Mathematical model for the electric universe

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Mat.

With ALL of the physical science, theory requires a solid mathematical foundation. Otherwise you cannot make predictions.

I beg to differ.
In the fields of modern physics, the math really does not require sound theory.
It can even be all virtual, as the physicists in the fields of Quantum Mechanics show us,
Physicists tend to only make predictions that cannot be falsified.

For example, LIGO physicists said, "the blip in our data came from 2 black holes colliding".
(Which is not really their prediction, but they're stating that as fact, which came from the math.
Their prediction is, they're going to get a noble prize for saying that "fact".)

Here is another example for you.

Weinstein proposes that dark energy is a type of fundamental force that could sit alongside gravity,
electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces. This force pushes space apart and its strength is variable
throughout the universe.

A good prediction?
It is based on the 14 dimensional math of the "observerse".
(Which, really, is one way of predicting the Universe is not really the Universe, but an observerse.)
~Paul

[Dr_Mat_Hunt]

You haven't proven your point.

[Chickenmales]

Perhaps it would be possible to model plasma cosmology and electric universe stuff as a fluid. In which case you would need the Navier-Stokes equation. Positive ions and negative charges flow in opposite directions in a magnetic field, however, so it'd be a bit of a funny fluid.

For what it's worth, I personally think that a mathematical description is nessarcery in physics. An experiment needs to have precise measurements, and these measurements are numbers (expect in pshchology, which shouldn't be a science in my opinion.)

It seems to me that there is a definite progression the development of a theory should go, which is: observation, hypothesis, verification. Developing a set of equations which don't fit any observations and aren't even algerbraically consistent which each other isn't a correct way of finding truth.

I think at the moment, the EU movement is at the point of observation, and at some stage, whether they like it of not, a mathematical theory will be developed. If this theory pases the experimental verification stage, then it will be utilizable, and the solar system won't seem so big.

[comingfrom]

You haven't proven your point.

Yet I made it.

Whether it is received or not is not up to me.

~~~`

Perhaps it would be possible to model plasma cosmology and electric universe stuff as a fluid. In which case you would need the Navier-Stokes equation.

Fluid dynamics doesn't apply to plasma.
Plasma is governed by electrodynamics (that is, Maxwell's equation).

Positive ions and negative charges flow in opposite directions in a magnetic field, however, so it'd be a bit of a funny fluid.

Positive and negative ions flow in the same direction in an electric field.
Moving ions is what generates magnetic fields.

So you can see the problem with tracking the motions mathematically.

For what it's worth, I personally think that a mathematical description is nessarcery in physics. An experiment needs to have precise measurements, and these measurements are numbers

Plasma consists of multi-millions of individual particles of different masses and charges. Have fun incorporating millions of variables in your math. But don't get one wrong, or you will get an incorrect answer.

I see particle physics is very much like astrophysics. You can apply math to the simplest scenario, but a soon as their are n number of bodies, with different masses and charges, you run into problems. Simply because there are too many variables to keep track of.

I think at the moment, the EU movement is at the point of observation, and at some stage, whether they like it of not, a mathematical theory will be developed. If this theory pases the experimental verification stage, then it will be utilizable, and the solar system won't seem so big.

I see EU theory was developed on the existing math.

I don't think EU proponents have thrown out Maxwell, Alfven, Perrat, etc, and are now waiting for a mathematician to come along.
Have they?
~Paul

[Chickenmales]

Fluid dynamics doesn't apply to plasma.
Plasma is governed by electrodynamics (that is, Maxwell's equation).

That's a good point. Perhaps it would be possible to create a force vector field using Maxwell's equations, then put positive and negative charge density distributions on top of each other, where one is the density function for electrons and the other is the density function for ions. Then see how the changing charge densities affect the forces.

Positive and negative ions flow in the same direction in an electric field.
Moving ions is what generates magnetic fields.

The force on a charge in an electric field is given by the equation F=qE, where F is the force, q is the charge and E is the electric field. This means that a positive and a negative charge in an electric field will experience forces in opposite directions.

If the positive and negative charges are moving in opposite directions then they'll create magnetic fields which go the same way, if the charges are moving in the same direction their magnetic fields will cancel. This is because of Ampere's law.

Plasma consists of multi-millions of individual particles of different masses and charges. Have fun incorporating millions of variables in your math. But don't get one wrong, or you will get an incorrect answer.

That's true, but not unheard of in mathematics. In a fluid there can be a lot of particles, but the whole can be modelled using continous functions.

I see EU theory was developed on the existing math.

I don't think EU proponents have thrown out Maxwell, Alfven, Perrat, etc, and are now waiting for a mathematician to come along.
Have they?

I was thinking about this earlier after I posted my thoughts on EU and maths. There's already a lot of mathematical stuff in EU, but there are differences between it and mainstream physics, for example, relativity. I think the differences could eventually mean that EU theory will be developed on a different mathematical construction.

I could be wrong, but I'm happy to try and develop the maths myself... someday.

[Robbie_G]

I'm just curious that if an electric model describes the dominant force behind the universe, then what is maintaining the charge gradient? Any mathematical model will also have to account for a quantitative description of the source that maintains the electrical asymmetry won't it?

[upriver]

The Plasma Simulation Code: A modern particle-in-cell code with load-balancing and GPU support
Recent increases in supercomputing power, driven by the multi-core revolution and accelerators such as the IBM Cell processor, graphics processing units (GPUs) and Intel's Many Integrated Core (MIC) technology have enabled kinetic simulations of plasmas at unprecedented resolutions, but changing HPC architectures also come with challenges for writing efficient numerical codes. This paper describes the Plasma Simulation Code (PSC), an explicit, electromagnetic particle-in-cell code with support for different order particle shape functions. We focus on two distinguishing feature of the code: patch-based load balancing using space-filling curves, and support for Nvidia GPUs, which achieves substantial speed-up of up to more than 6x on the Cray XK7 architecture compared to a CPU-only implementation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.7866

[JouniJokela]

Hello,

It's absolutely correct to say that scientific theory needs a solid mathematical foundation for predictions.
The Scientific method requires the calculating of consequences, which are to be compared to the observations.

Without math, we have nothing. I am new here in EU, but the reason why I logged in was this thread, and the fact that here seems to be asked a lot of relevant questions about issues which simply can't be true according to current theories.

I have produced this paper;
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Everything

- The idea started once from the observation that Earth rotates because of Thermodynamical reasons. (because of Sun)
- This had the background on my idea of The reasons of Turbulence.
Over time I ended up studying the QED through Feynman, and in his messenger lectures I heard from Le Sage's theory of Gravitation, which was shoot down by Feynman because the drag made is impossible. But If Earth rotates because of sun, this drag is not a problem. But there are also other issues; the Energy problem. This lead me to the study of thermosphere, and I found the mechanism how the "Energy problem" is "solved". This is actually unsolvable problem, the energy must be there, and the only question is how it can be "there" without causing us to be boiled in seconds. Well it's above us; as a plasma. In my paper I have only written about the Earths Thermosphere, that's because I realised the Coronal heating problem of the sun, just few days ago. But this make's this idea as solid as it can be.

But I also had a huge problem about the mathematical foundation of Gravity. I mean if Le Sage's theory is correct, then the mass has nothing to do with Gravity. I found the solution from Froude's law, when I noted that the Planets are also rotating by Froude number 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froude_number

This is the massless mathematical foundation for "Gravity". Though it means that there is no Gravity. There is also no mass. And this means the Force, Energy and actually most of the physics must be written slightly new, as the mass is all over the place.

I bet all the electric laws are going to be also more solid if we define Ampere without a mass. The unit which should be used is of form $m^2/s^2$....

I think I need to stop writing here, but I still wan't to give you the hint about Dark Matter/Dark Energy, their ratio has the same mistake as the Neuton mass has; about ~2.53.

[comingfrom]

Like your style, Chickenmales.

That's a good point. Perhaps it would be possible to create a force vector field using Maxwell's equations, then put positive and negative charge density distributions on top of each other, where one is the density function for electrons and the other is the density function for ions. Then see how the changing charge densities affect the forces.

Yes, I think you are on to it.
If there is a mathematical solution, it will be dealing with the sums of charges, which is effected by densities.

The force on a charge in an electric field is given by the equation F=qE, where F is the force, q is the charge and E is the electric field. This means that a positive and a negative charge in an electric field will experience forces in opposite directions.

Then explain how the Sun pushes out a neutral solar wind.

There are nearly equal amounts of positive and negative particles in the solar wind.
Or so NASA tells us.

If the positive and negative charges are moving in opposite directions then they'll create magnetic fields which go the same way, if the charges are moving in the same direction their magnetic fields will cancel. This is because of Ampere's law.

A magnetic field is only generated when there is unequal densities of positive and negative ions.

Otherwise, as you say, their magnetic fields cancel each other out.

That's true, but not unheard of in mathematics. In a fluid there can be a lot of particles, but the whole can be modelled using continous functions.

If you think you got a handle on it, then go for it.

I'm still unwinding the mechanics, before I think abut jumping into the math.
So much math has been done without a mechanical basis, and it only leads them into black holes.
Literally and metaphorically speaking.

I was thinking about this earlier after I posted my thoughts on EU and maths. There's already a lot of mathematical stuff in EU, but there are differences between it and mainstream physics, for example, relativity. I think the differences could eventually mean that EU theory will be developed on a different mathematical construction

I believe in relativity, that it is necessary when measuring in distant coordinates.

I don't think EU theory will be able to escape it,
unless it finds another way to take measurements in distant coordinate systems without the use of light.

But modern GR does need to be corrected.
They have wandered far from the basic truths Einstein discovered.
And even he knew he didn't have all worked out yet.
(But they're not going to correct it, and they are not going to find out what gravity and charge are, not while they are so busy speculating about black holes, and the first few seconds of the Universe, and umteen dimensions, and parallel universes, and virtual quantum fluxes, and gravity waves, and God particles, and string math, and we could go on, and on.)

Physics needs to come back to earth, and solve some of the long standing problems here
~Paul

[comingfrom]

I'm just curious that if an electric model describes the dominant force behind the universe, then what is maintaining the charge gradient? Any mathematical model will also have to account for a quantitative description of the source that maintains the electrical asymmetry won't it?

Charge separations occur everywhere, due the difference in masses.

Take the solar wind for an example. A percentage is drawn into the earth by Her magnetosphere. Protons and cations, which are both positive, and due to their large size tend to collide with the molecules in the air, and get caught in the ionosphere, and get distributed around the globe. Most of the negatives in the solar wind are electrons, and these being tiny, tend not to see the atmosphere as much resistance. Many of them pass right between all the molecules and enter directly into the earth, which is like a huge semi-conductor, so just sucks them right in.

So we have a massively positive ionosphere above our heads, while we stand on a relatively negative earth. Of course, the potential becomes too great, so the positive charge discharges into the lower atmosphere, where even there charges build up, until finally rain and lightning carries the charge to the surface.

Similar charge separations are going on in lots of other places. Galaxies recycle charge, star systems recycle charge, planets recycle charge, atoms recycle charge, and always, the mass differences cause charge separation, build up, and then discharge. No doubt spin plays a part too. Particles spinning one way are going to bounce in a different direction to particles spinning the other way, when they collide with a spinning body.

One theory proposes that real mechanical spins are the cause of positive and negative, and quantization. If you have a magnetic field of spinning electrons, another electron with the same spin coming in contact, will be moved one way, but a proton with opposite spin coming in contact with the same field will be forced in the opposite direction.

Hope that helps.
And I hope if I said something wrong, that someone comes to correct me
~Paul

[comingfrom]

To upriver's offering.

Recent increases in supercomputing power... have enabled kinetic simulations of plasmas at unprecedented resolutions

OK, how about, we start with a simple cloud.
Clouds are clouds of positive ions, that cling together as a cell.
(Water in the air magnetizes to the ions, and once "crystallized" around the ions, refract sunlight, enabling us to see the cloud.)
Within the cloud, the ions are moving around. But when they reach the edge of the cloud, the double layer turns the ions back into the cloud. Double layers are polarity boundaries, which ions need a lot of energy to cross. You should have heard about them by now.

Anyhow, a cloud is a very simple everyday thing. Now the challenge is, describe it mathematically.
Whoops, my cloud's double layer just broke, and now filaments are coming out of the side of it. Let me just adjust my sums to describe what just happened, and what is happening now.

Can you not see how this math will be a difficult thing, even with a super supercomputer?

They will be able to simulate simple theoretical plasmas at high resolution, maybe even laboratory controlled plasmas,
but to simulate a real live naturally formed plasma, first you have to take a lot of measurements, which will be very difficult to obtain.
Simulating theoretical plasmas is a start though.

~~~~~~~~`
To JouniJokela's offering.

Your very first line sounded logical and reasonable,
but by the end of your post, you had showed us where purely mathematical theories can lead.

Without math, we have nothing.

The physical sciences have got a lot of math today, but they still cannot say what gravity and charge are. They got nothing. They have no mechanical explanation. Just a lot of math.

And when the math don't work, they add another layer. Normalize the data. Make it fit what we don't really know yet, but presume.

Quantum mechanics is the perfect example.
Everything is virtual messenger particles and probabilities. Even colours. But there is no mechanics.
The even say, for their excuse, that the mechanics can't be known at the quantum level.
They are wholly dependent upon their heuristic maths, and hodge podge for theory.

And like you showed us, one can start out with a completely different set assumptions, and make maths that fits.

I have yet to read your links.
Here is one you might like in the meantime.
~Paul

[JouniJokela]

The physical sciences have got a lot of math today, but they still cannot say what gravity and charge are. They got nothing. They have no mechanical explanation. Just a lot of math.

Well, yes! I agree. I've been slightly active in Physics Stackexchange, ie;
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... rgy-change
and after the serial-answers had run out of answers, they proposed that I should read the "MTW" (Misner-Thorne-Wheeler) it's 1300 page book named "Gravitation". So I actually read it. Just to found out that it's not a physics book. It's a MATH-book.

And it pretty well explains how the "Gravity is a curvature in space-time",,, but I say "WTF" (What-The-F***) to that "explanation", as it tells nothing about the causes. It's only Math.
So when we create a theory, we first need to have some theory of the mechanism and machinery behind the phenomenon. And AFTER that we should be able to describe this mechanism with Math. But if we just do the math, it's not science. It's numerology.

The Mechanism behind gravity is basically the Le Sage's / Nicolas Fatio theory about the issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%2 ... ravitation
This theory has only few flaws, like the energy of these particles are so high, that the earth would evaporate in seconds. But they are explainable through QED-interactions and through kinetic theory.

Those interested from Plasma-stuff, might want to read this observation from the linked wiki;

Plasma
The Le Sage mechanism also has been identified as a significant factor in the behavior of dusty plasma. A.M. Ignatov[58] has shown that an attractive force arises between two dust grains suspended in an isotropic collisionless plasma due to inelastic collisions between ions of the plasma and the grains of dust. This attractive force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between dust grains, and can counterbalance the Coulomb repulsion between dust grains.

So what I offer here, is not only Mathematical model, but an (old) theory of the machinery AND Mathematical-model AND supporting observations.

[Robbie_G]

Charge separations occur everywhere, due the difference in masses.

Take the solar wind for an example. A percentage is drawn into the earth by Her magnetosphere. Protons and cations, which are both positive, and due to their large size tend to collide with the molecules in the air, and get caught in the ionosphere, and get distributed around the globe. Most of the negatives in the solar wind are electrons, and these being tiny, tend not to see the atmosphere as much resistance. Many of them pass right between all the molecules and enter directly into the earth, which is like a huge semi-conductor, so just sucks them right in.

When you speak of the solar wind, it is predominately protons and this friction action against the ionosphere does not account for the large static negative charge at the surface of the earth. Tesla revealed that the charge on the surface was 60KV negative relative to the ionosphere. The passing positive charge solar wind should instead be ripping electrons away from the earth's atmosphere and carrying them off into space.Depositing protons is not going to accomplish this.
The charge on the earth should instead be positive by your description, but it's not. The difference in mass you refer to and kinetic energy would also not support your assertion. How can you claim an electrical universe without establishing a mechanism for the ongoing process of charge separation?
To produce an ongoing asymmetry of charge that is being claimed here would require a generator like force maintaining the separation as it is continually being discharged as the balance of charge moves spontaneously towards re-establishing electrical symmetry.

[upriver]

"Then explain how the Sun pushes out a neutral solar wind.

There are nearly equal amounts of positive and negative particles in the solar wind.
Or so NASA tells us."

"The Mechanism behind gravity is basically the Le Sage's / Nicolas Fatio theory about the issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%2 ... ravitation
This theory has only few flaws, like the energy of these particles are so high, that the earth would evaporate in seconds. But they are explainable through QED-interactions and through kinetic theory."

"Charge separations occur everywhere, due the difference in masses."

Particle Spin. Which of course is not really spin.

Gravity.

Electric fields...

Electricity... Whats it made of and what does it do...

That way I looked at the problem was to reduce the components to their simplest actions and then try to see the commonality.
All of these actions are the addition of kinetic energy to the object being worked upon. Work being done, energy transferred.

In the case of the solar wind, if the force driving the wind was just pure kinetic/motion energy, like gravity, then it would be charge neutral instead of the action of an electric field. Maybe the sun is putting out the 5th force similar to Eugene Podkletnovs beam work.

To do a mathematical model for EU I think would entail thinking about it in this fashion... There is a lot in this universe to account for...

[Chickenmales]

Hi JouniJokela,

But I also had a huge problem about the mathematical foundation of Gravity. I mean if Le Sage's theory is correct, then the mass has nothing to do with Gravity. I found the solution from Froude's law, when I noted that the Planets are also rotating by Froude number 1

I don't really understand this, but I think it's interesting. Could this be a confirmation that space is made up of a fluid, the fluid being the ether?

Like your style, Chickenmales.

Thanks, Comingfrom. I like your style to.

Then explain how the Sun pushes out a neutral solar wind.

I think that's a really good point. I don't know how it'd work.

You might already be aware of this, but there are a series of videos on suspiciousobservers.org called the sun series. They are a pretty good explanation of solar stuff in my opinion, and includes the machanism which creates the solar wind.

I'm still unwinding the mechanics, before I think abut jumping into the math.
So much math has been done without a mechanical basis, and it only leads them into black holes.
Literally and metaphorically speaking.

I agree with this. I also agree that mainstream physics needs to get their head out of the maths and into reality. I believe that maths is a really powerful tool for understanding, however.

But modern GR does need to be corrected.

I'm still not sure about GR, I like some of the ither ideas for gravity.

Physics needs to come back to earth, and solve some of the long standing problems here

I think you're right.

Within the cloud, the ions are moving around. But when they reach the edge of the cloud, the double layer turns the ions back into the cloud. Double layers are polarity boundaries, which ions need a lot of energy to cross. You should have heard about them by now.

Oh yeah... I forgot about double layers. What causes double layers? and is there somewhere good on the internet to learn about them?

Also, has Miles Mathis' ideas lead to any new experiments?