Positive and Negative

[Michael V]

Plasmatic,

Why do you assume particles cant move in aggregate in a waving motion?

I make no such assumption. I know with absolute and complete certainty that such a system cannot exist.

The only way to achieve motion in a particulate medium is to control the motion of those particles with opposing forces: up and down, back and forth, side to side. There is no way to construct a field of particles whose motions produce waves or patterns of motion only by their own collisions. And there is no way to have motion other than by the freedom of movement afforded by empty unoccupied space.

What makes you certain. On what justificational foundation are you operating in.

With all due respect and with no intent of disparagement of any kind, but it is blatantly and blindingly obvious. I can only assume that your commitment and efforts to build a theoretical model that might successfully operate in the manner you have indicated has blinded you to the simple and obvious truth that such a system cannot physically work. The initiation of any wave or pattern of group motion in a free floating single particle type system will immediately fall into random disorganised chaos.

With that said, in order to make any model work we must allow for at least some particle types to have some sort of operational ability beyond simple linear motion, the most simple and obvious example might be spin. I have suggested that electrons and quite possibly protons are, or at least act as, disc shaped: spinning disc systems. This is a departure from what we might naturally consider to be the default particle model of a non-deformable sphere. However, to include such deviations from default, it is important to include some logical evidence attached to some physical evidence to substantiate such claims. With that in mind, I am wondering if perhaps you are hoping to save your particle field model with particle characteristics: cue "deformability"??
Regardless, of the above, the fact remains that motion requires freedom of movement and so there is still no escape from the concept of empty unoccupied space.

Michael

[sjw40364]

sjw,

Perhaps you are aware of others, but the most common particles that are said to oscillate are such as cesium and other radioactive particles. Perhaps the emitting of the radiation pushes the particle first one way then the other as it emits in pulses as it spins. After all, for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. So perhaps that force can also come internally as well, not just externally.

I like your thinking, but there are several issues to consider:
- an atom is not a particle, it is a collection of particles held together by a complex interplay of forces
- can the electrons and protons generate said forces on an ongoing basis constantly for perhaps billions of years without an outside source
- consider the mass of cesium atom and its velocity at a high frequency of oscillation. How much momentum must it emit to produce a sufficient reactionary force to decelerate it and then accelerate in the opposite direction. And then to repeat that process backwards and forwards a billion odd times a second using just on-board "propellant".
- not to give the game away too soon, but in all cases an external source is indicated

Incidentally, I have previously considered this specific subject on many previous occasions. There is nothing in this argument so far that I have not considered at length.

Michael

Personally I am of the belief that an atom creates its own electrical field without any outside help needed. The motion of the electron (well get to that in a bit) around the nucleus in the magnetic field makes its own power, just as I believe that a galaxy creates its own power from the plasma torus spinning in its center in its magnetic field as well as all the stars and planets. They may indeed share excess power through Birkland currents as well as draw in power when needed, but overall I believe they are mostly self-contained entities. It all boils down to whether you feel the need for a magical outside power source to power them other than what we have observed in the visible universe, plasma spinning in magnetic fields. I find it inconcievable that this outside power source could be anything other than what we have already observed, and produces power from physics different than that exists to the furthest limits of our observations.

As for electrons I am not satisfied with Mr. Hiesengurg's explanation. In my opinion it is not because by the time you observe it it is somewhere else, but that an electron is actually not a single entity, but a composite of millions if not billions of smaller particles. These surround the nucleus similar to a globular cluster and have an overall net affect of neutrality. Once alignment occurs they take on the shape of a normal galaxy or planetary rings and power is discharged along the axis of alignment just as galaxies emit jets of plasma. To my knowledge, only non-globular cluster galaxies emit jets. This shape, the most common observed in the universe is why I believe that you believe that electrons are not round, but flattened, which indeed it would appear to be so even though they are actually billions in a ring or galactic shape.

[Sparky]

Personally I am of the belief that an atom creates its own electrical field ---

And what would be this "electric field"?

It all boils down to whether you feel the need for a magical outside power source to power them --

As opposed to a "magical" internal mechanism? That creates electrical fields..

For me, idonno..

[sjw40364]

Personally I am of the belief that an atom creates its own electrical field ---

And what would be this "electric field"?

It all boils down to whether you feel the need for a magical outside power source to power them --

As opposed to a "magical" internal mechanism? That creates electrical fields..

For me, idonno..

Please, feel free to speculate what this outside power source is and what makes it. I for one do not believe that it could be anything other than what we currently observe when we gaze into the depths of space. Galaxy upon galaxy upon galaxy. Vast clouds of ionized plasma moving and spinning in magnetic fields.

As the books tell us: "The operation of electric generators is based on the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction: whenever a conductor moves relative to a magnetic field, voltage is induced in this conductor."

This is exactly what I see when I gaze at the galaxy, conductors (stars, planets, moons, clouds of dust, i.e. plasma and even atoms) moving in magnetic fields, enough to power Birkland currents that span 100's of light years across and billions of light years through space from galaxy to galaxy.

[Sparky]

sjw, you did not understand my questions. I responded to your speculation concerning atoms.

[sjw40364]

Well it is apparent from the forum on "What is electricity?" that no one actually knows what makes an electric field. We like to say particles, and most probably that is so, but those particles are certainly not atoms since even atoms have electric fields. An electron has an electric field, so it cant be electrons. I certainly believe that even a photon has electric and magnetic fields, and I'll risk heresy by including mass as well, so an electric field cannot be photonic. It must be even a more basic particle, smaller than we are able to detect with current technology. If a particle HAS an electric field, it can't BE that electric field.

Not that it matters in the end, as without the electric field you don't have magnetism and without the magnetism you don't have particles spiraling in it creating electric currents, whatever these turn out to be made of. I do know one thing, its always been this way and always will be, no matter how we try to explain it.

[Sparky]

sjw,

-no one actually knows what makes an electric field=

Agreed

-atoms have electric fields. An electron has an electric field-

They react to magnetic and electric "fields", but isn't it speculative that they possess magnetic and electric fields?

If they do, then what you suggest about a much smaller particle being that "field" is what Michael V. outlines. But his model has electrons aligned and emitting quantums as that field. If the electrons are not aligned, then they emit a random field, which would not be any different than the background aether. Thus, no magnetic nor electric field.

Back to square one...why is an electron of different apparent polarity than a proton?

idonno

[sjw40364]

sjw,

-no one actually knows what makes an electric field=

Agreed

-atoms have electric fields. An electron has an electric field-

They react to magnetic and electric "fields", but isn't it speculative that they possess magnetic and electric fields?

If they do, then what you suggest about a much smaller particle being that "field" is what Michael V. outlines. But his model has electrons aligned and emitting quantums as that field. If the electrons are not aligned, then they emit a random field, which would not be any different than the background aether. Thus, no magnetic nor electric field.

Back to square one...why is an electron of different apparent polarity than a proton?

idonno

Its because electrons are not single particles, but conglomerates of billions. Picture a globular cluster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_cluster (an unaligned electron configuration), have there ever been jets associated with such? not to my knowledge, thus they are basically what we call neutral. Now picture a spiral galaxy http://www.weirdwarp.com/2011/05/new-im ... er-galaxy/ (an aligned electron configuration), many jets are associated with such. Alignment is the only difference. In one the electrons are random, in the other they align along the equatorial axis and spin in the magnetic field more uniformly creating excess power.

Still waiting for pictures of these pesky protons and neutrons and electrons. Which I believe to be nothing more than scaled down Z-Pinches.