Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[Qwert]

Tesla however DID say that--------- "magnetism......electrostatic in origin"- Tesla


which of course is TRUE, its the loss of dielectric/electrostatic INERTIA

So??? Where (in Tesla's works) is the definition of "rotating magnetic fields"?

[joel321]

TA, we have two kinds of people in this world. Those that are money hungry and those that are knowledge hungry.

Mostly the money hungry are the stupid ones that become donkeys chasing the carrot. Then we have those smart lucky ones that break free from the ignorant system that have money and can even wipe their ass with 100 dollar bills if they wanted too.

Right now it seems that one needs to be a billionaire to get others respect. So why don't we teach the billionaires to be smart conscious?

Steps are:

1- learn truth!
2- make millions.
3- teach other to make millions.
4- educate the poor to make millions
5- everyone will become millionaires....that way no one will be poor...lol

When that happens, everyone would be focusing on truth and not getting confused by greed.

Anyways, I'm with you. In all magnetism and in light or sound waves, there is this OPPOSITE wave that makes the wave continue to wave.

In DC current there is this "wave" that continues to push the DC current...IN AC wave there is this opposite wave that makes it AC. There has to be an opposite wave.

Even in light waves. There is an opposite wave to any wave in any hertz. Which makes me think of magnetism....the only reason a magnet is magnetic is because there are some opposite waves that make it magnetic. Which regarding any light color, there is always an opposite "wave" to make it green, yellow, blue, etc. which bring me back to the "vortex" a vortex is just the OPPOSITE wave. Which all waves have. = dark space. (cannot be detected). If a wave is curving, it must be curving due to repulsion and attraction. If a wave was all positive, then all waves would just be straight lines.

The only reason we see blue , yellow, black, orange, is because of the opposite waves frequencies that our eyes "decode".

There is a lot to yet be learn man. These dumb asses are stupid dumb asses! Lol.

My two cents!

[TheoriaApophasis]

So??? Where (in Tesla's works) is the definition of "rotating magnetic fields"?

its in MY works, not his.


obviously.



as close as Tesla gets is:


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. Leaving out of consideration the precise nature of the mechanism, which
produces the attraction and repulsion of currents, 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 forces. --------TESLA




which isnt that close at all.


Knowing that magnetism was a rotary reciprocating field force is ALL TESLA needed to build his devices.


as to the Field mechanics of WHY a magnet does X, or HOW, etc etc.

he doesnt answer that.


I do.

[joel321]

TA, If in the magnetic vortex makes it magnetic, there has to be an opposite vortex to not make it magnetic?  But now I'm going really deep.

[TheoriaApophasis]

TA, If in the magnetic vortex makes it magnetic, there has to be an opposite vortex to not make it magnetic?  But now I'm going really deep.

you have to have a FIRM grip of the definition of


1. magnetism

2. MAGNET

3. Vortex.



almost nobody has a single damn clue about the denotative definition of EITHER of those 3.



2. Magnet is just a mass of incoherent atoms or molecules (hexagonal lattice of Neo Iron Boron for example) made COHERENT.

polarized atoms (ALL atoms) is one thing, a MASS of coherent polarized atoms or molecules is = Magnet.


1. magnetism is the radiation, the divergent expression of the LOSS of dielectric INERTIA




Vortex is not the "mystical" term everyone applies to it....  "Ooooooooh, a Vortex!!" 


copyright 11-14-2014  Ken L wheeler

A vortex is a compounded or compounding spatial force vector expression within which or by which magnetic-force vectors are expressed against its/their originating counterspatial dielectric locus (inertia) along a curvilinear force-and-inertia pressure mediation as against the counterspatial locus of said divergent curvilinear expression. Compounded macrocosmic natural phenomena vortex (fluid, environmental) events are void or vacuum convergences against a pressure stasis. Cosmic vortex phenomena are left for another discussion, however are likewise akin to magnetic hypotrochoid expressions. As per magnetic vortex hyperboloids, force and space-creation are torsional ('inertial-friction') along golden ratio extrapolations and are additive, whereas convergences are dielectrically multiplicative. This is expressed as space is additive and synonymous with magnetic divergence, whereas counterspace is multiplicative. A magnetic vortex is a dielectric projection of force vectors, which follows a hyperboloid.

A vortex, in simple, is merely a curvilinear expression of force-against-dielectric-inertia reciprocation whereby which no straight lines exist in the universe, in that all force vectors are 'tethered' at a counterspatial locus within which and by which any and all divergences are torsional convergences as against a necessitated polarized locus (micro [atomic], or macro [magnet, a coherent mass]) which exists against all space by definition. The hyperboloid is the curvilinear expression of the loss of inertia which is extrapolated as a 3D hypotrochoid, or spatial torus. All geometry is projective geometry; likewise the magnetic hyperboloid is an inertia-and-loss-of-inertia phenomenon by which pressure reciprocation necessitates spheroidal convergence by means of hypotrochoid reciprocation. Negative pressure dynamics mediate pressure force reciprocations towards inverse counterspatial sink. The magnetic hypotrochoid is a convergence by means of polarized divergence vortex by nature, however the center of any and all torus formations, is the hyperboloid. The counterspatial 'center' of the torus is dielectric inertia, or counterspace from which the magnetic vortex, or torus is expressed necessitatively.

Even a centrifugal vortex is centripetal, in that it MUST reciprocate the geometry of the hyperboloid to converge centripetally at the opposite spatial displacement of centripetal convergence ("opposite pole"). There are no straight lines in the universe, all force vectors are curvilinear and move along a spiral around one or more counterspatial "tether-points". Contrary to the pontifications of pseudo-science, there exists NO open vortex phenomena in the universe, all force vectors are CLOSED.

Ultimately a vacuum created vortex (water vortex, water down the drain) or a magnetic vortex are both expressions of counterspace, one a localized void, the other an Ether-convergence. No force ends in space, because space is NOT a receptacle for force, rather the posterior attribute of divergences. All force vectors terminate at the origins, in inertia, or as meant counterspace.

Coherent magnetic reciprocation expressed by a magnet's (polarization collective with coherency) divergence exists as a pressure-force hyperboloid as necessitated by the dielectric counterspatial locus so-deemed by modern inept and defunct physics as a "Bloch wall".  Inertia is the counterspatial 'tether point' at which and by which all force vectors, magnetic and otherwise express curvilinear reciprocations as defined by the space they create in so doing.

The absolute inverse of inertia is nothing, which is space. Space is neither a FIELD nor a FORCE, and has no properties, is it is purely a posterior attribute of the force reciprocations of magnetism. Force is nothing whatsoever, and the expression which gives definition to all phenomena in the universe.

"Under" the spheroidal field (really a force, not a field, only dielectric is the true field, magnetism is purely a force only) of magnetism, either atomic or the magnetic (coherent single mass) exists the spatial-counterspatial HYPERBOLOID, failure to understand this will make your compression short-sighted as per what the term "polarization" both IS and IMPLIES in the definition of what both magnetism IS and is meant, and how this applies to the magnet itself.