Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[TinselKoala]

I NEVER talk about free energy ASSHOLE,    nor is a 2.5 to 3 degree shift  free energy to harvest.

Strawman fallacy boy



Find one spot where I associate anything with free energy son.    You cannot. Pathetic.


Nice try though son.  Idiot.   




You're as useless as bull tits and the Popes balls. 

What are you talking about in this thread then:

http://overunity.com/15311/zero-input-10-degrees-thermal-output-yes-genuine-free-energy/

"Yes, genuine Free Energy"....  did you forget, or did you change your "NEVER talk about Free Energy ASSHOLE" policy after you made that first quote..... after you discovered "Genuine Free Energy" from your Bismuth Sphere?

[CycleGuy]

CycleGuy wow nice detail ....... But electrons don't orbit they quantum jump !

I'm unsure what you mean. Can you elaborate a bit? I know what a quantum jump is, but that refers to the electron changing orbits, it doesn't describe the orbit itself. Can you provide more detail about this?

And you wont get a meaningful debate with TA

He has no choice. He'll address the points put forth, he'll do so without invective, he'll do so using empirical examples and proper citation, he'll toe the line and stay on topic, and he will admit his lack of understanding when such is apparent, so others can bring him up to speed with reality. To do anything less stands as his tacit admission that his hobby theory has failed the acid test, which will be his admission that he's spent the last 20 years doing what amounts to standing on the street corner screaming incoherently.

he is just another nut job with his own made up laws and has never confirmed not one magnetic vortex!

I don't dispute that there's a magnetic vortex, but he's looking at it from the wrong frame of reference... you'll note that I'm sly enough to have provided the means by which he could suss out the truth, in this very sentence. We shall see in time if he's quick-witted enough to figure it out.

What's really pathetic about Mr. Wheeler's claims is that others did the same experiments and observed the same effects long before him...
MagnetFlipper did the "magnet against a TV" thing before Mr. Wheeler claimed that he was the first one to do it (remember "You'll never see anything like this anywhere else, folks. I am the first to demonstrate this").

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7c4iXum-A

Al (MagnetFlipper) had the decency to credit Howard Johnson, whereas Wheeler has attempted to further claim that he originated the discovery of the quadravortexual nature of magnets. If he were drawing correct conclusions from his observations, perhaps he'd get a pass for staking "discoverer" status, but on top of his stealing credit for things others have done before him, he gets it hilariously wrong.

Keeping it simple is the key here ! The man has written a book and that book is dangerous to the minds that seek truth and will always be out there pumping its bullshit for a few bucks ... Nothing you can do .

All this nonsense of a static charge on a magnet hahahahhahaha wow !

Not just a static charge... "inertial dielectricity", with "inertia" redefined by Mr. Wheeler to mean "the opposite of rest" per his book, and "dielectricity" redefined to mean "static electricity"... now, if static electricity is in motion, it's not static, it's electricity. So plug your coffee pot into your magnet and brew yourself a cup in celebration, Mr. Wheeler has given the world free energy!

But there is a reason why there is NORTH and SOUTH ON A MAGNET ... One pole is made by the negative the other by the positive and  its stuck in perfect balance so it is neutral . If it is neutral and also inert it would be impossible to have this so called active dielectric as there are no polarised charged particles.

Not exactly "neutral and inert".  It is balanced, from the viewpoint of energy flow from our frame of reference. But think about how magnets stress the QVZPE field density, and the resultant effect upon space and thus time (given that space and time are conjugate, inextricably intertwined, in the four-dimensional manifold). Think further on how a magnet is made, and how that sets up those conditions to begin with.

Perhaps Mr. Wheeler should go back to the basics:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_spacetime
Does that image on that page look familiar, Mr. Wheeler?

But the spin is kinetic and the magnetic field is not a vortex that drives it !

The vortexual spin isn't observable until it is counter-mediated, true. But then, one would be hard put to find a spot in the universe where it would not be.

I went looking for an example inside a vacuum and could not find anything ?

Neat trick, seeing that time-shifted vortexual spin in the aether... how do you do it? I have a theory of how it can be done, which I've hinted at in a prior post regarding the double-slit experiment, but I lack the equipment and resources to conduct such.

Any way it works well in water ! TA has made a complete new science on this dumb effect hahahahhahahahhaha  wow what a nutter hahahhahahaha he really thought he was answering a question of uncertainty and used it to form hes nut case new law of physics hahahahahhahahahah its a joke hahahahahahhahaha ..... Treat it like one ! Don't get to up set the world is full of madness freaks lies and disseat .  And the nutters never agree to see sense !

At last the end of the magnetic vortex hahahaha best stick to a black hole ! But the spinning magnet on the crystal lens is still to be fully understood ! Do you have a good model of why it does what it does ? 

Most people are stuck in the here and now. In order to fully suss the nature of magnetism, one must be able to think in terms of warped time (and thus, space, given space and time's conjugative nature). Unfortunately for Mr. Wheeler, the book he wrote denies warped space (calling it the product of a warped mind... strange, then, that he was just discussing that in a post above, eh?), so he fails to figure out the non-simplex (note the correct Euclidean geometric spatial usage, as opposed to Wheeler's redefinition to mean something akin to "simple for me to understand but not for you because you're too simple") nature of magnets despite the evidence continuing to smack him across the face time and again.

[minnie]

Cycle,great to see someone showing a bit of real interest in this.
Can one actually get a true representation of magnetic lines using
light and say ferrous nano particle in a medium? Like in quantum
where if you look a something it alters its energy or position.
Would a magnetic vortex or whatever it's supposed to be,be
demonstrable by using the Earth's magnetic field using a compass
or similar.

[CycleGuy]

Cycle,great to see someone showing a bit of real interest in this.
Can one actually get a true representation of magnetic lines using
light and say ferrous nano particle in a medium? Like in quantum
where if you look a something it alters its energy or position.
Would a magnetic vortex or whatever it's supposed to be,be
demonstrable by using the Earth's magnetic field using a compass
or similar.

Not really. The universe doesn't just drop her robe for all to see.

Because of the effect of the magnetic field stressing the QVZPE field density (and thus affecting space-time in a local frame of perspective), the vortexes are not in our "time frame".

On top of that, because a magnet is quadravortexual in nature (ie: it stresses the QVZPE field twice on each pole face, thus it slows time down at the centrifugal interface and speeds time up at the centripetal interface), the two effects balance on each pole face... that's the reason it's inordinately difficult for us to get magnets to do work.

This isn't conjecture, it's completely understandable under QM. In fact, it's been experimentally proven. For an example, there's a NASA report of an experiment performed by scientists from Instituto de Cibernetica, Matematica y Fisica in Havana, Cuba entitled "Pressures and Energies of Vacuum in a Magnetic Field. Differences and Analogy with Casimir Effect", comparing a magnet to a Casimir cavity, although they only tested using conventional quadravortexual magnets and didn't attempt to isolate each vortex using custom flux paths... had they done so, they would have seen some very weird effects, indeed.

They reported the QVZPE field density was "stretched" at the perimeter of the magnet, and "compressed" at the center, sort of like squashing a donut... this represents time being expanded at the magnet perimeter, and contracted at the center. In other words, they reported exactly what was to be expected... the centrifugal Repulsive interface increased QVZPE field density, whereas the centripetal Attractive interface decreased QVZPE field density.

Howard Johnson came closest by taking "snapshots" of the vortexes over time in mapping out the vortex, although he probably didn't understand when he was doing it that that was what he was doing... trying to view the vortexual nature of magnets as a whole from our frame of perspective would necessitate being able to peer through time, which we can't do. We can only take snapshots of our time frame.

The closer we get to the Planck frequency in the radiation we use to view the magnet, the smaller the "time slice". The ferrocell uses visible light, thus the "time slice" is rather large and thus the vortex seems static... it'd be akin to switching on a light in a dark room for a second per day over many days and trying to figure out that the dust particles in the room have shifted in the interim. A much smaller time slice would show the vortex rotating, although we'd have to figure out some way of down-converting that frequency into something we could see.

[ramset]

maybe your room full of amateur Physicists could figure out how to post a Doc here and not make the readers have to put their running shoes on to read the whole page ?

BTW
93
here are some other fellows you can "help".

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20331-enlightened-magnetism-full-proof-ken-wheelers-theories.html