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

[TheoriaApophasis]

Well, I thought his "explanation" was perfect. And why did you say you were out and then come right back with another post?

Check out this video from another person just posted

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUG9NM_xJi8&list=UUwVT-3hF29an4vZOz7nGOwg

The title of the video made me blush

[aljhoa]

Aether Dipoles



Paper:A New Foundation for Physics, by Quantum Aether Dynamics Institute - PESWiki

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxxYWRpMTZwaTJ8Z3g6NWMyOTMwOGVlMmRiNGZhNQ

Al

[TheoriaApophasis]

People keep asking about "Counterspace" since that IS dielectricity, well, the Magnetic hyperbolas are intersected at 0 by the HYPERBOLOID, which causes "magnetic pinch"




where either y0=0 or y1=0. The above equation defines a hyperboloid of one sheet, and so you're looking for the intersection of that hyperboloid with the xy1-plane (where y0=0) and xy0-plane (where y1=0).












Ill post an easy to understand video about this tomorrow, it will make things abundantly clear.


same thing I mentioned already in the book, just at a diff. angle.

[nutzNvoltz]

Great video!

Check out this video from another person just posted

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUG9NM_xJi8&list=UUwVT-3hF29an4vZOz7nGOwg

The title of the video made me blush

Thanks for the video Ken. And thanks for all your hard work putting together this awesome book on magnetism! The world needs more people like you who can think outside the box and are not afraid to challenge scientific dogma. I've done a lot of research on Victor Schauberger and Walter Russell and believe that the vortex is a fundamental building block of nature. Thanks again and keep up the good work

[TheoriaApophasis]

Thanks for the video Ken. And thanks for all your hard work putting together this awesome book on magnetism! The world needs more people like you who can think outside the box and are not afraid to challenge scientific dogma. I've done a lot of research on Victor Schauberger and Walter Russell and believe that the vortex is a fundamental building block of nature. Thanks again and keep up the good work

I owe it to 20 years of researching ancient Greek Platonism and the last 5% to Eric P Dollard.


The 3rd edition will have the formulas, and paint the full and entire picture of the divergent hyperboloid that is magnetism and how it works, why it works etc etc etc.

Well, it will still leave a few % to the 4th edition, there is just SO MUCH to add, its overwhelming.




FM below stands for FIELD MOVEMENT

AM for APPARENT MOVEMENT


D = divergence

C = convergence


Ergo, this is ONLY ONE vector pictured below, not both shown. ...........and hence the SPATIAL CONFUSION others (almost everyone really) have.


Inverse and interlaced superimposition of the BELOW picture,..but in reverse, is needed to show both "poles" divergent and convergent magnetic reciprocations.

P1 = pole one

P2 = pole two



both pics are same from diff. angles









The only thing that has "SHOCKED" me that nobody has asked (or asked themselves, it seems apparent) one important question:


WHY must divergent centrifugal magnetism reciprocate and return centripetally and convergently into the center of the "other pole"?
Why should not magnetism, like particle radiation and Transverse Di-electromagnetism (what is incorrectly deemed EM, / light etc) just "go out". Why return at all?

[nutzNvoltz]

Great question! The first thing that came to mind when thinking about it was ying/yang. You have to have both forces to balance each other out. If you only had centrifugal/radiating forces wouldn't the universe have died out long ago? I don't know, just my two cents (not worth much). And dang, I was just about to go to bed! Now it looks like I'll be awake for awhile now thinking about this

[nutzNvoltz]

I also think that gravity consists of both forces (centripetal/centrifugal) that balance each other out. If we could just figure out a way to offset that balance we could have some control over it ( I mean besides climbing a ladder or jumping in an airplane that is)

[TheoriaApophasis]

Great question! The first thing that came to mind when thinking about it was ying/yang. You have to have both forces to balance each other out. If you only had centrifugal/radiating forces wouldn't the universe have died out long ago? I don't know, just my two cents (not worth much). And dang, I was just about to go to bed! Now it looks like I'll be awake for awhile now thinking about this

[TheoriaApophasis]

I also think that gravity consists of both forces (centripetal/centrifugal) that balance each other out. If we could just figure out a way to offset that balance we could have some control over it

I assume by that comment you havent seen my video #22


however i WILL NOT comment on that video

[Ben2503]

Heres one for you, WHEN YOU CAN EXPLAIN THE PIC BELOW, THEN YOU UNDERSTAND MAGNETISM A LOT BETTER



HINT: it wouldnt matter if the ring and disk were square , round doesnt matter.


2x2x1" BLOCK magnet


disk magnet can ONLY rest on the inertial plane, and the KNIFE EDGE THIN steel ring can ONLY rest perpendicular to the inertial plane


no glue, no tape, no tricks, all VERY VERY EASILY balanced.

Hi TA.
This picture doesn't proof anything wrt your theories. It just confirms what has been written in the old textbooks.
so far I haven't seen any proof of your theories in your book or posts, just a bunch of statements.
The permanent- and electromagnet experiments of Tinman show clearly that something is indeed spinning, but it isn't magnetism.

Other issue are the vertical and horizontal components of the vortex. Normally a vortex is formed as a result of a (horizontal) circular movement combined with a linear (vertical) movement. Please explain in more detail.

Regards,
Ben

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi TA.
This picture doesn't proof anything wrt your theories. It just confirms what has been written in the old textbooks.
so far I haven't seen any proof of your theories in your book or posts, just a bunch of statements.
The permanent- and electromagnet experiments of Tinman show clearly that something is indeed spinning, but it isn't magnetism.
blah blah blah

blah blah
Ben

I never claimed THAT mere picture proved anything at all. I created it to make people THINK

I have at LEAST another 140 pages to add, over 2 more editions.



Sorry, but yes, magnetism IS spinning, rather reciprocating. So you are dead wrong in the extreme


A: you cannot explain anything

B: Youve just main 3 claims without substantiation.




That "spinning" is called GYROMAGNETIC PRECESSION......... also called the LARMOR FREQUENCY. Suggest you educate yourself before making anymore pedestrian claims.


Magnetism is CIRCULAR around DC and AC lines........it is PRECESSING in a magnet.






I remind you that children and fools make claims, .....the wise back them up and prove them.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi TA.
Normally a vortex is formed as a result of a (horizontal) circular movement combined with a linear (vertical) movement.
Ben

You need to learn a few things son.


A: I have proved the Math for it, and have the videos for it.


I have made 62 videos in the PAST MONTH ALONE


With another 100 more to add.


Take a look at the video here, and you will see it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHDsnO3y7CA

VIDEO 39 Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism. NEW DISCOVERY! FORMULA FOR MAG FIELDS!





You are ripe with pedestrian conclusions and assumptions. Not a good way to travel.

[Ben2503]

You need to learn a few things son.


A: I have proved the Math for it, and have the videos for it.


I have made 62 videos in the PAST MONTH ALONE


With another 100 more to add.


Take a look at the video here, and you will see it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHDsnO3y7CA

VIDEO 39 Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism. NEW DISCOVERY! FORMULA FOR MAG FIELDS!





You are ripe with pedestrian conclusions and assumptions. Not a good way to travel.

You can repeat yourself another 1000 times, it won't make any difference.
If it precession, you still need a force to make the gyro precess.

Please explain the differences between the permanent- and electromagnet experiments of Tinman, without personal attacks.

[TheoriaApophasis]

You can repeat yourself another 1000 times, it won't make any difference.
If it precession, you still need a force to make the gyro precess.

"magnetism is the dielectric FIELD" - Faraday

Please explain the differences between the permanent- and electromagnet experiments of Tinman, without personal attacks.

I explain PM in the book rather well, suggest you read it, its free. Or dont, I couldnt care less.

The circulatory NON SPIN nature of an electrical current was well


Suggest you read JC Maxwell and look at his diagram of magnetism in a current.

Its an electromagnet he is using, NOT a solenoid.



Suggest you read Eric P Dollards work, since its apparent you dont know the difference between dielectricity and electricity (most dont)

Eric P. Dollard – Official Homepage | The only man who has replicated Tesla's wireless transmission technology. LONE PINE WRITINGS.


Education of yourself would be a good suggestion.

[Ben2503]

"magnetism is the dielectric FIELD" - Faraday





I explain PM in the book rather well, suggest you read it, its free. Or dont, I couldnt care less.

The circulatory NON SPIN nature of an electrical current was well


Suggest you read JC Maxwell and look at his diagram of magnetism in a current.

Its an electromagnet he is using, NOT a solenoid.



Suggest you read Eric P Dollards work, since its apparent you dont know the difference between dielectricity and electricity (most dont)

LONE PINE WRITINGS.


Education of yourself would be a good suggestion.

The problem with your book is that it doesn't explain anything, the same applies for most of your posts.
You show how to construct the circles using phi and call that proof.
You stick a magnat on a CRT screen and call that proof. To me it just shows how the magnetic fields inside de tv are distorted by a PM. Something we knew for decades. What's the effect of the PM on an old fashioned oscilloscope trace??

You are a self educated (autodidact) specialist that seems to have all the answers so please:
could you explain the difference between a solenoid and a PM?
What would we see if we used a pancake coil?

I have read Eric Dollard's books and seen his videos, but it left me with more questions than answers and so far I haven't seen anything of practical use in his writings.