Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 43
55
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok an EM field propagating through space theres a couple of things you need to know first energy cant be created or destroyed only changed. EM wave which are electric and magnetic fields are governed by a "wave equation", the same "wave equation" that describes the oscillation of a medium in which there is a mechanical wave(this is much like your water example). The difference is that there is no medium. It is the fields themselves that are oscillating. In fact, a time-varying electric field produces a time-varying magnetic field which in turn produces a time-varying electric field and so on...as a result the fields are self-sustaining and can continue to propagate independently of the source that produced them.So an em field travels by oscillating between electric and magnetic fields .This requires an accelerating charge. Unmoving charge produces a static charge (not varying with time) electric field, and steadily moving charge produces a static magnetic field. As a result, there will be no fields that are changing with time, and therefore no electromagnetic wave will be radiated. So there is nothing for it to travel through Em waves propagate from the simple fact electric fields when oscillating produce magnetic fields and magnetic fields when oscillating produce electric fields it a Domino effect.




posted on May, 2 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You say 'the difference is there is no medium'... But if energy exists at all points in space, if EM field exists at all points of space. EM field, is the medium in which EM waves exist.

In every area of space in the universe is there EM field?



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

You say 'the difference is there is no medium'... But if energy exists at all points in space, if EM field exists at all points of space. EM field, is the medium in which EM waves exist.

In every area of space in the universe is there EM field?


Ok for the last time no EM fields do not exist everywhere they require a particle in motion. This is what vector fields are all about. Your trying to use the field as a cause it is an effect.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

You say 'the difference is there is no medium'... But if energy exists at all points in space, if EM field exists at all points of space. EM field, is the medium in which EM waves exist.

In every area of space in the universe is there EM field?


Ok for the last time no EM fields do not exist everywhere they require a particle in motion. This is what vector fields are all about. Your trying to use the field as a cause it is an effect.


No, you are mistaken. EM fields exist everywhere in space. This is the main reason for the need to invent and agree upon field theory. Because the energy/waves of gravity and EM dont 'come out from the particles'. An electron isnt accelerated and then 'shoots out photons from its body', like you shoot out energy from your mouth.

Without the medium of air, when you vibrated your vocal chords, those vibrations would have nothing to pass on their frequency too, thus no sound.

If EM field did not exist all throughout space, when the electron is vibrated, it would have nothing to pass on its frequency too, thus no EM radiation.

Field theory was needed to explain how radiation occurs, what radiation is. And the concept that EM field existed throughout all space, was the agreed upon assumption.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Stop thinking of EM waves as a mechanical process its not. This is not like water molecules transferring energy. I keep trying to find every way imaginal to get you to understand this is a concept that was rejected. Well actually it was accepted as fact until Einstein said wait somethings wrong here. If light needed a medium to propagate the speed of light would be significantly lower than it is.When a particle creates a magnetic field this will create an electric field an electric field will create a magnetic field. EM waves propagate by switching back and forth between these two states. Look does a particle need anything to travel through space? no it doesnt just needs a vector. What is a particle well its a bundle of energetic particles. At its most basic its energy no different from an EM wave.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Stop thinking of EM waves as a mechanical process its not. This is not like water molecules transferring energy. I keep trying to find every way imaginal to get you to understand this is a concept that was rejected. Well actually it was accepted as fact until Einstein said wait somethings wrong here. If light needed a medium to propagate the speed of light would be significantly lower than it is.When a particle creates a magnetic field this will create an electric field an electric field will create a magnetic field. EM waves propagate by switching back and forth between these two states. Look does a particle need anything to travel through space? no it doesnt just needs a vector. What is a particle well its a bundle of energetic particles. At its most basic its energy no different from an EM wave.


An electron is a bundle of energetic particles?

So the electron when accelerated doesnt transfer energy?

An electron is constantly creating an electric field right? Describe what this means, where is the electric field coming from, where does it exist, does it exist beyond the area of the electron? if so how. Is it the electron?

Does a relatively stationary electron always create a magnetic field?



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Stop thinking of EM waves as a mechanical process its not. This is not like water molecules transferring energy. I keep trying to find every way imaginal to get you to understand this is a concept that was rejected. Well actually it was accepted as fact until Einstein said wait somethings wrong here. If light needed a medium to propagate the speed of light would be significantly lower than it is.When a particle creates a magnetic field this will create an electric field an electric field will create a magnetic field. EM waves propagate by switching back and forth between these two states. Look does a particle need anything to travel through space? no it doesnt just needs a vector. What is a particle well its a bundle of energetic particles. At its most basic its energy no different from an EM wave.


An electron is a bundle of energetic particles?


No its a lepton by definition its properties, including electric charge, spin, and mass.It is an elementary particle with its own wave function.


So the electron when accelerated doesnt transfer energy?



To what another particle or space itself? The answer depends on the type of interaction were discussing.



An electron is constantly creating an electric field right?


Well not a propagating charge it does create a static charge see below.




Describe what this means, where is the electric field coming from, where does it exist, does it exist beyond the area of the electron? if so how. Is it the electron?


An electric field is a vector its showing us energy we see this as electric field lines. Think of this as the effect of energy on space itself. The electric field of a point charge Q can be obtained by a straightforward application of Gauss' law. Considering a Gaussian surface in the form of a sphere at radius r, the electric field has the same magnitude at every point of the sphere and is directed outward. The electric flux is then just the electric field times the area of the sphere.Bottom line is an electric field is energy being radiated from a point charge when we move the point charge we are adding energy. But the universe doesnt like that everything in the universe is trying to reach its lowest energy state so we see this extra energy as an electric charge. But we cant just have an electric charge because relativity. We just dont see the magnetic charge from our frame of reference. Before i get into this ill think of a better way to explain it because i can show you using 4th dimensional math but that only helps physics students.


Does a relatively stationary electron always create a magnetic field?

Yes very small however this is because its spin. Remember particles in motion create magnetic fields.



posted on May, 2 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr



To what another particle or space itself? The answer depends on the type of interaction were discussing.


The interaction we are discussing is, an electron in space that is accelerated. Where does the subsequent EM radiation 'come from'? Just before the electron is accelerated where are the EM fields, and then where do they come from to travel then away from the electron? Were they inside the electron all along? Or were they outside of the electron?




An electric field is a vector its showing us energy we see this as electric field lines. Think of this as the effect of energy on space itself.


So space itself 'holds the possibility for electric and magnetic fields to exist'?

So space itself is responsible for the propagation of EM wave when electron is accelerated?

The effect the energy of an acceleration has on its local space, is to create EM waves of that space? This is all I ever meant by saying EM field was everywhere, that it is possible of space itself (or the EM portion of space itself) to have EM waves created of it.




Bottom line is an electric field is energy being radiated from a point charge when we move the point charge we are adding energy.


So you would say the local gravity field is energy being radiated from a massive body?

Describe what is meant by the language 'radiated from'.

This gives the effect of, Point A having something within itself, and of itself, that it is able to give up, that it is able to radiate from itself. Is this what you mean by this language?




Yes very small however this is because its spin. Remember particles in motion create magnetic fields.


Yes I was just making sure, because in your prior response you said electron needed to be in motion to create magnetic field.

So we now see, that the electron always has an electric field locally, and always has a magnetic field locally?
edit on 2-5-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: mbkennel



No. If it were, you could have sound in space, which you don't.


This was answered to me asking if the medium air or sound exists on is also the gravity medium. Me wondering if gravity is the cause of the creation of the atmospheric medium that allows sound to take place? Though Im quite sure gasses exist and form as sort of gasses regions in space away from solids...maybe? So there can theoretically be an atmosphere just floating, and sound would behave in (not to the same degree, but) in the same way as it does in our atmosphere?


Yes. Whoever connected gravity to sound was misleading you, or you didn't understand it.




The majority of my questioning this topic, is wanting to know in what way the EM field exists in free space, to better understand why its wave is such a weird wave.

If you admit the EM field, the medium which the electron can non locally disturb (as you can non locally disturb a tennis ball at the far end of your pool by splashing where you are), exists throughout space, then you are admitting that the 'self propagating wave', is either a very very very weird (not like confused double slit observer weird unintuitive quantum mechanic things) mechanical thing, like how is that explained that at every area of space exists these 2 switches, which if provoked will carry out an automatic zipper type action, or snaps, or magnets, like dominoes. This is the mechanics aspect of quantum mechanics is it not.


No, it's the mechanics part of classical mechanics.








No. Propagating fluctuations in space-time metric are gravitational waves.


How does the EM field and gravity field exist in relation to one another, next to each other at all points in space? Entwined? Or holographically overlapping?


For the the most part the cross interaction is nearly zero, except that gravity changes the underlying geometry of space time upon which the rest of all physical processes in standard model, quarks, leptons, and weak & EM fields work on.








No. Sound waves in fluids are that way because you can't shear/torque (conventional) fluids in interesting ways, only the bouncy-bouncy does anything. Sound waves in solids can have all sorts of interesting polarizations depending on the specific properties of the material, and this is very important in seismology.


Hm ok, those polarizations have to do with the inherent movements of the atoms and electrons of the material, which at each point of the solid, would either give and take, 'messing the original wave up'. What you mean about the intriguing nature of light polarization is the EM field is so pure that it itself as a medium does not 'mess up the original wave'.


Yes, exactly. Electromagnetism is hence 'linear' in the sense of linear differential equations, and therefore waves don't interact with one another in the absence of charges.


[uqote]So when EM radiation is created why doesnt the other area of EM fields locally to that self propagating wave react to it? This is because, oh and this is why you say light doesnt mess with light, because EM fields cant effect EM fields? A magnetic field cannot create more magnetic field, even though magnetic field, as EM field exists everywhere? A magnetic or electric field cannot make the EM field wave.


Read about the Maxwell equations. Gradeints in space in time of one field create changes in another, but propagating waves (which are combinations of E & B) don't interact with one another.

Start with a charge. Moving it makes the E field that it was previously emitting look different, and moving charge makes B field. But past that point the wave is propagating solely because changes in E create B and changes in B create E and there's self-consistent solutions which take into account space and time derviatives correctly, and you don't need charges once you get them started, and that's called light.



Now is there a good reason why that doesnt happen? Could it be that 'where there is not self propagating EM wave', the EM medium acts like a solid, in that it is entirely 'stable' and secure, so the relatively 'tiny' areas when compared to the greater EM field, are being 'smothered out' by the totality of surrounding EM field, so the EM wave, cannot escape north or south or dampen or leak into the surrounding space, because the surrounding space (that is the space perpendicular to its propagation) is 'keeping it in check', is this a proper way to look at why it has the properties it does?

I have a feeling you will respond, No. Its just a self propagating wave. The electric field creates a magnetic field, the magnetic field creates an electric field.


You are correct. EM fields appear to be fundamental in Nature with no deeper explanation or underlying material medium.







It had to do with the trials, being separate. And how the EM field is organized in such a way as to allow, according to direction of electron acceleration, EM waves in all conceivable directions.

I was wondering on the two trials you would observe radiation but the waves would be oppositely polarized, if i understand the terms and concepts correctly (if even superficially..I know I know, thats the problem) the 'up and down' and the 'side to side' would yield opposite polarity?


Hard to say about opposite, but yes. If you have 'polarized glasses' meaning that it is a filter which accepts only linearly polarized light in one direction, if you turn it by 90 degrees, then all "up & down" polarized light will be blocked and only side-to-side polarized light will go through. Think about sines and cosines, they are complementary, but the angle of (linear) polarization is all possible angles.



what occurs to the EM field if at the same time, these trials were to occur, with decreasing distance amongst the 2 test electrons with each try? Do you see I am wondering how the EM field exist before the electron is accelerated, and then how it locally reacts to two electrons in oppositely polarized acceleration? So there is enough EM field packed in there, so that even very close the field can wave 'both ways' at the same time, in close proximity, and they have no affect on one another immediately at the local point of electron acceleration?


Are you asking about 'self energy' and self acceleration of classical charged particles reacting with radiation they themselves cause and their self-energy? Well this was a problem with classical electrodynamics that there were some inconsistencies when you try to reconcile it with actual particles, eventually solved with QM.





I posted this picture in another reply above, but am wondering if it is even a distant analogy to what is meant by 'at rest has radial field surrounding it, 'vector pointing in' (though you say by convention makes me think there is nothing inward about it? Would the gravity vector around a massive body also be pointing in?) cdn.themetapicture.com...



Yes.
edit on 3-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-5-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


However as education levels advance, you get taught that things you were taught at lower levels may not be true

Is this taught at some advanced level?


Frequency can be directly related to energy which in tern can be related to velocity.

I've never heard of frequency affecting velocity. I thought all EM radiation=speed of light regardless of freq/wavelength.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation
The link you got that quote from explained all that. The quote from Baez called it "the very advanced idea of a "massive photon"" and the quote from the wiki explained how velocity might not be independent of frequency if the photon actually does have a tiny mass.

It's one of those things that experimentalists test for just to make sure and not just assume that our previous assumptions were correct.

The upper limits on photon mass are pretty small, and what we are taught about photon speed not being affected by frequency should be correct if the photon is completely massless as we assume and teach. But if you look up the particle data group's figure for mass of the photon, they don't show it as massless, they show the experimentally measured maximum limit (which of course includes the possibility that it is indeed massless).



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

This question isn't about mass. He's saying frequency affects velocity.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

The question of frequency versus velocity is a question about mass.

If the photon is massless, frequency doesn't affect velocity which is what we assume, teach and think is very likely to be the case.

But if the photon has a small mass, then velocity might not be constant and there could be a relationship with frequency, or as the wiki says: "If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency."



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Arbitrageur

This question isn't about mass. He's saying frequency affects velocity.




Only again i repeat only if photons do contain a small amount of mass. And as i said i dont believe this to be the case however there are some that believe it to be possible and experiments are being done. Science continually tests itself and its beliefs.When we have the ability to run and experiment that we were not capable of doing before often science will test to make sure were right. To my knowledge no proof has been made as to photons having mass. If they do however its not ground shaking because everything tells us its possible. Right now your heading down a path thats irrelevant unless some research shows otherwise which i doubt.

But there is something to be taken from this however there are individuals that believe science is set and this is what is taught and it is unshakable.The reality is quite different Science all the time is constantly trying to prove itself wrong. Thats why its funny when electric universe people try to say science is ignored its not the whole electric universe idea was indeed explored just turned out its a dead end.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Arbitrageur

This question isn't about mass. He's saying frequency affects velocity.



I doubt that ! There can be no velocity in the equation as nothing is moving. EM changes the potential that propagates with C but nothing changes its location with any velocity.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

Well your wrong there is a relationship between mas and whats called vector quantity angular velocity. But its really useless following this line of thought. As i told you people here got stuck on a dead end partly my fault just like i just did i give to much information at times. Just realize as far as we know photons have not been shown to have mass and if it does so far its eluded detection.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

Well your wrong there is a relationship between mas and whats called vector quantity angular velocity. But its really useless following this line of thought. As i told you people here got stuck on a dead end partly my fault just like i just did i give to much information at times. Just realize as far as we know photons have not been shown to have mass and if it does so far its eluded detection.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: KrzYma

Well your wrong there is a relationship between mas and whats called vector quantity angular velocity. But its really useless following this line of thought. As i told you people here got stuck on a dead end partly my fault just like i just did i give to much information at times. Just realize as far as we know photons have not been shown to have mass and if it does so far its eluded detection.



but what mass are we talking about ? sure not that of a photon as photon is a point particle quizzed mathematical description of some force or information "travelling" through space. If space itself cares this information space itself is EM medium. Real particles like objects that makes the atom have masses, not EM radiation, this is the force carrier and not matter.
edit on 5-5-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   
I see that apparently Ben Davidson of Suspicious Observers has a YouTube channel advocating an electric sun, Telluric Current.

The About page:


In this day and age there is no longer any doubt that electrical effects in plasmas play an important role in the phenomena we observe on the Sun. The major properties of the "Electric Sun (ES) model" are as follows:

Most of the space within our galaxy is occupied by plasma (rarefied ionized gas) containing electrons (negative charges) and ionized atoms (positive charges). Every charged particle in the plasma has an electric potential energy (voltage) just as every pebble on a mountain has a mechanical potential energy with respect to sea level. The Sun is at the center of a plasma cell, called the heliosphere, that stretches far out -- several times the radius of Pluto. As of 9/9/2012 the radius of this plasma cell has been measured to be greater than 18 billion km or 122 times the distance from the Sun to Earth. These are facts not hypotheses.

The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it.

www.youtube.com...


Ben Davidson is a layman doing independent research. His voice is valuable because he is not subject to the constraints scientists face from employers with vested interests.

edit on 05/06/14 by Mary Rose because: Correct a link



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
I see that apparently Ben Davidson of Suspicious Observers has a YouTube channel advocating an electric sun, Telluric Current.



In this day and age there is no longer any doubt that electrical effects in plasmas play an important role in the phenomena we observe on the Sun. The major properties of the "Electric Sun (ES) model" are as follows:

Most of the space within our galaxy is occupied by plasma (rarefied ionized gas) containing electrons (negative charges) and ionized atoms (positive charges). Every charged particle in the plasma has an electric potential energy (voltage) just as every pebble on a mountain has a mechanical potential energy with respect to sea level.
I've never seen a pebble loop around like the plasma in these loops. Have you?

Coronal Loops



The Sun is at the center of a plasma cell, called the heliosphere, that stretches far out -- several times the radius of Pluto. As of 9/9/2012 the radius of this plasma cell has been measured to be greater than 18 billion km or 122 times the distance from the Sun to Earth. These are facts not hypotheses.

The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it.
Again let me remind the readers of some grade school physics which EU pseudoscientists seem to have forgotten.

Opposites attract, for magnetic poles and electric charges.

So, if the sun had some huge positive electrical potential as claimed, then the positive charge (or "electrical potential") of the sun would attract the negative charges of electrons, and this is not what we observe. Instead we observe both positive and negative charged particles (protons and electrons) streaming away from the sun, and to copy the phrase from the source above: "These are facts not hypotheses":

Solar Wind

The solar wind is a stream of plasma released from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It consists of mostly electrons and protons with energies usually between 1.5 and 10 keV.
Now explain how these electrons are traveling away from the sun, when the sun is supposed to have a huge positive potential according to EU folks who say it attracts electrons from far away that power it. You can't, because the attraction to electrons closer to it is even stronger than attraction to electrons much further away. Even at the distance of Voyager, where electrons have stopped moving away from the sun and are moving sideways, they don't seem to be attracted to the sun, because if they were, why would they just move sideways? Thus, the sun doesn't have some huge electrical potential attracting electrons, since observation shows the electrons are moving away, not toward the sun (or sideways in the case of Voyager).


On 13 December 2010, the Voyager 1 determined that the velocity of the solar wind, at its location 10.8 billion miles from Earth has now slowed to zero. "We have gotten to the point where the wind from the Sun, which until now has always had an outward motion, is no longer moving outward; it is only moving sideways so that it can end up going down the tail of the heliosphere, which is a comet-shaped-like object," said Dr. Edward Stone, the Voyager project scientist.



Ben Davidson is a layman doing independent research. His voice is valuable because he is not subject to the constraints scientists face from employers with vested interests.
Why has he forgotten grade school concepts like "opposites charges attract" and why in the world do you think mainstream science would concoct a conspiracy about opposite charges attracting? To protect what interest? Besides there are a dozen experiments you can do at home to show opposite charges attract, so you don't need to rely on what any scientists tell you, or their corporate interests. But for some reason you insist on denying reality like "opposites attract" which you could easily prove to yourself at home. But will you ever do a cheap simple experiment at home to prove that opposite charges attract?






top topics



 
55
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join