a new kind of visible radiant energy?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

i dont want to get too off topic with this,
but we can delve a little deeper into the rabbit hole..

These "pieces of the atom" are magnetic in nature.
the electrons motion is what causes it to be electric.
it moves because its attracted to everything. except for an adequately strong electric charge to repel its own charge.

every orbit causes a "magnetic moment". the vector of the magnetic field is exactly the same as in an electric coil, or two neutron stars orbiting one another.

when you allign these orbits onto a planar axis (magnetize them) this causes these magnetic moments, to ( on average) occur in the same vectoral direction.

forcing this to occur in a copper wire (coil), causes heat as well as magnetism. all the forces of nature are magnetic in origin.

I'm absolutely with you.  But NO classical theory can explain why an electron does not 'nose dive' into the proton when they're oppositely charged.  NO classical theory can explain why - the nearer the electron is brought to the proton - the more urgent becomes their mutual repulsions.  NO classical theory can explain why a 'magnet on magnet' interaction does not generate an electric field.  NO classical theory can explain any of this.  It can only speculate.  This is because the forces - all of them - are invisible.  So we're all obliged to constrain all our observations to empirical evidence and rely on those measurements to 'use' those forces. 

What I'm proposing is something MUCH more radical.  I'm actually suggesting that we can uncover the forces themselves - or, as I see it - the single force that underlies the known forces.  But I'll get back here - and I'll address your point more adequately.  Sorry for this but I've run out of time.

More glitches from our utility supplier.  We're still 3rd world guys.  It's annoying.

Kindest as ever, and in haste
Rosemary

[gravityblock]

@ Gravity Block
   
What exactly would be gained from knowing that a piece of... say Aluminum, has a ferromagnetic quality of (X)

Or that a piece of Copper has a field of (X - Y)

They are not magnetic. but are attracted to a field, when they should NOT be.. its very strange. but im not sure what measuring this will tell us??
......
...........
i guess what im getting at, Grav..
    What exactly do you hope to determine,
with the knowledge of the
precise permeability of a piece of polarized aluminum???
Is there some standard, for causing a mass of alumimum to be attracted to a magnetic field, that perhaps... consumes a given ammount of energy, by which we could use to asses the strength of the magnetic current?

In short, it allows you to do controlled tests or to uncover the actual 'force', as Rosemary said.  By knowing how much force it took to twist the fiber through a given angle, Coulomb was able to calculate the force between the balls. Determining the force for different charges and different separations between the balls, he showed that it followed Coulomb's law.  There are too many of these examples to even attempt to mention them all.  If the force determined by the Baker's device showed it has the properties of gravity, such as the same rate of attraction between all masses, etc., then we can attribute this effect to gravity.

Does density, heat, pressure affect the data.  We know when a material heats up, it will lose it's magnetic properties, thus if temperature is a factor, then the force may be partly due to a magnetic phenomenon, which may lead to the discovery of secondary magnetic fields that is currently unknown to the scientific community.  Does the density of an object effect the data?  Does radiation pressure, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure , have an effect?  Will an object with a larger volume have a different force than an object with a smaller volume.  This could show that the radiation pressure from the electromagnetic waves from the sun has a repelling force against a mass according to it's density and surface area exposed, which would help to explain the reasons behind the elliptical orbits of the planets.

Thus, the planets orbits may be due to a repelling force and an attraction force which finds an equilibrium according to the planets density and surface area exposed to the sun and the relative distance between the sun, magnetic center, and the planet itself.  This could mean the elliptical orbits are due to the sun orbiting around a magnetic center of the solar system, because a planet will be exposed more to a repelling force when the sun is between the planet and magnetic center and will be pushed away during this time, or a planet will be exposed more to an attraction force when the magnetic center is between the planet and sun, and will be pulled in during this time, thus the reason for the elliptical orbits of the planets.  Please note, if the repelling force was due to only the centrifugal force of a planet, then the planet would take a spiral course and plummet into the sun.  Also, if the opposing force of attraction was due to the centrifugal force alone, then this doesn't explain the elliptical orbits of the planets, thus a need for another repelling force.

I could go on and on, but the end conclusion is it could redefine our understanding of gravity and magnetism, or could verify a theoretical fifth force and lead to many other great discoveries.  This is how Coulomb and other great scientists proceeded in their work, and I don't know why one would want to deviate from this successful model.

GB

[sm0ky2]

thats because the "clasical" interpretation of what these forces are, and what causes them to be manifest

is based on speculation and conjecture.

their models help them to solve the problem, and through this, the necessary mathematics were drawn out. and very accurately.

but there is still the underlying assumptions made, that inhibit them from seeing the larger picture.

why the electron doesn't hit the nucleus,? well, it actually does. eventually...

once the magnetic field of the nucleus dissapates so much that it can no longer accelerate the electron to its critical velocity. then the nucleus gets impaled, and its inner field shifts. sometimes the impact can eject fast moving particles completely out of orbit, and off into the space around it.
science calls this "atomic decay", but they base all of their knowledge of this on some random pointless statistic..

if we had the means to vectorally direct an electron, to impale a proton at a perfecly perpendicular angle between their centers......  it would theoretically be possible to collide the two. this kind of precision its like hitting the atomic lottery, given the number of atoms in our part of the universe.. im sure this happens, but wether or not we observe this, or ever figure out how to cause it to happen who knows... if they get their heads out of their %#^*es maybe they could figure out that in a given sample, there exists atoms that have decayed outside of their normal associated time-frame. they acknowledge this, but ignore its implications... they consider it a "troublesome nusance", and incosistencies in their results... an unwanted % that they have to account for because its there, but they otherwise want nothing to do with...
--------------------------------------------------------
when you bring the two pieces together, you are increasing the force attracting between them, but also increasing the velocity, and thus causing more outward force tangential to the vectoral orbit. when you attempt to contain the electron with an electric field, what you are containing is the electric field emited by the moving electron.
and thus not preventing it from moving, just rapidly changing its vectoral direction. causing it to orbit within its own field, twirling in a sort of screw-like pattern, which becomes more and more curved as you approach the proton.

as the electron approaches the speed of light, you are confronted with an infinite outward force preventing the two from touching one another. the magnetic attraction is what is accelerating it.
When the protons magnetic field weakens and can no longer sustain this, the atom ceases to be a baryon and depending on the energy exchange between the atom and its environment when it becomes unstable, the electron may become part of the protons mass, thus forming a "neutron".
or fracture the proton into groups of its magnetic components. the electron itself joining one of those groups.

[gravityblock]

Thoroughly approve of any attempt at making actual measurements but I'm not sure that I, personally could put that apparatus together. 

Kindest regards to all
Rosemary

After you study the Baker's device, then I think you will agree there would be no difficulty in putting this apparatus together.  If Dave sends me a device to test, then I will build the Baker's device myself, so controlled experiments can be done and documented.

GB

[sparks]

  @smokey

    The electromagnetic stimulation of radioactive decay can make anything radioactive by decreasing the angular velocity of electrons in the 1s orbital.  They have found this out and can now take radioactive waste and electromagnetically stimulate it until it drops below radiation levels of that you would find in a smoke detector.  What the problem is is control.  When a guy can whip up a device put it in his garage and change his human waste into enough energy to power the neighborhood they loose control.  They no longer have us working night and day paying electric bills and fuel bills and taxes on fuel and taxes on electricity and taxes levied on stuff we make and stuff we do.  We are free to go out and change salt water to fresh change a desert into a farmland change packaging and all our waste into fertilizers and raw materials to rebuild our infrastructures and new structures.  A world of so much there is no need for wars or depletion of natural rescources that cause wars.  I dont know about you but this is no longer a matter of if is it  possible it is a matter of who is in the way of building such a world and why.