David LaPoint's Theory of the Structure of All Matter

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:18 PM
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.


you are so ass backwards its ridiculous, the subject of this thread is that video and the presentation given in it,

the subject of your post is to question the opinion of the person who posted the video,

CLEARLY you are the very one who is "dragging this discussion off-topic with your diversionary tactics" the op has only attempted many many times to redirect your attention back to the video and you have refused,




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Her two cents isn't the subject topic of the thread....The video is....Quit dragging threads off-topic by attacking the people and views on it; get over yourself man..I don't blame her for ignoring you, it's the path everybody should be taking. Including me; enjoy the video, or don't...


One last time: if someone asks you to substantiate your statements you are under no obligation to do so. What you do is not respond, you do not keep responding but ducking the questions at hand. Ignoring someone would involve not responding. Simple. Now you can follow suite.
i think your problem is your to stupid to know the difference between an opinion and a statement,

the statements made are in that video,

all else is opinion and conjecture,

you want statements, watch the damn video



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:00 AM
link   
By searching on the internet I have been unable to identify the meaning of the physics notation that I've enclosed in red below:



Can someone identify it for me?



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


might be this... en.wikipedia.org...

or just designating that the electron is a fermion and has a integer spin of 1/2....

but I think Ms might be for magnetic spin since the graphic is detailing magnetism

The plus and minus show the two different spin states of the electron... I think it is to detail how electrons interact with one another and other matter...
edit on 27-1-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


edit on 27-1-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)#Magnetic_moments
edit on 27-1-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
but I think Ms might be for magnetic spin since the graphic is detailing magnetism


I think it may be a lower case "m" rather than "M." I see one on "List of common physics notations," but it's italicized, which I see makes a difference. I don't see a non-italicized "m."

And I can't find a list of the subscripts except for a short list of common ones, but "s" isn't on it.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by ImaFungi
but I think Ms might be for magnetic spin since the graphic is detailing magnetism


I think it may be a lower case "m" rather than "M." I see one on "List of common physics notations," but it's italicized, which I see makes a difference. I don't see a non-italicized "m."

And I can't find a list of the subscripts except for a short list of common ones, but "s" isn't on it.


The lower case 'm' in this case is used to represent the quantum number for the z component of angular momentum, the _s subscript refers to spin, because there is also orbital angular momentum.

Total angular momentum (called 'j' or 'l' typically, or upper case versions there of) is always non-negative.

The z-component quantum numbers goes from -J to +J in steps of 1. Since J = 1/2 for an electron by itself, the electron z component is either down, m_s=-1/2 or up m_s=1/2.

Electrons create a magnetic field due to their intrinsic spin, even if they are at rest. This is just how they are and appears to be an intrinsic property of an elementary particle. i.e. no further structure inside them. If they move through space, they create additional magnetic fields as described by Maxwell's equations.

In a ferromagnetic material (a "permanent magnet") for instance, there are a macroscopic imbalance in the number of up and down spins and this results in a macroscopically observable magnetic field.

Otherwise, in ordinary materials the spins are pointing in random directions and there is no large scale magnetic field.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Thank you very much!



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
.

Wow love the info and it jogs with other theories from the fringe .. thx

Only new perspectives will take us forward .

.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Nice try... it's just a little off...

I guess recalibration is in order, eh?

Or is it still just a lack of resolution?



The laws of Physics huh? They certainly can be a [snip] cant they?
edit on 27-1-2013 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
The lower case 'm' in this case is used to represent the quantum number for the z component of angular momentum, the _s subscript refers to spin, because there is also orbital angular momentum.


Focusing on that brings to my mind another of my threads on the topic of the need for modification of mainstream physics: "Lew Paxton Price's Challenge to Mainstream Physics." Price's website has a section on Spin:


The electron is the subatomic "particle" that is the basis of electricity, magnetism, natural electromagnetic waves such as light, and manmade electromagnetic waves such as radio. It has the property of "spin" which was not a discovery so much as a deduction by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck, resulting from their work on atomic spectra. Since that time, theories have been put forth (Dirac and Kusch) which give rules for spin and supposedly explain why it exists. . . .


Price believes the electron is not a particle but a vortex. And LaPoint has a vortex inside each of those two toroids in his model.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by mbkennel
The lower case 'm' in this case is used to represent the quantum number for the z component of angular momentum, the _s subscript refers to spin, because there is also orbital angular momentum.


Focusing on that brings to my mind another of my threads on the topic of the need for modification of mainstream physics: "Lew Paxton Price's Challenge to Mainstream Physics." Price's website has a section on Spin:


The electron is the subatomic "particle" that is the basis of electricity, magnetism, natural electromagnetic waves such as light, and manmade electromagnetic waves such as radio. It has the property of "spin" which was not a discovery so much as a deduction by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck, resulting from their work on atomic spectra. Since that time, theories have been put forth (Dirac and Kusch) which give rules for spin and supposedly explain why it exists. . . .


Price believes the electron is not a particle but a vortex. And LaPoint has a vortex inside each of those two toroids in his model.





when he says he believes "it" is a vortex... what part of a vortex would it be? lets think of a water vortex or whirlpool..... the components are water.. and space between the vortexing water..... if the electron is a vortex would it be the water, or the space? and what does this theory say about the nature of the universe and all other particles... is only the electron a vortex? how is the vortex maintained for so long and how did nature make so many of them?



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ

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.


I guess tomorrow never came because I don't see where LaPoint talked about light next. Or, did he mean tomorrow as in the technology of tomorrow?


It seems that the relationship between sound and light is important because of the possibility for free energy technology associated with sonoluminescence. This is a quote from a link on KeelyNet about a Science News article, "From Science News, Vol. 146, October 15, 1994 - Making light of sound in solitary bubbles," comment contributed by Bert Pool:


I would like to point out that Norman Wootan has stated in the past that he believes the noble gases are one of the keys to free energy, and the new research on sonoluminescence and the increase of energy output by using noble gases in the collapsing bubble only bolster this position. It seems that argon, xenon, neon, and helium may not only be pivotal in plasma energy production, but in enhanced sonoluminescence as well! >> Bert



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
when he says he believes "it" is a vortex... what part of a vortex would it be?


Why are you asking what part of a vortex?

He states that the electron is a vortex. So think vortex, not part of a vortex.

Price is saying that mainstream science's explanation of spin is inadequate:


Electron spin is always present regardless of what is being done to the electron. This can only mean that there is an energy source that causes the electron to maintain a constant angular momentum. A spinning top or gyroscope has energy, but when either is disturbed, some of that energy is lost. Sufficient energy loss over a time will cause cessation of motion. In fact, with the possible exception of certain unseen subatomic "particles", we know of no thing without a known energy source which can maintain angular momentum when its energy is being removed.

Common sense and the law of conservation of energy would lead us to believe that electron spin is impossible, but electron spin is a well established fact . . .

. . . We have two obvious choices in classifying the electron: (1) it is a particle with its own embodied energy source and governor, and (2) it is something entirely different. It would appear that the first choice is incorrect or at least subject to revisions which have not been forthcoming. So logic dictates that we examine choice two.

What natural phenomenon, in our experience, has innate and relatively constant angular momentum, its own energy source, and its own governor? Actually several things fall into this category and none of them are exactly what we would call material "objects" such as a top or a gyroscope. The things which exhibit the aforementioned qualities are vortices. . . .



edit on 01/28/13 by Mary Rose because: Shorten



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I think we are living in times of the past whereas the past is coming back to rewrite our history in the present. What we thought we knew may not be accurate.

I am reading the free book, "The Evolution of Physics" and even Einstein knew the field lines were of most importance in our reality. It can be found here www.scribd.com...

Also, if you listen to this lecture it ties in with LaPoints theory as well.




posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


I have a lot of Manly's audio lectures ; they are really some great stuff, and I enjoyed his lecture on Astro-theology, in particular.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Its nice to hear there is someone else out here who loves his thinking as much as me. We are for sure, friends for life!


I honestly cannot get enough of his lectures. Truly a man of wisdom and believe him to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest thinker of our time.

They continue to upload more and more lectures of which I am so grateful. They always shed new light on my thoughts concerning the subject at hand.

I really believe Mr. LaPoint is on to something with this theory and although it may not be understood by us completely just yet, it may, by the time the entire theory is uploaded via the videos.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
I think we are living in times of the past whereas the past is coming back to rewrite our history in the present.


When I first read that I thought you were talking about something to do with time travel.

But that's not what you mean, right? You're talking about the fact that in the present we're drawing on information that came out in the past but was lost or not appreciated for its significance, and the information is now coming to the forefront?



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Of course! He is often cited as one of my biggest inspirations and a somewhat savior...

Up until I started studying Manly P. Halls work, I used to be one of those "anti-masons" or "anti-esoteric" crowd, generally because I didn't understand why the "Elite" used them, and attributed it to evil deeds...

Manly and a few others are the ones who helped me to see that they(esoteric and secret societies) were not in fact evil, but in a sense "the way", and that there was a heavy disinformation campaign to keep the ones within this 'matrix' under the control of the 'Elite'.

The Third eye is the key to everything, and he helped me see that. I am forever grateful for his saving wisdom, and inspiration he gave me to keep going forward with my research. It is only now that I understood after his readings why all the disinformation is in place, coupled with the fluoride in our water, etc; somebody does not want us messing with this stuff
edit on 28-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


I have most of Manly's more popular books, considering he wrote hundreds that I know of, and several of his audio lectures....The man was a gold mine of sacred wisdom, and is one of my biggest inspirations, and models of life. To possess the kind of knowledge he did, is to truly be wise in my opinion.

His 'Occult Anatomy of Man' was an absolutely fantastic read; and I have still yet to finish 'STOTA', but I have read through maybe about half of it, and it is just purely amazing. He's opened up so many avenues of exploration for me, I wish I had gotten the opportunity to meet him.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   


You're talking about the fact that in the present we're drawing on information that came out in the past but was lost or not appreciated for its significance, and the information is now coming to the forefront?
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Thats exactly what I was saying and sorry I was not clear but you did in fact "get it".

I was listening to Manly Hall's lecture the other day.... can't remember which one but I will go back in my history log to bring it in this thread if I haven't done so already. He was saying that we do in fact need to revisit the past in order to move forward in the present and here is a prime example of such.

We have got to go back and see where we went wrong. In fact, if David's theory holds true through the trials and tribulations it will go through before accepted it is because he went back in time to find the problem to the solution. "The Evolution of Physics" by Albert Einstein is a blast from the past and shows he (Einstein) was actually right all along.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join