Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[TheoriaApophasis]

Do I believe that one can, by proxy, bend or manipulate a beam of light using a magnetic field and a magnetically responsive medium? Most assuredly.  Happens every day.  One can also do the same using an electric field (hence the sciences of magneto and electro optics).

Did you say the BELOW just 2 pages ago?     Yeah.     

As for being able to visibly bend a beam of light with a magnet, "Pure 100% BS on that position , no offense."

PW

As they say in logic class   "YOUR 'A' DOESNT MATCH YOUR 'B'  "

[picowatt]

Did you say the BELOW just 2 pages ago?     Yeah.     






As they say in logic class   "YOUR 'A' DOESNT MATCH YOUR 'B'  "

The context from a previous post is as follows:

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

I see nothing contradictory at all.  Although it was late at night and in hindsight I would prefer the use of "magnetically non-responsive" instead of "non-magnetic", as in, "Do I believe that a beam of light can be deflected directly using a magnetic field and a magnetically non-responsive medium?  No."

But as I said, it is done by proxy everyday.

PW

[TheoriaApophasis]

Although it was late at night and in hindsight I would prefer the use of "magnetically non-responsive" instead of "non-magnetic"

Nice backpedaling and a dash of "CYA" (cover your arse)


Max deflection of the laser is from the magnetic centrifugal.   WHY?  Because the radial dielectric of  EM/LIGHT is repulsed by same
Max ABSORPTION of the laser is from the "magnets" DIELECTRIC INERTIAL PLANE.....WHY?   Because Dielectricity is mutually convergent.


Had that confirmed last night by another:::::

QUOTE:::::

"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."

as in, "Do I believe that a beam of light can be deflected directly using a magnetic field and a magnetically non-responsive medium?  No."

GOOD, TELL THAT TO THE PATENTED DEVICE AND EVIDENCES AGAINST YOU.


Your lips vs. the evidences.       Which WINS?


Magnetically non-responsive?  SAYS WHO??? YOU.          Too bad,  light just called and said you're full of it.  


His spectrometer must be BROKEN TOO!!!!   

But as I said, it is done by proxy everyday.

PROXY:     A  BS SOPHISTIC TERM OFTEN USED AS A CONVOLUTED NON-ANSWER TO COVER ONES ASS

[93RDELEMENT]

That's ENOUGH ...... Leave the poor man alone I know what its like to be hit so hard by the hammer here it hurts hahahah STAND UP AND TAKE IT LIKE A MAN THAN BECOME A MONKEY HAHAHAH

He has brought forward something new to my life and I THANK HIM FOR THAT ... But he has not got a bend in the field has he ! NO ! NO MAGNETIC VORTEX .......

ITS THE MAGNET NOT THE LIGHT THAT NEED CHANGEING ... Speed up the magnet and the light must bend try 749 000 000 mph hahahahahahhahaha or you got no chance ... !!!!

[TinselKoala]

Patents have numbers, don't they? Why is it that the only patent NUMBER that has been given relating to a "Kenny Wheeler" patent... has been given to you by ME?


Hey Kenny: Your book is superficial twaddle and smacks of existentialist crypto-nihilism. In short, you're a materialistic demon.