Hello.
I just happen to have had a little bit more than an average experience with the Primer Fields video series and it's author Mr. David LaPoint. I was
one of the first to see the series when it was originally released, and I have been investigating it ever since.
I happen to know someone OTHER than David who was in fact on David's team. Although he does have a few problems with the overall outcome of the
endeavor, he does however agree that David has truly "got it." I have been working theoretically with Davids ideas for a while now, and although I
seemingly sound as if I'm wandering a bit as I try and explain some of it, it is only for lack of ways to describe the phenomenon that are going on in
ways that anyone can understand.
On those days when the words don't fail me, I have been able to explain in terms a ten year old can understand and agree that these concepts answer
more questions than they leave. It has been amazing the eyes that open wide, as the minds start to wonder. And then, not the questions, but the
answers come.
David's understanding of plasma structures in vacuum are pretty much straight on from what I've been able to figure out. His team was well ahead of
the curve in virtually every aspect of plasma research, even if dealing with only cold plasma.
And although there are a few problems I've discovered in his representations of his idea, I have been able to gain a better (more accurate)
understanding of what might be going on by discussions with another member of the team. (An example of this would be David's representation of the
"little balls." His understanding of the concept of the individual "piece of energy" while correct, is never represented correctly in the
illustrations as to movement, or "filament" formation. (Actually while working with this, I'm really starting to wonder if some of QM's string theory
numbers aren't all over this. "Birkeland currents")
The other researcher admitted that David was never able to fully explain to them exactly how he thought the 'magnetic bowls" formed in space, the
researcher stated that David always said, ..."I don't know, they just do." I believe this might be where some of the problems might arise. Because I
have not been able to verify ANY of the claims he has made in regard to the magnetic field of a piece of matter being "curved," this does not mean
that his theory is fundamentally flawed. I believe the same concepts can and do work just as well in a dipole structure.
Although I do not know how he was able to create the magnets used in the experiments or in the video series, I do have someone in the field working on
it. (Supermagnetman.com) I do however have a very promising idea of how it IS done in space though. I believe his ideas relating to stellar formation
are indeed correct in concept, and this CAN in fact be directly observed in Nature without the need for complex explanation.
I also believe that his assertion that stellar formation is an accurate tool for forming an understanding of atomic structure formation is also
correct. With this understanding, I have been able to develop a complete theory on not only how matter is defined, but how it should be able to be
measured as well. Within this understanding also are the concepts put forth by David on how the duality of light is observed in some particles, yet
not in others. And a general understanding of gravity as well.
In the Primer Fields series. There were many representations that actually give an incorrect or incomplete explanation of the mechanisms taking place
in his ideas of structure formation. One of the clearest of these would be his failure to describe the plasma structure, (and therefore his atomic
structure) as being comprised of "many, many, little strings all wound up together, flipping around here and there kind of like a fast moving ball of
many strings."
Davids patent for a "magnetic array" (http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/e...&maxRec=581529) leads one to also gain trust in his assertions relating to the potential of magnetic
fields in the "bowl" configuration.
As to his assertions relating to light, particle duality, quantum mechanics, etc. These can not be denied. Not only do his understandings make sense,
they account for many questions still left in modern physics and put them into elegantly simple concepts that can now be easily tested. I believe that
not only can lights position be predicted, in some cases, it's very existence can even be foretold. (expected existence/stellar formation)
All in all, I believe that David IS correct in a majority (if not all) of his assertions. And that at the very least, his assertions are NOT part of
some whacked out theory based on pseudo-scientific principles, nor are they some attempt at a "zero-point energy" scam, (some are) nor do I feel any
of it was put forth with bad intent.
I have spoken with David directly on a couple of occasions, and have received answers to questions I've posed with direct honest responses from him.
He has always been polite and willing to speak with me, which is quite gracious of him considering the fact that to him I would be a complete
stranger. I have read and re-read all of the posts related to this man over the internet, and I believe the "personality problems" people have
mentioned actually stem more from frustration of the time with many individuals that were attempting to openly criticize him without the "ear to
understanding" that would've left many arguments deaf, or the true knowledge of the Gods behind them with which to adequately defend themselves in
true scientific debate. Those that HAVE attempted to engage him publicly on a "peer review" level have found their questions answered on equal ground.
Unfortunately, David went underground before many of these discussions could be continued to any great length.
Anyway. I just happened to notice the thread and I figured I might as well put my two cents worth in. |
It does
look like a helluva lot of fun to play with, though.