predictive reactions to a first timers viewing

What follows is a transcript of comments from a post of “The Primer Fields Part 1) on a place called “Chronicles” a science fiction and fantasy community.
http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk

It seems to follow a somewhat common pattern of dismissal simply on the concepts face. On most pages with such blatantly controversial subject matter.
The
Re: The Primer Fields
It’s interesting, but … at 8 minutes it falls into the trap of saying “this looks a bit like …”

And from then on, there’s no claims of any mathematical proof or justification. Instead, it’s focused on publishing an image of this double magnetic field over anything with a plane.

That’s not proving anything.

An interesting seed of an idea, that doesn’t really feel expressed.
I, Brian is offline Reply With Quote
Old 14th January 2013, 11:57 AM #3 (permalink)
Metryq
Cave Painter

Metryq’s Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 939

“And, still, it turns.”
This is only one video, Brian, but a very significant one. I assume you’ve seen my other posts endorsing plasma cosmology / electric universe. (There are many books, but I recommend Donald Scott’s THE ELECTRIC SKY as the best primer.)

The significance of this video will not be appreciated by anyone who has not already learned something of plasma cosmology, and that field will be rejected almost automatically by anyone who has been fed on a diet of mainstream pop science with Big Bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy and all the other ghosts that exist only in mathematical virtual worlds. The reason PC/EU is so compelling is because it is based on empirical evidence from over a century of laboratory experiments. Mainstream astrophysicists cannot conduct experiments, and so rely on mathematical models which are often at odds with reality. (The Standard Model is constantly in need of patches on top of patches, and every new observation takes astrophysicists by surprise, baffles them. “We can’t explain it.”)

Important things to note in The Primer Fields:

The burned bowl magnet shows the exact same patterns as Saturn’s north pole—the hexagonal pattern in the center, the surrounding bands and rings, and the diocotron patterns around the edges (known as a Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities in fluid dynamics). Voyager photographed magnetic “spokes” in Saturn’s rings. And while you may view these things in isolation, PC/EU proponents believe the entire Solar system (and beyond) is a plasma filled ocean conducting currents like a giant electronic circuit.
The rings of Saturn may be electrically created. Anthony Peratt has modeled the same plasma structures to explain the shapes of galaxies. (And Birkeland currents have been imaged at the center of our own galaxy—no black hole found.)
Many galaxies and even stars have been observed with “jets.” Mainstream astronomers explain the “jets” and ring/disc shapes (above) with black holes, an idea internally inconsistent with black holes.

Another video of interest (2 minutes) is Dense Plasma Focus. In that video, note the twisted Birkeland currents and the “jets” from the plasmoid. Hannes Alfven has demonstrated the scalability of these structures, from the microscopic to the cosmic. As these forms get bigger, they move more slowly.

James Clerk Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism, but ran into problems like the “ultraviolet catastrophe,” which in turn led to quantum mechanics. From that point forward, 20th century physicists have attempted to unify the other forces of nature in a GUT (grand unified theory), but were stymied by irreconcilable models. Einsteinian Relativity is based on gravity and rules over the very large. The nuclear strong and weak forces are the realm of quantum mechanics which works only at very small scales.

You may have seen the reports of magnetic fields altering the decay rate of radioactives (nuclear weak). There are many who have suggested that gravity may be a by-product of electromagnetic forces. And now the Primer Fields video shows how nuclear strong may be related to electro-magnetic force.

That’s what makes all of this compelling enough to at least look.
Metryq is offline Reply With Quote
Old 14th January 2013, 01:20 PM #4 (permalink)
I, Brian
Admin and Tea-boy

I, Brian’s Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK: SCOTLAND:
Posts: 7,622
Blog Entries: 5

Re: The Primer Fields
Oh, I’m all for the electromagnetic universe principle – it’s something I’ve come to recognise myself independently, without reading anything about it. Specifically, there is something incomplete about our knowledge of EM fields that, if corrected, I think would address some major questions, not least the one of “missing mass” in galaxies.

However, you do not ground a scientific theory by saying that something likes like a thing – you have to demonstrate that it has the same mechanics. Hence my objections about simply superimposing the magnetic images over nebula.

I’m happy to question, but I still want to use scientific method where possible, but I didn’t get a sense of much of this from this particular video. However, one thing it did demonstrate is a potential analogue between electron orbits (especially p orbits) and EM field lines, something I’ve considered before – but was visibly more demonstrated. But we need more than just the visuals!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_…Orbitals_table
I, Brian is offline Reply With Quote
Old 14th January 2013, 04:16 PM #5 (permalink)
Venusian Broon
Senior Member

Venusian Broon’s Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Greater London
Posts: 915

Re: The Primer Fields
Quote:
Originally Posted by I, Brian View Post
However, one thing it did demonstrate is a potential analogue between electron orbits (especially p orbits) and EM field lines, something I’ve considered before – but was visibly more demonstrated. But we need more than just the visuals!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_…Orbitals_table
I might be walking into a minefield, but your comment puzzled me a bit. Many apologies if I mis-read the above

Electron orbitals are solutions to a Schrodinger’s equation where you have a postive charged nucleus and a negative charged electron ‘orbiting’ – hence the solutions are not just analogous to EM field lines – they actually incorporate the real Electric field solution (but as applied by Quantum theory). Which is what you see in the orbitals: s-electrons are monopoles, p-electrons are dipoles, d-electrons quadrupole and as you go up in angular momentum for your electrons you go up the multipole expansion terms.

(ok. it gets a bit more complicated to see what happens when you want to add magnetic fields or electric fields from outside, as you have to allow the particles to move, which makes the math more complicated, but all you’re doing in principle is applying Maxwell’s equations to Schrodinger’s one.)
Venusian Broon is offline Reply With Quote
Old 14th January 2013, 05:47 PM #6 (permalink)
I, Brian
Admin and Tea-boy

I, Brian’s Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK: SCOTLAND:
Posts: 7,622
Blog Entries: 5

Re: The Primer Fields
Ah, good point – of course they are.
I, Brian is offline Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2013, 12:27 AM #7 (permalink)
I, Brian
Admin and Tea-boy

I, Brian’s Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK: SCOTLAND:
Posts: 7,622
Blog Entries: 5

Re: The Primer Fields
I think that what I meant is that through the video linked to, it was far easier to envisage the plane of electron orbits. When you walk out of a class describing a bar magnet, and then into a class describing even simple p orbits, something doesn’t sit right.

Well, of course not, because of the quantum uncertainty inherent in electron orbits – but I did find the visuals in the video linked to seemed to make their shapes much more sensical. What I was trying to say, was something on the lines that if this approach to EM was indeed saying something new, then it would have something interesting to say about features such as electron orbits.

Apologies, is late, so I may not be making much sense!
I, Brian is offline Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2013, 02:18 PM #8 (permalink)
Metryq
Cave Painter

Metryq’s Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 939

Re: The Primer Fields
The video is very simplified and tends to drag between the interesting bits. I’ll look forward to the following videos, just the same. For more on this topic, see the forum thread at Thunderbolts.info: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/p…hp?f=10&t=9221

(The discussion gets into some esoteric material in the following page

Advertisements
Published in: on March 5, 2013 at 8:14 am  Comments (1)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://socialnomicsingularity.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/predictive-reactions-to-a-first-timers-viewing/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

One CommentLeave a comment

  1. […] predictive reactions to a first timers viewing (socialnomicsingularity.wordpress.com) […]


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: