Monday, November 14, 2016

Science from beyond Earth: will we listen or will we choose willingly to remain ignorant?  
Part VIII. Trying to learn what extra-terrestrials know about magnetism by studying English crop pictures: certain experimental observations cannot be explained by physics textbook theories, yet seem consistent with crop-based images  
“When we look through the little universe that we know, and think of the transmission of electrical force, the transmission of magnetic force, and the transmission of light, we have no right to assume that there may not be something else that our philosophy does not dream of."---Lord Kelvin, Bangor Laboratories, Lecture IV.  
We are a fairly primitive species here on Earth, still burning oil or gas for most purposes of energy. Anyone who does not look or act exactly the same as ourselves we attack on first sight, shooting guns first and asking questions later. The British military has made their aggressive attitude toward extra-terrestrial contact very clear (see or
Given an inability of friendly extra-terrestrials to land, for reasons of their own safety, might such visitors still wish to provide us with new scientific information, to help our societies here? They could show for example images from chemistry, biochemistry or magnetic physics. What would NASA astronauts do, if they visited another world orbiting some distant star, and found there a semi-intelligent but warlike species, who were trying to upgrade themselves despite many difficulties?  
For the past 20 years, certain extra-terrestrial visitors seem to have been doing just that. They have been drawing artistic and/or technical pictures in English or European fields at the rate of about 50 per year (see time2012a or time2012b). Most people still remain unaware that indirect, friendly contact has been made. This subject is strictly censored by all major news media, especially government-controlled organizations such as the BBC. Several million people have nevertheless been be able to learn of “crop circles” using the Internet. A few people have studied those images for any useful information which they might contain (see for example or WHAT DO MODERN CROP PICTURES MEAN).  
Some saucers seem to fly using an advanced form of electromagnetism, which we do not yet understand here on Earth 
The biggest “fish” to be caught by studying modern crop pictures would be that of electromagnetic propulsion. When Herbert Schirmer, a Nebraska policeman, was taken aboard a landed UFO in 1967, its human-looking occupants told him that they flew using electrically reversible magnetism. He saw 32 tall, cylindrical magnets or electromagnets around the inside perimeter of that craft, with cables connecting them. The immediate purpose of those visitors in landing was to collect electrical energy from nearby power lines:  
Some of the crew wore uniforms showing a “feathered serpent” symbol, just as we saw repeatedly in crops during the summer of 2012. Schirmer also saw images of “quetzal birds” when he visited the upper observation deck.  
“The intention of those visitors was friendly. Their long-term purpose was to prevent Earth humans from destroying the planet. Residents of Earth were considered to be a violent species. The spacecraft was powered by some kind of electrically reversible magnetism” (see Herbert Schirmer or ).  
Strong magnetic fields, as emitted by extra-terrestrial spacecraft, are known for their effect on nearby power supplies, automobile engines or cameras. Just last month, a huge triangular UFO flew over Washington state, and dimmed the house lights below wherever it was flying (see  ).  
Alan Holt, a NASA employee, visited Wiltshire in 2000. There he mentally asked the crop artists for guidance in his research on propulsion methods. Two days later they showed him a remarkable “magnetic field” crop picture at Avebury Trusloe on July 22, 2000 (see  
I began to study crop circles in the late summer of 2002, after a “nucleosome core” crop picture with 1296 square pixels appeared near Crooked Soley on August 28. We were just about to hold a meeting on the same subject in Cambridge not far away (see wormhole technology). Thus the scientific expertise of those visitors seems to extend to biochemistry, as well as to magnetic physics.  
A Wiltshire policeman saw three tall, blond-haired, human-like extra-terrestrials near Silbury Hill in July of 2009. They were inspecting a newly-made crop picture which showed a “feathered headdress” symbol for the Mayan leader Quetzalcoatl, who was known as a “feathered serpent” (see  
One might draw three conclusions here. First, some of the space visitors look like us, and sometimes show symbols from ancient Mayan culture on their clothing, or on their manufactured artefacts. Secondly, the space visitors have a much greater knowledge of physics than ourselves, especially in the areas of electromagnetism or propulsion. Thirdly, we might be able to learn some of their advanced physics, if our top scientists were to study seriously the technical images shown in crop pictures. If you wish to see some of those technical images, please look at Parts V or VI of this series (see fringe2012a or fringe2012c).  
Supposing that new principles of science are being shown in crops, what should we look for? 
Supposing that new principles of science are being shown in crops, what  we look for? One good, easy-to-understand example appeared last summer on July 29, 2012 at Four Mile Clump in southern England. There the detailed structure of “vitamin A” was drawn in a field of red poppies. A long curved line, ending in two large circles, was added nearby (see 4 mile clump):  
The scientific information provided in this particular crop picture was that red poppies contain a coloured pigment called “beta-carotene”, which is an end-to-end dimer of vitamin A (see comments):  
That is why they drew the chemical structure of vitamin A in a field of red poppies, then added a curved line ending in two circles nearby, to represent a “dimer”. Nothing could be more lucidly clear, to someone with technical knowledge in plant or animal biochemistry. Certain details of how they drew the three-dimensional structure of vitamin A were quite astute, yet are too difficult to explain here.  
If we wished to extract vitamin A from the beta-carotene found in red poppies (or other plants), we could for example place a herd of buffalo in that field and collect their milk, rather than getting milk from cows! Buffalos have an enzyme which splits beta-carotene into two molecules of vitamin A. When buffalo graze on such field plants, the conversion happens naturally (see What_is_the_color_of_buffalo_milk).  
Close to the crop picture at Four Mile Clump, we could see a small Stonehenge-type of structure, which resembles in shape the six-membered carbon ring of vitamin A as seen from the air (see 4 mile clump).  
The crop picture at Four Mile Clump was not “new” information, yet it was something that a few Earth humans could understand completely with a little effort. The crop artists showed us a general and useful principle from Earth’s planetary biochemistry. They did not show us the field image of a “buffalo”. In order to implement their helpful suggestions, we will have to do some thinking and work for ourselves.  
Detailed structure of a magnetic field as seen using ferrofluids or in crop pictures: a doubly-twisted torus?  
Now let us move on to another kind of science shown commonly in crops, namely electricity and magnetism. What do the North or South poles of a magnet look like, when viewed from an “end-on” perspective? Almost all of our images of a permanent magnet seem to be “side-on”. For the first time in 2009 (to my knowledge), the North and South poles of a magnet were imaged end-on in a non-invasive fashion, at high resolution using ferrofluids in a laboratory on Earth. They showed the unexpected appearance of a “doubly twisted torus” (see or  
“Doubly twisted magnetic fields” have been drawn repeatedly in crops since 1997. Five examples are provided in the diagram above, and there are still more. In some cases, for example Woodborough Hill of August 13, 2000, researchers are very sure that the crop picture was not made by local fakers with rope and boards, because of its high accuracy and complexity. 
The detailed mechanisms by which ferrofluid images form are not completely understood (see or Still it seems hard to imagine how those doubly curved lines could be produced by some other mechanism, say Faraday rotation. The detecting layer of ferrofluid is only one micron thick. Also, such images do not require polarized light. “The Faraday effect describes a phase rotation of polarized light, but our dynamic Hele Shaw cell will deflect both non-polar and polar waves. An optical polarizing filter does not alter the viewed image” (see or  
Another method which has been used to image magnetic fields uses polarized neutrons. That method seems quite rigorous (see, but does not yield the high resolution of images seen using ferrofluids.  
Quite remarkably, the end-on view of a magnetic field as imaged using ferrofluids bears a striking resemblance to the “Seed of Life” from sacred geometry:                                                                             
On June 20, 2012 at Golden Ball Hill, a “Seed of Life” crop picture appeared. The “North” or “South” magnetic poles from that crop picture lined up with geometrical North or South in the field where it was made (subject to a slight curvature of its long axis). A small symbol near the bottom told us to “rotate by 90o” from the horizontal plane of a “Seed of Life”, in order to locate North or South magnetic poles, vertically above or below.  
Magnetic fields on Earth are typically described in terms of a “single current loop” or “single torus”. If this new description is correct, we may wish to consider other models which contain “two current loops” or a “double torus”:       
Might there be any other evidence to support this new model, apart from images collected using ferrofluids? Well, inventor Howard Johnson in the 1970’s measured the three-dimensional fields of many magnets very carefully and rigorously. He later wrote in his book “The Secret World of Magnets” (see, that there are two separate “spinning vortices” at the North or South poles:  
Not only did Howard Johnson and his colleagues measure certain anomalies in the magnetic field, but they used their improved knowledge of magnetism to build novel devices, which textbook physics cannot explain (see below). 
Could extra-terrestrials be showing us the true, detailed structure of a magnetic field to help improve information being taught in our schools? In addition to many “end-on” images of a magnetic field, which have appeared in crops from 1997 to 2009, we have also seen in crops the “side-on” images of a magnetic field. In some cases it appears to “swirl as a vortex” at all four corners, left or right and top or bottom (see time2012w). 
The novel implication is that any permanent magnet might possess the structure of a doubly twisted torus, where two internal and oppositely directed “current loops” generate its North or South magnetic poles (see also or  
One or two current loops within a dipole magnetic field?  
The most recent example of a “double torus” in crops was drawn schematically at Etchilhampton on July 28, 2012 (see Etchilhampton2):
There we can see two broad lobes or “current loops” as for a double torus. Two thin pointed shapes extend above or below, to represent outflows of energy at North or South magnetic poles.  
There were 41 circles in the lower part of that drawing, or 26 circles in its upper part. The ratio of those two numbers equals (41 / 26) = 1.577, which is close to (pi / 2) = 1.571 or 90o as an angle in radians. If we imagine each of those two large “loops” to be horizontal, as suggested by a three-dimensional model on the left, then its two pointed shapes for an outflow of energy at North or South poles may extend 90o in vertical directions up or down (just like at Golden Ball Hill on June 20, 2012).  
Indeed, we can see almost the same two-lobed structure, by studying the “side-on” image of a permanent magnet using ferrofluids: 
For the original experimental images, please see or or  
Pretty soon it becomes hard to believe there is nothing in this!  
The top of any magnetic field looks like a doubly twisted torus or “Seed of Life”, while the side of any magnetic field again looks like a double torus. It appears divided into two separate parts about the “Bloch wall” between North and South poles.  
If there are two separate, contra-rotating current loops inside of any magnet, why is there a net flow of energy from South to North, just as one might expect for a single current loop?  
The crop pictures suggest that one pole (say North) may be more powerful than the other pole (say South), at least on a macroscopic scale. One can understand why theorists on Earth tend to favour a “single current loop” model for its simplicity, yet “simple” is not always “correct”. Inventors such as Howard Johnson or Ed Leedskalnin often commented that one pole was stronger than the other in permanent magnets.  
The Lorentz force as a third external current loop  
Might this new model provide any physical insight into the underlying reason for a Lorentz force of electromagnetism? Quite naively, we could regard the Lorentz force as a “third external current loop” which can form above or below the North or South poles of a magnet:  
If any magnetic dipole contains two small loops of current (rather than one), then each end of a magnetic field may contain “intrinsic torque”. Hence any charged particle which moves parallel to that end-plane of torque (or perpendicular to the N-S poles) would naturally experience a curvature of its path. When electric charge is reversed from plus to minus, the particle curves in an opposite direction, just as if local time were reversed.  
On the other hand, if any magnetic dipole were to contain only a single current loop, there would be no intrinsic torque at either end. By that model, it seems inexplicable why some charged particle, passing by either end of a magnet in parallel (or perpendicular to N-S poles), would magically decide to “curve” in one direction or another. No Earth physicist can provide a plausible rationale for the Lorentz force in terms of a single current loop. They just formulate many kinds of ad hoc mathematics to describe it.  
This situation seems analogous to what geneticists were doing in the 1950’s, prior to the discovery of a double-helical structure for DNA. They could describe genes quite accurately in terms of linear models, none of which had any twist. When a few scientists wished to go further in molecular biology, it became necessary to describe the gene as a long double helix.                                                                                                                                                                
Electromagnetic induction in the context of a double-torus model  
We may infer an apparent twist or “torque” at the end of any magnet quite easily, if we study the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction. When the North or South pole of a magnet approaches a coil of wire, it induces a current of electrons in that coil by a rotary motion similar to the Lorentz force:  
How could it do this, unless each end of a magnet contains intrinsic torque? Likewise when a magnet approaches a single loop of wire, it induces one sense of current using its North pole, or an opposite sense of current using its South pole:  
How could it do this, unless the two intrinsic senses of torque at North or South poles were contra-rotating to one another? Their May 24, 2009 crop picture (as shown above) was drawn next to a large electricity tower, as if to say “here is how you make electricity”.  
On September 20, 2012 we saw a large paranormal crop picture drawn in corn, near AC power lines at Hopewell Mounds in Ohio (see There the lay of fallen corn swirled back and forth, four or five times within each large circle, just as for the electrodynamic induction of AC power in a diagram shown above. If as a professional physicist you wish to deny these hard observational data, due to peer pressure, then you are not adhering to long-established principles of how science should be done. You are not actually behaving like a good scientist at all.  
Magnet-to-magnet interactions: why don’t we see any torque (or do we)?    
Now if each end of a magnet contains intrinsic torque, then why don’t we see two magnets twist relative to one another, as they approach at their North or South poles? This is the most intuitive argument against a two-current-loop model, and in favour of a one-current-loop dipole. Still we might not expect to see “torque” when two magnets come together, if their N-S, S-N, N-N or S-S ends are already rotating:  
For example by the two-current-loop model, we do not see any torque when two contra-rotating current loops come together to form a permanent magnet (upper right). We only see torque when a rotating current loop approaches some stationary conductor, for example a coil of wire (lower right).  
This is similar to what Maxwell concluded in 1861: “The effect of a magnetic field on the plane of polarization of light (Faraday 1845) convinced Maxwell that some kind of rotation may take place along magnetic lines of force. This led him to represent the magnetic field by a series of vortices. So long as the angular velocity of any vortex remains constant, particles separating two vortices should not experience any net force. Yet when a change of rotation is transmitted through the medium, then they will experience a net force.”  
There has been a controversy lately in mainstream physics, because the theory of special relativity seems to predict “torque” between a charged particle and a magnet which are not moving with respect to each other (see or  
Actually we do see torque in certain magnet-to-magnet interactions, when two (or a series) of permanent magnets are lined up very carefully with respect to one another. The most well-characterized of these examples might be Howard Johnson’s “linear magnetic motor”, which was verified by both the US Patent Office and Popular Mechanics in 1980 (see or  
There we can see that “spinning vortices” at a series of “magnetic corners” can drive a test magnet quite powerfully from left to right. Other inventors have since reproduced such features (see for example We also saw a similar result implied in crops at Honey Street in 2011 (see time2012t)                                                                                       
The calculating physicists in our schools have no explanation for this experimental behaviour, so far as I am aware. It would seem impossible to derive such a result from a simple dipole model for the magnetic field, which serves as a primary basis for all of their calculations, along with special relativity. In the case of a linear magnetic motor, those permanent magnets seem to be acting not as simple dipoles, but as quadrupoles or higher.  
One versus two current loops in regard to the “paradox” of a homopolar motor 
Two late-season crop pictures from the summer of 2012, at Etchilhampton on July 28 or Wappenbury on August 15 (see Etchilhampton2 or wappenbury), showed apparently a “rotating disc” from a homopolar motor over a “double torus” magnet:  
The “double torus” magnet (below left) sends plumes of magnetic energy both up and down, along its North or South poles. Above the magnet we can see a “rotating disc” (or hexagon), in which electric current flows out from the centre to all six edges. That outward flow of current, perpendicular to North-South poles of the magnet below, creates a series of Lorentz forces v x B which cause the hexagon to rotate with torque.  
Why did they draw a “hexagon” and not a “round disc”? The Wappenbury crop picture seems to based artistically on “thunder marks” which were once carved in certain homes, supposedly to protect them from lightning (see Flower_of_Life).  
Could those crop artists be trying to draw our attention to the “paradox” of a homopolar motor? When any magnet with field B rotates at velocity v about its North-South poles, there is no current induction by a Lorentz force v x B despite the term being clearly non-zero, and no change to its external magnetic field:  
Why are there no observable effects if the rotating magnet has increased kinetic energy? Might two current loops inside of that source magnet create an external “magnetic field” by contra-rotating relative to one another?
In such a case, rotating the source magnet further in a clockwise or anti-clockwise sense, relative to wire conductors above, would not be expected to change its external magnetic field, or to induce any current.  
On the other hand, if the source magnet were to contain only one current loop, and be a simple dipole, then rotating about its North-South poles would clearly be expected to increase the magnetic field for one direction (say clockwise), but decrease the magnetic field for an opposite direction (say clockwise). Using mathematical language, we could say that the magnet shows a centre of symmetry about its North-South axis, which is not consistent with the directionality of a single-current loop model. 
The one-piece homopolar motor rotates due to a series of radially-symmetric Lorentz forces which produce “torque” in a preferred frame of reference (which is not consistent with special relativity)  
Previously we were discussing a two-piece homopolar motor, where some conducting disc rotates above a source magnet, once electrical current is added to the system. Here we will discuss the surprising properties of a one-piece homopolar motor, where the source magnet itself rotates, and there is no extra conducting disc.  
The one-piece homopolar is sold as a “toy” in many countries. Everyone has seen how it works, but they do not understand why. Here is the key point: in order to produce torque from a homopolar motor, electrical current has to flow through the magnet along many different radial paths, and not just near it along one path:  
As shown on the left above, current enters the magnet from a small wire below, then spreads out (invisibly) just as shown in the Wappenbury crop picture of August 15, 2012. Each of those radial currents will deflect the magnet sideways. Since there are so many of those currents, arranged circularly about the centre, the overall arrangement produces spin or torque.  
Likewise we can see on the right above, how passing electric current near the magnet (but not through it) causes a sideways deflection in one direction only, and no torque.  
To explain further, “torque” is a kind of absolute rotation through space, not relative to anything else, since it is the composite of many different radial vectors about a central (preferred) axis of symmetry:  
“Deflection” on the other hand remains a relative motion through space, relative to some current-carrying wire.  
If you look at a textbook explanation of the one-piece homopolar motor, it says almost the same thing. A single force of deflection is produced sideways to the current carrying wire, “in or out of the screen”. This cannot (and does not) cause the magnet to spin:  
The magnet spins because electric current is passing through it. Many different radial lines of current produce torque, inside of the magnet itself.  
A one-piece homopolar motor versus the theory of special relativity 
Let us now rephrase this situation in mathematical terms. We can explain “deflection” in terms of a single relative velocity vr between moving electrons and a magnet. The magnet may be regarded as moving relative to stationary electrons in a wire nearby, or those electrons may be regarded as moving relative to a stationary magnet.  
In order to create “torque”, the moving electrons must spread out into many different radial currents. Each radial current will have a velocity of vr1, vr2, vr3, vr4, vr5 or vr6 relative to the magnetic centre C. Torque depends on all of those velocities collectively, so there can be only one preferred frame of motional reference, namely the magnetic centre:  
The physics here seems very straightforward, except for one problem which no one seems to have noticed (in academia anyway). There cannot be any preferred frame of reference according to the theory of special relativity. Albert Einstein wrote in 1905:  
“Consider for example the electrodynamics of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomena depend only on relative motion between that conductor and the magnet  If the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, the magnet produces a current where parts of the conductor are located. If the magnet is stationary and the conductor is in motion, we find an electromotive force in the conductor which gives rise to electric currents of the same path and intensity”.  
That is what we described for “deflection” above. Yet in the case of “torque”, many different relative velocities must remain (approximately) symmetric about the magnetic centre. If we were to say for example that the “magnet is moving while the electron is stationary” for vr1, that would change the values of vr2, vr3, vr4 and so on. Those currents could no longer act collectively to produce “torque”, which is a physically real phenomenon, and not some theory written on a piece of paper.  
The phenomenon of “absolute rotation” has always contradicted special relativity in mechanical terms (see Absolute_rotation). Here we have presented a further electrodynamic contradiction, courtesy of our friends from the stars. It is not something which I thought of myself. It is something which was drawn carefully and mysteriously in the fields.  
Electrodynamics needs to be described by a four-dimensional theory, but that does not mean it has to be described by just one kind of four-dimensional theory (special relativity) 
It seems clear that electrodynamics needs to be described by some kind of four-dimensional theory, where “electricity” seen at rest may change into “magnetism” when seen in motion. Yet that does not mean it has to be described by just one kind of four-dimensional theory, based only on special relativity.  
We ought to study the experimental observations first, then look for a mathematical theory later. We should not exclude any reliable observations (such as Howard Johnson’s magnetic motor, or a preferred frame of reference for the homopolar motor) just because they seem inconsistent with some presumed theory. The true theory could even be five-dimensional, as was shown in crops at Jubilee Plantation on August 15, 2011 (see jubilee-plantation-some-digressions  ).  
Let us briefly review the basics. If a charged particle remains stationary with v = 0, relative to a nearby magnet, it cannot move to form a “current loop”. Thus it cannot interact with a nearby magnetic field since v = 0 in v x B. Still it may create a directional flow of magnetism by the “right hand rule” close to itself. This is probably due to forces or structures on a subatomic scale which we do not yet understand.  
For v = 0, such energetic flows will be directed through time t rather than through space xyz. This seems to be why we call one phenomenon “electricity” and the other “magnetism”. The intrinsic twist of that subatomic filament, as it proceeds forward through time t for v = 0, or space xyz for non-zero values of v, seems to be the source of electricity or magnetism. It may also be what causes two current loops, internal to any magnetic field, to send virtual waves of energy up or down toward the North or South poles, in clockwise or anti-clockwise senses.  
When any two magnetic flows join together, they may create a real photon which travels at light speed c. If two magnetic flows remain separate, they can only create “magnetic fields” which have the potential to form real photons, but have not done so yet (“virtual particles”). We see likewise in diffraction that “virtual particles”, which are scattered off electrons in atoms, have the potential to form real photons which may be counted by a detector.
If we wish to keep the favourable features of special relativity, while accommodating other observations which have been excluded so far from academic physics, we may have to change our underlying model for the magnetic field. We may also have to accept that there are preferred frameworks in space, consistent with various phenomena involving absolute rotation in mechanics or electrodynamics.  
Preferred frames of reference cannot be described (to my understanding) in the usual non-Euclidean geometries of special relativity. If we wish to describe them by some kind of Euclidean geometry, to permit “absolute rotation”, we would probably need to create a mathematical fiction where light speed c becomes a 90o right angle in four dimensions. One possibility would be using sin (theta) = v / c instead of tan (theta) = v / c to specify any four-dimensional angle between magnet and conductor, or between two moving bodies. Each source would still see a projection of the other object in three rather than four dimensions, yet preferred frames of absolute rotation would be allowed.  
Three different ways of producing “torque” using magnets and electricity: what might be the practical applications?  
To summarize, we have described here three different ways of producing torque using magnets and electricity. First we could induce a rotary current in a nearby coil, as the North or South pole of a magnet moves toward it. Secondly we could pass electric current above that magnet for a two-piece homopolar motor. Thirdly we could pass electric current through the magnet for a one-piece homopolar motor:  
All of these methods require some relative velocity between the magnet and interacting electrons, just as if magnetism and electricity might be two different aspects of the same phenomenon, seen through space and/or time. 
The image shown at lower right describes what happens, when you apply a voltage to either the North or South poles of a neodymium magnet under water, so that you can see gas bubbles from electrophoresis. Such conditions produce an apparent torque, either clockwise or anti-clockwise, depending on which pole you apply the voltage to (see or Some physicists have advised me that this result “cannot be right”. Yet it is exactly the same effect which we just described above for a one-piece homopolar motor! Here the gas bubbles are spinning, rather than the magnet. Again we can see “absolute rotation” in a preferred frame of reference.  
We have not discussed here the torque created by dipole-dipole interactions in ordinary DC or AC motors, because we are concerned with finding new scientific principles, or new methods of propulsion. Those past examples seem well understood.  
The last of three methods for producing torque was seemingly shown in crops near Honey Street in 2011. There we could see a thin ring (too narrow to walk), along with a small “arrow” at upper right to tell in which way the current is flowing (the original “arrow” was damaged by visitors by the time this photograph was taken). We could also see three concentric rings, which show the usual symbol for a current-induced magnetic field:  
Because electric current is flowing through those three rings, we can see “spirals of torque” emerging along the thin ring downstream on the other side. This entire crop picture aligned with another crop picture nearby, which showed a “ring of five magnets”. Exactly where those three concentric rings were drawn, one “corner” of a “crop magnet” was somehow flatted then raised in the other crop picture (see time2012t).  
The second of three methods for producing torque was shown in crops at Etchilhanpton and Wappenbury in 2012 (see above).  
The first of three methods for producing torque (used in many industries on Earth) had already been shown by a series of crop pictures from 1995 to 1997 (see fringe2012a).  
If we have two nearby spirals of magnetic torque, can they drive a mechanical motor? This interesting question was posed at Old Sarum on May 5, 2010 (see then near Stonehenge on May 9, 2010 (see or
There is some question as to whether the May 9, 2010 crop picture was paranormal or human-made.
Can we develop electromagnetism for spacecraft propulsion?
Now after a long intellectual journey through the mysteries of electricity and magnetism, we can return to where this essay began. Why did the occupants of a landed UFO tell policeman Herbert Schirmer in 1967, that their system of propulsion was based on “electrically reversible magnetism”? Why did the crop artists show NASA manager Alan Holt in 2000 the image of a “magnetic field”, when he asked for guidance in his research on space propulsion? Why did a large triangular UFO dim the house lights last month in Washington state, as it flew slowly over them?
The only plausible answer to all of these questions is that advanced space-faring races from other star systems know much more about electricity and magnetism than we do here on Earth. They appear to be using magnetic technologies to fly all over the galaxy. Meanwhile we can barely get to the Moon or occasionally to Mars, using old-fashioned chemical rockets.
Based on what we have learned from studying crop pictures, or other sources of knowledge outside of academia, can we suggest how they might be doing it? If some primitive native from Africa saw an automobile for the first time, and was asked to explain how it runs, he could say that the controlled burning of chemicals inside of a closed space causes certain gases to expand, and thereby move cylindrical pistons which make a rotor turn. By analogy, that is about as far as we will get here, in explaining how UFOs seem to defy gravity and fly!
When we pass electric current through a magnet (or magnetic field), such an action apparently produces “spirals of torque” on an absolute scale, because of many radial currents which are involved, all deflecting the magnet individually by their own Lorentz forces:
What would happen if we were to pass electric current through a ring of magnets (as shown at Honey Street in 2011)? Would that produce a “pyramid of torque”, since all five magnets will be creating torque in the same direction?  
Could this be what the UFO occupants who spoke to Herbert Schirmer in 1967 meant by “electrically reversible magnetism?                                                                   
The outer perimeter of his landed UFO showed a series of standing cylinders, which were probably magnets or electromagnets, connected by electrical cables between them.
How can we move forward?
If we were a logical and intelligent species, we would start a new series of experiments to explore magnetism and electricity in laboratories worldwide, based on the suggestions shown to us in crops (or other places), which have been summarized in this eight-part series. As new results come in from well-equipped laboratories, mathematicians could develop new theories of the magnetic field, which allow for preferred frames of reference. As new prototypes are made, which might generate clean energy or enable spacecraft propulsion, large corporations could get involved and fund the most promising discoveries for commercial development.
The two main barriers to moving ahead in this way would be oil and gas interests, who stand to lose many of their markets, and academicians who have vested interests in protecting old theories. Yet we do not really have any choice. By the end of the 21st century, the ecosystem of our planet will be in dire shape, and probably will not be able to support nearly as many humans as it does at present.  
Either we “square the circle or we die”, Whitley Streiber was told by a paranormal visitor in 1998. Over the next eight years of this decade 2013-2020, the effects of climate change should become more obvious. Many people will act later, although they probably will not act now.
Several technologies not discussed here are magnetic flywheels, paramagnetic or diamagnetic shielding, gradients of magnetic energy or quasi-monopoles. Finally, my early attempts to extend these ideas to quantum electricity or magnetism seemed perplexing! As new crop pictures appear in the summer of 2013, we may discuss and analyze other subjects then.  
Red Collie (Dr. Horace R. Drew, Caltech 1976-81, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology 1982-86, CSIRO Australia 1987-2010)
Prior research achievements: first high-resolution images of left and right-handed DNA, by the x-ray diffraction of single crystals; and part of the genetic code having to do with sequence-based curvature, as shown in crops at Crooked Soley in August of 2002. 
P.S. We would like to thank all of the crop circle photographers or researchers who have documented field pictures over the years, and Randell Sarneel for the “cat” image shown below.
Appendix 1. Food or water famines in 2030 as the North Pole ice melts, and crops fail around the world?  
The amount of time left to upgrade our societies may be relatively short, perhaps only until 2050, or at most until 2100. There may still be humans living on Earth after that, but our numbers will decrease substantially, if adverse changes to food, water and climate continue at the present rate. Our current levels of technology may collapse as well, once human numbers begin to seriously decline.  
“I feel as if life on Earth is going to get significantly more unpleasant by about 2030” ---Professor Peter Wadhams, Cambridge University (see )
The paranormal crop artists told us at Crabwood in 2002: “Much pain but still time. Believe: there is good out there, We oppose deception.” How many years will pass before this prophecy comes true? How many years will pass before the general scientific community on Earth rejects a government-imposed sanction against studying UFOs or crop pictures, and begins to put their intellectual weight behind the wheel? I would guess “50 years” until our ecosystem collapses, since the Crabwood crop picture referred to an earlier time in 1952, when grey aliens flew over Washington DC and intimidated the American government there. Fifty years past 2002 would be 2052.  
The crop artists have made it clear that the mysteries of magnetic energy and propulsion are a “great puzzle” which we will have to solve for ourselves. They are not going to come down and give it to us on a silver platter:  
I feel a lot like that cat. Can we do it? As it says in The Key (2011), “For mankind, the matter will be decided in this century.”
Appendix 2. Absolute rotation alters the apparent velocity of light (Sagnac experiment)   
We noted above that “absolute rotation” drives the one-piece homopolar motor, contrary to textbook explanations based on a theory of special relativity. We also saw that one end of a neodymium magnet can apparently exude “spirals of torque”, if an electrical voltage is carefully applied. Those are the same “spirals of torque” drawn many times in crops from 1997 to 2012.  
Why don’t we learn such important things in school? Some of us were taught in physics that Michelson and Morley made a clever device in 1887, which they set up on a table top (see Michelson Morley_experiment). They wanted to learn whether light would move faster east than west, due to the underlying velocity of a spinning Earth, but were unable to detect any effect. This result supposedly “proved” that there could not be any preferred frame of reference, as formalized later in the theory of special relativity.  
Here is what you probably did not learn in school: if you set up the same experiment on a table top, then spin it around at a few revolutions per second, one light beam (moving the same way in which you spin) apparently goes more rapidly as c + v, while the other light beam (moving the opposite way from which you spin) apparently goes more slowly as c - v (see Sagnac_effect or a humorous video  
We learn right away from this Sagnac experiment that the theory of special relativity does not “forbid” preferred frames of reference. Rather when we encounter a preferred frame of reference in real life, the theory of special relativity does not “apply”.  
An easy analogy to think about hard subjects  
Here is an easy way to think about the Michelson-Morley experiment. Suppose we have two trucks, each of which can offload a bike rider onto the road between them. First when the two trucks are stationary at v = 0, the bike rider goes from one truck to the other and back, say at 20 km/hour. Next when both trucks are moving together at v = 10 km/hour, the bike rider again goes from one truck to the other and back, at 20 km/hour in his own frame of reference. He is also moving at 20 km/hour in each truck’s frame of reference. As seen from above, however, from a distant stationary frame of reference, the bike rider would apparently travel from the first truck to the second at (20 + 10) = 30 km/hour. Then he would ride back to the first truck at (20 - 10) = 10 km/hour. What Michelson and Morley determined was that the bike rider felt “no drag” from either the ground or the air, when the two trucks were moving at v = 10 km/hour, as opposed to being stationary at v = 0.  
Now let us think about the Sagnac experiment. Here we have a single truck which can offload two different bike riders in opposite directions, yet they all have to travel around a closed circular track like for a record turntable. First when the truck is stationary at v = 0, both bike riders travel around the closed circular track at v = 20 km/hour, one clockwise and the other anti-clockwise. After one revolution, the two riders meet exactly where they began. Next when the truck moves anti-clockwise at v = 10 km/hour, the bike rider going anti-clockwise travels apparently at (20 + 10) = 30 km/hour to complete one revolution, while the bike rider going clockwise travels apparently at (20 – 10) = 10 km/hour to complete one revolution. They do not meet where they began, but somewhere else entirely. As seen from a local frame of reference, each bike rider would imagine him (or herself) to be travelling at 20 km/hour. Yet someone looking on from above, from a distant stationary frame of reference, would see the anti-clockwise bike rider travelling at 30 km/hour, or the clockwise bike rider travelling at 10 km/hour. 
In order to “save” the theory of special relativity and “constant” light speed c, it has to be argued that we should only measure such speeds in the local perspective of the bike riders themselves, and not from some distant stationary perspective, where such speeds would appear as c + v or c - v (see This would not be an appropriate place to develop a new theory consistent with the Sagnac experiment, yet it would a good place to re-state that “absolute rotation” can drive a one-piece homopolar motor, as was shown in crops at Wappenbury on August 15, 2012.

No comments: