Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

A Sound Magnetic Base



  • edited January 2015
    Found this one by ken a bit more accessible.

    I am trying o find where Ken discusses if he does the U shaped magnet. The magnetic current as Ed described it "flows " most demonstrably in this kind of circuit .

    Looking at the structures on he suns surface helps to visualise what Ken is referring to as dielectric mines being concentrated and displaced around the invisible magnetic radiation influence, but I can't see as yet an image with a. clear Bloch wall or dielectric plane in the surface structures on the sun .

    Having said that I do not know what " magnetic reconnection" is actually labelling. It could be a Bloch wall rising to the surface in a CME event , who knows?
  • edited January 2015
    I can't help but notice that Ken seems the perfect opposite of Ed Leedskalnin in every respect imaginable. He comes across as an arrogant brat; why is he so bitter if he is confident in his point of view?!

    The obnoxious personality exhibited by Ken can be matched only by a certain Miles Mathis who claims that he solved Goldbach's Conjecture, and proved that ... pi=4.

    Here is another guy who claims that he has "proven some of the most famous of the conjectures: Beal, Fermat, Fermat-Catalan, Goldbach, Collatz, and Riemann". Good for him!

    A rumor attributes the following maxim to a Soviet physicist:
    Before you break a pile of manure, it is always a good idea to estimate the probability that you'll find a diamond in that pile.
    -Arkady Migdal
    The above rule is not to be exercised at the expense, or to the detriment of the opposing (but nonetheless potent) rule of scientific conduct :-)
    Every so often you should try a damn-fool experiment.
    - Erasmus Darwin
    Common sense and modesty seem in short supply these days.
  • I have to apologise to the more sensitive readers of my thread if they find certain persons or personalities personally obnoxious. Some sources I fond nd some paths I tread are , but I go there anyway in search of what I am looking for.

    I think Böse expressed his disgust at the ungentlemanly conduct of Marconi over the radio issue, and I think Jesus warned his followers of Wolves in sheeps clothing. Thus to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

    As an advisory I might add that most of the researchers I might track may not show their " their true colours" unless pushed, but some are just upfront in your face. Personally I have had to learn to give both a listening ear with judgement reserved, but I can always reach for the off switch?
  • edited January 2015
    Jehovajah, if you hope that you can make sense of what Ken is struggling to communicate, it certainly makes sense to stick to your judgment call and follow your intuition.

    It just seems to me that the odds are very slim that something can be salvaged out of his gibberish. But I could be wrong after all - happened many times in the past.
  • Barau,
    Newton cradle have nothing to do with how electricity runs in the wire according to current
    physics theory, which claims that (in DC) electrons drifting from the (-) to the (+) and the E field
    is traveling at 96% the speed of light from the (+) towards the (-). On the other hand I understand
    that you wanted to show a mechanical transmission model of "chain wheel electrons" but then
    I'm confused what is the model you are supporting ? Does it include electrons ? or North and
    South pole magnets ? Or it involve aether elements in it ? Or it have one fluid or two ?
    It would help if you could start with a clear statement and then go to details. I have no objection
    to any of your views as long as you clarify the grand picture.

    Also the pattern (fig. 2) in "The physical lines of force" which you pointed to is based on the
    model of the electrons revolving the nuclei which I can't understand if you support that model ?
    And if you do then where the Aether fit into that ?

    Another important thing is to combine the electricity as current and the electricity as static.

    I tend to believe that Ed's model of two magnetic currents runs one stream against the other
    in a right hand swirling but this model is far from resolving all the geometrical and mechanical
    problems that it imply. One of them is how exactly the "chains" of magnets are passing by or
    through each other from side to side ? or what keeps them swirling ? Also I highly suspecting
    that the contemporary atom model is flawed and there is a room to explore other models
    such as the one Ed suggesting even though it needs a lot more clarifications, tests and
    math. What I'm trying to say is that I'm clear about my views even though I'll may be wrong
    but at least you know where I'm heading, which in your case it's hard for me to put my
    finger on and as a result it's difficult to follow your ideas as a whole, but more like sporadic
  • About Ken Wheeler I tend to agree with Barau, which claim that he is too arrogant.
    So was Ed, Tesla, Miles Mathis and others which claim that they are right and others are
    wrong (regardless whether they were right or wrong). Ken specifically have many flaws in his
    theory, but he is so sure of himself that I'd rather not to disturb him.

    On the other hand Maxwell was a modest scientist who "walked through a minefield"
    and was not driven by a big ego. For me he is like a model and how a researcher should
    conduct his research from true curiosity and fascination from nature.
  • edited January 2015
    Newton cradle have nothing to do with how electricity runs in the wire according to current physics theory, which claims that (in DC) electrons drifting from the (-) to the (+) and the E field is traveling at 96% the speed of light from the (+) towards the (-)
    Newton's cradle has nothing to do with how electricity runs in the wire according to my views as well. I am surprised that you could infer otherwise from what I have said above. I resorted to Newton's cradle to make it plain how energy (mechanical in this case, using the orthodox vocabulary, although all energy is mechanical in the final analysis) can enter at one end of a system, propagate along the system with great speed, and exit at the other end of the system, while the parts responsible for the energy transmission (steel balls in this particular case) are themselves practically not moving. Then I proceed to create my own cradle - Barau's cradle, if I may be excused for this bit of vanity - to make it plain how energy (electrical in this case, using the orthodox vocabulary, although all energy is mechanical in the final analysis) can enter at one end of a wire, propagate along the wire with great speed, and exit at the other end of the wire, while the parts responsible for the energy transmission (spinning electrons and atoms in this particular case) are themselves practically not moving in translational sense.

    This is just a bare-bones idea of how "electrical" things differ from the "mechanical" ones. Like I said before, one should not take this literally, or as a full-fledged model which can readily be subjected to mathematical treatment. We are not there yet. But I have some fundamental ideas to that end, and I intend to elaborate on them bit by bit.
  • edited January 2015
    Let us start with a simple question: What is the fundamental difference between Newton's cradle and Barau's cradle? It's not in the fact that Newton's cradle is mechanical in nature while Barau's cradle is electrical. The defining difference between the two lies in the mechanism used to model energy transmission along a guiding line. Newton's cradle models energy transmission via the mechanism of compression-rarefaction impulse, or compression-tension longitudinal wave more generally. To be sure, the steel balls in Newton's cradle are under more general type of stress - the full stress tensor that includes, along with pressure, tension and shear stress as well. But compression is the key stress component here. To see that, we could simply replace steel balls in Newton's cradle with strong rubber balloons filled with water, or gas under high pressure. Now we've got rid of shear and tension components of stress in the medium of impulse (wave) propagation, but the mechanism of energy transmission still works nearly unchanged.

    What about Barau's cradle? What kind of wave does it employ to model energy transmission through the guiding line? Is it longitudinal "mechanical" wave of compression-rarefaction type, is it transverse "electromagnetic" wave of Maxwell, is it surface wave of Rayleigh, or is it ocean rolling wave? None of the above! This is a new type of wave, which I propose to call rock-n-roll wave; this term seems to reflect well the gist of the new concept for it has the right connotations.
  • Got that so far.
    I still think your model of electric current will not work in 2D and let alone in 3D.
    Look at this drawing that I made - which is clearly flawed :
  • edited January 2015
    I agree that the drawing that you made is clearly flawed.

    But one can easily imagine a different, and a very simple arrangement of vortices that will work not only in 2D but also in 3D. See enclosed image.

    This is just a simple geometro-kinematical argument rather than a dynamical one. It may prove to be a long and thorny way before we get to the true and provable dynamical picture.
  • edited January 2015
    The one you drew will work, but I don't know what about you and where
    you are heading ? and how this model is helpful to you ?

    I'm trying to develop a two way model of North and South magnetic currents
    that run one against each other in a right hand swirling twist. I'll might take
    the wrong course but at least I'm trying to exhaust all options before trying
    a different model. So your model of transferring "something" is nice but not
    very helpful for me.

    While I'm working on a conductor carrying currents I also work simultaneously
    on the so called "static electricity", Atom model, Gravity and other related fields
    which one versatile model will be dynamic enough to fit them all.

    Even though I'm investigating Ed's model as a candidate, there is a long way to go.
    I think Ed promise much more than he knew, though his start point was right.
    Maybe because he was alone and no one to criticized him, co-develop or give him
    feedback on his ideas - he carried away to unknown fields, but with some true
    "Magnetic Base" which gave him a good jump start with.
  • edited January 2015
    I love to watch these huge structures on the sun, because it contextualises my thoughts on magnetic currents.

    I can clearly see dynamic long lived structures in which plasma is seen to "flow " both ways . What I am actually witnessing I cannot say, but my simple model explanation is clearly only a first order approximation.

    If I use Eds simple but more detailed model I get a better approximation , and if I use Kens more complex model still I get an even better approximation!

    If however I use the standard model I get confused, because it is confusing and mathematically obscured! The simplest explanation of curl and div as operators was related to these magnetic structures on the sun, by one professor, and I know Helmholtz felt these mathematical differential equations were a direct mathematical expression of natural dynamic situations.

    My point is I do not see Div and Curl, but rather phenomena that show trocchoidal structures as paths of substance movement Or deformation motion.

    That is where I " intuitively" want to start.

    Thanks for your interesting contributions and discussions Barau and Randomind..
  • edited November 2015
    randomind, wish you luck with your search for versatile model.
    I think Ed promise much more than he knew, though his start point was right.
    I think Ed knew much more than he revealed to us. It is unfortunate that he was so secretive. When we think about his construction feats we are mostly mystified how he could make those huge blocks of coral float in the air like feathers. To me, a bigger question is: how did he manage to quarry those huge coral blocks from bedrock? Someone has suggested that Ed might have used some kind of acid to do the quarrying. I think it is more likely that Ed used to that end some, unknown even today, magnetic phenomena and/or techniques learned from someone else or, perhaps, discovered by himself.

    Throw some magnet bars together on the table. What do you get? They always rearrange themselves to attract each other, and you end up with a heap of bar magnets (see the attached photo). Throw some very sophisticated magnet structures together on the table. What do you get? They always rearrange themselves to attract each other, and you end up with a bewildering heap of complex magnet structures (see the attached photo).

    The heap does not fall apart, it holds together by stable pattern of ether flow that can get arbitrary complex. But can we somehow make this heap fall apart into pieces which neither attract nor repel each other unless brought very close to each other. Yes it is possible, at least, in principle. How? Rearrange the ether flow in such a way that to resolve the interlaced flows (complicated chains of flow of ether substance) into separate magnetic flows which are not chained together. In other words, resolve the complex flow into a number of toroidal magnetic currents, which are essentially nothing but Ed's PMH (see attached photo). The magnetic field outside PMH is almost nonexistent, with all magnetic power concentrated inside the PMH, thus, there is almost no interaction between them unless they are brought very close to each other.

    Perhaps, Ed had discovered just how to do the resolving of interlinked magnetic flows into none-interlinked and none-interacting (unless brought together very closely) toroidal magnetic flows. Hence, the secret of separating huge blocks of coral from the rest of the coral bedrock.
  • edited January 2015
    Thanks Barau for the wishing.
    Well, I agree that Ed knew more than he revealed, on the other hand I get the impression from
    what he did not say : he was not that good in math, his explanations of a phenomena
    were not more than two levels of depth, he brag too much about his telescope and that
    scientists should come to CC, so he could show them the path of the earth around the sun.....
    You see, in real life when someone is talking in such a fashion it make me suspicious that there
    is some "broken links" within that person and by telling me more than he understand - he feel
    more confidence with himself, especially if he could convinced me !!!

    Ed skipped many important explanations : how the magnetic field look like on a charged
    object, NO MATH AT ALL in all his booklets even though he stressed that the only way to
    understand nature is with magnets and math !!! But for some reason there was not even
    one equation in all his writings - and he had some good books with Maxwell 4 equations
    and other physics calculations, so I asked myself how could this gap happen ? Well, like
    I said, maybe he knew more than he left behind and maybe he discovered some technologies
    or explanations for natural phenomena - but the way he spoke seems to exceed what he
    knew and his secrecy even added more attention from the public and he needed that in
    order to feed his vanity and luck of self confidence (after he was kicked away by this girl and
    felt like a looser for the rest of his life).

    He built Coral Castle in a very simple way with a good technical abilities, good hands,
    some tools that he built for that and lots and lots and lots of hard work. So hard that you don't
    see people these days work hard like he did...... That's why you believe he used all kind of
    anti-gravity techs and all kind of magics to erect the coral blocks from the ground. BTW Coral
    is not a hard rock at all, He was lucky that he did not have to do it with Granite as the Egyptians
    did. All In all, Ed craved for attention and recognition driven him to shrouded himself with
    mystery which drove many to believe that he was much more than he really was and knew.
  • edited January 2015
    @ randomind

    Vanity is a perfectly legitimate human trait. As François de La Rochefoucauld put it succinctly:
    People would never know pleasures in life would they not flatter to themselves.
    The only problem is that vanity sometimes becomes all-consuming obsession with one's own persona and one's own real or imagined accomplishments, which makes objective and fair assessment of other people and their accomplishments next to impossible. I do not believe that Ed falls into that category.
    He built Coral Castle in a very simple way with a good technical abilities, good hands,
    some tools that he built for that and lots and lots and lots of hard work.
    Not sure what you mean by this, could you elaborate a bit on that?

    I agree that there is no need to build an aura of mystery around the persona of Ed and his accomplishments, but if you wish to call him "a looser" (assuming you meant a loser here, and not an unmarried man) you better have some real accomplishments of your own to show for.
Sign In or Register to comment.