When we last left the unit, all of the electrons’ affinity propensity in the unit could hold their at rest motion in check but wasn’t sufficient to cause another electron with its at rest motion to overcome its at rest speed and therefore, it would reach its optimal size and cease to grow. If it were not a part of the massive matter formation that was going on in the area whose absence of a field promoted matter formation, it would attract ambient electrons into orbit around it. This is because while it doesn’t have enough affinity propensity to capture electrons, it has enough to alter their paths and this excess affinity propensity would cause enough electrons to orbit it to balance out its excess affinity propensity. The orbiting electrons have not given up their at rest motion, but their affinity propensities have been captured by the unit so that the unit’s affinity propensities are balanced, or in better vernacular, used up.
However, the unit is not alone, it is among trillions of quickly forming units, and ambient electrons move to the place where there is the greatest excess affinity propensity. With all the units forming, there won’t be any ambient electrons to orbit the unit. However, in this world, excess affinity propensities are constantly seeking something to balance their excess affinity propensities, use it up. In the case of newly formed units, all with an excess affinity propensity, there is only one source of affinity propensity available, and that’s the excess affinity propensities of other units in the area.
Thus, after the unit is formed, it starts to conglomerate with other units, each unit using up the other’s excess affinity propensity. Just like its own formation is limited by the number of electrons that can be held together against their at rest motion, the new nucleus is limited by the amount of excess affinity propensity it has left to attract other units. While there is no force opposing the formation of the units into a nucleus, each time a unit joins the nucleus, it adds excess affinity propensity to the overall nucleus, but the overall nucleus does not have the sum of the excess affinity propensities of its units because the excess affinity propensities are slowly being satisfied, used up, not in holding the nucleus together but simply because they are in a contiguous state. Because all nuclei are made up of identical units, the resulting nuclei are identical, each hold the same number of units.
This leads to a startling conclusion. All elements, no matter how heavy, which is to say, no matter how many units it has in its nucleus, all started out as part of the most complex, the heaviest atom that can exist, the atom formed in the absence of a field. It also should be noted that this nucleus has, as of yet, no orbiting electrons and while it does not have an overall excess affinity propensity, it still has an excess affinity propensity sufficient to bind itself onto other nuclei and enter the process of physical matter formation.
Physical matter is the matter we experience in our ordinary lives. When we look to the heavens, we see that the matter has all been formed in spheres. The explanation for this is the same as the explanation for the expanding sphere. Expanding spheres expand spherically because electrons are being emitted in all directions and all directions is a sphere. So too in matter formation, where the nuclei conglomerate in all surface areas and all surface areas forms a sphere.
The result is the formation of spheres of varying sizes, some the size of planets, others the size of stars, that exist quietly in a seam of space that has an absence of a field. That seem, fed by the breaking down emissions of stars from every direction, continues to allow matter formation to occur so long as there is an absence of a field and a source of material, the electrons that are the broken down emission fields. When we look at the cosmos, we see that these seams, the matter formation fields for the galaxies, can be of varying sizes, but are all quite large. In a dynamic universe filled with galaxies rich in stars producing emission fields, the quiet time, the matter drifting as conglomerations of atoms, will not last forever. Just like our two matches, one lit, the other quiet, moving closing to a field, becoming immersed deeper into an emission field, results in ignition. All it takes is for one of these conglomerations of atoms to ignite just like it only takes one atom of phosphorous in the match to ignite, to ignite contiguous conglomerations of matter which in turn will ignite the conglomerations contiguous to it and before long the galaxy lights up, springs into existence.
I’ll wait until discussing solar system movement to describe galactic rotation, how it starts and how it is powered. For now, we’ll jump to the solar system to see what happens to the most complex of atoms formed in the absence of a field when it is caught up in the maelstroms of combustion.
(To be continued)
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
The Atom (continued)
I haven’t, and won’t be going into the conventions used to explain the operation of a battery, the twists and turns that allow science to convert chemical energy into electrical energy and then electrical energy back into chemical energy, just as I won’t be going into the conventions of the Standard Model that torture the explanation of atomic decay. As we see the operation of a single particle with two opposing properties, these made-up and agreed-to conventions will simply slip away as being unnecessary, with at rest motion providing the explanation for the conventional process of electricity that requires electrons to flow in the opposite direction of the current and the conventional processes of atomic decay which have all sorts of made-up particles converting into other made-up particles.
The basic unit of matter, as opposed to the basic particle of matter, is the unit the basic particles form. As all basic particles, and I’ll start to refer them to as electron with at rest motion and affinity propensity, as all electrons have the same amount of at rest motion and affinity propensity, units, under given conditions, are identical in size, with each containing the same number of electrons. The unit is made up of electrons whose affinity propensities have overcome their at rest motion, given identical conditions.
They are physical matter whereas the electron is only big enough to define nonexistence.
Now, note that I said that they are the same size, contain the same number of electrons, given identical conditions. What are the conditions in which a unit of matter exists?
The condition that controls the unit of matter’s size, and even existence, is the field in which that unit exists. While this foreshadows the next chapter on field replacement, it won’t hurt to introduce broad concepts of field, and more specifically, the expanding sphere, which is a concept that we will have to become familiar with because fields expand in all directions and all directions form a sphere.
To introduce fields and expanding spheres, I will use two wooden matches, wooden because they burn a little longer than paper matches and allow us time to perform the simple task of explanation. If we strike one of the matches, what happens? The obvious answer is, the prosperous tip ignites, but note ignite is just a term we use to define the point at which something begins to undergo combustion. All matter has ignition points at which first its molecules and then its atoms begin to break down, come apart.
When the match is ignited, however, it begins to emit light and as light is a small part of the electromagnetic frequency field, we can say the field begins to leave the surface of the match head. Now, science will tell us that the heat and light that make up this field are not only two different things, they are things of no substance. However, as everything we can measure has to be made up of the newly defined electron, what the match head is emitting is a field composed of those electrons. (As we move through the book, we will find that the electron with its two opposing properties can only form into three structures, the atom we will construct in this chapter, the electromagnetic emission field, which we will construct out of measurable facts when we deal with gravity, and the structure that is our minds, which we will construct in that area of the book.)
How can we describe the field the match head is emitting? First, it’s being emitted in all directions, except where it’s blocked, which is at the match stem and our fingers holding it. All directions form a sphere. Spheres are precisely measurable. Their surface area is four times pi times the radius squared. We have to view what is going on around the match head in terms of the field emitted. At each instance, the field that is being emitted gets a little larger as the field behind it is being emitted. While the natural tendency is to call each of the emissions packets, it would be inaccurate because, while each emitted field is connected to the electrons that make it up, it is connected to the electrons making up the field emitted prior to it and will be connected to the electrons making up the field that will be emitted after it.
What we see around the match head is a series of emitted fields, each with a different property, and that property is presence. As each emitted field is precisely measurable, we know the precise presence of each field when compared to the fields ahead of and behind it. As the measurement of the surface area of all the fields have 4 and pi in common, those measurements can be eliminated. The area of a field is determined by the square of the field’s distance from its source, which is common to all the fields.
What does this mean in practical terms? Since the area of the field is increasing with the square of its distance from its source, the field that was emitted has to cover an increasing area, and that means the field is diminishing with the square of its distance from where it was emitted. If that measurement sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the measurement for gravity. In any event, we are concerned here with the presence of the field, and that presence is diminishing with the square of the distance from its source. This is an expanding sphere and I can’t impress expanding spheres enough because they not only explain gravity, they explain how we can see what we see, both subjects addressed later on.
Here, we are only concerned about what is happening to the field, as evidenced by its presence, and we find that the heat and light, expanding over the surface of an expanding sphere, is diminishing inversely with the square of the distance from the sphere’s source, the radius of the sphere. This little fact, that light diminishes inversely with the square of its distance, is an inconvenient fact to an astronomy that likes to brag it can see from the beginning of time to the end of the universe. Anything that diminishes inversely with the square of its distance eventually expands out of existence, putting the bogus parallax measurements on which all star distances are measured in deep question (the rate of all possible errors in parallax is almost six times the best measurement).
How does this diminishing field affect the atom we are constructing out of units?
We have one match lit and emitting a field that is diminishing inversely with the square of its distance from the source of the field, the match head. If we take the second match and hold it say five inches from the first, nothing happens. However, if we start to move the second match head toward the first match, what are we doing? We are immersing the match into a stronger field the closer we come to the first match. Soon we get deep enough into the first match’s field that the binding holding the molecules and even the atoms together can no longer do so, for reasons explained in the next chapter. The second match reaches its ignition point and bursts into flame.
The point of this exercise is to demonstrate what I meant by “given identical conditions.” We live in fields that have many sources. The sun’s field, of course, is pretty evident, but the Earth is also emitting a field, even if science doesn’t recognize it. It’s common sense that something with a molten core would be emitting, but science never follows its conclusions through, with scientific fields being so narrow that the boundary of one never conflicts with the boundary of another (unless its mass gravity, with which no science can conflict).
When we measure the matter on the surface of the sun, we measure hydrogen, the source of science’s analogy of the sun to a hydrogen bomb (brilliant analogy that). We are measuring hydrogen in a way, because hydrogen is composed, or assumed to be composed of, a single unit, and a single unit is what would result if matter were placed in the highest field in nature, the surface of the sun. No matter what the sun is composed of, or what happens to fall into the sun, the matter is immediately reduced on the surface first to its molecules, then its atoms and then its units. What happens to the units? The units are themselves unraveling, which is to say, the at rest motion of the electrons making up the units is overcoming the affinity propensities of those electrons and those electrons are escaping the surface of the sun traveling at their at rest speed, the speed of light or the electromagnetic emission field. A science that doesn’t think matter emits what it is composed of when it is reduced by combustion isn’t a science, it’s a fantasy world.
Now we get our first glimpse of the cycle of the universe. If the basic unit of matter unravels in a strong field, how does that matter form in the first place, how do the affinity propensities overcome the at rest motion so they form into the units?
As the electrons come apart on the surface of the sun, or on any star for that matter, they form into a structure dictated by their properties, which we’ll describe when we discuss gravity. They begin to expand over the surface of an expanding sphere and as they do so, they diminish inversely with the square of the distance traveled. The same number of electrons covers greater and greater areas of the surface of the sphere. They reach a point at which they cannot maintain their cohesion on that surface and they began to break apart, the emission field begins to break down, producing freely moving electrons which I refer to as ambient electrons because we live in a world of ambient electrons and they explain a lot of the phenomena we experience and will be describing.
In space however, we have to assume that there are areas that contain no fields. It is this absence of a field that is the “given identical conditions” in which the units originally form to produce the atom that is the predecessor of all the atoms that we find in our periodic table of elements.
The cycle of the universe is quite simple: Matter formation, combustion, expanding emission field, dissipation and matter reformation. What happens between combustion and matter reformation are the galaxies we see, the solar systems that give rise to life, in short, the universe, which is a constant engine of the birth and movement of matter that gives rise to life.
So how do the basic units in the absence of a field form into matter and what happens to them when they combust?
(To be continued)
The basic unit of matter, as opposed to the basic particle of matter, is the unit the basic particles form. As all basic particles, and I’ll start to refer them to as electron with at rest motion and affinity propensity, as all electrons have the same amount of at rest motion and affinity propensity, units, under given conditions, are identical in size, with each containing the same number of electrons. The unit is made up of electrons whose affinity propensities have overcome their at rest motion, given identical conditions.
They are physical matter whereas the electron is only big enough to define nonexistence.
Now, note that I said that they are the same size, contain the same number of electrons, given identical conditions. What are the conditions in which a unit of matter exists?
The condition that controls the unit of matter’s size, and even existence, is the field in which that unit exists. While this foreshadows the next chapter on field replacement, it won’t hurt to introduce broad concepts of field, and more specifically, the expanding sphere, which is a concept that we will have to become familiar with because fields expand in all directions and all directions form a sphere.
To introduce fields and expanding spheres, I will use two wooden matches, wooden because they burn a little longer than paper matches and allow us time to perform the simple task of explanation. If we strike one of the matches, what happens? The obvious answer is, the prosperous tip ignites, but note ignite is just a term we use to define the point at which something begins to undergo combustion. All matter has ignition points at which first its molecules and then its atoms begin to break down, come apart.
When the match is ignited, however, it begins to emit light and as light is a small part of the electromagnetic frequency field, we can say the field begins to leave the surface of the match head. Now, science will tell us that the heat and light that make up this field are not only two different things, they are things of no substance. However, as everything we can measure has to be made up of the newly defined electron, what the match head is emitting is a field composed of those electrons. (As we move through the book, we will find that the electron with its two opposing properties can only form into three structures, the atom we will construct in this chapter, the electromagnetic emission field, which we will construct out of measurable facts when we deal with gravity, and the structure that is our minds, which we will construct in that area of the book.)
How can we describe the field the match head is emitting? First, it’s being emitted in all directions, except where it’s blocked, which is at the match stem and our fingers holding it. All directions form a sphere. Spheres are precisely measurable. Their surface area is four times pi times the radius squared. We have to view what is going on around the match head in terms of the field emitted. At each instance, the field that is being emitted gets a little larger as the field behind it is being emitted. While the natural tendency is to call each of the emissions packets, it would be inaccurate because, while each emitted field is connected to the electrons that make it up, it is connected to the electrons making up the field emitted prior to it and will be connected to the electrons making up the field that will be emitted after it.
What we see around the match head is a series of emitted fields, each with a different property, and that property is presence. As each emitted field is precisely measurable, we know the precise presence of each field when compared to the fields ahead of and behind it. As the measurement of the surface area of all the fields have 4 and pi in common, those measurements can be eliminated. The area of a field is determined by the square of the field’s distance from its source, which is common to all the fields.
What does this mean in practical terms? Since the area of the field is increasing with the square of its distance from its source, the field that was emitted has to cover an increasing area, and that means the field is diminishing with the square of its distance from where it was emitted. If that measurement sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the measurement for gravity. In any event, we are concerned here with the presence of the field, and that presence is diminishing with the square of the distance from its source. This is an expanding sphere and I can’t impress expanding spheres enough because they not only explain gravity, they explain how we can see what we see, both subjects addressed later on.
Here, we are only concerned about what is happening to the field, as evidenced by its presence, and we find that the heat and light, expanding over the surface of an expanding sphere, is diminishing inversely with the square of the distance from the sphere’s source, the radius of the sphere. This little fact, that light diminishes inversely with the square of its distance, is an inconvenient fact to an astronomy that likes to brag it can see from the beginning of time to the end of the universe. Anything that diminishes inversely with the square of its distance eventually expands out of existence, putting the bogus parallax measurements on which all star distances are measured in deep question (the rate of all possible errors in parallax is almost six times the best measurement).
How does this diminishing field affect the atom we are constructing out of units?
We have one match lit and emitting a field that is diminishing inversely with the square of its distance from the source of the field, the match head. If we take the second match and hold it say five inches from the first, nothing happens. However, if we start to move the second match head toward the first match, what are we doing? We are immersing the match into a stronger field the closer we come to the first match. Soon we get deep enough into the first match’s field that the binding holding the molecules and even the atoms together can no longer do so, for reasons explained in the next chapter. The second match reaches its ignition point and bursts into flame.
The point of this exercise is to demonstrate what I meant by “given identical conditions.” We live in fields that have many sources. The sun’s field, of course, is pretty evident, but the Earth is also emitting a field, even if science doesn’t recognize it. It’s common sense that something with a molten core would be emitting, but science never follows its conclusions through, with scientific fields being so narrow that the boundary of one never conflicts with the boundary of another (unless its mass gravity, with which no science can conflict).
When we measure the matter on the surface of the sun, we measure hydrogen, the source of science’s analogy of the sun to a hydrogen bomb (brilliant analogy that). We are measuring hydrogen in a way, because hydrogen is composed, or assumed to be composed of, a single unit, and a single unit is what would result if matter were placed in the highest field in nature, the surface of the sun. No matter what the sun is composed of, or what happens to fall into the sun, the matter is immediately reduced on the surface first to its molecules, then its atoms and then its units. What happens to the units? The units are themselves unraveling, which is to say, the at rest motion of the electrons making up the units is overcoming the affinity propensities of those electrons and those electrons are escaping the surface of the sun traveling at their at rest speed, the speed of light or the electromagnetic emission field. A science that doesn’t think matter emits what it is composed of when it is reduced by combustion isn’t a science, it’s a fantasy world.
Now we get our first glimpse of the cycle of the universe. If the basic unit of matter unravels in a strong field, how does that matter form in the first place, how do the affinity propensities overcome the at rest motion so they form into the units?
As the electrons come apart on the surface of the sun, or on any star for that matter, they form into a structure dictated by their properties, which we’ll describe when we discuss gravity. They begin to expand over the surface of an expanding sphere and as they do so, they diminish inversely with the square of the distance traveled. The same number of electrons covers greater and greater areas of the surface of the sphere. They reach a point at which they cannot maintain their cohesion on that surface and they began to break apart, the emission field begins to break down, producing freely moving electrons which I refer to as ambient electrons because we live in a world of ambient electrons and they explain a lot of the phenomena we experience and will be describing.
In space however, we have to assume that there are areas that contain no fields. It is this absence of a field that is the “given identical conditions” in which the units originally form to produce the atom that is the predecessor of all the atoms that we find in our periodic table of elements.
The cycle of the universe is quite simple: Matter formation, combustion, expanding emission field, dissipation and matter reformation. What happens between combustion and matter reformation are the galaxies we see, the solar systems that give rise to life, in short, the universe, which is a constant engine of the birth and movement of matter that gives rise to life.
So how do the basic units in the absence of a field form into matter and what happens to them when they combust?
(To be continued)
Friday, September 21, 2007
The Atom (continued)
It’s clear that Rutherford took certain criteria that his model of an atom had to meet and then designed the atom to meet those criteria, but by failing to take into consideration the likes repel aspect of putting protons together in the nucleus and accounting for the motion of the electrons around the nucleus, his model is insufficient. There’s another area in which Rutherford’s model failed. That was in modeling an atom that could produce light, a failure that a whole new field of science, quantum mechanics, was created to gloss over.
We want to build an atom that explains solid matter and accounts for weight. In addition, the atom must explain the basic feature of gravity, that atoms of different complexity fall at the same weight but require different forces to move against gravity. We also want an atom that will account for atomic decay as well as for matter's ability to produce light.
As we shall see, such an atom forms naturally from a single elementary particle with the opposing properties of affinity propensity and at rest motion, but before we do that, we need to explore the properties of this particle as opposed to the properties of the electron because what we are dealing with when we refer to the single particle is actually a modified electron. It is the electron we are familiar with, but one to which we have failed to assign the correct properties.
First, the electron science models has no motion of its own. This is simply absurd on its face. We know electrons move in a circuit and that circuits have neither a positive nor negative poll. In the case of inductive induced current, current that travels through a copper wire whose ends have been brought into contact, any electron that would be moving through the circuit would have to travel to both a positive and a negative pole if the circuit had poles, which it doesn’t.
The notion that electrons need polarity to move was a primitive concept made up by the early inventors and users of the battery, where the motive force appears to be the potential differences in the elements used but which merely is the flow of electrons between two potential differences, where the different potential differences seek to balance themselves (that’s how batteries wear out, the potential difference of the elements is no longer sufficient to produce a current flow).
Science knows for a fact that electrons orbit the nucleus of the modeled atom, but has no explanation for the electron's motion. It doesn’t even make an attempt, and it certainly ignores the likes repel rule applied to the protons. Why would electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom if they repelled one another?
So, it seems to be self-evident that the at rest motion we are talking about with the basic elementary particle is the at rest motion of the electron.
Now let’s tackle the likes repel, opposites attract fiction. If a magnet is allowed to move freely, one end always points to the North Pole. While it is only recently that science realized that naming this end of the magnet the north pole of the magnet contradicted it’s own likes repel dictate, the end of magnets that are designated north do repel each other. Perhaps science’s blindness in this area was the result of renaming the north south poles as negative and positive when they were applied to provide a reason for the movement of electricity in a battery. When the south end of a magnet come near the north end of a magnet, they attract, and it is this concept, a transfer of north south to negative and positive, that provided a basis for the movement of electricity. The positively charged particles were being attracted to the negative pole of the battery (now, as noted, the negative to the positive).
If the electrons that are the particles that represent electricity have at rest motion, there is no reason for polarity. But let’s look at the electrons with polarity in an electric wire. As we shall see, electrons move to where there is a deficit of affinity propensity, which is to say, they move from where they aren’t needed to where they are if a path is provided for them to move in. In the battery, two elements with potential differences have terminals. When connected, electrons flow from the element with the greater potential difference to the element with the lesser potential difference. (Potential difference, the electric property of an element, alters with temperature, a fact that we’ll later use to explain the origin of life, and a fact that also explains why your car batter won’t start no a very cold morning.)
The direction of flow is what’s important in the production of electricity. When electricity is produced by generators, it is attracted to the loads using the electricity, because those loads, by definition, have a deficit of electrons and therefore a deficit of affinity propensity.
Can you imagine electrons moving in a conductor if they all repelled each other? They wouldn’t be going anywhere because they’d all be trying to get away from each other before they even tried to get to the load.
For electricity to move through a conductor, it has to be cohesive, its particles have to all move in unison. To move in unison, they can’t be trying to repel each other, they have to come together, be a single flow.
The notion that opposites attract is probably as deep seated in our minds as the notion that gravity is proportional to and therefore a property of mass. It’s extremely difficult to visualize an electric world with no polarity, but as the opposing properties of at rest motion and affinity propensity explain physical reality after physical reality, the concept that there has to be opposites to obtain movement in the subatomic world drops away.
We have to remember that science does not have any notion of why magnets act as they do, and yet they willy-nilly apply surface explanations that explain nothing to other physical realities, clouding the understanding of those other physical realities. (We’ll be able to picture the forces at work in magnets after we construct the atom.)
The simple reality is, electrons attract one another. It is the only way to provide a physical explanation for electricity. Once sufficient electrons have been collected in a conductor, that conductor can be hooked up to a load and the electrons will, at their at rest speed less the resistance of the conductor, travel to the area of the conductor where there is a deficit of electrons, the load.
The conductor has to be made up of the atoms of an element that, when formed, can give up its own electrons to the flow while the flow replaces the electrons, providing the stability to keep the atoms of the element together (we’ll understand more about this in the next chapter on field replacement. Suffice it to say, if the element’s atoms won’t or can’t give up electrons, it can’t conduct, and if the electrical flow is too high for the conductor, its atoms will separate, the conductor will melt.)
(To be continued)
We want to build an atom that explains solid matter and accounts for weight. In addition, the atom must explain the basic feature of gravity, that atoms of different complexity fall at the same weight but require different forces to move against gravity. We also want an atom that will account for atomic decay as well as for matter's ability to produce light.
As we shall see, such an atom forms naturally from a single elementary particle with the opposing properties of affinity propensity and at rest motion, but before we do that, we need to explore the properties of this particle as opposed to the properties of the electron because what we are dealing with when we refer to the single particle is actually a modified electron. It is the electron we are familiar with, but one to which we have failed to assign the correct properties.
First, the electron science models has no motion of its own. This is simply absurd on its face. We know electrons move in a circuit and that circuits have neither a positive nor negative poll. In the case of inductive induced current, current that travels through a copper wire whose ends have been brought into contact, any electron that would be moving through the circuit would have to travel to both a positive and a negative pole if the circuit had poles, which it doesn’t.
The notion that electrons need polarity to move was a primitive concept made up by the early inventors and users of the battery, where the motive force appears to be the potential differences in the elements used but which merely is the flow of electrons between two potential differences, where the different potential differences seek to balance themselves (that’s how batteries wear out, the potential difference of the elements is no longer sufficient to produce a current flow).
Science knows for a fact that electrons orbit the nucleus of the modeled atom, but has no explanation for the electron's motion. It doesn’t even make an attempt, and it certainly ignores the likes repel rule applied to the protons. Why would electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom if they repelled one another?
So, it seems to be self-evident that the at rest motion we are talking about with the basic elementary particle is the at rest motion of the electron.
Now let’s tackle the likes repel, opposites attract fiction. If a magnet is allowed to move freely, one end always points to the North Pole. While it is only recently that science realized that naming this end of the magnet the north pole of the magnet contradicted it’s own likes repel dictate, the end of magnets that are designated north do repel each other. Perhaps science’s blindness in this area was the result of renaming the north south poles as negative and positive when they were applied to provide a reason for the movement of electricity in a battery. When the south end of a magnet come near the north end of a magnet, they attract, and it is this concept, a transfer of north south to negative and positive, that provided a basis for the movement of electricity. The positively charged particles were being attracted to the negative pole of the battery (now, as noted, the negative to the positive).
If the electrons that are the particles that represent electricity have at rest motion, there is no reason for polarity. But let’s look at the electrons with polarity in an electric wire. As we shall see, electrons move to where there is a deficit of affinity propensity, which is to say, they move from where they aren’t needed to where they are if a path is provided for them to move in. In the battery, two elements with potential differences have terminals. When connected, electrons flow from the element with the greater potential difference to the element with the lesser potential difference. (Potential difference, the electric property of an element, alters with temperature, a fact that we’ll later use to explain the origin of life, and a fact that also explains why your car batter won’t start no a very cold morning.)
The direction of flow is what’s important in the production of electricity. When electricity is produced by generators, it is attracted to the loads using the electricity, because those loads, by definition, have a deficit of electrons and therefore a deficit of affinity propensity.
Can you imagine electrons moving in a conductor if they all repelled each other? They wouldn’t be going anywhere because they’d all be trying to get away from each other before they even tried to get to the load.
For electricity to move through a conductor, it has to be cohesive, its particles have to all move in unison. To move in unison, they can’t be trying to repel each other, they have to come together, be a single flow.
The notion that opposites attract is probably as deep seated in our minds as the notion that gravity is proportional to and therefore a property of mass. It’s extremely difficult to visualize an electric world with no polarity, but as the opposing properties of at rest motion and affinity propensity explain physical reality after physical reality, the concept that there has to be opposites to obtain movement in the subatomic world drops away.
We have to remember that science does not have any notion of why magnets act as they do, and yet they willy-nilly apply surface explanations that explain nothing to other physical realities, clouding the understanding of those other physical realities. (We’ll be able to picture the forces at work in magnets after we construct the atom.)
The simple reality is, electrons attract one another. It is the only way to provide a physical explanation for electricity. Once sufficient electrons have been collected in a conductor, that conductor can be hooked up to a load and the electrons will, at their at rest speed less the resistance of the conductor, travel to the area of the conductor where there is a deficit of electrons, the load.
The conductor has to be made up of the atoms of an element that, when formed, can give up its own electrons to the flow while the flow replaces the electrons, providing the stability to keep the atoms of the element together (we’ll understand more about this in the next chapter on field replacement. Suffice it to say, if the element’s atoms won’t or can’t give up electrons, it can’t conduct, and if the electrical flow is too high for the conductor, its atoms will separate, the conductor will melt.)
(To be continued)
Saturday, September 15, 2007
The Atom
Thomas Edison ran into a problem when he was attempting to create the light bulb. He was using a carbon filament and was vexed by the fact that the carbon was coating the bulb. He decided that the electricity was not only flowing though the filament, it was flowing through the evacuated bulb. He made a bulb with a third electrode in an attempt to divert the flow and stop the blackening. He found that electricity did flow to this third filament but it didn’t stop the blackening, so he abandoned the effort, patenting the new bulb in the process.
In the light bulb, electricity flows through a filament. The filament, according to science, produces resistance to the flow of electricity and heats up, producing light. In short, light isn’t made up of the electricity that produces it. The loss of electricity is due to resistance, not to it being converted to light. If the filament in the bulb is separated, the filament with the incoming flow of electrons is called a cathode because it produces a stream of what are now known to be electrons. The cathode ray tube is the basis of television.
If, instead of evacuating the bulb entirely, a small amount of gas is left inside it, Edison’s effect can actually be seen as the gas becomes a conductor for the electrons with paths of electrons being emitted by the cathode lighting up. J. J. Thomson was the first to experiment with these mysterious rays called cathode rays that the cathode produced in gas. (Edison’s effect is grudgingly acknowledged as the basis of the diode, the old electronic tubes that were replaced by transistors, but not at all for the cathode ray tube that basically operates on the effect.)
Thomson was the first to demonstrate that cathode rays could be deflected by an electric field and were therefore negatively charged particles. So we have electricity going into a modified light bulb and producing flows of electrons. Why does science insist that the filament of the light bulb is not giving off electrons, but something else? As we get into the topic of the structure of light latter in the book, we’ll see that light is a structured from of the elementary particle described in the last chapter, and that elementary particle is the electron operating in the light bulb. It just seems to me that someone, somewhere, once it was determined that a light bulb could be modified in a way that simply separated its filament and produced flows of electrons, newly named by Thomson, would have wondered whether light was made up of electrons, but no, science thinks in compartmentalized structures that excludes thought. Besides, light is not deflected by an electric current (or at least by the electric currents of the day).
At the same time all of this was going on, people were discovering and experimenting with radioactive matter, matter that decayed and in the process gave off bits of itself. One of the bits was called an alpha particle, and alpha particles were what Rutherford, the constructor of our vision of the atom, enjoyed experimenting with. He noticed that when the alpha particles were directed at gold foil, some of them were deflected. Up until this point, everyone pictured the atom as a small, round ball. However, when Rutherford found a percentage of his alpha particles deflected by the foil, he reasoned that they were bouncing off something. As most of the atoms were passing through the foil with only minor deflection, he reasoned that the material was made up of atoms and those atoms were something other than little round balls.
Rutherford’s experiments with radiation had already identified an additional particle, the beta particle that he later determined to be an electron, so he already had Thomson’s electron in mind when he set about analyzing the nature of the structure of matter the alpha rays were encountering. He started to visualize a nucleus with shells of electrons orbiting it. Dimitri Mendeleev had long before put together the periodic table of elements, arranging them by weight. Rutherford accounted for weight, what is called mass today, by creating the neutron. To keep the electrons in orbit around the nucleus, he created the proton.
This model had two major defects as pointed out in the last chapter. There was no explanation for the electrons motion and protons, being positive, were supposed to follow the likes repel rule, and therefore, couldn’t stay together in the nucleus. Science solved the latter problem by creating a strong force to hold the protons together, but has totally ignored the source of the motion of the orbiting electrons.
(To be continued)
In the light bulb, electricity flows through a filament. The filament, according to science, produces resistance to the flow of electricity and heats up, producing light. In short, light isn’t made up of the electricity that produces it. The loss of electricity is due to resistance, not to it being converted to light. If the filament in the bulb is separated, the filament with the incoming flow of electrons is called a cathode because it produces a stream of what are now known to be electrons. The cathode ray tube is the basis of television.
If, instead of evacuating the bulb entirely, a small amount of gas is left inside it, Edison’s effect can actually be seen as the gas becomes a conductor for the electrons with paths of electrons being emitted by the cathode lighting up. J. J. Thomson was the first to experiment with these mysterious rays called cathode rays that the cathode produced in gas. (Edison’s effect is grudgingly acknowledged as the basis of the diode, the old electronic tubes that were replaced by transistors, but not at all for the cathode ray tube that basically operates on the effect.)
Thomson was the first to demonstrate that cathode rays could be deflected by an electric field and were therefore negatively charged particles. So we have electricity going into a modified light bulb and producing flows of electrons. Why does science insist that the filament of the light bulb is not giving off electrons, but something else? As we get into the topic of the structure of light latter in the book, we’ll see that light is a structured from of the elementary particle described in the last chapter, and that elementary particle is the electron operating in the light bulb. It just seems to me that someone, somewhere, once it was determined that a light bulb could be modified in a way that simply separated its filament and produced flows of electrons, newly named by Thomson, would have wondered whether light was made up of electrons, but no, science thinks in compartmentalized structures that excludes thought. Besides, light is not deflected by an electric current (or at least by the electric currents of the day).
At the same time all of this was going on, people were discovering and experimenting with radioactive matter, matter that decayed and in the process gave off bits of itself. One of the bits was called an alpha particle, and alpha particles were what Rutherford, the constructor of our vision of the atom, enjoyed experimenting with. He noticed that when the alpha particles were directed at gold foil, some of them were deflected. Up until this point, everyone pictured the atom as a small, round ball. However, when Rutherford found a percentage of his alpha particles deflected by the foil, he reasoned that they were bouncing off something. As most of the atoms were passing through the foil with only minor deflection, he reasoned that the material was made up of atoms and those atoms were something other than little round balls.
Rutherford’s experiments with radiation had already identified an additional particle, the beta particle that he later determined to be an electron, so he already had Thomson’s electron in mind when he set about analyzing the nature of the structure of matter the alpha rays were encountering. He started to visualize a nucleus with shells of electrons orbiting it. Dimitri Mendeleev had long before put together the periodic table of elements, arranging them by weight. Rutherford accounted for weight, what is called mass today, by creating the neutron. To keep the electrons in orbit around the nucleus, he created the proton.
This model had two major defects as pointed out in the last chapter. There was no explanation for the electrons motion and protons, being positive, were supposed to follow the likes repel rule, and therefore, couldn’t stay together in the nucleus. Science solved the latter problem by creating a strong force to hold the protons together, but has totally ignored the source of the motion of the orbiting electrons.
(To be continued)
Friday, September 7, 2007
An Elementary Particle with Two Properties (conclusion)
The first question, of course, is what two properties should the particle have? If you look at the properties science makes up and assigns to particles, you’ll end up scratching your head. As in any endeavor, the first thing to do is to make sure we’re asking the right question. Here we want a particle that will describe all of operating reality, so the question becomes, what do we know about operating reality?
We know that operating reality, the galaxies and star systems they contain, are located in empty space, or in my vernacular, nothing. Going back to the definition of the universe in the Introduction, the universe is essentially matter in nothing. That matter comes in two forms, the solid matter that makes up the stars and the planets and the matter that make up the electromagnetic emission fields active stars and planets produce. As we are hypothesizing a universe that is made up of a single particle, the matter and whatever makes up the electromagnetic emission fields, are made up of the same particle, the basic element of matter.
The planets and stars and the electromagnetic emission fields they produce are grossly different manifestations of the same particle, but they should tell us something about the properties that particle needs if it is going to explain both.
Starting with solid matter, what do we know about it? We know one thing and one thing only about solid matter. Whatever it’s made of is conglomerated together and if it conglomerated together, it is held together by something. In today’s science, that something is the strong force, but the strong force wasn’t made up to hold matter together, it was made up to explain why like-charged protons in the nucleus of the atom didn’t fly apart. There is no explanation what holds the neutrons together other than, perhaps, the weak force made up to explain atomic decay.
With matter being held together, the basic particles that makes up matter must be attracted to one another. That’s a pretty simple proposition, so why not just make it one of the properties of the elementary particle?
It’s not a property without its limitations. I always find this difficult to explain, but using magnets as an example, let’s lay out several hundred identical coin-shaped magnets on a table. If we pick up two of the magnets, they will readily clamp together. If we add a third, it will clamp together with a little less force. Holding the magnetic chain vertically, we keep adding magnets to the bottom of the chain. We eventually reach a point at which the chain will hold no more magnets. The weight of the overall combination has overcome the ability of the magnetic force to hold it together.
What should we call the property of attraction of the elementary particle we are conceptualizing? I long ago termed this property the particle’s affinity propensity. Instead of saying the particles attracted one another because that's too much like opposites attract, I defined affinity propensity as the particle's affinity for occupying the same space as any other particle. While that gets us away from saying the particles attract one another, that’s clearly the result of each particle pressing to occupy the space of all other particles.
What does this have to do with our magnetic chain?
When two particles come together, the combined structure of the two has twice the affinity propensity of each individual particle. However, some of the affinity propensity of each particle has been used up holding the combined structure together. Of course, we aren’t dealing with a table full of magnets, we are dealing with particles the size of electrons, very, very small bits. In fact, I define the elementary particle’s size as being just large enough to define nothingness because we have defined nothingness by the existence of matter.
As more and more particles come together into a sphere, and they form a sphere because particles form on a surface in all directions, and all directions of a surface form a sphere, each particle adds affinity propensity but uses up some of the affinity propensity of both itself and the sphere in holding it to the growing sphere. Like the weight overcoming the magnetic chain’s magnetic ability to stay together, eventually the sphere doesn’t have enough affinity propensity to attract additional particles and it is as large as it can get.
This brings up two very important points, First, because all of the elementary particles are identical with an identical amount of affinity propensity, the resulting spheres, I refer to them as units, will be identical, or close to identical, all other factors considered (and we’ll cover those factors in the next chapter on the atom).
Of primary importance, though, the question that should have been hovering in the background of everyone’s mind is, what force are they holding themselves together against? The magnets were fighting weight, but here weight isn’t a factor. Why don’t these particles, with their affinity propensity, simply form a gigantic sphere, soaking up all the elementary particles in the universe into one big structure? What are they fighting against? What force is attempting to keep them from forming into the structure in the first place so that the particles have to use up their affinity propensity to form into the structure?
To answer this question, and find the second property of our basic particle, we have to look at the second form of matter, the electromagnetic emissions produced by the stars and the planets undergoing combustion. And here, we’ll have to take a small side trip into the word combustion. Most people are under the mistaken assumption that combustion is defined by the presence of oxygen, that when something burns, when it is undergoing combustion, it requires oxygen. This, of course, rules out calling what stars do as combusting, or undergoing combustion.
This sets combustion off from the fission or fusion process. Using labored reasoning, and the fact that science can only measure the elements on the surface of stars, and that element is hydrogen, science concluded, after the successful fusion process that supposedly occurs in a hydrogen bomb, that the sun's emissions are the result of fusion. Thus, in using a single particle to explain fire here on Earth (for which, by the way, science has no coherent explanation) and the fire that is burning on the surface of the sun, I have the same gut reaction I get when I claim that both light and electricity have induction fields around them (a subject that will become extremely important when we discuss gravity). Instead of attempting to follow my reasoning, and evidence, to the contrary, people tend to discount everything when I say that stars and the planets are combusting.
However, the dictionary definition of combustion is a chemical process that produces heat and light. It uses oxidation as an example, but the definition of a chemical process is not necessarily limited to oxidation. While fusion is not considered to be a chemical process, the scientific explanation for fusion is totally conceptual, and its application to the surface of a star ad hoc, we call it a hydrogen bomb, stars have hydrogen on their surfaces, therefore they’re the same. Science has no coherent explanation for what is happening for when something is burning. When we get to the chapter on field replacement, we’ll see exactly what makes a log burn on Earth and the sun burn in space.
Returning to the electromagnetic emissions themselves, what is the one thing we know about them that is factual? Things like being wave particles are conceptual, and specific characteristics such as those of light (diffraction grating, for instance) are factual, but not general. What is the one fact we know about the electromagnetic spectrum that is universal?
We know its speed!
What does knowing its speed tell us? It tells us that light moves from one place to another. Under Newton’s particle view, just like the planets, light didn’t need a source of motion. When light became a wave, its movement could easily be ascribed to a disturbance in an aether made up to account for its wave features. Toward the end of the 19th century, Maxwell produced his equations that placed light within the confines of the electromagnetic spectrum (light was still a wave), but these equations do not explain why light moves other than to produce a hazy picture of magnetic and electrical fields interacting with each other.
In short, no one has an inkling why light, or electromagnetic emissions, move.
Why not just admit that they are made up of a particle (which Einstein proved with his photoelectric effect), drop the wave idiocy, and assign the property of motion to the particle?
If we adopt motion as a property of our particle, then we have something that the affinity propensity has to overcome and which would therefore limit the size of the units the particles would form. We have a single particle with two opposing properties, one property tending to bring the particles together, the other seeking to have the particles return to their normal speed, which I call the particle’s at rest speed because when the particle is traveling at what we consider the speed of light, it is at rest with itself in so far as being able to move without hindrance. What better situation. All of matter has stored energy in it, the energy inherent in each of the particles that make up the matter, to overcome the affinity propensity and return to its at rest speed.
Isn’t this simply a physical description of Einstein’s e=m equation where the square of the speed of light merely demonstrates the staggering amount of energy stored, or rather at rest motion, overcome, by the affinity propensities that hold the matter together?
Of course, as soon as we have opposing properties in the same particle, we have two overriding questions, how did the particles come together in the first place or how do the affinity propensities overcome the at rest motion and how do the particles come apart or how does the at rest speed of the particles overcome their affinity propensities? How does matter come form in the first place and dissipate in electromagnetic emissions?
We won’t be able to answer these questions until we construct an atom and then subject it to field replacement.
We know that operating reality, the galaxies and star systems they contain, are located in empty space, or in my vernacular, nothing. Going back to the definition of the universe in the Introduction, the universe is essentially matter in nothing. That matter comes in two forms, the solid matter that makes up the stars and the planets and the matter that make up the electromagnetic emission fields active stars and planets produce. As we are hypothesizing a universe that is made up of a single particle, the matter and whatever makes up the electromagnetic emission fields, are made up of the same particle, the basic element of matter.
The planets and stars and the electromagnetic emission fields they produce are grossly different manifestations of the same particle, but they should tell us something about the properties that particle needs if it is going to explain both.
Starting with solid matter, what do we know about it? We know one thing and one thing only about solid matter. Whatever it’s made of is conglomerated together and if it conglomerated together, it is held together by something. In today’s science, that something is the strong force, but the strong force wasn’t made up to hold matter together, it was made up to explain why like-charged protons in the nucleus of the atom didn’t fly apart. There is no explanation what holds the neutrons together other than, perhaps, the weak force made up to explain atomic decay.
With matter being held together, the basic particles that makes up matter must be attracted to one another. That’s a pretty simple proposition, so why not just make it one of the properties of the elementary particle?
It’s not a property without its limitations. I always find this difficult to explain, but using magnets as an example, let’s lay out several hundred identical coin-shaped magnets on a table. If we pick up two of the magnets, they will readily clamp together. If we add a third, it will clamp together with a little less force. Holding the magnetic chain vertically, we keep adding magnets to the bottom of the chain. We eventually reach a point at which the chain will hold no more magnets. The weight of the overall combination has overcome the ability of the magnetic force to hold it together.
What should we call the property of attraction of the elementary particle we are conceptualizing? I long ago termed this property the particle’s affinity propensity. Instead of saying the particles attracted one another because that's too much like opposites attract, I defined affinity propensity as the particle's affinity for occupying the same space as any other particle. While that gets us away from saying the particles attract one another, that’s clearly the result of each particle pressing to occupy the space of all other particles.
What does this have to do with our magnetic chain?
When two particles come together, the combined structure of the two has twice the affinity propensity of each individual particle. However, some of the affinity propensity of each particle has been used up holding the combined structure together. Of course, we aren’t dealing with a table full of magnets, we are dealing with particles the size of electrons, very, very small bits. In fact, I define the elementary particle’s size as being just large enough to define nothingness because we have defined nothingness by the existence of matter.
As more and more particles come together into a sphere, and they form a sphere because particles form on a surface in all directions, and all directions of a surface form a sphere, each particle adds affinity propensity but uses up some of the affinity propensity of both itself and the sphere in holding it to the growing sphere. Like the weight overcoming the magnetic chain’s magnetic ability to stay together, eventually the sphere doesn’t have enough affinity propensity to attract additional particles and it is as large as it can get.
This brings up two very important points, First, because all of the elementary particles are identical with an identical amount of affinity propensity, the resulting spheres, I refer to them as units, will be identical, or close to identical, all other factors considered (and we’ll cover those factors in the next chapter on the atom).
Of primary importance, though, the question that should have been hovering in the background of everyone’s mind is, what force are they holding themselves together against? The magnets were fighting weight, but here weight isn’t a factor. Why don’t these particles, with their affinity propensity, simply form a gigantic sphere, soaking up all the elementary particles in the universe into one big structure? What are they fighting against? What force is attempting to keep them from forming into the structure in the first place so that the particles have to use up their affinity propensity to form into the structure?
To answer this question, and find the second property of our basic particle, we have to look at the second form of matter, the electromagnetic emissions produced by the stars and the planets undergoing combustion. And here, we’ll have to take a small side trip into the word combustion. Most people are under the mistaken assumption that combustion is defined by the presence of oxygen, that when something burns, when it is undergoing combustion, it requires oxygen. This, of course, rules out calling what stars do as combusting, or undergoing combustion.
This sets combustion off from the fission or fusion process. Using labored reasoning, and the fact that science can only measure the elements on the surface of stars, and that element is hydrogen, science concluded, after the successful fusion process that supposedly occurs in a hydrogen bomb, that the sun's emissions are the result of fusion. Thus, in using a single particle to explain fire here on Earth (for which, by the way, science has no coherent explanation) and the fire that is burning on the surface of the sun, I have the same gut reaction I get when I claim that both light and electricity have induction fields around them (a subject that will become extremely important when we discuss gravity). Instead of attempting to follow my reasoning, and evidence, to the contrary, people tend to discount everything when I say that stars and the planets are combusting.
However, the dictionary definition of combustion is a chemical process that produces heat and light. It uses oxidation as an example, but the definition of a chemical process is not necessarily limited to oxidation. While fusion is not considered to be a chemical process, the scientific explanation for fusion is totally conceptual, and its application to the surface of a star ad hoc, we call it a hydrogen bomb, stars have hydrogen on their surfaces, therefore they’re the same. Science has no coherent explanation for what is happening for when something is burning. When we get to the chapter on field replacement, we’ll see exactly what makes a log burn on Earth and the sun burn in space.
Returning to the electromagnetic emissions themselves, what is the one thing we know about them that is factual? Things like being wave particles are conceptual, and specific characteristics such as those of light (diffraction grating, for instance) are factual, but not general. What is the one fact we know about the electromagnetic spectrum that is universal?
We know its speed!
What does knowing its speed tell us? It tells us that light moves from one place to another. Under Newton’s particle view, just like the planets, light didn’t need a source of motion. When light became a wave, its movement could easily be ascribed to a disturbance in an aether made up to account for its wave features. Toward the end of the 19th century, Maxwell produced his equations that placed light within the confines of the electromagnetic spectrum (light was still a wave), but these equations do not explain why light moves other than to produce a hazy picture of magnetic and electrical fields interacting with each other.
In short, no one has an inkling why light, or electromagnetic emissions, move.
Why not just admit that they are made up of a particle (which Einstein proved with his photoelectric effect), drop the wave idiocy, and assign the property of motion to the particle?
If we adopt motion as a property of our particle, then we have something that the affinity propensity has to overcome and which would therefore limit the size of the units the particles would form. We have a single particle with two opposing properties, one property tending to bring the particles together, the other seeking to have the particles return to their normal speed, which I call the particle’s at rest speed because when the particle is traveling at what we consider the speed of light, it is at rest with itself in so far as being able to move without hindrance. What better situation. All of matter has stored energy in it, the energy inherent in each of the particles that make up the matter, to overcome the affinity propensity and return to its at rest speed.
Isn’t this simply a physical description of Einstein’s e=m equation where the square of the speed of light merely demonstrates the staggering amount of energy stored, or rather at rest motion, overcome, by the affinity propensities that hold the matter together?
Of course, as soon as we have opposing properties in the same particle, we have two overriding questions, how did the particles come together in the first place or how do the affinity propensities overcome the at rest motion and how do the particles come apart or how does the at rest speed of the particles overcome their affinity propensities? How does matter come form in the first place and dissipate in electromagnetic emissions?
We won’t be able to answer these questions until we construct an atom and then subject it to field replacement.
Friday, August 31, 2007
An Elementary Particle with Two Properties (continued)
Does science therefore conclude that the electron has a property of movement? Absolutely not. In the case of the orbiting electrons, the source of the motion is a taboo subject.
Given the property they then placed in the electron, one wonders what kind of fractured minds established, consensus science attracts.
Remember back in the 17the century, the argument about the nature of light revolved around whether it was a particle or a wave. Newton’s massive influence set the stage for it being a particle throughout the 18th century, but Young’s experiment, performed at the opening of the 19th century, convinced the consensus that it was a wave. The amazing thing about these centuries of musing, analyzing, arguing, and concluding is that no one, not a single mind, bothered to ask the basic question about light, how was it produced? After all, knowing, or coming up with concepts involved with how light was produced would seem to be the first step in determining what light was.
But not our blundering scientists. They stumbled on down the path of defining the nature of light until Einstein discovered that light could produce electricity, or to be more precise, light could activate the new particle now accepted as the electron.
Did our esteemed and thoughtful scientists scratch their heads and say, hey, we were wrong about light being a wave? Why would they? Light was already proven to be a wave, that was incontrovertible, therefore, it was now necessary to define it also as particle, and a particle was quickly created called a photon, Einstein’s effect named the photoelectric effect, and all in the universe was now back in an orderly, understandable, arrangement. Of course, no one could visualize light as a wave or a particle, but what the heck, why be able to explain something when we can use words and phrases to trick ourselves into thinking we understand something?
But now with light a particle affecting an atom and the material undergoing the photoelectric effect phenomena being made up of atoms, it dawned on these quick minds, about three centuries after it should have been raised, how does matter produce light?
Having assigned two different particles to one phenomenon, the photoelectric effect, science had to explain how the one particle, the photon, could affect the other particle, the electron. The conclusion agreed upon (and note, all this stuff is a consensus, an agreement to agree on a certain set of concepts by a small group of theorists that the millions of honest, practicing scientists have to swallow whole) was that the electrons were emitted as a result of the absorption of the light. That’s about as duh a statement as can be made after determining that light and electricity were made up of two different particles.
Of course, there was good observational reason to assume that light and electricity weren’t the result of the same particle because light didn’t require positive or negative poles to cause it to move, in fact, when electricity was discovered, light was considered to be ripples in a made-up aether. Electricity was clearly something because it could do work while light wasn’t able to do anything. Electricity had polarity while light didn’t, a fact that has latter been disproved by measuring the magnetic forces that occur on filaments, or on the sun for that matter.
Probably the biggest argument I get against a single particle concept is light and electricity because on the surface they are radically different phenomena. However, as we go along, it becomes apparent that on a working level, on the level at which we need to understand how things operate, they are different manifestations of the same particle.
Once science determined that electrons were emitted as a result of the absorption of light, it dug deeper, as only it can with its shallow concepts, to find out how matter produces light. The secret, it turns out, is to add a new property to the electron, one that no one suspected it had up until creative thinkers decided to create it. This property was the ability of the electron to absorb and release energy.
Think of that for a moment. Here we have a particle made up solely to explain a phenomenon, electricity, we have no idea as to its working, it’s source, its means of motion, its ultimate fate. As a matter of fact, the best we can do is call it a moving charge. We take that particle and remove it from its context of being capable of doing work and we place it in a concept we create to explain matter, we put it in orbit around the nuclei of the atoms that make up all matter. Then, after originally saying we require polarity to cause it to move, we allow it to move in its atomic orbit without polarity, and say, hey, here’s something else it can do. It can absorb and emit light!
Post a large sign on science’s door, Genius at Work, then sit back and try and figure out what a genius is. It’s someone who can say, to paraphrase the search for the Scarlet Pimpernel, they seek them here, they seek them there, they seek them everywhere. In short, the electrons circling the atom are probabilities whose location can never be fixed. However, one thing is known with certainty about an electrons location and that’s its energy level with respect to the nucleus, which translates to its distance from the nucleus. If undisturbed by incoming photons, the nucleus binds the electron tightly, as close to it as it can. That means that the electron is at its lowest energy level.
It’s when the photons start streaming in that the electrons exercise their new property of being energized. At their lowest energy level, they are at the ground state. When a photon arrives with enough energy to energize the electron, the electron, get this, the electron absorbs the photon and the electron jumps a further distance from the nucleus. Now the electron is in an excited (science’s word, not mine) state. As we all know, being in a excited state is not our normal state, so just like we settle down sooner or later, the electron settles down.
How does it do this? It gives up it photon and thus matter produces light. How simple is that? Worthy of simpletons.
Just like we have various levels of excitement, an electron can get more and more excited by absorbing more and more photons until it gets so excited, it jumps out of its skin, or shell, or atom. Thus, the photoelectric effect is explained, sort of, and also the fact that atoms ionize, become charged by losing electrons.
As the 20th century went along, the creation of particles became the way to fame and fortune. With the invention of cloud chambers and cyclotrons, particles became so numerous, no one could keep track. As a result, an international conference was held to limit the number of particles, and the result was the standard model, which we won’t spend time going into because it is just a complex way to explain atomic decay, which I will explain in a very simple way). However, it’s interesting to note that with the limitation of particles, the allowed particles had to be expanded somehow. With the ever-inventive scientific mind at work, certain particles were imbued with human characteristics, charm, flavor, even color and, of course, the electron with its ability to absorb photons like we absorb food then give them off like we burn calories.
One might think that the conceptualization of a single particle that could be used to explain not only the phenomena that are now explained inconsistently by the invention of multiple particles, but also phenomena that remain unexplainable, would be welcome, but there are too many reputations invested in the myriad particle mess. One would think that conceptualizing a mere two properties for the particle might also be welcomed, but science, once its course is set, and science’s course was set centuries ago by dead men who knew nothing, will never change its course. If light is found to be a particle instead of a wave, it’s still a wave, a wave particle, a probability, anything that appears to provide an answer to the great unwashed (and that’s anything that defies reason).
When Rutherford modeled the atom with orbital electrons, he ignored the source of the motion of the electrons. He also made another little mistake. He put a bunch of protons in the nucleus of the atom to hold the electrons in orbit. Opposites attract, remember. Well, he forgot that likes repel. Of course, this whole business of moving magnetic description first into the operation of a battery, then induced electricity and finally into a model of an atom is absurd, having no basis in reality other than shabby thinking. However, there we were with an atom stuffed with like charges that should be repelling but weren’t. What to do? What to do?
Well, science, if nothing else, is inventive. If we have like forces repelling these protons, protons that, by the way, we made up and imbued with the like forces, then there must be a greater force holding those electrons together. We know the force is there because otherwise the protons wouldn’t be together. So we’ll make up this force and call it what it is, the strong force (as opposed to the weak force that allows the nucleus to decay). The strong force holds the nucleus of the atom together and as atoms combined to produce matter, the strong force is at the basis of matter.
Sounds good, doesn’t it. We make up a neutron to account for weight, we make up a proton to account for maintaining another particle we made up, the electron, in orbit. We have that electron whizzing around with no apparent force interacting with electrons of other atoms to produce molecules that form into matter. We also have that electron bouncing up and down in its orbit absorbing and emitting the wave particles that are photons, light to us, and that’s how the universe operates.
So let’s see what a single particle with two properties will look like. First I’ll cover the properties, then in the next chapter we’ll use it to build a workable atom. Then we’ll cover field replacement, the simple principle that replaces the myriad particles of the atom with their color and charm and, well, total confusion, completely beyond reason.
To be continued
Given the property they then placed in the electron, one wonders what kind of fractured minds established, consensus science attracts.
Remember back in the 17the century, the argument about the nature of light revolved around whether it was a particle or a wave. Newton’s massive influence set the stage for it being a particle throughout the 18th century, but Young’s experiment, performed at the opening of the 19th century, convinced the consensus that it was a wave. The amazing thing about these centuries of musing, analyzing, arguing, and concluding is that no one, not a single mind, bothered to ask the basic question about light, how was it produced? After all, knowing, or coming up with concepts involved with how light was produced would seem to be the first step in determining what light was.
But not our blundering scientists. They stumbled on down the path of defining the nature of light until Einstein discovered that light could produce electricity, or to be more precise, light could activate the new particle now accepted as the electron.
Did our esteemed and thoughtful scientists scratch their heads and say, hey, we were wrong about light being a wave? Why would they? Light was already proven to be a wave, that was incontrovertible, therefore, it was now necessary to define it also as particle, and a particle was quickly created called a photon, Einstein’s effect named the photoelectric effect, and all in the universe was now back in an orderly, understandable, arrangement. Of course, no one could visualize light as a wave or a particle, but what the heck, why be able to explain something when we can use words and phrases to trick ourselves into thinking we understand something?
But now with light a particle affecting an atom and the material undergoing the photoelectric effect phenomena being made up of atoms, it dawned on these quick minds, about three centuries after it should have been raised, how does matter produce light?
Having assigned two different particles to one phenomenon, the photoelectric effect, science had to explain how the one particle, the photon, could affect the other particle, the electron. The conclusion agreed upon (and note, all this stuff is a consensus, an agreement to agree on a certain set of concepts by a small group of theorists that the millions of honest, practicing scientists have to swallow whole) was that the electrons were emitted as a result of the absorption of the light. That’s about as duh a statement as can be made after determining that light and electricity were made up of two different particles.
Of course, there was good observational reason to assume that light and electricity weren’t the result of the same particle because light didn’t require positive or negative poles to cause it to move, in fact, when electricity was discovered, light was considered to be ripples in a made-up aether. Electricity was clearly something because it could do work while light wasn’t able to do anything. Electricity had polarity while light didn’t, a fact that has latter been disproved by measuring the magnetic forces that occur on filaments, or on the sun for that matter.
Probably the biggest argument I get against a single particle concept is light and electricity because on the surface they are radically different phenomena. However, as we go along, it becomes apparent that on a working level, on the level at which we need to understand how things operate, they are different manifestations of the same particle.
Once science determined that electrons were emitted as a result of the absorption of light, it dug deeper, as only it can with its shallow concepts, to find out how matter produces light. The secret, it turns out, is to add a new property to the electron, one that no one suspected it had up until creative thinkers decided to create it. This property was the ability of the electron to absorb and release energy.
Think of that for a moment. Here we have a particle made up solely to explain a phenomenon, electricity, we have no idea as to its working, it’s source, its means of motion, its ultimate fate. As a matter of fact, the best we can do is call it a moving charge. We take that particle and remove it from its context of being capable of doing work and we place it in a concept we create to explain matter, we put it in orbit around the nuclei of the atoms that make up all matter. Then, after originally saying we require polarity to cause it to move, we allow it to move in its atomic orbit without polarity, and say, hey, here’s something else it can do. It can absorb and emit light!
Post a large sign on science’s door, Genius at Work, then sit back and try and figure out what a genius is. It’s someone who can say, to paraphrase the search for the Scarlet Pimpernel, they seek them here, they seek them there, they seek them everywhere. In short, the electrons circling the atom are probabilities whose location can never be fixed. However, one thing is known with certainty about an electrons location and that’s its energy level with respect to the nucleus, which translates to its distance from the nucleus. If undisturbed by incoming photons, the nucleus binds the electron tightly, as close to it as it can. That means that the electron is at its lowest energy level.
It’s when the photons start streaming in that the electrons exercise their new property of being energized. At their lowest energy level, they are at the ground state. When a photon arrives with enough energy to energize the electron, the electron, get this, the electron absorbs the photon and the electron jumps a further distance from the nucleus. Now the electron is in an excited (science’s word, not mine) state. As we all know, being in a excited state is not our normal state, so just like we settle down sooner or later, the electron settles down.
How does it do this? It gives up it photon and thus matter produces light. How simple is that? Worthy of simpletons.
Just like we have various levels of excitement, an electron can get more and more excited by absorbing more and more photons until it gets so excited, it jumps out of its skin, or shell, or atom. Thus, the photoelectric effect is explained, sort of, and also the fact that atoms ionize, become charged by losing electrons.
As the 20th century went along, the creation of particles became the way to fame and fortune. With the invention of cloud chambers and cyclotrons, particles became so numerous, no one could keep track. As a result, an international conference was held to limit the number of particles, and the result was the standard model, which we won’t spend time going into because it is just a complex way to explain atomic decay, which I will explain in a very simple way). However, it’s interesting to note that with the limitation of particles, the allowed particles had to be expanded somehow. With the ever-inventive scientific mind at work, certain particles were imbued with human characteristics, charm, flavor, even color and, of course, the electron with its ability to absorb photons like we absorb food then give them off like we burn calories.
One might think that the conceptualization of a single particle that could be used to explain not only the phenomena that are now explained inconsistently by the invention of multiple particles, but also phenomena that remain unexplainable, would be welcome, but there are too many reputations invested in the myriad particle mess. One would think that conceptualizing a mere two properties for the particle might also be welcomed, but science, once its course is set, and science’s course was set centuries ago by dead men who knew nothing, will never change its course. If light is found to be a particle instead of a wave, it’s still a wave, a wave particle, a probability, anything that appears to provide an answer to the great unwashed (and that’s anything that defies reason).
When Rutherford modeled the atom with orbital electrons, he ignored the source of the motion of the electrons. He also made another little mistake. He put a bunch of protons in the nucleus of the atom to hold the electrons in orbit. Opposites attract, remember. Well, he forgot that likes repel. Of course, this whole business of moving magnetic description first into the operation of a battery, then induced electricity and finally into a model of an atom is absurd, having no basis in reality other than shabby thinking. However, there we were with an atom stuffed with like charges that should be repelling but weren’t. What to do? What to do?
Well, science, if nothing else, is inventive. If we have like forces repelling these protons, protons that, by the way, we made up and imbued with the like forces, then there must be a greater force holding those electrons together. We know the force is there because otherwise the protons wouldn’t be together. So we’ll make up this force and call it what it is, the strong force (as opposed to the weak force that allows the nucleus to decay). The strong force holds the nucleus of the atom together and as atoms combined to produce matter, the strong force is at the basis of matter.
Sounds good, doesn’t it. We make up a neutron to account for weight, we make up a proton to account for maintaining another particle we made up, the electron, in orbit. We have that electron whizzing around with no apparent force interacting with electrons of other atoms to produce molecules that form into matter. We also have that electron bouncing up and down in its orbit absorbing and emitting the wave particles that are photons, light to us, and that’s how the universe operates.
So let’s see what a single particle with two properties will look like. First I’ll cover the properties, then in the next chapter we’ll use it to build a workable atom. Then we’ll cover field replacement, the simple principle that replaces the myriad particles of the atom with their color and charm and, well, total confusion, completely beyond reason.
To be continued
Saturday, August 25, 2007
An Elementary Particle with Two Properties
I suspect that the habit of naming particles for effects and then thinking that the name described the effect began with the discovery of electricity. The development of electrical theory is probably one of the more perverted areas of science. It reaches back into the mysterious effects of magnetism, where the well-known principle of likes repel and opposites attract became seated in the human mind for all eternity. Take two magnets, determine which side is which by allowing one of the sides to point to the north, mark that side on each magnet. The marked sides will repel while the unmarked sides will attract the marked sides.
Magnets were beyond understanding, so studies were devoted to merely describing their effects, a habit that has carried over into all areas of science, and especially electricity. This is a deadly process. It destroys understanding. People think that being able to describe what’s happening, they understand what’s happening. Description replaces understanding, but because we have a complex description, we think we understand. Saying monkey-like that likes repel and opposites attract doesn’t tell us anything about how magnets work, and when we don’t know how something works, we shouldn't analogize it to other things.
But that’s what happened when the first batteries generated a steady current. The battery needed two metals with what is now known as potential differences (a very important reality to the development of our understanding of how the universe operates). With two poles attached to each metal, connecting a conductor between the two produced an electric flow. With something flowing, science wanted an answer, what is causing that something to move? It’s an obvious question, and it’s a simple fact of reality that things don’t move without something causing them to move (unless we’re talking about the planets). There had to be something causing the current to move from one pole to the other.
Unfortunately, it was quickly discovered that the electrical current would deflect a magnet in the form of a compass. This meant that there was something about magnets and electricity that was similar. In casting about for an explanation for the movement of the current, it occurred to science that opposites attract. It therefore concluded, without any evidence, that the two poles of the battery were like the opposite ends of a magnet, and that when they were connected, electricity flowed from the positive to the negative (nowadays it is understood to flow from negative to positive).
The notion that electricity needs a positive pole in order to move, that whatever causes it can’t move on its own, was set in science’s thought process when the next advance in electricity occurred some three decades later. With batteries providing a constant source of electricity, scientists were able to conduct repeatable experiments and build on the results. It was finally discovered that moving a wire that had been formed into a circuit perpendicular to the electrical flow itself produced an electrical flow.
It wasn’t until the beginning of the 20th century that science became obsessed with particles so no one knew what the electricity was, but here was a distinct phenomenon, the flow of electricity itself creating a flow, a fact that was to become the basis of our modern technological society in the form of generators and electric motors. Needing names to describe what was happening, science named the area around the electric flow that could produce electricity in a circuit moving perpendicular to it the inductive field, something that will become of the utmost importance in our subsequent discussions as it is the force generated by electromagnetic emissions that produces gravity and planetary rotation and orbiting.
Edison, using simply the facts of electricity rather than the hazy theories about what electricity was, produced thousands of inventions that eventually lit up the world. He was a direct current advocate, which is the process of using a generator to induce an electrical flow in one direction. Tesla, another inventor, realized that by manipulating the way the rotors moved though the magnetic fields of the generator, he could produce alternating current, current that at one instant flows in one direction, and in the next, in the opposite direction. Tesla was responsible for our modern electrical system because alternating current could be manipulated better than direct current and travel longer distances.
The point of both, however, is that they were working with what they conceived to be flows of electricity and these flows needed something to make them move. Just like the concept that electricity moved from negative to positive became embedded in the universal mind, the concept of flows of electricity became inherent in electrical concepts without much reference to flows of what. However, J. J. Thomson altered that view by proposing that electricity was made up of flows of electrons, and interestingly enough, he thought that all matter was ultimately made up of electrons, a novel idea that, if it had been followed, would have probably made this book unnecessary (and my life not as exciting as it has been figuring all this out).
Here we end up with two assumptions. The first is that electricity needs a current force to cause it to move. The second is that a particle can be created to explain physical effects.
The idea that electricity needs a current force to cause it to move seems logical when we look at a battery, but seems illogical when we look at currents induced by inductive fields. In the battery, we have two potential differences that, when connected, produce an electrical flow. The normal question is to ask, what is causing the flow, now we can say electrons, to flow? However, when we move a conductor in an inductive field, electrons begin to flow if the conductor is formed into a circuit.
The idea for positive negative, plus minus came from a magnet. Did anyone bother to ask what is causing the magnetic fields around the magnet? No, because they were considered this mysterious force that was associated with magnetic material. But moving a conducting circuit in a magnetic field produces a flow of electricity too. More to the point, the circuit is a circuit with no negative or positive poles like the magnet, so where’s the explanation for the current movement of the electrons?
When Thomson hypothesized the electron, he was setting up the second assumption, one that has overpowered science. This assumption is that we can simply explain effects by calling them a particle and assigning a name to them. Rutherford was the first to do this in his very useful concept of an atom. Taking Thomson’s electron as a starting point, he hypothesized that these electrons were orbiting the nuclei of atoms in shells, depending on the type of atom involved. Atoms became heavier according to the periodic table set out by Dmitry Mendeleyev in the 1870s. Rutherford accounted for weight by creating a particle he called a neutron and putting it in the nucleus of the atom. He then had to explain what was keeping the electrons in orbit. True to his ingrained teaching about negative and positive, he created a proton, a positive particle, and also placed it in the nucleus of the atom. The neutrons provided weight, the protons provided an attraction for the electrons, and the electrons, nestled in neat little orbits, provided the way atoms were put together into matter.
Rutherford, however, overlooked one small aspect of his model. The electrons were moving. They didn’t have batteries for polarity, they didn’t have a circuit in which lazy minds could overlook the lack of polarity, they were just, well, moving.
To be continued
Magnets were beyond understanding, so studies were devoted to merely describing their effects, a habit that has carried over into all areas of science, and especially electricity. This is a deadly process. It destroys understanding. People think that being able to describe what’s happening, they understand what’s happening. Description replaces understanding, but because we have a complex description, we think we understand. Saying monkey-like that likes repel and opposites attract doesn’t tell us anything about how magnets work, and when we don’t know how something works, we shouldn't analogize it to other things.
But that’s what happened when the first batteries generated a steady current. The battery needed two metals with what is now known as potential differences (a very important reality to the development of our understanding of how the universe operates). With two poles attached to each metal, connecting a conductor between the two produced an electric flow. With something flowing, science wanted an answer, what is causing that something to move? It’s an obvious question, and it’s a simple fact of reality that things don’t move without something causing them to move (unless we’re talking about the planets). There had to be something causing the current to move from one pole to the other.
Unfortunately, it was quickly discovered that the electrical current would deflect a magnet in the form of a compass. This meant that there was something about magnets and electricity that was similar. In casting about for an explanation for the movement of the current, it occurred to science that opposites attract. It therefore concluded, without any evidence, that the two poles of the battery were like the opposite ends of a magnet, and that when they were connected, electricity flowed from the positive to the negative (nowadays it is understood to flow from negative to positive).
The notion that electricity needs a positive pole in order to move, that whatever causes it can’t move on its own, was set in science’s thought process when the next advance in electricity occurred some three decades later. With batteries providing a constant source of electricity, scientists were able to conduct repeatable experiments and build on the results. It was finally discovered that moving a wire that had been formed into a circuit perpendicular to the electrical flow itself produced an electrical flow.
It wasn’t until the beginning of the 20th century that science became obsessed with particles so no one knew what the electricity was, but here was a distinct phenomenon, the flow of electricity itself creating a flow, a fact that was to become the basis of our modern technological society in the form of generators and electric motors. Needing names to describe what was happening, science named the area around the electric flow that could produce electricity in a circuit moving perpendicular to it the inductive field, something that will become of the utmost importance in our subsequent discussions as it is the force generated by electromagnetic emissions that produces gravity and planetary rotation and orbiting.
Edison, using simply the facts of electricity rather than the hazy theories about what electricity was, produced thousands of inventions that eventually lit up the world. He was a direct current advocate, which is the process of using a generator to induce an electrical flow in one direction. Tesla, another inventor, realized that by manipulating the way the rotors moved though the magnetic fields of the generator, he could produce alternating current, current that at one instant flows in one direction, and in the next, in the opposite direction. Tesla was responsible for our modern electrical system because alternating current could be manipulated better than direct current and travel longer distances.
The point of both, however, is that they were working with what they conceived to be flows of electricity and these flows needed something to make them move. Just like the concept that electricity moved from negative to positive became embedded in the universal mind, the concept of flows of electricity became inherent in electrical concepts without much reference to flows of what. However, J. J. Thomson altered that view by proposing that electricity was made up of flows of electrons, and interestingly enough, he thought that all matter was ultimately made up of electrons, a novel idea that, if it had been followed, would have probably made this book unnecessary (and my life not as exciting as it has been figuring all this out).
Here we end up with two assumptions. The first is that electricity needs a current force to cause it to move. The second is that a particle can be created to explain physical effects.
The idea that electricity needs a current force to cause it to move seems logical when we look at a battery, but seems illogical when we look at currents induced by inductive fields. In the battery, we have two potential differences that, when connected, produce an electrical flow. The normal question is to ask, what is causing the flow, now we can say electrons, to flow? However, when we move a conductor in an inductive field, electrons begin to flow if the conductor is formed into a circuit.
The idea for positive negative, plus minus came from a magnet. Did anyone bother to ask what is causing the magnetic fields around the magnet? No, because they were considered this mysterious force that was associated with magnetic material. But moving a conducting circuit in a magnetic field produces a flow of electricity too. More to the point, the circuit is a circuit with no negative or positive poles like the magnet, so where’s the explanation for the current movement of the electrons?
When Thomson hypothesized the electron, he was setting up the second assumption, one that has overpowered science. This assumption is that we can simply explain effects by calling them a particle and assigning a name to them. Rutherford was the first to do this in his very useful concept of an atom. Taking Thomson’s electron as a starting point, he hypothesized that these electrons were orbiting the nuclei of atoms in shells, depending on the type of atom involved. Atoms became heavier according to the periodic table set out by Dmitry Mendeleyev in the 1870s. Rutherford accounted for weight by creating a particle he called a neutron and putting it in the nucleus of the atom. He then had to explain what was keeping the electrons in orbit. True to his ingrained teaching about negative and positive, he created a proton, a positive particle, and also placed it in the nucleus of the atom. The neutrons provided weight, the protons provided an attraction for the electrons, and the electrons, nestled in neat little orbits, provided the way atoms were put together into matter.
Rutherford, however, overlooked one small aspect of his model. The electrons were moving. They didn’t have batteries for polarity, they didn’t have a circuit in which lazy minds could overlook the lack of polarity, they were just, well, moving.
To be continued
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
