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 Benevolent » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:49 pm

Some more of his thoughts can be found here.

http://www.youtube.com/user/davelapoint ... d?filter=1
Benevolent
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:24 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Vasa » Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:54 am

aetherwizard wrote:
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.

This is all semantics. I have never seen neutrinos lumped in with dark matter before.

Perhaps there is no weak force. In fact, i have reason ti believe there isn't based upon a paper i read last night. However, 80 years of mainstream physics says there is a weak force. Unless you have convincing experimental evidence why this is false, we can't just take your word for it. We both agree that neutrinos may exist and the dark matter particles do not.

Again, you have a nice idea about the neutrinos being responsible for the gravitational anomalys that dark matter proposes to solve. However, until you can show a convincing argument for it's existence it's no different than dark matter. I also don't understand how neutrinos could solve the gravity anomalies on their own. The dark matter particles were huge for a reason, whereas neutrinos are almost massless.

Your ideas are very good about the aether creating matter. Wal Thornhill espoused a similar idea that the aether was made of neutrinos. I think the two of you could agree here. However, both views need to be backed up experimentally.

In short, i think the argument is one of semantics. EU proponents do not believe in WIMPs and MACHOs. Neither do you. EU proponents seem to believe in neutrinos, as do you. I fail to see the argument here.
Vasa
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:52 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby aetherwizard » Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:12 am

nick c wrote: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.

This is your personal belief and perspective. Using dimensional analysis we can see there are two distinct types of charges, the electrostatic charge and the magnetic charge. Both are static. Do not confuse charge with fields. There is also the electric and magnetic fields. Static magnetic charge has associated with it static magnetic fields and static electric charge has associated with it static electric fields. If you move a coiled wire through a static magnetic field, it generates electric currents. Also, as you like to focus on, if you put an electric current through a coil it will generate a static magnetic field. The two types of charges are reciprocal to each other and act upon each other.

Permanent magnets are not 'permanent' but are rather a remnant magnetic field which has it's origin in an electric current.

That is a personal perception and it is an incomplete picture of the whole. You are talking about macro structures and not quantum structures. The static magnetic field of an electron is not a remnant magnetic field of an electron moving through a wire. The electrons have existence before the wires are made, so how can an electron possess magnetism with the limited view you are referencing? The perception you subscribe to is akin to saying that children give birth to their parents.

Before the folks at EU try to understand the electric Universe, they need to understand the quantum physics of electric and magnetic charge. Until then, their views are as incomplete as the gravitational Universe views.
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby nick c » Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:38 am

aetherwizard wrote:This is your personal belief and perspective. Using dimensional analysis we can see there are two distinct types of charges, the electrostatic charge and the magnetic charge. Both are static. Do not confuse charge with fields. There is also the electric and magnetic fields. Static magnetic charge has associated with it static magnetic fields and static electric charge has associated with it static electric fields. If you move a coiled wire through a static magnetic field, it generates electric currents. Also, as you like to focus on, if you put an electric current through a coil it will generate a static magnetic field. The two types of charges are reciprocal to each other and act upon each other.
You have made the issue more complicated than is necessary. What we are talking about is Lapoint's experiments. In this thread the point was made that his experiments using magnetic fields need an initial electric current (to create the magnetic field.) You then stated that his magnets were not electro magnets but rather permanent magnets that used no electric currents. I merely pointed out that permanent magnets are also created by electric currents. You can go on about static charges, static magnetic fields, or confusing charge with fields, but the bottom line is that the magnetic fields used in Lapoint's experiments are dependent upon electric currents.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2472
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby aetherwizard » Sun Jan 13, 2013 8:53 am

This is all semantics. I have never seen neutrinos lumped in with dark matter before.

That is because you have a preconceived idea of what you want dark matter to be.
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/hdm.html
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=690

Perhaps there is no weak force. In fact, i have reason ti believe there isn't based upon a paper i read last night. However, 80 years of mainstream physics says there is a weak force. Unless you have convincing experimental evidence why this is false, we can't just take your word for it. We both agree that neutrinos may exist and the dark matter particles do not.

Eighty years of mainstream physics is based upon consensus world views, not nature as it is. Someone decided to take a dimensionless number and call it a force. Does that mean the concept is valid?

I have mathematically shown that the weak interaction is the ratio between the electric force carrier (electrostatic charge) and the magnetic force carrier (magnetic charge). I have provided the science and the math. I have shown how existing data already provides evidence for two types of charges. What I cannot do is force a consensus that would literally pull the rug out from under individual careers, billions of dollars in research grants, and two hundred years of status quo.

Again, you have a nice idea about the neutrinos being responsible for the gravitational anomalys that dark matter proposes to solve. However, until you can show a convincing argument for it's existence it's no different than dark matter. I also don't understand how neutrinos could solve the gravity anomalies on their own.


It is not my view that neutrinos can solve any gravitational anomalies on their own. My work shows that all three fundamental forces are responsible for shaping the Universe, not just gravity. I agree that electric currents and magnetic fields are major contributors to astrophysical dynamics. In fact, they are the dominant contributors and gravity is a very small part. But gravity still has its place.

The dark matter particles were huge for a reason, whereas neutrinos are almost massless.

The mainstream belief that neutrinos are massless is bizarre. When the mass of the proton and electron are subtracted from the neutron there is a substantial amount of mass to attribute to the neutrino. However, since the neutrino does not interact magnetically or electrically, there is no way to capture the effect of the neutrino as it moves through the vast empty spaces between matter.

When your hand presses against your keyboard, it isn't the electrons, protons, and neutrons that are coming in contact. It is their electric and magnetic fields, which have field bonds between them, which are interacting with each other. Neutrinos do not interact with these field bonds and they fly effortlessly between them in the vast emptiness until by chance they actually impact a neutron.

A neutron, contrary to the belief of modern physics, is a bound proton electron pair with a captured neutrino. That is why a neutron "decays" into a proton, electron, and neutrino when it breaks apart.

Just because it is extremely difficult to measure an object with tiny mass and no electric and magnetic property does not mean a neutrino is massless. All anybody has to do us subtract the mass of the proton and electron from the neutron to see how much mass is attributed to the neutrino.

Your ideas are very good about the aether creating matter. Wal Thornhill espoused a similar idea that the aether was made of neutrinos. I think the two of you could agree here. However, both views need to be backed up experimentally.

Wal and I have fundamentally different views. Wal does not believe that fields have an existence of their own, I do. Wal believes neutrinos are the substance of the Aether, I believe the Aether is constructed from quantum rotating magnetic fields. It is my view that neutrinos are dark matter, which when captured by a quantum rotating magnetic field becomes a subatomic particle. When the quantum rotating magnetic field is destroyed, the subatomic particle ceases to exist and the dark matter reverts to its primordial state. It is the quantum rotating magnetic field structure that imparts the electric and magnetic charges to dark matter and causes it to become visible matter.

In short, i think the argument is one of semantics. EU proponents do not believe in WIMPs and MACHOs. Neither do you. EU proponents seem to believe in neutrinos, as do you. I fail to see the argument here.

I have pointed out some key differences between my views and those of Wal and Don. But the issue in this thread is not about us, it is about the nature of the work presented by David LaPointe. His magnetic bowls are static magnetic structures and do not involve electric currents. Even the high voltage electrostatic potential he uses to ignite plasma does not use electric current. And yet, he is generating plasma discharges seen by EU enthusiasts in ancient records and in the astrophysical observations.

Even if actual high powered currents were involved, they would be generating static magnetic fields. Logically, both scenarios exist in the Universe since both exist in the labs.

I agree we are agreeing on the key points. Now if only we could find agreement on the physics.
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby aetherwizard » Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:00 am

You have made the issue more complicated than is necessary. What we are talking about is Lapoint's experiments. In this thread the point was made that his experiments using magnetic fields need an initial electric current (to create the magnetic field.) You then stated that his magnets were not electro magnets but rather permanent magnets that used no electric currents. I merely pointed out that permanent magnets are also created by electric currents. You can go on about static charges, static magnetic fields, or confusing charge with fields, but the bottom line is that the magnetic fields used in Lapoint's experiments are dependent upon electric currents.

It is not me that is making this complicated. The fact is that his experiment relies on a static magnetic field, regardless of how the magnets were manufactured. Using your argument, I could say his experiment also depends on the fact that he has a mother, because he could not have built the experiment if he was not born.

This is a flaw in the EU paradigm as it presently exists. You are espousing the argument about electric currents not because they really have something to do with the physics being discussed, but because it is a signature talking point of the present EU group think.

The experiment at hand involves the use of static magnetic fields and static electric potential. It has nothing to do with electric currents. Electric currents are not involved in the dynamics of this particular experiment, except, perhaps as leakages.
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Vasa » Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:28 am

One last question, and then I'm out. I hope that you will lay out your theory in another thread. A search of your posts does not bring up any of the things you have claimed to have proved or demonstrated. A link to such would also suffice.

I may be wrong and feel free to correct me, but neutrinos were first postulated to conserve angular momentum when a neutron decayed. If, in your view, the neutron is actually an electeon-proton pair, no additional preservation of angular momentum is necessary. How does one reconcile this?

I hope you share your work with us, you seem to begoing in the right direction.
Vasa
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:52 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby aetherwizard » Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:12 pm

Vasa wrote:I hope that you will lay out your theory in another thread.

Various parts have been laid out in previous threads.

A search of your posts does not bring up any of the things you have claimed to have proved or demonstrated. A link to such would also suffice.

www.secrets-of-the-aether.com

My work is a re-examination of the foundations of physics. That is, I took the known constants and data and found different relationships among them than previous scientists did. By recognizing two distinct manifestations of charges, it is very easy to unify the three forces and precisely identify the nature of the weak interaction.

I may be wrong and feel free to correct me, but neutrinos were first postulated to conserve angular momentum when a neutron decayed. If, in your view, the neutron is actually an electeon-proton pair, no additional preservation of angular momentum is necessary. How does one reconcile this?


In my view, dark matter is another term for primary angular momentum. Primary angular momentum are strings of mass. It is a primordial state of matter, which has no physical structure until it is incorporated into Aether (quantum rotating magnetic fields). Dark matter is a sort of primordial soup.

In my view, the neutron is an electron-proton pair and it captures some of this primordial soup when they bind together. The amount of captured angular momentum is the neutrino. It is not a particle, per se, but a quantity of soup, like a quantity of water in a cup. When the proton and electron unbind, the soup is splashed away at high velocity.

The Aether is a densely packed web of quantum rotating magnetic fields. The Aether provides us with our space-time continuum, particle spin, spin direction, the medium for photon transmission, the container for subatomic particles to form and take geometry, and other fundamental characteristics of the Universe. When the electron, which is contained in one Aether unit, and a proton, which is contained in a separate Aether unit, bind they cause a pinching of the Aether and a pinching of the space-time continuum. It is this pinching caused by neutron formation that warps space-time around massive objects, like the Sun, and causes so-called "relativistic" effects.

It is because of the pinching effect of neutrons that neutron stars have such deep gravity wells and cause light to bend around them.

We typically think of magnetic and electric fields as belonging to material objects. Actually, material objects gain their magnetic and electric properties by virtue of being composed of Aether. The Aether possesses magnetic and electric properties even without the presence of matter. On small scales and in the presence of matter, the Aether is stretched into disarray. On large scales where matter is very sparse, the Aether can form large magnetic and electric field structures by virtue of being in its relaxed state.

I believe it is the natural large scale Aether structures and its ability to absorb dark matter that causes "dust cloud" formation. The attendant magnetic field and electric field structures assemble the dust particles into quasars, galaxies, nebulae, stars, planets, etc. Quasars would likely be the result of a strong magnetic structure and a strong electrostatic potential buildup, which spit out a stream of matter that forms galaxies.

As Don predicts, some of these large galactic structures may become electrically and magnetically connected to other large structures over vast distances.

My work strongly supports the EU model, but it does not satisfy the requirements by Don and Wal that everything must be made of physical particles. My work suggests that the physical Universe actually has a non-material source. The non-material is simply structures that pre-exist material structures. For example, the dimensions of length and mass are real things of themselves even though they are not physical particles. A string of mass is a real structure even if it is not visible matter.

I hope you share your work with us, you seem to begoing in the right direction.

I am slowly making progress in my own endeavors. Discussing a new foundation for physics with people who can only work from the old foundation is not productive. I am preparing to produce videos that will target the younger scientific audience and guide them to think in this new paradigm.

When I jumped into this thread I only meant to point out that LaPoint's experiments were being mis-characterized. It is one of the reasons why there is unnecessary friction between him and the EU people.
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:51 pm

""""A string of mass is a real structure even if it is not visible matter.""""
For someone not well versed in maths, could you give an estimate of the size of the "quantum rotating magnetic field", and the string of mass? ty

Note to mod.: I read in the yahoo news that hackers were using java to take control of computers, so I turned mine off. Now can not do certain things here nor read yahoo mail! ):
"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 mike hingle » Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:01 pm

Lapoint utilizes neutrinos as a source to explain his theory.

EU guys utilize Electric & Magnetic B-Fields
generated from plasma electrical currents
of IonIcally charged particles
to describe accretion dynamics,
but leave out & don't address the very Influencual
Magnetic A-Fields, I.e., Vector Potentials (rIght angle force),
that attracts non-magnetically permeable materials.

Here's Bill Beaty's excellent short graphics explaining
Magnetic A-Fields : "Right Angle Circuitry for Alien Minds"
http://amasci.com./elect/mcoils.html

Let's dance & celebrate David LaPoint's huge contribution !
We will eventually learn how to more appropriately describe
LaPoint's immensely valuable curious findings !

Mike Hingle :》
mike hingle
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:37 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby aetherwizard » Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:11 pm

Sparky wrote:""""A string of mass is a real structure even if it is not visible matter.""""
For someone not well versed in maths, could you give an estimate of the size of the "quantum rotating magnetic field", and the string of mass?

Each Aether unit (quantum rotating magnetic field) has a fixed surface area of one square Compton wavelength. This surface area is over a spring like structure, which can stretch and deform. Through all its deformations, the surface area must be conserved and always equal one square Compton wavelength.

The strings of mass that are not encapsulated by Aether units can have any length and any mass, but there is a constant length to mass ratio. I haven't looked at my notes in a few years, so I can't quote the exact ratio here. If you really want it, I can look it up.
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:12 pm

aetherwizard wrote:
Sparky wrote:""""A string of mass is a real structure even if it is not visible matter.""""
For someone not well versed in maths, could you give an estimate of the size of the "quantum rotating magnetic field", and the string of mass?

Each Aether unit (quantum rotating magnetic field) has a fixed surface area of one square Compton wavelength. This surface area is over a spring like structure, which can stretch and deform. Through all its deformations, the surface area must be conserved and always equal one square Compton wavelength.

The strings of mass that are not encapsulated by Aether units can have any length and any mass, but there is a constant length to mass ratio. I haven't looked at my notes in a few years, so I can't quote the exact ratio here. If you really want it, I can look it up.

+
Thanks, but that is not necessary...this compton wavelength keeps coming up from different people, as to the size of the very small....

what physical shape do you invision the Aether unit to take? thank you
"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 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:14 am

Sparky wrote:what physical shape do you invision the Aether unit to take?

There are different aspects to the shape.

The Aether unit has an electrostatic dipole, a magnetic dipole, and two spin directions.

The electrostatic dipole looks like two adjacent spheres.

The magnetic dipole with the two different spin directions looks like an analemma drawn over the two spheres.

The Aether unit exists in a five dimensional coordinate system which has three dimensions of length (space) and two dimensions of frequency (resonance). Since our body and the world it lives in is composed from left spin matter (electrons and protons), and we view the world from our body, we only see four of the Aether's dimensions (space-time). Because we see from our worldly perception, the Aether unit appears as two toroids stacked on top of each other.

The reason why light looks so ambiguous to us (wave-particle duality) is because it exists in the full five dimensions even though we are looking at it through only four dimensions. It is as though someone who lived on a flat screen monitor was trying to view the world we live in and comprehend it.

The concept of geometry in the Aether Physics Model depends on how well we can train ourselves to see it.
aetherwizard
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 5:58 am

Re: The Primer Fields?

Unread postby Sparky » Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:20 am

Thanks...It will take me some time to digest that.... ;)
"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 mike hingle » Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:44 pm

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 ?
mike hingle
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:37 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests