Hi LTAM and All,
Do you know where “Both facts are well known since a century” comes from?
Electron numbers aren't fixed. Aren’t they under constant production? Isn’t that part of the reason why we don’t have to worry about electron depletion on the sun?
I don't know where Dr. Körtvélyessy determined the timeline. He speaks/reads German so maybe he saw a reference in a publication. I think that last question is key to unraveling a lot of things.
Was reading the new MM paper as well today. Found that these papers also complement the Mathis' new alt.pdf paper cited earlier.
Three Problems Solved Mechanically:
PARTIAL REFLECTION BY GLASS
THE RIGHT-HAND RULE
AND FEYNMAN'S SHRINK-AND-TURN METHOD
http://milesmathis.com/feyn3.html
Maxwell's Equations are also Unified Field Equations parts 1 and 2
http://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/disp2.pdf
Dielectric Polarization
http://milesmathis.com/dielec.pdf
His framework for "ionization" is spelled out here a bit more. IMHO, I think this fits with the alt.pdf as in "how does mechanical charge channeling actually occur":
Well, our unification is a bit more complex here, because we aren't just adding or subtracting the charge field of the Earth. We have to look at how each element or molecule recycles charge through the atomic structure. Since each element does this differently, and does this with more or less efficiency, we have another variance we have to include. For instance, it is already known that oxygen is less reactive than nitrogen, and that they are both far more reactive than argon. To see this from current numbers, we look at ionization energies instead of electronegativity. When I say reactive, I mean that oxygen channels charge a bit less efficiently than nitrogen, and using the current numbers, ionization energy is closer to my meaning than electronegativity.
While we are here, I point out to you that oxygen has a higher electronegativity than nitrogen, but a lower ionization energy. This should have always been seen as strange, considering the way the two are defined. Ionization energy is the energy to remove an electron and electronegativity is the “tendency” to attract electrons. Why are they different in this case? If we set up a simple field to represent them both, wouldn't they follow the same field potentials?
Shouldn't a stronger “suction” (electronegativity) create a stronger bond (ionization energy)?
At any rate, we will deal with that later. For now, it is enough to notice that the mainstream already admits that oxygen has a lower ionization energy than nitrogen, contradicting what we are taught about ionization energies increasing as we move to higher groups. See the chart below, where it says that ionization energies increase from left to right. Well, they don't, since oxygen has an ionization energy of 1314 to 1402 for nitrogen. If you go to Wikipedia, you will see they divert you from that by not publishing a similar chart for ionization energies. They give you this nice chart for electronegativity, adding titles that also (wrongly) apply it to ionization energies, then fail to create the real chart for ionization energies. That is curious, to say the least.
http://milesmathis.com/atmo2.pdf
Also:
But the nuclear shells should have logically matched the electron shells even before I arrived with my diagrams. If electrons and protons are charge-matched in the atomic scheme (as they are) then the electron shells should match the nuclear shells. Given current theory, the fact that the two sets of shells didn't match should have been a problem for the theory of charge separation, since if the shells don't match, the charge separations don't match. If the charge separations don't match, the total charge of the atom gets skewed. I would think that should have been fairly obvious from the beginning, and once upon a time it probably was. It is just one more thing that has been buried under the big maths piled on top of the nucleus and atom. The physicists of the 20th century soon discovered that if they swamped the atom with enough difficult math, the old problems could be inundated by a sea of mathematical manipulations. Hence the “shut up and calculate” mantra.
But even if we dispense with the theory of magic numbers as unsupported, we still have the electron orbitals to deal with. Many physicists and chemists could give up magic numbers and nuclear shells without much stress, but they are very attached to the electron orbitals. So let us move on to the next question: why does the mainstream now think both Potassium and Chromium have one electron in the outer shell? My diagrams confirm that Potassium does, but not Chromium. Not surprisingly, Chromium is one of the elements that breaks the rules of the mainstream, including the Madelung rule (aka Aufbau rule) of filling orbitals. So the answer to this question is that Chromium is given one electron in the outer shell because of the way it acts in experiments. In experiment, we find one, not two, electrons available for easiest ionization, and this fact is used to propose that Chromium has only one electron in the 4s shell.
However, from Chromium's main oxidation states, we can tell that my diagram is correct and the mainstream answer is wrong. Chromium's primary oxidation state is +6, which confirms my diagram. And we can explain the one electron in a more direct way as well. Here is why Chromium seems to have one electron in the outer level:
Because the nucleus is mainly a recycler and channeler of charge, when we answer any physical question, we have to follow the charge channels. I have already shown that the axial level is the most important level in the nucleus, and this would be clear regardless. The charge is entering the nucleus at the poles, so those top and bottom positions must be primary and privileged, no matter what else is going on. Just like the galaxy and Sun and Earth, the nucleus is pulling charge in at the poles and releasing most heavily at the equator, so the axial level is mainly pulling charge in and the carousel level is releasing charge. So although our six black disks with Chromium look to be in the same fourth nuclear level, they are not equivalent in all ways.
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
And also this old favorite:
Electron Bonding is a Myth
Molecular bonding explained by the charge field instead.
http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf
Finally:
But I have shown in many other papers that the gravitational field is actually a compound field made up of two separate vectors. One of these vectors I continue to call gravity, since it is an apparent attraction. In the Unified Field, this vector points in. I call it solo gravity, since it is the gravitational field without the second field. The second field is the foundational E/M field or charge field. This is the field that underlies both electricity and magnetism, and mechanically it causes the charge between proton and electron. I have shown that although the electrical field may appear to be either negative or positive in interactions, the foundational E/M field is always positive or repulsive. It is caused by simple bombardment, via a particle I have dubbed the B-photon. This B-photon replaces the virtual photon or messenger photon of the standard model.
Since the foundational E/M field is always repulsive, it acts in vector opposition to the solo gravity field. Both fields are active at all levels of size, cosmic and quantum.
I have shown how these fields are both found in Newton’s gravitational equation. I have not added any terms to Newton’s equation: it still stands as it always has. I have simply broken it down into its constituent fields, showing how G works in the equation as a transform between the solo gravity field and the foundational E/M field.
Once the two fields are separated, the solo gravity field turns out to be determined by radius alone. Gravity is an acceleration and nothing more. To be rigorous, it is the acceleration of a length or differential. This means it has nothing to do with density. Density is a part of Newton’s equation, since it is a part of the mass variables, but it turns out that the density buried in the equation is actually a density of the foundational E/M field. It is a density of B-photons. All you have to do is write each mass in Newton’s equation as density times volume, giving the density to the E/M field and the volume to the gravity field. G then acts as the transform between the two fields. I have shown that G is also the relative diameter of the B-photon. In other words, the B-photon is 6.67 x 10-11 times smaller than the hydrogen atom.
http://milesmathis.com/orbit.html
What is "Charge"?
But to return to charge. According to my re-expansion of Newton’s equation, we now have a compound field at the quantum level, with the two fields in vector opposition. How does this solve the charge problem? It solves it quite easily, since we can now create opposite potentials simply by size differentials. What we have is a small electron and a large proton (to simplify). Both are radiating B-photons. Let us say that the radiation from the electron is relatively negligible, so that we can look only at the radiation from the proton. The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near. But it will drive off larger particles more successfully than smaller particles, since the smaller particles will encounter a smaller cross-section of the field. Because the field is a field of discrete particles, a small enough electron could actually dodge the field almost entirely. But we will not imagine the electron is that small. We assume, for now, that it is much larger than the B-photon, and cannot dodge the field.
Also remember that any other proton that enters the field of our first proton will also be emitting its own B-field. These fields may interfere to some extent, but we would still expect the combined field to be more repulsive than either field taken alone. This must mean that any protons will be driven away from each other much faster than an electron will be driven away.
You will say that we still have repulsion of both the electron and the proton, but we have not brought the newly upgraded gravitational field into the mix. This field is going to cause an apparent attraction to all particles, just like the traditional field. All particles are going to appear to “fall” toward our gravitating proton, and they are all going to fall at the same rate. Standard gravity theory, so far. But let us use Einstein’s equivalence principle to reverse only our terminology. Instead of saying that all objects are falling toward our proton, we say that our proton is chasing all objects at the same rate. An acceleration in one direction is equal to an acceleration in the other direction, in a rectilinear field.
So, in order to explain both positive charge and negative charge, we only have to propose that the proton is chasing the electron fast enough to catch it, but not fast enough to catch the proton. This gives us an apparent attraction of one, and an apparent repulsion of the other.
Another way to state this is to give numbers to the two repulsions. Say the repulsion of proton by proton by the B-field causes an acceleration of 10. And say that the repulsion of electron by proton by the B-field causes an acceleration of 2. All we have to propose is that our central proton is accelerating gravitationally at a rate greater than 2 and less than 5. Anywhere in that gap, we will see repulsion of the two protons and an attraction of the electron.
That is the simple mechanical explanation of charge.
What about current in a wire?
You will ask how my theory explains that. Again, quite easily. Free electrons travel at high speed in a conducting wire, or any conductor, because the B-field is moving in only one direction in that substance. The B-field acts as a river, moving the electrons along by direct contact. This B-field river can be created in any number of ways, either by having lots of radiating particles at one end of the wire and few or none at the other, or by directionalizing the B-field through the shape of the molecules in the substance. Some molecules block certain directions of the B-field, simply by getting in the way. Of course I am simplifying to a very great degree here; but I can do so since, once my fields are understood, the questions are no longer difficult. Given my method, you can answer your own questions; and they no longer look very compelling to me.
http://milesmathis.com/charge.htmlOn the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
