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

[bistander]

Potential energy

mgh (mass x gravity x height) is used to determine the potential energy in an object of a certain weight at a certain height. In the popular conventional model, the context that is used it to show how much potential energy is claimed to be stored in the object as it was lifted to that height.

Hi Aaron,

The mgh equation is just a shortcut for those not wanting to use the gravitational force equation and distance to calculate the work (or energy). The shortcut assumes a nominal radius of the planet and incorporates that and the planet's mass into a constant. So when using the shortcut, people often forget it is actually the attraction force between two objects with which they are dealing.

I agree. The small object does not store energy in itself because it was lifted. The force acting on the two objects was changed due to an increase in the distance between their centers. Work was done to increase that distance and so that energy was taken from the field. This actually decreases the energy stored in the gravitational field while the shortcut equation would indicate an increase in energy. The shortcut equation is just an approximation for small objects close to the surface of the earth.

At least the way I see things,

bi

[Ernst]

a little extra for Bistander, because you like the discussion.

Maxwell's equations focus on the charges just as I described before, they are missing the second forces that MUST be present in many situations.
It is known, though never said aloud, that Maxwell's equations violate Newton's 3rd law of motion (every force is accompanied by an equal and opposite force). My friend Koen van Vlaenderen has rewritten these equations so that this obvious mistake is corrected. These rewritten equations are very interesting as they allow for longitudinal waves but also a very strange kind of wave which he has called a Phi-wave. I imagine this wave to be an electrical wave in an insulator (such as the vacuum), which you can only think of when you see this second force that I described. This force (and wave) of course implies a medium (the ether)....
This Phi-wave can induce a voltage without charge movement....


Anyways.... back to counterspace....

Ernst.

[Ernst]

Hi Bi-,
It is a strange concept, I agree, but allow me to try to reduce the strangeness somewhat.
This idea I got from reading Tesla's "the Problem of Increasing Human Energy", where he gives us a very mechanical view on electricity, even to the point of applying Newton's laws of motion. Whatever an electrical current is, we know that it is a movement of some sort and a movement implies an object being moved and a propelling force.
Look at a capacitor there are two plates with charges on it one (more) positive and one (more) negative. These charges act on eachother, the positive attracting the negative and vice versa. So far I have not told you anything new, I am sure.
Now, if these attracting forces were the only forces acting on the charges, the charges would move towards eachother and neutralize, consequently there would be no voltage.
But we see that the charges are not moving while we know there is an attracting force working on them. Therefore we KNOW that there MUST be another force neutralizing the attracting force. And it is this force that creates the electric potential.
Compare it to gravity. A bowling ball is laying on the floor, it can not go any lower so there is no potential (energy). Now I put it on a table and the height of the table determines its gravitational potential. And the reason the ball now has this potential is because the table is providing a force to counter the Earth's attracting force. If the table would not provide this force, the ball would fall through the table to its 0-potential level.
So the table gives the ball its potential within the gravitational field of the Earth.
Likewise the negative charges are given a potential by the insulator in the field of the positive charges.
I must admit different approaches are thinkable, but the point I wish to make and maintain is that there are two forces at work when a potential is created and normally in the field of electricity we only look at one.
Now we must extend this example a bit to answer Dog-One's question.
The attracting force and the resisting force (of the insulator) 'pressurize' the charges. When the plates are closer together the forces increase and so does the pressure. A higher pressure means more charge fits into the same volume (the volume of the capacitor plates), hence the increased capacitance. Your confusion seems to come from thinking that the electricity is stored in the volume between the plates. That volume does play a role, but not in that way.

Then back to the video about RS2. I still have not seen more than the first 16 minutes but I let it sink in for a while and my conclusion (for now) is that what he describes is very similar (but not the same) to Steiner's theory. And that means that he only changes the way he describes space but space remains space. So his counterspace is nothing more or less than a different view on normal space.
There also seems to be some misunderstanding about Euclidean geometry and polar coordinates. If I have a 3 dimensional Euclidean space, then I can describe that space using any coordinate system that would give me access to all points in that space, polar or Cartesian, it does not make any difference. Euclidean space means that Euclid's set of axioms apply and if so, then also all derived laws apply. For example that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees.
If we look at the surface of a sphere we can easily draw a triangle with 3 angles of 90 degrees, meaning that the surface of a sphere viewed as a 2 dimensional space is not an Euclidean space. However looking at the same space in our 3 dimensional world we see that these triangles are made with curved lines and therefore are not triangles. In 3 dimensions we can view the surface of a sphere as an Euclidean space.
The space that we live in I can describe with polar coordinates but that does not change ANYTHING AT ALL about the space that I am describing. It only changes the math and in some cases polar coordinates work easier. So it is a choice...


Ernst.

[bistander]

Capacitor voltage

So the voltage is created by the insulator and not by the charges.

Hi Ernst,

This is a strange concept. Vacuum is an insulator. It can be used to separate the plates in a capacitor. So you're saying that a vacuum can create a voltage? That is hard for me to imagine.

The insulator between the plates will support an electric field. It is my understanding as charge is delivered to the plates from an external source that a potential difference (voltage) is established between the plates and this creates the electric field.

Anyway, I like your discussion here. Thanks.

bi

[bistander]

Capacitance

But this electrical device we call a capacitor only gets more capacity if we increase the plate area. If we increase the volume, it gets less capacity. Something just doesn't sit well with me about that. ...

Doesn't that seem odd to anyone else, just on a real primitive, common sense level?

Hi Dog-,

When you increase the plate area you do in fact increase the volume. You get less capacity when you increase the distance between the plates. It is a bit different, but lots of physical relationships decrease as the distance increases such as the attraction force between two charges. So it does not surprise me that the quantity (capacitance) decreases with increasing distance between the plates.

bi

[Dog-One]

Then, on your question, please re-read my explanation: Reducing the distance (insulation), decreases the voltage and because C = Q / V, it increases the capacitance. Exactly as you said in your first line. And if you stuff in more dielectric insulation, the voltage increases and so the capacitance decreases.

I hear you, but what about the voltage? How did it change again? Did I do that?

What I'm getting at is you have an inverse relationship in that formula, a reciprocal. In my head that triggers something needing a closer look. The behavior you describe just doesn't fit with a mechanical observation. If I take a can full of water, then stretch the can, I don't magically get more water in it. Instead, the can is now capable of holding more water--the active word being more. More capacity. With a can of water it doesn't matter which dimensions I increase, I always get more capacity. But this electrical device we call a capacitor only gets more capacity if we increase the plate area. If we increase the volume, it gets less capacity. Something just doesn't sit well with me about that. I didn't change the voltage at all. All I did was smash the plates together tighter and now the capacitor can hold more electrical energy. Doesn't that seem odd to anyone else, just on a real primitive, common sense level?

If nothing else, doesn't that blow the whole water/electricity analogy, uh hum, out of the water?

[erfinder]

Where's Verpies when I need him. He's the one that turned me on to RS2 Theory.

Verpies! Where are you ??? Help me out here!



I do understand UFO and Ken's difficulty in trying to explain this stuff. You have to see it in your mind or it's completely foreign and appears to be just noise. I guess that's why Ken keeps repeating it is simple but not simplex.


Let's just go with this for now: Counterspace is NOT three dimensional space. Don't even try to imagine it that way. Infinity within counterspace is the center someplace, a point. The edge of counterspace is unity, the transition between space and counterspace. Counterspace is a flat disk having no volume. What would seem to be a straight line in space is a spiral in counterspace and vice versa.

All I can say for the moment is to try and seriously watch the video, sleep on it and pray or do whatever works for you to make it soak in.

I really hate to tangle up UFO's thread any more than I have, because I'm pretty certain he has some practical stuff for us to explore coming right up.

All of the available theories regarding counter-space, are too complicated. Out of all of them, I appreciate Eric Dollard's the most because he at least leads one to assume that at the end of your studies, space and counter-space can be engineered. I like how he makes reference to such things as hyperbolic sines and hyperbolic co sines...I like this because its in resonance with the work of a group of German scientists/mathematicians/philosophers/engineers I came across who worked intensively on this particular subject. In this, their concept, the mechanism for spin and its maintenance is well established. Space, counter-space and the Aether are all tied together in a neat little package.

I'll make this my last post as I don't want to upset the flow anymore than you do.


Regards

[Dog-One]

I see lots of numbers, math, formulas...lots of theory.

I don't find in any of the theories, the mechanism responsible for generating spin, and its maintenance.

Where's Verpies when I need him. He's the one that turned me on to RS2 Theory.

Verpies! Where are you ??? Help me out here!



I do understand UFO and Ken's difficulty in trying to explain this stuff. You have to see it in your mind or it's completely foreign and appears to be just noise. I guess that's why Ken keeps repeating it is simple but not simplex.


Let's just go with this for now: Counterspace is NOT three dimensional space. Don't even try to imagine it that way. Infinity within counterspace is the center someplace, a point. The edge of counterspace is unity, the transition between space and counterspace. Counterspace is a flat disk having no volume. What would seem to be a straight line in space is a spiral in counterspace and vice versa.

All I can say for the moment is to try and seriously watch the video, sleep on it and pray or do whatever works for you to make it soak in.

I really hate to tangle up UFO's thread any more than I have, because I'm pretty certain he has some practical stuff for us to explore coming right up.

[Ernst]

Ernst,

Take a quick peek at this video, just this first one, but you can go further if you would like. I think it will help everyone understand the concept of counterspace a little better.

RS2 Lecture 01, Part 01 | Reciprocal System v2

And also Ernst, can you explain to me why when I reduce the distance between the plates of a capacitor, I acquire a larger capacitance. Based on what you say, I should get more capacitance when I stuff in more dielectric insulation, but I don't, I get less capacitance. I've read a lot of books hoping to figure out why capacitors work this way and all they will tell me is they just do. Zero logical explanation as to why. Clearly THEY don't know or won't tell me. Again, I ask why? What is the big freaking secret? Keys to the universe maybe...?

decreases the voltage and because C = Q / V, it increases the capacitance. Exactly as you said in your first line. And if you stuff in more dielectric insulation, the voltage increases and so the capacitance decreases.
Why are they not telling you this, because they want you to focus on what happens in the conductor and not what happens outside of it, because that would lead to the necessity of understanding the functions that ether performs. And for some reason people do not want an ether.

Aaron, do you really believe that everything you say is so crystal clear that it can not possibly be misinterpreted? If someone can not make sense of your endless rant of your mistakes in high school physics, then he is intentionally and wilfully confusing people. Just like your high school teachers?
You also seem convinced that only you really understand the concept of potential energy and all those scientists, including Tesla BTW, they are all totally wrong.
You compared a ball in water to the basic cause of gravity and not gravitational attraction?
Then how come that when this basic cause of gravity is abundantly present there is still no gravitational attraction?
Yeah, I know, I am the one trying to confuse people, not you. You are crystal clear and in no uncertain terms.
Energy is work done, right? Where is the 'work done' in 'polarized ether'? And how is it different from a spring pulled out of its equilibrium, or a swing?
I am so sorry I do not immediately recall the conversation about DePalma. If it is relevant to this thread please provide a link s we can all look it up and see how right you are and how clear.

Earlier in this thread I said that we all have mental issues, only some more severe than others. Nobody is perfect and nobody gets through life without suffering some damage.
You are the exception to this rule, Aaron. You are perfect in everything you do, say and think.
Now your only problem is that you have to cope with people like me who are imperfect.
You know what?
Let me quote Tesla here:
"Let the future tell the truth...."

I'm getting more and more convinced that I am not 'open minded' enough for this.


Ernst.

[erfinder]

Bruce is talking about the basic fundamentals of Reciprocal Theory 2.

The take-away I would like you guys to see is the explanation of counterspace. It is a one dimensional infinite universe expressed in polar coordinates.

Does dielectric inertial plane ring a bell?

In polar coordinates, counterspace is spin, particularly a spiraling inward rotating phenomena. And you wonder why a permanent magnet has spin? When you translate a straight line in polar coordinates into three-space Euclidean geometry, you are going to have spin and nothing but spin. So no surprise at all why a permanent magnet has a powerful dynamo at its core creating the helical vortexes Ken shows with his Ferro fluid.

I haven't heard Ken comment on this particular part of RS2 Theory, but it fits with his theory like a glove.

It is core to a permanent magnet as well as a capacitor.

If you can wrap your head around what Bruce is describing in the video, counterspace is not very complicated and it explains what is happening at a very low level under the hood.

Adjust your speakers however you need to and watch this video multiple times. Trust me, it will help your understanding a great deal.

I see lots of numbers, math, formulas...lots of theory.

I don't find in any of the theories, the mechanism responsible for generating spin, and its maintenance.


Regards

[Dog-One]

If you could get the gist of that program, please give us a brief over
view of the content, maybe then I can go back and make sense.

Maybe I didn't catch the intro where these guys tell you what their
focus is on?

Bruce is talking about the basic fundamentals of Reciprocal Theory 2.

The take-away I would like you guys to see is the explanation of counterspace. It is a one dimensional infinite universe expressed in polar coordinates.

Does dielectric inertial plane ring a bell?

In polar coordinates, counterspace is spin, particularly a spiraling inward rotating phenomena. And you wonder why a permanent magnet has spin? When you translate a straight line in polar coordinates into three-space Euclidean geometry, you are going to have spin and nothing but spin. So no surprise at all why a permanent magnet has a powerful dynamo at its core creating the helical vortexes Ken shows with his Ferro fluid.

I haven't heard Ken comment on this particular part of RS2 Theory, but it fits with his theory like a glove.

It is core to a permanent magnet as well as a capacitor.

If you can wrap your head around what Bruce is describing in the video, counterspace is not very complicated and it explains what is happening at a very low level under the hood.

Adjust your speakers however you need to and watch this video multiple times. Trust me, it will help your understanding a great deal.

[Aaron]

energy and potential energy

Aaron, you are trying to explain, I am trying to understand. When this does not work as expected, don't just blame the other guy.
This is a difficult subject already, so let us try to keep it as simple and straightforward as possible. Do not mix in theories of others (or yourself) and just stick with one theoryextra energy that was not present in the system at the start of the experiment.
I have long sought holes in Einstein's theory and I too believe I have found a few, but this one is a real gem!


Ernst.

It is clear that my original mention of counterspace is not the same use as Eric's and I already stated I should use another term to avoid confusion and you bring up what is learned about counterspace by posting definitions that I used to describe something that is clearly not counterspace, then you are the one that took what I said completely out of context - you're the only one responsible - not that I'm blaming anyone, but you used that word so in that respect, you're the only one to blame for taking what anyone says out of context.

You have already stated you believe x, y and z coordinates are dimensions. You actually offer no substance in your opposition to the ideas that spatial coordinates are not dimensions, nor do you offer substance in respect to other subjects here, you simply maintain they're wrong and conventional theory is correct and you believe the conventional theory. That isn't a conversation, you're just parroting what you already believe.

The understanding of potential energy and energy evades conventional theory and therefore, it evades you. You are the one with the misunderstanding and the one who cannot or will not grasp why it evades you. Your statement about my analogy with the ball in water takes the cake and is beyond ridiculous. My analogy is to simply show mass displaces the aether and the aether pushes back on the mass and to argue the density of water compared to gravity suggesting that the analogy is wrong because 2 balls in water don't attract each other shows that you are simply incapable of or unwilling to understand what a simply analogy is intended to accomplish. To "play stupid" about the point of my analogy by proposing a concept of gravitational attraction between two balls in water, which doesn't happen that suggest my analogy is wrong is nothing but a farce - you are here intentionally and willfully confusing people because I don't believe you are that naive to not understand my basic point - you're too detail oriented to pull that one.

I compared a ball in water to the basic cause of gravity and not gravitational attraction and you know that because you were part of the conversation in the thread where DePalma's spinning ball experiments were discussed and I made it clear in no uncertain terms and elsewhere countless times throughout this forum, etc. You've been there to argue against it so don't pretend you don't know my meaning.

You don't even know what potential energy is so how can you possibly argue against what I'm saying? mgh gives the same product as force x distance and it is that, which explains the energy used to lift the object, not mgh.

The point to the lifting dropping and showing MEASURABLY the energy in and energy out being more combined than what we put in demonstrates that gravity is indisputably a source of potential energy that can and will do work.

And in the delusional isolationist paradigm, one of the most important points behind the entire facade is to brainwash people into believing everything is ISOLATED from everything else and that is why the farce of energy being intrinsic to the object is pushed so hard. If people understood that there is a connectivity between objects and we are not in a Universe where everything is isolated, then there has to be something that connects one thing to another - the aether. As long as energy is intrinsic to the object, which is falsely and willfully propagandized by conventional theories, then potential energy cannot come from the aether.

For energy, Eric would say it is the rate at which electricity is destroyed. Bearden would say it is the disorganization of the organized "virtual photons" being disordered through resistances back into the vacuum. Eric doesn't like Bearden, but in many instances, they are saying the exact same thing with different vocabulary. Energy is work and that is exactly what Eric and Bearden and others are describing accurately and the potential energy that becomes work or energy since energy is exactly that, work, is polarized aether or vacuum potential that has its symmetry broken by a dipole - same thing as polarizing the aether with potential differences.

That potential energy is the source potential, which is the aether plain and simple. You unknowingly admit it by explaining the insulator in the capacitor - which simply allows the source potential to be polarized because obviously if the insulator wasn't there, it would come into equilibrium and there would be no voltage or potential difference at the caps. You aren't charging the capacitor when you apply electricity to it, you are simply creating a potential difference and that potential difference polarizes the aether to be available at the terminals to be able to move over a circuit when there is something conductive that allows the polarized aether to move from one terminal to another over a circuit. I do see a capacitor as a canister filled with opposite polarized aetheric gas (dielectricity), but the point is made about a capacitor as a dipole breaking the symmetry of the aether.

The POTENTIAL ENERGY in this case is the polarized aetheric charges sitting and waiting at the terminals of the capacitor and ENERGY is when there is a circuit to conduct this polarized aether over the circuit and if there are any resistances (the destruction of energy), then that part of the polarized aether is disordered or dissipated back into a state of equilibrium (energy destroyed) right back to the environment. In the case of a capacitor in simple terms, this is what the potential energy is and what the energy is. Hopefully, this potentially clears up your gross misunderstanding of the subject.

[BroMikey]

Ernst,

Take a quick peek at this video, mostly just the beginning, but you can go further if you would like. I think it will help everyone understand some of this a little better.

RS2 Lecture 01, Part 01 | Reciprocal System v2

Thanks Dog-one but I have a problem hearing those guys over the air
noise and the other guy in the back ground sounds like he is mumbling.
It is a nice gesture pointing out instructors on any subject. For that
Thanks again.

Sorry I guess I am hard of hearing, so I can't follow the content, plus
these guys are very poor instructors.

If you could get the gist of that program, please give us a brief over
view of the content, maybe then I can go back and make sense.

Maybe I didn't catch the intro where these guys tell you what their
focus is on?

I see the formula's and the guy standing in front of the caulk board
can be heard fairly well except when he asks the other guy sitting
down a question concerning their very involved mathematic theory.

It's a shame I can't understand the other guy at all so I am only getting
half of the reasoning.

I found their site thanks to you.

https://www.rocscience.com/help/phas...y_Overview.htm


Introduction | Reciprocal System v2



Reciprocal System v2 | The Reevaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory



It is not meant to replace Larson's work


Dewey B. Larson, Universe of Motion, 1984

[Dog-One]

RS2 Theory

Ernst,

Take a quick peek at this video, just this first one, but you can go further if you would like. I think it will help everyone understand the concept of counterspace a little better.

RS2 Lecture 01, Part 01 | Reciprocal System v2

And also Ernst, can you explain to me why when I reduce the distance between the plates of a capacitor, I acquire a larger capacitance. Based on what you say, I should get more capacitance when I stuff in more dielectric insulation, but I don't, I get less capacitance. I've read a lot of books hoping to figure out why capacitors work this way and all they will tell me is they just do. Zero logical explanation as to why. Clearly THEY don't know or won't tell me. Again, I ask why? What is the big freaking secret? Keys to the universe maybe...?

[Ernst]

Aaron, you are trying to explain, I am trying to understand. When this does not work as expected, don't just blame the other guy.
This is a difficult subject already, so let us try to keep it as simple and straightforward as possible. Do not mix in theories of others (or yourself) and just stick with one theoryextra energy that was not present in the system at the start of the experiment.
I have long sought holes in Einstein's theory and I too believe I have found a few, but this one is a real gem!


Ernst.