The Primer Fields?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Vasa » Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:41 am

Unless he is proposing there are invisible bowl shaped magnets surrounding all matter i agree with the reservations of other posters. He needed both electricity and magnets to generate the field. Perhaps he is correct regarding the shape a field will naturally take but it seems to me that a source is needed to generate said field.
Vasa
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:52 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby CuriousAboutMars » Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:47 pm

I had a quick discussion (more like a lecture from him to me) about the EU. He's outright hostile to the EU and from his statements to me his ideas are much more 'correct' than the EU folks. He's insists Anthony Peratt has made public statements distancing himself from the EU in addition. He also mentioned that he plans on doing a video 'debunking' the EU theories, because 'no one in the EU has actually done experiments like he has'. It seems his main problem with the EU side of things is that electricity is the center of things. If anyone has a Google+ profile, they can go view his entire tirade. I told him I was just an interested layperson investigating things and he for sure vented some anger.
CuriousAboutMars
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:22 pm

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Vasa » Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:26 pm

Did you ask him why he needed to use electricity for his experiments?
Vasa
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:52 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Vasa » Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:06 pm

Wow. He's probably mad that his contribution to science will be to experimentally verify Electric Univeese. Reading through the Google + comments he seems like an <moderator edit>
Last edited by nick c on Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: language inappropriate for this forum removed
Vasa
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:52 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Vasa » Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:16 pm

LOL, some guy was arguing with him and he got really mad before deleting the comments.

One of the gems was "All of the electricity we see in space is caused by fusion." :P

He also claims to know more about plasma than anyone.
Vasa
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:52 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Sparky » Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:14 pm

Other than the patents, has he published? :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Vasa » Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:59 pm

It doesn't look like it, Sparky. Nor does a search for his supposed pending patent bring up anything, as was brought up previously.

His basic rant was that Electric Universe is bunk because there are no "real" scientists that support it and they have "never done an experiment" unlike him, who has done thousands of experiments (take his word for it) and he has "real" scientists backing him (again, take his word for it). He is quite arrogant and has stated in comments and on his video that his theory MUST be accepted, comparing himself to Tesla anf Hannes Alfven at one point. Of course he claimed.to have working technology for 6 years in his video but he admitted that this technology had nothing to do with his primer fields theory before he deleted the comment, possibly because he alluded to the EU folks lying by implying which he would also be guilty of.

In short, he's made spectacular claims with almost no evidence to back it up, but is arrogant enough to think he and his theory (which he still hasn't laid out, he still won't say what causes these magical magnetic fields) are above reproach.

His attacks on the EU were tasteless and baseless. He has a habit of taking short comments or questions and responding with these huge diatribes, as his google plus comments will attest to.

When I watched the video I was intrigued but based upon his character it seems obvious that he is just another youtube huxter. Supposedly he is going to create a video "debunking" EU. Maybe he will be kind enough to show us how fusion creates z-pinches and birkeland currents in space.
Vasa
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:52 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby cantdrive85 » Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:25 am

That's exactly my experience with the guy. He is quite opposed to the EUT, although he has mentioned they have a few good ideas.
cantdrive85
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 8:19 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby nick c » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:14 am

All his experiments involve magnetic fields created by an electric current, yet he talks as if the magnetic fields in the cosmos stand independent of any external current. This imhop, is a classic case of dealing with the effect (magnetic fields) and ignoring the cause (electricity).
How are these huge and powerful cosmic magnetic fields created without an external electric current? His experiments do not add anything since they are facilitated by an external electric current.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2321
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby aetherwizard » Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:36 pm

nick c wrote:All his experiments involve magnetic fields created by an electric current,

If you watch the whole video, you will find that statement to be incorrect.

First, the magnetic field is provided by two ceramic magnets in the shapes of bowls. These are static magnetic fields, not electrically generated magnetic fields.

Second, in one demonstration he shoots a steel ball up to 25 feet merely by poking through the hole of one of the bowl magnets. The electricity in the experiment is not a current, it is a high voltage electrostatic potential. He states in the video that he was even able to generate the plasma without the anode being present.

I have done my own research in this area, but not involving the bowl shaped magnets. The bowl shaped magnets and their properties are significant discoveries.

Either the patent information is false, or the government has given it a classified status. It is quite possible it has classified status since this invention is providing insights into physics that will significantly change the mainstream understanding of magnetic fields and quantum structures. The things he demonstrated in that hour long video are quite stunning. If there is no patent on the bowl magnets, we should find a ceramic magnet manufacturer who will mass produce these for us.

David LaPointe has definitely done some homework and he has definitely hit pay dirt if the magnets are patentable. However, not all his ideas are quite right.

Just because he found an ideal magnet shape does not mean he has nullified gravitational and electric theories. He has merely filled in a significant part of our understanding of the third fundamental force. My work shows that static magnetism, the strong force, and the Casimir force are all different manifestations of the same magnetic force but at different scales of existence.

Now that I have seen the demonstrations in his video, I can comprehend the exact mechanics for atomic structure and I can see why knot theory applies. Also, I now have a clear understanding of the nature of diamagnetism and how to work with it. I can also see in my mind the significance of the bowl shape and how it causes the effects shown in the video.

The opposing bowl shape of the magnet (the pair is actually one magnet) concentrates the magnetic flux strength. Each of the steel balls is being caught in a magnetic flux tube. Each time a steel ball is added, the tubes rearrange themselves to most efficiently pack the flux tubes. Diamagnetism is nothing more than capturing an object in a magnetic flux tube. Even non-ferrous objects can be captured in particularly strong magnetic flux tubes. By changing the shape of the flux tube, the object inside can be moved either forward or backward. The flux tubes are changed by changing the orientations of the top and bottom sections of the opposing bowl magnet.

You can see this easily by moving a magnet around a CRT. The patterns of circles on the screen are caused by the flux tubes cutting the screen perpendicularly.

Another error in his thinking, which I see reflected in the EU thinkers, is that he dismisses the existence of dark matter. Dark matter has been objectively observed in the form of neutrinos. Neutrinos are essential to the structure of neutrons and they have been observed being emitted from the Sun, the galaxy, and CERN. It is silly listening to people "debunk" dark matter simply because gravitational theories imply its existence. It does exist, period.

Although I do not believe there is any physical structure called a black hole, there is definitely astrophysical evidence demonstrating the disappearance of entire stars at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. These stars disappear and are never seen again. My interpretation of this is that the space, itself, collapses at the centers of galaxies. When the space collapses, so does all the matter contained within that space. The visible matter converts directly to dark matter.

The rotating plasma was also produced by Kiril Chukanov and Nikola Tesla. In fact, David LaPointe's plasma demonstration is an improvement on Tesla's button lamp.

It will be a shame if hostilities break out between LaPointe and EU folks, just as it is a shame there is a schism between EU and gravity folks. The magnetic, electric, and gravitational views of the Universe are all legitimate since all three fundamental forces are validated. In fact, each view of reality has the potential to be an independent verification of each of the other views.

My work involving the Unified Force Theory provides the quantifiable basis for bringing all of these perspectives together.
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby GaryN » Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:07 pm

..there is definitely astrophysical evidence demonstrating the disappearance of entire stars at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. These stars disappear and are never seen again.


That's a new one on me. Do you have a link to that evidence?
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2586
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Vasa » Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:49 pm

Dark Matter (WIMPs and MACHOs) only interact gravitationally by definition. They are also supposedly large as far as particles.go. Neutrinos in contrast are tiny and interact via gravity as well as the weak force. They have actually been detected in experiments. Dark Matter is not.detectable except via it's imagined gravitational effects, and has never been detected in experiments. How do.neutrinos prove dark matter?
Vasa
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:52 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby aetherwizard » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:39 pm

GaryN wrote:That's a new one on me. Do you have a link to that evidence?


This is just one article. I read about it several years ago so there should be a good amount of information on this by now.

http://www.oglethorpe.edu/faculty/~m_ru ... ky_way.htm
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby aetherwizard » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:51 pm

Vasa wrote:Dark Matter (WIMPs and MACHOs) only interact gravitationally by definition. They are also supposedly large as far as particles.go. Neutrinos in contrast are tiny and interact via gravity as well as the weak force. They have actually been detected in experiments. Dark Matter is not.detectable except via it's imagined gravitational effects, and has never been detected in experiments. How do.neutrinos prove dark matter?

Neutrinos only act gravitationally. There is no such thing as "the weak force." The EU folks talk about imaginary things in physics, well, they need to stop referring to "the weak force." If you know anything about this "force" it is not measured in newtons. In fact, it is dimensionless. It is just a number. I show it is actually a ratio. But it certainly is not a force.

Dark matter is matter that does not interact with the electric and magnetic forces. The neutrino fits the bill. It is a perfect example of dark matter.

As for the other imaginary "particles" of dark matter, we agree, they do not exist. Only the neutrinos exist. However, the neutrinos measured in labs are moving at high velocity and interacting with neutrons. It is quite likely that there is a great reservoir of neutrinos with low velocity, which sit in pools near regions of dense matter. Regardless of what they are called, the astrophysical calculations based upon dark matter may have substance.

Also, the Casimir effect demonstrates that angular momentum, and hence mass, can be generated from the Aether. That is, something is being converted into real visible matter. That something has mass and did not previously interact with the electric and magnetic forces. It is reasonable to conjecture that dark matter converts to visible matter in the Casimir effect. I propose that a similar process occurs in fusion reactions.

I know this flies in the face of many in the EU groups, but there is good evidence to support the existence of dark matter and I can quantify the conversion of dark matter to visible matter.
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby nick c » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:02 pm

aetherwizard wrote:First, the magnetic field is provided by two ceramic magnets in the shapes of bowls. These are static magnetic fields, not electrically generated magnetic fields.
All magnetic fields have their origins in an electric current. From where did the "two ceramic magnets" get their magnetic field? answer: from an electric current. Permanent magnets are not 'permanent' but are rather a remnant magnetic field which has it's origin in an electric current.
See:
This paper, which seems to be only available as an abstract on line, shows that lodestones (natural permanent magnets) are created by lightining, aka electrical discharges.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 6/abstract
These lodestones have Hc between 10 and 30 mT, SIRM between 8 and 18 Am²kg¹ and RI between 0.10 and 0.26. Magnetite, titanomagnetite and metals have REM values (ratio of NRM to SIRM) < 0.05. Samples (called fulgarites) obtained from the Smithsonian Institution have REM values ranging from 0.45 to 0.92. The REM value serves as a witness parameter to the magnetic fields associated with the lightning bolt. If a high REM value (say ≫ 0.1) can be verified as not to be due to contamination by man and does not contain MD hematite then the rock has LRM (lightning remanent magnetization). The magnetic field associated with lightning can be revealed from an isothermal remanent acquisition (RA) curve.

also:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/3 ... ode77.html
also:
http://lep694.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/obs2001rep.pdf
Mother Nature essentially processes the magnetite
ore to impart magnet properties and then charges the ore
with a lightning bolt. This process was verified with triggered
lightning experiments at the Langmuir lab (New
Mexico Tech) at South Baldy mountain.

Permanent magnets obtain their magnetic field from exposure to the strong magnetic field which accompanies an electric current. The permanent magnet's magnetic field has its' origin in an electric current.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2321
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests