Proton-Electron Attraction

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

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

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

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

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

See the candle experiment between charged plates. The flame is pushed to one side due to the E-Field, this is a physical interaction, a push.

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

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

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