Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[MileHigh]

Don't be ridiculous and try puffing out your chest and playing "daddy."  You are caving in when you do that.  So let's just forget that and move on.

People that make claims are forced to prove them or back them up

Exactly, and you are the one making the claim, not me.  So I stated that you are wrong about the patterns on the CRT screen and they can be easily explained with conventional magnetic field theory.

So please describe the magnetic field around a disk magnet in detail.   Perhaps you have some drawings you can post?  Then you need to explain what you see on the CRT screen in detail and how it relates to your theory.  Looking at your clips does nothing but show a pattern.  You have to explain why that pattern appears.

For example, there is a large circular black area when the magnet is close to the screen.  I watched 1 1/2 of your clips and you make no attempt to explain that.  Please explain.  Why is there a bright white area in the center of the black area?  Please explain.  Likewise, why do we see the colour banding when the magnet is further away from the screen?

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Theoria:

About this clip off yours, "Video 2 Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-WgxGc_vcA

You take the magnetic viewing film and you point to the lighter line that bisects the magnet and you call it the "dielectric inertial plane."  Please see the attached screen shot.

The issue here is that people pick up magnetic viewing film and they see a pattern in it and then they magically fit it into their theories.  It's another "garden path" mistake.

Who says that the magnetic viewing film is showing a "dielectric inertial plane?"

Let's start from the basics.  What is the magnetic viewing film actually doing and what do light areas mean and what do dark areas mean?  Please explain that first, and then please relate that back to what you call a "dielectric inertial plane."

Also, you call the magnetic viewing film, "velocity viewing film."  Please explain that in detail with respect to what the magnetic viewing film is doing.  What do you mean by "velocity?"

MileHigh

[TheoriaApophasis]

So I stated that you are wrong about the patterns on the CRT screen and they can be easily explained with conventional magnetic field theory.

Thats called "restating the claim"   its a fallacy son.

So please describe the magnetic field around a disk magnet in detail.   

Its in the book son.

I watched 1 1/2 of your clips and you make no attempt to explain that.

Who said I was DONE making videos?    I am not,  yet another fallacy from yourself.


Ive made 6 in 2 days, and more tonight.


"there are THOSE THAT DO, and those that TALK about those that DO"


You, are the later of those.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Please explain that first, and then please relate that back to what you call a "dielectric inertial plane."

its in the book son, and even has lots of diagrams for those who cannot read.   Such as yourself perhaps.


And the 3rd edition is due out next month.



The book had just under 250,000 downloads off many many diff. sites in UNDER 10 days.

Ive only had 4 complaints,  2 were senseless rants, 1 person said he "hated the introduction but never read the book"



I dont seek your approval.  I retired at age 32, own 4 homes,   graduated college 3 years EARLY (was taking classes after high school in the evening).

Im perfectly happy with you hating BOTH the videos AND the book (you never read). 


Now run along.


Lux et Veritas

[MileHigh]

I am waiting for you to respond to my technical questions to back up your claim.  If you attempt to deflect from that central theme it's not confidence inspiring.

So far I have seen a person with presumably good intentions with a flawed theory about magnetism that is misreading the CRT patterns and misreading the magnetic viewing film pattern.  Hence my questions asking for you to clarify.  We will see if you can back up your claims.

It's an important issue.  If you are going to put forth a proposition you need to back it up with logic and empirical evidence.  What if you attempt to back up your claims and I find some holes in those claims?  Will that get you rethinking your proposition and perhaps evolving and learning and getting it right in the long run?  That would be to your benefit.

The point being that you can't expect people to just agree with you by default.  You are in a place with lots of room for new ideas but that doesn't mean that all new ideas are blindly accepted either.  Agreeing by default is ultimately bad.  What if your ideas are all wrong?  It's an important issue for everyone on this forum.

MileHigh