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

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi Theo,
I have been reading your paper, and there is one question I have for you, I don't believe it is answered in your paper if I missed it I am sorry.

I was just wondering what aether modality accounts for the diaelectric plane. If everything is composed of the aether working in different modalities. then the diaelectric plane must be developed by some aether modality. I think you are saying there is a static or bipolar charge across the diaelectric plane that gives rise to the magnetic field, if I'm wrong then I don't understand what you are saying and I apologize and back to reading.

All atoms (mention this in the last sections of the book) have, as their volume (like the volume of a balloon) magneto-dielectricity.

As mentioned in detail in the book, electrification creates a field incommensurability (many diagrams of this in the book).

Eric P Dollard speaks much about differentiating field modalities.

Have you bought his book "Lone Pine Writings" ?

differentiating electrostatics from electricity (dynamic polarization).


bipolar and the term dielectric can never be uttered 'next to each other'.

Like saying "hot ice"


Dielectricity and magnetism (both Ether modalities) are the co-principles of the cosmos.

Dielectricity and magnetism (of themselves before anything) are created from this equation:

1/Phi^-3

However I could (and hope to some day) write a very very long book about that equation I discovered about 10 years ago. Explaining it is the most impossible task I can imagine, even though I know how to write about it endlessly. The task is both wonderful and the thought of doing it is insanely infuriating.


Electricity and gravity (resultant from mass, which is created in galactic and stellar formations) are merely the byproducts of dielectricity and magnetism.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi TheoriaApophasis

Just curious?

Machinealive

I made these pics with some of my big ole' shell collection


IS this a better visualization of the magneto-dielectric nature of a magnet as a "mental image" ???

[Pembelton]

All atoms (mention this in the last sections of the book) have, as their volume (like the volume of a balloon) magneto-dielectricity.

As mentioned in detail in the book, electrification creates a field incommensurability (many diagrams of this in the book).

Eric P Dollard speaks much about differentiating field modalities.

Have you bought his book "Lone Pine Writings" ?

differentiating electrostatics from electricity (dynamic polarization).


bipolar and the term dielectric can never be uttered 'next to each other'.

Like saying "hot ice"


Dielectricity and magnetism (both Ether modalities) are the co-principles of the cosmos.

Dielectricity and magnetism (of themselves before anything) are created from this equation:

1/Phi^-3

However I could (and hope to some day) write a very very long book about that equation I discovered about 10 years ago. Explaining it is the most impossible task I can imagine, even though I know how to write about it endlessly. The task is both wonderful and the thought of doing it is insanely infuriating.


Electricity and gravity (resultant from mass, which is created in galactic and stellar formations) are merely the byproducts of dielectricity and magnetism.

Hi Theo,
I guess I am more confused then ever, I am having trouble understanding the meaning of your words i.e. dielectric. Dictionary definition is "a non-conductor of electricity" and dielectricity which you use, I cannot find at all, what is dielectricity? The word incommensurability means "incapable of being measured" "lacking a common quality upon which to make a comparison" so when you say incommensurable field do you mean a field that is unmeasurable or nothing to compare it to?

I guess I may need to buy Eric Dollards book to understand what you are talking about?

Most of this makes sense to me though if one of the aether modalities is to form a toroidal vortex, your pictures look to me like two vortex's 3 dimensionally 1 on top of the other spinning opposite directions to each other. Held together by aether forces coming into both ends (large opening) more force and coming out the center or dielectric plane (small opening) less force. Maybe I'm way off base sorry back to the reading.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi Theo,
I guess I am more confused then ever, I am having trouble understanding the meaning of your words i.e. dielectric. Dictionary definition is "a non-conductor of electricity"

Ahhhh!!!!!!!

The perfect question deserves the perfect answer


read this little bit:

Eric Dollard on “The Fallacy of Conductors” | Journal of Borderland Research

and dielectricity which you use, I cannot find at all, what is dielectricity?

You should get this book:

Vol 1 and 2
Lone Pine Writings by Eric Dollard

All the greats were messing with dielectricity, Tesla, Steinmetz, Heaviside, Faraday etc etc etc.

Oleg Jefimenko - Electrostatic Motors, FULL BOOK, 75p

Electrostatic Motors: Their History, Types and Principles of Operation: Oleg Jefimenko, Thomas Valone, David K. Walker: 9781935023470: Amazon.com: Books

The word incommensurability means "incapable of being measured" "lacking a common quality upon which to make a comparison"

Yes, and NO, thats only ONE (rather wrong) modern definition of it. HOW I am using it is in reference to its ORIGINAL meaning, which is NOT that.

Pythagorean incommensurability (the "KHORA") or Aoristos Dyad

Read a bit about it here:

The Founders of Western Thought – The Presocratics: A diachronic parallelism ... - Constantine J. Vamvacas - Google Books

Maybe I'm way off base sorry back to the reading.

No, youre not, its just abstruse mathematical principles of the likes which Plato, Pythagoras, and other taught, is nothing any of us conventional critters are ever taught or learn about, or (as is the case) care about.



Heres a proof that took me 4 years to complete on COMBINING the 2 most important forms of incommensurability.

but anyone looking at it is going to roll their eyes and whistle "Mmm OK whatever..."

Without context, nobody is going to make any sense of it.




Point-inspecific self-similarity at ANY 'point' in a 'perfect' "magnet" is field incommensurability.


somewhat definitionally close to:
in·com·men·su·ra·ble
Mathematics . one of two or more incommensurable quantities.

incommensurable
a. (of two numbers) having an irrational ratio


A bit on same:

[machinealive]

Hi TheoriaApophasis

Thanks for reply.

Just so you know, I've supported dollard, I've bought his ebooks, but I sure wish he sold hard copies.

In terms of grandma's house, I would have thought it was a centripedal force at the equitorial/dielectric plane, which pulls granny in, then becomining a centrifugal force with then lifts lifts the old girl, but, forces her radial, at the base of the vortex, maybe not the top, she has mass. Likewise, approaching a tornado from above, like a whirlpool, would be a centripedal force, pulling you in, but weaker then the centrifugal pushing out, which just tossed granny, . But this force now becomes centrifugal at apex , weaker then centripedal, but still, forcing you radially.
It all seems like geometry as well, which end of the vortex you approach, apex or base , determines whether it's centripedal or centrifugal force, you can only go into a hole, and if the hole is the base of a vortex, you are forced toward the Center centripedally..

Sorry, but the shells, in your last picture, make it look like its an equitorial spiral, or another vortex, but it's a plane, but I understand,

Thanks again,
Machinealive

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi TheoriaApophasis
I've supported dollard, I've bought his ebooks, but I sure wish he sold hard copies.

I love books a LOT, have tons, but paper books are "Dead" (kinda)

In terms of grandma's house, I would have thought it was a centripedal force at the equitorial/dielectric plane, which pulls granny in, then becomining a centrifugal force with then lifts lifts the old girl

I was speaking ONLY of the centripetal vortex itself, not of the resultant force of which "sucks grandma in" lol.

But your analogy is correct, what is "taken in" is reintegrated so long as the dielectric inertia is in place (and everyone knows how to RUIN a magnet, shock, and heat , etc. )

It all seems like geometry as well, which end of the vortex you approach, apex or base , determines whether it's centripedal or centrifugal force, you can only go into a hole, and if the hole is the base of a vortex, you are forced toward the Center centripedally..
Sorry, but the shells, in your last picture, make it look like its an equitorial spiral, or another vortex, but it's a plane, but I understand,

Ultimately there is neither centripetal or centrifugal UP TO THE POINT its understood that polarization seeks its own termination, but is reciprocated ENDLESSLY so long as the dielectric keeps on "driving" same.

CW and CCW (clockwise and counterclockwise) dont exist, spin ANY OBJECT, it looks to be moving CW on one "end" and CCW on the other "end"

Yes, there IS a centripetal and centrifugal vortex on each "side" of the magnet, but the field reciprocation is one incommensurable (there's that stinking word again) mental puzzle to us crazy humans only due to the reification of something acting AS [creating a] space (=polarized), rather than polarization = spatial; as meaning that space OF the magnetic field is a posterior entity (and perceived as same by us crazy humans),...... rather than (as nearly all people wrongly think of it) there is something "that is polarized in space" ...which is wholly incorrect.

You cannot take the shells analogy TOO FAR


The really only important diagram to grasp is:

[Bob Smith]

TA
So we have basically a paradox:
The binding of spatial-polarized with counterspatial-radial forces.

And, if I understand correctly, this paradoxical binding of seemingly opposing forces is the condition without which (sine qua non) all matter cannot exist.

What I am seeing, though, is not so much opposition, but rather a kind of harmonized interaction of forces with its own mysterious beauty and truth that beckons the knower to forge his/her way out of the restlessness of unknowing in order to more fully apprehend the great symphony (to borrow from Plotinus) that characterizes all that is.

Not sure if I got it quite right, but very much intrigued and engaged. Thanks for sharing your insights.

Bob

Edit: Mind taking off in the midst of chores around the house... What I see with this envisioning of magnetism is the basis for a shift in understanding the nature of everything (epistemic shift) - one that for me is integrative and interrelational in many areas. Now, I believe I am beginning to understand more fully EPD's deep appreciation for music, especially the baroque music of Bach (I think it was), and his captivating description of his experience at the organ recital during the alignment of the planets some years ago. Crossing that epistemic threshold (threshold into a new way of knowing) enabled him to apprehend beauty, truth and order more fully and completely around him. Perhaps this was Tesla's great gift (and burden) as well.
OK back to chores. Crack the whip... Yes dear...

[TheoriaApophasis]

TA
So we have basically a paradox:
The binding of spatial-polarized with counterspatial-radial forces.

Paradox is really too much of a strong word, I have only found it to be hyper-rational and uber-logical.

"paradox" , connotatively is (bit of humor) where a dog and a cat would "naturally want to mate".

And, if I understand correctly, this paradoxical binding of seemingly opposing forces is the condition without which (sine qua non) all matter cannot exist.

As per the "magnet" (having so been electrified in its creation) has merely and GREATLY SO (especially in the Neo-iron-boron lattice) amplified what naturally goes on in the inter-atomic under much 'tighter' equilibrium.

What I am seeing, though, is not so much opposition, but rather a kind of harmonized interaction of forces with its own mysterious beauty and truth that beckons the knower to forge his/her way out of the restlessness of unknowing in order to more fully apprehend the great symphony (to borrow from Plotinus) that characterizes all that is.

Since perspectively it is both perfect harmony and opposition. We are both agreeing on 2 attributes of ONE magneto-dielectric principle. Yes.

My premise on magnetism and the nature of magneto-dielectricity at the inter-atomic, and inverse-sphere mutual field conjugation also hyper-logically explains the well know atomic orbital geometries which Quantum in its quackery illogically explains with nonsense and pixie dust.

This SAME geometry is 100% no different than multiplicative formations of field views looking DOWN thru standard AC street lines.

Not sure if I got it quite right, but very much intrigued and engaged. Thanks for sharing your insights.

Seems that you do

Edit: Mind taking off in the midst of chores around the house... What I see with this envisioning of magnetism is the basis for a shift in understanding the nature of everything (epistemic shift) - one that for me is integrative and interrelational in many areas.

Did you just say that, or did I??? Wonderful, lovely, divine, sublime!

Now, I believe I am beginning to understand more fully EPD's deep appreciation for music, especially the baroque music of Bach (I think it was), and his captivating description of his experience at the organ recital during the alignment of the planets some years ago. Crossing that epistemic threshold (threshold into a new way of knowing) enabled him to apprehend beauty, truth and order more fully and completely around him. Perhaps this was Tesla's

Ive been telling others in the other thread, you HAVE to read "Tesla's Bible" (the picture of him where is hand is laying on a book), Roger Bosckovich "Theory of Natural Philosophy"




There is a wholly lost "thinking art" called retroduction which the Platonists used, and nearly 100% of all the insanely brilliant stuff that came after 500 C.E. was inspired by reading Plotinus, Proclus, Plato, Damascius, Syrianus, the PERIPHYSEON, Jacob Boehme (much later).


Tesla said something like (paraphrasing here) ........"Poor Edison!!! All those years trying to perfect a light bulb, if he (only used my method of logic) he could have done it all in no time!!!"
Tesla , his guru Boskovich and others used a wholly lost art of retroductive thinking / approach.


useful but inferior:
Deduction:
I heard so and so say she dropped the needle over there, and bob said the needle was 4" long, so we know what to look for, wind speed indicates since it was dropped from 5 feet up, it should have fallen on THAT side of the haystack.

Induction:
Well, theres a needle in a haystack, it was last seen over there on that side, needles are heavy, so Im going to go looking over there for it

Superior in every way: (Tesla's method)
RETRODUCTION / ABDUCTION:
I know the properties of a needle, I know the properties of Hay...... watch this!
lights a match......POOOF......!! All is gone in a second in a giant flame

Theres the &@**$& needle!!!! Hay burns, metal needles dont.

Problem solved
..........(deduction and induction are still looking in the hay)


Deduction and induction are looking in a murky tub for a gold coin (wisdom, insight, invention, solution).
Retroduction says "scr3w all this nonsense" and pulls the plug and taa-daa, there's the coin.



Peace, lux et veritas

[Bob Smith]

Thank you very much TA for your thoughtful, detailed reply. I've downloaded Boscovitch's work you cited, and did some reading up on him. I didn't realize he was a preeminent scientist, philosopher and theologian of his time. I'll endeavor to wade in to his work.

Quick question:
As I understand it, the dielectric plane prevents the magnetic lines of force from moving from one end of a magnet to the other, thereby forcing them to the center of the magnet. What if we were to momentarily increase the polarity of the magnet at each end with some kind of pulse... Would this push against the dielectric plane be reciprocated by a counter-push from the dielectric plane? And the kicker... can this counter-push be harvested to do strange and wonderful things?

Okay, gotta get back to work. Wife's got me on a tight schedule stripping and staining furniture. That's what holidays are for, right?
Bob

[TheoriaApophasis]

As I understand it, the dielectric plane prevents the magnetic lines of force from moving from one end of a magnet to the other, thereby forcing them to the center of the magnet.

No, not the case, as I mention above.

Centrifugal magnetism NOT RETURNING to the other side of the centripetal is due to INTERMEDIATE pressure centrifugal (from the intermediate zone of EVERY SIDE of any magnet) pressures which do not have sufficient velocity to get beyond the edge of the centripetal inertial plane of reintegration and do not make full reciprocation.


These intermediate centrifugal pressures (as easily proven using a magnetometer) emanate from the zone between the EDGE (max velocity centrifugal) and the center (returning centripetal) of each face of the 'magnet'.

Depending on gauss, physical magnetic geometry, and a few other variables, only a small portion of centrifugal magnetism DOES NOT (your word, "prevent") make it to the other side and reintegrates centripetally.

This view is wrongly seen by some to "prove a magnet has 4 poles", but this is merely a misunderstanding of pressure gradient variations and field icommensurability where all movement is mediated by lowest seeking pressure reciprocation and reintegration.

I speak about this in the book.

As for intermediate pressure magnetic reciprocation, .....think of a sick jumper (low pressure centrifugal magnetism) who, upon leaping, smacks into the fence wall (inertial plane) face-first instead of making it (around and over) to the other side.

What if we were to momentarily increase the polarity of the magnet at each end with some kind of pulse... Would this push against the dielectric plane be reciprocated by a counter-push from the dielectric plane?

You cannot increase the polarity of the magnetism ALONE

The "magnet" is being 'driven' by the dielectric inertial plane, the entire 'engine' of the (so-called) magnet is powered by the massive disequilibrium between the magneto-dielectricity.

Pushing "like poles" together (without a LOT of details) does distort the dielectric plane.

Its also easy to do with electric shock from even a 9V battery, because you can see the results afterwards with a magnetic velocity viewing film, after which the inertial plane looks like its been warped like a bicycle wheel thats been in a wreck

And the kicker... can this counter-push be harvested to do strange and wonderful things?

To answer that, I suggest you read the end of this thread

However it requires a few more devices and "things" (no comment) to do this.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...y-devices.html

[Bob Smith]

Very engaging sir! Thanks for all the time you've taken to answer my queries.
Take care,
Bob

[TheoriaApophasis]

Very engaging sir! Thanks for all the time you've taken to answer my queries.
Take care,
Bob

I hope these new pics "clear things up" some for you .

[back]

Hello MR Wheeler

Long time lurker here. I want to thank you for all the work that you have posted. Very deep for me. My current main intrest is the interaction between magnetic flux and electro magnet flux. I have read that they do interact such that electro magnetic can bend the permenant magnet. Could you point me in the direction to study this more?

Thanks in advance
Again thanks for your hard work
Bless
Back

[TheoriaApophasis]

Long time lurker here. I want to thank you for all the work that you have posted. Very deep for me. My current main intrest is the interaction between magnetic flux and electro magnet flux. I have read that they do interact such that electro magnetic can bend the permanent magnet. Could you point me in the direction to study this more?

Dr. Oleg D. Jefimenko, some of his books, MAINLY get both of ERIC P DOLLARDS works at ERICPDOLLARD.COM

The book about all this is free, you can get it here:
https://archive.org/details/magnetism1small


You have to understand that all 4 fundamental forces, electricity, gravitational, magnetism, and dielectricity are just 4 Ether/Aether modalities.


All magnets are "Driven" by dielectricity from electrification, (thats all in the book link above)

For a LONG TIME its been called it the "pinch effect of a magnetic field"






Now guess what is "doing the pinching", thats right, dielectricity.



Someone asked me on another board if the "dielectric inertial plane was pinching the magnetism????"

I said Yes, pretty much like that. When a magnet is created and electrified .......The person asked for an analogy.........So here is what I came up with-

ROFL !!!!

snake is the inertial plane, the mouse the magnetism ROFL





As you can see below, you can derive any of them from the Aether "plane"







Polarity = Spatial = CW/CCW ...........these are the mental fahrt of human (MIS)understanding


Ultimately there is NO "polarity" in a "magnet" only field reciprocation and MOVEMENT along lowest pressure gradients, of which FIELDS in their instantaneous attributional creation, generates the ATTRIBUTE OF SPACE , that being polarization.

Chains of causation:
1. Field(s)
2. space
3. polarization

However, logically one can say that 2 and 3 are co-eternal


Space is an attribute of a FIELD, there are no "fields in space", only SPACE as an attribute, and posterior (in creation) from FIELDS.

This is why Einstein was a mental midget , he REIFIED the attribute of FIELDS , that being SPACE as "something" that "does things" and "acts on things"

Tesla talked about this EXACTLY AND SPECIFICALLY, and why he verbally slapped the hell out of Einstein in his writings.

Tesla described relativity as "a beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a king." The theory, "he said, "wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved." – N. Tesla


"Too bad, Sir Isaac, they dimmed your renown and turned your great science upside down. Now a long haired crank, Einstein by name, puts on your high teaching all the blame. (he) Says: matter and force are transmutable and wrong the laws you thought immutable. I am much too ignorant, my son, for grasping (crazy) schemes so finely spun.” - N. Tesla (Fragments of Olympian
Gossip. by Nikola Tesla regarding Einstein)

Tesla said of theory of relativity: "a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense." - N. Tesla


The day humans "see" this fact, PROGRESS will be made.

Dr. Oleg D. Jefimenko's works and formulas prove this fact, HOWEVER (horribly!!) he doesnt ever realize it








(the part below in RED is my replacement to correct his one ERROR) From Dr. Oleg Jefimenko:

Maxwell’s equations by themselves do not provide an answer to whether or not the ‘Faraday induction’ or ‘Maxwell induction’ are real physical phenomena. In Maxwell’s equations electric and magnetic fields are linked together in an intricate manner, and neither field is explicitly represented in terms of its sources. It is true, of course, that whenever there exists a time-variable electric field, there also exists a time-variable magnetic field. This follows from our equations (7) and (8) as well as from Maxwell’s equations (3) and (4). But, as already mentioned, according to the causality principle, Maxwell’s equations do not reveal a causal link between electric and magnetic fields. On the other hand, equations (7) and (8) show that in time-variable systems electric and magnetic fields are always created simultaneously, because these fields have a common causative source: the changing DIELECTRIC current (the last term of equation (7) and the last term in the integral of equation (8)).

It is important to note that neither Faraday (who discovered the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction) nor Maxwell (who gave it a mathematical formulation) explained this phenomenon as the generation of an electric field by a magnetic field (or vice versa). After discovering the electromagnetic induction, Faraday wrote in a letter of November 29, 1831, addressed to his friend Richard Phillips [4]:

‘When an electric current is passed through one of two parallel wires it causes at first a current in the same direction through the other, but this induced current does not last a moment notwithstanding the inducing current (from the Voltaic battery) is continued. . . , but when the current is stopped then a return current occurs in the wire under induction of about the same
intensity and momentary duration but in the opposite direction to that first found. Electricity in currents therefore exerts an inductive action like ordinary electricity (electrostatics, ODJ) but subject to peculiar laws: the effects are a current in the same direction when the induction is established, a reverse current when the induction ceases and a peculiar state in the interim. . . .’
Quite clearly, Faraday speaks of an inducing current , and not at all of an inducing magnetic field . (In the same letter Faraday referred to the induction by magnets as a ‘very powerful proof’ of the existence of Amperian currents responsible for magnetization.)

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hello MR Wheeler
Back

I inspired this guy over on another forum with the "magnetic vortex" idea.......


I posted this book over on another forum, and a neat Australian tinkerer and electrically minded chap posted 2 very nice videos just today......


He electrifies a magnet in a tank, and zaps his magnet and then tinkers some more, and proves you cant get a vortex from the same condition (which I knew) from mere steel slug.


Then he makes a second video using an electromagnet in a TANK, and gets (of course), no vortex.


Lovely to see his great videos !!

magnetic vortex with genuine permanent magnet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV8D...2rm-4w&index=2

NO results of a Magnetic vortex when using same conditions with an electromagnet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIli...5GsZGLcj2rm-4w



He wonders why he gets no vortex with the electromagnet, but TONS of (he calls them a tornado) vortex using a permanent magnet!


I told him:

NO conjugate field reciprocation with EM vs. PM because:

A: electromagnet is "driving" the magnetism via electricity, >>>>NOT dielectricity<<<<, as is the case in a PM, of which the dielectricity is 'driving' the vortex from the inter-atomic made coherent into the incommensurable geometry of the PM

B: Electromagnet is spatially divergent IN/AS a coil, and does NOT (almost the exact opposite) have the properties of dielectricity as found in a PM which is "driving" a genuine PM !!



He seems to be a great chap and experimenter !