David LaPoint's Theory of the Structure of All Matter

page: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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.


Well Mary I understand - LaPoint is adept at being confusing... And I feel it's on purpose.




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Even when the photon is not charged?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Now you're jumping to conclusions.

It could be your understanding is enmeshed in mainstream theory and his is alternative. That doesn't mean you're right and he's a moron.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Even when the photon is not charged?


Indeed. That's my point. The photon itself does not carry a charge. That's exactly the deal. The photon is one of the ways the field presents itself to us in observation. You can say that the photon IS the field.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The last part of my post was tongue in cheek, Its pretty funny that you pull the lines you did, it is quite a strong position to look at the post, ignore the questions or statements i made, and throw an insult back about a one line at the end.... I grew up a long time ago and another thing to add to the list of 'Things to find in a thread that shows lack of substance is'

Personal insults as a way of discrediting a challenge.

I understand more about Physics than most people, given I have a PhD on the subject, before you all start let me list a couple of things you can choose from

1) Oh well study at university is your problem, 'they' have trained you not to think
2) You are not interested in the real truth, just the lies 'they' tell you
3) You know nothing,
4).... Please add some more, I do have a lab to go back into

now that is over with, yes I understand that the strong force thing is an analogy made to convince you of an idea, but the analogy doesn't even remotely work, and overlaying no amount of graphics really adds credibility into the idea.

If matter has fields with this shape, why in the example does it not show many of these oddly shaped magnets, or at least singular objects that are shaped to produce the field he is suggesting. My point is that i doubt that even if you could make a ball have that shape magnetic field, whether many of them would arrange themselves remotely in the way suggested.

Also, science does partially understand bow shock and the formation of some of these objects on the basis of our already understood models.

As i said in the other thread regarding this subject, I told you that radio waves can be used to probe magnetic field lines in galaxies. So please take a look at the information presented here

www.scholarpedia.org...

There is a clear represenation of a galaxy that is side on, the magnetic field inferred does not follow this shape that is pointed out, more over it is extended below and above the disk but is irregular.

I said in the other thread that I am very very interested in many ideas and theories, The motto of ATS is apparently Deny Ignorance... well please, deny ignorance and look at a wide veriaty of evidence. Spending 40mins of your time to get all his theories and then not even spending 10mins to read the stand point of the scientific community is quite frankly evidence of vast ignorance. Appologies if you take this as an insult, it is not intended to be... i am simply asking the two people here who appear to nod yes in unison to each other to open your eyes and minds in the same way as you have asked us to also.

I opened my eyes and mind, saw nothing that i would say is evidence that science is totally wrong on magnetic field and structure of all matter, I have provided a few questions back and I am hoping to get the same respectful questions back or at least discussion. I tried it in the last thread, I am trying it here also.
edit on 30-1-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-1-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
Its pretty funny that you pull the lines you did . . .


Who is "you"?

Normally people tell the reader who they're responding to.

Are you addressing me?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Even when the photon is not charged?


Indeed. That's my point. The photon itself does not carry a charge. That's exactly the deal. The photon is one of the ways the field presents itself to us in observation. You can say that the photon IS the field.


I know we learn in school a photon is not charged but its possible the theory is flawed and if so.. will change the course of quantum mechanics to move us forward.

The photon can be said to be surrounded by a gravitational field.

There is a lot to make sense, that simply doesn't with our current models and solutions via the math but I am hopeful. Scoff all you want but I bet ya change is coming.... quick.

E=mc^2 means where there is energy there is mass??

Theoretically... A photon is produced.... and it moves along with the wave. As the wave moves out in a spherical fashion, additional photon particles must appear to fill in the gaps, right? Where do they come from?

We also have people like physicist (in the US) Brett Altschul of Indiana University, has analysed radio waves from distant galaxies to obtain a new upper bound on the electrical charge of the photon. He has found that the charge is no more than 10-46 times the charge of the electron -- assuming the existence of photons with positive and negative charges. This is 13 orders of magnitude better than the previous direct bound on the charge of a particle that we normally assume to be neutral (Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 261801).

We are going to have to be open for change.... to allow change.

LaPoint may be talking rubbish for all I know but we can at least wait for the other videos to come out so his theory can be understood as a whole instead of in pieces. Read Einsteins thoughts on fields.. www.scribd.com...

Also... pra.aps.org... "Cloud of virtual photons surrounding a two-level atom driven by an external field"



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Even when the photon is not charged?


Indeed. That's my point. The photon itself does not carry a charge. That's exactly the deal. The photon is one of the ways the field presents itself to us in observation. You can say that the photon IS the field.


I know we learn in school a photon is not charged but its possible the theory is flawed and if so..


If I start entertaining possibilities that are entirely uncalled for, by any means, I'll waste my life on stuff like... LaPoint's. It's entirely possible that there is a space alien, which looks like a larva, hidden inside your brain right now. I personally can't vouch for the absence of such creature in your brain or maybe in your liver. However, I won't be publishing videos on that subject on YouTube either today, or, like, ever.

If you see a flaw in the theory, state clearly what it is. Otherwise, it's just frivolous waste of bandwidth and your personal time, which I think is best spent reading up on physics.


As the wave moves out in a spherical fashion, additional photon particles must appear to fill in the gaps, right? Where do they come from?


I think you are plenty confused when you talk about wave propagation. The wavefront is not always spherical, and it depends on the situation whether a single photon is an appropriate description of the process, or multiple photons are involved.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 




and someone owes me my wasted time back


This above was an insult to the OP. You get what you give.




I understand more about Physics than most people, given I have a PhD on the subject, before you all start let me list a couple of things you can choose from 1) Oh well study at university is your problem, 'they' have trained you not to think 2) You are not interested in the real truth, just the lies 'they' tell you 3) You know nothing, 4).... Please add some more, I do have a lab to go back into


Above we have more of a "stuck up" type of attitude. Prove you have a PHD on the subject. Ya know.... pictures or it didn't happen.

The 1-4 must be your own conscious... I don't know where all that came from??





now that is over with


Is it really?? *yawn*




yes I understand that the strong force thing


Good... please explain.




If matter has fields with this shape, why in the example does it not show many of these oddly shaped magnets, or at least singular objects that are shaped to produce the field he is suggesting. My point is that i doubt that even if you could make a ball have that shape magnetic field, whether many of them would arrange themselves remotely in the way suggested


I think the rest of the theory ties in with the rest of the videos being watched and then a judgement can be made.... I reserve the judgement until he fully presents the theory by adding the other videos to view and understand. He is asked about this on the FB page which has been discussed in this thread.. you can view it here. www.facebook.com...




As i said in the other thread regarding this subject


What other thread???




Spending 40mins of your time to get all his theories and then not even spending 10mins to read the stand point of the scientific community is quite frankly evidence of vast ignorance.


More insults? Vast Ignorance, huh?





I opened my eyes and mind, saw nothing that i would say is evidence that science is totally wrong on magnetic field and structure of all matter, I have provided a few questions back and I am hoping to get the same respectful questions back or at least discussion. I tried it in the last thread, I am trying it here also.


No you didn't. You come in here with a holier than thou attitude and its not pretty. Its frankly quite ugly of you and your PHD status. Same respectful questions back? We should answer your questions with respectful questions back? Thats what you stated.
WHAT other thread are you talking about???



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   


The wavefront is not always spherical,
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Really? Thanks for the lesson.


You and your common sense make me
Alll the way to the kitchen to grab a beer.



The rest of your post was so insulting .... I tell ya. I wont school you ... not even going to respond to you. Keep violating the T&C! You can reply to me all day long and you will get nothing back from me.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I learned about the video about a week ago from Jason Verbelli's Facebook page. Someone commented on Jason's link by posting a Wayback Machine link to a former website purported to be LaPoint's. As I recall the link was to a company of some kind. I can't link to it now because I can't find Jason's original post on his page today, and my History page on my computer doesn't show it. I've sent Jason a message asking him whether he deleted his link.


Now that the post is back on Jason's page I can see the link to the website alleged by a commenter to be a 2008 website of David LaPoint that was removed and is found in Wayback Machine archives. It links to a page called "Zyzion." The link works from Facebook but ATS software is defeating it. Here's the header at the top of the page:


JANUARY 12, 2007 ZYZION FILES FOR PATENT PROTECTION FOR THE WORLDS FIRST SUCCESSFUL CONTROLLED FUSION REACTOR.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


www.akama.com...

Cleans the air and might cure disease, how could this NOT work?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


New technologies do things old technologies don't.

That's the beauty of them.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I think it's interesting that if you look up "matter" in THE FREE DICTIONARY it says:


b. Physics Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.


and when you look up "mass" it says:


In physics, mass (from Ancient Greek: μᾶζα) commonly refers to any of three properties of matter, which have been shown experimentally to be equivalent:

Inertial mass,
active gravitational mass and
passive gravitational mass.

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.


So mass is a property of matter, which is poorly understood.

And wait a second. Here's the definition of "photon":


1. The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. See Table at subatomic particle.


So trapped photons exhibit mass but photons themselves have zero mass?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I saw this thread in the beginning, and marveled at it. As I thought, it turned into, somewhat, girl intelligentsias tell boy same to get f##cked.

Being a girl, I happen to like it, while admitting my prejudice. Good on you, Mary Rose. Have read quite a bit....and the same I said above.

Not gonna enter the debate more than that. Rather enjoying the other ladies and their mastery.....
As for those "pure" physicists, out there, trying to bang their heads on the brick wall:

The particles were where they expected to see them.....doesn't that say it all, even a long time ago, no matter how circular time seems to be now????



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

And that this is what the fields around all matter look like:





I don't know. Every time I've seen a magnetic field it always looked like this. Why would it be any different any where else in the universe?




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Oh, come on. By your avatar, I know you know it can look like anything anyone shows you a picture of, and says that's what it is.....



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by tetra50
I saw this thread in the beginning, and marveled at it. As I thought, it turned into, somewhat, girl intelligentsias tell boy same to get f##cked.


One can only marvel at this jewel of an argument, complete with the F word, coming from none other than "girl intelligentsias". Packs some serious intellectual punch!


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



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

yes, obviously, there is no marvel contained here.....i was entertained, and said so, mr. buddhasystem. She put up a good fight, and as far as I'm concerned, it is anybody's definition.....and I will not enter a fray that is so completely malleable....just to be played....but I can still admire Mary Rose's moxy....



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by tetra50
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Oh, come on. By your avatar, I know you know it can look like anything


I know this? I honestly don't. Please show me a magnetic field that doesn't look like that.





top topics
 
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join