Zetetic Zen

Phi, I'm not running away. How am i being lazy when it's everyone else who is refusing to investigate the information and do the experiments for verification? The ball is in your court. I've done the studies, i'm the one presenting the theory, due diligence is YOUR obligation, not mine. Review, test and then refute (if you can). You do understand the scientific method, don't you? Well then DEMONSTRATE IT instead of avoiding the issue like some deranged politician, like i said you all would. Thanks for proving me correct on that thus far. Here, i will even provide further evidence and experiments for you, and entire curriculum of it. Start with video 1, go through them all and finish with video 112. Then do the experiments for yourself, they are inexpensive and there is no excuse not to verify this firsthand. VIDEO DELETED Stop making excuses like a coward and just do the work. You have no right to comment on it if you don't do the experiments and bother to understand the theory. "Condemnation prior to investigation is the height of ignorance" - You know who said that, don't you? Hop to it.

iNow, that's a false accusation, as i have not directly asserted that i am correct 'because' the majority is against me or that my notions are ridiculed. So i never made that fallacy. I am correct because the evidence speaks for itself and supports the theory, and all the communications technology we use today is proof of concept. If your universities had taught you the true science of electrical engineering and the works of the great scientists in my aforementioned post, you probably wouldn't be arguing with me, much less accusing me of logical fallacies i never explicitly committed. All I've done is condensed their theories into a summary which any layman can seek to understand. The evidence is right there, watch it, do the experiments for yourself, confirm the theory. There really is no justifiable excuse for ignorance at this point, just do the due diligence. As much as I'd Love to stay here and become the center of ad hominem slurs and watch a bunch of egotistical academics conjure up 101 excuses to avoid investigating and refuting the experiments with experiments of their own, i do have other things to do which are more important. But i did just want to vindicate myself from that alleged fallacy, and you would do well to keep in mind the argumentum ad logicam if you're going to throw around accusations like that. I have nothing to prove here, the truth is self evident. The truth is not what you want it to be, it is what it is and we must bend to it's power or live a lie. Have a great day, all. I'm out.

Lol. I see plenty of dismissal, ridicule and condemnation but not a sign of any intellectual, scientific refutation of the information AND observational/experimental evidence provided and included in the article. Such as, the ferrocell device revealing that masses and magnets do NOT mutually accelerate towards each other, contrary to your academically endorsed and over popularized conventional theories of EM and gravitation. You may think it's all pseudoscientific technobabble, but i am merely reiterating the works of scientific greats such as Tesla, Faraday, Maxwell, Heaviside, Steinmetz, and others. It is their terminology which i use. It would be unwise to accuse their collective work as pseudoscience merely because you are unfamiliar with their terminology. Without these people we wouldn't even be having this discussion, as we owe to them our entire electrical grid and modern communications system, not excluding the internet. Instead of dismissing new information which challenges your world view as a "conspiracy theory" or "waste of time", why don't you actually try learning something new? It's OK to be wrong sometimes. Accepting that your universities failed you may be the only way science will ever progress from this point, to be fair. Paroxysm, props to your family member, they clearly have an open mind and are seeking the truth, you could probably learn quite a lot from them. "The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists." - N. Tesla Have a blessed day, Everyone. Wishing you all the best in your journey towards discovery. Just remember that the real obstacle to discovery is not ignorance, but rather the illusion of knowledge. Romans 1:22

Stu, sorry no that was not intended at you. I started off responding to you but ended up generalizing my speech to address the entire forum. Forgive me. Magnets 'radiate' magnetism, ie centrifugal force divergence. Field modalities are either radiative or generative, (see the first chart) opposite functions. Same with charge and discharge, or centripetal and centrifugal. An example of this, would be any magnet. Sorry if that sounds patronizing or unclear, but it's very simple to me. Magnetism is radiation, that's what spatial vectors are. Volume is so, due only to magnetism. Magnetism never attracted anything, it only displaces, it is the dielectric component that acts as attraction. My understanding is that a field is a reciprocating precessional hyperboloid of centrifugal force divergence (IE; magnetism) and centripetal dielectric acceleration towards a null point of inertia, (IE; counter-space). And this isn't merely speculation, because i've seen it with my own eyes. [ https://zeteticzen.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/what-is-a-ferrocell-seeing-into-the-cross-section-of-the-secret-of-mother-nature/ ] Thanks Mordred, i look forward to it. The better you can dumb it down the better for me. I am just a layman, so do the best you can and i'd really appreciate it.

No, i said Maxwellian field equations do not differentiate between dielectric centripetal convergence and centrifugal divergent magnetism. The bloch wall is a different question. It's very easy to cite external sources and say "This body of words explains everything you ask for" - But does it though? All i see are a lot of calculartions and quantifications about the properties and dimensions, but no denotation in principle, unless i've missed something. Descriptions are not explanations, and i'm asking for a personal understanding in your own words, if anything to show me that the equations you've provided do explain the specific phenomena i've mentioned, and that you did understand the questions. So where exactly in this paper does it specifically explain why a bloch wall has no locus? Please explain in your own words, if you can. Thank you I'm not lecturing, i'm the layman, i was merely asking questions, it was everybody else who begged for a lecture because they couldn't understand the questions. You are very vague when you say "This explains that" - can you be more specific please? Perhaps use bullet points or numbers so i know which question you feel you are answering. Or, are you stating that paper explains every question i've asked? If so... please show how. My terminology is fine, i've rectified this repeatedly, and clarified them for those who were nescient. I don't know what issue you have with my images, and fail to see why a logistics chart and photographs of experiments with magnets doesn't constitute physics, or have anything to do with art class. I'm illustrating to help clarify, or in the latter case was providing visual aid to question 4. As for the ether.. well, what you think i 'imply' is irrelevant, as i've said already. I want to know what YOU think is going on, don't you worry about my understanding, i came here looking for that, not planning to share it. At least, not one before the other anyway, i am partial towards reciprocal flow and mutual exchange, but i asked first. This image details what i was talking about in question 1. You don't have to like it, and it's not meant to look pretty. It's for the convenience of other readers, and further clarification on my part. Find me anywhere in contemporary academia that distinguishes this and explains it. You can prove it to yourself in 10 seconds with some magnets. It's really very easy. It's clearly observable and repeatable, but i can't find a single physicist who understands this, much less even knows about it. Except of course, between and amongst the great minds of electrical theory i've mentioned prior. Nobody had the full picture, but further developments are being made. If you think modern science has already come to know everything there is to know about electricity and magnetism, when only a single man alive today was able to replicate the genius Tesla's experiments and technological results from all those years ago, that is asinine and you are insane. We have along way to go, and i'm happy to provide my experiements, math, and data, once i find somebody here who cares enough to understand what i'm asking, and come to realize these questions have no answers in modern academia. I mean, feel free to prove me wrong, but it'll take more than merely citation, i want to actually hear precise answers to my last 3 questions, not 3 links to 3 books that one merely assumes contains the answers. If you think they do, then extrapolate them, for me, the humble and scientifically illiterate crackpot layman.

Stu, thank you for asking for clarification, i'm happy to respond. I'll be ignoring much of the ad hominem slander from other commenters however as they aren't worth my time. There are 2 things going on inside a permanent magnet. A centripetal charge and a centrifugal discharge. When i ask what the difference is, i am merely seeing if anybody knows the distinction between these two field modalities. We're talking about EM here, so it's field theory. I feel like i'm asking what's the difference between A and B, to someone who never learned the alphabet. Nobody can differentiate between something they don't yet understand. Maybe i have overestimated the abilities here. In any case, by stringing these words together i've given you a much more concise idea of what they are. If anything the answer was in the question. If i say what's the difference between cold ice and hot fire, you'd say one is hot and one is cold, not instead criticize the language with pedantics and avoiding the question by claiming there's no such thing as hot ice or cold fire. Obviously, they are oxymorons. I was looking for somebody to tell me, but i guess i'll have to answer my own question, if not just to move it out of the way so i can get some kind of response to my other questions. The centripetal aspect of a magnet is a dielectric charge, it is convergent, and counter-spatial acceleration (towards inertia). It's generative. This is what occurs when 2 magnets of opposing polarity accelerate towards each other for example, and what a layman may call 'magnetic attraction', but this isn't entirely accurate in my opinion, it's more akin to electrostatics. It is increasing acceleration & inertia. Conversely, the centrifugal aspect is magnetic discharge spatial, divergent, it displaces, it is centrifugal and radiative. This is polarization, the creation of space or 'magnetic vectorization' to put it another way. Increasing Force & Motion. The difference is night and day lol. Ever heard of yin and yang? These are dualistic and conjugate modalities. Light and sound, if you want a really base analogy. That's all that is happening in nature more or less. Force & Motion VS Inertia & Acceleration. Faraday called magnetism the "Dielectric Field". Think about that. Eric Dollard once said if you don't understand counter-space you will never understand electricity. He's the only man to have replicated Tesla's most profound experiments, and is very much worth listening to on this subject. Counter-space is just unmanifest and unmodulated inertia. Electricity is actually the multiplicative by product of magnetism and dielectricity. There's good material out there on this, and it's not that contemporary even but rather just a unification of understanding compromising of all our history's greatest electrical engineers. N Tesla, CP Steinmetz, M Faraday, O Heaviside, JC Maxwell and W Russel to name just a few key players. Even M Planck to a point. Essentially everybody we have to thank for the world's electrical grids and the very communications we are even having right now. Sadly, physics seems to drift further and further away in their quantum insanity from this tangible natural science of electricity. But i digress. Anyway, the point is every magnet has a centripetal center and a centrifugal edge. It is NOT 'all magnetism' or all simply the same thing, there are field dynamics at play with EM, it's all pressure meditation. This is why ferrous objects (under magnetic induction) always go to the maximum throw of magnetic divergence, the centrifugal edge of a magnet. Whereas another magnet would find itself in the center seeking coherency and field incommensurability. This is also why if you place a gyroscope with an iron flywheel directly over the center of one face and pole of a giant disc magnet for example, it'll keep spinning unhindered, but move the edge of the flywheel to the outside edge of the magnet and you'll get immediate magnetic clutching from the centrifugal magnetic radiation. (discharge/divergent/spatial etc.) This is in light of the fact you'll get a practically identical readings in Gaussian flux from either of these two areas, so a Guass meter tells you nothing about the difference between the centrifugal divergent and centripetal convergent aspects of a coherent and binding magnetic/electromagnetic system, such as the field of a neodymium iron boron. This has nothing to do with lenz law, and Maxwellian field equations won't help you with this distinction either. I mean i really don't want to go too much in depth about it, i wasn't planning on giving a lesson and was just wondering if anybody else was aware. But the fact you consider my language un-scientific is extremely concerning to me. These are very simple phenomena, and you know them all well, just probably not in this particular context. If you couldn't understand the language of the first question, much less attempt to answer it, then i see now why everybody is pretending questions 2 and 3 don't exist, despite me repeatedly asking for focus on those particulars. Maybe you guys don't know this stuff about magnets yet and that's fine. It's not hugely present in contemporary academia and is somewhat overshadowed by much more popular nonsense. However, the experiments are simple, inexpensive and easy to perform. It is not speculation or conjecture, it is empirical observation. Don't take my word for it. One of the reasons i know this to be true is because i have seen it, i have a device that allows me to see the entire geometry of a field in 3D holographic depth and real time through the medium of light. This is not like traditional experiments with iron sand or ferro-fluid that only give you half the picture because they can't show you the dielectric aspect of a field but only the effect a field has on ferrous particles. The golden section phi ratio torus and double hyperbola geometry is the underlying fractal of the cosmos. I contend that from understanding a simplex magnet, and how magnetism really works it consequently leads to revelations on how our entire (electric/holographic) universe works in much the same way. If i had the time, i'd be more than happy to explain it all in greater detail, show you the data, the math, the experiments and 'present a thesis' but that wasn't my intention here. Maybe i will if enough humble people with an open mind express some interest, feel free to PM me for that. It's more of the matter that i wanted to see if anyone else had experienced these observations and come to the same conclusions, but clearly nobody knows what i'm talking about and would much rather just dismiss and attack a thesis, than actually answer simple questions. The best answer i've gotten so far was "I don't know" and that seems to be the best i can expect from here . Why you all are begging me for my theories (so i answer my own questions which you can then scrutinize, instead of presenting your own theories/answers) is hilarious to me. I honestly didn't think these simple questions would be that confusing. The terms speak for themselves, even in the compounding manner i've put them, and if anything that only clarifies them further to present them so synonymously. I was helping you, not making things more obscure or diluted. And, i thought the chart i provided above was more than generous in establishing my viewpoint and offering you the opportunity to comprehend these rudiments. Now, regardless of whether you agree with me on these notions or not... can we shift the focus to questions 2 and 3 please? Scientifically denote to me a field in principle, as well as a Bloch wall, and explain why the latter has no locus. Thank you If you can't, don't sweat it, don't be offended, and don't presume this automatically equates me to be a crackpot nutjob merely because google yields you no results. Question 4. When you break a ring magnet in half it won't come back together the same way, but it will if you flip one half the other way around, and what we see appear (under magnetic viewing film) after this is a white line between the breakage point that was not there before. It seems to travel through 'space' and connect each end of the break like invisible goo completing a 'circuit' if you will. What is this line, what is it doing, why is it there now and wasn't there before the magnet broke? Come on guys, your physicists, and magnets are in everything these days, all of our amazing technology we mass reproduce every day, so we must know how these fundamental forces of mother nature work in principle, right? My questions are very direct and should be easy to answer. Of course i have my own theories, with the hindsight of experimentation but that's irrelevant. I want you to tell me what you think is going on. And perhaps if you would so indulge and humor me in such a discourse, you will eventually evoke and unravel a thesis out of me. But not before. In closing i'd like to present some wise words that are more than relevant. I hope they inspire someone. “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. The history of science shows that theories are perishable. With every new truth that is revealed we get a better understanding of Nature and our conceptions and views are modified. There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter – for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way. The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence. If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” – N. Tesla “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

I repeat, there is nothing wrong with my terminology. Of course you'd berate me for wordplay and inventing pseudoscience instead of considering that you may be ignorant of something. How humble of you. It sounds like you want me to answer my own questions. Well what would be the point in that? If i 'tech up' the first question as you propose, using terms you are familiar with, the question wouldn't mean the same thing, it is what it is, break it up into parts, you know what these things mean you've probably just never thought to arrange them that way because you wouldn't know how they describe the attributes of the two conjugate phenomena. As i said, it's contradictory to conventional theories of atomism and relativism and more akin to grand unified field mechanics. If you don't want to investigate and try to find an answer, don't bother, but don't criticize me for correct and concise terminology because you don't know what it refers to. I love how you all are focusing on pedantics and trying to shift the burden of explanation to the questioner whilst completely ignoring my 2 legitimate questions i've prompted you to answer time and time again. Hope i'm not rattling too many egos here. It's OK not to know something, let's not cry about it or behave like butthurt know-it-alls. There's something here that's worth looking at in my opinion. Answer the questions, or don't, but let's not resort to ad hominems and false accusations. I've invented nothing here, it's merely presented from an already unified understanding of individual things you'd all be very familiar with initially. Please don't make me repeat myself yet again. I've said all that needs to be said. Thanks =) Addendum: Seeing as i'm now unable to reply to this thread, for whatever reason, i'll edit my last point here and leave it at that. " If you have had to say it more than once, it's clear that you should, indeed, clarify your post." - Oh sure, because when the village idiot turns up at a Stephen Hawking lecture and says "I don't get what you mean, you have to clarify" it's because Hawking lacks eloquence and clarity in his language. Nothing at all to do with the listener's nescience. lol That quasi-axiomic statement is a farce my friend, sorry. "What does X mean in your understanding?" - Is that really so difficult? Haha, you guys are a hoot! Sooo, just to be clear. 1. Nobody understands this terminology and consider the question moot by virtue of it's "made-up" and non-scientific nature. 2. Nobody here is prepared to denote what a field is in principle. 3. Nobody here knows what a Bloch wall is denotatively, and can explain why it has no locus. That's great guys, that's all i needed to hear. Thanks for all your input.

Strange, i said numerous time i'm happy to clarify didn't i? Nobody has asked me a question yet, only assumed that i'm talking out my arse and inventing language. I'm not avoiding anything, thank you very much. Nobody is forcing you to play my game, if you can't work it out simply move along, or as i've suggested more than once, tackle the other questions. You can't tell me that the other 2 aren't very direct questions. You all know what a Bloch wall is right? It's funny to me you think i'm avoiding explainations, as i said question 1 is more of an exercise, to see if anybody knows what i'm talking about, and if they did the answer would be very simple. The other 2 questions are much more sincere and curious. Very interested to see what the current mainstream consensus is on those matters. Stop getting hung up on the parts you don't understand and attacking me for something you should probably ALL know by now, and maybe be grateful i am bringing it to you in this fun and exciting puzzle. What is the difference between the two conjugate phenomena and how to they play a part in our understanding of electromagnetism? "After all, magnetodielectric subterranean trans-euclidean anapraxic field hypergeometry tells us all we need to know. " Seems like you have a head start on the others. My phrasing is fine, perhaps the physicists here have outdated lexicons, and if so, let's update them together.

Area 54, No need to change terminology, it is what it is and i can clarify terms if need be. The point is they do actually denote real phenomena. They may not be used in the very specific manner and order that i've written them in (hence your very scientific method of google searching came up with naught). If you know what these terms mean individually then you can easily put together what they refer to when used in the way i've presented them. They are correctly placed and used in perfect context. I'm sorry but you won't be finding answers to these questions in contemporary academia, it's fairly new at least in regards to the contemporary scientific community and hasn't been entirely assimilated into academia yet, not as a whole, but the knowledge does exist, in parts and pieces, among plenty of sources you would easily recognize such as Nikola Tesla for one example. I think the reason the order these terms have been applied perplexes some of us is because they represent a unified model and understanding of EM somewhat contradictory to what is currently accepted. Take note however when i do say that there is really nothing 'new' about it, the issue is popularity i guess. Question1 is really an exercise in due diligence, i expect nobody here to instantly grasp what is being asked much less be able to answer it. But if you hadn't guessed already it simply refers to the properties of electromagnetism on a most fundamental level. There is a very important reason i have not used other terms where i could have, such as 'electron'. Because the question is rooted within a not well known model and framework, they simply do not teach EM this way in mainstream education. It's a little bit fringe i admit, but not for long i promise you. So, perhaps you'd like to present what you DID find, and attempt to piece together what it being asked. With pedantics aside, it's very simple really. Until then, why not have a crack at the other two questions instead of criticizing me for a lack of scientific lexicon when perhaps that error is the burden of the reader, not the author. If you're all still scratching your noggins after i see some effort, i'd be happy to simplify my sentence structure, and 'water it down' as it were, but i expected better than that. Again, i'm also happy to clarify any terms that are being struggled with, but i really feel that WYSIWYG and that shouldn't be necessary for the intellectualism i expect to find here from this lovely forum. Thanks for your time so far. Good luck cracking this riddle.

You could just say "No i can't answer this, i don't understand your terminology" and then ask for clarification of any terms. I'm happy to provide that and I can assure you there are all terms you can find in a physics dictionary and ones that aren't really speak for themselves and couldn't mean anything other than what they sound. Question 1 is a little complex and unorthodox, i get that, why don't you give it a skip and try questions 2 and 3. =)

1. What’s the difference between the convergent counter-spatial centripetal charge of dielectricity and the divergent spatial polarization and centrifugal discharge of magnetic radiation, and how does that inter-correlate with dielectric voidance and dielectric counter-voidance; AKA magnetic vectorization? 2. Moreover, in regards to this how does one define a ‘Field’ necessarily? And by that i mean, can you give me the absolute scientific denotation of the quantification of a field in principle? 3. Furthermore, can you explain what a Bloch wall is without merely describing it’s attributes, and tell me why it has no locus and thus there is no spatial flux at the center of any magnet? Thanks in advance. ~Zen