Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

This is an attempt to show how sub-photons can evolve:

1. Single sub-photons that are not aligned (coherent) with other sub-photons can only produce gravitational forces.
2. Sub-photons that are aligned along their rotational axis and unbound to protons will produce electromagnetic waves.
3. Sub-photons that are aligned along their rotational axis but bound to protons (such as in a wire) will produce electricity and magnetism.
4. Sub-photons arranged in a 3d structure such as a tetrahedral will create elementary particles such as neutrinos.
5. Neutrinos arranged in a 3d structure such as a tetrahedral will create electrons.

[img]https://i.postimg.cc/7LQVF2k4/evolution-of-particles.png[/img]

Since most artificially produced magnets have magnetic field lines that are similar to those produced by an electron's spin, I would argue these magnets might be best labeled as an "electrostatically shaped" toroidal magnetic field.

To produce a field more consistent with an electron's magnetic field, it would require a straight current carrying conductor that creates a circular field.

My main point is that both electrostatic and magnetic fields of an electron are due to the movement of sub-photons but they simply have different shaped field lines and originate from electron spin vs electron linear movement. An electron's (and proton's) electrostatic fields are toroidal and an electron's magnetic fields are circular.

With a stationary magnet, we are only able to produce toroidal shaped magnetic fields that mimic the shape of an electron's electrostatic field. Stationary magnets do employ the movement of electrons, though, so they are indeed magnetic fields but they are shaped similar to electrostatic fields.

Electrets are devices created by aligning the spin of particles in a parallel direction, creating parallel toroidal shaped fields, so they are indeed electrostatic fields.

When we experiment with stationary magnets and electrets, we quickly learn the differences. Forces from toroidal shaped electrostatic fields (electron spin) are weaker but travel much longer distances. Forces from toroidal shaped magnetic fields (electron movement) are stronger but over shorter distances than electrostatic fields.

I am not sure if anybody has tried to incorporate an electret core (toroidal field) inside a magnetized tube with a toroidal field. The electret core might be able to elongate the tube's magnetic field. It would make an interesting experiment anyway. This experiment might help to convince scientists that both electrostatic fields and magnetic fields are due to the same (sub-photon) particles. Electron spin simply creates a longer, more compact field than linear electron movement.

Sub-photon planetary particles are assumed to travel in the same direction as the magnetic field lines, forming something akin to a "bubble" around the electron. This "bubble" of polarized sub-photon planetary particles will deflect incoming sub-photon particles that are oriented with opposite (anti-parallel) polarizations and absorb incoming sub-photon particles with parallel polarizations. Both absorption and reflection impart radiation pressure inward toward the "bubble." This "bubble" therefore contains energy from the compression by incoming sub-photon particles. The circulating sub-photon particles are responsible for the magnetic forces during interaction with other electrons or protons. The energy in the sub-photon "bubble" of circulating particles is always proportional to the velocity of the electron (or proton). An electron is a composite particle consisting of smaller sub-particles. Each of the electron's sub-particles creates a magnetic field. Many of the electron's magnetic fields are oppositely oriented. Each of the magnetic fields of the electron's sub-particles contributes to "inertia" or the energy stored in the electron's numerous and often opposing magnetic fields. The magnetic field that we usually attribute to the electron is actually just a residual or leftover after we take into account all of the fields of the sub-particles. The energy stored in the magnetic field of the electron that we observe is actually just a small portion of the total, when we consider all of the sub-particles. We can therefore conclude:

1. "Inertia" is the total energy in the magnetic field of all the electron's more elementary sub-particles.

2. The energy in the magnetic field we observe is computed by adding up all of the vectors of the magnetic field energies of the electron's sub-particles.


The proton would be similar to the electron except it consists of many more elementary sub-particles and therefore stores more "inertia" when it travels through space. The residual magnetic field of the proton is the same as the electron except it has an opposite polarization when traveling through space.

Crawler states: "Yes we know that moving plasma/ions etc attract (eg in lightning forming narrow rivers). Somehow, it seems that static-like attracts static-like (Feynman i think)…. & it seems that non-static-like also attracts non-static-like (confusing).

Anyhow, your subphotons are in effect your aether.
Your subphotons make your neutrinos (which are your sub-elementary particles), which make your elementary particles (eg electrons).

But i notice that u still don’t have any photons anywhere, which, as i mentioned a while ago, makes the name sub-photons look confusing.
If subphotons then u havtahav photons somewhere."

Answer:
You could definitely consider sub-photons as a type of ether.

You are correct, the name "sub-photons" is misleading because there is no "photon" particle. I guess someone could consider a "photon" to be one wavelength if they wanted but there is no distinct "photon" particle. The sub-photon particles carry very little momentum if they travel with their plane of rotation parallel to the direction of travel and can travel at light speed.

[img]https://i.postimg.cc/NjMj9Y24/fig-04-sub-photon-wavefront-along-axis.png[/img]

When the sub-photons are "packaged" into particles, they carry much more inertia because many of the sub-photons are locked into a particle structure and traveling with their planes of rotation perpendicular or at a some angle to the direction of particle travel. One can think of an analogy of pushing a stick through water. If you push the stick with its direction of travel parallel to its long axis, it takes very little effort. If you push the stick with its long axis perpendicular to its direction of travel, there is very high resistance.

[quote=galaxy12 post_id=11312 time=1735682504 user_id=1000000325]
[quote=crawler post_id=11311 time=1735678009 user_id=30412]
What is your electron?
Is it the same silly hard little nutty electron of standard science?
Here when i say little (ie a nut) i mean that standard science says that an electron is an infinitesimal point with no dimension.

Anyhow, two electrons will repel (due to negative charge), not attract.

And, two electrons moving parallel will not feel any magnetic effect.

At least that is my understanding of standard science (but i am rusty at this stuff).[/quote]

Great questions crawler.
My current thinking is that "electrons" are organized "packages" of sub-photons. I think this picture from the Energy Wave Center is starting to get closer to the construction of an electron. The EWT website suggests an electron consists of 10 wave centers, labeled as neutrinos. I consider elementary particles like neutrinos to be "packages" of sub-photons.

[img]https://energywavetheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Electron-picture.png[/img]

https://energywavetheory.com/subatomic-particles/electron/

Two electrons moving in parallel certainly do feel a magnetic effect. This is an established experimental fact of plasma physics. This is one contributor to the layers we see in Birkeland currents. Like charged particles traveling parallel to each other in the same linear direction are pushed together by the magnetic fields they produce. Fast-moving electrons (or protons) will compress into filaments.[/quote]
Yes we know that moving plasma/ions etc attract (eg in lightning forming narrow rivers). Somehow, it seems that static-like attracts static-like (Feynman i think)…. & it seems that non-static-like also attracts non-static-like (confusing).

Anyhow, your subphotons are in effect your aether.
Your subphotons make your neutrinos (which are your sub-elementary particles), which make your elementary particles (eg electrons).

But i notice that u still don’t have any photons anywhere, which, as i mentioned a while ago, makes the name sub-photons look confusing.
If subphotons then u havtahav photons somewhere.

[quote=galaxy12 post_id=11309 time=1735658361 user_id=1000000325]
[img]https://i.postimg.cc/tR2ZGKc9/electron-magnetic-field-direction.png[/img]

Electrons traveling in the same direction (parallel) will be pushed together because their magnetic field lines combine. The electrons in the picture are traveling into the page.

[img]https://i.postimg.cc/qM5nfP59/electron-magnetic-attraction.jpg[/img] [/quote]

I reckon that a compass suffers a nett zero force when it is midway tween 2 parallel wires.
And a nett double force when the wires are anti-parallel.
In your case u show electrons, but wires would give the same i think.

[quote=crawler post_id=11311 time=1735678009 user_id=30412]
What is your electron?
Is it the same silly hard little nutty electron of standard science?
Here when i say little (ie a nut) i mean that standard science says that an electron is an infinitesimal point with no dimension.

Anyhow, two electrons will repel (due to negative charge), not attract.

And, two electrons moving parallel will not feel any magnetic effect.

At least that is my understanding of standard science (but i am rusty at this stuff).
[/quote]

Great questions crawler.

My current thinking is that "electrons" are organized "packages" of sub-photons. I think this picture from the Energy Wave Center is starting to get closer to the construction of an electron. The EWT website suggests an electron consists of 10 wave centers, labeled as neutrinos. I consider elementary particles like neutrinos to be "packages" of sub-photons.

[img]https://energywavetheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Electron-picture.png[/img]

https://energywavetheory.com/subatomic-particles/electron/

Two electrons moving in parallel certainly do feel a magnetic effect. This is an established experimental fact of plasma physics. This is one contributor to the layers we see in Birkeland currents. Like charged particles traveling parallel to each other in the same linear direction are pushed together by the magnetic fields they produce. Fast-moving electrons (or protons) will compress into filaments.

What is your electron?
Is it the same silly hard little nutty electron of standard science?
Here when i say little (ie a nut) i mean that standard science says that an electron is an infinitesimal point with no dimension.

Anyhow, two electrons will repel (due to negative charge), not attract.

And, two electrons moving parallel will not feel any magnetic effect.

At least that is my understanding of standard science (but i am rusty at this stuff).

The electron's magnetic field is produced by a particle's linear motion. We know that linear motion of an electron produces a magnetic field that appears counter-clockwise and circular when the particle is moving away from us. A proton produces a magnetic field that appears clockwise and circular when the particle is moving away from us. In addition to linear motion, we also have to consider an electron's "spin." The "spin" of a particle creates a field that is similar to a coil of wire, with field lines that point toward and away from the direction of travel. The field from the electron's spin, therefore, produces electrostatic forces. In summary, we have 2 differently shaped fields:

Linear motion of an electron or proton produces a circular shaped field directed perpendicular to its direction of travel, thus producing "magnetic" forces.

[img]https://i.postimg.cc/tR2ZGKc9/electron-magnetic-field-direction.png[/img]



Electrons traveling in the same direction (parallel) will be pushed together because their magnetic field lines combine. The electrons in the picture are traveling into the page.

[img]https://i.postimg.cc/qM5nfP59/electron-magnetic-attraction.jpg[/img]


The magnetic force is directed at perpendicular (90 degrees) to the direction of electron travel.

[img]https://i.postimg.cc/NFNGWrQR/electron-forces-magnetic-same-dir.png
[/img]


Spin of the electron produces a toroidal-shaped field that has field lines mostly parallel to its direction of travel, thus producing electric/electrostatic forces.

[img]https://i.postimg.cc/1tPtkS1c/electron-spin-toroidal-field.png[/img]



Electrons with the same spin and are whose rotational axis is aligned along their direction of travel are pushed together by the toroidal field. This is an example of electric/electrostatic attraction.

[img]https://i.postimg.cc/d1CbjcTr/electron-electrostatic-attraction-of-spin.png[/img]



Electrons with opposite spin repel each other. This is an example of electric/electrostatic repulsion.

[img]https://i.postimg.cc/26ts486z/electron-electrostatic-repulsion-of-spin.png[/img]


Every particle produces 2 fields. Linear motion produces the "magnetic" field that acts perpendicularly to the particle's direction of travel. Spin produces the electric/electrostatic field that acts parallel to the particle's direction of travel.

This is very interesting Crawler.

The study states "The outgoing transverse waves reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about
one wavelength away from the source. "

I never realized this study was done. This is exactly what my model predicts.

Pretty cool.

I am a bit rusty re Gasser & Dinu & Hertz & Co.
But, i think there are no (natural) waves. What we have is manmade pulses. So, describing the near-field in terms of wavelengths will probly lead to tears.

Crawler states "A simple experiment is presented which indicates that electromagnetic fields
propagate superluminally in the near-field next to an oscillating electric dipole source."

Very interesting. The key word in this is "NEAR-FIELD." If the distance between the emitter and the detector are less than a wavelength apart, the sub-photon MAGNETIC field is intact from the emitter to the detector. Once the current in the emitter changes direction, the magnetic field is ejected from the conductor and propagates with the electromagnetic wave at the speed of light. I did not realize anyone did a study of this so I do appreciate it. It does help support my model. If we can design a setup that propagates from NEAR-FIELD to NEAR-FIELD at long distances, we may be able to achieve faster-than-light communications. My proposal for faster-than-light communication showed a couple of alternatives how this could be achieved.

There are lots of theories re planetary atoms & sub-atoms & sub-sub-atoms.
I think that some of them must have sub-names & sub-sub-names etc.

Ionel Dinu has a few papers, here is one.

Radio Waves – Part II
Ionel DINU, M.Sc.
Physicist, Teacher of Physics
Member of Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA)
http://www.worldsci.org/people/Ionel_Dinu
e-mail: dynuionel@yahoo.com
(Dated: May 28, 2013; modified: June 12, 2013)
Abstract
In Part I of this series on Radio Waves, I have tried to show that Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetic
waves is untenable because electric fields cannot exist in vacuum where there are no electric charges to
produce them and because experiments have yet to prove that electric fields can be produced in
vacuum by changing magnetic fields. My aim was to show that a new theory of radio waves is needed
since that based on Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetic waves claiming that a radio wave travelling in
vacuum consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields mutually inducing one another is not
supported by experiments, being based on assumptions and mathematical manipulations. Comments
received from interested readers prompted me to offer further arguments against Maxwell’s theory and
this led to an extended version of the same paper titled “Trouble with Maxwell’s Electromagnetic
Theory: Can Fields Induce Other Fields in Vacuum?”.
In this article I return to my original aim when I began this series on Radio Waves and I will try to
show what I think radio waves really are and how are they produced in an antenna.

Instantaneous Actions at a Distance Defended

Wolfgang G. Gasser

Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments – 1999-02-23

Electrostatic effects are instantaneous actions at a distance. There is a very simple experiment which can refute the whole scientific world view. This view is based on the validity of the equations of Maxwell and on the premise that all electromagnetic effects propagate at the speed of light.

It is quite possible that this experiment has been executed without publishing the results. It is not even necessary to carry it out. One must only read carefully the works of Heinrich Hertz, who was the first to prove the existence of electromagnetic transversal radiation. Hertz was an honest person and did not keep quiet about all the results which were in contradiction with his own beliefs (as unfortunately most scientists do).

Hertz clearly found by means of interference effects that electrostatic effects propagate at infinite speed. But he was so convinced about the inexistence of actions at a distance that he did not believe in these effects (see below). Hertz also found in experiments, which he carried out several times very carefully, that the speed of electric waves in wires is around 200000 km/s (which is correct). This result was against the theory. So, when other researchers claimed to have confirmed that this speed was exactly the speed of light, Hertz explained his own results by unexplainable systematic errors!

It is generally admitted that the situation nearby an emitting dipole antenna does not agree with the normal explanation and the drawings of waves peeling off, which can be found in any textbook. So if we take seriously logic we must conclude that this explanation is in principle wrong.