the Editor of The Virtual Times
Howard Johnson is also a respected colleague, whom I very much admire. (See Figure 23). Howard has continued to work quietly and patiently upon his patented permanent magnet motor, [note 31] including patenting various magnetic gates, etc. that are necessary to make such a motor work in a rotary configuration. [note 32] Howard employs a two-particle theory of magnetism; i.e., each magnetic flux line is envisioned as having a particle traveling from the north pole to the south pole, and also a particle traveling from the south pole to the north pole. The particles are spinning; the forward-time particle spins in one direction, and the antiparticle spins in the other direction. Howard then slightly separates the two particle flows. [note 33] In other words, Johnson splits the flux lines themselves, into two different pieces. When so separated, the component lines are now curls, so their paths curve. The paths of the two "curl particles" are different; one curls in one direction and the other curls in the opposite direction. Further, a predominance of one form of curl particle gives a "time-forward" aspect, while a predominance of the other form of curl particle gives a "time-reversed" aspect. Johnson is thus able to employ a deeper kind of magnetism than the textbooks presently contain. He demonstrates that a "spin-altered" magnetic assembly exhibiting (to a compass or other such detector) a north polarity can attract another unaltered magnetic assembly exhibiting a north polarity. In short, he can make a north pole attract a north pole. We will give you further insight into Johnson's two-particle theory in a future article. [note 34] We will also explain how and why the physicists missed that antiparticle in the magnetic field's flux lines, and thereby failed to advance the theory of magnetism to a deeper level. Make no mistake, one day when the new theory is done, Johnson may well be awarded a Nobel Prize for his epochal discovery of a deeper structure of magnetism.
Bits and pieces of the new science approach are just now beginning to spill into a few conventional journals and symposia. For some time a few of the rebels spearheading this new science have been doing something that the University scientists should have been doing all along. The rebels have been meticulously examining the concepts, postulates, and definitions that the present scientific models are founded upon, to reveal serious foundations errors. Corrections for some of these errors have been discovered and made. [note 35] Others are still problems yet to be resolved. Yet slow progress is being made, and a "flip-over" of the old science is likely to occur within the next decade if not sooner. By then the new concepts will have become "solid" enough to allow producing an engineering mathematical model. Also the supporting experiments will have become solid enough to justify the new concepts and the model.
|
|
Comments may be sent to the Editor of The Virtual Times |