Particle Drifts in Space

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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Although accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated.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

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

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

#10a. Particle Drifts in Space    (Optional)

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

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

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

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

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

Magnetic Drifts

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

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

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

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

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

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

#1. The Magnetosphere.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next #2. Magnetic Fields.
.

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



https://archive.org/details/skylab_magnetism_in_space

The Kursk Magnetic Anomaly: Magnetism’s Bermuda Triangle

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

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

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

What’s a Magnetic Anomaly in the First Place?

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

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

Why Are We Attracted to the Kursk Magnetic Anomaly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I may have a tentative answer.

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

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

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

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

Nevyn wrote:

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

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

I may have a tentative answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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


New Magnetic Materials Discovered In Ireland

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

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

How to Discover New Magnets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I may have a tentative answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

#2. Magnetic Fields.

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

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

Below, the above paragraph is repeated, only first sentence is changed.

A magnetized bar channels nuclear charge primarily in the N/S direction, the pole-to-pole main atomic axis; they are known as its north (N) and south (S) poles, because if the bar is hung by its middle from a string, its N end tends to point northwards and its S end southwards. The N end will repel the N end of another magnet, S will repel S, but N and S attract each other. The region where this is observed is loosely called a magnetic field; a more specific look at the concept of "field" is provided in a later section.

Either pole can also attract iron objects such as pins and paper clips. That is because under the influence of a nearby magnet, each pin or paper clip becomes itself a temporary magnet, with its poles arranged in a way appropriate to magnetic attraction.

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

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

It is all related to electricity.

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

It is all related to the charge field.

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

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

I’ll break the text's following paragraph into sentences.  

Matter consists of electrically charged particles: each atom consists of light, negative electrons swarming around a positive nucleus.

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

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

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

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

Free electrons are too large to travel at light speed; they still spin with a tangential light speed; they can be found almost anywhere except inside larger charged particles. Free electrons are usually pushed along by random photon collisions, usually in a slow Brownian motion, or in a drift toward a proton pole nuclear charge current intake. Atomic electrons are usually found circling a proton pole, caught in a photon charge eddy current trying to enter the proton, but too big to fit.

Objects with extra electrons are negatively (-) charged, while those missing some electrons are positively (+) charged.

There are no negative or positive charges. All photonic charge is repulsive, based on photon collisions. Electrons will show a net movement only when the charge field pushing those electrons forward shows its own net movement.  An increased number of electrons in a given area adds to the photon emissions in that area. Energetic photons or electrons can knock electrons away from their positions circling the proton poles; the atom is then ionized, this results in an increase in that atomic charge channel photon intake, causing increased through currents and an overall increased emissions and repulsion at the emission ends of the affected charge channel.

Such charging with "static electricity" may happen (sometimes unintentionally!) when objects are brushed with cloth or fur on a dry day. Experiments in the 1700s have shown that (+) repels (+), (- ) repels (-), while (+) and (-) attract each other.

One way static electricity may result is when large numbers of electrons are stripped off the materials by contact motion, thereby ionizing many atoms. The electrons’ absence leaves wide open atomic charge channel intake points. All the affected charge channels through currents increase, forming what has been described as fractal like random distributions of increased two-way lines of charge repulsion from both materials involved. The increased emissions may, in turn, cause additional ionizations of nearby material, perhaps as cascades that can lead to explosions in grain silos. The electrons affected become free, unlikely to rejoin the atoms they were previously close to. Eventually other free electrons will drift between the lines of increased charge currents, re-positioning themselves above the proton charge intake poles, and slowly de-ionize the "statically charged" surfaces.

To Be Continued.

Your inputs are appreciated.
.

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

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

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

I need to go back and reread this part.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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


Close to 1800 it was found that when the ends of a chemical "battery" were connected by a metal wire, a steady stream of electric charges flowed in that wire and heated it. That flow became known as an electric current. In a simplified view, what happens is that electrons hop from atom to atom in the metal.

Airman. As shown, the heated coil in the battery circuit produced a supply of electrons that flowed across the gap to the positive plate. If the main battery leads were switched, a flow of electrons between the coil and plate were not created. If the coil was not heated no current would flow.

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

A heated wire connected to a battery produces electrons. More importantly, the heated wire is also creating coherent, spin aligned photons Quoting #4. Electrons, our source also states.

Light, like heat, can also knock electrons out of a metal. If the heated coil in the drawing is replaced by a clean metal plate, and light shines onto it, electrons are again released, and current will flow in the circuit. The explanation of this phenomena, called the photoelectric effect, earned Albert Einstein the 1921 Nobel Prize.

Airman. Forgive me for repeating. The photoelectric effect, we've known for almost 100 years that photons can also cause an electron flow. Back to the source, with small changes.

In 1821 (see below) Hans Christian Oersted in Denmark found, unexpectedly, that such an electric current caused a compass needle to move. The needle was neither attracted to the wire nor repelled from it. Instead, it tended to stand at right angles (see drawing below). In the end he published his findings (in Latin!) without any explanation.

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

Oersted was unable to explain the results. Without benefit of the charge field, and 40 years before Maxwell would write his famous E/M field equations, Oersted had no model or theory to draw upon. I’m not at all sure I’ve given the proper explanation either.  

Andre-Marie Ampere in France soon unraveled the meaning. The fundamental nature of magnetism was not associated with magnetic poles or iron magnets, but with electric currents . The magnetic force was basically a force between electric currents (figure below):



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

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

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

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

--A CW photon meets a CCW photon from opposite directions, they meet as spinning partners with no spin differential or loss of angular momentum. The spins cannot cancel, they sideswipe, and repulsion is increased.

Here is how this can lead to the notion of magnetic poles. Bend the wires into circles with constant separation (figure below):



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

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

Replace each circle with a coil of 10, 100 or more turns, carrying the same current (figure below): the attraction or repulsion increase by an appropriate factor. In fact, each coil acts very much like a magnet with magnetic poles at each end (an "electromagnet"). Ampere guessed that each atom of iron contained a circulating current, turning it into a small magnet, and that in an iron magnet all these atomic magnets were lined up in the same direction, allowing their magnetic forces to add up.

Airman. Additional loops directly increase the number of photons, the charge density, for each coil. I imagine the only spins that could cancel in a coil would be opposing photons along the coils’ axis.  There is an attraction inside the coils, everywhere else, the coil emission field is increased.

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

Airman. Adding a core greatly increases the number of coherent photons generated, greatly adding to the electromagnet’s strength.

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

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

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

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

Feel free to discuss
.

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

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

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

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

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

Even more amazing is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did you find most interesting?
.

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

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

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

.
Cr6 wrote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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



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

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

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

Mathis in the Great Methane Stink provides a clue?

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

http://milesmathis.com/meth.pdf

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

Nice. These are great questions.

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

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

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


The aurora--a woodcut by Fridtjof Nansen

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

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

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

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

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

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

Location


Aurora observed by an imaging camera aboard DE-1

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

Color


Aurora on 6 January 1998 (Dick Hutchinson ©)

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

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

Appearance and relation to magnetism

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

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

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

Observing the aurora from space


Aurora viewed from the Space Shuttle

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

Auroras Galore

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

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

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

Feel free to share.

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

.
#3. The Polar Aurora. Discussion.

Requoting from my last post above, the last paragraph of Appearance and relation to magnetism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess I’ll carry on.
.

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.
Cr6. "..."

Airman. Do you mean continue? Why certainly.

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

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

The Auroral Zone

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

 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Magnetic_North_Pole_Positions_2015.svg/330px-Magnetic_North_Pole_Positions_2015.svg.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.
Secrets of the Polar Aurora by David P. Stern: https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/aurora.htm  

Electrons of the Aurora

To early observers, and well into the 20th century, the polar aurora was a great mystery. Not everything is solved even now--but thanks largely to space satellites, we have a fair understanding of the way the aurora is produced.

First question-- how high up is it? By comparing photographs taken from separated locations, an altitude of about 60 miles was found for the green aurora, and up to about twice as much for the red one. Clues like that led scientists to conclude that "something out there" was shooting towards us beams of fast electrons, somewhat like the ones painting the picture inside a TV picture tube.

Airman. “”Something out there” was shooting towards us beams of fast electrons, …”. We cannot see the charge field, photons are too small. Electrons are like dust in the wind. When we observe electrons in motion, we must recognize that the true source of the motion is the underlying charge field.

In a TV, electrons hit a screen, come to a stop, and their energy is converted to light. Something similar happens with the electrons that cause the aurora: they collide with atoms in the upper fringes of the atmosphere, give up their energy to those atoms and cause them to emit light.

Airman. The author stated something causes beams of electrons, those electrons then transfer their energy to atoms in the atmosphere; the atoms will then dispense the increased energy in the form of emitted light. The text hasn’t elaborated on where the electrons get their energy, other than from the Sun; instead, we are indirectly assured electrons can create aurora. A television picture tube is offered as evidence. I would think fluorescent bulbs describe aurora much better, but it's probably ignored because it doesn't depend on electrons.

Please note that the charge field is clearly filling a void in the text’s explanation. The solar wind cannot explain how charges could possibly distribute as aurora. The mainstream is looking for very high energy particles here, apparently they think only electrons can fill the bill.

Electrons do not cause aurora. Electrons and ions within the atmosphere are being energized by the intersection of equal and opposite photon flows from both Earth’s emissions and incoming solar charge.

And what are electrons? Tiny particles with negative electric charge, contained in all matter. At the center of every atom is a nucleus, containing almost all of its mass and always carrying a positive electric charge. The positive charge attracts electrons and binds them, and jointly the two types yield an ordinary atom, electrically neutral, with no excess charge of either kind. Atoms like this build up you, me, and anything we can see on Earth.

Airman. According to the charge field, electrons are charged particles. Charged particles constantly recycle real photons which move 1) forward with a linear velocity of light-speed c – the pre-electric field, and; 2) spin with a tangential velocity of c, the pre magnetic field. All charge is repulsive, photon emissions that generally prevent charged particles from approaching other charged particles too closely. There is no attractive force, all attraction is only apparent. All forces are reduced to photon collisions.

Electrons are created from photons by a series of end-over-end spin doublings. Electrons are too large to travel at c. Further spin doublings result in larger charged particles such as protons and neutrons. Planets, suns and galaxies act like charged particles. Electrons and protons are not equal and oppositely charged, the proton is 1821x larger than the electron with 1821x the charge.

The text relies on an outdated atomic model that neither Quantum Mechanics nor Quantum Electrodynamics currently support. Miles’ work with the charge field also includes new atomic models. Try going to Miles’ Physics Homepage, http://milesmathis.com/index.html and explore some of the many charge field ideas he’s described.

For example, please see,
316. Electron Bonding is a Myth. http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf  
Molecular bonding explained by the charge field instead. 8pp. By Miles Mathis.

However, sunlight can separate electrons from atoms of the gas found in space (or in the upper fringes of the atmosphere), into negative free electrons and positive "ions", atoms missing an electron or more. And because that gas is so rarefied, it can take very, very long before an electron finds a vacant nucleus and recombines again. So, free electrons are plentiful there. Still, electrons moving at 1/10 the velocity of light, like those in the aurora, need a better explanation. We will get to that, by and by.

Airman. Sunlight can knock electrons from atoms, ionizing them. I suppose high energy atoms and electrons can exist for long periods of time in the upper atmosphere. Free electrons can travel from the sun to the Earth at 0.1c, but electrons in Earth’s upper atmosphere meet far too much resistance to travel very far at that speed. The text promises to explain how electrons gain energy from the solar wind then releasing that energy into atoms of the aurora, by and by. I’ll try to show the charge field is the better explanation.    

The green and red colors are emitted by atoms of oxygen after they are hit by fast electrons. Each element emits its characteristic colors, and for rarefied oxygen, these appear to us green or red. Typically, a delay of 0.5-1 second exists between collision and the emission (in this case--not in denser surroundings!), and that is why the rays of the aurora brighten and fade so slowly. The beam of electrons which "excites" the oxygen atoms may only last a small fraction of a second, but the afterglow persists 0.5-1 seconds or more.

Airman. Within the auroral zone, electrons, as well as all charged particles including protons and atoms are being spun-up to higher than normal energy levels due to the two equal and opposite emission and incoming charge flows. The e-fields cancel while the spins add. Outside the auroral zone, the e-fields will not cancel, perhaps that is where higher than average speed electrons observed along with aurora are being created.

I can't speak to observed time delays, or how red and green emissions occur, electrons moving from one orbital to another is one old theory that I was taught as a lad. That cannot work for the old reasons given. Miles has written a couple of papers on color that may provide some additional information here.

Your comments are appreciated.
.

As far as the color goes, I think that is related to the atoms structure which the charge photons must pass through. The atoms nucleus is channeling that charge and focusing it. It is also colliding with it as the charge passes through the atom. This could alter the color by altering the spins on the photons. Colors are not just a single photon, they are many photons and they can have different spins. Different combinations create different colors (but there are 2 colors that actually belong to photons, can't remember which ones). So the nucleus is changing the photons, or some of them, so that they create red or green. Look into Miles papers on the rainbow for more information on what photons create what colors. That might make a good new page for my site. Could also give us some ideas on how to measure the internals of an atom by the colors they produce.

That time delay is very interesting. I have never liked the electrons jumping between energy levels and emitting a photon crap. This time delay throws that out the window. Does the electron just take a nice little stroll to the lower energy level? 0.5 to 1 second is a hell of a lot of time for a photon. Sounds more like charge moving around the nucleus before it finds a way out to me. In the past I have mentioned an idea I had that charge could pulse from north to south and back again through the main charge channel. Some of it leaks out but a lot is kept inside of the nucleus. Once the input stops, the trapped photons eventually leave. This does mean that it is not just one photon, but many.

I wonder if there is a connection between color and stack size? Larger stacks create a longer north-south path. The length of that path could affect the photons as they bounce around in there much like an antenna needs to be at least a 1/4 wavelength long to hear a signal at a given frequency.

.
Nevyn, Thanks for providing several ideas, I was drawing blanks. I reviewed Rainbows, Prisms, and non-edge Diffraction, http://milesmathis.com/rain2.html as you suggested. I’ll continue with the rest of the rainbow series while I’m at it. I’m still trying to understand that gravity or charge density changes can sort photons along surface boundaries or through varied medium, i.e. a prism. Consider this quote:

We have seen that visible light is emitted at only two wavelengths. All visible light is originally red or violet. It can then become yellow or cyan when its spin speed is slowed by diffraction or refraction—by close contact with a charge field. Magenta and green are then created by a mixing of these four colors. This means that yellow and cyan wavelengths do exist, but they have to be created by charge interaction, since they can't be emitted.

We observe green aurora 100km high, and red aurora at about 200km. I would have agreed with you, the colors must be due to atomic photon emissions, but the only colors we might see are red or violet. Miles says yellow or cyan are created by charge interaction, diffraction or refraction, green is mixed only after the first four colors are present.

Perhaps the Earth is behaving like a prism. Sunlight is passing low over the Earth near the poles. The Earth, along with Earth’s atmosphere is a very significant change in charge density, the red is refracted high, and green is refracted low. There’s also the boundary I keep mentioning - between the Earth’s emitted field and incoming solar charge flow, but I don’t see how refraction might work along that cylindrical surface.

Sorry I keep repeating myself, related to this time delay idea. Charged particles, atoms included, must recycle charge according to the density of charge received. If the high charge density being received is interrupted, the charged particle must dissipate that unsupportable energy with some delay. It’s true that high energy atoms and electrons exist in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, it’s also true that they are being bombarded with high energy photons. Without the high charge density input, the particle could not remain high energy for long.  

I agree that proton stacks emit signature wavelengths or sets of wavelengths. I guess the minimum resonant element should be the alpha - helium. Of course one or more alphas in tandem form the proton stack. I’m definitely in favor of considering the atom’s stack dimensions in terms of phase length. Phase length is a bit different from length alone, phase length combines frequency and distance, for example, 1/4 wavelength is by definition a phase length. Another example, a given stack may be described as several different phase lengths, depending on the wavelength of photons present. The longest distance - the main n/s axis - may correspond to the atom's fundamental frequency, the carousal arms are secondary frequencies. Phase lengths may be a way of interpreting how photons may pass most efficiently between alphas within stacks, perhaps favoring specific wavelengths over others.
.

Speaking of Photon wavelength, I found these old papers:

Tesla and Einstein Were Both Right
By Miles Mathis

http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html
---
Einstein was a theorist, not an experimenter like Tesla. He did not know of the foundational E/M field. Almost no one except Tesla has known of it, even among other specialists in electricity. The field I am talking about has concerned only quantum physicists up to now (since it is the field mediated by their ridiculous “messenger photons”). So Einstein could not be expected to have included this field in his theories of the macro-world. But he never denied the existence or importance of the electromagnetic field, and he would never have denied the possibility that other unknown fields existed, even ubiquitous and powerful fields. He would only have denied, based on his theory, that they would be considered the “background of space.” As he showed, space has no background except the motion of light.

He is correct about this, and it is one of two major reasons I refuse to call my foundational E/M field an ether. The other reason is also historical. Tesla called his field an ether, since it was ubiquitous and powerful. It allowed many things to happen, and caused many things to happen. It was fundamental, as fundamental as gravity, or more so. While admitting all that, I refrain from referring to my foundational E/M field as an ether because it does not fit the even older and more famous definition of ether as the mediator and facilitator of all motion. According to the 19th definitions, the ether was invented to explain the motion of light. It seemed to physicists at that time that light needed a medium through which to propagate, just as sound needed air through which to propagate. Especially as regards the wave motion, it was not understood how light could show this wave without a medium.

Using stacked spins, I have shown how light moves in a wave pattern without the need of any medium. The wave is internal to each photon, and the analogy to sound waves in air completely breaks down. The wave motion of light is not a pattern in a medium, it is real motion of each quantum. You will say, “Motion relative to what?” Motion relative to the previous position, or relative to the void, or relative to a graph you superimpose over the moving quantum. Motion does not require a medium, it only requires a background. That background is automatically created relative to previous positions. You don’t need a medium to describe the motion of quanta. You only need a mathematical or diagrammed background, and previous positions give you that.

In fact, requiring a physical medium for all motion is a reductio ad absurdum. Say that we do define Tesla’s “ether” as the medium. Say that we do define my foundational E/M field as the medium against which the speed of light is calculated. We obviously run into an immediate problem, since my field or Tesla’s is made up of some kind of photon or other emission, fluid or particulate. At that point, you are defining the motion of light against a background of invisible E/M photons. But that brings up many questions: 1) Which photon is more fundamental? The light photon or the photon that transmits the E/M field? 2) How can you measure one against the other? Aren’t they both going c? Or, if they are not going exactly c in all situations, won’t they both vary in the same way for the same reasons? 3) If the light photon is moving relative to the E/M or ether photon, what is the ether photon moving relative to? Don’t we require a sub-ether as a background to the ether photon? 4) It seems we need something that is not moving to be our medium, but Tesla’s ether field, like my foundational E/M field, is made up of moving particles.

The only thing that is not moving is the void. But calling the void an ether is pretty much admitting defeat. If the void is the ether, then Einstein was basically correct. Einstein’s only real crime was desiring to put a finer point on a thing than most people care to put on it. Most people today who want an ether simply mean they want the standard model to quit ignoring the E/M field in all its contexts, and to quit interpreting Einstein in narrow, abstract mathematical ways. To this extent I agree with them. To this extent, Einstein would have agreed with them, too.
-------
From the Maxwell paper:

We can also see the problem here:
http://milesmathis.com/disp2.pdf

Maxwell concluded, using Newton's equation for the speed of sound (Lines of Force, Part III, equation 132), that “light consists of transverse undulations in the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena.”
You can see the conflation there, and the confusion. Whether the confusion is completely in the minds of those who came after Maxwell, or whether some of the confusion was his own, is not completely clear. But that quoted sentence is true only if you read it correctly. It has not been read correctly. It is true only if by “in the same medium”, Maxwell means in the same general space. But the way it has been read historically is that light is undulations in the E/M field. Light is NOT undulations in the E/ M field. Light is its own field. Furthermore, light is not undulations in anything. The wavelength of light is not a field undulation, it is a spin wave caused by each individual photon. Each photon has a wavelength, as we now know, and the only way it can have that is if the spin of the photon causes the wave. As I have said a hundred times, light is a spin wave, not a field wave.

We have since discovered field waves in the charge field, but these waves are not photons and are not light. They are neutrinos. Neutrinos are “undulations” in the charge field. But they are not thereby undulations in the E/M field. The E/M field and the charge field are completely separate. The charge field influences the E/M field, but they are not the same.

Like everything else we have looked at, the mainstream has this one upside down. They think that light is moving in the E/M field. But it is actually ions that are moving in the light field. The charge field is primary, and it sets the ion field. Not the reverse. Light doesn't move in the E/M field. Light moves in the charge field, which is its own field. Light is charge and charge is light. Strictly, light doesn't move in any field. Light IS the fundamental field. The motion of light sets all the fields in sizes above it.

In this way, charge field theory ties into Relativity, since Einstein basically proposed the same thing. In telling us that the motion of light determined the motion of everything else, Einstein was saying the same thing I am. He never made the connection as explicit and clear as I am making it here, but that is his most fundamental link to Maxwell. Just as Maxwell was (sometimes) trying to do, Einstein based everything on light. But now physicists have turned that on its head. They now try to define the motion of light relative to the E/M field. Since the E/M field is a creation of light, that can't work. They have cause and effect mixed up.
...
After studying Maxwell's paper closely, I can see that the original fault here is his. He has not been misunderstood or misinterpreted. There has been no misreading, there has simply been a failure to correct him. The central problem here is that he thought and proposed that light was a wave in the E/M field. So he had it upside down from the start. Since electricity and magnetism were discovered before charge and were far easier to study, Maxwell naturally took them as primary. Electromagnetism is the motion of ions, while charge is the motion of photons. Since photons are very much smaller than ions, they hadn't been studied in Maxwell's time. We still know almost nothing about them. For this reason, Maxwell took the E/M field as the foundational field, and tried to fit light into it, explaining light as a field wave in the E/M field. But this is upside down. Light does not move in the E/M field, ions move in the light field. The motions and spin of photons create everything, including ionization, magnetism, current, and so on. The charge field is the fundamental field, and the E/M field is only a creation of it.

.
I made a comment on colors and the aurora last time, I'll clear that up here.



You’ve seen the left image previously in this thread, a satellite image of aurora.  I found the middle https://i2.wp.com/gisgeography.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Magnetic-North-Pole.png and eyeball corrected the arrow and red dot as I've shown. The right side is a result.



Here we see a crescent of daylight along the top edge in this night side view. Earth is 12,742km in diameter. The large red circle is 200km and the green circle is 100km above the Earth’s surface, magenta. I tried to keep to scale, I'd be happy with a single pixel.

The red circle centered on the north magnetic pole is the auroral zone; a rough boundary of equal charge densities between incoming solar charge at the pole; and Earth’s own emissions which are strongest toward the equator. The auroral zone is roughly a circle, 1,500km radius centered on magnetic north, 380km left (in this view) of  the geographic north.

Given that the Earth recycles 2x more matter into the south magnetic pole than the anti-matter entering the north magnetic pole, I would expect the south auroral zone to be about twice as large as the north auroral zone.



I believe the Earth refracts sunlight into the prismatic colors. Light coming from the right side misses the Earth yet is refracted by the earth’s 200km thick atmosphere and gravity field. This happens all along the dividing line around the earth, separating day and night. The colors and locations are a guess, I did searches for diffraction by opaque spheres, no joy. My point is - the colors are in the atmosphere on the night edge of the world.

Auroras are created in the balance of two opposing charge flow currents causing a local energy spin-up. The spun-up atoms are fed colors that are created by defraction. Do the atoms alter the colors in some way?

Yea, Nay?
.

.
Airman. I almost left some aurora stuff behind.

#3H.      The Polar Aurora – History
The term "aurora borealis" was used in 1621 by the French scientist and philosopher Pierre Gassendi, but George Siscoe has given reasons to believe it was introduced by Galileo Galilei in 1619 (p. 51 in "Majestic Lights"). "Majestic Lights, The Aurora in Science, History and the Arts" by Robert H. Eather, American Geophysical Union, 1980.

Elias Loomis of Yale University compiled, in 1860, a map marking how many times in an average year were auroras observed in various locations (click here https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wloomis.html to see his map). A more accurate map was compiled in 1881 by Hermann Fritz (1830-1883) (click https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wfritz.html to see Fritz'es map).

NOTE: BOTH MAPS POSTED BELOW

It was long suspected that the aurora was caused by electrons arriving from the outside and hitting the high atmosphere.

Airman. The Sun’s charge emissions are the primary source for the charge currents received by the Earth. There may be plenty of electrons arriving, but they are being pushed along by photons. But that’s only half the story, the Earth is also emitting charge. The aurora is an electromagnetic manifestation – we only see electrons and ions – of the high energy boundary between the two charge flows.  

The Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland (1867-1917), for instance, placed a magnetized sphere, a "terrella" representing the Earth, inside a vacuum chamber, and aimed a beam of electrons towards it. He was gratified to see that the electrons were steered by the magnetic field to the vicinity of the terrella's magnetic poles.

Airman. Electron current within the terrella was observed being steered to the sphere’s magnetic poles. That observation is consistent with the fact that the charge field photon currents Earth receives tend to flow into the poles. It seemed the terrella was somewhat analogous to the Earth but as a practical matter, it simply didn’t explain the aurora. In my opinion, Birkeland’s terrella is described more appropriately as a large high voltage vacuum tube. Explaining aurora with a vacuum tube is not a mechanical argument. Note that this interpretation is consistent with the source material’s earlier reference to electron beams within the television picture tube.

However, it was only in 1954 that auroral electrons were actually observed, by detectors aboard a rocket launched into the aurora by Meredith, Gottlieb and Van Allen, of Van Allen's team at the University of Iowa. Carl McIlwain, another member of that team, used a 1959 rocket experiment to identify the particles as electrons of an average energy corresponding to acceleration by 6000 volts (see high energy particles).

Nowadays scientific satellites regularly cross streams of auroral electrons and measure their properties, and aurora is also observed from the ground with video cameras and special radars.

Airman. All electron currents are caused by a net charge field displacement. The charge field provides a mechanism that was never available in earlier theories, Aurora are the electromagnetic signature of a charge field event - Earth’s charge recycling.

3a.     Auroral Frequency Map by Elias Loomis

Below is map of the frequency with which aurora is seen in various polar regions, produced in 1860 by Elias Loomis (1811-1889), professor of natural philosophy at Yale. The central band has at least "80 auroras annually".



One might expect the center of the pattern to be at the magnetic pole, but it is not: the magnetic pole is in northern Canada, while the center of the pattern is near the northwestern end of Greenland. The reason is that the Earth's field is not exactly like that of a bar magnet, but contains additional irregularities, more complex and effective mainly near the surface, not far out in space.

#3b.     Auroral Frequency Map by Hermann Fritz

Shown here is a map of the frequency with which auroras are seen, produced in 1881 by the German scientist Hermann Fritz (1830-1883). The line of greatest frequency lists 100 auroras per year, while in the center of the pattern auroras are much less frequent.



If the Earth's field resembled that of a simple bar magnet ("dipole"), its magnetic pole would be near the northwestern tip of Greenland, in the middle of the pattern. However, the field contains additional complex parts, whose effect does not extend as far into space, and these shift the pole actually observed on the ground to northern Canada, to the location shown on the map.

Airman. Earlier, I assumed that the auroral zone was centered on the magnetic pole - Ok, wrong. The area is larger than I thought, easily encompassing both magnetic and geographic poles. Charge appears to be entering the Earth’s north pole anywhere within the Arctic Ocean, including Iceland, Greenland and parts of Northern Canada.



Aurora indicate the boundary between incoming solar, and Earth emitted charge. A larger pole region means the incoming charge density needn’t be so high, helps clear things up for me. Here’s an updated northern auroral image. I see color also extends far beyond the earlier night’s edge I talked about, another thing to think about.

See, I can almost achieve a discussion with myself, I’ll keep trying.

Further Reading:
• "Majestic Lights, The Aurora in Science, History and the Arts" by Robert H. Eather, American Geophysical Union, 1980.
• Some details about Birkeland's work and further references to it can be found in "A Brief History of Magnetospheric Physics Before the Spaceflight Era" by David P. Stern, Reviews of Geophysics, 27, 103-114, 1989,  https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/bh2_1.html

Airman. The second book above is in this same archive collection, written for a more educated audience.
.

.
https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/welectrc.html

#4a.      Electricity as a Fluid

The preceding sections did not follow the conventional order:

Airman. I apologize for making hash out of the source order.  

First electric currents were brought up, in connection with Oersted's work.
Then electric charges, in connection with electrons.

That may be OK, because most of us are familiar with currents and charges. Currents run electric lights, radios, TVs, clocks and applicances in the home, and "static" electric charge causes papers and clothes to cling together in dry weather. An electric current is essentially the continuous flow of electric charge. This section goes a little further, to the concepts of voltage and of the electric field.

Airman. Electron/proton, -1/+1, repulsion of like signs and attraction of unlike signs; the list, unfortunately, is false. The singular failure of over 400 years of Science has been the lack of a proper definition of charge. All charge is repulsive, the result of photon collisions. Still, voltages currents and electric fields do exist, so I’ll try to keep up. Your corrections/suggestions are always appreciated.

Ohm's law

It is easier to understand electricity if we regard electric charge as a sort of fluid, like water, as scientists did for the first 200 years. Yes, it does consist of individual electrons, but those are so small that any large charge behaves like a continuous fluid. In the same way sand pours like a fluid, and water in a glass is usually regarded as a fluid, even though it consists of individual molecules.

Airman. Charge is too fast and too small to see. Infra-red photons are 3.3 million times (1821^2) smaller than the electron. Electrons will form currents only when there are currents in the charge field. Free electrons and protons are logs and trees pushed along by an unseen river of photons traveling at the speed of light.

Using a pump we can push water through a pipe around a closed circuit (top drawing). The rate at which it flows past any point in the pipe--measured in gallons (or liters) per second--depends on the pressure produced by the pump (measured in pounds per square inch, or kilograms per square centimeter). More accurately, it depends on the pressure difference between the entrance to the pipe (left) and the exit from the pipe (right).



The greater the pressure difference, the greater the flow. In addition, given a certain pressure difference, a fatter pipe will carry more water, and a longer one will resist the flow and carry less.

Airman. Unlike water, charge field flows can travel in two opposite directions at the same time. Charge traveling to the right must add to anti-charge traveling left. Photons and anti-photons can flow past each other with no resistance.

All this mirrors exactly the behavior of the electric fluid.

No pipes here, though: electricity in our homes and appliances usually flows in metal wires, most often of copper. Electrons in a metal can jump from atom to atom, and that way carry negative charge around the circuit.

Airman. Electrons jumping from atom to atom doesn’t make any sense to me. The electricity business bloomed before recognition of the charge field. They observed high numbers of electrons slowly flowing through wires. Describing electricity using water is common practice. As an engineer, I’ve done it myself many times, even searched water solutions when thinking of electrical problems. For most intents and purposes, like paying the bills, electron flow makes the numbers work.

We now know the charge field is the motive force, not the power station. The atoms within the copper wires act more like antennas radiating photons in all directions and to each other. Charge recycling throughout the conductor lengths do push electrons and positrons along. I believe the net electron motion will be forward according to the difference in charge and anti-charge current flows, a resultant current that is ultimately linked to the Earth’s magnetic field. I suppose there’s really no requirement that electrons move down the wire at all. You have your electrical device plugged into the socket and pull the switch, the device’s motor circuit coherently links to the power source when the conductors’ nuclear charge channels join.
 

Like a fluid, electrons are driven by a kind of electric pressure, known as voltage, because it is measured in units known as volts, named after the Italian scientist Alessandro Volta. An electric battery produces (by a chemical process) a voltage difference V between its two ends, and therefore acts like a pump (bottom drawing).

Airman. Electrons in electrical circuits are generally confined to the conductor and conductor surfaces. The electron motion however is simply drifting, in response to countervailing rains of photons and anti-photons.

My guess is – an increased voltage, and increased current demand causes an increase in the average number of charge channels operating within a conductor’s cross sectional area. The greater the voltage, the greater the number (or cross-sectional area) of charge channels active.  

The electric current I flows from high voltage to low voltage and is measured in units known as Amperes, named for André-Marie Ampere whom we met in section #2. And as with water, we expect that if we increase the driving voltage V, the driven current I will also increase. In fact, the two are pretty much proportional: double the voltage, and you get double the current. That relation is known as Ohm's Law, after Georg Ohm who first formulated it.

Airman. A wire’s current capacity is determined by its resistance to electrical current flow, it gets hotter as current is increased. It burns open, acting like a fuse above a certain current. Again, probably related to the cross sectional areas: conductor size and active charge channels.

Ohm's law (with some extra details concerning the length and thickness of the wire) is usually among the first things taught in electricity classes, and many students therefore view it as one of the fundamental laws of electricity. It isn't. It holds quite well for metal wires, but as will be shown in section #7a, it fails badly in fluorescent tubes--while in space currents exist which flow without any voltage driving them (section #10a).

Airman. Where we’re going, we don’t need no burned and stinking wires.

Electric Fields

One small caution here. By long tradition, the direction of the electric current is defined as the direction in which positive charges move. We may blame Ben Franklin for deciding--by pure guess--what kind of electricity is called "positive" and which "negative." A century later it was found that most electric currents were carried by negative electrons, which move in the opposite direction.

Airman. That long tradition is, unfortunately, wrong. There is no positive and negative, all charge is positive in the sense that all charge is a repulsion caused by the charged particle’s photon emission field. Any apparent attraction can be explained as a lesser resistance. While not positive and negative in the traditional sense, charge can be spin up or spin down. Two thirds of our bodies is charge, and one third is anti-charge - like electricity, magnetism, and the Earth. Keeping the right hand rule for positive electrical current flow is child’s play, or a good start anyway, to understanding spin interactions in photon collisions.  

One may therefore argue that the flow direction which should be assigned to electric fluid is really the opposite of what we say it is. But it's much too late to change the old convention.

Airman. The old convention must go.

In our homes, electric currents and effects of electricity are usually channeled along insulated wires. In 3-dimensional space, on the other hand, electric phenomena tend to spread out. If the way electric current flows in the home resembles water flow in pipes, then in space the flow is often like ocean currents or air motion in the atmosphere, spread out in 2 and even 3 dimensions.

The 3-dimensional voltage distribution is often called the electric field.

Airman. All charged particles emit photons into space. The linear velocity (c) and charge density of those photons form the pre-electric field. The tangential spin velocity (c) and charge density form the pre-magnetic field. Any object moving near the charged particle will feel the collective effect of those collisions.

Compare:

In a magnetic field the direction of the field is that of the force. If isolated N magnetic poles existed, they too could do so, by moving in the direction of the field, while S poles would move in the opposite direction. The poles at the ends of a compass needle move this way, and thus line up the needle in the direction of the field.

Similarly

An electric field is a region where electric forces can be felt by charged objects, and the direction of the field is the one in which positive charges would move. A positive ion moves in the direction of the field, a negative electron moves in the opposite direction.

If both magnetic and electric fields are present, the motion of ions and electrons gets complicated. That however is left for a later section.

Airman. Yep, it’s getting complicated. Charge interaction (collisions) does take some getting used to.
.

.

https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/welect.html
Author and Curator:   Dr. David P. Stern

Airman. Continuing to update the archived The Exploration of the Earth's Magnetosphere to include the charge field.  I’m sure I’ll get this sequential order thing down eventually.

#4.               Electrons

Matter consists of atoms, and atoms consist of electrically charged components--lightweight negative electrons, and positive nuclei.

Airman. The charge field based structure of matter is quite different from what is offered by traditional or contemporary mainstream science. I’ll review. All matter is expanding photons.

All matter consists of charged particles, these include: IR photons, UV photons, electrons, protons and neutrons (and many others in between). Let’s say our smallest charge photon is a B photon with radius equal to about 1x10E-24 meters. Charged particles are all created from B photons by a series of high energy collisions with light speed motion limits that result in up or down, x, y, and z, end-over-end, mass radius doublings. Protons are 6 billion times larger than IR photons.

All charge particles recycle photons, generally receiving incoming charge into the particle’s poles and emitting photons anywhere though mostly from the particle’s high angular momentum equatorial area. Photons received from all directions end up in the particle’s emission plane. Atoms, planets, stars and larger groups of matter seem to recycle charge in much the same way.


Proton from Nevyn’s Lab. http://www.nevyns-lab.com/

Atomic structures are based on proton stacking and charge recycling. Hydrogen is a lone proton, it is depicted as a disc because most charge will enter the proton’s poles and exit most strongly in the disk area, the area of maximum emissions and maximum resistance. The proton might have a neutron partner and the occasional stray electrons. Neutrons are at the same spin count as protons, although the orientation of the neutron’s outer spin causes it to recapture any equatorial emissions. The neutron thus recycles pole-to-pole and not pole to equator. A missing equatorial emission field means neutrons are more exposed to random high energy photon collisions. Lone neutrons don’t last more than 15 minutes before some high energy photon or electron collides with and removes the neutron’s outermost z-spin. *

Atoms are most likely formed in stars. Helium is two parallel protons (parallel emission planes) close together with two neutrons sandwiched between them. Helium is also called an alpha unit since it is a basic building block for larger atoms. Simple atoms are arranged as proton (or alpha) stacks which allow charge input along a common north/south, pole-to-pole, main atomic charge channel. Free positive matter atoms will turn to align the main N/S axis so as to maximize receipt of anti-photons into the N pole, or photons into the S pole.


Black discs are single protons, blue discs are alphas - two protons and two neutrons. Twenty-six protons. Fe, iron.

In larger atoms, protons and neutrons will arrange around the main N/S axis to form a carousal level’, four new orthogonal charge channels in the left, right, front and back directions. The atom is then a balanced, spinning (around the main N/S axis) 6-armed stellated octahedron.  

All emission fields tend to be repulsive, since they cause photon collisions. Smaller charged particles may approach larger ones rather freely, avoiding the larger particle’s emission field. That’s the case between protons and electrons, which has been misinterpreted as attraction. The proton is 1821x larger than the electron, and recycles 1821x the charge. Over time, electrons will drift in photon currents or arrive close enough to block the proton’s charge recycling intake at the proton’s poles. Electrons there will be held in place by the photon current trying to enter that pole. Those electrons can be knocked loose by an increased charge field density, with higher photon densities subjecting those electrons to an increased number of collisions, also tending to prevent the slow return of electrons back into those positions - this is called ionization.

The electron’s main distinction is that it is the smallest charge particle our most sensitive electromagnetic instruments can detect. The electron is also the smallest charged particle too large to travel linearly at light speed, (the highest speed I’m aware of impact Earth orbiting satellites at 0.3c during powerful solar flares).

How do we know?

One clue comes from the "Edison effect," discovered by Thomas Alva Edison. Imagine a glass bulb from which air has been pumped, until hardly any of it remains. In one end we embed a metal coil of wire (like that of a flashlight bulb) in the other a metal plate, as drawn. Connect now an electric battery (drawn at the bottom) between the coil and the plate, so that the former is negative and the latter is positive, say at +100 volts.

No current will flow in this circuit: some atoms or molecules may be left inside the bulb, but they are electrically neutral, and can carry no electric current. Air is an excellent insulator: electric companies can string power lines in the open air and never have to worry about currents dribbling out on their way from the power station to consumers.

Airman. A clue eh? The above is a new first diagram for clarity. A vacuum tube with coil and plate connected across a 100V battery. No current flows between coil and plate. Knowing current cannot flow across large air gaps, the electric company can confidently distribute their overhead power lines without concern for power losses.

Now connect a small second battery (on the left) to the end of the coil, so that a current flows through the coil and heats it up. As the wire begins to glow, a current begins to flow, because now negatively charged particles are emitted from the hot wire, are attracted to the positive charge on the plate and by doing so, complete the electrical circuit.

Airman. When the coil is heated with the polarities shown and 100V battery – “As the wire begins to glow, a current begins to flow”.  

In my previous post I mentioned the current carrying capacity of a wire. The wire’s resistance to electrical current flow causes heating. Too much current will burn or melt the wire open. A glowing hot wire means a high number of charge channels are active at increased energy levels. The increased number of active charge channels should be equivalent to the electrical current demand necessary to cause that same thousands of degrees temperature. The coil is recycling charge at a high enough rate to the point where we can see the increased photon density with our own eyes – glowing hot.

The increased photon emission density means that electrons in the coil are also at higher energy levels, subject to a greatly increased number of higher energy photon collisions, sufficient, apparently, to bridge the vacuum air gap.

Suppose the connections of the first battery are reversed, so that now the coil is positive and the plate is negative. Then no current flows, showing that the hot wire releases only negative particles, not positive ones. These particles were named electrons.

Airman. The hot wire releases a high charge density of charge particles: 2x photons to 1x antiphotons, 2x electrons to 1x positrons. The polarity of the circuit favors electron flow from the coil to the plate. Anti-photons and positrons at the plate cannot cross to the coil because it is not at the same high energy level the coil is at.

In laboratory experiments these particles were directed by electrically charged structures (similar to the "electron guns" inside TV picture tubes) to form beams. Those beams were then bent by magnets and by electrified plates, and their behavior was studied. From such experiments and others the mass of the emitted particles, which became known as "electrons", could be determined. It turned out that they were rather lightweight. The simplest atom, that of hydrogen, contains a central positive particle, a proton, and a single electron, and the proton is nearly 2000 times heavier.

Airman. Agreed.

Light, like heat, can also knock electrons out of a metal. If the heated coil in the drawing is replaced by a clean metal plate, and light shines onto it, electrons are again released, and current will flow in the circuit. The explanation of this phenomena, called the photoelectric effect, earned Albert Einstein the 1921 Nobel Prize.

Airman. An example of heat causing an electron current, with clear apparent photon production, at characteristic colors corresponding to incandescent temperatures. Electrons are high energy photons. Some high energy photons the coil recycles will wind up being promoted to electrons. The glowing hot coil is obvious proof that photons are also apparently being created. Photons aren’t really being created, the heated, energized coil is recycling a greater number of photons, creating a distinctly visible spectra and denser emission field.

The photoelectric effect also creates electrons, eh?

The same process will charge a spacecraft orbiting in the sunlight positively, to a few volts. Sunlight knocks out electrons from the surface and a few manage to escape, leaving the spacecraft positively charged; the situation then stabilizes, because the positive charge prevents any more electrons from leaving.

Airman. High energy collisions ionize a spacecraft’s surface. Positive charge cannot be what holds electrons to spacecraft. I’m thinking electrons are held to conductors primarily through gravity - resulting in the air gap. The denser coil emissions must reduce the gravity of the conductor felt by electrons. The spacecraft is probably collecting many stray electrons and positrons. By the way, reading back over what I write sometimes, I'm more enthusiastic than accurate. I hope my efforts at describing things from a charge field perspective aren't too far off the mark. Keep learning.  
.

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

http://milesmathis.com/index.html.
 
*. 315. How to Build the Elements. Explaining the periodic table, with nuclear diagrams. http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf

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

.
https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wfldline.html

#5.     Magnetic Field Lines

When researchers map the three-dimensional flow of a river around a bridge pier, or of wind around the wing of an airplane (picture below), they use streamlines, lines that trace the flow of particles of water or air.



Magnetic field lines similarly describe the structure of magnetic fields in three dimensions. They are defined as follows. If at any point on such a line we place an ideal compass needle, free to turn in any direction (unlike the usual compass needle, which stays horizontal--such needles exist, see bottom of page) then the needle will always point along the field line (drawing below).

Field lines converge where the magnetic force is strong, and spread out where it is weak. For instance, in a compact bar magnet or "dipole," field lines spread out from one pole and converge towards the other, and of course, the magnetic force is strongest near the poles where they come together. The behavior of field lines in the Earth's magnetic field is very similar.



Not so in space, however, where magnetic field lines are fundamental to the way free electrons and ions move. These electrically charged particles tend to become attached to the field lines on which they reside, spiraling around them while sliding along them, like beads on a wire (drawing below).



Because of this attachment, the behavior of electrified gas ("plasma") in space, a gas of free ions and electrons, is dictated by the structure of field lines: Electric currents, for instance, find it easiest to flow along such lines. Indeed, the role of field lines in a plasma resembles that of grain in wood: just as the grain is the "easy" direction along which wood splits most readily, so the direction of field lines is the one along which particles, electric currents, heat and certain types of waves prefer to flow.



Exploring further

A small bar magnet, on gimbals that allow it to point in any direction in space, can be procured from its manufacturer, Cochranes of Oxford, Ltd., Leafield, Oxford OX8 5NT, England. Two types are available, Mark 1 with jewelled bearings for $36.60, Mark 2 with simple bearings for $12.65. For details see their web site:
   http://www.cochranes.co.uk/secondary.html   HTML Error 404

Airman. Note three images of the Earth: 1) compasses describe the geomagnetic field lines; 2) as a bar magnet; 3) in space, free electrons, ions, and neutral particles will follow trajectories both along and orthogonal to those magnetic lines.

The problem is, the particle motions shown are not following the magnetic models above. The simple N/S pole model doesn’t give enough freedom to explain all the motions observed. How can it possibly explain trapping neutral particles into trajectories spiraling vertically up from one hemisphere, passing high over the equator and then spiraling down in the other?



Here’s a major update to the source material, adding the Earth’s charge recycling diagram *.

Charge primarily enters the poles and is usually emitted from the equator. Some charge travels pole-to-pole. The Earth is everywhere emitting charge upward; the charge field holds up the atmosphere. Miles has taken the original polar model of the Earth and bifurcated it, turning a single magnetic torus into two, and now emissions are included.

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

* This diagram comes from Birkland Currents, in which, among other things, Miles specifically addresses the confusion of contemporary earth fields: E,B and then H.
http://milesmathis.com/index.html
160. Birkeland Currents. http://milesmathis.com/birke.pdf
I show that these currents must pass through the Earth. By Miles Mathis. 11pp.
.

Great read LTAM. I caught some of the original over at TB as well.

This is a worthy read at this point in light of your clear descriptions above (note for "fun" only) :
---
The World Sunday Magazine - March 8, 1896
A Way to Harness Free Electric Currents Discovered by Nikola Tesla

The World is on the eve of an astounding revelation.  The conditions under which we exist will be changed.  The end has come to telegraph and telephone monopolies with a crash.  Incidentally, all the other monopolies that depend on power of any kind will come to a sudden stop.  The earth currents of electricity are to be harnessed.  Nature supplies them free of charge.  The cost of power and light and heat will be practically nothing.

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1897-01-27.htm
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1896-03-08.htm



.W. Wilkins in England (1845) corroborated findings made by Bain, developing a similar earth battery for use in telegraphic service. An early English Patent appears in 1864 by John Haworth, the first true composite earth battery. This battery is drum-shaped , having numerous solid discs mounted on an insulative axis, end-braced, and buried. Their power was rated in terms of disc diameter and telegraph line distance: one foot diameter discs for seventy-five miles of line, two foot discs for up to four hundred and forty miles of line.

earthcell33.jpg (17093 bytes)

Composite earth battery


Experimental modulated earth battery



The experiment is to modulate the earth current.  It works just like a modulated current source in a solid state amplifier, only this battery supplies the current. An example would be a strain gauge circuit.

This mystery persisted for years. I have talked to some older engineers who report that local telegraph stations remained in operation despite the fact that their batteries had not been recharged for a great number of years. When the battery was examined it was actually dried out and physically corroded. Yet the signals continued.

.
Hey Cr6, are you asking me to stop? I’m only halfway there.

As I stated at the beginning of this thread, my initial goal was to answer comingfrom. Can we explain #10a. Particle Drift in Space. I looked at the spirals and saw a mechanical motion I honestly still cannot explain. For the sake of argument I’ll assume the motion is true. Rather than answer immediately and poorly, I went the slow route, and began examining The Exploration of the Earth's Magnetosphere https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/Intro.html with great interest.

A magnetosphere discussion is ideal. I’ll admit, the material I’ve covered may be too middle school for many readers; it started slow, we’ll see how it goes. Not having planned or read ahead past the table of contents, after 5H. History – there may not be much sense in criticizing history - the coming series: induction1, induction2, electromagnetic waves, plasma, etc., sound fairly intimidating. If I make it to #10a I’ll probably be more than ready to stop. You have my sympathy.

The Exploration of the Earth's Magnetosphere continues to # 35. Solar Energetic Particles with many interesting subjects and accompanying documents. I truly believe this is a wonderful collection of information that needs to be reinterpreted from a charge field perspective.

With respect to Tesla, and the cost of power. We recognize that “free” energy exists. Ancient water and wind mills, and now wind farms and photovoltaics, we can tap energy from ample renewable energy sources, water, wind, sunlight and more. In our current society, the cost of electricity may be kept artificially high; that’s somewhat justified by the fact that power distribution systems are very expensive and a world-wide technology and order must be maintained. I suspect technology will advance till every home or building will come with its own sustainable power source that will most likely always require great expense.

I appreciate the Tesla source, I only just started looking at it.

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

In my last post I submitted a “major update” to the text, - Miles’s Earth charge recycling diagram. I cited Miles’ Birkeland Currents paper and figured people would read up on the subject. I’m a bit unsure here because I expect maximum charge at +/-30deg Latitude, in this Birkeland image the matter/antimatter charge flows exit the planet before they cross.



Nevertheless, for discussion sake I would superimpose the images above and point out that the charge field lifts particles continuously. There is a small field cancellation over the equator which will allow ions to cross over it *. I’m not convinced there’s spiraling yet. I’m waiting to hear how the text proposes how protons orbit over the equator east to west, while electrons orbit west to east.

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

5H. Faraday 1846 https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/whfldlns.html

#5H.     Magnetic Field Lines -- History
…
Most scientists nowadays view field lines as intangible abstractions, useful only for describing magnetic fields. Faraday, however, felt that they represented more, that space containing magnetic "lines of force" was no longer empty but acquired certain physical properties. In 1846 he speculated that light was just a wave propagating along such lines--like the wave on a rope tied at one end and shaken at the other.

Airman. Faraday may have been the first to suggest that space contain magnetic “lines of force”, but that doesn’t make the belief correct. Miles has shown us that assigning physical attributes to space is wrong; the charge field does not require such nonsense. Their models were insufficient and they filled in the blanks with theory.

Following Maxwell, we nowadays call a space modified by the presence of magnetic field lines a "magnetic field": if a bar magnet is placed there, it will experience magnetic forces, but the field exists even when no magnet is present. Similarly, an "electric field" is the space in which electric forces may be sensed--for instance between metal objects charged (+) and (-) by a battery, as in the drawing accompanying the discussion of the electron .

Maxwell also showed (perhaps his greatest achievement) that an "electromagnetic wave" was possible, a rapid interplay of electric and magnetic fields spreading with the velocity of light. Maxwell correctly guessed that light was in fact such a wave, that it was basically an electromagnetic phenomenon, and with this his equations paved the way to a much deeper understanding of optics, the science of light.

Airman. The author considers electromagnetic waves Maxwell’s greatest achievement. We now know that the source of electromagnetism are charge field photons.

Maxwell's younger colleague, the German Heinrich Hertz, calculated in 1886 that waves of this type would be broadcast by a rapidly alternating current in a short antenna. He then obtained such a current from an electric spark (which does produce a fast back-and-forth oscillation of electric charge) and demonstrated his "Hertzian waves" experimentally. His work was continued by scientists all over the world--e.g. by the Russian Alexander Stepanovich Popov who around 1895 detected radio waves from lightning (a natural spark!), and by the Italian Gugliemo Marconi who, at about the same time, developed the first commercial radio applications.

The waves that carry radio and television, microwaves, infra-red, visible light, ultra-violet, x-rays and gamma rays are all variations of the same basic process envisioned by Maxwell, namely, they all belong to the family of electromagnetic waves.

Airman. Photons form spin waves. Their forward velocity (c) corresponds to the pre-electric field, and tangential spin velocity (c) to the pre-magnetic field. Frequency is a function of photon radii stretched at light speed. Miles has devoted many papers showing how the current mainstream understanding of electromagnetism is upside-down.  

It may seem strange that empty space can be modified by electric and magnetic influences, as the field concept proposes. Yet it allows one to understand light and radio waves, and also to retain the conservation of energy. When a transmitter on a spacecraft broadcasts a radio signal, most of that signal spreads out into space and never reaches Earth. Is its energy lost? No, it now resides in an ever-spreading electromagnetic field, associated with the radio wave.

Airman. It’s not strange that empty space can be modified, it’s just wrong. Electromagnetism can be explained with colliding photons. More later.

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

*
191. The Equatorial Anomaly. I show the mainstream explanation is wrong here, and give you the right one. By Miles Mathis. 11pp. http://milesmathis.com/equat.pdf

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

I'm happy to welcome Bryan and Ken NG.
.

Hey Cr6, are you asking me to stop? I’m only halfway there.

As I stated at the beginning of this thread, my initial goal was to answer comingfrom. Can we explain #10a. Particle Drift in Space. I looked at the spirals and saw a mechanical motion I honestly still cannot explain. For the sake of argument I’ll assume the motion is true. Rather than answer immediately and poorly, I went the slow route, and began examining The Exploration of the Earth's Magnetosphere https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/Intro.html with great interest.

Don't throttle back....! This might have a few inputs on the Compton effect:

The COMPTON EFFECT, DUALITY and the Klein-Nishina Formula

by Miles Mathis

http://milesmathis.com/comp.html

This makes the linear motion a sort of fifth quantum dimension. This relationship of spin to linear motion is the most hidden, both mathematically and mechanically, and it is this “quality” of quarks that has been assigned to “color.” But it is simply a fifth variance.

This is also where the idea for pentaquarks came from. "Penta" means five, of course, and some experimenters were seeing the five motions or variations I have shown you here. They saw the five "dimensions" and thought this implied five quarks. Since the standard model now uses one quark to explain each of the variations, instead of spin, they thought five variations must imply five quarks. But that is not the case. We have zero quarks and only four spins. The fifth variance is just the way the spins stack on top of the linear motion. We don't have five quarks, we have four spins plus linear motion.

http://milesmathis.com/hidden.html

.
It was a long and pleasant family weekend, I’ll share what I’ve got.

https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wEMinduc1.html

#5a-1.     Electro-Magnetic Induction

Note: The original version of "Exploration of the Earth's Magnetosphere" tried to simplify the presentation by leaving out any discussion of electric fields. Still, electric forces and electric fields play a great role in magnetospheric processes, and as details were added, it became increasingly hard to avoid them.

   To help fill the gap, section #4a on ""The Electric Fluid" was added, followed by optional section #10a which describes the effect of electric fields on particle motion in the magnetic fields of space. In this section and the one following, another missing component is covered--the induced electromagnetic field. This material is harder and therefore labeled "optional," it actually requires more advanced mathematics, and any math is therefore grossly simplified. And yet, the author hopes these sections may help users understand electromagnetic induction. Do they? Comments welcome!

Airman. I’m grateful for both section #4a, and for including electric fields, they are the substance we need to address. I’m also grateful for the author’s honesty admitting that current E/M theory depends on space forming lines-of-force; “strange” he said, “but necessary”. Since the charge field attributes all forces to photon collisions we must reject the need for strange space.  

The Relations between Electricity and Magnetism

Until 1820 studies of electricity and magnetism grew independently.

Electric charges could be generated by friction ("static electricity") and propagated as electric currents along conductors such as metal wires. In 1800 Alessandro Volta discovered a way of creating a steady electric current by means of chemical reactions, in a "voltaic cell" typically containing different metals immersed in an acid or base. (Here we follow popular custom of calling such devices "electric batteries" even though, strictly speaking, a battery is a combination of multiple cells, hooked up together to produce higher voltage).

Airman. We can create static electricity and electrical currents. Or specific electric potentials (desired voltages) through a series of voltaic cells. A couple of posts above, Cr6 provided an example, the Composite Earth Battery which powered telegraph lines over 150 years ago. A drum-like structure, comprised of solid discs of alternating copper and steel, 1 or 2 feet in diameter, separated by insulator and wire coils and buried every 100 miles or so. Cr6 also posted a new solar cell that integrates multiple cells stacked into a single device, https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t347-scientists-design-solar-cell-that-captures-nearly-all-energy-of-solar-spectrum. Additional cells (or layers) multiply the charge density and capacity of batteries, and will increase the efficiency of photo-voltaics (although not “nearly all energy of solar spectrum”, which is a nearly preposterous claim).  

Meanwhile magnetism was seen as the force produced by special materials, especially some iron-rich minerals or "lodestones," or by steel which had been stroked by an iron magnet or by a lodestone.

   Then in 1820 Oersted and Ampere unexpectedly found that the two branches intersected--that electric currents could produce magnetism. That opened the door to a whole range of electrical technology, beginning with the telegraph and telephone.

But there exists a second intersection as well, just as essential. Not only can electric currents create magnetism--magnetic fields can also create electric fields and currents. That is the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction, discussed in what follows.
   (Induced electric fields need be distinguished from induced magnetic fields, described in #4 of "The Great Magnet, the Earth").

Airman. The author introduced electromagnetic induction nicely. I’ll attempt a spoiler. Each photon within an object’s emission field has both linear and spin velocities - the source of the object’s electric and magnetic fields. Free electrons and ions near the object will be given new spins, linear velocities and directions which result from those collisions. If there were no magnetism involved, the spin component of the object’s emission field may be in any orthogonal direction to the forward direction of the photon and so they tend to cancel out, leaving the charge repulsion felt by free electrons or ions due strictly to the linear charge (electric) field only generally radially (with some Brownian random motions, side to side or up/down) away from the object.

Strong magnetic fields will create electric currents. The magnetic object’s spin coherent photons all deliver the same round-house punches in the same tangential linear direction, orthogonal to the photon’s forward direction. The particle’s final direction and velocity include velocity contributions from both spin and linear components, higher velocity and common direction, a current.

The particles comprising the electric current will align to the object’s emissions, and not to each other’s spin emissions. I believe that is why the emission fields of the free charges cannot combine to form their own magnetic field, only extensions of the object’s magnetic field.

Sometimes I’m just trying to apply first principles, surely missing second or third. Please feel free to correct or discuss.

Cr6, I should always go with my first reaction, confusion.

To be continued …
.

.
Airman. One of my claims to fame is my extensive training and formal education in electromagnetism. You may have noticed that doesn’t seem to help me understand the charge field any easier. I must learn to concentrate on spin. While the truth of the charge field strikes me as self-evident and overwhelming, so too are my errors, please help!

Continuing from where we stopped last time.

#5a-1.     Electro-Magnetic Induction,

https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wEMinduc1.html

Induced Electric Currents

   Joseph Henry, following Oersted and Ampere, introduced the electromagnet. If you wind a coil of insulated wire around an iron bar, drive an electric current through it (using for instance an electric battery), the bar becomes magnetic. Could the process be perhaps reversed? Wrap a coil of wire around a bar magnet, then close its circuit and look for an electric current flow. No, that does not work--no current flows.

(One could of course point out that if the device did work, it would be equivalent to a perpetual motion machine, an unending source of electric current. Actually, two different phenomena are involved here: (1) to drive a current around a metal wire, we must (by Ohm's law) overcome electric resistance and generate heat, which requires a constant energy input, and (2) the current also creates magnetism. If we could use a "superconducting coil" with no resistance--an effect discovered much later, at very low temperatures--the first effect would disappear, and maybe, just maybe, the inverse experiment could work in some fashion.)

Suppose the experiment is repeated with an electromagnet--a bar of iron surrounded by a "primary" wire coil C1, through which a battery drives some current. Again, that bar also threads a "secondary" coil C2, where we wish to generate a new electric current. But as before, if no changes occur, even if a current flows in C1, none is seen in C2.

   However, the situation differs if conditions change with time. If we start by winding the coil around a wooden stick, remove the stick and insert the bar magnet in its place, a momentary current will flow while the bar is inserted. It stops when the magnet comes to a rest inside the coil, but when we pull it out again, another momentary current flows in the opposite direction.

Similarly, with the iron bar threading the two coils C1 and C2. If at first no battery is connected anywhere, nothing happens. The moment we connect the battery to C1 and the iron bar becomes magnetized, a momentary current flows in C2, and if we disconnect it and the magnetism ceases, a momentary current again flows in C2 but in the opposite direction. (We assume the bar does not stay magnetized, which depends on the material and the strength of the current in C1.)

   Those are electromagnetically induced currents, originally discovered by Faraday in 1831. Unlike the magnetic field caused by currents, these currents depend on the rate of change of the magnetic field.

Airman. The text needs a diagram here, I modified a previous one.

Mostly restating the above, given a closed switch and a constant electrical current in C1, the meter will indicate that there is no current flow in C2. There are however, momentary current flows in C2 when the switch is closing or opening, while the C1 circuit (battery, insulated wire coil C1 and iron bar) energizes or de-energizes. With the switch closed, there would also be momentary current flows in C2 if the iron bar is moved - out of or back into - either coil while remaining in the other.

The currents in C2 are due to electromagnetic induction, depending entirely on a change with time, or rate of change of the C1 circuit; note coil C2 is not considered part of the C1 circuit.

If we replace the battery and switch with a constantly varying voltage source such as the 60 cycles per second alternating current (AC) available at a wall socket - there will be 60cps AC current in C2. The output voltage is roughly determined by comparing the input voltage times the coil ratio (C2/C1) with voltage, current and resistance as per Ohm’s Law (E=IR). Electromagnetic induction is used in almost all high voltage transformers in our electrical distribution systems.

Last time I stated that particles comprising an electric current caused by a local object’s magnetism will align to the object’s emission field and … . Well, forget about it, lucky for you, Miles wrote the paper, Alternating Current and Inductance, *. In the paper’s final paragraph Miles is describing AC power forming traveling spiral waves along the conductor lengths.

Miles Mathis wrote. However, that is just the stationary magnetic field. We have a spinning magnetic field here. We are applying a macro-spin to a field of spinning particles, and then feeding that field into a wire. So we basically have two separate spins to look at, and each one will obey a righthand rule. Well, if you spin a magnet, you can't spin it on the N-S axis. You can see that from the mainstream diagram of the alternator above, which is correct. You can also see it from your refrigerator magnet, which you can spin on the plane of the refrigerator door with no resistance, but which you cannot flip over. You can flip magnets one way and not another. This means we have to obey the same spin stacking rules that we found in my quantum spin theory. You have to stack spins like gyroscopes, with larger spins orthogonal to inner spins. In short, if you stack two spinning fields, as here, you are stacking the two righthand rules. The two righthand rules become a lefthand rule, of a sort. What was clockwise in the single spin field becomes counterclockwise in the double spin field. So if you feed a double-spin field into a wire which induces a current, that current will then induce a magnetic field that is opposite your original spinning field. In short, a non-spinning field will resist a spinning field, in this case (and others). And the reason is once again those spin levels. Everything here is spin mechanics at the quantum or charge level.

Airman. I’ll need more time thinking about this.

* . 127. Alternating Current and Inductance. I explain both with the charge field. By Miles Mathis. 8pp. http://milesmathis.com/alt.pdf
http://milesmathis.com/index.html

Next time ... Magnetic Flux.
.

Found this video that may be of interest:
Playing around with an Electromagnet and Neodymium magnet tied into a line.


Electromagnet and Neodymium
Guilherme França

.
Cr6, This exercise forces me to think about the subject matter fairly constantly. Thanks for your help and patience. I guess you can tell I’m still stuck on the magnetic field. Your videos add to my understanding. Forgive me if you've heard all this before.

A magnetic field must:

1. Be an emission field. Everything boils down to the charge field. One cannot redirect ambient charge into a magnetic field. Charged matter however, does recycle ambient charge into the matter’s emission field. When speaking of magnetism, the first consideration is usually the object - the lodestone, electromagnet, planet, and etcetera. Those objects are large collections of charged matter. Protons and electrons are also magnetic. The magnetic field is the emission field of such an object. At the same time, the object is subordinate to a ‘higher’ charge source. Sol is the charge source for the Earth. All magnetic objects within the Earth’s magnetic field are linked by the Earth’s field. Induction is a word describing charge field linkage. We can explain it better in charge field terms.  
 
2. Emit spin coherent photons. Few materials are magnetic or behave magnetically, only a small number of elements display magnetic characteristics. The distinguishing factor for magnetism is the spin coherency of the emitted charge. Free particles passing within an object’s emission field must feel both linear (electric) and spin (magnetic) charge impacts. Objects with strong spin coherent emissions feel a varying magnetic force, if the electric field repulsion is 1, then the transverse magnetic force can vary between zero and two. Observed attraction and repulsion.

3. Have a spin polarity imbalance. Matter (left-spin) outweighs anti-matter (right spin) two-to-one here on Earth. The Earth’s magnetic field is the sum of its emitted spin field. Half the matter emissions cancel with all antimatter emissions, leaving just half the original matter emissions responsible for causing Earth’s observed magnetic behavior.

Does spin coherency also include the phase angle of the emission photons?  Nevyn’s Proton Charge Viewer http://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/ProtonViewer, is a perfect example. I would argue that Proton Charge Viewer would perhaps be better titled 'proton magnetic field' since all photons emitted share the same spin (and phase). We expect proton emissions to include a mixture of up and down photons. The coherent photons emitted shown in the viewer could be the resulting sum (after cancellations) of a larger field - all the individually emitted up and down photons. The magnetic field is the net spin field available to deliver transverse (magnetic) forces.

Nevyn’s proton viewer also shows us that the transverse spin component direction will rotate at the charge photon’s spin rate. So, spin coherence may not be just up or down spins, but may also include the ‘clock position’ or phase angle of the charge photon’s top spin. Next we’ll need Nevyn’s Angular Paper (Hu Ah!) to show us how to find out how long a rotation takes and how far the photon has traveled in the meantime. Does it involve 432Hz?

Miles’ description of a 60Hz AC traveling spiral wave on top of coherent spiraling photons along conductors seems to be making sense. The “induced” contra current right hand rule is still a bit beyond me at present.  

The magnet videos are thought provoking. We know high strength magnets apparently attract or repel with so much force they’re quite dangerous, much more than one would expect from interactions involving enhanced or cancelled outer spins alone. We can increase magnetism by increasing charge density pretty much without limit, similar to the increased charge densities obtained by letting two magnets accelerate toward one another. Miles indicated we can increase magnetism further by eliminating cross charges. I believe Miles says that two magnets in contact are bound by gravity, but I still feel nuclear charge channel flows must somehow join when the magnets come into contact. I’ll keep thinking at it.
.

.
https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wEMinduc1.html

#5a-1.     Electro-Magnetic Induction,

Induced Electric Currents continued.



Airman. Last time, I failed to conclude the Induced Electric Currents section. I’ll do that here.

The mainstream description of induced electric currents goes like this - given an iron bar penetrating coils of insulated wire C1 and C2: 1) Voltage (across C1) causes a current (in C1) which; 2) creates a magnetic field (around C1 - the source of changing magnetic flux – and the iron bar), which; 3) causes a secondary opposing current (in C2) with 4) secondary voltage (across C2).  The mainstream’s explanation - the secondary current and voltage is caused by the changing magnetic flux around C1. As Miles points out in his paper Alternating Current and Inductance, the mainstream explanation is circular with no physical explanation given.

Rename the section. Change Induced Electric Currents to Charge Field Induced Electric Currents. The observed effects can be explained with spinning photons. Miles has done a tremendous job in rewriting much of theoretical physics, but he cannot change hundreds of years of scientific beliefs alone or in a lifetime. All our current formulas need reviews and corrections, something a great number of people would need to accomplish, a little at a time.

Continuing with #5a-1.     Electro-Magnetic Induction.

Magnetic Flux

Airman. I definitely wanted to include the math in this section since it’s a fairly straightforward way to learn or understand how these calculations are performed. For example, vectors are essential to any field descriptions. Some of the current terminology needs to be redefined. As far as I can tell, all the information provided, including "magnetic permeability”, can be used as described. Please let me know if you don’t agree.

We can still refer to magnetic flux, as long as we understand that it’s better described as a net, spin coherent emission field density change. Charge density can vary with location and distance to the source, as in the varying magnetic field strength felt by a particle moving through the field; or with a change in time – say during energization or de-energization of the circuit.

If anyone interested in simulating Oersted’s, Faraday’s or Lenz’s Law using charge field photons (see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html), I’d be happy to help.

Text. You would expect the current in the secondary coil C2 ("secondary current") to depend on the strength of the magnet or electromagnet used, on the number of windings, on the speed at which the magnet is pushed in (or the current in C1 is allowed to grow), and all that is true. That dependence involves the so called magnetic flux through the secondary circuit (called by some teachers "the number of magnetic field lines" passing C2).

   Formally the magnetic flux F through a closed loop equals its area, times the average magnetic field perpendicular to it, times the "magnetic permeability" μ of the material inside it. Each of these requires some explanation.

   The "area of the loop" sounds simple enough, except that in a coil we count separately each turn threaded by magnetic field lines. Thus with 1000 windings, the effective area threaded by the coil is 1000 times the area of a single turn.

   The word "average" conceals a lot of math. You should (from here on) know some of the properties of vectors, * quantities which (like force) have a direction in space as well as a magnitude. To find the magnetic flux threaded by a wire loop in empty space (or by any closed curve in space!),
1. Span it with some surface. (The properties of the magnetic field ensure here it makes no difference which surface is chosen.)
2. Divide that surface into a large number of itsy-bitsy small patches.
3. Multiply the area of each patch by the part (vector component) of the magnetic field perpendicular to it, and finally,
4. Add all those products together to get the magnetic flux.

The "average magnetic field" would be the flux divided by the area covered. Both the flux and the average are concepts from calculus ("obtaining an area integral"), and we won't go into details of practical derivations.

   And the permeability μ --most people know that putting a suitable magnetic material inside the loop can concentrate the magnetic field lines. For appropriate iron, μ (strictly, the relative permeability) can be as big as 10,000, but for most materials (wood, copper, glass) it is close to 1, and multiplying by 1 has no effect. In vacuum, of course, μ =1 exactly.

Airman. We know Iron has a special ability to create a strong magnetic field. As mentioned previously in this thread, Iron is well balanced. North/South, East/West, Front/Back are likely all equal phase-lengths. The iron receives high energy emissions from the energized coil. Those high energy photons somehow tune the Iron atoms’ emissions to the coil’s magnetic field. Iron atoms within a copper coil’s magnetic field will receive and re-emit a spin coherent (magnetic) photon emission field, greatly increasing the number of resonant emission sources.

A large increase in atoms emitting coherent charge means a large increase in the resulting magnetic field strength. It’s not clear whether the total magnetic field is due to the resonance of all and/or a limited number of Iron atoms. As we increase the coil’s current, are all irons increasing their recycling rate together? We can see an increase in the wire's temperature. I don't believe all copper or all Iron atoms are emitting at higher energy coherent emissions else the wire would be burned open. From previous discussion, I tend to think we are dealing with an overall increased energy which is equivalent to a limited number of active charge channels. We should be able to calculate the number of "active" by the wire's (or the bar's) temperature.

In any case, magnetic flux seems to equate to the change in the number of spin coherent photons passing through some area each second. Magnetic permeability seems to relate to the increase in charge density due to the greater amount of charge that Iron can recycle coherently when compared to an energized Copper wire.  

Text. The current in the secondary coil is proportional to the rate at which the magnetic flux threading it changes, no matter what causes the change--whether it is motion relative to the source of the magnetic field, or with primary and secondary coils around the same core, change in the magnetic field of the core because the current in the primary coil rises or falls.

   "Proportional" skips over many details--obviously, the electric (ohmic) resistance of the coil also controls the current, and if the current is big (with a wire of low resistance), its own magnetic field also modifies the flux.

Background concept: Vector Fields

Airman. Again, I see no problems accepting the traditional field definitions as long as we understand that we are dealing with real spinning photons and not mysterious lines-of-force.

Text. The above are the basic facts of electromagnetic induction. For actual calculation, a lot more is needed, well beyond the scope of this web exposition, especially if the circuits and fields are not channeled by copper and iron as they are in electric machinery, but are spread out in three-dimensional space. To get the flavor of what this is about, consider that strange word "flux". It suggests the flow of some fluid, and rightly so.

A magnetic field is a region in space where magnetic forces may be observed. The region is 3-dimensional and to specify the magnetic field, one must give at each point in the field the direction and magnitude of the magnetic force B on some imaginary isolated magnetic pole there, one of unit strength. B is a vector--a quantity in 3 dimensions with both direction and magnititude. Such quantities are discussed on the web page "vectors" and some other examples of vector quantities are force, acceleration and velocity. Referring to B as a "vector field" means that a region in space exists, at each point of which a vector B is defined.

   A map of magnetic field lines is another way of representing the vector field B--the direction of the line at any point is the direction of B, and the density of lines around it is proportional to the intensity. Magnetic field lines crowd together where the magnetic field is strong, for instance near magnetic poles.

   An electric field is a 3-dimensional region of electric forces, and the electric vector E is proportional to the force which might be experienced by some charged particle at that point, e.g. by an electron. Other properties are analogous, and one could define electric field lines too, although few people use them. (We omit here the relationship between E and B reflected in the theory of relativity, important for specifying the fields when seen by moving observers).

However, there exists another vector field, studied even earlier--the flow of a fluid, such as air or water. Imagine for instance a swimming pool filled with water, agitated by (say) swimmers in the pool. At each point the water may flow with some velocity v, and the distribution of v is also a vector field, similar to the magnetic field B (the fact water is almost incompressible brings the properties of v and B even closer). One can distinguish 3 types of flow v.

1. The water can just slosh around.
2. It can flow in and out from pipes connected to the pool (flow of air, which is compressible, can in addition be also be compressed or expanded). Or else
3. It can just swirl around on closed paths, Mathematics has expression for each of those, although (1) and (2) overlap. (Math addicts only: look up "Helmholtz Theorem")
Now imagine placing some closed hoop, not necessarily circular, in the pool. How much water (liters, gallons, cubic feet etc.) pass through the hoop each second? That would be the "flux of water" across the hoop, and to derive it, (1) stretch some surface across it (if the compression of water is negligible, any surface gives the same result), (2) divide it into many small areas, (3) multiply each area by the component of v perpendicular to it, and (4)add together all values. Voilà! You have derived the flux of water across the hoop at the given instant. Magnetic flux is mathematically analogous--as if the streamlines of the water flow were replaced by magnetic field lines.

   (Optional)   Because the flow of fluids is the oldest vector field studied, mathematical expressions which characterize it were developed, symbols or "operators" standing for related calculus expressions (which won't be reproduced). They include the vorticity ∇×v at each point, showing the local tendency to swirl around it (it is a vector directed along the axis of the swirl), and the divergence ∇⋅v giving the rate at which fluid enters at that point (negative if it drains out), either from a pipe entering there or (say, in air) by the expansion of previously compressed fluid. In the study of magnetic and electric fields in space, such operators are useful tools--but at this level, only the general flavor can be given, not the tedious details.

* http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Svector.htm  vectors is section 14 from, "From Stargazers to Starships", http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Smap.htm also by David P. Stern.
.

.
https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wEMinduc2.html

#5a-2.     Electro-Magnetic Induction – 2

Text. In the preceding section it was asserted--as experiments confirm--that a "secondary" electric current is "induced" in a closed conductor loop when the "magnetic flux" through it changes with time (all terms in quotes are defined and explained there). The change may come from a variation in the strength of the magnetic source--e.g. an electromagnet switched on and off, or one fed by AC. Or else, the change may come because the circuit moves relative to the source--for instance, a conducting circular loop or narrow coil rotating around a diameter, thus presenting the magnetic source with a constantly changing frontal area.

   What seems strange is that the current itself depends on the shape and size of the "secondary" circuit. Many observed effects depend on size and shape--e.g. the center of gravity of a brick, its weight, its kinetic energy when turned around some axis--but these always depend on some more fundamental laws, independent of shape and size. One would suspect that some fundamental law stands behind all induction phenomena, and such a law indeed exists--"Faraday's law of induction."

   The bad news is that it involves calculus, and in three dimensions, too. However, its intuitive meaning may perhaps be expressed in plain language, using electric and magnetic fields.

Airman. Here’s an image from HyperPhysics. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html#c1, found on their Faraday’s Law page I mentioned in my last post.

"Faraday's law of induction" describes the various ways a voltage is created by a conductor’s motion with respect to a magnetic field. Faraday’s law is heuristic, an observational description; voltage causes current causes magnetism causes counter current causes voltage is not an explanation. The charge field is the fundamental field here, causing induction through photon collisions. We don’t know exactly how yet, but we have more moving parts than were available when the electromagnetic (E/M) laws (Oersted, Maxwell, Faraday, Lenz, Ohm, …) were first written.

The Induced Electric Field

Text. As earlier defined, a magnetic field is a region where at any point a magnetic force can be observed, in the direction of the field vector B and with intensity proportional to the magnitude of B. The field may be viewed as modified space, and it exists at a point whether an observation is made there or not.

Airman. The magnetic field is caused by the spin components of all the photons making up the object’s emission field. The magnetic field is a type of emission field which arises from a high degree of spin coherency. It is the net north or south polarity found after the spin field has been summed. Field vector B aligned to so-called magnetic field lines is what we’ll work with unless there’s a reason found otherwise. Space cannot be modified, change the last sentence to - The field of spin coherent photons exists at a point whether an observation is made there or not. Add another sentence - Photons are too small to see, we can only observe E/M effects (electron or ion movement) caused by the charge field and described by E/M laws.

Text.    Similarly, an electric field is a region of electric forces, and the direction of the force--say, on a loose electron--is that of the field vector E, with an intensity proportional to the magnitude of E.

Airman. Emission fields are repulsive. Most objects’ emission fields contain little to no spin coherency, and no magnetic behavior would be observed. In that case, the emission field repulsion is found to be the sum of all the photon collisions’ forward or linear components – forming the electric field. We’ll work with electric field vector E.

Text.    In particular, if an electric conductor is placed in an electric field, an electric current with density j (yet another vector!) will usually flow. If the conductor is a metal and obeys Ohm's rule--as in insulated copper wires used in electric machinery--the current will flow along the wire, its shape depending on that of the wire, and its magnitude on the electric resistance of the material, which depends on thickness, length and material. In addition, various rules need to be obeyed:

1.    The circuit must be closed, otherwise electric charges carried by the current accumulate at its ends and those accumulations create their own electric field, stopping the flow of any additional current.
2.    If a current does flow, it contributes its own magnetic field, modifying the one creating it and generally weakening it.
3.    If some more complicated relation takes the place of Ohm's Law (as happens, for instance, in plasmas), that relation rules the current flow, often making it more complex.
4.    --And...     if there is NO electric conductor in the region of changing magnetic field, NO electric current flows. However, there still exists an "induced" electric field E, a modification of the properties of space, though without any material on which it acts, it would be hard to detect it.

Airman. As to 4. … “NO electric conductor “ … , and the rest - Yes there is still a photon emission field present and we can still calculate the emission’s electric field strength. Space is NOT modified.

Text.    In any case, it is the induced electric field E which drives all induced electric currents, and all features related to electromagnetic (EM) induction. The formula for E, also known as Faraday's Law, allows E to be calculated (assuming enough is known about conductivities, etc.)

Airman. Net changes of the emission field are the charge differentials which induce electric field E. Faraday’s law describes the E field well.

The Electro-Motive Force

Text.    Unfortunately, expressing and applying Faraday's law in general space conditions requires more math than is included here. One reason is that the induced electric field E has a strange form. Think again about the two main types of water flow in a swimming pool, mentioned earlier. There exists the "source-and-sink" flow --water entering from "source" pipes, its flow distributing itself around the pool, then converging on the drains or "sinks" where it leaves again ("sloshing" is the special case of no source and no sink). Electric fields (and currents) in circuits powered by batteries flow this way, whether confined by wires (which act as pipes) or spreading out in a conducting volume (as they would around an electric eel). One pole of the battery is the "souce," the other the "sink."

Airman.  Photons cannot be held by any wall, pipe or wire; however, wires do constrain electron flow and so electricity was born. Photons can only collide or slide against other photons. Charged matter configurations do recycle charge. Charge emission must follow charge intake. All charged particles within the field will match their own emissions to their changing incoming charge.

Turn on the switch. The direction of source or sink is determined by a net charge field motion. Be aware there is also a simultaneous sink to source (anti-matter) photon current flow – the electron velocity shows the electric field strength (like magnetism) which is a summation of both photon and anti-photon currents. While energized, the copper wire contains plenty of free electrons, but they are not a driving force, they are indicators of an increased and changing charge flow, giving us something to see and measure.

An electro-motive force is not caused by a changing electrical current; an electro-motive force is the result of a charge distribution caused by changing charge field conditions, as local matter emission field densities change to match the latest amount of charge received. Emission density can also be changed by increasing or decreasing the masses of the emitted photon. Copper or Iron atoms are six-armed nuclear colliders which routinely stack or strip photon spins, thereby changing the resulting photon wavelength and density in the atom’s emission field.

Text.    But in addition there also exist swirling "vortex flows" whose sources are distributed in space rather than having specific locations (compare book of Ecclesiastes, ch.1, verses 6-7!). The induced electric field is of this kind. In the first kind of field, E has a definite direction, from high voltage to low, just as the analogous water flow (section 4a) proceeds from high pressure to low pressure. In a fluid vortex flow, the impelling force is distributed, and in an electric vortex field ("solenoidal field") the voltage is similarly distributed in space.

Airman. Vortices are special, especially with concentric opposing spiral current flows. More later?

Ok, if it comes to physics, I’ll crack the family bible.

Ecclesiastes, ch.1, verses 6-7

6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

Airman. According to charge field theory, we are light. All matter is created from photons and all matter constantly recycles photons. We are filled and surrounded by photons that may have traveled from anywhere in the universe. The Earth generally receives solar charge at the poles and emits mainly from the equator, causing a spin about its axis, moon and sun. Our world is a series of light driven cycles within cycles, most too small to see.

Text.    Say you have a closed wire loop in a varying magnetic field, with a certain electric conductivity, and you want to calculate the induced current at some instant. You choose a starting point on the wire (turns out that any choice gives the same result) and trace E around the wire, assigning to it voltages as you go. By the time you have returned to the starting point, you have derived the effective voltage driving of the charged field induced current, and applying Ohm's law then gives the net induced current itself.

Airman. I agree, integrating over closed paths works. E/M equations and applying the right hand rule appropriately gives us the right numbers. Geometry and field directions, vectors and such, help us understand most of the details. I’ll paraphrase, it’s more important to understand how the charge field works than to memorizing equations. I’m working at understanding how the photon collisions cause Faraday’s law.

Text.   Obviously, the mathematics of deriving such a distributed electric field is different, but you are helped by Faraday's law, by which the "effective voltage" driving current around any given circuit is proportional to the rate at which the magnetic flux through it changes. Faraday named this strange distributed voltage the "electro motive force", or e.m.f. for short; a clumsy name, but after nearly two centuries, it has yet to be replaced. The direction of the e.m.f. (for there is a choice of two opposing directions around any closed loop) is always such, that if it drives an induced electric current, the resulting magnetic field will oppose its source. That is, if the induced current is caused by a growing magnetic flux, the field of the current will tend to reduce that flux, while if the cause is a decaying magnetic flux, the field of the current will try to prop it up and slow down its decay.

Airman. Nearly two centuries doesn’t mean forever. We didn’t know about the charge field back then. Electro-motive force clearly describes the obvious E/M effects. Faraday’s law isn’t complete because it doesn’t account for the real spinning photons causing the voltage potential differences. Real spinning photons and not some special property of space. The only lines-of-force are photon collisions.

Text.   If all this seems too qualitative, while you seek some solid numbers to work with, you might browse around the "hyperphysics" web site--for instance, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html and if need be, in the index on the right click on "Faraday's law".

Airman. I’m happy to see David Stern also recommends HyperPhysics, almost twenty years ago. Time sure flys. I suppose they were on disc before the internet.

To Be Continued.
.

.
An effort to review, update and improve understanding of: "The Exploration of the Earth's Magnetosphere" https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/index.html , by including the charge field.

#5a-2.     Electro-Magnetic Induction – 2 Continued

Airman. According to charge field theory, electric currents are caused by a net charge field motion. In my understanding, induced currents are caused by relative charge field motion. When a conductor is moved through a stationary magnetic field, all the atoms within the conductor will feel the variations in receipt of the coherent spiraling motions of the photons making up the magnetic field, as equivalent to a net charge field motion. The emission fields of all the individual atoms throughout the conductor are always slightly behind (small distances at light speed) while they adjust to the slightly varying incoming time differentials of coherent magnetic charge. The resulting emission variations by all the atoms present pushes free electrons along causing an electron charge separation which is defined as the induced voltage potential.

It’s only the underlying physics that are changed. The E/M formulas will stay the same. We’ll need new formulas that specifically address charge. Most of the text remains the same.

Please feel free to share any comment or disagreements.

Alternating Current or AC

Text.   Faraday's law turns out to be one of the fundamental laws of the electromagnetic field--laws expressed by James Clerk Maxwell in his famous equations (involving calculus) and used by him to derive the existence of electromagnetic waves, which include visible light, radio waves, X-rays and many other varieties.

Airman. That’s a teaser with 2 links for # 6. Electromagnetic Waves https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wemwaves.html. I’ll try to save my comments till then.

Text.   Induced electric currents also made possible a wide variety of technologies, and are the reason why our homes and factories rely on alternating current or AC, whose voltage rises and falls like a periodic wave, reversing direction 100 or 120 times each second (you need two reversals in each cycle before you return to the starting value, so we speak of AC with 50 or 60 cycles per second).

Airman. Alternating current is defined above as a voltage which raises and falls like a periodic wave, alternating voltage, with no mention of current. Mainstream has never been able to properly define the current in AC. It’s always assumed to be an electron flow as is apparently the case for constant voltage or battery circuits. Mainstream cannot explain an electron flow in an alternating current or an alternating voltage. The charge field can describe how charge motions found in AC will cause an electron current.

As I understand it, photons are emitted in all directions radially outward as well as in line with the conductor. Looking down the wire we see all the photons are spinning in synchronized motion in a clockwise direction due to the coherent spins of photons within a current carrying conductor. AC adds another field of synchronized spin motion of counter clockwise rotation, which cause transverse currents within the wire; a standing wave that rotates spirally along the conductor – 50 or 60 times a second. The rotating, magnetic, spin transverse motion on top of the rotating AC tends to push electrons along something like an Archimedes screw pushes water uphill.

Text.   It is easy enough to generate AC. Suppose that in a wide gap between two opposing magnetic poles you place a circular wire, or better a narrow circular coil, and spin it around a diameter perpendicular to the line connecting the poles. The magnetic flux through the coil then changes all the time, completely reversing each half turn. If you then lead the ends of the wire to twin copper disks on the shaft on which the disk turns, insulated from the shaft and from each other, and continue the circuit outside through sliding contacts ("brushes") which touch those disks, those contacts will extract AC.

Airman. The text describes generating AC current with a fixed magnet and revolving conductor loop (and brushes). The diagram here shows how AC can also be created from a fixed wire and rotating magnetic field (without brushes). Together, they help make it easier to imagine the rotating transverse direction - the phase rotation - of the 50-60cps AC magnetic field along the wire (just look at the angle of the magnet or coil).

Text.  Commercial AC generators are more complicated, but the principle is the same. To get a current of constant polarity from such a "dynamo", each disk must be split into halves insulated from each other by some non-metal layer. The sliding contacts then switch from one half to the other whenever the flux through the coil reverses. This allows the current to maintain the same "+ to –" direction throughout the entire cycle, though its voltage still goes up and down. Old cars used such "DC dynamos" for charging their storage batteries.

Airman. After not mentioning the current in AC current to begin with, we now have sliding contacts within AC transformers intended to prevent current polarity reversals. I dunno, I’ll keep thinking at it.  

Electrical Transformers

Text.   AC is widely used to transform the voltage of electric currents. The energy transmitted by an electric current depends on the product of current times voltage, modified for AC (because of the constant change) to something like 1/2 the peak voltage times the peak current (for the simplest case). However, by Ohm's law, energy loss due to electric resistance of the wire depends on the current intensity alone. For that reason, it is most economical to transmit electric energy using the smallest current possible, which requires (for the same energy) the highest voltage possible, say 400,000 volt. The high voltage requires the transmission lines to be extremely well insulated from their surroundings, which is why they are strung high in the air (air is an excellent electric insulator), hanging from elaborate ceramic supports (ceramic insulates too). However, the machinery which generates the AC, and the home appliances which use it, better operate at low voltages (say, we may generate AC at 500 volts and reduce it at the end to 110 volts), because high voltages require too much electric insulation, and also pose dangers of electric shock and fire.

Airman. AC is the US’ most commonly distributed form of electrical energy. High, intermediate or residential AC voltages are ubiquitous. As mentioned above, high voltage minimizes current flow - conductor heating and loss is thus minimized. I don’t see how that disagrees with the charge field. Generation plants, like hydro-electric or gas burners convert their electrical output to several hundred thousand volt potentials to be transmitted across the country in circuits of three (each) energized conductors called three phase. Each of the three phase conductors feels the same periodic wave (50-60cps) separated by 1/3 of a cycle from the two other phases. Part of the chirality - or phase rotation - of today’s power transmission systems Miles mentioned in his Alternating Current paper *. I believe that relates directly to - what are the proper three phase connections to turn a motor in the desired spin direction? If I recall correctly, if you connect the three phases and it’s wrong, you need only switch any two of the three phase connections.  

Text.   The solution is provided by electrical transformers. The generated AC current powers an electromagnet by passing a "primary coil" C1 wrapped around it, then a "secondary coil" C2 around the same magnetic core creates a secondary electric current which is the one transmitted. Because the same magnetic flux passes emission field links both coils, if C1 has 50 windings and C2 has 5000, the varying magnetic flux in C2 is 100 times larger, creating 100-fold voltages in the secondary circuit.

Airman. Transformers can be found in all shapes and sizes. They generally take AC at one voltage (say the wall socket voltage) and multiply it higher or lower depending on your device or machinery of choice. The coils and electromagnetic core are linked by a single coherent emission field.

Corrected the text as shown. The magnetic field is the spin component of the charge field. Changing magnetic flux is not the source for e.m.f. Charge field motion causes a charge separation that determines e.m.f.

Text.   When the current reaches the consumer, other transformers step down the voltage, generally in several steps--say, primary coil of 5000 winding, secondary with 500, lowering the voltage 10 times. This produces intermediate voltages to supply towns or neighborhoods, then a few more steps to the transformers atop power poles, which bring the current down to 110 volts for home use. The lower-voltage power lines carry much less electric power than the high-voltage ones, but the currents are comparable. Power transformers are remarkably efficient, and rather little of the energy is lost when the voltage is stepped up or down. Just a very small part of the electric energy is lost as heat, which power transformers sometimes dissipate by cooling fins, or by loops of pipe sticking out to circulate the oil in which the coils are usually immersed.

Airman. I’ll agree with that. Thanks for the summary. I’ve included an electrical distribution system from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission for clarity.
 
Auroral Electrojets

Text.   Induction fields are important in shaping magnetic fields in space--especially, the "freezing" of magnetic field lines to the plasma (section #18a, also here ) depends on them. One interesting consequence are occasional "power blackouts" in the auroral zone, especially in Canada. In the high layers of the atmosphere--the ionosphere--sunlight separates free electrons from some of the atoms and molecules, allowing those layers to conduct electric currents. In the "E layer" of the ionosphere, around 125 kilometer or 80 miles, collisions of ions and electrons with neutral molecules are still frequent enough to allow electrons to jump from one field line to its neighbor and carry horizontal currents. Higher up collisions are fewer, electrons and ions tend to be confined around guiding magnetic field lines, and horizontal current flow is inhibited.

Airman. Freezing magnetic field lines to the plasma sounds like fighting words. The auroral zone involves a boundary between Earth’s predominant emission field (between the poles), and Earth’s predominant incoming solar charge (at the poles). Where the two are equal, spin energies add and local atoms are ionized. All “induction” is caused by charge field motion and mechanics.    

Text.   Because of the interaction of the magnetosphere and the solar wind, the auroral zone (magnetic latitude 60-70 degrees) carries large horizontal current systems, known as the auroral electrojets, whose intensity is concentrated along the auroral oval. Usually the electrojets modify the magnetic field beneath them by a fraction of 1%, but during big magnetic storms they briefly intensify and shift to greater distance from the pole--as does the polar aurora, which can then be observed (for a short while) well beyond its usual location.

Airman. Increases in incoming solar charge would naturally expand the area of polar charge received. We would then see aurora at a lower latitudes; the number of ionizations and free electrons must also increase at lower altitudes.

Text.   With this shift, the magnetic field due to the electrojects also changes, enough to induce an appreciable extra voltage in the high-voltage long-distance lines of the electric grid. Since the field of the electrojet is weak, those changes are small too--but since they stretch over great distances, the magnetic flux through the grid can change substantially. The transformers of the grid are designed for AC of 60 cycles, but the electrojet varies on the scale of minutes, so the induced voltage acts more like a DC voltage, for which the grid is not designed. As a result, circuit breakers may trip and open, and on rare occasions, transformers have overheated and burned out. Luckily such events are quite rare, and engineers now know when to look out for them.

Airman. Charge field emissions from the auroral zone and electrojets add to the charge field present in our atmosphere. All local fields are linked via the Earth’s emission field. Energetic solar events may occasionally add to the total charge in our atmosphere and electrical transmission and distribution systems, more than enough to trip the occasional breaker or burn conductors open.


* Again, http://milesmathis.com/index.html 127. Alternating Current and Inductance. I explain both with the charge field. By Miles Mathis. 8pp. http://milesmathis.com/alt.pdf
.

.

https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wemwaves.html

#6.  Electromagnetic Waves

Text.    Perhaps the greatest theoretical achievement of physics in the 19th century was the discovery of electromagnetic waves. The first hint was an unexpected connection between electric phenomena and the velocity of light.

Airman. Friends, readers, forgive me, I am here not to praise E/M waves but to replace them - with spin waves. Knowing that, I would change the first sentence to - Perhaps the greatest technological achievement of physics in the 19th century. Many developments in this area have taken place in spite of what we can now see as the mistakes in Maxwell’s theoretical models. Please read Maxwell's Equations are Unified Field Equations *. It is far far better to read Miles Mathis’ own words on any given subject.

And the second sentence, “unexpected connection between electric phenomena and the velocity of light”, we keep coming back to light. Before I learned of the charge field I assumed light was made of photons, but I never imagined them spinning. Light has always been a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Almost 200 years later, someone finally figured out that E/M waves are actually photon spin waves.

According to charge field theory, all matter is comprised of charge and all matter constantly recycles charge. Charge is photons. Photons travel and spin at light speed (c) and the resulting motion form spin waves. Charge field motion in the presence of electrons or ions causes all observed E/M effects.

Text.    Electric forces in nature come in two kinds. First, there is the electric attraction or repulsion between (+) and (-) electric charges. It is possible to use this to define a unit of electric charge, as the charge which repels a similar charge at a distance of, say, 1 meter, with a force of unit strength (actual formulas make this precise).

Airman. Electric attraction does not exist. All charged particles emit photons that repel other charged particles. Attraction is always only apparent and can be shown to be the result of a reduced repulsion. Electrons can approach protons because electrons are small enough (1821 times smaller than the proton) to be able to avoid most of the proton’s emission field; this has been mistaken as electric attraction between (+) and (-) electric charges. We can still use the existing force units and formulas.

Text.    But second, there is also the attraction and repulsion between parallel electric currents. One could then define the unit of current, as the current which, when flowing in a straight wire, attracts a similar current in a parallel wire 1 meter away with a force of unit strength, for every meter of the wires' length.

Airman. There is no attraction between the two wires, only a reduced repulsion. The charge field mechanisms of spinning photon collisions describe how two wires with parallel or anti-parallel currents seem to attract or repel. The total repulsion depends on both the electric and magnetic components.

Two wires carrying parallel currents each emit photons of the same polarity. Directly between the two wires, these same polarity photons traveling in opposite directions may avoid head-on collisions, but all the top spins are exposed and spin differentials are maximum. Top sins are stripped from both emission fields, reducing the repulsive strength of the two emission fields.

Two wires carrying anti-parallel currents emit photons of opposite polarity toward each other. When these photons almost meet head-to-head there are little to no spin differentials. These photons are like dance partners who maintain contact while they spin toward and away from each other, near collisions are reduced to sideswipe contacts with no loss of top spins. The two emission field strengths are less negated, thus maximizing their repulsive strengths. Let the pre-electric field strength felt by each wire be equal to 1. The total pre-electric repulsion is then 2. Depending on their relative spin alignments, repulsion due to the magnetic component of the emission field can vary between 0 and 2. The total emission field strength between parallel and anti-parallel currents vary between two and four.

Text.    But electric current and charge are related! We could have just as well based the unit of current on the unit of charge--say, as the current in which one unit of charge passes each second through any cross section of the wire. This second definition turns out to be quite different, and if meters and seconds are used in all definitions, the ratio of the two units of current turns out to be the speed of light, 300,000,000 meters per second.

Airman. We now know exactly how electric current and charge are related. The photon is the basic unit of charge. Einstein’s famous E=mc^2 may be best understood as describing how everything depends on photons: E, the photon energy, is equal to the product of the photon’s mass (m); forward velocity (c); and spin tangential velocity (c). Charge field photons drive all E/M behavior.

Text.   In Faraday's time the speed of light was known, although not as accurately as it is today. It was first derived around 1676 by Ole (Olaus) Roemer, a Danish astronomer working in Paris. Roemer tried to predict eclipses of Jupiter's moon Io (mentioned later here in an altogether different connection) and he found a difference between actual and predicted eclipse times, which grew and then decreased again as the Earth circled the Sun. He correctly guessed the reason, namely, as the Earth moved in its orbit, its distance to Jupiter also went up and down, and light needed extra time to cover the extra distance.

But what was the meaning of the link between electricity and light?

   Remember the idea of Faraday which evolved into the "magnetic field" concept--that space in which magnetic forces may be observed is somehow changed? Faraday also showed that a magnetic field which varied in time--like the one produced by an alternating current (AC)--could drive electric currents, if (say) copper wires were placed in it in the appropriate way. That was "magnetic induction," the phenomenon on which electric transformers are based.

   So, magnetic fields could produce electric currents, and we already know that electric currents produce magnetic fields. Would it perhaps be possible for space to support a wave motion alternating between the two? Sort of:

magnetic field ---> electric current ---> magnetic field ---> electric current --->

Airman. E/M wave theory requires no force carriers between energized conductors. Space alone creates oscillations between magnetic fields and electric currents. Compare that to the charge field explanation. Each photon contributes to E/M electric currents and magnetic fields with the motions of two orthogonal velocities – forward (pre-electric) and tangential (pre-magnetic). The angular momentum that would contribute to either an electric current or magnetic field is found in each photon.
...

Text.       There was one stumbling block. Such a wave could not exist in empty space, because empty space contained no copper wires and could not carry the currents needed to complete the above cycle. A brilliant young Scotsman, James Clerk Maxwell, solved the riddle in 1861 by proposing that the equations of electricity needed one more term, representing an electric current which could travel through empty space, but only for very fast oscillations.

   With that term added (the "displacement current"), the equations of electricity and magnetism allowed a wave to exist, propagating at the speed of light. The drawing below illustrates such a wave--green is the magnetic part, blue the electric part--the term Maxwell added. The wave is drawn propagating just along one line. Actually it fills space, but it would be hard to draw that.



Maxwell proposed that it indeed was light. There had been earlier hints--as noted above, the velocity of light had appeared unexpectedly in the equations of electricity and magnetism--and further studies confirmed it. For instance, if a beam of light hits the side of a glass prism, only part of it enters--another part gets reflected. Maxwell's theory correctly predicted properties of the reflected beam.

   Then Heinrich Hertz in Germany showed that an electric current bouncing back and forth in a wire (nowadays it would be called an "antenna") could be the source of such waves. (The current also produces a magnetic field in accordance with Ampere's law, but that field decreases rapidly with distance.) Electric sparks create such back-and-forth currents when they jump across a gap--hence the crackling caused by lightning on AM radio--and Hertz in 1886 used such sparks to send a radio signal across his lab. Later the Italian Marconi, with more sensitive detectors, extended the range of radio reception, and in 1903 detected signals from Europe as far as Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

    It was presumed that light from the hot wire of a lightbulb was emitted because the heat caused electrons to bounce back and forth rapidly, turning each into a tiny antenna. When physicists tried to follow that idea, however, they found that the familiar laws of nature had to be modified on the scale of atomic sizes. That was how quantum theory originated.

   Gradually other electromagnetic waves were found. The wave nature of light causes different colors to be reflected differently by a surface ruled in fine parallel scratches--which is why a compact laser disk (for music or computer use) shimmers in all colors of the rainbow. The orderly rows of atoms in a crystal also form parallel lines but spaced much more closely, and they turned out to have the same effect on X-rays, showing that X-rays, like light, also were electromagnetic waves, but of a much shorter wavelength. Later it was found that beams of electrons in a magnetic field, inside a vacuum tube, could become unstable and emit waves longer than light: the magnetron tube where this occured was a top-secret radar device in World War II, and it later made the microwave oven possible.

   Electromagnetic waves led to radio and television, and to a huge electronic industry. But they are also generated in space--by unstable electron beams in the magnetosphere, as well as at the Sun and in the far-away universe, telling us about energetic particles in distant space, or else teasing us with unresolved mysteries. You can find more about this in the section on high energy particles.

Airman. Empty space has no wires and so it was thought that oscillating electric currents and magnetic fields in empty space should not exist; however, E/M waves were found to exist. Without benefit of real spinning photons, Maxwell ended up accepting a property of space called permittivity which allows mysterious lines-of-force which fill all space and do not manifest unless there is matter present. Maxwell’s displacement current acts as a charge field without photons or without any physical force carriers. Light was accepted as proof of the displacement current and E/M waves.

In Maxwell's Equations are Unified Field Equations *, Miles points out that this is all upside down. Light is not an E/M wave, E/M waves are caused by light. The charge field is the primary field, and it is comprised of the smallest objects, photons. Photon motion in the charge field causes all the observed effects on electrons and ions in the larger E/M field.

* http://milesmathis.com/index.html
14. Maxwell's Equations are Unified Field Equations. I show that the displacement field is really my charge field, and that Maxwell's equations are unified. By Miles Mathis. 11pp. http://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf[/quote]
.

Airman. Electric attraction does not exist. All charged particles emit photons that repel other charged particles. Attraction is always only apparent and can be shown to be the result of a reduced repulsion. Electrons can approach protons because electrons are small enough (1821 times smaller than the proton) to be able to avoid most of the proton’s emission field; this has been mistaken as electric attraction between (+) and (-) electric charges. We can still use the existing force units and formulas.

A great comment there LTAM that gives pause.

.
Airman wrote. Electric attraction does not exist. All charged particles emit photons that repel other charged particles. Attraction is always only apparent … .

Cr6 wrote. A great comment there LTAM that gives pause.

Airman. Thanks Cr6. Lesson #7 also begins with negative electrons and positive ions and I’ll make a similar charge comment again. They’re mostly Miles’ words, I might add a cadence. I avoid quoting him, but must describe his ideas and mechanics. I’m a very poor imitation. He said we have to start coming up with some of this stuff on our own so I’ll try to do better, but I’m still trying to understand it in the first place. If I try to be more original, I’ll probably be making more mistakes. The rote repetition built into the text is designed for learning. It seems to help. Feel free to correct me, you will always have my sympathy.

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

https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wplasma.html

#7.     Plasma

Text. Plasma is sometimes called "the fourth state of matter", beyond the familiar three--solid, liquid and gas. It is a gas in which atoms have been broken up into free-floating negative electrons and positive ions, atoms which have lost electrons and are left with a positive electric charge.

Airman. The charge field redefines charge. Charge is photons and anti-photons, around 3 million times smaller than the electron, moving and spinning at light speed. The only charge interaction is through collisions, and so all charge is repulsive. Attraction as a force is both physically and theoretically impossible. Any motion appearing to be an attraction is actually due to a reduced repulsion. Electrical attraction does not exist.

Plasma consists of free electrons and ions, that’s true. Plasma also has a charge field. Photons constantly channel and recycle through all the matter present. Recycling photons, like dark matter (photons) are estimated to out-mass the visible plasma (electrons and ions) by around 20-to-1.

All matter is charge. Strike a match. A high temperature phosphorous/sulfur reaction ignites the matchstick – a combustion process that creates a flame and light. The flame is a plasma. The higher temperature and increased photon charge concentrations releases electrons, ions and photons as it consumes and disintegrates the wood. The flame is an example of a non-sustainable process, when the fuel is exhausted, the reaction ends, leaving just charred remains.

Text. In the lower atmosphere where we live, any atom that loses an electron (say, by being hit by a fast cosmic ray particle) soon recaptures it or one like it. The situation is quite different at high temperatures, such as exist on the Sun. The hotter the gas, the faster its atoms and molecules move, and at very high temperatures, the collisions between such fast-moving atoms are violent enough to rip off electrons. In the Sun's atmosphere, a large fraction of the atoms at any time is "ionized" by such collisions, and the gas acts as a plasma.

Airman. Sounds energetic enough, although atom-to-atom collisions can hardly be a main cause for ionizations. High velocity ions are being pushed by photons. Higher temperatures and velocities indicate increased energy, a greater emission field density along with increased charge recycling. At higher temperatures the field also contains more locally emitted ambient photons. The increased photon channel traffic through the atom is what knocks electrons from the lower ionization energy positions.

“Fast cosmic ray particles” are also charged particles, perhaps half the diameter of an electron, it is largest charge particle able to move through our atmosphere with a forward velocity of light speed. The increased charge density of the earth's emission field encountered by the cosmic ray greatly increases the frequency of photon collisions which will slow the particle down before it reaches land or sea. Electron sized particles and larger meet too much photon resistance to travel at c, although they might be be found to move at light speeds in charge channels between galaxies.

Text. Unlike cool gases (e.g. air at room temperature), plasmas conduct electricity and are strongly affected by magnetic fields. The fluorescent lamp, widely used in the home and at work, contains a rarefied inert gas with a fraction of a percent mercury vapor, which produces a plasma when heated and agitated by electricity, from the power line to which the lamp is connected. The power line makes one end electrically positive, the other negative (see drawing below) causing (+) ions to be accelerated towards the (-) end, and (-) electrons to the (+) end. The accelerated particles gain energy, collide with atoms, eject additional electrons and thus maintain the plasma, even if some other particles re-combine. The collisions also cause mercury atoms to emit light, and in fact, this source of light is more efficient than conventional lightbulbs. Neon signs and streetlights operate on a similar principle, and some plasma devices are (or were) used in electronics.

Airman. Agitation of ions and electrons back and forth, accelerated by reversing the anode and cathode 100cps causing an equilibrium of electron and ion collisions is not how ionization or fluorescent lamps work.
When energized, an increased charge density of spin coherent photon emissions is present and linking both the anode and cathode. The magnetic field also includes the drop of mercury fluid which vaporizes to a gas. The AC current does not drive ions forward and back, the spiraling nature of the AC current’s transverse rotating magnetic field helps push the mercury vapor and free electrons present closer to the tube’s coated inner surface. The ions will align their primary N/S poles to maximize charge throughput. I imagine long columns of Mercury ion threads forming bundles of charge flow. The true current in an AC circuit are the charge photons (and anti-photons).

Text. As noted, the Sun consists of plasma. Another important plasma in nature is the ionosphere, starting about 70-80 km above ground. Here electrons are torn off atoms by sunlight of short wavelengths, ranging from the ultra-violet to X-rays: they do not recombine too readily because the atmosphere becomes increasingly rarefied at high altitudes and collisions are not frequent. The lowest part of the ionosphere, the "D layer" at 70-90 km, still has enough collisions to cause it to disappear after sunset. Then the remaining ions and electrons recombine, while in the absence of sunlight new ones are no longer produced. However, that layer is re-established at sunrise. Above 200 km, collisions are so infrequent that the ionosphere persists day and night.



The topside ionosphere extends many thousands of km into space and merges with the magnetosphere, whose plasmas are generally more rarefied but also much hotter. The ions and electrons of the magnetospheric plasma come in part from the ionosphere below, in part from the solar wind (next paragraph), and many details of their entry and heating are still unclear.

Airman. Good information. Huge pools of ions and electrons. I try to see the boundaries, not quite able to follow how they form just yet. There is a continued over reliance on collisions between electrons and ions from the sun as a main energy transfer to the Earth's ionosphere.

I suspect the lion’s share of the “many details of the entry and heating of ions and electrons of the magnetosphere are still unclear” pertain to the general misunderstanding the nature of charge. The solar wind is recognized, as well as the earthly source of ions and electrons - the Earth’s ionosphere. What’s missing is the fact that the Earth emits far more than just reflected sunlight. The Earth is the source for a great deal of charge in well-defined areas that also heat things up. The magnetosphere is the equi-potential boundaries between the Earth and Sun that make up the magnetosphere boundary, it must be larger than mainstream can credit.

Text.  Finally, there exists the interplanetary plasma--the solar wind. The outermost layer of the Sun, the corona, is so hot that not only are all its atoms ionized, but those which have started off with many electrons have several of them (sometimes all of them) torn off, including deeper-lying electrons which are more strongly attached. For instance, characteristic light has been detected in the corona from iron which has lost 13 electrons.

Airman. Atoms at energies exceeding their ionization energies will be ionized. Those electrons are not blown loose by collisions with external electrons or ions, atoms are ionized primarily from increased internal charge flows. Anyone agree, disagree?

Text.  This extreme temperature also prevents the plasma of the corona from being held captive by the Sun's gravity, and instead it flows out in all directions, filling the solar system far beyond the most distant known planets. Through the solar wind the Sun shapes the Earth's distant magnetic field, and the wind's fast flow (~400 km/s) supplies the energy which ultimately powers the polar aurora, the radiation belts and magnetic storm phenomena.

Airman. The only thing not held captive to gravity is charge. The Sun’s charge emissions heats and repels outward the electrons and ions in the corona. The solar wind is the Sun’s charge emission field. It flows out in all directions linking together the Sun and planets, a portion of which will cycle through the Earth’s charge field. The interacting fields make magnetospheric events a little more interesting.
.

Nice LTAM.

Please correct if this wrong but with the Charge Field...is this reconcilable? The Charge Field is driving the Sun as well, but a little differently. Can spin dynamics explain the "thermo-element" effect and massive discharges of the sun? The sun is a long running charge field generator... because...?

-------

The solar wind is the result of the asymmetric thermal motion of the electrons in the Sun. An electron would fly in all direction with the same velocity in an isothermal Sun. However, the Sun is colder outwards. A random flight outwards brings an electron in a colder proximity (i.e. its velocity becomes lower). Therefore, the return into the original position is improbable i.e. all electrons drift slowly outwards. Naturally this drift is very small, but it has enormous cross section in the whole Sun. These electrons appear at the photosphere and their mutual electrostatic repulsion emits them. A huge and continual negative current as solar wind flows into the space.

Does the Sun have enough electrons to continually emit them without getting new electrons? The Sun does not lose all of its 1057 electrons via solar wind. It loses only about 10   electrons daily. This is not too much even in a long solar life of 1010 years. The Sun will lose at the end 4 x 1051 : 1057 part of its electrons i.e. only 0.0004% of its electrons. The Sun is in fact an irreversible current-source but even for gigayears.

The protons are 43-times slower due to their 1836 times higher mass and mostly remain in the core. Always the quickest electrons are lost for the solar core, this process cools the core but all solar activities mainly have their electric energy from this separation of the electric charges via this so called thermoelement-effect. Other effects amplify this charge separation, for example the neutrinos from the solar core push the electrons outwards, never inwards. Moreover, solar photons push the electrons stronger outwards than inwards.
...

PHOTONS OF THE REPULSION CANNOT FLY IN PLASMA

Why do the core-ions not explode electrically when they lost "their" electrons? Two solar protons repulse each other with a very strong electric force and attract each other with very weak gravity. The repulsion is 10^36 times higher than this attraction in a certain distance. With other words, a perfect electrically neutral star of 1036 gram would have no fixed spherical body if it had only 1 g excess-protons without electrons. The mutual repulsion of the excess-protons would be as strong as the mutual gravity among the protons of this huge mass. The Sun has a mass of 2 x 1033 gram i.e. it needs only 2 x 0,001gram excess-protons to have no defined body anymore. 0.01g protons without electrons would theoretically explode the Sun.
But something is wrong: During a coronal mass ejection the Sun emits up to 10 billion tons of charged matter not only 0.01g. Why did this huge positive charge not explode the Sun before its ejection?
The probable answer is to find in the plasma. Through plasma, the electric forces seemingly cannot act. The photons of these electric forces cannot pervade the solar plasma. Therefore, the Sun contains big negative and much bigger positive charges in its body conserved for gigayears without equalising currents. The solar free electrons could move in the plasma to the ions but the electric field (which could move these free electrons) cannot be formed in the plasma. Well known, the plasma is non-transparent, a hydrogen torch has a shadow in sunlight. But a stable electrostatic field is an electromagnetic wave of a very long wavelength. Therefore, solar electric charges move only mechanically e.g. rotated in a sunspot (GE Hale 1913 and NASA 2001) but not conducted in lack of the electric field. The emerging positive masses do not explode in their course from the core to the photosphere - these ions cannot "see each other" only those in the proximity! Arriving in the transparent photosphere, after an emerging along four years, these positive masses explode in seconds. All ions can suddenly "see each other" also from kilometres and protons in excess have an unimaginable repulsion. However, the protons in excess do not fly in all directions, they form filaments via pinch-effect. The electrostatic explosion is no thermal explosion in which particles fly into a formless cloud.

The pinch effect is stronger than the mutual electrostatic repulsion among these protons.
...
Lang wrote disappointed in 1996 when SOHO did not find the solar dynamo:

"Our new views... have raised many questions. They include... a crisis in the dynamo theory...the
unknown mechanisms that heat the million degree corona and accelerate the solar wind."
22 problems of astrophysics of the last century can be found under the collection of cited
astrophysicists:

...
http://www.electric-sun.info/main.html

.
Cr6 wrote . Please correct if this wrong but with the Charge Field...is this reconcilable? The Charge Field is driving the Sun as well, but a little differently. Can spin dynamics explain the "thermo-element" effect and massive discharges of the sun? The sun is a long running charge field generator... because...?

Airman. The excerpts don’t provide enough information. I recognized and reread my copy of Dr. Körtvélyessy’s The Electric Sun http://www.electric-sun.info/main.html before I got to the link at the end of your post.

According to Dr. K., the four forces reduce to just two (gravity and electrical) at astronomical distances. Solar emissions such as: mass ejections (incl. ions); positive corona; negative solar wind; electric pinch; positive and negative filaments – are all electrical repulsion events. Charge equilibrium is maintained by those various cyclical solar charge emissions. Electrical repulsion in opposition to gravity, sounds like the charge field to me.

I believe the "thermo-element" effect is the slow drift of electrons from the hot center of the sun to the relative cool of the surface; those electrons then explode, or are repelled into the photosphere. I don't see how that relates to spin mechanics though it may pertain to how emissions gather. The effect enables the sun to dump excess electrons into the solar wind. Again there's the charge field similarity, although we know photons transfer charge, not electrons. Is all solar matter lost?

Filaments are very interesting. I’ve always considered them to be the most basic matter structure. How do they form?

There are too many things I don't understand in "PHOTONS OF THE REPULSION CANNOT FLY IN PLASMA". A hydrogen torch has a shadow in sunlight and other plasma information I need to look at.  

Text. NEGATIVE EMISSION: THE SOLAR WIND
The solar wind is a "grey mouse" among the solar mass emissions.

Airman. Does “grey mouse” equate to “work horse” or “worker bee”(?).

Text. • Its main particles are the light electrons and light particles,

Airman. “Light electrons”? What light (size) particles exactly? There is a stable charged particle between the IR photon and the electron, the UV photon, plus all other less stable charge particles in the large photon size category. My pet theory – low energy UV photons at slower than light velocities may be found above electron poles – turtles all the way down.

Text. • it is emitted from the UV-dark solar areas (from the coronal holes),

Airman. I disagree with the wording. Other than some field cancellation directly above the hole, I don’t believe there’s a relationship between the solar wind – electrons and ions earth receives from the sun - and coronal holes.

The sun’s charge field is emitted from everywhere on the sun’s surface. That charge drives the solar wind. The solar wind may be considered as the electromagnetic characteristics our instruments observe resulting from the sun’s emission field.

I believe it was determined that the sun’s corona are cooler and emitting less radiation. Coronal holes are areas on the sun indicating incoming charge. Holes come in two types, longer lasting and permanent polar (>55deg lat.) and the more cyclical equatorial (<55deg lat.). Galactic charge along with some planetary emissions enter the sun through the polar holes. The equatorial coronal holes result from planetary charge returning back to the sun – sort of E/M projections of those planets onto the sun’s surface. Strongest between the sun and the Jovians.

* I Please see The Cause of the Solar Cycle. Miles’ charge field explanation for coronal holes.

Text. • it is not dangerous for satellites or humans in space,

Airman. I would say solar flares are very dangerous types of solar wind. Dr. K did distinguish between the solar wind and solar mass ejections. Solar wind may be just electrons, he may be referring to a field of his smaller charges here.

Text. • it is invisible,

Airman. In line with photon charge I can agree. We need a better definition of smaller charge.
 

Text. • it alone cannot cause aurora,

Airman. I agree, the solar wind cannot form aurora by itself. The auroral zone is an E/M manifest indicating equal charge densities between incoming (mostly solar) and earth’s own near polar emissions.

Text. • its velocity is constant i.e. typically 750km/s which is only 0.25% of the light velocity and
• its mass is almost constant.

Airman. Sorry, I’m not sure we’re talking about electrons. Dr. K. seems to realise that there aren’t enough electrons to cause the solar wind so perhaps additional charge is involved, he mentions photon repulsion.

I wouldn't give up on Dr. K., the reader need only keep in mind that the main charge carriers are photons, and not electrons and ions. We don't know enough details to disregard Dr. K's ideas.
 

* http://milesmathis.com/index.html
135. The Cause of the Solar Cycle. The magnetic and sunspot cycle is shown to be caused by charge from the Jovians. 8pp. http://milesmathis.com/cycle.pdf
.

Nice recap. Sorry I didn't want you to have to take too much of detour with Dr. K.... it is just that we would still have to answer questions with Mathis when current theory just can't.

This got me thinking about the "spun-up" photon to an electron papers -- is something like this involved at all with the Sun's outputs?

Airman. Sorry, I’m not sure we’re talking about electrons. Dr. K. seems to realise that there aren’t enough electrons to cause the solar wind so perhaps additional charge is involved, he mentions photon repulsion.