Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Way Electricity Runs In A Wire



  • A powerful south pole magnet can also change the polarity of weak north pole... Monopole is a misnomer or incorrect term when describing Leedsklanin's theories. He demonstrates and describes a unipole. Do you have any evidence that Leedskalnin 'borrowed' Gilbert's work?

    "A Possible Theory for Particle Composition of Matter Based on Only Three Functional Quantum Particles"


    "....It describes ‘monopoles’ as the first quantized agglomerates of pure energy and explains why they bound to form ‘dipoles’, which later progressively form larger agglomerates. In the sequence, it describes the crystallization as a first resistance line that the nature foresight to avoid the self-destruction of the universe. The paper closes with possible models of electron and positron as well as of neutron and proton based on only the three proposed subatomic particles. At the same time, the equivalent mass of a thermion as well as the quanta of positive and negative electric charges is determined".
  • edited May 2014

    Note the images of Faradays experimental findings of the iron filing patterns around bar and current guiding magnets( the round) shape.

    I have no evidence in Leedskalnins writings to document my assertion, other than Leedskalnin set himself the task of explaining what electricity was .

    Only by reading the De Magnete of Gilbert was I able to recognise the structures Ed uses in his explanation.

    The unipolar concept is perhaps useful as you define it, but the concept of a pole is the fundamental flaw in my opinion. The lodestone concept a crystalline rock roughly spheroidal , represented by Gilbert in his terella has no poles! Rather it was said to have multiple regions of polarity, as measured by ferromagnetic behaviour in the shape of a bar or section of fishwire or a needle.

    The careful experiments and deductions Ed draws follow the work of Gilbert and all scientists up until and past Faraday who were Gilbertians in philosophy, including Maxwell. The change came after them around the time Eddington and others had a commercial interest in the power aspect of magnetism.
    Böse and others were disgusted by how scientific values were corrupted from the exclusive clubs to the boardroom of commercial enterprise and mired in Patrnt law. Electricity is by all accounts a patent and trade name for the power that was freely investigated under the name electra
    -like magnetic tension.

    In fact it is my opinion that to polarise this fundamental force is misleading. The energy which we now refer to it as is clearly , without empirical doubt transformable into force, electric, thermal and magnetic behaviours. As a geometrist ie an astrologer trained in the behaviours of space, I am loathe to ascribe the seat of such fundamental power in any human defined corpuscular analogue. It suffices me that regionality is a ubiquitous phenomenon in space as a consequence of our or if you like my subjective mental processing.

    It is also consequrpential that this power is not localizable inside a twisted copper wire covered by insulating dielectric, nor in any notion of charge. Rather this power flows in vortices that obey spatial configurations which support spheroidal descriptions, as far as we can tell by measurement.
  • Well said Jehovajah, and thanks for the book, my hoe wielding friend - pretty damn fascinating. I will be back in touch soon with some sort of feedback. Thanks, Matt.
  • edited May 2014
    Thanks for the link Gardener.
    The only note of caution is that of " beware of translations". This seems very readable, but does impose a settled view on Gilbert's ferro magnet and Electra like magnet "resemblance". As the translator explains form has a quite different meaning in this philosophical work to how we take the word today! Using the word resemblance though innocuous and arguably an accurate translation, obscures the overal idea called vericity. This power is better termed " identical" than resembling in each instantiate case.

    However this is my opinion, which I think I am allowed. Lol!

    This video demonstrates how the viscosity of a medium generates vortices . In fact I would say accentuates the ubiquitous vorticular motions inherent in space.

  • edited May 2014
    Dr Scott's explanation of the free space unbounded magnetic structure involved him iterating a plasma function derived by Tony Peratt. These equations are mnemonic hooks for processes , telling physicists how to draw certain line segments.

    The fact that they interpret it to mean electric and magnetic current is irrelevant. The shape they end up with shows a dynamic in space. How this is visualised is relevant: is it a sculpture or a contour map?

    Amazingly Maxwell developed a way of drawing contour maps in his electro magneto theory. Very few people or physicists have ever looked at them, bu they are very revealing. The Heaviside Hertz redaction of Maxwell has encouraged inept scientists to ignore these maps and Heavisides telegraph equation. In other words the four laws derived by Gauss, ampere , Faraday and Maxwell are a necessary but insufficient set of laws for electromagnetism. Even with the telegraph equation they are not sufficient.

    Maxwell warned that his analysis was very limited. Faraday wondered if the mathematics as Maxwell had cast it, into Quaternions, contributed anything at all to the understanding of the " field" concept he had formed by empirical observation of the effect on iron filings etc around electromagnetodynamics objects.

    In short deduce f.rom the empirical data not The mathematical formulations of theoretical physicists and engineers!

    So , Birkland currents are an electric Universe Mantra. It is a magnetic phenomenon and is a river of rotating magnetism. But because science has decided that electric current generates magnetism the idea is the flow structure is a current of charged material.

    I say this is an unnecessary and misleading deduction. The flow is due to Gilbert's magnetic plasma which rotates space , space is not moved but deformed, and the deformation moves through space by the viscous forces in space. All that is needed is the Newtonian postulate or axiom that action and reaction govern motion of and within bodies of space. This motion within a body is called a strain deformation induced by some stressor. The motion of a body of space is called relative motion and is usually ascribed to some force or source of acceleration.

    The concept of a wave I feel is now misleading. Space is constantly. In dynamic motion governed it seems by equilibrium " laws" of viscosity/ inertia, at least locally, which is all we can empirically know. In that case the squeezing and stretching of space with twisting at all frequencies of rotation is what we describe as electro Thermo magneto behaviours.

    The role of Antennae in this observation is down played, but simply put if an antenna is placed in this environmental flow it creates a vortex from the result of how inductive/ conductive the material of the antenna is , and this vortex is either compressed by coiling the wire, or stored between two disconnected antennae as a Reciprocating disturbance. When the antenna is connected the vortex does not pass along it but rather a greater vortex can be formed, ie lower frequencies can be formed and resonate with the longer length.

    A battery therefore stores this vortex between its conductive/ inductive plates. Closing a circuit dies not release this power, rather it drives the formation of a greater vortex in the longer antenna.

    Without the gaps in an antenna the vortex cannot be defined, so a ring antenna will not work without a gap . The spark in the gap is the visible display of the vortex which is there when the vortex is sufficiently powerful enough to display in the visible spectrum. That we cannot see or feel it is nowadays no longer a reason to deny the existence of the vortex around an inductor/ conductor. That is patently obvious! Due to the plethora of "radiant" transmissions we make these days.

    Do we need electric and magnetic distinctions ? I do not think so because the variety of vortex behaviours in space are obscured by these categorisations.

  • The torus is a version of unbounded space . That is their are no boundaries to reflect off. Topologically it is different to a sphere .
    The question whether we live in a space that is like a sphere or a torus or a multiply holed torus is moot, because we can only empirically measure locally. The point is that we cannot rule any Spaciometry out by local means.

    That being said the small scale patterning, ie the intrinsic patterning in space may suggest a analogous dynamical space. This torus simulation how's tht in this kind of dynamical space we can expect to be surrounded by multiple deformations that may come from only one source, and thus may be " entangled" in this precise sense.

    In any case an antenna tuned to these frequency patterns will access different aspects of the whole., but an antenna shaped like the fundamental space may access the whole frequency range!
  • edited September 2015
    While searching for an answer to the difficult question of what electric current is, perhaps it makes sense to start with tackling a question which was and, in my opinion, still remains the most fundamental question of the phenomenon of electromagnetism: what is electric charge?

    Here is my attempt to model electric charge in simple and comprehensible terms:

    Perhaps I shall note that the presented model is just an attempt to explain in layman terms how the existence of two different types of charges could be reconciled with common sense. It is preposterous, of course, to think that electrons and positrons are made of copper and plastics. Here the copper and plastics rings are simply to model the forces, which in reality have dynamical nature by necessity, holding together the compressed electromagnetic medium (which, I guess, Jehovajah refers to, after Gilbert, as plasma) to form electrons and positrons.

    Simply put, electrons and positrons are some kind of complicated dynamical knots of the medium used to be called ether before the advent of eviscerated physics (mathematization of physics to absurdity typified by Einstein and Dirac) which killed and replaced that medium with absolutely nonsensical notion of vacuum thereby turning the living body of physics into a beautiful, some might say, but absolutely barren mathematical statue.
  • edited January 2015
    In the North Hemisphere the south pole individual magnets are going up, and the north pole individual magnets are coming down.

    Ed Leedskalnin
    Unless Ed has made an unguarded and careless statement here, I believe he was wrong on this one: the stated pattern of motion of north and south pole individual magnets simply does not fit the attraction-repulsion pattern of magnet's behavior in general.

    The logical consistency requires that in each hemisphere each type of individual magnets flow in both (up and down) directions. If we could take a close look at two neighboring helix filaments on the earth's north pole, we would see that both north and south pole individual magnets are coming down twisting along one helix, while they are going up along the neighboring helix. However, it is of paramount importance to note that the vector of rotation of each and every pair of magnetic particles (shall we call such a pair north-south magnetic dipole or electron-positron electric dipole?) is always up on the earth's north pole, while that vector is always down on the earth's south pole (see the attached picture).

  • edited May 2014
    You make an important point, but not a clear one. This is not your fault, nor is it Eds . The fault lies with Gilbert and humans in general.

    We think we understand and we do not. In particular we live in 3 d or more space and we will not admit that we all have problems distinguishing left from right! Individually we are aware precisely in our own local reference frame where things are and how things transform. It is when we try to communicate this that we realise how relative everything is.

    Human thought is generally very precise as far as proprioception goes, but our conventions have been muddled since the advent of plane Geometry. It took Islamic and Persian scholars a long time to develop spherical geometry and spherical trigonometry. By and large it is ignored today in favour of high tech devices and naval practices . Once the longitude problem was solved by accurate time pieces the topic of spherical geometry slid into a back water and was quietly dropped from the academic curriculum.

    I proposed that the term gyre be used to describe the rotation of an object about an axis, and that that axis has a direction . Then we can compare gyres by ensuring axes are in the same direction. This gives only 2 gyres for rotation. Further we can then define types of gyres relative to the 2 principal gyres, namely inward, steady and outward gyres. I used this system to analyse the dynamics of tornadic air flows and it made sense. However I have learned more of Grassmanns system since then and realise there is a better way to analyse rotating systems clearly.
    To keep it simple I will use a rectangle. Thus this is a plane segment . Arbitrarily I will label the 4 points Cyclically. This is important. ABCD are a cycle of the four corner points of the rectangle. This cycle defines the rotation of the plane segment that is its gyre. Note no axis is necessary but one can always be constructed normal to the plane segment. If this is done then the axis must be given a principal direction relative to the cycle.

    Again this is important. The cycle in the plane is the reference for rotation not the normal. The normal can tell us which direction we as external observers have relative to the plane but it tells us nothing about the rotation! In this case we concede clockwise and anticlockwise are relevant terms but only locally useful. In a general reference frame they become a source of confusion.

    Now let us intersect the plane segment ABCD, now defined by its gyre , by another plane segment with gyre EFGH. We specify that the intersection is a line segment that lies in both planes that goes though the Barycentric centre of the gyre ABCD called M. In this case we specify EMF as a line segment of the gyre EFGH with the principal direction in that orientation and FG as the line segment with the principal direction in that orientation. The principal directions are what we might call " positive" .
    Finally for this system I will introduce a third gyre EFIJ. You will note they share the same line segment EMF, and thus the same principal direction, but IJ is a new principal direction.
    We only need to specify EMF relative to ABCD to fix the system for all observers. We do this using a sphere. Let ABCD lie in the plane of any great circle of the sphere centre M then EFGH lilies in a distinct great circle plane and EMF lies in the plane of a 3rd great circle. Now we can specify diameters within these circular planes that lie also in the gyres. These specify pairs of antipodal points and these are used to specify relations on the spherical surface so that we can agree orientations up to rotation of the sphere.

    Thus to continue I will specify that ABCD cycles into and out of the screen and EMF points to the right of the screen.

    Having set this up the first point is for physical space, imagine an elastic band for EFGH and a second one for EFIJ , then the gyre ABCD creates a " twist" which travels in both directions!

    In physical space we cannot escape the duality of actions. We could not even define a specific quadrant or versor without referring to its antipodal opposite!

    Thus stated simplistically, at either end of a gyre a twist travels out with the same gyre but travelling in opposite directions. It is to Eds credit that he calls this the south and north seeking individual magnets!. I translate this as the south seeking and north seeking plasma twists or knots.

    Using Eds language it is difficult to get any more specific than the way he describes it . The south seeking plama knot originates in the north and travels to the south. The north seeking originates in the south and travels to the north.

    Now this is the difference between Eds Description and mine: the gyre is the same. For this system there are 3 gyres but the ABCD gyre is the same for both EFGH and EFIJ gyres. The vortex that forms around a ferromagnet has a more complex gyre system, but within the crystalline lattice the same gyre passes though , dividing into the external gyres as described.

    Vortices are complex gyres within gyres etc.
    Now the behaviour of 2 such identical systems is analogous to magnetic behaviours I submit. But I will let you determine that !
  • @Barau_R_Tour
    Here is my attempt to model electric charge in simple and comprehensible terms:
    This is such a great video and modelling! Thanx!
    BTW, what is the arrangement of those magnets, please?
  • edited November 2015

    Thanks for your kind words. The arrangement of the neodymium magnets is shown on the attached sketch. The material of the outer and inner rings has no relevance so far as it is not magnetic (copper, plastics, wood ... anything will do). The outer ring is required, of course, to hold the magnets from flying away from each other. The need for the inner ring is less obvious: it is there to keep the magnets from turning around.

    Btw, I came up with this model while trying to figure out for myself whether John Searl really did what he says he did - he claims that he built flying saucers during the late1960s and flew them around the world many times:

    It is quite unreasonable to doubt the reality of Ed Leedskalnin's feat: The Coral Castle is there for everyone to see. However, at least in my mind, the jury is still out on some of John Searl's claims, even though lots of what John is saying makes perfect sense to me.
  • edited May 2014
    @Barau_R_Tour Many thanks again. I was wondering if the copper has some significance to the design, but you've already answered that question. :)

    One more question though.
    If i'd like to make larger rings, can there be let's say 16 or 48 or n magnets there?

  • You can have as many magnets as you like as long as the gap between the magnets is small enough for the effects to be pronounced; the lesser the gap the better, of course.
  • edited January 2015
    Vortices are complex gyres within gyres etc.
    This resonates quite strongly with me. If the laws of nature scale - and I believe they do - it must be so. There is no such thing as truly elementary particle. Each and every elementary particle must have some structure comprised of still more elementary particles. Perhaps, it makes sense to speak of ether with infinite hierarchy up and down: ether1, ether2, etc.

    Leibniz believed - as did the ancient Greeks - that there is no such thing as absolute vacuum. If you think of it as reality, empty space does not make sense at all. It is absurd to speak of space filled with matter. It is absurd to speak of matter moving in time for time without moving matter is nonsense.
    It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive through the changes of things.

    Ernst Mach
    But that is not to say that the concepts of space and time are useless. Quite the opposite, these two concepts are perhaps the most useful abstractions of all. But when we forget that these are just useful human concepts, we come up with monsters like Minkowsky's space-time and Einstein's STR and GTR that can block our minds badly ... if we take them too seriously.

    Rumor holds that Einstein credited Dostoevsky for his crazy theories. My inspiration also has Russian roots: it's called matryoshka.
Sign In or Register to comment.