Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

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? If you have a personal favorite theory, that is in someway related to the Electric Universe, this is where it can be posted.
User avatar
spark
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:36 pm

Re: Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

Unread post by spark » Tue May 04, 2021 7:00 am

Eric Dollard's Electric Wave paper on Impulse Currents and Oscillating Currents, bit different than AC and DC.

This information might help producing Oscillating Currents with Tesla Coils leading to producing fractal galaxies inside vacuum chamber.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg3ohbvrB_A

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_Doc ... ollard.pdf

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

Unread post by nick c » Tue May 04, 2021 4:32 pm

Are you famiiar with the work of Winston Bostick who conducted lab simulations of galactic morphology with plasmoids in magnetic fields?

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2020/0 ... -birthday/
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/1 ... s-birth-2/
https://www.plasma-universe.com/Winston-H.-Bostick/

User avatar
spark
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:36 pm

Re: Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

Unread post by spark » Wed May 05, 2021 5:25 am

nick c wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 4:32 pm Are you famiiar with the work of Winston Bostick who conducted lab simulations of galactic morphology with plasmoids in magnetic fields?
I am now. See the Pattern's video on Winston Bostick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtYVTGlHGAk

User avatar
purplepete
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

Unread post by purplepete » Wed Jun 23, 2021 10:23 pm

For anyone who's interested - Eric and Aaron have been building a new "cosmic induction generator" and they've already shown it doing a few interesting things, like a flame speaker.
Just recently they started heading down the road to recreate the "galaxy in a bottle" which I think will be a slam-dunk for Electric Universe theory; cosmological features recreated with electricity, and demonstrating the similar structures across a wide size range idea.
So far they've been able to create what looks like Birkeland currents in cylindrical bulbs, and in a spherical-ish bulb they have created a string of "plasma beads" aka ball lightning aka plasmoids - check out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVeJXBar-sQ
especially from the 10 minute mark.

User avatar
spark
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:36 pm

Re: Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

Unread post by spark » Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:30 pm

Cosmic Induction Generator Tesla Brush Bulb Test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-YK5hdKh40

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

Unread post by JP Michael » Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:45 am

What cosmic phenomena do the coils represent?

User avatar
spark
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:36 pm

Re: Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

Unread post by spark » Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:01 pm

JP Michael wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:45 am What cosmic phenomena do the coils represent?
Its a form of tesla coil configuration that causes fractal galaxies and stars to form inside a vacuum chamber filled with various gases and metal vapors, that's the cosmic phenomena the coils represent, hence the term cosmic induction generator coined by electrical engineer Eric Dollard.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

Unread post by JP Michael » Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:40 am

Ah so the electric fields of the coils are inducing current in the contained vacuum gases, resulting in self-sorting plasma phenomena after ionisation?

User avatar
spark
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:36 pm

Re: Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

Unread post by spark » Fri Apr 29, 2022 7:11 am

JP Michael wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:40 am Ah so the electric fields of the coils are inducing current in the contained vacuum gases, resulting in self-sorting plasma phenomena after ionisation?
It polarizes ionized gases and metal vapors resulting in galactic and star formations under right conditions. Electromagnetic power from coils need to be provided constantly like birkeland currents provide power to the galaxies in space otherwise it can't maintain its structure anymore and dissipates back but maintains its structure for like a second or two after the power is cut off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtYVTGlHGAk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeoOJaPl4Oc

User avatar
purplepete
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

Unread post by purplepete » Sat May 21, 2022 1:11 pm

One interesting result is that they’re getting what appears to be plasmoid formations in not just gas-filled bulbs of various elements and pressures, but also bulbs that have been evacuated to a near perfect vacuum.

This supports Miles Mathis’s model which contends that there is no vacuum, at least anywhere in our galaxy, as there is a constant flow of sub-microscopic particles through all volumes that can be ‘promoted’ to detectable particles by concentrating them in a smaller volume that makes collisions more likely. The electrical input is causing this concentration.

Miles’s model in my opinion meshes in very well with plasma cosmology/electric universe theory and helps explains a few gaps in the latter, mainly on the small scale but also at the macroscopic level, including the solar cycle, axial tilt and relative location of the planets.

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

Unread post by jackokie » Sat May 21, 2022 1:22 pm

Any chance these sub-microscopic particles might also function as the aether?
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

User avatar
purplepete
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

Unread post by purplepete » Sat May 21, 2022 1:53 pm

jackokie wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 1:22 pm Any chance these sub-microscopic particles might also function as the aether?
I'm glad you asked ;-)

Miles's model does indeed form an aether model; here are the key points:
1) There are a huge number (spread out thinly across the Universe, but concentrated around what we call matter) of exceptionally small particles like incompressible billiard balls, zipping around at the speed of light. They are as small compared to an electron as (roughly) an electron is to a village. Although too small to detect with any of our instruments they can be detected "en masse" as the 3 degree "cosmic microwave background".
2) Through partial collisions with other particles these particles can build up discrete and quantised "layers" of spin; axially and in x/y/z coordinates, with each "layer" resulting in a particle that looks larger and more massive to our instruments.
3) Once particles reach the size of an electron they are so large that they act as a porous spinning ball, with a constant stream of smaller particles passing through them. Due to centrifugal force most of the smaller particles will be spat out around the equator, and the most likely entry point without suffering a collision is via the poles. This can be seen on the Earth as well - the "magnetic field" channels particles into the poles, which in energetic times result in auroras, and there is an excess of infrared energy leaving the Earth around the equator, especially just North and South of the equator, which can be seen at e.g.
https://science.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/

These particles not only make up everything in existence, but fulfill the requirements of an aether model (the aether being the majority of particles that haven't had many collisions, so aren't as big as an electron). The main difference between this and a more conventional aether model is that the background sea of particles is NOT mainly static; it's zooming around at c, and is not only interacting with every particle but is an inherent part of all particles the size of an electron or larger (Miles estimates that 95% of what we measure as the mass of a proton is actually that of these smaller particles "passing through"). The other is that whilst the particles are flying in all directions, there are more than an average number of them heading in certain directions around massive objects. For any decent size spinning particles that direction will be into the poles, but outwards nearly everywhere else, and will be a lot stronger around the Equator - and as you can see above will actually be strongest just to the North and South of the equator, rather than at the equator itself (well, for anything spinning substantially slower than c).

So there is not so much an "aether wind blowing past the earth" as has been suggested in the past but instead an aether wind blowing through the Earth at all times, and which is actually a fundamental part of the Earth.

This also explains why Michelson-Morley were unable to find anything (much), as their equipment was looking for a "wind" running parallel to the ground. The only place this would have been obvious under Miles's model would have been near the poles, where the inflow from the Sun is balanced by the outflow from the Earth and there would be a possible drift sideways caused by the axial rotation of the Earth, or near large structures like mountains.

This also explains why Martin Grusenick's replication of the Michelson-Morley experiment with the interferometer being adjusted to make it perpendicular to the ground did pick up a strong positive result (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E). It also wouldn't be unusual if there was a diurnal and seasonal variation, as well as variations after large CMEs, bearing in mind the solar origin of most of the particles traveling to Earth. Similarly they'd also be variations relating to the orbit of the Moon (and to a lesser extent all the planets), as the same particles are also going into the Moon around the poles and coming out at other angles, which means some of those will also be impacting the Earth. In fact there has been quite a bit of research done in various places over the last several decades, especially the Soviet Union, showing long-term diurnal/seasonal/yearly/monthly patterns in not only experiments in biology, but also in chemistry and physics.

BTW as a kicker it is this flow of particles that literally is charge, electricity and magnetism in Miles's model. There is heaps more on how this relates to atomic structure, why we don't need the strong/weak force, what makes certain elements magnetic/liquid/gaseous/solid, etc etc.

I go more into Mile's model and how I believe it meshes with PC/EU theory and the research done by Per Bak at
https://www.thehonestscientist.com/miles-mathis/

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

Unread post by jackokie » Sat May 21, 2022 3:50 pm

Thank you, @purplepete! I didn't see your reply until I posted about my independent discovery of "The Honest Scientist". Miles Mathis appears to fit the description of a polymath. Three questions:

1. Have you discovered the person behind "The Honest Scientist"?

2. Has Mathis been published in any journals?

3. What is your impression of "The Center for Open Science" and the Open Science Framework?

Now to finish reading your last post.

Edited to add: Jeez, Louise, I'm really behind the curve today! I'm going to start linking to your website when I need to provide an introduction to the EU model and related info.
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

crawler
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

Unread post by crawler » Sat May 21, 2022 9:07 pm

Here is some wordage that i made in comments for Grusenick's youtube.

I agree with many of the comments here & in the links.
(1) All vertical MMXs suffer from mechanical strain -- hencely Martin got "bogus" fringeshifts.
(2) Martin's gizmo is badly designed -- the bad axis location magnifies the strains -- the material (aluminium) is weak (stress-strain-wt).
(3) Martin's fringeshifts are periodic in a full turn -- a proper MMX is periodic in a half turn. The only MMX that is periodic in a full turn is Demjanov's twin-media MMX (air & carbon-disulphide), i call it a DMMX. Demjanov used his DMMX in 1968~72, & reported in English in about 2002~2017. A DDMX is about 1000 times as accurate~sensitive as an MMX.
(4) The main problem with MMXs & DMMXs is the question of calibration -- Demjanov uses permittivity (1970) -- Cahill uses refractive-index (2002). But fringeshifts are certain & non-deniable (except when done in vacuum)(the calibration factor for vacuum is zero). Laser light is problematic (best use acetylene) -- lasers introduce new problems (ironically these problems are due to the presence of aether, & the presence of aetherwind). Warning -- even a good MMX or DMMX can give a null result if the horizontal component of the aetherwind is zero at some locations on Earth at some times of day (year).
(5) Aether is here (it never left) -- Einsteinians are dead ducks.

******************************************************************************************************

Here is some of my wordage from Feb 2017 (re Grusenick & re Pearce) to a guy called Dan........

".................... I had a look at your link for the Pearce vertical MMX on youtube. Very interesting. I measured the fringe shifts for all 6 of his rotations, 1 horizontal, 3 vertical (2 one way, 1 the reverse way), & 2 more vertical rotations examining Grusenick's finding that the fringe shifts change direction when the half-mirror is horizontal (ie when the arm is at 45 deg).

And i measured the fringe shifts in the Grusenick video, 1 horizontal rotation & 2 vertical. My measurements were mostly at 0.5 sec intervals, measuring (estimating) to 1/20th of a fringe. I now have more respect for M&M and Co.

Re the horizontal mirror business during vertical rotation, Pearce's rotations appear to give the same result as Grusenick's. Although Pearce says that the gizmo is pointing to 8 o'clock & 2 o'clock. I think he actually meant 7:30 o'clock & 1:30 o'clock (ie 45 deg, ie what Grusenick found).

This is interesting. Earlier i suggested that the 45 deg happens because of a fluke, when the bending flex-shift equals the compression-tension-strain-shift. But Pearce's gizmo uses a 1" thick granite tile for a base, whilst Grusenick's uses Aluminium. And Pearce's axle passes centrally through the mirror complex, Grusenick's passes well outside the mirrors.

Pearce made his gizmo only to show that Grusenick's 11 fringe fringe-shift (in the vertical plane) was due to strain, & wasn't a valid MMX result. He didn't know that Grusenick had already improved his gizmo, & Mark#2 gave a shift of 2 fringes, & Mark#3 gave 1.5 fringes.

Pearce's gizmo gave 3 fringes & 2 fringes & 1.9 fringes (for 3 vertical rotations)(my measurements).

Any MMX gizmo can detect an aether-wind (assuming it exists), but it wont be measurable unless the gizmo is well designed. The Grusenick & Pearce gizmos have a light path of i think less than 1m, much less than the 10m to 64m used by Michelson & by Miller. A calibration analysis might show that they need to detect shifts of less than 1/20th of a fringe (perhaps 1/200th). The approx. 2.0 shifts of noise in their vertical MMXs give them no hope. And their horizontal MMXs have about shifts of 0.9 (Pearce) & 0.5 (Grusenick) of noise (my measurements), still no good.

If anyone wants to carry out their own measurements, u will need to measure & allow for the floppy targets, & the floppy cameras. I found that i had to add or subtract up to 0.4 shifts (Grusenick) & 0.27 shifts (Pearce).

And despite their small sizes, neither gizmo returned to zero at the end of a rotation, this refers to both the horizontal tests & the vertical tests.
Pearce's horizontal test finished at 0.25 fringes right (after 360 deg)(should have finished at 0.00). His vertical rotations finished at 0.40 right, then 0.30 left, then 0.15 left (instead of 0.00).
Grusenick's horizontal turn finished at 0.30 left, & the vert turns at 2.00 right, & 2.00 right (instead of 0.00).

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
..........edit 18sept2020
...........No i am wrong. No MMX ever returns to zero. Every MMX suffers from a linear ever-growing fringe-shift, which means that (for a horizontal MMX) the movement of the vertical fringes never returns to zero at the end of each rotation, the fringe-shift grows & grows with each turn/spin/rotation.

.................Miller called it "incline", alltho he also on his worksheets called it "Temp", ie a temperature-like effect (but he knew that it wasnt a temperature effect)(silly).

..................Demjanov reduced his "incline" to almost zero, he called it a "linear drift of zero" (LDOZ).

..............Michelson didnt i think give it a name.

................. I call it a "linear ever-growing fringe-shift" (LEGFS).

..........All horizontal MMXs that employ vertical fringes will detect this signal. This includes laser MMXs. Grusenick's vertical MMX belongs to this group. Horizontal fringes do not suffer from this effect.

...........Because (in a horizontal MMX) at least one mirror has to be turned a little (horizontally) to give the desired fringes then this results in a difference in a beam's horizontal radius from the axis of rotation. Mirrors approaching the axis in effect eat waves/fringes, & mirrors going away from the axis in effect vomit waves/fringes, the eating equaling the vomiting, but in Michelson's & Miller's MMXs (& in Grusenick's MMX) the non-symmetry of the beams resulted in non-equal eating/vomiting, resulting in a signal that was periodic in a full turn. The desired sought-for MMX signal (fringe shift) being periodic in a half turn.

............University MMXs will detect this signal if the MMX is rotated lots of times, because this signal is ever-growing, 100 rotations will give 100 times the signal that is gotten from 1 rotation. Stopping or slowing the rotation has no effect on this signal, ie it doesnt reduce this signal, the size of the signal depends only on the number of rotations, it is ever-growing.

..............Michelson & Miller deducted this signal from their raw readings, to do so they assumed that it was linear, which it is, or, it should be, but their MMX was top-heavy & suffered from a changing lean (it floated in a mercury filled trough), plus their MMX had a sloppy pin (ie axis of rotation), hence their LEGFS was not always very linear (but that is another interesting story in its own right).....................

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

At the end of Pearce's 3 vertical rotations, if u keep watching, the fringes slowly drift 0.45 right over the next 26 seconds, while the gizmo is standing still, while Pearce is talking about something else."
Last edited by crawler on Sat May 21, 2022 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

crawler
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Eric Dollard - How to create Stars, Nebula and Galaxy with Tesla Coils

Unread post by crawler » Sat May 21, 2022 9:17 pm

Here is some more stuff that i wrote way back re Grusenick's MMX.

.................The math is common sense. Beryllium results in approx. 6 times less compression strain & tension strain than Aluminium. This would lower Grusenick's 2 fringe-shifts to 1/3rd of a fringe-shift. Not bad, but still more than the desired say 1/10th of a fringe-shift (because we don't want strain fringe-shift to be bigger than M&M fringe-shift).

Now here comes the clever thing. He designs the gizmo so that the axle is central between the mirrors. This might need a big re-design of the gizmo. And if the axle is central, then the compression strain above the axle will be negated by the tension strain below the axle, & the nett strain fringe-shift will in theory be zero.

Remember here that Grusenick's 2 fringe-shifts in his improved gizmo are due to the critical length of the arm being in compression, & later in tension. Here the critical part of the arm is the part of the arm between the mirrors. Hencely the fringe-shift due to the compression is a half of that-there 2, ie it is 1 fringe-shift. And the fringe-shift due to the tension is 1 fringe-shift also. And 1 plus 1 makes Grusenick's 2.
If these are reduced by 1/6th by using Beryllium (assuming that Grusenick used Aluminium), we have 1/6 plus 1/6 makes 2/6ths.

But if we put the axle in the center of the mirror complex, we have half of the critical length of the arm of the gizmo suffering compression strain, & a half suffering tension strain. A very simplified analysis suggests that in the half suffering compression the strain (if beryllium) is minus 1/12th of a fringe-shift (ie a half of 1/6th), & at the same instant in the half suffering tension the strain is plus 1/12th of a fringe-shift, & the plus & minus negate to give zero fringe-shift. And this negation would be found at all declinations (due to symmetry). And if the strain fringe-shift in the gizmo when in the vertical plane iz zero, then any measured fringe-shift would be due to M&M effect, & temperature effect.

U might point out that if Grusenick does a good job of putting his axle centrally tween the mirrors then it doesn't matter whether he uses Beryllium or sticks to the cheaper Aluminium. That is true. But Beryllium is "safer"
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest