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.

Time travel

Growing up I used to think a lot about time travel. It was both a mental escape and a complete fascination in the concept. I remember talking to my high school science teacher about travelling faster than light. I reasoned that everything we see is relative. If an object is closer to me than somebody else then I was seeing their future as thereflection of light from the object reached me before it reached them. And they were seeing my past. My teacher dismissed my query by saying these were Einstein’s theories. Pity, I had a lot more questions.

By the age of 18 I had invented a concept for time machine. Without going into all the detail it looked like a flying saucer which consisted of several layers of spinning shells, each layer was suspended in a vacuum and moved vast amounts of charge from the rim to the poles of the device. The theory was that although you cannot move an object through time and space you can move the space which defines an objects position in both time and space.

These days I am fairly certain that it wouldn’t work but I still think it may provide a way of travelling to any point in the universe instantly.

My belief in time travel has waned because of the paradoxes as well as the silly idea of alternate dimensions or time-lines.

For instance, if they invented time-travel anytime between now and the next million years then time travellers would be with us today. And considering how egotistic people are I sincerely doubt that one of these many tourist time travellers wouldn’t let slip he was from the future and try to warn us of our follies or some impending disaster and offer indelible proof. Stephen Hawking came to a similar conclusion. Let’s face it, people are far to egotistic, greedy and stupid to keep such a huge secret.

The other eternal problem is that of causality or paradoxes. The classic example of a problem involving causality is the “grandfather paradox“: what if one were to go back in time and kill one’s own grandfather before one’s father was conceived? All of a sudden you can’t possibly be there to kill him in the first place.

If you believe in alternate time-lines, parallel universes, multiverses or dimensions then it would mean that all the known physical laws governing the Conservation of Energy are wrong. It would mean that every split second wholealternative universes are being created purely on the basis of our individual decision-making. Think of the energy contained in one atom and multiply that by an infinite number of atoms multiplied by an infinite number of possible time-lines. Sounds a bit egocentric to me!

My theory on time is that all matter is fundamentally movement>pressure>density. Matter NEVER stays still so the matter or energy that existed a thousand is still here now, just in a different form. If that matter/energy remained frozen as “the past” then we would be in very serious trouble now. So the ‘yesterday’ as you remember it doesn’t exist outside a recorded impression in your mind.

Time is only a measure of relative movement. If there was only one thing, say a ball, moving in otherwise completely empty space at whatever speed you might imagine, it would have no past, present or future without another reference point. I could go on but suffice to say that time only exists as our consciousness of change.

I strongly believe that one day we will invent faster than light travel. Light is only a wave-form therefore may govern how we perceive the world but does not present a theoretical speed restriction.

But then again I might be completely wrong? the following is certainly a very impressive jargonistic write-up.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1216/437/NL/U.S._Scientist_Patents_Time_Machine.html

Renegade dwarf smashed up our galaxy

Why do scientists continue to roll out this ‘pseudo scientific‘ dribble as grand announcements of newly discovered facts.

Image via Wikipedia

Quote:

“OUR world orbits a sun located on one of the arms of the Milky Way, a galaxy of some 200 billion stars with spiral limbs that whirl around a thin disk.

But how did the galaxy develop those famous arms?

A new theory, aired overnight, says they formed after the Milky Way was whacked by a dwarf galaxy, sending cascades of stars flying to the galactic rim.

And the collision has happened not just once, but twice in the last two billion years, and a third smashup is on the cards within the next 10 million years, a blink of an eye in cosmic terms“

Read more: http://www.news.com.au

Science can’t reliably predict tomorrow’s weather yet they confidently make statements of an event that happened a billion years ago. Statements like: “Its punch came from a thick envelope of “dark matter“, the poorly-understood invisible substance that constitutes most of the matter in the Universe, the scientists believe.” Is like saying “we don’t understand how or why it happened but we’re telling you it happened”.

There are millions of spiral galaxies in the known universe. Doesn’t it make more sense to hypothesise that these galaxies were formed by a process rather than a random “poorly-understood” event like a “dwarf galaxy from a thick envelope of dark matter”.

Why do we continually get fed this absurd nonsense? Why must we be led to believe that the beautiful order in the universe was created through random events, big bangs and cataclysms rather than any kind of process?

Spiral formations have been successfully created in plasma labs. Surely this would be fear more worthy of further research than a bad hypothesis based on yet another a very questionable hypothesis.

r.

The dark force is alive and well…

Einstein was right all along: the future is dark

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/einstein-was-right-all-along-the-future-is-dark-20110519-1ev1x.html#ixzz1MqfBALgN

Our Electric Universe

Recently finished reading the ‘The Big Bang Never Happened‘  by Eric J. Lerner

Also a ‘The Electric Sky‘ by Donald E. Scott (Jun 1, 2006)

Excellent reading. The Electric Sky is a bit easier to read. Both offer a thorough discussion of why current astrophysics theories are nonsense and propose and elegant alternative. The Plasma Universe is a term coined by Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén in 1937 and is the greatest emerging scientific challenge to the Big Bang Theory. If his ideas had been adopted over 70 years ago we would have  made enormous strides in our understanding of the universe which is now seen as made up of over 99% plasma. Instead astrophysics has had little real progress since Newton mathematically described gravity, and Einstein described its behaviour as if space was curved. It is unfortunate that few ‘experts’ or renown authorities cannot support ideas that undermine the body of knowledge upon which their authority stands. This forces many unconformists who enjoy challenging fashionable belief systems to be cast as lunatics and mad men.

If you haven’t heard of the concept before I recommend that you have a quick read of wiki’s entries on the subject. There is a growing body of scientist that are now supporting this theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology
http://plasmauniverse.info/
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma-Universe.com

While I do not completely agree with the concept of plasmas which are seen as charged ‘particles’, (the “particles” in our universe such as stars and galaxies are the result of the electric currents not the cause) the idea presented in these books that the universe is electric in nature is correct. I remember when studying the structure of atoms at school, asking the teacher why this little structures (atoms) could not be tiny solar systems. Well, it produced a good laugh by the whole class. “Our universe is held together by gravity, while atoms are held together by electrical charges” was the terse reply. We now know that this is not true. Gravity is a very weak force, if it can be called a force at all, and among many things cannot explain the super structures in our universe. Invisible Dark Matter, inaccessible by the laws of physics, has to be invented to hold a gravity based universe together.

Nor can the Big Bang Theory be true. There simply has not been enough time (13.7 billion years) for even the galaxies that we can observe to have formed. The cosmological red shift or Doppler effect that we observe may be the Compton Effect. Observations also demonstrate that red shift cannot determine distance, with co-joined galaxies giving vastly different red shift readings. Or who is to say that our universe is not oscillating like everything else we have experienced in the universe. Even the smallest of oscillations on a galactic scale would seem significant. You can easily imagine that in a 100 or 1000 years scientists may be saying at a different point in the oscillation that the universe is collapsing and in 13.7 billion years will be reduced back to a singularity.

One also must ask why science has adopted a theory from a Catholic priest (Monsignor Georges Lemaître) that sounds suspiciously like creationism. Science says that  “the universe was created by a big bang”. The Church says nooo “that God went pouf and universe was born, in 6 days”. So we are only allowed to argue whether it was a “bang” or a “pouf? As Terry Pratchet succinctly and humorously explains it “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.”

Scientists have desperately tried to invent all types nonsense theories and incomprehensible mathematical models to support their untestable theories. According to many of today’s astrophysicists and Big Bangers more than 96% of our universe is made up of invisible entities. Imagine if I, a physicist, told you that there was an invisible elephant standing behind you made from both Warm and Fuzzy Dark Matter. You can’t hear, smell or feel it but it’s there. How could you prove me wrong?

These invisible entities, such as:

• Warm Dark Matter
• Self-interacting Dark Matter
• Self-annihilating Dark Matter
• Fuzzy Cold Dark Matter
• Collisionless Cold Dark Matter
• Repulsive Dark Matter
• Massive Compact Halo Objects
• Weakly Interacting Massive Particles
• Dark Energy

not to mention other theories…

• String Theory (now considered to be the greatest scientific embarrassment of the twentieth century)
• Neutron Stars
• Spacetime
• Rigid Curved Space
• and Gravity Waves

are now reaching the end of credibility!

There is another problem. All matter is made up from energy. We have proven this. Yet modern science is forever inventing more particles to explain the nature of the universe. Yes, the universe is infinitely divisible because it is made up from an non viscous ether. We experience this as electricity in all its states. Looking for particles in particle accelerators is like taking our solar system and smashing it into a million pieces to understand what it is made from. Barbaric really, and bordering on insanity! But these so-called scientists get to name yet another particle after themselves, write another paper and ask for $Billions more in funding for their toys. If you want to understand this  more I highly recomend you read these books. I am also currently reading “The Electric Universe” by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott which I can highly recommend. These books give you an excellent understanding of the greatest emerging scientific challenge to the Big Bang Theory. I would also recommend googling “the electric universe” which will give you many sites dedicated to these views. It is upsetting that ‘The Big Bang Never Happened’ was originally written nearly 20 years ago and has not reached a mainstream audience. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we will one day soon look back on The Bang Theory and ask ourselves how anybody could have possibly believed such nonsense and why we hung onto the theory for so long despite an enormous body of evidence to the contrary.

My theories differ from the core assumption of these books. I believe the theory of electricity as charged particles is incorrect. The particles, be they atoms or solar systems, are the dross of the electric universe. There is a wonderful experiment that can be done with a vibrating metal plate and some fine sand. At certain frequencies the sand forms beautiful and elaborate patterns. The point most often missed with this experiment is that the sand gathers in the areas of least movement. So what you are seeing is the negative form of the energy pattern. So it is with our universe. Atoms are made within the violent electrical systems of our universe and gather where there is the least movement. Pushed out of the way, so to speak. The attempt at understanding our universe by studying matter is a folly as all matter is simply natures way of capturing energy systems. When electricity was first discovered  it was viewed as a fluid. Nearly all explanations of electric phenomenon were in elegant terms of “pressure”, “flow”, “current” and “capacity”, concepts that could be easily understood. When scientists started naming these as Watts, Hertz, Ohms etc these simple concepts became beyond the interest or comprehension of most mortals. We must get back to the simplest premise of movement–pressure–density as a measure of all phenomenon to understand our universe.

Saturn’s rings: Leftovers from a cosmic murder?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jwNwNyBz1FxeFg-1JCPeCZVp_Jfw?docId=d7aa9526c46a49d3ad1764e2ae8a3ca8

Once again scientist are blind to process! With our current understanding of matter, if the above article was true, remnants of the moon would have been flung into space or thrown out of orbit into the atmosphere. Saturn’s rings show us the invisible forces of our solar system. Different gasses and material are sorted by order of density (as would the Earth’s atmosphere if the winds were not constantly stirring it), and held in place by the flow of magnetic fields and solar radiation. More likely we are watching the formation of a moon and not the destruction.

THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF ELECTRICITY – POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE

NO. In the early days of electrical science, researchers believed that there were two kinds of electricity: “vitreous” and “resinous.” Benjamin Franklin renamed these ‘Positive‘ and ‘negative’ electricity after the well established study of magnetism. It was recognised that electricty could be created by rubbing different surfaces together.  It is now more widely accepted that this is the result of charge separation.

In a simple experiment where I induced a “charge separation” I was able to measure the apparent negative and positive charges on the separated items using a coulomb meter. What was unacceptable to conventional theory is that each charged object when studied more thoroughly actually contained BOTH negative AND positive charges that were held in place by reciprocal magnetic fields which was established using a simple compass. It was my belief that only type of electricity was created. The coulomb metre simply measured the flow of electrical pressure. Why the electricity was created in the first place is a different area for discussion.

STATIC ELECTRICITY” IS ELECTRICITY WHICH IS STATIC? (William J. Beaty)

Instead, ‘static electricity’ is a collection of different electrical phenomena; phenomena where…
The amounts of positive and negative electric charge within a material are not perfectly equal.
Where voltage is high and current is low.
Where electrical forces (attraction and repulsion) are seen to reach across space. Widely spaced objects may attract or repel each other. Hair might stand on end!
Where electric fields (as opposed to magnetic fields) become very important. (Electric fields are also called “electrostatic fields” or “e-fields.”
Electrostatics is about “charge,” and about the attract/repel forces which electric charge creates. The motion or “staticness” of the charge is irrelevant. After all, the forces are still there even when the charges start flowing. And charges which are separated or imbalanced can sometimes flow along, yet the “static” effects are undiminished when the current begins. In other words, it’s perfectly possible to create flows of so-called “static” electricity.
It’s very misleading to concentrate on the “staticness” of the charges. It derails our explanations, and hides many important concepts such as charge separation, the density of imbalanced pos/neg charge, and the presence of voltage fields surrounding the imbalanced charges. These things are important even when the “static electricity” begins moving along as a current.

Electrostatics is not about “staticness,” instead it’s about charge and forces.

Imagine if water was explained just as badly as “static electricity.” In that case, most people would believe in two special kinds of water called “static water” and “current water.” We’d wrongly insist that “hydrostatics” was the study of static water. In that case, only the hydraulics expert would realize there’s no such thing as “static water.” Only the experts would realize that the so-called “static” water is really just pressurized water. The experts would also know that “static water” can even flow along, since pressurized water need not remain still or “static.” Hydrostatics still applies to water when it begins to flow. In a similar way, “static electricity” has everything to do with pressurized charge, and nothing to do with “electricity at rest.”

Here’s another problem with the usual “static electricity” concept. First, think about everyday matter. Down inside its atoms, everyday matter contains equal numbers of positive and negative charges (Protons and Electrons) which are very close together. Are these charges the “static electricity?” After all, they’re static and unmoving, right? They sit there inside each atom. And each individual electron and proton carries a charge of “static electricity.” Shouldn’t we say that physical matter is partly MADE out of “static electricity?”

But if we say that matter is made out of “static,” then where are the sparks, where are the rising hair and crackling noises? There aren’t any, and this shows that the “staticness” is not an important factor. Instead, the most important factor is the balance of opposite charges. Inside matter, the positive and negative charges are close together, and so their effects cancel out. Even though matter is full of charges which are “static” and unmoving, there is normally no “static electricity” to be seen. It’s about IMBALANCE between opposite charges, not about staticness. Also, the presence of charged particles is not such an important factor, since matter is full of them, even when no “static electricity” appears. We need separated, imbalanced particle populations before interesting things start to happen. Just having charged particles is not enough.

How can we fix the confusion? Easy. Don’t call it “static,” instead call it “charge imbalance.” It’s the net electric charge which is important. Or put more simply: it is the separation between positive and negative particles which is the basis for “static electricity.” When quantities of protons are separated from electrons across a large distance, then we’ll get sparks and rising hair. Call this “electric charge”, not “static charge,” since the imbalance remains the same even when the charges flow along very non-statically.

Whenever these opposite charges in matter are sorted out and separated into groups of positive and negative, then we say that “static electricity” has been generated. What does this have to do with the charges remaining still or static? Nothing! In fact, if the charge imbalance can be made to flow along, it will still retain all of its unusual characteristics. It will still attract hair and lint, and cause sparks, etc., even while it is flowing. This puts us into the ridiculous situation of talking about “Static Electricity” …which moves! It’s unfortunate that the term “static electricity” has become so widely adopted as the name for the phenomena. If it had been called something else, “imbalanced electricity” for example, it wouldn’t be nearly as misleading. It’s easy to think about an imbalance which moves or stays still. But it’s impossible to visualize an unmoving substance which flows. And it’s even more unfortunate that textbooks have widely adopted the misleading practice of stating that “static electricity is electricity which is static and unmoving.” This is a lie, and is no less a lie when many textbooks say the same thing. Reality is not determined by majority vote. No matter how many people agree otherwise, the Emperor’s Clothes remain missing.

What we call “Static electricity” also has another name: “high voltage.” All of the familiar electrostatic phenomena which we encounter in everyday situations always involve voltages above 1,000V, and ranging up to around 50,000 volts at the most. If it attracts lint or raises hair, it’s definitely over 1,000 Volts. Rub a balloon on your head, and you generate tens of thousands of volts! This is voltage without a current. Here’s a way to think about it: pure electric current involves a current with zero voltage, while pure “electrostatic” phenomena involve electrical voltages with zero current. Scuff your feet on a carpet and you create a voltage difference of many thousands of volts between your body and the carpet. Study “static electricity” and you study voltage itself.

It would be wonderful if the term “Static electricity” could be removed from the English language and replaced by “High Voltage Electricity.” Or possibly by “Separated Charge,” or “Charge Imbalance,” or “The Science Called Electrostatics.” This won’t happen anytime soon, since the mistake is too deeply ingrained in books and teachers, and in the minds of the public. The best solution is to have everyone stay aware of this issue. Try to avoid using the terms “Static Electricity” and “Static Charge.” And very definitely do not TEACH that “Static” and “Current” are opposite kinds of electricity. After all, charge imbalances still are “imbalances” even when they stop being static and they flow during an electric current.

Also, charge-flow and charge-imbalance can happen in the same wire at the same time. Therefore, anyone who believes that “static” and “current” are two types of opposite, mutually-exclusive electricity, those people will forever remain hopelessly confused about the true nature of any electrical phenomena.

ELECTRICITY IS MADE OF ELECTRONS?

Wrong. Electricity is energy, atoms are energy, electrons are energy, matter is energy. Electricity is a our experience of charge imbalance and dissipation of charge. Describing electricity as the movement of electrons is wrong in that electricity or charge imbalance is often generated through a magnetic field. A magnetic field is simply flow and is not usually described in terms of electrons.

We experience electricity through charge imbalance which seeks to dissipate through conductive material over the widest possible surface.

Charge dissipation is one of the most important concepts in understanding electricity. Charge can only exist in one of two states, balanced or imbalanced.

When dissipating, charge radiates outward in every direction behaving much like a burst balloon would dissipate air pressure. The difference is that certain substances (conductors) offer less resistance to the dissipating electrical pressure assisting or acting as a conduit for balancing the charge quicker. A charge carried along a conducting path acts in the same way, dissipating charge radially, always spreading to the greatest surface area, unless it is carried by the conductor to a distant point of dissipation. The simple laws of dispersion dictate the radial forces. This radial dissipation also illustrates how a charge will always be carried along the outermost surface of a conductor. Thus it can be stated that electricity tends to be a surface phenomena.

BEN FRANKLIN’S KITE WAS STRUCK BY LIGHTNING? (William J. Beaty)

Never happened! Many people believe that Ben Franklin’s kite was hit by a lightning bolt, and this was how he proved that lightning was electrical. A number of books and even some encyclopedias say the same thing. They are wrong. When lightning strikes a kite, the spreading electric currents in the ground can kill anyone standing nearby, to say nothing of the person holding the string! So what did Franklin actually do? He showed that a kite would collect a tiny bit of electric charge out of the sky during a thunderstorm. Electric leakage through the air caused his kite and string to become electrified and so the hairs on the twine stood outwards. Twine is slightly conductive, so the imbalanced charge spread to all parts of the kite string. Franklin used the twine to electrify a metal key, and tiny sparks could then be drawn from the key. (He used a metal object because sparks cannot be directly drawn from the twine, it’s not conductive enough.) This suggested that some stormclouds carry strong electrical net-charge. It IMPLIED that lightning was just a large electric spark. The common belief that Franklin easily survived a lightning strike is not just wrong, it is dangerous: it may convince kids that it’s OK to duplicate the kite experiment as long as they “protect” themselves by holding a silk ribbon. Make no mistake, Franklin’s experiment was extremely dangerous, and if lightning had actually hit his kite, he certainly would have been killed.

A “CONDUCTOR” IS A MATERIAL WHICH ALLOWS CHARGE TO PASS THROUGH IT? (William J. Beaty)

Not exactly. The scientist’s definition of the word “conductor” is different than the one above, and the one above has problems. For example, a vacuum offers no barrier to flows of electric charges, yet vacuum is an insulator. Vacuum is NOTHING, so how can it act as a barrier to electric current? Also, there is a similar problem with air: electric charges in the air can easily move along, yet air is an insulator. Or look at salt water versus oil. Oil is an insulator, while salt water is a conductor, yet neither liquid is able to halt the flow of any charges which are placed into it. How can we straighten out this paradox? Easy: use the proper definition of “conductor.” BAD:
Conductor – a material which allows charges to pass through itself BETTER:
Conductor – a material which contains movable electric charges If we place a Potential Difference across either air or a vacuum, no electric current appears. This is sensible, since there are few movable charges in air or vacuum, so there can be no electric current. If we place a voltage across a piece of metal or across a puddle of salt water, an electric current will appear, since these substances are always full of movable charges, and therefor the “voltage pressure” causes the charges to flow. In metal, the outer electrons of the atoms are not bound upon individual atoms but instead can move through the material, and a voltage can drive these “liquid” electrons along. In salt water, the individual sodium ions and chloride ions are free to flow, and a voltage can push them so they flow as an electric current. If we stick our wires into oil, there will be no electric current, since oil does not contain movable charges. If we were to inject charges into a vacuum, then we WOULD have electric current in a vacuum. This is how CRT’s and vacuum tubes work; electrons are forcibly injected into the empty space by a hot filament. However, think about it for a second: it’s no longer a vacuum when it contains a cloud of electrons! 🙂 Maybe we should change their name to “electron-cloud tubes” rather than “vacuum tubes”, since the electron cloud is required before there can be any conductivity in the space between the plates. (But vacuum tubes already have another name, so this would just confuse things. They are called “hollow-state devices.” As opposed to “solid state devices?”

ELECTRIC CHARGES ARE INVISIBLE? (William J. Beaty)

No. Electric charges are very visible, even though their motion is not.

ELECTRIC CHARGES ONLY FLOW ON THE SURFACES OF WIRES

^{Wrong. The flow of electricity along a wire is a form of dissipation of electrical pressure and therefore generally tends to be a surface phenomenon, flowing over the greatest surface area, which offers the least amount of resistance, and which forms the pressure boundary. Though thin, hollow metal pipes usually make poor conductors as their capacity to carry a current is low.  In solid conductors the electrical pressure will flow through the entire conductor if there is sufficient resistance in the form of limited capacity on the surface. It is this reason it is better to use solid wires which offer greater current carrying capacity and are less prone to overheating.}

^{Rather than “conducting” it would be better to think of the conductor as a channel where electrical pressure can be dissipated in the same way a flood would spread across a landscape flowing along the path of least resistance.}

^{Personally I disagree with the electron theory as I have outlined in “Electrostatic Theory is Wrong”, but William Beaty explains the present electron theory in relation to this subject well…}

^{“Unfortunately, the word “charge” refers to two different things. When electric charge is placed on a metal object, the added charge is just a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of charge already in the neutral metal. “Uncharged” wires contain an enormous amount of charge, even though they may have “zero charge” on their surfaces. Confused yet? All metals contain huge amounts of movable electrons. During an electric current it is these electrons which flow. However, each electron is near a proton, and so the metal is said to be “uncharged.” In a wire, electric current is a flow of “uncharged charge”. Weird but true. Now if we were to place EXTRA charge upon a wire, that would be like pouring a teacup into the ocean. The “water level” would rise a tiny bit. Yet extra charges on a wire create a very noticeable electrical imbalance (they attract lint, deflect electroscopes, make sparks, etc.) It isn’t so strange that we might accidentally assume that the extra charges are the only charges there. Yet in reality, electric currents happen in the “ocean” of the wire, and the extra “teacup” has little effect on the charge flow. The charge flow (current) is not just on the surface. A second source of misunderstandings: during high frequency AC, the electric current on the surface of a conductor is higher at the surface than it is within the bulk of the metal. This is called the “skin effect.” It is not important for everyday wires at 60Hz. Perhaps some people heard about the Skin Effect but did not realize that it only works for high frequency AC. At extremely high frequencies, the current does flow as a “skin” on the surface of large wires. For high-current, high-frequency circuits such as radio transmitters, it makes sense to use copper pipes as conductors. All the charge flow is on the surface of the conductors. All the heating takes place on the surface, and not deep within the metal.”}

ELECTROMAGNET COILS USE UP ENERGY TO MAKE MAGNETISM? (William J. Beaty)

Not right. Sustaining a magnetic field requires no energy. Coils only require energy to initially create a magnetic field. They also require energy to defeat electrical friction (resistance), to keep the charges from slowing down as they flow in wires. But if the resistance is removed, the magnetic field can exist continuously without any energy input. If electrically frictionless superconductive wire is used, a coil can be momentarily connected to an energy supply to create the field. Afterwards the power supply can be removed and both the current and the magnetic field will continue forever without further energy input.

LIGHT AND RADIO WAVES TRAVEL AT 186,000 MILES PER SECOND? (William J. Beaty)

No. They only travel at 186,000 miles per second while in a perfect vacuum. Light waves travel a bit slower in the air, and it travels LOTS slower when inside glass. Radio waves move much slower than 186,000 miles/sec when they travel within plastic-insulated coaxial cable. The term “speed of light” is misleading, because the complete term actually reads “speed of light in a vacuum.” There actually is no set “speed of light,” for light waves and light (and electrical energy) can travel at many different speeds depending on the medium through which the waves propagate.