Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[gravityblock]

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. 

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]

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]

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"?        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. 



   

[gravityblock]

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"?       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. 



   

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]

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