I have recently been watching videos from the Thunderbolts Project. The theories explained therein are very interesting especially in combination with Tesla’s theories as I have reconstructed.
Let’s go through 3 points they are making that could work well together with Tesla’s theories.
First, they too believe that the Sun is an electrical phenomenon. But what I feel is missing in their work is how the Sun obtained and maintains its electrical charge.
Second, they present us with the idea that Saturn used to be our sun, until some event occurred and our current Sun took over. What I feel is missing here is by what process did Saturn stop being a star.
Third, they show us how comets are also most likely electrical phenomena. What I feel is missing here is an explanation of how can such a small object contain such tremendous charge that would be necessary to explain the observed phenomena. For example if a spherical comet with a radius of 1 Km would discharge with a 1 μA current for 180 days, it must have had a charge of at least 15.5 C, which would have resulted in a voltage of almost 9 MV. Though these are ‘possible’ values, the discharge would only have 9 Watt, which would be impossible for us to observe. To make it observable we would at least need a million times that value, which would imply a minimum voltage of 9 billion volts. This is where I start scratching my head.
Three questions to which Tesla may provide an answer.
Let’s go back to how Tesla believes the universe is structured. The most fundamental building block is the ether, a fluid incompressible medium that is omnipresent. Submerged in this fluid we find a second medium of a gaseous nature which is the root cause for all electrical effects.
Now logically, when we think of the root cause for electrical effects, we think of elementary charges, but that is not what Tesla had in mind.
A few quotes from May 20th, 1891: Experiments with Alternate Currents of Very High Frequency and Their Application to Methods of Artificial Illumination:
In interpreting electric phenomena: we may speak of electricity or of an electric condition, state or effect. If we speak of electric effects we must distinguish two such effects, opposite in character and neutralizing each other, as observation shows that two such opposite effects exist. This is unavoidable, for in a medium of the properties of ether, we cannot possibly exert a strain, or produce a displacement or motion of any kind, without causing in the surrounding medium an equivalent and opposite effect. But if we speak of electricity, meaning a thing, we must, I think, abandon the idea of two electricities, as tie existence of two such things is highly improbable.
---//---
If there is such a thing as electricity, there can be only one such thing, and; excess and want of that one thin, possibly; but more probably its condition determines the positive and negative character.
---//---
We know that it acts like an incompressible fluid; that there must be a constant quantity of it in nature; that it can be neither produced nor destroyed; and, what is more important, the electro-magnetic theory of light and all facts observed teach us that electric and ether phenomena are identical.
---//---
Returning to the subject, and bearing in mind that the existence of two electricities is, to say the least, highly improbable, we must remember, that we have no evidence of electricity, nor can we hope to get it, unless gross matter is present. Electricity, therefore, cannot be called ether in the broad sense of the term; but nothing would seem to stand in the way of calling electricity ether associated with matter, or bound to it; or, in other words, that the so-called static charge of the molecule is ether associated in some way with the molecule.
This is before Tesla clearly distinguishes between the ether and “the medium” as he does here on Feb 3rd, 1892: Experiments with Alternate Currents of High Potential and High Frequency:
What impresses the investigator most in the course of these experiences is the behaviour of gases when subjected to great rapidly alternating electrostatic stresses. But he must remain in doubt as to whether the effects observed are due wholly to the molecules, or atoms, of the gas which chemical analysis discloses to us, or whether there enters into play another medium of a gaseous nature, comprising atoms, or molecules, immersed in a fluid pervading the space. Such a medium, surely must exist,…
To complete this we add this to a quote from July 10th, 1937: Prepared Statement by Nikola Tesla:
There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.
Especially the context of this last quote is interesting as he is discussing his “dynamic theory of gravity” and in an earlier post I have shown how gravity can be explained through variations in ε0.
If we start out with the ideal gas law (P • V = N • k • T) , we can determine what a rise in pressure of Tesla’s gaseous medium would translate to, and that would be an increase of ε0 (as I assumed in my earlier post) and an increase of an electrical field strength.
So it is not that some elementary charged particle causes an electric field, it is the other way around, its mass interacts with this medium, creating an electric field and this we interpret as a charged particle.
And with this we can formulate a starting point for explaining the observed phenomena.
The central mass of a system (our Sun or the nucleus of an atom) gets a positive electrical charge while the outer masses receive the corresponding negative charge. This immediately explains how Saturn could have been our sun first, but getting too close to a larger mass changed its electrical potential to negative and added positive charge to the Sun.
And finally comets; as they are far away from large masses they experience little electrical activity. However as they move closer to the Sun they become electrically charged and start discharging to their environment.
So... there it is; my thoughts based on Tesla's work.
What do you think?