The Electron Hoax

[junglelord]

Certainly the way one constructucts the dimensions vs units creates many varied yet semi valid multidimensional models. I certainly see the fractal model as valid.

[rangerover777]

One of the nice thing about EU, is that they make their conclusions back
from observation, or as they say “The Electric Universe works backward
in time using observations rather than forward from some idealised theoretical
beginning. It provides simple answers to problems that are now clothed in
fashionable metaphysics and mysticism”.

Though, when it come to the atom structure, they say :
“At the level of the atom, the Electric Universe model takes a lead from the work
of Ralph Sansbury, an independent New York researcher. Foremost is the simple
recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy of the electrostatic
force** in matter interactions. It also rests upon the simple assumption that the proton,
neutron and electron are composed of smaller charged particles, orbiting each other in a
classical sense in stable, resonant orbits“.

So where is the conclusions backward from observations here ?
Why resting on assumptions and “basic electrical nature of matter“ ?
Why not test it for yourself in different ways that may reveal different results then
the classical theory about electrons ?

The fact that we are dealing with small particles almost elusive, that we cannot see,
leaves a large gap for “Believing in what others said”, which is not very scientific…
You don’t need for that Particle Accelerator that cost billions $$$. You can do it at home.

Truly, no one want to mess with this question, since chances that someone will pay
attention to that are slim, let alone laughed at. The atom structure and the electron
are deeply inherited within out culture for over a 100 years, that it’s almost a suicide
to claim that another look is needed here.

I wish EU will re-examine and TEST this question independently from external source…

Cheers

[Grey Cloud]

Rangerover777.
Well said Sir.

[rangerover777]

One of the absurd about electrons being actually N & S magnets, is that
if you take the magnetic model as the building block of matter, waves and
electricity and you say “This is a crazy impossible model, but let‘s give it
a chance and see what happen” (there is no risk saying that to yourself).
Then some elusive questions (tested and explained by others, then you),
may start to make sense :
1. Why positive attract negative ?
2. Why wherever there is electricity - there are magnetic fields ?
And not the other way around ?
3. Why magnets have natural orbiting features (one stream against another
like in a bar magnet or earth) and for the electron does not have any
reason to orbit ?
4. Why start with one particles, instead of two that can create many more
phenomenas then one ?
5. If the atom made of orbiting electrons and the orbit break (in a battery),
you can easily detect two currents coming out, one from each terminal (with a
simple compass) ?
6. Assuming that magnets orbiting the atom and connected by magnetic
field to form matter, that may explain the “missing link of gravity” of
how magnets attract matter ? And how the sun attract earth (by magnetic
field) ?
7. Maybe the atom structure reflected in earth structure, which reflected
in the solar system, which reflected galaxies ? After all, everything
have to be belong to each other…or at least be part of it.
8. We already have here, under our nose two particles that :
- orbit
- attract
- repel,
- have two poles
- very very fast
- in unlimited in quantities
- run as waves
- somehow exists anywhere in the universe
So why not start there ?
Why to force new particles where they don’t belong ?

Maybe we are programmed to think that this question is for Einstein and up,
while 12th grade student, doing simple tests, can give the answer…

Cheers

[StevenO]

One of the nice thing about EU, is that they make their conclusions back
from observation, or as they say “The Electric Universe works backward
in time using observations rather than forward from some idealised theoretical
beginning. It provides simple answers to problems that are now clothed in
fashionable metaphysics and mysticism”.

Though, when it come to the atom structure, they say :
“At the level of the atom, the Electric Universe model takes a lead from the work
of Ralph Sansbury, an independent New York researcher. Foremost is the simple
recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy of the electrostatic
force** in matter interactions. It also rests upon the simple assumption that the proton,
neutron and electron are composed of smaller charged particles, orbiting each other in a
classical sense in stable, resonant orbits“.

So where is the conclusions backward from observations here ?
Why resting on assumptions and “basic electrical nature of matter“ ?
Why not test it for yourself in different ways that may reveal different results then
the classical theory about electrons ?

The fact that we are dealing with small particles almost elusive, that we cannot see,
leaves a large gap for “Believing in what others said”, which is not very scientific…
You don’t need for that Particle Accelerator that cost billions $$$. You can do it at home.

Truly, no one want to mess with this question, since chances that someone will pay
attention to that are slim, let alone laughed at. The atom structure and the electron
are deeply inherited within out culture for over a 100 years, that it’s almost a suicide
to claim that another look is needed here.

I wish EU will re-examine and TEST this question independently from external source…

Cheers

I fully agree, rangerover. My opinion is that the Ralph Sansbury claims are not based on very solid experiments and it discredits EU to list them so prominently on their website. However, the experiments could easily be repeated and re-examined by the EU community to see if they contain any substance.

The quantum behaviour of atoms will follow from the phase locking of the electron and nucleus electric charge wave functions through straightforward application of the Maxwell EM laws. It is a path that is currently traversed by e.g. Carver Mead (Collective Electrodynamics, http://www.amazon.com/Collective-Electr ... 0262133784, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/12/6013.pdf) or Randall Mills (Classical Quantum Mechanics, http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml).

Still for the EU community I think it would be a better goal to advance and simplify the knowledge on magneto/electrohydrodynamics.

[webolife]

StevenO concluded: To simplify things, if the size of an EM system is restricted, we can work with just the events going in one direction.
I hold the view that the unified field is scaleless and dimensionless[in terms of units]. For example, an atomic nucleus is virtually infinitesmal wrt its atomic field, the sun wrt the solar system, the galaxies with respect to the cluster field, etc. yet all hold the same unified geometry, a system of ratios derived from the interrelationship of hexagonal, orthogonal and spherical space, definable by vectors and delimited by the paramount time vector. I would go so far as to say the [finite] universe itself is the punctual centroid of an infinite field. (Glad this is in the NIAMI forum ) So I "restrict" (define, delimit, subjugate) all fields to the same set of principles, including time.

[rangerover777]

Steven0, thanks for the response,
I think Mr. Carver A. Mead, have a basic mistake in his Model System,
that he assume the current of electrons comes from one side only, while
actually two currents running one against another (starting from the two end of
the superconductive wires). So the measurements that where taken - are
one sided only.

What is interesting is that he found that “The current will be a maximum at
the surface of the wire, and will die off exponentially with distance into the
interior of the wire”.
Once a wire or loop are induced, they become one magnet, emitting magnetic filed
all along the wire http://www.leedskalnin.net/test-6.htm .
When you have a bar magnet, the field is stronger at the two poles, while in the
center the field is neutral (since the magnets streams concentrate trough the center
and not the outside, in order to pass to the other side). If you can visualized
Carver wire, it is similar to a bar magnet, but all along the center of the wire,
the field is almost neutral, since most the magnets runs close to the surface of the wire.


The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, on the other hand using the classical
wave equation with the constraint of nonradiation based on Maxwell's equations,
which ignore the possibility that wave is actually two waves running one against
another (it happen in any type of wave, not only electricity) and the fact that waves
propagating in spiral motion in right hand rule and not 2D as accepted by physics.

I believe that some observations are right in these two theories, but when the electron
being used as part of the basic ingredients, it cannot go that far. And as long as the
existence of the electron is being questioned - that’s when you go from observations
to conclusions… not the other way. That’s where most experiments and calculations are
failing without even noticed…

A much longer "step back" is needed here...

Cheers

[StevenO]

StevenO concluded: To simplify things, if the size of an EM system is restricted, we can work with just the events going in one direction.
I hold the view that the unified field is scaleless and dimensionless[in terms of units]. For example, an atomic nucleus is virtually infinitesmal wrt its atomic field, the sun wrt the solar system, the galaxies with respect to the cluster field, etc. yet all hold the same unified geometry, a system of ratios derived from the interrelationship of hexagonal, orthogonal and spherical space, definable by vectors and delimited by the paramount time vector. I would go so far as to say the [finite] universe itself is the punctual centroid of an infinite field. (Glad this is in the NIAMI forum ) So I "restrict" (define, delimit, subjugate) all fields to the same set of principles, including time.

OK... I think i can follow your idea's up to the geometry part...why do we need hex, ortho- and spherical space? Me thinks ortho and spherical are enough and they can be converted into eachother, so pick one of the two...with the system of ratio's, do we go back to old the crystal spheres?

BTW. If you are interested in unified geometry the R. Buckminster Fuller Synergetics books are worth a read: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/toc/toc.html

[StevenO]

Steven0, thanks for the response,
I think Mr. Carver A. Mead, have a basic mistake in his Model System,
that he assume the current of electrons comes from one side only, while
actually two currents running one against another (starting from the two end of
the superconductive wires). So the measurements that where taken - are
one sided only.

Hi RR, I think your statement is not correct. Mead demonstrates that EM theory can be easier understood if the collective system behaviour is analyzed, so the minimum system would be two electrons. He shows a basic superconducting current loop will show quantum behaviour if closed because of the phase matching requirement of the waves at the begin/end of the loop. This is something that can be extrapolated to atom behaviour as he does in Ch 4 of his booklet, where he also shows how this leads to the classic behaviour of photons.

The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, on the other hand using the classical
wave equation with the constraint of nonradiation based on Maxwell's equations,
which ignore the possibility that wave is actually two waves running one against
another (it happen in any type of wave, not only electricity) and the fact that waves
propagating in spiral motion in right hand rule and not 2D as accepted by physics.

Mills also composes the non radiating condition from the superposition of two charges, so I also have to disagree with this statement, although I think his orbitsphere could be an oversimplification (if I understand it at all ). But he is able to calculate the anatomy of atoms and molecules way beyond what is technically possible with regular QM and I give him credit for that.

I believe that some observations are right in these two theories, but when the electron
being used as part of the basic ingredients, it cannot go that far. And as long as the
existence of the electron is being questioned - that’s when you go from observations
to conclusions… not the other way. That’s where most experiments and calculations are
failing whitout even noticed…

Why do you think the existence of "electrons" (whatever their physical form is) needs to be questioned? I might lose my job if they failed to exist...

[rangerover777]

Steven0,

I hope you will keep your job even after the electrons will become magnets…
you only have to be one of the first in your company to realize that. Then they
will even raise your salary….lol

The reasons no one really want to mess with magnets is because :
1. They are too small to detect (they can go through the earth from one pole to another in no time).
2. Too fast to detect (much faster then light).
3. They appear in many forms (waves, matter, gravity, orbits, light, electricity, plasma and
other particles (names) that are actually magnets running in different combinations, etc.).
4. Their lines of power (streams) are too difficult to understand. How they run,
how the orbit operate. How orbits effect each other inside and outside planetary system.
Very often you can hear “Magnetic Anomaly”, which simply means - we don’t really
understand magnets…
5. There are only two kind of them, and science needs at least 12 different particles to explain
the atom…or other phenomenas in the universe (two - is too simple and too complicated) lol

So, who will take upon him/her self such a project ? Diving into such unknown territory ?
It’s much easier to invent Electrons, Bosons, Protons, Neutrons, atoms, Ion, Isotopes,
Photons, Quarks, Leptons - and “Teach them how to walk” and tell them what to do.
Isn’t it sound amazingly creative and funny way to explore the universe ?


Cheers

[junglelord]

You would like the work of wilbert smith's work in modern form as it applies to Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and procession of the entire atom from Electron Shell Magnet to Proton/Neutron Nucleus Magnet. Manipulate the entire spin function of those magnets and you have the holy grail. NMR is the key to the next level of understanding.
http://magnetism.otc.co.nz/Theory.htm

[StevenO]

Steven0,

I hope you will keep your job even after the electrons will become magnets…
you only have to be one of the first in your company to realize that. Then they
will even raise your salary….lol

Pfffew...I was starting to get worried

The reasons no one really want to mess with magnets is because :
1. They are too small to detect (they can go through the earth from one pole to another in no time).
2. Too fast to detect (much faster then light).
3. They appear in many forms (waves, matter, gravity, orbits, light, electricity, plasma and
other particles (names) that are actually magnets running in different combinations, etc.).
4. Their lines of power (streams) are too difficult to understand. How they run,
how the orbit operate. How orbits effect each other inside and outside planetary system.
Very often you can hear “Magnetic Anomaly”, which simply means - we don’t really
understand magnets…
5. There are only two kind of them, and science needs at least 12 different particles to explain
the atom…or other phenomenas in the universe (two - is too simple and too complicated) lol

What you describe looks exactly like the behaviour of electric charge to me. So in that respect we agree. Only that for me as an old fashioned Maxwell geek magnetism describes the forces of moving charge and electrostatics describe the forces of static charge. Indeed I would agree with you that the particle zoo is just different manifestations of charge in motion.

Proost!

[rangerover777]

Steven0,

Thanks for the partial agreement (at least we don’t have to argue about
the manifestations, or maybe yes, who knows…).

This is not the question of who come first the chicken or the egg, since
even Mr. Maxwell himself could not make electricity without magnets…
Or if you ask your logic to answer this question, try that : why magnetic fields
always appear where electricity presented and not the other way around ?
Or why there is no such a thing as “electric field” ?
Both Maxwell and Faraday contribute a lot to the understanding of characteristics
of these “particles”, which can lead to further understanding as to their nature.
At least in my opinion there is no such a thing as “Charged Particle” since any
particle that made of N or S pole magnets - is already charged, in the first place
and it’s only question of what you want it to do, should you run them as x-rays or
electricity or gravity, etc.

Also if we look at it from a different angle. Nature have three very basic functions :
1. Transformation. 2. Destruction (or reducing matter to it’s basic form). 3. Building matter.
Now, what do we need for that to happen ? I don’t mean what human being needs to
explain or understand, but what nature needs - there is a big difference here.

I’m glad you see the “Particles zoo” same as me, since building a model
based on few particles (N & S pole magnets) to explain and simulate all
other phenomenas and particles seems to make sense to me (if my name was Mr. Nature…).

By the way I think Static electricity are N & S magnetic poles crowded close together in
a small area (relatively to their natural distance from each other), while the orbiting
magnets around these poles Pointing Across from their orbit. And when a discharge
happen is when channels are created, so the poles can run through. It’s like a bee hive
that each hole present a magnetic pole - randomly set.

Cheers

[bboyer]

<snip>

This is not the question of who come first the chicken or the egg, since
even Mr. Maxwell himself could not make electricity without magnets…
Or if you ask your logic to answer this question, try that : why magnetic fields
always appear where electricity presented and not the other way around ?

I believe EU takes the position that wherever a magnetic field is detected, there also will you find an electric current, that one is inseparable from the other. I'm assuming you are referring to the presence of a magnetic field around and within a magnet where no apparent electrical current is detected or observable? This is one of the issues addressed in this thread as well: Magnetism: Form, Structure, & Dynamics. Of course, if you place yourself as part of a live electrical circuit I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be aware of the magnetic presence but you'd sure be aware of the presence of the electrical current and the reflexive effort it takes to disconnect yourself from the circuit. We don't normally describe it as having received a magnetic shock, though indeed, it may be as much of language convention than anything "real." But I'm in agreement with the EU position, if I have stated it correctly. So that tells me either 1) there are intrinsic "sub"-atomic electrical currents occurring throughout a magnet and/or 2) that what we call the "magnetic" is simply a variation, or an aspect, intrinsic to the "electric." Or both. That they are simply differing manifestations of the very same fundamental phenomenon.

Or why there is no such a thing as “electric field” ?

Why do you say there is no electric field?

<snip>

By the way I think Static electricity are N & S magnetic poles crowded close together in
a small area (relatively to their natural distance from each other), while the orbiting
magnets around these poles Pointing Across from their orbit. And when a discharge
happen is when channels are created, so the poles can run through. It’s like a bee hive
that each hole present a magnetic pole - randomly set.
Cheers

"Words get in the way." They might just as well be called N & S electric poles. Particularly when no one, including Mr. Leedskalnin, can say with complete certainly that such purely discrete N & S entities exist. Yes, the NET EFFECT can be clearly seen as N & S (or positive and negative) but the existence of ANY "pure" singularlity (monopole) has never been objectively proven. In fact, Howard Johnson's measurements pretty much demonstrate that even what we perceive as the net purity of a N or S region of a magnet is in fact harmoniously composed of BOTH factors simultaneously, in a quadrapole configuration.

I think, perhaps, much of the trouble you may encounter in getting scientific-minded folks to listen to what you have to say is your insistence on staying true to Ed's use of the word "magnet" when speaking of the invisible domain of sub-atomics or "quanta." I love Ed's work, btw. But, really, there probably is sense to the saying "when in Rome, do as the Romans do," at least when trying to get them to listen to anything you might have to say past the initial "Hello."

[webolife]

StevenO, thanks for your question. You asked:
OK... I think i can follow your idea's up to the geometry part...why do we need hex, ortho- and spherical space? Me thinks ortho and spherical are enough and they can be converted into eachother, so pick one of the two...with the system of ratio's, do we go back to old the crystal spheres?

My approach is resonant with some of Kepler's spatial relationships. I wish I was more techy and could draw this out for you... hopefully this explanation will give you some sensible food for thought:
1. Inscribe a circle in a regular hexagon.
2. Circumscribe the hexagon.
3. Let this circle be inscribed in another hexagon.
4. Circumscribed this.
5. Continue this polycyclic series... the scaleless ratios inherent among these concentric circles describe most if not all the constants of physics.
6. If, instead of circumscribing to form the series, you inscribe to create an inward progressing series, the ratios will differ but will obviously correspond in a reciprocal manner to the ratios of the circumscribed series.
7. Now in the same diagram circumscribe a square around the original circle, then circumscribe a circle around that, then a square, then a circle, and so on. After numerous repetitions, you notice a pattern of coinciding circles (from the hexagons and the squares) that "beats" (ie. resonates) in a pattern that closely follows the octaves of music, and exactly follows the relative radial positions of the planet orbits about the sun. Octaves alone do not demark the planet orbits (Neptune and the earth are excluded) but this "beating" pattern includes all the planetary orbits, including Earth, Neptune, the asteroid belt maximum density, and the Kuiper belt maximum (and Bode's rule).
8. A hexagonally structured Periodic Table follows this same beating pattern; exigent intersecting chords in the concentric pattern mark out solar system (gravitational) Lagrangian points; and spectral color relationships are found in the same geometric system, without a need for theoretical wave or particle contortions.
9. Square/orthogonal geometry and hexagonal geometry coexist in space, and symbiotically demark the major physical constants.

Glad this is on the NIAMI forum! I love this place!