ENLIGHTENED MAGNETISM (The Full Proof of Ken Wheeler's Theories)

[Ernst]

Hello Ernst,

Well...if you are so opponent to counterspace, like many more around here...then you guys could try to "digest it" better as Vacuum...maybe this way it would be better accepted...

You are right, this test "lingers" in between both theories...and there is a simple reason why...always a new theory is not accepted by the "audience"...since they will have to put behind another one which "history" dates back to two centuries plus.

You are completely right again...except that I do NOT have a "long way to go"

I do have that Theory proof(s) otherwise I would not have opened a Thread just to show this simple experiment-video...and may as well responded to Microwatt in his failed testing attempt to "disprove" Ken's Theories.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Thanks Ufopolitics!
My problem with counterspace is not just the word itself. I could, and would, easily get over that if there were a valid concept behind it. I have read EPD's theories where he explains the concept of counterspace and redefines the word dimension.
The problem I have here is that the word dimension was perfectly well defined and the math behind and surrounding it is too. By redefining this word you cripple the math.
Now, even that could be acceptable if it would lead to a deeper understanding of things or point out errors or overlooked facts. But following EPD's theory, I can only say that this is the point where he loses me and I see him dashing off in fairy tales.
His mathematically constructed concept has no meaning in the sense of space or anything spacial. It is nonsensical.
Compare it to time, then 'per second' would be the measure/unit of countertime. If I give you 1 dollar per second, do I give you money in countertime? No, every second in real time I would be giving you a dollar. The concept of countertime does not make any sense.
Exactly the same goes for counterspace.
Calling it the vacuum makes it even worse, because a vacuum is a perfectly well defined concept, it is a space devoid of matter. By calling it counterspace only adds to the confusion.
Anyway... I am glad to read that you DO NOT have a long way to go, and you believe you indeed have full proof.
I'll be following your video's then, asking clarification where needed. You do have a long way to go to convince me , but that can't be your goal, can it?
Don't worry about it, maybe I am too old to learn


Ernst.

[BroMikey]

By redefining this word you cripple the math. SO what

But following EPD's theory, I can only say that this is the point where he loses me and I see him dashing off in fairy tales.
Who Eric?


His mathematically constructed concept has no meaning ................... So what



The concept of countertime does not make any sense.
Exactly the same goes for counterspace.

What about US military crafts turning what looks 90 degree

corners at 10,000 mph? These craft have been in use since the 50's

and they operate into the future or when they get back from their

little ride they are 1 hour older sometimes, than you and I are or that

they would have been had they never took that ride.

This explanation is well documented. Many folks use all kinds of

analogy but where the rubber meets the road, I just told you.

Now maybe you don't believe that either? Or never heard this?

Take a listen to Stan Deyo he tells it like it is.

Maybe you think he is a liar also? How many more liars will I need

to dig up? The list is very long, you know?

If that is what you think. 2X the speed of light? More.

Listen to Stan D. speak about technology 30 years old.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsagEYfxPgs[/VIDEO]

[Aaron]

counterspace, time, dimensions, etc.

Thanks Ufopolitics!
My problem with counterspace is not just the word itself. I could, and would, easily get over that if there were a valid concept behind it. I have read EPD's theories where he explains the concept of counterspace and redefines the word dimension.
The problem I have here is that the word dimension was perfectly well defined and the math behind and surrounding it is too. By redefining this word you cripple the math.
Now, even that could be acceptable if it would lead to a deeper understanding of things or point out errors or overlooked facts. But following EPD's theory, I can only say that this is the point where he loses me and I see him dashing off in fairy tales.
His mathematically constructed concept has no meaning in the sense of space or anything spacial. It is nonsensical.
Compare it to time, then 'per second' would be the measure/unit of countertime. If I give you 1 dollar per second, do I give you money in countertime? No, every second in real time I would be giving you a dollar. The concept of countertime does not make any sense.
Exactly the same goes for counterspace.
Calling it the vacuum makes it even worse, because a vacuum is a perfectly well defined concept, it is a space devoid of matter. By calling it counterspace only adds to the confusion.

How is Eric redefining the word dimension? That appears to assume that space having "3 dimensions" is original somehow if he is defining it different from that. Or, are you talking about dimensions in general?

Eric is not redefining anything but is actually showing and clarifying the original and intended electrical engineering uses of these words in their proper context.

"Electrical Engineering has four primary dimensions,

Metrical
1) time, t, second
2) space, l, centimeter

Substantial
3) magnetism, , Weber
4) dielectricity, , Coulomb

...The electrical-dimensional RELATIONS are derived from these primary dimensions, but the relations are not new dimensions. There are no others than 'the four'."

And x,y,z coordinates within the SINGLE dimension of space are relations and are also not dimensions. You and I are not in different dimensions in space or we couldn't type back and forth. We're in the same singular dimension of space but are at different coordinates.

The conventional theories of magnetism, etc. that you talk about explaining things just fine do indeed seem to do a job of explaining things within a limited ability but they don't allow us to actually get to the root of what is what. And just because those theories can make sense out of some of what we see does not make them correct. Those conventional theories you subscribe to are the one that are actually doing the redefining of the original language and not the other way around.

Vacuum is not perfectly well defined because being devoid of matter does not necessarily mean it is empty of everything and is misleading if going just by that. Therefore, vacuum should be called a plenum, since it is filled with infinite source potential by whatever name you want to give it.

The only true vacuum to me is a void that has no existence of aether. If it comes down to you simply not believing there is an aether, then not sure there can be a fruitful conversation or argument about any of this with you. Not arguing with you, but if you have your mind made up, even if you claim to be open to the evidence, then chances are, you won't agree with any of it no matter what.

The aether is proven to exist many times over the experiments that say it doesn't by many scientists over the years and the most important is probably Dayton Miller. The claim that Michelson-Morley disproved the aether is a mere .22 air rifle pellet next to a mountain of 50 caliber rounds.

This is not to put words in your mouth that you are making those exact arguments against, but they do go hand in hand with the arguments against these topics.

If there can be pressure, there can be a vacuum (suction) not talking about "vacuum space". Then there can be space and counterspace. If space IS the aether, which has distance and therefore time, then a void or lack of space is the inverse and is counterspace where there is no distance and there is no time. This is my own take.

Eric's Lone Pine Writings does show an example of a volume of space without the aether, but I'm not sure that an area without aether can be considered space at all. It's interesting that these topics are being discussed right now, because I'm working on mathematically analyzing the topic of this exact paragraph using what Eric is teaching to see if it actually is contrary to my own belief or if it actually does agree with it and is a matter of using different language.

Countertime, if that is time going in reverse, then it makes total sense, but you have to realize that your disbelief in such an idea is only based on your personal understanding of time.

Ken Wheeler says he is the only one that ever actually explaining what magnetism is - I don't have an opinion of that claim yet because I haven't studied his work enough, but I did see a few things that makes a lot of sense and I'd like to look into it more when I have time.

But similarly, it appears I'm the only one that has ever defined what time actually is - not just as a metrical dimension to measure things by but what time actually is. Sounds like a bold claim, but it is like commons sense when looking at the whole picture and it is so simple a child can understand it.

So when we believe or disbelieve something, it is only as valid as the limits of our own understanding, which is always subject to reality.

[BroMikey]

Hey Mikey,

I will like to start my post here with a very well known phrase from Nikola Tesla:

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

Nikola Tesla



I also have no issues with math equations.


Actually Michael Faraday Math only reached Elementary School...and look at his discoveries and contribution to humanity...


Concluding this "rant"...LOL...That if they start by wandering from equation to equation...well, read what happens from Master Tesla above...

yes that's correct and I could go pull out all my old books and dazzle
folks making it look like I can really crunch those cookies.

When i say endless equations I don't mean to confuse that with
good ole quadratics, stuff that gets you where you need to be
with a large set of variables so you get close in the ball park then you
may have a starting place.

Instead these equations may have so many additional values put into
the mix you will lose all sense of reality. For instance an engineer doing
coefficients to allow for stress or measurements of electrical units, I don't
mean that stuff this is normal good sense.

I have watched the soap for years where high paid engineers think
they have all the answers and begin throwing out all of the past
common sense lower math. Exchanging the old math for a more
advanced.

It got so bad at General Motors in the 80's that the only way they could
build a car was to first bring in the layout mechanics who saw through
the new engineering models. Computer graphics were just coming in.

The Japans were doing circles around us.

It is bad today in the electronic circuit design field to the point that
Maytag completely lost they entire net worth in a 10 year period. The
math models said one thing, reality was another.

Like you say, for a practical design use the KISS formulas or die
a financial death in the long run.

All those old books with an infinite set of variables taking 50 pages
to solve is the stupidest thing I ever read. In fact I knew it was the
first 10 pages.

[bistander]

Conflict

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

Hey Ufo,

I have been studying Albert Roy Davis' book and find a conflict between the vortex rotation direction for the magnet. The bottom two images are from his book and the top image is from you or Ken. Are they showing the same thing but in opposite directions? When trying to understand this theory, contradictions like that don't help. Any clarification is appreciated.

And another thing which maybe you can help me understand.

Quotes from Ken Wheeler...1

magnetism has but one movement not two, ..... a singular movement of the magnetic field itself. There are no static fields.

So in your experiment (post #1), if the magnetic field of the magnet is not static, it must be moving, or changing all the time. Why doesn't this changing magnetic field induce a voltage in the coil all the time, not just when you drop the iron slug on it?

Thanks,

bi

[SisMika]

A real book about magnetism.

https://archive.org/details/magneticcircuit00karagoog

A book for those that don't want to waste their time on wild theories.

[Ufopolitics]

https://archive.org/details/magneticcircuit00karagoog

A book for those that don't want to waste their time on wild theories.

That book is the SAME BS.

Besides, the main body of that book is about building THE SAME OLD Bs Machines that have not been able to get even closer to the farting machines power...not good.

Any Book that starts naming the famous "Lines of Force" from Faraday's time, and the "Iron Powder revelation of the magnetic fields" is gonna display the same BS that we have been hearing for 200 years.

And "SisMika" I don't appreciate your attacks towards me first on my main thread about Asymmetric Machines...and now coming here.

Did You ever built an Asymmetric Machine and did you have any losses due to that?

I don't recall seeing you around here before guy.

So why are your attacks?

My English is my English, and if you don't understand it Then you have a problem, not me.

[Ufopolitics]

Hey Ufo,

I have been studying Albert Roy Davis' book and find a conflict between the vortex rotation direction for the magnet. The bottom two images are from his book and the top image is from you or Ken. Are they showing the same thing but in opposite directions? When trying to understand this theory, contradictions like that don't help. Any clarification is appreciated.

And another thing which maybe you can help me understand.



So in your experiment (post #1), if the magnetic field of the magnet is not static, it must be moving, or changing all the time. Why doesn't this changing magnetic field induce a voltage in the coil all the time, not just when you drop the iron slug on it?

Thanks,

bi

The Roy Davis Theory was cited because it is very close to Ken Wheeler's Theory, from the Eight Figure description plus the fact that both North-South Fields are two completely opposite and different forces. However Roy Davis Theories are not "identical" to Ken Wheeler's Theory.

1-Roy Davis makes reference to the rotation sense based on a reference frame from the center of magnet or domain wall looking at both end poles separately.

2-Roy Davis Theory believes the origination of both polarizations occur first then they both "run" towards the center of magnet

1a- Ken Wheeler's reference frame is exteriorly located to see the magnet like the figure you showed, and that was my drawing, not Ken's.

2a- Ken Wheeler's considers the origination of both polarizations are generated from the center of magnet towards the exterior or ends of both Polarized Spatial Fields...due to the Dielectric Counterspatial Field. Both running in opposite directions from the center origin.

[Ufopolitics]

Science Between Space and Counterspace

Thanks Ufopolitics!
My problem with counterspace is not just the word itself. I could, and would, easily get over that if there were a valid concept behind it. I have read EPD's theories where he explains the concept of counterspace and redefines the word dimension.
The problem I have here is that the word dimension was perfectly well defined and the math behind and surrounding it is too. By redefining this word you cripple the math.
Now, even that could be acceptable if it would lead to a deeper understanding of things or point out errors or overlooked facts. But following EPD's theory, I can only say that this is the point where he loses me and I see him dashing off in fairy tales.
His mathematically constructed concept has no meaning in the sense of space or anything spacial. It is nonsensical.
Compare it to time, then 'per second' would be the measure/unit of countertime. If I give you 1 dollar per second, do I give you money in countertime? No, every second in real time I would be giving you a dollar. The concept of countertime does not make any sense.
Exactly the same goes for counterspace.
Calling it the vacuum makes it even worse, because a vacuum is a perfectly well defined concept, it is a space devoid of matter. By calling it counterspace only adds to the confusion.
Anyway... I am glad to read that you DO NOT have a long way to go, and you believe you indeed have full proof.
I'll be following your video's then, asking clarification where needed. You do have a long way to go to convince me , but that can't be your goal, can it?
Don't worry about it, maybe I am too old to learn


Ernst.

Hello Ernst,

May I suggest a very interesting literature about Space and Counterspace relations?

You could start taking a "quick review" in below link, however the full book is not available in a free e-book (at least I have not found it)

Science Between Space and Counterspace

In order to easier understand the difference between this two Spatial definitions you must have some pretty good idea about Euclidean Geometry, plus more complex, modern perspective and volumes geometries.

The hard copy is only around 25.00 USD and available at many stores.

And just like Aaron mentioned...You must have at least a "wishful desire" to get to understand the existence of the Ether or Aether presence as the basic State of aether is in counterspace...Nick C. Thomas, The Author, recognizes its existence.

There is a Chapter called LIFE (There are many more interesting ones like TIME, LIGHT, etc,etc...required to grasp a good understanding)...where you see the relation established through what is a "Membrane" in a living being related to this topic...simple or complex living forms. As the Membrane is the "Plane" that divides both spatial states.

Aaron explained with an excellent example..."If there is Pressure on one side, then there is Vacuum on the other side" or something like...best is to cite a typical Piston-Compression Engine...it has a Ring or several in order to seal the spatial state between both opposite forces, pressure and vacuum...So in this case the Piston and Ring(s) act like the previously cited "dividing membrane"...Now the Vacuum State Volume in this Engines is all over the interior side of the main Block and Head(s)...While the pressure is confined to the internal chambers...to do what they are generated for...to explode at high pressures...then they exhaust at lower pressures...while the Vacuum is present as long as there is existing pressure.

And I could go to more complex structures...but why don't you start "massaging your brain" in that direction...it will help a lot...

Regards


Ufopolitics

[Aaron]

counterspace - Steiner school of thought

http://kathodos.com/PhysicalEtherealSpaces.pdf

Lecture: On the Dimensions of Space

[BroMikey]

Come on Ernie this is no time to pull your Eucalaly trick you ain't
dead yet so let's keep it working, hey?

Hey Aaron

I love this book, so simple.

Book Teaser

[Ufopolitics]

[IMG]

Hey Ufo,

So in your experiment (post #1), if the magnetic field of the magnet is not static, it must be moving, or changing all the time. Why doesn't this changing magnetic field induce a voltage in the coil all the time, not just when you drop the iron slug on it?

Thanks,

bi

I missed this second question on my previous response...

The answer is simple, as Ken has written on his book...and I have quoted here on the first post of this Thread:

Now, if we all go to Page 91 from Ken Wheeler's book we read clearly:

Magnetism is dimensional, the dielectric is intradimensional, or in counterspace, and only when these two Ether fields move against each other over time is there electrification, which is the Ether in a modality of dynamic polarization.

Out of that statement above I will cite the most relevant part (in bold and underlined) that I have based all my Video testings:

ONLY when these two Ether fields move against each other over time is there electrification.

And by just making contact with a piece of ferromagnetic material volume to one of the magnet's poles, we are displacing this dielectric field, or moving it against the spatial polarity where the conductors are capturing the charges.

Hope this clears doubts.


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

More about the first video testing the Dielectric...

Hello to All,

One thing that I wanted to add to the video on first post, is that if we build a system that generates a constant motion from the iron cylinder, following the same vertical path, just like a reciprocating piston would do...and regulate the advance in order not to make physical contact, but to set it at a very close air gap...the same signal would be generated...as when cylinder would be retracting (say contraction half cycle) from magnetic field, the signal would reverse.

However, by doing this mechanical movements over time, the signal would be expanded as well through time in a plus-minus sine wave according to the duration of the full cycle.

A simple way to overcome the attraction forces, and to obtain a free spinning is to set at 180º an opposite force (repulsion) of equal, balanced proportion(exactly the same arrangement that MadMack showed all of Us that could be done in the Magnetic Motor Revelation Thread). Still the attraction will exist, and the dielectric would be displaced over the upper pole, so still the signal will keep being generated.

And...I am NOT saying this would be a principle to build a new type of generator machine...this is just a set up to test in order to expand the signal over time in a full rotation of the main exciter causing this displacement.

It could be done, of course, and multiply the number of "Modules" as you like...However, I have better new concepts-applications to demonstrate other claims from the Theory in discussion, which could NOT be explained by the Conventional/Classic Magnetism Model.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ernst]

Hello Ernst,

May I suggest a very interesting literature about Space and Counterspace relations?

You could start taking a "quick review" in below link, however the full book is not available in a free e-book (at least I have not found it)

Science Between Space and Counterspace

In order to easier understand the difference between this two Spatial definitions you must have some pretty good idea about Euclidean Geometry, plus more complex, modern perspective and volumes geometries.

The hard copy is only around 25.00 USD and available at many stores.

And just like Aaron mentioned...You must have at least a "wishful desire" to get to understand the existence of the Ether or Aether presence as the basic State of aether is in counterspace...Nick C. Thomas, The Author, recognizes its existence.

There is a Chapter called LIFE (There are many more interesting ones like TIME, LIGHT, etc,etc...required to grasp a good understanding)...where you see the relation established through what is a "Membrane" in a living being related to this topic...simple or complex living forms. As the Membrane is the "Plane" that divides both spatial states.

Aaron explained with an excellent example..."If there is Pressure on one side, then there is Vacuum on the other side" or something like...best is to cite a typical Piston-Compression Engine...it has a Ring or several in order to seal the spatial state between both opposite forces, pressure and vacuum...So in this case the Piston and Ring(s) act like the previously cited "dividing membrane"...Now the Vacuum State Volume in this Engines is all over the interior side of the main Block and Head(s)...While the pressure is confined to the internal chambers...to do what they are generated for...to explode at high pressures...then they exhaust at lower pressures...while the Vacuum is present as long as there is existing pressure.

And I could go to more complex structures...but why don't you start "massaging your brain" in that direction...it will help a lot...

Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufopolitics,

Unfortunately the part of the book where counterspace is defined is not available. From the little that is available I can not make up what is actually meant, but I have a distinct feeling that his definition differs from EPD's.
Please don't worry too much about my understanding of Euclidean geometry... I'll manage, trust me.
I am a firm believer in ether (or aether if you prefer the old ways), but also there I see no need for counterspace.
I am fully aware of the fact that the word 'dimension' is not fully understood by many and that some of those have given it different meanings. But in mathematics and physics it is clearly defined, and I stick to those definitions. If you mean to say something else, use another word. Space as we perceive it has 3 dimensions, which are all measured by the same unit (meter). The fact that they are all measured by the same unit or the fact that they are interchangeable does not make it 1 dimension. So if someone says space has 1 dimension, then he redefines the word 'dimension'.
Rudolf Steiner is an example of someone who thinks deeply but not clearly, and I have the impression that his counterspace again differs from both EPD's and Nick C.'s, but until I can find his definition I have no absolute proof.
Aarons piston with vacuum and pressure, escapes me completely. I read the words and an image of a gasoline engine forms in my mind, but how that relates to space-counterspace... I have not the faintest clue.

Anyway, don't let my disbelieve stop you from proving Ken's theories! Maybe in that proof I will find a reason to change my opinion...

Hey lil' bro, saw you brought your sis aboard? Maybe when you play your ucalaly (ukulele) she can sing us a song?

Ernst.

[Ufopolitics]

Why it is important to understand Counterspace?

Some words I consider necessary to bring here for you all to consider...

I know the Counterspace or "Ethereal" or "Negative Space" concept lingers in the Metaphysics, and the "unreal -not scientific-processes"...we could even compare to some kind of "spirits" or "souls" (according to some literature you could be reading right now) something completely "abstract" and that from the Scientific point of view it looks very much like a false and not to be trusted claim...

But then, We all must realize the Real Properties of Magnetic Fields that could be tested by simple experiments...like a magnetic field could go through any metal, solid mass, just like a "ghost" could go through a solid wall in a Science Fiction movie...and so move around the whole house......that field could spin and mutate from mass to mass...and at a speed that NO Physical counter reaction could be able to stop, much less to slow down...

Always think that for every directional force, there could be an opposite one, or maybe the same kind of "magnetic force" if we are talking about Repulsion... that will bring it to a point of zero effort to spin, zero drag...however, BOTH of those forces are STILL present, even if they don't feel like they are.


Regards


Ufopolitics