Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

David LaPoint's Theory of the Structure of All Matter

page: 20
9
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi


What is your problem with Einstein's space-time? Do you think this system of universe began at some point? if so big bang? Is the energy/matter of the universe traveling through/in a nothingness of space? If the universe began at the big bang, did it exist in a nothingness of space? After the universe began was the new space in between energy/matter space that already existed outside the universe?
edit on 15-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


lol sir comedy.
I've posyed in numerous places elswhere on other threads.
You may look them up if inclined.




posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


So bottom line, mathematics for the sake of mathematics is okay by you. Just follow it up with experimentation.

String theory was like that? And it just could not be verified experimentally?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by ImaFungi


What is your problem with Einstein's space-time? Do you think this system of universe began at some point? if so big bang? Is the energy/matter of the universe traveling through/in a nothingness of space? If the universe began at the big bang, did it exist in a nothingness of space? After the universe began was the new space in between energy/matter space that already existed outside the universe?
edit on 15-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


lol sir comedy.
I've posyed in numerous places elswhere on other threads.
You may look them up if inclined.


instead of typing any of the words you just did, you could have just as easily answered my questions.. or tell me what you think?

Is space infinite?

Does nothingness ( true empty space) exist in the universe?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


So bottom line, mathematics for the sake of mathematics is okay by you. Just follow it up with experimentation.

String theory was like that? And it just could not be verified experimentally?


The thing is... Systems that work, follow some form of cause and effect. some form of laws, some form of logic. All math is, is logic. The universe is an extremely complex physical math equation. Math attempts to symbolize the physical laws and quantities and qualities of the universe, with numbers, to more easily comprehend the logic of the universe.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Math is important in any new theory, but math cannot stand on its own without experimental verification.


Shouldn't the math originate from observation - either observation of nature itself in action, or observation of experimental outcomes? And shouldn't that observation be delineated clearly before mathematical tools are generated to map it out?


Not necessarily, math can come first with predictions that will be verified by either experiment or
observations in nature.
Any new therory if correct, ought to be able to make predictions


Both of you are correct, Mary and the Angelic dude. Observation must indeed be well defined. If by magic of intuition a mathematician sees a behavior that can be described by a particular mathematical construct (such as a differential equation), then they might consider framing it as a theory. The theory then must have both descriptive powers (i.e. describe the evidence already existing) and predictive powers, which is to predict some new phenomena or quantity that we may be able to verify.

I have no doubt that string theory is built in a way that reduces to more common equations in the low energy limit (i.e. what we have at our disposal), while being significantly more complex and making predictions in the realm of very high energies (unobtainable so far). So it's hard to test with any certainty. It's just a tough cookie, doesn't make it correct or wrong.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Amazing.

The thing that is bothering me is... well, applying the principles to other fields. His primary concern is electromagnetic. Then he extrapolates to the strong. With matter ejection, I can imply the weak (though he never says this). What about other hypothetical fields? I can't imagine the Higg's field working like this. To say nothing of the inflationary field (inflatons). Maybe I haven't thought about it long enough.

And least of all gravity. But there are like another 3 hours of video I haven't seen yet (hello three day weekend!) So, maybe I'm putting the proton before the horse



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MisfitToy


And least of all gravity. But there are like another 3 hours of video I haven't seen yet (hello three day weekend!) So, maybe I'm putting the proton before the horse


Lol, you mean horses like in the buddha dudes avatar



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by ImaFungi


What is your problem with Einstein's space-time? Do you think this system of universe began at some point? if so big bang? Is the energy/matter of the universe traveling through/in a nothingness of space? If the universe began at the big bang, did it exist in a nothingness of space? After the universe began was the new space in between energy/matter space that already existed outside the universe?
edit on 15-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


lol sir comedy.
I've posyed in numerous places elswhere on other threads.
You may look them up if inclined.


instead of typing any of the words you just did, you could have just as easily answered my questions.. or tell me what you think?

Is space infinite?

Does nothingness ( true empty space) exist in the universe?



No, there is no such thing as true 'empty space' ... space is something, something that erupted and flowed into this plane of existance during the big bang and is ever expanding outward. Even if you could step outside of space there is no guarantee that this area was truelly empty to begin with. A step further if you were to completely step out of our 4 dimensions and observer spacetime from the outside there's still no guarantee you wouldnt be in another set of nested dimensions much like a fish in a tank, if he jumps out into your kitchen he's still somewhere.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by hisshadow
 

Much after the big bang,God said: let there be light.
our space , time and em were born at this instant.
so empty space has our time and em wave,
so while not truly empty does not mean that it can be bent
or is bent as assumed by einstein.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by hisshadow
 

Much after the big bang,God said: let there be light.
our space , time and em were born at this instant.
so empty space has our time and em wave,
so while not truly empty does not mean that it can be bent
or is bent as assumed by einstein.



much after the big bang space and time came into existence


a little before space and time came into existence...and a little after the big bang... what was the universe like? was there energy? was there space?

Do you agree energy/matter exists?

Did this energy/matter just 'poof' out of nowhere in the middle of infinite eternal empty space?



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

a little before space and time came into existence...and a little after the big bang... what was the universe like? was there energy? was there space?


Thats dark matter and dark energy, dark space but not our space



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by ImaFungi

a little before space and time came into existence...and a little after the big bang... what was the universe like? was there energy? was there space?


Thats dark matter and dark energy, dark space but not our space


how do you suppose dark matter and dark energy is related to energy and matter that is not dark?

space did not exist at that time? it was full of dark energy and matter? It is thought that right now 80% (or so) of what the universe is, is dark energy. Does this dark energy exist as a physical substance on top of or in an infinitely empty space? What physical component can cause this massive amount of dark energy to exist?



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
how do you suppose dark matter and dark energy is related to energy and matter that is not dark?

space did not exist at that time? it was full of dark energy and matter? It is thought that right now 80% (or so) of what the universe is, is dark energy. Does this dark energy exist as a physical substance on top of or in an infinitely empty space? What physical component can cause this massive amount of dark energy to exist?


after that God made the heavens and the earth. That is our matter as
we know it.
The other oddities, I do not have all the answers.yet
am working them out



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by hisshadow
 

Much after the big bang,God said: let there be light.
our space , time and em were born at this instant.
so empty space has our time and em wave,
so while not truly empty does not mean that it can be bent
or is bent as assumed by einstein.


Light was one of the first things that appeared in the process and after the BB. Same applies to space-time.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Light was one of the first things that appeared in the process and after the BB. Same applies to space-time.


No not according to the new theory that I am building.
You may call it an hypotheses if you wish.
edit on 16-2-2013 by Angelic Resurrection because: Typo



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
LaPoint's YouTube channel page says that PF4 will be proof of the Primer Fields at the molecular, atomic, and sub-atomic levels, and the release date will be February 27.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

lately hes been complaining about ppl criticising him
on his page and was thinking of closing his account with fb



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


Yeah, I saw that.

I have not been pleased with some of the things I've read that LaPoint has said. I've seen comments by him about other people in the public arena that I thought would have been better left unsaid. And I think that some of the comments made by others and interpreted by LaPoint as being inappropriate may simply be legitimate challenges to his theory rather than rudeness or "pseudoscience." Additionally, I am cautious, now, about his theory because I definitely believe he should not have made the statement he did in PF1 about the dream of low-cost electricity being at the door.

LaPoint has commented on Facebook about wanting to forget some things he knows. I suspect that he's been exposed to some ugly things, along the lines of black projects, because of the work his father did at Sandia Labs. It may be that he's wrestling with demons and this takes up a lot of his energy and has a deleterious effect on his perspective. I respect him for his apparent good heart in his mission regarding his other, and really main interest, whatever product it is that he's going to tell us more about later, related to the human energy field.

I think his heart is in the right place and I do look forward to the rest of his videos, and hopefully, he will release that .pdf he promised, as well.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I have not been pleased with some of the things I've read that LaPoint has said.


If I was LaPoint, I would really watch out. That sound grave.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
LaPoint's YouTube channel page says that PF4 will be proof of the Primer Fields at the molecular, atomic, and sub-atomic levels, and the release date will be February 27.


Now, it's on hold for important business matters.

I guess this could mean nothing, or it could mean things are things are not good behind the scenes.






top topics



 
9
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join