Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[minnie]

   Went to Open-Source-Energy and did a bit of reading and I'm getting,
   or hope I'm getting some idea of QVZPE field density.
       It's all very exciting stuff "You wouldn't read it in a book" is a favourite
   saying of one of my daughters, I think that would be applicable here.

[CycleGuy]

   What we're seeing in ferrocell are real photons. I came across the magneto optic Kerr effect.

   Somewhere I came across the idea that virtual photons probably couldn't be observed as such and were a means of making calculations.

   Can anything useful be deduced from big examples such as Earth's field,Sun's field or Galactic and inter Galactic fields?

   In nature things mostly take a path of least resistance.

Yes, the magnetohydrodynamic cell utilizes photons in the visible range... although I'd like to see what it'd look like with much higher frequencies used, then downshifted so we could see them. Like using infrared LEDs and a FLIR camera, but much higher frequency than that... x-rays or gamma rays, maybe.

Remember, magnets are temporal in nature, the two interfaces on each pole face directly stress the QVZPE field, and the QVZPE field is, quite literally, the fabric of space-time. The Repulsive (centrifugal; anti-vortex) interface expands space and slows down time. The Attractive (centripetal; vortex) interface contracts space and speeds up time. Thus, when viewing the magnetic field, we're viewing a "time-slice" of the  magnetic field as it spirals out ahead and behind our time frame. The higher the frequency used to "view" the magnetic field, the smaller the "time slice" viewed. So if we use a very high frequency and vary it up and down, we could create a composite image of the entire magnetic field, captured in still-motion, sort of like putting a timing light on an engine.

Anyway, "virtual photons" aren't actually photons. Just like everything else, they're a perturbation in the QVZPE field. If one were to use constructive interference to build up a "wave" of these virtual photons, the first thing we'd see concretized out of the QVZPE field is a photon, as it contains the lowest quanta of energy allowable in the universe, thus we think of and call them "virtual photons" even though they're not really photons... you can think of them as "potential photons".

We say they're the medium which mediates magnetism, but in reality, the QVZPE field mediates magnetism, and the magnetic flux we call "virtual photons" are merely a "pattern" in the QVZPE field because of magnetism.

I've already discussed the two interfaces on each pole face of a magnet, and I've discussed separating out the Attractive and Repulsive interfaces so they no longer mutually cancel each other. I believe when I'm finally able to get around to doing so, for a strong enough magnet, we'll see real photons emanating from the Repulsive interfaces merely because that energy flow is no longer being canceled by the Attractive interfaces, and would thus be adding energy to the QVZPE field in a localized spot enough to concretize photons much as Chalmers University did using Dynamical Casimir Effect in 2011.

[CycleGuy]

What I learned today:

The universe is a "three-layer cake", with matter as the highest entropy form of energy, the QVZPE field being a less entropic form of energy, and the energy traversing the QVZPE field being the least entropic. Of course, there are outliers... black holes are extremely high entropy, and stars are extremely low entropy, which represents a dichotomy, so I'll leave those for later studying.

The energy traversing the QVZPE field spreads out in space after it exits a star, and thus its entropy increases... eventually it's entropic enough that it becomes part of the QVZPE field. Thought of another way, the stars are hot plasma, the QVZPE field is an extension of the stars, a cold plasma.

Matter is an attempt by the universe to reach its highest entropy state, but it cannot do so easily because of probability and the rules the universe must operate by.

An aside:

Living beings such as us represent another oddity of the universe... we're low-entropy, yet we're made of matter, which is high-entropy. So what made life occur, when the tendency of the universe is toward higher entropy? And why did life start from high-entropy matter, rather than low-entropy energy? It's a puzzle that life as we know it even began at all.

But, because the universe attempts to reach its highest entropy state but cannot easily do so because of the underlying fundamental rules by which the universe is forced to operate, it instead attempts to reach its lowest free energy state.

https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/when-nature-plays-skee-ball-the-meaning-of-free-energy/

So what's so special about free energy?  It is the combination of energy and entropy that balances the effects of probability decreasing with energy and probability increasing with the number of possible combinations.  Saying "a system settles into its state of minimum free energy" is just a way of saying "a system assumes its state of maximum probability."

And the above quote is why the universe is a "three layer cake" of matter, QVZPE field, and energy traversing the QVZPE field... and the reason why the universe is expanding. Because the probability of concretizing more mass is low under prevalent universal conditions, the only other option for the universe to relieve the field radiation pressure of that energy being thrown off by stars, entropying and becoming part of the QVZPE field is to expand.

Now, as to stars and black holes... two polar opposite extreme examples, stars being very low entropy, and black holes being very highly entropic. Both are affected by gravity, to differing levels. So apparently gravity affects the probability distribution of the universe by skewing it and affecting how probable certain interactions will be.

I'm still trying to analogize the concept...
For extremely high gravity, you get a black hole and highly entropic conditions.
For moderately high gravity, you get a star and extremely low entropic conditions.
For low gravity, you get mass accumulation and moderately entropic conditions.
For no gravity, you get...

I'm confused here because I'm assuming that stars are matter (given that plasma is considered to be matter), but for some reason, gravity causes an increase in entropy for regular mass and for black holes, whereas it causes a decrease of entropy for stars (ie: gravity has overridden molecular repulsion and forced fusion)... but a black hole is essentially a star on steroids, with gravity so great that the light from fusion cannot even escape... black holes are plasma just as a star is. So why does gravity cause a star's entropy to decrease, whereas it causes a black hole's entropy to increase?

Much more studying to do.

[sadang]

SINGLE SLIT EXPERIMENT: Part 1 Dismissing "wave particle duality" Quantum Quackery

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpcQNYa3VZ8

[CycleGuy]

SINGLE SLIT EXPERIMENT: Part 1 Dismissing "wave particle duality" Quantum Quackery

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpcQNYa3VZ8

I noticed this as the page was reloading and before your post was hidden by the Bozo Bin code, so I'll reply real quick...

Wheeler yet again has discovered nothing, he's not saying anything new, he's not discrediting QM, QFT or QED (and is in fact corroborating all of them), and I suspect he's being disingenuous in his claims of discrediting QM, given that he should know that any single-slit of a width several times the wavelength will result in a diffraction interference pattern, whereas a single-slit of a width equal to or less than the wavelength will not... just as he should know that a well-defined obstruction to an electromagnetic wave acts as a secondary source, and creates a new wavefront. This new wavefront propagates into the geometric shadow area of the obstacle. The propagation of light in Quantum Field Theory actually is consistent with the very interpretation of the Huygens-Fresnel Principle.

If you look at the Huygens-Fresnel Principle (this concept's been known about since 1678, expanded upon by Fresnel in 1816), you'll find that each wavelength of light interferes with itself... any point on any peak of any particular wave acts as a point of diffraction, the sum of constructive and destructive interference of all these arbitrary points of diffraction resulting in the next wave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens%E2%80%93Fresnel_principle
https://youtu.be/7CmbItRjM-Y
https://youtu.be/T-kgoxhFSmU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D8cPrEAGyc

As for his shining a laser against a pin, that's an inverse case of the single-slit diffraction case. It's called the Knife-Edge Effect, and is explained by the Hugyens-Fresnel Principle explained above.

If people weren't so uneducated and gullible, they'd not fall for Mr. Wheeler's BS. In point of fact, the Huygens-Fresnel Principle was the forerunner of and impetus for modern quantum electrodynamics, and in fact, Einstein debated Walther Ritz on the concept, taking the stance that the Huygens-Fresnel Principle was necessary for the quantum concept of a photon.

So in effect, Mr. Wheeler just corroborated Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics. Thanks for that, Mr. Wheeler. Is that not what you wanted to do? Perhaps you should think through what you're going to stomp your feet about before you start stomping.