Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[picowatt]

TA,

No one is saying nature has to do ANY lines, let alone straight ones.  But again, I believe the current state of the art regarding neutron tomography does not support your vortex concepts.  If vectors are present that would support the idea of vortices, I believe the state of the art sufficient to produce evidence of them.

Posting more pictures of interesting patterns produced using methods discussed in my previous post where a multitude of particles of "something" that responds to a magnetic field are used as a proxy to view that field will likely do little to diminish the position presented in my previous post.  But, as I said, neither your techniques or the less invasive ones mentioned, represent what I would call "ultimate proof", although I do believe it logical to expect that the less invasive techniques may be more accurate.

Also, why do you post the remote charging technology as in screenshot 1897?  Is this somehow supposed to support your theories?  Keep in mind that those technologies are being developed by "dumb" (as you say) engineers using technologies, electronics, and the related math that follows our present day understandings.  I see that as at least or more so supportive of our present models than as support for some new theory regarding the nature of anything.

PW

[gravityblock]

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

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)


You call it whatever you want.

It appears I got in trouble, LOL!

Gravock

[TheoriaApophasis]

But again, I believe the current state of the art regarding neutron tomography does not support your vortex concepts.

They arent my concepts, son,  theyre evident in 14 diff testing medium.  Lasers, ferrocells, suspensions, bismuth dust, charge graphite, dielectric fields etc etc etc etc.

strawman fallacy there

Your example is like using a monkey to disprove the existence of snow.

Also, why do you post the remote charging technology as in screenshot 1897?  Is this somehow supposed to support your theories? 

No, it means ENERGY doesn't have SHIT to do with particles.

I would have thought you would have gathered that obvious premise.   

[picowatt]

TA,

Seriously youngster, I am not your "son".  There is no need for you to become condescending, disrespectful, and start using bold type.  It comes off as a childish temper tantrum.  Grow up...

I have looked at the evidence and methods you present as "proof" of a vortex, and see uncontrolled variables, deductive flaws, or proxies that modify the field under test.  Although some are interesting and may be worthy of further consideration, I do not see anything yet presented as "ultimate proof" of a vortex.

PW

[TheoriaApophasis]

I have looked at the evidence and methods you present as "proof" of a vortex, and see uncontrolled variables, deductive flaws, or proxies that modify the field under test.  Although some are interesting and may be worthy of further consideration, I do not see anything yet presented as "ultimate proof" of a vortex.

Well, you are what we call "thick".   Was that an insult?   In a roundabout way. But it was a statement of about your incapacity for non-linear thought and intuitive AGNOSIS that magnetism is radiation.  But thats typical of most humans.


Since you dont understand (forgetting about the magnet for a minute) what magnetism IS, definitionally as a FIELD , and what attributes it has, or what it is , then, of course you cannot and dont grasp it.

But that fault lay at YOUR feet, not mine.

But, I dont play the sophistry or skepticism game.
Anyone can make correct observations and draw wrong conclusions.  However the magnetic vortex is THERE, 100%.     

But I already told you above a vortex is just a curvilinear straight line of radiation reciprocation
But maybe your mind cannot wrap itself around that fact.


"variables" is crypto-skeptical slang for "doesnt prove anything (to me)"    Well, as stated,  results MATTER,  and I have the results.

There are 3 devices I not mentioned on any of these posts proving same.  But I care about patent right, and (dont take it personal) dont give a damn about what you think feel or believe on the matter.


Suggest you dont play the doubting Thomas game like HighOnX does.   But do as you will.    I didnt come here (as stated) to convince anyone of a single damn thing   

Those with a brain and two eyes can and will see it, those who are 'blind', so to say, wont.       Couldn't give a damn either way.


But a mountain of proof against your "I still dont believe it"............those two dont pass thru the same gate.



However I love a good debate (not argument), and anyone who wants to debate it,.. I can and will pound them mercilessly. 

[[[a debate is not an argument]]] 



However again, I have some Greek translations to do, more testing of new gear, experiments, and a 3rd edition.  Just busy as hell.