Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[picowatt]

Well, that's a remarkable collection, picowatt! I think the readers will get the full picture of what Kenny-boy believes about magnetizing bulk material from that, and also the nature of his arguments in support of his beliefs.

But remember how he couldn't provide an actual reference citation way back then when I first challenged him to do so?

Here he makes another statement: (sic)

I want to see an actual reference that supports THIS statement. Where is a reference that shows that an 8th grade book on electricity tells you that "Magnetization is the TERMINATION OF ELECTRICITY?" Moron?

Graduated college early did he? I guess he missed the part where students are taught how to cite references, according to one of several different publication and editorial standards.

TK,

Note that in my second post above, I propose a testable hypothesis regarding "rate of change" of the magnetizing field.

I would appreciate your comments..

PW

[TheoriaApophasis]

I continue to be uncertain as to what you believe happens during the process of magnetization.
You originally stated that during the magnetization process, electrical current was discharged thru the poles of the pre-magnet.  When questioned on this, you either back pedaled, or realized you misspoke, and began instead to talk about induction. This would still seem to indicate that you believe that the magnetization process is more so related to an electrical phenomenon. 

I never back pedaled on ANYTHING. 

How can you discharge thru the "POLES of a PRE-'magnet'"  ??  It , at that time, has NO polarization (=radiation=discharge=creating space)

You KEEP CALLING it magnetization........well, as stated CLEARLY in the book, a "magnet" is not a (dominant) "MAGNET(ism)", its either----

1. has increased high dielectric capacitance from a discharge induction with resultant macro-atomic radiative discharge
2. Is dominantly dielectrically-coherent without an increase in dielectric capacitance, it is in magnetic induction or has been induced and been "magnetized" (wrong word however) by another magnet (stroking a magnet on a soft steel bar etc.)  which aligns the inter-atomic dielectricity without any increase in its capacitance (the iron bar).


3. Magnetism is radiation OF something BY something ELSE..........Magnetism isnt driving/running/creating MAGNETISM.........so use deduction to figure that one out.



Why do you think they call it "magnetic PINCH" ?    What the hell is driving and "pinching" the radiation/magnetism OUTWARDS into radiative vortex formations (really expanding and contracting [centrifugal] spheres)



NOW, YOU SAID LAST PAGE YOU COULD EXPLAIN THE PICTURE BELOW "EASILY"............do so please.

see video also:::
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar9Tq7fSOGI

As well, you seem to indicate that whatever it is that you believe happens within the pre-magnet during magnetization is related to Faraday's law. 

Now explain, since you like Faraday, to explain      "Magnetism is the DIELECTRIC FIELD"-   FARADAY

[TinselKoala]

TK,

Note that in my second post above, I propose a testable hypothesis regarding RATE.

I would appreciate your comments..

PW

Well, normally I would refer to the established literature on industrial processes for magnetizing bulk material, Gauss's law for magnetism, Maxwell's equations especially the Faraday-Maxwell equation, QED and so on. But you have seen by now that it is impossible to argue reasonably with someone who not only knows everything already, but already knows that everything _you_ know is wrong.
We also know that the Greatest Buddhist Scientist does not deign to perform True Experiments that actually test formally stated hypotheses by inverting them and attempting to disprove the resultant null. He prefers confirmatory demonstrations; they are much less challenging and are easier to stuff into one's preferred world view.
So here is what I think: No amount of experimental evidence will be accepted by Kenny-boy if it contradicts or fails to support his wild Theory of Everything, and he will not fail to continue to insult you in the most disrespectful manner possible, the more so the more evidence you present.

[TheoriaApophasis]

For clarity, I am posting the following quotes taken from your replies to me wherein you are explaining the process of magnetization 

FALLACY HELL


You gave the entire quote.



however YOU , above, indicate I am referring to "magnetization",       magnetism is RADIATION,  what ULTIMATELY has increased magnetism has MUCH MUCH MORE either:


1. dielectric capacitance

3. coherent dielectric alignment from sheer induction only.

[MileHigh]

Kenny:

What's a "dielectric" when you discuss magnets?

What's "dielectric capacitance?"

"aligns the inter-atomic dielectricity" sounds to me like you are talking about magnetic domains.  Is that the case?

"increase in its capacitance (the iron bar)" - how do you define "capacitance" in this context?

What the hell is driving and "pinching" the radiation/magnetism OUTWARDS into radiative vortex formations (really expanding and contracting [centrifugal] spheres)

- it's all just little electrons swimming in circles like happy fish.  Remember - a moving charge creates a magnetic field.  That is the fundamental building block of everything.  No moving charges and then no magnetic fields.

MileHigh