HELP! HOW CAN WE HELP ELECTRONS IMPROVE HEALTH?

I hope you guys may like to discuss this topic with me here, because I think it's one of the most important topics for the common people.

I've been following the findings of knowledgeable people opposed to the mainstream's pandemic scam, lately mostly at Substack.com. The most promising thing I learned so far is from this Substack: https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/ ?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=profile_page and especially this post: What Makes All Vaccines So Dangerous? at https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/why-does-every-vaccine-often-cause . The doctor's finding regarding the mRNA vaccines is that the spike proteins have a strong positive charge at one or more places on it, and this causes clotting of blood.

Please bare with me in using mainstream language for electric forces, photonic charge, etc. The doctor says the positively charged spike proteing removes electrons from the blood cells, causing them to clump together, as in rouleaux. He says this causes blockage of capillaries to some organs and tissues, causing lack of oxygen and thus microstrokes. If the spike proteins are reproduced via vaxes, the clots can be numerous enough to cause severe damage or death of an organ or tissue, causing serious disease or death. The doctor says grounding and other sources of electrons seem to restore the proper negative charge on the blood cells, breaking up clots and possibly ending disease.

After studying videos and other info on grounding, I came across this video transcript yesterday: How to Detoxify with Electrons with Spencer Feldman at https://myersdetox.com/transcript-421-how-to-detoxify-with-electrons-with-spencer-feldman . Spencer Feldman has some videos of his own and is interviewed on quite a few Youtube videos. He sells an expensive device, called an Electron Charger. He explains that toxins tend to form crystals if they aren't removed regularly, and crystals can cause harm and are harder to remove, but a surge of electrons stronger that what's possible from grounding can break up the crystals to help get them removed. The Electron Charger is designed to do that. It usually takes a few months to completely remove the harmful crystals from the body. Oxylates are one of the crystals. I hope to find out if there is a cheaper way to produce the surges of charge, so people can afford effective treatments.

It's been a while since I've read Miles' papers on charge, but I think I remember a lot of his main points. But I don't understand electric forces and charge real well based on his papers, or discussions I've read on this forum. What seems to help my understanding the most is this video, How Electricity Actually Works, by Veritasium at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0&t=870s . Before reviewing that, I saw another video which showed that at any point on an electric wire, with 1 amp of current, there are 6.3 x 10^18 e-/s passing that point. That would be great, if the electrons can be transferred to one's body, but the Veritasium video says electrons don't move like that. The guy on it says electrons in a heating element or filament are accelerated short distances and run into atoms, heating them up. Then the electrons lose their energy, until accelerated again by the electric field. But they only go interatomic distances between each acceleration and collision.

Miles seems to discount electrons as doing much of anything in electricity, other than transferring photons. But it seems to me that electrons must be doing a lot of what is popularly attributed to them in health matters. It is supposed that the Earth has negative surface charge due to excess electrons and most living things need to share in that negative charge in order to retain health. Electrons in Miles' model are miniature versions of protons, thus recycling photons, so it makes sense to me that electrons can be on the surface of the ground as is claimed and that they can move into our bodies, when we're grounded, not insulated from the ground as we normally are by shoes, wood floors, carpeting, car tires, bicycle tires, clothes, etc. And the electrons can provide us with photonic charge, I presume. Rubbing things together can remove electrons, can they not? Isn't that what Van de graaff generators do? So how can greater amounts of electrons be removed and transferred to our bodies safely and painlessly?

.
Lloyd wrote. L1. I hope you guys may like to discuss this topic with me here, because I think it's one of the most important topics for the common people.
Airman. A1. Reading ahead, unless you mean to limit discussion to electrons, you’re covering a wide set of subjects.

L2. The doctor's finding regarding the mRNA vaccines is that the spike proteins have a strong positive charge at one or more places on it, and this causes clotting of blood.
A2. I am not a doctor, but that’s nonsense. The doctor presumably has a well developed theory of charge distribution within spike protons but its likely not supported by either mainstream theory nor by my understanding of the charge field.

Positive and negative charges are old mainstream ideas intended to explain how electrons and protons repel or attract. According charge field theory, 2 particles can seem to ‘attract’ when aligned in a pole-to-pole configuration - where the least amount of mutual charge emissions occur, while at the same time repelling other nearby particles within the equatorial centered emissions.

Its not positive or negative, its both positive and negative. The differentiation of charge
is – by the right-hand rule – CCW spin axis pointed up (call it charge) or down (called anti-charge. Here on Earth, matter in the northern hemisphere is two parts charge to one part anti-charge; in the southern hemisphere matter is 2 parts anti-charge to one part charge.  

The important thing is, all matter constantly channels and recyles both charge and anti-charge.

L3. Please bare with me in using mainstream language for electric forces, photonic charge, etc. The doctor says the positively charged spike proteing removes electrons from the blood cells, causing them to clump together, as in rouleaux. He says this causes blockage of capillaries … . The doctor says grounding and other sources of electrons seem to restore the proper negative charge on the blood cells, breaking up clots and possibly ending disease.
A3. To the best of my knowledge (we’ve had two Deep Vein Thrombosis events in the family) blood clots do not form for the reasons the doctor is describing. Positively charged proteins removing electrons from blood cells causing blood clotting is pure crazy talk. Just enough seeming facts to get you hooked, it sounds like the doctor is pushing a sort of blood ionization scheme.

L4. After studying videos and other info on grounding, I came across this video transcript yesterday: How to Detoxify with Electrons with Spencer Feldman
…
It usually takes a few months to completely remove the harmful crystals from the body. Oxylates are one of the crystals. I hope to find out if there is a cheaper way to produce the surges of charge, so people can afford effective treatments.
A4. “so people can afford effective treatments” Basically the same scheme applies to crystals as well. Sorry Lloyd, just sounds like a con game to me.

L5. It's been a while since I've read Miles' papers on charge, but I think I remember a lot of his main points. But I don't understand electric forces and charge real well based on his papers, or discussions I've read on this forum. What seems to help my understanding the most is this video, How Electricity Actually Works, by Veritasium at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0&t=870s .
A5. You posted about that video on 20 May 2022, How’s this Video for explaining Electric Currents?
https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t661-how-s-this-video-for-explaining-electric-currents?highlight=currents
I replied at the time. You indicated you had quit your main job and had more time available, we might discuss it further.  You should try studying the paper * first.

L6. Before reviewing that, I saw another video which showed that at any point on an electric wire, with 1 amp of current, there are 6.3 x 10^18 e-/s passing that point. That would be great, if the electrons can be transferred to one's body, but the Veritasium video says electrons don't move like that. The guy on it says electrons in a heating element or filament are accelerated short distances and run into atoms, heating them up. Then the electrons lose their energy, until accelerated again by the electric field. But they only go interatomic distances between each acceleration and collision.
A6. Free electrons and anti-electrons present in the wire are being pushed along (in both directions, one more than the other by 2:1) by collisions with charge field photons and anti-photons being channeled and recycling through the wire.

L7. Miles seems to discount electrons as doing much of anything in electricity, other than transferring photons. But it seems to me that electrons must be doing a lot of what is popularly attributed to them in health matters. It is supposed that the Earth has negative surface charge due to excess electrons and most living things need to share in that negative charge in order to retain health. Electrons in Miles' model are miniature versions of protons, thus recycling photons, so it makes sense to me that electrons can be on the surface of the ground as is claimed and that they can move into our bodies, when we're grounded, not insulated from the ground as we normally are by shoes, wood floors, carpeting, car tires, bicycle tires, clothes, etc. And the electrons can provide us with photonic charge, I presume. Rubbing things together can remove electrons, can they not? Isn't that what Van de graaff generators do? So how can greater amounts of electrons be removed and transferred to our bodies safely and painlessly?
A7. It’s my understanding that electrons (and anti-electrons) aren’t large enough to recycle charge as well as protons and neutrons. Electrons may be considered the largest, slowest and most energetic photons. Too many electrons pushed by the charge field through a high voltage wire can certainly be lethal, but I’m not aware of any purported health and safety measures involving optimum numbers of electrons. Who knows? Eventually accumulated damage may kill ya.

Its just my opinion, spending money to reduce bodily electrons or crystals as you've described is a waste of money.

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

Thanks for the reply, Airman. How do you explain static electricity and lightning? Also, they're not trying to reduce electrons in the body, but increase them. The blood has "negative" charge, so the blood cells repel each other, which is what allows blood to move frictionlessly through blood vessels. I think the blood vessels too have "negative" surface charge. So "positive" charged items in the blood tend to cause clotting. I think this is fairly widely accepted.

A Shocking New Understanding of Static Electricity
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a6757/a-shocking-new-understanding-of-static-electricity/

_[A] team's close examination of statically charged objects shows that both contain pockets of negative and positive charges. It is only the net total charge of each object that leads to their attraction. Furthermore, he found, static electricity is not caused solely by a migration of electrons or ions from one item to the other. In fact, Grzybowski says, static electricity may arise from a significant transfer of materials such as surface molecules.
_Static electricity is a weird phenomenon to begin with, arising from contact between two insulators—materials that don't conduct electricity, but can create it when rubbed together. To test it in the lab, Grzybowski and colleagues used not balloons, but materials like the common polymers PDMS and Teflon. He pressed samples of insulators together before separating them (rubbing them could create more electrification but would make results harder to analyze). He then used Kelvin probe microscopy to measure molecular charges in the material. With this technique, a scientist runs a tiny probe over the microscopic hills and valleys of surfaces, and the probe vibrates differently over differently charged regions, creating a map of the charges. That's how Grzybowski saw that each material had a random patchwork of positive and negative charges, and neither was uniformly charged. In addition, his tests showed that PDMS and Teflon exchange silicon and fluorine atoms upon contact, a more significant transfer of material than ever previously shown.

Lloyd wrote. Thanks for the reply, Airman. How do you explain static electricity and lightning? Also, they're not trying to reduce electrons in the body, but increase them. The blood has "negative" charge, so the blood cells repel each other, which is what allows blood to move frictionlessly through blood vessels. I think the blood vessels too have "negative" surface charge. So "positive" charged items in the blood tend to cause clotting. I think this is fairly widely accepted.
Airman. Thanks for the correction, negative blood is good and positive blood causes clotting. My previous response is the same as my better informed current response - nonsense. You haven’t made a case for nor spent a single moment trying to understand electrons in blood in light of the charge field. Just dismiss my reply and move away from your "very important topic" and likely waste your time describing static electricity and lightning. By the way, as your source mentions, surface charge due to static electricity surface charge is also comprised of alternate predominantly positive and negative domains.

Positive and negative charge is constantly recycling in opposite directions through all the matter and anti-master (1:2 or 2:1) of which your body is comprised. Blood contains both electrons and anti-electrons. Boosting the number of electrons (and at the same time the anti-electrons) in your blood must increase the blood and body's charge level intensity, I would assume that a higher level of charge recycling in the blood stream may be equivalent to higher blood pressure which is known to cause cumulative damage to the body.

Lloyd wrote. HOW CAN WE HELP ELECTRONS IMPROVE HEALTH?
Airman. Sorry, I'm no expert, but as a general rule, for best long-term health avoid any and all high charge energy sources - such as fire, electricity or equatorial noonday sun.
.

Airman, I take it you're not interested in the topic.

I've tried to discuss attraction and repulsion on this forum before, but there never seemed to be much progress made. Just parroting Miles doesn't increase understanding for me. Steve Rado said when matter moves at higher velocity, it has less pressure. Rado's example of this principle, by the way, is two balls near together hanging at the same height on parallel strings with wind moving between them, resulting in the more stationary air around the balls being of higher pressure and pushing the balls toward each other, toward the low pressure. Photon streams entering and leaving a proton likewise seem likely to have lower pressure, which should attract anything in proximity to the stream. Electrons are small enough that they should easily be influenced by or attracted to any nearby stream and made to follow it into the vicinity of the proton pole. Anyway, I've said before that high and low pressure makes sense to me as a means of achieving attraction.

Do you mind if I call photons (+) and antiphotons (-)? If they enter opposite proton poles, the through +/- photons leaving the opposite poles might be what prevents electrons from entering the proton. I think Miles suggested that electrons move in circles just above the polar opening. Didn't he? That sounds like something like a pingpong ball floating on water that's going down a drain. Do you agree with that? I'm not clear on why + and - photons enter opposite poles, but I'm okay with assuming for a while that they do.

Didn't Miles suggest that electrons block photon streams or charge streams, causing an atom or molecule to be neutral? If electrons block charge from entering the proton, how does the proton continue to give off equatorial charge? Also, since there are two poles, shouldn't it take two electrons to block them? Has this been discussed in Miles' papers?

.
Lloyd. I take it you're not interested in the topic.
Airman. Not exactly. I’m against schemes designed to con money away from gullible people. Charging blood sounds like such a scheme.

Lloyd. I've tried to discuss attraction and repulsion on this forum before, but there never seemed to be much progress made. Just parroting Miles doesn't increase understanding for me.
Airman. True enough, after studying and thinking about the charge field for almost 10 years or so I do my best to more than just parrot Miles. Sorry our discussions aren't satisfying. What’s important to me is the charge field. If Miles were to pass today, would his work carry on? I can only try to help make sure it does.

Lloyd. Steve Rado said when matter moves at higher velocity, it has less pressure. Rado's example of this principle, by the way, is two balls near together hanging at the same height on parallel strings with wind moving between them, resulting in the more stationary air around the balls being of higher pressure and pushing the balls toward each other, toward the low pressure. Photon streams entering and leaving a proton likewise seem likely to have lower pressure, which should attract anything in proximity to the stream. Electrons are small enough that they should easily be influenced by or attracted to any nearby stream and made to follow it into the vicinity of the proton pole. Anyway, I've said before that high and low pressure makes sense to me as a means of achieving attraction.
Airman. Higher velocity matter causing less pressure sounds wrong to me. Otherwise, all well and good, understanding repulsion and “apparent attraction” between protons and electrons in terms of high and low charge pressure is in perfect accord with the charge field.

Lloyd. Do you mind if I call photons (+) and antiphotons (-)?
Airman. Of course not.

Lloyd. If they enter opposite proton poles, the through +/- photons leaving the opposite poles might be what prevents electrons from entering the proton. I think Miles suggested that electrons move in circles just above the polar opening. Didn't he? That sounds like something like a pingpong ball floating on water that's going down a drain. Do you agree with that? I'm not clear on why + and - photons enter opposite poles, but I'm okay with assuming for a while that they do.
Airman. Yes, Miles likens electrons stuck in orbit about a proton pole to a ping pong ball stuck in circling the water drain the ball is too big to enter. I don’t think Miles has described proton structure beyond spin doublings. But yes, your idea that contra flows of photon and antiphotons along the proton’s spin axis may be what actually prevents electrons from entering protons sounds like a perfectly valid possibility worthy of discussion, we may or may not understand well enough to resolve.  

Lloyd. Didn't Miles suggest that electrons block photon streams or charge streams, causing an atom or molecule to be neutral? If electrons block charge from entering the proton, how does the proton continue to give off equatorial charge? Also, since there are two poles, shouldn't it take two electrons to block them? Has this been discussed in Miles' papers?
Airman. Yes, Miles has discussed electrons blocking proton through charge but not up to including two electrons  – electron and anti-electron - causing proton neutrality. The presence of a single Electron (or anti-electron) over a proton pole causes low charge pressure at the proton’s opposite pole and is the basis for explaining atomic proton/proton bonding. See Miles’ Diatomic Hydrogen paper. It’s the only bonding mechanism I’m aware of. I’ve mentioned it several times and am trying to modify it to create bonds between atoms in the Periodic Table AtomBuilder project.

P.S. I see no problem with a +/- electron pair occupying both proton’s poles.  Each electron only blocks some of the charge, not all. Such blockage cannot prevent a proton’s equatorial emissions. Such an occupied proton will be carried along by the charge field, but there’s no chance the proton can properly bond with another proton until one or the other electron blown away first.  
.

A. Higher velocity matter causing less pressure sounds wrong to me.
L. Are you familiar with the air pressure experiment for Bernouli's principle? In this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_-x5iv18jE ) the last experiment is shown at 4'40". Maybe you're thinking of a stream of air moving at an object. The front of the air stream would apparently indeed be higher pressure and would tend to move the object. But behind the front, i.e. within the air stream, the pressure would be lower, as is shown by blowing between two balloons that are a couple inches or so apart as in this experiment. Do you agree with this? Do you agree that there are little vacuums behind each moving air molecule, which is low pressure? So if the moving air molecule goes past a non-moving molecule, the surrounding air pressure will move the adjacent molecule toward the vacuum behind the moving molecule?

I want to understand static electricity and lightning, because I think they're related to the "negative" charge that causes blood cells to flow easily and not clump together. So I'll try to discuss that next time.

.
On 8 Oct Airman wrote. Higher velocity matter causing less pressure sounds wrong to me.
Lloyd wrote. Are you familiar with the air pressure experiment for Bernouli's principle? In this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_-x5iv18jE  ) the last experiment is shown at 4'40". Maybe you're thinking of a stream of air moving at an object. The front of the air stream would apparently indeed be higher pressure and would tend to move the object. But behind the front, i.e. within the air stream, the pressure would be lower, as is shown by blowing between two balloons that are a couple inches or so apart as in this experiment. Do you agree with this? Do you agree that there are little vacuums behind each moving air molecule, which is low pressure? So if the moving air molecule goes past a non-moving molecule, the surrounding air pressure will move the adjacent molecule toward the vacuum behind the moving molecule?
Airman. Of course I am, “the faster the air, the lower the pressure”. I agree with all that. Its nice to see the little girl’s reactions. Like the one at 1:40 where mom lifts the upside-down glass, bringing the extinguished candle, wet paper and tray along with it. Made possible by the higher air pressure outside the glass. The upside down glass contains a lower air pressure created by the enclosed space’s briefly burning candle. No velocities involved except different air pressures. I’d say that may be the single best simple demonstration as to how charge bonding works. Where the air’s small pressure differential acts perfectly analogous to the charge field.

On 7 Oct Lloyd wrote. Steve Rado said when matter moves at higher velocity, it has less pressure. Rado's example of this principle, by the way …
Airman. Is, as you’ve explained, Bernouli’s principle. I have no idea what higher velocity matter you or Steve Rado are talking about. At some point the gas analogy breaks down, and Bernouli’s principle no longer applies. If its relativistic matter, that’s a bit outside my comfort zone.
Otherwise, given a charge field, there’s no varying “air speeds”, all photons move at the speed of light. The only ‘pressure differential’ is that which exists between say a proton’s charged intake poles and the proton’s equatorial region emissions, caused by photon directions and proton spin having nothing at all to do with "matter velocity”. That should explain my doubt about your Steve Rado comment at the top.

Lloyd wrote. I want to understand static electricity and lightning, because I think they're related to the "negative" charge that causes blood cells to flow easily and not clump together. So I'll try to discuss that next time.
Airman. Static electricity and lightning are 2 big things. Can't say I agree with your negative charge clumped blood assumptions. As you wish, I'll wait till your next time as well.
.

LOW PRESSURE ATTRACTION
A. I have no idea what higher velocity matter you or Steve Rado are talking about.
L. It's moving air versus stationary air (moving is higher velocity than stationary). The air moving between the two balloons is lower pressure because it's moving, so the remaining air in a room etc has higher pressure, moving the balloons into the low pressure space between them.

STATIC ELECTRICITY IDEA
You know how dust behind a moving car follows the car (due again to low air pressure behind the car). I figure a stream of photons may cause electrons to move in a similar manner, making the electrons follow the stream. And maybe static electricity and lightning are like that, a stream of electrons in a stream of photons. Lightning is visible from all directions, so maybe ambient photons are being hit by the electrons and those photons bounce off in all directions. (I was never good at chess, thus never able to anticipate more than a couple moves ahead. Similarly, I'm not good at thinking through a physics problem like this very far at a time. Maybe I'll have some more ideas on static electricity next time. And maybe you can add something to help develop ideas.)

PROTON SOLIDITY
For now, I'll just mention an idea I had lately on protons etc. It seems that Miles' idea of a proton is a photon with a number of "stacked" spins, which cause the photon to move rapidly all through the space of the complete proton. Somehow, something causes the proton's center of motion to slow down way below light speed to the speed of surrounding atoms, while the basic photon of the proton continues to move at light speed in tiny curved paths inside the proton space. If there are subphotons, it could be that they are entrained into the proton space following the proton's main photon, like dust behind a moving car, making kind of like a spherical "dust=subphotons" vortex. Maybe they move too slowly at the proton's poles and too fast at the proton's equator to make an entirely "solid" sphere. Instead, the sphere develops holes at the poles and the equator, thus causing recycled photons or B-photons to enter the poles and bounce off of the proton's "solid" walls (made of subphotons) and exit at the equatorial and polar holes. Does that make sense to you? Without walls of subphotons, it never made sense to me that B-photons moving at the speed of light could bounce off of the proton's main photon also moving at light speed and the B-photons come out the poles or the equator consistently. Miles always makes his protons etc sound like fairly solid objects and this seems to be a reasonable way to make them solid. Maybe the subphotons could even give the proton its equatorial disk shape.

.
LOW PRESSURE ATTRACTION
A wrote. I have no idea what higher velocity matter you or Steve Rado are talking about.
L wrote. It's moving air versus stationary air (moving is higher velocity than stationary). The air moving between the two balloons is lower pressure because it's moving, so the remaining air in a room etc has higher pressure, moving the balloons into the low pressure space between them.
Airman. Certainly, understood; I recall making the same demonstration to my kids. Here’s another quickie, hold a long strip of paper or large droopy leaf hanging down from your chin; then blow. The paper or leaf will be lifted and blowing out horizontally. Bernouli’s principles – its a gas.

STATIC ELECTRICITY IDEA
L wrote. You know how dust behind a moving car follows the car (due again to low air pressure behind the car). I figure a stream of photons may cause electrons to move in a similar manner, making the electrons follow the stream.
Airman. The electrons do in fact appear to be streaming slowly along with 10X smaller and faster photons. Then your imagination and charge field theory seem to part ways. Bernouli’s principles do not apply to the charge field. The electrons are not drafting behind photons. How can they? There’s no low density charge fields behind photons and the photons are traveling 10x faster than electrons. Electrons can only be streaming along due to direct photon/electron collisions.  

L wrote. And maybe static electricity and lightning are like that, a stream of electrons in a stream of photons.
Airman. Streams of electrons in streams of photons is a proper way to describe it. Direct collision causality should be easier to imagine than a non-existent c.f. suction.

L wrote. Lightning is visible from all directions, so maybe ambient photons are being hit by the electrons and those photons bounce off in all directions.

Airman. I believe lightning’s bright light is due to the many random collisions between the aggregate high energy charge channels including higher than usual velocity electrons and the atoms and molecules just passing through that channel in the atmosphere. More below.

L wrote. (I was never good at chess, thus never able to anticipate more than a couple moves ahead. Similarly, I'm not good at thinking through a physics problem like this very far at a time. Maybe I'll have some more ideas on static electricity next time. And maybe you can add something to help develop ideas.)
Airman. I work hard to develop what few thoughts occur to me, I’ve always thought your imagination is better. I’ll try to help.

What is static electricity? Static electricity usually forms on certain sorts of structures – usually metalic. Static charge zaps are visible, have been measured in the tens of thousands of volts, can hurt and create microscopic holes on a metal doorknob, I suppose its safe to say that static electricity enables a moment of high energy discharge. See the work of Dr. K* for a much more developed understanding of static electricity. Cr6 knows much more about him than I do.

What’s lightning? Again, I suppose, its a discharge, occurring at a somewhat larger scale within the  atmospheric environment indicating the presence of higher than normal, visible energy wavelength charge recycling at a moment when the local surrounding atmospheric matter tends to align; creating charge channels at significantly larger distances, overcoming the air’s natural charge ‘insulating’ or usual “shorter distance channels” characteristics. I suppose the lightning initially forms by many thousands and more dendrite like high energy charge channels between atoms.  

For me, the main question becomes, where the heck is all that energy coming from? I guess the answer is similar to Miles’ description of aurora. Upward traveling solar charge, having passed as earth through charge meets in-sync downward solar charge. Where they meet a spin-up of charge energy occurs, the aurora shows where atmospheric atoms and molecules are recycling charge at a higher than nornal charge energy – in the visible energy range.

Lightning may not be formed in part by direct charge passing without collision through the entire planet, I do believe that, given the right conditions, upward charge can meet and sync with downward directed charge, spinning up the energy level of atoms and molecules in the atmosphere.  

PROTON SOLIDITY
Airman. What's this, a whole new subject? The proton's internal structure? Not drafting again? Please consider direct collisions first. I must delay replying till some later date.


*
Dr. László Körtvélyessy
http://www.5th-state-of-matter.info/home.html
http://www.5th-state-of-matter.info/5th-state.html
.

PROTON SOLIDITY
A. What's this, a whole new subject?
L. I just wanted to post it before I forgot it.

STATIC ELECTRICITY IDEA
A. The electrons do in fact appear to be streaming slowly along with 10X smaller and faster photons. Then your imagination and charge field theory seem to part ways. Bernoulli’s principles do not apply to the charge field. The electrons are not drafting behind photons. How can they? There’s no low density charge fields behind photons and the photons are traveling 10x faster than electrons. Electrons can only be streaming along due to direct photon/electron collisions.
L. A charge stream is a stream of photons. A stream has bounds on the sides. Electrons getting hit by photons in the stream would be pushed ahead, but eventually they'll reach the bounds on the sides of the stream, like litter along a highway. The vacuum behind each photon in the stream should provide the low pressure needed for surrounding light pressure to push the electrons back into the charge stream.
I guess I'll ask Cr6 about the static electricity guy. I don't remember his name either.

.
L1. A charge stream is a stream of photons. A stream has bounds on the sides.
A1. That’s taking the word stream too literally. A stream of water certainly has bounds, but what about a stream or current in the ocean? What are its bounds? Between electrons and photons there are only collisions. Aside from charged particle surfaces, what sort of bounds exist for the charge field? There are none.

L2. Electrons getting hit by photons in the stream would be pushed ahead, but eventually they'll reach the bounds on the sides of the stream, like litter along a highway.
A2. The imagery aside, I agree, those in-stream higher velocity electrons must eventually depart the main photon charge channel current. At which time the electron is subject to the local charge field conditions it arrives at, generally to be pushed along more slowly in a new direction. I suppose in some charge field conditions an electron’s path will resemble zig-zagging Brownian motion.

L3. The vacuum behind each photon in the stream should provide the low pressure needed for surrounding light pressure to push the electrons back into the charge stream.
A3. Please stop assuming Bernoulli's principles apply between electrons and photons. The charge field is not a gas. There is no 'vacuum' behind each photon. The ‘surrounding light pressure’ can only be comprised of real photon/electron collisions.  

L4. I guess I'll ask Cr6 about the static electricity guy. I don't remember his name either.
A4. I included Dr. K’s name and a website at the bottom of my post. Here’s another more familiar site. http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/5th_state_of_matter.html
.

A. I included Dr. K’s name and a website at the bottom of my post.
L. Duh. How did I miss that? Thanks.

A. Please stop assuming Bernoulli's principles apply between electrons and photons. The charge field is not a gas. There is no 'vacuum' behind each photon. The ‘surrounding light pressure’ can only be comprised of real photon/electron collisions.
L. Is that Miles' rule? We're not allowed to think beyond Miles' papers? Reminds me of the CuttingThroughTheFog.com forum. I didn't stick totally to Miles' views there either and Jared and Josh started suspecting that I was a spook or something and Josh banned me. What dopes.
I told you my recent proton idea. I included the idea of subphotons for that. I think subphotons are the only way to make sense of Miles' overall model. Photons shouldn't move in a wave pattern unless there are subphotons that they can wave against in transit, just like a pitcher's curve ball won't curve without air to curve against. Do you think anyone could throw a curve ball on the Moon? I say the charge field is like a gas that's moving at light speed in all directions and subphotons fill in much of the space between photons, just like photons fill in much of the space between subatomic particles. How about trying a little What if? Like what if there are subphotons between photons? What rules it out? Are photons individible? If so, why? I think everything's divisible all the way down. Therefore, there would be vacuums all the way down and Bernoulli too.

I think this is the guy that found that "Static Electricity" does not work according to published theory. The "anti-photon" effect makes sense from what LTAM states?

80-year-old mystery in static electricity finally solved
Date:  October 6, 2022
Source:   Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology(UNIST)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/10/221006121144.htm

For the longest time, it was assumed that two contacting/sliding materials are charging oppositely and uniformly. In the 1940s though it was observed that each of the separated surfaces is carrying both, (+) and (-) charges, after CE. The creation of so-called charge mosaics was attributed to the irreproducibility of experiments, inherent inhomogeneities of contacting materials, or a general "stochastic nature" of CE.

A research team, led by Professor Bartosz A. Grzybowski (Department of Chemistry) from the Center for Soft and Living Matter, within the Institute for Basic Science (IBS) at UNIST has investigated the possible sources of charge mosaics for over a decade. Published online and will be included in the October 2022 issue of Nature Physics, this study is expected to help control the potentially harmful electrostatic discharges.

"In our 2011 Science paper [Science 333, 2011, 308-312], we showed sub-micrometer-scale charge non-uniformity of unknown origin. At that time, our hypothesis was to attribute these (+/-) mosaics to the transfer of microscopic patches of materials between the surfaces being separated. However, over many years of work on the problem, this and related models were simply not holding up, as it was gradually becoming unclear to us (and many other colleagues with whom we discussed) how these microscopic patches can explain even millimeter-scale regions of opposite polarity coexisting on the same surface. Nonetheless, we and the community had no better answer why the (+/-) mosaics are seen at all and over so many length scales," says Professor Grzybowski.

In the paper published recently in Nature Physics, the group of Professor Grzybowski shows that charge mosaics are a direct consequence of ESD. The experiments demonstrate that between delaminating materials the sequences of "sparks" are created and they are responsible for forming the (+/-) charge distributions that are symmetrical on both materials.

"You might think that a discharge can only bring charges to zero, but it actually can locally invert them. It is connected with the fact that it is much easier to ignite the 'spark' than to extinguish it," says Dr. Yaroslav Sobolev, the lead author of the paper. "Even when the charges are reduced to zero, the spark keeps going powered by the field of adjacent regions untouched by this spark."

The proposed theory explains why charge mosaics were seen on many different materials, including sheets of paper, rubbing balloons, steel balls rolling on Teflon surfaces, or polymers detached from the same or other polymers. It also hints at the origin of crackling noise when you peel off a sticky tape -- it might be a manifestation of the plasma discharges plucking the tape like a guitar string. Presented research should help control the potentially harmful electrostatic discharges and bring us closer to true understanding of the nature of contact electrification, noted the research team.

We might be able to ask him questions at his email link there?
https://research.unist.ac.kr/post-research/26347-2/
Group: http://grzybowski-group.net/default.asp
Also: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/aug/12/chematica-chemistry-network-bartosz-grzybowski
Chematica
https://www.cell.com/chem/pdf/S2451-9294(18)30085-8.pdf



Pulsed Radio Frequency also is interesting for "healing" with this. They basically can't explain "electron" weirdness with R.F. waves-Plasma injections:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16735

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6595/ac0b56/pdf
Plasma Sources Science and Technology
Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 30 (2021) 075011 (14pp) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6595/ac0b56
Comprehensive understanding of the ignition process of a pulsed capacitively coupled radio frequency discharge: the effect of power-off duration

Old post: wrote:Re: Static Electricity Defies Simple Explanation
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15057#p96169
by Chromium6 » Tue May 27, 2014 8:28 pm
Found these experiments:
------

Antioxidants dispel static electricity

Cheap coating helps electric charge to dissipate from plastics and rubber.

Richard Van Noorden

19 September 2013

It might be called a shock finding. Coating plastic or rubber materials with antioxidants such as vitamin E stops static charge from building up on the polymer’s surface, chemists report today1. The discovery could prove a cheap solution to problems such as dust clinging to plastic, static electric shocks, or the sparks that damage television circuits and fry computer motherboards.

Children can have fun with static electricity — when they rub balloons on their hair, the rubber and hair stick together because of the attraction between transferred charged particles. But static charge that builds up on industrial components, such as plastic fuel filters on cars or inside semiconductor parts, can lead to potentially dangerous electric sparks and a build-up of dust.

The puzzle with static electricity, explains Bartosz Grzybowski, a physical chemist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, is that although charged particles should repel each other when they land on an insulating surface, making them spread evenly across a material and leak back into the air, they actually form stable, long-lived clumps. This leads to the build-up of large amounts of tightly confined static charge, enough to abruptly discharge when a conductive path becomes available: for example, shooting through a human body to a metal railing, or sparking through air like a miniature lightning bolt.
Vitamin treatment

Grzybowski’s team reports in Science that it has solved the mystery. The researchers examined under the microscope the patterns of electric and magnetic charge created when charged particles land on polymer surfaces. They discovered that charged particles are stabilized by radicals — reactive molecules with spare, unbound electrons that form when chemical bonds are broken on a surface. The radicals share some of the burden of the electric charge; without them, charged particles would not be able to clump together so tightly. The answer, the team says, is to apply surface coatings that react chemically with the radicals, mopping them up. Such coatings could include vitamin E, among other cheap, non-toxic antioxidants. Some of these chemicals are in fact already added to the blends from which polymers are made, in order to scavenge the radicals formed when ultra-violet light damages plastic - but haven't been used as antistatic coatings.

The researchers proved their case by using solutions of radical scavengers to coat common polymers, such as beads of polystyrene. Sure enough, after being shaken up to gain static charge, the coated beads shed their static electricity within minutes. The scientists also used their anti-static coating to protect a transistor component, showing that it remained undamaged when charged particles were shot at it from an ion gun. “It’s actually quite incredible that the answer is so simple,” says Grzybowski.

Other researchers contacted by Nature found the work exciting. The real advance is the insight into the root causes of static electricity, says Michael Dickey, who researches nano-electronics at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “It is very clever in the simplicity of addressing an old problem,” he adds.

Also:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0741-3335/47/5A/026/pdf
Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion - Characterization of stationary and pulsed inductively coupled RF discharges for plasma sterilization

T Gans1, M Osiac1, D O'Connell1, V A Kadetov1, U Czarnetzki1, T Schwarz-Selinger2, H Halfmann3 and P Awakowicz3

Published 20 April 2005 • 2005 IOP Publishing Ltd

Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, Volume 47, Number 5A Citation T Gans et al 2005 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 47 A353

Pulsing of the plasma reduces the time average heat strain and also provides additional control of the various sterilization mechanisms. Certain aspects of pulsed plasmas are, however, not yet fully understood. Phase resolved optical emission spectroscopy and time resolved ion energy analysis illustrate that a pulsed ICP ignites capacitively before reaching a stable inductive mode. Time resolved investigations of the post-discharge, after switching off the RF power, show that the plasma boundary sheath in front of a substrate does not fully collapse for the case of hydrogen discharges. This is explained by electron heating through super-elastic collisions with vibrationally excited hydrogen molecules.

Looking at Dr. K's 5th state of matter paper again got me thinking whether there are Filaments-Plasma in terms of Mathis with anti-photons? This was just a thought. Or is the 5th state without any photon directional spin?

.
Thanks for the additional information Cr6. On the subject of static electricity and lightning I’m surprised I mentioned Dr. K. before you did. You turned me into a believer. Dr. K certainly deserves more attention and recognition.  

Dr. K was an experimentalist, extremely cognizant that electromagnetics, (i.e. 10^19 times stronger than gravity barely dipping a filament at a black hole’s event horizon) is the strongest force in the universe – and not gravity. He may not have had a proper understanding of charge, but I think Dr. K. does a great job in describing filaments, the fifth state of matter. Occurring at most all size scales. Sub millimeter for static electricity, but much larger filament lengths for lightning or galactic jets.  

When Dr. K describes “filaments”, I’m thinking “charge channels”. The stable atoms include charge channels generated by proton matter, strings of alternating proton stacks, up to 6 protons each. In nature however, larger, less stable groups of protons may join together to create much larger charge channels. Such as can be observed in static electricity and lightning. Dr. K. insists that filaments are one directional which I don't agree with. I also feel certain photon spins are something Dr. K did not take into proper consider.  As charge channels, filaments support both charge and anti-charge currents, the same as an atom’s internal charge channel does.

Lloyd wrote. I told you my recent proton idea. I included the idea of subphotons for that. I think subphotons are the only way to make sense of Miles' overall model. Photons shouldn't move in a wave pattern unless there are subphotons that they can wave against in transit, just like a pitcher's curve ball won't curve without air to curve against. Do you think anyone could throw a curve ball on the Moon?

Airman. Are you saying the stacked spin model is not correct? You may recall Miles posted a gif, clearly showing how a sphere can spin end-over-end as it travels through space? That motion does effectively create a wave motion in space.  I believe certain comets and asteroids display end-over-end motion.
Nevyn didn’t entirely agree with Miles stacked spin idea either. Insofar as there is no way to create a spherical stacked spin “a” particle on top of the previous x, y or z torus shaped spin. 

Lloyd wrote. I say the charge field is like a gas that's moving at light speed in all directions and subphotons fill in much of the space between photons, just like photons fill in much of the space between subatomic particles. How about trying a little What if? Like what if there are subphotons between photons? What rules it out? Are photons individible? If so, why? I think everything's divisible all the way down. Therefore, there would be vacuums all the way down and Bernoulli too.

Airman. Lloyd you're welcome to your ideas but I’m a crusty old charge field proponent at a charge field forum. I guess I’m partial to charge field type ideas and may not necessarily agree with non-charge field ideas. The charge field provides a real fixed basis for physics – photon collisions at or about a certain photon radius and energy. Ever smaller photons or Bernoullies (or turtles) - all the way down is not a mechanical explanation as it defies or dismisses any physical explanation such as real photon collisions. Sorry I don’t know why there must be minimum photon radius or why a photon must travel with both a forward and spin-tangential light speed velocities. I’m open to serious alternatives but not just tossing them out for no good reason.

I mentioned that I thought the proton’s internal structure is one of the things that I believe Miles’ hasn't yet well-described. I don’t imagine any single internal recycling photon object anywhere near as large as an electron inside a recycling proton. Instead, I imagine the inside of the proton is the only place where you can find ever larger masses of photons in motion and in gravitational contact, swirling about in the proton’s gyrating internal nested spins. Just sharing a thought.  

Occasionally high energy electrons can enter a proton pole, but it will likely destroy the proton’s internal nested spins.

This site and the discussions here have enabled me to see and understand the subject somewhat better. On the other hand, after years of practice I’m still not very good at it. Again, you’re welcome to your own ideas, but you know how difficult it is to explain ideas to others. Especially important ones. Like me you can be stubborn and provocative. Tics me off when … . Suffice to say my feelings get hurt sometimes too. No harm, no foul, nothing personal.

Sorry if I’ve overlooked anything. You know how to get organized. Don’t hesitate submitting a list for formal review or whatever.

.

A.  I guess I’m partial to charge field type ideas and may not necessarily agree with non-charge field ideas. The charge field provides a real fixed basis for physics – photon collisions at or about a certain photon radius and energy. Ever smaller photons or Bernoullies (or turtles) - all the way down is not a mechanical explanation as it defies or dismisses any physical explanation such as real photon collisions. Sorry I don’t know why there must be minimum photon radius or why a photon must travel with both a forward and spin-tangential light speed velocities. I’m open to serious alternatives but not just tossing them out for no good reason.
L. How am I tossing out the charge field? All I'm doing is adding another level to it. Instead of charge streams and channels having only photons, I'm saying there are also smaller photon-like objects, subphotons.

A.  Are you saying the stacked spin model is not correct? You may recall Miles posted a gif, clearly showing how a sphere can spin end-over-end as it travels through space? That motion does effectively create a wave motion in space.  I believe certain comets and asteroids display end-over-end motion.
L. Where am I countering stacked spins? What I'm doing is adding a finer medium which helps explain the wavy motion. The center of mass of a tumbling asteroid doesn't move in a wave motion. At least it doesn't do so in empty space. It could only do so in an atmosphere, like a curve ball or knuckle ball. So if there is a subphoton sea in which photons move, the center of mass of photons can then move in a wave motion.

I haven't had time to check out the 5th state yet. Hopefully tomorrow. Hi, Cr6. I skimmed your post/s here, but didn't comprehend much yet. Tomorrow.

Okay. I've now read Fifth State of Matter at http://www.5th-state-of-matter.info/5th-state.html . I guess I'll read about Filaments at http://www.the-electric-universe.info/scripts.html next. I believe I discussed Charles Chandler's model here a couple years ago or so, which included a page on Filaments at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15482 . No one here seemed interested at the time, but I don't think offhand that Charles' model is far different from Koertvelyessy's. Does anyone want to read Charles' page while I read Dr. K's?

I see a few probable errors in Dr. K's model so far. Big Bang and Expanding Universe are surely wrong. The redshift of starlight is what led most astronomers to assume that the universe is expanding, since the Doppler effect of redshift is due to acceleration. But most redshifts are very likely not caused by the Doppler effect, but instead by the Compton effect, which is due to ionization, instead of velocity, as explained by John Kierein. The expanding universe assumption is what led to the Big Bang model. Dr. K. also assumes that black holes and neutron stars are real, but both are very likely not real.

BY THE WAY, has anyone tried simulating a photon forming an electron via stacked spins?

.
Lloyd wrote. I don't think offhand that Charles' model is far different from Koertvelyessy's.
Airman. I provided two different links to the same paper - The 5th state of matter by Dr. László Körtvélyessy. Neither link looks current but the-electric-universe link is more recent and includes an abstract. The 5th-state-of-matter link begins with a summary. I'll quote both.

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/5th_state_of_matter.html

The 5th state of matter
published: Coronae 2001 NL Nordvijk
Abstract
Three of them: solidus, liquidus and gaseous states of matter are known since millennia. This paper shows that the fourth (plasma-) state of matter is not clear, however. Plasma should cause not only the understood presssure in the stars but also the ejection, form, energy of filaments. However, nobody understands that the strongest jets are ejected at gravity of the heaviest black holes. Attraction cannot cause repulsion. The solution is the introduction of a new concept: the fifth state of matter. This shows the electric origin, form, energy of the solar and almost all filaments and jets. Bodies in the plasma state of matter consist of particles which move thermally i.e. in zigzag. Therefore, the thermal laws of phyisics are valid. However, bodies in this fifth state of matter e.g. as the solar corona consist of particles which move non-thermally i.e. parallel to each other. Therefore the thermal laws of physics are not valid. For example the solar corona radiates no heat only cold light like fluorescent lamps. Its iron ions are made electrically, not thermally. In Bose-Einstein Condensate matter has almost zero energy. This state of matter should get the name: zeroth state of matter instead of “fifth state of matter”..

And here’s the older 5th State of Matter paper’s initial summary.
http://www.5th-state-of-matter.info/5th-state.html

Summary: beautiful filament-systems are often shown by the astonishing development of the modern astronomy. Most of these filaments have an exact circular cross section. Filaments have the same interesting characteristics from a diameter of 0.01 mm to that of many 1000 of light-years. Filaments are incorrectly seen to be of plasma, however, particles move in only one direction in them, often against gravity. In this non-thermal (fifth-) state of matter, particles have up to 10^16 -times higher energy than those in the hottest stellar plasma. The corona-problem and hundreds of other problems of astrophysics are solved at once. Only six states of matter are possible, all are briefly described.

Here’s CC’s introductory paragraph on “Filaments”.

Filaments Charles Chandler
The section on Accretion identified a force far stronger than gravity that is responsible for the collapse of dusty plasmas into stars, planets, & moons. Now we can examine the dynamics of this process. Recent research has shown that giant molecular clouds first resolve into linear filaments, and then the filaments collapse into stars. (See Figure 1.) The Universe is actually full of filaments of various sizes and shapes. Both gravity and hydrostatic pressure object to this form, leaving only EM as the driving force. Some EM theorists have generalized the concept of Birkeland currents to explain the prevalence of filaments, but without establishing the electromotive forces at play, and without demonstrating that the currents would require material filaments. An electric current actually prefers a vacuum, and would evacuate the material in a filament by ohmic heating. So electric currents neither prefer filaments, nor cause them. Rather, the filaments are created by gas cloud collisions. The friction will be relaxed if they resolve into jets that tunnel through the opposing clouds. As they do, they'll stretch the Debye sheaths into comas, as in Figure 2, establishing a linear body force. So hydrodynamic jets produce electrostatic filaments. Once formed, they'll snap together. In other words, it's like grabbing a balloon that wasn't ready to "collapse" and stretching it into an ellipsoid with a high aspect ratio, creating a force that wasn't there in the resting condition. If we let go, the balloon will implode toward the center in a bidirectional linear motion, rather than a radial one.

CC describes the formation of stars from galactic plasma filaments under Electric Universe theory electromagnetic conditions like Birkland currents and Debye sheaths.

Kr. K describes filaments, from "0.01 mm to that of many 1000 of light-years" as a new type of matter – not plasma, that travels in a single direction and doesn't obey thermodynamic laws.

Dr. K’s work includes static electricity and lightning as valid examples of filaments.

I don’t believe its fair to say CC’s description of filaments are directly applicable to either static electricity or lightning.

Of course both Dr. K and CC include assumptions which do not seem to agree with the charge field.

Lloyd wrote. BY THE WAY, has anyone tried simulating a photon forming an electron via stacked spins?
Airman.I notice that that question has appeared since I first read and backed-up your post. I don't believe photons with stacked spin have been modeled yet. Unless I'm mistaken, Nevyn's stacked spin model modeled stacked photon spin motions rather than radius doubling matter in motion.
.

A. [quoting Koertvelyessy] Bodies in the plasma state of matter consist of particles which move thermally i.e. in zigzag.
L. Does he or anyone explain the zigzag thermal motion of plasma? The video on how electricity supposedly actually works showed electrons bumping into atoms in kind of a zigzag motion in a conducting metal to produce heat and maybe light. But that's not plasma. Is it? Since it's in a solid?

A. [cont.] Therefore, the thermal laws of physics are valid. However, bodies in this fifth state of matter e.g. as the solar corona consist of particles which move non-thermally i.e. parallel to each other. Therefore the thermal laws of physics are not valid. For example the solar corona radiates no heat only cold light like fluorescent lamps.
L. Charles explains in detail how filaments form and why the sub-filaments move parallel to each other. I don't know if it helps to call them a fifth state of matter, but I'll try to add more to this post soon. I got some other things I need to attend to for a bit.
Now I'll resume. In his paper on Accretion at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=12692 Charles said

_The other effect of a supernova is the release of particulate ejecta, and this is what supernovae have in common with gas cloud collisions as the triggers for dusty plasma collapses — they both involve the collision of two clumps of particles, which would have already resolved into so many Debye cells. So the collapse has something to do with Debye cell collisions.
_The effect of such collisions is simple: the drag force on the sheaths will be greater than on the nuclei, resulting in the Debye sheaths becoming like cometary tails, trailing away from their parent dust grains, in the direction of the drag force. (See Figure 11.)
__Figure 11. Debye sheaths stretched into comas by ram pressure stripping. [See:] http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/16257.png
_The significance is that the net electric force goes from slightly repulsive to strongly attractive. The dominant force acting on the sheaths will no longer be repulsion from other sheaths, since there is now a nearer nucleus. Likewise, the nuclei are attracted to sheaths that are now floating in the intercellular space.
_The actual electric field would be impossible to calculate without knowing exactly how much drag force was applied to the sheaths, such that the geometry of the comas could be estimated. But just to establish a baseline, the forces were calculated with the sheaths maintaining their general form, yet shifted to the center of the intercellular space, as in Figure 12. This will underestimate the electric force, because of the greater distance between charged particles, and because of the inverse square law. It is also unrealistic, since there will be nothing to keep the sheaths from dispersing. Still, this will be mathematically useful, to establish the bare minimum electric force.
__Figure 12. The left pane depicts resting Debye cells. The right pane depicts Debye sheaths that have been stripped off the nuclei by friction in a collision. [See:] http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/15442.png
_The results are shown in Figure 13, with both e & g now being attractive. At a center-to-center spacing of 10 m, the electric force is already 3 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.
__[Figure 13:] http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/12790_wbg.png

Before Charles finished writing his paper, I was discussing with him why filaments are linear. If like "charges" repel and opposite "charges" attract, then they will tend to form into lines. Let's indicate positive charge with + and negative with -, where we can think of positive as high pressure and negative as low pressure. ++ would repel each other and so would --. +- attract and the - can attract a + from the right side and the + can attract a - from the left side, making -+-+. The positive between 2 negatives shields the repulsive forces of the 2 negatives and the negative between 2 positives shields their repulsive forces. If any of them start to drift out of alignment, the repulsive forces will begin to operate and push them back into alignment. So that may be the basis of how filaments would form, by adding opposite "charges" to each end. The supernova explosion or gas cloud collision would first have the material of the filaments moving at moderately high velocity in one composite direction and the filaments would be forming while on that trajectory. At a certain relativistic(?) velocity the electric force pushes negatives apart from the positives, while magnetic force keeps both positive and negative strands moving linearly. They meet filament strands coming from the opposite direction and form either normal stars or exotics. (I need to do some more thinking and reading on this.)

A. [cont.] Its iron ions are made electrically, not thermally. In Bose-Einstein Condensate matter has almost zero energy. This state of matter should get the name: zeroth state of matter instead of “fifth state of matter”.
L. Would this be matter at absolute zero temperature? Charles has or had the idea that the centers of normal stars and planets are at absolute zero because the atoms are so crowded together that there are no longer any degrees of freedom between them. That's after the electrons are expelled to a higher layer. I know Miles has at least one paper discussing matter at absolute zero.

Speaking of CMEs, have you read Charles' paper on them at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=8292 ? He says electrons don't combine with protons in the Sun, because the heat keeps them apart. I don't know of evidence that CMEs consist of filaments, as Koertvelyessy says. Do you? I'll try to read his paper on that.

The question for you Lloyd is whether Dr. K, Charles and Mathis can all "reconcile" at some point? What are similar and what are the differences in a bullet point format? Maybe just starting with the Photon?