What actually is 'charge'?

[Goldminer]

as evidenced by massless photons which carry momentum.

"Photons", better described as "frequency photons", have momentum because they HAVE mass. Anything that is not nothing has mass. Momentum = mv, Energy = 1/2mv2.
Mass is a measure of the amount of matter something contains. Matter, not in the more limited sense of just electrons and protons, is what interacts - it is the substance that is not empty space.

Actually, Querious is right, His/her thinking just doesn't make sense to your self proclaimed, intransigent ideas. Matter is mostly "empty space." Electron and proton solitons form the nucleus of atoms, and their harmonic interactions determine the shape of said nucleus. Extra-nuclear electron solitons form the "shells" of the atom (which involve chemical reactions.) The "shells" are not spherical but have 3D shapes caused by the harmonic interactions with the nucleus with which they are associated. The aether has the property of inertia, which keeps unaccelerated matter at rest, and causes matter to resist acceleration.

Light and EMF traverse the aether as waves, not particles. The aether does not have the property of motion, as in the nature of wind, blowing the waves in a particular direction. The aether does have the property of conducting light/EMF away from radiating matter in a sphere, or diverging beam, in straight radial lines at the speed of light.

It's as if you're saying the repulsion of charges doesn't decrease with distance, but G does, therefore repulsion wins. That doesn't make any sense.

Charge, as you seem to agree with, is caused by the emission of sub-particles from protons.

The entire universe contains a real physical material "field" of real physical material particles that have mass and velocity - we may call this the quantum aether field. This field is homogeneous in particle density throughout the entire universe. The individual particles are alone and discrete. Aside from occasional collisions with other field particles, they have no forces placed upon them, they simply travel in straight lines with a velocity of c. The directional distribution of the field particles is utterly random at all places in the universe. Since there are no forces acting on them, thus no mediative sub-field, there is no possibility whatsoever of any patterned distribution or coherent field motions such as waves or vortices.

If the aether has mass, then weigh some! What is the weight of some aether?

Everything from light to the location of planets in the solar system to atoms and molecules demonstrate harmonics. Harmonics are left completely unaddressed in your intransigent theory. Thus your "theory" has no basis in reality.

The exception to this uneventful existence comes through fleeting collisional interactions with gross matter in the form of electrons, protons and neutrons (the only other particle types that exist). By virtue of interaction of the quantum aether field, electrons and protons (and neutrons) experience gravity and charge - these are the only operating methods of force that electrons and protons encounter.

The effect of the gravitational mechanism is to push objects together and is a function of their size and mass density. Charge is due to electron and proton spin and is a function of their spin speed, size and field interaction coefficients (i.e. how much they interact with the field). Normally, electrons and protons emit charge simply as a function of the ambient quantum aether field density. However, when charge emitters are in proximity, they will be mutually subject to each others charge emissions. This is effectively a localised increase in field density and I would describe it as the electron or proton experiencing an increased quantum particle flux.

Subject to an increased quantum particle flux electrons emit photons, but protons do not emit photons. I surmise that electrons have a limit to the rate at which they are able to emit charge.

You are quite mistaken here, my friend. Electrons do not "emit" photons. EMF is emitted when electrons change their harmonic relation to the nucleus. The change in energy between so called "orbits" cause the emission. The same for "bare" electrons in "motion." They do not emit EMF unless energy is added to accelerate/decelerate them. [energy has vector in the sense that energy added increases velocity as measured from the inetial state, decreasing the velocity from inertial state causes radiation to be emitted.] EMF is energy which is expressed in vibrations of the aether. The vibrations leave the atom at the speed of light. If another atom is moving in relation to the said emitting atom, the kinetic energy of the moving atom is added/subtracted to[from] the energy of said EMF. This fact causes the Doppler shift.

Some peculiarity of the electron structure and operation causes it to absorb charge particles and then re-emit them.

You are more or less right here, since it is the change in harmonic structure of the electron within the atom that causes the emission. The electron is a soliton and can change shape to accommodate changes in the energy level of the atom. Radiation is emitted/absorbed when the change takes place. Energy is radiated when and where a bare electron is forced to change direction.

. . . Since the photon travels at c, it is a safe bet that the electron circumferential velocity is also c. The photon is thus defined by the combined mass of the quantum particles released and the rate at which they are released - each quantum particle carries a kinetic energy of h, and the rate of release is defined as function of the number of quantum particles and c: the rate of release is usually referred to a frequency, i.e. h's per second. This description of a frequency photon emission naturally implies that all frequency photons are emitted over the same time duration.

The higher the frequency of EMF, the more energy content delivered in a given duration of time. The higher the frequency, the shorter the wave length. If I am not mistaken, the more particles in an atom's nucleus, the smaller the nucleus. Check it out and prove me wrong.

. . .

Michael

[querious]

Now, divide the elementary charge by c to get a mass of 5.34428542 E-028 kg.

Compare that to the unit value of the lepton masses: 5.59499749 E-028 kg (see http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1429#p16235 For instance, plug the natural electron mass of .040349908219^2=0.001628129753; and 0.0016281298 X 5.59499749 E-028 kg = 9.10938188E-031 kg)

Now 5.34428542 / 5.5949975 = 0.95518995674

Interestingly, we also have (exp(-4*pi*a))^.5 = 0.9551846385 (where 4*pi*a is the standard "rationalized electron charge" squared)

In case anyone is wondering if the relationship between the SI elementary charge (1.602176462E-019 Coulomb), and the mass values given above is just a coincidental fluke of the SI unit system, please examine this simple relation, where all the electrical quantities have been stripped out of the RHS, meaning the squared charge on the LHS is also mechanical:



Of course, the ampere is defined as "the constant current that will produce an attractive force of 2 × 10–7 newton per metre of length between two straight, parallel conductors of infinite length and negligible circular cross section placed one metre apart in a vacuum", so each wire only generates 10-7 newtons, as indicated in the equation above.

Querious

[querious]

You are quite mistaken here, my friend. Electrons do not "emit" photons.

Of course they do, that's what an EMF field IS, a vast collection of photons. In the case of a single orbital energy drop, an electron emits 1 unit of angular momentum (h) in the form of a photon.

[Goldminer]

. . . Of course, the ampere is defined as "the constant current that will produce an attractive force of 2 × 10–7 newton per metre of length between two straight, parallel conductors of infinite length and negligible circular cross section placed one metre apart in a vacuum", so each wire only generates 10-7 newtons, as indicated in the equation above.

Querious

So you are saying that at one half meter spacing the attraction would be double? The attraction is between the wires, the vectors being opposite from the point of view of either wire. So technically, one may say each wire only contributes half the force.

[querious]

So you are saying that at one half meter spacing the attraction would be double?

It's an inverse square force, so at 1/2 distance, the force would be 4X.

So technically, one may say each wire only contributes half the force.

Yes, 10-7 N

[Goldminer]

You are quite mistaken here, my friend. Electrons do not "emit" photons.

Of course they do, that's what an EMF field IS, a vast collection of photons. In the case of a single orbital energy drop, an electron emits 1 unit of angular momentum (h) in the form of a photon.

In your world. To each their own.



An electron is a soliton wave in the aether. Each form in the diagram is the shape of an electron at the particular "orbit." Obviously "orbits" are not necessarily spherical. The orbit is the electron. The electron does not exist somewhere in the orbit. Particles don't do this, waves do.
The lower right electron looks like two electrons; it is only one electron.

If one of these electrons emits (or absorbs the energy from an EMF wave,) its shape will change. (it may have absorbed some energy previously, in which case it will change shape when the rest of the energy is absorbed. There are experiments which demonstrate this.)

Spin has to do with the oscillation of the wave, not the movement of a particle around a center.

[querious]

So you are saying that at one half meter spacing the attraction would be double?

It's an inverse square force, so at 1/2 distance, the force would be 4X.

Sorry, you were correct.

[Sparky]

While looking up "soliton wave ", I found this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle

For example, a crystal at absolute zero is in the ground state, but if one phonon is added to the crystal (in other words, if the crystal is made to vibrate slightly at a particular frequency) then the crystal is now in a low-lying excited state. The single phonon is called an elementary excitation.

Quasiparticles?

It sounds like to me that a soliton wave could be called a particle.

What makes the difference at that level?

What type of aether medium do these soliton waves travel on or through.? Sorry if you have answered that before..

[Scott MC]

Bill at amasci reckons charge is a "fundamental" , and I tend to agree - so far no-one has provided any underlying cause for it....

[Goldminer]

While looking up "soliton wave ", I found this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle

For example, a crystal at absolute zero is in the ground state, but if one phonon is added to the crystal (in other words, if the crystal is made to vibrate slightly at a particular frequency) then the crystal is now in a low-lying excited state. The single phonon is called an elementary excitation.

Quasiparticles?

Yes. Somewhere I recall experiments with phonons in air. Can't find the article now.

It sounds like to me that a soliton wave could be called a particle.

Yes, I think that's what the MATTER IS MADE OF WAVES is explaining. Most of his stuff is right on. (He travels the fantasy of black holes and what not, but nobody's prefect!)

What makes the difference at that level?

IMHO, Amplitude (the amount of concentrated energy) and the harmonics of the environment.

What type of aether medium do these soliton waves travel on, or through.? Sorry if you have answered that before..

Soliton waves are standing waves; they do not travel at the speed of light, that's what makes them particle like. (The speed of light determines the wavelength and frequency within the soliton) The aether (through its ability to vibrate) conducts waves of energy away from the radiating source at c, the speed of light. We, (me,myself and I, among others) understand these to be traveling (propagating) waves. They diverge as the inverse square of the distance propagated. The aether is not traveling; it does not move as in "flow" or "blow". That is why I specified propagate rather than "traveled."

These soliton waves are very high frequency (de Broglie) waves, simply vibrating in the same aether and made of the same aether as the traveling waves. They are made of aether just as is the radiation of EMF.

IMHO, it is the mode of vibration that causes the charge field around the solitons. In the hydrogen atom (which is essentially another more sophisticated soliton, the electron soliton completely encompasses the proton soliton.)

The acceleration fields themselves are not energy. Matter within these fields experience "energy" as they traverse the field or the changing field traverses them.

A permanent magnet does not heat up and it does not consume energy. An electromagnet does heat up and does consume energy.

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

The aether has the property of inertia, which keeps unaccelerated matter at rest, and causes matter to resist acceleration.

I wouldn't put it exactly like that, but it's along the right lines.

The aether does not have the property of motion, as in the nature of wind, blowing the waves in a particular direction. The aether does have the property of conducting light/EMF away from radiating matter in a sphere, or diverging beam, in straight radial lines at the speed of light.

You are describing a fluidic aether....fair enough if you like that sort of thing.

If the aether has mass, then weigh some! What is the weight of some aether?

If the aether has waves, surf on it!

...and afterwards consider for a moment, F=ma

If the aether doesn't have mass, it cannot interact. Mass is that which interacts. Emergent mass as a resistance to a massless substance fails logically. Mass may be considered as a coefficient of interaction.

Everything from light to the location of planets in the solar system to atoms and molecules demonstrate harmonics. Harmonics are left completely unaddressed in your intransigent theory. Thus your "theory" has no basis in reality.

Everything from light to the location of planets in the solar system to atoms and molecules demonstrate motion and forces. Motion and force are left completely unaddressed in your intransigent theory. Thus your "theory" has no basis in logic or physics, let alone reality. But really, harmonics? Would you be so kind as to describe what it is about harmonics that makes such a phenomenon only available to a waving aether?

If I am not mistaken, the more particles in an atom's nucleus, the smaller the nucleus. Check it out and prove me wrong.

Yes, you are mistaken - of course you meant that the more massive the nucleus, the smaller the atom. The size of even a large nucleus is small in comparison to the size of electron orbits. The more massive the nucleus, the greater the gravitational effect experienced by the orbiting electrons - the electrons have lower orbits, hence the atom is smaller overall.


I will happily admit that aether "wave matter" models are compelling in many respects. In particular as presented by LaFrenniere and your good self. However, you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge or address the unavoidable, inescapable, inevitable truth that a "wave aether" requires a sub-aether to mediate the forces required to generate the wave patterns. Furthermore, it is not quite clear how and why these soliton standing waves should form and maintain and not interfere or disperse.

You may choose to heap wave aether upon wave aether as you drill down to the infinity smaller and smaller. However, there comes a point, and there really is no escape from this, where the only way to support a gravitational and charge based system, is to invoke a randomly moving particle field. I applaud your efforts thus far, but how are you able to sensibly and logically argue against the case that I have put forward.

Michael

[Michael V]

querious,

A few posts back, you had this equation:

e2 = ħ α / 10-7

I believe that was inaccurate, and should have been:

e2 = ħ α / c 10-7

You're out by 1/c. Might have been a typo, but just in case....

Michael

[querious]

querious,

A few posts back, you had this equation:

e2 = ħ α / 10-7

I believe that was inaccurate, and should have been:

e2 = ħ α / c 10-7

You're out by 1/c. Might have been a typo, but just in case....

Michael

I think you'll see that the denominator includes units of N, c, and s2.

[Michael V]

querious,

I had a look at your first post and I did not understand - the jumps of reasoning were too large for me to follow.

Also, what is N c s2 ?, where did that come from?

starting with:

α = ke e2 / ħ c

gives:

e2 = ħ α c / ke (and ke, Coulomb's constant = c2.10-7)

so:

e2 = ħ α / c.10-7

Please teach me your wisdom.

Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

The aether has the property of inertia, which keeps unaccelerated matter at rest, and causes matter to resist acceleration.

I wouldn't put it exactly like that, but it's along the right lines.

The aether does not have the property of motion, as in the nature of wind, blowing the waves in a particular direction. The aether does have the property of conducting light/EMF away from radiating matter in a sphere, or diverging beam, in straight radial lines at the speed of light.

You are describing a fluidic aether....fair enough if you like that sort of thing.

If the aether has mass, then weigh some! What is the weight of some aether?

If the aether has waves, surf on it!

I have explained how Einstein tried to imagine this very thing in the Silly Einstein thread. (riding a wave of light) He would see nothing, since the wave would be red-shifted to zero frequency.

...and afterwards consider for a moment, F=ma

If the aether doesn't have mass, it cannot interact. Mass is that which interacts. Emergent mass as a resistance to a massless substance fails logically. Mass may be considered as a coefficient of interaction.

Only in your intransigent theory. Your imaginary "photons" have imaginary "mass." The wave delivers the acceleration via the aether. No "mass" is involved in the transfer. The energy appears as "mass" after being absorbed by the atom.

Everything from light to the location of planets in the solar system to atoms and molecules demonstrate harmonics. Harmonics are left completely unaddressed in your intransigent theory. Thus your "theory" has no basis in reality.

Everything from light to the location of planets in the solar system to atoms and molecules demonstrate motion and forces. Motion and force are left completely unaddressed in your intransigent theory. Thus your "theory" has no basis in logic or physics, let alone reality. But really, harmonics? Would you be so kind as to describe what it is about harmonics that makes such a phenomenon only available to a waving aether?

You are the one who proclaimed himself intransigent, not me. You have no clue as to my understanding. You have not studied the Matter is made of waves site and there is no way I can impart the insights presented there to you as long as you are intransigent.

If I am not mistaken, the more particles in an atom's nucleus, the smaller the nucleus. Check it out and prove me wrong.

Yes, you are mistaken - of course you meant that the more massive the nucleus, the smaller the atom. The size of even a large nucleus is small in comparison to the size of electron orbits. The more massive the nucleus, the greater the gravitational effect experienced by the orbiting electrons - the electrons have lower orbits, hence the atom is smaller overall.

The size has to do with the fact that increased energy means higher frequency. The higher the frequency the shorter the wave length. The shorter the wavelength the more dense the atom. You have no clue about the structure of the atomic nucleus.

I will happily admit that aether "wave matter" models are compelling in many respects. In particular as presented by LaFrenniere and your good self. However, you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge or address the unavoidable, inescapable, inevitable truth that a "wave aether" requires a sub-aether to mediate the forces required to generate the wave patterns. Furthermore, it is not quite clear how and why these soliton standing waves should form and maintain and not interfere or disperse.

The aether has properties which your intransigent mind cannot comprehend. No sub aether is required. The near EMF field has different characteristics than the far field, that your particle view does not explain.

You may choose to heap wave aether upon wave aether as you drill down to the infinity smaller and smaller. However, there comes a point, and there really is no escape from this, where the only way to support a gravitational and charge based system, is to invoke a randomly moving particle field. I applaud your efforts thus far, but how are you able to sensibly and logically argue against the case that I have put forward.
Michael

I know! It seems useless to try and explain anything to a mind that already knows everything. You are indeed a legend in your own mind.

.