Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[d3x0r]

Nobody on earth has EVER just "moved a magnetic field"  ,  theyve DISPLACED ONE with reflector and directors.

Other than the people in videos dragging magnets with other magnets.... obviously they're moving a magnetic field.

[TheoriaApophasis]

The edges of the magnet produce magnetic "storms" by motion through space (an absolute effect) which are equivalent to negative (VxB) effects.  The "storms" are vortices, and we saw these "storms" in the magnetic vortex videos with the hydrogen bubbles, so I don't know why you are shocked by the usage of the word "storms".  I confirmed what you said, but I used the language of the research paper instead of the language which is more acceptable to you.  You are your own worst enemy!

Gravock

Nope.      I proved the formula AND method for these few weeks ago and posted BOTH the video and formula.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHDsnO3y7CA



Below: Mathematical proof that centripetal contracting fields "draw out" convergent spheres of a vortex-toroid, and centrifugal fields "draw out" expanding divergent vortex-toroid spheres. This golden section ratio of divergence and convergence is convergent centripetal fields = centripetal radius of 1; and centrifugal divergent fields are a radius of centripetal-1-value times (Phi+Phi [3.23606]). Or: (C1radius x 3.23606 = C2 radius) which all together = Phi cubed (C1r+Phi+Phi = 4.23606). Phi in the circle = golden angle of 137.5077 degrees. 1 in the circle = C1 radius which is 85 degrees. 

[TheoriaApophasis]

Other than the people in videos dragging magnets with other magnets.... obviously they're moving a magnetic field.

You keep forgetting what is "shitting out" magnetism............dieletricity.   


I said " JUST A magnetic field"


Like saying you only "moved Sally, ....but not Sally's body"   


every 360 degrees of a single cycle of the turn of a magnet you have:
2 Ether-field modalities: dielectricity and magnetism (of course).
6 total pressure domain fluctuations, 2 centripetal, 2 centrifugal, and 2 dielectric
10 field-boundary gradients
   

[d3x0r]

Magnetic induction in a wire does not require relative motion.  In 1988 Prof Francisco J. Muller completed a series of experiments, substituting Faraday's rotating disk and magnet by a filamentary circuit, one portion of which is immersed in a magnetic field (inside a gap between ceramic magnets) while the other remains outside the magnetic field. (The field is confined within iron plates).  By introducing a capacitive branch he could demonstrate that the induction occurs, indeed, in the wire that moves with the magnet, without need of relative motion. A variation of the experiment in rectilinear fashion makes this anti-relativistic conclusion totally unavoidable, invalidating the recourse to General Relativity. A list of other publications by Muller can be found at the World Science Database.

For the rotational case in Figure 1 there is a potential difference induced between O and R due to the ABSOLUTE ROTATION of the system, in-spite of the absence of relative motion between the magnet and wire.  In Figure 1, all of the velocities are parallel or tangential to the magnetic edges.  For the translational case in Figure 2 there is no induction between O and R.  In figure 2, the B field is the same, the speeds also are similar, and no relative motion exists as in Figure 1. Why the difference?

In Figure 1, all of the velocities are parallel or tangential to the magnetic edges.  In figure 2, most of the velocities have components perpendicular to those edges.  As a result, in Figure 2 the edges of the magnet produce magnetic "storms" by motion through space (an absolute effect) which are equivalent to negative (VxB) effects.  The latter cancels the positive (VxB) fields thus yielding zero net induction.

Gravock

And demonstrated on http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/homopolar.htm
Rotation is a relative motion.  It's not linear... but it is a change in space over time of various points of the disk.
Are there relative motions that do not cause induction? Certainly.  Are there any non-relative motions that cause induction? No.

[TheoriaApophasis]

And demonstrated on http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/homopolar.htm
Rotation is a relative motion.  It's not linear... but it is a change in space over time of various points of the disk.
Are there relative motions that do not cause induction? Certainly.  Are there any non-relative motions that cause induction? No.

Physical motion is not = FIELD MOTION in direction proportionality.


Fields dont "see" physicality, or space, or time.     Induction OVER time, doesnt mean its time and space is inversely affecting all forms of fields already existent.

Causality in EMF is not what people think it is.


ala Dr. Oleg D. Jefimenko's long and detailed works.    And all HE did was actually READ Maxwell and Faraday.




Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation: A Different Approach to the Theory of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields

http://www.amazon.com/Causality-Electromagnetic-Induction-Gravitation-Gravitational/dp/0917406230/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407495233&sr=8-1&keywords=oleg+d.+jefimenko