Library of Atlantis (Research Channel)

Counter rotation in tornadoes Counter rotation (Birkeland current) is seen in tornadoes and the polar vortices of Saturn. This cannot be explained by the Coriolis effect and must be due to electromagnetic vortices. Unlikely that these self-organise within the air mass or that they derive from the movement of the air mass. More likely that they are already present above the atmosphere and what we are seeing is the Earth end of a Solar filament. https://youtu.be/N1P_vSCYG-A?t=2739

Don Scott on Birkeland currents Don lists the common elements in galaxies. These vary according to distance from the centre. From outside to inside they are: H - He - O - N - C - S - Fe This is hard to explain until we recognise: 1. An innate vortex energy to the cosmos 2. Vortices spiral inwards 3. Energy increases towards the centre (Energy Cascade) 4. Electrons and Hydrogen are materialised direct from vortex energy alone 5. The heavier elements are transmuted from the lighter https://youtu.be/N1P_vSCYG-A?t=1660

Neutrinos and free energy This post is an AI generated summary of the book 'Neutrino Power' from Konstantin Meyl and Johannes von Buttlar. The document discusses a conversation between Johannes von Buttlar and Prof. Dr. Konstantin Meyl about the experimental evidence of free energy and neutrinos, exploring new physical theories and their implications for understanding the universe. https://library-of-atlantis.com/2025/05/19/neutrinos-and-free-energy/

Neutrinos and free energy This post is an AI generated summary of the book 'Neutrino Power' from Konstantin Meyl and Johannes von Buttlar. The document discusses a conversation between Johannes von Buttlar and Prof. Dr. Konstantin Meyl about the experimental evidence of room energy and neutrinos, exploring new physical theories and their implications for understanding the universe. https://library-of-atlantis.com/2025/05/19/neutrinos-and-free-energy/

Vortices in cosmology and biology This is a (partial) list of a variety of vortex structures seen in cosmology, biology, laboratory experiments and theoretical physics. The shape and behaviour are so similar in each field that the simplest explanation is that of an underlying electromagnetic field structure. Several characteristics that were previously speculation based upon the behaviour of biological systems now have validation in laboratory experiments or observations of galaxies. The idea of an energy cascade from outer to inner vortices is described in mainstream texts and the presence of fractal ring vortices allows an effectively arbitrary amount of energy to be sequestered in the bio-field without excessive heating of tissues. Harold Hillman's artefacts are revisited and found to be created entirely by the electron beam itself even before it has impacted the tissue sample. https://library-of-atlantis.com/2025/05/18/vortices-in-cosmology-and-biology/

'Structured' water Gerald Pollack describes an experiment where he stirs some water (thereby increasing the energy in it) and the water gets colder (it emits less heat). We now have added evidence of what is happening from here: https://t.me/library_of_atlantis/661 Stirring organises the water into nested vortices. Energy cascades inwards to the smallest vortices and whatever charge is present in te H2O molecules creates an electromagnetic vortex field which now increases in strength. This is where the extra energy is stored and it is this vortex field that helps the water maintain its structure and retain its energy. This stored energy is utilised by the soil microbiome and human gut flora and increased energy means increased health. Similar treatment of air will surely bring similar health benefits. We do not breathe oxygen so much as electromagnetic vortices. https://library-of-atlantis.com/2025/01/30/do-we-breathe-oxygen/ Biological water must contain such energy, meaning cucumbers and celery are now actual sources of energy. All raw foods contain such energy. Fritz-Popp siad we are 'eating light'.

Vortex energy cascade 4.6 The energy cascade – scales from production-dissipation energy balance https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/energy-cascade In already established turbulent flow in fluids, the flow is organised into nested vortices. Energy flows from the larger scale, outer vortices, to the smaller scale inner vortices. Electromagnetic vortices follow a similar pattern of nested vortices and Meyl's vortex principle describes the inward spiralling of a single vortex. Very likely then, the pattern of electric field flow within the human body is as described with these water vortices. An overall toroidal flow breaks down into smaller and smaller vortices down to the scale of the organ, cell, nucleus and eventually electron. The smallest vortices are powerful enough to transmute elements, break down water into hydrogen and oxygen or manifest an electron from pure energy.

The structure of cognition The process described here as ‘cognition’ will: Use a collection of symbols which are Universal throughout the animal kingdom These symbols have a consistent physical representation as vortex patterns We can perceive some of these patterns as qualia Thought is cognitive computation and uses these symbols as a lexicon Causation is top-down from vortex field to molecule The overall structure is highly modular Primal aims and instincts dominate the overall organisation The vortex patterns have a direct influence on the emergent properties of cellular collectives, not by direct action on individual molecules Cognitive outcomes are therefore limited to the possibilities of such emergences https://library-of-atlantis.com/2025/05/10/the-structure-of-cognition/

Spike protein production Many doctors now in the first level of awakening are convinced that chronic health problems long after the original toxic insult are associated with something they call a 'spike protein'. It isn't that such a protein has been injected and is still hanging around, more that some method of constructing such a thing has persisted over time and as a result, the body is producing these molecules by itself. Problems are caused, particularly cancer and the spike protein is said to be found all over the body, especially in the organs. How can this be? Where are the instructions to construct the protein and when will it go away? My view is that an electromagnetic bio-field is responsible for all regulation and this includes protein construction. The field is organised as a series of nested vortices which accumulate energy from a general inward flow, with each organ associated with its own energy vortex. So the liver arises in development from its own vortex field and is thence maintained in every aspect by the patterns (instructions) within that same field. The issueing of such instructions may lose a small amount of energy but this is soon replenished from external sources. The bio-field instructions for the liver are specific to this organ and will remain within the organ owing to the inward spiralling property of the vortex structure. This gives a modularity to the field structure and protects each organ from contaminating other areas of the body. A vaccine, from this point of view is a mutant piece of bio-field derived from a tissue culture. If this is injected into the blood, the above safety mechanism is bypassed, the bio-field fragment enters almost every organ and the regulatory control of each one is compromised. The antipathetic field contents are now firmly established in many organs, integrated with the indigenous field and supplied with energy, thereby maintaining them indefinitely. The body does not break them down but actively supports them by original design. If this bio-field is the primal source of organisation in the body then the damage is permanent unless there is some sort of back-up, a reserve bauplan maintained elsewhere. The degree of damage to the field may exist on a continuum, meaning it may be insignificantly small to start with but may increase over time. The altered field structure will remain undetected because nobody is looking for it and we don't yet know how to measure it anyhow. Mainstream scientists are convinced that causality always originates in 'matter' and so they are wondering which molecule or enzyme is responsible for the proliferation of spike protein and are even speculating that the protein itself is capable of self-replication. I don't think so. To replicate anything, a blueprint, energy and organisational forces are needed and these come from a bio-electric field. Very possibly the field fragment is hosted in a protein or enzyme and this will give the impression that it is these molecules that are responsible.

Evidence of the senses If I walk around at 1 km/h,say, I feel a gentle breeze on my skin and if I double my speed the sensation increases accordingly and if I stop then so does the impression of movement of air. The kinetic theory of gases, however, asks me to believe that even when at rest my face is subject to a constant stream of molecules travelling at twice the speed of sound and faster. This defies common sense.

Inadequacies of the kinetic theory of gases (vortex flow) The most glaring inadequacy is that any rotational forces are deliberately excluded from the model. This effectively rules out describing any sort of vortex flow from smoke rings to tornadoes. Coriolis forces are never going to be sufficient to move air in a complete circle and in any case there are some hurricanes in the tropics where Coriolis forces are negligible and also anti-cyclones in the Northern hemisphere. 'Conservation of angular momentum' is not a sufficient explanation as it doesn't say how the momentum originated in a bunch of disconnected molecules in the first place. Angular momentum is conserved in solid objects such as spheres and discs but a portion of an ideal gas is not a solid object and there are no centripetal forces to hold the whole thing together. If a bunch of marbles are placed on a rotating turn table, they will just all roll off; they are never going to move in a circle. A vortex in air or water does not behave like this. The molecules will not just hold a circle but will actually spiral inwards. There are therefore some additional forces involved. If I blow a smoke ring, a ring vortex is formed in the air and moves at a steady pace away from me. How is such a thing formed just by blowing? This cannot self-organise from the random collisions of spherical molecules; there must be some interactive forces. I wave my hand through the air and vortices shed off the sides similar to the trailing edge of an aircraft wing. Air needs little encouragement to move in spiral patterns. A theoretical model that explicitly rules this out is unable to describe about 99% of atmospheric movement is something of a drawback.

Diurnal variations of the Earth's magnetic field Is this the source of rhythmic entrainment of living systems or is daylight sufficient? "These variations are believed to be caused by electric currents induced in the Earth from an external source. In this case, the external source is believed to be electric currents in the upper atmosphere, or the ionosphere. These electric currents in the ionosphere are in turn driven by solar activity." https://pburnley.faculty.unlv.edu/GEOL452_652/magnetism/notes/MagNotes19diurnal.html

Why doesn't the atmosphere evaporate? This is a classic Flat Earth meme but no sensible explanation is available from mainstream science. It turns out the pertinent question is not "Why do the molecules not all go into space?" but "Why do they not all float down to the Earth's surface?" The Kinetic theory of gases posits a gas as lots of tiny molecules whizzing around at the speed of sound (340 m/s). The molecules are said to not interact with each other to a significant degree but will bounce off (how?) solid surfaces to provide 'pressure'. So how does a molecule get into the upper atmosphere? Where does it get its energy from? The energy must ultimately come from the molecule having bounced off the Earth. Th escape velocity at the surface of the Earth is 11,000 metres per second so this cannot be possible. A molecule will never make it all the way to the top of the atmosphere and so must eventually fall to Earth via gravity. Eventually, according to this idea, all molecules should lose energy over time and end up in a puddle on the surface of the Earth. Heating a volume of air is said to make the molecules travel faster somehow (mechanism not explained) and this is said to lead to a decrease in density and a rising column of air. But why is air denser merely because the molecules are travelling faster? There are the same number of molecules present and as many are travelling up as down and as left as right. Why should this result in a net movement upwards and against gravity? "High density air will replace low" you say. Ok .. but how? If the molecules don't interact together then how can one volume of air displace another? They should just intermingle and produce a volume of air with twice as many molecules - but this still doesn't constitute density or even 'weight' as still half the molecules have an upward movement and the other half down; what does it mean to say that such an entity 'weighs' something? Many sources say that the air pressure at the Earth's surface is the result of the weight of a huge column of air all the way to the top of the atmosphere. What?! The molecules are said not to interact with each other which means that the molecules at the top of the atmosphere can have no effect whatsoever on those at the Earth's surface. How do acoustic waves propagate if the molecules don't interact? How does the wind blow? What is it that pushes it along? 'Pressure difference' is the claim, but 'pressure difference' is claimed to be the result of molecular movement so how can it be the cause at the same time? How does air exert pressure on air when none of the molecules interact? How does a whirlwind form? What forces push the air in a spiral shape? It can't even be the molecules themselves pushing each other around as they are claimed not to interact with each other. The formulae of physics sometimes allow for practical predictions but none of them are an accurate reflection of how reality actually works.

The vortex as a biological antenna Control of magnetic vortex states in FeGa microdisks: Experiments and micromagnetics - Pradhan et al https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468217923000771 Electromagnetic vortices were set up in some metallic micro-discs and exposed to electromagnetic vibrations. State changes were observed, i.e. measurable changes in an electric field were induced by the application of another electromagnetic field. So we now have a potentially useful way of measuring certain aspects of electric fields that may not be available to a traditional antenna. Set up an array of these vortices and see if we can measure fine modulations of the atmospheric discharge. The array is calibrated to be hypersensitive to certain target frequencies but robust to the measurement frequencies. Vortices are set up close to some critical state and micro-changes in the ambient field will cause a sudden phase shift thereby amplifying the signal. Field modulations of arbitrary sensitivity may be set up depending upon the technology used. Now if such mechanisms are in place in living systems, we have a biological antenna connecting the bio-filed with the cosmos with the capacity to detect arbitrarily weak signals and to amplify them to something meaningful. Response strength of individual vortices is decoupled from input intensity to some degree by the critical phase shift, but a continuum of response may be available as an emergent statistical property. There is no need here for magnetite particles or similar to effect signal reception as the vortex field itself is the antenna. The existence of such vortex fields may well be reflected in the physical matter, meaning there may be physical organelles set up which act as receivers, but we will have to know what to look for and how to measure. The vortex is the transducer and is powered by an inward spiralling of the Gibbs field. Reception is via 'vortex resonance' which allows the filtering of selected frequencies. The idea of magnetoreception by magnetic particles is problematic. A certain strength of signal will be required to move a molecule to a sufficient degree thereby imposing immediate limitations on what can be detected, and what happens then? A particle moves and induces a small (attenuated) change in the surrounding field (even mechanical waves here are really electro-acoustic) and then what? We are back to trying to detect the resulting field changes and now need some sort of antenna to measure them. We are back to square one! Best to go straight for bio-field modulation and then try to work out the fine structure of such field.

Does vacuum suck? Thinking about flight I wanted to know if a low pressure volume of air (or even a vacuum) has the power to 'suck' the wings upwards or whether it is only high pressure that 'pushes'. I came across this video where the lecturer pulls up a stool by a rubber 'suction' mat. The claim is that there is no suction but the chair is pushed upwards by air pressure! https://youtu.be/c31312iN37Q?t=640 "(the rubber mat) is removing the air from the top of the stool and so when you lift it up it is actually the air from underneath which is pushing up because there is no counteracting force from the top so the air is making the stool float". 1. If the air is making the stool float then why does it feel heavy? 2. There is in fact a counteracting force coming from gravitational pull 3. A couple of guys can lift a huge sheet of glass with these with the mats opposed and so cancelling each other out. 4. A variable force exerted by the arms will result in a variable speed of lift - but the lift doesn't come from the rubber mat? 5. Put four of these mats on top of a car and lift it up with a crane. The crane is not that necessary because the car is levitated by air pressure from underneath. This demo is at Princeton and these are not just off-the-cuff remarks but part of an organised and rehearsed demo. The presenter has a PhD. No wonder nobody knows how planes fly!

The Tesla valve, viscosity and electrical resistance Various videos explain or demonstrate a Tesla valve. Water can be pushed through various patterns of conduit to slow it down or restrict to flowing one way but not the other without using moving parts. Very clever. I think this may have something to do with the viscosity of, say water or blood flow in that the geometry of the flow is a major influence on the perceived viscosity. I also think this may be the root cause of electrical resistance. Resistance is said to be not predictable from the atomic structure of the substance so it must somehow be the way that the atoms are arranged. Electricity is the flow of field vortices, so if the atomic arrangement forces vortices to flow back on themselves to meet flow coming the other way then 'field turbulence' occurs and vortices lose direction and transmute into 'heat' or even infrared radiation. https://youtu.be/suIAo0EYwOE?t=301

Pyramid tomography hoax Images probably came from scans of an oil rig https://x.com/sandoly/status/1904651949632352634

Stefan Lanka and the atomic theory Stefan Lanka rejects the ideas that matter is made from a collection of atoms and that biological tissue is made from cells, preferring to regard living systems as composed of a ‘primordial substance’ sometimes referred to as ‘ether’ and at other times as ‘Pi water’, from which all other materials are derived. This post looks at some of his comments from the perspective of vortex physics and assumes a distributed electromagnetic bio-field that organises all biological systems. https://library-of-atlantis.com/2025/04/27/lanka-on-the-atomic-theory/

The real reason I never believed in DNA The base pairs of DNA constitute data - not information. To interpret this data as information it needs a coding scheme. Geneticists call this translation and transcription. This coding scheme itself requires the presence of a great deal of 'information' (really 'data') to work and this data must capable of precise storage and inheritance or it won't work. Now DNA has about 3 gigabytes of data so we need to consider how many gigabytes are required to store the translation scheme. An analogy is that I want to send a Shakespeare sonnet to someone in China but they don't speak English so an English-Chinese dictionary needs to be involved. A sonnet contains 24 lines of text but the dictionary needs to contain every single word in the English language, just in case it is present in the sonnet. The dictionary in this case then must contain vastly more data than the information encoded. What size of dictionary is required to translate all the potential data in a genome? 'Unfeasibly large' is the answer. The volume of data isn't the only problem; we have to ensure that it is stored somewhere, free from corruption and somehow inherited. We need to specify some medium in which this data is embodied. If we say that the integrity is maintained by error correction then we now need extra data and extra functions to implement the error correction and these themselves must be error free. The mechanisms for error correction, translation and transcription need to be precisely inherited themselves and again require the presence of extra information. The embodiment of biological data as a digital system has not solved any problem at all but instead added extra problems to solve with now exponentially larger quantities of data. The whole scheme actually necessitates an infinite regression of encoding and error correction. In addition, the machinery for transcription needs some mechanism by which it is constructed and this mechanism in turn needs constructing somehow, so we have another infinite 'regression of construction'. All this makes it almost inevitable that an Intelligent Design movement should arise. Members express dissatisfaction in the mainstream explanations but will be unwilling to debunk the foundations wholesale as it is the absurdity of these which actually drive their narrative.

Big Bang, black holes and photons The classical description of a photon is that of a 'point' particle that moves through space at the speed of light. It has no height width or length and therefore no volume and yet it can somehow affect the rest of the finitely sized matter in the rest of the universe. It is a 'singularity' in the same way that a black holes is a singularity. In the case of the Big Bang, the entire universe is said to have emerged spontaneously from a singularity, a zero-volume point. The are extraordinary claims and therefore require both extraordinary evidence and extraordinary argument. Neither exists. The fact that a photon has no dimensions is impossible to prove. All measuring instruments are based upon finitely sized atoms or the collection of energy from some finite region of space and this limits the size of things we can measure to 'small but not nothing'. We have a theory that has 'unprovability' built into it. What are the physical laws of a singularity? How do you know? All physical laws that we know of apply to some finite region of space, they apply to finitely sized 'matter' or some finite distance. What does it even mean to say that a zero-sized entity obeys 'laws' and what does it mean to say that it 'exists'? None of these questions are even addressed. These ideas just seem to have been introduced into theoretical physics and accepted as fact. "Singularities are not part of regular spacetime and cannot be described by our current understanding of gravity (general relativity) and space-time." - AI overview So some of the greatest theories of physics now include constructs .. that are not describable by theoretical physics! Where are these things if they are 'not part of regular space time'? They are outside of the regular universe but inside it at the same (regular) time? There is zero chance of proving or disproving anything that happens inside a singularity because .. there is no 'inside', there is no 'there' there. The whole idea is not even an idea, just a piece of empty jargon that enables physicists to claim whatever they want with no chance of proving them wrong. The Big Bang is just a poor man's creation myth and black holes are theoretical artefacts that, by their own definition, have no basis in reality, being not even part of (regular) space-time.