Rosemary Ainslie | A Magnetic Field Model

[witsend]

6 TRUANTS, ANTITRUANTS AND VIRTUAL PARTICLES

The proposal is that a string from the field has broken. Zipons have become disassociated from the field and they cluster in a visible amalgam seen as a nebula in space.

I've proposed that a primary particle, the zipon, has now manifested as a truant. For symmetry and for every manifest truant there must also therefore be an antitruant. The truant is proposed as the zipon that has gained mass at a corresponding forfeiture of its velocity in the field. They are visible precisely because they are within the boundary constraints of light speed and light, therefore can detect them. Equally therefore, an equal number of those zipons would have gained velocity at the fofeiture of mass. They, however, would be the antitruant and would not be evident within the boundary constraints of light speed. So light would not be able to detect them.

Given that the disappearing truant is the truant's antiparticle then where, in space does that anti truant go? The proposal is that in losing it's mass it actually moves towards a point in space that is precisely where it first decayed as a zipon. In other words it does not occupy space in the sense that the truant occupies space. In effect it has the properties of velocity at the entire forfeit of its mass. The antitruant, therefore, does not share the same dimensions of volume in space. In point of fact it only retains the properties of charge and velocity in the same but opposite way that truants only retain the properties of charge and mass. Then, like the manifest truant, it will 'hang' in a fixed position in space, two different manifestations of the same zipon, but both outside of the magnetic field itself. And the zipons in the field can find neither truant. The one is too big and the other too small. Therefore there is no interaction with the field.

The proposal is that some of the truants will decay back into the field. These are virtual particles and, in effect, they will simply regain that velocity and lose mass and then, eventually, slot back into one of the strings in the field.

But the truants are only really very small magnets. Magnets have the overriding requirement to structure themselves into orderly fields where their charge is most perfectly balanced. Over time, therefore, as the truants and the anti truants expend their energy from the force of the singularity, then they will again collect into some structure that expresses this magnetic requirement. They eventually move to structure themselves into fields and they do this in small steps.

[witsend]

I'm jumping ahead here - of the argument - in order to address a question that has become topical. The questions are to do with current flow - it's preferred direction of flow - and what, in terms of the model, is seen as current flow.

To get to the point here - I need to state this - at the outset and with reference to the nebula analogy referred to above. The point is that those little zipons that have now become manifest are only little magnets. As magnets they move to establish orderly arrangements. And the first most orderly arrangement outside of the field is evident in the hydrogen atom. Thereafter the hydrogen amalgamates in vast clouds of this until they become a distinct star which over time become star systems - galaxies - operating a nearly closed system. That's in terms of the model.

The point is that the 'thing' that holds the star together - all those hydrogen atoms - are more zipons. In a ratio that is perfectly related to the mass of the hydrogen atom and then to the entire star - and onwards and upwards, these little zipons detach from the nebula and envelope those atoms to hold them, bound - into the star amalgam. It is the glue of the universe. And the model proposes that these zipons are the binding material that keep all visible structures in tact and in their identifiable amalgams. We see the atoms. We do not see the structures - that fine moving web of activity around the structures, that hold it in the evident and visible form.

These little zipons move to hold the amalgam in a condition that allows the most charge balance. Always they move to keep themselves, and thereby their bound material - in a condition of balanced charge - or as near to this condition of balance as they can manage within the constraints of the valence condition of the atoms themselves.

In other words the zipon fields precisely reflect the condition of valence of the atoms which they envelop. So. Take a gas such as hydrogen, where the atoms are themselves mutually repulsive, then the zipon fields are also obliged to hold that 'spin' and they too become mutually repulsive. But unlike the atom, they can adjust the position of the atom and therefore the presentation of their spin, thereby achieving a relative albeit unstable balance. These orbiting zipon fields are extraneous to the atom itself. They continually change the presentation of their spin to the neighbouring fields as they move to avoid the perceived 'like charge' of those neighbouring zipons. It develops an agitated and chaotic state where the profound conflict of 'like charge' is continually being changed and repositioned and moved - to distribute charge as best these zipons can within the constraints of a 'bath' or an amalgam of 'like charged particles'. Like charge is an inherently unstable condition and is the source of potential energy.

[witsend]

OK - so let's see if I can speed this up. The point is - if one sees an amalgam - if enough atoms and/or molecules are bound into a mass that is also an identifiable as an object - then the thing that holds them together are zipons. These are extraneous to the atomic or molecular structure. And they, in turn, hold the mass together like an invisible glue.

Those zipons are also in battery acids - or any 'imbalanced' amalgams where the valence condition points to a chaotic imbalance. Also present in metals where the same valence condition applies, such as in iron or its alloys. And in both these states, the zipons also have a reflected imbalance. They hold the amalgam 'together' but with difficulty. They have to rearrange the molecules and atoms into a position where the imbalanced charge is somehow distributed to least reflect that imbalance. In a liquid there is a continual readjustment of position, very much as there is in a gas, such as a star. But in a metal their organisation of charge distribution is fairly fixed but resulting in a crystalline atomic structure that is chaotic rather than patterned but that is also stable rather than otherwise.

The point is that in all three of these imbalanced states, be it gaseous, liquid or solid, the zipon fields, extraneous to the atoms, have moved or are moving to a state that best distributes their own like charge in a field of such like charges. They do not interact with the atoms. They simply surround the atoms. But their own field justifications or charge is such that it reflects the imbalanced condition of the atom. And unless they've found a 'fixed' position (such as in a typical iron based amalgam) they move to find that position that least conflicts with the like charge of neighbouring fields of zipons in that amalgam.

It must be remembered that if a magnet adjusts to another magnet it physically moves the entire body of the magnet through space to present an alternate polarity to another magnet. At which point the two magnets conjoin and come to a rest position. In the same way, the extraneous fields in imbalanced amalgams need to move the entire field to change their spin or their justification.

Such imbalanced states as found in liquids that are acid or alkaline and they are therefore, inherently chaotic. This is the source of potential difference. In other words, apply some means of a path, external to that 'imbalance' such as is made available in electric circuitry - and these fields will follow that path, change their justification and, while still remaining external to the atomic or molecular structure of that amalgam, they can return to base, with a change to their actual spin or justification, rather than just a change in their position in space. And by so doing they establish a true charge balance in the source amalgam. And the overriding object of all fields of zipons is to find a state of balance, that condition that is closest to a zero net charge state.

[witsend]

So. If you're still with me. That is what happens when you present battery acid with a convenient circuit path to distribute that source imbalance. And current flow is a primary event that simply describes the path of zipons moving through the circuit - head to toe, shoulder to shoulder, as a field, in a continuous line, while they move their fields through space and in time. When they return to the source through that space, they will present an opposite justification at the source. And they will then re-enter the amalgam with an altered 'spin' - return to the same atoms and molecules from whence the originated. But having altered their spin they also profoundly alter the state of imbalance previously evident in that valence imbalance. The atoms have not changed. Some of their molecules may change. And the net imbalanced charge distribution at the source is diminished at a profound level. It becomes neutralised and changed. One half of all the zipon fields that are extraneous to the matter in that amalgam will have altered their spin in relation to the other half.

But zipons can only interact with other zipons. They do not interact with electrons, photons, protons or - indeed - with any 'gross' forms of matter. They simply surround that matter. They only interact with other zipons. And zipons are the base substance of magnetic fields. They move at twice the speed of light, they have half the mass of a photon, and their movement - as current or in any other form, precedes our own time frame. We see the effects of the current flow long after the event of current flow. They interact with or borrow the fields that are presented in adjacent materials and forge a path through that material in order to present an alternate charge at the source. Unlike the previous condition of those fields, the zipons now do not need to move in a continual and chaotic way in order to avoid presenting their like spin to neighbouring fields that also have a like spin.

[witsend]

The imbalanced source amalgam - that's potential difference. The movement of the zipons through circuitry - that's current flow. Potential difference is measured as voltage and voltage also indicates the polarity of the zipon flow.

Now we need to think what happens to zipons as they move through materials such as copper. Copper has no imbalanced valence condition. When the material is presented with a flow of these zipons in current it simply extrudes one half of it's own zipon fields to allow the path of the flow from the source. Therefore it will extrude its own let us call it negative zipon field outside the structure of the wire itself to allow the positive fields to align with the positive flow from the source to enable the string of current flow to reach the opposite terminal. When the current flow is stopped then these fields simply return to their previous position within the crystalline structure of the wire.

But when the zipons try to force their way through iron or iron alloys, such as is used in resistive wire - then we have a different moment. Here there is actually only one zipon justification - one polarity - one charge. But one half of all those charges have arranged their atoms in such a manner that the quantum value of one half of all their spins, exactly contradicts the quantum value of the other half of all their spins. They didn't quite manage to change their actual justifications. So they varied their position within the amalgam to best compensate for that 'like justification'.

Now - when the 'current flows' then one half of those zipons will be repelled by the newly presented fields of zipons. As in copper they will be forced outside the structure of the metal itself. This induces a cascading state of chaos where like atoms that were previously held apart are now brought together and the atoms themselves experience the like charge of neighbouring atoms. This induced state of chaos generates greater and greater chaos within the structure of the resistor. And this, in turn generates greater chaos within the fields of zipons in their attempt to re-establish the charge distribution. It is not unlike the condition of the nebula used as an example of 'broken strings' in the earlier analogy. Some of these zipon fields peel off as photons. Some are simply slowed down to speeds where they manifest in our dimensions as flames, or heat.

But it must be remembered that when current flow is interrupted, there is an extruded field of zipons that are 'negative' in relation to the applied current which is positive. The quantum of these negative extruded fields is precisely equal to quantum of fields that intruded the amalgam as current flow. When, therefore, that current flow is interrupted, at that moment these extruded fields now represent a new source of potential difference with an opposite polarity to that which was first applied by the supply source.

[witsend]

Sorry - I hadn't quite finished the previous so have reposted the last sentence.

When, therefore, that current flow is interrupted, at that moment these extruded fields now represent a new source of potential difference with an opposite polarity to that which was first applied by the supply source. This potential difference has a value that equals the value of the current flow that passed through the body of the resistor. Those fields are still within the structure of the resistor. They have not magically disappeared. In effect the quantum of the extruded fields precisely equals the quantum of those fields that intruded the resistive structure.

Potential difference cannot do much unless it also has a path to use in order to express that required adjustment. Without having a path it will discharge its energy as sparks or fire. But I'll get to that next. If it has a path to discharge its imbalance that will always be the preferred route as it is the least chaotic way to establish a balance. And always these fields move to establish a balance. If one had to define the 'compulsion' of a magnetic field it is to move to a condition of balance, an overriding principle, an immutable imperative - to move towards a condition of zero net charge.

On our switching circuit that path is enabled through the flyback diode - through the battery postive terminal to the negative terminal through the shunt, through the MOSFET's body diode and back to the source of the potential difference at the load resistor itself. You will note that the polarity of both the flyback and the body diode would then enable this directional flow. And it is also then obvious that to return the zipons back to the source without a corresponding change in their polarity would add to the net charge or imbalance at the source. In effect it would recharge the battery.

The amount of potential difference is always measured as voltage. The 'spike' is a measure of that quantity. And, as there is a simple reversal of the paths that are already established in the circuit, the amount that is then returned is equal to the amount of current that was first applied. Just think of it as lines of soldiers following an order to 'backward' instead of 'forward march'.

So. The potential difference from the battery source is 'cut off'. The path for the potential difference from the source is blocked. At that same moment the extruded fields on the resistor collapse. This extrudes the fields that were within the structure transferred there through current flow. These fields, in turn, have a reversed polarity. They retrace their path backwards - at a pace that is established by, and precisely equal to, their earlier path through the resistor. This is not intended to describe the speed, but the strength at which the current flow reverses.

[witsend]

Therefore, in terms of the model current flow is simply the movement of zipons, as fields, or strings, through adjacent circuit material in order to diminish potential difference at a supply source.

In our switching circuit the potential difference is transferred to the resistor. Subject to the amount of potential difference from induction this can regenerate a second cycle of current flow with a reverse polarity in the event that the supply is interrupted. Therefore most frequencies and most duty cycles will enable this regenerated cycle of current flow which will result in a co-efficiency of performance that, at it's least, will exceed 1.

With careful adjustement to the duty cycle it is possible to impose this 'cut off' to induce a resonating fequency that enhances the rate at which energy is returned to the battery to recharge it without diminishing the amount of energy dissipated at the resistor. This results in a co-efficiency of performance that is theoretically only limited to the applied frequency and and the inductive componenets in the circuitry.

I think that covers it.

[witsend]

And in the same way there are two distinctly different events in the transfer of energy. In the first instance, zipons are distributed throughout the ciruit to enable a reduction of potential difference at the supply source. In the other energy is dissipated at the load resistor itself. But current flow from the supply is simply a primary event. The secondary event of dissipated energy at the load resistor results in the decay of those binding fields. This degrades the bound condition of the resistive material itself which, eventually will compromise the path of flow of the current from the primary flow. It'll short out.

Classical assumption is that the amount of energy delivered from the supply source relates to the amount of energy dissipated throughout the circuit. Thus unity cannot be exceeded. New age science suggests that energy delivered from the supply source only has an indirect bearing on the energy dissipated at the load. Energy dissipated at the load can also result from a regenerated cycle of energy from inductive components that can also replenish the potential difference at the supply. Thus unity can be exceeded.

[witsend]

This is for the record and relates to my quarrel with conventional explanation of current flow. (second follows)

I copied this from a thread that I started on the Naked Scientist Forum under 'a circuit that produces overunity' - I think it's titled. In the event that any of you want to look it up it's posted under the name Witsend. In any event, this is relevant to point at questions that relate to energy - on a broader basis than the wiki definition. I promise you I won't need to refer to current flow after this except to suggest that it is - in fact - magnetic fields, as proposed in the paper that I submitted to the IET.

Thanks for your patience. I just need to get this on record.

"I cannot understand the existing model because it makes no sense. Let me point out a little known truth. Nobody knows what energy is. It is known to be sourced from four forces, some say three. These are gravity, the strong and weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. Some people ascribe the weak nuclear force to the electromagnetic force. The miracle of our physicicts is that, notwithstanding this lack of knowledge, they are able to use and apply their knowledge of these forces with breathtaking and impeccable accuracy. That is the truly amazing.

But notwithstanding this no-one actually knows what energy is. The fact that current flow is ascribed to the flow of electrons is still a question that is actually also still out there. If it flows as a current - like a stream of something - then it flatly contradicts Pauli's exclusion principle. And Dyson emphatically states that it is not the flow of electrons. So does Gary Zukov in his book - the dancing wu li masters. If it is not a 'flow' but rather the interaction of 'clouds' of valence electrons with sundry ions in various structures and amalgams, then what is added to a battery when it's flat and needs to be recharged? It can't be electrons because electrons are widely considered to be stable particles, and not able to decay. So whatever property is re-introduced to the battery during the recharge process, cannot be more electrons else your average battery would eventually be chockablock full of a surplus of electrons. Nor are electrons simply able to change their charge or indeed any of their properties.

However, there is a possibility that one electron can decay into two photons in certain unstable atoms. And therefore it can be argued that electrons decay at the various work stations as photons. This is because photons are known and measured to be dissipated at resistive loads. This would be consistent with measured evidence. But an extension of this argument then requires that your average generator would need to also generate an inexhaustible supply of spare electrons in order to account for the amount of heat dissipated at your average household and the vast number of such houses connected to your average supply grid. This is somewhat unlikely. And even if this were managed, the question remains. Where do these spare electrons come from? And so it goes. Wiki explanation of current flow is so full of holes it's almost comical. Whatever comprises a current flow is defintely not consistent with classical theories of this.

What I am daring to point to is that the entire field of quantum electromagnetic dynamics is not entirely consistent. That it is the single most extraordinary field of endeavour with - among all branches of phyics - the most consistent and effective reach in its applications - does not also put it beyond the reach of further questioning and analysis. Yet there are those in the field of physics and engineering who are offended at any questions applied to its fundamentals. They say it is a complete theory. "

[witsend]

and a second post on the same theme

Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
In order to prove the claim I also need to refer to the model's definition of current. But this would hardly be appropriate without some reference to known definitions of current flow. If I may I'm starting with a definition of current flow as per wiki's definition. It's so full of holes its laughable. I'll then follow up with a more classicallly accepted defnition. All I'm trying to point to is that current flow may not, in fact be the flow of electrons. At this stage I'm not referring to an alternative. If the tenor of this post is offensive then let me apologise in advance. But there is a real need to show those points that classical physics has not, in fact, addressed.

'Wiki definition of current flow requires 'free floating electrons'. Given that these electrons that come from - somewhere? - also somehow 'attach' to a wire or any such conductive circuit components then can someone please explain this scenario. Take your average lead acid battery as a DC power supply. If these electrons 'travel' where do they go once they've reached the opposite terminal? Through the battery courtesy the 'pump action' provided by the battery?

Now Wiki explains that batteries, fortunately, have 'free floating protons'. This gets ever more interesting. Where do these 'free floating protons come from? Then. The electrons presumably need to travel through the battery. Presumably also they do this by attaching to the protons, somehow? But, if the electrons attach to the protons during their journey through the battery - then we get simple hydrogen atoms. The battery would then, theoretically, become a repository of pure hydrogen or subtle variations of this, each state - deuterium - tritium - becoming progressively more explosive than the last.

If the quantum of electrons on the wire or in the circuitry, exceeds the number of free floating protons - then we have a problem with that 'cluster' of electrons that cannot get past the terminal.

If by some happy accident the number of 'free floating' electrons precisely equals the number of 'free floating' protons then 'attachment' would result not in a reduction in potential difference but in an increase. This is because hydrogen - apart from being highly combustible in any condition - is also a negatively ionised atom. Therefore one would think that the increased ionisation would also result in an increase in the potential difference measured across the battery. It would not result in a decrease. What then accounts for the decrease is the actual measured result of current flow?

If, on the other hand - given that these innate logical contradictions were somehow answered by some force not yet incorporated in conventional explanations of current flow - but yet requires the flow of electrons - then the speed at which the electrons again 'detach' from the structure of those protons - would in no way equal the rate at which current is measured to flow through circuitry.

Then, assuming that the potential difference is reduced, notwithstanding the increase to potential difference courtesy the ionised state of these hydrogen atoms, and over time the battery indeed becomes flat - we recharge it - how? By adding more 'free floating electrons' or 'free floating protons / or possibly both?

So I put it to you that the 'flow of electrons' is logically inconsistent with the known properties of current flow. Here's the thing. The 'flow of electrons' was proposed as an enabling image - never a fact. That it then became incorporated into classical definition as 'a fact' is a sad reflection on the reluctance of scientists to grapple with contradictory evidence. Rather do they just accept all such explanations, the more obtuse the explanation, the more likely it is to be accepted. It hearkens to the story of the king's invisible cloak. At some point someone must point out the obvious.'

[witsend]

Mike - and Harvey? This is for you - post 18 or thereby onwards. I'm posting this so that it can get back onto the front page of the threads.

Kindest

[sucahyo]

@Rosemary, what atomic model that you believe. And it seems you believe in theory of relativity?

Can you explain heat transfer in a metal? and the relationship of metal heating and magnetic?

Your description of energy movement seems very similar with the atomic model described in occult chemistry:
Internet Archive: Free Download: Occult chemistry; clairvoyant observations on the chemical elements;

It has toroidal shape of particle, the way the particle move, the way energy transfered to matter and vice versa, how current can condition them, how matter can transmute.

I don't get the explanation about zipon that slowed down and become matter but they can also become heat?

About the cause of current flow, I guess if there are endotermix (need heat) and exotermic (give out heat) chemical reaction, there should be a reaction that need current or give current. Once the chemical reaction is stable, the current no longer flow. Still don't explain what thing cause the current flow though.

Any thought about how spark can find it's way in air?

[witsend]

Following from Sucahyo

Rosemary, what atomic model that you believe.
Atomic model is definitely classical. I can add nothing here. But outside the atom - I've proposed fields of particles. Just magnetic dipoles forming a neutral but magnetic field.

And it seems you believe in theory of relativity?
I'm not sure but I think I've proposed a 'marriage' between classical and quantum theory.

Can you explain heat transfer in a metal? and the relationship of metal heating and magnetic?
Yes. I think that those fields outside the particle are disturbed. Their symmetries broken through friction - applied electromagnetic energies - whatever. Then they effect the bound state of the metal. But the heat experienced is the result of those magnetic dipoles manifesting out of the field. Where before they were small and fast and difficult to find? They now become slow and big and very easy to see. Fire, flame, sparks, red glow, all are manifest zipons.

Your description of energy movement seems very similar with the atomic model described in occult chemistry:
Internet Archive: Free Download: Occult chemistry; clairvoyant observations on the chemical elements;
Never seen this. I'll check it out.

It has toroidal shape of particle, the way the particle move, the way energy transfered to matter and vice versa, how current can condition them, how matter can transmute.
My particles are definitely spherical. The pure magnetic field, however is proposed to be toroidal.

I don't get the explanation about zipon that slowed down and become matter but they can also become heat?
They move in a field at 2C. Disturb the field and they can then lose momentum and gain mass in inverse proportion. Manifest then they're like nebulae. Really slow and relatively static they manifest as fire.

About the cause of current flow, I guess if there are endotermix (need heat) and exotermic (give out heat) chemical reaction, there should be a reaction that need current or give current. Once the chemical reaction is stable, the current no longer flow. Still don't explain what thing cause the current flow though.
Not quite sure that this is what I'm pointing to.

Thanks Sucahyo, hope that makes it clearer. If not let me know. And thanks for the interest. It's rare on this thread.

[sucahyo]

Thanks for the answer . I still reading more of your work and will sure to ask again . I also in the search of learning what matter is.

Can you explain how spark find it's way to the opposite pole to jump?

If material is burned, the zipon become slowed down and static? Do zipon reponsible for transporting heat and light (since I think heat and light will also transfered in vacuum)?

Can you explain using your magnetic model why stainless steel become less ferromagnetic after evenly heated up? what is the cause of ferromagnetic and paramagnetic?


About heating up metal, do the caused of friction in metal is electron? Would magnetic oscillation create heat, or it is electric oscillation, or just amp?



About magnetic field here is my post at:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...h-other-2.html

image from:
The Tom Bearden Website

There is similar image of the atom which posted 100 years ago, occult chemistry.

CHAPTER I - THE NATURE OF MATTER

[witsend]

Hi Sucahyo, I'm exhausted. I'll look into an answer later today if you don't mnd. Our time 11.26 am. So sometime within the next 8 hours. I just so badly need a break.

So chuffed that you're interested. Of course I'll try to make it clear if I can. But don't think for one minute that I'm right. I just hope I'm also right. But that's still to be proven.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary