1. CHARGE EXPLAINED

Charge is another one of those things you learn about in physics. Well, you think you do, but you don’t. Not really. The textbooks don’t explain it, and they shrug off this omission by telling you it’s fundamental. It isn’t. It’s as fundamental as mass, which is not very fundamental at all. The thing is this: if you understand mass you already understand charge. But you probably don’t realise it yet. So I’ll explain it.

Let’s start with the easy stuff. We know that we can rub a balloon to create an electric field. It can pick up a piece of paper or make your hair stand up. We’ve all seen and felt a spark of static, blue and crackling as electricity tears the air. We know that high voltage is called high tension, and tension is negative stress and stress is pressure. So we’re happy with the fluid analogy where a current flows from the negative to the positive terminals of a battery. It doesn’t much matter that they got electricity backwards. We measure this rate of flow in terms of amperage, and multiply by time to get charge, and multiply again by voltage to get energy. We work out that the amount of charge in a battery is all about the number of electrons available to flow, and we know that our charged-up balloon has a surplus of them above and beyond its protons.

So, how much charge is in a flat battery? None, I hear you say. Wrong. It’s chock full of charge. It’s full of positive charge and negative charge. That’s why it’s got mass. That’s why it’s a material object. If there wasn’t any charge, it would be a whole heap of gamma radiation, and you and I would be looking like something out of Mars Attacks!

LOL. But let’s keep it simple and stick to electrons. What is it about these electrons that keeps our laptops humming? What is this thing called “charge” that causes motion? The answer is trivial once you know how to see it. Go to the kitchen, get a glass, then pour a glass of water and hold it up to the window pronto. You will see bubbles swirling and silvery, pop pop, popping. They aren’t actually silver of course, they just look that way because they distort the light. Now go to the cutlery drawer and pull out a spoon. It’s silvery. Metals look that way because they are awash with electrons. When you look at a spoon you are seeing those electrons, or more properly, their charge. It’s reflective, silvery. Charge looks like this for the same reason as those bubbles. It’s like a highway mirage on a hot sunny day. You see what looks like water on the road far ahead, but it’s merely the light from the sky bent towards your eye. You are seeing distortion, and it’s silvery like a bubble because it bends light.

Charge is distortion too. Charge is “curl”. Charge is twist. If it wasn’t there, your electrons would be gamma photons of 511KeV apiece. To show you how it works, I need you to play with plates. Take two dinner plates, one in each hand. Find a swimming pool or a pond, preferably on a sunny windless day. Dip one of the plates halfway into the water. Now stroke it gently forward in a paddling motion whilst lifting it clear. Notice that you create a “U-tube” double whirlpool that moves slowly forward through the water.

This is a Falaco Soliton. If your pool is big enough, the double whirlpool will settle down into two dimples on the surface of the water, visible as two black-spot shadows on the bottom. They are very stable, and can persist for maybe an hour. But you don’t need to wait for that. Create one double whirlpool with one dinner plate, then step to one side and create another one with the other dinner plate. You’ll need a little practice, but after a while you’ll have the knack of it, and you’ll be able to create two double whirlpools with ease. Aim them at each other. Notice what happens. If the left-hand-side of one double whirlpool closes with the right-hand-side of the other, the two opposite whirlpools move together. If the left-hand-side of one double whirlpool closes with the left-hand-side of the other, the two similar whirlpools move apart. What you are seeing is attraction and repulsion.

Now aim two double whirlpools straight at one another, face on. This is best in a shallow pond with a muddy bottom. The two double whirlpools meet and merge and are gone with a surprisingly energetic puff of muddy water. You’ve just seen annihilation.

It’s another fluid analogy. But the vacuum of space is not a fluid like water. It doesn’t flow. It’s more like an elastic solid, but one with no solidity at all. Let’s recap a little. I explained energy in terms of stress. Stress is force per unit area, and energy is force times distance, so energy is stress times volume. I talked about a photon as a stress travelling through space like a transverse wave propagating through a block of ghostly rubber. I explained mass by talking about pair production, where a massless gamma photon is converted into an electron and a positron.

Both the electron and the positron can be viewed as a photon configured as a moebius doughnut, twisting and turning to stay in place. It takes two turns round a moebius to get back to where you started, hence the spin ½. The difference is that one twists and turns one way, and the other twists and turns the other way. They are mirror images of opposite chirality, primitive 3D knots tied different ways. Do note though that there are no surfaces involved. An electron has no surface, just like a photon has no surface, just as an ocean wave has no surface, because it’s the ocean that does. And space does not. The electron isn’t some little particle that’s “got” charge extending out into space. Instead charge is one of the things the electron is.

The electron and positron will attract one another like the Falaco solitons, and if they meet it’s like pushing two opposite twists of fishing line together. Twang. The electron and the positron annihilate, and become gamma photons flying off in opposite directions like that puff of muddy water.

Energy is fundamental. You cannot create energy, and you cannot destroy it. But you can create charge just as you can create mass, via pair production. And you can destroy charge just as you can destroy mass, via annihilation. Because charge is the twist that you need to apply to a travelling stress to keep it twisting and turning in one location to re-present momentum as inertia. And because there’s nothing solid to brace against in our pure marble geometric world where stable particles are knots, the only way to make a twist is to make an untwist at the same time. That’s why charge is always conserved. Yes, you can make a mass without any charge, but that’s only because one twist is masked by another, as in a neutron. A neutron is pinned down stable in a nucleus, but let it escape that nucleus and it comes apart.

This twist is what charge is. It’s a twist in the thing you call space, stretching out into space. You could call an electric field a “twist field”.

Let’s see how it affects an electron. Remember, an electron is a photon travelling in a twisting turn, a moebius doughnut. Drop it into a cube of space so it looks like this: ◙. If we take a side view of our photon at one instant in time it looks like a vertical slice of the moebius doughnut, like this: o. Now twist the cube from top to bottom. What happens to the o? It tilts. Its orientation has changed. It’s now angled downwards. So the electron digs down through the electric field like a drill bit.

Note that that the electric field isn’t just a twist in one dimension, it’s actually in three dimensions. Your electron digs down like a drill bit from any direction. But it’s very difficult to think in three dimensions. Our primary input is visual, and whilst binocular vision permits depth perception, we tend to think in two dimensions. That’s why getting the feel for something is what intuition and grasp are all about. It gives us a better, three-dimensional concept. To illustrate this, get a block of plasticine or maybe the wax from Babybel cheese, and make a cube. Now try twisting it in three dimensions. Two twists is easy: twist, turn, twist. But doing the third one is surprisingly difficult. In the end you have to just do it by feel: twist turn, twist turn, twist. You end up with something like this:

The easiest way to get your head round all this geometry is to imagine that the twisted cube is a twisted block of water, and we’ve got to swim through it. I’m really good at swimming underwater, I do it like the Man from Atlantis, undulating my whole body. Spladoosh, in we go. As you’re swimming behind me you find that all the twisting and turning means you’ve got to swim further than you thought, and you come out of the other side gasping for air. But you will now understand refraction. Light travels slower through a glass block because it’s got to make its way through all that twisting and turning in all directions, be it positive or negative.

Talking of turning, let’s talk about magnetism. Imagine that you’re flying through space, but the space ahead of you is twisted like a catherine wheel because of the electric field. It will make you turn. We now use Relativity to work out that if you aren’t travelling through space but you find yourself turning, then the twist must be travelling through you. That’s what happens when a current flows through a wire. Imagine the current is flowing down a wire from your eyes into the screen, and introduces an anticlockwise twist. I do mean anticlockwise because I’m talking about a flow from – to +.

.. ←
↓ ¤ ↑ o
.. →

Ignore the little dots, they're just spacers because this website compresses the spaces. The nearby electron o is basically a circling photon. This comes full circle in the twisting space before it has gone round 360 degrees. So it ends up at a different place, and describes a cycloid motion. So it follows the twist and goes round the wire like it’s in a washing machine, like swarf going round a drill bit.

It really is that simple. It’s so simple that it’s amazing that people puzzle at the mystery of it. I guess it’s because people like a good mystery. The electric field is effectively a “twist field”, and if you move through it you perceive a magnetic field, which is effectively a “turn field”. It’s so obvious once you see it. And you can see it. You can see how a magnetic field changes the polarization plane of a beam of light via the Faraday effect.

That’s the utter simplicity of electromagnetism: twist and turn. It tells you a battery is like a wind-up clockwork spring, only the twist is in space rather than steel. The electric twist extends forward with the flowing current, and it makes things turn like a pump-action screwdriver. That’s the principle of the electric motor. But you can turn a screw with an ordinary screwdriver too, extending the twist forward. That’s the principle of the dynamo.

Most materials aren’t magnetic because all this twisting and turning is symmetrical in all directions, even for your charged-up balloon. It’s what you call isotropic. When it isn’t, that’s when you get a magnet. Fly through an electric field or past a stationary electron and you “see” more twist in the direction of travel, so you “see” a magnetic field that makes you turn. Move an electron towards you and you get the same effect. All you need to do to make an actual magnet is arrange the atoms so that the electrons jitter round in the same orientation.

.. ←
↓ .. ↑
.. → o

The electron is moving in a circular fashion, so its component photon doesn’t need to complete a full 360 degrees to turn around. This is why a day is less than one full rotation of the earth. So there’s a component of the “turn” left over, and you end up with a magnetic field similar to what you’d see if you flew past a stationary electron. It’s rather like the inverse of the current in the wire situation, but with no current and no wire.

Whilst I describe a magnetic field is a “turn field”, you have to remember that space is like an elastic solid. The electric field is the “twisted space”, and the magnetic field is only your relativistic view when you move through it, or it moves through you. There are no actual regions of space that are turning round like roller bearings or wheels. That’s why you can’t have magnetic monopoles. But you can have superconductors. High temperature superconductors consist of copper oxide planes. The atoms present an array of opposite magnetic fields rather like a conveyor belt, allowing electrons to zip through effortlessly like they’re not moving at all.

.. ←
↓ ¤ ↑
.. →

o→

.. →
↑ ¤ ↓
.. ←

It is of course a little more complicated than that. Wheels need bearings and axles. Here’s some pictures of a high-temperature superconductor called yttrium barium copper oxide, or YBCO for short. The chemical formula is YBa2Cu3O7 and it’s a crystal so you get repeating groups. Look at the third picture. In simple terms the “wheels” are where the green pyramids are.

Low temperature superconductors aren’t quite the same. You have to think Barn Dance, where you’re an electron with a “Cooper Pair” dance partner making your own magnetic fields as you go. When everybody’s cool, the dance line is tidy and you swing easily from one end to the other. But when it’s hot and late and everybody’s bumping around pissed, you spill somebody’s beer, lose your partner to a “Phase Slip”, and get into a fight. Yeehah. In both cases the superconductor is diamagnetic. It doesn’t want to be magnetised because of the Meissner Effect where internal opposite magnetic fields scramble an applied magnetic field so it doesn’t get into the material. All interesting stuff.

But not as interesting as the electron itself. Here’s the secret: cut a strip of paper, maybe an inch wide and ten inches long. Draw a very flattened X across the length of it, to represent the sinusoidal electric and magnetic fields over half a photon wavelength. That’s the slanted curvy twisted χ to the right of the M in the middle of this picture.

Mark the top left hand corner of your strip with an E, and the bottom left corner with an M. Mark the top right hand corner with an M and the bottom right corner with an E. This kind of thing:

E .......... M
..... X......
M ......... E

Turn the paper over and repeat. Now loop it around and twist it to make a moebius strip. You see the E adjoining the M and the M adjoining the E. That’s the nub of it, why the electron is a stable soliton. The electric field is the magnetic field and vice versa. The twist is the turn and the turn is the twist. It’s because of Relativistic abberation. Travel really fast and a horizontal line like this — looks skewed like this /. Travel at c like a photon and your horizontals look totally vertical. Change course fast and your change of course is skewed too, so you change course more than you meant to. And you do it fast so you change course even more. The details of this were worked out by Llewellyn Thomas in 1927, and is called Thomas Precession. Knock a photon just right to change its course, and it keeps on changing course because its velocity vector precesses π/2 times per revolution. The photon “thinks” its travelling in a straight line but its travelling like this: ∞. It’s all twisted, and it turns. It’s curly.

The twist and the turn are just two sides of the same thing. That’s how it always is. That’s why we have electromagnetism and the electromagnetic field. A magnetic field is the same thing as an electric field, it just depends how you’re looking at it. It depends on whether you’re moving through it or it’s moving through you, or not. That’s Relativity for you. Once you learn how to see things the way they are, things get a whole lot simpler. An electron is what it is because it’s “got” charge, and charge is twist.

The really really interesting thing about all this is that if charge isn’t fundamental, we can’t quite say that the photon is the mediator of the electromagnetic force. They got it back to front, like everything else to do with electricity, and it does matter. It matters a lot.

Acknowledgement note: I rather thought I’d worked this on out on my own. Try googling for “What is Charge?” and you’ll know what I mean. The only thing that gave me a clue when I was puzzling it over, was something on a Science Hobbyist website by William J Beaty, an electrical engineer at the University of Washington in 1996. Read it yourself at http://amasci.com/elect/charge1.html. What stuck in my mind was that charge is silvery. That was enough, because I had a head start. I understood mass. And once you understand mass as something that isn’t fundamental, it’s quite easy to take a fresh look at charge. Especially if you’ve read “The Falaco Soliton: cosmic strings in a swimming pool” by R M Kein dated January 2001. See the original on http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0101/0101098.pdf. I tried it out in my pond in the back garden, and chewed it all over in my mind. I’m pretty confident I’ve got it right because electricity, magnetism, refraction, superconduction, and even the electron itself all seem to pop out quite logically and fall right into my lap. But whilst I thought I’d worked it out for myself, when I check back, I realise I didn’t. I’ve just found a PhysOrg forum post from "Good Elf "dated October 9th 2006, and there it is: “I think charge is not fundamental. It is partially expressed in this reference Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology by J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark”. This predates even my essay on mass, and goes back to when I thought charge was a dimension. Duh. I was rather surprised to realise that CHARGE EXPLAINED isn’t really original, and a little surprised to realise that what I thought was my original thought wasn’t. It’s just a “synthesis” of things I’ve read. Things like Robert E Galloway’s Refracting Saddle Wave Model of Stable Fundamental Particles. Or D T Froedge’s The Concept of mass as Interfering Photons. Or Norman Albers and Gravitation and Vacuum Polarization. (We are barking up the same tree, Norm). There’s Christoph Stiller and Does Matter Differ from Vacuum? There’s David Lush and Harold Aspden and many others. I owe these guys thanks and proper acknowledgement and credit, which I’ll have to look into properly.

Meanwhile, if anybody can give me some feedback I’d be grateful.

2.

3. My feedback is, it's too long. There are too many crackpots posting on this forum, so I didn't have the patience to read the whole thing to see if you are just another crackpot, or not.

4. Get lost you stupid kid.

thanks

6. There are too many crackpots posting on this forum, so I didn't have the patience to read the whole thing to see if you are just another crackpot, or not.
Ill save you the trouble. Yes, he's just another crackpot.

7. Originally Posted by Farsight
Get lost you stupid kid.

This quote made my day! I laughed my arse off.

I think I'll use it on one of my students someday.

Cheers

8. Originally Posted by Farsight
Get lost you stupid kid.
hilarious and true.

@harold: it's a theory, not something he did so you could complain it's too long, it's length and your comment only proves that Farsight has put more effort into this than anything you have or probably ever will with that attitude

9. Mmm, let's see if I can remember. The mighty Farsight explained Mass, Energy, Gravity, Time and now Charge, and all before breakfast. How cool is that! All that went before him is wrong. Duh, how could we have been so blind? Fancy thinking that by using a little linear algebra, spiced up with a smattering of topology, a dash of group theory, and one or two other quite unnecessary bits of mathematical gobblygook, we have a handle on the "true meaning" of these things. How dumb are we?

So, folks, open any reputable journal, and there he'll be, perhaps modestly using a pseudonym, but real scientists are a rather retiring bunch, right?

10. Time? damn, i must have missed that episode in 'Farscapes xplanations of everything'

11. Yeah---you can find all of the ``XXX Explained'' threads over at sciforums.com in the pseudoscience bin. I showed (successfully I guess, because the threads were axed from the Physics forum) that Farisght doesn't really understand Lorentz Invariance, and so his work is fundamentally flawed.

Why does everyone think they're Einstein?

12. Originally Posted by Nevyn
Originally Posted by Farsight
Get lost you stupid kid.
hilarious and true.

@harold: it's a theory, not something he did so you could complain it's too long, it's length and your comment only proves that Farsight has put more effort into this than anything you have or probably ever will with that attitude
Obviously Farsighted didn't take this as the constructive criticism it was intended to be.

When I read a treatise such as this I tend to read the first several paragraphs, and if it doesn't start to make some sense, I'm outta here. Especially if it starts out by saying everything I learned in physics class is wrong.

So let's say Farsighted had some great insight to offer, down toward the end of the article. Then he should have skipped several paragraphs of meaningless babble, and gotten right to it. Then he would have been able to communicate the point a lot more effectively.

Now, Nevin, apparently you got a lot more out of the treatise than I did. Maybe you can explain in your own words how the Falco Soliton helps to explain electrical charge, because, I just didn't get that part.

13. Originally Posted by Harold14370
When I read a treatise such as this I tend to read the first several paragraphs, and if it doesn't start to make some sense, I'm outta here. Especially if it starts out by saying everything I learned in physics class is wrong.

So let's say Farsighted had some great insight to offer, down toward the end of the article. Then he should have skipped several paragraphs of meaningless babble, and gotten right to it. Then he would have been able to communicate the point a lot more effectively.

Now, Nevin, apparently you got a lot more out of the treatise than I did. Maybe you can explain in your own words how the Falco Soliton helps to explain electrical charge, because, I just didn't get that part.
so such scientific revolutions might not have happened if people like you existed? people not willing to accept new theorems just because they might prove others wrong? needless to say this has been seen countless times in history e.g Tesla, Pasteur...

I can not explain it because I am not clever enough; I am just out of of secondary school however at least I have the brains not to dismiss something vindictively and out of hand because of it's length. For god's sake you are supposed to be a scientist not a politition.

I also do not like the spiteful tone you have taken towards me

14. Originally Posted by Nevyn

so such scientific revolutions might not have happened if people like you existed? people not willing to accept new theorems just because they might prove others wrong? needless to say this has been seen countless times in history e.g Tesla, Pasteur...

I can not explain it because I am not clever enough; I am just out of of secondary school however at least I have the brains not to dismiss something vindictively and out of hand because of it's length. For god's sake you are supposed to be a scientist not a politition.

I also do not like the spiteful tone you have taken towards me
I suggest you read the article river-rat posted for the Mikes and Michaels on the Cosmology forum. He said it a lot better than I could.

Spiteful tone? Where? I just asked you what you got from the article. Whereas, you agreed with Farsight calling me a stupid kid.

15. Originally Posted by Harold14370

I suggest you read the article river-rat posted for the Mikes and Michaels on the Cosmology forum. He said it a lot better than I could.

Spiteful tone? Where? I just asked you what you got from the article. Whereas, you agreed with Farsight calling me a stupid kid.
oh I have had plenty of run-ins with MikeNS and many battles against his theories too, with Zelos it was so much fun...

"Maybe you can explain in your own words how..."

too me this is suggesting that you think I cannot, granted I can't but you just seem to dismiss my ability.

Gone of topic, posts should refer to the original text

16. Come on guys, don't bicker, do some science. Whatever you might think of my offerings, the question you need to ask is this:

Can you explain it to your grandmother?

If you can't, don't be too sure that your current concept, or preconception, or misconception, is right.

Look at Ben, he claims I'm wrong because of Lorentz Invariance, which basically says that there's a "law" that says that the "laws" of physics don't change with your velocity. He makes no effort to read or understand what I say, otherwise eh would why these "laws" are the way they are. Aw, he just makes it up as he goes along because he can't explain all these basic concepts and I can. He's a string theorist. A mathematical pseudoscientist gimp who believes in time travel and parallel worlds and wormhole crackpot nonsense. He goes round rubbishing anything that he sees as a threat to String Theory. It won't last. One day he'll be flipping burgers for a living. Read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics to learn more.

Nevyn, if you're interested search the internet on Farsight and "Time Explained".

17. Come on guys, don't bicker, do some science. Whatever you might think of my offerings, the question you need to ask is this:

Can you explain it to your grandmother?

If you can't, don't be too sure that your current concept, or preconception, or misconception, is right. And if you have no concept, don't be too quick to defend your ignorance.

Look at Ben, he claims I'm wrong because of Lorentz Invariance, which basically says that there's a "law" that says that the "laws" of physics don't change with your velocity. He makes no effort to read or understand what I say, otherwise he would understand why these "laws" apply. He just makes it up as he goes along clutching at any old discrediting straw because he can't explain all these basic concepts and I can. He's a string theorist. A mathematical pseudoscientist gimp who believes in time travel and parallel worlds and wormhole crackpot nonsense. He goes round rubbishing anything that threatens the jobsworth String Theory that predicts nothing and isn't science. It won't last. One day he'll be flipping burgers for a living. Read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics to learn more.

Nevyn, if you're interested search the internet on Farsight and "Time Explained".

It's on this forum too, but sneaky Ben throws his credentials around and urges people to shove it into pseudoscience. Time travel is pseudoscience, not TIME EXPLAINED. It's part of a growing set called RELATIVITY+. It's a toy model, but it flies, as evidenced by the way CHARGE EXPLAINED covers electricity, magnetism, the Faraday Effect, refraction, and superconduction. See page 105 paragraph 2 of The Trouble with Physics for vindication of MASS EXPLAINED.

18. Originally Posted by Farsight

Can you explain it to your grandmother?
She wouldn't be interested (plus she's dead)

If you can't, don't be too sure that your current concept, or preconception, or misconception, is right.
Leaving aside the glaring non sequitur, what earth gives gives you that idea? You think the universe and all its laws are conveniently arranged so that grandma (or you for that matter) can easily understand them? Why should this be, we are just puny specks in the whole affair. At the very least, we can try and describe what we observe, and that often involves some rather difficult math, something you seem to have no taste for. Why is that, I wonder?

Look at Ben, he claims I'm wrong because of Lorentz Invariance, which basically says that there's a "law" that says that the "laws" of physics don't change with your velocity.
Tell you what, Ben's right. If you doubt it, don't fly, don't drive or don't even walk, otherwise you'll be in trouble deep. It occurs to me you don't understand what Lorentz invariance means, it is a good deal subtler than you seem to think (although, to be fair, your statement was not altogether false, but incomplete - you just have to show why this is, otherwise you won't be believed.)
He makes no effort to read or understand what I say, otherwise he would understand why these "laws" apply.
Poor Ben, what a fool he must be. What little I've seen of him he seems OK to me.
he can't explain all these basic concepts and I can.
How do you know? Give the guy a break, he's a newbie on this forum. Or maybe you two have a history elsewhere? If so, please don't bring it here, we lay people aren't interseted.
One day he'll be flipping burgers for a living.
That's gratuitous, withdraw it
So Smolin doesn't like string theory? Big deal, a lotta people don't. But unlike you, they understand the theory they don't like!

19. It occurs to me you don't understand what Lorentz invariance means, it is a good deal subtler than you seem to think
THANK YOU. Loretnz Invariance is MUCH MORE than just length contractions and time dialations.

And to be fair, I flip a mean burger.

20. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Originally Posted by Farsight

Can you explain it to your grandmother?
She wouldn't be interested (plus she's dead)

If you can't, don't be too sure that your current concept, or preconception, or misconception, is right.
Leaving aside the glaring non sequitur, what earth gives gives you that idea? You think the universe and all its laws are conveniently arranged so that grandma (or you for that matter) can easily understand them? Why should this be, we are just puny specks in the whole affair. At the very least, we can try and describe what we observe, and that often involves some rather difficult math, something you seem to have no taste for. Why is that, I wonder?
Sigh. Because Einstein said if you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it yourself. And we are talking about the basic concepts here. Things like energy, mass, time, charge, gravity, space. The things that people want to understand.

I understand these things. And I can explain them. You can't.

21. Oh, boy a crackpot. I've never seen one before

What does being able to explain a concept to someone have to do with its validity or correctness. I dare you to explain calculus to a 6 year old. By the way, you are misinterpreting (or don't understand) all of Einstein's statements, theories, contributions, and philosophies. Concepts in the theory of relativity and in electro-magnetics (the point of this thread I assume) are far from "basic".

22. Originally Posted by Corona
Oh, boy a crackpot. I've never seen one before

What does being able to explain a concept to someone have to do with its validity or correctness. I dare you to explain calculus to a 6 year old. By the way, you are misinterpreting (or don't understand) all of Einstein's statements, theories, contributions, and philosophies. Concepts in the theory of relativity and in electro-magnetics (the point of this thread I assume) are far from "basic".
LOL. Why don't you give me your name and I'll quote you on the back cover. For posterity.

Anybody want to discuss Charge?

23. Originally Posted by Farsight

Sigh. Because Einstein said if you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it yourself.
This is, as they say, an assertion desperately in need of proof. And no, I don't care who said it, I'm not impressed by appeals to authority.
I understand these things. And I can explain them. You can't.
Once again, you produce no evidence to support these claims. Moreover, as far as I know, nobody on this forum is your grandmother; I'm certainly not, and I'd lay a small bet that Ben isn't either, but this is merely an assumption.

24. Ok, fine, but I'm only going to do this once so pay attention!

Originally Posted by Farsight
Come on guys, don't bicker, do some science.
You have yet to do that yourself. All you have done was shown a bunch of diagrams and used a bunch of analogies and mushed them together, and you provided NO MATH. Analogies are fine, but you have to provide both experimental and mathematical proof if you want to pass this off as science.

Originally Posted by farsight
Can you explain it to your grandmother?

If you can't, don't be too sure that your current concept, or preconception, or misconception, is right. And if you have no concept, don't be too quick to defend your ignorance.
Once again, can you explain calculus to a 6 year old? Being able to explain something to someone does not determine its correctness. Also, you are misinterpreting what Einstein said, what he meant by that statement was that if you don't understand something, you cannot explain it. Whether or not grandma can understand it is irrelevant. Now we will apply this statement to everyday life: Given that you don't understand charge (or physics for that matter), you cannot explain it.

Look at Ben, he claims I'm wrong because of Lorentz Invariance, which basically says that there's a "law" that says that the "laws" of physics don't change with your velocity. He makes no effort to read or understand what I say, otherwise he would understand why these "laws" apply. He just makes it up as he goes along clutching at any old discrediting straw because he can't explain all these basic concepts and I can. He's a string theorist. A mathematical pseudoscientist gimp who believes in time travel and parallel worlds and wormhole crackpot nonsense. He goes round rubbishing anything that threatens the jobsworth String Theory that predicts nothing and isn't science. It won't last. One day he'll be flipping burgers for a living. Read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics to learn more.
ok:

1. Well, lets see, isn't finding the laws that explain everything the whole point of physics. These laws aren't debatable, nor can you just brush them aside. In physics, and in every other field of science, scientists are constantly trying to find what these "laws" are that govern nature. Just because you don't like it doesn't invalidate these laws, and if you think you found out the so-called truth of the matter, the theory has to do better than the previous one. If your theory contradicts a law (which has been proven by the way), you can't just brush it off. You have provided no proof or credible hypothesis whatsoever.

3. [sarcasm] I am sorry, but our unenlightened, pseudo-scientific minds have always thought that science was QUANTATIVE
, meaning you need math. [/sarcasm] Its not enough to know that "what comes up must come down", but where and when it comes down .

4. Technically, string theory is a hypothesis. I don't like it either, and Ben never made any reference to string theory in this thread.

Nevyn, if you're interested search the internet on Farsight and "Time Explained".

I think this qualifies as spamming.

It's on this forum too, but sneaky Ben throws his credentials around and urges people to shove it into pseudoscience. Time travel is pseudoscience, not TIME EXPLAINED. It's part of a growing set called RELATIVITY+. It's a toy model, but it flies, as evidenced by the way CHARGE EXPLAINED covers electricity, magnetism, the Faraday Effect, refraction, and superconduction. See page 105 paragraph 2 of The Trouble with Physics for vindication of MASS EXPLAINED.
And for a good reason. In any of these threads you have not demonstrated any proof, or even a thought experiment or a single mathematical equation. If you don't want people to dismiss this as quackery, you should start explaining yourself here, and start showing data.

I know this is hard to take, but not everyone can be an Einstein. You certainly aren't the only one who has at one point in their life wanted to be like him, he is a very big name to live up to. However, he used both experimental data and mathematics to formulate his theories. His theories have in later times been improved on and confirmed.

25. alright people this has gone far enough. stop the flaming and procrastination. You are arguing more about Einstein and other drivel than the original post.

"I think this qualifies as spamming.
It's not spamming, He gave a link and a description of what is down the link as to my statement

26. Since you've taken the trouble Corona, I'll respond properly:

Originally Posted by Corona
You have yet to do that yourself. All you have done was shown a bunch of diagrams and used a bunch of analogies and mushed them together, and you provided NO MATH. Analogies are fine, but you have to provide both experimental and mathematical proof if you want to pass this off as science.
I've got a set of essays covering time, energy, mass, charge, gravity. If you think about these things in mathematical terms, your terms are t, E, m, C, and G. They are base terms, axioms, and your mathematics is bottom up. I'm going top down. I just can't do it mathematically. How do you talk about time using mathematics? t = ??? You just can't do it.

Once again, can you explain calculus to a 6 year old? Being able to explain something to someone does not determine its correctness.
Probably not. I agree that explaining something doesn't guarantee correctness. But then what does? You prove theories wrong, not right. So let's face if, being able to explain something is a whole lot better than not being able to.

Also, you are misinterpreting what Einstein said, what he meant by that statement was that if you don't understand something, you cannot explain it. Whether or not grandma can understand it is irrelevant. Now we will apply this statement to everyday life: Given that you don't understand charge (or physics for that matter), you cannot explain it.
No, I'm not misinterpreting Einstein. I've read a lot about Einstein. And I really do understand these things. You just think I don't because you don't. This is the Psychology of Disbelief at work. It's more powerful than you think. Or don't think, which is closer to the truth. Let's pick an easy one: I really can explain mass. It's very simple. Much simpler than you realise. There's no coupling to the Higgs scalar field, there is no scalar field, and the Higgs boson is a wild goose chase.

1. Well, lets see, isn't finding the laws that explain everything the whole point of physics. These laws aren't debatable, nor can you just brush them aside. In physics, and in every other field of science, scientists are constantly trying to find what these "laws" are that govern nature. Just because you don't like it doesn't invalidate these laws, and if you think you found out the so-called truth of the matter, the theory has to do better than the previous one. If your theory contradicts a law (which has been proven by the way), you can't just brush it off. You have provided no proof or credible hypothesis whatsoever.
Whoa. No. Laws are blank walls, postulates and outright rules for which we have no adequate explanation. Science is about finding out how the universe works, not finding "that's just the way it is" blank walls to obstruct our understanding. And as I said above, theories are disproven, not proven. And my "theory" is merely a toy model. The working title is RELATIVITY+. I'm not contradicting any laws, I'm explaining them. Like the constancy of c.

What, so crackpot doesn't count then?

3. [sarcasm] I am sorry, but our unenlightened, pseudo-scientific minds have always thought that science was QUANTATIVE
, meaning you need math. [/sarcasm] Its not enough to know that "what comes up must come down", but where and when it comes down.
Of course you need mathematics, but mathematics isn't physics. Physics is a science. Mathematics is not. The difference is very important. People who consider themselves to be physicists often exhibit non-scientific behavour, rather "disconnected" like the archetypal mathematician can sometimes be.

Technically, string theory is a hypothesis. I don't like it either, and Ben never made any reference to string theory in this thread.
Technically, String Theory is pseudoscience. And it's not even wrong. Ben has referred to it on other fora, including one where he was particularly dishonest and disengenuous. He's a paid string theorist. I've seen string theorists talking on chatlines planning to raid some forum. They don't like the competition. By the way, Relativity+ shares some similarities with LQG.

And for a good reason. In any of these threads you have not demonstrated any proof, or even a thought experiment or a single mathematical equation. If you don't want people to dismiss this as quackery, you should start explaining yourself here, and start showing data.
Geddoutofit. It's an internet forum, not Stanford. And you didn't even skim those essays. Did you do what Ben did and call me a crackpot on the strength of the title? Read TIME EXPLAINED properly and then we'll talk. If you'd done any more than glance at it, you'd realise that you can't prove that time is a fourth "dimension". Your current concept of time is false. It's baloney. Time travel is crackpot. Spacetime curvature is not what's out there.

I know this is hard to take, but not everyone can be an Einstein. You certainly aren't the only one who has at one point in their life wanted to be like him, he is a very big name to live up to. However, he used both experimental data and mathematics to formulate his theories. His theories have in later times been improved on and confirmed.
We've all got to start somewhere. Whilst his theories have been confirmed, in some respects they have been traduced rather than improved. Example:

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." Albert Einstein (The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity)

27. Farsight i've read all that i can in mass, time, gravity and now charge, not at once of course. do you know what i realise after reading those threads... i have no idea what you're on about.

ok now if you're explaining something you obviously have to explain it in full which means i shouldn't be left with the following questions,
Originally Posted by Farsight
If there wasn’t any charge, it would be a whole heap of gamma radiation, and you and I would be looking like something out of Mars Attacks!
why would i look like something out of mars attacks if there was no such thing as charge?
Originally Posted by Farsight
pull out a spoon. It’s silvery. Metals look that way because they are awash with electrons.
why does something being awash with electrons make it silver?
Originally Posted by Farsight
When you look at a spoon you are seeing those electrons, or more properly, their charge. It’s reflective, silvery. Charge looks like this for the same reason as those bubbles. It’s like a highway mirage on a hot sunny day. You see what looks like water on the road far ahead, but it’s merely the light from the sky bent towards your eye. You are seeing distortion, and it’s silvery like a bubble because it bends light.
how do electrons diffract that much light?
why silver?
why is charge is supposed to look like something?
how does charge bend light?

those questions are from what i guess you could call paragraphs 2 and 3, the text between the first and third pictures, thats too many unexplained facets of charge, how can you explain it further if theres no explanation of its properties? then lets not forget where any prior knowledge comes into the picture and finds itself conflicting with what you're presenting.

this post has gone on far to long so it's time i let you get to explaining away my little list... as i'm guessing thats what you're going to do.

28. Originally Posted by wallaby
Farsight i've read all that i can in mass, time, gravity and now charge, not at once of course. do you know what i realise after reading those threads... i have no idea what you're on about.
If it's not clear enough I need to make it clearer, Wallaby. That's what feedback is all about.

ok now if you're explaining something you obviously have to explain it in full which means i shouldn't be left with the following questions.. why would i look like something out of mars attacks if there was no such thing as charge?
Because charge is the thing that makes the difference between light and matter. Look again at pair production in MASS EXPLAINED. Better still look at annihilation. The electron and the positron meet. Their opposite twists come undone. The -ve charge is cancelled by the +ve charge. Then the charge is gone, and the mass is gone too, and the matter is suddenly gamma radiation. The Mars Attacks jest doesn't tell you the half of it. It would be worse than that if it happened to you.

why does something being awash with electrons make it silver? How do electrons diffract that much light? Why silver? Why is charge is supposed to look like something? How does charge bend light?
Because charge is twist. It is distortion. Of what you think of as space. That's all it is. That's all you see, and sometimes it looks like a bubble and sometimes a road mirage because the distortion twists the light and you see things reflected. Because of distortion. It's the property you need to add to the thing you call a photon, to make it the thing you call an electron. It is the bend in the light, the twist and the turn that makes a knot, a stable soliton of light that makes an electron the thing that it is.

29. Originally Posted by Farsight
Because charge is the thing that makes the difference between light and matter. Look again at pair production in MASS EXPLAINED. Better still look at annihilation. The electron and the positron meet. Their opposite twists come undone. The -ve charge is cancelled by the +ve charge. Then the charge is gone, and the mass is gone too, and the matter is suddenly gamma radiation. The Mars Attacks jest doesn't tell you the half of it. It would be worse than that if it happened to you.
ahh but then we run into the issue of electrically neutral particles like the neutron or antineutron. the charge mechanism cannot be what separates there mass from being light. as for the MASS EXPLAINED topic i kinda have a slight problem with that as well, mainly to do with the use of relativity and also the compton scattering explanation.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Because charge is twist. It is distortion. Of what you think of as space. That's all it is. That's all you see, and sometimes it looks like a bubble and sometimes a road mirage because the distortion twists the light and you see things reflected. Because of distortion. It's the property you need to add to the thing you call a photon, to make it the thing you call an electron. It is the bend in the light, the twist and the turn that makes a knot, a stable soliton of light that makes an electron the thing that it is.
hmm... well now if charge is a twisting, or distortion, of space then the question becomes what causes that twist to form?
also, since a knot is a closed path then that implies that the energy is following a closed distortion of space which implies that space has become discontinuous does it not? maybe its the preferance to the maths approach in me but that is a nightmare to comprehend.

an alternative meaning, and perhaps what you actually ment, could be that the twist is mearly a twist or distortion in the path of the stress energies travel. but then i can ask, if charge is the property of being twisted then what causes the twist?
it's time i stopped thinking so i'll leave you with that.

30. Originally Posted by wallaby
ahh but then we run into the issue of electrically neutral particles like the neutron or antineutron. the charge mechanism cannot be what separates their mass from being light.
It is. A neutron is not stable. It decays into a proton and an electron. See essay. The charge was in there all the time.

as for the MASS EXPLAINED topic i kinda have a slight problem with that as well, mainly to do with the use of relativity and also the compton scattering explanation
It's not easy to pitch it exactly right, that's why I ask for feedback. And to understand MASS EXPLAINED you first have to understand ENERGY EXPLAINED. There's a sequence.

hmm... well now if charge is a twisting, or distortion, of space then the question becomes what causes that twist to form? also, since a knot is a closed path then that implies that the energy is following a closed distortion of space which implies that space has become discontinuous does it not? maybe its the preferance to the maths approach in me but that is a nightmare to comprehend.
A "knock" causes the twist to form. A change in direction. See the essay and the bit at the end about Thomas Precession. No, space has not become discontinuous.

an alternative meaning, and perhaps what you actually ment, could be that the twist is mearly a twist or distortion in the path of the stress energies travel.
There's something rather profound to this. I know what space is. Sounds crazy, but I do. It's surprisingly simple. I'm sitting on it for the time being.

31. Originally Posted by Farsight
Come on guys, don't bicker, do some science. Whatever you might think of my offerings, the question you need to ask is this:

Can you explain it to your grandmother?
Get me a spade and ill give it a try.

32. Originally Posted by leohopkins
Get me a spade and ill give it a try.
hey why don't we take you down to the old folks home and let you explain it to everyones grandmother.

33. You'll need more than a spade for my grandmother, leo. She got cremated.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement