Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[MileHigh]

Theoria:

This guy is the real thing:

https://www.youtube.com/user/lasseviren1/videos

An interesting one from the channel:

Calculating the Magnetic Field Due to a Moving Point Charge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTF7kjmmt8&list=UU6x7DywfEqLg-3Cg_JnyTlg

MileHigh

[TheoriaApophasis]

Theoria:

This guy is the real thing:

Hes real to be sure, a priest of the cult of Quantum.


Now contact him and tell him to define what a FIELD is.   He cant. He has no clue.



Ive seen 6 of his videos,  100% descriptions, and 0% explanations.
The world is ripe with intelligent fools that can tell you what a magnet "does"

and utterly VOID of HOW, WHY, and WHAT.


Its divinely fitting that a describer is your hero.

He also thinks that electrons exist.  The magical (and non-existent) "discharge" particle. 

That alone proves him a fool.


"Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the
'electron', on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the
magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated" - C.P. Steinmetz (Electric
Discharges, Waves and Impulses)

The idea of electricity as a flow of 'electrons' in a conductor was regarded by Oliver Heaviside as "a psychosis". This encouraged
Heaviside to begin a series of writings

"Electrons as a separate, distinct entity...doesn't really exist, they are merely bumps in something called a 'field'." - Dr. Steve
Biller

"Here we will dispel the "electronics nerd" concept that a capacitor stores "electrons" in its plates. Taking the pair of copper plates
as in the previous experiment, but now we have two pairs of plates, one pair of plates distant from the other pair of plates. Upon one
pair of plates is imposed an electro-static potential between them. The cube of 10-C oil is inserted between this "charged" set of plates.
This hereby establishes a dielectric field of induction within the unit cube of 10-C oil. Now we then remove this cube of oil,
withdrawing it from the space bounded by the charged pair of copper plates, and taking this unit cube of oil, it is then inserted into the
space bounded by the other uncharged pair of plates. Upon insertion it is found that the un-charged pair of plates have now in fact
become charged also. It here can be seen that a cube of dielectric induction can be carried through space, from one set of plates to
another set of plates." – E. Dollard

Also consider the J.J. Thomson concept of the "electron" (his own discovery). Thomson considered the electron the terminal end
of one unit line of dielectric induction.


You cannot say that stretching a trillion rubber bands nailed to the floor and releasing them or breaking their "force lines" is the
"flow of electrons"; discharge is a terminal movement in systems of inductance or dielectric capacitance. There are no discrete
particles in the universe and certainly none that mediate charges, discharges, magnetism, electromagnetism, gravity, and radiation,
only fields, all modalities of the Ether. The so-called 'electrons' are not particles, not objects or subjects but are the dynamic principle
of discharge, and are certainly not charge-carriers, fields are not particles, are not "electrons", nor assuredly are there energy
discharges in the vacuum of space involving 'electrons'; the 'electron' is a fiction of fallacious observation and an even more faulty
mental acuity, spawned naturally from the minds of materialists, or an Atomist. Electricity is Ether in a state of dynamic polarization;
magnetism is Ether in a state of dynamic circular polarization upon itself, is the radiative termination of electrical discharge;
dielectricity is the Ether under stress or strain. The motions and strains of the Ether give rise to electrification. Phi times Psi gives Q;
'electrons' do not mediate these electrical and magnetic forces or their likewise the Ether fields.


Sorry, no discharge (Unicorn) particles.    Sell that Kool Aide to the sheeple.


Trust him or you,    or  CP Steinmetz???   Tough decision on that one. 


"Scientists today think deeply rather than clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Todays scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander thru equation after equation, and eventually build a
structure which has no basis in reality." – Nikola Tesla

[MileHigh]

Yeah I am familiar with the story.  You are even edging into Zipon territory.  From past experience people that argue this stuff can't solve a simple circuit.

In many cases electrons are like tumbleweeds in the wind.  The wind is like the electric field.  That's the ticket.

[TheoriaApophasis]

The wind is like the electric field.  That's the ticket.

Too bad you cannot define FIELD

I however can.


Wind  ehhh? , now youre just glossing the term ETHER/Aether.        How sweet that is.   


"The word Ether has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics only because its past association with opposition to
relativity. This is unfortunate because stripped of these connotations, it nicely captures the way most physicists actually thin about the
vacuum. The modern concept of vacuum space confirmed by every experiment is a relativistic Ether. But we do not call it this because
Ether is a taboo term." - Robert B. Laughlin




All electrons are a motional terminus of a quantity of dielectric pressure gradients of force (as reified by the incorrect
understanding of the definition of a 'field'), these pressure gradients, or "lines" are contracting and stretching like rubber bands, giving
motion to the terminus 'electron'. The thermionic 'electron' contracts, pulling the 'electron', the cathode ray stretching, pulled by the
'electron'. In the former case the lines of force are dissipated, in the latter case the line of force are projected, in both cases these socalled
'electrons' assume radial motions, with non participating pressure gradients, or forces filling the 'voids', directing the
'electrons'. Hence, it is the so-called 'electrons' (dielectric radial discharges) that travel in straight lines, that is, radially. 'Electrons'
have nothing to do with the flow of electricity; the so-called 'electrons' are the rate at which electricity is destroyed. 'Electrons' are in
fact the resistance. From extensive experimental work into atomic electrical science by J. J. Thompson, and Nikola Tesla, it is
established that the so-called electron is only a shadow; its apparent-only physical mass is merely an electrical momentum (ejected by
the dielectric inertia in disturbance). There is no rest mass to an electron nor could there be logically, a rest-electron 'bead'; such
notions are absurd and evidence proven non-existent. The very premise is logically impossible and contradicts the rational physics of
atomic charges and discharges.

"In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to
give an account of their nature." "For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the
influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto
remained obscure to us." - Einstein on electrons; "Relativity", by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916
There is no such condition in nature as a negatively charge particle nor could there be. Charge and discharges are opposite
conditions of a single subject, either protons or fields of movements and radiation of those same electrical fields. To claim that liquid
in a jar (charged) is one thing, and pouring that liquid from the jar (discharge) is another liquid altogether, is nonsense, likewise
compression and expansion are opposite conditions of a single subject. Compressing bodies are charging into higher potential
conditions. Conversely, expanding bodies are discharging into lower potential conditions.

"To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting particle. There is
no such condition in nature as a negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite
conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions." – W. Russell
Thomson developed the "Ether Atom" ideas of M. Faraday into his "Electronic Corpuscle", this indivisible unit. One corpuscle
terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not and electron, it is a constituent of
what today is known incorrectly as an "electron". (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W.
Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether." – E. Dollard
With the introduction of the so-called 'electron' by Thomson and the supposed debunking of the Ether theory, the golden age of
electrical discovery ended. Tesla's Wardenclyffe tower was demolished. His work and that of other Ether researchers fell into
disrepute. They were relentlessly attacked by mainstream science, something that continues to this day. As a result, the days of Etherdriven,
electrical discovery petered-out, finally ending around 1930. As a direct and intentional result of the academic physics theory,
the methodology behind the brilliant inventiveness of previous generations was all but wiped out and replaced by an unproductive
particle physics. This, from the cult of quantum, a fraudulent collusion and academic hubris-based pseudo-conspiracy based in "deep
thinking insanity" designed by mathematical physics.



"There is no energy in matter other than that received from its environment (as meant Ether fields)." – Nikola Tesla

[TinselKoala]

Do you see? I told you.
The Tattooed Genius cannot provide any reference for his assertion that Maxwell and Heaviside or electrical engineering texts say that "dielectricity is electrical inertia". Nor can he explain how CRT televisions work, since he denies the existence of electrons. He will have trouble describing what the electron beam guns emit, and how they can be so precisely designed by people who DO believe in electrons and who would instantly reject his silly word-salads. Nor can he use his "theory" to design anything that works in any "unconventional" manner.
So he will simply continue to post his pretty graphics and insult his betters with nonsense and diatribe. Carry on.

(He cites a 98 year old quote from Einstein.. who would have instantly understood a modern CRT television set for exactly what it is...  in an attempt to support his position. It is to laugh.)

One corpuscle terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not and electron, it is a constituent of
what today is known incorrectly as an "electron". (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W.
Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether." – E. Dollard

Eric Dollard now! This guy cracks me up over and over again. Faradic Tube of Force. Quantifies as One Coulomb. Hey, Apophis, you are on the wrong forum. You should go here, where your ideas will get the reception they truly deserve:
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/