Magnetic Monopoles & Electricity, The Connection

[l wippler]

I have completed my research on the magnetic monopole and it's connection to electricity, it's to long to post in this forum.
I am asking for your comments and input, My findings can be found here.
http://www.wbabin.net/science/wippler.pdf

Thanks
L Wippler

[sucahyo]

Sorry, I don't understand the document. How do you create electromagnetic monopole?

[l wippler]

Sorry, I don't understand the document. How do you create electromagnetic monopole?

North and south monopoles are what create a dipole. (bar magnets)
You cannot create an electromagnetic monopole.
The term Electromagnetic is used to describe waves, (light, x-ray, and gamma rays) these waves are composed of N/S monopoles.

[sucahyo]

I see, thank you. I thought you propose a way to create monopole.

[Loadstone]

T.o.e

Hey Wippler.
You have managed to re-write Ed Leedskalnin's Magnetic Current notes almost word for word.
I didn't see Ed Leedskalnin listed in your document though?
It appears that you have copied/ pasted Ed's notes into your own document, such are the similarities! (Not that I want to sound nasty BTW)

The reason I say this is because I have already written a large document on the same subject myself, along with my partner in crime Amit.
I can see the problems you had to overcome such as how the magnets can pass each other, how they are divided...and I can say there that it is not the magnet passing the copper that makes the division.
When those little magnets go in the copper wire they are in "bulk form", but when they come out the copper wire ends they are the result of division.
I'll attatch a pic of my notes in progress.
Overall I have about 130 diagrams covering 56 experiments...Lenz Law ect ect re-worked to show the functions of Magnetic Currents according to the writings of Ed Leedskalnin....Which is more or less the same as what I wippler posted, except much more extensive.

Scotty.

[l wippler]

Hey Wippler.
You have managed to re-write Ed Leedskalnin's Magnetic Current notes almost word for word.
I didn't see Ed Leedskalnin listed in your document though?
It appears that you have copied/ pasted Ed's notes into your own document, such are the similarities! (Not that I want to sound nasty BTW)

The reason I say this is because I have already written a large document on the same subject myself, along with my partner in crime Amit.
I can see the problems you had to overcome such as how the magnets can pass each other, how they are divided...and I can say there that it is not the magnet passing the copper that makes the division.
When those little magnets go in the copper wire they are in "bulk form", but when they come out the copper wire ends they are the result of division.
I'll attatch a pic of my notes in progress.
Overall I have about 130 diagrams covering 56 experiments...Lenz Law ect ect re-worked to show the functions of Magnetic Currents according to the writings of Ed Leedskalnin....Which is more or less the same as what I wippler posted, except much more extensive.

Scotty.

Hi Scotty

Yrs ago I decided to try and solved the Theory of Everything, during my research I discovered Ed's paper on magnetic current, I noticed that the underlying principle was the same as my theory, however I went much further that ED in explaining the many unanswered questions that modern science has yet to explain, it was published as (The Theory of Everything Solved)
you can find more information at Home - The Theory of Everything Solved



Thanks
Larry

[Aromaz]

@Larry; Good to have you here!
I studied your thesis somewhere in 2008/2009. It is very interesting, actually still got a PDF compilation on my computer. (thesolved.webs.com version)

There are a few issues I differ and it would be interesting to ponder about them with you.

However; I have to say congratulations and best wishes - you were thinking out-of-the-box! Very few people are willing or able to dare that, even in this esteemed community. Please do not consider my words or methods as attacking, people often see the wrong intentions. My English is very limited so I am not able to write in Diplomatic Language; unless we speak in Afrikaans or Thai!

As starter: 1)
“Energy is all around us, and it takes many forms: light, gravity, heat, electricity—are all forms of energy.”
Are all forms of energy not the same, just different levels and manifestations?
If energy can only be transformed by the atom, then what is the original form of energy?

2) Is my understanding correct that you propose Magnetism as the most fundamental building block? Without magnetism there can be no atom?

3) “In the core of every atom is a particle of matter . . .”
How did this particle of matter came to existence in the first place?

[Loadstone]

Hey Larry.
I am glad on one hand that you have done this work, even though you stole my thunder, but to simply claim it as your own is something I could not bring myself to do. That is why I wrote "Expanded from the works of Edward Leedskalnin" on my document.
I would consider it un philosophic at least....but that is me.

If I may point out:
Figure 1b, where you said "For example, a positive magnetic monopole is an isolated magnetic north pole.We would expect magnetic field lines to radiate away from such an object", seems to contradict figure 3A where you write "These magnetic monopoles are in perpetual motion, creating a magnetic line of force."

Now you have point particles radiating field lines and also existing as the lines of force themselves.??
If the magnets are the lines of force, which is the fact, then it is a contradiction to also have a radiating line of force from the said particle.
How can that be?, since the particles themselves are the smallest possible thing, and, constituting what we call fields or lines of force, it would not be possible for them to emit any kind of field whatever, lest we use this same theory to suggest a smaller particle still, which constitutes the "field lines radiating away from such an object." Then we could go on forever to infinity.........

There is a simple answer of course.
They are what they are.

They are not really magnets at all. We only call them that because we observe 2 kinds and their attraction.
Men and women are attracted but we are not called magnets.
The magnets are too busy for sex, but they like to be close.
They don't need any radiating field lines for that, it is part of their nature.

Scotty.

[CosmicFarmer]

Mmmm Sexy magnets..
Sometimes women repel, sometimes women attract... I see the likeness in magnetism..


Regardless of the silly things, Since there are 2 separate "things" flowing in alternate directions, how do you propose we separate these beams of force? is there one conductor that prefers N while another prefers S? I think that if we can separate these just a little, then the energy obtained in re-uniting them can be used. Like putting your finger inbetween a braid and pulling the lines apart...

[l wippler]

@Larry; Good to have you here!
I studied your thesis somewhere in 2008/2009. It is very interesting, actually still got a PDF compilation on my computer. (thesolved.webs.com version)

There are a few issues I differ and it would be interesting to ponder about them with you.

However; I have to say congratulations and best wishes - you were thinking out-of-the-box! Very few people are willing or able to dare that, even in this esteemed community. Please do not consider my words or methods as attacking, people often see the wrong intentions. My English is very limited so I am not able to write in Diplomatic Language; unless we speak in Afrikaans or Thai!

As starter: 1)
“Energy is all around us, and it takes many forms: light, gravity, heat, electricity—are all forms of energy.”
Are all forms of energy not the same, just different levels and manifestations?

Correct, all forms of energy are composed of N/S Monopoles, the only difference is how they move relative each other.

If energy can only be transformed by the atom, then what is the original form of energy?

Monopoles: My definition of energy is the movement of monopoles, without this movement, you cannot have energy. all forms of energy move including Gravity. [/QUOTE]

2) Is my understanding correct that you propose Magnetism as the most fundamental building block? Without magnetism there can be no atom?

Monopoles are the building blocks, they create a dipole this binds atoms together.[/QUOTE]

3) “In the core of every atom is a particle of matter . . .”
How did this particle of matter came to existence in the first place?

A particle of matter as well as monopoles have always existed, they cannot be created or destroyed.

Thanks
L Wippler

[l wippler]

Hey Larry.
I am glad on one hand that you have done this work, even though you stole my thunder, but to simply claim it as your own is something I could not bring myself to do. That is why I wrote "Expanded from the works of Edward Leedskalnin" on my document.
I would consider it un philosophic at least....but that is me.

If I may point out:
Figure 1b, where you said "For example, a positive magnetic monopole is an isolated magnetic north pole.We would expect magnetic field lines to radiate away from such an object", seems to contradict figure 3A where you write "These magnetic monopoles are in perpetual motion, creating a magnetic line of force."

Now you have point particles radiating field lines and also existing as the lines of force themselves.??
If the magnets are the lines of force, which is the fact, then it is a contradiction to also have a radiating line of force from the said particle.
How can that be?, since the particles themselves are the smallest possible thing, and, constituting what we call fields or lines of force, it would not be possible for them to emit any kind of field whatever, lest we use this same theory to suggest a smaller particle still, which constitutes the "field lines radiating away from such an object." Then we could go on forever to infinity.........

There is a simple answer of course.
They are what they are.

They are not really magnets at all. We only call them that because we observe 2 kinds and their attraction.
Men and women are attracted but we are not called magnets.
The magnets are too busy for sex, but they like to be close.
They don't need any radiating field lines for that, it is part of their nature.

Scotty.

Sorry for the confusion that's my fault, what I call a magnetic line of force is when a north monopole moves opposite of a south monopole in perpetual motion, this is what creates a magnetic line of force. The field that radiates outward from a single monopole is its area of attraction, monopoles outside this area are not attracted/repelled, this is the point like particle for a magnetic line of force.

[l wippler]

Mmmm Sexy magnets..
Sometimes women repel, sometimes women attract... I see the likeness in magnetism..


Regardless of the silly things, Since there are 2 separate "things" flowing in alternate directions, how do you propose we separate these beams of force? is there one conductor that prefers N while another prefers S? I think that if we can separate these just a little, then the energy obtained in re-uniting them can be used. Like putting your finger inbetween a braid and pulling the lines apart...

You have just described Electricity: To separate a monopole you must use the law of attraction. A dipole has a surplus of north monopoles at its north pole and a surplus of south monopoles at is south pole. In a generator, as the north pole of a bar magnet moves passed a coil of wire it will concentrate all of the south monopoles in that end of the wire, (remember you are using the law of attraction) this creates what we call negative electricity, just the opposite happens in the other end of the coil of wire, when you recombine these separated monopoles and you get a magnetic field.

[Aromaz]

On the Origin

This, I think, is the most critical issue where we will differ.

Electricity is the creator of magnetism.

Electricity can exist without Magnetism;
Magnetism cannot exist without Electricity.
Magnetism is confined to metalic matter only.

Electricity is bi-polar - which one can view as magnetic similar; but it is not really the same.
Electricity originates as mono-pole (separated); but magnetism cannot exist without being in the direct field of its opposite.
Only during the process of breaking down the monopole electrical do one get magnetism.

Next:
The nuclear or smallest particle cannot be pre-existing.
On this I might yield and put on hold for further investigation.
I have it that the original 'nucleus particle' is only a highly charged energy 'blob'
which explains why elements can change from one to another by various processes involving higher or lower charges.

That aside;
one issue I could not clearly understand in your thesis:
What is the difference/similarity/unity between LIGHT and PHOTONS?
In other words: How do you see Light and Photons.

[ABCStore]

Magnetism is confined to metalic matter only.

Water is diamagnetic...

ABC

[l wippler]

This, I think, is the most critical issue where we will differ.

Electricity is the creator of magnetism.

Electricity can exist without Magnetism;
Magnetism cannot exist without Electricity.
Magnetism is confined to metalic matter only.

Electricity is bi-polar - which one can view as magnetic similar; but it is not really the same.
Electricity originates as mono-pole (separated); but magnetism cannot exist without being in the direct field of its opposite.
Only during the process of breaking down the monopole electrical do one get magnetism.

Next:
The nuclear or smallest particle cannot be pre-existing.
On this I might yield and put on hold for further investigation.
I have it that the original 'nucleus particle' is only a highly charged energy 'blob'
which explains why elements can change from one to another by various processes involving higher or lower charges.

That aside;
one issue I could not clearly understand in your thesis:
What is the difference/similarity/unity between LIGHT and PHOTONS?
In other words: How do you see Light and Photons.

Let's start from the beginning, I wanted to solve The Theory of Everything an explanation that would unite the fundamental forces. I started by taking the end results of all experiments and then set aside there explanations and developed a theory that would unite the fundamental forces.

How do you see Light and Photons?

Light is an electromagnetic wave its composed of n/s monopoles moving opposite each other creating a double helix all electromagnetic waves have this particle wave duality. I see no reason to have a photon to explain why we see light, our eyes can only see a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.