Magnetfelder. Rationale Beschreibungen vs. irrationale Verdinglichung
Anmerkung: Gespräch:Übersetzung Magnetismus Wheeler IX
Über diese Seite Werk
Gründet auf dem Werk „Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism 3rd Edition“ Ken Lee Wheeler
Aufdeckung missender Geheimnisse über Magnetismus
Ureigenwerk Liste Werke von Klaus Feldmann
E-Buch
25. September 2014 n. Chr. erst.
Ausgabe 01
11. November 2021 Uhr Ausgabe 01
Leserschaft: Niemand
unüberarbeitet
ungeprüft
↑ Dies ist nicht das Modell des Magnetismus. Der Eisenspäne große Irrtum
→ Magnetfelder. Rationale Beschreibungen vs. irrationale Verdinglichung
↓ Tesla gegen Einstein und für den Äther
Magnetismus-Cover-Wheeler.png Copyright © 15.06.2014
Magnetic Fields. Rational descriptions vs. irrational reifications
Below headline example: Articles created by many different authors in various titles and formats over the years.
- Beispiel unter der Überschrift: Artikel, die im Laufe der Jahre von vielen verschiedenen Autoren in verschiedenen Titeln und Formaten erstellt wurden.
“When this is present, that is present. When this is not present, neither is that.” – ancient saying
„Wenn dies vorhanden ist, ist es vorhanden. Wenn dies nicht vorhanden ist, ist es auch nicht so. “ - antikes Sprichwort
“All fields, dielectric, gravitational, magnetic, electrical, are modalities of the Ether without exception. Any conception of action at a distance without an Ether field as mediator is illogical, senseless, and impossible.” – Author
„Alle Felder, dielektrisch, gravitativ, magnetisch, elektrisch, sind ausnahmslos Modalitäten des Äthers. Jede Vorstellung von Fernwirkung ohne Ätherfeld als Vermittler ist unlogisch, sinnlos und unmöglich. “ - Autor
“The quickest way to frighten anyone in GR or QM is to ask them how a field functions.” - Author
"Der schnellste Weg, jemanden in GR oder QM zu erschrecken, besteht darin, ihn zu fragen, wie ein Feld funktioniert." - Autor
“The single greatest fear you can instill in any relativist or materialists is to ask them to define a field, gravitational, magnetic, dielectric, or electric. The thousand pound gorilla in the room of relativity is that action action-reactions and atomic operations are mediated by and thru a field which no relativist can or dare define. All fields are Ether.” - Author
„Die größte Angst, die man einem Relativisten oder Materialisten einflößen kann, besteht darin, ihn zu bitten, ein Feld zu definieren, das gravitativ, magnetisch, dielektrisch oder elektrisch ist. Der tausend Pfund schwere Gorilla im Raum der Relativitätstheorie besteht darin, dass Aktionsaktionsreaktionen und atomare Operationen durch und durch ein Feld vermittelt werden, das kein Relativist definieren kann oder darf. Alle Felder sind Äther. “ - Autor
“It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact. Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thru a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and course may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into (for) it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.” - Sir Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692
„Es ist unvorstellbar, dass unbelebte Materie ohne die Vermittlung von etwas anderem, das nicht materiell ist, ohne gegenseitigen Kontakt auf andere Materie einwirkt und diese beeinflusst. Die Schwerkraft sollte angeboren, inhärent und wesentlich für die Materie sein, damit ein Körper in einer Entfernung durch ein Vakuum auf einen anderen einwirken kann, ohne dass etwas anderes vermittelt wird, durch und durch das ihre Handlung und ihr Verlauf von einem zum anderen übertragen werden können, ist für mich eine so große Absurdität, dass ich glaube, dass kein Mann, der in philosophischen Angelegenheiten eine kompetente Denkfähigkeit besitzt, jemals darauf hereinfallen kann. Die Schwerkraft muss durch einen Agenten verursacht werden, der ständig nach bestimmten Gesetzen handelt. Aber ob dieser Agent materiell oder immateriell ist, ich habe es den Lesern überlassen.“ - Sir Isaac Newton, Briefe an Bentley, 1692
Before embarking on explaining magnetism, first the all important word field must be rigorously and scientifically defined with ambiguity and misconceptions fully removed. A field (Greek: χώρα) is a conjugate nonspatial attribute between the subject, Ether, and the object causing the perturbation (or EM induction), either as gravity, electricity, magnetism, or electromagnetism. A field has relevance only as a relational perturbation between the subject and the object causing its appearance; a field is specified only as regards to: electricity, magnetism, gravity, matter, and dielectricity (and another unmentioned for another article); however as it must be necessitated electricity, dielectricity, gravity, and magnetism are by their very principle not different from the Ether itself. The very term ‘magnet’ merely denotes the electrified mass formerly ‘not-a-magnet’; as such magnetism and magnet are abstractions or distinctions without a difference except as relates to the coherent field charges of the before and after mass. Conceptual disambiguation between a magnet and magnetism itself cannot be enjoined, and is merely a fallacious reification of connotative abstractions.
Bevor mit der Erklärung des Magnetismus begonnen wird, muss zunächst das alles entscheidende Wort Feld streng und wissenschaftlich definiert werden, wobei Mehrdeutigkeiten und Missverständnisse vollständig beseitigt werden müssen.
Ein Feld (Griechisch: χώρα khṓrā) ist eine konjugierte nicht räumlich zugewiesene Wesenseigenschaft (Attribut) zwischen dem Subjekt Äther und dem Objekt, das die Verwirbelung (oder EM-Induktion) verursacht, entweder als Schwerkraft, Elektrizität, Magnetismus oder Elektromagnetismus.
Anmerkung:
1. Ein Feld ist kein Verursacher sondern der Bereich eines Raum in einer Weite, auf dem ein Dasein aufgrund von Dasein gedeiht. Ein Feld wird durch Dasein herausgebildet ist daher nicht erstrangig ein Urgrund als Raum, da es die Eigenschaft räumlich zu sein von Raum ererbt, nicht zweitranging ein Ursprung, sondern drittrangig ist es der durch Verfertiger herausgebildete oder bereitete Grund für viertrangige Ursachen. Ein Feld hat keine erstrangigen Wesenseigenschaften, da es kein Wesen ist und es hat keine Eigenschaften, da es nichts erschafft, da die dem Feld zugeschriebene Eigenschaften die Eigenschaften deren das Feld erschaffenden Verfertiger und sich aus dem Erschaffen herausbildenden Wechselwirkungen sind.
2. Der Äther ist seinem Inhalt übergeordnet und daher ist der Äther das Objekt
‘thing presented to the mind’ "Sache, die dem Mynd präsentiert wird" ‘material from which things are made’ and ‘subject of attributes and predicates’. „Material, aus dem Dinge gemacht werden, deren Eigenschaften und Bestimmungen“.
Ein Feld ist nur als relationale Störung zwischen dem Subjekt und dem Objekt relevant, die sein Erscheinen verursacht. Ein Feld wird nur in Bezug auf Folgendes spezifiziert: Elektrizität, Magnetismus, Schwerkraft, Materie und Dielektrizität (und ein anderes, das für einen anderen Artikel nicht erwähnt wurde); Da jedoch Elektrizität erforderlich sein muss, unterscheiden sich Dielektrizität, Schwerkraft und Magnetismus nach ihrem Prinzip nicht vom Äther selbst.
Der Begriff „Magnet“ bezeichnet lediglich die elektrifizierte Masse, die früher „kein Magnet“ war. als solche sind Magnetismus und Magnet Abstraktionen oder Unterscheidungen ohne Unterschied, außer in Bezug auf die kohärenten Feldladungen der Vorher- und Nachher-Masse. Die konzeptionelle Undoppeldeutigkeit (Disambiguierung) zwischen einem Magneten und dem Magnetismus selbst kann nicht vorgeschrieben werden und ist lediglich eine trügerische Verdinglichung wertender Nebenbedeutungen verallgemeinender Anschauungen.
A field as purely an attribute (coordinate to X, or as induced by X) is meant as appearing in time but not in space (otherwise we cannot mark it, even if same is not in time) relationally to the object or that which caused the induction of which the field is a dynamic byproduct thereof; ultimately a field is always the subject (but in ignorance inversely seen as the attribute of another), though appearing posterior to the object which induced it to appear.
Ein Feld als reine Wesenheit oder Eigenschaft (Koordinate zu X oder als durch X induziert) soll in der Zeit erscheinen, aber nicht im Raum (andernfalls können wir es nicht markieren, auch wenn es nicht in der Zeit ist), relativ zu dem Objekt oder dem, was verursacht hat deren Induktion das Feld ein dynamisches Nebenprodukt davon ist; Letztendlich ist ein Feld immer das Subjekt (aber in Unwissenheit umgekehrt als Attribut eines anderen gesehen), obwohl es hinter dem Objekt erscheint, das es zum Erscheinen gebracht hat.
As stated, there is no Ether in space, only space within the Ether (when polarized obviously), consubstantial reification choate of a field to and with space is a fallacy, when there is the appearance of one “in space” is as meant there is “space at the appearance of a field”, and incorrectly projected in error as ‘between fields’ additionally.
Wie gesagt, es gibt keinen Äther im Raum, nur den Raum innerhalb des Äthers (wenn er offensichtlich polarisiert ist). Die konstitutive Verdinglichung eines Feldes zum und mit dem Raum ist ein Trugschluss, wenn das Erscheinen eines Feldes "im Raum" dort gemeint ist, ist "Raum beim Erscheinen eines Feldes" und wird fälschlicherweise zusätzlich fälschlicherweise als "zwischen Feldern" projiziert.
A field, being nonspatial and atemporal (however its affects are both co-principles of any phenomena involving or the byproduct of a field) cannot be ‘after’ anymore than it can be ‘before’ the object of consubstantial reference, which induced it to appear.
Ein Feld, das nicht räumlich und zeitlich ist (seine Auswirkungen sind jedoch beide Ko-Prinzipien von Phänomenen, die ein Feld betreffen oder das Nebenprodukt eines Feldes sind), kann nicht mehr "nach" sein als "vor" dem Objekt der konstitutiven Bezugnahme, durch welches es veranlasst wurde zu erscheinen.
Just like the field beneath ones feet, the field is before and after, distinctions only being made marking a field when induction is or having had occurred.
Genau wie das Feld unter den Füßen ist das Feld vorher und nachher, wobei Unterscheidungen nur dann vorgenommen werden, wenn ein Feld markiert ist oder stattgefunden hat.
However unlike the spatial field beneath ones feet which is dimensional, the Ether field is counterspatial and is not, as against the idiocy of GR, conjugate TO, OF, or AS space-time’s conceptual displacement abstractions and fallacious Atomistic reifications of space as a ‘thing’ in place of the Ether which mediates action at a distance, which is impossible.
Im Gegensatz zu dem räumlichen Feld unter den Füßen, das dimensional ist, ist das Ätherfeld jedoch gegenräumlich und konjugiert im Gegensatz zur Idiotie von GR nicht die konzeptuellen Verschiebungsabstraktionen von TO, OF oder AS der Raumzeit und die trügerischen atomistischen Verdinglichung des Raums als 'Ding' anstelle des Äthers, der Fernwirkung vermittelt, was unmöglich ist.
A ‘field’ is the conceptual and mediated abstraction wrongly reified as an autonomous entity when in fact all fields are as relates to and of the Ether and an object that induces its appearance of which that object is necessarily of course comprised of stable dielectric Ether fields (matter), by logical necessity.
A field is strictly a relational attribute and perturbation so noted when induced to appear by an object, by the movement of an object, or abstractly in reference to electromagnetism which is merely a lexical nuance of referring to the Ether itself.
To reify a field in itself and in standalone cannot be scientifically enjoined; but for the sake of electromagnetism, the field or Ether are all one and the very same thing in denotation, a pure massless induction, circular, radial, polarized, centripetal or centrifugal, however the induction that led to the creation of electromagnetism (with its dielectric coaxial component) must be introduced as is necessarily the case. It must always be asked “a field OF what (as induced) BY what”.
The field, the medium (Tesla’s “supreme medium”), or Ether occupies space as a gradient when induced, but cannot be space itself, nor can a field be comprised of points or lines as commonly understood a “magnetic field”, since magnetism is a pressure gradient of the Ether which dismisses the need for points or lines, since there are none involving same. In nature, there are no such entities as points or lines, only pressures; one must draw a line to make a point, therefore it is not a point, but a termination of a line, and one cannot make a line, since one must begin at a point (which is yet another line) to draw a line, therefore it is not a line but the (charging) expansion of a point.
This additionally and summarily dismisses atomistic point particles; all fields and natures pressures are waves and gradients, spatial and counterspatial, radial or circular, there are no exceptions to this in the charging discharging universe of Ether modalities.
In speaking of or about a field the only conventional distinction made between what is everpresent and the localized field is in speaking conceptually about a field-feature appearing in the featureless nonspatial and atemporal background whose locus is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere. This nonlinear subject without a locus, as pertains the Ether, or its abstraction as ‘field’ is the difficulty of linear minds to understand, grasp, express, and wrongly reify a field as a particle-mediated concept or, as GR has ignorantly done, transfer mediation to unreal attributive abstractions such as space and time, or as spacetime. In doing so, the connotative ramifications of the background fabric of the Ether has been circumvented and transferred to an irrational reification of space and time which cannot mediate either charges, magnetism, gravity, or instantaneous action at a distance. Fields operate thru the space within them via pressures, motions and time with no “concern” for same. Space operates on nothing, however it is reified in fields, but only when fields are polarized, and therefore have dimensional vectors which are measured in time and space; but again space does nothing, acts on nothing, mediates nothing, even the Greek Platonists and Pythagoreans knew this ages ago. Like the fields or lands one stands upon, the field’s potential is ever present but unknown until there is a perturbation, induction, or disturbance in which case the field is readily manifest as pertains its conditional manifestations as phenomena or actions upon other masses. Space is not a field and fails the scientific definition of either subject or object. In the case of the field analogy the Ether can manifest a sinkhole, a hill, or a striation, respectively centripetal gravity (’sink’), induced electricity (‘uphill’/ generative) or magnetism (‘downhill’ /radiative) around or of an object, or dielectro-electromagnetism itself in waveforms (‘striations’). Gravity itself is, unlike T.E.M. a “positive terminal” circular centripetal-emanative field with a negative Ether-pressure (true vacuum) gradient whose “negative terminal” is in counterspace (Ether). No field can terminate in space, including a gravity field. Magnetic and electric fields are one in the same thing. In fact, there are no such things as “electrical fields” vs. “magnetic fields” vs. “gravity fields”; they are all just preturbative pressure modalities of the Ether. Likewise, there are no “electrically charged” discharge-particles: only permanent and equalized stable pressures of motion in the Ether; there is nothing outside the Ether, only that which is not inducing the Ether to the macro-world of observable phenomena (of which all phenomena are either Ether based or impelled by Ether gradients). There is no magnetism IN or OF a mass so deemed a ‘magnet’ as implied a field in same, rather what is coincidentally made to appear of/as space (not in space) as the medium to the spatial magnetic mass. There are micro-magnetic forces, obviously so, within all matter, electrified in the creation of a magnet or not, however this is not to what we are directing the article here regarding, yet.
A field must be purely a dynamic concept with either its terminus upon an object of gravity or magnetism or upon itself as in the case of radiated T.E.M., as implied the Ether to which field and Ether are synonymous, either way a field of any type never terminates in space, nor could it, there is space in the Ether field, but no Ether in space, likewise Ether logically therefore cannot terminate in space, as Maxwell, Tesla and others understood well. While the modalities of interaction and nature between magnetism, gravity and electromagnetism are apparently (superficially so) different, all are quantitatively fields by definition and Ether in subject, or principle without exception. Field is a conjugate definition of the Ether regarding 1. Dielectricity 2. Magnetism 3. Gravity 4. Electromagnetic and a fifth one to be named in another work, all five of which are modalities of dynamic Ether motions and pressures; reductively however all are merely nuanced distinctions of the Ether as incorrectly rationalized as different due to waves, geometry, and motions either centripetally, circularly or centrifugally of space. Since the many modalities of fields exist radially, circulator, spatially, counterspatially, centrifugally, and centripetally; herein lies the conceptual nuance in differentiating modalities of the same subject in a field, as relates to and of the Ether itself.
Since a field is always as pertains the Ether, its confused usage and contextual contradictory reference is commonplace, as would be likewise in the case of any non-physical concept without a locus that is or has been reified objectively. A field (all Ether) is not a concept, not a physical medium (of course all physical medium are Ether in principle, as the terminus of dielectricity), not an abstraction, but the subject itself, the medium itself and often only qualified in instances to which it is induced or brought into dynamic macro-effective perturbations that cannot be ignored. That all fields are sourced in counterspace yet have spatial variants and without a definite locus other than pressure gradients when amplified or induced is not in question. There are no particles used in mediating a field, that is strictly the realm of GR and quantum absurdities that fail on rational, logical and mathematical levels, additionally always on the experimental level. While used casually everywhere in pseudo-science, any attempt by academia to rationally define a field is non-existent, and the highly typical habit of conjugating a field with space or as space is both illogical and wholly unjustified; is purely an ignorant remnant from GR as parroted thru unscientific quantum, of which both are mutually incompatible.
The conundrum of their misunderstandings, in part, is that fields are mass-free (though gravity is sourced in mass, its field is mass- free), particle-free (of any variety), are not physical objects or subjects, however it is evidently and abundantly clear they have physical effects without end; this of course is the very definition of Tesla’s ‘medium’, or Ether. While all fields witnessed in phenomenal influences are archetypes of space, the Ether is not conjugate to, part of, dependent upon or relational to space, nor is there Ether in space, rather space as a polarized dimensional measure of fields and the masses created by same. Space is only relational to masses and magnitudes and the distances between them. To conceptualize a field as a region can only pertain to a perturbation of the field as witnessed from phenomenal effects by same upon other bodies or as a region consubstantial to TEM. Einstein and his disciples argue that fields and space are equivalent. What meaning would space have in a universe devoid of matter? Whether gravitational, magnetic, or electric, we need ‘masses’ or ‘charges’ to talk about a field. This argument summarily debunks Einstein’s irrational proposal that field and space are synonyms. Einstein was extremely weak on logic in all of his proposals. He was not a very intelligent or rational individual; he was a mediocre mathematician, not a scientist. Magnets do not generate attraction and repulsion by throwing particle showers collectively called ‘field’ at each other as proposed by QM. All fields are radial or polarized, or circular, and either spatial or counterspatial depending upon their movements, instantaneous action at a distance is mediated between any two objects connected by a pressure gradient of the Either in the field(s) of influence, including compounded fields. Circular illogical statements made by and thru mathematical ‘science’ cannot be enjoined: “field: a region of space... region: a portion of space…space: the infinite extension of field”. To employ space to define a field or field to prop up or define space or be synonymous with space are all wrong, logically, and demonstrably. A field can never terminate in space nor is a field even part of space itself, rather is a dimensional measure of a field or fields, of counterspace, and used contextually as an explicit reference of influences of or by empirical objects as mediated thru or from a field. Some have, out of desperation to their materialistic mentalities conceded defeat: “A field is an enigma, a question mark. A question cannot serve as an answer in Physics”. Einstein himself said that so far as his general relativity is concerned, “space (actually spacetime) and the gravitational field are the same things”, this type of ‘thinking’ is pure idiocy of the highest order.
A region is not equivalent to the thing occupying the region itself. Insanity provides that a field, the mediator, occupies space (which it does not, counterspace cannot ‘occupy space’, there is no counterspace IN space!) or a field is in space, which again it is not; space is within a polarized field or fields or rationalized between fields (rather reified) but the Ether is counterspace, and likewise cannot be IN SPACE, rather space is within the Ether when manifest in phenomena or polarized. Einstein claims that a gravitational field is space: “ There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space.” This circular conceptual reification is a logical fallacy, space has never, and never will be shown to influence anything, nor are space and field interchangeable whatsoever. Einstein was a mental midget for this declaration. If it were, as Einstein insanely states, that a gravitational field = space and the gravitational gradient drops as we move away from the Earth, what has changed in the constituents of space, nothing is the answer. This is outright insanity for which the world lauds such foolishness. “There appears to be in the minds of these (supposed) eminent men, some prejudice, or a priori object against the hypothesis of a medium (the Ether) in which the phenomena of light, electrical actions at a distance take place…the existence of a medium in which light is propagated. But in all these theories (the insane Atomistic ones) the question naturally occurs: If something is transmitted from one particle to another at distance, what is the condition of it after it has left one particle and before it reaches another? If this something is the potential energy of the two particles, as in Neumann’s theory, how are we to conceive of this energy existing in a point of space, coinciding with neither one particle nor the other? In fact, whenever energy is transmitted from one body to another in time, there MUST BE A MEDIUM OR SUBSTANCE IN WHICH THE ENERGY EXISTS after it leaves one body before it reaches the other, for energy, as Torricelli remarked, is a ‘quintessence of so subtle a nature that it cannot be contained in ANY vessel except in the inmost substance of a thing (counterspace/ dielectricity, the Ether)’…” – J.C. Maxwell Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism vol. II
Below: Contrary to human conceptualization, as pertains fields rather than empirical objects, increasing movement is decreasing inertia, and decreasing movement is increasing inertia, however this increasing inertia is apparently (only) achieved by increasing movement towards voidance, but said increased movement is the proportionality of the decreasing sphere of space (= motion) between two or more objects. The highest expression of inertia is one in which movement is at maximum resistance, or magnetic reluctivity, as found in bismuth for example. To add to this confusion, in the voidance of increasing inertia there is increasing physical movement which is pressure mediation directed at decreasing movement ultimately. As such we can accurately state that an iron object accelerating towards a “magnet” is decreasing movement in voiding the space between it and the “magnet” thereby decreasing the space, which is movement definitionally. The shrinking spatial sphere between objects undergoing mutual spatial (=movement, polarization) voidance is the elimination of movement. While apparently moving fast in voidance, the shrinking spatial sphere of voidance denotates decreasing movement and spatial voidance. Divergent movement and convergent movement are two wholly different quantities. One indicates increasing inertia, the other decreasing inertia. All divergent motion in creating space is immanently decreasing; all convergent motion in voiding space is immanently increasing motion, but only as an expression of the shrinking spatial sphere between both, and only halts at highest dielectric inertia, or voidance; as such we must state that convergent voidance is the dissipation of all motion by increased motion (which is really spatially elimination) to full voidance of same in eliminating the motional polarization, or space, between the two objects. This motion is as regards the shrinking sphere(s) of space between these objects and said motion is not an attribute of either object in their motions towards increased acceleration and voidance of all motion. The speed of light is only a quantity of the rate of induction as measured in time of either voidance of countervoidance, or as meant the terminal velocity of divergence or convergence of magnitudinal, transverse fields.
Faraday wondered why, when the distance between two objects is doubled their mutual attraction (voidance) for one another falls off to one-fourth the former. Faraday was highly dubious regarding Newtons conclusions about force. The fact is that the “missing three-fourths of the force” is not lost whatsoever, the loss of mutual acceleration is in counterspace and mediated between both dielectricity and magnetism, both impelled by and ‘lost’ therein; this is a natural attribute to dielectricity, either as found in the so- called “magnet” or in its aggregated form as found in mass/matter. Newton’s equation is not about force, or as argued by others, tension, rather dielectric voidance. In which case we have the equation of Newton corrected: D.V. = M1 x M2/ Distance^2. All acceleration of bodies via gravity or “magnets” are undergoing dielectric voidance, or magnetic (so-called) induction and resultant acceleration is the simplex process of dielectric voidance. The presumed increasing or decreasing ‘force’ is merely a field attribute necessitated by which spatial voidance is enacted to mediate the dielectric field voidances which eliminate space in their accelerations towards pressure voidances created by magnetism. Absolute acceleration is zero empirical movement, or perfect Ether inertia.
F=ma is correctly pertaining to “magnetism” and gravity: Voidance = dielectricity as measured in mass x acceleration. As stated, magnetism cannot, has never attracted or accelerated anything, rather only causes dielectric coherency and resultant acceleration by means of dielectricity in voidance. Both gravity and so-called “magnetic attraction” operate off the principle of shrinking spheres of dielectric voidance in which, as found in the case of both, the decreasing spherical area is proportional to the voidance and resulting acceleration. Faradays “missing three-fourths of the force” is not missing, it is and always has been a translational exchange between increasing or decreasing space in which both magnetism and dielectricity mediate field pressures. Contrary to empirical phenomena and objects which are in motion and are denoted to have ‘inertia’ and likewise its opposite being ‘rest’; the inverse is true of dielectric inertia or the Ether membrane in specific, its termination is movement, is polarization (i.e. magnetism), is work, action. Additionally the fact that the universe is speeding up in acceleration has been declared a mystery by the fools of academia, since this is contrary to their conclusions. However this acceleration is PROOF the universe is decreasing in movement and winding down, just the inverse of their idiotic understanding that the accelerating galaxies are proof of increasing divergence or movement. Just the opposite is the case; this correct measurement of accelerating galaxies is proof of their ‘winding down’ into voidance.
As per the dielectric, the Ether, its innate unperturbed (usually) state, that inertia in termination is movement, work, action, polarization. All inertia discharge is movement, work, polarization, to couple out of that membrane at rest is action, the Ether in loss of inertia must translate into work, action, and the complete opposite of rest. The loss of field inertia is translated into empirical and phenomenal work, if this were not the case, nothing could be powered or run off the feed lines of electrical magneto-dielectric inertia which flows down the lines into your home. As such, contrary to phenomena in motion by which we denotate rest of same phenomena as a lost of inertia, the absolute inverse is the case for fields.
An atomic explosion, of which all matter is still present and not converted (contrary to Einstein and wholly backed by Tesla) there is a loss of inter-atomic inertia. The uranium, plutonium, or tritium are still within the mushroom cloud. All of the original components needed to reconstruct the transformed atoms to their initial nuclear states are speeding away in all directions and could, in principle, be reassembled back into the original nuclei. To reassemble these components would require the same amount of kinetic energy that was released in the explosion. The energy of the explosion comes not from converting matter to energy, but from the kinetic inter-atomic energy released. This energy did not just appear from a transformation of matter into energy as Einstein and his fools have forwarded, but was always contained within the internal motions of the inter-atomic and nucleal dielectric inertia. The only transformation that occurred was the conversion of rotational kinetic energy into linear kinetic energy. An atomic explosion, for example, is nothing more complex than many many trillion tightly wound pocket watches which are near instantly disassembled releasing their stored inertia. All the parts and gears are present after the fact. No matter or ‘gears’ were or are converted into energy. Tesla derided this insane premise of Einstein, and rightly so.
Atomists and relativists quoted in black, the corrections are in blue
Atomist: “We cannot take a snapshot of a field because, on the one hand, a field is not a stand-alone object, and on the other, it is a dynamic concept.”
This is not the case; the field is an arena of influence by Ether pressure gradients. This arena is dynamic and flowing. Atomist: A field is a physical relation between two objects that compels one or both to move. This is not the case, a single mass-object in a field has space within that field, that there is not a secondary object under influence of the field has no bearing on the matter.
Atomist: A field is not a like the still waters of a swimming pool. A field is better likened to the word wind. You can’t take a snap-shot of a field. You can only film it. If you took a picture, it is not of a field. Yet the dynamic notion of field is conceptually at odds with the static notion of region. Either a field is a flowing river or it is a static halo. It can’t be both
The Ether itself is the ‘still waters’ of the pool. A field is likened to “wind” only when two objects are interacting, either by gravity, or induction, or charge-discharge. A field is immaterial, is not mediated by particles, as such there is no ‘picture of a field’, yet their influences are well known by all. There is no “at odds” with a field, what something is in principle, or subject, so it is in activity, influence, induction, gravitation, electrification, or polarized magnetism. A “snapshot” of a magnetic field, or a single line of it specifically is a halo, however that magnetism reciprocates like a flowing river, centripetally and centrifugally can be denied by none. Relativist, mathematical explanation nonsense: “ Field: the space around a radiating body within which its electromagnetic oscillations can exert force on another similar body not in contact with it”
Conceptual reification fallacy, a field is not space, nor inversely so. Space operates on nothing. There is space within any field, as necessitated by its polarization, but there is no field in space, as being implied ‘another medium’. Space is a dimensional abstraction.
Relativist, mathematical explanation nonsense: “ Field: a mathematical entity which can be thought of as a collection of numbers” Conceptual reification fallacy of a field as a numerical abstraction.
Relativist, mathematical explanation nonsense: “ Field is a physics term for a region that is under the influence of some force that can act on matter within that region.”
Conceptual reification fallacy of a region as = field. A field influence is pressure gradient based, centripetal, centrifugal, polarized, or radial.
Relativist, mathematical explanation nonsense: “ Every magnet produces an invisible area of influence around itself… Scientists call these invisible influences fields. You can make magnetic fields visible to the eye by using iron chips sprinkled on a piece of paper with a magnet underneath.”
Using iron dust to show a snapshot of a field line is not making a field visible, only its attributional influences visible. Relativist, mathematical explanation nonsense: “ Two kinds of physical objects must coexist: particles…and fields.” Fields are not physical objects, of this, it is abundantly clear from endless experimentation. Relativist, mathematical explanation nonsense: “Field: a region of space... region: a portion of space…space: the infinite extension of field”
This is circular, fallacious, and highly illogical.