Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[tinman]

Ok ,well here is some test i carried out today,using an effect we have seen befor,but tried in many different configurations. So who can explain clearly how and why we get a spin-and please take note of where i place the copper plate(anode),and where the wires are running.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV8DqMBzkIc&feature=youtu.be

[wattsup]

@TA (short for @TheoriaApophasis)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I just went through this thread. I knew you were at energeticforum (EF) but just saw the thread here as well. @TA this forum is not your regular "bow-to-the-all-knowing" forums you see elsewhere. We have been to hell and back here. The level of discussion here will probably go to all the forms of intensity. @MH and @TK are not young boys and being treated as such is a major insult on your part and you should not entertain such attitudes. I myself am 57 so please do not boy me around as well. I am also not impressed by money, patents or academia. We are all here to learn, hopefully from each other and not be postulated from above.

Basically, you need to revise your intent. Are you here to......

1 - boast about how smart you are
2 - try to impress others with your long words
3 - teach others something new

If you are here for #3, fine, but just know that just because you are smart, this does not automatically endow you with the worldy attribute of being a good teacher. Knowing something and teaching something are not automatically a given. You will surely need to work on your teaching skills, first by dumbing down your theories as you did say in the first pages that a 15 year will understand. Well it aint work'in.

Now.........First off, does anyone have change for a dollar. I'm all out of quarters to ask a question. hehehe

I sent you a PM at EF and invited you to read a doc I prepared some years ago that will provide you with some of the logic base I have been using thus far in my own effort to understand this universe of ours, but mainly the effects I see on my work bench. I consider myself as having a fresh logic based mind. I am not well versed in Faraday, Steinmetz or others as this was a voluntary condition I made internally to isolate myself so I can then use my own powers of observation without being conditioned by anyone elses point of view. Something like "What would a fresh mind say". However, I am well versed in Tesla and for one, Tesla was not that open to discuss his universal theories in full detail but was more of a nuts & bolts guy (as I am) so for me, Tesla did not overly influence my present viewpoints or logic base. He did however provide me with a wealth of experimentation bases, enough to realize that he must not have been overly satisfied with AC as I think there is definitely better then AC, that I call Dual AC.

Let's just get one major fact out of the way first. that is, if you are open to constructive criticism I can go on and on with way more questions.

Also, let's be very clear on the dynamics of truth........... You may be very right about others being wrong, but this does not automatically make your own ideas right. Being right has to pass its own stages of Cross-Examination and Cross-Comparison (CECC) and cannot be influenced by others being wrong. If you agree to this one fact, then your doc in some way has value to me in the first instance for pointing out where others are (or could be) wrong, but in terms of your ideas, I still have to keep reading to see if all these ideas can be held together in an overall cohesive manner. That will be very difficult to do because you are entertaining so many facets that it is just extremely tedious to absorb without the time for them to meld into an inner vision of reality. Surely not material for a 15 year old and one read will never cut it. So when you say, did you read the book, anyone can read a book, but who will understand it is a better question.

One question we are all affected by is this. What are the chances that any one person living or dead will be completely right about every effect in the universe? Just think about it and maybe this will bring you to a more humbled level of interaction with others.

The answers have to be as natural as you or me being alive feels natural.

Example 1:

The video of your magnet lifting up those nails in the shaper box is a problem where you are giving such a long explanation of extremely complicated field relationships. But in reality the effect is so simple. When you approach the magnet slowly the closest nails under the magnet are held up because the closest nails have the time required to concentrate the magnetism more then the nails beside them. When you approach the magnet quickly, the magnetization time is spread out to all the nails in the region of influence. The nails under the magnet lift up but could not monopolize all the magnetism that has now spread out to nails that have not moved up. When you tilt the box to show the effect and see that an area of nails around the center now did not fall like all the other nails, that is because the raised center nails and the non-raised outer nails are all locked in position, magnetized. This has nothing to do with anything more then that. Reading more into an effect then there really is can be a basis for some viewpoints to be overly worked, overly complicated and far more prone to fail under closer examination.

You said it yourself. "Nature does not do math", so how then can functional explanations of nature be any more complicated then a one sentence description. Two at most. This is one of my own measuring sticks of logic. 1 - 2 sentences, not more. If you can boil down all your theories (I am saying theory because at this stage we are all walking theories) and bring them down to layman terms where the reader can see develop a true character of the ether, then for me it is doing justice and I can only hope for you that such a skill will eventually mature. Teaching is an art that is not inbred, so maybe use your time here to practice this art and learn from it yourself.

Imagine I am still at page 21. I have had to read and re-read those pages and am still in ambiguity to the actual main premises. I am afraid to read on because this will just mix things up even more and I will have to start over again. But I will continue on.

Also, knowing my own character, once I finally finish reading your book I will want to cut it into pieces because there will be loose ends, and, I hate loose ends.

Example 2:

Ferrofluid. I have to admit that I have no purely 100% logical explanation for the cones. If the cones where produced by only pouring the ferrofluid, that would be an easy call, but the ferrofuild is flat when the magnet is removed and when the magnet is applied again underneath, the cones just rise out of the flat layer. That is a good one to figure out and I will eventually. But, as a quick study, I imagine it has to do with the same effect that produces the raising of mountains from compressing tectonic plates plus the overall viscosity of the liquid used to provide some suspension of the ferric mass particles that are all looking to compress themselves towards the magnetic center, hence mini-tectonic forces producing your angles of the cones, but that are also influenced by their maximum piling on ability before they have to avalanche down again into a new but same type of geometric pattern. For me this only is based on the pull force of the magnet being uniform, leaving the viscosity to create the geometric balances of the ferric dust.

But to say this effect is the result of multi fields moving both ways, one lifting up, the other pushing down onto a geometrically uniform pattern is something that just does not click. If the magnet is both pushing up and pulling down in a geometrical pattern and that is the only cause of the cones, then you will have to explain why, with the addition or removal of a volume of ferrofluid, does the pattern itself change. If the cause of the cone pattern is the magnet field pattern, then why does the cone pattern change? If your premise is correct, then the pattern should stay exactly the same and the only change should be higher or lower cones. But it does not. Do you see the logic of this questioning?

To take this a step further as an avid OUer looking for new effects, then the same ferrofluid effect should be visible using an electromagnet that would enable one to see if the cones are again produced, but better still, what the effects would be when changing the pulse frequency, this may enable to discover that such cones are more or less prevalent at certain frequency ranges, that would provide another clue to the magnets function.

Attacking the question of magnets in the manner you are doing is definitely not an easy task. The energy that is driving the magnet is coming from where is the main question that needs to be resolved and that answer then has to meet a whole array of other side-effects.

Again one of the reasons I pointed you to my doc is to at least give you some ideas on where that base energy is coming from and from all logical points of view, I can only summarize that the base energy to drive atoms is coming from the actual movement of the object against static etheric space. But then I read "there is no Ether in space, only space within the Ether", just cannot figure that one out. If you said, space is a concentration of ether at value x, and mass produces concentrations of ether at values from y1 to yzillion, that I could agree with and falls into the ether acting as a pile on effect or what I call Ether Impress as being your magnetic field.

My main stance is ether is everywhere. In space, in atoms, in magnetism, in action at a distance, in everything man. So where is this "no ether in space" thing coming from? Why should ether have a preference? Ether if everywhere does not have to move anywhere because it is already in everything. We move through ether and not ether moves through us, just like as our planet, solar system and galaxy all have an additive effect on mass moving through ether, so do all other galaxies in their own right and at their own minimal mass threshold speeds of movement. The law of action/reaction will logically want that the same mass moving at a different speed will create a different effect on the base frequency of atomic nature and this will produce different effects as we see them in the universe. We look at the stars, the galaxies and see so many effects that we try to figure out, but the first question to ask is, what speed is that galaxy moving through space compared to ours? That's what I would like to know.

Anyways........Keep on.

Oh and as usual for me, sorry for long post. hehehe

wattsup

[wattsup]

Ok ,well here is some test i carried out today,using an effect we have seen befor,but tried in many different configurations. So who can explain clearly how and why we get a spin-and please take note of where i place the copper plate(anode),and where the wires are running.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV8DqMBzkIc&feature=youtu.be

@tinman

The simple fact that you are producing bubbles in water is enough to produce the spin. The bubbles when created displace the surrounding water that wants to move back into the position where is was before it was displaced. All those bubbles now move upwards and given the bubbles are round and the water has friction, any main rise direction will produce some spin that will be maintained until another spin direction becomes more prevalent. We cannot say that it is the magnetic field above the magnet that is creating the spin, but we do see the effect and we can easily misunderstand this as the magnet generating the spin on its own.

In your case there is no magnetic attraction between the bubbles and the magnet since the bubbles are not metallic or magnetic themselves. They are just caught up in the rising momentum all reaching the top and then continuing to rise out. Also, the bubbles rising up the magnet sidewall create a differential of surface stress on the magnet that adds to the momentum of spin, but again, none of that can be directly attributable to the magnetic field.

Anyways, the main question then arises as per the effects explained by @TA, and that is, in one instance the magnet is producing a vortex but in another instance the magnet is producing cones with ferrofluid. So which one is it, vortex or cones.

wattsup

[MileHigh]

Wattsup:

Taken from Theoria's PDF:

The reason ferrofluid forms cone shaped spikes along any pole is that the raised apexes are the alternating centripetal and centrifugal
points of preponderance which raise themselves not as lines but as cones. Nothing in nature moves in lines, rather in spirals. To raise
any single portion of the ferrofluid is to create inter-atomic magnetic dilation in the ferrofluid, which approaches in a cone-first vortex,
as any plane of centrifugal acceleration is cone-base first, whereas any vortex plane of expulsion from the magnet is apex first. 

As is the case, any centrifugal vortex is cone-acceleration as highest and any centripetal vortex is apex acceleration as highest.
Pressure increases in inverse proportions to the field. As is likewise the case with all fields, the greater the pressure the closer the
spatial proximity to field voidance. This concept of the Ether is extremely hard for people to understand. Just as at the center of any
magnet, the dielectric inertial plane, there is no magnetism, likewise if one were able to occupy a space at the center of the Earth there
would be no gravity, likewise at the axle of any field disturbance there is neither a field no acceleration. Polarization, and acceleration
exist radially from the apex of magnetic field, but inversely accelerate towards the apex centripetally, however regardless of
centrifugal or centripetal movement, at the center between both there is neither a field nor acceleration, this is the membrane of all
fields in counterspace; in the case of the magnet, this membrane is 'open', and is the dielectric inertial plane.

I highlighted the first sentence for the ferrofluid explanation, it is wrong.  I highlighted the second sentence as a bonus because it is wrong but not related to the ferrofluid explanation.  It's just so fundamentally wrong that it deserved to be highlighted.

Going back to the ferrofluid cones, there is indeed a one-sentence explanation that is simple, concise, and clear.  It's clear if you understand the underlying concepts.

You know the old saying, usually the simplest explanation is the correct explanation.

MileHigh

[SeaMonkey]

...
@MH and @TK are not young boys and being treated as such is a major insult on your part and you should not entertain such attitudes. I myself am 57 so please do not boy me around as well. I am also not impressed by money, patents or academia. We are all here to learn, hopefully from each other and not be postulated from above.

Basically, you need to revise your intent. Are you here to......

1 - boast about how smart you are
2 - try to impress others with your long words
3 - teach others something new

If you are here for #3, fine, but just know that just because you are smart, this does not automatically endow you with the worldy attribute of being a good teacher. Knowing something and teaching something are not automatically a given. You will surely need to work on your teaching skills, first by dumbing down your theories as you did say in the first pages that a 15 year will understand. Well it aint work'in.
...

When men get all hypersensitive and start talkin'
like "wimmin" - it's the old power thing again.

Insult - Schminsult - now you guys are starting to
sound like Erron over at EF.

The Attackers here are very skilled at provoking
confrontational exchanges;  they're also very
good at deflecting responsibility.  They seem to
think their privileged status exempts them from
the rules of good order and discipline.  That they
have earned the "right" to play mischief in their
attacks.

Nothing is more pathetic than a Forum Man who
can dish it out but can't take the blowback.

You of course know to whom these references are
being made.

Set the Example of Gentlemanly conduct and it
will be found that Courtesy is Contagious.

Unless the Bad Boys persist in their fun...

But remember, there is a better Way.