Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[sadang]

@joel321

With my apologizes to Ken because I use his topic for my own ramblings, and also to you because what follow to say is not so easy to swallow, but I want to assure you it is not personally at all. I'll just use your own words to exemplify something which is very hard to sense. I'll continue with my opinion and hope to be right understood.

According to my way of thinking I see in your last message a clear example of a circular reasoning. This happen without even you notice this fact! When you talk about the empty space you make conscious but also unconscious use of well defined term "DENSITY" and other similar. You use it consciously in your reasoning in a comparative way, and unconsciously when you develop further your way of reasoning using the term "DENSITY" as a well established reference to which other elements in your analysis can be related.

- d=m/v
- m=dxv
- v=m/d

For me this is a formula that don't tell anything. Is a flat, circular, an apparent and misleading solution. I don't know for sure any of its three elements. I believe I know and understand, but this is just a very superficial point of view, because I don't know what really is the term called mass. Don't say there are many kind of mass. However, the mass is associated with matter, which again I don't know what really is. I associate it with atomic, subatomic, quantum, sub-quantum PARTICLES, the last term being also a big UNKNOWN, defined very clear by science exactly in the same circular way of thinking, appealing to the same well established (in reality totally UNKNOWN) terms, renamed to differentiate them according to their use (macro, micro levels). Hope you can comprehend what I want to say, and I yet not went on fields to pasture with grace!!!

The same pattern apply to any other formula from nowadays science. And we are educated in this way of thinking, grow with these deeply buried in the subconscious and using them as immutable references in our way of reasoning, manifesting and shaping the world accordingly. The destruction is perpetuated everywhere around us!

How much density does something quantum has to have to be considered a particle?

How sounds this question now? It keeps the same meaning as before to express my above opinion? Still has any meaning?

Let me reformulate a bit your question:
- How much volume does something quantum has to have to be considered a particle?
- How much mass does something quantum has to have to be considered a particle?

Have these question the same meaning as yours! Of course they have! The possible scientific answers solve the question? Of course apparently, but not at all, if it is notice the circularity of reasoning. Even if we go further with relativistic theory and transform mass in energy, indifferent we talk about cosmic or sub-quantum scales, the solution still keeps its character of an apparent correct solution.

Now, after all these were said, maybe will be seen with other eyes the Ken's dielectric inertial plane, or counterspace, or ether and also its manifestation in the single possible way, ie in reciprocity (not in opposition at all) or as I call it in complementarity, the magnetism being just a form from infinite ways of ether manifestation. Who's the observer and where can he be placed in this new view is a task for each one in part, and can not be expressed by any individual being.

Stop, and back to the beautiful world of magnets and their vortex fields, preparing the setup of some experiments for next week.

[TheoriaApophasis]

@joel321

With my apologizes to Ken because I use his topic for my own ramblings,

apologies for what,    its nothing.







if people understood what a HYPERBOLOID was, theyd have a very HIGH grasp of what magnetism is, what force is, and what inertia is.



I shit you not there is not ONE SINGLE DAMN genuine explanation of what a hyperboloid IS   


and i dont mean a Fing equation.

[Qwert]

just the inverse.     There is NO region or domain that defines a POLE of a magnet, contrary to current denotation AND connotation.


You can slice a magnet a 100000000000000 times vertically, or parallel to 'polarity',......and there is no separation of "poles"

There is no separation of "poles" , but you find there "a narrow transition region at the boundary between"
which is a Bloch wall. You are pretty inconsistent here. When you slice a magnet and find no separation of poles, how do you find Bloch wall? Is it measurable? So, the Bloch wall separates the poles.
But as I see it, there is no transition boundary or any separation: it looks/works like a piece of pipe with INLET and OUTLET: These are the poles.

And something else: it takes pretty long lecture for you to explain a simple issue. You probably don't understand this (your own words): "I must state that if you cannot explain it simply then you do not really understand something". This is a quote from your book.

[profitis]

Qwert:'it takes pretty long lecture for you'

Me:he's basicly saying that everythings either a flying packet of di-electric oscillations,a stationary bundle of di-electric oscillations,or nothing at all. Everythings either a reaction or action ala newton law.one can't really argue with this.the only thing that can be argued on rational basis is the experimental interpretations of magnetism.if there's a fine line point in any one of these experiments which standard model cannot refute then it tilts in his favour dramaticaly

[TheoriaApophasis]

There is no separation of "poles" , but you find there "a narrow transition region at the boundary between"

Let me introduce you to "MY RELIGION"     

Its called "DESCRIPTIONS ARENT EXPLANATIONS"

What you just said (no offense) is no diff. than a child saying  (about a CAR)  "boxy rolling thing"

which is a Bloch wall

10,000% MEANINGLESS BULLSHIT


thats like an ancient caveman seeing a bird flying and calling it "The Ooog anomaly"  (bird flight).

You are pretty inconsistent here. When you slice a magnet and find no separation of poles, how do you find Bloch wall? Is it measurable?

You are INSANELY inconsistent here
MEASURE, ASSHOLE, is defined by SPACE    

Of course an INDIVISIBLE PLENUM , ie counterspace has NO MEASURE

Fucking goddamn hell,  been saying that since day one   

So, the Bloch wall separates the poles.

What poles asshole?   .........WHAT "bloch wall" asshole?  ....... It cannot be "separated OUT" , NOR has measure.

what is separating WHAT ?   Self-contradictory fucking horse shit 

But as I see it, there is no transition boundary or any separation: it looks/works like a piece of pipe with INLET and OUTLET: These are the poles.

Inconsistent asshole, you just said a sec. ago ........."find there "a narrow transition region at the boundary between" "



You dont have a firm grasp of the denotation of the term POLARITY

Polarity doesn't imply opposites as in the case of magnetism or the (coherent mass we call) magnet....., rather the INVERSE of counterspace,  ie the creation of SPACE and ANTINOMIES,  there is only one antinomy, the inverse of counterspace.

"current science" parrots the BS that a magnet "has poles", either qualitatively or quantitatively, or both.  But no such nonsense exists.

Duality, or polarity as per magnetism or the MACRO model of same in the magnet is a conceptual reification that there "ARE 2 INVERSE X-ENTITIES (poles)".    But no such nonsense exists.

"I must state that if you cannot explain it simply then you do not really understand something". This is a quote from your book.

I can, did and, DO explain it 100% 

your lack of mental capacity to grasp same, understand same, or 'believe' same, is NO FAULT OF MINE





Poles OF what, BY what, and (AS MUST BE CONNOTATED) "BETWEEN WHAT" 


Youre talking about "poles between X"

the SAME X which has
1. NO MEASURE
2. NO POSSIBILITY TO 'CUT IT OUT', SEPARATE IT
3. INDIVISIBLE AND INCOMMENSURATE  (learn what that word means)





I dub thee King of Inconsistent Twatswaddle.