Tesla and Superweapons.

This is what you said: In other words, mainstream science doesn't agree with Tesla because our understanding of electromagnetism is founded on a faulty theory. It is your claim that the theory is faulty and Tesla is right. I'm asking you why it is faulty and where are the observations that support Tesla.
You are the one making the claim and I'm asking why the theory is faulty. Can you explain why it is faulty? Why would I have to provide evidence for a claim I never made?

Hi Cavediver,I'm only up to 7:34 of the lecture, and I'm already going to have to drop out. His viewgraphs are not legible in the video, and he just said this: This drew laughter, and I thought he was joking and was going to repeat what he'd just said in English, but he immediately goes to the next slide: I'm already hopelessly lost, and he's only on slide 2. Maybe you should conduct an interactive thread-based lecture series on what Coleman's saying.--Percy

Ah, Sidney Coleman. The man who made quantum field theory comprehensible.Percy you may like this:
http://claymath.msri.org/yangmillsexistence.mov
It's not exactly QM, but it is a good deal of modern physics, in what I believe is a fairly accesible talk.

Well, faulty theory was the reason mainstream scientific opinion rejected over the horizon radar. They said it was physically impossible. That is a specific example where faulty theory or interpretation of theory was wrong and Tesla was right.To be honest, I think "theory" here could refer to more than one thing. As you probably know because you or someone alluded to it, some advocates of scalar weapons say we have uncovered evidence in the world of physics of energy from the vacuum but have not adopted those findings into the world of electro-dynamics. In other words, the claim is electrical engineering theory is not up to speed with the discoveries of physics and is outdated. I am sure you are aware of the specific claims. Tom Bearden, whether whistleblower or crackpot, has publicized them, and you seem to have referred to him earlier.So when you talk of "quantum electrical theory", that's all fine and well. It may well be that Tesla's claims fit with that or not. I'd like to see more specifics to answer you. Like I said, just talking about basic quantum physics with some here has produced an extreme variety of meaning to the point that when I provided quotes of quantum physicists that clearly disagreed with cavediver, for example, he claims the physicists didn't mean what he said but was just inflating his language to impress people.How do you debate something then when the same terms means exact opposite things? Edit to add: note to admin: I am not trying to debate QED or quantum physics here, but simply explaining why I am not getting into it (which you stated should be another thread btw). No attempt at rules violations here....at least imho. Just trying to explain myself and posts earlier in simpler terms.So as far as QED related to Tesla claims, you need to show me exactly where you think theory disagrees with Tesla.My comments on people rejecting Tesla's claims deal first with their doing so 100 years ago, and then reluctance to accept his claims today based on perception of theory, of what is possible, which is probably rooted in classical EM theory. To debate QED's extent and scope is not my intent here, except maybe some points guys like Bearden raises. The point is the perception of what is possible or real has resulted in people rejecting longitudinal waves or energy within the vacuum as wrong.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Look let's make this simple. When you say rejection of Tesla is based on faulty theory, what theory are you talking about and what is faulty with it?

I'd like to echo Son Goku's request that you identify what theory you're talking about and what was faulty about it. And if you can tie it in to the topic that would be even better!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Already named it. First, the view of theory when Tesla first presented the discovery of over the horizon radar was such that mainstream scientists stated it was impossible.How can I be more clear?If you want to delve into the specifics of why scientists felt over the horizon radar was impossible, please do so. I am merely pointing out they felt it was physically impossible (obviously based on their theory of what was possible and not).On to the present, from what I can tell, the existence of longtitudinal waves, as Tesla described, or described in more modern technical language perhaps by some like Bearden, is not accepted by most mainstream scientists or engineers.You tell me: what theory were these guys working with, what specific ideas within theory, do you think people reject Tesla's concepts of longitunal waves and other ideas?Why did they reject over the horizon radar, for example?Why did they think it was impossible? Clearly, they had some theory as to why it was impossible, right?

Uh huh, so despite your belief it is off-topic, you'd like as an admin request I discuss it anyway?Inconsistent anyone?See my post below.Edit again to add: you guys seem to be ignoring the issue, which you told me was off-topic earlier, of the various interpretations of the physical meaning of quantum electronics and quantum physics in general. Since there is disagreement between what, say someone like cavediver says at times, with someone like Zeilinger, and I am told to shut up when bringing up quantum physicists into the argument, it's not going to be fruitful to get into a discussion of quantum physics here, it seems.Now, if son goku or anyone wants to bring up a specific concept within quantum electrodynamics or quantum physics, and you allow it, maybe we can discuss that in relation to Tesla's claims.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Now we are back to the topic. Since we are getting to the supposed science behind these weapons. By actually providing the name of the theory. Something beyond "the theoretical thingy that made people not believe Tesla". Well first of all, let's tackle scalar weapons. The theoretical basis for these things, we are told, is a scalar function which is apparently missing from standard electromagnetism. People like Bearden insist that this scalar function was removed from Maxwell's electromagnetism by Oliver Heaveside and it contains the secrets of Tesla's technology.
First of all, I think this is nonsense, since the classical electromagnetism of today is the exact same as that of Maxwell. Maxwell used quaternions and we use vector functions, but (if you know quaternions) it is easy to prove they are the exact same theory. Hence I cannot see any basis for these scalar weapons.Now over-the-horizon radar is related to Tesla's wireless claims and his ideas about projectile weapons. Tesla had this idea on how electromagnetism worked, his theory if you will and it allowed things like over-the-horizon radar, projectile weapons and wireless energy transmission. When Tesla presented his ideas, the one people focused on was over-the-horizon radar since it was related to what was being done at the time. The claim made by the mainstream at the time was that over-the-horizon radar was only possible according to standard theory if the earth possessed a radio-wave reflective layer in the upper atmosphere. The view at the time was that there was no way we'd be lucky enough to have such a layer and as such the technology was impossible. In Tesla's theory it didn't matter, electromagnetism could just be manipulated to curve over the horizon. Similarly it could be manipulated to make projectile weapons.What happened? Well it turned the Earth's atmosphere does have a radio reflective layer. There was nothing wrong with the theory at the time, there simply wasn't enough knowledge of the Earth's atmosphere. Tesla was correct by fluke and the actual over-the-horizon radar we have now is not based on his ideas. Hence if Tesla's electromagnetic theory is not actually responsible for one of its supposed successes, I can't see how it is reasonable to entertain the idea that it is being used to create secret weaponry.

btw, an interesting article that seems relevant to this discussionhttp://amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html

Actually, Tesla did insist the layer was there, from what I have read, but he also insisted it could be done without it.

Hi Randman,If in the future if I forget to add "Please, no replies" to the end of a message, just assume it is there. Only respond if I specifically request responses or if a response is obviously required from context (e.g., "If you can tell me what webpage you were looking at I'll try to help you.").If you are experiencing problems or issues in a thread, please post to Windsor castle.You can often determine for yourself whether you're on-topic. For example, in this thread you could ask questions like this:

• Is the issue of whose views on quantum theory are mainstream the topic of this thread?
  ​
• Is over-the-horizon radar a superweapon as defined by Son Goku?

And so forth.Quantum theory is not the topic of this thread except to the extent it is related to superweapons and Tesla. If you'd like to discuss quantum theory itself instead of superweapons and Tesla, then please propose a new thread over at [forum=-25].Please, no replies.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Would it be correct to say that your position is that was some aspect of Tesla's theory of electromagnetism that we're as yet unaware of that would allow over-the-horizon radar without the need for an atmospheric reflective layer?--Percy

I've certainly never heard this. From what I've read (biographies and the histories of electromagnetism), he famously thought that there wasn't an ionosphere and hence the fact that wireless worked lead him to doubt Maxwell's equations. Can I see a reference for this?

not exactly science papers, but from a quick search.... Note also (just as an aside so people know more about Tesla): Nikola Tesla and the exploration of CosmosI will look for more....gotta run and do an errand...this was just the first thing I noticed when googling.