There is no such thing as static electricity as commonly imagined and even descriptions from mainstream science are self-contradictory. All electromagnetic fields are composed of ‘living’ filaments of spiral field vortices which propagate at the speed of light and contain their own ‘energy’.
‘Movement’, i.e. field movement is intrinsic to electromagnetic fields, the vortices want to go somewhere, meaning nothing is ever truly static and the field itself can act as an energy source.
Field propagation is at the speed of light as with photons, but the propagation speed of a field vortex will depend upon the pitch of the vortex or the exact characteristics of the ring structure.
A conventional static field is a conglomeration of moving vortices. However, this fine grained structure has been missed owing to the crude nature of the measuring instruments and the unquestioning acceptance of an over simplified and inconsistent theory.
Classical theory
The classical model of an electrostatic field is based upon the idea of a ‘charge’ (an electron) and an associated ‘force field’ which adopts a radial configuration (right) and obeys an inverse square law out to an infinite distance: Coulomb’s law
For most practical purposes this seems to work but consider what happens if a shield of lead (Pb) is applied to eliminate the field and then removed; the field disappears immediately and is then instantly renewed. Coulomb’s law should still hold but this means that the field should come into existence again all the way to infinity in no time at all!
Physicists know this and know that it is impossible but seem to think that when the shield is removed, what happens is that the field somehow repairs itself from the charge outwards, radiating to infinity at the speed of light, whereupon it knows to stop and stabilise in order to re-establish Coulomb’s Law.
So the field has ‘moved’ outwards (i.e. it is not static) and it has originated from a small charge which never seems to run out of ‘field substance’, never runs out of energy to renew an infinite field in an instant and maintain it indefinitely.
Similar concerns apply to what happens if an electron is moved. In this case, in order for Coulomb’s law to hold, the entire field all the way out to infinity must also move with it.
This is inconceivable to sane people and Newton had similar concerns about the nature of gravity. Any instantaneous action at a distance is in any case a contradiction of the principles of special relativity and so classical physics and relativity are at odds with each other. They cannot both be true at once and the absurdity of the standard description means that classical electrostatic theory at least is flawed and even inconsistent with Newton:
“This form of solutions need not obey Newton’s third law as is the case in the framework of special relativity (yet without violating relativistic-energy momentum conservation)” – Wikipedia
No charge!
Classical theory relies heavily upon the idea of ‘charge’ as being the source of electric fields, but charge as such does not exist and attachment to this concept has proved to have a stifling effect upon improving electrostatic theory.
How is charge measured? How do we know it exists? It has not been described directly but we ‘know’ it exists because we can measure the forces exerted by it and then use Coulomb’s law to calculate the amount of charge that must have created such force.
This is very obviously a circular argument: “Charge creates force so any observation of a force is proof of the existence of charge”. Clear bunk.
Vortex theory: the electron
According to the vortex theory of Konstantin Meyl, an electron is merely the ‘vortex radius’ of a spherical-toroidal shaped electromagnetic field. The vortex was created from an extended field of an arbitrarily large size which continues to morph, mutate and expand throughout the cosmos.
The field has energy of its own and is self-maintaining by itself but in practice will interact with the local field structure, whether this be within an atom or in the ‘void’ of space. Measurements of the field around a particle will imply a spherical structure and lead physicists to infer the existence of ‘charge’ because that is what their theory says.
Within this framework, the whole of ‘matter’ is described as field structures and the only ‘forces’ available are electromagnetic forces. Therefore, the only way to move an electron is by the application of a motivational field. Such field will interact with the field surrounding the electron and the effects will spiral inwards towards the vortex centre of the little ‘particle’ thereby causing movement of the vortex.
So here it is the deformation of the field that leads to the movement of the ‘charge’ and not the other way around.
In vortex physics, the field is the primal cause and the illusion of matter is a downstream effect. Classical physics tries to have all this inverted, with ‘matter’ or the ‘properties of matter’ (charge) as the origin of force . This just leads to confusion.
Charged objects
A single electron takes the form of a single spherical vortex structure but a charged object such as a balloon or a charged metal sphere is a different matter.
The top of a Van de Graaff generator is a conductive ‘sphere’ filled with electrical eddy currents. These are field vortices that are not stabilised into electrons or positrons and are free to mutate into different configurations as conditions allow.
Vortices move and propagate, they move to the surface of the metal via mutual repulsion and form a ‘layer’ owing to the difference in conductivity between the metal and the surrounding air. The fields act as accumulators and gather sufficient energy to propagate into the atmosphere, possibly taking on a slightly different configuration appropriate to the ambient conditions.
A radial field of electrical filaments emanates from the sphere and propagates outwards to infinity. Measuring devices will take an average over a relatively large area of this field and conclude a ‘potential’ that diminishes according to an inverse square law.
The sphere is distributing energy and so the field is diminishing accordingly. This is interpreted in the mainstream as ‘charge loss’ i.e. the loss of actual matter (electrons or ions) from the object! A pattern to look for in physics is the offhand dismissal of ‘losses’ and ‘noise’ as if these things need no explanation, as if the laws of physics do not apply here. By ignoring inconveniences, the impression is created of a consistent theoretical framework when nothing of the sort exists.
Coulomb’s law (vortex interpretation)
So measurement of field strength (electrical potential) is really an average of the effects of field vortices and this will approximate an inverse square law according to geometric considerations alone; the filaments spread out over a greater volume of space and this is sufficient to produce the law.
Now consider shielding with a lead cage and then removing it suddenly. The eddy currents propagate outwards at close to the speed of light depending upon helical pitch and the field is renewed in due course.
Theoretically the propagation is out to infinity, but it doesn’t ever stop as infinity is never reached and in any case the field in this case is emphatically not static but in a state of continuous radiation with continual concomitant ‘losses’ from the charged sphere.
If the sphere is moved suddenly, then field effects will propagate outwards similar to the way that waves and eddies spread from a stone tossed into a whirlpool. Field propagation itself is at the speed of light but emergent effects will move at different speeds according to their dynamic geometry. The field ‘travels’ it is never static.
Friction
If two substances are rubbed against each other, the atoms do not actually ‘touch’ each other as such an idea does not make sense in either classical or vortex physics. Do atoms ‘touch’?
Instead what happens is that the vortex radii of many electrons will come very close together, creating very strong field interference. The kinetic energy of rubbing is converted to vortex energy in the atomic structure and the associated ‘field drag’ is experienced as a resistance to movement, i.e. ‘friction’.
We now have an excess of vortex energy over baseline and eventual destabilisation will lead to several phenomena:
- Transfer of vortex energy throughout the medium is known as heat diffusion
- The reconfiguring of a vortex into a plain old photon in the infrared range
- The dissipation of electric eddy currents away from the material
The third of these being what is called the triboelectric effect . A ‘static’ electric field has been created without the need to rip an atom apart by stripping electrons from the outer shell.
The Van de Graaff generator
We are now ready to tackle this complex subject. This is simply not understood by the mainstream even according to their own account.
In their version, positive ‘charge’ is created either by extracting protons from the centre of atoms or by stripping off electrons to leave a positive ion. Both these are ‘matter’ and they move obligingly around the circuit, are recreated at (2) by field induction and gather on the outside of the metal shell where they create the infinite field in an instant and then leak away to the surrounding air. The metal dome is continually losing material substances but never seems to shrink, run out of ions or develop an sort of film at the surface. Very suspicious.
Eventual spark discharge is via ionisation of the surrounding air in accordance with an enormous ‘voltage’; yet another breaking down of atomic structure.
The explanation from vortex physics is still not simple but really only involves a single process, which is to say the transformation of field vortices from one semi-stable structure to another depending upon the local conditions.
The rubber band is an insulator and so favours, (via the triboelectric effect) a vortex of magnetic potential over a vortex of electrical movement. Movement is intrinsic to field vortices which aids in self-organisation of self-similar structures.
The field structures from the band will form particularly around the top of the wheel where there is elastic deformation of the rubber. They will transmute into positive electrical vortices at the surface and propagate through the air to the graphite brushes.
More propagation is guided by the strong conductivity of the metal dome and eventually field propagation occurs from the dome to the outside atmosphere as described above. No flying matter is needed and no ‘field induction’.
Spark discharge may well be accompanied by ionisation but this may not necessarily be the cause. If the field is uniform then why is the discharge so localised and why does it often take on a vortex shape (right). Discharge is via field vortex and the centre of the vortex increases field intensity which leads to ionisation.
So it is the field vortex that precedes and therefore causes the ionisation and not the ionisation that somehow forms vortices as it breaks down the air molecules.
The huge voltages claimed therefore may not be real but may be local effects combined with measurement artefacts. In any case, a ‘voltage’ is the result of averaging over millions of smaller field phenomena. It may even be that vortex filaments are attracted towards the measurement instrument!
The Earth’s electric field
The Earth’s electric field is likewise not static nor uniform. Discharge from the ionosphere is in the form of field vortices and it is these that can affect the electromagnetic bio-field of organic life forms, having some beneficial effects in maintaining bio-rhythms and some detrimental effects in promoting disease. See: Influenza and weather
Wikipedia
Coulomb’s law is described by Wikipedia both as ’empirical’ and as ‘fundamental’ at the same time which does rather highlight the confusion over the whole idea.
Concluding remarks
The idea of a static field and the requirement that it must come from ‘charge’, that it is inextricably dependent upon ‘matter’ may be good enough for many practical purposes, but is not theoretically tenable and therefore unsuitable as a foundational concept in physics.
It may be framed as merely ’empirical’ but is invariably regarded as ‘fundamental’ and immutable in the absence of anything better. This attitude has proved quite crippling in terms of making any sort of advancement in a wide area of theoretical physics and has resulted in the workings of biological systems seeming utterly incomprehensible.
This has led to many serious researchers concluding the existence some sort of vitalistic force in living systems. They are not wrong. The élan vital is nothing more or less than the organised movement of field vortices as they impact upon biological tissue. The tissue guides the field movement and the field energy ‘enlivens’ the tissue.
The idea of a field that is static, uniform and dependent upon charge should be cast aside in favour of a field that is moving, vortex-like and independent of a material source.
The vortex theories of Konstantin Meyl are not just a speculative adjunct to contemporary science but a necessary replacement for many areas.
Vortex physics volume 1: https://meyl.eu/go/indexcbbc.html
Related pages: