Hi every body
I am trying to figure out how the electric force work in the light of the RS(2)
1 What is electric charge ?
2 How come 2 negatives or 2 positive charge repel and how 2 different charge attract ?
You can give me some pointer to some of your documents.
Thanks
Electric force
Re: Electric force
jacques wrote:
You can also read the "subatomic" sections in the RS2 library for more detailed descriptions on electrons and charge.
Quick summary:
Electric charge
RS: A 1dimensional rotational vibration (source and cause undefined).
RS2: A 1dimensional rotational vibration caused by a captured photon (rotation of electron + linear vibration of photon = rotational vibration).
Attraction and repulsion
RS: Motion proceeding from two different reference points (see Basic Properties of Matter).
RS2: Nothing more than progression (repulsion) and gravitation (attraction) caused by the interaction of discrete units in counterspace (polar space, hence units look like wave interference not linear). The "Forces" topic has detailed descriptions and diagrams of this interaction.
For a better understanding of polar spaces (counterspace), I recommend taking a look at the Questioning the Rotational Base presentation on the main site. Hopefully, I will be adding the audio to the presentation shortly.
I would recommend reading the "Forces and force fields" topic. It applies to both electric and magnetic force with the only difference being the number of scalar dimensions involved.I am trying to figure out how the electric force work in the light of the RS(2)
1 What is electric charge ?
2 How come 2 negatives or 2 positive charge repel and how 2 different charge attract ?
You can give me some pointer to some of your documents.
You can also read the "subatomic" sections in the RS2 library for more detailed descriptions on electrons and charge.
Quick summary:
Electric charge
RS: A 1dimensional rotational vibration (source and cause undefined).
RS2: A 1dimensional rotational vibration caused by a captured photon (rotation of electron + linear vibration of photon = rotational vibration).
Attraction and repulsion
RS: Motion proceeding from two different reference points (see Basic Properties of Matter).
RS2: Nothing more than progression (repulsion) and gravitation (attraction) caused by the interaction of discrete units in counterspace (polar space, hence units look like wave interference not linear). The "Forces" topic has detailed descriptions and diagrams of this interaction.
For a better understanding of polar spaces (counterspace), I recommend taking a look at the Questioning the Rotational Base presentation on the main site. Hopefully, I will be adding the audio to the presentation shortly.
Every dogma has its day...
Electric force
Quote:
What about the inverse square law ?
OK for that part Thanks it clear a part of my questionning.The attraction and repulsion of fields is simple addition. When two waves meet that are the same frequency and phase, the amplitude doubles. 1 + 1 = 2. When two waves meet that are the same frequency and outofphase, the amplitude drops to zero. 1 + 1 = 0.
Whenever LIKE fields interact, we get the doubling effect to 2 units. When UNLIKE fields interact, we get the canceling effect to 0 units. Now add in the single negative unit of "gravity"...
1 + 1 = 2 1 (grav) = +1 = PROGRESSION occurs between the two locations of LIKE particles.
1 + 1 = 0 1 (grav) = 1 = GRAVITATION occurs between the two locations of UNLIKE particles.
What about the inverse square law ?
Electric force
jacques wrote:
F = m_{1}m_{2} / r^{2}
t/s^{2} = t^{3}/s^{3} t^{3}/s^{3} / s^{2}
Which results in this spacetime unit relation:
t/s^{2} = t^{6}/s^{8}
Which obviously doesn't equate, so they invent units for a "universal constant", G. In the RS, there should be no "universal constants" outside of unity. If there are, then we missed something, which is obvious in this case.
Right now, I don't have a definitive answer, but I'll post my research and thoughts on the subject. Please feel free to contribute any ideas you may have.
The origin of the gravitational constant comes from the "Method of Jolly":
Introductory College Physics, Blackwood, 1939 wrote:
In my 1996 paper, "At the Earth's Core", I introduced the idea that the inner and outer cores of planets (and all bodies that exhibit stable orbits) were actually a fragment from a white dwarf star, being ultrahigh and intermediate speed matter, respectively. This fixed a number of problems with the current orbital models, because the ultrahigh speed matter would act as an "antigravity" engine, actually holding the bodies (like the Earth and the moon) apart, and in a stable orbit. You couldn't force them together if you wanted to.
If this conclusion is true, then the "G" measured for the Earth is the NET motion of all three speed ranges, the pull of the low speed motion of the mantle, the neutral motion of the intermediate speed outer core, and the push of the high speed motion of the inner core. When "G", as determined from Earth, is applied to other bodies, it will be WRONG because each body has a unique distribution of these three speed ranges of matter. It is far from being a universal constant!
Second problem is that we seem to have "mass" and "gravity" backwards. Larson defines mass from Einstein's equation, E=mc^{2}, giving it the spacetime units of t^{3}/s^{3}. Gravity is its inverse, s^{3}/t^{3}. Now look at the other common fields, electricity (t/s) and magnetism (t^{2}/s^{2})both counterspatial "force fields" (Larson's distributed scalar motion). Look at the spacetime units for massthey also indicate a t/s relationship, a FIELD, not a body. It is the MASS that is nonlocal to space, what we actually see as the "mass" is actually the "gravity" (the local, spatial presence). This is why electric, magnetic and MASS (not gravitation) share the same inverse square equation.
Going back to the "Forces" topic, we know that "force" is NOT some magical, mystical power that comes out of nowhere to move things. It is just a measurement of the net motion going on at a particular point between interacting motions. So what we are actually trying to find is how to explicitly measure the motion between COUNTERSPACE (polar) fields, whether it be the dielectric field, the magnetic field, or the mass field and how that is projected into extension space (3d, coordinate space).
Consider the differences between the three fields in question:
The 1d version of the inverse square law is:
F = k E_{1} E_{2} / r^{2}
which in space/time units is:
t / s^{2} = t/s t/s / s^{2} = t^{2}/s^{4}
which, if you look at it, is nothing more than F= F^{2}. Indeed, if you split out the s^{2} into 2 "s", one for each field t/s, you get F = t/s^{2} t/s^{2}, which is far closer to Newton, but doubled up: F = (ma) (ma)
What does this mean? I don't know... I am now considering the possibility that the inverse square law is nothing but an approximation to the actual equation, that happens to work close enough for our range of measurements. There are so many unstated assumptions built into conventional physics and astronomy regarding mass and the assumed gravitational "constant" that it might not even be close, should we ever get out and explore other worlds. We've built up the masses of planets and stars to fit the "constant" and the equation, but that might not be the reality of the situation.
So, my approach is to try to determine, from the descriptions in the "Force and Force Fields topic", just how the "force" can be determined for any point within the interacting fields, be they electric, magnetic or mass. And that means dealing with polar spaces (counterspace) and not ignoring the temporal components.
Any opinions or thoughts on the subject are greatly appreciated!
[/]
That's next on my "to do" list, since the Reciprocal System never really had an acceptable explanation for the inverse square law, in my opinion. Larson has more of an excuse than a solid theory behind why the units are so inconsistent, to wit:What about the inverse square law ?
F = m_{1}m_{2} / r^{2}
t/s^{2} = t^{3}/s^{3} t^{3}/s^{3} / s^{2}
Which results in this spacetime unit relation:
t/s^{2} = t^{6}/s^{8}
Which obviously doesn't equate, so they invent units for a "universal constant", G. In the RS, there should be no "universal constants" outside of unity. If there are, then we missed something, which is obvious in this case.
Right now, I don't have a definitive answer, but I'll post my research and thoughts on the subject. Please feel free to contribute any ideas you may have.
The origin of the gravitational constant comes from the "Method of Jolly":
Introductory College Physics, Blackwood, 1939 wrote:
From this, the gravitational constant was derived, and then used to compute the mass of the Earth. One of the problems of this system is that the geology of the Earth is assumed to be all in the "low speed" range of Larson; it is all regular matter.A spherical vessel containing 5 kb. of mercury was attached to one pan of a sensitive balance, and it was counterpoised by suitable bodies in the other pan. Next a lead sphere of mass 5,775 kg. (more than 5 tons) was placed below the flask of mercury, their centers being 56.86 cm. apart. The attraction of the lead for the mercury pulled the pan down slightly, and a small mass (0.589 mg.) places in the other pan was found to be sufficient to raise the mercury to its initial position.
In my 1996 paper, "At the Earth's Core", I introduced the idea that the inner and outer cores of planets (and all bodies that exhibit stable orbits) were actually a fragment from a white dwarf star, being ultrahigh and intermediate speed matter, respectively. This fixed a number of problems with the current orbital models, because the ultrahigh speed matter would act as an "antigravity" engine, actually holding the bodies (like the Earth and the moon) apart, and in a stable orbit. You couldn't force them together if you wanted to.
If this conclusion is true, then the "G" measured for the Earth is the NET motion of all three speed ranges, the pull of the low speed motion of the mantle, the neutral motion of the intermediate speed outer core, and the push of the high speed motion of the inner core. When "G", as determined from Earth, is applied to other bodies, it will be WRONG because each body has a unique distribution of these three speed ranges of matter. It is far from being a universal constant!
Second problem is that we seem to have "mass" and "gravity" backwards. Larson defines mass from Einstein's equation, E=mc^{2}, giving it the spacetime units of t^{3}/s^{3}. Gravity is its inverse, s^{3}/t^{3}. Now look at the other common fields, electricity (t/s) and magnetism (t^{2}/s^{2})both counterspatial "force fields" (Larson's distributed scalar motion). Look at the spacetime units for massthey also indicate a t/s relationship, a FIELD, not a body. It is the MASS that is nonlocal to space, what we actually see as the "mass" is actually the "gravity" (the local, spatial presence). This is why electric, magnetic and MASS (not gravitation) share the same inverse square equation.
Going back to the "Forces" topic, we know that "force" is NOT some magical, mystical power that comes out of nowhere to move things. It is just a measurement of the net motion going on at a particular point between interacting motions. So what we are actually trying to find is how to explicitly measure the motion between COUNTERSPACE (polar) fields, whether it be the dielectric field, the magnetic field, or the mass field and how that is projected into extension space (3d, coordinate space).
Consider the differences between the three fields in question:
 Dimensionality: electric = 1d, magnetic = 2d, mass = 3d
 Motion: electric and magnetic are ROTATIONAL VIBRATIONS, mass is a ROTATION only (no vibratory component).
 Electric, being 1d, can be fully expressed in the reference system (since, per Larson, only 1 of the 3 scalar motions can be fully expressed; the other 2 just act to modify the motion). Magnetic, being 2d, can have one dimension expressed and one modifying. Mass, being 3d, can have one dimension expressed and two modifying.
The 1d version of the inverse square law is:
F = k E_{1} E_{2} / r^{2}
which in space/time units is:
t / s^{2} = t/s t/s / s^{2} = t^{2}/s^{4}
which, if you look at it, is nothing more than F= F^{2}. Indeed, if you split out the s^{2} into 2 "s", one for each field t/s, you get F = t/s^{2} t/s^{2}, which is far closer to Newton, but doubled up: F = (ma) (ma)
What does this mean? I don't know... I am now considering the possibility that the inverse square law is nothing but an approximation to the actual equation, that happens to work close enough for our range of measurements. There are so many unstated assumptions built into conventional physics and astronomy regarding mass and the assumed gravitational "constant" that it might not even be close, should we ever get out and explore other worlds. We've built up the masses of planets and stars to fit the "constant" and the equation, but that might not be the reality of the situation.
So, my approach is to try to determine, from the descriptions in the "Force and Force Fields topic", just how the "force" can be determined for any point within the interacting fields, be they electric, magnetic or mass. And that means dealing with polar spaces (counterspace) and not ignoring the temporal components.
Any opinions or thoughts on the subject are greatly appreciated!
[/]
Every dogma has its day...
Analysis of Coulomb's Law
Coulomb’s law states that the force between two charged bodies is proportional to the charge and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the charges:
F = k_{c} q_{1} q_{2} / r^{2}
Where F is the measured "Force" of attraction or repulsion (see topic on "Forces and Force Fields" for the RS concept of force), q is the "charge", r is the straightline distance between the two point charges, and kc is a "universal constant", derived from the permittivity of free space:
k_{c} = 1 / (4π ε_{0})
Magnetism and gravitation use the same inverse square equation, with different constants.
The complete equation, as recognized by conventional science, is therefore:
F = [1 / (4π ε_{0})] [q_{1} q_{2} / r^{2}]
Examining the space/time units for this equation reveals:
F = Energy per unit distance = t/s /s = t/s^{2}
π = unitless
ε_{0} = Coulombs per meter = s^{3}/t / s = s^{2}/t
q = charge = t/s
r = distance = s
t/s^{2} = t/s^{2} t/s t/s / s^{2}
= t^{3}/s^{6}
This results in t/s^{2} = t^{3}/s^{6}... not exactly a correct equation unitwise. Conventional science fixes this by adding the necessary units to the "universal constant" to fix the units, and as a "universal constant", doesn't need further explanation.
By examining Coulomb's law with the counterspace (polar) concepts presented in RS2, and using a discovery by Larson in Basic Properties of Matter, some new light can be shed upon this relationship.
First, let's rearrange the terms of the equation a bit, to see what it reveals:
F = (1 / ε_{0}) (q_{1} q_{2}) / (4π r^{2})
When 4π is associated with the r^{2} term, 4πr^{2} becomes recognizable as the surface area of a sphere. In conventional, rectangular coordinate systems the shortest distance between any two points, such as charges, is a straight line. However, this is not the case in polar spaces, where the shortest "distance" is the great circle arc from one point to the other (see attached diagram; yellow arc from A to B).
A second consideration is that we are dealing with a scalar relationship, not a coordinate one, since all the equation can return is the magnitude of the force at the points in question. Coordinate information must be calculated separately, should one wish to determine the direction of influence each charge has upon the other.
Since we are dealing with a scalar realm, the "distance" between A and B is a distributed scalar motion, which means no preferred direction. In essence, to get from A to B, the scalar "field" will have to follow ALL of the arcs possible, not just one of them (which would be a preferred direction), resulting in a spherical surface, with the "distance" actually being measured as an area. That 4πr^{2} term now becomes a bit more clearthe surface area of a sphere being the scalar, polar distance between the two points.
[img]/files/polardistance_223.gif[/img]
The (q_{1} q_{2}) term, in association with 4πr^{2}, must therefore also be an area, forming a ratio of surfaces to get the total magnitude of motion involved. This means that each q term is the quantity of charge (the magnitude), not the energy of charge.
Larson, in Basic Properties of Matter, page 169 wrote:
t/s^{2} = t/s^{2} s s / s^{2}
= t/s^{2}
Force = Force, just what it should be!
The only mystery left is to the permittivity of free space... what is it? Per Larson's RS theory, "empty" space or vacuum contains only unit motion. Therefore, the natural conclusion is that the vacuum permittivity, ε_{0}, is the measured "force" of UNIT motion, which can be either in space (repulsion) or in time (attraction), since all our measurements are from extension space. The permittivity of materials is calculated relative to the vacuum permittivity, so their values are indicative of the change in that "force" based on the spatial and temporal rotations involved in the material.
To summarize, the 1dimensional inverse square law, Coulomb's law, has mistaken the energy of charge for the quantity of charge, the latter being unknown in conventional science. The distance between the "points" is the counterspatial distance, because all force fields exist in counterspace, not space. The next step is to apply these concepts to magnetism (the 2dimensional form) and gravitation (the 3dimensional form).
F = k_{c} q_{1} q_{2} / r^{2}
Where F is the measured "Force" of attraction or repulsion (see topic on "Forces and Force Fields" for the RS concept of force), q is the "charge", r is the straightline distance between the two point charges, and kc is a "universal constant", derived from the permittivity of free space:
k_{c} = 1 / (4π ε_{0})
Magnetism and gravitation use the same inverse square equation, with different constants.
The complete equation, as recognized by conventional science, is therefore:
F = [1 / (4π ε_{0})] [q_{1} q_{2} / r^{2}]
Examining the space/time units for this equation reveals:
F = Energy per unit distance = t/s /s = t/s^{2}
π = unitless
ε_{0} = Coulombs per meter = s^{3}/t / s = s^{2}/t
q = charge = t/s
r = distance = s
t/s^{2} = t/s^{2} t/s t/s / s^{2}
= t^{3}/s^{6}
This results in t/s^{2} = t^{3}/s^{6}... not exactly a correct equation unitwise. Conventional science fixes this by adding the necessary units to the "universal constant" to fix the units, and as a "universal constant", doesn't need further explanation.
By examining Coulomb's law with the counterspace (polar) concepts presented in RS2, and using a discovery by Larson in Basic Properties of Matter, some new light can be shed upon this relationship.
First, let's rearrange the terms of the equation a bit, to see what it reveals:
F = (1 / ε_{0}) (q_{1} q_{2}) / (4π r^{2})
When 4π is associated with the r^{2} term, 4πr^{2} becomes recognizable as the surface area of a sphere. In conventional, rectangular coordinate systems the shortest distance between any two points, such as charges, is a straight line. However, this is not the case in polar spaces, where the shortest "distance" is the great circle arc from one point to the other (see attached diagram; yellow arc from A to B).
A second consideration is that we are dealing with a scalar relationship, not a coordinate one, since all the equation can return is the magnitude of the force at the points in question. Coordinate information must be calculated separately, should one wish to determine the direction of influence each charge has upon the other.
Since we are dealing with a scalar realm, the "distance" between A and B is a distributed scalar motion, which means no preferred direction. In essence, to get from A to B, the scalar "field" will have to follow ALL of the arcs possible, not just one of them (which would be a preferred direction), resulting in a spherical surface, with the "distance" actually being measured as an area. That 4πr^{2} term now becomes a bit more clearthe surface area of a sphere being the scalar, polar distance between the two points.
[img]/files/polardistance_223.gif[/img]
The (q_{1} q_{2}) term, in association with 4πr^{2}, must therefore also be an area, forming a ratio of surfaces to get the total magnitude of motion involved. This means that each q term is the quantity of charge (the magnitude), not the energy of charge.
Larson, in Basic Properties of Matter, page 169 wrote:
The "charge" involved in the inverse square equation is the quantity of charge, with units of space (s), not energy (t/s)! This gives the (q_{1} q_{2}) term units of s^{2}, and when divided by 4πr^{2} (also s2), becomes a unitless magnitude. The new space/time relationship for Coulombs law now becomes:"... the unit of electric quantity is a unit of space (s). We find that the unit of electric charge is a unit of energy (t/s). In current practice, both of these quantities are expressed in the same measurement unit, esu (cgs system) or coulombs (SI system). Now that the electric charge has been introduced into our subject matter, we will have to make the distinction that current theory does not recognize, and instead of dealing only with coulombs, we will have to specify coulombs (s) or coulombs (t/s). In this work the symbol Q, which is currently being used for both quantities, will refer only to electric charge, or capacitor charge, measured in coulombs (t/s). Electric quantity, measured in coulombs (s) will be represented by the symbol q."
t/s^{2} = t/s^{2} s s / s^{2}
= t/s^{2}
Force = Force, just what it should be!
The only mystery left is to the permittivity of free space... what is it? Per Larson's RS theory, "empty" space or vacuum contains only unit motion. Therefore, the natural conclusion is that the vacuum permittivity, ε_{0}, is the measured "force" of UNIT motion, which can be either in space (repulsion) or in time (attraction), since all our measurements are from extension space. The permittivity of materials is calculated relative to the vacuum permittivity, so their values are indicative of the change in that "force" based on the spatial and temporal rotations involved in the material.
To summarize, the 1dimensional inverse square law, Coulomb's law, has mistaken the energy of charge for the quantity of charge, the latter being unknown in conventional science. The distance between the "points" is the counterspatial distance, because all force fields exist in counterspace, not space. The next step is to apply these concepts to magnetism (the 2dimensional form) and gravitation (the 3dimensional form).
 Attachments

 PolarDistance.gif (21.52 KiB) Viewed 20235 times
Every dogma has its day...
Force Between Two Magnetic Poles
See Capacitance is Counterspacial for background discussion.
R = μI, resistance is permeability of current, i.e inductance
G = εI, conductance is permittivity of current, i.e. capacitance
Where R = 1/G (resistance is the inverse of conductance)
And thus...
μI = 1/εI → μεI^{2} = 1
I (current) is a 1dimensional speed (s/t) of magnitude +1 (c, speed of light) and so...
μεI^{2} = 1 → με(1)^{2} = 1 → μ = 1/ε
Ah ha! In natural units permeability and permittivity are reciprocally related, as they define the affect of observational perspective as seen from either side of the common "membrane" (unity) defining motion in the first scalar dimension (1D electric) and motion in the second scalar dimension (2D magnetic). These two rotations are the SAME only diverging in their representation of dimensionality. The electric rotation is 1D (complex) whereas he magnetic rotation is 2D (quaternion); however, the angle ∠ that is the 1D motion and the solid angle ∢ that is the 2D motion are simply aspects of the same motion. See here and here for more detail.
Recall as well that B_{m} = E_{m}/c where c=1 in the natural reference frame. This demonstrates precisely the apparent large offset in the relative strengths of these two types of "fields" (being related by a factor of c similar to how a factor of c^{2} is necessary to translate the net push/pull "force" vectors in a mass field, as gravity is the speed, s^{3}/t^{3}).
So we multiply Coulomb's Force equation by c or unity (where 1 = με) in effect translating from electric to magnetic domain:
F_{c} = [(1/4πε) (q_{c1} × q_{c2}) / r^{2}] × με → F_{m} = (μ/4π) (q_{m1} × q_{m2}) / r^{2} → F = μq_{m1}q_{m2} / 4πr^{2}
This matches legacy magnetic force equation.
Right church, wrong pew (as they say).
It appears as though (scalar) dimensional increase from 1 to 2 (electric → magnetic) has no bearing on method of determination of magnitude of distributed scalar motion as mapped to 3d coordinate space (extension space)  ndimensional scalar motion becomes a set of 1dimensional "lines of force" inside a gravitational "field." The difference is magnetic "lines of force" are circular whereas dielectric "lines of force" are radial.
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma