Proposal: Electricity Animation

Page 6 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:29 am

I'm completely with Airman on this one. While there are some good points and (refreshingly) a splendid air of doubt in CC's work here, it's basic premise is flawed. And he has no knowledge evident of the charge field, so he's already off to the races on one hobbled leg.

I do however concur with you, Lloyd, and Brown about radioactive decay. In the mainstream, it's practically a magical process. In our models, it's a mechanical, traceable, and identifiable process. Adding charge (heat) to a radioactive isotope should speed the process up tremendously, and at a measurable or predictable rate. I lack the math skills to go there just yet, but I really think we should. Especially given Mathis's recent incursions into the Great Nuclear Hoax. We still have a lot of 'splainin' to do, to help fill the holes in the story and the physics.

For example, how/why does Uranium fission cause such an allegedly nasty explosion? The standard answer is that it releases three neutrons and some binding energy. How much binding energy? And how does that convert into ridiculously powerful explosions? Uranium is cool and all, but where is all this energy coming from? The majority of the binding energy of the two resultant elements is still being used by them, so MOST of the energy should still be there. Not exploding outward at a billion degrees or whatever.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:19 pm

Airman, Charles isn't mainstream at all. The mainstream believes in Dark Matter, Big Bang, Black Holes, Gravity Only etc.

You guys have the untenable theory that stars and planets don't store any charge. That can't work because the Sun obviously receives way less energy from the galaxy than what it emits.

Such things are why Miles' theory hasn't caught on. It needs a lot of tweaking.

You need to quantify things. Charles is able to calculate exactly where the Sun's energy came from and how it's emitted. And he does so using stuff that's known to exist. Miles never calculates how much energy or charge the Sun or the Earth or anything receives and how much is emitted.

Do you guys believe that nothing stores energy or charge? What about batteries? If batteries can store charge, why can't planets and stars?

Jared, your ideas on uranium are interesting. If someone can show how much charge or energy is stored in uranium when it's formed, that should apparently determine how much should be released during fissioning. Since it's so stable, it must be very symmetrical or balanced. I wonder if it's similar to Miles' model for deuterium or oxygen17 etc.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:08 pm

I'm of the opinion that many things store charge, but it seems like this is simply a matter of motion collisions, like everything else. In the sun for example, incoming charge (ambient/galactic field) bounces around a great deal before being emitted. Some of this charge is fused into the various elements, after being "spun up" beyond the electron of course. So we have a great deal of recycling charge, and around half of it would be emitted back towards the center. The closer to the center, the more would be recycled by the star. Elements fused in the corona for example would still have much of their charge going back to the sun, but not as much as closer ones simply due to the gap in distance.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:09 pm

Lloyd wrote: Charles isn't mainstream at all. The mainstream believes in Dark Matter, Big Bang, Black Holes, Gravity Only etc.

You guys have the untenable theory that stars and planets don't store any charge. That can't work because the Sun obviously receives way less energy from the galaxy than what it emits.
Imo, CC is mainstream because, as Jared pointed out, CC, or the mainstream, doesn't recognize the charge field.

Of course we can store charge, it's real enough, but that matter and energy would be better understood as charge. Stored energy cannot answer questions that charge can.

I disagree that the Sun obviously receives way less energy from the galaxy than what it emits. The Sun, as well as all matter recycles charge constantly. We don't see it, but it's there.
.


LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Fri Feb 24, 2017 7:02 pm

LloydK wrote:You guys have the untenable theory that stars and planets don't store any charge. That can't work because the Sun obviously receives way less energy from the galaxy than what it emits.

Well, this post I made nearly 1 month ago to the day contradicts your statement:

http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t270-recycling#1951

And what is so obvious that tells you the sun receives way less energy than it emits? Over what time frame are you talking about? You can't be talking absolutely because it is obvious that nothing can emit more than it receives, absolutely. There is this little concept called the Conservation of Energy that you might want to look into.

You might want to put some thought into the idea that Charles has missed some input sources if he thinks there is more out than in. You know, it just might be possible that he has missed something. Maybe his theory needs a little tweaking as well.

LloydK wrote:Such things are why Miles' theory hasn't caught on. It needs a lot of tweaking.

Are you suggesting that Charles's ideas have caught on? I must have missed the press-release when the mainstream bowed down in submission and relinquished all control to Charles. What are his plans for all of those billions in funding that must be coming his way now?

Of course the theory needs tweaking. You don't make a theory in a day. No-one starts out with everything correct. Not Miles, not Charles and not the mainstream. To suggest otherwise is just blind fan-boy-ism. We are here trying to tweak Miles theory ourselves, and making progress, so I don't really see what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that Charles has everything correct already? Did he get bored one day and just decide to share all of this absolute knowledge he has? Is he the second coming of Christ? He'd have to be to have all of this Godly knowledge.

LloydK wrote:You need to quantify things. Charles is able to calculate exactly where the Sun's energy came from and how it's emitted. And he does so using stuff that's known to exist. Miles never calculates how much energy or charge the Sun or the Earth or anything receives and how much is emitted.

Yes, it's great to quantify these things but to do so you need knowledge. Miles makes these calculations when and where he can, but he doesn't presume to have complete knowledge, which you are, or Charles is (although I leave open the possibility that Charles isn't, since no respectable scientist would, but you are). Miles calculated the charge output of the Earth a decade ago. He uses those numbers in many different papers in various ways. How could you miss that?

What are the sources of the sun's energy? Are they the sources of the sun's current energy input or are they for all time? Your statements are strongly suggesting it is for all time. If you are even hinting that it is for all time then you are straight up wrong. I don't care what numbers you think you have, you just can't have more out than in.

E(in) - E(out) = 0 - absolute, no questions possible!

To put that equation over some time span we get:

( E(in) - E(out) ) / t = X

where X can be anything because we are ignoring everything except that time interval. This allows more energy out than in during that time interval but it also allows more energy in than out, too. So you must provide reasons for only allowing more out than in. What disqualifies more in than out? What disqualifies equal in and out?

If Charles is calculating the total energy input and output for the sun, using only stuff that's known to exist, then why are we talking about charge since the mainstream (which is what I assume you mean by known to exist) doesn't know about it? Or, in the very least, they treat it as virtual. It certainly isn't in the field equations. Is that what Charles does too? If so, then you better give us a definition of energy too, because if it isn't charge then I don't know what it is.

And what is it that Miles is using that isn't known to exist? Sure, he has redefined some things to give them a firmer foundation, but nothing is esoteric or unknown in some form.

LloydK wrote:Do you guys believe that nothing stores energy or charge? What about batteries? If batteries can store charge, why can't planets and stars?

All matter stores charge, so no, anyone following Miles theory does not believe that nothing stores energy. Everything that can store energy, does store energy, so I don't know where you are getting this idea from. I think you should re-read all of Miles work before you start making silly comments about it. On multiple occasions I have found you cherry picking statements to say what you want instead of what Miles was trying to say. Twice in the last few months I have pointed out your mistakes and shown the truth of what Miles has said (whether the statements were right or wrong is irrelevant here, your statements about Miles statements were wrong or taken out of context or reduced so that they look like they say something different). You clearly don't understand Miles work which makes me question if you truly understand Charles work either.

Disclaimer

I am not saying that Charles is wrong, in total. I am arguing with Lloyd's words, not Charles, so there is the possibility that Charles is not saying what Lloyd is saying. I expect that to be the case since I assume that Charles has a decent understanding of Physics and is some-what educated in the philosophies of argumentation and so would not make such absolute claims.

I apologize for any heat in my words (maybe words can store charge too Very Happy) but I can't stand by and let someone make such obviously wrong statements. And I won't stand by and let someone use such obviously wrong concepts to do it either. This was not written with heat, more annoyance or disappointment, but it may come across that way. Some of my statements are just for levity and I hope they are taken as the jokes they are (but my jokes are sometimes very sharp).

Clarify your statements and we can work towards a better understanding for all but if you have already made up your mind about it, then there is nothing to discuss. We have work to do and don't need to feed the trolls yapping at the back door.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:18 pm

Guys, don't act like I'm committing a sin by having different ideas. It's not heresy to read more than one model. Some of you guys like Ken Shoulders, even though his model is different from Miles'. Miles' and Charles' models for how stars form are very similar, by the way.

I believe it's been known for some time how much energy the Sun puts out. In his Conversions paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9289 Charles said "The next step is to identify where, exactly, the electrostatic potentials in the Sun are getting discharged. Then we'll estimate the power in those discharges, and see if it matches the known 3.86 × 10^26 watts of output from the Sun."

Do yous have any disagreement with that energy output figure? And isn't the energy output the same as how much charge the Sun puts out? If so, I certainly don't see where the Sun could be receiving that much energy = charge input from outside.

Miles' paper on How a Battery Circuit Works seemed to suggest that charge separation is what powers a battery. Do yous agree? Charles found that charge separation likewise seems to be what powers the Sun, or I should say disruptions in the charge separation is what directly produces the energy=charge output. He figured that seismic waves or something like that at the bottom of the photosphere are constantly causing charge recombination and charge reseparation. I think the waves determine the size of supergranules and granules on the surface of the photosphere. Gravity inside the Sun causes elements to get so tightly squeezed together in a supercritical fluid state that many of the electrons get separated and forced to the top of a double layer. As waves occur at the top of the layer, the electrons recombine or reseparate (As waves pass, they produce higher and lower pressure; higher pressure squeezes out electrons; lower pressure allows them to recombine. It's similar inside the Earth and other large bodies). There's also electrical discharges (charge recombination) which produce part of the Sun's energy.

Nevyn said: "And what is it that Miles is using that isn't known to exist?"

I wasn't referring to Miles; I was referring to the mainstream, with their dark matter, black holes etc.

And I'm not yapping. If you don't have patience to try to explain things as you understand them to people, you don't have to reply.


Last edited by LloydK on Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:51 pm; edited 2 times in total

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:45 pm

LloydK wrote:Guys, don't act like I'm committing a sin by having different ideas. It's not heresy to read more than one model. Some of you guys like Ken Shoulders, even though his model is different from Miles'. Miles' and Charles' models for how stars form are very similar, by the way.

That is not what I said at all. It's fine, even good, to look at other models and see what they can do for you. They can make you see things in a different light and help gain a deeper understanding of things. If those other models appeal to you, then great, work with them. But you are using them to dismiss Miles theories without truly understanding them.

But you did commit the scientific sin of making blanket statements without arguments. Statements that are straight up false. And you make claim to infinite precision and knowledge. Whatever Charles or the mainstream has calculated has some in-built assumptions which you are flying by without a side-ways glance. Do I believe those numbers? Not necessarily. If they are made by the mainstream then probably not for they are unaware of 95% of the universe. They can only put into their equations what they know, not what they don't know. So you can make statements like 'Given the data we have, we think the sun has this output.'. You can't make statements like 'The sun obviously has more output than input.'.

LloydK wrote:I believe it's been known for some time how much energy the Sun puts out. In his Conversions paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9289 Charles said "The next step is to identify where, exactly, the electrostatic potentials in the Sun are getting discharged. Then we'll estimate the power in those discharges, and see if it matches the known 3.86 × 10^26 watts of output from the Sun."

Based on mainstream assumptions and measurements and interpretations.

LloydK wrote:Do yous have any disagreement with that figure? And isn't the energy output the same as how much charge the Sun puts out? If so, I certainly don't see where the Sun could be receiving that much energy = charge input from outside.

But the obvious question to that is how can the sun output more energy than it takes in? In what logical physics can you ever say that something has more output than input? You can't. The best you can do is make the calculations and show that there must be more input than the equations contain.

LloydK wrote:Miles' paper on How a Battery Circuit Works seemed to suggest that charge separation is what powers a battery. Do yous agree? Charles found that charge separation likewise seems to be what powers the Sun, or I should say disruptions in the charge separation is what directly produces the energy=charge output. He figured that seismic waves or something like that at the bottom of the photosphere are constantly causing charge recombination and charge reseparation. I think the waves determine the size of supergranules and granules on the surface of the photosphere. Gravity inside the Sun causes elements to get so tightly squeezed together in a supercritical fluid state that many of the electrons get separated and forced to the top of a double layer. As waves occur at the top of the layer, the electrons recombine or reseparate. It's similar inside the Earth and other large bodies. There's also electrical discharges (charge recombination) which produce part of the energy.

What is charge separation and recombination? For that matter, what is charge? That sounds like the standard shitty mainstream ideas of charge, not the refined Mathis version of it. They are fuzzy words with no mechanics beneath them or in the very least, you have not supplied them.


Last edited by Nevyn on Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:49 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : typo)
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:05 pm

Nevyn said: "But the obvious question to that is how can the sun output more energy than it takes in? In what logical physics can you ever say that something has more output than input? You can't. The best you can do is make the calculations and show that there must be more input than the equations contain."

Things can only output more energy than they input if they have energy stored. That's what I've been saying. Since I don't see where the Sun's energy input is coming from for the most part, while I see plenty of energy output, I assume that the output is coming from stored energy, which was input at a previous time, like Charles explains.

I also edited my previous message, so I don't know if you read all the edits.

I'm surprised if you don't think the Sun's energy output has been fairly accurately measured. Don't they measure the energy received on or near Earth in watts per square meter? It seems to me it should be pretty simple to calculate the watts per square meter and multiply by the number of square meters in the surface of a sphere of 1 AU radius to determine the Sun's total energy output per unit of time. Which photon energies would not be measured in each square meter?

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:33 pm

LloydK wrote:If you don't have patience to try to explain things as you understand them to people, you don't have to reply.

I think all of my posts on this site show that I have the patience and have taken the time to explain things as I see them. They also show that I am able to accept when I am wrong about something and am always moving towards a better understanding. Well, aiming for it, anyway. Bad paths can and will be taken on occasion.

There have also been times when I have let things slide, even though I disagree with them, just to see where the discussions went on the hope that I might learn something. Of course, no-one knows if I do that because it just means I didn't post. I'm not one to talk for the sake of it. I only post if I have something to add or a question to ask.

Your post required me to reply because it was making such bold claims with nothing to back it up. Other people will come to this forum and read the content and if they assume that wrong things are right, then we have all failed them. People may dismiss Miles work because of things we say here, even if we are wrong about it. People who are just stepping away from the mainstream are generally scared to be doing so. It is hard to think something different to everyone else and it doesn't take much to send them back into the waiting arms of the mainstream which are very comfortable because at least most other people will agree with you.

If I see something that I think is wrong, I will point out the problems I have with it. If someone makes a claim that Miles said X, but I know that he really said Y, then I will point it out, even if I disagree with Miles about it. I just consider that basic honesty. There are real problems to be looked at and discussed without manipulating statements, whether intentional or not.


LloydK wrote:I'm surprised if you don't think the Sun's energy output has been fairly accurately measured.

You can't measure what you don't know. Even if you do measure it, you can't explain it and will interpret it to be something else. What if they determined that X photons were actually something that should be filtered out of the data. How accurate is the output value now?

LloydK wrote:Don't they measure the energy received on or near Earth in watts per square meter? It seems to me it should be pretty simple to calculate the watts per square meter and multiply by the number of square meters in the surface of a sphere of 1 AU radius to determine the Sun's total energy output per unit of time.

That is not a measurement of the suns output. It is a measurement of the suns output that is received on or near earth which is only a very small part of the suns total output.

To just assume that you can take that measurement and apply it to the surface area of the sun is extremely naive. Even without invoking Miles equatorial emission model, the mainstream knows that the poles of the sun are different to the equator.

LloydK wrote:Which photon energies would not be measured in each square meter?

I'm going to answer this in the opposite. I'm going to ask 'Which photon energies would be measured in each square meter?"

If we assume that they are measuring the complete spectrum and not filtering anything out, then yes, they are measuring the suns output that reaches earth. But, they are also measuring the output from all of the other planets that reaches the earth as well. Even if we just take Jupiter and Saturn, then we have enough charge to skew that measurement. These charge influences are enough to cause the Earth to change its rotational axis, and even its orbital position, so I'm pretty sure they can affect the measurement of some satellite.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:44 am

Nevyn, do you agree then that the Sun's energy output is the same as its charge field output and that it can be measured in watts per square meter? And do you agree that charge separation provides the energy of batteries?

Satellites have viewed the Sun from all latitudes. Have you heard of any energy measurements that were much different from what is detected from Earth's position on or near the ecliptic? It seems to me that viewing the Sun via the various EM frequencies and at various solar latitudes would give a good indication of how much charge field it emits. I've seen images of the Sun at such frequencies. I just now looked up this image: http://ecuip.lib.uchicago.edu/multiwavelength-astronomy/images/astrophysics/Multiwavelength-Sun-and-Telescopes.jpg

I think several satellites, maybe SOHO, THEMIS, & others have recorded solar output in numerous frequencies. I'll see if I can get Michael Mozina to answer some questions about that.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:16 am

No, the suns output is more than its charge field output. Its total output must include everything that it emits and the sun emits more than just charge. Visible light, UV, x-rays, electrons, protons, and atoms are all emitted but not part of the charge field.

I wasn't trying to disagree that charge separation provides power, I was asking for your definitions and mechanics of these processes. I can't tell if you are using Mathis terminology or not. When you are arguing against Mathis and for someone else, then I assume you are using their terms when talking about their theory.

I agree that we have good data from satellites but I just can't agree that we have a good interpretation of that data. So I can't trust those values without knowing the raw data and how it was captured. Just as important is knowing how it has been manipulated. These people have been caught fudging data to fit their theories on many occasions, so why should I trust them? I can't trust them even if it backs up what I think. I choose to be more rigorous than that and while I may use some of their values, I do so knowing that they are suspect. The more suspect they are or the more of them I use, then the less confidence I have in any knowledge gained from it.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:55 am

Given how terribly wrong Mathis has shown the mainstream's interpretation of data in so many, many areas, I can't take most of their ideas very seriously anymore. So to say they've measured the sun's output without even knowing about most of the energy in the field is pretty much hubris. I can't take that seriously at all, Lloyd, for the reasons Nevyn listed and for the (ad pop) that goes along with it. Much of their theory relies purely on appeals to authority, and polemically it's easily demolished. I run into this ALL the time on FB, for example. People assuming that NASA or whoever has done anything right at all, simply because they're NASA or Space-X or whoever.

Do we even have sun-observing stations outside the plane of the ecliptic? As far as I know, the Solar Dynamic Observatory (SDO) is the chief device monitoring and measuring the sun. This includes the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly. It orbits the Earth itself, nowhere near a holistic view of the sun.

iki/Solar_Dynamics_Observatory#Orbit

Lloyd wrote:...because the Sun obviously receives way less energy from the galaxy than what it emits.

We have no evidence of this. Mathis has provided some (great, to me) evidence that it's false. Aside from that new-school bit, Conservation of Energy has been supported by almost every physicist for the last 400 years, in one form or another. It seems naive that you and CC would have missed this.

Lloyd wrote:Charles is able to calculate exactly where the Sun's energy came from and how it's emitted.

So he "calculated" the galaxy, and all the incoming charge from all the nearby planets and bodies? He calculated Sirius's input and Deneb's and every single star visible in the sky, or even the sun's sky?

Do you think he took time to account for relativity as well, in this amazing compilation of all incoming energy? Wink

Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:19 pm

I believe the energy input from other bodies is directly measurable, so it doesn't need to be calculated.

I don't know why you think we ignore conservation of energy.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Nevyn on Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:50 pm

The problem here was that you weren't strict enough in your wording. I questioned whether you were talking about all time or just a small portion of time to clarify. If you were talking about all time then you were violating the Conservation of Energy law. It later became apparent that you were talking about a small portion of time.

When you say "The sun outputs more than it get from its inputs.", it sounds absolute. You need qualifiers to say that over some set amount of time, the sun outputs more than it gets from its inputs. Then there would be no controversy because you are being explicit.

LloydK wrote:I believe the energy input from other bodies is directly measurable, so it doesn't need to be calculated.

It isn't whether we can measure it or not, it is whether it has been subtracted from the measurement of the suns output. Since the mainstream don't even know about charge coming from the planets, they aren't going to subtract it out. You don't subtract out what you don't know (unless you are trying to fit your data to your theory).

Anyway, I think we can put this little bit of controversy to bed now. I think we have cleared up the misunderstandings. Just try to be a little more explicit in your words so that they convey what you want to say, not what you think they say. It is difficult, I know, we all might read a given word with different interpretations. To help combat that, you can try to say the same thing in different words or provide an example. Just remember that this is a Mathis forum, not a Chandler forum, so we won't necessarily know what you mean when you use his terms. If in doubt that you will be understood, then copy/paste the definitions into your posts.

The onus is on the poster to convey their meaning, not the reader.


Last edited by Nevyn on Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:06 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Cr6 on Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:21 pm

LloydK wrote:I believe the energy input from other bodies is directly measurable, so it doesn't need to be calculated.

I don't know why you think we ignore conservation of energy.

So Loyd, is there a "Solar Dynamo" then? Are they in CC's models? This guy gives some interesting questions. He is "classical" but his ideas could be adopted to using the Charge Field. I like CC's work but he doesn't really work with frameworks that are non-contradictory -- classical theory is "contradictory" in many respects. Of course, there will always then be contradictions between "classical" and Miles' work -- either work with one or the other but don't try to reconcile both at least here on this forum.  CC is with the "classical" as far as all the physics-chemistry goes.

 I think it is a wasted effort to try and be a wanderer between the two worlds -- maybe on TB there is a good audience for those attempts, but here it is Miles 100%.  Don't you agree? Arguing or pointing out inconsistencies with Mathis on the nano-small side of things might be more useful than looking at large astro "space-bodies" which we can't really do much with except argue about it if we disagree. It is something to keep an eye on though.

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/the_electric_sun.html
Always remember:
- The negative charge continually explodes electrically in the photosphere as solar wind which never stops. Its high velocity of typically 750km/s would need 24million Kelvin to be emitted thermally! But the solar surface is only 6000K hot.

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/dyn_sun.html#20Sun
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/download/Scripts/Dynamic_sun/dyn_sun.pdf

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 711
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:43 pm

What's a Solar Dynamo? CC's model involves electric double layers, which act like a battery. He doesn't have a nuclear furnace model. His model has fusion occurring in solar flares in the base of the photosphere mostly.

Here are quotes from MM's Star Formation paper at http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf
[Having disproven gravitational collapse, MM proceeds to present an idea for E/M collapse.]
_And since photons move in straight lines very quickly, they can link together molecules or ions, even molecules or ions with a very tenuous density.
_[We] need more attraction here, but [our] charge field is arrayed against gravity.
_The answer is that the hydrogen gas is a plasma to start with - because the electrons and protons are disassociated by a magnetic field.
_Stars form in galaxies because the plasma requires the magnetic input from the galactic core.
_Which just means the cold gas needs to be bombarded by the right photons.
_What does the big [Jeans] mass plasma do that the small mass plasma doesn't?
_it is a matter of volume and density - A big plasma has enough cross section to capture free electrons and other ions arriving from outside.
_a big net is more efficient than a small net.
_Given a set of specific sources of radiation, this radiation may dodge a small net, but it is less likely to dodge a big net.
_The same applies to the density - A finer net is more efficient than a net with a looser weave.
_We must assume that given the distribution of radiation sources in our galaxy, the Jeans mass is the mass at which the plasma achieves an efficiency of capture of ions to initiate collapse.
_Jeans mass is not a universal constant - It is a function of the type and levels of radiation present, which means it is a function of the size and type of the galaxy.
_because the gas remains ionized, it has a way of capturing other free ions.
_the charge field itself is denser and more magnetic inside the plasma than outside, so it tends to capture ions >>even without the ions being attracted to one another.<<
_Normally, this would make the plasma tend toward a molecular gas, since the electrons and protons would eventually join.
_But the high-energy photon traffic from the galactic core continues to knock the protons and electrons apart.
_Only when the photon traffic can no longer ionize the entire plasma, do we have a limit to the weight gain.
_When this limit is reached, the plasma partially collapses, and it will now contain a portion of molecular hydrogen.
_The plasma portion continues the previous process of capture, however, and the weight gain continues.
_It continues until the entire original field has gained enough mass that gravity really does kick in and overpower the charge field repulsions.
_At that point we have the big collapse that we were trying to explain from the beginning.
_The size of the molecular cloud may also matter due to curvature.
_the more curvature it contains pre-collapse, the more likely it is to collapse in a defined fashion, as about a center.
_Smaller clouds may indeed collapse given the right conditions, but if they don't have enough curvature to begin with, the collapsing particles miss one another in the collapse, and simply disperse.
_If my ideas are not correct, some set of equally simple ideas will be correct

- As I said earlier, Charles' model is similar to Miles'. He also disproved gravitational collapse and found E/M can cause collapse for star formation.
- First he explains that Debye cells [plasma] have been tested in labs.
- A magnetic field isn't necessarily required for ionizing gas in space.
- Debye cells I think about 10 meters in diameter tend to form, with a negative dust grain (made of millions of atoms) surrounded by positive ions.
- Radiation pressure from supernovae or gas cloud collisions organize Debye cells into filaments (+-+-+-).
- Attractive forces between positive and negative ions in filaments cause them to implode.
- Magnetic fields cause positive and negative streams to form electric double layers into planets and stars along the megafilaments.

We know that positive and negative ions attract. Do we not? If I rub a balloon on my pants a few times, the balloon loses electrons and can then be held to a wall or ceiling where extra electrons are available. The attractive force is stronger than the force of gravity on the balloon for a while, until enough ions are neutralized.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Cr6 on Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:04 pm

Remember that topic "Static Elecricity is not what we thought?"...there are numerous anomalies with it -- they didn't see the "electrons hopping" to explain the measured outcomes.
I just don't see debye cells as being all that stable if scaled up to the Sun's size.  

CC has this quote on the "Lorentz Force".  Is that really what is working here? Miles pretty much corrects it in several of his Special Relativity papers. I don't see the Charge Field here.

Basically, we can't use Mathis' style elemental chemistry and then "scale it up" to the size of Sun with classical debye-cells -- and then call it a factual correction.... or can we? Nevyn is right... this is a Mathis forum -- it is not a theoretical "salad bar".  Mathis is the main dish here. Classic Debye Cells are at an entirely different restaurant down the street on TB Avenue.

Have they done EDL Plasma induced Solar flares in the lab yet?
----------------------

What's the electromotive force?

The next question is, "What induces the rotation in the electrons as they rise up through the sunspot, resulting in a solenoidal field?" They certainly aren't following the wraps in a coil of wire.

The most plausible answer is that it's the Lorentz force. Where sunspots occur, the Sun's magnetic field is perpendicular to the surface. Electrons shooting straight up through a sunspot will generate magnetic fields in conflict with that pre-existing field. If the electrons spin as they go, the fields come into agreement. (In other words, it forms a Birkeland current.) Due to magnetic pressure within the spiral, the spin is flattened, resulting in more turns to achieve the same vertical motion. The result is a solenoidal field that is actually far stronger in its axis than the external field — up to 4000 times stronger!The next question is, "What induces the rotation in the electrons as they rise up through the sunspot, resulting in a solenoidal field?" They certainly aren't following the wraps in a coil of wire.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6439.html
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Double_layer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_length

Is this "stable" enough for not frying the earth?
-----

"Squishy capacitor" model for electrical double layers and the stability of charged interfaces.

   1Department of Chemistry, Brandeis University, P.O. Box 549110, MS-015, Waltham, Massachusetts 02454-9110, USA. partensky@gmail.com

Abstract

Negative capacitance (NC), predicted by various electrical double layer (EDL) theories, is critically reviewed. Physically possible for individual components of the EDL, the compact or diffuse layer, it is strictly prohibited for the whole EDL or for an electrochemical cell with two electrodes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19658658

Stability: Double layers in laboratory plasmas may be stable or unstable depending on the parameter regime.[28] Various types of instabilities may occur, often arising due to the formation of beams of ions and electrons. Unstable double layers are noisy in the sense that they produce oscillations across a wide frequency band. A lack of plasma stability may also lead to a sudden change in configuration often referred to as an explosion (and hence exploding double layer). In one example, the region enclosed in the double layer rapidly expands and evolves.[29] An explosion of this type was first discovered in mercury arc rectifiers used in high-power direct-current transmission lines, where the voltage drop across the device was seen to increase by several orders of magnitude. Double layers may also drift, usually in the direction of the emitted electron beam, and in this respect are natural analogues to the smooth-bore magnetron[30]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_%28plasma_physics%29


Last edited by Cr6 on Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:10 am; edited 1 time in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 711
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:26 pm

I'm always willing to change my mind about things as soon as I have better understanding. If anyone wants to answer any of these questions, it might help my understanding.

1. Does charge separation power batteries?

2. Does rubbing a balloon remove some electrons, making the balloon a little ionized?

3. Is charge separation what attracts the balloon to a wall or ceiling etc?

4. Does gravity within a large body squeeze electrons out of atoms, which electrons drift upward to a layer that becomes negative, while the ionized atoms become positive?

5. Are those two layers strongly attracted to each other?

6. Does UV ionize atoms in space or do just magnetic fields do that?

7. Do ions in space tend to form filaments?

8. Is lightning a flow of electrons toward positive "charge"?

9. Are solar flares lightning?

10. Can lightning or solar flares fuse elements (like Deuterium)?

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:59 pm

.
# Lloyd questions,
Airman answers.

1. Does charge separation power batteries?
No, "the ionic content of the battery has set up not a separation of charge, but a density difference in the photon field". Here is the full quote.

HOW a BATTERY CIRCUIT WORKS http://milesmathis.com/seft.pdf

The ionic content of the battery has set up not a separation of charge, but a density difference in the photon field. The photons are much denser on one side of the battery than the other. Why? It could be any number of reasons, but a common reason in normal batteries is that chemical reactions separate large ions from small ones. In other words, if free protons are pushed to one side and free electrons to the other, the protons will be recycling far more photons. Larger bodies emit more. That is one of the first rules of angular momentum. The photon density will be far higher on one side than the other, and by the rules of entropy or statistics, they will move from high density to low. We have a flow of energy. This creates the field inside the battery as well as the field just beyond it (there are no walls to the photon field). Now, if we extend wires to the bulb, we haven't provided the path to the bulb that the photons must take, since the photons need no path of that kind. They can travel directly if they like. What we have done is prime the field, like what happens in wireless transmission. The wires allow for an initial induction or matching of the present fields, so that photons leaving the battery can affect the photons in the bulb.

2. Does rubbing a balloon remove some electrons, making the balloon a little ionized?  
Rubbing a balloon removes some electrons from the latex surface. The exposed protons are now ionized; photon currents to and from the balloon’s surface are greatly increased. Rubbing a larger area ionizes a larger surface. Eventually, free electrons and positrons will block those charge streams to de-ionize the surface.

3. Is charge separation what attracts the balloon to a wall or ceiling etc?
Ok, rub a balloon, then quickly press the rubbed spot against a wall. The balloon already has an electron deficiency, some of the electrons on the wall are also blown away by the balloon surface’s high photon currents. This allows large photon currents directly between wall and balloon surface protons. It’s an apparent attraction, since I believe we are actually seeing a loose molecular bonding, over a limited number of molecules. Again, electrons eventually find ways into those currents and the balloon will start to drop.

4. Does gravity within a large body squeeze electrons out of atoms, which electrons drift upward to a layer that becomes negative, while the ionized atoms become positive?
Absolutely not, das ist muy ridiclioso. Proton structures within large bodies are locked into their matricies. Unattached electrons and photons are free to travel between atoms in proton matter. The Earth’s charge field will push excess electrons, but I’m sure that additional electrons enter the mix through Earth’s charge recycling. Any electron deficiency would be due to photon flow and not gravity. There are no resulting positive/negative layers.

5. Are those two layers strongly attracted to each other?
Negative. There is no attraction here, just nuclear currents.

6. Does UV ionize atoms in space or do just magnetic fields do that?
Both UV photons and magnetic fields (if free ions or electrons are present) can easily ionize atoms in space.

7. Do ions in space tend to form filaments?
Miles hasn’t discussed filament creation as far as I know. In http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf, which you quote in your previous post, Miles talks about plasma clouds as ‘nets’. These nets must be large enough, and fine enough, to begin collecting free passing ions and electrons, allowing the cloud to grow, one of the steps necessary before plasma clouds could possibly become a star.

8. Is lightning a flow of electrons toward positive "charge"?
No. All current is due to net charge flows. I assume large numbers of excess electrons would cause a charge pressure increase that would force electrons to take the first available opportunity to find any nearby lower charge density, a charge equalization.  

9. Are solar flares lightning?
I believe solar flares are comprised of elemental ions within strong magnetic fields.

10. Can lightning or solar flares fuse elements (like Deuterium)?
Agreed.
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Mon Feb 27, 2017 2:19 pm; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : Added (if ... present) in answer 6, typo, Neg to No)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:26 pm

Thanks for the answers, Airman. I'd like to discuss #3 & 5 a bit.

#3. "This allows large photon currents directly between wall and balloon surface protons. It’s an apparent attraction, since I believe we are actually seeing a loose molecular bonding, over a limited number of molecules."

Can you explain molecular bonding?

#5. At the top of the photosphere is a big density dropoff, but the photosphere is plasma, so, if gravity were the force holding the Sun together, the plasma should lose density with altitude gradually instead of suddenly, like Earth's atmosphere. Why does the Sun's outer plasma layer act like a liquid instead of a gas?

Do you believe positive and negative charges exist? If not, how do electrons move toward protons?

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:27 am

Lloyd wrote:#3. "This allows large photon currents directly between wall and balloon surface protons. It’s an apparent attraction, since I believe we are actually seeing a loose molecular bonding, over a limited number of molecules."

Can you explain molecular bonding?

Mathis wrote several papers on this topic which explain it pretty well. Molecular bonding is a charge phenomenon, not an electron/ionic/covalent event. I'm kinda surprised you haven't read them yet. It occurs when enough charge pressure lines up two or more atoms and connects them, through stabilized or balanced charge streams in and out. This is why heat is often a factor in molecular creation. Larger atoms are also made this way too, such as uranium being built from krypton and barium. The difference is that molecules are a lot more stable (not as radioactive, not decaying) and those larger atoms are a lot less.

"Electron Bonding is a Myth"
http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf



Most of his papers reference this effect, multiple times. His paper on Methane shows several molecules, CO2 and of course methane. Here's what it looks like:



http://milesmathis.com/meth.pdf

Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:33 am

Lloyd wrote:#5. At the top of the photosphere is a big density dropoff, but the photosphere is plasma, so, if gravity were the force holding the Sun together, the plasma should lose density with altitude gradually instead of suddenly, like Earth's atmosphere. Why does the Sun's outer plasma layer act like a liquid instead of a gas?

Do you believe positive and negative charges exist? If not, how do electrons move toward protons?

At this point we can assume you haven't actually read Mathis's papers. Please take some time and read them and get back to us. Read them, then read them again.

http://milesmathis.com/

Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LloydK on Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:33 pm

Thanks for your answers, Jared.

You said:
Molecular bonding is a charge phenomenon, not an electron/ionic/covalent event. I'm kinda surprised you haven't read them yet. It occurs when enough charge pressure lines up two or more atoms and connects them, through stabilized or balanced charge streams in and out. This is why heat is often a factor in molecular creation.

I read most of Miles' papers in that section about 3 years ago or more, mostly. His explanation of bonding made a lot more sense than does conventional science. But it's still not very clear to me. That's why I started this thread quite a while back. I was hoping simulations might clear things up a lot.

The diagrams (above) show protons as disks. The protons are not really disk-shaped, but the photon emissions from each proton are disk-shaped. It makes sense to me that protons, electrons, neutrons & nectrons can be composed of photons and that they could receive and emit photons and that photon streams or channels are produced. (Let's call streams within an atom channels and call outside streams streams.) But it's hard to understand attraction.

In explaining charge repulsion Miles gave an example of protons as people who shoot out basketballs in all horizontal directions. So the basketballs repel other proton people. But electron people are much smaller, so they can get much closer because they'll be missed more often by the basketballs. However, the basketballs would only push the proton people a short distance away, whereas they'd push the electron people way far away.

He says, because electrons can be pushed around much more easily, photons can push them toward protons. So if there's a photon stream moving toward an ion, electrons are pushed along, and when they get close to the proton pole, there would be a low pressure area inside the pole that the electron is attracted to by high pressure behind it. So that's an attraction that makes sense to me. But if the electron is too large to go into the polar opening, does it plug it and stop the charge stream? Or does the charge stream make the electron orbit the pole? Miles said the electron neutralizes the proton so that very little charge is emitted by neutral atoms and molecules.

So is there any hope of being able to simulate any of that?

I believe Miles calculated that neutrons have about 63% of the charge that protons have. Can you simulate that in a Helium atom and in Deuterium and Methane? Then will I be able to see how a slightly ionized balloon can stick to a wall or a person and how a plasma layer sticks to the Sun?

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Jared Magneson on Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:31 pm

Lloyd wrote:Can you simulate that in a Helium atom and in Deuterium and Methane? Then will I be able to see how a slightly ionized balloon can stick to a wall or a person and how a plasma layer sticks to the Sun?

Yes, we've gone that far already at least. Here's a simulation of the alpha configuration, Helium:



View the video here:
https://vimeo.com/157484485


Lloyd wrote:...and how a plasma layer sticks to the Sun?

Why would it need to "stick" to the sun? We already have a massive amount of gravity in play, due to the sun's radius. I'm not following the problem here.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:04 pm

.
Lloyd. Can you explain molecular bonding?
Airman. Here’s Miles from, The Phosphorus-Hydrogen Bond http://milesmathis.com/phos.pdf
In dozens of papers over the past four years, I have shown that molecular bonding is created by charge streams moving through and between nuclei, not by electrons. In an important paper on Hydrogen bonding http://milesmathis.com/water2.pdf, I offered diagrams of these new bonds, showing that electrons—though present—were mainly along for the ride. It was the streams of real charge photons that were causing the bonds and all the real field potentials.
Rubbing the balloon surface removes electrons, exposing photon currents to and from the proton nuclei. Immediately pressing the balloon against the wall ionizes the wall as large numbers of electrons are swept aside by the new field conditions. Strong photon currents then exist on both wall and balloon, some of which align well enough to share photon currents directly, something normally found in molecules.
 
Note, there is no “attraction” between the wall and balloon surfaces. Once established, bonds are maintained by the pressure of the surrounding charge field. A good analogy - rubber suction cups hold together by differential air pressure.

Here's a quote from Diatomic Hydrogen  http://milesmathis.com/diatom.pdf
The bond is created by the external charge field. Between the two atoms exists a charge minimum, which creates a low pressure. Since we have higher pressure above and below, the atoms are forced together. As usual, it is not a real attraction or a pull. It is mechanically a push from top and bottom, where the charge field is moving into the protons. This creates an apparent attraction and an apparent bond. We have a perfect signal that this is where the charge is moving in, since that is where the electron is. The electron is there because the charge field is entering there.

Lloyd. At the top of the photosphere is a big density dropoff, but the photosphere is plasma, so, if gravity were the force holding the Sun together, the plasma should lose density with altitude gradually instead of suddenly, like Earth's atmosphere. Why does the Sun's outer plasma layer act like a liquid instead of a gas?
Airman. I don’t know what limits the photosphere. Miles discusses this sort of ‘boundary’ in “Star Trek Force Field” http://milesmathis.com/startrek.pdf more proof of my charge field Star Trek Force Field
On the first of December [2014], Huffington Post republished a report from the University of Colorado's LASP [Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics], with the title “Star Trek-like invisible shield found thousands of miles above Earth”. The paper was first published in Nature.

This shield is

an “extremely sharp” boundary at the inner edge of the outer Van Allen belt at roughly 7,200 miles in altitude that appears to block the ultrafast electrons from breeching the shield and moving deeper towards Earth’s atmosphere. “It’s almost like theses electrons are running into a glass wall in space,” said Baker, the study’s lead author. “Somewhat like the shields created by force fields on Star Trek that were used to repel alien weapons, we are seeing an invisible shield blocking these electrons. It’s an extremely puzzling phenomenon.”


This rising field of real photons has a real density, and that density is capable of turning these electrons at lower altitudes. Obviously, given a real field of real particles and a real density, there will be some altitude at which the density dissipates enough to no longer exclude the electrons. At that altitude, you will find the electrons, but not below it. In other words, we would expect a sharp boundary.
 
Lloyd. Do you believe positive and negative charges exist? If not, how do electrons move toward protons?
Airman. Positive and negative charges do not exist. All charge repels. Any attraction observed is only apparent, since it can be explained by the charge field repulsion. Electrons can approach protons closely because their small size allows them to miss most of the proton’s emission field. Electrons within charge streams can lodge close enough to partially block the nucleon’s charge stream. The electron was just pushed along, no attraction involved.  

I prepared this post before seeing the additional comments above. All I can say is, honestly answering even the most basic questions is rewarding.  
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:37 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Cleaned up double entry)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proposal: Electricity Animation

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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