[JohnVK]

The information is standard


Magnetic fields are axial... north to south and manifest as a torus.....
The electric field is orthogonal to the magnetic field (right angle) so the electric field is equatorial.

so assuming normal space/geometry (Euclidean)
around a planet such as Earth, the electric/magnetic circulation encompasses the matter and out into space, as does the magnetic/electric circulation of the Sun....

The heliosphere of the Sun extends out to where current space craft are....


Data from NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft indicate that the venerable deep-space explorer has encountered a region in space where the intensity of charged particles from beyond our solar system has markedly increased. Voyager scientists looking at this rapid rise draw closer to an inevitable but historic conclusion - that humanity's first emissary to interstellar space is on the edge of our solar system.

The data making the 16-hour-38 minute, 11.1-billion-mile (17.8-billion-kilometre), journey from Voyager 1 to antennas of NASA's Deep Space Network on Earth detail the number of charged particles measured by the two High Energy telescopes aboard the 34-year-old spacecraft

The size of these fields can be measured, L1 and L2 (Lagrangian points) define the limits of Earth's field in the Sun's field.

as an aside
The shape of the fields shown in the diagram above, is rather inaccurate, especially the heliosphere

[namaikaimvputka]

Two giant donuts of this plasma surround Earth, trapped within a region known as the Van Allen Radiation Belts. [the orange lines represent the magnetic filed of Earth]

So space is made up of matter and fields....

The field of any (cosmic) body interacts with other fields around it
much in the same way as seen with iron filings on a paper interacting with two magnets.... but in 3D.

These fields can be analysed and the structure of space is a study of these fields interacting in extent and directional spin.

[oliverlogo]

The electric field forms vortices propagating past two of the Cluster spacecraft. Since the electrons have much lower mass than the ions and can easily be moved around by the electric field, the electrons create a magnetic field, as shown in the bottom panel. (Fig. from Norgren et al., PRL, 2012)


E (vector) is for the electric field
B (vector) is for the magnetic field

The cross product of B and E is called the Poynting vector, represented by BXE

[halyshitzob]

i will go go-oggle them now
thanks

LOL

thanks- but could you google results instead?

putting malware on my system isnt one of my priorities thanks

[scoundtrack]

Two giant donuts of this plasma surround Earth, trapped within a region known as the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

What causes the two belt formation? Is it minimum and maximum electron potential?

[angeldimmon]

What causes the two belt formation? Is it minimum and maximum electron potential?

Does make me wonder how a disc shaped magnet, axially and equatorially aligned with the Earth, given significant AM either with or against the rotation of the Earth, might physically/energetically behave?

[GoodLover]

The cross product of B and E is called the Poynting vector, represented by BXE so BXE = s

basically in cosmic terms

(1/r^3 * 1/r )^0.5 = s

so the resultant force s is
s = 1/r^2

so this resultant is a 1/r^2 force.... and it is directed orthogonal to both E and B

what cosmic force do you know falls off at the square of the distance ?

The Cavendish experiment, performed in 1797–98 by British scientist Henry Cavendish, was the first experiment to measure the force of gravity between masses in the laboratory,[1] and the first to yield accurate values for the gravitational constant. Wiki

By measuring the force between two lead balls, Cavendish measured the relation between the mass of matter and gravity, and so measured the gravitational constant of Newton, G [the two body problem]

The currently accepted value of G = 6.67428 × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2.

Marvellous work... but totally misinterpreted.

[MFSSCW2c]

Marvellous work... but totally misinterpreted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>

Billions have interpreted it correctly.
You seem out on a limb Zarky.

[pMJWFoAWD]

You seem out on a limb Zarky. as always LOL

[7HlBQS8j]

G = 6.67428 × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2. From a torque energy focus

Spin Energy = G m

[Zwnkkvle]

What is matter ?

Does all matter have a field ?

Very deep questions.

1. What is matter? it is the stuff that makes up the observable (maybe in mass terms, but not necessarily) universe.

Is matter solid? Down to the femto-meter level, from scattering experiments, the electron has no solid bit. It is still a wave particle thingy, but to describe a solid ness to an electron may have no "sense"

The proton and neutron you can bounce stuff off in a reflective sense, so they appear to have solid bits, but they are about 1850 times the mass component of the electron, so what ever makes the mass bit of the electron and having nearly 1850 (1836 and 1842) times the component must allow the proton and neutron to be heavy enough to bounce stuff off.

2. Maybe this should read , does all stuff that is a field have a matter component. Electrons by themselves are sort of best modelled as a spinning ball of charge (so has electric and magnetic field components) but alsop has mass, a very small amount of mass, but it has a measurable mass property. Protons have charge ans a magnetic and electric field component and they are sufficiently dense enough to be able to throw things at and watch them bounce off like bouncing off a solidish object. Neutrons have a magnetic spin but not a charge, so something else occurs there. They have a field and mass but which defines the neutron more than the other?

There are other things that have a field but do not appear to have mass components such as neutrinos. You can do muon magnetic resonance, similar to electron magnetic resonance, as you pass muons through a magnet system. This gives them a field, but it is not folded into itself to form a mass.

This page asks questions of the "mass' properties of neutrinos
http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/oscillation.html.

I do not think on this much, and have not read sufficiently deeply on this for a looooong time. Reading the bit about the lack of solid bits of the electron recently made me ponder what you have pondered Zarkov.

Some light reading

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=235921

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleon

In the first of these, the "How to make a masiive particle?" questions seems to come with an answer involving massive amounts of energy (on the scale that these things are, the energies are massive), hadronization, and folding of the energy into a system that is stable.

I still ask if the energy field that create a proton and a neutron is at its centre dense enough to appear solid, and so you can bounce things off it, but is it really a "solid particel".

An interesting set of questions.

[NKUDirectory]

Reading the bit about the lack of solid bits of the electron recently made me ponder what you have pondered Zarkov. Thanks for your post Dr Paul

Yes, there is a lot to investigate in this matter LOL

but it seems only you and I are at this table... a wine Sir ?


on subject

Spin Energy = G m
= 6.67428 × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2 * m (kg)

= 6.67428 × 10−11 m3 s−2

an acceleration of a volume of space... the parameter of the spin field.

[WaicurtaitfuT]

Neutrons are a magnet
and protons and electrons are electric

So why should the an atom be equal in mass to the sum of its parts, necessitating a Higg's particle that provides mass? This assumption seems to limit the origin and mechanism of mass to fit our picture of it.

[first_pr]

So why should the an atom be equal in mass to the sum of its parts, necessitating a Higg's particle that provides mass? This assumption seems to limit the origin and mechanism of mass to fit our picture of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Check out the
"Quark matter's connection with the Higgs"
Started by B.C., Today 07:33 AM thread.....

[Maphpseurse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleon

The proton and neutron are both baryons and both fermions. In the terminology of particle physics, these two particles make up an isospin doublet (I = 1⁄2<font color="#000000">). This explains why their masses are so similar, with the neutron just 0.1% heavier than the proton.

another example of a redundant circular explanation of mass

[Kausilwf]

I want answers Zarkov!

[Fegasderty]

G = 6.67428 × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2.
Spin Energy = G m Of course this is a nonsense

What if the mass = 10^11

MatterMass does not compute in cosmic circulations/calculations
MatterMass makes the field and it is the field that does the math.

On Earth you may refer to mass, and yes there is mass in a planet/star.... but it is a bystander and any calculation re the mass of a planet is bogus
Newtons famous formula [ F or (mv^2)/(r)=(GmM)/(r^2) ] is in grave error... mainly because he allowed the bogus attraction to be his prime mover

[Roneyslelry]

G = 6.67428 × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2.
Spin Energy = G m
Of course this is a nonsense only in the sense that the equals sign is not arithmetic but should be more akin to vectors in electrodynamics
such as BXE=g
Spin Energy is described by cross vectors

Unfortunately for Newton, a scalar mathematical orbital description was used instead of Spin Energy,
so the equals sign in Newton's mass equation is an arithmetic equals sign... and so it all falls down.

[clubcughSheet]

so what of the Cavendish experimental results ?

entanglement of the field spins seems to be the answer... as per Casimir effect (cosmic two body problem)