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

[Sputins]

[Ufopolitics]

My "take"...

Hello Sputins, hello Bistander,

Sorry about the crickets...am swamped.

Sputins,

That CRT test and his conclusions are right on.

Repulsion fields compress each others, energy compressed.

Now thinking of spinning fields... two like poles will spin opposite when facing each others (repulsion)....while, when poles are alike (attraction) and facing each others they will spin (both) in the same direction. From here we could realize how this whole thing works...

For a long time we have used the Single B-Field convention, based on a single flow magnetic field...and this is wrong, North have a B-Field as well as South have another B-Field within the same magnet...or coil (electromagnet), and they originate at the very center of their embodiment.

Putting a piece of iron in between, whether for attract or repulse, will just expand the Spatial Interaction magnetic center into the ferromagnetic material, but it would not change it in any other way.

I read all this two pdf plus the other video...and yes, this guys I could say are "warm" into finding out the truth...but they are still bound to some old conventions which keeps them from reaching the whole thing.

Bistabder,

Yes, Repulsion is definitively a much more "dense" field...so, yes, I agree to that...

So, my "take" was not that different so far huh?


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Crickets

Hi Sputins,

I was going to reply but decided to let the crickets or Ufo address your post. I believe in the old school magnetic theory, meaning no imaginary planes or walls in the middle. I like the flux lines. In the following link you'll find femm animated simulations. #1 is of two magnets moving together N to S. #2 is N to N. Having a couple steel washers between makes little difference. The important thing to notice is the density of the field lines in the middle where the magnets meet. Much, much denser with the N-N case. The greater the number of these field lines linking a test iron sample in the field, the greater the force exerted on the sample.

Magnets in Motion

No doubt Ufo will have a different take. More discussion can be found on page 9 of this thread.

bi

[Sputins]

Okay, now a similar arrangement is made, same magnets, same washers but instead of the washers being sandwiched between north and south poles of each magnet, we spin one magnet around so we force two like poles together with the iron washers in between. With the hole through them we can bolt them together with a stainless steel nut & bolt. So we have North-Iron-North. Call this arrangement Magnet Set B.

When one makes these magnet arrangements A & B, the iron washers of set B have incredible magnetic strength, compared to that of set A. (or even the a single magnet).

Q1, Is this because the iron washers in set A are more or less in the dielectric plain of the magnet or the (blotch wall to use another term) thus the magnetic strength is weaker here? Set B have the two north fields forced into the iron washers, giving rise to double the magnetic strength?

Q2, Has this opposing fields forced together been viewed with a Ferrocell?
Magnet Set B is like the Boyed Bushman magnet drop experiment concept and similar in principal to Magnetic Beam Amplifier. I think Bedini has done something similar too.

Okay given all that, leads me to the important Q3: What would be an electromagnetic analogy or equivalent circuit of the principal behind Magnetic Set B??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvUiQ3IMHMUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUy_9jDKDvo

I can now go and cook up the project in mind, now that I have the special sauce required for the recipe.

[Sputins]

[Ufopolitics]

Magnetic Interactions Elasticity... seen through ferrocells

Ufo,

It is illogical to conclude that magnetism bends light from viewing images made using ferrocells. I don't believe that the images which I've seen from ferrocells are an accurate representation of the magnetic field.

Bistander,

I have gone a bit further than Ken viewing magnetic fields through Ferrocells.

Ken remains observing single magnets under ferrocell which gives you a stationary field.

I have played a lot with magnetic interactions of many different combinations, maybe because my work (electrodynamic machines) depends on constant magnetic interactions to help me visualize the field better...

It is a completely different behavior when you approach either two opposite or two like magnetic polarizations under ferrocells. You can observe very clearly the Elasticity and real Volume from both fields...just like a "Soft Bubble"...where both either compress into each others...or simply "blend" into each others forming one single bubble...then you realize the Field is not only about the curvilinear brighter lines seen on the static, single field...but the whole 3D Volume it forms through them.

It defines very differently behavior on both Main interactions, Attract and Repulse.

I have filmed it...but it is not the same as to do it yourself...plus cameras must be very HD...and mine is...but I guess it is required even higher definition.

Did you see the one from MRIguy holding the ferrocell in the MRI? It's on the ferrocell home page. Too bad he doesn't come around this board anymore. You can believe anything Ken tells you. I'll stick to what works.

Regards,

bi

Nope, I have not seen it...I will try searching on ferrocellusa home page....


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Ufo,

It is illogical to conclude that magnetism bends light from viewing images made using ferrocells. I don't believe that the images which I've seen from ferrocells are an accurate representation of the magnetic field. Did you see the one from MRIguy holding the ferrocell in the MRI? It's on the ferrocell home page. Too bad he doesn't come around this board anymore. You can believe anything Ken tells you. I'll stick to what works.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

If the magnetism is bending the light directly, why is the ferrocell needed to observe distortion to light passing near a magnet? I look at the end of a magnet and I see all the details. It's not "dark-black" center as you say. You'd think people working around very strong magnetic fields such as MRI would notice the bent light, but it's never mentioned. Wonder why?

Bistander,

You are making less sense every time...

Can you see the beam of straight light with your plain eyes under normal conditions, (not dark, not smoke assistance, etc)?

Absolutely not.

Can just the Photographic Film itself... capture an image, a "picture", or a visible, defined, focused "Pattern" of its surroundings without being enclosed within the proper dark area, plus the focusing lens and the right speed shutter according to the Film ASA (sensibility) existing inside a Camera, plus the proper illumination, etc,etc...?

Absolutely not.

The same exact way, the Ferrocell Lenses, the dark area and the LED Light is the "Camera set up" required to be able to see the Magnetic Fields developing in front of our eyes.

Ferrocell Lenses "develops" the Magnetic Fields just like the photographic sensitive film captures an image through the lens of a Camera.




Ufopolitics

[bistander]

If the magnetism is bending the light directly, why is the ferrocell needed to observe distortion to light passing near a magnet? I look at the end of a magnet and I see all the details. It's not "dark-black" center as you say. You'd think people working around very strong magnetic fields such as MRI would notice the bent light, but it's never mentioned. Wonder why?

[Ufopolitics]

Although magnetism may be able to bend light I doubt that his magnet is strong enough and his eyes or camera are sensitive enough to detect it. I think what is observed here is similar to the magnetic viewing film inasmuch as the light is reflected or refracted by the medium in the film which is influenced by the magnetic field. The magnetic field causes the fluid in the ferrocell to develop patterns which then affect the light coming from the LEDs and produce the images. It is an indirect cause-effect relationship between the magnet and light.

That's my take,

bi

Hello Bistander,

I really can not understand why your "take" always choose the longest and more complicated road which eventually does not resolve absolutely nothing.

The magnetic field causes the fluid in the ferrocell to develop patterns which then affect the light coming from the LEDs and produce the images.

Well, you established your point above very clear...Magnetic Field causes the fluid in the Ferrocell to develop patterns...

So, yes, then the magnetic field Does affect the ferrocell in order to render-develop "patterns"...and it happens that those patterns are always the SAME no matter the size, shape or type of magnet or EM field being screened.

In Science, whenever we have a Consistent Result after many, many different techniques to demonstrate a "Pattern"...we must conclude that those results are very solid, strong and clear evidence to build a series of conclusive facts.

The way I see it... the LED lights illuminates the space where the field is, making this patterns visible to our eyes.

Many of Us know that different Colors from the Light Spectrum vary in the length of their waves of propagation...and it is clearly observed on those videos how red, green and blue light develop the same patterns, but with different illumination gain, where Green is the brighter one and Blue the lesser.

Magnetism can and DOES bend a stream of electron flow which have mass, like it has being observed in the CRT deflections which originated so many applications since the 1800's.

Faraday demonstrated that polarized light is directly affected (rotated) by a magnetic field when this beam of light passes through it...see Faraday Effect.

It is an indirect cause-effect relationship between the magnet and light.

Light and Magnetism ARE Directly Related (Not Indirectly like you wrote)...ever since Faraday and J.C Maxwell discovered "just" a couple of Centuries ago.

I am not going to discuss here why there is always a Black-Dark Center (No Light at All) in every magnet being screened...Ken gives the answer very loud and clear in both videos.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Magnetic light bending

Although magnetism may be able to bend light I doubt that his magnet is strong enough and his eyes or camera are sensitive enough to detect it. I think what is observed here is similar to the magnetic viewing film inasmuch as the light is reflected or refracted by the medium in the film which is influenced by the magnetic field. The magnetic field causes the fluid in the ferrocell to develop patterns which then affect the light coming from the LEDs and produce the images. It is an indirect cause-effect relationship between the magnet and light.

That's my take,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Bending Light with Magnetism...Ken's Videos.

Hello to all,

Here is a recent video from Ken...:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-ES78p5zfE[/VIDEO]

Then there was this comment on YT:

Vandell Baker 2 days ago
Could you reproduce this experiment with a matte finish on your magnet. To disprove the question of the shining surface of the magnet reflecting visibly curved light.

Then Ken uploads this video...:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vv-CiFhxSk[/VIDEO]

Where magnet is covered with a towel...still showing the curvilinear spectrum.

This also serves to whoever thinks that ferrocell just reflects the magnet's chromed surface as a reflection on glass...

Nope...it is not the case.


Ufopolitics

[aljhoa]

IOW, fields come first, then space:

"Super Fluid Pressure Gradient"

Cosmic Background Radiation and ‘ether-drift’ experiments
M. Consoli 1, A. Pluchino 2,1, A. Rapisarda 2,1
1 INFN, Sezione di Catania - Via S. Sofia 64, I-95123 Catania, Italy
2 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Universit`a di Catania - Via S. Sofia 64, I-95123 Catania, Italy

Abstract. - ‘Ether-drift’ experiments have played a crucial role for the origin of relativity. Though, a recent re-analysis shows that those original measurements where light was still propagating in gaseous systems, differently from the modern experiments in vacuum and in solid dielectrics, indicate a small universal anisotropy which is naturally interpreted in terms of a nonlocal thermal gradient. We argue that this could possibly be the effect, on weakly bound gaseous matter, of the temperature gradient due to the Earth’s motion within the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). Therefore, a check with modern laser interferometers is needed to reproduce the conditions of those early measurements with today’s much greater accuracy. We emphasize that an unambiguous confirmation of our interpretation would have far reaching consequences. For instance, it would also imply that all physical systems on the moving Earth are exposed to a tiny energy flow, an effect that, in principle, could induce forms of self-organization in matter.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.06518v1.pdf

4. CONCLUSIONS
The Sagnac experiment has been analyzed for two Postulates, I* and III*.
In 1905 Einstein proposed Postulate I: the velocity of light is a constant c
irrespective of the velocity of the source or the receiver. In 1907 he found it
necessary to limit this postulate to Postulate I* which restricts the previous
statement to nonrotating coordinate systems. In 1956 Moon and Spencer
proposed Postulate III that the velocity of light is a constant with respect to
the source. In 1990 it was found by Moon, Spencer, and Moon that in order
to explain the Michelson-Gale experiment, this postulate must be modified to
Postulate III* which likewise is restricted to nonrotating coordinate systems.
This paper has shown that the Sagnac experiment can be explained by
both Postulates I* and III*. In fact, the equations for the fringe shift in the
Sagnac experiment and in the Michelson-Gale experiment become identical
if expressed in terms of the area projected onto the plane perpendicular to
the axis of rotation.
A method of discriminating between Postulates l* and III* is suggested
by the fact that the fringe shifts are differently distributed about the closed
path. According to Postulate I*, for a regular polygonal path, the fringe
shift is uniformly distributed. On the other hand, Postulate III* predicts a
nonuniform fringe shift distribution with maxima in the branches furthest
from the source. This would require the ability to measure the fringe shift
in a single branch rather than in a closed path.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.172.7180&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a
1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment

https://articuloscientificos.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/doc15.pdf

Al

[Bob Smith]

This may be of some interest to some. I believe it upholds Ken's insistence that space only exists because of and within fields. IOW, fields come first, then space:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOAWG_ZZ0TM

Bob

[bistander]

A joke

You come on Ufo. A joke. You can dish it out; lighten up and take one back. Can you do that? And maybe tell us all about this one dimensional curve in space.

bi