Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[profitis]

ATOM1 where r u I'm now very very ready to collect that prize

[TheoriaApophasis]

Im working hard on the 4th edition of the book, ive been insanely busy of course,  the ERROR i make is trying to include TOO MUCH in each edition.


here are some notes in refutation of NEWTONS 3RD LAW


COPYRIGHT 2015 KEN WHEELER - uncovering the missing secrets of magnetism


Action and reaction are instantaneous, delays are due to transverse induction rates.

Any and all spatial conglomerates (ie mass) or field perturbations (magnetism, electricity) have transverse attributes which thereby necessitate temporal qualifications we deem as SPEED or "delayed reactions", but there exist no such thing as delayed reactions, this is electromagnetic retardation.

Missing sun paradox, it takes light 8 mins to reach the earth but if the sun were to vanish, the earth would instantly shoot away from where the Sun was.

Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.
Law III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

Reactions are never effects but always instant and coeternal to actions which are always denotatively FORCES, ie the release of inertia. Reactions are only so deemed due to transverse induction rates and seen as posterior against magnitudinal measures of time and space which have themselves no reality other than merely relational qualifications of magnitudes and their respective mutual movements which are always force dissipations.

There are no Contrary parts, all interactions of masses, or atomics are the dissipation of force vectors and a curvilinear movement towards inertia.

There is no directed to, since all force is the polarization of the loss of inertia, which is "mother natures LINE", which is curvilinear force vectors against a point of inertia where that inertia was lost"

The magnitudes of both forces are equal, but they have opposite directions, as dictated by Newton's third law.
There are NOT "two forces" in the dissipation of inertia, rather one force which is polarized as against a zero-point of inertia where inertia was lost or dissipated. There are not two or opposite directions, rather two curivilinear force magnitudes which always terminate their loss of inertia by acceleration towards the original point of inertia.

There is no action-reaction law, all such unevolved observations are human contrivances of differentiating out inductive delays which have corresponding temporal apparent (but unreal) delayed reactions due to EM retardation observer effects.

The "conservation of momentum" is a misnomer and unreal and does not exist except in common observational interactions.
The loss of force (motion, momentum) can be immediately lost and grounded in counterspace, ie inertia.

Magnetic deceleration of a mass with incredible momentum is the observational proof that momentum can be dissipated in inertia by means of a strong coherent dielectric acceleration from a magnet. Momentum does not have to be conserved whatsoever from a body in motion, only dissipated. However as is the case, the transference of momentum from one body to the other is the typical observation, however the "conservation of momentum" is wholly unreal, and non-existent since its implication is that momentum MUST ALWAYS be transferred and this is wholly untrue. It needs only be grounded, dissipated in counterspace.

True energy is nothing, not in the human conception of absence, but rather No-THING/PHENOMENA, ie inertia. The human contrivance of energy is always based in transverse forces and interactions, not in true denotative energy which is always inertia, ie the Ether.

It is said: "Momentum, energy and angular momentum cannot be created or destroyed."
But this is wholly a lie. Momentum is a curvilinear force vector and can both be created by the dissipation of the loss of inertia and destroyed in counterspace where dielectric acceleration can easily destroy particle or bodily momentum. The correct analysis is that momentum and energy (in the motive sense) are NEITHER created nor ever destroyed, but are transverse field modalities of the loss of inertia, just as electricity and magnetism are in the circuit of light.








I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. –Newton

Hypotheses non fingo  -Newton

"It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact. Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thru a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and course may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into (for) it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers."  - Sir Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692


fallacy of attribute reification 

[TheoriaApophasis]

  A charge distribution on a charged capacitor plate won't have
an associated magnetic field, reason, the electron spins will
be randomly oriented.
                    J.

Electron particles dont exist.  Its nonsense.    Tesla said this, so did countless others.


its a brain fart and a phantasm.




NOW youre going to have to figure out why theres no such (also) BS as a "negative charge"


Negative charge is as senseless BS as saying "dry water" 

[TinselKoala]

You are literally surrounded by engineered electrical, electronic, electromechanical and mechanical devices that refute you. I suppose you think that electron spin resonance machines are fictitious, and that landing a robot lander on Titan was pure luck. Meanwhile,  you cannot engineer anything using your "theory" that contradicts the conventional physics of matter and energy. Negative charge doesn't exist? I laugh at you, sitting there typing your obscenities on your computer keyboard.

[TheoriaApophasis]

You are literally surrounded by engineered electrical, electronic, electromechanical and mechanical devices that refute you. I suppose you think that electron spin resonance machines are fictitious, and that landing a robot lander on Titan was pure luck. Meanwhile,  you cannot engineer anything using your "theory" that contradicts the conventional physics of matter and energy. Negative charge doesn't exist? I laugh at you, sitting there typing your obscenities on your computer keyboard.

There is not ONE SINGLE evidence by anyone anywhere of an electron particle, you brain dead mental midget 


You make me laugh little boy.   


Nikola Tesla November 1928 interview:
On the whole subject of matter, in fact, Dr. Tesla holds views that are startlingly original. He disagrees with the accepted atomic theory of matter, and does not believe in the existence of an "electron" as pictured by science.
"To account for its apparently small mass, science conceives of the electron as a hollow sphere, a sort of bubble, such a bubble could exist in a medium as a gas or liquid because its internal pressure is not altered by deformation. But if, as supposed, the internal pressure of an electron is due to the repulsion of electric masses, the slightest conceivable deformation must result in the destruction of the bubble! Just to mention another improbability..." - Nikola Tesla


Article: "A Famous Prophet of Science Looks into the Future" (Popular Science Monthly)

"My ideas regarding the electron are at variance with those generally entertained. I hold that it is a relatively large entity carrying a surface charge and is not an elementary unit (particle). When the 'electron' leaves an electrode of high potential and in a high vacuum it carries an electrostatic charge many times greater than normal." – N. Tesla 

     

"In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to give an account of their nature." "For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us." - Einstein on electrons; "Relativity", by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916

   

"To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting particle. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions." – W. Russell

     

JJ Thomson developed the "Ether Atom" ideas of M. Faraday into his "Electronic Corpuscle", this indivisible unit.

One corpuscle terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not and electron, it is a constituent of what today is known incorrectly as an "electron". (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W. Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether." – E. Dollard

   


"There is no rest mass to an 'electron'. It is given here the 'electron' is no more than a broken loose "hold fast" under the grip of the tensions within the dielectric lines of force. They are the broken ends of the split in half package of spaghetti. Obviously this reasoning is not welcome in the realm of Einstein's Theory of Relativity." – E. Dollard

   

"Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the 'electron', on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated" - C.P. Steinmetz (Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses)

   


The idea of electricity as a flow of 'electrons' in a conductor was regarded by Oliver Heaviside as "a psychosis". This encouraged Heaviside to begin a series of writings

   

Also consider the J.J. Thomson concept of the "electron" (his own discovery). Thomson considered the electron the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction.

     


"Electrons as a separate, distinct entity...doesn't really exist, they are merely bumps in something called a 'field'." - Dr. Steve Biller

     
You cannot say that stretching a trillion rubber bands nailed to the floor and releasing them or breaking their "force lines" is the "flow of electrons"; discharge is a terminal movement in systems of inductance or dielectric capacitance.  There are no discrete particles in the universe and certainly none that mediate charges, discharges, magnetism, electromagnetism, gravity, and radiation, only fields, all modalities of the Ether. The so-called 'electrons' are not particles, not objects or subjects but are the dynamic principle of discharge, and are certainly not charge-carriers, fields are not particles, are not "electrons", nor assuredly are there energy discharges in the vacuum of space involving 'electrons'; the 'electron' is a fiction of fallacious observation and an even more faulty mental acuity, spawned naturally from the minds of materialists, or an Atomist. Electricity is Ether in a state of dynamic polarization; magnetism is Ether in a state of dynamic circular polarization upon itself, is the radiative termination of electrical discharge; dielectricity is the Ether under stress or strain. The motions and strains of the Ether give rise to electrification. Phi times Psi gives Q; 'electrons' do not mediate these electrical and magnetic forces or their likewise the Ether fields.   



Anyone who thinks particles are flowing thru a wire has a mental DEFECT. 

This Electron = Particle bullshit is nothing more than Greek ATOMISM.      The universe is NOT a giant sea of tiny pool balls rolling and banging and spinning.



The presumed SEM:
"Because the SEM (scanning electron microscope) utilizes vacuum conditions and uses 'electrons' to form an image, specialpreparations must be applied to the sample. All water must be removed from the samples because the water would vaporize in the vacuum.

All metals are conductive and require no preparation before being used. All non-metals need to be made conductive by covering the sample with a thin layer of conductive material. This is done by using a device called a "sputter coater". The sputter coater uses an electric field and argon gas. The sample is placed in a small chamber that is at a vacuum.

Argon gas and an electric field cause an 'electron' to be removed from the argon, making the atoms positively charged. The argon ions then become attracted to a negatively charged gold foil. The argon ions knock gold atoms from the surface of the gold foil. These gold atoms fall and settle onto the surface of the sample producing a thin gold coating "

Only conductive (metal) samples are suitable for "electron" microscopy untreated, all other samples are metal treated to prevent them from burning up in the intense dielectric beam. The resulting image is therefore of the metal coating or stain and not the original sample! Never believe a relativist telling you he's "shooting his electron gun". A metal dielectric reflector of a once living organism is not the original sample nor are there electrons scanning it. This device in reality is a dielectric scanning reflector, which produces fine images as only reflected off metal surfaces. The very focusing beams of these microscope are constrictor "lenses" of dielectric flux lines.




Youre a fool son.