Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[TheoriaApophasis]

That is an assertion.  I would like to see proof of the assertion.

ALL of QM and GR is an unsubstantiated ASSERTION with 0% evidence.


QM and GR have never ---------- defined or explained a FIELD

QM and GR have never ----------explained IAAD (instant action at a distance)

QM and GR have never ----------defined even 1% of Cosmic mechanics, ala  PARTICLE FREE magnetic reciprocation.



QM and GR does not EXIST outside a bubble particles and unicorn-particles for which NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER EXISTS



QM and GR are no diff. than a sick religion based upon shit NEVER OBSERVED. 


That you IGNORE this fact, is proof of your enormous mental defect.




Lets HEAR from your goddamn PRIESTS of GR and QM!! 


QED PRIEST says:::: "when common sense fails (to explain things rationally), uncommon sense must be created"----- L. Susskind.

QED PRIEST says::::  "Where common sense and intuition failed, we (the insane relativists) had to create a new form of intuition based upon abstract (unreal) mathematics. When common sense fails, we must create uncommon sense." -------Leonard Susskind, professor theoretical physics, and priest of the cult of Quantum

QED PRIEST says::::  "Everything we call real is made up of things that cannot be real." –------ N. Bohr

QED PRIEST says::::   "The more you see how strange nature behaves, the harder it is for us to make a model that explains even the how the most simple phenomena works. Theoretical physics has given up on this pursuit." ----– R. Feynman

Haaaa!!!!   

Translation :  "Insanity and illogical BS is actually logical !!!"




Again::::: -------      "how nature behaves..............Theoretical physics has given up on this pursuit." --------– R. Feynman




BELOW:  bohr, einstein, planck, gamow, heisenberg, shrodinger

These SIX SICK FUCKS are your priests who sat around dreaming up ....warped space bullshit

gravity particles
virtual particles
etc etc.


Its 100% PURE goddamn GREEK ATOMISM




Space is NEITHER a FORCE, NOR a FIELD, it does nothing, and cannot ACT on anything.

.....however ALL of GR and QM reifies space as "something that does and acts on things"


Tesla called this brain fart  "rank nonsense"

[profitis]

Theoria:Space is NEITHER a FORCE, NOR a FIELD, it does nothing, and
cannot ACT on anything'

Me: aha but without a nothing a something cannot be perceived,exist.without a something a nothing cannot be perceived,exist.relativity sticks

[Qwert]

actually he DOES, he had 2 quotes ive found speaking about "vortices.......in the rotating magnetic fields"

May we know the reference?

[TheoriaApophasis]

Me: aha but without a nothing a something cannot be perceived,exist.without a something a nothing cannot be perceived,exist.relativity sticks

Greeks defined that fallacy ages ago.


Absence cannot be reified. 


Youve reified a SHADOW (space) as giving the parameter of projective geometry (inertia) to Geometry itself (spatial phenomena).


However the FORMER (inertia) affects the LATER (space) 

NEVER THE INVERSE


Light is necessary to define a shadow, not the inverse


superficially this seems splitting hairs, however its ultimately of supreme importance.

without a something a nothing cannot be perceived,

Two things people think "exists"-----

1. nothing
2. emptiness


NEITHER ONE EXISTS denotatively.  Its a logical impossibility


Both are relational parameters to something else.


I can say "Alaska is empty of palm trees", but  "empty of palm trees" is not something, its a relational via negativa (apophatic) in defining "Alaska" or the parameters of same.


Zen and much of mahayana buddhism suffers this bullshit fallacy talking about "finding emptiness" , which as a Pali translator myself of 20 years, does NOT exist in doctrine.


ABCDEF are Not-X , are  empty (of X), is not a qualification of or reification of "empty"



Subject precedes objects of negation, the very term "empty" and "nothing" and "emptiness" are relational qualifiers of SOMETHING ELSE, and do not exist in any parameter of qualified substantiality.



1. person 1..." i saw emptiness" ......(said the Zen idiot)
2. person 2........"oh yeah, who saw it???"
3. person 1........."I saw it"!!
4. person 2............"if you saw it , it wasnt empty"
5. person 1............"what???"
6. person 2..........."if you saw it, it contained a witness, yourself, and therefore wasnt empty at all"


harf harf harf 

[TheoriaApophasis]

May we know the reference?

sure thing, download the FREE book off of scribd.com called "TESLA SAID"


do a word search with PDF Acrobat


If you cant find the book, ill link it for you.