by purplepete » Wed Apr 17, 2024 8:12 am
galaxy12 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 4:57 pm
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.
[quote=galaxy12 post_id=10269 time=1713286661 user_id=1000000325]
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/articles/691868-visual-model-of-electromagnetic-interactions-of-sub-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.
[/quote]
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.