ENLIGHTENED MAGNETISM (The Full Proof of Ken Wheeler's Theories)

[bistander]

Can you read?

...

The hypothesis of operation you've offered is that the magnetic field is a secondary field induced by moving charge particles even though it's actually a fixed field? ...

Absolutely not. Where did I say that?

This what I said: "When the upwards moving charges encounter the static magnetic field curving outward from the top magnet pole,"

in other words, a curved static (nonmoving) magnetic field. Like shown here:



Image from: EEMAG 1 - Labs

bi

[Gambeir]

The liquid is full of charges. The bubbles cause the liquid to flow upwards along the magnet. When the upwards moving charges encounter the static magnetic field curving outward from the top magnet pole, a force is imparted on the charge and mass (liquid) carrying the charge. The direction of the force is tangential around the magnet causing rotation in the liquid, not rotation of the magnetic field.

I think everybody has seen whirlpools of draining water in sinks, tubs and toilets. Obviously gravity is the force pulling water downward. However it is illogical to infer that the gravitational field is a vortex. Other forces act in conjunction with gravity causing whirlpools. Just like here. Other forces act in conjunction with the magnetic field to cause the vortices.

bi

A manifest demonstration of a magnetic field which appears to be moving and flowing is what is being demonstrated. This case is not yet dismissed. Your hail marry pass is a fail.

The hypothesis of operation you've offered is that the magnetic field is a secondary field induced by moving charge particles even though it's actually a fixed field? Is this what you're attempting to pass as a logical explanation?

Do you see the fail in this logic?

The water is conductive. The field is magnetic. The carrier is a charged water molecule. The carrier is not creating the magnetic field. It is following the magnetic field, not creating it. It is and can only follow the magnetic field. There is no evidence whatsoever that the magnetic field is fixed. Quite the reverse, as the charge carrier is attracted to the magnetic field it is thus following the magnetic. This idea that bubbles are over~riding the power of the fields involved borders on lunacy as the charge carrier and the magnetic field are independent of the chemical breakdown which give rise to the bubbles that are themselves only markers to where the breakdown is happening and thus showing clearly a flow flux in the magnetic field.

There's nothing to support your assumption of operation, nothing, your making radical and dangerous assumptions where there is absolutely no evidence to support such a conclusion. Even if there were, all you're showing is you don't know how to do science since it's your duty not to support your own hypothesis, but to try to disprove it, and if you cannot disprove it then and only then is a workable hypothesis created.

You're doing the reverse which is not applied science. Again, what you've thought proves nothing at all. It isn't even logical. It's forming a tornado, not a curve, can't you even get that much right? Did you even watch the video? Good lord~ Ya know there's a point where being a jackass crosses the line and you've just crossed that line with me in your reply. You're not a scientist and you don't know how to do science. We want to question the existing paradigm here, not uphold the burning of oil until we all go extinct. You're not helping in this regard.

[bistander]

[Markoul]

A genuine Observation

Last night my adviser, co-author and Dean, made a genuine observation proving once and for all that ferrocell depicts correctly the geometry of the field of a magnet and not the iron fillings and most importantly that field shown by ferrocell is 100% drawn accordingly and perfect match by the magnetic field of the magnet and not by any light interference phenomena.

That is:

What will you get if you take the below picture,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18E77o27wE6P_iWeXjn4kmV1WOT3gFqNU/view?usp=sharing

split it in half and the turn each individual iron filing 90 degrees* from its initial position, accordingly on either half of the image?

You will end up with 2 circles (toroids), one on each pole of the magnet touching back to back at the middle!

Exactly the 2D version of the image of the field we get with the ferrocell when showing the side view of the magnet.


Emmanouil

*as we have seen by experiment iron fillings orient themselves always 90 degrees perpendicular to the Bloch axis middle of a magnet due their very low magnetic reluctance whereas a magnet (e.g. superparamagnetic ferrofluid) placed side by side with and another magnet orients always in parallel with the Bloch axis and the fields coincide and align geometrically. Therefore we can say the ferrofluid in the ferrocell makes an exact copy of the field of the magnet it is inducing. Furthermore nanoparticles in ferrofluid exhibit superparamgnetic behaviour meaning the act like single domain therefore can follow and copy tangent to the force vectors of the field any magnetic flux line trajectory.

[bistander]

My interpretation

Magnetic vortex demo.
[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV8DqMBzkIc[/VIDEO]

The liquid is full of charges. The bubbles cause the liquid to flow upwards along the magnet. When the upwards moving charges encounter the static magnetic field curving outward from the top magnet pole, a force is imparted on the charge and mass (liquid) carrying the charge. The direction of the force is tangential around the magnet causing rotation in the liquid, not rotation of the magnetic field.

I think everybody has seen whirlpools of draining water in sinks, tubs and toilets. Obviously gravity is the force pulling water downward. However it is illogical to infer that the gravitational field is a vortex. Other forces act in conjunction with gravity causing whirlpools. Just like here. Other forces act in conjunction with the magnetic field to cause the vortices.

bi

[Gambeir]

Magnetic vortex demo.
[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV8DqMBzkIc[/VIDEO]

[mikrovolt]

As a discussion, revisiting the possibility of misused bloch wall
might correct any misunderstanding from observation.

Better observation.
The lighting, the array of leds to me gives reason for being skeptical.
all the vast number of youtube videos are less than accurate.
A different light source might help and now years later good lighting still avoided.
As mentioned the procedures and setup angles are important. Far from releasing a paper on.

The EL phosphor lighting tape I believe would give the observer something to compare. Possibly move ferro viewing ahead.

https://youtu.be/RJ2xGFfrND0

Also instant light powder using no electricity. Even better team up with

https://youtu.be/FPCqvdsnJwQ?t=278

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

It should be clear to you, if not, I'll restate. I do not believe in "spinning directions" of magnetic poles. And as I have said before, I really have little use of North and South designation relating to the B field. Likewise with free standing magnets in air. My interest and experience is with machinery where the field is mostly contained in the core. Like this:


{From: http://slideplayer.com/slide/4623330/}

Note the detail on the right. There is a plunger on which the magnetic field in the gap will exert a force to move it to a position which minimizes the reluctance of the magnetic circuit. This is the same force aligning a compass needle or iron powder in the field of a stand-alone magnet, only a much longer air gap and smaller plungers.

Regards,

bi

Yeah, I know you only like what you "see" with your eyes...or pure ferromagnetism.
Unfortunately a "true researcher" basically looking for FE...must at least try to see in the invisible...is the only way out to find the truth.

Btw...that C core, if fed with DC as written on image...should produce N-S Poles at end of its gap terminals...that's a "spin" of same direction...and so the "plunger" of steel inserted would be attracted to close circuit...

Regards...I also got to go


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Sorry

Hello B.

MRI is just an Imaging Tool...do not fix nada to our tissue...when it could as well...such a HUGE machine to our interiors...

Yes, definitively many researchers have even written books related to magnetism and living human tissue...plus also to plants growth as also worked with CRT's...know who am talking about?

That's right...that one...the one you called "bad science"...Rawls & Davis book.

They experimented with living tissue finding which pole will help grow a tumor and which would stop it...based on their "spins"...

But...yeah..."bad science"...and "fantasy magnetism"...

Right?

Later



Ufopolitics

.

Sorry I brought that up. I was just attempting to elaborate the broad variety of materials subjected to magnetic fields in research.

Yep, I wouldn't trust Rawls & Davis on anything they have to say. I don't know how anyone could. But let's drop it unless you wish to revisit the misused term Bloch wall.

G'day. Got to run.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

And I think we (researchers in the field) have studied very closely the effects of magnetic fields on countless materials, from copper and aluminum (in electric machinery) to living tissue (in MRI).

Regards,

bi

Hello B.

MRI is just an Imaging Tool...do not fix nada to our tissue...when it could as well...such a HUGE machine to our interiors...

Yes, definitively many researchers have even written books related to magnetism and living human tissue...plus also to plants growth as also worked with CRT's...know who am talking about?

That's right...that one...the one you called "bad science"...Rawls & Davis book.

They experimented with living tissue finding which pole will help grow a tumor and which would stop it...based on their "spins"...

But...yeah..."bad science"...and "fantasy magnetism"...

Right?

Later



Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Magnetic force

Hi Bistander,

There are TWO Forces, Two very well defined FERROMAGNETIC SUCTION FORCES, which works EQUALLY for non magnetized ferrous metals...BUT, VERY WELL DEFINED and SPECIFIC...for POLARIZED FERROUS METALS.

All knows that if we approach a North to a South it will attract it...HOWEVER, if we approach a South to that SAME SOUTH...well...you know what happens...don't ya?

This does not clearly defines there are TWO DIFFERENT FORCES?

Now do not confuse "spinning directions" of just one pole versus the opposite other with the WHOLE FIELD SPIN FORCE.

Realize that INDIVIDUAL (SINGULAR, POLE) spin directions is what defines attract-repulse actions.

On a separate (prior post) you made a comment...now second time you do...

The center of a magnet should not attract nor "align" any smaller iron particle...magnetized or not towards it...more than pole suction forces.

It was very clear established that equator is the weakest magnetic force in whole magnet.

So..
Have no idea where u came up with your own wrong conclusion.


Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

It should be clear to you, if not, I'll restate. I do not believe in "spinning directions" of magnetic poles. And as I have said before, I really have little use of North and South designation relating to the B field. Likewise with free standing magnets in air. My interest and experience is with machinery where the field is mostly contained in the core. Like this:


{From: http://slideplayer.com/slide/4623330/}

Note the detail on the right. There is a plunger on which the magnetic field in the gap will exert a force to move it to a position which minimizes the reluctance of the magnetic circuit. This is the same force aligning a compass needle or iron powder in the field of a stand-alone magnet, only a much longer air gap and smaller plungers.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

"We" have not established any such thing. I ascribe to the standard definition of magnetic field, namely "a region of space near a magnet, electric current, or moving charged particle in which a magnetic force acts on any other magnet, electric current, or moving charged particle. " [http://www.dictionary.com/browse/magnetic-field] Note "magnetic force", singular, not your "two pulling forces".

And I think we (researchers in the field) have studied very closely the effects of magnetic fields on countless materials, from copper and aluminum (in electric machinery) to living tissue (in MRI).

Regards,

bi

Hi Bistander,

There are TWO Forces, Two very well defined FERROMAGNETIC SUCTION FORCES, which works EQUALLY for non magnetized ferrous metals...BUT, VERY WELL DEFINED and SPECIFIC...for POLARIZED FERROUS METALS.

All knows that if we approach a North to a South it will attract it...HOWEVER, if we approach a South to that SAME SOUTH...well...you know what happens...don't ya?

This does not clearly defines there are TWO DIFFERENT FORCES?

Now do not confuse "spinning directions" of just one pole versus the opposite other with the WHOLE FIELD SPIN FORCE.

Realize that INDIVIDUAL (SINGULAR, POLE) spin directions is what defines attract-repulse actions.

On a separate (prior post) you made a comment...now second time you do...

The center of a magnet should not attract nor "align" any smaller iron particle...magnetized or not towards it...more than pole suction forces.

It was very clear established -on K Wheeler Theory. as on my videos- that equator is the weakest magnetic force in whole magnet.

So..
Have no idea where u came up with your own wrong conclusion about particles (small compasses) should "aim to center" according to this theory.

Center is a DISCHARGE AREA for all CENTRIPETAL (RETURNING) FORCES from SPACE.

Each pole emanates CENTRIFUGAL FORCES which attract ferrous metals towards its center of emanation...and so the exact OPPOSITE takes place at DISCHARGE CENTER (RETURNING MAGNETIC FORCES)...where iron particles would be "expelled" towards outer spatial area (reason why that "belly" (sphere) around equator-discharge accretion disc formed by iron filings.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Magnetic field

...
We have established -wrongfully- that these two pulling forces (that ONLY DIRECTLY AFFECT FERROMAGNETICS) are "THE FIELD".
Without stopping for a minute to realize all effects produced -BY THIS FIELD- to other metals of different nature...like copper, alum...etc.

...

Hi Ufo,

"We" have not established any such thing. I ascribe to the standard definition of magnetic field, namely "a region of space near a magnet, electric current, or moving charged particle in which a magnetic force acts on any other magnet, electric current, or moving charged particle. " [http://www.dictionary.com/browse/magnetic-field] Note "magnetic force", singular, not your "two pulling forces".

And I think we (researchers in the field) have studied very closely the effects of magnetic fields on countless materials, from copper and aluminum (in electric machinery) to living tissue (in MRI).

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Wrong Interpretations...

Hi Ufo,

"1-Do you really think that this alignment followed by all these magnetized small compasses (on your video above) or iron filings sprinkled over a magnet...are Portraying the true Magnetic Field? "

Yes, of course. Ferromagnetic material will align to magnetic field, magnetic flux, B vector, or lines of force (all being the same thing). That's how a compass has worked on the planet's surface for navigators for ages.

Hello Bistander.

NEGATIVE.

Not "the same thing"...


All Ferromagnetic PLUS Magnetic MASS will be Sucked in by the TWO MAIN VORTEXES, which we all know as NORTH-SOUTH POLES.
And so...whenever a given particle of smaller mass (which is the case shown on video, as iron filings sprinkled over a magnet) is located around CENTER OF MAGNET, they would be PULLED AT UNISON by BOTH VORTEXES SUCTION, which causes particle to "LINGER" in between CENTER ZONE, And of course ALIGNED pointing towards those TWO ATTRACTION AND STRONGER SUCTION FORCES.

We have established -wrongfully- that these two pulling forces (that ONLY DIRECTLY AFFECT FERROMAGNETICS) are "THE FIELD".
Without stopping for a minute to realize all effects produced -BY THIS FIELD- to other metals of different nature...like copper, alum...etc.

However, we could sprinkle as much aluminum and copper particles as we could above any magnet...and we will not observe absolutely any "specific" shape like we see with iron filings or smaller compasses...

Concluding that what we are seeing are FERROMAGNETIC BRIDGED-LINKED SPATIAL STRUCTURES...which we wrongfully call "THE MAGNETIC FIELD"...or SHAPE OF "FLUX"...



I will continue as I am on cell...

[bistander]

Tiny compasses

Hello Bistander,

Of course no one of those small compasses are going to aim their poles towards the center of the magnet, no one here has said such thing.

It is Typical Common Sense here...no need to know magnetism "too deep" to understand that these small magnets will align by seeking their Opposed Polarity alignment with the Bigger Magnet Poles!

And so, no matter if you set all those red tiny magnets (compasses) around the center of the bigger magnet in a belt like shape...all their tiny North Poles are going to seek-aim towards the Bigger Magnet South Pole as all their tiny South Poles are aiming at Big Magnet North Pole.

The center of the Magnet's Mass is like a "neutral area" between its two poles, and what I mean by neutral area is that any smaller magnet you set there will receive an equal attraction pull from the bigger magnet poles, therefore the small magnets will extend along the main magnet axis in that area, but facing their opposite poles towards big magnet poles.

Same exact deal takes place when we sprinkle iron filings over a magnet...each one of those particles will get magnetized immediately due to their small mass, then will follow same exact alignment as I have described above...

Re read all of the above if you need to...and then tell me:

1-Do you really think that this alignment followed by all these magnetized small compasses (on your video above) or iron filings sprinkled over a magnet...are Portraying the true Magnetic Field?

2-Or are they just following a SPATIALLY STABILIZED CHAIN-LINKAGE STRUCTURE...BASED ON ALL THEIR ATTRACTING POLES ALIGNMENT?

Is it 1 or is it 2 your choice Bistander?


Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

"1-Do you really think that this alignment followed by all these magnetized small compasses (on your video above) or iron filings sprinkled over a magnet...are Portraying the true Magnetic Field? "

Yes, of course. Ferromagnetic material will align to magnetic field, magnetic flux, B vector, or lines of force (all being the same thing). That's how a compass has worked on the planet's surface for navigators for ages.

"2-Or are they just following a SPATIALLY STABILIZED CHAIN-LINKAGE STRUCTURE...BASED ON ALL THEIR ATTRACTING POLES ALIGNMENT?"

Actually, if the test magnet wasn't inserted in the middle, I expect the individual tiny compasses to align with the planet's field and point North. However the pivot bearings for the compass pointers don't appear high quality and many of the pivots aren't orientated properly. Some of the tiny compasses located near the center appear close enough together to influence each other without the presence of an external field.

The theory you guys are supporting claims magnetic field exiting the poles and returning to the midpoint of the magnet. If that is true, why then does not an instrument which aligns to the magnetic field point to the center of the magnet? EM claimed to measure this but won't share the data.

I noticed in the six sided ferrocell video which Al posted:
Different ferrocells with different light sources and different viewing angles look very different, don't they? That has the light source underneath and it appeared most of the magnetic field wrapped around the bottom.

Regards,

bi