Knowledge Treasure Trove - (Di-)Electric, Electricity and Magnetism. Gravity = Counter-Space.

Hi all,

This is a back-up thread that i'm just creating so that if I one day lose the bookmarks to these webpages, I will be able to find them again.

I thought I would also of course share them with you all as these three websites really blew my mind in regards to some physics that I think more physicists should know about. Anyways, it's quite eye opening. Please feel free to add your own resources and really make it a treasure trove of knowledge and information. Though i'm sure some people will disagree with the things written in the below three resources. Please feel free enlighten us all with your expertise in the matters discussed. Thanks.

Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism

The Missing Secrets of ElectroMagnetism & Fractality

Hyperbolic, Mobius Strip, 5th dimension, Vector space and crop circles

Thank you sir. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

a reply to: DaRAGE

originally posted by: DaRAGE
Please feel free to add your own resources and really make it a treasure trove of knowledge and information.

The shiny "gold" is actually "fool's gold" known as pseudoscience.

Though i'm sure some people will disagree with the things written in the below three resources.

"Some people"? You mean mainstream science doesn't agree with pseudoscience? That's an understatement.

Scientists are the ones who do science. It's mostly not worth even trying to debunk this stuff but I'll give you one example of why it's pointless, with this obvious sign of pseudoscience, which is re-defining terms for pseudoscience purposes:

magnetismtoroidaldynamics.com...

Dark Energy: The permanent standing-wave oscillation fundamentally defining every permanent magnet, every atom and all charged entitiesand its always present magnetic force, near field or far-field, or both.

There's the pseudoscience definition of dark energy. Here's the real science definition of dark energy from britannica.com:

www.britannica.com...

dark energy, repulsive force that is the dominant component (69.4 percent) of the universe. The remaining portion of the universe consists of ordinary matter and dark matter. Dark energy, in contrast to both forms of matter, is relatively uniform in time and space and is gravitationally repulsive, not attractive, within the volume it occupies. The nature of dark energy is still not well understood.

So, here's the problem:

Words have meanings. When pseudoscience re-defines terms to mean something completely different, it's not really possible to even have a coherent discussion. You don't need any particular expertise to see this is the type of dictionary abuse that is all too common in pseudoscience. So how is it possible to even discuss things like "dark energy", when pseudoscience doesn't even speak the same language as science?

Regarding the third link on crop circles, really? You think that's science?
Crop circles are an art form. Crop circle makers have snuck some science into their art to make them more interesting, but the speculation beyond that is pretty silly. This is what the thids link says:

Extra-terrestrial physics as shown in crops:

Nope, there's no extraterrestrial physics shown in crops, though feel free to believe it if you want, but it's just art. The crop circles are terrestrial phenomena, mostly man made, though a few simple circles could be caused by dust-devil-like vortices.

To be fair the dark matter thing 69.4% that we can’t detect or measure is just established science trying to make up the error in its theory. Trying to ram the square into the circle.

Interesting your follow the science hill to die on example is well one that we don’t have any examples of. Anyway see yea.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: DaRAGE

"Knowledge Treasure Trove - (Di-)Electric, Electricity and Magnetism. Gravity = Counter-Space.

Your thread title, now translated into English.

Knowledge Treasure Trove - Insulation, Electricity and Magnetism. Gravity = space on top of the counter.

You use these words, I am certain they don't mean what you think they mean.

I am all for new and alternative science but not quackery that doesn't even bother learning to speak the language.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You only made me beleive trusting the science is like trusting the weatherman atleast on dark energy.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Here's the real science definition of dark energy from britannica.com:

www.britannica.com...
dark energy, repulsive force that is the dominant component (69.4 percent) of the universe. The remaining portion of the universe consists of ordinary matter and dark matter. Dark energy, in contrast to both forms of matter, is relatively uniform in time and space and is gravitationally repulsive, not attractive, within the volume it occupies. The nature of dark energy is still not well understood.

The "real" definition of dark matter should also admit we have never detected it. Scientists literally made up the existence of undetectable "dark matter" and "dark energy" to satisfy their equations... some might even call it pseudoscience.

a reply to: cooperton

You are correct. Science has been wrong many times before.

Dark matter is an add on to explain a theory that doesn't quite work. I am waiting for a new theory.

Just like spacetime is only a mathematical concept to help explain certain things and does not really exist. Dark matter is a peg driven in to try to stop some theories from falling off the wall.

Let them fall. We will learn and make better theories.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: cooperton

You are correct. Science has been wrong many times before.

Dark matter is an add on to explain a theory that doesn't quite work. I am waiting for a new theory.

Just like spacetime is only a mathematical concept to help explain certain things and does not really exist. Dark matter is a peg driven in to try to stop some theories from falling off the wall.

Let them fall. We will learn and make better theories.

Yes if more scientists were this pragmatic we may have left the sinking ship long ago. Yet there's still unobservable theories being peddled as 'proven science', and the poor lay-man is left with all sorts of wayward ideas.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well that website "magnetismtoroidaldynamics.com" is created by "Allgemein", which I believe is just a very avid researcher from the internets. I'm not actually sure if he has any formal qualifications in the scientific field of interest discussed which would properly allow him to express his idea of dark matter as accurately as the definition of dark matter that was probably discussed for decades by scientists around the world who have been trained in such things. I have absolutely no doubt the definition was probably argued amongst them.

However, I like his website with video's and pictures.

I am much more interested in the first link "https://archive.org/details/UncoveringTheMissingSecretsOfMagnetism_201810"The Missing Secrets of Magnetism


Let me give you a reason as to why I'm MUCH more interested in that.

Take the below link for example: Khan Academy. This is an online resource dedicated to giving free education to anyone who wants it. World-wide. Free Education. To be quite honest with you, I have been looking at them and am currently doing their free AP Computer Science course. I find their teaching structure to be very good and well thought out. It's excellent. However, the link below shows the current teaching regarding magnetism. It is absolutely, 100%, without a shadow of a doubt, completely and utterly wrong. The information is the same that I was taught growing up. From a little kid, to the "magnetism" physics I was taught in high school. 20 years later it is still the same thing and it is completely wrong.

What you and the world call science in regards to it, is ACTUALLY pseudoscience. It has been for far too long. People are only seeing the effects and claiming it's because of the magical unicorn and the fairy dust of the virtual particle from the 13th dimension needed to explain it and it's magical properties.

Forget what you think you know. I am telling you all. You NEED to read the first link. The Missing Secrets of Magnetism - by Ken L. Wheeler

“If you were to tell someone close to you that ‘there is utterly no such thing as magnetic attraction ’, they would inquire as to your medication or wonder what the punch line is. The very premise, from countless thousands of years past to the present, as evidenced from ‘magnets’ accelerating nails, iron bits, and ferrous objects to the ‘magnet’, and ‘opposite poles attracting/accelerating towards each other’, is as deeply ingrained in the human consciousness as the Sun rising in the East every morning. The ancient lie, this perceptual titanic error is as innate as breathing. As is the case, all attraction (and ‘repulsion j is governed by dielectricity, not magnetism, which is the ‘dielectric field’ -Faraday, which in discharging, is the radiation Ether-modality we call magnetism.

Have a look at the first picture on the link below.
K han Academy - What are magnetic fields?

This guy explains it. Science award should go to him.
He's my new hero. Ken L. Wheeler is his name. Mark my words. His name should go down in the history books as the new Tesla.




















Dark Matter

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: DaRAGE

"Knowledge Treasure Trove - (Di-)Electric, Electricity and Magnetism. Gravity = Counter-Space.

Your thread title, now translated into English.

Knowledge Treasure Trove - Insulation, Electricity and Magnetism. Gravity = space on top of the counter.

You use these words, I am certain they don't mean what you think they mean.

I am all for new and alternative science but not quackery that doesn't even bother learning to speak the language.

Thanks for that. Not. Counter Spatial. Creation of space, Elimination of space. Though he uses the word generation.

The government is hiding the good stuff…. A recently released US army patent shows, they are very well aware of the fundamentals of nature being electric and magnetic fields and that by playing with it, you can access currently unavailable incredible energies and gravity control.

The above is why I believe 99.9% of UAPs are terrestrial. Roswell and the entire UFO circuit seems like the perfect government fueled PSYOP.

I keep an open mind towards the subject, but so far all new information convinces me more that the whole subject is part and parcel of the deception to drip-feed us the things they want us to focus on to keep the real truth hidden.

What we know about technology is decades behind what is actually known.

I've long been fascinated with Tesla and all his work. When his things were returned to his family the majority of his lifelong research papers-trunks full-were missing. That might be a clue that he was on to something, for the discerning minds.

Coral Castle in Florida seems to possible have discovered some of the technology Tesla worked on. I'm pretty sure Edward Leedskalnins' 'secret knowledge' isn't a secret to TPTB. If it were, massive amounts of money would be thrown into research projects to try and figure it out.

a reply to: DaRAGE

I'll check it out. Since the science we have is insufficient to explain everything I don't see exploring seemingly outrageous claims as harmful.

What I find incredible is that people feel, with no all-inclusive science of reality and lots of evidence that we have very little grasp on one, that everything that deviates from known science is pseudoscience.

Today's science is yesterday's pseudoscience and yesterday's pseudoscience was last year's magic.

Certainty and science dogma are artifacts of a closed mind.

originally posted by: DaRAGE
However, the link below shows the current teaching regarding magnetism. It is absolutely, 100%, without a shadow of a doubt, completely and utterly wrong. The information is the same that I was taught growing up. From a little kid, to the "magnetism" physics I was taught in high school. 20 years later it is still the same thing and it is completely wrong.

Why do you say it's wrong? Posting a bunch of demonstrably wrong ramblings from Ken Wheeler doesn't prove science is wrong.

This guy explains it. Science award should go to him.
He's my new hero. Ken L. Wheeler is his name. Mark my words. His name should go down in the history books as the new Tesla.

Tesla impresses me more than Ken Wheeler. At least Tesla was right about some things even if he was wrong about many other things, like his theory about how Wardenclyffe tower was supposed to work, based on non-existent longitudinal electromagnetic waves.

I'm not going to respond to a gish gallop, but let's just take one of Ken Wheeler's claims, that electrons don't exist.
The existence of electrons is extraordinarily well documented.

Uncovering The Missing Secrets Of Magnetism

Typical of GR and QM, they have reified unreal abstractions and concepts (muons, gluons, electrons etc.),
things that utterly do not exist

Ken's so called "evidence" for why electrons can't exist includes things like saying wireless induction like wireless chargers can't be explained if electrons exist, but they are explained just fine with existing theories which include electrons.

Someone devoted a lot more time to pointing out Ken's shortcomings than I will. He mentions the electron non-existence and many other claims:

kenswrong.com...

Tries to Refute Electrons Due to Wireless Power Induction

Ken Wheeler tries to refute the existence of electrons by pointing to wireless power induction. This technology has become commonplace for charging electric toothbrushes, smartphones, and watches, as well as for electric stoves.

Wireless power induction takes advantage of electric fields and the fact that a positive plate attracts electrons. Engineers create wireless power induction using coils of wire to generate a magnetic field.

The transmitter, or charger, uses the flow of electrons from an external power source like a wall socket. It combines its electrical field with the magnetic field, producing what scientists call an electromagnetic field.

I personally did experiments in high school measuring the mass of electrons.

Here's a video not mentioned in that blog, it shows individual electrons. If these electrons don't exist, what is making these spots that scientists say are being made by individual electrons?

Single electron double slit wave experiment

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
What I find incredible is that people feel, with no all-inclusive science of reality and lots of evidence that we have very little grasp on one, that everything that deviates from known science is pseudoscience.

That's a strawman and a false dichotomy combined. We have known science, pseudoscience and fringe science. The known science has our current best theories, and the pseudoscience is demonstrably wrong. For example, we can demonstrate the existence of electrons, measure their mass and so on, so the claim that electrons don't exist is clearly pseudoscientific and wrong.

The category you left out is fringe science. There's a physicist who posts here from time to time named Delbert Larson, who thinks mainstream science is wrong about many things, and he has his own theories about what's right. What makes his ideas not pseudoscience is he understands the science and his ideas are usually not demonstrably wrong. For one of his ideas he is suggesting to scour the data at the LHC to confirm his model based on his predicted signals, and he has proposed other tests of his ideas. I can't say if he's right but he and others like theoretical physicists who understand science coming up with new models to test are the ones advancing science.

If someone can demonstrate a better model, scientists are willing to accept a better model if there's enough proof it's really better. But they are not willing to accept things like "non-existence of the electron" when evidence for electrons is overwhelming.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

My generalized observation about science dogma isn't a logical fallacy. It's an opinion based on years of watching it happen. Pseudoscience accusations are the first and immediate line of defense against any attacks of establishment "known" science.

Since I haven't read this material presented, nor even commented on it, I have no idea why you think the specifics of it impact my opinion on the broader science landscape.

If I actually defend some pseudoscience feel free to call me on it. Until then you're just extrapolating from a very vague generalized statement of my opinion that isn't agreement or endorsement of what's presented in the OP.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Look, like i said, not everyone will agree. I’m certainly not saying he’s right about things and wrong about others.

I’m just saying he’s right about magnetism and the dielectric field and how these things are functioning and the methodology and causes and actions. This is how it works. It doesn’t take a genius to know that what we are taught about magnetism is wrong.

It’s like Ken says and I had this moment in physics class as well. When you get a 20 KG circular weight on the end of a stick and lift it up, it’s 20 bloody KGs heavy. But rotate that weight and suddenly its lighter? They try and explain that away with qwuakery that doesn’t make any kind of sense. They’re still teaching that quackery today. It’s bullsnip and there is some other thing there that they are not teaching you about.

Its funny that the website you mentioned about ken also has its author unable to wrap his head around concepts such as counter-space. Counter space is the zero point. It’s the 9 in teslas 3 6 9. The 9 is at the very centre of all this and it is the zero point, like a vacuum of nothingness. The 3 and the 6 are opposites. Opposite charges, counter weighted to each other. Positive, negative, north, south, however you with to describe it.

You might not be able to wrap your head around that, I’m not sure. Some people can’t.

All it takes is some magnetic sheeting to see that magnets don’t work like they say magnets work and there are other fields at play that make the magnetic sheeting act in a certain way.

I mean take for instance what we call reality.

We go around thinking there is a lot of space. I know that what I see with my own eyes, this persistant illusion isn’t actually how things are.
In actual reality, there is no space at all. Therefore only the zero-point. Which means that there is an infinite amount of electromagnetic potential and that is what the universe is, and that is what God is. If electromagnetic beings are what we describe ourselves as and everything in existence to be comprised of, and our consciousness is also comprised of electromagnetic waves; due to there being no space, an infinite conscious being was created or born into being, which used its infinite consciousness to create this illusion that we exist in, in its mind/imagination. What we are is that infinite conscious being experiencing being finite parts of its infinite self.

Trying to use “detectors” that only are able to “detect” something when that something is disturbed. Yes. You see the disturbed something because it has your attention, as you can see that disturbed thing moving around. You claim that the disturbed something that is moving around is an actual thing in its own right. You claim that the thing just moves around on its own accord because thats what the disturbed thing does and how it acts. What you aren’t seeing is the invisible things moving the disturbed thing around.

Its like green screen actors holding objects to make it look like they are floating around a room. You see the objects floating around the room and just say this is how they act. What you’re not seeing is the green screen actors.

I mean just take a look at your kens wrong link and scroll down to the picture of an electron and picture of the photon as a wave and particle. The electron looks like a wave too. I mean, what makes it wavey anyways? Why are parts of it going up and down like a wave. You think “that’s just its nature”, but Ken and I right now are seeing that there are unseen forces acting upon it to appear like that and do those things. Its the unseen forces that are making the disturbance that you call an electron. I don’t know which is true, but I think Kens got it right.

Anyways. Im not going to argue the finer points of these things or even argue on the behalf of these people.

Im sure there is a bunch of BS out there. Anyways. Cheers for the discussion. This is why ATS is great. Question question question your own beliefs and bullsnip, as well as others. But always keep an open mind, because well, you’re probably wrong about a lot of stuff. When I say that i’m not talking about anyone in particular, just about myself. I know time and time again things I’ve thought to be true turned out bullsnip. Most of those revelations come from this forum.

originally posted by: DaRAGE
It’s like Ken says and I had this moment in physics class as well. When you get a 20 KG circular weight on the end of a stick and lift it up, it’s 20 bloody KGs heavy. But rotate that weight and suddenly its lighter? They try and explain that away with qwuakery that doesn’t make any kind of sense. They’re still teaching that quackery today. It’s bullsnip and there is some other thing there that they are not teaching you about.

Even if that were the case, you still aren't going to get to what's really going on by listening to some quack who loudly proclaims that electrons don't exist, when the evidence for the existence of electrons is overwhelming, and his so-called "evidence" against electrons only shows his failure to understand current models.

There's some misunderstanding apparent in your comments about the wheel getting lighter. When you say it's lighter, it may "feel" lighter, but stand on a scale and see it's not actually lighter...here's someone who actually did that and he explains why it feels lighter, and shows the scale indicates it's really not lighter:

Anti-Gravity Wheel Explained-Veritasium

It's a little shaky but if you average out the oscillations I think the result is clear.

So after accounting for the oscillations in the scale, it's not really lighter, and the oscillations can also be explained. When you raise the wheel without increasing the precession, the scale should show a slightly higher weight when lifting, and a slightly lower weight when lowering, until you stop at the bottom when it should show a slightly higher weight again to stop the downward motion. But, that's not all that's going on, because Derek and Professor Laithwaite are both changing the precession as they lift the wheel, which has predictible effects which can be precisely calculated which will also show up on the scale (part of the oscillations).

I doubt you are interested in the calculations, but for anybody interested in the math, this full lecture on the topic explains what is going on but it's a challenging topic to understand and about that the professor says this:

14:00 Gyroscopes
"We now come to the most non-intuitive part of all of 8.01 and arguably perhaps the most difficult part in all of physics, and that has to do with gyroscopes. And I really urge you to pay a lot of attention and not even to miss 10 seconds, because you're going to see some mind-boggling demonstrations, which are so incredibly non-intuitive, that unless you have followed the steps that lead up to it, you won't have any idea what you're looking at. It will be fun, it will be cute, but it won't do anything for you."

So I'm betting you're one of the people who missed 10 seconds or more and therefore didn't follow all the steps, and ended up being one of the people who doesn't understand what they are looking at, as the professor predicts will happen if you don't pay close enough attention.

Fortunately, if you miss 10 seconds, you can re-play the video until you understand it, but he really does explain what's going on and proves his model with mathematical predictions and experimental measurements which confirm the model. The part on gyroscopes starts at 14 minutes in the video:

8.01x - Lect 24 - Rolling Motion, Gyroscopes, VERY NON-INTUITIVE


The professor repeatedly acknowledges this is a challenging topic and the experiments have non-intuitive results, but that kind of thing makes physics interesting, and some smart people really have figured out what is going on and he explains it with plenty of demonstrations, showing the model he's teaching works.

But if you still fail to understand the topic, as the professor says when he concludes the lecture, you are not alone:

Time index 49:00 "If you have problems with this, you're not alone. See you Wednesday"

So apparently you do have problems with it, and you're not the only one, but you're not going to get any better answers listening to some guy who denies the existence of electrons, I can assure you of that. Professor Lewin explains it well but as he says you relly can't miss any steps or you won't understand it, and it helps to at least have some basic mathematical background, to follow his lecture.

I know it doesn't weigh any less but it feels like it does. I get the first video.

Though it's the second video that irks me.

It's very unintuitive because it's magical fairy dust BS.

I'm quite certain the professor teaching it knows that it's magical fairy dust BS too that he's teaching. He's teaching it because that's his job. It's how he's been taught and been told told to teach. I think that if you were actually get him drunk and speak honestly and we won't tell anyone and he won't lose his job over it... that he'd probably say it's magical fairy dust too. Something's not right about it.

I think they are looking at the effect and then creating physics equations to make it look correct, but it's not. It's just their own interpretation at what they can see from the effects without actually seeing the underlying cause causing the effects.

It's like trying to explain to a classroom filled with kids, telling them why a granny smith apple is green without understanding how light works.

"The apple is green because it absorbs the green light from the colour spectrum. It absorbs the green light because of this substance known as chlorophyll. Trust the science."
"I think it reflects only the green light."
"Shuttup Billy, put your mask back on. You also believed in the toothfairy when you were a little kid, that turned out wrong didn't it!"

Though perhaps you would like to tell me about why the electron looks like a wave and what brings about it's wavy nature.
Perhaps you can tell me the reason as to why light is wavey?

What causes the wavey nature of things?

I know what causes water in the ocean to get wavey. It's because some force is acting upon the water disturbing it.

Look, like I said i'm not trying to defend the crap someone else has said, right or wrong.

I'm quite certain that the current teaching of magnetism is clearly inaccurate and just by having a bar magnet next to magnetic imaging plastic sheeting, shows it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Look I mean up until the 1900's people were talking about the Ether. The Ether this and that.

Sure. We havn't been able to "measure" it in any sense. But then again we really havn't been able to find much of dark matter and dark energy now have we?

I think it's time we started thinking differently and really started thinking outside the box.

All those diagrams and pictures match nature pretty exactly and how things look to be acting with magnetic fields, and fields occurring in nature.

Now I'm not saying his "not believing in electrons" is right or wrong.

I'm just wanting to know how deep your questioning in regards to it went. And how far your questioning into what you think you know and have been told by these experiments that prove electrons real, are actually real in their results, and how they were measured, and maybe what they are measuring is actual fields and not an actual thing other than a field effect, or how they detect them, get pictures of them, etc.

I mean for instance that picture you showed that has the blue markings being "electrons".

files.abovetopsecret.com...

"we are looking at the detector plane on the monitor. Bright spots appear here and there. These spots indicated individual electrons."

Do they really? Or do they detect a field of charge, which is a disturbance compared to a field of no charge?

I'm not arguing for or against, but i'm just trying to get you to open your mind and think differently, and perhaps rethink about the things that you think you know, and see if what you actually know is really as true as you think.

Free your mind! ;-p

I mean take what we think we know...

Matter and stuff seems to be made up of electric and magnetic properties. We can detect like 4% of the universes stuff that we know is made up of it. Maybe the rest of it is made up of stuff that isn't made of those properties and we can't even measure it because all we know and interact with is made up of that 4% of stuff. We are not the rule. We are the exemption.

Maybe the reason we can detect and know of our 4% of stuff is because disturbed things are easier to see. Moving things catch the eye. The 96% of stuff we can't see maybe isn't as easily detectable because it isn't moving and catching the eye. It's the thing making other things move.?

I mean take this Ether and Di-Electric field stuff.

If this Di-Electric field thing exists in nature, then our Sun is in the spot where the di-electric field is largest, and therefore weakest. If the di-electric field is like an insulating field, it would have the weakest insulation there compared to the space around it. Electric and magnetic fields would therefore be more likely to flow to that area of least resistance. Therefore matter, which is made of electromagnetism would conjugate there. Anyways it would make our sun like a capacitor. Also would explain why the surface of the sun is like millions of degree's and the stuff coming off the sun accelerates. Electric energy from elsewhere flowing towards the sun, an area of least resistance.

Anyways. Something to think about.

Great thread, marked to read later.

Just throwing in the mix 'Theoria Apophasis' on youtube, he has some very interesting theories. Also some good advice on cameras.

www.youtube.com...