TESLA'S SECRET AND THE SOVIET TESLA WEAPONS © T.E. Bearden 1981
With Special Drawings by Hal Crawford
With Special Drawings by Hal Crawford
Before the turn of the century, Nikola Tesla had discovered and was utilizing a new type of electric wave. Tesla repeatedly stated his waves were non-Hertzian, and his wireless transmissions did not fall off as the square of the distance. His discovery was apparently so fundamental (and his intent to provide free energy to all humankind was so clear) that it was responsible for the withdrawal of his financial backing, his deliberate isolation, and the gradual removal of his name from the history books.
By 1914 or so, Tesla had been successfully isolated and was already nearly a "nonperson." Thereafter Tesla lived in nearly total seclusion, occasionally surfacing (at his annual birthday party for members of the press) to announce the discovery of an enormous new source of free energy, the perfection of wireless transmission of energy without losses, fireball weapons to destroy whole armies and thousands of airplanes at hundreds of miles distance, and a weapon (the "Tesla Shield," I've dubbed it ) that could provide an impenetrable defense and thus render war obsolete.
In my pursuit of Tesla's secret, it gradually became apparent to me that present orthodox electromagnetic theory is seriously flawed in some fundamental respects. One of these is in the definition and use of φ, the scalar electrostatic potential. It is this error which has hidden the long-sought unified field theory from the theorists.
In the theory of the scalar electrostatic potential (SEP), the idea is introduced of work accomplished on a charge brought in from a distance against the scalar field. The SEP is not a vector field, but is a scalar field. Indeed, scalar potential cannot of itself perform work on a charged mass; if it could do so, then tremendous force would exist on every mass due to the extremely high SEP of the vacuum itself. Only a differential of SEP between two spatial points can produce force or accomplish work. (Rigorously, a differential of scalar potential between two spatial points constitutes a vector. Only a vector can produce force and do work.)
Also, work can only be done on a mass. Further, it takes time* to move an electron or other charged mass between two spatial points, and so the work performed by a spatial differential of the φ-field requires time. Rigorously, the delta SEP is voltage, not SEP per se, and is directly related to E field. The entire voltage concept depends on the work performed in moving a mass, after that mass has moved. The idea of "voltage" always implies the existence of a steady differential of φ between two spatial points for a finite length of time, and it also involves the assumption of a flow of actual mass having occurred. SEP, on the one hand, is always a single-point function; on the other hand, difference in potential (i.e., V) is always a two point function, as is any vector.
Yet many graduate level physics and electromagnetics papers and texts erroneously confuse φ and V in the static case! Such an interpretation is of course quite incorrect.
* Two spatial points involve at least Δt = ΔL/c in time. All vectors and gradients involve 2 separated spatial points, and thus present timelines in 4-space. φ4 is a point, not a line, in 4-space.
Another common assumption in present EM theory -- that the electrostatic potential (φ0) of the normal vacuum is zero -- has no legitimate basis. In fact, we know φ0 is nonzero because the vacuum is filled with enormous amounts of fluctuating virtual state activity, including incredible charge fluctuations. And by virtue of its point definition, φ0 must be the "instantaneous intensity" of these fluctuations -- but both in space and time. The scalar electrostatic potential is therefore the "instantaneous stress" on spacetime itself, and a measure of the intensity of the virtual state flux through a 4-dimensional spacetime point.
Potential theory was largely developed in the 1800's, before the theory of relativity. Time flowrate was then regarded as immutable. Accordingly, electrostatic "intensity" was chosen as "spatial intensity," with the connotation of "spatial flux density." This assumes a constant, immutable rate of flow of time, which need not be true at all if we believe relativity. Such a spatial "point" intensity is actually a "line" in 4-space, and not a 4-dimensional "point" at all. Thus the spatial potential -- φ3 -- is a very special case of the real spacetime potential -- φ4, or charge and electromagnetic theory today is accordingly a special case of the real 4-space electromagnetism that actually exists! Note also that charge is a 4-dimensional concept.
Now mass is a spatial, 3-dimensional concept. Rigorously, mass does not exist in time -- masstime exists in time. Mass and charge are thus of differing dimensionalities!
Also, according to quantum mechanics, the charge of a particle -- e.g., of an electron -- is due to the continual flux of virtual particles given off and absorbed by the observable particle of mass. Thus charge also is conceptually a measure of the virtual flux density, and directly related to φ. Further, since the charge exists in time, it is the charge of a particle of spatial mass that gives it the property of masstime, or existing in time.
Here a great confusion and fundamental error has been thrown into the present EM theory by the equating of "charge" and "charged mass." As we have seen, the two things are really very different indeed.
To speak of a spatial "amount" of charge erroneously limits the basic EM theory to a fixed time flowrate condition (which of course it was considered to be, prior to Einstein's development of relativity). Thus when the limited present theory encounters a "relativistic" case (where the time flowrate changes), all sorts of extraordinary corrections must be introduced. The real problem, of course, is with the fundamental definitions of electrostatic potential and charge. The spatial "amount" of charge (i.e. the coulomb) as we presently erroneously use the term, is actually the spatial amount of observable "charged mass." To correct the theory, one must introduce the true 4-space SEP and separate the definitions of charge and charged mass.
Only when a mass is moved does one have work -- and voltage or vector fields. (The reason one has voltage and E field connected to a normal electrostatically charged object in the laboratory is because an excess of charged-particle masses are assembled on the object, and these masses are in violent motion! A true static charge would have no E field at all. )
Potential theory was largely developed in the 1800's, before the theory of relativity. Time flowrate was then regarded as immutable. Accordingly, electrostatic "intensity" was chosen as "spatial intensity," with the connotation of "spatial flux density." This assumes a constant, immutable rate of flow of time, which need not be true at all if we believe relativity. Such a spatial "point" intensity is actually a "line" in 4-space, and not a 4-dimensional "point" at all. Thus the spatial potential -- φ3 -- is a very special case of the real spacetime potential -- φ4, or charge and electromagnetic theory today is accordingly a special case of the real 4-space electromagnetism that actually exists! Note also that charge is a 4-dimensional concept.
Now mass is a spatial, 3-dimensional concept. Rigorously, mass does not exist in time -- masstime exists in time. Mass and charge are thus of differing dimensionalities!
Also, according to quantum mechanics, the charge of a particle -- e.g., of an electron -- is due to the continual flux of virtual particles given off and absorbed by the observable particle of mass. Thus charge also is conceptually a measure of the virtual flux density, and directly related to φ. Further, since the charge exists in time, it is the charge of a particle of spatial mass that gives it the property of masstime, or existing in time.
Here a great confusion and fundamental error has been thrown into the present EM theory by the equating of "charge" and "charged mass." As we have seen, the two things are really very different indeed.
To speak of a spatial "amount" of charge erroneously limits the basic EM theory to a fixed time flowrate condition (which of course it was considered to be, prior to Einstein's development of relativity). Thus when the limited present theory encounters a "relativistic" case (where the time flowrate changes), all sorts of extraordinary corrections must be introduced. The real problem, of course, is with the fundamental definitions of electrostatic potential and charge. The spatial "amount" of charge (i.e. the coulomb) as we presently erroneously use the term, is actually the spatial amount of observable "charged mass." To correct the theory, one must introduce the true 4-space SEP and separate the definitions of charge and charged mass.
Only when a mass is moved does one have work -- and voltage or vector fields. (The reason one has voltage and E field connected to a normal electrostatically charged object in the laboratory is because an excess of charged-particle masses are assembled on the object, and these masses are in violent motion! A true static charge would have no E field at all. )
No comments:
Post a Comment