# The Primer Fields



## Metryq (Jan 14, 2013)

The following dovetails beautifully with plasma cosmology/electric universe—and the real universe itself, from the infinitesimally small to the unimaginably large.

*The Primer Fields *(53 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 14, 2013)

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.


----------



## Metryq (Jan 14, 2013)

*"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.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 14, 2013)

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_orbital#Orbitals_table


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jan 14, 2013)

I said:


> 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_orbital#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.)


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 14, 2013)

Ah, good point - of course they are.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 14, 2013)

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!


----------



## Metryq (Jan 15, 2013)

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/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9221

(The discussion gets into some esoteric material in the following pages.)


----------



## HereAmI (Mar 31, 2013)

I found the Primer Field videos to be as immediately appealing and intuitively convincing as the Electric Universe theory. I'm not a "scientist" as such, but who is? Each one of us is essentially only a person with a brain and a certain amount of knowledge, and knowledge is not synonymous with wisdom. It is the brain which should organize knowledge, not vice versa. Vision is the characteristic which distinguishes the mediocre from the genius, and vision comes from intuition. In psychiatry, this would be described as a Primary Delusion, but one which in due course becomes the prevailing wisdom. Science, it seems, can mislead as often as it leads. There has to be value in being able to discard everything you thought you knew, even if it has been taught for hundreds of years. To me at least, it seems that the Age of Gravity is over.
But wrt the connect between long and short-range interactions, EM seems to fit the bill. The automatic clustering of steel balls around the axis of a magnetic field seems to be identical to that observed in the clustering of atoms in molecules. One also thinks of the clustering of planets in a planetary system. In respect of this, one wonders whether the Moon is indeed drifting away from the earth as we have been told, and so whether it was ever closer to earth than it is today, as we once more are told. I suspect not. It seems that it is confined to a particular, specific, and unchanging, orbital. Certainly, more theoretical work should be done, indeed, A la P states that the galaxies do not seem to be electrically-driven, as are his laboratory analogues. 
But the PF videos were designed to grab the interest on a fundamental non-numerical level; the patterns and structures which appear in relation to magnetic fields do just that. I was most impressed also with the simple demonstration of the previously-unknown ( I think ) magnetic substructures within bowl-shaped magnetic fields; ie the "containment dome", "flip ring", "choke ring", and "flip point". Together, these provide a compelling explanation for the emptiness of space and the ejection flares seen in the macroscopic realm of galaxies and the so-called supernova remnants.
And all this without the need for a single patch. There has to be a time when scientists decide that we need a totally new garment.
This is that time.
If this is indeed a time for the shifting of paradigms, I would be interested to get the community's views on their explanation of how the earth can rotate at 1000mph at the equator, whilst the oceans remain peacefully at rest in their basins? Surely inertia requires that they should overflow the earth in a global maelstrom; the mother of all tsunamis?
A final observation; if we are now beginning to understand the universe in terms of EM interactions rather than gravity, all well and good. However, we still have to explain why it is that these fields are placed as they are, from microscopic to macroscopic. Clearly, they are precisely ordained, and once more, we are no closer to positing an underlying aetiology.


----------



## HereAmI (Mar 31, 2013)

My point about the moon drifting away from the earth or not; it was shown in the PF videos that separating two N and S bowl-shaped fields would cause the steel balls at their mutually-perpendicular axis to move away from or closer to those fields; perhaps that might explain the phenomenon of the moon's varying distance from us.
But again, still no rationale as to why this might be occurring. And if the local EM environment is changing, does this indicate a galactic readjustment? It is hard to imagine a local change which would not affect everything else out there.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 1, 2013)

I have not viewed the videos that you talk about, but (perhaps unwisely, depends on how you take my answers) I can shed some light on some of the things you have discussed.



HereAmI said:


> I'm not a "scientist" as such...Science, it seems, can mislead as often as it leads. There has to be value in being able to discard everything you thought you knew, even if it has been taught for hundreds of years. To me at least, it seems that the Age of Gravity is over.


 
I'm afraid what you have written above is poppycock. The reason science works is that it builds on an incremental by incremental basis - with experiments, hypothesis and the inputs of hundreds of thousands of people over thousands of years. At each current moment Science gives a 'workable' hypothesis for the physical world according to the basis of these past and ongoing experiments. (workable as in we can do repeatable experiments and actually do things with our theories, such as make computers, observe and understand the workings of the sun, change DNA to effect life etc...)

Of course there are many areas where we have no answers. But where you see areas, where for some reason everything that has gone before must be burnt and replaced, I (and I was trained as a 'scientist') just see areas for further questions. I would then use what has come before - because it has generally been well tested and explains much - as the starting position. If during the process of scientific reasoning and experimentation I find that my explantion from before is not a good fit then we must start to propose new hypothesis or theories that may fit better. Sometimes even I must throw away a large chunk of the past to describe something new, but then my new theory better explain everything that has come before as well. A daunting prospect, and not one to be taken lightly. 

Finally for this point, to discard a theory it is imperative to understand the theory that you will discard. i.e. to therefore explain _why_ it is wrong. To destroy everthing before because you couldn't be bothered to learn what the understanding was, are the methods of the damned. 




HereAmI said:


> , EM seems to fit the bill. The automatic clustering of steel balls around the axis of a magnetic field seems to be identical to that observed in the clustering of atoms in molecules.


 
???? ermmm, the forces generated between atoms, light and molecules _are _electromagetic. It's just that it's filtered through Quantum theory. This has well known since the 1920s... Perhaps even earlier. Yes mainstream science was there first! 



HereAmI said:


> One also thinks of the clustering of planets in a planetary system. In respect of this, one wonders whether the Moon is indeed drifting away from the earth as we have been told, and so whether it was ever closer to earth than it is today, as we once more are told. I suspect not. It seems that it is confined to a particular, specific, and unchanging, orbital.


 
mmm, a scientist would not say "I suspect not". It's better to say I don't know. However luckily for you there is an experiment that has been measuring the drift of the moon since 1969 and, yes indeed it has been going further away. 

Why? Because just as the moon acts on the earth to produce tides, the earth acts on the moon and deforms it slighty. This deformation generates heat and takes energy out of the Earth-moon dynamic system (Conservation of energy, basic law or are you going to throw that out too? ) - effectively slowing the moon. As the moon slows it must take a orbit further away. (As an analogy think of a LP or vinyl record where everything rotates at 45 rpm - the track closest to the centre is a much shorter distance than the long track around the edge, hence the tangential velocity of the needle is much faster closer.) It's how our space craft and satellites are moved about in orbit as well - to go closer to the earth they need to speed up, to go further away they need to slow down. NASA has been doing this for decades! 


But further than the above, science has shown that there is in fact no such thing as an 'unchanging orbital'. All orbits (in the context of macroscopic objects) are chaotic, although some are more stable than others. Over the course of hundreds of millions, even billions of years many very different orbits may in fact be possible, I'm afraid. 





HereAmI said:


> If this is indeed a time for the shifting of paradigms, I would be interested to get the community's views on their explanation of how the earth can rotate at 1000mph at the equator, whilst the oceans remain peacefully at rest in their basins? Surely inertia requires that they should overflow the earth in a global maelstrom; the mother of all tsunamis?


 
Very simple. The oceans themselves are rotating at (near enough) 1000mph at the equator along with the earth. Seeing as the water is using their EM fields to stick to the rotating solid bits. However as they are of course fluid so: in conjuction with the heat of the sun, the postion of the continents and the earth's rotation (which gives rise to the coriolis effect) this gives the basic forces and condtions that generate ocean currents. i.e. The oceans are not actually 'peacefully at rest' but positively vibrant with energy. Which is a good thing because if it wasn't then there would have been no life on Earth.


----------



## HereAmI (Apr 1, 2013)

Thank you for that. I am none the wiser. But;
You state that we have to understand why a theory is wrong before we discard it; this in reference to my assertion about gravity.
The reason why gravity does not explain the structure of the galaxies etc, has been recognised by many well-known modern scientists. Steven Hawking comes to mind. His response to the dilemma was to hypothesize certain theoretically-possible entities which he named, or described, as black holes, neutron stars, and subsequently, dark matter, as black holes did not seem to be capable of supplying the apparently missing mass. This approach can be analogized to patching an old garment with fairy dust. There comes a time when all garments, no matter how revered and encrusted with the patina of respectability, must be consigned to the bin marked "history".
This approach requires a certain amount of ruthlessness, but as you know, one sometimes has to be cruel to be kind. 
Fortunately, a nice new garment is available to replace the old. EM forces, as you know, decay according to the inverse of distance; gravity as the inverse square. As such therefore, it seems eminently arguable that EM is the primary force which holds the universe together. No patches required. EM can also repel an object as well as attract it, depending on field orientation, so it offers additional possibilities when adjacent objects are being described.
Many scientists are beginning to drift towards this entirely reasonable viewpoint. A meeting of the Electric Universe group earlier this year in Albuquerque was headlined "The Tipping Point"; according to one of the theory's main advocates, many scientists were attending incognito. He made this statement during an interview with Red Ice Radio, available online if you wish to hear him say this. As you will certainly recognise, cherished but untenable theories may not be publicly disavowed by higher-level scientists without an impact on their sources of funding, and just as constraining, their inter-and intra-group status.
( You characterized the pursuit of science as a noble and disinterested calling; the truth is that it is as infected with politics ego and money as any other human endeavour. )

EM forces are certainly active at the atomic level, and I know that this fact is well recognized. My point was that EM can be scaled up to include the forces acting macrocosmically as well as microcosmically. As such it forms the apparent basis of a Unified Theory, which has been lacking to date, although sought with many tears and much heartache. The scientific dichotomy at present is that gravity is thought to act at the grand scale, and EM at the small scale. This, I believe, is a fatal error.
Before you criticize my choice of words as being not those which would be used by a scientist, in your estimation at least, remind yourself that I stated this fact at the outset of my first post. What I am saying is entirely commensurate, however, with the language which would be used by a philosopher of science, which is a different animal altogether.   

The point I originally made about the moon's apparent straying away from earth was clarified in an addition to my post which I subscripted. As you did not refer to it, perhaps you did not see it.
And finally, your last paragraph entirely fails to address the question I asked about why the oceans do not respond dramatically to the inertial forces imposed upon them by the rotation of the earth.
Perhaps another poster might succeed where you have failed.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 1, 2013)

Hi HereIam, 

I apologise for coming across as a bit brusque - I am not a morning person - but that is not really an excuse. However sometimes the old passion just wells up and you just have to let it out. I shall be calmer, I promise  



HereAmI said:


> The reason why gravity does not explain the structure of the galaxies etc, has been recognised by many well-known modern scientists. Steven Hawking comes to mind. His response to the dilemma was to hypothesize certain theoretically-possible entities which he named, or described, as black holes, neutron stars, and subsequently, dark matter,


 
Yes I know the problem well, and know fully that both Dark matter and Dark energy are just fudges put in to try and make sense of the observations (although Dark energy is nothing to do with gravity, but instead about the nature and development of our universe, so we should take heed and not mix them up.) 




> Fortunately, a nice new garment is available to replace the old. EM forces, as you know, decay according to the inverse of distance; gravity as the inverse square.


 
Unfortunately this statement above is incorrect. Both Gravitional and EM forces are _inverse square laws_. Hence are identical in this respect. Perhaps you are confusing the force equation with the potential energy equation? (and again both Gravity and EM will have identical 1/r potential) See Coulomb's law if you are unclear 

The problem I have with EM fields on the large scale is that they can not be generated by matter. The reason is that as positive and negative charges attract they will form neutral clouds of matter with little EM field generated outside - and if there is dynamic action that causes electrons and nuclei to be torn asunder to reveal their 'naked' charges, then the cosmos will quickly cover up these forces back to neutral. 

However there may be non-matter sources of EM fields - some versions of string theory (there's another theory I have big problems with! But stick with me.) Where they suggest one dimensional strings formed at the start of time caused by the expansion of the early universe (think like cracks in glass) still exist but now scaled up to be universe and as the universe expands they will generate vast magnetic fields. I believe they were proposed to suggest how galaxies have formed in clumps. I do not know if this is a still seen as a resonable theory but it may suggest a way for large scale EM fields to exist, that do not require matter. 

Hence there may be quite exotic ways for large scale structure to be influence by EM. So it is of course possible. 



> ( You characterized the pursuit of science as a noble and disinterested calling; the truth is that it is as infected with politics ego and money as any other human endeavour. )


 
Again a sage point that I can wholeheartly agree. And we should apply it to all endeavours, including these EM people in Albuquerque. I personally do not have any interest, commerial, ego or politics - thinking in these areas is just a hobby. 



> The scientific dichotomy at present is that gravity is thought to act at the grand scale, and EM at the small scale. This, I believe, is a fatal error.


 
I'd put it this way. At the moment General relativity explains the macro quite well. Yes dark matter suggests that either we are missing a great deal of the universe _or_ missing something fundamental about our large scale theory. 

Also at the moment Quantum mechanics explains the micro extremely well. 

But the two ain't going to mix. And I fear we will never get them to 'merge' because we need a situation where both Quantum and Gravitational effects are large so that we can do experiments to study what is happening. The only place that this can really happen is in black holes - and we may never get close to one in nature in order to do the necessary experiments. At least that is my humble view. Proper working scientists will have better ones than that. 




> The point I originally made about the moon's apparent straying away from earth was clarified in an addition to my post which I subscripted. As you did not refer to it, perhaps you did not see it.


 
I did see it, but I'm afraid I didn't understand it. I'm entirely happy with my simple orbital dynamic hypothesis. Each to his own I suppose 



HereAmI said:


> And finally, your last paragraph entirely fails to address the question I asked about why the oceans do not respond dramatically to the inertial forces imposed upon them by the rotation of the earth.
> Perhaps another poster might succeed where you have failed.


 
I'll give it another shot, so bear with me. 

Your mistake in your thinking is that you assume that the ocean is stationary relative to the earth's rotation. It's not - it rotates with the earth at the same speed. The sea bed is moving at 1000 mph (to take your number) and the ocean above it is moving at 1000 mph with it in the same direction. i.e. the oceans themselves are in the same frame of reference, motion wise as the earth's rotation. Why should it do otherwise? For the water of the ocean to become stationary you would have to apply an enormous force on every single molecule of water. Luckily for us only an act of god could do that. 

Let us take another smaller example, but says the same thing:

Imagine you are on a train travelling at 200 kmph and you have a rubber ball in your hand. If you bounce it on the floor of the train what does it do? Using your logic above it must speed off at 200kmph down the aisle of the train instantly as soon as it leaves your hand. 

What actually happens? It hits the floor below and bounces back up into your hand. Why? Because of course the ball and you are in the train in the same inertial frame travelling at 200 kmph. The ball is already moving at 200kmph when you let go of it, and will continue to do so until a force acts on it. If you wanted the ball to be stationary to a person viewing from another inertial frame (say an onlooker looking at the train a hundred metres off the tracks to one side) then you have to apply a big force to the ball to change its velocity. 

In the same way the earth and it's oceans are coupled in the same inertial frame. There are no big forces acting on the oceans to decouple them into a stationary state.


----------

