"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Googling magnetic monopole has brought up a website of a person who has his own theory based on the magnetic monopole: The Theory of Everything, Solved. He has a series of videos, one of which is about Leedskalnin's Perpepetual Motion Holder:

Checking out the Pure Energy Systems website this morning I see another reference to the Perpetual Motion Holder, "Leedskalnin "Perpetual Motion Holder" (PMH) Bond Effect." (NEST = New Energy Systems Trust):

For some of you, this may be old news, but this is the first that I have encountered this. I ran this by my Dad, who is an atomic clock physicist, and he had not heard of it either.

Check out this 21-second video by my NEST associate, James Rodney (most of you know him by the cool 5 kW E-Cat design he came up with). In this video, he shows a crazy phenomenon. Two blocks of flat steel (soft iron?) with a small channel between them, just large enough to run an 18-gauge, insulated wire through, become bonded to each other when a current from a car battery is very briefly run through the wire. The bond doesn't seem to be magnetic, as the bonded blocks don't exhibit any external magnetism, and there is barely any magnetism after the halves are sheered apart.

The description for the video on YouTube:

Published on Feb 6, 2013

Demo of a simplified version of the Leedskalnin device, showing bonding between two pieces of un-magnetized tool steel, using an insulated 18g copper wire & car battery.

edit on 02/12/13 by Mary Rose because: Punctuation

Their is no mystery here, the bond is created by n/s monopoles, the same monopoles that create a dipole, however you will not detect any north or south pole in the metal because it must have two lines of force which contain both n/s monopoles, this video demonstrates magnetism using only one of these lines of force. This magnetic force is initiated by the introduction of n/s monopoles in the form of electricity.

reply to post by LawrenceWippler


Alignment of lattice structure creating free-flow of centrifugal and centripetal forces:

Patterns are located upon the points of a lattice, which is an array of points repeating periodically in three dimensions. The points can be thought of as forming identical tiny boxes, called unit cells, that fill the space of the lattice.

Source

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by LawrenceWippler

 

Alignment of lattice structure creating free-flow of centrifugal and centripetal forces:

How would expect to get from electricity?

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

There is the planck's constant which has been normalized to draft up particles in the first place.

Planck discovered that physical action could not take on any indiscriminate value. Instead, the action must be some multiple of a very small quantity (later to be named the "quantum of action" and now called Planck's constant).

Source

edit on 12-2-2013 by Americanist because: (no reason given)

So you think that space-time is not quantized ( I agree it might not actually be mini designated boxes of discrete space-time pouches..but is there are hypothetical "distance" of measurement between the action of quanta, or do subatomic particles heading towards each other go from not touching, to touching at distances like nm or pm, or mm etc.)? Do you think infinite space exists in which energy/matter/quanta interact within/ontop of? Or do you think the space in the universe is finite and related to the totality of the system of the universe? The idea of plancks length is that there is not an infinite distance between every object, that objects that appear to interact have to on some scale of space and time, come in contact, and he determined that that smallest "area/space/space-time" of contact would be in the instant of plancks length:
1.616199(97)×10^-35 metres ...

At least what I stated is my minimal understanding of the need for plancks length... just like it is thought an atom is smaller then a molecule, and a molecule is smaller then an elephant, a plancks length is smaller then everything, and is the quanta of space-time, in which quanta of energy/matter interact... ( like we have mile,yard,feet,inch,cm,mm,nm ... etc. ... plancks length would be the tiniest unit of measurement)

"The Planck length is about 10^-20 times the diameter of a proton, and thus is exceedingly small." - wiki

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by LawrenceWippler

 

Is what you are saying in your theory... the south monopole is the electron... and lets say it has negative charge...

and north monopole is proton.. lets say it has positive charge..

and the elements are different quantities of monopoles interacting?

and electricity is not just the south/negative/electron monopole interacting with itself and/or an electro-magnetic field... but it is the south monopole interacting with the north monopole? or its energy created from the separation of their attraction your saying?

also like some other members are asking, Im curious as to what made you have the urge to create your theory? What couldnt the current popular modern theories explain about reality, or what about them is wrong and why?
what caused nature to produce so many monopoles? and I still havent seen you explain the fundamental principles behind the laws of attraction, its very general terms.

1. Your understanding of monopoles has improved to a great extent, congratulations.

2. Electricity is nothing more than separated monopoles, north monopole/positive, south monopole/negative.

3. I created my theory because none of the other theories could explain all known phenomenon, so I began by taking the end results of all experiments and setting aside their underlying principal and then I began with the most basic form of energy that I could find and that was magnetism. Then I theorized just how a magnetic dipole could be created using subatomic particles. Once completed I then began new theories to explain the end result of all known experiments using the same particles that I used for magnetism in doing so, would unite the fundamental forces.

Nature did not produce monopoles. Monopoles and what I call a particle of matter, cannot be created or destroyed, they have always existed. Energy for example cannot be created or destroyed (monopoles) only changed to a different form. the first law of thermodynamics.

The law of attraction, like poles repel ,unlike poles attract.

So all "matter" in the universe... all atoms and molecules, hamburgers, planets, cups, houses, people... are collections of intricately interacting magnetic fields and nothing more? if all that exist are N and S bits of magnetic bits...

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by LawrenceWippler

 

Is what you are saying in your theory... the south monopole is the electron... and lets say it has negative charge...

and north monopole is proton.. lets say it has positive charge..

and the elements are different quantities of monopoles interacting?

and electricity is not just the south/negative/electron monopole interacting with itself and/or an electro-magnetic field... but it is the south monopole interacting with the north monopole? or its energy created from the separation of their attraction your saying?

also like some other members are asking, Im curious as to what made you have the urge to create your theory? What couldnt the current popular modern theories explain about reality, or what about them is wrong and why?
what caused nature to produce so many monopoles? and I still havent seen you explain the fundamental principles behind the laws of attraction, its very general terms.

1. Your understanding of monopoles has improved to a great extent, congratulations.

2. Electricity is nothing more than separated monopoles, north monopole/positive, south monopole/negative.

3. I created my theory because none of the other theories could explain all known phenomenon, so I began by taking the end results of all experiments and setting aside their underlying principal and then I began with the most basic form of energy that I could find and that was magnetism. Then I theorized just how a magnetic dipole could be created using subatomic particles. Once completed I then began new theories to explain the end result of all known experiments using the same particles that I used for magnetism in doing so, would unite the fundamental forces.

Nature did not produce monopoles. Monopoles and what I call a particle of matter, cannot be created or destroyed, they have always existed. Energy for example cannot be created or destroyed (monopoles) only changed to a different form. the first law of thermodynamics.

The law of attraction, like poles repel ,unlike poles attract.

So all "matter" in the universe... all atoms and molecules, hamburgers, planets, cups, houses, people... are collections of intricately interacting magnetic fields and nothing more? if all that exist are N and S bits of magnetic bits...

Correct, All things are made of atoms, atoms are composed of n/s monopoles and what I call a particle of matter, it's this particle of matter that determines what element the atom will become.

reply to post by ImaFungi


reply to post by LawrenceWippler


I don't subscribe to your theory (monopoles as two separate n/s particles). Particles do not exist. Our reality assembles based on the entrainment of single-vector lines. Magnetic fields are patterns of displacement that wind up toroidal structures. A/C bands these fields in bursts generating perpendicular pathways for energy to flow/ expand. We bundle these pathways in packets. Expose matter – in this case conductive metal - to A/C and the packets align further outward similar to being behind a boat - centrifugal and centripetal wakes interacting with one another.

Tesla appears to have made his own pattern of displacement in order to stream energy in a more efficient manner.

So all "matter" in the universe... all atoms and molecules, hamburgers, planets, cups, houses, people... are collections of intricately interacting magnetic fields and nothing more? if all that exist are N and S bits of magnetic bits...

reply to post by ImaFungi


When reading this above I literally choked on my drink laughing. Thanks!

It was the hamburgers I was not expecting. hahaha

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by LawrenceWippler

 

Is what you are saying in your theory... the south monopole is the electron... and lets say it has negative charge...

and north monopole is proton.. lets say it has positive charge..

and the elements are different quantities of monopoles interacting?

and electricity is not just the south/negative/electron monopole interacting with itself and/or an electro-magnetic field... but it is the south monopole interacting with the north monopole? or its energy created from the separation of their attraction your saying?

also like some other members are asking, Im curious as to what made you have the urge to create your theory? What couldnt the current popular modern theories explain about reality, or what about them is wrong and why?
what caused nature to produce so many monopoles? and I still havent seen you explain the fundamental principles behind the laws of attraction, its very general terms.

1. Your understanding of monopoles has improved to a great extent, congratulations.

2. Electricity is nothing more than separated monopoles, north monopole/positive, south monopole/negative.

3. I created my theory because none of the other theories could explain all known phenomenon, so I began by taking the end results of all experiments and setting aside their underlying principal and then I began with the most basic form of energy that I could find and that was magnetism. Then I theorized just how a magnetic dipole could be created using subatomic particles. Once completed I then began new theories to explain the end result of all known experiments using the same particles that I used for magnetism in doing so, would unite the fundamental forces.

Nature did not produce monopoles. Monopoles and what I call a particle of matter, cannot be created or destroyed, they have always existed. Energy for example cannot be created or destroyed (monopoles) only changed to a different form. the first law of thermodynamics.

The law of attraction, like poles repel ,unlike poles attract.

So all "matter" in the universe... all atoms and molecules, hamburgers, planets, cups, houses, people... are collections of intricately interacting magnetic fields and nothing more? if all that exist are N and S bits of magnetic bits...

Correct, All things are made of atoms, atoms are composed of n/s monopoles and what I call a particle of matter, it's this particle of matter that determines what element the atom will become.

So what would your model say EM radiation is... and why is EM radiation not effected by magnetic fields?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Our system is infinite in series... Being applied to current technology:

Using pasta as a model, a team of researchers has developed twisted spectrum that could allow a “potentially infinite” number of channels to be broadcast simultaneously. They claim the technique saves bandwidth by encoding several channels on the same frequency using “radio vorticity.”

Source

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
You must read the entire text, not significant tracts.

You theory should be renamed "one great big cop-out". I asked you questions that are basic but are not answered directly in you paper, so I count on you to do it:

how do you model the neutrino, the neutron, the Z boson and the Omega baryon? A simple sketch will do. The omega baryon is not found in your book, so you'll have to prepare a sketch for that. Same applies to neutrino etc. Please answer.

When you are at it, explain why you call the proton a "monopole", while in fact it is a dipole? Don't you think there is a discrepancy between reality and what you call a "theory"?

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
Correct, All things are made of atoms, atoms are composed of n/s monopoles and what I call a particle of matter, it's this particle of matter that determines what element the atom will become.

Incorrect. All things ARE NOT made of atoms. It's a pity a grown up can entertain such notion.

And of course "particle of matter" is some seriously laughable stuff. How can one explain pretty much ANY chemical reaction using that? And/or spectroscopy?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Incorrect. All things ARE NOT made of atoms. It's a pity a grown up can entertain such notion.

Here's the biggest pity: You didn't just leave it at your first two sentences. Had you done that, you would have contributed to the thread like a grown up.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Incorrect. All things ARE NOT made of atoms. It's a pity a grown up can entertain such notion.

Here's the biggest pity: You didn't just leave it at your first two sentences. Had you done that, you would have contributed to the thread like a grown up.

Consider:

one person states that the proton has a dipole magnetic moment, so calling it a monopole is entirely inappropriate. Same person points out that "all things are NOT made of atoms", which is equally true from what we observe in nature.

Another person is happy to believe all that crap, and that "number 9 is dark matter", with all the sophistication and expertise of a chimp.

Now let's consider the contributions.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Checking out the Pure Energy Systems website this morning I see another reference to the Perpetual Motion Holder, "Leedskalnin "Perpetual Motion Holder" (PMH) Bond Effect." (NEST = New Energy Systems Trust):

For some of you, this may be old news, but this is the first that I have encountered this. I ran this by my Dad, who is an atomic clock physicist, and he had not heard of it either.

Check out this 21-second video by my NEST associate, James Rodney (most of you know him by the cool 5 kW E-Cat design he came up with). In this video, he shows a crazy phenomenon. Two blocks of flat steel (soft iron?) with a small channel between them, just large enough to run an 18-gauge, insulated wire through, become bonded to each other when a current from a car battery is very briefly run through the wire. The bond doesn't seem to be magnetic, as the bonded blocks don't exhibit any external magnetism, and there is barely any magnetism after the halves are sheered apart.

I see that one day later Sterling Allan updated that article after receiving important and helpful feedback:

Preface Note -- NOT EXOTIC
by Sterling D. Allan

February 12, 2013; 4:45 pm MDT [GMT-7]

Though many in the comments were saying that this is a well-known principle of physics, it wasn't until I received this explanation from a known friend of the quest for exotic energy technologies, that I finally came to see that what the critics were trying to say is true in this case.


On February 12, 2013 3:57 PM MDT, Mark Snoswell of ChavaScience.com... wrote:

Subject: RE: Leedskalnin "trick"

Hi Sterling,

This aspect of ordinary electromagnetic effects is used commercially where appropriate – for instance in latching relays.

I remember the effect being demonstrated in a first year University Physics lecture some 34 years ago. The demonstration is probably almost as old as our knowledge of electromagnetism.

In layman’s terms... The effect is a simple application of magnetics. When a current passed down the wire the magnetic field generated is almost totally enclosed in the high permeability surrounding soft magnetic material. If the two blocks are machined with very flat faces then there is minimal loss of permeability (think of the gap as a magnetic resistance) across the gap. Because the material has some remanence the magnetic field is maintained at its initial level after the electric field is removed and there will be no magnetic field detectable outside the material. With a very small gap the clamping force can be very high for even small field strengths. However, once the bond is broken the field collapses – the material has low remanence and as the field is removed the remaining magnetization of the blocks drops to a very low level that is difficult to detect. If very sensitive measurements are made a small rise in temperature upon demagnetization can be detected – balancing exactly the energy previously trapped in the magnetic field and the energy put into the magnetic field by the original electric pulse.

This explanation negates most of what follows below, in terms of this being a phenomenon yet to be appreciated, characterized, or implemented.

It's good when people give helpful feedback.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
It's good when people give helpful feedback.

This thread is full of helpful feedback, but I don't understand the filter that you use to determine which feedback is helpful. That comment refers to a "first year University Physics lecture some 34 years ago.", isn't that a little too mainstream for you to be helpful? Much of what Leedskalnin writes is inconsistent with what's been taught in university lectures far longer than that and disagrees with observation and experiment. For example there is no evidence to support Leedskalnin's claim that the Earth's rotation is caused by magnets coming from the sun. Yet you seem to be able to disregard these helpful observations and still seem to think that Leedskalnin's work has some kind of validity.

The one thing I do have to commend Leedskalnin for, is that at least he performed experiments and described them...but he was apparently unaware of thousands of other experiments performed by many other researchers in the preceding century which I presume is part of the reason his understanding was so distorted. Mr Whippler also seems to be unaware of many such experiments which contradict his theory, and I have yet to see his experimental evidence in support of his ideas.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The feedback is helpful when it is polite.

After two years the most helpful feedback that was given on this thread was -PLB-'s sharing of his expertise which led to Jamie Buturff deleting a video which only demonstrated the technology behind a dimmer switch. I very much appreciated that post and I made a point of stating that I appreciated it.

reply to post by Mary Rose

If I claim my car is powered not by an internal combustion engine, but by hamsters running on a wheel, it seems to be somewhat human nature for people to ridicule me for this seemingly ridiculous idea. (Can you blame them?)

But the fact that people are insulting and impolite to me in discarding this absurd idea, does not diminish the accuracy of their feedback that the idea is absurd.

So if instead of saying:

"Leedskalnin was an idiot if he thought Earth's rotation was caused by magnets coming from the sun",

We instead say more politely:

"Leedskanin was a nice guy, but the Earths rotation is fully explained by known laws of physics without invoking magnets coming from the sun to explain it",

Will that be enough to make the feedback helpful and get you to stop promoting his ideas which contradict observation and experiment?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If I claim my car is powered not by an internal combustion engine, but by hamsters running on a wheel, it seems to be somewhat human nature for people to ridicule me for this seemingly ridiculous idea. (Can you blame them?)

That example is so extreme that it's meaningless.

Science and technology evolve when people make previously unknown discoveries or re-interpret previously completed experimental evidence. Things can seem ridiculous simply because of something unknown.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But the fact that people are insulting and impolite to me in discarding this absurd idea, does not diminish the accuracy of their feedback that the idea is absurd.

You are assuming that the impolite person is right and the person being treated rudely is wrong. Is there a possibility that you, Arbitrageur, can be unaware of a different interpretation of evidence that would change textbooks if validated? Or, are you all-knowing?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So if instead of saying:

"Leedskalnin was an idiot if he thought Earth's rotation was caused by magnets coming from the sun",

We instead say more politely:

"Leedskanin was a nice guy, but the Earths rotation is fully explained by known laws of physics without invoking magnets coming from the sun to explain it",

Will that be enough to make the feedback helpful and get you to stop promoting his ideas which contradict observation and experiment?

Leave out the "nice guy" crap. That is more than patronizing.

What you need to incorporate into your understanding is that "laws of physics" are debatable. Mainstream science is not the final say on the laws of physics. There is alternative science. Science is science whether it's mainstream or alternative.

Regardless, politeness is crucial to all human endeavor. Rudeness is counter-productive for all. It wastes time and energy.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Regardless, politeness is crucial to all human endeavor. Rudeness is counter-productive for all. It wastes time and energy.

That is a two-way street. If it's that important to you then practice what you preach instead of fighting fire with fire.