Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Extrapolation of dialectricity and the now discovered magnetic polar vortex in perman

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by upgradd View Post
    . It was JJ Thompson who discovered and theorized the existence of one type of charge (the electron) which is a "corpuscle of electricity"

    You clearly do not understand, fundamentally

    It is however, from the views of J.J. Thomson, the Coulomb, psi, the total dielectric induction is the primary dimension defining the “Polarized Ether”.

    the J.J. Thomson concept of the "electron" (his own discovery). Thomson considered the electron the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction.

    Thomson developed the “Ether Atom” ideas of M. Faraday into his “Electronic Corpuscle”, this indivisible unit. One corpuscle terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not and electron, it is a constituent of what today is known incorrectly as an “electron”. (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W. Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether



    Thomson RESOUNDINGLY rejected the notion of the electron = particle for a LONG TIME until his fame of his "discovery" forced him to concede to same.



    “In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to give an account of their nature.” “For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.” - Einstein on electrons; “Relativity”, by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916


    Electricity is utterly a mass-free phenomena, as mentioned by many including Dr. Wilhelm Reich in his “Cosmic Superimposition”. Mass has no logical or theoretical place in electrical units and all particle-based conceptions of it are impossible. There is no mass in T.E.M. (transverse electromagnetism).
    Mother nature has never taken a course in math, algebra and she absolutely rejects the nonsense espoused by quantum. ‘She’ knows only about charge-discharge, spatial-counterspatial and centripetal-centrifugal spin as binary conjugates to charges and discharges. Gravity, electromagnetism and matter are all modalities of the Ether, of charges and spin. There are no negatively "charged" particles in this universe. Negative electricity discharges while positive electricity charges. The negative depolarizing force functions in the opposite manner and direction to the positive polarizing force. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, only discharges, nor are there negatively charged particles, further still not one iota of proof for same. Charge and discharge are antinomies, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are mutual and co-eternal principle conditions. The commonly held belief in nonsense such as the notion that electricity is a stream of rolling electron beads thru a conductor is one of the most insane conceptual reifications of the definition of discharge as held by so-called intelligent minds.
    There are no electrons, negative charges, special-dimensions, warped space (resoundingly denied by Tesla and others), and no photons; only charge, induction and radiation/discharges and their relational spins, all as mediated thru the Ether. Quantum and Relativity is a quack religion of mathematical physics based upon the absurd premise that the universe is a giant sea of interactive massless tiny invisible beads and that space itself, nothing, mediates interactions and can be genuinely ‘warped’. Such conceptual Atomistic reifications as amplified by GR (Relativity) cannot be enjoined, and the only genuine warping occurring is not out in the cosmos of space, but in the empty spaces between the ears of those who reify such absurdities; warped minds rationally would invent warped space; its purely logical in its insanity that the former produce the later.
    Space has only one dimension, space, which is a metrical dimension. The use of cubic notation is habit-based, any number of co-ordinates in any number of geometries can serve to define the boundaries of space. Nature is not governed by the irrational pontifications of GR and QM, rather it is governed by mutually interactive reciprocal conjugates of charges-discharges, centripetal-centrifugal movements, both spatial and counterspatial. Instantaneous action at a distance, and fields are all Ether modality mediations as propagated by counterspace-in-disturbance, the Ether, its pressure gradients and perturbations. No other mediator can be logically hypothesized, much less theorized. The very same Ether of Tesla, Heaviside, C.P. Steinmetz, and even originally from Einstein before logic fled his mind completely, was correct and remains so. Tesla outright denied our current definition of the electron as a ‘discharge particle’.
    All electrons are a motional terminus of a quantity of dielectric pressure gradients of force (as reified by the incorrect understanding of the definition of a ‘field’), these pressure gradients, or “lines” are contracting and stretching like rubber bands, giving motion to the terminus ‘electron’. The thermionic ‘electron’ contracts, pulling the ‘electron’, the cathode ray stretching, pulled by the ‘electron’. In the former case the lines of force are dissipated, in the latter case the line of force are projected, in both cases these so-called ‘electrons’ assume radial motions, with non participating pressure gradients, or forces filling the ‘voids’, directing the ‘electrons’. Hence, it is the so-called ‘electrons’ (dielectric radial discharges) that travel in straight lines, that is, radially. ‘Electrons’ have nothing to do with the flow of electricity; the so-called ‘electrons’ are the rate at which electricity is destroyed. ‘Electrons’ are in fact the resistance. From extensive experimental work into atomic electrical science by J. J. Thompson, and Nikola Tesla, it is established that the so-called electron is only a shadow; its apparent-only physical mass is merely an electrical momentum (ejected by the dielectric inertia in disturbance). There is no rest mass to an electron nor could there be logically, a rest-electron ‘bead’; such notions are absurd and evidence proven non-existent. The very premise is logically impossible and contradicts the rational physics of atomic charges and discharges.


    “Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the ‘electron’, on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated” - C.P. Steinmetz (Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses)
    The idea of electricity as a flow of ‘electrons’ in a conductor was regarded by Oliver Heaviside as “a psychosis”. This encouraged Heaviside to begin a series of writings
    “Electrons as a separate, distinct entity…doesn’t really exist, they are merely bumps in something called a ‘field’.” - Dr. Steve Biller
    “Here we will dispel the "electronics nerd" concept that a capacitor stores "electrons" in its plates. Taking the pair of copper plates as in the previous experiment, but now we have two pairs of plates, one pair of plates distant from the other pair of plates. Upon one pair of plates is imposed an electro-static potential between them. The cube of 10-C oil is inserted between this "charged" set of plates. This hereby establishes a dielectric field of induction within the unit cube of 10-C oil. Now we then remove this cube of oil, withdrawing it from the space bounded by the charged pair of copper plates, and taking this unit cube of oil, it is then inserted into the space bounded by the other uncharged pair of plates. Upon insertion it is found that the un-charged pair of plates have now in fact become charged also. It here can be seen that a cube of dielectric induction can be carried through space, from one set of plates to another set of plates.” – E. Dollard
    Also consider the J.J. Thomson concept of the "electron" (his own discovery). Thomson considered the electron the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction.
    “The notion exists that the electro-motive force, E.M.F. in volts, is established by “cutting” lines of magnetic induction via a so-called electric conductor. This “cutting” is then said to impel the motions of so-called electrons within the conducting material. It is however that a perfect conductor cannot “cut” through lines of induction, or flux lines, Phi. Heaviside points out that the perfect conductor is a perfect obstructer and magnetic induction cannot gain entry into the so-called conducting material. So where is the current, how then does an E.M.F. come about? Now enters the complication; it can be inferred that an electrical generator that is wound with a perfect conducting material cannot produce an E.M.F. No lines of flux can be cut and the Ether gets wound up in a knot.
    Heaviside remarks that the practitioners of his day “do a good deal of churning up the Ether in their dynamos”. – E. Dollard
    You cannot say that stretching a trillion rubber bands nailed to the floor and releasing them or breaking their “force lines” is the “flow of electrons”; discharge is a terminal movement in systems of inductance or dielectric capacitance. There are no discrete particles in the universe and certainly none that mediate charges, discharges, magnetism, electromagnetism, gravity, and radiation, only fields, all modalities of the Ether. The so-called ‘electrons’ are not particles, not objects or subjects but are the dynamic principle of discharge, and are certainly not charge-carriers, fields are not particles, are not “electrons”, nor assuredly are there energy discharges in the vacuum of space involving ‘electrons’; the ‘electron’ is a fiction of fallacious observation and an even more faulty mental acuity, spawned naturally from the minds of materialists, or an Atomist. Electricity is Ether in a state of dynamic polarization; magnetism is Ether in a state of dynamic circular polarization upon itself, is the radiative termination of electrical discharge; dielectricity is the Ether under stress or strain.




    Originally posted by upgradd View Post
    . Everyone from Steinmetz to Heaviside used the concept, EVEN Tesla!
    NOPE, Wrong.......Tesla USED the term "electron" however (like Dollard) he utterly did NOT in any way make reference to same as a 'particle' or a 'charge mediator point/particle'.


    Suggest you look HERE for illumination:
    The Electron


    Originally posted by upgradd View Post
    . Motion of "charge" is magnetism, stationary accumulation of charges is electrostatics,
    NOPE, there is no such entity as a "stationary field" or charge. It doesnt exist anywhere in nature.

    dielectricity, or the centripetal inertial plane, same as the circular divergent centrifugal (and centripetal on return) magnetic field are always in motion, and pressure equalization.


    You lack a fundamental understanding of magnetism, but that is OK, most people are in the same boat. Magnetism nowhere ever has existed BY ITSELF, rather only attributionally to a mass, in the magneto-dilelectric inter-atomic, or in the case of Dielectro-electromagnetism (or conventionally and wrongly thought of as TEM).

    Flush any notion of a "stationary charge" from your mind. No such Unicorn exists. Period.
    Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 07-07-2014, 12:06 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by upgradd View Post
      Your concept of electricity actually goes against Eric Dollard's theories, which requires there to be charge for electric and magnetic fields to exist

      That is a unique claim, however there is no such evidence, nor do I anywhere "go against Dollard's theories"......however HIS theories are condensations of the theories of the "gods of electricity" Tesla, Steinmetz, Heaviside etc etc........ with many additions of course.

      Ive stated ENDLESSLY in my book that a "magnet" isnt a magnet, rather a dielectric 'object'....... I suggest you read it. www.kathodos.com/magnetism.pdf

      Magnetism is the termination OF electricity OR (resultantly THRU) conjugate to dielectricity in the inter-atomic.
      There isn't even 1% difference in what I state in my book on magnetism that is different from what Dollard himself states.

      IN FACT it reinforces it, gives it MUCH BROADER insight (as per magnetism specifically). So, your statement only proves you have neither read my book NOR compared it to Dollards works.





      Originally posted by upgradd View Post
      for which Eric Dollard's half-baked "theory" is based upon.
      I am afraid you have no "cred" (much less evidences) to make such a hyperbolic and absurd statement.



      Originally posted by upgradd View Post
      Energy is not the same as electricity: charge moves in insulators and conductors,
      You are confusing Energy, tension, and induction, and Force, and Field-pressures with "energy"
      Charges and induction are utterly MASS FREE,.... magnetic induction (over time, as attributional to a field) has nothing to do with insulators or "conductors".

      INDUCING a charge, and having the magnetic induction present FOR A (potential) charge are two diff. things.

      "insulators and conductors" are FIELD boundary plane reflectors and capacitant materials for focusing and directing charges which are just a conceptual reification in speaking about field-modality interactions.

      And, of course, all those "materials" are trillions and trillions of FIELDS in magneto-dielectric (temporary) equilibrium.
      If you think COPPER ("conductor" so-called) and IRON (highly capacitant for dielectricity and therefore macro-magnetism resultantly) are anything OTHER THAN solid non-transparent "lenses" for fields, then you're trapped in a mental Möbius loop.


      Originally posted by upgradd View Post
      but energy moves outside the wire, or more precisely between bounding conductors of the circuital loop.
      Electrification as the product of magnetism and dielectricity "moves between the wires" yes.

      Loop?......Nope, dielectricity , or the dielectric inertial plane in a "magnet" is centripetal and radial. there is no "loop"
      NOR are there same in longitudinal waves. LOOP is a spatial construct and rectification of field pressure boundaries.


      Originally posted by upgradd View Post
      Generally, charge is considered as being "carried" by certain atomic particles or molecules.
      "GENERALLY" people believe in angels and old men sitting on a throne in the sky. This is a bandwagon fallacy.
      Your position (as is easily deduced) pure Greek Atomism, or atomistic.

      Energy is a MASS/PARTICLE free principle of field pressures and conjugate inductions. There are no "particles" mediating INSTANT induction at a distance, MUCH LESS in particle free space.
      It is possible (however insanely difficult) to beam a TERAWATT from space to the surface of the moon and bake the ever loving HELL out of "X"

      This, of course,......has nothing at all to do with "unicorn" "charged" particles.
      Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 07-07-2014, 12:25 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        *accidental duplicate post
        Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 07-06-2014, 11:52 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Often time a planetary alignment affects the flux around the earth.
          The dielectric field could be modeled. you can drag the earth around and see the time and date.

          Solar System Scope

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by mikrovolt View Post
            Often time a planetary alignment affects the flux around the earth.
            The dielectric field could be modeled. you can drag the earth around and see the time and date.

            Solar System Scope


            Eric Dollard talks about this in his video , and how RCA was buggered to understand why there were transmission line issues etc etc during certainly planetary alignments.


            just like lining up magnetic fields in phase, only dielectric, OR a combo of both.

            Comment


            • #21
              Yes the magnets alignment is important. This is why I mention detaching snap of flux lines and lightning that there is mathematical basis.

              Looking at the solar system you can see that as saturn moves a distance away from earth that we begin to see lightning strikes in higher elevations, for example in Colorado rocky mountain state park.

              As flux lines detach and the earth get into a clearing the natural flowering of the polar vortex begins. We should experience cooler nights. Also as we get another view of the cosmic inductor phenomena in evacuated globes hope we can see formation of a one dimentional plane that cuts hemispheres.
              Last edited by mikrovolt; 07-14-2014, 12:18 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by mikrovolt View Post
                Yes the magnets alignment is important. This is why I mention detaching snap of flux lines and lightning that there is mathematical basis.

                Looking at the solar system you can see that as saturn moves a distance away from earth that we begin to see lightning strikes in higher elevations, for example in Colorado rocky mountain state park.

                As flux lines detach and the earth get into a clearing the natural flowering of the polar vortex begins. We should experience cooler nights. Also as we get another view of the cosmic inductor phenomena in evacuated globes hope we can see formation of a one dimentional plane that cuts hemispheres.


                true true, but most of it is driven by dielectricity.


                As discovered, in any "perfect" magnet, its 3.23606 units of dielectricity to 1 part magnetism.




                Quantum nonsense and relativity have ruined the past 80 years of what COULD have been genuine discovery and insight into electricity.


                Now we have "unicorn" 'virtual particles' as explanations for "how things work"

                and how fields work.


                and by explanations, I mean BS

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
                  true true, but most of it is driven by dielectricity.


                  As discovered, in any "perfect" magnet, its 3.23606 units of dielectricity to 1 part magnetism.




                  Quantum nonsense and relativity have ruined the past 80 years of what COULD have been genuine discovery and insight into electricity.


                  Now we have "unicorn" 'virtual particles' as explanations for "how things work"

                  and how fields work.


                  and by explanations, I mean BS

                  these vortex experiments really need to be done with 'only' bubbles to be conclusive

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Kokomoj0 View Post
                    these vortex experiments really need to be done with 'only' bubbles to be conclusive


                    Ive got 12 diff testing methods that have NOTHING to do with zapping a magnet.

                    I have and use suspensions, ferrofluid lenses, lasers with beam splitters

                    Well, I wrote the last section on the missing secret of TEM, which is NOT (entirely) electromagnetic, but has a Z axis radial dielectric. I wrote that section for a reason based upon Heavisides implications on the genuine nature of light. However even he didnt ever "get it".


                    We have established a "device" using 3 to 6 wavelength lasers (I will not specify) but here is ONE channel at a wavelength of 635 nm , and only snapshots off a video,.....NO VIDEO will be posted (I will not post it until things are locked in).

                    Nobody here can/will figure out how the device works since it uses a good bit of equipment ;D, splitter, a special lens, XXXXX, and yes, (obviously) a special spinning prism

                    But, suffice to say, I can reproduce (obviously using lasers) the magneto-dielectric field of a strong magnet in some amazing details.

                    It still blows my mind to see a laser, a single channel form a vortex as it 'paints' the field within which the magnetism of the magnet displaces the dielectric component of light, or along the dielectric where the magnetism is torn asunder in the light

                    This is ONE device out of 5 nobody ANYWHERE (except for 3 of us) has ever seen before to show magnetic field reciprocation, and using ALL channels, easily shows the dielectric, the centripetal and centrifugal 'working' together as you twist the magnet, and move the broadcast beams.

















                    Also---------


                    See HIS videos here that I inspired:

                    See last 7 videos he made

                    https://www.youtube.com/user/TinManPower/videos
                    Last edited by TheoriaApophasis; 07-26-2014, 08:05 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by TheoriaApophasis View Post
                      Someone needs to ask Dollard what is emitted from either pole of a magnet in that demonstration video.


                      Dielectric vortex?

                      its certainly not magnetic
                      Oxygen is paramagnetic, what you're seeing is simple physics.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by madhatter View Post
                        Oxygen is paramagnetic, what you're seeing is simple physics.
                        descriptions are NOT explanations



                        Yeah, they say MAGNETISM is "simple" , ....


                        but nobody on earth explained what magnetism IS until I wrote the book on same.


                        sounds egotistical? Maybe it is,........its also accurate.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X