It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# David LaPoint's Theory of the Structure of All Matter

page: 16
9
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 10:14 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Fromabove
I have long believed that the field around a magnet is not stationary but that it rotates at the speed of light.

You got stars for that post.

Facepalm.

Which way does it rotate???

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

"The direction of the magnetic field is perpendicular to the wire and is in the direction the fingers of your right hand would curl if you wrapped them around the wire with your thumb in the direction of the current."

how else could a magnetic field be considered rotating, besides it having a circular direction?

My question is "how does it rotate?". There is still no answer. You may consider it "rotating", it's up to you. It doesn't.

Ok it does not rotate.... It is just that a charged particle will experience a force and depending on the charge it will cause the particle to be moved in a direction by the field?... the field lines of force of a magnetic field have direction because certain charges travel one way, and others another?
edit on 5-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

The magnetic field around a bar magnet, is caused by the electrons orientation (and their spin nature?)... the magnetic field may not rotate or move at all ( only when the magnet is moved or another magnet or something produces a force on the original magnetic field), but how then is the existence of a magnetic field explained at all? What about the electrons nature produces a "field" external to the material, that can cause the magnet to interact with another magnet at a distance, without the magnets touching?
edit on 5-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 06:44 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

. . . Gravity is still being discussed within my group. I have some ideas, but I am not yet ready to put it out there. I will tell you that I do NOT believe that gravity is a force on its own. I believe it to be a product of EM forces, but I am not firm in that just yet. Still working on it.

Regarding gravity, I've just read a very interesting Comment by a group member on The Resonance Project's Facebook page. It contains a link to an interesting free online e-book of a book entitled The Universe - a Vast Electric Organism, by George Woodward Warder, that was copyrighted in 1903. That's not a typo - 1903.

I enjoy reading the interpretations of people who think for themselves about the official story accepted by the mainstream:

"Newton discovered an imaginary force. Newton had an imagination which the scientific plodders who came after him lacked. They have dug in the dirt, while he sailed through azure seas and linked suns and worlds together by the mere sweep of the imagination, without any explanation or conceivable cause, and called it gravity. He might just as well have called it weight or ponderosity, which means the same as gravity. And the scientists followed him and accepted his theory of gravity, which means nothing and explains nothing.

Herbert Spencer affirms that space is eternal and has always existed. We will suppose the same of matter in its elemental form, known as the atom, and we will venture also to assert that force is a substance like matter, but a thousand times more refined and invisible than the atom, and we will call it the electric ion, or electron.

Thus we have three indestructible, invisible entities—space, matter and force—which have existed eternally and which constitute the basic foundation and fallow ground of primeval chaos, which was the beginning of the universe. Then stars and planets, suns and worlds were transparent ether, as impalpable as the viewless air, and scattered as star-dust in the measureless void of space along the forgotten highways of the eternities.

Newton in his theory of gravitation discovered one phase of electric energy, and his law of gravitation is in reality simply the law of electrical attraction. But he never knew the cause of it and never discovered the other and dual phase of electric energy—the law of electrical repulsion, he never even suspected it.

Newton thought that an apple was attracted to the earth because the earth was larger, and that any larger body would attract a smaller one. But I hold that size is not what controls attraction; it is electrical conditions. An amount of substance from the sun would have more attracting power than the same amount from the earth, because the sun has more electrical power. A lodestone has more attracting power than the same amount of ordinary substance. A pound of iron has no attracting force until it is magnetized; then it will lift many times its weight. So size, weight, or gravity is no test of attracting power.

I therefore repudiate the law of gravity and adopt electricity, with its dual force of action and reaction, attraction and repulsion, as the supreme cosmic evolving force of the universe, creating all light, heat and life and producing all the varied and wonderful phenomena of nature.

I hold that by the law of electric energy the sun is not a thermal or heating engine as the astronomers proclaim, but is an electric generator and is not hot, and that the sun's rays, neither where they originate or where they act are hot, but they come to the earth as cool currents of electricity, which generate heat near the earth's surface by coming in contact with an opposite electricity and the resistance and friction of its atmosphere. Proof of this is found in the snow-covered peaks of the tropics and the glaciers of the torrid zone."

www.gutenberg.org...

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I enjoy reading the interpretations of people who think for themselves about the official story accepted by the mainstream:

...and as usual you do that without any regard for what we observe all around us, something that I like to call "reality".

"Newton discovered an imaginary force. Newton had an imagination which the scientific plodders who came after him lacked. They have dug in the dirt, while he sailed through azure seas and linked suns and worlds together by the mere sweep of the imagination, without any explanation or conceivable cause, and called it gravity. He might just as well have called it weight or ponderosity, which means the same as gravity. And the scientists followed him and accepted his theory of gravity, which means nothing and explains nothing.

Herbert Spencer affirms that space is eternal and has always existed. We will suppose the same of matter in its elemental form, known as the atom, and we will venture also to assert that force is a substance like matter, but a thousand times more refined and invisible than the atom, and we will call it the electric ion, or electron.

Thus we have three indestructible, invisible entities—space, matter and force—which have existed eternally

This is just swell! If the force of gravity is "imaginary", I do invite the author to step out of a window of a tall building and demonstrate once and for all just how imaginary it is. But wait, in the same breath the author says that he "supposes" that the matter always existed in the atomic form. Just like that.Boom. Existed. In atomic form. And of course, he will call the "force" an "electron". Great! I'll call my hamburger "David La Point". Same level of intelligence anyhow.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 09:47 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I enjoy reading the interpretations of people who think for themselves about the official story accepted by the mainstream:

...and as usual you do that without any regard for what we observe all around us, something that I like to call "reality".

"Newton discovered an imaginary force. Newton had an imagination which the scientific plodders who came after him lacked. They have dug in the dirt, while he sailed through azure seas and linked suns and worlds together by the mere sweep of the imagination, without any explanation or conceivable cause, and called it gravity. He might just as well have called it weight or ponderosity, which means the same as gravity. And the scientists followed him and accepted his theory of gravity, which means nothing and explains nothing.

Herbert Spencer affirms that space is eternal and has always existed. We will suppose the same of matter in its elemental form, known as the atom, and we will venture also to assert that force is a substance like matter, but a thousand times more refined and invisible than the atom, and we will call it the electric ion, or electron.

Thus we have three indestructible, invisible entities—space, matter and force—which have existed eternally

This is just swell! If the force of gravity is "imaginary", I do invite the author to step out of a window of a tall building and demonstrate once and for all just how imaginary it is. But wait, in the same breath the author says that he "supposes" that the matter always existed in the atomic form. Just like that.Boom. Existed. In atomic form. And of course, he will call the "force" an "electron". Great! I'll call my hamburger "David La Point". Same level of intelligence anyhow.

Do you have anything to say about the actual theory put forth in the paragraph?

what he meant by imaginary was that noone can give a proper explanation to its cause... we know the force exists but we dont know what it is or whats causing it.. of course it has something to do with mass/matter... the author of that paragraph,, said he believes the force of gravitation is not do to magical "big mass attracts big mass...Because", but he offers a hypothesis of "why" this occurs. And if I read and understood it correctly, he believes it has something to do with the electrical nature of matter...

What do you think gravity is, and how do you think it works?

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 09:52 AM

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Do you have anything to say about the actual theory put forth in the paragraph?

But I already did. It's bull#. The author ventures to create entities, in a frivolous manner, that don't appear to be related to what see, for example, he equates "force" with "substance". Then he says that it's actually "electron".

What do you think gravity is, and how do you think it works?

I personally don't know. It's being worked out.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 10:15 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Do you have anything to say about the actual theory put forth in the paragraph?

But I already did. It's bull#. The author ventures to create entities, in a frivolous manner, that don't appear to be related to what see, for example, he equates "force" with "substance". Then he says that it's actually "electron".

What do you think gravity is, and how do you think it works?

I personally don't know. It's being worked out.

So you dont think it can be a phenomenon that has to do with the electric nature of matter like the author of the theory supposes? I guess making macro gravity, a similar phenomenon to effects seen on smaller levels in electric and magnetic actions?

thinking about these sort of things may bring light an error in thinking of those searching for how to fit gravity into the quantum world ( not that I know much about that conquest or problems therein).. could be they already have fit gravity into the quantum world if electromagnetism, electroweak, and maybe strong force are small scale versions of macro gravity
edit on 6-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 01:34 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi
So you dont think it can be a phenomenon that has to do with the electric nature of matter like the author of the theory supposes?

There is absolutely no basis for such assumption.

.. could be they already have fit gravity into the quantum world if electromagnetism, electroweak, and maybe strong force are small scale versions of macro gravity

It's not 100% clear what you meant here, but you spoke of unification, again, that's work that will require a lot of time and effort, and may never be resolved on humanity's timescale due to energies involved (hence difficulty of experimentation). Or maybe it will. Reconciling gravity with other forces is a huge challenge and no, it's not as simple as saying "look, gravity is electricity!". It's not.

posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi
So you dont think it can be a phenomenon that has to do with the electric nature of matter like the author of the theory supposes?

There is absolutely no basis for such assumption.

.. could be they already have fit gravity into the quantum world if electromagnetism, electroweak, and maybe strong force are small scale versions of macro gravity

It's not 100% clear what you meant here, but you spoke of unification, again, that's work that will require a lot of time and effort, and may never be resolved on humanity's timescale due to energies involved (hence difficulty of experimentation). Or maybe it will. Reconciling gravity with other forces is a huge challenge and no, it's not as simple as saying "look, gravity is electricity!". It's not.

what I mean there... is the activity on a small scale which allows electrons to produce a field around a magnet and interact with another magnet across a distance of space without touching, maybe a similar effect to how the earth creates a "gravity" field and interacts with the moon across a distance of space without touching...

are there cases where electric currents or electric charges attract one another?

Its thought that gravity cant be electric or magnetic in nature, because we know the extent of earths magnetic field and it couldn't possible have an effect on the moon?.... and the moon doesnt even have a magnetic field I dont think.. but, the moon and earth are composed or electrons, so is there no way the revolution of the moon around the earth can be due to electric potentials in some way? after you answer these Ill stop asking you about this topic because I personally dont have any stake in it.. just trying to think...

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:35 AM

Originally posted by eManym
Since there is no such thing as monopole magnets, one field must be close to the rim and the other at the single pole of the hemisphere.

Another thread has drawn my attention to the theoretical magnetic monopole, and I now realize that Maxwell apparently thought that there must be such a thing to "symmetrize" his electrical equations.

I've been doing some googling and found "Nonstandard physics/Magnetic monopole" on Wikiversity:

A magnetic monopole is a hypothetical particle in physics that is a magnet with only one pole (see Maxwell's equations for more on magnetic poles). In more technical terms, it would have a net "magnetic charge." Modern interest in the concept stems from particle theories, notably the grand unification theory and superstring theories, which predict their existence.

The magnetic monopole was first hypothesized by Pierre Curie in 1894, but the quantum theory of magnetic charge started with a 1931 paper by Paul Dirac. In this paper, Dirac showed that the existence of magnetic monopoles was consistent with Maxwell's equations only if electric charges are quantized, which is observed. Since then, several systematic monopole searches have been performed. Experiments in 1975 (Price et all) and 1982 (Blas Cabrera) produced candidate events that were initially interpreted as monopoles, but are now regarded as inconclusive.

Monopole detection is an open problem in experimental physics. Within theoretical physics, some modern approaches assume their existence. Joseph Polchinski, a prominent string-theorist, described the existence of monopoles as "one of the safest bets that one can make about physics not yet seen." These theories are not necessarily inconsistent with the experimental evidence: in some models magnetic monopoles are unlikely to be observed, because they are too massive to be created in particle accelerators, and too rare in the universe to enter a particle detector.

Some condensed matter systems propose a superficially similar structure, known as a flux tube. The ends of a flux tube form a magnetic dipole, but since they move independently, they can be treated for many purposes as independent magnetic monopole quasiparticles. In late 2009 a large number of popular publications incorrectly reported this phenomenon as the long-awaited discovery of magnetic monopoles, but the two phenomena are not related. However, they are considered interesting in their own right, and are an area of active research.

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 06:35 AM

Originally posted by ImaFungi
what I mean there... is the activity on a small scale which allows electrons to produce a field around a magnet and interact with another magnet across a distance of space without touching, maybe a similar effect to how the earth creates a "gravity" field and interacts with the moon across a distance of space without touching...

I hope you do realize that two electrons literally NEVER touch. They interact via a field.

are there cases where electric currents or electric charges attract one another?

How about you read a physics book, as I suggested before, or make the really modest effort of perusing Wikipedia?

but, the moon and earth are composed or electrons

You can't ignore the atomic nuclei, they make up most of the mass in the first place.

, so is there no way the revolution of the moon around the earth can be due to electric potentials in some way?

No as the necessary potentials are not there.

Good. Your time is best spent learning the traditional way. Like, putting effort in it.

just trying to think...

I'm afraid it's not working.

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:30 AM

I hope you do realize that two electrons literally NEVER touch. They interact via a field.

And do you realize, electrons pop in and out of our perceived existence?

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

Source

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Americanist

I hope you do realize that two electrons literally NEVER touch. They interact via a field.

And do you realize, electrons pop in and out of our perceived existence?

But do you realize that corn pops in the microwave? I feel I should mention this since it's the same level of relevance to the discussion, you are pretty consistent in doing this.

posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 11:03 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist

I hope you do realize that two electrons literally NEVER touch. They interact via a field.

And do you realize, electrons pop in and out of our perceived existence?

But do you realize that corn pops in the microwave? I feel I should mention this since it's the same level of relevance to the discussion, you are pretty consistent in doing this.

I hope you own a vending machine company... You're pretty consistent with mentioning food.

posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

. . . So the dream of low-cost electricity is at the door. . . . Testing on this new reactor should begin by the summer of 2013.

On Facebook today I now see a Comment that makes that seem doubtful. The guy Zoltan had posted a previous LaPoint patent:

Primer Fields Zoltan, it works it just doesn't produce net energy. I have no other patents for energy production devices in the works. I hope to begin testing a new design that is entirely different than the one you posted this summer. But we will see if I really have the time to work on it. There is so much to do.

Hmmmm. I wonder why he said, "So the dream of low-cost electricity is at the door. . . "
Oh well.

posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 05:51 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Hmmmm. I wonder why he said, "So the dream of low-cost electricity is at the door. . . "
Oh well.

Prolly just got excited and over optimistic

posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 06:00 AM
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

Yeah, but restraint is wise when you're posting things on YouTube and getting others excited right along with you.

Yes, I'm irritated.

This is not to say that I'm losing faith in new energy devices. I'm not. But it gets discouraging sometimes.

posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:07 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi
and the moon doesnt even have a magnetic field I dont think.. but, the moon and earth are composed or electrons, so is there no way the revolution of the moon around the earth can be due to electric potentials in some way?

No. The Moon is effectively uncharged (positives and negatives balanced) so there is no bulk effect on the motion of the moon.

The motion of charged particles from the Sun (solar wind protons) is strongly influenced by the Earth's magnetic field and self-generated fields from the plasma of moving charges. The interaction with the atmosphere becomes visible in the polar aurorae.

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 06:12 AM
PF3 is posted:

Published on Feb 9, 2013

This installment of The Primer Fields explains the dual nature of light and other electromagnetic radiation.

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
This work is introduced in a YouTube video. It is Part 1 of a series of 5 more videos yet to be uploaded.

In PF3 he changed this to a total of 7 videos.

PF4 is going to elaborate on the structure of all matter.

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:54 AM
reply to post by Mary Rose

Im thirty minutes into it and totally love how he explains everything which makes it easy to understand.

What did you think of the concentrations of photons and their magnetic fields?

top topics

9