This page is actually a response to a correspondence I have been working on with a member of David LaPoint’s research team.
I am posting it simply because there are a few points I outline in it that I feel I must first protect by a poor mans copyright.
To the author of the other side of this conversation, I apologize for not asking first, but I’m sure you understand.
…”Precisely the right line of thinking with triangular compression.
Thank you. It was the only way I could see the ability to reach a single point of reference in a fluid environment.
…”The mental picture I have is of an infinite number of ultra fine threads propagating from and to all directions,”
Let me first clarify an incorrect assumption I have been working with from the start. I have been visualizing the energy as if it were always in it’s individual point of reference. Especially when thinking of it in concentrated form instead of as current. I would assume therefore that I would be correct in changing my thinking to something more along the lines as “always thinking of them as if in a current?” I am going to assume so as it makes more sense to me now that I see it.
With that, my question then becomes: Which part of the COE are we referring to at this point? Within the containment fields of the confinement dome? Or the main structure itself. The reason I ask is because I see one as being a single current reaching many “end points,” so to speak, like filling a basketball with silly string, and the other, (the main structure) being comprised of MANY individual currents back and forth between “bowls.” Spinning ever and ever faster at it’s horizon, and having many different characteristics possible. I also see these pieces possible being broken often, and even at times acting seemingly independant.
So I’m now visualizing what I believe are referred to as Birckland currents? Okay. If so…, is the reasoning for visualizing the energy this way because they can not, or do not conduct well as a “group?” (This might be significant regardless of the correct answer. The reasoning being this.)
(NOTE: I’ve actually already answered this part to myself and believe I currently have a firm grasp of the flow of energy.)
One of my primary assumptions in the unification part of my theory would suggest that energy has the ability to exist in relative “pockets” of containment by magnetic field. And that these would be possible only if the structures magnetic field, and by proxy it’s polarity, have the ability to conform in such a way that every required POR is represented for it’s opposite. (Example. A swimming pool filled with water balloons.Where each balloon is marked + or -, and where every water balloon on the bottom “must” contact the bottom of the pool with “only” the – side touching.)
Acting as individual pieces of matter (as represented in the series) then becomes a problem as even malleable spheres would have a hard time maintaining the 360 x’s Pi balance of individual +/- COE’s, much less do so within a turbulent and variable environment. Besides, we also know that energy does not travel this way.
Okay. Using your descriptions, my understanding then starts to take shape as this.
That the imagery put forth by the Primer Fields series where energy is illustrated as entering the structure as “individual balls” is misleading in that these pieces actually enter the structure in the form of a “current.” That these “currents” hold their shape within and when interacting within the structure. And that the structure itself could actually/possibly even be imagined in some cases as being completely comprised of a single stream of energy that has not truly “broken” into these pieces, but perhaps have fragmented, or diverged, in observably similar fashion. (I can’t help thinking that this might perhaps be what the math is suggesting as related to “String Theory?”)
NOTE!!! This paragraph of writing is dated a few days in to this letter. But I couldn’t help running a few things past you here for “consideration of sense.” (Ie. If it makes sense to you, it may be time to run it past some others.)
Before I go too far, I’m sure you’ve already gathered I don’t hold a ton of confidence on the whole particle model as described by the Standard Model. With this, must go the Neutron and Proton. (At least until we can understand their formation, and define their existence anyway.)
Well, one way we might be able to do this is with my new understanding of how you describe to me that energy moves. 🙂 Like I mentioned earlier. David’s representation fails to clarify how these particles of energy would actually be interacting. According to your descriptions, and from what I have recently learned, I would imagine that my associative imagery of how this interaction occurs actually closer to your understandings. That these “ARE” in fact individual pieces of energy, but when thinking of them in “formation” one must remember they are then in movement and are therefore using conductive properties,.(Ie. Current.)
(And I recently said Newtons 1st was wrong/ Ooops! 🙂
Next! Remember that misunderstanding I has about Plasma? How’s this???
Since we have always been talking about an increase of energy as being the mechanism responsible for one piece of matter changing between it’s four natural states. And that “temperature” has been an “observable” measurement we have used to describe this, But temperature by it’s definition is increased through it’s relative increases in movement, or “vibration.”
One phenomenon commonly observed in nature is the property of harmonic balancing. We are probably most familiar with this when we see a cars “rims” going backwards, when the wheel is going forward. As you also indicated, another area that this phenomenon is observed is in sound.
When you take a sound from an Opera star and she sings a note, she always sings it well. But if you ask her to hold a specific note, such as a “high “C,” and then hold it for a moment, one will most likely notice that the singer is then able to “fracture a piece of crystal.” We’re all familiar with this effect, but what we don’t typically see is the “greater than the note” effect.
Picture our steam now. It it so hot that instead of just lazily floating towards the ceiling, they are so energized that they are now “rushing” to get there. So fast in fact, that they start to hum. AAAHHH!!!! Now I’m starting to see it. Okay. (I’ve got how Plasma could be a state, but I still have to take it a step further, I have to know how.)
The Standard Model suggests that the state causes the particles to either lose or gain Electrons or Protons, but doesn’t really understand how. How’s this? Back to he humming steam.
Once it’s going fast enough and starts to hum, what if it starts to harmonize? What if it reaches a state where it’s own movement stabilizes and contributes to it’s structure. That this is done by simple mechanism of speed, and again confinement, and structure, (We also still have a lot of those strings:)
Okay. It starts to harmonize at a specific “frequency” if you will, and Poof! Vibration turns to wave, wave is comprised of current, current is comprised of individual pieces of energy.
The Neutrons and Protons ets, would be formed within the individual points of energy, yet could be interchangeable to due particle characteristics at this time unknown. (This process would also account for an understanding of the process of vapor to plasma conversion.
…”Picture just the section of threads in the area of any COE,”
My assumption for “COE,” would then be “Concentration of Energy? “not “conservation?” Concentration of energy then would be described as any individual or specific reference point of energy being described?
My assumption for “section of threads,” would then be described as: “A grouping of “Birkland” currents, (or variant) that would be comprised of these individual “concentrations of Energy.”
…”each one with the capacity to capture charged particles and direct their flow.”
Capture? As in “conduct” any energy that is otherwise unrestricted from doing so?
…”When the particles meet at a point of convergence you have a combination of mass, magnetic and angular momentum effects.”
…”Picture just the section of threads in the area of any COE, they never detach or
break…so guess what structure forms when the COE spins…”
My guess is a sphere? LOL 🙂
…”it’s like if you used real thread and put a spinning Velcro ball in the middle. All the lines feeding it are pulled down to the ball, but the they are not tense and taught, they have give or “slack” because in reality we are speaking of a field, not matter.”
I can now understand this.
…”This is why the fields are bowls and not pyramids.”
Pyramids? Personal joke??? 🙂
Okay. I think I actually now have a much better understanding of the structures formation. Thank you. It actually helps some of my other lines of thinking make better sense. Back to the letter.
…”Regarding the glass table…for the purpose of Dave’s video the glass table makes earths
G=0 and thus the magnetic components to the system become apparent.”
Got it! Question then. In a vacuum, could the steel balls be held in position by the opposing fields, as is compared to “Saturn’s” rings? My answer would be “most likely,”
Now here we get into something I have to study again. But I think I’ve got the jist of it.
…”In a real planetary system the orbital path has a vertical component in relation to the path of the ecliptic, the earth moves up and down as well as around by about one degree in relation to the plane, with that increasing to six degrees as you get further out to the major planets (see WIKI definition for ecliptic, overlay in your mental image with the arcs of the bowls and you actually get a mathematical relationship between distance from the sun and ecliptic drift, I believe this
effect is mediated by the hemispherical fields). The ecliptic plane is where the neutral mass
in every system ends up but as we are talking about matter guided by force there is always
an element of drift (no table). To approximate this experimentally you need a matter less lab
(other than the planetary/solar bodies you are approximating) located at a “Lagrange point.” (a.)
Okay, so what I think you are saying here, is that the horizon plane not only spins around and around, but that it also “wobbles” slightly perpendicular to the horizon plane. That this wobble is measurably related to the distance of the point of measure to the structure’s nucleus. (Ie. Further out, larger the wobble?)
Would this oscillation be then also be responsible as a mechanism for helping keep the matter at the horizon in tight elliptical orbit? Narrow to the equator? Perhaps acting as some sort of mechanism that helps maintain equilibrium? I’m guessing so.
So now here’s an idea. We’ve already potentially come across string theory, could this possibly be a mechanism responsible for what might otherwise be considered as a “frequency?” Following this thinking, then also could it assist in “solidifying” the structures formation, or on the other end, possibly creating “weaknesses” where the energy could be intentionally released? My thinking here is working towards the formation of Neutrons, etc.
…”We have no way of approximating a solar system experimentally…I really wish we did.”
What about through computer modeling such as that of the Multi-Petaflop Sky Simulation produced at the Argonne National Laboratory?
…””IMO fields and geometry were never meant to relate to one another as vector point
coordinates, so I have never tried to find THE POINT at which an energetic effect is
produced by a field interaction in anything other than terms of energy measurement. For example the ionization POINT for hydrogen in terms of temperature or frequency when UV
photons are doing the ionizing.”
In Davids representation of a Photon or a piece of matter, he illustrates it as if it were a Nucleus with a 3 dimensional structure that represents each polarity of the magnetic fields that surround it. One side is represented as blue, the other red. Rotating this entire structure about 90 degrees horizontally, Davids implication is that the structure comes back to itself somewhere around the horizon line. This is further represented by his “butterfly” representation of the energy flow when each “side” is descriptively cut in half, leaving the magnetic fields to form 4 different fields, “observed” as only two.
…”Dave is the guy to talk to about “where” in the system the various magnetic effects take place.”
Unfortunately though, David has never provided me the opportunity to ask.
…”You understand the model pictured in the piece you wrote regarding the choke ring, flip ring and confinement dome, but what is happening in these regions from an effects standpoint is exceedingly broad. For instance, the polarity flip can happen for a number reasons, all of which are present in a pulsar.”
Still, the imagery in my mind suggests that these areas act as “capacitors” in a broad sense, releasing their energy once they have reached a point of “overload.” (So to speak) Structural integrity could theoretically still be maintained as long as the fields creating containment are strong enough, or if the point of breach was held at a point where release was equal to incoming energy potentials.
…”Acoustic pressure as it relates to EM/atomic effects is as likely a candidate for the polarity flip as any other effect.IMO, hence why the visible features are so prevalent in “radio pulsars.”
I am aware that the actual “sound” of the Sun is supposed to extremely loud. (I have a tenancy to forget sound as a tangible force when thinking about the vacuum of space.) Still, I have to ask, unless the radio pulsar has it’s signal hooked up to a set of really large loudspeakers, does the analogy still fit? (Sorry, joke:)
…”From a perspective of understanding zero points and infinity, these are human designations given to potential states of existence. If either is an actual state of reality I will never see them and in my universe neither state is attainable or useful. Infinite is beyond the ability to visualize because
you would need an infinite amount of time to visualize it and a zero point can never represent
a stable state, it is always a transition point between states and is therefore defined by the
states not the point.”
What I find intriguing in theoretical physics though is how zero points cross the lines between time, space, matter, and energy carrying with it the “holding position” for simple existence. (I also believe that when examining the quantum behaviors of energy under the new understandings, these points (or positions very close to them) will be commonly found residing at points such as those illustrated in the series when the “photons” were “connected” by contact of their field lines.)
As to infinity, it is simply a mechanism for helping to visualize infinite vastness, as well as infinite smallness. Without the ability to visualize these different concepts, one has a difficult time switching back and forth between the macroscopic world and the microscopic.
…”Regarding what you mentioned about structure formation, absolutely correct, It is 100%
based on magnetic attraction.”
Thank you. Now how come modern cosmologists can’t see this when they observe GSC’s being formed in giant clouds of Plasma???
…”Every single stable structure from a photon to an AGN (^.) exists because of a balance between
the “+” and the “-“….even in charged particles.”
This would qualify as an elementary understanding.
…”A stable atom in nature will never carry a charge, only ionized particles (energy/plasma) and
multi atom structures exhibit charge and it always manifests through particle alignment.”
However, the same particle can allow a charge to pass through it (conduct) without necessarily causing the destruction of the structure. (Example: A bird on an uninsulated power wire.)
…”In plasma you get current when the particles align, in matter you get a field of flux.”
Neutrons allow matter to exist as matter and decay back into a proton and electron and apparently a neutrino (energy) after 15 minutes outside of any nucleus. They are the only SA particle
affected by gravity (kind of a hint their alignment may be responsible for it) and have minimal
reaction to an EM field…but they do react.
Nuclear physics isn’t really clear on neutron production and the general answers are either
that they were produced at the time of the big bang, or are created in stars (but they battle
over the mechanisms….as usual. Either pressure or a quark flip). Neutrons are an annoying
area to research because it is one of the topics laden with theory and contradictions from
people who are supposed to have a consensus, instead you get “ya, it’s definitely there and it
does this….but we can’t say why for sure”.
Sorry Richard…got babbling again. I like your blog.
I also have the ability to visualize very well but I don’t go smaller than any of the stable or
semi stable SA particles. My opinion is that if it doesn’t last in nature then it has no
significance to nature from a cosmology standpoint.
Nowhere in the universe will the collision that produced the Higgs excitation be produced, so
why attach universal significance to a frequency that was produced for the tiniest fraction of
We learned more by building the machine to do it than we did from doing it. I realize this
doesn’t gel from a singularity standpoint and most of this is my opinion, not scientific
fact….but last babble and it’s about the Higgs or any unstable energy:
If it doesn’t last, it’s useless. In order to study the quanta of energy at the Higgs excitation
(or any one for that matter), you would have to figure out how to confine it stably and
examine it’s properties with a non-interference method.
We can’t do this with the SA particles we know for sure to exist, let alone their hypothesized
constituent parts, and science is slowly realizing this.
What we label as quarks are patterned energy flows inside the proton, not smaller particles.
This is why a quark, at a much larger “size” than an electron isn’t stable like an electron.
Particle physics should have recognized this years ago….Einstein did, but it was late enough
in his career that the math had taken over.
People forget that mathematically anything is possible and that math needs to be used to
communicate measured values of reality, not hypothesize on the limits reality can achieve.
About the rest of the series, Dave has it in pieces not an assembled work an nowhere near
finished….I too am hoping one day he finishes it, especially the one about the sun.
From the conversation I have had with him and his ability to explain certain phenomenon it will
be really informative.
Again, sorry for babbling.
(a.) Lagrange Point: One of the five positions in an orbital configuration where a small object affected only by gravity can theoretically be part of a constant-shape pattern with two larger objects. The Lagrange points mark positions where the combined gravitational pull of the two large masses provides precisely the centripetal force required to orbit with them
(^.) AGN or Active Galactic Nucleus: A compact region at the center of a galaxy that has a much higher than normal luminosity over at least some portion, and possibly all, of the electromagnetic spectrum.