Atomic Model Editor

Page 5 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Jul 10, 2016 8:45 pm

.
Nevyn, Please excuse the delay. I've been sidetracked a few times. Thoughts are percolating.
Nevyn wrote: I don't agree with charge orbiting the charge stream … I'm going to write this as gravity = expansion to make it easier to explain. Each individual photon expands, moving all photons in the stream closer together. They do not have charge fields to exclude each other so they must group together, effectively making the charge stream more dense. … . It is not a cylinder but a cone.
Airman. I’m surprised you can muster an argument that charge streams do not expand under Miles’ Expansion theory of gravity. My answer is larger protons emit larger photons which describe larger charge streams.

Also, the charge channel does radiate. There are photon/photon collisions between the ambient field and the charge stream. There can be many charged particles in the charge stream, each with their own emission field.

I’m guessing with every breath of course. The charge stream’s emission field within a conducting solid is much weaker than a proton. However, if the proton was passing the charge stream at fairly cooperating direction and velocity, the charge stream could capture it. The charge stream field is significantly different from the ambient charge field. Many proton masses may be passing each second. I believe the emission field falls of as 1/r so smaller and faster particles may be able to get closer to the center of a charge stream.

I believe gravity can be thought of as a velocity limit, in the sense that slow particles will not be able to escape the dominant charge structure’s expansion. The particle velocity and direction will determine whether the particle could develop an orbit about the charge stream here or nearby or not.  

Nevyn wrote: This is probably not an issue as charge streams are very small, short lived things.
Airman. Well, charge streams are the subject matter here. I understand some span galaxies. I’m sure they exist in countless forms, even in the atomic scale.

During this discussion I’ve mainly considered charge channels within a copper wire’s charge structure. “Short lived” may be applicable to diffuse gas atoms or electrons; but more often than not, more photons and charged particles keep coming, both ways. Unless the atom is well isolated, there’s nothing short lived about it, especially in solids. very small is meh; in my copper wire charge streams might extend 100,000X farther than atomic nuclei.  

Nevyn wrote: When I said "larger particles will feel the magnetism of the charge stream and it can make them move in helical paths", I meant electrons but not protons.
Airman.  "magnetism of the charge stream" . Your statement implies that the charge stream not only has an emission field, it is strong enough to deliver a magnetic component as well.
Above, you indicated the opposite - “charge streams, …, do not have charge fields to exclude each other”, i.e. no emission field, hence no magnetic component.

Which is it? Are you arguing with me too?

We must define our initial conditions. How would a proton appear in a charge stream? Is the proton in the charge stream, or is it approaching the charge stream? If it were penetrated by the photonic core of the charge stream I might ask – how did it get there? Are there other charge streams?  I suppose the proton will drift slowly away from a single or even two charge stream sources. How can three orthogonal charge channels be more stable? Most likely a proton in a single charge stream would reorient itself to the stream, build up spin, and drift along until the charge stream enters - but the charged particle is blocked by - the emission field of an atom, electron or another proton. The proton might form part of molecule. The charge stream in this case doesn’t seem like one forged in a star.

If a proton has its own sustained charge field, and collided with a charge stream, the proton would likely have been slowed, turned and pushed back out by moderate charge stream currents. There may be interference with or even capture by the charge stream but again, what are the exact conditions, charge current density and such. I see the likely outcome as the proton getting captured by, and subsequently orbiting, the charge stream. It will then eventually drift toward the next charge stream destination, say the emission field of two rotating electrons. The proton might become part of a larger charge structure, otherwise I’d count it as an impurity, just along for the ride.

Nevyn wrote: I think an electron would be controlled by the stream, almost locked inside of it, where-as a proton will be pushed along but may escape fairly easily. I think a proton would be more of a block to the stream where-as an electron would be carried along easily. The electron will still block the stream but it will be pushed much faster than a proton. However it happens, the proton is too large to be pushed into a helical path unless it is in a very large charge stream (which has made me realise that I have been imagining the streams as very small, such as through-charge in an atom).
Airman. Too many variables. What is the event? What is the matter? Solid, liquid, or gas? What’s the size, composition and density of the charge stream? We haven’t properly defined the charge stream at any speed below c. You seem to assume particles are pushed while blocking the entire charge stream, I’m thinking larger slower objects cannot approach the center of the charge stream closer than faster/smaller particles.

Nevyn wrote:Please note that I am talking about charge streams and not charge fields. A charge field is much bigger and less dense than a charge stream and would affect protons differently since they would not so easily escape a field.
Airman. Agreed.
……………………………..
Your relativity app sounds very interesting. It’s great when you can program so well you can see a final product when most everyone else is still trying to understand the question. I could RP program my HP on the fly once too. I like SpinSim, and would hope to offer only beneficial suggestions.
...........................
Nevyn wrote: I don't think 'slow things down' is the right way to say it in this case. The electron takes up space so it just blocks the charge field, reducing the amount of charge that reaches the proton. This can produce a weaker bond but in some cases, a weak bond is required for the 2 elements to bond at all.
Airman. "just blocks the charge field". I roughly covered the cases of a proton in the charge stream or outside the stream above. A charged particle orbiting, or even joined to central charge stream will drift until stopped by an emission field that belongs to both the atom and spinning electrons. A very high current, say in the form of many large charged particles being accelerated by a very large increase in charge stream intensities - my finger pushed the on switch - may enable the proton to move forward anyway.
Nevyn wrote: I don't think a proton would orbit a charge channel. A proton sort of becomes part of the stream because it uses the charge, some for emission and some for through-charge which allows the stream to continue on, although with a reduced density. A proton could be re-oriented by the charge stream but no circling around or through it like an electron would. Remember that the electron gets stuck between the proton and charge stream. It wants to keep going but the proton just won't let it.
Airman. In some cases true, other cases not. Define the charge channel first. How do you define the charge channel between the earth and the sun? The light speed photonic one; we know it exists. The charge stream cannot be just the light speed direct path. There are a large number of charged particles moving from the sun to the earth taking a slower path, I believe a constant billion amp current flow. Do all the moving charge particle share a single thread? They do not. Miles describes the two-way sun/planet charge stream, after great resistance, as I experienced with the idea of expansion, I’ve taken it to heart.

Nevyn wrote: I don't think the ambient charge field has much to do with it. Being ambient, it is less dense than the charge stream itself. It may have some affect but not a major one.
Airman. The ambient field must be the first field defined; one cannot determine the boundary between charged particle emissions and the ambient field unless their relative field densities were known. If the boundaries are known, one could determine emission intensities. The strength of the charge stream emission field (as I suggest above) is probably a function of the ambient field and available charged particles.

Nevyn wrote: If we are talking about charge streams emitted from atoms or proton stacks (same thing, in this case) then the radius is not variable but the density of the charge stream can be. This is because the proton sets the radius since that charge stream has to go through the protons central hole which gives us a size limit.
Airman. I agree that the charge stream density varies, but not in your photon wide charge stream diameter. How would we calculate the diameter of a charge stream? We could probably determine where the two fields, 1) ambient charge field; and 2) charge stream emission field; cancel each other. That boundary becomes the diameter of the charge stream. Each charged particle may have it own boundary, as the charge streams help sort particles as they are accelerated. If the particle can orbit the charge stream within that boundary and the charge stream is of sufficient strength, then I believe the particle will do so.

It appears charge streams can sweep up charged particles passing between atoms.

Thanks Nevyn
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by Nevyn on Tue Jul 12, 2016 12:15 am

LongtimeAirman wrote:I’m surprised you can muster an argument that charge streams do not expand under Miles’ Expansion theory of gravity. My answer is larger protons emit larger photons which describe larger charge streams.

I'm not arguing that they do not expand, I explicitly stated that everything does, I'm just saying that it is not an important factor because photons travel so fast and gravity acts so slow.

There is no evidence that larger protons emit larger photons and I don't see any reason why they would. It is possible for them to make specific charge photons gain a spin, sure, but it is not going to do it to every single photon that it encounters. If it did so, then all charge would get larger and larger until the proton can't use it anymore. Miles has stated that protons exchange spin energy with the charge photons that go through it so for every photon it makes larger, it probably makes one smaller. But I think most charge photons are not changed in size.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Also, the charge channel does radiate. There are photon/photon collisions between the ambient field and the charge stream. There can be many charged particles in the charge stream, each with their own emission field.

No, the charge channel does not radiate for there is nothing in it to radiate charge. A charge channel is just a collection of charge photons. Random collisions with the ambient field do not create radiation. To create an emission field, the process needs to be continuous, like a proton, not at random intervals.

The charged particles in the charge stream are not really the charge channel itself, they are just travelers along for the ride. They can have their own emission fields but that is not the same as the charge channel having an emission field.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Nevyn wrote: This is probably not an issue as charge streams are very small, short lived things.
Airman. Well, charge streams are the subject matter here. I understand some span galaxies. I’m sure they exist in countless forms, even in the atomic scale.

That statement was made to show (but not very well) that we need to consider time here. Photons travel at c and we are looking at very small volumes of space so an individual photon comes and goes so quickly that gravity doesn't have enough time to affect the situation. Gravity does exist at this level and it does cause photons to expand but not noticeably in the time that an individual photon is within the volume we are looking at.

I also made the distinction between a charge stream (or channel) and a charge field. I think that what you are talking about (mostly) is a charge field, not a charge stream. Charge streams exist between or within atoms, not galaxies, stars and planets, those are charge fields. Even an electric current is more of a charge field than a charge stream (although I can see why it might be called a stream since it has a definite direction).

LongtimeAirman wrote:During this discussion I’ve mainly considered charge channels within a copper wire’s charge structure. “Short lived” may be applicable to diffuse gas atoms or electrons; but more often than not, more photons and charged particles keep coming, both ways. Unless the atom is well isolated, there’s nothing short lived about it, especially in solids. very small is meh; in my copper wire charge streams might extend 100,000X farther than atomic nuclei.  

I wasn't very clear, but I was discussing how gravity might apply to a charge stream. I meant small as in a charge stream only exists within or between atoms. I meant short lived as in the photon (we have to look at individual photons to talk about gravity at this level) moves into and out of the stream so quickly because of its velocity. Gravity just doesn't have enough time to expand the photons over such a small distance with such a large velocity.

Even in a copper wire carrying en electric current, the charge streams are never very far from an atom. The copper wire is made of copper atoms and that wire contains trillions of little charge streams between atoms. You certainly couldn't disconnect the wire and move it 100,000 times (times what?) further away and expect the current to still flow where it did before. If that were so, then we couldn't make such small electrical components and we wouldn't need wires between components.

If you want to look into something that does sound a little like what you describe, then look into corona. Not the suns corona but high voltage electrical discharge. When working with high voltages, above 10,000V, you have to be careful about how your wires and solids are arranged. Any sharp corners or bends will cause corona discharge which is leaking charge photons that can't make the turn. However, even in this case, once it leaves the wire or solid part, it is not a charge stream, just leaking charge photons. I'm not even sure I would call it a field but it comes closer to a charge field than a charge stream.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Nevyn wrote: When I said "larger particles will feel the magnetism of the charge stream and it can make them move in helical paths", I meant electrons but not protons.
Airman.  "magnetism of the charge stream" . Your statement implies that the charge stream not only has an emission field, it is strong enough to deliver a magnetic component as well.
Above, you indicated the opposite - “charge streams, …, do not have charge fields to exclude each other”, i.e. no emission field, hence no magnetic component.

Which is it? Are you arguing with me too?

You have misunderstood. Each individual photon has a magnetic component, not the field itself, but when summed, we can consider it the magnetic component of the field (this is just a useful abstraction). You don't need an emission field to have a magnetic component. A single, lonely photon will have spin so it has a magnetic component. We normally talk about emission fields having a magnetic component because we measure at a scale much larger than the photon so we are measuring the sum of the magnetic components of the photons present.

LongtimeAirman wrote:We must define our initial conditions. How would a proton appear in a charge stream? Is the proton in the charge stream, or is it approaching the charge stream? If it were penetrated by the photonic core of the charge stream I might ask – how did it get there? Are there other charge streams?  I suppose the proton will drift slowly away from a single or even two charge stream sources. How can three orthogonal charge channels be more stable? Most likely a proton in a single charge stream would reorient itself to the stream, build up spin, and drift along until the charge stream enters - but the charged particle is blocked by - the emission field of an atom, electron or another proton. The proton might form part of molecule. The charge stream in this case doesn’t seem like one forged in a star.

If a proton has its own sustained charge field, and collided with a charge stream, the proton would likely have been slowed, turned and pushed back out by moderate charge stream currents. There may be interference with or even capture by the charge stream but again, what are the exact conditions, charge current density and such. I see the likely outcome as the proton getting captured by, and subsequently orbiting, the charge stream. It will then eventually drift toward the next charge stream destination, say the emission field of two rotating electrons. The proton might become part of a larger charge structure, otherwise I’d count it as an impurity, just along for the ride.

A charge stream is something that goes through a proton, so it is smaller than it. There is no way a proton can orbit a charge stream. I cringe every time I read the word orbit when discussing electrons and it is worse when discussing protons. Electrons do not orbit a charge stream. They are stuck inside of it with the stream pushing from one direction and a proton stopping the electron from continuing on its merry way. If I say that the moon orbits the earth, you don't think that the moon is inside of the earth. It is very far away from it, even if you measure in earth radii (to use a relative value so we could compare it to a particle and a charge stream).

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Your relativity app sounds very interesting. It’s great when you can program so well you can see a final product when most everyone else is still trying to understand the question. I could RP program my HP on the fly once too. I like SpinSim, and would hope to offer only beneficial suggestions.

I often think about porting my relativity apps into the browser but it is the graphics that usually stops me. I need to find some textures or images I could use for a sprite. Of course, I shouldn't let that stop me from getting it working. It doesn't rely on the graphics at all and they are pretty simple apps.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Nevyn wrote: I don't think 'slow things down' is the right way to say it in this case. The electron takes up space so it just blocks the charge field, reducing the amount of charge that reaches the proton. This can produce a weaker bond but in some cases, a weak bond is required for the 2 elements to bond at all.
Airman. "just blocks the charge field". I roughly covered the cases of a proton in the charge stream or outside the stream above. A charged particle orbiting, or even joined to central charge stream will drift until stopped by an emission field that belongs to both the atom and spinning electrons. A very high current, say in the form of many large charged particles being accelerated by a very large increase in charge stream intensities - my finger pushed the on switch - may enable the proton to move forward anyway.
Nevyn wrote: I don't think a proton would orbit a charge channel. A proton sort of becomes part of the stream because it uses the charge, some for emission and some for through-charge which allows the stream to continue on, although with a reduced density. A proton could be re-oriented by the charge stream but no circling around or through it like an electron would. Remember that the electron gets stuck between the proton and charge stream. It wants to keep going but the proton just won't let it.
Airman. In some cases true, other cases not. Define the charge channel first. How do you define the charge channel between the earth and the sun? The light speed photonic one; we know it exists. The charge stream cannot be just the light speed direct path. There are a large number of charged particles moving from the sun to the earth taking a slower path, I believe a constant billion amp current flow. Do all the moving charge particle share a single thread? They do not. Miles describes the two-way sun/planet charge stream, after great resistance, as I experienced with the idea of expansion, I’ve taken it to heart.

As I said above, I consider that a charge field, not a charge stream or channel. In my opinion, a charge stream only exists within, between or a small distance from an atomic nuclei. Even the charge that exits an atom is only a charge stream for a short distance from it as it will soon disperse and become part of the ambient field.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Nevyn wrote: I don't think the ambient charge field has much to do with it. Being ambient, it is less dense than the charge stream itself. It may have some affect but not a major one.
Airman. The ambient field must be the first field defined; one cannot determine the boundary between charged particle emissions and the ambient field unless their relative field densities were known. If the boundaries are known, one could determine emission intensities. The strength of the charge stream emission field (as I suggest above) is probably a function of the ambient field and available charged particles.

You don't need to know their specific densities to determine the boundary, just that one is more dense or more directional than the other. The ambient field does not have a direction, it is random, but charge streams do have direction and even that is enough to determine the boundary without needing to look at densities. If you want to know the intensity of a stream of water, you just throw something in and see how fast and what direction it moves.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Nevyn wrote: If we are talking about charge streams emitted from atoms or proton stacks (same thing, in this case) then the radius is not variable but the density of the charge stream can be. This is because the proton sets the radius since that charge stream has to go through the protons central hole which gives us a size limit.
Airman. I agree that the charge stream density varies, but not in your photon wide charge stream diameter. How would we calculate the diameter of a charge stream? We could probably determine where the two fields, 1) ambient charge field; and 2) charge stream emission field; cancel each other. That boundary becomes the diameter of the charge stream. Each charged particle may have it own boundary, as the charge streams help sort particles as they are accelerated. If the particle can orbit the charge stream within that boundary and the charge stream is of sufficient strength, then I believe the particle will do so.

The diameter of the charge stream is set by the hole through the center of a proton. It is not as wide as the proton itself (and I am only talking about the spinning BPhoton that makes the proton, not its charge field) and if my SpinSim is anywhere near correct then that hole is about 1/10th to 1/5th of the proton diameter (again, not including the protons emission field). Of course, if it is that large, then it seems like an electron would fit in there easily. Maybe it isn't that the electron can't fit through the protons central hole, but that it is much more likely to collide with the protons BPhoton as it spins around. So the proton sort of knocks it back out before it gets too far inside. I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud here.

LongtimeAirman wrote:It appears charge streams can sweep up charged particles passing between atoms.

What makes you say that? If we are talking about bonded atoms in a molecule, then I disagree. There is not enough room for large particles to get between them. But if you just mean atoms in a gas, for example, then maybe they can affect them a bit but I think that is not really a 'stream between atoms'. I'm not sure how close the bonds are between atoms in a lattice so it may be applicable in that scenario.

Miles has stated that the electrons flow around atoms while the charge passes through it (although some charge will also go around).

Please note that my bolded words are not shouted, they are just emphasized to show their importance.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:56 am

.
Nevyn wrote: I'm not arguing that they (charge streams) do not expand, I explicitly stated that everything does, I'm just saying that it is not an important factor because photons travel so fast and gravity acts so slow.
Airman. Charge stream current isn’t just photons. Charge stream current also includes charged particles.

Consider two large charged particles (white circles) in free space – away from the emission fields of the earth, moon and sun or other ambient field sufficiently strong to re-orient the particles.

The radial lines are the photon emission fields for the two particles. If I were to place a very small test particle somewhere in the combined emission field, one could readily understand the subsequent movement away from one or the other charged particle (ignoring gravity).

The charge channel (or charge stream) is unique in that charge matter flow in the charge channel is always toward one or the other charged particles.

I’ve repeated the figure with most of the emission lines are removed. Charge channels start with photonic flow. There might be a constant two-way photon flow (number of photons per second) between two charged particles. The charge channel is much more than a photon wide. There is an area on each charge particle where direct emission leads to the other charge particle, perhaps corresponding to an umbra, and adjacent areas where emission paths are turned toward the charge channel. I can’t quote chapter and verse, but I believe that there are charge images of all the planets on the sun, and it is due to this charge channel behavior.

Nevyn wrote:There is no evidence that larger protons emit larger photons and I don't see any reason why they would… . But I think most charge photons are not changed in size.
Airman. Agreed, I guess. I wasn’t trying to suggest that there are larger or smaller protons that emit larger or smaller photons. At any given time all protons are the same size, and all B-photons are the same size. If expansion theory is true, then all matter, including B-photons are constantly expanding. I assume they expand at the same rate.

Nevyn wrote:No, the charge channel does not radiate for there is nothing in it to radiate charge. A charge channel is just a collection of charge photons. Random collisions with the ambient field do not create radiation. To create an emission field, the process needs to be continuous, like a proton, not at random intervals.

The charged particles in the charge stream are not really the charge channel itself, they are just travelers along for the ride. They can have their own emission fields but that is not the same as the charge channel having an emission field.
Airman. Did I read correctly? The charged particles in the charge stream are not really the charge channel itself, they are just travelers along for the ride. Yes, but they are in the charge channel, they have aligned their axii parallel to the line joining the two source centers, and they are spinning, traveling toward one or the other charged channel sources. Those charged particles constitute real current, slower than photons.
...
Nevyn wrote:A charge stream is something that goes through a proton, so it is smaller than it. There is no way a proton can orbit a charge stream. I cringe every time I read the word orbit when discussing electrons and it is worse when discussing protons. Electrons do not orbit a charge stream. They are stuck inside of it with the stream pushing from one direction and a proton stopping the electron from continuing on its merry way. If I say that the moon orbits the earth, you don't think that the moon is inside of the earth. It is very far away from it, even if you measure in earth radii (to use a relative value so we could compare it to a particle and a charge stream).
Airman. I agree that the particles are just within the charge channel. Those particles will be able to travel from one charge channel source to the other. I think they describe helical paths.
...
Nevyn wrote:In my opinion, a charge stream only exists within, between or a small distance from an atomic nuclei. Even the charge that exits an atom is only a charge stream for a short distance from it as it will soon disperse and become part of the ambient field.
Airman. I agree that the charge field is more complicated than just the emission field, but how can a charge stream form in a single emission field?  
...
Nevyn wrote:You don't need to know their specific densities to determine the boundary, just that one is more dense or more directional than the other. The ambient field does not have a direction, it is random, but charge streams do have direction and even that is enough to determine the boundary without needing to look at densities. If you want to know the intensity of a stream of water, you just throw something in and see how fast and what direction it moves.
Airman. The ambient field here on earth is vertical. What makes you think it must be random? It is what it is, and it needs to be identified as an initial condition.
...
LongtimeAirman wrote:It appears charge streams can sweep up charged particles passing between atoms.
Nevyn wrote:What makes you say that?
Airman. Charged particles in the charge channel will move toward the channel sources thereby clearing the channel.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by Nevyn on Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:45 pm

Sorry for the late reply. I haven't had much time for physics this week but I have been trying to see things a bit bigger than I was. I think we need to create categories of charge channels based on size. I have limited myself to nuclear charge channels and you have included much larger channels in your definition.

However, I still think there is a difference between a charge field and a charge channel but the more I think about it the more I find similarities. I think this is because charge fields are required to create charge channels. One difference between a charge field and a charge channel is the directions that the photons travel relative to each other. I think a charge channel has a single general direction with some slight variations but then I think about the charge field of a rectangular shape and that could also produce such a field. Although, I think it would have more photons with varying directions than a charge channel so it may still be different.

The way I have been seeing it is that a charge field sends charge into a proton. Part of that charge goes straight through the proton and emerges on the other side and continues its journey. It is that through-charge that is the charge channel. It is a focused charge stream. So your diagram has only shown the first stage of that process and not (what I have defined as) the charge channel itself. Although you have placed your protons so that their charge fields interact but in my scenario the protons would need to be orthogonal to each other. One has to emit into the pole of the other and it is only the charge that makes it out the other side that is the channel. I think that channel would quickly dissipate (through interaction with the ambient field or other charge fields) unless it finds another proton (such as in a stack) that will maintain the focus.

In this way, one proton is the charge source and the other is the charge focus or lens, if you will. A proton stack provides 2 things that maintain the channel: lined up protons that keep it focused and the emission fields of those protons that protect the channel from the ambient field, somewhat.

Now that I am trying to force myself to think about other types of charge channels, I will say that the above mostly only applies to nuclear charge channels. Although we may find that similar concepts are required even for large channels. For example, if we wanted to discuss solar system sized channels, we may find that we still need a charge source (the sun) and a charge focus (a planet). In Miles papers he has discussed how the planets want to point one pole or the other directly at the incoming charge but are stopped by interactions with other charge fields (such as the Jovians). This implies that the planets are trying to orient themselves into a position where they can act as a lens. See his papers on axial tilt for more on this.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Nevyn wrote:There is no evidence that larger protons emit larger photons and I don't see any reason why they would… . But I think most charge photons are not changed in size.
Airman. Agreed, I guess. I wasn’t trying to suggest that there are larger or smaller protons that emit larger or smaller photons. At any given time all protons are the same size, and all B-photons are the same size. If expansion theory is true, then all matter, including B-photons are constantly expanding. I assume they expand at the same rate.

I wasn't trying to suggest larger and smaller protons either, just sloppy wording. What I thought you meant was that a proton would emit larger photons than it takes in and that I disagree with. I am not saying that they can't emit larger or smaller photons than the proton takes in, just that they would be rare occurrences rather than the norm. I should also say that a rare occurrence for a proton could be what humans would consider a high frequency. Let's say a proton could give a charge particle an extra spin once a second. That doesn't really sound rare, but 1 second at the scale of a proton is a very long time. For example, the last photon it made larger would be 300 000km away (or at least it has traveled that distance) when it emits another one.

I haven't really said it outright before but you can see over my last few posts that I switch between time and distance often. The two are interchangeable because of c and it helps to think of it in both ways when looking at this scale. It helps to remove yourself from human thinking and see it as a photon would. To truly ride the light ray, as Einstein is said to have done. It is easy to right-off a second but not so easy to ignore 300 000km.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Did I read correctly? The charged particles in the charge stream are not really the charge channel itself, they are just travelers along for the ride. Yes, but they are in the charge channel, they have aligned their axii parallel to the line joining the two source centers, and they are spinning, traveling toward one or the other charged channel sources. Those charged particles constitute real current, slower than photons.

Yes, they are in the channel, a very large channel if it contains protons, and that changes the properties of the channel. That's why we need to categorize these channels and study their individual properties. They will inherit properties from each other as the size increases, I imagine. That is, there is some base level channel that only contains charge photons. Then there is the nuclear charge channels like I am using which will contain charge photons and maybe some electrons and other particles smaller than electrons. The nuclear channel will still act like the base channel in many ways with the added properties that the electrons create. You are talking about a level or two up from that where there are protons as well, like the solar wind. All interesting areas for research. I'm glad your thinking bigger than I was and am happy to let you float around in those ideas while I am looking more at the smaller channels.

As a working definition, I am defining a charge field as spherical charge emission and a charge channel as a directional charge stream. I mentioned rectangular charge fields above but I am going to ignore them because they are man-made objects. Nothing in nature is rectangular until we start building molecules or lattices and I see them as a collection of atoms that have their own charge channels so the charge field of a rectangular object is really just the emission of many small channels. But we may find that too constricting and need to change it later. I'm just trying to reduce the edge cases for the initial study.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
I agree that the charge field is more complicated than just the emission field, but how can a charge stream form in a single emission field?  

It can't but it only needs some lens to focus the charge into a channel so the actual charge photons do only come from a single source, although that need not be the case.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
The ambient field here on earth is vertical. What makes you think it must be random? It is what it is, and it needs to be identified as an initial condition.

We have to be very careful when using the word ambient. I would say the charge field of the earth is vertical (assuming measurements are taken on surface and vertical is taken to mean away from the surface in line with gravity) and that charge field exists in an ambient field. Even that statement doesn't go far enough because the earth is in the sun's charge field which is in the galaxy's charge field which may be in a super-galaxy's charge field with each providing another context for the term ambient. You are not incorrect, just a bit misleading.

In truth, the ambient field is not really random. It is the sum of all influences at a given point and if you know all of those influences then it is perfectly calculable. However, it is usually fine to consider it random. I would suggest that the word ambient be given to the level of charge that you can consider random for the given problem. Given that definition, I would not consider the earth's charge field to be part of the ambient field, even when measuring from the surface. However, I try to remember that others may and I might even be guilty of it myself from time to time.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Jul 26, 2016 12:22 am

.
Thanks for the lifeline away from the insanity of contemporary US politics.

Charge channels through charge particles, or between charge particles? Internal or external charge channels? I hadn’t thought about that.

Your Stacked Spin Simulator (SpinSim) may be the easiest – no sarcasm – way to appreciate the complexity of an internal charge channel which must also pass through internally stacked spins. SpinSim shows that all charged particles are high-energy spun-up photons. Your Atomic Viewer Simulator (AV), shows (among many other things) that atoms have charge channels in up/down, left/right, and front/back directions. I cannot imagine how a charge particle can have more than a single internal charge channel. I don’t see how a single internal charge channel would imply or permit a single external charge channel. Only atomic matter is aligned edge to pole wise or in proton stacks. Charge particles will align to the dominant charge sources. On the other hand, you may have explained why there may not be a strong correlation between sub atomic and atomic charge structures.

Meanwhile, where are all the charged particles? How do they move about? Internal channels cannot move charge particles. I’m trying to understand current flow between dominant charge particles consistent with my understanding of Miles’ Charge Field. I’m convinced these – ok, external – charge channels exist, and I’ve been running mental sims for weeks. Disregarding focused charge streams for the time being, all charge channels I describe below are external to charge particles.

Charge channels are determined strictly by the charge channel’s charged particle sources. Charge channels exist between all charge particles with overlapping charge fields. I believe there are as many channels as there are nearby charged particles. As in my previous diagram, charge channels are roughly defined as a volume of space in which the photon emissions of two charge particles are oppositely aligned.

Important factors include the particles’ size, type, motion, orientation and separation distance. Also, I will assume that the charge channel exists within an ambient field such that all charge particles present may be assumed to align to a dominant, vertical (upward) emission field, as on earth’s surface. For example, in AV your atomic models’ vertical orientation reflected the earth’s emission field. As I stated in the SpinSim string, I will try to be clear in explaining charge particle motions; I don’t exactly share your ambient view yet.

In my previous diagram I didn’t identify the charge particles as protons, though I don’t have a problem assuming they are protons. Protons emit photons in all directions, not just the equatorial plane. Charge channels not aligned to the proton's equatorial emission plane will emit fewer photons. In any case, assuming uniform ‘dandelion-like’ particle emission fields, the channel image is a 2-D slice that can be rotated about the line joining the two charge particle centers. The charge channel thus resembles two oppositely pointed cones. The two cones may be thought to be joined at their bases by a vertical bisector between the two charges in the diagram; that bisector is actually a circular area - the equal area bases of the image’s two equal and opposite cones.

Another important factor is the presence of smaller charge particles. That bisector above may also be thought of as the minimum energy surface between the two opposing emission fields. That area will vary. In the absence of an overall ambient net charge flow, all smaller charged particles within the charge channel will migrate to and speed differentiate themselves parallel to the minimum energy surface.

Weaker or very long charge channels will be comprised almost entirely of photons. Closer and stronger charge sources will produce stronger charge channel photon flows capable of moving smaller charge particles within the charged channel.

The helical paths I’ve been referring to will manifest themselves when there is a net charge flow forcing charged particles to cross the minimum energy surface area. When the two charge channel source particles are atoms, I believe that the electrons circling the drain may actually occupy the charge channel in the vicinity of the minimum energy surface between the two atoms. I imagine pinwheel galaxies reflect the minimum energy surface area within a charge channel between much larger ‘invisible’ galactic charge sources.

I'll post this and call it a day.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by Nevyn on Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:59 pm

Linode, the hosting company I use to host my website, upgraded their pricing structure and I got a nice free upgrade. I haven't looked deeply into it yet, but it seems they have introduced a plan underneath mine (I did have the cheapest option) and I considered dropping my account down to the new $5 plan instead of the $10 (US) plan I have. The new plan gives me 2GB of ram to use (instead of the previous 1GB) and another 6GB of hard drive space (still only 1 CPU core but that is fine for what I want, at the moment). The main upgrade for me is the speed of the network. The $5 plan only allows 75Mbps network traffic, which is probably fine for me, but I enabled the new upgrades and the speed of my site is remarkably faster since it has a theoretical 1Gbps now. I use to notice that it took a little bit of time to load a page but now it is nice and quick. So I think I will leave it as is for now.

Have a look, if you have time to waste, and let me know if you notice a speed improvement. It only affects the actual page retrieval since my apps are all run on your local machine.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:52 pm

.
Some very long loading waits, including I give ups (on my firefox).
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by Nevyn on Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:05 pm

Longer than before today?

My VM is hosted in Singapore, so it may take longer in the US than here in Australia. It is still showing decent speeds for me. It also depends on your own internet connection. I am on fibre at work, which is where I have tested it from, and at home but haven't tested that connection yet, though I expect similar speeds.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by Nevyn on Tue Feb 28, 2017 6:12 pm

It is a little slower at home than at my work, since we have a 100Mb/s connection but I only have 25 at home. Still, I think it may be a little faster even at home. Now I just have to figure out how to extend my disk partition without losing the data on it. My backup regime may get a little testing.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by Nevyn on Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:59 pm

Since I have been in this thread, I thought I would give you all a heads-up on where I am at with AV.

I've been thinking about it for a while and I came to the conclusion that I had created a great little testing app that allowed me to play with ideas on how to model atoms. What it isn't so great at is being an editor. Things changed as I developed the app and I need to make some pretty big changes to make use of them.

So I've been thinking of starting again now that I know the basis I want to work from. Well, I have a better idea of it now. I will re-use the 3D structure I already have, probably with some changes but the majority of it should be fine. The main changes I want to make are to the UI which will be more spread-out than it currently is.

The current app is just a single page and tries to provide controls to let the user manipulate things to show various concepts. Most of those controls will disappear. They are great for my testing and playing around, but a bit too confusing for users.

I want to make it a site rather than a page. There will be various pages that allow you to do specific things. Want to view various elements, go to this page. Want to build an element, go to this page, etc. I'm not sure of the hierarchy just yet, but I think this will allow me to focus on specific areas and use the graphical tools that are good for that task without providing lots of options and letting the user figure them out.

I also want to introduce the concept of a Periodic Table. It currently has this to a limited degree, but I want to expand it out so that users can create their own tables. Make it easy to compare tables or at least elements from different tables.

All of this relies on a back-end database which I started to design last year. It supports the 2 element structures I have currently defined but really needs more attention to the Periodic Table side of things. I have had some thoughts on redesigning the element structure so that Alphas play a major role. This would allow me to provide specific rendering for Alpha related concepts like through-charge going through the Neutrons. It does complicate things a bit though so I haven't made any commitments to it just yet.

While developing that database, I have had molecules on my mind as well. I hope to design the tables to support molecules in the future, even though they won't be used just yet. I really want to add molecule support soon. I miss being able to create molecules but don't want to go back to my old desktop version.

Building elements will get a major overhaul. The UI currently supports our JSON format and I plan to keep that support as much as possible. However, I want to create an interface that gives you a selection of pre-defined proton stacks that can be placed into certain positions on the element. The element itself, when in build mode, will show place-holders that can be selected and attach something to it. Mostly you will attach proton stacks but you also might attach a neutron or neutron group.

As an example, suppose we were building an element from scratch. When the UI loads up you will just see a single place-holder (probably a little glowing, maybe even pulsating, sphere) that represents the possible core stack. Select it and you will be presented with anything that you can attach to that location. Let's say we choose to use a 2 proton stack as our core, then the UI will show that stack and it will have 2 new place-holders, one above and one below it so that you can select the pillar stacks. Since we have a 2 proton core, the UI will only show stacks for the pillars that can be attached to that core.

There will probably be some way to attach duplicates when selecting place-holders for locations like pillars, caps, carousel and hooks. This allows you to maintain the balance of the element without having to attach each location individually. You won't be able to add carousel stacks unless the element already has core, pillars and caps. Obviously, you can't add hooks without core, pillars and caps in the north/south locations and you also need some carousel stacks to add hooks to those locations.

There will also be short-cuts so that you can start from an existing structure, like a noble element, and build on top of that.

That's the general idea, anyway. I have a lot of work to do but will just take it a piece at a time, which splitting it up into many pages helps with.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by Nevyn on Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:34 am

I have updated my Science Applications page to look a bit smarter and provide a little more information about each app. I really like the way the AV section looks. The others are still better than the previous version of the page but not quite as nice as AV, although SpinSim also worked pretty well. I managed to get a good picture of the alien.

I also noticed that I hadn't actually mentioned Miles anywhere on that page, and not in some of the apps either. I fixed that with a little blurb at the top with a link to his site.

Have a look. Suggest improvements. Question my sanity. Carry on with you day.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:17 pm

.
You've made your Science apps page much nicer. The images help a lot.

One criticism - I can only see it using Microsoft Edge. The images and app choices do not show in Firefox or Chrome.

To clarify, I see nothing between:
Below you will find links to various applications related to the work of Miles Mathis. Each application is designed to help you understand Miles work and can be a great reference while reading his papers.

and
Nevyn's Lab - Software Development
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by Nevyn on Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:56 pm

That's weird because I developed it in Chrome and tested in Firefox but never Edge! It is working in both Chrome and Firefox, both at home and at work, for me. It even works on my phone (Firefox).

Could you bring up the console (F12 on most browsers), then refresh the page and see if there are any errors printed to the console? Might help me determine why it doesn't work for you.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:11 pm

.

Is this what you asked for?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by Nevyn on Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:24 pm

Yes.

Not sure where that warning (yellow line) comes from but it isn't my code so it must be something I am using (Bootstrap or JQuery, possibly).

The first error message (red line) is just my tracking software. You probably having tracking turned off in your browser. That shouldn't stop the page from working, but I'm not sure about that.

The second error is normal and just means I don't have an icon for this app. It isn't really an error, since an icon should be optional.

I have disabled the tracking part of the page, so give it another try and let me know if that fixes it.

Also, give it a full refresh (ignores cached files) by holding control and pressing F5. Just in case it is picking up an old version of a library or something strange like that.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:48 pm

.
With Chrome, The AV image flashed briefly, then gone. Console shows No red errors, still the yellow.

Firefox, many: error in parsing value "  " declaration dropped. applications.css

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by Nevyn on Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:07 am

I think you might have strict mode turned on or some sort of plugin making it use strict parsing. I couldn't find any sort of settings in my Chrome, but I did notice in your previous screenshot that there is a toolbar item called 'Strict Mode - Javascript' and this might be causing it.

I altered the CSS to specify units for various values and fixed some commented out lines, which should clean up a lot of those CSS errors.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by Cr6 on Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:12 am

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
You've made your Science apps page much nicer. The images help a lot.

One criticism - I can only see it using Microsoft Edge. The images and app choices do not show in Firefox or Chrome.

To clarify, I see nothing between:
Below you will find links to various applications related to the work of Miles Mathis. Each application is designed to help you understand Miles work and can be a great reference while reading his papers.

and
Nevyn's Lab - Software Development
.

I agree with LTAM... now ladies at work think I'm "cool" when I show your app to them (the geeky ones without the cute skirts). Cool

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 677
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:24 am

.
Hi Cr6, I think you've been watching too much Big Bang Theory, I know I have.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by Nevyn on Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:29 am

I didn't realise my apps could "impress the ladies". At my work, they just think I must be an idiot for not following along with the party line and agreeing with anything the mainstream say. Doesn't hold me back though. I don't need to agree with the group to feel secure in my work. Who needs to feel like they "belong" when you have real understanding?
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by Cr6 on Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:41 pm

Nevyn wrote:I didn't realise my apps could "impress the ladies". At my work, they just think I must be an idiot for not following along with the party line and agreeing with anything the mainstream say. Doesn't hold me back though. I don't need to agree with the group to feel secure in my work. Who needs to feel like they "belong" when you have real understanding?

Yeah LTAM...I try not to be too geeky at work just to give more of a "business" impression. At my age, I realized finally that women can't handle these kinds of topics. They like colored graphics though and wanted me to send them a link. I can't read too much into "send me link" as if it meant "buy me a drink" because of "your cool" charge field.

But I would say that if the "charge field" could have various "fashion designs" for atoms that they could pick and choose to put on a female looking Atomic "model"... hey...they would naturally get involved in working with it. Just a thought.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 677
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by Nevyn on Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:30 pm

Well, I kind of have that already in AV. You can adjust the color palette but it is limited to a few choices. I couldn't change the colors themselves, just the shades, since I wanted to stick with Miles coloring.

Maybe that is what AV needs, a female touch. If we can get the women into our work, the men will follow. It works for night-clubs, but maybe I just watched too much Revenge of the Nerds as a kid!
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by Nevyn on Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:32 pm

Airman, did you get my page working in Firefox or Chrome?

Seems to work on Firefox quite well for me.

BTW, Nevyn...one of the ladies at work asked me "who built this? It's so cool!" in a very dramatic way -- she's a programmer and is aware of the effort involved. I told her "His name is Nevyn".

She said something to the effect of "I want to meet this Nevyn!".  She is married with kids... I so I'll ask around if she has a younger sister or something to that effect. Just saying.... I'll try and get a pic if she allows.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 811
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:46 pm

.
Not yet. I know a geek, waiting for a visit. I wanted his take on new browser settings and/or security s/w etc.

////////////////////////////////////////

Post Script:
Nevyn, your post immediately preceding this has changed from
Airman, did you get my page working in Firefox or Chrome?
to some sort of matchmaking arrangement. Good Luck.
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:23 pm; edited 1 time in total

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Atomic Model Editor

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:14 pm

.
I’m reading through the Technical Note I mentioned yesterday
(Adhesives and Adhesion, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19640004816.pdf)
and came across this  quote:
In a review of the nature of solids, Hume-Rothery Cool illustrates that covalent and ionic solids rarely involve more than six atomic bonds per atom and metallic solids may involve as many as 14 bonds per atom, if we consider the next nearest neighbors contribution of the body-centered cubic configuration as significant.

Cool Hume-Rothery, W., "Atomic Theory for Students of Metallurgy", Monograph No. 3, Institute of Metals, London, 1960

Six atomic bonds per atom make perfect sense, it agrees with the AV model’s cardinal directions: main up/down axis, and four carousal directions, left/right, front/back. I assume that the body-centered cubic configuration means we have metallic atoms in an orthogonal network where each atom’s six points are connected to adjacent atoms, and all atoms are oriented vertically.  

How do we interpret "metallic solids may involve as many as 14 bonds per atom"? Hook positions can hold valance electrons, but they don’t form channels. Are any additional channels possible here? Can the orthogonal oriented stacked alphas in column and carousal positions form 6 additional parallel charge channels? Does that sound plausible?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum