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

[shylo]

Similarities

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

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi Theo,
Thank you for this brilliant book being the best I have ever read according to this topic

Kind regards for your comment , there is a bit of polishing to do and to add some more "coffin nail" proofs (see videos above as one example)

However Ive already got a LOT of coffin nails in that arena.

also a few more sections and about another 30+ pages to add.

I still try to get this stuff hammered in my brain as it is completely different from what we have learned at school.

Well, we were all taught the same trash in school. No need to slap the teacher. However there are a FEW I would like to slap, kidding.

They are STILL teaching the same "opposites attract" trash, and STILL teaching that "look iron dust, this is a mag field" , well, NO, its NOT.


Other than magnets and magnetism and how THEY work, the worst SIN is that the 800 pound gorilla to GR and QM is the word "field"

Fields don't have squat to do with particles, or virtual particles (i.e. unicorns and pixie dust).

Go find the "best" relativist in academia and ask him/her to "define a field"

I am wondering if this Gravity Repulsion generator would also then fit in your context. Here is the link Gravity-Opposing Repulsion Generator

Ill go look at the link.


Gravity repulsion, in pure retroductive proof MUST MUST be based off a dielectric field(s).

Dr. Oleg D. Jefimenko with enormous cred and endless math proof speaks about same in his work. He won multiple math and physics awards but later in life he wrote a LOT against the nonsense of relativity and people wouldnt publish him, his work is brilliant.


Gravitation and Cogravitation: Developing Newton's Theory of Gravitation to its Physical and Mathematical Conclusion: Oleg D. Jefimenko: 9780917406157: Amazon.com: Books

[TheoriaApophasis]

The way I understand it is what you are saying, maybe my explanation wasn't clear enough.

As you have said
"they ARE "crossing" each other, but not intersecting each other, think of 2 corkscrews going 'into' each other going in opposite directions"

This is what I'm talking about. They have to cross each other to reach opposite ends of the magnet. And this is what I was questioning how they do this but you are saying that they corkscrew each other so the field from opposite directions must be able to pass through each other.

Nature doesnt work against her own pressures, ...as also mentioned in the book, INTERMEDIATE pressures dont have the velocity to get passed the inertial plane and a portion of the centrifugal fields returns AT the inertial plane RATHER THAN to the center of the other side.


You keep using the word "through" , but as is the case with transverse field reciprocation in TEM, the pattern is mutually "through AND around" each other since both are moving in opposite vortexes.

like interlacing fingers never touching but moving around and through.

there is no "crossing" only passing. its not like two cars moving by each other on opposite sides of the road.

rather like two hamsters moving "passed" each other in a pair (endless trillions of pairs) helical tubes.




Its extremely simple. Now imagine another LIKE BELOW moving in the opposite direction "around and through" the one pictured below.




I assume you have taken 2 coils and screwed them into each other before? a low friction reciprocation.

(however that analog is a tad crude specifically) since tight helical interlacing is NOT what is going on in magnetic field reciprocations.

[Siggi1974]

Best stuff

Hi Theo,

Thank you for this brilliant book being the best I have ever read according to this topic I still try to get this stuff hammered in my brain as it is completely different from what we have learned at school. The Videos do help very much and are proof at the same time.

I am wondering if this Gravity Repulsion generator would also then fit in your context. Here is the link Gravity-Opposing Repulsion Generator

Besides I am wondering how your new theory would explain the Casimir effect.

Any answer on that would be very much appreciated. Keep up this brilliant work.

Best regards
Siggi

[Netica]

The way I understand it is what you are saying, maybe my explanation wasn't clear enough.

As you have said
"they ARE "crossing" each other, but not intersecting each other, think of 2 corkscrews going 'into' each other going in opposite directions"

This is what I'm talking about. They have to cross each other to reach opposite ends of the magnet. And this is what I was questioning how they do this but you are saying that they corkscrew each other so the field from opposite directions must be able to pass through each other.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hello TheoriaApophasis,
As I understand it, you are saying that the field goes out centrifugally on the outside of one side of the magnet and then centripetally goes in at the middle on the other side of the magnet. If the field is continuous from one side to the other and there are two opposite at the same time then these fields must cross each other going through each other in opposite directions. My question is how are these fields doing this and what effect does it have?
netica

No, BOTH 'sides' of the magnet leave the EDGE centrifugally (divergence) and return to the CENTER of the other side centripetally (convergence)



a centripetal vortex is like your drain draining, fastest at the bottom slow at the top

a centrifugal vortex is like cracking a whip, your wrist doesnt move much, but the END of the whip is breaking the sound barrier

(as a crude analogy)

You can also see this edge velocity on magnetic viewing film, which is really velocity viewing film.

This is ALSO how George Mizelle creates 1.5 Tesla magnets by stacking smaller and smaller magnets on top of each other to a point like a pyramid, taking the FAST centrifugal velocity from the edge of the bottom magnet to the top and it amplifies exponentially, these pyramidal stacked magnets have medical uses.

This centrifugal velocity gets directed to the next smaller magnet, then the next and next........
(see youtube video on this).

I explain this premise with many analogies in the book with many diagrams.

There are no opposites, spin ANYTHING you have close at hand in ANY direction, one side is going clockwise, the other side is going COUNTERclockwise.

obviously however the entire "X" object is spinning in the same direction, but CW from one "end" and CCW from the other "end".



Space is the ultimate mind bender and 'lie'.


they ARE "crossing" each other, but not intersecting each other, think of 2 corkscrews going 'into' each other going in opposite directions.

I posted 2 new videos on a illustration-discovery I just made proving this that should clear things up some:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwn3CqvRumg

This is the image ON the WALL taken from the camcorder to the TV set:

which is a printed CLOCKWISE vortex


If the outside centrifugal is ALSO clockwise LIKE the printed vortex, THEN IT MUST move the vortex in the SAME CW direction

But, it must create a centripetal center that is moving opposite, counterclockwise



CCW centrifugal DISTORTING the printed CW ring, AND showing a CW centripetal



CW centrifugal spinning the printed CW ring, AND showing a CCW centripetal



also.......CCW centrifugal DISTORTING the printed CW ring, AND showing a CW centripetal



Since the printed vortex is CW, then a CCW centrifugal MUST distort the printed and projected vortex

[Netica]

Hello TheoriaApophasis,

I am now well into your book, but going quite slow as I usually have to re-read paragraphs over many times, I think it's great stuff, and thank you very much for sharing your book and research for free.

I just have a question with something I'm thinking about,

As I understand it, you are saying that the field goes out centrifugally on the outside of one side of the magnet and then centripetally goes in at the middle on the other side of the magnet. If the field is continuous from one side to the other and there are two opposite at the same time then these fields must cross each other going through each other in opposite directions. My question is how are these fields doing this and what effect does it have?

Thanks
netica

[TheoriaApophasis]

Maybe you are well aware of the work of Howard Johnson and its method and results by plotting on a computer the magnetic field using a Hall sensor!

Yes, I know about Howard, he is so incredibly INCREDIBLY dead dead wrong on almost every level imaginable. Ive read his work, he does'nt understand anything.
Just reading his work makes me furious at his ignorance


but at least he tried.

I also thought to use ferrofluid for this task, but my final conclusion was that regardless of the method chosen, it is impossible to see in all its splendor a 3D movement

Nope on that one, I created some time ago a special suspension using ferrofluid to show 3D mechanics of vortex motion.

Its not "impossible" at all, I have the "100% REAL" (5 copies of the device) only a few feet from me ..

Its all about the suspension material the ferrofluid is in and its suspension viscosity

THAT however is not what I invented earlier this week, which is not ferrofluid based.



Nice video playlist, watching NOW.


I myself have about another 12 or more videos to make on stuff nobody has seen before on magnetism.

[sadang]

Hi Ken,

Because you mentioned the ancient indian vedas let me show you something much older than indian vedas. It is about slavon aryan vedas, a set of of five books of wisdoms from which I found translated in english only the first one called "Book of wisdom of Perun". Here is a single strophe:

Sacred hymns and songs,
will not save from falsehood those,
who easily yield to deception,
who stay in a world of charms and self illusions.
Like birds leave nest,
when their wings grow,
so sacred songs leave human,
when the time comes...

Coming back to magnetism and its beautiful world, here is the magnetism playlist of my youtube channel:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYQG...1SxT_I40ruVosd

I see that you use a CRT with liniar shape of luminophores. This would be a nice comparative work from triangular and liniar CRTs. I'll also create a grid image and will post here the results for different shape of magnets.

I'm glad to hear that you managed to finally create a 3D visualizer for magnetic fields. I don't understand why you need a patent, instead to release it free to general public, but I respect your will.

Here are my thoughts about a method to measure/visualize in 3D the structure of magnetic fields. Maybe you are well aware of the work of Howard Johnson and its method and results by plotting on a computer the magnetic field using a Hall sensor! I also thought to make this thing but using three Hall sensors, positioned on XYZ axes, as closer as they can be positioned, to measure the magnitude and sense of the magnetic flux. But it still remained just in the phase of project. More easier is to do this thing using three small ball compasess, with three degrees of freedom each one, and which will let me see any variations in the three coordinates. I also thought to use ferrofluid for this task, but my finall consclusion was that regardless of the method chosen, it is impossible to see in all its splendor a 3D movement, with me being part of the same 3D world. For this I have to use the imagination, or another method, beyond the 3D realm!

Now, back to your book, cause I have to really understand the role of dielectric plane and its utility in everyday life!

SaDAng

[TheoriaApophasis]

Thanks Ken for your comments!


SaDAng

PROOF that ON EVERY SIDE (I already proved it many other ways however!!!!!) of the magnet, you have a center situated CENTRIPETAL moving OPPOSITE to the SAME SIDED centrifugal !!!!!!!!!!



AHHHHHHH~~~~~~!!!!!! I had a stroke of genuis a little while ago today!!!!!


VIDEOS HERE:
see:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwn3CqvRumg

Uploading the video now, but heres some SNAPS:

, PROJECT a spiral FROM a camcorder to the SCREEN of the TV, and PROVE what is going on!!!!!


This is the image ON the WALL taken from the camcorder to the TV set:

which is a printed CLOCKWISE vortex



If the outside centrifugal is ALSO clockwise LIKE the printed vortex, THEN IT MUST move the vortex in the SAME CW direction

BUT!!!!!! IT MUST CREATE A CENTRIPETAL CENTER THAT IS MOVING OPPOSITE, COUNTERCLOCKWISE!!!!

TAAA-DAAAA



Since the printed vortex is CW, then a CCW centrifugal MUST distort the printed and projected vortex

Yup:-------





CCW centrifugal DISTORTING the printed CW ring, AND showing a CW centripetal



CW centrifugal spinning the printed CW ring, AND showing a CCW centripetal



also.......CCW centrifugal DISTORTING the printed CW ring, AND showing a CW centripetal

[TheoriaApophasis]

our western connotation of "philosophy" is western Existentialist TRASH like Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, and other mental midgets.

That "contemplate your belly button lint" philosophy is a brain wasting dead end of BS and nonsense.




The Genuine philosophy, of Pythagoras, Plato, Tesla, Plotinus, the stuff that "PRODUCES RESULTS" and bears fruit in wisdom is 100% opposite of what most people think of when they hear "philosophy"


most "philosophy" makes me want to puke too, but not the REAL stuff.

[thx1138]

You're using the wrong approach, like an academic, looking for linear influence.
X influenced Y, who got it from Y

(which is kinda what I did above)



In genuine philosophy for example, things are examined circularly.
meaning around what or who its centers and how X circle influences X.

I'm neither an academic (high school education) nor a philosopher. I work from a background of 40 years of professional software development, often on projecst that take years before they are released the first time.

After hearing what appeared to be a lot of gibberish about what Tesla did and said, I went back to the source - Dr. Tesla himself. My approach has been to attempt to follow his train of thought on two of his developments - fuelless energy production and wireless transmission of industrial scale power. It's been an interesting project since I also had to determine what we know today that was not known at the time he was working on these ideas to get a handle on the information that he had available and how it influenced his thinking.

Tesla said it to his close buddy George Sylvester Viereck, who was a mystic.

Tesla said it to him who recorded same somewhere in the mind 1920s.

I've heard it attributed to Walter Russel also. That's why I'm looking for a citation.

I'm enjoying your work. Thank you.

I don't know much about philosophy but I particularly enjoyed a line in the movie "Max Dugan Returns". Max Dugan shows up to visit his estranged son that he never knew with a boat load of money he stole from a Las Vega casino that screwed him over on a real estate deal. He tells his son that his field of endeavor is philosophy. His son says, "I didn't know you could make a lot of money in philosophy." Max Dugan says, "You can if you have the right one."

[TheoriaApophasis]

These pics belongs to a set of movies, and if you consider valuable I can place them here

Does a bear love honey? YES POST THEM



Yes, I use a CRT too, they're lovely to use.

There is a toy (see pic in THIS THREAD ABOVE) that shows so wonderfully the dielectric inertial plane, that "pin art" toy can do MORE THINGS and show you more things that nothing else can.

Also after 2 years of work, earlier this week I perfected a 3D "device" I am working on trying to get a patent for, that shows a flowing vortex in real time.

Ive shown the "device" to a few people, and its knocked their socks off.

Let me now show you another two intriguing pictures, of a spherical magnet on which I placed a few drops of ferrofluid. Under a light source of a desk lamp I got these hexagonal and square light reflection (2D projection of a 3D specific dynamic), which I believe is not accidental. The association that I did at that time was similar to 2D geometric shapes obtained in cymatic experiments.

Did you see my other thread on diff. types of ferrofluid formulations???

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19567-make-your-own-ferrofluid-viewing-device-cheaper-much-better-3-diff-types.html

Lovely pics yet again.


YOUR SECOND PICTURE SHOWS THE 137.5077 degree golden angle I detail in the book. WHILE your picture looks (only perspectively) like a diff triangle, flatten it out in your mind and you will see that 137.5077 (apex angle) on the centripetal and precessing vortex in your SECOND picture....

Of course, like iron filings, the ferrofluid is only a SNAPSHOT of those angles, its constantly precessing round and round at that specific geometry.


ANY AND ALL FIELD VIEWING MATERIALS (except the one I just created) only show instant snapshots of field reciprocation. They "lock" into the field pressures and become magnetically induced and therefore arent moving to show the centrifugal and centripetal reciprocation

Taaaa-Daaa!!!!! Lovely picture from YOU proving my precession angle points I found as well.




Not so easy to get ferrofluid off that magnet, I "love" the way it stains your hands.

I just ordered more ferrofluid myself, I had 12 ounces and STILL ran out.

[sadang]

Thanks Ken for your comments!

I didn't read until today the Rig Veda, just parts of it over years, ond only when my searches took me accidentaly to it. Instead, I read Ramayana and Mahabharata wahe I was 10-11 years, and it fascinated me on the one hand, but also I felt all things described there somehow very known or common to me.

These pics belongs to a set of movies, and if you consider valuable I can place them here. I use magnetic film in my experiments but I consider the CRT more valuable, because we talk here about dynamic fileds interactions, even though they are seen just as 2D projection of more complex 3D dynamics. But I have a very good spatial view, and I can easily imagine the 3D aspects based on 2D projections.

Let me now show you another two intriguing pictures, of a spherical magnet on which I placed a few drops of ferrofluid. Under a light source of a desk lamp I got these hexagonal and square light reflection (2D projection of a 3D specific dynamic), which I believe is not accidental. The association that I did at that time was similar to 2D geometric shapes obtained in cymatic experiments.

Have a nice weekend,
SaDAng

[TheoriaApophasis]

And that this ether is not spatially located somewhere outside of us, because there is no an "outside" concept except the one defined in an utopic empty space.

We are all swimming fields, and all atoms are dynamo field creation 'points' since a "still atom with field(s)" cannot and doesn't exist. We are composed of (existentially of course) endless compounded fields, and walking in enormous fields moving in other fields and others and others.

According to the math of Dr. O. Defimchenko who backs up my premise , there exists no space other than as a posterior attribute TO or OF any field, meaning there are no fields "in space", but only space as an attribute within and TO any field.

Space is "empty" , in that it does nothing, is nothing, acts on nothing, and controls nothing. Empty is merely a fallacy of relationship, X is empty of Y, but there is no such thing as "emptiness"

Ask anyone if they've "seen anything that's empty" If they say yes, then ask them WHO saw it (they did), and inform them since there was a witness to it, then it really wasn't empty at all, since "He/she/they" were IN there witnessing it.

We are living on the "out-side", the In-side (counterspace), or the Ether at "rest" which isn't being perturbed into any one of several energy archetypes (radial, circular, spatial, dielectric-centripetal-counterspatially moving) would be the in-side.



Kha, and the denotation of 0 or Xaos (space) brief primer:

Kha, cf. Greek Xaos, is generally "cavity"; and in the Rg Veda, particularly "the hole in the nave of a wheel through which the axle runs" (Monier Williams). A. N. Singh has shown conclusively that in Indian mathematical usage, current during the earlier centuries of the Christian era, kha means "zero";(1) Suryadeva, commenting on Aryabhata, says that "the khas refer to voids (khaini sunya upa lakptani) . . . thus khadvinake means the eighteen places denoted by zeros." Among other words denoting zero are sunya, akasa, vyoma, antariksa, nabha, ananta, and purna.(2) We are immediately struck by the fact that the words sunya, "void," and purna, "plenum," should have a common reference; the implication being that all numbers are virtually or potentially present in that which is without number; expressing this as an equation, o=x-x, it is apparent that zero is to number as possibility is to actuality. ,.gain, employment of the term ananta with the same reference implies an identification of zero with infinity; the beginning of all series being thus the same as their end. This last idea, we may observe, is met with already in the earlier metaphysical literature, for example RV IV.I.II, where Agni is described as "hiding both his ends (guhamano anta) "; AB 111.43, "the Agnistoma is like a chariot wheel, endless (ananta)"; JUB 1.35, "the Year is endless (ananta), its two ends (anta) are Winter and Spring . . . so is the endless chant (anantam saman)." These citations suggest that it may be possible to account for the later mathematicians selection of technical terms by reference to an earlier usage of the same or like terms in a purely metaphysical context.

Our intention being to demonstrate the native connection of the mathematical terms kha, etc., with the same terms as employed in purely metaphysical contexts, it will be necessary to prepare the diagram of a circle or cosmic wheel (cakra, mandala) and to point out the significance of the relationships of the parts of such a diagram according to universal tradition and more particularly in accordance with the formulation of the Rg Veda. Take a piece of blank paper of any dimensions, mark a point anywhere upon it, and With this point as center draw two concentric circles of any radii, but one much less than the other; draw any radius from the center to the outer circumference. With exception of the center, which as a point is necessarily without dimension, note that every part of our diagram is merely representative; that is, the number of circles may be indefinitely increased, and the number of radii likewise, each circle thus filled up becoming at last a plane continuum, the extended ground of any given world or state of being; for our purpose we are considering only two such worlds mythologically speaking, Heaven and Earth, or psychologically, the worlds of subject and object as forming together the world or cosmos, typical of any particularized world which may be thought of as partial within it. Finally, our diagram may be thought of either as consisting of two concentric circles with their common radii and one common center, or as the diagram of a wheel, with its felly, nave, spokes, and axle point.

Now in the first place, as a geometrical symbol, that is to say with respect to measure or numeration, our diagram represents the logical relationships of the concepts naught or zero, inconnumerable unity, and indefinite multiplicity; the blank (sunnya) surface having no numerical significance; the central point (Indu, bindu) being an inconnumerable unity (inconnumerable, advaita, because there cannot be conceived a second center); and either circumference an endless (ananta) series of points, which may be thought of as numbers; the totality (sarvam) of the numbered, that is to say individual, points representing the sum of a mathematically infinite series extending from one to "infinity," and conceivable as plus or minus according to the direction of procedure. The whole area (sarira) delimited corresponds to place (desa), a revolution of the circles about their center corresponds to time (kala) It will be observed further that any radius connects analogous or corresponding points or numbers on the two circumferences;(3) if, now, we suppose the radius of one or both circles indefinitely reduced, which brings us to the central point as limiting concept (that is also "as it was in the beginning"), it is evident that even this point can be thought of only as a plenum of all the numbers represented on either circumference.(4) on the other hand, this point, at the same time that it represents an inconnumerable unity and, as we have seen, a plenum, must also be thought of as representing, that is, as the symbol of, zero, for two reasons: (1) inasmuch as the concept to which it refers is by definition without place and without dimensions, and therefore nonexistent, and (2) the mathematically infinite series, thought of as both plus and minus according to direction, cancel out where all directions meet in common focus.

So far as I know, Indian literature does not provide a specifically geometrical exegesis exactly corresponding to what is given in the preceding paragraph. What we do find in the metaphysical and religious traditions is a corresponding usage of the symbol of the Wheel (primarily the solar chariot, or a wheel thereof), and it is in this connection that we first meet with some of the most significant of those terms which are later on employed by the mathematicians. In RV 1.155.6 and 1.164.2, II, 13, 14, 48; AV x.8.4 7; KB xx.i; JUB 1.35; BU 1.5.15; Svet. Up. 1.4; PS 6, and like texts, the year as an everlasting sequence is thought of as an unwasting wheel of life, a revolving wheel of the Angels, in which all things have their being and are manifested in succession; "none of its spokes is last in order" (RV v.85.5) . The parts of the wheel are named as follows: ani, the axle point within the nave (note that the axle causes revolution, but does not itself revolve); kha, nabhi, the nave (usually as space within the hub, occasionally as the hub itself); ara, spoke, connecting hub and felly; nemi, pavi, the felly. It should be observed that nabhi, from nabh, to expand, is also "navel"; similarly in anthropomorphic formulation, "navel" corresponds to "space" (MU vi.6) ; in the Rg Veda, the cosmos is constantly thought of as "expanded" (pi n) from this chthonic center.

In the picture below is the interaction of the magnetic field of a cylindrical magnet, placed on a CRT with luminophores in delta. As you can see the image resultant is of a two overlapped colored triange (conform with triangular shape of luminophores), which reverses their color (blue-purple), at reversing the polarity of magnetic field. I made these experiments some years ago to prove for myself the helical movement of the magnetic fields, and also the change in their CW and CCW direction, according to their polarity.

Well, you're looking at a reciprocating field STILL in only 2 dimensions.

Lovely pics!!!!!

CW and CCW is just meant polarization, but even that is a fallacy of spatial attribution which doesn't exist.

spin ANY object and its moving in the same direction, BUT appears CW from one end and CCW from the other end

Use SPHERE MAGNETS to get the best "views" off a CRT screen

Well, I have about another 40 pages to add to the book, with more details, pictures, and I have videos to upload etc etc.

infinite type of virtual particles

Nope, nature doesn't have any of those things. Like unicorns and angels, no such things.

Thats the realm of the Cult of Quantum (muons, gluons, negative momentum particles, angel dust particles, 2 legged unicorn particles, 4-eyed pixie dust particles)

bit of humor.....

Next week I'll repeat them again, to confirm for myself the dielectric-inertial plane, by its effect over the CRT image.

You can use simple magnetic viewing film which shows simple velocities NOT polarity, to see the dielectric inertial plane. Its the 'electric flywheel' that makes any magnet a 'magnet'.