what is charge?

[Excal]

Hi hertz,

It was that article that piqued my interest initially. However, the link to the Ralph Sansbury paper in reference 18 is broken.

Since then, however, I have located the article. It's at:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/news96_f.html

My question is, how, or by what mechanism, are the charges elongated to form the dipoles in the nuclei?

Hopefully, I can find an answer in the paper.

[seasmith]

Mods,

You might merge this thread with the original " What is Charge" thread
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 7&start=75
to facilitate third party searches.

thanks,
simpleton

[Excal]

Hi Simpleton,

I would be happy to do that, if I knew how.

Oops - I see that that suggestion was directed to the moderators.

Sorry.

[tayga]

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.)

Yes, that's pretty much where Carl is getting to now. A nice convergence from different approaches.

I have adopted the nuclear structure consisting of He building blocks that my friends Montgomery and Jeffrey developed a few years back.

As above. I'll have to let Carl know that he's in good company!

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.

Here's a Ralph Sansbury paper on magnetism. It talks about production of dipoles in electrons and might go some way to answering your question.

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/a ... s_5429.pdf

[seasmith]

Excal wrote:

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.

After you get through Sanbury's excellent expositions on concept and appearance of polarity, my humble suggestion would be to go back to page 8,
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... &start=105
especially the comments of StevenO and Millennium, for resolution.

welcometot'bolts,
s

[Excal]

Ok, if charge is due to moving dipole, and the dipole is due to elongation of a sphere, and the elongation of the sphere is due to the big bang, isn't this illogical, since there is no big bang in the EU?

[Influx]

by Alphane » Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 pm

What is charge?

A force field.

[mjv1121]

What do we know about "charge"?

Several factoids:
1) Electrons have charge
2) Protons have charge
3) Electron-Electron interactions and Proton-Proton interactions both produce an obvious repulsion
4) Electron-Proton interactions appear to be an attraction (although atoms aren't sure either way)
5) Charge acts at a distance

Number 5 is the big clue. Charge acts at a distance - so it is an emergent property.

Therefore, charge has to be an emission of smaller particles, which due to the constant nature of the charge, must be supplied by a material field of those smaller particles.
or
The only other physically possible explanation is that the charged particles are immersed in an aethereal material field of fully contacted smaller particles that acts as a pressure field that transmits a "signal" caused by the operation/activity of the larger particles. This might be analogous to an ocean, so that the "charge" is the emission of vibration/sound/a-turbulence-current/?. I have included this second field option, but I struggle to see that it can work - not to mention the need to account for gravity and light/photons (but this may be a limitation of my ability to visualise).

In either scenario it can easily be seen that the Electron-Proton attraction is actually a reduced repulsion. An electron will much more easily repulse at high surface area, low mass electron than a low surface area, high mass proton. The nature of Proton-Proton repulsion is described by the strong nuclear force. Gravity initially provides an attraction, but as the protons are forced close to each other, their charge emissions feed each other. That is, each proton receives an increased number of particles, those from the field and also those of the emission from the other advancing proton. The affect is that of a positive feedback loop, which increases the charge emission of each proton.

An electron, on the other hand, represents an easier target for a proton to repulse, but the gravitational attraction between the two is still much greater than between two electrons. So a proton and an electron able to maintain a distance between each other whilst balancing "attractive" gravity and repulsive charge.

Q: What is charge?
A: It is a mechanical emission of force transmitted via an aethereal field of extremely small particles.

Michael

[tayga]

Charge acts at a distance - so it is an emergent property.

Therefore, charge has to be an emission of smaller particles

What justification do you have for choosing to posit emission rather than a communicating ether?

[mjv1121]

tayga,

What justification do you have for choosing to posit emission rather than a communicating ether?

Firstly, a collisional aether works very well in answering all the questions we ask of the universe (this side of "creation" at least).

Secondly, I have a hard time visualising how a communicating aether can explain all phenomena simultaneously. This may be a personal limitation of mine or it may be that I see clearly enough to rule it out as a possibility.

I consider both aethers to be emissive. One is separate travelling particles, the other is an emission of forces via the aether, but one may choose to describe it as pressure rather than emission.

Do you sit in either camp or do you have an alternative suggestion?

Michael

[RobertFritzius]

Here's a link to my version of what charge is.

Emission-Absorption-Scattering Sub-quantum Physics
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/eas.htm

Bob Fritzius

This URL has been changed to http://www.shadetreephysics.com/eas.htm

[ToEmaster]

According to a physicist’s book who works at CERN. They can create any kind of particle, with any mass and any amount of charge. They just simplify and justify that there are definite particles.
Book Daniel Whiteson: We have no idea.

[Sithri]

Charge comes in different forms: is electrostatic charge, which is e; it is e-sub-emax which is magnetic charge; and it is electromagnetic charge, as quantified by the Fine-structure constant.

Re-working of the charge units in the APM:
In this writing I use period in a dimension’s name to denote a sub-letter that indicates its name. For instance, e.emax is e-sub-emax.
Units such as electromagnetic extropy, current, potential, electromagnetic flux, and electromagnetic energy can all have either fine-structure-constant^1 or fine-structure-constant^-1, whichever is useful in converting into field units, both in lieu of e^2 or e.emax^2, which is electrostatic or magnetic charge. I
The reason for having electromagnetism for these charge units is that a wire never has an electric charge without a magnetic charge, and vice-versa.
I have changed the Electromotive Force or Potential from being Energy/charge to Force/charge, and current from charge*Frequency to charge*velocity. This makes sense for the analogous inertial units, as explained later.

Not only would current define a certain amount of current passing through a circular length, it would also define the movement of charge. And as for Potential, in between two potentials there is always a force, such as gravitational potential energy and the gravitational force.
Electromagnetic Extropy or emex should be ((fine-structure-constant^(+/- 1))*frequency),
Current or curr should be ((fine-structure-constant^(+/- 1))*velocity),
and thus, true Electromotive Force/Potential or emof or potn would be ((fine-structure-constant^(+/- 1)) (*length*(frequency^2))
and Electomagnetic Flux or emfx is ((length^2)*(frequency)*(fine-structure-constant^(+/- 1))
and Electromagnetic Energy or emen would be ((fine-structure-constant^(+/- 1)) *(length^2)*(frequency^2)).
These are analogous each to 'extropy,' 'momentum,' ‘angular momentum,’ 'force,' and 'energy.'

Conductance would be cond=(1/((velocity)*(fine-structure-constant))), the reciprocal of Current.
Resistance would be resn=(1/((acceleration)*(fine-structure-constant))), a reciprocal to Electromotive Force
Electromagnetic Entropy would be emet=(1/(frequency)*(fine-structure-constant^(+/- 1)), a reciprocal to Electromagnetic Extropy.
In other words resn/potn=1 and cond/curr=1.
potn/curr=emex
emet is electromagnetic entropy.
curr/potn=1/emex=emet
electromagnetic entropy=resistance*current




Electric Units:

Elfd=flow/e^2=((lambda^3)*(F.q))/(e^2))
Elfs=forc/e^2
Elfs=(efld*momt)/volm
Elfd*elfs=resn*temp
Elfs=4pi/(permittivity*area))

Magnetic Units:

mfdi=(((e.emax^2)*(Lambda.c)*(F.q))/(Lambda.c^2))
mfxd=(((m.e)(F.q))/(e.emax^2))
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Electromagnetic Conversions:

Fine structure constant=(((e^2)(2pi))/((e.emax^2)(16pi^2)))

elfs=mfdi*resn*8pi*(fine structure constant)
elfs=mfxd*(fine structure constant^-1)*8pi*velc
elfs=mfdi*(fine structure constant^-1)*8pi*resn
elfs=(irrd/mfdi)*(fine structure constant) *8pi


Charge Units and their Relation to Field Units

elfs=((potn)/((8pi)*(e.emax^2)))
{elfs is the Electrostatic equivalent to Force and Potential.}
mfdi should be ((e.emax^2*velc)/(length^2)) = (((e^2)*(curr))/((lambda.c^2)*(8pi)))
{mfdi would be the Magnetic equivalent of Momentum or Current per Surface.}
mfld=((emfx)/(emex))*(((m.e)*(lambda.c))/(e.emax^2))
mfld=enrg/mfdi
drag=((emfx)/(emex))*(((m.e)*(lambda.c))/(e.emax^4))

[Webbman]

an electromagnetic field makes no sense unless there is either an aether or fine structure to support the field. You cant just say its a field and be done with it. Nothing is resolved.

i like to think that both are the same. The aether is the base material. Charge is the movement or vibration of this base material. No action at a distance because the base material is everywhere, can interconnect and form higher structures, and recycle itself. The only way to make it work is if that base material is a tube.

a Birkland current in space is basically a tube and that's not only believable for most here but also the largest structures in the known universe. Yet the smallest structure cannot be a tube.

[crawler]

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).