Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[93RDELEMENT]

The energy of the magnet is on the event horizon !!! A magnet is not a black hole !!! 

Regards

an electron

[TheoriaApophasis]

In the previous post, you can see that TA refers to either passing electrical current directly thru the pre-magnet or doing the same using electromagnetic induction.  As passing the current directly thru the poles of a pre-magnet makes no sense on many grounds (and is indeed not actually done when using a magnetizer) we must assume he meant that the current was passed thru the pre-magnet via electromagnetic induction.
 

ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION??  You brain dead FOOL     

"The supreme irony is that the notion of "electromagnetism" exists at all, which definitionally cannot exist, since electricity is the product of electrostatics and magnetism....,

as meant dielectricity and magnetism .......................(Φ x Ψ = Q, or electrification).

To say "electromagnetism" is like saying, "charging-discharge", or "pregnant baby"; it is insanity.       

The very term 'electromagnetism' is a compound of two Greek terms, ἢλεκτρον, electron (amber, which creates, easily, electrostatics charges), and the term μαγνήτης, 'magnetic', from (μαγνήτης λίθος), which means "magnesian stone", the "magic attractive stone" with natural macro-magnetic phenomena. Electricity is a hybrid Ether-modality of Φ x Ψ. Magnetism is the radiative discharge of dielectricity, or electrification in discharge at which time it terminates AS magnetism in losing its dielectric component.

Pliny states that: 'in Syria the women make the whorls of their spindles of this substance, and give it the name of harpax (from ἁρπάζω, "resonate, attract", same as the word for harp musical instrument) from the circumstance that it attracts leaves towards it, chaff, and the light fringes of tissues.'

As such we have today the term electromagnetism which is from the terms dielectricity + magnetism, which is what electricity is. However we wrongly understand and fail to differentiate magnetism, from dielectricity, and electricity.

>>>>>>>>>These three are wholly separate Ether modalities and electricity is a hybrid of both magnetism and dielectricity in a circuit working together to create electricity." – Author

If this were the case, I proposed that the strength acheived in the pre-magnet would be rate dependent, that is, would follow Faraday's law and that a magnetizing field with a faster rise/fall time would create a stronger field in the pre-magnet (which I did not believe in reality to be the case).

YOU NEVER READ FARADAY, moron........     

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

1. The currents that are induced into a pre-magnet by the magnetizer's changing field produce magnetic fields in opposition to the magnetizer's field. This is undesirable as it can limit the field strength achieved and produce unwanted heating.

Opposition to what fool?  Each side has a divergent and convergent vortex (divergent and convergent spheres).

You just quoted the obvious for WHAT REASON??

Its merely CALLED A "magnetizer" MORON, because it CREATES "magnets" , what is occurring is dielectric capacitance increase.

3. Modern magnetizers typically have >>>>>>>>>>>>>selectable capacitor values <<<<<<<<<<<<< and adjustable peak voltage values, which, in concert with magnetizer and jig >>>>>>>inductance<<<<<<<<, allow the time parameters of the magnetizer's field to be tailored to reduce the effects of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>induced currents. <<<<<<<<<<<<<As the magnetizer's field reaches its peak value, and briefly holds, all>>>>>>>>>>>> induced currents <<<<<<<<<<<<<cease as they are rate dependent (i.e., the currents are only induced while the magnetizer's field strength is changing) 

Its merely CALLED A "magnetizer" MORON, because it CREATES "magnets" , what is occurring is dielectric capacitance increase.

highlighted the parts your BRAIN GLOSSES OVER

5. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As it is currently understood<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ((((((((TRANSLATION.....WE STILL DONT KNOW))))))))))).........., and with various methods having been used to provide evidence thereof, all permanent magnet alloys, and ferrous materials in general, upon cooling below their Curie temp, form domains of approx. 10,000 atoms or atom groups. Each domain assumes a particular magnetic alignment and each domain can be considered as being already magnetized as if it were itself a magnet. Therefore, all PM alloys, and ferrous materials in general, can be considered already magnetized upon cooling below their Curie temp. The catch being that the domains assume a random, lowest energy, alignment that produces a near zero net field strength overall. There are also what are referred to as "pinning forces" that keep the domains in their random low energy orientations.

Best part of that quote    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As it is currently understood<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

7. The source of the magnetic field used as the source of the magnetizer field is unimportant.  For a given applied field strength, that field strength is identical irregardless of whether it comes from an electromagnet or PM (although their are practical considerations regarding the use of a PM as its field cannot be turned off). 

I SAID EXACTLY THAT MORON........ However try to get a NEO to hold its field by mere PM induction!!!!!!!!!  hahahah!!!!!

I can reverse polarity on a FERRITE in 1 second of contact (as shown in the video)     Idiot.     

[picowatt]

Another point I have is with regard to TA's insistence that whatever an electron actually is (by any other name), it is a discharge or absence of something, and states that there are no negative charges.

The term positive and negative are no different than east or west, up or down, north or south.  They just denote opposites.  Apparently, in TA's world, current flows from positive to negative (from something to an absence of something).

Those who understand electronics or who have played with VDG's, know that current actually flows from negative (a surplus of electrons) to positive (a lack of electrons).  Although conventional current flow is often considered as from plus to minus, we know in fact that the opposite occurs.

So, if we are to believe via TA that only positives exist and that there are no "negatives", i.e., flow from an area having charge to an area not having charge, why pick flow from positive to negative when it is the positive charge that is considered to be lacking?  Did he arbitrarily decide to pick on the electron because we assign the word "negative" to it as if it had an actual numerical meaning?

Personally it all seems like nothing more than semantics.

PW

[TheoriaApophasis]

Another point I have is with regard to TA's insistence that whatever an electron actually is (by any other name), it is a discharge or absence of something, and states that there are no negative charges.

There is no such BS as a "negative charge" only DISCHARGE. .........like saying a ball thrown in the AIR is a DIFFERENT ball that comes back (discharge)    ROFL

LEARN WHAT AN ELECTRON IS:::

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


      "In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to give an account of their nature." "For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us." - Einstein on electrons; "Relativity", by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916



Hahaahhaha

The term positive and negative are no different than east or west, up or down, north or south.  They just denote opposites.  Apparently, in TA's world, current flows from positive to negative (from something to an absence of something).

No, they do NOT denote  OPPOSITES.   A "negative charge" is like saying a "walking corpse"  or a "pregnant baby" or HOT ICE ..............   You have a brain VIRUS   

CHARGE  -   DISCHARGE 

Those who understand electronics or who have played with VDG's, know that current actually flows from negative (a surplus of electrons) to positive (a lack of electrons).  Although conventional current flow is often considered as from plus to minus, we know in fact that the opposite occurs.

Electrons? What electrons??    No such BS exists.

AC or DC?


ELECTRICAL OR DIELECTRIC?  ROFL !!!!!!!!


     Electricity is utterly a mass-free phenomena, as mentioned by many including Dr. Wilhelm Reich in his "Cosmic Superimposition". Mass has no logical or theoretical place in electrical units and all particle-based conceptions of it are impossible. There is no mass in T.E.M. (transverse electromagnetism).
     Mother nature has never taken a course in math, algebra and she absolutely rejects the nonsense espoused by quantum. 'She' knows only about charge-discharge, spatial-counterspatial and centripetal-centrifugal spin as binary conjugates to charges and discharges. Gravity, electromagnetism and matter are all modalities of the Ether, of charges and spin. There are no negatively "charged" particles in this universe. Negative electricity discharges while positive electricity charges. The negative depolarizing force functions in the opposite manner and direction to the positive polarizing force. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, only discharges, nor are there negatively charged particles, further still not one iota of proof for same. Charge and discharge are antinomies, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are mutual and co-eternal principle conditions. The commonly held belief in nonsense such as the notion that electricity is a stream of rolling electron beads thru a conductor is one of the most insane conceptual reifications of the definition of discharge as held by so-called intelligent minds.
     There are no electrons, negative charges, special-dimensions, warped space (resoundingly denied by Tesla and others), and no photons; only charge, induction and radiation/discharges and their relational spins, all as mediated thru the Ether. Quantum and Relativity is a quack religion of mathematical physics based upon the absurd premise that the universe is a giant sea of interactive massless tiny invisible beads and that space itself, nothing, mediates interactions and can be genuinely 'warped'. Such conceptual Atomistic reifications as amplified by GR (Relativity) cannot be enjoined, and the only genuine warping occurring is not out in the cosmos of space, but in the empty spaces between the ears of those who reify such absurdities; warped minds rationally would invent warped space; its purely logical in its insanity that the former produce the later.
     Space has only one dimension, space, which is a metrical dimension. The use of cubic notation is habit-based, any number of co-ordinates in any number of geometries can serve to define the boundaries of space. Nature is not governed by the irrational pontifications of GR and QM, rather it is governed by mutually interactive reciprocal conjugates of charges-discharges, centripetal-centrifugal movements, both spatial and counterspatial. Instantaneous action at a distance, and fields are all Ether modality mediations as propagated by counterspace-in-disturbance, the Ether, its pressure gradients and perturbations. No other mediator can be logically hypothesized, much less theorized. The very same Ether of Tesla, Heaviside, C.P. Steinmetz, and even originally from Einstein before logic fled his mind completely, was correct and remains so. Tesla outright denied our current definition of the electron as a 'discharge particle'.
     All electrons are a motional terminus of a quantity of dielectric pressure gradients of force (as reified by the incorrect understanding of the definition of a 'field'), these pressure gradients, or "lines" are contracting and stretching like rubber bands, giving motion to the terminus 'electron'. The thermionic 'electron' contracts, pulling the 'electron', the cathode ray stretching, pulled by the 'electron'. In the former case the lines of force are dissipated, in the latter case the line of force are projected, in both cases these so-called 'electrons' assume radial motions, with non participating pressure gradients, or forces filling the 'voids', directing the 'electrons'. Hence, it is the so-called 'electrons' (dielectric radial discharges) that travel in straight lines, that is, radially. 'Electrons' have nothing to do with the flow of electricity; the so-called 'electrons' are the rate at which electricity is destroyed. 'Electrons' are in fact the resistance. From extensive experimental work into atomic electrical science by J. J. Thompson, and Nikola Tesla, it is established that the so-called electron is only a shadow; its apparent-only physical mass is merely an electrical momentum (ejected by the dielectric inertia in disturbance). There is no rest mass to an electron nor could there be logically, a rest-electron 'bead'; such notions are absurd and evidence proven non-existent. The very premise is logically impossible and contradicts the rational physics of atomic charges and discharges.
      "In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to give an account of their nature." "For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us." - Einstein on electrons; "Relativity", by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916
     There is no such condition in nature as a negatively charge particle nor could there be. Charge and discharges are opposite conditions of a single subject, either protons or fields of movements and radiation of those same electrical fields. To claim that liquid in a jar (charged) is one thing, and pouring that liquid from the jar (discharge) is another liquid altogether, is nonsense, likewise compression and expansion are opposite conditions of a single subject. Compressing bodies are charging into higher potential conditions. Conversely, expanding bodies are discharging into lower potential conditions.


     "To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting particle. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions." –WR

     Thomson developed the "Ether Atom" ideas of M. Faraday into his "Electronic Corpuscle", this indivisible unit. One corpuscle terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not and electron, it is a constituent of what today is known incorrectly as an "electron". (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W. Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether."


     With the introduction of the so-called 'electron' by Thomson and the supposed debunking of the Ether theory, the golden age of electrical discovery ended. Tesla's Wardenclyffe tower was demolished. His work and that of other Ether researchers fell into disrepute. They were relentlessly attacked by mainstream science, something that continues to this day. As a result, the days of Ether-driven, electrical discovery petered-out, finally ending around 1930. As a direct and intentional result of the academic physics theory, the methodology behind the brilliant inventiveness of previous generations was all but wiped out and replaced by an unproductive particle physics. This, from the cult of quantum, a fraudulent collusion and academic hubris-based pseudo-conspiracy based in "deep thinking insanity" designed by mathematical physics.


     "Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the 'electron', on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated" - C.P. Steinmetz (Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses)

    The idea of electricity as a flow of 'electrons' in a conductor was regarded by Oliver Heaviside as "a psychosis". This encouraged Heaviside to begin a series of writings


     "Electrons as a separate, distinct entity...doesn't really exist, they are merely bumps in something called a 'field'."  - Dr. Steve Biller


     "Here we will dispel the "electronics nerd" concept that a capacitor stores "electrons" in its plates. Taking the pair of copper plates as in the previous experiment, but now we have two pairs of plates, one pair of plates distant from the other pair of plates. Upon one pair of plates is imposed an electro-static potential between them. The cube of 10-C oil is inserted between this "charged" set of plates. This hereby establishes a dielectric field of induction within the unit cube of 10-C oil. Now we then remove this cube of oil, withdrawing it from the space bounded by the charged pair of copper plates, and taking this unit cube of oil, it is then inserted into the space bounded by the other uncharged pair of plates. Upon insertion it is found that the un-charged pair of plates have now in fact become charged also. It here can be seen that a cube of dielectric induction can be carried through space, from one set of plates to another set of plates."

     Also consider the J.J. Thomson concept of the "electron" (his own discovery). Thomson considered the electron the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction.

     "The notion exists that the electro-motive force, E.M.F. in volts, is established by "cutting" lines of magnetic induction via a so-called electric conductor. This "cutting" is then said to impel the motions of so-called electrons within the conducting material. It is however that a perfect conductor cannot "cut" through lines of induction, or flux lines, Phi. Heaviside points out that the perfect conductor is a perfect obstructer and magnetic induction cannot gain entry into the so-called conducting material. So where is the current, how then does an E.M.F. come about? Now enters the complication; it can be inferred that an electrical generator that is wound with a perfect conducting material cannot produce an E.M.F. No lines of flux can be cut and the Ether gets wound up in a knot.
Heaviside remarks that the practitioners of his day "do a good deal of churning up the Ether in their dynamos". – E. Dollard

[picowatt]

TA,

if you somehow do not mean "electromagnetic" induction, I suggest you quit posting images of wireless power transmission systems as evidence or support of whatever it is you mean.  Those systems DO use (and obey) electromagnetic induction, and I am sure most readers here will agree, that is indeed what we thought you were saying (at least that is what I understood) precisely because you do post those wireless system images..

Also, you surely DID draw a distinction between creating a magnet with a PM versus some electrical means.  Again, I am sure most readers got that impression as well, in fact, you seem to draw a distinction between weak magnets and powerful magnets as if this difference is related to one being "charged" or having greater "capacitance" due to some electrical phenomenon. 

Again, that is indeed the impression you have given,  I'll leave it up to others to search back thru the invective that is this thread to look for quotes where you state as much.

PW