David LaPoint's Theory of the Structure of All Matter

reply to post by MamaJ


I didn't focus on that.

What did you think of it?

reply to post by Mary Rose


It makes sense. The Sun could be thought of as a giant photon with extended electromagnetic fields.

The photons and or electrons (with their extended electromagnetic fields) interfering with itself, again, makes sense to me.

reply to post by MamaJ


He emphasized particles within particles/energy within energy, right? That sounds holographic, and when things are holographic, all the parts contain the information for the whole. That rings true to me.

reply to post by Mary Rose


If I remember correctly they are not actually particles but concentrations of energy?

reply to post by MamaJ


He may have said particle of energy. I don't know.

Originally posted by MamaJ
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?

The extent of the mag field depends on the energy , but he also assumes that in the double slit,
the photons are aimed between the slits. Nonetheless good presentation of te subject matter
where again he assumes the bowl shaped mag fields as a fact.
Lets wait till he completes all his 7 videos

Looks like matter will be covered in next video.. Here is his reply to me on FB. www.facebook.com...

Jennifer, everything is ultimately just concentrations of energy. E=Mc2. This applies to both electromagnetic radiation (photons) and matter(electrons). Matter will be covered in PF 4.

reply to post by MamaJ


Yeah I was surprised when I saw that. The electron as representing matter.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by MamaJ

 

Yeah I was surprised when I saw that. The electron as representing matter.

That is interesting. Maybe LaPoint and Wippler could discuss this in the One on One Debate Forum here? No outside interference there.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


I don't think LaPoint would quibble with the concept of the electron actually being a south magnetic monopole. He already says all matter is surrounded by magnetic fields of north and south orientation. LawrenceWippler says the nucleus of the atom has counter-rotating north and south magnetic monopoles circulating through its center creating a magnetic dipole and magnetic lines of force. I don't recall LaPoint talking about the proton at all. He would just have to agree that the proton is actually a north magnetic monopole.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I don't recall LaPoint talking about the proton at all. He would just have to agree that the proton is actually a north magnetic monopole.

Do you think that he "would just have to agree"? Is it not imposing a dogma on an unwilling mind?

Well, there is that, and also the fact that the experimental evidence is unequivocal in determining important features of the physics of the proton, of which most important is: the proton is a composite particle. It is remarkable that people like Lawrence Wippler are so deeply ignorant of basic facts in modern science. And there is more -- the proton has a magnetic moment, so it can't possibly be a monopole. It's a dipole.

It's a bitter irony that the ATS forum, which is meant to promote knowledge and education, is becoming a parade of imbeciles who can't think straight, but feel compelled to post yet another "Grand Unification Theory" du jour, as is the case of the "monopole theory", "vortex math" and other crap of the same level of brain death kind of reasoning.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by MamaJ

 

Yeah I was surprised when I saw that. The electron as representing matter.

What, you thought that the electron was immaterial?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Oh another one. See the other case of the worst of ATS: The ATS swagger.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

So far there are 103 Comments about the video on Facebook. It is very interesting to read others' thoughts and ideas and LaPoint's responses. No matter what happens, I think this series has to make a contribution to progress in physics.

Here's one:

Primer Fields Farooq, the main point to my theory is that you cannot have a photon without its fields. You also cannot make sense of how the photon behaves without taking into account the fields around it that contain some of the total energy of the photon. So I show the photon the way I see it and it seems like it works for most people so far. But I definitely would like to be able to animate the photon as the flowing energy field that I show in 2d in a 3d flowing animation. Then you would see some of the energy going through the second slit and most of the energy going through the first slit. If no energy goes through the second slit then there is no interference. This happens when the slits get too far apart. You have been told what a photon is, but no one has a picture of one. I am showing you that a photon is the fields and the fields confine most of the energy to the nucleus of the fields. So showing the photon without the fields would not help anyone as the fields determine how the photon responds to the slit edges.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Oh another one.

Wait, you displayed amazement at a statement that electrons are matter. I expressed my amazement that this is news to you.

OK, for the benefit of your education, I'll try to make this impression permanent:

electrons ARE matter. Here, you learned something today.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You could stand to learn some things.

My reason regarding the electron is that I think of the atom as the representation of matter.

It doesn't make any difference what I thought, however. The problem is arrogance in posting. That's the ATS swagger.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

You could stand to learn some things.

Of course!

My reason regarding the electron is that I think of the atom as the representation of matter.

So we just plugged a glaring hole in your education. Good. Matter is not always represented by an atom, and vice versa.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Matter is not always represented by an atom, and vice versa.

Fine.

Think of that as a glaring hole if it makes you feel important.

Matter itself is poorly defined according to THE FREE DICTIONARY in the definition of "mass."

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It's a bitter irony that the ATS forum, which is meant to promote knowledge and education,

Hmm...I really don't think it is. I've been here a few years, and it's always been 99% drivel. It's an entertainment site - somewhere to waste time.

I've got to admit though, this thread is full of so much facepalm, it's crazy.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
It's an entertainment site - somewhere to waste time.

Yes, largely, but not for me.

I'm looking for the cutting edge in science and technology.

Appeals to the authority of the mainstream don't impress me. In fact, they're an admission of a lack of discernment in my view.