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

[bistander]

Bloch

...

If I understand you propose that the conical shape has no twist.
https://youtu.be/rjnALkkUlNY
...

Nothing of the kind. I'm not going into quantum mechanics where you find Bloch points. Just trying to make the point that the term "Bloch wall" was already taken, meaning a particular structure that exists between magnetic domains on the microscopic scale, so never should have been used to name the imaginary region in the middle of a bar magnet by Rawls & Davis. That simple.

Regards,

bi

[Markoul]

bistander,

What is your opinion about ISRAEL?...

[admin]

keep on topics

Hi everyone,


Let's please keep this thread ON TOPIC.

------------------------------------------------


User Conduct and Obligations:
You agree to follow all applicable laws and regulations when using this website. Furthermore, you agree that you shall not:


a. upload, post or otherwise transmit through or to this website any content that:


1. is unlawful, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, lewd, offensive, defamatory or otherwise objectionable;

[Markoul]

keep on topics
Hi everyone,


Let's please keep this thread ON TOPIC.

------------------------------------------------

Right... and I came here to this thread interested of new info and empirical data by the thread creator Ufopolitcs confirming Ken Weeler's theory of magnetism and to exchange some information and empirical data with Ufopolitcs and others that essentially agree and further support and improve ken's Theory

AND NOT TO WASTE MY TIME IN AN POINTLESS DEBATE SPIRAL WITH KEN WHEELER'S DENIERS!

THESE PEOPLE POSTS HAVE THE SAME RELEVANCE WITH THIS THREAD AS MY QUESTION ABOVE ABOUT ISRAEL...

Why you don't just leave this THREAD HERE and start your own thread something like "DISPROVING KEN WHEELER'S THEORY OF MAGNETISM"

Frankly your attitude does not comply with your cold member status here in this forum.

In science if you disagree with someone you make your points clear in 2 or 3 replies then you agree that you disagree and that's all really.

There are more than 50 replies here from the same persons coming back and back and back with the same BS every time. Ufopolitics since he is a real gentelman replies always with extraordinary patience and real empirical prove in the most expert way. However, this is very time consuming for him I believe, and pointless since I start to believe that these people have A CONFLICT OF INTEREST with Ufopolitcs and Ken's theory and therefore keep trolling at best.

my 2cents

EM

[ricards]

Right... and I came here to this thread interested of new info and empirical data by the thread creator Ufopolitcs confirming Ken Weeler's theory of magnetism and to exchange some information and empirical data with Ufopolitcs and others that essentially agree and further support and improve ken's Theory

AND NOT TO WASTE MY TIME IN AN POINTLESS DEBATE SPIRAL WITH KEN WHEELER'S DENIERS!

THESE PEOPLE POSTS HAVE THE SAME RELEVANCE WITH THIS THREAD AS MY QUESTION ABOVE ABOUT ISRAEL...

Why you don't just leave this THREAD HERE and start your own thread something like "DISPROVING KEN WHEELER'S THEORY OF MAGNETISM"

Frankly your attitude does not comply with your cold member status here in this forum.

In science if you disagree with someone you make your points clear in 2 or 3 replies then you agree that you disagree and that's all really.

There are more than 50 replies here from the same persons coming back and back and back with the same BS every time. Ufopolitics since he is a real gentelman replies always with extraordinary patience and real empirical prove in the most expert way. However, this is very time consuming for him I believe, and pointless since I start to believe that these people have A CONFLICT OF INTEREST with Ufopolitcs and Ken's theory and therefore keep trolling at best.

my 2cents

EM

I don't believe discussion has to always be in agreement.
an arguments is also considered a discussion.
we appreciate UFO being active and make sound arguments to defend what he believe, what he sees in his experiments and how he perceive things.
and so do we.
there is no rule that states that you shouldn't post if you disagree.

yes you are right, we can always agree to disagree.
but what is the purpose of a "Forum" if not for "discussion"?
is this some sort of online diary?.. create an "Anti Ken Wheeler Theory??"..

If someone tells you "YOUR WRONG" and you got angry.. you have an EGO PROBLEM..

It is really upto the individual how he will take everything that has been discussed so far.
to me, ken & UFO might have been depicting the real thing.. (excluding you since you only believe in the double hemisphere and not the outside furthest flux).. but the failure to explain how the Iron filings show what it shows and to completely abolish the experiment making it sound like The Iron filings is lying on the depicted magnetic field is the flaw and the "thing" that make the whole theory sound like a fantasy..

we (the people) should be the only one arguing and not the experiments themselves.. since they don't make the theories and are non-living things.. they just show what is real... it shouldn't be like experiment 1 vs experiment 2..

out of all the "Aether" Theories out there why do you think the current "Science" hasn't been replaced yet? even though its easier to understand even without mathematical proof...
simple!. because of the kind of attitude people who promote the "new Magnetism" are showing..
they RIDICULE someone else's experiments and studies..

If this thread really is the "Enlightened Magnetism" it should be able to explain ALL the experiments related to "Magnetism", and not just pick one that is convenient.

[Markoul]

out of all the "Aether" Theories out there why do you think the current "Science" hasn't been replaced yet? even though its easier to understand even without mathematical proof...

...this is a big topic and not suitable for this thread here... the reasons are totally different from the ones you may think, and have nothing to do with the theories itself

[Ufopolitics]

Some true facts first...

Hello to all,

@Ricards: I have written here many times about what Iron Filings do, and it is very simple to understand it (if you really want to)...It is all very simple COMMON SENSE...but I will repeat it again...and AGAIN...till I turn PURPLE...

Iron Filings shape up exactly as all the iron molecules (ferromagnetics in general) aligned inside the core when a Magnetic Field is present. But they do not -necessarily- represent the TRUE FULL SHAPE of what A COMPLETE Magnetic Field looks like.

Ken Wheeler refers to iron particles shape as the alignment to the higher pressure layers of the field. He further writes that ferrocell, nor view film will NOT capture them as they are higher speed and pressures than Mid Pressure Layers. And I have to admit that this statement is not strong enough, as we will need other means to visualize external HP Layers...so far we don't.

****************************

@Bistander: A very simple question: Do you agree that the STRONGEST Magnetic Forces are exactly located at each of the two poles of a magnet...while the EXACT center of a Magnet is where the WEAKEST Magnetic Forces are located?

Is there a difference between magnetic strength of North and South?...or are both EQUALLY STRONG?

Remember on the Solenoid (plunger) we could swap voltage terminals...and it will still functions same way...so guess that answer above question...yes?

So...if "Flux" travels in just one direction...as B Field guide points to North Pole orientation...as magnetic particles are all aligned following one single direction...as iron filings...then why this "weakness" right at the center of magnet, compared to pole strength?

All the above facts could be very easily demonstrated with very simple experimenting.

****************************

Now...About "our existing Science Development" related to magnetism...

We have had for over two hundred years the same method to view magnetic field based on iron filings...nothing has changed as further viewing methods which incorporate new technologies, state of the art imaging where "our existing science" have "officially" recognized absolutely NONE...now, based on those facts...couldn't we agree/conclude that we have a Dogmatic Science?...A Science that very "conveniently" have adopted just one single model, one single method...and leave it "as is" for two centuries, untouched?

It is a fact that iron filings get fully magnetized (better said: POLARIZED) under a magnetic field presence, this leads to generation of very strong links which are solely following a spatial attraction chain around the core. Following the same, exact alignment as all the inner molecules are oriented within ferromagnetic core. They just "make a U turn" at both field poles ends to go in center of ferromagnetic core.

Iron Filings just shape up fabricating a spatial structure about what an EXTERNAL IRON CORE would look like if it could be "spatially self molded" around the core portraying the magnetic field, but not the real magnetic field shape.

We need materials and technologies that could be able to reveal the FULL FIELD IMAGING WITHOUT BECOMING PART OF THE IRON CORE which carries the magnetic field...ONLY then We all will have the true shape of the magnetic field.

But so far we have a few technologies where all image the same exact Field Shape.

Ferrocell as View Film allows light to pass through their translucent materials, light then forms a spectrum related to the way light is being dispersed by the effects of the magnetic field. This is simple to understand if we know about an optical prism, which decomposes light into their main spectral colors.

A CRT Electron Beam deflects under the field influence without suffering absolutely any kind of attraction, nor becoming part of the core.

Same way as an MRI works based on Magnetic Resonance...and can image our body interior, as bones and mass tissue.

A CRT Rastered Beam into 3D Planes can also IMAGE A PROFILE of the Magnetic Field with absolutely ZERO INTERFERENCE with the Field nor with the ferromagnetic core.

And so a Three E-Beam Color CRT Full Screen will also decompose all those rays deflected by Field Influence, without just one single particle becoming fully magnetized.

All of the above are things to deeply think about Guys...not to argue if or if not...that is a waste of everyone's time here.

Another example: We can not see a normally weak LASER BEAM with our eyes traveling through space...unless we shut some smoke around the beam...then we "see it" passing through the smoke particles, particles get illuminated by Laser Beam light, just like Fluorescent-Phosphoric Screen in a CRT reveals clearly the Electron Beam...HOWEVER, these smoke particles do NOT INTERFERE NOR DEFLECT LASER BEAM...we could see it as it GOING PERFECTLY STRAIGHT traveling through space.

I only wish we could shut some smoke on a Magnetic Field...then see it clearly with plain light...Our life would have been VERY different than what we all have so far by now...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Magnetic forces

...

@Bistander: A very simple question: Do you agree that the STRONGEST Magnetic Forces are exactly located at each of the two poles of a magnet...while the EXACT center of a Magnet is where the WEAKEST Magnetic Forces are located?
...

I don't think so. It depends on what the magnetic forces are acting on. Take a steel bar and place it on the side of a bar magnet, pole to pole, and I'd say the strongest magnetic force is at the center. Take a steel bebe and it will be most strongly attracted to the outside edges of the pole face, either one. Actually go inside the magnet and the strongest field, therefore strongest force is midway between the poles.



I posted this femm a while back. I believe it depicts the field of a bar magnet very well. The magnetic force will depend on the object and position in that field.

Obviously, the weakest magnetic force is like a million miles away.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

I don't think so. It depends on what the magnetic forces are acting on. Take a steel bar and place it on the side of a bar magnet, pole to pole, and I'd say the strongest magnetic force is at the center. Take a steel bebe and it will be most strongly attracted to the outside edges of the pole face, either one. Actually go inside the magnet and the strongest field, therefore strongest force is midway between the poles.



I posted this femm a while back. I believe it depicts the field of a bar magnet very well. The magnetic force will depend on the object and position in that field.

Obviously, the weakest magnetic force is like a million miles away.

bi

Then let's just analyze with a bar magnet...and you approach another bar magnet of same size...just around its field spatial area...then let the approaching bar "decide" where to go...

1- Will -supposedly as you wrote above- approaching bar magnet would go right to the center of magnet?

2- will it go "randomly" to any one of other bar magnet ends?

3- Or it will actually "search" for its nearest opposite pole...then line up and attach following its geometric axis?

You know exactly which one is the right answer...except that answer does not satisfies your response above.


Ufopolitics

[Iamnuts]

https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn....asuringthe.jpg
Interaction between single electrons from Weizmann group.

[bistander]

N vs S

Then let's just analyze with a bar magnet...and you approach another bar magnet of same size...just around its field spatial area...then let the approaching bar "decide" where to go...

1- Will -supposedly as you wrote above- approaching bar magnet would go right to the center of magnet?

2- will it go "randomly" to any one of other bar magnet ends?

3- Or it will actually "search" for its nearest opposite pole...then line up and attach following its geometric axis?

You know exactly which one is the right answer...except that answer does not satisfies your response above.


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

Why do I always get the feeling these are trick questions coming from you?

The answer depends on the magnets and conditions. Opposite poles attract. So either like this.



Or like this.



And I actually ran the experiment. I believe this results in the stronger holding force, using the same two magnets in both configurations.



Although when nudged towards each other on the tabletop, they would stick N to S like the first diagram. Wider shorter magnets seem to go to the other way when N is down on the table on one and S on down on the table on the other.

So you going to tell me your point?

Here's a couple of references because I know how much you appreciate them (really for other readers who might be interested).

https://www.kjmagnetics.com/magneticfield.asp

Magnets in Motion

K&J sent me an interesting article on Halbach arrays. https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=halbach-arrays-2

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

Why do I always get the feeling these are trick questions coming from you?

no trick questions...why should have I acquired such bad reputation?

I just thought that your answer would be based on your previous diagram (shown again, below), which clearly shows the magnetic flux "one way circulation":



So, according to the direction shown by the arrows...a North (top) can only "connect" to a South...at the bottom...correct?

But never to center, that is a "side flow"...no in or out "arrows".

But anyways...you've disappointed me again...

So you going to tell me your point?

I already did above...but basically it is all about the center (and you also did it with image above)...weaker force of either Attraction or Repulsion...

Goodbye


Ufopolitics

[Iamnuts]

I Vast Magnetic Field Linking the Milky Way to Its Satellite Galaxies --"Observed for 1st Time" - The Daily Galaxy --Great Discoveries Channel
You lot will fart about for the rest of your days looking at bar magnets
and ferrocells and all that crap.
Why not catch up with the latest developments in the very small and the
very large and let nature show you what it does.

[bistander]

The point

no trick questions...why should have I acquired such bad reputation?

I just thought that your answer would be based on your previous diagram (shown again, below), which clearly shows the magnetic flux "one way circulation":



So, according to the direction shown by the arrows...a North (top) can only "connect" to a South...at the bottom...correct?

But never to center, that is a "side flow"...no in or out "arrows".

But anyways...you've disappointed me again...




I already did above...but basically it is all about the center (and you also did it with image above)...weaker force of either Attraction or Repulsion...

Remember this image I posted earlier in this thread? The magnet's N pole is up and its S pole is down against the steel plate. See, there is a flux line exiting the dimensional mid point between the pole face ends. So what? I don't get your point.

I just thought that your answer would be based on your previous diagram (shown again, below), which clearly shows the magnetic flux "one way circulation":

Also, there is no circulation as in flow. It is a static field, where arrows indicate the B vector direction.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

Meanwhile back on Earth

I Vast Magnetic Field Linking the Milky Way to Its Satellite Galaxies --"Observed for 1st Time" - The Daily Galaxy --Great Discoveries Channel
You lot will fart about for the rest of your days looking at bar magnets
and ferrocells and all that crap.
Why not catch up with the latest developments in the very small and the
very large and let nature show you what it does.

Thanks nuts,

You know, I never needed astrophysics or quantum mechanics to get electric motors and generators to work. I do find those fields interesting and maybe one day someone will discover how to apply that science and make it a better world here on Earth.

Thanks,

bi