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

[Ufopolitics]

OK i get it you guys, are trying to prove, a vortex as a real actual object and not a concept. and your failing trying because you cant create it. HAHAHA. ok then. change the topic title then in that case, sinc eyou havent got 1 word to say to the other side. heres a Link alinhere

Below is just the beginning of that pdf you linked in your post...

The vortex.

A vortex is not an object in physical terms it is a concept. Just as a wave is a concept.
You can not have a vortex or a wave without an object or objects. In science it is best described as an object that travels
with a forward rotational motion. Because it is a concept with an actual physical object as underlying basis I would recommend to state it is a scientific concept. This segregates this concept from religious (or other concepts) of which some have zero physical backing. It is this why I fall so often over the scientific definition of concept.

THAT WHOLE ARTICLE, JUST LOOKING AT THIS PROLOGUE, IS PURE BS

A Vortex does not necessarily NEED AN OBJECT, A PHYSICAL OBJECT, to be a Vortex.

Example: A Hurricane formed in the coast of Northern Africa...that develops winds up to 200 MPH...becoming category 5 by the time it crosses the Atlantic Ocean...is a Vortex, a Spiral of different pressure gradients...basically what formed it was two different streams of wind and water in circular motion...NO SPECIFIC OBJECT THAT STARTED SPINNING AT ALL!

Same with a TORNADO.

So, we could "resume" (in the Micro World) that in this two cases of Hurricanes and Tornadoes..."Multiple Objects" guess in the water and/or wind molecules/atoms created this natural phenomena?

Absolute Nonsense, at least A FORCE or TWO MUST be present to start that Vortex.

Now, the fact that it can not be baptized, categorized as AN OBJECT, does not mean we have to "automatically" call it "A CONCEPT"

A Hurricane category FIVE(5) is coming to the coast of Florida... name it IDRANCER...Oh, let's not worry...it is "just" a Vortex...a "Concept"...so don't worry, don't take any precautions at all...A Concept can absolutely not harm Us, right?


WRONG!

Now the Religion phobia:

This segregates this concept from religious (or other concepts) of which some have zero physical backing. It is this why I fall so often over the scientific definition of concept.

So the Author (which by the way has "no name") of that article is a complete Religious PHOBIC...

And so, deriving from this stupid article...a Magnetic Field is also just a Concept right?

I really believe you are just believing whatever you read out there...without applying not even a micro piece of Common Sense!


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Flux Meaning

Hi Ufo,

From your post:
ATTRACT STAGES Photo by ufopolitics | Photobucket

[IMG][/IMG]
Please, what do the red and blue lines represent? I know from your previous post you say they are high pressure spirals. But spirals of what? Magnetic flux?

Thanks,

bi

Red and Blue lines represent the two different polarized fields...North is Blue, Red is South.

Flux Meaning (Physics):


The rate of flow of a fluid, radiant energy, or particles across a given area.
synonyms: continuous change, changeability, variability, inconstancy, fluidity, instability, unsteadiness, fluctuation, variation, shift, movement, oscillation, alternation, rise and fall, seesawing, yo-yoing
"the flux of vapor in the tube"

antonyms: stability

the amount of radiation or number of particles incident on an area in a given time.
the total electric or magnetic field passing through a surface.

a substance mixed with a solid to lower its melting point, used especially in soldering and brazing metals or to promote vitrification in glass or ceramics.

a substance added to a furnace during metal smelting or glass making that combines with impurities to form slag.

I really get goose bumps whenever any of you guys start using old terms as baptized in the Classic Physics...lol

According to above definition, the basic Flux Meaning bolts down to Flow

It could be a flow of anything, from vapor, water to "particles" of any kind...so I rather use this concept from above:

the amount of radiation or number of particles incident on an area in a given time.

What particles are we talking about?

All I can tell you according to my studies about Magnetic Particles Properties:

1-Magnetic Particles Physical : which posses absolutely zero mass, invisible to our bare eyes, as they can not be felt with our bare hands either...and reactive to some other materials and other particles as ferromagnetics, polarized light, electron beam gun or fire plasma.

2- Magnetic Particles Spinning Forces: within a Field contain a force within which follows specific and very accurate traveling paths that becomes a Cycle from Space to Counterspace and from Counterspace to Space. This generates Spirals and Vortexes that shape out spatially in a specific given Geometry.

3- Magnetic Particles Influence: as "affecting" other materials -like ferromagnetic- with their rotational spins, they DO have a very specific and high "Influence" over them all.

The fact of above properties, basically their traveling force/pressures and zero mass allows them to go through ALMOST ANY KIND OF EXISTING MASS in our Universe.

Then I will tell you that I particularly just need those three Properties cited above...to do all I have done...so, actually the "Name" they decide to "baptize" them before or after...I could really care less.

Hope this answers your question(s).




Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Not flux?

Red and Blue lines represent the two different polarized fields...North is Blue, Red is South.



I really get goose bumps whenever any of you guys start using old terms as baptized in the Classic Physics...lol

According to above definition, the basic Flux Meaning bolts down to Flow

It could be a flow of anything, from vapor, water to "particles" of any kind...so I rather use this concept from above:

the amount of radiation or number of particles incident on an area in a given time.

What particles are we talking about?

All I can tell you according to my studies about Magnetic Particles Properties:

1-Magnetic Particles Physical : which posses absolutely zero mass, invisible to our bare eyes, as they can not be felt with our bare hands either...and reactive to some other materials and other particles as ferromagnetics, polarized light, electron beam gun or fire plasma.

2- Magnetic Particles Forces: within a Field contain a force within which follows specific and very accurate traveling paths that becomes a Cycle from Space to Counterspace and from Counterspace to Space. This generates Spirals and Vortexes that shape out spatially in a specific given Geometry.

3- Magnetic Particles Influence: as "affecting" other materials -like ferromagnetic- with their rotational spins, they DO have a very specific and high "Influence" over them all.

The fact of above properties, basically their traveling force/pressures and zero mass allows them to go through ALMOST ANY KIND OF EXISTING MASS in our Universe.

Then I will tell you that I particularly just need those three Properties cited above...to do all I have done...so, actually the "Name" they decide to "baptize" them before or after...I could really care less.

Hope this answers your question(s).




Ufopolitics

Thanks for the reply Ufo. So you're saying (as I interpret your post), that the red and blue lines do not represent magnetic flux in the classical sense, say as used in Faraday's voltage equation. But the blue lines represent the paths of high and medium pressure North magnetic particles and the red lines represent high and medium pressure South magnetic particles. I got this using your diagram from yesterday. Also, from that diagram, it appears these magnetic particles come and go through those gates on the yellow cone in the magnet. Seems like a complicated model to me, but it's your theory.

BTW, the objects in the vortex of a hurricane or tornado are air molecules, water, dust, debris, etc. So in the case of the vortex in a magnet, the vortices are made up of your magnetic particles, right? And the red and blue lines are 2d representations of these 3d vortices. Have I understood that correctly?

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Reda and Blue...pills?...lol

Thanks for the reply Ufo. So you're saying (as I interpret your post), that the red and blue lines do not represent magnetic flux in the classical sense, say as used in Faraday's voltage equation. But the blue lines represent the paths of high and medium pressure North magnetic particles and the red lines represent high and medium pressure South magnetic particles. I got this using your diagram from yesterday.

Welcome,

In the Classical Sense?...I believe with Lorentz, any possibility of just a single "spin" on a magnet by itself was completely erased from Classic Magnetism History...am I right?

Now as I wrote before, red is South and North is blue...and again, this are just "color codes" for easier understanding of the theory, but in reality, and that part is at the beginning on my latest video (by the way did you watch its 15 minutes?) and the Basic structure of a Magnetic Field in A Magnet is very simple...:

Two Spirals merging from the very center of the magnetic embodiment carrier, whether magnet or electromagnet.

This Two Spatially Polarized Spirals spin in the same direction, at opposed ends of an inclined axis (axial tilt, obliquity, axial precession, etc) to balance out spinning forces.

I have plenty of 3D Animations on that video showing very clear that particular spinning geometrical structure.

So, for your easier understanding, just forget about the way that different pressure gradients return to counterspace (Centripetally)...and just concentrate in the Basic Spiral shape from both Polarized Ends, which, in the end, is the main force that propels everything from magnetic influence ...the Centrifugal Forces.

So, definitively the answer is no, the Classic "sense" does not allow any spinning nor "curls" of magnetic fields...just straight lines that come and go from inside magnet to spatially outwards in only one sense/direction.

This Theory is completely different, since it is based mainly, on a magnet's Spinning Spiral Force from center outwards...as it also manifests from both poles exchanging flow/flux in the two directions and not only "One Way".

Also, from that diagram, it appears these magnetic particles come and go through those gates on the yellow cone in the magnet. Seems like a complicated model to me, but it's your theory.

Like I wrote before...just forget about the "return back to counterspace" part...and just visualize the two spirals coming out from center of magnetic embodiment.

I admit it is not a simple model...but it "fits" in every test I have done...and it is not "my theory"...it is Ken Wheeler's...I just kept developing it further through testing and more experimenting...till I found out its beautiful applications to our real world...Oh, yes, definitively they are!...just wait and you will see them all...

BTW, the objects in the vortex of a hurricane or tornado are air molecules, water, dust, debris, etc. So in the case of the vortex in a magnet, the vortices are made up of your magnetic particles, right? And the red and blue lines are 2d representations of these 3d vortices. Have I understood that correctly?

Regards,

bi

That is correct Bistander. Red and Blue ellipses are just vortexes that actually follow a similar kind of a number eight "8" pattern like I have shown on video. In 2D they were represented like simple ellipses to make CAD much simple to understand.

[IMG][/IMG]

Image above (from video) shows the channels where particles flow...high and medium pressures, North and South, not "painted" in red or blue...





Ufopolitics

[aljhoa]

Aether Particle

any attempt to quantize the Ether into "units" is a specious premise

we can only quantize phenomena, not noumenon.


Those who (try) quantize the Ether are the same who try to reify it as a "particle"

ala the "Ether particle"

Al

[mikrovolt]

There are other forms found by different visual (qualitative) approach.
I believe this behavior does exist and that many other forms do exist.
One form that appears for example on copper plate are circular we call eddy currents.
I think some of the small near field loops of permanant magnets develop like those in the movie.
What we are able to see are the magnetic dipoles that developed as permanent and self reinforcing.
we see the convergent (straight) and divergent (curved) zones.
https://vimeo.com/1166968

[Ufopolitics]

Aether Particle

any attempt to quantize the Ether into "units" is a specious premise

we can only quantize phenomena, not noumenon.

Those who (try) quantize the Ether are the same who try to reify it as a "particle"

ala the "Ether particle"

Al

Definitively right Al, I just needed to show a flow in 3D animation based on color coded particles.

As at the same token I did not wanted to answer Bistander as it was the "Aether in Spatial Disturbance Status"...

Magnetism is a Flow of something between plasma and fluids...transparent, massless...this properties are very hard to demonstrate on 3D Animation unless I hire "Industrial Light and Magic"...from Steven Spielberg...and I don't have that budget...

Thanks


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Distorted Fields...more confusion.

There are other forms found by different visual (qualitative) approach.
I believe this behavior does exist and that many other forms do exist.
One form that appears for example on copper plate are circular we call eddy currents.
I think some of the small near field loops of permanant magnets develop like those in the movie.
What we are able to see are the magnetic dipoles that developed as permanent and self reinforcing.
we see the convergent (straight) and divergent (curved) zones.
https://vimeo.com/1166968

I still don't know why people keep using the Vimeo BS Format...it stinks and take such long time to produce a final play...while You Tube is free and it works perfect on any platform.

Anyways, those were images of DISTORTED MAGNETIC FIELDS.

Distorted by other objects and other fields around them, they shoot random and bouncing spectrum arcs all over...however, that is absolutely NOT the way it looks in reality.

Something similar to the way a Tesla Coil Corona will Arc around its environment in a random and loose sparks/arcs...can we make any specific spectrum structure out of those random/changing shapes?

Absolutely NOT!


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Have any of You ever asked before why...?

Hello to All,

You guys could help me do some common sense reasoning here...

[IMG][/IMG]

Above is the "Classic" Magnet Model we all have been observing for 200+ years, based on Iron Dust...and even iron dust do not show any directional flow...it has been stated by the Classic Physics to be like above... right?

Right.

The Flow is supposed to be a "One Way Only" flow from North to South...right?

Right.


So, then we could say that North is the "Source" of Magnetic Flow...or "Flux"

While South is only the "Suction End", the draw side, the "Drain" of this flow.

And this Model Flow works fine in "Attract Mode"...when we approach another magnet's opposite pole...I mean if we approach a Source of Flow (North) to a Suction End (South)...it works!!!, they get "attracted"!!...BUT...:

I guess someone could explain to me why then, we get the same exact repulsion force from either North to North as from South to South?

Because based on even the simplest mechanics of flows...if we have two sources facing, it is understood we do get a repulsion...eg: just like two high pressure water hoses facing each others in a straight line.

However...it should not take place a repulsion force if we face two drains, two suction or two vacuum ends, etc,etc...

According to this Classic Flaw, am sorry, meant "flow"... if we face a South with another South...we should NOT have a repulsion at all...maybe nothing should happen, not attraction but not repulsion either...

Yes, I know it may sound like a very silly question right?

Well then, ANSWER IT!...


Thanks in advance


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Magnetic repulsion

Hello to All,

You guys could help me do some common sense reasoning here...

[IMG][/IMG]

Above is the "Classic" Magnet Model we all have been observing for 200+ years, based on Iron Dust...and even iron dust do not show any directional flow...it has been stated by the Classic Physics to be like above... right?

Right.

The Flow is supposed to be a "One Way Only" flow from North to South...right?

Right.


So, then we could say that North is the "Source" of Magnetic Flow...or "Flux"

While South is only the "Suction End", the draw side, the "Drain" of this flow.

And this Model Flow works fine in "Attract Mode"...when we approach another magnet's opposite pole...I mean if we approach a Source of Flow (North) to a Suction End (South)...it works!!!, they get "attracted"!!...BUT...:

I guess someone could explain to me why then, we get the same exact repulsion force from either North to North as from South to South?

Because based on even the simplest mechanics of flows...if we have two sources facing, it is understood we do get a repulsion...eg: just like two high pressure water hoses facing each others in a straight line.

However...it should not take place a repulsion force if we face two drains, two suction or two vacuum ends, etc,etc...

According to this Classic Flaw, am sorry, meant "flow"... if we face a South with another South...we should NOT have a repulsion at all...maybe nothing should happen, not attraction but not repulsion either...

Yes, I know it may sound like a very silly question right?

Well then, ANSWER IT!...


Thanks in advance


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

I'll give it a shot. I think that the simple way of looking at it with arrows, N and S poles, and "flow" ultimately ends up causing confusion because, case in point, you try to use analogy of source and drain which is not applicable. The magnetic field exists, has a direction or maybe orientation is a better word, which is indicated by the arrows on diagram, but does not circulate particles or energies in a path or circuit represented by the lines. Notice these are called lines of force, not lines of flow. What is shown on diagrams as N and S poles are not separate entities but rather a dipole.

Now to your question as to why or how two like poles repel each other. I am sure you have experienced this using two bar magnets on a table top, one in each hand. Aside from the repulsion when you attempt to push like pole ends together, you must have noticed the tendency for one magnet to rotate and align itself so its opposite pole would point towards the other magnet and attract. In fact, when you lose grip on one magnet, this is exactly what happens. It spins quickly and slams into the other magnet with opposite poles together.

So this is the crust of it. It is not so much the repulsion force, but the attraction force of the opposite end of the dipole. Unless constrained (like by your hand), this will cause a torque or moment on the dipole and then the attraction will occur with movement to maximize the field.

Well, there you have it: In my own words. I can dig up some references, but you can google as well as I.

I will post this link. The first two animations show the fields in question here very well (without arrows). Magnets in Motion

Hope that helps,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

I'll give it a shot.

Great!

I think that the simple way of looking at it with arrows, N and S poles, and "flow" ultimately ends up causing confusion because, case in point, you try to use analogy of source and drain which is not applicable. The magnetic field exists, has a direction or maybe orientation is a better word, which is indicated by the arrows on diagram, but does not circulate particles or energies in a path or circuit represented by the lines. Notice these are called lines of force, not lines of flow. What is shown on diagrams as N and S poles are not separate entities but rather a dipole.

I must remind you that before we discuss "flux"...and the basic main description of Flux is "Flow".

The magnetic field exists, has a direction or maybe orientation is a better word, which is indicated by the arrows on diagram,

Orientation, Direction?...So it means North "only" orients/directs by South, following one way arrows?...but not South from North, since arrows "leave" instead of coming in?

Direction is a meaning of "traffic"...and traffic indicates Flow...we are back to the starting point...again.

And I am sorry, but "orientation" is a property that should be evenly disbursed intrinsically to both poles...where each one looks for the other (Orient) in a perfectly Symmetrical way.

Therefore, Orientation should be represented by arrows flowing from either North to South as from South to North.

Now to your question as to why or how two like poles repel each other. I am sure you have experienced this using two bar magnets on a table top, one in each hand. Aside from the repulsion when you attempt to push like pole ends together, you must have noticed the tendency for one magnet to rotate and align itself so its opposite pole would point towards the other magnet and attract. In fact, when you lose grip on one magnet, this is exactly what happens. It spins quickly and slams into the other magnet with opposite poles together.

Bistander, I am pretty sure you miss-understood me completely based on your above explanation(s), I know exactly how to "feel" repulsion in magnets.

My previous question was very simple:

Why does South to South Repulsion contains an identical Force as when we use North to North using two identical magnets

But your post here was excellent...?

And here you could use your "more suitable word" Orientation or Flux/Flow to tell me why these two forces are identical when they should not be identical based on this Model.

So this is the crust of it. It is not so much the repulsion force, but the attraction force of the opposite end of the dipole. Unless constrained (like by your hand), this will cause a torque or moment on the dipole and then the attraction will occur with movement to maximize the field.

So, by your own words above (basically the ones bold and underlined by me) you are considering repulsion as not a primary force, maybe even disregarding it, and attraction being the one that rules the whole magnetism behavior?

It was the typical answer I was expecting by someone who stands for this old theory...

Well, there you have it: In my own words. I can dig up some references, but you can google as well as I.

I will post this link. The first two animations show the fields in question here very well (without arrows). Magnets in Motion

Hope that helps,

bi

Yes we both can Google the same BS...I know, I am tired of searching without finding the real convincing explanation...but that was expected as well.

The only difference between you and me is that You believe it entirely while I don't.

That was the original main reason why I decided to build it up myself with the help from Wheeler's Theory...

Remember this post Bistander...since I will be bringing it up, word by word again...someday soon.


Cheers


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

An interesting exchange from You Tube...

Ufopolitics @Prospekt313 In a permanent magnet there is only one force...not two.
Both "poles" spin exactly following same direction, Same thing as when you have a motor which take off power shaft spins CW...then the rear part of shaft if connected turns CCW.
The difference is that in a magnet, both vortex spin with a tilted, precessed axis and spinning forces come exactly from center of magnetic embodiment.
The Classic explanation of magnetism have many holes, flaws...for example, if the flow would be only from North to South...then when two South face each others they should not repel like they do in reality, since the source which is North...South would then be the "suction end", the gate in , so S-S should do absolutely no reaction, no attraction, no repulsion...just like two pieces of iron shows nothing...right?
Repulsion has been considered as a "No Field" interaction, since there are no "lines of force"...right?...ok, what if I show you a generator which works ONLY based on repulsion fields from either South or North repulsion's?

Prospekt313 / 10 hours ago
The north to north repulsion seems pretty straight forward by current understanding, but, as I think you're saying, the south to south repulsion appears enigmatic, and that they should suck together. However, one has to remember the outer lines of force coming down from the norths of each magnet. This creates the repulsion and there's no way to effectively get inside it.

Even though they say YouTube is not such a Scientific exchange site...sometimes I see more common sense and open minds rendering real and very interesting opinions than in this Forum.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Magnetic force

Great!



I must remind you that before we discuss "flux"...and the basic main description of Flux is "Flow".



Orientation, Direction?...So it means North "only" orients/directs by South, following one way arrows?...but not South from North, since arrows "leave" instead of coming in?

Direction is a meaning of "traffic"...and traffic indicates Flow...we are back to the starting point...again.

And I am sorry, but "orientation" is a property that should be evenly disbursed intrinsically to both poles...where each one looks for the other (Orient) in a perfectly Symmetrical way.

Therefore, Orientation should be represented by arrows flowing from either North to South as from South to North.



Bistander, I am pretty sure you miss-understood me completely based on your above explanation(s), I know exactly how to "feel" repulsion in magnets.

My previous question was very simple:

Why does South to South Repulsion contains an identical Force as when we use North to North using two identical magnets

But your post here was excellent...?

And here you could use your "more suitable word" Orientation or Flux/Flow to tell me why these two forces are identical when they should not be identical based on this Model.



So, by your own words above (basically the ones bold and underlined by me) you are considering repulsion as not a primary force, maybe even disregarding it, and attraction being the one that rules the whole magnetism behavior?

It was the typical answer I was expecting by someone who stands for this old theory...



Yes we both can Google the same BS...I know, I am tired of searching without finding the real convincing explanation...but that was expected as well.

The only difference between you and me is that You believe it entirely while I don't.

That was the original main reason why I decided to build it up myself with the help from Wheeler's Theory...

Remember this post Bistander...since I will be bringing it up, word by word again...someday soon.


Cheers


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

Yeah, I figured you wouldn't buy it. I admit it wasn't the best lesson. It is difficult to explain. Basically the magnetic force is in the direction which, if movement resulted from that force, the magnetic field would increase. Moving like poles together, whether N-N or S-S, tends to decrease the magnetic field, therefore the force opposes the closing movement.

As far as flux, flow, direction, orientation and all that, it is a play on words and I'm sure I didn't do the best with them. Tough to accurately describe invisible force fields like magnetism or gravity or electric.

Maybe someone else will chime in with a reply for you.

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

Yeah, I figured you wouldn't buy it. I admit it wasn't the best lesson. It is difficult to explain. Basically the magnetic force is in the direction which, if movement resulted from that force, the magnetic field would increase. Moving like poles together, whether N-N or S-S, tends to decrease the magnetic field, therefore the force opposes the closing movement.

It was not your fault at all because of bad examples or wordings...It's me...it will not happen no matter if you use the best of the best of explanations...The thing is...I have the proof in my hands that all this old model is plain BS...very well dressed up for the amount of people defending it for 200 years...but nothing is stronger than real scientific proof.

As far as flux, flow, direction, orientation and all that, it is a play on words and I'm sure I didn't do the best with them. Tough to accurately describe invisible force fields like magnetism or gravity or electric.

Maybe someone else will chime in with a reply for you.

bi

Absolutely it is tough to work with the invisible...only testing and more testing could render the right answers...then putting together "something" that works based on previously positive tested principles...well, that sets the "End" to the search...but never the development...which must keep going on and on to make better prototypes reaching max performances and output.

One of the more convincing visual testings so far is about the coming video with a small and cheap B&W CRT...to prove the spinning polarization of a Magnetic Field.

The research work is done, there is a lot to do ahead though. And I only hope I can count on you.


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Flux not flow

I must remind you that before we discuss "flux"...and the basic main description of Flux is "Flow".

Hi Ufo,

I didn't think that was the case. So I did some looking around and found someone who agrees with me at physics.stackexchange.com.

The word "flux" is something of an accident of history. See for example it's use in Gauss' law or as a magnetic flux. Nothing is actually flowing e.g. for a static charge we would still refer to the flux through a surface surrounding the charge even though the system is time independant.

bi