What the heck is the "Electric Model of the Universe?"

[upriver]

I see this error being made by the top most physicists.
It shocks me that the fundamental meanings of words get lost.
This makes it no surprise that science gets so confused, even on basic things.
This is my chance to explain. Correct me if you think I am wrong.

Nobody knows what fields are exactly but I would put them at the lowest level of a hierarchy.

Nobody looks in the dictionary anymore.

Fields are designated areas, or volumes.

The fields are set by us.
We make the fences. We define the boundaries.
Then we study what is in the field.
We try to define what is in the field, that creates the forces observed on objects in the field (or are supposed to).

Science borrowed the word "field" from farming.
We have wheat in field A, cattle in field B, field C is lying fallow, and so forth.
Fields are simply designated areas.

We designate a spherical volume field around a body, and call it the gravity field, or the charge field.
The field is the spherical area.
What the "crops" are in the fields are still a mystery.
Gravity and charge are the "crops" in science, the forces that reside in our fields, but these are yet to be physically and mechanically explained, as to what they are, and how they transmit force.

Now science has conflated the field and the crop.
The paddock has become the wheat.
They failed to define what gravity is, and what charge is, and now say it is the field that creates forces.

But if we be rigorous, and define our spherical field around Earth at time t,
then at time t + n, the Earth and her gravity has moved on, and our field is now relatively empty of gravity.
To avoid this, science designates moving fields.
Scientific fields are in motion with the bodies, so that the designated area of the field continues to contain the gravity, or charge, which we are trying track.

You can have a field of electrons.
You can have a field of asteroids.
In most science fields the "crops" are superimposed, or interspersed.
A field of electrons will also contain charge, magnetism, and gravity, for instance.
The different forces in the field may have different strengths and vectors, even at different locations in the field.

The field itself doesn't have any force.
It is just the region of space where the forces are active.
~Paul

A field is an area where a particle can accelerate/get kinetic energy. I like to say a field is composed of kinetic energy.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Upriver.

A field is an area where a particle can accelerate/get kinetic energy. I like to say a field is composed of kinetic energy.

A field of what?
If you can say what, I will say that is the carrier of the kinetic energy.

Photons are ubiquitous, so I consider them to be the carriers of cosmic kinetic energy.
~Paul

[webolife]

Yes, the field must also be describable by what causes the energy transfers to occur.
I characterize that as centropic pressure coupled with angular momentum. It is difficult to conceive of a universe without both fundaments, so I see them as equally primordial to the physical universe. While some would conclude that this suggests a universe without a beginning, an eternal universe, I think there is another option: an intentional universe. Back to the electric model -- if charge, nuclear force, magnetism and gravitation in general are all related, there is no reason to not call this broadly "electricity". Gravitation and motion, by whatever drivers, are the stuff of nature, of physics; everything added to this, thus far, is merely our limited imagination and experience, call it science!

[upriver]

Thank you, Upriver.

A field is an area where a particle can accelerate/get kinetic energy. I like to say a field is composed of kinetic energy.

A field of what?
If you can say what, I will say that is the carrier of the kinetic energy.

Photons are ubiquitous, so I consider them to be the carriers of cosmic kinetic energy.
~Paul

I am implying that the field is kinetic energy and that the carriers are mass bound particles(particles that carry mass).

[upriver]

Yes, the field must also be describable by what causes the energy transfers to occur.
I characterize that as centropic pressure coupled with angular momentum. It is difficult to conceive of a universe without both fundaments, so I see them as equally primordial to the physical universe. While some would conclude that this suggests a universe without a beginning, an eternal universe, I think there is another option: an intentional universe. Back to the electric model -- if charge, nuclear force, magnetism and gravitation in general are all related, there is no reason to not call this broadly "electricity". Gravitation and motion, by whatever drivers, are the stuff of nature, of physics; everything added to this, thus far, is merely our limited imagination and experience, call it science!

My question is is linear or angular momentum more primary. i.e. is a straight line path or a curve path
more primary?

[webolife]

Yes, the field must also be describable by what causes the energy transfers to occur.
I characterize that as centropic pressure coupled with angular momentum. It is difficult to conceive of a universe without both fundaments, so I see them as equally primordial to the physical universe. While some would conclude that this suggests a universe without a beginning, an eternal universe, I think there is another option: an intentional universe. Back to the electric model -- if charge, nuclear force, magnetism and gravitation in general are all related, there is no reason to not call this broadly "electricity". Gravitation and motion, by whatever drivers, are the stuff of nature, of physics; everything added to this, thus far, is merely our limited imagination and experience, call it science!

My question is is linear or angular momentum more primary. i.e. is a straight line path or a curve path
more primary?

Great question! I've addressed this numerous times elsewhere. Suffice it here to say that while Newton's inertia is the most basic ideal case, this phenomenon occurs/exists nowhere in the universe. Every body at every hierarchy or order is moving under the influence of at least an additional force, the connective force which we refer to as gravitation [whatever its underlying cause is, some folks here prefer to use "charge"-- both terms describe the same general phenomenon]. While Newton viewed this as universal attraction, I see it as a "big squeeze." Therefore every real case of momentum is angular momentum. So which case is "primary" the ideal or real? I guess the answer to that determines whether you're primarily a physicist or a mathematician

To complete this answer however we must consider the case of light. Our observance of light is that the CLOS [central line of sight] is rectilinear. The trajectory of a light beam is modifiable by vectoral refraction [color] or reflection; a simple vector model describes this adequately. In addition, changes to the light effect occur with distance [intensity], partial blockage [filtering, dyes, etc.], focusing through a lens or ordering device such as a pinhole, slit [double or single]; and vector models [ie. optical ray diagrams] describe these changes as well. So fundamentally, CLOS is the only straightline action in the universe. I believe light is a manifestation of the connectivity of the universe, and as such a different variety of "gravitation"... I can justify a view that light action is instantaneous, because as the centroid of a field "drops" inward [electron energy drop, or whatever, what most folks think of as the "source" of light action], the entire field is altered at that moment, including the peripheral point at which the light action is observed [by means of a rectilinear vectoral "push" toward that centroid]. Other vectors, viewed in angular relationship to the CLOS, manifest as the color spectrum, redundant iterations of the B->R pattern that can be described as geometrical consequences of vector pressure with respect to the CLOS, ie. a pressure gradient of light. This perspective of course negates Einstein, light waves or corpuscles, and "c" as it is currently understood. As a matter of measurement, "c" is generally mathematically inferred from the assumption of it coupled with other relations of refraction/diffraction to "wavelength" [Wein's law, etc.]-- in other words, diversions from the CLOS are assumed to be changes in wavelength, then this wavelength is related to equations relating to "c" and the belief that refraction changes the value of "c", and the assumption of "c" becomes the determiner of the "c" measurement. Light cannot be seen "along the way"... femto-photographic processing tricks do not actually prove light signals are moving through space, as I see it. In those processed high speed videos, the light is still viewed only at the observer station, from different directions in the frame returned by the processing of data in a manner which "shows" light at different positions in its trajectory, analogous to the stroboscopic art of animation.

Well, too much rant for an off-thread post. My apologies to the OP, moderators, and any others disinterested in my centropic field pressure view.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Upriver.

I am implying that the field is kinetic energy and that the carriers are mass bound particles(particles that carry mass).

The field is space.

I see this is the popular mistake, to give properties to empty space,
when the behaviors of particles cannot otherwise be explained.

But I think, explaining how empty space can have kinetic energy will be even harder than explaining how mass bound particles have kinetic energy.
~Paul

[comingfrom]

Your question inspired a lovely thought.

My question is is linear or angular momentum more primary. i.e. is a straight line path or a curve path
more primary?

The first ever angular momentum came about when the first two objects with linear motion collided.


In electric theory, the E field is primary and the B field is secondary.
The E field is created by the linear motion of the charge particles, and the magnetic field is created by their spins.

All atomic and celestial bodies spin.
Because charge spins, and passes through all things,
and transfers some of its angular momentum to the electron or atom as it passes through.
~Paul

[webolife]

"A field is space." Hmmm...

True... a field is a "region" of space in which action takes place between two objects. But what mediates the "between"? Simply saying that a "field" is generated does not explain the cause or the mediation of the resulting action of that field. Trying to attribute the action as a property of a massive particle has proven elusive at best, and also illusory. Meanwhile the most illustrative description of field action is vectors... Poynting vectors, pressure vectors, optical ray[vector] diagrams, gravitational vectors... all describing action that happens in or across that "between" region. Like it or not, what is observed is an action across a distance between two ostensible objects. Imagined "carrier particles" remain figmental. Now space as "nothing" is logically non-phenomenal, I think all can agree to that! But maybe "fields" are phenomenal for a different reason, not because space is being bent, stretched, accelerated, or...? Maybe the universe itself is a finite "object" [apologies to Oists on the use of this their sacred term], and fields are the definition of "finite"... that was clumsy... to put it another way, every object is surrounded by a region that distinguishes it from another object, the region thus defines the object. The tiny nucleus of an atom is surrounded by a comparatively "huge" region of space, a field. The sun and its system are likewise illustrated. Our system's relation to the nearest stars, the galactic core, the regions comprised by a galactic cluster and superclusters are likewise finitely comprised by large field around them. At the ultimately "largest" hierarchy [on the premise of a finite universe] is an infinite field which distinguishes the universe as an object, ie. a finite object in an infinite field. People have always struggled within this "beyondness" aspect of the universe, and thus for many it is easier to simply philosophize that the universe is infinite... I struggle more with the belief that the "objective" universe is infinite, for how then can any of its properties be defined, yet the object of our physics and all scientific pursuit, not least the "Electric Model", is the comprehension of these finite attributes. If this is the fundamental "truth", then whatever "holds" the universe as a finite object is a universal phenomenon to be experienced at every level, order, or hierarchy... a truly unified field. The EU is an attempt to apprehend this... but it must be clear to anyone that this is a comprehension that at any stage will contain many "mysteries" --- here we all are then, to try to ferret them out! It would be arrogant for anyone to say they had this corralled!

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Webolife.

True... a field is a "region" of space in which action takes place between two objects.

Any area, or volume of space, can be your field.
You set the boundaries of the region of interest.
You make the fence around your field.

It could be between two objects.
It will always be between many objects.
It could be a few cubic meters between the Sun and the earth, that you are looking at (like the guys studying magnetic reconnection), or you could put your fence posts on the Sun and on the earth.
You could make the earth's orbit your fence.

But for heaven's sake, whatever you do, don't let your x,y and z axes curve on you.
If that happens you won't be able to track a straight line trajectory any more, let alone a curved trajectory.

Simply saying that a "field" is generated does not explain the cause or the mediation of the resulting action of that field. Trying to attribute the action as a property of a massive particle has proven elusive at best, and also illusory.

Ah, now we are trying to speak of what is in our designated area.

And what is in the field?
Giving the whatever is in the field no mass or extension hasn't worked either.
Now we have only mathematical equations to explain motions.
And those equations were derived from observing the motions.
And even science no longer knows, if it is space, or what is in space, that has physical properties.

But maybe "fields" are phenomenal for a different reason, not because space is being bent, stretched, accelerated, or...?

Excluding the possibility that the charge field might have physical properties leads to non physical speculation.
This is what happened to physicists and they are no longer doing physics.
They think speculating about black holes colliding is physics.
Figuring out what charge is isn't even on their priority list.
They are happy with their pluses and minuses and mathematical equations for the explanation.

It would be arrogant for anyone to say they had this corralled!

I hope I don't sound like that. I certainly don't think I have it all corralled.

I speak what appears to be obvious to me.
If a correction comes along, I consider it a blessing.

~Paul

[webolife]

Likewise. I was referring not to any particular person, but to anyone who spouts either the mainstream consensus position as though it were the only "scientific" option, or also to anyone making alternate claims. State your premises. Argue with logic and physical evidence toward a claim, and test the claim in the face of reasoned opposing information. Too many folks, outside and inside the EU, get tied up so deeply in their own limited systematic dogma that they stop asking the important questions and above all remembering the tentativity of true science. The electric model[s] presented in these forums are not perfect, nor should we expect that condition any time soon! I hold to an alternative system with relatively few "followers." And I try as much as possible to stick to my signature line. It's not always an easy line to toe.

[Reticon]

webolife, I've seen a lot of humility demonstrated among the EU proponents. Perhaps not toward the bully mainstream orthodoxy, but everywhere else it seems to me. Wal is quite careful to distinguish different topics with different levels of certainty. I personally am especially curious about ideas he has mentioned about neutrinos but have noted a distinct and admitted uncertainty in those more vague areas. It sure seems like an area where more experimentation could happen.

Anyway, I'm not sure where you're seeing undue hubris among EU, perhaps random forum contributors, but it takes all kinds. A lot of those will be inexperienced and perhaps trying to appear more knowledgeable than they are.

[webolife]

Exactly. I agree with your entire comment.

[comingfrom]

I'm still building my electric model of the universe.
A lot of the work seems to be tearing down previous misconceptions I had, much of it from my mainstream education.

By expressing our suppositions, then others can come along and offer corrections.
But some people, when they offer their suppositions, don't want to be corrected.
Not me. I look for sound logical correction, so I can improve my model.
~Paul

[Keith Ness]

Not knowing where all the matter and energy in our universe came from leaves a huge hole in the foundation of any theories built upon that matter and energy.

The universe is strictly Euclidean and Newtonian, with a non-Doppler IGM redshift, and otherwise goes on forever in all directions of time and space with the same average distribution, evolution, and velocities of matter as what we've observed so far; with all apparent exceptions explained by normal matter which at least the mainstream hasn't fully detected/understood yet (possibly including, for example, normal matter's properties of charge).

So my answer as to where the matter and energy came from is that the matter has always been here, and the energy comes from the matter. And you shouldn't expect knowledge on this issue to come in the form of direct evidence any time soon; it's simply the best assumption we have. There, done. Isn't science wonderful when we actually practice it?

Science prefers the simplest of possible theories; that is, the theory which assumes the least possible amount of divergence from what we've observed so far. The mainstream has tried to overcomplicate things tirelessly for the last ~100 years, but that remains the de facto best theory. I have written more on these issues in the following links:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =8&t=16520

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =8&t=15224