BR-549

In this experiment we will demonstrate the source of handedness. Handedness is a fundamental property of charge. Did you know that? When they listed properties and taught you about particle physics, did they explain the source of handedness? Handedness is also what causes the asymmetry of charge. (the mass and energy difference between electrons and protons) Let's see.....a particle has an electric field, positive or negative...and magnetic field with a N and S pole, It has spin, mass and quantum states of momentum/energy. It also has a very distinct set of frequencies of rotation, it wobbles, and it has handedness. It also has a structure. All functionality and directional components comes from the structure. And a particle has no gravitational field.....gravity is not a fundamental property of charge. There a zillions of naked charge being accelerated out of the sun continuously. If gravity can't direct charge....it can't direct light. There are other explanations for this so-called "gravitational lensing". A charge for instance...can re-direct light. Not gravity. But today.....will will show handedness. We will need one battery, a switch, a resistor, a left handed coil and a right handed coil and magnetic compass. Assemble bat, switch, resistor and right handed coil in series, close switch. Now...using modern electronic theory...positive charge flows from positive bat term to switch..resistor...thru a RIGHT handed coil and back to neg term of bat. With a compass...you will measure a south pole at the top or + side of bat coil. And a north pole at bottom of coil or - side of bat. Now exchange coils. You will notice that the magnetic poles changed. We did not change the direction of current flow.........we only changed the direction of current rotation. With a positive charge flow or positive current......If we rotate right we get N pole with current direction. Rotate left and we get a S pole in the direction of current. Now repeat this experiment using electron flow. You will get the opposite. With a negative charge flow or current.....rotate right and we get a S pole with current, rotate left we get a N pole with current. So...the magnetic field DOES NOT depend on current direction.....it depends on current rotation. Fundamental Handedness. It's not positive and negative charge...it's right handed and left handed charge. I am a "modern science" critic. The reason being is that I love science, but I believe we have been chasing rabbit holes every since Maxwell. I would like to give all something else to chew on. Observation and empirical data can be very treacherous and mis-leading. We have been observing and recording the movement of planets and of our planetary orbit for thousands of years. In a serious manner for the last few hundred. With all that data...they tell us that we orbit in an elliptical path around the sun. Observation and gravitational math equations prove this fact. They tell us that other experiments also prove this. I believe this to be a fallacy and have another idea. I believe our stable orbit is a result of TWO rotations. The first rotation has about a 3 million mile diameter, which is perpendicular to the revolution. In other words the orbital path is a one turn torus around the sun. NOT an elliptic. All of our gravitational equations must meet this elliptical requirement.......which is false. A stable orbit requires two rotations. The equalization of gravity and momentum require perpendicular rotation. Our gravity equations are in the same state as Coulombs charge equations. It works statically.......but if we introduce relative velocity.....the equations fail. This failure......NASA will tell you that it's gravitational anomalies, and that corrections and fudge factors have to be added. Our very best simulators can't do more than 2 or 3 planets without failure.......and yet a dark matter fudge factor is used.......to explain galactic movement instead of admitting they do not have a valid gravity equation. Science is like the US senate. One person can stop a new idea with an accusation or demands proof......while at the same time all the others spend millions trying to make a failed theory work. But they always say they have experimental evidence for their theories they can't prove. And at the same time saying new ideas have already been dis-proven.....without experiment. See how that works? Ask any senior particle scientist or any senior astronomer who has some salt........they will tell you, there is something fundamentally off or wrong. There always has been.

What makes it confusing is the term P. The self P (angular momentum) is always there and can change without changing physical position. The translational P (linear momentum) may or may not be present. Also, if the translational P is at a high enough rate of change.......the translational P is transferred (thru resonance) to the self P. Self P is mass. In the formula, F = M X A, the velocity of the force determines which term, M or A, increases. For a slow F, A increases. For a fast, short F, M increases. If you have a fast long F, the self P (mass) and the translational P will alternate in steps. The reason that the F can be proportional or equal is because of the velocity of the force.

Imatfaal, Please pardon me. I am new to the forum and still concerning the tone. That said, with the other posts on this thread, I am confused by your comment. Do you object to the word entity? If I substituted the word object, for the word entity, would that be ok? Or are you objecting to my premise, which is there is only one kind of stuff or material in the cosmos? One member can premise, that information is an object................but another member can not counter with...............it can not be, because there is only one object? Please clarify so I don't offend again. Thank you.

Your parents tv needs adjusting. If you did see an electron from the tv......it would be emission, not conduction. (current) Cern is one of the few places we use positive charge. When the current beams at cern collide, the circuit is complete and the current becomes fragment emission. In the welding......the beam will still need to be confined. If you pull the emitting head far from the work......you will lose confinement and you will lose the current. One can cloud the conversation with the strict definition of current. In that case, any charge movement at all could be called current. But to me charge flow implies a system, a complete path, of moving charge. A single charge is just emission or just a single charge. Current is a collective charge behavior. I guess it's how you're taught, and then with your own experience, how you understand it.

Find a long skinny straw. This straw is so skinny that you can just squeeze an electron in the end of it. Push more electrons in it, and make a string of electrons. Now form the straw in a circle. Remember that charge is repulsive. Physical confinement is necessary. Can only one electron move? No. Physical confinement and restraint by the repulsive fields. Increase the straw diameter so that you can put 5 strings of electrons in. The electrons are repulsive, so they will not be in strings......all electrons will be equidistance from each other. Can you move one electron, without moving another? Can you move 20 electrons without moving the others? No. Same reason. Current is a system. It is comprised of a confined loop, of a set of connected (connected thru repulsiveness) charge. A system (loop or circuit) has to be set up and maintained for current. I can't spay electrons out across the room, like I can with water. The force and law that is the physical cause for this action is charge repulsion......the law of charge. That charge repulsion has a magnitude or energy level. It's always there. It's a primary property of charge. There is another equal primary property of charge. Each charge has an equal magnitude magnetic moment. A north and south pole. This means that an alignment action, with the same magnitude is taking place, while the charge repulsion action is taking place. So when charge moves, it lines up. Once they all line up, they all want to move in the same direction. The force of repulsion with the force of alignment is the physical cause for this unifying directional movement action. You can and should repeat the experiments of Ampere and Weber to see this for yourself. If we take a loop or ring of pure copper, A certain proportion of the free electrons on the surface will line up and make a charge path around the ring. With just background induction, several small currents can be found circulating around the ring. You can see this with a loop of copper and a oscilloscope. Try loops of different sizes and see what you get. This is all at room temps. Why does only a portion of the free electron bank line up and move? Why not all the free electrons? The conductor surface is a patch-quilt like pattern of fields. This appears to the free electron as a heavy thick jungle. This is THE resistance to free electron flow. The electron loses energy with all the turning thru and around the jungle. Heat loss. If the conductor surface had a even field structure, all the free electrons would flow. When we buy a conductor (wire), is has a current rating. This rating is usually based on a temp rise from some ambient reference. This is for safety. Skin the wire and put a potential across it and bring the current up to the current rating. Now slowly bring the current up until the wire starts to glow. Ionization. Turn the lights off and back off on the current until the glow just goes away. This amperage is the true max flow (for that temp and conductor). You can be pretty sure that all of the free electrons are flowing here. Now if we remove all resistance, What will the flow be? It will be the same. The maximum current remains the same. We don't want ionization. The wire remains cold at max current. Only now I don't need that high potential. Where it took a high potential to push thru the jungle, now a small breeze will push the flow thru. The load will still have resistance and ohm's law still applies. But none of the potential will be expended across the conductor in wasted heat, only the load, which will still require potential. The problem is that to have a even conductor field surface, we need an ordered structure material. Not grainy like conductors. Most ordered structures are insulators. It's hard to get a free electron with an ordered structure. It is early in the study of super cooled conductors. Perhaps one of the solid states at those temps. is acquiring these conditions. If they are achieving super conductivity in those frozen rings, even with a small free electron count, they should see a very strong magnetic field around the ring. This is because without resistance, we should see a multi magnitude increase in electron velocity. This should be much faster than in conventional circuits. This increase in velocity is more impactful than the number (magnitude) of free electrons (charge). Velocity always has strong dominance over magnitude in nature. This should give the ring a strong resonance and that resonance will not like being disturbed. I could understand an atomic structure or configuration, that needs two free electrons in a certain area or position for flow without ionization, but I really doubt that electrons pair up. It’s the refusal to pair up, that makes all of our circuits and electricity work. In the meantime play with a loop. Depending on the size and where you are, some currents are large enough to rectify directly and listen to. With just a loop. People used to do this all the time. Free music, no battery required. Brought to you by the self movement of confined charge. If you doubt my word and think that a static magnetic field does not move, or can not cause movement, throw a small bar magnet in a shallow bowl of ferrofluid. You will see magnetic lines in action. Youtube ferrofluids.

No, never. There is only one entity in the cosmos. Charge. All force, energy and mass is exchanged thru the rotational resonance of charge. That's all there is........nothing more. It's actually quite simple and elegant. Information, mathematics and scientists are ignored. Only force and balance are obeyed.

scenario 4, After the switch is opened, I think that the established field would dissipate, or fall apart. It would return to the un-organized field of the conductor before it was lined up. I don't think there would be any induction, because there is no field storing or charge storing device or apparatus in the circuit. I haven't thought about it, but I think the field would dissipate from the ends, towards the center. Like I said.....great question. Great experiment. It would only take a year. Ha Ha Excuse me, two years. One to turn on and another to see. One thing puzzles me. Danijel and Gweedz, why does an electron or a lamp need to know anything? I do not recall this premise.

Danijel, Think of the electric field as a telescopic cylinder surrounding the conductor. The cylinders maximum diameter will be at the battery terminals, representing maximum field strength. Let's just pick 6" for talk. As the cylinders move down the conductor, they rotate, we will ignore that for now. Think of the cylinder coming down in steps, aligning the local electrons along the way. The electron doesn't need to know when the circuit is complete. All it has to be is lined up and ready to go. Once all the locals are lined up, flow is automatic. Being that in this setup, there is no resistance, the cylinder diameter will be the same at the input of lamp as at the battery terminal. If there was resistance, the cylinder would taper in proportion to the resistance. Now at the lamp, the 6" cylinder tapers down like a cone to a zero point at the negative conductor. This is the voltage drop across the lamp. The negative field is the same, but inverted. The zero point on its cone is the positive conductor. This is a DC circuit and the fields are steady at these shapes as long as current flows. Did I thoroughly confuse everybody?

What if Mr. Ampere was right? What if current elements are very tiny loops of current? Only instead of current, the loop is a continuous loop of charge? And that charge is rotating with the velocity of charge, c? And what if that rotation c, which Weber defined as the speed of charge(NOT the speed of light), generated a magnetic field and pinch effect strong enough(equal and in balanced) to counter the self-repulsiveness of the charge? This alone would count for charge, magnetic moment, angular momentum, Inertia(the rotational resonance of the electric and magnetic). This model has been used several times thru history. But it left two problems. How does the charge change power levels and how does it emit? After farther study it was found that the loop is not a loop. It's like the stripe on a hula hoop. It's a circular helix. The n number of a particle is the pitch, or number of turns in the helix. Think about this for a minute gentlemen. With just two radii, we have constructed a Stable particle. The first radius R, is the main ring radius. The second radius r, is the helix radius, much, much smaller than R. r is on the end of R and perpendicular to it. How can we add energy if the ring has to rotate at constant c? Because the ring has circumference, the ring has a RPM. When we add anther turn to the helix(energy), the ring circumference decreases and the RPM goes up. The increase in energy goes to increased angular momentum(mass) and increased rotational resonance(inertia). The angular momentum and the rotational resonance can only be stable at certain radii. These radii must have a logarithmic relationship of 1/137. This is why only certain circumferences and energy levels are stable. The quantum effect. When a particle gives up a turn....the particle emits a rf pulse equal to the difference in angular momentum between the RPM difference. I believe our answers will follow this direction. I'll bet that there is no magic.......just cause.

Hello pzkpfw, That was confusing wasn't it. Being that the current is local........that means for Circuit flow, all the little locals have to flow at the same time. That means we must have the field established thru-out the circuit. Was that any better? Hello Danijel, When one connects an open conductor to a terminal, as you say, it polarizes.....the electrons align. This alignment(NOT FLOW) is and causes the potential. This potential is the electric field. But current, actual electron flow(charge flow) does not happen until a complete path(circuit). Current does not come from the source. Only the potential. The current is always there. A battery does store electrons and feed them out. A battery can only CIRCULATE the amp hr. ,, not make it.

I would like to change my answer. I believe it will take 1 year to lite. 1 year for voltage field(potential) to form(2 fields), and then very quickly full current. When the electrons move in a conductor, they do not move very far. This might surprise many. Current is local and caused by the local electric field. That's why we have to wait on the electric field first. So I believe the lite will lite, in a couple of microseconds after the voltage field. ~ 1 year. No current will flow until ~ year. i.e. until entire field forms. Sorry....also, you could put the lamp anywhere on the loop......and it would still take a year. Even if lamp at battery terminal.

As I said RF engineers do this all the time.....but in a different context. A battery does not change amplitude. A pulse does. A pulse changes amplitudes in 2 directions also. The conductor reacts differently to them. This is why the question is so good. swansont, The propagation delay or velocity factor is a proportion of the speed of light. It's caused by impedance. If we take the impedance out, like we did the resistance, the propagation speed is back to normal(speed of light). ok?

Excuse me. Not this particular experiment, true.........for you students out there........you need to think about this........great experiment for class. If you try this, don't use coils for conductor length, keep reactance to a minimum. What I meant was that all students confirm Ohm's and Kirchhoff's current law in class. At least they used to. Most propagation times in electricity are done with AC signals.(RF cabling)(AC power) They call it velocity factor. It's usually not considered in DC circuits. But the law that says that the current is equal at all parts of the circuit(in this setup) has been confirmed by many students for many years. The real question for some one who is familiar with this is.......whether the current will follow the voltage in real time.....or does the electric field have to be established completely around the circuit before current starts to flow? If the latter is true.....then 1 year for electric field.......then current starts......then another year for max current.........so 2 years for light. So when we flip the switch......do we see current start then.......or have to wait a year to see current start? One could get famous with this experiment. Can you give more than 1 point to a poster? My experience tells me the current starts right away...............But maybe what I've been taught only applies to short circuits. Does voltage have to go clear THRU(and around) the circuit before current flows?.............OR does voltage only have to be ACROSS the circuit for current to flow?

This is why this is such a great question. It has been many years since this experiment for me. Any electrician, electronics tech or electrical engineering student should know this. And I would think still prove this in class. It would be under Ohms law and Kirchhoff's current law. Both laws state the current is equal at every point in the circuit, in this setup. Both of these laws come from the conservation of charge law. Another way to look at it......both terminals do work. The work is equal and happens at the same time. The positive terminal works on the positive conductor and the negative terminal works on the negative conductor. Both terminals do equal work at same time.

There is no ground, only the current path. The current is the same on both conductors if the distance from the terminals is equal. When we turn the switch on, we will see both ammeters at the terminals start to rise. It will take one year to reach maximum. Take a 100 ft. loop of wire. Insert the lamp anywhere on the loop. Close the switch and note the time of lamplight. Now move the lamp at different positions on the loop. That lamplight time does not change. Because the length remained constant. Do the same with a 10,000 ft. loop. Measure lamptime. Try different positions.....same lamptime. Not the same as 100 ft. ....its longer, but no change on same loop. The lamptime is constant with length. Can anyone agree with this? The battery terminals propagate in equal amplitudes and opposite directions. Therefore the propagation time will be one half the current path length. And so I will change my propagation time for the 11 LY setup to 5.5 years. Even if you put the lamp at the battery, it will take 5.5 years. Can anyone buy that? This is assuming the lamp only shines at full current.