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

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi TheoriaApophasis
I've supported dollard, I've bought his ebooks, but I sure wish he sold hard copies.

I love books a LOT, have tons, but paper books are "Dead" (kinda)

In terms of grandma's house, I would have thought it was a centripedal force at the equitorial/dielectric plane, which pulls granny in, then becomining a centrifugal force with then lifts lifts the old girl

I was speaking ONLY of the centripetal vortex itself, not of the resultant force of which "sucks grandma in" lol.

But your analogy is correct, what is "taken in" is reintegrated so long as the dielectric inertia is in place (and everyone knows how to RUIN a magnet, shock, and heat , etc. )

It all seems like geometry as well, which end of the vortex you approach, apex or base , determines whether it's centripedal or centrifugal force, you can only go into a hole, and if the hole is the base of a vortex, you are forced toward the Center centripedally..
Sorry, but the shells, in your last picture, make it look like its an equitorial spiral, or another vortex, but it's a plane, but I understand,

Ultimately there is neither centripetal or centrifugal UP TO THE POINT its understood that polarization seeks its own termination, but is reciprocated ENDLESSLY so long as the dielectric keeps on "driving" same.

CW and CCW (clockwise and counterclockwise) dont exist, spin ANY OBJECT, it looks to be moving CW on one "end" and CCW on the other "end"

Yes, there IS a centripetal and centrifugal vortex on each "side" of the magnet, but the field reciprocation is one incommensurable (there's that stinking word again) mental puzzle to us crazy humans only due to the reification of something acting AS [creating a] space (=polarized), rather than polarization = spatial; as meaning that space OF the magnetic field is a posterior entity (and perceived as same by us crazy humans),...... rather than (as nearly all people wrongly think of it) there is something "that is polarized in space" ...which is wholly incorrect.

You cannot take the shells analogy TOO FAR


The really only important diagram to grasp is:

[machinealive]

Hi TheoriaApophasis

Thanks for reply.

Just so you know, I've supported dollard, I've bought his ebooks, but I sure wish he sold hard copies.

In terms of grandma's house, I would have thought it was a centripedal force at the equitorial/dielectric plane, which pulls granny in, then becomining a centrifugal force with then lifts lifts the old girl, but, forces her radial, at the base of the vortex, maybe not the top, she has mass. Likewise, approaching a tornado from above, like a whirlpool, would be a centripedal force, pulling you in, but weaker then the centrifugal pushing out, which just tossed granny, . But this force now becomes centrifugal at apex , weaker then centripedal, but still, forcing you radially.
It all seems like geometry as well, which end of the vortex you approach, apex or base , determines whether it's centripedal or centrifugal force, you can only go into a hole, and if the hole is the base of a vortex, you are forced toward the Center centripedally..

Sorry, but the shells, in your last picture, make it look like its an equitorial spiral, or another vortex, but it's a plane, but I understand,

Thanks again,
Machinealive

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi Theo,
I guess I am more confused then ever, I am having trouble understanding the meaning of your words i.e. dielectric. Dictionary definition is "a non-conductor of electricity"

Ahhhh!!!!!!!

The perfect question deserves the perfect answer


read this little bit:

and dielectricity which you use, I cannot find at all, what is dielectricity?

You should get this book:

Vol 1 and 2
Lone Pine Writings by Eric Dollard

All the greats were messing with dielectricity, Tesla, Steinmetz, Heaviside, Faraday etc etc etc.

Oleg Jefimenko - Electrostatic Motors, FULL BOOK, 75p

Electrostatic Motors: Their History, Types and Principles of Operation: Oleg Jefimenko, Thomas Valone, David K. Walker: 9781935023470: Amazon.com: Books

The word incommensurability means "incapable of being measured" "lacking a common quality upon which to make a comparison"

Yes, and NO, thats only ONE (rather wrong) modern definition of it. HOW I am using it is in reference to its ORIGINAL meaning, which is NOT that.

Pythagorean incommensurability (the "KHORA") or Aoristos Dyad

Read a bit about it here:

Maybe I'm way off base sorry back to the reading.

No, youre not, its just abstruse mathematical principles of the likes which Plato, Pythagoras, and other taught, is nothing any of us conventional critters are ever taught or learn about, or (as is the case) care about.



Heres a proof that took me 4 years to complete on COMBINING the 2 most important forms of incommensurability.

but anyone looking at it is going to roll their eyes and whistle "Mmm OK whatever..."

Without context, nobody is going to make any sense of it.




Point-inspecific self-similarity at ANY 'point' in a 'perfect' "magnet" is field incommensurability.


somewhat definitionally close to:



A bit on same:

[Pembelton]

All atoms (mention this in the last sections of the book) have, as their volume (like the volume of a balloon) magneto-dielectricity.

As mentioned in detail in the book, electrification creates a field incommensurability (many diagrams of this in the book).

Eric P Dollard speaks much about differentiating field modalities.

Have you bought his book "Lone Pine Writings" ?

differentiating electrostatics from electricity (dynamic polarization).


bipolar and the term dielectric can never be uttered 'next to each other'.

Like saying "hot ice"


Dielectricity and magnetism (both Ether modalities) are the co-principles of the cosmos.

Dielectricity and magnetism (of themselves before anything) are created from this equation:

1/Phi^-3

However I could (and hope to some day) write a very very long book about that equation I discovered about 10 years ago. Explaining it is the most impossible task I can imagine, even though I know how to write about it endlessly. The task is both wonderful and the thought of doing it is insanely infuriating.


Electricity and gravity (resultant from mass, which is created in galactic and stellar formations) are merely the byproducts of dielectricity and magnetism.

Hi Theo,
I guess I am more confused then ever, I am having trouble understanding the meaning of your words i.e. dielectric. Dictionary definition is "a non-conductor of electricity" and dielectricity which you use, I cannot find at all, what is dielectricity? The word incommensurability means "incapable of being measured" "lacking a common quality upon which to make a comparison" so when you say incommensurable field do you mean a field that is unmeasurable or nothing to compare it to?

I guess I may need to buy Eric Dollards book to understand what you are talking about?

Most of this makes sense to me though if one of the aether modalities is to form a toroidal vortex, your pictures look to me like two vortex's 3 dimensionally 1 on top of the other spinning opposite directions to each other. Held together by aether forces coming into both ends (large opening) more force and coming out the center or dielectric plane (small opening) less force. Maybe I'm way off base sorry back to the reading.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi TheoriaApophasis

Just curious?

Machinealive

I made these pics with some of my big ole' shell collection


IS this a better visualization of the magneto-dielectric nature of a magnet as a "mental image" ???

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi Theo,
I have been reading your paper, and there is one question I have for you, I don't believe it is answered in your paper if I missed it I am sorry.

I was just wondering what aether modality accounts for the diaelectric plane. If everything is composed of the aether working in different modalities. then the diaelectric plane must be developed by some aether modality. I think you are saying there is a static or bipolar charge across the diaelectric plane that gives rise to the magnetic field, if I'm wrong then I don't understand what you are saying and I apologize and back to reading.

All atoms (mention this in the last sections of the book) have, as their volume (like the volume of a balloon) magneto-dielectricity.

As mentioned in detail in the book, electrification creates a field incommensurability (many diagrams of this in the book).

Eric P Dollard speaks much about differentiating field modalities.

Have you bought his book "Lone Pine Writings" ?

differentiating electrostatics from electricity (dynamic polarization).


bipolar and the term dielectric can never be uttered 'next to each other'.

Like saying "hot ice"


Dielectricity and magnetism (both Ether modalities) are the co-principles of the cosmos.

Dielectricity and magnetism (of themselves before anything) are created from this equation:

1/Phi^-3

However I could (and hope to some day) write a very very long book about that equation I discovered about 10 years ago. Explaining it is the most impossible task I can imagine, even though I know how to write about it endlessly. The task is both wonderful and the thought of doing it is insanely infuriating.


Electricity and gravity (resultant from mass, which is created in galactic and stellar formations) are merely the byproducts of dielectricity and magnetism.

[TheoriaApophasis]

I hope I don't sound like an ASS in saying this.....

but if you really like my book. I dont WANT A SINGLE CENT



IF YOU LIKE my book, since I owe great thanks to a 'divine' understanding of some key points to Eric P Dollard.


Donate $5, (or whatever you want) TO ERIC P DOLLARD


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




I dedicated the last page to him and a few others for a reason.


3rd edition due out in a month or so.

Lux et Veritas Kinds regards to all you people.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi TheoriaApophasis
What causes the large black area on the CRT screen?

Centrifugal magnetic displacement of the charge MEANT to illuminate the CRT phosphorus of the screen. I speak about this in detail in the upcoming 3rd edition Ive been working hard on.

However making many videos also recently.

So you feel the the field travels from outer edge on one end of magnet to Center on other end, corkscrewing through each other.

While strictly inaccurate, a crude way of speaking of same analogously would be 'corkscrewing' thru each other.

Think of how a creature moves INWARDS (centripetally, CONvergently) into its shell as against the nature of how the shell move DIvergently (centrifugally) outwards as it is grown





XRAYS of shells:

So, they also corkscrew through the dielectric plane?

No, they are 'consumed' at that point at which the Field Incommensurability re-integrates same for repeating the process.


As I mention in the book, HOW a magnet (so-called) is created is from discharged capacitor banks, what this does to EVERY atom, like a clay sphere SQUEEZED at its equator, is CINCH it dielectrically and create a "flywheel and dumbell" shape in endless trillions and trillions of inter-atomic magneto-dielectric volumes.

this INCOMMENSURABLE FIELD effect creates the "magnets" we are so fascinated with.


All field modalities , dielectric, magnetic, electric, gravity are just Ether/Aether modalities.

carbon, graphite, pencil , diamond......(crude analogy), all one Principle

This specific point is outlined in the book, however further details on MY part in explaining same are in order for the 3rd edition.

I would have thought that the dielectric plane was an input as well as output like the ends. When we see pictures of tornadoes, from the outside, it's a centrifugal movement, into the apex at ground level, up and out the top. But if we look at a whirlpool, we see the centripedal force, the inside, now things go down the vortex toward the apex, where it gets discharged.
More like this

It is, I mention that in great detail in the book. The dielectric to magnetic in a PERFECT magnet with PERFECT conditions is 3.23606 parts dielectricity to 1 part magnetism.

(crudely) imagine a gyroscope in which you could only see the 2 "ends" or each axis. The "flywheel" is 'invisible' (without magnetic viewing film).

The GIANT controlling the "magnet" is the dielectric "flywheel", or the dielectric inertial plane.


All us crazy humans are like children watching a puppet show, we see the pathetic little puppets (magnetism), but the GIANT running the "show" in any "magnet" is the puppet master (dielectricity) "behind the curtain"


Dielectricity literally IS "behind the curtain" because dielectricity is centripetal, counterspatial, radial, and inertial.


We only see a "magnet" as Magnetism because magnetism is spatial (= POLARIZED).

space and polarization are (almost) ultimately one and the same thing.

When we see pictures of tornadoes, from the outside, it's a centrifugal movement, into the apex at ground level, up and out the top. But if we look at a whirlpool, we see the centripedal force, the inside, now things go down the vortex toward the apex, where it gets discharged.
More like this

A tornado is a centripetal vortex LOW speed up in the sky, HIGH speed below where its tossing grandmas house in the air.

Centrifugal is like cracking a whip, LOW speed in wrist movement, but breaking the sound barrier at the end.

Pulling the plug in the drain in your tub, yes, thats a centripetal vortex, fast at the bottom near the drain hole.


Rather than "discharged" reintegrated. However thats just splitting hairs, close enough.





YOUR LAST DRAWING, showing centrifugal magnetism NOT RETURNING to the other side of the centripetal is due to INTERMEDIATE pressure centrifugal (from the intermediate zone of EVERY SIDE of any magnet) pressures which do not have sufficient velocity to get beyond the edge of the centripetal inertial plane of reintegration and do not make full reciprocation.

This view is wrongly seen by some to "prove a magnet has 4 poles", but this is merely a misunderstanding of pressure gradient variations and field icommensurability where all movement is mediated by lowest seeking pressure reciprocation and reintegration.

I speak about this in the book.

However also....., you indicate arrows (in your last diagram above) coming OUT from the inertial plane TO the centrifugal (/edge) magnetic location, and that doesnt happen.

As for intermediate pressure magnetic reciprocation, .....think of a sick jumper (low pressure centrifugal magnetism) who, upon leaping, smacks into the fence wall (inertial plane) face-first instead of making it (around and over) to the other side.

[Pembelton]

Hi Theo,
I have been reading your paper, and there is one question I have for you, I don't believe it is answered in your paper if I missed it I am sorry.

I was just wondering what aether modality accounts for the diaelectric plane. If everything is composed of the aether working in different modalities. then the diaelectric plane must be developed by some aether modality. I think you are saying there is a static or bipolar charge across the diaelectric plane that gives rise to the magnetic field, if I'm wrong then I don't understand what you are saying and I apologize and back to reading.

[machinealive]

Hi TheoriaApophasis

Just started reading your PDF. Looks like you've tide lot of things together, nice.

Also, thanks for there rare books link, never thoughts would get to read those.

What causes the large black area on the CRT screen?

So you feel the the field travels from outer edge on one end of magnet to Center on other end, corkscrewing through each other.



So, they also corkscrew through the dielectric plane?

I would have thought that the dielectric plane was an input as well as output like the ends. When we see pictures of tornadoes, from the outside, it's a centrifugal movement, into the apex at ground level, up and out the top. But if we look at a whirlpool, we see the centripedal force, the inside, now things go down the vortex toward the apex, where it gets discharged.
More like this



Sorry for crappy pics but I'm in a hurry.

Just curious?

Machinealive

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi Ken,
the centripetal convergent field located bellow the counterpsatial-inertia plane has its rotating vector in the wrong direction. It should point to the left not to the right. Because the left magnetic field shape should be the mirrored image of the right one, and of course vice versa.

You ARE correct, I did that I believe in 2 diagrams, not out of laziness or error, but actually just to show the direction of CONvergence and the ultimately direction of DIvergence (centripetal and centrifugal).


You were the first to notice that.

I dont want to sound like I am making an excuse, but In explaining it in detail in print, of the 2 diagrams (I recall) in which that error is present,...... I assumed (incorrectly obviously!) .......I was merely showing the superficial layer of "what is moving OUT and what is moving IN" even though (as you correctly state) the arrows should be reverse at the bottom of your indication.




It shall be remedied. Kind thanks. The 'devil is in the details'.


I wanted to give a "good mental image" from SOME of the diagrams without TOO MUCH detail, ....but in leaving out the "fine" detail on a couple things......., I was making an ERR.

[sadang]

Hi Ken,

Sorry, my mistake! It is about dielectric-inertia plane.

The picture occur righ bellow the following phrase "Below: Look at these, and I will explain them a bit later" and has on the right side of it a screen capture. Bellow these two pictures is a new title called "A very brief historical glimpse of earliest magnetic comprehension". It would have been much easier if I put the image directly here, but do not know if I'm allowed.

In this picture, for the second magnetic field shape (on the right side) the centripetal convergent field located bellow the counterpsatial-inertia plane has its rotating vector in the wrong direction. It should point to the left not to the right. Because the left magnetic field shape should be the mirrored image of the right one, and of course vice versa.

Again, my intention is just to help, not confuse. I'll be back this week with some experiments on my delta CRT.

SaDAng

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi Ken,
Without any intention to correct your work or to upset you somehow, I want to draw your attention to a design that I think is wrong: On page 6 at the bottom of the page is a picture about the real shape of magnetism for Cw and CCW dielectric planes. In my opinion the second shape, with CW spinning dielectric plane has the bellow centripetal vortex in a wrong direction. It should be opposed to centrifugal external vortex.

If such types of comments annoy you, I'll stop doing them. But I'll keep continue the analysis of the book.

SaDAng

Youll have to be a LOT more specific, which image? page 6 (the pages are not numbered) has some iron filing photos etc.


I never mention anywhere "CW and CCW dielectric" anything

Only CW and CCW magnetic centrifugal divergent, and centripetal CONvergent fields.


Why would you anger me? No, you are not annoying me.

There are typos in there, and a genuine truth seeker LOVES to be proven wrong because that brings one closer to the truth, and being accurate (or proven accurate) does the same.

So, being proven wrong OR being proven right are BOTH beneficial.


However, what you mention,..... I never say any such thing anywhere in the book about "CW / CCW dielectric"

centripetal, radial, inertial, counterspatial dielectric, yes. but not the above mention.





take a peek at this video and see if you get what Im stating

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dilk8gcDxac

[sadang]

Hi Ken,

As I said I read again the book, very slowly analyzing word by word and phrase by phrase all sentences and meaning, as deeply as I can, making a lot of analogies withh all that I learned until now from others and from my own experiments about magnetism.

Without any intention to correct your work or to upset you somehow, I want to draw your attention to a design that I think is wrong: On page 6 at the bottom of the page is a picture about the real shape of magnetism for Cw and CCW dielectric planes. In my opinion the second shape, with CW spinning dielectric plane has the bellow centripetal vortex in a wrong direction. It should be opposed to centrifugal external vortex.

If such types of comments annoy you, I'll stop doing them. But I'll keep continue the analysis of the book.

SaDAng

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi Theo, I've been reading your book, but I have a hard time understanding.
Seems quite similar to how Russell was creating hydrogen?
Also Eric Lithiwaite (sp).
Are you saying that mixing two different vibrations , makes a new vibration.
Sorry , everything is just vibration or frequency?
Tesla said things have to be tuned or they won't work, matching frequencies?
Wish I was smarter.
artv

Thats as per energy production.

My only aim was/is to explain correctly, rationally, and with many angles of proof HOW / WHY/ WHAT a "magnet" is, how it "works" etc.

I am working on building a motor, but none of this specific to magnetism has (ultimately yes of COURSE) anything to do with direct energy production.

There are precession frequencies as mentioned within the work.

Such frequencies are known to MRI makers , magneto-gravimetric precession and frequencies.

but they dont really know its implications, or meanings, just what it is and HOW to use it.

You could see the ongoing videos for clearer visualizations.

maybe starting at video 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-WgxGc_vcA

Up to 6, with maybe 10 more to make getting deeper etc. , more detailed.

Kind regards to you.