Gravity & Strong Force

[Bengt Nyman]

You ask: " Do they interact instantaneously across a space ? "
To answer that question we would have to know what mediates the attraction between entities of opposite electrical charge. How do they sense each other and how do they affect each other ?
Is it a form of radiation between them ?
Or is it a result of the ambient Energy Pressure discovering their deviant energy densities and insisting that they get together to ease the energy pressure in the universe.

I wish I knew.

[Lloyd]

* Webb said: "electron[s], whatever those are".
* What do you mean, whatever those are? The post at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 026#p50026 shows pretty clearly what they are. They're torus-shaped motions of high-speed individual particles, with large magnetic and electric fields. They're over 1,000 times larger than protons and they hover a considerable distance above the protons in atoms, held in place by their attractive electric fields and opposing magnetic fields. They also emit or absorb similarly-shaped photons of many sizes.
* Kanarev said electricity occurs between electrons. I think the electricity consists of photons, since he said photons are the only carriers of energy. Electrons can stack up in a line, whether in a solid conductor, or in liquid, air, or space. Photons have mass and so does the aether. If a photon loses too much mass, it loses its structure and returns to the ubiquitous aether. I haven't yet found if he says how electricity moves between electrons. My guess is that the electrons absorb and emit the photons, passing them along from one to the next in the line of electrons. The electrons also move in the same direction as the photons. In solids they move very slowly, but faster in other media. The photons take a short amount of time before they accelerate to lightspeed. It's not instantaneous.
* Kanarev's material shows fairly clearly how valence electrons hold molecules together. And it shows how elements transmute into other elements, such as in cold fusion. He has developed more efficient means of electrolysis and energy technology. It's all highly interesting to me.

[webolife]

You don't say!? Well that pretty much solves all the mysteries of the universe!!!!!
I'll just pack my bags and go home.

[mharratsc]

That's a cute spam tactic.

[webolife]

Hey, I like Lloyd and all he has to say... he does seem pretty darn sure of himself here, however!!!

[GManIM]

Hi Bengt.

This is a most interesting idea. What is the significance of the different sized quarks in the animations?

Regards
G

[Bengt Nyman]

This is a most interesting idea. What is the significance of the different sized quarks in the animations?

The size illustration is not mass significant. It's just a way to visually keep track of who is who.

[Bengt Nyman]

This is a most interesting idea. What is the significance of the different sized quarks in the animations?

I should have mentioned that since Up-quarks and Down-quarks have been assigned quantitatively (as well as qualitatively) different amounts of charge the size illustrated can be regarded as an illustration of the amount of charge of the quark in question. If it turns out, however, that there is no such thing as a positive charge, just a lack of negative charge as compared to the free background charge in our part of the universe, then the size illustration becomes meaningless and merely a visual differentiator.

[mjv1121]

Bengt,

Can you explain to me the physical process of charge/electrostatics

[Bengt Nyman]

Can you explain to me the physical process of charge/electrostatics

Are you referring to the charge dipole formation resulting in electrostatic attraction such as Strong Force and Gravity or is you question more general ?

[mjv1121]

General really, but I'd like to understand "electrostatic attraction"

[Bengt Nyman]

General really, but I'd like to understand "electrostatic attraction"

I assume that you are not pulling my leg and playing down what you already know.
I further assume that you know the general observation that like charges repel and unlike charges attract, and that these observations were quantified and mathematically described a few hundred years ago.
Unfortunately, the rest is still speculation.
I think it is safe to say that a particle, "charged" or not, is not a benign, inert or lifeless little grain.
A particle is most likely a complex electrical constellation of intertwined electrical strings or filaments interacting in some kind of resonance or unison and temporarily appearing like a stable particle. What these balls of swirling electrical energies show to the outside world is probably what determines what characteristics other particles see in them.
If you want me to go on with this totally unsupported speculation I could add:
If a particle has an outer layer of electrical energies and waveforms that turn their positive side outward it might appear like a positively charged particle. If this particle looses a layer of energy by emitting a quantum of radiation, or a photon, the next layer might be turned the opposite way and look negative to the outside.
I am hyperspeculating here !

And I have not yet explained why opposite charges attract.
Let us not resort to talk about magnetic fields, which are nothing but convenient coveralls for a phenomenon which we have observed but can not explain the mechanism of.
Maybe two particles of opposite charge represent an inefficient energy state. Maybe they take up too much energy space. Maybe what we see as a void, between us and in space, is really teeming with eager but unorganized electrical energy filaments. Then the crowding of the energies around us could demand that energy inefficient particles of opposite charge share some energy space, like a crowd in the subway.

The truth is that we do not know yet, and we can not yet explain the basics.
I believe, however, that the subatomic world is the result of complex combinations and permutations of a very simple little form of electric energy; a very small little guy that I would like to get to know and understand.

[mjv1121]

Bengt,

I assume that you are not pulling my leg and playing down what you already know.

OK, guilty..ish. But thank you very much for your reply. I assume then that you are effectively using terms such as attraction and charge as placeholders for undetermined mechanisms.

I confess that I am extremely suspicious when I see/hear talk of waves/waveforms/wavefronts. Also, it appears as though you may be falling into the trap of considering energy to be a substance, but perhaps I presume too much.

I adhere more to a Newtonian corpuscular universal view - simple mechanics at the lowest possible level, manifesting as electrical/magnetic and gravitational at higher levels of scale. I would be honoured if you would read my paper http://gsjournal.net/files/4590_Vaicaitis.pdf . My quantum particle (quantums) equates to your "very small little guy that I would like to get to know and understand".

Michael

[webolife]

MJV1121,
I've read your paper 3 times now, impressed with your synergy, but not following your total line of thought.
Help me with the following wonderings about your theory; does one of these fit with your thinking, all, none?
1. Are quanta loci of the quantum field?
2. Are quanta foci of the quantum field?
3. Is a quantum a microcosm of the univeral quantum field?

[Bengt Nyman]

I would be honoured if you would read my paper http://gsjournal.net/files/4590_Vaicaitis.pdf

Hi Michael
Thanks for your link. It was a pleasure reading it. I am totally on your line of thought and behind your little guy. How is he being accepted by the rest of the world ?