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

[ldrancer]

im the one asking the questions. ok?

[ldrancer]

what is the difference between the speed of 600mp/sec and doing something. and how it works. hold? so it holds at that type of speed, action? what?

what is what would you explain it? nevermind.

[TheoriaApophasis]

a bizarre quantum mechanics property called entanglement.
Al

There exists NO SUCH thing as "quantum (X)". Its a farce creation of modern pseudo-science.


"entanglement" is a BS term used to describe things that are not comprehended.

Quantum is as much a real science as Scientology is 'real'.


The Cult of Quantum is particle mysticism BS of the MOST VERY HIGH ORDER.

Its rooted in BS, ignorance, academic buffoonery, and pseudo-intellectual hubris.

[d3x0r]

There exists NO SUCH thing as "quantum (X)". Its a farce creation of modern pseudo-science.


"entanglement" is a BS term used to describe things that are not comprehended.

Quantum is as much a real science as Scientology is 'real'.


The Cult of Quantum is particle mysticism BS of the MOST VERY HIGH ORDER.

Its rooted in BS, ignorance, academic buffoonery, and pseudo-intellectual hubris.

Way to be dismissive
Entanglement is a descriptive term for something which does happen; if you want to call it yadda-yabba it's still going to be the same effect...

Quantum Mechanics does not deal with particles; but rather is entirely fields... and models 'particle-like' things and 'wave-like' things... but is not particles or waves itself.

So again; replace 'quantum' with 'theo magnetics' and you're still on the right path.

And quantum mechanics is more of a math framework than a science... so you're right; it's a very bad science.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Way to be dismissive
Entanglement is a descriptive term for something which does happen; if you want to call it yadda-yabba it's still going to be the same effect...

Quantum Mechanics does not deal with particles; but rather is entirely fields... and models 'particle-like' things and 'wave-like' things..

more wisdom required......


1. wave is not a THING, but what a "thing" DOES. a WAVE OF WHAT BY WHAT.

There are NO SUCH THINGS AS WAVES.


There (for example) is WATER only, .....and what water (might) does ...i.e. wave(s).





2. FIELDS? NO BRANCH OF ANY SCIENCE HAS EVER defined what a FIELD is.


NEVER , EVER., NEVER.
ONLY 2 FIELD modalities exist, convergent dielectric and divergent magnetic


the former is counterspatial, the later is spatial and HAS THE ATTRIBUTE of its properties of space and time.


space NOR time are fields, NOR exist as entities that are self-sufficient with properties. Space NOR Time either forces OR fields, as such they are posterior attributes of other Subjects (divergent magnetic fields and hybrid field modalities, such as transverse electromagnetism and mass aggregates).


the FALSE and BULLSH*T reificication by the cult of Quantum of both Space or Time, or Space and Time is a titanic fallacy.

Space NOR time are either fields or forces,. likewise they have of themselves NO POSSIBILITY to act on anything, they are posterior measure of and between divergent field modalities.

[d3x0r]

more wisdom required......


1. wave is not a THING, but what a "thing" DOES. a WAVE OF WHAT BY WHAT.

There are NO SUCH THINGS AS WAVES.


There (for example) is WATER only, .....and what water (might) does ...i.e. wave(s).

2. FIELDS? NO BRANCH OF ANY SCIENCE HAS EVER defined what a FIELD is.


NEVER , EVER., NEVER.

A field is a behavior of a volume... a 1 or more dimensional (a variable or defined constant parameter is a dimension) and a representation of all perumtations of variables...

ex: a volume of gas (a cloud in the sky) has a water density per volume, which is a 4 dimensional differential equation... but since it changes in time it's really a cover of 5 dimensions. And then you get to the class 'diff EQ' which is just more of the same.

ex2: A quaternion is a 4 dimensional quantity that describes orientation in a 3 dimensional space(hmm domain would be a more generic term for space) but says nothing about it's position or velocity which are yet more field equations. (this describes a field of rotation)

right... there are things 'like' particles and *like* waves though... there are things that behave in such a way that a wave model fits... much like inertia does to induction, and spring physics to capacitance.... that doesn't mean a capacitor IS-A spring, but they can share the same base classes.

[TheoriaApophasis]

A field is a behavior of a volume.

NOT SO, a Volume is a divergent quantification of only divergent field modalities, such as magnetic or transverse EM, or mass, which itself is magneto-dielectric conglomeration of dielectric accretions (neutrons and protons).


An acceleration counterspatial field HAS NO VOLUME BY DENOTATION and definition.


volume is only applicable to field divergences which are ALL force and motional (= loss of inertia).

ex2: A quaternion is a 4 dimensional quantity that describes orientation in a 3 dimensional space

Space has no properties (Tesla said this also, exactly), and cannot affect ANYTHING.


Space is a posterior attributional qualifier of field divergent measures.

right... there are things 'like' particles and *like* waves though... there are things that behave in such a way that a wave model fits... much like inertia does to induction, and spring physics to capacitance.... that doesn't mean a capacitor IS-A spring, but they can share the same base classes.

Inertia has no waves, only force and motion have or can contain waves.

Inertia and acceleration are counterspatial, Force and Motion are divergent and spatial.

[d3x0r]

more wisdom required......
....
Space NOR time are either fields or forces,. likewise they have of themselves NO POSSIBILITY to act on anything, they are posterior measure of and between divergent field modalities. [/B]

Right, they are the constraints on the variables....

Particle physics being a sub-set of rules and paradigms...

Particles, in practice have certain characteristic... they don't move faster than the speed of light. They can aquire excessive momentum for their velocity, which implies that there mass must be larger. But if they weren't actually larger, the amount of excessive particles generated from their collision would be the same. This word 'particle' should really imply in thought 'the fields that define a particle-like behavior' ... there are things that don't behave like other things... considered purely in a non-spacial non time relative way.

Didn't you learn what particles do in like elementary school or did you forget? not to say that all is particles or that particles are always particulate... but ....

you mentioned modality; which is a fancy way of saying 'this domain of parameters based on these constraints'.... which is hella more complicated than saying look; I have a bowling ball, and throw it at pins, and they bounce and react in a particular way. Does it really matter that it was based way lower on something else? The emergant behavior is still the same.

Yes electrons etc are emergant. That's how quantum mechanics defines it too.

[d3x0r]

NOT SO, a Volume is a divergent quantification of only divergent field modalities, such as magnetic or transverse EM.

An acceleration counterspatial field HAS NO VOLUME BY DENOTATION and definition.

Which I contiued on to examplify things that are fields which are non spacital... which you conveniently cut and dismissed

And I knew if I left the word 'space' that would become the resulting response and cut point

Space has no properties (Tesla said this also, exactly), and cannot affect ANYTHING.

Space is a posterior attributional qualifier of field divergent measures.

Right; space is a coordinate system; a constraint... it can be represented with systems that have more than definition for a single point... it doesn't have to be all right angles like a euler system.... and itself has no other property, but is a way to measure relatively to other things.

Inertia has no waves, only force and motion have or can contain waves.

Inertia across time can be represented with a wave-like equation when a pendulum swings. Nothing at a specific instant can be wave-like.

Inertia and acceleration are counterspatial, Force and Motion are divergent and spatial.

Inertia is a force as is acceleration. so why are they applied a different attribute?

[TheoriaApophasis]

Yes electrons etc are emergant. That's how quantum mechanics defines it too.
.

ELECTRONS DO NOT EXIST, there is no such BS as a "discharge particle" or "charge carrying particle".

[TheoriaApophasis]

Didn't you learn what particles do in like elementary school or did you forget? not to say that all is particles or that particles are always particulate... but ....
.

There is only ONE fundamental particle in the universe, NO MORE..., the Neutron.


Free neutrons become protons in 7 and half mins.


That said particle is a dielectric condensate, created in galactic formations and otherwise (google galactic jet).

[TheoriaApophasis]

Inertia across time can be represented with a wave-like equation when a pendulum swings. Nothing at a specific instant can be wave-like.

Inertia has no attribute of time, ONLY divergent fields do.


Time is not a THING, its a posterior attribute of ANOTHER "THING".



Time DOES NOTHING, ACTS ON NOTHING, and IS NOTHING.



Time = NOTHING.


people talk about "nothing" in a sense of REIFICATION


There is no such thing as "nothing" anymore than there is such a thing as TIME.


Show me nothing, nobody can, if you think you SAW it, then you were "IN" it and witness to it, thereby negating the definition of NOTHING, since there was a WITNESS in it or OF it,


You must posit something before you can negate it, and NEITHER SPACE NOR NOTHING can be posited as Subjective entities.



Common error.

Inertia is a force as is acceleration. so why are they applied a different attribute?

Dead wrong, only the LOSS OF INERTIA = force.


Youre thinking in terms of CONNOTATION, not DENOTATION,


Common huge error.

[d3x0r]

Let me attempt to clarify the quaternion rotation representation; This too is a field, but it has no volume... I suppose if a surface or line was defined for rotations, a closed volume across time might be defined, but would it mean anything?

What is it you're trying to state? Without being dismissive of existing things; you do better to present your own assertations.

[d3x0r]

Youre thinking in terms of CONNOTATION, not DENOTATION,

Common huge error.

In this case how is there a difference? Pretty sure this has all been denoted... and exemplified for connotation....

I'm really saying that the connotations implied are how they are denoted... but isn't everything?

[TheoriaApophasis]

What is it you're trying to state? Without being dismissive of existing things; you do better to present your own assertations.

They are not existing things, as you say, but false inventions reified by pseudo-science.

The fantastical notion of a MERMAID has existed for 100s of years, and everyone has a mental image of what one IS.

Like your (and others) electron, ....is no different than a mermaid.

both are mental fantasies, ....... one dreamed up by drunk sailors

the other dreamed up by mental midgets of hubris filled small minded academia to explain force transference vectors.


both are unreal nonsense.

Science (so-called) is ATOMISTIC BULLSH*T OF THE ABSOLUTE HIGHEST ORDER.

modern BS Science reifies everything as smacking subatomic mystical Unicorn (fantasy) "balls".

Let me attempt to clarify the quaternion rotation representation; This too is a field, but it has no volume... I suppose if a surface or line was defined for rotations, a closed volume across time might be defined, but would it mean anything?

A line is a force vector,......study the POINCARE' DISK MODEL.


The indivisible "point" at the middle of any magnet is the dielectric inertial plane where force nor motion exist, .....they have no premise "there".

A "closed volume" would define complete reciprocation (divergence and convergence).

Or a ball throw up and accelerating back down to 0.

rotation is a spatial implication. No counterspatial field has rotation, only counterspatial convergence which can of course, collapse WITH rotation to full inertia.