Charge Linear Thread

[junglelord]

This thread will hopefully have dialogue from StevenO and myself on the aspects of charge and how do we define them and quantify them. It is born out of a need to examine the TOE of APM. I think that Dave Thomson is clear that charge is not properly identified as seperate quantified forces in the classical mess. He does make a clear and valid point in my mind that the question of charge is not settled. More to come.

[junglelord]

I would like to start with this post in the APM thread.
this sets the stage for the discussion at hand.

More questions and answers from Dave Thomson to help me to get from where I am to where APM is. The first one came from my mind working with Meyls model and was about antimatter.

With regard to antimatter, it is known to have half spin and possess electrostatic charge equal to the proton and electron electrostatic charge. We see antimatter in our forward time perspective, and it moves in forward time with the rest of normal matter. So I think it is safe to say that antimatter must be in forward time and shares the same qualities as protons and electrons, except that it is spinning in the opposite direction in the Aether unit.

The four types of onta, electron, proton, positron, and antiproton all exist in the forward time direction. However, there are likely four more onta existing in the backward time direction. Forward time matter is cannot see backward time matter, as far as I know. And if we did see it, what would it look like? Backward time matter is the stuff for science fiction writers to muse about, since it can only be imagined.

As for "timeline" per se, I don't see any evidence for a physical manifestation of time. As far as I can tell, time is just an illusion caused by motion. Every telescope, rocket, particle accelerator, and any other technology can only work if time is moving uniformly for everyone. It may appear that time is delayed over long distances, but that is also an illusion, which is caused by photons. The time frame, itself, must always tick to the same moment as all other time frames in order for the Universe to be consistent. That is essentially the same as saying there is only the present moment. There is no past or future where we could stick the ends of a time-ruler and measure time. If it were not for the cyclic (frequency) nature of things, we would not have any method at all for measuring time.

Dave

in this series of replies Dave Thomson kindley helps me to compare my apples to his oranges...Dave reviews Meyl, Smith, Tewari, Johnson, and some problems with modern physics.

My question
> http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... ?f=8&t=205
this thread I developed has much of the Meyl stuff. Equations did not copy for me. Text did. If you read the pages, there are only five, you can decide if you want to read the book.

Dave's answer
I will hold off on the book, for now. I don't need to read another theory that has its foundation in the mass-energy paradigm, does not notate charge correctly, and relies on point particle mathematics. I need others to learn the new paradigm I have set forth.

My question
> I am curious as to your view of the work I sent you.

Dave's answer
The experiments are interesting and all of them have merit. As I pointed out in my reply to you, I have done similar experiments which produced standing waves (caused by scalar waves). The physics are presented in Maxwell's theory. However, as I have pointed out in SOTA and in my replies, the dimensions of charge are wrong in the Standard Model. This also applies to the units used by Maxwell. So there are certain equations that don't really match up the dimensions properly. It appears the reason the Maxwellian notations use non-standard symbols is to hide the mismatching dimensions. I have personally chose not to get involved with Maxwell's theory of EM until I have access to a lab and equipment where I can develop a dimensionally correct approach to EM.

Already, I have found a way to dimensionally represent scalar waves (longitudinal waves), as I show in SOTA.

My question
Wilbert Smith and the New Science (how far off from center is this work and why. Its very short and concise and therefore easy to accept or refute
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:NOd ... cd=3&gl=ca
This is work on Magnetic Resonance related to the work of Wilbert Smith and his model.
http://magnetism.otc.co.nz/Theory.htm

Atherometry/The Correa's from Toronto deserve a lot of attention, I fail to see why you three would not join forces? What is your opinion of their work, the Pulsed Abnormal Glow Mode Vacuum Tube patent, etc.
http://www.aetherometry.com/

Dave's answer
The above researchers are still working from within the Standard Model of physics. I agree they have excellent experiments, but it isn't probable that I could get them to learn a new system of physics for explaining their experiments. It is a catch 22. They need new physics because the Standard Model doesn't fully and properly explain the physical Universe. However, they are so encumbered with the difficulty of getting their own work recognized that they don't want to also fight my battle. The APM is not yet recognized. From their perspective, why would they double their burden?

My question
Tom Bearden/What is your opinion on Scalar Wars>Scalar Radar and the Russian Woodpecker Signal?
http://www.cheniere.org/
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowl ... round.html

Dave's answer
I don't have any interest in conspiracy theories. I don't have interest in secret technology. It doesn't do me any good unless I'm included as a secret keeper. However, I won't accept being a secret keeper. I want to share knowledge openly. If the Russians, US black projects, and all other countries want to have secret technology because they plan to someday take over the Universe, let them. I've got other things to worry about for now.

my question
> Konstantin Meyl/I sent two of his papers too you and there are more on line here. His book is worth buying to compare to your work. How far apart do you see these two models (APM and Scalar Theory?) Apples and Oranges? Or is there a way to say they are related?
http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=47_ ... sublevel=0

Dave's answer
The APM includes both longitudinal and transverse wave forms in all their manifestations throughout physics. Scalar physics are orthogonal to transverse physics. Scalar physics apply to both matter and electrical phenomena. Transverse waves also apply to both physical matter and electrical phenomena. I have researched Tesla works quite thoroughly, and yes, Tesla promoted longitudinal waves within electric systems. Unfortunately, Tesla claimed more than once that transverse waves were a fantasy. Today, most engineers are taught that longitudinal electric waves are a fantasy. The truth is both forms of electric activity occur. Longitudinal waves occur with electrostatic charge, and transverse EM waves occur with electromagnetic charge.

my question
> Howard Johnson/Secret World of Magnets
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34317/Spintro ... rd-Johnson

Dave's answer
Howard Johnson was one of the scientists who was making the most real progress in understand the Aether by mapping magnetic fields. I was deeply saddened with his passing last year. He was a true giant who never got proper recognition while he was alive. I have his book and movie.

my question
Tewari/Space Vortex Generator/Over Unity Magnetic Motors (what is your take on the work of Johnson and Tewari as it relates to APM
http://www.tewari.org/

Dave's answer
I am impressed by the accuracy of Vedic physics. It is not 100% the same as the APM, but remarkably close. I suspect some of the accuracy could have been lost in translations over the millennia. Like so many others, Tewari can see cracks and outright errors in modern physics. But what it comes down to is who is fixing the mistakes of modern physics? Nobody else seems to realize the dimensions of charge are wrong and that there are two distinctly different manifestations of charges.

Sure, anybody with common sense can see many of the conclusions of modern physics are wrong. But in order to fix the root of the problem, the foundations of physics must be correctly analyzed and fixed. It is the underlying assumptions, which lead to erroneous conclusions such as Big Bang, Black Holes, Higgs Boson, wave-particle duality, force particles, dark physical matter (as opposed to the dark, non-material matter of the APM), mass-energy equivalence, and many others.

My question
I do not need a big or deep reply, a surface brush would be of a big help to me to see where you place there individual work in relation to each other and to APM. Is it like Ed Whitten showing that five String Theory's were one M Theory and they are just looking at it from five different angles of perspective? Or is that not possible because they are not even close to be the same.

Dave's answer
I don't know how Whitten's extra dimensions were derived from physical measurements. I found my extra dimension of frequency from analyzing the known units. I simply said, "Hey, look at this! Somebody overlooked this extra dimension of frequency that was right in front of them." After you finish SOTA, we can discuss this some more. It really is important.

I personally think they are all related. I also relate them to your work. Is that something you agree with from your persepective?

All the researchers who are looking for truth and have the courage to state there are errors in modern physics are related to my work. So what if I have found the specific errors of modern physics dating back 200 years and can now fix everything? So what if fixing the errors allows me to easily unify the fundamental forces and quantify the electron binding energies for all the atomic elements? It means absolutely nothing if nobody is interested. The people who are most likely to be interested are people who are looking for the truth. Unfortunately, after someone looks for the truth, thinks they have found it, and writes a book or paper on it, they are no longer looking for the truth but trying to promote their new view. It happens to me, too. I can see the huge mess everything is in, but it is too big for me to fix by myself. Writing a book and several papers is not enough. I'm not even sure a movie will work. The only thing that works is persistence and confidence in the theory. Eventually, some people will begin to see how the pieces can be rearranged into a coherent new perspective.

Ideally, people will try the equations for themselves and become familiar with the structure of units and how the units are composed from dimensions and values. People will understand the obverse and inverse nature of units and how these two views are important to the way units manifest in the Universe. The APM was not written to be a philosophical story, or a poetic work. It was written as a detailed explanation for how the Universe is truly constructed, and I'm sorry to say it is constructed from non-material reality.

The APM is what physicists before 1900 were trying to achieve, a Newtonian approach completely based upon physical measurements. It is essential to learn Newtonian physics in order to learn the APM. The Newtonian physics of the APM is very simple. If you accelerate objects with mass, you have force. If you apply the force for a distance, you have energy. If you apply energy per electromagnetic charge, you have potential. All the units are related to all the other units. In the APM, some of these relations change and new relations are presented.

However, you need to write units with the correct notation of charge. You cannot arbitrarily write some units with distributed charge and others with single dimension charge. All the units have to be written according to the same rules and be in accord with nature.

The APM becomes clear if we focus on these very simple concepts, first. The correction of charge is at the heart of the APM, and was the very first discovery that had to be made in order for the APM to develop. None of the APM can make sense if you don't understand that electrostatic charge is a different thing from electromagnetic charge.

None of these other researchers understand this simple concept, nor are they inclined to learn it if nobody else understands it. They can build a working flying saucer (electrostatic lifter), they can build a free energy device, they can discover the Universe runs on electricity, but if they cannot understand the difference between electrostatic charge and electromagnetic charge, they are forced to explain the world from the perspective of inertia, point particles, and numerous other perspectives lacking appeal to common sense.

If you want to make a big leap in understanding the APM, then the next email I receive from you should be you saying, "I understand the difference between electrostatic and electromagnetic charge, now." Either that, or ask questions that will help you to understand it. Focus on the two types of charges and the importance of notating units with distributed charge. Don't ignore these essential points.

Dave

[junglelord]

From the APM webpage
Two types of Charge
Be sure to go to the link for Two Types of Charge for the full formula.
http://www.16pi2.com/charge.htm

BREAKING NEWS: We have successfully developed the electron binding energy equation, which accurately predicts the 1s orbital electron binding energies for all the atomic elements.
http://www.16pi2.com/electron_binding_energies.htm
The Aether Physics Model began unexpectedly in February 2002 when David Thomson was experimenting with Tesla coils. While holding a fluorescent tube between the ground terminal and top terminal of a large flat spiral Tesla coil, two distinctly different manifestations of charges were observed. The photo below is the actual observation that led to the Aether Physics Model.

The question of how the charges were formed was not as interesting as the question of why there were two distinctly different manifestations of charges at all. According to established physics theories, there is supposed to be only one type of charge, the electrostatic charge. The magnetic force is believed to be the relativistic effect of electrostatic charge. If there is just one type of charge, why does it have two distinct manifestations? Also, what exactly is charge?

This observation led the author to reexamine the foundations of physics. Could something have been missed? As this web site, our white paper,
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
and our book explain, yes,
http://www.16pi2.com/book.htm
modern physics missed the opportunity to explain the entire quantum structure in simple Newtonian type expressions of Classical physics by not discovering the two types of charges.

Other Tesla coil builders were able to duplicate the effect, although they refused to accept the quantified interpretation presented by the Aether Physics Model. Below is the photographic result of a similar experiment performed by Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz:
http://www.coe.ufrj.br/~acmq/


And here is another demonstration by Terry Fritz:
http://www.hot-streamer.com/


In all the above experiments, there are two distinct manifestations of charges. One type of charge (electrostatic) manifests as a thin purple streamer and the other type of charge (electromagnetic) manifests as a thick white streamer. Even nature demonstrates two different manifestations of charges as seen in this dramatic photo from Oklahoma Lightning:


The Aether Physics Model gives a very discrete and coherent understanding of charge

Two Manifestations of Charge
The two types of charge recognized in the Aether Physics Model are the electrostatic charge and the electromagnetic charge. In modern physics only one type of charge is quantified. As a result of the two types of charges, we have successfully developed the electron binding energy equation,
http://www.16pi2.com/electron_binding_energies.htm
which accurately predicts the 1s orbital electron binding energies for all the atomic elements. Our white paper, "A New Foundation for Physics," explains the two types of charge in greater detail. A synopsis is given on this page.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf

Also, in modern physics charge has only one dimension. In the Aether Physics Model charge is distributed (charge squared).

The electrostatic charge is the same as elementary charge, except that it is represented as e2 instead of just e. The value of electrostatic charge in the APM is found at this link

http://www.16pi2.com/charge.htm

[junglelord]

Maybe its because I am so slow (read on to see why), but I always thought that there was two types of charge, and I worked in electronics for ten years. But as a child I could tell you a shock of electrostatic is not the same shock from electromagnetic. They do not feel the same. I must have been ignorent to the fact that standard physics and electronic theory never seperated these two different manifestations of charge. I guess in my mind electronics was never about electrostatic, so I never thought about it, I always figured electronics was electromagnetic.

Just throwing that out there for what ever its worth. I knew this as a little boy who grew up on a farm. I have touched the electric fence, I have also been shocked by the new carpet in the school library in grade four, both in the same year, both several times too many.....LOL

Too me way back then it was clear in my mind that there was two types of charge and they were quite different. If thats what it took to develop APM, I swear I knew this at 10 years old. When you get shocked you never forget it.

In all my years of education I never recognized that physics did not seperate the charges, but I always thought they did? Is not electrostatic cling, rug shocks to the ear, hand to the doorknob, fundamentally taught as different then EM?
Ovbiously it is not seperated into seperate charges if thats what APM is saying and is correct, I guess I never saw the literature did not recognize that...am I missing something?

[junglelord]

Well I think I get it. The Strong Force is the Electromagnetic Charge in APM, gluon my butt.

This is as follows. There are two types of charge. EM and Electrostatic. ES is the same for e- and p+, EM is not. But that is four charges, all distributed. No gluon required.

Man I feel retarded...after knowing since I was ten years old that there was two types of charge and after going to college for electronics and after a life time of physics reading...I never saw the disconnect. I saw the classical mess and finally dark matter and dark energy had turned me off. The EU turned me back on. APM reorganized the information. Well the imaginary gluon is the fakeout. I always knew the truth and yet never saw that no one else did. You guys never got shocked enough as a child...

Two Manifestations of Charge
The two types of charge recognized in the Aether Physics Model are the electrostatic charge and the electromagnetic charge. In modern physics only one type of charge is quantified. As a result of the two types of charges, we have successfully developed the electron binding energy equation, which accurately predicts the 1s orbital electron binding energies for all the atomic elements. Our white paper, "A New Foundation for Physics," explains the two types of charge in greater detail. A synopsis is given on this page.

Also, in modern physics charge has only one dimension. In the Aether Physics Model charge is distributed (charge squared).

The electrostatic charge is the same as elementary charge, except that it is represented as e2 instead of just e. The value of electrostatic charge in the APM is:

(1.1)

Strong nuclear charge is the product of angular momentum of a subatomic particle and the conductance of the Aether.

(1.2)

(1.3)

Strong charge, (or electromagnetic charge) is written as eemax2 for the electron, epmax2 for the proton and enmax2 for the neutron. Unlike the electrostatic charge, which is the same for both the electron and proton, the strong charge is different for each onn (subatomic particle) and is directly proportional to the onn's mass.

The angular momentum of an electron is represented as Planck's constant:

(1.4)

The conductance of the Aether is:

(1.5)

The proportion of electrostatic charge to strong charge is equal to 8p times the fine structure of the onn.

(1.6)

The significance of this proportion is that it represents the "weak nuclear force" of the particle. Each particle has its own "weak nuclear force".

(1.7)

(1.8)

Equations 1.6 through 1.8 represent the unified charge equations for each onn. Taken together these equations are the basis for a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory. Electrostatic charge has one spin and is spherical, while electromagnetic charge has half spin and has steradian geometry.

The unified charge equations dictate a general geometry for the subatomic particles.



Figure 1 Subatomic Particle Geometry
The above graphic illustrates the two charges as they are related to each other and shows the proportion of their surfaces.

Electrostatic charge has the geometry of a sphere (small sphere in center of Figure 1) while the strong charge has the geometry of a toroid. Since strong charge belongs to the half spin subatomic particle, strong charge must multiply by two to be equal in spin to one spin electrostatic charge. And since electrostatic charge has a solid angle of one (spherical) electromagnetic charge must multiply by 4p to be equal in geometry. This is the meaning of the 8p geometrical constant, which also occurs in Einstein's simplified field equation for General Relativity.

The proportion of the electrostatic charge sphere (small sphere in center) to the electromagnetic charge sphere (large gray sphere) is alpha, the Fine Structure constant. The fine structure constant is the proportion of the one spin electrostatic sphere to the equivalent strong charge one spin sphere.

Fine Structure of the Proton and Neutron
From equation (1.6) the fine structure of the proton and neutron can also be determined. First the equation is solved for alpha:

(1.9)

Substituting epmax2 for eemax2 we get the values for the fine structure of the proton (p) and neutron (n).

(1.10)

(1.11)

The neutron has a fine structure constant just as the proton and electron do even though the charge is neutral. The point is, even though the charge is neutral, it still has an electrostatic charge based on a proton that has bound to an electron. Whether the charge is positive, negative or neutral does not change the nature of the electrostatic charge.

(1.12)

(1.13)

Strong Nuclear Force
The mechanics of strong charge can be carried over to the proton and neutron.

Planck's constant is the angular momentum of an electron. Similar constants can be derived for the neutron and proton. In the case of the proton the angular momentum is:

(1.14)

where hp is equal to the angular momentum of the proton, mp is the mass of the proton, c is the speed of light and is the Compton wavelength. Similarly, the angular momentum of the neutron is:

(1.15)

where hn denotes the angular momentum of the neutron and mn is the mass of the neutron. The values of these angular momenta are:

(1.16)

(1.17)

The reader will note that the above values for proton and neutron angular momentum differ from the values given by NIST (interestingly, NIST has subsequently deleted values of the proton and neutron angular momenta from their web site). This is one of a few units the Aether Physics Model disagrees with the Standard Model over.

The rationale for using the above units for proton and neutron angular momentum is that the Aether appears to have just one quantum length and just one quantum frequency. The masses of the proton and neutron as given by NIST are not disputed.

When calculating the maximum charge for the proton and neutron in terms of elementary charge as in equation (1.5) we obtain the following values:

epmax = (1.18)

enmax = (1.19)

Both (1.18) and (1.19) result in the relative value of the "strong nuclear force" compared to the elementary charge. In 1994, Robert Mills published "Space Time and Quanta - an introduction to contemporary physics" in which he suggests the strong nuclear force is an electromagnetic force. Equations (1.18) and (1.19) offer evidence to support his theory. A brief overview of this theory can be found at PHYSICS MYSTERIES EXPLAINED PART III.

All of the above concepts concerning charge are explained in greater detail and with more visual aids in our book, "Secrets of the Aether."
http://www.16pi2.com/charge.htm

BREAKING NEWS: We have successfully developed the electron binding energy equation, which accurately predicts the 1s orbital electron binding energies for all the atomic elements.

Coulomb's constant can be conveniently represented as the result of four discrete components.

Starting with Coulomb's Constant:

(1.1)

The units are expanded to:

(1.2)

From the above it would appear that Coulomb's constant might be a combination of velocity, inductance and capacitance. But in the Aether it is known that the units of inductance and capacitance are actually involved in permeability and permittivity, respectively. This leaves the units of amp per volt, which is conductance, which is in units of siemens:

(1.3)

It would appear that the Aether contains a conductance constant, which can be derived as:

(1.4)

(1.5)

such that Coulomb's constant can be expressed as

(1.6)

This reveals four factors contributing to Coulomb's Constant:

Speed of Light

Conductance of Aether

Permeability of Aether

Permittivity of Aether

As is seen on the Charge page, subatomic particles have more than just an elementary charge. Electrons, protons, and neutrons also have a strong nuclear binding charge, or electromagnetic charge.

(1.7)

This gives another expression for the conductance constant:

(1.8a) and

(1.8b)

From equation (1.8a) it can be seen that conductance of the Aether is a swirling motion as it is related to the angular momentum of Planck's constant. The conductance constant can also be expressed in terms of Aether charge associated with conductance and Aether angular momentum; where angular momentum of mass associated with the Aether is equal to:

(1.9) or

(1.10)

ma is the mass associated with the Aether, Fq is the quantum frequency, and is the Compton wavelength (quantum length.) In terms of Aether values, the conductance constant is expressed as:

(1.11)

where ea2 is the electromagnetic charge associated with the Aether. The same relationship to the conductance constant can be obtained with the proton and neutron. This common relationship is due to the universal mass to electromagnetic charge ratio.

One practical use of the Aether conductance constant is in the equation for particle strong charge (electromagnetic charge).

Geometry of Coulomb's Constant
The geometry of Coulomb's constant is a plane as expressed as:

(1.15)

or

(1.16)

where m2 / coul2 is the same as St2 (stroke squared.) This plane represents the boundary between space-time and subatomic angular momentum. Stroke is further defined on the Gravitational Constant page. The shape of the plane can be a cylinder, the surface of a sphere, or any other simple surface determined by the configuration of the charges involved.

Coulomb's Constant is also closely related to the rmfd (or Au) constant.
http://www.16pi2.com/coulombs_constant.htm

[junglelord]

I just watched the Colbert Report and he had on a guest who wrote the ten most beautiful experiments. He talked about Faraday, the Golden Mean, and had some Faraday experiments. He showed the Faraday spark gap and Steven Colbert and the guest did the shock/charge test I just talked about as a ten year old....how syncronicity is that?

I kid you not


the man showed firstly how a magent moving in a coil can make current. That got a lot of laughs as he was using his hand.

Then he showed the spark gap. Steven wanted to touch the little z pinch...LOL
wonder if he realized he just found the secret to the universe?


I cannot believe I just watched that on TV, man what a day I have had. The universe is electric and talks, its not english...but it is shocking.

[StevenO]

How could different manifestations of electric charge be explained?

I'm not sure if everything on this web page is consistent, but the graphics are definitely fascinating : Gabriel Lafreniere demonstrates that there are 4 possible configurations of electron spin(==wave phase):
http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_electron.htm (search for: Spin Effect)

Please also realize that everything shown in 2D happens actually in 3D...

[junglelord]

StevenO did PM me this list on static electricity. It bears looking through.
http://amasci.com/emotor/stmiscon.html

it came from this PM.
Certainly we can apprciate the work of StevenO to try to help us through this learning curve. He does say electrostatic is not understood. That is one level of agreement.

I do not think APM is wrong, but StevenO says the atomic model is not stable in that configuration. He also says charge is very difficult to understand. We can all agree on that. I do not know how he arrived at the conclusion about atomic instability. He may be right, I for the moment think the atomic configuration of APM is too much like Meyls to be a fluke, and to me looks stable.

The above graphic illustrates the two charges as they are related to each other and shows the proportion of their surfaces.

Electrostatic charge has the geometry of a sphere (small sphere in center of Figure 1) while the strong charge has the geometry of a toroid. Since strong charge belongs to the half spin subatomic particle, strong charge must multiply by two to be equal in spin to one spin electrostatic charge. And since electrostatic charge has a solid angle of one (spherical) electromagnetic charge must multiply by 4p to be equal in geometry. This is the meaning of the 8p geometrical constant, which also occurs in Einstein's simplified field equation for General Relativity.

The proportion of the electrostatic charge sphere (small sphere in center) to the electromagnetic charge sphere (large gray sphere) is alpha, the Fine Structure constant. The fine structure constant is the proportion of the one spin electrostatic sphere to the equivalent strong charge one spin sphere.

I cannot prove its stable at the moment, but I have to wonder at the similarites in both Scalar Technology and APM and how they quantify the subatomic particle as two charges and how they reason the strong force as EM. Certainly APM has other peer papers that also say the Strong Charge is the EM, not a gluon.

Both (1.18) and (1.19) result in the relative value of the "strong nuclear force" compared to the elementary charge. In 1994, Robert Mills published "Space Time and Quanta - an introduction to contemporary physics" in which he suggests the strong nuclear force is an electromagnetic force. Equations (1.18) and (1.19) offer evidence to support his theory.

I think we need to examine that support with some security. It has been pointed out by several groups now, all independently. Its beginning to look like we cannot answer this question now until we answer the question about the so called missing gluons of the "strong force". I think if you think about it, you will realize there is no gluon. There is only EM and ES. Two seperate but rotating charges that are the dipole of each subatomic particle.

Maybe its because I am so slow (read on to see why), but I always thought that there was two types of charge, and I worked in electronics for ten years. But as a child I could tell you a shock of electrostatic is not the same shock from electromagnetic. They do not feel the same. I must have been ignorent to the fact that standard physics and electronic theory never seperated these two different manifestations of charge. I guess in my mind electronics was never about electrostatic, so I never thought about it, I always figured electronics was electromagnetic.
<...>
In all my years of education I never recognized that physics did not seperate the charges, but I always thought they did? Is not electrostatic cling, rug shocks to the ear, hand to the doorknob, fundamentally taught as different then EM?
Ovbiously it is not seperated into seperate charges if thats what APM is saying and is correct, I guess I never saw the literature did not recognize that...am I missing something?

Dean Ward

Trust me, it is the same for me. I have been doing electronics for 30 years, ever since I accidentally build a radio transmitter as a kid and I have a University EE degree, but only since I read(understand) the Mead book and the clarifications by e.g. Billy Beaty I have a feeling that I understand the basics and that I can bring then together, e.g. how QM relates to EM. I think the electrostatic misteachings are very well explained by Billy Beaty: http://amasci.com/emotor/stmiscon.html

As for charge, I still think it is hard to grasp what is it, but it is a waving thing. Positive and negative charges are just waving in opposite phases. It could wave in an aether medium, but that would'nt change the formula's. A moving charge is defined as a current, but it only transfers energy if there is a difference in potential between two places. A moving charge will also change the space surrounding other charges, so they get different potentials.

About the APM: unfortunately I cannot download their white paper, maybe you could forward it to me so I can have a look at it. I have really no clue why they think it is necessary to start redefining things. From studying their website and a few things you posted in the thread I can already see a long list of misconception and physical impossibilities (charges cannot be arbitrarily seperated into electrostatic and electromagnetic charges, their subatomic particle configuration is instable etc.). However I'm not sure if that is what you are looking for. The last thing I want to do is curb people's enthusiasm. However, from experience I know that the times I was really into something were also the times that I made the biggest mistakes

Steven

I found a picture this morning, National Geographic, a volcano in chile erupting. Very impressive discharge.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... no-photos/

[junglelord]

After a quick look at the link from StevenO on static charge. I don't agree and here is why.
Firstly it says that EM is ES.

I do not believe that and I have known the difference since I was ten. That is the first thing I knew, I never realized that no one else saw, except APM!
( I thought we all knew that!)

it then says that e- and p+ are not moving. That is clearly wrong

Here's another problem with the usual "static electricity" concept. First, think about everyday matter. Down inside its atoms, everyday matter contains equal numbers of positive and negative charges (Protons and Electrons) which are very close together. Are these charges the "static electricity?" After all, they're static and unmoving, right? They sit there inside each atom. And each individual electron and proton carries a charge of "static electricity." Shouldn't we say that physical matter is partly MADE out of "static electricity?"

then it says that static is the result of chemical bonding. Therefore a exchange of e-
I can swing that way.

"Static" electricity appears whenever two dissimilar insulating materials are placed into intimate contact and then separated again. All that's required is the touching. Chemical bonds are formed when the surfaces touch, and if the atoms in one surface tend to hold electrons more tightly, that surface will tend to steal charged particles from the other surface immediately as they touch. This causes the surfaces to become oppositely "charged"; they acquire imbalances of opposite polarity. One surface now has more electrons than protons, while the other has more protons than electrons. When the surfaces are later separated, the regions of opposite charge-imbalance also get separated.

then it backtracks and says that it is not an exchange of e- clearly it is not clear.

"STATIC ELECTRICITY" IS A BUILDUP OF ELECTRONS? NOT EXACTLY.
It is not a buildup of anything, it is an IMBALANCE between quantities of positive and negative particles which existed beforehand. The electric particles were already there; they did not have to build up. It's an "un-cancelling," an event which occurs between the large quantities of oppositely-charged particles which were already present in matter. Contact electrification is more like "stretched atoms" than anything else. If we could take some atoms and pull their electrons far away from their protons, we would have created an imbalance of charge or "static electricity."

Now that is foolish talk, Electrons only take discrete positions, they are never pulled out....


I fail to see how chemical bonding is the same as EM.


Since I spent five years teaching college anatomy and physiology, I can say clearly for me I have a very good grasp of chemical bonding. As a technologist for ten years I have a good idea of eletron valence EM hole flow heavidside reduction, plus I even put back the four vector analysis on my own and the scalar vector, yet still this is not electrostatic charge. The way a chemical bond shares e- is not the same as e- motion in a copper wire. Its just is not the same. To state the two are one is not good science. That to me is very clear. Otherwise why does the human body not have EM as its current, instead of chemical soliton? After all we are a semi solid liquid fluid crystal! Why do we not operate on EM current?

Sorry I don't buy it, more classical mess.

Clearly in my mind Dave Thomson has rearranged the Classical Mess into a Tao of Physics.

It is worth the effort to read APM for yourself from start to finish.

The photos he provides show clearly two distinct charges in action from his tesla coil. Even the photos of lightning are clear as to natures two types of distributed charge. The fact the human body does not fuction as a copper wire with EM, is clear. Clearly a chemical non linear co-herent soliton, is in no way a EM current. Clearly even the word current is loaded because the term charge is too open.


The link provided by StevenO says the term electricity is too open (pun intended-which in technical jargon is no electricity at all) now I believe that many terms are too open and cause for most of the classical mess. That leads to a false impression across the board. We are educated but most never really understand. Thats cause when you look at the classical mess you see so many fuzzy logic applications of terminology, that in the end a honest answer to what is the very basic fundamentals leads to so much metaphysics in the classical mess. I want a educated person to clarify charge, force, field, mass, angular momentum, without resorting to abstracts. They cannot do it. APM can and does. At the same time and even more fundamental this link does not clear up Strong Force and many other important and related "questions" therefore it does not clear up the mess.

Another: There are two forms of electricity, positive electricity and negative. NO, the two forms of electricity are static and current. NO, there are many forms of electricity: triboelectricity, bioelectricity, myoelectricity, piezoelectricity. NO, there is only one electricity, the form of energy called Electromagnetism. NO, electricity is energy flow, haven't you ever heard of "watts of electricity?"

...Which one is right? All of them and none, because the word "electricity" has more than one contradictory definition. None are right, since there is no "electricity" which can be the charge, energy, and phenomena all at once. And all these statements are correct, because the word "electricity" is commonly used to name all these different things, and dictionaries support this. Volts of electricity. Amperes of electricity. Kilowatt-hours of electricity. Watts of electricity. Coulombs of electricity. Meaningless and confusing when taken together, yet inextricably entwined in hundreds of textbooks, dictionaries, and encyclopedias. The solution? Say "amperes of electric current", not amperes of electricity. Say "kilowatt-hours of energy", and "coulombs of charge", and "Watts of power." To greatly imporve the clarity of your explanations, simply don't mention 'electricity.'

You know we throw these terms around like they are mutally inclusive. They are not.
I see a need for that dictionary that was requested. APM could serve that purpose...after all how can a correct TOE not be a new definiton of old terms?>

[junglelord]

I am kinda disappointed in the link StevenO. It makes a lot of sloppy use of terminology. He is not clear about fundamentals. He throws out anologies that have no sound basis. We have been down that road before. Non moving subatomic particles? Stretched electrons? Thats pure nonsense.

it fails to correct many things, although its classical mess enough to convice or keep confused the masses.


I fail to see it have significance, unlike your Carver Mead Collective Electrodynamics.


two days ago I might have fallen for it. Not now.
I reitierate that Strong Charge is the hidden variable.
I need a gluon, or I need a resonable answer without one.
More then one person has done this with EM/ES for the construct of the atom into nucleus and electron shells...no gluons needed, so as APM and Meyl so clearly point out, we do need a two charge structure to make one electron. That necessiates two fundamental charges.


remember the universe is a self replicating fractal holographic "creature". The two primary archetype forms are the two polar opposite spiral galaxies/vortex structures. These combine to form Branching Networks (the galactic web).

The spiral vortex and the branching network are the two basic archetypes. Nature tells us this is so. Since we cannot take a good clear picture of an atom, we need to rely on the pictures from Hubble. They are clear, my explanation is sound.

StefanR should me both of these archetypes so in all honesty it is his work that has set the table.


Boyd Bushman, I thankyou from the bottom of my heart to understand my synesthesia mind did speak the language of the universe, no it is not english. I thank the EU for allowing me to think outside the box, with my talents, in which they have fostered an incredible personal growth for myself. I thank StevenO for all his insight and technical talents. I also wish to include Dave Smith and Dave Thomson without whom this journey would not have come to a conclusion.


One thing I can say, Ida Rolf "structure and function cannot be seperated" dictium has held me good since I left electronics. It has helped me to finally understand electronics. Dave Thomson did that with APM. No function operates without a structure even in the non material.

You cannot give me a bucket of charge, mass, angular momentum, frequency, or length, yet all these non material real things have a structure, that is why they function as they do. If you want to finish the QM wave model of Collective Electrodynamics StevenO, then you need a quantum structure (QS).

I threw out the terms charge, field, force, to both myself, you and Dave Smith. I was not satisfied. I and Dave Smith talked about non material into material....the true stumbling block...structure from no structure, non logical! APM reorganizes the available terms and units into constants. He clears up the terminology classical mess. He established the QS from which these functions (charge, force, field, angular momentum, etc) take their function. He gave us the Structure which is evident but not explained.

You cannot and never will have a function that does not have a structure.
Dean Ward 2008

[StevenO]

I am kinda disappointed in the link StevenO. It makes a lot of sloppy use of terminology. He is not clear about fundamentals. He throws out anologies that have no sound basis. We have been down that road before. Non moving subatomic particles? Stretched electrons? Thats pure nonsense.

Hi Dean,

Are you referring to the Billy Beaty links? That is about amateur science projects, it is no Carver Mead, but it highlights that for most people 'electricity' means a lof of things and that there are many misconceptions. Billy Beaty has many fascinating description about and experiments with static electricity, including that an electrostatic shock from a truck could contain enough energy to kill a human

I still do not know why APM and others would decide from a photograph that purple and white streamers would constitute a stream of different charges. I think we learned from EU that the amount of light emitted in a plasma discharge is related to the current density, so the white streamers just have higher current density than the purple ones.

Steven

[StevenO]

we do need a two charge structure to make one electron. That necessiates two fundamental charges.

I would agree if you replace the word charge by "waves". This is what is depicted in Gabriel Lafreniere's website. That explains why the electron is a 1/2 spin(180 degree phase alignments) entity.

[junglelord]

I reitierate that Strong Charge is the hidden variable.
I need a gluon, or I need a resonable answer without one.
More then one person has done this with EM/ES for the construct of the atom into nucleus and electron shells...no gluons needed, so as APM and Meyl so clearly point out, we do need a two charge structure to make one electron. That necessiates two fundamental charges. yes or no?

I would agree if you replace the word charge by "waves". This is what is depicted in Gabriel Lafreniere's website. That explains why the electron is a 1/2 spin(180 degree phase alignments) entity.

why would you replace charge with wave? Is charge not real?

Without a QS, the work of Mead is not sufficent to make a TOE, and we both know he never tried to. You took half the journey back with Collective Electrodynamics, in fact proved to me that I was moving in the right direction with my Quaternions/Scalar thread.

You cannot have a bucket of angular momentum, charge, mass, frequency or length, yet all these non material constructs have structure. Quantum Structure to be exact in a non material existance. Remember Feynaman on what is real? The B field story by Mead?

We need to define what is real, and the structure of it. (everyone knows that length, area, volume are right angles, that is a cube structure)


why would you replace charge with wave? Is charge not real? A wave lacks a sense of reality (structure) at the quantum world. It is the function of the structure. The movement (function) of the non material structure across time, (another real non material entity), hence the wave terminology. I think your stepping away from a structure by changing charge to wave and relying on its function.

No function exist without a structure even in the non material. Therefore charge has structure. There are two charges. Two structures. 360 electrostatic and 180 em, both are distributed, e squared. This is the wave function you speak of. To replace charge with wave is not good terminology and advoids the issue of what is real. What is more real, the wave (function) or the charge (structure) that created it?

WOW, I think that makes sense to you, cause we both love Carver Mead and Feynman. Collective Electrodynamics BEGS THE QUESTION, what is the structure of the wave function.

[StevenO]

why would you replace charge with wave? Is charge not real? A wave lacks a sense of reality (structure) at the quantum world. It is the function of the structure. The movement (function) of the non material structure across time, (another real non material entity), hence the wave terminology. I think your stepping away from a structure by changing charge to wave and relying on its function.

Everything that moves in nature propagates as a wave, so a moving charge should be a wave. From the quantum world we know that matter has wave properties, so for me the wave is the more fundamental thing. Mead states that waves (field) and particles (structure) cannot be seperated. The standing wave structures will form the structure.

Xavier Borg has some nice pictures about this: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-wave.asp

[junglelord]

So what is the structure of the Particle?


I want to post a reply from Dave Thomson. Please be aware this is in no way a slight in any way to your talents. I am very much indebt to your work here Steven.

Dave has been through the wringer, too many times with scientific people who will have nothing to do with his work, and we only speak by email, so he may think I am trying to evanglize. I am not and I agree with his final statement. Whoever will come, will come. I am not invested the same way emotionally from all this as he is. I certainly have no need to evangalize you Steven, however I am interested in how your experinece and intelligence and insight can help me to understand the scientific mind that is open and experienced in EE. We all know that working the way out of the classical mess is not easy. We also know that the church of cosmology is a good sign of brainwashing. Just so we have those terms clear I would like to post this with no malice. I can also see that Dave gave credit to you for the soliton remark, when in fact it was me. My mention of soliton function of nerve conduction.

But basicly it brings some much needed clarification of "moving charge". Indeed this discussion is born out of the very basics. Definition of charge. it is my contention that dispite the education and shared experience of me, you and Dave Smith that none of us can explain in simple terms, charge, mass, force, field, angular momentum, frequency, or length in a cohesive framework with the classical mess we are bound in. APM frees us from the classical mess and allows us to give accurate and reasonable structure, constants and defintions to these terms, and a proper understanding of dimensions and units.

Hi Dean,

You have clearly gotten a taste of why terminology needs to be clarified. And the only way to clarify the terminology is to base it on a clear examination of the physics, themselves.

I see one particular mistake made by Bill Beatty and Steven (which they learned from mainstream science). They both discuss "moving charges." There is no such thing. Charge is a dimension, it is not a physical particle that moves. Similarly, mass is not physical matter that moves, it is a property of matter (a dimension).

Charges do not move. Electrons move. Protons move. Aether moves. Electrons, protons, and Aether possess the property of charge. In that regard, neutrons also possess the property of charge. In the case of neutrons, the electrostatic charge is nulled, however, the electromagnetic charge is slightly greater than the proton electromagnetic charge. The electromagnetic charge is responsible for current (and just about every other electrical phenomena such as potential, resistance, inductance, capacitance, conductance, magnetic flux, etc.)

[The only unit that I am aware of that electrostatic charge affects is magnetic moment. It may turn out that new units involving electrostatic charge are discovered, which would apply directly to the equivalent of General Relativity Theory but from an electrical perspective.]

According to the APM, a stream of neutrons can create electric current. If this is validated, it would provide an important tool for EU theorists for explaining certain cosmological phenomena. There is no way for the Standard Model to make this claim, since it only accepts electrostatic charge as the basis of electric current, which is wrong to begin with. Also, in the SM, the neutron and proton are quantified as quarks, which means the neutron cannot be seen as a bound electron and proton (with cancelled electrostatic charges). If the SM did accept the neutron as a bound electron and proton, then it would be talking out both sides of its mouth, so to speak.

It is important to stop speaking about "moving charges" and to correctly speak about what it is that possesses the dimensions of charges, and is moving. Steven is right about solitons moving, btw. Solitons are a euphemism for Aether units. Aether units have electrostatic and electromagnetic dipoles, which can be manipulated such that they provide a chain of non-material existence, which is capable of manipulating matter at a distance. The Aether units (solitons) can produce a solid chain (electrostatic and electromagnetic fields), or they can fill in the gaps along a chain of dipolar molecules. Solitons are nothing more than electric and electromagnetic fields that have been broken up and mixed with molecules to produce a composite of physical and non-material interactions.

The fact that modern science admits the existence of solitons is one of the biggest hypocrisies. They say there is no such thing as Aether because the Aether is unobservable. Yet, solitons are unobservable and possess all the qualities of the Aether. Scientists honestly believe they can change the name of the observable Aether and say that the new name exists and also claim the old name does not exist. The word "observable" takes on two different meanings. If we are talking about Aether, then observable means, "what the eyes see." If we are talking about solitons, then observable means, "what the physics implies."

That is why it is so difficult to talk about the APM. There are so many fundamental flaws such as in the notation of charge, the two different types of charges, and the bastardization of the language, that it is like deprogramming a cult member. The mental programming that scientists have to go through in college is extreme. People who have not studied physics in school are more likely to understand the APM than people who have allowed themselves to be brainwashed with a lot of misinformation.

Be careful with how much intensity you put behind your drive to educate people about the APM. Unlike a group of psychologists deprogramming a single cult member, you are a single scientist trying to deprogram a world of scientists. It takes strength of mind, clear knowledge, and wisdom to choose the most effective moments of engagement. Unlike a fight, where the goal is to destroy the enemy by death and destruction, our goal is to destroy the enemy by making them our friend. We have to find alliances, rather than find battles to fight. If you don't think the person you are engaging with is truly interested in studying the APM, there is no point in engaging them at this time. Present the knowledge and let those who are interested come to you.

Dave

It is my contention that each dimension has structure. Certainly this is true for Length, Area, Volume, the 90 degree construct of the cube or box. I hold this to be a valid truth for all dimensions. They are non material but each has a valid structure from which functions are derived.