Tesla’s Solar Rays

An important related concept connected to Tesla’s aether theory and Dynamic Theory of Gravity are his “primary solar rays“. Overall, the sun acts as a “generator” for our solar system. It emits enormous amounts of radiation, which Tesla called “primary solar rays” (and leads to the modern concept of cosmic rays). These rays in turn, hit various particles in space which give rise to much weaker secondary radiations. The primary solar rays reach the various planets imparting momentum to them which is constantly at right angles in respect to their trajectory from the sun (this explains why planets revolve around stars, a theory later proven by Hannes Alfven). Tesla often repeated that nothing in the universe is standing still, the “earth is actually in fantastic motion (“70,000 mph”)” (this is why the theory was called “dynamic“) because if it were, all matter would “decay” back to the aether (everything on the Earth is hurling through space at incredible speed because the Earth and the solar system are moving through space). Tesla stated that if any radioactive element were to be shielded from these rays, the material would cease to be radioactive.

This corresponds to my concept that the sun produces ‘electrostatic pressure’ that drives every atom in our solar system. “there is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.” On his 79th birthday (1935) – Tesla made a brief reference to the theory saying it applies to molecules and atoms as well as to the largest heavenly bodies, and to “…all matter in the universe in any phase of its existence from its very formation to its ultimate disintegration”.

Ether is thrown into “infinitesimal whirls” (“micro helices”) at near the speed of light, and becomes ponderable matter, when the force subsides and motion ceases, matter reverts to the ether (a form of “atomic decay”)

Humans, like fish in the sea, are completely oblivious to being swept up by these galactic currents.  What we perceive as static, solid matter is actually in ‘fantastic motion’ on every level. It only seems stationary because on a macro level we are moving at the same relative speed.

The electrostatic pressure “carried around” are currents between atoms and the ether, which produce magnetism. The phenomena of ‘permanent magnetism’ or ‘cosmically induced’ magnetism are apparently due to electrostatic charges ‘carried around’ by cosmic motion, in the universal ether field.

Since no one can hold an atom or molecule perfectly still—because it is in fantastic motion—all atoms and molecules carry currents which in turn produce magnetic fields. Since a magnetic field is the product of a current, no one can produce a magnetic field without electricity, moving through or along a conductor, or as electrostatic pressure in local or cosmic motion.


About Rob W Harrison
There is a part of my mind that stubbornly thinks about science. I have a life, job, wife and family but without my Van Der Graaf Generator life would be incomplete. I am a great believer that this amazing universe came into being through process: movement >pressure > density > mass. Maybe I believe in an non viscous ether. Anyway this is where I can share my thoughts.

10 Responses to Tesla’s Solar Rays

  1. “there is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.”

    Hi Rob. Eric again.

    The above quote by Tesla says it all as far as I am concerned. Somewhere back in the mid 1800s, when all these new electromagnetic phenomena were being discovered and put to immediate use (telegraph, electric motors, etc.), it seems nobody questioned the ultimate source of this “magical” stuff. It was “just there.” First cause (god?), no accounting necessary.

    I think that this assumption—that charge is an innate property of elementary particles—has thrown the physical sciences off the correct path, and physics has been stumbling around in the dark ever since. It’s really getting quite ridiculous.

    If one takes the opposite view—that basic charge requires a cause—that cause could only come from without. From an incompressible, non-viscous aethereal medium under constant pressure. Adapt this inverted perspective, and the whole universe starts to make sense.

    I have spent the last year building a cosmology based on this assumption. It can be read or downloaded in pdf form at my website http://www.hydrocosmica.com.

    I only want to point science back to the true path.

    • Hi Eric
      Yes, Tesla was right. I agree we need to stop and rethink our assumptions as science seem fixated on ‘particles’ without questioning why they exist. I started reading your ebook last night and was absolutely delighted with what I read. Hydrodynamics could teach us a lot about our universe.

      Another thought experiment I have done for many years that thoroughly supports your hypothesis is one of time and motion:
      If a ball was traveling through empty space at say a million km per hour and nothing else existed would you still say it is moving? Or even it existed? If we then introduce a second stationary object we can then begin to measure relative movement. But with no further point of reference we can’t even say which of the two objects are moving and which is stationary. So both time and movement are strictly relative concepts. (Even our existence is relative!) With no other point of reference they don’t exist. This messes with your head somewhat but it is essential to ponder to begin to understand the “hydrodynamics” and relativeness of our universe.
      What keeps the ball moving? If we take away the idea of the ball can we also imagine a pulse or wave of energy traveling endlessly. And how do we measure that? See. My theory is that everything is MOVEMENT>PRESSURE>DENSITY.
      When you discuss where the energy is coming from in our solar system or universe you forget our planet is spinning at 1,674.4 km/h. And our solar system and galaxy are traveling through space at countless millions of kilometres per second.
      And matter (energy density) when acted upon externally tends to naturally sort itself into its order of density. So groups of matter travel together. We find all over the earth groups of minerals. Water groups. Gasses group. Stars group, our universe groups. Thus our fluid universe has a self ordering function.

      Hope I’m making sense. So cutting a long conversation short, I completely agree with your idea that matter does not exist without an external force as it relies on an external force to determine its relative energy density and position.

      Really looking forward to finishing you ebook!!!


      • Hi Rob, thanks for the reply.

        If I may I would like to make a few comments.

        “If a ball was traveling through empty space at say a million km per hour and nothing else existed would you still say it is moving?”

        Yes, I would say it is moving—relative to space. I don’t think there is such a thing as “empty space.” I see space as the real reality, the substrate of what we perceive as reality. It is in constant motion, although this motion is exceedingly slow except when near massive bodies.

        “What keeps the ball moving?”

        Simply the absence of a force to oppose the movement. The movement could have been initiated by a force, such as being thrown, but it could have been slingshot gravitationally, in which case it would not have been forced. It would just be doing what comes natural. Following a geodesic. Obeying the principle of least action, or least energy. Although I abhor general relativity, Einstein certainly got this part right. Gravity is not a force. It is an effect.


        This correlates almost precisely with what I have termed the three legs or phases of the cosmic energy cycle: radiant, aethereal, and material. Radiant energy heats and so pressurizes space (aether). Space flows into “sinks,” or matter, maintaining its (matter’s) “existence.” Stars (matter) then make more radiant energy, and round and round it goes. The universe then is a perpetual motion machine. It is infinite and eternal.

        “Thus our fluid universe has a self ordering function.” Yes!!

        “I completely agree with your idea that matter does not exist without an external force as it relies on an external force to determine its relative energy density and position.”

        What you’re calling an “external force” here I would rather call energy, or better yet “Vis Viva.”

        By the way, what time zone are you in? I live in Wisconsin, USA.


      • Eric, It was a mental exercise to understand the relativeness of time and motion,
        not to be taken too literally. There’s is absolutely no such thing as empty space. And we all know what keeps the ball moving, what we don’t keep in mind is that the universe is a sea of motion that never stops but continues collide and create order. this is your “perpetual motion machine”. I’m also pleased you mention the aether as non-viscous. It is why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed, being based on the assumption that an aether would be viscous.
        I’m based in Sydney GMT+10.

  2. Rob; it sounds like you’re some kind of modern day Faraday what with your own Van de Graaff generator and all those electrical experiments.

    Tell me, what do you think is actually going on in and around a current carrying conductor?

    I find it a very baffling phenomenon (though not as baffling as time!).

    Also, I would like to ask you about something that maybe doesn’t belong on a forum. Could you email me?


    • Hi Eric, with my Van de Graaff (VdG) experiments I’m very familiar with how a charge dissipates. I tend not to think along the lines of charge, voltage, current etc which are extremely useful measuring tools but offer little in the understanding the nature of the phenomenon. The modern theory of electrical charge exchange with the idea of electrons travelling vast distances to correct an electrical imbalance in my humble opinion is absurd. Comparable to imagining our moon being instantly flung across the universe because some other solar system was one moon short. The theory of discrete particles called electrons also conveniently ignores the tremendous repulsive forces between the individual particles that would not allow electricity to flow in a homogenous manner.

      Charge is simply electrical pressure. Dropping the humidity around my VdG allows me to build up impressive charge. The pressure dissipates radiantly in an explosive fashion following the path of least resistance. When you introduce any conductor the pressure will dissipate radiantly along the outside of the conductor. But it’s a push phenomenon not a pull. In one experiment i placed a small magnet above the VdG which captured the electrical pressure around it. I was able to get a spark from the magnet many hours after the VdG had been switched off. The key to this was the low humidity environment which made the surrounding air an insulator.

      This is really simple stuff, I actually find studying of the behaviour insulators under electrical pressure far more intriguing. I’m currently trying to do a slow motion video to explain their behaviour.

      I’m convinced that the key to understanding the mechanics of our universe is in the reexamining of electrical phenomenon. Electricity is the fabric of our universe. All matter is extremely dense bundles of electricity and our world exist only because we are living in an extremely dense or pressurised fluid like electrical system.

      • Rob; have you read Maxwell’s “Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism”? There must be two dozen places where he compares some electric or magnetic phenomenon as being exactly analogous to the behavior of an incompressible fluid. Faraday’s “Researches” also sheds a lot of light on this subject, and they both are quite extensive in their treatment of insulators.

        I completely agree that an understanding of electromagnetic phenomena at the atomic scale would help us unravel some of the mysteries of existence. I just don’t understand how science came to the conclusion that this utterly mind-boggling amount of energy is just “there,” has always been “there,” and will always be “there.” Doesn’t that sound like perpetual motion?

        And what about a photon supposedly being able to propagate forever with no attenuation of energy—doesn’t that also sound like perpetual motion?


  3. perry king says:

    Rob I have come across something you will find very interesting indeed

  4. perry king says:

    Hi Rob could you please send me your email so that I can tell you what I have uncovered….everyone is so damn near the mark…so nearly there

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: