An Inquiry in to the Alien Reproduction Vehicle

[bistander]

Fantasy magnetism

...

Now what's this all about?

You and Ken continue to promote fantasy magnetism. Show us something useful you can do with it.

I don't know why this is an issue for you bistander. I, being a newbee here, do not understand the venom. I've looked at Ken Wheelers book, and I know others I communicate with have as well. The visual evidence alone shows the magnetic field is orbital in shape. All visual cues strongly suggest an orbital pattern. All other understanding logically supports the idea in my opinion.
...

Hi Gambeir,

Visual "evidence", as you call it can be deceiving. I have been around and around with Ufo concerning this topic. And like you, a newbee as you say, folks read Ken's book and are impressed with Ufo's graphics may actually believe the stuff unless they study the true science and physics of magnetism. Hence I attempt to bring some reality into it. I do not want to derail this thread, so if it is of interest to you, here are a couple posts which can lead you to a thread where the topic is discussed at length.
http://www.energeticforum.com/283384-post223.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/282119-post67.html

Regards,

bi

[Gambeir]

Hi Gambeir,

Visual "evidence", as you call it can be deceiving. I have been around and around with Ufo concerning this topic. And like you, a newbee as you say, folks read Ken's book and are impressed with Ufo's graphics may actually believe the stuff unless they study the true science and physics of magnetism. Hence I attempt to bring some reality into it. I do not want to derail this thread, so if it is of interest to you, here are a couple posts which can lead you to a thread where the topic is discussed at length.
http://www.energeticforum.com/283384-post223.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/282119-post67.html

Regards,

bi

Thank you bistander,

Please understand that it is not my desire to be bombastic and combative. I am appreciative that you took the time to respond with useful links. I am as flawed as anyone else and what I think is logical has often proven somewhat flawed thinking. I try to keep my preaching down to a dim humm but I have a big mouth and little control over what it says. All too often I am compelled to make amends for it's crimes.

I sincerely do want others contributing here, but I want them doing so in thoughtful and considerate ways, and because the object here is that this thread serves as a reference library for myself, first, and for others whom are interested in this topic it may also or does serve as reference library to links and information. I do not want it filled with bickering or complete imbecility. I already have that area covered quite well without any assistance from others.

As our societies and lives become ever more interconnected, websites and specific threads within them are taking on roles not previously imagined, wherein they are now assuming points of reference for globally connected groups within specialized areas of interest. We need to all be aware of this fact.

Thank's again and, yes, I am looking at it.

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Gambeir,

Visual "evidence", as you call it can be deceiving. I have been around and around with Ufo concerning this topic. And like you, a newbee as you say, folks read Ken's book and are impressed with Ufo's graphics may actually believe the stuff unless they study the true science and physics of magnetism. Hence I attempt to bring some reality into it. I do not want to derail this thread, so if it is of interest to you, here are a couple posts which can lead you to a thread where the topic is discussed at length.
http://www.energeticforum.com/283384-post223.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/282119-post67.html

Regards,

bi

Hi Bistander,

Problem being that my way to show ALL this New "Evidence"...is NOT ONLY based on nice, colorful painted CAD's and Animated Graphics, but BACKED UP by real LAB testing "evidence" as well...which you lacked to "prove me wrong" with your "suggested" "Orthogonal" Lorentz Force Equation:

I do not see spin on the CRT. Just the results of what can be fully explained by Lorentz Force Equation. That is the orthogonal relationship between the vectors of velocity (of the charge), magnetic field and force (on that charge).

Respectfully and regards,

bi

And so, the fact that you "don't see" things (DENIAL)...don't make you RIGHT in your "defense" about "your views".

But please, have in mind that...like in Law application and enforcement, the fact of IGNORANCE about certain laws, DON'T makes you EXEMPT (JUSTIFIABLE) in the event you break any of those laws you did not know about...

I showed to you THERE ARE SPINS AS DISPLACEMENTS of the FIELD by application of simple Elementary School Geometry...

But now you are playing "the blind"...

And playing blindness, won't help you at all...when time comes to see the TRUTH.

@Gambeir, please excuse this sudden interruption by Bistander on your Thread...but please understand the fact that Bistander can't resist Not to Follow me wherever I go...

As you could see, We are very "close-minded" with same views ...

The fact, the bottom line here being...that if we do not FULLY understand Magnetism...we will never have Flying Saucers by Antigravity...NOR Free Energy.

It is very obvious we DON'T...otherwise we will have ALL THAT...and then some...HERE and NOW!


INSTEAD, we are ALL "flying", "sailing", "running" and being energized Thanks to the Farting Machines Legacy...


Regards to all


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Deflection vs spin

Hi Bistander,

Problem being that my way to show ALL this New "Evidence"...is NOT ONLY based on nice, colorful painted CAD's and Animated Graphics, but BACKED UP by real LAB testing "evidence" as well...which you lacked to "prove me wrong" with your "suggested" "Orthogonal" Lorentz Force Equation:



And so, the fact that you "don't see" things (DENIAL)...don't make you RIGHT in your "defense" about "your views".

But please, have in mind that...like in Law application and enforcement, the fact of IGNORANCE about certain laws, DON'T makes you EXEMPT (JUSTIFIABLE) in the event you break any of those laws you did not know about...

I showed to you THERE ARE SPINS AS DISPLACEMENTS of the FIELD by application of simple Elementary School Geometry...

But now you are playing "the blind"...

And playing blindness, won't help you at all...when time comes to see the TRUTH.

@Gambeir, please excuse this sudden interruption by Bistander on your Thread...but please understand the fact that Bistander can't resist Not to Follow me wherever I go...

As you could see, We are very "close-minded" with same views ...

The fact, the bottom line here being...that if we do not FULLY understand Magnetism...we will never have Flying Saucers by Antigravity...NOR Free Energy.

It is very obvious we DON'T...otherwise we will have ALL THAT...and then some...HERE and NOW!


INSTEAD, we are ALL "flying", "sailing", "running" and being energized Thanks to the Farting Machines Legacy...


Regards to all


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

I can't do the excellent job that this educator does. So please watch this short lesson. Note spin is absent.

[VIDEO]v=RqSode4HZrE[/VIDEO]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RqSode4HZrE

Just as I said here.

I do not see spin on the CRT. Just the results of what can be fully explained by Lorentz Force Equation. That is the orthogonal relationship between the vectors of velocity (of the charge), magnetic field and force (on that charge).

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

But of course, Sir.

Hi Ufo,

I can't do the excellent job that this educator does. So please watch this short lesson. Note spin is absent.

[VIDEO]v=RqSode4HZrE[/VIDEO]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RqSode4HZrE

Just as I said here.

I do not see spin on the CRT. Just the results of what can be fully explained by Lorentz Force Equation. That is the orthogonal relationship between the vectors of velocity (of the charge), magnetic field and force (on that charge).

Regards,

bi

Hi Bistander,

Well, if you have shown this video to ME, as a "proof" of Lorentz...it simply means you have NOT FULLY WATCHED my whole video below:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7OzMURRU_k&t=1338s[/VIDEO]

Which was uploaded last year (2017) April 9th...

On FIRST PART of that video, I go over EXACTLY, about the WHOLE content of what is shown on your "proof"...but, like I wrote before...that was just an INTRO...to the whole 27:10 Minute Video I uploaded.

And yes, I ALSO DO NOT SEE A SPIN on your video, nor on my Intro...

BUT...and HOWEVER...

Like the Teacher shows on your example video, whenever he approaches magnet (no matter which polarization) FACING E-BEAM, there is NO DEFLECTION AT ALL.

Now, the explanation he gives, is that Forces CANCEL OUT, because of being of opposed Vectors, and up to a point, I also could agree with that explanation...

BUT NOW, PLEASE, SHARPEN YOUR UNDERSTANDING, 'cause you WILL DO need it working 100%.

When we have a RASTERED, HORIZONTAL SCANLINE (or it could be Vertical as well, just as reference for all, I used Horizontal Planes.) We then show a CLEAR SPIN.

Let's suppose that face to face, perfectly aligned opposed vectors Cancel Out...

But then, what about NOT AT EXTREMES ENDS OF SCANLINE, but at certain and EQUAL DISTANCES, (and here this distance varies EXACTLY AND ACCORDING TO MAGNET STRENGTH, fact I also show on that same video) we can clearly notice TWO OPPOSED AND EQUIDISTANT FORCES FROM THAT CENTER.

NORTH SPIN SEEN ON CRT SCOPE


SOUTH SPIN SEEN ON THE SAME CRT SCOPE SCREEN

Why, when we approach a NORTH POLE...we have a DIFFERENT SPIN (OPPOSITE) as when we approach a SOUTH POLE??!!

I noticed, your teacher, does not specify polarization type, (He just refer to as "other side of magnet"...and to me, even though each pole is defined by N-S letters, that's not enough and deep explanation) whenever we see different and opposite deflections of just the beam...maybe he would not be able to explain POLE DIFFERENT DEFLECTIONS (OPPOSITE) between N-S without the SPIN THEORY?

So...Could You EXPLAIN IT, without a Spin, please?

Below I have shown a SPIN, a Rotation using Elementary (2D) Geometrical Explanations...

And so, like I have shown further on my CRT Thread...if we grab BOTH RESULTS ABOVE, then set them in 3D Geometry...what do we have?

Even though, I have shown on my above quoted post, that a NORTH SPIN is COMPLETELY OF OPPOSITE NATURE to a SOUTH SPIN ...

When we get TWO of this CRT SCOPES, and set them according to below CAD DIAGRAM, meaning FACE TO FACE with the FIELD IN CENTER:



It is ONLY then, when we realize that BOTH SPINS AGREE ON SAME ROTATIONAL DIRECTION, from BOTH POLARIZATIONS...NORTH AND SOUTH.

Further on...I show, NOT my "Beautiful Paintings"...BUT the "Real Mc Coy":

And NOW, ...IN AN ACTUAL TEST, with Two CRT's showing exactly SAME DIRECTIONAL SPIN as seen on previous CAD Diagram...:



Therefore, this is NOT, just about Diagrams and CAD Images...BUT THE REAL DEAL.

Finally, If you would like, and because of the respect to this thread and his owner, we could move all this debate to my CRT Thread...

And honestly, Bistander, I wish you could provide enough and real full proof evidence which proves I am DEAD wrong...but, sorry to tell you that ALL your attempts-so far- have not worked out.

Regards

And Gambeir, I owe you an apology here, and I would move (delete) posts out of here if you wish, as I know Bistander will do as well.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Gambeir]

There's no need to delete anything. Indeed perhaps you both need a ruthless judge. Considering my Germanic nature one would be hard pressed to find a more critical and harsher judge to ply your cases before, but be forewarned, the punishments can be severe. It is the Germanic way after all.



The problem for me is that I can imagine many things, and since I can imagine many things, I can also imagine many outcomes and alternatives to almost any proposed explanation.

"The problem with a really excellent liar is that you have to just assume they’re always lying.”
Holly Black, Black Heart

Once I find a liar, whose motivations are intentionally designed to obfuscate, hide, or deceive, then I will have no more of their lies and will consign all of them in total to the waste bin, unworthy of any consideration whatsoever. (*See the attached photo) It is the Germanic way and can never be changed: Honor demands it be this way.

"Do not accept an evil; you can change."
E. Lockhart, We Were Liars

For me the issue is not so much what the magnetic fields behavior is, rather the issue before us really is a question; what is it composed of? Once the fingerprints are matched to a photograph the creatures true self will be exposed.

“Hypocrites get offended by the truth.”
― Jess C. Scott, Bad Romance: Seven Deadly Sins Anthology

It's always easier to escape consequences for grievous mistakes by playing the fool. I personally have found this a clever ruse to bamboozle my accusers, or at least I tell myself it's a ruse.

“Of all the liars in the world, sometimes the worst are our own fears.”
― Rudyard Kipling, The Collected Works

[spacecase0]

I have been planning out the math from the tests that smith did,
what do I need to build in order to test this idea ?
what gets me is the idea that this thing needs started.
or at least that is what the math is showing
this thing device needs quite a bit of energy to run while doing nothing
so the idea of idling is likely an issue,
the original information says that there are counter rotating fields
so, the test shows that rotation sets the direction of gravity.
now this thing is not zipping off at light speed all the time.
it needs an idle mode
this is why it needs counter rotating fields
if you want this thing to actually move, you have to have one direction of spin more intense than the other

[bistander]

deflection

Like the Teacher shows on your example video, whenever he approaches magnet (no matter which polarization) FACING E-BEAM, there is NO DEFLECTION AT ALL.

Now, the explanation he gives, is that Forces CANCEL OUT, because of being of opposed Vectors, and up to a point, I also could agree with that explanation...

...

When we have a RASTERED, HORIZONTAL SCANLINE (or it could be Vertical as well, just as reference for all, I used Horizontal Planes.) We then show a CLEAR SPIN.

Let's suppose that face to face, perfectly aligned opposed vectors Cancel Out...

But then, what about NOT AT EXTREMES ENDS OF SCANLINE, but at certain and EQUAL DISTANCES, (and here this distance varies EXACTLY AND ACCORDING TO MAGNET STRENGTH, fact I also show on that same video) we can clearly notice TWO OPPOSED AND EQUIDISTANT FORCES FROM THAT CENTER.



Why, when we approach a NORTH POLE...we have a DIFFERENT SPIN (OPPOSITE) as when we approach a SOUTH POLE??!!
...

Hi Ufo,

Here is a graphic attempt from me:



So this is a view from above with the CRT on the left and a bar magnet approaching it from the right. The magnetic field is represented by the field lines (lines of force or lines of flux) going through the magnet and then spreading and looping around in space outside of the magnet entering the magnet through the end opposite where they exited converging where they originated. The electron beam is represented by the curved line inside the CRT above the centerline in the image which would be to the right hand side if we viewed the screen of the CRT. The beam would be sweeping left to right to produce the horizontal scan line on the screen.

As the magnet is moved closer to the screen, the field lines will intersect with the beam. This will occur at all positions as the beam sweeps left to right or right to left. At each intersection of a force line and the beam will be an interaction between the magnetic field (B) vector and the moving charge in the beam (eV), velocity vector. The B vector direction will be tangent to the flux line at the intersection point. The interaction will be a Lorentz force equal to the vector cross product of B and eV. The direction of this force vector will displace the beam (as viewed looking at the screen) up on one side of the center point and down on the other side of the center. The horizontal scan line will appear to rise on one side and lower on the other. It will cross the center point because there is no intersection of a flux line with the beam. They are parallel as Dr. Denardo says. So the angle between B and V is zero, therefore the sin Θ = 0 and F = 0, no deflection of the centered beam, as his experiment (demonstration) shows.

If you were to flip the magnet 180º, then the B vector would be in the opposite direction and the deflection of the beam would be opposite. Note that the diagram of the magnetic field would appear the same.

Like the Teacher shows on your example video, whenever he approaches magnet (no matter which polarization) FACING E-BEAM, there is NO DEFLECTION AT ALL.

Now, the explanation he gives, is that Forces CANCEL OUT, because of being of opposed Vectors, and up to a point, I also could agree with that explanation...

He never says "forces cancel out". He says there is no force on the centered beam when approached by the magnet straight on. I explained this above.

...

But then, what about NOT AT EXTREMES ENDS OF SCANLINE, but at certain and EQUAL DISTANCES, (and here this distance varies EXACTLY AND ACCORDING TO MAGNET STRENGTH, fact I also show on that same video) we can clearly notice TWO OPPOSED AND EQUIDISTANT FORCES FROM THAT CENTER.

Why, when we approach a NORTH POLE...we have a DIFFERENT SPIN (OPPOSITE) as when we approach a SOUTH POLE??!!
...
So...Could You EXPLAIN IT, without a Spin, please?

When you approach with the opposite end of the magnet, the B vector is the opposite direction, so the force vector reflects that and the displacement is opposite.

...
I noticed, your teacher, does not specify polarization type, (He just refer to as "other side of magnet"...and to me, even though each pole is defined by N-S letters, that's not enough and deep explanation) whenever we see different and opposite deflections of just the beam...maybe he would not be able to explain POLE DIFFERENT DEFLECTIONS (OPPOSITE) between N-S without the SPIN THEORY?
...

When you work with the flux in terms of the field vector B, N and S are cumbersome and not often used. I do note the you can see the letter N on the red painted end of his magnet.

He explained the different deflections clearly using the right hand rule.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

Here is a graphic attempt from me:



So this is a view from above with the CRT on the left and a bar magnet approaching it from the right. The magnetic field is represented by the field lines (lines of force or lines of flux) going through the magnet and then spreading and looping around in space outside of the magnet entering the magnet through the end opposite where they exited converging where they originated. The electron beam is represented by the curved line inside the CRT above the centerline in the image which would be to the right hand side if we viewed the screen of the CRT. The beam would be sweeping left to right to produce the horizontal scan line on the screen.

As the magnet is moved closer to the screen, the field lines will intersect with the beam. This will occur at all positions as the beam sweeps left to right or right to left. At each intersection of a force line and the beam will be an interaction between the magnetic field (B) vector and the moving charge in the beam (eV), velocity vector. The B vector direction will be tangent to the flux line at the intersection point. The interaction will be a Lorentz force equal to the vector cross product of B and eV. The direction of this force vector will displace the beam (as viewed looking at the screen) up on one side of the center point and down on the other side of the center. The horizontal scan line will appear to rise on one side and lower on the other. It will cross the center point because there is no intersection of a flux line with the beam. They are parallel as Dr. Denardo says. So the angle between B and V is zero, therefore the sin Θ = 0 and F = 0, no deflection of the centered beam, as his experiment (demonstration) shows.

If you were to flip the magnet 180º, then the B vector would be in the opposite direction and the deflection of the beam would be opposite. Note that the diagram of the magnetic field would appear the same.



He never says "forces cancel out". He says there is no force on the centered beam when approached by the magnet straight on. I explained this above.



When you approach with the opposite end of the magnet, the B vector is the opposite direction, so the force vector reflects that and the displacement is opposite.



When you work with the flux in terms of the field vector B, N and S are cumbersome and not often used. I do note the you can see the letter N on the red painted end of his magnet.

He explained the different deflections clearly using the right hand rule.

Regards,

bi

Hello Bistander,

Not good, not solid explanation on your image (btw, pretty good, but not showing your vectors)

I will still ask you a simple question related to your image:

If you throw a symmetric line (axis) along magnet body which is parallel to beam center of screen, then, according to the "one way" B-Field Vector theory, this flux is supposed to expand in a 3D Volume ( as shown on your image) meaning, not only to the Right side of magnet axis, BUT ALSO to left side....No?
So..then why is it deflecting beam ONLY to Right of axis?
But, as was shown by your teacher...when magnet is approached this way, there is no deflection of beam , however, you show a right of screen deflect...is it a trick Bistander?

Anyways, way I see it...and according to B Field theory, there are 2 forces pulling away beam (diverging) to right-left, equal forces, so nothing happens, beam remains at center.

Now, let me tell you, I have done this frontal approach to single beam (not rastered horizontal line)....and there is a point depending on shortest distance...that beam is "forced" to start a very short and fast SMALL circular spin...And of course it does it to either N-S...EXCEPT spins are opposite like I have previously shown.

If you have the CRT then you could do this simple test.
Now, you must approach magnet very slow, seeking for the right distance where beam starts to do partial spins on a very small circle...and always keeping magnet very well centered aligned to beam.
Distance where beam brakes into spin depends upon magnet size and strength.

Regards

Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Reply to Ufo

...
I will still ask you a simple question related to your image:

If you throw a symmetric line (axis) along magnet body which is parallel to beam center of screen, then, according to the "one way" B-Field Vector theory, this flux is supposed to expand in a 3D Volume ( as shown on your image) meaning, not only to the Right side of magnet axis, BUT ALSO to left side....No?
...

The flux lines go both left and right of center as shown.

...
So..then why is it deflecting beam ONLY to Right of axis?
...

What I show is a snapshot in time. I stated that the beam is sweeping right to left or left to right to make the horizontal trace on the screen. And I discuss the case where the beam is left of center. The left /right angles of the beam are due to the controls of the CRT, not the external field of the magnet in front of the screen.

My example was intended to explain the effects on the horizontal scan/trace as you asked in the post I to which I replied. Prof Denardo fully explains the deflection of the non-moving beam making a single point contact on the screen.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

2 forces?

...
Anyways, way I see it...and according to B Field theory, there are 2 forces pulling away beam (diverging) to right-left, equal forces, so nothing happens, beam remains at center.
...

Please tell me what 2 forces and what B Field theory.

Thanks in advance,

bi

[bistander]

Magnetic field representation

There's no need to delete anything. ...

Thanks.

...
For me the issue is not so much what the magnetic fields behavior is, rather the issue before us really is a question; what is it composed of? ...

What is the magnetic field composed of? Sorry. I do not have that answer. Here is some information concerning how we represent it.

Key Points

• The magnetic field direction is the same direction a compass needle points, which is tangent to the magnetic field line at any given point.
• The strength of the B-field is inversely proportional to the distance between field lines. It is exactly proportional to the number of lines per unit area perpendicular to the lines.
• A magnetic field line can never cross another field line. The magnetic field is unique at every point in space.
• Magnetic field lines are continuous and unbroken, forming closed loops. Magnetic field lines are defined to begin on the north pole of a magnet and terminate on the south pole.*

Key Terms

• B-field: A synonym for the magnetic field.
• magnetic field lines: A graphical representation of the magnitude and the direction of a magnetic field.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bo...gnetic-fields/

*I copied these points as they appear on the website. I take issue with this last bullet. The last sentence contradicts the previous sentence. How can field line be continuous and unbroken if it starts on the N pole and ends on the S pole. So I would alter that sentence to this:
External magnetic field lines are defined to begin on the north pole of a magnet and terminate on the south pole.

Confusion from the use of N & S poles and an example of why I prefer not to use that designation.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

The flux lines go both left and right of center as shown.




What I show is a snapshot in time. I stated that the beam is sweeping right to left or left to right to make the horizontal trace on the screen. And I discuss the case where the beam is left of center. The left /right angles of the beam are due to the controls of the CRT, not the external field of the magnet in front of the screen.

My example was intended to explain the effects on the horizontal scan/trace as you asked in the post I to which I replied. Prof Denardo fully explains the deflection of the non-moving beam making a single point contact on the screen.

Regards,

bi

Yes, Bistander, but putting magnet there with flux lines is doing nothing but create confusion.
If you intended to show a snapshot, then that means it is running a horizontal line based on CRT CONTROLS and not due to mag influence nor flux lines.
Btw, Beam runs in one position from center to right...and in pole reversal of CRT controls or second run from center to left...that's how it works...where center is the zero influence from controls or neutral.

Now you mentioned "top view" on your img...and frontal-centered poles produce a vertical deflection..so can NOT see it in top view...even with your snapshot.

Have in mind that angle of deflection to produce horizontal line is around 30 deg from a center-neutral bisector.
And so Denardo shows magnet-beam at 90 degrees...that is NOT same as what we see on scanline.


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

?

...
And so Denardo shows magnet-beam at 90 degrees...

What is magnet-beam?

[Ufopolitics]

Thanks.



What is the magnetic field composed of? Sorry. I do not have that answer. Here is some information concerning how we represent it.



https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bo...gnetic-fields/

*I copied these points as they appear on the website. I take issue with this last bullet. The last sentence contradicts the previous sentence. How can field line be continuous and unbroken if it starts on the N pole and ends on the S pole. So I would alter that sentence to this:
External magnetic field lines are defined to begin on the north pole of a magnet and terminate on the south pole.

Confusion from the use of N & S poles and an example of why I prefer not to use that designation.

Regards,

bi

Bistander, the way I understand Classic Theory., field lines are continuous circular (elliptical) paths meaning in space they flow "one way only" from N to S, then within magnet or core they loop back to N.
They MUST LOOP BACK, otherwise would have to be "reset-renewed" at every cycle...and I don't think so for any theory.
I do like poles, they show different spins on CRT, which get conciliated in 3D view, showing a single directional rotational angle.

Regards


Ufopolitics