Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[sadang]

@ Acca
Thanks for your concerns, but I really don't care. Let that guys do their job and eat a bread, and we continue on our own way.

@ minnie
Please explain how much math is when you milk the cows on the farm! Contemporary human mind do math not the Nature.

@TinselKoala
Your left or my left?

@MileHigh

That's another fundamental problem right there. There is nothing in the middle of a bar magnet, nothing!...

Yes indeed, the really fundamental problem is the concept of NOTHING!

@CycleGuy

Well, actually, there is something there in the middle of a magnet...

Replacing a concept with another, namely NOTHING with SOMETHING don't fix the real fundamental problem! Of course in a NOTHING volume concept, it is required to fill it with SOMETHING to make things to work. Of course, with SOMETHING convenient to yourself! Excluding and obscuring the fact that NOTHING to manifest there should be SOMETHING much more previous to your own SOMETHING!

---#---

Now with Ken's words:
"The insane premise today in looking up the definition of a "domain wall" or "Bloch wall" is: "A domain wall: interface separating magnetic domains. A Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between". This is nonsense and reifies the false concept that this moving divider is like an imaginary cage that separates the lions from their pray (CW and CCW) at the zoo. This dielectric inertial plane is the basis for understanding dielectricity, counterspace, the creation of a magnet, AC transmission lines, and the entire spatial-counterspatial magneto-dielectric geometry that governs the entire cosmos. That modern science had only devoted an insane and incorrect tiny footnote to this only shows how very little current science understands the magnetic and dielectric universe.

The Bloch wall of any magnet is, in simple, the dielectric accretion disk. This is the very reason why there is absolutely no magnetic attraction at the dielectric plane of even an extremely powerful magnet. Magnetism does not exist at this very narrow accretion disk of centripetal dielectricity. This dielectric pressure equilibrium is a necessitated entity in any magnetic system, permanent or otherwise. There cannot exist any magnetic fulcrum without a dielectric inertial plane. In bringing two magnets together, this inertial plane will immediately shift from the middle of one magnet to the center between the two as the inverse spins of the magnetic inductions selfvoid at the counterspatial dielectric inertial plane. An incapacity to grasp this visually and mentally is a permanent roadblock to any comprehension."

And keep in mind I'm not 100% in accordance with his theory, but for sure I agree more than 1000% his theory compared with the current scientific model.

More in his book...

[CycleGuy]

I just noticed this bit of inconceivability in Mr. Wheeler's book:

The Bloch wall of any magnet is, in simple, the dielectric accretion disk. This is the very reason why there is absolutely no magnetic attraction at the dielectric plane of even an extremely powerful magnet. Magnetism does not exist at this very narrow accretion disk of centripetal dielectricity. This dielectric pressure equilibrium is a necessitated entity in any magnetic system, permanent or otherwise.

So given that Mr. Wheeler has redefined "dielectricity" to mean "static electricity", and "inertia" to mean "the opposite of rest" (and therefore he's stating that the "dielectric inertial plane" is where electricity is generated), he's stating above that the only reason we don't experience any magnetism at the Bloch Wall of the magnet is because an electric current is holding the magnetism in check via equilibrium.

That's just... not even wrong. What's a word for "more wrong than wrong could ever be wrong"?

If what he says above were correct, we'd see that electric current causing resistance heating of the magnet... and yet, we don't see that anywhere except in Mr. Wheeler's incorrectly performed, poorly controlled "experiment" in which he reflected IR from his FLIR camera off the magnet surface, tricking himself into believing the magnet was producing heat... and that was at the pole face, not the Bloch Wall.

In point of fact, there is no electrical current in a magnet. The only thing "flowing" in a magnet is virtual photon flux, which mediates the magnetic field as QM has proven. And virtual photons don't cause resistance heating because they're massless atemporal entitites, whereas electrons are massive and grounded in the current time frame. Thus, a magnet does not spontaneously heat up.

That electrons are grounded in a time frame, and virtual photons are not, is the reason why, after all, generators even work...

Magnets have two virtual photon fluxes on each pole face as I've stated in a prior post. Since magnets are mediated via virtual photons and virtual photons are a component of the QVZPE field, magnets directly stress the QVZPE field, and given that the QVZPE field is quite literally the fabric of space-time, that stress results in a contraction or dilation of space-time.

In the case of magnets, it's contraction and dilation on each pole face... the repulsive (centrifugal) interface slows time down and expands space, the attractive (centripetal) interface speeds time up and contracts space. A generator must use motion as an extra relativistic effect to cause an imbalance between the counterbalancing relativistic effects of the magnets in the generator. The motion slows time down in the local time frame of the generator's rotor, causing a perceived charge compression in the wires in the magnetic field, thus causing current to flow.

It's a bit hard to picture, since you have to juggle two separate perspectives... your own perspective and the perspective from inside that compressed or dilated time frame. Depending upon which perspective you take, you get the opposite effect... so from the perspective of inside the compressed or dilated time frame, increasing magnetic stress increases QVZPE field stress, thus it increases perceived space, but from an outside perspective, it appears as though the space has "squashed" to fit within the space allotted it in our external perspective. From the perspective of inside the compressed or dilated time frame, decreasing magnetic stress decreases QVZPE field stress, thus it decreases perceived space (in the extreme, a complete absence of QVZPE field radiation pressure would indicate no space from the perspective of that affected space, but an infinite space from an outside perspective), but from an outside perspective it appears as though the space has "spread out" to fit within the space allotted it in our external perspective.

If you ran a generator such that it had an outer perimeter velocity of its rotor of 1500 MPH for one hour, it would actually experience 0.99999999999749848054 hours. That 0.00000000900576 second time difference over the course of an hour is what is responsible for the generation of the electricity due to relativistic space-time compression and thus charge compression. And that's a lot of time compression as compared to the electrical grid generators.

If electrons were not tied to a local time frame, or if virtual photons were tied to a local time frame, a generator could not work.

[sadang]

Wrong premises, wrong conclusions and wrong further rational development. That's indeed "more wrong than wrong could ever be wrong"! Read two messages above or review the lesson 6 to deepen what is dielectricity.

"The universe is divinely simplex (but not simple), with only three components, the Ether, mass particles, and fields (all of which are Ether in principle, and the particles themselves are stable dielectric conglomerations and Ether-based). Everything else is tones, overtones, geometry, and movements, spatial and counterspatial, centrifugal and centripetal." - Ken Wheeler - Uncovering the missing Secrets of Magnetism - page 12

"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 - page 13

However is a good sign you read his book. My suggestion is to read twice with a gap of three months for comparative studies.

[CycleGuy]

The ultimate refutation of Wheelerism:
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=1981.msg35093#msg35093

All the work has already been done to disprove Mr. Wheeler's hobby theory. It's got so many holes and inconsistencies it cannot reflect reality, and would result in a universe that could not exist. Those who are grounded in solid science understand this reality. The post below on open-source-energy.org is just an addendum to a laundry list of said holes and inconsistencies.
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
Ah, geez. Ok, in reading a thread on overunity.com in which Ken Wheeler purports to show absolute proof of vortexual magnetic flux on the magnet pole faces (something conventional physics doesn't deny and in fact confirmed long ago), I peeled back a couple more layers of his obfuscatory redefinition of already-existing scientific nomenclature.

Ok, so his "dielectric inertia" that he keeps talking about appears to be nothing more than "static electricity in motion" (because he's redefined "inertia" to mean "the opposite of rest", and he's stated "natures NATURAL 'electricity' isnt electricity at all, its DIelectricity." as well as "YOU TELL ME how I can CHARGE a  "non-conductive" piece of GLASS with enough DIELECTRIC (electrostatic) charge to STOP A PERSONS heart?")... so what he's really doing when he states that the "dielectric plane" powers the magnet is just rehashing what is already known, while getting it hilariously wrong: "electrons in coherent orbit about their nuclei create a coherent magnetic field"... he's provided a description (a long-winded redefinition of already well-known scientific phenomena) but not an explanation, at least not one that makes any sense... it's electron orbit and spin which powers the magnet, not what happens at the Bloch Wall. Electrons in orbit about their nuclei and electron spin in a magnetized material are not "nature's NATURAL 'electricity'" aka "dielectricity" aka static electricity. They're point charges bound in orbit to a nucleus.

Of course, Wheeler stating anything about electricity while denying the existence of electrons is inconceivable... he's taken Russellian theory, Circlon Theory, Dollard Theory and a hodgepodge of other theories, thrown them into the blender with a bunch of $20 words, set the blender on 'Puree', poured it into a martini glass, topped it off with cherry-picked empirical examples from others that he then claims as his own discoveries (the Michael Snyder (aka SirZerp) hypotrochoidal magnetic flux discoveries literally years before Wheeler claimed the discovery as his own, for one example; the quadrapolar (and quadravortexual) nature of magnets as discovered by Howard Johnson literally decades before Wheeler claimed the discovery as his 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 Wheeler claiming credit for something long known about), and expects it all to work... it doesn't. He continues providing (long-winded overly-verbose redefinitional) descriptions, rather than explanations. I tend toward the other side, I want to explain how and why magnets work.

So his "dielectricity" is nothing more than his redefinition of coherently-aligned electrons spinning and orbiting about their nuclei throwing off Larmor radiation in the form of virtual photons (which they always do in trying to reach their 1s state, and once at their 1s state, the Larmor radiation thrown off exactly equals the energy received by the electrons from in-phase QVZPE field modes), combined with those electrons rejecting the out-of-phase QVZPE field modes that are longer than the Compton radius and thus suppressing electron precession, allowing that Larmor radiation to be coherent enough that it can be perceived outside the magnet's pole face as a coherent magnetic field.

Remember, virtual photons are known to exist (they're real photons, they "concretize" due to a disturbance waveform in the QVZPE field that forces them into "existence", but due to the disturbance creating them being unstable and short-lived, they don't "exist" for long, hence we call them "virtual"), in fact, researchers at Chalmers University in 2011 concretized virtual photons from the QVZPE field using Dynamical Casimir Effect. And physics has known for a long time that magnetism is mediated by virtual photons, which are a component of the QVZPE field.

If you look at his definition, you'll find that his "inertial dielectricity" is nothing more than the standard definition for magnetism in the first place! Which makes sense... the Bloch Wall is not throwing out / taking in "dielectricity", it's throwing out / taking in magnetic flux. It's where the magnetic domains are canted from the two predominant magnetic domain directions in a magnet, causing some of the flux of the magnet to be thrown out / drawn in at angles to those two predominant magnetic domain directions.

Now, how he can state that rest is the opposite of "inertia" when he's just stated his redefinition of that basic premise is unfathomable, except that he's redefined those to mean something completely different. And that's notwithstanding the fact that the opposite of "inertia" is not rest, as I state in my prior post:

"Contrary to empirical phenomena and objects which are in motion and are denoted to have 'inertia' and likewise its opposite being 'rest'"

Wow... where to start with this one... objects in motion are denoted to have 'inertia'... but then, so are objects at rest. What an object at rest does not have is momentum, which is a means of measuring that object's motion.

The opposite of "rest" is not "inertia", as an object has inertia whether it is at rest or it is moving (inertia being defined as the tendency to resist changes in an object's state of motion, even if that 'state of motion' is the state of being at rest)... the opposite of "rest" is "motion", quantified via "momentum"... one would think this would be obvious.

Inertia doesn't really have an inverse, it's not a transferable property... when you push on an object, you don't impart any inertia to it nor receive any inertia from it. The only time an object's inertia changes is when the mass of that object changes, for massive objects.

For massless entities, given that energy and momentum are proportional under the General Relativity rule (laid out in equation form below), the only time a massless entity's inertia changes is when the frequency of that entity changes or the direction of that entity changes... the energy-momentum equivalency for massless entities is the reason black holes were predicted to exist before we actually empirically observed any, why gravity can bend light (gravitational lensing), and why light under the influence of gravity changes frequency (blue-shifts as it goes down the slope of a gravity well, red-shifts at it climbs out of that gravity well).

He goes on to further state that if one were to cut a magnet, the "dielectric plane" (his redefinition of the Bloch Wall) would reposition faster than the speed of light... except one of the people who he keeps touting as supportive of his theories also happens to be the one who mathematically derived the speed at which magnetism propagates (called the magnetic diffusion rate)... Maxwell himself. And it's not faster than the speed of light... it's dependent upon the resistivity of the material the magnetic flux is traveling through. In a perfect vacuum (no matter, no QVZPE field), the magnetic diffusion rate would be equal to the speed of light in that perfect vacuum. In a normal vacuum (no matter, but with the QVZPE field), it would again be equal to the speed of light in that normal vacuum. So on this contention of his, he's just wrong. He's stating that the Bloch Wall can move faster than the magnetism that forces the Bloch Wall to the midline of the magnet in the first place. Which, by extension, destroys the majority of his theory.

It also negates his "instantaneous action at a distance" contention... because he forgets about the locality of quantumly entangled time frames, which is, after all, how our entire AC generation and distribution system works, as I outline in another of my posts. We're using magnetism through space (motion) to cause space-time compression, which slows time down in the time frame of the generator, which causes a perceived charge compression, which pushes those charges out over the wire. The electrical equipment in our homes and businesses runs because it's trying to orient to the (delayed) time frame of the generator as the electrons seek to return to that time frame, imparting energy to our electrical equipment. But then, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if Mr. Wheeler denied the effect of magnetism mediated through motion to cause time compression producing electricity... or the effect of electricity mediated through time producing magnetism. Because remember, Mr. Wheeler denies warped space (and thus time) exists.

Of course, the Bloch Wall is nothing but the region of the magnet where the magnetic material experiences a 'canting' of magnetic domains from predominantly one direction to predominantly the opposite direction. Because our relatively weak magnetic materials cannot resist the internal magnetic stresses, some of the domains unpin and flip to cause the magnet to reach the lowest energy state possible given that the material is attempting to keep the atoms aligned. So interspersed throughout the magnet there are oppositely-facing domains. At the Bloch Wall, the cumulation of these two forces cancels by 'canting' the magnetic domains at angles to the predominant two directions. Thus, at the Bloch Wall, some magnetic flux is thrown out, and some is drawn in. There is no "dielectricity" at Wheeler's "dielectric plane" because a magnet is not a dielectric, that's just yet another of his redefinitions of a common scientific definition: ferromagnet.

Cutting a magnet causes some of the magnetic domains to unpin and flip to again minimize the internal energy of the magnet, which moves the Bloch Wall, at the magnetic diffusion rate for that magnetic material.

A further debunking of Wheeler's theory resides in his contention that "there are no fields in space, there is only space in fields, space is posterior to fields". A simple thought experiment would have aided Mr. Wheeler in sussing the true nature of space and fields... merely by asking the following questions:

1) Can a field exist if there is no space for it to exist in?
  - Undoubtedly, no. Without "space", there is nowhere for anything to exist.

2) Can space exist if there are no fields in it?
  - Undoubtedly, yes. If all fields are removed from a space, that space will continue to exist. In fact, an empirical example of this is a Casimir cavity, which attempts to remove the QVZPE field from the space between its walls. Given the imperfect materials we have to work with, it cannot quite get to the point that there are no fields (yet), but if it could, the space between the walls of the Casimir cavity would continue to exist from our frame of perspective, while disappearing from a perspective within the cavity itself (ie: the speed of light increases to infinity, thus making it appear as though there is no space for energy to travel through... of course, that's until energy enters the cavity, which would cause that "space" from the perspective of that energy to once again exist until that energy exited the cavity), but all the while, that space from our perspective would remain unchanged (ie: we don't just see a "hole" of nothingness hanging out in midair at a point where there is no QVZPE field density)... so unless Mr. Wheeler is willing to argue that the perspective that is not ours is the more important one, his premise fails, and in any case, he'd be arguing about something that QM and SR mathematically predicted and empirically proved long ago. Again, Mr. Wheeler forgets about locality and perspective.

Some further debunking of Wheeler's theory:
http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg410835/#msg410835

However centripetal radial , inertial dielectricity  IS NOT POLARIZED (obviously) AND HAS NO FERRO-ATTRACTIVE EFFECTS..

Of course it's not "polarized", the Bloch Wall is where two opposing magnetic moments meet and mutually cancel, where the magnetic domains cant away from the two predominant magnetic domain directions found in a conventional permanent magnet. Thus no net magnetic moment exists at that point called the Bloch Wall, which is why it doesn't attract unmagnetized ferromagnetic materials, just as unmagnetized iron doesn't attract unmagnetized ferromagnetic materials... it's got an essentially random magnetization at that location, making it what we deem to be "unmagnetized". Occam's Razor provides the answer here, not some mishmash notion of "inertial dielectricity" where "inertia" and "dielectricity" are both redefined.
----------
http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg410835/#msg410835

Its been called the "magnetic PINCH EFFECT" since, I recall,   1958 The "pinch" is due to magnetic and dielectric field conjugation in a BINDING SYSTEM (the magnet) and the dis-equilibrium created in the interatomic from the electrification of the magnet.

Yes, the magnetic pinch effect is a well-known phenomenon. It is not what is occurring at the Bloch Wall of a permanent magnet. If it were, the magnetic flux there would be pinched, not thrown out / draw in via the canted domains at the Bloch Wall. Of course, the fact that magnetic flux is thrown out / drawn in via the canted magnetic domains at the Bloch Wall is why the magnetism there (not the "dielectricity" as Wheeler contends) is not "polarized" (apparently Wheeler's redefinition of "coherent"), and thus why there is no magnetic effect upon ferromagnetic materials there, as I describe above.
----------
http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg411299/#msg411299

Protons precess coherently when in the presence of a powerful dielectric field. The frequency at which the precession occurs is called the Larmor frequency. This causes an oscillating and precessing magnetic field that can be measured.

{sigh} The magnetic field from the nucleal protons is about 1000 times weaker than the magnetic field from the half-shell electrons and is not coherent, and thus doesn't contribute to the aggregate magnetic field experienced outside the pole faces... so unless Mr. Wheeler is now arguing that all permanent magnets are actually approximately 1000 times weaker than measured, he's wrong on this contention, as well... a product of his denial of the existence of electrons.

Wait... wasn't it Mr. Wheeler who said that "Mother Nature does not do particles or Quantum BS"? And isn't he the guy who says positive and negative charges don't exist? Yeah, he did and he is... so his protons (a positively charged particle) must not exist, just as he claims an electron doesn't exist... making his description above completely nonsensical in relation to his theory. That's got to be quite an embarrassment for him, to have to fall back on charged particles while denying their existence.

Besides which, the protons cannot precess to the magnitude he claims unless the entire nucleus precesses (the protons being bound together with neutrons via the strong nuclear force (which Wheeler also denies exists)), which is inordinately difficult to get the nucleus to do, given its relatively larger mass, so his claim that the protons are (and thus the nucleus is) precessing at the Larmor frequency and thus creating the magnetic field of a magnet is an utter impossibility.

Not to mention that precession (whether we're talking about Wheeler's purported nucleal precession or electron precession in orbit about the nucleus) would not cause coherent magnetism, it would tend to damp it by causing an essentially random net magnetic moment. Electrons rejecting as an aggregate (much like a Casimir cavity does) out-of-phase QVZPE field modes longer than the Compton radius and thus damping electron precession (and thus making the electron orbit less chaotic) is part of the reason for the magnetic field's coherency. So the small amount of precession that a nucleal proton can do, which results in it throwing off Larmor radiation to balance energy in-flow from the QVZPE field and out-flow via Larmor radiation, is not coherent, and thus has no net magnetic moment.

Are his protons (ie: his one-particle which can seemingly randomly switch back and forth between neutron-form and proton-form (in the process changing size and weight by many orders of magnitude), because remember, he insists that all matter consists of one particle, a bastardization of Circlon Theory's "Neutron as Proton and Electron Egg" theory... without the electron (because he denies the existence of electrons... of course, he then goes on to deny all particles (to quote him, "Nope, mother nature doesnt do particles and quantum BS."), saying it's all "fields within fields upon fields across fields"... so it's understandable that he's confused as concerns this topic.) throwing off Larmor radiation? Because it can be demonstrated that they do not do so to any great extent... because while the proton is a charged particle, a nucleal proton is not in motion (it's locked into place in the atoms of the magnetic material, remember), nor is it following a curved path (and thereby undergoing acceleration), the three main requirements for Larmor radiation.

Oh, that's right, he claims the magnet is throwing off "inertial dielectricity", which is his redefinition of "the opposite of rest" and "static electricity"... but if this were the case, one could capture this "static electricity in motion" thrown off by his magical magnets and put it to good use powering electrical equipment without having to rely upon relativistic space-time compression and thus perceived charge compression of the electrons in the wire, as is done in conventional generators.

Well, what do you know, Mr. Wheeler has single-handedly given the world free energy, and all it took was redefining every single known definition for long-known scientific phenomena, and reordering every single molecule in the universe.

His contention is brought about because Mr. Wheeler denies the existence of negative charges and thus electrons, backing him into a nonsensical view of how atoms work to produce magnetism, a view that is diametrically opposed to reality. Of course, his denial of charged particles (on both the "charge" and the "particle" terms) necessitates that he also denies the existence of protons... so he's now arguing against himself, while tacitly admitting he believes the universe to be nothing but fields and neutrons. 

In addition, it appears as though he's redefined "precession" to mean "rotation":
http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg413105/#msg413105
TinselKoala posted a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SeVWSO_wpg
showing off-center torque brought about by a magnet attracted to a ferromagnetic piece through a convex lens... having nothing to do with magnetism except for magnetism providing the clamping force which kept the contact point of the magnet off-center and thus allowed it to spin, much as is shown here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZEFTEEHOPU
although they incorrectly attribute the effect to magnetic vortex... just as Mr. Wheeler does here:
http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg413107/#msg413107
He even made two videos "explaining" that very simple phenomenon incorrectly... then went on to say:
http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg413113/#msg413113

that is STILL precession however.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precession

Mechanics. the motion of the rotation axis of a rigid body, as a spinning top, when a disturbing torque is applied while the body is rotating such that the rotation axis describes a cone, with the vertical through the vertex of the body as axis of the cone, and the motion of the rotating body is perpendicular to the direction of the torque.

There is no precession occurring in TinselKoala's video.

So Mr. Wheeler seems to be confused about quite a lot.
----------
http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg411930/#msg411930

Nope son, its called GYROMAGNETIC PRECESSION,  also known as the Larmor Frequency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmor_precession

In physics, Larmor precession (named after Joseph Larmor) is the precession of the magnetic moment of any object with a magnetic moment about an external magnetic field. Objects with magnetic moments have angular momentum and internal currents of electric charge related to their angular momentum; these include electrons, protons, other fermions, many atomic and nuclear systems, as well as classical macroscopic systems. The magnetic field exerts a torque on the magnetic moment,

You'll note that Mr. Wheeler denies the existence of electrons and fermions, as well as much of what is known about nuclear processes... strange, then, that he'd use terms and quote web pages describing phenomena that are related to that which he appears to dislike with such fervor, Quantum Mechanics.

You'll further note, as I outlined above, that protons bound up in the nucleus of a magnet do not meet the criteria to throw off Larmor radiation (usually, unless they're hit with unusually energetic QVZPE field modes, which causes them to precess, causing a random net magnetic moment). They are a charged particle, but they're not in motion, nor are they following a curved path.

You'll further note that Wheeler denies the existence of particles, saying everything is a field... so he's a bit confused here.
----------
http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg411398/#msg411398

The TECH that surrounds you and me are  ELECTRICAL, ...............the REAL COMPUTER, idiot, is your brain and nervous system which are DIELECTRICAL same as lightning.

So, you, pathetically, in DEMONIC IGNORANCE, are denying dielectrics using your brain that WORKS off electrostatic charge/discharge  (i.e. dielectricity).

So wrong that the word "wrong" is the wrong word to describe how wrong his contention above is. The brain and nervous system is a chemical messaging system, utilizing neurotransmitters to bridge the gaps between synapses. The axons do indeed transmit electrical impulses via ions (you'll note that despite the axons using ions to transmit information, it is absolutely nothing like the charge separation within a cloud that leads to lightning. There is no static charge accumulation within the brain.)...
https://web.williams.edu/imput/introduction_main.html

Most cells, however, communicate via chemical synapses. Such cells are separated by a space called a synaptic cleft and thus cannot transmit action potentials directly. Instead, chemicals called neurotransmitters are used to communicate the signal from one cell to the next. Some neurotransmitters are excitatory and depolarize the next cell, increasing the probability that an action potential will be fired. Others are inhibitory, causing the membrane of the next cell to hyperpolarize, thus decreasing the probability of that the next neuron will fire an action potential.

The process by which this information is communicated is called synaptic transmission and can be broken down into four steps. First, the neurotransmitter must be synthesized and stored in vesicles so that when an action potential arrives at the nerve ending, the cell is ready to pass it along to the next neuron. Next, when an action potential does arrive at the terminal, the neurotransmitter must be quickly and efficiently released from the terminal and into the synaptic cleft. The neurotransmitter must then be recognized by selective receptors on the postsynaptic cell so that it can pass along the signal and initiate another action potential. Or, in some cases, the receptors act to block the signals of other neurons also connecting to that postsynaptic neuron. After its recognition by the receptor, the neurotransmitter must be inactivated so that it does not continually occupy the receptor sites of the postsynaptic cell. Inactivation of the neurotransmitter avoids constant stimulation of the postsynaptic cell, while at the same time freeing up the receptor sites so that they can receive additional neurotransmitter molecules, should another action potential arrive.

Perhaps if Mr. Wheeler did more learning and less pontificating, he'd understand these simple concepts.
----------
And a final quote from Mr. Wheeler at overunity.com:
http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg412662/#msg412662

Honestly, (no offense), but why the F@CK (EDIT: redacted one letter) did you think Faraday and JJ Thomson called magnetism  "the dielectric FIELD"

Well, that might be because Faraday, JJ Thomson and Maxwell were looking at the speed of light in dielectrics such as glass, had postulated that the speed of light in a dielectric such as glass and the speed of electricity in a wire were the same, postulated that "We can scarcely avoid the conclusion that light consists in the transverse undulations of the same medium which is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena.", further postulated that light was a disturbance wave in the aether, and therefore that the aether was a dielectric... which we now know to be false. The QVZPE field is paramagnetic in nature, a plasma.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node100.html

A plasma is very similar to a gaseous medium, except that the electrons are free: i.e., there is no restoring force due to nearby atomic nuclei. Hence, we can obtain an expression for the dielectric constant of a plasma from Eq. (1149).

We can immediately see that formula (1150) is problematic. For frequencies above the plasma frequency, the dielectric constant of a plasma is less than unity. Hence, the refractive index is also less than unity. This would seem to imply that high frequency electromagnetic waves can propagate through a plasma with a velocity which is greater than the velocity of light in a vacuum. Does this violate the principles of relativity? On the other hand, for frequencies below the plasma frequency, the dielectric constant is negative, which would seem to imply that the refractive index is imaginary.

It follows from Eq. (1150) that in a plasma, the above type of expression, which effectively determines the wave frequency as a function of the wave-number for the medium in question, is called a dispersion relation (since, amongst other things, it determines how fast wave-pulses disperse in the medium). According to the above dispersion relation, the phase velocity of high frequency waves propagating through a plasma is indeed greater than c. However, the theory of relativity does not forbid this. What the theory of relativity says is that information cannot travel at a velocity greater than c. And the peaks and troughs of an infinite plane-wave, such as (1152), do not carry any information.

You'll note that the ability of high frequency electromagnetic waves (of which the QVZPE field is comprised) being able to travel faster than c if they're above the plasma frequency is likely the reason the QVZPE field radiation pressure (which is increasing as additional mass in the universe is converted into energy in stars, then entropies and becomes part of the QVZPE field, and thus that increasing field radiation pressure must either cause universal expansion, or result in concretization of matter from the QVZPE field to relieve that QVZPE field radiation pressure) is causing the universe to expand at faster than the speed of light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_electromagnetic_theory

Maxwell extended this view of displacement currents in dielectrics to the ether of free space.

Oliver Heaviside was a self-taught scholar who reformulated Maxwell's field equations in terms of electric and magnetic forces and energy flux, and independently co-formulated vector analysis. His series of articles continued the work entitled "Electromagnetic Induction and its Propagation", commenced in The Electrician in 1885 to nearly 1887 (ed., the latter part of the work dealing with the propagation of electromagnetic waves along wires through the dielectric surrounding them)...

If you base your conclusions upon extrapolations of the faulty conclusions of others, your conclusions are thusly also incorrect.
----------
Here's a quote he often repeats in his book, in his videos and on forums:

Magnetism is the discharge Ether modality of dielectricity in termination. Dielectricity is counterspatial, magnetism is spatial. All radiation, all discharges in the universe are spatial by nature and definition. Magnetism, therefore is the necessitated polarized (creates space) co-eternal conjugate to dielectricity. Electricity terminates AS magnetism , not INTO magnetism, by losing its dielectric component as necessitated; electricity is the product of Phi (magnetism) and Psi (dielectricity), is definitionally a hybrid Ether modality of the product of Phi and Psi. - Author

We'll focus on this part:

Magnetism, therefore is the necessitated polarized (creates space) co-eternal conjugate to dielectricity.

Except when it's not. Or wasn't Mr. Wheeler aware of the fact that a magnet is quadrapolar and thus quadrachronologic in nature? It stresses space-time twice on each pole face... the centrifugal interface increases QVZPE field stress and thus slows down time, thus "creating" (expanding) space, whereas the centripetal interface decreases QVZPE field stress and thus speeds time up, thus "destroying" (contracting) space.

As I outline in another post:
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=1956.msg34981#msg34981
If one were to separate out the two fluxes (centripetal, centrifugal), one could speed up or slow down time (and thus contract or expand space) in a local space-time frame at will. Which would make building a motionless electrical generator a simple task... something brought about because of an understanding of the true nature of magnets and the QVZPE field in accord with Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and Stochastic Electrodynamics, not Mr. Wheeler's redefinitional hodge-podge of fantasy to cover up his inherent lack of understanding of how the universe works.
----------
And one last quote, from his book:

This only holds true if induction is possible and natural, energy can indeed be 'lost' completely, as was first discovered in AC generation stations where, before the generators got up to working inertias, enormous power is lost for a short time with no resultant dissipation into our world.

Notwithstanding Mr. Wheeler's continued misuse of the word "inertia", having worked for a good many years in those self-same "AC generation stations" (to include nuclear, fuel oil and natural gas fired systems), I can state emphatically and with a great amount of empirically-derived experience that his contention above is a load of bunkum.
----------

How many holes in Wheeler's theory does that make now?
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
*************************************************************

[sadang]

God, I see now you have a big teeth against Ken's theory. And of course I also see you don't really know what you talk about, being too mind focused and inevitable limited by your own point of view, to even accept you could be wrong in your premises.

My suggestions:
- first of all try to rethink everything in the absence of the standard Bohr-Rutherford atomic model and of an electron as a duality particle-wave. If you can't that's it, is place under Sun for each one of us!

- secondly try to redefine the "precession" in the absence of concentric movement, because there is nothing like this in the Universe. Switching from geocentricism to heliocentrism did not change anything in principle, but only in appearance.

- thirdly try to overcome your own circular thinking and read again with an open mind what is dielectricity, electricity, magnetism and gravity. At least as are they defined by Ken. At least! And following the references would be great!
 
And maybe you did not get the point: