Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[TheoriaApophasis]

Fields are a form of mass

Whatever you are smoking or 'doing' ,  suggest you quit it.


Sorry, but I have no need for insanity.

[d3x0r]

Edit: I went back and re-read (for a third time) your message... And even if it's accepted to call a mode of aether than has charge and mass and exists in the place of an an electron... well  that mode might as well be called electron.

Nice; Theo even denied the one reasonable argument for some of this   Fields aren't mass

So.  If an electron has no mass, how is it used in space propulsion?  If it was massless, it would dissipate away from the projector and not provide any ability to thrust; and since it's not just the negative electrostatic field serving as mass, that isn't the reason

You can come up with new names for things, but in the end you end up with a different word that has the same meaning as 'electron'.  Electrons are particles, ie they have mass.  If they didn't have mass they would be called photons not particles.  I'm not sure what you were quoting where, but I suspect it was pioneer work that was since disproved by other experiences.

CRTs were created using the concept of electron, so again, even if you call it something else, it must behave the same; and have all the same characteristic properties. 

Just because you say something isn't doesn't make it so.  I'm not.  *damnit I'm still here*
Was going to say that a charged mass has a different mass than a neutral mass of the same base material; and since it's not fields that cause the mass, it must be particles.... but according to you the particles added had nothing to do with the electrostatic charge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass
http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2004summer/phy192/electron_charge_and_mass.pdf

Interesting how many pictures of CRTs with beams being deflected and yet magnetism has no effect on it.
I dunno, maybe you think 'electron' defines a thing that covers too many aspects, and should be split into sub-parts *search*... hmm appears to be a 1st class particle itself not composed of other quarks...  Even if it's not a thing directly observable, there's lots of indirect observations that define the thing... yes it's looking at shadows in the wall (plato) to see the thing, and isn't the thing itself.


@MileHigh [size=78%]How do you personally distinguish between the two? [/size]
Really I don't other than distance and quality.  a near field is immediately experienced... one that is far is one you don't nessicarily attribute to being the same field... because normal gross measuring techniques fail... *shrug* should have just dropped the word far, cause I knew someone would nitpick it.
Next time something is picked on grammatically or semantically I'm gonna just let it go.... I'm not going to break it down into its parts, because I'm sure you understand the meaning of english words.  (heh english isn't in the spellcheck dictionary, English; guess it should be capitalized always... what if I were to talk about english on a billiard ball? That surely shouldn't be capitalized)... I dunno maybe there's really a narrow mindset that really doesn't understand if I say... I dunno... something in a poetic license...  maybe a dim field of charge.  that might mean something to someone other than me that confuses them.
---
To go back to the beginning however, if I have two electrostatically charged things, there is a force that acts on them, and hence affects their mass.  Normally one would say that a thing without mass cannot affect another thing with mass... cannot provide an acceleration to change its velocity and in turn update its position.  The charged things themselves have a mass... don't know of a massless field that can affect a mass.

[TheoriaApophasis]

So.  If an electron has no mass, how is it used in space propulsion?  If it was massless, it would dissipate away from the projector

I see you have no clue about field repulsion / induction.      Nice work there.

You can come up with new names for things, but in the end you end up with a different word that has the same meaning as 'electron'. 

Names are MEANINGLESS descriptions/subjective connotation.   In denotation, electrons have NO mass, and are NOT particles.   PERIOD.

Even Tesla used the term ELECTRON, son,  he also however DENIED they were PARTICLES,     Got it?

Electrons are particles, ie they have mass.  If they didn't have mass they would be called photons not particles.  I'm not sure what you were quoting where, but I suspect it was pioneer work that was since disproved by other experiences.

Thats a BS circular argument, (AND ONLY A CLAIM)... that IDIOTS have been CALLING it a particle for a long time doesnt mean jack shit.   Wrong.


"Theyre called particles therefore they are particles"       WHERE did you learn logic at???          

CRTs were created using the concept of electron, so again, even if you call it something else, it must behave the same; and have all the same characteristic properties. 

Nope, CRTs were FIRST created as a testing device.....  the CONCEPT OF the electron came AFTER and was DENIED by its very discoverer,.....JJ Thomson DENIED the electron was a particle.   Clueless

I see you know NOTHING.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass
http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2004summer/phy192/electron_charge_and_mass.pdf

Yes, I know of that BS, however there is no such nonsense as a "rest mass" to an electron, several scientists have denied this has EVER been measured

measured WITH WHAT?  There can be NO rest to what is dielectric or electric discharge,    DISCHARGE itself is DEFINITIONAL MOVEMENT, moron........"rest mass" my goddamn ass.   You, son, are INSANE.   

Interesting how many pictures of CRTs with beams being deflected and yet magnetism has no effect on it.

Forget about the CRT, son.  I have 13 other testing medium that have nothing to do with CRT tubes.    Go study JC Maxwell and maybe learn something.


There are no electrons, negative charges, special-dimensions, warped space (resoundingly denied by Tesla and others), and no
p hotons; only charge, induction and radiation/discharges and their relational spins, all as mediated thru the Ether. Quantum and
Relativity is a quack religion of mathematical physics based upon the absurd premise that the universe is a giant sea of interactive
massless tiny invisible beads and that space itself, nothing, mediates interactions and can be genuinely 'warped'. Such conceptual
Atomistic reifications as amplified by GR (Relativity) cannot be enjoined, and the only genuine warping occurring is not out in the
cosmos of space, but in the empty spaces between the ears of those who reify such absurdities; warped minds rationally would invent
warped space; its purely logical in its insanity that the former produce the later.

Space has only one dimension, space, which is a metrical dimension. The use of cubic notation is habit-based, any number of coordinates
in any number of geometries can serve to define the boundaries of space. Nature is not governed by the irrational
pontifications of GR and QM, rather it is governed by mutually interactive reciprocal conjugates of charges-discharges, centripetalcentrifugal
movements, both spatial and counterspatial. Instantaneous action at a distance, and fields are all Ether modality mediations
as propagated by counterspace-in-disturbance, the Ether, its pressure gradients and perturbations. No other mediator can be logically
hypothesized, much less theorized. The very same Ether of Tesla, Heaviside, C.P. Steinmetz, and even originally from Einstein before
logic fled his mind completely, was correct and remains so. Tesla outright denied our current definition of the electron as a 'discharge
particle'.

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

[Farmhand]

All this magnet talk and no mention of the "Wesley Gary" effect. He has patents too. He must have been a genius as well.

..

[TheoriaApophasis]

All this magnet talk and no mention of the "Wesley Gary" effect. He has patents too. He must have been a genius as well.

..

yes, this bullshit>  http://www.centuryinter.net/tjs11/church/gary.htm


Yeah,   doesnt work.