Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[TheoriaApophasis]

Apparently, nothing, so far, that TA proposes, makes any unique predictions or falsifies any existing rules or math in support of his teachings over conventional theory.

Except for the fact that you and everyone else has NO idea, NONE


1. what a "magnet" is

2. that magnetism is radiation OF something (diectricity, the "dielectric field") BY something (same).

3. You have NO clue (nor does anyone else) that so-called "magnetic attraction/ repulsion" does not even exist, and CANNOT EXIST

4. Radiation/discharges ATTRACT NOTHING...........they displace things, but they ATTRACT NOTHING




A LOT has been falsified, with enormous evidences for all above.  With continued further proof of same.

Not to mention 100% in line with ALL observed Phenomena



You, in your typical rancid insanity (like most) ......FORGET that  "correct observation and testing and results"  DOES NOT, OFTEN DOES NOT   = CORRECT CONCLUSIONS



Faraday was the originator of the concept of =the magnetic field, (which is described in terms of "magnetic curves" our present day "magnetic lines of force") however HE NEVER SO MUCH AS SUGGESTED in his works that induced currents were a resultant of changing magnetic fields. ON THE CONTRARY, he clearly associated the phenomena of electromagnetic induction with changing electrical currents.

As per Maxwell, he TOO considered EM induction as a phenomena in which a current (or EM force) is induced in a circuit. but not as a phenomena in which a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field. He CLEARLY said tha the induced EM force is "MEASURED BY, not CAUSED BY the changing mag field"   

Just as Faraday, he made NO allusion to ANY CAUSAL link between magnetic and electric fields


----- Dr. Oleg D. Jefimenko


Several authors have asserted that the magnetic field due to an electric current is a relativistic effect. This assertion is based on the fact that if one assumes that the interaction between electric charges is entirely due to the electric field, then the relativistic force transformation equations make it imperative that a second field - the magnetic field - is present when the charges are moving. However, as is shown in this paper, if one assumes that the interaction between moving electric charges is entirely due to the magnetic field, then the same relativistic force transformation equations make it imperative that a second field - this time the electric field - is also present. Therefore, since it is impossible to interpret both the electric and the magnetic field as relativistic effects, one must conclude that neither field is a relativistic effect. The true meaning of the calculations demonstrating the alleged relativistic nature of the magnetic field and of the calculations presented in this paper is, therefore, that the idea of a single force field, be it magnetic or electric, is incompatible with the relativity theory.



As is clear from equations (1)–(15) and (23), relativistic
force transformation equations demand the presence of
an electric field when the interactions between electric
charges are assumed to be entirely due to a magnetic
force. We could interpret this result as the evidence
that the electric field is a relativistic effect. But the
well known fact that similar calculations demand the
presence of a magnetic field, if the interactions between
the charges are assumed to be entirely due to an electric
force, makes such an interpretation impossible (unless
we are willing to classify both the magnetic and the
electric field as relativistic effects, which is absurd).
We must conclude therefore that neither the magnetic
nor the electric field is a relativistic effect
.
The only correct interpretation of our results must
then be that interactions between electric charges that
are either entirely velocity independent or entirely
velocity dependent is incompatible with the relativity
theory. Both fields—the electric field (producing a force
independent
of the velocity of the charge experiencing
the force) and the magnetic field (producing a force
dependent
on the velocity of the charge experiencing
the force)—are necessary to make interactions between
electric charges relativistically correct. By inference
then, any force field compatible with the relativity theory
must have an electric-like 'subfield' and a magnetic-like
'subfield'





if force is defined as the cause of acceleration, then the
equation F = ma , where F  is the force and a  is the acceleration, is a causal equation by
definition.

Force IS (coeternal) MxA, not Force "is the product of (CAUSATION)" ma

Proving again, that their causation is spatial, and space are in fields, but no fields in space.






Let us apply these considerations to the basic electromagnetic field laws. Traditionally
these laws are represented by the four Maxwell's equations, which, in their differential form,
are
∇ · D = ρ,  (1)
∇ · B =  0,  (2)
∇ Å~E = −∂B
∂t
,  (3)
and
∇ Å~H = J  +
∂D
∂t
,  (4)
where E  is the electric field vector, D  is the displacement vector,H  is themagnetic field vector,
B  is the magnetic flux density vector, J  is the current density vector, and ρ  is the electric charge
density. For fields in a vacuum,Maxwell's equations are supplemented by the two constitutive
equations,
D = ε0E  (5)
and
B = μ0H,  (6)
where ε0  is the permittivity of space, and μ0  is the permeability of space.
Since none of the four Maxwell's equations is defined to be a causal relation, and since
each of these equations connects quantities simultaneous in time, none of these equations
represents a causal relation. That is, ∇ · D  is not a consequence of ρ  (and vice versa),∇ Å~E
is not a consequence of ∂B/∂t  (and vice versa), and∇ Å~H  is not a consequence of J  + ∂D/∂t
(and vice versa). Thus, Maxwell's equations, even though they are basic electromagnetic
equations (since most electromagnetic relations are derivable from them), do not depict causeand-
effect relations between electromagnetic

It is traditionally asserted that, according toMaxwell's equation (3), a changing magnetic field
produces an electric field ('Faraday induction') and that, according toMaxwell's equation (4),
a changing electric field produces a magnetic field ('Maxwell induction'). The very useful
and successful method of calculating induced voltage (emf) in terms of changing magnetic
flux appears to support the reality of Faraday induction. And the existence of electromagnetic
waves appears to support the reality of both Faraday induction and Maxwell induction. Note,
however, that as explained in section 1, Maxwell's equation (3), which is usually considered
as depicting Faraday induction, does not represent a cause-and-effect relation because in this
equation the electric and themagnetic field is evaluated for the samemoment of time. Note also
that in electromagnetic waves electric and magnetic fields are in phase, that is, simultaneous
in time, and hence, according to the principle of causality (which states that the cause always
precedes its effect), the two fields cannot cause each other (by the principle of causality, the
fields should be out of phase if they create each other).


And there is one more fact that supports the conclusion that what we call 'electromagnetic
induction' is not the creation of one of the two fields by the other. In the covariant formulation
of electrodynamics, electric and magnetic fields appear as components of one single entity—
the electromagnetic field tensor (dielectric). Quite clearly, a component of a tensor cannot be a cause of
another component of the same tensor, just like a component of a vector cannot be a cause of
another component of the same vector.
electromagnetic field tensor (sometimes called the field strength tensor, Faraday tensor or Maxwell bivector) is a mathematical object that describes the electromagnetic field of a physical system.

[TheoriaApophasis]

I would appreciate your comments..

You said 2 pages ago you could "EASILY EXPLAIN" the picture below.....



DO it, or admit you have NO damn clue.



its no trick, its simple,   NO glue, NO tape........nothing..........

[TheoriaApophasis]

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?

How did you think a solenoid or electromagnet WORKED moron?          Pathetic



Phi (magnetism) x Psi (dielectric) = Q Planck (electrification)


The discharge of electricity in losing its dielectric component LEAVES you with the radiation/termination =  Magnetism

[TheoriaApophasis]

- 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

Sorry asshole,  FIELDS (which you cannot define) NOR wireless power transmission thru a VACUUM has jack shit to do with  particles,  much less imaginary ones like "electrons"

IDIOT 


Go LEARN what the fuck an "electron" is you mental midget


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvc5ns3eI7k

[picowatt]

Sorry asshole,  FIELDS (which you cannot define) NOR wireless power transmission thru a VACUUM has jack shit to do with  particles,  much less imaginary ones like "electrons"

IDIOT 


Go LEARN what the fuck an "electron" is you mental midget


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvc5ns3eI7k

I doubt you will find many engineering types here that think they are spraying electrons at the receiving coil in a wireless power transfer system.  In fact, there are those here that could actually design and build such systems.

PW