Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[TheoriaApophasis]

Son, whatever it is, its (vortex) path IS NOT A CIRCLE

NO FUCKING SHIT, .......who said otherwise?   



However the circuit of INERTIA in discharge (loss of inertia) is a circle,
BUT extrapolated spatially  ("from one pole to the other") is a hyperboloid.


go study projective geometry , dummy

, since its diameter is constantly diminishing/increasing.
And because of that, the resulting pattern cannot be REGULAR hypotrochoid.

HOLY SHIT, you dont even know what a hypotrochoid IS,  it IS expanding and contracting  (centrifugal and centripetal magnetism)


DAMN!!!     OMFG!!!!!!!


where do they "GROW" people this dumb at??

I would add: there are NO REGULAR PATTERNS in nature.

Just the opposite, holy shit, your ignorance is STUNNING.

When something has simultaneously centripetal and centrifugal movements, the resulting force would be ZERO.
Magnet rather doesn't fall under such theory.

You FUCKING IDIOT, a stationary magnet HAS ZERO NET FORCE...........GODDAMN MORON!!!

OTHERWISE WE WOULD BE TAPPING POWER OFF A STATIONARY MAGNET RATHER THAN A SPINNING ONE IN AN AC MOTOR!!!



confusing divergent FORCE with  NET FORCE,................thats why you have to varry the flux lines with respect to time upon a "conductor"  DUMMY!!!!!!


ARE YOU DRUNK? HONESTLY?? 

[Raz]

Hi Mr Wheeler. I sent you a PM.

[TheoriaApophasis]

When one, exactly ONE question stops you cold.

dont pretend you have a brain, BOY.   



one word stops you cold, pathetic child.     FIELD



DEFINE IT,   not describe its fucking effects...........   DEFINE IT

[Qwert]

NO FUCKING SHIT, .......who said otherwise?    



However the circuit of INERTIA in discharge (loss of inertia) is a circle,
BUT extrapolated spatially  ("from one pole to the other") is a hyperboloid.


go study projective geometry , dummy

You are right: in PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY it is exactly as you say. In NATURE it is NOT.
And once again: if vortex path is not a circle, the resulting pattern cannot be REGULAR hypotrochoid. So, your pictures where the hypotrochoids are regular patterns, do not represent VORTEX.

[TheoriaApophasis]

You are right: in PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY it is exactly as you say. In NATURE it is NOT.
And once again: if vortex path is not a circle, the resulting pattern cannot be REGULAR hypotrochoid. So, your pictures where the hypotrochoids are regular patterns, do not represent VORTEX.

youre BRAIN DEAD


Inertia , ie  NATURE is PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY son,    ~~~~~~~~~  ALL GEOMETRY is PROJECTED (past tense)   


this is where morons (like yourself) ONLY GRASP PHENOMENA, and not which PRECEDES it,

which is , by the fucking way,   ALSO NATURE    (natura naturans)

And once again: if vortex path is not a circle, the resulting pattern cannot be REGULAR hypotrochoid. So, your pictures where the hypotrochoids are regular patterns, do not represent VORTEX.

asshole idiot, a Hyprotrochoid cannot even be extrapolated WITHOUT creating a vortex.


You dont even know the goddamn definition of the term VORTEX, and here you are trying to say what IS or IS NOT a vortex     


Vortex from what dimension moron?  specificity is divinity, dummy.


You left out PRECESSION arsehole.


reciprocating precessional hyperboloid     (yeah, i know thats TOO MUCH for your brain to visualize)





however thats NOT MY ISSUE, its YOURS