Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism. 92 pages, using tips from E. Dollards

[Dingus]

You may understand magnetism, but you need a lot of work understanding drawing, writing & teaching. I only read half of the small version because it was a slog. I swear, you could have made it 1/2 as long if you just cut out all the stuff about how dumb you think Einstein & relativity is. It contributes nothing to the document.

[TheoriaApophasis]

You may understand magnetism, but you need a lot of work understanding drawing, writing & teaching. I only read half of the small version because it was a slog. I swear, you could have made it 1/2 as long if you just cut out all the stuff about how dumb you think Einstein & relativity is. It contributes nothing to the document.

Considering the content you mention is extremely little (less than 5 pages out of 110), the comment of "1/2 as long" doesn't add up.

"there are those that do, and those that talk about those that do"


New sections including formulas,
and a section on field incommensurability
section on divergent and convergent gradients etc.
And a section on 'fields vs. space'
Something amounting to 40+ more pages.


If you write too little, someone complains, if you write too much, someone complains.

There is always something to complain about in any work.

Eric Dollards works LONE PINE WRITINGS II (which obviously you never read) contains 28 PAGES (pages 6 thru 34) against Einstein and Relativity
I have 5 (roughly) pages on same.

Make sure you give equal opportunity to that work for, what you consider, the "offense of attacking" the 'Cult of Quantum' (or as E Dollard calls it "Quantum Mysticism")
Your distribution on said topic is disproportionate

"Never try to be all things to all peoples ......and do this in all things"


Ill mail you a refund check and.........oh wait, that's right.

[Dingus]

Considering the content you mention is extremely little (less than 5 pages out of 110), the comment of "1/2 as long" doesn't add up.

I only read the first half & that was hyperbole. You do seem to retread the same points numerous times with little added to it. You also seem to repeat things in what I assume is meant to be explanatory but falls flat with me.

If you write too little, someone complains, if you write too much, someone complains.

There is always something to complain about in any work.

All I'm saying is that you wrote a paragraph on reductionism but your writing would have benefited from actually applying it. If someone complains that it's too short, then what they really mean is it doesn't explain things well enough for them to understand & want a better explanation. That does not always mean it actually needs to be longer, but that the existing example does not do it's job well enough, so it might benefit from being replaced. Some parts can be made both shorter & better.

On the other hand you'd do well to lengthen things you make claims about but fail to support. For example; you claim that quantum mechanics is wrong & I don't doubt that, but I think it would really help if you explained how the double-slit experiment works without QM.

I also wish you'd cut the "there's only one dimension of space and that's space" crap that Dollard keeps spewing. The 3 dimensions (from the latin dimensionem, meaning "to meaure") are still perfectly necessary to engineer things physically, which is very important when engineering electrically. If anything the dimension of "space" should be volume, diameter, surface area or something.

[TheoriaApophasis]

On the other hand you'd do well to lengthen things you make claims about but fail to support. For example; you claim that quantum mechanics is wrong & I don't doubt that, but I think it would really help if you explained how the double-slit experiment works without QM.

Since you never actually "read" (as in A to Z) the book, you missed the parts (not specifically related to magnetism), to which you refer; IN WHICH it is stated in the work - "these sections will be added and expanded in future additions"

I also wish you'd cut the "there's only one dimension of space and that's space" crap that Dollard keeps spewing. The 3 dimensions (from the latin dimensionem, meaning "to meaure") are still perfectly necessary to engineer things physically, which is very important when engineering electrically. If anything the dimension of "space" should be volume, diameter, surface area or something.

Actually I was saying that space has only 1 dimension LONG before I ever encountered Dollards works.

However you have both NO "cred" nor the logic to back up such an extreme position.

(you spelled measure wrong).


You are not measuring space, son, you are measuring a collection of atoms , trillions of magneto-dielectric FIELDS.


Again, Space has 1 dimension, ....not 2, 3, 4 etc .

Plato said the same thing regarding SPACE being merely "a single plane.......of the chora (field)" Parmenides

Plotinus goes into GREAT DETAIL on this fact in the 6th Ennead ( I translate ancient Greek by the way).

There is NO space as separate from a FIELD(s). There is space within a field, but no fields "expanding in space"


Space does nothing, is nothing, acts on NOTHING, and influences nothing. You're committing the 'inverse fallacy of principle attribution'.


LATIN?????????????????

Let me educate (just a very little bit at least). The GREEK precedes the Latin.

The term χάος , is the "dimension (SINGULAR) of the field (chora/ χώρα))" Plotinus Ennead 6.4




There is an entire book on this ONE word, the χώρα:
Amazon.com: Chorology: On Beginning in Plato's Timaeus (Studies in Continental Thought) (9780253213082): John Sallis: Books



.............Which however goes back to ANOTHER meaning in the Greek (regarding space) AORISTOS DYAD, of which I wrote this work a few years ago:
https://archive.org/details/Indefini...ysicsMysticism

A translation of ALL Greek occurrences in Plotinus of the Aoristos Dyad.

The Greek term ἀοριστ (ἀ+ ὁρίζω Orizos), or the late Latin & Greek; is also the Latin aoristos, or undefined, from a + horistos definable, from horizein to define. Literally INcoordinate, or metaphysically is meant illumination itself, from the ancient Egyptian akhet (horizon, see above hieroglyph). We also get from Greek horizont-, horizōn, from present participle of horizein to bound, define, from horos boundary (boundary of Horus); perhaps akin to Latin urvum curved part of a plow.


I didn't graduate from college 3 years early and retire at the age of 32 by believing in or falling for nonsense.

Your false reification of SPACE as a "thing" that "does things" is merely a brain flatus from GR and QM.


If you THINK for a second that Dollard came up with "SPACE HAS ONE DIMENSION" ..... then you know nothing about the Greeks, the Platonists, Numenius, Proclus, Syrianus, Plotinus, Damascius, Socrates, Parmenides, Theon Smyrna....etc etc.

They ALL said this. If you think you are smarter than any of them, let me know so I can prepare the correct laugh--------------




Kha, cf. Greek Xaos, is generally "cavity"; and in the Rg Veda, particularly "the hole in the nave of a wheel through which the axle runs" (Monier Williams). A. N. Singh has shown conclusively that in Indian mathematical usage, current during the earlier centuries of the Christian era, kha means "zero";(1) Suryadeva, commenting on Aryabhata, says that "the khas refer to voids (khaini sunya upa lakptani) . . . thus khadvinake means the eighteen places denoted by zeros." Among other words denoting zero are sunya, akasa, vyoma, antariksa, nabha, ananta, and purna.(2) We are immediately struck by the fact that the words sunya, "void," and purna, "plenum," should have a common reference; the implication being that all numbers are virtually or potentially present in that which is without number; expressing this as an equation, o=x-x, it is apparent that zero is to number as possibility is to actuality. ,.gain, employment of the term ananta with the same reference implies an identification of zero with infinity; the beginning of all series being thus the same as their end. This last idea, we may observe, is met with already in the earlier metaphysical literature, for example RV IV.I.II, where Agni is described as "hiding both his ends (guhamano anta) "; AB 111.43, "the Agnistoma is like a chariot wheel, endless (ananta)"; JUB 1.35, "the Year is endless (ananta), its two ends (anta) are Winter and Spring . . . so is the endless chant (anantam saman)." These citations suggest that it may be possible to account for the later mathematicians selection of technical terms by reference to an earlier usage of the same or like terms in a purely metaphysical context.

Our intention being to demonstrate the native connection of the mathematical terms kha, etc., with the same terms as employed in purely metaphysical contexts, it will be necessary to prepare the diagram of a circle or cosmic wheel (cakra, mandala) and to point out the significance of the relationships of the parts of such a diagram according to universal tradition and more particularly in accordance with the formulation of the Rg Veda. Take a piece of blank paper of any dimensions, mark a point anywhere upon it, and With this point as center draw two concentric circles of any radii, but one much less than the other; draw any radius from the center to the outer circumference. With exception of the center, which as a point is necessarily without dimension, note that every part of our diagram is merely representative; that is, the number of circles may be indefinitely increased, and the number of radii likewise, each circle thus filled up becoming at last a plane continuum, the extended ground of any given world or state of being; for our purpose we are considering only two such worlds mythologically speaking, Heaven and Earth, or psychologically, the worlds of subject and object as forming together the world or cosmos, typical of any particularized world which may be thought of as partial within it. Finally, our diagram may be thought of either as consisting of two concentric circles with their common radii and one common center, or as the diagram of a wheel, with its felly, nave, spokes, and axle point.

In order to understand the use of terms for "space" (kha, ukasa, antarik~a, sunya, etc.)(10) as verbal symbols of zero (which represents privation of number, and is yet a matrix of number in the sense o=x-x),(11) it must be realized that akasa, etc., represent primarily a concept not of physical space, but of a purely principal space without dimension, though the matrix of dimension." For example, "all these beings arise out of the space (akasad samapadyanta) and return into the space (akasam pratyastam yanti). For the space is older than they, prior to them, and is their last resort (parayanam)," CU I.9.I; "space is the name of the permissive cause of individual integration (akaso vai nama namarupayor nirvahita)," CU VIII.I4; and just as India "opens the closed spaces (apihitj khani)," RV IV.2H.I, so the Self "awakens this rational [cosmos] from chat space (akasat esa khalu idam cetamatram dobhayati)," MU VI.I7, in other words, ex nihilo fit. Furthermore, the locus of this "space" is "within you": "what i's the intrinsic aspect of expansion is the supernal fiery energy in the vacance of the inner man (tat svarupam nabhasah khe antarbhutasya yat param tejah)," MU VII.II;(13) and this same "space in the heart" (antarhrdaya akasa) is the locus (dyatana, vesma, nada, kosla, etc.) where are deposited in secret (guha nihitam) all that is ours already or may be ours on any plane (loka) of experience (CU VIII.I.I 3). At the same time, in BU v.i, this "ancient space" (kha) is identified with Brahman and with the Spirit (kham brahma, kham puranam, vayuram kham iti), and this Brahman is at the same time a plenum or pleroma (purna) such chat "when plenum is taken from plenum, plenum yet remains (14)

[dR-Green]

Dimensions of space??

I also wish you'd cut the "there's only one dimension of space and that's space" crap that Dollard keeps spewing. The 3 dimensions (from the latin dimensionem, meaning "to meaure") are still perfectly necessary to engineer things physically, which is very important when engineering electrically. If anything the dimension of "space" should be volume, diameter, surface area or something.

Space exhibits 3, or really 6, directions. But there is only one space. If you think there is more than one measurable space then you are deluded. In which case I would suggest that you go see a doctor, except that the doctor would agree with you. Oh dear.

It is unit^3, not space*3.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Dimensions of space??



Space exhibits 3, or really 6, directions. But there is only one space. If you think there is more than one measurable space then you are deluded. In which case I would suggest that you go see a doctor, except that the doctor would agree with you. Oh dear.

It is unit^3, not space*3.

Oh great wisdom "poureth from the fountain of knowledge"


Yes, likewise stooopid human critters think magnetism has "2 POLES" or spatial vectors.

well, no it does'nt, you spin a rod, sphere etc, its going in the same direction, but CW from one end and CCW from another.


I would say (rather crudely, forgive me), that:
"Space is the great MIND SKR3W and illusion, resultant of being inside a field"



Yes, his Doctor would agree with him.

A famous local Doctor I know practicing for 40 years, he told me "Hell, you dont have to be smart at ALL to be a doctor!!!!! You just have to be good at memorization in med school!"

[dR-Green]

The latest scientific opinion is that "reality" is actually an illusion. But this doesn't seem to have any impact on anyone's activities, I'm not really sure why. In the words of Walter Russell, they continue to mistake the effect for the cause, despite the fact that they now acknowledge that what they observe is an illusion.

Your spinning rod analogy explains it perfectly well in a couple of words!

Yes it's unfortunate that the "education" system mostly mistakes memory for intelligence. As long as you remember what you were told and repeat it back onto the exam paper then you'll get good grades, you don't have to actually understand any of it.

[TheoriaApophasis]

In the words of Walter Russell, they continue to mistake the effect for the cause

Ive been writing about that FOR YEARS on other topics I lecture on (I wont go into it)


Its the "inverse attribute" fallacy

Or on my other topics and writings (not related to electricity) its the "inverse fallacy of identification".

Also "attribute/concept reification"

Its the same as the common dufus reifying illumination (attribute) as light (Principle)

I wrote a small book about this from the premise of the ancient greeks, with ALL TRANSLATIONS of the term:
https://archive.org/details/Indefini...ysicsMysticism




I was up to 7AM this morning, I invented a wholly new magnetic "item" , a 'device' that will revolutionize and make OBSOLETE FOREVER AND ALL TIME the use of iron filings for viewing "fields" and magnetic viewing film, and ferrofluid.


Ive sent the video of the new invention some top people, Ive been in constant contact. Im so happy, Im going out and get a deluxe pizza and other stuff to celebrate!!!!!!!!!!

Ive been trying to invent this "item" now for 2 years.


wonderful day , wonderful !!!!!!!!!!!

(and I'm a rather pessimistic SOB that isn't impressed by hardly anything)

[Sputins]

I was up to 7AM this morning, I invented a wholly new magnetic "item" , a 'device' that will revolutionize and make OBSOLETE FOREVER AND ALL TIME the use of iron filings for viewing "fields" and magnetic viewing film, and ferrofluid.


Ive sent the video of the new invention some top people, Ive been in constant contact. Im so happy, Im going out and get a deluxe pizza and other stuff to celebrate!!!!!!!!!!

I hope that you might share some further details with us soon! (Don’t be a tease)! What is it? - I suppose you’ll want to perfect the “item / device” first?

Open source it or copyright / patient?
With or without Anchovies?

?

[TheoriaApophasis]

I hope that you might share some further details with us soon! (Don’t be a tease)! What is it? - I suppose you’ll want to perfect the “item / device” first?

Open source it or copyright / patient?
With or without Anchovies?

?

Already have my lifelong buddy (hes 65) setting up appt. with his patent lawyer.

My buddy has 9 patents and more experience on same than myself. Hes fronting all the fees for a 30% cut.


I "got" it yesterday eve., then took 9 more tries to get it perfect till 7+AM. Now it is perfect.


I had a giant pizza from JETS in celebration.


The 2 year search of creating BOTH a vortex 3D demonstration device that operates slowly, showing the magnetic vortex movements is over.


I had 2 agendas in this invention:

1. show the vortex MOVING pattern in a magnet, which is just almost impossible, you cant use normal ferrous materials (iron dust), because they become magnetized themselves and "LOCK" into place in the pressure gradient zones ('field lines') like magnets themselves, and show a 2D false representation of a magnetic field (as mentioned in the book).


Diamagnetic materials dont work, they basically operate (when powdered) like iron filling do, but in reverse..... I had to grind up pyrolytic graphite to test that theory.

2. Show the magnetic vortex SLOW ENOUGH that it doesn't vanish in a fraction of a second that you have to freeze a video to see. I already created an "item" some time ago to show a 3D magnetic vortex, but is happens completely within about 1+ second or less.


This "item" give you a 15 -22+ second 3D viewing time of the magnetic vortex.

I can increase that time by changing the size of the 'item' however.

[Dingus]

You're a real self-aggrandizing ******* who likes to talk way, way too much.

[TheoriaApophasis]

You're a real self-aggrandizing ******* who likes to talk way, way too much.

I wasn't expecting a rational or logical rebuttal, ..and I predicted the resultant with perfect clarity.


Ignorance is like anti-freeze, both are sweet, both are deadly.

All hatred is an intellectual currency of ignorance nobody wants, cant be spent, and always burns the person who stockpiles it.


Lux et Veritas

[Dingus]

It would seem I'm not the only one who hates you, and with good reason.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Im a Platonist.


That link you post to is about (as it states) A.E. Hollingsworth, who is a 65 year old short man who lives in a Atlanta I used to be close to in writing a few books.
I am 42 years old and living in Ft. Myers Florida.
So your link is twaddle and nonsense from a crazy person.


Ad hominem has nothing to do with discussing magnetism intelligently.

I wont stoop into the gutter with you.



As for being "hated" Plato said that is a good thing


...."the wise love him for the same reason the fools hate him" - Proclus

"To please or amuse fools is the slander of divine wisdom" - Damascius



No intelligent person has tried to "be all things to all people" in so doing you are "nothing to nobody".


Here ended the lesson.

If you cannot or are incapable of engaging the dialectic (that's dialectic by the way, not dielectric )......., you should seek life elsewhere.

[TheoriaApophasis]

Dimensions

.

PROOF that ON EVERY SIDE (I already proved it many other ways however!!!!!) of the magnet, you have a center situated CENTRIPETAL moving OPPOSITE to the SAME SIDED centrifugal !!!!!!!!!!

[/B]

AHHHHHHH~~~~~~!!!!!! I had a stroke of genuis a little while ago today!!!!!

Uploading the video now, but heres some SNAPS:

, PROJECT a spiral FROM a camcorder to the SCREEN of the TV, and PROVE what is going on!!!!!


This is the image ON the WALL taken from the camcorder to the TV set:

which is a printed CLOCKWISE vortex



If the outside centrifugal is ALSO clockwise LIKE the printed vortex, THEN IT MUST move the vortex in the SAME CW direction

BUT!!!!!! IT MUST CREATE A CENTRIPETAL CENTER THAT IS MOVING OPPOSITE, COUNTERCLOCKWISE!!!!

TAAA-DAAAA



Since the printed vortex is CW, then a CCW centrifugal MUST distort the printed and projected vortex

Yup:-------





CCW centrifugal DISTORTING the printed CW ring, AND showing a CW centripetal



CW centrifugal spinning the printed CW ring, AND showing a CCW centripetal



also.......CCW centrifugal DISTORTING the printed CW ring, AND showing a CW centripetal