Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[TheoriaApophasis]

correctly predict: propagation delay, insertion loss, and phase

I have 300+ more pages to add, and the answer is yes, I can.


As for your Ockham's razor analogy, you incorrectly attribute connotation to same rather than denotation.


However, my premise is as simplex as could ever be dreamed.  Pressure mediation in inertia reciprocation ala the Poincare' disk model hyperboloid of magnetic divergence is so simplex as to be divine.



As for your Ockhams razor analogy:


copyright 2010 Ken L Wheeler
William of Ockham, famous for a take upon his statement that one should not multiply entities beyond necessity "Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate"; now known only as "Ockham's razor" was a metaphysical conclusion taken upon himself from the Platonic texts to which he was oft to have studied. It is certainly true that Ockham's position to wit that the only "true necessity was that of God; all else is a (compounded) contingency" is at least nearly correct, as taken from the position of his Creationist mentality which cannot be cleaved from Ockham's error that the Absolute was a composite entity with self-sentience, i.e. God.
     From this obviously untenable position it is of no surprise that  "Ockham's razor" is often wielded as an argument against a Creationist theos by the equally ignorant nihilists and metaphysical atheists who realize the incommensurate errors which lie at the heart of positing the Absolute as more than the essence of being, but rather a supreme being in and of itself, to which the Platonists are vociferously apposite. It is therefore ironic that Ockham himself was a Creationist merely well versed and agreed with the logical Monism as found in the Platonic texts to which he was well learned, save for subjective adaptation to fit into his God-model of cosmic mechanics.
     Ockham was arguably important in physics for his view, apparently an application of his razor, that motion is essentially self-conserving in itself without need of any causal force to which it need be added that Monism's very core denies a "first sin" or "original cause" for the descent of being into empirical entrapment. The great "secret", for lack of better designation, of Emanationism (proodos) and Platonic Monism is that descent and embodiment are ananke (necessitated, unavoidable; choate principle and attribute of the Absolute itself) to which wisdom's revelation invokes the divine insight in the seeker that what the Absolute "is" and what it "does" are without distinction, in whole or in part, and are one and the very same essence, that being nous, or spirit, will, or "mind" in the non-empirical sense. To which what spirit 'is' and its attribute (what it 'does') are without differentiation.
     Rightly so, his skepticism to which his ontological divine-simplicity request leads, appears in his doctrine that human reason can prove neither the immortality of the soul nor the existence, unity, and infinity of God. These truths, he teaches, are known to us by noetic revelation alone; logically all empirical speculation and theories are objective consubstantial conscious machinations which can neither provide revelation or bring about assimilation, i.e. bring proximity of the spirit to itself.
     "Ockham's razor", in summation, lays contrary to the Creationist-God of Ockham himself but equally and intensely so against that of the materialist-nihilist. Ignoring this nuance as defect in the engrained Abrahamic mentality of Ockham's Euro-Christian mentality, his "razor" sits at the very cornerstone and foundation upon which Platonism, logic and truth are built. This divine edifice of Emanationist Monism to which Ockham himself is famous for, but which he merely rediscovered, is the "supreme simplicity" which is stunningly simplex, yet which composes the entire mechanics of Emanationism/Platonic Monism. All beauty and complexity in nature are based upon Phi or Phi composites and it is certainly no surprise this divine ratio (Phi is to 1, as 1 is to Phi; or that Phi and 1 are but both the same thing, one delineated, the other numerated principle) was center of much study by the Platonists and the Pythagoreans before them (and before them?...).
     Given a great deal of sufficient wisdom (to which I am thankful to possess much) it must be stated that just beneath the ecstatic unspeakable and transcendent bliss of synthesis with the Absolute, this holy union of Self with Self/Absolute; second to this is the intense stupefaction one is blessed to 'see', as product of wisdom, the incredible simplicity, the necessity ("it cannot be another way") of the mechanics of totality. The elimination internally of all of mankind's most common and many metaphysical "whys" wiped for all eternity from ones soul, is a spiritual Kingship that cannot be described in any sense or relation to another. "Ockham's razor" is merely a very late and rehashed statement attributed to William of Ockham as to his insights gleaned from his Platonic studies; just as all things known and unknown are, there is "nothing new under the sun, only things said and lost, and rediscovered and made new again".
     What is most important of this "razor" is that, unlike the nihilism of atheism and illogic of Creationism, Emanationism stands at the epicenter of abductive logic, of truth, of unspeakably divine simplicity, of incontrovertibility, as the undeniable model of totality and the cosmos both spiritual and material. Thereof the wise and fool alike are begged to take precious time to study and come to internally know (gnosis, not episteme) what is true and most beneficial. Just as the Aryan kneels with bent head before the holy alter of wisdom (the same alter upon which the gods themselves also 'sacrifice') and which can bear one upon spiritual holistics, and the noetic righting of all former errors.
     He who has not, before the alter of truth, vowed to sacrifice all to know what forever remains unknown to the common and profane many, shall not come to 'see' what leads to salvation and wisdom which transcends the antinomies of life and death; and which woefully perpetuates oneself thru eons of suffering and ignorance. Those super-rare wise become the unmarked and holy who cannot be counted or seen by the woes of this world and the demons who prey upon the helpless. They bear no debts or burdens; the children of ignorance are for them utterly gone for all eternity. Any who looks for such ones will only come upon a named body but never shall they find the Person who has been "wiped clean forever from the slate of birth and death".
     What abnormal stupefaction the wise are blessed with to have wisdom into the incredible simplicity behind the mechanics of all things. Truly it takes much wisdom to rise above the trees to see the forest and at once know beginning and end and all things tween' both and marvel and rejoice in wisdom's fruit which bears witness to such a profound revelation few else can fathom. The "razor" is not Ockham's, nor the Platonists, but it is supremely true, is timeless, and revelation nonetheless; a paradigm the wise will nod to as acknowledgement of what they know as unquestionably accurate about the Absolute.

[TheoriaApophasis]

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.

I have said NOT ONE THING AT ALL at odds with:

Faraday
Steinmetz
Heaviside
and Tesla


rather have a far more evolved understanding of said topic of the WHAT, WHY, HOW of Magnetism (vs. the magnet, which is another denotative Subject entirely, that being coherent mass polarization).



'Magnetism is..the 'dielectric field' -Faraday


Tesla on Magnetism:::::
"About fifteen years ago, Prof. Rowland demonstrated a most interesting and important fact, namely, that a static charge carried around produces the effects of an electric current." "...and conceiving the electrostatically charged molecules in motion, this experimental fact gives us a fair idea of magnetism. We can conceive lines or tubes of force which physically exist, being formed of rows of directed moving molecules; we can see that these lines must be closed, that they must tend to shorten and expand, etc. It likewise explains in a reasonable way, the most puzzling phenomenon of all, permanent magnetism, and, in general, has all the beauties of the Ampere theory without possessing the vital defect of the same, namely, the assumption of molecular currents. Without enlarging further upon the subject, I would say, that I look upon all electrostatic, current and magnetic phenomena as being due to electrostatic molecular forces." N. Tesla

In his 1891 A.I.E.E. lecture at Columbia College: "What is electricity, and what is magnetism? "...We are now confident that electric and magnetic phenomena are attributable to the ether, and we are perhaps justified in saying that the effects of static electricity are effects of ether in motion", "...we may speak of electricity or of an electric condition, state or effect", "...we must distinguish two such effects, opposite in character neutralizing each other", "...for in a medium of the properties of the ether, we cannot possibly exert a strain, or produce a displacement or motion of any kind, without causing in the surrounding medium an equivalent and opposite effect." "...its condition determines the positive and negative character." "We know that it acts like an incompressible fluid;" "...the electro-magnetic theory of light and all facts observed teach us that electric and ether phenomena are identical." "The puzzling behavior of the ether as a solid to waves of light and heat, and as a fluid to the motion of bodies through it, is certainly explained in the most natural and satisfactory manner by assuming it to be in motion, as Sir William Thomson has suggested." "Nor can anyone prove that there are transverse ether waves emitted from an alternate current machine; to such slow disturbances, the ether, if at rest, may behave as a true fluid. Electricity, therefore, cannot be called ether in the broad sense of the term; but nothing would seem to stand in the way of calling electricity ether associated with matter, or bound ether; or, in other words, that the so-called static charge of the molecule is ether associated in some way with the molecule." N. Tesla




The VISIBLE hypotrochoid pattern of magnetic reciprocation as seen using the Ferrocell follows my prediction 100% BEFORE I was even aware of the existence of the Ferrocell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo_k62pi8Vg



Likewise I have the extremely simplex formula for the HOW, and WHY of same, its a simplex PRESSURE HYPERBOLOID of the loss of inerita in coherent polarized reciprocation around an inertial equilibrium of dielectric potential.

[MarkE]

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.

Einstein got his Nobel prize for his explanation of the photoelectric effect.  Hertz was the first to report the effect.  The effect is real enough and readily observed.  It is true that one can easily conduct experiments that generate misleading information.  Sometimes it has taken decades to fix misconceptions that came from faulty experiments. 

As to whether Einstein's explanations are correct or not, they are observed to make accurate predictions.  We only know a theory is preposterous when it makes outrageously wrong predictions.  If a theory held that the universe is governed by reptilian humors, and that theory correctly predicted outcomes without fail, as absurd as the underlying idea might seem, it would be really hard to argue with the results.  Any better idea than Einstein's has to predict at least as well as they do, and correctly predict where his explanation fails.  Be it semiconductor junctions, or LASERs we have lots and lots of observations of energy gaps that behave just as quantum theory predicts, whether or not it is correct.

[TheoriaApophasis]

    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.

CORRECTION,.........


Tesla said it was rubbish

So too did many countless others...


Nikola Tesla November 1928 interview:
On the whole subject of matter, in fact, Dr. Tesla holds views that are startlingly original. He disagrees with the accepted atomic theory of matter, and does not believe in the existence of an "electron" as pictured by science.
"To account for its apparently small mass, science conceives of the electron as a hollow sphere, a sort of bubble, such a bubble could exist in a medium as a gas or liquid because its internal pressure is not altered by deformation. But if, as supposed, the internal pressure of an electron is due to the repulsion of electric masses, the slightest conceivable deformation must result in the destruction of the bubble! Just to mention another improbability..." - Nikola Tesla
Article: "A Famous Prophet of Science Looks into the Future" (Popular Science Monthly)


"My ideas regarding the electron are at variance with those generally entertained. I hold that it is a relatively large entity carrying a surface charge and is not an elementary unit (particle). When the 'electron' leaves an electrode of high potential and in a high vacuum it carries an electrostatic charge many times greater than normal." – N. Tesla



      "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

     "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." – W. Russell

     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." – E. Dollard


     "There is no rest mass to an 'electron'. It is given here the 'electron' is no more than a broken loose "hold fast" under the grip of the tensions within the dielectric lines of force. They are the broken ends of the split in half package of spaghetti. Obviously this reasoning is not welcome in the realm of Einstein's Theory of Relativity." – E. Dollard

     "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

    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.


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




     You cannot say that stretching a trillion rubber bands nailed to the floor and releasing them or breaking their "force lines" is the "flow of electrons"; discharge is a terminal movement in systems of inductance or dielectric capacitance.  There are no discrete particles in the universe and certainly none that mediate charges, discharges, magnetism, electromagnetism, gravity, and radiation, only fields, all modalities of the Ether. The so-called 'electrons' are not particles, not objects or subjects but are the dynamic principle of discharge, and are certainly not charge-carriers, fields are not particles, are not "electrons", nor assuredly are there energy discharges in the vacuum of space involving 'electrons'; the 'electron' is a fiction of fallacious observation and an even more faulty mental acuity, spawned naturally from the minds of materialists, or an Atomist. Electricity is Ether in a state of dynamic polarization; magnetism is Ether in a state of dynamic circular polarization upon itself, is the radiative termination of electrical discharge; dielectricity is the Ether under stress or strain. The motions and strains of the Ether give rise to electrification. Phi times Psi gives Q; 'electrons' do not mediate these electrical and magnetic forces or their likewise the Ether fields.   



Anyone who thinks particles are flowing thru a wire has a mental DEFECT.





This Electron = Particle bullshit is nothing more than Greek ATOMISM.      The universe is NOT a giant sea of tiny pool balls rolling and banging and spinning.


Such ABSURD SUBHUMAN insane thinking belongs in the stone age. 

[TheoriaApophasis]

Einstein got his Nobel prize for his explanation of the photoelectric effect.


As to whether Einstein's explanations are correct or not, they are observed to make accurate predictions.

He got a Nobel prize for CORRECT observation and 100% INCORRECT conclusions.



I can make accurate predictions about X, and say it is due to "tiny unicorns"

This however is NOT science, is NOT logical, and is pure rank filth.





YOU SAID::Einstein got his Nobel prize for his explanation


His explanation is 100% INCORRECT.      Nobody is in denial of the experiment or results........

The Nobel prize was given for a 100% INCORRECT explanation.



You missed the boat



The Photoelectric effect lie corrected, the dielectric discharge effect

The erroneous idiocy of Einstein's mental failure as currently thought of as a "wave packet" is in fact a dielectric pulse in the radial center of EM propagation. This pulse is proportional to the frequency, the intensity of the EM being emitted as the Z-axis radial-dielectric (wrongly called photo-electric) charges indicate from experimentation. The Quantum notion of a "wave packet" and the 'photon' do not exist in the electromagnetic-dielectric model of the EM spectrum. They are phantom misunderstandings of electrodynamics, dielectric capacitance and reciprocating mutual conjugation by and thru magneto-spatial and dielectric-counterspatial co-axial energy formations.

The test and results of the photoelectric experiment are, of course, completely accurate and valid, the explanation however (where myopic pseudo-science fails typically) is a pure insane fantasy, both illogical, irrational, absurd, and purely the insane conclusion of Einstein's idiocy and his atomistic proclivities. Einstein had absolute NO training or study in electrical theory ala Tesla, Faraday, Maxwell and others. His only acclaim, his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect (not its results, but its explanation!) is a complete lie, fabrication and utter farce in the extreme.

Insanity defined in pure rarified form: "Photons have no mass, but they have momentum and they have an energy". A massless mass/particle is an absurd premise in the extreme, in defining the so-called photon, which in reality is a radial dielectric Z-axis component of the so-called "electromagnetism". It has inertia (not momentum, which is applicable to mass/matter), it of course has energy and is the only component of light that is the source for the energy of both its discharge as magnetism, and its magneto-dielectric mirror in transverse composition as electricity in the dielectro-electromagnetic true nature of light. This applies to the entire 'electromagnetic' spectrum. Light itself (as this work expands in form and editions) cannot exist without a Z-axis radial dielectric component, absolutely no different than the coaxial cable.

Below: The lie of the "photoelectric effect" showing non-existent electrons being shot off the reflector. Replace E with energy of the dielectric, h Planck and f frequency remain the same. This diagram is a lie fundamentally since the charged induction from the dielectric resides as capacitance between two charging plates, there is NOTHING (as the wrongly implied 'discharge particle') shot off the surface material, and certainly no electrons.


     Dielectricity has the attributes of a refractive index depending on the field or material encountered (dielectric, diamagnetic, ferrous, etc.), dielectric inductivity and a luminal velocity when bounded by a co-axial electromagnetic geometry. This dielectric nature explains photoelectrical effects, refraction, dispersion, wave-particle dualities, diffusion, slow down in a dielectric medium, polarization phenomena, and high frequency power in electromagnetics.
     In the magneto-electric-dielectric geometry of "electromagnetism", all magnetic lines are closed in upon themselves and likewise induce the dielectric conductor to electrification. Likewise the dielectric lines of force are counterspatially self terminating in radiating thru space and are the 'crankshaft' for electrical and magnetic reciprocation and inductance, which cannot, may not, as is commonly believed "self induce" each other.


The so-called "photoelectric effect" explains why the energy of the charging dielectric was dependent only on the frequency of the incident light and not on its intensity: a low-intensity, high-frequency source could supply a few high energy dielectric pulsations, whereas a high-intensity, low-frequency source would supply no radial dielectric pulsations of sufficient energy to cause charge upon the striking surface.

Einstein's unintelligent conclusions were that this wrongly conceived "photoelectric effect" contradicted the wave theory of light that followed by J.C. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic behavior, however the truth of course is that this observed effect is the resultant of charging from dielectric inductance from the radial center-co-axial nature of high-energy and frequency light which is dielectro-electromagnetic. Contrary to belief, they did not contradict Maxwell's equations in the observed results, rather proved the central axial conductor of electromagnetism, the dielectric, however wrongly interpreted and understood by the lesser mind of Einstein.


The wrongly conceived photoelectric effect helped to propel the then-emerging quantum mysticism forward in a radical fashion. Light simultaneously possesses the characteristics of both waves and particles, each being manifested according to the circumstances, however horribly misunderstood by Einstein and his henchmen, and likewise their blind followers.
The effect was impossible to be understood in terms of the classical wave descriptions of light obviously, since the energy of the charge did not depend on the intensity of the incidental EM radiation.





...and of course Tesla had it RIGHT:

     "There is something frightening about the universe when we consider that only our senses of sound and sight make it beautiful. The universe is darker than the darkest ink, colder than the coldest ice and more silent than a silent tomb. Sight and sound are our only avenues through which we can perceive it all...there is a third sense which have failed to discover."
     "The fascination of the (false) electromagnetic theory of light, advanced by Maxwell and subsequently experimentally investigated by Hertz, was so great that even now, although controverted, the (idiot) scientific minds are under its sway. This theory supposed the existence of a medium which was solid yet permitted bodies to pass through it without resistance; (this absurdity is) tenuous behind conception, and yet according to out conceptions of mechanical principles and ages of experience, such a medium was absolutely impossible. Light was (wrongly) considered such a phenomena bound up in that kind of medium, namely transmitting transverse vibrations like a solid."
     "What then can light be if NOT a transverse vibration(s)? I consider this extremely important. Light cannot be anything but a longitudinal (Z-axis radial!) disturbance in the Ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. Light can be nothing else (phenomenally so) than a sound wave in the Ether."
     "This appears clearly, if it is first realized that there is no Maxwellian Ether, therefore there can be no transverse oscillation in the medium. The Newtonian theory is in error, because it fails entirely in not being able to explain how a small candle can project (light) with the same speed at the blazing sun, which has immensely higher temperatures (and power). We have made sure by experiment that light propagates with the same velocity irrespective of the character of the source! Such consistency of velocity can only be explained by assuming that it is dependent solely on the 'physical' properties of the (Ether) medium, especially its density and its elastic (potential of) force." – Nikola Tesla



"All literature on this subject (relativity) is futile and destined to oblivion. So are also all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the Ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena (of gravity, etc.)" – N. Tesla