Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos  (Read 1579736 times)

gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos
« Reply #150 on: July 19, 2014, 12:27:05 PM »
You mean that "magnetflipper" guys videos???

The water vortex movement is simple water hydrolysis where the hydrogen bubbles move themselves centrifugally in the magnetic current.

I have 4 other ways of doing that which have NOTHING do to with adding etc, electricity.  ;D

According to Faraday himself on page 136 in a publication titled, "Experimental researches in electricity / by Michael Faraday", the outward force or pressure acting on the rotating wire piece can not be attributed to the fictitious centrifugal force.  If the outward force was due to the centrifugal force alone, then the distance between the rotating wire piece and magnet would not increase as the speed of revolution decreases (see the snapshot of page 136 below).  This outward pressure in addition to the torquing force is more evidence of a magnetic vortex.

Gravock

gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos
« Reply #151 on: July 19, 2014, 12:37:20 PM »
Hristo Ditchev describes in detail in his work how concentric ring structures will form by carefully dropping iron powder onto the surface of the water!

Gravock

TheoriaApophasis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos
« Reply #152 on: July 19, 2014, 12:39:30 PM »
According to Faraday himself on page 136 in a publication titled, "Experimental researches in electricity / by Michael Faraday", the outward force or pressure acting on the rotating wire piece can not be attributed to the fictitious centrifugal force.  If the outward force was due to the centrifugal force alone, then the distance between the rotating wire piece and magnet would not increase as the speed of revolution decreases (see the snapshot of page 136 below).  This outward pressure in addition to the torquing force is more evidence of a magnetic vortex.

Gravock

No offense to Faraday, but HIS was the stone age of electrical and magnetic understanding, despite the ENORMOUS amount he DID discover.

It seems you are forgetting that each "face" of EVERY magnet has BOTH a centrifugal AND a centripetal field reciprocation.

What "fictitious centrifugal field"?   ;D  ;D   Its there most absolutely, even a magnetometer will tell you that much, not to mention 20 other testing mediums.

Every vortex is just a torque from the dielectric.


A vortex is a STRAIGHT LINE AS MOVED AGAINST AN OPPOSING FORCE,......see pic below

Magnetism is field torque definitionally since its polarized (=spatial).




The diagram below is from the pack of idiots who think each side of a magnet "has a field",  it doesnt it has 2 FIELD ZONES.

Every 360 degrees of a single cycle of the turn of a magnet you have:
2 Ether-field modalities: dielectricity and magnetism (of course).
6 total pressure domain fluctuations, 2 centripetal, 2 centrifugal, and 2 dielectric
10 field-boundary gradients


You state:
 If the outward force was due to the centrifugal force alone


Yes, thats because of 2, 6, and 10 ABOVE.  ;D



   


gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos
« Reply #153 on: July 19, 2014, 01:04:31 PM »
No offense to Faraday, but HIS was the stone age of electrical and magnetic understanding, despite the ENORMOUS amount he DID discover.

It seems you are forgetting that each "face" of EVERY magnet has BOTH a centrifugal AND a centripetal field reciprocation.

What "fictitious centrifugal field"?   ;D ;D   Its there most absolutely, even a magnetometer will tell you that much, not to mention 20 other testing mediums.

Every vortex is just a torque from the dielectric.


A vortex is a STRAIGHT LINE AS MOVED AGAINST AN OPPOSING FORCE,......see pic below

Magnetism is field torque definitionally since its polarized (=spatial).




The diagram below is from the pack of idiots who think each side of a magnet "has a field",  it doesnt it has 2 FIELD ZONES.

Every 360 degrees of a single cycle of the turn of a magnet you have:
2 Ether-field modalities: dielectricity and magnetism (of course).
6 total pressure domain fluctuations, 2 centripetal, 2 centrifugal, and 2 dielectric
10 field-boundary gradients


You state:
 If the outward force was due to the centrifugal force alone


Yes, thats because of 2, 6, and 10 ABOVE.  ;D



   


No, I am not forgetting that each "face" of EVERY magnet has BOTH a centrifugal AND a centripetal field reciprocation.  The centrifugal force is most commonly understood as an outward force apparent in a rotating reference frame. It is apparent (fictitious) in the sense that it is not part of an interaction but is a result of rotation, with no reaction-force counterpart. This type of force is associated with describing motion in a non-inertial reference frame, and referred to as a fictitious or inertial force (a description that must be understood as a technical usage of these words that means only that the force is not present in a stationary or inertial frame).  For example, the air pressure from a fan placed in a rotating frame blowing air outwards or (centrifugally) can be detected in a stationary frame.  This is not the case for the centrifugal force!

Gravock

gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos
« Reply #154 on: July 19, 2014, 01:47:57 PM »


Yes, yes yes. 

I have made discoveries on the golden section in the past 12 years that would blow your mind off your neck.  ;)

 
5+ Phi^-3 = Golden circle of incommensurability (MY DISCOVERY)


course MOST people have NO idea what incommensurability is........but it was the "most important secret to the Platonists and Pythagoreans".




took me a few years to unite these 2 incommensurate golden proportions and make a proof (that would take 100 pages to explain, and I wont do it here)

From what I can tell, you have taken the work of Jerry E. Bayles, Oliver Crane (RQM view of the magnetic field), David LaPointe, and others while claiming it as your own work by repackaging it.  What are the odds of finding equations related to the ratio of 3.23606 parts dielectricity to 1 part magnetism and the golden ratio (see first snapshot below) with the uncommon word of incommensurable (see second snapshot below) along with a very similar magnetic field model, all of which is by the same author of Jerry E. Bayles (see third snapshot below)?  It appears Bayles' quantum vlm rotational velocity is the same as your "dielectric inertial plane".

Gravock

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos
« Reply #155 on: July 19, 2014, 05:19:03 PM »
Ok ,well here is some test i carried out today,using an effect we have seen befor,but tried in many different configurations. So who can explain clearly how and why we get a spin-and please take note of where i place the copper plate(anode),and where the wires are running.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV8DqMBzkIc&feature=youtu.be

wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos
« Reply #156 on: July 19, 2014, 06:51:14 PM »
@TA (short for @TheoriaApophasis)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I just went through this thread. I knew you were at energeticforum (EF) but just saw the thread here as well. @TA this forum is not your regular "bow-to-the-all-knowing" forums you see elsewhere. We have been to hell and back here. The level of discussion here will probably go to all the forms of intensity. @MH and @TK are not young boys and being treated as such is a major insult on your part and you should not entertain such attitudes. I myself am 57 so please do not boy me around as well. I am also not impressed by money, patents or academia. We are all here to learn, hopefully from each other and not be postulated from above.

Basically, you need to revise your intent. Are you here to......

1 - boast about how smart you are
2 - try to impress others with your long words
3 - teach others something new

If you are here for #3, fine, but just know that just because you are smart, this does not automatically endow you with the worldy attribute of being a good teacher. Knowing something and teaching something are not automatically a given. You will surely need to work on your teaching skills, first by dumbing down your theories as you did say in the first pages that a 15 year will understand. Well it aint work'in.

Now.........First off, does anyone have change for a dollar. I'm all out of quarters to ask a question. hehehe

I sent you a PM at EF and invited you to read a doc I prepared some years ago that will provide you with some of the logic base I have been using thus far in my own effort to understand this universe of ours, but mainly the effects I see on my work bench. I consider myself as having a fresh logic based mind. I am not well versed in Faraday, Steinmetz or others as this was a voluntary condition I made internally to isolate myself so I can then use my own powers of observation without being conditioned by anyone elses point of view. Something like "What would a fresh mind say". However, I am well versed in Tesla and for one, Tesla was not that open to discuss his universal theories in full detail but was more of a nuts & bolts guy (as I am) so for me, Tesla did not overly influence my present viewpoints or logic base. He did however provide me with a wealth of experimentation bases, enough to realize that he must not have been overly satisfied with AC as I think there is definitely better then AC, that I call Dual AC.

Let's just get one major fact out of the way first. that is, if you are open to constructive criticism I can go on and on with way more questions.

Also, let's be very clear on the dynamics of truth........... You may be very right about others being wrong, but this does not automatically make your own ideas right. Being right has to pass its own stages of Cross-Examination and Cross-Comparison (CECC) and cannot be influenced by others being wrong. If you agree to this one fact, then your doc in some way has value to me in the first instance for pointing out where others are (or could be) wrong, but in terms of your ideas, I still have to keep reading to see if all these ideas can be held together in an overall cohesive manner. That will be very difficult to do because you are entertaining so many facets that it is just extremely tedious to absorb without the time for them to meld into an inner vision of reality. Surely not material for a 15 year old and one read will never cut it. So when you say, did you read the book, anyone can read a book, but who will understand it is a better question.

One question we are all affected by is this. What are the chances that any one person living or dead will be completely right about every effect in the universe? Just think about it and maybe this will bring you to a more humbled level of interaction with others.

The answers have to be as natural as you or me being alive feels natural.

Example 1:

The video of your magnet lifting up those nails in the shaper box is a problem where you are giving such a long explanation of extremely complicated field relationships. But in reality the effect is so simple. When you approach the magnet slowly the closest nails under the magnet are held up because the closest nails have the time required to concentrate the magnetism more then the nails beside them. When you approach the magnet quickly, the magnetization time is spread out to all the nails in the region of influence. The nails under the magnet lift up but could not monopolize all the magnetism that has now spread out to nails that have not moved up. When you tilt the box to show the effect and see that an area of nails around the center now did not fall like all the other nails, that is because the raised center nails and the non-raised outer nails are all locked in position, magnetized. This has nothing to do with anything more then that. Reading more into an effect then there really is can be a basis for some viewpoints to be overly worked, overly complicated and far more prone to fail under closer examination.

You said it yourself. "Nature does not do math", so how then can functional explanations of nature be any more complicated then a one sentence description. Two at most. This is one of my own measuring sticks of logic. 1 - 2 sentences, not more. If you can boil down all your theories (I am saying theory because at this stage we are all walking theories) and bring them down to layman terms where the reader can see develop a true character of the ether, then for me it is doing justice and I can only hope for you that such a skill will eventually mature. Teaching is an art that is not inbred, so maybe use your time here to practice this art and learn from it yourself.

Imagine I am still at page 21. I have had to read and re-read those pages and am still in ambiguity to the actual main premises. I am afraid to read on because this will just mix things up even more and I will have to start over again. But I will continue on.

Also, knowing my own character, once I finally finish reading your book I will want to cut it into pieces because there will be loose ends, and, I hate loose ends.

Example 2:

Ferrofluid. I have to admit that I have no purely 100% logical explanation for the cones. If the cones where produced by only pouring the ferrofluid, that would be an easy call, but the ferrofuild is flat when the magnet is removed and when the magnet is applied again underneath, the cones just rise out of the flat layer. That is a good one to figure out and I will eventually. But, as a quick study, I imagine it has to do with the same effect that produces the raising of mountains from compressing tectonic plates plus the overall viscosity of the liquid used to provide some suspension of the ferric mass particles that are all looking to compress themselves towards the magnetic center, hence mini-tectonic forces producing your angles of the cones, but that are also influenced by their maximum piling on ability before they have to avalanche down again into a new but same type of geometric pattern. For me this only is based on the pull force of the magnet being uniform, leaving the viscosity to create the geometric balances of the ferric dust.

But to say this effect is the result of multi fields moving both ways, one lifting up, the other pushing down onto a geometrically uniform pattern is something that just does not click. If the magnet is both pushing up and pulling down in a geometrical pattern and that is the only cause of the cones, then you will have to explain why, with the addition or removal of a volume of ferrofluid, does the pattern itself change. If the cause of the cone pattern is the magnet field pattern, then why does the cone pattern change? If your premise is correct, then the pattern should stay exactly the same and the only change should be higher or lower cones. But it does not. Do you see the logic of this questioning?

To take this a step further as an avid OUer looking for new effects, then the same ferrofluid effect should be visible using an electromagnet that would enable one to see if the cones are again produced, but better still, what the effects would be when changing the pulse frequency, this may enable to discover that such cones are more or less prevalent at certain frequency ranges, that would provide another clue to the magnets function.

Attacking the question of magnets in the manner you are doing is definitely not an easy task. The energy that is driving the magnet is coming from where is the main question that needs to be resolved and that answer then has to meet a whole array of other side-effects.

Again one of the reasons I pointed you to my doc is to at least give you some ideas on where that base energy is coming from and from all logical points of view, I can only summarize that the base energy to drive atoms is coming from the actual movement of the object against static etheric space. But then I read "there is no Ether in space, only space within the Ether", just cannot figure that one out. If you said, space is a concentration of ether at value x, and mass produces concentrations of ether at values from y1 to yzillion, that I could agree with and falls into the ether acting as a pile on effect or what I call Ether Impress as being your magnetic field.

My main stance is ether is everywhere. In space, in atoms, in magnetism, in action at a distance, in everything man. So where is this "no ether in space" thing coming from? Why should ether have a preference? Ether if everywhere does not have to move anywhere because it is already in everything. We move through ether and not ether moves through us, just like as our planet, solar system and galaxy all have an additive effect on mass moving through ether, so do all other galaxies in their own right and at their own minimal mass threshold speeds of movement. The law of action/reaction will logically want that the same mass moving at a different speed will create a different effect on the base frequency of atomic nature and this will produce different effects as we see them in the universe. We look at the stars, the galaxies and see so many effects that we try to figure out, but the first question to ask is, what speed is that galaxy moving through space compared to ours? That's what I would like to know.

Anyways........Keep on.

Oh and as usual for me, sorry for long post. hehehe

wattsup

wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos
« Reply #157 on: July 19, 2014, 06:51:27 PM »
Ok ,well here is some test i carried out today,using an effect we have seen befor,but tried in many different configurations. So who can explain clearly how and why we get a spin-and please take note of where i place the copper plate(anode),and where the wires are running.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV8DqMBzkIc&feature=youtu.be

@tinman

The simple fact that you are producing bubbles in water is enough to produce the spin. The bubbles when created displace the surrounding water that wants to move back into the position where is was before it was displaced. All those bubbles now move upwards and given the bubbles are round and the water has friction, any main rise direction will produce some spin that will be maintained until another spin direction becomes more prevalent. We cannot say that it is the magnetic field above the magnet that is creating the spin, but we do see the effect and we can easily misunderstand this as the magnet generating the spin on its own.

In your case there is no magnetic attraction between the bubbles and the magnet since the bubbles are not metallic or magnetic themselves. They are just caught up in the rising momentum all reaching the top and then continuing to rise out. Also, the bubbles rising up the magnet sidewall create a differential of surface stress on the magnet that adds to the momentum of spin, but again, none of that can be directly attributable to the magnetic field.

Anyways, the main question then arises as per the effects explained by @TA, and that is, in one instance the magnet is producing a vortex but in another instance the magnet is producing cones with ferrofluid. So which one is it, vortex or cones.

wattsup


MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos
« Reply #158 on: July 19, 2014, 07:48:48 PM »
Wattsup:

Taken from Theoria's PDF:

Quote
The reason ferrofluid forms cone shaped spikes along any pole is that the raised apexes are the alternating centripetal and centrifugal
points of preponderance which raise themselves not as lines but as cones.
Nothing in nature moves in lines, rather in spirals. To raise
any single portion of the ferrofluid is to create inter-atomic magnetic dilation in the ferrofluid, which approaches in a cone-first vortex,
as any plane of centrifugal acceleration is cone-base first, whereas any vortex plane of expulsion from the magnet is apex first. 
 
As is the case, any centrifugal vortex is cone-acceleration as highest and any centripetal vortex is apex acceleration as highest.
Pressure increases in inverse proportions to the field. As is likewise the case with all fields, the greater the pressure the closer the
spatial proximity to field voidance. This concept of the Ether is extremely hard for people to understand. Just as at the center of any
magnet, the dielectric inertial plane, there is no magnetism
, likewise if one were able to occupy a space at the center of the Earth there
would be no gravity, likewise at the axle of any field disturbance there is neither a field no acceleration. Polarization, and acceleration
exist radially from the apex of magnetic field, but inversely accelerate towards the apex centripetally, however regardless of
centrifugal or centripetal movement, at the center between both there is neither a field nor acceleration, this is the membrane of all
fields in counterspace; in the case of the magnet, this membrane is ‘open’, and is the dielectric inertial plane.

I highlighted the first sentence for the ferrofluid explanation, it is wrong.  I highlighted the second sentence as a bonus because it is wrong but not related to the ferrofluid explanation.  It's just so fundamentally wrong that it deserved to be highlighted.

Going back to the ferrofluid cones, there is indeed a one-sentence explanation that is simple, concise, and clear.  It's clear if you understand the underlying concepts.

You know the old saying, usually the simplest explanation is the correct explanation.

MileHigh

SeaMonkey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1292
Re: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos
« Reply #159 on: July 19, 2014, 08:27:21 PM »
Quote from: wattsup
...
 @MH and @TK are not young boys and being treated as such is a major insult on your part and you should not entertain such attitudes. I myself am 57 so please do not boy me around as well. I am also not impressed by money, patents or academia. We are all here to learn, hopefully from each other and not be postulated from above.

Basically, you need to revise your intent. Are you here to......

1 - boast about how smart you are
2 - try to impress others with your long words
3 - teach others something new

If you are here for #3, fine, but just know that just because you are smart, this does not automatically endow you with the worldy attribute of being a good teacher. Knowing something and teaching something are not automatically a given. You will surely need to work on your teaching skills, first by dumbing down your theories as you did say in the first pages that a 15 year will understand. Well it aint work'in.
...


When men get all hypersensitive and start talkin'
like "wimmin" - it's the old power thing again.

Insult - Schminsult - now you guys are starting to
sound like Erron over at EF.

The Attackers here are very skilled at provoking
confrontational exchanges;  they're also very
good at deflecting responsibility.  They seem to
think their privileged status exempts them from
the rules of good order and discipline.  That they
have earned the "right" to play mischief in their
attacks.

Nothing is more pathetic than a Forum Man who
can dish it out but can't take the blowback.

You of course know to whom these references are
being made.

Set the Example of Gentlemanly conduct and it
will be found that Courtesy is Contagious.

Unless the Bad Boys persist in their fun...

But remember, there is a better Way.


MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos
« Reply #160 on: July 19, 2014, 09:08:27 PM »
SeaMonkey:

You lose perspective so easily it's not funny.  It's like you are hard-wired to believe that "the alternative guy must be right" even when you have to deal with an internal dichotomy.  You have enough technical knowledge to know that the vast majority of what Theoria is stating is quite frankly "crazy whackadoo nonsense."  You know that he is wrong but your hard-wiring takes over and you will defend the underdog, because defending the underdog is more important than what's right and what's wrong.  So you have an internal conflict and what always wins is the "alternative guy."  And that is your great flaw, you support things that you know are wrong because you are against "the system."

Quote
The Attackers here are very skilled at provoking confrontational exchanges;

Indeed, you can't even think straight sometimes because of that hard wiring.  I am not "attacking" Theoria, I am challenging his propositions because they are a form of "knowledge pollution" and people deserve to hear both sides in a debate.

Quote
They seem to think their privileged status exempts them from the rules of good order and discipline."

You must be talking about Theoria?  Whoops, I guess you are alleging that I am the one breaking the rules.  When did I ever say or imply I had a privileged status?  Your hard-wiring distorts your perception.  When you post things like that you sound like the worst of the worst of the "Powers-that-Be spin doctors."  It's like reading Pravda in 1972.

Quote
Nothing is more pathetic than a Forum Man who can dish it out but can't take the blowback."

You can kiss my ass when you use the term "Forum Man" trying to imply that I am some sort of "paid operative" that's here to rebut nonsensical stuff like you are reading in this thread.

Ultimately, you are messed up in the head.  Like you walked head-first into the barrel of a 16-inch gun in 1963 and you never recovered from the very serious concussion you received.

Stop trying to imply that I am something that I am not.  Stop trying to imply that I am devious and intentionally attacking Theoria.  Let your innate knowledge and understanding about electronics overcome that messed up hard wiring in your head.  It's the same hard wiring that turns you into that "apocalypse is coming, the great battle between good and evil is almost upon us" guy standing on a virtual street corner holding up a 10-year-old placard that says, "The End is Nigh."

What ridiculous and dark and dreary spinning you can do when your hard wiring takes over.  You look at a thread like this and you go into overdrive and you suppress your own innate technical intelligence that is telling you that I am just arguing the common sense straight goods and Theoria is just one of hundreds of guys that has miraculously "discovered" the "secret" of magnetism.  You know just as well as me that he can't back anything up but like some self-programmed drone you support him anyways.

There is something really creepy in you that gives me the shivers.  You are your own Cabal unto yourself and nobody should drink your Kool-Aid.  Rather, they should run away as fast as they can.

MileHigh

gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos
« Reply #161 on: July 19, 2014, 10:02:00 PM »
According to Faraday himself on page 136 in a publication titled, "Experimental researches in electricity / by Michael Faraday", the outward force or pressure acting on the rotating wire piece can not be attributed to the fictitious centrifugal force.  If the outward force was due to the centrifugal force alone, then the distance between the rotating wire piece and magnet would not increase as the speed of revolution decreases (see the snapshot of page 136 below).  This outward pressure in addition to the torquing force is more evidence of a magnetic vortex.

Gravock

In the original Faraday motor, the current carrying conductor is pushed away from the magnet by an outwards force which can be attributed to a pressure wave.  This shows a field in motion around the permanent magnet.  Figure 1 shows a pressure wave associated with the magnetic potential A vector and the magnetic flux B field. The A vector and the B vector are normal (90 degrees) to each other and both are also normal to the outwards moving pressure wave.  It has been demonstrated that a strong enough magnetic field can suspend a live frog with the associated pressure wave of that same field without harming the frog. The pressure wave works on the individual particles on the quantum scale in a collective manner much as gravity does.  The pressure wave will increase as the square of the current. For a 100 ampere current, the value will be 10,000 times larger than a 1 ampere current. The adjacent current element may be used to cause a directional projection of the force field resulting from the pressure wave and the fixed current element. This current element can also move if free to do so.  The external current element can be used to introduce asymmetry into the uniform pressure field and therefore cause a force unbalance that can do work on the system so as to move it in the desired direction.

The outward moving pressure wave is divorced from the magnetic field proper and therefore can be used to move the entire system via Newton's law of every action engenders an opposite and equal reaction even if the magnet and the current are connected to a common support. This is by reason that the pressure wave has its own inertia and can be regarded as a separate entity, much as for a photon.  The Faraday motor as demonstrated uses a permanent magnet and a d.c. current in the rotor wire. The direction of rotation should remain the same if the direction of the magnetic flux from the magnet as well as the direction of current flow in the rotor wire are both changed simultaneously. Further, the direction of the pressure wave will also continue to be moving outwards. This may be an advantage from the standpoint of resonance where a strong impulse can cause a resonant circuit to ring in the form of a damped wave and if the circuit has low losses, the resonance will allow for the alternating current to continue without further input for an appreciable time. The frequency of resonance may be chosen to be equal to the fMG frequency. Thus, the magnet can now be an electromagnet and capacitor arrangement.

Reference:  The Faraday Motor And The Magnetic Vector Potential, by Jerry E. Bayles  (see snapshot below for a quick reference)

Gravock

TheoriaApophasis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos
« Reply #162 on: July 19, 2014, 10:07:15 PM »
This type of force is associated with describing motion in a non-inertial reference frame, and referred to as a fictitious or inertial force


True, the centrifugal magnetism is being 'driven' by the dielectrical inertial plane at the midpoint of every magnet.

Yes, this centrifugal is a "FAKE" inertial force.

magnetism is definitionally radiation of and within the magneto-dielectric inter-atomic, a  "magnet" only makes this fundamental Aether force VERY APPARENT to us dumb human critters.


with no reaction-force counterpart


Its (centrifugal magnetism) reaction force counterpart is merely itself which moves CENTRIPETALLY within its own spatial (=polarization) recriprocation.

But this is one system-whole,  it is not ANOTHER force, but the SAME, however 180 degrees opposite the centrifugal field

Its movement of course is NET-0

Moving this NET-0 however is moving SPACE itself (the posterior attribute of ANY and all fields), and such we get electrification due to superluminal "breaking" upon the dielectric plane within copper windings.


TheoriaApophasis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos
« Reply #163 on: July 19, 2014, 10:16:15 PM »
From what I can tell.......David LaPointe,


Like *@&^@^^!@ HELL......David LaPointe  is FULL OF SH*T   ;D  ;D

Yes, I know his videos well. Theyre well made, and HALF right.


However he misses the 800 pound gorilla that "DRIVES" magnetism, dielectricity.


I feet sorry for David LaPointe, he works hard, hes trying to understand, but hes got it waaaaaaaay wrong.


he actually thinks the TOP vortex formation in his "bowls" analogy is magnetism, and the bottom is electrical

Uggggggh He just needs a hard slap against the head.


He is 100% clueless about centripetal and centrifugal, and 10,000% CLUELESS that what forms his "double bowl" shape (as he accurately depicts) is the dielectric inertial plane driving the double hyperbola of centrifugal magnetism.

One HARD slap might fix his mental misunderstanding. (really hard).


He keeps talking about "magnetic bowl shaped formations", but hes clueless that what hes trying to grasp but doesnt is the DOUBLE HYPERBOLA of centrifugal magnetic fields reciprocating, and the center centripetal fields and between both of his "salad bowls" of magnetism is the dielectric inertial plane.


He also speak about magnetism as an entity in and of its on accord. Which nowhere exists in nature.


The "wave particle duality" nonsense is a misgrasp of the fact that ALL TEM ("transverse electromagnetism") contains a radial dielectric.

This is the REAL explanation behind the "photoelectric effect" to which the demented fool Einstein won his "prize".


He got most of descriptions right, but got the explanation wholly 100% wrong

This is extremely typical of the cult of quantum.




and others while claiming it as your own work by repackaging it.  What are the odds of finding equations related to the ratio of 3.23606 parts dielectricity to 1 part magnetism and the golden ratio (see first snapshot below) with the uncommon word of incommensurable (see second snapshot below) along with a very similar magnetic field model, all of which is by the same author of Jerry E. Bayles (see third snapshot below)?  It appears Bayles' quantum vlm rotational velocity is the same as your "dielectric inertial plane".



Listen up, ( Jerry E. Bayles, Oliver Crane) .........I NEVER HEARD OF THOSE OTHER 2 GUYS, and as for David LaPointe, I ONLY saw his well made RANCIDLY WRONG well-made videos after I was 80% done with my book.


David LaPointe doesn't understand a DAMN THING,  he NEVER mentions the dielectric inertial plane,  he is kinda on the "right track" but OHHHHHHH SOOOOOOOO WRONG


He just needs a hard slap.    But he sounds like a hubris filled fool.       HIS IDIOT  "bowl shaped" magnets,  he doesnt even grasp that his "salad bowls" are the shape of centrifugal magnetic flow, a pair of double hyperbolas.



Dont compare his well made TRASH VIDEOS with anything Ive written.







YOU SAID:
It appears Bayles' quantum vlm rotational velocity is the same as your "dielectric inertial plane".



It looks like thats the case yes,  TOO BAD his brain fahrt  calls is a "quantum rim"


When IDIOTS in the Cult of Quantum dont "get" something they call it  "Quantum X"  ......I know exactly what the hell it is,  he obviously doesn't  ;D  ;D  ;D

TheoriaApophasis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos
« Reply #164 on: July 19, 2014, 10:26:23 PM »
What are the odds of finding equations related to the ratio of 3.23606 parts dielectricity to 1 part magnetism and the golden ratio (see first snapshot below) with the uncommon word of incommensurable



Let me give you a HEADS UP,   I translate ancient Greek,  and am the #1 person in the world as EXPERT on Greek Incommensurability,   and have written 2 small books on that topic

proof of same here of my works into that LONG LONG AGO:
https://archive.org/details/IndefiniteDyadPlotinusMetaphysicsMysticism

https://archive.org/details/PythagorasPlatoAndTheGoldenRatio

however that last book is very incomplete, I wrote it a LONG LONG TIME ago.


If ANYONE stole anything about the golden section, and Incommensurability, and Phi^2 , its them from myself.


I have 3 HAND written books of notes , each 250 pages on MY discoveries into incommensurability and the golden section,


took me 4 years to make this proof, and it certainly has nothing to do with the idiots you quoted. >>