[Rayzor]

Thanks model 29,  perfect example of refraction.   ( which,  as has already pointed out,  cannot occur on a flat earth  )

Sandokhan,    I'll  read up on those references you quoted and try to make sense of what you are saying,  but first impressions are that you are quoting a lot of UFO conspiracy sites, and Tesla conspiracy thrown in for good measure.   

You still haven't answered the question about visibility on a flat earth,  but I guess, since you've ignored it twice now, that you are just going to ignore the fact that it's a problem for your theory.

However, before we can advance the discussion much further,  we should agree on references.   Which of the following  references do you accept,  and if you reject any,  it would be instructive to know why.

[sandokhan]

rayzor, you are still here?

Your previous message showed to everybody here that you have no idea of what you are doing.

You performed a superficial search, and brought over here the first reference that suited your purposes.

But it turned out to be a catastrophic bibliographical reference, as has been rightly pointed out.


Each and everyone of your "statements" was completely debunked with specific references, with the precise data, by employing the correct bibliographical references.


You have the audacity to ask my opinion about your list of references? Can't you read English, rayzor? ALL OF THEM ARE DEVOTED/ARE DESCRIBING A METEORITE/ASTEROID IMPACT SCENARIO.

But the Tunguska event was not caused at all by a meteorite or by an asteroid: with exception of the Sekanina reference (which rightly points out that it was not a comet), your list is useless.

The scientists on your list had no idea that the glow was observed DAYS BEFORE THE ACTUAL EXPLOSION THUS EXCLUDING THE VERY POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS A METEORITE/ASTEROID/COMET:

EVEN BEFORE THE DAY OF THE BLAST ITSELF (JUNE 30, 1908), a strange glow was observed over Siberia.

http://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/14336

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nkj.ru%2Farchive%2Farticles%2F14336&edit-text=

In brief: the witnesses stated that the anomalous skyglow commenced approximately 2 days before Tunguska!

“Scientists recorded the occurrence of some unusual phenomena starting on June 27th, 1908. Some specialists even suppose that these phenomena started as early as June 23 or June 21… Optical anomalies in the atmosphere (strange silvery clouds, brilliant twilights, and intense solar halos) were observed in western Europe, the European part of Russia, and western Siberia, beginning on June 23, 1908."

Exact reference: http://olkhov.narod.ru/tunguska.htm

THE TUNGUSKA EVENT: WHAT WE KNOW TODAY AND WHAT WE HOPE TO LEARN SOON

N. V. Vasilyev

(Kharkov Metchnikoff Institute and Commission on Meteorites of the Siberian Section of the Russian Academy of Sciences)




http://altered-states.net/barry/tesla/ (the section Lighting up the sky)

Geo-magnetic disturbances were already observed even before the explosion!!

Many years later, researchers from Tomsk came across a forgotten publication by a Professor Weber about a powerful geo-magnetic disturbance observed in a laboratory at Kiel University in Germany for three days before the intrusion of the Tunguska object, and which ended at the very hour when the gigantic bolide exploded above the Central Siberian Plateau.


Tesla experimented with the ball lightning ether for YEARS before the Tunguska event; from the Wardenclyffe tower he sent longitudinal waves for days BEFORE the event itself in order to carefully set up the experiment.






You still haven't answered the question about visibility on a flat earth,  but I guess, since you've ignored it twice now, that you are just going to ignore the fact that it's a problem for your theory.

This amounts to trolling, as your question was properly debunked using a specific reference which pointed out that the explosion itself was seen from lake Baikal (560 km distance).


The explosion of the ball lightning object was as bright in the sky as the sun itself (eyewitness reports):

N. Tesla:

My apparatus projects particles which may be relatively large or of microscopic dimensions, enabling us to convey to a small area at a great distance trillions of times more energy than is possible with rays of any kind.  Many thousands of horsepower can thus be transmitted by a stream thinner than a hair, so that nothing can resist.  This wonderful feature will make it possible, among other things, to achieve undreamed-of results in television, for there will be almost no limit to the intensity of illumination, the size of the picture, or distance of projection.

Tesla said his transmitter could produce 100 million volts of pressure with currents up to 1000 amperes which is a power level of 100 billion watts.
 
If it was resonating at a radio frequency of 2 MHz, then the energy released during one period of its oscillation would be 100,000,000,000,000,000 (1016) Joules of energy, or roughly the amount of energy released by the explosion of 10 megatons of TNT.

Such a transmitter, would be capable of projecting the energy of a nuclear warhead by radio.


http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm


The demonstration that the explosion could not have been caused by anything else, with one exception:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1677590#msg1677590


“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.

Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.

The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine (I also checked the London Times archive) as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation.




A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.50 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.

http://www.phenomena.org.uk/features/page88/page88.html


Let us go back to the letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen on July 1, 1908:

An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day.


In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


London - Tunguska 5200 km distance

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

[Rayzor]

So you object to all those references?    Please explain why you prefer conspiracy and ufo nutters as references over well respected academic research.

Since you adopted this as your chosen topic,   i would have expected you to adopt a more enlightened and rigorous approach. 

Instead you cherry pick data and evidence and ignore anything that you disagree with.   That's doesn't look good for you.

If this is the standard you apply to your flat earth world view and your revised world chronology,  I fear you are liable to reach false conclusions.

Last chance.  Explain why you reject those references.   

Or if you prefer,  specifically why you reject out of hand all the evidence for it being a meteorite,  and instead adopt the tenous view it was Tesla experimenting with ball lightning,  a prospect so far out of left field as to be idiotic.
I am prepared to accept that you believe the Tesla ball lightning idea,  but first you must prove that it could not have been a meteorite.

[sandokhan]

Your bibliographical references (actually, the references employed by V.A. Bronshten) are dealing with a METEORITE/ASTEROID SCENARIO.

That is why they are USELESS in describing the Tunguska event.

I have just given you ample references which do point out, and prove clearly, that the geomagnetic data/atmospheric observations recorded/seen for days prior to the explosion, rule out any meteorite/asteroid context.


The geomagnetic data points out clearly that there was no comet/meteorite involved in the explosion.

Moreover, we have the trajectory of the object itself:

The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

http://www.andras-nagy.com/ufo03/pic/p131.jpg

The fight path of the cosmic object, as reconstructed from eyewitness testimony and ballistic wave evidence. Felix Zigel and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region. The arc at the bottom of the map indicates the scope of the area where witnesses either saw the fiery object or heard the blast.


The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.


“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.

Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


London - Tunguska 5200 km distance

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

[Rayzor]

We have several seemingly unrelated sets of observations that you are arbitrarily connecting.   

1.  The observations of mysterious lights in the sky as seen from London Sweden and elsewhere in late June early July  1908.
2.  The geomagnetic disturbances reported by Weber from Keil University.  June 27th to June 30th.
3.  The Tunguska explosion itself.

You make the assumption that it's Tesla's ball lightning experiments that connect all three,  without any supporting evidence that's a huge leap of faith.

Felix Ziegel  ( you misspelt his name several times )  is known as the father of soviet UFOlogy,   I take a somewhat suspicious view of his assertion that the object changed course in the atmosphere,  he is the one interpreting the witness statements about the trajectory, and since he has a vested interest in the UFO alien spaceship version of events,  I think his conclusions should be viewed with caution.

You haven't yet shown any connection to Tesla, other than to speculate wildly. What evidence is there that this event was ball lightning produced remotely by Tesla?

The mysterious lights and reported magnetic anomolies sound to me more like they could be solar storm events.

[sandokhan]

The mysterious lights and reported magnetic anomolies sound to me more like they could be solar storm events.

I told you that you haven't done your homework: there were no other astronomical events of such magnitude recorded on June 30/July 1, 1908.



The Tunguska Mystery, V. Rubtsov, pg. 15-16

See also: http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/tgr3_zpskfmoh9zx.jpg

This evidence immediately excludes any extraterrestrial origin for the explosion itself.

Then, we are left with a terrestrial origin; if one does not want to take into account the ample evidence presented, which does prove (using Tesla's own statements) that Tesla did have the means to produce such a huge shock wave at a distance of thousands of kilometers from his lab, then one must accept that it was a ball lightning object which produced the Tunguska event:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1677590#msg1677590


You do not seem to understand the situation: INSTANTANEOUSLY, at exactly 7:15 am (local time), 0:15 am (London time) the sky was lit up all over Europe: newspapers could be read without the aid of street lighting, photographs could be taken without flash apparatus outdoors.

MOREOVER, the letter from Mrs. Katharine Stephen describes the trajectory of the object, TEN MINUTES PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION ITSELF.

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.

IT WAS ONLY DECADES LATER, that is was determined that the trajectory (flight path) of the object lasted for some 10-15 minutes before the explosion, due to the research done by Dr. Felix Ziegel.

Dr. Felix Ziegel was a respected scientist and astronomer, not to mention an expert on aviation.

In 1963, he co-authored the first Soviet university textbook on the cosmonautics and space exploration.

F. Ziegel's conclusions were independently verified by the ballistic analysis at the site:

The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.



The geomagnetic data provided by Professor Weber does prove that whoever was behind the cause of the explosion, sent signals (scalar waves) for days, at a very precise time of the day, prior to the explosion.

THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRELATED TO THE ATMOSPHERIC REPORTS SEEN ALL OVER ASIA AND EUROPE (see the data in the image above).





The only other similar emissions are those circa 1900 high-frequency, high-voltage scalar wave experiments by Tesla, where massive blue-white streams of arching electricity issued from the forest floor into the atmosphere, creating an intense, violent, blue-white glow, emitting an electrical noise, which was audible for miles and lasting several minutes.


Let us now investigate Tesla's connection to the explosion; we have already seen that it was caused by a ball lightning object.


There are three N.Y. Times articles in which Tesla suggests the capacity of a Wardenclyffe-type plant * to transmit a destructive impulse of electrical energy. Tesla's 1899 investigations in the area of wireless propagation in Colorado, which involved the transmission of an electric wave complex of two or more superimposed frequencies, at times led to the production of the ball lightning phenomenon.


New York Times, March 19, 1907

TESLA'S WIRELESS TORPEDO
Inventor Says He Did Show That It Worked Perfectly

As to projecting wave-energy to any particular region of the globe, I have given a clear description of the means in technical publications. Not only can this be done by the means of my devices, but the spot at which the desired effect is to be produced can be calculated very closely, assuming the accepted terrestrial measurements to be correct.

NIKOLA TESLA
New York, March 19, 1907


The Electrical Engineer - London
Dec. 24, 1909, p. 893

NIKOLA TESLA`S NEW WIRELESS

Mr. Nikola Tesla has announced that as the result of experiments conducted at Shoreham, Long Island, he has perfected a new system of wireless telegraphy and telephony in which the principles of transmission are the direct opposite of Hertzian wave transmission.  In the latter, he says, the transmission is effected by rays akin to light, which pass through the air and cannot be transmitted through the ground, while in the former the Hertz waves are practically suppressed and the entire energy of the current is transmitted through the ground exactly as though a big wire.  Mr. Tesla adds that in his experiments in Colorado it was shown that a very powerful current developed by the transmitter traversed the entire globe and returned to its origin in an interval of 84 one-thousandths of a second, this journey of 24,000 miles being effected almost without loss of energy.


EXACTLY THE PERIODIC AND PRECISE DATA RECORDED BY PROFESSOR WEBER IN 1908.


New York Times, Dec. 8, 1915, p. 8, col. 3

TESLA'S NEW DEVICE LIKE BOLTS OF THOR

"It is perfectly practicable to transmit electrical energy without wires and produce destructive effects at a distance. I have already constructed a wireless transmitter which makes this possible, and have described it in my technical publications, among which I may refer to my patent 1,119,732 recently granted. With transmitters of this kind we are enabled to project electrical energy in any amount to any distance and apply it for innumerable purposes, both in peace and war. Through the universal adoption of this system, ideal conditions for the maintenance of law and order will be realized, for then the energy necessary to the enforcement of right and justice will be normally productive, yet potential, and in any moment available, for attack and defense. The power transmitted need not be necessarily destructive, for, if existence is made to depend upon it, its withdrawal or supply will bring about the same results as those now accomplished by force of arms."

NIKOLA TESLA



N. Tesla:

My apparatus projects particles which may be relatively large or of microscopic dimensions, enabling us to convey to a small area at a great distance trillions of times more energy than is possible with rays of any kind.  Many thousands of horsepower can thus be transmitted by a stream thinner than a hair, so that nothing can resist.  This wonderful feature will make it possible, among other things, to achieve undreamed-of results in television, for there will be almost no limit to the intensity of illumination, the size of the picture, or distance of projection.

Tesla said his transmitter could produce 100 million volts of pressure with currents up to 1000 amperes which is a power level of 100 billion watts.
 
If it was resonating at a radio frequency of 2 MHz, then the energy released during one period of its oscillation would be 100,000,000,000,000,000 (1016) Joules of energy, or roughly the amount of energy released by the explosion of 10 megatons of TNT.

Such a transmitter, would be capable of projecting the energy of a nuclear warhead by radio.

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.

Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.


London - Tunguska 5200 km distance

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

[Rayzor]

Ok,  let's make the assumption that you are correct.   And I accept your assertion that the Tunguska event was the result of some experiment of Tesla's demonstrating projection of wave energy.

This assertion probably raises more questions that the Tunguska event itself.   

1.   Is there any documentation by Tesla or anyone else to support the assertion?    I see vague ambiguous references to people quoting Tesla,  but nothing very concrete. 
2.  Why only one experiment?   surely  he would want to demonstrate to the world his invention...   
3.  Suppose I accept the energy transmission method worked,  how did he generate the 100 million volts at 1000 amps in the first place?
4.  Why has no-one else managed to duplicate Tesla's work?
5.  Tesla's broadcast power system required a receiver, and used the earth as part of a resonant circuit.  There was no receiver in Tunguska, was there?

I won't even start questioning the physics....   you need to discard too much of the well known and proven physical laws to make it work.

In summary I see more problems accepting your assertion than I can see by rejecting it. 

[sandokhan]

Here you will find the entire Tesla - J.P. Morgan file: when Morgan discovered what Tesla actually intended to do, to provide free energy for the world, he gave orders for the Wardenclyffe tower to be destroyed at once, and to remove Tesla from any textbook on electromagnetism. This is the reason only one experiment was performed, moreover, Tesla was deeply concerned about any possible loss of life at the site of the explosion.

http://www.teslatech.info/ttmagazine/v4n1/seifer.htm


Tesla was able to generate large ball lightning objects which he then used to generate the power available for his experiments: no one else, so far, has been able to duplicate his ball lightning creation abilities.

Robert Golka was able to duplicate only the 12 million volts produced by Tesla in 1899 in Colorado Springs, but without using ball lightning technology.

https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/12-million-volts




The difference between Tesla and anybody else was his ability to produce STABLE BALL LIGHTNING SPHERES, at room temperature, as opposed to just producing plasma spheres with a life of about 0.1 seconds.

http://rexresearch.com/chukanov/chukanov.htm (the only modern researcher who has produced ball lightning in a lab, but at a very high cost; Tesla produced much larger ball lightning spheres)

The Soviets have managed to some degree to duplicate Tesla's work, however, they did not have at their disposal Tesla's secret information on ball lightning technology.




Tesla's ability to create multiple ball lightning spheres provided the power necessary to produce hundreds of millions of volts at the Wardenclyffe tower.

The physics can be explained using the original set of Maxwell's equations.

[Rayzor]

You may have already seen this, but just in case..    from here  http://amasci.com/tesla/teslafaq.html#eighteen

19. TESLA CAUSED THE TUNGUSKA BLAST

The idea that Tesla blew up the Tunguska forest seems to have been started by a 'psychic channeler' in the 1980s. It happened when he was asked (during a trance state) about the cause of the explosion. He said it was an experiment gone wrong, then in later questions revealed that it was Tesla's experiment. But besides psychic channelers, there are even more problems with this explanation...

1. A 10 megaton blast, or about 40 billion megajoules, would require broadcasting radio energy at a level of 10 megawatts for 130 years (that is, if the process was 100% efficient, longer if not.) In other words, the power-grid connected to Wardenclyffe can't produce megaton-scale explosions.

2. Coupling a VLF transmitter's output to the Earth resonance wavelengths requires a miles-long antenna similar to the US Navy submarine-comms low-freq transmitter projects (project Seafarer/Sanguine, Mary Creek, etc.) Actually this is a problem for many of Tesla's claims: he used no miles-long antennas, yet his devices supposedly could transmit enormous wattage at VLF/ELF wavelengths.

3. A meteor or comet is a sudden brief event, while if Tesla did it, there'd probably be a slow buildup. We'd expect to see various odd atmospheric phenomena occurring for many minutes or even hours before any "explosion." There might even be several explosions in series, multiple beat-waves separated by a constant delay. If it was a single blast with no precursors, then it wasn't a Tesla event.

4. Legend has it that Tesla intended to produce artificial aurora at North Pole, but he overshot the mark. So, if Tunguska isn't on the great-circle including Wardenclyffe and the North Pole, then the claim fails right there. A random comet/meteor strike will probably be in a completely unrelated location. Go get a world globe and look.

So, Tesla could not have caused the blast unless...

He discovered an enormous energy source in the Earth's Schumann cavity, and his transmitter only acted as a catalyst or trigger and not the main energy supply.
Unless he had some secret method of "getting out," of transmitting significant VLF wattage without an appropriate long antenna,
unless minutes/hours of strange phenomena were observed in Russia prior to the and following the blast,
unless Tunguska is on the straight line between Wardenclyffe and the North Pole.

Well, number four is moot: Tunguska *is* on the line! Scary!
Number three also proves true. Apparently Russian investigation showed just such earthquake and sky effects over an extended period before the blast. Experts had always ignored this as inexplicable, since it conflicted with the conventional explanation based on an exploding cosmic body. And original eyewitnesses reported several explosions, not just one.
#1 might be real also: one NASA group detected Schumann resonance Q-factors in the thousands, indicating incredibly low losses in the Earth's waveguide, or more probably, some sort of unknown self-oscillation effect. HAARP project early documents also notes VLF transmitted pulses returning at higher levels than sent out, and cautions against a possible disastrous self-reinforcing effect.
So "Tunguska blasts" may possibly be man-made. Still there's #2, and it would require an antenna very much larger than Wardenclyffe tower to be able to transmit anything more than a tiny-wattage signal at VLF wavelengths.

[sandokhan]

Tesla clearly stated, back in March, 1907, that a huge amount of energy could be transmitted using non-Hertzian waves.

Tesla could have produced a 40 megaton blast, but instead settled for a lesser explosion, with a smaller shock wave. Tesla produced the 100 million volts required using his ball lightning technology, as described in my previous message; he said he could create, at most, 800 million volts.

Tesla injected DIRECTLY into scalar waves the energy produced by his ball lightning objects, through the Wardenclyffe tower. A scalar wave is a subquark string; a normal electromagnetic wave consists of two scalar waves. Tesla transmitted longitudinal waves (scalar waves) through radio waves (transversal waves).

[Rayzor]

Tesla clearly stated, back in March, 1907, that a huge amount of energy could be transmitted using non-Hertzian waves.

Tesla could have produced a 40 megaton blast, but instead settled for a lesser explosion, with a smaller shock wave. Tesla produced the 100 million volts required using his ball lightning technology, as described in my previous message; he said he could create, at most, 800 million volts.

Tesla injected DIRECTLY into scalar waves the energy produced by his ball lightning objects, through the Wardenclyffe tower. A scalar wave is a subquark string; a normal electromagnetic wave consists of two scalar waves. Tesla transmitted longitudinal waves (scalar waves) through radio waves (transversal waves).

Tesla is something of an enigma,   obviously a genius of the highest order, and misunderstood in his own time.   However many of the stories about Tesla have the qualities of myth and legend,  it's almost impossible to sort the fact from the fiction. 

Was he capable of producing a system that caused the Tunguska explosion?    I think the answer to that is possibly yes,   either through exploiting some hitherto unknown aspect of the Schumann resonance or some other method  ( like the one you describe ). 

The Schumann resonance uses VLF and ELF frequencies to resonate between the earth's ground and upper layers of the atmosphere,   Tesla claims to have used this  (or something similar) in his experiments in Colorado to transmit a signal losslessly around the globe.   I think this is entirely plausible.   As to extracting enough energy to cause the Tunguska explosion,  that seems a little more unlikely. 

The problem we are left with is whether to accept the version of using non-hertzian waves,   I take it that the ether is a critical component of this theory?   

Which comes down to verifiable evidence.   Doesn't it always?

[sandokhan]

The problem we are left with is whether to accept the version of using non-hertzian waves,   I take it that the ether is a critical component of this theory?   

Which comes down to verifiable evidence.   Doesn't it always?

Exactly.

The most up-to-date, verifiable, extended ETHER DRIFT results/proofs ever undertaken, over the course of several years:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791


Tesla used ONLY non-hertzian waves (scalar waves).


Tesla's thoughts on non-hertzian waves:

http://www.teslaenergy.org/intro4.html


"It was the discovery of this type of wave that Hertz had laid claim to, but Tesla was meticulous and fastidious in replicating Hertz's experimental parameters and he could not obtain the results claimed by Hertz. Tesla discovered a fundamental flaw in Hertz's experiment: Hertz had failed to take into account the presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shock waves as true electromagnetic waves. Tesla was saddened to bring this news to the distinguished academician, but felt scientific honesty was paramount if progress was to be achieved. Tesla visited Hertz in Germany and personally demonstrated the experimental error to him. Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the 'accepted' theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental "laws" of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day."


Hertz did not discover any kind of a transverse electromagnetic wave that exhibited a rapid alternation of electric fields along a fixed axis that radiated away from its point of origin at the speed of light and was detectable at great distances.

Tesla realized immediately that Hertz erroneously identified shock waves through the air as true e/m waves.


Now, the precise theory of scalar waves vs. normal e/m waves.


"Whittaker, a leading world-class physicist himself, single-handedly rediscovered the "missing" scalar components of Maxwell's original quaternions, extending their (at the time) unseen implications for finally uniting "gravity" with the more obvious electrical and magnetic components known as "light." In the first paper Whittaker theoretically explored the existence of a "hidden" set of electromagnetic waves traveling in two simultaneous directions in the scalar potential of the vacuum."

"This key Whittaker paper thus lays the direct mathematical foundation for an electrogravitic theory/technology of gravity control. In the second paper, Whittaker demonstrated how two "Maxwellian scalar potentials of the vacuum" could be turned back into a detectable "ordinary" electromagnetic field by two interfering "scalar EM waves"... even at a distance."


http://www.enterprisemission.com/whittaker1.html

http://www.enterprisemission.com/whittaker2.html


J.C. Maxwell original set of ether e/m equations:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1639521#msg1639521


A normal electromagnetic wave is made up of two scalar waves (telluric currents, subquark strings) which travel in double torsion fashion: one of them has a dextrorotatory spin, the other a laevorotatory spin.

Tesla injected signals/energy directly into such a scalar wave (longitudinal wave), which would travel through the normal radio wave (transversal wave) without causing any ripples in the sea of ether.

Modern wireless technology uses only hertzian waves, causing ripples in the sea of ether.

True wireless technology means to use only scalar waves, non-hertzian waves, to send signals.


Tesla did not extract energy from the Schumann cavity: he created it right at the start in the form of ball lightning spheres, this was his secret.

[Rama Set]

The video is a junior high school presentation, making the whole subject unnecessarily complicated.

Here is how to correctly calculate the curvature, visual obstacle:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3197.msg77197#msg77197


There are several formulas in use for terrestrial refraction (the one in the video is completely useless, as it does not take into account the proper variables), here is the best one, online calculation:


http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm (calculating the effects of refraction)


As I said, if the other shoreline can be seen with a binocular, it is all over, no amount of refraction can save the situation for the RE.

Based on the formula presented here your calculation is evidently incorrect.  The amount of obscuration across a 2.14 mile long lake when viewing from a height of approximately 72 inches is about 6 inches

[sandokhan]

The "formula" presented in the video (at about 12:40) is a gross approximation, completely useless in the real world.

Here is the correct, exact formula.


VISUAL OBSTACLE



BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h²]^1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R


BD = visual obstacle

h = AE = altitude of observer

R = 6378.164 km

s = distance

[Rama Set]

I see you missed the extremely simple presentation that shows why what you call "BD" is in fact not the visual obstacle unless your eyes are at zero altitude.

[sandokhan]

The presentation in the video is amateurish to say the least.

At 12:40 he attempts to calculate the visual obstacle by presenting a linear formula, a gross approximation, which as I said, is useless.

My formula is correct.

Your data is as follows:

s = 2.14 miles = 3.424 km

h = 72 in = 0.00183 km = 1.83 m


BD = 0.000155 km = 0.155 m = 15.5 cm = 6.1 in


Now, since my result coincides with your data (6 inches), you might want to revise your previous statement. The formula in the video is valid only for short distances; what you want is the exact formula, the one I provided.

[Rayzor]

I'll get back to Tesla and Tunguska  later,  when I have time to catch up on the references.

But,  returning temporarily to atmospheric  refraction,   I think that refraction caused by the lapse rate is not possible on a flat earth.   The effect requires the curvature of the earth to cause the refraction.   Please note this is not the same as ducting or temperature inversions. 

Any proof of the need for refractive correction,  is proof of the earth's surface being curved not flat.   

One more point about obstruction,  the maximum  obstruction will occur at the half way point along the sight line,  so the obstruction height will be 1/4 of the drop at the end of the sight line.

[Rama Set]

The presentation in the video is amateurish to say the least.

At 12:40 he attempts to calculate the visual obstacle by presenting a linear formula, a gross approximation, which as I said, is useless.

My formula is correct.

Your data is as follows:

s = 2.14 miles = 3.424 km

h = 72 in = 0.00183 km = 1.83 m


BD = 0.000155 km = 0.155 m = 15.5 cm = 6.1 in


Now, since my result coincides with your data (6 inches), you might want to revise your previous statement. The formula in the video is valid only for small distances; what you want is the exact formula, the one I provided.

So then, can you provide calculations for the obstruction presented in the photos you posted earlier?  As it stands, you assert there is no evidence of curvature, with no substantiation and therefore have no reason to deem your claims worthwhile.

[sandokhan]

Let us take a closer look at the formula rama set fell in love with:

8d² - 5.657h^1/2d + h

d = distance, miles

h = alt. of obs., inches

Lake Michigan, 128 km = 80 miles

h = 3 meters

With these figures, we will get BD = 1178.56 meters

With my exact formula we get the correct answer: 1163 meters

In a world where a single meter makes the all the difference in convincing someone that one cannot see a certain visual target, 14 meters does count as a grievious error.


As it stands, you assert there is no evidence of curvature.

Of course.


with no substantiation

There is plenty of substantiation, in fact 59 meters which are nowhere to be seen:



midpoint curvature: 59 meters

No matter where we ascend in Grimsby (even if we go outside the city, to Vinemount Ridge, 213 meters in altitude) there is no ascending slope of the water of lake Ontario, no 59 curvature, no descending slope, just a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Toronto.

[Rama Set]

 

Let us take a closer look at the formula rama set fell in love with:

8d² - 5.657h^1/2d + h

d = distance, miles

h = alt. of obs., inches

Lake Michigan, 128 km = 80 miles

h = 3 meters

With these figures, we will get BD = 1178.56 meters

With my exact formula we get the correct answer: 1163 meters

In a world where a single meter makes the all the difference in convincing someone that one cannot see a certain visual target, 14 meters does count as a grievious error.

No it counts as an error of 1% which is hardly grievous and exactly in line with what the creator of the video said it was which is a good approximation.

There is plenty of substantiation, in fact 59 meters which are nowhere to be seen:



midpoint curvature: 59 meters

No matter where we ascend in Grimsby (even if we go outside the city, to Vinemount Ridge, 213 meters in altitude) there is no ascending slope of the water of lake Ontario, no 59 curvature, no descending slope, just a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Toronto.

Again you are just asserting.  What should the amount of curvature you are predicting look like?  What landmarks should be obscured that are not? When I run the calculation using a viewing distance of 50.48kms and a height of 213 meters, I get an obstruction of 8 inches to be expected, using your formula.  Again, I can't help but feel you are conflating midpoint curvature with obstruction.  A maximum in the curve of 59 meters at the midpoint of 25kms represents a grade of less than 1%, can you honestly say you are capable of discerning that in a 2-dimensional photo?