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

[bistander]

Faraday and viewing film

I know Bi, it is just "another way" to see it...still you understand it... right?

Hi Ufo,

I disagree. It is not another way of "just saying" Faraday's Law. Faraday's Law relates the change in magnetic field to induced voltage and says nothing about the force of attraction or repulsion.

Any change in the magnetic environment of a coil of wire will cause a voltage (emf) to be "induced" in the coil.

From: Faraday's Law

...and following one of the first Faraday's experiments with a Bar Magnet, introducing it on an air core coil...:

and showing a positive deflection from galvanometer needle..

Much like you demonstrated in your video except you were moving the coil on the magnet, but there was no attraction, was there? If there was, it was not part of that particular experiment.

And on the subject of the magnetic viewing film, Mr. Ardizzone and I are saying the same thing essentially. No flux lines cutting the film shows as light areas.



Above is a view of 2 magnets with like poles repelling. Note how the lines of iron filings travel upwards through the red line representing the edge view of the magnetic viewing film. The entire area between the magnets is loaded with flux cutting the film leaving no light area.



Now is a view of 2 magnets with opposite poles attracting. Note how the iron filings cut through very little if any of the red line in the middle of the space between the magnets. The lack of magnetic flux cutting through the film in the middle area causes the light line down the middle of the viewing film. There is still plenty of flux linking the attracting poles, but it just doesn't travel through the film.

In fact you demonstrated that there was flux in between the attracting magnets in post #212 video with your magnetic field probe, remember?

Regards,

bi

[BroMikey]

I know MANY, but I mean many people will get frustrated, and some very upset by this FULL PROOF that only means WE WERE WRONG ALL THIS TIME...By looking at the Magnetic Fields with the ANCIENT AND VERY WRONG METHODOLOGY...the iron filings.

Plus I understand as well...it is very hard to "digest" all this DATA in one single Thread.

You said a mouth full that time because not only can we not grasp
all of the data in one single thread but we have to remove the intentionally
placed stumbling blocks that make us feel like we have rocks in our heads.

I mean I catch myself saying "LINES OF FORCE" repeatedly when there are
no lines of force or any such laws based on "LINES OF FORCE" in reality.

The blade sitting in the center point gives us some clues that cancellation
of forces are in play, I mean these are forces in play. Just not line and lines
of them. It is all contingent on what size and shape piece of iron we place
near the magnet that determines the response and then let's not forget
the type. We were not taught this way.

We were not taught this way, we were not taught this way. We were not................................ so
we have to work over time to RE-Learn everything about magnets.

We must learn by experiment.

When I was a small child I got some big horseshoe magnets and
I knew that no one on the earth understood what and how magnets
operates. I knew then, I knew it was an explainable action and reaction
and everyone I asked all said the same thing about the invisible lines
coming at the metal like a cartoon ray gun.

Then they would say (This is the 60's) it's like how the earth keeps people
from flying out into space because the earth is a big magnet. Then I
would ask how could this huge magnet hold me down without any iron to
attract to it? The answer was we all have some iron in our bodies.

So then why doesn't copper or nickle fly out into space? The answers
started going to "I DON"T KNOW" to "I DON"T KNOW LEAVE ME ALONE"

After that you just don't ask those "STUPID QUESTIONS" anymore.

And these people teaching in schools went to college

It is for sure we don't understand much about magnetism other than
"IT WORKS" and it works like "THAT" too

UFO, KEN, JOHN B. or any number of people have known that we
learn fables in schools. Keep it up and after enough class sessions
over time we will begin to change our minds.

At that point, what will we do with the false information we have
spent decades coming to know? This is only a beginning
once we have changed our minds, that is realizing we were wrong.

We are right about only ONE THING, iron filings act the way they do
but the other 8 million shapes and types we forgot to explore and recover
data.

[Ufopolitics]

Hi UFO
I agree with you on this, I am not sure about the rest of Ken theory (yet)
I am sorry to be such a slow student but let me explain you why I 'converted':
This morning I was watching your latest video and this picture again.



I was quite puzzled and then I realized the following:
The compass points towards the North, which makes sense otherwise it would be quite useless for navigation.
If you look at how it is constructed, it's basically a small magnet, diamond shaped (rhombic?), with a pivot point in the middle.
In order to point in a S-N direction in a static mode, the sum of resulting FORCES in the East-West direction at both ends need to be equal and in the same direction in order to provide a torque on the needle that is equal = 0!!!
These means IMHO that indeed the lines of force are radiating in a East-west direction, and most likely radially from the edges.
This proves in my view that Distinti's theory about the edge currents is most probably true. Which means that the currents at both the North- and the South-poles are in the same direction and that their fields, somewhere in the middle, add up to 0, causing the 'Blochwall'

Now I am really looking forward to your next video.
Best regards,
Ben


P.S Speaking of wind: the wind and the sea cause nice patterns in the sand, which show great similarity to the iron filings patterns. I sure hope Ernst doesn't get lost following these obvious lines of force.

Hello Ben,

Sorry I could not answer before...I am swamped with tons of work.

Your reasoning is quite right...you are getting there...however, there will be a point in time when we will "UNIFY" some theories like Distinti's work...and be able to explain it within the one being proved here by me.

See, you are right about "no lines of force from N-S in Attraction Mode (including, of course those between a solely magnet).

Then You are quite right about turning East-West...but not exactly in a straight pattern...and yes, I know you are still not accepting the Vortex Theory...yet...

Now, when it comes to the very exact center plane of either an Electromagnetic Field or a Permanent Magnet Field...it is just a complex geometry there...as both poles return to gravity center mass point by Centripetal forces...as well as the origination, the Dielectric Field also displaces centripetal forces to that exact center mass point (reason why is called "counterspatial").

You are getting there friend...we are not in a hurry here...

Plus I really do not want to "shock" anyone here (yet) by complex machinery demonstrating this Theory works perfectly well...so, let's do it one step at a time...easy...like a saying in Italian... "Piano, Piano vai lontano..."


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ernst]

Hi Ernst.
I was born and raised in the west of the Netherland, right in the middle of between Amsterdam and the Hague and you, North -East?
I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Anyways.
I feel that many people that have reached a master or doctors agree tend to dismiss everything that doesn't 100% confirm with what they learned during their long years of study. They regard themselves as authorities and their authority should not be questioned. History is full of stories of 'authorities' that appeared to be somewhat wrong. 2 examples: At the opening of the thirst railroad in the UK, one guy warned the public not to use it, because the human body would disintegrate at speeds above 60(?) MPH.
Another guy claimed that it would be impossible that something heavier than air to fly. While writing that, flies and birds were most probably flying around in his garden.

My point is and I believe that is also Distinti's point, that there are so many flaws in our 'scientific' theories, that you should question everything that is considered to be 'known' and proven. Our physic teacher even used the expression "exemptions that proof the rule"!!

Presently the way physics and astronomy are treated by the scientific world is not much different from the way the Pope treated science in the middle ages.
When the earth was still flat and the centre of the universe. And even today, we are still using the 'flat earth' model when constructing houses etc..

So IMHO we need people that know both the current theories and their flaws.
To put it differently would you hire Taxconsultant that knows the laws by hard, or one that knows both the laws AND the loopholes??

So I would like you to use all your insights, logic reasoning and analytic skillsto explain to me what is incorrect with my analysis:



I wanted to call you 'slickdick' but that name was already taken

Best regards,
Ben

Ok, we have both guessed wrong where the other comes from. It does not have anything to do with the subject at hand but I thought the phrase "pedante kwast" sounds south-ish.
I was born in Amsterdam and raised in the middle of NL.
I agree with most of this post of yours. But you know how this forum works, don't you?
The one who opens the thread leads the discussion, meaning that he says what does and does not belong here. In this case it is UFO and he has made clear that arguments against Ken's theory do not belong here. I am not making that up, please check his post.
So I must obey that rule. At least in this thread.
I hope UFO will allow me to answer your question but it is against his rule and therefore against the rules of this forum what you are asking me to do. I will not enter a discussion on this thread, for reasons now explained, but I will answer your question.

The compass points towards the North, which makes sense otherwise it would be quite useless for navigation.

So true!

If you look at how it is constructed, it's basically a small magnet, diamond shaped (rhombic?), with a pivot point in the middle.

Not even the slightest objections so far.

In order to point in a S-N direction in a static mode, the sum of resulting FORCES in the East-West direction at both ends need to be equal and in the same direction in order to provide a torque on the needle that is equal = 0!!!

I assume that "in static mode" means that the compass is at rest. It has stopped rotating and is now pointing N-S or S-N if you wish.
When an object (any object) is not changing its state of motion (not accelerating, not decelerating and not changing direction) then the sum of all forces in ALL directions is zero.
If this is not the case the object is experiencing a nett force and will therefore be accelerated in the direction of that force (F=m.a).
(I am not sure if my interpretation of this text is correct, but I am trying!)
If there are forces on the far ends of the needle in the same direction (let's say East) and these forces are equal (let's say 1N) then the needle is experiencing a nett force of 2N East. If the needle (and compass) are not moving then the compass must counter this force at the pivot point by a force of 2N West. If that were not the case the needle would fly out of the compass in an East-ward direction. Assuming that both halves of the needle are equal in length, these forces combined create a zero torque, as you wrote.
In this situation the torque will always be zero no matter in what direction the needle is pointing, therefore the needle is highly unlikely to assume an N-S position.

These means IMHO that indeed the lines of force are radiating in a East-west direction, and most likely radially from the edges.

Connect two wires on both points of the needle, and pull each wire with the same force East. Result: the needle will not rotate (torque = 0) but will try to get out of the compass in an East-ward direction.
Now pull one wire to the North and one wire to the South. Result: as long as the needle is not in an NS direction, there is a non-zero torque. So the needle will rotate until it is in a NS direction. At that point the forces cancel out and there is no more torque, hence no more movement of the needle.
This means that the lines of force are exactly as the iron filings show you.

This proves in my view that Distinti's theory about the edge currents is most probably true.

That particular part of his theory is indeed true; there is a nett resulting current running around in the magnet, as if it were a single layer coil.

Which means that the currents at both the North- and the South-poles are in the same direction...

The currents all along the magnet from N to S are equal in direction and strength.

and that their fields, somewhere in the middle, add up to 0, causing the 'Blochwall'

Extremely illogical. If that were true a magnet would not attract anything that is present at this point. Try playing with a magnet and a ball as Distinti does and find a point along the side of the magnet where the magnet does not attract the iron ball. Also a compass would not work at the equator if that were true, because there would be no magnetic field.
Now try to view the magnet as a single layer coil and explain why every winding produces a magnetic field but the winding in the middle does not.

I hope that satisfies.


Ernst.

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

I have a couple of comments on your post.

LET'S REMEMBER THAT THE MAIN, OLD FARADAY THEORY STATES THAT:

...By the Lines of Force (understood ONLY in ATTRACTION MODE) "cutting" the conductor(s) in a Perpendicular Fashion, this action will Induce a spinning charge within conductor's mass.

That is not the normal way of stating Faraday's Law.

I know Bi, it is just "another way" to see it...still you understand it... right?

But the thing that bothers me the most is:

understood ONLY in ATTRACTION MODE

I have never seen such a qualification. Where did that come from?

Come on Bi, it comes from just a little bit of common sense...when looking back at the History of the Classic Magnetism Model...plus Induction Discovery:

From the single Bar Magnet, where we always have a NORTH and a SOUTH:

[IMG][/IMG]

...and following one of the first Faraday's experiments with a Bar Magnet, introducing it on an air core coil...:

[IMG][/IMG]

and showing a positive deflection from galvanometer needle...all the way to Two Independent Magnets facing each others by their alike poles...

We will always observe the "Imaginary Lines of Force between NORTH to SOUTH...

[IMG][/IMG]

NEVER, EVER...there has been observed the iron filings to "bridge" straight forward from NORTH to NORTH...or from SOUTH to SOUTH....forming the same "alignment" they do between N-S arrangement.

[IMG][/IMG]

On the subject of the magnetic viewing film, the white area indicates no perpendicular flux passing through the film.

On that Post I cited the President and EE who makes Magnetic Viewing Film:

Source:VIEWING FILM FOR DC MAGNETIC FIELDS
A DISCUSSION
By: Vincent A. Ardizzone, EE
Executive President Product Development
Magne-Rite, Inc.

A unique process of micro-encapsulation was developed which allows a very thin 2-mil layer of magnetically sensitive slurry to be bonded to a 5-mil sheet of plastic film. In the encapsulation process, colloidal nickel particles suspended in the slurry become engulfed within gelatinous membranes. The slurry is then coated onto the plastic film and allowed to dry. After complete drying, the particles maintain freedom of movement within the gelatinous membranes.

When a dc magnetic field is applied to the bonded film, the nickel particles congregate in alignment with the flux lines emanating from the dc magnetic source. This mass grouping together of nickel particles causes a darkened appearance to the film directly where the magnetic field is impinging on the film. As a result, an exact two-dimensional image or impression of the magnetic pole or pole pattern (if there are more than one) is produced. This image is easily erased once the film is removed from the magnetic source and the nickel particles are allowed to freely re-disperse within their gelatinous cells. A common bar magnet can be swiped across the film to ensure complete erasure of the previous image, or by reapplying the film to another magnetic source the new image produced will completely replace the old one.

It should also be pointed out that, due to the small size of the colloidal nickel particles, the film can detect fields as low as only a few gauss and still produce and clear image.

A particularly useful application of this viewing film is in the identification of changes in magnetic polarity. As an example, if two magnets identical in size and shape were placed adjacent to each other, as shown in figure 1, and one wished to quickly determine if they were identical or opposite in polarity, for instance, placing the film on the magnet's surface would immediately reveal the answer. If the magnets were opposite in polarity, for instance, the film would show the typically darkened areas where each magnetic pole is located but would also clearly reveal a much lighter line where the magnetic fields change polarity. See figure 2. The lighter line is produced because no flux lines are present at the border where magnetic fields change over in polarity and hence the nickel particles in the film do not congregate along that line. If the magnets were of the same polarity the film would show a solid darkened region over the entire area of both magnetic poles with no line of separation.

Read again what he writes, and that I have bold in red color...verify Link...

Are You going to argue with that guy above?

There may be (and is, in your example picture) magnetic flux and therefore a magnetic field below the viewing film. So there are magnetic lines of flux running from the North pole of one magnet to the South pole of the other magnet which are parallel to and below the plane of the viewing film. Also, there is a field and lines of flux inside the magnets below the viewing film where the white lines are in the middle of the magnet shapes. These are also parallel to the viewing film.

To prove there is flux (and field) between the two magnets, turn the film on its side and place it between the magnets. It will be dark because the flux is cutting it perpendicular now.

Regards,

bi

Bistander, use some logical reasoning.

If there would be straight lines of force between N-S like the ones displayed by iron filings, even with a slight curvature, that will mean all the reflection captured by viewing film should be a completely EVEN SOLID SHADE of either Light or Darker AREA...BUT NEVER, a Three Shades with Exactly a center lighter line dividing both fields.

The "issue" here (or may I say the "proof")...is that when we look at the same magnets in attraction, set at the same distance from each others... BUT, under a CRT, the Cathode Ray Tube displays EXACTLY, the same Pattern as the Viewing Film does...Watch my previous analysis below:

[IMG][/IMG]

The extreme right Image is just the Two prior Layers blended for comparison.

And the COMPLETE OPPOSITE RESULT, ON BOTH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES (View Film plus CRT)...take place WHEN WE TEST REPULSE INTERACTION, having exactly the underlined text by me at the above quoted text by the Developers of Viewing Film:

[IMG][/IMG]

I know MANY, but I mean many people will get frustrated, and some very upset by this FULL PROOF that only means WE WERE WRONG ALL THIS TIME...By looking at the Magnetic Fields with the ANCIENT AND VERY WRONG METHODOLOGY...the iron filings.

Plus I understand as well...it is very hard to "digest" all this DATA in one single Thread.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Member could not post on Thread...

This is a PM I received from Member Partzman here:

Unable to post

Hi,

I have registered to become a member of this forum just so I could post a simple experiment which supports your work along with Ken's, but for some reason the administrator has not approved me at this time. I've attached a link to a simple Utube video which you are welcome to share on your thread if you wish.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2JFDpTE_ls&feature=youtu.be[/VIDEO]

Regards,
Partzman

In the video Partzman conducts a very simple and short experiment that I recommend you guys take a look at.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ben2503]

This whole thread is unfortunate. It is all based on pseudo-profound bull****. Bull**** in, means even more bull**** out.

Arguing over something which founded on pseudo-profound bull**** is futile and a waist of time, especially arguing with those who lack discernment of deceptive vagueness.

The result is evident, one pedantic calling the other pedantic... go figure.

Hi Dick.
Please indicate where I was pedantic, so I can rephrase those posts.
I certainly do not want to come across as pedantic, if I do or did, I apologize and like to correct my wording.
Thanks,
Ben

[Ben2503]

Ernst and Ben,

There is a thread here already for free discussion of any subject of a technical nature. It was started by citfta a few years ago. You can discuss your ideas there if you want. It is called "Open discussion for projects on this forum" or something like that. It is probably a few pages back now as citfta has left this forum. It is refreshing to see there are still a few members left that can actually think for themselves.

Best regards,
Ann

Hi Ann.
I'd rather leave 'open discussions' to politicians and others that enjoy this. I am not looking for opinions but for reasons behind observed phenomena.

I cannot following some of the reasoning that lead some people to some theories. I want to understand, to the extent possible, what are the causes and effects.
UFO is doing a great job trying to do that and I have thanked him for that a couple of times.
I real envy him, because I am not in a situation that I could do practical experimenting, nor do I have the skills and / or ingenuity to do what he is doing.
The only think I CAN do is trying to keep an open mind and try to solve the puzzles. Also I try to help by looking for an answer that may explain what is and what isn't valid in a theory.

Thanks to UFO's experiments I came to the conclusion that the real lines of force must be in a West-East direction and not in a North-south direction as the classical model suggests nor circulair as Ken suggests (if I am not mistaken). But till now I didn't get any comment on that post. Which makes me wonder why.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben2503]

Hi Ben,
From northern Belgique, aren't you, or the south of Holland?
My post has disappointed you? Allow me to explain myself.
UFO has made clear that this thread is about proving Ken's theory and that anything that goes against it does not belong here. My understanding of the subject goes violently against Ken's work and therefore anything I say does the same.
I could bring my objections in a different manner pretending to help UFO while knowing that my 'help' will eventually disprove Ken's work. But that does not feel good for me as it is obviously dishonest. I have been having a problem with contributing to this thread because I can see UFO's enthusiasm. And I ask myself why would I write things that will reduce his happiness? But then I see Ken's work and that of Distinti and I ask myself does this help humanity in any way? People are talking about shills trying to dumb us down, but who needs shills, we are doing it ourselves! And we are doing a better job than any shill could ever do!
Distinti displays a huge misunderstanding of basic physics. I wonder if he really has a masters degree, as he says he has. If so, then what does that say for the university that has given him this degree?
The ideas that are presented here are not helping anyone. Internet appears to provide some sort of consolidation to all of those who do not understand high school physics. People make up their own theories of blatant nonsense and if you do not immediately agree with these most absurd notions, you're not open minded. I have said this before: "There is a difference between an open mind and an idiotic one".
I would say that if you want to improve our understanding of nature then
- first show that you understand the currently accepted theory,
- then show where it is wrong, and
- then show how to correct it.
Ken, Distinti, Aaron and UFO they have all failed at the first step and consequently they have also failed at the second step.
I can no longer honestly participate in this thread, Ben. I understand your disappointment and I am happy to see you (and a few others) appreciate my contributions. But there is a way out.
You could open your own thread where you allow different minded people to contribute. There you can ask me to disprove what is presented here. Do you have magnetic viewing film, and a magnet?
Anyway, Ben, don't sign your post with 'Pedante kwast'.
You are not Ken!


Ernst.

Hi Ernst.
I was born and raised in the west of the Netherland, right in the middle of between Amsterdam and the Hague and you, North -East?
I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Anyways.
I feel that many people that have reached a master or doctors agree tend to dismiss everything that doesn't 100% confirm with what they learned during their long years of study. They regard themselves as authorities and their authority should not be questioned. History is full of stories of 'authorities' that appeared to be somewhat wrong. 2 examples: At the opening of the thirst railroad in the UK, one guy warned the public not to use it, because the human body would disintegrate at speeds above 60(?) MPH.
Another guy claimed that it would be impossible that something heavier than air to fly. While writing that, flies and birds were most probably flying around in his garden.

My point is and I believe that is also Distinti's point, that there are so many flaws in our 'scientific' theories, that you should question everything that is considered to be 'known' and proven. Our physic teacher even used the expression "exemptions that proof the rule"!!

Presently the way physics and astronomy are treated by the scientific world is not much different from the way the Pope treated science in the middle ages.
When the earth was still flat and the centre of the universe. And even today, we are still using the 'flat earth' model when constructing houses etc..

So IMHO we need people that know both the current theories and their flaws.
To put it differently would you hire Taxconsultant that knows the laws by hard, or one that knows both the laws AND the loopholes??

So I would like you to use all your insights, logic reasoning and analytic skillsto explain to me what is incorrect with my analysis:

The compass points towards the North, which makes sense otherwise it would be quite useless for navigation.
If you look at how it is constructed, it's basically a small magnet, diamond shaped (rhombic?), with a pivot point in the middle.
In order to point in a S-N direction in a static mode, the sum of resulting FORCES in the East-West direction at both ends need to be equal and in the same direction in order to provide a torque on the needle that is equal = 0!!!
These means IMHO that indeed the lines of force are radiating in a East-west direction, and most likely radially from the edges.
This proves in my view that Distinti's theory about the edge currents is most probably true. Which means that the currents at both the North- and the South-poles are in the same direction and that their fields, somewhere in the middle, add up to 0, causing the 'Blochwall'

I wanted to call you 'slickdick' but that name was already taken

Best regards,
Ben

[SisMika]

Ernst and Ben,

There is a thread here already for free discussion of any subject of a technical nature. It was started by citfta a few years ago. You can discuss your ideas there if you want. It is called "Open discussion for projects on this forum" or something like that. It is probably a few pages back now as citfta has left this forum. It is refreshing to see there are still a few members left that can actually think for themselves.

Best regards,
Ann

[SisMika]

you see how when folks can't win they name call and slight without
premise? How does the math in the video fail? These questions and many more being ignored because it is simple and to the point and those questioning
the prospective ideologies are not qualified first to go over conventional
math, let alone understand how it has failed.

The only thing that is stopping each of you from answering the simple
experimental questions put forth to you is denial that you have been
hornswoggled into believing things that go contrary to common sense.

The list of poor reasoning along with employment of tactics is very long,
practiced by "Good ole BroMikey training camps" known as schools
of higher learning.

OH MY,

Has anyone ever seen a more clear example of the pot calling the kettle black? You have described yourself exactly BM (Big Mouth).

[BroMikey]

you see how when folks can't win they name call and slight without
premise? How does the math in the video fail? These questions and many more being ignored because it is simple and to the point and those questioning
the prospective ideologies are not qualified first to go over conventional
math, let alone understand how it has failed.

All experiments and simple math equations presented here on this thread
must be answered honestly by the reader. High school students with a
recent class in basic magnetism can do this work. Nothing here is hard
to answer.

Thousands of intellectual men has spotted all of these discrepancies in
classical models and many more only to be cast out from their circles of
prominence. Doctors with cures for cancer deported from the USA, scientist
with working devices of limitless energy defying academic opinion displaying
great zeal to help the world were murdered, bought off or scared off.

The only thing that is stopping each of you from answering the simple
experimental questions put forth to you is denial that you have been
hornswoggled into believing things that go contrary to common sense.

It's not such a big deal once you realize that this is true to reorder
the knowledge that you have acquired. All of the wonderful problems
solved do have there place and your deep lifelong mental exercise that
was misdirected can still be salvaged and redirected to show positive
results. It's all up to you.

Even the simple model of the conservation of energy is strapped on the
backs of every student complete with bridle and bit to confine them to
world that does not exist. This model is beaten into the captives.

The list of poor reasoning along with employment of tactics is very long,
practiced by "Good ole Uncle Sam Run training camps" known as schools
of higher learning.

[Ernst]

Een beetje jammer Ernst.

Pedante kwast

Hi Ben,
From northern Belgique, aren't you, or the south of Holland?
My post has disappointed you? Allow me to explain myself.
UFO has made clear that this thread is about proving Ken's theory and that anything that goes against it does not belong here. My understanding of the subject goes violently against Ken's work and therefore anything I say does the same.
I could bring my objections in a different manner pretending to help UFO while knowing that my 'help' will eventually disprove Ken's work. But that does not feel good for me as it is obviously dishonest. I have been having a problem with contributing to this thread because I can see UFO's enthusiasm. And I ask myself why would I write things that will reduce his happiness? But then I see Ken's work and that of Distinti and I ask myself does this help humanity in any way? People are talking about shills trying to dumb us down, but who needs shills, we are doing it ourselves! And we are doing a better job than any shill could ever do!
Distinti displays a huge misunderstanding of basic physics. I wonder if he really has a masters degree, as he says he has. If so, then what does that say for the university that has given him this degree?
The ideas that are presented here are not helping anyone. Internet appears to provide some sort of consolidation to all of those who do not understand high school physics. People make up their own theories of blatant nonsense and if you do not immediately agree with these most absurd notions, you're not open minded. I have said this before: "There is a difference between an open mind and an idiotic one".
I would say that if you want to improve our understanding of nature then
- first show that you understand the currently accepted theory,
- then show where it is wrong, and
- then show how to correct it.
Ken, Distinti, Aaron and UFO they have all failed at the first step and consequently they have also failed at the second step.
I can no longer honestly participate in this thread, Ben. I understand your disappointment and I am happy to see you (and a few others) appreciate my contributions. But there is a way out.
You could open your own thread where you allow different minded people to contribute. There you can ask me to disprove what is presented here. Do you have magnetic viewing film, and a magnet?
Anyway, Ben, don't sign your post with 'Pedante kwast'.
You are not Ken!


Ernst.

[BroMikey]

This whole thread is unfortunate. It is all based on pseudo-profound bull****. Bull**** in, means even more bull**** out.

Arguing over something which founded on pseudo-profound bull**** is futile and a waist of time, especially arguing with those who lack discernment of deceptive vagueness.

The result is evident, one pedantic calling the other pedantic... go figure.

I think it's a little more than that DICK, but you have to be open to
the experiment. At least give us your take on UFO and Ken's experimental
data instead of the other tactics you mentioned.

Let's all try to stick to the science. We all understand the conventional
side that teaches us that "IT CAN'T BE DONE" so to go beyond will take
more effort. I know the schools exhaust the students to the point that
many are unable to except anything else.

This is the way it has been plotted out against the dumbed down not
that you and I are. You need to remember that the US GOV has been
flying around in crafts that break all of the current models while "THEY"
tell us it can't be done.

This might help us to open the door just a tiny.

How many years in electrical engineering do you have? Or are you
another profession? It seems in order to refute the experiments (if
you disagree) by case and point.

If you are accustom to these ideas with their calculations why not
prove them wrong with the data? Upon what laws are you basing all
of your bias on?

I think another fear people have is that they might be seen on these
forums and their peers will criticize them so they will never open the door
to anything new regardless. This could cost them in dollars and cents.

In most cases the average engineer of any kind will always "ONLY"
run his set calculations from within the confines of his school training
and never questioned the system. He is glad to be riding the wave of big
money from 80-150 thousand dollars per year while others who worked
harder than he did make 20 thousand.

Now we are dealing with the fine clothes, expensive homes and cars
syndrome, that he is something far more special due to his training.
Don't buy into that fallacy if you can help it. I know it sounds easy to
say.

This thread deals with "ENLIGHTENMENT" so many highminded attitudes
will come into play but these block us from learning new things.

Here is a 30 year man. Where does his math fail you?
[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuUTABLz1Vk[/VIDEO]



Today's scientists have substituted mathematics
for experiments, and they wander off through
equation after equation, and eventually build a
structure which has no relation to reality.

[Ben2503]

East-West vs North-South

[IMG][/IMG]
WHILE THE CLASSIC THEORY ONLY HAVE "THE DUSTY" IRON FILINGS METHOD...WHICH THE WIND WILL BLOW AWAY VERY SOON.

DUST IN THE WIND...


Ufopolitcs

Hi UFO
I agree with you on this, I am not sure about the rest of Ken theory (yet)
I am sorry to be such a slow student but let me explain you why I 'converted':
This morning I was watching your latest video and this picture again.



I was quite puzzled and then I realized the following:
The compass points towards the North, which makes sense otherwise it would be quite useless for navigation.
If you look at how it is constructed, it's basically a small magnet, diamond shaped (rhombic?), with a pivot point in the middle.
In order to point in a S-N direction in a static mode, the sum of resulting FORCES in the East-West direction at both ends need to be equal and in the same direction in order to provide a torque on the needle that is equal = 0!!!
These means IMHO that indeed the lines of force are radiating in a East-west direction, and most likely radially from the edges.
This proves in my view that Distinti's theory about the edge currents is most probably true. Which means that the currents at both the North- and the South-poles are in the same direction and that their fields, somewhere in the middle, add up to 0, causing the 'Blochwall'

Now I am really looking forward to your next video.
Best regards,
Ben


P.S Speaking of wind: the wind and the sea cause nice patterns in the sand, which show great similarity to the iron filings patterns. I sure hope Ernst doesn't get lost following these obvious lines of force.