Positive and Negative

[GaryN]

There is still a lot of debate as to what exact mechanisms create the electric fields
which have accelerated these particles;

try Magnetowave Induced Plasma Wakefield Acceleration. She'll do 10^21
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v102/i11/e111101

[Michael V]

saul,

I believe I have resolved/solved the issue of +protons and +ions. However, the solution has heightened my curiosity regarding the electron/positron mystery. Are you aware of any other scenarios where positrons appear?

Michael

[+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know]

Are you talking about charge?
http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/1220/enlarge

Taking a page from BG, don't such images give us the size of each of the particles involved?
It should then be fairly easy to compare them to their theoretic sizes.
It's my understanding that there's a significant difference in the 2 when it comes to the electron...
Which brings me to asking if anyone has an explanation for such discrepencies...
other than they may not be the particles we think they are.

[Michael V]

+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know,

What is "BG" ?

It's my understanding that there's a significant difference in the 2 when it comes to the electron...

in the 2 what?

Which brings me to asking if anyone has an explanation for such discrepancies...
other than they may not be the particles we think they are.

Perhaps you could repeat your post with more words, so as to be more explicit, if you would be so kind.

Michael

[tayga]

Sparky,

That's right, Magnetism. Rub those electrons into alignment and watch the wonders ensue.

Consider a spinning disc attached to a post. Let's have the disc spinning clockwise. Now go round and look at the disc from the other side. It is still spinning the same way, but now you will observe it as spinning anti-clockwise. Same disc, same direction of spin, but two different observational results. Just a thought that you might want to spin round your mind a few times.

Michael

It's interesting that you chose that analogy and you probably anticipated my own thought that what we call 'charge' is actually a 3-dimensional motion.

[Oldchineeseman]

I recently started studying up on Walter Russell, who seems to have the best perspective of anyone so far on this subject. It is tough to grasp for me so far since it requires a different set of terminology defined specifically by walter (new and interesting terms like 'magnetic light') so I can only offer a couple of interesting links in the right direction. Any attempt by me to describe these ideas would end in miscommunication. Please check him out, he had these ideas mapped out in depth decades ago.

A brief pictoral intro to his ideas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AecQd2fJ ... ata_player

An interesting demonstration of his "slinky" view on magnetic north and south misconceptions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vopqS7C ... ata_player

Sorry for any errors, im on an ipad between calls at work

[Michael V]

Oldchineeseman,

Had a quick look - nothing but nonsense I'm afraid. You would do better to consider physical processes. Mysticism offers no understanding.

Michael

[Oldchineeseman]

Sometimes amidst the nonsense I find the little part I like that better describes phenomenon that were previously unexplainable or were obviously not as they seemed. Thats how i wound up here anyways. I wouldnt try to say i know all of his ideas were true or not, but its worth more than a quick peek. If you wanted just a quick peek, please go to the second link in my post above and skip to approx. 6:15.
Do you not feel like this is a better description of the poles of a magnet?

The ends we believe are north and south (negative and positive) are really both south, just spinning in opposite directions, and the north (or positive) is really at the central disc/bulge as viewed by the green magnetic film. I at least feel like this has helped me to view magnetic fields in my mind much more correctly than I was taught previously (despite the awkward presentation the video author presents). Even if it is not true, i recommend anyone having trouble visualising magnetic fields should have a look at just that one part. Its some delicious food for thought.

[sirius13]

Is This the Proof of Positive and Negative Electricity what you are looking for?

Dirac’s Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy - Part I
Dirac’s Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy - Part 2

http://www.eco-living-alentejo.com/mypages/Dirac%C2%B4s%20Equation_1.pdf
http://www.eco-living-alentejo.com/mypages/Dirac%C2%B4s%20Equation_2.pdf

I have also been fascinated by this question that rubs against the grain of conventional scientific dogma.

Jonathan

[jacmac]

Michael V,
Any spinning object that is spinning "clockwise" will appear to spin "anti-clockwise" when observed from the other side.
Any observer who goes around to the other side will not therefore think the object is spinning the other way. There are not two different observation results. The premise is flawed I do believe.
Jack

[Michael V]

Jack,

Get a CD or DVD and a pencil. Spin the disc on the pencil and look at both sides of the disc. On this side of the Atlantic, in the Northern Hemisphere and in this universe, you will observe as I described .... I await your confirmation.

Michael

[Michael V]

Jonathan,

I will read those pdfs tomorrow, although mention of Dirac makes me immediately suspicious.

Until, then I can assure you and everyone, that there is no such beasts as positive charge and negative charge. This belief system, that is also the basis of the quark superstition, has no place in physics. No doubt we will next be told that there is such a thing as an attractive force.

Michael

[seasmith]

mention of Dirac makes me immediately suspicious.

Until, then I can assure you and everyone, that there is no such beasts as positive charge and negative charge. This belief system, that is also the basis of the quark superstition, has no place in physics. No doubt we will next be told that there is such a thing as an attractive force.

Michael,

No attractive force, just harmonics of frequencies ...

So you have charge packets withan oscillation between on and off, ie with an amplitude or without.
If not amplitude, or presence, of charge (and it may not be), then what IS recurring to maintain a frequency ?
How can you ditch dichotomy while it is fundamental to your discreet aether unit ?

s

[jacmac]

Michael,

Regarding the spinning disc; recently I purchased a new motor for a heater. The sales person asked me which way the old one turned. I then asked which side of the motor was the reference, and was told the side with the extended shaft that did the needed work.

My point assumed something about your spinning disc comment which might be wrong. Could you please expand on your point about a different observation based on which side of a spinning disc you are on.

Thanks,
Jack

[Siggy_G]

Consider a spinning disc attached to a post. Let's have the disc spinning clockwise. Now go round and look at the disc from the other side. It is still spinning the same way, but now you will observe it as spinning anti-clockwise. Same disc, same direction of spin, but two different observational results. Just a thought that you might want to spin round your mind a few times.

Michael

You mean 'turn the disc upside down'. Viewing it from the other side will still be seen as rotating clockwise in this scenario. It's according to the right hand rule that the same local axis rotation of a charged entity, but alligned differently (up/down), will cause opposite electrostatic effects.