Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:16 pm

antosarai wrote:Does the Nile not begin in the Southern hemisphere?

It flows from the south but not, I think, the southern hem.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Unread postby MerLynn » Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:36 pm

Michael.
The Aether is a subject that is very difficult to define with 'proof'.
I will state we have devices built to 'infuse' Aether energy into a fluid traveling through a pipe. But its to highly controversial to even give a demo on. It sits on the loft gathering dust.
With our, everything into water and everything comes out of water, 3 or more electrode devices, some are built to 'utilize' the Aether so I offer the following as the only theoretical explanation of the Aether that in time will become "law".

Matter, energy and even 'field forces' are constructed of 'pyramidal' energy structures of light or plasma. (see Keshes "structure of light" even though we published 10 years before Keshe.... its the same)

These plasma bars or light bars are like tiny lego pieces. There is NO other atomic structure that explains Water into Oil with just the addition of DC. Or the impurities in water disappearing. (again still a subject of dispute here but give us time and when the initial ridicule is over, and then rejection subsides, you all will finally except it as self evident. the 3 phases of human nature)

Well to give a size of the plasma bars of light, many billions of them would make up a theoretical 'electron'.
So 'matter' (elements and compounds) are made from these plasma bars as conglomerates of 4 sided pyramids made from 6 plasma bars in a Magnetic Reasonant Field Pattern.

THE AETHER is comprised or likened to the 'fabric of space' upon which these plasma conglomerates move or rest upon. The Aether is made from these EXACT same plasma bars but in a CUBICAL format. Much like a tapestry upon which the threads form a pattern.

So Aether utilizing devices allows "matter plasma conglomerates" to merge with the plasma structure of the Aether.

We demonstrate this by the effects of what it dos to matter, for example.
We have bottles of Water (well yes everything is water remember) that are completely sealed and some of them slowly empty while others slowly fill all the whilst not being opened.......

I hate to say it Michael... all everyone else has is well just words and theories...........

Given matter is energy plasma, it actually explains where magnets get their energy from and why spinning them at power stations transmits along wires huge amounts of magnetic current.

If you want over unity or energy from the Aether without spinning them, you need to understand this Aether/Plasma Universe.

This entire forum cant get past two electrodes and silly bond equations much less energy from the Aether.

I could go into the "why Planets dont get bigger" thread, and explain it as a magnetic structure sitting on the Aether. Any excess Plasma energy from the Sun can go back into the Aether allowing the planet to maintain its Field Pattern and position id space relative to other plasma balls.

But first we gotta gt the whole world doing multi electrode water experiments as its visibly evident of the two way flow of the current. Just like Leedskalin says.
MerLynn
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:28 am
Location: Land of OZ

Re: Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Unread postby Michael Anteski » Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:27 am

The ether Model I use differs from your concept of what the ether would have to consist of.

I'll confine myself to the first question you raised, of how can an ether be "proven," and focus on how physics looks at that question.

Classical physicists, including Isaac Newton, all believed an ether had to exist for there to be transmission of forces.

Physics discarded the concept of a universal ether after the famous series of experiments by Michelson and others, dating to the late 1800s and first half of the 1900s. Those experiments used measurements of the behavior of light under various experimental conditions. -I believe those experiments, and the consequent dismissal of the ether by physics, were based on false assumptions of how all possible types of ether would necessarily have to affect the behavior of light. Those investigators assumed that any possible kind of ether would have to be acting as a medium for transmitting light.

However, in my ether Model, the energy units transmitting light, and every other form of energy in our world, are basically composed of elemental ether units. Photons are the (larger, or quantum) units of light transmissions that we are able to detect and measure), but my Model of Ether would have it that photons in turn are composed of smaller, elemental, etheric building blocks.

That would mean that ether is a fundamental part-and-parcel of light transmissions, and would not serve as a medium for light transmission, as was assumed by those earlier experimenters, on the basis of whose experiments physics still rejects the idea of an ether.
Michael Anteski
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Unread postby willendure » Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:27 am

Michael Anteski wrote:Physics discarded the concept of a universal ether after the famous series of experiments by Michelson and others, dating to the late 1800s and first half of the 1900s. Those experiments used measurements of the behavior of light under various experimental conditions. -I believe those experiments, and the consequent dismissal of the ether by physics, were based on false assumptions of how all possible types of ether would necessarily have to affect the behavior of light.


If you are interested in this subject you should definitely read through the 'Albert Einstein and the speed of light' thread. There is plenty of reason to question the dismissal of the idea of an ether, and you do not even have to use physics that is not accepted by the mainstream to make the case.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16542&start=90
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Unread postby Michael Anteski » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:06 am

The brief explanation I gave, for why the old experiments by Michelson and others used a false assumption that their measurements of the behavior of light would cover all the possible types of ether that could exist, was slightly oversimplified.

Those experiments remain important, because mainstream physics still clings to the belief, that the negative results for ether they appeared to show, is still the final word and that they "prove" an ether does not exist..

The rather brief explanation I gave, in my ether-model (for why the assumptions made by those experimenters about how an ether would act as a medium for the transmission of the light) was slightly oversimplified. -In my ether model, the main reason those experiments were wrong in assuming that if an ether exists, it would be the medium for transmitting light, is false, because if, as in my ether model, the ether consists of elemental units that serve as the building blocks of photons and other quantum units, then the ether would be a fundamental part-and-parcel of light transmissions, rather than simply a "medium" for transmitting light.

However, even in an ether model like mine, an ether would also serve as a medium for transmitting light (in addition to being the fundamental component of light) because the quantum photons we (being quantum-structured physical beings) observe as visible light, are much larger than the elemental ether units which are serving as the underlying matrix that the photons are in, so in that sense, the ether is a medium for the light beams as we observe them. But, again, the main point is that ether units are the main underlying building-block components of the photons of the light beams.

So I contend those experiments that physics still relies on to dismiss the ether were based on a key false assumption about the nature of ether.
Michael Anteski
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Unread postby willendure » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:55 am

Michael Anteski wrote:In my ether model, the main reason those experiments were wrong in assuming that if an ether exists, it would be the medium for transmitting light, is false, because if, as in my ether model, the ether consists of elemental units that serve as the building blocks of photons and other quantum units, then the ether would be a fundamental part-and-parcel of light transmissions, rather than simply a "medium" for transmitting light.


Right... so you claim that everything is made of ether but the ether is at such a fundamental level in the order of things that we cannot detect it. Which means that your ether is like the existence of god; we have to take it on faith.

Michelson-Morley did detect ether drift, just at ~20km/s rather than the ~600km/s we think the Earth is moving wrt the 'fixed stars'. This was small enough that it was taken as a zero result.

More recent experiments conducted in a vacuum show a closer to zero result.

RT Cahill thinks we simply did not apply the Lorentz transformation correctly, and that if we did we would see that no interferometer experiment in a vacuum should detect the ether drift. But an experiment in a medium where light moves more slowly than in a vacuum, like air, will detect it.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0209013.pdf
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Unread postby kevin » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:24 pm

To detect the aether( consciousness) requires a living entity to achieve this.
All experiments currently applied are with dead( at rest materials).
Currently science doesn't accept a living entities information, thus it is akin to been blind.

Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Unread postby Michael Anteski » Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:50 am

willendure wrote:
Michael Anteski wrote:In my ether model, the main reason those experiments were wrong in assuming that if an ether exists, it would be the medium for transmitting light, is false, because if, as in my ether model, the ether consists of elemental units that serve as the building blocks of photons and other quantum units, then the ether would be a fundamental part-and-parcel of light transmissions, rather than simply a "medium" for transmitting light.


Right... so you claim that everything is made of ether but the ether is at such a fundamental level in the order of things that we cannot detect it. Which means that your ether is like the existence of god; we have to take it on faith.

Michelson-Morley did detect ether drift, just at ~20km/s rather than the ~600km/s we think the Earth is moving wrt the 'fixed stars'. This was small enough that it was taken as a zero result.

More recent experiments conducted in a vacuum show a closer to zero result.

RT Cahill thinks we simply did not apply the Lorentz transformation correctly, and that if we did we would see that no interferometer experiment in a vacuum should detect the ether drift. But an experiment in a medium where light moves more slowly than in a vacuum, like air, will detect it.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0209013.pdf



I think if you look closely at quantum entanglement, you will see that my model of ether is definitely the only possible explanation.

In my model, the background ether matrix provides both (1) a medium for larger energy units, like our observable quantum scale units, to mechanically behave as they do, via mechanisms like spin, waves, and across vectors, and acting via "pathways" through the ether, and (2)as a "matrix," composed of identical elemental units, that interact with each other perfectly-linearly, via a mechanism involving smooth, humming, vibrational-contact-resonances. These resonations of elemental ether units involve the elemental units themselves, and also the larger atomic-scale units, because the larger units have been built up from the elemental units, and thus retain the ability to communicate with them in the ether, in a perfectly linear fashion. The elemental ether units are the only actual participants, in a phenomenon like quantum entanglement.

Thus, the larger quantum/atomic scale units interact with the ether in two ways - (1) mechanically, in a "sea" of smaller ether units acting as the "medium" for the larger units, and (2) resonationally/electrically, as in quantum entanglement, with the elemental building-block components of quantum units resonating with the "free" elemental ether units making up the background matrix - as in quantum entanglement.
Michael Anteski
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Unread postby comingfrom » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:58 pm

I think it is well known, from experimental evidence, that the vast majority of photons (Ed calls them magnets) are in the infrared range.
So most of the aether, or charge field, or electric field, or whatever you call it (quantum matrix?), is made up of infrared photons.
I thought that is why the light spectrum is called the electromagnetic spectrum.
Infrared, visible light, uv, radio waves, and x-rays, are all photons in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Isn't this our aether?
Another way to say it, the aether has an average energy, which happens to be in the infrared range.
And the infrared photons enter into atoms, and are emitted by atoms, which gives atoms their temperature.
Most matter, within the Solar system at least, or matter that we know of, is far from absolute zero.
So the aether keeps us warm, from the insides of our atoms to out.
And we tune the radio to listen to radio waves in the aether.
And our eyes are tuned to the visible wavelength range photons, which are in the aether.

Seems to me to be a matter of terminology, whether we call the individual corpuscles photons or magnets,
and whether we call fields of them the aether, or the electric field.
Seems to me science already does know a lot about our aether.

Of course, I am still trying to comprehend all this myself.
Some things clicked for me when I read Ed's explanation of how certain electrical systems pick up "magnets" from the ambient field.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Unread postby kevin » Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:51 am

comingfrom,

You are perhaps not aware of the electrogravitic spectrum?
polarity and equator.
Two spins about the pole.
viewtopic.php?p=32418

Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Unread postby comingfrom » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:46 pm

Thank you Kevin.

I have heard of electrogravitics, but not the electrogravitic spectrum.

I don't understand the physics behind it, and rereading that thread I can see why.
Terms are used very loosely and no real explanations are given.
The B2 bomber charges it's leading edge... and exhaust.
What does that actually mean?
What is different between a charged leading edge and a non charged leading edge?

They used high voltage electricity to charge it.
What is high voltage electricity?
There is talk about ions, and how they are moved and positioned in the charge field around the aircraft.

There is no talk about how all this connects to gravity.
Do all this high powered electrical stuff, and you generate gravity?

From the thread...

To explain, "electrogravitics" is the science of using high voltage electricity to provide propulsive force to aircraft or spacecraft of certain geometries. Or as Jeane Manning explains, "The apparatus is pulled along by its self-generated gravity field, like a surfer riding a wave."


Right... like a surfer riding a wave.
That is not a very scientific explanation, and most probably is a misdirection.

How about? they are using the charge photons for propulsion.
High voltage is required to pump a lot of aether.
High voltage is already a dense stream of aether, but then they use that to pump larger quantities of dense aether for propulsion.
They have developed another form of electric propulsion, like an ion thruster.

I don't know, I might be wrong.
But I do not believe they are making gravity, and surfing.

I wasn't going to go into this, thinking at first that it was off topic.
But on second thought, this is Ed Leedskalnin's cosmic energy we are talking about here. His ambient field of individual magnets, and that are also used to make magnetism and electricity.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Unread postby kevin » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:08 pm

comingfrom,
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/elgthk.htm

I have been involved with research into TT Brown for the past ten years, his daughter Linda has several forums.
It's akin to dropping into a rabbit hole with Alice.

Gravity is time.
Time is gravity.

I wonder how a five foot Latvian could ever moves some of that corral?
Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:24 am

Thanks Kevin,

but I believe, giving new meanings to words leads to confusion.
You might know what you mean, but others can't know until you explain what you mean.

Gravity is time.
Time is gravity.
Time is duration, and gravity is the acceleration field of a mass,
is their classical meanings.
Explaining how one is the other is going to be some feat.

Naudin proposes 2 hypothesis for the the B-B (Biefield-Brown) effect.

H1: Charged particles under strong electric field generates a new gravitational field around itself
H2: Additional equivalent additional mass due to the electric field is cancelled by negative mass generated by the new field.
The technology actually increases mass, and would add to gravity, but it also generates a new gravity field which generates negative mass. The sum of those additional masses now defying gravity.

The links to the full explanation are dead.
Pity. I really would have liked to read the explanation of negative mass.
That's a new one on me, and appears to be an oxymoron.

Maybe they are making anti-matter
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Unread postby kevin » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:09 am

gravity =time...vary either and you vary the other.
https://divinecosmos.com/start-here/boo ... -vibration

Spin flows are detectable, by living entities.
Spin inwards, spin outwards.
Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Ed Leedskalnin's magnetic currents

Unread postby kevin » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:51 pm

http://www.ttownsendbrown.com/forum/vie ... =51&t=1094

Here's some of my and others musings about Keely.
Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest