The correct theory of electricity

[thx1138]

If you go back and read the articles, it is the authors of the articles that say Hertz waves don't exist, not Dr. Tesla. Dr. Tesla does make the point that they are wholly ineffective for transmitting over long distances and that it is delusional to think that they can but that is a matter of transmission, not whether or not they exist. In fact he makes the point in one article by stating, 'As regards signaling without wires, the application of these radiations for the purpose was quite obvious. When Dr. Hertz was asked whether such a system would be of practical value, he did not think so, and he was correct in his forecast. The best that might have been expected was a method of communication similar to the heliographic and subject to the same or even greater limitations.', heliographic signalling being the use of mirrors and reflected sunlight.

Note that in the below I use the archaic word 'aether' simply because I like it and it differentiates the subject from the word 'ether' as used in chemistry.

Here is what Dr. Tesla said about the nature of electricity on May 20, 1891 in Alternate Currents of Very High Frequency and Their Applications to Methods of Artificial Illumination, 'What is electricity and what is magnetism? The most able intellects have ceaselessly wrestled with the problem; still the question has yet been answered. But while we cannot even today state what the singular forces are, we have made good headway towards the solution to the problem. We are now confident that electric and magnetic phenomena are attributable to aether, are perhaps justified in saying that the effects of static electricity are effects of aether under strain, and those of dynamic electricity and electro-magnetism effects of aether in motion. But this still leaves the question as to what electricity and magnetism are unanswered. … we must remember that we have no evidence of electricity, nor can we hope to get it, unless gross matter is present. Electricity, therefore, cannot be called aether in the broad sense of the term but nothing would seem to stand in the way of calling electricity aether associated with matter, or bound aether, or, in other words, that the so called static charge of the molecule is aether associated in some way with the molecule.'

I suppose if you consider matter an expression of aether in motion as a vortex that would tie your theory together with electricity. But whatever electricity is we must interact with matter to harness it to accomplish work.

[thx1138]

Ed Leedscalnin was correct about electric current : it is a sound like wave with magnetic part rotating like corkscrew around the center unipolar electric field not undulating (even more , i would state that it's only that magnetic part what is real and electric is a push forward of this screw!)...Interesting that two kinds should exists : positive and negative depending on rotation direction.

See this video. I think it helps visualize your idea. Two motions. One of convection and one of superimposed rotation. Note also near the end a change in frequency reverses the direction of rotation. It may stimulate your thinking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY6z2hLgYuY&feature=player_embedded
Thoughts?

[forest]

Two macro whirls of opposing directions in 3D space looking exactly like those cymatics ones are forming magnetic field. Macro whirls are composed of many tubular microwhirls working in synchronicity (Maxwell tubes of force in ether I suppose)


Somebody described magnetic field that way, it is not purely my imagination , however  I can't rememeber who he was.  Anyway my theory matches with that description also.
I'd like to recall who wrote such a book about magnetism, he was free energy inventor also. do you have any idea who am I thinking of ?

[thx1138]

Two macro whirls of opposing directions in 3D space looking exactly like those cymatics ones are forming magnetic field. Macro whirls are composed of many tubular microwhirls working in synchronicity (Maxwell tubes of force in ether I suppose)


Somebody described magnetic field that way, it is not purely my imagination , however  I can't rememeber who he was.  Anyway my theory matches with that description also.
I'd like to recall who wrote such a book about magnetism, he was free energy inventor also. do you have any idea who am I thinking of ?

I remember something of that nature. I think it was either Dr. Tesla or one of the Thomsons. Maybe J. J. Thomson.
I found this link yesterday. It seems related to what you are looking for. If it is not at that link it may be at one of the publications referenced there.
http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/HTMLdosya1/TeslaDynamicGravity.htm

[thx1138]

You may find this interesting. It's not so much about your theory but about frames of reference.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130104143516.htm