It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# "Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 255
39
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 09:31 AM

Having an interest in physics as a hobby, I began to formulate my own theory that would unite the fundamental forces. I first began by not making the assertion that the solution was an equation or had to unite with an existing theory. At this point, I set aside all known theories and equations. I felt a new theory had to be developed; but given this goal, where would one start? I began this quest for a new theory by working with magnets. They seemed to be very simple—opposites attract and likes repel—but what makes a magnet a dipole? No one seemed to know just how magnets actually worked, so I came up with my own theory.

Do you have anything to add concerning the work that you did with magnets?

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Having an interest in physics as a hobby, I began to formulate my own theory that would unite the fundamental forces. I first began by not making the assertion that the solution was an equation or had to unite with an existing theory. At this point, I set aside all known theories and equations. I felt a new theory had to be developed; but given this goal, where would one start? I began this quest for a new theory by working with magnets. They seemed to be very simple—opposites attract and likes repel—but what makes a magnet a dipole? No one seemed to know just how magnets actually worked, so I came up with my own theory.

Do you have anything to add concerning the work that you did with magnets?
That work was published in the paper Monopoles and Electricity. Using n/s monopoles made sense in creating a dipole and using the law of attraction to separate them also makes sense. it does not require the movement of electrons or magnetic domains to create a dipole. Using my theory, the end result of all experiments remains unchanged, however the underlying principal is all that has changed from using many elementary particles to using only three and the law of attraction. I ask you which theory makes more sense?

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:49 AM

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
This diagram of the atom has many things omitted, my intention was to show how the monopoles orbit through its core "this is not a complete model of the atom". Please read the entire excerpt this will help you understand my answers.

I still don't see how you determined that an alpha particle has properties of a magnetic monopole. You say:

Alpha particles are also produced in this way. An alpha particle is a north magnetic monopole that has been transformed by an atom’s magnetic lines of force without using a stream of south magnetic monopoles. This process gives the alpha particle a positive (north) charge.
That's all you say about alpha particles in the excerpt.

How do you know that "An alpha particle is a north magnetic monopole"?
I don't see any explanation there of how you know that.

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:51 AM

Would it be correct to say that you have not done experiments that are new and different from what's already been done; you've simply interpreted what well-known experiments show in a different way than what the textbooks say?

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
This diagram of the atom has many things omitted, my intention was to show how the monopoles orbit through its core "this is not a complete model of the atom". Please read the entire excerpt this will help you understand my answers.

I still don't see how you determined that an alpha particle has properties of a magnetic monopole.

I know there are many more things you don't see, Arb. For me, the list is pretty much infinite but it includes:
a) if alpha is a magnetic monopole, what is the nucleus of lithium?
b) how come the proposed "structure" of the atom it not borne out in the experiment? I mean, it was MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO that two young and bright fellows, Geiger and Marsden, observed the positively charge atomic nucleus, by using alpha particles to bombard a thin gold foil.
c) how does one describe the neutron, or for that matter, any of the baryons we see in this Universe?
d) what is the muon in that retarded "monopole model of everything"?
e) how is the neutrino accounted for?
f) the "particle of matter" thingy, how is that with relation to chemical reactions? How are these explained in this mental excrement of a "theory"?
.....

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:14 AM

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
That work was published in the paper Monopoles and Electricity.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
www.gsjournal.net...

I see at the end of the .pdf you've listed References.

The first one is "Moving magnetic (field) monopoles in the heart of subatomic particles." It quotes The Harmonic Conquest of Space by Bruce L. Cathie. Cathie is another brilliant, innovative researcher.

The second and third links are not active now.

The fourth link is to a 10 page .pdf on harvard.edu "Theory of Magnetic Monopoles and Electric-Magnetic Duality: A Prelude to S-Duality."

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
This diagram of the atom has many things omitted, my intention was to show how the monopoles orbit through its core "this is not a complete model of the atom". Please read the entire excerpt this will help you understand my answers.

I still don't see how you determined that an alpha particle has properties of a magnetic monopole. You say:

Alpha particles are also produced in this way. An alpha particle is a north magnetic monopole that has been transformed by an atom’s magnetic lines of force without using a stream of south magnetic monopoles. This process gives the alpha particle a positive (north) charge.
That's all you say about alpha particles in the excerpt.

How do you know that "An alpha particle is a north magnetic monopole"?
I don't see any explanation there of how you know that.
The name alpha particle was taken from the standard model as reference only, the particle itself does not exist. what was observed was an short duration EM wave in the gamma region, All EM waves are composed of both north and south monopoles except what the
the SM calls alpha and beta particles they are composed of only north monopoles "alpha particles" and south monopoles "beta particles" because these waves have a very short duration they have been mistaken for particles that are more massive than the fictitious electron.

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 11:56 AM

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
. . . the fictitious electron.

Leedskalnin wrote about the "discovery" of the electron. From leedskalnin.com:

Millions of people all over the world are being fooled by the non-existing electrons. Here is how the electrons came into existence. Thomson invented an imaginary baby and called it an electron. Rutherford adopted it and now the men with the long hair are nursing it. The electron has a brother and its name is proton, but it is heavy and lazy. It remains stationary in the middle, but the electron has to run around it. To the electrical engineers the positive electricity is everything, the negative electricity is nothing, but to the physicists the negative electricity is everything, and the positive electricity is nothing. Looking from a neutral standpoint they cancel each other, so we have no electricity, but we have something. If we do not know how to handle the thing that comes through a wire from a generator or a battery, we will get badly shocked. Read the booklet "Magnetic Current" then you will know what the thing is, and the way it runs through a wire.

The invention of an electron came by a tricky method in using electricity in a vacuum tube. Normally whether it be a generator or a battery, the positive terminal will have to be connected to the negative terminal, but in the vacuum tube two batteries with different strength were used, the smaller battery was connected normally, but the larger battery's negative terminal was connected to the smaller battery's negative terminal, and the positive terminal was left alone. That connection gave the negative terminal a double dose of strength, and so it became hotter and could push more. It was called cathode and the positive terminal anode, and the electricity that passed from the cathode to the anode was called electrons.

In case the inventor had used normally direct methods to find out what the electricity was he would have found out that the positive and negative electricity is in equal strength, and are running positive electricity against the negative electricity. That can be seen by connecting each of two pieces of soft iron wire with each terminal of a car battery and then by putting together and pulling away each loose end of the soft iron wire. More sparks can be seen coming out of the positive terminal than from the negative terminal. This direct method is more reliable than the tricky method in the vacuum tube. The trouble with the physicists is they use indirect and ultra-indirect methods to come to their conclusions.

If the inventor of electrons had a vacuum tube in which his electrons could run close to the top of the vacuum tube from the west side of the cathode to the east side of the anode and then would hang a vertically hanging magnet that is made from three-inch long hard steel fishing wire, and then hang one magnet pole at one time right on top in the middle of his stream of electrons, then he would have seen the north pole magnet swinging north, and the south pole magnet swinging south. The same thing will happen if the magnets are held above any wire where the electricity is running through. Those two vertically hanging magnets prove that the electricity is composed of two different and equal forces. Another way to prove this is to connect a flexible wire loop east end of the wire with positive battery's terminal, west end with negative terminal, raise the loop one inch above the floor. Put U shape magnet one inch from loop, north pole south side of the loop. The north pole magnet will pull in the loop. Put the south pole magnet in the same place. It will push the loop away. Put the south pole magnet north side of the loop, this time it will pull the loop in. Put the north pole magnet in the same place, it will push the loop away. This indicates that electricity the same as a magnet bar is composed of two equal forces, and each force is running one against the other in whirling right hand twist, but those forces in the wire have higher speed, and both forces are coming out across from the same wire. One of the forces is north pole magnets and the other is south pole magnets. They are the cosmic forces. Your electric motor is turned around on its axis by north and south pole magnets. Even you could not start your car without the north and south pole magnets.

If electricity is made with north and south pole magnets and the electric motor is turned around on its axis by the north and south pole magnets as is the fact, then this will bring up a question, where then are those Thomson electrons. They are not around the electric motor. The plain answer is they are non-existing.

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
The name alpha particle was taken from the standard model as reference only, the particle itself does not exist. what was observed was an short duration EM wave in the gamma region

Why is it "gamma region"? How short is the "duration"? How come the "EM wave" actually carries away electric charge, from the emitter nucleus? Why is alpha particle mentioned as fundamentally different from, let's say, a Lithium ion?

All EM waves are composed of both north and south monopoles

This is a pretty shameless dictionary hijack, and pretty pathetic at that, too. The electromagnetic waves are a fairly well defined entity, human invested quite a bit of resources and enthusiasm into studying them. In your word soup of a description, you say that alpha particles are monopoles, than that they are EM waves, then you are saying that EM waves are monopoles. We simply don't see that the EM waves are composed of monopoles. You certainly don't either. Your FM radio uses waves that have the wave lengths of a few feet. An antenna can be tuned to this length to get beneficial results. There is none of that with that "monopole" description which is really unique in how baseless it is.

except what the
the SM calls alpha and beta particles they are composed of only north monopoles "alpha particles" and south monopoles "beta particles" because these waves have a very short duration they have been mistaken for particles that are more massive than the fictitious electron.
edit on 11-2-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by Mary Rose

Thank you you just proved that electrons don't exist.

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 01:18 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
The name alpha particle was taken from the standard model as reference only, the particle itself does not exist. what was observed was an short duration EM wave in the gamma region

Why is it "gamma region"? How short is the "duration"? How come the "EM wave" actually carries away electric charge, from the emitter nucleus? Why is alpha particle mentioned as fundamentally different from, let's say, a Lithium ion?

All EM waves are composed of both north and south monopoles

This is a pretty shameless dictionary hijack, and pretty pathetic at that, too. The electromagnetic waves are a fairly well defined entity, human invested quite a bit of resources and enthusiasm into studying them. In your word soup of a description, you say that alpha particles are monopoles, than that they are EM waves, then you are saying that EM waves are monopoles. We simply don't see that the EM waves are composed of monopoles. You certainly don't either. Your FM radio uses waves that have the wave lengths of a few feet. An antenna can be tuned to this length to get beneficial results. There is none of that with that "monopole" description which is really unique in how baseless it is.

except what the
the SM calls alpha and beta particles they are composed of only north monopoles "alpha particles" and south monopoles "beta particles" because these waves have a very short duration they have been mistaken for particles that are more massive than the fictitious electron.

edit on 11-2-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)
I don't expect you to fully understand my theory in just a few posts on this forum.

Your FM radio uses electricity, do you remember what electricity is made from? monopoles which have been separated into concentrated streams using the law of attraction.

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 02:28 PM

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
Most overunity devices require two forms of energy, gravity and magnetism are the most common, the output of these devices is very small. The people working on these devices think outside the box, they are the most innovative people in the world.

That is the research we should be supporting.

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 02:36 PM

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
reply to post by Mary Rose

Thank you you just proved that electrons don't exist.
Does this mean you'll share your Nobel prize with Mary?

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
The name alpha particle was taken from the standard model as reference only, the particle itself does not exist. what was observed was an short duration EM wave in the gamma region
Since we have many observations and experiments upon which our current models are based, it does interest me to know that "what was observed was an short duration EM wave in the gamma region"....by who? Where are the details of this observation? What frequency or frequencies were the gamma rays and how were those measured?

And if by alpha particle you don't really mean Alpha particle, when you say gamma rays, you don't really mean gamma rays? You've re-defined what those are too, right?

When you re-define terns that are already defined, that makes it difficult to understand what you're talking about. Like this for example:

My hypothesis defines energy as the movement of north and south magnetic monopoles.
Current is defined as the movement of charged particles which as I understand your theory would include beta particles or electrons, and the units of current are in Amperes.

What Are the Differences Between an Amp & a Joule?

An amp, or ampere, is the standard way to measure electrical current. It is defined as the amount of current needed to transport one coulomb of electric charge per second.
That is a description of an Ampere which sounds like your definition of energy if you assume electrons are monopoles, but energy is not measured in Amperes as your definition suggests and has entirely different units and definition:

A joule is a unit of energy or work. One joule is the work needed to move one ampere through one ohm of resistance for one second.
Your definition of energy and apparently of other things appears to be different from the definitions of terms we are already using. Maybe it's not possible to understand your writing unless you publish a dictionary showing all the words you have assigned different definitions to? And you should be aware that re-defining things which are already defined is pretty common in pseudoscientific work. Scientists try to be pretty careful about definitions as a general rule, because having well understood definitions is a key to good communication.

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Does this mean you'll share your Nobel prize with Mary?

You get a prize for sarcasm and ridicule.

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:03 PM

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
Most overunity devices require two forms of energy,

I have never thought of credulity and unfounded belief as forms of energy!

....gravity and magnetism are the most common, the output of these devices is very small. The people working on these devices think outside the box, they are the most innovative people in the world.

ther is nothing innovative about trying to scam people.

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
reply to post by Mary Rose

Thank you you just proved that electrons don't exist.
Does this mean you'll share your Nobel prize with Mary?

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
The name alpha particle was taken from the standard model as reference only, the particle itself does not exist. what was observed was an short duration EM wave in the gamma region
Since we have many observations and experiments upon which our current models are based, it does interest me to know that "what was observed was an short duration EM wave in the gamma region"....by who? Where are the details of this observation? What frequency or frequencies were the gamma rays and how were those measured?

And if by alpha particle you don't really mean Alpha particle, when you say gamma rays, you don't really mean gamma rays? You've re-defined what those are too, right?

When you re-define terns that are already defined, that makes it difficult to understand what you're talking about. Like this for example:

My hypothesis defines energy as the movement of north and south magnetic monopoles.
Current is defined as the movement of charged particles which as I understand your theory would include beta particles or electrons, and the units of current are in Amperes.

What Are the Differences Between an Amp & a Joule?

An amp, or ampere, is the standard way to measure electrical current. It is defined as the amount of current needed to transport one coulomb of electric charge per second.
That is a description of an Ampere which sounds like your definition of energy if you assume electrons are monopoles, but energy is not measured in Amperes as your definition suggests and has entirely different units and definition:

A joule is a unit of energy or work. One joule is the work needed to move one ampere through one ohm of resistance for one second.
Your definition of energy and apparently of other things appears to be different from the definitions of terms we are already using. Maybe it's not possible to understand your writing unless you publish a dictionary showing all the words you have assigned different definitions to? And you should be aware that re-defining things which are already defined is pretty common in pseudoscientific work. Scientists try to be pretty careful about definitions as a general rule, because having well understood definitions is a key to good communication.
My definition of energy is the movement of n/s monopoles, this includes all forms of energy for example: x rays, gamma rays, light, magnetism, electricity and gravity are all forms of energy they all have different units of measurement. Current would be the flow of separated monopoles, called electricity and voltge would be the speed of this flow of separated monopoles.

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by Mary Rose

I thought the post about you proving electrons not existing was a joke so I was joking too. Was it serious?

Originally posted by LawrenceWippler
My definition of energy is the movement of n/s monopoles, this includes all forms of energy for example: x rays, gamma rays, light, magnetism, electricity and gravity are all forms of energy they all have different units of measurement.
But in science, things which have different units of measurement are called different things. In pseudoscience I guess such distinctions are not so critical.
edit on 11-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 03:23 PM
deleted
edit on 11-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 04:26 PM

Is what you are saying in your theory... the south monopole is the electron... and lets say it has negative charge...

and north monopole is proton.. lets say it has positive charge..

and the elements are different quantities of monopoles interacting?

and electricity is not just the south/negative/electron monopole interacting with itself and/or an electro-magnetic field... but it is the south monopole interacting with the north monopole? or its energy created from the separation of their attraction your saying?

also like some other members are asking, Im curious as to what made you have the urge to create your theory? What couldnt the current popular modern theories explain about reality, or what about them is wrong and why?
what caused nature to produce so many monopoles? and I still havent seen you explain the fundamental principles behind the laws of attraction, its very general terms.

posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 05:46 PM
From the "Magnetic Monopoles" excerpt, I think this is interesting, and makes sense as a system keeping the magnets moving:

Magnetic monopoles’ no repel/attraction area

Fig 1 E.

Magnetic monopoles’ perpetual motion

Fig 1 E, Ref A shows the area of no repulsion or attraction. Any monopole in this area will experience neither an attractive nor repulsive force. Ref B shows a monopole in this area. That south monopole will then attract the north monopole at the area shown in Ref C and bring it closer to the north monopole at Ref A. Because Ref A is a north monopole, it will repel the force of the north monopole already at Ref A. The south monopole at Ref B will then move closer to Ref C, and the attractive force of Ref A will keep the south monopole in the no repel/attraction area, bringing the north monopole at Ref C into the no repel/attraction area of Ref A. The attractive force of Ref B will keep the north monopole near the north monopole of Ref A, in the no repel/attraction area. Now the south monopole in Ref D will take the place of the monopole that was in Ref B, and this cycle will continue in perpetual motion, as shown in Ref E.

It’s this perpetual motion that creates a magnetic line of force. . . .

new topics

top topics

39