I just disproved ken wheelers magnet theories

[bistander]

Hi Ufo,

I have never said nor wrote...that a magnet has "Two Domains"...as it is not written either by Ken Wheeler's book...

So, I don't know where are you getting that info about what I write from?...

Domain Wall was named "Bloch" Wall ...

If you revisit my posts you will find that I never said (or wrote) that you said or wrote "Two Domains". What I said is clear:

You tend to illustrate the magnet as having 2 domains, a North and a South.

Which I think is obvious. You agree that a Bloch wall separates domains. And you specifically identify the separation of the red and blue areas on your illustrations as the Bloch wall (and dielectric plane). So would not the reader assume that the red and blue areas are domains?

[IMG][/IMG]

Back to the topic: You can not describe an experiment to prove or disprove the existence of this dielectric plane, can you? Images from viewing film or ferrocells is not proof in my opinion. Or can you show such images from other "known" dielectric planes?

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

Thanks for the reply.



Yes, I agree what you show is wrong. But it does not show how I was taught "Classic Physics" related to magnetism. You tend to illustrate the magnet as having 2 domains, a North and a South. I learned the magnet, or the ferrous material, has a multitude of tiny domains. These domains are composed of dipoles (atoms or molecules) having the same magnetic orientation. The domains are on the micrometer scale in size. Domains are separated by domain walls. A Bloch wall is a type of domain wall.

This is an example of the domain theory as I understand it. From: ?Presentation "1 Magnetism The term magnetism comes from the name Magnesia, a coastal district of ancient Thessaly, Greece. Unusual stones were found by the Greeks more."



Inside the magnet there is not an all North domain on one end and an all South domain on the other end divided by a wall down the middle. I don't believe there is anything "in" the magnet in the middle which shows as the white line on your images. I think the line on the images results from the directional flow of magnetic flux which is all parallel to the magnet's axis at that location meaning no flux in the perpendicular direction to intersect with the viewing film and react with the medium and light.

I don't know if there is or is not a dielectric inertial plane there. I don't know what a dielectric inertial plane is or how it interacts with our world. I also do not feel that the interesting patterns from ferrocells and CRTs using magnets depict magnetic flux fields (follow the magnetic flux lines). When we use magnets they are not stand-alone chunks being held behind a viewing screen. The magnets are in a machine like a motor or such which will have a magnetic circuit containing the magnetic field. The pattern seen on the stand-alone magnet hardly represents the useful flux field in most cases.

Regards,

bi

Ok...great


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Hi Ufo,

Thanks for the reply.

For example, Classic Physics related to magnetism says that whenever we get two magnets attached by attraction we get this result as seen on image below:

[IMG][/IMG]

And that is completely WRONG!...In reality when two (or more) magnets and their fields are attracted together, they react like shown below:

Yes, I agree what you show is wrong. But it does not show how I was taught "Classic Physics" related to magnetism. You tend to illustrate the magnet as having 2 domains, a North and a South. I learned the magnet, or the ferrous material, has a multitude of tiny domains. These domains are composed of dipoles (atoms or molecules) having the same magnetic orientation. The domains are on the micrometer scale in size. Domains are separated by domain walls. A Bloch wall is a type of domain wall.

This is an example of the domain theory as I understand it. From: ?Presentation "1 Magnetism The term magnetism comes from the name Magnesia, a coastal district of ancient Thessaly, Greece. Unusual stones were found by the Greeks more."



Inside the magnet there is not an all North domain on one end and an all South domain on the other end divided by a wall down the middle. I don't believe there is anything "in" the magnet in the middle which shows as the white line on your images. I think the line on the images results from the directional flow of magnetic flux which is all parallel to the magnet's axis at that location meaning no flux in the perpendicular direction to intersect with the viewing film and react with the medium and light. * A quote from Timm@Ferrocell USA at the Ferrocell reply #4 appears to support my thoughts.

A Ferrocell will pass light where the flux "isn't" (the lowest potential), and appears in a different vector in relation to the location of incoming light.

I don't know if there is or is not a dielectric inertial plane there. I don't know what a dielectric inertial plane is or how it interacts with our world. I also do not feel that the interesting patterns from ferrocells and CRTs using magnets depict magnetic flux fields (follow the magnetic flux lines). When we use magnets they are not stand-alone chunks being held behind a viewing screen. The magnets are in a machine like a motor or such which will have a magnetic circuit containing the magnetic field. The pattern seen on the stand-alone magnet hardly represents the useful flux field in most cases.

Regards,

bi

[ldrancer]

Does any member think that the setup is correct for testing the theory but the voltages are too small to be measured by the scope?

i think the test works. it is using proven concepts to test something. your not getting results becuase his ideas are off.

about the best he does is describe a picture. but i still dont get what theory here where trying to disprove. i understand how a magnet works by seeing it working. he talks a lot. i dont know what he or everyone is talking about. its just too much and i dont want to bother and waste my time with it to learn. but i do see the zero response from your test. someone call me wrong if they want, but ive seen no production coming from this thread or his book. so my questions still stands and im right. bye.

[Ufopolitics]

Inertial=idling=Non Accelerated

Hi Ufopolitics,

I have been reading Ken's books and posts. He actually calls it a dielectric inertial plane. Does that not infer it has mass?

Not necessarily...Inertia means "idle", sluggish/inactive...Now, one of the physical properties of mass/bodies defined by newton's Law is called inertia as well...but nope, inertia is a general term that could be applied to non physical objects/matter.

Anyway, if I understand your quote above, there is no possible way to confirm its existence, correct? How then does it affect the image on the ferrocell?

Of course there are ways to confirm its existence...note it is not a "Mass Entity"...just like a Magnetic Field can not be observed at simple sight...however it could be "felt" because it is produced in Space, not in Counterspace like Dielectric.

Dielectric Field can clearly be observed with Magnetic Viewing Film, and the way I see what this film does, is like an X-Ray to Magnetic Fields.

Ferrocell Lens show the full magnetic Spectrum (including the dielectric) in 3D...

All this methods show a "void space" within both polarizations...just like a CAT Scan shows a "defined shadow" within brain...which is "interpreted" by the Physician as a Cancer Tumor...

Viewing Film is also excellent to see how this dielectric plane moves within the magnet when interacting in attraction or with ferromagnetic bodies.

For example, Classic Physics related to magnetism says that whenever we get two magnets attached by attraction we get this result as seen on image below:

[IMG][/IMG]

And that is completely WRONG!...In reality when two (or more) magnets and their fields are attracted together, they react like shown below:

[IMG][/IMG]

Viewing Film shows that very clear...:

[IMG][/IMG]

And yes, it could also be seen on Ferrocell and CRT Screening.

That very simple fact above could be tested with a simple compass, and find out that right at intersection plane there is absolutely no "Inner" South and North Poles. Those Two Poles are gone, disappeared...or as Ken calls it "Voidance"...however, they will be "restored back" once we separate magnets...

Something "interesting" I found out, is that when two magnets are in the process of attraction (N-S) but separated by an Air Gap...a Dielectric Plane is shown right in space...at the very equidistant center from both magnets, like I showed on above diagram (STEP 1)...but, more interesting is when we screen a Two Stator Motor with Viewing Film...:

The Stator:

[IMG][/IMG]

Under Viewing Film...:

[IMG][/IMG]


Screened by CRT:

[IMG][/IMG]

Now, the two images scaled and blended together...:

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

Now, Two Magnetic Field "Phenomena" has occurred in above scenario...First, the generation of a "Spatial" Dielectric Plane in center between both Arc Segment Magnets...And Second, the interactions of both external polarizations (poles) with the steel casing...that is another type of influence with ferromagnetic materials...and what happens is that each magnet dielectric plane moves towards iron/steel...

Couldn't we conclude that every motor armature (and Generators as well, of course) within the stator N/S fields has always being turning within that Dielectric Plane generated between stators fields...

Interesting isn't it?

I do find Ken's theories interesting but difficult to understand. I ran across the quote below which reflects some of my feelings. {edit} From reply #40 here What is Magnetism? - page 2

Ken has his personal ways to describe and explain his Theories, some wordings are what they are, just because he has discovered many properties on magnetism which are completely opposite to what we were taught in school...therefore never explained by conventional physics...

Regarding the topic of this thread: I do not see most of the members responding here backing microwatt's experiment or conclusion as you stated.

I like the idea of putting theories to the test but I think this particular test falls short of being considered evidence for any conclusions. But at least he opened the door for some discussion.

Any further clarity you can shed on the dielectric inertial plane is appreciated.

bi

Thanks

{edit}
When reading Ken's books/posts, I often search for the definitions of words which he uses. For instance: dielectricity. It is surprising how little google can find on that particular word. It did bring up this interesting pdf.
http://pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~ltachai/335/ch7.pdf

Is just like I wrote before...some terms are "non popular" simply because they are not part of the classic "Doctrines".


Ufopolitics

[Ben2503]

Does any member think that the setup is correct for testing the theory but the voltages are too small to be measured by the scope?

I think only Ken can answer this as he is the father of the theory.

In science it is considered impossible to proof a theory to be 100% correct as that would required an infinite number of tests / testcases. Just one failed test is sufficient to reject a theory.

Personally I think it is very difficult to proof that something is NOT there. With measurements you can proof that what you are measuring exist. IMHO if you cannot measure it doesn't automatically mean that it doesn't exist, it just means that with your test set-up you cannot measure it.
There is a famous experiment / measurement to proof / disproof the existence of the ether. It failed and thus ether was replaced by empty space. The fact that this empty space (vacuum) does have properties, which proves that this empty space is not just 'empty', didn't bother our mainstreamers at all.
On the other hand, the mainstreamers have spend 20 years trying to measure gravitational waves caused by blackholes without succes, but recently they announced to continue in their efforts.

Personally I think it is impossible to measure this field external to the magnet. If it does exist it has to be very weak, or otherwise it would have been detected a long time ago, as it probably would attract dust or cause some other effects. A nice ring of dust indicating the 'blochwall' would be very compelling evidence of a static electric field.

Take care,
Ben

[microwatt]

Regarding the topic of this thread: I do not see most of the members responding here backing microwatt's experiment or conclusion as you stated.


I like the idea of putting theories to the test but I think this particular test falls short of being considered evidence for any conclusions. But at least he opened the door for some discussion.

Does any member think that the setup is correct for testing the theory but the voltages are too small to be measured by the scope?

[bistander]

Anyone could really draw their conclusions related to this Theory and the specifics from a magnet's dielectric plane, from above quoted statements...it is simple, very simple...Magnetism is the RESULT, the "Product" from the Dielectric, Counterspatial (Minus Space, Minus Time), Terminating (dying, ending, finishing), Centripetal (Towards Center, NOT Centrifugal or outwards forces) Field ...Therefore, this Dielectric Field, can NOT, and NEVER send, absolutely no charges towards any dielectric object placed on the exterior of ANY Magnet, and tried to be measured by a fall in T/S (time/space), no matter the positioning related to that plane.

Hi Ufopolitics,

I have been reading Ken's books and posts. He actually calls it a dielectric inertial plane. Does that not infer it has mass? Anyway, if I understand your quote above, there is no possible way to confirm its existence, correct? How then does it affect the image on the ferrocell?

I do find Ken's theories interesting but difficult to understand. I ran across the quote below which reflects some of my feelings. {edit} From reply #40 here What is Magnetism? - page 2

Except Ken Wheeler specifically states in his book:
"There are no electrons, negative charges, special-dimensions, warped space (resoundingly denied by Tesla and others), and no photons"

I've found a whole host of inconsistencies with his one-particle theory of the universe, as outlined in his book. I hate to bash the guy because he's obviously trying really hard to figure magnets out, but when he promises clear-cut answers with no conjecture, no confusion, all easily understood with loads of proof, then provides the exact opposite while denying the well-documented physics for a whole host of processes (like fission, for instance) and doing so in verbose and circular language that would go over the heads of 99% of the populace and while misusing the definitions of common physical phenomena, it irks me.

Regarding the topic of this thread: I do not see most of the members responding here backing microwatt's experiment or conclusion as you stated.

It is very sad to observe that must[most] of members participating on this Thread do not clearly understand Ken's Theories......therefore, agree on the silly test/experiment(s) conducted by microwatt.

I like the idea of putting theories to the test but I think this particular test falls short of being considered evidence for any conclusions. But at least he opened the door for some discussion.

Any further clarity you can shed on the dielectric inertial plane is appreciated.

bi

{edit}
When reading Ken's books/posts, I often search for the definitions of words which he uses. For instance: dielectricity. It is surprising how little google can find on that particular word. It did bring up this interesting pdf.

http://pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~ltachai/335/ch7.pdf

[ldrancer]

magnets are a concept. that would be my definition. by definition you cant make free energy out of concepts. i think so anyway. theoria sees a heat eminating from a magnet near some bismuth. but he thinks that he knows where its source is coming from. when asked, he says some imaginary thing or something. so he sees heat from a magnet near bismuth. and did you know nitinol which was brought up in his zero input thread, that it too, showed to be free energy. there was a free open peer to peer discussion about it where i seen it. and it was found out that it loses its go after a while. and isnt feasible enough. that was my response to his magnet bismuth heat generation topic. but he just insulted me on a small concept about the thread, where I didnt know what load stone was. or hadnt heard about it so much. so i thought more on the lines of the magnets you buy for 1000's of dollars instead and wondered, why buy, and if so, you buy them then they cant be free.

but if you cant give a normal response then youve proved nothing. you cant explain it, to anyone. his reasons for why magnets work, are all some type of concept, no different than a black hole.



not to mention the part about where too, his theory has its own head up its ass

[Ben2503]

Dear Ben,

When I first read your post above -a while back till now that I get to respond- the first thing that came to my mind was a very interesting segment-dialogue from the movie Contact, based on the book from someone I admire much: Carl Sagan.

Dr. Eleanor "Ellie" Arroway (Jodie Foster) is talking to the Priest chosen to be representative part of the Board ( Matthew McConaughey) ...where she is the "typical" scientist...very "materialist"...does not really believe in GOD...her excuses are very "scientific"..."There is no proof God exists..."

Like all Scientists on this Planet...only believe in what could be felt, tested and proved.

Then the Priest ask her: Do You love your Father?...(who died when she was a girl..)

She answers without hesitation a secure and firm "yes, of course"...

Then the Priest replies:

PROVE IT!!


Ufopolitics

Dear UFO.

The Scientific lady is on thin ice with here statement. If you want to prove something you first have to clearly define what you're about to prove or disprove.
IMHO there is no clear definition of God (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)
If God is the creative force, then one should just have a look around to see the results. No further discussion required.

WRT to OU devices, I think the specification is clear: the total energy output shall be higher than the total energy input.
If this is the case and it can be shown by clear measurements, then one has to find the source of additional energy. Does it come from the ether, gravity or permanent magnets or ....what have you. Then the proof is 100% rock solid.

I look for proof in order to convince myself that I am on the right track;that the theory is correct; that my mathematical model is correct; that engineering approaches are correct; etc..and to make sure I am not being fooled.

Again I don't 100% understand Ken's reasoning, nor space-time nor counter-space. The latter 2 are IMHO "mathe-magical" transformations and are imaginary.
What I do understand that inside a permanent magnet, there must be an electric field at (sub-)atomic levels that make the electrons spin in order to create magnetism.
Or otherwise there are magnetic particles as Ed Leedskalnin suggested.

Anyway, I sincerely hope you will succeed in your endeavors.

Best regards,
Ben

ps.

The thing is...We can not prove "Faith"...or love for someone that is gone, or no longer exist...or can't see or feel...except by dropping some flowers at the cemetery...that will probably last a few hours...right?

My dad died when I was 10, so I know from personal experience.

[BroMikey]

you wont be able to fart without paying me money.

seem to be the same. religion.

you wont explain yourself,.............. so quit with these fake fields. its a view point.

screw it whatever im too tired.

your basing your proofs on faiths and using faith as an argument against people who disagree with you

I am now, sure...you've never read Ken's Book...or may be you did...but, the material/data did not stayed long enough in your limited brain.
................some are called "Toys" by you, right?
.

These people have a block, their young minds are so over loaded
with what they were made to regurgitate in schools that they are
exhausted.

There is no room for anything to enter into their thought processes.
You give them a kind/loving example that is something new and they
immediately reject any new thoughts or data. It is a toy or it is some
name.

They have been taught to see things in terms such as schools dictate
like so and so Faraday was a great man and he was responsible for
this or that but beyond these simple ideas no new evidence may enter.

It is okay to keep trying to show them because sooner or later someone
who is over hearing this message will finally see clearly. I would also like
to add that going to a college or trade school does not make people into
super thinkers, not at all, despite what the teachers say.

Many people can no longer think for themselves due to the overwhelming
emotional trauma they had to endure during their grueling programming.

The mind control practiced in universities to day is a scientifically thought
out strategy against their captive audience designed to trap the mind
so that any outside information is unable to enter into their world.
As stated other info is a "Distraction"

I have listened and watched the higher learning leaders exert their power
over the pupil, I know how it plays out and I see the same men sleeping
with the students. It is a war for you as their resource.

Winner takes all and loser takes the fall, this is the doctrine survival of the
fittest, dog eat dog and has nothing what soever to do with the whole truth.

I am afraid it is to late for some of those people to go outside the gov/school doctrines has produced a sterilized yuppy unable to really
weigh in on these matters.

You can not show people something they don't want to hear because
they have been taught to hate the outside influences of other ideas.

It is like growing up a Catholic. Once a Catholic always a Catholic.

The video was very clear on how the new evidence about the nature
of magnetic fields collide with currently taught lies.

There is no other way to look it. The bowl the choke ring and the flip
ring show that the universe works this way to compress matter.

End of story. Nothing like we have been told about magnetism.

So now your resorting to distractions. why can't we focus on the subject here ...............................

Without experiments you need to have numbers to hang your theories on. Until then ken is just a angry photographer.

Please explain in simple and kind words, how a bowl shaped magnetic field is formed in space.
Thanks,
Ben

[Ufopolitics]

your basing your proofs on faiths and using faith as an argument against people who disagree with you, or make tests to prove or show your ideas. and critically challenge you, and you can't even respond. without using faith arguements against us. show 1 stupid statement ive made on here. oh wait you cant. becuase i havent.

but the statement you made is very stupid. i want everything proved to me, and teh statement taht all scientists now want everything to be proved and seen, is actually false. since black holes, ahve never been seen and they claim they are there because of other things. and claim it works, when nothing is consistent.

your arguement over faith in love, is flawed in scientific theories and questions to an idea, that isnt shown yet.

screw it whatever im too tired. to argue with someone whos going to make up dumb *****y arguements over everything to set the stage for theoria to come in, talk, not answer 1 question not respond, act like everyone who disagrees with him is stupid, not prove it, and then leave. noo.

i did disagree with the bismuth magent idea, and have seen the response i get from theoria on it, so i see how he is and his theories. so im putting my side on his side. actually, i really dont care, but your just, making up arguements here. no i dont want to see theoria come in and talk and use his magic words which is whats been happening. you dont want to prove it cause you believe you deserve money. you dont think that all ideas have already been done, and if we cat figure it out now you cant show an invention and still make money? thats my idea about copyrights. there should be 0 of them. they never started with this country. give me time to find those videos.

im goig to go back in time and invent fire and copyright it and charge you guys for it today. you cant light up a match without paying me. while im at it ill write all languages all alphabets, you wont be able to fart without paying me money. yea haha. youwill not prove anything.

you have nothign to prove you cant even explain it.

your idea is that the fields that is in a magnet disappear into it. what is a field? a field isnt an object. thats what where dealing with here. objects are science and concepts are religion. the questino is what is the magent. you talk about it makes a middle then it disappears into itself. sort of how, light disappears into a black hole. that happens too doesnt it. so are we talking about black holes? they seem to be the same. religion.

you wont explain yourself, i wished, no matter how much you show more and more pretty pictures, it would just stop. when i was little i took magents and stuck them to a tv, and went wohh. i am not 4 and never seen a tube tv. so i figured the 3d aspect but it doesnt get totally confuseing for me when it reaches 3d. so quit with these fake fields. its a view point.

So, Idran(t)er...You are another one who is "disproving" Ken's Theories...?

But Let me tell you, seriously now...you "sound" as convincing as microwatt's experiments...

Excellent logic...and such a rich way in vocabulary to express it...

Have faith guy...and God bless You...

Amen

[ldrancer]

i did disagree with the bismuth magent idea, and have seen the response i get from theoria on it, so i see how he is and his theories. so im putting my side on his side. actually, i really dont care, but your just, making up arguements here. no i dont want to see theoria come in and talk and use his magic words which is whats been happening. you dont want to prove it cause you believe you deserve money. you dont think that all ideas have already been done, and if we cat figure it out now you cant show an invention and still make money? thats my idea about copyrights. there should be 0 of them. they never started with this country. give me time to find those videos.

im goig to go back in time and invent fire and copyright it and charge you guys for it today. you cant light up a match without paying me. while im at it ill write all languages all alphabets, you wont be able to fart without paying me money. yea haha. youwill not prove anything.

you have nothign to prove you cant even explain it.

your idea is that the fields that is in a magnet disappear into it. what is a field? a field isnt an object. thats what where dealing with here. objects are science and concepts are religion. the questino is what is the magent. you talk about it makes a middle then it disappears into itself. sort of how, light disappears into a black hole. that happens too doesnt it. so are we talking about black holes? they seem to be the same. religion.

you wont explain yourself, i wished, no matter how much you show more and more pretty pictures, it would just stop. when i was little i took magents and stuck them to a tv, and went wohh. i am not 4 and never seen a tube tv. so i figured the 3d aspect but it doesnt get totally confuseing for me when it reaches 3d. so quit with these fake fields. its a view point.

[ldrancer]

screw it whatever im too tired. to argue with someone whos going to make up dumb *****y arguements over everything to set the stage for theoria to come in, talk, not answer 1 question not respond, act like everyone who disagrees with him is stupid, not prove it, and then leave. noo.

[ldrancer]

your basing your proofs on faiths and using faith as an argument against people who disagree with you, or make tests to prove or show your ideas. and critically challenge you, and you can't even respond. without using faith arguements against us. show 1 stupid statement ive made on here. oh wait you cant. becuase i havent.

but the statement you made is very stupid. i want everything proved to me, and teh statement taht all scientists now want everything to be proved and seen, is actually false. since black holes, ahve never been seen and they claim they are there because of other things. and claim it works, when nothing is consistent.

your arguement over faith in love, is flawed in scientific theories and questions to an idea, that isnt shown yet.