faster than the accepted speed of light. I hope it
> >will give us a much better understanding of the nature of light and how it
> >behaves."
>
> More ridiculous, as if it were true the implications are far broader than
> "understanding of the nature of light and how it behaves"
>
> >Raymond Chiao, professor of physics at the University of California at
> >Berkeley,
>
> Who is a serious researcher,
>
> >who is familiar with Wang's work, said he was impressedby the
> >findings. "This is a fascinating experiment," he said.
>
> Thus, it cannot be talking about what was pretendedly portrayed in the
> preceding lines of this note.
>
> "In Italy, another group of physicists has also succeeded in breaking the
> light speed barrier."
>
> The reporter has no idea of what he is saying; if it were indeed the
> purpose, the physicists would have expressed it by themselves in a
> far deeper way.
>
>
> " In a newly published paper, physicists at the Italian
> National Research Council described how they propagated microwaves at 25%
> above normal light speed. The group speculates that it could be possible to
> transmit information faster than light."
>
> This seems to allude to the well-known issue of the entanglements.
>
>
> >Guenter Nimtz, of Cologne University, an expert in the field,
>
> Which field?
>
> > agrees. He believes that information can be sent faster than light
>
> It is a completely different issue.
>
> >and last week gave a paper describing how it could be done to a
> >conference in Edinburgh. He believes, however, that this will not
> >breach the principle of causality because the time taken to interpret
> >the signal would fritter away all the savings.
>
> " "The most likely application for this is not in time travel but in speeding
> up the way signals move through computer circuits," he said.
>
> Wang's experiment is the latest and possibly the most important evidence
> that the physical world may not operate according to any of the accepted
> conventions."
>
>
> Of course not; suppossing that is again ridiculous.
>
> "In the new world that modern science is beginning to perceive, sub-atomic
> particles can apparently exist in two places at the same time - making no
> distinction between space and time."
>
> The second statement is the Pythagoric-Parmenidean basic tenet.
>
>
> "Separate experiments carried out by Chiao illustrate this. He showed that in
> certain circumstances photons - the particles of which light is made - could
> apparently jump between two points separated by a barrier in what appears to
> be zero time. The process, known as tunnelling, has been used to make some
> of the most sensitive electron microscopes.
>
> The implications of Wang's experiments will arouse fierce debate. Many will
> question whether his work can be interpreted as proving that light can
> exceed its normal speed - suggesting that another mechanism may be at work.
>
> Neil Turok, professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge University, said
> he awaited the details with interest, but added: "I doubt this will change
> our view of the fundamental laws of physics."
>
> Wang emphasises that his experiments are relevant only to light and may not
> apply to other physical entities."
>
> Thus, Wang is not talking about what it is pretended in this newspaper notice.
>
> "But scientists are beginning to accept that man may eventually exploit
> some of these characteristics for inter-stellar space travel.
>
> Copyright 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd."
>
> Absurd. Could you ascertain about what do they indeed attempt to talk about?
>
>           Amities, M.
>
>
> =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
>        Prof. Mariela Szirko,
>      <postmaster@...
>
>        Centro de Investig. Neurobiologicas, Ministry of Health
> & Welfare, Argentine Republic; and
>        Lab. of Electroneurobiological Res., Neuropsychiatric
> Hospital "Dr. Jose Tiburcio Borda", Buenos Aires City Govt.,
>        Office:  Phone/Fax (54 11) 4306 -7314
>        Electroneurobiologia: Pagina de Red
>                 http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/
>                 http://contenidos.ciudad.com.ar/borda
>        Standard disclaimer: Las opiniones de este mensaje son
> personales y no comprometen las dependencias a cargo de la firmante
> =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free @Backup service!  Click here for your free trial of @Backup.
> @Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access
> your files online.  Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4935/5/_/187292/_/960421570/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   forcefieldpropulsionphysics@eGroups.com
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>

NIKOLA TESLA--

                ERASED AT THE
                  SMITHSONIAN

  http://www.concentric.net/~Jwwagner/index.shtml

Revised February 1, 2000

There have been 142180 hits on this page.



                        NIKOLA TESLA

       HIS NAME MARKS AN EPOCH IN ELECTRICAL
                                 SCIENCE



  TESLA EXPERIMENTING WITH ELECTRICITY IN 1899

                                    AND

                     AS A YOUNG MAN IN 1882



In 1882 he made the discovery that changed the world--harnessing the
awesome power of Alternating Current.

In 1888 he obtained U.S. patents covering an entire system of polyphase AC
that remains unchanged in principle today.

He promptly sold all of his patents to George Westinghouse, an acquisition
that made the Westinghouse Company the giant it is today.



Westinghouse and Tesla were consummate friends, but after Westinghouse
died in 1913, the company forgot about its chief benefactor and Tesla fell
victim to hard times.

Tesla died January 7, 1943, alone, and all but forgotten, in a New York hotel
room, paid for by a meager stipend provided by a foreign government.

Today, industries flourish and the world surges from the power his fertile
mind created...and radios blare with news and music, their transmission made
possible by his giant intellect...all telling us that TESLA WAS HERE.



                                FARADAY

Tesla is preceded in greatness only by Michael Faraday who in 1831 rocked
the scientific world with his discovery that magnetism can produce
electricity...if it is accompanied by motion. Faraday discovered the
principle,
but not how to make it power the world; Tesla alone accomplished this
singular feat.

Tesla is the greatest inventor the world has ever forgotten. He is also the
greatest inventor the Smithsonian has 'swept under the carpet.'



I am John W. Wagner, teacher...and I have a story to tell you about my
successive classes of Third Grade students whose efforts were thwarted by the
Smithsonian Institution.

We need you to collaborate with us in our on-going campaign to secure
Tesla's proper place in history. As you continue reading our story you will
learn how you can participate. You will also learn how we are circumventing
the Smithsonian and correcting history.

I provide an optional hot spot below that will take you to a black on white
version of the entire web site (less pictures) for printout.



REVERED BY STUDENTS

        THIRD GRADERS' EFFORTS CRUSHED BY THE
                             SMITHSONIAN





                       AMERICA'S UNDERDOG

These students learned the true story of electrical history...not the
politically
correct version taught by a trusting but brainwashed educational system.
When we learned that Nikola Tesla was the underdog of electrical history and
was ignored by the Smithsonian, we made him our class hero and
immediately started a campaign to secure his proper place in history.



               DECEPTION AT THE SMITHSONIAN

Its curator essentially credits Edison for our worldwide system of
electricity.
He also credits Marconi for the invention of radio. This is a deliberate
assault
on factual history and needs to be challenged.



                      WHO DO YOU BELIEVE?

We choose to believe the United States Patent Office and the U.S. Supreme
Court over the much distorted history the Smithsonian publicizes.

Tesla holds over forty U.S. patents (circa 1888) covering our entire system of
Polyphase Alternating Current (AC). These patents are so novel that nobody
could ever challenge them in the courts.

The Direct Current (DC) system Edison used in his much touted Pearl Street
generating station was invented by others before his time; he merely copied
the work of others to promote his business enterprise...and the Smithsonian
wants you to believe he was America's 'King of Electricity.' There is simply
no evidence to support this claim.

Lest you jump to the wrong conclusion, we are not criticzing Mr. Edison,
whose Menlo Park Laboratory workers were responsible for many practical
inventions; we are criticizing only the groups promoting Mr. Edison's name
in the electrical power field.



                       INVENTION OF RADIO

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark decision dated June 21, 1943, Case
No. 369, overturned Marconi's basic patent for the invention of radio because
Tesla's patent on the four-tuned circuit (below) predated Marconi's patent.
Marconi had simply copied Tesla's work.







       TESLA'S FIRST VIABLE RADIO CIRCUIT IN 1893

               UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT

Tesla's four-tuned circuits (two on the receving side and two on the
transmitting side, secured by U.S. patents #645,576 and #649,621) were the
basis of the U.S. Supreme Court decision (Case #369 decided June 21, 1943)
to overturn Marconi's basic patent on the invention of radio.

Marconi merely demonstrated Tesla's invention, but the gullible media and
the greedy industry that followed perpetuate a myth that Marconi invented
radio. Who do you believe has more credibility...the industries that promote
their own businesses, or the U.S. Supreme Court?

Marconi's two-tuned circuit system was the same as that advanced by
Heinrich Hertz and was no more a viable system of radio than that advanced
by Mahlon Loomis in 1872...long before Hertz or Tesla. In one of my LINK
pages I tell the complete story in legal and technical terms. Any unbiased
reader should arrive at the same conclusion.



                               OUR QUEST

After we learned the heart wrenching story of Tesla's life, and realized
what a
great American he was, we wanted to tell the world about him...and we did.
We wrote many letters to important people asking for their support.

A former student persuaded her father, an accomplished sculptor, to create a
bust of Tesla for our class, but we had to pay for the materials.

A Third Grade requirement is to learn cursive handwriting, so our classwork
now had a purpose...WRITING LETTERS to raise money for our Tesla bust.



         Here are pictures of Jessica and Cory, two super letter writers.



                    EVIDENCE OF MOTIVATION

This is a photogrph of the impeccably crafted letters we wrote to more than
one hundred American corporation presidents and CEO's. Many responded
with generous checks to support our campaign. We even received a check
from the president of Sony Corporation in Japan.

This is a photograph of our finished bust we offered to the Smithsonian. Dr.
Bernard S. Finn, (Curator of the Division of Electricity and Modern Physics)
refused us, claiming he had no use for it.



We could not understand why the Smithsonian would have no use for a
$6,000 bust of such a great American and world-class scientist.



             HONORED BY THE WORLD

Tesla is one of only two Americans to have a unit of electrical measurement
named in his honor.

Names for units of electrical measurement are derived by using the names of
scientists who made the greatest contributions in electrical science, forming
perhaps the most elite group in the world.

Throughout the entire history of electrical science only fifteen men worldwide
have received this honor. Tesla is one of these great men. (Edison is not.)

In addition, Tesla received fifteen honorary degrees from famous universities
worldwide, including Yale and Columbia in the United States. He also
received fourteen Awards of Merit from other world-class groups.

Dr. David L. Goodstein, Vice Provost and Professor of Physics at California
Institute of Technology, calls Tesla one of the "Saints of Science" and
equates him to Leonardo Da Vinci.



        ERASED BY THE SMITHSONIAN



                        THE BRAINWASHERS

I urge you to continue reading our web site for a juicy story of how our
country's premier museum (The Smithsonian Institution) deceives the public
by writing biased history...and their curator is doing this in consort with
the
History Committee of IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers)
at Rutgers University.

                           NOT ALL GUILTY

The majority of IEEE members are oblivious of the Smithsonian and the
IEEE History Committee's biased agenda. Nevertheless, everyone who does
not speak out against their wrongful depiction of electrical history deserves
having their children spoon-fed the popular corrupted version.

                  A TRIP TO THE SMITHSONIAN

When I visited the Smithsonian to learn why Dr. Finn had no use for our
Tesla bust, the reason became indelibly clear.

Please remember, at this time I was still naive about the Smithsonian's bias
against Tesla; that is, until I saw......



                       YES, A BUST OF EDISON

Next to Edison's bust I saw Tesla's invention that revolutionized the world. I
was struck dumb and neglected to take a photograph, but here is a drawing
of Tesla's rotating magnetic field device I saw, giving us polyphase AC and
the AC motor...



Tesla's U.S. patent number was on his invention, but I could not find any
recognition for Tesla.

When I asked Dr. Finn why he had placed Edison's bust on display next to
Tesla's invention, he he said the sculptor was a phrenologist and wanted to
examine the bumps on Edison's head; this made it authentic.

We now feel that even if the Smithsonian wanted our bust, we would decline;
it has lost credibility.

The entire electrical display at the Smithsonian (including its web site)
focuses
on Edison's brief business enterprise that failed. This is not a story of
invention, but of big business.

Edison used Direct Current (DC), a technology invented and developed by
others (before his time), as a means of powering his incandescent lamp. Big
business and the gullible media have exaggerated this story so much that now
everyone believes Edison is the father of our system of electrical power.



Please continue reading to learn how you can help correct
history. Trust me...this is the ONLY way. We must
reintroduce Tesla to the academic community through
students...and we are starting with our country's top
engineering schools.

YES, our history books are wrong. Nikola Tesla is the King of
Electricity--NOT Edison.







                         NIKOLA TESLA OMITTED

The Smithsonian Book of Invention is an extra-large hardcover book almost
7/8 of an inch thick. Many inventors and their inventions are shown and their
impact on civilization discussed...including Edison, Marconi, Archie Bunker,
and Colonel Sanders. Tesla and his epic- causing discoveries are omitted.

Is it any wonder many Americans have lost faith in the Smithsonian? Its
leaders are not only writing biased electrical history, they are
systematically
dismantling our country's historical heritage and replacing it with trash to
promote their own social and liberal agenda.







                 CREDIT ESSENTIALLY GIVEN TO EDISON

                         FOR TESLA'S INVENTION

Dr. Bernard S. Finn is Curator and first author of this Smithsonian
publication. In his section entitled "The Beginning of the Electrical Age," he
names 43 contributors to the science of electricity. Mr. Edison's name is
cited
many times along with his photographs, but Nikola Tesla's name is omitted.

Equally outrageous is the Niagara Falls power station picture of Tesla's AC
generators on the last page...and Dr. Finn's concluding remark: "When the
Niagara Falls power station began operating in 1895, it signaled the final
major act in the revolutionary drama that began in Menlo Park in the fall of
1879."

>Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 10:12:31 +0900
>To: TaneJL@...
>From: cyrano@...
>Subject: Evidence for a Close Link Between the Laws of Thermodynamics and
the Einstein Mass-Energy Relation
>Cc: tessien
>
>Cher Monsieur,
>
>Connaissez-vous les recherches de Monsieur Ross Tessien?
>Il écrit que la masse se transforme en Espace(éther)et que les réactions
exothermiques émettent de l'Espace tandis que les réactions endothermiques
absorbent de l'Espace.
>
>Qu'en pensez-vous dans le cadre de votre travail ci-dessus?
>
>Bien cordialement,
>
>Claude Rifat (au Japon)

Cher Monsieur,

J'ai bien reçu votre message et vous en remercie vivement. Je ne connais pas
les recherches de M. Ross Tessien, mais au vu de ce que vous m'en dites, il
est certain que je suis très intéressé. Pouvez-vous m'en donner les
références et le cas échéant celles d'articles que vous-même auriez publiés
sur la question?

Merci d'avance et meilleures salutations.

Jean-Louis Tane

Dear All

I have just attended a conference at which there were two experts on this
subject, and it is all a matter of how the light pulse is deformed and
detected.  The front of the wave does not exceed speed c.

In case you are interested, the experts were Rodrigues (a brilliant
mathematical physicist) and Obolensky, who has done many practical
demonstrations of such effects, though not maybe as dramatic as the one
reported.

Milo said:
>
> IMHO, this interesting experiment is yet another example of the Wave
Structure of Matter (WSM) displaying its unique communication properties.
Like other EPR experiments ...

It do not like to see this effect - which, in its own way, is real, with the
EPR "effect", which is pure myth!  I am still waiting to see how Milos'
theory explains the EPR experiments, as the evidence that the actual results
violate only invalid tests and/or are achieved after unacceptable
manipulation of the data is, in my view, incontrovertible.  In the course of
this same conference I was introduced (by mail) to Aber Shimony (of the
famous 1969 Clauser Horne Shimony and Holt paper).  On reading my paper, he
did not attempt to assert that any experiment had demonstrated nonlocality.
Instead, he placed his faith in *proposed* experiments using atoms, for
which the detection loophole might more readily be blocked.  He went along
with Bell's unfortunate misconception, that improvement in detection
efficiency was unlikely to decrease the significance of the test.  My first
published paper (the Chaotic Ball, available as quant-ph/9611037) is
sufficient to disprove this.

Caroline
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat

That still means we do have the APPEARANCE of FTL, as misinterpreted in
contextual terms of photons and particles, which still leaves me with the
puzzle that us living in a  WORLD of Appearances, quite what we can do  with
waves here, waves there, waves everywhere.  AND if we have particles as
wrong, so too for waves, as BOTH space and time are categories of the mind.
So what does REALLY go on?  So when will we "break" the bind of illusions?
Measuring speed requires us taking up TWO positions in space. Of course,
unless you wish to give up on consistency too.  This lot, however misnamed
gives us a lead into how the whole keeps itself whole.  Of course that does
not explain, at all, how come it would want to keep itself whole.

Adrian.
========
Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Scientists break "speed" of
"light"(?)


> Dear All
>
> I have just attended a conference at which there were two experts on this
> subject, and it is all a matter of how the light pulse is deformed and
> detected.  The front of the wave does not exceed speed c.
>
> In case you are interested, the experts were Rodrigues (a brilliant
> mathematical physicist)

> I have just attended a conference at which there were two experts on this
> subject, and it is all a matter of how the light pulse is deformed and
> detected.  The front of the wave does not exceed speed c.

Can you tell us what this conference was? Where it was held?

> In case you are interested, the experts were Rodrigues (a brilliant
> mathematical physicist) and Obolensky, who has done many practical
> demonstrations of such effects, though not maybe as dramatic as the one
> reported.

Never heard of Rodrigues, but if that Obolensky is Alexis Guy Obolensky, I
don't think he is considered to be an expert by very many
people...especially establishment physicists.

--Kyle R. Mcallister

There has been some discussion here, recently, of the experiments
supposedly demonstrating superluminal or faster-than-c transfer of a pulse.
This has been seemingly explained as a 'trick' caused by the gaussian form
of the pulses...the 'tail' of the pulse is limited to C, but the peak may
be shifted in its place, forming a false appearance of FTL. Let me propose
a thought experiment, and see what your thoughts on this are. Anyone here
who wishes to is encouraged to respond.

We have a signal generator, that produces a pulse of .05 microseconds in
duration. The pulse is square, with a rise time far less than its total
'on' time. This is sent into a coaxial cable with a known entry time and
known time of transit. This then triggers another pulse generator, which
outputs a pulse of duration .1 or .2 microseconds, square in shape with
high rise time, and is sent back to my measurement device along a 50 meter
long specially plated hollow waveguide. The exact specifications of this
waveguide are not important, lets just assume it is of the proper shape to
exhibit our effect. When I look at my oscilloscope screen, I see the input
pulse (.05uSec), a delay of the time it takes a signal to transit the
coaxial cable, then a .1 uSec pulse, and then another .1uSec pulse
displaced from the input pulse by the time needed to traverse the coaxial
cable and the time needed for light to cross 50 meters of free space.
Knowing this, would my observation of a fast first pulse be an indication
of superluminal front velocity? Why or why not?

--Kyle R. Mcallister

Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Scientists break "speed" of
"light"(?)

> Never heard of Rodrigues, but if that Obolensky is Alexis Guy Obolensky, I
> don't think he is considered to be an expert by very many
> people...especially establishment physicists.

Dear Kyle,

It is almost getting to a stage where one has to sub or superscript that
word "expert" with establishment versus non-e "expert". My humbler bottom
line is can the man think and sad to say one finds either competency in
varying degrees on both sides of the party line. To consider your comments,
f i, one would also have to know these days quite where in the pecking
orders on the footie field you stand. Me? just a much frowned upon maverick
who refuses to stay with party lines altogether.

IMHO if a signal, whatever the means, is incontrovertibly co-present or
passed between two locations at FTL speeds, take your pick of metaphors,
that means something.  Whether it is theoretically possible or impossible
does not mean that much. Since by now quite a few folk are reporting such
oddity, etccc blahh.  On the ground of global self consistency for the whole
of the universe or cosmos there will have to be such a thing. And about 14
odd billion years of self maintaining its continuity and self stability one
might say is pretty good reason to accept global consistency. And as, for
various other reasons, we cannot have both local and global consistency I'm
looking forward to a few more and other such paradoxes to pop out of the
woodwork. And if establishment science wants to keep  paradoxes out of sight
it has a problem.

Adrian