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 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:33 pm

mike hingle wrote:Do you suppose that by 'Galactic-Mimicry' (like bio-mimicry)
we could begin to understand & replIcate the flow mechanics
seen driving all galaxy engines, to power all of our energy needs
here on earth as it is in the heavens ?


We have to get the physics right, first. If we don't understand what is happening how.can we duplicate it?

Thanks for sharing Aetherwizard. I am beginning to see that the root of our woes so to speak is a fundamental misunderstanding of the aether, and the subsequent denial of it's existence. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but I think Tesla had it figured out and we could have had a much different 20th century if he had been able to complete his work.

Mr. Lapoint may have figured out another
piece of the puzzle. Hopefully it is enough to
begin a sea change in physics.
Vasa
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:52 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby aetherwizard » Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:47 am

Vasa wrote:Thanks for sharing Aetherwizard. I am beginning to see that the root of our woes so to speak is a fundamental misunderstanding of the aether, and the subsequent denial of it's existence.

Exactly.

All the evidence, when properly viewed, clearly shows the Aether's existence and its importance to fundamental physics.

BTW, when I started my systematic reexamination of fundamental physics, I did not believe there was such a thing as Aether, The facts spoke for themselves. I was impelled to accept a view that went against the grain of consensus thinking, and that is not easy.
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby PrimerFields » Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:27 pm

I am the guy who made the Primer Fields video. Sorry for the length of this post, but is has to be long in order to address the issues I am seeing in some of the comments here. I just have time to make this post here and then back to work on the next videos and a paper for submission that covers my research. I hope to have PF2 up by Feb. 1. I will not be able to respond to any questions or comments here. I may read them and then address them in my upcoming videos for all to see and learn from.

Regarding intrinsic magnetic fields. All matter has intrinsic magnetic fields to it. Research this. All I did was change the shape of the source of the intrinsic magnetic fields. My main focus of my work has NOT been astrophysics, but physics at the atomic and sub-atomic level. The particles of matter at the LHC are driven around the LHC by MAGNETIC FIELDS. They are able to do this because of the intrinsic magnetic fields in all matter. Think this through carefully. It is based on repeatably proven science fact and experiments. Magnetic fields are intrinsic to all matter structures and that is undeniable fact. Trying to prove where they come from would be like asking me to prove water is wet. Think this through.

They are there and I don't have to prove that as it is already accepted as fact. If you think that they can be electrically generated just on what we find in space, then I challenge you to prove it and not just say it. This is what true scientists do, they prove their statements. In six years of experiments I find zero evidence that these intrinsic magnetic fields are driven or generated by external electrical currents. I have run many many experiments without my magnetic emitters and I have seen zero evidence of this happening. If you go back and look at Birkleland's experiments you will notice that he had to put a source of a magnetic field into his sphere to find his Birkeland currents. No magnetic field no Birkeland currents. So the magnetic fields have to be there before any electricity is provided. Therefore the electricity did not form the magnetic fields and without magnetic fields you get no Birkeland currents.

The EUT is mostly correct and absolutely more correct than current mainstream AP. But there is no proof as to the source of the electricity. I am very aware of magneto hydrodynamics and in fact my theories use it, but you still have to prove that MHD is the real source and I see no evidence for that when it comes to externally powered stars etc. In fact if you carefully observe my experiments you will see the variance between my electrically driven plasma formation and the formations in space. They are NOT the same. They are similar in that the plasma reveals the shape of the fields. The steel ball experiments I show in the videos also do this WITHOUT electricity. I do this to show that electricity is NOT the driver of the formations we see in space, but in fact is produced by the formations we see in space. I have to be careful in how I present this evidence because I have working technology based on these theories and I have patents in the works. But in PF2 I will present the mechanism by which electricity is produced by the Sun. I DO NOT AGREE with the current mainstream view of the Sun as being internally fusion powered and I find that all evidence and hard data point directly away from this concept. So I do understand the EUT frustrations with the blindness in the mainstream. But I am not the mainstream. So do not try and say things against what I am saying until you can prove it. That is what I did. I kept my mouth closed until I had hard repeatable data.

But I do find that the Sun is fusion powered from the outside. Find the highest temperature and you have the place where fusion is greatest. Simple logic. Then as to the EUT, If the Sun were externally electrically powered we would not find these incredible temperature variances between the surface of the Sun and the corona-sphere. It would all be pretty much the same temperature. This is simple logic, backed by experiments. So in an externally powered Sun you have to explain the mechanism for the Solar interior being 5000K and the hottest areas in the corona-sphere being over 2 million K. IN fact you have to provide a mechanism for the interior of the Sun to be cooled as it is surrounded by the much hotter corona-sphere. That mechanism I cannot prove, but I do have a couple of ideas that I will expound on in my videos. Too much to discuss here.

My thinking that the Sun cannot be externally powered is also backed by experimental proof of little or no temperature variance in my experiments, which are indeed externally electrically driven. Therefore one must conclude that NASA et all is incorrect and the current EUT theory is incorrect based on repeatable experiments. Six years of experiments in fact.

But again I do agree with the concepts of the EUT more than I agree with BH, DM, and DE, which I find no reason to exist and in fact I find zero proof that any of them exist.

Furthermore. I am a plasma physicist as you can see. I know very well what a Z-pinch is. Please do not make comments that I don't realize I made a Z-pinch. To those who actually worked with Z-pinches a comment like that makes the whole EUT look really bad. What I made is not a Z-pinch at all. NOT AT ALL. Trying to say it does makes you look really really bad. Sorry, but it does. It makes those who really know how a Z-pinch really works pay no attention to anything else you say. I am sorry, but that is how these guys think.

It would be like me telling you the moon is really made of cheese and then wondering why you won't listen to me. So really research what you believe, for your own sake.

I hope to work with the EU folks in the future and I have been in communication with them. But for now I must stand alone. There are currently some EU statements that are not scientifically backed by proven facts and indeed go against scientific fact. Z-pinchs are one of those statements, as is the externally powered Sun and stars.

It is an electric universe and the electricity is generated around the stars. I can prove it. How do you generate electricity here on Earth. You move magnetic fields. This is what these intrinsic bowl shaped magnetic fields do, they cause magnetic fields to move very violently past each other, i.e. MHD, and guess what happens? You get electricity and the hottest points around the Sun are exactly where the greatest magnetic turbulence would take place. This in turn leads to fusion and the fusion provides the extra kick to keep it all going and generating electricity. So these theories account for where the electricity in the universe comes from and it all matches ALL the hard data. I really believe that endless clean power is near. Don't have it all worked out yet, but I do have tech that is based on these theories that is in over twelve countries right now. It works really well and it would not work if my theories were not correct. That technology has been the main focus of my research for the last six years. The AP stuff is just cool because it provides validation of my theories.

Please carefully considered what you type here. I have. I have patiently waited six years to go public with what I have. That is six years of 80 hours per week. Everything I say is backed by experiments and I have not had one mainstream physics or AP attack on any of my theories that I am aware of. All I have heard is their silence. In fact I have physicists who totally back all I say.

I know it is very frustrating to have the mainstream be so totally blind to some of the things the EUT calls for, but I am not mainstream and I am not your enemy. I am on your side more than I am on their side. I would suggest all of you take a step back and wait for the rest of my videos and my papers that I am working on as hard as I can. I only seek the truth and that is all. That is what every true scientist does. Just make sure you are seeking for the truth no matter where it leads, and not just trying to convince yourself that all you believe is true. That can be a very dangerous psychological trap that goes by the name of cognitive dissonance. This is the trap that I believe the mainstream has fallen into. I.E. our theories are correct and now we need patches to make our theories work.

My approach is to try and shoot down my own theories and prove them incorrect. This approach has worked really well for me and any mistakes or problems are revealed when I do this. If I cannot prove something, I will not say it as a fact. If I say I believe that means I think that this is correct, but I cannot yet prove it, therefore it could be wrong. I think all of us should be like that, even NASA, even you, even me.

I hope you all understand where I am coming from.

Cheers to all,

Dave
PrimerFields
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:54 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby aetherwizard » Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:40 pm

Dave, glad to see you posted here. I am deeply impressed with the importance of your bowl shaped magnetic fields. This is truly a key and fundamental experiment in physics.

My view is that you are absolutely correct in stating that magnetic fields are intrinsic to subatomic particles. This is well documented. But also, the electrostatic charge is also intrinsic to the subatomic particle.

The importance of these to distinct observations is that there are two distinctly different manifestations of charges. In my work, I show the simple quantification of the magnetic charge relative to the electrostatic charge and show how both these charges are required for understanding the fundamental laws of physics. I also show how these two types of charges are both required for unifying the forces, explaining the Casimir effect (which bases on the magnetic charge of the electron) and also explaining fusion (which bases on the magnetic charge of the proton).

Although the quantum subatomic particles have intrinsic magnetic and electrostatic charge, it is also true that in macro systems a moving electrostatic charge will produce a magnetic field and a moving magnetic field will generate an electric current. The two types of charges are distinct and they also continually dance with each other.

It helps to keep in mind the quantum magnetic and electric structures and realize that there are also macro magnetic and electric structures. Just as atoms build molecules and more complex structures, quantum magnetism and quantum electric charge also build complex magnetic and electric fields.

Your experiment demonstrates that quantum static magnetic charges can build into a macro static magnetic charges. The magnetic structure of the bowl reflects the actual structure of the quantum magnetic field of the electrons and protons. This is why the magnetic bowls have such unusual and useful properties.

If it is possible, I would like to purchase from you a couple sets of bowl magnets so I can further explore the quantification of the magnetic field and its relevance to quantum structures. You can see a book I have written on my research so far at www.secrets-of-the-aether.com. I would like to elevate your work and form an alliance with you. Right now, I am making progress in developing my set and props for videos I will be making that will explain in layperson's terms how quantum physics works, as presented in the Aether Physics Model. Your magnetic bowls should be presented for their importance in understanding quantum structure.
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Vasa » Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:03 am

Thanks Mr. Lapoint for clearing that up. We are rooting fpr you. However, your statements as to your opinion on electric universe concepts are in contradiction to certain remarks you made and then deleted. You were fairly vehement about electric universe concepts being completely wrong. You also made disparaging remarks about there not being any real scientists in support of eu concepts, and that no one in the eu camp has ever done experiments.

I'm glad you have changed your mind and hope that in the future you and Thunderbolts group can help topple the mainstream paradigm.

Here is a link to Mr.Lapoint's patent. http://www.freshpatents.com/Power-gener ... 246361.php

Apparently it is.a generator that seems to vaguely imply overunity as well as air purification and medical effects.

I sincerely hope Mr. lapoint is correct. However he must realize that over-unity claims will be met with skepticism. The fact that he has posted Youtube comments that he thinks he is.being targeted for assasination does not help his case.

Also, Mr. Lapoint claims that 90% of all profits will be donated to charity. This is a fine idea. I hope for the best.
Vasa
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:52 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Sparky » Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:53 pm

aetherwizard:
You can see a book I have written on my research so far at http://www.secrets-of-the-aether.com.


Very interesting! Not that I understand much now. :? I need to study it some more.
"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 justcurious » Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:18 am

Well, I guess we'll have to wait for some explanations and facts. Until then it's a nice show.
I did enjoy seeing the pattern formations of the steel balls. Especially the magnetic pairs maintaining their distance (orbit?) from those bowl shaped magnets.
justcurious
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Midnitehound » Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:53 pm

Part 2 has just be released and is VERY interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NogyJ0k8Kw

Explanations of galactic features, features of Saturn and Jupiter etc.

My gut reactions is that this is very significant for the EUM and Thunderbolts Project.

LePoint needs to be exposed, if not already, to Peratt instabilities, the Electric Sun Model, Comparitive Mythology, The Squatting Man and BIRKELAND currents in a big way.
Midnitehound
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:41 pm

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby aetherwizard » Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:26 pm

Midnitehound wrote:Part 2 has just be released and is VERY interesting.

Explanations of galactic features, features of Saturn and Jupiter etc.

The video is truly very interesting. However, there are few explanations given in the video. I was annoyed every time he said he was going to explain something and then simply showed some pictures. He said he was going to explain the 11/22 year solar cycle and then said nothing about it at all.

He needs a producer other than himself who understands what he is doing. His narrative must adhere to a strict form of logic and deliver what he says he's delivering. Otherwise, he is seriously weakening his inherently powerful presentation.

He did explain the magnetic structure of the bowls much better in this video. He also showed nice correlations between astrophysical structures and his plasma demonstrations. He also made a direct challenge to the electric current understanding of certain astrophysical explanations in the EU model. His logic that certain static magnetic structures did not involve electric currents hit me as being solid. The magnetic fields exist whether the current is there or not. The currents merely add variety to the plasma forms that occur in the opposing bowl magnetic structures.

The Aether Physics Model shows how the structure of a quantum unit of Aether provides his magnetic bowl structure. With further math treatment and experiments, we should be able to show that Aether units form natural macro structures of Aether units. Thus, it is an inherent property of space that space produces the type of magnetic field LaPoint is demonstrating. The magnetic structure of space is inherent in its design. There is no need for electric currents to generate (or rather, organize) magnetic fields, although they can.
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Sparky » Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:33 pm

:? I can't visualize how the magnetic bowels self organize into huge structures. :?

Do they grow from micro structures, with the input of charged particles? :?

Pt 2 shows supernova remnants as confined bubbles, with active, moving charged particles. Would this be an example of self generating electric power? :?
"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 aetherwizard » Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:52 pm

Sparky wrote:Do they grow from micro structures, with the input of charged particles? :?

Pt 2 shows supernova remnants as confined bubbles, with active, moving charged particles. Would this be an example of self generating electric power? :?

I could make the case that the large superstructures are formed from quantum structures (quantum Aether units) of space.

LaPoint shows that if particles are present, they will be drawn into the confinement bubble. Since most of the matter in a galaxy is protons (hydrogen ions) their movement toward the confinement bubble would constitute an electric current. So yes, it would be self-generating electric power.

I could just about write a book on theoretical cosmology based upon LaPoint's magnetic bowl observations and the Aether Physics Model. All the pieces fit together nicely now.

Dave
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:50 am

:? Errrr, how does one make a unipolar magnet? :?

Also, in part 2, the explanation of a supernovae being confined in a bowl magnet does not show the second bowl's influence. I thought they worked as a pair. :?

LaPoint shows that if particles are present, they will be drawn into the confinement bubble-


Did he show that or was that just a speculation? :?
"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 aetherwizard » Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:21 am

Sparky wrote::? Errrr, how does one make a unipolar magnet? :?

Also, in part 2, the explanation of a supernovae being confined in a bowl magnet does not show the second bowl's influence. I thought they worked as a pair. :?

I do not think he said or implied anything about a unipolar magnet.

He did not explain anything about the implied second half of the bowls, but it could be theorized that space always creates the double bowls. Basically, his video is a show and tell presentation and it is unfair to expect anything more than what he chooses to present. Someone else will pick up the ball and carry the idea much further.

Sparky wrote:
LaPoint shows that if particles are present, they will be drawn into the confinement bubble-


Did he show that or was that just a speculation? :?

He seemed to show this with his micro compass. The magnetic field flips at the flip ring and magnetically traps the particles in the confinement bubble.

What is become very clear from this demonstration is that particles magnetically behave in a way that is fundamentally different from Aether fields. As I have tried to convey in these types of discussions in the past, it is also necessary to understand that Aether has quantum units which may differ in behavior from macro Aether structures (fields). It is not unlike the behavior of electrons and protons being fundamentally different from the behavior of atoms, even though atoms compose from electrons and protons. And just as though quantum particles can produce macro quantum structures (Bose Einstein condensates, for example), Aether units can produce macro Aether structures (the double bowl magnetic fields around galaxies, for example).
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:17 pm

I thought the red bowl was positive and the blue was negative.. :? That would be two unipole magnets.? Did I misunderstand? :? He shows field lines around each bowl.
Would a unipole magnet have a field around it? :?

He seemed to show this with his micro compass. The magnetic field flips at the flip ring and magnetically traps the particles in the confinement bubble.


I could see changes in the compass, but how those are interpreted is subjective.
Maybe he will go into more detail how he arrived at the conclusions about confinement.
It is an interesting hypothesis...
"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 aetherwizard » Sun Feb 03, 2013 5:16 pm

Sparky wrote:I thought the red bowl was positive and the blue was negative.. :? That would be two unipole magnets.? Did I misunderstand? :? He shows field lines around each bowl.
Would a unipole magnet have a field around it? :?

Each bowl is actually a complex dipolar magnet. In one bowl, the north pole flows out of the central axis and in the other the south pole flows out of the central axis. Those are the magnetic orientations he is talking about. But each magnet still has both north and south components.

I could see changes in the compass, but how those are interpreted is subjective.
Maybe he will go into more detail how he arrived at the conclusions about confinement.
It is an interesting hypothesis...

All of his interpretations are subjective as presented in the videos. There is nothing wrong with subjectively derived hypotheses. I think most of his ideas will be proven correct in the end.
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests