The Primer Fields?
- orrery
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: USA
Re: The Primer Fields?
The Primer Fields seems more like David Wilcock's "Source Field's Theory" than anything showing a real understanding of magnetic fields. Some of the posts here would seem to indicate that people don't understand how Permanent Magnets work. The magnetic field of a permanent magnet is a product of the atomic alignment allowing the freeflow of electrons. The magnetic field of the bowl magnet is the result of a moving electric current by the electrons spinning.
TL;DR: Permanent Magnets result from an atomic arrangement allowing electron current to travel through the magnet.
I love Edward Leedsklanin & Walter Russell as much as anyone, but the Primer Fields guy is off his rocker if he thinks "magnetic fields" exist all by themselves. Electromagnetism is one force, not two.
In any case, some of the posters here can be debunked quite easily just by asking "How do Permanent Magnets Work?"
Answer: An electric current produces the magnetic field of a permanent magnet.
TL;DR: Permanent Magnets result from an atomic arrangement allowing electron current to travel through the magnet.
I love Edward Leedsklanin & Walter Russell as much as anyone, but the Primer Fields guy is off his rocker if he thinks "magnetic fields" exist all by themselves. Electromagnetism is one force, not two.
In any case, some of the posters here can be debunked quite easily just by asking "How do Permanent Magnets Work?"
Answer: An electric current produces the magnetic field of a permanent magnet.
"though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla
http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology
http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:41 pm
Re: The Primer Fields?
Then how do you explain the magnetism of an electron for example?Answer: An electric current produces the magnetic field of a permanent magnet
- nick c
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
- Location: connecticut
Re: The Primer Fields?
A moving electron would be an electric current, ie a moving charged particle(s) = an electric current. Therefore one would expect a moving electron to generate a magnetic field...no?Then how do you explain the magnetism of an electron for example?
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:41 pm
Re: The Primer Fields?
So, a static electron won't have any magnetic property?
- nick c
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
- Location: connecticut
Re: The Primer Fields?
I don't know. Motion is relative to something else. Everything is in motion.So, a static electron won't have any magnetic property?
-
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am
Re: The Primer Fields?
Could I offer up the thought that physical mass and matter are not in motion at all?nick c wrote:I don't know. Motion is relative to something else. Everything is in motion.So, a static electron won't have any magnetic property?
It is all merely compressed memory that is switching on/off at superluminal speeds, and the illusion to ourselves who are part of that switching is of a seperateness from space.
What is causing this are the flowing magnetic fields created by ultra high electrical sort of strings of universe.
The real question is what is electricity?????
And I do not mean some made up fantasy words like electrons etc etc, they are made up.
I fully agree that this is an electrical universe, but that does create omni present variable magnetic fields which everything in creation is enabled to REMEMBER to be within it's own local memory field, but before any of that can be identified...WHAT IS ELECTRICITY?????
Kevin
-
- Posts: 3517
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm
Re: The Primer Fields?
There is a thread where That is supposedly answered. All I got from it was knowing less than I thought I did at the beginning. Electricity needs to be redefined.WHAT IS ELECTRICITY?
I now suspect electrical energy to be a result of cascade breakdown, tapping into aether field, controlled by natural restraints of electron. Ireallydonno
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
-
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am
Re: The Primer Fields?
Whats ENERGY??Sparky wrote:There is a thread where That is supposedly answered. All I got from it was knowing less than I thought I did at the beginning. Electricity needs to be redefined.WHAT IS ELECTRICITY?
I now suspect electrical energy to be a result of cascade breakdown, tapping into aether field, controlled by natural restraints of electron. Ireallydonno
It is extremely difficult to break free of the super indoctrinated accepted, and not to become a REPEATER, unfortunately most do fall into the trap of been repeaters, and good little such are given certificates , and they teach more and more repeaters.
Refreshing to hear someone admit they....donnoooo.
kevin
-
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: The Primer Fields?
The answer to Alain's question "So, a static electron won't have any magnetic property?" is yes, a static electron does have a magnetic dipole field. Ampere called the electron a magnetic molecule. Both electron and proton have magnetic dipoles built in. You get a dipole magnetic field free for each monopole electric particle's charge field. Even the neutron has a dipole magnetic field.
When the magnetic dipoles of a group of charges are "jumbled" no magnetic field seems to be present. When the magnetic dipoles are aligned, they add up and the magnetic field becomes apparent. Magnetism is inherent in every subatomic particle. The various "fields" known to physics are not energy, per se. No energy is absorbed or created by existence of the fields surrounding each particle. In a sense, the field(s) is(are) the particle, and in that sense the particle itself is potential energy.
What Is "Electricity?" We will never find a simple answer to the question "what is electricity?" because the question itself is wrong. It is too ambiguous.
When the magnetic dipoles of a group of charges are "jumbled" no magnetic field seems to be present. When the magnetic dipoles are aligned, they add up and the magnetic field becomes apparent. Magnetism is inherent in every subatomic particle. The various "fields" known to physics are not energy, per se. No energy is absorbed or created by existence of the fields surrounding each particle. In a sense, the field(s) is(are) the particle, and in that sense the particle itself is potential energy.
What Is "Electricity?" We will never find a simple answer to the question "what is electricity?" because the question itself is wrong. It is too ambiguous.
Junglelord wrote:"If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe." — Nikola Tesla
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
-
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am
Re: The Primer Fields?
Goldminer,
What is the apparent pressure detectable in the windings when magnetic fields are spun fast?
Kevin
What is the apparent pressure detectable in the windings when magnetic fields are spun fast?
Kevin
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 4:41 pm
Re: The Primer Fields?
To Goldminer,
Then, people who say that a magnetic field is only created by electricity currents are incorrect?
Then, people who say that a magnetic field is only created by electricity currents are incorrect?
-
- Posts: 3517
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm
Re: The Primer Fields?
To add a thought; they may arise from the same process, and support each other. If that is true, then the more precise statement would be, where you find one you find the other.Then, people who say that a magnetic field is only created by electricity currents are incorrect?
If I understand correctly, Michael V's model of aligned electrons, emitting particles that make up the B and E fields, ties it all together.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
-
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: The Primer Fields?
I don' know of any windings in plasma, or electrons. When you speak of "pressure," I suppose you mean "voltage?" It depends upon the number of turns in the windings, and the rpm of the armature relative the stator.kevin wrote:Goldminer,
What is the apparent pressure detectable in the windings when magnetic fields are spun fast?
Kevin
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
-
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: The Primer Fields?
As I pointed out several posts ago, electricity is an ambiguous term. I think that if you study Ampere's original experiments, you will walk away with a superior understanding of the process. Your question is of the "which came first: the chicken or the egg?" variety.alain wrote:To Goldminer,
Then, people who say that a magnetic field is only created by electricity currents are incorrect?
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
-
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: The Primer Fields?
Well said.Sparky wrote:To add a thought; they may arise from the same process, and support each other. If that is true, then the more precise statement would be, where you find one you find the other.Then, people who say that a magnetic field is only created by electricity currents are incorrect?
IMHO, Ampere, in his original experiments, and his analysis of them, did a mighty fine job. Having each atomic particle emit additional, undetectable particles, continuously, does little to increase our knowledge. It is just speculation. Just because atomic particles emit discrete frequencies of radiation for discrete durations of time does not make particles out of the radiation. A discrete frequency of radiation emitted for a discrete duration of time is a pulse of radiation. A pulse of radiation is a wave that acts like a particle.Sparky wrote:If I understand correctly, Michael V's model of aligned electrons, emitting particles that make up the B and E fields, ties it all together.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests