what is charge?
 junglelord
 Posts: 3693
 Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
 Location: Canada
Re: what is charge?
In modern theory, charge is treated as a point, yet notated as
single dimension. A single dimension of charge would have a
linear structure. A point is an impossible structure for
physical existence and would be dimensionless.
One of the feeble arguments against the Aether is that since it
is nonmaterial existence, there is no need for quantifying it in
physics. Yet, nobody seems to be concerned with charge being a
point. The Aether Physics Model properly notates charge as
distributed and shows that it has a surface structure.
Compounding the problem is that five
units (permeability, permittivity, inductance, capacitance,
and conductance) are expressed with distributed charge
dimensions
single dimension. A single dimension of charge would have a
linear structure. A point is an impossible structure for
physical existence and would be dimensionless.
One of the feeble arguments against the Aether is that since it
is nonmaterial existence, there is no need for quantifying it in
physics. Yet, nobody seems to be concerned with charge being a
point. The Aether Physics Model properly notates charge as
distributed and shows that it has a surface structure.
Compounding the problem is that five
units (permeability, permittivity, inductance, capacitance,
and conductance) are expressed with distributed charge
dimensions
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
 StevenO
 Posts: 894
 Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Re: what is charge?
Since charge is the fabric of space it can at least in theoretical limits be shrunken onto a point.junglelord wrote:In modern theory, charge is treated as a point, yet notated as
single dimension. A single dimension of charge would have a
linear structure. A point is an impossible structure for
physical existence and would be dimensionless.
One of the feeble arguments against the Aether is that since it
is nonmaterial existence, there is no need for quantifying it in
physics. Yet, nobody seems to be concerned with charge being a
point. The Aether Physics Model properly notates charge as
distributed and shows that it has a surface structure.
Compounding the problem is that five
units (permeability, permittivity, inductance, capacitance,
and conductance) are expressed with distributed charge
dimensions
APM theory needs to treat charge as a 2dimensional structure since it decouples two time dimensions from their respective space dimensions. If APM would keep those connected there would be no need for 5 dimensions in APM, it could work with 3 reciprocal space and time dimensions, which would also allow them to get rid of all the superfluous quantum constants.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
 junglelord
 Posts: 3693
 Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
 Location: Canada
Re: what is charge?
The notion of a point charge is not logical to me. That is talking about a quantum identity that never occurs....
yet you call quantum constants
APM is the first theory that does not mix and match ideas like units, constants, dimensions.
APM offers specific definitions for "unit", "measurement", "dimension", "constant", unlike the standard model.
The major difference is the systems used to analyze data.
The Standard Model removes Dimensions from data.
APM data collects in dimensional and geometric form, processes in dimensional and geometric form, which materializes equations in dimensional and geometric form.
In APM quantum measurements and quantum units also serve as quantum constants. Other systems have constants but not quantum constants. I believe Quantum Constants are a necessity, not superfluous.
5D with only three forces to me is the most logical model. Two of those fundamental forces would be Electrostatic Charge and Electromagnetic Charge. Electromagnetic Charge creates the Strong Force. The relationship between Electrostatic and EM makes the Weak Force. Gravity is a dipole structure like both charges. It is based on spin parity. Matter attracts matter, antimatter attracts antimatter, matter and antimatter repel.
yet you call quantum constants
Meanwhile you imagine a superfluous charge quantum point.superfluous quantum constants.
APM is the first theory that does not mix and match ideas like units, constants, dimensions.
APM offers specific definitions for "unit", "measurement", "dimension", "constant", unlike the standard model.
The major difference is the systems used to analyze data.
The Standard Model removes Dimensions from data.
APM data collects in dimensional and geometric form, processes in dimensional and geometric form, which materializes equations in dimensional and geometric form.
In APM quantum measurements and quantum units also serve as quantum constants. Other systems have constants but not quantum constants. I believe Quantum Constants are a necessity, not superfluous.
5D with only three forces to me is the most logical model. Two of those fundamental forces would be Electrostatic Charge and Electromagnetic Charge. Electromagnetic Charge creates the Strong Force. The relationship between Electrostatic and EM makes the Weak Force. Gravity is a dipole structure like both charges. It is based on spin parity. Matter attracts matter, antimatter attracts antimatter, matter and antimatter repel.
Modern physics describes the mechanics of the Universe. We have discovered a new foundation
for physics, which explains the components of the Universe with precision and depth. We
quantify the existence of Aether, subatomic particles, and the force laws. Some aspects of the
theory derive from the Standard Model, but much is unique.
A key discovery from this new foundation is a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory.
Other fundamental discoveries follow, including the origin of the fine structure constant and
subatomic particle gfactors, a slight correction of neutron magnetic moment, a geometrical
structure for charge, the quantification of electromagnetic charge as separate from electrostatic
charge, a more precise meaning of spin, the quantification of spaceresonance in five dimensions,
and a new system of quantum units.
The Aether quantifies as a fabric of quantum rotating magnetic fields with electromagnetic,
electrostatic, and gravitational dipole structures. Subatomic particles quantify as angular
momentum encapsulated in a quantum, rotating magnetic field. All quantum, atomic, and
molecular processes can be precisely modeled, leading to discrete physics with new
understandings and insights.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
Quantum Charge
Let us define charge as a dimension, which when given a quantity, measures electricity. There
are two manifestations of charge, electrostatic and electromagnetic. In previously established
theory, the electromagnetic charge quantifies as a relativistic expression of electrostatic charge.
In the APM, electromagnetic charge quantifies using simple Newtonian type expressions with
dimensions of Coulomb squared.
From observation, we see that charge covers a surface, yet leaves no null spaces in between
charges. Since charge exists over a distributed length (area), let us then assume that charge
dimensions are also distributed. In the APM, the quantum electrostatic charge is the same value
as the elementary charge in established theory, except its dimensions modifies to represent
distributed charge. Therefore, we notate the quantum electrostatic charge as e2 . Charles
Coulomb also proposed the distribution of charge.
There is a second type of charge, named electromagnetic, or strong charge,
The strong charge quantifies as the angular momentum of the subatomic particle times the
conductance of the Aether and has a quantifiably different geometry than the electrostatic charge,
as explained later in this paper. All charge is distributed, although there is no length associated
with this geometry unless the distributed length dimensions specifically appear with charge
dimensions in a unit. The dimension of charge is not the same as an electron or proton. Therefore, in the Aether
Physics Model it cannot be said that a quantity of charges exist in a given volume of space. It
would be correct to say that electrons and protons exist in a given volume of space.
Reciprocal Relationships
All dimensions have both an obverse and reciprocal characteristic. We can think of the obverse
dimension as flat or linear and the reciprocal dimension as curved or cyclical. In general, the
reciprocal dimension reads as obverse cycles per reciprocal unit. For example, time is an
obverse dimension and has a linear characteristic, while its reciprocal, frequency is cycles per
time. The same logic applies to the obverse dimension of length, which is linear, and its
reciprocal of wave number, which is a cycle per length.
Let us assume that primary angular momentum can only spin in the forward direction of time,
thus as the Aether inertia oscillates between forward and backward time, the primary angular
momentum only sees half the cycle. Therefore, primary angular momentum has halfspin. It
is assumed that when the Gforce acts upon the mass dimension within primary angular
momentum, it can exert either a push or a pull, but not both. Whether the Gforce exerts a push
or a pull on the mass dimension appears to depend on the spin parity of the subatomic particle.
Thus, matter would attract to matter and antimatter would attract to antimatter, but matter would
repel antimatter.
Charge is a misunderstood dimension. Current is the only unit in widespread use where charge
is obverse. In the unit of current, charge is a linear quantity. However, charge normally appears
in the denominator of other unit expressions, and expresses in its reciprocal form. In the
reciprocal form, we read cycles per charge. For example, potential is the unit of energy per
charge. Magnetic flux is angular momentum per charge. Resistance is magnetic flux per charge,
and so on.
In the SM, there is only one type of charge quanta, the elementary charge. In an attempt to
quantify the strong force, the previous theory assumed the existence of gluons and pions and
defined the charges in terms of color and flavor. As such, the concept of angular momentum
per charge sounds meaningless within the understanding of previous theory. However, in the
APM, there are two types of quantum charge and the elementary charge is the less significant of
the two. The electromagnetic charge is the charge referred to in all charge related units except
magnetic moment. In the case of magnetic moment, the unit refers to both types of charge, as
explained in section 11 of this paper. It is because the units generally refer to electromagnetic
charge, and not electrostatic charge, and previous theory does not quantify the electromagnetic
charge of each subatomic particle relative to the electrostatic charge, that previous theory is not
capable of unifying the forces.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
 StevenO
 Posts: 894
 Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Re: what is charge?
That depends on the dimensions assigned to "charge". The use of dimensions and constants in physics is relative and can be represented by relation diagrams. That's why charge=space in a matter=3D space/3D time system is equivalent to charge=2D space in a 3D space/1D time * 2D Frequency (==1/time) system. The trick is to find the relational system that provides the most insight.junglelord wrote:The notion of a point charge is not logical to me. That is talking about a quantum identity that never occurs....
Quoting Xavier Borg the current SI system relations can be shown as:
In a basic system all arrows should be independent...
That is why Xavier performs a dimensional analysis to arrive at:
Please note that all physical constants can be shown to be derived from relations between space and time!
The Deway Larson Reciprocal System goes one step further to:
I think this last step is essential since finally all physical constants must be derived from a once all symmetrical universe that gets 'broken' somewhere.
I know these pictures take giant leaps, the whole explanation can be found on:
http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalarphysics/?currentPage=9
It would be interesting to draw up a similar diagram for APM...
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
 webolife
 Posts: 2539
 Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
 Location: Seattle
Re: what is charge?
When I use the term "point" it is in reference to the scalelessness/fractality of the unified field. The centroid of a system is geometrically describable as a point. A locus. A focus.
No hocus pocus. Geometry of the system is derived from the interactions between matter, charge, or whatever is located at or especially between those loci or foci, even if "nothing" is located there, besides it being the system center (I use the analogy of a "hollow" sphere lie a basketball. This sphere of interaction is how I regard the field, which my mentor Robert Archer Smith referred to as the Punctual Field. Since points (and the unified field) are scaleless, the entire universe functions as both a "point" and a field. The "nothing" located at a galactic centroid is what I predict is the true identity of a "black hole". That it may appear to be massive, is because it is the centroid of a massive galaxy, just as the mass of a basketball is geometrically located at its "empty" centroid. Prove me wrong, someone, I've held this to be true for 23 years, without any finding to controvert it. If your paradigm has stuff being characteristically emitted from the system centroid, then your field vectors need to be reversed, the pressure characteristic is toward the center, centropic. Now angular momentum, OK spin, on the other hand, is the motion characteristic of all points in every system, at any scale. And "photons" result from the geometrical characteristics of the field of interaction between the points. At a micro scale these characteristics combine to create the effect we call charge. At a macro scale, mass.
The scaleless electromotive forces involved are what (I'm learning) the EU is all about.
IMHO.
No hocus pocus. Geometry of the system is derived from the interactions between matter, charge, or whatever is located at or especially between those loci or foci, even if "nothing" is located there, besides it being the system center (I use the analogy of a "hollow" sphere lie a basketball. This sphere of interaction is how I regard the field, which my mentor Robert Archer Smith referred to as the Punctual Field. Since points (and the unified field) are scaleless, the entire universe functions as both a "point" and a field. The "nothing" located at a galactic centroid is what I predict is the true identity of a "black hole". That it may appear to be massive, is because it is the centroid of a massive galaxy, just as the mass of a basketball is geometrically located at its "empty" centroid. Prove me wrong, someone, I've held this to be true for 23 years, without any finding to controvert it. If your paradigm has stuff being characteristically emitted from the system centroid, then your field vectors need to be reversed, the pressure characteristic is toward the center, centropic. Now angular momentum, OK spin, on the other hand, is the motion characteristic of all points in every system, at any scale. And "photons" result from the geometrical characteristics of the field of interaction between the points. At a micro scale these characteristics combine to create the effect we call charge. At a macro scale, mass.
The scaleless electromotive forces involved are what (I'm learning) the EU is all about.
IMHO.
Truth extends beyond the border of selflimiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the openminded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
 webolife
 Posts: 2539
 Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
 Location: Seattle
Re: what is charge?
Those are great diagrams, StevenO.
I'll be pondering the meaning of the arrows for some time.
I'll be pondering the meaning of the arrows for some time.
Truth extends beyond the border of selflimiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the openminded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
 FS3
 Posts: 223
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:44 pm
 Location: Europe
 Contact:
nspheres and "7th heaven"
Great thread you have here. Special kudos to "StevenO" and especially the link he provided to...
http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalarphysics/?currentPage=9
...with an excellent reasoning of the S/T relation.
The surface"area" of an nsphere (or "nball"), in terms of the gamma function is generally defined as:
If you substitute for concrete values the maximum for integers in surface is at n=7 while with the volume...
...the maximum of the continous (mathematical) function ist "precisely" (according to a numerical solution) at n=5.2569, for integers therefore at n=5. The "exact" max.surface is at n=7.25695
You can read all the math here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hypersphere.html
http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A072478
http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A072479
The volume of the hyperspheres goes for n > infinite to ZERO!
As a sidemark it might be interesting that with increasing dimensions that what we call "mass" concentrates more and more at the center of the symmetryaxis(At very high dimensions almost the entire volume of a hypersphere is concentrated immediately below the surface) if we project the mass distribution of a ndimensional spherical surface along one axis. The MaxwellBoltzmann distribution may thus be derived solely from the postulate of equal a priori probabilityfunction as well as of the geometric properties of higher dimensional spheres! If we interprete the surface as the locus of all "phase space points" with given total energy, then we will get the distribution density for any single velocity component if we assume that a system has "n" degrees of freedom of translatory motion. (Example: "n" particles moving on a line, or "n/3" particles in 3D.) Let the sum of squares of all velocities be given, but apart from that let any particular combination of the values v_1, v_2,... be equally probable. All "phase space points''  vector(v)= {v_1, v_2, ..., v_n}  are then homogeneously distributed on the spherical surface S_n(/v/²), and a single velocity v_1 occurs with probability density. The case n=3, meaning 3 particles on a line or 1 particle in 3D, is special: all possible values of v_1 occur with equal probability.
Feeeling almost like in "7th heaven"...
FS3
http://www.lrcphysics.com/scalarphysics/?currentPage=9
...with an excellent reasoning of the S/T relation.
The "seven"concept returns in all kind of myths, fairy tails, cosmological and religious concepts and may point therefore to a basical concept as well as in PHYSICS and MATHEMATICS, for not to say, REALITY!StevenO wrote:...It is the only concept that unifies all observables. It is a pity Einstein messed up the spacetime concept by using only one time dimension. That leads to paradoxes.
I'm all with you here. In the table on the same page you can see that around 5 dimensions has maximum volume, so that could also be a potential limit. Since dimensions are our own conceptions I think there is only a practical limit.Neither has he "shown that a universe of slightly more than 7 space dimensions would have maximum surface area." Here is what he says:What he has "shown" is that a hypersphere or nsphere has maximum surface area when n=7. This is mathemathics, not the real world. This has nothing to do with the universe. He makes the "connection" by asking a question at the end of the paragraph.The question is, how can we know how many dimensions is the universe made up from. All the arguments mentioned above can be applied to any dimension and would imply the possibility of an infinite dimension space. But mathematics shows us that there are yet unknown reasons for which an ultimate dimension may be reached. One very interesting curve is the plot of surface area of hyperspheres of different dimensions, shown below. One would easily think that as we go higher in dimensions, the surface area of the nsphere would increase at each stage, and yet, something very strange occurs, as a maxima in its surface area is reached at the 7th dimension. Could this indicate the real ultimate dimension of the universe?.
Well... maybe he was hoping someone would pick it up as a proof, like you just did?
But the simple truth is, he might just as well ask if the Seven Dwarfs in Snow White indicate the number of dimensions in the universe...
To describe a gravitional field you already need 6 space and time dimensions. That is already over the limit for me...
The surface"area" of an nsphere (or "nball"), in terms of the gamma function is generally defined as:
If you substitute for concrete values the maximum for integers in surface is at n=7 while with the volume...
...the maximum of the continous (mathematical) function ist "precisely" (according to a numerical solution) at n=5.2569, for integers therefore at n=5. The "exact" max.surface is at n=7.25695
You can read all the math here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hypersphere.html
http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A072478
http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A072479
The volume of the hyperspheres goes for n > infinite to ZERO!
As a sidemark it might be interesting that with increasing dimensions that what we call "mass" concentrates more and more at the center of the symmetryaxis(At very high dimensions almost the entire volume of a hypersphere is concentrated immediately below the surface) if we project the mass distribution of a ndimensional spherical surface along one axis. The MaxwellBoltzmann distribution may thus be derived solely from the postulate of equal a priori probabilityfunction as well as of the geometric properties of higher dimensional spheres! If we interprete the surface as the locus of all "phase space points" with given total energy, then we will get the distribution density for any single velocity component if we assume that a system has "n" degrees of freedom of translatory motion. (Example: "n" particles moving on a line, or "n/3" particles in 3D.) Let the sum of squares of all velocities be given, but apart from that let any particular combination of the values v_1, v_2,... be equally probable. All "phase space points''  vector(v)= {v_1, v_2, ..., v_n}  are then homogeneously distributed on the spherical surface S_n(/v/²), and a single velocity v_1 occurs with probability density. The case n=3, meaning 3 particles on a line or 1 particle in 3D, is special: all possible values of v_1 occur with equal probability.
Feeeling almost like in "7th heaven"...
FS3
 junglelord
 Posts: 3693
 Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
 Location: Canada
Re: what is charge?
Zome has a 61 dimension hypercube exposing itself in the Zome Tools system based on the Golden Ratio. Google "2 3 5 infinity" and watch the one hour demonstration on atomic structure and PHI.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
 StevenO
 Posts: 894
 Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Re: what is charge?
The old Greek already knew that the only numbers in the universe are 1, 2 and 3 (=many). All other numbers can be directly geometrically constructed from these or by an (infinite) approximation. Please notice that 0 is equally hard to reach as infinity. 1, 2 and 3 itself can be directly derived from the unit circle.junglelord wrote:Zome has a 61 dimension hypercube exposing itself in the Zome Tools system based on the Golden Ratio. Google "2 3 5 infinity" and watch the one hour demonstration on atomic structure and PHI.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
 StevenO
 Posts: 894
 Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Re: what is charge?
Maybe it is a better expression that 1,2 and 3 always come together. Also some fancy graphics to lighten it up (thanks to Michael Schneider and M.C Escher):StevenO wrote: 1, 2 and 3 itself can be directly derived from the unit circle
http://www.constructingtheuniverse.com/Wikipedia wrote:1: Monad
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "unit"; monos, "alone"), which according to the Pythagoreans, was a term for God or the first being, or the totality of all beings. Monad being the source or the One meaning without division.
For the Pythagoreans, the generation of number series was related to objects of geometry as well as cosmogony. According to Diogenes Laertius, from the monad evolved the dyad; from it numbers; from numbers, points; then lines, twodimensional entities, threedimensional entities, bodies, culminating in the four elements earth, water, fire and air, from which the rest of our world is built up.
The term monad was later adopted from Greek philosophy by Giordano Bruno, Leibniz (Monadology), and others.
2: Dyad
The Dyad is a title used by the Pythagoreans for the number two, representing the principle of "twoness" or "otherness".
Numenius said that Pythagoras gave the name of Monad to God, and the name of Dyad to matter.
3: Triad
The Triad is a Pythagorean title for the number three. According to Priya Hemenway they considered it the most beautiful number, as it is the only number to equal the sum of all the terms below it, and the only number whose sum with those below equals the product of them and itself.
YingYang shadow
Does Escher know how an electron looks like?
You can only tie a knot in 3 dimensions
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

 Posts: 80
 Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:52 am
Re: Electricity and Plasma, from Micro to Macro and Beyond...
Michael, all,
MOD NOTE 12082008: This and other, similar speculative posts moved from the EU forum topic of "Electricity and Plasma, from Micro to Macro and Beyond..." to this one in the FOS forum, "What is Charge?" topic.
note: this thread is confusing nature, the cosmos, and specifically the electron, proton (plasma) and neutron with newspeak and consumer science.
viz. discussions of the status quo peer manure of subatomic particles, quarks, etc.
as a result, there has been no discussion here of the structure of the proton or neutron (or of the electromagnetic wave structure of the atomic nucleus) or of those honest natural philosophers who have worked in these areas over the last century. note there ARE no subatomic particles, only powerguilds which promote that conformity, and enforce it with money and the ilk. the only particles known, only forms of matter, are called charges ... the electron and the proton! all other, stable material forms, are made from them, or are their TRANSIENT decay products.
see: http://groupkos.com/mtwain/PapazianLetter.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/TheElectron.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/TheProton.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/Proof.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/FTLpart1.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/FTLpart2.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/NuScarletpt1.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/NuScarletpt2.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/NucleonSong.pdf etc.
for the focused discussion, and the references ... if nonsense and nonscience is not your interest!
Millennium Twain
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NuclearStructure
proton plus electron forms neutron (where is sizing edit tool?):
MOD NOTE 12082008: This and other, similar speculative posts moved from the EU forum topic of "Electricity and Plasma, from Micro to Macro and Beyond..." to this one in the FOS forum, "What is Charge?" topic.
note: this thread is confusing nature, the cosmos, and specifically the electron, proton (plasma) and neutron with newspeak and consumer science.
viz. discussions of the status quo peer manure of subatomic particles, quarks, etc.
as a result, there has been no discussion here of the structure of the proton or neutron (or of the electromagnetic wave structure of the atomic nucleus) or of those honest natural philosophers who have worked in these areas over the last century. note there ARE no subatomic particles, only powerguilds which promote that conformity, and enforce it with money and the ilk. the only particles known, only forms of matter, are called charges ... the electron and the proton! all other, stable material forms, are made from them, or are their TRANSIENT decay products.
see: http://groupkos.com/mtwain/PapazianLetter.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/TheElectron.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/TheProton.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/Proof.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/FTLpart1.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/FTLpart2.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/NuScarletpt1.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/NuScarletpt2.pdf
http://groupkos.com/mtwain/NucleonSong.pdf etc.
for the focused discussion, and the references ... if nonsense and nonscience is not your interest!
Millennium Twain
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NuclearStructure
proton plus electron forms neutron (where is sizing edit tool?):

 Posts: 2815
 Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm
Re: Electricity and Plasma, from Micro to Macro and Beyond...
~
m'twain wrote:
m'twain wrote:
Good Question.Proton plus electron forms neutron (where is sizing edit tool?)

 Posts: 2815
 Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

 Posts: 1212
 Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
 Location: Baltimore
 Contact:
Re: Electricity and Plasma, from Micro to Macro and Beyond...
I apologize if this is overly elementary, but I read the first link and it was interesting. However, I can't help but notice that the researchers are not asking the important question "What is charge?". We have an equation for it, but no physical mechanism. What does it mean to have a positive charge versus a negative charge? In essence, why should two discrete particles attract or repel each other without touching? What is physically intervening in this process? Answering this is tantamount to solving the nature of the atom.
Physicist: This is a pen
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
 junglelord
 Posts: 3693
 Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
 Location: Canada
Re: Electricity and Plasma, from Micro to Macro and Beyond...
You do not know why they attract and repel>>>?
OMG, your not serious?????
How can a physicist not know the answer to that?
You have much to learn grasshopper.
For someone that belittled my gravity post on Spin Domains as
a curtain for the Wizard of Oz, and useless dribble, your not so smart yourself.
Amazing you can belittle my theory, based on your correction of my grammer on spin,
a master of spin grammer,
yet you yourself know nothing of spin.
Lets talk about it Dorthy.
Its very simple.
They repel and attract based on their spin direction.
Opposite spins attract, same spins repel.
Charges are always rotating.
Magnetic fields always rotate at 90 degrees to those charge directions in a specific manner.
Another lesson in spin for you Dorthy.
Can you tell me why the directional rule of thumb exists for current direction and EM fields?
Not sure Dorthy?
The atomic units are mechanical in their effects as well as being distributed charge.
They are distributed charge gyroscopes.
Take a spinning gryoscope and put a pressure vector on it,
straight down on it from above and watch the reaction to that force.
It is the rule of thumb in action. It will shift 90 degrees. That is the magnetic field.
That is the mechanial action of EM based on current direction.
This explains the rule of thumb of current direction in a nutshell.
There is a mechanical TOE.
Spin is a gyroscope.
Everyone knows the rule of thumb, no one tells you why.
I just did.
Next question Dorthy.
Can spin direction rules of thumb be broken?
Will same charges attract or same poles attract?
If they will, why would they do that?
It is clear that same spin directions can attract given the correct circumstances.
What are those cirumstances?
What examples are there in nature?
What is an example of like charges attracting?
One example is the Birkeland Current.
What is an example of like poles attracting?
Spintronics. N attracts N.
That is due to the Dual Vortex structure of Magnetic Fields.
THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE UNIVERSE IS UNDERSTANDING SPIN.
I am the Wizard of Oz, come see me any time you need Dorthy.
OMG, your not serious?????
How can a physicist not know the answer to that?
You have much to learn grasshopper.
For someone that belittled my gravity post on Spin Domains as
a curtain for the Wizard of Oz, and useless dribble, your not so smart yourself.
Amazing you can belittle my theory, based on your correction of my grammer on spin,
a master of spin grammer,
yet you yourself know nothing of spin.
Lets talk about it Dorthy.
Its very simple.
They repel and attract based on their spin direction.
Opposite spins attract, same spins repel.
Charges are always rotating.
Magnetic fields always rotate at 90 degrees to those charge directions in a specific manner.
Another lesson in spin for you Dorthy.
Can you tell me why the directional rule of thumb exists for current direction and EM fields?
Not sure Dorthy?
The atomic units are mechanical in their effects as well as being distributed charge.
They are distributed charge gyroscopes.
Take a spinning gryoscope and put a pressure vector on it,
straight down on it from above and watch the reaction to that force.
It is the rule of thumb in action. It will shift 90 degrees. That is the magnetic field.
That is the mechanial action of EM based on current direction.
This explains the rule of thumb of current direction in a nutshell.
There is a mechanical TOE.
Spin is a gyroscope.
Everyone knows the rule of thumb, no one tells you why.
I just did.
Next question Dorthy.
Can spin direction rules of thumb be broken?
Will same charges attract or same poles attract?
If they will, why would they do that?
It is clear that same spin directions can attract given the correct circumstances.
What are those cirumstances?
What examples are there in nature?
What is an example of like charges attracting?
One example is the Birkeland Current.
What is an example of like poles attracting?
Spintronics. N attracts N.
That is due to the Dual Vortex structure of Magnetic Fields.
THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE UNIVERSE IS UNDERSTANDING SPIN.
I am the Wizard of Oz, come see me any time you need Dorthy.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests