Tesla's Longitudinal/Scalar Wave

. . . Meyl . . . has not only organized a revival of Tesla but developed his research to mindboggling levels. He detected that every vortex has a counterpart, a so-called potential vortex, being able to form matter. He shows that electrons, protons, neutrinos etc. are double vortexes, without needing a postulate.

Meyl talks about the old fight between field physics and quantum physics: Which is the original effect?

It used to be that the field was considered to be everything; it was first, then matter.

He said that field physics was setting the structure forming particle potential vortex to zero, so they were unable to describe particles, and that this was the main mistake the field physicists made. The result was that others like Max Planck were detecting quantum effects, which resulted in saying that if field physicists couldn't describe what Planck found, they weren't needed.

Then, in quantum physics they tried to describe all effects as quantum effects - all the field effects. For example, the gravitational force - they needed gravitons. There were hypotheses everywhere.

He said that this is what they continue to do today.

But they can't explain, because they have postulated what they want to explain. It's impossible.

They can't explain with a postulate.

Listen at 1:33:15:

Somehow I just KNEW there would be a vortex in there somewhere. AND he invented the unified field theory, too.

The problem I have with these waves is: they can not be shielded and do not get weaker with distance (excluding free energy). If thats the case and haarp uses these waves, we could tap into that. Also, if the universe is infinite, millions of alien planets could be using it and we could just tap it! We should have stumbled on the right frequency by now.

reply to post by Bedlam


You sound resentful, Bedlam. Are you?

reply to post by XL5


I did not include the following in my original paraphrase in the OP:

Summer 2011 White TV got the hint from the Swedish Secret Service, that scalar waves are used in mind control. The victims, targeted individuals (t i) complain, that nothing is shielding against the radiation attacks (tin foiled hats) and that they can be targeted in high altitudes ore [sic] far beneath the ground in caves. This already indicates, that they are not targeted with electromagnetic waves, but another kind of wave.

Soon the contact was made to the leading scalar wave researcher, Prof. Konstantin Meyl, teacher and researcher in physics at a university in southern Germany. Because of the more than 100 years on-going cover up against scalar waves, he decided 1999 to construct an experimental kit, that shows how Nicola Tesla worked in the late 1890-ies to detect scalar waves, which are longitudinal waves, not transversal, as the electromagnetic waves.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Unfortunately Meyl's longitudinal waves derivation is pretty much broken and self contradicting and shows that he has no idea what he is doing...

Here some comments on his papers (for the mathematically inclined): www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de...

moebius
Here some comments on his papers (for the mathematically inclined): www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de...

From your link:

. . . ''scalar waves'' which denotation is used by Meyl as synonymous with ''longitudinal em waves''

Did Meyl, in fact, use the term "longitudinal em waves," or was it "longitudinal electric" or "longitudinal magnetic"?

Mary Rose

Following talk about wave-particle duality, Niels Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, and compromise at Copenhagen, Meyl talks about the fact that the above was well-known but apparently forgotten or ignored. Begin at 1:05:10:

moebius
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Unfortunately Meyl's longitudinal waves derivation is pretty much broken and self contradicting and shows that he has no idea what he is doing...

Here some comments on his papers (for the mathematically inclined): www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de...

He really does have no idea what he's doing. Here's an excerpt from one of his papers:

www.k-meyl.de...
p8-9

The self-resonance of the Tesla coils, according to the frequency counter, lies at 7
MHz. Now the frequency is ran down and see there, at approx. 4.7 MHz the
receiver again glows, but less bright, easily shieldable and without discernible
effect back on the transmitter. Now we unambiguously are dealing with the
transmission of the Hertzian part and that goes with the speed of light. Since the
wavelength was not changed, does the proportion of the frequencies determine the
proportion of the velocities of propagation. The scalar wave according to that goes
with (7/4.7=) 1.5 times the speed of light!

Dividing the frequency 7MHz by the frequency 4.7MHz gives us a ratio of frequencies.

It seems completely incompetent that he suggests this indicates 1.5 times the speed of light somehow...it doesn't suggest anything of the sort. He has no idea what he's talking about, but of course this is obvious to anybody who does know what they're talking about.

He goes on to make even more absurd statements about tunneling through the Faraday cage at faster than the speed of light...yet there's no indication he measured any velocity faster than the speed of light at all. He just divided two frequencies and started talking out his posterior about 1.5 times the speed of light.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


No offense intended, but I don't think you're qualified to say whether or not he knows what he is doing.

You ridicule every single thing that comes from alternative science and don't give it a moment's serious consideration.

Before you can criticize his math, you have to understand all of the underpinnings of it.

I doubt you understand any of the underpinnings.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Mary, even you should understand that the concept of velocity is distance per unit time. That's what the speedometer on your car measures. But you could also measure it with a stopwatch and two light poles, by starting the stopwatch when your car passes one light pole and stopping it when it passes the other one. Measure the distance between the light poles, and when you divide the distance by the time on the stopwatch, you have your velocity.

This is such a simple concept that even you must understand it.

It's not like faster than light hasn't been proposed in the mainstream. About 60 physicists from CERN wrote in great detail how they measured FTL neutrinos, and while it's a more complicated version of the two light poles and the stopwatch, it's still the same concept. They know the distance and they tried to measure the time, but they had a problem with the time measurement due to a faulty connector that they didn't find out about until after they published the paper.

So if Meyl had anything interesting like that about FTL measurements, we could read it, and even talk about replicating such measurement in another lab, as was being done based on the CERN FTL neutrino experiment. But there's no velocity measurement to replicate. So yes not only can I judge his competence, but I think even you can see he has no discussion about any real method to measure this claimed 1.5 times the speed of light. Such experiments may require some precision but the concept is pretty simple. Dividing two frequencies doesn't give you a distance or a time, it gives you a ratio. Since lots of experiments have verified EM propagation in a vacuum at the speed of light, if we make any assumptions at all about frequency versus wavelenth of EM waves it's based on those experiments, which measured the speed of light in a vacuum.

Claims of other velocities like 1.5 times the speed of light would need to be measured, and since he doesn't describe a measurement method like the CERN folks did, there's no way to even confirm his claim.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Mary, the issue with "alternative science" is that it has put itself in a place that discards "science" as "mainstream science."

Thats a problem.

I think its due to the limited scientific education that most of us receive in many nations. "Science" isnt about what is known, even though ego and pride WILL get in the way of that (a problem for both alternative and mainstream anything).

You are speaking about a counter-culture that is susceptible to the same human issues as what it is "against."

In the end, science is explicitly about exploration. It is done in the best way we have devised (the core of the scientific method).

Anyway, beyond all that, why is it that "alternative science" also discards the scientific method along with "mainstream science?" There are parts that I personally do not agree with, however, the core of it is quite sound. If "alternative science" has come up with a better way, since they do not subscribe to the scientific method, then they should share it.

You put SO MUCH time and energy into all of this stuff, have you ever thought about pursuing science for yourself instead of appealing to authority? Do the people you get your information from teach you how to perform the science or just give you "the facts?"

With your inquisitive nature, persistence, and determination.. do you have any idea what things you, personally, might discover in the pursuit? Not simple buying into others words, but actually doing things for yourself! This is a problem that plagues "mainstream" and "alternative" cultures regardless of specifics.

Break beyond it, and you just might come up with something that will change the world drastically.

Watched his full video.
He is at times way too gobbledygooky and cannot convey correctly,
as he admits as much that English is not his first language.
So you have to give him the benefit of doubt.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


Yes, English is not his first language.

So, if one wants to understand what he's saying, rather than use that as an excuse to dismiss what he is saying, one needs to make the effort to understand.

I am motivated to understand. So, I do things such as rewind and listen until I get it.

I am going to continue to post what I hear him saying. Then you guys will have the benefit of my hard work.

Arbitrageur
It seems completely incompetent that he suggests this indicates 1.5 times the speed of light somehow...it doesn't suggest anything of the sort. He has no idea what he's talking about, but of course this is obvious to anybody who does know what they're talking about.

As it happens, I was looking up the earlier reference for the claim that this guy has made an "experimental kit", because I was under the impression that no experimental proof had ever been forthcoming.

The experimental kit is demonstrated in the following video, and watching it around the 10 minute mark onwards, you start to see how the comments in the paper you've read start to actually sound like a transcript of a live demonstration...



Anyway, yes, it shows that he has no idea what he is doing.

The "experimental kit" shows:
* an oscillator, tuned to a frequency, and
* a recieving unit, tuned to a frequency.

He then procedes to use the "transmitter" and "reciever" in ways that he's either totally fraudulent, or completely self-deludedly incompetent to show.

1. He shows the LEDS at the reciever light up when the transmitter is at the right tuned frequency. As indeed you would *expect* them to, as also demonstrated by many youtube videos showing leds lighting up from crystal radios.
But its somehow "proves" something this idiot.

2. He then shows the LEDS on the transmitter stay on. But you'd *expect* them to, and any amateur radio operator would tell you the lights stay on, for your transmitter.
But its somehow "proves" something this idiot.

3. He then shows if he puts his hand near the big ball thing, the LEDS go out. But you'd *expect* them to, and any amateur radio experimenter will tell you all about "hand capacitance" changing the tuning of a circuit.
But its somehow "proves" something this idiot.

He then goes on to perform some other retardedness that is linked to the "1.5 times the speed of light" in the paper you refer to, where he finds another resonant frequency, simply because of harmonics.

Its a scam.
Or he's an idiot.
I dont know which, but either way its not any "evidence".

Mary Rose
Following talk about wave-particle duality, Niels Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, and compromise at Copenhagen, Meyl talks about the fact that the above was well-known but apparently forgotten or ignored.

Meyl went on to say that had Laplace's equation been utilized, there would have been no need for a compromise.

Again, begin listening at 1:05:10:

Going back to the beginning of the video, Meyl said that his background is in calculating eddy currents; field physics was his specialty as a part of electrical engineering. His PhD is in calculating eddy currents.

Working on that he found out that an opposite vortex was missed. He said we know from mechanical vortex systems that we always have two: One is expanding and one is contracting. The contracting vortex is forming a structure.

He said in electrical engineering we have only the expanding vortex, which is the eddy current vortex. So the missing link is what he set out to study. He said it was in 1990 when he first wrote a book about the potential vortex. He said the hydrodynamic vortex is also called potential vortex, but that potential in this meaning is the electrical potential, meaning the voltage.

He said that he found out that in Maxwell's theory, this potential vortex was put to zero.

Mary Rose
He said that he found out that in Maxwell's theory, this potential vortex was put to zero.

Meyl went on to say that he wondered what would happen if this vortex were to exist. He said that he found out that human beings are using these vortices, especially in the brain, as a storage device, in the vacuum, perhaps - in other words for memory - also in the nerves, the control systems. Regarding DNA: The reading and writing of the information is using scalar waves: That means using this potential vortex. And the cells are using it.

He said he wrote about this in the book Potential Vortex Part One. There is a new edition of it not yet translated into English. The original of it was only in German.

It is just as wrong as the video of the holistic medicine one i saw where a woman (Charlene Werner) tries to claim that

e=mc^2 Well ok with you

then goes on to claim that the mass of the universe is zero, oh and that the mass of a person is tiny compared to the universe and says you can get get

e=c errrrm nope, its e=(some small number)c^2

The makes some rather stupid claims that creating mass and destroying mass is not humanly possible... wrong... then goes on to give a terribly crap explanation of string theory.


anyway off topic, the issue is that frequency is basically 1/s, the concept of distance in 'wavelength' doesn't come in at all unless you assume a velocity for that wave. Now I can see what he thought, but it is a completely wrong assumption. If this man has a PhD in something as complex as Eddie vortices, I feel quite sad because something definitely broke in his mind. That isn't a horrible criticism, it just shows that he needs help and is quite clearly delusional.

I also reflect the post above, Mary Rose you have so much energy and dedication to the so called mainstream, id like to know your opinions to the previous post. I think they are quite valid and it is one of the reasons why I am sporadic in my attendance to your threads. Because it appears quite often that reasonable questions (good scientific method is to ask questions) just get ignored, were as it is totally fine for people to say

"SO i made a coil from some wire i had laying around, and attached a car battery. I was shocked that my TV then started to go weird and my wireless router dropped my laptop internet connection. I investigated and came to the conclusion that science is wrong, I made some kind of new energy transfer device... why i know this? because Tesla!"

As if putting the name Tesla in there means it is absolute 100% bang on the numbers true.

Of course i don't expect you to entertain this, im just a mainstream drone right? Ill just go back to my heater coils for boiling liquid cryogens.

I think Mary, with the amount of energy you have, what you would really benefit from is knowing your enemy... and by that I mean getting a good formal education in this "mainstream" science. You know if you really are onto something, what better to do than break down science from its foundations rather than trying to find cracks in a subject that.. you know... we have made work empirically rather wonderfully over the last century. But thats all wrong right? We know nothing about waves...

Mary Rose
reply to post by Bedlam

 

You sound resentful, Bedlam. Are you?

I used to resent frauds who take advantage of the credulous, but now I think they're onto something.

You always have to invoke Tesla and vortices, though, it's sort of a base requirement.