Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

rangerover777
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by rangerover777 » Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:51 am

Thanks for the responses,

I read the link you sent (Ether and the Theory of Relativity), although it describe
the history of the ether, the only conclusive conclusion I saw is that there is no
concrete conclusions. And by that I mean, there are no real life tests that let you judge
it for yourself, neither one phenomena that analyzed to it’s core. Sorry to be so
practical, since I think real life experiments that show you “how to hold the aether
in your eyes and brain”, would be more to the point, then compare between different
theories. The tricky thing about theories is that they use terms, names and other theories
that the reader don’t understand them in the first place and maybe the author themselves…

This is why starting from Sound Base is so critical. Now, it does not mean that either
Einstein, Maxwell, Hertz, Faraday or Newton came across milestones that reflect “how
nature works” and in their theories there are fractions on reality. But it’s the same story
with how NASA send a satellite to impact an asteroid and succeed - it does not mean
they know how the atom is built, neither they missed so many things on their way.
So results can be misleading sometimes.

I have nothing against aether, I just need some tests that I can run and see it’s existence.
Like these few tests by Ed Leedskalnin that shows how magnets run in a wire :
http://www.leedskalnin.net/test-6.htm or what happen when two wires are touching :
http://www.leedskalnin.net/test-1.htm , these are just a fractions of his notes and tests
though these are real life tool for the readers to judge it for themselves.

As to the N & S magnets acting as gravity. This isn’t provide the answer to antigravity,
it explain how gravity happen. Just a reminder : No scientist ever tried to run N & S
magnets side by side in the same direction, to examine their effect !!! No One. So it is
still an open question. The main reason is lack of interest in role of N & S magnets
in the universe.

For instance Ed shows in a few of his tests how S pole individual magnets are coming
out of the North pole and goes around into the South pole and back again through the
center of the bar magnet, and out again through the North pole. The same with S. pole
magnets (but the other way). Did you see how textbooks describe this motion ? I’ll
save you that, they claim that the N pole magnets are coming out of the Northern pole
and around into the Southern pole. The same they claim about earth circulation.
THIS IS NOT A SMALL MISTAKE - IT’S HUGE. But no one paid attention to that.
Just think how many more mistakes it triggers, how many wrong theories where created
based on that small misconception… It have to do with how magnets orbiting the atom,
how the sun’s magnetic field work, galaxies and other wrong calculations based on that.

This is why it’s so crucial to start with the right base. I can give you some more
examples that you can test at home, for yourself and see how wrong it perceive
by science.

Sorry if it sound that I ignored the aether, I just think that to start right from the
beginning may even explain the aether better (if there is such a thing).


Enjoy.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by junglelord » Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:49 pm

My Howard Johnson link showed the dual pole existance from both poles so yes I understand and agree with you on that point. However concering the Aether it is important to know that The Correa's have a Pulsed Abnormal Glow Plasama Vacuum Tube that validate the Aether as does the Tesla Magnifying Transmitter. In fact Tesla Technology is directly responsible for the creation of APM and Scalar Field Theory and Aetherometry. I therefore conclude that these lab experiments validate Aether.
http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=47_ ... sublevel=0
http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/index.html
http://www.aetherometry.com/
:D

However over unity magnetic motors have also validated the Aether model
http://www.tewari.org/

Ps the magnetic intersection of gravity was done by Boyd Bushman with two N poles forced together. Two equal weights were dropped. The two Magnets with the N poles bolted together landed last. So I do not totally disregard the statement you made but I believe gravity to be a longitudinal wave which is comprised of both a Modulating Aether (Scalar) Field and a constant Electric field. Hence the ability to bend it is possible, but not to cancel it out. Something a N/S configuration would allow.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by junglelord » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:54 pm

Genesis of Free Power Generation

Chapter 7 from The Physics of Free Power Generation
also appeared in Explore Vol. 6, No. 3, 1995

By
Paramahamsa Tewari, B.Sc.Engg.

Introduction

As per Lenz's law, the electromotive force (EMF) induced in a conductor has such a direction that the current produced by it opposes any flux change. More precisely, in a specific case of a conductor moving relative to magnetic field, the magnetic field produced by the current due to the induced EMF in the conductor interacts with the external magnetic field; that initially induced the EMF and, thereby, produces a net- force on the conductor opposing its movement across the magnetic-field. If the configuration of the conductor, through which the current flows, is made in such a way that the magnetic fields produced by the currents in the above two conductors cancel each other partially (if not fully), then there is a way to beat the Lenz's law, due to which the mechanical power required to move the conductor across the magnetic field to generate electrical power will get proportionally reduced.

The design of the modern dc generator has difficulties in achieving the above configuration of the conductors since the generating element is the rotating conductor within the generator, whereas, the entire outer circuit is a stationary loop connected to the loads. It is shown below as to how the physical constraints in achieving the desired relative dispositions of the conductors can be overcome, and Lenz's law can be partly made ineffective. With the efficiency- increase to higher than unity in the above scheme, the question arises on the source of additional power. Through brief discussion it is shown that only with an alternate theory, which postulates generation of matter from space- medium, satisfactory explanations for over-unity machines can be had.

The Space Power Generator, when tested by Mr. Toby Grotz of Wireless Engineering, produced low voltage ac or dc power at about 2.5 times the mechanical power applied at its shaft. Further improvement since then in the construction of the SPG producing dc power has raised its efficiency to about three times the mechanical power applied. The next generation SPG will use electrical output for feeding a Faraday motor mounted on the same shaft to achieve self-sustaining operation. Certain specific configurations of magnetic fields from rotating electromagnets and electrical conductors have made it possible to construct an SPG that produces ac power presently in the same range as the SPG producing dc power with an efficiency of about 250 percent. Photograph 1 shows the SPG that produces ac power and Photograph 2 shows Mr. Grotz sitting behind the SPG that produces dc power.

The SPG producing ac power has a specific configuration of rotating magnetic circuits with respect to the conductor producing ac voltage through electromagnetic induction.

Table 1, where test results on the ac SPG are given, shows that the ac electrical power generated in the SPG is 2.5 times the mechanical input applied at its shaft over and above the constant losses due to windage and friction. One conclusion of this advantage is that rotation of the entire magnetic circuit, and the specific path that the load current takes within the magnetized iron core, is responsible for over-unity efficiency in the SPGs. A similar conclusion was drawn on the rotation of the magnetic field where, in an experimental setup when part of the magnetic circuit was fixed with the Earth's reference frame, the efficiency of the SPG decreased. In the ac SPG, the conductor in which the voltage is induced does not form a co-rotating system (as it does in the dc SPG), and yet the machine produces ac power at over-unity efficiency.

Table 1. Tests Results of the SPG Generating AC Power December 1993

Speed (rpm) 1960
EMP on no load (volts) 1.98
Electrical input to driver motor (windage and friction) on no load (watts) 2145
Electrical input to drive motor on load (watts) 3575
Rise in mechanical input to the SPG from no load to on load (watts) 1430
Mechanical input to drive motor on load with the combined efficiency of 0.8 for the drive motor and the coupling (watts) from step 4 3575 x 0.8 = 2860
Output electrical current on load from the SPG (amps) 1493
Electrical output (I2R) from 1 and 2 in watts 1.98 x 1493 = 2957
Magnetic excitation power (watts) 676
Total input to the SPG from 6 and 9 in watts 2860 + 676 = 3536 watts
Efficiency of the SPG (ratio of electrical output to corresponding mechanical output, divided by the efficiency of drive motor and coupling) from steps 8 and 5 2957 / 1430 x 0.8 = 2.584 Improvement in the Direct Current SPG's Design

In the Space Power Generator there is a loss of power produced in the generating element as the load current is pushed against the back EMF in the motor element. Tapping additional power from the SPG after certain modifications in the output circuit of the machine solved this problem. Table 2 shows that efficiency greater than 300 percent is achieved when the ratio of electrical output and the corresponding mechanical power input to the SPG (over and above the windage and frictional losses) is taken.

Table 2 Tests Results of the SPG Generating DC Power

Speed (r/min) 2100
EMF on no load for circuit 1:
1050 mV dc
EMF on no load for circuit 2:
1281 mV dc
Output current from circuit 1:
1387 A dc
Output current from circuit 2:
534 A dc
Total electrical output from 2, 3, 4, and 5: 2140 W

Rise in drive motor's input corresponding to electrical output over and above power for windage and frictional losses: 825W

Efficiency from steps 6 and 7 with 0.8 as combined efficiency of drive motor and coupling: 2140/824 x 100/0.8 = 324%

The SPG is proven technology
The SPG is proven technology that produces 200-300 percent over-unity energy. The SPG theory has been tested and proved. It is time, now, to build a prototype system and to work on improving the concept to develop a product that can be used in every household.



http://www.tewari.org/Test_Results/test_results.html
http://www.tewari.org/Theory_Papers/theory_papers.html
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

upriver
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by upriver » Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:03 pm

StevenO wrote:
Heftruck wrote:Why do we need an aether, if I may be so free to ask? :?:
Normally an elastic medium is needed to propagate waves, e.g. sound only propagates through air, not in a vacuum. The idea is that ether is needed to propagate electromagnetic waves.

Well the Aether definitely has something to do with the properties of light.
Laser Cooling of Coin-sized Objects

Laser cooling of coin-sized objects down to one-kelvin temperatures is now possible. In a set of experiments performed last year, a variation on the laser-cooling technique used in chilling vapors of gases down to sub-kelvin temperatures had been used in macroscopic (but still tiny) samples in the nano- and micro-gram range.

Now, a collaboration of scientists from the LIGO Laboratory at MIT and Caltech and from the Max Planck Institutes in Potsdam and Hannover has used laser beams to cool a coin-sized mirror with a mass of 1 gram down to a temperature of 0.8 K. The goal of chilling such a comparatively large object (with more than 10^20 atoms) is to investigate the quantum properties of large ensembles of matter.

An important caveat here is the fact that in all these experiments the "cooling" takes place in one dimension only. A temperature of 1 K applies to the motion of atoms along the direction of the laser beams, while the mirror is free to move (although not much) in other directions. Consequently, if you touched the sample it would not feel cryogenically cold. Beyond the record low temperature achieved for an object as large as 1 gram, another interesting feature of the experiment pertains to the strength of the force exerted by the laser beams.

In the chosen dimension, the beams fix the mirror so steadfastly that it's as if it were being held in place by a spring that's stiffer than a diamond with the same dimensions as the laser beam (long and thin). According to MIT researcher Nergis Mavalvala (nergis@ligo.mit.edu) the sample is held by a rigidity (if the laser beam were solid) characterized by a Young's modulus (the parameter specifying stiffness) of 1.2 tera-pascals, some 20% stiffer than diamond. (Corbitt et al., Physical Review Letters, upcoming article; lab wiki at http://baikal.mit.edu/sqwiki/moin.cgi/Pictures
It certainly is not the laser stand or laser that is that stiff....

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by webolife » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:31 pm

But if the laser is a collimated beam of vectors, all tugging together in the direction of the laser, as I would submit, no aether is required to mediate the cooling process. By the way, this is the reason why laser assisted fusion experiments were such a remarkable failure! Light's vectoral direction is toward the source, as a sink, and that's where the heat is!
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

User avatar
Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by Solar » Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:08 am

webolife wrote: Light's vectoral direction is toward the source, as a sink, and that's where the heat is!
:!: Do you have any linkage/references for that?? :!:
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

scotty1
Guest

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by scotty1 » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:08 am

Hi all
Tesla wrote " I was struck by the thought that if there is energy within the substance it can only come from without. This truth was so manifest to me that I expressed it in the following axiom: "There is no energy in matter except that absorbed from the medium." Lord Kelvin gave us a picture of a dying universe, of a clockwork wound up and running down, inevitably doomed to come to a full stop in the far, far off future. It was a gloomy view incompatible with artistic, scientific and mechanical sense. I asked myself again and again, was there not some force winding up the clock as it runs down? The axiom I had formulated gave me a clue. If all energy is supplied to matter from without then this all important function must be performed by the medium. Yes--but how?"
"Light and heat rays are absorbed in their passage through a medium in a certain proportion to its density. The ether, although the most tenuous of all substances, is no exception to this rule. Its density has been first estimated by Lord Kelvin and conformably to his finding a column of one square centimeter cross section and of a length such that light, traveling at a rate of three hundred thousands kilometers per second, would require one year to traverse it, should weigh 4.8 grams. This is just about the weigh of a prism of ordinary glass of the same cross section and two centimeters length which, therefore, may be assumed as the equivalent of the ether column in absorption. A column of the ether one thousand times longer would thus absorb as much light as twenty meters of glass."
"the theory I advanced in 1897 would afford the simplest and most probable explanation of the phenomena. Is not the universe with its infinite and impenetrable boundary a perfect vacuum tube of dimensions and power inconceivable? Are not its fiery suns electrodes at temperatures far beyond any we can apply in the puny and crude contrivances of our making? Is it not a fact that the suns and stars are under immense electrical pressures transcending any that man can ever produce and is this not equally true of the vacuum in celestial space? Finally, can there be any doubt that cosmic dust and meteoric matter present an infinitude of targets acting as reflectors and transformers of energy? If under ideal working conditions, and with apparatus on a scale beyond the grasp of the human mind, rays of surpassing intensity and penetrative power would not be generated, then, indeed, nature has made an unique exception to its laws."
It has been suggested that the cosmic rays are electrons or that they are the result of creation of new matter in the interstellar deserts. These views are too fantastic to be even for a moment seriously considered. They are natural outcroppings of this age of deep but unrational thinking, of impossible theories, the latest of which might, perhaps, deal with the curvature of time. What this world of ours would be if time were curved:"
------------------------------
Scotty

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by webolife » Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:47 am

Solar, I wish I did have links. I'm trying to recover/re-access unpublished documents by a Seattle researcher named Robert Archer Smith (credit given where credit is due) but have been unsuccessful in locating RA Smith or surviving relatives. So I'm your only link. :roll:
Scotty, Tesla's assertion that the energy comes from without, vs within matter, is exactly my picture of the centropic unified force field at every scale. "My" force field however, requires no mediating particles/aether to absorb/reflect/transmit energy across space. Not saying the stuff isn't there, just that my model "works" without reference to it.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by junglelord » Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:29 pm

Is that not function without a structure?
;)
Thats why its a correct assumption in my opinion but only half of the coin. You must have a structure to effect that function. The way you describe Light to me is a Gradient Function of a Scalar Structure.
How do you Structure without Aether this Gradient Function of Light?
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by webolife » Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:49 pm

Before coming to EU, my unified field was a gravitic light model. So I needed/need no aether for light just as I need no medium for gravity.
The most distant imaginable starlight interacts (albeit feebly) with my retina (or my x-ray or radio/telescope antenna) all the way across the celestial expanse, with hardly a whimper of intervention by any particular medium. Sure there's virtually invisible interstellar dust/plasma, and "molecular clouds"/plasma out there in relation to and interconnecting various macrostructures... and it likely has some effect on some of the light I perceive, but I view that more like the radio broadcasts I listen to in my house or car... perhaps affected, yes, by the air, walls or windows through which they must be "transmitted", but essentially unaltered from the form in which they were initiated. I simply need no medium (nor time) to understand "radiation" as the action/effect of dynamic atomic-level "tugging" from the system center across "empty" space...
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by junglelord » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:43 pm

I think your Function is correct, but you believe it on Faith without the Structure. I still think your only seeing half of the picture. Its like the Reverse Time EM Wave Phase Conjuget. Its there but hidden. The Aether is Homgeneous and therefore seems invisible. Does that make sense to you about why its there but hidden?
I think in time you will see the Structure, Its calling out to you from the Spiral Galaxy. That is a Standing Scalar Wave Structure. Therefore that requires a Scalar Field Function. Its that simple.

Phase conjugation and the time- reversed wave are there but they are hidden. They do however exist. Its therefore part of the Embedded Nature of Her Language. The fact you do not see it is in fact proof that its doing exactly what it is ment to do, be hidden and enfolded, yet still self evident in the Spiral Galaxy Structure, a Standing Wave Vortex Scalar Function.

You cannot seperate Structure from Function. Don't forget that as the Universe uses this as Her template and as Her Language. It is therefore impossible to have one without the other. Every Structure has a Function and every Function needs a Structure. You never get a Function from nothing no matter how hidden the Structure is. This corrects action (function) at a distance by nothing, into action (function) at a distince by structure. That is logical and self evident as the universe is self evident. Her Language is not difficult.
;)
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by webolife » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:33 pm

I understand you to mean that force (across distance) requires some kind of energy transference "machinery". By structure you mean to say "substance". Therefore in your model(s) the principles of action have to be embedded in the material (reminiscent of gravitons, etc.) My argument however is the reciprocal: Matter doesn't produce gravity, gravity(electrogravitic effects?) produces matter. Force induces mass, and velocity. EMF induces charge, and current. At some scale in your model(s) action needs to be delivered across a space (the Casimir effect is a fruitful evidence for this), unless you consider the aether to be infinitely dense. And at that scale, in that situation, what will deliver your action? I don't suggest that action comes from nothing. Just that it operates across nothing as easily as through a dense solid, eg. radio signals through a glass window. Why do you need an intervening (material) medium... except to support your belief in the aether? Your references to "Faith" and "self-evidence" sound like Plasmatic! I have field geometry which is, incidentally, infinitely dense, though not necessarily infinitely continuous. Ultimately I also have a power source for the unified field. Anyone want to ask me what that source is? (Don't ask unless your stomach is as strong as your brain... by the way JL, I was amused to hear you are INFJ, also my personality type!)
I truly love this place! :D
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by junglelord » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:41 pm

I am slowly working my way through your link on LIght and Magnatism. I will reserve anymore ideas until I finish your link.

Your an INFJ too...thats rare.
:D
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

lizzie
Guest

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by lizzie » Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:53 pm

That's a compliment, not a dig. Your sirname isn't Gmirkin by any chance???
Close. It's Smirkin. Perhaps he's a distant relative.

lizzie
Guest

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by lizzie » Mon Apr 28, 2008 7:48 am

The Influence of Vedic Philosophy on Nikola Tesla's Understanding of Free Energy
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_1.html
"Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic.? If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is, for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature."

"There manifests itself in the fully developed being , Man, a desire mysterious, inscrutable and irresistible: to imitate nature, to create, to work himself the wonders he perceives.... Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance."

According to Swami Nikhilananda:

Nikola Tesla, the great scientist who specialized in the field of electricity, was much impressed to hear from the Swami his explanation of the Samkhya cosmogony and the theory of cycles given by the Hindus. He was particularly struck by the resemblance between the Samkhya theory of matter and energy and that of modern physics. The Swami also met in New York Sir William Thompson, afterwards Lord Kelvin, and Professor Helmholtz, two leading representatives of western science. Sarah Bernhardt, the famous French actress had an interview with the Swami and greatly admired his teachings.

...Mr. Tesla was charmed to hear about the Vedantic Prana and Akasha and the Kalpas, which according to him are the only theories modern science can entertain.....Mr Tesla thinks he can demonstrate that mathematically that force and matter are reducible to potential energy. I am to go see him next week to get this mathematical demonstration.

Swami Vivekananda was hopeful that Tesla would be able to show that what we call matter is simply potential energy because that would reconcile the teachings of the Vedas with modern science. The Swami realized that "In that case, the Vedantic cosmology [would] be placed on the surest of foundations". The harmony between Vedantic theories and and western science was explained by the following diagram:

BRAHMAN = THE ABSOLUTE

MAHAT OR ISHVARA = PRIMAL CREATIVE ENERGY

PRANA and AKASHA = ENERGY and MATTER

Brahman is defined as the one self existent impersonal spirit; the Divine Essence, from which all things emanate, by which they are sustained, and to which they return. Notice that this is very similar to the concept of the Great Spirit as understood by Native American cultures. Ishvara is the Supreme Ruler; the highest possible conception of the Absolute, which is beyond all thought. Mahat means literally the Great One, and is also interpreted as meaning universal mind or cosmic intelligence. Prana means energy (usually translated as life force) and Akasha means matter (usually translated as ether). Dobson points out that the more common translations for Akasha and Prana are not quite correct, but that Tesla did understand their true meanings.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests