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

[ldrancer]

im the one asking the questions. ok?

[ldrancer]

what is the difference between the speed of 600mp/sec and doing something. and how it works. hold? so it holds at that type of speed, action? what?

what is what would you explain it? nevermind.

[TheoriaApophasis]

a bizarre quantum mechanics property called entanglement.
Al

There exists NO SUCH thing as "quantum (X)". Its a farce creation of modern pseudo-science.


"entanglement" is a BS term used to describe things that are not comprehended.

Quantum is as much a real science as Scientology is 'real'.


The Cult of Quantum is particle mysticism BS of the MOST VERY HIGH ORDER.

Its rooted in BS, ignorance, academic buffoonery, and pseudo-intellectual hubris.

[d3x0r]

There exists NO SUCH thing as "quantum (X)". Its a farce creation of modern pseudo-science.


"entanglement" is a BS term used to describe things that are not comprehended.

Quantum is as much a real science as Scientology is 'real'.


The Cult of Quantum is particle mysticism BS of the MOST VERY HIGH ORDER.

Its rooted in BS, ignorance, academic buffoonery, and pseudo-intellectual hubris.

Way to be dismissive
Entanglement is a descriptive term for something which does happen; if you want to call it yadda-yabba it's still going to be the same effect...

Quantum Mechanics does not deal with particles; but rather is entirely fields... and models 'particle-like' things and 'wave-like' things... but is not particles or waves itself.

So again; replace 'quantum' with 'theo magnetics' and you're still on the right path.

And quantum mechanics is more of a math framework than a science... so you're right; it's a very bad science.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Way to be dismissive
Entanglement is a descriptive term for something which does happen; if you want to call it yadda-yabba it's still going to be the same effect...

Quantum Mechanics does not deal with particles; but rather is entirely fields... and models 'particle-like' things and 'wave-like' things..

more wisdom required......


1. wave is not a THING, but what a "thing" DOES. a WAVE OF WHAT BY WHAT.

There are NO SUCH THINGS AS WAVES.


There (for example) is WATER only, .....and what water (might) does ...i.e. wave(s).





2. FIELDS? NO BRANCH OF ANY SCIENCE HAS EVER defined what a FIELD is.


NEVER , EVER., NEVER.




A field as purely an attribute (coordinate to X, or as induced by X) is meant as appearing in time but not in space (otherwise we
cannot mark it, even if same is not in time) relationally to the object or that which caused the induction of which the field is a dynamic
byproduct thereof; ultimately a field is always the subject (but in ignorance inversely seen as the attribute of another), though
appearing posterior to the object which induced it to appear. As stated, there is no Ether in space, only space within the Ether (when
polarized obviously), consubstantial reification choate of a field to and with space is a fallacy, when there is the appearance of one “in
space” is as meant there is “space at the appearance of a field”, and incorrectly projected in error as ‘between fields’ additionally. A
field, being nonspatial and atemporal (however its affects are both co-principles of any phenomena involving or the byproduct of a
field) cannot be ‘after’ anymore than it can be ‘before’ the object of consubstantial reference, which induced it to appear. Just like the
field beneath ones feet, the field is before and after, distinctions only being made marking a field when induction is or having had
occurred. However unlike the spatial field beneath ones feet which is dimensional, the Ether field is counterspatial and is not, as
against the idiocy of GR, conjugate TO, OF, or AS space-time’s conceptual displacement abstractions and fallacious Atomistic
reifications of space as a ‘thing’ in place of the Ether which mediates action at a distance, which is impossible.

A ‘field’ is the conceptual and mediated abstraction wrongly reified as an autonomous entity when in fact all fields are as relates to
and of the Ether and an object that induces its appearance of which that object is necessarily of course comprised of stable dielectric
Ether fields (matter), by logical necessity. A field is strictly a relational attribute and perturbation so noted when induced to appear by
an object, by the movement of an object, or abstractly in reference to electromagnetism which is merely a lexical nuance of referring
to the Ether itself. To reify a field in itself and in standalone cannot be scientifically enjoined; but for the sake of electromagnetism,
the field or Ether are all one and the very same thing in denotation, a pure massless induction, circular, radial, polarized, centripetal or
centrifugal, however the induction that led to the creation of electromagnetism (with its dielectric coaxial component) must be
introduced as is necessarily the case. It must always be asked “a field OF what (as induced) BY what”. The field, the medium (Tesla’s
“supreme medium”), or Ether occupies space as a gradient when induced, but cannot be space itself, nor can a field be comprised of
points or lines as commonly understood a “magnetic field”, since magnetism is a pressure gradient of the Ether which dismisses the
need for points or lines, since there are none involving same. In nature, there are no such entities as points or lines, only pressures; one
must draw a line to make a point, therefore it is not a point, but a termination of a line, and one cannot make a line, since one must
begin at a point (which is yet another line) to draw a line, therefore it is not a line but the (charging) expansion of a point. This
additionally and summarily dismisses atomistic point particles; all fields and natures pressures are waves and gradients, spatial and
counterspatial, radial or circular, there are no exceptions to this in the charging discharging universe of Ether modalities.

In speaking of or about a field the only conventional distinction made between what is everpresent and the localized field is in
speaking conceptually about a field-feature appearing in the featureless nonspatial and atemporal background whose locus is
simultaneously everywhere and nowhere. This nonlinear subject without a locus, as pertains the Ether, or its abstraction as ‘field’ is
the difficulty of linear minds to understand, grasp, express, and wrongly reify a field as a particle-mediated concept or, as GR has
ignorantly done, transfer mediation to unreal attributive abstractions such as space and time, or as spacetime. In doing so, the
connotative ramifications of the background fabric of the Ether has been circumvented and transferred to an irrational reification of
space and time which cannot mediate either charges, magnetism, gravity, or instantaneous action at a distance. Fields operate thru the
space within them via pressures, motions and time with no “concern” for same. Space operates on nothing, however it is reified in
fields, but only when fields are polarized, and therefore have dimensional vectors which are measured in time and space; but again
space does nothing, acts on nothing, mediates nothing, even the Greek Platonists and Pythagoreans knew this ages ago.




ONLY 2 FIELD modalities exist, convergent dielectric and divergent magnetic


the former is counterspatial, the later is spatial and HAS THE ATTRIBUTE of its properties of space and time.


space NOR time are fields, NOR exist as entities that are self-sufficient with properties. Space NOR Time either forces OR fields, as such they are posterior attributes of other Subjects (divergent magnetic fields and hybrid field modalities, such as transverse electromagnetism and mass aggregates).


the FALSE and BULLSH*T reificication by the cult of Quantum of both Space or Time, or Space and Time is a titanic fallacy.

Space NOR time are either fields or forces,. likewise they have of themselves NO POSSIBILITY to act on anything, they are posterior measure of and between divergent field modalities.

[d3x0r]

more wisdom required......


1. wave is not a THING, but what a "thing" DOES. a WAVE OF WHAT BY WHAT.

There are NO SUCH THINGS AS WAVES.


There (for example) is WATER only, .....and what water (might) does ...i.e. wave(s).

2. FIELDS? NO BRANCH OF ANY SCIENCE HAS EVER defined what a FIELD is.


NEVER , EVER., NEVER.

A field is a behavior of a volume... a 1 or more dimensional (a variable or defined constant parameter is a dimension) and a representation of all perumtations of variables...

ex: a volume of gas (a cloud in the sky) has a water density per volume, which is a 4 dimensional differential equation... but since it changes in time it's really a cover of 5 dimensions. And then you get to the class 'diff EQ' which is just more of the same.

ex2: A quaternion is a 4 dimensional quantity that describes orientation in a 3 dimensional space(hmm domain would be a more generic term for space) but says nothing about it's position or velocity which are yet more field equations. (this describes a field of rotation)

right... there are things 'like' particles and *like* waves though... there are things that behave in such a way that a wave model fits... much like inertia does to induction, and spring physics to capacitance.... that doesn't mean a capacitor IS-A spring, but they can share the same base classes.

[TheoriaApophasis]

A field is a behavior of a volume.

NOT SO, a Volume is a divergent quantification of only divergent field modalities, such as magnetic or transverse EM, or mass, which itself is magneto-dielectric conglomeration of dielectric accretions (neutrons and protons).


An acceleration counterspatial field HAS NO VOLUME BY DENOTATION and definition.


volume is only applicable to field divergences which are ALL force and motional (= loss of inertia).

ex2: A quaternion is a 4 dimensional quantity that describes orientation in a 3 dimensional space

Space has no properties (Tesla said this also, exactly), and cannot affect ANYTHING.


Space is a posterior attributional qualifier of field divergent measures.

right... there are things 'like' particles and *like* waves though... there are things that behave in such a way that a wave model fits... much like inertia does to induction, and spring physics to capacitance.... that doesn't mean a capacitor IS-A spring, but they can share the same base classes.

Inertia has no waves, only force and motion have or can contain waves.

Inertia and acceleration are counterspatial, Force and Motion are divergent and spatial.

[d3x0r]

more wisdom required......
....
Space NOR time are either fields or forces,. likewise they have of themselves NO POSSIBILITY to act on anything, they are posterior measure of and between divergent field modalities. [/B]

Right, they are the constraints on the variables....

Particle physics being a sub-set of rules and paradigms...

Particles, in practice have certain characteristic... they don't move faster than the speed of light. They can aquire excessive momentum for their velocity, which implies that there mass must be larger. But if they weren't actually larger, the amount of excessive particles generated from their collision would be the same. This word 'particle' should really imply in thought 'the fields that define a particle-like behavior' ... there are things that don't behave like other things... considered purely in a non-spacial non time relative way.

Didn't you learn what particles do in like elementary school or did you forget? not to say that all is particles or that particles are always particulate... but ....

you mentioned modality; which is a fancy way of saying 'this domain of parameters based on these constraints'.... which is hella more complicated than saying look; I have a bowling ball, and throw it at pins, and they bounce and react in a particular way. Does it really matter that it was based way lower on something else? The emergant behavior is still the same.

Yes electrons etc are emergant. That's how quantum mechanics defines it too.

[d3x0r]

NOT SO, a Volume is a divergent quantification of only divergent field modalities, such as magnetic or transverse EM.

An acceleration counterspatial field HAS NO VOLUME BY DENOTATION and definition.

Which I contiued on to examplify things that are fields which are non spacital... which you conveniently cut and dismissed

And I knew if I left the word 'space' that would become the resulting response and cut point

Space has no properties (Tesla said this also, exactly), and cannot affect ANYTHING.

Space is a posterior attributional qualifier of field divergent measures.

Right; space is a coordinate system; a constraint... it can be represented with systems that have more than definition for a single point... it doesn't have to be all right angles like a euler system.... and itself has no other property, but is a way to measure relatively to other things.

Inertia has no waves, only force and motion have or can contain waves.

Inertia across time can be represented with a wave-like equation when a pendulum swings. Nothing at a specific instant can be wave-like.

Inertia and acceleration are counterspatial, Force and Motion are divergent and spatial.

Inertia is a force as is acceleration. so why are they applied a different attribute?

[TheoriaApophasis]

Yes electrons etc are emergant. That's how quantum mechanics defines it too.
.

ELECTRONS DO NOT EXIST, there is no such BS as a "discharge particle" or "charge carrying particle".




Electricity is utterly a mass-free phenomena, as mentioned by many including Dr. Wilhelm Reich in his “Cosmic
Superimposition”. Mass has no logical or theoretical place in electrical units and all particle-based conceptions of it are impossible.
There is no mass in T.E.M. (transverse electromagnetism).
Mother nature has never taken a course in math, algebra and she absolutely rejects the nonsense espoused by quantum.
‘She’ knows only about charge-discharge, spatial-counterspatial and centripetal-centrifugal spin as binary conjugates to
charges and discharges. Gravity, electromagnetism and matter are all modalities of the Ether, of charges and spin. 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. There is no such condition in nature
as a negative charge, only discharges, nor are there negatively charged particles, further still not one iota of proof for same. Charge
and discharge are antinomies, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are mutual and co-eternal principle conditions.
The commonly held belief in nonsense such as the notion that electricity is a stream of rolling electron beads thru a conductor is one of
the most insane conceptual reifications of the definition of discharge as held by so-called intelligent minds.
There are no electrons, negative charges, special-dimensions, warped space (resoundingly denied by Tesla and others), and no
photons; only charge, induction and radiation/discharges and their relational spins, all as mediated thru the Ether. Quantum and
Relativity is a quack religion of mathematical physics based upon the absurd premise that the universe is a giant sea of interactive
massless tiny invisible beads and that space itself, nothing, mediates interactions and can be genuinely ‘warped’. Such conceptual
Atomistic reifications as amplified by GR (Relativity) cannot be enjoined, and the only genuine warping occurring is not out in the
cosmos of space, but in the empty spaces between the ears of those who reify such absurdities; warped minds rationally would invent
warped space; its purely logical in its insanity that the former produce the later.
Space has only one dimension, space, which is a metrical dimension. The use of cubic notation is habit-based, any number of coordinates
in any number of geometries can serve to define the boundaries of space. Nature is not governed by the irrational
pontifications of GR and QM, rather it is governed by mutually interactive reciprocal conjugates of charges-discharges,
centripetal-centrifugal movements, both spatial and counterspatial. Instantaneous action at a distance, and fields are all Ether
modality mediations as propagated by counterspace-in-disturbance, the Ether, its pressure gradients and perturbations. No
other mediator can be logically hypothesized, much less theorized. The very same Ether of Tesla, Heaviside, C.P. Steinmetz,
and even originally from Einstein before logic fled his mind completely, was correct and remains so. Tesla outright denied our
current definition of the electron as a ‘discharge particle’.

All electrons are a motional terminus of a quantity of dielectric pressure gradients of force (as reified by the incorrect
understanding of the definition of a ‘field’), these pressure gradients, or “lines” are contracting and stretching like rubber bands, giving
motion to the terminus ‘electron’. The thermionic ‘electron’ contracts, pulling the ‘electron’, the cathode ray stretching, pulled by the
‘electron’. In the former case the lines of force are dissipated, in the latter case the line of force are projected, in both cases these socalled
‘electrons’ assume radial motions, with non participating pressure gradients, or forces filling the ‘voids’, directing the
‘electrons’. Hence, it is the so-called ‘electrons’ (dielectric radial discharges) that travel in straight lines, that is, radially. ‘Electrons’
have nothing to do with the flow of electricity; the so-called ‘electrons’ are the rate at which electricity is destroyed.
‘Electrons’ are in fact the resistance. From extensive experimental work into atomic electrical science by J. J. Thompson, and
Nikola Tesla, it is established that the so-called electron is only a shadow; its apparent-only physical mass is merely an electrical
momentum (ejected by the dielectric inertia in disturbance). There is no rest mass to an electron nor could there be logically, a restelectron
‘bead’; such notions are absurd and evidence proven non-existent. The very premise is logically impossible and contradicts
the rational physics of atomic charges and discharges.
“In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to
give an account of their nature.” “For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the
influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto
remained obscure to us.” - Einstein on electrons; “Relativity”, by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916
There is no such condition in nature as a negatively charge particle nor could there be. Charge and discharges are opposite
conditions of a single subject, either protons or fields of movements and radiation of those same electrical fields. To claim that liquid
in a jar (charged) is one thing, and pouring that liquid from the jar (discharge) is another liquid altogether, is nonsense, likewise
compression and expansion are opposite conditions of a single subject. Compressing bodies are charging into higher potential
conditions. Conversely, expanding bodies are discharging into lower potential conditions.
“To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting particle. There is
no such condition in nature as a negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite
conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions.” – W. Russell
Thomson developed the “Ether Atom” ideas of M. Faraday into his “Electronic Corpuscle”, this indivisible unit. One corpuscle
terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not and electron, it is a constituent of
what today is known incorrectly as an “electron”. (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W.
Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether.” – E. Dollard
With the introduction of the so-called ‘electron’ by Thomson and the supposed debunking of the Ether theory, the golden age of
electrical discovery ended. Tesla's Wardenclyffe tower was demolished. His work and that of other Ether researchers fell into
disrepute. They were relentlessly attacked by mainstream science, something that continues to this day. As a result, the days of Etherdriven,
electrical discovery petered-out, finally ending around 1930. As a direct and intentional result of the academic physics theory,
the methodology behind the brilliant inventiveness of previous generations was all but wiped out and replaced by an unproductive
particle physics. This, from the cult of quantum, a fraudulent collusion and academic hubris-based pseudo-conspiracy based in “deep
thinking insanity” designed by mathematical physics.


The waveform of supposed “electron” flow is the same waveform produced when you slam on the brakes. It’s a harmonic sine
wave and the sound of energy dissipation. Electricity flows in the space between the wires. This has always been known by electrical
engineers. For example, if you short out a major electrical circuit you will see the cables violently repel each other as the
electromagnetic force tries to escape from the boundaries in which they are contained between the so-called bounding conductors. The
power is between the conductive wires, not in them, nor are there electrons ‘beads’ bumping or flowing thru the ‘conductor’.
In general, the electrostatic potential, e, in Volt, renders the insulators hot, the magnetomotive force, i, in Ampere, renders the
wires hot. Also, it is found that this heating increases with increasing frequency of the potential, e, or the M.M.F., i. It is here where
the prevailing concept of the "electron" is to be found. Hence it is the motions of the so-called electrons that give rise to the energy
loss in an electrical system. “Electrons” represent energy dissipation. However, the cult of quantum, and the ill informed fool all tell
us that the ‘electron’ is a subatomic particle and charge carrier, and is that which conveys energy, this is complete irrational nonsense!
“Maxwell’s discovery of a factor of proportionality between dielectricity and magnetism led to his theory of conjugate pair of
inductions, dielectric and magnetic, in union, propagating at the velocity of light through the ‘Luminiferous Ether’. Hence, electromagnetic
waves in free space, unbounded by gross physical matter, mass free energy. This propagation is within the dielectric, or
Etheric, medium itself. It is free of so-called “charge carriers” (electrons), a mass-less form of electricity. This concept had a very
powerful impact upon the scientific and philosophical thoughts of Maxwell’s era. So here begins the notion of “wireless”, the
transmission of electricity without wires or other guiding structures.” – E. Dollard
“There is no rest mass to an ‘electron’. It is given here the ‘electron’ is no more than a broken loose “hold fast” under the grip of
the tensions within the dielectric lines of force. They are the broken ends of the split in half package of spaghetti. Obviously this
reasoning is not welcome in the realm of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.” – E. Dollard
“This gaseous Ether is the seat of electrical phenomena through the process of its polarization. This polarization gives rise to
induction, which then gives rise to stored energy. Tesla gives a good presentation of his Ether ideas in his “Experiments with Alternate
Currents of High Potential and High Frequency.” Mentioned previously, the Planck, Q, as the primary dimensional relation defining
the “Polarized Ether”, this as an “Atom of Electricity”. It is however, from the views of J.J. Thomson, the Coulomb, psi, the total
dielectric induction is the primary dimension defining the “Polarized Ether”. The lawyer like skill of today’s theoretical physicist
(Pharisee) has erased this understanding from human memory, it is henceforth sealed by the Mystic Idol of Albert Einstein. If Einstein
says no, then it is impossible. What a nice little package.” – E. Dollard
“Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the
‘electron’, on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the
magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated” - C.P. Steinmetz (Electric
Discharges, Waves and Impulses)
The idea of electricity as a flow of ‘electrons’ in a conductor was regarded by Oliver Heaviside as “a psychosis”. This encouraged
Heaviside to begin a series of writings
“Electrons as a separate, distinct entity…doesn’t really exist, they are merely bumps in something called a ‘field’.” - Dr. Steve
Biller

[TheoriaApophasis]

More on Electron BS:

Nikola Tesla November 1928 interview:
On the whole subject of matter, in fact, Dr. Tesla holds views that are startlingly original. He disagrees with the accepted atomic
theory of matter, and does not believe in the existence of an “electron” as pictured by science.
“To account for its apparently small mass, science conceives of the electron as a hollow sphere, a sort of bubble, such a bubble
could exist in a medium as a gas or liquid because its internal pressure is not altered by deformation. But if, as supposed, the internal
pressure of an electron is due to the repulsion of electric masses, the slightest conceivable deformation must result in the destruction
of the bubble! Just to mention another improbability...” - Nikola Tesla
Article: “A Famous Prophet of Science Looks into the Future” (Popular Science Monthly)

Also consider the J.J. Thomson concept of the "electron" (his own discovery). Thomson considered the electron the terminal end
of one unit line of dielectric induction.

“The notion exists that the electro-motive force, E.M.F. in volts, is established by “cutting” lines of magnetic induction via a socalled
electric conductor. This “cutting” is then said to impel the motions of so-called electrons within the conducting material. It is
however that a perfect conductor cannot “cut” through lines of induction, or flux lines, Phi. Heaviside points out that the perfect
conductor is a perfect obstructer and magnetic induction cannot gain entry into the so-called conducting material. So where is the
current, how then does an E.M.F. come about? Now enters the complication; it can be inferred that an electrical generator that is
wound with a perfect conducting material cannot produce an E.M.F. No lines of flux can be cut and the Ether gets wound up in a knot.
Heaviside remarks that the practitioners of his day “do a good deal of churning up the Ether in their dynamos”. – E. Dollard

You cannot say that stretching a trillion rubber bands nailed to the floor and releasing them or breaking their “force lines” is the
“flow of electrons”; discharge is a terminal movement in systems of inductance or dielectric capacitance. There are no discrete
particles in the universe and certainly none that mediate charges, discharges, magnetism, electromagnetism, gravity, and radiation,
only fields, all modalities of the Ether. The so-called ‘electrons’ are not particles, not objects or subjects but are the dynamic principle
of discharge, and are certainly not charge-carriers, fields are not particles, are not “electrons”, nor assuredly are there energy
discharges in the vacuum of space involving ‘electrons’; the ‘electron’ is a fiction of fallacious observation and an even more faulty
mental acuity, spawned naturally from the minds of materialists, or an Atomist. Electricity is Ether in a state of dynamic polarization;
magnetism is Ether in a state of dynamic circular polarization upon itself, is the radiative termination of electrical discharge;
dielectricity is the Ether under stress or strain. The motions and strains of the Ether give rise to electrification.

Didn't you learn what particles do in like elementary school or did you forget? not to say that all is particles or that particles are always particulate... but ....
.

There is only ONE fundamental particle in the universe, NO MORE..., the Neutron.


Free neutrons become protons in 7 and half mins.


That said particle is a dielectric condensate, created in galactic formations and otherwise (google galactic jet).

[TheoriaApophasis]

Inertia across time can be represented with a wave-like equation when a pendulum swings. Nothing at a specific instant can be wave-like.

Inertia has no attribute of time, ONLY divergent fields do.


Time is not a THING, its a posterior attribute of ANOTHER "THING".



Time DOES NOTHING, ACTS ON NOTHING, and IS NOTHING.



Time = NOTHING.


people talk about "nothing" in a sense of REIFICATION


There is no such thing as "nothing" anymore than there is such a thing as TIME.


Show me nothing, nobody can, if you think you SAW it, then you were "IN" it and witness to it, thereby negating the definition of NOTHING, since there was a WITNESS in it or OF it,


You must posit something before you can negate it, and NEITHER SPACE NOR NOTHING can be posited as Subjective entities.



Common error.

Inertia is a force as is acceleration. so why are they applied a different attribute?

Dead wrong, only the LOSS OF INERTIA = force.


Youre thinking in terms of CONNOTATION, not DENOTATION,


Common huge error.

[d3x0r]

Let me attempt to clarify the quaternion rotation representation; This too is a field, but it has no volume... I suppose if a surface or line was defined for rotations, a closed volume across time might be defined, but would it mean anything?

What is it you're trying to state? Without being dismissive of existing things; you do better to present your own assertations.

[d3x0r]

Youre thinking in terms of CONNOTATION, not DENOTATION,

Common huge error.

In this case how is there a difference? Pretty sure this has all been denoted... and exemplified for connotation....

I'm really saying that the connotations implied are how they are denoted... but isn't everything?

[TheoriaApophasis]

What is it you're trying to state? Without being dismissive of existing things; you do better to present your own assertations.

They are not existing things, as you say, but false inventions reified by pseudo-science.

The fantastical notion of a MERMAID has existed for 100s of years, and everyone has a mental image of what one IS.

Like your (and others) electron, ....is no different than a mermaid.

both are mental fantasies, ....... one dreamed up by drunk sailors

the other dreamed up by mental midgets of hubris filled small minded academia to explain force transference vectors.


both are unreal nonsense.

Science (so-called) is ATOMISTIC BULLSH*T OF THE ABSOLUTE HIGHEST ORDER.

modern BS Science reifies everything as smacking subatomic mystical Unicorn (fantasy) "balls".

Let me attempt to clarify the quaternion rotation representation; This too is a field, but it has no volume... I suppose if a surface or line was defined for rotations, a closed volume across time might be defined, but would it mean anything?

A line is a force vector,......study the POINCARE' DISK MODEL.


The indivisible "point" at the middle of any magnet is the dielectric inertial plane where force nor motion exist, .....they have no premise "there".

A "closed volume" would define complete reciprocation (divergence and convergence).

Or a ball throw up and accelerating back down to 0.

rotation is a spatial implication. No counterspatial field has rotation, only counterspatial convergence which can of course, collapse WITH rotation to full inertia.