David LaPoint's Theory of the Structure of All Matter

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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.

Well, good luck with that, as they say. You appear to be just looking at insane dribble on youtube.

Why not actually open a book and start educating yourself on the basics, so you are in a better position to judge what's garbage and what isn't? Oh no, sorry...that would involve some actual work and concentration - fantasy physics is so much easier....

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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."

Indeed it is. The Free Dictionary is confusing and does not comport with modern undersatnding. I quote a paragraph from it which is misleading and wrong.

Although mass must be distinguished from matter in physics, because matter is a poorly-defined concept, and although all types of agreed-upon matter exhibit mass, it is also the case that many types of energy which are not matter— such as potential energy, kinetic energy, and trapped electromagnetic radiation (photons)— also exhibit mass. Thus, all matter has the property of mass, but not all mass is associated with identifiable matter.

In actual physics usage today, "matter" typically refers to all particles with non-zero rest mass. This is a precisely defined concept. In the Standard Model you can enumerate them. In small extensions to the SM which appear to be experimentally justified, neutrinos also have rest mass (albeit small) so they count as 'matter'. For example, a phrase such as "massive neutrinos" means "neutrinos with positive mass" as opposed to other theoretical concepts of neutrinos which have no mass. (it would be uncommon to call short-lived massive force-carrying bosons "matter" but not really incorrect. Certainly any stable fermion with non-zero rest mass is "matter".)

People rarely use "relativistic mass" any more because it is confusing, and the word "mass" is used to mean rest mass. The practical import of a non-zero mass relates to inertia: an opposing force will slow down a particle moving in a given direction but because of inertia it will continue to travel in the original direction for some time/distance. This does not happen with zero mass particles.

Furthermore, though all matter gravitates, particles/fields with zero rest mass can and do feel and cause gravitation. And similarly particle/fields can transmit momentum without associated mass.

And this next quote from the dictionary is not meaningful either:

However, relativity adds the fact that all types of energy have an associated mass, and this mass is added to systems when energy is added, and the associated mass is subtracted from systems when the energy leaves. In such cases, the energy leaving or entering the system carries the added or missing mass with it, since this energy itself has mass. Thus, mass remains conserved when the location of all mass is taken into account.

Confusing paragraphs like this explain why physicists don't use the word 'mass' like this. It adds nothing but confusion. More correctly physicists say that there are global energy conservation relationships in which rest mass equivalent energy and other energy must be taken into account in total.

Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica relate 'mass' to inertia which is better.

reply to post by FatherLukeDuke


Two posts filled with insults.

What, if anything do you have to contribute to this thread besides showing some sort of pathetic superiority you think you possess??

What is your opinion on the threads subject?

If you have opened up a book lately you would notice many theories being considered as the book remains forever open.

Where are your papers or reviews? I would love to read them as I bow to your knowledge and insight.

reply to post by mbkennel


Concepts and theories can and do change,did you know that? Science books do not say "the end".

"Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning." ~Albert Einstein

reply to post by FatherLukeDuke


Excuse me. I read quite a bit.

You don't know what you're talking about.

YouTube is a goldmine for people who are shut out of censored mainstream physics. There are lots of self-educated people doing marvelous research. I prefer autonomous, independent, creative scientific endeavor.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Einstein said Michael Faraday's discovery (discovered electromagnetism) was an "audacious mental creation, which we owe chiefly to the fact that Faraday never went to school, and therefore preserved the rare gift of thinking freely.”

These people who use their words to criticize are either jealous or they are not free thinkers. Thats all I can think. Most of the time I try and not say anything but tonight is not one of those nights.

I too like the fact David has been taking time to answer questions on facebook. Its too bad others cannot speak politely about someone else's ideas. Thats the kind of discussion I like to entertain. Maybe its a chick thing?

All those comments on his page though and no one is getting upset or speaking down to him nor is he to his audience. I like that.

I enjoyed reading this comment below. It answered a question I had.

The diagram I use is the standard accepted diagram of em radiation. I would also have to believe that it is correct. The greater the magnetism the greater the electricity. They cycle about the zero point from minus 1 to plus one. At zero, both e and m are zero. This has been tested and confirmed many times from my understanding. My belief is that stars are recycling units that can go on indefinitely if all stays in balance. Energy is never destroyed. It is only converted. SO what if the new matter coming into a star from space is equal to the amount of energy that the star is losing to the outside system? Why would the energy level of the star ever have to lower? I will cover this more fully in PF 5 when I cover the Sun and the solar cycle. I also believe that light does in fact travel. To say otherwise goes against a lot of known science. I try and use what is accepted fact and work with that. I pay little attention to theories no matter where they originate. But hard facts I must fit to or I throw my idea out or must adjust it to fit. For instance in the Sun we have massive temperature variances. These I take to be a huge clue since this goes against all we know when it comes to temperature transfer. i.e. you don't have hot then cold then hot especially with a change of over 2 million degrees. But you are not alone in the star cycling idea as my buddy who taught college physics also has proposed that kind of an idea. I just do not see it as necessary. It adds something that is not required to explain what we see. So I don't add complexity unless it serves a purpose. But stars definitely can come to an end when things go wrong and the magnetic containment system fails as in the case of a SN. As I see it stars are a steady state system that recycle and therefore our universe may be infinitely old. We just don't like the concept of infinity. Things must have a beginning our minds believe. But why do they? The way I see it no matter what your beliefs in God or no god, if you are honest with yourself you must come to a place where something always was. Even if someone believes in the big bang, there had to be something before the big bang. BTW, Roger Penrose came out with a theory of the rings in the CMB originating from previous big bangs. In other words it went bang bang bang or cycled. This theory was pretty much shot down by his peers very quickly. I do not know all the objections, but I know his theory was not well received. I do see a cycling of the system, but more like the flowing model of the photon I animated in PF3. This also happens to fit with the flow patterns seen in the universe. Here is one link to an article on Penrose's cycling universe idea. scienceblogs.com...

www.facebook.com...

reply to post by Mary Rose


From the link he gave in the quoted paragraph from FB....

The Authors favorite theory...

You know the drill. New ideas come out all the time. Sometimes they’re new theories, sometimes they’re old theories with a new twist, but regardless, we need to ask the question: How good is your theory?

New Ideas? Nooooo!

The best ideas are beyond validated. They are confirmed over and over, predict new phenomena that gets verified, and don’t have any self-inconsistencies. Well, a couple of weeks ago, a new twist on an old idea was proposed by Roger Penrose.

Theory first. Then.... Verification.

Penrose is a really bright guy, and — among physicists and mathematicians — is incredibly well-respected. His specialty is in the physics and mathematics of spacetime, including tilings and tessellations

Credentials?

Penrose diagrams — mathematical ways to map infinite spacetimes onto a simple sheet of paper — are named after him. He also has a bit of fame from his work on singularities with Stephen Hawking.

Scientists of today, like this man, are not afraid to talk about consciousness and the origin thereof. I like that!

Some of his ideas are wrong.... but hey... trial and error... Thats learning ~ and life.

In this article it explains Inflation theory... before the big bang, or the "Inflation theory".

Penrose also has speculative ideas of a "cyclic Universe".

He found — quite surprisingly — that there are regions of space, shaped like concentric rings, where the temperatures are much more uniform than average. In other words, the amplitude of the fluctuations are anomalously low in these concentrically-shaped regions of space. So, you might think to ask yourself, how common are features like this? Is this in conflict with what we think the Universe is supposed to look like, or is this completely reasonable and consistent with what we expect? But Roger Penrose didn’t ask that question.

Instead, this finding was touted — by Penrose — as evidence that inflation is wrong, we live in a cyclic Universe, and these concentric circles are evidence of the Universe that existed before ours. Fortunately, as soon as Penrose pushed this paper, cosmologists were all over it

These features are normal, and completely within the realm of what we expect. So Penrose’s idea — that inflation is wrong and we live in a cyclic Universe — is my favorite kind of invalid theory.

Invalid theory? Yep....

Why is that my favorite? Because we learn from it. That’s one of the ways that science advances: we put out speculative ideas at the limits of our understanding, we test them for validity, and if we find the idea doesn’t hold up to the data, we cast it aside. And we do it, at least, until there’s new evidence that causes us to take it up again. So I hope you not only learned a little bit about a new idea, but that you also learned a lot about what we actually know, and how we know it!

What we know, and how we know. But... its only a knowing UNTIL there's new evidence.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
are shut out of censored mainstream physics. There are lots of self-educated people doing marvelous research. I prefer autonomous, independent, creative scientific endeavor.

edit on 02/12/13 by Mary Rose because: Typo

In science, and especially on You Tube, you can be autonomous, independent, creative, and completely totally nuts and wrong and profoundly ignorant.

Originally posted by mbkennel
I quote a paragraph from it which is misleading and wrong.

Although mass must be distinguished from matter in physics, because matter is a poorly-defined concept, and although all types of agreed-upon matter exhibit mass, it is also the case that many types of energy which are not matter— such as potential energy, kinetic energy, and trapped electromagnetic radiation (photons)— also exhibit mass. Thus, all matter has the property of mass, but not all mass is associated with identifiable matter.

In actual physics usage today, "matter" typically refers to all particles with non-zero rest mass.

I took the liberty of changing your tags for clarification.

You're saying it's misleading and wrong because the type of mass for matter is not pinpointed - it says "mass" when precisely it should have been "non-zero rest mass"?

I would have to say that a definition of matter as non-zero rest mass is not really better, because it leaves the question what is non-zero rest mass.

Originally posted by mbkennel
Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica relate 'mass' to inertia which is better.

So, if you say matter is all particles with non-zero rest mass, how would you define non-zero rest mass? As related to inertia? Or is that only "mass," and not precisely "non-zero rest mass"?

reply to post by mbkennel


Of course.

One has to evaluate everything on the internet. Not just YouTube.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

So, if you say matter is all particles with non-zero rest mass, how would you define non-zero rest mass? As related to inertia? Or is that only "mass," and not precisely "non-zero rest mass"?

Non-zero rest mass are the fundamental particles which interact with the Mass Monster. The Mass Monster is an invisible monster that exists at every point in the universe that was brought into existence some time after god started the big bang. Of course this begs the question, does the mass monster have its own mass? It also begs the question, when did all the particles with non-zero rest mass gain their mass powers? It also begs the question, what were they before they were granted such abilities?

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Einstein said Michael Faraday's discovery (discovered electromagnetism) was an "audacious mental creation, which we owe chiefly to the fact that Faraday never went to school, and therefore preserved the rare gift of thinking freely.”

Lol einsteins GR was even more audacious mentally retarded creation. While faraday was right, einstein hopelessly bungled it

Again in the Comments section on Facebook for PF3 someone has posted a link to a 19 page .pdf "Proposal for Research: Spherical Microwave Confinement."

The comment references circularly polarized light causing a spherical plasma configuration.

I cant help but think if bowl shaped magnets can hold and stream plasma as controlled as that, what could it do with antimatter?

not only that, but cold fusion.. were blasting hydrogen pellets with lasers to create a mini sun this field is perfectly shaped to contain that

i can even see it being uses to compress plasma.. anyway, i give it 2 thumbs up just cause I can see several things this would be usefull for

even if its just the discovery of a magnetic bowl

reply to post by hisshadow


You sound as if you have done some tinkering in a lab. Have you?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Again in the Comments section on Facebook for PF3 someone has posted a link to a 19 page .pdf "Proposal for Research: Spherical Microwave Confinement."

The comment references circularly polarized light causing a spherical plasma configuration.

I was just about to add the link as well.

Reading it now.

not only that, but cold fusion

reply to post by hisshadow


Glad someone else sees the potential this may offer!!!!

reply to post by Mary Rose



I actually haven't, but like einstein i do a lot of pictureing things while at work bored lol

The guy should get points for creating the first realistic looking warp core for sure lol Some of the pics with the plasma streaming out the top n bottom could have been ripped straight from the next generation technical schematic of the enterprise d's warp core.

But there is purpose too, could this be an efficient plasma pump? for use in plasma jets, where those streams are accelerated and routed into jet outlets

antimatter, well... we all know we need magnetic containment for antimatter, and this is the best ever magnetic containment system i've ever seen. to think that its as simple as a bowl lol we created less from a stone carved into a circle by cavemen so who knows in the future

cold fusion comes to mind, just cause after blasting a hydrogen pellet with lasers it goes poof and fizzles out... if that little sun ever stays lit.. gonna need containment for those mini solar winds


the simple fact it can 'contain' makes it monumental to me. with a more eleborate setup you could get compression although not sure how that applys... could you magnetically compress plasma into something else? or in cold fusion magneticallyl compress the mini star for a higher output...

theen there is the non electrical ideas such as, if magnetic fields dont work like we've always thought then maybe ufo's use this to somehow ride planetary magnetic waves.

oh the ideas the ideas...

if i have 3 ideas on applications, i bet Phage has 100

mmm.... just another instant idea, wonder if such a field could contain a lightening strike

Cities could install lightning rods that channeled the voltage into one of these containment systems where once held the power could be safely dripped out to houses and such

not only that but ... isnt water magnetic? could be a possible magnetic water pump there