Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[TheoriaApophasis]

Ok ,well here is some test i carried out today,using an effect we have seen befor,but tried in many different configurations. So who can explain clearly how and why we get a spin-and please take note of where i place the copper plate(anode),and where the wires are running.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV8DqMBzkIc&feature=youtu.be

Lovely video!!!!


Lovely video!!  You are officially awesome

However, as is the case, there are 5 diff. methods (more really) to see (my videos) this vortex WITHOUT having to zap your magnet

nevertheless your method (as originally duplicated by 'magnetflipper' you youtube) produces vortex from hydrogen bubbles.

There are 2 METHODS I have found (that have nothing to do with zapping a magnet) to SHOW magnetic vortex movement.   

1. Use FAST moving HIGH volume medium like the force lines in a CRT tube, or neon tube, or your H2 bubbles

OR

2. (my best demos) use LOW volume viscous SLOW MOVING materials in a suspension (see my videos on this).       


You're awesome


The reason for the "CW  / CCW" is the necessitated field conjugation and magnetic reciprocation.

ultimately its all 'twisted' straight lines.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Example 1:

The video of your magnet lifting up those nails in the shaper box is a problem where you are giving such a long explanation of extremely complicated field relationships. But in reality the effect is so simple. When you approach the magnet slowly the closest nails under the magnet are held up because the closest nails have the time required to concentrate the magnetism more then the nails beside them. When you approach the magnet quickly, the magnetization time is spread out to all the nails in the region of influence.

You said it yourself. "Nature does not do math", so how then can functional explanations of nature be any more complicated then a one sentence description. Two at most. This is one of my own measuring sticks of logic. 1 - 2 sentences, not more. If you can boil down all your theories (I am saying theory because at this stage we are all walking theories) and bring them down to layman terms where the reader can see develop a true character of the ether, then for me it is doing justice and I can only hope for you that such a skill will eventually mature. Teaching is an art that is not inbred, so maybe use your time here to practice this art and learn from it yourself.

Imagine I am still at page 21. I have had to read and re-read those pages and am still in ambiguity to the actual main premises. I am afraid to read on because this will just mix things up even more and I will have to start over again. But I will continue on.

Also, knowing my own character, once I finally finish reading your book I will want to cut it into pieces because there will be loose ends, and, I hate loose ends.



But to say this effect is the result of multi fields moving both ways, one lifting up, the other pushing down onto a geometrically uniform pattern is something that just does not click. If the magnet is both pushing up and pulling down in a geometrical pattern and that is the only cause of the cones, then you will have to explain why, with the addition or removal of a volume of ferrofluid, does the pattern itself change. If the cause of the cone pattern is the magnet field pattern, then why does the cone pattern change? If your premise is correct, then the pattern should stay exactly the same and the only change should be higher or lower cones. But it does not. Do you see the logic of this questioning?

My main stance is ether is everywhere. In space, in atoms, in magnetism, in action at a distance, in everything man. So where is this "no ether in space" thing coming from? Why should ether have a preference? Ether if everywhere does not have to move anywhere because it is already in everything. We move through ether and not ether moves through us, just like as our planet, solar system and galaxy all have an additive effect on mass moving through ether, so do all other galaxies in their own right and at their own minimal mass threshold speeds of movement. The law of action/reaction will logically want that the same mass moving at a different speed will create a different effect on the base frequency of atomic nature and this will produce different effects as we see them in the universe. We look at the stars, the galaxies and see so many effects that we try to figure out, but the first question to ask is, what speed is that galaxy moving through space compared to ours? That's what I would like to know.

I have no such video using "nails"  elaborate.

Yes, of course it can be boiled down much more so. And I have future videos for that.  The book which is expanding is another matter.



"""But to say this effect is the result of multi fields moving both ways, one lifting up, the other pushing down onto a geometrically uniform pattern is something that just does not click."""

That it doesnt "click" is no ERR on my behalf. Simplex lowest-pressure cross-mediation is extremely simplex.


I love being refuted actually, and I stated my purpose here many times, I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything.  They can wipe their arse with the book for all it matters.


IF HOWEVER someone (has happened a few times in this thread) has something very logical and coherent to say FOR or AGAINST any point, thats always of great USE, and great BENEFIT (to myself at any rate).


A friendly DEBATE isnt an argument.     I respect all parties here, but this is NOT A personality contest, its an exchange of information and ideas.    Sometimes rough, sometimes Smooth.

However I dont care one way or the other about anyone's  "personality",   if you care about mine, well, that lay at your own feet.



"""" If the cause of the cone pattern is the magnet field pattern, then why does the cone pattern change?""""

I explain same in a future video and the 3rd edition of the book,    I state outright IN the book that "much WILL and NEEDS to be expanded upon".



"""""But then I read "there is no Ether in space, only space within the Ether", just cannot figure that one out.""""""


Neither can most people.

Polarity = Spatial = CW/CCW  ...........these are the mental skr3w of human (MIS)understanding


Ultimately there is NO "polarity" in a "magnet" only field reciprocation and MOVEMENT along lowest pressure gradients, of which FIELDS in their instantaneous attributional creation, generates the ATTRIBUTE OF SPACE , that being polarization.

Chains of causation:
1. Field(s)
2. space
3. polarization

However, logically one can say that 2 and 3 are co-eternal

Space is an attribute of a FIELD,  there are no "fields in space", only SPACE as an attribute, and posterior (in creation) from FIELDS.

This is why Einstein was a mental midget, he REIFIED the attribute of FIELDS , that being SPACE as "something" that "does things" and "acts on things"



""""My main stance is ether is everywhere. In space, in atoms, in magnetism, in action at a distance, in everything man. So where is this "no ether in space" """"


Then you SHOULD HAVE ALREADY deduced from this fact that you are swimming IN fields upon fields WITHIN fields and other fields upon fields upon fields.

The Aether/Ether is  NO-where (in space),     Where, or GREEK TOPOS or "Khora" the "where" is as pertains TO space, AS posterior to any and all fields.


"look at the wide open spaces!!"  (said the goof standing IN A FIELD (Khora) ...)

Youre talking about the baby before the mother (fields).     There is no space without a field,   Space is POSTERIOR to any and all fields,   either in simplex, OR compounded.

There is no "Ether in space",   Space is POSTERIOR to ANY and ALL fields.    Dr. Oleg D. Jefimenko proves this (however he doesnt grasp the implicactions) in his books.



There is no "instant action at a distance"   (THERE IS), but the premise is 100% flawed.

I did not mean by the title that there IS NO "instantaneous action at a distance (within fields)" Of course there is, within fields 'instant action at a distance' without propagation speeds

(as proved by Tesla and E Dollard.  Dr. O. Jefimenko and others regarding longitudinal field propagation).

But that the entire PREMISE is 100% flawed, regarding the statement of: "instantaneous action at a distance"

Field pressure gradients are not IN space nor therefore a modality of time.

So what is going on "instantly" is merely field inductions, pressures occurring "under" and preceding space which is merely a modality of any field.

So, taking the common phrase regarding fields (mag, grav, dielectric): " "instantaneous action at a distance"

we have removed the "INSTANTANEOUS" part as merely a human perceptual flaw of immanent fields within which there is space (but never a field IN space, rather space as attributional to or of a field).

"ACTION" can be removed, since we are only talking about field pressure gradients, inductions, charges and discharges. There are no "moment actions", since actions are comparators over 2 points in time. However the case is is that what something is in Principle it is in Attribute, likewise therefore deductively we can speak of X as both a THING/PRINCIPLE, and an ACTION/ATTRIBUTE, ........such as light-illumination, or will-willing. The very co-eternal principles, also, of and to any field.

"DISTANCE" can likewise therefore be eliminated, since we are talking about the attribute and EFFECT WITHIN any field(s). There are no "distances" , since this is a conceptual abstraction of fields which are impinging/interacting within / to/ against etc. each other.


ANY retardations of field action-propagation are logically only merely resistances encountered from intervening field-modality inductions/capacitance; or field voidance or counter-voidance pressures


So, having eliminated all 3 main words within "instantaneous action at a distance", whats left? Only fields logically. .... Well, we are left with "AT"

Field pressure AT another field
Electricity terminating AT X as magnetism
Magnetic moving its attribute (space) AT a dielectric ( which = dielectric inertial plane torque = electrification)
Your body AT a location in space AT which another body's centripetal convergent gravitational field is acting AT yours.



All fields are definitionally Ether modalities, either convergent/divergent, spatial, counterspatial, circular, radial, inertial, centripetal, centrifugal.

As for any "polarized (=SPATIAL)" field, it isn't IN space, rather contains space, and therefore is definitionally "polarized", .......when all this time we have considered "polarized = IN space", rather than "space = attributional construct of a polarized field".

And as we know, there is no "N or S pole", NO clockwise or counterclockwise spins.

the same rope turning CW on one end is turning (apparently so) CCW on the other end, but we also of course, know that the entire rope (or ball, etc) is spinning in one single direction as pertains itself, but "has space" (inverse spin) as attributional to it being "polarized" and therefore "creating a space" as definitional to its polarization, i.e. Ether modality.

We are then merely left with an ocean of fields overlapping fields in which there are atomic magneto-dielectric and gravitational fields which prop up the volumes of atoms and their covalent joining.


Weight is not only location specific, but also MEDIUM (Ether, water etc etc) specific. Obviously an obese person doesn't 'weight much' floating in the water and even a 10 year old can "carry" a 400 pound person in that medium. 


There needs to be a whole NEW SCIENCE for the future regarding Field Incommensurabilty or F.I. (as I coined it, pardon if that is hubristic).

Tesla talked about this EXACTLY AND SPECIFICALLY, and why he verbally slapped the hell out of Einstein in his writings.

[SeaMonkey]

SeaMonkey:

You lose perspective so easily it's not funny.  It's like you are
hard-wired to believe that "the alternative guy must be right"
even when you have to deal with an internal dichotomy.  You
have enough technical knowledge to know that the vast
majority of what Theoria is stating is quite frankly "crazy
whackadoo nonsense."  You know that he is wrong but your
hard-wiring takes over and you will defend the underdog,
because defending the underdog is more important than
what's right and what's wrong.  So you have an internal
conflict and what always wins is the "alternative guy."  And
that is your great flaw, you support things that you know
are wrong because you are against "the system."

Indeed, you can't even think straight sometimes because
of that hard wiring.  I am not "attacking" Theoria, I am
challenging his propositions because they are a form of
"knowledge pollution" and people deserve to hear both
sides in a debate.

You must be talking about Theoria?  Whoops, I guess you
are alleging that I am the one breaking the rules.  When
did I ever say or imply I had a privileged status?  Your
hard-wiring distorts your perception.  When you post things
like that you sound like the worst of the worst of the
"Powers-that-Be spin doctors."  It's like reading Pravda in
1972.

You can kiss my ass when you use the term "Forum Man"
trying to imply that I am some sort of "paid operative"
that's here to rebut nonsensical stuff like you are reading
in this thread.

Ultimately, you are messed up in the head.  Like you
walked head-first into the barrel of a 16-inch gun in
1963 and you never recovered from the very serious
concussion you received.

Stop trying to imply that I am something that I am not.
Stop trying to imply that I am devious and intentionally
attacking Theoria.  Let your innate knowledge and
understanding about electronics overcome that messed
up hard wiring in your head.  It's the same hard wiring that
turns you into that "apocalypse is coming, the great battle
between good and evil is almost upon us" guy standing on
a virtual street corner holding up a 10-year-old placard
that says, "The End is Nigh."

What ridiculous and dark and dreary spinning you can do
when your hard wiring takes over.  You look at a thread like
this and you go into overdrive and you suppress your own
innate technical intelligence that is telling you that I am
just arguing the common sense straight goods and Theoria
is just one of hundreds of guys that has miraculously
"discovered" the "secret" of magnetism.  You know just as
well as me that he can't back anything up but like some
self-programmed drone you support him anyways.

There is something really creepy in you that gives me the
shivers.  You are your own Cabal unto yourself and nobody
should drink your Kool-Aid.  Rather, they should run away
as fast as they can.

MileHigh

I always enjoy reading your responses Miles.  They're almost
like a Book of Revelation - you put that "inner man" out there
for all to see.

I'm glad that you've gotten the "shivers."  It's a start...

By the way - the End is Near.  Wait patiently and you too shall
see it.

[TheoriaApophasis]

@tinman

The simple fact that you are producing bubbles in water is enough to produce the spin.

100% Dead wrong,       NOR does your premise explain 100% reproducible  CW spin or CCW spin depending on WHICH side is used.


NOR does this have ANYTHING to do with 8 other methods I USE that have nothing to do with HIS VIDEO that shows the SAME THING when hes zapping the magnet with his copper plate and 30V charge.


such as powdered bismuth
charged graphite in suspension.
or CRT tubes
or pyro. graphite spin  (see videos)


etc etc etc......

but again, none of that can be directly attributable to the magnetic field.

Nice CLAIM, however wrong.

Anyways, the main question then arises as per the effects explained by @TA, and that is, in one instance the magnet is producing a vortex but in another instance the magnet is producing cones with ferrofluid. So which one is it, vortex or cones.

My dear heavens!!!!!     "VORTEX OR CONES"  (sorry for this insult)  is about the most insane thing I have heard in a long time.

I could've swore somewhere that a Vortex has the geometry of a CONE, and that a CONE is the geometry of a VORTEX 

OMG       

[TheoriaApophasis]

Wattsup:

Taken from Theoria's PDF:

I highlighted the first sentence for the ferrofluid explanation, it is wrong.

You know the old saying, usually the simplest explanation is the correct explanation.

MileHigh

Sorry, but this slot machine doesn't accept wooden nickels or baseless claims


You ARE RIGHT about "simplest",    simplex lowest pressure seeking mutual reciprocation.


divinely simple in the extreme.