Overlapping Fields

[kodybatill]

Thanks! Well I speak about hydrogen, not in the sense that it is a fuel to be burned, but rather that it already contains inside of itself bands of information of all other elements.

Type of Hydrogen exists in the very center of Suns that completely leaves the red of stars (the red of stars is itself replacing the invisible rays of protons with the colors around their opposites of the neutrons that are in matter.) This type of hydrogen in the center of suns uses neutrons to completely leave the red, not able to, and so leaves behind all colors around their opposites using invisible rays like protons.

Then the Hydrogen as it exists around suns is moving closer to the red type energy from the stars, which itself is replacing the invisible rays of protons with the colors around their opposites of the neutrons that are in matter. This creates a red spectrum type energy from the stars I believe, and the hydrogen found AROUND suns moves closer to it with all colors around their opposites of electrons, while taking colors around their opposites with invisible rays that break apart.

I propose that when this energy reaches Earth:

1: It starts moving closer to earthly heavy water with electrons, then takes colors around their opposites from it with invisible rays that break apart.
2: Then the information from the suns starts to replace the invisible rays that don't break apart (protons) of earthly heavy water, with the neutrons of earthly heavy water.
3: The information then uses the hydrogen that is found to hold together all other hydrogens, to then replace the slower colors around their opposites of the electrons of this hydrogen, with the invisible rays that break apart, and then replacing that with another slower step of all colors around their opposites, of another electron.

I believe that all of this speaks to how hydrogen is used in different types of plasma...... which itself is only the variation between whole numbers both negative and positive, fractions which break apart because of moving too slow, and the equilibrium of all of these forces creating a window of time where energy and matter are equal.

The first one is like when three stars in a line blink in order. That is moving light through each-other very fast, and is the whole numbers negative or positive.
The second one is when the first two star blink at the same time and the last star doesn't. This is moving some light back from the last star, to the first two. This is like using fractions that break apart because of moving too slow.
Then the third one is the exact opposite of the first. The last star blinks, then the middle one, then the first one. This is moving significantly more light back to the first star than what was first sent. This is the moment when matter and energy are equal, as matter stops being a fraction and burning up, while the energy stops using either positive or negative numbers for a moment, instead using both at the same time.

I just took a shot at this, so please someone in the know, lets see if I am correct!

Joy and health to your thoughts, and peace!

[webolife]

what your getting at is the transference of wave energy from one place to another. The ruler example is through kinetic energy through the material of the ruler and the second is light energy through the flashlight. Both are the same transmission of waves along force strands using different methods to hit the wall.

I'm sorry, I simply don't understand what you are saying.
How do force strands wave?
Kinetic energy through the material?
Transmission of waves along force strands?
Light energy through the flashlight?
Different methods?

And with Kody's comments, I'm afraid this thread is off a track I can continue to keep racing on...

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Chan.

I've been reading elsewhere for a while, please excuse the delay.
I am now ready to answer your reply.

I think your position and mine are different. You are talking about concepts and facts that the EU community have accepted but which are not yet in the textbooks. I am only following the elementary concepts from the textbooks.

Langmuir is in the textbooks, both in the history books (for winning a Nobel prize), and in the physics books. So is measuring voltages using a Langmuir probe.

I also see the postulate of an electric Universe as being based on elementary textbook science, even though the textbooks won't contain that postulate.

The relation between electric field E and voltage V(scalar potential difference) comes from : E = - ∇V; so V is also a field, but a scalar field in space. I would say E and V are mathematical constructs in our models to describe nature and they have no physical reality. All electromagnetic phenomena comes finally from space, time, charge and the aether.

As to changes in voltage in space (scalar potential function in space), of course, there would be a unit of measurement of a physical concept whenever one is introduced into physics. In the simple case of a current flowing through a length of copper wire connected to a battery, we know there is a voltage drop along the wire; we need to use a voltmeter. But I am not sure that just because making use of a gadget to collect signals between two points along the wire would imply that voltage has physical reality.

To me, if it can be physically measured in the field, it does imply that voltage has a physical reality.

Maybe, we may see things this way. The concept of voltage is a very recent thing after we discover electricity. It is formalized in what is now know as electromagnetism using mathematics as the language tool. But space, time, charge and the aether existed since the beginning of the universe - so this is the reason why voltage, and even energy, may not rank as having physical reality.

You put a lot effort to convince me that voltage has no (or may not have) physical reality, but saying they existed since the beginning is saying they have physical reality. Even energy and voltage existed since the beginning, long before we started measuring them.

Our representations (our math and concepts) of reality may not be accurate yet, but as you say, reality exists.
And measuring voltage is as real as measuring distance. Both are done in the field. (But energy, like velocity, has to be calculated.)
Physics does not have the mechanical explanation for what voltage is yet [in the textbooks]. Nor for charge. But the reason these are in physics is because they are known to have physical reality (and physics is supposed to be in the business of trying to explain physical reality).

Or do we say all waves in physics have physicality. Then, what about the complex waves in QM?

If Quantum Mechanics isn't describing the mechanical properties of physical reality anymore, then what is it describing?

Magnetic field by itself has no physicality.

I think your iron filings will disagree with you.

And as for the aether, that elementary concept is not in the textbooks anymore. Is it?
(I notice it doesn't even have an entry in the spellchecker, lol)
~Paul

[comingfrom]

what your getting at is the transference of wave energy from one place to another. The ruler example is through kinetic energy through the material of the ruler and the second is light energy through the flashlight. Both are the same transmission of waves along force strands using different methods to hit the wall.

I'm sorry, I simply don't understand what you are saying.
How do force strands wave?
Kinetic energy through the material?
Transmission of waves along force strands?
Light energy through the flashlight?
Different methods?

And with Kody's comments, I'm afraid this thread is off a track I can continue to keep racing on...

I've been following. You explain well.

I can see your strands as a kind of aether for propagating waves, even as the building blocks of matter, but what I can't see in your strands model, is how large masses, like Suns and planets, line up the strands to create the attractive force fields we call gravity.

I can't see how a planet might cause the strands to line up, nor how lined up strands can effect such immense attractive force at the macro scale. Seems to me, large masses swirling through the strands in space would even be disruptive to their alignments, if they were aligned by a field.
Can you run with that?

~Paul

[Webbman]

magnetic alignment is pretty straight forward. Strands align from one pole to the other to form circuits which stabilizes the wave pattern. An electron ring does the same thing because it is also a circuit,

gravity is more complex because much of what we think is gravity is (in my opinion) actually a mass gradient. You fall through everything you can fall through. I do believe though that the real effect of gravity is at the interface of the planet and space, which of course forms rings or bands that push everything in to the center.

It is a situation where we have the mass of the earth as like a massive empty potential sort of like a heater that's turned off, and when you open the switch the heater tries to absorb or draw all the wave energy it can to achieve equilibrium. Of course it can never achieve this as long as the voltage/pressure is maintained from the energy source.

so to the earth Is a much larger heating element and it will attempt to reach equilibrium with everything within the bands (a switch of sorts). So you will be electrically attracted( the wave energy will try to reach equilibrium on a fundamental level) while you are in the bands and then when you cross the mass gradient takes care of the rest. I suppose that there are bands that reach to the moon and maybe beyond.

you also have to consider that everything a concentration of stranding and thus more concentration equals more potential for wave action. So a single strand is expressed as heat, two strands (and possibly more) in a ring an electron, and a proton a massive sphere of strands (thus its huge requirement to reach equilibrium ( much like the heater example) or positive charge) and of course the neutron which is a proton with an electron ring (thus slightly heavier) embedded in it (like Saturn) as opposed to orbiting it. Where of course a rotating ring is a sphere.

anyway that's what I think.

[comingfrom]

Hi Kody.

There is hydrogen in the sun. The sun creates sound and light as a product of the hydrogen and other elements burning, or breaking apart and then dividing their own force. This sound and light flies through space, and even carries some physical particles with it. Now when this sound and light and particles from the hydrogen reaches earth, how does it change?

Some light and heat radiation passes through the atmosphere, and some is blocked by the atmosphere (or we would now be cooked ). But particles enter in at the poles, causing the aurora. Smaller particles, generally electrons, don't see the atmosphere as being much resistance, and pass through and go straight into the Earth. Larger particles such as cations are caught in the atmosphere, and distribute in a layer called the ionosphere. The ionosphere regularly leaks these particles into the lower atmosphere, where water tends to crystallize around them, due to their charge and the bipolar nature of water molecules. Eventually the ions fall to the Earth as rain, or lightning. The ions then capture electrons from the overly negatively charged Earth and neutralize.

~~~~
Next post.

I just took a shot at this, so please someone in the know, lets see if I am correct!

I wouldn't say I am someone in the know, but even I can tell, you cannot possibly be correct, except by your own presumptions.

You're speaking another language.
You use terms not with the accepted definitions, so who can tell what you are saying. You don't explain your definitions.

And your ideas are based on presumption.

Type of Hydrogen exists in the very center of Suns

Nobody knows for sure, what's in the center of a star. It's unlikely that we ever shall. But who knows, maybe one day in the distant future, mankind might be diving into the center of the Sun, or making one of his own.

that completely leaves the red of stars (the red of stars is itself replacing the invisible rays of protons with the colors around their opposites of the neutrons that are in matter.)

And this is where you lost everyone.

Not only are the definitions of simple terms like color and matter unclear in your theory, but the sentence doesn't follow grammatical rules, and so makes no sense.

And this continues on in your post.
Rather than just say, when the solar wind reaches earth,
you first give an incomprehensible talk about colors, and proton rays, and colors around opposites,
then say, when this energy reaches Earth...

Was your Sun made of Hydrogen, or of matter?

I propose that when this energy reaches Earth:

1: It starts moving closer to earthly heavy water with electrons, then takes colors around their opposites from it with invisible rays that break apart.

Ions are charged, and water is magnetized to them.

I propose that when this energy reaches Earth:

2: Then the information from the suns starts to replace the invisible rays that don't break apart (protons) of earthly heavy water, with the neutrons of earthly heavy water.

Water is H2O. But heavy water is deuterium oxide.

Some Oxygen escaping from the atmosphere does combine with protons from the solar wind, and this is a source of water, and other hydroxyls.

I propose that when this energy reaches Earth:

3: The information then uses the hydrogen that is found to hold together all other hydrogens, to then replace the slower colors around their opposites of the electrons of this hydrogen, with the invisible rays that break apart, and then replacing that with another slower step of all colors around their opposites, of another electron.

The solar wind is mostly free floating protons and electrons. There are also percentages of heavier elements, and dust particles.

A small amount of the solar wind is captured by the Earth's magnetosphere and is funneled in at the poles.

I believe that all of this speaks to how hydrogen is used in different types of plasma...... which itself is only the variation between whole numbers both negative and positive, fractions which break apart because of moving too slow, and the equilibrium of all of these forces creating a window of time where energy and matter are equal.

Any rarefied gas becomes a plasma, if you just add charge.

You can turn a solid into plasma, if you add enough energy.

The first one is like when three stars in a line blink in order. That is moving light through each-other very fast, and is the whole numbers negative or positive.
The second one is when the first two star blink at the same time and the last star doesn't. This is moving some light back from the last star, to the first two. This is like using fractions that break apart because of moving too slow.
Then the third one is the exact opposite of the first. The last star blinks, then the middle one, then the first one. This is moving significantly more light back to the first star than what was first sent. This is the moment when matter and energy are equal, as matter stops being a fraction and burning up, while the energy stops using either positive or negative numbers for a moment, instead using both at the same time.

Actually, this is more like when the three blind mice get together for a blinking competition.

They need a sighted mouse to be the judge.

Sorry to make a joke, but it was too hard to resist.
Why stars twinkle

Keep on reading
~Paul

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Webbman.

Seems similar to Miles Mathis' concept, only you have strands instead of spherical charge* photons.
And I have the same difficulty with his theory.
He gives a mechanical explanation for the charge field (a repulsive force) but if he gives a mechanical explanation for gravity (the attractive force) I haven't found it yet.

I can imagine how the two fields of two bodies repulse, when the two fields collide, but I still don't see how an attraction occurs. I think I understand what you are saying, about earth being like a heater. I think you mean it is like a load in an electrical circuit. But in my mind, that only sets up the earth's own circuit, and how many photons it can and will absorb, and emit. Could the induction of the electric circuits linking the Sun and earth be powerful enough to account for gravity? Would this not also mean, inter-body circuits are the cause of gravity between them, and would be required before any attraction begins between them? And would not gravity then be variable, as currents vary?

How about if we include webolife's centropic pressure (and thanks to Webolife for introducing me to the concept).

When two bodies come into the vicinity of each, they each mask some of the general centropic pressure (in your theory, that would be all the wild strands) which comes in from all sides from the wider Universe. Bit like being in each other's shadow, and photons are harder for earth to scavenge from the direction towards the Sun, since many of the photons in that direction belong to the Sun's circuit. So then there is somewhat less centropic pressure existing between any two bodies in near proximity, so they tend to get pushed together. But then, their own circuit fields counter that effect, when they get to a certain distance [and field density] by pushing against each other, and so we get orbital motions. And an elliptical orbit is an orbit that bounces a bit between these two pressures.

When earth moves out from the Sun, the centropic pressure (we call gravity) tends to push it back in on it's orbit again, and then, when it's momentum takes it too near the Sun, and the Sun's field pushes the earth outwards on it's orbit again. And so we have an elliptical orbit. Which is also a wave motion.

This way we only have push forces, caused by charge photons, which all matter emits in a recycling process. And gravity is dependent only upon the diameters of the attracting bodies, because their size determines how much photons of centropic pressure are blocked (or diverted) from reaching that side of the other body. The smaller body blocks less, and has less mass to move, so is pushed towards the larger body much more than the larger body is pushed towards the smaller body, which gives the appearance that the larger body has more attraction (gravity) than the smaller body.

Anyhow, that's where I'm up to, at the moment.
~Paul

* I do differentiate charge photons from light photons.
Maybe light energy carrying photons are just charge photons in a different (energized?) state, or maybe charge photons are a different order of size scale, to allow light to move through charge fields in straight lines, and without absorption or friction.

[kodybatill]

Yep I am quoting this, because I need to speak with (comingfrom), as an address to his notes on my writing. Some possible misconceptions on his end, and also, how he agrees with much of what I say. First I have to say that I am 22, not trained in science any more than I have cared to look at it from time to time, not knowing the true difference between an electron, a proton, a neutron, ect..... Forgetting most of what I ever knew about the little science I did know, I delved into The Ringing Cedars of Russia documentary series of books, with the hope of great knowledge held by an indigenous people who speaks of different rays that compose everything, and also mankind's unique ray. They go on to discuss to a man who they married into their people, about everything from the construction of ufo type flying vehicles, to the composition of the entire Universe. When I read through these books, one flaring thought was in my mind. Namely that scientists of the future will discover from their descriptions, the grand unified theory of everything. After years of helping on a grass-roots level of trying to forward the School of Happiness created by these books, The Family Party of free land for building food forest homes, the call for people to take back their motherland, I eventually hunkered down and started trying to decode some of the advanced imaged in these books. With it I bring to you all, just pieces of the great 540 page book I have compiled of the research, even about the nature of plasma physics.

Everyone: I will give keys or descriptions of each unfamiliar term. If you do not read them or address them, that is on your shoulders.

So please, let us take a look at what, comingfrom, is trying to say in his previous post:

Hi Kody.

There is hydrogen in the sun. The sun creates sound and light as a product of the hydrogen and other elements burning, or breaking apart and then dividing their own force. This sound and light flies through space, and even carries some physical particles with it. Now when this sound and light and particles from the hydrogen reaches earth, how does it change?

Some light and heat radiation passes through the atmosphere, and some is blocked by the atmosphere (or we would now be cooked ). But particles enter in at the poles, causing the aurora. Smaller particles, generally electrons, don't see the atmosphere as being much resistance, and pass through and go straight into the Earth. Larger particles such as cations are caught in the atmosphere, and distribute in a layer called the ionosphere. The ionosphere regularly leaks these particles into the lower atmosphere, where water tends to crystallize around them, due to their charge and the bipolar nature of water molecules. Eventually the ions fall to the Earth as rain, or lightning. The ions then capture electrons from the overly negatively charged Earth and neutralize.

I would like to make a prediction here based off of the knowledge I have obtained from the books I mentioned above, the one written by the indigenous people who have been staying away from our technocratic world. I have not studied else-where about what happens to the sound and light that comes from the hydrogen in the suns, as it passes through the Earth's atmosphere. So I would like to bring to the table the information that I have decoded into an image language. The elements that most represent energy from suns as it exists in Earth's atmosphere, I have come to call, Aspiration death. Now just hold on a moment everyone, these are words that are appropriate for where these elements came from, but not the most important in explaining to you all how this is related to Earthly sunlight. So I will decode this for you all. As I have discovered from these indigenous people, Aspiration death is an element which is MIMICKED by the sunlight that exists within the Earth's atmosphere. They say that it is the yellow of Earthly sun energy, which is the electron type energy of moving closer to earthly water, replaced by the invisible rays that break apart of taking colors around their opposites from the Earthly water. NOW I NEED TO POINT OUT, that, comingfrom's, description of what happens to energy from the sun as it passes through Earth is almost identical to how these indigenous people describe it. It is here: First a quote from comingfrom, "Larger particles such as cations are caught in the atmosphere, and distribute in a layer called the ionosphere."
"The ions then capture electrons from the overly negatively charged Earth and neutralize."
Now a quote from the internet: "Cations are positively charged ions. Formed when an atom loses electrons in a chemical reaction." WELL, this is probably a result of electrical reactions, but still, the Cation!
Now is this similar to how these indigenous people describe the yellow of Earthly sunlight? As they described: Electron TYPE energies of moving closer to earthly water (even if they are electron deprived) (the cations moving closer to earthly water), being replaced by the invisible rays that break apart.......... of taking from that water, colors around their opposites? The invisible rays that break apart are simply the forces that are breaking apart the cations, they are the opposite of the positrons, the electron neutrino: Article describing a little bit of both: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission But Please Keep Thinking! But WHAT is, colors around their opposites? I will describe here: Colors around their opposites (as described by these indigenous people) are proton type energies of thinking something is moving too fast, being replaced by neutron type energies of trying to slow that thing down. That is the very description, per the article above, of positrons! This is an amazing discovery to me!
So here I predict that as the energies from the sun move through the yellow sun energies stored on Earth, they are moving closer to earthly water with the electrons, while that is replaced by invisible rays that break apart (electron neutrino) of taking positrons (colors around their opposites) from the earthly water as the energy reaches down to Earth.
As per the description of these wise and extremely happy indigenous people, Earthly water itself, like the positron, is the proton of thinking something is moving too fast, being replaced with the neutron of trying to slow that thing down. This creates more positrons and electron neutrinos. I believe that this, along with the positrons and electron neutrinos created in the atmosphere, creates sort of a ladder, where the extra leaked ions of the atmosphere are let down to Earth, and then cancel out extra electrons that are around, taking in some of the positrons and electron neutrinos that the water left behind on Earth to fill themselves up, and to partially help co-create the ladder to the ground for these charged ions.

~~~~
Next post.

I just took a shot at this, so please someone in the know, lets see if I am correct!

I wouldn't say I am someone in the know, but even I can tell, you cannot possibly be correct, except by your own presumptions.

You're speaking another language.
You use terms not with the accepted definitions, so who can tell what you are saying. You don't explain your definitions.

And your ideas are based on presumption.

I believe I have proven above, that with no formal training in science, having learned the details about this from indigenous people, even how to compare these states to the particles and energies that science already talks about today, my ideas still do not quite fit as presumptions...... Some extra proof right here. There ARE Positrons in the atmosphere: https://gsuryalss.wordpress.com/tag/det ... tmosphere/

Type of Hydrogen exists in the very center of Suns

Nobody knows for sure, what's in the center of a star. It's unlikely that we ever shall. But who knows, maybe one day in the distant future, mankind might be diving into the center of the Sun, or making one of his own.

I believe there is a way to eventually know what is at the center of suns. It shouldn't be too hard! I believe that by using the different types of hydrogen in the Universe and it's isotopes together, we can measure what is at the center of suns. It will take a computer that might itself need to run off of new principles being understood about hydrogen.

that completely leaves the red of stars (the red of stars is itself replacing the invisible rays of protons with the colors around their opposites of the neutrons that are in matter.)

And this is where you lost everyone.

Not only are the definitions of simple terms like color and matter unclear in your theory, but the sentence doesn't follow grammatical rules, and so makes no sense.

And this continues on in your post.
Rather than just say, when the solar wind reaches earth,
you first give an incomprehensible talk about colors, and proton rays, and colors around opposites,
then say, when this energy reaches Earth...

Was your Sun made of Hydrogen, or of matter?

I am sorry I didn't explain myself clearly enough. I feel I have made up for that here. And personally, I wasn't talking with you about the origins of colors or matter, but instead how different energies of the Universe react with each-other, and yes some of that has to do with color, directly. Also, lets look at red-shift for a moment. I am going to throw this out there for passers-by who may be in the know, but I believe red-shift as seen in the stars is created before it reaches the Earth and even shows itself, when a force interacting with the stars is moving faster than them, and so the stars give a little bit of information to slow that force down. All we have to do is record the net energy coming from around stars in red-shift, see if the energy around it is moving faster than the star. Then we can also measure to see if those stars blue in appearance, are moving faster than the energy around them.
And so! I say that the red-shift, which is something moving too fast and so trying to slow it down at first, is more specifically, protons thinking something is moving too fast, being replaced by neutrons that slow them down, producing positrons, and electron neutrinos, or the basic colors of red-shift and even the blue color. The only difference is that the net majority of all energies on a star that is blue in color, is moving faster than the other energies that are around it. But still it needs to be known what the difference is then between Earthly water and the red of red-shift, if they are so similar, both replacing protons for neutrons to create positrons and electron neutrinos. I believe that the only difference is that earthly water is moving toward the Earth, and the red of red-shift (The indigenous people call it the red of eating as one breathes), moves away from Earth, even when being directed at Earth. This is all still predictions made during the discussions with these indigenous people. So the energy or current CREATING the energy required to produce the red-shift, is the protons of something moving quicker, replaced by the neutrons of trying to slow that thing down (similar but opposite to earthly water). Then that information of the red-shift is let go of and given off to Earth and else-where as the red-shift moves away from Earth in it's net over-all direction, yet some of the energy reaches the Earth at the same time, possibly through material around the star, even other stars, that are moving quicker than that star, propelling the red-shift away from itself and into space, because of being quicker than the first star, whether moving toward Earth or away from it. I will explain what I believe the blue in the blue-shift is later.

I propose that when this energy reaches Earth:

1: It starts moving closer to earthly heavy water with electrons, then takes colors around their opposites from it with invisible rays that break apart.

Ions are charged, and water is magnetized to them.

I describe what is addressed here in my first correction of your quotes.

I propose that when this energy reaches Earth:

2: Then the information from the suns starts to replace the invisible rays that don't break apart (protons) of earthly heavy water, with the neutrons of earthly heavy water.

Water is H2O. But heavy water is deuterium oxide.

Some Oxygen escaping from the atmosphere does combine with protons from the solar wind, and this is a source of water, and other hydroxyls.

I describe part of this also in my first comment here of your quotes.

I propose that when this energy reaches Earth:

3: The information then uses the hydrogen that is found to hold together all other hydrogens, to then replace the slower colors around their opposites of the electrons of this hydrogen, with the invisible rays that break apart, and then replacing that with another slower step of all colors around their opposites, of another electron.

The solar wind is mostly free floating protons and electrons. There are also percentages of heavier elements, and dust particles.

A small amount of the solar wind is captured by the Earth's magnetosphere and is funneled in at the poles.

Yes!!! And I think that is part of what I am describing here.

I believe that all of this speaks to how hydrogen is used in different types of plasma...... which itself is only the variation between whole numbers both negative and positive, fractions which break apart because of moving too slow, and the equilibrium of all of these forces creating a window of time where energy and matter are equal.

Any rarefied gas becomes a plasma, if you just add charge.

You can turn a solid into plasma, if you add enough energy.

Yes. Thank you.

The first one is like when three stars in a line blink in order. That is moving light through each-other very fast, and is the whole numbers negative or positive.
The second one is when the first two star blink at the same time and the last star doesn't. This is moving some light back from the last star, to the first two. This is like using fractions that break apart because of moving too slow.
Then the third one is the exact opposite of the first. The last star blinks, then the middle one, then the first one. This is moving significantly more light back to the first star than what was first sent. This is the moment when matter and energy are equal, as matter stops being a fraction and burning up, while the energy stops using either positive or negative numbers for a moment, instead using both at the same time.

Actually, this is more like when the three blind mice get together for a blinking competition.

They need a sighted mouse to be the judge.

Sorry to make a joke, but it was too hard to resist.
Why stars twinkle

Keep on reading
~Paul

[/quote]

Hay now, don't make excuses for not understanding!

If anyone is any more interested in hearing what I have learned from these indigenous people, hit me up! I have definitely learned some things about plasma physics, or things useful to plasma physics. I only search for those proficient enough in the desire to do good and to group create, in order to bring some of the things I have learned to the field...... Joy and health to your thoughts!

[Chan Rasjid]

Hello comingfrom,

EDIT: IAAAD - instanteneous action at a distance.

I did mention earlier that my proposition that fields in general have no physical reality is controversial. But I think it is an important issue that may have deep ramification in physics. If fields somehow have no physical reality, a lot of current physics have to be discarded, especially in electromagnetism - magnetism, poynting vector and other EM field energy propagation of mainstream physics. Many do hold the view that much of current electromagnetism is wrong.

As I said earlier, we have to distinguish between the use of "physical reality" in everyday life and in physics. To the karate master, force definitely is real and physical - even deadly real. But in Newtonian physics :
force = mass * 2nd rate of change of (distance/time) or (space/time). Here, only mass, space, time have physical reality in the universe; force has not.

Consider just Newtonian dynamics and gravity. There are many concepts that have been used to study motion of bodies - force, momentum, kinetic and potential energy, gravitational field, etc. Concepts here generally are mathematical constructs and have no physical reality - only in physics theory, not in the everyday sense. In the final outcome of dynamics and after the calculations, the concepts could all be discarded. What physical reality left is the orbits of planets around the sun - they trace an ellipse, and at particular time, they would be found at a particular co-ordinate in space. So the physical reality are the sun, the planet, the domain the mass bodies move in space and time - the dynamical concepts are mental constructs needed only in the physics theory.

Neil Graneau : When is a Field Theory not a Field Theory
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2470

The article has some important bearing on the current EM field theory and on whether fields in general has any physical reality..

"Unfortunately Maxwell died prematurely in 1879 aged only 48 without anybody truly understanding his novel electromagnetic field theory. It consisted of 20 equations and 20 variables, was based on Neumann’s IAAAD vector potential as the primary field concept and included an IAAAD force law. His theory was therefore truly a jumble of field theory and IAAAD mathematics, and as a consequence was never exploited in the form in which he left it. The famous four “Maxwell’s equations” were instead extracted from his treatise by a group of primarily British scientists, often referred to as the Maxwellians. Oliver Heaviside, the most outspoken of this group, ruthlessly, openly and without justification, removed the Ampere force law and the Neumann vector potential from Maxwell’s theory in 1888. He did this to arrive at a set of equations that could provide a simplified system of field quantities that would interact in such a way as to provide the propagation of the electromagnetic waves that are accepted and taught today."

Note that the original 20 equations of Maxwell have not been retained. Could someone here justify if the original Maxwell's equations have been replaced because some did not agree with empirical evidence or otherwise?

"Heaviside was apparently unwilling to accept that energy propagation was an illusion and his perseverance in creating the modern Maxwell’s equations and arguing for the reality of electromagnetic fields can be interpreted as much as a consequence of nationalistic pride as a search for scientific understanding."
The author here seems to dismiss EM fields as having any physical reality.

Comingfrom: "physics is supposed to be in the business of trying to explain physical reality
...measuring voltage is as real as measuring distance."
Voltage has no physical reality; it is potential difference and potential is a scalar field around electric charge - but high voltage can kill! When a high value capacitor is fully charged, its voltage could be measured. What is measured is ultimately about the configuration of the positive and negative charges - they have arranged themselves in a way that has become dangerous if we accidentally touch it - that's the physical reality.

Comingfrom: "Rasjid:"Magnetic field by itself has no physicality"
I think your iron filings will disagree with you."
What the eyes see is only an image. I have watch videos of holographic images - they are but only images. If I sprinkle saw-dusts instead of iron filings, do you say there is no magnetism.

There is magnetism. The ancients discovered it as a property of lodestone. That two permanent magnets attract is a phenomena which we ascribed to magnetism. Our current science knows it to be due to circulating electrons. When two long parallel conductors have parallel currents in them, they attract. We have created the theory of magnetic fields to explain the phenomenon. Originally, Ampere just ascribed the phenomenon to forces between current elements - no magnetism.

Comingfrom: "And as for the aether, that elementary concept is not in the textbooks anymore. Is it?"
I agree we have not confirmed the existence of any aether. That's the reason why it is the more important - here is the opportunity for someone to be the next Einstein!

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[comingfrom]

Thank you guys, for getting back to me.

~~
Thank you, Kody, but I'm sorry. I have to understand physics better in the language of physics, before I try comparing to what another people say in their language.

It's bad enough we have physicists pronouncing those physical things which is their job to explain, as being non-physical.

~~
Thank you, Chan.

EDIT: IAAAD - instanteneous action at a distance.

I did mention earlier that my proposition that fields in general have no physical reality is controversial. But I think it is an important issue that may have deep ramification in physics. If fields somehow have no physical reality, a lot of current physics have to be discarded, especially in electromagnetism - magnetism, poynting vector and other EM field energy propagation of mainstream physics. Many do hold the view that much of current electromagnetism is wrong.

If...

Obviously fields are physical, if they effect physical objects.
You can carry a field around in your hand (pick up a magnet). You can apply that field to a piece of metal here, and then carry it over the other side of the room and apply it to a another piece of metal over there.

Physicists at loss to explain fields, and unwilling to say they cannot explain, are fluffing about the possibility that they may not even be physical.

And there are mechanical explanations, but none that physicists will forebear.

As I said earlier, we have to distinguish between the use of "physical reality" in everyday life and in physics. To the karate master, force definitely is real and physical - even deadly real. But in Newtonian physics :
force = mass * 2nd rate of change of (distance/time) or (space/time). Here, only mass, space, time have physical reality in the universe; force has not.

Think about what you are saying.

A karate kick is definitely real and physical, in everyday life and in physics.
But falling from a height is not real and physical, because the force is gravity?
That is in physics,
but in everyday life, gravity is very real and physical (even if it is actually an electrostatic attraction).

Falling can be just as deadly as a karate kick.

I rather think time has no actually physicality. The past is gone, and the future hasn't happened yet.
There is only ever now.
Time is our non-physical construct, necessary to describe motions.

Consider just Newtonian dynamics and gravity. There are many concepts that have been used to study motion of bodies - force, momentum, kinetic and potential energy, gravitational field, etc. Concepts here generally are mathematical constructs and have no physical reality - only in physics theory, not in the everyday sense.

The problem with physics today, it has forgotten it is the supplier of concepts which are supposed to describe physical reality for us.

In lieu of practical mechanical concepts, we are given complex math, and told these concepts have no physical reality.

If they have no physical reality, what use are they to physics?
And what use are they in describing the mechanics of physical reality to the non physicists?

In the final outcome of dynamics and after the calculations, the concepts could all be discarded. What physical reality left is the orbits of planets around the sun - they trace an ellipse, and at particular time, they would be found at a particular co-ordinate in space. So the physical reality are the sun, the planet, the domain the mass bodies move in space and time - the dynamical concepts are mental constructs needed only in the physics theory.

This is a whitewash. An excuse.

We don't know the real cause for the orbital motions, so can't provide an explanation. But we got some unreal and non physical math concepts that happens to be right a lot of the time, so that aught to do it. Be happy with that.

But I'm not.

Neil Graneau : When is a Field Theory not a Field Theory
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2470

Maybe, if I have some real spare time, I will look at it.
But the title is very off-putting.

I'm looking for the mechanical explanation of fields, not some so-called-scientist's whimsical philosophizing.
And there are field theories to read which do offer real physical mechanical explanations.

The article has some important bearing on the current EM field theory and on whether fields in general has any physical reality..

"Unfortunately Maxwell died prematurely in 1879 aged only 48 without anybody truly understanding his novel electromagnetic field theory. It consisted of 20 equations and 20 variables, was based on Neumann’s IAAAD vector potential as the primary field concept and included an IAAAD force law. His theory was therefore truly a jumble of field theory and IAAAD mathematics, and as a consequence was never exploited in the form in which he left it. The famous four “Maxwell’s equations” were instead extracted from his treatise by a group of primarily British scientists, often referred to as the Maxwellians. Oliver Heaviside, the most outspoken of this group, ruthlessly, openly and without justification, removed the Ampere force law and the Neumann vector potential from Maxwell’s theory in 1888. He did this to arrive at a set of equations that could provide a simplified system of field quantities that would interact in such a way as to provide the propagation of the electromagnetic waves that are accepted and taught today."

Note that the original 20 equations of Maxwell have not been retained. Could someone here justify if the original Maxwell's equations have been replaced because some did not agree with empirical evidence or otherwise?

"Heaviside was apparently unwilling to accept that energy propagation was an illusion and his perseverance in creating the modern Maxwell’s equations and arguing for the reality of electromagnetic fields can be interpreted as much as a consequence of nationalistic pride as a search for scientific understanding."
The author here seems to dismiss EM fields as having any physical reality.

This is just confirming that all our field math is heuristic, and that physics has no acceptable mechanical explanation.

We know E/M fields are real physical somethings. We use them to generate our electricity.

Comingfrom: "physics is supposed to be in the business of trying to explain physical reality
...measuring voltage is as real as measuring distance."
Voltage has no physical reality; it is potential difference and potential is a scalar field around electric charge - but high voltage can kill! When a high value capacitor is fully charged, its voltage could be measured. What is measured is ultimately about the configuration of the positive and negative charges - they have arranged themselves in a way that has become dangerous if we accidentally touch it - that's the physical reality.

Same with a ruler.

We put the ruler next to the object we are measuring, and get a number for the length.

The voltage meter is just a ruler, which measures charge potential difference instead of distance.

Both are measuring a physical reality.

Comingfrom: "Rasjid:"Magnetic field by itself has no physicality"
I think your iron filings will disagree with you."
What the eyes see is only an image. I have watch videos of holographic images - they are but only images. If I sprinkle saw-dusts instead of iron filings, do you say there is no magnetism.

Try and see it from the point of view of the iron filings.

Try to tell them the magnetic field is not physical. They certainly felt some thing.
I agree with you, that your saw-dusts will vehemently argue that the field is not a real physical thing.
The saw-dusts felt no thing.

But you can carry your "no thing" across the room and ask the fridge, by placing your magnet field (no thing) near it's metal surface.
Your fridge will agree with your iron filings, and totally disagree with the saw-dusts.

There is magnetism. The ancients discovered it as a property of lodestone. That two permanent magnets attract is a phenomena which we ascribed to magnetism. Our current science knows it to be due to circulating electrons. When two long parallel conductors have parallel currents in them, they attract. We have created the theory of magnetic fields to explain the phenomenon.

So now you are saying physics does have an explanation of the field. And it is circulating electrons? Electrons are physical, aren't they?

Either the field lines on physics diagrams of magnetic fields describe the paths of circulating electrons (I haven't ever heard that before). Or maybe you meant the electrons circulate within the metal of the magnet, but then you have no thing in your field outside the metal again. And there isn't a sound explanation for electrons circulating within the magnet either.

Comingfrom: "And as for the aether, that elementary concept is not in the textbooks anymore. Is it?"
I agree we have not confirmed the existence of any aether. That's the reason why it is the more important - here is the opportunity for someone to be the next Einstein!

Einstein killed the aether concept, replaced it with his four dimensional elastic space/time.

They aren't bringing it back.
If anything, the aether kills any hopeful next Einstein, before he can become that Einstein. Anybody that proposes a model which includes it is denounced.
Physics rather believes that debate was won long ago. And they rather believe in IAAAD.

I hope I'm not coming across too harsh. I'm no Phd, and you seem like you might be. Rip shreds off me if you like. Maybe I should be more humble and receptive to learn this non physical physics stuff from physicists. I rather they would with give physical explanations, for physical reality.

~~
One thing everyone seems to be agreement with, when it comes to magnets.
Atomic alignment.
To make magnets, the steel is forged in a magnetic field, so when the steel freezes to a sold state, the atoms remain permanently aligned.

So all we need now is a real field particle, that when emitted by atoms which are in alignment, creates an aligned field. This only works with certain metals, due to their nature, which allows for atomic alignment. The atomic structures in saw-dusts, to use your example, are not such that the atoms can be aligned. And because they are not aligned, they also don't get effected by the streams of aligned fields particles the way certain metals are, when placed in a field.

And if all sub atomic particles recycle field particles, we have a real mechanical explanation for gravity and E/M fields too.

Which I suspect is the reason why so many scientists harbour a secret belief in the aether.
It's too simple. It works. It does away with the magic IAAAD and non physicality.
It only needs all the money that is currently spent on asking questions about non physical physics, to discover the finer points of the mechanics.

~Paul

[webolife]

I don't know how to respond any longer to the twists and turns of this thread, so have restarted over at the "Rainbows in the Sky" thread, to whom it may concern...

[seasmith]

So all we need now is a real Field Particle that when emitted by atoms which are in alignment, creates an aligned field.

yes but...

Comingfrom,
No one has the detector with resolution fine enough to say for sure, but my impression is that 'particulate' is not the correct absolute limit.
I love a lot of Mathis' insights, but suspect that at the "particle", is where he limits his own paradigm; although via a number of admirable ends.

Instead of discrete circumferential "particles" (with their inherent undefined Spaceings),
one could just as logically propose e.g. contiguous liquid-crystaline facets/vertices, dynamic flow directing vanes , orthogonal axies of propagation, tensioned membranes, veinous structures, antipodal neural fascies, massless fractallations of momentum , and/or any number of other alternate substructures / matrices,
to effect a similar "field" response.

Until the the interconnectivity, interconnectedness and inductivity (as per Tesla, Dollard, Thornhill, etc.) of any aetheric model is addressed, we're still just burping in a windstorm,
imho.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Seasmith.

When I consider our requirement for increased density (field strength) the nearer we get to massive bodies, and nature's propensity to put matter into spherical bodies, I still consider spherical particles as being the prime candidate.

With spherical particles, energy quantum is easily explained with spins. More energy, faster spin. When spin maximum speed is reached, another spin is stacked on top, and the particle then makes a wave motion, solving the particle/wave dichotomy. Numbers of stacked spins can account for different states, and orthogonal forces. Particles on different orders of scale might account for the different fields.

So far, this is the best explanation I heard, out of the windstorm.
Nevertheless, I agree. Much work needs to be done, before the real mechanics of fields are exposed.
But that doesn't stop us from burping
~Paul

[seasmith]

re: primal aether

comingfrom wrote:
I still consider spherical particles as being the prime candidate.

soooo... exactly how would you characterize those implied Spaces, or spacings,
between the spherical particles ?

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Seasmith.

soooo... exactly how would you characterize those implied Spaces, or spacings,
between the spherical particles ?

If we scale up the atom, as is often heard in physics (something like this); if the nucleus was the size of a ping pong ball, then the atom would be the size of a football field, and electrons would be pin heads flying orbits at the distance of the stadium seats.

Or in other words, atoms are mostly space.
Or are they?
If the subatomic particles are recycling tiny (to them) field particles, that space will be streaming with these particles.

Like as the solar wind is to the Solar system.
Because the Sun and the planets recycle atomic particles.

And if you then scale up a field particle to the size of a football field...

And no doubt, the fields at our scale are the combined effect of the all the fields at all orders of scale.
~Paul