Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[MarkE]

I joined this forum just for this topic. I know next to nothing about electricity and magnetism. I however have been reading Wheeler's work in metaphysics for some years and he kindly answers my questions on e-mail. When he started with the magnetism stuff I tried to keep up, and it was good because I started reading more about science and it prevented me from falling in irrational mysticism.

I read most of this topic, that is pertaining to the main discussions. Due to not knowing the subject I can't say wether wheeler is right about magnetism, I can attest however his intelligence, and his dedication to learning. Having read metaphysics I can also attest how wise he is on this topic.

Having also accompanied some of the work on magnetism, I can attest to the amazing metaphysical insight one can get from his ideas. For example, in most traditional metaphysics it is said that matter is the void inside out (making it simple). So his theories on counterspace-space are in agreement. That's just one of many examples, and I could derive many things from his work on magnetism that give great insight into life.

It seems to me, pardon if I'm wrong, that to resolve the question of the heat from the magnet one must only, if the difference would be measurable, perform the FLIR recording with both a big magnet and a non-magnetic same size piece of whatever the magnet is made of. One would hope to see the great heat in the magnet, but not on the plain iron - or whatever the magnet was made of. (that is, the question of wether the CAMERA itself is responsible for the heat, as some suggested).

I have no way of knowing wether user's Mile High accusations against wheeler are true - I however will continue to communicate with him asking questions whenever possible, both on metaphysics and science whenever possible at his disposal.

And I agree that his demeanor on this topic was pretty awful. 

What you should look for is whether an idea leads to a testable hypothesis.  So if for example someone has the idea that some aspect of electromagnetics as currently taught is wrong, then they ought to be able to come up with an experiment that would demonstrate that failure. The flip side is that if someone has an alternate idea of how things work, then their ideas ought to be reducible to testable hypotheses.  One could then run falsification experiments to see if those hypotheses hold water.

Given that there are simulation tools on the market that have been tested and shown to produce accurate results from DC to 1THz that are all based on current electromagnetic theory, I think that showing up a fundamental flaw in current electromagnet theory is going to be a pretty difficult feat.  Given that there is quite a bit of technology in use today that has been developed on the basis of special relativity being correct, arguments against it better be able to account for why it seems to work, and work so accurately.  That doesn't mean it is right:  Ptolemy famously accounted for the movement of many heavenly bodies with his epicycles.  So it is always possible that ideas like special relativity give the right answers for the wrong reasons.  But someone has to be able to show that it is really wrong.

[profitis]

Quote frm E:'what you should look for is whether an idea leads to a testable hypothesis.'

End quote

Excellent.repeatability always number 1

[Jimboot]

  But someone has to be able to show that it is really wrong.

Hi Mark,
WHilst I agree with the premise of what you are saying, do they have to show it is really wrong or just a better theory. i.e. Electric Universe theory about comets vs dirty snowball one. Certainly Ken has demonstrated a lot about magnetism that I haven't seen anywhere else. I see a lot of parallels with what he is doing and what the E.U. guys are showing. Esp on the aspect of the aether.

[MarkE]

Hi Mark,
WHilst I agree with the premise of what you are saying, do they have to show it is really wrong or just a better theory. i.e. Electric Universe theory about comets vs dirty snowball one. Certainly Ken has demonstrated a lot about magnetism that I haven't seen anywhere else. I see a lot of parallels with what he is doing and what the E.U. guys are showing. Esp on the aspect of the aether.

Given two competing ideas that make the same correct predictions Occam tells us that the simpler of the two is more likely the correct one.  I highly doubt that Ken Wheeler could for example apply his ideas and correctly predict: propagation delay, insertion loss, and phase in an ordinary printed circuit microstrip transmission line.

[Jimboot]

Given two competing ideas that make the same correct predictions Occam tells us that the simpler of the two is more likely the correct one.  I highly doubt that Ken Wheeler could for example apply his ideas and correctly predict: propagation delay, insertion loss, and phase in an ordinary printed circuit microstrip transmission line.

Doesn't Occam's only apply if we're using the same data? To my simple mind what Ken is showing is significant bloch walls moving, spirographic patterns of mag flux, Laithwaite's work  etc. I don't have the knowledge to answer your questions of predictions but I do know when conventional science tells me infinity is expanding at an accelerating speed with no extra input, something is screwy and alternate theories are required.