Handedness of Charge

[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.



 

[Mordred]

Belief isn't very scientific.

Charge handedness involves vector symmetry. This isn't based on belief but on the mathematical relations of vectors under symmetry. Right handed and left handed charge is rather meaningless as charge polarity itself is an arbitrary choice of which to assign as positive or negative. In point of detail handedness is involved in charges other than the electromagnetic. In all cases it is an assigned vector relation under graph ie an increase in right handed trends towards an increase in positive values. Its only fundamental purpose is its behavior when modelled under graphs in the same manner posotive and negative charge behaves when graphed.

Charge is simply a term assigned to attraction. The stronger the attraction the greater the amount of charge. 

Edited February 10, 2018 by Mordred

[Sensei]

1) write C/C++ computer simulation, using your "predictions"...

2) show results...

 

 

On 5.02.2018 at 10:59 PM, BR-549 said:

 A stable orbit requires two rotations.

There is no such thing as "stable orbit". Every orbit is just metastable. Some just have billions of years of decay..

Do you think Sun is stable? It's not. It'll become red giant after couple billions of years from now..

 

[pavelcherepan]

On 2/6/2018 at 5:59 AM, BR-549 said:

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.

So "they" have observations that confirm mathematical models and you have your "belief". It's a lousy science critique, when your critique is coming from non-scientific domains. 

 

On 2/6/2018 at 5:59 AM, BR-549 said:

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.  

One of the properties of an orbit is that it's always convex towards the central orbiting body. In the case you described, orbits will be in many cases concave. Also, as stated by other people, your beliefs don't matter in a scientific discussion and you don't have any arguments to support your position except you believe it to be a fallacy.

[Area54]

On 05/02/2018 at 9:59 PM, BR-549 said:

  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.

That's doubtful. You don't appear to understand what science is. What led you to these particular ideas? At what point in your trajectory as a scientist did the doubts grow to the point you felt "they" had it wrong?

[Strange]

On 05/02/2018 at 10:59 PM, BR-549 said:

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’m not sure why anyone would accept your beliefs in preference to the evidence. 

(Your repeated references to “proof” demonstrate that you don’t have a clue about science - nothing is proved in science.)

On 05/02/2018 at 10:59 PM, BR-549 said:

It works statically.......but if we introduce relative velocity.....the equations fail.  This failure.

It works very accurately, right up to the scale of massive black holes orbiting one another at near light speed. 

Quote

to explain galactic movement instead of admitting they do not have a valid gravity equation.

Many people have tried, and are trying, to find modified theories of gravity. But, so far, none of them fit all the evidence (unlike dark matter). 

On 05/02/2018 at 10:59 PM, BR-549 said:

But they always say they have experimental evidence for their theories they can't prove. 

And there in a sentence is your lack of understanding of how science works. 

[swansont]

On 2/5/2018 at 4:59 PM, BR-549 said:

  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. 

Any evidence that the electron has a structure?

On 2/5/2018 at 4:59 PM, BR-549 said:

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.

Since charge is not a substance, gravity would never be a property of it.

Charges do not re-direct light.

On 2/5/2018 at 4:59 PM, BR-549 said:

 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.

That's some interesting logic. Changing the charge convention is evidence of some fundamental property?  (The opposite has to be true. Arbitrary choices about conventions cannot reveal anything fundamental. The physics has to be the same)

On 2/5/2018 at 4:59 PM, BR-549 said:

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.

!

Moderator Note

Your "criticism" needs to be more rigorous if you want this thread to remain open.