This topic is in urgent need of CPR.

Let's go further in our endeavor to comprehend the Ken's work, and try to emphasize the dielectricity in terms of well known word of electrostatics.

For beginning is welcome a short review of the ether fundamental modalities:
- 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.

---#---

Now, because the dielectricity or electrostatics is according to the current science 100% related to the so called "'electron" let's find first what is about the 'electron in Ken's book:

- All 'electrons are a motional terminus of a quantity of dielectric pressure gradients of force (as reified by the incorrect understanding of the definition of a 'field'), these pressure gradients, or "lines" are contracting and stretching like rubber bands, giving motion to the terminus ''electron'.
- ''electrons' have nothing to do with the flow of electricity; the so-called ''electrons' are the rate at which electricity is destroyed.
- 'electron is only a shadow; its apparent-only physical mass is merely an electrical momentum (ejected by the dielectric inertia in disturbance).
- 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
- 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 an '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
- "'electrons" represent energy dissipation. However, the cult of quantum, and the ill informed fool all tell us that the ''electron' is a subatomic particle and charge carrier, and is that which conveys energy, this is complete irrational nonsense!
- 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
- 'electrons as a separate, distinct entity...doesn't really exist, they are merely bumps in something called a 'field'." - Dr. Steve Biller
- 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.
- 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.
- There are no 'electrons in or comprising an atom, as has been amply mentioned.
- There are however no 'electrons, this fundamental error carries on today.
- Since we know 'electrons are not particles, but a misunderstanding of magneto-dielectric fields in motion, we can examine atomic orbital geometry with perfect lucid clarity.
- It was found that the orbiting 'electrons around a nucleus could not be fully described as particles, but needed to be explained by the wave-particle duality. In this sense, the 'electrons have the following properties:
(What this really means is that enormous evidence against the 'electron-bead model of the atom forced another quantum "Alice in Wonderland" answer from the cult of quantum to explain atomic geometry, this time as "wave particle duality" absurdity.)
Wave-like properties:
1. The 'electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves. The lowest possible energy an 'electron can take is therefore analogous to the fundamental frequency of a wave on a string. Higher energy states are then similar to harmonics of the fundamental frequency.
(What this really means is that the so-called ''electron' is a magneto-dielectric field whose wave/undulatory mechanics are dependent upon the nucleal makeup)
2. The 'electrons are never in a single point location, although the probability of interacting with the 'electron at a single point can be found from the wave function of the 'electron.
(What this really means is there is no such thing as an 'electron outright, it has no point, no locus, therefore cannot be a particle, and yet the magnetic and dielectric interactions can be explained by wave functions.)
Particle-like properties:
1. There is always an integer number of 'electrons orbiting the nucleus.
(This is purely conjecture and speculation)
2. 'electrons jump between orbitals in a particle-like fashion. For example, if a single photon strikes the 'electrons, only a single 'electron changes states in response to the photon.
(This is purely conjecture and speculation, what this means is if another dielectric outside charge strikes the atom its charge state geometry changes in response to the change in charge, creating an imbalance in the inter-atomic magneto-dielectric volume)
3. The 'electrons retain particle like-properties such as: each wave state has the same electrical charge as the 'electron particle. Each wave state has a single discrete spin (spin up or spin down).
(This is nonsense, even under the heading of particles, they cannot escape the fact that the so-called 'electron has no particle-nature, no reality as such)

---#---

According to all the above there is no 'electron at all, at least not as a duality wave-particle described by the current scientific model. Of course, the non-existence of 'electron was shared over time by many other conventional or unconventional scientists. Still has it a dual nature as pozitive and negative charges, or attraction and repulsion? Or all these are just our own wrong interpretation of more simplex (to paraphrase Ken) helical dynamics/vortex interactions? Then what is electrostatics/dielectricity in this case? It still remain unclear, but for sure it is not related to the non-existent 'electron or to the current static electricity concept.

---#---

More details for ordinary people in the book called "Uncovering the missing Secret of Magnetism", for studious skeptics in the scientific literature prior relativity, and for dogmatic skeptics there are no more details.

Minnie:'This topic is in urgent need of CPR.'

Sarkeizen is in need of urgent cpr.everyone jumped away from his steamroller then he jumped away from mine.he ran away.my 2-part clause stands tall and un-molested by any single homo sapien

Sadang:'electrostatics'

Is the key to the... 'ether' indeed.

Quote from: profitis on March 30, 2015, 01:21:45 PM
.....

Im still in the bahamas, .......


otherwise id be busy pissing on the skulls of these mental midgets trying to front this Atomistic BS that Mother Nature is an insane CRACK WH0RE with a bag of BB's   


back in a few weeks.


Off to Key West (again)