Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > > >
   

Eric Dollard Official Forum This forum is dedicated to the work of Eric P. Dollard. His Official homepage is http://ericpdollard.com

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 04-01-2014, 04:33 AM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Extrapolation of dialectricity and the now discovered magnetic polar vortex in perman

(from the below I dont want anyone to presume I discovered magnetic kinetic repulsion much less just found out about it. I have a massive collection of magnets and have experimented with them all my life).





copyright 3/29/2014 webmater kathodos.com


In the case of two magnets compressed together by physical force upon like on like polarities (N on N, or S on S), or more accurately as is the case clockwise on clockwise, or CCW on CCW, since polarity is an abstraction; it is noticed that if one magnet is released quickly, both magnets at utter objective rest, that the released magnet is propelled away at significant speed and distance. If even very close and not touching, and both at rest, this is still the case.

Is this diaelectric vortex compression? Modern cult of quantum has no definition for a field, since it is purely conceptual, much less the notion of a moving field in a stationary magnet. However is the repulsion, a magnetic repulsion or diaelectric vortex repulsion (DVR). As has been amply demonstrated, there is a yet unknown vortex force found emanating from either pole of an electrified magnet in CW and respective CCW.

(see video on that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe-tRsRjxz0 )

Non-quantifiable instant kinetic energy generation on two resting objects not physically in contact is a perplexing conundrum, and is the quintessential instant action at a distance. How can concept reification, which is a fallacy and not be enjoined, be contrasted with the observable and reproducible results. Compression of what and by what? If vortex repulsion, also too of what and by what, certainly not the magnetic field itself. If Dollard is correct in stating “Therefore it is seen that the smaller the space (the more counterspace) the more Dielectricity that can be stored” then the case is that the secondary energy at the poles of magnets is indeed a diaelectric vortex, and the resultant kinetic energy is from diaelectric like on like (CW on CW, or CCW on CCW) compression.

If it is the case that a magnet is emitting magnetism (as all know) /has the attribute of field magnetics on the perpendicular in respect to the diaelectric on its poles, does it not then follow that a magnet is by definition a choate analogy of a substantial and objective “frozen” diaelectromagnetic object which exhibits electromotive forces?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #2  
Old 04-01-2014, 04:52 AM
vidbid's Avatar
vidbid vidbid is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,869
Thumbs up Awesome!



I watched the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe-tRsRjxz0

It actually does look like a tornado coming off of that magnet.

That is so cool.

Regards,

VIDBID
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-01-2014, 05:35 AM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
To accelerate a mass at rest with no energy input must implicitly imply one of several answers


diaelectric polar vortex compression when like on like are facing


magnetic field compression which has no quantity, only quality and is purely conceptual and a non-local attribution of choate magnetic mass.



In either case, or one left unmentioned, movement-at-rest must be extrapolated as being present.

Ergo a genuine perpetual motion device. But not in the absolute sense since this diaelectric or magnetic vortex is only present so long as the mass remains self-choate (magnetic).


also see the other video that uses a NON magnetic iron slug in the middle of the video which shows NO polar vortex, proving that the magnet itself is solely responsible for the polar vortex.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAl1LVPbYhY
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-02-2014, 09:52 AM
Natusake Natusake is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 13
Quote:
To accelerate a mass at rest with no energy input must implicitly imply one of several answers
Clearly there is input energy, you need to turn on the machine and provide power for the magnet to create said vortex. A very important clause you made was 23 seconds in when you said "I'm gonna turn the power on". There is a reason that there was no vortex before you had the power on. The magnet was at rest, there was no change in the electromagnetic field, there was nothing to do work, and hence, no energy.

What do these tornadoes consist of? The tank has water and baking soda in it, you said. Have you confirmed whether the tornadoes are made of baking soda solutting out of the solvent, or is it simply bubbles in the water? This is important since if it is bubbles, then something like a vibration may be causing the bubbles to form...

What kind of current is in the wire? Is it alternating, or direct?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-02-2014, 05:22 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natusake View Post
Clearly there is input energy, you need to turn on the machine and provide power for the magnet to create said vortex. A very important clause you made was 23 seconds in when you said "I'm gonna turn the power on".

No no no, I wasnt referring to the VIDEO when I made that statement, rather to two magnets with like on like poles at rest.


NOT referring to the video at all in that statement.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-02-2014, 05:24 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natusake View Post
Have you confirmed whether the tornadoes are made of baking soda solutting out of the solvent, or is it simply bubbles in the water? This is important since if it is bubbles, then something like a vibration may be causing the bubbles to form...

As for the video, it works WITHOUT baking soda, that just makes the vortex more visible , needs more contrast.

Current is 6V DC from a lantern battery.


if you look at the SECOND video, an iron slug is used, and no vortex is present.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-07-2014, 02:01 AM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidbid View Post


I watched the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe-tRsRjxz0

It actually does look like a tornado coming off of that magnet.

That is so cool.

Regards,

VIDBID


Someone needs to ask Dollard what is emitted from either pole of a magnet in that demonstration video.


Dielectric vortex?

its certainly not magnetic
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-19-2014, 10:44 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Hell ,I think Ive finally figured out the vortex phenomena in the video above from applying charge to a magnet.


its the exact same thing as seen in Galactic vortex jets.

middle of the magnet you have the BLOCH WALL, and applying charge you get a polar vortex jet, which is a secondary magnetic field being shot out in a vortex from the poles of the magnet.

So, when charge is applied to the magnet, you get TWO fields, the magnets natural one, and the secondary field vortex !








Ever since the first observations of these powerful jets, which are among the brightest objects seen in the universe, astronomers have wondered what causes the particles to accelerate to such great speeds. A leading hypothesis suggested the black hole's gigantic mass distorts space and time around it, twisting magnetic field lines into a coil that propels material outward.

Now researchers have observed a jet during a period of extreme outburst and found evidence that streams of particles wind a corkscrew path away from the black hole, as the leading hypothesis predicts.
__________________
 

Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 04-19-2014 at 11:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-23-2014, 10:48 AM
orgonaut314 orgonaut314 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 222
It does remind me of the homopolair motor that Faraday invented.

There is a magnet and perhaps there is a current in the video's? The charge in the current is rotating because of the magnetic field.

Below you see a batterie and a little magnet. Don't know if this is the same phenomenon?

__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-23-2014, 06:10 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by orgonaut314 View Post
It does remind me of the homopolair motor that Faraday invented.

There is a magnet and perhaps there is a current in the video's? The charge in the current is rotating because of the magnetic field.

Below you see a batterie and a little magnet. Don't know if this is the same phenomenon?



humanity loves to make things more complex (not meaning you).


Easy way to understand things is AC is current modulation / polarization

and DC is polarized at the source with an unmodulated current



Be nice if people explained stuff like this today:

To recharge the battery, the one dividing equator has to be extended in opposite directions until there are again three before motion is possible. Motion is then not only possible but imperative. - Walter Russell




Just as it is impossible to polarize the positive end of a bar magnet without simultaneously polarizing the negative--or to depolarize one end separately--or to create a battery of one cell without simultaneously creating its opposite cell--or to create one hemisphere of a planet without simultaneously creating the other--or to lift one end of a lever without simultaneously lowering the other--or to deep freeze without generating heat--so it is impossible for man or Nature to produce singly-charged negative, positive or neutral particles.
- Walter Russell



Also 100% in Line with Eric Dollard who almost foams at the mouth at the notion of "electrons" which dont exist we have the same here:......


There are no negatively "charged" particles in this universe. Negative electricity discharges while positive electricity charges. The negative depolarizing force functions in the opposite manner and direction to the positive polarizing force.- Walter Russell



The "discharge particle" is unicorns and dragons, pure GR and QM fantasy, even JJ Thomson denied the electron was a discharge 'particle'. Its just twaddle.

Russell DID get quite a few things WRONG, but he also got a LOT of things RIGHT.
__________________
 

Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 06-23-2014 at 08:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-24-2014, 10:40 AM
orgonaut314 orgonaut314 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 222
Hi TheoriaApophasis

I don't believe in the importance of electrons either and the quotes you give make me think for hours thanks!

But this rotating electric vortex might be exactly as you say. The electric fieldline terminate on a current. The current being the boundary of the surface of the field that is moving. This moving field seems to go in a vortex when a permanent magnet is present. I just think that Faraday did describe the effect and Faraday only talked about fieldlines.

Have to say it is just my first thought, I might be convinced otherwise
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12  
Old 06-24-2014, 08:36 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by orgonaut314 View Post
Hi TheoriaApophasis

I don't believe in the importance of electrons either and the quotes you give make me think for hours thanks!

But this rotating electric vortex might be exactly as you say. The electric fieldline terminate on a current. The current being the boundary of the surface of the field that is moving. This moving field seems to go in a vortex when a permanent magnet is present. I just think that Faraday did describe the effect and Faraday only talked about fieldlines.

Have to say it is just my first thought, I might be convinced otherwise

well, you can download this 94+ page book in two days,.......

Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism. 92 pages. Free new book


see contents in post<
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-06-2014, 02:29 AM
upgradd upgradd is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 23
The Faraday homopolar motor can be described by the actions of a moving charge through a magnetostatic field: a helical path results.

Putting it all together, the rotation of the screw/magnet is due to torque impressed upon the moving charges in the wire by the magnet's static field, so it's not really a "nobody knows how this works" kind of situation.

Basic science, though in Faraday's time the fundamental principles had yet to be discovered, along with many of his other discoveries like the change in polarization of light due to a magnetic field.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-06-2014, 03:18 AM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by upgradd View Post
The Faraday homopolar motor can be described by the actions of a moving charge through a magnetostatic field: a helical path results.

Putting it all together, the rotation of the screw/magnet is due to torque impressed upon the moving charges in the wire by the magnet's static field, so it's not really a "nobody knows how this works" kind of situation.

Basic science, though in Faraday's time the fundamental principles had yet to be discovered, along with many of his other discoveries like the change in polarization of light due to a magnetic field.

Quote:so it's not really a "nobody knows how this works" kind of situation.

Sorry, but its EXACTLY LIKE THAT.


There are no such things as "moving charges (particles)", only pressure gradients of fields as directed in so-called 'conductors' etc.

Movement itself, as meant "of/in space" is an attribution to fields themselves, there are NO fields IN SPACE, only space as extrapolated as 'moving' within a field or fields.


Science is full of circular nonsense ... Force is a false perception of field tensions, which is just an expression of induction, which is just a modality of speaking about field pressure gradients, which is then used to reify "charges-discharges"

The Cult of Quantum is full of more obfuscations and nonsense than the Flat Earth society.


~~~~~~You did however correctly use and place the word "torque"

There is NO SUCH ENTITY as a "static field" especially a circular reciprocating MAGNETIC field. ......which is also precessing in a permanent "magnet"

You couldn't be more wrong on this point.


You assume FAR too much that science understands "basic science" . But it most certainly does NOT.

You also, in grand fashion, ASSUME 'fundamental principles' are understood.


Describing X in detail and its attributes and actions has nothing at all to do with UNDERSTANDING X at all.


I own at least a 400 books DESCRIBING magnetism, vectors, angles, actions, phenomena, effects. Not of one of them however UNDERSTANDS what the Hades magnetism IS, or understands how it works.




As for light, Light is not mostly or purely electromagnetic at all, it contains a radial dielectric component.

As Dr. Oleg D. Jefimenko discovered by math:
It is traditionally asserted that, according to Maxwell’s equation (3), a changing magnetic field produces an electric field (‘Faraday induction’) and that, according to Maxwell’s equation (4), a changing electric field produces a magnetic field (‘Maxwell induction’). The very useful and successful method of calculating induced voltage (emf) in terms of changing magnetic
flux appears to support the reality of Faraday induction. And the existence of electromagnetic waves appears to support the reality of both Faraday induction and Maxwell induction. Note, however, that as explained in section 1, Maxwell’s equation (3), which is usually considered as depicting Faraday induction, does not represent a cause-and-effect relation because in this
equation the electric and the magnetic field is evaluated for the same moment of time. Note also that in electromagnetic waves electric and magnetic fields are in phase, that is, simultaneous in time, and hence, according to the principle of causality (which states that the cause always precedes its effect), the two fields cannot cause each other (by the principle of causality, the
fields should be out of phase if they create each other).



However he never made the connection as to the "missing" component of light.
__________________
 

Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 07-06-2014 at 03:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-06-2014, 10:41 PM
upgradd upgradd is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 23
The moving charge has absolutely nothing to do with QED in this respect... It was JJ Thompson who discovered and theorized the existence of one type of charge (the electron) which is a "corpuscle of electricity", i.e. the basic unit of electrical substance. For you to go against JJ Thompson's work is pretty strange since it creates part of the foundation for which Eric Dollard's half-baked "theory" is based upon. Also, note that "charge" has nothing to do with Einstein or QED in general: ITS A CLASSICAL IDEA. Everyone from Steinmetz to Heaviside used the concept, EVEN Tesla! (note, the modern variation to this classical idea,in the 1920-30s, was called the "ionic theory," which is an advancement of JJ Thompson's theory)

Further, charges do exists and can be demonstrated rather easily with polarization of dielectrics or ionized particles moving through a uniform magnetic field... Your concept of electricity actually goes against Eric Dollard's theories, which requires there to be charge for electric and magnetic fields to exist. Motion of "charge" is magnetism, stationary accumulation of charges is electrostatics, the combination of the two creates what we perceive as "electricity."

Field lines require the movement or accumulation of a substance that produces them, i.e. charge.

The movement or accumulation of this substance requires matter.

Energy is not the same as electricity: charge moves in insulators and conductors, but energy moves outside the wire, or more precisely between bounding conductors of the circuital loop. The "energy" is derived as the product of the fields produced by the charges in the circuital loop.

"Charge" doesn't necessarily imply "electron," just the idea of a quantity of electricity. Generally, charge is considered as being "carried" by certain atomic particles or molecules. Hydrogen for example, when ionized, is a positive charge and can act as a carrier for solid electrolytes, used in capacitors and batteries. I'm sure you are just fine with how your phone works, and your computer, which are all based on the fundamental idea of charge and its interactions with matter.
__________________
 

Last edited by upgradd; 07-06-2014 at 10:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-06-2014, 11:32 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by upgradd View Post
. It was JJ Thompson who discovered and theorized the existence of one type of charge (the electron) which is a "corpuscle of electricity"

You clearly do not understand, fundamentally

It is however, from the views of J.J. Thomson, the Coulomb, psi, the total dielectric induction is the primary dimension defining the “Polarized Ether”.

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.

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 and 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



Thomson RESOUNDINGLY rejected the notion of the electron = particle for a LONG TIME until his fame of his "discovery" forced him to concede to same.



“In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to give an account of their nature.” “For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.” - Einstein on electrons; “Relativity”, by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916


Electricity is utterly a mass-free phenomena, as mentioned by many including Dr. Wilhelm Reich in his “Cosmic Superimposition”. Mass has no logical or theoretical place in electrical units and all particle-based conceptions of it are impossible. There is no mass in T.E.M. (transverse electromagnetism).
Mother nature has never taken a course in math, algebra and she absolutely rejects the nonsense espoused by quantum. ‘She’ knows only about charge-discharge, spatial-counterspatial and centripetal-centrifugal spin as binary conjugates to charges and discharges. Gravity, electromagnetism and matter are all modalities of the Ether, of charges and spin. There are no negatively "charged" particles in this universe. Negative electricity discharges while positive electricity charges. The negative depolarizing force functions in the opposite manner and direction to the positive polarizing force. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, only discharges, nor are there negatively charged particles, further still not one iota of proof for same. Charge and discharge are antinomies, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are mutual and co-eternal principle conditions. The commonly held belief in nonsense such as the notion that electricity is a stream of rolling electron beads thru a conductor is one of the most insane conceptual reifications of the definition of discharge as held by so-called intelligent minds.
There are no electrons, negative charges, special-dimensions, warped space (resoundingly denied by Tesla and others), and no photons; only charge, induction and radiation/discharges and their relational spins, all as mediated thru the Ether. Quantum and Relativity is a quack religion of mathematical physics based upon the absurd premise that the universe is a giant sea of interactive massless tiny invisible beads and that space itself, nothing, mediates interactions and can be genuinely ‘warped’. Such conceptual Atomistic reifications as amplified by GR (Relativity) cannot be enjoined, and the only genuine warping occurring is not out in the cosmos of space, but in the empty spaces between the ears of those who reify such absurdities; warped minds rationally would invent warped space; its purely logical in its insanity that the former produce the later.
Space has only one dimension, space, which is a metrical dimension. The use of cubic notation is habit-based, any number of co-ordinates in any number of geometries can serve to define the boundaries of space. Nature is not governed by the irrational pontifications of GR and QM, rather it is governed by mutually interactive reciprocal conjugates of charges-discharges, centripetal-centrifugal movements, both spatial and counterspatial. Instantaneous action at a distance, and fields are all Ether modality mediations as propagated by counterspace-in-disturbance, the Ether, its pressure gradients and perturbations. No other mediator can be logically hypothesized, much less theorized. The very same Ether of Tesla, Heaviside, C.P. Steinmetz, and even originally from Einstein before logic fled his mind completely, was correct and remains so. Tesla outright denied our current definition of the electron as a ‘discharge particle’.
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’. The thermionic ‘electron’ contracts, pulling the ‘electron’, the cathode ray stretching, pulled by the ‘electron’. In the former case the lines of force are dissipated, in the latter case the line of force are projected, in both cases these so-called ‘electrons’ assume radial motions, with non participating pressure gradients, or forces filling the ‘voids’, directing the ‘electrons’. Hence, it is the so-called ‘electrons’ (dielectric radial discharges) that travel in straight lines, that is, radially. ‘Electrons’ have nothing to do with the flow of electricity; the so-called ‘electrons’ are the rate at which electricity is destroyed. ‘Electrons’ are in fact the resistance. From extensive experimental work into atomic electrical science by J. J. Thompson, and Nikola Tesla, it is established that the so-called electron is only a shadow; its apparent-only physical mass is merely an electrical momentum (ejected by the dielectric inertia in disturbance). There is no rest mass to an electron nor could there be logically, a rest-electron ‘bead’; such notions are absurd and evidence proven non-existent. The very premise is logically impossible and contradicts the rational physics of atomic charges and discharges.


“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
“Here we will dispel the "electronics nerd" concept that a capacitor stores "electrons" in its plates. Taking the pair of copper plates as in the previous experiment, but now we have two pairs of plates, one pair of plates distant from the other pair of plates. Upon one pair of plates is imposed an electro-static potential between them. The cube of 10-C oil is inserted between this "charged" set of plates. This hereby establishes a dielectric field of induction within the unit cube of 10-C oil. Now we then remove this cube of oil, withdrawing it from the space bounded by the charged pair of copper plates, and taking this unit cube of oil, it is then inserted into the space bounded by the other uncharged pair of plates. Upon insertion it is found that the un-charged pair of plates have now in fact become charged also. It here can be seen that a cube of dielectric induction can be carried through space, from one set of plates to another set of plates.” – E. Dollard
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 notion exists that the electro-motive force, E.M.F. in volts, is established by “cutting” lines of magnetic induction via a so-called electric conductor. This “cutting” is then said to impel the motions of so-called electrons within the conducting material. It is however that a perfect conductor cannot “cut” through lines of induction, or flux lines, Phi. Heaviside points out that the perfect conductor is a perfect obstructer and magnetic induction cannot gain entry into the so-called conducting material. So where is the current, how then does an E.M.F. come about? Now enters the complication; it can be inferred that an electrical generator that is wound with a perfect conducting material cannot produce an E.M.F. No lines of flux can be cut and the Ether gets wound up in a knot.
Heaviside remarks that the practitioners of his day “do a good deal of churning up the Ether in their dynamos”. – E. Dollard
You cannot say that stretching a trillion rubber bands nailed to the floor and releasing them or breaking their “force lines” is the “flow of electrons”; discharge is a terminal movement in systems of inductance or dielectric capacitance. There are no discrete particles in the universe and certainly none that mediate charges, discharges, magnetism, electromagnetism, gravity, and radiation, only fields, all modalities of the Ether. 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. 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.




Quote:
Originally Posted by upgradd View Post
. Everyone from Steinmetz to Heaviside used the concept, EVEN Tesla!
NOPE, Wrong.......Tesla USED the term "electron" however (like Dollard) he utterly did NOT in any way make reference to same as a 'particle' or a 'charge mediator point/particle'.


Suggest you look HERE for illumination:
The Electron


Quote:
Originally Posted by upgradd View Post
. Motion of "charge" is magnetism, stationary accumulation of charges is electrostatics,
NOPE, there is no such entity as a "stationary field" or charge. It doesnt exist anywhere in nature.

dielectricity, or the centripetal inertial plane, same as the circular divergent centrifugal (and centripetal on return) magnetic field are always in motion, and pressure equalization.


You lack a fundamental understanding of magnetism, but that is OK, most people are in the same boat. Magnetism nowhere ever has existed BY ITSELF, rather only attributionally to a mass, in the magneto-dilelectric inter-atomic, or in the case of Dielectro-electromagnetism (or conventionally and wrongly thought of as TEM).

Flush any notion of a "stationary charge" from your mind. No such Unicorn exists. Period.
__________________
 

Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 07-07-2014 at 12:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-06-2014, 11:47 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by upgradd View Post
Your concept of electricity actually goes against Eric Dollard's theories, which requires there to be charge for electric and magnetic fields to exist

That is a unique claim, however there is no such evidence, nor do I anywhere "go against Dollard's theories"......however HIS theories are condensations of the theories of the "gods of electricity" Tesla, Steinmetz, Heaviside etc etc........ with many additions of course.

Ive stated ENDLESSLY in my book that a "magnet" isnt a magnet, rather a dielectric 'object'....... I suggest you read it. www.kathodos.com/magnetism.pdf

Magnetism is the termination OF electricity OR (resultantly THRU) conjugate to dielectricity in the inter-atomic.
There isn't even 1% difference in what I state in my book on magnetism that is different from what Dollard himself states.

IN FACT it reinforces it, gives it MUCH BROADER insight (as per magnetism specifically). So, your statement only proves you have neither read my book NOR compared it to Dollards works.





Quote:
Originally Posted by upgradd View Post
for which Eric Dollard's half-baked "theory" is based upon.
I am afraid you have no "cred" (much less evidences) to make such a hyperbolic and absurd statement.



Quote:
Originally Posted by upgradd View Post
Energy is not the same as electricity: charge moves in insulators and conductors,
You are confusing Energy, tension, and induction, and Force, and Field-pressures with "energy"
Charges and induction are utterly MASS FREE,.... magnetic induction (over time, as attributional to a field) has nothing to do with insulators or "conductors".

INDUCING a charge, and having the magnetic induction present FOR A (potential) charge are two diff. things.

"insulators and conductors" are FIELD boundary plane reflectors and capacitant materials for focusing and directing charges which are just a conceptual reification in speaking about field-modality interactions.

And, of course, all those "materials" are trillions and trillions of FIELDS in magneto-dielectric (temporary) equilibrium.
If you think COPPER ("conductor" so-called) and IRON (highly capacitant for dielectricity and therefore macro-magnetism resultantly) are anything OTHER THAN solid non-transparent "lenses" for fields, then you're trapped in a mental Möbius loop.


Quote:
Originally Posted by upgradd View Post
but energy moves outside the wire, or more precisely between bounding conductors of the circuital loop.
Electrification as the product of magnetism and dielectricity "moves between the wires" yes.

Loop?......Nope, dielectricity , or the dielectric inertial plane in a "magnet" is centripetal and radial. there is no "loop"
NOR are there same in longitudinal waves. LOOP is a spatial construct and rectification of field pressure boundaries.


Quote:
Originally Posted by upgradd View Post
Generally, charge is considered as being "carried" by certain atomic particles or molecules.
"GENERALLY" people believe in angels and old men sitting on a throne in the sky. This is a bandwagon fallacy.
Your position (as is easily deduced) pure Greek Atomism, or atomistic.

Energy is a MASS/PARTICLE free principle of field pressures and conjugate inductions. There are no "particles" mediating INSTANT induction at a distance, MUCH LESS in particle free space.
It is possible (however insanely difficult) to beam a TERAWATT from space to the surface of the moon and bake the ever loving HELL out of "X"

This, of course,......has nothing at all to do with "unicorn" "charged" particles.
__________________
 

Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 07-07-2014 at 12:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-06-2014, 11:48 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
*accidental duplicate post
__________________
 

Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 07-06-2014 at 11:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-12-2014, 10:16 PM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 788
Often time a planetary alignment affects the flux around the earth.
The dielectric field could be modeled. you can drag the earth around and see the time and date.

Solar System Scope
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-12-2014, 11:53 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikrovolt View Post
Often time a planetary alignment affects the flux around the earth.
The dielectric field could be modeled. you can drag the earth around and see the time and date.

Solar System Scope


Eric Dollard talks about this in his video , and how RCA was buggered to understand why there were transmission line issues etc etc during certainly planetary alignments.


just like lining up magnetic fields in phase, only dielectric, OR a combo of both.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-14-2014, 12:12 AM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 788
Yes the magnets alignment is important. This is why I mention detaching snap of flux lines and lightning that there is mathematical basis.

Looking at the solar system you can see that as saturn moves a distance away from earth that we begin to see lightning strikes in higher elevations, for example in Colorado rocky mountain state park.

As flux lines detach and the earth get into a clearing the natural flowering of the polar vortex begins. We should experience cooler nights. Also as we get another view of the cosmic inductor phenomena in evacuated globes hope we can see formation of a one dimentional plane that cuts hemispheres.
__________________
 

Last edited by mikrovolt; 07-14-2014 at 12:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old 07-14-2014, 12:49 AM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikrovolt View Post
Yes the magnets alignment is important. This is why I mention detaching snap of flux lines and lightning that there is mathematical basis.

Looking at the solar system you can see that as saturn moves a distance away from earth that we begin to see lightning strikes in higher elevations, for example in Colorado rocky mountain state park.

As flux lines detach and the earth get into a clearing the natural flowering of the polar vortex begins. We should experience cooler nights. Also as we get another view of the cosmic inductor phenomena in evacuated globes hope we can see formation of a one dimentional plane that cuts hemispheres.


true true, but most of it is driven by dielectricity.


As discovered, in any "perfect" magnet, its 3.23606 units of dielectricity to 1 part magnetism.




Quantum nonsense and relativity have ruined the past 80 years of what COULD have been genuine discovery and insight into electricity.


Now we have "unicorn" 'virtual particles' as explanations for "how things work"

and how fields work.


and by explanations, I mean BS
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-26-2014, 05:20 PM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
true true, but most of it is driven by dielectricity.


As discovered, in any "perfect" magnet, its 3.23606 units of dielectricity to 1 part magnetism.




Quantum nonsense and relativity have ruined the past 80 years of what COULD have been genuine discovery and insight into electricity.


Now we have "unicorn" 'virtual particles' as explanations for "how things work"

and how fields work.


and by explanations, I mean BS

these vortex experiments really need to be done with 'only' bubbles to be conclusive
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-26-2014, 07:59 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
these vortex experiments really need to be done with 'only' bubbles to be conclusive


Ive got 12 diff testing methods that have NOTHING to do with zapping a magnet.

I have and use suspensions, ferrofluid lenses, lasers with beam splitters

Well, I wrote the last section on the missing secret of TEM, which is NOT (entirely) electromagnetic, but has a Z axis radial dielectric. I wrote that section for a reason based upon Heavisides implications on the genuine nature of light. However even he didnt ever "get it".


We have established a "device" using 3 to 6 wavelength lasers (I will not specify) but here is ONE channel at a wavelength of 635 nm , and only snapshots off a video,.....NO VIDEO will be posted (I will not post it until things are locked in).

Nobody here can/will figure out how the device works since it uses a good bit of equipment ;D, splitter, a special lens, XXXXX, and yes, (obviously) a special spinning prism

But, suffice to say, I can reproduce (obviously using lasers) the magneto-dielectric field of a strong magnet in some amazing details.

It still blows my mind to see a laser, a single channel form a vortex as it 'paints' the field within which the magnetism of the magnet displaces the dielectric component of light, or along the dielectric where the magnetism is torn asunder in the light

This is ONE device out of 5 nobody ANYWHERE (except for 3 of us) has ever seen before to show magnetic field reciprocation, and using ALL channels, easily shows the dielectric, the centripetal and centrifugal 'working' together as you twist the magnet, and move the broadcast beams.

















Also---------


See HIS videos here that I inspired:

See last 7 videos he made

https://www.youtube.com/user/TinManPower/videos
__________________
 

Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 07-26-2014 at 08:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-19-2014, 11:11 PM
madhatter's Avatar
madhatter madhatter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
Someone needs to ask Dollard what is emitted from either pole of a magnet in that demonstration video.


Dielectric vortex?

its certainly not magnetic
Oxygen is paramagnetic, what you're seeing is simple physics.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-19-2014, 11:56 PM
TheoriaApophasis's Avatar
TheoriaApophasis TheoriaApophasis is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Florida, Europe, and NY
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by madhatter View Post
Oxygen is paramagnetic, what you're seeing is simple physics.
descriptions are NOT explanations



Yeah, they say MAGNETISM is "simple" , ....


but nobody on earth explained what magnetism IS until I wrote the book on same.


sounds egotistical? Maybe it is,........its also accurate.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers