Just a little about voltages and their relationship to Stan's work in the macro and the Quantum.
Firstly i'm going to describe an infinite voltage gradient in the macro which is much easier to understand.
Take a look at the first picture and box number 1 within that picture. It is a white dot in a black square. Imagine the black space is the entire Universe and the dot is a planet, the planet is the only object in the Universe. The planet can ask itself several questions.
1. How big am I?
2. What is my mass?
3. Am I moving or stationary?
Of course none of those questions can be answered because there are no other objects in the Universe from which to gauge those questions so each answer to each question at this point is always the same - i am infinite in size mass and movement.
Voltage in its pure natural state is just the same as the planet in the Universe with no reference points to be able to know anything about itself.
Box 2: Now we see there are two planets and for the first time a question can be answered but the other two questions will still remain infinite.
Question 1. How big am I? The planet can say it is slightly bigger than the other planet but at this point cannot answer which planet is moving and what mass it is because there are no reference points from which to measure. The voltage sees another voltage potential and is in the same position as the planet. It can see that it is slightly bigger than the other voltage but nothing else.
Box 3: Now we introduce an observer. The planet can ask the observer several questions. It can ask it who is the biggest, who has the greatest mass and which planet is moving or stationary. But the observer can only answer those questions with the equipment it has and he still cannot answer one of the questions at all. He can estimate mass, size but not movement because the observer could be moving in the same direction as one of the planets. Remember the old question of a bird sat on the 44kv power line asking where is all the voltage at? Its the same, the observer and one of the planets could be moving through space together and the other planet is stationary. We cannot answer that question truely until we introduce a fixed time reference point as in Box 4: The Sun. We introduce the Sun as a fixed reference and we can now estimate size, mass and movement. Voltage is the same, we cannot measure it as a finite entity until we introduce current, workload, a point of creation and a point of annihilation.
If any of those parameters are missing when we imagine voltage, it will behave just like the planet does in the pictures depending on what parameter is missing.
If you create voltage and that voltage doesn't recognise where the creation point is or where it came from it will be just like box 1, it knows nothing about itself and it cannot ask either therefore it becomes infinite just like the solitairy planet.
It will become finite when you apply a workload and an observer. Current is a form of workload and so is a fuel cell but without current.
All this happens in the strange world of the Quantum but is easier to see and explain in the macro.
If you create a voltage that has absolutely no idea of where it came from because it is no longer associated with its point of creation that very voltage will set off towards infinity simply because it doesn't know any reference points, once it does then the gradient will become level.
 

I highly encourage you to try and read this completely and absorb as much as you can.  I found it very helpful.

http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/newsci.htm

The first thing you will glean from it is there is only one absolute in the entire universe and that is spin.  Everything else is relative, including time.  And because of this, spin is the foundation everything else is built upon.  Somewhere developed in Smith's Quadrature Concept, must be what we call voltage and yes, you guessed it, has it's roots in spin.  Same with magnetism as Ken Wheeler has proven almost beyond any doubt.

If you get through this without having a meltdown, try and tackle Ken's work:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/showthread.php?t=17560

https://www.youtube.com/user/kathodosdotcom/videos

The answers are there, if we can just make sense of them.

Quote from Matt Watts on August 28th, 2014, 02:37 AM

I highly encourage you to try and read this completely and absorb as much as you can.  I found it very helpful.

http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/newsci.htm

The first thing you will glean from it is there is only one absolute in the entire universe and that is spin.  Everything else is relative, including time.  And because of this, spin is the foundation everything else is built upon.  Somewhere developed in Smith's Quadrature Concept, must be what we call voltage and yes, you guessed it, has it's roots in spin.  Same with magnetism as Ken Wheeler has proven almost beyond any doubt.

If you get through this without having a meltdown, try and tackle Ken's work:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/showthread.php?t=17560

https://www.youtube.com/user/kathodosdotcom/videos

The answers are there, if we can just make sense of them.

I read and studied Einstein and his equasions for many years. Once you begin to realise that mass and energy are inversely proportional then you can begin to understand electricity and its behaviour just as in the macro. I've read many thoeries such as you posted, most of them over complicate subjects that are much more simple than you would imagine. Understanding the voltage gradient is no different to understanding an infinite mass gradient and why an objects mass approaches the infinite as it approches C. Because mass and energy are exchangable then in retrospect - describing mass as having an infinite gradient where no relativalistic viewpoints exist is the same as describing voltage in the same way.

When we've finished playing with the electricity and nuclear fission, burning fuel and all the other things we like to play with and human kind is long gone from this planet, what will be left here? Just mass, the same as we found it but in different places after the mess we made.
Mass is energy.

Once you create a voltage potential that is a seperated and isolated from its creator, that voltage will be alone in its own Universe and just like Stan's schematic below merge its point of creation with its point of annihilation in a loop. Tesla had his own way of isolation, Thane Heins has his too but they all do the same as Stan's.
In the schematic below, there are two circuits, neither one is aware that the other exists. One is in our Universe which is the one on the left with the full bridge rectifier the other is on the right with a modern version of a Tesla configuration, the voltages contained within are in their own little Universe.

Quote from nav on August 28th, 2014, 03:28 AM

When we've finished playing with the electricity and nuclear fission, burning fuel and all the other things we like to play with and human kind is long gone from this planet, what will be left here? Just mass, the same as we found it but in different places after the mess we made.
Mass is energy.

mass is a 2D. Plainer energy or plancks constant also photons are are 2d plainer energy....whats interesting is when 4 of these mass. energy come together they create a 3d standing wave matter topoligywhich we call a tetrahedron.

to Nav
you mention that

Quote

mass and energy are inversely proportional

Inversely proportional would mean e = 1/ m, it would mean the smaller the mass the larger the energy. If your referring to e=mc2 , energy is directly proportional to mass ( not inversely)
the formula refers to change in energy and mass, if the mass changes by a given amount the energy absorbed or released in directly proportional to the change in mass.

Quote from brettly on August 28th, 2014, 09:54 PM

to Nav
you mention thatInversely proportional would mean e = 1/ m, it would mean the smaller the mass the larger the energy. If your referring to e=mc2 , energy is directly proportional to mass ( not inversely)
the formula refers to change in energy and mass, if the mass changes by a given amount the energy absorbed or released in directly proportional to the change in mass.

No I mean E=M and M=E at macro levels. Meaning that however much energy you create with the original mass, however much light, heat, sound, nuclear energy you create, it will never add up to more than the original mass plus the radiant energy it absorbs from elsewhere. What ever we did here on Earth exchanging mass and energy, aside the radiant energy we send into space, it will all be still here when we are gone.

Personally, I would dump the whole Einstein thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDJia1w-TVk#ws

http://www.solargeneral.org/wp-content/uploads/library/einstein-hoax.pdf

Just saying...

Think of it like this Matt when talking about free energy and such. The conservation of energy and laws of thermodynamics tell us that we cannot get out more than we put in. That means if we start with a mass of 1kg of water and we devise a system to exchange all of the water into energy plus a little extra aside, when the process is reversed and the energy is turned back into mass we would end up with more than the original 1kg of water. On a Universal scale if that happened the mass of the Universe would be infinite or the mass of the Earth would be infinite.
When Stan Meyer produces hydrogen gas he uses 500mw of current to do so, when that gas is turned back to water he cannot turn back the 500mw of power back into water too otherwise he would end up with more water than he started with.
Therfore the cost of Stans exchange is half an amp, its not free.

What can actually be done within the defined Ether modalities is not known to me.  What is easiest is only a subset of what may be possible.

To be quite honest, I'm not comfortable with the term "energy".  I have heard many descriptions of it, but no explanations.

A battery is supposedly stored electrical energy.  Would you positively bet your life on that?   I wouldn't.  Maybe a battery is only a catalyst or a portal for the true source of the phenomena, the Ether.  So a battery when used runs down, does that mean the Ether runs down too?  Or does the battery essentially destroy itself?  I think it is the later.  And I would bet if we really understood (knew) how a battery works, we could modify that battery to never wear out.  And with that understanding we very likely could assemble other energy source devices that directly focus on the principals that make it all possible.

The one thing I'm becoming more sure of everyday is that living things are able to do this.  Take something as benign as a mushroom.  It sits in the moist dirt, with no sunlight and acquires the energy to breakdown nutrients and grow into what its genetics have laid out for it.  Seriously, how can it do that without tapping the Ether?  All those molecules racing around powered by what?  Calories?  Ha!

I understand where you are coming from nav, I've been there myself.  I've twisted my brain in knots trying to make sense of all of it.  My feeling is the tools we have to understand this are insufficient.  We need better tools.  And that means we may have to toss the ones out of our toolbox that aren't working and replace them with some new ones that do.  This is where I'm at and it's really difficult to know what to keep and what to get rid of.  What I am pretty sure of though is if we hang on to everything we think we already know, a breakthrough is only going to come by accident and not intent.  We might even be able to mimic someone else's work, but we'll never understand it.

Quote from Matt Watts on August 31st, 2014, 12:49 AM

I understand where you are coming from nav, I've been there myself.  I've twisted my brain in knots trying to make sense of all of it.  My feeling is the tools we have to understand this are insufficient.  We need better tools.  And that means we may have to toss the ones out of our toolbox that aren't working and replace them with some new ones that do.  This is where I'm at and it's really difficult to know what to keep and what to get rid of.  What I am pretty sure of though is if we hang on to everything we think we already know, a breakthrough is only going to come by accident and not intent.  We might even be able to mimic someone else's work, but we'll never understand it.

I agree.

Making the remote viewing experience on one´s own shows that on one hand we need knowledge about how to make good use of our tools because our tools are rigid structure.
but on the other hand we need intuition/inspiration to create our own ideas how to do the trick. sometimes the answers nature is giving are beyond our actual level of understanding and then the effects look like magic ... but expanding one´s mind will progress into new understanding.

http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=2033.0

most times our knowing is believing ... think about the dark age scientific knowledge about the earth as the center of the universe ...
sometimes it´s difficult to leave the trail but you can expect to pick the juciest berries where noone else has done so before ;-)

unleashing my mind is my way to go and make a difference ...

We do not fully harness the true potential energy of mass or matter. If you look at a nuclear fission bomb and the energy released from a grapefruit sized sphere of material it is quite incredible. Fissionable materials unlike none radioactive materials reach critical mass and release most of their energy in a millisecond. The energy contained in an equal amount of none radioactive material is technically the same as radioactive material but we cannot release it because it is none fissionable. Even though it is relatively benine in nature, all matter has massive potential energy and when we experience electricity we experience a very small amount of that potential energy usually in the form of electrochemical reaction as in a battery.
Technically speaking, the potential energy of such a battery if you could create a fusion battery would be equal to the nuclear explosion but over a lot longer period.
When all the energy is calculated which came from such a battery and when nature grabs it back like it usually does over time, you will never have more than the sum of parts of the original mass.

Seriously nav, try to give us an explanation of energy, not a description, a full blown explanation--what it is, where it comes from, how it's made, etc.  You'll find this is nearly impossible.  The best you can come up with are attributes of energy, not what energy actually is.  And I suspect the reason this is so difficult is because energy is a man-made term; it is not a real thing, not something nature deals with or cares about.  Nature creates stars and galactic jets and we humans say those things contain energy.  We are trying to force our belief on nature instead of accepting nature for what she is and how she works.

So you say E = MC² and nature says, so what?

Nature doesn't do math, she just is.  She accepts what she is made of and moves and flows in ways that seem obvious to her.  This is where there is a huge disconnect between nature and humans.

What I'm getting at nav is we need to open our minds and let true reality flow in and bury our beliefs that do not fit.  Terminology that has no bearing on how it all works should become as useless to us as it is to nature.

I apologize for derailing your thread nav.  I just don't want to see anyone beat the same dead horse I spent years pulverizing.  We all can do better.

Quote from Matt Watts on August 31st, 2014, 04:34 PM

Nature doesn't do math,

Love that quote, by  "Theoria Apophasis"  I believe. Now thats a guy that understands it !

Quote from heatlocke on August 31st, 2014, 07:52 PM

Love that quote, by  "Theoria Apophasis"  I believe. Now thats a guy that understands it !

A.K.A. Ken Wheeler and the guy has done his homework.  It would serve us well to even come close to what he knows or at least is pretty sure of.

Just today he mentioned Bismuth is an over-unity material.  I think he's right, but I'm still too dumb to understand why.  I am trying but the old baggage in my head keeps getting in the way.

Quote from Matt Watts on August 31st, 2014, 04:34 PM

Seriously nav, try to give us an explanation of energy, not a description, a full blown explanation--what it is, where it comes from, how it's made, etc.  You'll find this is nearly impossible.  The best you can come up with are attributes of energy, not what energy actually is.  And I suspect the reason this is so difficult is because energy is a man-made term; it is not a real thing, not something nature deals with or cares about.  Nature creates stars and galactic jets and we humans say those things contain energy.  We are trying to force our belief on nature instead of accepting nature for what she is and how she works.

So you say E = MC² and nature says, so what?

Nature doesn't do math, she just is.  She accepts what she is made of and moves and flows in ways that seem obvious to her.  This is where there is a huge disconnect between nature and humans.

What I'm getting at nav is we need to open our minds and let true reality flow in and bury our beliefs that do not fit.  Terminology that has no bearing on how it all works should become as useless to us as it is to nature.

I apologize for derailing your thread nav.  I just don't want to see anyone beat the same dead horse I spent years pulverizing.  We all can do better.

We have to use terminology the best we can to describe to ourselves the world around us and I don't think you have derailed the thread, it is perfectly natural to discuss our perceptions of what we think is and what we think is not.
Anton Wilson once quoted in one of his lectures that 'all perception is gamble' and I think he is 100% correct.
I see energy simply as 'work being carried out' in the testimony of our own neurological system, what happens outside the confines of our neurological system is another matter.
True, nature doesn't carry E=MC2 around in its pocket when its deciding how Poo ticks, I will give you that but as human beings we can at least try to see some consistancy in what nature does and to use that consistancy in mathematic models in order to move forward and advance. Without doing that you wouldn't be playing with all the equipment you have. We still build bridges and buildings and work out many things using Newtons laws and equasions, equasions in which we can sling shot a probe around distant planets with an accuracy of meters and within minutes of a degree. We've done pretty well so far but you know as well as I do that the powers that be will not allow other technology to dominate the petrochemical industry and so we find ourselves here on this forum discussing our options.
I still maintain that when either mass or voltage has no relativistic viewpoint it will set off towards infinity and that Einsteins explantion of what happens to mass as it approaches the speed of light is the same or equivalent of Stan's voltage gradient in his work. Whether you wish to agree or disagree with that is entirely up to you. I'll look forward to your own explanation as to why voltages can set off towards infinity in the future.