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

[Dog-One]

Counterspace SHOULD have you "thinking",

ALL GEOMETRY IS PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY

meaning it "all begins with counterspace/ inertia".

Okay Ken, just finished watching (again) a three and a half hour lecture from Eric Dollard, where he states, if you cannot understand counterspace, you cannot understand anything electrical.

Two questions:

1. Counterspace is a single point correct? It has no attributes of space, such as X, Y & Z. It's coordinates are simply 1, -1, J & -J.

2. When Eric draws the simple LC circuit with the capacitor on the left, the inductor on the right and two conductors top & bottom connecting them like a transmission line, the dielectricity flows between the two conductors right? As this circuit oscillates, the dielectricity doesn't flow in the wires, only the magnetism orbits the wires. Correct? So for the dielectricity, its flow simply bounces back-n-forth between the plates of the capacitor and in between the turns of the inductor.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Two questions:
1. Counterspace is a single point correct? It has no attributes of space, such as X, Y & Z. It's coordinates are simply 1, -1, J & -J.

2. When Eric draws the simple LC circuit with the capacitor on the left, the inductor on the right and two conductors top & bottom connecting them like a transmission line, the dielectricity flows between the two conductors right? As this circuit oscillates, the dielectricity doesn't flow in the wires, only the magnetism orbits the wires. Correct? So for the dielectricity, its flow simply bounces back-n-forth between the plates of the capacitor and in between the turns of the inductor.

Even 1 is a number (except in metaphysics, there are 2 "1s", but thats another matter).


Even point denotates something spatial, so its also unfitting to say POINT.


One might consider where all electrical and magnetic phenomena are WAVES, etc etc.

but the "ocean" of counterspace , the Ether is absolutely invisible unless disturbed, at which time the "phenomenal waters/ waves etc" are then measurable, spatial. etc.



"the dielectricity flows between the two conductors right?"

Yahh, but he got same from Steinmetz, and others......and of course he admits that, and even told me same firsthand.

Yes on the rest.


the only really important diagram to study is this one:


people look at it, but they dont SEE it, or grasp it.


further, from Dollard:


DIELECTRIC ENERGY STORAGE SPATIALLY DIFFERENT THAN MAGNETIC
ENERGY STORAGE
Unlike magnetism the energy is forced or compressed inwards rather than outwards. Dielectric lines of force push inward into internal space and along axis, rather than pushed outward broadside to axis as in the magnetic field. Because the lines are mutually repellent certain amounts of broadside or transverse motion can be expected but the phenomena is basically longitudinal. This gives rise to an interesting paradox that will be noticed with capacity. This is that the smaller the space bounded by the conducting structure the more energy that can be stored. This is the exact
opposite of magnetism. With magnetism, the units volumes of energy can be thought of as working in parallel but the unit volumes of energy in association with dielectricity can be thought of as
working in series.

[Dog-One]

the only really important diagram to study is this one:


people look at it, but they dont SEE it, or grasp it.

Agreed.

What I see when looking at that image, is the strong possibility for electrostatic induction, which in my thinking would be a transfer of dielectricity from one medium to another.

If those wires are insulated and you wrap them with a split (almost complete) coax, where the split is on the outside (away from the center), you will contain (most all) the dielectricity. Since there is a split (unlike a normal coax) and the material is a dielectric reflector, in effect you have an electrostatic transformer. Because this "shield" is split, you do not disturb the magnetic lines between the two main conductors, at least not until you connect something to both of these shields.

Me thinks a few bench experiments are needed. I'm very curious as to whether the dielectricity is actually transferred, or if it is copied/magnified. This could prove to be far easier than magnetic induction without nearly as many pitfalls.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Agreed.

What I see when looking at that image, is the strong possibility for electrostatic induction, which in my thinking would be a transfer of dielectricity from one medium to another.

If those wires are insulated and you wrap them with a split (almost complete) coax, where the split is on the outside (away from the center), you will contain (most all) the dielectricity. Since there is a split (unlike a normal coax) and the material is a dielectric reflector, in effect you have an electrostatic transformer. Because this "shield" is split, you do not disturb the magnetic lines between the two main conductors, at least not until you connect something to both of these shields.

Me thinks a few bench experiments are needed. I'm very curious as to whether the dielectricity is actually transferred, or if it is copied/magnified. This could prove to be far easier than magnetic induction without nearly as many pitfalls.

now think further,


if you draw a box around that diagram, you ALSO have the Magneto-dielectric model of a magnet




now think further.......thats a diagram of looking END ON at 2 lines of AC CURRENT


thats also the cross sectional diagram of a magnet looking edge on with both "poles" top and bottom ,........if you draw a box around that diagram and label the top "N pole (or south)", and inversely so on the bottom.


sink into that one.

[aljhoa]

"the dielectricity flows between the two conductors right?"

Yahh, but he got same from Steinmetz, and others......and of course he admits that, and even told me same firsthand.

the only really important diagram to study is this one:


people look at it, but they dont SEE it, or grasp it.

Al

[TheoriaApophasis]

Al

I LUVS OWLS

[tachyoncatcher]

I love this

Hi Ken,
I love this visual. What if we take a toroidal magnet that is magnetized axially. Where is the indivisible counterspace center? That which the space of the magnet begins? Or would it be more correct to say ends?

What would happen if we continuously disturbed this counterspace plane on such a object? I think there may be some clues to electro/magneto conversion of the dielectric through these questions. what do you say?

Randy

[TheoriaApophasis]

Hi Ken,
I love this visual. What if we take a toroidal magnet that is magnetized axially. Where is the indivisible counterspace center? That which the space of the magnet begins? Or would it be more correct to say ends?

What would happen if we continuously disturbed this counterspace plane on such a object? I think there may be some clues to electro/magneto conversion of the dielectric through these questions. what do you say?

Randy

you asked "Where is the indivisible counterspace center?:"


The Greek Platonists tackled and won that question 1000s of years ago. WHERE is a TOPOS , a place that ONLY = Divergence = Magnetism = SPACE


obviously and logically so.


The dielectric inertial plane of a magnet is noWHERE


You must IN YOUR MIND define "Polarity" to grasp same


a firm grasp of the denotation of the term POLARITY

Polarity doesn’t imply opposites as in the case of magnetism or the (coherent mass we call) magnet….., rather the INVERSE of counterspace, ie the creation of SPACE and ANTINOMIES, there is only one antinomy, the inverse of counterspace.

"current science" parrots the BS that a magnet "has poles", either qualitatively or quantitatively, or both. But no such nonsense exists.




Poles OF what, BY what, and (AS MUST BE CONNOTATED) "BETWEEN WHAT"

Youre talking about "poles between X"

the SAME X which has
1. NO MEASURE
2. NO POSSIBILITY TO 'CUT IT OUT', SEPARATE IT
3. INDIVISIBLE AND INCOMMENSURATE (learn what that word means)

Duality, or polarity as per magnetism or the MACRO model of same in the magnet is a conceptual reification that there "ARE 2 INVERSE X-ENTITIES (poles)". But no such nonsense exists.



There is NO region or domain that defines a POLE of a magnet, contrary to current denotation AND connotation.


You can slice a magnet a 100000000000000 times vertically, or parallel to 'polarity',......and there is no separation of "poles"


......you just end up with 1000000000000000 new magnets EACH WITH THEIR OWN "N and S 'poles' "

Hi Ken,

What would happen if we continuously disturbed this counterspace plane on such a object?
Randy

thats Teslas invention, the AC MOTOR

[tachyoncatcher]

you asked "Where is the indivisible counterspace center?:"


The Greek Platonists tackled and won that question 1000s of years ago. WHERE is a TOPOS , a place that ONLY = Divergence = Magnetism = SPACE


obviously and logically so.


The dielectric inertial plane of a magnet is noWHERE

Where indeed? As in the example of the hour glass, we have a pinch point or center in which the dielectric plane manifests. In our limited concept of space, this is the explained beginning of ONLY = Divergence = Magnetism = SPACE
. With my limited grasp of these concepts, I conceptualize this as the beginning and end of directional entities, with a rule set of coherency I do not yet grasp.

You must IN YOUR MIND define "Polarity" to grasp same


a firm grasp of the denotation of the term POLARITY

Polarity doesn’t imply opposites as in the case of magnetism or the (coherent mass we call) magnet….., rather the INVERSE of counterspace, ie the creation of SPACE and ANTINOMIES, there is only one antinomy, the inverse of counterspace.

I don't believe I mentioned POLES. I struggle more specifically with the stated dielectric plane of a magnet that resides somewhere in the center of a typical bar magnet, vs a toroidal magnet axially magnetized. I understand the concept of counter space and the need for space being the antinomy of it, or even the possibility of multiple ANTINOMIES for the different expressions of the ether. My curiosity specifically lies with the anomaly of a expressed center of magnetic coherency and the lack of a observable one in a axial toroidal magnet.

thats Teslas invention, the AC MOTOR

Indeed it is! Perhaps there can be more to it than just tangling the ether, as Seinmetz liked to put it.

Randy

[TheoriaApophasis]

With my limited grasp of these concepts, I conceptualize this
Randy

nobody is taught this abstruse stuff in school, NOBODY

nor in college,

its no big deal.


Do you have you brain wrapped around a HYPERBOLOID? You should soak your crotch in a hot tub for about an HOUR and think DEEP about it while picturing a HYPERBOLOID

My curiosity specifically lies with the anomaly of a expressed center of magnetic coherency and the lack of a observable one in a axial toroidal magnet.
Randy

A magnet has no center, its FI (field incommensurability), and its "center" cannot be "cut out", or separated , etc etc.





apply this picture to the Hyperboloid in your mind...., then 'meditate' on the 'problem' of polarity, space , counterspace....

[ldrancer]

that line is ..well tricky.

first a person draws. a line. not a point. they start at not the point but the drawing is where they start. you cant, draw a line without, drawing. drawing isnt a point. and where does mother nature draw to? is that east, west? north pole sout pole? east west like a map? is it, out from the center of a magent in the middle? left and right, ? from the center of a magent, left and riht is what i was saying.

how can aperson, draw a line, without starting at somewhere. which isnt a point its a drawing. without a drawing a person didnt do it its not a line. thats a line a person drew, from a drawing, and nowhere else.

ok ive went around in circles here. ill stop now. hehehahhaahha hahaha.
oh and those 2 arrows on mother natures lines.. lineS plural, not line . mother nature didnt draw a line they drew, lineSSSSSS with an s. plural multiple. its got 2 arrows on it. 2! count them, thats 2 lines 2 arrows on 2 lines.

[ldrancer]

ask yourself, what is that?

[TheoriaApophasis]

ask yourself, what is that?

its called "taking the analogy too far"


its a logical fallacy identified 3000 years ago.

[Dog-One]

How mother nature draws a line.
<------------------------------------O-------------------------------------->

I saw someplace a mathematical expression of that. The "center" was defined as unity, probably a bad term, but this was how it was defined. The next step was to define where unity is. Mathematically that was equated to infinity divided by 2.

I'm kind of scratching my head with that, because I do not directly see a relationship to a hyperboloid in that formula. The hyperboloid reference you give makes far more sense. When you relate it to magnetism, I see the exact same thing with what some call "charge". You take a "charged" object and split it, you can't split the positive from the negative. All you get is two objects that still both have "charge". But unlike the magnet where the pieces try to come together, in the case of splitting "charge", you get pieces that try to separate themselves.

It's getting more obvious every day, there is a theme here...

[TheoriaApophasis]

I saw someplace a mathematical expression of that. The "center" was defined as unity, probably a bad term, but this was how it was defined. The next step was to define where unity is. Mathematically that was equated to infinity divided by 2.

I'm kind of scratching my head with that, because I do not directly see a relationship to a hyperboloid in that formula. The hyperboloid reference you give makes far more sense.

It's getting more obvious every day, there is a theme here...

charge and discharge, fire a gun, there is as much force applied to the bullet as to your hands.


As for the hyperboloid, you need to think a bit more about it, and make a model yourself using some string and two rings like i did.


the hyperboloid is no diff than the hourglass analogy above.


remember that everything is

POINT
LINE
CIRCLE
SPHERE



The hyperboloid IS NATURES "line"..........remember what "her" LINE IS.

now COMPOUND IT,..... inverse to counterspace is space, and each "pole" is moving inverse respective to the other, but each moving the same direction with respect to the "center".


of course natures hyperboloid is a perfect "point" at the center, unlike this picture:






A true magnetic hyperboloid is a "TWO SHEET MODEL HYPERBOLOID"





which, in appearance, they dont look connected (either force / half).....but they ARE, connected in counterspace.