Entry

I cannot believe how delightfully expressed is Leedskalnins theory of magnetic currents! The site owner Matt emery has put his own spin on it taking the language of the detractors and transforming it with a bit of his own mystification. The nort individual magnet is a clear enough source description or label for a particle of substance and a free standing contra substance called a south individual magnet completes the source description. He then lays down some behavioural rules and Voila you have to opposing currents that run against each other. However they do not collide and pit themselves against each other , they glide past each other in a helical or vorticular path. A few more rules define the extent of this gliding and how they may come to form dipoles.

Now if the exactness and similarity to electric or electron theory is not obvious then one should divest the proton of it bulk as all theorists do and consider just the point electron and proton charge. Then appreciate that electric theory posits a field to provide the motion which Leedskalnin does away with by giving the particles there own rule bound motions. For a long time the electron was stuck to the proton in electric theory. But then Rutherford and Bohr proposed that the electron had its own motion about the proton. No mention was ever made of the motion of the proton.mthe electic theory was anti symmetric and hid the perpetual motion of all proposed particles, requiring a motive field to move electrons in a current along a wire or to displace them in an insulator.

The field is inherent in the motion of Leedskalnins 2 types of individual magnets.

Nw to call them mono poles is to misrepresent Leedskalnin's source behavioural descriptors. These magnets are particles that move in a specific way . That they are magnets implies only that they possess attractive and repulsive laws but no so called poles. Poles only arise in a dipole situation.

The difficulty for most is the word pole or polar.mthis word is a descriptor of a spaciometric alignment in which 2 regions maintain there distinctness while being connected. Thus a circular rigid disc has 2 poles usually thought of as hemi peripheries or the 2 semi circles. From this you may deduce that 2 sides of a p
Sheet of paper are poles.

When an object spins on its polar axis this is a further rule of motion using poles to describe a motion. A polar axis may further spin around a central point of rotation. A pole therefore does not imply magnetism, it is a spatial disposition. The magnetic substance has to behave relative the contra substance in a certain rule bound way to be called magnetic, so the term magnet is derived from this set of behavioural rules rather than from a pole or a substance. Because of this , it leaves the two substances as tautologically linked and binarily determined . This is the notion of entanglement. So once you determine one particle it's contra is instantly and consciously determined no matter where it is in the universe. We do not commonly call entanglement a property of magnetic substances, but nevertheless it is.

These remarkable properties are less remarkable if one does nt naively take them to be real. They are the inevitable consequence of the tautological definitions at the heart of all descriptive theories. In this sense Leedskalnin incorporated entanglement in his theory before the electron theory promulgated there's. Several other insights can be claimed to be in Eds theoretical construction, but they are there by tautological default rather thn hidden distinction.

Today many pick on a property or attribute, defie it hypothetically and uncritically from the point of view of ontological tautology, discover its rules and then claim it to be real by some sophisticated experimental data analysis. The theorising of Leefskalnin is both natural and obvious. It is the obscure mathematical terminology that creates the barriers between simply understood observables and statistically significant repetitions. Leedskalnins to substances do not compress being too small for that but they do concentrate and dissipate, meaning they inhabit volume in varying quantities we call a density distribution.

Magnetic substance is distinguishable only if the rules are obeyed that we use to label a substance magnetic. Thus the term merely labels substance that complies with certain rules.

The use of the term perpetual has come to be a perkorative in physics, just like aether and monopole! And yet all physicists will happily posit aperpetually spinning ele torn and proton as fundamental to physics. This game of mudslinging is disgraceful and shows science to be disreputable. Ah, but it was ever thus!

Leedskalnins magnetic currents therefore are perpetual helical motions of 2 contra substances that flow in a particular way in all matter, but especially metals. We may happily replace these 2 substances by 2 plasmas and gain the same insights.

The way Leedskalnin talks of the 2 magnetic substances is the way one would like to talk about magnetic flux, but you are not allowed to. The reason why is that kind of talk leads to questioning the electric current model, and that just won't do, old boy!
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=568381
Leedskalnin takes a substance and it's behaviour as a magnetic current, the abstract flux lines are a fundamental deceit. These are not lines of force but lines of dipole orientation. The lines of force radiate from 2 imaginary centres called the poles. The density of the radial line near these imaginary poles represent a pressure contour. The pressure contour or surface in 3d is used to quantify the lines of force, and this is called the flux.

Hang on a minute? Can we see these lines of force? No! So how do we calculate the flux again? Flux knows!
The convolutions that have to be gone through hide the strangeness of the electric model in relation to magnetism. The rabbit hole goes

I also cannot believe how this image demonstrates his theory so elegantly. These 2 curled magnets made of steel fish line in a powerful 20 pound force weight U magnet are hung in alignment along the nort south line with the nort end of the fish line Manet hanging down on the north side and the south end of another fish line magnet hanging down on the south side 3 inches apart. He then brings up symmetrically a 4 inch bar magnet and gets this force reaction. As he explains this demonstrates his magnetic current theory. From now on 2 currents and 2 forces have to be realised!

This curved fish wire magnet now comes to symbolise his magnetic currents.

Everything falls into place.mthese magnetised fish wires are magnets. They are magnetic currents and can be easily bent to follow the iron filing patterns around a bar magnet. When this is done and the connect to the bar magnet they trace out a continuous mane tic current loop. Along this loop 2 contra magnetic substances flow. This is a permanent and perpetual magnetic current loop.

Now imagine all the other lines of iron filings around a magnet. Make a magnetic fish wire bent into shape for each of them. Suddenly you have a magnetosphere of permanent current loops all around this one bar magnet all in perpetual magnetic current loops. The small bar magnet suddenly seems able to support a large trace work or cage work of magnetic currents. What is the effect of all these loops ? Where is the electric description? Do we need an electron or an electric current in a wire that is aligned to a magnetic dipole trace field? Is a dipole a bivector ? Or it's something more dynamic, the entry and exit position of alignment in a permanent magnetic field for a perpetual contra flow of 2 magnetic currents of some substance?
I have not read Gilbert or Faraday on Magnetism, or Boyle and Faraday on electro dynamics. You can safely bet that Leedskalnln had read all of them and others. He was pragmatic and precise. Consequently it is no surprise that using an electrolytic battery was further demonstration of the 2 contra current theory, and not just direct current of smoothly moving electrons it was madly whirling and opposing current

In a car battery the North Pole magnets run out of positive terminal and South Pole magnets run out of negative terminal. Both kinds of magnets are running, one kind of magnets against the other kind, and are running in the same right-hand screw fashion. By using the same whirling motion and running one kind of magnets against the other kind, they throw their own magnets from the wire in opposite directions. That is why if you put a magnet metal across the copper wire the one end is North Pole and the other end South Pole.

The whirling and sliding by threw off some magnetic current in opposite and right angled tangential directions.

Ed's identification of electric current with his dual contra magnetic currents is the rosetta stone. We can talk about this phenomenon in 2 languages. Of the 2 Leedskalnins seems to be the most user friendly, and seems to avoid that "shocked" appearance Einstein had(the long haired men!) wheneer his theory predicted anything correctly! Einstein is not a fraud, but he is a plagiarist. Like Gibbs he robbed European theory and dished it up in his own way. Sometimes he got it right , sometimes he got it wrong. To say that the Aether theorists in Europe got it all right is to be naive too. This period was a tremendous time of social, technological, industrial and scientific upheaval with a new theory coming out every year it seemed, Few had the capacity to cover the whole field, and the academic structures did not encourage this. Only a few Polymaths have ever been given that Academic power since Aristotle! What we get taught is partial, eclectic, whimsical and as much mythological as any classics degree! The modern myths resist change even in the face of empirical evidence. This has always been the case. It is an individuals responsibility to inform themselves, and when you find the stories you hold so dear as truth are in fact myths, versions of the events and observations correct yourself, but do not expect to be welcomed with open arms!

the beauty of todays electronic freedoms, for me, is the room to express my individual take on things in the common tongue. I do not need to invent some Da Vincian code to write down what i empirically observe because who cares about that except me? Some may also stumble on my musings and go away validated and consoled. But mostly what i write is to dump my ceasless thoughts sometimes beautifully and artisitcally, sometimes crudely so i can move on in my life and not feel stuck.
`if ever i folloed the principles i discovered pragmatically and made a technological marvel, i would use it for myself and family, who are the first ones to think i am crazy anyway! The danger then becomes thieves and robbers who would want to use my technology for gain and coercion. If we think that this is not so, and that the west or the east is just, look again! I may think everyone has access to food water and shelter, but this is not the case. We are so enured in the western capital system that its old name Mammon is forgotten. We try to get Mammon to do good, but it only exploits.So then what about a capricious God or gods? They seem to do their own thing too! All i can do is go with the flow of the higher power!What the effect on my personal individual life might be i cannot predict beyond a certain pattern, but i can philosophise and pragmatise and utilise and enjoy and do as little harm as individually possible, even if collectively the great whale i am riding ploughs ceaselessly through the troubled seas scattering others this way and that! There is always a greater power that humbles those powers below. The universe is fractally structured.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s