Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Powered by leedskalnin.com & buzzdev.net
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
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?
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: 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 :-) Common sense and modesty seem in short supply these days.
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?
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.
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
shoots.
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.
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.
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.
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 :
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
Vanity is a perfectly legitimate human trait. As François de La Rochefoucauld put it succinctly: 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. 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.