Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[TheoriaApophasis]

In that setup there are two very very weak magnetic fields in opposition at either end of the iron bar.  The closer you get to the center of the bar the weaker the fields get.  Around the center of the bar there is a Bloch wall but the magnetic fields in the center are almost nonexistent there because of the flux cancellation.  So I suppose you could say that there is a very weak Bloch wall there.
>>>

It's all just too fantastical that there are people like this!

Whats in opposition moron?        MAGNETISM is the termination of EITHER dielectricity OR electricity

Tesla said this

Faraday said this "the dielectric field.......radiation"

Steinmetz said this

Heaviside said this

JC Maxwell said this.


Here you are again claiming the "baby gave birth to the baby" ............Magnetism comes LAST, moron.   what is "driving a "magnet"...."    is not MAGNTISM,  fool.
So, youre full of rarified bullshit.



FIELDS??  What field?   Fields arent particles, and arent induced BY particles.   




Its NEAT how you leave out ALL THE FIELDS THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL MASS/MAGNET/OBJECT..................  hows that shit working for your "theory"

MASS FREE CAPACITANCE and/or INDUCTION 






I assume you heard of this new shit called  "wireless power induction THRU A VACUUM"  ??   (not new at all).

Energy (grasp this moron) is a MASS FREE phenomena, having ONLY TO DO WITH FIELDS.


Go back to grade school.

Electricity is utterly a mass-free phenomena, as mentioned by many including Dr. Wilhelm Reich in his "Cosmic
Superimposition". Mass has no logical or theoretical place in electrical units and all particle-based conceptions of it are impossible


It's all just too fantastical that there are people as DUMB as this.

[picowatt]

TA,

The reason for mentioning magnetic force microscopy, Kerr-effect laser microscopy, and spin polarized neutron tomography is that using these techniques, scientists have been able to map and view the internal magnetic domains as well as the external 3D field surrounding a magnet.  To date, there is no evidence that I am aware of from these technologies that indicate that the fields exist as vortices or that there exists the proposed centripetal and centrifugal constructs.  Although this is not necessarily  "ultimate proof" one way or the other, it does weigh heavily against the existence of the proposed vortices and constructs. 

It seems that interesting field lines and intricate patterns are only apparent when attempts are made to view a magnetic field using a large number of anything ranging from nanoparticles to iron filings, for example, that respond in someway to the magnetic field.  Owing to their response to the field and their large numbers, they both modify the field and additionally cause intricate alignments to occur between themselves.  Although these alignments produce interesting patterns, it seems unlikely that these methods would produce a more accurate depiction of the true nature or structure of a magnetic field than far less invasive techniques such as Kerr-effect laser microscopy and spin polarized neutron tomography. 

PW

[TheoriaApophasis]

  To date, there is no evidence that I am aware of from these technologies that indicate that the fields exist as vortices

At that level, I wouldnt expect any capacity to "see" same.       This is why my MONSTER  6" NEO is such a great teaching tool.

It seems that interesting field lines and intricate patterns are only apparent when attempts are made to view a magnetic field using a large number of anything ranging from nanoparticles to iron filings, for example, that respond in someway to the magnetic field.  Owing to their response to the field and their large numbers, they both modify the field and additionally cause intricate alignments to occur between themselves.  Although these alignments produce interesting patterns, it seems unlikely that these methods would produce a more accurate depiction of the true nature or structure of a magnetic field than far less invasive techniques such as Kerr-effect laser microscopy and spin polarized neutron tomography. 

Polarization by DEFINITION necessitates mutual reciprocation along lowest Ether-pressure gradients and along with gyromagnetic precession necessitats ONLY the  "vortex"


You are forgetting, a VORTEX is just a mediation from the radiation that magnetism IS, ....magnetism is the byproduct OF another, of dielectricity.


Look at folded paper below,   its ALL STRAIGHT LINES..........spatial polarization creates this spatial ILLUSION of a "vortex"


Nature doesnt "DO" straight lines.    Thats because spatial pressure mediation is vortex in reciprocation.



That and more pics from tonight

[gravityblock]

Next weekend,i am going to set up my HHO cell,and run the test again using only gas-no electric current-just to see what happens.

I'm going to utilise a Kelvin water dropper generator to accumulate negative charges in one container and positive charges in another container.  In this way, we can also eliminate the gas and any objections of the rising bubbles itself contributing to the formation of a vortex.  Hope I don't get in trouble with TA for using the terms "positive and negative charges", lol.

Gravock

[TheoriaApophasis]

for using the terms "positive and negative charges", lol.

Negative charge...... hmm,  thats like  "hot ice"   

To say there is a "negative charge" is like saying a barren woman is pregnant.
discharge/ radiation is the termination of charge.

UPDATE: Mother nature just called me, she said she never created a negative charge, she figured humans would have got that fact.


So, does this mean a ball thrown in the air (charge) is a diff. than the same ball that falls back? (discharge). 


Only 2 things discharge,  dielectricity and electricity.    They discharge in the creation of polarization (=space = radiation = magnitude)


(radioactive particle discharges are still due to dielectricity and dis-equilibrium in unstable isotopes and atoms)

You call it whatever you want.