Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[TheoriaApophasis]

Are you actually stating that you believe the magnetic field is directly influencing the trajectory of the blue light in your "A" statement above in a visible fashion?  Will you be doing further experiments to test that claim?

Yes, Absolutely.  I had already proven that with our 3 channel lasers  635NM Red, a green, and a blue, and a UV (dangerous bastard laser, hate wearing those orange goggles).

Further?  Yes, yes and yes.

It just proves my premise I came up with quite a long time ago PIC BELOW


I already got confirmation to double check from another friend with 8 patents, and much expertise.



***********
HE REPORTS TODAY VIA EMAIL>>>>>>>>>>>>:::::
You're right about blue. I've made a few tests using my spectrometer and see the blue and shorter is mostly absorbed.
This thing even eats blue laser to the point where it barely gets through. Now red is another story altogether- pretty resonant at those wavelengths.

**********

Regarding your ferrocell videos, to make the claims that you do (particularly regarding the blue wavelength) without first considering or testing for the effects of common optical phenomena such as Rayleigh scattering, which is highly wavelength dependent (and the reason the sky is blue), the effective blaze angles created by your magnetically aligned nano-particles, the refractive indices of the cell materials, cell cavity dimensions, the magnetically aligned/clumped particle density and clump dimensions, light source incident angles and positions relative to the cavity plane, etc, is just bad science.

Yes, well, its TOO BAD your pet theory there kinda leaves out the fact that MAGNET (the dielectric plane of same) and LASER ONLY  (no ferrocell) causes blue wavelength laser absorption (AS ALSO DOUBLE CHECKED BY MY FRIEND ABOVE)

<<<<<<

Is this typical of all your experiments?  You do a few tests and as soon as you see a result that you can "spin" to somehow support your theory, you look no further for any alternate explanations for those results?  It speaks poorly of all the experimental evidence you have thus far presented.

I STATED ALREADY I HAD 5 EXPERIMENTS TO PROVE THIS..........THIS MAKES 6

MY FRIENDS INVENTION WHICH HE HAS A PATENT ON (absolutely AMAZING invention)  MAKES 7.    When the world see his DEVICE, it will "change everything" regarding communication

Its just (pardon)  "THAT FUCKING STUNNING OF AN INVENTION"


I wished I invented it 

Its over , I WON,   END OF STORY,.......I dont have to CONVINCE anyone,  only PROVE it, .....I have the 6 PROOFS, the evidence, .........   everyone else has 1.   THEIR FLAPPING LIPS

You are using ferro nano-particles as a proxy to view the magnetic field.  Those particles align to both the magnetic field of the magnet and as well, they align to there now magnetized neighboring particles (the misleading iron filings test on steroids).  Intricate patterns, clump sizes and particle angles are formed and you then reflect light off of those particles.  The three wavelengths of light used reflect off the nano-particles in a wavelength dependent fashion based upon the variables mentioned in the paragraph above, with "clump" size, particle spacing, scattering, and effective blaze angle likely the most wavelength dependent variables encountered.

>>>>>>>>>>>double take>>>>>

Yes, well, its TOO BAD your pet theory there kinda leaves out the fact that MAGNET  (the dielectric plane of same)  and LASER ONLY  (no ferrocell) causes blue wavelength laser absorption (AS ALSO DOUBLE CHECKED BY MY FRIEND ABOVE)

<<<<<<



..............................................Its OVER.   


1. proving A

2. convincing skeptical "head in sand" peoples of A




I only give a damn about 1,  and not a FLYING F*CK about #2


You're just upset that your sacred cow and long held beliefs are turned upside down,  thats normal, thats typical low-brow responses to discoveries.

MOST humans are guilty of this form of nonsense.

[picowatt]

TA,

Your friend, that only has 8 patents, apparently confirms that, as expected, blue light is more strongly absorbed (or scattered).

As for visibly deflecting a beam of light passing thru a non-magnetic medium using a magnet.  Sorry, not buying that one.  You may be able to deflect a beam using a proxy such as particles or crystals that align to a magnetic field, and under the correct circumstances you can affect the polarization of a beam of light with a magnetic field, but I do not believe it possible to visibly deflect a beam of light directly with a magnet.

As for you "winning", you seem to think that by not addressing or investigating the points raised, or by using bold type, that you somehow "win".  It matters not to me.  In the end, it is only good science and truth that loses.

PW

[TheoriaApophasis]

As for you "winning", you seem to think that by not addressing or investigating the points raised, or by using bold type, that you somehow "win".  It matters not to me.  In the end, it is only good science and truth that loses.
PW

I did address them,  strawman FALLACY, I have other methods that dont have SHIT to do with ferrofluid.



The truth are the MANY experiments I have, the logic, the evidences.................and you have WHAT AGAIN???   Yeah, thats right.

The only ones LOSING are those flapping their gums rather than building and experimenting and investigating.


You, see, I used to debate your type, no offense, in other arenas, I know these sophistic tactics VERY WELL,   I dont play the "redraw the line" fallacy.

Prove this......ok.    Draw another line, prove that............ ok........ draw another line.

Lets put it this way, buddy, if this were a court of law, ......................   yes, thats right.

ITS OVER,  period.


Proving X doesnt have SHIT to do with convincing someone of X.       



Sorry about your sacred cow (no, Im not)

[picowatt]

TA,

Although your methods of debate are quite obvious, science is not a debate...

Have a good one,

PW

[TheoriaApophasis]

TA,

Although your methods of debate are quite obvious, science is not a debate...

There are so many endless 1000s of books of science (so-called) debating each other its as ENDLESS as the cosmos is wide


Pure 100% BS on that position , no offense.


Science has been a DEBATE since Plato, and LONG LONG LONG LONG before him.



If you dont know that, then you're paddling up the river  De' Nile.