Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[sarkeizen]

A constant

Is not a formal argument.  You lose.

When you can present a formal argument.  You will win.  Sorry that's the rules.

[profitis]

Sarkeizen:'formal argument.  You will win.'

A CONSTANT remains a CONSTANT in the formula E= RT/nF ln k1/k2.at 25 deg C.forcing the conclusion:This voltage is permanent.forcing,permanent.I win

[sarkeizen]

Sarkeizen:'formal argument.  You will win.'

A CONSTANT

Is not a formal argument.  If it was you could show a list of steps coming from a set of agreed upon assumptions where each further step is LOGICALLY NECESSARY - that means no knowledge of physics, chemistry or specialized domain knowledge at all is required.

Seriously, we did this dance already.  You said: "I don't want to write the whole thing out".  Hence...you lose.   

[minnie]

   The smart ones here convincingly shoot down anything I say.
Anyways I must thank pinestone who's obviously got a grasp of
science. Not only has he introduced me to Rayleigh scattering and
transformation optics, now he has put me on to Quantum Foam!
Now I can see that there's a whole new world inside an empty box.
Don Lincoln of Fermilab (I think) shows some amazing things such
as virtual particles appearing and vanishing, some theoretical and
real results matching to about 8 places, all this courtesy of the good
old 'tube. Thanks pinestone I now believe in 'ether!!!
            Peasant John.

[Raz]

The cardinal error of science lies in shutting the Creator out of His Creation. Russell talk about modalities of ether not about particles. Tubes of force? Not really! They can be counted as a specific ether dynamics, a fundamental one, but not as dielectricity itself. Dielectricity is expressed somehow by Ken as "ether under stress or strain". I think the deep and right answer is in the book Occult Chemistry. My own view is somehow similar to what is learned now about electrostatics. Generally speaking, but do not want to get into details. That should be everyone's homework.

Now, according to my point of view the dielectricity is closer to this view "As an elemental plane between the magnetic vortex polarities" And only if we talk about polarities as a human way of saying (based on human model of thinking) not as an intrinsic reality of their nature. There is not any polarities, others than those defined by human minds. They are rather complementarities, the same as in the above image. They are simply reciprocating necessary dynamics so the ether can manifest and shape this world from micro to macro levels.

To the last question I choose to not answer, because I'm not sure about anything yet. I'm still on the road but far behind understandings of Keely, Tesla, Reich, Russell and other giants of ether science. Perhaps Ken will have a point of view here.

Anyway what you asked now sent my thoughts to the Paul Baumann experiment. However, I'll lean deep and longer on this question! Thanks for asking.

My questions comes from Russell "the universal one" he says:

Electrically generating elements and magnetically radiating lines of force are the same force exerted in apparently opposite directions. The former is centripetal and its direction is toward the nucleal (center of a closing spiral. The latter is centrifugal and its direction is away from the center toward the opening spiral. Their difference is but a rising or lowering of potential. One always becomes the other. Each is the cause of the other. Radio-activity is a lowering of potential into 5 higher octaves of elements of greater speed but lesser power. Genero-activity is the increasing of potential into lower octaves of greater power and lesser speed. Genero-activity builds the elements. Radio-activity tears them apart. The elements are composed of apparently separate particles in motion which shall henceforth be called "light units" or "corpuscles." The spiral genero-radiative waves are the medium of reproduction of idea throughout the entirety of the universe. All idea of Mind produced by thinking is reproduced throughout the entirety of the universe of Mind in measurable waves of electro- magnetic opposition. These apparently opposing genero-radiative waves constitute the creating and decreating universe of integrating and disintegrating elements of potential energy which man calls the "created physical" universe. Man has measured the speed at which the energy of light appears to travel along waves as 186,400 miles per second. This measure is the highest measure of the perceptible impulses of universal thinking. This is the measure of energy reproduction which man calls the "speed of light." Page 37 
Man's concept of the speed of light, as being uniform, is a wrong concept. To man, light is incandescent luminosity. Page 38 Page 39 
To man that which is not glowingly incandescent is not light. All matter is light. This universe is one of light. Solids of matter, heavy, dark, and cold, are as much light as flaming Arcturus.

Russell actually describes electricity as" centripetal and its direction is toward the nucleal center of a closing spiral(a vortex),but  I think he was refering to dielectricity and not electricity. Russell never used the word dielectricity in the universal one, so I dont know if he ever read Faraday or thompson or maxwell.

Tesla talked about the tubes of force on the ether. I do understand the explanation of Ken about the dielectric being an elemental plane between the magnetic vortex polarities. I also do understand that the polarities are by our convention , and it must be this way to identify them if we are going to perform an experiment.Mainly what I am asking you is how you visualize this dielectric . I can visualize electricity as conventional science pictures it, but i want to know how others visualize dielectric in a picture beside an electric " current" or " elastic band" or "tube of force". How do other people visualize it in action in an application, not just standing in "space" in the middle of a magnet. To visualize this interactions is what would make it really useful in developing new applications.