Quote from: TheoriaApophasis on August 17, 2014, 11:39:38 PM
the HUGE equation for that is in CP Steinmetz's work, and believe it or NOT,  nobody has EVER performed the experiment to test it.

Except those hundreds of papers on the subject in arxiv. Or didn't you know that magnetics plays a huge role in, for instance, computers... and knowing how fast magnetism propagates, how fast magnetic domain walls propagate and how to stop domain unpinning is essential to improving, for instance, hard drive performance?

Actually, Maxwell mathematically derived the speed at which magnetism propagates, called the magnetic diffusion rate. And it's not faster than the speed of light, as you claim via claiming that cutting a magnet will recenter the Bloch Wall (which you've redefined to "inertial dielectric plane" (further redefining "inertia" to be "the opposite of rest" and "dielectric" to mean "static electricity") at faster than the speed of light.

The magnetic diffusion rate depends upon the resistivity of the material the magnetic flux is traveling through, and under no circumstances does it exceed c. Your red-faced embarrassment over your bragging about a deep knowledge of Maxwell and further enlisting him as supportive of your theories, without your having known this elementary fact about magnets, must eat at you... and we'll know it does by your footstomping ad hominem-filled textwall reply of little substance, referring back to your own fallacious conclusions as though you were in your own little echo chamber, rather than providing mathematical proofs of such veracity they could be accepted for publication... because we all know you don't have that.

Quote from: TheoriaApophasis on August 17, 2014, 11:39:38 PM
There is a long standing "what the fuck??"   about that fact among some folks.

There is a space-time paradox in measuring magnetic field , as  Dr. Oleg D. Jefimenko writes about in EXHAUSTIVE LONG LONG DETAILS WITH NEW EQUATIONS.

Your misuse of the word "paradox" is noted. It's not a paradox, the phenomenon is completely expected under QM... perhaps to those who follow your one-particle rip-off bastardization of Circlon Theory (which can be proven by comparing the text in your book comparing a nuclear explosion to the unwinding of clock springs to the identical text of Circlon Theory... to wit):

Your book: The uranium, plutonium, or tritium are still within the mushroom cloud.
Circlon Theory: All of the protons, electrons, and neutrons making up the uranium, plutonium, or tritium are still within the mushroom cloud.

along with your hodgepodge of other patchwork theories pasted together with flopsweat and bombastic spittle-flecks, it's a paradox because you're hobby theory isn't fully-fleshed enough to suss the true temporal nature of magnets.

But your book denies warped space (and hence, given that space and time are conjugate in 4D Minkowski space, time variability), thus according to the book you wrote, there can be no "space-time 'paradox'". Did Dr. Oleg D. Jefimenko just destroy yet another section of your theory? Why yes, yes he did, and by your own admission, no less.

Why, you've demonstrated right here on this forum that you lack the fundamental understanding as to why there is space-time variability at the Attractive and Repulsive interfaces of a magnet (indeed, you failed to even acknowledge that there are Attractive and Repulsive interfaces, despite the evidence staring you right in the face). Your book goes further into your fallacious reasoning by describing a sort of "helical gear" magnetic attraction and repulsion model, which is a nice analogy that allows beginners to conceptualize it, but doesn't actually accurately describe or explain what is happening and why. To do that, you'd have to fall back on the descriptions and explanations that QM have already put forth, which they mathematically modeled and predicted years ago, and now are able to actually empirically observe.

Quote from: TheoriaApophasis on August 17, 2014, 11:39:38 PM
The reason for that, is that magnetism is a Poincare' disk extrapolation of a charge in discharge with a resultant spatial vector but no point of temporal CAUSATIVE measurement.

Your word salad analogy stands in direct contrast to reality, Mr. Wheeler. You're yet again restating in different words that magnetism can travel faster than the speed of light because there is no temporal causitive measurement to that spatial vector... see above as regards the refutation by Maxwell.

Remember, Mr. Wheeler, before you start foot-stomping and ticking off your "accomplishments" to try to establish yourself as more of an expert than I via the logical fallacy of appealing to authority (while trying desperately to establish yourself as that very authority), that you're not contesting what I say, so my qualifications and background matter little... you're contesting reality. And in so contesting reality, the burden of proof is upon you... and while you've provided videos showing interesting observations (most of which were found by others long before you, several of which you've subsequently claimed as your own... the Michael Snyder hyoptrochoidal discovery being one such example years before you claimed it as your own; the quadrapolar (and quadravortexual) nature of magnets as discovered by Howard Johnson literally decades before you claimed the discovery as your own, as another example; the discovery by Louis Pasteur in 1872, and Krylov and Tarakonova in 1960 reporting on the effects of magnetic fields on plants (they called this effect magnetotropism), and the patent by Albert R. Davis in 1977 for a magnetizer for seeds being a particularly egregious example of your claiming credit for something long known about), you've not provided any framework (mathematical or otherwise) upon which those observations can be hung, unlike QM, which has, in spades.

What was it Dr. Jennings said about "intellectual vampires of discovery and invention"?

I don't have to convince you of anything, however, I must merely refute you. In this case, I used those you tout as supportive of your theory (including yourself, if you didn't notice) to refute you. There are about a thousand other refutations of your fallacious theory in the offing.

I will note I don't dispute your observations, I dispute the false conclusions you've been deriving from those observations.

Quote from: MileHigh on August 18, 2014, 04:06:32 AM
Here is an example of Kenny's brilliance:

Quote
Is the untouched powerful magnet just 'sitting there' generating heat? YES
the spatial magnetic reciprocation is responsible for the 2 -2.5 (average) degree diff. in the heat.
Radiation, discharge, heat. Same as your stove top, discharge the charge.
However nobody is going to COOK anything with 2 or 3 degrees of heat.
Any circulatory radiative discharge necessitates HEAT, including the very iron in the magnet and its other constituents

What Kenny is saying above that a bloody magnet just sitting there is a source of thermal power. (That's what "generating heat" means Bozo.)

That's it, Kenny has found the source of free energy that we have all been looking for - NOT.

Quote
However nobody is going to COOK anything with 2 or 3 degrees of heat.

Are you sure about that?

We just have to connect copper pipes conducting water between a long chain of successive magnets.  Water will flow through the pipes and pick up the heat generated by each magnet.  Each magnet in the chain will be thermally isolated from every other magnet.  Therefore each magnet in the chain will operate at a slightly elevated temperature compared to the previous magnet in the chain.  There will always be a small delta-t between the water in the copper pipes and each magnet in the chain such that the water is always picking up some heat from each magnet.  The Curie temperature for a neo magnet is way above the boiling point of water so with a long enough chain of magnets you will be able to produce super heated steam at the end of the chain.  World saved!

Or perhaps hapless magnet rag doll clown Kenny was totally ignorant and had no clue that saying, "Is the untouched powerful magnet just 'sitting there' generating heat? YES" actually implied that a magnet just sitting there minding it's own business was producing thermal power from nowhere.  Perhaps Kenny measured a different temperature of the magnet relative to the surroundings and mistakenly assumed that the hotter magnet automatically implied that it was producing thermal power.  (Sounds like some Google searching might fix that.)

Another hapless Roseanne Roseannadanna moment for poor Kenny the Rag Doll Clown stuck on that fridge door.

The truth about Kenny is plain for all to see.

My goodness sake, has Mr. Wheeler discovered frustrated magnets?!

http://www.cmth.bnl.gov/workshop/FrustratedMagnetism04/Talks/AChernyshev/poster_1D_heat.pdf

No, no... that just pertains to anomalous heat transport through a magnet, not heat generation... and is completely explainable using QM.

What Mr. Wheeler has discovered is brow-beaded frustration in being utterly unable to properly experiment and isolate variables, as well as explain what he observes, which leads to hilarious examples of fallacious reasoning... several of which have culminated in a book. Him being a photographer, you'd think his experience in the visible with cameras would have given him a clue in the infrared with FLIR, but no... no.

Oh, and he was so close, too. Unfortunately for Mr. Wheeler, his denial of the underlying precepts of QM precludes him finding that "free energy" solution which his video above purports to have found. And the solution is so simple... why, it's been staring him in the face the whole time he's been denying it.

Quote from: TheoriaApophasis on August 18, 2014, 05:07:33 AM
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.    ;D ;D ;D


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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0CB9GVjLH8
NEVER SEEN before: Power output & *NO INPUT*. Using HUGE Neodymium & Halbach Array

"Why would anybody be so interested in an LED being lit? Because there's no power input!"

Another example of Mr. Wheeler's inability to properly experiment and isolate variables... why, I'd bet if he just sat the device there in whatever position he deems to be "correct" without jiggling it, that LED would go out. Anyone notice that when it's perfectly still, the light goes out?

Quote from: TheoriaApophasis on August 18, 2014, 07:06:29 AM
Particles ULTIMATELY do not exist, they're 'stable' dielectric formations

Dielectricity in galactic and intense power stellar formations congregates into fundamental particle creation.

There is only ONE fundamental particle, which you call the neutron,  all "free neutrons" spin up and become protons within , what is it,  17 mins in "free space".   then...... i.e.  Hydrogen.

beta decay, inverse beta decay

protons can become neutrons , and vice versa.

protons are magnetically dominant,   neutrons are dielectrically dominant.

Are you referring to electron capture decay when referring to the ambiguous term "inverse beta decay"? Or were you not aware that a beta particle is a high-energy electron?

I've done an analysis of all the elements in the Periodic Table, correlating their proton:neutron ratio to their Molar Magnetic Susceptibility and magnetic properties, and there is no correlation... odd then, that an element's magnetic properties can be predicted merely by knowing how its valence shells are filled, eh?

Quote from: TheoriaApophasis on August 18, 2014, 07:06:29 AM
Particle radiation (He nucleus) is not up for debate, obviously.   WHAT the particles themselves ARE ultimately .......IS

matter is created in galactic and stellar formations.

See images of galactic jets.

thats new matter being shot out both "ends"

So wrong that wrong is the wrong word to describe how wrong you are, Mr. Wheeler. Your shallow understanding of nuclear processes leads to more of your fallacious reasoning, hence your adoption of and bastardization of Circlon Theory's "neutron as proton and electron 'egg'" theory, sans the electron.

From your book, the same as you've said above:

Quote
"There is only one particle in the universe, the mass-particle, with two modal attributes of existence. QM explanation of neutron to proton conversion is a pathetic farce, is nonsensical in the extreme. There is "beta decay", there are no electrons. The universe is divinely simple in its makeup."

Never mind that beta decay wouldn't take place if electrons didn't exist, as, for example, free neutron beta decay doesn't just result in a proton, it also results in an electron (beta particle), and electron anti-neutrino, and in rare cases a gamma ray.

So your saying "There is 'beta decay'", then turning around and saying "there are no electrons" (in the same sentence, no less) is nonsensical, given than a beta particle is a high energy electron. Unless you're talking about the other beta particle, the positron, which wouldn't make it beta decay according to the literal definition.

Of course, your also saying there are no photons rules out gamma radiation. So Fukushima and Chernobyl are now rendered safe. 

Given that gamma rays are merely hard x-rays (the main distinction between gamma and x-ray being its source (which is unknown sometimes), secondarily its energy, but the ranges overlap), that leaves out most of the radiation in outer space, and ruling out photons means no x-ray machines, no microwave ovens, no photovoltaics, etc... but I'm betting you didn't realize that the names "gamma ray", "x-ray", "microwaves" and "photon" are merely abstracts used as descriptive terms to describe various frequency ranges and energy levels of radiation, just as "beta particle" is an abstract to denote a "high-energy electron", which is an abstract to describe a certain type of electrical charge.

You appear to be utterly unable to reconcile yourself to the fact that words are shorthand abstracts used to describe sometimes complicated objects or concepts, so you redefine everything and use complicated long-hand descriptions.

And apparently this "mass-particle" can change its mass from 1.672621777e⁻²⁷ kg (rest mass of a proton) to 1.674927351e⁻²⁷ kg (mass of a neutron) and back magically and without any explanation from you, Mr. Wheeler. So things don't actually weigh what they weigh because they can magically change weight, apparently as these "mass-particles" are spontaneously and without external input switching between "proton-form" and "neutron-form". 

Likewise, this "mass-particle" can change its size, from 10e⁻¹⁴ meters to 10e⁻¹⁰ meters (that's a change in size of about 10,000 times, BTW) and back, for some strange reason. So if you go outside to your "four-wheeled means of locomotion utilizing internal combustion reciprocally con axially mediated to the wheels in a circularly rotating modality causing spatial distention internally and externally therewith" (Wheeler's likely definition, what we would call a car) and find it at 1:10,000 scale, at least you'll know why.

I'd love to see your explanation for the para- and ortho- forms of hydrogen based upon your "mass-particle" concept, especially as regards their burn rate and energy content.

Also... your take on astrophysical jets creating new matter at the origin of the jets is incorrect. The existing matter is being sucked in at the accretion disc, some of it has enough velocity to escape and because that matter has accumulated on the accretion disc and is spiraling, it's expelled in a vortex on either side perpendicular to the accretion disc. It's simply geometry, so one would think you would understand it, having studied geometry as you claim to have done, but apparently you don't understand it at all.

It takes the energetic conditions of a star to transmute elements higher up the Period Table than iron into heavier elements, and the extraordinarily energetic conditions of an exploding supernova to transmute iron into heavier elements (iron being the most atomically stable element, which is why fusion works with lighter elements, and fission works with heavier elements, but the closer you get to iron from either end, the less energy you can get out of the reactions), do you honestly think matter is being created in less energetic conditions?

Quote from: TheoriaApophasis on August 19, 2014, 02:13:44 AM

Quote
Well looking at that pic I'd say that adds to your theory.
Those that have actually read Einstein's theory of relativity

Except Einstein blames everything on the flies (SPACE) buzzing around the horse poop (spatial / mass/ magnitude) ,......and he leaves out the HORSE (dielectricity/ Ether) .

He committed the Platonic sin of inverse fallacy of reification.

Other than that, agreed.   

So you agree that a geometric atmospheric flow phenomenon that was replicated in the lab sans magnetism somehow substantiates your magnetic theory, Mr. Wheeler? Are you entirely certain of that? Or are you committing the Platonic sin and fallacy of reification?

http://www.space.com/30608-mysterious-saturn-hexagon-explained.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn%27s_hexagon

Quote
Explanation[edit]
One hypothesis, developed at Oxford University, is that the hexagon forms where there is a steep latitudinal gradient in the speed of the atmospheric winds in Saturn's atmosphere.[14] Similar regular shapes were created in the laboratory when a circular tank of liquid was rotated at different speeds at its centre and periphery. The most common shape was six sided, but shapes from three to eight sided were also produced. The shapes form in an area of turbulent flow between the two different rotating fluid bodies with dissimilar speeds.[14][15] A number of stable vortices of similar size form on the slower (south) side of the fluid boundary and these interact with each other to space themselves out evenly around the perimeter. The presence of the vortices influences the boundary to move northward where each is present and this gives rise to the polygon effect.[15]