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

[BroMikey]

Better let the big boys think it through.

Your horns are sticking out for sure.

You better go back and read the book.

[ldrancer]

the worst part about you guys you take money to keep your disgusting ideas. thats the worse part and you wont answer your discrepancies your subject inconsitency you dont have a theory to start with you use that wheeler guy who is a con artist he has no geniune intelligence i can tell he's fat and cant talk and is quickly agitated.

He is only trying to prove that a vortex is real but instead of him doing it to take the responsibility hes HANDLING you guys.

ENJOY YOUR SLAVERY HOMOS

[ldrancer]

UFO
Very interesting discussion between you and bistander I for one hardly comment so please keep up the good work gentlemen. Just ignore the other fool.

I aint no fool you ****face

****ing disgusting ridiculous topic and you wont even answer your discrepancies.

[ldrancer]

the hat didn't work this will do the job. What a tard.







nobody is listening to your goofy comments

your english is real bad.

shutup godamn jew

nothing will get through to you you are so stupid.

[ldrancer]

yea dont respond to me just dont take your resposibility to answer your discrepancies. Go make your spam money since you cant answer questions. Im using only the largest ideas which contain no fear in them which you wont respond to cause YOU will be shown to be the fraud and you will stand alone. Yea ignore me you cant have a little thing like a thing that debunks you bother your mouths.

I was only talking to Ken Wheeler anyway

[ron48]

UFO
Very interesting discussion between you and bistander I for one hardly comment so please keep up the good work gentlemen. Just ignore the other fool.

[ldrancer]

Ken Wheeler.. has no theory. End of story. Stop pushing his cons.

there is no theory here, that is my point

Here let me make A Point. He has no theory. oh yea use science. how do you explain one object attracting the other with a .. concept? thats ridiculous. Tell me if you are going to prove ANYTHING how does one thing pull another thing to it? thats what magnets do? Use other objects to demostrate it or something we can visualize not the figments of your imagination. Something real that isnt debunkable by THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. ok? OK!?

more evidence this is all SSSHIIIT. ever seen 2 tornadoes? bounce into each other? like a little one and a small one? the little one when it goes into the other one does what? springs out like booiiingg. boiiing. Ok, it doesn't! turn into the big one does it now? so thats what a magnet does is attracts things, explain how a vortex then is goign to grab something else to it or push it away like a magnet does when you turn two same poles at each other.

[ldrancer]

stupid ass mother ****er. i told you to shutup. I dont give a damn what you say. Shutup you stinking jew Ill never care what you say.

These guys are arguing whats inbetween a magnet poles, for pages and pages. I think i see a black holes guys hyuk. I see some dark matter and theyre making these vortexes. Can i join the conversation now? you guys use black hole scientists propoganda pushing ot further your agenda in this thread. holy **** its a piece of ****. Name it vortexes since you only speak about concepts and some mix up **** in your brain. Not anything scientific. i m not going to argue to not let you have your topic, but ****ign prove one thing that a vortex is real in the entire universe. yea..hahah and quit talking blaaaahhhhh about thiungs you cant see. lets talk about ghosts. but change the topic to, GHOSTS. if you rename it ill stop posting anything like this in it. you're really stupid bromikey. You insulted me when i was arguing with you over a point. Like ken did. ken and barbie

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

???? My magnetic viewing film tests? Post #376. Where did my results differ from yours?

Bistander,

Your View Film test did not showed magnet's center lines approaching each others. As you also wrote:

Hi Ufo,

A short while ago I replicated this using magnetic viewing film and bar magnets. The magnets were identical...However I could not get these center lines to move off of magnet mid-point no matter how close together I brought the magnets, even touching. In other words, I was unable to replicate lines 3 & 4 in your diagrams.

That means you never get a solid center line between two magnets like I did below?

[IMG][/IMG]

Are you saying I faked this pictures?!...Maybe I photoshop them all?

Maybe Ken Wheeler's pictures in his book...are also Photoshopped?

[IMG][/IMG]

Just because you could not obtain the same results?

And the Compass test? I think my test was superior to yours. You didn't even show that the iron piece was magnetized. And if anyone repeats that test exactly as you did it, yes, they will get your results because the magnet is so very much stronger than the induced pole on the iron.

Hi Ufo,

[...]BTW, I conducted tests with magnet, iron bar and compass. I was able to get different results than you did. I need to sort out some photos and will post later.

Simple...it is always a: "Ufo, I was not able to obtain your same results..."

The size of the Iron does not matter at all...as a matter of fact, a smaller piece of iron would get influenced much stronger than a bigger one.

Your tests were based (MOSTLY) on demonstrating that your magnetized iron, BY ITSELF, without any field influence did not retain the "Monopole Status".

You and I know very well that will never take place...and so many here...However, You proceed to "demonstrate it" with your pictures.

Then asking why does retentivity matter?

I never showed Iron by itself without the Magnetic Field on Video...then why did you do it?

Your "point" was very simple...to demonstrate the Monopole did not exist in your iron retaining magnetism by it self, no field present...wow!...what a discovery!

But you have your way of doing things and your own way of viewing the world. I don't agree with a lot of what you post. When is goes against fact, I point that out usually using a reference or two. Several times I have conducted tests and posted about them. Many times I have done tests years ago and know the results.

Regards,

bi

Maybe I am not "poisoned" by the wrong theories, the wrong concepts...as I don't feel I have to be "Loyal" to something or someone.. Maybe because I am so sure ALL of this is fake, false...a Lie, a Scam.

Take care, and please, take it easy...the fall would be smoother and less painful if you do...


Believe Me.


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

FEMM question

That FEMM Diagram above shows absolutely no difference between Magnets and Laminated Iron Rotor, we can clearly see very straight and uninterrupted lines passing from one to the other. No color variation, no distorted lines between them.

What that means to you?

Hi Ufo,

I take it to depict the PM segments as a source of a uniform magnetic field. What is your take?

bi

[bistander]

Leaving it like that?

Anytime you make a Test or a Replication (as your own counterpart proof) it seems they do not "meet" same results as I have presented here. And always point to your favor.

A recent example was your testing with the Viewing Film and your two magnets...it did not show what I was claiming, however, in all my VERY Clear pictures I brought here, IT DID SHOW what I was demonstrating and claiming.

Then you left it like that...did not try another magnets...or other tests...so it died right there leaving the "Doubt"...as seating correct on your side that it "was not always rendering those results".

Recently, the Compass Test You did was, must of the time just the magnetized iron and compass...no field influence...a completely different replication from mine.

Again...You left it like that..

Hi Ufo,

???? My magnetic viewing film tests? Post #376. Where did my results differ from yours?

And the Compass test? I think my test was superior to yours. You didn't even show that the iron piece was magnetized. And if anyone repeats that test exactly as you did it, yes, they will get your results because the magnet is so very much stronger than the induced pole on the iron.

But you have your way of doing things and your own way of viewing the world. I don't agree with a lot of what you post. When is goes against fact, I point that out usually using a reference or two. Several times I have conducted tests and posted about them. Many times I have done tests years ago and know the results.

In both cases, mag viewing film and compass, I did many more tests than what I posted. Especially with the viewing film. I had some of that stuff many years ago, from a trade show give-away, like on an oversized business card. Lost track of it. So I bought a couple of pieces from K & J along with some magnets. The viewing film behaves exactly as the descriptions which I have posted. Where I have cut it, I get greenish oil. The particles seem to be nickel flakes which orient to the field and reflect light. I cut narrow strips and small squares which I was able to pass thru magnetic fields both perpendicular and parallel. Only parallel field lines in the film turn it light, like the references have been saying.

And where are all the other replicators out there doing these simple verification tests?

Regards,

bi

[ldrancer]

says teh guy who talks about **** they cant even see, has arguements between each other on it. yo promote arguing, not conversations. besides being non-scientific. your topic is totally destructive. its vortexes you guys are discussing im only asking you to change the topic. take out the enlighten part cause that horse poop. talk magnets vortex all day long, your destroying not enlighten anything.

Name one thing you've shed any light on to prove me wrong
\
.. thats right cause you guys are talking about things you cant even see or see anything there, and your using quantu mechanics as a way to attack me with in the topic when i make any reply. like the dark matter reply. hahah

.............. and by the way, stfu too bromikey

[ldrancer]

vortex's.

your arguing something you cant see anything in, the middle, proves something you've made up but, you see nothing. so quit smoke screening your worthless concept thread. we hear about it but dont care. please put something worthwhile.

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

We've been through this magnetic viewing film discussion before, see in this thread post #273 and a few pages prior to that. I still say your take is incorrect. Mr Ardizzone has given bad information which is contradictory to many other references which can be found on the subject. As this:

e-Magnets UK - Supplier of Neodymium Rare Earth Magnets

And Wikipedia.

The viewing film only shows the effects of flux which impinges on it. Not below it. Not next to it. So it may indicate the poles below it but not necessarily.

I can't think of a method to prove it to you. That's why I mention Gauss's Law and the accepted definition of magnetic poles.

Bistander,

Mr Ardizzone is wrong?...unbelievable!! that you get to such conclusion, just because his explanation does not "fit" yours!!

The burden of proof is always on the side of who is claiming whatever to demonstrate it as being correct.

If You claim that there are Two North Side Faces on that Iron Cube sandwiched between two Magnet Cubes South Poles...it is completely up to you to prove it.

Use your iron filings or use your FEMM software...they will not tell you absolutely nothing...but you could try.

The Fact is that Magnetic Viewing Film, denotes a VERY CLEAR LINE (which, by looking at different faces it clearly denotes a WHOLE PLANE) dividing EVERY SINGLE MAGNET OUT THERE.

[IMG][IMG][/IMG][/IMG]

And it happens that PLANE only divides Polarity on Magnetic Axis of Polarization, or perpendicular to Center Axis between Poles

[IMG][/IMG]

No matter how small or how irregular its shape would be.

[IMG][/IMG]

And even in the SPATIAL SEPARATION BETWEEN POLES IN AN EMPTY MOTOR STATOR??

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

So you are saying that ALL THOSE IMAGES ABOVE...are just "purely coincidence" according to "your search" ?

Come on Bistander, Give ME a Brake!!

Here again, by title of this thread, you need to prove something, not me. I think the rotor example is excellent.

I have presented here several videos plus explanations and Diagrams, and Photos and CAD's... proving there are a lot of differences between "Conventional Thoery" and Theoria Apophasis (Ken Wheeler's)...However, every time I have presented here ANY proof, any videos, any Tests...You always come up with a "Counterpart"...

But, the problem is that your Counterpart to all my tests is always looking out there for other opinions and other examples where they fit what you are denying and bringing them here.

Anytime you make a Test or a Replication (as your own counterpart proof) it seems they do not "meet" same results as I have presented here. And always point to your favor.

A recent example was your testing with the Viewing Film and your two magnets...it did not show what I was claiming, however, in all my VERY Clear pictures I brought here, IT DID SHOW what I was demonstrating and claiming.

Then you left it like that...did not try another magnets...or other tests...so it died right there leaving the "Doubt"...as seating correct on your side that it "was not always rendering those results".

Recently, the Compass Test You did was, must of the time just the magnetized iron and compass...no field influence...a completely different replication from mine.

Again...You left it like that..

Been there; done this. See my post # 356. You continue to talk like magnetic flux flows or moves. When we refer to stationary magnet(s) and iron as we are here, it is a static magnetic field. There is no flow. Nothing is moving. No vacuum. Just the static field. Like a static gravitational field between two masses.

I never said anything about gates. The magnetic field impinges a surface. Again study Gauss. Think of the magnetic line of force in the flux field as a street. That street passes across the border between two countries. If there is no traffic on that street, there is no flow, but the street still crosses the border.

The arrow heads on diagrams of magnetic fields and lines of force do not represent direction of flow or travel. They assign polarity. Just as N and S. Like I was telling Al, we could just as well use B and C. Two N poles react exactly as two S poles. That street example above: Put a one-way sign on that street. If it never has any traffic, the sign is meaningless. In fact, the border is meaningless. Kind of like magnetic poles. It is the field that is of importance, not labels we stick on concepts.



Here is how magnetic fields and lines are used. There is no need for direction arrows and North & South.

Regards,

bi

That is your opinion, I believe the same way many people out there...that Magnetic Fields ARE PURELY DYNAMIC.

That FEMM Diagram above shows absolutely no difference between Magnets and Laminated Iron Rotor, we can clearly see very straight and uninterrupted lines passing from one to the other. No color variation, no distorted lines between them.

What that means to you?

On a separate note, I will do bring here final and undeniable proof, however, I must finish first all the other pending tests which I believe are essential to finish the Vortex proof in a Magnetic Field.

Without that part, it would be very hard to understand what's going on in the final proof...I do not want that.

That is the way I have chosen this Thread would go.

The reason why I keep arguing with you is simple...you bring all the Classic Responses to all my previous tests and claims...so, we all have them here...as undeniable proof will shatter them in pieces in a near future.

I guarantee that!


Regards


Ufopolitics

[ldrancer]

Stick with the hat for improvement.

SHUT THE **** UP!
by the way you guys arent talking about magnets at all, your takling about vortex's. a concept, not science. change yoru subject or I will continue to come back to remind the entire forum what scam your trying to pull. This isnt scientific your discussing a vortex.

I guess since bromikey is a complete idiot and has been parroting your guys ideas, about anything, that my statement is correct and now your all wrong on everything you been saying? If thats the best you guys got to attack me, and cry wolf, then there isnt any discussion from your part and im right since nothing is there any evidence to prove me wrong.

right? i was gonna say that vortex and stupid tornado someone spammed at me idea, where is the other, you know that other spin below the tornado at? and wouldnt a vortex be, free energy? in your mind. since it self energizes itself. SO wouldnt the 2-liter tornado again im asking be a vortex then since you say quote tornado is vortex. right? whres the vortex? a tornado isnt an example of a vortex.

I can find that there is a spin on the top and on the bottom, but i have to turn it myself to make it start. this is dumb. there isnt a single vortex in the entire universe.