Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

A Sound Magnetic Base



  • The technology that uses the aether or magnetic behaviour of space as a propulsion is fairly simple . It has been around since the earliest civilisations.
  • It occurs to me that the modern understanding of the B field is based on the BiotbSavot line element in a wire. Ampères circuitous dynamic element is displaced as equivalent with no real justification .
    Then the solenoid of such a wire is used to replace the magnetic field found in a bar magnet, again without real justification . Thus the B field and the H field inside the solenoid are constructed. We therefore are led to believe that the iron filing pattern is explained in this construction of the B field and unconsciously I have associated this with the Equipotential surfaces around a magnet.

    I now realise that this is an unsound construction and needs more detailed analysis to develop a more u ified and sound synthesis that incorporates all the information currently used in NMR and Ken Wherlers analysis.

    The complex vortex demands a better representation
  • edited November 2016

    Videos in this series based onKenWhelers work

    Rotations in the aether

  • Technical electrical engineering in which Jim Murray reveals what power generators already know but kep from you so as to charge you more !!
    Alternating power or pressure and back pressure are all taken for granted " current is not really used in the explanation.

  • The magnetic frequencies that produce microwaves Tesla explains as having a levity effect. We need to u der stand that magnetic behaviours are complex but complex enough to express different modalities like the 4 physicl forces.
  • edited November 2016

    Qbits and entanglement are Magnetic patterns .
    So quantum physics is really the physics of magnetism at very tiny vibrational / rotational patterns .
    Magnetism is a sound basis.
    Dielectricity I explain as a mode of magnetic topological patterning in a dynamic topology
    While this video depicts this state as quantum positioning the astute reader will note that the NMR theory's say precisely the same thing , but there they misleadingly ascribe the behaviour to spin in protons . In quantum mechanics they dispose of the proton crutch. .
    It is my position that rotation of the aether is the basic fluid dynamic model of magnetic behaviour . Kens structural pattern is a key dynamic topological model to give insight into possible fluid dynamics of the aether.

    Reminds me directly of the first magnetic core memories in early computers! !!
  • edited November 2016

    This is old tech that now seems quite relevant to quantum computing!!!

    This is old tech! Xxx

    I love this fact that sewing by skilled ladies created these quilts and cloths of memory storage out of magnetic patterns
  • edited November 2016
    This last video on Tesla speaks erroneously of Tesla patent number 1,655,144. The correct patent number is 1,655,114: TESLA PATENT 1,655,114 APPARATUS FOR AERIAL TRANSPORTATION

    There are rumors indeed that, and I quote: Tesla said he had fully developed his Dynamic Theory of Gravity and "worked it out in all its details" in 1893-94 (source: PowerPedia:Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity). Is this a myth or reality remains to be seen.
  • edited November 2016

    This is the history. Sounds cool, but then you realise it is just tweaking old tech! Ok superconducting is hard.

    The lead guy.

    The NMR math that uses rotations all the way home !!

  • edited November 2016
    Many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is utter nonsense in my (not so humble :) ) opinion on par with Black Holes, Holy Bleaks, Curved Spaces, Spicy Curls, Time Dilation, Expending Universes, 11-dimentional universes etc. How do I know that? Very simple: no technology ever came out of this shit.

    The Chief Scientist, or rather Chef Scientist, Eric Ladizinsky has absolutely no idea what Schrodinger Cat is all about, and what Schrodinger was actually trying to communicate with his "cat argument".

    Don't fall for this garbage.
  • Many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is utter nonsense in my (not so humble :) ) opinion on par with Black Holes, Holy Bleaks, Curved Spaces, Spicy Curls, Time Dilation, Expending Universes, 11-dimentional universes etc. How do I know that? Very simple: no technology ever came out of this shit.

    The Chief Scientist, or rather Chef Scientist, Eric Ladizinsky has absolutely no idea what Schrodinger Cat is all about, and what Schrodinger was actually trying to communicate with his "cat argument".

    Don't fall for this garbage.

    ...agreed... :)

  • Qbits are magnetic structures in the annealing architecture. Here they use the infamous electron .
    It is hopefully dawning on you by now that the theoretical electron is not a particle but a term in a Fourier series expression of a statistical state matrix of a physical electromagnetic system!

    When you look at the Boltzmann - Gauss - Maxwell probability curve for an electron it is a bell shaped curve which can be modelled by a Fourier series. Thus tunnelling is clearly those signals not blocked or reflected by the barrier . We might relate it to classical diffraction rather than tunnelling , with polarisation signatures.
    In any case these quantum effects can be modelled by complex magnetic perturbation, superposition and or interference patterns.
  • edited November 2016

    It makes me sad that, in the discussion thread named "A Sound Magnetic Base", you are pushing the mysticism of Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - the most unsound and the most absurd concept in the entire history of science.

    Ignorant people think that Schrödinger came up with his cat thought experiment to show how marvelous and mysterious Quantum Mechanics was when, in fact, he advanced the argument to demonstrate how stupid the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics was.

    Quote: Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum physics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. (Schrödinger E, The Interpretation of Quantum Physics. Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge, CN, 1995).

    Schrödinger was so disgusted with the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that he cried out: I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.

    Uncertainty and superposition are in human heads - not in Nature. Nature does not know uncertainty. There is no superposition of states in Nature. Parallel universes is in violent opposition to the most fundamental principle of all science - the principle of cause and effect.

  • @Barau_R_Tour
    Don't be sad my friend and Thankyou for your clarifications .
    I hold no position for quantum Mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation or any standard mainstream protestations.
    The game for me is in the data derived from accurate experimental measurement based on hypothetical models. If they hold the data and interpret it one way that is thir prerogative, as long as they release the data.

    In the videos posted there are many professions of fact I do not necessarily agree are fact . There is much obfuscation , but my brief comments reveal the point I find of interest to the discussion of a sound magnetic base. Your deconstructions serve as a further warning to the careless reader .

    It is of interest to me that the somewhat theoretical Qbit is in fact a magnetic structure. And that one presenter clearly states entanglement is the classical case of clockwise anticlockwise spin! No mystery there!
    In fact the assumption of two vortices in a magnetic structure as I have outlined as one understanding of Ōrsteds view of the magnetic structure around a conductor is identical to this explanation of entanglement!

    You should be aware how the very same process is given different terminology in different branches of science : superposition is one of these. In its basic sense it means stacking all the possibilities on top of each other. Thus in the case of the sine wave model it is simply constructive and destructive interference!
    When you grasp that these so called particles are terms in Fourier series models of the circumstances you may grasp how the probability curve, the statistical bell shape and the exponential forms are mathematically so appealing.

    The issue really becomes the belief in the efficacy of the mathematical model in revealing physical reality. I know, not just think, it is a misstep to confuse the mathematical model with physicality. Thus superposition is an extension of the mathmatical summation of the Fourier series. While we se constructive and destructive interference in physical fluidics we do not see that in particulate matter. Therefore the confusion between wave and particle, the ego of some so called natural philosophers and not a little intrigue and misinformation to preserve primacy resulted in students being taught and organised in tribal protagonistic elites.
    Under the name of science confusion and ignorance was and is taught and maintained.

    The sad thing is under intellectual property rights, industrial trademarks and patents the true science is known .

    So do not be disheartened but rather continue to highlight where the mainstream pulls the wool over our eyes. It is a thankless, never ending task . I do not desire to correct every mistatement of fact or misleading conclusion. My exploration is to determine if a coherent model can be synthesised from a few demonstrable observables .
    I am satisfied that it can and that it can explain the fundamentals of all practical technologies no matter how complex.

    It assures me that rotation and magnetic behaviour are a sound basis for this synthesis .
  • I was tracing back this discussion thread, and my attention was caught by an old post made by Jehovajah back in Jan 2015:

    The presentation Batteries Made from Water by Gerald Pollack at the Natural Philosophy Alliance's 19th Annual Conference comprises a chapter from his book, The Fourth Phase of Water: Beyond Solid, Liquid and Vapor (Ebner and Sons Publishers, 2013).

    While answering his own Question #3: Can crystalline water explain counter-intuitive anomalies (@ 31:15 into the video), the author talks about the easiness with which water can support dense objects, like paper clips, on the surface. Then he goes on to include into the list of anomalies Basilisk lizard's (aka Jesus Christ lizard) walk on water (@ 35:40), which is entirely a different ball game.

    The mechanism behind the Basilisk lizard's run on water has little - or, rather, nothing - to do with the mechanism behind the paperclip support on water, or the mechanism behind the Water Striders Walk On Water.

    The conjectured crystalline structure of water surface layer cannot explain the magic pulled off by the lizard - it is way too heavy for that.

    To be continued ...
Sign In or Register to comment.