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

[aljhoa]

"magnet on a tread"


Al

[ldrancer]

Absolutely it is tough to work with the invisible

RELIGION

so your tryign to prove a theory without an object now. so your not even trying to prove how a magnet works. and i dont see how a magnet can work. yuo just claim it works. you didnt attempt to bother with the paper i linked to up there. you claimed you are right by using your own, comment.

thats not scientific. you said you dnot need the hurricane.. well then where did the hurricane go?

so again your not even proving how a magnet works. a vortex is a concept and you claim Im wrong based on your own comment you used for making it up, you claim your own theory is right because, you just made it up.

thats not scientific. you dont belong in science. and you didnt even attempt to use the scientific method. you have zero critical thinking your even attackign me in here with, DARK MATTER.

JUST CHANGE THE TOPIC TO BLACK HOLES ARE REALLY REALLY REAL SINCE YOU DONT CARE WHICH FALSE MADE UP JUNK YOUR TRYING TO PROVE, IF ITS A MAGNET IS A VORTEX, YOUR NOT EVEN TRYING TO PROVE ANYTHING ANY OBJECT ANY MORE. SICKENING TOPIC JUST AS MUCH AS YOUR VIDEOS. WHEELER WHORING TO OTHERS HOW TO BE SICK LIKE HIM AND *****. AND YOUR RIDING HIM ARENT YOU. YOUR ATTACKS ON A VIDEO HOSTING SITE UP THERE, VIMEO SHOWS YOUR REAL STATUS OPERANDA.

THATS MY STANCE UNTIL PROVED AND SHOWN OTHERWISE. YOULL TAKE ANYTHING YOU CAN LIE ABOUT THROUGH YOUR TEETH.

I HOPE PEOLLE GET SMART BEFORE THEY DESTROY THE INTERNET PRETENDING YOU IDIOTS WITH YOUR BREAD BUTTER OH PLEASE KEEP ME MY JOB IDIOTS LIKE EVEN MATTER EVER IN ANYTHING LIKE EVER ****GIN STUPID.

HERES MORE ABOUT A VORTEX BEIGN FAKE IVE NOT WATCHED IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH YET BUT AND ITS BILL GAEDE AGAIN, HES FRIENDS WITH STEVEN CROTHERS, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbtP6J-IIvo

AND IF YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW MAGNETS WORK, HERES A SIMPLE VIDEO ITS WAY SIMPLER AND IT EXPLAINS YOULL UNDERSTAND.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

SO UNTIL YOU COME UP WITH AN IDEA, DONT ASK OTHERS TO JOIN OR WAST ETHEIR TIME AND WITH YOU YOU BEGGING FOR MONEY

I POSTED THEM video links up there becuase they actually explain the topic, and quell peoples wonder for what the **** A MAGFNWEWT IS. and an explanation of your hog ****. it explains to me, and i dont expect yuo to comment or be able to joint he conversation or anything. you know

whatevcer who cares.

screw yoru concept of a vortex that has never ever been proven. its a fake comic bood scare tactic word. and now you thijnk you dont need anything and when other people bring up these things you think your right and you use your own comment to attack with. and you USE DARK MATTER TOO! this is unscientific, you not discussing with anyone, your only begging for money. end this topic.

if you have nothing to prove about what i asked, shut up

[nathan97]

I find this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5GY...&nohtml5=False from this new thread from this forum (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tex-motor.html) quite useful to the discussion.

UFO don't you think ?

[bistander]

Flux not flow

That was really funny Bistander!!...

"An Accident of History"??!!...Wow! for God sake really funny, Oh, my stomach hurts...!!

I'm glad you're amused. I do hope you noticed the part I'll highlight below:

See for example it's use in Gauss' law or as a magnetic flux. Nothing is actually flowing e.g. for a static charge we would still refer to the flux through a surface surrounding the charge even though the system is time independant.

[bistander]

N - N vs S - S

I will post this link. The first two animations show the fields in question here very well (without arrows). Magnets in Motion

Hi Ufo,

I guess I didn't realize your quandary was with the fact there was no difference between the magnitude of the repelling force between two identical magnets N to N, vs S to S. I think the animations to which I linked do an excellent job showing the fields independent of arrows and Ns & Ss. The first animation will look the same if it is N - S, or S - N. And the second animation will look the same regardless if it is N - N, or S - S.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

That was funny Bistander...lol

Hi Ufo,

I didn't think that was the case. So I did some looking around and found someone who agrees with me at physics.stackexchange.com.

The word "flux" is something of an accident of history. See for example it's use in Gauss' law or as a magnetic flux. Nothing is actually flowing e.g. for a static charge we would still refer to the flux through a surface surrounding the charge even though the system is time independant.

bi

That was really funny Bistander!!...

"An Accident of History"??!!...Wow! for God sake really funny, Oh, my stomach hurts...!!

It sounds like a Soap Opera!!

"The Accident of History"...watch the final chapters soon!...lol

You will see the Real "Accident of History" pretty soon...

Cheers


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Flux not flow

I must remind you that before we discuss "flux"...and the basic main description of Flux is "Flow".

Hi Ufo,

I didn't think that was the case. So I did some looking around and found someone who agrees with me at physics.stackexchange.com.

The word "flux" is something of an accident of history. See for example it's use in Gauss' law or as a magnetic flux. Nothing is actually flowing e.g. for a static charge we would still refer to the flux through a surface surrounding the charge even though the system is time independant.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

Yeah, I figured you wouldn't buy it. I admit it wasn't the best lesson. It is difficult to explain. Basically the magnetic force is in the direction which, if movement resulted from that force, the magnetic field would increase. Moving like poles together, whether N-N or S-S, tends to decrease the magnetic field, therefore the force opposes the closing movement.

It was not your fault at all because of bad examples or wordings...It's me...it will not happen no matter if you use the best of the best of explanations...The thing is...I have the proof in my hands that all this old model is plain BS...very well dressed up for the amount of people defending it for 200 years...but nothing is stronger than real scientific proof.

As far as flux, flow, direction, orientation and all that, it is a play on words and I'm sure I didn't do the best with them. Tough to accurately describe invisible force fields like magnetism or gravity or electric.

Maybe someone else will chime in with a reply for you.

bi

Absolutely it is tough to work with the invisible...only testing and more testing could render the right answers...then putting together "something" that works based on previously positive tested principles...well, that sets the "End" to the search...but never the development...which must keep going on and on to make better prototypes reaching max performances and output.

One of the more convincing visual testings so far is about the coming video with a small and cheap B&W CRT...to prove the spinning polarization of a Magnetic Field.

The research work is done, there is a lot to do ahead though. And I only hope I can count on you.


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Magnetic force

Great!



I must remind you that before we discuss "flux"...and the basic main description of Flux is "Flow".



Orientation, Direction?...So it means North "only" orients/directs by South, following one way arrows?...but not South from North, since arrows "leave" instead of coming in?

Direction is a meaning of "traffic"...and traffic indicates Flow...we are back to the starting point...again.

And I am sorry, but "orientation" is a property that should be evenly disbursed intrinsically to both poles...where each one looks for the other (Orient) in a perfectly Symmetrical way.

Therefore, Orientation should be represented by arrows flowing from either North to South as from South to North.



Bistander, I am pretty sure you miss-understood me completely based on your above explanation(s), I know exactly how to "feel" repulsion in magnets.

My previous question was very simple:

Why does South to South Repulsion contains an identical Force as when we use North to North using two identical magnets

But your post here was excellent...?

And here you could use your "more suitable word" Orientation or Flux/Flow to tell me why these two forces are identical when they should not be identical based on this Model.



So, by your own words above (basically the ones bold and underlined by me) you are considering repulsion as not a primary force, maybe even disregarding it, and attraction being the one that rules the whole magnetism behavior?

It was the typical answer I was expecting by someone who stands for this old theory...



Yes we both can Google the same BS...I know, I am tired of searching without finding the real convincing explanation...but that was expected as well.

The only difference between you and me is that You believe it entirely while I don't.

That was the original main reason why I decided to build it up myself with the help from Wheeler's Theory...

Remember this post Bistander...since I will be bringing it up, word by word again...someday soon.


Cheers


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

Yeah, I figured you wouldn't buy it. I admit it wasn't the best lesson. It is difficult to explain. Basically the magnetic force is in the direction which, if movement resulted from that force, the magnetic field would increase. Moving like poles together, whether N-N or S-S, tends to decrease the magnetic field, therefore the force opposes the closing movement.

As far as flux, flow, direction, orientation and all that, it is a play on words and I'm sure I didn't do the best with them. Tough to accurately describe invisible force fields like magnetism or gravity or electric.

Maybe someone else will chime in with a reply for you.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

An interesting exchange from You Tube...

Ufopolitics @Prospekt313 In a permanent magnet there is only one force...not two.
Both "poles" spin exactly following same direction, Same thing as when you have a motor which take off power shaft spins CW...then the rear part of shaft if connected turns CCW.
The difference is that in a magnet, both vortex spin with a tilted, precessed axis and spinning forces come exactly from center of magnetic embodiment.
The Classic explanation of magnetism have many holes, flaws...for example, if the flow would be only from North to South...then when two South face each others they should not repel like they do in reality, since the source which is North...South would then be the "suction end", the gate in , so S-S should do absolutely no reaction, no attraction, no repulsion...just like two pieces of iron shows nothing...right?
Repulsion has been considered as a "No Field" interaction, since there are no "lines of force"...right?...ok, what if I show you a generator which works ONLY based on repulsion fields from either South or North repulsion's?

Prospekt313 / 10 hours ago
The north to north repulsion seems pretty straight forward by current understanding, but, as I think you're saying, the south to south repulsion appears enigmatic, and that they should suck together. However, one has to remember the outer lines of force coming down from the norths of each magnet. This creates the repulsion and there's no way to effectively get inside it.

Even though they say YouTube is not such a Scientific exchange site...sometimes I see more common sense and open minds rendering real and very interesting opinions than in this Forum.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

I'll give it a shot.

Great!

I think that the simple way of looking at it with arrows, N and S poles, and "flow" ultimately ends up causing confusion because, case in point, you try to use analogy of source and drain which is not applicable. The magnetic field exists, has a direction or maybe orientation is a better word, which is indicated by the arrows on diagram, but does not circulate particles or energies in a path or circuit represented by the lines. Notice these are called lines of force, not lines of flow. What is shown on diagrams as N and S poles are not separate entities but rather a dipole.

I must remind you that before we discuss "flux"...and the basic main description of Flux is "Flow".

The magnetic field exists, has a direction or maybe orientation is a better word, which is indicated by the arrows on diagram,

Orientation, Direction?...So it means North "only" orients/directs by South, following one way arrows?...but not South from North, since arrows "leave" instead of coming in?

Direction is a meaning of "traffic"...and traffic indicates Flow...we are back to the starting point...again.

And I am sorry, but "orientation" is a property that should be evenly disbursed intrinsically to both poles...where each one looks for the other (Orient) in a perfectly Symmetrical way.

Therefore, Orientation should be represented by arrows flowing from either North to South as from South to North.

Now to your question as to why or how two like poles repel each other. I am sure you have experienced this using two bar magnets on a table top, one in each hand. Aside from the repulsion when you attempt to push like pole ends together, you must have noticed the tendency for one magnet to rotate and align itself so its opposite pole would point towards the other magnet and attract. In fact, when you lose grip on one magnet, this is exactly what happens. It spins quickly and slams into the other magnet with opposite poles together.

Bistander, I am pretty sure you miss-understood me completely based on your above explanation(s), I know exactly how to "feel" repulsion in magnets.

My previous question was very simple:

Why does South to South Repulsion contains an identical Force as when we use North to North using two identical magnets

But your post here was excellent...?

And here you could use your "more suitable word" Orientation or Flux/Flow to tell me why these two forces are identical when they should not be identical based on this Model.

So this is the crust of it. It is not so much the repulsion force, but the attraction force of the opposite end of the dipole. Unless constrained (like by your hand), this will cause a torque or moment on the dipole and then the attraction will occur with movement to maximize the field.

So, by your own words above (basically the ones bold and underlined by me) you are considering repulsion as not a primary force, maybe even disregarding it, and attraction being the one that rules the whole magnetism behavior?

It was the typical answer I was expecting by someone who stands for this old theory...

Well, there you have it: In my own words. I can dig up some references, but you can google as well as I.

I will post this link. The first two animations show the fields in question here very well (without arrows). Magnets in Motion

Hope that helps,

bi

Yes we both can Google the same BS...I know, I am tired of searching without finding the real convincing explanation...but that was expected as well.

The only difference between you and me is that You believe it entirely while I don't.

That was the original main reason why I decided to build it up myself with the help from Wheeler's Theory...

Remember this post Bistander...since I will be bringing it up, word by word again...someday soon.


Cheers


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Magnetic repulsion

Hello to All,

You guys could help me do some common sense reasoning here...

[IMG][/IMG]

Above is the "Classic" Magnet Model we all have been observing for 200+ years, based on Iron Dust...and even iron dust do not show any directional flow...it has been stated by the Classic Physics to be like above... right?

Right.

The Flow is supposed to be a "One Way Only" flow from North to South...right?

Right.


So, then we could say that North is the "Source" of Magnetic Flow...or "Flux"

While South is only the "Suction End", the draw side, the "Drain" of this flow.

And this Model Flow works fine in "Attract Mode"...when we approach another magnet's opposite pole...I mean if we approach a Source of Flow (North) to a Suction End (South)...it works!!!, they get "attracted"!!...BUT...:

I guess someone could explain to me why then, we get the same exact repulsion force from either North to North as from South to South?

Because based on even the simplest mechanics of flows...if we have two sources facing, it is understood we do get a repulsion...eg: just like two high pressure water hoses facing each others in a straight line.

However...it should not take place a repulsion force if we face two drains, two suction or two vacuum ends, etc,etc...

According to this Classic Flaw, am sorry, meant "flow"... if we face a South with another South...we should NOT have a repulsion at all...maybe nothing should happen, not attraction but not repulsion either...

Yes, I know it may sound like a very silly question right?

Well then, ANSWER IT!...


Thanks in advance


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

I'll give it a shot. I think that the simple way of looking at it with arrows, N and S poles, and "flow" ultimately ends up causing confusion because, case in point, you try to use analogy of source and drain which is not applicable. The magnetic field exists, has a direction or maybe orientation is a better word, which is indicated by the arrows on diagram, but does not circulate particles or energies in a path or circuit represented by the lines. Notice these are called lines of force, not lines of flow. What is shown on diagrams as N and S poles are not separate entities but rather a dipole.

Now to your question as to why or how two like poles repel each other. I am sure you have experienced this using two bar magnets on a table top, one in each hand. Aside from the repulsion when you attempt to push like pole ends together, you must have noticed the tendency for one magnet to rotate and align itself so its opposite pole would point towards the other magnet and attract. In fact, when you lose grip on one magnet, this is exactly what happens. It spins quickly and slams into the other magnet with opposite poles together.

So this is the crust of it. It is not so much the repulsion force, but the attraction force of the opposite end of the dipole. Unless constrained (like by your hand), this will cause a torque or moment on the dipole and then the attraction will occur with movement to maximize the field.

Well, there you have it: In my own words. I can dig up some references, but you can google as well as I.

I will post this link. The first two animations show the fields in question here very well (without arrows). Magnets in Motion

Hope that helps,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Have any of You ever asked before why...?

Hello to All,

You guys could help me do some common sense reasoning here...

[IMG][/IMG]

Above is the "Classic" Magnet Model we all have been observing for 200+ years, based on Iron Dust...and even iron dust do not show any directional flow...it has been stated by the Classic Physics to be like above... right?

Right.

The Flow is supposed to be a "One Way Only" flow from North to South...right?

Right.


So, then we could say that North is the "Source" of Magnetic Flow...or "Flux"

While South is only the "Suction End", the draw side, the "Drain" of this flow.

And this Model Flow works fine in "Attract Mode"...when we approach another magnet's opposite pole...I mean if we approach a Source of Flow (North) to a Suction End (South)...it works!!!, they get "attracted"!!...BUT...:

I guess someone could explain to me why then, we get the same exact repulsion force from either North to North as from South to South?

Because based on even the simplest mechanics of flows...if we have two sources facing, it is understood we do get a repulsion...eg: just like two high pressure water hoses facing each others in a straight line.

However...it should not take place a repulsion force if we face two drains, two suction or two vacuum ends, etc,etc...

According to this Classic Flaw, am sorry, meant "flow"... if we face a South with another South...we should NOT have a repulsion at all...maybe nothing should happen, not attraction but not repulsion either...

Yes, I know it may sound like a very silly question right?

Well then, ANSWER IT!...


Thanks in advance


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Distorted Fields...more confusion.

There are other forms found by different visual (qualitative) approach.
I believe this behavior does exist and that many other forms do exist.
One form that appears for example on copper plate are circular we call eddy currents.
I think some of the small near field loops of permanant magnets develop like those in the movie.
What we are able to see are the magnetic dipoles that developed as permanent and self reinforcing.
we see the convergent (straight) and divergent (curved) zones.
https://vimeo.com/1166968

I still don't know why people keep using the Vimeo BS Format...it stinks and take such long time to produce a final play...while You Tube is free and it works perfect on any platform.

Anyways, those were images of DISTORTED MAGNETIC FIELDS.

Distorted by other objects and other fields around them, they shoot random and bouncing spectrum arcs all over...however, that is absolutely NOT the way it looks in reality.

Something similar to the way a Tesla Coil Corona will Arc around its environment in a random and loose sparks/arcs...can we make any specific spectrum structure out of those random/changing shapes?

Absolutely NOT!


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Aether Particle

any attempt to quantize the Ether into "units" is a specious premise

we can only quantize phenomena, not noumenon.

Those who (try) quantize the Ether are the same who try to reify it as a "particle"

ala the "Ether particle"

Al

Definitively right Al, I just needed to show a flow in 3D animation based on color coded particles.

As at the same token I did not wanted to answer Bistander as it was the "Aether in Spatial Disturbance Status"...

Magnetism is a Flow of something between plasma and fluids...transparent, massless...this properties are very hard to demonstrate on 3D Animation unless I hire "Industrial Light and Magic"...from Steven Spielberg...and I don't have that budget...

Thanks


Ufopolitics