David LaPoint's Theory of the Structure of All Matter

reply to post by Mary Rose


Im trying to figure out how the black hole, DM, DE fits into this method/theory ~ Primer Fields. I asked on FB... waiting to get a reply. If you get it please share.

I can copy and past our conversation some other time. Gotta do womans work but feel free to look at what he has now got on his FB..he's explaining more.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Part 2:

2:30

..so the electricity is not responsible for the fields that form the plasma formation

Well then, why does this dude need to supply electricity in order to form the plasma? How retarded is that?

"Gasoline is not responsible for the energy that moves my Ford 150 along the highway".

Duh.

2:42

..the fields are not formed at all by the electricity...

Sure, that's why you need a high voltage supply

polarity is not causing the fields to change

...erm, what??? It's easy to determine that the direction of the field will change. That's pretty much the definition of polarity.

What a sad case of verbal diarrhea...

4:10

..magnetic field induced in the nucilous area

It's "nucleus", you moron.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

2:30

..so the electricity is not responsible for the fields that form the plasma formation

"Well then, why does this dude need to supply electricity in order to form the plasma? How retarded is that?"



isnt he right... the electricity does not form the fields which form the plasma formation.... his magnets do?

isnt he right... the electricity does not form the fields which form the plasma formation.... his magnets do?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Thats the way I understand it as well. The magnetic bowls and what they are made of does. Im on cloud 9 really and so looking forward to part 3.

reply to post by MamaJ


Let's post it here so it's convenient:

I see no reason for stars to ever die. No matter can truly be destroyed, It can only be converted to another form. The Sun is a massive recycling system. The solar wind that blows matter by us will not just disappear. It will travel past the Earth and then head well out past the edge of our Solar system (Oort Cloud). Then it will turn up and back into the top of the bowl just as we see in the Vela Pulsar. Only the Sun is two of those bowls opposing each other. So both poles of the Sun end up getting fed material coming in from space that the Sun expelled about 22 years before. The solar wind is a strip chart recorder. The strip chart gets loaded with matter when the Sun is at solar max. This will be cover in depth in PF5. This is important to controlled fusion.

Is LaPoint saying that with the Vela Pulsar there's material feeding into only one pole but with the Sun it's both poles?

Another LaPoint Facebook post. (EU = Electric Universe):

I do not agree with the source of the electricity that the EU theories call for. In PF2 I compared the ejection jets of HH 111 with electrically driven plasma jets in my vacuum chamber. There is a dramatic difference. The evidence points to the stars being the source of the electricity and not a product of the electricity. Plus when we look at the Vela pulsar there is no evidence of it being externally powered and all the evidence points to the Vela being internally powered. But the EUT has a lot correct about BH, DM, and DE. But I do not intend to address the EU theories in my videos. I only point out what I have found to be factual and I still have a lot of that to do.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

4:10

..magnetic field induced in the nucilous area

It's "nucleus", you moron.

You are placing exterior quote tags around your rendition of audio, have you not?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Yes, that is what he is saying. Also he said this about Black Holes.

Jennifer, black holes never existed, They were just a mathematical solution to try and explain the distributions of matter that we see in galaxies. But if galaxies can be held together without gravity then we don't need black holes.www.facebook.com...

And then here is what "The Evolution of Physics" states via Albert Einstein.

"The Evolution of Physics" where Einstein says, "In the beginning the field concept was no more than a means of facilitating the understanding of phenomena from the mechanical point of view. In the new field language it is the description of the field between the two charges themselves which is essential for an understanding of their actionwww.scribd.com...

reply to post by MamaJ


So, LaPoint is saying that there are no black holes because it's not gravity holding the galaxies together it's magnetism.

And I guess he's saying we don't have an Electric Universe we have a Magnetic Universe.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Yes, that is the way I am understanding it. I am sure the rest of the videos will tie in and make more sense but as of now... I think I have a good handle on it.

It helps that he is forthcoming answering questions and confirming our thoughts are correct.

Like I said, I look forward to hearing what he has to say regarding the double slit. How will he prove it with primer fields is beyond me right now however I have hope it will be breathtaking.

LaPoint's plan:

I have decided to push the paper back until I finish PF3, 4 5. I hope to have those three done by the end of Feb and then 2 weeks for the paper. I hope I can stick to that schedule.

I'm not sure what is meant by "core patent application":

I have received an initial response from the United States Patent and Trademark Office today on my core patent application. It is really good news! It looks like 12 of 20 claims will be granted including the most critical ones for my technology. The rejected claims were my patent attorney doing his job and trying to extend the claims beyond what I said I needed. So we were trimmed back to the claims I really was after in the first place. Fantastic!
I am in the process of setting up a foundation which will hold the patent rights. This purpose of this foundation is to use the proceeds of these patents to help the poorest people in our world improve their lives.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Here is some information on it. www.issi2009.org...

The fact 12 out of 20 were accepted is great news for him. I wonder how hard it is to have them accepted. Technology wise, seems like it would be rather difficult.

Seems that is out of China after further reading. Sorry not sure if that pertains to the subject at hand.

This below may apply though..

For the first seven editions of the IPC, the classification was updated approximately every five years. With the eighth edition, which came into force January 1, 2006, the system was revised and the classification was divided into "core" and "advanced" levels. The core level was to be updated on a three-yearly basis. The advanced level provided more detailed classification and was updated more frequently (probably every three months).[2] International Patent classification edition 8 was designed to allow patent offices the choice between a simpler to implement but more general classification using the core classifications, or a more detailed but more complex to maintain advanced classification.[3] This division into core and advanced levels was reversed with the 2011 version of IPC, IPC2011.01.[1] The IPC is under continual revision, with new editions coming into force on 1st January each year. The current version is IPC2013.01.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm not sure what is meant by "core patent application":

corepatent is the core tech and peripheral or satellite patent is, that uses the core tech
to bring about advanced or different product.
now this dude is trying to patent a theory. as far as i am aware,you can only patent a device or process.
i am not sure if one can patent a theory.

Also here is something else to consider...

First, I'm not a patent lawyer, but I know a little bit about IP. 1.) To have a patent, you have to apply your theory and reduce it to practice. You must show your invention has utility. Otherwise its just useless pontification and unenforceable. Someone who reduces aspects of your theory to practice stands a better than average chance of using your work for free. 2.) If you have great theory, and want the credit for it, simply write it up and submit it to a prestigous scientific journal with the appropriate proof. Your peers will review it and tell you whether it's work that deserves merit or not. 3.) To prove utility, you do not have to change the face of the earth, you just need to show how your invention(theory) is useful. So if you can find a single application that is a useful application for your theory, then it is worth patenting. 4.) If you publish your theory for all the world to see, congratulations you just made it public domain and as far as I know, you have no patent rights to anything you published or anything that others discover from your knowledge. 5.) If it is intellectual theory(like computer programs), you can copyright the material which can also protect you. 6.) When it comes to invention, the US is a 'first to invent' country. Thus, if you apply for your patent at the same time someone else does, whoever can prove they invented something first wins the patent.

answers.google.com...

ETA:
Its also my understanding (could be wrong) that first you patent and copyright, then yo publish. His theory does come with a device which is the vacuum chamber and if Im not mistaken his theory will in the end show how to use this for a powering device such as electricity does? Not sure though, still learning.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


He has talked about two things: Low cost electricity via a new reactor and some product having to do with the human energy field. I don't think he's trying to patent a theory.

I tried to pull up 13624857 on the US patent office website but nothing came up. I don't think that means there's no patent pending, however.

I haven't located a way to check international patent pending yet.

reply to post by Mary Rose


If it has been accepted, will it still be pending? Maybe its under another number now.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Is LaPoint saying that with the Vela Pulsar there's material feeding into only one pole but with the Sun it's both poles?

I asked the question on Facebook:

. . . You're saying material feeds into only one pole with the pulsar but into both poles with the Sun?

Answer:

. . . All stars function the same way. The flip ring(s) causes the whole show to keep going.

I needed further clarification so I asked this:

The pulsar still has two bowls, though, right? . . .

Answer:

. . . no the pulsar is a single bowl system. Stars are two bowls, but they can also eject matter at the poles just as a single bowl pulsar system does.

Then I asked:

Is a pulsar matter? I thought you said all matter is structured by two opposing magnetic fields.

Answer:

Each bit of matter that makes up the Vela pulsar, is structured by two opposing bowl shaped fields. The Vela pulsar is made of of an innumerable number of these bits. Every individual "particle" of matter is made up of two opposing bowl shaped fields, which then can be structured together with other "particles" of matter by single bowl systems such as we find in the Vela pulsar.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
isnt he right... the electricity does not form the fields which form the plasma formation.... his magnets do?

No, he isn't right, for more than one reason. First, electricity is a broad term and as a discipline cannot be discarded, when speaking of plasma. If we accept that he meant the source of power for the plasma discharge, it sure has a direct effect on "plasma formation", which is again vague but which we can assume refers to the characteristic of the plasma in the apparatus.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Oh yeah, I see the question and answer part on FB. I am left confused though, do you mind explaining it in simpler terms? Or is it simplified now?

Does it mean each particle is composed with the opposing (2) and when completely confined as a group its one bowl?

ETA: Never mind..." structured together with one. "