Free Solid State/mechanical energy

[allcanadian]

Man ,my head is just spinning with this rain analogy.
So if this is true we are swimming in condensing energy and radiating energy, there must be a mechanism to harness it. Like Teslas "means for harnessing radiant energy" ,Duh- How can I be so blind. We have everything we need, we need to put in the right context, and ditch the mainstream hogwash.
WoooHooo were moving now!

[Maximumgravity1]

Hmmm...you got me thinking.  But I am wondering if it truly is water, or is it the aether, orgone, etc that so many others have spoken of?  Even Walter Russell makes comment about space not being a vaccum, but just "negative" matter (sorry paraphrasing).  Without such devices, sunlight could not radiate, nor could it travel in waves.  The "particles" of sunlight only bounce up and down riding the apex and troughs of the waves through space.  Only once it reaches the atmosphere does light begin to resonate and take on the characteristics of simulated light, and heat that we are familiar with.

However, this does not imply that what you are stating is wrong, I just wonder if it is truly water that is referenced.  I believe it is energy, basically "matter" energy to be specific.  The opposing manifestations of it can be dominate like electricity and magnetism.  More "matter-dominate" verses more "space-dominate".  I believe I took some notes from the "Secret of Light" link you had posted on the Taoism site.  Going to check on those and post back shortly.

Good going Allcanadaian, I think this is definately heading somewhere positive.

[Trump]

midnight_blue

Thanks for those links. I will read every word and then try to apply it to the patents we are studying for the charging of the capacitor.

Trump

[allcanadian]

@maximumgravity
Water is just an analogy I was using, It's not water that Tesla was trying to harness, it was radiant energy, key word "radiant"-to radiate-expand.
What type or "condition" of energy gravitates toward our planet everyday?
EM waves or light
Whatever gravitates must radiate- that is the natural cycle of the universe. So what is it that is "radiating" expanding outward from our planet then?
Im guessing EM waves as infrared waves, what in the frequency of infrared waves versus visible light and infrared. There must be a potential difference a change in frequency I think what
I see so many cyles here--
Daytime= gravitating energy
Nighttime= radiating energy
Maximumgravity we are so on this it's not even funny, we are on the same page and were speedreading.

[Maximumgravity1]

I am getting my authors and references confused at this point, but I believe it was Schauberger (might have been Russell) that stated that very thing.  The Day, the sun side of the planet, is used to charge up all life.  It's sun energy is used to create, to live, to generate, to produce.  At night, when there is no sun, things unwind, rest, return to the outward expanding state.  There was a comment about even the animals follow this cycle, but this wasn't entirely true, as there are many nocturnal animals.  However, I believe it would be construed that even during the day, those animals are recharging, and spending their "day-charge" at night time.  The statement was in short, without the sun, there would be no life.  Life cannot transpire without the sun.

This all sounds quite basic, but in reference to the suns radiative energy, the building up of matter, this took on a slightly different connotation, considering at night, everything "decays" - it expands back to nothing.  If this condition prevailed, it would radiate everything away into the vastness of space.

I re-read through the posts a few times, I am not sure why I thought you were talking about water.  Brain fart I suppose.  Anyway, I clearly understand what you are talking about.  I believe in another conversation a few pages back, I was hit with a similar realization, and that was when I noted that the sun and earth act as cathode and anode.  What one is radiating, the other is receiving.  In reviewing my notes on Russell, it really makes me believe that a sun and a planet are just opposites of each other - inside out configurations of the same matter, if you will.

I think this paragraph of Walter Russell helps to explain it:
"Opposite  Conditions Born Each Other
Matter and space likewise are  mates. Each has become what each is by opposing the other to attain the appearance of separateness. Then each interchanges with each by breathing into and out of each other until space disintegrates matter and becomes what the other was. Space disintegrates suns and earths by the way of equators and generates them by the way of poles. Heat generated by cold by the way of poles is radiated by the way of equators. Suns thus turn inside out. Cold bores black holes right through their poles and great suns become rings, like those in Lira and other ring nebulae, which are plentiful in the heavens. All matter is generated by the degeneration of its opposite. Likewise all generated matter is sequentially degenerated by the generation of its opposite. Compression in matter is balanced by an equal evacuation in space. An equal opposite must balance every unbalanced condition in Nature. All borrowings from the bank of Nature are debited with an amount equal to the credit extended just as money borrowed from man's bank is debited and credited."

When he states that "suns thus turn inside out", I take this to mean "rotate in a convection like pattern".  Since (as far as we know) they are mostly gaseous, the convection of heat energy through a gas ball would be through its center (axially) from the poles, then radiate out the middle.  Hence the formation of rings.  In opposite manner, the planets would absorb radiant energy - at their poles - and radiate out their energy also at their equator - as is the nature of space's disintegrative nature of matter.  However, the difference with the earth having a crust and "solid" core of molten liquid, the convection of heat runs along its crust, and congregates at the equator.  This seems to be a very good explanation of currents, prevailing winds, and other anomolies we take for granted as "standards".  This energy would pick up colder polar air (air with less energy vibration) and carry it to the equator.  These are basically the "eddy currents" of our atmosphere.  Even though we attribute much of this to mere rotation, I believe Schauberger's comments about water currents, flow and movement being attributable to heat flow in water is where we see the "potentials" in our atmosphere turn into "flow".  The rotation of the planet most likely just keeps things moving along in a standard plane and direction. 

This I believe finally answers one of Erfinder's question's about why lines of flux are greatest at a magnets equator - in a planet, it is the outflow - away from the planet, back to the source (the sun).  The planet takes in its energy at the poles, compresses it toward the middle, until it can't compress anymore, then out it comes at the equator.  In another place, he talks about the rings of Saturn being examples of this (I believe - would have to re-read it to be certain it is the same cause).  Anyway, off topic and idle chit-chat I suppose, but boy, it sure does answer a lot of questions...