ENLIGHTENED MAGNETISM (The Full Proof of Ken Wheeler's Theories)

[BroMikey]

Did you also see part 2.

Yes, here it is.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgHfW8fqqXI[/VIDEO]



Newton's 3rd Law is false
[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lxCeu6WgO4[/VIDEO]


[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt6fiLV2UgU[/VIDEO]



Today's scientists have substituted mathematics
for experiments, and they wander off through
equation after equation, and eventually build a
structure which has no relation to reality.

[Ernst]

I do agree with you that charge will indeed follow the 'classical' force lines. This is what is used in old TV sets. The electrons from the 'canon(s)' are deflected by magnetic fields. If you place a magnet properly on an old b&w tv, you will see just that.

You may agree with me, but I do not agree with you. Reread my previous post and note:
electric field - acts on - electric charges - in the direction of the electric lines of force
magnetic field - acts on - magnetic poles - in the direction of the magnetic lines of force
gravitational field - acts on - mass - in the direction of the gravitational lines of force

How do you explain that if you put a small disc magnetic on one of the poles of a larger cylindric magnet, the small magnet doesn't flip, nor moves to the edge of the pole. Instead it moves to the centre of it. Which indicates to me that there are repelling forces rather than attracting.

I won't because I could inadvertently disprove some of Ken's wisdom.

Are you saying that the magnetic fields are stronger at the edges of a magnet? If thats true, why isn't the ball then following the field line, overshoot the middle of the magnet (where the gblochwall is supposed to be, and in your theory the field is the strongest), move back again towards the middle and the after some cycles settle in the middle?
This is what actually happens with a magnetic ball when you place off centre on one of the poles. It will move towards the middle, overshoots it etc...

The answer is in my previous post. BTW I did not say that the field is strongest in the blochwall.

You may or may not agree with Distinti, but his explanations make more sense to me that yours. Actually his gives a rather acceptable basic explanation of what causes magnetism and how the attraction works, whereas you only make statements. IMHO similar to dear Ken's way of explaining things.

Great! Thanks! I will disagree with Distinti then, and with Ken, and with UFO, and with you.

I have another fascinating proof for you all:
Proof that 3+3=15 and that all our math is backwards:

First we take an amorphous one and munificently yoke an anachronistic anathema.
We then notice a pellucid pejorative paucity, whose pertinaciousness can be relegated by rescinding the hyperbolic subjugate turpitude.
The ubiquitous truculent two leaves a vestige of sanguine requisition.
This gives us a proclivity to the sinusoidal presage of preponderance of legerdemain which is easily recognized in the imaginary domain.
This portent plethora is however ostensible, therefore we must release the obstreperous four, leaving a multifarious modicum.
One would expect this to instigate a heterogenous equanimity, but the exigent five foils this execrable embezzlement.
We all know that sixes don't exist. They are a fabrication of vile and punicious shills thrying to dumb us down.
So it must be 15.
(and all the rest of whom for which to when-so-never of partially indeterminate biochemical degradation seek the path to the sudsy yellow nozzle of their foaming nocturnal parametric-digital whole-wheat/inter-faith geo-thermal terpsichorean ejectamenta)

Enjoy!

Ernst.

[Ufopolitics]

And so...the story continues...

Here is the Viewing Film RESULT-GRAPHIC ANALYSIS on a Single Cube Magnet:

SEEN ON THE SIDE

[IMG][/IMG]


And Viewing Film clearly confirms Ken's Theory...at Center, there is NO FLUX, THEREFORE, NO SPATIAL FIELD.

NOT A SPATIAL FIELD THERE...JUST COUNTERSPATIAL ONE, THE DIELECTRIC FIELD...

The very overwhelming confirmation of all this views...is that ALL OF THEM HOLD TRUE, CONSISTENT IN THE OTHER TWO MORE METHODS, FERROCELL, CRT IMAGING.

WHILE THE CLASSIC THEORY ONLY HAVE "THE DUSTY" IRON FILINGS METHOD...WHICH THE WIND WILL BLOW AWAY VERY SOON.

DUST IN THE WIND...


Ufopolitcs

[bistander]

Comments

Hi Ufo,

I have a couple of comments on your post.

LET'S REMEMBER THAT THE MAIN, OLD FARADAY THEORY STATES THAT:

...By the Lines of Force (understood ONLY in ATTRACTION MODE) "cutting" the conductor(s) in a Perpendicular Fashion, this action will Induce a spinning charge within conductor's mass.

That is not the normal way of stating Faraday's Law. But the thing that bothers me the most is

(understood ONLY in ATTRACTION MODE)

I have never seen such a qualification. Where did that come from?

THAT LIGHTER LINE MEANS THERE IS NO FLUX IN THAT REGION!!!.

On the subject of the magnetic viewing film, the white area indicates no perpendicular flux passing through the film. There may be (and is, in your example picture) magnetic flux and therefore a magnetic field below the viewing film. So there are magnetic lines of flux running from the North pole of one magnet to the South pole of the other magnet which are parallel to and below the plane of the viewing film. Also, there is a field and lines of flux inside the magnets below the viewing film where the white lines are in the middle of the magnet shapes. These are also parallel to the viewing film.

To prove there is flux (and field) between the two magnets, turn the film on its side and place it between the magnets. It will be dark because the flux is cutting it perpendicular now.

Regards,

bi

[Ben2503]

pedante kwast

You may agree with me, but I do not agree with you. Reread my previous post and note:
electric field - acts on - electric charges - in the direction of the electric lines of force
magnetic field - acts on - magnetic poles - in the direction of the magnetic lines of force
gravitational field - acts on - mass - in the direction of the gravitational lines of force

I won't because I could inadvertently disprove some of Ken's wisdom.

The answer is in my previous post. BTW I did not say that the field is strongest in the blochwall.

Great! Thanks! I will disagree with Distinti then, and with Ken, and with UFO, and with you.

I have another fascinating proof for you all:
Proof that 3+3=15 and that all our math is backwards:

First we take an amorphous one and munificently yoke an anachronistic anathema.
We then notice a pellucid pejorative paucity, whose pertinaciousness can be relegated by rescinding the hyperbolic subjugate turpitude.
The ubiquitous truculent two leaves a vestige of sanguine requisition.
This gives us a proclivity to the sinusoidal presage of preponderance of legerdemain which is easily recognized in the imaginary domain.
This portent plethora is however ostensible, therefore we must release the obstreperous four, leaving a multifarious modicum.
One would expect this to instigate a heterogenous equanimity, but the exigent five foils this execrable embezzlement.
We all know that sixes don't exist. They are a fabrication of vile and punicious shills thrying to dumb us down.
So it must be 15.
(and all the rest of whom for which to when-so-never of partially indeterminate biochemical degradation seek the path to the sudsy yellow nozzle of their foaming nocturnal parametric-digital whole-wheat/inter-faith geo-thermal terpsichorean ejectamenta)

Enjoy!

Ernst.

Een beetje jammer Ernst.

Pedante kwast

[SlickDick]

Een beetje jammer Ernst.

Pedante kwast

This whole thread is unfortunate. It is all based on pseudo-profound bull****. Bull**** in, means even more bull**** out.

Arguing over something which founded on pseudo-profound bull**** is futile and a waist of time, especially arguing with those who lack discernment of deceptive vagueness.

The result is evident, one pedantic calling the other pedantic... go figure.

[Ben2503]

East-West vs North-South

[IMG][/IMG]
WHILE THE CLASSIC THEORY ONLY HAVE "THE DUSTY" IRON FILINGS METHOD...WHICH THE WIND WILL BLOW AWAY VERY SOON.

DUST IN THE WIND...


Ufopolitcs

Hi UFO
I agree with you on this, I am not sure about the rest of Ken theory (yet)
I am sorry to be such a slow student but let me explain you why I 'converted':
This morning I was watching your latest video and this picture again.



I was quite puzzled and then I realized the following:
The compass points towards the North, which makes sense otherwise it would be quite useless for navigation.
If you look at how it is constructed, it's basically a small magnet, diamond shaped (rhombic?), with a pivot point in the middle.
In order to point in a S-N direction in a static mode, the sum of resulting FORCES in the East-West direction at both ends need to be equal and in the same direction in order to provide a torque on the needle that is equal = 0!!!
These means IMHO that indeed the lines of force are radiating in a East-west direction, and most likely radially from the edges.
This proves in my view that Distinti's theory about the edge currents is most probably true. Which means that the currents at both the North- and the South-poles are in the same direction and that their fields, somewhere in the middle, add up to 0, causing the 'Blochwall'

Now I am really looking forward to your next video.
Best regards,
Ben


P.S Speaking of wind: the wind and the sea cause nice patterns in the sand, which show great similarity to the iron filings patterns. I sure hope Ernst doesn't get lost following these obvious lines of force.

[BroMikey]

This whole thread is unfortunate. It is all based on pseudo-profound bull****. Bull**** in, means even more bull**** out.

Arguing over something which founded on pseudo-profound bull**** is futile and a waist of time, especially arguing with those who lack discernment of deceptive vagueness.

The result is evident, one pedantic calling the other pedantic... go figure.

I think it's a little more than that DICK, but you have to be open to
the experiment. At least give us your take on UFO and Ken's experimental
data instead of the other tactics you mentioned.

Let's all try to stick to the science. We all understand the conventional
side that teaches us that "IT CAN'T BE DONE" so to go beyond will take
more effort. I know the schools exhaust the students to the point that
many are unable to except anything else.

This is the way it has been plotted out against the dumbed down not
that you and I are. You need to remember that the US GOV has been
flying around in crafts that break all of the current models while "THEY"
tell us it can't be done.

This might help us to open the door just a tiny.

How many years in electrical engineering do you have? Or are you
another profession? It seems in order to refute the experiments (if
you disagree) by case and point.

If you are accustom to these ideas with their calculations why not
prove them wrong with the data? Upon what laws are you basing all
of your bias on?

I think another fear people have is that they might be seen on these
forums and their peers will criticize them so they will never open the door
to anything new regardless. This could cost them in dollars and cents.

In most cases the average engineer of any kind will always "ONLY"
run his set calculations from within the confines of his school training
and never questioned the system. He is glad to be riding the wave of big
money from 80-150 thousand dollars per year while others who worked
harder than he did make 20 thousand.

Now we are dealing with the fine clothes, expensive homes and cars
syndrome, that he is something far more special due to his training.
Don't buy into that fallacy if you can help it. I know it sounds easy to
say.

This thread deals with "ENLIGHTENMENT" so many highminded attitudes
will come into play but these block us from learning new things.

Here is a 30 year man. Where does his math fail you?
[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuUTABLz1Vk[/VIDEO]



Today's scientists have substituted mathematics
for experiments, and they wander off through
equation after equation, and eventually build a
structure which has no relation to reality.

[Ernst]

Een beetje jammer Ernst.

Pedante kwast

Hi Ben,
From northern Belgique, aren't you, or the south of Holland?
My post has disappointed you? Allow me to explain myself.
UFO has made clear that this thread is about proving Ken's theory and that anything that goes against it does not belong here. My understanding of the subject goes violently against Ken's work and therefore anything I say does the same.
I could bring my objections in a different manner pretending to help UFO while knowing that my 'help' will eventually disprove Ken's work. But that does not feel good for me as it is obviously dishonest. I have been having a problem with contributing to this thread because I can see UFO's enthusiasm. And I ask myself why would I write things that will reduce his happiness? But then I see Ken's work and that of Distinti and I ask myself does this help humanity in any way? People are talking about shills trying to dumb us down, but who needs shills, we are doing it ourselves! And we are doing a better job than any shill could ever do!
Distinti displays a huge misunderstanding of basic physics. I wonder if he really has a masters degree, as he says he has. If so, then what does that say for the university that has given him this degree?
The ideas that are presented here are not helping anyone. Internet appears to provide some sort of consolidation to all of those who do not understand high school physics. People make up their own theories of blatant nonsense and if you do not immediately agree with these most absurd notions, you're not open minded. I have said this before: "There is a difference between an open mind and an idiotic one".
I would say that if you want to improve our understanding of nature then
- first show that you understand the currently accepted theory,
- then show where it is wrong, and
- then show how to correct it.
Ken, Distinti, Aaron and UFO they have all failed at the first step and consequently they have also failed at the second step.
I can no longer honestly participate in this thread, Ben. I understand your disappointment and I am happy to see you (and a few others) appreciate my contributions. But there is a way out.
You could open your own thread where you allow different minded people to contribute. There you can ask me to disprove what is presented here. Do you have magnetic viewing film, and a magnet?
Anyway, Ben, don't sign your post with 'Pedante kwast'.
You are not Ken!


Ernst.

[BroMikey]

you see how when folks can't win they name call and slight without
premise? How does the math in the video fail? These questions and many more being ignored because it is simple and to the point and those questioning
the prospective ideologies are not qualified first to go over conventional
math, let alone understand how it has failed.

All experiments and simple math equations presented here on this thread
must be answered honestly by the reader. High school students with a
recent class in basic magnetism can do this work. Nothing here is hard
to answer.

Thousands of intellectual men has spotted all of these discrepancies in
classical models and many more only to be cast out from their circles of
prominence. Doctors with cures for cancer deported from the USA, scientist
with working devices of limitless energy defying academic opinion displaying
great zeal to help the world were murdered, bought off or scared off.

The only thing that is stopping each of you from answering the simple
experimental questions put forth to you is denial that you have been
hornswoggled into believing things that go contrary to common sense.

It's not such a big deal once you realize that this is true to reorder
the knowledge that you have acquired. All of the wonderful problems
solved do have there place and your deep lifelong mental exercise that
was misdirected can still be salvaged and redirected to show positive
results. It's all up to you.

Even the simple model of the conservation of energy is strapped on the
backs of every student complete with bridle and bit to confine them to
world that does not exist. This model is beaten into the captives.

The list of poor reasoning along with employment of tactics is very long,
practiced by "Good ole Uncle Sam Run training camps" known as schools
of higher learning.

[SisMika]

you see how when folks can't win they name call and slight without
premise? How does the math in the video fail? These questions and many more being ignored because it is simple and to the point and those questioning
the prospective ideologies are not qualified first to go over conventional
math, let alone understand how it has failed.

The only thing that is stopping each of you from answering the simple
experimental questions put forth to you is denial that you have been
hornswoggled into believing things that go contrary to common sense.

The list of poor reasoning along with employment of tactics is very long,
practiced by "Good ole BroMikey training camps" known as schools
of higher learning.

OH MY,

Has anyone ever seen a more clear example of the pot calling the kettle black? You have described yourself exactly BM (Big Mouth).

[SisMika]

Ernst and Ben,

There is a thread here already for free discussion of any subject of a technical nature. It was started by citfta a few years ago. You can discuss your ideas there if you want. It is called "Open discussion for projects on this forum" or something like that. It is probably a few pages back now as citfta has left this forum. It is refreshing to see there are still a few members left that can actually think for themselves.

Best regards,
Ann

[Ben2503]

Hi Ben,
From northern Belgique, aren't you, or the south of Holland?
My post has disappointed you? Allow me to explain myself.
UFO has made clear that this thread is about proving Ken's theory and that anything that goes against it does not belong here. My understanding of the subject goes violently against Ken's work and therefore anything I say does the same.
I could bring my objections in a different manner pretending to help UFO while knowing that my 'help' will eventually disprove Ken's work. But that does not feel good for me as it is obviously dishonest. I have been having a problem with contributing to this thread because I can see UFO's enthusiasm. And I ask myself why would I write things that will reduce his happiness? But then I see Ken's work and that of Distinti and I ask myself does this help humanity in any way? People are talking about shills trying to dumb us down, but who needs shills, we are doing it ourselves! And we are doing a better job than any shill could ever do!
Distinti displays a huge misunderstanding of basic physics. I wonder if he really has a masters degree, as he says he has. If so, then what does that say for the university that has given him this degree?
The ideas that are presented here are not helping anyone. Internet appears to provide some sort of consolidation to all of those who do not understand high school physics. People make up their own theories of blatant nonsense and if you do not immediately agree with these most absurd notions, you're not open minded. I have said this before: "There is a difference between an open mind and an idiotic one".
I would say that if you want to improve our understanding of nature then
- first show that you understand the currently accepted theory,
- then show where it is wrong, and
- then show how to correct it.
Ken, Distinti, Aaron and UFO they have all failed at the first step and consequently they have also failed at the second step.
I can no longer honestly participate in this thread, Ben. I understand your disappointment and I am happy to see you (and a few others) appreciate my contributions. But there is a way out.
You could open your own thread where you allow different minded people to contribute. There you can ask me to disprove what is presented here. Do you have magnetic viewing film, and a magnet?
Anyway, Ben, don't sign your post with 'Pedante kwast'.
You are not Ken!


Ernst.

Hi Ernst.
I was born and raised in the west of the Netherland, right in the middle of between Amsterdam and the Hague and you, North -East?
I don't know what that has to do with anything.

Anyways.
I feel that many people that have reached a master or doctors agree tend to dismiss everything that doesn't 100% confirm with what they learned during their long years of study. They regard themselves as authorities and their authority should not be questioned. History is full of stories of 'authorities' that appeared to be somewhat wrong. 2 examples: At the opening of the thirst railroad in the UK, one guy warned the public not to use it, because the human body would disintegrate at speeds above 60(?) MPH.
Another guy claimed that it would be impossible that something heavier than air to fly. While writing that, flies and birds were most probably flying around in his garden.

My point is and I believe that is also Distinti's point, that there are so many flaws in our 'scientific' theories, that you should question everything that is considered to be 'known' and proven. Our physic teacher even used the expression "exemptions that proof the rule"!!

Presently the way physics and astronomy are treated by the scientific world is not much different from the way the Pope treated science in the middle ages.
When the earth was still flat and the centre of the universe. And even today, we are still using the 'flat earth' model when constructing houses etc..

So IMHO we need people that know both the current theories and their flaws.
To put it differently would you hire Taxconsultant that knows the laws by hard, or one that knows both the laws AND the loopholes??

So I would like you to use all your insights, logic reasoning and analytic skillsto explain to me what is incorrect with my analysis:

The compass points towards the North, which makes sense otherwise it would be quite useless for navigation.
If you look at how it is constructed, it's basically a small magnet, diamond shaped (rhombic?), with a pivot point in the middle.
In order to point in a S-N direction in a static mode, the sum of resulting FORCES in the East-West direction at both ends need to be equal and in the same direction in order to provide a torque on the needle that is equal = 0!!!
These means IMHO that indeed the lines of force are radiating in a East-west direction, and most likely radially from the edges.
This proves in my view that Distinti's theory about the edge currents is most probably true. Which means that the currents at both the North- and the South-poles are in the same direction and that their fields, somewhere in the middle, add up to 0, causing the 'Blochwall'

I wanted to call you 'slickdick' but that name was already taken

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben2503]

Ernst and Ben,

There is a thread here already for free discussion of any subject of a technical nature. It was started by citfta a few years ago. You can discuss your ideas there if you want. It is called "Open discussion for projects on this forum" or something like that. It is probably a few pages back now as citfta has left this forum. It is refreshing to see there are still a few members left that can actually think for themselves.

Best regards,
Ann

Hi Ann.
I'd rather leave 'open discussions' to politicians and others that enjoy this. I am not looking for opinions but for reasons behind observed phenomena.

I cannot following some of the reasoning that lead some people to some theories. I want to understand, to the extent possible, what are the causes and effects.
UFO is doing a great job trying to do that and I have thanked him for that a couple of times.
I real envy him, because I am not in a situation that I could do practical experimenting, nor do I have the skills and / or ingenuity to do what he is doing.
The only think I CAN do is trying to keep an open mind and try to solve the puzzles. Also I try to help by looking for an answer that may explain what is and what isn't valid in a theory.

Thanks to UFO's experiments I came to the conclusion that the real lines of force must be in a West-East direction and not in a North-south direction as the classical model suggests nor circulair as Ken suggests (if I am not mistaken). But till now I didn't get any comment on that post. Which makes me wonder why.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben2503]

This whole thread is unfortunate. It is all based on pseudo-profound bull****. Bull**** in, means even more bull**** out.

Arguing over something which founded on pseudo-profound bull**** is futile and a waist of time, especially arguing with those who lack discernment of deceptive vagueness.

The result is evident, one pedantic calling the other pedantic... go figure.

Hi Dick.
Please indicate where I was pedantic, so I can rephrase those posts.
I certainly do not want to come across as pedantic, if I do or did, I apologize and like to correct my wording.
Thanks,
Ben