David LaPoint's Theory of the Structure of All Matter

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I am asking YOU.... have YOU watched the video? If not, do so and when you are finished we will discuss it and I will entertain your questioning with answers.

Ive read your threads and KNOW what you are trying to do. I am not playing your "game" by your rules. I have my own set of rules.

I am asking you to substantiate your opinions and conclusions. After all, this is the Science & Technology forum, assertions are expected to be substantiated. Evidently you wish to avoid having to substantiate any of the statements you have made and instead attempt avoid any push to justify your conclusions. Informed discussion is evidently not your agenda.
edit on 25-1-2013 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


You wrote: I am asking you to substantiate your opinions and conclusions. After all, this is the Science & Technology forum, assertions are expected to be substantiated. Evidently you wish to avoid having to substantiate any of the statements you have made and instead attempt avoid any push to justify your conclusions. Informed discussion is evidently not your agenda.

HAVE YOU WATCHED THE VIDEO? Yes or no? This thread presented an hour long video to be discussed and while you have not watched the video, you want to discuss it?! Makes no sense. You want me to answer you all the while you ignore my questions after I specifically told you that I will not entertain such until you have watched the video.

Evidently you wish to jump to conclusions because of my "peer reviewed" comment. You wish for me to further my explanation about peer review so you can rant and I am not one to go back and forth. I know where you stand. I have read your rant thread and understand what you are doing.

My conclusions do not need to be justified by you. I do not need your approval, thank you anyway.


Discuss the OP or be done. The topic is not my thoughts or opinion.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Please stop dragging this discussion off-topic with your diversionary tactics. For the final time, I am asking you about your conclusions. Explain the capacity in which you are speaking when you draw such conclusions as well as the basis for your comment regarding peer review. I'm not asking about my conclusions on the video, I'm asking you about your conclusions. If you are unwilling or incapable of doing so then I have nothing more to say on the matter.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Wow this video is interesting.... WATCH IT !!!



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Please stop dragging this discussion off-topic with your diversionary tactics. For the final time, I am asking you about your conclusions. Explain the capacity in which you are speaking when you draw such conclusions as well as the basis for your comment regarding peer review. I'm not asking about my conclusions on the video, I'm asking you about your conclusions. If you are unwilling or incapable of doing so then I have nothing more to say on the matter.


Incapable? Excuse yourself from this thread then. That is fine by me. If you do not know the problems with peer review then educate yourself. Reread your thread about peer review and see where I fit in. I do not need to explain myself to you and the more you ask the more I wonder what your motive is. I actually do not care what you think so save it for someone else. Please.

This thread is about the video/theory in regards to matter. Watch it and we will discuss it. Otherwise go back to your rant thread and get the rest of your irritation out on a thread in which the subject you are wanting to discuss, fits.

I take it you have not yet watched the video.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by R3KR
 


Thank you. I tried to give members a glimpse of what LaPoint is saying, but if people don't have time to watch the video, in my opinion, they have no business commenting.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Have you read his comments yet on his channel? Here are a couple more...


Sound is the vibration not of air, but actually it is the vibration of the EM fields around every focal point (singularity) in the air. The speed of sound is the speed at which the EM fields of air transfer vibration (sound waves) Light is next. Tomorrow.



One more thought. So the fields are around each particle or COE and each COE has a focal point or singularity. The fields keep the focal points apart and yet hold them together at the same time. So in the air around you is an interlinked matrix of these fields. Sound vibrates the matrix and this vibration of the matrix is how sound is transferred. In space (vacuum) the distance between focal points is too great for the vibration to transfer to the next field so no sound. Nothing to vibrate.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


edit on 01/25/13 by Mary Rose because: Remove post.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ


Incapable? Excuse yourself from this thread then.

You've said a lot of words for someone who cannot answer two simple and direct questions. I will, however, offer my conclusions of True Believers such as yourself and pseudo-scientific threads such as this based on my nearly 8 year observation of this site:

a) They will unquestionably believe whatever fad pseudo-scientific flight of fancy with pretty pictures and feel good statements comes their way. It just "seems right", yet they cannot substantiate why in scientific terms.

b) Ironically, they never hold up pseudo-science to the same supposed level of scrutiny they hold actual science.

c) They can conclude that pseudo-scientific explanations are credible yet offer no explanation as to why whilst demonstrating a staggering level of ignorance regarding scientific concepts and theories supposedly usurped by the pseudo-science. After all, the explanation with the fancy pictures and easily digested factoids just "seems right". Why? We will never know.

d) They make bold, sweeping statements about scientific method and the scientific community in general when it is evident they have not been within 100 miles of a science classroom or an actual scientist.

e) Education is hard. Training yourself to a level of competency and expertise takes time, motivation and intellectual capacity. It's far easier to wolf down some feel-good nonsense with cool animations than it is to understand the very scientific concepts these videos attack.

f) Perhaps most fatally, their Dunning-Kruger levels of incompetency prohibit them from ever understanding how wrong and ignorant their beliefs about science really are. As a result, such "discussion" invariably become glorified Gish Gallops that go round and round ad nauseum.

But by all means demonstrate my conclusions wrong by answering my questions regarding your conclusions.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ

Have you read his comments yet on his channel? Here are a couple more...


Sound is the vibration not of air, but actually it is the vibration of the EM fields around every focal point (singularity) in the air. The speed of sound is the speed at which the EM fields of air transfer vibration (sound waves) . . .


I am very interested in that one. I want to understand the relationship between sound and EM.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
Here is what I am reading at present. www.youtube.com...


Here's another comment of interest, posted a week ago:


I am working as fast as I can. I am working on a paper for publication in pdf format that will explain my theories from A to Z. But it is turning out to be to be a small book. It will be linked to new videos that I will be putting up at the same time. SO if you are reading the paper about a certain subject you will be able to click on that link and it will take you directly to that section of the video showing that subject. This way you get the best of both of printed text and video technology. Some things the mind can absorb and comprehend better by reading and some things are better understood by visual images. It is going to be really cool. It will be a physics education in a day. It will also link to other studies from NASA, ESA, and other major institutions. The support data is everywhere and I have spent six years collecting it all. Hopefully by the end of the month it will be uploaded.


He's also posted that he can no longer answer questions there. I can understand why, judging by the time it is apparent that it takes away from his work.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

OMG, this finally explains why Aurora Borealis can also be observed along earth equator!!

Except there is no equatorial Aurora Borealis. ROFL.

Lesson: Relying in some random youtube videos when dealing with science might be not the most productive approach.



Were you really ROFL? That's only happened to me once in my life, at a scene in a movie. I fell off my chair and ROFL. So I never use the initials unless it really happens, which it hasn't yet about anything else. LOBS.

In relationship to the OP's diagram, remember the data that came out recently about the two jets of plasma or gas or something shooting out two sides of the black hole at the center of the galaxy? That looks like your diagram.
edit on 25-1-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose


the 'matter' looks like it's held real comfortable there between the 2 field areas.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Another screenshot:



Can you see his overlay of his model?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Just got back home from a short work day. I have to tell you, I have been pondering this video ever since I watched it earlier.

I'm really trying to wrap my mind around the theory and how it will indeed change everything IF said theory proves true.

As you know the entire EM theory in regards to sound and consciousness is of interest to me too as we both have been discussing the EM field in the other thread for some time now.

Now that I'm home my son is wanting to watch the video to see what it is this guy is proposing. It will be interesting to see what he thinks.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Thanks for your interest.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the subsequent videos will be posted along with the .pdf he has promised.
About another week to go for Part 2.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ

One more thought. So the fields are around each particle or COE and each COE has a focal point or singularity. The fields keep the focal points apart and yet hold them together at the same time. So in the air around you is an interlinked matrix of these fields. Sound vibrates the matrix and this vibration of the matrix is how sound is transferred. In space (vacuum) the distance between focal points is too great for the vibration to transfer to the next field so no sound. Nothing to vibrate.


Elsewhere in his comments he identifies COE as "concentrations of energy."

Maybe we should just think of particles as concentrations of energy. That might change our mindset.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I asked my son what he thought about it when we were finished watching it and he said, "WOW Mom, he is on to something. I learned about the bar magnet in school and this theory explains it much better and explains shapes and colors as well. I too think it holds water (better word~ gravity lol ) ... we will see.

Another week is too long to wait for the next video but I guess patience really is a virtue.


Watching it for the second time I wonder.... so what is it with Black Holes via opposing magnetic bowls. How does it explain the behavior of a black hole?

COE~ Particles~ life~ energy~principles at work.... I could go on and on. lol
edit on 25-1-2013 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


I think he's saying black holes don't exist. He's saying the misconception in science he has pinpointed was what caused the subsequent misconception of a black hole, as well as dark energy and dark matter. But I'll have to go back and listen again to be more specific than that! I have to watch and re-watch this stuff.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Watched the whole video and its pretty eye opening. I am still confused about those magnetic bowls? What are they made of ?, how are they made ? Is the "north pole" on the bottom or top ?... I know magnets need to have a n/s pole, so where are they on the bowls ?

PS: I know in the video he said one is north and one is south, but how can they only have one polarity ?





top topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join