Tesla's two most important quotes, and the insanity of "Instant Action at a Distance"

[ldrancer]

Of course I am familiar, which is why I despise the "cloud"

There is no such thing AS a "cloud", theyre just server farms.

I have the book on EVERY torrent site on earth, currently (just checked) there are over 120 people seeding the book

I have it on servers in Russia, Europe, Arizona (mine).

I have it on archive.org

and on scribd.com


Co-founder of Apple, Steve Wozniak, thinks the "CLOUD" is the 'digital anti-christ'






Kinds regards for the kind comments

Ive got , literally HUNDREDS of hard drives, and a hair over 12 Terabytes of PDF books.

Google SUX, and as founder of Apple, Steve Wozniak, HATES the cloud. I agree with him

I own a few diff. websites and have things spread all over the world.


My "religion" is DATA PROTECTION


You should check out this work I wrote for the Apple.com website, people seem to love it:

Methodology to protect your data. Backups vs. Archives. Long-term data protection
Methodology to Protect Your Data. The Short BIBLE OF DATA PROTECTION!

https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-6031

on this i want to say server farms are what the gubmints tried to take out completely , napster, and they said in their place they wanted to put up this bs ..
clouds and the rest of the dumb crap. pretty much to steal, all of your information. then they'll probably delete it all. steal it use it for themselves. never freaking use that crap use some ip that you have. run a server on your own computer. why send it to a farm. at least napster was open source thats what they hate about it. in a suppository which is what i mean.

[Allcanadian]

@TA

This is true, empirical beings are living "in the ass" of fields. Space and time. We perceive something happening in time when in fact were are seeing rates of inductions between fields of which these are translational into time components.

I prefer to think of Space and Time as simple measures rather than components because nature obviously does not need math to work. This was Einstein's mistake in my opinion when he gave a measure of something properties. Time and space are not something they are a measure of something.

moving a stationary magnet which ALWAYS and EVER has spinning reciprocating magnetic fields and then taking the physical object and ROTATING it in space and time.

I think we should always be careful concerning what we think we see because history has shown time and time again that more often than not we have made incorrect assumptions. In fact we tend to make one assumption based on another believing something which cannot be proven wrong must somehow make it right.

My personal theory is that the field as we know it does not actually exist. It is like an interference pattern between two wave sets which begs the question... Is the field something in itself or is it simply a condition of something already present?. Now if we saw two wave sets merge creating a pattern in the water should we impart special properties to it and create a new science surrounding the phenomena?. The problem here is that in reality the pattern is not something in itself it is a condition of something already present which is of course the water.

In which case we could ask does the magnet have a spinning reciprocating field or on another level do these actions produce what we perceive as a field and how would we know the difference?. No offense to anyone but when I finally figured out what the fields are on the most fundamental level I also understood everyone may be chasing smoke and mirrors... such is the nature of Nature.
I had to take the leap and admit to myself that if it made no sense and no real answers were forthcoming then obviously I/We must be doing something wrong and I would have to start at the beginning. It was no easy task to foresake everything I thought I knew and believed however the journey was time well spent.

As for "PRACTICAL", the world needs more PURE genuine comprehension of how fields work, etc etc rather than pure mindless tinkering.

I think Pure is in the eyes of the beholder and is generally followed by division then extremism. The problem I see with the purist is that none of them can actually agree on anything which makes them more of an egomaniac by definition.

AC

[TheoriaApophasis]

I think we should always be careful concerning what we think we see because history has shown time and time again that more often than not we have made incorrect assumptions. In fact we tend to make one assumption based on another believing something which cannot be proven wrong must somehow make it right.
AC

Ohhh, i proved that last night showing "HOT" magnets that havent been touched in DAYS using FLIR

My personal theory is that the field as we know it does not actually exist. It is like an interference pattern between two wave sets which begs the question... Is the field something in itself or is it simply a condition of something already present?. AC

The greeks solved that one long time ago, that duality you speak of , ie "two waves" cannot be enjoined.

Its merely a confusion of principle and its attribute in reification.

I even discovered the GUT hidden in the works of Plato who got it from Socrates who got it from...........etc.

its 1/Phi^-3


To speak of light and illumination for example is just a perceptual reification of ONE THING as relates to its attribute.


Nothing is known can be known, or EVEN speculated to be, real, unreal, or otherwise, that is devoid of ANY attribute. Its a 100% impossibility.


Its also why every aspect of the perfect moving fields of magnetic reciprocation are moving along at golden ratio proportions.


differentiating out what the Principle IS and what it DOES , are not 2 things, but one thing and its attribute in extension.

In which case we could ask does the magnet have a spinning reciprocating field or on another level do these actions produce what we perceive as a field and how would we know the difference?. No offense to anyone but when I finally figured out what the fields are on the most fundamental level I also understood everyone may be chasing smoke and mirrors... such is the nature of Nature.
AC

Yes, everything in the empirical cosmos is just the horse poo of discharging or discharged fields. Agreed.

I solved and proved that one recently as well, its the Poincare' disk model. The magnetism is an unreal spatial projection of the Poincare' disk, and even the math fits.

been working hard on that section of the book and the HYPERBOLOID proof uniting magnetism and the Poincare' disk proof, and im basically 95% done with the proof and model, and have the validation for same.

Its been stunning.

I think Pure is in the eyes of the beholder and is generally followed by division then extremism. The problem I see with the purist is that none of them can actually agree on anything which makes them more of an egomaniac by definition.
AC

Well, Im only out after the facts, not anyones agreement.


See what I discovered yesterday?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZJvIMU7JYM

[Allcanadian]

I think this picture may be a good analogy to the field. We can see the seemingly complex geometric forms, imagine the spinning oscillating motions inherent in it and devise all sorts of mathmatical formula to describe what we think we see. However it is dependent on one's perspective and if seen from a distance the mind might race with possiblities as it defies comprehension but on closer inspection we might see it is just a bunch of birds... nothing more nothing less.

Personally I found few answers in physics in regards to what we think may be happening on the most fundamental level. My real answers came from my studies in psychology and the understanding that the human mind discards over 95% of what we see and distorts what remains. Which begs the ultimate question -- who can we trust when we cannot even trust our own judgement?.

As I said once I learned to let go of what I have been taught I found the universe as we see it isn't all that difficult to understand. It's actually very simple in it's nature and the complexity we think we see not unlike the swarm below an illusion of sorts.
In any case it's something to think about.

Regards
AC

[TheoriaApophasis]

As I said once I learned to let go of what I have been taught I found the universe as we see it isn't all that difficult to understand. It's actually very simple in it's nature and the complexity we think we see not unlike the swarm below an illusion of sorts.
In any case it's something to think about.

Regards
AC

I have done the same, fundamentally its all very simplex


it becomes QUICKLY complex, its NOT fundamentally SIMPLE, but its very premise seen in whole is simplex.


99.99999% of the very intelligent people I communicate with cannot "See the forest for the trees"


charge discharge

centripetal centrifugal

divergence convergence

a vortex is just a necessitated pattern drawn from charge and discharge around a single fulcrum of the Ether of which anyone and NOTHING can never ever "unhinge" itself from that "fulcrum".