[witsend]

By the way, I only proposed deuterium - tritium to allow for 'too many electrons - not enough protons'.  Not a serious option.  I just want to get that off.  I'm still battling with your explanation of current flow.  Will need to get back to this.

[lyner]

I'm still battling with your explanation of current flow.  Will need to get back to this.

It's only basics. (GCSE level)

[witsend]

I never did science.  Secondary education in Zimbabwe - private.  Nothing wrong with the standard of eduction but were given a choice of science subjects and I only did Botany and Zoology.  My interest - then - was in arts.  So am not well equipped to deal with science.  Sorry sophiecentaur.  I detect a certain irritability with this fact.  The only physics that I know, which is way too limited for my liking - is from layman's literature.  And while it gives a comprehensive 'overview' it tends to 'blur' the details.  It's the details that fascinate me.

[lyner]

OK, fair enough. But how can you then decide to invent a whole new Science Theory and expect it to be consistent with all measured facts?
Your experimental results are unexpected but I wouldn't reject them. What I have difficulty with is your explanation which is only partial. I would be far more happy with an approach which uses established models. They are, after all, pretty consistent with experience in all but really extreme circumstances.

[witsend]

The first thing that strikes me is that wiki explanation is so entirely different from yours.  Presumably then 'free floating' electrons is wrong.  It is, rather the adjustment of electrons in the outer energy levels those atoms that does the trick?  At least this wouldn't entirely defy Pauli's exclusion principle.  But I still cannot understand what happens when the battery is recharged?

If the electrons somehow decay into photons at the resistor - then perhaps it can be reasoned that more electrons are re-introduced into that system when the battery is recharged.  That could fit - provided that there's an obvious limitless source of such electrons from the recharger.  And they would literally have to leave the one recharge system to enter into the battery.  The regarcher and rechargee?  The terms get confusing.  Anyway, that's another problem.  Do the electrons physically peel away from the recharger? 

And assuming that there are these 'spare electrons' where do they come from?  The one's initially in the circuit I can almost buy.  But those that are re-introduced to the system?  Is that 'flow of electrons from the utility supply?  Then, correctly one should be able to account for the amount of electrons that are distributed from any single supply source because these are depleted at the various loads connected to that supply system.  This means that the actual motion of the generator is, in fact, generating an extraordinary amount of electrons from somewhere that get wiped out when they get used up at their various work stations.  Is this known to be the fact?

[witsend]

Regarding my education or lack of it - I have a tool that I use which I call patterns.  I have no idea how to explain this.  I suppose it's a kind of geometry.  But that would probably be giving it way too earnest a lable.  What is surprising to me is that it seems to be enough to forge quite a deep understanding of physics.  Certainly I am able to marry my own understanding precisely with known physics.  That was my litmus test.  If it didn't fit then it was wrong.  What may be of interest is that by using this 'tool' I was able to precisely reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron.  That's why I think my idea of composite particles may just be correct.  And why I tend to rely on this 'tool'.  It's my substitute for maths. 

But I'm not out to convert anyone to my reasoning.  To quote Vern, I only want to share what little I know and, hopefully, learn in the process.

I would add that my own explanation of current flow definitely passes the Occam's razor test more than conventional explanations.  And it provides for that extra energy.  But I assure you sophicentaur, I am not prepared to defend it as I really do not know enough about anything to do so.  I'm not a specialist, except in my own strange field of endeavour.  And then I'm truly a specialist in as much as I'm the only one who appears to understand it.   

[lyner]

I would add that my own explanation of current flow definitely passes the Occam's razor test more than conventional explanations.    

As you don't seem to understand the conventional explanation, then I don't see how you are in a position to apply Occam's Razor to it.
Does your model explain Cathode rays then?

[witsend]

No.  I'v been giggling again.  I don't really know how to tell you this but I have no idea how they work.  Sorry sophiecentaur.  I'm hopelessly underqualified.  I did warn you.

My field model is probably the only thing that I've ever done in my life that was truly intellectually challenging.  Have you read it?  It's the best I can do. 

[witsend]

By the way, I think it may pass the Occam's razor test becasue it's so very simple.  Have you read that exercise?  I'm adding to this because I think I may be cluttering these posts.  I cannot tell you how grateful I am for your explanation of current.  It doesn't give me all the answers, but that's only because I obviously do not understand it fully.  But I have so often asked for an explanation of conventional understanding of this, and you are the very first person who's provided it.  So many thanks for that.  I do apologise for sounding frivolous.  I know that all these posts take up an inordinate amount of time. 

[witsend]

Sophicentaur.  I thought you were just checking how little I knew.  I've just realised the relevance of cathode rays tubes?  It's because electrons stream off them and we use them for televisions.  This is known, I mean that electrons are definitely the medium that enables the picture.  This is really interesting.  Does one apply a current through the tube and this then liberates the electrons that forms the picture?  In other words, is this proof of electrons being the medium that conducts current

Actually, what I really want to ask is this.  Do electrons form the picture or do the electrons first become photons?  My own model does allow electrons to form photons but they can't reconstitute as electrons.  Presumably these cathode ray tubes don't exhaust their electron quotient.  Or do they?

[lyner]

Electrons emerge from the (usually hot) cathode and are accelerated towards the screen where they collide with phosphors and light is emitted. Electrons can't suddenly change into photons, can they? How could charge be conserved?
If you don't know about things a basic as this then how can you possibly claim to have developed a model for something as complicated as current flow?
You just cannot expect to explain a phenomenon which has been hard to explain in conventional terms with a brand new germ of an idea without first including and explaining all present phenomena which are already very adequately and consistently explained.
Remember that any new theory has either to include an explanation of all phenomena or else it must explain why it should only apply in one specific circumstance and have zero effect in all other situations.
Science may appear tiresome but we would be nowhere if we had chased every wild goose that came along as we aim at greater understanding.

And what, exactly, do you mean by a "Shunt Circuit"? This is a very relevant question because half of the circuits (or sub-circuits) ever devised are 'shunt' in the conventional sense of the term. We should expect to find your effect all over the place. Yes, I know you say the circumstances are special but, without a deep understanding of what was going on, how did you arrive at your particular parameter values? Audio circuits from the year dot have been subjected to extensive and detailed frequency sweeps and analysis so your 'special conditions would keep showing up as anomalies / imperfections in frequency response.

 I have to conclude that, somewhere, there must be a flaw in your methodology which has lead you to an erroneous conclusion. You have then tried to explain it in terms of a new mystic system which you, by your own admission, have not described in detail - certainly not in any quantitative way.

[witsend]

Electrons emerge from the (usually hot) cathode and are accelerated towards the screen where they collide with phosphors and light is emitted.
Do electrons decay in that interaction? Is light emitted by the phosphors?  And what then happens to the elecrtons?  Do they also decay or are they somehow returned to the cathode ray tube?

Electrons can't suddenly change into photons, can they? How could charge be conserved?
I never meant to suggest that they become photons from some whimsical event.  I am referring to the fact that when electrons decay in certain hydrogen ions or I think also uranium (may not be right here) - in any event, in certain atoms that are essentially ionised or known to be radioactive, then it is proposed that two photons can be emitted.  In other words the electron can decay into two photons.
 
If you don't know about things a basic as this then how can you possibly claim to have developed a model for something as complicated as current flow?

You're right.  If this is how it irritates you, can you imagine how it antagonises academics?  I am only grateful that there are some very, very few who even try to evaluate that model. I suppose, if there's any justification, the model does - at its least - give a different perspective on things.  Or maybe it just amuses them.  Either way, no-one is obliged to acknowledge it in any way.   

You just cannot expect to explain a phenomenon which has been hard to explain in conventional terms with a brand new germ of an idea without first including and explaining all present phenomena which are already very adequately and consistently explained.

Sophiecentaur, have you ever considered that - had I been trained in conventional physics, the liklihood would have been very slim to have come up with new insights.  It had to come from an outsider. 

Remember that any new theory has either to include an explanation of all phenomena or else it must explain why it should only apply in one specific circumstance and have zero effect in all other situations.

I don't think I've done badly here.  It explains the EPR paradox, size/mass ratio of the proton to the electron, magnet on magnet interactions, current flow, gravity, dark force, dark energy, and on and on.  The paper details the scope.  I've got an idea that you've never read the field model.  You've possibly only read the paper submitted to the IET.

Science may appear tiresome but we would be nowhere if we had chased every wild goose that came along as we aim at greater understanding.


I agree. 

And what, exactly, do you mean by a "Shunt Circuit"? This is a very relevant question because half of the circuits (or sub-circuits) ever devised are 'shunt' in the conventional sense of the term. We should expect to find your effect all over the place. Yes, I know you say the circumstances are special but, without a deep understanding of what was going on, how did you arrive at your particular parameter values? Audio circuits from the year dot have been subjected to extensive and detailed frequency sweeps and analysis so your 'special conditions would keep showing up as anomalies / imperfections in frequency response.

I cannot explain this. 

I have to conclude that, somewhere, there must be a flaw in your methodology which has lead you to an erroneous conclusion. You have then tried to explain it in terms of a new mystic system which you, by your own admission, have not described in detail - certainly not in any quantitative way.

On the basis of pure probability this is unarguable.

[lyner]

Your ideas all seem to be totally qualitative. Your so-called explanations of EPR paradox etc. are not backed up with figures. They are just arm waving. There is no point in my giving you a course in 'proper' physics. Any book cn do that for you and with more and better resources. I have a feeling you would rather be able to claim ignorance of the more difficult points of conventional Science because that avoids your having to reconcile it with your own ideas.
You are in a win win situation if you neither have to understand what the rest of Science consists of nor back up your theory in detail. You never did relate your ideas quantitatively to your results and that is essential in serious Science.
The circuit experiment of yours is clearly not supported by serious reasoning as you are not prepared to answer some of the very reasonable and simple questions I have asked.
I am afraid that we will have to call it a day- until you do some more homework and get yourself into a position where you actually know some conventional Science. If you are smart enough to come up with a seriously plausible theory of your own then you are smart enough to do that.

[witsend]

Sophiecentaur,  this is getting awfully repetitive.  I have a simple question.  Have you even read my field model?  On that same link?  NOT the IET paper as that only tries to explain current flow in terms of the model.  The actual model is fully described on that same link.  Written in white on a blue background.   This same model is also described in a PDF file at the end of that very long blog.  The PDF file has the advantage of a few more diagrams.  It's easier on the eye because its standard black print on a white background.  It also has more diagrams in it.  This field model excercise reconciles the size/mass ratio of the proton to the electron.  It attributes the 'god particle' with the property of mass, charge and velocity,  It determines the composites of that particle which would result in OBSERVED properties of known particles.  It goes much further than that because it proposes how a magnetic field is structured and what structures it.

In conventional physics there are many unanswered questions. May I list some.  The EPR effect, many questions related to superluminal communication, magnet on magnet interactions, an understanding of gravity and many questions related to dark matter and dark energy.  I have proposed that the existence of this particle goes some considerable way to explaining these and about twenty unanswered imponderables.  I've described it as variation of a string theory.  The difference is that only a very few people understand string theories.  And they are also string theorists.  Anyone can understand mine.

About the quality of the writing - here you have every reason to complain.  It's words - not math.  But if you want to know why I ever attempted it - it's precisely because I took up Pauli and Einstein's challenge that physics should be explicable with the use of simple concepts.  Pauli went further.  He said that if it's not understandable to your average high school student then it's probably wrong. 

And the electric circuit - albeit simple - is excessively boring to argue in any context at all.  Just look at the numbers in that test and compare this to classical electrodynamic requirement.  One or other is wrong or perhaps quantum physics does not give the whole answer. 

This entire exercise has taken me ten years to 'bring it to the table' so to speak. I chose this forum because, among the many that I had looked at, the level of readership here seems superior to others that I've seen.  I welcome any critical denial of the concepts themselves.

And to ask me to understand conventional terms in electric current theory - I simply cannot.  It defeats me because I find it to be inherently contradictory.  Just as you are irritated at my lack of knowledge of it, I am supremely irritated at its foundational concepts. If I could reconcile these then I'd possibly get more interest.

As I've written in my paper, the electromagnetic interaction is simply not evident in a magnet on magnet interaction.  No-one to this day, has found an electric field when one magnet interacts with another.  That's huge. 

       

[lyner]

What does your (pen)ultimate sentence mean?

If you can't comment about and won't learn conventional Science because it "annoys" you then you aren't really in a position to reject it validly. Just because you don't like it is no reason at all.

I really don't see why I or anyone else should trudge through your paper, when I have increasing doubts about your ability to understand a well established system which you appear to reject out of hand.  What guarantee have I that it will make any more sense than the sentence I refer to, above? You seem to suggest that you have described, in one document, a complete new model. Amazing.

[witsend]

Hi Sophiecentaur.  You challenge me on absolutely every level.  It's what I hoped for from this forum.  But I cant win this argument if I'm first criticised for not arguing the whole thing, and then for arguing it.

But I hear you.  There's no guarantee that you'll get anything out of it, other than a headache.  I feel shy that the exercise is so clumsily explained.  But I've taken my courage in both hands and 'put it out there'.  I hope you'll read it because I've got a shrewd idea that you would probably understand it.

But I'm braced for attack in the unlikely event that you do.

My hope, for what it's worth is that it's eventually read by a real scholar.  It needs to be whipped into better shape and published.  If I'm ever included in such an exercise, then that would be the ultimate prize.  But you see for yourself.  It's out there.  So anyone can do with it anything that they please. And though clumsily explained there are some seminal ideas there.

 

[lyner]

I just looked through your paper. It is no more than a list of assertions with no supporting, quantitative, evidence and no cohesion. I wish I had looked at it before and not at your "shunt circuit" paper. It is total non-Science from beginning to end.
The paper neither explains  nor resolves anything; it is just a technical name-dropping exercise.
Read a few serious publications and you will find reasoned argument, maths and measurements; your paper has none of these.

[witsend]

I didn't expect and attack before you've read it.  I take comfort that you've only 'scanned it'.  I have never 'dropped names'.  I pride myself of always admitting to what I do not know.  But by the same token I believe I can take pride in what I do know.

[witsend]

Deleted

[lyner]

Well, if you don't like scrutiny, you shouldn't invite it, should you?
What is your paper but a list of assertions? Where is there any reasoned argument, backed up by evidence? I didn't have to read every word to spot the lack of Maths and Data, which are the basis of all good Science. In a paper which claims to have such a significant message, I would expect lots and lots of both.
If this is too much for you, I'll just stop posting here.