Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field


In his paper entitled, The Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field (An interpretation of Maxwell's 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force' parts I to III), Frederick David Tombe, proposes an improvement to the understanding of Maxwell's paper by replacing the vortex cells sited in Maxwell's theory, with rotating electron positron dipoles, which bond together to form a double helical electromagnetic dynamic that is described in terms similar to what I have demonstrated above.

Mr. Tombe was formerly a physics instructor at, College of Technology Belfast, and Royal Belfast Academical Institution. His paper was originally submitted on February 15th, 2006, in the Philippine Islands, Cebu City.


  • The introduction of the electron which JJ Thompson struggled to include in a corpuscular theory of matter, due to Earnshaws instability law, has hidden the fluid dynamic Model Maxwell explored for most of the rest of his life.
    Heaviside, not happy with the difficult mathematics simplified it into 4 well known principles. The principles required an Aetheric medium, not an electron or charge. However others insisted on casting Thompsons electron as a point mass and not, as Thompson thought of it as a sticky viscous centre.

    The Rutherford Bohr model has obscured Maxwell and Thompsons work and led to this hybrid attempt to explain what is clearly a fluid dynamic situation.
  • edited November 2013
    The issue here is the model, set forth in Maxwells time by many innovative thinkers. For the reason that it was thought that the dilation of various whirlpools was sufficient to explain the wave nature of light, Hamilton's Quaternions were considered of immense importance.

    The difficulty seems to have been in the notation Hamilton used. Unfamiliar with it , Maxwell and others were disappointed by the errors of a factor of 2 it introduced into the results. They did not know that there was a simple reliable " fix" to this issue , which really was not a fix but an overlooked fact. Half angles have to be used in 3dimensional rotations.

    There was another flaw. It was assumed that whirlpools were planar, which they are only in cross section , and that the Aether could only operate in this way. In fact it is not the whirlpool that is significant, but the rotational dilation which happens spheroidally.

    The Russellian Whirlpool was misleading. Keelys more complex spherical dynamic was a better model, but few took note of Keely.
  • edited November 2013
    The pairing of vortices is not apparent because rotation is not fully apprehended.
    Helmholtz was forced to include this basic anti symmetry into his vortex equations. Gear wheels in gear trains operate in this precise manner .

    The shots of the sun show these vortex pairings do not need to be thought of only in terms of gears but alo in terms of loops of flux or twisting ropes looping together in ballistic loops.

    These are identified at this scale as magnetic flux loops, but they are no different to the ballistic trajectory loops we describe as gravity at the earths surface.

    The creation of the concepts of gravity and electricity have really obscured the range of magnetic phenomenon we witness every day.

    Diamagnetic and paramagnetic materials are poorly apprehended due to the electron model. The active surfaces of materials are poorly understood, many assuming that surfaces of crystals are inactive and that fluids have no surfaces except the boundary of the container in which they are measured.

    In fact, the surfaces of fluids are highly active and that is what makes their surfaces indeterminate. The crystal surface obscures the surface activity because it is on a microscopic scale . However light diffraction reveals this surface activity.

    Active surfaces are the least understood behaviours in electromagnetic, electro and magneto dynamic theory.

    Again, much insight is to be found in Russelian philosophy, but Keely is more accessible empirically.
  • edited November 2013
    There really is no simple way to describe reality.
    Consistently we have returned to the sphere as the simplest complex structure. The sphere for me is the boundary between vortices that gyroscope inwards and those that gyroscope outwards.

    Evenso the standard concept of a vortex is misleading. This s why Keely is so important. His spherical decomposition of space seems to be about balls but in fact it is about vortices.

    The surface of a bubble is active. It is an active vortex of liquid held in place by the vortex motions. The substances within the liquid are similarly vortex interactions. The space in the centre of a bubble is usually dynamically coupled to the active surface. The vortices within this space tend to appear negligible, but they are in dynamic equilibrium, that is a potential vorticular structure.

    However, non of these structures are simple, they are complex.

    The fractal paradigm allows us to conceive of this rich geometry in ways more complex than concentric spheres. Such a simplification actually misleads the complex vorticular structures possible within space. However, the boundary surface is crucial for recognition.

    In a fractal generator application 2 parts are essential: the point transformations; the surface plot. It is the surface plot that makes graphical sense of the point transformations.

    Now of course points are not the issue. We experience surface phenomena. Those surfaces that are too active to develop a surface for, appear either as a mist or a spray of fine particles or remain invisible to the eye but detectable by one or more of our other senses.

    The mystery of " magnetism" is just one of these fractal vortex dynamics. . The Electra dynamic was noticed not in rock crystal, ie the Magnes rock crystals, but in organic crystals called amber or Electra. Dividing the same phenomenon in this way is natural in a scientific approach, but ignoring the clear similarities and even denying the empirical data that shows these phenomena are identical under rotation is down to forces of commercial interest and political power.
  • edited November 2013
    Bruce Lipton is a great communicator.

    While he sometimes simplifies too much he never gets off track. The so called energy in a mechanical sense is the appreciable motions of space.

    I have recently been introduced to Aristotles writings, which I am considering. Aristotle influenced so many philosophers of the past and it is his cosmological argument that inspired Newton's decomposition of his reality. Motive is a fundamental Newtonian concept for dynamism in this universe and in any Aether.

    It is an Aristotelean construction, at least as far as Newton's use of motive is concerned.

    However, now I know this I can place it against the Background of the Pythagorean philosophy which influenced and inspired Plato, who discoursed with Aristotle.

    while Aristotle was an ardent Patonist, he rejected principle Pythagorean notions. Thus he divided the Pythagoren teachings that have come down to us. Much that is scientific owes its existence to Aristotelean analysis and categorisation. He was perhaps the most famous taxonomists, but few regard that today. His taxonomy split apart many things that are naturally found together. Magnetism and electricity are a case in point.

    At the same time he put together many things that were formerly separated because their categorisation demanded it. Such things were proved to be correctly associated!

    So we have benefits and disadvantages arising directly out of Aristoles methods. The Pythagoreans were not taxonomists they were curators. They kept accurate records and analyses of all relations, including mythical ones.. Consequently they maintained the mysterious relations of the cosmos where Aristotle discarded some by his own reason.

    The motion of all things by Pythagoras or the Pythagorean school is by Hekate, or as she is sometimes known Rhea. This flow of everything is what was taken to be the aether. By the Pythagorean analysis this flow was trochoidal. It appears both in straight and circular motions independently, or together. It not only creates all reality of itself , but also destroys it. It is a spiral of opposites that came to be known as Phusis, from which we derive the word Physics.

    There is a great cycle, a fantastic fractal iteration. The Monad becomes the Henads and they become the Myriads. The Myriads seek to return , through the Henads to the Monad. This disintegration and reintegration is the fundmental rotational vorticular dynamic of the Pythagorean and many other schools of thought and Philoophy.

    While this is wisdom to some, to the technically minded they want to see results! They want to construct something that works.

    The wheel and the gear are perhaps the greatest mechanical exponents of this kind of Philosophy. When you trace the wheel back you end up with the Akkadians and peoples in the sphere of the most ancient Babylonian civilisations. Thus we come to the Magi, who being Astologers were well aware of these great cycles. As far back as we can reliably go, the motion of a fractal, dynamic and spherical vortex has been the considered opinion of the wise. The powers within such a structure were truly awe inspiring , inducing the fear of gods.

    This power revealed itself in thunderbolts of lightning, and in crystals of rock and amber.

    Today, the trchnologists use these very same materials, and others like it, to demonstrate the power in the rotating spherical vortex. I hold in my hand a lump of crystals called an iPad. Through it I communicate to the Internet, a network of crystals of metals and alkaline salts and rare earth compounds and fluid dielectrics and gaseous diamagnetic material called plasmas. And this rotational spherical vortex power is derived from a great rotating spherical vortex in our solar system!

    We can go endlessly beyond our sun, to an unfathomsble number of stars in our galaxy all rotating and empowering the space of which I consist.

    It is not that this is not known, rather it is that some seek to dominate others by coercion, and to do that they must control all access to this power which is literally all around us.

    Pythagoras reputedly discoursed on the Harmony of the spheres. This was not a discourse on music but on power!
  • What a great post! Thanx @Jehovajah

    I only dare to add some links to The Harmony of Spheres:
    Musica Universalis
    What is Harmony of the Spheres?
  • edited December 2013
    Thanks for that link.

    There is much that is misunderstood about the Pythagoreans and "NUMBER". I have written extensively on it, and those interested should google " jehovajah Arithmos ".

    My simplest explanation is that Arithmos means a mosaic. Without this mosaic it is not possible to do geometry. The term Gematria is a corruption of geometria and this is greek for measuring on the ground. Literally it was analysing forms by drawing them on the ground and measuring.

    However these forms were not just drawn by human design. The astrologers would trace shadows and position stones and megaliths to mark a particular sighting point for a star or a planet. Thus early mosaics are mistakenly described as abstract in design!.

    These Arithmoi were therefore fundamental to Geometry and they were set out and studied intensely by the Pythagoreans. The tessellating forms bear their name, triangular Arithmoi, square Arithmoi pentagonal Arithmoi etc.

    The relation to music is more a relation to the gifts of the Musai, or Greek Godesses of culture, for whom the Pythagoreans acted as curators .

    The story of the mono chord may be true, but what is certain is that the Pythagoreans analysed ll the elements of a form. Thus it was natural to segment a cord or string into ratios and to note corresponding tones. This was further evidence that ratios of magnitudes were fundmental to the construction of the cosmos and all that was in it..

    The decomposition of space into mosaics is such a fundamental Pythagorean idea that it is a wonder it has not been explained before. I believe that religious conspiracies have resulted in Greek philosophy and Pythagorean Philoophy being obscured, and sanitizer or sanctified by purging!. After all we would not want believers to confuse Pythagoras with Jesus, now would we?
  • The following article has improved my apprehension of the historical background and clearly informs my earlier comments.

    I will not alter my earlier posts because I really want to show the development of my apprehensions and to make it plain that I am happy to change when presented with better evidence.

    Martin if you could upload the PDF I would be grateful.
  • @RichChatfield Interesting observation.
    I noticed that a section of the Double Helix also could be represented by ed's Ying Yang on the inside of ABIEH.
    Of course, ed's ying yang is like a lot of ed's other clues to ancient knowledge. More specifically, the chinese creation story of Fuxi and his wife Nu Wa. Ed's references to male and female duality are paramount in their story, and they were also 2 of the original 'Three Sovereigns' of creation.
    Again, there is that theory of three particles of matter.
    Any google of Fuxi will turn up various artwork depicting the same similar scene as I have attached.
    Fuxi and his wife Nuwa intertwined in a helix (facing or opposed) and both carrying either a compass or a square.
    In the particular picture I have attached, a friend of mine has analyzed it, and the drawing itself is based around the squared circle concept in math. The shoulders of Fuxi and Nuwa form the square in which the rest of the pictures elements are formed.
    Not only is ed teaching us about the basic geometric concepts of the universe around us, he's also teaching us various places to find the same information encoded in the ancient past, including the Bible, Greek classic geometry, and Chinese mathematics. Also ed uses various references to the Hindu gods. A good example of this is the Ixora plant in ed's feast of love table.
    There are sources that state Ixora was one of the first 3 hindu gods with Bramin and Vishnu. Another reference to trinnity. Also the Ixora flower is used in Vishnu temples to honor the god.
    I have theorized that ed thought of himself as Vishnu, and Agnes as Ixora (commonly called Shiva).
    Ed wasn't just about 'new' concepts and technology. I think he was more fascinated by what was already recorded for us and lost to time.
    ed wrote...
    "I have never studied human anatomy, but I know there are many little cords that the magnets can pass through. All that has to be done is to make the right connections."
    This line is important because ed writes "I know...". Ed never assumes to 'know' anything if you read through MC. He simple demonstrates, and lets you and him infer the observations. He even says "I think the batteries are not made right."
    He doesn't say he 'knows' the batteries are not made right, and this is important. especially if everything ed did was for a specific reason.
    I dont ever reccomend DePew for research, but I did recently catch a new addition to his site in which he demonstrates the 3 particles of matter and how they can form a strand of DNA. It was the first time I found his work useful to me, and it was actually pretty fascinating to be honest.
  • I'm just gonna go ahead and post it because it's so damn cool, I hope Dave forgives me for letting this one out...
    Again, I simply researched the info, my good friend did the genius work of discovering the geometry of the picture.
    I also wanted to add the theory that ed's rotating gate is a 'torii' of sorts...
    A torii is... " is a traditional Japanese gate most commonly found at the entrance of or within a Shinto shrine, where it symbolically marks the transition from the profane to the sacred"
    Torii are built to specific measurements and fractions derived from the spread of the torii's 2 upright posts. I have built one in miniature for my wife according to the mathematics shown in the traditional torii blueprint I have attached, in the process I found the angles of the torii are prime numbers, and also include 22 and 7, the lowest numbers used for the approximation of Pi.
    I believe there is much to be learned from classic Chinese math. The I ching is an excellent example of cubic geometry as well, and I believe ed used references in ABIEH that were universal to every culture. Whether you are East asian, South Asian, or a westerner, ed has shown us where this classic information can be found in ANY home that follows its cultural background, or contains classical literature.
Sign In or Register to comment.