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: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread post by viscount aero » Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:30 am

CharlesChandler wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:First, he's talking about magnetism as if it is the prime mover. Yet the only known way of generating a magnetic field is with a moving electric charge.
viscount aero wrote:Do we really know this in absolute terms? LaPointe states that all matter has endemic magnetism to some degree. His experiments with the bowls demonstrate this.
Hey viscount!

Well, I guess you could say that we'll never know the inner workings of atoms in absolute terms -- the best that we can do is develop theories that seem to account for the observations. So we can't disprove LaPointe, at least not in the most rigorous of senses. But his demonstration of diamagnetism (i.e., the ability of a non-magnetized object to get polarized in an external field, and then to respond to that field) doesn't prove intrinsic "primer" magnetism either, in the same rigorous sense. Standard atomic theory explains diagmagnetism and ferromagnetism, without magnetism as the prime mover. So neither disproves the other.
Sure I can buy that, it is a sort of gentle conundrum. I imagine, too, that what gives rise to the other cannot be absolutely extracted either. A mag field can create an electrical current and vice versa. Which is first? Both are. I know this is anathema and heresy to Wal Thornhill's devout followers but appears true. Electricity and Magnetism are the same phenomenon. One is not alien to the other but are interdependent and intergenetic. For example, the heart has a powerful and measurable electric field. Where is the sub station in our bodies? There isn't one per se. It is endemic to the body. Therefore, does it matter really?

Likewise with Lapointe's experiments and findings: If he insists that magnetism accounts for the structures we see in space, primarily over electricity, yet his experiments are plasma-based and demonstrate the nature of plasma structures in the cosmos--does it really matter if electricity or magnetism forms the plasma structures when they are both related phenomena? Does it justify rejecting his experiments when they are clearly breakthroughs in knowledge? Instead of good news it appears as if you're unimpressed or asleep to the findings (?)
CharlesChandler wrote:Second, the rest of what he's saying is just observing superficial similarities, and calling that an explanation. Show me any geometric shape, and I can find examples in nature that have that shape. That doesn't prove that they are the same for the same reason.
viscount aero wrote:I take issue with your position here: just observing superficial similarities?
CharlesChandler wrote:For example, one could observe that a hurricane and a spiral galaxy are similar in structure. Therefore they are the same? Hardly. A hurricane is caused by a self-perpetuating low pressure. Yet in space, there is no "low pressure" at the center of a galaxy, because the whole thing is surrounded by a near-perfect vacuum. So the form might be the same, but for very different reasons. As such, the one does not explain the other -- these are just superficial similarities. Not surprisingly, when we look closer at galaxies and hurricanes, we start to see fundamental differences. So these are two different things, that just happen to look the same from a distance.
Sure I understand that, but again the Lapointe experiments dial in extremely specific structures including mirroring literally the containment domes and choke rings that are revealed to exist in nebulae, galaxies, and planets. This goes far beyond mere superficial shapes. He recreates on small scale, via plasma which is scalable (a mantra of plasma physics) what is observed in the cosmos. If this isn't pay dirt then I don't know what it is. What Lapointe has done is bridge a huge gap between the standard model and EU, heavily skewed to EU physics, nearly obliterating the standard model's unicorns and leprechauns.

Even if Lapointe is wrong under his own biases about magnetism and its relationship to electricity what he creates in lab experiments are some of the most amazing demonstrations in plasma physics to model the major structures in our universe that I have ever seen. But we can agree to disagree and we're still good :) I respect your views and knowledge.

User avatar
Quintessence
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:16 pm

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread post by Quintessence » Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:54 am

Hello,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_magnetic_field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force-free_magnetic_field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field_pressure

Magnetosatics accounts for the existence of magnetic fields without electric current in plasmas and permanent magnets :roll: :
"The familiar potential magnetic field is a special case of a force-free field: potential field configurations occupy space that contains no electric current at all."

Benevolent
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:24 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread post by Benevolent » Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:15 pm


User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread post by viscount aero » Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:34 pm

Yeah they don't really get it. The mainstream struggles with its own faith LOL :lol:

User avatar
pennyturtle
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:50 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread post by pennyturtle » Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:44 pm

Hi all,
In the primer fields scenario, my take on it is that the magnetic bowls are just a means of representing the subatomic/atomic scale in the macro scale where effects can be observed. For my mind, there is a great deal of merit to the work presented.

One angle which I feel hasn't been mentioned here or in LaPointes work is piezoelectric effects. Whether it's a subatomic particle, an atom, or a molecule, an electric field and a magnetic field would be generated when pressure is applied. There is an excellent graphic on page 3 in an electrical engineering paper titled "Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting"-A Green and Clean Alternative for Sustained Power Production by Kimberly Ann Cook-Chennault et al (sorry about the dodgy referencing, my lecturers would skin me alive). Is it possible the quantum properties of appearing, disappearing, and re-appearing by electrons (and all sub-atomic particles) generates the electrostatic forces, which manifest as electric and magnetic fields? In large scale (read mass) structures, when a pressure, such as (dare I say it) gravity forces atoms to displace in a co-ordinated but similar fashion, a current is generated (piezoelectric effect) .

Piezoelectrics could then count for more than lighting your BBQ. As has been quite well established by thousands of seismic data records of P-waves and S-waves, the Earth has what appears to be a solid core comprised of mostly crystalline iron and some nickel. Perhaps the immense pressures would generate the amounts of electrical discharge (piezo) needed to sustain the electric and magnetic fields of the Earth.

Scaling up, if gravity was to play some part in the formation of a star and it's planetary system, the model could support gas planets out wide, rocky planets with heavy elements dominating their core in closer to the star, with said star (Sol?) being composed of mostly heavy elements such as iron. That's one hell of a BBQ lighter. Enough to generate the electrical phenomenon and magnetic fields observed?

Scale up to galactic sizes, and our piezoelectric BBQ lighter model seems to me to bridge the apparent divide between EU and LaPointe. EU still has electrical forces generating magnetic fields, LaPointe has his matter generating his magnetic fields. Same coin, different sides.

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:21 am

Your idea probably deserves to have a thread of its own devoted to it, since this thread is about LaPointe's work, and your idea is totally different. Anyway...

I disagree that piezoelectricity is a generalized phenomenon. Only a handful of crystals are known to exhibit this behavior (e.g., quartz). In a large aggregate such as the Earth, we'd expect the crystals to be randomly aligned, and thus there should be no net piezo effect.

Still, I'm thoroughly convinced that there is a direct relationship between pressure and charge, and that this is a controlling factor, in the Sun, the Earth, and just about everything else in the Universe big enough to support such pressures. There is laboratory evidence that extreme pressures can ionize matter, and there appears to be a theoretical necessity on the stellar scale for compressive ionization to graduate to charge separation. The mechanism in question is electron degeneracy pressure. This is only invoked for extremely dense objects, such as white dwarfs, but I'm investigating the possibility that it's far more common. For example, in the Earth's asthenosphere, the rock is solid, but under sufficient pressure that it flows. In the laboratory, high-pressure rock doesn't flow -- it fractures, and if the stress continues, the rock is pulverized. So flowing rock actually needs explaining. IMO, the extreme pressure inside the Earth has ionized the rock, and the absence of valence electrons weakens the crystal structure. Then, when we see changes in electric fields, before, during, and after an earthquake, I think that this is because the pressure is changing, and thus the degree of compressive ionization. So electrons are getting squeezed out of the rock as the pressure increases, and flowing back into the rock if the pressure relaxes. This seems to explain a LOT of stuff, so I'm pursuing it.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread post by viscount aero » Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:59 am

Legend of the Crystal Skulls--piezoelectric
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxEmA1rTQdk

User avatar
pennyturtle
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:50 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread post by pennyturtle » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:11 am

Hi Charles,

As my concluding remarks alluded too, the tangent seems relevant enough to me. From your concluding remarks, we probably have more common ground than not. At least that's my hope, as you seem to have a solid grasp of fundamental physics based on other posts you've made. I guess my postulations come from an interest in the work of people such as Friedemann Freund of Nasa Ames Research Center and the SETI Institute. At the risk of further displaying my own ignorance, I'll quote him from his paper "Toward a unified solid state theory for pre-earthquake signals".
"Many different non-seismic pre-earthquake signals have been reported
but there is great uncertainty about their origin, their correlation to
each other and to the impending seismic event. The discovery of stressactivated
electric currents in rocks provides a possible explanation.
Stresses activate electronic charge carriers, namely defect electrons in the
oxygen anion sublattice, equivalent to O– in a matrix of O2–, also known
as positive holes. These charge carriers pre-exist in unstressed rocks in a
dormant, electrically inactive state as peroxy links, O3Si-OO-SiO3, where
two O– are tightly bound together. Under stress dislocations sweep
through the mineral grains causing the peroxy links to break. Positive
holes, thus generated, flow down stress gradients, constituting an electric
current with attendant magnetic field variations and EM emissions. The
positive holes accumulate at the surface, creating electric fields, strong
enough to field-ionize air molecules. They also recombine leading to a
spectroscopically distinct IR emission seen in laboratory experiments and
night-time infrared satellite images."

You are right about quartz, but you will also find crystals such as ferromagnetic gallium iron oxide, yttrium iron garnet, in fact most crystals with a ferro- in their name fit the bill for displaying piezoelectric effects. As I said in my other post, I think that if there is anything to my postulations, it may provide common ground between the concepts of magnetic fields being created by matter, and magnetic fields being created by electric charge and/or current.

I appreciate that I really am off topic now, but I was interested to read that data has been released showing a rapid increase in temperature in the ionosphere above Japan prior to the 2011 earthquake. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/42 ... arthquake/. The spike in temperature sounded so much in accord with Sol's chronosphere temp in the millions while the surface is 5 or 6,000 degrees, got me thinking. It seems there are others thinking the sun is composed mostly of iron http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/. Might be kooks like me, but the topic does call for mad ideas

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:38 am

I looked at Freund's "positive holes", but I'm not convinced that deep quakes (i.e., up to 700 km below the surface) occur in the presence of large crystals. Rather, at that depth the mantle should be molten, and there go the positive holes. So I went looking for a more general pressure-charge relationship. So far, electron degeneracy pressure is the only candidate, if it is to occur regardless of physical state (i.e., solid/liquid/gas/plasma). But I'll easily grant all of the possibilities are purely hypothetical, and turn on the slightest difference in interpretation of data within whatever model is being employed. So I'm not going to rule anything out.

Rather, I'm focusing on the implications of this coupling of pressure and charge, and I'm seeing them everywhere I look. For example, I always used to wonder why the Earth still has an atmosphere, after being exposed to 400 km/s solar winds for so many millions or billions of years -- the atmosphere should have been swept clean off the planet a long time ago. Venus' atmosphere is even more problematic, since it is even closer to the Sun, and it doesn't have a magnetosphere to deflect the solar wind. But what if the planets are charged? Well, they are in fact charged -- the Earth's surface is negatively charged, while the atmosphere is positively charged. So it's the electric force that keeps the atmosphere bound to the planet, like a Debye sheath clinging to a charged dust grain. But that begs the question of how the Earth could sustain a net charge, for millions or billions of years. One possibility is that the Earth doesn't have a net charge at all. Rather, the interior is positively charged, due to the pressure, and the electrons that were expelled congregate at the surface, bound to the inner charge by the electric force, but unable to recombine with it due to the pressure. In other words, these are current-free double-layers (CFDLs). This puts a negative charge out at the surface. Then, positive ions in the solar wind will get snagged, creating a third layer. Of course, the +ions will be attracted to the negative surface, and repelled by the positive core. But due to the inverse square law, the dominant charge at the surface, as presented to the atmosphere, will be negative, since the surface is close, while the core is far away. Thus an initial charge separation can result in a series of alternating layers. This means that we have this stable PNP configuration of CFDLs, and no, the atmosphere isn't getting whisked away at all. In fact, it might even be getting thicker with time. The +ions will eventually settle onto the surface. This reduces the surface charge, but it also adds mass to the planet, which increases the pressure inside the Earth. And the greater the pressure, the more the charge separation. So the electric field is replenished, and the Earth is attracting even more +ions from the solar wind.

All in all, this pressure-charge relationship seems to explain lots of stuff.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

User avatar
pennyturtle
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:50 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread post by pennyturtle » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:19 pm

Excellent.I think you're definitely on to something there. My point with bringing Freund's work into it was more to illustrate mechanisms for charge to move through what is generally regarded as non-conductive minerals (the Earth).

At the risk of stretching our common ground too far, what about the sun? The main reason that the standard model assumes it is mostly composed of hydrogen is because that is what is visible with spectroscopy. But, what if the pressures inside the sun were a massively scaled up version of what you have described for the Earth. The surface becomes a seething mass of electrons, and the equivalent of Earths positively charged atmosphere above is, for the sun, dominated by protons (hydrogen ions; same dog, different leg action). The electrons can't reconnect with the interior positive charge due to the pressure you mentioned in the Earth model, and the magnetic field prevents most of them from reaching the positive charge layer in the atmosphere. Of those that do, (coronal mass ejections) perhaps the primer fields of Lapointe (or the toroidal shapes and vortices proposed by others) propel the the charged particles which we observe interacting with our atmosphere and magnetosphere.

Food for thought?

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:53 pm

pennyturtle wrote:My point with bringing Freund's work into it was more to illustrate mechanisms for charge to move through what is generally regarded as non-conductive minerals (the Earth).
Right. An alternative to that was proposed by Tassos & Ford, who contended that at least in the brittle lithosphere, crustal deformation results in fractures that greatly reduce the electrical resistance. Solid granite has a resistance of 2.4 MΩ, and the electric field necessary to get a powerful current flowing through such resistance just isn't present. But the resistance along the surface of granite is only 377 ohms, because the valence bands are only bound on one side, and interestingly, fractures inside the rock present the same condition -- a crack only 1 nm wide is enough to allow the passage of electrons, and the resistance is only 377 ohms. Here's the reference:

Tassos, S. T.; Ford, D. J., 2005: An Integrated Alternative Conceptual Framework to Heat Engine Earth, Plate Tectonics, and Elastic Rebound. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 19 (1): 43-89

Of course, like Freund's "positive holes", Tassos & Ford's microfractures really only work in the solid lithosphere. If the asthenosphere is molten, or at the very least ionized such that the crystals are breaking down, I don't see any reason to expect microfractures. So the conductivity in the asthenosphere is a more complex issue.
pennyturtle wrote:At the risk of stretching our common ground too far, what about the sun?
That's not a stretch at all -- IMO, the sun can ONLY be explained as a set of current-free double-layers, where some sort of semi-stable charge separation has occurred, and now the layers are bound tightly together by the electric force, though unable to recombine. (I have a long list of reasons for believing this.) So what could cause CFDLs in the excellent conductivity of 6000+ K plasma? I first looked at magnetic fields, but found that only at relativistic velocities would the fields be powerful enough to maintain charge separations. The only other possibilities that I found were electron degeneracy pressure, and the Pannekoek-Rosseland field. Both of these are pressure-driven charge separations. I actually don't really care which one it is -- I'm just working out the implications for solar structure and dynamics, given that the extreme pressures have set up CFDLs. The full write-up is here.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

User avatar
pennyturtle
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:50 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread post by pennyturtle » Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:00 am

CharlesChandler wrote: ...at that depth the mantle should be molten, and there go the positive holes
. My point with the solid core being the source of the Earth's magnetic field, is that the piezoelectric effect is (hypothetically) responsible for generating the charge (and I'm only talking about the piezoelectric effect in the core not crust. For it to be the source, the core would need to behave as a single massive crystal, so I may be completely off track). Steve Smith mentions in his youtube clip "The Sun-Earth connection", "magma can be considered a plasma in solid form, since it contains a portion of charged particles within it. It can form double layers inside the magma flow underground."

The positive holes are present in the lithosphere. In it's natural state, rock such as gabbro is non-conductive. However, in the words of our man at Goddard, Freidemann Freund "When rocks are stressed, peroxy
links break, releasing electronic charge carriers, h, known as positive holes. The positive holes are highly
mobile and can flow out of the stressed subvolume. The situation is similar to that in a battery. The h
outflow is possible when the battery circuit closes. The h outflow constitutes an electric current, which
generates magnetic field variations and low frequency EM emissions. When the positive holes arrive at
the Earth’s surface, they lead to ionization of air at the ground–air interface. Under certain conditions corona
discharges occur, which cause RF emission. The upward expansion of ionized air may be the reason
for perturbations in the ionosphere. Recombination of h charge carriers at the surface leads to a spectroscopically distinct, non-thermal IR emission." (Friedemann Freund (2010). Pre-earthquake signals: Underlying physical processes. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 41 (2011) 383–400.

My point being, that when you mention solid granite having a resistance of 2.4 MΩ, that's before uniaxial stresses are applied. Microfractures as the mechanism for carrying charge have been studied by applying loads to vertical columns of rock, which causes a bulging deformation to occur. When a flat slab receives the load, which is more representative of natural rock formations, it's the plasticity of the rock which allows the electrical flow, rather than the microfractures in the rock. In the Tassos & Ford paper, after they say plate tectonics don't exist, I didn't see where they refuted all the GPS data showing the movement of divergent, convergent and transform boundaries, or the thousands of seismic records which give rise to the model of the Earth with a solid core and molten outer core (based on the knowledge that while P-waves pass through both liquid and solid, S-waves won't pass through the molten outer core. Basically...).

How do they account for the bands of opposing magnetically aligned rock which mirror each other as they are distanced from regions such as the mid-Atlantic ridge (divergent boundary?) or the fact that the ocean floor slopes away from the ridges for thousands of kilometres, getting progressively deeper till they meet, dare I say it, another plate boundary, where the heavy, basalt dominated oceanic crust subducts beneath the lighter continental crust. When volcanic sea-mounts are shown to sink as their weight pushes down the crust, or mountains in a relatively geologically inactive continent such as Australia lose height to the effects of erosion, what do Tassos & Ford say to those climbing Mount Everest who have to climb a foot higher than Hillary and Norgay climbed?

Rather than see the core of the Earth as a heat engine, as they describe it as depicted by mainstream proponents, I see the core as an electrical engine, where the electrical field drives the heating. Ditto the Sun.

I apologise to everyone for being so completely off topic, but Charles, I really like your ideas regarding CFDLs, and as I've only been able to give your website a cursory look (I'm getting toward the pointy end of the semester) I'm looking forward to giving it the attention it deserves.

User avatar
pennyturtle
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:50 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread post by pennyturtle » Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:03 pm

Back to the primer fields, there's a new image of the Milky Way produced by scientists at the Max Plank Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092720.htm. The description is "They find a box/peanut shaped bulge with an elongated bar and a prominent X-structure". Looks to me like a pair of LaPointe's primer fields, complete with paired confinement domes forming the oval shape in the centre.

If you're a supporter of an Occam's razor type perspective, then a fractal like view, where the primer fields (toroidal shaped field vortices?) of a particle can be scaled to galactic levels and beyond (universal?) seems pretty neat. Scalar expressions of the "As above, so below". Room for Nassim Haramein's work with scalar models, and/or David Bohm's holographic model, perhaps. For myself, I'm enjoying speculating on the generation of the fields, hence the BBQ lighter analogy (piezo).

Pythagoras's vibrating string, electron valence shells, social cohesion, planetary orbits, galactic configurations, super cluster arrangements, and so on. Just like phi generating your spiral (golden rectangle), the pattern is repeated, like Russian dolls. Same same, but different. One model that definitely doesn't even come close to aligning with the nested scales is a big bang. I could never understand how a model so radically removed from what is observable could be taken seriously.

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:49 pm

pennyturtle wrote:...the core would need to behave as a single massive crystal...
There are cool (or cold) core hypotheses that "might" allow a crystal core, but I'm convinced that the pressure will not. Look at the transformation of graphite to diamonds -- the existing molecular structure is destroyed at extreme pressure. Then a new sort of crystal might form when the pressure relaxes. So in the pressurized state, it's a supercritical fluid -- like plasma in that it's ionized, and it's compressible, and it flows, but it transmits waves like a liquid, and it's conductive like a solid (even for non-conductors like hydrogen). But it doesn't have a crystal lattice.
pennyturtle wrote:In the Tassos & Ford paper, after they say plate tectonics don't exist, I didn't see where they refuted all the GPS data showing the movement of divergent, convergent and transform boundaries, or the thousands of seismic records which give rise to the model of the Earth with a solid core and molten outer core (based on the knowledge that while P-waves pass through both liquid and solid, S-waves won't pass through the molten outer core. Basically...).
I know -- they couldn't get the energy budget to work, so they dismissed the evidence of plate movements. ;) Nevertheless, I think that their dismissal of conventional plate tectonics is legitimate. They just needed to go the next step, and realize that there is a missing energy source, which I identify as a conversion from electrostatic potential.
pennyturtle wrote:Rather than see the core of the Earth as a heat engine, as they describe it as depicted by mainstream proponents, I see the core as an electrical engine, where the electrical field drives the heating. Ditto the Sun.
I totally agree.
pennyturtle wrote:...I've only been able to give your website a cursory look...
Please let me know what you think, when you get a chance to review it. I'm convinced that we're on the threshold of a major set of break-throughs, in geophysics and astrophysics.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread post by viscount aero » Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:20 pm

pennyturtle wrote:Back to the primer fields, there's a new image of the Milky Way produced by scientists at the Max Plank Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092720.htm. The description is "They find a box/peanut shaped bulge with an elongated bar and a prominent X-structure". Looks to me like a pair of LaPointe's primer fields, complete with paired confinement domes forming the oval shape in the centre.

If you're a supporter of an Occam's razor type perspective, then a fractal like view, where the primer fields (toroidal shaped field vortices?) of a particle can be scaled to galactic levels and beyond (universal?) seems pretty neat. Scalar expressions of the "As above, so below". Room for Nassim Haramein's work with scalar models, and/or David Bohm's holographic model, perhaps. For myself, I'm enjoying speculating on the generation of the fields, hence the BBQ lighter analogy (piezo).

Pythagoras's vibrating string, electron valence shells, social cohesion, planetary orbits, galactic configurations, super cluster arrangements, and so on. Just like phi generating your spiral (golden rectangle), the pattern is repeated, like Russian dolls. Same same, but different. One model that definitely doesn't even come close to aligning with the nested scales is a big bang. I could never understand how a model so radically removed from what is observable could be taken seriously.
Good points.

As the Primer model describes a process of matter compression, a galaxy is an ultimate example of a massive scale matter compressing process.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests