Extrapolation of dialectricity and the now discovered magnetic polar vortex in perman

[TheoriaApophasis]

(from the below I dont want anyone to presume I discovered magnetic kinetic repulsion much less just found out about it. I have a massive collection of magnets and have experimented with them all my life).





copyright 3/29/2014 webmater kathodos.com

In the case of two magnets compressed together by physical force upon like on like polarities (N on N, or S on S), or more accurately as is the case clockwise on clockwise, or CCW on CCW, since polarity is an abstraction; it is noticed that if one magnet is released quickly, both magnets at utter objective rest, that the released magnet is propelled away at significant speed and distance. If even very close and not touching, and both at rest, this is still the case.

Is this diaelectric vortex compression? Modern cult of quantum has no definition for a field, since it is purely conceptual, much less the notion of a moving field in a stationary magnet. However is the repulsion, a magnetic repulsion or diaelectric vortex repulsion (DVR). As has been amply demonstrated, there is a yet unknown vortex force found emanating from either pole of an electrified magnet in CW and respective CCW.

(see video on that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe-tRsRjxz0

[vidbid]

Awesome!



I watched the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe-tRsRjxz0

It actually does look like a tornado coming off of that magnet.

That is so cool.

Regards,

VIDBID

[TheoriaApophasis]

To accelerate a mass at rest with no energy input must implicitly imply one of several answers


diaelectric polar vortex compression when like on like are facing


magnetic field compression which has no quantity, only quality and is purely conceptual and a non-local attribution of choate magnetic mass.



In either case, or one left unmentioned, movement-at-rest must be extrapolated as being present.

Ergo a genuine perpetual motion device. But not in the absolute sense since this diaelectric or magnetic vortex is only present so long as the mass remains self-choate (magnetic).


also see the other video that uses a NON magnetic iron slug in the middle of the video which shows NO polar vortex, proving that the magnet itself is solely responsible for the polar vortex.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAl1LVPbYhY

[Natusake]

To accelerate a mass at rest with no energy input must implicitly imply one of several answers

Clearly there is input energy, you need to turn on the machine and provide power for the magnet to create said vortex. A very important clause you made was 23 seconds in when you said "I'm gonna turn the power on". There is a reason that there was no vortex before you had the power on. The magnet was at rest, there was no change in the electromagnetic field, there was nothing to do work, and hence, no energy.

What do these tornadoes consist of? The tank has water and baking soda in it, you said. Have you confirmed whether the tornadoes are made of baking soda solutting out of the solvent, or is it simply bubbles in the water? This is important since if it is bubbles, then something like a vibration may be causing the bubbles to form...

What kind of current is in the wire? Is it alternating, or direct?

[TheoriaApophasis]

Clearly there is input energy, you need to turn on the machine and provide power for the magnet to create said vortex. A very important clause you made was 23 seconds in when you said "I'm gonna turn the power on".

No no no, I wasnt referring to the VIDEO when I made that statement, rather to two magnets with like on like poles at rest.


NOT referring to the video at all in that statement.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Have you confirmed whether the tornadoes are made of baking soda solutting out of the solvent, or is it simply bubbles in the water? This is important since if it is bubbles, then something like a vibration may be causing the bubbles to form...

As for the video, it works WITHOUT baking soda, that just makes the vortex more visible , needs more contrast.

Current is 6V DC from a lantern battery.


if you look at the SECOND video, an iron slug is used, and no vortex is present.

[TheoriaApophasis]

I watched the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe-tRsRjxz0

It actually does look like a tornado coming off of that magnet.

That is so cool.

Regards,

VIDBID

Someone needs to ask Dollard what is emitted from either pole of a magnet in that demonstration video.


Dielectric vortex?

its certainly not magnetic

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hell ,I think Ive finally figured out the vortex phenomena in the video above from applying charge to a magnet.


its the exact same thing as seen in Galactic vortex jets.

middle of the magnet you have the BLOCH WALL, and applying charge you get a polar vortex jet, which is a secondary magnetic field being shot out in a vortex from the poles of the magnet.

So, when charge is applied to the magnet, you get TWO fields, the magnets natural one, and the secondary field vortex !








Ever since the first observations of these powerful jets, which are among the brightest objects seen in the universe, astronomers have wondered what causes the particles to accelerate to such great speeds. A leading hypothesis suggested the black hole's gigantic mass distorts space and time around it, twisting magnetic field lines into a coil that propels material outward.

Now researchers have observed a jet during a period of extreme outburst and found evidence that streams of particles wind a corkscrew path away from the black hole, as the leading hypothesis predicts.

[orgonaut314]

It does remind me of the homopolair motor that Faraday invented.

There is a magnet and perhaps there is a current in the video's? The charge in the current is rotating because of the magnetic field.

Below you see a batterie and a little magnet. Don't know if this is the same phenomenon?

[TheoriaApophasis]

It does remind me of the homopolair motor that Faraday invented.

There is a magnet and perhaps there is a current in the video's? The charge in the current is rotating because of the magnetic field.

Below you see a batterie and a little magnet. Don't know if this is the same phenomenon?

humanity loves to make things more complex (not meaning you).


Easy way to understand things is AC is current modulation / polarization

and DC is polarized at the source with an unmodulated current



Be nice if people explained stuff like this today:

To recharge the battery, the one dividing equator has to be extended in opposite directions until there are again three before motion is possible. Motion is then not only possible but imperative. - Walter Russell




Just as it is impossible to polarize the positive end of a bar magnet without simultaneously polarizing the negative--or to depolarize one end separately--or to create a battery of one cell without simultaneously creating its opposite cell--or to create one hemisphere of a planet without simultaneously creating the other--or to lift one end of a lever without simultaneously lowering the other--or to deep freeze without generating heat--so it is impossible for man or Nature to produce singly-charged negative, positive or neutral particles.
- Walter Russell



Also 100% in Line with Eric Dollard who almost foams at the mouth at the notion of "electrons" which dont exist we have the same here:......


There are no negatively "charged" particles in this universe. Negative electricity discharges while positive electricity charges. The negative depolarizing force functions in the opposite manner and direction to the positive polarizing force.- Walter Russell



The "discharge particle" is unicorns and dragons, pure GR and QM fantasy, even JJ Thomson denied the electron was a discharge 'particle'. Its just twaddle.

Russell DID get quite a few things WRONG, but he also got a LOT of things RIGHT.

[orgonaut314]

Hi TheoriaApophasis

I don't believe in the importance of electrons either and the quotes you give make me think for hours thanks!

But this rotating electric vortex might be exactly as you say. The electric fieldline terminate on a current. The current being the boundary of the surface of the field that is moving. This moving field seems to go in a vortex when a permanent magnet is present. I just think that Faraday did describe the effect and Faraday only talked about fieldlines.

Have to say it is just my first thought, I might be convinced otherwise

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi TheoriaApophasis

I don't believe in the importance of electrons either and the quotes you give make me think for hours thanks!

But this rotating electric vortex might be exactly as you say. The electric fieldline terminate on a current. The current being the boundary of the surface of the field that is moving. This moving field seems to go in a vortex when a permanent magnet is present. I just think that Faraday did describe the effect and Faraday only talked about fieldlines.

Have to say it is just my first thought, I might be convinced otherwise

well, you can download this 94+ page book in two days,.......

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17560-uncovering-missing-secrets-magnetism-92-pages-free-new-book.html

see contents in post<

[upgradd]

The Faraday homopolar motor can be described by the actions of a moving charge through a magnetostatic field: a helical path results.

Putting it all together, the rotation of the screw/magnet is due to torque impressed upon the moving charges in the wire by the magnet's static field, so it's not really a "nobody knows how this works" kind of situation.

Basic science, though in Faraday's time the fundamental principles had yet to be discovered, along with many of his other discoveries like the change in polarization of light due to a magnetic field.

[TheoriaApophasis]

The Faraday homopolar motor can be described by the actions of a moving charge through a magnetostatic field: a helical path results.

Putting it all together, the rotation of the screw/magnet is due to torque impressed upon the moving charges in the wire by the magnet's static field, so it's not really a "nobody knows how this works" kind of situation.

Basic science, though in Faraday's time the fundamental principles had yet to be discovered, along with many of his other discoveries like the change in polarization of light due to a magnetic field.

Quote:so it's not really a "nobody knows how this works" kind of situation.

Sorry, but its EXACTLY LIKE THAT.


There are no such things as "moving charges (particles)", only pressure gradients of fields as directed in so-called 'conductors' etc.

Movement itself, as meant "of/in space" is an attribution to fields themselves, there are NO fields IN SPACE, only space as extrapolated as 'moving' within a field or fields.


Science is full of circular nonsense ... Force is a false perception of field tensions, which is just an expression of induction, which is just a modality of speaking about field pressure gradients, which is then used to reify "charges-discharges"

The Cult of Quantum is full of more obfuscations and nonsense than the Flat Earth society.


~~~~~~You did however correctly use and place the word "torque"

There is NO SUCH ENTITY as a "static field" especially a circular reciprocating MAGNETIC field. ......which is also precessing in a permanent "magnet"

You couldn't be more wrong on this point.


You assume FAR too much that science understands "basic science" . But it most certainly does NOT.

You also, in grand fashion, ASSUME 'fundamental principles' are understood.


Describing X in detail and its attributes and actions has nothing at all to do with UNDERSTANDING X at all.

[upgradd]

The moving charge has absolutely nothing to do with QED in this respect... It was JJ Thompson who discovered and theorized the existence of one type of charge (the electron) which is a "corpuscle of electricity", i.e. the basic unit of electrical substance. For you to go against JJ Thompson's work is pretty strange since it creates part of the foundation for which Eric Dollard's half-baked "theory" is based upon. Also, note that "charge" has nothing to do with Einstein or QED in general: ITS A CLASSICAL IDEA. Everyone from Steinmetz to Heaviside used the concept, EVEN Tesla! (note, the modern variation to this classical idea,in the 1920-30s, was called the "ionic theory," which is an advancement of JJ Thompson's theory)

Further, charges do exists and can be demonstrated rather easily with polarization of dielectrics or ionized particles moving through a uniform magnetic field... Your concept of electricity actually goes against Eric Dollard's theories, which requires there to be charge for electric and magnetic fields to exist. Motion of "charge" is magnetism, stationary accumulation of charges is electrostatics, the combination of the two creates what we perceive as "electricity."

Field lines require the movement or accumulation of a substance that produces them, i.e. charge.

The movement or accumulation of this substance requires matter.

Energy is not the same as electricity: charge moves in insulators and conductors, but energy moves outside the wire, or more precisely between bounding conductors of the circuital loop. The "energy" is derived as the product of the fields produced by the charges in the circuital loop.

"Charge" doesn't necessarily imply "electron," just the idea of a quantity of electricity. Generally, charge is considered as being "carried" by certain atomic particles or molecules. Hydrogen for example, when ionized, is a positive charge and can act as a carrier for solid electrolytes, used in capacitors and batteries. I'm sure you are just fine with how your phone works, and your computer, which are all based on the fundamental idea of charge and its interactions with matter.