Convolutions & Misinterpretations in EU

[GenesisAria]

I've been going around explaining this to a lot of people lately, because it's a problem i finally worked out after all these years. I've been making some attempts to refine my explanation, so here's another go.

Thanks to Ken Wheeler's Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism (pdf) and countless rambley youtube videos under Theoria Apophasis, and using his methodology to piece together the logical Unified Field i've been working on, there is a more accurate way to study nature.

Talking about matter is redundant if we don't know what quanta are. Talking about gravity is redundant if we don't know what gravity is. Talking about magnetic fields it redundant if we don't know what a field is let alone a magnetic one. Talking about EU/PC is redundant if we don't know what electricity is. We need explanations, not descriptions. Unfortunately, EU and PC are full of descriptions as well.

Polarization.
The first thing people need to know about is polarization. How do i define polarization? Well in the most simple context: imagine a line, starting at a point and going off endlessly in one direction. Let's call that 1. But that never happens, there's no lines in nature that stop or start (i challenge you to find one). So it's a line that has 2 directions, infinity in one direction and infinity in another. Making it numbers: we start with 0, then we have a 1 for one direction, and 2 for two directions. However, the 2 directions are only one thing, it's one line. Basically, 1 line = 2 directions necessitatively. But nature doesn't draw straight lines either. Each direction of the line is curved, but it can't just be any kind of curve, It has to be a curve that can cross over itself, a figure 8, to interact with itself and define it's own existence. Not just any figure 8 though, a three dimensional figure 8 with a curvature to it, making a 3d hypotrochoid consisting of multiple toroids.

Since nothing has ever been created or destroyed in humanity's observation of nature, this is just painting a picture of the farthest anyone has dug into defining the fundamental nature of how the universe works.

With a little less yammering, we start with nothing, or a something, whatever the universe is made of be it something or nothing, it doesn't matter - traditionally it's called æther. Imagine the sea of the æther, and now polarize it. Polarization is the creation of an identifiable something, the creation of a force and a counter-force. This is your inertia. Inertia is made up of 2 forces, charge and discharge, aka expansion and contraction, and because it's spiralling, it's also centrifugal and centripetal.


Terminology
All over, we have a fundamental misuse of terms:

1) Charge separation. EU loves to talk about charge separation, positive and negative, double layers, and so on. So what is positive? What is negative? Why are they different? How do they manifest? Too many things get swept under the rug. Quite bluntly put, there aren't 2 charges. There's charge and then there is discharge. These can be defined as inertial forces (ie. polarization of æther), discharge as an expansion, and charge as contraction to recoil it back and make something. The term used by a lot of electrical scientists for polarized æther is Dielectricity.

2) Magnetism isn't so much misused as nobody seems to know what it is other than some of the things it does (damn you primitive iron filings experiment which people use to define planetary magnetospheres). Ken has mapped it in immense detail and explained how it works; no one has accomplished this before. Everything prior that anyone knows about just yammers on with descriptions of what it does, and always use terms like attraction and repulsion. That effect is felt, but there's isn't a magical rule of nature that N always attracts to S and repels other N's. Magnetism is an inherent geometry formed by the polarized fundamental force; it's an incommensurable dielectric object.

3) Electricity and Electromagnetism. For starters, there are both the same thing. Electricity that is used in powerlines and EDM and Birkeland currents are electromagnetic constructs. The description of static electricity doesn't make much sense, it wouldn't form arcs or manipulate inertia without inertial forces that define magnetism.

4) Plasma. We like to talk about plasma, as it was coined because of it's life-like behaviour. The problem is the way it's approached: plasma physics is approached mostly still within the paradigm of quantum particle-wave gradients and so on. It's described as atoms stripped of their electrons, making it a soup of + particles and - particles. There is no evidence of an electron particle, and there never has been. It's always observed as a field, and it looks just like a magnetic field. This means it can only be a state of extra discharge in an atomic dielectric object - a magnet with a more powerful field, more amount of discharging energy.

4) Matter or Quanta. Nobody seems to know what matter is, and why it behaves the way it does, why it makes the shapes it does. In Ken's explanation of magnetism, there is a lovely word, incommensurability. Something being incommensurate or incommensurable is more or less the same as fractal. It means there's no common measure, it behaves the same at all scales, and it's scale is relative to the amount of stuff in it. If you take a magnet and smash it to dust, every piece will have a tiny magnetic field approximately the same shape as the original larger field. This means that things at all scales will display the same geometry and behaviours relatively (input, orientation, location, limit of measuring ability, will all affect each instance differently of course). This reality is a necessity for us to be able to experiment with large scale phenomena in small scale replication, or to correlate things on various scales.

So, what is an atom? Well it's the same thing as a magnet or planet. There's material in it, all made of magnetic fields, of which is also made of material made of magnetic fields. Whether an atom is the original scale doesn't really matter. When we "smash" "particles" together, and see a bunch of tiny "particles", we're seeing the same thing as if you shot 2 magnets at eachother and they blew into little pieces, each with their own magnetic fields. A magnetic field is an inverted sphere, aka toroidal formation, which has a spherical condensing behaviour at the centre. Break a magnet up into pieces, all of the pieces will jumble together as best they can to make a sphere, using the smallest mount of space possible. There's no evidence there is any end to the endless divisions of these objects into smaller objects, naming them is redundant because they're all made of the same stuff, thus the only reasonable conclusion is that they're all fields. How you get an object(quantum) on a larger scale, is to have a lot of the smaller objects(quanta) bunch together and make a bigger object. How you get a magnetic field of a larger scale, is to have multiple smaller fields mutually coherent.

Coherency: the magic of incommensurability. Take a bunch of magnets, stick them together with the same orientation, and you get one big magnetic field, not a bunch of small ones together. This is the nature of nature.

Back to plasma, why does plasma make the formations it does? Because if all of the atoms are in a state of higher energy, their fields will be more mutually interactive, and be able to make eachother coherent. As simple as that, plasma matter state will have a high tendency to cohere into macro scales of magnetic fields. The Peratt instability is a beautiful image resonating part of a magnetic field.

I may not have covered it all that well, just ask if you want clarifications or elaborations. Ken Wheeler's book is crammed full of explanations and criticisms of the current state of sciences, but has a lot of excellent images and depictions with proof of the model. I'm working on my own interpretation that is parallel to his work, which i intend to present within a work of fiction and accompanying wiki's instead of as scientific papers. I stand by this perspective very strongly, as i see no other way to explain nature, right down to the fundamental forces, in a way that complies with every empirical observation and experiment.

[kell1990]

A most interesting post, one that I intend to pursue.

I think we may be getting somewhere with this line of inquiry.

[GenesisAria]

Ken's unified equation, or rather the equation that builds the dielectric field (as Faraday would call it, or Tesla) hypotrochoidal vortex (toroidal, hyperboloid) incommensurability which makes up everything, is 1/Φ-3. 1 is the æther, that unit we talked about can apply at any scale as it's relative. Phi(Φ) cubed is the golden angle which defines the procession angle and the field curvature.

Apparently there has been peer review of Ken's work, and pretty much all responses agree it's irrefutable.

Someone might say you need multiple independent sources, i say that's irrelevant as long as the science is irrefutable. I worked out most of how field physics would actually work in a unified sense before following Ken, so i like to refer to myself as an independent source of the same information. However, he's done the math, experimentation, written the book, quantified it into a uniform geometry, all of which i didn't do, making him credible. I worked primarily with retroductive logic and philosophy, as i don't like fiddling with numbers. Again, if the information is concrete and irrefutable and works in all cases (in the real world, not a simulation), you shouldn't care where the information came from.

--
A funny video i recently watched about the practical uses of field behaviour, was the effect on plant and animal growth. Exposing what you want to grow with the centrifugal edge (diagonally off the outer rim) of the south pole of a magnet causes things to grow more volumously and rich, the opposite is condensed and sickly. Anyways, the line that got me was when he whispered "why's nobody is talking about this? because the world is insane." When you really break down deep logical thinking and reality-based induction, it's easy to find insane brilliance where people construct solid fantasies and lead everyone down the path of cultism.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5khPb47G-r0

Wisdom is it's own reward.
We now have the true astrophysical model: æther field mechanics (or whatever you want to call it).

I wouldn't know where best to present this kind of information where people will listen, so if anyone has suggestions... Otherwise i'll just keep putting it on my profiles and telling friends/peers.