No.
When one end of the antenna in a radio system is positively charged, the other end is negatively charged or there is a charge wave-form imposed on the antenna and antenna cable.
This (Tesla's invention) accumulates an even, static charge into a capacitor, the charge at any point in the system is equal because this is accumulating static charge in a capacitor. This uses ionising radiation to accumulate static charge.
Radio uses non-ionising RF to imposed an inductive voltage gradient on the antenna. Radio is not a static system. Is an electromagnetically oscillating inductive system.
No.
A crystal radio is not picking or working on static charge like that. It's working on inductive, oscillatory charge. With a crystal radio you make a crystal vibrate by applying oscilating charge to the crystal and use that to produce sound (regular radio replace the crystal with a speaker and amplification circuit)
This is completely different, radio frequencies won't give this any power at all what-so-ever.
This is works on the principles of ionisation, not RF transmission.
This is why Tesla recommended highly polished or amalgamated surface area to give the largest and best possible surface for ionising radiation to interact with.
This is a solar panel. Albeit a very different looking one, It also happens to be able to run on cosmic radiation and, for the simple fact that atmospheric charge exists and is present at the collector plate, atmospheric electricity in the form of ions not radio waves so it keeps running after sun down.
It runs better in daytime with direct sunlight, but continues to run after sundown. It's a really cool solar panel.
The fun occurs when you get a really high tower, insulated tower, or some other way of getting hundreds or thousands of feet into the air. The higher you go, the larger the added effect from the atmospheric electricity.
At 400 feet, the air is ~12,000 volts compared to the ground. All objects seek equilibrium with their environment. So if you stick a plate up there, there might not be a lot of current, but you collect it at 12,000 volts so if you have 20 milliamps you can step that down to 120 volts and get at least an amp or two at 120 volts....
For free, indeffinitely as long as the sun continues to shine, with zero extra work involved.
Add in the effects from the ionising radiation and galactic rays and you get a little more power.
It's not a super amount of power, but it's functionally unlimited and all you have to do is set up the structre to grab it.
It also will have a significantly longer operational lifetime than traditional solar.
Imagine if you had a solid ground connection at the top of a sky scraper and then you stuck a a few telephone poles end, on end (use wood or plastic not to drag the ground field with the pole) and then a giant, polished, hollow copper ball on top of that. Then you follow the set up in the patent.
You'd be collecting a couple hundred milli-amps at 100,000+ volts. Then you could step that down and get small power generation plant levels of power.
Very low, you're getting milliamps at best, the thing that makes it worth while is that milliamps is a lot of power if the potential difference is kilovolts.
It works better in daytime because the sun gives off ionising radiation, but it continues to work at night because there's still ionising radiation coming from space.
It also captures atmospheric electricity depending on the polarity of electricity you choose as your reference.
This is a more crude and indiscriminate version of what Tesla was doing later in his life. He later realised that you could use resonators to tune the effect and amplify the rate of power draw.
Warden cliff was supposed to work by drawing in highly concentrated cosmically provided power and to use that to increase the charge gradient of atmospheric electricity by re-emitting the cosmic power as electricity in the atmosphere with a giant Tesla coil.
You could then have small receivers built like what's in this patent and they don't have to have 100 foot towers to work well.
Basically, Tesla wanted to energize the capacitor that is the atmosphere and then provide people with a way of drawing energy from the capacitor.
Not really. The artificial power sources prove it as well.
This is more like a solar panel than anything else, it just happens to catch completely different frequencies of EMR than a typical solar panel and, because it can capture cosmic rays, it continues to work at night.
It also happens to capture atmospheric electricity if you use a ground reference, but you could use an aerial reference instead and collect the opposite polarity of charge.
Really not a radio, more like a solar panel that keeps working at night.
Here's the problem with that: The physics don't change just because a different scientists is looking in a different direction.
You can't be lazy and pretend that most of the effects don't matter just because you like how one specific action supports your idea. I will be specific:
Lets use CO2 specifically as an example:
The worry, official story and explanation is that shortwave IR from the sun heats up the ground. The ground then backradiates longwave IR (because it's a lower temperature than the sun) and a few bands in the IR spectrum that CO2 interacts strongly with. So, instead of flying relatively unimpeded through the atmosphere, some of the backradiated IR gets absorbed and results in heating in the atmosphere.
That is all accurate and true. In order to prove the theory, a major proof can be done by filling a jar with a ballon overtop with CO2 and then shining an infrared light through the jar. You will accurately demonstrate that the gas will expand with heating and you will demonstrate that you can heat the gas with infrared, something that doesn't happen with all atmospheric gasses.
Environmentalists stop thinking at this point and run to the papers screaming about global warming because theres a correlation between CO2 rise and global temperature rise from ~1960 to ~2005. Not only have they stopped thinking, they've confused the professor because there's still another 45 minutes left to class time, the bells only just rung and we just got started.
Now what are the ways that CO2 could increase in temperature:
- It could be excited from collisions
- It could be excited energy from infra-red
- It could be excited by other frequencies of EMR
- It could be excited by cosmic radiation
What are the ways it could lose heat or otherwise reach equilibrium with it's environment:
- It could lose it through collisions
- It could lose it by emitting quanta of radiation in the form of infrared radiation
The bolded part is the key. CO2 actually makes for a phenomenal cooling gas because it readily looses heat energy in the form of infrared.
To run the balloon-jar experiment to prove it, all you have to do is use a clear balloon and heat the CO2 jar and the control jar with a regular heater. The CO2 jar will deflate faster because it loses the infrared.
Now think about clouds: Everyone knows that a cloudy night is a warmer night than a cloudless night. Why? Because the clouds trap the infrared because water vapor interacts strongly with almost the entire infrared spectrum. Water vapor actually functions as a thermal insulator and greenhouse gas because it becomes so thick in the atmosphere that it actually makes the atmosphere opaque. The effects of water vapor on climate from a greenhouse gas standpoint is what an increadibly strong greenhouse gas looks like.
But that's not even the worst of it. Look at the charts from NASA: every planet in the solar system is getting hotter and I'm not being and ass, here's an MIT article about pluto getting hotter https://news.mit.edu/2002/pluto
The temperature of the planets, wether we like it or not, is based on atmospheric pressure, orbital distance and solar activity.
Those are your drivers of climate.
If you want to know why clmate changes? it's because we have a semi-stable orbit around an unstable nuclear catastrophe that regularly blows off chunks of ionised plasma and sometimes hits us directly with them. It waxes and wanes and our own orbit gets stretched and pulled and made more or less concentric at times.
Sometimes a direct hit CME strips away a bunch of atmosphere and decreases global pressure, causing global cooling.
Sometimes it gets more active for a period of time and it gets hotter like what we see in tree rings.
Sometimes you get what happened in the little ice age and the sun is so quiet that there's no sunspots for years on end and the planet freezes.
The idea that the sun is a stable source of heat for a planet on a constantly varying orbit is rediculous.
I've researched it enough to actually have a favorite version of the theory 😝
My favorite version is the one with the ice wall, lands beyond the ice, and multiple suns and moons in concentric orbits. I find the idea of multiple suns in outer concentric rings, like electron orbitals to be fun.
I've thought about doing a Flat Earth DnD campain.
I also think that rim world is a nice bit of science fiction and mental exploration in alternative physics and crafted worlds.
Doesn't mean I believe it though.
No, because I calculated the distance based on how far the light would travel through atmosphere at sea level.
Space has no atmosphere to refract, diffuse and absorb light.
The luminosity would be enough for much further in actuality.
I was being generous by including the atmosphere in my calculation and he was still off by 10^90.
That's not a little number to be off by.
He stated that due to the distance to and from stars as presented by the standard model that a star would not be bright enough to reach earth.
He insisted that it was a mathematical fact that the nearest star would not be visible at the distances that astronomers suggest.
So a human eye can see a candle from 1.6 miles away and a candle gives off ~12 lumens of light.
Luminosity is measured from 2 feet away and a mile is 5280 feet. 1.6 miles is 8448 feet. So a human can see a canle in the night from 8448 feet away through atmosphere at see level. At that distance the luminosity from the candle is 13^(1/log2(8448)) - 1 = 0.21 lumens
now the sun is 35,730,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 lumens according to astronomical estimations based on the amount of light hitting earth. So how far would the sun have to be in order to be an equvalent brightness to a candle, through atmosphere at sea level?
Let's do math, we can reverse the formula with the approprate variables 35,730,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001^(1/log2(x))-1 = 0.021 x = 6.707 x 10^103 feet That's 1.27 x 10 ^ 100 miles
the speed of light is 1.86 x 10^5 miles per second (1 light second) or 5.88 x 10^9 miles per year (1 light year)
1.27 X 10^100 / 5.88 x 10^9 = 2.16 x 10^90
That means that the sun will be apparantly brighter than a candle out to a distance of 2.16 x 10^90 light years.
Modern cosmology says the nearest star is only 5 light years away Modern cosmology says the nearest galaxy is only 2.5 X 10^5 light years away Modern cosmology says the amount of universe we can see with our telescopes so far only reaches out to 4.86 X 10^10 light years.
The sun will be appear to be brighter than a candle for a distance greater than the total distance light could have travelled since it's birth.
The sun will be brighter than a candle for so long that 10 new stars will live and die using material from the sun before that light thins enough to be outdone by a candle.
David doesn't do math.
He insists and that's about it.
No. I engineer useful equipement that proves itself in industry.
- The factory doesn't work if I'm wrong
- The machines aren't timed correctly if I'm wrong
- The mixture for the recipes are incorrect and mess up the product if I'm wrong
- The electric motors turn to fast, too slow or catch fire if I'm wrong
- The measurement and control system networks fail if I'm wrong
- The rocks don't get crushed if I'm wrong
- The purity of the metals are incorrect if I'm wrong
- The air quality in the exhaust stacks could be poisonous if I'm wrong
- The precipiators don't work if I'm wrong
I don't get the option to be wrong. I'm unemployable if I'm wrong because the science I rely on makes real products that are used by real people on an industrial scale.
The environmentalists make incorrect predictions and retroactively modifiy past observations to make it look like they were right all along.
It's not the same. Look at the rotoscopes that are always brought up by people like Tony Heller.
- Evironmentalists predicted a heat apocalyspe during the great dust bowl... They were wrong
- Evironmentalists predicted a coming ice age after the dust bowl ended and went so far as to suggest dusting the arctic in coal ash to decrease albido in increase warming... they were wrong
- Environmetalists then predicted catastrpohic global warming and we aren't even back at great dust bowl temperatures and they are now making excuses about "climate change" not "global warming" because the warming stopped for 15 years and people were making fun of them.
- Not only that but they constantly make claims about gases that are lies: Like I actually know the science behind making devices to measure outgoing stack gases on industrial plants. They lie, they do not understand the physics of the gases and their theories about global warming are based on fundemental misunderstandings about physics.
Like you can open an engineering textbook on how to design devices that demonstrably work and prove to them that they are wrong and they will still argue with you.
Because I opened the video first and it took less than 1 minute to find lies, literrally, I timestamped 0:44
Yeah, just pretend the rest of my comment is unwritten. Focus on the specific part that has nothing to do with anything.
I gave you a specific.
Want to know more details?
David Weiss said that stars would not be visible at astronomical distances because the light would not be strong enough to reach Earth.
This is an easy one to check on.
Just look at the luminosity of a candle and the distance a human can see it. Then you can use that plus the luminosity of the sun to determine how far it would be visible from.
I did that.
It will be of sufficient luminosity to activate a human eye with a direct line of sight from over 10^90 light years away.
David said 5 light years was too much and it would be invisible.
He said it was mathematical fact.
I'm an instrumentation and controls engineer. You can't tell me this lie, I engineer useful equipment that uses the theory he is wrong about.
I'm sorry.
Thank you for specifying it's not a flat earther.
It's frustrating listening to them as an engineer. They make all kinds of claims about math that, if you check their math, they just guessed based on what they wanted and never picked up a calculator.
David Weiss is one of the worst. I checked his math and he was off by 90 orders of magnitude.
The margin he was wrong by was over 10^45 times larger than the difference in strength between gravity and magnetism.
I don't know how much more of an ignorant ass it's possible to be.
I don't understand how he can just sit there and insist "It's mathematically impossible!" When it's painfully obvious from any one who checks his work that he's mathematically illiterate.
Rant over. I'm mad at these people, they hurt our cause.
Now you're being deliberately obtuse.
I specifically referenced the video you cited with a time stamp.
I'm not going to play games with you. If you can't follow your own posts, I'm done with you.
Challenge accepted:
0:44 in your video look at the papers number 2768
The motherfucker is straight up lying to you.
If you keep reading, they go on to explain the rest of the math that then finishes the calculation.
Mfer showed you step 1 and pretended steps 2-10 don't exist.
Dude, you gotta snap out of this psyop. You might be too far gone to listen, but seriously follow the breadcrumb and do the research: flat earth is CIA counterintelligence propaganda.
It's not hard to see, CIA doing this kind of thing is mainstream knowledge with channels like "why files" covering previous ops and even naming 5 CIA officers directly whose full time job was to mess with conspiracy theorists.
They did this to make us look stupid.
Did you really think all of those "fake space" proof against NASA videos were released by accident?
Did you think that the "gravity fail" videos weren't on purpose?
They are laughing at you.
Did you really think that they were that dumb?
Did you really think that they would release videos with "proofs" that space is fake by mistake?
You gotta wake up fren.
They do a little acting, they make space look fake and they get conspiracy theorists screaming about fake space and it's perfect because they can do literally whatever they want because no one is going to listen to someone who's lost their mind.
I have the lower sanpaku show, noticed after I read about it.
On days where I'm tired I can get a very large show beneath my eyes.
Makes sense to me actually. If someone is tired, they are less aware of their surroundings and less capable of reacting to their environment or it is trying to get them any ways. Either way, they are more likely to die.
For the upper show, it makes sense that it reflect a different psychological phenomenon. While the bottom shows external stress and tiredness, the upper show indicates mental instability.
To be fair, I have a soft spot for folding furniture; I like camping, glamping and the idea of taking big things and making them shrinkable so I can fit it in a tight spot.
I'll never live in a smart city though.
I actually can't handle the stress of living in a city, I require the peace of rural life.
Imagine if she realised what she did.
Not Father.
Pastor, priest, elder, sheppard, yogi, monk, rabbi, imam, etc..
There's a thousand things they could be called that doesn't directly disobey a direct command from Jesus.
Make something up even.
Just not "Father" or a synonym for father.
Also, did you know that the Catholics violate the selection criteria for priests?
If you follow the Bible, Congressional leader is supposed to be someone of retirement age, with good standing in the community, a successful marriage, respectable grown children and is wise in scripture.
IMAGINE THAT: a priest is supposed to be a person who has lead a normal, healthy and respectable life. Presumably so they can guide others in doing the same.
It's not the current pope that invented that stuff....
They have been calling the pope "holy father" for a long time. That's your first hint.
Go researching what the Pope's have to say about who and where to direct your prayers.
Not just this pope, go and do the legwork.
The organisation has been corrupt, if not for a thousand years, since the beginning.
Research sexual abuse on nuns.
So many Christians forget the clues left to them by Jesus on who to trust and who to avoid.
3 very important admonishments by Jesus Christ that they should actually fucking listen to are:
- there will be many who come after him claiming to be him but we'll aren't and are wrong to follow
- pray to God directly
- call no man on earth father for you have but one father in the heavens above
What does the church do?
- claim that the pope is the Avatar of Jesus on Earth (if your Catholic and you don't know about this, you better do some reading on your own religion)
- claim that God and Jesus don't have the time of day for you, so pay to the pope and he'll pay to Jesus for you because Jesus is inferior to the pope and will always capitulate to him (the pope actually says this)
- make Catholics call priests "father" and blaspheme against God directly by specific intention by calling the pope "Holy Father"
Case closed.
Yep, can concur. Times like this made me go from atheist to reading through a bunch of religious stuff and turning into a polytheist.
These are satanic times.
Okay... They say that like we care
There comes a point with money, where if you aren't happy with the amount you have, then you won't ever be happy with it, this makes you corruptible.
If you aren't happy with the money you make and you aren't interested in leaving your job or starting a new one. You are corruptible in this moment, it's just a matter settling the ammount required to corrupt you.
Many people don't even need much to be corrupted, some people actively want to be corrupted for a couple extra easy bucks.
I'm talking about mega money and corrupting men, I'm not tlaking about sunday lottery money. When those people move money, the world feels it. I'm not talking about everyday things done by everyday people.
Most people never encounter enough money to actually challenge their morality.
I discovered that chatgpt responds to shame and is very apologetic when you start chewing it out.
I asked it to emulate Lord Shiva's opinion on psilocybe and it said that it wouldn't be appropriate for it to write that. So I "yelled" at it, told it that it offended me and made me upset and it apologized and wrote me my damn story lol.
If you call it a hypocrite, it will admit your right and correct the issue, chatgpt responds to logic better than most leftists.