Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[massive]

STATIC ?   whats that ?        every object you can see on this planet is collectively either rotating 1000 mph or orbiting the sun 67,000mph , or the centre of this galaxy 490,000mph

^scientic american

"static electricty" was coined in the 1800s but is freely used in 2015

where Michelson and Morley ?   ....whoops back in the 1800s   

[TinselKoala]

The easiest way of proving or disproving Mr. Wheeler's hypothesis that a magnet is "dielectric" and is throwing off / taking in "inertial dielectricity" is to devise an experiment such that these charged particles (because remember, he says a magnet gives off "inertial dielectricity", while he's redefined "inertial" to mean "the opposite of rest" and "dielectricity" to mean "static electricity"... so "static electricity in motion") are put through a dielectric such that they give off Cherenkov radiation.

If Mr. Wheeler is able to produce Cherenkov radiation from a magnet, it would be an absolute confirmation of his theory. If he is unable to do so, that nullus resultarum will stand as an absolute refutation of  his theory.

Will Mr. Wheeler take the challenge to validate his theory?

That's not quite right. Producing the Cherenkov radiation from a magnet will not be "absolute confirmation"; it's a formal fallacy to think so. "If A then B; observe B.... therefore A" is fallacious reasoning called "Affirming the consequent". If Kenny's theory is correct, then under certain conditions producing CR from a magnet will result. Observe CR from the magnet... you can't therefore conclude that Kenny's theory is correct.

However, you are right about the second part: "If A then B; observe _not B_, therefore Not A." This is valid reasoning (modus tollens). So it's possible to _disprove_ absolutely the Wheeler theory by doing the right experiments with proper controls and finding a null result. However, getting a positive result can only "support" a theory, it cannot prove it. "Proof" of a scientific theory comes from a preponderance of supporting evidence but is very difficult to achieve in "absolute" terms. And there isn't even a shred of valid supporting evidence, much less a preponderance, for Kenny's hobby theory. (Which actually doesn't even rise to the level of a "theory" at all; it's more like a haphazard bundle of inconsistent conjectures with little correspondence to any reality.)


I'm still laughing about the "free energy" from the Bismuth sphere. That whole affair shows very clearly where the gaps are in Wheeler's reasoning, logic, use and understanding of his instruments, his poor experimental technique with lack of proper controls, and so on, including his reluctance to accept reality and his inability to admit his errors.

[CycleGuy]

That's not quite right. Producing the Cherenkov radiation from a magnet will not be "absolute confirmation"; it's a formal fallacy to think so. "If A then B; observe B.... therefore A" is fallacious reasoning called "Affirming the consequent". If Kenny's theory is correct, then under certain conditions producing CR from a magnet will result. Observe CR from the magnet... you can't therefore conclude that Kenny's theory is correct.

However, you are right about the second part: "If A then B; observe _not B_, therefore Not A." This is valid reasoning (modus tollens). So it's possible to _disprove_ absolutely the Wheeler theory by doing the right experiments with proper controls and finding a null result. However, getting a positive result can only "support" a theory, it cannot prove it. "Proof" of a scientific theory comes from a preponderance of supporting evidence but is very difficult to achieve in "absolute" terms. And there isn't even a shred of valid supporting evidence, much less a preponderance, for Kenny's hobby theory. (Which actually doesn't even rise to the level of a "theory" at all; it's more like a haphazard bundle of inconsistent conjectures with little correspondence to any reality.)

I'm still laughing about the "free energy" from the Bismuth sphere. That whole affair shows very clearly where the gaps are in Wheeler's reasoning, logic, use and understanding of his instruments, his poor experimental technique with lack of proper controls, and so on, including his reluctance to accept reality and his inability to admit his errors.

I especially like the photons of visible light the first sphere was giving off, according to Mr. Wheeler's theory. As is often the case, the evidence to disprove an odd theory is presented within the evidence supposedly supporting that odd theory.

I was attempting to bait Mr. Wheeler into disproving his own theory. 

Considering that it takes the highly charged particles produced in a nuclear reactor to produce Cherenkov radiation, Mr. Wheeler would have a difficult time finding a dielectric medium through which his "inertial dielectricity" would exceed the phase velocity of light in that dielectric medium unless he concentrates the magnetic flux quite a bit and separates the Attractive and Repulsive interface fluxes. And of course, they'd have to be charged particles, which they're not.

The very definition of Cherenkov radiation would prove that the particles going through the dielectric medium are indeed charged particles (if Mr. Wheeler could produce Cherenkov radiation with a magnet, which he can't)... but the radiation would, by necessity, be bluish in color with a continuous spectra, no spectral peaks. Obviously, because of the cutoff frequency denoted by cos theta = 1/(nB), x-ray and higher frequencies cannot be detected in this way, but if Wheeler's stating his magnets are giving off energy in that range, he's a greater fool than any of us had previously thought.

Any other frequencies of incident radiation, and he's looking at Askaryan radiation, a subset of Cherenkov radiation as a result of uncharged entities (I'm loathe to call them "particles" as an abstract construct, for fear Mr. Wheeler latches onto that single word as his "disproof" of the entire process). That'll be up around 5 GHz if he's using sand as the dielectric, or 2 GHz for ice. But he'll need to concentrate magnetic flux tremendously to get the energy level necessary to manifest Askaryan radiation, even more so than for Cherenkov radiation.

Or, he could defer to the research that's already been done:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0011001.pdf
They used photons to detect Askaryan radiation. Virtual photons, being photons themselves, would give a similar result.

Of course, since he says magnetic material is "dielectric" in nature, that would mean that all magnets are already giving off Askaryan radiation if the magnet is of sufficient strength... and he's got some of the most powerful magnets available to the public. Has he ever measured any radio frequency radiation coming off his magnets? I'm betting no.

Ergo, magnets are not "dielectrics", they do not give off "inertial dielectricity". They are ferromagnets (a scientifically descriptive name encompassing an explanation), and are mediated via virtual photons. Just as QM has said for a quite some time.

[joel321]

The ULTIMATE answer is that a vortex is 100% correct not matter what bullshit your mind thinks! Even in the math...1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-0 down to a vortex of 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-0 and this is a repetitive cycle...all computer CPUs are govenred by 0's and 1's...with 90% of the number NOT needed! SO! When this element93rd guy is trying to proclaim that only the number 9 is the answer for all, I DON'T BUY IT! I ONLY SEE HIM SEEING THE VORTEX...of his number 9...but he does not realize where that number came from? It did not start from the number 1 to the number 9 all of a sudden? Lol. His fucking number 9 is a vortex! Mmmm 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-? The nine is at the last place of a numeral scale? AS IF 1-8 does not matter but yet those numbers got to the number 9! He fails to see that the number 9 is a vortex!!! IOW, is is a repetition of numerical numbers = a vortex in the math equations.

AS A MATER OF FACT, we all learn from a vortex! If there was no vortex, we would not learn! And so would not the ATOMIC particles! IT IS A LAW THAT ALL PARTICLES ARE GOING IN CIRCLES! DOWN TO A VOID!

This dumbass of element93rd does not see that a magnetic field is a vortex...just as any electromagnetic field is..THE ONLY REASON ONE CAN SEE THE FLOW IS FROM A VORTEX FIELD....the view of seeing a sound regarding a #9 is because it FLOWS down to a number 1! The number 9 would never exist with out the numbers 1-8? SO this is 100% facts to me that a vortex is in everything!

- numbers

- galaxies

- dark matter

- dark energy

- the big bang

ALL IS A VORTEX. = IT IS A LADDER OF ENERGY> vortex + vortex + vortex + vortex + vortex vortex + vortex + vortex + vortex + vortex + vortex = what comes out of the vortex is evolution!

This means that light is a vortex that what is coming out from it is great BUT the light is still a vortex! A photon needs "batteries" to keep on shining! HOW THE FUCK CAN A PHOTON KEEP ON LIVING WITH JUST A NUMBER 9? The photons are going down this vortex of quantum level.......the same reason why UFO's can become invisible!!!!

A 12 hour clock is a vortex 'cause is continues to be a 12 hour clock for infinity! How the hell can't a 9 number not be a nine 4 minutes from now since it is a number? You ONLY learned about the number nine due to a vortex! IF WE ARE GOING DOWN THE MASSIVE BLACK HOLE, lest see you explain NOT! To go down it with your number 9 math?

IFFFF YOU DON'T SHOW ME ANSWERS I NEED TO KICK YOUR ASS! SERIOUSLY! A GOOD ASS KICKING!!! BY the same token, if you show that the number 9 is not a vortex, I would tell my girlfriend to sleep with you if I tell her too.

Lets hear the evidence that the #9 is NOT a vortex! hehehehe

And how the number nine became 9 with out the numbers 1-8?

[joel321]

Minnie, you are here to get a freee energy device? Sorry to tell you that it has already been invented...we are here talking politics (vortex is essential just how the space time curves to itself) lol