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 StevenO » Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:04 am

Steve Smith wrote:I really didn't want to get into this discussion because it has gone down so many rabbit trails that I can't find a straight path through the thread. Forgive me if I repeat what others have said.

I appreciate your courage... ;) Discussions can get tough if you touch on people's internal beliefs... But the only way to achieve real understanding is being able to explain to others....The thread clearly shows that people have a very intuitive understanding of charge, though they seem to use very different definitions.
Dave Thomson was correct in that charge is a fundamental "property" [of matter]. Because electric charge is fundamental it's like mass or length, it's a foundational principle that's used to help explain other phenomena -- what it electric current? It's the flow of electric charge. We might as well ask "what is space" or "what is time" -- those fundamental concepts are very difficult to break into. In many ways, people get trapped into logical fallacies when trying to explain them. The arguments become circular very rapidly.

Electric charge IS material. It is not "energy" (another difficult to define term)

I agree with the "material" statement. Space is material, but I'm confused why you have to add the "of matter" property. Solid matter is almost the opposite of moving charge and this statement also leaves a gap to understand the propagation of EM waves.

The point is that "charge" IS the actual fabric of 'space' and sure that is 'recursive'. But recursivity is a condition for an active self-contained system. It also get's rid of that intangible aether discussion...

It is essential to understand that next to the space dimension also a time dimension is needed to 'observe' the space dimension. Both the space and time dimension are not directly observable, they can only observe eachother. Charge can then move in the space dimension as a current or wiggle in the time dimension as magnetism. In that sense the (electromagnetic) vector potential can be seen as the fabric of "time". This is the one-dimensional definition of "spacetime" as viewed from a 'point' in space itself.

The time it takes to move space (T/S) is the definition of the energy (the 'slowness' to move space).
it is a component of matter, more specifically, rather than a property of substance. When one peers into the atom, one finds that it is composed of charged particles. "Things" are made of electric charge, both positive and negative. "Things" are solid only because the electric charges in them are keeping them from falling apart; the postive and negative charges are equally balanced, attract one another and form chemical bonds.

Positive and negative charge is charge moving in opposite directions.
Chemistry is electrical in nature, as are all natural processes. For instance, whenever something moves through space it is electric charge that's moving. When I walk down the street, the + and - charges in my body are moving together, so electric charge can change location. We call that "kinetic" or "mechanical" action. But, if somehow the negative charges in my body decided to move while all the positive charge stayed behind I would become the center of an electric current that would convert me into a flash of lightning.

Thunderbolts rule! :mrgreen: But the actual charge separation will only happen on a surface.
Electric charge has nothing to do with energy. They aren't the same thing at all. Electric charge is slow while the energy in the circuit is fast. In many ways I've been incorrect in referring to "electrical energy" offhandedly because the two concepts aren't related. When the power station sends me electricity, the electric charges in the wire hardly move at all, they just kind of vibrate in place. However, the energy in that transmission moves at the speed of light. Like waves in water -- and water is an excellent analogue to electric charge -- the water molecules don't move, the wave passes "through" them, leaving them right where they were. In that same way, electric charge is what the energy flows "through".

The charge moves along the space on the surface of the wires.
So, what is charge? Have I become circular, as well? Can it be avoided? Electric current is the flow of electric charge. It's voltage that makes current flow and (high) voltage is static electricity. Electrostatic fields are formed when the charges in an atom are not balanced. If I remove the electron from a hydrogen atom and move it somewhere else, an e-field will be created -- the "spring" that wants to pull the hydrogen atom back together again. Incidentally, that's how hydrogen fuel-cells work

I leave it here. I'm not sure that I contributed to any understanding. It's taken me years to comprehend "coulombs" and why they aren't "joules", but that's the most elementary part of the thing.

It is hard to understand since there is recursivity, even at the basic level of 'what is space'? Our discussion is an example of the universe observing itself and so is any manifestation of energy.

My good friend Mel Acheson likes the word "reify". I believe that that is a principle that shouldn't be ignored in this discussion. Because we call a phenomenological group "electricity" doesn't make it real. Some one I know wrote that you can spend all night looking at the stars and you won't find any astronomy up there.

I think that is the right word...a point in space is more than an abstract point in space.
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.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby Solar » Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:55 pm

I keep wondering where are the fundamentals in all of this?

The word/idea of 'charge' refers to the concept of 'an aggregate marshaling of force or forces'.
The concept of “charge” is most often used in conjunction with the idea of 'polarity'.

The concept of 'polarity' then infers 'unequal effects' of opposing principles or, 'to separate into opposites'. Thus, it is often said that the 'polarity' of “charge” is either “positive” or “negative”. With those concepts one then has the divergence necessary for contrasting in establishing the relationship.

Often the Mind reasons via the contrast of ideas, experiences or concepts. To then say that 'charge' may be either 'positive' or 'negative' infers that such a conclusion is reached via contrasting the relationship of that duality.

However, and unfortunately, the state or condition of 'potential' is all too often left out of the equation with such contrasting. The tendency seems to be that one contrast the duality of the extreme opposites only.

The concept of 'potential', which also means “latent”, in relation to 'charge' is constantly used to asses the 'difference' in voltage (electromotive force) between to areas. Yet, when considering the electrical activity that appears to be a fully active aspect of the universe, the idea is then put forth that the 'potential' of 'charge' is not there. Unnecessary to ponder even.

That is a contradiction.

Without the 'potential difference' there could be no electromotive force put into action 'in', 'through', or 'across'.

If I had to define it I would say that “charge” is 'polarized potential'. Yet as soon as it is 'polarized' it is no longer 'uniformly distributed' as 'potential' but becomes likened to an aggregate 'flow' or 'current'.

“Charge” would be the word-concept used in recognizing the electrical relations of aggregate polarization of 'potential' via perception of the presence of the electromotive force in action.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby StevenO » Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:56 am

Solar wrote:I keep wondering where are the fundamentals in all of this

The word/idea of 'charge' refers to the concept of 'an aggregate marshaling of force or forces'.
The concept of “charge” is most often used in conjunction with the idea of 'polarity'.

Forces and polarity only come only into the picture when two charges are compared, so charge is the more fundamental thing.
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.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby webolife » Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:38 am

My broken record usage of vectors plays well for me here for me here for me here...
Centropic vectors model potential and force. Vector density increases with reduction of radius to the centroid of a system, so any charged entity at any scale therefore exhibits greater "charge" near its centroid. The interaction of two fields yields effects of either attraction or repulsion depending upon the interaction, whether the fields are adjacent, overlapping, included, etc. due to vector addition. This aspect of charge can be understood as an analog to gravity. "Polarity" is just a way of describing vector directionality, and simply explains why the center of a system is "oppositely" charged to the periphery. The energy of motion required to balance the centropic field (ie. to prevent ultimate collapse of the system at any scale) is what I'm calling spin... angular momentum... on the "What is spin?" thread, others are posting all sorts of additional attributes of "spin" which I'm sure must be valid, but mostly confuse me. :? Effects of "charge" involve both the potential (centropic vectoral) and kinetic (spin) aspects of this interaction, typically referred to as energy... eg. Voltage and "current". I have a problem with the use of "current" to describe "movement" of charge across a field, because I understand that charge can be transferred virtually instantaneously through a low-resistive conduit, be it a conducting wire or the "vacuum" of space. Hence, although material media transfer charge necessarily at a finite speed due to resistant factors, the basic mechanism for the communication of charge across distance requires no medium. As I'm coming to understand it, magnetic fields associated with (caused by or causing) charge transfer also affect the accumulation of charge, as in plasma pinching. Astronomically, this may be the birth canal of stars... so at another fundamental level, charge and mass are analogs.
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: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

what is fundamental?

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:30 pm

- Steve Smith said:
Dave Thomson was correct in that charge is a fundamental "property" [of matter]. Because electric charge is fundamental it's like mass or length, it's a foundational principle that's used to help explain other phenomena -- what [is] electric current? It's the flow of electric charge. [To ask "what is charge" ...] We might as well ask "what is space" or "what is time" -- those fundamental concepts are very difficult to break into. In many ways, people get trapped into logical fallacies when trying to explain them. The arguments become circular very rapidly.

- Steve seems to say that charge is one of the fundamental properties of reality[?], like space and time. I think Dewey Larson did a good job of explaining such fundamentals by considering them types of motion. He said everything is motion, which consists of time and space in reciprocal relation to each other: time per space or space per time. And he added that both space and time have up to 3 dimensions, so you can have s^1/t^1 [velocity], s^1/t^2 [acceleration], up to s^3/t^3. Most of his macrocosmic conclusions about an expanding universe etc don't seem to pan out, but I think the basic concept has promise.
- It does seem that in order to have motion, there must be something that moves, besides motion. The answer to the question - "What moves?" - seems to be, from the perspective of a conscious being, consciousness. Consciousness is something that is known to move. Motion is CHANGE. Consciousness is change. It's normally assumed, I think without any rigorous logic or proof at all, that consciousness cannot exist without physical substance. But, without such rigorous proof, it's at least as reasonable to suppose that physical reality cannot exist without consciousness. This doesn't have to mean that physical reality isn't real, if it consists of consciousness. It may just mean that physical reality is more personal than normally imagined. I'm not personally interested in reality being "personal" or "conscious", but, if that's where logic leads, it only makes sense to follow the logic, if interested in reaching understanding. Not that I've reached any such understanding. But, by considering possible implications of this theory, maybe it would prove fruitful. Rupert Sheldrake followed such reasoning somewhat in his book, A New Science of Life, and that's one that Wal Thornhill and maybe Dave Talbott support for possible future insights.
- At least consider the theory of all being motion, if not all being consciousness.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: what is fundamental?

Unread postby StevenO » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:50 pm

Lloyd wrote: Steve seems to say that charge is one of the fundamental properties of reality[?], like space and time. I think Dewey Larson did a good job of explaining such fundamentals by considering them types of motion. He said everything is motion, which consists of time and space in reciprocal relation to each other: time per space or space per time. And he added that both space and time have up to 3 dimensions, so you can have s^1/t^1 [velocity], s^1/t^2 [acceleration], up to s^3/t^3. Most of his macrocosmic conclusions about an expanding universe etc don't seem to pan out, but I think the basic concept has promise.

First: thanks for the Dewey Larson pointer!

I fully support the basics of this explanation. A time dimension observes motion in the space dimension and vice versa.
Some interesting remarks about studying this concept:
  • Do the space and time dimensions have a relationship that is observable in natural constants (h, alpha, c,)?
  • If you realize that charge has the equivalent dimension of space then the above question gets more perspective.
  • Physicist have a funny way of obfuscating the physical reality that every space dimension comes with a time dimension. They either take closed line integrals over continuously integrable functions (EM) or path integrals (QM), basically mapping the two time dimensions they omit onto a single point :x
  • There is no reason that space and time cannot have any number of dimensions. Matter as we know it, however, exists only in three dimensions. There are some good geometrical reasons that could explain this.
  • Even though matter is described in three space and time dimensions, the relationship between two independent pieces of matter (gravity) is then a six dimensional relationship. No wonder we have trouble understanding it...
- At least consider the theory of all being motion, if not all being consciousness.

I agree with you that the above definition implies 'consciousness' is the observation of movement through the separation of space and time dimensions. This can be understood even deeper if you realize that charge is the fabric of space, before it comes into 'motion' and our physical observables like electric charge come into the picture. This also has interesting implications for where the definition of 'life' starts... ;)
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.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:43 pm

- Looks like we're on nearly the same page, Steven, but here's another view of charge, from Walter Russell. I see that several members have discussed Russell a bit. I just happened to find some of his material by doing a search for "universe of motion". I was hoping to find such a theory [a universe of motion theory] that seems more plausible than Dewey Larson's and Russell's does. In fact, as another member mentioned, he seems to have been a sort of electric universe theorist. Here is a quote of Russell from this site: http://www.nyc-architecture.com/UWS/UWS010.htm with my comments in brackets.
- Concerning Light Corpuscles
- There is much confusion concerning the many kinds of particles of matter such as electrons, protons, photons, neutrons and others. These many particles are supposedly different because of the belief that some are negatively charged, some are positively charged and some are so equally charged that one supposedly neutralizes the other.
- There is no such condition in nature as negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions.
- Compressing bodies are charging into higher potential conditions. Conversely, expanding bodies are discharging into lower potential conditions. To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting body [Does he mean he regards negative as discharged and positive as charged?].
- Contracting and expanding bodies move in opposite directions. Contracting bodies move radially inward toward mass centers, and expanding bodies move radially outward toward space that surrounds masses. In this two-way universe, light which is inwardly directed toward gravity charges mass and discharges space. When directed toward space it charges space and discharges mass. All direction of force in Nature is spiral.
- The charging condition is positive. It multiplies speed of motion into density of substance. The principle of multiplication of motion because of decrease of volume is the cause of the acceleration of gravity. The discharging condition is negative. It divides speed of motion into tenuity of substance. The principle of the division of motion because of expansion of volume is the cause of the deceleration of radiation [What's that?].
- One can better comprehend this principle by knowing that what we call substance is purely motion. Motion simulates substance by its variation of pressures, its speed and its gyroscopic relation to its wave axis.
- Particles are variously conditioned as to pressure but there are no different kinds of particles. All are light waves wound up into particles that are doubly charged. Their position at any one point in their wave causes them to have the electric condition appropriate for that point.
- Light particles are forever moving in their octave waves. All are either heading toward their cathode or their anode, which means toward vacuity or gravity. They are all moving either inward or outward, spirally.

- Russell also discussed "knowing" [which I equate with consciousness] to some extent, but I haven't read enough of that so far to know if it seems very meaningful. As I mentioned previously, in a universe of motion, what moves may simply be consciousness. I thought of quoting from Sheldrake's book, but I couldn't readily find any cogent statements.
- Here are some more Russell material links, but there may be better ones than these [Do a search on this forum too]:
http://merlib.org/node/5100
http://merlib.org/node/5627
http://www.scene.org/~esa/search/frank.germano.com/2006_03_10/walter_russell.htm
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/walter-russell/754-fulcrum-science-journal-usp.html
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby junglelord » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:00 am

I always thought it was self evident that everything is in motion. Nothing is ever "frozen", like I have stated before, even electrons never stop spinning, never, no matter how low the temperature. Ovbiously charge and motion are two sides of the same coin. That appears to be self evident.
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

Motion

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:47 pm

But the question is: Is matter motion? Also, is space motion? Is time motion? Space and time appear to be the necessary constituents of motion in reciprocal relationship. So then back to matter. Is matter motion. Is energy motion? Etc.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby junglelord » Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:00 pm

I answered that question....read my statement again. Everything.
I always thought it was self evident that everything is in motion. Nothing is ever "frozen".

Grey Cloud wrote:Mague is this what you mean?
CHAPTER IX

VIBRATION.

“Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.”–The Kybalion.

The great Third Hermetic Principle–the Principle of Vibration–embodies the truth that
Motion is manifest in everything in the Universe–that nothing is at rest–that everything
moves, vibrates, and circles. This Hermetic Principle was recognized by some of the early
Greek philosophers who embodied it in their systems. But, then, for centuries it was lost
sight of by the thinkers outside of the Hermetic ranks. But in the Nineteenth Century physical
science re-discovered the truth and the Twentieth Century scientific discoveries have added
additional proof of the correctness and truth of this centuries-old Hermetic doctrine.
The Hermetic Teachings are that not only is everything in constant movement and
vibration, but that the “differences” between the various manifestations of the universal
power are due entirely to the varying rate and mode of vibrations. Not only this, but that even THE ALL, in itself, manifests a constant vibration of such an infinite degree of intensity and rapid motion that it may be practically considered as at rest, the teachers directing the attention of the students to the fact that even on the physical plane a rapidly moving object (such as a revolving wheel) seems to be at rest. The Teachings are to the effect that Spirit is
at one end of the Pole of Vibration, the other Pole being certain extremely gross forms of
Matter. Between these two poles are millions upon millions of different rates and modes of
vibration.

Modern Science has proven that all that we call Matter and Energy are but “modes of
vibratory motion,” and some of the more advanced scientists are rapidly moving toward the
positions of the occultists who hold that the phenomena of Mind are likewise modes of
vibration or motion. Let us see what science has to say regarding the question of vibrations
in matter and energy.

In the first place, science teaches that all matter manifests, in some degree, the vibrations
arising from temperature or heat. Be an object cold or hot–both being but degrees of the
same things–it manifests certain heat vibrations, and in that sense is in motion and vibration.
Then all particles of Matter are in circular movement, from corpuscle to suns. The planets
revolve around suns, and many of them turn on their axes. The suns move around greater
central points, and these are believed to move around still greater, and so on, ad infinitum.
The molecules of which the particular kinds of Matter are composed are in a state of
constant vibration and movement around each other and against each other. The molecules
are composed of Atoms, which, likewise, are in a state of constant movement and vibration.
The atoms are composed of Corpuscles, sometimes called “electrons,” “ions,” etc., which
also are in a state of rapid motion, revolving around each other, and which manifest a very
rapid state and mode of vibration. And, so we see that all forms of Matter manifest Vibration, in accordance with the Hermetic Principle of Vibration.

And so it is with the various forms of Energy. Science teaches that Light, Heat, Magnetism and Electricity are but forms of vibratory motion connected in some way with, and probably emanating from the Ether. Science does not as yet attempt to explain the nature of the phenomena known as Cohesion, which is the principle of Molecular Attraction;
nor Chemical Affinity, which is the principle of Atomic Attraction; nor Gravitation (the greatest mystery of the three), which is the principle of attraction by which every particle or mass of Matter is bound to every other particle or mass. These three forms of Energy are not as yet understood by science, yet the writers incline to the opinion that these too are manifestations of some form of vibratory energy, a fact which the Hermetists have held and taught for ages past.

<snip>
But the Hermetic Teachings go much further than do those of modern science. They teach that all manifestation of thought, emotion, reason, will or desire, or any mental state or condition, are accompanied by vibrations, a portion of which are thrown off and which tend to affect the minds of other persons by “induction.” This is the principle which produces the phenomena of “telepathy”; mental influence, and other forms of the action and power of mind over mind, with which the general public is rapidly becoming acquainted, owing to the wide dissemination of occult knowledge by the various schools, cults and teachers along these lines at this time.

Every thought, emotion or mental state has its corresponding rate and mode of vibration.
And by an effort of the will of the person, or of other persons, these mental states may be
reproduced, just as a musical tone may be reproduced by causing an instrument to vibrate at
a certain rate–just as color may be reproduced in the same way. By a knowledge of the
Principle of Vibration, as applied to Mental Phenomena, one may polarize his mind at any
degree he wishes, thus gaining a perfect control over his mental states, moods, etc. In the
same way he may affect the minds of others, producing the desired mental states in them. In
short, be may be able to produce on the Mental Plane that which science produces on the
Physical Plane–namely, “Vibrations at Will.” This power of course may be acquired only by
the proper instruction, exercises, practice, etc., the science being that of Mental
Transmutation, one of the branches of the Hermetic Art.
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: what is charge?

Unread postby StefanR » Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:11 am

Lloyd wrote:But the question is: Is matter motion? Also, is space motion? Is time motion? Space and time appear to be the necessary constituents of motion in reciprocal relationship. So then back to matter. Is matter motion. Is energy motion? Etc.


Is motion frequency?
Let me just add for fun...

that matter as we know it in the
obstructed universe is an arrestment of frequency resulting from a
certain incidence of motion in time and space.

Physicists have been telling us for some years now that there is no
material substance as we have understood the term in the past; that
instead there are only aggregates of energy. Matter, it seems, is the
name that we popularly apply to those particular stress-knots that are
three-dimensionally measurable. Well, it is the arrestment of frequency,
if I understand Betty correctly, that makes that measurement possible. It
is the arrestment, in fact, that we measure.

True, the energies of no man's land lift our understanding of frequency,
the essence of motion, beyond the simpler mechanisms. But with the
frequency we so intimately know as thought we climb high above no-man's
land, high above wave-lengths, and quanta and what have you.

Frequency--what is it sidereally? On first consideration, only the number
of vibrations in a unit of time. That's our take-off; and in these latter
days we get off the ground quickly enough, leaving such old-time
familiars as the oscillating clock pendulum and the vibrating piano
string far below. For now the primary meaning of the word is no longer so
simple. With the discovery and utilization of electricity, including in
recent years what we have come to know as radiant energies, the
connotations of the term have been vastly broadened. Now we talk
confidently of radio frequencies. We never saw or felt one. But because
of mechanical registration we know they are.

To say that space, orthically viewed, is essentially a matter of
conductivity was becoming acceptable enough, because in ordinary
experience space is a conductor; we do go through it. To say that the
essence of orthic motion is frequency may require a deal of explanation,
but it rings a bell, because even in the obstructed universe we are so
accustomed to analyzing motion into vibrations, cycles, rhythms--in fact,
frequencies. But to me time seemed possessed of other characteristics
quite as essential as receptivity.

In everyday motion we deal first with our bodily impacts. We hit things
and they move. And so we are inclined to assess all motion in terms, say,
of a billiard table. The cue strikes a ball. Immediately that ball leaps
into motion and hits another, which in turn rushes off to hit a third.
Finally all the balls are at rest again, and we say that the motion set
up by the impact of the cue has spent itself. The fact, of course, is
that that motion did not SPEND itself, did not cease, but was merely
DISTRIBUTED, its big stream breaking up into innumerable small streams no
longer apparent to us.

It is only on reflection that we note that motion never comes to rest. It
may be transferred or transformed until it eludes our senses; but, on
second thought, we are not deceived. It still oscillates, actually or
potentially, in one wave-band, so to speak, or another.
Of course, then, orthic motion is perpetual, just as perpetual as is
sidereal motion. And again it is well to add, " Only more so." This is
why Betty spoke tolerantly of the "mad inventors" who, glimpsing a truth,
have labored honestly, if fatuously, to apply it. Their perpetual motion
machines have not come off for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless motion
itself is perpetual.

And surely arrestment implies no dead stop. It means only a SUSPENSION of
potentiality. Nonetheless, frequency as it manifests in the obstructed
universe is arrested; it does have its point of suspense.

RECEPTIVITY: The Essence of Time.
CONDUCTIVITY: The Essence of Space.
FREQUENCY: The Essence of Motion.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=1265#p1265
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby querious » Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:17 pm

As StevenO correctly points out, charge has the dimension of space (length). I've recently come up with an explanation as to WHY that is. The well-known formula for energy of an EM wave, E=hf, indicates that in any photon, there is only 1 variable, the frequency. But all waves need 3 magnitudes to describe them: Speed of propagation, frequency (from which wavelength is trivially derived if the propagation speed is known), and AMPLITUDE. What Plank's constant is telling us is that amplitude (it's E-field component) is fixed AND quantized, no matter the frequency.

In the following analysis, s=space, t=time

Now, "h" has the dimensions of angular momentum, mass t^3/s^3 X velocity s/t X radius s/1 = t^2/s. But it also has the dimensions of Energy (t/s) X time (t), again, t^2/s.

Looking at the formula for the Hartree Energy (the "atomic unit" of energy), we have ke^2 / Bohr radius. These are the right dimensions for energy because Coulomb's constant k (1/4*pi*epsilon) times e^2 has the dimension of time. (permittivity is farads s^3/t per meter, s^3/t / s = s^2/t)

So we have an energy (ke^2(t) / bohr radius(s)) multiplied by a time (actually, it's the Dewey Larson unit of time, 1.51983 X 10<sup>-16</sup>sec), which is exactly Plank's constant, h.

Back to the "charge is space": The fine structure constant is the dimensionless RATIO of wavelength to AMPLITUDE of the Rydberg fundamental frequency.
Of course, if you take a half-wavelength of it, curl it into a circle, and multiply by the fine structure constant (alpha), you get the Bohr circumference. Multiplied by alpha squared, you get the compton wavelength X 2pi, and multiplied by alpha^3, you get the classical electron radius.

So charge is the spacial AMPLITUDE COMPONENT of all photons. Of course, this is why QED deals in probabilities: the Amplitude is a function of phase.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby junglelord » Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:03 am

As StevenO correctly points out, charge has the dimension of space (Length)

This is a perfect place to start with new math.

All charge is distributed. Therefore e becomes e^2 in APM. There are only three fundamental forces. Plancks Length is the angular momentum of the electron. That is an example of a quantum constant.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

I believe that APM is correct. There are two elemental charges. They are both distributed. EM charge also plays the role of Strong Force. The relationship between EM and Electrostatic charge creates the Weak Force.

Charge is part of a 5-D reality, three of length, two of frequency. Quantum Space-Resonace is distributed, like charge.
Electrostatic charge is a direct result of this 5-D and is the same for all subatomic units. EM is directly related to conductance of the Aether and angular momentum, and therefore is different for each subatomic unit and is directly proportional to its relative mass.

Electrostatic charge has spherical geometry, EM has toroid geometry...electrons behave as waving enities. Both neutrons and protons have Quantum Fine Structure like Electrons.
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: what is charge?

Unread postby StevenO » Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:59 am

querious wrote:As StevenO correctly points out, charge has the dimension of space (length). I've recently come up with an explanation as to WHY that is. The well-known formula for energy of an EM wave, E=hf, indicates that in any photon, there is only 1 variable, the frequency. But all waves need 3 magnitudes to describe them: Speed of propagation, frequency (from which wavelength is trivially derived if the propagation speed is known), and AMPLITUDE. What Plank's constant is telling us is that amplitude (it's E-field component) is fixed AND quantized, no matter the frequency.
<...>
So charge is the spacial AMPLITUDE COMPONENT of all photons. Of course, this is why QED deals in probabilities: the Amplitude is a function of phase.

Thanks, the coupling of h to the amplitude is revealing. However, I have trouble understanding that charge should be both the E-field and spatial amplitude of photons. The E-field has dimensions t/s^3 and charge or spatial amplitude just has dimension s, so that must be different amplitudes then?

...but maybe that is because of my current reasoning why charge has the dimension of space, which is more like:

- charge is the fabric of space
- compress it or expand it you get + or - (electric) charge
- this compression is scalar/directionless/in all dimensions/the ratio between movement in space and time, whatever model suits your preference, it is a basic disturbance of the symmetry of the universe that we exist in
- move it in one dimension you get a current
- curl it in two dimensions you get a magnetic field
- tie it in a three dimensional knot and you get matter
In this picture a photon is a circular disturbance of the symmetry. The quantization comes from atomic structure.
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.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Unread postby webolife » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:29 pm

I second that motion, StephenO.
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: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest