Electric or Magnetic Universe?

Really it is not one current, they are two currents, one current is composed of North Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams and the other is composed of South Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams, and they are running one stream against the other stream in whirling, screwlike fashion, and with high speed. One current alone if it be North Pole magnet current or South Pole magnet current it cannot run alone. To run one current will have to run against the other.

leedskalnin.com...

In this video, I hear Meyl say that in electrical engineering only the expanding vortex (eddy currents) is described but there has to also be a contracting vortex:



Leedskalnin's streams running against each other in "whirling, screwlike fashion" are vortices.

I see Meyl and Leedskalnin talking about the same thing.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Although it would be great if either Magnetism or Electric were the answer to the theory we could settle on .I just bumped into another concept I though I would share .Walter Russell has a theory that is neither of the two being purposed on this thread and I am thinking I want to look more at his stuff . www.youtube.com... It's early and my little brain takes a few javas to spark up ..I am like a tired old diesel engine that knocks and misses until warmed up lol

This is a good introduction to Walter Russell www.youtube.com...

the2ofusr1
Walter Russell has a theory that is neither of the two being purposed on this thread and I am thinking I want to look more at his stuff . www.youtube.com...

According to that video, there is no magnetism, only electricity, and what we think of as magnetism is actually "light from the creator" as that video puts it? Well who can argue with that? Leedskalnin for one, who as you suggest has a different idea.

So, once we reject mainstream, we then have many (perhaps 100) alternate ideas to consider. And if it's true that mainstream is wrong and one of these alternate 100 or so ideas is correct, how do we go about determining which one it is? We make observations, and we compare them to the different ideas. It would be nice if someone was willing to actually discuss that in one of these anti-mainstream threads, and then we might actually find out why mainstream is wrong and one of the 100 alternate ideas is right.

But mostly what we see in these threads is robotic copy and paste of anti-mainstream ideas, without willingness to discuss the observational based merits of these ideas. For example, the Russell video says that "the creator" can be proven in a lab, which I'm inferring means magnetism can be shown in a lab since magnetism is a manifestation of the creator? Or what does he mean, if not that? how does he know magnetism is the creator and not electricity?

Mary Rose
Leedskalnin said his experiments showed that really there is no such thing as an electron or proton. They are really just magnets.

I don't even know where to start, but you can do experiments yourself to prove otherwise.

Mary Rose
Leedskalnin said this in an advertisement in the Miami Daily News:

I found out that the researchers were misled by wrong instruction books, and by one-sided instruments. Voltmeters and ampere meters are one-sided. They only show what is called by instruction books, positive electricity, but never show negative electricity. Now you can see that one-half of the electricity escaped their notice. If the researchers had used the same kind of equipment I use to demonstrate what magnetic current is, they would have found out a long time ago what electricity is. The positive electricity is composed of streams of north pole individual magnets, and negative electricity is composed of streams of south pole individual magnets. They are running one stream of magnets against the other stream in whirling right hand twist, and with high speed.

leedskalnin.com...

You left out some relevant comments that come before that:

Before my research work I knew nothing about electricity. The only thing I knew was that nobody knows what electricity is. So I thought I am going to find out why they do not know. I thought that if electricity could be made and managed for over a hundred years, then the makers do not know what it is, there is something wrong about it. I found out that the researchers were misled by wrong instruction books, and by one-sided instruments.

So let's examine his logic:

1. "Before my research work I knew nothing about electricity."

Therefore:

2. "The only thing I knew was that nobody knows what electricity is."

OK if he know nothing about electricity, how could he know what everybody else knows and how can he make the claim that nobody knows what it is? Logic that begins in this way is probably not going to end well, and of course it didn't.

But let's discuss his comment about one-sided meters. I think you could probably get two-sided ammeters even in Leedskalnin's day, but he's probably right about most old voltmeters being one-sided. But guess what, now some voltmeters are two-sided (can display plus or minus signs), and this hasn't affected mainstream views of electricity.

Leedskalnin also seems to be unaware of transistor design which relies on positive and negative charge flows, though the positive charges are "quasiparticles" that are called "electron holes". The very computers and cell phones we are posting to this forum with show that our understanding and application of semiconductors works. What's the most advanced thing Leedskalnin made with his technology (besides his perpetual motion holder, which has anyone been able to hold their perpetual motions with it)?

The most advanced thing I saw at Coral Castle which was made by Leedskalnin was a big rock balanced on an old car part he got from a junkyard. I give the man credit for being able to carve very large, very soft rocks and move them around with his block and tackle on a tripod, but he wasn't creating any advanced new technology, and he admits himself he knew nothing about electricity. What he needed to learn was the thousands of other experiments performed by other people. Now if he had claimed he had studied all those and could prove how they were misinterpreted, then such an argument might be worth considering, but that's not what he says.

Even Einstein had to explain why Newton's math which had successfully explained observations for centuries wasn't quite right. Leedskalnin doesn't even try to do something similar.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Electricity and magnetism are mutually inclusive that’s why it’s called electromagnetism. To have an electric Universe is the same as having a magnetic Universe since the two are present at the same time. Gravity also plays a major role in shaping our cosmos and should not be ignored any more than electromagnetism should be.

I think the Electric Universe theory came about to try and push the issue since it seemed that mainstream science was ignoring some fundamental principles and observations that proved the Universe is electric. Radio waves that are observed in radio astronomy are electric, so are gamma ray bursts and X-rays. The light that we see from every star cannot exist without electricity as they are all part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

I have never heard of magnetic currents and I think it is a misconception much like magnetic lines or frozen in magnetic lines. Magnetism is a field that gives the illusion of a line. The field has areas of higher and lower intensity that give this appearance. This field completes a circuit and never has broken lines nor will these lines ever “reconnect”.

Hannes Alfvén, et. al., have done pioneering work on plasma cosmology, which is part electric, and should be a source for our understanding of an electric Universe. After all, the Universe is not simply electric since there are other forces shaping our cosmos. Kristian Birkeland was another pioneer in our understanding of plasma cosmology and his work in Birkeland currents I think will answer some of the questions you have been presenting in this thread.

Dr Donald Scott is another name that you may recognize from the Thunderbolts project and has a lot of information regarding electromagnetism and plasma.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


looks like you quite familiar with the standard model of the Sun.
Than you possibly can tell us the answers to the questions asked in the video Devino has posted ?

staring at 9:50
"Oscillation in size and brightness"

10:55
"Temperature profile "

12:20
"The solar wind speed up "

And as you seem to know so much more than we do, how about explaining two other things,
Ball bearing motor at 32:39 , and at 34:35 the Transformer question in this video

KrzYma
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

looks like you quite familiar with the standard model of the Sun.
Than you possibly can tell us the answers to the questions asked in the video Devino has posted ?

staring at 9:50
"Oscillation in size and brightness"

Please cite the source of the information. Don Scott is not a reliable source for crying out loud, he says the grand canyon is formed by electricity when it obviously has a river flowing through it, so why does he ignore the water, which is obvious? The man is pretty far "out there". I will say this, the idea that convection is a "smooth process" as Scott claims is ridiculous.

I can boil something on my stove and if it makes bubbles I get big bubbles and small bubbles, and the big bubbles form a "pulsing" effect (I notice this pulsing when heating Prego spaghetti sauce, for example), so it's ridiculous to say that convection couldn't do something like this when you can see it in your own kitchen. Also, he doesn't say how electric universe explains it.

10:55
"Temperature profile "

Eros and I already explained this in electric sun thread, though it was dumbed down somewhat:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I also made a thread about research in this area which has links to more explanatory materials if the dumbed down analogy isn't sufficient:

Electric Universe Theory, RIP: New Discovery of Why Sun's Corona is Hot

And as you seem to know so much more than we do, how about explaining two other things,
Ball bearing motor at 32:39 , and at 34:35 the Transformer question in this video

Off-topic in this thread, and I don't see why we are discussing electric sun here when there's another thread already about electric sun. Any more questions about electric sun should be put in the electric sun thread, but at least it's not as far off topic as the motor stuff.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Any more questions about electric sun should be put in the electric sun thread, but at least it's not as far off topic as the motor stuff.

sorry, I was just thinking this is an easy peace of cake with the motor, didn't wanted to make a new thread about something so banal like this

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Dr Donald Scott is not an astronomer he is an electrical engineer. His expertise is pertinent to the electrical nature of our Sun and our Universe.

Don Scott is not a reliable source for crying out loud,

Dr Donald Scott is a reliable source when it comes to electrical engineering since he is an electrical engineer.

he says the grand canyon is formed by electricity

As far as the electrical theory for the Grand Canyon I believe that is an EU theory not Dr Scott’s.

…it obviously has a river flowing through it, so why does he ignore the water, which is obvious

Nobody ignores the Colorado river. Water naturally flows downhill. Are you inciting a discussion on the formation of the Grand Canyon? If you are I have a few questions.

Eros and I already explained this in electric sun thread, though it was dumbed down somewhat:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You use a box of marbles to explain the Sun’s behavior. Since the Sun is obviously not a box of marbles but a ball of plasma wouldn’t it be better to explain it using a cathode ray tube (i.e. plasma) as your example? Marbles may well suite an ad hoc explanation but a cathode ray tube shows temperature minimum in a lab. It is very interesting and I think Dr Scott explains it in one of his lectures or his book.

I’ll need to read more of your comments when I get the time to better understand your points being made here. I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part.

Devino
Dr Donald Scott is a reliable source when it comes to electrical engineering since he is an electrical engineer.

Dr Scott is also an amateur astronomer with an observatory who has acquired his own gallery of photographs: The Holin A. Grotch Observatory

Devino
As far as the electrical theory for the Grand Canyon I believe that is an EU theory not Dr Scott’s.

It's definitely Don Scott, though I'm not sure who else. Here is Don Scott trying to defend criticism he received for mentioning the electric grand canyon in his book:

www.thunderbolts.info...

IT LOOKS LIKE 'X’ SO IT MUST BE 'X’

TB condemns my pointing out that a similarity in appearance of certain objects might indicate they have a common cause, e.g., the Grand Canyon and Lichtenberg patterns formed in grass by lightning strokes. He then goes on to say that Mark Twain “noted how the [Mississippi] river course would change, with no reports of giant electric arcs.”

Yes he's an electrical engineer and this looks like a case where when your only tool is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. I've been to the grand canyon and I know what electrical processes look like and I saw no evidence of any electrical processes of formation there. This is not the only "It looks like X so it must be X" of his. It's as silly as people comparing pictures of the universe to a brain and saying the universe must be a giant brain.

Since the Sun is obviously not a box of marbles but a ball of plasma wouldn’t it be better to explain it using a cathode ray tube (i.e. plasma) as your example?

After all the trouble I went through to explain that was the dumbed-down analogy and I gave a link to a better explanation with recent research, I'm disappointed you failed to appreciate all that stuff I took the time to explain, and I still think the analogy is valid. Of course it's plasma and that's why the electromagnetic forces can accelerate the plasma particles (the slingshot analogy). But if you still don't like the analogy read the better source which I already provided.

It is most likely wrong but I envision everything is waves frequency gravity , electric , magnetic all aspects are the same just on a different frequency. Like how my guitar can blow out your ears or creating a different sensation of a low rumbling through out your body with the same note just different octave . However I couldn't achieve these things on my guitar without gravity magnets or electric.... Without magnet to pick up the frequency of my string vibration in the pick ups going through my amplifier that is powered by electric wouldn't work with out the gravity that holds our molecules together that allows the sound wave to vibrate the air molecules so sound can be heard.

And if they really did find the higgs field would that be the aether that is charged with different frequencies causing different affects across the solar system and space its self .

E=mc2 kind of thing.

I guess this is more of a question if I am completely off base in my understanding.

All the sources of energy and forces and matter that are stuck in their own fundamental paradigm are inherently as they are at this time and a later time, but is it not true that all the matter and energy and particles and forces and fields must be related in some fundamentally inherent way? This is what is meant to be expressed when it is said that the 4 fundamental forces are really different expressions of the same overarching force, but expressed between different types of pieced together quanta which there for interacts differently? So the argument over whether to call the universe an electric universe, or a magnetic universe, or an gravitational and electromagnetic and strong and weak universe is really inconsequential, and I agree with mainstream science when it seems that 'they' are just trying to capture the truth and data of every aspect of the universe (or they should be) while these electric universe theory and now magnetic universe theory just seem to be trying to 'call' it something different.

Basically what it comes down to is, a human should either care all the way about the truth of the universe (and there fore be a scientist...this is what a scientist should be) or not care at all. There should be no teams and wars, only what can be known and how and shown and expressed and explained and proven and detailed and described and modeled and experimented. Sure there should be discussion and debate, endless, but all parties should always only have the goal of understanding.

ImaFungi
it is said that the 4 fundamental forces are really different expressions of the same overarching force

Who said that? I know efforts have been made to tie gravity into the other three, in some unified field theory, but so far such a theory has eluded us:

What is Unified Field Theory?

Unified field theory is highly theoretical, and to date there is no absolute evidence that it is possible to unify gravity with the other forces. History has shown that other forces could be combined, and many physicists are willing to devote their lives, careers, and reputations to the attempt to show that gravity, too, can be expressed quantum mechanically. The consequences of such a discovery, of course, cannot be fully known until a viable theory is proven by experimental evidence.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Because at the exact moment of the big bang/singularity how many different forces existed and how many different types of energy existed and how many different types of field? I am talking from moment 0 to moment 1. All stuff, ALL everything, ALL is unavoidably related to itself and the fact it exists, there must be some inherent fundamental essence that all things and quanta and quality share. Now it may very well and most likely be that if there are such things as invisible energy fields, electromagnetic and gravity, that they are completely different and separate, though overlapping entities, but if you are to go far back enough it will be seen that they were born from the same mother so to say, just as all variation of atoms are related in that they are born from the existence of quarks and their interactions. When inflation occurred and things cooled and this allowed for all we know the same substance of fundamental energy to be formed into separate camps such as quarks and electrons, from then on that it would now be said that quarks and electrons are 'things' that exist, they can be compared and categorized, as too can gravity field be categorized and compared to electromagnetic field and seen to be a separate 'thing' that with other things, under conditions results in a phenomenon. While yes I agree we can do that, It is also my notion that the force fields must be related, brethren, in a certain way and the unifying them seems like to my limited intellect, like perhaps a way to create the circumstances that existed in the singularity moment when the force fields were unified? I hear it said a reason gravity field cant be experimentally detected like (well can the em field be detected or only its photonic results?) is because its fieldness exists at such high energy levels, how does this play in and what does this mean, that every volumetric area of space is a cloud of seemingly substance less substance that is the taughtest tightest net of unknown particles and this is the gravity field and it is the 'finest grain field' while the other force fields net/web like particles that make them are bigger grain and perhaps packed closer together? Or is gravity field more densely packed and that is why it is hard to detect? And so all these force fields are similar arrays of this substance, that different baryonic substances when traveling through in response to surrounding baryonic substances and to these force fields themselves react in different ways?

I found out that the researchers were misled by wrong instruction books, and by one-sided instruments. Voltmeters and ampere meters are one-sided. They only show what is called by instruction books, positive electricity, but never show negative electricity. Now you can see that one-half of the electricity escaped their notice.

leedskalnin.com...

How do we know for sure what a voltmeter or ampere meter is measuring?

Mary Rose
How do we know for sure what a voltmeter or ampere meter is measuring?

I don't see why you even ask. If someone gives you the mainstream explanation you'll just say that's wrong without researching it at all and keep posting Leedskalnin nonsense.

If you want to know, you have to behave differently from Leedskalnin who proudly proclaimed he didn't know squat about the subject before he started experimenting. You would actually need to read about experiments others have done, and if you want, duplicate those. Our understanding of electricity and magnetism was based on thousands of experiments that Leedskalnin chose to ignore and it's apparent you've also chosen to ignore them.

But if you stop ignoring and study the experiments, you will have your answer. There was a great BBC video on the history of electricity discoveries on youtube that I could have recommended if you just wanted to watch a video, but it's been removed.

I can't recommend the Eric Dollard video on the history of electricity completely, because being an anti-mainstream guy he goes off the rails eventually, but before he does he gives a decent accounting of the history of electricity which would put the answer to your question in perspective. I posted it in the other thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since he's an anti-mainstream guy maybe you'll actually have some incentive to watch it and learn the history of how we know what we know. I'm pretty sure he would say Leedskalnin's ideas don't match observation if you asked him.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I hear you saying you don't know.

there is no need to argue with Arbitrageur or dragonridr or even discuss anything with them.
They answer direct only those questions they want to, on other questions, they turn around arguing with irrelevant links trying to push the question back with no answer at all. Or they ignore a question deliberately.

I don't even know if they understand a simple relationship, where is a changing magnetic field there is current flowing, and where current is flowing, there is a magnetic field.

Ignoring Sun's electric and magnetic nature is just blindness.

here another important questions that need to be answered

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I hear you saying you don't know.

I do know. I've done the experiments. But if I didn't have a common frame of reference I could call the thing that accelerates when exposed to an electric field "a little magnet" like Leedskalnin did. If everybody called it the same thing and the term didn't conflict with anything else then our atomic model would be protons in the nucleus with "little magnets" in orbitals around the nucleus. But we chose to call them electrons, everybody except Leedskalnin and maybe some other cranks, that is.

KrzYma
Ignoring Sun's electric and magnetic nature is just blindness.

So you still haven't read my thread about why the sun's corona is hot? It's the sun's electric and magnetic nature that causes the acceleration of the "hot" particles in the corona. Nobody is ignoring it, but you're not paying attention. I'm not going to retype the whole thread.