Explain Electrical & Magnetic Attraction

NOTE:

How Does MM Explain the Attractions in These Demonstrations?

Demonstration of Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43AeuDvWc0k
The caption reads as follows.
- Two flexible wires are suspended vertically. The wires are connected in series or parallel to a 12V storage battery. When the wires are connected in series and power is applied they will repel each other; when they are connected in parallel they will attract one another.
- Author's Explanation. This effect is due to the magnetic fields created by the charge flowing through the wires. When the wires are in parallel, the currents in each are going in the same direction and thus attract. In series the currents are going in opposite directions and repel.

Demonstration of Electric Charge Attraction and Repulsion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcBVa1VKUdc
The caption reads thusly.
First, I will show three simple experiments:
1- I rub two balloons on my hair. When I bring them together, they repel each other
2- I rub a balloon on my hair, then attract a soda can toward the balloon.
3- I will rub a balloon through my hair, and then attract a stream of water with it
- Author's Explanations [my paraphrasing]
1. Rubbing a balloon on hair moves electrons from the hair to the balloon, making the hair positive and the balloon negative. Two negative balloons repel each other.
2 & 3. Holding a negative balloon by a neutral soda can or vertical stream of neutral water pushes electrons from the near sides to the far sides, making the near sides positive and attracted to the balloon.

I have a vague recollection of how MM explained magnetic attraction and repulsion, but I'd have to reread it. I just recall that it seemed to make some sense.

Here's MM's explanation of magnetism from http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html

magnetism works by either driving the E/M field out of a small area of space between the magnets, allowing only gravity to remain, or by augmenting the angular part of the E/M field, creating a greater repulsion than before.

At the foundational level, the E/M field is always repulsive, since it is caused by straight bombardment of photons. The gravity field, however, creates a pseudo-attraction. The compound field is found by subtracting the E/M field from the solo-gravity field.

So what happens when we bring a north magnet to a south magnet? First I will tell you the result and then I will tell you the cause. The result is that the two charge fields of the two magnets meet head-on and cancel eachother: not by some mysterious field lines or by pluses and minuses, but by colliding and canceling the angular momenta of the photons. This reduces the E/M field by removing the M component of the field. Because the magnetic field and the electric field are about the same size, the E/M field is reduced by almost 50%. Since the solo gravity field is unaffected, and since we have just turned off half the repulsion, the objects come together. Magnetic attraction is not really attraction, it is a loss of half the repulsion, you see.

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.

[] in the gap between objects, we will always have a large amount of cross traffic, caused by rogue photons and other quanta. Even if we assume that the charge field has an average direction caused by the masses in the area, that will always just be an average. In reality, we always have a large amount of cross traffic, and that must diminish the efficiency of the charge repulsion between the objects.

In fact, that is what causes the “snap” when magnets come together. Unlike gravity, the force of magnetism has a big flux right at the end. For instance, if you lift your foot off the ground, you do not feel a big tug just as you break contact, and a much lesser tug at 2 inches. No, gravity is a constant in that situation, and this is because solo-gravity is not a particle field. It is a real acceleration, not a field of bombardment. Particles in the gap can't affect it. But magnets have a strong bond at contact, and a much weaker attraction as soon as contact is broken. One cause of this is that as soon as contact is broken, the cross-traffic field rushes back in, greatly diminishing the efficiency of the torque meetings. Rogue photons come in from both sides and stir things up. No matter how coherent our fields emitted from the two magnets may be, the gap is not just filled by that emission. It is filled by emission from everywhere. So even a coherent emitted field will be much less than perfectly efficient. But when the magnets actually touch, this cross-traffic is very greatly decreased, all at once. The molecules exclude them. Since even solid structures are very porous, we will still have photon cross traffic inside the magnet, but we will have much less cross traffic than in the gap. That is what causes the snap.

So maybe magnetic attraction is explained. I'm not sure.

Questions on Electrical Attraction
But in the Facebook group, we asked about electrical attraction.
Our question is: How does MM's model explain the electrical attraction in the second OP video?
- Does his model agree that rubbing a balloon on hair moves electrons from the hair to the balloon, making the hair electron-poor and the balloon electron-rich?
- Does the model agree that holding a "negative" (or electron-rich) balloon by a "neutral" object moves electrons on the near surface of the object to the far side of the object, making the near side more "positive" (or electron-poor) and the far side more "negative" (or electron-rich)?
- In MM's Star Formation paper he said "free electrons and protons attract one another" and isn't that demonstrated in this video?
- But how are they attracted? Do electrons ride photon streams toward proton poles?
- If so, why don't the excess electrons leave the balloon and fly back to the hair right away?
- Or why do the excess electrons on the balloon hold so tight to the balloon that the soda can or stream of water is pulled toward the balloon, instead of pulling those electrons off?

I think we have to distinguish between "static electricity" and "moving electricity". Miles has spoken often on the mechanics of "moving" electricity; but I haven't seen him specifically address static electricity. It's a question I have had for him as well.

I don't know of any obvious reason he would object to electron transfer provided the mechanics of rubbing is sufficient to do it; but I'd like to know his opinion on that.

Any attraction would be mediated by gravity, but can be augmented or diminished depending on the ambient field between the two objects. The effective range of capture is going to be strictly determined by the charge field as I understand; and since charge falls off by the quad, the range is not going to be that great for relative strength of static electricity. If you diminish the field strength between the objects, you create a 'low pressure' in the ambient field. The relative outside, higher pressure form the ambient field then pushes the stream towards the charged object.

tharkun

Thanks, John. I hope we can make that much clearer.

In the Electrical Charge paper at http://milesmathis.com/charge.html MM said:
Electrical or magnetic attractions are always only apparent, caused not by real attraction but by relative attractions. This means that the proton does not actually attract the electron. It only repels it much less than it repels other protons. This leads to an apparent attraction, since the (“gravitational”) expansion of the proton allows it to capture the electron, but does not allow it to capture other protons. This leads to the appearance of attraction, in the dual field that is the gravity-E/M field.

But that doesn't seem to help much and I don't accept the expansion idea.

Well, as we've discussed before, you can accept expansion as the mechanism for gravity, or just treat it as a mathematical manipulation to turn a curved field into a flat one. It's just a vector flip, and if it makes the math and the concept easier to picture, I'm all for it. But I agree, the concept alone doesn't flesh out the mechanics of static electricity.

Just to link back to Thunderbolts. Here's a thread that fascinated me. It still does unless the Mathis' Charge Field is considered:


Static Electricity Defies Simple Explanation
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15057

Cr6, can you narrow down what to read on that thread that's most relevant?

On the Facebook page, S. said: attraction is relative, e.g. An electron seems attracted to a proton simply because it is smaller and catches less "charge wind" than another big proton, see Miles' basic paper about Electric Charge: http://milesmathis.com/charge.html
Electrical Charge by Miles Mathis
An in-depth analysis of electrical charge by Miles Mathis

L. replied: That [paper] doesn't explain the attraction of the can or water stream to the electron-rich balloon, does it? John mentioned that the attraction may be due to higher and lower pressure charge areas, I think. Do you agree? If so, where are the high and low charge pressures on the balloon/s, the can and the stream?

Do you agree that rubbing the balloon on the hair moves electrons from the hair to the balloon? And do you agree that electrons on the can or water are repelled from the near side to the far side by the balloon electrons?

S. replied: matter is referenced from proton structures, hence the apparent attraction of an electron wrt. to a proton. Higher and lower pressure areas will work on both electrons and protons, again that is relative. You can study Miles' books on the atomic nucleus to see how charge streams steered by protons and neutrons lead to stable structures that we call atoms, molecules and such.

Since electrons are pretty loosely bound to protons and alpha particles in the charge eddies around the proton poles they can be rather easily moved. A relocation of electrons will change the charge streams and lead to what we label as electrical effects. Since most electrons are inside the nucleus they will not move from one side to the other I would guess but will be thrown from one eddie to the next by charge streams that are strong enough. If the balloon is made of poorly conducting material then the electrons can move greater distances through the mechanical energy provided by the rubbing.

Here are some more links on this:
http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html
http://milesmathis.com/stack.html
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf