The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)

[pauldude000]

@aleks

1. From what I've read, electrons have electrostatic charge field. This is like a bulb's light aura which diminishes with distance from the electron's core.

2. This does not apply to electron as it does not have a magnetic field. Electron is an electric charge monopole. Electrons always repel each other. What makes them stick to each other in an atom is proton which is lacking one electron charge. But it is not electrons sticking to each other - it is protons nullifying their repelling force that make them able to live close to each other.

3. Electro-magnetic fields are always a result of photon emission performed by various particle interactions.

This is good stuff, and is exactly what I seek, but also has answers associated. I have added numbers to your quote so that I can address them individually.

1. Electrons do have an electrostatic charge field, which is true. Your description is pretty good. However, an electromagnetic field is created  by said charge field in motion. That is why an electromagnetic field is electromagnetic. A magnetic field always has an electric field in conjunction with it. No field is truly static, as all fields are varying over time in magnitude and motion.

For instance, an electron in a lower electron shell has more energy than one in a higher shell. A laser (stimulated emission) works by adding energy to an electron which forces it into a lower shell, then upon relaxation it returns to its original shell, and gives off the extra energy in the form of light quanta we call photons. The charge field of each electron had to vary, to change the energy contained in said electron, so was by no means static.

2. Concerning the magnetic field, prove it.

If a moving electron has no magnetic field (and there is no such thing as a stationary electron), then electricity and its associated magnetic field, does not work. A magnetic field is produced wherever electrons are in motion, and this is independant upon the conductor. An electric arc in a vacuum still has a magnetic field produced (IE no conductor at all, JUST electrons in motion.).

Electrons do repel each other, and this is due solely to the monopole nature of the charge. Opposite charges attract, like charges repel. To my knowledge, electrons never stick to each other.They orbit the atom nucleus in a similar manner that a moon orbits a planet.

3. In this I HAVE to disagree, to some extent. If various particle interactions are necessary, then explain the magnetic field created by an arc in a vacuum? Or maybe explain the photon itself, which by the claims of physics is a traveling electromagnetic wave with an associated electric field, with NO ASSOCIATED PARTICLES. (If it sounds somewhat stupid, that is because it is. I debate this view as well, but it is the current model.)

*A side note for those reading not knowledged in this area. If these fields are not dependent upon particle propagation, then a photon does not have mass. If they are, then a photon has to have a particle traveling with it, and it has mass. Interestingly enough, a mass has been associated with the photon, but they refer to this embarassing contradiction as "apparent mass" to explain it away, which ONLY raises more questions, especially since they ignore the implication inherent with E=mc^2, namely that mass and energy are but different aspects of the same thing, and are non-separable in nature.

@sparks

I have been reading your posts, and you may not realize it, but you are talking about space/time, and may well be possible.

Don't be confused by my statement, as space/time supposedly "did away with" the Aether concept, but in truth only redefined it, and rather badly at that. The old aether concept was a physical substance, which allowed propagation of waves through a vacuum (light etc.), allowed action at a distance. (fields such as gravity, electric, and magnetic, etc..). Space/time SUPPOSEDLY is not a substance, but it by definition has shape, and substance, since its shape we call fields (gravity etc.) and its topology can be warped..... (contradiction upon contradiction.) It is treated in reality as a substance (an aether) but defined as not. They haven't bought a clue from wal-marts, so don't beat yourself up mentally either.

Your descriptions at least sound more honest.

Paul Andrulis

[pauldude000]

BTW, on another thought, a rotating 'field' may be of use. However, it is not about rotating electric-magnetic field, it is mostly about using DC acoustic potential field to produce gradients around the coil so that they produce a directed electric flow. Well, the EM field WILL rotate, of course, being pulsed that way, but its rotation is an outcome of DC acoustic potential field. Just imagine you are popping and hiding small black holes from nowhere in a cyclic manner around coil. They will start to accelerate all charges inside and outside the coil. This will produce an EM whirl, but the energy of this whirl is sustained by pulsing, not by whirl itself. Then you can use this whirl to get required energy.

Actually, you are stating pretty much exactly what I am, using different terms and phrases. I am just disagreeing in that I think the rotating magnetic field induces the DC potential field, instead of it being a resultant derivative of the field. I am seeing the field in my mind as creating , for lack of better words, somewhat of a lens. Like a charged short wire antenna in some aspects, and like a yagi in others. However, instead of drawing the magnetic aspect of the field (though this may well be a side effect too), drawing the electric field lines from a distance, giving your DC potential field that you talk about. (acoustic is a term which is used for properties of sound by definition)

Your statements about the "whirl", "vortex" (or any other similar term describing something with a twisted motional cone, as this would describe the action of the rotating field upon the electric field.) would directly apply, and indeed IS drawing and accelerating the electric field, and indeed sustained by the pulsing. You and I have practically been quoting each other, just using different terminology. The magnetic field in motion, and the charge imbalance in the conductor, creates its own oppositely charged electric field which draws the outside ambient field.

Paul Andrulis

[aleks]

1. Electrons do have an electrostatic charge field, which is true. Your description is pretty good. However, an electromagnetic field is created  by said charge field in motion. That is why an electromagnetic field is electromagnetic. A magnetic field always has an electric field in conjunction with it. No field is truly static, as all fields are varying over time in magnitude and motion.

Electromagnetic field is not filled or built of electrons. Electromagnetic field is comprised of moving photons. Both magnetic and electric fields can come alone without its counterpart. There are electric fields without magnetic component and magnetic fields without electric component (e.g. permanent magnet).

For instance, an electron in a lower electron shell has more energy than one in a higher shell. A laser (stimulated emission) works by adding energy to an electron which forces it into a lower shell, then upon relaxation it returns to its original shell, and gives off the extra energy in the form of light quanta we call photons. The charge field of each electron had to vary, to change the energy contained in said electron, so was by no means static.

Laser is created by focusing low-energy light emission in a special chamber having a "hole", there is no direct relation to electron and electron shells in laser emission. You may build your own 'poor man's' laser out of reflective dishes and a light bulb.

2. Concerning the magnetic field, prove it.
If a moving electron has no magnetic field (and there is no such thing as a stationary electron), then electricity and its associated magnetic field, does not work. A magnetic field is produced wherever electrons are in motion, and this is independant upon the conductor. An electric arc in a vacuum still has a magnetic field produced (IE no conductor at all, JUST electrons in motion.).

I do not have to prove it, it's written in the books. Electrons interact with photons of electromagnetic field, but they do not have their own magnetic field. During electron-electron interaction more photons are created which may or may not produce electric or magnetic field depending on the conditions - this is all theory, of course.

Electrons do repel each other, and this is due solely to the monopole nature of the charge. Opposite charges attract, like charges repel. To my knowledge, electrons never stick to each other.They orbit the atom nucleus in a similar manner that a moon orbits a planet.

There is no such thing as 'opposite charge'. There is only 'lack of charge'. Electrons orbiting the atom nucleus is a dogma, or model. They may well be "sticked" around atom like bullets into rifle's magazine. Electrons may appear attracted to each other in Copper's pairs when super-conductivity is reached.

3. In this I HAVE to disagree, to some extent. If various particle interactions are necessary, then explain the magnetic field created by an arc in a vacuum? Or maybe explain the photon itself, which by the claims of physics is a traveling electromagnetic wave with an associated electric field, with NO ASSOCIATED PARTICLES. (If it sounds somewhat stupid, that is because it is. I debate this view as well, but it is the current model.)

Arc in a vacuum is created out of ions and electrons and EM waves at the same time. Of course, photon is a mass-less wave. I think that E=mc^2 means that you cannot speak of energy without having mass to accept it; you can't get energy out of EM waves without having matter.

Well, I'm not trying to play 'smart guy' role, but I had enough of doubts and headaches trying to understand jungle of physics. But still I may be missing something - but physics as a system does miss something - there are enough questions and observations that were not and cannot be answered to by existing physics models.

As for the aether, I do think it exists. However, it does not exist as a substance, as something with 'structure'. Aether is a "cosmic ruler" - it defines ("stores") length standard deviations. This is how I understand it. If my hypothesis about DC acoustic waves proves valid, aether is a thing built-in into reality of acoustic waves, acoustic waves cannot exist without aether existing at the same time. Photons are self-sustaining (symmetrical) "perturbations" of aether. Well, in this concept aether's length standard deviations can have their life without matter existence. In this respect they become purely virtual, with no way to manifest themselves without interaction with matter. What is matter - I do not know. It is probably a system of stable aether structures - virtual as well. We are living in Maya - this is a thousand years truth.

[aleks]

giving your DC potential field that you talk about. (acoustic is a term which is used for properties of sound by definition)

We may be close in our terminology and understanding of this particular coil system, but I insist it is a "DC acoustic potential field", not just "DC potential field" which usually implicitly means "related to electricity". It's a conceptually different thing.

[pauldude000]

@aleks

Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation.... (or laser) No, you cannot create a laser using two mirrors and a light bulb. All lasers (excepting solid state diode lasers) use parallel mirrors one completely reflective and one partially reflective (excepting of course Q-switched which uses a rotating mirror arrangement of various possible configurations.), and derive a coherent beam through wave entrainment of one frequency of electromagnetic radiation which gain energy with each reflection until said are energetic enough to break free of the containment area. These photons are stimulated (by electricity, or EMR, heat, etc.) , in the lasing material between the mirrors, just as I described. A light bulb does not put out coherent light in any form....??

Protons are positively charged, and electrons negatively charged. Anti-electrons (electron anti-matter) are supposedly positively charged as well. Yes, there are more than one type of charge...??

A permanent magnet has within itself a moving electric charge, due to the availability of free electrons within the atomic structure, the structure of electron shells of certain atoms, and peculularities of molecular alignment and interaction within the overall particular magnetic substance.....?

Concerning the electron/magnetic field/books.... what books?

A "lack of charge" is called neutrally charged, not positively charged. It is by definition NOT of ANY charge.....??

An ion, by basic definition is a charged atom or molecule. Free charged particles themselves are called ionizing radiation....??

You have me really confused here. (Just being honest.)

I am not trying to insult you. I truly am not, but your responses to this last post make absolutely no sense to me, from the physics standpoint. If you are trying to speak a concept, and do not have the proper words to express your concepts, please state so and I will try to interpret. I do not fault anyone for this.

Using any term which is well defined like the classical term "Aether", but applying your own definition without explanation only causes confusion. I truly DO desire to understand your viewpoint, but please understand that, though seriously flawed, the current physics model is far from worthless, as it can fairly accurately explain most of observable reality. That is why I use it, despite the flaws.

Paul Andrulis