Rosemary Ainslie | A Magnetic Field Model

[witsend]

Actually having read it I can't answer any of these points. I thought protons were stable? That they couldn't decay. But I'm definitely aware of the neutron decay - with a short life time. But generally 15 minutes in the life of these little numbers is considered long. I think when they're in the atom they're relatively stable though.

I actually don't know enough about Tesla's theories. I only know of his experiments. But you're right. He'd hardly be such an ace experimentalist if he wasn't also a theorist of sorts. Can you oblige us with some links - or some explanation? Links would probably be quicker.

What is of interest is that Wiki goes to some length to explain that free floating 'protons' are available in battery acid and that they're responsible for conducting the 'free floating electrons' through the battery. But I can't buy into this at all. But I think you're in good company in proposing this or some variation of this. It's just all outside my own ideas it's hard for me to get my head around them.

By the way, an electron neutrino is another unstable particle. Not sure of it's life span. Did Tesla need something that effectively behaved like a virtual particle?

[poii]

speed and size are relative

I was reading your MF model and on p.15 you say: "It is proposed that speed and size are relative – velocity replaced by mass and mass by velocity" , and was reminded of Larson's Reciprocal Theory of the Universe. Are you familiar with it?

He starts with unit space progressing in unit time (s/t=c) in three dimensions, oscillates one dimension to get a photon and then adds rotational velocity, energy, e=mc2, in the other dimensions to get particles and atoms.
Whereas the natural progression is away from all other points in space, ( think balloon, galactic recession) the internal rotation is towards all other points in space (tennis ball rolling backwards on a conveyor belt, gravity).

New Light on Space and Time by DEWEY B. LARSON

New Light on Space and Time: Chapter VII

found at

Dewey B. Larson

PS.
I love reading your prose, its so...
poetic and straightforward.

[witsend]

I was reading your MF model and on p.15 you say: "It is proposed that speed and size are relative – velocity replaced by mass and mass by velocity" , and was reminded of Larson's Reciprocal Theory of the Universe. Are you familiar with it?

Hello Poii,
I've not heard of Larson and looked up the link. Actually can't really understand it. I think I'd need to read from the beginning. Is the whole of his book available on the internet. And if so, please help me by giving me the whole link. Not sure how to do this myself. I'm a computer illiterate.

To be quite frank I'd forgotten about this thread. I use it whenever I need to indulge in my obscure thoughts. Glad you like the prose. I'm a great lover of language but suspect my own style is too turgid. I'd be really interested to know if you could understand it? Especially as this relates to broken symmetry. A friend has kindly agreed to give a simple rendition in a series of videos and am wondering if this might help? I'd be interested to see what you think here - and which points remain 'as dark as midnight'.

If you're up for it.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Redirect from - COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

http://www.energeticforum.com/84576-post186.html

The model proposes that charge has the property of mass with the material properties of velocities and thermal capacities associated with that mass. These particles do not conform to the standard model and remain hidden within three dimensional solid or liquid objects or amalgams. They are extraneous to the atom itself and only interact with the atomic energy levels that, in turn, comprise independent fields of the same fundamental particle. These extraneous fields are responsible for the bound condition of the amalgam. This interaction between the fields and the atoms’ energy levels results in a balanced distribution of charge throughout the amalgam. Measurable voltage reflects a transitional state of imbalance throughout these binding fields that, subject to circuit conditions, then move that charge through available conductive and inductive paths to reestablish a charge balance. In effect the circuit components that enable the flow of charge from a supply source are, themselves able to generate a flow of current depending on the strength of that applied potential difference and the material properties of the circuit components. Therefore both inductive and conductive circuit components have a potential to generate current flow in line with Inductive Laws.

Classical assumption requires an equivalence in the transfer of electric energy based as it is on the concept of a single supply source. Therefore voltage measured away from the supply on circuit components is seen to be stored energy delivered during closed circuit conditions of a switching cycle. The distinction is drawn that if indeed, the circuit components are themselves able to generate a current flow from potential gradients, then under open circuit conditions, that energy may, be added to the sum of the energy on the circuit thereby exceeding the limit of energy available from the supply. Therefore if more energy is measured to be dissipated at a load than is delivered by the supply, then that evidence will be consistent with this thesis. The experimental evidence does indeed, conform to this prediction.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/84750-post190.html

It is a little known truth that no-one actually knows what electric current is - let alone how or why it flows. In the same way no-one knows what causes gravity. These both, together with the strong and weak nuclear forces, are lumped together - very broadly, under the term 'forces'. And a force is known to be that something that can be used to give energy. But here's the thing. Nor does anyone actually know what energy is. You get whole divisions within universities dedicated to the study of clean energy, reusable energy, reticulated, recycled, economic, efficient, green - all in depth discussions and all about energy. Yet not one of these academic experts actually knows what energy is - the thing itself. Ask them and they will waffle on about 'change' or they will point to measurements that boggle the mind with their predictable accuracies. But energy? The thing that flows, that lights your light, that heats your stove, that gives you the will to learn, walk, wake up in the mornings, that thing? No-one actually knows what it is. All we know today is roughly where to find it, and exactly how to exploit it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/84755-post191.html

That having been said - also by the same token - those same expert academics also know an exhaustive amount about the measurement of that energy. And that measurement is so skilled that they can predict the outcome of a physical or chemical effect to extraordinary levels of accuracy. It is this knowledge that has led us into this technological revolution that allows us, among many other benefits, the use of our computers, our cars and the general conveniences of modern day life. I do not mean to diminish the vast wealth of knowledge available to us courtesy these experts. And they, in turn, have archived the excellent pioneering efforts of those Giants in physics who first pioneered this knowledge. All this work is a treasure of information and is an enduring and proud heritage of our civilisation. It has taken us from the confused presumptions of the dark ages to the clear light of science based, as it now is, on experimental evidence as proof of a thesis or theory.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/84765-post192.html

All I am pointing to is the fact that physics today still has outstanding questions. And while these questions are really big questions, they all relate to our inability to actually see anything on a really minute scale. This includes everything on the scale of an atom and smaller. Beyond a certain size and at a certain given velocity our knowledge of anything is limited to that knowledge that can only be gained through inference. We have photographed electrons but know nothing of their structure. I have actually seen a photograph of the shadowy structure of atoms. An extraordinary feat in photography. But it simply looks like a nest of eggs laid out and cooling in something that also looks like a clinging morning mist. The atom's motor, its actual structure, remains hidden inside its shell. What little we know about particles is their charge or the 'direction' they take within a magnetic field and some extraordinary details related to the 'spin' of that particle when it can be held, tenuously suspended, away from it's natural environment. Scientists work with 'clues' and patterns of behaviour to gain an increasing understanding of the thing itself. And this art of inference has - notwithstanding these difficulties, enabled an extraordinary feat. We have the periodic table as tribute to the rarefied progressive logic that unravelled the atom's secrets. This and the fact that we know of a great many particles, an entire particle zoo as some call it, is all by virtue of the courtesy and the skills of expert knowledge, expert observation and expert assessment. Our progress in science is an enduring tribute to the skills of our mainstream scientists and their remarkably incisive logic. But yet our knowledge is limited, constrained as it is in any study of the very, very small.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/84814-post200.html

Which all brings this subject back to the mysteries of current flow. Electromagnetism was actually discovered by Orsted in 1821. Faraday was intrigued with the phenomenon but was only able to devote time to this at the death of his mentor Davy, in 1831. He was able to show that a changing electric field induced a magnetic field and, correspondingly, a changing magnetic field would induce an electric field. Faraday was unschooled or self taught so it was left to Maxwell thereafter to do the mathematical modelling of this. The result was the formulation of the Laws of Induction. But while this has been well modelled and extensively used there is very little said on the phenomenon of a magnet on magnet interaction. Given the right proximity two magnets will move apart or together with some considerable force but without necessarily inducing a corresponding electric field. There is no clear evidence that an an electric field is either required or extant. And if an electric field is in fact absent in a magnet on magnet interaction, yet an electric field cannot manifest without a magnetic field, then the implications are profound. It points to the possibility that a magnetic force is somehow a primary force, compared to which an electromagnetic force is merely a secondary field effect. This thesis proposes that indeed the magnetic force is a primary force which is also the model's first departure from classical or mainstream thinking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/84831-post201.html

The actual intention of this field model was to explore the possibility of there being a single elementary force. Was there something - one simple principle - that somehow governed all the forces - something that could account for the nuclear forces, for the electromagnetic interactions and for the effects of gravity? The possibility that this could be found was and is seductive. It would point to the real possibility that energy itself could be uncovered and that this, in turn would reveal some underlying principle that governed all the forces. And a magnetic force was an ideal candidate precisely because it had been so entirely overlooked. It is a field that is widely used, but little understood, well known in general but mysterious in its particular. What was needed were some tools of logic, whereby the properties of magnetism would be 'inferred' very much in the same way that our mainstream scientists had 'inferred' so much about the properties of atoms and particles. Mainstream, however, had the advantage of dealing with what is measurable and evidential. What was now needed was to unravel the properties of something that remained hidden from view - something invisible - something possibly on a scale of 'small' that even exceeded the miniscule and intangible properties of the atom itself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/84903-post205.html

Just as an overview - I've covered the fact that there is very little known about the properties of charge or current flow. What is known is 'inferred' knowledge as the actual material of electric current flow remains as 'hidden' today as it was in the times of Faraday. But nor is there any question as to the comprehensive nature of what is actually known about the electromagnetic interaction. The use of this force is, self-evidently, the single most incontrovertibly well understood and well used of all the forces. It has taken us to the moon, to Mars and even beyond our own solar system. It has also enabled the tools of mass communication that has engendered a kind of 'latter day' Tower of Babel. And the tower is high, so high that it stretches beyond our stratosphere and into the delicately exquisite instrumentation in our orbiting satellites. But there is an outstanding question as to whether we are dealing with a secondary force or a primary force. The proposal here is that a magnet on magnet interaction does not invariably induce an electric field. Yet an electric field cannot manifest without a corresponding magnetic field. Perhaps therefore the magnetic field is a primary force. And if so, then - being as it is hidden from view, how can we better extend our knowledge of this force. What tools can be used to expose hidden properties in the field that can be inferred to be consistent with its evident and manifold effects?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FuzzyTomCat]

Redirect from - COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

http://www.energeticforum.com/84908-post206.html

To address this the model proposed using a Rule of Correspondence. It's easy. We know everything is the sum of its parts and we know that those parts comprise atoms that have been forged, by nature or through some other artificial means, to represent precisely what it does. Computers, kettles, pots, bricks, rocks all comprise atoms and molecules. Always supposing that this grinding could done, and that it could also be done perfectly, and further supposing that we could collect those grindings in a receptacle of sorts - then theoretically we'd have an unidentifiable mess of atoms and molecules that previously made up the whole of that identifiable three dimensional object. Three things are now evident. Firstly, in their less defined or muddled state of disassociation from each other, the atoms and molecules bear no direct relationship to its previously bound state. Secondly some force or energy must have been applied to shape it into that previously bound and identifiable three dimensional shape. And thirdly and finally we can definitely conclude that albeit different to it's earlier presentation, those atomic and molecular parts indeed made up the whole of that amalgam or object. So. We can therefore conclude that if energy was added to bind the atoms into an amalgam of sorts then, by inference, the least energetic state of an atom is in its unbound state. The sum of its parts are indeed, consistent with the whole. And the evidence is that one can rely of the Rule of Correspondence to prove that particulate and aerosolate nature of all three dimensional amalgams.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/84913-post207.html

And, if this is true, if indeed everything has some particulate - some smaller state than is evident, could it be that perhaps there is something that is even smaller than a particle? What we know about particles is that they can decay - or they can be stable. But always, even if only through the complex appartus of a particle accelerator a particle can be shown to exist and to have precise properties associated with that particle. No one has seen anything smaller and, as a result, this is assumed to be the smallest possible state. Everything can be subdivided down to its smaller part, but the very smallest? That particle? That's the bottom line. It is the most profoundly fundamental potential division of matter to it's most profoundly smallest state. That's where the buck stops. And that is mainstream opinion. With good reason. Science is based on empirical evidence and nothing has been seen to be smaller.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/84942-post209.html

The north of one magnet repels the north of another and conversely the south repels anothers south. But a north will be attracted to the south of another and again, a south to another's north. Vagaries of their juxtapositions aside, that movement will reduce to the shortest possible mean average distance which translates into a straight line. This is the direction they take to either attach or move apart. Therefore in terms of the principles of correspondence, and again assuming that the magnetic field may be particulate, then one may conclude that these magnetic dipoles follow the laws of charge.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/84944-post210.html

It seems that a magnet is not able to 'swap' its justification. Once its north and south are fixed then, given a critical proximity the magnet will move the entire body of the magnet to attach north to south or south to north. It seems that these polarities, once applied, are not interchangeable. Again therefore, in terms of the principles of correspondence and again, if the magnetic field is particulate then it seems that a north pole is always a north pole and a south is always a south. Essentially the property of the magnet is actually an interrelationship between two separate and opposite magnetic extremes or monopoles - each entirely distinct one from the other. But just as one does not get a magnetic field without both a north and south justification, then one may assume that the two poles invariably occur together. Therefore the existence of an isolated monopole within a magnetic field would only hold theoretical interest and be substantially irrelevant to a study of the field as a whole or to the parts of the field.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85366-post235.html

I think that most readers on this thread have agreed that extra energy is evident. Some extraordinary work has been done by Aaron, Dr Stiffler, Bedini and many others to prove this. The question at issue is 'where does this energy come from'. Generally most people point to zero point energy but that does little to actually describe what it is nor it's precise location in space.

And the confusions related to current flow are everywhere. Some highly respected academics still attribute this exclusively to a flow of electrons. Others more conveniently simply refer to 'charge' flow - but are not able to describe the properties of that charge. Charge is associated with the properties of particles and they are always positive, negative or neutral. Charge does not occur without this particle association. So. To refer to charge without describing what is charged is no better than pointing at wind without reference to atomospheric pressure or even to the atomic or molecular components and densities in the air itself.

The question is this. What is the particle that is responsible for current flow if current flow actually also has the property of charge. In other words, what exactly is charged?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85369-post236.html

To answer this question the model proposed that all things are essentially particulate. They can be divided, and sub divided - forever - until it's final basic structure - the atom. And after this is the proof of particles inside that atom. But that's it. In terms of mainstream science that's the Ground Zero of all matter. And the evidence of this is everywhere. The atoms have been unravelled and their particles have been seen or measured or traced. Nothing smaller.

But this leaves questions because gravity, which is not seen, also seems to control anything the size of an atom or larger. And everything smaller than an atom - those particles - respond to magnetic fields to show that they have, themselves, an innate charged property of sorts. What then is there in a magnetic field or in an electromagnetic field that induces this reaction in particles?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85372-post238.html

Using the dialectic, or as some have called it 'inductive' reasoning - the model argues that in the same way as all bound matter can be subdivided into its essentially smallest part being the particle, so can a magnetic field be subdivided into smaller parts. The difference is this. Those parts of a magnetic field? They need to be inferred. And this, because they remain hidden. But, the arguement goes like this. If the definition of the parts is consistent with what is seen - then the argument may be valid.

And why the interest in a magnetic field rather than an electromagnetic field as it was finally modelled by Maxwell? Well. The argument is simple. An electric field always has a magnetic field associated with it. A magnetic field need not have an electric field. Therefore - using that self same tools of dialectic argument, the thesis suggests that a magnetic field may, therefore, be an independent and fundamental force and the electromagnetic interaction - by comparison - a secondary phenomenon of this single force. Therefore, if more can be disclosed by 'inferring' or 'ascribing' material or particulate properties to this force, then we may hopefully advance our understanding of the field as a whole and the part it plays to induce particles to bend or twist or 'spin' as it is referred to. We will, hopefully, better understand the 'charge' property of particles and something more about the charge in a magnetic field itself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85383-post240.html

So I took your average permanent bar magnet and made observations. Bottom line, a magnetic field always has a north and south pole. If it's got particles then they must be a magetic dipoles. A field cannot change it's north to south and vice versa. Therefore the magnetic dipoles must comprise two opposite but distinct properties the south or negative being distinct from the north or postive. And albeit different and opposite - yet somehow they complement each other. This also suggests that monopoles don't exist in the magnetic field.

Then to the shape of a field. Particles aren't known to move as a field. Photons irradiate in straight lines away from its source. Pauli's exclusion principle claims that electrons cannot share an orbit - or a path. Electrons from cathode ray tubes are known to irradiate in a similar way to photons. Particles, of themselves, may fill a specific area but they do not comprise the smoothness that is supposed to be the distinguishing feature of a 'field'. And a magnetic field does indeed appear to be smooth. It's north and south pole apear to be equal though opposite in strength and it's influence through space is constant. Therefore there may be some feature of those magnetic dipoles that create the field effect that is not possible in dissassociated particles.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85385-post241.html

Now I have to take a detour. Bear with me. It's been suggested that a magnetic field may contain particles but we have never seen those particles. Not ever. But why should they be invisible? Here's what the model argues. If any particle were smaller than a photon - and if they were faster than a photon - then photons, or light itself, would never find those particles. They would remain hidden from view. The analogy drawn is to wind that we can't see blowing a balloon that we can see. Just forever out of reach. This means that light is not so much the limit of all that is measurable. Just that light is the boundary limit of WHAT we can measure. The speed of light may simply be the boundary limit of our measurable dimensions.

A particle that exceeds light speed is a tachyon and they are purely theoretical. They are not actually presumed to exist. The model argues that this magnetic dipole is a tachyon and that they do indeed exist and they exist in a field.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Redirect from - COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

http://www.energeticforum.com/85386-post242.html

So back to magnets. They will always conjoin with other magnets and, given ideal circumstances, the north of one magnet will conjoin to the south of another. That's its strongest connection. So these magnetic dipoles may align north to south. That means they'd all line up to make a string. But if the string were to stay 'open' with the first and last magnetic dipole somehow unconnected - then that string would not be strong. It's best - it's most symmetrical arrangement would be to form a loop where the last magnet in the string would join up with the first magnet in that string. And that would then describe a closed loop or a circle. This is in line with Faraday's 'lines of force' which he used to conceptualise the shape of the field.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85388-post243.html

And another point about magnets. They always move in a straight line away from or towards another magnet - depending on their polar or charge positions. This indicates that they also obey the laws of charge. In the same way it is proposed that these magnetic dipoles also obey the laws of charge.

It has been proposed that the magnetic dipoles are moving at pace - so much so that light itself cannot find them. In as much as it is proposed that they form closed strings then these strings must be orbiting - and orbiting at some extreme velocity that outpaces a photon. Something more than 300 000 kilometers per second. But more to the point. If the north stays north and the south stays south then those fields must also be orbiting in the same direction. To keep to that coherence of charge that is evident in a magnetic field then there must also be a shared justification. They must thereby move in synch and in step always from the north and to the south and then through the magnet from the south and to the north - and so on. Forever.

But why move at all? Could it be that the field is somehow steady and having reached a rest state - some condition of perfectly balanced charge distribution then the field simply becomes static? This would conflict with the evidence. If the field were static we would be able to find those particles. Light would, of necessity bounce off them in some way to expose them. Therefore it is proposed that it is their velocity combined with their size that renders them invisible. So the question then is what is it in the field that renders it unable to reach this 'rest state'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85390-post244.html

And here we return to those laws of charge. If the strings themselves have a perfect charge distribution being north to south - head to toe - all the way along the length of each circle then the adjacent strings would also have that same distribution. If the one magnetic dipole were aligned with an adjacent string where its magnetic dipole corresponded with that of the first string - then the two norths and the two souths - placed as they would be, shoulder to shoulder, would repel each other. The one may move away from that 'like charge' and in moving it also moves all the magnetic dipoles in that string. This need to adjust and re-adjust would involve a cascading series of interactions that would propel all the strings in the entire field to continually orbit. In effect the field, compring more than one closed string of orbiting magnetic dipoles may be compelled to continually adjust its position and the combined effect would induce that extraordinary velocity that keeps the particles themselves from detection by light.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85396-post245.html

Which all seems to indicate much about a magnetic field but says nothing about the relevance to current flow. Indulge me. I have tried to describe current flow in isolation and the exercise failed. It seems the links in these arguments are required.

As a brief overview it's been proposed that a magnetic field may comprise magnetic dipolar tachyons that orbit in coherent and structured fields that comprise strings that conjoin to form circles which then orbit with a single justification. These particles obey the laws of charge.

Now I need to reference the actual orbit itself and must do so with reference to Bell's theorems. I know nothing about the math. All I understand with perfect clarity - is his conclusion. 'The statistical predictions of the quantum theories ...cannot be upheld with local hidden variables.' What this says is that unless there is some perfect symmetry - something that is invariably applied at the most profound and elementary level - then quantum mechanics would have failed. And it has not failed. Their predictions are precisely accurate in all aspects and to extraordinary degrees of accuracy. Therefore the question is this. What is that 'invariable' condition of the field that calls for the consistency required to make quantum theories so accurate?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85400-post246.html

And as suggested in the previous paragraph, this is related to the effect of an orbiting field and the relationship of each particle in the field. In effect it describes a symmetry that is really jolly profound. The particles would all be moving in one direction or with a single justification. This justification relates to the charge of the field. Always forwards, never backwards, always right to left or left to right. Never does it move in two directions - else there would not be the clear distinction between the north and south poles of a permanent magnet and these two properties are always perfectly defined.

But the orbit itself holds a paradox. There is that within an orbit that suggests perfect neutrality. If one drew a line through the centre of an orbiting magnetic field - anywhere at all - and provided it always goes through the centre of the field, then one half on the orbit would precisely oppose the other half. If one half goes forwards the other half goes backwards. If the one half is moving to the left the other is moving to the right. This suggests that the field is neutral but the justification of each magnetic dipole also presupposes a 'charge' property - or a single direction in space. So any magnetic field would also have a perfect charge distribution and that would render the field neutral. But its particles, assuming they comprise the field, would in fact be charged. Each part of the field is therefore charged. Yet the entire field is also entirely neutral.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85615-post276.html

According to Bell, quatum theories need an underlying symmetry or some fundamental rule that is required - else their sums wouldn't work. I've said this before. What is now evident is that the magnetic field may provide just such a uniform field - a single particle moving in one direction inside an orbiting string with many such strings making that field. There is certainly a breathtaking symmetry - not only to the strings, but in their inter relationship with each particle and with each particle in that bigger field. Just a whole lot of necklaces of magnetic dipoles spinning in space and moving at speed and simply distributing their particles in a really balanced way to ensure that the whole field has a balanced charge.

Now I need to suggest something else. Let us assume that 'in the beginning' there was nothing but this great big toroid - a whole universe of these particles. Imagine, if you will, that each string is so long that it wraps around and inside all of space. It takes the shape of an enormous toroid and this is the boundary, so to speak, of all that is or was. Just a great big magnetic field. The question is this. What would happen then if through some chance event one of those dipoles separated from each other and became free moving magnetic monopoles? Or what would happen if one of those strings broke - or if God Himself reached in and simply snipped one of those necklaces apart? Here's the proposal. Those little dipoles are simply little magnets. They'd be somehow expelled from that very uniform arrangement - that balanced condition inside the toroid - and the string would simply tumble together, like the magnets they are - and they would congregate in some form or some condition that no longer was able to 'manage' that orbit - that uniform charge distribution - in the initial magnetic field. In effect it would generate a 'singularity' and it would result in something that looks like a nebula.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85620-post277.html

And then the next question? What form would those dipoles take once they are outside the whole of the field? To get to this answer I need to digress. Just for now - imagine that we have a machine that throws stones. Here's the rule. The force of the throw is constant. And there are no extraneous conditions of air resistance or wind or anything at all. It throws these stones inside a vacuum. That means, that all things being equal, then the bigger the stone the shorter the distance thrown. And conversely, the smaller the stone the further the distance thrown. That's logical. I'll get back to this point. But what I actually need to first concentrate on is an 'interactive constraint'. If the stone were too big then the machine could not lift it to throw it. And in the same way, if the stone was too small then the machine could not detect it to throw it. That's what the model refers to as a boundary constraint. The condition of size would threby limit the interactive capability of the machine. In the same way I'm proposing that if these little magnets in a broken string - tumbled out of the field and congregated into vast nebulae then what makes them visible and would it then be 'out of range' or 'outside the boundary constraint' of the magnetic dipoles in the field surrounding the nebula?

[FuzzyTomCat]

Redirect from - COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

http://www.energeticforum.com/85621-post278.html

I acknowledge that I've made some extraordinary leaps of logic. We do not know that the universe is toroidal or that it is structured by strings of magnetic dipoles. There may, in fact, be no associative relationship to nebulae with this 'background' structure. But I am only suggesting 'what if'? And - along these lines of argument - I am then proposing that, in as much as we can see nebulae - we can even determine if they comprise mostly iron, or hydrogen, or space dust - or anything at all. Whole stars have been seen spinnng away from those clouds, clearly having been manufactured from inside the nebula which seems to be some vast, really vast collection of disassociated matter - a kind of farm, or seeding ground of suns and maybe even whole galaxies.

Back to the question. What then makes this matter visible and readable while the magnetic field, assuming that there is one in the background, remains entirely invisible?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/85648-post284.html

Just to recap. The proposal is that light is the boundary limit of our measurable dimensions. I've argued that if something is both smaller and faster than light itself it cannot find it and it is therefore invisible to photons. The question now is what would happen when a string is broken and all those little magnetic dipoles congregate together? The first obvious consequence is that they would lose that orbital velocity. If they now become relatively stationary in space - then light would be able to interact with that 'relatively' stationary - or slower moving - particle and we would 'know' of it's existence. It would no longer be outside the boundary of our measurable dimensions. At its least it would have to be slower and bigger which suggests that it was first smaller and faster. Therefore the proposal is that there is an inverse proportional relationship between velocity and mass, or this case, 'volume'. Again. It would suggest that the bigger the particle, the slower it's velocity. And conversely, the smaller the particle the greater its velocity. Decrease in velocity would transmute to increase in volume (or mass) and increase in velocity would transmute to a decrease in volume (or mass). And this also suggests that the actual quantity of potential energy in each particle is fixed. It is only its expression that varies in relation to its volume. And that, in turn, may render it either visible or invisible within the constraints of light speed which is the limit to our measurable dimensions.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Redirect from - COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

http://www.energeticforum.com/85678-post287.html

So. I think I've covered the main postulates needed to relate this to the 'extra energy' that I've pointed to and that has also been proven in the experimental evidence. From hereon I'll mainly refer to the conclusions of the model rather than the thinking that led to the conclusions. The model actually now goes into a justification for composites of these magnetic dipoles making stable particles and I will spare you the arguments as they are only relevant to the possible proof of these proposals to the field model. This, because it was possible to explain the difference in the size ratios of the proton to the electron.

To start with - I have proposed that the magnetic field is hidden. We cannot see it. We can only see how particles and various other matter react to it. I've then proposed that, in point of fact the field may comprise particles and that these particles move in a field and that they move at velocities in excess of light speed. When they lose the integrity of the field they become manifest in our dimensions and they lose their velocity at the expense of their invisibility. But what exactly are they? And how can I prove this?

[Aaron]

archiving this thread

This thread is closed in order to archive it permanently in this Inductive
Resistor subforum.