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

[ldrancer]

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZhETcDHDRY[/VIDEO]

MAGNETISM PARTICLE DYNAMICS

Enjoy and Regards


Ufopolitics

everywhich way you follow that line your model is broke, all over.
and you dont need movies either why dont you debunk me on the model the actual real life model he had that one time? huh? instead of these fake users and you still going on on a fake model.

[MRIGuy]

Clarifying Field Lines

Ken Wheeler, thank you sir for the time and dedication you put forth in search for a deeper and more correct understanding of magnetism!!! Ive watched all your vids and read most of the 4th edition and my head fell right off my shoulders lol.

Id like to continue the discussion with some observations, thoughts, and questions. UFO, maybe you can chime in, Ive ready many of your posts, you're brilliant!

Ive done some testing using the ferrocell for a deeper understanding of magnetism and Ive been stuck on a thought. Photo below shows a cube magnet under a ferrocell, notice either points of inverse spin.

Photo Apr 06, 11 00 26 PM.jpg

Now see pic below of iron dust over a bar magnet. Notice the field lines and the difference from the above pic, they are 90 degrees apart from each other. Looks to me more like a representation of the dielectric field in the iron dust.

Photo Apr 06, 11 01 18 PM.jpg

Now, see pic below of the electric field. Its understood the red lines below represent the magnetic field and the blue lines the dielectric field. The magnetic field is trying to pull apart the blue spheres (conductors) and the dielectric field is trying to pull them together.

Photo Apr 07, 1 59 52 AM.jpg

So here's where Im stuck. Ken, you say if you draw a line from left to right in the pic of the electric field that will be the dielectric inertial plane. However, I see the dielectric plane drawn from top to bottom separating the conductors (blue spheres) of inverse spin ie the poles. Whats going on here???

Respectfully,
Guy

[Ufopolitics]

My Two Cents...

Ken Wheeler, thank you sir for the time and dedication you put forth in search for a deeper and more correct understanding of magnetism!!! Ive watched all your vids and read most of the 4th edition and my head fell right off my shoulders lol.

Id like to continue the discussion with some observations, thoughts, and questions. UFO, maybe you can chime in, Ive ready many of your posts, you're brilliant!

Ive done some testing using the ferrocell for a deeper understanding of magnetism and Ive been stuck on a thought. Photo below shows a cube magnet under a ferrocell, notice either points of inverse spin.

[IMG][/IMG]

Hello Guy, and thanks for your kind words.

Now let's start by first image above, a cube magnet under a Ferrocell.
You've got it right as your interpretation, and below is the Dielectric Plane in green as the two polarization holes:

[IMG][/IMG]

One hint about looking at magnetic fields through ferrocell lens...

First, you have to realize you are looking at a 3D Spherical Volume of the magnetic fields, while the lens are completely flat...so, if the magnet is too close to the lens you will be seeing only fragments of the optical intersection between a 2D Plane (your ferrocell lens) and the spherical lines of the magnetic field vortexes-spirals...and a lot of distortion would occur at the closer lines to the lens.
Here it all has to do with the LED Ring lighting the fields and the positioning of a separate lens until you could see the spherical volume in Focus at the proper distance.

Now see pic below of iron dust over a bar magnet. Notice the field lines and the difference from the above pic, they are 90 degrees apart from each other. Looks to me more like a representation of the dielectric field in the iron dust.

[IMG][/IMG]

Negative about your bold/underlined statement above.

The "Iron Dust" does NOT represent, NOR show Dielectric Field at all.

First off, the Iron Filings/Dust only show "straight lines" (of force I suppose...) just because all this loose, ferromagnetic pieces/fragments are becoming N/S tiny Magnets...therefore, aligning/bridging along the High Pressure lines traveling back and forth from BOTH Magnetic Poles, and not showing any break down center line of the Counterspatial Dielectric Field. Remember that Dielectric Field is in Counterspace, not Space like the iron particles are...

So, this is how it is:

[IMG][/IMG]

Interesting how the cheap Magnetic Viewing Film DOES depict the Dielectric Field in any magnet:

[IMG][/IMG]

The Red Rectangle depicts the square magnet contour, and poles are above and below.

Now, see pic below of the electric field. Its understood the red lines below represent the magnetic field and the blue lines the dielectric field. The magnetic field is trying to pull apart the blue spheres (conductors) and the dielectric field is trying to pull them together.

[IMG][/IMG]

So here's where Im stuck. Ken, you say if you draw a line from left to right in the pic of the electric field that will be the dielectric inertial plane. However, I see the dielectric plane drawn from top to bottom separating the conductors (blue spheres) of inverse spin ie the poles. Whats going on here???

Respectfully,
Guy

Here Guy, you are mixing/confusing as one, the Electric Poles with the Magnetic Poles...based on your bold/underlined statement above. Completely different deal, actually apart by 90º...

Maybe this image below will clear the way you are looking at your AC image above:

[IMG][/IMG]

So, this way we have a Sectioned Ring conducting AC Current...and the X-Sections would be the Blue Dots, or the conductors cross section, points.
And ONLY the Magnetic Field red lines is shown above.

The same exact thing happens when we have any kind of Coil, a Solenoid ...will depict the electric field Plane running with the electricity flowing through the coil ring wires plane...while projecting the magnetic field 90º apart.

I could get into the difference between AC and DC Rings...but don't want to confuse you on that part now.

Hope this will help you to see it clear.


By the way, did you watch my latest Video above?


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Sputins]

Your lyign and making stuff up that isnt there.

draw it and i already PLAIN AS DAY SHOWED YOU GUYS but too STUPID.

it doesnt matter anyway its not me its you guys. making me absoilutely sick. get off this forum.

youve proven nothing your movies dumb.

your wasting time just like, black holes and warped space, dark matter wastes everyones time. when you have no arguements against me you bring up time wasting topics like that dumb movie up there, that dark oooh ghosts and apparitions energy video.

you guys are believing in religion and saying your seeing things. THis topic is ****ed up. i told you guys plain as day nose on your face, ken wheeler had a analog version of that in his hands in a video and it locks in on itself. you guys are trying to claim an infinite sign is free energy or how a magnet works.

@Idrancer

It is fine to disagree with what people post within this thread (or other threads) but you do so in a manner which is quite annoying and rather insulting.

If you disagree with a theory presented or suggested, okay fine but clearly explain why you disagree with it (technically) and more importantly then clearly explain what you actually believe the correct theory or model is. (Technically)… (Or provide the link as to where you’ve said or shown it previously).

You seem to be highly strung… It does no good whatsoever whinging, calling people slaves, stupid, time wasters, liars, or other unnecessary insults etc., etc… (Look at your post history)!

Your pessimistic rants become very tiresome and I’ve thought about putting you on an ignore list (not that I’ve felt inclined to put anyone on such a list before, except you). However just for the slight amusement factor I derive from your rant’s, I’ll leave it be for now…

Let see if you can provide some useful, clear and intelligent information to support what you’re trying to say, for or against a particular model or theory. Otherwise just stay out of it please.

[ldrancer]

how is it insulting to you to show you a physical object and tell you see your model doesnt function.

whatever i aint got time for this. heres 3 stills from a movie that makes no claims as you do, you pretty much claim to know how the sun works. heres someone who doesnt do that and uses workign models to explain it and leaves me asking no questions.

your drawing a 3d object and saying its real. 3d is pyhsical. you havent made a workign model of what you claim.

it has to do with drawing a infinity sign. you have to know how to draw them.

Lets argue over that one huh/ isnt it just letter 8 turned sideways? see your claim this theory, your pretty much claiming an infinity sign you draw, is real infinity. Actual infinity. its no more than a number 8 turned on its side. a 2d object. like your theory. working would be 3d.

here are the 3 pics from this movie about dark energy. actualy its called What really is dark matter? bill gaede

ok, pic 1

simple 2d and it is a galaxy and you cant argue that thats a real actual object. the lines drawn across it are from teh rope hypothesis. connecting every atom of everything to every atom of everything else, via ropes. this is an arguement against what they say in dark matter, that mass connects the seperate parts together. They claim dark energy and figments, keep the galaxy from spiraling in on itself.

they claim black holes spit out jets of energy out of the middle of them.
well, according to the video, thats the magnetic lines of force coming out of the center of the wheel, the middle of the galaxy,
pic 2

a 2d model isnt that? you understnad that this can be understood without any problems if you take and cut this down to 2d? you cant claim 3d objects on a theory like you guys do without proving it with a model. what you claim is impossible.

ok take the 2 pictures, and between the 2 pictures while i was watchign the movie and thinking about this, this scene came up, and kind of gives me an idea you know kinda about this.. pic 3


put them together. take the 2 object,s and add tehm to theirselves. i dont know.

and high strung?, what? ive asked wheeler question and question and never got one answer from him on anything. he spams to me his, book, or website. this forums msging isnt enough for him to talk to anyone? anybody smart can explain their theory, and would accept critissm. id hate to be wrong and continue doing what ever im doing.

my arguemtn comes down pretty much to the infinity symbol. its a 2d object, but its just a number 8 on its side. when did a 8 on its side become infinity. ok so, what does an 8 on its side, signify of infinity? thats what sign means, to signify, how does, then an 8 on its side, whe i heard of it i didnt really believe all this, signify .. infinity? what relates? nothing at all whatsoever they want you to look, at 2d wirting and symbols as a 3d object. i see it as the same thing your trying to do and explain and not explain on this theory.

bam boom thats all. mwaahahaha

[bistander]

Hi MRIGuy,

Can you please give us the source for this image? Thanks.

bi

[bistander]

lemniscate

&#8734 followed by a semicolon is the symbol called lemniscate, ∞. It is used to denote the term infinity in math and writing. Member ldrancer calls it a sideways 8. The concept of ∞ appears to give fits to him. Perhaps it is because he can visualize 8 representing eight when he has experienced in 3d (real life) eight objects, such as eight apples. Whereas he, nor anyone, has experienced infinity. So what then does ∞ mean?

People just have to use their imagination. Similar is the concept of magnetism, and gravity, and other phenomena which we can only study the effects and not directly see the cause or mechanism or field. So people develop theories about this stuff. Some theories are useful; some are not. Ufo and Ken have their way of looking at ∞ and I, and you can see it differently. We can then discuss it here in a civil manner.

Thanks,

bi

[ldrancer]

&#8734 So what then does ∞ mean?

People just have to use their imagination. Similar is the concept of magnetism, and gravity, and other phenomena which we can only study the effects and not directly see the cause or mechanism or field. So people develop theories about this stuff. Some theories are useful; some are not. Ufo and Ken have their way of looking at ∞ and I, and you can see it differently. We can then discuss it here in a civil manner.

Thanks,

bi

Religion is what you describe and why i dont participate and since you want to just believe what you are complaining abuot why not discuss black holes, 0 sized particles, dark matter, wait you already have been when i been commenting in this topic. to argue with me with. you guys cant come up with a normal, answer to me.

[Ufopolitics]

People just have to use their imagination. Similar is the concept of magnetism, and gravity, and other phenomena which we can only study the effects and not directly see the cause or mechanism or field. So people develop theories about this stuff. Some theories are useful; some are not. Ufo and Ken have their way of looking at ∞ and I, and you can see it differently. We can then discuss it here in a civil manner.

Thanks,

bi

For over 200 years "plus" the study of the Magnetic Field Model have been Constrained on throwing some cheap iron filings or ferromagnetic dust to the fields...Everyone knows iron is completely influenced by magnetic fields, iron "molds" its shape based on links that would also take place if we add some magnetic dust over a field, nothing more have been researched about it on the "Official Gazette of Classic Science"...isn't this called DOGMA?

Science Development is all about looking for different methods to observe a phenomena, and not by keeping the same old method for such a long time...new materials, new tools, new equipment has been developed over the years that allow us to see within the invisibility of a Magnetic Field.

Afterwards, the basic Classic Model have lead us all to design generator machines which must face the opposition of reverse flow currents, or Lenz Law...however, we kept using this obsolete model, no matter what...

Is this Scientific Development?

I definitively do not think so...but time will tell...


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

You guys?

Religion is what you describe and why i dont participate and since you want to just believe what you are complaining abuot why not discuss black holes, 0 sized particles, dark matter, wait you already have been when i been commenting in this topic. to argue with me with. you guys cant come up with a normal, answer to me.

If you've been following my discussions with Ufo you will notice that I disagree with his theories in most cases. I try to do so in a polite and intelligent way staying on-topic. I have read most of your posts on these magnetic threads and find them difficult to understand. At least the most recent posts are without the insults. Thank you. Is English your native language?

I suspect you'd be more likely to get an answer if you were to post an on-topic question clearly stated and short of "What is magnetism?" or "What is God?".

Thanks,

bi

[bistander]

Model

Afterwards, the basic Classic Model have lead us all to design generator machines which must face the opposition of reverse flow currents, or Lenz Law...however, we kept using this obsolete model, no matter what...

Hi Ufo,

Did you ever notice that to do useful work you have to overcome an opposing force? That's all Lenz describes. And the model is old, not obsolete. It is valid and works. Something I have yet to see your theories produce; a model usable to calculate forces, currents, voltage, etc.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Really?

Hi Ufo,

Did you ever notice that to do useful work you have to overcome an opposing force?

WOW, that was brilliant Bistander!...you know, never thought of that...

However, NOT when that opposing force is about the same strength of the applied one...otherwise no "useful" work would ever be achieved...right?

That's all Lenz describes.

Exactly, ...and as I wrote above, Lenz magnitude is THE SAME as the one we apply trying to generate an EMF, but negative...So, definitively if we only had that right magnetic model from the beginning, there would be many ways to "bypass" that opposed force. And don't interpret this the wrong way ...Lenz exists, but we can obtain an EMF while Lenz Vector of force manifests in a completely different path/angle than our applied force/movement, therefore it would not affect directly.

And the model is old, not obsolete. It is valid and works. Something I have yet to see your theories produce; a model usable to calculate forces, currents, voltage, etc.

Regards,

bi

Sorry, old...it would be obsolete soon...I was talking about the future...

I will bring in that(those) Model(s)...soon

Cheers


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Work

However, NOT when that opposing force is about the same strength of the applied one...otherwise no "useful" work would ever be achieved...right?

You got me with that one. Don't know what you mean. Maybe an example would help.

[aljhoa]

"Lenz magnitude is THE SAME as the one we apply trying to generate an EMF, but negative...
So, definitively if we only had that right magnetic model from the beginning,
there would be many ways to "bypass" that opposed force.
Lenz exists, but we can obtain an EMF while Lenz Vector of force manifests in a completely different path/angle than our applied force/movement,
therefore it would not affect directly." - UFO

[bistander]

Lenz

"Lenz magnitude is THE SAME as the one we apply trying to generate an EMF, but negative...
So, definitively if we only had that right magnetic model from the beginning,
there would be many ways to "bypass" that opposed force.
Lenz exists, but we can obtain an EMF while Lenz Vector of force manifests in a completely different path/angle than our applied force/movement,
therefore it would not affect directly." - UFO

Hi aljhoa,

I'm not sure why you quoted Ufo. Please elaborate.

As long as you have brought it up, I noticed that the first two words are somewhat of an oxymoron. Lenz's law is strictly qualitative and says nothing of quantity or magnitude.

bi