Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Peregrinus vs (Edward Leedskalnin + Dr Felix Ehrenhaft + Paul Dirac)
Please reread very carefully pages 2 and 3 of Edward Leedskalnin's magnum opus: Magnetic Current.
Ed speaks of North and South Pole individual magnets, and I quote: "... the metal is not the real magnet. The real magnet is the substance that is circulating in the metal. Each particle in the substance is an individual magnet by itself, and both North and South Pole individual magnets. They are so small that they can pass through anything.. In fact they can pass through metal easier than through the air. They are in constant motion, they are running one kind of magnets against the other kind, and if guided in the right channels they possess perpetual power. The North and South Pole magnets they are cosmic force, they hold together this earth and everything on it. Each North and South Pole magnet is equal in strength ..."
Extremely confusing, to say the least! It is assumed occasionally that the confusion of Ed's writings comes from his poor command of English. Yes, Ed's English is not perfect. However, I believe that the confusion is in Ed's head rather than in his English. Pay attention to those black and white dots on pages 2 and 3. What are those dots? Are they some kind of particles that physically exist? If they are, can they exist independently? Listen to Ed again: "Each particle in the substance is an individual magnet by itself". It is next to impossible to tell whether this particle Ed is talking about is "the black dot + the white dot" that cannot be split into parts, or there are two different types of magnetic particles: "North Pole magnet particle" (the black dot) and "South Pole magnet particle" (the white dot), to which he ascribes independent existence.
I get the impression that Ed himself does not know what to believe, and that's the real source of the confusion – not his English.
On the other hand, we can say with confidence that Dr Felix Ehrenhaft – a fascinating scientist with insights into the nature of electromagnetism on the level of Edward Leedskalnin – believed in the existence of magnetic monopoles. Moreover, the professor went as far as to claim that he proved that existence experimentally: Felix EHRENHAFT: Magnetic Current.
We know also that Paul Dirac has conjectured the existence of magnetic monopoles. But Peregrinus was convinced that magnetic poles cannot exist independently. Who was in the right, and who was in the wrong?
It seems to me that this controversy can be resolved only by admitting that "magnetic pole" is nothing but a human concept – a very helpful one, admittedly – however, it is very unhelpful to imagine the "magnetic pole" as a some kind of physical particle.
What say you?
Ed speaks of North and South Pole individual magnets, and I quote: "... the metal is not the real magnet. The real magnet is the substance that is circulating in the metal. Each particle in the substance is an individual magnet by itself, and both North and South Pole individual magnets. They are so small that they can pass through anything.. In fact they can pass through metal easier than through the air. They are in constant motion, they are running one kind of magnets against the other kind, and if guided in the right channels they possess perpetual power. The North and South Pole magnets they are cosmic force, they hold together this earth and everything on it. Each North and South Pole magnet is equal in strength ..."
Extremely confusing, to say the least! It is assumed occasionally that the confusion of Ed's writings comes from his poor command of English. Yes, Ed's English is not perfect. However, I believe that the confusion is in Ed's head rather than in his English. Pay attention to those black and white dots on pages 2 and 3. What are those dots? Are they some kind of particles that physically exist? If they are, can they exist independently? Listen to Ed again: "Each particle in the substance is an individual magnet by itself". It is next to impossible to tell whether this particle Ed is talking about is "the black dot + the white dot" that cannot be split into parts, or there are two different types of magnetic particles: "North Pole magnet particle" (the black dot) and "South Pole magnet particle" (the white dot), to which he ascribes independent existence.
I get the impression that Ed himself does not know what to believe, and that's the real source of the confusion – not his English.
On the other hand, we can say with confidence that Dr Felix Ehrenhaft – a fascinating scientist with insights into the nature of electromagnetism on the level of Edward Leedskalnin – believed in the existence of magnetic monopoles. Moreover, the professor went as far as to claim that he proved that existence experimentally: Felix EHRENHAFT: Magnetic Current.
We know also that Paul Dirac has conjectured the existence of magnetic monopoles. But Peregrinus was convinced that magnetic poles cannot exist independently. Who was in the right, and who was in the wrong?
It seems to me that this controversy can be resolved only by admitting that "magnetic pole" is nothing but a human concept – a very helpful one, admittedly – however, it is very unhelpful to imagine the "magnetic pole" as a some kind of physical particle.
What say you?
Powered by leedskalnin.com & buzzdev.net
Comments
I can see though how that in free space or some sort of closed environment this could seem unhelpful.
Ed was not confused at all, he understood EVERYTHING, so don't belittle him.
Electromagnetism, gravity, and electricity DONT EXISTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Finally, the black and white dots represent N and S pole magnets. If you go through the illustrated MC, and do the experiments it will all make sense. The black dot is a N pole magnet(Male), and the white dot is a S pole magnet(Female).
Also, Ed never said anything was 180 degrees out of balance - a statement as such does not exist in any of his published writings.
^Isn't that the million dollar question?
You seem to know everything about Ed,
^I have only scratched the surface...
In other words: does magnetic monopole EXISTTTTTTTTTTTTT?
^I only know what I know, and will try to explain it in my terms. Ed used individual magnets, I'm going to do it a little differently. Still working on my "bible" hope to be done soon.
Also, Ed never said anything was 180 degrees out of balance - a statement as such does not exist in any of his published writings.
^I don't remember exactly what he said but it was something like, the world is a half turn out of balance, but yes he did not say exactly 180° but he frequently hints at it
Still getting used to the quote brackets, didn't feel like messin with it right meow
Ed mentions batteries being one sided. He also discusses flipping the moon a half turn to bring it down.
I can't find any info to support ed saying the world was a half turn out of balance.
Ed hints at north and south pole magnets being out of balance, but 1/2:1 out of balance, no.
Ed's writings are only available from C.Castle. They are the correct size and format ed required them to be, the right contrast, and on the right paper. MC is different from the pamphlets different from ABIEH for a reason. Ed's reasons. Reasons like, connecting the capitol letters on Page 3 of MC in a rectangle, to read TENT. BET the second hebrew letter represents the home, or a house, a dwelling, or a tent. It is also the first letter of the Torah, and it's found on the home body of ed's work first thing. Bet is also written by connecting 4 points of a rectangle. That's ed's M.O., check it out, you will see. EdM mentions this very thing on page 16 of his book, vaguely, when he describes ed's double border. Speaking of bible...
'Bible' eh? I won't touch that one, but I would suggest calling it something other than a 'Bible.' You would perhaps get a better reception by calling it a 'manifesto.' I'm biting my tongue here...
I've worked with the same printer throughout that time making sure the weights, sizes, alignments, etc. are accurate. I seem to recall having this same conversation with you a few years ago when I offered to send you a set for no charge.
There are 2 places to get copies.
We have had this talk before, I remember it. And I appreciate it, but I snag up a few copies from CC every now and then so I have fresh ones, and lots of copies. I also enjoy pulling that gold sticker off the plastic, and the fresh print smell. Along with the extra literature I get with them. Sometimes Santa leaves a fresh set in my stocking at Christmas, he knows what I like.
But Nobody Seems To Notice, Nobody Seems To Care, which makes me feel sad. Not too bright, folks, not too f***ing bright!
I'm no scientist, I'm not even educated past high school. For me to attempt to understand, and act like I do, would make me an imposter too. Perhaps slowly someday I will grasp the concepts. That being said, Ed doesn't exactly grasp it all too. I believe electrons exist, even if they are the individual north or south pole magnets only, they are there. Humankind's modern grasp on chemistry seems to support that. So yes, when it comes to electricity, not too bright.
I am here to decipher ed's writings, and get to the bottom of the messages and lessons he hid from plain view with his little hidden games. Because I do understand the english language, and fully grasp mathematics in all its forms, which are the important tools ed used to hide from sight, the messages that most can't handle or understand.
That I notice, that I care about, and that I am very bright at, very fucking bright! No one is trying to throw you off tangent. If anything, we would prefer you staying on course, just adjusting course a little for the shift in the wind, the wind being that crappy copy of 'magnetic current illustrated.'
Thank you for your warning about "that crappy copy of 'magnetic current illustrated.'" I have never used it and I am not about to use it.
I stress ed's originals for many reasons, I mentioned one above.
I tend to avoid the 'fringe' of science, because even though ed was on the fringe, I think he points to a more mainstream scientific and mathematical base. I have discussed in another thread how ed's talk about JJ thomson leads one to interpret that ed respected thomsons son, George Paget Thomson, his son proved the wave properties of the electron, which, if ed is correct, the electron is an individual magnet particle, south pole I think. Ed said magnets move in a right hand twist, in 3 dimensions this is helical, in 2 dimensions this is a wave. G.P. Thomson's proof seems to support ed's theories. This ties into your discussion, since the electron/s. pole magnet is negatively charged, this would be monopolar in definition, correct?
Another example. In ed's copy of MC, on page 11, there is the parentheses with the line "Have in mind that always there are two currents, one current alone cannot run. To run they have to run one against the other."
Only if you have ed's copy can you see the parentheses make the symbol
(
o
)
this symbol also appears on ed's iron door at CC, and carved around ed's NE wall in stone at CC. He makes a point to show it 3 times. In math that symbol is an 'integral' or a 'function' depending on how you view it. Also used in literature, but not important here. Here we will see it as a function/integral.
Now having ed's original books will get you ed's pictures, for this talk I will point out the 'At Work' Picture on the inside cover bottom, of ed's book ABIEH.
The 'stick' or 'branch' in the picture is a Y shape, it seems to say 'Why ed at work.'
ED mind you is also E=electric field
D=displacement field
mind you, electricity does so much of our work, so why electric and displacement field at work?
Since we want to see ed as the mathematician and scientist we all know he was, lets look at this 'stick' flip over that Y, and it looks like a greek 'lambda' which is an important symbol in math and physics. Or don't flip it, it is a greek gamma lowercase, which stands for the Lorentz factor. We don't have to prove ed grasped it all, he proved it by building CC, what we have to do is follow the directions ed leaves us to get the kind of understanding he had. Ed wants you to learn. I've been doing this a while, but I have lots to learn. Most of it will lead you to understand that ed knew all about mainstream spacetime theory. If you have the time, you might find ed was capable of understanding that the lowercase gamma, or the lambda, and the integral/function, they appear prominently in the math of electrodynamics, special relativity, Lorentz transformations, the Maxwell Faraday equation... In the picture above the At Work picture, There is a prominent C, aka the speed of light constant. I couldn't learn it all in a lifetime, but I can try, bit by bit.
I think ed was more into the mainstream than is commonly believed.
The Lodestone that was the reference magnet in the Royal Society in the 1700's was multipolar and of great magnetic strength. To explain all observations Gilbert proposed a magnetic atom, thus indivisible and therefore individual . He proposed an individual north pole magnetic atom and an individual south pole magnetic atom . Gilbert was an alchemist as well as a doctor to the queen, and familiar with the corpuscular theory of matter common among expert alchemists.
We have seen how Descartes gave these atoms the properties of the Archimedian screw , but nevertheless envisaged two counter rotating screws travelling in opposing directions.
These models were sufficient to account for the known behaviour to the satisfaction of the philosopher. But the material source of these magnetic atoms or particles was still moot.
We find Boyle referring to occult essences within materiality that were induced to explain these phnomena, and Newton, more readily seeking Active Principles to explain his alchemical findings. In his scholium he identifies the spirit of electricity as being culpable in some way he could not directly determine. His venture into fluid dynamics had not proved as fruitful as his reductionist point mass model of the absolute forces in a celestial system.
It is a fact that Hooke seems to be the first to try to quantify the magnetic force in the Royal Society and many developed successful models based on his careful and assiduous Analysis of experimental results brought to the Royal Society. But out of respect all believed magnetism in metal and in amber to be modes of the same force.
It was only when the 2 fluid model gained acceptance in Europe based on Galvano's animal electricityh magnetism that the divine electrically spark came to be revoered and the less interesting pushing and pulling force of the iron bar magnet.
The lodestone had long since been assigned to the status of a standard while direction seeking magnets becme th norm . Even so Gilbert's magnetic atoms were still respected and used.
The forces for astrologers began to separate. Lodestones and magnetism. We're distinguished from amber and magnetic behaviour which in turn was distinguished from gravity ( and levity) in the celestial orbits. Boyle and a few others including Gilbert felt thay gravity was a magnetic attraction , that this was a cosmic force, but younger brasher men out to make a name for themselves in the Parlours of polite society in Europe tended to set out their own ideas backed by shocking and sparking demonstrations!
This is how natural philosophy , experimental investigations and parlour conjurings became indistinguishable for a time .
Out of the melee , technical and industrial developers and inventors pursued these new powers fir advantage. The industrial revolution spurred on many young, enthusiastic people to stake their claim in the developing world of opportunity. Butit was Kelvin, Rayleigh, Stokes, Maxwell ,Franklin, Volta , Ampere and of course Faraday amongs many others who uncovered the classicl understanding and separation of electric spark and magnetic attraction and repulsion and the dynamo and motor effects.
In Europe Lorentz was making a name for himself by making wild often unfounded assertions. Often he was wrong, but more times he was right. His bold audacity made him a celebrity, but he was not so well respected in the scientific community.
He set out the Mathematicl basis for a magnetic power he called the electron. His calculations were heavily criticised and corrected by Poincare, but when Thompson found an experimental ratio that matched Lorentz asserted value the electron was born. Not as it is today but certainly as a particle of a particular energy and a negative polarity in electrostatic terms.
By then practical men saw the power of empirical science over natural philosophy and therefore accepted Peregrinus and the prevailing view of JJ Thompons ratio as a negative particle .
While research into magnetic behaviour continues, all the focus was on the electric power, the dynamo, the motor, magnetic behaviours following Ampere were deemed to be a mode of electrical behaviour, a mode of the dielectric.
Thus the electron stole the limelight from the individual magnetic atom, and later their utility was denied and their existence all but extinguished.
Like Gilbert, to understand magnetic behaviours you need to kep collecting and observing them in all experimental setting.
Ekhardt brings new overlooked phenomna to light, and though we now know oxygen is magnetic , at th time few observed or tested more rigorously than hm to uncover th forgotten secrets of magnetism
If so, I would like to order the collection.