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

[Ufopolitics]

Seeing it in 3D CAD...

nobody is taught this abstruse stuff in school, NOBODY

nor in college,

its no big deal.


Do you have you brain wrapped around a HYPERBOLOID? You should soak your crotch in a hot tub for about an HOUR and think DEEP about it while picturing a HYPERBOLOID








A magnet has no center, its FI (field incommensurability), and its "center" cannot be "cut out", or separated , etc etc.





apply this picture to the Hyperboloid in your mind...., then 'meditate' on the 'problem' of polarity, space , counterspace....

Another way to see it...

[IMG]

[ldrancer]

human brainz dont like complex geometry , at least not picturing them in 3D in your brain.


all human critters suffer this prob.


Non-Euclidean geometry even worse still.

hang on. if this is geometry its like a triangle which is provable. your talking about a concept. its not a shape which is a thing. your talking about a concept. which isnt a thing. its a thought or.. verb. its an action.

[ldrancer]

its called "taking the analogy too far"


its a logical fallacy identified 3000 years ago.

okokokko
i do see how humans, draw the line. but i dont see how, mother nature draws the line. when theres obviously 2 lines. im not agreeing with you or trying to in any way. you need to disagree with me. in some comprehensible way.

mother nature seems like a dot int eh middle of a single line drew by a human. pretty plain like that.
thats not mother nature drawing, a line. its 2 lines. with a mother nature put in the middle. then its 2 lines. as theres 2 arrows and drawn by a person.

my point is your not proveing a point. those lines hwere drawn by a human. its a straight line like the one above it, having 2 arrows drawn on it, pointing away from each other, and a dot put in the middle. thats a mother natre line? and the other is a human line? i can draw a human line, then like mother nature if i draw an arrow on the other end and put a dot in the middle. but its shjorter doen the other way.
so. doopeeddy doo. scooby dooby doo where are you.

that line is supposed to explain your concept. i just dont like it and want to disagree iwth it. as in i dont like concepts is my point. rather see proof. answer questions. thats how debates go. you dont like arguing. .. ud rather be right. ok. im just asking for answers. those lines, both are drawn by humans and i dont see a correleation or any difference.

[TheoriaApophasis]

OMG, what a dunce. Now I get it. I must have read that a dozen times, but now my brain is ready to accept it. Thanks Ken.

Randy

human brainz dont like complex geometry , at least not picturing them in 3D in your brain.


all human critters suffer this prob.


Non-Euclidean geometry even worse still.

[tachyoncatcher]

Ah Hah!

OMG, what a dunce. Now I get it. I must have read that a dozen times, but now my brain is ready to accept it. Thanks Ken.

Randy

...which, in appearance, they dont look connected (either force / half).....but they ARE, connected in counterspace.

[Ufopolitics]

Davis-Rawls Model Analysis...

Hello Ken,

On that great book you 'gifted' to all of Us, many thanks!...excellent, superb!
I also believed this is all possible treatments and could be the future 'restoring biological machine' for human cures, just like seen on Elysium ...absolutely!

Now and first, related to their Magnetic Model shown below...do you fully agree with it?....

[IMG][/IMG]

They wrote (and I highlighted in yellow their main configuration, as you also did and shown in grey)...:

[IMG][/IMG]

Now...if We just turn that same magnet, we have:

[IMG][/IMG]

I see this 'classification' about North turning 'Left' as South turning 'Right'...as very "RELATIVE" (Sorry I have to use -again- your very good old friend "One Stone" words)...

No, but seriously... just look at turning that same magnet, how the whole thing "coincides" using the same 'Observer' point of view.

Now We have South turning same as North original book drawing...meaning to 'our Left'...as well as North turning now as South, or towards 'Right'...

And...if We go into "Interactions" of same Model...see what happens:

[IMG][/IMG]

On the first Attract Mode or Voidance picture, no needed 'twisting of magnets is required...as everything seems ok, meaning the interaction area circled in red shows N & S spinning opposite to each others...so, this way they 'attract' right?...

BUT, when we see same magnets at Counter Voidance (Repulsion) from S-S Polarization...We see that both S-S facing each others are ALSO turning opposite to each others, same as previous voidance of N-S?...Sorry, but with all due respect for this excellent book and authors work...but this explanation about turning references does not make sense at all.

I understand that South is Sourcing while North is draiN...so from the flow point of view it would be fine...

Let's try to explain this 'Relativity" of movement from the observers point of view, when applied to a Motor as an example:

Say We have a Motor that 'Spins Left' or CCW written on its Spec's Label when terminals connected as they say there...As We all understand it 'Applies' as when looking to shaft facing to our eyes from the Driving side of Shaft....However, IF we look at rear end of Motor, facing our eyes...shaft would be spinning CW, or to the Right. Meaning, opposite to 'Main Left' Rotation, however, shaft is one piece...spinning one way only.

So, going back to a 'Magnet's' dielectric plane...it 'sucks inwards' towards a virtual counter-space 'center' while also 'spinning' or 'doing it' with a 'rotation sense'...right?...Therefore if We have Polarizations 'counter-rotating' each others...then to which one the dielectric plane would 'counter' rotate?...

See where I am getting at?...there is an obvious 'error' here...

The way I can only see this whole thing, in order to make sense...is IF both polarizations rotates as the shaft of previous example motor...meaning 'one way'...then dielectric will 'counter rotate' shaft...PLUS, if we do all possible 'Interactions'...then they will also make sense...take a look:

[IMG][/IMG]

Now, if We 'Interact' to N-S and S-S as originally...:

[IMG][/IMG]

On Voidance (attract) We see both N-S interacting polarizations turning same direction , then thinking as 'Engaging' their Vortexes just like 'Two Screw type Gears' driving towards both counterspace planes, to end up making just one at their intersection.

At S-S Counter-Voidance we see them counter rotating...they will never engage into a gearing screw following a mutual attraction, but keep repelling each others.

What do you think Ken?


Thanks in advance for your answer friend!


Regards


Ufopolitics

[TheoriaApophasis]

I saw someplace a mathematical expression of that. The "center" was defined as unity, probably a bad term, but this was how it was defined. The next step was to define where unity is. Mathematically that was equated to infinity divided by 2.

I'm kind of scratching my head with that, because I do not directly see a relationship to a hyperboloid in that formula. The hyperboloid reference you give makes far more sense.

It's getting more obvious every day, there is a theme here...

charge and discharge, fire a gun, there is as much force applied to the bullet as to your hands.


As for the hyperboloid, you need to think a bit more about it, and make a model yourself using some string and two rings like i did.


the hyperboloid is no diff than the hourglass analogy above.


remember that everything is

POINT
LINE
CIRCLE
SPHERE



The hyperboloid IS NATURES "line"..........remember what "her" LINE IS.

now COMPOUND IT,..... inverse to counterspace is space, and each "pole" is moving inverse respective to the other, but each moving the same direction with respect to the "center".


of course natures hyperboloid is a perfect "point" at the center, unlike this picture:






A true magnetic hyperboloid is a "TWO SHEET MODEL HYPERBOLOID"





which, in appearance, they dont look connected (either force / half).....but they ARE, connected in counterspace.

[Dog-One]

How mother nature draws a line.
<------------------------------------O-------------------------------------->

I saw someplace a mathematical expression of that. The "center" was defined as unity, probably a bad term, but this was how it was defined. The next step was to define where unity is. Mathematically that was equated to infinity divided by 2.

I'm kind of scratching my head with that, because I do not directly see a relationship to a hyperboloid in that formula. The hyperboloid reference you give makes far more sense. When you relate it to magnetism, I see the exact same thing with what some call "charge". You take a "charged" object and split it, you can't split the positive from the negative. All you get is two objects that still both have "charge". But unlike the magnet where the pieces try to come together, in the case of splitting "charge", you get pieces that try to separate themselves.

It's getting more obvious every day, there is a theme here...

[TheoriaApophasis]

ask yourself, what is that?

its called "taking the analogy too far"


its a logical fallacy identified 3000 years ago.

[ldrancer]

ask yourself, what is that?

[ldrancer]

that line is ..well tricky.

first a person draws. a line. not a point. they start at not the point but the drawing is where they start. you cant, draw a line without, drawing. drawing isnt a point. and where does mother nature draw to? is that east, west? north pole sout pole? east west like a map? is it, out from the center of a magent in the middle? left and right, ? from the center of a magent, left and riht is what i was saying.

how can aperson, draw a line, without starting at somewhere. which isnt a point its a drawing. without a drawing a person didnt do it its not a line. thats a line a person drew, from a drawing, and nowhere else.

ok ive went around in circles here. ill stop now. hehehahhaahha hahaha.
oh and those 2 arrows on mother natures lines.. lineS plural, not line . mother nature didnt draw a line they drew, lineSSSSSS with an s. plural multiple. its got 2 arrows on it. 2! count them, thats 2 lines 2 arrows on 2 lines.

[TheoriaApophasis]

With my limited grasp of these concepts, I conceptualize this
Randy

nobody is taught this abstruse stuff in school, NOBODY

nor in college,

its no big deal.


Do you have you brain wrapped around a HYPERBOLOID? You should soak your crotch in a hot tub for about an HOUR and think DEEP about it while picturing a HYPERBOLOID

My curiosity specifically lies with the anomaly of a expressed center of magnetic coherency and the lack of a observable one in a axial toroidal magnet.
Randy

A magnet has no center, its FI (field incommensurability), and its "center" cannot be "cut out", or separated , etc etc.





apply this picture to the Hyperboloid in your mind...., then 'meditate' on the 'problem' of polarity, space , counterspace....

[tachyoncatcher]

you asked "Where is the indivisible counterspace center?:"


The Greek Platonists tackled and won that question 1000s of years ago. WHERE is a TOPOS , a place that ONLY = Divergence = Magnetism = SPACE


obviously and logically so.


The dielectric inertial plane of a magnet is noWHERE

Where indeed? As in the example of the hour glass, we have a pinch point or center in which the dielectric plane manifests. In our limited concept of space, this is the explained beginning of ONLY = Divergence = Magnetism = SPACE
. With my limited grasp of these concepts, I conceptualize this as the beginning and end of directional entities, with a rule set of coherency I do not yet grasp.

You must IN YOUR MIND define "Polarity" to grasp same

I don't believe I mentioned POLES. I struggle more specifically with the stated dielectric plane of a magnet that resides somewhere in the center of a typical bar magnet, vs a toroidal magnet axially magnetized. I understand the concept of counter space and the need for space being the antinomy of it, or even the possibility of multiple ANTINOMIES for the different expressions of the ether. My curiosity specifically lies with the anomaly of a expressed center of magnetic coherency and the lack of a observable one in a axial toroidal magnet.

thats Teslas invention, the AC MOTOR

Indeed it is! Perhaps there can be more to it than just tangling the ether, as Seinmetz liked to put it.

Randy

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi Ken,
I love this visual. What if we take a toroidal magnet that is magnetized axially. Where is the indivisible counterspace center? That which the space of the magnet begins? Or would it be more correct to say ends?

What would happen if we continuously disturbed this counterspace plane on such a object? I think there may be some clues to electro/magneto conversion of the dielectric through these questions. what do you say?

Randy

you asked "Where is the indivisible counterspace center?:"


The Greek Platonists tackled and won that question 1000s of years ago. WHERE is a TOPOS , a place that ONLY = Divergence = Magnetism = SPACE


obviously and logically so.


The dielectric inertial plane of a magnet is noWHERE


You must IN YOUR MIND define "Polarity" to grasp same
You can slice a magnet a 100000000000000 times vertically, or parallel to 'polarity',......and there is no separation of "poles"


......you just end up with 1000000000000000 new magnets EACH WITH THEIR OWN "N and S 'poles' "

Hi Ken,

What would happen if we continuously disturbed this counterspace plane on such a object?
Randy

thats Teslas invention, the AC MOTOR

[tachyoncatcher]

I love this

Hi Ken,
I love this visual. What if we take a toroidal magnet that is magnetized axially. Where is the indivisible counterspace center? That which the space of the magnet begins? Or would it be more correct to say ends?

What would happen if we continuously disturbed this counterspace plane on such a object? I think there may be some clues to electro/magneto conversion of the dielectric through these questions. what do you say?

Randy