what is charge?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby Sithri » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:46 pm

crawler wrote:The answer to what is charge will of course involve aether.
I have learnt a lot by reading papers by J G Williamson.
And papers by Conrad Ranzan (DSSU).
And Ivor Catt (papers & youtube).

I have myself posited that electric-magnetic-charge fields are made of photaenos which are a part of every photon. Photons are made of (1) a central helix, & (2) lots of photaenos (tentacles that emanate from the helix). The helix propagates at c along the axis, & the propagation involves the annihilation of aether. Aether is some sort of sub-quantum fluid, sub-quantum because it has no mass or energy (at least no ordinary energy). Photaenos propagate at praps 5c outwards from the helix (Gasser), & are formed by a vibration or vortex in the aether (& possibly annihilation).

Why 5c? And why do they have to be sub-quantum to have no mass or energy? Why not just say its a quantum ether that has no mass or energy? It would make no sense that a photon relies upon creation and annihilation because it is a continuum of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. if I were to define this, I would say one divided by the square root of both permeability times permittivity. Thus the vacuum itself is defining the speed of light, which isn't a vacuum but a quantum ether.
Sithri
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby crawler » Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:40 pm

Sithri wrote:
crawler wrote:The answer to what is charge will of course involve aether.
I have learnt a lot by reading papers by J G Williamson.
And papers by Conrad Ranzan (DSSU).
And Ivor Catt (papers & youtube).

I have myself posited that electric-magnetic-charge fields are made of photaenos which are a part of every photon. Photons are made of (1) a central helix, & (2) lots of photaenos (tentacles that emanate from the helix). The helix propagates at c along the axis, & the propagation involves the annihilation of aether. Aether is some sort of sub-quantum fluid, sub-quantum because it has no mass or energy (at least no ordinary energy). Photaenos propagate at praps 5c outwards from the helix (Gasser), & are formed by a vibration or vortex in the aether (& possibly annihilation).

Why 5c? And why do they have to be sub-quantum to have no mass or energy? Why not just say its a quantum ether that has no mass or energy? It would make no sense that a photon relies upon creation and annihilation because it is a continuum of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. if I were to define this, I would say one divided by the square root of both permeability times permittivity. Thus the vacuum itself is defining the speed of light, which isn't a vacuum but a quantum ether.
Re a speed of 5c for em radiation, Gasser measured 5c in the nearfield at least. Anyone can define subquantum anyway they like, but it has to make sense. Everything that we feel & see is quantum.
U say that a photon is a continuum of em fields. I say that a photon is discrete, not a continuum. I say that em fields are made by a half of a photon, the photaeno half.
crawler
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby webolife » Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:42 am

Hey Crawler
Your "photeano half" amuses me. Consider a few observations/assertions:
First, yes a light action is discrete and finite. Thus it has "sides"... it's peripherals are symmetric, so one " half"cannot be distinguished from the "other". However, it might be described as having an inner and outer side, in which I might suggest the outer side is the em field you are picturing. What do you think of that?
To keep this on thread, I will remind that charge is the fundamental " holding" vector of electricity, as mass is for gravitation, both directed toward field centroid. Likewise the "outside" of light action is radiated/vectored toward centroid, rather than stuff being emanated from the centroid, ie. the centroid is a sink for light, electricity, and gravitation.
This is the piece that is obscured from the view of modern unifiers. IMHO 8-)
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby crawler » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:24 pm

webolife wrote:Hey Crawler
Your "photeano half" amuses me. Consider a few observations/assertions:
First, yes a light action is discrete and finite. Thus it has "sides"... it's peripherals are symmetric, so one " half"cannot be distinguished from the "other". However, it might be described as having an inner and outer side, in which I might suggest the outer side is the em field you are picturing. What do you think of that?
To keep this on thread, I will remind that charge is the fundamental " holding" vector of electricity, as mass is for gravitation, both directed toward field centroid. Likewise the "outside" of light action is radiated/vectored toward centroid, rather than stuff being emanated from the centroid, ie. the centroid is a sink for light, electricity, and gravitation.
This is the piece that is obscured from the view of modern unifiers. IMHO 8-)
I havnt read all of the replys. But i think that charge is primary. It is some kind of excitation of the aether. That excitation is the excitation that emanates from the central helical part of a photon, i call it the photaeno part. Electrons quarks etc are confined photons, hencely u have photaenos emanating from electrons quarks etc.
The movement(s) of electrons (& possibly protons)(quarks), ie charge, gives us electro fields & magnetic fields.
crawler
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby D_Archer » Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:02 am

crawler wrote:I havnt read all of the replys. But i think that charge is primary. It is some kind of excitation of the aether. That excitation is the excitation that emanates from the central helical part of a photon, i call it the photaeno part. Electrons quarks etc are confined photons, hencely u have photaenos emanating from electrons quarks etc.
The movement(s) of electrons (& possibly protons)(quarks), ie charge, gives us electro fields & magnetic fields.


Charge is physical photons indeed.

Electrical Charge by Miles Mathis: http://milesmathis.com/charge.html
What is charge? by Miles Mathis: http://milesmathis.com/charge2.html

I will show that charge is dimensionally the same as mass. Then I will show that charge is the mass of the charge photons


we can now re-define the charge field as a bombarding field only. It is always repulsive; never attractive. It is caused by radiation of these messenger photons, which I am going to re-dub B-photons (for bombarding photons). The repulsion is caused by an old-fashioned force by contact. Of course this means that the B-photons are not virtual: they have energy, mass equivalence, and even radius.
-added note by me: they also spin

ie charge, gives us electro fields & magnetic fields


Correct, photons moving in one direction together is an electric field, the spin of the photons is magnetic field (that is why it curves).

A great example of the application of all this is the explanation of Miles about cometary asteroid tales > http://milesmathis.com/comet.pdf

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby crawler » Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:57 pm

D_Archer wrote:
crawler wrote:I havnt read all of the replys. But i think that charge is primary. It is some kind of excitation of the aether. That excitation is the excitation that emanates from the central helical part of a photon, i call it the photaeno part. Electrons quarks etc are confined photons, hencely u have photaenos emanating from electrons quarks etc.
The movement(s) of electrons (& possibly protons)(quarks), ie charge, gives us electro fields & magnetic fields.
Charge is physical photons indeed.

Electrical Charge by Miles Mathis: http://milesmathis.com/charge.html
What is charge? by Miles Mathis: http://milesmathis.com/charge2.html

I will show that charge is dimensionally the same as mass. Then I will show that charge is the mass of the charge photons
we can now re-define the charge field as a bombarding field only. It is always repulsive; never attractive. It is caused by radiation of these messenger photons, which I am going to re-dub B-photons (for bombarding photons). The repulsion is caused by an old-fashioned force by contact. Of course this means that the B-photons are not virtual: they have energy, mass equivalence, and even radius.
-added note by me: they also spin.
ie charge, gives us electro fields & magnetic fields
Correct, photons moving in one direction together is an electric field, the spin of the photons is magnetic field (that is why it curves).

A great example of the application of all this is the explanation of Miles about cometary asteroid tales > http://milesmathis.com/comet.pdf
Regards, Daniel
I like Miles' stuff. I like the way he always looks for a mechanical explanation. I like the way he uses photons as the primary thing.

Jeans said that the photon is the basis of things, & matter is bottled photons.

But it appears to me that Mathis Jeans & Einsteinologists & all all nonetheless believe that (1) em radiation is photons & (2) photons are em radiation. Alltho Mathis would not agree with (2) i think.

But i differ to everyone, i am the only fellow who says that em radiation (including charge) is photaenos, & photaenos are a half of what i call a photon.
crawler
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby crawler » Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:06 pm

webolife wrote:Hey Crawler
Your "photeano half" amuses me. Consider a few observations/assertions:
First, yes a light action is discrete and finite. Thus it has "sides"... it's peripherals are symmetric, so one " half"cannot be distinguished from the "other". However, it might be described as having an inner and outer side, in which I might suggest the outer side is the em field you are picturing. What do you think of that?

To keep this on thread, I will remind that charge is the fundamental " holding" vector of electricity, as mass is for gravitation, both directed toward field centroid. Likewise the "outside" of light action is radiated/vectored toward centroid, rather than stuff being emanated from the centroid, ie. the centroid is a sink for light, electricity, and gravitation.
This is the piece that is obscured from the view of modern unifiers. IMHO 8-)
Yes an inner side & an outer side is exactly what i am saying. Inner is the central helical body half of the photon, propagating at c. Outer is the photaeno half, emanating at praps 5c in the nearfield (Gasser).

Centroid looks ok to me. But not forgetting that every electron & quark etc contributes its own little field (including gravity), & in the end we have a nett field (& nett gravity).

Unification of em & gravity is impossible because they are very different aspects of the aether. em stuff is an excitation of aether, gravity is due to acceleration of the bulk flow of aether (no excitation needed here).
crawler
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby Steve Beck » Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:14 pm

Mathis is right, a photon by itself is not EM radiation. Individual photons do not have an EM field, but photons in a large number give rise to an EM field in the Classical Limit. That is how the Standard Model describes the EM waves.

This does not mean the aether does not exist. It likely does but that is a matter of how to model it. There is an obscure theory called the Superfluid Vacuum Theory, which is an aether modeled as a superfluid. I have a similar idea, but instead of some ocean, it is a gas, like the atmosphere but both should work similarly. Electrons and other particles can be modeled like smoke rings in the air, or in the case of a superfluid ocean, bubble rings.

Particle physics right down to the mathematics scream of fluid mechanics.
Steve Beck
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:18 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby webolife » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:00 am

crawler wrote:Unification of em & gravity is impossible because they are very different aspects of the aether. em stuff is an excitation of aether, gravity is due to acceleration of the bulk flow of aether (no excitation needed here).

Don't be too quick to dismiss unification here... your unifying agent is an imagined aether, but it is a unifier nonetheless. Keep looking for fundamental forces at work at different hierarchies. Mathis has done this with charge and mass, which in "my" CPFT are manifestations of centropy, ie. pressure field vectors radiating toward the field centroid, rather than emanating from it. I am not the mechanist that Mathis is, nor is my "aether" one the materialists would relish. I focus on unifying what is known, eg. the stickiness of the universe at every hierarchy and the inevitability of force/action at a distance, however small or large. These are observable and measureable and form a very satisfactory [to me :P ] basis for a unification of physics. Aether, gravitons, "photaenos", like WIMPS, etc. are fanciful but introduce imaginary obstacles to empiricism which is a necessary element of any physical theory.
Ask and answer: What causes your aether to be excited, and what causes it to accelerate?
If you get deeper here I believe you will find that em and gravitation are indeed unified, and perhaps, as have I, find that there may be no need for a superconducting, physically solid, gaseous, or superfluid "aether" to mediate the fundamental forces. While the conductivity of space is clearly an observable, yet unexplained, phenomenon requiring mechanists to propose their various aether models, consider a counter-paradigm: that empty space has no resistance. Yet that space [defined as it is with reference to the interacting particles which inhabit it] is ordered with precise geometric properties explainable by the use of vectors and rays, the elements of pressure. "How can pressure exist in empty space?" the mechanists exasperate... but if the finitude of the universe [underlying premise of the CPFT] is frontloaded into the hypothesis, the universe itself becomes an "objective" centroid of its own infinite field, and all spaces and contained objects are thereby connected, at every hierarchy, atomic to astronomic. If everything is thus interconnected, centropic pressure [AKA stickiness] is the inevitable consequence.
All the various field manifestations are thereby unified.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby crawler » Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:58 pm

webolife wrote:
crawler wrote:Unification of em & gravity is impossible because they are very different aspects of the aether. em stuff is an excitation of aether, gravity is due to acceleration of the bulk flow of aether (no excitation needed here).

Don't be too quick to dismiss unification here... your unifying agent is an imagined aether, but it is a unifier nonetheless. Keep looking for fundamental forces at work at different hierarchies. Mathis has done this with charge and mass, which in "my" CPFT are manifestations of centropy, ie. pressure field vectors radiating toward the field centroid, rather than emanating from it. I am not the mechanist that Mathis is, nor is my "aether" one the materialists would relish. I focus on unifying what is known, eg. the stickiness of the universe at every hierarchy and the inevitability of force/action at a distance, however small or large. These are observable and measureable and form a very satisfactory [to me :P ] basis for a unification of physics. Aether, gravitons, "photaenos", like WIMPS, etc. are fanciful but introduce imaginary obstacles to empiricism which is a necessary element of any physical theory.
Ask and answer: What causes your aether to be excited, and what causes it to accelerate?
If you get deeper here I believe you will find that em and gravitation are indeed unified, and perhaps, as have I, find that there may be no need for a superconducting, physically solid, gaseous, or superfluid "aether" to mediate the fundamental forces. While the conductivity of space is clearly an observable, yet unexplained, phenomenon requiring mechanists to propose their various aether models, consider a counter-paradigm: that empty space has no resistance. Yet that space [defined as it is with reference to the interacting particles which inhabit it] is ordered with precise geometric properties explainable by the use of vectors and rays, the elements of pressure. "How can pressure exist in empty space?" the mechanists exasperate... but if the finitude of the universe [underlying premise of the CPFT] is frontloaded into the hypothesis, the universe itself becomes an "objective" centroid of its own infinite field, and all spaces and contained objects are thereby connected, at every hierarchy, atomic to astronomic. If everything is thus interconnected, centropic pressure [AKA stickiness] is the inevitable consequence.
All the various field manifestations are thereby unified.
I think i missed seeing your reply. I have indeed changed my mind re the possibility of unification. I now believe that gravity is the sole force & that it manifests in a number of ways. Gravity is due to the macro acceleration of the aether inflow into mass where aether is annihilated. Charge electric & magnetic forces are too due to an acceleration of aether but here it is a micro acceleration created by an excitation (vibration spin swirl toroid tornado) of aether.
This unification of mine is shocking.
It could be restated by saying that gravity is due to em & that em force is the sole force & manifests in a number of ways, but that wouldnt be shocking.
crawler
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby webolife » Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:44 am

Some more "radical" considerations:
Unifications require that one or more of the fundamental field paradigms be completely reversed so as to fit with the other manifestations of centropy. You say gravitation (or electri-gravitation) is the one force, whereas I say that centropy is the fundamental pressure manifested by the various fields at different hierarchies, incl gravitation/mass, voltage/charge, and nuclear forces...and (my shocker) light. Interconnectivity of the entire universe (as a finite object), is manifested to us astronomically by the "medium" (I don't say aether) of light. That light actions are understood to be activated by the dropping of an electron to a lower energy level makes for a spacial "unification" few can stomach, as it infers (at least for me) that action at a distance is scalable. Centropy is viewable as entropy, therefore may be the root of our experience of time. There are so many applications of this concept built upon the finitude of the universe, but accessing those applications requires us to reconsider the underlying meaning of the immensity of the universe. For example, consider an atom held between your thumb and forefinger. We understand that an atom is geometrically configured and mostly space, yet the pressure field that it experiences is "immense" by comparison. Its internal motions [energy] cause it to push back on that pressure such that it may not "feel" the externally applied centropy that is being applied. Now scale up to say the size of our solar system, mostly space yet held together by (what?) the centropic pressure we refer to as gravitation. Its internal motions prevent the solar system from collapsing, in dynamic equilibrium with the "stickiness" field. Scale higher and lower, at any hierarchy you choose, and what we observe is a relatively large lot of space in which objects are nevertheless held together. This view enables me to see the immense space of the universe in the same light [literally and figuratively). If it is finite [my premise], then it can also be seen as held together by an even greater field of force/pressure, in equilibrium with the energetic motions we observe throughout. Equilibrium is punctuated by the recognition of entropy [centropy = entropy] such that in every interaction, the net result is still stuff being held together, thus the mainstream big bang is an impossible paradigm. Mechanists abhor this, inventing all sorts of fanciful and undetectable particles to mediate the interactions between objects. This is not unreasonable, science being as it is primarily concerned with the material world. But so many of the givens of physics are difficult to materially define, though measurable and math-able... for starters, time, light, gravity, energy... add your electrically defined basics, such as charge, to the list.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests