Tesla and Superweapons.

Really? Darn! I guess I'll have to stop using "seems unlikely" as a synonym for established fact. Thanks for the tip!From your Message 29: I'm not sure if Taz would agree, but it might be more that he was noting that the connection between evidence and your views is not very often apparent to others. Since you often argue forcefully for views with little apparent evidence, this comes across as not being particularly interested in evidence, which is pretty similar to the anti-science types.Perpetual motion machine advocates don't think they're anti-science, either, but if you read their writings (for example, see Alan Cresswell's thread Electro-mechanical engines of Perpetual Motion and Natural Selection) it is quickly apparent that they care little for what the evidence actually says.When it comes to conspiracies, or to anything really, the science types are looking for evidence, and to them, those who are really only looking for ideas they find appealing come across as anti-science.--Percy

Well, I find the critics of "perpetual motion" to be illogical often and even deceptive, and the reason is most so-called perpetual motion machines or ideas are not perpetual motion machines at all, and anyone can verify that. Critics label them perpetual motion and so show an utter intellectual dishonesty, imo, just as they did with Tesla.....at least this has been my experience.If you have a constant power supply, you do not have perpetual motion. Advocates of energy from the vacuum, right or wrong, believe the vacuum or as tesla would say, the ether, is a constant source of energy. So it's wrong to blast such "free energy" ideas as perpetual motion machines (suggesting that the "perpetual motion" is not tied to perpetual power input).Btw, I haven't read your particular link and so cannot comment on that, but am commenting on what I have noticed over the years among those blasting ideas as "perpetual motion" machines when it's clear the intent is merely to harness perpetual energy input or practically perpetual (as long as the machines will last). In that regard, solar energy is a perpetual motion machine....Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Perpetual motion machines were just an example. The point was how common it is for anti-science folks to think they're actually in favor of science. Substitute wheatgrass juice for perpetual motion machines.Scientific rigor requires following the evidence where it leads, not where one wishes it would lead. Tesla and related conspiracies might make interesting stories, but it is always the case with large-scale long-term conspiracies that speculation far outweighs fact. Concerning a Tesla superweapon suppressed by a long-term conspiracy, there's little evidence of such a thing either historically on in the realm of known scientific possibility.--Percy

I think the evidence supports Tesla's claims or many of them. Who knows on super-weapons, but to dismiss Tesla because of lack of evidence considering he demonstrated his claims often and the fact of his being right on so many other things suggests a willing suspension of belief, not a careful examination of the evidence.Part of the problem is too often people are not looking at his specific claims. For example, he admits to try to transmit power via standard EM waves everyone else uses was impractical. He claimed he could transmit power, for example and just one technigue, through the energy field of the earth itself without loss of power to any point on the earth and to have done so experimentally. Keep in mind he also claimed other means of wireless power.Are there really longtidunal EM waves that work like sound waves, as he claimed? I think his work and claims suggest there is. Just like his claim of over the horizon radar 100 years ago turned out to be correct, I believe he is correct here but that mainstream scientific opinion has been slow to give proper review of what he was saying out of their ignorance, founded on faulty theory. In the case of over the horizon radar, when a clear need presented itself, we employed it in the 50s. I suspect as pollution and resource scarity make it clear we need something besides Tesla's first generation technology, over 100 years old, that we will move on to his 2nd or 3rd generation stuff.Additionally, it would not surprise me if in the past 40 years, we classify some of his stuff as it becomes apparent it can become weaponized, and indeed, the military is using his technology with HAARP and other programs, and the Eastlund patent specifies it can be used to disrupt missiles, planes, communications and modify weather.That's clear evidence if you ask me, that his technology in that area is both valid and being deployed in weapons systems. That may not verify more advanced weapons systems such as scalar weapons, but at the same time, we do have the US Sec of Defense under Clinton admitting they are real.

I have no position one way or other about Tesla, not specifically, anyway. If you want to credit Tesla for all those things you mentioned, which I'd never heard of before, then go ahead, it doesn't matter to me. My position concerns the unlikelihood of large-scale long-term conspiracies, whether they're about Tesla or anyone or anything else.--Percy

Many people have never even heard of Tesla before, much less the full scope of his inventiveness. But if you are interested in science, he makes a good study. The fact is no other scientist has had the profound effect he has had on the way we live. He is the father of the modern, electrical world. He was once a household word and yet for a long time, hardly anyone knew about him....seems there's been a revival of interest in Tesla.Just for reference, he discovered and developed the use of alternating current and the power grid we use today. He also invented the induction motor, radio (wireless communication), remote control, flourescent lighting, and a whole host of things, and was an early pioneer of X-rays, radar, particle beam weapons designs, etc,... They say when the guys that pulled the patent for the transitor did so, they found Tesla had beat them to it. Keep in mind that despite having something like a 1000 patents, the vast majority of inventions and later work, he never patented due to cost restraints. The more you dig into what Tesla did, the more amazing it is.There are still patents of Tesla's just now being put into use, and who knows what would have happened if he wasn't defrauded his wireless patents and hadn't given away patents to Westinghouse to help him avoid JP Morgan's hostile takeover attempt.

Maybe you should start a Tesla thread. This thread only concerns Tesla so far as his involvement in superweapons technology, where Son Goku has defined superweapons to mean war technology that is largely secret.Concerning superweapons whose secrecy has been maintained by many people over long time periods, in other words, a long-term large-scale secret conspiracy, this seems very unlikely to me.--Percy

Well since Tesla's technology is electromagnetic in origin, that faulty theory would have to be Quantum Electrodynamics. Can you explain:
(a) What is faulty about it?
(b) Why it seems to explain everything we've ever observed?
(c) Where is the electromagnetic phenomena it doesn't explain?

You'd have to define quantum electronics first to fully answer you since there appears on this board to be a contrarian perspective of what quantum physics is compared to mainstream QM.But that being said, mainstream EM opinion doesn't explain what Tesla was able to do, but then again, maybe there isn't really a mainstream EM opinion.btw, this may be helpful to the discussionhttp://www.cheniere.org/references/TeslaOSC.pdfEdited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

The quantum theory of the interaction of the electron and photon fields. The "contrarian" perspectives on QM that come up on this board have no particular relevance to the definition of the theory. Usually the debates on this board are about interpretational issues, which don't really affect Quantum Electrodynamics. There is a mainstream EM opinion, that is Quantum Electrodynamics. So I ask again:
(a) What is faulty about it?
(b) Why it seems to explain everything we've ever observed?
(c) Where is the electromagnetic phenomena it doesn't explain?

To the extent that quantum physics is relevant to the topic of this thread, if you would like to argue your view of quantum physics versus other people's views of quantum physics, that would be fine. If you want to debate whether it is your view of quantum physics that is mainstream and not other people's, please propose a new thread for that discussion over at [forum=-25].

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I had a major interest in Tesla’s writing while I was reading Maxwell BEFORE I was contacted by Dr. Gladyshev.Since then I have refined my physical notions and got rid of my high school fascination for soliton under protein denaturation, for what is actually something Kant thought about in a different time. In particular I tend to think that (the) what is missing from Feynman’s notion of QED in biology that seemed possible to me by reading Maxwell is not something in any material destroying weapons at all, but just in flesh and blood. We just don’t know how to do the science of it all. I think it is simply IN the Platypus bill and it’s nervous system!!I feel that there is not a weapon here, but of course there might be in your sense, as it would certainly be ”hidden’ from me, if it was hidden from anyone, but rather than that, I think whatever there could be has resulted from a simple disagreement (still never resolved) between Volta and Galvani that could be read chemically in the work of Faraday.I think Maxwell’s extendable readers get their ideation, whatever that may be , from this path through Faraday which also went to electrotherapy in psychiatry rather than to the military (unless they have mental weapons (which there is a literature on(sending waves onto embassies etc.)) rather then particle weapons).There is an interesting symmetry in one of the Platypus receptors that has me trying to think, if, it is used to measure the temperature effects on electroreception. I would not be arguing that butterflies use super symmetry though it would be a cool thought.A primitive sketch trying to see the relation of Faraday’s experimental set up in the context of the Galvani/Volta controversy is below. I made this up before I found out about the kinds of receptors in the bill.

You haven't explained how you think quantum electronics disagrees with Tesla's claims. If you want to do that and specify where he claimed one thing, preferably not something in theory but something technical that he accomplished and how that disagrees with current theory, then by all means go ahead.However, asking how quantum electonics disagrees with Tesla or what we have observed without getting specific is not that helpful.

Note to Randman: Please do not reply to this message. If you'd like to discuss whose quantum views are truly mainstream please propose a new thread. --Admin I'm sorry, what? The theory is Quantum *Electrodynamics*, or QED as we call it, and it just happens to be the most successful theory science has ever developed. Oh, just don't give up with this idiocy, do you? Tell you what... here's a big favour from me to you. This is a lecture on basic quantum mechanics given by the guy who taught me what QM was really about - you've probably not heard of him, but he's part of the Feynman, Gell-Mann, Glashow, Weinberg crew - i.e. he's rather BIG in quantum theory. You'll have to make do with a video... Sidney Coleman: Quantum mechanics in your faceI strongly advise anyone else interested in this area to watch the video - stick with it, it's a bit technical in places, it's over an hour long, but you WILL learn something.Edited by Admin, : Add note at top.

This is off-topic, just wanted to briefly note I'm watching the video, it promises to be very informative, and there's some really impressive PowerPoint slides that look so incredibly free form you'd think a human being actually wrote them! I didn't know they had that kind of technology in 1994! More seriously to Randman, if you'd like to discuss the mainstream/non-mainstream nature of Sidney Coleman's views on quantum theory, propose a thread over at [forum=-25].--Percy