Good news, everyone

[crawler]

Roshi commented "Can anyone explain what's a "field"? Wikipedia is not really helping."

Great question!

For a "field" we need to distinguish between the 2 fundamental fields, electrostatic/electrical and magnetic.

I can give my version of a definition of each:

Electrical/electrostatic field: The area in space that lies parallel to the movement or polar orientation of a charged particle (proton/electron/subatomic particle) whereby a parallel force will be applied to a second charged particle that lies within the space.

Magnetic: The area in space that lies perpendicular to the movement or polar orientation of a charged particle (proton/electron/subatomic particle) whereby a perpendicular force will be applied to a second charged particle that lies within the space.

U have ignored the static/electro-static kind.

[galaxy12]

Crawler states: "U have ignored the static/electro-static kind."

Please consider reading my post again. You should find what you are looking for.

[crawler]

Crawler states: "U have ignored the static/electro-static kind."

Please consider reading my post again. You should find what you are looking for.

u said...........
..............."Electrical/electrostatic field: The area in space that lies parallel to the movement or polar orientation of a charged particle (proton/electron/subatomic particle) whereby a parallel force will be applied to a second charged particle that lies within the space."

Ok, u said that polar orientation gives (can give) a parallel force to a second charged particle.
But, we know that orientation is not a factor.
And, we know that even if it were a factor the force is not parallel (in any case, parallel to what?).

[galaxy12]

Crawler states "Ok, u said that polar orientation gives (can give) a parallel force to a second charged particle.
But, we know that orientation is not a factor."

Please provide evidence to support your assertion that polar orientation of a charged particle is not a factor in the direction of electrostatic forces."

Crawler states "And, we know that even if it were a factor the force is not parallel (in any case, parallel to what?)."

As I stated, electrostatic/electrical forces are parallel to the direction of travel and/or polar orientation of a charged particle.

[crawler]

Crawler states "Ok, u said that polar orientation gives (can give) a parallel force to a second charged particle.
But, we know that orientation is not a factor."

Please provide evidence to support your assertion that polar orientation of a charged particle is not a factor in the direction of electrostatic forces."

Crawler states "And, we know that even if it were a factor the force is not parallel (in any case, parallel to what?)."

As I stated, electrostatic/electrical forces are parallel to the direction of travel and/or polar orientation of a charged particle.

But an electrostatic force has no direction of travel.
And a single charge has no pole or poles (at least not in a static sense). Unless the particle has more than one charge.
And electrostatic forces between unit charges are always center to center.

I dont recall any skoolkid lecture re charge attraction or repulsion ever including any kind of caveat re the possible orientation of a unit charge.

[purplepete]

Purpete wrote "Even Einstein believed photons are particles; otherwise the photoelectric effect doesn't work. If you don't believe in photons being particles, then how do you explain why solar cells produce electricity? Also, presumably if you don't believe photons are particles you believe they are waves, in which case what are they waves in? Waves are, by definition, disturbances in an underlying medium. What is the medium? Standard physics proclaims the aether doesn't exist, but then gives "spacetime" aether properties under a different name, but then either version of the aether still needs it to be made up of particles for waves to exist..."

This particle vs wave discussion has lasted over 200 years.

The biggest issue I have with photons being particles is that some electromagnetic wavelengths can be miles or even light-years long due to their low frequency. If electromagnetic waves (light,etc) are composed of photon particles, then we have to envision a photon that varies in size and can be light-years long. I have trouble envisioning a photon that large.

OK, I agree that envisioning a large photon is an issue, but only if you assume that the wavelength is a fundamental physical property of a photon. The wavelength of a photon is something that we can not directly measure; we can only indirectly measure it via instruments. So, what are the instruments measuring?

For example, let's say that we have a pencil with a match attached to one end perpendicularly, with the red phosphorus end sticking out. So, if we look end-on at the pencil and rotate it then you see a small circle in the middle, a whitish stick moving around like a clock hand, and a red dot on the outside.

But what happens if our instrument could only see red objects? In that case all it sees is a small red dot rotating in a circle. Let's now move the pencil smoothly from left to right in the field of view of the instrument (or the other way) whilst it still rotates, and move it a metre in a second. Then what do we see if we record the location of the red dot? A sine wave, with wavelength one metre. Voila; we have particle with a wavelength that is over 100 times the size of the particle itself. Make it move faster and you can end up with a huge wavelength, but still the result of a small particle in motion.

That is basically the explanation of Miles; the wavelengths fall out naturally from his charge field particles (and composite particles like photons) - rather than being a field wave (i.e. a movement in an underlying sea of particles, which standard physics requires but never admits) it is a spin wave - the result of our measurement of a small particle moving laterally whilst at the same time spinning. For a lot more details see Miles's paper
http://milesmathis.com/freq.pdf

[galaxy12]

Purplepete wrote "OK, I agree that envisioning a large photon is an issue, but only if you assume that the wavelength is a fundamental physical property of a photon. The wavelength of a photon is something that we can not directly measure; we can only indirectly measure it via instruments. So, what are the instruments measuring?"

If this model works for you then I think you should continue using it. My mind works visually and I need a model of understanding physics that can easily be easily visualized. This is the reason I developed a visual model of electromagnetic interactions. Using the visual model model, I can quickly visualize complex interactions and determine the final result. Not everyone is a visual thinker. Some people prefer mathematics to give them the right answer. Unfortunately, mathematics can be manipulated and distorted, sending scientists down the wrong path such as black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy, etc. It can take generations for scientists to overcome mistakes of mathematical models. Visual models, on the other hand, are more easily verified for accuracy. If scientists are using the visual model of electromagnetic interactions that I developed and it delivers an incorrect result, they can easily find out where the model failed and work on updating the model.

[galaxy12]

Purplepete wrote "For example, let's say that we have a pencil with a match attached to one end perpendicularly, with the red phosphorus end sticking out. So, if we look end-on at the pencil and rotate it then you see a small circle in the middle, a whitish stick moving around like a clock hand, and a red dot on the outside.
But what happens if our instrument could only see red objects? In that case all it sees is a small red dot rotating in a circle. Let's now move the pencil smoothly from left to right in the field of view of the instrument (or the other way) whilst it still rotates, and move it a metre in a second. Then what do we see if we record the location of the red dot? A sine wave, with wavelength one metre. Voila; we have particle with a wavelength that is over 100 times the size of the particle itself. Make it move faster and you can end up with a huge wavelength, but still the result of a small particle in motion."

It sounds like you have, at least partially, developed a way to visualize an electromagnetic wave using your model. The real test is to apply the model to real world situations and determine if it simplifies your understanding. For example, I used my visual model of electromagnetic interactions of sub-photons and applied it to Alfven's "unipolar inductor" hypothesis. As far as I know, neither Alfven or anyone else has ever detailed how his "unipolar inductor" might actually generate electricity. I have not come across any proposals that show the underlying physics behind the electricity generation of the hypothetical "unipolar inductor." Using the visual model I developed, I could easily visualize the complex interactions of the flowing plasma currents and determine whether there is a sound physical basis for the unipolar inductor's energy generation. Although my visual model of electromagnetic interactions uses hypothetical particles called sub-photons to help with visualization, I can easily convert the interactions I learn back into common physical terms that all scientists can understand. I do not need to use the term "sub-photon" when I describe interactions. Within a short time, I was able to visualize the "unipolar inductor" and describe in common physical terms as to how this inductor would work. I was only able to do this using my model described here:

https://www.techrxiv.org/users/706631/a ... ub-photons

If you want to test your model, you might first start with something simple like an antenna. Current flows through a wire, the current changes direction, and an electromagnetic wave is produced and propagates through space. Try to use your model in explaining this phenomenon and compare your explanation to the current scientific explanation. If your model gives a simpler explanation than current science then I would suggest it is successful. Once you feel comfortable that your model is applicable to simple electrical phenomenon, then apply the model to more complex interactions such as plasma physics. My model has undergone these evolutionary steps and I now feel confident in the results. In my opinion, all physical models should undergo testing like this.

[galaxy12]

Crawler states "But an electrostatic force has no direction of travel.
And a single charge has no pole or poles (at least not in a static sense). Unless the particle has more than one charge.
And electrostatic forces between unit charges are always center to center."

My model of electromagnetism is not trying to reinvent anything. It is designed primarily to simplify learning electromagnetic interactions using visual tools. The principles described in my model such as electricity, electrostatics and magnetism are not new and are consistent with basic understanding since the 1800's such as those proposed by Weber, Maxwell, Faraday, Lorentz, etc.

Since I prefer to learn and explain visually, these images may help explain the basic principles:

Referring to your question about electrostatics, this image shows a capacitor that is charged by a battery:



This image shows the polarization of a dielectric medium between the positive and negative plates of a charged capacitor:



This image shows how an individual atoms becomes polarized by an electric field:



I hope this helps your understanding.

[crawler]

Crawler states "But an electrostatic force has no direction of travel.
And a single charge has no pole or poles (at least not in a static sense). Unless the particle has more than one charge.
And electrostatic forces between unit charges are always center to center."

My model of electromagnetism is not trying to reinvent anything. It is designed primarily to simplify learning electromagnetic interactions using visual tools. The principles described in my model such as electricity, electrostatics and magnetism are not new and are consistent with basic understanding since the 1800's such as those proposed by Weber, Maxwell, Faraday, Lorentz, etc.

Since I prefer to learn and explain visually, these images may help explain the basic principles:

Referring to your question about electrostatics, this image shows a capacitor that is charged by a battery:

This image shows the polarization of a dielectric medium between the positive and negative plates of a charged capacitor:

This image shows how an individual atoms becomes polarized by an electric field:

I hope this helps your understanding.

All of that looks ok, or at least it looks to me like the standard explanation (which is wrong)(which i think i have explained on this forum).
But i am puzzled, how can it help my understanding?
In particular, how duz it answer my queries re static electricity?

[galaxy12]

Crawler states "All of that looks ok, or at least it looks to me like the standard explanation (which is wrong)..."

As I explained earlier, I use a visual model of to help myself understand physics and electromagnetism more intuitively. It has accelerated my understanding of electromagnetism and physics significantly and I have even self-learned plasma physics using it. The results of my model agree with experimental evidence and agree with the "standard explanation" as you describe. I would urge you to not consider different models as right or wrong but instead to consider which ones help you predict experimental results faster. My biggest problems with most "standard explanations" is not that they are wrong but they require so much time and effort to predict experimental results. If your model works for you and you can quickly and accurately predict results of experiments, then I would suggest you continue using it. It may be that your model works best with your thought processes and is therefore a good match for you.

[crawler]

Crawler states "All of that looks ok, or at least it looks to me like the standard explanation (which is wrong)..."

As I explained earlier, I use a visual model of to help myself understand physics and electromagnetism more intuitively. It has accelerated my understanding of electromagnetism and physics significantly and I have even self-learned plasma physics using it. The results of my model agree with experimental evidence and agree with the "standard explanation" as you describe. I would urge you to not consider different models as right or wrong but instead to consider which ones help you predict experimental results faster. My biggest problems with most "standard explanations" is not that they are wrong but they require so much time and effort to predict experimental results. If your model works for you and you can quickly and accurately predict results of experiments, then I would suggest you continue using it. It may be that your model works best with your thought processes and is therefore a good match for you.

I never create models. All of my stuff has always been reality only (i think), created by me (uzually based a little or a lot on the work of my heroes).
All models are wrong re reality. Models simply give goodish numbers. That is their job.
Physics is about reality. However, reality rarely gives numbers, for numbers we need models.

[purplepete]

Purplepete wrote <stuff>

It sounds like you have, at least partially, developed a way to visualize an electromagnetic wave using your model. The real test is to apply the model to real world situations and determine if it simplifies your understanding. For example, I used my visual model of electromagnetic interactions of sub-photons and applied it to Alfven's "unipolar inductor" hypothesis. As far as I know, neither Alfven or anyone else has ever detailed how his "unipolar inductor" might actually generate electricity. I have not come across any proposals that show the underlying physics behind the electricity generation of the hypothetical "unipolar inductor." Using the visual model I developed, I could easily visualize the complex interactions of the flowing plasma currents and determine whether there is a sound physical basis for the unipolar inductor's energy generation. Although my visual model of electromagnetic interactions uses hypothetical particles called sub-photons to help with visualization, I can easily convert the interactions I learn back into common physical terms that all scientists can understand. I do not need to use the term "sub-photon" when I describe interactions. Within a short time, I was able to visualize the "unipolar inductor" and describe in common physical terms as to how this inductor would work. I was only able to do this using my model described here:

https://www.techrxiv.org/users/706631/a ... ub-photons

If you want to test your model, you might first start with something simple like an antenna. Current flows through a wire, the current changes direction, and an electromagnetic wave is produced and propagates through space. Try to use your model in explaining this phenomenon and compare your explanation to the current scientific explanation. If your model gives a simpler explanation than current science then I would suggest it is successful. Once you feel comfortable that your model is applicable to simple electrical phenomenon, then apply the model to more complex interactions such as plasma physics. My model has undergone these evolutionary steps and I now feel confident in the results. In my opinion, all physical models should undergo testing like this.

OK, just to be clear - this is not my model. This is the model primarily developed by Miles Mathis, which is the best I've found in 50 years of searching for explaining many areas of physics, and the only one I've found that explains elemental properties (SAM is on the right track, but still suffers from the assumption that particles are distinct, so requires magic electrons that can change size et al) consistently and coherently. If I find a better model I'll be pushing that one.

I've already touched on Miles's explanation for electricity and magnetism based on the underlying charge particles, which are not a million miles away from your sub-photons - although I note you use a planetary model for your sub-photons with multiple particles in the one orbit and a larger central particle, which begs several questions such as what they are made of, how come you have multiple particles in the one orbit, what keeps them from disrupting each other, what determines the size of the orbit, et al. Also you talk about electrons and "holes" - holes do not exist (by definition); they're an example of one of the many things wrong in the conventional model of physics - and how they are pushed along a wire to form a current. But we already know from hall effect devices that electrons et al are moving too slowly in a wire to explain electricity (which flows at c or close to it).

I'd also like to know how you can "easily convert the interactions <you> learn back into common physical terms that all scientists can understand", as they look to me like they preclude each other.

For Miles's model of how current flows into a wired circuit see:
http://milesmathis.com/seft.pdf

Note that I will continue to push the main advantage of Miles's model in that it admits to an underlying huge sea of very small, but physically real (i.e. having dimensions and mass, unlike many fake standard physics "particles") particles that make up everything AND are constantly passing THROUGH everything at c or close to it. This means that EVERYTHING is connected at a fundamental level, and this then explains many of the properties of "space", in addition to getting rid of the need for dodgy "shut up and calculate" QM, and also helps fix the issues with "action at a distance" and problems with Le Sage-like gravity models which I see you reference. Le Sage and co were on the right track, but because they assumed that there were particles constantly bouncing off things, rather than passing through things, there are several issues with their models which is why they have been ignored.

[crawler]

Purplepete wrote <stuff>

It sounds like you have, at least partially, developed a way to visualize an electromagnetic wave using your model. The real test is to apply the model to real world situations and determine if it simplifies your understanding. For example, I used my visual model of electromagnetic interactions of sub-photons and applied it to Alfven's "unipolar inductor" hypothesis. As far as I know, neither Alfven or anyone else has ever detailed how his "unipolar inductor" might actually generate electricity. I have not come across any proposals that show the underlying physics behind the electricity generation of the hypothetical "unipolar inductor." Using the visual model I developed, I could easily visualize the complex interactions of the flowing plasma currents and determine whether there is a sound physical basis for the unipolar inductor's energy generation. Although my visual model of electromagnetic interactions uses hypothetical particles called sub-photons to help with visualization, I can easily convert the interactions I learn back into common physical terms that all scientists can understand. I do not need to use the term "sub-photon" when I describe interactions. Within a short time, I was able to visualize the "unipolar inductor" and describe in common physical terms as to how this inductor would work. I was only able to do this using my model described here:

https://www.techrxiv.org/users/706631/a ... ub-photons

If you want to test your model, you might first start with something simple like an antenna. Current flows through a wire, the current changes direction, and an electromagnetic wave is produced and propagates through space. Try to use your model in explaining this phenomenon and compare your explanation to the current scientific explanation. If your model gives a simpler explanation than current science then I would suggest it is successful. Once you feel comfortable that your model is applicable to simple electrical phenomenon, then apply the model to more complex interactions such as plasma physics. My model has undergone these evolutionary steps and I now feel confident in the results. In my opinion, all physical models should undergo testing like this.

OK, just to be clear - this is not my model. This is the model primarily developed by Miles Mathis, which is the best I've found in 50 years of searching for explaining many areas of physics, and the only one I've found that explains elemental properties (SAM is on the right track, but still suffers from the assumption that particles are distinct, so requires magic electrons that can change size et al) consistently and coherently. If I find a better model I'll be pushing that one.

I've already touched on Miles's explanation for electricity and magnetism based on the underlying charge particles, which are not a million miles away from your sub-photons - although I note you use a planetary model for your sub-photons with multiple particles in the one orbit and a larger central particle, which begs several questions such as what they are made of, how come you have multiple particles in the one orbit, what keeps them from disrupting each other, what determines the size of the orbit, et al. Also you talk about electrons and "holes" - holes do not exist (by definition); they're an example of one of the many things wrong in the conventional model of physics - and how they are pushed along a wire to form a current. But we already know from hall effect devices that electrons et al are moving too slowly in a wire to explain electricity (which flows at c or close to it).

I'd also like to know how you can "easily convert the interactions <you> learn back into common physical terms that all scientists can understand", as they look to me like they preclude each other.

For Miles's model of how current flows into a wired circuit see:
http://milesmathis.com/seft.pdf

Note that I will continue to push the main advantage of Miles's model in that it admits to an underlying huge sea of very small, but physically real (i.e. having dimensions and mass, unlike many fake standard physics "particles") particles that make up everything AND are constantly passing THROUGH everything at c or close to it. This means that EVERYTHING is connected at a fundamental level, and this then explains many of the properties of "space", in addition to getting rid of the need for dodgy "shut up and calculate" QM, and also helps fix the issues with "action at a distance" and problems with Le Sage-like gravity models which I see you reference. Le Sage and co were on the right track, but because they assumed that there were particles constantly bouncing off things, rather than passing through things, there are several issues with their models which is why they have been ignored.

Miles says that in some instances electricity is due to photons (not electrons) mooving along a wire.
This is similar to my elektons which give us my elekticity.

[Aardwolf]

The biggest issue I have with photons being particles is that some electromagnetic wavelengths can be miles or even light-years long due to their low frequency. If electromagnetic waves (light,etc) are composed of photon particles, then we have to envision a photon that varies in size and can be light-years long. I have trouble envisioning a photon that large.

Wavelength measures the distance between the peaks in the wave so you can have a wavelength 100 billion light years and the photon still sit on a pin head. I think you are confusing wavelength with wave amplitude.