The message of the greatest importance is that after the shift, ELECTRICITY WILL NOT WORK. The new Earth polarity will not allow present generators to gather magnetic molecular structures from the ionosphere and then form them into electrons.
All generators now in use does not gather anything from ionosphere to create electrons, AFAIK only one of Tesla proposed devices gathering electricity from atmospheric potential, but it is unable to produce enough current in load to be somehow useable.
All generators we use today use electrons that are already present in wires and stuff naturally, they just force them to move, not create new ones, to make potential difference and so current through the load.
So, pole shift will not affect any existing generators.
Tesla tower is another beast. Tower was not a generator. It was a transmitter to create standing EM wave between ionosphere and Earth surface, so making transmitted energy available at any location. There is an effect known in coaxial cables - when a cable length is integer multiply of transmitted wave length, then losses are at minimum. Tesla took a view at Earth and its ionosphere as at short coaxial cable, and thought that it would be a great idea to use it for energy delivery.
Really, I'm not shure that this was a good idea. Kind of HAARP, but with magnitude orders more power and all that stuff. Tesla didn't examine any side effects of saturating Earth atmosphere with enormous amount of EM power.
In other words Tesla reversed the trans mission of power. Which is why I think it does connect well with a pole change. We don't use that method, but if we did the pole change would simply change the current. Currently a pole change would damage all the equipment the current is on, as has been discussed.
In other words Tesla reversed the trans mission of power.
Kind of. Normally Earth-ionosphere system have some natural standing wave. You could check Schumann resonances for that. Some think that it is very imposrtant for life and everything. Tesla tried to create its own resonance. :)
We don't use that method, but if we did the pole change would simply change the current.
Not really. Schumann resonances are independent from static magnetic field orientation. There have to be any magnetic field to make ionosphere possible. It does not matter where the poles will be.
Poles shift will definitely induce some currents in our power grid, but I think it will be not very different from solar storms. Much more mess will be in wild nature, really. AFAIK, many species use Earth magnetic field for orientation and all that stuff. That could be a disaster.
From the other side it will be interesting to think about underlying cause of pole shift. Magnetic field itself is not very powerful thing, but say some flip in mass of Earth core could be really disastrous. Check Dzhanibekov effect to become amased. :) Serioulsy, there have to be specific mass distribution to achieve this effect, but for now nobody knows anything specific about Earth core. Even source of Earth mgnetic field is not some well-established knowledge.
The disaster in the animals that use the shumann resonance in their brain have issue with the magnetic field moving. My premise is the change wouldn't be the crisis we aren't prepared for if after the change the physics would only be reversed.
In January 1985, the Creator of the Universe, the Total Mind and Total Energy of All (this is what the source of our information identified itself as) initiated a process with our small group to pass along a message to the residents of Earth.
That's a little suspect. This is supposed to be a science book not the Bible. It gives me the impression this book is full of woo.
When Albert Einstein held to the view that the relative relationship of one particle to another did not matter
Albert Einstein held no such view. In fact the relativity principle is the exact opposite: in his theory all that matters is relative motion.
His view then suggested that the redistribution of particles was not possible.
Citation sorely need. What is he talking about.
When a molecular structure breaks down there is a transfer of energy to the greatest part which is the attracting force
Said no chemical text book I've ever seen.
The teaching on the conservation of energy, which is that we never get something for nothing is the teaching accepted at the present time. This teaching stems from a statement by Albert Einstein, where he held to the view that the relative relationship of one particle to another did not matter
Uh, not even remotely true. A quick Google search shows that this law was first coined in the 1800s, with some similar ideas about energy even before that.
PDF warnings are nice
All generators now in use does not gather anything from ionosphere to create electrons, AFAIK only one of Tesla proposed devices gathering electricity from atmospheric potential, but it is unable to produce enough current in load to be somehow useable.
All generators we use today use electrons that are already present in wires and stuff naturally, they just force them to move, not create new ones, to make potential difference and so current through the load.
So, pole shift will not affect any existing generators.
The tower Tesla made that they forcably tore down fits this description.
Tesla tower is another beast. Tower was not a generator. It was a transmitter to create standing EM wave between ionosphere and Earth surface, so making transmitted energy available at any location. There is an effect known in coaxial cables - when a cable length is integer multiply of transmitted wave length, then losses are at minimum. Tesla took a view at Earth and its ionosphere as at short coaxial cable, and thought that it would be a great idea to use it for energy delivery.
Really, I'm not shure that this was a good idea. Kind of HAARP, but with magnitude orders more power and all that stuff. Tesla didn't examine any side effects of saturating Earth atmosphere with enormous amount of EM power.
In other words Tesla reversed the trans mission of power. Which is why I think it does connect well with a pole change. We don't use that method, but if we did the pole change would simply change the current. Currently a pole change would damage all the equipment the current is on, as has been discussed.
The profits of people was short sighted.
Kind of. Normally Earth-ionosphere system have some natural standing wave. You could check Schumann resonances for that. Some think that it is very imposrtant for life and everything. Tesla tried to create its own resonance. :)
Not really. Schumann resonances are independent from static magnetic field orientation. There have to be any magnetic field to make ionosphere possible. It does not matter where the poles will be.
Poles shift will definitely induce some currents in our power grid, but I think it will be not very different from solar storms. Much more mess will be in wild nature, really. AFAIK, many species use Earth magnetic field for orientation and all that stuff. That could be a disaster.
From the other side it will be interesting to think about underlying cause of pole shift. Magnetic field itself is not very powerful thing, but say some flip in mass of Earth core could be really disastrous. Check Dzhanibekov effect to become amased. :) Serioulsy, there have to be specific mass distribution to achieve this effect, but for now nobody knows anything specific about Earth core. Even source of Earth mgnetic field is not some well-established knowledge.
The disaster in the animals that use the shumann resonance in their brain have issue with the magnetic field moving. My premise is the change wouldn't be the crisis we aren't prepared for if after the change the physics would only be reversed.
That's a little suspect. This is supposed to be a science book not the Bible. It gives me the impression this book is full of woo.
Albert Einstein held no such view. In fact the relativity principle is the exact opposite: in his theory all that matters is relative motion.
Citation sorely need. What is he talking about.
Said no chemical text book I've ever seen.
Uh, not even remotely true. A quick Google search shows that this law was first coined in the 1800s, with some similar ideas about energy even before that.