I just disproved ken wheelers magnet theories

[ldrancer]

magnets are a concept. that would be my definition. by definition you cant make free energy out of concepts. i think so anyway. theoria sees a heat eminating from a magnet near some bismuth. but he thinks that he knows where its source is coming from. when asked, he says some imaginary thing or something. so he sees heat from a magnet near bismuth. and did you know nitinol which was brought up in his zero input thread, that it too, showed to be free energy. there was a free open peer to peer discussion about it where i seen it. and it was found out that it loses its go after a while. and isnt feasible enough. that was my response to his magnet bismuth heat generation topic. but he just insulted me on a small concept about the thread, where I didnt know what load stone was. or hadnt heard about it so much. so i thought more on the lines of the magnets you buy for 1000's of dollars instead and wondered, why buy, and if so, you buy them then they cant be free.

but if you cant give a normal response then youve proved nothing. you cant explain it, to anyone. his reasons for why magnets work, are all some type of concept, no different than a black hole.



not to mention the part about where too, his theory has its own head up its ass

[bistander]

Anyone could really draw their conclusions related to this Theory and the specifics from a magnet's dielectric plane, from above quoted statements...it is simple, very simple...Magnetism is the RESULT, the "Product" from the Dielectric, Counterspatial (Minus Space, Minus Time), Terminating (dying, ending, finishing), Centripetal (Towards Center, NOT Centrifugal or outwards forces) Field ...Therefore, this Dielectric Field, can NOT, and NEVER send, absolutely no charges towards any dielectric object placed on the exterior of ANY Magnet, and tried to be measured by a fall in T/S (time/space), no matter the positioning related to that plane.

Hi Ufopolitics,

I have been reading Ken's books and posts. He actually calls it a dielectric inertial plane. Does that not infer it has mass? Anyway, if I understand your quote above, there is no possible way to confirm its existence, correct? How then does it affect the image on the ferrocell?

I do find Ken's theories interesting but difficult to understand. I ran across the quote below which reflects some of my feelings. {edit} From reply #40 here What is Magnetism? - page 2

Except Ken Wheeler specifically states in his book:
"There are no electrons, negative charges, special-dimensions, warped space (resoundingly denied by Tesla and others), and no photons"

I've found a whole host of inconsistencies with his one-particle theory of the universe, as outlined in his book. I hate to bash the guy because he's obviously trying really hard to figure magnets out, but when he promises clear-cut answers with no conjecture, no confusion, all easily understood with loads of proof, then provides the exact opposite while denying the well-documented physics for a whole host of processes (like fission, for instance) and doing so in verbose and circular language that would go over the heads of 99% of the populace and while misusing the definitions of common physical phenomena, it irks me.

Regarding the topic of this thread: I do not see most of the members responding here backing microwatt's experiment or conclusion as you stated.

It is very sad to observe that must[most] of members participating on this Thread do not clearly understand Ken's Theories......therefore, agree on the silly test/experiment(s) conducted by microwatt.

I like the idea of putting theories to the test but I think this particular test falls short of being considered evidence for any conclusions. But at least he opened the door for some discussion.

Any further clarity you can shed on the dielectric inertial plane is appreciated.

bi

{edit}
When reading Ken's books/posts, I often search for the definitions of words which he uses. For instance: dielectricity. It is surprising how little google can find on that particular word. It did bring up this interesting pdf.
http://pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~ltachai/335/ch7.pdf

[microwatt]

Regarding the topic of this thread: I do not see most of the members responding here backing microwatt's experiment or conclusion as you stated.


I like the idea of putting theories to the test but I think this particular test falls short of being considered evidence for any conclusions. But at least he opened the door for some discussion.

Does any member think that the setup is correct for testing the theory but the voltages are too small to be measured by the scope?

[Ben2503]

Does any member think that the setup is correct for testing the theory but the voltages are too small to be measured by the scope?

I think only Ken can answer this as he is the father of the theory.

In science it is considered impossible to proof a theory to be 100% correct as that would required an infinite number of tests / testcases. Just one failed test is sufficient to reject a theory.

Personally I think it is very difficult to proof that something is NOT there. With measurements you can proof that what you are measuring exist. IMHO if you cannot measure it doesn't automatically mean that it doesn't exist, it just means that with your test set-up you cannot measure it.
There is a famous experiment / measurement to proof / disproof the existence of the ether. It failed and thus ether was replaced by empty space. The fact that this empty space (vacuum) does have properties, which proves that this empty space is not just 'empty', didn't bother our mainstreamers at all.
On the other hand, the mainstreamers have spend 20 years trying to measure gravitational waves caused by blackholes without succes, but recently they announced to continue in their efforts.

Personally I think it is impossible to measure this field external to the magnet. If it does exist it has to be very weak, or otherwise it would have been detected a long time ago, as it probably would attract dust or cause some other effects. A nice ring of dust indicating the 'blochwall' would be very compelling evidence of a static electric field.

Take care,
Ben

[Ufopolitics]

Inertial=idling=Non Accelerated

Hi Ufopolitics,

I have been reading Ken's books and posts. He actually calls it a dielectric inertial plane. Does that not infer it has mass?

Not necessarily...Inertia means "idle", sluggish/inactive...Now, one of the physical properties of mass/bodies defined by newton's Law is called inertia as well...but nope, inertia is a general term that could be applied to non physical objects/matter.

Anyway, if I understand your quote above, there is no possible way to confirm its existence, correct? How then does it affect the image on the ferrocell?

Of course there are ways to confirm its existence...note it is not a "Mass Entity"...just like a Magnetic Field can not be observed at simple sight...however it could be "felt" because it is produced in Space, not in Counterspace like Dielectric.

Dielectric Field can clearly be observed with Magnetic Viewing Film, and the way I see what this film does, is like an X-Ray to Magnetic Fields.

Ferrocell Lens show the full magnetic Spectrum (including the dielectric) in 3D...

All this methods show a "void space" within both polarizations...just like a CAT Scan shows a "defined shadow" within brain...which is "interpreted" by the Physician as a Cancer Tumor...

Viewing Film is also excellent to see how this dielectric plane moves within the magnet when interacting in attraction or with ferromagnetic bodies.

For example, Classic Physics related to magnetism says that whenever we get two magnets attached by attraction we get this result as seen on image below:

[IMG][/IMG]

And that is completely WRONG!...In reality when two (or more) magnets and their fields are attracted together, they react like shown below:

[IMG][/IMG]

Viewing Film shows that very clear...:

[IMG][/IMG]

And yes, it could also be seen on Ferrocell and CRT Screening.

That very simple fact above could be tested with a simple compass, and find out that right at intersection plane there is absolutely no "Inner" South and North Poles. Those Two Poles are gone, disappeared...or as Ken calls it "Voidance"...however, they will be "restored back" once we separate magnets...

Something "interesting" I found out, is that when two magnets are in the process of attraction (N-S) but separated by an Air Gap...a Dielectric Plane is shown right in space...at the very equidistant center from both magnets, like I showed on above diagram (STEP 1)...but, more interesting is when we screen a Two Stator Motor with Viewing Film...:

The Stator:

[IMG][/IMG]

Under Viewing Film...:

[IMG][/IMG]


Screened by CRT:

[IMG][/IMG]

Now, the two images scaled and blended together...:

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

Now, Two Magnetic Field "Phenomena" has occurred in above scenario...First, the generation of a "Spatial" Dielectric Plane in center between both Arc Segment Magnets...And Second, the interactions of both external polarizations (poles) with the steel casing...that is another type of influence with ferromagnetic materials...and what happens is that each magnet dielectric plane moves towards iron/steel...

Couldn't we conclude that every motor armature (and Generators as well, of course) within the stator N/S fields has always being turning within that Dielectric Plane generated between stators fields...

Interesting isn't it?

I do find Ken's theories interesting but difficult to understand. I ran across the quote below which reflects some of my feelings. {edit} From reply #40 here What is Magnetism? - page 2

Ken has his personal ways to describe and explain his Theories, some wordings are what they are, just because he has discovered many properties on magnetism which are completely opposite to what we were taught in school...therefore never explained by conventional physics...

Regarding the topic of this thread: I do not see most of the members responding here backing microwatt's experiment or conclusion as you stated.

I like the idea of putting theories to the test but I think this particular test falls short of being considered evidence for any conclusions. But at least he opened the door for some discussion.

Any further clarity you can shed on the dielectric inertial plane is appreciated.

bi

Thanks

{edit}
When reading Ken's books/posts, I often search for the definitions of words which he uses. For instance: dielectricity. It is surprising how little google can find on that particular word. It did bring up this interesting pdf.
http://pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~ltachai/335/ch7.pdf

Is just like I wrote before...some terms are "non popular" simply because they are not part of the classic "Doctrines".


Ufopolitics

[ldrancer]

Does any member think that the setup is correct for testing the theory but the voltages are too small to be measured by the scope?

i think the test works. it is using proven concepts to test something. your not getting results becuase his ideas are off.

about the best he does is describe a picture. but i still dont get what theory here where trying to disprove. i understand how a magnet works by seeing it working. he talks a lot. i dont know what he or everyone is talking about. its just too much and i dont want to bother and waste my time with it to learn. but i do see the zero response from your test. someone call me wrong if they want, but ive seen no production coming from this thread or his book. so my questions still stands and im right. bye.

[bistander]

Hi Ufo,

Thanks for the reply.

For example, Classic Physics related to magnetism says that whenever we get two magnets attached by attraction we get this result as seen on image below:

[IMG][/IMG]

And that is completely WRONG!...In reality when two (or more) magnets and their fields are attracted together, they react like shown below:

Yes, I agree what you show is wrong. But it does not show how I was taught "Classic Physics" related to magnetism. You tend to illustrate the magnet as having 2 domains, a North and a South. I learned the magnet, or the ferrous material, has a multitude of tiny domains. These domains are composed of dipoles (atoms or molecules) having the same magnetic orientation. The domains are on the micrometer scale in size. Domains are separated by domain walls. A Bloch wall is a type of domain wall.

This is an example of the domain theory as I understand it. From: ?Presentation "1 Magnetism The term magnetism comes from the name Magnesia, a coastal district of ancient Thessaly, Greece. Unusual stones were found by the Greeks more."



Inside the magnet there is not an all North domain on one end and an all South domain on the other end divided by a wall down the middle. I don't believe there is anything "in" the magnet in the middle which shows as the white line on your images. I think the line on the images results from the directional flow of magnetic flux which is all parallel to the magnet's axis at that location meaning no flux in the perpendicular direction to intersect with the viewing film and react with the medium and light. * A quote from Timm@Ferrocell USA at the Ferrocell reply #4 appears to support my thoughts.

A Ferrocell will pass light where the flux "isn't" (the lowest potential), and appears in a different vector in relation to the location of incoming light.

I don't know if there is or is not a dielectric inertial plane there. I don't know what a dielectric inertial plane is or how it interacts with our world. I also do not feel that the interesting patterns from ferrocells and CRTs using magnets depict magnetic flux fields (follow the magnetic flux lines). When we use magnets they are not stand-alone chunks being held behind a viewing screen. The magnets are in a machine like a motor or such which will have a magnetic circuit containing the magnetic field. The pattern seen on the stand-alone magnet hardly represents the useful flux field in most cases.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

Thanks for the reply.



Yes, I agree what you show is wrong. But it does not show how I was taught "Classic Physics" related to magnetism. You tend to illustrate the magnet as having 2 domains, a North and a South. I learned the magnet, or the ferrous material, has a multitude of tiny domains. These domains are composed of dipoles (atoms or molecules) having the same magnetic orientation. The domains are on the micrometer scale in size. Domains are separated by domain walls. A Bloch wall is a type of domain wall.

This is an example of the domain theory as I understand it. From: ?Presentation "1 Magnetism The term magnetism comes from the name Magnesia, a coastal district of ancient Thessaly, Greece. Unusual stones were found by the Greeks more."



Inside the magnet there is not an all North domain on one end and an all South domain on the other end divided by a wall down the middle. I don't believe there is anything "in" the magnet in the middle which shows as the white line on your images. I think the line on the images results from the directional flow of magnetic flux which is all parallel to the magnet's axis at that location meaning no flux in the perpendicular direction to intersect with the viewing film and react with the medium and light.

Responding to bold letters statements,:

I have never said nor wrote...that a magnet has "Two Domains"...as it is not written either by Ken Wheeler's book...

I call them Poles or Polarized ends as South and North....just like you see them all around and for a very long time...

I guess you pretend that people "paint" each dipole molecule aligned within a rectangle to define magnet polarity?...LOL

So, I don't know where are you getting that info about what I write from?...I know exactly how the "Conventional School" is related to magnetism...as I know what are called domains...

Domain Wall was named "Bloch" Wall or "Néel" Wall based on the last name of its "discoverers"...difference is only about their geometries related to different magnetic materials...Néel relates to flat, film type walls...that is all those names say.

I don't know if there is or is not a dielectric inertial plane there. I don't know what a dielectric inertial plane is or how it interacts with our world. I also do not feel that the interesting patterns from ferrocells and CRTs using magnets depict magnetic flux fields (follow the magnetic flux lines). When we use magnets they are not stand-alone chunks being held behind a viewing screen. The magnets are in a machine like a motor or such which will have a magnetic circuit containing the magnetic field. The pattern seen on the stand-alone magnet hardly represents the useful flux field in most cases.

Regards,

bi

Ok...great


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Hi Ufo,

I have never said nor wrote...that a magnet has "Two Domains"...as it is not written either by Ken Wheeler's book...

So, I don't know where are you getting that info about what I write from?...

Domain Wall was named "Bloch" Wall ...

If you revisit my posts you will find that I never said (or wrote) that you said or wrote "Two Domains". What I said is clear:

You tend to illustrate the magnet as having 2 domains, a North and a South.

Which I think is obvious. You agree that a Bloch wall separates domains. And you specifically identify the separation of the red and blue areas on your illustrations as the Bloch wall (and dielectric plane). So would not the reader assume that the red and blue areas are domains?

[IMG][/IMG]

Back to the topic: You can not describe an experiment to prove or disprove the existence of this dielectric plane, can you? Images from viewing film or ferrocells is not proof in my opinion. Or can you show such images from other "known" dielectric planes?

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

If you revisit my posts you will find that I never said (or wrote) that you said or wrote "Two Domains". What I said is clear:

You tend to illustrate the magnet as having 2 domains, a North and a South.

What's the difference between "2 domains" and "Two Domains"?

Which I think is obvious. You agree that a Bloch wall separates domains.

A Bloch Wall or a Néel Wall ...separate Domain(S), IN PLURAL, NOT NOT IN SINGULAR, meaning in the whole magnet, and NOT just ONE SINGLE Micro-Domain.

According to what you should have learned in school a single micro-domain has its own separation wall, however, when we look at the whole magnet, all this domains align, line up, group up in two areas of the magnet known as magnetic poles, North and South.

And you specifically identify the separation of the red and blue areas on your illustrations as the Bloch wall (and dielectric plane). So would not the reader assume that the red and blue areas are domains?

Nope, Negative, the Red-Blue areas denote the alignment-formation of all domains in that region, known as a Magnetic Pole

On the other hand you previously wrote, and I am bolding out the main parts:

Yes, I agree what you show is wrong. But it does not show how I was taught "Classic Physics" related to magnetism. You tend to illustrate the magnet as having 2 domains, a North and a South. I learned the magnet, or the ferrous material, has a multitude of tiny domains. These domains are composed of dipoles (atoms or molecules) having the same magnetic orientation. The domains are on the micrometer scale in size. Domains are separated by domain walls. A Bloch wall is a type of domain wall.

This is an example of the domain theory as I understand it. From: ?Presentation "1 Magnetism The term magnetism comes from the name Magnesia, a coastal district of ancient Thessaly, Greece. Unusual stones were found by the Greeks more."



Inside the magnet there is not an all North domain on one end and an all South domain on the other end divided by a wall down the middle. I don't believe there is anything "in" the magnet in the middle which shows as the white line on your images.

And those links above show an image that reflects the way you understand a Magnet:

[IMG][/IMG]

Those images above are completely WRONG!

And as you have stated on above quote (I will repeat it below):

Inside the magnet there is not an all North domain on one end and an all South domain on the other end divided by a wall down the middle. I don't believe there is anything "in" the magnet in the middle which shows as the white line on your images.

Now I see that even within the wrong Theory about magnetism, established for so long, you are still not understanding that Theory in full. Then it is very obvious you will not be capable to understand Ken's Theories, which renders a far more advanced and dynamic data within the real 3D Magnetic Fields. At least the basic fundamentals are required to understand the complexity of Ken's Book, and am sorry but you are confused still in this ancient concepts.

A Magnet Domain Wall is the three dimensional region where All the aligned Micro domains make a spin and change directions, forming each pole at the ends of magnet:

[IMG][/IMG]

On above image the Domain Wall Region is the grey center area, where all domains turn, twist or shifts. This area contains almost zero magnetism, and has been identified originally (1919) by the Barhausen Effect, before Bloch or Néel made their discoveries.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

The number of related images, text books, images, pdf's, etc,etc you could find on line is impressive...so, you are welcome to start searching, then reinforcing your knowledge related to old classic magnetism.

You will need those concepts very clearly defined in order to understand Ken's Theories, much less to start debating about such Theories.

Back to the topic: You can not describe an experiment to prove or disprove the existence of this dielectric plane, can you? Images from viewing film or ferrocells is not proof in my opinion. Or can you show such images from other "known" dielectric planes?

Regards,

bi

I did not open this Thread, trying to "disprove" nor "prove" Ken's Theories, the proof to disprove is entirely on microwatt's end, and you wrote yourself, his poor testing did not demonstrated absolutely nada.

This Dielectric Plane that Ken relates to, is exactly located geometrically where the previously Domain Wall is located, -explained for your knowledge "Enlightenment" above - except that Old Magnetism Concepts do not define if it its from this domain wall region outwards or inwards (from ending poles towards center) that magnetic poles are formed/generated. Ken's Theory clearly states it is from this dielectric plane outwards, being the center origin of magnetic spatial polarization...Plus, the above old images related to domain walls you could find render each pole as having a straight vector (in 2D), not in spiral and 3D like Ken shows and demonstrates in his vast text references and images.

Ken introduced several text books as references that confirms his theories...one of them is the suppressed Davis Rawls on Magnetism where the spinning of the polarized ends of a magnet are clearly demonstrated:

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]


In time I will do prove his theories are correct, not now, not on this Thread, I know perfectly well how to open a dedicated Thread on this Forum to display my proof for the purpose.

Einstein Theory of Special Relativity has not been proven/demonstrated/tested as of now and has been around since 1905...However, is being taught in many Universities around the World.

Finally...I really do not have the time to waste here until there is a solid proof to "disprove"...so, excuse me but I must return to building...


Ufopolitics

[microwatt]

Einstein Theory of Special Relativity has not been proven yet and has been around since 1905...However is being taught in many Universities around the World.


Ufopolitics

The special theory of relativity has been proven. Look up "time dilation relativity GPS" you will see that clocks run slower when moving faster. or else your tomtom will stop working.

[Ufopolitics]

The special theory of relativity has been proven. Look up "time dilation relativity GPS" you will see that clocks run slower when moving faster. or else your tomtom will stop working.

That does not "prove" Einstein complete Theory...and what speed are those clocks traveling?...near "C"?...LOL

The very essence from that theory is enclosed within a simple formula...E=MC2 ...do you know what that means?

Anyways...Is up to you to change the topic and start with Einstein Theory...maybe a smart idea since you can't comply with your original topic to disprove Ken's ..

Sorry but I will not enter in this Einstein "new" debate now.

[bistander]

You said I said

I have never said nor wrote...that a magnet has "Two Domains"...as it is not written either by Ken Wheeler's book...

So, I don't know where are you getting that info about what I write from?...

Domain Wall was named "Bloch" Wall ...

If you revisit my posts you will find that I never said (or wrote) that you said or wrote "Two Domains". What I said is clear:

You tend to illustrate the magnet as having 2 domains, a North and a South.

What's the difference between "2 domains" and "Two Domains"?

There is no difference between two and 2 in this context. The difference I pointed out was between your "said nor wrote" and my "tend to illustrate".

bi

[microwatt]

Lets not digress and ruin this thread.

[bistander]

Plural?

Which I think is obvious. You agree that a Bloch wall separates domains.

A Bloch Wall or a Néel Wall ...separate Domain(S), IN PLURAL, NOT NOT IN SINGULAR, meaning in the whole magnet, and NOT just ONE SINGLE Micro-Domain.

You have me here???? I wrote the word domains as plural, with the S. Not singular. So what is your problem?

I found this domain and boundary description here: THOUGHT CRACKERS: Magnetic Domains It is in close agreement with my thoughts on the subject. As noted by the size of domains, a one cubic centimeter magnet would have on the order of 8 million domains* and a similar number of domain boundaries. So yes, we have plural.


bi