Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

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

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Jared Magneson on Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:16 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
An orderly review of ideas presented should follow.

But what am I thinking? The thread has already left.
.

Hah! I don't mind my own threads getting derailed, especially since it's not fluff. I'm still processing and trying to visualize both of your very descriptive (and not necessarily contradicting) explanations of lightning. How that helps us with neutrons may not be apparent but since we have neutrons either being formed or discharged (knocked out of atoms), it's kinda on-topic? It's fine.

I'm in no position to dissect lightning. I think you're both more correct than anything I've read in the mainstream. It goes back to our big long thread about Electrical Visualization, and eventually we'll get to that point - so long as we keep plodding along and not give up.

About DLs again, it's kinda interesting that this plasma formation takes the emission shape (albeit roughly) of the neutron as opposed to the proton or electron.



We have the equator almost devoid of emission, and heavy streams out N and S. Related, perhaps? Or maybe that's just due to the spectra wavelength this image was recorded at?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LloydK on Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:24 pm

A: All the high velocities ensures many electrons will be gaining spins and energy, up to and including neutrons.
L: That's an interesting idea. But I think they'd be just as inclined to form protons. Right?

N: Before the video starts, we have a dense cloud that is blocking and storing the Earth's charge field. When it gets dense enough, charge expands out and starts to break down molecules in the atmosphere.
L: If clouds (and batteries and capacitors etc) can store charge, then the Earth and Sun surely can too. Also, what about nuclear bombs? Isn't charge stored in them? If so, again, why not in stars and planets similarly?

N: At the start of the video, we see an explosion of visible light photons. ... The IR field has been spun up into visible light.
L: Interesting, but where's the spinning up happening? And do the photons spin up to higher energies as well, i.e. UV, gamma rays, x-rays, or electrons?

N: As this charge explosion travels out in a sphere ... and some new, temporary, molecules will be created. ... Oxygen atoms will bond together into chains ... and these Oxygen chains can channel a lot of charge.
L: So ozone is formed. And ozone is healthful because it channels more charge?

N: ... atoms ... must re-orient themselves to this new field. This is part of what causes the zig-zag nature of lightning.
L: I read once that the zig-zag appearance is a bit wrong, that the channels are actually vortex-like, like strands of a braided rope coming undone.

N: The channeled charge is so strong that the bond can form considerably further away than normal.
L: Another interesting idea

N: It is more likely that the Earth is more dense, and can emit more charge at the point to connection, so it will actually take over the channel and emit its own charge up into the cloud.
L: If Earth charge is going back to the cloud, then the cloud would be recharged, wouldn't it? That doesn't make sense to me, since the cloud was discharging in the first place, so why would it recharge?

N: The cloud can't contain it and most of it just keeps going up, through the cloud and up into the higher atmosphere.
L: Sprites and elves are said to precede lightning, I think.

N: double layers, I interpreted ... as a field moving outward into a field moving inwards
L: Good food for thought

N: ... interesting thing to model and build an app around
L: How about simulating electricity, wifi and lightning first?

J: [Re double layers] Why are the electrons and protons separating? What is causing them to stay apart? We can assume photons, since even in the mainstream they call them charged layers. So do the photons (charge) get sandwiched between the electrons and protons somehow, and since they have chirality the electrons are being pushed one way and the protons another way? What would cause charge to separate into three or more layers like this? (electron layer, photon layer, proton layer)
L: Charles explained double layers much better (than Thornhill & Co.). The p's and e's can separate in several ways.
Here he explains how Debye cells form in space:
- http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=12692 ,
here how galactic filaments form:
- http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15482 ,
and here how electrons are squeezed out of matter under high pressure to form current-free double-layers within stars and planets
- http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=7909
- http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=7224

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Jared Magneson on Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:47 pm

LloydK wrote:Here he explains how Debye cells form in space:
- http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=12692

I'm not even halfway through that first paper, and it's completely riddled with problems, inaccuracies, and falsified theories - including the premise of the paper itself. Here's a few:

"This is why, for example, the Earth's atmosphere doesn't collapse under its own weight, despite having a higher concentration of heavy elements than is typical in space, making it more subject to the force of gravity..."

We know (or can choose to think, which is the same thing) that this is not why the atmosphere doesn't collapse or fall to Earth. It's charge pushing it aloft.

"Knowing this, scientists have concluded that something must be removing the hydrostatic pressure. So they suppose that as the compression raises the temperature, eventually the matter gets hot enough to start issuing EM radiation (i.e., photons). If the photons escape the dusty plasma and proceed on out into space, this represents a net energy loss for the dusty plasma, and it will have cooled itself. At a lower temperature, there will be less hydrostatic pressure, enabling more compression. But photons are an extremely slow heat loss mechanism."

Photons are the ONLY heat loss mechanism, since photons are heat. Again, they start with an assumption and just go wild from there. The premise is incorrect - it's not hydrostatic pressure as they know it, it's charge as we know it.

"Because of the greater speed of electrons, any dust grain in the vicinity gets bombarded with more electrons than +ions. And those electrons are absorbed into the electron cloud of the dust grain, which can typically host as much as 1 extra electron per million nuclei."

How would the electrons having greater speed mean the dust gets bombarded more? Greater speed doesn't mean more electrons than +ions. And one extra electron per million nuclei is just a terrible answer. How did they measure that? And again with that "electron cloud" stuff... We've all seen it numerous times, and it's just not believable for me anymore.

Being "absorbed into the electron cloud" isn't a mechanism at all.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:14 pm

LloydK wrote:If clouds (and batteries and capacitors etc) can store charge, then the Earth and Sun surely can too. Also, what about nuclear bombs? Isn't charge stored in them? If so, again, why not in stars and planets similarly?

Stars and planets most certainly do store charge and some times they release it. My qualms were with that being an absolute statement. Absolutely, nothing has more output than input or input than output. Relatively, they can. Which just means that you need to bring time into it. Over some time span, something can have more input than output. Over some other time span, it might have more output than input. Over its complete life span, assuming it completely disintegrates, it has the exact same output as input.

LloydK wrote:Interesting, but where's the spinning up happening? And do the photons spin up to higher energies as well, i.e. UV, gamma rays, x-rays, or electrons?

The spin ups are caused by the charge streaming out of the breaking molecules. My guess is that just as they break, when there is the most pressure inside of the molecule, they emit charge that is energetic enough to spin up ambient photons.

They don't spin up to higher energies, at least in great numbers, as there isn't enough energy to do it. We are talking about a pretty small volume of space so the energetic charge only has a small amount of time to spin up other photons. There are plenty of IR photons around so that is what is going to get spun-up. However, they do spin up to all frequencies in, and probably around, the visible spectrum so a fair amount of energy is being exchanged. I would expect some X-rays are generated but not much higher than that.

LloydK wrote:So ozone is formed. And ozone is healthful because it channels more charge?

Yes, Ozone is exactly what I was thinking of. Well, actually, Ozone is the by-product of what I was describing. The chains are initially longer than Ozone, which is only 3 Oxygen atoms in a chain. When all the excitement has dissipated, the chains break down into smaller sections because the charge field can't support them anymore.

LloydK wrote:I read once that the zig-zag appearance is a bit wrong, that the channels are actually vortex-like, like strands of a braided rope coming undone.

The zig-zag is a large scale phenomenon. I would think that any vortex behavior would be on a smaller scale and I have no problem with that if it is happening.

LloydK wrote:
N: The channeled charge is so strong that the bond can form considerably further away than normal.
L: Another interesting idea

I just pulled it out of my butt because I needed it at the time, but I also think it is interesting.

LloydK wrote:
N: It is more likely that the Earth is more dense, and can emit more charge at the point to connection, so it will actually take over the channel and emit its own charge up into the cloud.
L: If Earth charge is going back to the cloud, then the cloud would be recharged, wouldn't it? That doesn't make sense to me, since the cloud was discharging in the first place, so why would it recharge?

The cloud will recharge a bit. Discharging or recharging only relies on the relative charge densities, not what the entity was doing before the connection. You can clearly see the charge flowing up in the video, once the connection is made.

LloydK wrote:
N: The cloud can't contain it and most of it just keeps going up, through the cloud and up into the higher atmosphere.
L: Sprites and elves are said to precede lightning, I think.

Yes, you are correct. I do remember that now that you mention it. But I am not sure exactly what they mean by before. Is it before the visible light show or before the cloud starts pushing down towards the Earth? I need to know more to explain it, but I'm sure it can be explained.

LloydK wrote:How about simulating electricity, wifi and lightning first?

I thought double layers would be a good idea for an app because they are a small concept that can be modeled fairly easily. Electricity is a bit more complicated. Wifi is just beyond scope. Lighting contains so many concepts that we haven't even nailed down a good description of the process yet. I need a fairly solid understanding before I can start to build an app around something. Not complete knowledge, but at least a firm foundation to build upon. I probably could do electricity and was interested to see where this thread went before jumping into it. It looks like a pretty big job to me so I haven't invested any serious time into it, yet.


Last edited by Nevyn on Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:17 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: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:21 pm

With respect to Ozone, or more specifically long chains on Oxygen, it is a help in this situation because it can channel so much charge. I have taken this idea from my study of Acids where I found chains of Oxygen with other atoms to boost channeling potential. Same for Bases. These are strong molecules and that strength is their charge fields. So I ran with the idea, knowing that Ozone is a by-product of lightning, and threw them into the mix.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:27 pm

.
Hi Lloyd, Looks like I got off easy.

A: All the high velocities ensures many electrons will be gaining spins and energy, up to and including neutrons.
L: That's an interesting idea. But I think they'd be just as inclined to form protons. Right?
Airman. Agreed. Once conditions return to normal, I believe the earth’s charge field pushes the largest particles to the ionosphere, so I wouldn’t expect them to stick around for long. Smaller electrons are free to return to the surface, but just as free to raise higher into the atmosphere as well. Seems to contradict your subsequent statement
- L. Sprites and elves are said to precede lightning, I think. -
Airman.  Are you sure?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:40 pm

Jared, that picture of a nebula doesn't tell the whole story. I suspect that the emission is not being recorded and will be emitted in a plane orthogonal to the bright intakes you can see. Alternatively, if there really is no emission, then I would suggest that we have two charge streams meeting at that point and each charge stream is the anti of the other. The streams interact which dilutes them both, shown by the pinch area, and the very center of that pinch involves a lot of collisions. Enough to start building a star which will one day generate that emission previously mentioned. I actually quite like the EU idea of star formation but think that it could do with a rewrite in Mathisian principles. Which I have kind of started right there. This thread just keeps on giving!
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Mar 26, 2017 12:06 am

.
N: It is more likely that the Earth is more dense, and can emit more charge at the point to connection, so it will actually take over the channel and emit its own charge up into the cloud.
L: If Earth charge is going back to the cloud, then the cloud would be recharged, wouldn't it? That doesn't make sense to me, since the cloud was discharging in the first place, so why would it recharge?

N2: The cloud will recharge a bit. Discharging or recharging only relies on the relative charge densities, not what the entity was doing before the connection. You can clearly see the charge flowing up in the video, once the connection is made.

Airman. As the ionization leader touches the earth, an exponential increase in ionizations of surface matter causes a surge of electrons upward. There could just as easily been an initial surge from the cloud to the earth. In either case, there are subsequent decreasing surges back and forth before things settle down. It’s just electron/positron currents, we're not charging or discharging the cloud. The surges sweep back and forth broadly deionizing swaths of cloud matter.
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Sun Mar 26, 2017 12:15 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Corrected last sentence and added a new last sentence.)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Sun Mar 26, 2017 12:23 am

In the video, the cloud looks pretty much spent to me, before it touches the ground. It uses up most of its energy in reaching the ground but the Earth has plenty of energy to express. Once that connection is made, we get another sudden increase in visible light which we can briefly see traveling upwards.

That connection provides a, some-what indirect but still mostly vertical, path for the Earth's charge. As that charge rushes through that connection, atoms that are channeling that charge will be ionized causing an increase in electrons traveling along the same path. It is the increase in charge that causes the ionization and the electron stream.

Since electrons are larger and more massive than a charge photon, they can't make the path as easily as they can. This causes them to be involved in violent collisions that can cause them to be spun up into neutrons. The charge in the lightning path may even be able to spin them up on its own. It is a very dense and powerful stream of charge and the electrons are moving slower than that charge so they are going to be involved in lots of collisions.

With respect to surges, that just proves my point, in a way. The direction of charge is totally dependent on the density of the cloud and the Earth in the vicinity of the connection point. It will always travel from the more dense of the two. So if the Earth sends a heap of charge up into the cloud, which is stores temporarily, and this causes the Earth to deplete itself too much, the charge will go back down. The Earth becomes more dense so it goes back up. Standard equilibrium behavior. The two entities will zero in on some value that makes them equal but other things will break down before that equilibrium is reached so they will only come close to it. This may mean that the charge does end up back in the Earth but it could also be dissipated during the equalization.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Sun Mar 26, 2017 12:30 am

I should point out that it is not the same charge that is surging back and forth. The cloud still has plenty of charge to emit and this will rush down the path if the Earth's density drops too far. But some of the lightning charge can be stored in the clouds molecules and this may, eventually, make its way back down the path. The life of a photon is a complicated one.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Jared Magneson on Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:52 am

It is very interesting indeed that, once we give photons back their reality in the field, how easily many of these problems can be addressed. Not necessarily answered as there's still so much work to do, but laying down the basic concepts is tremendously more helpful using the charge field instead of vagaries of language and concept.

So while I fear I'm making slow progress in my simulations, it feels like we're all making some decent leaps and bounds on these other topics. Nevyn, I think you're right that the foundations need to be established first, to achieve any real accuracy. I find myself backtracking a lot and re-re-reading papers to re-re-rediscover concepts that are critically important in building a decent and working model of charge. It's very interesting.

Consider clouds themselves: prior to Mathis, even their loftiness or ability to float was pretty much hocus-pocs. I find that completely amazing, but also keenly fascinating. Amazed that nobody else thought of the up-vector (regarding the atmosphere, lift on a wing, and many other topics) the way Mathis has with such explanatory power, and fascinated that we get to explore it at all, with modern tools and this modern communication mechanism.

It makes me wonder what other works are being done behind the scenes, in this and any other field. All real work IS being done behind the scenes, either in this fashion or in privatized groups. It's really quite odd but I'm happy to be sharing all this with you folks. I wish Miles would join us but he's "too busy" being socially awkward or whatever, or scared we're all spooks. Smile

Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:24 pm

Jared Magneson wrote:
"Knowing this, scientists have concluded that something must be removing the hydrostatic pressure. So they suppose that as the compression raises the temperature, eventually the matter gets hot enough to start issuing EM radiation (i.e., photons). If the photons escape the dusty plasma and proceed on out into space, this represents a net energy loss for the dusty plasma, and it will have cooled itself. At a lower temperature, there will be less hydrostatic pressure, enabling more compression. But photons are an extremely slow heat loss mechanism."

Photons are the ONLY heat loss mechanism, since photons are heat.

Yes, photons are the true heat loss mechanism, but there are different ways to go about that. Just letting the photons dissipate is not as effective as sending in charge depleted atoms that will then soak up that charge and take it out. This is how your refrigerator works. A compressed gas, which requires a low charge density, is allowed to decompress and this allows it to take in charge which is then directed away from what you want to keep cold.

Jared Magneson wrote:
"Because of the greater speed of electrons, any dust grain in the vicinity gets bombarded with more electrons than +ions. And those electrons are absorbed into the electron cloud of the dust grain, which can typically host as much as 1 extra electron per million nuclei."

How would the electrons having greater speed mean the dust gets bombarded more? Greater speed doesn't mean more electrons than +ions.

I assume that sentence is not complete because it does not mention time. If you are measuring collisions per second, say, then a greater speed will increase that count assuming the density remains the same.

I haven't analyzed this paper and am not advocating for or against it. Just thought I would point out some things that might not be a straight forward as they seem.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LloydK on Sun Mar 26, 2017 10:34 pm

L:    Here he explains how Debye cells form in space:
   - http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=12692

J: I'm not even halfway through that first paper, and it's completely riddled with problems, inaccuracies, and falsified theories - including the premise of the paper itself.

L: That's your impression. I can say somewhat the same about Miles' papers. A proton is made of a single photon that is somehow able to form a sphere with holes at the poles and equator where photons enter and exit. I guess centrifugal force causes the photon paths to curve toward the equator. And that's how photons enter and leave planets and stars too, at the poles and equators, or just above and below the equators, even though there's gobs of matter in the way. And the proton's single photon is able to create huge increases in mass by stacking gyrations. And photon streams are able to bend in order to enter and leave other protons and neutrons in a molecule.

I have an open mind, so I'm able to work with Miles' model as well as Charles' and others'. I'm not yet convinced that electrons are not "attracted" to protons. If they are, then Charles' model is workable. And to me it makes sense that high and low pressure of ambient and charge stream photons could be what the attraction involves. I wouldn't mind trying to answer your questions, but I don't want to go off-topic too much here.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Sun Mar 26, 2017 11:03 pm

LloydK wrote:I wouldn't mind trying to answer your questions, but I don't want to go off-topic too much here.

I think that boat has already sailed!

We aren't too good at staying on topic sometimes, but there aren't that many of us here so it doesn't make too much difference at the moment. I'm happy to see good discussion and if that starts to go a bit too far for the thread it is in, then it should probably be given its own new thread. It can be difficult to know if something is going to lead to a large discussion or if it is just a one to two post kind of thing.

I don't know about you guys and gals, but I find that a good discussion often entails more than the original point that started it. One thing leads to another which leads to another and maybe you might come back to where it all started. I don't mind that at all, but I do find it very difficult to find old posts when the subject I am looking for isn't really related to the thread it was written in. So it has its good and bad points.

So, what am I saying? Who knows. Just go for 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: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Jared Magneson on Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:41 pm

LloydK wrote:
L: That's your impression. I can say somewhat the same about Miles' papers. A proton is made of a single photon that is somehow able to form a sphere with holes at the poles and equator where photons enter and exit. I guess centrifugal force causes the photon paths to curve toward the equator. And that's how photons enter and leave planets and stars too, at the poles and equators, or just above and below the equators, even though there's gobs of matter in the way. And the proton's single photon is able to create huge increases in mass by stacking gyrations. And photon streams are able to bend in order to enter and leave other protons and neutrons in a molecule.



A proton is made of what exactly, in the mainstream (or any other) theory?

No, it doesn't form a sphere. We've shown multiple times in our animations that the photon's stacked spin motions do not form a sphere. We often represent the larger particles as spheres in diagrams, but its motion defines its shape.



It doesn't have holes at its poles, but since its emission is equatorial the propensity for incoming charge to penetrate the particle's influence of motion is much greater at its poles.

It is not "centrifugal forces" which push the photons out around the equator, but direct collisions with other photons and/or the proton itself. The proton has a much higher tangential velocity around the axis of its spin, compared to the poles of that spin, so incoming photons are often "bounced out" or redirected by this motion as well as the charge emission itself of the proton.

That process looks like this:
https://vimeo.com/145068938

Regarding the sun and Earth and all bodies recycling charge, you say there's tons of matter in the way. And yet we see that charge emission even in the mainstream. The "tons of matter" is still larger, baryonic matter and easily penetrated by the far, far smaller photon. You can even feel the sun on your face magically in this way, despite tons of atmospheric matter in the way.





Stacked spins increase the particle's mass simply by increasing its radius, and therefor its ability to collide with other particles. Or propensity to do so, and divert or alter their motion with its own. Mass is not an intrinsic attribute, it's an outcome of motion of a physical particle.

Nobody I recall including Mathis has ever said the photon streams "bend" along their paths. The photons don't bend (since they have no freedom to do so, and the paths don't bend either. Due to motion, an observer may see a bend, but that's just relativity and not an actual curvature in the path.

If you're not convinced that attractions are non-physical and purely effects of less repulsion relative to the local field, as we've explained many times, that's entirely up to you. Nobody can convince anyone else of anything.


If you're going to stuff our clothes with straw, please choose a less itchy grass to cut. I think you can do better than ignoring everything Mathis or the rest of us here have written or shown - and I don't think you can counter my critiques of CC's paper on accretion, or else you would just do that instead.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LloydK on Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:40 pm

J: Nobody I recall including Mathis has ever said the photon streams "bend" along their paths. The photons don't bend (since they have no freedom to do so, and the paths don't bend either. Due to motion, an observer may see a bend, but that's just relativity and not an actual curvature in the path.
L: The diagram of the alpha shows charge streams going equally to and from both neutrons and to or from the two protons. In reality the stream should go straight up or down between the neutrons to the poles of each proton. In order to go to the poles of the neutrons the streams have to bend, or the neutrons only receive a small part of a thicker charge stream than what the diagram shows.
- In order for the charge stream to enter a proton's poles and exit mostly at the equator, the photons have to move on a curved path, or they have to collide with the proton's single resident stacked-spins photon just the right way to exit equatorially. In order for the stream of photons to collide with that resident photon, the resident has to move around a lot faster than the stream of incoming photons moves. Also, the resident photon has to be a lot heavier than the charge stream photons.
- PS, in one of Miles' papers, maybe the one where you got the image of EM radiation of Earth near its equator, I recall he said those photon emissions do bend back together at a few thousand kilometers altitude.

J: If you're not convinced that attractions are non-physical and purely effects of less repulsion relative to the local field, as we've explained many times, that's entirely up to you. Nobody can convince anyone else of anything.
L: Why do you think I'm saying something different from what you're saying? Do you think low and high pressure don't describe what you're saying?

J: If you're going to stuff our clothes with straw, please choose a less itchy grass to cut. I think you can do better than ignoring everything Mathis or the rest of us here have written or shown - and I don't think you can counter my critiques of CC's paper on accretion, or else you would just do that instead.
L: What does your idiom mean? I don't understand the symbolism? I don't know what Miles or you all have said that I'm ignoring here. I need to know if you mean to have friendly discussion before I discuss CC's model more. I don't bother discussing if a discussion isn't friendly.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:12 pm

.
Jared, it sounds like you’re looking for a confrontation. There’s no fault here, just different perspectives. We’re in a distinct minority, people who recognize that there are a lot of questions mainstream science simply can’t explain in a gravity only universe. We know that because we’re interested in such things, and have found Miles’ work. More than that, we recognize his work totally revolutionizes virtually all science. The revolution has been underway 15 years but most people don’t know it; science is like that.

In all other respects, science has done very well. It’s resulted in incredible leaps in all aspects of society and technological advancement. It’s undeniable. Most people expect small tweaks or great insights are all that’s necessary to explain all the important questions remaining. Many have been looking for most of their lives; alone or in groups, like ours, to further understanding in the ways they know best. They are succeeding, or not, based on the merits of their positions and accomplishments.

Would you tell them to literally throw away their life’s work because it’s all based on faulty physics?

I’ve likely expressed this idea here before. There are many details as yet still unknown. If there were some mechanism our discussion suggested that mainstream could use to explain lightning better, fine. The truth is, as Miles has pointed out, many would pick and choose from his work if they could. Generally speaking though, if you accept any of Miles’ work you must then logically accept the entire charge field package. I'm optimistic, his work will continue after he and us are gone.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:02 pm

LloydK wrote:in one of Miles' papers, maybe the one where you got the image of EM radiation of Earth near its equator, I recall he said those photon emissions do bend back together at a few thousand kilometers altitude.

I think the term 'bend' is a very bad way to describe this. The photons are not bending at all, they are colliding with the Sun's charge and being pushed back around. If you just look at the path then you might say that it bends, but the actual motion is not just the photon deciding to curve itself, it is colliding with other photons. This is a major distinction between Miles and nearly everyone else I have encountered, especially the mainstream. Most are happy to just say it bends or it is angular momentum (something even Miles does) but these are abstract concepts, not real motions. They describe real motions but are not the motions themselves, they are results of motion. I'm not sure if anyone will get the finer point I put onto that, but I believe it is there. The same applies to words like pressure or attraction. They are used as a description in their own right but without a mechanical mechanism for it, the words mean nothing.

You have to be careful of the scale that you are working at. When talking about atoms and molecules then you can use a concept like pressure because that pressure is caused by photons. However, when talking about photons you don't have anything smaller than them to create pressure. They can apply some pressure to each other, but I think that is better described as collisions. Why dress it up in some abstract concept when you can just talk about what it actually is?
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Jared Magneson on Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:45 pm

LloydK wrote:I need to know if you mean to have friendly discussion before I discuss CC's model more. I don't bother discussing if a discussion isn't friendly.

I am all about friendly conversations. Attacking your argument wasn't meant as an insult, but when you straw man someone I'm probably gonna call it out. It often seems like you've ignored or forgotten much we've already discussed - but I think maybe you're just trying to describe how it would look from a clean slate / layman's point of view? If that's what you're doing, great. I can totally party with that.

This is always a friendly forum for me, if I get a little worked up don't take it personally. I tend to get scathing much like Mathis, which is one of the things that drew me to him to begin with - but its' not personal, so imagine we're laughing over a cup of coffee or cold ale during these conversations and you'll be fine.


LloydK wrote:J: Nobody I recall including Mathis has ever said the photon streams "bend" along their paths. The photons don't bend (since they have no freedom to do so, and the paths don't bend either. Due to motion, an observer may see a bend, but that's just relativity and not an actual curvature in the path.
L: The diagram of the alpha shows charge streams going equally to and from both neutrons and to or from the two protons. In reality the stream should go straight up or down between the neutrons to the poles of each proton. In order to go to the poles of the neutrons the streams have to bend, or the neutrons only receive a small part of a thicker charge stream than what the diagram shows.
- In order for the charge stream to enter a proton's poles and exit mostly at the equator, the photons have to move on a curved path, or they have to collide with the proton's single resident stacked-spins photon just the right way to exit equatorially. In order for the stream of photons to collide with that resident photon, the resident has to move around a lot faster than the stream of incoming photons moves. Also, the resident photon has to be a lot heavier than the charge stream photons.

I see why you would say that or think that now, but what you're missing is the charge field itself. Inside a proton there are millions of photons already, and have been since it was "spun up" into a proton to begin with. This is something we haven't diagrammed well (or at all) so I can see how someone might miss that. The proton is moving in a sea of photons, basically, and churning through it - taking them in at the points of least resistance (top and bottom poles) and regurgitating them along its equator. The proton needn't strike or collide with every incoming photon. The charge field is already doing this.

You do make a great point about the neutron's charge throughput, however. It has been drawn at an angle, and would have to be to fit into those diagrams. What I think may be happening more realistically is that the proton has a bit of a wobble, or oscillation, and this wobble creates those angles. But that's just a guess right now, and more work needs to be done in this area. Thank you for pointing that out, and bringing us back to the thread topic a bit too. Smile

LongTimeAirman wrote:Jared, it sounds like you’re looking for a confrontation. There’s no fault here, just different perspectives.

I don't want a confrontation with you folks at all, so I apologize if I was too scathing. I'll try harder to be a bit more civil. On Facebook for example, there's absolutely not reason to do so, and I "trash" sometimes dozens of people a day in various forums and science/physics debates. But those are strangers who I do not respect or care for. You folks make be strangers, but I do respect and care for you, and especially concerning our work here.

I apologize, Lloyd, if I was insulting. And I didn't really mean for that straw man image to be so huge, it was supposed to be small and silly.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:24 pm

.
Jared wrote. “ Inside a proton there are millions of photons already, and have been since it was "spun up" into a proton to begin with. This is something we haven't diagrammed well (or at all) so I can see how someone might miss that. The proton is moving in a sea of photons, basically, and churning through it - taking them in at the points of least resistance (top and bottom poles) and regurgitating them along its equator. The proton needn't strike or collide with every incoming photon. The charge field is already doing this.”

This is near and dear to my heart, and the first time I’ve heard of “a proton is moving in a sea of photons”.  Maybe you intended to say, “a proton is a B_photon moving in a sea of approximately 6 billion photons”? In any case, please elaborate.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Mon Mar 27, 2017 7:51 pm

I think I can put some light on the neutron charge problem or at least provide some images for us to discuss it.

There is no bending of charge streams. They don't magically turn because there is a neutron over to the side. It is just the randomness of charge emission. Protons do not have nice straight, perfectly right-angled emission vectors. As an average, they can be thought of like that, but not as a real thing.

This is an image of an Alpha particle (helium), I've moved the neutrons in close to the protons:


This version shows the modeled charge vectors, which are not strictly correct, at least as Miles has most recently described it:


This version shows what they should be doing as per the Deuterium paper:


The neutrons are not taking the through-charge of the proton, they are feeding on the protons emission charge (or it might be the through-charge that is emitted at an angle). Some of that emission is emitted, not at a 90° angle, but at such an angle that it goes towards the neutron. The neutron then collides with that charge and pushes it through its own interior, making it its own through-charge.

Now comes the tricky part. Does that neutron through-charge get pushed back towards the next proton to become part of that protons through-charge? Or does it just mingle in with that protons emission?

I am leaning to the conclusion that the neutrons charge is not part of the through-charge for that alpha. But Miles has used it in that way. In order for me to do it as Miles has (most recently) I would have to move the protons a bit further apart so that both neutrons can slide in between them. Then it might be able to angle back towards the proton. This does imply that the exiting through-charge is not as focused as I once thought. A majority of it probably is, but some must be emitted to the sides and this could then be picked up by the proton.

What do you think? Can anyone think of another way for it to happen?
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Jared Magneson on Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:36 pm

Yeah, it's a rough one to diagram. I spent like an hour just staring at the sky out back in my garden contemplating what neutron charge would look like, how it would act inside the neutron's "influence shell", compared to the proton which seems a lot more straightforward to me. Maybe because Mathis spends a lot of time describing the proton and only a few papers touch the neutron. Maybe because the interior collisions make more sense to me for the proton.

Anyway, determining how the neutron fits into the alpha should tell us a lot more about how it channels charge as well. Just saying, "the last spin is reversed" isn't terribly helpful. So what I came up with for now in my diagrams is a loopedy-loop inside the neutron, since it seems like that's the only way to get a photon in one end and out the other without going straight through. Hope that makes sense.

So here's a CAD-accurate illustration of the alpha where, as Nevyn described, the neutrons aren't channeling the proton's through-charge but rather picking up from the proton's emission:


(right-click "View Image" to zoom, if need be)

And here's another where I tried to draw the "wobble" I was describing earlier, though of course I couldn't draw the motion itself but wanted to look at the position and angle. If we move the protons away from each other (up and down) and the neutrons closer to the center, we can kinda find an area where both through-charge and emission from the proton "connect". Kinda. It's just an illustration of the concept, but of course that would require the proton to have a tilt-wobble of 30° (in this case). That seems a bit extreme.


Jared Magneson

Posts : 251
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:44 pm

.

Nevyn, Your He4 is on the left, Miles’ on the right.  In Miles, the neutrons take in proton through charge. Neutron mutual emission and proton through charge keep the neutrons apart. Are you asking that we consider letting the neutrons accept proton emissions? Where do their emissions then go? My first guess is to the proton through charge. Here’s a rough diagram.

Do I understand so far?
Nevyn wrote. Now comes the tricky part. Does that neutron through-charge get pushed back towards the next proton to become part of that protons through-charge? Or does it just mingle in with that protons emission?
I don't like the mingling idea: 1) what keeps the neutron in place? 2) I don't see such mingling as supplying any anticharge back to the neutron, 3) I thought mingling was the current AV solution.

Nice diagrams Jared, Looks like you prefer mingling output emissions too. Does the wobble allow another through charge/emission possibility?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 632
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:03 pm

This is going a bit below where this discussion is at, but I don't really see how the neutron's BPhoton motion stops an emission field from being generated. According to SpinSim, the main difference I see is that one particle has a larger central hole than the other. I have interpreted the larger hole as belonging to the proton and the smaller hole to the neutron. What if it is the other way around? What if the larger hole actually causes more charge to be used as through-charge and that is why it has a reduced emission field?

Large hole:


Small hole:


The difference between these particles is just a reversed Z spin.

Maybe it doesn't have a reduced emission field, but emits charge that is anti to the ambient field and so it gets tamped down quickly? So, in essence, a neutron is a charge flipper. But that is starting to sound more like proton/anti-proton. I don't know. I'm confused.

Jared, I like that first image. It really conveys the angles nicely. So neat.

Airman, Miles originally stated that the neutron takes it charge from the protons emission and then changed that in the Deuterium paper and I am just trying to find firm footing in that transition. Your third image does not show what I meant, though. I think it is either feeding off of the through-charge or the emission charge. Not both, although there may be some charge from both in reality, I am talking about its primary source of charge.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Nevyn on Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:28 pm

I am very reluctant to change AV to fit this new view of the alpha. Not for any physical reasons, but for aesthetic reasons. I know, I shouldn't let that get in the way of physics but I like the way they look now and don't want to make them taller and skinnier. If I have to, as a result of our discussions or further direction from Miles, then I will, but I am thinking that I will make the red and green spheres smaller and this will allow the neutrons to fit in between the protons.

Actually, I just realised that everything is positioned by proton radii. That is, I use the proton radius as my unit of distance. I will have to see how to change that.

But I digress. Please continue.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 852
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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