Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism. 92 pages. Free new book

[tachyon]

y know how orbo works?

[TheoriaApophasis]

duplicate, this forum had a brain meltdown apparently!!!

[Dog-One]

Wow, 99+% accurate. stunning stuff

NOW, you'd have to know why its doing that.

WHAT does the disk magnet have that the steel disk/ring (ring or disk, doesn't matter either way) doesn't have??

Pretty generous with the 99%. The most important part I left out was that the disc magnet also has a dielectric inertial plane and it must align it's rotation (like a gear) with that of the block magnet's dielectric inertial plane. There is simply no other place it can go to find equilibrium within this dynamic system.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Pretty generous with the 99%. The most important part I left out was that the disc magnet also has a dielectric inertial plane and it must align it's rotation (like a gear) with that of the block magnet's dielectric inertial plane. There is simply no other place it can go to find equilibrium within this dynamic system.

Actually I meant 95% (seriously).


Thats 90% closer than anyone else gets

Yes, I knew you implied that about the disk magnet, that is a given, of course.

[Dog-One]

Thats 90% closer than anyone else gets

Yes Ken, I'm trying to lock this into my brain to a point I can actually visualize a design in my head, then go build it.

Speaking of gears, is it possible to describe the centripetal and centrifugal vortex fields as solid objects in a way people can really grasp the concept? I'm thinking about drawing some 3D objects and printing them on a 3D printer to help people more easily visualize what's really going on. If they could hold a representation looking something like a conical shaped object with threads, I'll bet the whole concept of attraction/repulsion could be sent to the trash bin of history. I'm just not certain these fields can in any way be shown as objects.

A while back I read W.B. Smith's incomplete "The New Science" and what stuck with me is that our current science is far more convoluted than it need be. When I stumbled into your work a while back, that confirmed it for me. Something else Smith mentioned that you haven't touched on yet is time. According to Smith, time is completely localized and relative. We should instead use something absolute and global like angle or interval of a complete revolution. I have a real strong feeling the many formulas we use that have "dt" in the denominator of an integral are incorrect or at the very least inaccurate. When you integrate over time, you are summing up infinitesimally small increments of time. Suppose those increments/intervals are not all exactly the same. If that be the case, your result has to be in error. As you say, mother nature doesn't do math, but if we are going to use math, we better do it exactly right. That or we'll be out in left field for another 100 years.

Some more to think about.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Yes Ken, I'm trying to lock this into my brain to a point I can actually visualize a design in my head, then go build it.

Speaking of gears, is it possible to describe the centripetal and centrifugal vortex fields as solid objects in a way people can really grasp the concept? I'm thinking about drawing some 3D objects and printing them on a 3D printer to help people more easily visualize what's really going on. If they could hold a representation looking something like a conical shaped object with threads, I'll bet the whole concept of attraction/repulsion could be sent to the trash bin of history. I'm just not certain these fields can in any way be shown as objects.

I have the formula here:
see link, and video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHDsnO3y7CA

Additionally, the linear diverge required from the center before making the circle has a radius always of Phi^-3. The centrifugal field which is drawn is the MEAN DIVERGENT FIELD of centrifugal magnetism, obviously and logically so the field extends both further and shorter than this, but this formula calculates the mean field of the predominance of centrifugal divergence.

A while back I read W.B. Smith's incomplete "The New Science" and what stuck with me is that our current science is far more convoluted than it need be. When I stumbled into your work a while back, that confirmed it for me.

If you cannot express it by Euclidean math and geometry, then it isn't real.
Sorry, but Quantum Qwackery can go shove it.

If that be the case, your result has to be in error. As you say, mother nature doesn't do math, but if we are going to use math, we better do it exactly right. That or we'll be out in left field for another 100 years.
Some more to think about.

I love math, have TONS of math books, but I stick with Euclidean and Pythagorean math, ……only their methods accurately explain nature and GET RESULTS.


Time and space are the flies buzzing around the poo of spatial divergent radiative fields.

Just as Tesla railed against that mental midget Einstein for same, there are no "fields in space", only space as a posterior attribute to and of fields.

[Dog-One]

Hypothetical question...

If we had a fairly long cylinder magnet that was flexible, in the center we would find the dielectric inertial plane would have centered itself within the fields, just as the case with any solid cylinder magnet.

Now suppose we bend this flexible magnet and connect the two ends together. We no longer have any ends for the fields to exit.

Based on pressure gradients, where would the dielectric inertial plane migrate to, would move at all, or would it be free to move anywhere within the now closed magnet? Or...

Would it no longer be a magnet--the dielectric inertial plane spins down and stops?

This all seems like the answer should be obvious, but I just can't see it yet in my head. I see all sorts of things that seem possible, but nothing that stands out.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hypothetical question...

If we had a fairly long cylinder magnet that was flexible,

No, you cannot "stretch" the polarization against the incommensurate geometry, you would only find that all the polarization is occurring (almost all) at the center of the LONG magnet.

Now suppose we bend this flexible magnet and connect the two ends together. We no longer have any ends for the fields to exit.

You can do the SAME THING with a string of BALL magnets after which in making them into a ring, A LOT of the magnetism is gone

Based on pressure gradients, where would the dielectric inertial plane migrate to, would move at all, or would it be free to move anywhere within the now closed magnet? Or…

It always moves to the center of in opposite to all polarized discharges.

the same way magnetic putty "eats" up a magnet and drives it to the center

You should buy some for $10 on EBAY


See the latest 2 video uploads going up now.

[sadang]

Hi Ken,

Not so, all imperfection are just overlapping symmetries causing resultant asymmetries.

This is an interesting ideea, I'll get it as deep as I can. But right now my belief formed over years of searching, is that there must be a unique pattern of ether dynamics that must be respected from the micro to macro scale. Now, the new aspect that your theory brings to the forefront, is the concept of dielectric inertial plan as the closest dynamics to the static ether membrane and also eliminating the concept of empty space, and replacing it with the notion of fields as dynamic manifestation of the ether. That is an interpretation closer to the intrinsic reality of observable phenomena, and opens the way for huge understanding of the intimate mechanisms of functioning of what we call matter.

However, why the magnet has one pole stronger than the other one? Not perhaps even because of this required asymmetry? Because manifestation of dielectric inertial plane can not exist without an asymetry of strenght ebtween CW and CCW ether dynamics? Both should collapse in the ether fulcrum point. Is this asymetry relatred to the magnet internal factors or to the external medium (medium as complex dynamic ether) factors?

Thanks,
SaDAng

[sadang]

Hi Dog,
...

[sadang]

Hi Dog,

I was also very interested in TPU sometime but now it shows no interest to me, only possibly as a hobby device. I found an article I believe it brings an explanation consistent with current electromagnetic theory. It is about the Pointing vector and its handling. I think this article deserves attention.

- the webpage of article
- the article in PDF format
- the magazine "Chemistry and Life Nr.5, 1995" in which the article was published

Now back to the Ken theory of magnetism.

Regarded the dielectric inertial plane and where it goes when a long bar magnet is bent in a circle, here is a video using 9 ball magnets. As you can see the dielectric inertial plane is still present on each magnet, but in the case of a single long rod magnet with a sigle dielectric inertial plane, and according to my understandings of Ken's theory, this will be disipated along the entire physical lenght of the magnet. Or with other words, there will no longer be a dielectric inertial plane, there will no longer be a polarization, there will no longer be a magnet!

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNzutanXYas

SaDAng

[TheoriaApophasis]

as the closest dynamics to the static ether membrane and also eliminating the concept of empty space, and replacing it with the notion of fields as dynamic manifestation of the ether.SaDAng

Very accurate.

However, why the magnet has one pole stronger than the other one? Not perhaps even because of this required asymmetry? Because manifestation of dielectric inertial plane can not exist without an asymetry of strenght ebtween CW and CCW ether dynamics? Both should collapse in the ether fulcrum point. Is this asymetry relatred to the magnet internal factors or to the external medium (medium as complex dynamic ether) factors?
SaDAng

Who said one pole was stronger than the other? Polarity is just a reification of the creation of space posterior to radiative fields.

That space is "something" that "does things" that "acts on things" is an attribute reification which Tesla railed against.


According to the math of Dr. O. Jefimenko and countless other examples, the notion of "fields expanding in space" is insane.


Space has no definition or existence outside of fields.


CW and CCW has no meaning, spin anything, you cat your dog, your wife, its all moving, and in the same direction, only a spatial perceptual flaw as CW from one end, and CCW from the end.



That "asymetry" of "why ANYTHING at all" was solved by myself 10 years ago as found buried in Platos works (509d Rep.)


That formula is 1/Phi^-3 and its resultants

Phi^-3
Phi cubed

and its likewise angles of precession, divergence and convergence.

which, of course, kept popping up time and time and time again in the incommensurate nature of field conjugation and spatial reciprocation AND IN gyromagnetic precession…


and and and and……. i didn't PUT it there, it kept popping up over and over again.

[sadang]

Hi Ken,

I understand the aspects of CW and CCW very well. It is just a mean of expressing the same helical dynamics ends seen from the same point of reference. I also understand well your concept of space inside fields, and also the gradient pressure of ether. And I agree space concept is a fallacy of the actual science, and it don't exists beyond our needs of defining static references (in an empty space) as points of further development and shaping the external reality (forgeting there is no external or internal, just human dualistic way of thinking).

Now, here is a simple home experiment using the Hall sensor from my phone. According to this, one pole is stronger than the other, or in another way of expressing and with your theory concepts one magnetic geometric shape is larger than the other diametrically opposed geometric shape. How do you interpret this result?

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ciqcga8rxc

Sorry if I bother you with maybe silly questions, but my goal of understanding goes far beyond the magnetism. Much more far!

Thanks,
SaDAng

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi Ken,
How do you interpret this result?
SaDAng

not a real gauss meter and a poor ceramic magnet

[sadang]

Hi Ken,

Yes, I accept your criticism (I made it in a hurry because I have to go out) and I'll repeat the experiment using spherical and discoidal neodymium magnet, but unfortunately using only the scalar method of measurement with the Hall sensor from my phone and an another external sensor. I did not have any professional gaussmeter in home right now, but taking into account that actual gaussmeters use the same Hall sensor as detector I am sure the results will be the same even using a dedicated gaussmeter. Anyway, excluding physical deformities of the magnet I don't see any reason the spatial geometric shape of a ceramic magnet to be different from that of a neodymium magnet. I'll keep you informed.

Thanks,
SaDAng