Lew Paxton Price's Challenge to Mainstream Physics

Originally posted by xizd1
I have explored the web site a little and am impressed. Mr. Price has a myriad of interests beyond physics and provides some engaging web pages.

I noticed that. I've also noticed that other independent thinkers about physics also have music training and play an instrument. I think there is something about music that makes people "get it" in scientific true understanding, as opposed to simply memorizing what is taught in school regardless of whether something makes sense and holds together.

Originally posted by xizd1
I hope there will be some positive and expanding input to this thread.

I do, too. I love it when people put things they've read into their own words. It helps me a lot.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I had not seen a model of the electron as a vortex before, although I'm very familiar with the vortex as being a path that is prominent in nature and Marko Rodin's and Nassim Haramein's models for counter-rotating opposing vortices composing the torus model for the universe.

There is a YouTube video by a person named David Allen LaPoint which seems to be portraying this same model. He states that this is the first of a series of uploads yet to take place. It will take the better part of an hour to watch this video, but in my opinion, time very well spent. I'm really looking forward to the rest of the videos, provided they do get uploaded. Here is the Description for the video:

Published on Dec 17, 2012

In this video series the currently accepted theories of physics and astrophysics are shaken to the core by a radical new theory of the fundamental forces in all matter.

You will be amazed as a magnetic model of the dome at CERN is used to create a 100 mm diameter plasma Sun with a 300 mm diameter equatorial disc of plasma around it!

All the plasma videos are actual footage with no enhancement or manipulation other than speed. In other words, this is real thing. Hard to believe, but it is all true.

I've watched about 10 min. of video so far.
So which came first, the vortex or the magnetic field? Does the vortex need a magnetic field to exist or vise-versa? More questions than answers, maybe the rest of the video will help.
Thanks for posting.

reply to post by xizd1


My guess is vortex first then magnetic field.

I hope the rest of the videos get posted. But I have the feeling that his technology may get suppressed.

We shall see.

Saying that two/three theories are wrong and stating that it is a mistake and it IS something else, is nothing more than putting forward another theory to explain things.

Furthermore in the video, the narrator claims that black holes do not exist. This is an extremely outlandish statement given the evidence for the existence of these objects. Also electric and magnetic fields of galaxies can be probed using the polarization of different wavelengths of light. Science knows about it, it doesn't ignore it. once more, to state it that science is ignorant of it, is ignorant in itself.

There are a number of issues I have with all of this, namely one of them that is stated every single time, that the scientific establishment is against these ideas because of some big coverup. Scientists are not constantly watched over by dark figures in black suits. Information isn't suddenly stolen or people killed off to hide things. Scientists who discover new things or things that explain that when we know in a certain field is 'wrong' are held up as heroes... not villains. To suggest it is being quite ignorant of the fact that the greatest scientific breakthroughs of history was when people proved various scientific theory wrong.

Any resistance to it was as you said, more about ego or in my opinion that scientific thought and practice was quite simplified and scientists 100 or more years ago tended to be in the upper class of society. Meaning that the gentlemen (and very few ladies) of science were held as never being wrong, and to prove them wrong was to challenge there integrity or honour. Great example was Newton. People say he was an amazing person and a brilliant scientist. Yet anyone who knows anything of history about him is that he spent 50% of his time being a mystic, 30 being a alchemist and only about 20% doing Physics/Math, he was also a terrible lecturer and generally by most written accounts a total 'arse', who was arrogant about everything he did and was quick to put down others on the sole aspect of his 'position.' . Who would say he was wrong? not many, because he had power and respect for this theories.

Science is very different these days. These days this system doesnt exist in the same way. Most scientists challenge each other freely and without assumptions or put downs. Science is conducted by theory and evidence. The common thing that many of these alternative theories fall to is that alot of hot air is produce but not much hard evidence in the form of problems solved or solutions explained in hard mathematics.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, my issue is that alot of people provide the claims and they are indeed fantastic... but the evidence is never explained more than "I say this is true, oh you think i am wrong? well you have to prove me wrong!"

Science does not work like that in reality.

To me the primer field video.... the 2 dome magnets the guy is "all about"... maybe just represent the spherical/double domed nature of things like the sun and earth.... I dont know what else he is trying to physically represent with the domes.. where he thinks they exist in physical reality...

does he think that space it self has the capability of warping around a spherical body, and then space itself is the dome, that creates magnetic field... idk...

but these certainly are interesting subjects you bring up...

and you mentioned music.... music is a very crude ( but beautiful!) map of reality...
its based on harmonies, and waves, constructive and destructive interferences...
is a note a particle or a wave? Its one note... but a frequency. similar to how we view photons and particles eh?

reply to post by ErosA433


So, you think mainstream science today is functioning just fine.

I think the progress being made in science is from the alternative community, because mainstream science is entrenched in the corporate and financial interests of the powers that be who fund it. I think the funding is directed toward keeping the resulting technology confined within those areas that will maintain profits for those same corporate and financial interests. The corporate and financial interests control governments. So governments are corrupt.

It's the alternative community that is working for the people.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

"The instructors at the Air Force Academy were careful to explain to us that institutions of learning in the United Stated were flawed. Those who best subscribed to and parroted the instructor's theories were the ones retained as future instructors."

Yeah, stock lead in for cranks. "Only I had the insight to see past the errors of the past bla bla bla" And you have to toss in a military reference for credibility.

As an Air Force navigator he gained valuable experience.

In what way? Does he need to use a sextant and read a map a lot in his personal life?

Then, when he had some time to fill and ended up in the library doing independent research on the nature of light, the following happened:

While doing this research, it soon became apparent that a major flaw existed in scientific thought regarding the nature of the universe in general. This flaw was so obvious that I could not understand how it could have occurred or how it could have been tolerated for so long. Further research showed why it had occurred, why it was still there, and that Einstein had known about it.

The Epiphany, another stock bit. Of course, the guy's got a degree in military history, but suddenly since he used a map and a trig table, he discovers that Einstein is wrong.

The discovery of this flaw led to a valid understanding of the nature of matter, electromagnetism, electromagnetic radiation, time, and other questions and supposed paradoxes which still plague physics today. . . .

More likely, he doesn't understand the basic issues of physics, and THINKS he does, so he thinks he's solved something with some "theory" that will end up being primarily verbal in its explanation, although it will use a lot of neat science words in surprising new combinations.

. . . After the mid-1960s, it seemed a waste of time to attempt to show the physics community my theory and I let it drop. The physics community was not willing to listen.

The Rebuff. This is the part that I like to call "They laughed at me at the Sorbonne!".

When I left the Air Force in late 1965, I went to work for Pacific Telephone. . . . In the theory group I learned, while working, about basic telephone theory, open wire transposition, microwave radio, wave guides, underground and birdwire cable technology, grounding and grounding systems, earth resistivity, lightning, protection, toll and exchange carrier systems, frequency stacking, pulse-code modulation, and more. . . .

You realize this is a list of words pulled out of a book, right? In most cases, if you're telling someone what you learned, you'd organize it in some manner instead of babbling out random terms.

People have asked me why I never went back to school for a Ph.D. in physics. There were two reasons.

First, I had the equivalent of master's degree from my four years at the Academy, and the equivalent of a Ph.D. in telephone theory from the phone company. Second, I felt that it would be silly to learn outmoded physics . . .

And here we have the explanation as to why we should listen to him despite his having no science education. This is an outmoded section, which reached its pinnacle in the Time Cube website. These days, cranks purchase their PhDs for $400, like Tom Bearden, Nick Begich, and Hulda Clark.

Price is the author of a series of books entitled Behind Light's Illusion.

And if you act now, you'll get TWO books! Only $29.95!

reply to post by Bedlam


You sound angry.

Others will simply consider the ideas.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
and you mentioned music.... music is a very crude ( but beautiful!) map of reality...
its based on harmonies, and waves, constructive and destructive interferences...
is a note a particle or a wave? Its one note... but a frequency. similar to how we view photons and particles eh?

edit on 22-1-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

A musical note is not a "frequency" and it certainly has nothing to do with the wave/particle duality of QM. A note has pitch (our auditory perception of pressure waves) caused by a pressure wave moving through a medium (air, water, etc). Frequency, pitch and wavelength aren't tangible "things" but instead are different ways of describing such a wave.

Edit: refined terminology

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bedlam

 

You sound angry.

Others will simply consider the ideas.

Nope, just not as credulous as you seem to be.

Polarizers, Mary. When you understand why they disprove aether, you will have considered an idea that can be proven.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
To me the primer field video.... the 2 dome magnets the guy is "all about"... maybe just represent the spherical/double domed nature of things like the sun and earth.... I dont know what else he is trying to physically represent with the domes.. where he thinks they exist in physical reality...

does he think that space it self has the capability of warping around a spherical body, and then space itself is the dome, that creates magnetic field... idk...

It seems to me that his experimentation is based on his understanding that we've been assuming incorrectly that matter has a bar magnet type of magnetic field, when actually all matter has two opposing bowl shaped electromagnetic fields around it. I have the impression that he started with that hunch about a misunderstanding in science about the nature of magnetic fields which is key to other understandings.

He's saying that this model is incorrect:



And that this is what the fields around all matter look like:



So, I think what he's trying to do is correct our model for the shape of magnetic fields around all matter.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
and you mentioned music.... music is a very crude ( but beautiful!) map of reality...
its based on harmonies, and waves, constructive and destructive interferences...
is a note a particle or a wave? Its one note... but a frequency. similar to how we view photons and particles eh?

I think focusing on particles is like focusing on the trees instead of the forest - it's ignoring the big picture.

I'm very interested in sound because of what I'm reading about sonofusion. Ultrasound produces acoustic cavitation which produces sonoluminescence which produces sonofusion. Now we're talking advanced technology for producing usable power. It's the technology we can have from science that I care about.

Another person who stated that the ether does exist is Eugene Mallove.

I listened to and took notes on a 12 part YouTube video series of a Coast to Coast interview of Mallove that took place in 2004 shortly before Mallove's death.

One of the things Mallove said is, "Time dilation is not part of the universe."

But Price says this in "Pertinent Information":

. . . Gravity proved to be the key to understanding the rest of the universe and its phenomena. The nature of light and magnetism were immediately apparent. The fact that time dilation existed became apparent in a matter of weeks and the same equation for time dilation found in Einstein's theory was easily derived from this new foundation for physics. Of course, what is called "Dark Energy" today was known immediately as it is an integral part of the correct theory for gravity. Dark Energy and "Dark Matter" are still problems for contemporary physicists. Both have been explained very logically on this website and are certainly no mystery. . . .

So two people advocating the ether have opposing views on time dilation.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by ImaFungi
and you mentioned music.... music is a very crude ( but beautiful!) map of reality...
its based on harmonies, and waves, constructive and destructive interferences...
is a note a particle or a wave? Its one note... but a frequency. similar to how we view photons and particles eh?

edit on 22-1-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

A musical note is not a "frequency" and it certainly has nothing to do with the wave/particle duality of QM. A note has pitch (our auditory perception of pressure waves) caused by a pressure wave moving through a medium (air, water, etc). Frequency, pitch and wavelength aren't tangible "things" but instead are different ways of describing such a wave.

Edit: refined terminology

edit on 23-1-2013 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

en.wikipedia.org...

I only meant it was a similar phenomenon to the wave/particle duality of QM ( everythings related mannnnn).

I have been trying to comprehend this for a bit... waves dont actually exist then? they are just mathematical terminology to describe the probability an energy level will be at a specific point in space and time, some distance away from the source of such an energy emitting event? and the 2d wave diagram correlates with the wavelength as the speed of propagation ( intensity too maybe) and the frequency, as how often it (oscillates) in a given interval?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

en.wikipedia.org...

You make the mistake of equating the frequency attribute of a wave with the wave itself. Notes have pitch, but to state "notes are frequency" is false. My height can be measured but I am not "height".

I only meant it was a similar phenomenon to the wave/particle duality of QM ( everythings related mannnnn).

Wave/particle duality appears similar only due to your misconception of waves and their attributes.

I have been trying to comprehend this for a bit... waves dont actually exist then? they are just mathematical terminology to describe the probability an energy level will be at a specific point in space and time, some distance away from the source of such an energy emitting event? and the 2d wave diagram correlates with the wavelength as the speed of propagation ( intensity too maybe) and the frequency, as how often it (oscillates) in a given interval?

This Wikipedia article has a very comprehensive primer for understanding waves: en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by ErosA433

 

So, you think mainstream science today is functioning just fine.

I think the progress being made in science is from the alternative community, because mainstream science is entrenched in the corporate and financial interests of the powers that be who fund it. I think the funding is directed toward keeping the resulting technology confined within those areas that will maintain profits for those same corporate and financial interests. The corporate and financial interests control governments. So governments are corrupt.

It's the alternative community that is working for the people.

edit on 01/23/13 by Mary Rose because: Add

It depends how you define it, because the way that i see it, much of this 'Alternative community' exists only to line the pockets of a few figure heads. Or amass droves and droves of nodding yes men (and women) who don't really understand, but are so desperate to understand that they will believe the simplest thing said to them as long as it comes with fun diagrams or explanations.

Also well done for a great soundbite, another... oooh science is mysterious and not working for the good of man kind. That is a very loose knit comment that basically means very little, or can be construed to mean anything you like. It is fairly obvious that you don't know any scientists in this establishment... thats because the idea of the establishment is a myth too. You go to any university and you will find many many research groups, each with different outlooks, ideas and theories of what is going on... there isn't this big hive mentality, lets all work on what we are told to work on by these men in suits... it just doesn't exist and the perpetuation of this myth is what is causing science to function improperly. It is because science and research is considered a waist of time by the masses, because when ever someone who says something who actually knows more about a subject expresses it, he is gunned down by EVERYONE.

You and others may complain because the 'Alternative' is gunned down by scientists? well that is how we operate every single day... we gun at each others theories and work in order to determine if it holds up to scrutiny a scrutiny that we try our best to have weed out what works and what doesn't.

Saying the scientists got the shape of the magnetic fields wrong because of some nice magnets and the way balls arrange themselves in a field is frustrating to watch and hear because many different shaped magnetic fields holding balls on a plane would produce the same arrangement... basic principles of physics tell us that any system confined like that will assume the lowest energy and most stable configuration. The only part of that whole farce is the fact that they could have used ANY magnets of many different shapes to show that.


So please provide proof of what you say... tell me... what is the LHC doing and built for and how is it confining technology? How are the neutrino beams in Japan doing the same? You make grand statements that are soundbites i hear all the time, and unlike real science that has to come out to defend itself with hard facts and numbers, and explanations, the proponents of the alternative quite often do not hold themselves with the same scrutiny.

Also it is sometimes clear that many people have never seen or studied spherical harmonics

reply to post by ErosA433


Actually, I'm not interested in engaging in a debate about mainstream vs. alternative science.

I'm only interested in analyzing alternative ideas with others who are interested in the same thing.

So, I have nothing to say to you. I'm not going to spend my time on the debate you want to have. Maybe others will be interested in spending their time that way.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by ErosA433

 

Actually, I'm not interested in engaging in a debate about mainstream vs. alternative science.

I'm only interested in analyzing alternative ideas with others who are interested in the same thing.

So then we can at least agree that your attitude is the very definition of closed-mindedness?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by ErosA433

 

Actually, I'm not interested in engaging in a debate about mainstream vs. alternative science.

I'm only interested in analyzing alternative ideas with others who are interested in the same thing.

So, I have nothing to say to you. I'm not going to spend my time on the debate you want to have. Maybe others are.

Wow, so please in your research get one of those things... mmm what are they called now? A dictionary... thats right and look up the word Irony.
Furthermore please rename this thread and remove any reference to challenge to mainstream physics, because you are not challenging anyone, since you just admitted that you are not interested in what anyone has to say other than the hoard of yes men.

Look, I have been to many threads like this, I am a scientist, a researcher in the field of particle physics, I am an experimentalist who spends time in a lab putting equipment and experiments together. I am very very interested in experimentalism and understanding how things work. I am very open minded, but, I am also a scientist who like everyone should... require logical explanation that is deeper than "I said so" Without that, people can just talk out of their behinds using complicated words, throw in the occasional impressive sounding buzz words and people will believe you. I am very sad to say that, 95% of the alternative science threads I have seen on ATS are like this. It is quite sad that they all share a common thing.... they want to preach what they think is the truth and exchange ideas with 'Like minded individuals' and the first sign of a real challenge or a question they cannot answer and they denounce the person as not being important or just trying to cause trouble or 'being a DoD dog' as i was once called...

I am very interested in how the shape of the magnetic field solves these problems that mainstream science has apparently missed. But all i have seen and read so far is the same vague suggestions that "Oh there is a big cover up or it is wrong... but I'm not going to tell you its wrong, I'm going to ask you to believe me based on no evidence than a couple of anecdotes and fancy words.

If you understood what i said, I said that science knows about magnetization and electric fields in galaxies and stars... it is the reason behind the structures we see in the cosmic ray flux... there are 3 features that can be explained by

1 Earths magnetic field
2 The suns magnetic field
3 the Galactic magnetic field.

These are not mysteries in the way that the OP text quotes suggest.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
As an Air Force navigator he gained valuable experience. Then, when he had some time to fill and ended up in the library doing independent research on the nature of light, the following happened:

While doing this research, it soon became apparent that a major flaw existed in scientific thought regarding the nature of the universe in general. . . .

The discovery of this flaw led to a valid understanding of the nature of matter, electromagnetism, electromagnetic radiation, time, and other questions and supposed paradoxes which still plague physics today. . . .

So, he started out investigating light and ended up thinking about mistakes in what he'd been taught.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

. . . Gravity proved to be the key to understanding the rest of the universe and its phenomena. The nature of light and magnetism were immediately apparent. . . .

I am more interested in the ether and the technology that converts it into usable power, but gravity is the key so I need to focus on gravity.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From the section "WHAT IS GRAVITY?":

Warning

Although this is not an "accepted" theory for gravity, it is the correct explanation for gravity and is more than a theory. Its straightforward simplicity and irrefutable logic, both visually and mathematically, have made it a thorn in the side of many physicists of high repute. Consequently, it is not something that should be used to pass a course in physics at any high school, college, or university.

The math and physics on this website, for the most part and including this section, should be viewed only if the reader prefers truth to fantasy.


Method of Proof of Gravity Theory

I. Assume that gravity is caused by nether (dynamic ether) flowing into a celestial body. Show why such an assumption is reasonable.

II. Show the necessary relationships to the radius, r, from the center of the celestial body.

III. Show that the math required for these relationships conforms to the Law of Nether Mass Equivalence and the Inverse Square Law.

I. Assumption of Gravity as Incoming Nether . . .

(Elsewhere on the website Paxton explains that the word "nether" for dynamic ether is referencing the use of the term by the Ancient Greeks in their mythology to signify underlying substance.)

(I wish Price did not decide to use the word "nether" for ether. I prefer to call it a dynamic ether to distinguish it from the traditional ether, which evidently was static and apparently not a correct model.)

He says that the key is gravity but his alternative model of gravity seems to rest on his alternative model of the electron as a vortex.

So, taking a look at what he says about the electron, it is necessary to read his page on "Spin":

The electron is the subatomic "particle" that is the basis of electricity, magnetism, natural electromagnetic waves such as light, and manmade electromagnetic waves such as radio. It has the property of "spin" which was not a discovery so much as a deduction by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck, resulting from their work on atomic spectra. Since that time, theories have been put forth (Dirac and Kusch) which give rules for spin and supposedly explain why it exists. . . .

. . . Common sense and the law of conservation of energy would lead us to believe that electron spin is impossible, but electron spin is a well established fact that contributes to our quality of life today (with such things as magnetic resonance imaging). So the electron has spin whether we like it or not, and the fact that it exists forces us to conclude that the electron has a source of apparently inexhaustible energy which allows it to maintain its spin.

. . . What natural phenomenon, in our experience, has innate and relatively constant angular momentum, its own energy source, and its own governor? Actually several things fall into this category and none of them are exactly what we would call material "objects" such as a top or a gyroscope. The things which exhibit the aforementioned qualities are vortices. The whirlpool, the whirlwind, the waterspout, the tornado, and the hurricane are all vortices. Each has the gyroscopic properties which define spin. Each has its own governed energy source. . . .

He then goes on to talk about the fact that a vortex needs a medium, which is the ether. Regarding the ether he talks about an experiment by Sagnac that showed there is an ether, but mainstream science does not recognize the importance of it, despite the fact that engineers account for the "Sagnac effect" in their designs.

So, he's saying gravity is actually incoming ether, and the theory of ether is supported by experimentation and the model of an electron as a vortex.