What do you think of david lapoint the primer fields youtube videos?Is it a sound theory.
What do you think of david lapoint the primer fields youtube videos?Is it a sound theory.
As it is only described on YooToob rather than any scientific source, I would assume it is rubbish. I haven't been able to find a description anywhere (I don't watch videos).
Or perhaps you would like to present some maths here ( rather than a YouTube link ) how the magnetic field of such a bowl-shaped magnet could lead to "free energy", i.e. a net positive energy outflow from the system.
[QUOTE=Markus Hanke;409821]“The Primer Fields Theory” by David La Point – strong electromagnetism | monessasmontage
I think you will find he publishes his science in peer reviewed journals.I wonder if Professor Susskind is aware of this?
Where? And how do you know?3. ..." but where's the maths and physics backing it up ?" In the written thesis. Currently up for submission.
It has nothing to do with the quality of the equipment.4. Have you tried to compare the imagery with those that are posted within the journals you do trust? You would find that not only does the lab equipment meet today's levels of research grade equipment? Not only does it meet them, you should find that it exceeds them.
Just because the guy's a crank doesn't make him dishonest. Nor obviously (outwardly) crazy.I have spoken to the man claiming to be Mr. LaPoint on a couple of occasions. I detected no
intent to deceive, no dishonesty or ulterior motive, no "craziness either."
Right.I'm not exactly sure who David is, or hat lab he might be out of, but David LaPoint, I believe is
an alias that was created for the patent process by/with/for the government and it's national
security issues. I also think there's probably a lot of commercial secrecy as well.
National security issues.
About the guy's identity but not his "world-changing" physics.
Commercial secrecy when he's got/ applied for a patent?
So he releases his paper to the public, on Youtube, BEFORE it's been confirmed?they are in fact his
hypothesis thesis in video format, the traditional format HAS been submitted for journalistic review
And... "journalistic" review? WTF?
Or was that a miswording?
Apart from, for example, the shape of magnetic fields?"Do the ideas of matter and energy as proposed by the documentary series The Primer Fields parts 1, 2, and 3, by David LaPoint violate any known laws of science that would invalidate it's hypothesis?" No. They do not.
"Observational proof" is not proof. "Looks like it to me" is not useful or credible...."It has nothing to do with the quality of the equipment."
I was attempting to show you that there is other information available,.... In this case, comparative graduate level physics departments DO use equipment similar in design and function as those used in the videotaped experiments. (Hmm. an observational proof.)
If you can get a patent examiner to give you a patent, you get the patent. A patent is no guarantee of scientific soundness nor practicality. It simply confers to the inventor the sole rights to the invention for a period of time (a legal monopoly, if you will). That's it. Lots of patents describe things that don't work.The problem is, I don't really know how the patent process works, so I don't know how or when these things may or may not contain questionable information.
That's not much to go on.All I really have to go on here is my instinct
Mkay, if you say so...."Apart from, for example, the shape of magnetic fields." These are actually "self-forming" through turbulence and can be fairly easily explained if done a little differently. I have a few postings relating to this on my blog.
And:I had a brief conversation with him on Google+ in which i was very enthousiastic about his work and the applications of it (I am, he did a great job) but i did the "fatal mistake" to ask him if he has any idea about the cause of these magnetic fields and their shape.
He answered to me in a not that friendly way that they are intrinsic to all matter and that i should watch the videos because he explains that in the beginning. I told him that i had seen the videos twice and that i asked him the question because for me the term "intrinsic" is equal to the term "i don't know what causes them". Then I congratulated him again for his work and told him that i'm looking forward to more of his videos and research.
His answer was a "thanks for the insults" and a ban.. seems that questions equals insults for him and if he can't tolerate questions i doupt that he will be able to tolerate critisism or any other ideas no matter from whom they come
Now, admittedly, these quotes are from a crank site, but "LaPoint's" attitude is entirely consistent with crankery 1 - accept what I say, don't ask questions, and a quick ban (along with accusations of "insults") following...Others have had similar results trying to converse with him.
1 Why is it cranks are so intolerant of other cranks? Do they feel like they have a monopoly on deranged idiocy and need to protect it?
The concept of energy is well understood in the context of classical physics, to which classical electromagnetism clearly belongs. There is no "different approach".Now... if you took some of the information in such a way that allows you to visualize different approaches to energy, well then wouldn't that get you to stop for a minute and rethink your initial reaction?
Because that is not the way science works. You don't just rejected everything you already know and try to start again from scratch. What the quote refers to is the fact that when something doesn't work out you don't abandon it, but pick yourself up and keep going. Clearly this is has no connection to the topic at hand since established electromagnetism and QED work very well indeed.Well then why not apply it?
Precisely. That is why I am asking for the maths behind it.Even if there was a video of the experiments you wouldn't believe it.
Yes, absolutely.Does it mean that because it's on youtube it loses credibility? I wonder if Professor Susskind is aware of this?
Susskind popularizes in videos, but his academic work is published in peer-review journals, and not on YouTube.
Very good. That is all I am asking for. Make sure you provide a link once it has been published.In the written thesis. Currently up for submission.
No. I'll rather wait for the actual publication. YouTube is not an acceptable source of scientific data.Have you tried to compare the imagery with those that are posted within the journals you do trust?
We will pass judgement on this once the publication is available.Does it VIOLATE any of the laws? The answer is no.
They align along the magnetic field lines, which are spectacularly non-turbulent as the pattern of the fillings will tell you just by looking at it.What do you call what happens to iron filling in a magnetic field
Tell me, do you actually understand Maxwell's equations, and classical electrodynamics ? Or is this another case of someone arguing a point which he/she really does not know the first thing about ? Let's look for example at Gauss's law for magnetism in the case of a stationary bar magnet :
I would like you to show us exactly how you arrive at a field configuration which contains turbulence.
Also, the magnetic field is the same before and after dropping in the fillings, so the above statement is completely meaningless. It either has turbulence or it doesn't; if you say it does, you will need to show us using the appropriate maths. I suspect you will find this rather hard to do. Remember we are talking about the magnetic field here; the fillings simply align with them.
So good you posted it twice?
And that's related to the topic because...?
BTW, a link would have been nice: Demonstration of an inductively coupled ring trap for cold atoms - IOPscience
Er, a precis and link would have sufficed.
Excuse me, but ... COPYRIGHT!!!
It's better to post selection phrases, comment on them, and provide a link to the article.
Why would I want to visit a forum that, as far as I can tell, is devoted to pseudoscience? And run by someone who doesn't appear to know much science. And why not post the URL for your forum properly?
Demonstration of an inductively coupled ring trap for cold atoms, J D Pritchard, A N Dinkelaker, A S Arnold, P F Griffin and E Riis
J D Pritchard et al 2012 New J. Phys. 14 103047
© IOP Publishing and Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
There, that should do it.
My suggestion is that you first study the established science ( Introduction to Electrodynamics by David Griffiths is a good text in this instance ), and only then concern yourself with alternative theories. That puts you in a position of being able to judge their scientific merit, or lack thereof.
So does that mean that he also shouldn't pass judgment that it's wrong either, until he gets that knowledge? But doesn't that imply not dismissing it, and therefore treating it as plausible (not the same as "correct" or "incorrect") until he gets more knowledge? Can't one get misled that way?
You are right, he should not pass any judgement unless he has the appropriate knowledge to do so. That means neither rejecting it nor treating it as plausible. The appropriate course of action would therefore be to study electromagnetism in-depth first, and only then come back to discuss the idea.So does that mean that he also shouldn't pass judgment that it's wrong either, until he gets that knowledge? But doesn't that imply not dismissing it, and therefore treating it as plausible (not the same as "correct" or "incorrect") until he gets more knowledge? Can't one get misled that way?
For example, when I am saying that EM fields do not contain "turbulence", then I do so based on mathematical and physical facts, not just because it is my personal belief. I know that, in order for turbulence to appear in a system, its field equations must contain differentials of third or higher order, and I can back that statement up with references to appropriate textbooks and applicable maths articles. I am therefore arguing from knowledge. On the other hand, if I was to assert that electrons are in fact microscopic pink unicorns, then that would be an argument from personal belief, because there is no material or experiment to back up such an assertion.
Last edited by Markus Hanke; April 19th, 2013 at 07:04 AM.
When someone offers something so (supposedly) revolutionary, that is going to "change our understanding" of physics (or anything else) it should be treated with suspicion.
Especially since there seems to be no mention of this "breakthrough" any where other than random comments/ promotions on the internet.
Nothing appears to have come from the "establishment" regarding this - in itself an good indicator that it's so fringe it's not even worth refuting.
There are peripheral clues available as to the validity.
If something isn't worth discussion, let alone formal refutation, by those working in the relevant field the chances are good that it's not worth looking at.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 20th, 2013 at 11:32 PM.
I am friends with Dave and thus, very familiar with his work. The Primer Fields series was done on Youtube because Dave is a visual guy and would prefer to express his theory in a visual way (it was also fun to make). He was originally going to attempt a mathematical derrivation but at the end of the day would only be doing such a paper to satisfy a group (looking to refute his work) who's opinion matters very little to him or those involved with application of this science, his actual income earning enterprises. We have a good chuckle when any supporter of the current physics dogma refers to him as "crank" or tries to invalidate what he proposes by citing a lack of math or a paper on it. There are hundreds of "papers" and volumes of math with regards to DM as a WIMP, the "spin" of "black holes", the Higgs boson and "virtual particles" as though these are real. All of which only exist in the form of mathematical equations (and will only ever exist there, no matter how many billions we spend looking for them).
There is currently a paradigm shift towards more study into magnetic/energetic interaction as it relates to cosmology because this is what creates the stable structures we observe (and thus are worthy of study). Thinking the fundamental secrets of the universe exist in energy frequencies detected for a fraction of a nanosecond after 2 protons collide, or that 75% of all matter is undetectable is where theoretical math leads anyone lazy enough to follow (when the equation is a little off, just go ahead and represent the anomally with a variable to account for it). When you can grasp that gravity doesn't maintain a cloud structure in a vacuum, or bend light by "curving spacetime" and that in a vacuum, a sphere cannot "explode" into two energetic lobes, yet leave a sphere behind, there may be hope for you.
Lastly, not one single physicist either of us has spoken with can actually say he is wrong and state a valid reason why. Just like on this forum.
Just ad hocs and citing an "ignorance "of the scientific method as far as sending his theory to the world. If he were in the "established" scientific community surely these short comings would result in expulsion, so it's a relief he is in a postition to just do his work without having to justify why it produces the results it does beyond observational success.
We live in a society that requires monetary income so yes, he will both take and make money...just like us.
The theory behind the Primer Fields is 7 years old...it WAS hit and miss at the beginning.
That is because he doesn't have anything to be invalidated. But for what it's worth, you will find the reason why this idea does not work in post 13.Lastly, not one single physicist either of us has spoken with can actually say he is wrong and state a valid reason why. Just like on this forum.
That's equivalent to saying : "I am not a surgeon, so when I attempt to remove my son/mother/daughter's appendix myself at home she doesn't HAVE to survive."No maths because he isn't an astrophysicist, therefore he doesn't HAVE to produce a derrivation.
What complete and utter bull. Stick to making money, and don't try to get involved in things which you know nothing about.
Regarding HAVING nothing to be invalidated, you have posted several times INVALIDATING what he proposes...but I'm sure there is math which qualifies this too.
"Don't try to get involved in things you know nothing about"-----I'm not the one making assumptions about an individuals motivations for making a youtube video series or scrutinizing the methodology behind it. If you actually are employed in a scientific arena, you could take the route a few other facilities have, apply what he is saying as it pertains to your particular field and see if you can falsify it, or maybe, do something useful with it....NASA is....so did these guys.
Magnetic shell provides unprecedented control of magnetic fields
Getting around the 'uncertainty principle': Physicists make first direct measurements of polarization states of light
Or you can keep posting your opinion about "pseudoscience" and advising people who don't "tow the company line" to go educate themselves in the same manner you have been...hell maybe you can bring ptolemy back to astrophyscics and repopularize leaches in medicine. Surely the "force carrier" of gravity is right on your doorstep....a little package from the WIMP fairy all neatly bound with a Higgs boson bow around it....as I said, we chuckle when one of YOU throws out the crank label.
And why would that be, considering he claimed thatPost 13... No relevance to primer fields theory
My post 13 was a direct response to that.These are actually "self-forming" through turbulence and can be fairly easily explained if done a little differently.
Done in post 13, and again in post 17. If you actually understood the latter you would see straight away that Gauss's law as given there does not permit any "turbulence". Or do you claim otherwise ?apply what he is saying as it pertains to your particular field and see if you can falsify it
Yeah...always wondered why those fell out of fashion all of a suddenhell maybe you can bring ptolemy back to astrophyscics and repopularize leaches in medicine.
Last edited by Markus Hanke; April 30th, 2013 at 12:29 PM.
I will, thanks, just like all of the scientific community does.But stick to YOUR scientific method
Question to you - if you don't agree with said scientific method, why bother post here at all, considering that this is a science forum ? You will find out rather quick that whichever genuine science forum this "primer theory" is posted on will give you the same feedback - namely that it is nonsense, which it is. I suggest try viXra instead, where this will be in good company.
Posts 13 and 17 aren't opinions, their scientific facts. Do you need more maths ?Or you can keep posting your opinion about "pseudoscience" and advising people who don't "tow the company line" to go educate themselves in the same manner you have been...
And what, exactly, do you know about how I have or have not been educated ? Would you like to elaborate a little ? I think you would be very surprised if you knew my background.
...which is something that never has and never will happen.A better comparison would be a football player setting a world record in the 100m during drills
Got any references of NASA utilizing "primer fields" ?....NASA is....
Apologies Markus, I shouldn't make assumptions regarding the guy behind an internet handle.
"which is something that will never happen"... - But frequent home appendix removal does?.....
I haven't watched any of the primer fields videos since immediately after there completion, if Dave uses the term "magnetic tubulence" it could only be in reference to plasma current instabilities, turbulent eddies that form in interacting plasma currents. Or, possibly the boundary of interacting fields.
The above article makes some questionable assumptions but shows an example of the turbulence
Same stuctures, just larger and cooler...
And no, there is no Primer fields "program" at NASA, he was contacted by the space propulsion systems group who saw potential in the work.
Gauss' law works fine for a static magnetic dipole. In plasma currents Amperes/Faradays laws would be the more appropriate of Maxwells equations to use when trying to calculate flux/current density. The issues with plasma in space (and where the "magnetic turbulence") come into play are that the currents are continuously coupling with or purturbing each other, creating instabilities which actually maintain the currents....but calculating applicable values when they are continuously changing would be an exercise in futility.
Lastly to answer your question, I posted on this forum (first time ever posting to a forum) because I happened upon it by chance (searching for a rather funny "matrix" spoof I was told about where Neo learns about The Primer fields) and after reading the comments felt compelled to "defend" a friend....similar to how you feel comp[elled to defend the scientific method I am condemning (I referred to it as YOUR scientific method working under the assumption that you are a physicist in some capacity). The reason for the condemnation is simple, Physics stopped using the established scientific method and gradually developed a new one over the last 100 years. In the "new" method adhering to established values, laws and theorums at all costs dominate, even when observation shows that certain assumptions can no longer be made. So contrary to your statement above regarding starting from scratch...yeah you do. At which time you evaluate what is still valid (law) and what can no longer be (theory) because of observation, you don't "invent" something that fills the hole and then search for it.
It was used in the context of electromagnetic fields, that was my problem, and the reason for my responses.[I haven't watched any of the primer fields videos since immediately after there completion, if Dave uses the term "magnetic tubulence" it could only be in reference to plasma current instabilities, turbulent eddies that form in interacting plasma currents.
Again, plasma was never mentioned before this, it was always about magnetic fields. But regardless, none of Maxwell's equations permit "turbulence", since none of them ( in their differential forms ) involve derivates of degree higher than two. This of course includes Ampere's and Faraday's laws. The proper description of a charged plasma is actually a problem of EFD ( electromagnetic fluid dynamics ); what happens here is that the plasma itself is indeed turbulent, but not the EM fields that go with it. That is a very complex area of physics, and a field of ongoing and active research.Gauss' law works fine for a static magnetic dipole. In plasma currents Amperes/Faradays laws would be the more appropriate of Maxwells equations to use when trying to calculate flux/current density.
News to me. In any case, you will find rather quickly that QED and thus the Maxwell equations derived from it are in perfect accordance with experiment and observation. Some guy on the Internet isn't going to change that fact with a series of YouTube videos - that would be much like the footballer breaking the 100m record, and the guy performing a successul appendectomy in his living room. It just isn't going to happen.Physics stopped using the established scientific method and gradually developed a new one over the last 100 years
"The "some guy" is actually a plasma physicist. Do you think he put the lab/vacuum chamber together and made the videos without applicable mathematics/ laws of force? That it all just "came together" as it is shown as a fluke? I agree turbulence is a poor choice of words in reference to magnetic fields, but the depth of theory is nowhere close to being represented by the 3 videos. Attempting to invalidate it over a poor choice of words is equivalent to saying your food tastes terrible because your fork is slightly bent.
The simplest way of stating the theory is that there is a type or multiple types of magnetism which are responsible for every astrophysical phenomenon we observe. Without EM we observe nothing.
"News to me"- Yup, like cancer to someone who doesn't know they have it. For the record I don't question the validity of any of Maxwells equations, every scientist i know(crank or not) trusts them.
Nor do I doubt the complexity of modelling plasma behaviour, but these are Daves areas of expertise. I can tell you that EFD is an incomplete model to use on plasma due to density issues in some circumstances. Only because I trust the word of the people who told me, since they have worked with plasma for many years.
Above someone inquired as to generating the shape of the fields: Apply angular momentum to the mass of any spherical magnetic dipole in which a dynamo type of movement is generating/amplifying the field. You get 2 bowl shaped fields.
I would really like to see something of substance here - I am fortunate enough to be able to understand the maths, so please provide proper references to real publications by LaPoint, and I will have a look through them.
Huh ?! What exactly do you understand EFD to be ? Can you elaborate ?I can tell you that EFD is an incomplete model to use on plasma due to density issues in some circumstances.
If you need the math to understand it, I guess you'll just have to be patient. If you don't need math to understand it...well then, you ACTUALLY understand it. Although I have never heard it referred to as "EFD" I understood you to mean magneto hydro dynamics or I have also heard it referred to as magneto fluid dynamics. Granted it's an old paper...there is lots of math for you enjoy, the conclusion is as I stated above.
That link doesn't work. The paper is here: http://staff.polito.it/domenic.dambr..._handcarry.pdf
I don't see what connection that has to this thread. Did you just google "electromagnetic fluid dynamics" and then randomly post the first paper you found?
Correct on the title of the paper, in my dbase it is under FMFD...again apologies. And no, the paper was not done by Dave.
Do any of you actually know a means to refute a theory that involves actually addressing what is proposed in the theory...or are you guys just bouncers asking for ID?
I only ask because you seem to be rediculously preoccupied with the credentials of the person who proposed it than with what it actually says. This is a sign that you really don't understand how the variables in the equations manifest in reality, citing Gauss' law for the field of a bar magnet as a counter to the term magnetic turbulence when discussing videos about plasma phenomenon? Ya...OK.
The one aspect of the theory questioned in this thread (the shape of the fields) has been addressed. The rest is just an attempt to discredit the theory by discrediting the man...very scientific. Is that part of the method too?
Is there a theory? Can a theory be presented on YouTube? Can a theory exist without math? Is YouTube peer-reviewed? What testable predictions does the theory make? Have they been tested?
I have not yet seen any "theory", that is why I asked you to reference a publication by David LaPoint where he details his model. I will then address the maths in detail, don't worry about that. First though we have to see it !Do any of you actually know a means to refute a theory that involves actually addressing what is proposed in the theory
Maxwell's equations are valid for any magnetic field, and not restricted to bar magnets. Furthermore the quote I was referring to in post #13 was in regards to magnetic fields, not plasma. And magnetic fields do not exhibit turbulence.citing Gauss' law for the field of a bar magnet as a counter to the term magnetic turbulence when discussing videos about plasma phenomenon?
So are you going to provide references to his publications or not ?
I do. There are multiple problems with referencing YouTube:Who cares.
- most of the time I can't watch video
- when I can, it rarely seems worth the effort
- video seems to be almost the worst possible medium for detailed technical information (followed closely by mime and dance)
- the quality and accuracy of anything presented is unknown; 99% appears to be pure crap. Perhaps more when it comes to anything science related
Go on then, have your rant here now
Just another crank, so far as I am concerned.
No rant gentlemen. This went exactly as I knew it would when I signed on the forum to post.
Good luck with your equations. Only in the math world can you admit to not finding any information about someone while making the statement that something about him is well known.....very credible.
Markus Hanke – I know you have commented here many times relating to the topic, but I must ask, “Have you actually watched any of the video’s in the series?”
I’d also like to try and tackle the turbulence idea again.
First of all, the “turbulence” wording was used by me when I was first thinking about how some of the great observable mechanisms of the Universe might be using, creating, and exchanging all of these strange ideas.
(I’ve since modified my thinking a bit as to how I believe the structures form in space, but “turbulence” is still a word I would use to describe certain conditions that should surely exist in the formation of these structures.
Originally my thinking was like this;
The turbulence would be occurring within the area of the plasma cloud feeding the process. In his video series, David described the formation of the waveforms as being created via a mechanism where one positively charged particle (or waveform) would attract to others forming a “mass.” This “mass” would consist of all the connected waveforms, their structures, their magnetic fields, and ultimately their poles. poles. This mass then could be visualized as being comprised of these “positive pole out.” (Or negative, point being…) That waveforms of “reverse polarity” would of course “flip” their orientations if possible in order to attract, or could in fact be ‘contained” and/or “directed” if held in polar position by outside greater forces. (Ie. A negatively charged mass on it’s other side)
The idea of the “self-creating” structures, applied the concepts of “hydrodynamic turbulence” to illustrate how attractive forces ALSO in gravitational fields, could initiate movement. (Ie: A particle of H, meets another. They orbit and start to share fields and suddenly they are of greater mass, and gravity.
So, another, another, etc. (Here’s where it’s changed a bit currently though) causing “currents” to form. And ultimately the conditions where these “masses” would be interacting, (trying not to) Forming within the “turbulence” of the plasma currents.
- Every object in the universe attracts every other object in the universe with a gravitational force.
- The magnitude of the gravitational force between two objects is …
- directly proportional to the product of their masses and
- inversely proportional to the square of the separation between their centers
My thinking of how these structures form however has changed to something far simpler in mechanism as well as understanding.
Still following the LaPoint concepts of a waveform, We again return to the two Hydrogen waveforms.
In the plasma cloud, we have an unimaginable amount of “charged particles.” The simple fact that we are seeing these clouds from tens of thousands of light years is a testament to their sheer size. That said, one becomes two, they increase, two is now three, as they get stronger gravitation going, five, six, seventeen, stronger, and stronger, more and more.
As the gravitational pull is always inward towards itself, as the field grows, so does it’s structural integrity. as the particles environment becomes more and more dense as well.
As the sheer numbers involved are again too huge to imagine, let this continue for a few million years. It becomes easy to see ho this density would soon reach a state where fusion would occur. (But I digress. Back to the particles attracting.
Ultimately a balance must be found. I propose that this is done by relationship to the energy being used, and therefore it’s inherent “structural” characteristics. (Ie: Physical matter probably can’t be as ‘dense” and are most likely restricted in their field strengths/matter/properties. (Ie: Heavy creates heavy)
These mechanisms would continue until either the available supply of energy has been exhausted, or the waveform itself has reached it’s sustainable structural balance.
One idea that tries to explain the fields creations would be to imagine a structure as described has reached it’s “capacity.” But it’s stable, so minor fluctuations can occur based on the exchanges available with movement. (Ie: A stable structure is still being fed energy until it reaches containment breach. If this breach is one where the path of least resistance is one out, one in, (observed as the “jets”) then at the speed of light one could imagine the first one escaping. Only to be caught in “orbit.” It’s mass is still “counted,” therefore it’s gravitational strengths are also there allowing for the slight change to continue. Another, another, their totals helping their continued containment, until these “free” particles, orbiting, faster, faster, reach “their” proportional balance, and escape then becomes possible. One in, one out can sustain an “amplified” waveform, or internal fusion and the enormity of the matter involved can allow for a stars deterioration to take many millions of years to accomplish the very efficient task of matter conversion.,
What is anyone supposed to reply to this ? It's really just word salad, pretty much devoid of any scientific content.
Does that mean you are a sock puppet of The Singularity Effect ?“turbulence” wording was used by me
This is only true in the weak field approximation. Not sure if you are aware of this, but Newtonian gravity has long since been superseded by much more powerful and predictive models; even in the weak field domain ( like the Earth for example ), Newtonian gravity often fails to give the correct predictions, and the full GR formalism needs to be employed. If you are still thinking in terms of inverse square laws, then you are far from comprehending gravity.2. The magnitude of the gravitational force between two objects is …
- directly proportional to the product of their masses and
- inversely proportional to the square of the separation between their centers
So you are basing your attribution of turbulence in this instance to a gut-feel for what turbulence is, rather than to turbulence in a strict sense. In other words, you are not using it scientifically, so you are not actually talking about turbulence.(I’ve since modified my thinking a bit as to how I believe the structures form in space, but “turbulence” is still a word I would use to describe certain conditions that should surely exist in the formation of these structures.
That is interesting, providing lots of insight.
Wow, not one, "Well, it's a neat idea, but this part of your thinking wouldn't work because..."
"True, your observations might suggest this, but...?"
I'd have even settled for, "You're wrong, because I tell everyone I'm smart."
I asked a very specific question. "Have you actually watched any of the video's in the series?"
In fact, I don't think you've ever answered any question posed directly, or even challenged any of the information in any way that could even be construed as any form of constructive communication.
You are correct about one thing though, there does not seem to be any science within this thread. You've made sure of that!
..."Any theory should be considered scientific if and only if it can in principle be falsified by experiment; any idea not susceptible to falsification does not belong to science." Karl Popper
Note: the forum software supports LaTex so you should have no problem presenting mathematics, however complex.
You have got to be intelligent enough to understand that "asking for the math" is once again simply another attempt to divert the discussion on it's face. You are aware that the series was introduced in a video format, and that any formulated mathematics related to the "observations" would not only be in the possession of the researchers, but is probably incidental to most of your (wait, what?) objections.
When something is put forth in multiple ways that all serve to illustrate the "exact" nature of the concept being discussed, and can then be easily explained, and shown to be "observable" in nature as well, then continues by quieting lingering questions the other theories have "created," (yea, there's some math for you. "Umm. This all confounds me so much, that I'm going to "create some math" to explain the fact that "I can't predict" the fact that "I don't know where the photon is," and also admit that "I can't predict where the photon will land," Much less, even state for certain that it went somewhere other than to say, "Well, it didn't get detected here, so it must be there," kind of math you are requesting?
Math of what? The math that says "The plasma in this jar is blah, blah, which means diddly to the ideas attempting to be presented. Or how about the math that says, "If a photon is of this wavelength, and then passes through this interference, then the photon will slow....." Oh yea, that's right! It's in the video if you had watched it!
I also have one more thing on this. I'll admit that for the most part, we got really lucky with 2 plus 2 equaling 4. Not bad at all for the first try!
What do I mean?
Google Stephen Wolfram and Mathmatica.
This is an entirely new and different way of looking at math to begin with. But try telling "HIM" he's full of it. (I bet your math can't convert the atomic weight of Hydrogen into a formula that can be used to establish it's temperature in plasma!) Ps. It's 157,800 K)
Quit closing your mind to only accept that which is not available at the moment. There is plenty of corroborative, illustrative, observable, experimental, cross reference able, and probably even smellable data that can be used to help confirm what's being proffered.
Just because one has a PhD. in Earth "flatology" Does NOT MEAN that Marco Polo is going to fall off of the Earth. I don't care how loudly he proclaims his "theories" to be true!
In fact, let's see "YOUR" math that "PROVES" any of the claims made by the series to be false!
SHOW ME YOUR MATH! (Of course you'll actually have to research the material first. Yea, right!)
If it can't make quantitative predictions, it's not a theory. It's as simple as that. Without quantitative prediction there's nothing linking the ideas to the actual universe.
Isn't this just what your doing?I don't care how loudly he proclaims his "theories" to be true!
I wondered how long it would be before we got the cranks mantra.In fact, let's see "YOUR" math that "PROVES" any of the claims made by the series to be false!
Secondly, I have given very specific reasons why the theory and your explanations don't work. You have yet to respond to ( or even understand ) any of my points. You have thus far also failed to provide the maths that a number of members here have asked you for - all we have seen is the usual lame crap about maths not being important.
So once again - YouTube videos and the absence of any maths to quantitively describe what you are talking about does not constitute a theory. You are just wasting everyone's time by spamming this forum with crackpot nonsense; besides, David LaPoint is a well known crank.
No, it's a basic requirement to have a viable theory.You have got to be intelligent enough to understand that "asking for the math" is once again simply another attempt to divert the discussion on it's face.
The maths to describe the geometry of your "primer fields", quite analogous to what Maxwell's equations do. It is then a simple matter to extract predictions and test them against experiment and observation. It's called the scientific method.Math of what?
SHOW ME YOUR MATH!
Should you ever get around to understanding these very simple statements, you will see immediately that any type of "turbulence" is automatically ruled out in these field configurations.
That's because the two have no connection. The temperature of a plasma is primarily a function of ionization energy, as well as a number of other parameters; it is quantified in the Saha-Langmuir equation :I bet your math can't convert the atomic weight of Hydrogen into a formula that can be used to establish it's temperature in plasma!
Note how atomic weight does not appear here; just another demonstration of your total ignorance of the subject matter.
Nice try, but no. This is just the same old crackpot tactic over and over again; it is you who challenges accepted theory, so the onus is on you to provide appropriate evidence in your support, not the other way around. When something is contrary to established understanding, it is always considered wrong until proven otherwise.In fact, let's see "YOUR" math that "PROVES" any of the claims made by the series to be false!
Im not a physicist at all so dont judge me for not undestanding your equations. Im just a science fan that works in the sci/tech industry and astrophysics and electromagnetism are just a light hobby of mine.
I understand that a theory requires mathematical proof. By not providing this, Mr. LaPoint's claim/discovery/whatever can only be called an idea. I have watched many crack's claims and videos for years and all of them dont make absolutely any sense since like the first few seconds you start reading/watching them. However, the primer fields videos, without any confusing math for the layman, made a ton of sense to me. I have no idea how the bowl-shaped fields form. But if they do, everything macro/micro seems to tie in together rather well.
I just think it's something worth looking into, however since Mr. LaPoint has the sole proprietorship of his idea, I guess the community cant help him speed the process. (Even though it seems they will hurt him more than help anyway). The reason why he might not have come up with any math yet is because he might still be trying to find it. I dont pretend to know why he hasnt published anything yet. Maybe he wants to keep it to himself until he has enough proof for him not to be criticized but maybe creating videos for the layman pleases him... i dunno.
However, you should not ever forget that not only scientists with credentials make discoveries. A few extremely important discoveries have been made by nobodies: Michael Faraday was a book shop worker with no scientific education yet he had a few amazing ideas; William Herschel was a musician with an astronomy hobby... and without a telescope; Gregor Mendel, a monk with a garden and discovered genetics. Also a lot of our sciences and maths had a past in which they were incomplete or limited and eventually newer sciences and maths built upon them and evolved.
My point is, i guess, dont be so dismissive/arrogant about the guy's idea. Sure, it may not technically be a theory. But dont call him a quack either. His concepts are, at worst, interesting. And life tends to give lots of surprises -- your greatgrandkids might one day be reading about him in a science book.
Hello Bullet Seed, I applaud your sense of fair play, however, as Marcus Hanke has demonstrated, this idea is invalidated from the outset. Yet Marcus is willing, as are others, to entertain the possibility they are mistaken if evidence is produced to justify the claims. This evidence is not forthcoming and so there is no reason to grant the idea any further attention.
Faraday had no formal science education - indeed, a science education as we would understand it today, arguably, did not exist. Yet he took the opportunity afforded him by the bookbinding trade to read many leading works of science. He attended many lectures by Humphrey Davy and the notes he took of these so impressed Davy that he hired him as his secretary. From that role he moved to a position in the Royal Society. To describe him as a nobody is simply wrong.
You describe Herschel also as an unknown. This is strange. He was certainly friends with Maskelyne, the Astronomer Royal. You also say he had no telescope. Perhaps you say this because he had to build his own. You appear not to appreciate that this was normal practice at that time. So, again, I believe your understanding of the facts is flawed.
Mendel was a graduate scientist, with a focus on physics. He taught physics. He studied other sciences too. This, again, was commonplace at this time: the specialisation we take for granted today was not necessary. Was he unknown? Well most scientists are unknown until they do something spectacular, but the point is that he was a scientist by training, with published works.
Indeed. If you check my history here and on other forums, you will see that I was wrong on many occasions; having been corrected then and there enabled me to further my own knowledge and understanding. That is in fact one of the reasons I am on forums in the first place.Yet Marcus is willing, as are others, to entertain the possibility they are mistaken if evidence is produced to justify the claims.
As a sometimes advocate of alternative theory in cosmic physics, I believe the above discussion failed to note a possible double meaning of "plasma" between standard theory and alternative theories. Some alternative theorists use "plasma"
as a vague term to refer to a conductive mediumn in space (i.e., to convey in a general way that space is not empty.) My personal alternative model uses another term also used by other alternative theorists, "ether," when talking about non-empty space theory. My model would have space composed of etheric, etheroidal, subatomic, and atomic scale units, in order of increasing size. Only the subatomic and atomic scales are detected and appreciated in standard theory, but in my model, the predominant "particle capacity" units in space are etheric and etheroidal, which comprise a "sea" upon which the larger detectable units act, inducing wave effects in the sea of smaller units, some of the cross-resonances between the undetectable and detectable units crossing back to the detecable units and are seen there as detectable measurable waves. Demanding observable proof for this model of course is pointless at this point in time.
Got any evidence that space is "composed of etheric, etheroidal, subatomic, and atomic scale units"?
Just love those sciency buzz words!wave effects ... cross resonances
In which case it can be ignored as the deluded imaginings it appears to be. Come back when you have either (a) some evidence or (b) a theory (not some mish-mash of meaningless words).Demanding observable proof for this model of course is pointless at this point in time.
It as originallaout how plasma structures in vauum, can form independantly, smply because of the "turbulence" that was created witin the plasma, as invisible currents started moving through their magnetic attraction.
Michael. Would your "Ether" be simply smaller forms of the same energy, or "Waveform?" Also, your "particle capacity" interests me. How is this created? (I believe it would be self supporting?
And what would happen once the particle "reached capacity?" Would that then be the end of it's structures formation? Or would it's form continue to grow?
Just kind of curious.
Socialnomicsingularity: In the model I work with, a universal ether formed from a first cause process in which spatial points oscillated, formed point pairs ("yin yang" fashion") which distorted space and led to directional forces of a vibrational type (as derived from the oscillational). ( No "spin" forces involved.) The direction of vibration of elemental etheric units can be thought of as "nodes" which can interlock resonationally. Although elemental scale etheric units can resonationally aggregate into larger units like photons, protons, or atoms, all resonances occur at the elemental level, which makes for a uniform, orderly pattern of resonances. -So you have a universal background of elemental etheric units which are too rarified for us to detect with our quantal scale observations and instrumentations. The "background" matrix would also include somewhat larger aggregative "etheroidal" units, also undetectable for us. The units we detect and measure, which are atomic and subatomic units, act against this background, or "sea" of much smaller units. When an atomic scale unit is tracked, we need to think of it as passing through that sea of smaller units. Wave patterns represent cross-resonances between the atomic scale units and the undetected units. A certain percentage of "down scale" resonance re-filter back into the detectable realm which we observe as "waves." (In my Posting of July 14th, I said it "would be pointless to suggest experimental proof at this point in time.") Actually, though, I have a possible field test to prove an ether by demonstrating a decrease in density within a test system comprising sets of natural elements arranged in a certain pattern designed to selectively amplify etheric energy. However, I lack a sponsor to bankroll the test. (There could be a unique fringe benefit from discovering this energy, which might attract such a sponsor (if anyone is interested in helping me with this.)
Ooooh ... ether ... spatial ... oscillated ... force ... vibrational ... etheric ...nodes ... resonationally ... elemental ... photons ... protons ... atoms ... resonances ... universal background ... rarified ... quantal ... matrix ... etheroidal ... waves ... cross-resonances ... re-filter ... realm ...
You made up some of those words, didn't you. Not that it matters. The whole thing is utterly meaningless, without foundation and barely even counts as pseudoscience.
No one is going to sponsor you because (a) you refuse to reveal Your Great Secret and (b) because it is all nonsense anyway.However, I lack a sponsor to bankroll the test.
Yea... I kinda got lost along the way there too..:/
Not every crank is a scam artist, but every scam artist is a crank.However, I lack a sponsor to bankroll the test.
Uh-huh. The post you quoted doesI find these kinds of arrogant statements tiresome.
a) point out that maths is required to have a viable field theory
b) refers the poster to the scientific method
c) provides an answer to the posters questions with regards to the maths of Maxwell's theory
d) gives a citation to the Saha equation in response to the poster's question
e) responds to the poster's assertions by pointing out that the onus is on himself alone to support his own ideas, as is perfectly normal in science
Can you point out exactly where the arrogance is to be found, and elaborate just why you think it is arrogant, given the context of this thread ?
Btw, it should also be mentioned that it is possible to patent anything - having a patent on something says nothing about its usefulness or even scientific viability.
I can't imagine any patent office granting that patent. I see nothing that would be classed as an "inventive step". It will be (vaguely) interesting to see what happens.
I thought that one of the posters had claimed that "David Lapoint" was not his real name. Apparently it is. <shrug>
I came to this discussion in search of broader information about Lapoint and the Primer Fields video because they contain some quite surprising concrete demonstrations. My initial reaction was deep suspicion, and I got impatient with the "New Age" geewhizzery, however, the above discussion is extremely disappointing. The pros being too feeble and the cons being excessively dismissive
Just for argument sake, let's suppose an extremely prickly self-taught scientist who, for whatever reason, has been badly treated by those in charge of formal methods and has gone his own way, completely. There is a pecking order, isn't there? In budget meetings, what wins: the best idea or the best podium presence?
If we can dispense with accusations of crankery and just look at the demonstrations, then the discussion becomes:
- are the demonstrations real or faked?
- if faked, his model maps astonishly well onto very varied visible phenomena? Curious that he'd cheat, but that's the end of it.
- if not faked, he raises some really interesting questions.
- if the questions point to nothing new or worthy of more rigorous analysis, then he's not a crank -- he's a con-artist, and that's the end of it.
With your indulgence I'd like to ask about just one of his physical demonstrations.
Are there any circumstances under which you can make one magnet or a pair of magnets *repel* a steel ball?
He goes further too. He rolls a pair of steel balls towards his special magnets, they cling together, spin chaotically for a few seconds, then stop spinning and roll back and forth on either side of an equilibrium point about 6" away from the magnets and then oscillate slowly down to zero over a few more seconds.
The video is on YouTube . com / watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI
(I'm not permitted posting URLs here)
The demo is from minute 26:17 to 26:32.
I'm not a scientist, but I've written software for satellite mounted scientific instruments, so I understand mathematical rigour. I screwed around with magnets enough when I was a kid to know that this is a nice new trick, even if it isn't nice new science. If it really is new science, achieved by trial and error, then the math can come later, imho.
So how does he do it?
Magnetic levitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Magnetic pressure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To be honest, if you really do write software for satellite mounted instruments, then I am surprised that you are not aware of these basic physics.
Through an appropriate configuration of ( possible time-varying ) electromagnetic fields within and around the magnets, the balls, and the surfaces used. There is nothing in this video that cannot be done in the context of standard Maxwell electrodynamics, given appropriate field configurations. Exactly how any of it is done cannot be told from a YouTube video, which is why YouTube is not a valid source of scientific data. What we require is the publication of data on a his experimental setups, so that the experiments can be repeated and tested. Unfortunately no such publications exist.So how does he do it?
The point in all of this is that there is no indication whatsoever of new physics in those videos, so the claims of "Primer fields" are just that - unsupported claims.
(1) Dr Who
(2) Star Trek
(3) There is a classic example by some crackpot who claims to have created anti-gravity. Unfortunately, it is painfully obvious the video is filmed upside down.
Clearly you are fed up with this thread. I understand your point of view, I have the same exasperation with novices in my own area of expertise. I am a novice in this area, but I know enough to know that Lapoint's bowl shaped magnets are doing something I'd understood were impossible. I'm trying to understand his strategy, without instantly assuming it's a scam.
I skimmed the material you suggested and found a quote that reinforces what I have understood since childhood: "As a practical consequence, then, this [ Earnshaw's ] theorem also states that there is no possible static configuration of ferromagnets which can stably levitate an object against gravity, even when the magnetic forces are stronger than the gravitational forces." en.wikipedia.org / wiki / Earnshaw's theorem
So, as I had known previously, magnetic levitation is always acheived either with suspension, or with like poles repelling and kept that way by frameworks or servo-mechanisms.
In the video Lapoint demonstrates various stable static configurations, without electricity, without like poles repelling and without the use of diamagnetic materials. Apparently, the bowls structure the magnetic field in a way Earnshaw did not consider. In one set of demonstrations he shows un-magnetised steel balls forming up in rings around the magnets.
Here's what confuses me - these are exactly the kind and quality of scientific demonstrations you see in every "Science Center", science fair and exploratorium on the planet. I enjoy those places very much, but I have never seen this phenomena demonstrated before.
YouTube is a generic medium. People working in interrelated areas use YouTube as a convenient way to share videos about their work, without caring what the general public makes of the material presented. It was in that context that I was first introduced to Lapoint's videos about a year ago. The guy who sent me the link is a chemical engineer who has done a lot of experimentation with chemical reactions within magnetic fields (particularly magnetic fields varying at high frequencies). He and his colleagues have developed some powerful biodegradable surfactants currently in use in the petroleum industry, so my first viewing of the first (and at that time the only) video came in that context.
Now that there are two more videos I have returned to the topic to see where it leads.
I'm confused. Lapoint seems to recreate the Vela Pulsar, and many other cosmological structures in his plasma vacuum chamber using his specially structured magnets. If it is all Penn & Teller trickery, it is impressive as hell, but he doesn't do stage shows, and as far as I can see he shows no interest in using YouTube for self promotion, or anywhere else for that matter.
If had not come across it in the way I did, I would have dismissed it instantly, as it is, I'm very curious about what he's doing and why.
What I am fed up with is people trying to claim violations of basic physics, based on home-made presentations published on social media as opposed to proper peer-reviewed channels. These claims are not repeatable, testable or verifiable - and hence completely baseless. This is not just LaPoint, but multitudes of "new Einsteins" on various Internet forums and social media, who think they can overthrow established physics with hand-drawn diagrams and home-made videos. That stuff gets pretty old after a while, you know.Clearly you are fed up with this thread.
How do you know that ? There is no publication by LaPoint detailling the experimental setup or the materials used, so there is no way to test, repeat and independently verify his claims, as the scientific method requires. There is only this YouTube video - there isn't any way to tell just what type of materials where used, or whether there are any external electromagnetic fields interacting with the setup, or whatever else there might be going on. A YouTube video just isn't good enough. Give me peer reviewed sources and independent verifications, and I shall be happy to have a look.In the video Lapoint demonstrates various stable static configurations, without electricity, without like poles repelling and without the use of diamagnetic materials.
This is like a magician demonstrating his sawing in half of his female assistant - it looks awfully genuine on video ( and even on stage ! ), yet does this mean that we can actually saw people in half and expect them to live and tell the tale ? No one would think such a thing - it's just a trick. Likewise these YouTube videos - while it may look like a violation of Maxwell's laws, no physicist in his right mind would think this to be an actual violation of them.
You do realise that there are legions of people just like LaPoint on YouTube claiming all manner of pseudoscientific nonsense, don't you ? Channels such as YouTube just aren't part of the scientific world, and that for a good reason; if this guy wants to be taken seriously by anyone, he will have to start publishing some proper papers.
Why would you come here on this forum then - just make contact with LaPoint himself, and enter into correspondence with him. You don't need us. Since his claims aren't testable or verifiable in any scientific way, we can't help you here; we can only point out what established physics have to say about the subject of electrodynamics. It should also be said that this particular area of physics is extremely well established, understood and experimentally verified - and in 150 years of experimentation no discrepancies to Maxwell's laws / QED have ever been observed. That is empirical fact, and hence LaPoint will have to do a lot better than YouTube videos.If had not come across it in the way I did, I would have dismissed it instantly, as it is, I'm very curious about what he's doing and why.
|« can imortals live forever! | Interference Questions »|