Torsion Physics

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by Spiratio

 

if you haven't researched the work of Marko Rodin yet, I highly suggest you do. here's a short video describing his work, of which the circle of 1-9 is most fascinating: TED talk about Marko Rodin. Also, in summer 2011 there was a very good documentary published, called THRIVE, which explains the existence of toroids EVERYWHERE and of torus dynamics. Nassim Haramein also has interesting ideas about toroids.

you might like to read my post in the thread: Scientists just Discovered the Speed Limit for Quantum Particles. I link to a paper that proposes that ALL particles might be photons with toroidal topologies.. , and link to scientists that have proved that particles actually decrease in mass as they cross the light-speed barrier.

also, you might be interested in reading this thread, and my post: Cold Plasma Above Earth Raises Questions of Einstein's "Gravity is a fundamental force"

hey thanks for all the links I will check them out if I feel draw...mind you tho I have one of the threads open atm

reply to post by Spiratio

I thought this forum was about science and technology and not some esoteric BS.

I mean:

This means the equator is a 3rd polarity or neutral pole.

Obviously you don't understand the meaning of the word polarity. Polarity is a relation between two opposite attributes not three!

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by Spiratio

 

I thought this forum was about science and technology and not some esoteric BS.

I mean:

This means the equator is a 3rd polarity or neutral pole.

Obviously you don't understand the meaning of the word polarity. Polarity is a relation between two opposite attributes not three!

splitting hairs I see, at least those who matter to this material get what is meant and don't give petty feed back. redefining current assumptions is what advancing physics is all about deal with it, the equator is a neutral aspect to polarity a 3rd aspect. Happy?

Also: the moment esotericism became a relevant factor related to science was when it was discovered that observation effects the outcome of an experiment.

you will notice all the specifically esoteric statements in this thread were delivered after the initial science of the OP. Furthermore those that they are in response to are in some instances rebuttal to statements which were themselves lacking any scientific substance, as such those posts are the instigation of which deviats from the purpose of this board.

reply to post by Spiratio

splitting hairs I see, at least those who matter to this material get what is meant

Not really, just can't stand pseudoscientific gibberish. If you want to get the message across, state it clearly.

And no, a neutral pole doesn't make any sense neither does 3rd polarity.

Originally posted by Spiratio

Originally posted by 46ACE
"to the debunkers: understand it is irrefutable"

"bull***"...classic wordy techno psuedoscience bunk.
not wasting any more time here ...

Perfect, as I stated I wont be surveying this thread I have simply replied to ninex because it was of relevance to the structure of the info.

Perhaps we will speak on another thread at a latter time when the irrefutable nuts and bolts have all been placed, no doubt you will say the same as others who have seen the entirety...i.e. ask of evidence that the universe works this way lol. in which case I will point you toward a nice little science / esoteric thread

Good day.

skimming through this wall of bunk I immediately spot this falsehood:

"Ed leedskalnin builder of the Coral Castle and author of the book Magnetic Current, states that voltmeters only measure positive electricity so the known EM spectrum is only partial (In his book he describes the EMF nature of toroid fields of planets and the sun long before the multidimensional maths .."

Voltmeters measure the potential difference between the leads. They will read "positive" or "negative" depending on your chosen reference ("ground"). As all electrons are considered to have a"negative charge" there is no such thing as "positive electricity" ..closest thing is the "hole flow" view ( electrons move leaving a "hole" where they were; in essence a "positive hole". This view is only useful in conceptualizing some semiconductor ideas.

That's a quick one:. I'm sure there are many many "holes"( mis information) in this pile of rubbish.
Good day yourself...

Originally posted by Spiratio
... I am not going to debate......

....I will not be looking further down the page of this thread from this post to survey responses.....

" I have discovered heretofore unknown amazing things...."
"That are simply irrefutable...""
"don't bother discussing"



right...

reply to post by 46ACE



you act like you know all the laws of physics...without leaving any room for error in your "opinion". would it kill people to act a little humble? there's already too much ego abound in this world, for the sake of science one should actually take their guard down and ponder possibilities...but no. ego first...

as you said, a volt charge is the result of a difference in positive and negative power...

this charge can either be positive or negative, according to the net charge of the positive/negative loop..

this is very relevant to what the OP is about, how different fields repel and attract each other depending on charge.

"negative" is only "negative" because humans named it that. if you understand that "electricity" is just an electric current...you could understand that positive electricity would easily be possible, all it takes is another positively charged conduit of electricity.

if you don't believe in the possibility of positive and negative power transfers, then take a look at this thread :cold plasma above earth raises questions of einsteins "gravity is a fundamental force"

there's a lot of discussion there about exactly this circumstance

reply to post by Spiratio

The theory, conceived in the Soviet Union by a group of physicists in the 1980s, is loosely based on Einstein-Cartan theory and some variant solutions of Maxwell's equations.[2] The group, led by Anatoly Akimov and Gennady Shipov,[3] began the research as the state-sponsored Center for Nontraditional Technologies. However, the group disbanded in 1991 when their research was exposed as a fraud and an embezzlement of government funding by Ye.

*

So a couple others mentioned Nassim Haramein.ugh.

Hoagland is another proponent of "torsion physics" ....

Go figure.

reply to post by boncho


pretty weak "rebuking" if you ask me. you didn't point out a single incorrect thing he said.

what's your purpose in this thread? did you just come to disrespect the OP and the subject altogether?

just because this thread exists is no reason to come in with a few one-liners and say that it's all nonsense.

you're playing the role of the "establishment" when you treat "alternative subjects" with such disrespect. have you forgotten why the free-speech of ATS was made in the first place? YOU came here so you could learn and discuss "alternative topics"......but only the "alternative topics" of which you presently "believe" in?

so what's your purpose in this thread? so far you've shown it to be of disrespect.

reply to post by metalshredmetal

just because this thread exists is no reason to come in with a few one-liners and say that it's all nonsense.

So let it exist in skunk works then...

to the debunkers: understand it is irrefutable I am not going to debate

The OP sealed his fate with the above sentence and deserves no respect.

In other words, "The world is the way I say it is and there is no question about it, we do not want to hear anyone debate this..."

"I will only respond to people who believe what I am saying..."

And so on and so forth...

Originally posted by Spiratio

Originally posted by abecedarian
So what about Uranus? How does that work, considering it's axis of rotation is inclined nearly perpindicular to its orbital plane?

edit on 1/27/2012 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)

Fantastic some constructive sceptical input.

Surprised? And I wouldn't necessarily say it's skeptical, just curious about resolving issues with observations.
And, I must correct myself: I said Uranus' rotational axis was "nearly perpindicular" when I should have said "nearly parallel to its orbital plane". I don't know if this changes your hypothesis but I feel I should correct myself.

If you understand the different channels/plains (nestled toroids) aspect, then you may consider the possibility that there are some toroids which are offset i.e. graduate in a twist as the series stacks within themselves.

As in asymetrical toroids, where say, instead of bi-lateral symmetry in the horizontal direction within a toroidal segment, one side is thicker than the other?

For instance, a doughnut cut twice into 3 slices and the slices represent different "toroid" sections: north, neutral and south poles, respectively. However, the 2 physical cuts are neither horizontall nor parallel to each other, and the center slice is arbitrarily rotated with the result being the axis where it passes through the center section deviates "left" at the top then "right" at the bottom of the center slice. The net effect being the doughnut's north and south poles are generally, physically co-linear, but through the center is "Z" shaped and causes the center to "wobble" as it rotates.

This would result in different axis for each layer, and depending on the distance ratio of resonance to the suns core frequency one of those offset layers is the layer which is most resonant with the suns repulsion therefore delivering an effect where their equator tilts as such - inducing perpendicular rotation.

Analogous to transferring mechanical motion through gears from horizontal to vertical?

Take into account that Uranus is also further out so is under a different level of curving torsional influence than the planets closer in. The distance factor is not a factor which makes this a definite case for every planet further out only those which have specific size/mass and resonance values would be the case.

Whereas the intensity closer in to the sun would be the main cause for planets in nearer proximity to mostly maintain a direct resonance with the outermost layers of their fields which are mostly on the same axial alignment with the suns equator.

So, I interpret your theory as suggesting the Sun's "3rd pole" acts along a narrow pseudo-planar surface, analogous to the horizontal, helical cut gear I mentioned above, with the "3rd pole" of the planets, analogous to another helical cut gear. In the case of Uranus, that "gear" is oriented vertically.

I think I'm getting the visual interaction here, no?

But then, how would you explain the retrograde rotation of Uranus?
... and Venus, which has no natural magnetic field to interact with, thus no 3rd pole?

reply to post by abecedarian


Im pretty positive the op meant concentric spheres, when they describe nestled toroids...like layers of an onion..

You seem to be imagining the layers as lines of latitude, which isn't accurate, maybe im reading you wrong..

Thus means you must penetrate the surface toroid field in order to access the other inner toroids.

reply to post by metalshredmetal


I could be wrong, but I read it as the planetary equator was a 3rd pole being influenced thus causing the rotation. I simplified to relating forces as gears in order to visualize the interaction.

reply to post by metalshredmetal

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by abecedarian

 

Im pretty positive the op meant concentric spheres, when they describe nestled toroids...like layers of an onion..

You seem to be imagining the layers as lines of latitude, which isn't accurate, maybe im reading you wrong..

Thus means you must penetrate the surface toroid field in order to access the other inner toroids.

Yes that's what I am implying, there is another factor as well which is the perfect fractal octave above being the same space/volume as the first toroid in the nestled layers...the concentric spheres on the other hand are like the integers akin to notes on a piano scale before the next octave up.

So each integer has corresponding octaves at multiple overtones/undertones-(non perfect octaves) that coincide with the same volume i.e. each note in a scale is double or half the frequency at the next octave above or below. The perfect octave is simply the one which encompasses the most expansive layer and in music theory it is the base note of the scale. This is not implying that all toroids have perfect amounts however i.e. some octaves may only have several corresponding integer layers above or below. This allows for jigsaw puzzle like interactions between the entangled bodies of other larger or smaller toroids embedded within them

abecedarian,

your mechanical motor analogy is correct the offset toroids in the layers of uranus render the planar equator disk on an angle parallel. the dynamics of layered torsion can account for both circumstances parallel or perpendicular. However the rotation is a result of the sum total of entangled EM interactions of both positive /negative torsional motions and the neutral disk

P.S. Msm check your PM's

reply to post by abecedarian


Youre not wrong to assume that, but you should know that the equator (middle point between two poles) is a result of double toroids..a toroid in north hemisphere and one in south hemisphere..

All the internal layed toroids all share the central shaft. Look at the animation in the op and you can visualize the two toroids, they "meet" at the equator and their energies cancel each other out where they "meet". This area where they meet is where the neutral charge is, this neutral meeting point makes a "plane" which manifests through out the interior...this plane is what makes the galactic disk shape, and the plane of our solar system on which the planets orbit.

Watch the documentary I linked in my first post called THRIVE. It explains this pretty well...

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by 46ACE

 

you act like you know all the laws of physics...without leaving any room for error in your "opinion". would it kill people to act a little humble? there's already too much ego abound in this world, for the sake of science one should actually take their guard down and ponder possibilities...but no. ego first...

as you said, a volt charge is the result of a difference in positive and negative power...

this charge can either be positive or negative, according to the net charge of the positive/negative loop..

this is very relevant to what the OP is about, how different fields repel and attract each other depending on charge.

"negative" is only "negative" because humans named it that. if you understand that "electricity" is just an electric current...you could understand that positive electricity would easily be possible, all it takes is another positively charged conduit of electricity.

if you don't believe in the possibility of positive and negative power transfers, then take a look at this thread :cold plasma above earth raises questions of einsteins "gravity is a fundamental force"

there's a lot of discussion there about exactly this circumstance

I am not a degreed "physicist": however; I am an experienced metrology lab(calibration and repair) technician with years of the best advanced military electronics training and earned an additional civilian associates in "electromechanical technology"( industrial power/ motors/ drives/hydraulics/ pneumatics, and PLC controls) to make me employable in my local area. .

but I can READ and understand technical material and KNOW when I am being"snowed" under by a bunch of technical sounding jargon that doesn't follow. (never mind make simple grammatical sense.)

These kind of sites never write to explain anything; merely to sound "impressive".
You were asked to produced viable uses for such "earthshattering" scientific advances, and all you come up with was stuttering new age drivel. You and Hoaglund can Sell your"snake oil" elsewhere..I've wasted too much of my (valuable) time here as it is...

reply to post by 46ACE



I find your lack of grasp disturbing.....look at this logically....

Your on a conspiracy web site that means you generally keep an open mind....right? No not you....You just came to push your own ideas of reality as fact......

Ever think maybe the OP is on to something? When you consider that even today's science is guess work in a white coat....what makes the OP's post impossible? I actually think some of this is fascinating. Thank you OP for posting it.

Oh I forgot you went through the public school system didn't you?


See? I can be a smarmy jerk too...your turn hoss....

reply to post by 46ACE


This is the same crap that RIchard C. Hoagland puts out..

reply to post by chrismarco



Doesn't make it any less false or less interesting.........