Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[MarkE]

I said last page that you "dont get it"    I rest my case in that dept.   You're a BEAN COUNTER, and you cannot understand that "Phi is to 1, as 1 is to Phi"

As I live in a world where one can check the established meaning of words, physical theories, and mathematical constructs, and you present claims that fail those checks, that leaves communication at an impasse.  In my world:  Euclid defined phi, and your claims fail to conform to that definition.  If that means I cannot understand whatever unique thought process may occur inside your mind, then so be it.  Mathematics in the world I live in work.

You ARE that blind, but no worries, MOST people are.


that "Phi is to 1, as 1 is to Phi" , is not up for debate by ANYONE.  You or otherwise, son.  


The ratio (RATIO DUMMY!!! not a NUMBER!!!!!!) of PHI AS 1, ...is that 1 = PHI


In your PEA brain, you dont get that 1 and 1 IS A RATIO SET, and also is = PHI 

I point out that Euclid's definition is at odds with your assertions.  According to Euclid's definition:  Phi is to one, as the sum one plus phi is to phi.  Phi is not to one as one is to phi.  but if you live in a world of your own private definitions of things like mathematics, then in that world things may work differently than they do for the rest of us here on planet earth.

just as is 1 and 5, or 1 and 13, all extrapolations of multiplicatives of the ratio of Phi, which begins with 1 and 1  (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13.........etc etc)

Well again, that Fibonacci sequence does not equal 0.5 + 0.5*5^0.5 which does exactly describe the constant value phi.

Like your drunkard cousin Tinfoilhat, you confuse NUMBER, with EXTRAPOLATED RATIO, of which Phi =1 and 1 = Phi

You can assert whatever you like towards whatever end you have in mind and your positions concerning phi will continue to be dead wrong.

1/f + 1 = f, 1 + f = f2, and f + f2 = f3



Greater x Lesser = 1
Greater - Lesser = 1
Greater ¸ Unity = f
Unity ¸ Lesser= f
Greater ¸ Lesser = f2


What you dont get is that the RATIO extrapolation of Phi, which is 1  (1, 1, ..............etc) is "natures fractal". 

Since that is a sequence and not a ratio, I wonder whether your gross mangling of common terms is intentional or something that you just can't control.  In the end it doesn't matter much.  Whether you cannot communicate due to some impairment, or simply refuse to communicate, the results are pretty much the same.

All that which idiots see as beautiful is just a fractal extrapolation of 1 in multiplicity, which is the ratio of Phi from the first set (1 and 1), to the "last" set [there is no last, really, of course].......  (8 and 13, .....or 3 and 5 .....etc etc etc etc..)

Except again that:  phi is a ratio, but not of any two integers, and the ratios you list are not equal to each other, nor are any of them equal to phi.

but, thats well beyond you. 


Im glad you admit you confuse denotation with IMPLICATION and CONNOTATION.


Youre just flat wrong.
You dont understand this simplex fact----that "Phi is to 1, as 1 is to Phi"


Stick to bean counting, you absolutely dont get it 


not even a LITTLE BIT, do you comprehend.

AND, if you expect me to believe your BS over Platos and Aristotle, then youre smoking crack 

Likewise, Non-Euclidean Projective Geometry ala Platonic incommensurability is WAY WAAAY beyond your kin of being discussed 

You can assert whatever you like, using whatever demeanor you like, and BS still won't be truth.  No amount of bafflegab can turn BS into truth.

It is in this way, when they preserve the standard of the mean that all their works are good and beautiful.... The greater and the less are to be measured in relation, not only to one another, but also to the establishment of the standard of the mean.... [T]his other comprises that which measures them in relation to the moderate, the fitting, the opportune, the needful, and all the other standards that are situated in the mean between the extremes ----    [Statesman 284a1-e8; emphasis added].

A:B = C:D = (A+B) : (C+D) = (C+D) : (A+B+C+D)


Two things cannot be rightly put together without a third; there must be some bond of union between them. ...and the fairest bond is that which makes the most complete fusion of itself and the things which it combines, and proportion (analogia) is best adapted to effect such a union. For whenever in any three numbers, whether cube or square, there is a mean, which is to the last term what the first term is to it, and again, when the mean is to the first term as the last term is to the mean - then the mean becoming first and last, and the first and last both becoming means, they will all of them of necessity come to be the same, and having become the same with one another will be all one ------[Timaeus 31b-32a].

The value of phi is not a matter of philosophy.  It is a matter of mathematics.  It is straightforward to derive an exact expression for phi from Euclid's definition.

[TheoriaApophasis]

As I live in a world where one can check the established meaning of words, physical theories, and mathematical constructs

Ah, self contradictory bullshit, first you call a RATIO a NUMBER, then you say an "irrational NUMBER" can be 'checked and established'.

Enough of insane bullshit along those lines. 

In my world:  Euclid defined phi

Actually, moron, The Pythagoreans defined it.  Euclid only denotated it along empirical quantity.   

Im glad you admit you confuse denotation with IMPLICATION and CONNOTATION.

but if you live in a world of your own private definitions of things like mathematics

Sorry son, but even Euclid differentiated math with Arithmos

But, you wouldnt know a damn thing about that,......nor do most.   

Except again that:  phi is a ratio, but not of any two integers, and the ratios you list are not equal to each other, nor are any of them equal to phi.You can assert whatever you like, using whatever demeanor you like, and BS still won't be truth.  No amount of bafflegab can turn BS into truth.The value of phi is not a matter of philosophy.  It is a matter of mathematics.  It is straightforward to derive an exact expression for phi from Euclid's definition.

expression of what son? the "irrational number" to which you claim (ratio idiot, not a nunmber),.....  Sorry, but 1 is to Phi, as Phi is to one, .......this is not up for debate by anyone on earth.

I didnt say the NUMBER 1 = 1.618033 NUMBER....... idiot asshole.

I said "1 is to Phi , as Phi is to 1"..........  this is where youre brain dead   
Actually, ANY 2 sets define phi.   but thanks for admitting you ignorance of this,  the Set defines ratios which MOST CLOSELY define the ratio of Phi.

Again, youre a bean counter, you dont understand a damn thing,.....and certainly not how the Platonists nor the Pythagoreans treated and thought about Phi.


You can assert whatever bullshit you like towards whatever end you have in mind, but you havent a single goddamn clue what youre talking about. 

that "Phi is to 1, as 1 is to Phi" , is not up for debate by ANYONE.  You or otherwise, son.   


The ratio (RATIO DUMMY!!! not a NUMBER!!!!!!) of PHI AS 1, ...is that 1 = PHI


In your PEA brain, you dont get that 1 and 1 IS A RATIO SET, and also is = PHI

just as is 1 and 5, or 1 and 13, all extrapolations of multiplicatives of the ratio of Phi, which begins with 1 and 1  (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13.........etc etc)

Like your drunkard cousin Tinfoilhat, you confuse NUMBER, with EXTRAPOLATED RATIO, of which Phi =1 and 1 = Phi

1/f + 1 = f, 1 + f = f2, and f + f2 = f3



Greater x Lesser = 1
Greater - Lesser = 1
Greater ¸ Unity = f
Unity ¸ Lesser= f
Greater ¸ Lesser = f2


What you dont get is that the RATIO extrapolation of Phi, which is 1  (1, 1, ..............etc) is "natures fractal".
All that which idiots see as beautiful is just a fractal extrapolation of 1 in multiplicity, which is the ratio of Phi from the first set (1 and 1), to the "last" set [there is no last, really, of course].......  (8 and 13, .....or 3 and 5 .....etc etc etc etc..)

t is in this way, when they preserve the standard of the mean that all their works are good and beautiful.... The greater and the less are to be measured in relation, not only to one another, but also to the establishment of the standard of the mean.... [T]his other comprises that which measures them in relation to the moderate, the fitting, the opportune, the needful, and all the other standards that are situated in the mean between the extremes ----    [Statesman 284a1-e8; emphasis added].

A:B = C:D = (A+B) : (C+D) = (C+D) : (A+B+C+D)


Two things cannot be rightly put together without a third; there must be some bond of union between them. ...and the fairest bond is that which makes the most complete fusion of itself and the things which it combines, and proportion (analogia) is best adapted to effect such a union. For whenever in any three numbers, whether cube or square, there is a mean, which is to the last term what the first term is to it, and again, when the mean is to the first term as the last term is to the mean - then the mean becoming first and last, and the first and last both becoming means, they will all of them of necessity come to be the same, and having become the same with one another will be all one ------[Timaeus 31b-32a].

  the RATIO SET  is 1 and 1  (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8......)

1 and aoristos dyas (also 1) are both 1 ....... but thats WAY BEYOND YOUR MIND 

Or, so your pea brain can get it ........"1 and the PROPERTY OF 1, which is also = 1"

thats called Principle-Attribute irreducibility     "what something IS, and what its ATTRIBUTE/PROPERTY IS"

1.618033.............is what you keep seeing as a NUMBER,  as relational in the set which is PHI, ...its a RATIO

of which, at which, 1 = Phi, and  Phi = 1.
But, its all over your head. 




Since your an idiot on the topic, suggest the book:
A Mathematical History of the Golden Number

[TheoriaApophasis]

Youre right, I know nothing about the golden section other than as a bean counting sheep

thats ok, most everyone is the same.



Further still, I discovered, ....but was NOT looking for same,....that magnetic reciprocation follows the golden ratio



In HINDSIGHT, I should have been looking for that fact from the very beginning 


Below: Mathematical proof that centripetal contracting fields "draw out" convergent spheres of a vortex-toroid, and
centrifugal fields "draw out" expanding divergent vortex-toroid hyperboloid spheres. This golden section ratio of divergence
and convergence is convergent centripetal fields = centripetal radius of 1; and centrifugal divergent fields are a radius of
centripetal-1-value times (Phi+Phi [3.23606]). Or: (C1radius x 3.23606 = C2 radius) which all together = Phi cubed
(C1r+Phi+Phi = 4.23606). Phi in the circle = golden angle of 137.5077 degrees. 1 in the circle = C1 radius which is 85 degrees.
Copyright discovery 7-28-2014 Ken L. Wheeler

[TheoriaApophasis]

See those "pretty" pictures below of MAGNETIC FIELD divergences from magnets?


its a PERFECT 100 FUCKING PERCENT% Golden ratio hyprotrochoid

(((((((If you dont know what the hell a hyprotrochoid is, look it up, ......most idiots you can just say "Spirograph pattern"....   )))))))


Magnetic pressure divergence (as against OPPOSITE "pole" magnetic CONVERGENCE) 'draws out' a perfect GOLDEN RATIO Hyprotrochoid.

If you dont understand the IMPORTANCE of that......
If you dont understand the wonderful fact of that......
If you dont understand the significance of that......

well, then youre just a boob. 



FURTHER STILL, its 100% PROOF, that magnetic field divergence is proof of the POINCARE' DISK MODEL

Which is NON-Euclidean projective geometry.

[MarkE]

Ah, self contradictory bullshit, first you call a RATIO a NUMBER, then you say an "irrational NUMBER" can be 'checked and established'.

Enough of insane bullshit along those lines. 

Slaying men of straw today are we?

Actually, moron, The Pythagoreans defined it.  Euclid only denotated it along empirical quantity.   

Im glad you admit you confuse denotation with IMPLICATION and CONNOTATION.


Sorry son, but even Euclid differentiated math with Arithmos

But, you wouldnt know a damn thing about that,......nor do most.   

expression of what son? the "irrational number" to which you claim (ratio idiot, not a nunmber),.....  Sorry, but 1 is to Phi, as Phi is to one, .......this is not up for debate by anyone on earth.

I didnt say the NUMBER 1 = 1.618033 NUMBER....... idiot asshole.

You also did not and have not established the basis for the reciprocity that you claim.  Hurling insults and cursing does not make an argument.

I said "1 is to Phi , as Phi is to 1"..........  this is where youre brain dead   
Actually, ANY 2 sets define phi.   but thanks for admitting you ignorance of this,  the Set defines ratios which MOST CLOSELY define the ratio of Phi.

LOL, this is just more baffle gab.  Sorry dude, there are countless sets that have no relationship to phi.

Again, youre a bean counter, you dont understand a damn thing,.....and certainly not how the Platonists nor the Pythagoreans treated and thought about Phi.

Phi is a defined constant.  Why should anyone have to try and read the minds of the dead to understand a defined constant?

You can assert whatever bullshit you like towards whatever end you have in mind, but you havent a single goddamn clue what youre talking about. 

that "Phi is to 1, as 1 is to Phi" , is not up for debate by ANYONE.  You or otherwise, son.   

LOL, sure in your make believe world you are free to define things anyway that you like.

The ratio (RATIO DUMMY!!! not a NUMBER!!!!!!) of PHI AS 1, ...is that 1 = PHI

I think maybe you have trouble reading.  Either that or you work really hard pretending not to comprehend what others write.

In your PEA brain, you dont get that 1 and 1 IS A RATIO SET, and also is = PHI

Wrong and wrong.  But believe what you like.  Maybe you can have a debate with Miles Mathis about whether pi is 4.0 or some other silly value.

just as is 1 and 5, or 1 and 13, all extrapolations of multiplicatives of the ratio of Phi, which begins with 1 and 1  (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13.........etc etc)

LOL, this is hysterical.  You correctly note that phi is defined as a ratio.  That ratio cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers.  ERGO that ratio is an irrational number.  But you attempt to define the value with a finite set of integers.  That's a major fail dude.

Like your drunkard cousin Tinfoilhat, you confuse NUMBER, with EXTRAPOLATED RATIO, of which Phi =1 and 1 = Phi

1/f + 1 = f, 1 + f = f2, and f + f2 = f3

I think it is pretty obvious who is struggling here.

Greater x Lesser = 1
Greater - Lesser = 1
Greater ¸ Unity = f
Unity ¸ Lesser= f
Greater ¸ Lesser = f2


What you dont get is that the RATIO extrapolation of Phi, which is 1  (1, 1, ..............etc) is "natures fractal".

Wherever phi may be found in nature has nothing to do with your incorrect assertion that it is represented by the values in a Fibonacci sequence.  It isn't.  It may be approximated by the ratio of two adjacent values in a Fibonacci sequence.  But if you want to keep asserting this charming lark just write out your attempt at a proof of what you claim.

All that which idiots see as beautiful is just a fractal extrapolation of 1 in multiplicity, which is the ratio of Phi from the first set (1 and 1), to the "last" set [there is no last, really, of course].......  (8 and 13, .....or 3 and 5 .....etc etc etc etc..)

More baffle gab

t is in this way, when they preserve the standard of the mean that all their works are good and beautiful.... The greater and the less are to be measured in relation, not only to one another, but also to the establishment of the standard of the mean.... [T]his other comprises that which measures them in relation to the moderate, the fitting, the opportune, the needful, and all the other standards that are situated in the mean between the extremes ----    [Statesman 284a1-e8; emphasis added].

A:B = C:D = (A+B) : (C+D) = (C+D) : (A+B+C+D)


Two things cannot be rightly put together without a third; there must be some bond of union between them. ...and the fairest bond is that which makes the most complete fusion of itself and the things which it combines, and proportion (analogia) is best adapted to effect such a union. For whenever in any three numbers, whether cube or square, there is a mean, which is to the last term what the first term is to it, and again, when the mean is to the first term as the last term is to the mean - then the mean becoming first and last, and the first and last both becoming means, they will all of them of necessity come to be the same, and having become the same with one another will be all one ------[Timaeus 31b-32a].

  the RATIO SET  is 1 and 1  (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8......)

1 and aoristos dyas (also 1) are both 1 ....... but thats WAY BEYOND YOUR MIND 

Or, so your pea brain can get it ........"1 and the PROPERTY OF 1, which is also = 1"

thats called Principle-Attribute irreducibility     "what something IS, and what its ATTRIBUTE/PROPERTY IS"

1.618033.............is what you keep seeing as a NUMBER,  as relational in the set which is PHI, ...its a RATIO

of which, at which, 1 = Phi, and  Phi = 1.
But, its all over your head. 




Since your an idiot on the topic, suggest the book:
A Mathematical History of the Golden Number

If that book represents the basis of your incorrect assertions, then I think I will pass.  A bit more seriously:  Do you drop acid before you post?  What motivates you to write the insane nonsense that you post?