Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[sadang]

TinselKoala let's not start the same game about which is smarter, that someone else here on this topic tried to play with me. We don't have the same points of reference to play it. I avoided intentionally that phrase to not give rise to a whole pointless polemics. One single point I'll afford to claim here: there is nowhere free energy, than a wrong concept available only in the current scientific paradigm. Everything exists, someone only have to understand how to use it!

And yes, a Hollywood movie contain the total sum of my "truth" in the same measure as the words of Feynman do for you. And I don't laugh at all! Everything is just a matter of reference and perspective!

[minnie]

   Sadang you're just too sad, bleating on and on.
  Just do something, Kenny's book is mainly history
and pathetic experiments, needs re-doing with a
fraction of the words.
      Sadang, get and write a Wikipaedia article based
  on Kenny's theory-then a few more of us might be
  able to "get it" instead of just yourself and a couple
  of others.
     Looking forward to see a bit of creative work from
  you, famous wouldn't come in to it-you'd be the one
  if you could overturn quantum and old Einstein!!,!

[sadang]

minnie, I don't have the ability and I don't like to teach others. In nowadays more than 90% want to learn something to have advantages over others, not to help others or to sacrifice himself for others. This is really sad, not I!

Kenny's book is history for you maybe, for me it is still alive and more valuable than other officially peer-reviewed and accredited theories and books.

What I said to TinselKoala is also available to you and to others who are taught to wait, from me or others like me to overturn something: "We don't have the same points of reference". I'm not interested to overturn something, just trying to deeply understand everything and to shape the immediate reality accordingly. To overturn the current scientific model is a natural fact. Just that and nothing more!

Remember...
- Quorra: Flynn is teaching me about the art of the selfless. About removing oneself from the equation.
--- Tron: Legacy

[CycleGuy]

---------------

This appears clearly, if it is first realized that there is no Maxwellian Ether, therefore there can be no transverse oscillation in the medium. The Newtonian theory is in error, because it fails entirely in not being able to explain how a small candle can project (light) with the same speed at the blazing sun, which has immensely higher temperatures (and power). We have made sure by experiment that light propagates with the same velocity irrespective of the character of the source! Such consistency of velocity can only be explained by assuming that it is dependent solely on the 'physical' properties of the (Ether) medium, especially its density and its elastic (potential of) force.

The absolute inverse of inertia is nothing, which is space. Space is neither a FIELD nor a FORCE, and has no properties,

I'm sure in your mind the conflation of "inverse of inertia" to "nothingness" to "space" makes sense, but in the real world, it is nonsensical in the extreme, Mr. Wheeler, especially in light of your having redefined "inertia" improperly to mean "the opposite of rest".

The opposite of "rest" is not "inertia", as an object has inertia whether it is at rest or it is moving (inertia being defined as the tendency to resist changes in an object's state of motion, even if that 'state of motion' is the state of being at rest)... the opposite of "rest" is "motion", quantified via "momentum"... one would think this would be obvious, Mr. Wheeler.

Inertia doesn't really have an inverse, it's not a transferable property... when you push on an object, you don't impart any inertia to it nor receive any inertia from it. The only time an object's inertia changes is when the mass of that object changes, for massive objects.

For massless entities, given that energy and momentum are proportional under the General Relativity rule, the only time a massless entity's inertia changes is when the frequency of that entity changes or the direction of that entity changes... the energy-momentum (and hence the mass-energy) equivalency for massless entities is the reason black holes were predicted to exist before we actually empirically observed any, why gravity can bend light (gravitational lensing), and why light under the influence of gravity changes frequency (blue-shifts as it goes down the slope of a gravity well, red-shifts at it climbs out of that gravity well).

But then, you also deny mass-energy equivalency, which I've proven to be one of your more egregious fundamental misconceptions.

Given that what you state in the quote above is diametrically opposed to what you quoted Tesla himself as having said, do you really feel comfortable with your grasp of the fundamentals of Tesla's theories, Mr. Wheeler? It appears you have fundamental conceptual errors with even simple and commonly known scientific definitions, let alone what Tesla was trying to teach the world.

---------------

"what something IS, and what its ATTRIBUTE/PROPERTY IS"

Property and Principle are both the same thing

You wouldn't be reifying attributes as principles, would you, Mr. Wheeler?

idiots like HighforMiles and Picobrain have reified attributes AS principles.

Light has a QUALITY (property of) of 'particle LIKE' properties....

PROPERTY is the law of PRINCIPLES
QUALITY is the realm of relationalists
QUANTITY is the realm of bean counters

So ATTRIBUTE = PROPERTY = PRINCIPLE = QUALITY... until you say it doesn't. Got it.

If you're going to play fast and loose with your definitions, Mr. Wheeler, you're going to create the impression that you struggle to understand commonly defined words, which brings into question whether you're capable of understanding anything of more substance than those mere definitions.

---------------

[minnie]

   GOOD CYCLE!
    This needed someone like you to give Kelly den adel a run for his money.
    He'd never really enter into a meaningful debate and just was a bully.
    Was Einstein an idiot? Is Quantum bullshit, these are the questions I need
    answering.
    As far as I can tell special relativity can be explained by logic and several
    people were about there at the same time but for me general relativity is
    a couple of steps too far.( I haven't attempted to study it).
       As for quantum I feel from what bit I've read it must be sound, there's
   just too much evidence for it to be dismissed.
      I haven't found inertia to be a piece of cake either.
                 John.