🤔 TESLA_ Electricity & Electrons Explained logically

That was the bare necessities again, packed by popular request. I probably sound like a radio DJ. You know, a bunch of people emailed me and Facebook messaged me and said, there's this YouTuber with millions of subs and he's hijacked the things you've been talking about for years and stuck it in his new video. I was like, well, isn't that special? I went and watched it. Of course, there was a whole lot of verbal and conceptual judo in the video because he kept using the word field and of course you can't, like everybody else, you can't define the word field. It's kind of shocking if I were stupid, but since I'm not stupid, it's not shocking at all. Let's talk about the electron, if you can, just for a second. And before stating this, people never make it to the end of the video when I've talked about electrons in the past. Let's start off by stating the fact that the gods, I call them gods in a generic sense, the gods of electrical field theory, these are the Tesla, Heaviside, Steinmetz, Dollard, quite a few. So there's no such thing as an electron particle. It's an arbitrary concept, it's an abstraction. And of course, if you're a hammer, everything's a nail, and if you're an atomist, everything's a particle. Even the so-called discoverer of the principle of the electron, and we could just call an electron a concept of, and that person was J.J. Thompson. He said the principle of the electron was one unit of dielectric conduction. And that, of course, is exactly what it is. First, let's also state the fact that none of these other so-called physicists and scientists, they're not scientists, actually, they're mathematicians, will tell you, and that is a field is an ether perturbation modality. Yeah, kind of like ice, water, and steam are all temperature and pressure modalities of one thing, which is, of course, water. Let's go on to some quotes from some of the greats regarding the concept of the electron. And of course, it's interesting to call it a charge-carrying particle. Let's analyze that. You know, if you're interested in facts, logic, and wisdom, and you have a really sharp mind, you would say, excuse me, sir, charge-carrying particle. So they actually say the electron is a charge-carrying particle, as if the electron itself, which of course is not a particle anyway, but let's roll with their insanity, that it's carrying the charge, but it's not the charge itself. So by their very definition, and it is their definition, an electron is like a clown car, and inside that clown car is a bunch of clowns, and those are the charges. Even the electron, by their own definition, is not the charge, and you can never explain wireless power induction with this charge-carrying particle, this idea of this electron particle. It doesn't exist. You ask every scientist out there, so-called scientists, they're not really scientists, not in the true Aristotelian-Platonic sense, that says that the movement of energy, the flow of electrons, yes, it is. Well, that's completely impossible, impossible. You can't explain wireless power induction, you can't explain a million different phenomena, you can't explain instantaneous action at a distance vis-a-vis power, you can't explain EPR paradox with these one-way and or bi-directional communicating particles, completely arbitrary. It's asinine, it's ludicrous, it doesn't follow Occam's razor, it's illogical. Here's one from Walter Russell. To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding, contracting particle. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, such as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions. J.J. Thomson developed the aether atom, ideas from Michael Faraday, in his electronic corpuscle. This indivisible unit, one corpuscle, terminates on one ferritic tube of force, and of course force is not a thing either, force is of what, by what, and upon what. There's no such thing as force, you know, as an autonomous entity, any more than happiness is an autonomous entity, or a wave. A wave is not a thing, a wave is what a thing does. Happiness is not a thing, happiness is an attribute, like that person is happy, Bob Sue Larry is happy. It's a condition, an attribute of something else. There's no such thing as an essence, like happiness, a wave, or force. Force is not a thing. Force describes something done by something upon something else. Even talking about force, this is incorrect, this is a quote from Dallard, a ferritic tube of force, and this quantifies as one column. The corpuscle is not an electron, it is a constituent of what is today known incorrectly as the principle of the electron. Thomson relates 1,000 corpuscles per electron unit, and this view is taken by Crooks, J.J. Thomson, and Nikola Tesla. The cathode ray is not electrons, but actually corpuscles of the ether, yeah. There's another one by old Eric, there is no rest mass to an electron, which of course is correct. It is given here that an electron is no more than a broken loose holdfast under the grip of the tension from within the dielectric lines of force. Of course, even that's an abstraction and incorrect from what Dallard says. He's actually using the same incorrect conceptual nomenclature of these so-called scientists, which are mathematicians, they're buffoons, because lines, there's no such thing as lines in nature. These are phenomena seen of constructive and destructive interference. Lines are not a thing, any more than force is a thing. There's no such thing as force. Here's force. Now, I'm going to take this rock, and of course I can't crush it. This is force. Yeah, but the force is being described that I'm exerting energy, the muscles are contracting, and I'm actually imparting energy and force upon this rock. That's force. This whole thing is a force. It's of what, by what, and upon what. There's no such thing as force itself. Even Eric Dallard is incorrect on this. Not that I'm going after Eric Dallard and saying lines of force, but even he can't see past the ignorance of using these conceptual brain farts regarding the electron. They are broken loose ends, meaning electrons, of the split and half package of spaghetti. Obviously, this reasoning is not welcome in the realm of Einstein's theory of relativity. Charles Proteus Steinmetz, Electrical Discharges, Waves, and Impulses, that's a free download on archive.org, by the way, unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields, a prehistoric concept. This book was written over 100 years ago in 1917. Prehistoric concept, the electrostatic charge, the electron, the principle of the electron still exists regarding that which is on the conductor, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and the dielectric. Now, here's the god of electrical theory. He's actually smarter than Tesla. Yes, Charles Proteus Steinmetz, smarter than Tesla. He actually perfected many of Tesla's inventions, including the AC generator, such as laminated steel necessary to keep the efficiency high. Look up laminated steel and the AC generator if you want to do a Google search on that. Yes, actually smarter than Tesla. Not more creative or more inventive, even though he was a prolific inventor himself. This is the god of electrical field theory. This book was written almost exactly 100 years ago, pretty much, essentially, a little bit over 100 years ago. Magnetic and dielectric, because that's what electricity is, is five time cycles, Q-impliant electrification. In other words, electricity is a hybrid of dielectricity and magnetism. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated. Actually, if you actually, I said actually twice. If you apply what Steinmetz has said to electricity and what it actually is, because electricity is not a thing in itself, it's not. It's a hybrid of dielectricity and magnetism. The constituent of both acting together as a unit of energy, transference, which of course we use, electricity. Electricity is a hybrid. Just as magnetism is the dielectric field, loss of energy or inertia manifests as a three-dimensional force vector, the centrifugal divergence, the toroidal geometry that is magnetism, but magnetism is just silly word dumb humans invented to talk about the dielectric field and loss of energy. Everything is one. Even the fool scientists have been saying for decades, ultimately there's a grand unified theory. One of these days, someone smart enough, pause for drama, someone smart enough would be able to combine all these things. Well, they're already combined. You don't have to combine what mother nature already has combined already. It's just these dumb human beings like the pigeonhole. There's magnetism because it acts like that and there's dielectricity because it acts like that. Here's electricity over here and here's gravity over here. Well, the phenomenon of gravity doesn't exist at all. This thing we actually see right here, that is nothing other than non-point source mutual mass acceleration. The same thing foolish human beings call magnetic attraction. You know, they say, well, two magnets are pulling towards one another. That's magnetic attraction, well, or acceleration actually, which does not exist. You say, well, there are two magnets, they're accelerating, therefore it must be magnetic attraction. That premise has existed for thousands and thousands of years ever since the discovery of lodestone, God knows how many tens of thousands of years ago, by human beings. There's no such thing as magnetic attraction. Electricity to be accurately defined is just nothing other than the consubstantial energy field modality of dielectricity and magnetism, or five times the angle of the scale. This is the god of electrical field theory. Even more so than Nikola Tesla, Charles Brody, Steinmetz. Right there, it's like page 17 of electrical discharges, waves, and impulses, okay? So don't act like I'm saying, well, there's this crazy fat tattooed guy on YouTube saying electrons don't exist. No, what I'm telling you right now, girlfriend, is that the gods of electrical theory, vis-a-vis Tesla, Steinmetz, Heaviside, Dollard, Russell, and myself, said there's no such thing as this charge-carrying particle, an atom, which should have valence shields of electrons around an atom. Well, every atom is nothing other than an electrostatic dynamo. It is actually creating charge in its volume, which is measured in picometers, of various intensities. Those various intensities we call valence layers, but they're just different electrostatic shielding levels around an atom, because that's all an atom is, is an electrostatic dynamo. The most fundamental one, of course, the basis for all atoms and all matter, is hydrogen. Here we go. The so-called electron are not particles, nor objects, or subjects, but are the dynamic principles of discharge, and are certainly not charge carriers. Fields are not particles, nor are they electrons, nor assuredly are there energy discharges in the vacuum of space involving electrons, not to mention that space is not a field terminal. No field energy or energy modality or field modality is ever terminated in space, because space is not a terminal. Space has no attributes. It has no properties either, as Nikola Tesla famously said, and by famously, I mean those who actually know what Tesla said, which are very few. Electron is a fiction of fallacious observations and an even more faulty mental acuity, spawned naturally from the minds of materialists, i.e. atomists. Electricity is the ether in a state of dynamic polarization. Magnetism is the ether in a state of dynamic circular polarization upon itself, i.e. the loss of energy of the dielectric, which is the conjugate geometry of the entire universe, the toroidal and the hyperboloidal, and the radiative termination of electrical discharge. Dielectricity is the ether under stress or strain. The motions and strains of the ether give rise to electrification, whose unit is conceptualized incorrectly as this idea of an electron, which is a concept only. By the way, in the description below, I have a list of definitions of all the points of field theory, if you want to read it. J.J. Thompson developed the ether atom idea from Michael Faraday into his electronic corpuscle, the indivisible unit. Here's Nikola Tesla on the Electron, a 1928 interview from Popular Science Monthly, articles called Famous Prophet of Science Looks Into the Future. On the whole subject matter, in fact, Dr. Tesla holds the view that, startlingly original, he disagrees with the accepted atomic theory of matter and does not believe in the existence of an electron, as pictured by science. By science, we're talking about a religion. It's a deranged belief system, of course, today anyway, not originally, but that's died thousands of years ago. To account for its apparently small mass, science conceives that the electron is a hollow sphere, a sort of bubble, such as a bubble could exist in a medium, a gas, or a liquid. This is Tesla talking. And its internal pressure is not altered by deformation, but if, as supposedly, the internal pressure of an electron is due to the repulsion of electric masses, the slightest conceivable deformation must result in the destruction of the bubble, just to mention another improbability. This is Nikola Tesla's fancy way of saying there ain't no such thing as an electron. My idea, this is Tesla also, my idea regarding the electron are at variance with those generally entertained. He's basically saying I'm the smart one and everybody else is a fool on the subject matter of the electron. I hold that it is a relatively large entity carrying a surface charge, not an elementary unit or particle. This so-called electron leaves an electrode of high potential and high vacuum it carries an electrostatic charge many times greater than that. No such thing as electron particles, completely ridiculous. There's even an old quote from early, from 1916, from old Einstein himself. Einstein means one stone, by the way, in German, Einstein. And that is a euphemism for a fool. Someone has one stone in their head, it means they're a fool. Literally the word Einstein in German, Einstein, one stone, it means a fool. Isn't that famous? Isn't that miraculous that Einstein means fool? Isn't that neat? Isn't that apropos? It's almost like nature had that planned. By the way, everything you think Einstein was brilliant or famous for saying or writing actually was stolen from the works of Hanray Pankhawar. There have been many books written about this fact. You should download some of the free books of Hanray Pankhawar. That's H-E-N-R-A-Y P-O-I-N-C-A-R-E, Hanray Pankhawar. Literally everything you think Einstein said, wow, Einstein's so smart, is stolen from Hanray Pankhawar. That's not my feeling, opinion, belief, it's a fact, period. This is another one. You cannot say that stretching a trillion rubber bands nailed to the floor and releasing them are breaking their lines of force as the flow of electrons. Discharge are a terminal movement in a system of induction or dielectric capacitance. There are no discrete particles in the universe and certainly none that mediate out charge, discharge magnetism, electromagnetism, gravity, the dynamic principle of discharge, and are certainly not charged carriers. Fields are not particles, are not electrons, nor assuredly are there energy discharges in the vacuum of space involving electrons. I actually said that before, getting on to that. Now there are, of course, nucleoparticles. I'm in complete agreement with all branches of science that every free neutron becomes a proton after 17 minutes after it's ejected or leaves the nucleus of an atom. So if there's no such thing as an actual neutron, since every neutron becomes a proton, that means there's only one fundamental particle, and every atom in its most simplex is hydrogen. And of course, hydrogen, this nucleus, i.e. the so-called proton, is nothing other than I've humorously called it hard light. Nothing other than super high-energy TEM, transverse electromagnetism, electromagnetism. This is why we see the most powerful entities in the universe, i.e. so-called black holes, which are not actually holes and not really black, but just the phenomena we call black holes. They're emitting out trillions and trillions and trillions of tons, God knows, every hour, every second. We can see them. There are many telescope views of these galactic jets, there are also two called astrophysical jets. It's just super high-energy light. They're nothing other than lighthouse beacons. But imagine a lighthouse a billion, trillion, trillion, trillion times more powerful than a real lighthouse. The energy is so high that it's not emitting conventional light as we see it anymore, but energy light so high that it's actually the phenomena we call the proton, a single proton is what we call hydrogen. And of course, all matter is compounded hydrogen, all matter, everywhere in the universe, compounded hydrogen. That is irrefutable and undeniable by anybody. Now, Tudor Naturanza, Mother Nature, must be fundamentally simple. She doesn't have a bag of magic particles. Everything is fields and fields are not particles. There's no such thing as a charge-carrying particle. It's completely ridiculous to say that the electron's not to charge, but it's carrying the charge, kind of like an electron's a clown car, you know, carrying the actual charge. It's just ridiculous. You can never explain wireless power induction with the flow of electrons, but every scientist out there, it's not an overstatement, every scientist out there says, so what is electricity? This power movement, you know, discharges, this flow of electricity, yes, it is flow of electrons, like every little wire in the universe, you know, like the little wires in this lead, right? This is, it's like, there's all these, it's just so stupid, just such pure atomism, and then you got trillions and quadrillions of electrons, it's ridiculous. That would assume that an AC generator, which actually doesn't generate power, it manifests it, because it's not being converted from one thing to another, there's no direct conversion from water or wind or, you know, hydroelectric into power. That would be the notion that an AC generator is like a tube of toothpaste, it has X number of electrons in it, and when you turn it, then it's squeezing the electrons, it's ridiculous. You know, AC generators run for, we've had the oldest ones now, up in Niagara run for what, over 100 years now? They're not generating electricity, they're not, it's just pure flat out, it's, I was about to say flat earth insanity, but I won't say that, because the flatties will come after me. And I still call them flatties, right? I should call it the pancake-ism, like, it's a pancake shaped like a pancake, just like that. Okay, whatever, I don't care what people believe in. It's ridiculous to think that, because when you generate this electron nonsense, and you create absurdities that are impossible to explain, you can't explain wireless power induction, you can't explain how an AC generator works, you can't do it, it's not possible. You're just talking about science fiction, whack-a-doodle insanity. Anyway, there we go, that's the video on the electron. What is electricity? Electricity is not a thing, electricity is a hybrid of two things. And when you understand what electricity is, explaining how an electromagnet works is really, really simple. That book, Electrical Discharge of Waves and Impulse, written over 100 years ago, he said even then, people had completely corrupted the idea of electricity, they had no idea what it was. That's from 100 years ago. Over 100, stay here, over 100. Accurate. Thanks for watching. Goodbye.