Primer Fields

I watched all 3 videos yesterday with interest. And when matched against the many spectacular astronomical photos (like the one below), it certainly lends credibility to his thesis.

http://frenchtribune.com/teneur/1317015-us-astronomers-discover-new-type-supernova

My problem came in video 3...at 45:36 minutes into the presentation. When he tried explaining "the double slit experiment one photon at a time".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpI6ikj1G-s

He claimed it was due solely to the large extended magnetic field of a single photon that gave the observed interference pattern in the famous double slit experiment. That parts of this one magnetic field (because it was big enough) went through both slits at the same time. Hence mystery solved!

But the double slit experiment also found that by placing measuring detectors at the slits, the single photon reverts back to particle behavior. No detector...a wave. With detector...a particle. It's consciousness of the observer that collapses the wave function. So what happens to his scenario when we add detectors? His "large extended magnetic field" explanation does not hold water. It is in fact a bit silly. And by extension, throws his other claims in doubt...in my opinion.

Below is a video with a brief explanation of the double slit experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E

On another note, this familiar idea of consciousness (perhaps of varying "quality") collapsing a wave function may be central to our fate as The Wave cometh. And what you gonna get is going be a function of who you are and what you see...literally. So in a real sense, we perhaps ARE masters of our own fate.
 
I didn't like his wave-particle explanation either.

I think it is because he doesn't consider consciousness as being part of the big picture.

Dean Radin from Thunderbolts Project has quite a different view on the phenomenon and proposes that consciousness is indeed what collapses the wave-function. He and his team have conducted experiments that clearly show evidence that indeed, consciousness can affect the wave-function of wave-particles.

Dean Radin: Men Who Stare at Photons.

There's a Part Two as well.

Not saying it's all resolved (far from there) but I think this Primer Field business is lacking something fundamental which the TP seems to have gasped.

I wonder is there's any correlation between the Primer Field theory and the one proposed by the TP team. It's hard for me to say.
 
In quantum consciousness models, the decoherence occurs at a 40Hz rate and the double slit experiment decoherence via detectors would be an environmental decoherence. Basically the double slit superposition becomes entangled with our consciousness superposition. Non-conscious superpositions would perhaps have their own decoherence calculations but having fewer particles in superposition would make the calculation a much longer time period. Though single particles would take a really huge amount of time to decohere there are tons of them effecting each other so there would be a ton of environmental decoherence going on even without consciousness causing environmental decoherence.

A wave may really be a bunch of superimposed possibilities that exist together before decoherence. For the superposition of possibilities, there perhaps could be math for bosons (fields) that tie the possibilities together but this would be beyond conventional magnetic fields; it would be an aether/conformal/graviphoton kind of field.
 
Almost silly how things that I don't know hook me so much, I've spent almost 2 precious hrs on those videos! Just noticed that his youtube channel looks like it's filled with nonsense, and so do his 'solution' to the Double Slit Paradox experiment. I'm a profane regarding physics, but after googleing for any explanations to the DSP this one looked like a hook of sort. Just a sleepy blink here.
 
I've started looking into this recently and the videos were very interesting to me. I largely agree with the other posts here that the explanation does not fully add up, though he may have found interesting pieces to the puzzle, in addition the the electric universe theory (which to my layman mind does not seem fully complete or explained satisfactorily).

Anyway, I discovered a discussion about him on the thunderbolts forum which is very interesting:
_http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9221&start=45

I urge you to read the whole thread from the beginning to get a feel for the discussion. Supposedly, Mr. David Lapoint seems to post in this thread explaining a bit further, which I reproduce here:

I am the guy who made the Primer Fields video. Sorry for the length of this post, but is has to be long in order to address the issues I am seeing in some of the comments here. I just have time to make this post here and then back to work on the next videos and a paper for submission that covers my research. I hope to have PF2 up by Feb. 1. I will not be able to respond to any questions or comments here. I may read them and then address them in my upcoming videos for all to see and learn from.

Regarding intrinsic magnetic fields. All matter has intrinsic magnetic fields to it. Research this. All I did was change the shape of the source of the intrinsic magnetic fields. My main focus of my work has NOT been astrophysics, but physics at the atomic and sub-atomic level. The particles of matter at the LHC are driven around the LHC by MAGNETIC FIELDS. They are able to do this because of the intrinsic magnetic fields in all matter. Think this through carefully. It is based on repeatably proven science fact and experiments. Magnetic fields are intrinsic to all matter structures and that is undeniable fact. Trying to prove where they come from would be like asking me to prove water is wet. Think this through.

They are there and I don't have to prove that as it is already accepted as fact. If you think that they can be electrically generated just on what we find in space, then I challenge you to prove it and not just say it. This is what true scientists do, they prove their statements. In six years of experiments I find zero evidence that these intrinsic magnetic fields are driven or generated by external electrical currents. I have run many many experiments without my magnetic emitters and I have seen zero evidence of this happening. If you go back and look at Birkleland's experiments you will notice that he had to put a source of a magnetic field into his sphere to find his Birkeland currents. No magnetic field no Birkeland currents. So the magnetic fields have to be there before any electricity is provided. Therefore the electricity did not form the magnetic fields and without magnetic fields you get no Birkeland currents.

The EUT is mostly correct and absolutely more correct than current mainstream AP. But there is no proof as to the source of the electricity. I am very aware of magneto hydrodynamics and in fact my theories use it, but you still have to prove that MHD is the real source and I see no evidence for that when it comes to externally powered stars etc. In fact if you carefully observe my experiments you will see the variance between my electrically driven plasma formation and the formations in space. They are NOT the same. They are similar in that the plasma reveals the shape of the fields. The steel ball experiments I show in the videos also do this WITHOUT electricity. I do this to show that electricity is NOT the driver of the formations we see in space, but in fact is produced by the formations we see in space. I have to be careful in how I present this evidence because I have working technology based on these theories and I have patents in the works. But in PF2 I will present the mechanism by which electricity is produced by the Sun. I DO NOT AGREE with the current mainstream view of the Sun as being internally fusion powered and I find that all evidence and hard data point directly away from this concept. So I do understand the EUT frustrations with the blindness in the mainstream. But I am not the mainstream. So do not try and say things against what I am saying until you can prove it. That is what I did. I kept my mouth closed until I had hard repeatable data.

But I do find that the Sun is fusion powered from the outside. Find the highest temperature and you have the place where fusion is greatest. Simple logic. Then as to the EUT, If the Sun were externally electrically powered we would not find these incredible temperature variances between the surface of the Sun and the corona-sphere. It would all be pretty much the same temperature. This is simple logic, backed by experiments. So in an externally powered Sun you have to explain the mechanism for the Solar interior being 5000K and the hottest areas in the corona-sphere being over 2 million K. IN fact you have to provide a mechanism for the interior of the Sun to be cooled as it is surrounded by the much hotter corona-sphere. That mechanism I cannot prove, but I do have a couple of ideas that I will expound on in my videos. Too much to discuss here.

My thinking that the Sun cannot be externally powered is also backed by experimental proof of little or no temperature variance in my experiments, which are indeed externally electrically driven. Therefore one must conclude that NASA et all is incorrect and the current EUT theory is incorrect based on repeatable experiments. Six years of experiments in fact.

But again I do agree with the concepts of the EUT more than I agree with BH, DM, and DE, which I find no reason to exist and in fact I find zero proof that any of them exist.

Furthermore. I am a plasma physicist as you can see. I know very well what a Z-pinch is. Please do not make comments that I don't realize I made a Z-pinch. To those who actually worked with Z-pinches a comment like that makes the whole EUT look really bad. What I made is not a Z-pinch at all. NOT AT ALL. Trying to say it does makes you look really really bad. Sorry, but it does. It makes those who really know how a Z-pinch really works pay no attention to anything else you say. I am sorry, but that is how these guys think.

It would be like me telling you the moon is really made of cheese and then wondering why you won't listen to me. So really research what you believe, for your own sake.

I hope to work with the EU folks in the future and I have been in communication with them. But for now I must stand alone. There are currently some EU statements that are not scientifically backed by proven facts and indeed go against scientific fact. Z-pinchs are one of those statements, as is the externally powered Sun and stars.

It is an electric universe and the electricity is generated around the stars. I can prove it. How do you generate electricity here on Earth. You move magnetic fields. This is what these intrinsic bowl shaped magnetic fields do, they cause magnetic fields to move very violently past each other, i.e. MHD, and guess what happens? You get electricity and the hottest points around the Sun are exactly where the greatest magnetic turbulence would take place. This in turn leads to fusion and the fusion provides the extra kick to keep it all going and generating electricity. So these theories account for where the electricity in the universe comes from and it all matches ALL the hard data. I really believe that endless clean power is near. Don't have it all worked out yet, but I do have tech that is based on these theories that is in over twelve countries right now. It works really well and it would not work if my theories were not correct. That technology has been the main focus of my research for the last six years. The AP stuff is just cool because it provides validation of my theories.

Please carefully considered what you type here. I have. I have patiently waited six years to go public with what I have. That is six years of 80 hours per week. Everything I say is backed by experiments and I have not had one mainstream physics or AP attack on any of my theories that I am aware of. All I have heard is their silence. In fact I have physicists who totally back all I say.

I know it is very frustrating to have the mainstream be so totally blind to some of the things the EUT calls for, but I am not mainstream and I am not your enemy. I am on your side more than I am on their side. I would suggest all of you take a step back and wait for the rest of my videos and my papers that I am working on as hard as I can. I only seek the truth and that is all. That is what every true scientist does. Just make sure you are seeking for the truth no matter where it leads, and not just trying to convince yourself that all you believe is true. That can be a very dangerous psychological trap that goes by the name of cognitive dissonance. This is the trap that I believe the mainstream has fallen into. I.E. our theories are correct and now we need patches to make our theories work.

My approach is to try and shoot down my own theories and prove them incorrect. This approach has worked really well for me and any mistakes or problems are revealed when I do this. If I cannot prove something, I will not say it as a fact. If I say I believe that means I think that this is correct, but I cannot yet prove it, therefore it could be wrong. I think all of us should be like that, even NASA, even you, even me.

I hope you all understand where I am coming from.

Cheers to all,

Dave
Click to expand...

If you read the thread, you'll come across this person called 'aetherwizard' who seems to agree with much of what Lapoint is saying and further claims he has developed a 'theory of everything'. So I looked him up and his name apparently is David W Thomson III. His work can be found here in a e-book PDF, called 'secrets of the aether'

_http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.org/home/secrets-of-the-aether
PDF: _https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxxYWRpMTZwaTJ8Z3g6NWMyOTMwOGVlMmRiNGZhNQ

I've only read a few pages of his work and I'm just an interested layman so no idea if this is correct or just a bunch of bull. Perhaps someone qualified can take a look.

Here's a blurb from the PDF:

In February, 2002, David Thomson III discovered the Aether Physics Model. I was seeking a mathematical basis for my Planck-scale Aether hypothesis. We decided to join our research, resources, and talents to fully develop the model, and incorporated the Quantum AetherDynamics Institute in 2004, with my position as Executive Director and Mr. Thomson as Science Director. Since then, our combined efforts have produced substantial progress in the field of quantum physics and we are poised to create the next major revolution in physics.

Our Aether Physics Model is mathematically viable and bases on the same empirical data as established physics. However, the theory goes much further, becoming the "Grand Unification Theory" by unifying the four known interactions, or forces - the strong, electromagnetic, weak and gravitational forces. Using the principle of reductionism, the forces are unified by a simple set of general laws explainable by the fabric of space-time itself. Among other accomplishments, from first principles the Aether Physics Model accurately predicts the relative strengths of the forces, and the 1s 'orbital' electron binding energy for all the elements. We show that the fundamental constants in physics are not just random values, but have an exact value based upon a quantum-scale, dynamic
Aether (the Aether unit has a precise value equal to Coulomb's constant times 16Pi²). The Aether Physics Model is stunning in that it
mathematically predicts and explains the measured values of physics with striking precision.
Click to expand...

Interesting isn't it :)
 
moksha said:
Interesting isn't it :)
Click to expand...

It is! I think I will look into that ebook i'm really curious at this point. As for Lapoint's post. I can see where he is coming from and I think there is always a need to not think your theories are right but to just want to get to the truth. I have to be careful when reading about the EU as well as other theories because I think sometimes I fall into the trap of hey that makes a lot of sense without having experimental proof to back it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom