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

[Markoul]

This is getting tiresome

So explain why you think, and provide some logical deduction from evidence, that the bar transforms into two domains, one at each end, separated in the middle by a Block wall.

I think you are not paying attention.

I already have inside all my previous threads I even gave my own theory about black mater relation to electromagnetism.

I also suggested to you an experiment proving that magnetism can created by only moving from the middle to one end of a steel bar but not the other way around. If Bloch domain as you say is nothing special, why is this? I believe this clearly proves that magnetism is a diamagnetic field transformation and it is from where it generates.

Also magnetism is best described by quantum mechanics and needs therefore a ground state to operate thus the Bloch region of a magnet AND NO it is not the same as the other regions of a magnet. It is well known in science as the domain wall of a dipole magnet and magnetic strength drops to nearly zero in this region meaning you magnetic domains are not parallel to poles axis.

Magnetism is not created by material structure lattice of magnetic unpolarized material (not a magnet) but by the electrical field applied electrically polarizing the material structure of it.

So NO electricity makes a magnet and not its material structure. material structure makes only a material more susceptible to magnetism.

Please, it is fine to object but there is no point in endless debate.

let us agree that we disagree.

Bye

EM

[Markoul]

that's a hoax

[aljhoa]

"bar transforms into two domains, one at each end"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn4A6VJodow

Al

[bistander]

Hi,

I think i already answered your question. didn't I?

If that was what you consider an acceptable answer, then use this for my answer, but looking back I see no question from you.

All of which demonstrates there is nothing different or particularly interesting in the middle of the magnetized bar. It is the same as the rest of it, composed of orientated microscopic domains.

Stroking in only one way the entire length of the bar aligns its domains in a uniform direction throughout the entire bar making the middle the same as all the rest of it. This demonstrates there is nothing different in the middle.

So explain why you think, and provide some logical deduction from evidence, that the bar transforms into two domains, one at each end, separated in the middle by a Block wall.

bi

[Markoul]

Hi,

I think i already answered your question. didn't I?[/QUOTE]

no it does not.

In your left picture the first halfway movement from the left is obsolete.


You can create the magnet just by moving the magnet above from the middle of the bar to an end.

However, if you move from an end of the steel bar to its middle no magnet is created. Try it out!

Best Regards,

EM

[Markoul]

Hi,

I think i already answered your question. didn't I?

[bistander]

Answers flow both ways

great replies guys...

but i am still waiting for an answer Why a magnet is not created when swiped from one end to the middle?

Hello EM,

I could easily answer that but await your answer to my question which I posed first. Doesn't stroking the entire length of the metal bar with a single pole and causing equal magnetism to your method demonstrate there is nothing in the center of the magnetized bar different from the rest of its length, and why would a logical thinking person believe otherwise?

Thanks,

bi

[Markoul]

great replies guys...

but i am still waiting for an answer Why a magnet is not created when swiped from one end to the middle?

[Gambeir]

Nature has always been humanities first teacher: Nothing has changed in that department. We don't know half of what we think we know. It isn't that we are a stupid species as some have suggested, rather it is we have been interfered with and monkeyed with, had our creativity wiped. That's actually one of the functions of public schooling: to destroy the innate creativity in each one of us. Here we are thousands upon thousands of years after the pyramids and still we can't even explain a magnet with certainty: You think that's accidental?

The question is, are we are ready to begin solving this mystery, or will we continue to march down a pathway to extinction. Either we solve this or eventually Universe will give up on us, and it doesn't want to give up on humans, it's standing right in front us ready to help just as it always has. These energies, magnetism and radiation, they are manifestly interacting with nature to produce an outcome.

Stop trying to explain magnetism solely by convention because it's not working. This means that there is something unknown. It doesn't mean that electrical theory is wrong, it just means it's not capable of explaining the net outcome all by itself. It needs the addition of new information, most of which is hardly new information, it's just information which is compartmental and shuffled off in to astrophysics, geology, geometry, and few others. What it means is that a new understanding is required, one which does away with compartmental knowledge, because that's what's required in order to understand the basics of Universe. Once we adapt to this idea, then we are very likely to discover new ways forward, and very likely new energies as well.

[Gambeir]

*Note: I slightly/significantly ~ revised this post for clarity

My main purpose is to help uncover truth. Not to assist one side or another unless it helps to obtain the truth. My advice is to consider dark energy suspect and to instead focus on time. Time is rotationally connected to magnetism as magnetism is connected to spin through time frame dragging.

High spin states in radiation says that time is controllable through crystalline patterns found in specific forms and in specific materials. Radioactive matter acts like a magnet in the sense of very high spin states. Meaning that whatever produces that energy is also very likely to be doing so in the same manner as a magnet produces it's own: Logic would say both magnetism and radioactivity are acting in the time field via time frame dragging at a sub~microscopic level. Time exists and to explain the excited state of matter it must flow and there must be conductors for time; as it is with any other energy: Make sense?

We know that time is a part of the magnetic field because it's associated with magnetism and anomalous events. There appears to be a clear connection between magnetic anomaly and time warps, so magnetism is therefore also a quality of spin state in passing energies which are focused and accreted through the passages within the magnets crystalline patterns. A magnet condenses the magnetic field out of thin air. It is not pulling in another dimension in the traditional sense of a hidden unknown hypothetical, such as dark matter, but time is itself the divider; time creates partitions which can be understood as dimensions.

Previously I mentioned X~ray's and radiation as other possible forms of energies which, in the case of radiation, might be better understood by understanding radiation as a kind of super magnet taking in time. Radiation is time dependent. It's like a kind of accretion disc or mass arrayed lens focusing or condensing time. I would bet a dollar to a donut that there is a unique crystalline pattern which radioactive materials share. Thus the idea here is to understand the format produces an outcome, and in this sense of organized lattice bonds, then the outcome is radiation and not magnetism. Both however are energies being focused or accreted by conductive structure.

We are ourselves creatures of time, locked in time, and what's interesting to me is that the treatment for radiation involves crystals like iodine or salt. Which suggests that the introduction of these chemicals interacts to break the crystalline bonds in radioactive materials, thus reducing their intake of radioactive energies, which I can only think of as being time.

[Ufopolitics]

Nice Analogy...

Magnetism can only result if there is an organized geometric formation. An electric charge organizes the bonds in limited materials. There's no evidence ~whatsoever~ that it's also sustaining the magnetic field. To say that a supplied electric charge results in magnetism is to lay a claim on perpetual motion.

The evidence suggests a more sensible alternative explanation: That the electric charge provides a formatting service by the simple method of inducing a temporary magnetic field in conductive matter, and it's this passing charge which then induces a realignment of the lattice structure since these are themselves electrically conductive.

Thus the electric charge is a primer; acting as a software to format the conductive bonds to another pattern. Thus creating an enabling path for subsequent energies which themselves provide the magnetic field.

Cycling of the original charge is corollary to it's innate attraction to the magnetic, and as having formatted the lattice bonds to function as a form of superior conductor for it's own energies, it then follows automatically that any other like minded energies are going to be equally obsessed with flowing inwards through these same conductive passages.

Great post Gambeir!

I agree 100% with that way of thinking...

The electric FLOW through the wrapped wire around a ferromagnetic core, "stamps" a pattern on the ferrites molecules, particles or nano components...

So, We could say this SPECIFIC SPATIAL Electric Flow (WRAPPED) AROUND the Core acts as the "Software"...which sends the commands to the Core and its Inner Particles, which constitutes "the hardware"...

And it is very simple, we could wrap wire back and forth from end to end, straight along core axis surface ...not wrapped around axis like a normal coil method...and then we get NADA, NO MAGNETISM FORMED.

And so, on this analogy we have the software, and then the hardware...but what is the SPATIAL FIELD generated as a result of these two components?

IMO, the Spatial Field is the final product, the result in our space of an "anomaly" generated by the geometry of the dynamics exchanged originally...

Now, if we go a bit deeper on this...we all know that depending on the relationship to where we set the positive and negative terminals of the coil wire...OR the direction of the turns...will DICTATE the EXACT COMMANDS in order to generate the NORTH-SOUTH positioning on the ferromagnetic core...

Now, related to the molecular alignment on the core, (after magnetization takes place, of course) it would ALWAYS follow a STRAIGHT LINEAR ALIGNMENT, PARALLEL to Core AXIS...no matter where the North or South end is at...

Concluding that no matter where we set + or - on terminals (1), or what direction we choose to wrap our wire (2), the core molecular alignment would always be linear along axis...only the so called "poles" will change their positioning whenever we change either one of these two configurations (1 or 2 above).

Further on, if we sprinkle iron particles around magnetized core, all this particles would align, exactly as the core particles are aligned, meaning linearly along core axis...and of course, they will show a semi-round area around ends where poles are...

BUT, AT ABSOLUTELY ANY POINT, WE COULD DISTINGUISH, BASED ON IRON FILINGS DISPLAY OF THE MAGNETIC FIELD, WHERE THE NORTH OR SOUTH POLES ARE LOCATED.

Like we all can tell, -for example- when we approach a North or a South to a CRT SCREEN SCANLINE, We observe different (Opposite) SPINS for North and South Polarizations.

Like I have shown on my THREAD plus on all related YT Videos.


All this "data" tells Us that the iron (ferromagnetic) molecular configuration (whether on inner core or the sprinkled filings) follows the "linear" representation of the electrical flow...while the Wraped Copper Wire Direction effects basically the spinning direction of the SPATIAL FIELD...which iron particles fails to reveal at each pole...

Only an electron spatially forced flow, at very high speeds, screened on fluorescent material like we have on a B&W CRT, then rastered into a scanline...will clearly reveal these polarization's spins.


Regards to All


Ufopolitics

[Gambeir]

Gambeir,

It's the material magnets are made off that is more susceptible to the induced field but really it is the induced electric field which makes a magnet.

And of proof of this is the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Making an steel bar a magnet by magnetic induction (double touch method)

Place a steel bar on top of two strong bar magnets facing with opposite poles each other and an air cap in between less than lenght of the steel bar so that stee bar can sit on the two magnets.

Aproach two strong bar magnets from above with inclined angles and the same polarity as the bottom magnets.

On the steel bar slide several times on its one surface the two top magnets with opposite poles in this fashion of movement

<--N|S-->

starting from the middle (|) of the iron bar.

Magnetism can only result if there is an organized geometric formation. An electric charge organizes the bonds in limited materials. There's no evidence ~whatsoever~ that it's also sustaining the magnetic field. To say that a supplied electric charge results in magnetism is to lay a claim on perpetual motion.

The evidence suggests a more sensible alternative explanation: That the electric charge provides a formatting service by the simple method of inducing a temporary magnetic field in conductive matter, and it's this passing charge which then induces a realignment of the lattice structure since these are themselves electrically conductive.

Thus the electric charge is a primer; acting as a software to format the conductive bonds to another pattern. Thus creating an enabling path for subsequent energies which themselves provide the magnetic field.

Cycling of the original charge is corollary to it's innate attraction to the magnetic, and as having formatted the lattice bonds to function as a form of superior conductor for it's own energies, it then follows automatically that any other like minded energies are going to be equally obsessed with flowing inwards through these same conductive passages.

[bistander]

Nothing special about the middle

no it does not.

In your left picture the first halfway movement from the left is obsolete.


You can create the magnet just by moving the magnet above from the middle of the bar to an end.

However, if you move from an end of the steel bar to its middle no magnet is created. Try it out!

Best Regards,

EM

All of which demonstrates there is nothing different or particularly interesting in the middle of the magnetized bar. It is the same as the rest of it, composed of orientated microscopic domains.

[Markoul]

no it does not.

In your left picture the first halfway movement from the left is obsolete.


You can create the magnet just by moving the magnet above from the middle of the bar to an end.

However, if you move from an end of the steel bar to its middle no magnet is created. Try it out!

Best Regards,

EM

[bistander]

Proof?

Gambeir,

It's the material magnets are made off that is more susceptible to the induced field but really it is the induced electric field which makes a magnet.

And of proof of this is the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Making an steel bar a magnet by magnetic induction (double touch method)

Place a steel bar on top of two strong bar magnets facing with opposite poles each other and an air cap in between less than lenght of the steel bar so that stee bar can sit on the two magnets.

Aproach two strong bar magnets from above with inclined angles and the same polarity as the bottom magnets.

On the steel bar slide several times on its one surface the two top magnets with opposite poles in this fashion of movement

<--N|S-->

starting from the middle (|) of the iron bar.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

That proves that magnetism originates from the Bloch domain region of a magnet, its middle (|).

Try to make the steel bar a magnet with the opposite movement as described above:

N-->|<--S

good luck!...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAL1huieyxk

EM

Hi EM,

Doesn't this kinda disprove your proof?



From: Method of Magnetisation - Excel@Physics

Essentially same results.

Regards,

bi