## Electrostatics

Discussion of electricity, electronics, electrical components and theories of circuit operation.
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Electrostatics

During my initial venture into electrostatics (see: Electrostatics), I discovered that electrostatic relationships were just the reciprocal of normal current-voltage relationships, where a quantity of space (s) was factored out. After going through some of Eric Dollard's papers from 1985, I realized that the missing "s" quantity are the dielectric lines of flux, ψ, which have units of space, mainly because they are trying to treat electrostatics as a bunch of charged particles.

In the RS, charge is a 1D rotational vibration, a back-and-forth rotational motion. In a scalar sense, this produces a series of longitudinal pulses being emitted from the source, like the rings formed by water when a rock is dropped in a pond. (see: Force and Force Fields for graphics.) An electrostatic field emanates just like a splash in a pond, where the pulse waves are "rocking the boat" of anything in the way.

In this image (from Wikipedia on Electrostatics), you can see that the objects being affected by a dielectric field are doing nothing more than transferring that longitudinal pulse from the side near the source, to the opposing side. The "+" is where the rock got dropped.

The "negative charge" is simply the electrical version of being pulled inward by the wave, just like the water on the shore is pulled out to sea before a big wave comes crashing in.

The "positive charge" is the object pulling on the space behind it, in response to being pulled on the other side, so it looks like it has the same "polarity."

Objects in an electrostatic field will often retain that "charge separation" because they picked up some of that rotational vibration from being shaken around. Not being a point source (as the + charge indicated), they are still sliding back-and-forth along the original wave axis, pushing and pulling, until something comes along (a ground) and dampens that motion.

What the dielectric "lines of force" indicate is the direction of wave propagation, the route these waves are traveling, just like they chart waves from the ocean approaching the shores:
OceanWaveFlux.gif (46.59 KiB) Viewed 29922 times
In this diagram, the "charge" is a hurricane initiating the waves from a rotating point source. Note that the arrows on the ocean chart indicate the direction off travel of the longitudinal wavefronts. If you "connect a dot" with the arrows, you get the "lines of force."

Yes, this is a reciprocal perspective from the original concept of Faraday tubes, but I think it might be easier to understand than a bunch of springy tubes in an aether.
Every dogma has its day...
jdalton4
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:46 am

### Re: Electrostatics

I notice no replies to this post in the last two years. Well, for the last several years I have studied conventional physics with a view to reconciling to RS2. I have finally reached Chapter 8, Volume 2 of The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Feynman, as you know, is highly respected and someone no one in their right mind should not take very seriously. In this chapter he makes a most convincing argument that electrostatic attraction explains 85% of the observed dissociation energy per molecule of salt ( 7.92 ev). He then reduces this error down to 7.99 ev by adjusting for the known effect of repulsion (1/9.4 of the electrostaic attraction), ie an error of less than 1% from the observed value.
Remember, these lectures were given in 1964.

Why am I saying this? Because in 1963 Larson published "The Case Against The Nuclear Atom". And on page 66 he states: "Furthermore, there is no other evidence of solid ions that can stand up under critical examination." It certainly appears to me that Feynman has indeed proved the existence of solid ions with his analysis. Its a very pretty analysis if you read through it.

I wish Larson was still around to respond to Feynman in this case. Was Larson wrong? I think he was. The question in my mind is: how could a guy as smart as Larson get this wrong?
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Re: Electrostatics

jdalton4 wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:20 am Why am I saying this? Because in 1963 Larson published "The Case Against The Nuclear Atom". And on page 66 he states: "Furthermore, there is no other evidence of solid ions that can stand up under critical examination." It certainly appears to me that Feynman has indeed proved the existence of solid ions with his analysis. Its a very pretty analysis if you read through it.
Is the text available online?
Every dogma has its day...
blaine
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am