Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[sadang]

...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

Great and fundamental observation. And there are infinite more examples as this one, where science has no answer, or in the best case has some evasive answers. What people can't and I suppose don't want to understand, is the actual science is just a model to shape the reality. A model governed by money and interests. Wrong premises, wrong development, wrong results!

[MarkE]

Doesn't Occam's only apply if we're using the same data?

That's right, if two different hypotheses predict the same observed result (from the same test conditions) then the simpler of the two is the more likely correct.  If Ken Wheeler's ideas cannot make correct predictions where the ideas he rejects do, then he is pretty much dead in the water.

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.

Ken Wheeler performs various demonstrations and makes representations concerning those demonstrations, which is all fine and well.  He then proclaims that existing theory is wrong, and that he has better ideas.  So there are three things that we want to know: 1) Is there a set of conditions where existing E/M theory makes incorrect predictions?  2) Does an alternate theory make correct predictions for those circumstances?  3) Does that alternate theory also make the same correct predictions in all the cases that existing E/M theory does?  If all three are found to be true, then the alternate theory is superior and should supplant existing E/M theory.

As dissatisfying as anyone might find anything that they understand current theory to say, there is nothing more dissatisfying than theory that makes incorrect predictions.  We pretty much find our way through the darkness by noting when our current theories predict incorrectly.  Coming up with a way to patch or replace existing theory when it predicts incorrectly has driven Western science for 300 years.   At this juncture, over a very wide scale, existing E/M theory makes very, very accurate predictions.  That does not mean that it is the end-all or even that it is right.  It means that to substitute an alternate theory, the alternate theory has to clear a very high bar. 

[minnie]

    Do electrons exist as particles? Ken says that's rubbish. Electrons are a
key feature of chemical reactions and must be fairly well understood by now.
Can anyone put me out of my misery?
      Thank you anyone,
                               John.

[TheoriaApophasis]

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.

you miss a fundamental mental defect (not as per yourself) in these assholes of Quantum bullshit.


They make often correct experimentations, and make wholly INCORRECT conclusions from same.


I can verify the phase shift of dielectric retardation in an electrical system and CONCLUDE same is due to subatomic unicorns which force the phase shift.


The experiment can be VALIDLY reproduced a 1000000 times, but the conclusions, the premise, the theory of the phenomena is 100% INVALID



This is the same mental defect the moron Einstein won a Nobel prize for as per his photoelectric effect,

his conclusions are 100% both impossible AND invalid.

[MarkE]

    Do electrons exist as particles? Ken says that's rubbish. Electrons are a
key feature of chemical reactions and must be fairly well understood by now.
Can anyone put me out of my misery?
      Thank you anyone,
                               John.

Everytime TK displays a waveform on one of his analog scopes the display is a result of the phosphor being excited supposedly by electrons crashing into the phosphor.  You can read all about how the cathode ray tube in each of those scopes are believed to work:  A hot cathode serves as a willing source of those electrons which then get accelerated by the anode voltage towards the viewing end of the tube.  The greater the anode current, the brighter the dot on the phosphor.  So whatever electrons are they seem able to collide with phosphors and the phosphors then emit light.  We can also set up an electron beam and measure mechanical force of that beam hitting a target.  We can also set up experiments and strip the devils off into a plasma and observe apparent mass.  Those are particle-like behaviors.  But then the little devils also exhibit very wave-like behaviors.  We can always hope that there will come a very fundamental breakthrough where we can simply and elegantly explain these behaviors we see.  For now we plod along with the curious idea that they are both particles and waves because that is how they have appeared to us for almost 130 years.