what is charge?

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Electricity and Plasma, from Micro to Macro and Beyond...

Unread postby altonhare » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:14 pm

You do not know why they attract and repel>>>?
-JL

I have my own theory attraction and repulsion, but this is not my thread. I am requesting the theory agreed upon in this thread.

Can you tell me why the directional rule of thumb exists for current direction and EM fields?
-JL

Again, I have my own theory that is perfectly satisfactory and has been discussed semi-completely in other threads. I know exactly why an observed current induces a magnetic field in a wire and how a coiled wire generates EM force. I will describe it here only by direct request because this is specifically an EU thread.

They are distributed charge gyroscopes.
-JL

What's charge again? I never did see it. I can picture the gyroscope but not the charge unfortunately.

Spin is a gyroscope.
-JL

That's backwards, you mean "a gyroscope spins". The mechanical "right hand rule" is a fundamental property of rotational motion. It involves the basic laws of "a body in motion stays in motion" and the balancing of forces.

Everyone knows the rule of thumb, no one tells you why.
:?
I just did.
-JL

No you just described conservation of momentum and the balancing of forces in a rotating system. A simple toy top displays the same behavior. Conservation of momentum has been around for at least a thousand years. Precession is nothing mystical. I can describe it mechanically easily:

Imagine a hollowed-out disc (like a carriage wheel) suspended by a string attached to its center with a short axle through the center. Normally it will hang horizontally because of equal gravitational tension on its ends. If you lift it so that it is vertical then any force applied to the axle will cause the wheel to fall flat. However, if you spin the wheel before lifting it vertical you introduce what are essentially balancing forces. Any force applied to the axle will cause the outer edged of the disc to move to the side (the disc's axle will rotate). For instance, a point at the top of the disc may move left as a point on the very bottom tries to move right. However, as each point on the outer edge of the disc moves to the side it also rotates about the axle, which decreases the distance between the point and the horizontal axis. All the points on the disc are moving to the side as they rotate, causing the wheel to precess about its vertical axis. If the disc was not set spinning each point would move to the side without rotating and would simply fall. When spinning the point moves to the side but is also rotated , which places it in a position closer to the vertical position. It's somewhat like the point doesn't have "enough time" to fall over because it always gets pulled back in by the spinning before it can do it.

I think I learned this in an early physics class. I don't see what the big deal is. The "right hand rule" is a mathematical accounting mechanism that insures all the motion is conserved quantitatively. We don't need the RHR to explain the motion of a top physically.

Will same charges attract or same poles attract?
If they will, why would they do that?
-JL

Why would two balls with a "+" symbol on them repel? I haven't the faintest clue what a "+" symbol has to do with repulsion. I have my own theories about why objects are observed to attract or repel. I suppose I can at least give a link here to Bill Gaede's theory of magnetism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

So, Wizard, so far you have described how a toy top conserves momentum and balances opposing forces. Any other deep insights behind your curtain?
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: Electricity and Plasma, from Micro to Macro and Beyond...

Unread postby altonhare » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:35 pm

The EM toroid surrounds the ES sphere.
That is the electron configuration.
It is two charge clouds in relationship.
If you pay careful attention to what I just said, you will see that is a gyroscope.
This goes back to everything I just said about spin and its mechanical effects explaining Flemings Rule.
Structure and function cannot be seperated and will explain every Rule.


Okay then. We have a billiard ball surrounded by a solid cylindrical ring. This will indeed behave like a gyroscope/top if the billiard ball is connected to the toroid by some spokes or something. Is this your model of an atom? An atom is a billiard ball connected by spokes to toroids? I can accept that hypothesis. But why would one ball-toroid stick to another?

I read Howard Johnson's book and appreciate his extensive and detailed research into magnets. However the problem here is the same as the problem with modern physics in general. There is still no physical mechanism for attraction and repulsion at a distance. What intervenes in the process? He draws field lines but gives them no physical interpretation. He does not show why one entity will pull on another entity though they are separated by absolutely nothing. All I see are arrows pointing at where force is acting, but I do not see the physical cause of the force. In Bill Gaede's video you see a physical cause of attraction and repulsion. Additionally you linked only to articles which describe the hand rules and show the field lines with their equations, still nothing physical. Do you outright deny Bill Gaede's physical mechanism?

Two opposite spins will normally attract.
Same spins will normally repel.
-JL

So a ball enclosed by a toroid spinning clockwise will stick to one spinning counterclockwise? Is this what you're saying? What makes them stick? Discrete objects bounce off each other.

We have a ball with (assumed) spokes attached to a toroid for an atom. What else Wizard?
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: Electricity and Plasma, from Micro to Macro and Beyond...

Unread postby junglelord » Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:09 am

All Spin Domains are due to the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
All Quantum Constants are derivites of the Harmonic Code.
The Harmonic Code is integrated in all forms, from Universal Constants to the Earth Resonance.
All running in perfect harmony. Cast Out Nines and you will understand the Harmonic Code.
This will reveal the Music and Harmony of the Spheres. The Cosmic Harmonic Code is PHI>
The Golden Mean Spiral.
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
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Electricity and Plasma, from Micro to Macro and Beyond...

Unread postby junglelord » Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:15 am

Since they always talk about Magnetic Fields of Planetary Bodies in Gravity only Cosmology, one should become aware of the Dual Vortex and the forces at work in Magnetic Fields. Yes the E Field that creates it is what the EU is all about, but the true Nature of Magnetic Fields in and of itself is not known by the public. I mean to set that record straight for this forum.

I feel that digesting Howard Johnson's work on mapping magnetic pole vortices is the most important concept someone have to master before any predicted success can occur. You can still achieve success with what they tell you in books but you are flying blind and resting on luck when it comes to iron filings and 2-D magnetic field symmetry concepts ...
All known forces are symmetrical in nature, in that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
This symmetry we are taught that is universal and applies to everything including magnets.
:?

That not true, either one of those Ideas.
:o

Iron Filings show you NOTHING of the true nature of a dynamic magnetic field. They merely become little magnets themself in the Dynamic Magnetic Field. Magnetic Poles are not equal. These two misconceptions are hiding huge truths.

The 3-D and 4-D Magnetic Dual Vortex is something you cannot afford not to learn.

Since I started to do visualization of interacting and opposing vortices in my mind, conceptualisation went up 50%. And that is thanks to my researches on magnetic motors.

A magnet is: imbalanced forces in a balanced system.

On the North magnetic pole of a magnet, the North vortex is at 100% and the South vortex at about 80%.

On the South magnetic pole of a magnet, the South vortex is at about 120% and the North vortex at 100%.

This create a warp sphere of influence on the sides of the magnets and in the overall form of the vortex structures.

The reentry points of the magnetic vortices are possibly not in the center of the physical magnet. They may be displaced by as much as a ratio of 60/40.

If you learn this information and how to derive EM by the original 20 Quaternions of Maxwells EM Thesis, you will totally be able to take the next step to derive all Spin Domains.
:D :D :D :D

This will allow you to be a master of Spin. The work of both Maxwell and Faraday are very clear.
The EM field is a Mechanical Field. It is a EM Gyroscope. All the rules of EM relationships are due to the mechanical relationships of Gyroscopes to induced pressure.

And who says a COMPLETE revolution is 360 degrees? Suppose a complete revolution was actually 720 degrees, which would be more in line with the asymptotic dimensional dynamics of quantum physics. Can you detect the corresponding principles involved in spin and velocity as they relate to matter and anti-matter? Imagine a sine wave itself, behaving within a traveling sine wave creating rift polarities from which dimensional energies find similarities within our environment, and express themselves accordingly.

This requires a pump. This requires a Gforce. APM has measured this Gforce via the Quantum Constants.
This is the cause of all Spin at all Levels. Spin is a harmonic of PHI at all levels.
:D :D :D

Casting Out the Nines.

Now read this.
Spin In Space.
http://treeincarnation.com/articles/Spin-of-Space.htm
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
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Electricity and Plasma, from Micro to Macro and Beyond...

Unread postby altonhare » Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:26 pm

Since they always talk about Magnetic Fields
-JL

What's a magnetic field?
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby volantis » Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:07 pm

StevenO wrote:APM theory needs to treat charge as a 2-dimensional 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.

The APM is not a conjecture, it is the result of analyzing constants and data. Unlike Einstein, who started with a thought experiment, the APM begins with empirical measurements. The three dimensions of length and the two dimensions of frequency are natural structures of existence. Space and resonance share the same geometry at the quantum level. Wishing it were any other way is only a wish.

Why is there a mentality of wanting things to be the way we expect them to be, rather than the way they are? Empirical measurements are the common ground in science. We should start our logic from the empirical measurements. Any claims we make about the nature of reality should be grounded in these empirical measurements.
volantis
Guest
 

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby volantis » Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:13 pm

junglelord wrote:One of the feeble arguments against the Aether is that since it
is non-material 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.

Junglelord - I don't give you enough credit for your ability to understand and explain the APM. You are doing an outstanding job. I want people to know that you are doing this entirely because you have taken the time to work out and understand the theory for yourself. I have been quiet on the APM for most of the past year simply because the theory is logical and can speak for itself for those who take the time to work through each of the steps for themselves. Keep up the good work.
volantis
Guest
 

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby junglelord » Fri Nov 28, 2008 8:59 am

It does speak for itself. I took three months to reorganize my information.
APM did that for me. Once you reposition your known measurements into a structural approach, well the structures become evident. Watching the MIT lecture series on EM and ES post APM was really interesting with the ES. Man was there loads of depth behind things the professor admitted, but did not know how to access. You taught me how to do this accessing.
I was still struggling with accepted terms. A web page for definitions of Electricity said Voltage was a Hill, NOT PRESSURE.
BANG....Voltage hill, Electric Field.....instant comphrehension. Potential Difference is a Voltage Hill. Looking at Howard Johnsons plots for Dual Magnetic Field Vortex and BANG, synethesia big time...

All proper analysis of EM via Maxwells Quaternions is in 4-D. 20 quaternions is a direct representation of Fullers Synergetics ratio of 20 open nodes in the Vector Eq Matrix. Charge being Pi and distributed must therefore be packed as spheres (Synergetics) and Toroids. Platonic Solids form the valence shell geometry from Blazelabs and the Manhatten Project and Dr Moon. Take it from there.....its quite elegant.

A personal experience I had four weeks ago while awake and having accidently induced a DMT experience, and I saw the Fuller Synergetics in motion, I also experienced the I/O Sphere of TreeIncarnation. I have seen the geometry of space, DMT will allow this. It is the Fuller Matrix, APM in Space Resonance, the Gforce of APM pumping the whole thing with dynamic motion.
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
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

What is Charge?

Unread postby Excal » Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:50 pm

Being a neophyte to the EU and the forum, I have been looking for an explanation of electrical charge. One would expect that this explanation would be the foundation of a universal electric theory, but I can't find it. Am I missing something?
Excal
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:01 am

Re: What is Charge?

Unread postby hertz » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:58 pm

a stumper right out of the box...good on ya...have fun :)
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... dee5ccfc53
btw, pay particular attention to the responses from junglelord
hertz
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 12:29 pm

Re: What is Charge?

Unread postby Excal » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:25 pm

Thanks for the link. Kind of embarrassed that I had to ask. Should have found the old thread myself.
Excal
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:01 am

Re: What is Charge?

Unread postby Excal » Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:33 pm

Quite a discussion. Looks like junglelord is into APM in a serious way. I know very little about it.

I was gratified to see that Dewey Larson's ideas were referred to and there was even a link to my website, showing the space|time dimensions chart that I derived from Borg's graphics on his website (although the link to the article is not correct anymore for some reason: the correct link is here.)

In Larson's development of his new system of physical theory, nothing but motion, the dimensions of charge are the same as velocity, s/t, not s/1, which are the space/time dimensions of the uncharged electron. Unfortunately, the uncharged electron is as ethereal as the Higgs.

I like the successes of the EU, but I have to say that Larson's new system of theory is as compelling to me as Talbot says Velikovsky's work was to him. My effort has focused on developing the consequences of Larson's fundamental postulates, starting with three D scalar motion and paring it down, rather than starting with one D scalar motion and building it up.

The gratifying thing is that it has led to new insights into mathematics and geometry, but we haven't quite reached the major goal, deriving the atomic spectra, as of yet.

The relative charges of the quarks and leptons work out perfectly, but, like in everybody else's theory, their relative masses are still a mystery. Yet there is a glimmer of hope in the geometry of 3D scalar motion and it is tied to the new definition of a point, which was the subject of an essay I submitted recently to the FQXI contest.

I was happy to notice that junglelord brought up the fundamental paradox of charge defined as a point particle. We should never allow this point to slip into the background: a point by definition is zero dimensional and thus cannot be charged, since the vanishingly small radius of the electron would require the non-electrical binding force (the so-called "Poincare stresses" that Feynman amusingly characterized as rubber-bands) to keep the force formula from exploding it to smithereens.

I was forced, by the concept of expanding/contracting units of space and time, to conclude that when one contracts the other has to expand, and vice-versa, which I see is also a principle touched upon in the discussion of charge.

The bottom line for me, I guess, is that charge, by definition, is force, and force is, by definition, a quantity of motion, and given the observed characteristics of electricity and magnetism, electric phenomena correspond to the 1D expansion/contraction of a point (dipole), while magnetic phenomena correspond to the 2D expansion/contraction of a point (quadrupole), so I presume that gravitational phenomena would correspond to the 3D expansion/contraction of a point (octupole).

The encouraging thing is that an expanding/contracting ball contains all three of these components, and if they transform from space to time, and vice-versa, through a zero-dimensional point, all the better, since properties of matter are clearly categorizable in this fashion, and it avoids the paradox that, after all, led to string theory and all the nonsense that it has generated.

Finally, I noticed that the idea of quantum spin and electron subunits (preons) are discussed. It may be of interest to note that one 3D expansion/contraction cycle is equivalent to two, 2pi, rotations, and that the electron being developed in the new system of theory, consists of three preons as well.
Excal
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:01 am

Re: What is Charge?

Unread postby tayga » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:09 am

Hi Excal and welcome :)

Quite a first, no third, post there!

I'm very interested in fundamental particle physics although I'm not a physicist or mathematician (so I read slowly and very carefully!). You've certainly sparked my interest in Dewey Larson and I'm currently trying to figure out how on earth to register at http://rstheory.org/.

I was interested to read your comments on the failure to predict atomic spectra. IMO the whole edifice of atomic, particularly nuclear, structure and particle physics might be unsound (don't ask, I'm looking in to it) but I wonder whether you have seen Carl Johnson's site. His work is mainly based on NIST data analysis, which is its great strength, and it throws up some interesting questions about neutrons, neutrinos and the relationship of atomic structure to charge.

http://mb-soft.com/public2/nuclei6.html

It might inform your research and I'd be interested to read your opinion.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
User avatar
tayga
 
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: What is Charge?

Unread postby Excal » Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:25 am

Hi tayga,

Thanks for the link. I was unaware of Johnson's work. So far as I can see at this point, it is very interesting, especially in light of Le Cornec's work with the ionization energies of the periodic table. He found that the ratio of the square roots of the energies with the square root of the H ionization energy, are linear and cannot be explained by QM (see here.)

Of course, Larson's model of the atom is non-nuclear in that the constituent motions that comprise it do not retain their separate identities, where electrons orbit a nucleus of protons and neutrons, but combine together, as 1D and 2D scalar rotations, somewhat analogous to a collection of liquid droplets combining to form a larger liquid droplet.

In my own modification of Larson's model, there are no QM orbitals or scalar rotations, but 3D oscillations that combine in a manner similar to the way rf oscillations combine in a frequency mixer.

In this preliminary model, combos of oscillations identified with protons are combined with those of electrons forming those of H, and then these combine with combos identified with neutrons. I have adopted the nuclear structure consisting of He building blocks that my friends Montgomery and Jeffrey developed a few years back.

What I'm interested in learning from this forum is how these oscillations might be deformed into oblate or prolate ellipsoids, giving rise to the electric dipoles that generate gravity in the EU, if I understand correctly.

As for registering on the RS website, it used to be straight forward, but I don't go there much any more, so can't be of much help.
Excal
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:01 am

Re: What is Charge?

Unread postby hertz » Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:47 am

excal wrote:
What I'm interested in learning from this forum is how these oscillations might be deformed into oblate or prolate ellipsoids, giving rise to the electric dipoles that generate gravity in the EU, if I understand correctly.


there's an article over at wal thornhill's holoscience site: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs
that includes a discussion of ralph sansbury's model, and is worth looking at, as it may help explain gravity from an EU perspective.

here's an excerpt:
Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.[18] The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies. The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause.
hertz
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 12:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests