"The earth itself is a great big magnet." -- Edward Leedskalnin, stone mason, 1945
"Magnetic current is the same as electric current. Current is [actually] a wrong expression. Really it is not one current, they are two currents, one current is composed of North Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams and the other is composed of South Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams, and they are are running one stream against the other stream in whirling, screwlike fashion, and with high speed." -- Edward Leedskalnin, stone mason, 1945
Leedskalnin, E., Magnetic Current, 1945
Following is the result of my two years' experiment with magnets at Rock Gate, seventeen miles Southwest from Miami, Florida. Between Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth Latitude and Eightieth and Eighty-first Longitude West.
First I will describe what a magnet is. You have seen straight bar magnets, U shaped magnets, sphere or ball magnets and Alnico magnets in many shapes, and usually a hole in the middle. In all magnets one end of the metal is North Pole and the other South Pole, and those which have no end one side is North Pole and the other South Pole.
Now about the sphere magnet. If you have a strong magnet you can change the poles in the sphere in any side you want or take the poles out so the sphere will not be a magnet any more. From this you can see that the metal is not the real magnet. The real magnet is the substance that is circulating in the metal. Each particle in the substance is an individual magnet by itself, and both North and South Pole individual magnets. They are so small that they can pass through anything. In fact, they can pass through metal easier than through the air. They are in constant motion, they are running one kind of magnet against the other kind, and if guided in the right channels they possess perpetual power. The North and South Pole magnets are cosmic force. They hold together this earth and everything in it.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
17 comments:
NASA Space Telescope Discovers Largest Ring Around Saturn
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer-20091006.html
H/T Lumo
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/10/nasa-spitzer-finds-giant-ring-around.html
@Oils,
Interesting post... Are you familiar with Ingmar Bergman's "Wild Strawberries"?
Boy do I remember Wild Strawberries, I saw it back in the seventies on TV when I was very young.
The dream sequence where the old man walks though the deserted town and a hearse without a driver comes through and drops a coffin, gave me nightmares for years.
BF,
Thx for the headsup; very interesting.
imode,
One of my favorite films and Bergman is one my favorite directors.
A mystery or enigma.
What it takes to fully appreciate a post like this is a willingness to think outside the box and allow a suspension of disbelief, so one can at least consider the ideas raised.
(Isn't it interesting that "modern" astronomy is so quick to "shoot down" any ideas that are "outside the box" of what is acceptable in their world view? Could it be that even they are conscious of the fact that their ideas have little foundation in hard science, and, so, like a religion, brand anything "outside the faith" as being "heresy" to prevent the whole ediface from falling down?)
Interestingly, this idea that gravity is a manifestation of electromagnetism is nothing new, but for whatever reason has not been, at least publically, pursued by the big research and laboratory outfits funded by various governments.
Radio frequency and resonance is an area that numerous folks have looked into as a "portal" for controlling electromagnetic phenomenon.
What seems clear, is that with all the technological advancements due to electromagnetism, Science still has just scratched the surface of its ultimate potential.
And, if such is the case, isn't this just another neon sign lighting the way to the suggestion that the dominate Fundamental Force in the Universe is electromagnetism.
Indeed, Hannes Alfven stated that gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electromagnetic systems.
Interestingly enough, wouldn't Alven's, above, hypothesis include the hypothesis that gravity is a derivative of electromagnetism: Weaker energy systems are usually derived from stronger more efficient energy systems:
Electromagnetism is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.
Here is an article that at least explores this concept: Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe (holoscience.com)
Also, interestingly enough, modern science doesn't spend a lot of time investigating the explanation of gravity, they just describe its behaviour.
With one notable huge exception, the European super collider (which still hasn't gotten up to full speed after six billion dollars spent) where they look for the hypothesized Higgs-boson particle.
But could it be that this "modern" astronomy project, like many other "modern" astronomy ideas, is completely off track and going down a dead end (and a huge waste of money), when exploring electromagnetism and studying frequency and resonance (much like sound waves) is more likely to unlock the "portal" to a better explanation, and, thus, ability to control this most powerful Fundamental Force in the Universe?
Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is usually the best explanation: The Simple Electric Universe (holoscience.com)
So-called "modern" astronomy has crawled out so far on the gravity "only" branch that they have a hard time admitting they are wrong and, now, it is effecting other branches of science.
In regards to the instant post: Most leapfrogging advancements in science have come from lone inventors that weren't constrained by the dogmas of instiutional science.
Something to think about...
So-called "modern" astronomers like to say gravity sculptures the Universe.
The scientific evidence says differently:
Electromagnetism sculptures the universe.
Ropes, pulleys, counterbalances. That Corral Castle was probably built be pretty standard stuff you know.
QF,
I guess your defintion of "standard" is unique?
Quantum_Flux: "Ropes, pulleys, counterbalances. That Corral Castle was probably built be pretty standard stuff you know."
Yes, that is quite possible and can't be dismissed. In fact, that is how Leedskalnin, himself, presented it; and he was a stone mason, which would explain his knowledge of the mechanics of moving heavy stones.
But some of the stones were bigger and heavier than the equipment (hoist, block and tackle) he had available to move it...
Quantum_Flux, did you watch the YouTube videos?
If so, what do you make of all his electrical equipment?
And how did one man move that hoist around by himself? The hoist, itself, would seem heavier than one man could move.
Still, Quantum_Flux, you could be completely right...then, again, something else besides mechanical forces could have been at work...
I agree mysteries are pretty standard.
Lifting with pulleys is all just a matter of dispersing the weight over a larger cross-sectional area so that the tensile strength can can handle the stresses involved.
Or possibly hydraulics were used. If you can use a series of hydraulic jacks it to lift a 20 ton truck then you certainly lift 20 tons of block with it too.
OIM very interesting "find"! I am very intrigued by the Coral Castle, and I will have to go visit when I head south.
QF said "Or possibly hydraulics were used."
Were hyraulics readily available in Leedskalnin's time? My intuition says probably not.
Absolutely, hydraulics have been used since the 1500's. They probably were used for building dark age castles, possibly even with the pyramids of egypt too.
QF,
Did you read the Magnetic Currents paper or no?
QF,
There is no evidence of hydraulics unfortunately.
Well I was lazy before, so I looked up hydraulics on wiki-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulics
Hydraulics dates back to 6th century BC in China!
Being very basic in my understanding of hydraulics, I believe that there would have been great evidence of pipes, tubes, etc showing that leedskalnin used hydraulics.
Where do you see evidence of hydraulic use for Coral Castle? for the Egyptian Pyramids?
there's no evidence for hydraulics when you fix a flat tire either.
Post a Comment