Hey look, they're half right.....

[Michael Mozina]

Walt Thornhill mentioned an experiment in Canada which should produce some definite results re electrical universe and is this it?
https://yubanet.com/scitech/ualberta-ph ... rn-lights/
Sorry if I posted in wrong forum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Until the mainstream embraces circuit theory, and charge separation in space, their models won't even really work well. They'll mathematically "kind of" work on paper (computer models), but they'll never work in the real world.

If you add electric fields to solar theory, two things instantly "pop right out" of it, specifically a hot, full sphere corona around the sun, and the source of planetary aurora.

Everything the mainstream does with light hot plasma is based upon "magnetic reconnection" theory, a form of "pseudoscience" according to Alfven, and they still can't generate a full sphere corona with it, let alone generate a sustained aurora around the poles of planets with it. Notice a problem with their lack of useful lab results? I sure do.

The northern lights are a byproduct of the sustained current that is flowing between the sun and "space", and from increased current flow events. Until the mainstream turns on the electricity, their models will never work in the lab.

[comingfrom]

Until the mainstream turns on the electricity, their models will never work in the lab.

They will never work in your head either, just running mental experiments.

When I put an explosion at the center of a fuel supply, the whole lot goes up in one flash.
We're told gravity is the cause of it, and gravity also contains it and slows it down.
But it is like having a contained petrol fire at the center of your petrol tank.
And the heat from that fire struggling for a year to get through the surrounding petrol, before it radiates out.
Bzzzt.

Or it is like a uranium bomb made too efficiently. A critical mass of uranium is brought together but the casing is too strong and contains the explosion. Instead of going off like an atomic bomb, it just sits there and glows for 60 million years.
Bzzzt.

When I read their half right articles, with their half baked theories,
I cannot help likening modern scientific man looking up at the stars to a primitive man seeing a Christmas tree for the first time, and supposing that the lights are fireflies. Even when he notices there are wires going to the lights, he doesn't make the connection. How can he? Primitive man has no concept of electricity in wires.

But we do understand Christmas trees, and even that fireflies needs to get external energy somehow.
And we see the filamentry nature of the cosmos, with our fancy space telescopes and cameras.
Don't we?

Charge flows everywhere in the cosmos, lighting the stars and keeping all bodies in motion.

[Michael Mozina]

Charge flows everywhere in the cosmos, lighting the stars and keeping all bodies in motion.

Nowhere is that more evident than in a coronal loop or solar flare, like we see in your avatar image. We heat plasma in the lab to millions of degrees using current, and nature lights up the atmosphere of our planet with electrical current. The sun also experiences massive electrical discharges in it's atmosphere.

The amusing and rather sad thing is that Birkeland demonstrated the electrical connection to these events over a century ago, yet the mainstream remains incapable of producing a similar full sphere corona, or sustained coronal loops using "magnetic reconnection' in a lab.

I don't understand how they can observe magnetic field lines, particularly Birkeland current aligned magnetic fields, and not recognize the current that sustains those fields. It's like watching the Keystone Cops, particularly in the way they have avoided their two order of magnitude convection problem for over five years. Supposedly it was "jet speed" convection that generates and sustains the powerful magnetic fields that supposedly 'reconnect' in the solar atmosphere to release energy. Come to find out however that convection is just 1 percent of their predicted value, walking speed at best. They lost 99 percent of their power source for atmospheric 'reconnection' five years ago and nobody wants to discuss it.

It's clear after my conversation at JREF why Alfven called the whole 'reconnection' claim a form of pseudoscience. The mainstream doesn't even begin to understand basic EM field theory, let alone plasma physics. Sure there is some transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration in plasma, but it's ordinary induction in a conductor from changing magnetic fields. His double layer paper makes the whole "magnetic reconnection" concept irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environment, and we know from Birkeland's experiments over a century ago that the sun's entire atmosphere is a current carrying environment.

The mainstream ignorance is just willful at this point because magnetic fields are the tell-tale sign of current and changing electric fields. They aren't just sterile "frozen" lines sticking out from solid objects.

[comingfrom]

I went back to read Miles take on the history and science of Electrical Charge again. I've read it a few times now. It's a real eye opener. And it's the best understanding of the science I've seen. If you/anyone can offer a better link, I'll be happy to read it.

It's a bit long, but so is the mess of the history of the science of electrical charge. And I don't know if all that Mathis says is correct (he says at least one big obvious blooper near the end, imo) but I still highly recommend it.

Definitionally and logically and mechanically, charge is the summed mass of the sub-particles. In short, charge is mass.

[Zyxzevn]

Mathis: charge is the summed mass of the sub-particles. In short, charge is mass.

It is either plain wrong or an oversimplification.
Charges can be negative and positive carried by different particles of different mass.
If you add them together, you don't lose mass.

If you like alternatives
In Occult Chemistry, there is a better model.
They "observe" only one type of particle with only one mass, that is either negative or positive.
With that they construct quarks and protons and atoms.
(Yes, they predicted quarks).
The masses of the atoms correspond well with the number of particles that they "observed".

[comingfrom]

Thank you Zyxzevn.

It is either plain wrong or an oversimplification.
Charges can be negative and positive carried by different particles of different mass.
If you add them together, you don't lose mass.

Where did you see a mass loss?
No charge is ever lost.

The reason charge has force, is because it has mass and momentum.
If it had no mass, it would have no ability to apply force.

If you like alternatives
In Occult Chemistry, there is a better model.
They "observe" only one type of particle with only one mass, that is either negative or positive.
With that they construct quarks and protons and atoms.
(Yes, they predicted quarks).
The masses of the atoms correspond well with the number of particles that they "observed".

I can't believe in negative charge, or mass.

You either have charge, or you don't.
I believe charge is everywhere, which means an above zero reading will be made an any location in space and time (about 2.7K at minimum).
And, a thing either has mass, or it isn't a thing. There aren't negative things. Atoms with a negative number of protons don't appear on our periodic tables.

Quarks are a non proven theory.
They are another figment in the imaginations of mainstream scientists.

Paul

[comingfrom]

Electrons are said to be negatively charged.
But electrons also give us our basic unit of charge, the eV (electronVolt).

So the electron (at rest) has 1 eV.
That is not a negative number.
In fact, it has been calculated, that the electron is absorbing and emitting 32,000 times it's own mass every second.

The electron has as much charge as a proton has, we are told.
They say, equal and opposite charge.
Equal is easy to understand, but what do they mean by opposite charges?
They don't know what they mean by opposite charge.
They say one is negative and the other is positive.
It is never said, negative what or positive what.
They divert us by saying "potential of the field", or something like that, and leap straight to mathematical proofs.

They admit equal amounts of charge, but the charges are opposite to each other in some as yet undefined characteristic, or property.

Could it be spins?

In the quantum world, spins and colours and whatnot are assigned characteristics to quanta but we are told they are virtual. Just names for undefined characteristics. When they say is has a left spin or right spin, they also say they don't mean real spin, since how can point particles spin. Points cannot contain an axis, and they have no surface from which to measure a real spin.

But supposing charge particles are not point particles.
Supposing they have mass and radius, like any other particle, then we can have some real mechanics again.
Real causes for the real forces observed.
And an explanation of "opposites", for "negative and positive", and for magnetism.
Since spins give forces orthogonal to the forces provided by the linear motions.

Paul

[Zyxzevn]

Electrons are said to be negatively charged.
But electrons also give us our basic unit of charge, the eV (electronVolt).

So the electron (at rest) has 1 eV.
..^ Error at line 4.

Explanation:
Electro Volt is energy (= Qelectron * 1 Volt= 1.6E-19 Joule)
Qelectron= 1.6E-19 Coulomb

Just like lightyears is distance, not time.

That is Miles for you.
He gets lost in words instead of facts.

[Cargo]

If the light (energy?) 'speed?' over a year is not constant, they neither is your distance?
And an Electron is not an Electron Volt either? So the comparison seems invalid anyway.

It's too bad you clipped everything else in his post, it was quite elegant.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Zyxzevn.

Electro Volt is energy (= Qelectron * 1 Volt= 1.6E-19 Joule)
Qelectron= 1.6E-19 Coulomb

You lost me.
I never heard of an Electro Volt (a typo?) or a Qelectron.
The article you linked doesn't have those terms.

Just like lightyears is distance, not time.

But energy is mass.
Or so I was led to believe, and as E=mc2 is telling us.

That is Miles for you.
He gets lost in words instead of facts.

No, that was not Miles.
That was me. I wrote that.

I am not pushing Miles' theory, I am trying to sort it out for myself.
I find Miles helpful.
Far more understandable than mainstream papers on the subject.

Back to

So the electron (at rest) has 1 eV.
..^ Error at line 4.

Please correct the error.
Is the energy of particles not measured in eV? (and MeV, GeV, TeV, etc)
And/or does eV not come from the electron?
Or is my use of "(at rest)" incorrect.

From the link you provided.

By definition, it is the amount of energy gained (or lost) by the charge of a single electron...

I think I was close, I just didn't include this part

... moving across an electric potential difference of one volt.

That means I was incorrect to say "at rest".
It would be more correct to say, when it is moving in a slight electric field.

How's that?
Paul

[comingfrom]

If the light (energy?) 'speed?' over a year is not constant, they neither is your distance?

That's a big if.
I'm happy to stay with the postulate that c is constant for now.
Hopefully the amount of variability won't be that important to understanding the basic mechanics of charge.

And an Electron is not an Electron Volt either? So the comparison seems invalid anyway.

It wasn't clear, but I think maybe Zyxzevn doesn't equate energy to mass equivalence, which was his problem with what I offered.
I await his response to know if this is right.

It's too bad you clipped everything else in his post, it was quite elegant.

Thank you.

By offering up my current understanding, I'm hoping the savvy like Zyxzevn can correct any incorrections.
For instance, I won't ever being saying "electron at rest" anymore.
I think I did pick up that expression from Miles.
But it never sat well for me anyway.
For when would an electron ever be at rest?

Paul

[Zyxzevn]

It would be more correct to say, when it is moving in a slight electric field.

The eV is just a measure of energy, just like Joules or Calories.
It takes 1eV to move one electron from 0 volt to 1 volt.
It takes 1 joule to move an object one meter against a constant force of 1 N.
The eV is easier in the atom, because you can tell how much energy it takes for an electron
or proton to leave an atom.

If nothing is moving there is no energy. So in this context it is easier to look at it using Joules,
so you do not make mistakes.

The energy is also used in the context of E=mc²
The electron which has m=9E-31 kg, can also be expressed in eV,
by using E=m*c² we get E= 9E-31* 3E8 *3E8= 81 E-15 =8.1 E-14 Joules
which is: 8.1E-14 / 1.6E-19= 5E3= 5000 eV.
So the energy equivalent of the mass of an electron is 5000 eV.
(if my calculation is correct)
So, if an electron and a positron annihilate each other we get twice that energy= 10,000 eV.
So with eV you get easier values.

Then we get to the next error:

In fact, it has been calculated, that the electron is absorbing
and emitting 32,000 times it's own mass every second.

I think that you mean that the electron movement around the atom creates radiation?

In practice, an atom in rest does not send/absorb any radiation,
that is because of .... hmm ... let me call it "quantum magic".

We can see that in the emission bands of hydrogen. The emitted light comes
from the movement from one band to another, not from the movement within
a band.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Zyxzevn,

I appreciate the time and effort you put in.

The eV is just a measure of energy, just like Joules or Calories.
It takes 1eV to move one electron from 0 volt to 1 volt.
It takes 1 joule to move an object one meter against a constant force of 1 N.
The eV is easier in the atom, because you can tell how much energy it takes for an electron
or proton to leave an atom.

If nothing is moving there is no energy. So in this context it is easier to look at it using Joules,
so you do not make mistakes.

The energy is also used in the context of E=mc²
The electron which has m=9E-31 kg, can also be expressed in eV,
by using E=m*c² we get E= 9E-31* 3E8 *3E8= 81 E-15 =8.1 E-14 Joules
which is: 8.1E-14 / 1.6E-19= 5E3= 5000 eV.
So the energy equivalent of the mass of an electron is 5000 eV.
(if my calculation is correct)
So, if an electron and a positron annihilate each other we get twice that energy= 10,000 eV.
So with eV you get easier values.

I'm not sure the purpose of you putting all this.

I was working towards the mechanical physical explanation for charge.
We know that mainstream has all these numbers with confusing dimensions,
and they haven't as yet got a coherent mechanical explanation that works.
All those numbers and dimensions do not give us that.
They are just heuristic measurements after the event.
None of it speaks to why the electron moved in the field.
Saying it took so many joules of energy to move it thus far, doesn't tell us what is moving the electron, or how it is moving the electron.

Then we get to the next error:
In fact, it has been calculated, that the electron is absorbing
and emitting 32,000 times it's own mass every second.

I think that you mean that the electron movement around the atom creates radiation?

The electron radiates matter, and the proton radiates matter, and these fields of radiation are ultimately what causes the electron to orbit. For sure I can believe that.

In your mathematical explanation above, you didn't get to the Ampere yet.
Amperes is the measurement of the current of the displacement field, and has the dimensions kg/s.
The radiation from electrons and protons is the same charge photons as what is in the current of displacement fields.
So by converting to Amperes to get the kg/s being emitted.

In practice, an atom in rest does not send/absorb any radiation,
that is because of .... hmm ... let me call it "quantum magic".

I already abandoned saying "at rest", at your correction.
Which atom, or electron, is at rest?

And you yourself just admitted to "atoms create radiation", so I am not sure why you are now calling it "quantum magic".
Maybe you were only admitting I believe that. I'm not clear.

Paul

[comingfrom]

Some after thoughts in regards to this.

In practice, an atom in rest does not send/absorb any radiation,
that is because of .... hmm ... let me call it "quantum magic".

We are told, a red object is red, because it absorbs all wavelengths except red. Red wavelength photons get reflected, making the object composed of those atoms look red to us.
But maybe all the photons got absorbed, and the atom re emits some of them only in a particular wavelength, in this case red.
I see two possible explanations, but both require absorption.

Physicists say an electron orbit can change, when an atom absorbs a photon,
and when the electron state returns to the previous orbit, the atom emits a photon.

I can't believe it actually works like that, but it is an example of absorption and emission from mainstream.
I do believe the absorption and emissions are happening.

Saying something doesn't happen in practice because that would be "magic", isn't really a refutation of why that something doesn't happen.

But in this case, absorption and emission from atoms does happen.
We have observations, and theories too, that say that.

Now I think of it, the quantum magic is; having photons with no mass.
Somehow, massless point particles have the energy to knock electrons into different orbits, or energy states.
Somehow, in the case of ionizing radiation, these points of nothing can even knock the electron clean off the atom.
Finally, these same massless points are missing from the fields that somehow move electrons and ions about.
Now that's quantum magic.

And now we are onto ions.
What are they? An atom with too many or too few electrons.
So? And how does that make the atom different?
We say of it, that now it is charged.
What does that mean exactly?
What is the atom doing differently now that it has lost an electron, or gained one?

Maybe you can carry on from here, and explain ions to us.
I've got some ideas, but I don't want to be casting any magic spells.


Paul

[Zyxzevn]

I appreciate the time and effort you put in.

Thanks.
I am convinced that explaining things is better than trying to convince the other.

I was working towards the mechanical physical explanation for charge.
We know that mainstream has all these numbers with confusing dimensions,
and they haven't as yet got a coherent mechanical explanation that works.
All those numbers and dimensions do not give us that.

I appreciate your work, but it should still be correct.

The mass (kg) is related to energy (joules) with the E=mc² relationship.
There is no electric charge (coulomb) in it.

I would advice you to look at the lectures by Walter Lewin.
He gives very good examples, and let you understand how the units work in practice.

In your mathematical explanation above, you didn't get to the Ampere yet.
Amperes is the measurement of the current of the displacement field, and has the dimensions kg/s.
The radiation from electrons and protons is the same charge photons as what is in the current of displacement fields.
So by converting to Amperes to get the kg/s being emitted.

Hmm.
Here you are inventing your own physics.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere
Ampere is not flow of mass (kg), but flow of charge (coulomb). It is written as Coulomb per second.

You can see it in this lecture how electric charges were discovered.

In practice, an atom in rest does not send/absorb any radiation,
that is because of .... hmm ... let me call it "quantum magic".

Which atom, or electron, is at rest?

With "at rest" I mean an atom that is in a gas at very cold temperature.
It only emits light at certain wavelengths that correspond with the
voltage-differences between the electron-bands.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
It does not emit light that corresponds with the rotation of the electron around
the nucleus.

But if we look into that rotation, we get into quantum mechanics:
The rotation of the electron around the nucleus resonates with the
mass of the electron itself.

This quantum interference follows the relationship:
E= h*f (h=6.6E-34, f=frequency)
And the relationship: E= m*c²
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-particle_duality

So you could say that this causes the electron NOT to emit any radiation
(based on electricity) of itself, because the electron is already a wave (based on mass)

It gets even more interesting in the gravity context,
because if we use our wave-duality of mass (on all particles),
we get exactly Newton's laws of gravity.
See this video or paper.

So while this quantum principle blocks the emission of electric radiation, it also creates gravity.

But sadly due to the popularity of Einstein's gravity, this is usually put aside.