Proposal: Electricity Animation

Nevyn, who's the director?

Hey, folks, at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16468&p=115598#p115579 Arend Lammertink shows a photon model that seems very similar to MM's model. Here's the animation.


Ain't that something? See how the blue balls go in at the poles and out at the equator, then recycle? Yous should read that entire post, since you'll see a lot of his reasoning there.

By the way, Jared and maybe Nevyn, how soon might you be starting on a simulation or animation of electricity and or wifi? Is the question annoying? If so, I'll try to think of an unannoying way to ask.

It's not annoying at all, I'm the one that derailed the thread focusing on the singular quanta and its motion. But it is very relevant, since even electrical charge photons moving between atoms and protons and inside molecules will move in this fashion.

If you look a that animated GIF, we see no such complex motions of the blue particles. It looks cool and all, but I don't see how it has any bearing on this motion. What is causing them to curve? Why are they drawn from the equator to the poles like that? What is causing those vertical field lines?

That looks a lot like math-art to me.

"A real, physical medium called aether exists and it behaves like an ideal fluid or gas."

This contradicts pretty much everything Mathis has done with the photon, so I'm not really following how that's relevant? A field of what? Why is it behaving like a fluid? (not a liquid, mind you, a fluid) Why is it behaving like a gas? Photons behave like neither, as far as I can tell.

"With our model, this recursive problem is resolved. Charge is no longer considered to be the cause for the electric field nor electromagnetism. That does not mean that the concept of "charge" is completely thrown overboard, but it is considered to be a consequence of the (vortex) structured fluid flows particles and photons are predicted to consist of.

In other words: it's not charge which causes electromagnetism, but the dynamic flowing structures we call particles or photons are predicted to be "constructed" in such a way that they "emit" electric and magnetic fields as has been measured."

As you can see, they missed the point of defining charge altogether. To say charge doesn't cause E/M is pretty much a huge flaw in their theory, the same massive gap Mathis has been filling for years now. I don't see any reason to explore that theory given we have a far better one to work with already.

There's a lot I don't understand in MM's model, so I ask questions and if I don't hear or find answers, I look around to see if others may have something to contribute. Arend seems to have found something about Maxwell's displacement field that needed correcting, and since MM also reinterpreted the displacement field, I figure Arend too may have figured out something that would answer some of the questions. To me, photon streams and flows seem like fluids. Sorry for the distraction.

Not a distraction, no sorrow my friend. I work with fluids in Maya as well as particles and find no real similarities between their behaviors - though often I use particles to run my fluid sims. Especially when doing liquids, such as this example:

https://vimeo.com/109975420

Fluids have a variety of attributes that particles do not, and are basically a VOI of the particles involved. So you have viscosity, buoyancy, fuel, heat, etc., many variables that are often driven by particles but the fluid is not a particle sim itself. Much like the photon has no wave/particle duality. It IS a particle, far as we can tell. The wave is the motion of the thing, not the thing itself. This is true of all waves by definition, so I'm rather with Mathis on the mainstream ever confusing the two in the first place. Blatant misdirection which has lasted what, a hundred years? Just terrible.

The vimeo looks realistic for water movements & waves.

Now how does photon movements & waves compare to that for electricity & wifi? I'm looking forward to a progress report or something.

Well my guess would be that electricity (directionalized streams of photons through the poles of the materials involved) is an effect where inside those materials' nuceli, many spins are being stripped from larger photons to get them down to the first few levels of stacking, if not down to the axial spin itself. So they might tend to have a smaller radius than the incoming photon charge already present, and thus escape incoming charge a bit easier since they're smaller.

And perhaps (though this is just conjecture) the magnetic effect is just the opposite. That is to say that magnetic photon emissions may have taken on a an additional spin or two before exiting the nucleus, giving them a bit more effectiveness in the field. Mathis has talked about that "snap" of magnets and explained it pretty rigorously, but I think that augmenting or degrading charge may play a role in these effects.

As I understand it, in our electric devices (including semiconductors and such), the photons are literally carrying electrons along for the ride. The much larger electrons bang into various switches and detectors and whatnot, resistors and capacitors and transistors are all examples of these, and "flip" the various switches and gates. These gates are getting quite small, at 14 nanometers now in modern CPUs and GPUs, but that's still nowhere near the size of the electron or the photon.

So it's taking a great many electrons to "flip" these switches, although of course the charge itself is doing much of the work. It's all direct bombardment, no need for superposition or tunneling or any quantum magics. While this is obviously useful in many ways (the electron), is there any reason beyond engineering that we're not using the actual quanta to flip these switches, which could then be much smaller?

Is a photon transistor possible? Would this not be a great deal faster than electron-based devices?

Isn't the electric current on the surface of conductors rather than internal? And I've read that electrons only move a few mm per second in conductors. Would such small movements of electrons do any significant work? In a battery circuit MM says the current is toward the load in both wires. I suppose the so-called neutral or ground wire may be too weak to move electrons along. Does anyone know about that?

I thought maybe electrons on conductor surfaces might act as guides for photon traffic. Or would copper protons act as guides? MM said neutral atoms have very little charge flow, while ions have a lot. Electrons tend to plug the flows I think. So I suppose ions tend to be on conductor surfaces. I guess that would be both positive and negative, i.e. stationary positive copper ions and slightly moving electrons. Eh?

I apologize for my sardonic nature, but what I meant by the usage of the electron is that it's all they've got to work with in mainstream theory. All their theory, especially in regards to electrical current and semiconductors and such, presumes that electrons basically teleport around, through surfaces, and magically cause various effects.

But we know that it's not just the electrons, it's the photons themselves driving on through. " Charge is the summed mass of sub-particles that are impacting the objects being repulsed or attracted." (http://milesmathis.com/charge.html)

The electrons are just along for the ride, almost a side-effect of charge current. No, they don't do much work inside conductors at all, compared to the photon stream. But that's what the mainstream tells us about electricity, that it's based on the electron.

"Isn't the electric current on the surface of conductors rather than internal?"

The current may be on the surface, but the charge is inescapably throughout. It's just priming the surface, much like the light bulb or the battery. The conductive materials are directionalizing the flow of charge photons, and they are doing the work.  Remember that every proton is recycling 19* its own mass per second alone, and of course conductors are combinations and configurations of multiple protons, neutrons, and electrons. So we already have a ton of charge to work with, being directionalized by its engineering and its physical configuratoin. Add enough new photons, and the work begins.

In his paper on the Pyramid,
"Now all we have to do is notice that electrons must move from areas of higher pressure to areas of lower pressure. They simply follow the charge wind. And I mean this literally, not figuratively. The electrons are physically carried along with the B-photons, by direct contact. Since the B-photons must move from areas of higher density to lower—based on nothing but statistics or entropy—the electrons must do so as well. In this way, electric potential is nothing but pressure or wind or entropy. The field lines are not lines of potential, they are lines of pressure, caused by simple bombardment. Our wind here is a very fine wind indeed, which is why we don’t feel it. But quantum particles do feel it, especially the smallest, free-est quantum particles—electrons." (http://milesmathis.com/pyramid.html)

Electricity is just a directionalized expression of this effect. The conductive material isn't exactly "shooting" photons along a direction (current), but that's where they're most likely to go based on the inherent motions and proclivities of the field.

Also, I'm still working on an electrical motion-model based on all this, but had to tackle the Stacked Spin topic first to get there. Now I'm scripting a controller for my particles which will allow us to just drop in the spin numbers, which can be applied to trillions of particles, then run some self-collision and inter-collision dynamics. We can watch as the spins pile up or spin down, watch electrons be born (and protons/neutrons), and eventually test much of Mathis's theory in this way. I needed a good reason to double my workstations's RAM anyway, so here we go.

LloydK wrote:Isn't the electric current on the surface of conductors rather than internal?

Only for high frequency current. The higher the frequency the more the charge moves to the outside of the wire. This is known as the skin effect.

I think this is evidence that there is considerable photon current through the wire. My explanation for the skin effect is that the photons traveling through the atoms in the wire take longer to get through than the photons that just go around the atoms. When the frequency gets high enough, and we are talking gigahertz and above, the photons exiting the atoms find themselves amongst other photons that are in the opposite cycle (remember that charge does not alternate direction but alternates spin). Since the charge coming from the atoms has the opposite spin direction, it causes more collisions as they interact with each other. This causes a build up or blockage through the center of the wire and the charge moves more to the outside of it.

Nevyn wrote:

LloydK wrote:Isn't the electric current on the surface of conductors rather than internal?

Only for high frequency current. The higher the frequency the more the charge moves to the outside of the wire. This is known as the skin effect.

I think this is evidence that there is considerable photon current through the wire. My explanation for the skin effect is that the photons traveling through the atoms in the wire take longer to get through than the photons that just go around the atoms. When the frequency gets high enough, and we are talking gigahertz and above, the photons exiting the atoms find themselves amongst other photons that are in the opposite cycle (remember that charge does not alternate direction but alternates spin). Since the charge coming from the atoms has the opposite spin direction, it causes more collisions as they interact with each other. This causes a build up or blockage through the center of the wire and the charge moves more to the outside of it.

Hmm. That sounds familiar, Nevyn. Maybe you already told me that before, but I forgot your modifier, or condition, i.e. the photon current or traffic has to be especially high. Will you folks then be able to put the atomic models together with the spin models etc and show us electricity and wifi soon? It's exciting to contemplate. Thumbs up to Jared too.

LloydK wrote:
Hmm. That sounds familiar, Nevyn. Maybe you already told me that before, but I forgot your modifier, or condition, i.e. the photon current or traffic has to be especially high. Will you folks then be able to put the atomic models together with the spin models etc and show us electricity and wifi soon? It's exciting to contemplate. Thumbs up to Jared too.

I was thinking the same thing as I wrote it. It isn't high current though, just high frequency so it is changing spin direction very quickly.

I think we can show the basics of electricity, but wifi is so far above that, conceptually and in complexity, that I doubt we could show that yet. Wifi is about signals and protocols but if you just mean showing how radio transmission works then it may be feasible. I don't think I have a good enough understanding of Miles work in this area to do it just yet. I am interested to see what Jared can put together and hopefully that will give me some ideas on how to tackle it.

I need to go over those papers again, it has been a while so I have an abstract view of it but not the concrete view that I need to implement something. Of course, it is the building that helps me get that level of understanding so maybe I just need to dive in and hope I can swim. But I really need to get back in to Atomic Viewer and get that sorted out. I've left it too long as it is, which makes it difficult to get back in to. I'll probably only tackle electricity if I can see something that I can add that Jared can't in his models. If they are enough to show everything, then I probably won't bother. No need for us both to work on the same things.

Yes, as I understand it currently (although I haven't studied it much", WiFi is simply radio frequency photons. No different from other radio devices, other than set frequencies and then protocols that define the connections. It's not much different than cellular or CB radio stuff. I'm not sure how that would be important to electrical models - kinda seems like magnetism would be the next logical step after electricity, in my motion models.

But I apologize, seems like I have a long way to go from stacked spins forward to electricity. I have to take the complexity of my motion-model, increase it to the proton spin level, and then use particle instancing to generate billions of these particles in motion and set their collisions very high and run the sim. It may be an overnight rendering; I may need to link all three of my computers together to make this work on a realistic timeline. I am looking into GPU-based particle instancing, since I have pretty powerful graphics cards here, which might be beneficial vs. CPU calcs (8, 8, and 4 CPU cores vs. 1152 GPU cores).

You're lucky Jared, you can take as long as you want to render something if all you want out of it is a video. I don't get that luxury. I have to work in real time (model time, not necessarily true real time). That is the difficult part for me when I start to think about a particle simulator (and I do think about it quite often since I've always wanted to build one), I have to make it efficient. That's why I have been looking into using pure math to figure out where a BPhoton is in its spin path at any given time (which I mentioned recently). I don't want to calculate all of those spins when I only really need them in a collision (or to figure out if there is a collision).

My theory is that I treat all particles as being a sphere with a radius of its top level spin. If those spheres collide, then I use the spins to figure out if there is actually a collision and if so, deal with it accordingly. The specifics of that collision still need to be figured out but I think I have a decent idea of them. I'm currently in the process of building a webpage to describe the collisions to build stacked spins with lots of little animations to show each stage.

My particle simulator will definitely be calculated on the GPU as much as possible. I've done GPU work before but I am a little bit limited in the browser since none of them have taken on the WebCL specification like they have WebGL. I may end up going back to Java or C/C++ where I can do it the way I want to with total access to the GPU. To do it in the browser I have to squash all of my data into textures and that sounds like a real pain in the butt. If I had true access to the GPU then I could define my data as I want it with no need to convert when it goes in and out of the GPU.

On a side note, I know it sounds like 1000 cores must be better than 8 but it doesn't always work out that way. In this case it will but the CPU is much faster than the GPU at doing calculations. The advantage that the GPU has is being able to calculate many things at the same time (which certainly applies here). But you're probably aware of that already.

So to clarify, Nevyn, we really only want the fundamental quanta colliding at any given level, correct? We don't want their bounding VOIs to be colliding, since those are just "virtual" tools we use to visualize the motions, yes?

I'm very familiar with CPU and GPU usage in these things, since Maya utilizes as much as you can give it for calculation. But I've only done a bit of scripting myself, no actual coding, and Maya Embedded Language (MEL) is only useful in Maya, obviously. A bit of Python now and again, though I am not remotely fluent in either.

My plan is, to simulate electricity, to use GPU instancing on our particle. What that does is only reference the motion rig once, taking up no more memory for millions or billions than it does for just the first one. That's also how I "paint" in all my plants, trees, and flowers in my artwork - I make a few variants of each, then run a particle emission from the landscape surfaces, where each particle acts as a locator for the various plants to "spawn" from when I hit play on the simulator. I control the locations with texture maps (so that white means nothing emits at that location, black means full emission, for example), so I have a bit of experience with this technique already.

But throwing it all into a given volume to see how it works will be a challenge, and then modeling iron or copper or something to show electrical flow... It's gonna take me awhile, but it's how I'm approaching this topic.

Jared Magneson wrote:So to clarify, Nevyn, we really only want the fundamental quanta colliding at any given level, correct? We don't want their bounding VOIs to be colliding, since those are just "virtual" tools we use to visualize the motions, yes?

Absolutely. Only the BPhoton is real so that is the only thing that can collide. I plan to use the top spin level VOI as a test to determine if a collision is possible. If those VOIs don't intersect then there is no possibility that the actual BPhotons could collide. This just saves me from calculating the spin levels down to the BPhoton if I don't have to.

Jared Magneson wrote:I'm very familiar with CPU and GPU usage in these things, since Maya utilizes as much as you can give it for calculation. But I've only done a bit of scripting myself, no actual coding, and Maya Embedded Language (MEL) is only useful in Maya, obviously. A bit of Python now and again, though I am not remotely fluent in either.

I wasn't sure how much Maya, or similar tools, would hide from you. When I first started doing GPU programming, I ran some tests to determine how much data was too much for the CPU and better for the GPU and I was surprised when it turned out to be a lot. Not millions but a considerable amount. I was doing charge interactions with an electron so I was calculating whether there was a collision or not, I wasn't using it for rendering. Just a pure number cruncher which I would hook up to a 3D engine for viewing later to check everything.

Jared Magneson wrote:My plan is, to simulate electricity, to use GPU instancing on our particle. What that does is only reference the motion rig once, taking up no more memory for millions or billions than it does for just the first one. That's also how I "paint" in all my plants, trees, and flowers in my artwork - I make a few variants of each, then run a particle emission from the landscape surfaces, where each particle acts as a locator for the various plants to "spawn" from when I hit play on the simulator. I control the locations with texture maps (so that white means nothing emits at that location, black means full emission, for example), so I have a bit of experience with this technique already.

Yeah, that sounds similar to how I implemented charge particles in Atomic Viewer which you can read about here if you want to.

I think things will be a little different if you want to determine interactions though. I don't know what Maya offers in that regard.

Jared Magneson wrote:But throwing it all into a given volume to see how it works will be a challenge, and then modeling iron or copper or something to show electrical flow... It's gonna take me awhile, but it's how I'm approaching this topic.

So you're thinking fairly low level then. Actually looking inside of the wires to see charge flow through the atoms that make the wire. That's good but I think we will need at least 2 levels of animations for this. There is the low level animations to see how charge flows through atoms, etc, and then there is the higher level view that shows the circuit. We don't want to see atoms in that higher view and it should work with higher concepts like charge, current and voltage. This is more of an abstract view where you can see the battery, wires, light bulb, etc, and show how charge moves around the circuit. Does that make sense?

To get some ideas for modeling atoms, have a look over Atomic Viewer. Use my Periodic Table page to view the atoms you want to look at. You probably don't want to go to the level of detail that I have in that app, but it should help you to visualize the charge flows.

Note: You will need to login to this forum to use the links I have embedded in this post. Some of my statements probably don't make sense unless you can see the links.

Nevyn wrote:...and then there is the higher level view that shows the circuit. We don't want to see atoms in that higher view and it should work with higher concepts like charge, current and voltage. This is more of an abstract view where you can see the battery, wires, light bulb, etc, and show how charge moves around the circuit. Does that make sense?

That makes perfect sense, and also will make life much easier. I don't need to build up from stacked spins to achieve such diagrams at all. I can jump right into them, after some quick re-reads of the pertinent papers. I'll save low-level modeling for later or when I'm highly motivated to script the stacked spins somehow. I think I'll start with the light bulb, since it's the most straightforward.

I've seen your Periodic Table (had it bookmarked) and it's excellent work. Pretty impressive. Has Miles discussed it with you at all? I can't imagine he hasn't seen it yet, as well. But I hadn't read your detailed descriptions of the shaders, etc., so thanks for linking to that! Good stuff.

Jared Magneson wrote:
I've seen your Periodic Table (had it bookmarked) and it's excellent work. Pretty impressive. Has Miles discussed it with you at all? I can't imagine he hasn't seen it yet, as well. But I hadn't read your detailed descriptions of the shaders, etc., so thanks for linking to that!  Good stuff.

Well, to be honest, I can't take all the credit for the actual Periodic Table page. I used an example provided by the 3D Javascript API I use (ThreeJS) and just made it link to my Atomic Viewer so that you could see each element. I did write a Periodic Table page many years ago, which was very similar but 2D, but I didn't have the browser port of Atomic Viewer then, only my desktop version which I would generate videos out of, much like you do with Maya. That old version was pretty basic but it still worked well for the time. Each element would give you an image or video, depending on whether it had a carousel level which was the only animated part.

I contacted Miles way back then about it. I didn't have a website at that time so I was giving it to him to publish on his site. The problem was the size of all those videos was more than he could store and I had more to come. I wasn't too confident in my models either and wanted Miles to verify them but his time is limited and there was a lot to process. I didn't want to pester him about it so I kept working on my apps and models.

When I ported Atomic Viewer to the browser I contacted Miles about it, again offering to give it to him to host, since it was pure code he didn't need to store heaps of videos anymore. I still wasn't confident in my atomic models though so we got bogged down in that again. Eventually, through discussions on this forum, I saw that it would just be easier for me to create my own site, so I did so. I had a few teething problems with hosting at first but eventually found Linode and am using one of their VMs and I love it. I have total responsibility but I have total power too. I can do whatever I want (and am capable of doing) so it has allowed me to use other tools to my advantage.

So at the moment, Miles has offered to publish a link to my app on his site when I am ready, but I am holding everything up as I haven't spent much time on AV for a while. I feel guilty about it but every time I try, it just doesn't feel right so I move on to other things. I tend to work when and where I feel the passion. All of this talk of stacked spins lately got me thinking along those lines again, so I made some improvements to that app (and now a re-write).

I'm still stuck with a lot of models that I am not totally confident in, too. Analyzing each atom is a lot of work and I find myself tied up in the development of the app so I don't spend any time on the models themselves. If you know any good chemists with an open mind, a thirst for truth and a bit of spare time, then send them my way!

I did notice that some elements weren't clickable, and assumed you hadn't gotten that far (Uranium, for example), though it could be a browser flaw on my end (Firefox). But it's still really good stuff. A disclaimer of "In Progress" for those unfinished or unverified ones might be all you need to "go public" though, really. I've done a ton of web design and web graphics if you ever need anything on that end, by the way. I'd be happy to help.

.
Jared, (Nevyn)

I would ask for your opinion on the idea of an "ortho (WithCarousal)" periodic table configuration. (see elsewhere here at the site). All elements would be selectable from that configuration. I tried to convince Nevyn but he hasn't said one way or the other.

Move than mere novelty, it becomes a symbol, echoing the atomic configurations of all the elements. How to arrange the elements isn't "real", but it allows for a far better understanding than the current table (we all know and love) does.
.

Here is the original post about this idea and the following few posts discuss it a bit.

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t114p50-atomic-model-editor#1029

I suggest we move such discussion over to that thread.

I had forgotten about that idea, Airman.

Jared, you are correct that the elements that don't work are because I don't have models for them. A nice message saying that would would be good. I don't have clear guidance on elements above Uranium. With Miles modeling Uranium as the connection of 2 other elements, it broke the method being used for all previous elements. Are all atoms above Uranium actually molecules? I don't know.

This is starting to sound like what Tesla was able to do powering an electric motor wirelessly in Colorado.

Wireless power transmission safely charges devices anywhere within a room
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-wireless-power-transmission-safely-devices.html

.
Hi Lloyd, I would say the researchers are examining wireless power transmission schemes. I believe Tesla demonstrated wireless radio control and wireless power transmission; but he also showed how power can be obtained from the earth, using large structures and pulsed power as a source of free power for all.

Your article listed a related one.
Flying drones could soon re-charge whilst airborne with new technology
https://phys.org/news/2016-10-drones-re-charge-airborne-technology.html
October 20, 2016

Scientists have demonstrated a highly efficient method for wirelessly transferring power to a drone while it is flying.
The breakthrough could in theory allow flying drones to stay airborne indefinitely – simply hovering over a ground support vehicle to recharge – opening up new potential industrial applications.

Now please turn your attention to,
So What is Really Going on Behind the Nuclear Programs
http://mileswmathis.com/caes.pdf

Since the vehicle over Phoenix stalled for over two hours, my assumption is they had some electrical problem.  They may have flown over a local area of charge nullification, caused either by military bases on the ground or by some natural phenomenon. They had to leave their lights on so that normal aircraft in the area wouldn't fly into them, causing more damage all round.

Note that Miles' paper covers a great deal of ground. It seems wireless power transfer already exists. Miles is adding bits of science details to his non science papers. Take the discussion of uranium:  

With that in mind, I returned to Wikipedia, where I studied the page for Uranium. I have been there before for my science papers, but never with this question in mind. What jumped out at me this time was the fact that Uranium is very electropositive. What is more, once it splits, it often splits into Caesium, which is the most electropositive element. What does that mean? It means that these substances produce electrons very readily. It doesn't take much energy to free an electron, and that free electron can be used for power. In fact, it takes less energy to release it than it provides once free, which is the key here. It is like money from nothing.

Problem is, Caesium is very rare. It occurs in small quantities in pollucite, but it costs more to extract than it is worth. I assume it was found it was much more cost effective to get it from Uranium. People think Uranium is rare, but it isn't. It is more common than Mercury or Silver. Caesium exists at three parts per million in the crust, but Uranium exists as high-grade ore http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx at 200,000 ppm. That's as common as Tin or Zinc. Just from that, I would assume scientists have discovered some way to generate cheap power from Caesium, via electron production, and the entire nuclear story is just a cover.

 .

.
Adding to the previous post.

Quoting the end of http://mileswmathis.com/caes.pdf

In closing, I have a final tidbit for my science readers who may be here with us.  Along with most people, I hadn't understood until today how prevalent Uranium is in the Earth's crust.  Discovering that made me suspicious once more, because it doesn't make any sense, given the current theory of element production.  Elements are said to be produced by fusion in stars.  But most stars don't fuse past element number 2, Helium.  None fuse past iron.  Since Uranium is element number 92, it could only be produced by the very largest stars in collapse.  It would spread out across the galaxy when they went supernova.  But given how diffuse the galaxy is, you wouldn't expect planets to contain so much Uranium.  I will be told that the galaxy is very old, so we have Uranium left over from eons of big stars going nova.  Yes, but the half-life of Uranium is about 4.5 billion years, which is about half the lifespan of a star like the Sun.  So while the Sun is alive, ¾ of the existing Uranium will break down.  So you see, Uranium doesn't persist to be recycled through several star-cycles.  We can't get that sort of buildup over time.  Plus, since the Earth is said to be exactly that old, it would have originally had twice as much Uranium as now, doubling our problem.  

This indicates to me that larger elements like Uranium may be created continuously in the galactic core, being ejected in large quantities into the galaxy from its center.  Either that, or celestial bodies— even small ones like the Earth—must have some way of attracting Uranium.  Since I have shown that all celestial bodies recycle the charge field, it may be that large elements are channeled very strongly to celestial bodies on the ambient charge field, being deposited constantly as the charge moves through the bodies from their poles.

Addendum February 14, 2017.  A reader has sent in some corroborating research on this, which you can see here http://mileswmathis.com/nro.pdf.  It also includes further brief commentary by me.

.

Very interesting, Airman. You all need to study up on Polonium radiohalos. Many or most such halos in rock are parentless, meaning the polonium was likely a decay product in molten material which soon solidified, like lava. Only I think uranium and polonium are mainly found in granite. I need to check some day to see if that's correct. The Earth (like the Sun) is likely no more than 380 million years old, as Charles Chandler found at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=18943

And the uranium was likely formed electrically a few thousand years ago as Walter Brown theorized at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity.html

I don't accept Brown's hydroplate theory, but what happened instead was a large asteroid hit the former supercontinent north of what is now Madagascar and broke up the supercontinent and caused the new continents to move apart to near their present locations in a very short time span as explained at http://NewGeology.us

Uranium was formed electrically on the undersides of the sliding continents. Instead of the oceanic crust acting as a conveyor belt transporting the continents, the conveyor belt didn't move, but the continents slid across it. Extreme electrical arcing occurred where the bottoms of the moving continents contacted the mantle and that produced fusion of uranium etc. Granite from the bottom was extruded up through the continent's crust into the Rocky Mountains etc, carrying along the uranium, parentless polonium etc.

Brown showed that radioactive elements decay many times faster when highly ionized than when neutral.

That's just my working hypothesis after reading Brown recently and a few other things.

.
Quoting http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=18943
Light Curves © Charles Chandler

If main sequence stars cool with time, going from bright blue to dim red, we should be able to use well-known principles…

Negative. I don’t agree with CC’s premise. Stars do not “cool with time”. Stars output's vary primarily as some function of its position within the galactic charge and matter distributions.

Another close following quote

the primary energy source for the Sun was found to be the kinetic energy developed by the imploding dusty plasma

Again, I completely disagree. Miles has shown that ‘imploding dusty plasma’ is absurd.

I cannot agree with CC's 380 million year estimation.

I'll admit that CC is expert in building a mainstream model using mainstream assumptions.  

As I’ve said somewhere, I like the expanding Earth theory - the earth’s radius has doubled in the last 6 million years. Earth, however old it actually is, was originally spit out from the Sun - or Saturn or whichever sun it was at the time. All this is entirely reasonable given Miles’ unified charge field and gravity. Not so, however, when using Mainstream ideas.

A) Uranium formed by supernovas and blasted throughout the universe before Earth was created(?),

B) Uranium formed by galactic process, distributed as charged matter streams, finding their way to Earth(?).

I'll pick B.
.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imo, CC is mainstream because, as Jared pointed out, CC, or the mainstream, doesn't recognize the charge field.

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

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

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

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

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t270-recycling#1951

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To put that equation over some time span we get:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on mainstream assumptions and measurements and interpretations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iki/Solar_Dynamics_Observatory#Orbit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/the_electric_sun.html
Always remember:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's the electromotive force?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

1. Does charge separation power batteries?

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

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

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

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

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

7. Do ions in space tend to form filaments?

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

9. Are solar flares lightning?

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

.
# Lloyd questions,
Airman answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you explain molecular bonding?

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

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

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

Can you explain molecular bonding?

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

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



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



http://milesmathis.com/meth.pdf

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

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

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

http://milesmathis.com/

Thanks for your answers, Jared.

You said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

.
Lloyd. Can you explain molecular bonding?
Airman. Here’s Miles from, The Phosphorus-Hydrogen Bond http://milesmathis.com/phos.pdf

In dozens of papers over the past four years, I have shown that molecular bonding is created by charge streams moving through and between nuclei, not by electrons. In an important paper on Hydrogen bonding http://milesmathis.com/water2.pdf, I offered diagrams of these new bonds, showing that electrons—though present—were mainly along for the ride. It was the streams of real charge photons that were causing the bonds and all the real field potentials.

Rubbing the balloon surface removes electrons, exposing photon currents to and from the proton nuclei. Immediately pressing the balloon against the wall ionizes the wall as large numbers of electrons are swept aside by the new field conditions. Strong photon currents then exist on both wall and balloon, some of which align well enough to share photon currents directly, something normally found in molecules.
 
Note, there is no “attraction” between the wall and balloon surfaces. Once established, bonds are maintained by the pressure of the surrounding charge field. A good analogy - rubber suction cups hold together by differential air pressure.

Here's a quote from Diatomic Hydrogen  http://milesmathis.com/diatom.pdf

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

Lloyd. At the top of the photosphere is a big density dropoff, but the photosphere is plasma, so, if gravity were the force holding the Sun together, the plasma should lose density with altitude gradually instead of suddenly, like Earth's atmosphere. Why does the Sun's outer plasma layer act like a liquid instead of a gas?
Airman. I don’t know what limits the photosphere. Miles discusses this sort of ‘boundary’ in “Star Trek Force Field” http://milesmathis.com/startrek.pdf more proof of my charge field Star Trek Force Field

On the first of December [2014], Huffington Post republished a report from the University of Colorado's LASP [Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics], with the title “Star Trek-like invisible shield found thousands of miles above Earth”. The paper was first published in Nature.

This shield is

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

…
This rising field of real photons has a real density, and that density is capable of turning these electrons at lower altitudes. Obviously, given a real field of real particles and a real density, there will be some altitude at which the density dissipates enough to no longer exclude the electrons. At that altitude, you will find the electrons, but not below it. In other words, we would expect a sharp boundary.

 
Lloyd. Do you believe positive and negative charges exist? If not, how do electrons move toward protons?
Airman. Positive and negative charges do not exist. All charge repels. Any attraction observed is only apparent, since it can be explained by the charge field repulsion. Electrons can approach protons closely because their small size allows them to miss most of the proton’s emission field. Electrons within charge streams can lodge close enough to partially block the nucleon’s charge stream. The electron was just pushed along, no attraction involved.  

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