Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[joel321]

Tell me if I'm crazy, the ether lives inside the vortex. Where there is more to be learned about the vortex since the ether is not in the center of a vortex.

That means that a lot of scientists are wrong because they are living in the vortex where in the 'black' hole is to make money. = no truth. What human ACTUALLY lives inside a black hole? lol

That also means that the ether lives in the vortex for those that like truth but yet is not the ultimate truth of life. So we only have this 'ether' that teaches us that is inside the vortex that we can only understand by our brain waves in sync. A bird brain is way out of sync in the brain from a smart human.

So there has to be something way more intelligent than the ether. And I believe that learning this is what it's necessary to learn for everyone as the years pass by.

Years after years of learning the ether, in the future, todays ether will be simplex and tomorrow ether will be difficult. BUT, we would be in a frequency where we are ALIENS. Lol. You just have to understand, WHEN DO WE STOP LEARNING? If life is only a vortex then on what frequency of the vortex are we living in the universe?

Maybe what the ether means is that we should allow the other humans that do not understand the purpose of truth as cheeseburgers...lol = the opposite waves feeding the direction of the wave if you get my drift.

Just thinking out loud dude.

[TheoriaApophasis]

WHEN DO WE STOP LEARNING?

youre not crazy.


why stop learning?     Because EVERYONE is busy trying to get RICH, or LAID, or pay the bills, so they can get laid, and happy, and rich,

work all day to buy work saving gadgets

kids, bill, bullshit, bills, work, bills , bullshit, goddamn crazy wives , goddamn crazy children...............




VORTEX isnt a mystical term at all, its rather simple, nothing special or mystical or mysterious about it OR the term 'vortex'

So there has to be something way more intelligent than the ether.

Ancient Pythagoreans and Platonic Greeks and Indians figured that out ages ago, the premise is fully illustrated in the works of PLOTINUS


Its simplex Emanationism, which nobody has a single damn clue what the hell that is.

[joel321]

Inertia

From what have been said, inertia cannot be "traveling" in a straight line! So inertia cannot define the circumference of a circle. That is why we have angular degrees. What is the inertia of a 320 circle? I don't know myself. BUT I see INERTIA as just a "gate keeper" of telling the waves to turn in a circle be it 2 inches or light years around.

I don't quite understand but if you tell me the "inertia" of a soap bubble VS the internia of a proton around an atom, I would kind of understand. Unless you can tell me that "inertia"in a bubble is the same as an electron around an atom is the same inertia?

Now hear me out, what is the INERTIA of a vortex at any given point from top to bottom? The inertia cannot be the same at the top as it is the bottom. Inertia cannot be static.... so inertia needs to be more specific in my mind, just saying bro.

[TheoriaApophasis]

From what have been said, inertia cannot be "traveling" in a straight line! So inertia cannot define the circumference of a circle. That is why we have angular degrees. What is the inertia of a 320 circle? I don't know myself. BUT I see INERTIA as just a "gate keeper" of telling the waves to turn in a circle be it 2 inches or light years around.

I don't quite understand but if you tell me the "inertia" of a soap bubble VS the internia of a proton around an atom, I would kind of understand. Unless you can tell me that "inertia"in a bubble is the same as an electron around an atom is the same inertia?

Now hear me out, what is the INERTIA of a vortex at any given point from top to bottom? The inertia cannot be the same at the top as it is the bottom. Inertia cannot be static.... so inertia needs to be more specific in my mind, just saying bro.

A circle is a 3rd degree phenomena, and cannot therefore define inertia   (point , line, circle, sphere.........).


a bubble?   Such a formation has spatial magnitude, is certainly not inertia, rather the product of divergence, the inverse to inertia.


Inertia only has one "point",   all geometry is projective geometry,  youre talking about phenomena as in place of Noumenon




You need a full definition of the term "polarized" grasped in your mind.     That is what is lacking foremost.

but thats the case for everyone, no big deal.

A magnet doesnt have any "poles", ...this extrapolation is just the hyperboloid of space, the INVERSE of which is the inertial 'point', counterspace,  ie Inertia.


The hyperboloid precedes the sphere.


A hyperboloid is a hyper-sphere, a "pre-sphere",    A hyperboloid is technically an Inertial "line" extrapolation.
and the resultant hypertrochoid is just a compounded circle.

[joel321]

This is my understanding of "lines'.

The "inertia" at any given point can only be the same at any given point, but, as is spirals up or down, the inertia cannot be the same as it spirals up or down. SINCE, ONLY, a straight line is straight on the curvature of the wave . if i can make myself clear. so there are ONLY straight line with thing the SPIN. for example, you walk perpendicular to the ground...anywhere you stand, it's always perpendicular to the ground even though if you are in the north pole or the south pole, you are standing on a wave/curve.

SO, how many straight lines does a circle have withing it's curvature of a circle/vortex? Not to mention in a sphere.

The straight line does not explain much for me to be honest. But I'm learning