Mathematical model for the electric universe

[JouniJokela]

which is why when I hear tales of "antimatter" I usually call bullshit.

I agree. Its the field that jiggles the electron but the work is done by the force generated by the field.
I would more specifically say that electrons transfer kinetic energy, actually the field carries the kinetic energy and work (force) is expressed by its interaction with mass...

It doesn't change anything in nature, but I agree here too.
Antimatter is truly bullshit, but if you claim something as bullshit, it's just practical to be able to tell why it is;
This is caused by the 2/1 ratio for "Field" / "kinetic" Strength.
As if this ratio is believed to be 1/1, as it's stated with ie E=mc^2, you need to have antimatter to "annihilate" the extra 1 of these "2". Or other vice your math doesn't agree with the experiment.
If we just leave the mass away, and define the physics through Froude-number, this all comes more simple.
To conclude this; "antimatter" is bullshit, but to keep the equations in balance, you need to find and remove the the "bullshit" from both sides. And Mass is the "bullshit" on the other side. Actually this shit is present all over in physics.

I also agree with the statement that "Electrons transfers kinetic energy".
Actually I even agree with the statement "interactions with mass", I just want to point out that there is no universal mass which can be measured as "Kilograms" in the Universum. But As I understand what you mean with the word "mass" here, I still can agree with you.

[Lloyd]

How about this?
Play Games with Me. I invite you and others to my new thread on improving science and science discussion at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 41#p112941. I started a game there, called Doutery. Its purpose is to improve critical thinking and science discussion. I want to practice the game with other critical thinkers and improve the game enough to perhaps have an effect on improving science. The game will have to be FUN in order to succeed. To me it will probably be fun already, but for others it may need tinkering with to make it much better. So I hope you can take a little time to post there for a while, like for a few days or weeks, if you like. I submitted Big Bang as a theory for Doutery, but feel free to submit other theories, even including your own, if you like. We're not trying to disprove any theory, but only to find the best counter-evidence to theories. That should help improve critical thinking, which science greatly needs, I think. Right?

[upriver]

which is why when I hear tales of "antimatter" I usually call bullshit.

I agree. Its the field that jiggles the electron but the work is done by the force generated by the field.
I would more specifically say that electrons transfer kinetic energy, actually the field carries the kinetic energy and work (force) is expressed by its interaction with mass...

It doesn't change anything in nature, but I agree here too.
Antimatter is truly bullshit, but if you claim something as bullshit, it's just practical to be able to tell why it is;
This is caused by the 2/1 ratio for "Field" / "kinetic" Strength.
As if this ratio is believed to be 1/1, as it's stated with ie E=mc^2, you need to have antimatter to "annihilate" the extra 1 of these "2". Or other vice your math doesn't agree with the experiment.
If we just leave the mass away, and define the physics through Froude-number, this all comes more simple.
To conclude this; "antimatter" is bullshit, but to keep the equations in balance, you need to find and remove the the "bullshit" from both sides. And Mass is the "bullshit" on the other side. Actually this shit is present all over in physics.

I also agree with the statement that "Electrons transfers kinetic energy".
Actually I even agree with the statement "interactions with mass", I just want to point out that there is no universal mass which can be measured as "Kilograms" in the Universum. But As I understand what you mean with the word "mass" here, I still can agree with you.

Yep. Mass is matter with some vector of kinetic energy attached to it, or resistance to kinetic energy......

In looking for a an explanation for Podkletnovs beam device I ran across this paper here...

The highly resistive, crystallized MgO tunneling barrier (see Fig. 1(c) for a typical TEM cross section of the film stacks) ensures a large spin polarization of the tunneling electrons, which helps to overcome the challenge of conductance-mismatch caused reduction in spin signal (or spin injection) that may have plagued some of the reported electrical measurements. The use of a thick barrier also avoids the introduction of magnetic impurities into the TI surface as is in the FM/TI bilayer geometry. To inject spin-polarized electrons into the TSS, we apply AC currents across the tunnel junction between leads 1 and 3. Because of spin-momentum locking, the tunneling electrons gain 4 transverse velocities as they enter the TSS (see Fig. 1(d))"
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1410/1410.7494.pdf

So if macroscopic momentum spin locking is responsible for the right hand rule, then the inverse could be said to produce a momentum output...
Somehow a layered superconductor produces macroscopic locking of electrons into the same spin angle which produces a momentum output... Which is what we see with Podkletnov device, lightning, and other discharge phenomena....

There must a be some sort of formula that can describe this interaction...

Extraordinary momentum and spin in evanescent waves

"Thus, an exceptional evanescent- wave structure with pure spin transverse momentum offers a unique opportunity for the direct observation of this fundamental field-theory quantity, which was previously considered as ‘virtual’."
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/14030 ... s4300.html

[JouniJokela]

or resistance to kinetic energy

Yep. But what actually is "Resistance"?
I found following equations. (picture as an attachment)

The whole story is told here;
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... H_07102016

[lamare]

I guessed that, but that makes up only part of the model required. What are the equations you use for plasma cosmology?

Maxwell's equations need to be revised and re-derived from a basic aether model, which can be easily and naturally extended into an exceptionally elegant :"theory of everything":

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/ ... Everything

It seems this can be easily implemented in existing fluid dynamic simulation software, such as OpenFoam, for example:

http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/electr ... nfoam.html

And since this theory covers both electromagnetics as well as gravity, while ditching "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces, herewith we have a simple set of equations valid from the sub-atomic all the way up to aether cosmology...