Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

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

Magnetic Universe

Unread postby rangerover777 » Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:35 pm

Good day all,

I read some very interesting posts on this forum, glad I found it.
I would like to introduce Edward Leedskalnin, to who never heard
about him. Ed was born in Latvia (1887), migrate to Florida, built
‘Rock Gate’ and in 1930 moved his creation to Homestead (Florida)
and built ‘Coral Castle’, a real castle made of Coral large rocks (almost
Impossible for one man alone). C.C. was also his laboratory. He published
a few pamphlets about magnetism, together with tests, to validate his theory.
He died in 1951.

Ed’s main lines are :
1. Everything in the universe is made of three things : North poles individual
magnets, South pole individual magnets and the Neutral Particle of Matter.
2. Electricity - made of two currents of N/S magnets running in whirling right
Hand motion, one stream against the other (electricity = magnet city).
“when the Zinc is taking apart by the acid in a battery, no electrons or
protons showing up, only S and N individual magnet”
3. The atom is made of N & S pole magnets and the NPM and now days
drawings are wrong. The atoms in a matter held by N & S magnets.
In a metal magnet, they are the surplus that circulate (not the metal itself).
4. The circulation of magnet bar (for instance) : S pole magnets coming out
ff the S pole, around and enter the N pole, running through the center and
back again coming out of the S pole. Same with the N pole magnets.
5. Earth is like a giant magnet. N pole mags. Coming up from the Northern
Hemisphere and going down in the Southern hemisphere (circulating through
the center.
6. A generator or dynamo “pumping” the N & S pole magnets from the
circulating magnets around the earth.
7. Gravity happen when the Uranium atoms are burst in the middle of the earth
and the N and S mags. Are released, they can go only out. When N & S mags.
run in the same direction, they have no attraction (only when they run against).
When they come out from the middle of the earth they attract everything a head of
them, on the account that every matter if made of N & S individual magnets.
8. Radio waves are not waves; they are North and South pole individual magnets
which are coming out of a transformer of the secondary winding’s coil ends,
one-half going up in the air and the other half in the ground in increasing and
decreasing numbers. The numbers are regulated by the transmitting tube,
and the speed by voltage. The increasing and decreasing magnet numbers cause
the receiver’s antenna to generate a tiny current to start the amplification to reproduce
the original broadcast. The magnets are not running up to the ionosphere and
down again, but are running horizontally until they are lost.
Those magnets which go up to the ionosphere never come back as radio to the receiver,
they only cause the ionosphere’s magnets to come back to Earth as radar waves.
Magnets do not run in the way the radio wave drawings show

9. The magnets operate our body (contract the muscles).
10. All branches of science lack a sound base. Electrical engineers know how to
make and manage electricity, but they do not know what electricity is, and
how it runs in a wire. Without knowing it they have no sound base to stand on.
11. Physicists are using one sided equipment to chase the non existing protons and electrons,
but are neglecting the North and South pole magnets, which are the base of everything
12. Geologists do not know what gravitation is, and what causes earthquakes and mountains.
Perpetual transformation is going on with this Earth all the time. When atoms burst in the
middle if the Earth, the magnets are running out from the middle, and so cause gravitation by
attracting the matter that is in front of them, and when many magnets have come out, then
there will be contraction that will cause earthquakes and mountains.
13. Astronomers do not know what causes seasons. All planets and the sun have magnet poles.
The magnet poles are pulling and pushing the Earth in axis way. The Earth’s summer end is
always a stronger magnet pole than the winter end, and that causes the Earth to slide axis
way and make the seasons.

This is just a taste of much more interesting and ideas. Ed left many experiments to backup
his ideas. You just need much integrity and consistency to do them all. That’s why very few
validated his theory…

Enjoy.
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Magnetic Universe

Unread postby MGmirkin » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:10 pm

Sounds similar to, yet different from Sansbury's interpretation. Though Sansbury had it more along the lines that elementary particles' magnetic fields had to do with the arrangement of charges therein. And the dipoles of atoms had to do again with the arrangement of elementary particles, and how they formed specific deformable configurations.

I don't know quite all the details of it, but I think that Wal Thornhill bases some portion of his work off of Sansbury (possibly with some modifications).

I don't know if I necessarily put stock in the idea of tiny magnets flying around in addition to charged particles. I tend to favor something more like a circuit or gross motion model of magnetic fields. IE, the charged particles have similar orientation and move in lock-step in the same orbital motions in things like permanent magnets (IE electrons get into lock-step with electrons from other atoms, and they all tend to move in very similar directions at the same times, essentially forming very tight individual circuits, but having the same gross parallel motions over a larger volume; as opposed to all flowing over larger distances but in a more confined space, if that makes any sense), or else they flow together in electrical circuits?

I probably didn't explain that very well...?

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Magnetic Universe

Unread postby Solar » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:08 pm

Edward Leedskalnin left quite the enigma. I had some of his writings but have misplaced them. Because of his use of language (originally from Latvia) one has to put a little effort into understanding what few writings he left behind. I don't believe his "sweet sixteen" had anything at all to do with the young lady.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Magnetic Universe

Unread postby rangerover777 » Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:52 pm

What makes Ed’s theory so real, is how he explain so many phenomenas
with three basic elements, especially electricity & electrons (that he claimed
they invented by Thomson) :

“ELECTRONS, Millions of people all over the world are being fooled by the non-existing electrons.
Here is how the electrons came into existence. Thomson invented an imaginary baby and called it an electron. Rutherford adopted it and now the men with the long hair are nursing it. The electron has a
brother and its name is proton, but it is heavy and lazy. It remains stationary in the middle, but the
electron has to run around it. To the electrical engineers the positive electricity is everything,
the negative electricity is nothing, but to the physicists the negative electricity is everything, and the
positive electricity is nothing. Looking from a neutral standpoint they cancel each other, so we have no electricity, but we have something“.

Also his simplicity and straight forward tests are compelling :
“We have North and South pole magnets, positive and negative electricity, protons, and electrons,
positrons and mesons and alpha, beta and gamma rays. Now why such a confusion? Does nature really need so many things in the perpetual transformation of things, on building up the matter and again
taking it into parts? I think all that nature needs is three things, the North and South pole magnets
and the neutral particles.

Each kind of those three things can act differently with different speed and different combinations, and so they can accomplish different results. I believe the prospective physicists first should learn what magnets and electricity are, then they will have a sound base for their experiments and their calculations“.

The great absurd that no one understand / accept / call it a mystery, is because no one really went
step by step through his tests and found at least the end of the rope…

For some good info about him go to http://www.leedskalnin.net
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Unread postby bboyer » Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:36 pm

I'm going to back-peddle a bit on my view of a "magnetic monopole." After reading Sansbury's take on it (below) I can see better, I think, what perhaps both he and Leedskalnin were driving at in that maybe the orthodox view of the inherent difference between the "electro" and the "magnetic" components is not warranted. Even though I'm only getting a fraction of what he's talking about thus far. But it's an interesting excerpt from a 2002 Usenet newsgroup thread.

Ralph Sansbury wrote:Why Magnetic Monopole Has Not Been Found

ralph sansbury
Nov 20 2002, 3:31 pm

The obvious analogy between electrostatic dipoles and magnetic dipoles has led physicists on a century long search for a single magnetic pole without result. The underlying significance of the analogy probably lies elsewhere. For example: The similarity between the magnetic force between current carrying segments of wire as formulated by Ampere and the electrostatic force between imaginary electrostatic dipoles transverse to these wire segments, ds and ds' can be expressed as follows:

F=(2)(9)(10^9)/((rc)^2)(ids sinaacosb)(i'ds'sina') - (1/2)(ids cosa)(i'ds'cosa'))

G=(3)(9)(10^9)/r^4)(-(pds cosaa cosb)(p'ds'cosa') + 2(p ds sinaa)(p'ds'sina'))

Consider the examples of parallel current segments(collinear dipoles) and collinear current elements(parallel dipoles) Fr = + 3p1p2/4(pi)(etasubzero)r^4

Fr = -6p1p2/4(pi)(etasubzero)r^4

The forces F and G are equivalent except for the placement of the factor "cosb" if p=ri/c* and p'=ri'/c* where c* = (3^1/2)c where c denotes the velocity of light and the currents are denoted i and i'.. It may be that the square root of three factor is related to the fact that we have ignored the equal transverse dipole component perpendicular to the other transverse dipole component we first considered. But it is clear from a glance at the diagrams of these forces that in summation over a complete circuit, the cosb factor must be sometimes positive and sometimes negative and these quantities must add up to zero. In the language of vector calculus used in texts on electromagnetism, the curls of F and G are equal although their divergences and gauges may be different. We should note also that the dipoles p and p' increase with r consistent with observations of magnetoresistance. Later we show that another representation of the dipoles similar in this respect and that gives the same pair-wise ponderomotive force is preferable; that is p=ri^2/i'c* and p'=((i')^2)(r)/ic*. However to make the analysis easier to understand we will use initially the simpler representation. Consider the case of two parallel vertical wires and the transverse force per unit charge from one wire on the second. Here and in other references to the transverse force component we shall mean along a line drawn between parallel vertical current carrying wires. The other transverse component is perpendicular both to the longitudinal current and to the first transverse component; both components are of equal magnitude. The transverse force of one wire on the other may make the transverse dipole more longitudinal and less transverse according to a process described later. This may reduce the effective size of the transverse dipole in the second wire produced by a given emf field E. Hence the magnetic effect is reduced for a specified voltage V=Ed, where d denotes the distance between any two points along a current carrying wire for which we want to know the voltage. The voltage is the sustained potential difference between these points due to the resistance in the wire. Similarly for the effect of the second wire on the first. We should note that as r and so rv/c* increases for a specified emf the current flow and, v, the subsequent velocity in the direction of current or electron flow of charge e=(1.6)10^-19 Coulombs and mass m=(9.1)10^-31kg. must decrease as a consequence of a reduced time between collisions and so that rv/c* where neAv=i does not increase beyond the distance between lattice ions which is approximately one Angstrom (10^-10meters). Note nevA is the amount of charge flowing per sec through a cross section area, A, of a wire and the dipole, associated with a cross section of diameter equal to the wire diameter and width equal to the distance between atoms, one Angstrom, and denoted ds, is (r)(nevA)ds/c*; n of course denotes the density or number of free electrons per meter cubed in mks units. Suppose that the dipole inside each nucleus and free electron was of length rv/c* and charge e then nAds is the number of such nuclei and free electrons contributing to the total dipole associated with the current segment ds. This seems at first strange. Over typical values of current and voltage, and for what amounts to a standard distance between current carrying wires when their ponderomotive forces are measured by what is called an galvanometer or ammeter, current is proportional to voltage; also the time between thermal collisions is constant for a range of temperatures. We will discuss this problem later as well as the problem of unique dipoles associated with segments of current when different pairwise forces between three or more current segments occur. To see that the combined forces of many small electrostatic dipoles in 1) two parallel fairly closely spaced wires and 2) two parallel pairs of oppositely charged surfaces separated by a thin dielectric or 3) one such composite pair of charged surfaces and a current carrying wire, can produce a measureable, ponderomotive force we will consider a quantitatative example. Consider a current element, ds, along the direct current carrying conductor of length,s. We project the electrostatic dipole pds=rids/(3^1/2)(c) to obtain, p sina ds, and on a perpendicular to r to get, p cosa ds. We define in the angle between the electrostatic dipole Pds' at point R and the extension of the line r as 90-a' where a' = a. Then the force between the electrostatic dipoles Pds' and pds along r projected on D and integrated over ds is the integral over ds of [( (3)(9)10^9)(dl)(-pP(cosa)^2+2pP(sina)^2 sina]ds Since(r)(-da)=ds sina so ds=(r/sina)da , we can write this as the integral over da of [2(9)(10^9)(3ds) ((sin2a - (1/2)cos2a) (ri/(3^1/2))c)P/r^3]da Since rsina=D, we can write this integral and integrate over possible values of , a, from zero to 90 degrees

2K((sina)^2 -(1/2)(cosa)^2)((sina)^2)da/D^2 = 1.96(9)(10^9)(i/(3^1/2)c)Pds'/D^2=F

The dipole-per-meter length here is P = Qd = CVd = ((1.1)(10^-11)(A)/ d)(V)(d) This seems to account for one of the experiments previously mentioned involving measurements of small attractive forces about 10^(-7to -5) Newtons, between uncharged current carrying wires(900Amps to 25Amps) and a charged cm^2 foil(2kV) and in another experiment, two oppositely charged foils separated by a thin, eg 1mm dielectric(.42kV). The attraction appeared to increase with increasing currents in one direction contrary to the accepted theory that the magnetic force of current carrying wires was independent of the electrostatic force of charged conductors (Note that induced oppositely directed currents cause repulsion).

According to the received wisdom, there should be no force between a charged object and a current carrying wire except that caused by electrostatic or electromagnetic induction. This is essentially the theory of magnetism formulated by Ampere, Biot, Savart, Faraday and others. I carried out a number of experiments that seemed to show that this is not the case; that the electromagnetic force might be a form of electrostatic force. The experiments involved measurements of forces between uncharged current carrying wires and charged pieces of metal, for example oppositely charged metallic surfaces separated by a dielectric. The forces appeared to increase with increasing currents and to reverse direction with a reversal of the direction of the current contrary to the accepted theory that the magnetic force of current carrying wires was independent of the electrostatic force of charged conductors. These effects are not easy to detect because as the current in a wire is turned on, a momentary current is induced in the nearby small square piece of metal even with slits cut in it to minimize this effect, and so there occurs a brief weak magnetic repulsion between the wire and the piece of metal independent of the direction of the current. Also the charged piece of metal induces charge displacement in the wire and so the resulting constant stronger attraction increases as the separation, between the piece of metal and the wire, is reduced. But small observed repulsions occurred in spite of such attraction producing inductions when the current was moving in one direction. The experiments involved measurements of small repelling and attractive forces, about 10-7to-5 Newtons, between uncharged current carrying wires ( 900Amps to 25Amps) and a charged cm2 foil carrying a charge of 2kV. In another experiment an Ampere Balance in modified form was used. The Ampere Balance was obtained from Cenco, a Chicago supplier of laboratory demonstrations for schools. The Ampere Balance consists of a horizontal wire about one cm in diameter and 30cm long fixed between two dielectric (plastic) supports and connected to a dc power source. Above this current carrying wire is another wire of the same length forming one side of a three sided square wire circuit. The fourth side of the square is a dielectric two by four piece also 30cm long whose ends were metal triangular prisms. The blade end of each prism rested on a metal step carved into a metal post about 3cm high. So the fourth side of the square and the U shaped wire circuit could pivot back and forth; weights could also be attached to the opposite side of the dielectric bar so as to position the base of the U at a desired position above the straight wire. When currents were passed through both wires the movement of U shaped piece upward or downward showed the Amperian force between current carrying wires. By replacing the U shaped wire with thin wooden dowels glued together to produce the same shape and by attaching to the base of the U a pair of thin copper strips separated by a 1mm thick dielectric tape whose long edge faced the equally long straight wire it was possible to test for the existence of a force between a current carrying wire and an electrostatic dipole. That is when the copper strips were charged say to a potential difference of .42 kV we formed a chain of dipoles in the horizontal plane and parallel perhaps to transverse dipoles in the current carrying wire below them. The hypothesis that currents produce electrostatic dipoles transverse to the currents is discussed in detail below The vertical 1 mg attraction/repulsion of the two sets of parallel/antiparallel dipoles was easily observed. Note that the horizontal torque due to the interaction of the potential difference along the current carrying wire and the chain of dipoles was not possible to observe given the experimental design implemented here. The observed forces appeared to increase with increasing currents contrary to the accepted theory that the magnetic force of current carrying wires is independent of the electrostatic force of charged conductors.

The hypothesis was proposed that the magnetic force was ultimately an electrostatic force between electrostatic dipoles inside the atomic nuclei and free electrons of the conductors and transverse to the currents. The dipoles are produced by subnuclear and/or subelectronic elliptical orbital systems; specifically by the displacement of the average centers of negative and positive charge inside these systems.The magnitude of the dipoles appears to increase with the distance, r, between any two of a pair of dipoles and decreases as the relative size of the other dipole in the pair considered, increased. Because the dipoles are not produced by the relative displacement of free electrons and the positive atomic ions and because they are so small and so numerous, all with a common orientation, electrostatic shielding does not shield against this proposed cause of the magnetic force. Hence their effect on a nearby conductive piece of metal that is not carrying current is less to pull or push the free electrons in the metal toward one side but to attract or repel equally the similarly oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the nuclei and free electrons of a parallel current carrying conductor on the other side of the conductive piece of metal. To see why this is really not so surprising consider two oppositely charged metallic surfaces on opposite sides of a thin narrow strip of plastic tape. Suppose the distance between the charged surfaces of the strip is smaller than the distance between the strip, lying horizontally, and a parallel current carrying wire suspended above it, by a factor of approximately three or more, then the charge of these surfaces interacts-according to Coulomb's law- about ten times less strongly with the free electrons in the parallel current carrying wire than it would if the distance between the charged surfaces was the same as that between the current carrying wire and the nearer charged surface. That is, pairs of charged surfaces interact as dipoles with other electrostatic dipoles that may be assumed to exist within the nuclei and free electrons of the parallel current carrying wire. When the oppositely charged surfaces are very close to one another, interaction between the linear array of electrostatic dipoles thus formed and a free electron in the wire carrying current can be less than the force between the total electrostatic dipole of the array and an electrostatic dipole inside the free electron or inside the nucleus of the current carrying wire. The reason is that any displacement of a free electron in the current carrying wire not in the direction of the sustained potential difference is opposed by pushes from a greater local density of free electrons produced by the selfsame displacement and by pulls from the greater local density of positive charge produced by the same displacement of free electrons. This does not happen of course when an electrostatic dipole in one conductor acts on a colinear line of electrostatic dipoles inside the nuclei and free electrons of a parallel conductor. The two parallel conductors then repel each other or attract each other. That is, this action whether a push or a pull acts on the electrostatic dipoles inside the nuclei in the same direction as it acts on the electrostatic dipoles in the free electrons which thus tend to move together. It turns out that the similarity between the magnetic force in Ampere's general formulation and the force of electrostatic dipoles can be made into an identity if these dipoles transverse to current elements expand as the distance between the current elements increases. A reason for this to occur is that the transverse field of the dipole say in one current element interferes with the production of the dipole in a parallel current element by the longitudinal field causing the current.

Why Magnetic Monopole Has Not Been Found


ralph sansbury
Nov 20 2002, 3:50 pm

I guess you are referring to the negative result as stated
recently:

"NEW LIMITS ON THE MASS OF MAGNETIC MONOPOLES have been
established in an experiment at Fermilab.( No evidence for the
monopole itself but new constraints on what its mass must be if
it does exist: at least 600 GeV if the monopole is a spin-0
particle and 900 GeV if its spin is 1/2.)

The equations written down by James Clerk Maxwell in the
19th century are not symmetric with respect to electric and
magnetic forces. They can be made symmetric if there exists a
magnetic monopole, a particle, comparable to the electron, with
an isolated north or south magnetic pole (all known magnets are
dipoles, possessing both south and north poles)
."


The point is that the reason for the lack of symmetry is that
the magnetic force and its dipole characteristics are derived
from the fact that the magnetic force can be ascribed to the
observed poles of the electric dipole
.

As explained in the above post and in
<link no longer valid>

"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message


news:3DDC0069.F6891CA8@mchsi.com...

> See:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Magne ... org+update

__________________________________________________________________

Richard
Nov 20 2002, 10:13 pm

Subject: Re: Why Magnetic Monopole Has Not Been Found

ralph sansbury wrote:

> I guess you are referring to the negative result as stated
> recently:
> "NEW LIMITS ON THE MASS OF MAGNETIC MONOPOLES have been
> established in an experiment at Fermilab.( No evidence for the
> monopole itself but new constraints on what its mass must be if
> it does exist: at least 600 GeV if the monopole is a spin-0
> particle and 900 GeV if its spin is 1/2.)
> The equations written down by James Clerk Maxwell in the
> 19th century are not symmetric with respect to electric and
> magnetic forces. They can be made symmetric if there exists a
> magnetic monopole, a particle, comparable to the electron, with
> an isolated north or south magnetic pole (all known magnets are
> dipoles, possessing both south and north poles)."


> The point is that the reason for the lack of symmetry is that
> the magnetic force and its dipole characteristics are derived
> from the fact that the magnetic force can be ascribed to the
> observed poles of the electric dipole.
> As explained in the above post and in
> http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury/book01.html


You have it backwards, the electrostatic field is a randomized vector
(magnetic) field. The force on your test charge will be given precisely
by:

-F = mu_o I q' [ ( v _e / 2 ) -v_q' ] / ( 2 pi d )

where v_e is the drift rate in the conductor, and v_q' is the speed of
the test charge wrt the conductor.
When v_q' = 0 the equation reduces to:

-F = mu_o I v _e q' / ( 4 pi d )

A very very small force. I didn't follow your description, so could you
explain in detail how you filtered this force out from the inductive
force? If you have found a method that accomplishes this, then a quick
look at the equation will show that if the force were known, that the
actual drift rate of the current can be derived, viz.:

v_e = -F 4 pi d / (mu_o I q')

Note also that for any given current, that the force on the test charge
will increase with increasing drift rate, meaning that a poor conductor
will amplify the force vs. that generated by a good conductor, given the
same current.

--
Richard
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper

_______________________________________________________

ralph sansbury
Nov 21 2002, 10:09 am
Subject: Re: Why Magnetic Monopole Has Not Been Found

"Richard" <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:3DDC5D82.9FD8343C@yahoo.com...

> ralph sansbury wrote:

> > The point is that the reason for the lack of symmetry is that
> > the magnetic force and its dipole characteristics are derived
> > from the fact that the magnetic force can be ascribed to the
> > observed poles of the electric dipole.
> > As explained in the above post and in
> > http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury/book01.html

> You have it backwards, the electrostatic field is a randomized vector
> (magnetic) field.

This sounds like a rearrangement of common terms. I would
prefer to discuss physical possibilities eg the possibility of
electrostatic dipoles inside atomic nuclei and inside free
electrons that could account for the magnetic field
.

One advantage of this is a reduction in the number of
premises- which is something you seem to want also. That is there
is no need for the premise of an independent magnetic force in
addition to the electrostatic force.


Also since electrostatic poles and dipoles are observed and
magnetic dipoles are observed but magnetic poles are not
observed it would seem preferable to remove the magnetic force
premise than to remove the electrostatic dipole premise.


_______________________________________________________
Richard
Nov 21 2002, 12:38 pm

Subject: Re: Why Magnetic Monopole Has Not Been Found

ralph sansbury wrote:

> "Richard" <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3DDC5D82.9FD8343C@yahoo.com...
> > ralph sansbury wrote:

> > > The point is that the reason for the lack of symmetry is that
> > > the magnetic force and its dipole characteristics are derived
> > > from the fact that the magnetic force can be ascribed to the
> > > observed poles of the electric dipole.
> > > As explained in the above post and in
> > > http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury/book01.html

> > You have it backwards, the electrostatic field is a randomized
> vector
> > (magnetic) field.
> This sounds like a rearrangement of common terms. I would
> prefer to discuss physical possibilities eg the possibility of
> electrostatic dipoles inside atomic nuclei and inside free
> electrons that could account for the magnetic field.
> One advantage of this is a reduction in the number of
> premises- which is something you seem to want also. That is there
> is no need for the premise of an independent magnetic force in
> addition to the electrostatic force.
> Also since electrostatic poles and dipoles are observed and
> magnetic dipoles are observed but magnetic poles are not
> observed it would seem preferable to remove the magnetic force
> premise than to remove the electrostatic dipole premise.


Except that the math is not in favor of that argument.

--
Richard
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
___________________________________________________________

Franz Heymann
Nov 21 2002, 2:18 pm
Subject: Re: Why Magnetic Monopole Has Not Been Found

"ralph sansbury" <sansb...@bestweb.net> wrote in message

news:utq1akj7mk4j98@corp.supernews.com...

[...]

> I would prefer to discuss physical possibilities eg the possibility of
> electrostatic dipoles inside atomic nuclei and inside free
> electrons that could account for the magnetic field.


Since an electron has an observed magnetic moment, it is impossible
for it to also have an electric dipole moment. It cannot behave like
an axial vector and a polar vector object simultaneously.

[...]

Franz Heymann
______________________________________________________________

ralph sansbury
Nov 23 2002, 8:25 am
Subject: Re: Why Magnetic Monopole Has Not Been Found

"Franz Heymann" <Franz.Heym...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message <news:arjevu$i8t$1@venus.btinternet.com>...
> "ralph sansbury" <sansb...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
> news:utq1akj7mk4j98@corp.supernews.com...

> [...]

> I would
> > prefer to discuss physical possibilities eg the possibility of
> > electrostatic dipoles inside atomic nuclei and inside free
> > electrons that could account for the magnetic field.


> Since an electron has an observed magnetic moment, it is impossible
> for it to also have an electric dipole moment. It cannot behave like
> an axial vector and a polar vector object simultaneously.


> [...]


> Franz Heymann


The magnetic dipole moment is normal to the plane of a current
carrying coil and is shown in the snipped post to be equivalent to the
sum of electrostatic dipole moments transverse to the direction of
current flow in the wire coil and associated with each atomic nucleus
and free electron in the wire coil.

That is each electrostatic dipole has a component in the plane of
the coil and perpendicular to the plane of the coil.

The projections of these components on a line from the coil to the
normal line to the center of the coil and then the projection of these
components onto this normal line produce a dipole. The sum of such
dipoles is shown to be equivalent to the magnetic dipole moment

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.phys ... 8772fc127e
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Unread postby rangerover777 » Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:56 pm

Good day all,

Thanks arc-us for bringing up the subject of monopoles.
Ed’s Leedskalnin tests vividly show how magnetic particles are monopoles (he call
them Individual N or S pole magnets). For instance, this is how he describe their circulation :

“The earth itself is a great big magnet. In general these North and South Pole individual
magnets are circulating in the same way as in the permanent magnet metal. The North
Pole individual magnets are coming out of the earth's South Pole and are running around
in the earth's North Pole and back to its own pole, and South Pole individual magnets are
coming out of the earth's North Pole and are running around, and in earth South Pole and
back to its own end“.

Science does not agree with this concept, neither with the way magnets are circulating
around a bar magnet or earth. If science will realize how these two streams of magnets
are actually run one against another, the question of monopoles could be resolved.

Same with electricity, the positive is always North pole individual magnets and the
negative is a stream of South pole magnets. And if science wants to get the answer
to monopoles through electricity, it just needs to translate electrons into two stream
of opposite poles magnets running one against another. The answer is so simple to
test and verify, that it’s more about being too proud to confess that it was wrong
all these years…

Now electrostatic is another story. Here is one of Ed’s tests :
“Another way is to rub hard rubber until it gets hot, then it will be a temporary
magnet. The difference between the rubber magnet and the steel magnet is that the
magnet in the rubber comes from the magnets that hold together the rubber,
and both North and South poles are in the same side of the rubber and the magnet
poles are small and there are many of them close together, but in the steel bar the
attracting magnet is not the magnet that holds together the steel, but the surplus
magnets the circulating magnet that was put in it. Attract the iron filings with the
rubber magnet, then approach with the steel magnet. Change the poles, then you
will see some of the filings jump away. This means the steel magnet changed the
magnet poles in the iron filings, and so they jumped away“.


Though Ed refer to this test in order to show how gravity works, he does that
through what we call “Electrostatic”. If you think of a charged clouds for instance,
It’s when many poles get very close together and when conditions are right, it
discharged.

What Ed never mentioned is that in static electricity, the individual monopoles are
pointing across their orbit motion, as oppose that when they run In a wire they run in a
slanted position (that he mentioned). In AC current, every time the direction is switched
the magnets are pointing across the wire before the turn slanted to the other direction.

This is the reason why electrostatic can pull your hair or radiate pulling power (like gravity).
What I’m not sure yet, is about their motion when they are in electrostatic position.

I don’t know much about Ralph Sansbury, but I will study his theory.


Thanks again.
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Unread postby junglelord » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:26 am

I cannot buy a monopole theory. In all the Aether models the dipole is the only standard. They are matter/antimatter pairs fully opposite in all respects and therefore all wave/matter (electrons, protons, neutrons) are a dipole at the heart of the matter, never a monopole. Even Howard Johnson shows very clearly that the N and S poles are infact dipole figures. Read the secret world of magnets and he makes that very clear. Vortex dipole Poles with N/S entities at both poles. Which then leads to why is one south? Because the other is more north. But each pole is in fact a dipole.
I have to call Ed on that.
Sorry.
:?

Ps that is the great flaw in the standard model. Point particles that are monopoles and monopole pole magnets. Both are wrong.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Unread postby Solar » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:09 am

This isn't correct. Look at the statements carefully

I don't interpret Leedskalnin's statements of:
North and South Pole individual
magnets
are circulating ...

... in terms of "monopoles".

To me the statement says that smaller "individual magnets" are what comprise the 'aggregate circulation' or 'flow' that constitutes the greater North and South poles - "individual magnets" require both poles (dipole) or else they are not "magnets". His statement is actually a perfect example of what I would consider the 'scalability' of 'phase-transition'.

I think that were he speaking of "monopoles" he would have said 'individual poles' since it appears that he knew the difference. So what he means is that some "individual magnets" are "circulating" North to constitute that pole, and some "individual magnets" are 'circulating South to constitute that pole. However, neither with the smaller "individual magnets" themselves nor the aggregate North and South poles they collectively and respectively form are the poles ever separated to form "monopoles".

A magnet appears to me to equally 'disperse' a background plenum (+) and reveal the "back reaction" of that plenum (-). All of which occurs around/in/ or through a "central core". I consider that "central core" to possibly have an interlocked or intertwined 'vortex' relation via which the "individual magnets" comprising the 'dispersion' and those comprising the "back reaction" 'circulate'. The plenum so 'dispersed' and undergoing an equal "back reaction" would appear to indicate a 'phase lock' relationship that once 'disturbed' from equilibrium instantaneously seeks the equilibrium so 'disturbed'.

Leedskalnin is correct but the interpretation that he spoke of "monopoles" is not.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Unread postby rangerover777 » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:30 am

Good day,

Thanks Junglelord for the disagreement.
We have a few ways to get to the bottom of this question :
1. You will run some of Leedskalnin tests and judge it for yourself.
2. Look at their motion in “electricity”.
3. Look at their motion as circulating around bar magnet or earth.
4. Look at their motion inside a PMH (Perpetual Motion Holder).

For now I would start with option #2 :
Evidently magnets are very small, you can detect them only if many of them
are accumulating in one place, but magnets are all the time on the move, so I don’t
think there is a device that can isolate one individual magnet and measure if it have
two poles (one at each end), or only one side pole that is either North or South.

Also I’m not sure whether they sphere shape or elongated (like an acorn), and I’m not
sure if anyone knows the answer for that.

This is why the best way is to watch their motion (which I already tried to do
in my former post).

If you connect two battery terminals to jumpstart cable and the clips at the other
ends are holding two iron wires (say Gua. #8 x 6“ long). When you connect the two
wires they attached to each other and sparks are flying across the intersection point.
Now when the wires are touching try to pull them away and you will see that there
is a force that holding the two ends together (like attracting poles).
You can watch this test at : http://www.leedskalnin.net/test-1.htm .
Now, if you claim that magnets are dipole, then why do you witness attraction ?
Also, If you claim that the positive run into the negative terminal, why this attraction happen ?
Or if you think that electrons are running in the wire, how come the electrons are
attracting each other ?

This test refer also to the way the sparks are flying and explain why the heat happens,
but we can get to that later.

My point is that the North pole magnets are coming out of the positive and the South
pole magnets are coming out of the negative terminal.

Let me know what you think.
I would be glad to show you other tests.


Cheers
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Unread postby scotty1 » Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:29 am

Hi all, my name is Scotty.
I used to be a part of Leedskalnin.com, but not anymore.... (long story)
Anyway, I thought i would post what Ed actually wrote so we can define if he did mean single pole particles or not.
Ed wrote
"Each particle in the substance is an individual magnet by itself, and both north and south pole individual magnets"
"Each kind of the magnets are coming out of their own end of the pole"
"In the Northern hemisphere the North pole magnets are coming down and the South pole magnets are going up"
"In other batteries the acid takes the zinc in parts and sends the North pole magnets to the positive terminal, and holds the South pole magnets by itself for the negative terminal."
"Have in mind that always there are 2 currents, one current alone cannot run. To run they have to run one against the other."
"North pole magnets pointing East the same as the coil wire's end,....and South pole magnets pointing West the same as the coil wire's end."
"When chemists make electricity with zinc in acid in a battery, then the North pole magnets are coming out of the positive terminal and the South pole magnets from the negative terminal."
"Then the North pole individual magnets will come out of the battery's positive terminal, and South pole individual magnets will come out of the battery's negative terminal."
"Positive electricity is composed of streams of North pole individual magnets and negative electricity is composed of South pole individual magnets, they are running one stream of magnets against the other kind in a whirling right hand twist, and with high speed."
"The 3 things that all matter is constructed from has no beginning and no end, they are the North and South pole individual magnets and the neutral particles of matter. These 3 things are the construction blocks of everything."
----------------------------------------
There are many other references in Ed's noted but he says matter is composed of 3 things, and so that makes it clear that the North and South pole magnet particles are individual in themselves, but always in motion and running against the other kind....
Ed never says that there is just a unit single pole just sitting there by itself, but existing as an entity in motion, in streams running against other entities of an equal but opposite kind.
So you could say that the magnets are forming dipoles all the time but only briefly as they move to the next magnet particle and form another dipole.....in a similar way to how electron flow is described by valence electrons moving from one atom to the next leaving a hole that is filled by another electron that passes by, and so making a flow of electrons possible.
Scotty.
scotty1
Guest
 

Re: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Unread postby dusthurricane » Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:20 pm

Let me just sum this thread up by saying wow. That which i have being arsed to read is simply the best read on the internet.
dusthurricane
Guest
 

Re: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Unread postby Goldminer » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:17 pm

dusthurricane wrote:Let me just sum this thread up by saying wow. That which i have being arsed to read is simply the best read on the internet.


arsed

bothered duck energy more...
1. arsed 195 up, 27 down

Cannot or will not make the effort. Does not give a shit.
1. Some contributors can't be arsed with their spelling. see "aresed"
2. "Don't go makin' a half arsed job of it"
buggered bothered worried effort give a shit
by Hoots Nov 23, 2005 share this add a video
2. arsed 217 up, 60 down

Bothered. See also arse and arsey
I really can't be aresed to do anything at work today!
by Steven Norgate Jan 31, 2003 share this add a video
3. arsed 88 up, 36 down

The verb "arsed"
Synonym: bothered
"I couldn't be arsed."

"He wasn't arsed."

An example of how this is used in conversation:
"What do you want for tea?"
"I don't know, I'm not arsed."
by Kelly Dec 22, 2004 share this add a video
4. Arsed 32 up, 10 down

A verb meaning "to be bothered", and invariably used in the past tense and in conjunction with the words "couldn't be". It originated in the North of England.
"Did you mow the lawn yesterday?

"No - it was too nice a day. I couldn't be arsed."

This usage probably derives from the phrase "to move your arse", meaning to "stir yourself to get something done".
lethargy idleness lack of interest boredom contempt
by Bedford Falls Sep 11, 2009 share this add a video
5. arsed 16 up, 74 down

1) That little town on the road to Heavington between Plowed and Blotto

2) Irretrievably drunk - past the point of it being fun but short of it being dangerous.
1) Check out Phil over there at the bar clinging to his stool like he's riding piggyback - methinks our boy be arsed!

2) OK, I'm arsed. If I get to the morning without hurling, I deserve a fecking medal.
by The Evil Steve Aug 17, 2005 share this add a video
6. ARSED 12 up, 102 down

a group of awesome people
Those dudes are totally ARSED!
awesome cool rad amazing crazy
by ShelbyNicole09 Oct 26, 2007 share this add a video
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
Goldminer
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Unread postby dusthurricane » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:24 am

Interesting stuff.

But i still insist monoples exist - half an electron is a S monopole. Half a proton is N monpole.
The other 2 halfs go to make up the pairs at each magnetic pole. - 4 poles in total.

Not 100% on this though - it came to me while considering spin.

Anything which resides on/in a rotating body - itself rotates - the origin of magnetic phenomena.
This applies at all levels from the atomic particles to the universe itself.
The universe can rotate, so all contained within rotates.

My aim is to shed light on the most observable law - spin/rotaton. Only then can magnetism be understood.

Can someone interject as to why the universe should rotate - perhaps because that which contains it also spins and so on?
dusthurricane
Guest
 

Re: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics

Unread postby kevin » Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:43 pm

Ed Leedskalnin was clearly a dowser.
I can detect and follow the opposite flowing( phase conjugate, cheers junglelord)layered streams of magnetic moments.
In all of history , the serpent chases itself, biting it's own tail.
That is the spin chasing itself, always seeking rest.

The duality enables creation, and enables the created to remember itself, otherwise there is no-thing.

The perfectly packed crystal universe provides the framework for creation to occur upon.
Electricity/magnetism flow along the mirrored faces of the perfectly packed crystal substance that forms universe.
THE ONLY MOVING ANYTHING IN UNIVERSE are these flows.
The flows are of universe, and there will be a heart centred location in universe , this system copies at all scale.
Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests