# Entry

The principles of vortices are not well understood even today. Yet this crew of amater enthusiasts are doing groundbreaking research! What they have established is that a tornado requires contra forces to exhibit!! This is exactly what Leefskalnin emphasised about hs magnetic substances propagating through space and a wire, and exactly in line with Newton's principles in his third law of motion.

A thought occurred to me that Newton utilised the symmetry of a form to identify the centre of symmetry. This centre was where he had all his third law interactions settling to in order to act on the body. For certain shapes the centre of symmetry lies outside the body proper, thus he had action at a distance from a point in space! He also reduced systems of motion to motion about a balance point often in between the bodies in the moving system, so again action at a distance from a point in free space.mthe question he was asking therefore was how did space do this? Essentially he was questioning how his third law could be demonstrated visibly as working not mathematically by a change of coordinates. The only answer he had was magnetism, but what that was to space he did not know.

Of course Einstein wanted to say it was due to a vortex in the aether, but he could not because there seemed to be know way to demonstrate this static or inertial aether. . So he invented spacetime and used warped spacetime instead, spacetime acting like a vortex. Newtons third law then covers the interaction between spacetime and the massive object.

The behaviour of a real vortex seems to be unstable, but in fact this is a sinusoidal instability due to the filament action of the pressure systems in the vortex. A vortex is a system of trochoidal motions which superpose to form the vortex form. Thus the spinning centre contains a cavity where the motion is almost nil due to the opposing forces, and the sinusoidal like constructive interference, but outside that core cavity the motion is explosive and chaotic, aperiodic and stochastic. The sinuous pressure system draws items in and out in a compression wave, and bounces them round the vortex centre. At a certain distance the pressure system is less violent and less deterministic and objects may move out along a trochoidal trajectory. The direction and spin of the object in this area may not always be determined by the main vortex system.

Leedskalnin saw what he saw and described it accurately. His theory states that the rmagnetic substances will spin out around a wire in here own direction, and we see this in the cloud and skirt behaviours round the base and top of a tornado. When a tornado is powerful, the sinusoidal movement becomes a definit block or funnell of nearly steady dimensions , but the pressure system becomes a compression decompression one up this tornado stem. A compression decompression wave travels up the wall of the tornado like a huge pump sucking up everything in its path. It is extraordinary, but not unique. Thus transmitting so called electric current along a wire only works when this compression wave is established in a wire by alternating the magnetic production and or the phase.

Catt has tried to posit this high powered high frequency state as the normal state of electromagnetic propagation in space or in a wire, and indeed for the regions around stars and in plasmas he has a serious point. But clearly for very much weaker sources the sinusoidal vortex is the best fit.

Because of the compartmentalised thinking, and lack of empirical data, it was never as clear as it is today that an electric spark due to a discharge is a vortex phenomenon. Of course the electromagnetic theory obscures this by successively distancing itself from the active principles of Newton.

I first noticed this while viewing Niehjus attempt to create a vortex. The vortex strikes were very reminiscent of lightning strikes, the unstable column of a vortex as I pointed out is in fact a sinusoidal phenomenon but a rotary one , not a transverse one. . A similar sinusoidal path is found in most sparks of any length.

The emission of radi frequency and microwave signals confirms the vorticular nature of the source.

Using a Leyden jar makes it clear that opposite forces are involved and this was also demonstrated to be the case in vortex tube formation.

Newton.s third law along with his active principles and resolution of forces into centrifugal, centripetal, circular and tangential enable this vorticular process to be modelled.

For Newton, the source of these effects would have been magnetism, as that was the prevailing theory, which included Electra phenomenon. That they were distinct was not and is not obvious.mthere is a difference, but no clear dividing line except that one seemed to reveal itself in metals, the other in amorphous and crystalline materials.

Ed Leedskalnin put forward the theory that magnetic substances or magnetrons as i shall call the particle in analogy to electrons, were responsible for magnetism and these combined to form magnets with poles. But also the dynamic motion of these magnetrons were what we call electricity, and this dynamic motion was contra vorticular.

This is a precise mirror of the electron theory as it stands today except of course Leedskalnin proposed it before electron spin was found to make the electron concept into a magnetic dipole ( conveniently).

Because scientists could not get a particle concept that only interacted with the magnetic poles like a single pole, they declared magnetrons as none existent. Of course they were allowed to have there electron!

The concepts need to be reevaluated from the ground up, as the tautologies involved have been used to hide plainly observable effects. The dual magnetron theory Leedskalnin suggested was the same as the dual electron proton Henry. But now positrons are admissible there is a possibility that magnetrons may be consistent with an electron positron pair. For most scientists this is called anti matter, but this is a nonsense created by some emotionally disturbed scientists, which Don Hotson explains quite well in the Dirac Fiasco.

Can a Leyden jar be charged by a magnet?

When charging a Leyden jar one side has to be connected to earth. This is short hand to mean that the build up of so called charge has to be allowed to move through a conductor off the jar on one side. This allows the so called charging side to drain off the opposite charge from the jar.

Ed Leedskanlin shows any one how to do "exactly" the same thing to "charge" a magnet. You bring a charged magnet to one end of a soft iron bar and then use another magnet with the opposite charge to draw off the magnetrons on the other end. You only need to briefly touch that end to establish a permanent magnet. This is very similar if not identical to just briefly touching the oppositely charged side of a Leyden jar to make a "charged" object. Hence my question: can a magnet charge a Leyden jar?