Proton-Electron Attraction

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Proton-Electron Attraction

Post by LloydK on Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:37 pm

I think this is one of the most important facts to explain by MM's theory.

Is this something you guys would like to discuss and try to sort out?

To begin with, MM says something like this: protons shoot out photons equatorially which pushes protons, or the bigger particles, apart farther, while little particles like electrons can get much closer.

Actually, why wouldn't neutrons be repelled just as much as protons are? Is there evidence that neutrons are repelled by protons?

Here's the first sample of MM statements on attraction between particles.

The Electron Orbit
http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html

The problem with the electron “orbit” is that the electron and proton have opposite charges, we are told. This causes an attraction, as we know. And yet the electron and proton only seem to attract each other up to a point. The electron is not attracted all the way into the proton itself, it is only attracted to the distance of some shell, near to the proton. This is fairly astonishing, or should be, and yet the standard model completely ignores it. It doesn’t even find it necessary to tell us why the electron doesn’t continue on in to collision.

Could electrons be attracted to protons by a sort of solar photon wind, like that which repels particles from the Sun?


Last edited by LloydK on Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:21 am; edited 1 time in total

LloydK

Posts : 425
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proton-Electron Attraction

Post by LloydK on Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:18 am

MM on Attraction

The Electron Orbit

http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html

QM or QED [says] the electron maintains its distance due to its orbital velocity.1 But this is no answer. Why should the electron, attracted to the proton, suddenly develop an orbital velocity? At what distance from the proton does it decide to start going sideways, and for what mechanical reason?
- The electron is not only on an intersecting path, it is attracted very strongly to the proton. Why does it not hit it?
- There is simply no way to explain attraction mechanically, so we give up on attraction, at the foundational level. Underlying both electricity and magnetism, we have the charge field, or what I now call the foundational E/M field. Although electricity may be either positive or negative, the foundational E/M field is always positive. It is always repulsive. This means that all protons and electrons are emitting real photons, and that all protons and electrons are repulsing all other protons and electrons, via simple bombardment. Attraction is explained by noticing that protons repulse electrons much less than they repulse other protons. In this way, the attraction is a relative attraction.
- [The electron] does not collide because it was never attracted to the proton or the nucleus in the first place. Its distance of exclusion is simply much less, based on its size.
-  For optical equivalence to work, we would have to include the gravity field here, as well as the foundational E/M field, and I haven‘t wanted to get into that. Gravity is present at the quantum level, so my answer is strictly correct. Once we include gravity, all we have to do is assume that the proton and electron have the same density. In which case the falling off of gravity exactly offsets the difference in mass. The repulsive force is 100 times less, per unit area; but the “attractive” force of gravity is also 100 times less, so they cancel.

The Magnetopause calculated by the Unified Field
http://milesmathis.com/pause.html

the Sun is both anode and cathode, but only as regards the charge field. Due only to pressure differences, it attracts the charge field at its poles and emits the charge field everywhere else.

A Preliminary Study of the Pyramid as an Electrical Structure
http://milesmathis.com/pyramid.html

pyramids attract lighting much more efficiently than other tall structures, more efficiently even than metal lightning rods.
- But why would pyramids attract lightning? Well, I have shown that it is a matter of pressure, and that the pressure is caused by shape and density. To see this more clearly, let us study lightning and lightning rods.
- it is the shape and density of the rod that creates the path in the first place. []  It is created by blocking the charge field and thereby creating areas of differing pressure. This differing pressure is what we call potential, and it has the effect of attracting electrons. The lightning rod blocks the charge field only over the area of its cross section, but this cross section is blocked in all the atmosphere above the rod. In other words, the blocked area does not close back up, above the rod. In fact, it increases in area.
- the rod acts as a sort of reverse funnel. It creates an area of low pressure above it, increasing in size with greater height. In this way it is able to capture electron flows, even electron flows that are not directly above the rod.
- The rod is denser than buildings or trees, and that is the most pertinent fact here: it creates a greater change in pressure over a smaller distance, and therefore creates a greater suction effect. Given a multitude of invisible funnels rising into the sky, created by various objects, the electrons will be most attracted to those funnels with the most flux, or the most change in pressure.
- Only the pyramid and cone can act as greater lightning rods, given equal density, and they do it by creating greater fluxes or changes in pressure in the atmosphere above them.
- How does a storm create that low potential area? Simply by varying cloud densities. The clouds are material and so must block the charge field just like the pyramid does, though on a smaller scale. There must be a pocket of low charge pressure above any dense cloud. This pocket must attract both B-photons and electrons.
-  What causes the affinity of these two atoms has nothing to do with electrons. It has to do with the unfilled holes in those outer alphas. That hole is caused by spin and by the channeling of the charge field, not by electrons. If we treat the holes as charge minima, and the charge field as a wind, the holes have very real suction. They will attract charge maxima like those single protons sticking out.
-  I have shown that the foundation of electron bonding theory is composed of electrons moving away from cations and toward stable atoms. Since that is a contradiction of the field definitions, no math can save it.
-  Electronegativity [] can be redefined as the charge potential surrounding a given atom. Atoms create currents in the field around them, as well as signature charge densities in that field, which other passing atoms must respond to. [] The main cause of electronegativity is the proton configuration in the outer shell.

MORE PROBLEMS WITH THE STRONG FORCE
http://milesmathis.com/strong2.html

I have already shown in another paper how gravity at the quantum level (and just above it) can explain the attraction of molecules, without any recourse to electron distributions. Not only do we have gravity at the quantum level, we have a charge field that works differently than the standard model charge field. The charge repulsion of protons diminishes with distance more quickly than the gravity field diminishes, so that at molecular distances, the pseudo-attraction takes over as the overriding force. The unified field (gravity minus E/M) is perfectly capable of explaining molecular attraction of the size of van der Waals forces.

LloydK

Posts : 425
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proton-Electron Attraction

Post by LloydK on Sun Oct 26, 2014 12:00 pm

Yesterday, under "Projects" I said electron attraction to protons seems to be a result of electrons drifting in the photon stream to the proton's poles. Or at least that's my best guess at the moment.

On the TB forum pro-Mathis thread Daniel said:
See the candle experiment between charged plates. The flame is pushed to one side due to the E-Field, this is a physical interaction, a push.
I said: This video has a demonstration of that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7_8Gc_Llr8. The candle flame (between 2 charged plates) is said to point in 2 directions (both horizontal) and when the flame is blown out the smoke goes in both directions toward both charged plates.

What in the flame and the smoke is being pushed or pulled toward what?

Plain neutral air between 2 charged plates doesn't move, does it? If the E-field between the plates pushes ions in both directions, why doesn't it also push neutral air molecules?

LloydK

Posts : 425
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proton-Electron Attraction

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:03 pm

Hi Lloyd, Note that the Papillion (or Butterfly), is not really symmetric. One side is twice as long (roughly) as the other. My "MM educated" guess is that both are pushes. The long side is due to normal matter current flow, and the other is due to antimatter current flow. In this respect, there are no neutral air molecules. All molecules will be pushed.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proton-Electron Attraction

Post by LloydK on Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:15 pm

Do you mean if there's no candle or flame between the two charge plates, the air between them will still move in the same directions as the flame and smoke do?

LloydK

Posts : 425
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proton-Electron Attraction

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Oct 26, 2014 11:37 pm

"Do you mean if there's no candle or flame between the two charge plates, the air between them will still move in the same directions as the flame and smoke do?"

Yes.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proton-Electron Attraction

Post by LloydK on Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:26 am

Do you know of evidence of that online?

And do you think or know that e-fields are always moving neutral molecules? And would the e-fields move neutrals and ions the same or different?

LloydK

Posts : 425
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proton-Electron Attraction

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:06 am

MM clearly stated that current flow is two-way. Your video is excellent proof of that. Current flow is charge flow. Even between two capacitor plates. Charge is not electrons or ions. Charge is photons and antiphotons. Electrons, ions, and 'neutral matter' are pushed along in the photon/antiphoton streams. Electrons simply move most readily because they are the least massive, while neutral matter moves the slowest.

My question is, why are the two streams so clearly defined in the video? I would expect neutral matter to move at 'half-speed' in the normal matter current flow direction since it dominates antimatter current flow 2:1. It appears that the flame is somehow sorted into its normal and anti components by the high voltage. I can easily see contra flows in nuclei, but I would not have expected to see it at our much larger macro level. I wonder if high speed video would show additional behavior? Would smoke alone, passing between those plates also sort into its matter and antimatter constituents?

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proton-Electron Attraction

Post by LloydK on Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:14 am

Does MM say one plate should be emitting many more photons than the other? It seems that's what he was getting at in the battery circuit paper. His latest paper on Anderson something I think hinted at proof that electrons aren't what make electric current.

LloydK

Posts : 425
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Does space insulate or conduct?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:25 am

Let me change the subject. Also posted at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14950&p=100932#p100932

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15364
LLoyd asked, "Does space insulate or conduct?". He further clarified, "Does the vacuum of space resist current or not resist current? If it does not resist, then it is not an insulator. Is it?".

I would respond at that string but since my answer requires MM's charge field theory I will answer here.

First, we must redefine and clarify some terms. Current has historically been defined as electron, ion, or hole (haha) flow. But that movement is secondary, not primary. Electron or ion flow only occurs when they are pushed by photons or antiphotons. Photons and antiphotons are the true source of charge, not electrons or protons. Electrons and protons only exhibit charge behavior due to their constant recycling of photons and antiphotons. At the lowest level, photons and antiphotons comprise the charge field. Current should thus be redefined as a net charge flow (photon and/or antiphoton) over some time interval.

Insulators and conductors are historically defined in terms of impeding or enabling electron or ion flow, and are, in fact, irrelevant to photonic charge flow. Photons can flow in the complete absence of electrons or ions (or through higher matter).

Answer. The vacuum of space does not resist charge current flow.

Your question is rooted in mainstream. Your clarification helps, but you still include "insulate". Historically, how can there be current in the absence of electrons or ions? There is no satisfactory answer in mainstream theory and in mainstream terms.

REMCB

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proton-Electron Attraction

Post by LloydK on Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:13 pm

Electric Currents in Space
I think the answers to that problem may be in scrutinizing MM's Anderson paper, which is the latest one, and the links in it to two or more other papers, and also in our earlier discussion of how a battery circuit works.

Above you said: Insulators and conductors are historically defined in terms of impeding or enabling electron or ion flow, and are, in fact, irrelevant to photonic charge flow. Photons can flow in the complete absence of electrons or ions (or through higher matter).

In our battery circuit discussion didn't you suggest that electricity is work done by electrons that are pushed by photon streams? In the Anderson paper and others it seems that MM says electrons and other particles aren't seen to flow at all, or almost not at all.

Here are links to those 3 papers.
http://milesmathis.com/ander.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/drude.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/dielec.pd

From the Anderson Localization paper:
1. Originally, this idea of localization arose to explain data from Bell Labs in the late 1950's showing very long relaxation times for electron spins in doped semiconductors. Since the mainstream didn't have a real charge field to work with at the time (and still don't), they had to try to explain this using only electrons.

2. Anderson localization is the attempt to keep electrons from transmitting through a material, but since conduction was never the transmission of electrons, there was never any need for localizing electrons. They know good and well that conduction isn't the motion of electrons, and have known it for decades. Some in the mainstream are nice enough to admit this in the matter of conduction through a wire (see my paper on the battery circuit), but when we go to conduction through other material, they ignore it completely.

3. As I showed in my paper on the dielectric, we have to follow charge through the material, not electrons. If we do that, we also don't need any tunneling, virtual fields, or other fudges. The long relaxation times found at Bell Labs were the result of longer charge paths, caused by the way the nuclei in the material were recycling real charge photons.

4. The main trick here (in Anderson localization) is proposing a loop (electron path) when we have no indication of one in real life. [] If electrons were making loops in materials, you could never have conduction regardless. [] The entire Drude-Sommerfeld model relies on linear motion of electrons across materials, not closed loops [].

5. Again, all these prominent people should have known all along that charge wasn't being conducted by electrons, and I assume they did know it. They have tracked electrons and have never found them moving like this. They don't move this way in wires, they don't move this way in transition metals, and they don't move this way in any other material. Their own experiments show this, and they admit it.

6. In my previous papers I have shown that conduction and the speed of conduction is a function of charge photons moving through material, not electrons. The electrons are just buoys in the field. [] What causes these extended relaxation times isn't electron localization, it is longer charge paths through the nuclear structures. These longer charge paths are caused by element alignments that do not allow for through charge. This effectively stops conduction, as I showed in those previous papers [].


From the Drude-Sommerfeld paper:
7. In this paper, we will look at the free electron model or Drude-Sommerfeld model of electron transfer in elements.

8. [Wikipedia says:] Bloch's Theorem: an unbound electron moves in a periodic potential as a free electron in vacuum, except for the electron mass m becoming an effective mass m* which may deviate considerably from m (one can even use negative effective mass to describe conduction by electron holes).

9. Before Sommerfeld mucked it up, the simple Drude model “provided a very good explanation of DC and AC conductivity in metals, the Hall effect, and thermal conductivity (due to electrons) in metals near room temperature. The model also explains the Wiedemann-Franz law of 1853.”

10. Bloch waves are imaginary waves manufactured to fit the data, and then a lot of math is created to fit free electrons to that imaginary wave. Since these old guys thought they were tracking electrons through the lattice, they thought they had to explain how electrons made it through without being scattered and without losing all kinds of energy. The only way they could do that is by letting the electron magically have a zero or negative mass at certain points, or by other hamhanded (and frankly embarrassing) tricks.

11. Although free electrons do move through the lattice as well, their movement is not what determines through fields, either electrical or magnetic. As we saw in my analysis of a battery circuit , the motion of electrons is only a side effect, one that has misled generations of physicists.


From the Dielectric paper:
12. Here I will show how my diagramming and explanation of through charge in Iron helps us to understand the dielectric better.

13. Since current is both charge and the ions carried by that charge (normally free electrons), both the charge and the ions are going to be redirected by the nucleus. You will say that charge should be moving c, which means it should get through the substance nearly instantaneously regardless of path, but we know that isn't true. All substances slow the transmission of both visible light and charge. That is because there are so many atoms in a substance, and therefore so many redirections. The path becomes very much longer, so even the photons are kept in the dielectric longer. Since the ions are going slower than the photons, this applies to them even more. It is mainly the energy of these ions that is stored. So current is kept in the dielectric material simply by redirections. The longer it is kept in, the more storage we have, and thereby the more capacitance.

LloydK

Posts : 425
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proton-Electron Attraction

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Nov 01, 2014 12:13 pm

“In our battery circuit discussion didn't you suggest that electricity is work done by electrons that are pushed by photon streams? In the Anderson paper and others it seems that MM says electrons and other particles aren't seen to flow at all, or almost not at all.”

Lloyd, You’re right. I don’t deny that I did. I’m a poor MM oracle. It’s an easy enough mistake to make, since so much MS theory depends on it. Re-reading these papers has clarified a few things, one of which is the unimportance of ion or electron flow.

For me, perhaps the easiest demonstration of the relative unimportance of electron flow in conductors is seen in examining AC circuits. Miles describes it in his AC paper, but I’ll add my own thoughts as well. Electrons supposedly move in the direction of the applied electric field on the order of a few mm/s. If that were true in AC circuits, the electrons would constantly move back and forth, never escaping their small limits of travel and forcing the small number of electrons doing any work, to do the same work over and over again. Clearly, there must be an underlying energy source.

From 109b. Alternatiing Current and Inductance ( http://milesmathis.com/alt.pdf ). I explain both with the charge field. 8pp.
“The problem is that the alternating charge in the generator can't cause an alternating current in the wire, because if the electric charge in the wire periodically reversed no current could be created. Since the periods are all the same, the current would come back as much as it went forward, which would give us no net movement of either charge or current down the wire.”
 
I’m curious, once it’s clear that no one has adequately answered the conduction/insulation question for space, will you present MM’s ideas as a best theory available?

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proton-Electron Attraction

Post by LloydK on Sat Nov 01, 2014 4:52 pm

I'm tentatively accepting CC's evidence as the best on the issue of conductance of space. He showed that the less matter in a volume of space, the greater the conductance.

I think settling the issue of whether charge is photons or ions will likely require focusing on electric current flow in solids, rather than in space. That's why I reviewed those 3 MM papers, looking for the observed behavior of electrons in conducting solids. I guess we'll have to bring back the highlights of our battery circuit discussion too. I think we made some progress there.

Vacuum Conductance?
I just saw David's post at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15364&p=101123#p101110 showing that batteries don't short out in space, therefore vacuum must have poor conductance after all, but that seems to contradict the rocket tests showing greater conductance at higher altitudes with greater vacuum.

LloydK

Posts : 425
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proton-Electron Attraction

Post by Cr6 on Wed Nov 05, 2014 1:44 am

LloydK wrote:I'm tentatively accepting CC's evidence as the best on the issue of conductance of space. He showed that the less matter in a volume of space, the greater the conductance.

I think settling the issue of whether charge is photons or ions will likely require focusing on electric current flow in solids, rather than in space. That's why I reviewed those 3 MM papers, looking for the observed behavior of electrons in conducting solids. I guess we'll have to bring back the highlights of our battery circuit discussion too. I think we made some progress there.

Vacuum Conductance?
I just saw David's post at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15364&p=101123#p101110 showing that batteries don't short out in space, therefore vacuum must have poor conductance after all, but that seems to contradict the rocket tests showing greater conductance at higher altitudes with greater vacuum.

Keep in mind that most of the batteries used for deep space have been Pu-batteries (plutonium sourced).   These batteries from deep space can still send their "charge field" back to Earth. These things probably are hard to short.

Personally, I like CC's work overall but I think the CFDL... doesn't explain the massive CME's from the Sun. The Sun hasn't destroyed all life on Earth, yet, so I think there is a more "stable" origination of the energy stream instead of CFDLs. They don't look that stable. IMHO, whatever is the true "source" of the Sun's power has to account for the wildness and yet the stability as well over a very long period of time.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 676
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Proton-Electron Attraction

Post by LloydK on Thu Nov 06, 2014 3:11 am

I'm rereading CC's papers on "Interior", "CMEs" and "Cycles at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/5237.html before responding to your comments, Cr6. I'll see if I can simplify the process he explains so I understand it better.

LloydK

Posts : 425
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Proton-Electron Attraction

Post by Cr6 on Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:26 am

Guys, I have one of these devices that I built up with some help. I can't make the same claims that David Wells does below, but I do think it is channeling Mathis' C.F. in a very novel, yet simple manner. It does it in a way that ordinary static generators-Van De Graff machines can't do. It apparently is a massive static generator like Tesla's long ropes of cloth against rubber. I can't say I'm an expert in this area nor do I have any devices for accurate testing the effects.  
----------

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:David_Wells_Weather_Control_System

http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/recordings/2009/090921_DavidWells_WeatherRangers.mp3


----------
How it Works

The device appears to work similar to the cloudbuster technology. It appears to involve a 20-mile wavelength. The wavelengths set up interference patterns with the earth's natural wavelengths. The peaks and valleys of those interference patterns determine what kind of weather appears. (Wavelengths = Mathis' Charge Field of photon recycling? Question )

Applications

   Steer tropical storms and hurricanes away from populated centers (a big claim that didn't work for me--Cr6)
   Prevent tornado formation (another big claim...)
   Stop droughts (another big claim...)
   Put out forest fires (another big claim...)
   Turn Nebraska into a agricultural giant (another big claim...)
   Sunny weather for social events  (another big claim...it may affect local weather to some moderate degree that far exceeds the raw static output of the machine)

Independent Testing

   Claims to have several independently operated machines around the U.S.

Anomalies

The machine appears to effect the speed of light, as shown by the movement of a laser beam on the wall, and the displacement of GPS readings. (I didn't see this with mine.)

A new force is described that can allegedly be felt by around 40% of people who try it, involving being able to feel a bead of heat-like sensation between a lit candle and Sedona Arizona; can be felt as far as 20-40 feet away from the flame. This same sensation can be felt between the machine and Sedona. (not sure of why he choose Sedona other than possibly the photon-antiphotons recycling of Mathis' C.F. is pronounced in that part of the US. --Cr6 )

One time, during peak tornado season, Wells was able to prevent tornados for a week in "Tornado Alley". This anomie was reported on Coast to Coast as "strange weather", not knowing the 'rest of the story.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 676
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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