There a number of issues raised here: Via K.C. Abraham
1. The Primer field model of interactions, and their bowls in particular, only model the M-fields of the interactions taking place – a common problem with most experimentalists. If you look at their toroidal shaped fields and realize they are only models of M-fields you’ll notice that they match the equilateral m-fields of Tetryonics but fail to model the e-field energy that they are applying to them in order to achieve their results.
2. That said they still remain an accurate model of the processes [albeit only half the picture]
3.Current theories struggle in many ways to account for the creation and evolution of our Universe in light of the currently observed features – the largest problem they have and the most conveniently skipped over is the FTL problem of Inflation – FTL is impossible under the tenets of relativity theory, yet it is the core mechanism for inflation the bed rock of the current model of how the Universe got to have such an homogenous CMBR radiation pattern.
4. The CMBR results from an ‘almighty’ electrical discharge from two electrodes with the longitudinal waves produced reaching out between the electrodes to collide and interact within a region between the two electrodes concerned.
5. This is the only way to produce Matter and forces in the early Universe, as you delve into Tetryonic theory in depth you will note a number of key points that firmly point to the above scenario being the most plausible mechanism for the creation of our Universe.
6. Light itself can be easily formed from the same discharge process along with Matter. [but the reverse is not true nor possible, Matter cannot be created from Light or EM waves].
7. All Matter is created from Electrostatic discharges – neutral photons and EM waves have charge arrangements that are in-correct for forming Matter – so a DC discharge is how you form Matter not from light.
8. The energy density of these primordial discharges is high enough to produce FTL velocities under E=mv^2 geometries and to result in inflation where the Vacuum energies and light produced will initially propagate at >c for a period of time and then ‘slow’ down to c when the energy densities permit.
9. The interactions that create the Matter component of our Universe are the result of longitudinal energy momenta slamming into each other at various angles – only longitudinal waves produce physical forces [Tesla] and these forces create Matter, EM fields and gravity in the nascent Universe.
10. As time progresses the region of interaction will grow in size [the Universe expands] to fill empty regions of space creating SOME of the observed CMBR pattern – this CMBR pattern can also be heavily influenced by localised regions of creation
11. If a solar system [ours] was created later we would observe the CMBR pattern only by viewing it through the local MBR bubble produced by the creation of our Solar system – any attempt to model the CMBR without taking these effects into account just leads to erroneous models and predictions – to date there have be 4 [FOUR] math models that predicted the CMBR energy level [temperature] each one was proclaimed the most accurate model possible until measures returned temperatures that differed from the model – at which point the model was re-adjusted and proclaimed to be the most accurate model again.
12. Fiddling with math to match an observed outcome is not science – it is fiddling – and should never be done. Tetryonics has littered Science with the remains of such work that has lead physics to many an erroneous conclusion – atomic models, relativity theory, gravity, the role of charge and the geometry of energy itself are but a few that come quickly to mind.
13. The Ying-Yang geometry is simply a well-known symbol that can be utilized to convey a basic message of how the Universe was created, many others are no doubt possible as well – the truth of the matter (as I see it) is far more prosaic, to make a Universe all you need is enough equilateral Planck energies compressed into two points and a region of empty space in which it can expand. Dollard has done similar experiments and noted mini-galaxies and stars in light bulbs as a result of large voltages discharges into them.
Other important points to consider.
1. Primer is experimentally based – Tetryonics is theory based.
2. Both can aid and expand on the work of each other and in fact this should be encouraged if possible
3. There is a case of strong agreement between Tetryonic theory and the Primer field experimental results.
4. We congratulate him in using EM discharges as this is where Tetryonic Theory shows our future advances lie in energy generation and resource creation.
5. Obviously his focus has been on practical results while our focus is on developing and refining a theory and one that shows great promise in expanding David's work to date.
6. Tetryonic Theory can greatly expand his understanding of the plasma physics of the discharges that he is working with presently, in turn enabling the rapid development of new experimental designs.
7. In fact, Tetryonic theory has many discharge designs that can be readily provided to further his experimental work on discharge plasmas etc.
8. CAD modeling of equilateral E&M fields shows that the electrode designs he has found effective [and was utilizing in the videos] are fully reflective of Tetryonic M field geometries, leaving scope to expand on his current theoretical modeling and suppositions through the inclusion of Tetryonic Field Theory.
9. Obviously there is scope to develop the E-field components of the fields as this is where Tesla found much application. This is where real physical forces can be easily created and real horsepower can be transmitted over great distances near-instantaneously [as Tesla noted]
10. It is only current science’s fixation on electrical oscillations & transverse waves that creates our current impediment to many new technologies that can be rapidly developed and made available to all.
11. I couldn’t agree more with his statement that practical outcomes are a necessary step – but equally, so is a solid understanding of the physics involved from a theoretical stand point. Some development of a theoretical understanding of the results and its application to current sciences was attempted in his videos but found only limited success as key pieces of theory were missing, namely that of the equilateral geometries of Planck energies and the theoretical advances made possible by Tetryonics Theory’s geometric approach to electrical energies and physics in general.
12. From a mutual understanding of each other’s work an even greater understanding can be developed as from my point of view presently there is much in common.
13. Finally, his theory being ‘limited’ to M-field at present and Tetryonics can reveal much more about the interaction dynamics taking place than he is theoretically aware of at present.”
Posted on Wed, July 9, 2014
by Richard Blankenship