Overlapping Fields

[comingfrom]

Since coming to know the Electric Universe theory, I feel I must increase my understanding of fields
So I want to open a thread to discuss fields.

I was very confused between electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields.
This little piece seems to explain it well.

When I read that piece, it made me think, ok, when there is a lot of a particular charge accumulated in a region, that is static electricity, and there is a field, made from the sum of their charge. Big charge, big field. Small charge, small field. It isn't magnetic, and it isn't a gravity field. It is simply a charge field.

Where do charges accumulate?
The Sun is an obvious target. It has to be highly charged, and so has a strong electric field. This is good, because we know, a gravity only model will fall into chaos at the slightest disturbance. A large comet would have sent all the planets off their courses and the solar system would have fallen apart long ago, if it weren't for the strong electric field of the Sun, which re-stabilizes the whole system every time there is a disturbance.

The ionosphere is another obvious target. Positive charges from the Solar Wind accumulate in the upper atmosphere, while electrons go straight through the atmosphere and into the Earth. So we live in a powerful electric field with a huge charge separation. I read that the potential difference is 300v every 2m from Earth's surface. That calculates into millions of volts by the time you reach the ionosphere. Could gravity simply be this electric force pushing us to earth? We are made from the Earth, so have the same charge as the Earth. With 2 or 3 million volts above us, that would make it hard for anything made from the surface to leave the surface, even without gravity. Or maybe we just named that electric force gravity.

For some reason, I can't come off a unified field theory, which says, all force fields are electric, or a side-effect of electric force.

Any inputs to further my understanding greatly appreciated.
~Paul

[D_Archer]

Fields in physics must be made up of physical matter stuff.

What is charge physically?

Newton's gravity equation is already a unified field equation, it includes charge, if it did not it would never be close to a correct orbit...http://milesmathis.com/uft2.html

Regards,
Daniel

[webolife]

Thanks to comingfrom for starting this thread.

Fields in physics must be made up of physical matter stuff.

Daniel, you bring up an interesting thought here, so let me challenge you with some questions:
1. "Fields in physics" -- you mean ALL fields, or just certain ones, or just from a certain perspective?
2. "Must" -- according to whom? This is a philosophical position, is it not -- a presupposition, an article of faith -- or do you feel you have some scientific proof of this?
3. "Made up of physical" -- solely? Or might the there be some sort of imponderable "energy" involved as well?
4. "Matter stuff" -- supporters of your statement have come up with various forms of aether, waves, dark matter, WIMPS, subtrons, quantums, gravitons, photons, dark mode plasma, etc. to try to fill in the blank that exists in the observable/measurable universe with regard to missing "matter stuff" in studied fields. Some of these are simply imaginary [faith] constructs at this point in the realm of physics, are they not?
5. What if there is actually empty space between particles as is [thus far in the histroy of science] observed at every hierarchy from atomic to astronomic? What if "matter stuff" interacts with other material across this space? Why are imaginary constructs more acceptable to physicists studying "fields" than the possibility of action at a distance?

[The Great Dog]

The Great Dog thinks that "flux lines" are a misleading idea in the linked presentation. They imply that there are "lines of force" in a magnetic field. That isn't true. A magnetic field is a continuum with no divisions. Diagrams that show lines in a magnetic field are no different than the arrow diagrams that illustrate an electric field.

No one thinks that electric field lines can do anything, since they merely denote direction and flux density, so where did the idea that magnetic field lines can move, touch, break, disconnect, explode, reconnect, etc. come from? It is one of the stupidist ideas in modern physics, except for dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, black holes, neutron stars, the muliverse, string theory, branes, ad infinauseum. Those ideas stifle research, promoting the cronyism that infests science, since one must "join with them" in order to see any benefits -- like a degree.

A "field" is short for "field of influence". It's where every point in a defined region is affected by some kind of force. D-Archer said that fields "must be" made of matter, but that is contrary to modern physics. He uses a highly controversial theory to support the argument and throws even more ambiguity into the discussion, but that really doesn't matter -- the discussion is already ambiguous.

Electric Universe theory, at its heart, doesn't differ from classical physics in that it accepts most of the common equations that define the cosmos. After all, the "founders" were skilled mathematicians with Nobel Prizes and high regard from their peers. The Great Dog thinks that Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven and Peratt are among the most rigorous and careful scientists that ever lived. It is those big dogs that provide the background for an Electric Universe. Therefore, what defines an electric field, a magnetic field or an electromagnetic field aren't going to be different than anyone might think.

Some fields, like a gravity field, are redefined to include electromagnetism but the Great Dog thinks that is begging the question. Fields lie at the bottom of definition, since they're fundamental forces -- they can only be used to define each other. "Length" can't be defined except by comparison -- a "length of string" contains no parameters, so it's meaningless as a measurement. The same holds true for fields. "A magnetic field" is meaningless except in terms of its influence on something. Same with an electric field, since both of their definitions include action (influence) on something else.

The Great Dog thinks that bosons are imaginary. They are supposed to be "force carriers": gravitons are supposed to carry the gravitational force, gluons carry the strong nuclear force, and photons are said to carry the electromagnetic force, among others. All of this is based on quantum electrodynamic theory, which is also incredibly controversial. The Great Dog thinks that this thread will soon wind up in the Mad Ideas section.

[Webbman]

the lines of force idea comes from visual observation of a magnet and iron filings.

looks like lines to me.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/wp-cont ... 25x286.jpg

[The Great Dog]

Unfortunately, that's a common mistake. What you see with iron filings are their own induction currents aligning them at a uniform distance from one another. The phenomenon isn't in the magnetic field, it's in the iron filings.

Magnetic field lines are like those on a topographic map. They merely represent a continuum, so different mapping scales wouldn't show more or less lines.

Bob Johnson's April Fool Picture of the Day a few years ago was good.

Predicting Volcanic Eruptions by Isohypse Reconnection

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Daniel.

Fields in physics must be made up of physical matter stuff.

Who says?
I mean, besides you.
And which physical law.

I think a field is made up of force.

What is charge physically?

"Electric charge is the physical property of matter that causes it to experience a force when placed in an electromagnetic field. There are two types of electric charges: positive and negative."

That is from Wikipedia.
Looks to me, that what charge is is still beyond our ken, so we say it is whatever it is that makes the particle move when it is in a field.

Thanks for the link. Will read.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you webolife.

Your questions are for Daniel, but I think I know the answer to this one.

Why are imaginary constructs more acceptable to physicists studying "fields" than the possibility of action at a distance?

Because it is hard to imagine how action at a distance works, and their job is to come up with an explanation.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, Great Dog.

We think alike.

A "field" is short for "field of influence".

Thank you for reminding us this.

The Great Dog thinks that this thread will soon wind up in the Mad Ideas section.

I thought about placing it there, but no, I want to discuss what is known about fields. The science, and the Standard Physics versus EU views of fields. I don't want this to be a thread for mad ideas.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you, Webbman

the lines of force idea comes from visual observation of a magnet and iron filings.

Whatever is in the field, and is effected by the field, is going to organize itself into lines.

Like the planets in the Sun's field do.
Like particles in the Solar wind does, when it arrives at the Earth's magnetic field.
Even like we do, when we fall from a height; we follow the force of the field and make a direct line to center of mass of the Earth.

[Michael Mozina]

Since coming to know the Electric Universe theory, I feel I must increase my understanding of fields
So I want to open a thread to discuss fields.

I was very confused between electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields.
This little piece seems to explain it well.

When I read that piece, it made me think, ok, when there is a lot of a particular charge accumulated in a region, that is static electricity, and there is a field, made from the sum of their charge. Big charge, big field. Small charge, small field. It isn't magnetic, and it isn't a gravity field. It is simply a charge field.

Where do charges accumulate?

In terms of static electricity, it typically collects upon "things"/mass objects, both big and small.

The Sun is an obvious target. It has to be highly charged, and so has a strong electric field. This is good, because we know, a gravity only model will fall into chaos at the slightest disturbance.

Hmmm. That statement would get you painted into a corner sooner or later. Gravity theory (Newton or Einstein) does a pretty good job explaining planetary orbits, and even the orbit of comets. GR theory does a better job with respect to Mercury however. FYI, I personally embrace GR theory without all the "space expansion", "dark energy", "dark matter", "inflation" mumbo-jumbo. Most of the puttering around the solar system we've done thus far has been based on Newton's equations however.

By the way, it might be more appropriate (depending on which solar model you prefer) to think of the sun as a "generator' of current.

A large comet would have sent all the planets off their courses and the solar system would have fallen apart long ago, if it weren't for the strong electric field of the Sun, which re-stabilizes the whole system every time there is a disturbance.

Hmmm. I get the impression that you're underestimating the power of gravity theory mathematically, and overemphasizing the role of electricity with respect to the movement of large mass objects. It could be that EM fields "help" to keep things stable, but gravity does seem to dominate the physics of the solar system as various probes in space can attest. Nowhere did they include E fields in those equations to put objects on and around various objects in the solar system, and yet we've recently been able to do a flyby around Pluto, and land objects on comets. Don't underestimate the power of GR and Newton's equations.

The ionosphere is another obvious target. Positive charges from the Solar Wind accumulate in the upper atmosphere, while electrons go straight through the atmosphere and into the Earth. So we live in a powerful electric field with a huge charge separation. I read that the potential difference is 300v every 2m from Earth's surface. That calculates into millions of volts by the time you reach the ionosphere. Could gravity simply be this electric force pushing us to earth? We are made from the Earth, so have the same charge as the Earth. With 2 or 3 million volts above us, that would make it hard for anything made from the surface to leave the surface, even without gravity. Or maybe we just named that electric force gravity.

When we start talking about high energy plasma events around various objects in space, including the Earth, and including the atmosphere of the sun, *then* it's almost *necessary* to include the effects of E fields on objects in space. You're right that magnetospheric activity in general is best explain by circuit theory, and E fields. That's true of coronal loops, and everything related to high energy solar physics too.

For some reason, I can't come off a unified field theory, which says, all force fields are electric, or a side-effect of electric force.

Any inputs to further my understanding greatly appreciated.
~Paul

Since we can slam positrons and electrons together and generate subatomic particles, I think it's likely that the strong and weak nuclear forces will eventually be explained by EM fields.

The real "trick" IMO will be explaining gravity via EM fields. Until and unless that actually happens to my satisfaction, I'm fine with using GR to model objects and heavy plasmas in space. In fact I think to be taken seriously by the mainstream, it would benefit us greatly to include GR in next generation galaxy modeling studies.

[seasmith]

-with the emphasis on "real"


Do the experiments first, then worry about terminologies.

[Webbman]

heres other pics of ferrofluid.

how do you account for the spikes? Still looks like lines to me and these pics are real as well. Wouldn't spikes suggest lines as opposed to a continuous field?

Seasmith: It looks arranged like a north-south bar magnet as a comparison but to me it looks like a magnetized bar or disk and were looking through its thickness not length (poles on the sides not ends)...

[querious]

Wouldn't spikes suggest lines as opposed to a continuous field?

The spikes are just a 3D version of iron filings.

Actually, these phenomena are a great example of spontaneous symmetry breaking. A continuous field is made to look like discreet lines having a particular distribution in space, when really the "clumping" is just based on the random initial distribution of the filings/fluid.

[comingfrom]

Thanks again Michael.

I have faith in the equations too. They were made by observing the motions, so they should work. But my intuitive feeling is that the equations attribute all the force to gravity and none to EM, where as in reality, a great proportion of the force is EM. Mathis is working on separating the distinctive forces represented by F in Newton's equation, in the link provided by Daniel. He appears to be on to it.

I thought stability was a outstanding problem in the gravity model. I'm sure I remember reading about it from at least couple of sources, a long time ago, but when I search I can't find it now. Instead I see astronomers are happy with notion of planetary ejection due to "gravitational interactions". But the chances of the ejected planet ever being captured by a star system again is very small. The volume of space is just too "staggering". (My thought: Wouldn't they just follow the first "magnetic highway" they stumble upon, and be led to a star?)

Maybe I was reading about the three body problem, but I thought they had modeled the solar system, and the model showed that any large disturbance would cause the planets to careen into chaos. Maybe that problem went away when the chances of an incoming planet was shown to be so small.

In fact I think to be taken seriously by the mainstream, it would benefit us greatly to include GR in next generation galaxy modeling studies.

Mathis is a good read, if you haven't read him yet. He working on making subtle corrections, which will help make Newton's and Einstein's equations work at all levels, from quantum to galactic. As he put it, We cannot completely abandon and replace the equations worked so well for us, but we have to find the problems with them. He claims to have solved a number of problems with his mathematical adjustments.

Thank you, Seasmith,

but I am tending to agree with Webbman's comment. There are no radial patterns at the poles on the bar on the left, as there aught to be if they were N and S lobes.

Thank you, Webbman.

I am not fully convinced. Not yet. There are other forces to take into consideration. Surface tension. Viscosity. Looks good though.

Could you put a drop of that ferrofluid on a really powerful electromagnet, and turn it on high power?
I want to see those spikes stand right out long and thin, and curved.
(*I just thought of my next google search*)

[seasmith]

~

Here's a magflux field in motion (1 minute clip) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8llkHQtaOlg



Here are classic 'merged' magflux fields, just for ref:



https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cUy5T8sH454/maxresdefault.jpg

[Webbman]

I suppose I should say that when I think of field lines, I don't think of large strings per say but rather subatomic filaments which is heat with an alignment basically attaching one electron to another.

Since I view the aether as heat and heat as a single strand of wild force, a magnetic filament is formed when there is an alignment within the aether between two electrons.

I also believe that is why heat is the mortal enemy of magnetism.

In space even in the coldest regions there is still some heat.

[querious]

I suppose I should say that when I think of field lines, I don't think of large strings per say but rather subatomic filaments which is heat with an alignment basically attaching one electron to another.

Since I view the aether as heat and heat as a single strand of wild force, a magnetic filament is formed when there is an alignment within the aether between two electrons.

I also believe that is why heat is the mortal enemy of magnetism.

In space even in the coldest regions there is still some heat.

Heat has nothing to do with magnetism, except for the fact that heat can cause the electrons the vibrate so much that their spins can't point collectively in the same direction, which is all permanent magnetism is.