Atomic Model Editor

.
Nevyn, Please excuse the delay. I've been sidetracked a few times. Thoughts are percolating.

Nevyn wrote: I don't agree with charge orbiting the charge stream … I'm going to write this as gravity = expansion to make it easier to explain. Each individual photon expands, moving all photons in the stream closer together. They do not have charge fields to exclude each other so they must group together, effectively making the charge stream more dense. … . It is not a cylinder but a cone.

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

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

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

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

Nevyn wrote: This is probably not an issue as charge streams are very small, short lived things.

Airman. Well, charge streams are the subject matter here. I understand some span galaxies. I’m sure they exist in countless forms, even in the atomic scale.

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

Nevyn wrote: When I said "larger particles will feel the magnetism of the charge stream and it can make them move in helical paths", I meant electrons but not protons.

Airman.  "magnetism of the charge stream" . Your statement implies that the charge stream not only has an emission field, it is strong enough to deliver a magnetic component as well.
Above, you indicated the opposite - “charge streams, …, do not have charge fields to exclude each other”, i.e. no emission field, hence no magnetic component.

Which is it? Are you arguing with me too?

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

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

Nevyn wrote: I think an electron would be controlled by the stream, almost locked inside of it, where-as a proton will be pushed along but may escape fairly easily. I think a proton would be more of a block to the stream where-as an electron would be carried along easily. The electron will still block the stream but it will be pushed much faster than a proton. However it happens, the proton is too large to be pushed into a helical path unless it is in a very large charge stream (which has made me realise that I have been imagining the streams as very small, such as through-charge in an atom).

Airman. Too many variables. What is the event? What is the matter? Solid, liquid, or gas? What’s the size, composition and density of the charge stream? We haven’t properly defined the charge stream at any speed below c. You seem to assume particles are pushed while blocking the entire charge stream, I’m thinking larger slower objects cannot approach the center of the charge stream closer than faster/smaller particles.

Nevyn wrote:Please note that I am talking about charge streams and not charge fields. A charge field is much bigger and less dense than a charge stream and would affect protons differently since they would not so easily escape a field.

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

Nevyn wrote: I don't think 'slow things down' is the right way to say it in this case. The electron takes up space so it just blocks the charge field, reducing the amount of charge that reaches the proton. This can produce a weaker bond but in some cases, a weak bond is required for the 2 elements to bond at all.

Airman. "just blocks the charge field". I roughly covered the cases of a proton in the charge stream or outside the stream above. A charged particle orbiting, or even joined to central charge stream will drift until stopped by an emission field that belongs to both the atom and spinning electrons. A very high current, say in the form of many large charged particles being accelerated by a very large increase in charge stream intensities - my finger pushed the on switch - may enable the proton to move forward anyway.

Nevyn wrote: I don't think a proton would orbit a charge channel. A proton sort of becomes part of the stream because it uses the charge, some for emission and some for through-charge which allows the stream to continue on, although with a reduced density. A proton could be re-oriented by the charge stream but no circling around or through it like an electron would. Remember that the electron gets stuck between the proton and charge stream. It wants to keep going but the proton just won't let it.

Airman. In some cases true, other cases not. Define the charge channel first. How do you define the charge channel between the earth and the sun? The light speed photonic one; we know it exists. The charge stream cannot be just the light speed direct path. There are a large number of charged particles moving from the sun to the earth taking a slower path, I believe a constant billion amp current flow. Do all the moving charge particle share a single thread? They do not. Miles describes the two-way sun/planet charge stream, after great resistance, as I experienced with the idea of expansion, I’ve taken it to heart.

Nevyn wrote: I don't think the ambient charge field has much to do with it. Being ambient, it is less dense than the charge stream itself. It may have some affect but not a major one.

Airman. The ambient field must be the first field defined; one cannot determine the boundary between charged particle emissions and the ambient field unless their relative field densities were known. If the boundaries are known, one could determine emission intensities. The strength of the charge stream emission field (as I suggest above) is probably a function of the ambient field and available charged particles.

Nevyn wrote: If we are talking about charge streams emitted from atoms or proton stacks (same thing, in this case) then the radius is not variable but the density of the charge stream can be. This is because the proton sets the radius since that charge stream has to go through the protons central hole which gives us a size limit.

Airman. I agree that the charge stream density varies, but not in your photon wide charge stream diameter. How would we calculate the diameter of a charge stream? We could probably determine where the two fields, 1) ambient charge field; and 2) charge stream emission field; cancel each other. That boundary becomes the diameter of the charge stream. Each charged particle may have it own boundary, as the charge streams help sort particles as they are accelerated. If the particle can orbit the charge stream within that boundary and the charge stream is of sufficient strength, then I believe the particle will do so.

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

Thanks Nevyn
.

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

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

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

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

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

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

LongtimeAirman wrote:

Nevyn wrote: This is probably not an issue as charge streams are very small, short lived things.

Airman. Well, charge streams are the subject matter here. I understand some span galaxies. I’m sure they exist in countless forms, even in the atomic scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

LongtimeAirman wrote:

Nevyn wrote: When I said "larger particles will feel the magnetism of the charge stream and it can make them move in helical paths", I meant electrons but not protons.

Airman.  "magnetism of the charge stream" . Your statement implies that the charge stream not only has an emission field, it is strong enough to deliver a magnetic component as well.
Above, you indicated the opposite - “charge streams, …, do not have charge fields to exclude each other”, i.e. no emission field, hence no magnetic component.

Which is it? Are you arguing with me too?

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

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

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

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

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

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

LongtimeAirman wrote:

Nevyn wrote: I don't think 'slow things down' is the right way to say it in this case. The electron takes up space so it just blocks the charge field, reducing the amount of charge that reaches the proton. This can produce a weaker bond but in some cases, a weak bond is required for the 2 elements to bond at all.

Airman. "just blocks the charge field". I roughly covered the cases of a proton in the charge stream or outside the stream above. A charged particle orbiting, or even joined to central charge stream will drift until stopped by an emission field that belongs to both the atom and spinning electrons. A very high current, say in the form of many large charged particles being accelerated by a very large increase in charge stream intensities - my finger pushed the on switch - may enable the proton to move forward anyway.

Nevyn wrote: I don't think a proton would orbit a charge channel. A proton sort of becomes part of the stream because it uses the charge, some for emission and some for through-charge which allows the stream to continue on, although with a reduced density. A proton could be re-oriented by the charge stream but no circling around or through it like an electron would. Remember that the electron gets stuck between the proton and charge stream. It wants to keep going but the proton just won't let it.

Airman. In some cases true, other cases not. Define the charge channel first. How do you define the charge channel between the earth and the sun? The light speed photonic one; we know it exists. The charge stream cannot be just the light speed direct path. There are a large number of charged particles moving from the sun to the earth taking a slower path, I believe a constant billion amp current flow. Do all the moving charge particle share a single thread? They do not. Miles describes the two-way sun/planet charge stream, after great resistance, as I experienced with the idea of expansion, I’ve taken it to heart.

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

LongtimeAirman wrote:

Nevyn wrote: I don't think the ambient charge field has much to do with it. Being ambient, it is less dense than the charge stream itself. It may have some affect but not a major one.

Airman. The ambient field must be the first field defined; one cannot determine the boundary between charged particle emissions and the ambient field unless their relative field densities were known. If the boundaries are known, one could determine emission intensities. The strength of the charge stream emission field (as I suggest above) is probably a function of the ambient field and available charged particles.

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

LongtimeAirman wrote:

Nevyn wrote: If we are talking about charge streams emitted from atoms or proton stacks (same thing, in this case) then the radius is not variable but the density of the charge stream can be. This is because the proton sets the radius since that charge stream has to go through the protons central hole which gives us a size limit.

Airman. I agree that the charge stream density varies, but not in your photon wide charge stream diameter. How would we calculate the diameter of a charge stream? We could probably determine where the two fields, 1) ambient charge field; and 2) charge stream emission field; cancel each other. That boundary becomes the diameter of the charge stream. Each charged particle may have it own boundary, as the charge streams help sort particles as they are accelerated. If the particle can orbit the charge stream within that boundary and the charge stream is of sufficient strength, then I believe the particle will do so.

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

Airman. Charge stream current isn’t just photons. Charge stream current also includes charged particles.

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

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

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

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

Nevyn wrote:There is no evidence that larger protons emit larger photons and I don't see any reason why they would… . But I think most charge photons are not changed in size.

Airman. Agreed, I guess. I wasn’t trying to suggest that there are larger or smaller protons that emit larger or smaller photons. At any given time all protons are the same size, and all B-photons are the same size. If expansion theory is true, then all matter, including B-photons are constantly expanding. I assume they expand at the same rate.

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

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

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

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

Airman. I agree that the particles are just within the charge channel. Those particles will be able to travel from one charge channel source to the other. I think they describe helical paths.
...

Nevyn wrote:In my opinion, a charge stream only exists within, between or a small distance from an atomic nuclei. Even the charge that exits an atom is only a charge stream for a short distance from it as it will soon disperse and become part of the ambient field.

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

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

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

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

Nevyn wrote:What makes you say that?

Airman. Charged particles in the charge channel will move toward the channel sources thereby clearing the channel.
.

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

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

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

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

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

LongtimeAirman wrote:

Nevyn wrote:There is no evidence that larger protons emit larger photons and I don't see any reason why they would… . But I think most charge photons are not changed in size.

Airman. Agreed, I guess. I wasn’t trying to suggest that there are larger or smaller protons that emit larger or smaller photons. At any given time all protons are the same size, and all B-photons are the same size. If expansion theory is true, then all matter, including B-photons are constantly expanding. I assume they expand at the same rate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Longer than before today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and
Nevyn's Lab - Software Development
.

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

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

.

Is this what you asked for?
.

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and
Nevyn's Lab - Software Development
.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems to work on Firefox quite well for me.

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

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

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

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

Post Script:
Nevyn, your post immediately preceding this has changed from

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

to some sort of matchmaking arrangement. Good Luck.
.

.
I’m reading through the Technical Note I mentioned yesterday
(Adhesives and Adhesion, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19640004816.pdf)
and came across this  quote:

In a review of the nature of solids, Hume-Rothery illustrates that covalent and ionic solids rarely involve more than six atomic bonds per atom and metallic solids may involve as many as 14 bonds per atom, if we consider the next nearest neighbors contribution of the body-centered cubic configuration as significant.
…
Hume-Rothery, W., "Atomic Theory for Students of Metallurgy", Monograph No. 3, Institute of Metals, London, 1960

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

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

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Nevyn, your post immediately preceding this has changed from

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

to some sort of matchmaking arrangement. Good Luck.

It looks like I have split personalities and one is setting up the other. Hmmm, that could explain a few things!

I think Cr6 has accidentally hit the edit button instead of the cite button. I'll assume a few beers were involved.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.

In a review of the nature of solids, Hume-Rothery illustrates that covalent and ionic solids rarely involve more than six atomic bonds per atom and metallic solids may involve as many as 14 bonds per atom, if we consider the next nearest neighbors contribution of the body-centered cubic configuration as significant.
…
Hume-Rothery, W., "Atomic Theory for Students of Metallurgy", Monograph No. 3, Institute of Metals, London, 1960

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

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

This part has me confused:

if we consider the next nearest neighbors contribution of the body-centered cubic configuration as significant

That seems pretty strange to me. What does the next nearest neighbor have to do with bonding? They are trying to make something significant that is not. At least as far as bonding is concerned.

I can see 12 bonds being possible if the central atom is very large and the bonding atoms are very small, in comparison. That may be possible since 2 small atoms could bond to the same location on the large atom. I have used this arrangement to explain some explosives like RDX. Not sure if I have posted that work here or not. In that model of RDX I had a ring configuration for the central atoms (RDX is a complex molecule, not a single central atom bonding with other atoms) which had 3 arms coming off of it. Each arm had 2 Nitrogen atoms bonded to the same location on the end.

I may as well explain that RDX molecule while I am at it.

RDX was invented because the previous explosives were too volatile. Nitroglycerin is well known for its volatility and TNT was created to replace it. TNT is better and can be handled fairly easily but it still had issues with transport. RDX was developed to be more stable but also more potent.

The potency comes from the Oxygen atoms in the core ring structure. These allow more charge to be stored. We also have 2 Nitrogens plugging up each arm which is what holds that charge inside of the molecule and also provides an easy way to break it, leading to an explosion as all of that charge is released.

The volatility problem is solved by the central ring structure which I also found in TNT where-as Nitroglycerin had a Y configuration with 3 arms joined at the same location at the center of the molecule. Thus explaining why Nitroglycerin is so volatile. TNT had a core Benzene ring but still had 3 arms coming off of that so it was more stable, but still volatile. RDX keeps the stable ring core but has shorter arms which helps it reduce that instability.

Nitroglycerin:



Tri-Nitro-Toluene:

Aaaaand now I'm probably on some list somewhere for talking about explosives.

.
Beautiful and dangerous structures Nevyn. I admit I have a feminine side too.

Nevyn wrote: What does the next nearest neighbor have to do with bonding? They are trying to make something significant that is not. At least as far as bonding is concerned.

Airman. Thanks, good observation. I haven’t seen Hume-Rothery , and don’t wish to join ebooks for the privilege. Before reading Miles, and seeing Atomic Viewer, I suppose I thought of atoms more as spheres, with all kinds of possible atomic metal lattice configurations based roughly on the number of electrons and sphere packing. Now that I know about our six charge channels, my recollections make no sense at all.

Given our previous discussions, I assume our main axis’ hook positions would likely spin about the main axis, independent of the carousal. In a metal lattice, the main axis and carousal are locked into fixed positions, but the hook positions are still free to rotate. The Tech Note mentioned how metal samples can be exposed to electrical currents at various angles to enable precisely oriented measurements. It occurs to me that when a fixed metal atom is being examined under such conditions, the hook positions will always reorient themselves to maximize current intake. To that extent, definite and measurable hook charge channels will exist. Does that sound correct?

We must look at crystals some time, any chance AV might extend to lattices? Two or more?  
.

Whenever I look at that TNT molecule, I think it looks mean. Like a suit of armour with spikes all over it. RDX almost looks like a fluffy bunny in comparison. So smooth and rounded.

I agree about those hooks always finding the charge. I'm not sure how that happens at the moment, but they should be able to rotate about the axis coming out of the atom at their location. That is, the north hook can rotate about a north axis without affecting its relationship with the rest of the atom. They can even slope to the side some-what (think Methane) given the right conditions.

What I am unsure of is how the proton stack, and therefore the protons in that stack, actually get turned. It seems to me that the BPhoton of the proton must be affected directly in order to turn it. However, atoms are connected by charge streams rather than direct contact like that so it would require a very strong charge stream/field to reach all the way down into the proton, beneath its own charge field, in order to affect it.

I have thought about crystals and lattices a few times over the years, but never too far. They always felt like the next layer of things to study as I was bogged down in stacked spins and nuclear models. I kind of saw them as structured molecules and therefore not quite as exciting as other molecules like Hydrocarbons, Acids and Bases, and, of course, explosives.

I did play with some Carbon lattices in the really early days of desktop AV. I still have images I generated from it and they are so old that the different proton stacks aren't even colored. I don't agree with the way I structured the Carbon lattice anymore, but it was interesting to fit the atoms together.

I would like AV to be able to show lattices. I could do it now as I already have an atom positioning system in place but I really want it to work out how far apart things should be, given the atoms or molecules being used. It actually seems like this should be fairly easy, now that I think about it. I hadn't realised that my positioning system could be used for this purpose.

I will have a look into it when I get the new code fleshed out a bit. I'm still in the very early design phase as I am trying to restructure the code around a building block model and a charge calculation system. But I can see a page specifically for lattices, where I can use lesser graphics constructs, being quite useful. It is closely related to molecules too, so it may kind of fall out of that work which I am really keen to get to.

.
I'll throw out a couple of clay pigeons.

When I owned a Mac 512K I spent considerable amounts of effort designing, among other things, screen saver background tiles. I was most inspired by a popular screen saver that gave the illusion of flying straight through a starfield. Real simple, black background, expanding dots, roughly radiating from the center of the horizon, yet plenty of action with near misses and close shaves. Those stars could just as easily be interpreted as photons. What if you could provide an optional background choice to ‘view the charge field’. Your current black void may then be replaced with the random points or tracers of passing photons. Of course, to display lightspeeds accurately we would need to know what time scale we were at, the proton establishes the size scale. Limit the view of passing photons to briefly visible white dots that aren't visible when they are too far away, nor should they approach closely enough to reveal spin details, or not.

If you can create a lattice, you should allow someone to move their vantage points. Passing by orchards or stakes in a field, one observes a familiar optical effect. Various sized alleys extending beyond the field, opening and closing, flickering as you drive by. The atoms and their associated charge streams passing in a slow change of perspective would be wonderful. Still, hopefully, pretty much just a CAD background may do.

Or aqueous solution, or suspended gases. Gas and water can penetrate the outer layers of a metal crystal. Sorry, going overboard again, talk is cheap. I would be coding too if I could keep up.
.

I started to plan out an ambient charge field shader the other night. I fear it will interfere with the existing shaders and look a bit weird since the ambient field will not be the same charge that goes into and out of the particles. But it is still a useful shader to have in my toolbox so I will see what it looks like.

I'm starting to get the hang of these shaders now, but I still find myself wanting to do things that you just can't, or shouldn't, do in a shader. It is a very restricted environment which is a great pain in the butt but I also find myself liking it. Having to work around the restrictions and get what I want out of it is a great source of accomplishment.

I have a lot to learn though and I have started to think about trying to use shaders in other ways, with different primitives. I have only used points so far, since I was modeling charge, but I am interested in working out how to get a more gaseous or foggy appearance. I think that might work better as an ambient field than point particles.

Imagine a 3D grid of cubes and each cube has a charge density which is used to apply a transparency across that cube (may be rendered as a sphere or other primitive). I can include a direction vector or apply some other dispersion mechanism to distribute the density to the surrounding cells. I might use the color to represent photon wavelength/frequency.

If the particles in an atom could change the field around them, then we could see the charge profile of that atom. No need to render the particles themselves. I think that is an interesting way to look at atoms and molecules.

As you say though, talk is cheap. I like to float ideas around for a while and I'm also trying to figure out what sorts of pages I want in the new AV and this is a good candidate.

Nevyn wrote, Imagine a 3D grid of cubes and each cube has a charge density which is used to apply a transparency across that cube (may be rendered as a sphere or other primitive). I can include a direction vector or apply some other dispersion mechanism to distribute the density to the surrounding cells. I might use the color to represent photon wavelength/frequency.

Nevyn, Your patience is appreciated. I’ll try to describe something to program by, as simple as possible; don’t know if I’m violating shader use rules or not.

Ambient Charge Field. Put yourself anywhere in the solar system *. Even the most remote locations receive a constant stream of photons from the sun and all other planetary bodies. All charge source bodies are lamps, illuminating the system with their own unique blend of photon emission spin frequencies and energies.  

Each charge source in the system will be found at specific directions and distances to our viewing location, such that a perpendicular cross sectional area at the viewing location directed to any of those sources will receive about the predicted W/m^2 contribution from that source. Those photons will arrive in that cross sectional area at a fairly uniform distribution; they will all share the same linear vector.

In effect, beams of photons will fall through the viewing space like rain from each and every one of our sources. If one were to look directly at any source, one would see the photons forming the ‘flight-through-the-starfield’ effect.

We can likewise simulate the planet’s surface charge emissions. At AV scale, a dense mix of photons rise vertically upward. We would still receive photons from all our celestial partners, although at reduced numbers, provided they were on this side of the Earth. More random photons would need to be included.

* We start with your Solar System model of course, just add charge.
.

Don't worry about shader rules, that's my problem. Sometimes you can create the effect you want purely in the shader. That is the ideal solution because it is fast but you can't always get what you want that way. You have to manage part of it in the shader and part of it in the host application. It is best to minimize the host parts which usually means trying to only change things that apply to all particles rather than on a per particle basis.

An example might help to understand it. In my charge emission shaders, I have N particles and each particle represent a charge photon. I could implement that purely on the host and I would have to change each photons position every frame. In fact that is exactly what I did in the desktop AV and it did work fine because there aren't a prohibitive number of particles to deal with.

In browser AV, I used shaders which made me rethink how I go about it to get better performance. At initialization time, I create a direction vector for each particle and I also set a time offset value. Inside the shader, it works out where each photon is by using the direction vector and the current time plus time offset to determine how far along that vector the particle is. This works such that when the particle reaches a certain distance, it will go back to the start position. This allows me to only change the current time, which is a single floating point value shared among all particles.

Now, I have actually found that using the current time can cause problems when the app has been running for a long time. Essentially, the precision of the time value gets worse and worse which shows up as lines in the charge emission. Not a big deal but it would be nice to fix it, I just don't know how to at the moment. But I haven't put any time into it either.

Recently, I tried to make my charge emission shaders work without being tied to the position of the proton. This caused all sorts of problems because each photon needed to know where it started and where it was going. When tied to the proton, it got its base location from the proton (well, it is really just where the shader geometry is in the scene but that is the same as the proton location because it moves with it). I still haven't figured out how to solve that one.

What you have described above is what I call the Probe approach. That is, the viewer becomes a probe in the field and measures from the location of that probe. That is how we actually exist in the universe. We are all little probes measuring the photons that come our way. I think that can work in a solar system type of app but not so much in AV.

It could be interesting but it becomes a pain for the user because they have to move themselves, or the probe, around the scene to get a holistic view of the atom or molecule. It is interesting because it is very close to how our measuring devices see things and may actually become an important link between what the mainstream measure and Miles theory. Worth thinking about but you may need to remind me about it later as there is a lot of work to do before I can reach that.

Eventually, I'd like AV to have as many of these 'views' as possible. Different ways to look at the atoms and molecules. So far I have focused on a conceptual view while attempting to be as realistic as possible. It is conceptual, sort of, because it gives you the complete picture without taking the viewers position into account. For example, if the viewer was looking directly at the center of an element, it might not be able to see the charge being emitted from the north hook stack. But AV still shows you that stack because it is trying to give you a complete picture of the atom. The goal is to give the user understanding, not really to show it how it would look to a measuring device. Once that is in place though, we can look for other ways to view it to give further, deeper understanding. So keep on thinking about these sorts of ideas and don't get discouraged if I don't get to them straight away.

.
Conceptually, at any scale, solar system or AV, we must assume the majority of photons received will be emitted by known charge sources. The atomic element is vertically upright, as Miles and AV describe, in order to maximize receipt of the ambient charge field. There is an implied field primarily comprised of upward traveling photons, followed by a somewhat less dense field of antiphotons traveling downward. We have our known sources, why not show those photon currents, along with some random additions? From one of our earlier discussions, I believe you expect the ambient field to be far more random than I’ve described here.

I’ve got to share a vision with you. I think back to The Matrix, I haven’t seen it since its release almost 20 years ago, but one scene seems quite vivid to me now. Our hero is facing two agents in a hallway, a showdown, there are bullets in flight. At that moment Neo’s perception becomes transcendent; He can see matter is comprised of vertical photon fields. He can see each photons’ path, they aren’t straight lines, they follow the photon stack spin motion. The hallway walls appear more like dense collections of delicate lines of looping, upward and downward Chinese script. That's it. I hope we agree enough to see some extra photon motion soon, even though it may be a bit of a shock.  
.

I find it hard to define the term 'ambient field'. I think I have attached some other concepts to the term 'ambient' which are skewing my usage of it. I just looked up the definition of ambient and it is the immediate surroundings of something. So, in that vein, you are correct to use the ambient field to represent the Earth's charge field when the focus of the discussion is something within the Earth's field.

I was taking it as more of a background, a source of randomness, which is correct in some situations but not in others. However, I feel that it is more productive to explicitly state the surroundings when they are known. In the case of the Earth, I don't think the term ambient captures the directional nature of its charge field. Maybe I've just been burnt too many times with vague words so I like to be more explicit.

The problem I have with trying to implement a background field is how it will interact with the elements themselves. The cheap way will not have any interaction but I am not happy with that. The expensive way will mean that each and every charge photon is an object in its own right. Not some shader effect but a fully fledged entity that has its own position, velocity and it can collide with things. That's a full simulator. I know I want it, and have even put some work into it, but it is still a bit out of reach.

How about this: I implement a shader that moves charge from one side of a volume to the other and repeats. Think of two plates with some distance between them and charge moves from one to the other. I place 2 of these into the scene. One moves charge from the bottom to the top and the other from the top to the bottom. I hook the density of these charge fields up to the existing controls that spin the various parts of the atom (Effects Settings -> Charge Field). That will give a visual representation of those controls, other than the spin of the north/south arms and the carousel level.

That seems quite feasible to do now. In fact, it is exactly like my existing charge emission shader but I change the way the geometry is setup. The actual shader will be the same and only the init code will change. When you have the right tools in your toolbox, the work becomes easy.

Well I have the shader part working (I did have to change the shader code a little bit) and it does look pretty cool. Definitely a Matrix feel to it, mostly because you have 2 streams moving in opposite directions. I can set the densities in the code, but not through the controls yet, and a 1:2 ratio for N:S (ie top-down:bottom-up) looks good.

It isn't up on the web yet, as I have a few things to work out before I can update again.

.
AV is complete as it stands. Yes, it could go to the next level if the elements were displayed in a charge field with active photons. We’d all like to see it, but it's too early for that. AV is at a scale in which photon/proton interaction is at its most revealing; including our ignorance. For that reason, photons in AV must remain a background. In fact, AV may be unsuitable as a photon development platform; you might consider creating a plain old vanilla photon collider instead. Maybe learn a few things and relieve you of the onus of providing a fully integrated AV product.
.

That is pretty much my plan. AV was to focus on demonstrating protons and neutrons forming atoms, and later, atoms forming molecules. I started a completely separate project that I soon realised could end up as a full fledged simulator. That project was written in OpenGL with a Java host since I wanted to make use of the GPU for particle processing and ThreeJS/WebGL didn't allow that in the browser. I have also found out that there is another kind of shader, called a geometry shader, that I want to play with as it allows me to create geometry on-the-fly but again, WebGL doesn't implement it (most people don't use geometry shaders so they left it out of the spec).

However, things change as time rolls on and new ideas start to form. Sometimes I get lost in the details and need you guys to point out things from a higher perspective. It is easy to get held back by what you can do instead of thinking about what you might be able to do.

With respect to my latest efforts at an ambient field shader, I made all of the charge photons transparent so that they don't get in the way of the actual atom being looked at. If you zoom out they do still get in the way a bit (depending on density) but you can still see the atom inside of all that charge. I'll hook that up to the controls tonight and look into getting my site updated. A while ago I restructured the directory structure of my apps a bit and that hasn't been uploaded yet so I need to change a few other pages and make sure everything is still hooked up and working.

I played with the new ambient shader a bit last night and got it hooked up to the ambient charge field controls. I'm thinking of changing those controls since I don't really need one for charge and another for anti-charge when I can just use one slider to represent the ratio between them.

It did get me thinking about charge vs anti-charge and if our assumptions are correct or not. I'm fine with the carousel level spinning and that this is related to the ambient charge field but not so convinced of the north and south arms spinning as well. I'm tempted to disconnect them and maybe introduce a new checkbox to enable/disable it with the default being disabled.

I didn't look into updating the site though and I probably won't have time tonight either. Shouldn't be too far away though.

It has been some time, but finally, AV has been updated!

The new ambient field shaders are working and can be turned on in the Effect Settings -> Ambient Field -> Enabled checkbox. The Charge density and Anti-charge density sliders can be used to set the respective density.

I renamed the Effect Settings -> Charge Field group to Effect Settings -> Ambient Field to be a bit more descriptive. Other than that it is the same as before.

The positions of electrons has changed to reflect the discussion Airman and I had about that a few months ago. Previously the electrons were inside of an alpha but they are now above and below it, close in to the proton. They actually should be a bit further in towards the center but I have kept them out so that they are slightly outside of the through-charge streams. This just keeps them visible and not swamped by the charge shaders when they are enabled.

Neutrons in blocking positions now block the input charge shaders in that location.

As it has been so long since I touched AV, there are possibly other changes that I can't remember and didn't take note of.

The URL to AV has also changed. It is now www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/AtomicViewer. If you go through the main page it will take you to the right spot but the old version is still up and working. I expect to take that down soon though.

I have made a few minor adjustments.

Fixed a bug in Graphics Settings -> Performance when set to Maximum.
Adjusted how charge shaders are applied by the Performance setting.
Set charge density based on Performance setting.
Removed charge shader density controls from the View Settings -> Proton Stack group.
Removed charge speed control from the View Settings -> Proton Stack group.

This is the start of a move to using the Performance setting to control rendering choices in lieu of having many controls that are confusing. A great many controls will disappear in the near future.

If you set the Graphics Settings -> Performance dropdown to Maximum, all charge shaders will be enabled, including the ambient field shaders and all associated rotation.

.

Atomic Viewer 0.9

The new photon background works well. It ties together and completes your previous shaders, now they all fit together as a single charge field.

One quibble. I don’t see any ‘random’ photons. Imo, a small set of randoms would improve overall naturalness. Only if it’s quick and easy though. Please don’t cause any seizures.
 
I found an empty place and looked up and down; pleased to see a new twist, the flight-through-the-starfield simulation works coming and going. My one dimensional thinking is expanded in two directions at the same time! Wow.

Your original shaders are more ‘intense’ than the new up or down fields; maybe you can dial the originals back to match the new fields, then limit control to just your two: Charge density and Anti-charge sliders.

I see the shaders are tied to the atom itself. Here’s an artifact;

Two Helium atoms from above or below (the problem exists for front/back too) we have some sort of Casimir effect (just kidding). If you cross your eyes and try bring the two images together for a 3D effect, it doesn't work and you may get a headache. This is not a problem since I use AV to view single atoms. I’ve never built or seen a molecules in AV, except for your pictures.

Good Stuff Nevyn
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
One quibble. I don’t see any ‘random’ photons. Imo, a small set of randoms would improve overall naturalness. Only if it’s quick and easy though. Please don’t cause any seizures.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'random' here. All of those charge photons are random, or at least as random as a computer can generate. Do you mean it should have areas of higher and lower density?

I probably should explain how that randomness is applied to give you a better picture of what is going on. All charge shaders create their paths randomly. However, they only create these paths when they are initialized, not while they are running as that would be expensive and defeat the performance gains of using shaders. So the same path is used, over and over again, as the shader runs. Each photon moves along its own path and when it reaches a set distance, it goes back to the start and traverses that path again. This creates a pretty good random effect, without actually being that random! Even at low densities, it still looks good.

LongtimeAirman wrote: 
Your original shaders are more ‘intense’ than the new up or down fields; maybe you can dial the originals back to match the new fields, then limit control to just your two: Charge density and Anti-charge sliders.

I spent a bit of time looking at the differences between the shader densities and tried to find a nice balance, but I did want the old shaders to be a bit more visible than the background. This difference may be increased because the ambient shaders use a transparency of 0.5 but all of the other shaders are opaque (except the ends of though-charge shaders as they taper off). I think the intake shaders look quite well balanced in your first image. The through-charge shaders are a bit too dense. I could definitely dial them back a bit. I was actually surprised how low they could go and still look good.

Now that I have removed the charge shader density sliders, you can only change these densities by going to a higher/lower graphics performance setting. As you go higher, the emission shader density starts to climb higher than the other two. You can adjust the ambient field shader densities to find a better balance. If you find something you like, post the values and I'll take a look.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
I see the shaders are tied to the atom itself.

Two Helium atoms from above or below (the problem exists for front/back too) we have some sort of Casimir effect (just kidding). If you cross your eyes and try bring the two images together for a 3D effect, it doesn't work and you may get a headache. This is not a problem since I use AV to view single atoms. I’ve never built or seen a molecules in AV, except for your pictures.

Yes, the ambient shaders are attached to an atom. All atoms have their own versions. At first, I did this because it was easier while I developed the shaders themselves. I planned to make them global but when I tried, I found there were problems with that approach. The biggest problem is that the user can move around the scene. So if the shaders are global, then the user could move outside of their range. The larger the area these shaders cover, the more charge photons they require to keep the same density and that leads to performance issues on low spec'd systems.  So I thought I would attach them to the camera, therefore the user could never move outside of their range, but this means that you lose the 3D effect of these shaders because they will move with you. So I left them attached to the atom. I've been thinking of limiting AV to a single atom at a time anyway. I'll create a whole new page that allows you to view 2 atoms side-by-side for comparing them.

That gap is a pain in the butt! I noticed it as soon as I put up two atoms at the same time. There was this small gap between them and I thought that the width of the ambient shaders just happened to make them that close. So I made them a bit wider but the gap remained. I'll take another look to see if I can fix it as I had other problems to fix at that time.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with them. Thanks for pushing me into this. Not only do we now have ambient field shaders, but it has also got me back inside of the AV code and thinking about where I want to take it.

I had some thoughts last night about building molecules. I want to create a cut-down visual representation of atoms. No electrons or neutrons (maybe blocking neutrons), just protons stacks. I need to figure out how to join the atoms together in code. When I did this in my desktop AV, I had to manually move hook protons over so that the two atoms joined correctly. This was very fiddly and time consuming, although I did get pretty good at it after building quite a few molecules. The main problem is that you have coordinate systems inside of coordinate systems inside of coordinate systems. So when you want to move a stack over a bit, you have to figure out the correct direction to move it. What you see on screen may not be the right direction that it needs to go because you are moving it in the lowest coordinate system but looking at it in the highest coordinate system. This seems a bit tricky to do in code, but I won't know until I dive in and see what I can do. At least in the code, it is easier for me to work in those higher coordinate systems and then remove them to find the actual change required. That is about all that is standing in my way of building molecules. Of course, there is also creating a UI for it, but I'm sure that will be easy enough, once I start thinking about it.

I have turned off the north/south arm rotation by default. You can enable it in the Effect Settings -> Ambient Field -> Rotate Axis checkbox.

I had a look into the gap between ambient charge shaders and have found the problem, but it isn't so easy to fix. Essentially, the code that places an atom in the scene uses the bounds of that atom to determine where to place it with respect to the other atoms. The ambient charge shaders are part of those bounds but I really don't want them to be. Unfortunately, the code responsible for that is quite deep and will affect nearly every object in the atom. Meaning I have to change the way it works and then try to find everywhere that uses that object and make it use a different one. Very error prone.

I have fixed the ambient shader gap, but it has consequences. The ambient fields of each atom overlap and cause a doubling of the density in that area. It seems I just can't win with this one.

I also uploaded the backend database that can be used to retrieve element data. This does cause the page to load a bit slower as it retrieves all of the element definitions. I'll try to fix that soon.

I've been thinking about charge densities and how that affects the input of an atom. Not all charge intakes are the same, as is currently modeled in AV. Let me show you a picture of what I mean.



That is a Silver atom with arrows to show the charge inputs and the color of each arrow gives a rough density reading.

Red = dense charge
Green = medium charge
Blue = light charge

The Red arrows are the Earth's charge field and the Green arrows are the charge that directly impacts the Earth, mostly the Sun. The Blue charge is random charge in the atmosphere or surrounding environment. I wonder how low that blue charge is compared to the Earth's charge?

I was thinking about those north and south hook stacks. They don't seem to be getting much charge. This means that they rely more on the through-charge of the atom. Could this reduction in charge strength help with bonding? The outside carousel stacks are certainly getting fed plenty of charge and this suggests a reason why they are not used for bonding as much as the north/south axis.

What do you think? Could the side-ways charge be more dense than I am imagining?

.

Nevyn wrote. What do you think? Could the side-ways charge be more dense than I am imagining?

We know that the atom aligns itself to maximize ambient charge input. In your silver diagram, the main charge received is the earth’s emission field upward. We may safely assume the charge source is constant and steady.
 
You’ve indicated the sun’s emission field as downward green arrows; that is true only at high noon on the equator. Most of the time the sun will not be vertically upward. During the night, earth blocks solar emissions from reaching the silver atom; the atom will operate in its minimum energy state with little downward or horizontal charge input. During the early morning or late afternoon, horizontal charge from the sun is at its maximum. The atom will tilt slightly toward the sun to increase the total horizontal and downward charge received while still primarily pointed to the earth. A video might show all surface atoms tilting to track the sun like sunflowers.
.