The Primer Fields Theory

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : The Primer Fields Theory
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34017
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1566539 - Posted: 3 Sep 2014, 17:29:46 UTC
Last modified: 3 Sep 2014, 17:33:25 UTC

The Primer Fields is a 3 part video series in which many of the currently accepted theories of physics and astrophysics are shaken to the core by a radical new theory of the fundamental forces in all matter.
You will be amazed as a magnetic model of the dome at CERN is used to create a 100 mm diameter plasma Sun with a 300 mm diameter equatorial disc of plasma around it!

All the plasma videos are actual footage with no enhancement or manipulation other than speed. In other words, this is real thing. Hard to believe, but it is all true.

It needs verifying if it's real or not now...

Magnetic Poles and introducing the Primer Fields video series
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1566539 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34017
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1566540 - Posted: 3 Sep 2014, 17:35:30 UTC
Last modified: 3 Sep 2014, 17:38:45 UTC

This is a comment from the author of the video's on a skeptic forum:

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

rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1566540 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 8656
Credit: 2,930,782
RAC: 1
Italy
Message 1566551 - Posted: 3 Sep 2014, 18:01:33 UTC
Last modified: 3 Sep 2014, 18:03:46 UTC

The particles in any circular accelerator are not being driven by magnetic fields.They are driven by electric fields which accelerate them. The magnetic fields are only able to make them curve and also focus the beams. This is what I remember from my thesis work. If you are not convinced read Chapter 23, "The motion of charged particles in electromagnetic fields" in "Classical electricity and magnetism" by W.Panofsky and J.Phillips.
Tullio
ID: 1566551 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34017
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1566558 - Posted: 3 Sep 2014, 18:15:27 UTC

Will certainly do that Tullio. I watched part 1 and I must say it is very convincing! Mr. Lapoint claims to be the new Copernicus on these studies. As we read in his comment, he states that he hasn't proven anything yet though.
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1566558 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 17105
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1566698 - Posted: 3 Sep 2014, 22:56:51 UTC - in response to Message 1566540.  
Last modified: 3 Sep 2014, 22:58:39 UTC

... 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. ... 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...

That's all well and good for temperature.

Another significant factor is pressure.

The pressure gradient towards the centre of our sun explain fusion well enough for the temperature there.

Also note that the temperature of the corona is so very high due to the material being so very rarefied and fast moving... Note that the "rarefied" description also suggests no or at most negligible fusion.


All already well explained by simple physics.

Keep searchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1566698 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 8656
Credit: 2,930,782
RAC: 1
Italy
Message 1566801 - Posted: 4 Sep 2014, 3:55:06 UTC

I think that the Borexino experiment at Gran Sasso National Laboratories which detects neutrinos coming from the interior of the Sun has definitely proven that the Sun is powered by fusion reactions. The neutrinos are emitted very rapidly and arrive to us after eight minutes, while photons take a hundred thousand years (and not hundred million years) to escape from the interior of the Sun.
Tullio
ID: 1566801 · Report as offensive
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3756
Credit: 1,999,735
RAC: 4
United States
Message 1566901 - Posted: 4 Sep 2014, 8:11:57 UTC - in response to Message 1566801.  

The fusion reaction in the Sun is well understood and has been for decades. Also this fellow may have it backwards. The interior is supremely hot--Millions of degrees( 27 million F) while the surface is only 10,000 degrees F (maybe 5800 degrees Kelvin). The Corona does get quite hot at maybe 3.5 million F.

I am out of my field here but this looks to me like another episode of cold fusion or of neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light.
ID: 1566901 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 8656
Credit: 2,930,782
RAC: 1
Italy
Message 1566918 - Posted: 4 Sep 2014, 9:27:40 UTC - in response to Message 1566901.  
Last modified: 4 Sep 2014, 10:09:50 UTC

I believe that the fusion reaction emitting the neutrinos is proton-proton producing deuterium and not the one suggested by Hans Bethe. This is one of the surprises of the Borexino experiment.
Tullio
Edit. This happens in 99.76% of cases and produces a deuterium nucleus, a positron and a pp-neutrino, detected at Gran Sasso. It is called the pp cycle.
Here is an abstract from "Nature":
pp cycle
ID: 1566918 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34017
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1566928 - Posted: 4 Sep 2014, 10:13:27 UTC

Thanx guys, I really wanted to know if that theory made any sense. I really do wonder tho how a person can come up with ideas like that. Could be it's only to arouse controversy. I'll watch the other 2 parts and see what I'll make of it.
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1566928 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 8656
Credit: 2,930,782
RAC: 1
Italy
Message 1566930 - Posted: 4 Sep 2014, 10:30:18 UTC - in response to Message 1566928.  

Science is made by experiments, not by videos. Of course you can make mistakes, as the Gran Sasso people have once done, but they admitted it. Now they will take part in assembling the big Chinese Juno neutrino detector.
Tullio
ID: 1566930 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 5472
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1582886 - Posted: 7 Oct 2014, 4:27:17 UTC

Anyone around here perhaps telling me that mathematics and physics are supposed to be boring subjects?

When it comes to science, a theory is supposed to be proven through empirical evidence and given facts.

You will never be able to "prove" something just by watching the northern lights ("Aurora Borealis") or assume that the heavens is eternal or goes on for eternity both when it comes to distance as well as comprehension.

At times you may be able to relax. Even then, or maybe because you are doing so, you may be able at coming up with an idea.

Ideas and imagination may at times lead to proof of certain facts based on observation of the same thing.

At other times the same thoughts about certain things may become rejected because of either lack of evidence, or because proven facts end up not supporting or even contradicting the ideas you may have come up with.

Which in the end means that science is likely to be both one step forward as well as one step backwards much of the time.

Ultimately the mind is the winner and in this way results are eventually being achieved, though at times it may be hard to get there.

Endless discussions make conclusions even harder, it seems.
ID: 1582886 · Report as offensive

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : The Primer Fields Theory


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.