Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[TheoriaApophasis]

Anyways, time will tell, but so far, no proof of your famous vortex besides all those experiments that are chock full of errors.

I like claims, .....especially when there is no

1. evidence
2. logic
3. proof
4. theory
5. hypothesis


behind ANY of it.



By like , I mean despise.



I already explained the vortex are divergent and convergent spheres of magnetic radiation.

Seen below interlacing .....


You havent got a chance of proving me wrong,......but I RELISH YOUR ATTEMPT. .......... I love being proven wrong.   GO write that paper

[TheoriaApophasis]

When I get back from vacation, I will be preparing a paper that once you read with an open mind, .

Yeah, ok,  let us know how the mothership and  Lord Zula are doing on planet Krypton.


yeah, lets us see this non-existant masterwork.



In case you FORGOT, everything I state explains all observed phenomena, and is 100% in line with Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla



But, I guess you think yourself smarter than Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla and Heaviside 

[wattsup]

But, I guess you think yourself smarter than Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla and Heaviside 

@TA

Hehehehehehehe. First of all you have no business talking about Tesla. He was a doer and we owe him all we have today. He was not part of the Cabal otherwise he would have burnt down Wardencliff himself. Telsa only did what he knew best with what they intellectualized in his day, which is a tremendous task and accomplishment. But Telsa did not write the Laws of EE. He did not even relegate positive and negative. The guy was a true phenomenon of creativity, but he is not responsible for any of the disinformation we live with today.

The proof of the faults in your vortex and TV screen claims I have already discussed adnosium and it only got me your mouthful of Aussies best. No rational response on your part only shows you are interested in being right at all cost. Then if you are so right, why are you here on an OU Forum. Why not just publish your theory with proof and all on any know academic Publication. Why bother with us dreamers in OULand. What the hell are you doing here when you flatly state OU is impossible.

I myself don't give two furts about academia. All I care about is helping fellow OUers work towards new ways of OU experimentation. All you have said so far does nothing towards that goal and if you cannot see it then I have really mistaken your potential and will again stop here. I just thought that just maybe after so many pages of total nothing but your mental fabrications of smart sounding lingo that you have obviously learned by continuous repetition, that maybe you were ready for something really new.

In any case, you will eventually hear about it and you like others will be your own judge. But at least it will originate from a true OUer and not an avid denier. That my friend makes all the difference in the world.

Let's talk again after 70 more pages of freebies.

wattsup

[TheoriaApophasis]

He was a doer and we owe him all we have today.

I did 4 greek translations, 45 VIDEOS and 2 books in the PAST 4 MONTHS



YOU?       



I thought so, .......SQUAT

The proof of the faults in your vortex and TV screen claims

FUCK THE TV SCREEN,  I have 14 wholly diff. models and 13 empirical tests.   

What the hell are you doing here when you flatly state OU is impossible.

Piercing the Ether membrane takes POWER.......... Free power is everywhere.........GETTING however is not free........."STEALING" it however is.





Youre ALL TALK, and no Fing action.   

[TinselKoala]

Well I have a similar lense, and did lose that bet, forgot that the attraction will also be biased more towards the thinner side than the thicker side.  Although a balance between a weak magnet and gravity will change the fulcrum point that its sitting on and reverse the spin; but not with strong neo magnets... and it'd be trickier to do.  Convex lense wouldn't spin at all, too much surface friction (both outside edges would be against the lense instead of a single point inside...).


If more mass were added, the angle of the bottom magnet could be adjusted even with strong magnets so it rocks and the contact point is inside the rotational center of mass.

Your drawing pretty much captures the true state of affairs although your description is a bit off. This phenomenon actually has nothing to do with magnetism per se, the magnetism is just what pulls the items together and makes the point pivot contact. The device will work just fine even with only one magnet and a smooth flat piece of steel. The rotation arises because of the force couple: the point of contact provides a pivot and a frictional drag that combines with the off-center pull to produce a rotation.

This is a True Experiment, not a demonstration. Note how the DUT responds as the input parameters are varied through a rationally chosen parameter space, testing a couple of hypotheses. Note also that the top item is not a metallic magnet at all. The lens is held level. Note how the upper object's behaviour changes when it is at the top of the lens and all the various force vectors align: there is no spinning couple at that location, whereas when the upper object is down on the slope of the lens, these vectors no longer align and a rotational torque develops as the object is dragged along the surface by the lower magnet. The direction of spin is completely predicted by the vectors and the resulting couple, and has nothing to do with magnet polarity or magnetism at all. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SeVWSO_wpg