Particle Drifts in Space

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Particle Drifts in Space

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:13 pm

.
I hope comingfrom approves. I took his post as a challenge. Can we account for the following?

Re: Miles Mathis, A recent discussion at TBolts. Starting at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16723

From http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16723&p=120027&sid=39cb50cc49b7ad9f564061454afa6736#p120027
Airman wrote. Please make a simple diagram.
comingfrom wrote. Rather than make one, I'll find an "official" one that shows what I am speaking about.

source: Particle Drifts in Space https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wdrift.html

source: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/nmr.html

Airman wrote. Wonderful sources. Perfect for improving our understanding; all kinds of information and experimental results the charge field must account for.

Chromium6 wrote. Just to add this too... keep in mind "nano-magnets".
These apparently will prove or disprove quite a bit with Mathis' explanation of magnetism. This is a relatively young field with many recent discoveries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanomagnet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-molecule_magnets

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

Also perfect is the fact that the nasa.gov documents are archived teaching materials with the following,
 
Disclaimer: The following material is being kept online for archival purposes.
Although accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers.

While these tax payer funded materials (you're welcome) still last, let's make this a teaching moment.

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

#10a. Particle Drifts in Space    (Optional)

Space physics can be weird. In regions of magnetic fields, the relation between electric fields and currents is very different from its form in everyday technology.
   Ohm's law tells that electric fields drive electric currents, from high voltage to low voltage. In a conductor such as a wire, electrons move from (-) to (+), while ions (if they are free to move), are pushed in the opposite direction, (+) to (-). In space, on the other hand, the the entire plasma is moved sideways, perpendicular to both magnetic and electric field lines. No steady electric current results from the electric field, and both ions and electrons advance in the same direction.
   On the other hand, electric currents often flow in space without any voltage driving them. No electric field is involved--the magnetic field is doing it all, when it has the appropriate structure.
   This strange behavior is explained below. No math is used, but the arguments are a bit complex--skip this part, if you want. If you decide to continue, go slow: it only takes a short time to read this web page, but much longer to understand it. Make sure to assimilate each part of the argument before going to the next one.

Electric Drift
The drawing shown here explains what happens when electric and magnetic fields act together on ions and electrons. Consult it in each stage of the discussion.

1.   Why electric fields parallel to magnetic field lines are rare in space
   It will be assumed in what follows that the direction of the electric force ("direction of the electric field") is always perpendicular to the local direction of magnetic field lines.
   There exists a reason. In space, ions and electrons spiral around their guiding magnetic field lines, but at the same time they can also slide along those lines, like beads threaded on a wire.
   If the electric force had some part in that direction (a "vector component"), those ions and electrons, as they advance along their guiding field lines, would also be accelerated by it, and gain speed. However... gaining speed also means gaining energy. Because energy in nature is conserved, whatever the particle gains, weakens the accelerating part of the electric field, and unless fresh energy is constantly supplied, that part does not last long.
   Without such fresh energy (the usual case), the electric force along the field line quickly drops to zero. When that happens, the same voltage exists at all points along a magnetic field line, leaving no voltage differences that might drive currents in that direction. The remaining electric field is then perpendicular to the magnetic field lines, as in the drawing here.
   An exception to this rule is discussed in section #28, dealing with the origin of the aurora. There energy is being supplied and the electric force does have a component in the same direction as the magnetic field line.

2.   The Electric Force
   For the above reason, the local magnetic field lines in the drawing (repeated here for convenience) are assumed to be perpendicular to the paper, coming out towards you. Suppose also the electric field--representing the electric force--is in the plane of the drawing, towards the top of the figure. A straight arrow was drawn giving that direction, which we choose to be the y direction in a system of (x, y) axes, drawn in the bottom right corner.
   A positive particle--such as a proton, marked here p+ --is pushed by the electric force towards the top of the drawing, in the +y direction.
   A negative electron, marked e-, is pushed towards the bottom, in the -y direction You can imagine (if you wish) a positive charge somewhere below the drawing, and a negative charge somewhere above it, creating that force--repelling or attracting the proton or electron.
3.   The Magnetic Force Alone
   If the electron and the proton (or other positive ion) were free, they would simply move in those directions. But they are not free, because of the magnetic force.
   If only magnetic forces were present (no electric field), the proton would circle around a magnetic field line in the clockwise direction (from where we are looking) and the electron in the counter-clockwise direction. These directions are given near the left edge of the drawing.
4.   Electric and Magnetic Forces together
   The electric force modifies the motion. Protons are accelerated in the +y direction, so they move a bit faster on the part of their circle closer to the top of the page (see drawing above!).
   Electrons are accelerated in the -y direction, so their speed is a bit greater on the part of their circle closer to the bottom.
   Faster ions or electrons circle with a bigger radius. They behave a bit like a racing car: the greater its speed, the wider is the circle it follows when going around a curve.
   Therefore protons make wider circles at the top of their circles, and electrons make wider circles at the bottom of their circles. This is shown in the drawing, and the result is a slow crablike sideways motion ("drift") in the (-y) direction, by both ions and electrons. Even though they circle their field lines in opposite directions, the electric field moves them both in the same direction, to the right.
   It can also be shown that the velocity of both motions is always the same--even though protons are nearly 2000 times heavier, and even though the initial energies of the particles can be very different. (To those familiar with mathematics and physics, this process can be explained much more concisely and transparently.) The result is always a sideways flow of the plasma, a migration of the entire plasma, a bulk motion of the gas rather than a flow of electric current.
Barium Clouds and Solar Wind

   Such an "electric drift" takes place in the barium cloud (section #8 whose figure is repeated here). The green cloud of neutral barium stays still, while any electric field present makes the purple cloud, consisting of ions and electrons, drift away from it (see illustration). Of course, since ions and electrons remain free to slide along magnetic field lines, the ion cloud also expands slowly in that direction (or rather, in two opposite directions--up and down the field lines).
   Where can such electric fields come from? Probably from far out in space. As noted earlier on this web page, a magnetic field line tends to have the same voltage everywhere along its length. If an electric field is created anywhere on that line, its voltage will be transmitted to the rest of it, and with it, the electric field is also transmitted. Thus an electric field created far in space can spread to the end region of the line, where the line comes down into the atmosphere, and where the transmitted field causes barium clouds to drift.
--------------
   Electric fields in space also arise in other ways. When some powerful cause "pushes" plasma to move in some direction, an electric fields helps achieve this. The positive and negative charges creating such a field need only a relatively small number of electrons to be moved to new positions, and where the impulse for moving the plasma is strong enough, nature obliges and shifts them. The motion of plasma--changing the magnetic field line structure--is also associated with an electric field, of a type which cannot be conveniently described by simple voltage distributions.
--------------
   One example is the solar wind, a steady flow of plasma spreading out from the solar corona, the hot upper atmosphere of the Sun, which is too hot for the Sun's gravity to retain it (see section #18). The solar wind spreads radially outwards, while the interplanetary magnetic field lines which accompany it are expanding spirals around the Sun (section #18a).
   The radial motion of solar wind ions and electrons must cut across those spirals. How do those particles avoid being forced into tiny spirals around those lines? By an electric field! The flow of the solar wind is driven by powerful energy sources, which make its motion take precedence, which it does by creating the appropriate electric field.
   (On the other hand, high energy particles from solar outbursts are too few in number to force their way through, and are forced into the spiral route. See note at the end of section #18a.)

Magnetic Drifts

Now to the other oddity--electric currents without any voltage.
   Suppose as before that magnetic field lines are perpendicular to the drawing, and that the same (x, y) axes are used as before. Only now (drawing on the left) no electric field exists, and instead the strength of the magnetic force changes with distance in the y direction--it is much greater at the top of the drawing than at the bottom.
   As before both ions and electrons circle around magnetic field lines, as drawn (we ignore the sliding motion). However, the size of the circle also depends on the strength of the magnetic force--the stronger the force, the smaller the radius of the circle. (In the limit where the magnetic force drops to zero, the particles move in straight lines--same as circles of infinite radius!)
   Because the way the strength of the force changes, the orbits, again, are no longer circles but flat spirals (see drawing), curving more sharply at the top of their motion.
   The result as before, is again a crablike sideways "drift." This time, however, protons and electrons drift in opposite directions. Protons move to the left, electrons to the right, and both motions contribute a right-to-left electric current.

The ring current https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtrap1.html#ringcurrent described in section #9 is of this type. The figure from that section, reproduced here, looks down on the equatorial plane of the Earth, from the north. All field lines point upwards, as in the previous drawing, and the strength of the magnetic field increases inwards, towards the Earth. The drift is therefore in the 3rd perpendicular direction, which carries the particles around Earth--electrons counterclockwise, protons clockwise, and the current flows clockwise too. The earlier drawing illustrating magnetic drifts may be viewed (qualitatively) as a magnified blow-up of the situation at the bottom of the ring current drawing.  
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Does all the above make sense? Do we agree?
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:22 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Corrected hyperphysics link)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 592
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

#1 The Magnetosphere

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:55 pm

.
The purpose of this archived material is to “teach” the subject matter, the Magnetosphere, as it was understood in 2001, before recognition of the charge field. The material needs updating. What are the charge field mechanisms that explain the subject matter better?

We’re trying to learn here. Please feel free to add, change or comment.

The Exploration of the Earth's Magnetosphere
https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmap.html

#1. The Magnetosphere.

The Earth is a huge magnet, and its magnetic influence extends far into space.



In our everyday environment, magnetic forces are of no importance and a sensitive instrument, the compass needle, is needed to detect them. That is because we, the materials we encounter in everyday life, even the oxygen and nitrogen which we breathe, are all electrically neutral. The atoms of oxygen, for instance, contain electrons with negative electric charges and protons which are positive, but the two charges balance each other and the electric and magnetic forces cancel. Magnetic forces have almost no effect on neutral atoms.

However, 60 miles (100 km) or more above the surface of the Earth, the natural environment is quite different. The fringes of the atmosphere at these heights are strongly heated by the Sun's x-rays and ultra-violet light (and by other causes as well), causing negative electrons to be torn off atoms and leaving the remainder of the atoms as positively charged "ions". These electrified fragments react strongly to the magnetic forces and can be steered and trapped by them.


Airman. Halfway through 1, seems like a good place to stop. “Electrically neutral” is a term that is not well defined here and must be addressed, sooner or later. The first thing that stopped me is the figure – superimposing a bar magnet with the Earth in order to describe the Earth’s magnetic field. I’ve added another diagram from the text, showing how magnetic field lines are determined using a compass needle.

Our first task: explaining magnetic field lines in terms of the charge field.
 
Of course magnetic field lines aren’t real, they just indicate the directions the compass would follow, along lines of equal force, similar to elevation lines in a geologic map intended to portray terrain contours. Remaining roughly parallel, a compass moved to one side of the line may feel a slightly stronger force; the magnetic force felt on the other side of the line would be slightly weaker.

We know that the magnetic lines are related to the top spin orientations of the Earth’s emission field, but why does the compass lie in the directions shown? Our compass needle displays a net force and direction – the result of several factors. The first, Earth’s emissions are two-to-one, matter and anti-matter. If Earth’s emissions were balanced, little to no magnetic field would be detected. This is true for Venus, it has a weak magnetic field yet still emits a strong electric field. The magnetosphere strength increases with greater matter and anti-matter imbalance.

Another factor, the Earth is a large source of photons of all wavelengths and frequencies. The strength of the magnetosphere would increase if Earth’s emissions were more coherent, or emitted “in phase”. These details are too complicated for the time being. Before we can answer fully, we’ll need to cover the text’s next section. I’ll conclude the current post with the remainder of #1. The Magnetosphere.



With a suitable input of energy, such fragments can also be accelerated to high speeds, can give rise to electic currents and emit a variety of radio-type waves.

It can be shown that such free electrons and ions will be guided by the magnetic field lines (or "lines of force") which rise from near the southern (magnetic) pole and enter the Earth again near the northern pole. Electrons and ions tend to remain attached to field lines like beads on wires, though unlike beads they also slowly migrate ("drift") to neighboring "wires."

It follows that the structure of field lines near Earth determines much of the motion and behavior of the free electrons and ions found there. Satellites observing magnetic forces in space have found (figure on right) that lines from most points on Earth are confined inside a fairly well-defined cavity, the magnetosphere of the Earth. The space outside it is dominated by the Sun, and by the fast "solar wind" of free ions and electrons emitted by the Sun.

Next #2. Magnetic Fields.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 592
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:11 am

Okay, LTAM... just so we stop this before this old question starts up:



https://archive.org/details/skylab_magnetism_in_space


Last edited by Cr6 on Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:51 am; edited 1 time in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 667
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:17 am


The Kursk Magnetic Anomaly: Magnetism’s Bermuda Triangle

This entry was posted on June 1, 2017 by Apex Magnets.

The Bermuda Triangle is notorious for strange phenomena and mysteries. While it’s probably more myth than fact, this peculiar part of the globe has captivated our imaginations for years. Well, those of us in the magnet biz have our own version—Russia’s Kursk Magnetic Anomaly.

The Kursk Magnetic Anomaly, or KMA, is the world’s largest. Situated in southwest Russia near the Ukrainian border and its strange properties have puzzled scientists for years.

What’s a Magnetic Anomaly in the First Place?

As most of us know (especially if you follow us on Twitter), Earth possesses a magnetic field generated from millions of tons of iron and other metals deep within the planet’s core. Our magnetic field helps deflect harmful solar wind so we’re not irradiated. Strongest near the north and south poles, the magnetic field is pretty consistent across various degrees of latitude.

However, there are of course exceptions to this rule. Often resulting from unusually high levels of metal, a magnetic anomaly is a change in Earth’s magnetic field that’s different from what’s expected. That means there’s such a large amount of metal in the crust, it can override the rest of Earth’s massive magnetic field!

Why Are We Attracted to the Kursk Magnetic Anomaly?

Plainly put, this site is massive. With more than 30 billion tons of iron ore spread across nearly 50,000 square miles, it’s the size of countries like Greece and Cuba. It’s so large, some estimate it accounts for about 50% of all of Earth’s iron ore reserves.

Thanks to all that iron in the ground, compasses here will spin an extra 15 degrees, and in some areas, they even confuse south with east and north with west. This unique geological phenomenon has won the area the nickname “Earth’s Third Magnetic Pole.” Bottom line: If you decide to visit here, bring a guide. Much like the dreaded Bermuda Triangle, It wouldn’t be hard to get lost!

But wait, there’s more! Thanks to all that iron ore in the ground, some parts are actually easier to navigate than others. That’s because the location is the perfect place for mining, and mining companies have cut enormous pits into the red surface all over the area to bring up the precious metal.

If you think phenomena like the KMA are interesting, keep up with our News & How-Tos blog, where you can learn plenty of fascinating facts on our favorite topic (magnets)!

This entry was posted in Magnet Facts and tagged kursk magnetic anomaly, weird magnet facts, magnetic field on June 1, 2017 by Apex Magnets.

https://www.apexmagnets.com/news-how-tos/kursk-magnetic-anomaly/ (cool site)

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 667
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Nevyn on Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:41 am

LongtimeAirman wrote:“Electrically neutral” is a term that is not well defined here and must be addressed, sooner or later.

I, too, paused on that. If magnetism is caused by the charge field, from external collisions, then how does it not affect everything?

I may have a tentative answer.

My first question is: What is the difference between a so-called neutral atom and an ion?
Answer: The amount of charge flowing through it.

Note that it is not the amount of charge colliding with it. Only the charge that goes through the atom seems to affect it (in a measurable way). This is a big clue. When we were discussing magnetism a few months ago I was reading Miles' papers again and noticed that the atoms had a much bigger role than we were working with. We were only really looking at the electrons, protons and charge photons.

So what does that mean? Well, it can go one of two ways, as I see it. Somehow the internal charge of the atom can affect that atom as a whole. This would be by collisions with the internal protons of that atom. The other way is the charge emission of the atom. An ion allows more charge to enter the atom and that charge will leave eventually. The emission of an ion should also be larger/denser than the emission of a neutral atom (of the same type). Maybe the coherence of that charge emission causes forces when it collides with the ambient field. Maybe an ion is more protected because it has more charge emission and this only leaves certain places that the ambient field can collide with the atom. This would allow us to use the charge profile of an atom to determine how it is affected by magnetism.

Just a few quick thoughts that might lead to viable solutions or nowhere...
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:49 am

Nevyn wrote:
LongtimeAirman wrote:“Electrically neutral” is a term that is not well defined here and must be addressed, sooner or later.

I, too, paused on that. If magnetism is caused by the charge field, from external collisions, then how does it not affect everything?

I may have a tentative answer.

My first question is: What is the difference between a so-called neutral atom and an ion?
Answer: The amount of charge flowing through it.

Note that it is not the amount of charge colliding with it. Only the charge that goes through the atom seems to affect it (in a measurable way). This is a big clue. When we were discussing magnetism a few months ago I was reading Miles' papers again and noticed that the atoms had a much bigger role than we were working with. We were only really looking at the electrons, protons and charge photons.

So what does that mean? Well, it can go one of two ways, as I see it. Somehow the internal charge of the atom can affect that atom as a whole. This would be by collisions with the internal protons of that atom. The other way is the charge emission of the atom. An ion allows more charge to enter the atom and that charge will leave eventually. The emission of an ion should also be larger/denser than the emission of a neutral atom (of the same type). Maybe the coherence of that charge emission causes forces when it collides with the ambient field. Maybe an ion is more protected because it has more charge emission and this only leaves certain places that the ambient field can collide with the atom. This would allow us to use the charge profile of an atom to determine how it is affected by magnetism.

Just a few quick thoughts that might lead to viable solutions or nowhere...

Came across this article...they are finding new magnetic molecules each year... looks like particular arrangements for magnetism to occur. Like Nevyn says...what characteristics would allow for more charge flow?

https://www.apexmagnets.com/news-how-tos/new-magnetic-materials-discovered-in-ireland/


New Magnetic Materials Discovered In Ireland

This entry was posted on May 8, 2017 by Apex Magnets.

While the majority of our magnets are made of neodymium, samarium, and cobalt, there are plenty more materials possessing magnetic properties. Furthermore, the scientific community has recently discovered a whole new batch! Researchers in Ireland announced last month that they had unearthed 22 new materials able to play host to the properties of magnetism.
....

How to Discover New Magnets

As mentioned above, new magnetic materials aren’t exactly popping up every day. Sorting through millions of individual particles stifles progress. For most of history, stumbling upon magnetic materials was pretty much a crap shoot. However, the Amber Research team employed a vast database to sort through over a quarter of a million materials. Each of these materials was analyzed for its magnetic capabilities.

Ok, great, now we know which materials are magnetic, now what? Not only does the database identify what materials are magnetic, but also helps determine their best potential use. For Amber Research’s purposes, that would be technology.
...
Amber’s chief researcher, Stefano Sanvito is most hopeful about a particular compound, Co2MNTI. He notes the compounds ability to maintain its magnetism at temperatures as high as 630 degrees Celsius, meaning it could be used in some pretty heavy-duty tech. It would be one of only a handful of magnetic materials to function in such extreme heat.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 667
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Nevyn on Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:06 am

You have to be careful about whether you are talking about materials that create, or enhance, magnetism or materials that react to it. The literature is not always clear about this. I was talking about materials that react to magnetism. However, it is still important to realise that certain atoms and molecules do create or enhance magnetism and it is the charge flow through those atoms and molecules that does it. So either way we have charge flowing through atoms as the cause.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Back to top Go down

#1 Discussion

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:46 am

.
Cr6. Okay, LTAM... just so we stop this before this old question starts up:
https://archive.org/details/skylab_magnetism_in_space
Airman. You lost me there good buddy, what old question is that?

The video perfectly complements the compass diagram; Skylab orbits every 90 minutes or so, Richard’s demonstration allows us to see the compass’ own slow rotation in order to remain aligned with the field line directions about the planet.

Also, unlike poles do fly together, no surprise there. Like poles don’t so much repel, as flip, and attract. I’ll keep this in mind as I think it’s important to our understanding of charge.
 
Cr6. https://www.apexmagnets.com/news-how-tos/kursk-magnetic-anomaly/ (cool site)
Airman. 50% of all of Earth’s iron ore reserves in such a small area is a complete surprise. I thought Earth was an iron planet, like most meteorites, I’m clueless on the actual subject matter.

I remember one news item, a magnetic model of the Earth was being run on some mainframe a small amount of time every day for a month. In the small time left allotted the model finally showed the hoped for event, a magnetic pole reversal. The Kursk is one small knot in the giant orange and blue hairball their model showed. They needed to close all exterior field lines with hypothetical lines inside the planet. I guess I bring it up as a way to object to the idea of magnetic loops inside the planet.

LongtimeAirman wrote:“Electrically neutral” is a term that is not well defined here and must be addressed, sooner or later.
Nevyn. I, too, paused on that. If magnetism is caused by the charge field, from external collisions, then how does it not affect everything?

I may have a tentative answer.

My first question is: What is the difference between a so-called neutral atom and an ion?
Answer: The amount of charge flowing through it.

Note that it is not the amount of charge colliding with it. Only the charge that goes through the atom seems to affect it (in a measurable way). This is a big clue. When we were discussing magnetism a few months ago I was reading Miles' papers again and noticed that the atoms had a much bigger role than we were working with. We were only really looking at the electrons, protons and charge photons.

So what does that mean? Well, it can go one of two ways, as I see it. Somehow the internal charge of the atom can affect that atom as a whole. This would be by collisions with the internal protons of that atom. The other way is the charge emission of the atom. An ion allows more charge to enter the atom and that charge will leave eventually. The emission of an ion should also be larger/denser than the emission of a neutral atom (of the same type). Maybe the coherence of that charge emission causes forces when it collides with the ambient field. Maybe an ion is more protected because it has more charge emission and this only leaves certain places that the ambient field can collide with the atom. This would allow us to use the charge profile of an atom to determine how it is affected by magnetism.

Just a few quick thoughts that might lead to viable solutions or nowhere...
Airman. I think I agree, although it’ll take some effort to explain how.

The atom is in balance with its ambient charge field conditions. The atom is always recycling charge. Over time, the atom must recycle all the charge it receives. I suppose an atom cannot recycle what it doesn’t receive; can the atom’s constituent protons, neutrons and electrons “bank” some minimum quantity of essential nuclear charge over an extended period of time, a minimum energy quantization level?

External charge collisions where the colliding photons escape still contribute their energies to a free atom’s overall velocity and spin rate. The same collisions may simply maintain or increase the temperature of an atom bound to a large solid. The atom’s energy level determines the atom’s charge recycling rate. Higher recycling rates would result in increased energy quantization levels, equivalent to increased ionization levels.

Nonmagnetic spin collisions tend to cancel out leaving the electric field as the sole component. Magnetic field spin collisions provide more frequent spin boosts that result in an increased energy field; in addition to the electric field, there also includes a well defined spin component. 100 km above the Earth, the magnetic field must double the overall E/M energy field. That isn't a cause of the magnetic field, it is a result.

Cr6. Like Nevyn says...what characteristics would allow for more charge flow?
https://www.apexmagnets.com/news-how-tos/new-magnetic-materials-discovered-in-ireland/
Airman. Designing materials with respect to anticipated charge flows sounds absolutely correct.

Nevyn. You have to be careful about whether you are talking about materials that create, or enhance, magnetism or materials that react to it. The literature is not always clear about this. I was talking about materials that react to magnetism. However, it is still important to realise that certain atoms and molecules do create or enhance magnetism and it is the charge flow through those atoms and molecules that does it. So either way we have charge flowing through atoms as the cause.
Airman. I agree. As a general statement, I believe charge flow through atoms must follow the energy level of the atom, whether the atom is magnetic or not. I haven’t begun to appreciate each special case yet.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 592
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

#2. Magnetic Fields

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:41 am

.
#2. Magnetic Fields.

People not familiar with magnetism often view it as a somewhat mysterious property of specially treated iron or steel.

A magnetized bar has its power concentrated at two ends, its poles; they are known as its north (N) and south (S) poles, because if the bar is hung by its middle from a string, its N end tends to point northwards and its S end southwards. The N end will repel the N end of another magnet, S will repel S, but N and S attract each other. The region where this is observed is loosely called a magnetic field; a more specific look at the concept of "field" is provided in a later section.
Below, the above paragraph is repeated, only first sentence is changed.

A magnetized bar channels nuclear charge primarily in the N/S direction, the pole-to-pole main atomic axis; they are known as its north (N) and south (S) poles, because if the bar is hung by its middle from a string, its N end tends to point northwards and its S end southwards. The N end will repel the N end of another magnet, S will repel S, but N and S attract each other. The region where this is observed is loosely called a magnetic field; a more specific look at the concept of "field" is provided in a later section.
Either pole can also attract iron objects such as pins and paper clips. That is because under the influence of a nearby magnet, each pin or paper clip becomes itself a temporary magnet, with its poles arranged in a way appropriate to magnetic attraction.

But this property of iron is a very special type of magnetism, almost an accident of nature!

But in space there is no magnetic iron, yet magnetism is widespread. For instance, sunspots consist of glowing hot gas, yet they are all intensely magnetic. The Earth's own magnetic powers arise deep in its interior, and temperatures there are too high for iron magnets, which lose all their power when heated to a red glow. What goes on in those magnetized regions?

It is all related to electricity.

An incorrect image of a nucleus with orbiting electrons has been deleted.

It is all related to the charge field.

Electricity and magnetism have been unified for almost 200 years. Atoms and electrons have been known for 150; together they were electrically neutral, and so equal and opposite positive and negative charges were defined. Electricity was composed of electrons. These things – rather than more modern quantum ideas - are common knowledge today. 100 years ago it was observed that light could knock electrons from metal – the photoelectric effect. We now know that electrons are pushed along by photons. All previous interpretations based on electron motion alone are incomplete, new charge field interpretations are needed.

The discovery of the charge field is still new, there are many unanswered details. It is assumed the reader is not familiar with the charge field. Unfortunately, I’ll be making errors. Please feel free to correct or discuss. See Miles Mathis’ Physics Site, http://milesmathis.com/index.html for a complete understanding.

I’ll break the text's following paragraph into sentences.  
Matter consists of electrically charged particles: each atom consists of light, negative electrons swarming around a positive nucleus.
Charge is a repulsive force based on photon collisions. Photons travel with forward and tangential spin velocities equal to light speed. Matter such as electrons, neutrons and protons, (or simply charged particles), is created from high energy photons through a mechanism of radius doublings known as spin stacking (see http://www.nevyns-lab.com/ for simulations of several charge field ideas). All matter constantly recycles photons; photons usually enter the charged particle’s poles and exit the particle’s equator. Emitted photons form the particle’s emission field, with most repulsion delivered in the equatorial plane, and least repulsion directed above the poles. Neutrons channel photons pole-to-pole, and have weak emissions, limited to just above the poles. The largest known particles are the neutrons, although planets, stars and galaxies seem to organize charge in much the same way.

Charge photons can be spin up, or spin down, (using the right hand rule), matter or anti-matter. The Earth, along with its inhabitants are a mix, two-to-one, matter-to-antimatter. Note there are no total annihilations. Photons enter the Earth’s south pole at twice the rate compared to anti-photons entering the Earth’s north pole. Earth’s photons and anti-photons are emitted from charged particles anywhere in or on the planet, most often from the equator, and the opposite (from the entry pole) +/-30 degree latitude directions outwards. The magnetic field of the Earth reflects the matter/anti-matter imbalance, after all spin cancellations are complete, there is still a large number of photons with associated spin-up direction, forming the Earth’s prevailing magnetic field.

The unified charge field unites gravity with the charge field. Gravitation is equivalent to expanding matter. Charge is always in vector opposition to gravity. At the large end of the size scale, beginning at a meter and above, gravity is found to be the more dominant force of the universe. Below a meter’s length, charge increases in relative strength. The photon radius is about 10E-24 meter.

There is no real attraction, only varying repulsion, based on the size differences, orientations, spins, velocities and distances between charged particles. For example, two protons may prevent any further approach by their mutually bombarding photon emission fields; an electron may pass between the two without necessarily being knocked away since it is 1821x smaller than the protons – too small a target at that particular distance. This has been misinterpreted as attraction.

Free electrons are too large to travel at light speed; they still spin with a tangential light speed; they can be found almost anywhere except inside larger charged particles. Free electrons are usually pushed along by random photon collisions, usually in a slow Brownian motion, or in a drift toward a proton pole nuclear charge current intake. Atomic electrons are usually found circling a proton pole, caught in a photon charge eddy current trying to enter the proton, but too big to fit.
Objects with extra electrons are negatively (-) charged, while those missing some electrons are positively (+) charged.
There are no negative or positive charges. All photonic charge is repulsive, based on photon collisions. Electrons will show a net movement only when the charge field pushing those electrons forward shows its own net movement.  An increased number of electrons in a given area adds to the photon emissions in that area. Energetic photons or electrons can knock electrons away from their positions circling the proton poles; the atom is then ionized, this results in an increase in that atomic charge channel photon intake, causing increased through currents and an overall increased emissions and repulsion at the emission ends of the affected charge channel.
Such charging with "static electricity" may happen (sometimes unintentionally!) when objects are brushed with cloth or fur on a dry day. Experiments in the 1700s have shown that (+) repels (+), (- ) repels (-), while (+) and (-) attract each other.
One way static electricity may result is when large numbers of electrons are stripped off the materials by contact motion, thereby ionizing many atoms. The electrons’ absence leaves wide open atomic charge channel intake points. All the affected charge channels through currents increase, forming what has been described as fractal like random distributions of increased two-way lines of charge repulsion from both materials involved. The increased emissions may, in turn, cause additional ionizations of nearby material, perhaps as cascades that can lead to explosions in grain silos. The electrons affected become free, unlikely to rejoin the atoms they were previously close to. Eventually other free electrons will drift between the lines of increased charge currents, re-positioning themselves above the proton charge intake poles, and slowly de-ionize the "statically charged" surfaces.

To Be Continued.

Your inputs are appreciated.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 592
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:14 am

Thanks for the inputs LTAM and Nevyn.  Magnetism always seemed the most elusive to me for reconciling Mathis with the Mainstream theories. What is replaced and accepted with Mathis and the Mainstream with magnetism?

BTW, that old question LTAM was: "does magnetism work in space?"... that is when magnets are placed far away from the earth's magnetic field?

Interesting thoughts on this. What kind of Mathis molecule is the most magnetic? Those with single slots on the ends and a simple carousel?  N-S flows and limited carousel flows?

I need to go back and reread this part.

http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetochemistry
---

Now, how do the photons actually cancel half the field, and why do they cancel it in the case of magnets, but not in the case of normal objects? When we bring two objects together, they do not normally interact this way, creating a charge vacuum and a significantly increased gravitational bond, do they? Since I have claimed that all objects emit the charge field, why don't all objects act like magnets? Also, why do repulsing magnets repulse?

When magnets meet, they do not need to have stronger charge fields or extraordinary charge fields, or anything else. They only need to have charge fields that are ordered in a particular way. This is already known, in a way, since we know that the domains have to all be aligned by some external magnetic field. If they aren't, the magnet won't work or won't have its full strength. This was known, but it wasn't known precisely what was aligning. Up to now, it was thought that it was something to do with electric current, but it isn't. The electric current in a magnet and around a magnet is an effect of the alignment, not the cause of it. What is actually aligning is the charge field. It is not unpaired electrons creating alignment either, it is the nucleus. The nucleus is channeling charge, and with certain elements the nuclear poles align, creating magnetic conduction. See my recent paper on Iron for more on this.

In short, with magnetic attraction, we have two opposite spin fields meeting, and these fields are a creation of the nucleus. Some elements create much stronger spin fields via magnetic conduction through the nuclear pole, and these elements are the most magnetic. When these strong spin fields meet from opposing directions, we get high spin cancellations. When the two charge fields meet in fairly well-ordered straight lines, head-to-head, the photons will cancel their spins, canceling the magnetic component of the E/M field. The photons will not annihilate one another, but they will annihilate one another's spins. In other words, the electrical field will not be canceled, only the magnetic field. Nor will all photons be affected, since we don't imagine that all will collide. But the field coherence creates an unusually high number of collisions and spin cancellations, and the result is greatly reduced charge field. A greatly reduced charge field is the same as a greatly strengthened gravity field, and the result is an apparent attraction. There is too little repulsion to counteract gravitational expansion, and the magnets come together.
...
And this is why normal objects don't act like magnets. One: they don't have the right elemental structure, and since it is the nucleus that creates the possibility of magnetism, these objects won't have the magnetic conduction through the nuclear pole. Two: because they don't have this inherent charge-field spin, they can't be made coherent by an external magnetic field. There is much less to cohere. Three: when the charge fields of two normal objects meet, the magnetic component of the charge field is neither at a maximum or a minimum. We get all sorts of random meetings of photons, and we get the sort of flabby magnetic repulsion that most objects have for one another: a repulsion large enough to counteract gravity, but not enough to take it well above or below normal.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 667
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

Magnetic Fields Discussion

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:58 pm

.
Cr6. Thanks for the inputs LTAM and Nevyn.  Magnetism always seemed the most elusive to me for reconciling Mathis with the Mainstream theories. What is replaced and accepted with Mathis and the Mainstream with magnetism?

BTW, that old question LTAM was: "does magnetism work in space?"... that is when magnets are placed far away from the earth's magnetic field?

Interesting thoughts on this. What kind of Mathis molecule is the most magnetic? Those with single slots on the ends and a simple carousel?  N-S flows and limited carousel flows?

I need to go back and reread this part.
Airman. Me too. I’d be lying if I said this subject were clear to me, far from it. I’m re-reading How Magnetism Works Mechanically maybe my lucky seventh time. I finally see Miles discussing how to increase magnetic effects using electricity and/or free electrons. That must mean that electrons (and protons) are also magnetic.

"does magnetism work in space?"... .
Oh, and space is a perfect insulator? We know that charge field photons are too small to see. Electromagnetism is visible only through the motions of electrons and ions. Earth’s magnetic emissions permeate Skylab, whose own materials, free atoms and electrons conform to and strengthen the magnetic field locally.

What kind of Mathis molecule is the most magnetic?
I gave comingfrom my guess on why iron is attracted to either magnetic pole on the TB board a couple of weeks ago. I’ve added a little to it, what do you think?  

Iron is a perfect conduit of magnetism. That may be due to the fact that Iron is so perfectly balanced – with respect to phase. No matter what azimuthal directions iron’s photons are emitted, they have traveled through the atom the same phase length. North and south are equal, the four arms are equal – does it follow that all six paths are the same phase lengths? Note that phase lengths are critically important in signals and communications (I’m banging my foot on the floor – definite test question!).

If that rule is true for electrons, protons and iron atoms, it must also be true for magnetic molecules – the phase out should equal the phase in – the internal nuclear channels should be some integer phase length. Any carousal, or azimuthal, imbalances must interfere with the coherence of any magnetic field. Open hook positions must diminish coherent emissions.

Here’s a question that I keep repeating to myself. 100 km up, every electron, proton, or free magnetic atom will align itself as sure as the magnetic compass, orienting themselves to maximize photon intake. Is that true? What vector additions make that true? It seems to me the magnet must point to the Earth’s main axis. I was a boy scout, but I haven’t figured out how the compass points north. Sad.  
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 592
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:05 pm

And Neodymium too. Balanced as well with just 4-single posts on the carousel. 6 single slots total.

http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/AtomicViewer/AtomicViewer.php?metadata=false&element=60&position=0,0,90


Last edited by Cr6 on Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:23 am; edited 1 time in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 667
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

#2. Magnetic Fields Continued

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:08 pm

.
#2. Magnetic Fields.
It is all related to electricity the charge field.  continued.


Close to 1800 it was found that when the ends of a chemical "battery" were connected by a metal wire, a steady stream of electric charges flowed in that wire and heated it. That flow became known as an electric current. In a simplified view, what happens is that electrons hop from atom to atom in the metal.
Airman. As shown, the heated coil in the battery circuit produced a supply of electrons that flowed across the gap to the positive plate. If the main battery leads were switched, a flow of electrons between the coil and plate were not created. If the coil was not heated no current would flow.

Without going too deep, I hope, the charge field description goes something like, this *- The battery provides two terminals with two different charge density producton rates. When connected, the wires should be considered extensions of the battery terminals. The wires then share the same voltages, and the same general photon creation rates as the two terminals. Photons aren’t guided by wires. The atoms making up the two wires and circuit share a mutual E/M coherence. In this case, the heated and energized coil becomes a source of photons that indeed drives free electrons towards the plate. The electron motion is evidence of the underlying net charge motion.

A heated wire connected to a battery produces electrons. More importantly, the heated wire is also creating coherent, spin aligned photons Quoting #4. Electrons, our source also states.
Light, like heat, can also knock electrons out of a metal. If the heated coil in the drawing is replaced by a clean metal plate, and light shines onto it, electrons are again released, and current will flow in the circuit. The explanation of this phenomena, called the photoelectric effect, earned Albert Einstein the 1921 Nobel Prize.
Airman. Forgive me for repeating. The photoelectric effect, we've known for almost 100 years that photons can also cause an electron flow. Back to the source, with small changes.
In 1821 (see below) Hans Christian Oersted in Denmark found, unexpectedly, that such an electric current caused a compass needle to move. The needle was neither attracted to the wire nor repelled from it. Instead, it tended to stand at right angles (see drawing below). In the end he published his findings (in Latin!) without any explanation.

Airman. (I’ve edited the source text a little). When energized, the wire becomes a coherent source of photons. The compass will want to align itself to the source of photons. In the Oersted demonstration I’m familiar with, the compass is not in the same horizontal plane as the wire. The compass describes a tangent to a cylinder that surrounds the wire, describing the direction of the wire’s magnetic field lines, which, of course, was unknown at the time.  

Oersted was unable to explain the results. Without benefit of the charge field, and 40 years before Maxwell would write his famous E/M field equations, Oersted had no model or theory to draw upon. I’m not at all sure I’ve given the proper explanation either.  
Andre-Marie Ampere in France soon unraveled the meaning. The fundamental nature of magnetism was not associated with magnetic poles or iron magnets, but with electric currents . The magnetic force was basically a force between electric currents (figure below):



--Two parallel currents in the same direction attract each other.
--Two parallel currents in opposite directions repel each other.

Airman. The charge field explains these results with photon collisions. Circuits energized this way form coherent nuclear charge sources. All photons emitted from these sources will have closely aligned linear (E) and spin (M) components.

Viewed down their lengths, both wires emit photons radially outward. Between the wires the photons will meet head to head. Their spins will determine the outcome.

--Two CW photons meet from opposite directions, they meet in head-on collisions, opposing spin directions, stripping spins only in the general area between the two wires, reducing repulsion between the wires and resulting in a corresponding charge field increase in the area surrounding both wires; the result is an apparent attraction.

--A CW photon meets a CCW photon from opposite directions, they meet as spinning partners with no spin differential or loss of angular momentum. The spins cannot cancel, they sideswipe, and repulsion is increased.
Here is how this can lead to the notion of magnetic poles. Bend the wires into circles with constant separation (figure below):



--Two circular currents in the same direction attract each other.
--Two circular currents in opposite directions repel each other.

Airman. There’s no change going from two parallel or anti-parallel wires, to two parallel or anti-parallel loops. The same photons meet in the same ways. Forces between conductors boil down to photon collisions between materials with well-ordered spins. That is exactly the same as the definition of magnetic attraction or repulsion.



Replace each circle with a coil of 10, 100 or more turns, carrying the same current (figure below): the attraction or repulsion increase by an appropriate factor. In fact, each coil acts very much like a magnet with magnetic poles at each end (an "electromagnet"). Ampere guessed that each atom of iron contained a circulating current, turning it into a small magnet, and that in an iron magnet all these atomic magnets were lined up in the same direction, allowing their magnetic forces to add up.
Airman. Additional loops directly increase the number of photons, the charge density, for each coil. I imagine the only spins that could cancel in a coil would be opposing photons along the coils’ axis.  There is an attraction inside the coils, everywhere else, the coil emission field is increased.

The magnetic property becomes even stronger if a core of iron is placed inside the coils, creating an "electromagnet"; that requires enlisting the help of iron, but is not essential. In fact, some of the world's strongest magnets contain no iron, because the added benefit of iron inside an electromagnet has a definite limit, whereas the strength of the magnetic force produced directly by an electric current is only limited by engineering considerations.
Airman. Adding a core greatly increases the number of coherent photons generated, greatly adding to the electromagnet’s strength.

(One change to the final paragraph – strike electric currents and add boldened).

In space, on the Sun and in the Earth's core, electric currents aligned charge fields with an imbalanced charge and anti-charge production is the only source of magnetism. We loosely refer to the region of their influence as their magnetic field, a term which will be further discussed later.


* . 126. How a Battery Circuit Works. Not the mathematical or field model, but the full mechanical model, with photons. 9pp.
http://milesmathis.com/seft.pdf

124. How Magnetism works Mechanically. With spin and the unified field. 11pp.  http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html

Feel free to discuss
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:32 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Changed last sentence of --Two CW photons meet ...)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 592
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:25 am

Nice walk through of the examples LTAM! Thanks for taking the time to walk us through.

Reminded me of this. Miles had an interesting quote in his designer electrons paper:
---
Because:

By writing complex patterns that mimicked changes in carbon-carbon bond lengths and strengths in graphene, the researchers were able to restore the electrons’ mass in small, selected areas.

You can't do that with photons, they think, so these must be electrons. But what is happening is that the created photons are being re-energized up to the electron level, using my spin stacking method. We are seeing in the experiment the actual making of an electron from a photon. We are seeing proof of my particle unification, which shows that the photon and electron are the same particle, one with more spins than the other.

Although this should be fairly obvious to anyone doing even a quick scan of the data, the researchers won't go there as a matter of theory. Why? One, because they don't have the theory to cover it. You can't turn a photon that is a point particle into an electron, and their photon is a point particle. Two, because to admit it would bring down QM and QED from the foundations. So they simply gloss over it. They imply that this isn't a problem by not even mentioning it. They toot the horns on the high-tech side, while hiding the theory side completely.

Even more amazing is this:


“One of the wildest things we did was to make the electrons think they are in a huge magnetic field when, in fact, no real field had been applied, ”Manoharan said. They calculated the positions where carbon atoms in graphene should be, to make its electrons believe they were being exposed to magnetic fields ranging from zero to 60 Tesla, more than 30 percent higher than the strongest continuous magnetic field ever achieved on Earth. The researchers then moved carbon monoxide molecules to steer the electrons into precisely those positions, and the electrons responded by behaving exactly as predicted — as if they had been exposed to a real field.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 667
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

#2. Magnetic Fields Discussion

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:35 pm

.
Cr6, You refer to,
290. The "Designer Electron" is a Photon. I explain the new experiments at SLAC. 3pp. http://milesmathis.com/desig.pdf By Miles Mathis.

Short paper, quick review. Never pass up the opportunity to re-read one of Miles' papers. I hope I don't offend anyone by misinterpreting or summarizing incorrectly.

Five years ago, researchers reported finding that they could produce specific types of electrons on demand, designer electrons.

Using a scanning, tunneling microscope, one can build molecules, atom by atom, onto a clean copper crystal surface. The researchers arranged carbon monoxide molecules into compact arrays. They applied stress; perhaps pressure or tension on the copper crystal or an applied E/M field, and monitored the changing material characteristics.

The researchers said they were converting massless light speed electrons into electrons of any preferred types; they could make the electrons behave as though they were in magnetic fields stronger than any found on Earth.

What a wonderful tool. With just a little imagination and luck we can create all sorts of unique configurations, cutting edge materials. High end labs everywhere probably already have similar capabilities. You can’t stop progress.
 
Except for one thing. How does one fool massless light speed electrons into becoming specific types of electrons? As Miles points out, they can’t say. They don’t account for the advancing technology. They hope no one will notice that the findings are completely inconsistent with contemporary QED and QM theories. Give them enough time, I’m sure they’ll adapt somehow.

The designer electron story confirms and should be considered as proof of Miles Mathis’ charge field ideas. He’s already explained these things in many of his papers:
1) Together with gravity, the charge field explains how all forces are the result of photon collisions.
2) So-called massless light speed electrons are actually real, spinning photons. Photons have both a forward velocity (the pre-electric-field), and a spin tangential velocity (the pre-magnetic-field), equal to light speed; although electrons and larger particles are too large to travel forward at light speed due to a greatly increased number of ambient photon collisions which must slow the larger charged particle to a small fraction of light speed.
3) Photons can become electrons (or protons or neutrons), through a series of mass doublings called spin stacking. There are four different types of electrons, and four different types of positrons, depending on the orientation of the outer Z-spin, and the order of subordinate spins.
4) All charged particles recycle photons; which mainly enter at the particle’s poles, and are generally emitted from the particle’s equatorial plane;
5) The molecular array is creating a real magnetic field, stronger than most any found on Earth, entirely capable of providing energy boosts consistent with the study’s findings.

In light of the current discussion of magnetism we now have strong additional data. The hexagonal array described is quite a bit different from our usual three dimensional orthogonal charge channel orientations. The researchers built what looks to me like a copper ground plane atomic antenna arrays or hex-taxi-metric magnetically select-able nuclear charge channel raceways(?). Phase out appears to equal phase in. Strong magnetic fields seems to make it very interesting.

What did you find most interesting?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 592
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:50 pm

Notice that we get no commentary on that, just that it is “wild.” But again, it completely overthrows the current model. How can positions alone create fields of 60 Tesla?

I think this quote really did it for me. How does this happen?

Is it possible to near perfectly align molecules to amplify CW/CCW photon recycling.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 667
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

#2. Magnetic Fields Discussion continued

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:19 pm

.
Cr6 wrote.
Notice that we get no commentary on that, just that it is “wild.” But again, it completely overthrows the current model. How can positions alone create fields of 60 Tesla?

I think this quote really did it for me. How does this happen?

Airman. Graphene is carbon molecule formed by carbon atoms arranged to fill every vertex in a hexagonal grid pattern, a single carbon atom layer thick. Graphene has many unusual characteristics and properties such as great strength, semi-transparency, it conduct’s electricity and can be levitated. I suppose understanding and reproducing graphene’s properties has been a major goal of materials labs around the world since it was first discovered. You've posted on the subject many times, we haven't provided any suitable explanations.

The Designer Electron researchers believe they have successfully mimicked, or copied, the graphene molecule. They use the word “graphene” rather freely. I’d point out their molecule is far more complicated. Instead of a single atomic layer of carbon, the researchers have at least three: 1) The carbon layer, is actually the carbon side of a carbon monoxide molecule, which means there must also be an; 2) Oxygen layer, and something to build upon, a; 3) Copper crystal substrate, we aren’t told the thickness of the copper crystal. The result is a massive structure which resembles graphene in its top layer only.

I don’t know graphene’s actual structure. What is the orientation of the carbon atoms? If carbon’s main charge channels are oriented orthogonally to the molecular layer, as I believe the design team accomplished, then the molecule cannot share any of the carbon atom’s N/S nuclear charge channels. How can the four axial protons all align as a single layer, four protons thick? Are we dealing with a matter/anti-matter mix? What do the top and bottom protons do? It’s an atomic configuration that neither Miles nor Nevyn (I believe) have addressed. On the other hand, it exists, so until I’m told otherwise, I’ll believe.

In the video we’re told, “They reproduced the electronic properties of graphene just by patterning the surface of the copper crystal”, and, ”Just by stretching the graphene, distorting it, the electrons will behave as if they’re in a huge magnetic field. It’s like turning a knob, going from 0 Tesla, no field, up to 60 Tesla”. I’m sorry, they don’t have a knob. The sequence of five images appear to come from five different attempts.

I don’t doubt the designer group found some wild stuff. In addition to the stretched “graphene” I suggest there’s additional voltage applied. The entire structure will then emit charge coherently. Natural graphene may not require shared N/S nuclear charge channels, however the researchers have, without realizing it, plugged those channels into larger charge sources: the copper substrate and oxygen atoms. The carbon atoms, along with the entire structure are working at a very high energy level. The proton emissions are greatly increased, this structure is operating in a very high density coherent emission field. Adding more energy - tension(?) - means more energy recycling, with more emissions.

Cr6 wrote. Is it possible to near perfectly align molecules to amplify CW/CCW photon recycling?

Airman. We're talking about more than just the positions of isolated atoms or molecules, plus energy is being added. I'm not sure of the configuration, but I agree, it appears so.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 592
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

#2. Magnetic Fields Discussion continued

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:47 pm

.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. The biggest problem I have with the designer guys is their atomic arrangement doesn't even appear to be a graphene.



Above is an image of graphene from Wikipedia. Every carbon atom has 3 closest neighbors. Looks like chicken wire.



Here’s the Designer “graphene”. Each black dot is a carbon monoxide. The arrangement is such that each carbon atom now has 6 closest neighbors – not 3. The designers went from a hexagonal to a 60 degree arrangement. Why call it graphene?



The last image shows zero to 60Tesla. The atoms are clearly placed carefully in the zero image. The atoms on the 60 side appear deformed, perhaps the scanning tunneling microscope allows them to place the atoms so, but I doubt it, it appears to be energized.

Another thing. They think they've created electron raceways between their atoms, I beg to differ. They don't understand that atoms within molecules must share nuclear charge. Where exactly are the electrons? More importantly, where are all our photon emissions? We haven't figured it out. They are experimenting with energetic objects, gotta love em.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 592
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Thu Jun 29, 2017 1:07 am



Here's the original link:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/march/molecules-designer-electrons-031412.html

Mathis in the Great Methane Stink provides a clue?

Well, we have also found that larger elements can re-arrange the protons of smaller elements, but only when they are brought nucleus-to-nucleus like this. The charge channels of Oxygen are stronger than the charge channels of Carbon, so when a Carbon nucleus is brought very close to an Oxygen nucleus, the Oxygen nucleus trumps the ambient charge field. In this case, Carbon is forced to channel the charge field coming out of Oxygen rather than the ambient field. In this way, Oxygen can “break” Carbon, forcing it to take configurations it couldn't normally take.
...
This ties into recent questions I have been asked about Fullerenes and irradiated graphites. It has been found that Carbon, although normally non-magnetic, can be very magnetic in some situations. I would suggest that the varying nuclear make-up of different forms of Carbon explains this in the most direct and mechanical way. It would appear that Carbon in compound with itself can re-arrange in the same way we saw it re-arranging in CO2, especially in an irradiated field or in long chains. Once you have two prongs on each end of Carbon and only one alpha in the core, this will create a spun-up through charge, which is what causes magnetism.

http://milesmathis.com/meth.pdf

LongtimeAirman wrote:Another thing. They think they've created electron raceways between their atoms, I beg to differ. They don't understand that atoms within molecules must share nuclear charge. Where exactly are the electrons? More importantly, where are all our photon emissions? We haven't figured it out. They are experimenting with energetic objects, gotta love em.
Nice. These are great questions.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 667
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

#3. The Polar Aurora

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:30 pm

.
#3. The Polar Aurora
https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/waurora1.html

Airman. Again, I’ll be making many small changes to the existing text and its supporting documentation, as well as adding paragraphs in order to update the archived information to include the charge field.

Note: https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/aurora.htm 
contains a longer, much more comprehensive overview of the polar aurora.  


The aurora--a woodcut by Fridtjof Nansen

In Alaska, Canada, Norway, Finland or northern Russia, on a clear night, a greenish glow is often seen in the sky, known as the "Northern Lights."

During magnetic storms, the glow may move southwards, and on occasion it can be seen in much of the US. It often appears as a glow on the horizon, like the glow preceding sunrise, and has therefore become known among scientists as "aurora borealis" ("aurora" for short), Latin for "northern dawn." A similar phenomenon is also seen in southern polar regions.

   To an observer, an aurora is a fascinating spectacle, constantly moving and changing. It usually consists of many near-vertical greenish rays, forming long arcs and curtains, which stretch like ribbons across the sky, often from horizon to horizon. An example is shown on the right, a woodcut by the great polar explorer Fridtjof Nansen (1861-1930). The rays constantly fade while new ones appear, and during "magnetic substorms" (described in a later section) the arcs move rapidly and expand.

Auroral light is produced at a height of about 100 km (60 miles) when fast electrons, arriving from space, slam into atoms and molecules of the atmosphere. The computer screen displaying these words may be lit up in a similar way, by a beam of fast electrons accelerated electrically towards it, then steered and modulated so as to form letters and pictures.

Airman. Please see *. Charge from the Sun enters the Earth most often at the poles, recycles through the planet, and is generally emitted from Earth’s more equatorial latitudes. The aurora shows a boundary where the charge densities of the two flows are balanced. The northern aurora are formed when 1) upward traveling emission photons, with spin-up, meet, 2) downward traveling anti-photons, with spin-down. The two energies add. Southern aurora are formed along the boundary where upward traveling anti-photons meet downward photons; again, the two energies will add.

The aurora is an electromagnetic product of the charge field. Like all electromagnetic events, aurora will not be visible unless ions are present in the atmosphere. Since the combined energies along the boundary of the two photon flows add, ions and free atoms present can gain enough coherent energy to fluoresce.

Location


Aurora observed by an imaging camera aboard DE-1

The location of auroras on Earth is strongly controlled by the Earth's magnetism. In the 19th century it was noticed that they occur most frequently in a narrow belt, the "auroral zone", which circles the magnetic pole. Their arcs and ribbons are approximately aligned with that zone, too. The circles drawn on the left are centered on the northern magnetic pole, and the auroral "circle of fire" is evidently lined up with them.

Color


Aurora on 6 January 1998 (Dick Hutchinson ©)

The green light of the aurora has a precisely defined color in the spectrum ("narrow spectral line"). Such precise colors are usually the signatures of the atoms which emit them: for instance, street lights (depending on the metal vapor they contain) usually emit either the yellow-orange light of sodium or the bluish light of mercury.

The green light of the aurora puzzled scientists for many years, since it fit no known element. It turned out to be produced by oxygen atoms, but under conditions that in our atmosphere only exist in the very rarefied upper levels. A red aurora, occasionally seen, arises at even greater heights and is also produced by electrons hitting charge ionizing oxygen.

Appearance and relation to magnetism

What does it look like? Most often, you see greenish white ribbons stretching across the sky, roughly from east to west, usually with waves in them. In Fairbanks they could be overhead, in northern Norway or Sweden too, sometimes even in Winnipeg. Further south those ribbons tend to be near the northern horizon. And if you look closely at them, you will note that they contain many parallel rays, running across their width (see picture below).

Two things about those rays. One, the bright ones fade while dim ones brighten instead--a bit like flames in a fireplace, and just as mesmerizing. Some auroras are deep red, and these may be just a shapeless glow--or they may have rays, too. And second, the direction of those rays is related to the magnetism of the Earth.

Anyone who has ever used a compass knows that the Earth is a giant magnet. The needle of the compass usually points towards one of two points, the magnetic poles of the Earth, located near the geographic poles. But because the compass needle is mounted horizontally, it does not show everything. Actually, the magnetic force points not just northward but also slants down into the Earth. Compass needles carefully balanced on a horizontal axis ("dip needles") point in that slanting direction, when allowed to swing in a north-south vertical plane. In fact, the angle gets steeper the closer one gets to the magnetic pole. At the pole the force is vertical. The rays of the aurora faithfully follow that slanting direction.

Observing the aurora from space


Aurora viewed from the Space Shuttle

Satellites nowadays observe the aurora from above, using cameras more sensitive than the human eye. On dark parts of the polar cap they can "see" aurora at most times, forming a large "auroral oval" which extends around the magnetic pole.

Auroras Galore

Dick Hutchinson lives in Circle, Alaska, on the Yukon river north-east of Fairbanks, prime aurora territory. He enjoys photographing the aurora, and his collection of auroral images http://www.ptialaska.net/~hutch/aurora.html
can give you a better feeling of "what the aurora looks like" than anything else I have seen on the web.

Further reading:
--"Majestic Lights, The Aurora in Science, History and the Arts" by Robert H. Eather, American Geophysical Union, 1980.
--"The Aurora" by Candace Savage, Sierra Club, 1995.

Airman. The above is an introduction. Several of the source’s sub-sections incorrectly assume electron flows as the primary mechanism involved. I’ll continue with Auroras next time and try to focus more on detailed corrections.

Feel free to share.

* 161. The Polar Aurorae. http://milesmathis.com/aurora.pdf  I show the aurorae are caused by charge channeling. 7pp. by Miles Mathis.
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:04 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Added Dick Hutchinson image, corrected source link, added a line return)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 592
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

#3. The Polar Aurora. Discussion.

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:09 pm

.
#3. The Polar Aurora. Discussion.

Requoting from my last post above, the last paragraph of Appearance and relation to magnetism.
Anyone who has ever used a compass knows that the Earth is a giant magnet. The needle of the compass usually points towards one of two points, the magnetic poles of the Earth, located near the geographic poles. But because the compass needle is mounted horizontally, it does not show everything. Actually, the magnetic force points not just northward but also slants down into the Earth. Compass needles carefully balanced on a horizontal axis ("dip needles") point in that slanting direction, when allowed to swing in a north-south vertical plane. In fact, the angle gets steeper the closer one gets to the magnetic pole. At the pole the force is vertical. The rays of the aurora faithfully follow that slanting direction.

I admitted not knowing how a compass points north - now come to find out the compass point dips, along with the aurora! I’ve been stuck here, consciously and subconsciously thinking about this for a couple of days. The charge field, (along with Miles’ descriptions), must include all the pieces, it’s just a question of which ones and how?

The Earth recycles charge. The Earth’s emission field is always pointed radially outward from anywhere on the planet, strongest between +/-30deg, and weakest over the poles. Incoming solar charge is greatest over the poles and weakest at the equator. Miles describes Aurora as spun-up ions where the two charge fields are equal, a boundary at approximately 60deg latitude (northern hemisphere), north of which, incoming charge density is greatest, and south of which, Earth’s emissions are greatest. The polar and equatorial regions are two different and distinct charge flows, in and out of the Earth. Two different e-fields.    

Now include spin directions. Anti-photons mainly enter the North Pole, and are emitted mostly in the southern hemisphere. Photons will mainly enter the South Pole and are usually emitted in the northern hemisphere. There is some pole-to-pole direct traffic. The Earth recycles twice as much charge as anti-charge. The result is a coherent overall photon emission field that causes all free charged particles or ions to align their main north/south axii, along Earth’s longitudinal geomagnetic lines in north/south planes, centered on the Earth’s north/south magnetic axis. I think this answers the first question, why does the magnet point north (or south). It is most appropriate for the equatorial region from which Earth’s emission field is dominant.

That leaves explaining the dip. As we move along the equator, the compass always points north or south and there is no dip. As we move north or south away from the equator our compass begins to dip; as we approach the pole, the compass, along with all free charged particles including the aurora, will align their main north/south axii with the incoming charge field and will point directly to the pole. This answer applies mainly to the polar, solar incoming charge regions.

Now that I’ve written my thoughts down, I see the charge field has allowed my explanation to remain fairly simple and straightforward. Does anyone see any problems with this description? Please feel free to comment or discuss.

I guess I’ll carry on.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 592
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:14 am

That's a great explanation LTAM. Makes me wonder if a floating magnet experiment in the space shuttle would appear differently at the poles?

I found in this in the paper "Unifying the Photon". Miles mentions "photon wind".
---
Electrons and protons and all larger particles feel a photon wind, and this photon wind slows them. Larger particles get spin from each other, but they get slowed mainly by photons. Photons don’t impart spin to larger particles because spin requires a small size differential. A small particle and a large particle can’t often hit “edge to edge”: the odds show us that it is much more likely the small particle will impact away from any edge of the large particle. Just think of taking random shots at a large globe with a BB gun. Almost all the shots that hit it will be absorbed, or will knock it back. The odds of hitting the globe with a BB right on an edge, so that it imparts spin, are very very low. But if two BB’s meet in flight, the opposite is true. The odds of a direct hit are very very low. Spin is the most likely outcome of any hit. This explains some of the main differences between photons and hadrons.


Still, how can a photon with seven or eight spins become an electron and start emitting large numbers of photons? The short answer is that it is not emitting them, it is re-emitting them. As the photon gather spins, it stops acting like a simple particle with linear motion and starts acting like a little engine. The spins allow it to trap other photons. Specifically, the z-spin is orthogonal to the linear motion, which allows it to act like a scoop or an intake valve. Photons with only axial spin cannot resist this intake, and they are temporarily absorbed by the photon with z-spin. Intake of small photons begins to slow the large photon and it begins to turn into an electron. It gains mass and loses velocity. At some point it takes its fill of small photons and they start to spill out once more. The large photon has become an engine, driven by small photons. It is now an electron. This photon exhaust of this little engine is what we call charge. If you have enough of this exhaust, it begins to directionalize the residual photon wind, and this photon wind is what we call electricity. The spin of the photon wind is what we call magnetism.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 667
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

#3. The Polar Aurora. Discussion

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:03 pm

.
Cr6. That's a great explanation LTAM. Makes me wonder if a floating magnet experiment in the space shuttle would appear differently at the poles?

Airman. Thanks Cr6. I'll need to continue to work the details. I don't wish to sound overly confident, I’m not. These exercises are intended to help my understanding and add to our discussion, not to push any of my misunderstandings onto others. I’ve greatly benefited from your help. Please feel free to throw wrenches in order to straighten me out.

I did a search on ‘floating magnet experiment’ and found all kinds of what I would call ‘magnetic levitation’ hits. It appears, in association with the word ‘magnetic’, the word ‘floating’ has replaced ‘levitation’. Just three of the first 100 images showed what I thought you were referring to.


Here’s a magnetized iron needle pushed halfway through a piece of cork, floating in a bowl of water. I saw wiki declare that the compass was one of the four greatest inventions of mankind, all celebrated in ancient china.

How would the floating compass behave over the pole? I believe the skylab video you posted earlier showed the recurring orientation of the floating magnet rotating slowly through a few tens of degrees, dipped something like 75 or 80deg off the image’s horizontal axis, pointing downward to the Earth, toward Australia. I would expect a magnetized needle will want to dip into the water. That may be fine - a spherical cork and half the needle underwater - except immersion in water will probably prevent the needle’s ability to align with the steep incoming solar charge particles. If the cork prevents the needle from dipping, almost directly over the pole, our misplaced (stuck on the water’s surface, almost orthogonal to the incoming charge from above) needle probably doesn’t have enough freedom of motion to point to a smaller and smaller horizontal component of an almost vertical e-field, let alone spin. I don’t believe there will be enough mechanical torque for the magnetized needle to turn in any azimuthal direction. But I don’t know, if our bowl was held in constant position above a pole, with a rocket providing a small, constant, upward acceleration; if the needle were a magnet, over time, I suppose it would develop a spinning motion synchronized with the Earth’s spin. I suppose that would depend on the structure of the solar charge, as in, what are the incoming solar charge variations? Is here any structure of the incoming solar charge? What difference would that make?    

Cr6. I found in this in the paper "Unifying the Photon". Miles mentions "photon wind". ... .

Airman. Ok, I’ll see where a re-reading takes me this time.

As we know size is important. Stationary larger particles within a photon wind will take a long time to develop large velocities, either linear or spin, and that’s provided the charge field would allow those motions to develop at all. The particles begin by aligning their poles to allow maximum receipt of photons. Once aligned for maximum charge receipt, an imbalance in the field, such as a two-to-one charge/anti-charge ratio would, I believe, over time, allow the larger particle to develop high spin velocities faster than a 50/50 balanced charge field would allow.

The smallest particles comprised of photons will reorient and develop coherent emissions first. Slightly larger particles take longer then add their own coherent emissions to the overall field. The field is extended by this resonance. The Larger particles take much longer to turn, and will react more quickly if they are within coherent emissions from nearby collections of particles larger than photons.

A particle in orbit, such as the Earth, will alter its inclination toward the Sun, in order to maximize incoming charge, taking into account the charge/anti-charge received. A planet's spin rate will depend on its incoming solar charge. I believe Miles said Venus began primarily from anti-charge; The planet will take a very long time to slow and stop its anti-spin and then to begin developing a positive one.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 592
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

#3. The Polar Aurora. The Auroral Zone. The Magnetic Pole.

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:43 pm

.
Cr6. "..."

Airman. Do you mean continue? Why certainly.

Selecting some additional paragraphs from –
Secrets of the Polar Aurora by David P. Stern: https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/aurora.htm  
Another document, referred to earlier, within the same Magnetosphere archival group. Some paragraphs are strictly informative, the intent here is a charge field interpretation and update.

Continuing from the end of, #3 The Polar Aurora, subsection -  Appearance and relation to magnetism. … . The rays of the aurora faithfully follow that slanting direction.

The Auroral Zone

That was one clue that the aurora was related to the Earth's magnetism. The other clue was found by keeping tabs on how often aurora was seen in various locations. It turned out that the important factor was distance from the magnetic pole. That pole is separated from the geographic pole, marking the Earth's rotation axis, and currently it is in the Arctic Ocean, just north of Canadian soil. The fact it is displaced towards America means Americans do not have to go as far north to see aurora as do, say, residents of Siberia, on the other side of the globe. Locations about 1500 miles from the magnetic pole are where aurora is seen most frequently: further away or nearer to the magnetic pole, they get more rare (they are quite rare at the magnetic pole itself). Fairbanks, Alaska, at the edge of the "auroral zone, " makes a good observation post.
 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Magnetic_North_Pole_Positions_2015.svg/330px-Magnetic_North_Pole_Positions_2015.svg.png

Airman. Here’s a plot of the magnetic north pole from wiki. The aurora forms along a circle approximately 1,500km radius from the magnetic pole. The north magnetic pole has moved almost 1,500km since this text was written. No longer in Northern Canada, it’s in the Arctic Ocean, about halfway to Siberia. Why is the magnetic pole moving? Why aren’t Earth’s spin axis and magnetic axis the same?

I’ll stick to charge field ideas: A spinning particle or planet will develop charge flow differentials that create the polar and equatorial e-fields. The poles have a minimum translational velocity, moving the same speed as the particle’s linear velocity. The equator has both the linear velocity and also the spin tangential velocity; increased angular momentum along the equator causes maximum charge emission. The particle becomes an engine, charge exhausts everywhere (though mainly at the equator), and charge is pulled in at the spin poles.

If it’s true that compasses, magnets and ions in the aurora align to the Earth’s magnetic field, it must also be true to say that charge has been entering the Earth at the magnetic poles and not the spin poles.

Let’s say that while charge is recycling, large collections of large particles are slowly changing orientations within the planet. Earth’s spin axis has no freedom of translation, but we see incoming charge doesn’t need to enter at just the spin poles. The magnetic axis may be the net orientation of Earth’s main n/s charge flow as it has been accrued up to that time. Day to day changes occur, and small variations cancel or add up. We have a record of its motion.

What you usually see there are those quiet curtains and ribbons. But not always. At some times they change shape rapidly, advance, retreat or bulge out in a violent fashion, and they also get quite bright. Scientists call such an active, violent outburst an "auroral substorm, " and satellites still study the release of energy, far in space, which causes it. If you are lucky you may also see a "corona"--a burst of rays radiating in all directions. That is a caused by perspective--like the rays of the sun setting behind a cloud--and it means it the rays of the aurora are arriving right overhead.

Airman. We cannot see the charge field directly, we can only observe the motions of electrons and ions. Charge flow isn’t necessarily smooth, it’s subject to changing conditions, cycles and collisions too much to get into here.

I saw an aurora once; lying on a pebbled shore late at night in Maine. Green curtains passed directly overhead, I felt their breeze. Very pleasant.
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 592
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:49 pm

Oh no, Cr6, Do you mean " ... --- ... " ?

Well, LTAM, it was a placeholder for a comment yet to be made. But hey...you continued anyway!

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 667
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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