What im doing is reading up on Ed Leedskalnin and his "Magnetic Current" wich is very interesting, but the part i want to get to is a section at the bottom of the paper that describes eaths magnetic relationship with the moon. it pretty much says that the earth and the moon have like poles that keeps the earth from drawing in the moon, but if this theory is correct then what if the earths magnetic poles flip as ive heard it being mentiond.....will the earth be attracted to the moon and pull it in?.
Im just learning about Ed's work and it realy has caught my attention.
sorry i couldnt copy and paste the actual part im describing but if you scroll down its the second paragraph from the bottom.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/242432/Ed-Leedskalnin-Magnetic-Current-Illustrated
Chad.
Pole shift has happend many times in the past, don't you think the earth would have been gone by then?
All the people i speak about pole shift talk like it will destroy anything etc.
I dunno why but i think everything stays the same exept for the compass needle..
I too came by Ed Leedskalin some years ago, but i don't think his device was FE.
As far as i could see it was a normal dynamo that needed to be turned, nothing fancy.
The story goes he lifted the big rocks using some mysterious anti gravity thing but later there were pictures of him using conventional ways to lift the rocks.
M.
QuotePole shift has happend many times in the past, don't you think the earth would have been gone by then?
well this is what i thought, but there has got to be something keeping the moon and the earth apart and if its not the magnetic poles then was Ed Leedskalnin was wrong?.
From what i have come to understand the moon is traveling away from the earth at around 40mm per year so maybe Ed Leedskalnin isnt wrong but maybe the effects of the attraction/repulsion isnt that great to have an effect that will cause the moon and earth to collide...? ???
first, let us not forget that the Moon, is in fact a chunk of the earth broken off from a massive impact long long ago.. it was a mass of molten lava which cooled into the Moon as it flew off out of the atmosphere.
Being within the intense magnetosphere as it cooled, it became a magnetic di-pole. It's opposite pole is always attracted TO the earth. This is why the same side of the moon always faces down.
The magnetic attraction does not "repel" the moon, but it is also not strong enough to overcome the moons inertia and pull it inwards...
What will be interesting, should the magnetic poles flip again -- is wether or not that same side of the moon will continue to face the earth, or if it will turn around the other way.
QuoteWhat will be interesting, should the magnetic poles flip again -- is wether or not that same side of the moon will continue to face the earth, or if it will turn around the other way.
That will be intersting!.
So do you think maybe if/when the earths poles flip that the moons will follow suit and flip maintaining the ballance?
the alternative seems to be that it could simply change orbital paths, heading towards the other hemisphere.
The moon is a chunk of the Earth... ???
We actually know that for sure.. ???
How do we know the poles have flipped on the Earth...because of bits of magnetite... ???
Does the magnetite really say that the poles have flipped.. ???
The summer pole is always a stronger pole than the winter pole of the Earth.....it depends when the magnetite settled...it is not reliable tell if the Earth's field has flipped.
Anyone who wants to know about magnetic currents should contact me. Don't waste your time in a lengthy study....I already have spent 5 years expanding the theory.
Magnetic Currents are the Aether..the cosmic force.
I've done all Ed's experiments and his theory is much better than the conventional theory.
Hopefully this year or early next year i'll have a book about magnetic currents completed.
It will be a basic guide to show the functions of the magnetic currents.
Ed wrote "If the N and S pole individual magnets are guided in the right channels, then they possess perpetual power."
"If more magnets are added to a living, then it can do things it could not do before, the same is true for our body and everything else."
"soft iron does not hold the magnets...it pushes them out."
"You know that the soft iron does not hold the magnets, but you already have one that holds it...it is the perpetual motion holder..It illistrates the principal how permanent magnets are made."
"Millions of peolpe all over the world are being fooled by the non-existing electrons."
---------------------------------
I think folks are wrong to think of Ed and anti-gravity ect......maybe he did do that, but the foundation of Ed's work is in the magnetic currents.
The currents cause gravity when they run side by side in the same direction from the center of the Earth...it's more of a static thing than magnetism or electricity.
The magnetic Currents can ONLY RUN AGAINST EACH OTHER, but when they run side by side in the same direction they cause gravity....sound like a contradiction...not at all....all matter is built up by the magnetic currents.
Ed has the same radio wave propagation theory as Tesla, but nobody has noticed... ;D
Tesla did not know what electricity was, but Ed did....and Tesla is so famous.... :D
The answers to many questions constantly discussed here are all in Ed's notes, but everyone is so stuck on electrons and protons and photons and quarks that they miss what the real force is.
Anyone who wants to know about Ed's theory can contact me scottylang_@hotmail.com
It will take some time, but if you have the patience you will see how it works.
I already have about 100 diagrams done that I can share privately, as they are copyright for my book.
I did not write my book to make any claims ect...just to follow exactly Ed's words and tests and to give explanations in diagram form...and also to combine some of Ed's works for further meanings ect ect.
Scotty.
The near magnetic field of the Earth may flip over but if the big one the one produced by counterrotating plasma sheath hemispheres screws up then we gotta start worrying. In the meantime the poor fish and birds which circumnavigate the globe using a magnetic gps system are all gonna get messed up.
To clear up a previous misconception about how Ed Leedskalnin was able to cut and move huge boulders.
Reports have him doing his work in complete darkness while humming.
He certainly used his pulleys and ropes...but only to balance the huge rocks he somehow caused to no longer be subject to the forces of gravity.
Regards...
“a section at the bottom of the paper that describes eaths magnetic relationship with the moonâ€
Yeah, right. That’s the best part. ;) Except there is no such relationship because the moon does not have a dipolar magnetic field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field_of_the_Moon
"The external magnetic field of the Moon is very weak in comparison to that of the Earth. Other major differences are that the Moon does not currently have a dipolar magnetic field (as would be generated by a geodynamo in its core) and the varying magnetization that is present is almost entirely crustal in origin."
Like I said many times before: from any scientific point of view, the papers of Ed Leedskalnin are nothing but junk.
Cheers,
Tinu
if you read eds writings (all of them, even the off-topic crazy ones)
he tells you exactly how he build his castle. and with a little research you can dig up local stories about how he picked it up and moved it all by himself
he cut it using normal stoneworking techniques his father taught him. springs and things.
as far as lifting them, he did just as the egyptians tell us in their heiroglyphs.
the magnetic field between his magnets and the charged stone block opposed gravity and he was able to move it around like a flying carpet. almost weightless.
ive seen the effect, but i havent quite mastered it yet. playing with the keeper on a perpetual-motion holder you can balance an 'antigravity' square steel rod in mid air.
it is said that Ed used pulleys and several-ton blocks at great heights to power his generator, with which he charged his batteries and made magnets and things.
you can still see the carcass of the gen, in his castle-tourist-trap in Fl.
----------------------------
The study of the earths magnetic poles is not just magnetite, but entire geological layers of magnetized rock, spanning large gaps of time, magnetized in the opposite direction than the layers preceeding it, or of that of our own upper layer, in the field that exists today. The molten dynamo in the earth's core is turning in a specific direction. if something throws that off, and it flips around, the poles switch.. the magnetic currents will flow in the opposite direction. that will throw a lot of things off,fish, birds, plants, all animals..,. and if the Moon is anywhere involved, then we should add Tidal and Climate fluxuations to the list.
what ever happened with this? did he end up completely ostracized like chandra?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/29/MNGPIA17BL45.DTL
http://nuclearplanet.com/origin_earths_magnetic_field.htm
" -- Explain why planets such as Jupiter emit far more heat than they absorb from the sun. Herndon thinks they, too, have natural nuclear reactors at their cores. (Because heat is continually generated by the decay of radioactive elements in Earth's crust and mantle -- the regions above the core -- scientists are uncertain whether Earth emits more heat than it receives from the sun.) "
It is interesting that the instruments aboard the space station were not able to determine whether earth was also emitting more heat than received by the sun.
Or were they able to, but kept that information from us too ?
The possibility of a nookuler reactor at the earth's core is somewhat supported by the mysterious unexplainable hum emanating from an undetermined underground source in Taos New Mexico.
It is further supported that the authorities are not interested in locating the source.
Regards...
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 07, 2009, 12:04:55 AM
if you read eds writings (all of them, even the off-topic crazy ones)
he tells you exactly how he build his castle. and with a little research you can dig up local stories about how he picked it up and moved it all by himself
he cut it using normal stoneworking techniques his father taught him. springs and things.
as far as lifting them, he did just as the egyptians tell us in their heiroglyphs.
the magnetic field between his magnets and the charged stone block opposed gravity and he was able to move it around like a flying carpet. almost weightless.
ive seen the effect, but i havent quite mastered it yet. playing with the keeper on a perpetual-motion holder you can balance an 'antigravity' square steel rod in mid air.
it is said that Ed used pulleys and several-ton blocks at great heights to power his generator, with which he charged his batteries and made magnets and things.
you can still see the carcass of the gen, in his castle-tourist-trap in Fl.
----------------------------
The study of the earths magnetic poles is not just magnetite, but entire geological layers of magnetized rock, spanning large gaps of time, magnetized in the opposite direction than the layers preceeding it, or of that of our own upper layer, in the field that exists today. The molten dynamo in the earth's core is turning in a specific direction. if something throws that off, and it flips around, the poles switch.. the magnetic currents will flow in the opposite direction. that will throw a lot of things off,fish, birds, plants, all animals..,. and if the Moon is anywhere involved, then we should add Tidal and Climate fluxuations to the list.
What about such crazy idea:
when crossing galaxy plane our sun will stop and rotate in opposite direction.That would cause all planets to either slowdown or rotate in opposite direction also causing flip of magnetic poles.
If Moon is a piece of our planet and magnetic field side is that facing Earth , then is may cause Moon to turn and show us his other side from this moment due to repulsion.If some theories and moon expeditions are correct that this side may be flooded with some orange dust.That way Moon will start to shine in red colour.
Crazy idea,huh ? But somehow supported by prophecies...
@Cap
There are other theories that a fusion process is going on in there. Maybe there is a blackhole in the Sun and the Planets of differing scale. And perhaps what we see as the Universe is because we are inside a black hole looking out. Could be folks inside the blackhole inside the Earth looking at the shell with telescopes and saying hey the Universe is expanding when all they are looking at is an expanding cooling of primordial plazmas just waiting to be formed into new galaxies and solar systems etc. The shell of the expanding blackholes creating nested Universes that expand within other blackholes. The event horizons or density surface determining where their Universe ends and ours begins.
Too many questions and not enough to go on sparks.
If we only could get our hands on the anti-gravity disc's they are keeping from us we would have a better idea of what goes on 'out there'...and possibly 'in there'.
Regards...
How about making one of thoose things and go look for ourselves? ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ChsZUwqTeE
BTW, did anyone took a closer look or did any experiments based on Grebennikov's work? ...didn't find anything on this forum...
Dann
Quote from: sparks on January 07, 2009, 10:22:13 AM
@Cap
There are other theories that a fusion process is going on in there. Maybe there is a blackhole in the Sun and the Planets of differing scale. And perhaps what we see as the Universe is because we are inside a black hole looking out. Could be folks inside the blackhole inside the Earth looking at the shell with telescopes and saying hey the Universe is expanding when all they are looking at is an expanding cooling of primordial plazmas just waiting to be formed into new galaxies and solar systems etc. The shell of the expanding blackholes creating nested Universes that expand within other blackholes. The event horizons or density surface determining where their Universe ends and ours begins.
For a long time I have wondered if black holes lead to other universes. This idea has all of the right ingredients to be correct. All matter and energy that enters the black hole's event horizon will get broken down into all of the elementary particles that make up a universe, then all of the elementary particles beyond the black hole's event horizon will create another universe. I can imagine a Big Bang occurring from the formation of a black hole or maybe when a black hole reaches a certain critical mass. So, from this idea one may say, "the universe was created from everything", instead of saying "the universe was created from nothing or the universe was created from a super particle which held all of the forces, etc". Also, once a Big Bang occurs, then the black hole may stop feeding, or maybe the newly created universe will continue to expand until the black hole stops feeding, etc. Another possiblity is if the theory of a singularity is correct, then maybe the singularity could hold all the forces, and once the forces within the singularity reaches a certain critical mass or energy it will create a Big Bang. Or maybe, after a black hole reaches a certain critical mass, then it creates a universe, and the newly created universe becomes totally self sustained and totally separated from the black hole (has it's own membrane), and the black hole continues to give birth to even more universes. Lot of different scenarios could be possible even if the above ideas are only partially correct.
Interesting idea, it's good to see someone else on the same page as I am, although our ideas may differ in some aspects. I do not know if the above is correct or even possible, but may be worth exploring.
I would like to create a thread on this idea, but I will give Sparks an opportunity to do so, since he originally posted this idea.
Quote from: gravityblock on January 08, 2009, 05:24:15 AM
For a long time I have wondered if black holes lead to other universes. This idea has all of the right ingredients to be correct. All matter and energy that enters the black hole's event horizon will get broken down into all of the elementary particles that make up a universe, then all of the elementary particles beyond the black hole's event horizon will create another universe. I can imagine a Big Bang occurring from the formation of a black hole or maybe when a black hole reaches a certain critical mass. So, from this idea one may say, "the universe was created from everything", instead of saying "the universe was created from nothing or the universe was created from a super particle which held all of the forces, etc". Also, once a Big Bang occurs, then the black hole may stop feeding, or maybe the newly created universe will continue to expand until the black hole stops feeding, etc. Another possiblity is if the theory of a singularity is correct, then maybe the singularity could hold all the forces, and once the forces within the singularity reaches a certain critical mass or energy it will create a Big Bang. Or maybe, after a black hole reaches a certain critical mass, then it creates a universe, and the newly created universe becomes totally self sustained and totally separated from the black hole (has it's own membrane), and the black hole continues to give birth to even more universes. Lot of different scenarios could be possible even if the above ideas are only partially correct.
Interesting idea, it's good to see someone else on the same page as I am, although our ideas may differ in some aspects. I do not know if the above is correct or even possible, but may be worth exploring.
I would like to create a thread on this idea, but I will give Sparks an opportunity to do so, since he originally posted this idea.
lee smolin proposed something very similar, i think it was called fecund universes theory. he wrote a book about it too, 'life of the cosmos'.
maybe you know of it already, if so, my apologies.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on January 08, 2009, 07:17:46 AM
lee smolin proposed something very similar, i think it was called fecund universes theory. he wrote a book about it too, 'life of the cosmos'.
maybe you know of it already, if so, my apologies.
Thanks for the info, I was not aware of this theory or the book. I look forward to reading it. :)