Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[TheoriaApophasis]

Quantum mechanics has been tested (and used) for over a hundred years since,
and continues to work very well for predicting the outcome of experiments and
allowing for technological innovation. 

THIS IS why youre a brain dead asshole who CANNOT THINK 


let me educate you,  moron.


let me tell you a story about VERY ACCURATE observations
VS.  EXPLANATIONS



See, these old guys we call the ANCIENT EGYPTIANS were goddamn A#1 masters of tracking the stars, planetary movements......etc etc.


to a level that even TODAYS scientists admit was nothing short of incredible.

VERY VERY ACCURATE..........exactly along the lines for your "work very well for predicting the outcomes" !!!.......



HOWEVER.........their EXPLANATIONS that these things were caused by GOD X ,  and GOD Y etc etc


Wake up you brain dead FOOL,   Einstein's BULLSHIT explanation for the photoelectric effect, ala  "bouncing" electrons is nothing more than a modern day BULLSHIT version of  "its being caused by the GOD ANUBIS"


Damn, youre an idiot !!!! 

[TheoriaApophasis]

Note Einstein's theories about massive objects bending light were verified.  There are gravitational lenses all over the sky that confirm this.

thanks for giving me the INTRO to CRUCIFY your ass 

I know FAR MORE about "gravitational lensing" that you do MORON

Its a dielectric warping of LIGHT,   

100% NO DIFF than the FARADAY EFFECT due to light being BENT by ENORMOUS masses. 

Einstein's theories..............There are gravitational lenses all over the sky that confirm this.

No asshole...........

There are gravitational lenses all over the sky that confirm TESLA's premise

and Faradays EFFECT

and MY PREMISE




Idiot, what the FUCK do you think is WARPING light under a ferrocell?

MAGNETISM


Light has transverse EM components, and a Z AXIS radial dielectric PULSE,


Large masses warp light along its Z axis


MAGNETISM warps light (FARADAY EFFECT) along its TRANSVERSE components!!!



You walked right into a goddamn BEAR TRAP ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!



From New York Times April 8, 1934 Section X, p. 9
Tesla sees evidence radio and light are sound (-like)

    *I only recently discovered this passage (post 3rd edition of this book) below from Tesla, which in conclusion, is support for my discovery that light's missing secret that it is not transverse electromagnetism, NOR could it 'self-propagating' EM; this is impossible. Light has, necessitatively, a radial dielectric component. Parenthesis are mine.

     "There is something frightening about the universe when we consider that only our senses of sound and sight make it beautiful. The universe is darker than the darkest ink, colder than the coldest ice and more silent than a silent tomb. Sight and sound are our only avenues through which we can perceive it all...there is a third sense which have failed to discover."
     "The fascination of the (false) electromagnetic theory of light, advanced by Maxwell and subsequently experimentally investigated by Hertz, was so great that even now, although controverted, the (idiot) scientific minds are under its sway. This theory supposed the existence of a medium which was solid yet permitted bodies to pass through it without resistance; (this absurdity is) tenuous behind conception, and yet according to out conceptions of mechanical principles and ages of experience, such a medium was absolutely impossible. Light was (wrongly) considered such a phenomena bound up in that kind of medium, namely transmitting transverse vibrations like a solid."
     "What then can light be if NOT a transverse vibration(s)? I consider this extremely important. Light cannot be anything but a longitudinal (Z-axis radial!) disturbance in the Ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. Light can be nothing else (phenomenally so) than a sound wave in the Ether."
     "This appears clearly, if it is first realized that there is no Maxwellian Ether, therefore there can be no transverse oscillation in the medium. The Newtonian theory is in error, because it fails entirely in not being able to explain how a small candle can project (light) with the same speed at the blazing sun, which has immensely higher temperatures (and power). We have made sure by experiment that light propagates with the same velocity irrespective of the character of the source! Such consistency of velocity can only be explained by assuming that it is dependent solely on the 'physical' properties of the (Ether) medium, especially its density and its elastic (potential of) force." – Nikola Tesla





thanks for giving me the INTRO to crucify you !!! 

Einstein's theories..............

Einstein's theories..............    ARE STILL FUCKING THEORIES

and accurate OBSERVATIONS dont have SHIT to with with ACCURATE EXPLANATIONS

[picowatt]

TA,

So, are you saying that quantum mechanics is nonsense, and, therefore,
that Nature is instead smooth and linear, able to be "budged" in any arbitrarily
small amount desired? 

Your "more pulses equals more power" explanation of the photoelectric
effect (as in one of your videos) is reminiscent of pre-1900 classical mechanics,
which fell short of providing an explanation (mathematically) of the observations made via experimentation.
The application of quantum mechanics to the photoelectric effect allowed for the
derivation of mathematical models that describe and predict the photoelectric effect with great
accuracy and are still in use today.

[Qwert]

...those that TALK, and those that DO...

...IF you DONT think that is 100% FUCKING INSANE,  then you need to check yourself into a clinic. 

1: I don't need to be a baker to eat bread.
2: I don't care about your viewpoint; this is about your expression of emotions; IF you
DONT see it like that, then you need to check yourself into a clinic.

[sarkeizen]

yours being the strawman fallacy

Sadly no it's not.  Strawman fallacy is an attempt to represent your opponent's argument with a different (usually weaker argument).   If I was making a strawman fallacy you would be able to show your work.  However I can see you're someone who read a web page on the logical fallacies and nothing more. 

Clearly I'm giving some general advice.  Hence no strawman is necessitated.

So are you going to make be teach you *every* fallacy?

You have NOTHING whatsoever to contribute on the topic of this thread.

Well you seem to say that one of the fundamental components of your argument is LOGIC.  I'm pointing out that you can't even get the informal fallacies right.

Get on topic, or get lost somewhere dark.

You are the one who started talking about logic.  If you didn't start using the informal fallacies I'd have little to say here.  However you did and so I killed your argument.

Now if you promise never ever to attempt to pretend you know how to use those things.  I'll leave you alone.  Deal?

Have something logical or intelligent to say

Sorry.  As you are someone who can't use the fallacies properly I'm afraid I'm going to have to take away your licence that allowed you to use the term "logical".  Don't worry you can re-take the test in 60 days.