Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

David LaPoint's Theory of the Structure of All Matter

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
On Facebook LaPoint has posted a link to the PHYS ORG article "Giant, magnetized outflows from our galactic center."

In the article, I see the keywords:


. . . They argue that the activity is driven by star-formation activity, rather than black-hole activity . . .




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Nice find... Here is a comment below (from the link) that made me go hmmmmmmm??


The ridges are more likely due to the cyclic nature of the core star, producing superwave cosmic ray outbursts as LaViolette contends. But then, such outbursts would deny the Black Hole singularity nonsense and the Huge Bang Fantasy. And no astronomer hoping for a successful career can make such an assertion. Read more at: phys.org...


Off topic:

Did you ever read the book by Shafica? I have been reading books.google.com... =en&sa=X&ei=RXoIUaPpOIn49gSVwYCIBg&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=viola%20petitt%20neal%20was%20born&f=false

Its title is ,"The Chakras and the Human Energy Fields"
By Shafica Karagulla, Dora Van Gelder Kunz

Its research team also includes Viola Petitt Neal. I still want to get my hands on Through the Curtain.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


LaViolette is another person Kerry Cassidy has interviewed.

No, I haven't read The Chakras and the Human Energy Fields. I noticed on Facebook that LaPoint pointed out that his main interest is the human energy field and that astrophysics is secondary for him.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Im becoming more and more interested in the human energy field as well. I have always pondered but never really serious about educating myself until recently.

Some of our greatest thinkers were interested in it, so there must be something more to the human than we give credit for. Ive always wondered though, why something such as this subject would require so much time and effort when if it is meant to be such.... it would not require so much time and effort. Does that make sense?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
More screenshots:



LaPoint commented that he sees in the above what he would define as the Strong Force.

The pattern shown is also seen here:



This is the worse misrepresentation of real effects and something that was touched upon previously. Something that looks right, but isn't quite what is being shown

The pattern like this is caused by the system reaching a minimum energy configuration all systems do this, It is for example hexagonal close packing. What people dont seem to understand is that the picture of the hexabenzocoronene ... shows the bonds, so the light green parts are bonds between atoms, and the atoms themselves are in the vertices. The video misrepresents it suggesting that the red parts are were the atoms reside... and it even gets that wrong because of the pattern does not match at all on the outside, it proves itself wrong and ignores the fact because 'it looks right'

For the record I have watched the whole video, and someone owes me my wasted time back.

So look up the molecule, look up the image and overlay them... then overlay the demonstration made with balls... it is... tongue in cheek... balls



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
The video in the original post:

a) "This will change the world" - check
b) Flashy graphics to impress simple minds - check
c) Copious amounts of New Age music to compensate for lack of substance - check
d) Reference to the spherical shape of the building that houses the CERN museum of science as "evidence" - check
e) mention of the LHC without any substance or merit, but just to create an illusion of being scientific - check
f) Shooting a ball bearing into a canister as "evidence" - check
g) No relation to the physics we readily observe in the experiment - check

Welcome to Kookland.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:13 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.


Translation:

"I liked the New Age aspect of the video, the sound effects, pictures of the galaxies and the overall feeling important, because I entertain the illusion of getting some sort of understanding without doing the actual work that's needed to learn stuff. But please don't ask me what exactly is the take-away from this video, it ruins my illusion and peace".



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


You don't know what specifically LaPoint is saying represents what. He was not that specific in the video.

I think the main point he was making is that the Strong Force is an unnecessary part of the Standard Model, and that his model represents a better model for magnetism.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
All of the video is bullcr@p (with the exception of the nice picture of the CERN Dome, I like that structure. It's right next to the tram stop, opposite to the main entrance).

But what's around 3:50 in this video is just mind-numbing stupidity. Green photon in the middle? Electromagnetic fields of opposite polarity? Please. Magnetic fields cannot be of "North Magnetic Orientation" or "South Magnetic Orientation". If there are magnetic poles, there are field line emanating from one and coming to the other. This nonsense is followed by a statement that is patently false, regarding the fields of the particles. Come on, we measure these fields. They are described by a magnetic dipole moment, not by "blue and red" donuts. Between 4:30 and 4:50, he's freely confusing the sources of the fields with the fields themselves. In his experiments, the source is bowl shaped, but the field is close to dipole. Ironically, he demonstrates this himself at 31:01. This is lost on Mr.LaPoint and his hugely ignorant New Age audience.

27:30 -- sorry, but manufacturing two bowls, painting them red and blue, and pouring small objects in them DOES NOT demonstrate how the Crab Nebula was formed. The mushroom shape of the doorknob does not explain how the nuclear explosion takes place. Again, this is lost on the ignorami.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   


For the record I have watched the whole video, and someone owes me my wasted time back.
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Your attitude shows your opinion about the video is not credible at all.

You aint owed a thing.

You have options in life and must not blame others for your choices.... its called growing up and accepting responsibility.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.


Translation:

"I liked the New Age aspect of the video, the sound effects, pictures of the galaxies and the overall feeling important, because I entertain the illusion of getting some sort of understanding without doing the actual work that's needed to learn stuff. But please don't ask me what exactly is the take-away from this video, it ruins my illusion and peace".


I like conversations with mature adults, not trolls. Haven't you learned this by now?

Do you follow the OP around trolling or what? Your opinion is not worthy to discuss.... not with me anyway.

Maybe others in this thread will entertain your thoughts with you because you lost all credibility when you typed "new age" because it shows you do not know me, my thoughts, nor my perception nor what the conversation was about that you quoted. Silly troll!



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ



For the record I have watched the whole video, and someone owes me my wasted time back.
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Your attitude shows your opinion about the video is not credible at all.

You aint owed a thing.

You have options in life and must not blame others for your choices.... its called growing up and accepting responsibility.


I agree! It would be nice that people would own it to themselves to study a little. Open a book, do a few problems in physics etc, maybe a little experiment or two. That's a part of growing up. But there are some others, who are happy to blindly accept the utter crap published by the likes of LaPoint. I showed in my post where he squarely contradicts himself, as well as makes ridiculous statements concerning the shape of the museum at CERN. Duh.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ

Do you follow the OP around trolling or what? Your opinion is not worthy to discuss.... not with me anyway.


I went as far as to give a synopsis of the video with the actual timeline attached. It doesn't get more honest or detail-oriented.

And I'm not surprised that you don't care about any of that, or facts, or physics, or anything outside a comfy little illusion of knowledge and some New Age stuff thrown in for a good measure. Ignorance is ignorance, and no matter how you color the bowls, or paste a picture of the LHC, this will remain with you.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by MamaJ

Do you follow the OP around trolling or what? Your opinion is not worthy to discuss.... not with me anyway.


I went as far as to give a synopsis of the video with the actual timeline attached. It doesn't get more honest or detail-oriented.

And I'm not surprised that you don't care about any of that, or facts, or physics, or anything outside a comfy little illusion of knowledge and some New Age stuff thrown in for a good measure. Ignorance is ignorance, and no matter how you color the bowls, or paste a picture of the LHC, this will remain with you.




Oh I read it. Its filled with an uneducated analysis.... get with the times. You are way behind. Why must you follow Mary around trolling?

You call others ignorant.... how grown up of you.... come off your high horse and try to have an intelligent two way conversation. I wont entertain your cynical and grumpy all knowing attitude after I click reply. Troll elsewhere.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
That moron LaPoint draws a green dot, calls it a "photon", and then surrounds it with "electromagnetic fields of opposite polarity".

Photon IS a way to describe the field. It's not "surrounded by fields", much less of "opposite polarity".

It takes a fair dosage of both stupidity and lack of education to not see that.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Are you stating you think a photon does not have or could be surrounded by fields?

Do away with your insults.... they are not helping you one bit.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Are you stating you think a photon does not have or could be surrounded by fields?


That's exactly what I'm saying. Photon IS the field. A piece of cheese is a piece of cheese. It's not surrounded by other cheeses to qualify as cheese.


Do away with your insults...


I think my reaction to the nonsense of Mr.LaPoint is quite fair. When I see something (a) misleading (b) contradicting observable facts (c) contradicting itself -

I seriously don't know how to qualify it apart from RUBBISH.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
That moron LaPoint draws a green dot, calls it a "photon", and then surrounds it with "electromagnetic fields of opposite polarity".


I believe the green dot is an electron not a photon.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
That moron LaPoint draws a green dot, calls it a "photon", and then surrounds it with "electromagnetic fields of opposite polarity".


I believe the green dot is an electron not a photon.


Believe what you will, but he's first using a green dot to represent photon at 2:28, and then he's crystal clear about it at 3:40 and on.

And again note that he's using "bowl shaped emitters" (which are magnets) interchangeably with "bowl shaped fields", many times in the video. That's a slight of hand. The emitter of the field is not the field.

edit on 30-1-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Yeah he does say green photon.

I thought it was an electron because of the bar magnet type fields in the electron diagram followed by the proposed correcting model in comparison.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join