Perpetual Motion - The Holy Grail - A Magnetic Monopole

[witsend]

On a side note and really its off topic but I'd like to hear your opinion on a question I have. Can current flow in two directions in a wire at the same time?

Not sure. I know that 'meshed' currents have been classified - studied - and generally accepted by mainstream - so technically, they can. My own take is that current flow exceeds light speed and that opposing currents do NOT happen simultaneously. They're just measured in our own time frames and they appear to be concurrent. How's that for a play on words. Certainly in terms of my model they CAN'T - always assuming that we're talking about a flow through your standard copper wiring. But that's just my take. Don't take it as gospel. I'm really not qualified to comment.

[gmeat]

Thx Rosemary, Sorry to throw a monkey wrench in the thread.Carry on ALL and dont mind this mere peasant .-Gary

[witsend]

Gary - also off topic - I finally managed to focus in on your 'picture'. It's brilliant. Is that a bottle of beer beside that rather inebriated fat cat? LOL. I'd love to see a picture of it on a bigger scale?

[witsend]

The Properties Of Weightlessness Explored As A Potential Source Of Energy

Ok. We've sort of covered the possibility of finding perpetual energy in a monopole - related to its potential to generate electric current flow. Nothing proved. Just argued as being posible.

But there is another consideration here. On the assumption that the sphere - that monopole - IS able to spin (axially or orbitally) through the space of the toroid - then is it also showing properties of weightlessness? I would argue that it is. Of itself - no gross amalgam here on our Earth - nothing with a solid three dimensional boundary is able to move into perpetuity. Liquids and gases are different. They have a more complex interaction with gravitational fields and something in their construct enables a continual inner motion that distributes and redistributes those atoms and molecules in a kind of perpetual dance. One both sees and knows that they move and recombine and change their locations of space and through time - both continuously and continually. But solids? They came to rest. They can and do stay in position through millennia until forces exceeding that gravitational 'pull' - are naturally or artificially applied to move them.

So. What then are the essential differences between these three atomic states being a gas, a liquid or a solid? Nitrogen for example, in sufficient concentration - can be liquid. Water can freeze into solid ice. And - conversely mercury - at room temperature is liquid. We all know this. And our chemists attribute those changes to the applied variations of temperature on specific concentrations of those atoms or molecules - to bring about that change from a solid to a liquid to a gas or vice versa. The study is hugely complex but it actually turns on a single question. What exactly generates heat? Or conversely, what exactly generates cold? We know, for instance, that photons from the sun can burn. Magnification can then concentrate that burn to a flame. And given sufficient concentration it can even vapourise solids. But the photon comes and goes. Of itself it does not burn. We also know that the atoms in that heated or cooled object - actually never change. Take your average house and the variety of atoms and molecules that are used to create that house. Now burn it to the ground. Not one particle is added or subtracted from those many, many atoms and their many many variations into molecules - that made that house. Lots of fire - lots of flames - all over the place. Yet the atom stays in tact - unchanged - unscathed - impervious.

And the relevance of this to the opening question? It is to suggest that some property comes into play that has nothing to do with atom. A solid is held bound by something extraneous to that atom.

EDITED

[witsend]

Picture a magnetic field like this. Each field is like a necklace. One necklace would be the tertiary binding field which is one dimensional. More than one necklace would be the 'choker' forming the atomic energy levels. Many chokers would combine into toroid which is something like the earth's magnetic field. This toroid - writ large - would also be the composition, shape and construct of our entire universe. All three fields are aetheric - they fill all of space - and they all have properties of magnetism. This, because the proposal is that they are simply made up of tiny little magnets. And these tiny little magnetic dipoles are all just particles that have a velocity of 2C and a size mass of precisely one half of a photon. And each field varies one from another only in scale and size.

And the further proposal is that each of these three states - the one, two and three dimensional magnetic fields are somehow, self-sustaining. They are not readily broken. They can be influenced by a 'juxtaposed' field. But to break those strings requires an applied electromagnetic force. Else they just keep spinning into perpetuity.

But I need to point to the tertiary smallest one dimensional fields - the single stranded necklace - that holds atoms bound. They precisely reflect the opposite charge of the atom and then link two atoms together. If the atoms in any amalgam have an innate valence imbalance then so do the fields. And, correspondingly if the atoms have an innate balanced valence condition, then so do the fields. They orbit. And they can arrange their orbit to determine the required linkage and the required balance. In this way they determine the lattice structure of solid amalgams. Having found a condition of 'best balance' they are able to hold the atom locked in position for as long as stable exterior conditions allow.

In effect we see the amalgam - comprising atoms - but what we don't see is this field of 'binding' particles that hold that amalgam together. Yet these same fields continually orbit - interacting with the orbiting secondary fields or atomic energy levels - which we also do not see. They are also invisible. All is moving - all at speeds that exceed light speed. Yet the entire solid amalgam can be held fixed in space locked in a hold that is widely attributed to gravity.

But the question then is what makes the earth's magnetic field the source of 'gravity'. What is the property in this toroidal field that can force matter to move in a fixed direction and then hold it bound and fixed in space? Indeed, always assuming that it is a magnetic field that makes gravity in the first instance.

Edited

[witsend]

Just as an aside. I've contacted and just had a long chat with Mrmagnetman. If anyone can build that sphere it'll be him. He's looking into it and will get back to us.

How amazing if he can build it. I've been toying with this idea for over 10 years. I'm holding thumbs and saying prayers. LOL

Here's hoping guys. We may yet get that magnetic monopole constructed.

[witsend]

Now to some more assumptions - except in their defense they do not contradict observed phenomena. Farraday drew a picture of 'lines of force' to represent the magnetic field. We all know of those representations. They stretch fom the north of a magnetic field to the south - and some representations include arrows pointing south. The proposal is that those strings comprise magnetic dipoles lined up together - north to south - like a long series of beads. Now - in the mind's eye - draw those same lines extruding from the earth's north pole and stretching to the south pole. And now continue that line back through the body of the earth - through it's centre, back to the north pole to form a perfect circle. THAT'S the assumption. It is assumed here that the field continues its path through the body of the earth. It forms a necklace - a really long, single stranded, very thin line of magnetic dipoles, lined up north to south. Many such strands - many such necklaces - and what you have is a toroidal magnetic field. It's just that one half of those fields are hidden in the material body of the earth and the space available to those strings is somewhat restricted. Outside the body of the earth and those strings can move apart in space and bulge - as it is known to do - at a wide and extended angle at the equator. Then - as it gets back to the south pole it again becomes spatially restricted. Then - as it moves through the earth itself, (assuming that the string remains in tact as it moves from south to north) - then the space available to the string is again restricted. And given the material mass inside the earth's crust, it is possible that the space is greatly constrained. Really, really 'tight'.

Now. Charge is defined as the direction a particle takes within a magnetic field. But here I'm proposing that the charge of the magnetic field itself is determined by the direction or 'justification' of the field. For the sake of this argument let us suppose that the obital justification of the field is FROM the north TO the south. And for purposes of this argument let us say that this justification makes that part of the 'field' POSITIVE. Effectively therefore ALL MATTER on the surface of the earth ONLY knows this single positive charge. The evidence is that through the millennia - our magnetic fields have changed - often. But, equally, the evidence is that all matter and all life forms and all things on the surface of the earth have only ever experienced that single charge. You see now? We're back to a MONOPOLAR condition. And it's widespread.

I'll just briefly touch on the movement of the fields as they go from the South back to the North - inside the body of the earth itself. For now - I'll simply describe that field justification as entirely NEGATIVE. Another MONOPOLAR condition - that balances the positive charge at the surface of the earth.

EDITED

[witsend]

Ok. So we have the possibility of a potentially charged condition to a magnetic field when the 'negative' half of it's justification is somehow spatially removed from the 'positive' half of its charge. In effect I'm proposing a condition that promotes potential difference - but here it's 'writ large'. Very large. This begs the question that the earth is somehow akin to your average wire wound resistor and this potential difference induces a current flow in the centre of the earth which accounts for it's 'hot' condition. But that's not the thesis here. It needs to be explored on a separate thread. Here we're exploring the conditions of 'weight' which may then give answers as to how to generate a condition of weightlessness.

[witsend]

I'm hoping the following series of illustrations may explain the case better. This is meant to represent our Earth. The illustration shows that the magnetic lines of force are all following the same direction. I'm proposing that this is a 'charge' and the thesis is that all matter on our Earth has only ever been exposed to this single charge. It's therefor a MONOPOLAR condition.

Just noticed that rather strange spelling of SPHERE. Apologies to purists.

[witsend]

Here I'm trying to draw a parallel to the earth's magnetic lines of force being identical to those that we propose are evident in a solenoid. Therefore the 'idea' is that perhaps our earth is acting as a kind of 'resistor' that then generates the 'hot' conditions inside the material of the earth itself. Certainly it's true that the bulk of our Earth's solid material comprises ferite material which could, in turn, respond to the earth's changing fields. Very much in line with inductive laws.

[witsend]

All I'm trying to focus on in this illustration is the fact that material is moved at an angle of 90 degrees to the lines of force. The thesis proposes that if that material comprised anti matter then the angle of interaction would induce the reverse direction. Effectively the proposal is that antimatter would move at an angle of 90 degrees towards the outer boundaries of a magnetic field. Conversely matter moves at 90 degrees towards the centre of a magnetic field.

[witsend]

And this final image is intended to show two hydrogen atoms linked by a tertiary binding field (in the centre). Effectively here, the proposal is that ALL MATTER on our earth is held bound by these plastic binding fields that can change their 'abodes' - those atoms that they choose to bind - as required - and as they move to reconstite matter into its myriad different forms.

But the point is this. Those binding fields are proposed to be tertiary magnetic fields. They orbit. The hydrogen atoms and all atoms are proposed to have energy levels comprising secondary magnetic fields. They also orbit. And an orbit has a single justification. A single charge. BUT the entire orbit expresses two directions which, relative to the one half, becomes a SECOND opposing charge. And that single line in the centre is meant to represent the earth's magnetic lines of force. They - by contrast - only have a single direction. They are therefore MONOPOLAR which - relative to the contained matter - therefore only has a single charge. Effectively it's a MONOPOLAR CONDITION.

In effect all matter comprises orbiting fields. Therefore precisely one half of all the tertiary and secondary fields will OPPOSE the direction or charge of the containing primary magnetic field. That induces a motion at an angle of 90 degrees. If that matter had a single charge, it would move at an angle of 180 degrees to those lines of force. Single 'like' charges would move AGAINST those lines of force - which would be from south to north. Single 'unlike' charges would move WITH those lines of force - which would be from north to south. Antimatter would move at a 90 degree angle upwards by contrast to matter which would move at a 90 degree angle downwards.

In effect the proposal is that the 'direction' of movement as a result of magnetic (here proposed as gravitational) fields would then be consistent with the effects largely attributed to gravity.

The difference is that the 'direction' albeit determined by 'charge' has NOTHING to do with the acceleration of objects which is to do with the weigth mass of objects - which I'll try and explain hereafter.

Sorry the sketches are so elementary. It's the best I could do given the constraints of time, bad eyesight and the rather reckless attempt to sketch all this at night. Not the best light for my bad vision.

EDITED

[witsend]

Ok guys, here's the relevance. If the resulting interaction of matter is the result of it's construction from tertiary and secondary fields - THEN - a monopole MAY move at 180 degrees inside that toroid - as the inner space of that toroid should, effectively, be a monopolar field. That's the question. Hopefully Mr Magnetman can build us that monopole. And hopefully, we will then be able to test this thesis. If it is right - then that's a biggie. We'll finally have an explanation for gravity that is understandable - if still invisible. LOL

[witsend]

NOW - TO THE THEORETICAL PROPERTIES OF WEIGHTLESSNESS.

To cover this I first need to discuss the properties of WEIGHT as opposed to the properties of CHARGE. I'm seriously proposing that the weight of an object is the result of magnetic attraction. Nothing else. Take a whole pile of magnets and - given a chance - given reasonable conditions of proximity, they'll all assemble in a localised space.

The Casimir effect was first proposed by Casimir himself - a mathematician - obsessed, as we all are, with symmetry. He concluded that given the required proximity - and at a certain very small scale - atomic structures will 'stick' together with a profoundly strong force. His thesis was tested and proven and thereafter known as The Casimir Effect. Effectively he proposed that there was some structure within the atom that could promote a bonding. I am proposing that all the bonding of all material is the result of a structure extraneous to the material itself.

(actually I've run out of time. I'll continue here later)

[witsend]

more on the properties of weight

Very briefly, all I'm suggesting is that the tertiary binding fields are simply one dimensional orbiting 'strings'. Effectively they're magnets. Consider the bound condition of our Earth - and consider the number of such one dimensional magnetic fields that must be responsible for the bound condition of the material making up the crust of our earth. That represents a really massive collection of magnets. If such binding fields exist then this would explain the Casimir Effect AND it would account for the magnetic 'pull' that accelerates objects that are falling towards the earth. The closer it gets the stronger the pull. Having reached the surface of the Earth it would then come to rest. And in moving it from the 'rest state' would require a 'force' at least in some measure in excess of that 'magnetic pull' that holds the object in its rest state. This pull is determined by the number of fields in that amalgam. It is therefore proportionate to the mass or the amount of material in that amalgam that 'holds it bound'.

So. In terms of this thesis, it's weight determines the 'magnetic' pull and it's movement through a gravitational field determines its direction or 'path'. Two separate events and two entirely different sums. The one relates to its weight or mass - the other relates to its charge. The weight relates to the volume or the 'whole' of the amalgam and this results in a greater or lesser 'rest state'. But its direction is determined by a superficial interaction of the 'surface' atoms reacting to the containing 'gravitational' or in this proposal 'primary magnetic field'.

I hope that's clear. It would explain why objects in space orbit at a velocity that is independent of its weight or mass or volume. Yet proximity to greater masses may result in an acceleration of velocity. This would entirely account for the principles of accretion.

EDITED