Neutron charge emission - where does it go?

Sure, there's a lot wrong with it, more just a "proof of concept" video than anything else at this stage.

The purple charge cones at the poles are meant to represent the field propensity for incoming charge, just a placeholder really. They're meant to be pushing the electrons towards the nucleons and also "feeding" the protons and neutrons, though it's really rough at this point. I'll be using an ambient incoming charge model that doesn't work like that now that I've got things kinda-working. Everything needs to be direct bombardment - except for gravity, obviously.

So I'm working from relative numbers right now, but that will change. The photons have a mass of 1, the electrons 233, and the protons/neutrons 1821. I'm sure those numbers aren't right but I also can't actually simulate the entire charge field directly, so I'm using a kind of relative interaction to get things going.

We'll refine it as we go, including replacing the charge profiles of all three with more proper emissions and recycling. It's just been a real struggle to make the dynamics work this way without resorting to animation tricks and motion-keying, but it's a baby step I've been trying to take this whole time, since I met you folks here.

I just read or reread most of this thread.

Neutron charge: .63 times the Proton charge. That's what I recall Miles calculating it to be. Nevyn said .6, so I think I'm recalling correctly.

Proton emission disk: planar, not expanding outward. That is if neutrons enter alphas after the alpha protons assemble. I think Miles showed neutrons entering between the protons for Deuterium and/or Oxygen 17. That would presumably only occur in a star. However, I read some years ago that something like 5,000 neutrons form per cubic meter of lightning.

What would become of such neutrons? I've read that neutron half-life is anywhere from 11 to 15 minutes. Well, Wikipedia says 10.2 minutes.

What "attracts" neutrons to alphas? It seems that the proton poles have low pressure, which also attracts electrons (and the poles of other protons). I guess neutron poles would have high pressure, since they emit charge there. Maybe one pole has low pressure to attract charge and the other emits it. Or would the neutron be able to absorb charge everywhere but at the poles? (Electron poles should have low pressure, while nectron [neutral electron] poles should have high pressure. So maybe nectrons would not be attracted to protons as strongly as electrons are.)

Proton disk: It's always bothered me that the disk isn't physically part of the proton. It's just an emission. Why can't the proton have a physical disk shape?

Mass: Wouldn't the extra mass of each spin level be due to torque, which is mass times radius?

Images: By the way, would it be worthwhile to have more images posted at https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t215-images-of-photons-atoms-etc ? If so, should they be organized? We who are admins here are able to edit posts at any time, such as for reorganizing.

LloydK wrote:
Proton emission disk: planar, not expanding outward. That is if neutrons enter alphas after the alpha protons assemble. I think Miles showed neutrons entering between the protons for Deuterium and/or Oxygen 17. That would presumably only occur in a star. However, I read some years ago that something like 5,000 neutrons form per cubic meter of lightning.

What would become of such neutrons? I've read that neutron half-life is anywhere from 11 to 15 minutes. Well, Wikipedia says 10.2 minutes.

I was under the impression that the neutrons were already between the protons when the stack is formed and get trapped in there. I don't see how they could get in there after the stack is built. There is too much outward pressure from the emission of the protons.

With respect to neutrons forming in lightning, I would assume at this point that they aren't so much created, although that may be possible, but they are liberated from elements in the path of the lightning. Of course, there is a hell of a lot of charge in a lightning strike, so I won't say that can't change particles. Is there any evidence that other particles are also created? If not, why only neutrons? Maybe the lightning converts electrons into neutrons but if it could do that then I would also assume that it can convert smaller particles into electrons. Maybe there aren't enough particles slightly smaller than an electron to convert. Maybe it does create electrons but since the mainstream assumes that electrical charge is the motion of electrons, they just expect them to be there and don't think about where they came from.

LloydK wrote:
Proton disk: It's always bothered me that the disk isn't physically part of the proton. It's just an emission. Why can't the proton have a physical disk shape?

Because you don't get electrical and magnetic properties from a disc but you do from charge emission that can spin. In many ways it does act like a disc, but a very special disc indeed. A disc would not give you a torque, but the emission can through its spin. A disc does not provide any force, but the emission can through its linear velocity (and its spin).

LloydK wrote:
Mass: Wouldn't the extra mass of each spin level be due to torque, which is mass times radius?

The torque is due to the mass, it says it right there in your equation. Torque is actually radius x force (and force is mass x acceleration), so the force is already present and torque just gives you the rotational component of that force given a radius.

LloydK wrote:
Images: By the way, would it be worthwhile to have more images posted at https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t215-images-of-photons-atoms-etc ? If so, should they be organized? We who are admins here are able to edit posts at any time, such as for reorganizing.

I'm not a fan of changing other peoples posts or even my own, for that matter. What I post is what I said at the time and if I want to point out an error, then I might add a new section (clearly denoted) showing the error and the correction to it. However, that thread is mostly your posts, at least the ones containing images, so you can re-arrange them if you think it will help, as long as it doesn't change the discussion around them.

.
This is a hybrid post. The top part replaces comments I made that were unintentionally deleted.

LloydK. Neutron charge: .63 times the Proton charge. That's what I recall Miles calculating it to be. Nevyn said .6, so I think I'm recalling correctly.
Airman. That sounds right to me.

LloydK. Proton emission disk: planar, not expanding outward. That is if neutrons enter alphas after the alpha protons assemble. I think Miles showed neutrons entering between the protons for Deuterium and/or Oxygen 17. That would presumably only occur in a star. However, I read some years ago that something like 5,000 neutrons form per cubic meter of lightning.
Airman. Protons may pair without neutrons, but they are not stable; the proton/proton bond alone cannot prevent the mutual emissions from crossing each other and breaking the pair of protons apart.
Where did you hear 5,000 neutrons form per cubic meter of lightning? I suppose I could buy the idea of neutrons forming pairs far easier than protons since there aren’t any equatorial emissions crossing to break the pair apart. Neutron strings sound feasible, but what kind of charge field could allow such a string to form. I've convinced myself lightning forms from electrons, and not from proton/neutron matter. I would welcome additional discussion here.  

LloydK. What would become of such neutrons? I've read that neutron half-life is anywhere from 11 to 15 minutes. Well, Wikipedia says 10.2 minutes.
Airman. As I understand it, after 11 minutes or so, there’s a 50/50 chance that a high energy photon impacted the neutron, causing the loss of the neutron’s outside spin. It's no longer a neutron, but it is still the most massive form of electron. All it needs is another collision which might turn it into either a proton or a neutron again.

LloydK. What "attracts" neutrons to alphas? It seems that the proton poles have low pressure, which also attracts electrons (and the poles of other protons). I guess neutron poles would have high pressure, since they emit charge there. Maybe one pole has low pressure to attract charge and the other emits it. Or would the neutron be able to absorb charge everywhere but at the poles? (Electron poles should have low pressure, while nectron [neutral electron] poles should have high pressure. So maybe nectrons would not be attracted to protons as strongly as electrons are.)
Airman. I agree with you that under certain favorable conditions, protons can pair – pole to pole, as well as neutrons. It seems to me, proton neutron pairs would form the most stable pairs. Photons arrive from all directions - the proton converts that traffic into equatorial emissions. The neutron converts the same traffic into a linear emission. I believe the equatorial emission of a single proton is less than the proton emission from a proton/neutron pair; the neutron increases the proton’s output. Favorable conditions generally mean the particles can approach most closely pole to pole. I don’t think we need stars to provide enough energy to create alphas. Nectrons and positrons are part of the family - lots of strange bonding going on.

LloydK. Proton disk: It's always bothered me that the disk isn't physically part of the proton. It's just an emission. Why can't the proton have a physical disk shape?
Airman. We haven’t really observed the proton, so we can say for certain. Since the proton is supposed to be an A spin particle, it should be spherical. Its rapid spin results in the equatorial emissions of recycling photons. The disk identifies the proton’s equatorial spin orientation.  

LloydK. Mass: Wouldn't the extra mass of each spin level be due to torque, which is mass times radius?
Airman. Stacked spins are radius doublings. Torque is a mechanical idea that doesn’t seem right. Gyroscopic torque perhaps? Since our MJV discussions I’ve believed mass is a function of motion.    

LloydK. Images: By the way, would it be worthwhile to have more images posted at https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t215-images-of-photons-atoms-etc ? If so, should they be organized? We who are admins here are able to edit posts at any time, such as for reorganizing.
Airman. Are you volunteering?
.
/////////////////////////// End of Restored Post //////////////////////////////////////

The following are Lloyd's comments.

Thanks, you guys, for the replies.

Airman said: "I've convinced myself lightning forms from electrons, and not from proton/neutron matter. I would welcome additional discussion here."
I think Charles Chandler agrees and he is one of the foremost experts on lightning, tornadoes etc IMO.
- In the "Aether Battery Iron Sun Theory" thread, upriver wrote: "The larger the discharge, i.e. the more surface it covers, the higher the apparent temperature?"
CharlesChandler on Sun May 01, 2016 10:14 pm said: "It's more complicated than that, especially as the discharge progresses. The charged particles are rapidly accelerated once the resistance starts breaking down. Collisions inside the discharge channel become violent, and the channel is cleared of all remaining particles. This removes the remaining resistance. Electrons in terrestrial lightning are accelerated to 10% of the speed of light in less than 1/1000 of a second, in a channel less than 10 cm in diameter. Approaching the speed of light, the magnetic pinch further consolidates the charge stream. So the discharge channel isn't large. But the footpoints at both ends can be large, where the main trunk branches into the surrounding medium (like a Lichtenberg Figure). The temperature during a terrestrial lightning is around 2500 degrees C, but the highest temperature occurs after the discharge, when the channel collapses, creating sonoluminescence [photons - LK] along the axis of the channel. Then the temp jumps up to 25,000 degrees C. This [channel collapse - LK] is what causes thunder."
- In the "Electric Sun Discussions" thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=67442&sid=7be657ee85855b1dd0b57ae94f3894bd#p67212
on Jun 15, 2012 8:43 am I quoted CC from our earlier discussion: "Yes, positive and negative lightning are both electrons streams. In negative lightning, the cloud is negative and the Earth has an induced positive charge, while in positive lightning, it’s the other way around. But the way the stepped leaders advance from the main negative charge (in the cloud or in the ground) is more or less the same either way."
- Charles discussed lightning some more on Sat Jun 28, 2014 here: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=96945&sid=33001b4ae5179881e5701f6fca995c48#p97008
- and on Mon Nov 12, 2012 here:
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=72763&sid=1091b580c04a66e69ac0205fdbaa156c#p72799

Airman said: "I don’t think we need stars to provide enough energy to create alphas. Nectrons and positrons are part of the family - lots of strange bonding going on." 
Miles put element creation in the Sun, starting with Deuterium, which I think is a necessary step to Helium or Alpha particles.

You both say the proton disk is an emission disk from a spherical proton.
I don't see why a disk-shaped proton shouldn't be just as good at having equatorial emission as a spherical proton. The two neutrons between two spinning proton disks of the Alpha would not have any way to steady the protons, if the protons are spheres and the disks are just emitted photons. Once the photons exit the proton equator, they should have no way to leverage the proton to hold it steady. But if the protons are disk-shaped particles, then they would be unable to tilt beyond the top or bottom of either neutron. So the neutrons would logically then be able to hold the protons steady.

Airman asked where I got the info about neutrons produced by lightning.
Here's a slightly long answer.
On Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:20 pm in the "Sun model and discharge cause" thread at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=78327&sid=d0b32f9a0e2d2d52801e684bf4024640#p78238
I said in part:
"I suppose fusion probably produces different elements or particles under different conditions. In another thread we're discussing fusion in supernovae producing many or all of the elements. In the Electric Sun Discussions last summer, I found a claim that lightning produces neutrons. That appears to be a fusion process too. I posted the following [on July 12, 2012] at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6124&start=30#p68202 :
LK2A) http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/nuclear-lightening/ says “new data show that up to 5000 neutrons per cubic meter [per second] are produced every second by lightning strikes [on Earth].” It’s from “Strong Flux of Low-Energy Neutrons Produced by Thunderstorms” at http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i12/e125001 ."
- That's an abstract with a pay wall, but I think it originally included the above info.
- Here are more mentions of the same info: https://www.google.com/search?q=5%2C000+neutrons+per+cubic+meter+lightning&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
- I repeated that on Oct 29, 2015 at https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=108745&sid=92311fb4af5b3e8454dd6b5c5059a758#p108827
and I added a few more comments on that thread.

Airman asked if I volunteer to upload images.
I'd consider doing that. Do yous have a wishlist? If so, I'll look at it and see what I can do. No promises.

What the hell is going on around here?

First Cr6 replied to my post and overwrote it and now it appears that Lloyd has done the same to Airman.

I was willing to think Cr6 just pressed the wrong button but now that it has happened twice, involving 2 different people each time, I feel it might be a bug in the forum software.

Can Cr6 and Lloyd confirm their actions please? Did you intend to change the original posts or was it a mistake? Do you remember if you used the cite button or not? Did you try to send the post and the system told you there was already another post added before you did and therefore to verify your post? Were you working in a desktop browser or on a phone, tablet, etc?

I regularly use the cite button and it doesn't seem to be affecting my posts so maybe it is something else.

Lloyd wrote:I don't see why a disk-shaped proton shouldn't be just as good at having equatorial emission as a spherical proton. The two neutrons between two spinning proton disks of the Alpha would not have any way to steady the protons, if the protons are spheres and the disks are just emitted photons. Once the photons exit the proton equator, they should have no way to leverage the proton to hold it steady. But if the protons are disk-shaped particles, then they would be unable to tilt beyond the top or bottom of either neutron. So the neutrons would logically then be able to hold the protons steady.

The neutrons can steady the protons and make then turn/tilt/etc, because if the neutrons get in the way of the protons charge emission, that emission will start to affect the next lot of charge emission and this can back up to the proton itself, causing it to re-orient itself in response. The closer the neutrons are to the protons the quicker and easier it is for this effect to occur.

Another way to look at it is that the neutrons get in the way of some charge emission which causes that emission to fly off in a different direction. This leaves that part of the emission field empty, or at least less dense, which allows the ambient field (and other particles) to rush in and affect the proton (and the neutron).

It could even be a mixture of the two.

Regarding the proton disk, it is a construct in Mathis's theory to visualize the proton's emission (and the electron's, on a smaller scale). In none of our models is the proton a sphere, though we often represent it like that - because its motions are confined to increasing spin "spheres of influence" which are vaguely spherical. The proton is definitely not a disk, in mine nor Nevyn's nor Mathis's models. That said, Nevyn's are much more defined than mine and way ahead. I'd defer to the shapes his spin stack simulators create, over mine, for any accuracy.

A quick review of the shape mine were tracing:



Regarding the neutron, I feel like we're making progress but also introducing some confusions. Here was Mathis's old model of the alpha, from the Anti-helium paper:



Here is his more recent model, from the deuterium/tritium paper:



And my video attempt at that model, again for quick access:
https://vimeo.com/157484485



So the protons are aligned with the neutrons charge in two ways, in and out. The neutrons are kinda "locked in", there. If they try to float around too much, their incoming charge stream realigns them. They don't really need any other leverage from the protons, and as far as Mathis has written it seems like he's saying neutrons aren't inserted into He4, but rather it's built via fusion of two H2s inside of stars (or wherever, maybe even lightning can fuse helium?). So Nevyn was also correct (per the theory as I understand it) that the proton's emission would repel incoming neutrons in most cases - that is to say, an He3 atom isn't becoming an He4 by simply slamming another neutron in there. He4 alphas are built top to bottom.



The protons don't really need to leverage the neutron with their emission disks, in this configuration. It's the through-charge that is holding the neutrons there. The protons don't tilt much also because of this through charge, since they're receiving it from both ends - ambient up top, neutron on bottom.

Given that the proton isn't a sphere OR a disk, if it does tilt due to a collision it would very quickly recorrect itself, simply because so much charge is coming through from either end. Does this make sense?

Nevyn said:

Can Cr6 and Lloyd confirm their actions please? Did you intend to change the original posts or was it a mistake? Do you remember if you used the cite button or not? Did you try to send the post and the system told you there was already another post added before you did and therefore to verify your post? Were you working in a desktop browser or on a phone, tablet, etc?

I regularly use the cite button and it doesn't seem to be affecting my posts so maybe it is something else.

I'm sorry I screwed that up. I meant to click on Citer, but I obviously clicked on Editer instead. So I thought I was writing a Reply with a quote of Airman's post, but I was editing his post instead.

Maybe Cr6 or someone else should allow only one Admin to be able to edit other's posts and let anyone else who should be additional Admins to know the Admin's password.

That's cool. Thanks for letting us know how it happened. I thought when it happened twice that it must be something other than human error and went straight into debug mode.

Note. I've reposted the unintentionally deleted comments from my previous post above.
.

LloydK wrote:Airman said: "I've convinced myself lightning forms from electrons, and not from proton/neutron matter. I would welcome additional discussion here."
I think Charles Chandler agrees and he is one of the foremost experts on lightning, tornadoes etc IMO.

Thanks for the comment and info Lloyd. I greatly respect Charles' expert knowledge and efforts to explain Lightning and Tornadoes. As you know, in my opinion, he has been handicapped by classical theory that doesn't acknowledge existence of the charge field. I have nowhere near command of the facts that he does, nevertheless I feel I'm close to coming up with a charge field explanation for Lightning.
 
A volume of atmospheric gas contains x,y,z,…, molecules and atoms. It’s well known that simple movement between large air masses causes the release of predictable numbers of electrons, correlating to electrostatic energy and resistivity of the air. When an electron is removed from an atom (or molecule), say by a random collision with a high energy photon, the atom is said to be ionized.

According to Miles’ charge field theory, an electron removed from an atom exposes one of the atom’s high energy nuclear charge channels. These channels of coherent photons easily accelerate passing electrons (and positrons) and may also ionize any neighboring proton matter crossing its path. Exposed high charge current output channels are blocked by electrons flowing into the proton’s charge intake channel, thereby de-ionizing the proton. In accord with the rarefied medium, proton matter present, temperature and pressure (charge field conditions), equilibrium is reached.

Areas of high moisture are particularly interesting since water saturated air provides a large source of proton matter, including bound electrons. (Water as fuel). High moisture, high speed moving air masses cause plenty of ionizations. In some areas, ionizations occur faster than de-ionizations, further raising the ambient energy. The high number of exposed coherent channels accelerate free electrons to higher average velocities and energies. Increased ionizations causing wind differentials, causing increased ionization by exposing larger areas to the coherent charge streams. A cascading system.

Meanwhile, electrons are in a high energy, high pressure state. Given their additional energies, they clear areas of smaller atoms which results in a partial proton/neutron vacuum. The resulting higher than average density of smaller atoms pushed toward the periphery form walls of increased charge density, electron boundaries. High speed electrons directly crossing into lower energy areas may only travel a small distance, perhaps less than foot or just a few inches– I suppose, before being stopped by the denser photon field outside, surrounding the ‘hotter’ coherent channel areas. Briefly stuck at the boundary, the electron is still available and will likely rejoin the high energy electron group even if the ionization doesn’t spread its way. The electrons cannot escape as long as they are in proximity of the ionized matter.

At some point, the hot ionized area may come into contact with say the earth.

It's the end of another day, I’ll save that for another post.  
.

Airman, do you have reason to doubt the speed of the electrons that Charles mentioned, i.e. 10% of light speed? He has also mentioned on occasion the strength of the electric field in thunderstorms. I think he said something like 2 million volts per meter, I guess.

Nevyn said: "With respect to neutrons forming in lightning, I would assume at this point that they aren't so much created, although that may be possible, but they are liberated from elements in the path of the lightning. Of course, there is a hell of a lot of charge in a lightning strike, so I won't say that can't change particles. Is there any evidence that other particles are also created?"

I never previously thought about where the neutrons would come from in lightning. I think I assumed like you that they came from atoms in the vicinity. I haven't heard about protons forming from lightning, but from what Charles said, it sounds like electrons are also produced. I'm pretty sure Charles would say by ionization, which I guess the electric field could do.

That can't be right. Dr Emit Brown said there were 1.21 Gigawatts in a bolt of lightning!

Does that mean the current is 600 Amps?

PS, I edited my previous post.

I don't know if that 1.21GW is correct or not, but if it is, then yes, the current would be around 600A.

LloydK wrote:I never previously thought about where the neutrons would come from in lightning. I think I assumed like you that they came from atoms in the vicinity. I haven't heard about protons forming from lightning, but from what Charles said, it sounds like electrons are also produced. I'm pretty sure Charles would say by ionization, which I guess the electric field could do.

If the neutrons did come from atoms, then I would expect a lot of debris. For every neutron there should be a corresponding proton and an electron or two (assuming it is alphas getting broken down into their parts since atoms are mostly made of alphas). I haven't looked that hard at lightning before so I don't know if my assumptions are on the right path or not, I was just playing with what you had said.

I have some high-speed videos of lightning strikes and you can clearly see the charge field expanding out in a sphere, searching for a path. Little leaders find potential paths and stop and eventually one of them finds the right path and the charge explodes down it. Very interesting stuff and good evidence of the charge field.

Now I found this at Phys.org (and I didn't realize there's so much Deuterium on Earth; oh, they also tell us where free neutrons go, i.e. into nitrogen molecules).

Neutrons Born In Lightning
September 21, 2005

To produce thermonuclear reaction it is necessary, firstly, to have nuclei with a large quantity of neutrons available, for example, deuterium nuclei, and secondly, these nuclei should possess sufficiently high velocity and merge together upon collision, having overcome the Coulomb barrier. It turns out that all these conditions are observed in the course of a stroke of lightning - such a conslusion is evident from calculations by B.M. Kuzhevsky, Ph.D., head of the neutron research laboratory, Skobeltsin Scientific Research Institute of Nuclear Physics (Moscow State University).

Deuterium is always present in water: on average, a molecule of DHO (water, where one of hydrogen atoms is replaced by deuterium) falls to 6,800 molecules of H2O. That means - taking into account the quantity of water vapour available in the atmosphere (i.e. 5х10^-4 g/cubic centimeter) - there will be 10^15 deuterium atoms per cubic centimeter. In lightning, these atoms turn into ions and are capable of gathering speed up to considerable energy.

With the lightning canal diameter varying from 2 millimeters to 5 centimeters, and discharge duration making the ten-thousandth of a second, it proves that billions of deuterium atoms will have time to start reacting with each other and to generate precisely two times less atoms of helium-3 and neutrons. These neutrons already possess enormous energy - 2.45 MeV. However, in the atmosphere of our planet they are capable of living at most for 0.2 seconds, during which they will inevitably meet with nitrogen atoms and be absorbed by them. This time period is sufficient for neutrons to fly a distance of one or two kilometers.

The calculation has been also confirmed by experimental data. The DYAIZA facility developed at the Institute and installed in Moscow at the Vorobyevy Hills repeatedly recorded neutron emission peaks during thunderstorms, their magnitude exceeding that of the background by hundreds of times.

Several important conclusions can be drawn from the above effort. Firstly, this helps to solve a long-standing puzzle: why cosmonauts on board the MIR space station observed high neutron background in the area of the equator. Keeping in mind that thunderstorms permanently burst out in this region, it is easy to guess where high neutron background comes from. Secondly, the same mechanism should also work in the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter where thunderstorms are also frequent and sporadic neutron streams should arise there. That means that investigation of these planets' neutron emission should take into account this particular fact not to confuse by accident "thundery" neutrons with some other neutrons.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2005-09-neutrons-born-lightning.html#jCp

Several important conclusions can be drawn from the above effort. Firstly, this helps to solve a long-standing puzzle: why cosmonauts on board the MIR space station observed high neutron background in the area of the equator. Keeping in mind that thunderstorms permanently burst out in this region, it is easy to guess where high neutron background comes from. Secondly, the same mechanism should also work in the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter where thunderstorms are also frequent and sporadic neutron streams should arise there. That means that investigation of these planets' neutron emission should take into account this particular fact not to confuse by accident "thundery" neutrons with some other neutrons.

I would think that if these neutrons were coming from lightning strikes, then it would be pretty obvious to someone on a space station. Just look down! Not trying to say that lightning does not produce neutrons, but that statement is very weak. MIR records high neutron counts above the equator and storms happen more on the equator therefore the storms must produce those neutrons. I'm sure the storms do produce some of them but given Miles equatorial emission model, we have something else that can push neutrons up over the equator. Remember that the Earth's charge emission is high enough to push Helium out of the atmosphere, so it certainly can push neutrons.

If I was in charge of these missions and got that data back, then I would want to perform an experiment that measures the neutron count and looks for storm activity at the same time. Seems pretty easy to me. Correlation is not causation and a scientist is supposed to differentiate between the two.

I also like the way that paragraph goes from drawing conclusions to guessing to fact.

.
I thought I was going to just carry on but it seems we have some discussion. 1.21GigaWatts! I haven't caught up on the latest here yet.

Lloyd said. Airman, do you have reason to doubt the speed of the electrons that Charles mentioned, i.e. 10% of light speed? He has also mentioned on occasion the strength of the electric field in thunderstorms. I think he said something like 2 million volts per meter, I guess.

I don’t doubt it. What makes you think I do? I believe electrons ejected by solar flares can reach 0.3 c, but that’s in space. Single electrons traveling at 0.1 c are quickly stopped by the atmosphere. Like firing shot into sand, it doesn’t go very deep. Within the channels, electrons reach high speeds because the smaller atoms were pushed aside. I didn't get to the highest velocities during the actual lightning strike yet.


I mentioned water as fuel above; I meant water was bringing a loose electron to the party. Water, the left side configuration, has an electron at the very top. When water is ionized, that is the first electron lost. When things get really hot, Miles’ suggests the molecule will assume the form on the right. We have a high energy configuration to liven things up. Those top vertical channels are the exposed coherent charge channels I’ve mostly been referring to above. I don't believe there's any fission going on. If Water were to break, we would have 2 Hydrogens and an Oxygen, sure, but also, all the electrons bonded to the original molecule would be blown away; all new elements would have wide open charge channels, very, very hot. Maybe some of that does happen, I doubt it. Most of the debris are free electrons. The high energy areas are chock full of electrons. 

Here's a high speed lightning video. Sorry, just an image. I believe my description is consistent with what I see.

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120723.html

Lightning Captured at 7,207 Images per Second
Video Credit & Copyright: Tom A. Warner, ZTResearch, www.weathervideoHD.TV
Explanation: How fast is lightning? Lightning, in fact, moves not only too fast for humans to see, but so fast that humans can't even tell which direction it is moving. The above lightning stroke did not move too fast, however, for this extremely high time resolution video to resolve. Tracking at an incredible 7,207 frames per second, actual time can be seen progressing at the video bottom. The above lightning bolt starts with many simultaneously creating ionized channels branching out from an negatively charged pool of electrons and ions that has somehow been created by drafts and collisions in a rain cloud. About 0.015 seconds after appearing -- which takes about 3 seconds in the above time-lapse video -- one of the meandering charge leaders makes contact with a suddenly appearing positive spike moving up from the ground and an ionized channel of air is created that instantly acts like a wire. Immediately afterwards, this hot channel pulses with a tremendous amount of charges shooting back and forth between the cloud and the ground, creating a dangerous explosion that is later heard as thunder. Much remains unknown about lightning, however, including details of the mechanism that separates charges.

.

That video is pretty cool. You can see that one of those initial tendrils makes a connection to the ground and THEN the big bolt comes blazing through.

.
Slow motion lightning is fascinating. If there’s strong evidence for the charge field here, we should be trying to find some and convince CC classical theory just won't do. Please feel free to correct as necessary.

Lightning, A charge field explanation.

Let's consider the video. In this particular lightning strike event, we see ionizations begins from the top left. At first, it isn’t gradual. I believe that indicates a large shift of high speed electrons from the much larger volume of ionized air above were stopped at the boundary of the cooler mass of air in our view. Again, they weren’t stopped really, they’ve just slowed to normal atmospheric velocities. The initial event has, however, started a clear progression of ionizations, expanding an area like a constantly increasing radius. We have the suggestion of the Lichtenberg pattern. What is growing here?

Ionizations are constantly expanding the hot volume’s surface outward. As atoms within the cool side of the boundary are ionized, each additional molecular ionization means a new electron is released, and a new coherent channel is opened, which sometimes extends the boundary outward. Of course it is the photons within the coherent charge channels that do most of the work clearing the channels of atoms, and also re-accelerating increasing numbers of free electrons that were previously high speed, previously reduced to atmospheric velocities on the cold side of the previous boundary. I suppose that means that electrons traveling at high speeds in ionized areas would tend to accumulate at the cool edge boundaries. Not in uniform distributions, instead forming patterns reflecting their final trajectories. Electrons can sometimes bunch together, and react as groups.

The ionization progression is a chain reaction. Electrons are being separated from protons and then widely displaced, with no chance of rejoining their nuclei. The air, in thrall to the high energy ionized water molecules, is experiencing a phase transition to a state of less bounded electrons. The equilibrium involves a maximum number of exposed, first level ionization, exposed high energy coherent charge channels versus electron availability to block those channels.

Each electron is a charged particle which recycles photons. The electron’s channels are wide open, a thousand times less charge channel current than a proton, still, it doesn’t take a huge amount of electrons before they are seen as a bright dot or streak in the dark. Most of the initial electron motion that occurred in the cloud was invisible to us, but the video shows quite well, the leaders, the extent of the ionization, the moment ionization touched the earth.

The release of electrons lights up the sky. The earth’s surface is comprised of proton matter and bound electrons far denser than any found in the atmosphere and they are released in far greater abundance. These electrons enter the ionized areas via an explosive increase in the number of exposed channels between the earth and ionized air above. A widening area, millimeters up to centimeters. The lightning strike will continue, perhaps wax and wane, until large ionized areas within the cloud, including the protons comprising the lightning bolt itself, are de-ionized.

The great abundance of earth electrons ensures that the electron reduction process that occurred in the cloud cannot happen on the earth’s surface. After a lightning strike, if the cloud still has moisture, ionization may resume. If not, the cycle is broken, eventually the majority of energized atoms and molecules will assemble their usual complement of electrons, under the given pressure and temperature, charge field conditions present. I expect the majority of extra electrons present will eventually return to the earth’s surface.

With respect to neutrons. Obviously I hadn’t given the subject any thought before. Lightning involves super abundances of electrons. For all intents and purposes, the neutron may be considered the largest possible electron. All the high velocities ensures many electrons will be gaining spins and energy, up to and including neutrons. I also believe there might be a high amount of neutrons released from proton bonds. Of course this is a scientific confirm-able fact, although it now seems to make perfect sense seeing an increased number of neutrons after a lightning strike.
.

That's pretty good, Airman, but it sounds a bit too mainstream for my liking. I'll take a stab at it and see where it leads.

Before the video starts, we have a dense cloud that is blocking and storing the Earth's charge field. When it gets dense enough, charge expands out and starts to break down molecules in the atmosphere. This releases their stored up energy causing other molecules to break, leading to a chain reaction like a slow motion explosion. More charge comes down from the cloud and more molecules break down.

At the start of the video, we see an explosion of visible light photons. Enough to overwhelm the camera. The IR field has been spun up into visible light. As this charge explosion travels out in a sphere, it strikes atoms in the atmosphere: Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Helium and various compounds containing them. The molecules will break down and some new, temporary, molecules will be created. These aren't normal molecules that would form naturally but molecules that can support the new charge fields these atoms find themselves in. Oxygen atoms will bond together into chains, much like Hydrocarbons, and these Oxygen chains can channel a lot of charge.

The atoms are feeling a lot of charge coming from multiple directions. Their outer-most electrons are liberated and they start to channel more charge and bonding with other atoms and channeling even more charge. We see this as bright patches. Each channel allows more charge to escape from the cloud, which it really wants to do, and so the channels become semi-permanent. The ends of these chains represent strong charge emission points and will affect the nearby atoms and molecules, causing a new branch to be created.

These atoms were previously aligned to the Earth's charge field and suddenly feel a stronger, more energetic, charge field and so they must re-orient themselves to this new field. This is part of what causes the zig-zag nature of lightning. The atoms may be mid-turn when they bond with, or are in channel coherence with, a leader.

I just coined the term channel coherence which is a distant bond between atoms or, most likely, molecules. The channeled charge is so strong that the bond can form considerably further away than normal. This allows a bit more flexibility in the directions of the bonding objects and we end up with a zip-zag. Basically, the charge will go to the first new channel that can support it, whether it is nicely aligned or not.

This continues on, mostly in a downward direction but we do see some channels moving back up. Eventually, one of the channels touches the Earth and at this point, we have the possibility of two events. If the cloud is denser, with respect to charge, than the Earth, then the cloud will expel its energy into the Earth. It is more likely that the Earth is more dense, and can emit more charge at the point to connection, so it will actually take over the channel and emit its own charge up into the cloud. That is what we see in this video.

Now the Earth is a giver, and that cloud is no match for all of that compressed charge. The cloud can't contain it and most of it just keeps going up, through the cloud and up into the higher atmosphere. This can cause interactions with the particles in the upper atmosphere much like an aurora. These have been photographed from space.

A good question is 'Why does it stop? Once the channels are open, why would they close?' and my answer is two things. First is the coherent bonds between molecules, which are quite weak, and the huge charge density coming up from the Earth will eventually break some of them. New bonds will form and this can give the lightning a pulsing behavior. The other is that the Earth itself will run out of charge in the region of the connection point. The Earth will fill it back in but it can't do that at the rate that it is escaping while connected to the cloud.

It could probably do with a bit more work, I'm just writing off the top of my head, but that is how I see it.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Each electron is a charged particle which recycles photons. The electron’s channels are wide open, a thousand times less charge channel current than a proton, still, it doesn’t take a huge amount of electrons before they are seen as a bright dot or streak in the dark...

The release of electrons lights up the sky...

Electrons don't light up anything, only photons do. The electrons may be emitting those photons or spinning them up into visibility, but our eyes don't see electrons and electrons don't move anywhere near light speed. I know you didn't really mean to say that we're seeing electrons, but the phrasing was a bit imprecise there. I'm certain our eyes can detect electrons, but we don't "see" them. They impact and transfer energy, but don't pass into the receptors and on to the brain as light or color (as far as I understand).

It's often amusing to me that mainstream physics doesn't even believe in the particle which allows them to see at all in the first place. "It has no mass! It's virtual!"

I like your theory for the most part, though I feel Nevyn's is a bit more accurate and descriptive of the process. The "boundaries" in your description bother me, since I don't understand them very well. Much like "double layers", it seems like there's a lot missing to the theory - which Nevyn's pretty much does away with entirely, in this case. Don't take this personally - it's my own problem that I haven't studied boundaries and layers enough, but what I have seen and read (especially in the EU stuff) they're simply replacing the physics with "double layers" and "boundaries" as a band-aid to the theory. I'm not saying these things don't exist or happen, just that I think they're caused by charge effects and the EU people of course always miss that connection. I still find it hilarious that Thornhill and Scott and those guys still can't tell us what electricity is, despite being among the foremost electrical engineers in that paradigm.

Jared, I understand that desire to get below such abstract terms and that is totally why I kept searching for something else after finding the EU. I liked what they were doing but needed to go below it. I haven't tried to go back up the chain that far and figure out the EU in Mathis theory, it's enough trying to figure out the mainstream. Actually, it's enough just trying to figure out Miles' work. I do like it when these kinds of discussions get me thinking like that though. It's a good way to consolidate what you know and I can get stuck in my apps, trying to figure out the intricacies of Miles' work, that I don't do it often enough.

I've generally thought that double layers and boundaries and bow shocks are just charge fields meeting. They probably differ by the size of the charge photons or possibly charge density. When I first starting reading the EU and came across double layers, I interpreted that as a field moving outward into a field moving inwards, way before I ever heard of Miles. That's probably why I liked his work so much, it went along with what I was already thinking and went much deeper than I could have gone myself.

We should analyze double layers a bit more closely. Are they truly spherical or are they stronger at the equator? Does this differ by size where the atomic/molecular level is more equatorial but planets and stars are more spherical? How does photon radius affect a double layer? What sorts of particles can be generated by a double layer? How does that equate to the charge photon sizes?

It seems like an interesting thing to model and build an app around.

I've read about double layers for years, way before discovering Mathis, and it still doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. It's really tenuous, nebulous, and fuzzy. It kinda stinks of, well, fiction. Maybe fiction isn't the right word, but what's double about it? We have two layers, but they aren't doubled at all, since they're different. If we had two layers of earth, say topsoil and bedrock, we wouldn't call that a double layer.

Not to say we shouldn't dig in wherever possible, especially in understanding electrical effects. I just can't find anything really useful or helpful about DLs.

We have this picture:


And then piles of writing that doesn't really tell us much about it. Why are the electrons and protons separating? What is causing them to stay apart? We can assume photons, since even in the mainstream they call them charged layers. So do the photons (charge) get sandwiched between the electrons and protons somehow, and since they have chirality the electrons are being pushed one way and the protons another way?

Particle acceleration: The potential drop across the double layer will accelerate electrons and positive ions in opposite directions. The magnitude of the potential drop determines the acceleration of the charged particles. In strong double layers, this will result in beams or jets of charged particles.

(from the Plasma Universe Wiki) https://www.plasma-universe.com/Double_layer#Double_layer_formation_mechanisms

So is the spin of those transversal traveling photons pushing the larger particles in different directions? Is their spin then being imparted to other incoming particles?

Particle populations: As described in the formation of double layers, there are four populations of charge particles inside a double layer (1) Free electrons that are accelerated across the double layer (2) Free positive ions that are accelerated in the opposite direction across the double layer (3) Reflected electrons that approach the double layer, but are reflected back and counter stream away (4) Reflected positive ions that approach the double layer, but are reflected back and counter stream away. Note that in the case of weak double layers not all electrons and ions entering "from the wrong side" will be reflected, and therefore there will also be a population of decelerated electrons and ions.

(from the same page)

As we can see, they still don't even know what "charge" is there. They call the electrons and positrons and whatnot "charge particles", when it should be "charged". It's kinda flimsy, you know?

In Mathis's theory, we almost always have electrons and protons following the charge photons. If we apply that concept to DLs, then the electrons and protons and other particles should be following charge streams, but where are they? What would cause charge to separate into three or more layers like this? (electron layer, photon layer, proton layer) and wouldn't that actually be a triple layer, not a double?

I admit I don't know much about this, despite reading everything I could find on it for five years. If my attitude towards Dls seems sour, that would be because it is. When a theory doesn't make much sense to me, and is used constantly as a mechanism to bolster a larger set of theories (EU), but there's no mechanism underlying it FROM those people, I get a little iffy.

.
Lightning - charge field explanations.

Ideas are still being accepted.

Nevyn’s included thoughts I’ve never imagined and am still trying to process. Like forming high energy chains, … .

Jared, Artist/architects are always working up visions. Don’t be shy, give us yours.
 
Maybe someone else will have something to add.

An orderly review of ideas presented should follow.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.
Hi Lloyd, Looks like I got off easy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jared Magneson wrote:

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

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

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

Jared Magneson wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that boat has already sailed!

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

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

So, what am I saying? Who knows. Just go for it!

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

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

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



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

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

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

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





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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

.

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

Do I understand so far?

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

I don't like the mingling idea: 1) what keeps the neutron in place? 2) I don't see such mingling as supplying any anticharge back to the neutron, 3) I thought mingling was the current AV solution.

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

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

Large hole:


Small hole:


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

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

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

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

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

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

But I digress. Please continue.