Science contradicts itself..Questions

[rangerover444]

Koen1,

What I said all along is that magnets are mistakenly considered as electrons, and
that there is no such a thing as electron. And I made a comment that if you see them
as the same entity (and ?gray line? between them) it?s even worse then have a clear
line between them, since it?s there where you can start to see that electricity is another
form of magnetism (which means, that the electron does not exists).

I?m not laughing at anyone who thinks different then me and respect every opinion
or thought of another person.
Maybe the way I?m asking ?irritating questions? about the existence of the electron,
making you (or others) feel uncomfortable, so please don?t take it personally, it?s
about find out how nature works and I think any researcher or scientist should question
him/her selves these question.

I will bring up one or more of Ed?s tests and explain.

Cheers

[rangerover444]

1

[Koen1]

Koen1,

What I said all along is that magnets are mistakenly considered as electrons, and
that there is no such a thing as electron. And I made a comment that if you see them
as the same entity (and ?gray line? between them) it?s even worse then have a clear
line between them, since it?s there where you can start to see that electricity is another
form of magnetism (which means, that the electron does not exists).

I?m not laughing at anyone who thinks different then me and respect every opinion
or thought of another person.
Maybe the way I?m asking ?irritating questions? about the existence of the electron,
making you (or others) feel uncomfortable, so please don?t take it personally, it?s
about find out how nature works and I think any researcher or scientist should question
him/her selves these question.

I will bring up one or more of Ed?s tests and explain.

Cheers

Ok thanks. I am sorry if I was rude earlier.
I have a tendency to not say things that seem logical to me, and I sometimes
run into that when I assume others see things the same way because they seem so
logical to me. I guess I may have done that here a bit.

Let me try to clarify my standpoint:
First of all we are not made to observe electrical and magnetic interactions clearly and in detail,
our sensory apparatus and operating system is only fit to observe and handle a limited set of
energy exchanges with out living environment. Any direct observations of radio waves or magnetic
fields for example are impossible, we need to make indirect observations using some medium.
So we look at how things we can observe react to magnetic fields, electric fields, heat, pressure,
etc, and we try to come up with a system that seems to make sense of all these indirect observations
by postulating theories of things we cannot observe, but we can observe the effects of these things
and by a process of empirical testing and elimination we have managed to work out a very nice model
of this invisible reality, up to a point.
turns out there are several models that work, and some work better than others, and some only work
in a certain "zone". For example, newtonian mechanics works very well for most "normal" scale objects
and systems, but if we "zoom in" to quantum scale all of a sudden newtonian physics seems to go
for a ball of snot and we must use quantummechanical wave functions to calculate things.
That does not immediately mean newtonian physics is worthless, fake or "does not exist".
It just means it is a usefull model with scale restrictions.
In electromagnetics, it was quite quickly found that electricity, at the time still mostly electrostatics,
and magnetism, at the time still mostly magnetostatics, are directly related. So it was later
combined into electromagnetics, which basically says electricity and magnetism are two sides
of the same coin.
As chemistry developed and the periodic table was worked out in increasing detail, the model
they came up with using the electron as basic particle for interatomic interaction appeared to be
a very good and usefull model. It just so happens one could use that same electron model in
electrodynamic and electromagnetic theory, and so it was done.

It may indeed be that in the absolute reality that we can never observe anyway, there is no such thing
as the electron. It may be that in this absolute reality time is also not real.
But we live in our slice of the multiverse, where we see and experience things in a certain way, and
so far the electron model has been quite usefull.
What I see Leedskalnin do in his papers is nothing more than a repetition of the most common
observations of electromagnetism, mixed with his own convictions and assumptions, most of which
are not at all necessary conclusions based on the little observations he made. They are possible
conclusions if you assume you can replace the electron by two oppositely flowing "magnetic particles"
of opposite polarity, but if you do that, then those are not conclusions but merely repetitions of
the assumption that he repeats every time one would otherwise have written "electron".
There is no empricial observation of these oppositely flowing oppositely polarised particles.
There is only the observation of the effects, which are equally wel explained by common electromagnetics.
Now what that sounds like to me is just an arbitrary shift from an assumed electron with magnetic
field effects, to an assumed pair of magnetic particles that must somehow always exist in oppositely flowing
pairs or otherwise not.
Does it really make much difference if you explain observed effects by a cause related to assumed and never
directly observed particle X, or by a cause related to assumed and never directly obseved particle set Y+Z ?
With the electron you assume a charge carrying particle surrounded by a magnetic field component,
with the "magnetic particles" you assume a coherent pair of flux carrying particles surrounded by an
electric field component.
Neither have been directly observed, both can be used in almost identical way to explain the same
observed effects with only a slightly different field interaction model.

I understand that you prefer to believe the electron does not exist.
I do not see any proof of that though. I just see that electromagnetism is not either of the two:
it is not electrostatics nor magnetostatics, and it is both.

I do agree with you that thinking about how the world works is a healthy habit.

So let's just jump in some deeper water and pull in the quantumphysical concept
of the electron as a cloud of virtual photons, while magnetism is a spin field.
In that view, the electron as such indeed does not exist... and yet it does.
The cloud of virtual photons which is the electron does not have a clearly defined
location, it has probabilities of it being at a location when you take measurements.
The interactions between electrons in this view do not consist of any direct interactions
of the one electron "bumping into" another or anyhing liek that, it has to do with the
exchange of parts of this virtual photon cloud. Some of its virtual photons can temporarily
become actual photons and move energy to another atom or electron, where they get
absorbed into the virtual photon cloud again as virtual photons. On that scale,
reality is not as clear cut as it seems to be for us comparatively huge humans.
In the virtual photon model, the electron as such does and does not exist, in that
the electron is identified with the virtual photon cloud, so there is something we
call "electron" but it is actually not one particle but a cloud of not even actual but virtual
photons. Yes, you read that right: both does and does not exist, depending on what
model you use, and it does not really change the observed effects. Only on applications
and observations on that same quantum scale can we observe and apply these intricate
nuances of quantumphysics, as soon as we "zoom out" to the microscale they seem
to disappear effectively.

Would you also say that Newtonian physics is wrong, just because on the quantum scale
it does not appear to work anymore?

Ok, so I think I have made my point that things are not always as clear cut as they seem,
and that models are just that: models. They can be extremely usefull and even accurate
if and when applied on the right scale. But they are still models of an absolute reality that
we cannot experience, and they are not that reality itself.

I anxiously await the tests you promised, can't wait to see something based on the
Leedskalnin ideas that other and accepted scientific models cannot explain or do
not predict. 
After all, that is where the value of a theory lies: in its ability to explain or predict things
that other theories could not.
If there is a Leedskalnin based experiment that yields anomalous results in that the results
do not accord with the predictions of more commonly accepted theories, then I would love
to see it (because so far I have not seen anything of the sort anywhere in the Leedskalnin stuff).

cheers
Koen

[scotty1]

Hi all...I see the comments are going strong....
I've made the test i mentioned for Charlie V and put it on you tube.
I'm sorry but i've run out of time tonight (have to go out)...will have to post tomorrow.

[rangerover444]

 Koen1,

Thanks for presenting your thoughts so clearly. And sorry it took me so long
to respond (too busy at work).
I agree with you that we cannot directly observed particles, waves and other micro, high
speed phenomenas, therefore  we have to approach them in indirectly methods and to
build models, according to observations.

You are right about the Newtonian Physics that is right up to the Quantum. And actually
most theories in physics and astronomy attempt to describe observations and explain
many non-observable phenomenas by indirect ways to gain more precise and detailed
Information (like the electron cloud and the proton you mentioned).

We all agree that the means in which we gain the information - is CRUCIAL and can
be done in different ways and display different results.  For instance :  if you build an
Oscilloscope and attempt to measure different characteristics of certain waves (including
electricity). If a waves is made of two currents (from both sides running one against the
other) or if a wave is a 3D ?right hand whirling motion" (and not 2D as the scop show).
Then you are using the wrong instruments for measuring waves.  I?m emphasized
the word IF, assuming that Ed?s model is right. Same with Voltmeter / Ampmeter,
Spectrometer, Particle Accelerator and long list of scientific instruments that where
made to give results - THAT FIT THE CAPABILTY OF THE INSTRUMENT, based
on how they were built.

I brought it up, since it seems that the more basic the more simple are the tests, the less
you are dealing with a ?Sold Game?. And this is the nice thing about Ed?s tests.
Though they are indirect tests and you can interpret them in different ways, the more
tests you run, that will ?round up? a phenomena from as many as sides as possible, so
you can start to make the ties and test them as well. Until at the end you get a model.

Let me bring here one of first Ed?s tests from his Magnetic Current pamphlet :

?Now I will tell you how the currents are running when they come out of a car battery,
and what they can do. Now get the equipment. First put a wooden box on floor,
open side up, cut two notches in middle so you can put a one-eighth of an inch thick and
eighteen-inch long copper wire across the box. Put the wire one end East, the other West.
Stay yourself West, put car battery South side of the box positive terminal East,
negative terminal West, get two flexible leads and four clips to fit the battery and the bare
copper wire, connect the East end of the copper wire with positive terminal, clip the West
end of the copper wire with the West side flexible lead, leave the connection with negative
terminal open. Break two pieces of the steel fishing (needles) line one inch long, put each
piece by middle across the copper wire, one on top of the copper wire and the other under,
hold with your fingers, now touch the negative terminal with the loose clip, hold until
the copper wire gets hot. Take them off, now you have two magnets, hang them up by
middle in fine thread. The upper magnet will hang the way it is now, but the one below
will turn around?.



This is another test in a slight different combination :



Ed have a few more combinations of the same test.  In general you can put across the copper
wire as many needles (Ed call the hard fishing wires) as you want - above, under, vertical, or
any other crossing angle, and in all the combos the needles will be magnetized due to
the ?right hand Whirling motion? of the North and South magnets currents that comes from
each side and run one against the other.  This phenomena happen due to the motion of the two
currents inside the wire that ?throwing the magnets ACROSS? the wire, due to centrifugal
force and ?angular momentum laws?. And the needles set as a conductors (since it's easier for
the currents to run in the needles then in the air), though this test will work even without the
needles, but then it's impossible to "see" where and how the currents going across the wire.

Again I have to emphasized - This tests by itself does not carry enough evidences that
electricity is made of magnets, it is just show one aspect of it, one angle of view.
Ed have other 56 tests in his Magnetic Currents and other tests and explanations in his
other pamphlets.  When you do these tests, a clear picture starts to emerge?


Cheers