Conclusion

Using Morton Spears' simple model of the atom, I have been able to derive structures and simple rules to explain the universe entirely in terms of three quanta, one negative with hoops covering its surface, a second one positive with hooks covering its surface, and a third one, neutral with hooks and hoops covering its surface in equal measure.

Put into a universe of space, time and energy, the quanta form all the structures and forces known to us.

This does not mean that this model is completely accurate in the way it portrays the sub-atomic. However, it suggests strongly that something very similar to what is described in this book is behind the universe as we know it.

If you enjoyed reading this book, please let friends know about it.

Thank you for reading and sharing my book.

Fredrik Nygaard

How Gravity Affects Photons

The fact that neutrinos are smaller than photons is key to understanding how photons are affected by gravity.

In the sea of zero-point particles, everywhere present in space, neutrinos have the same advantage that red photons have over blue photons in transparent media. Neutrinos roll past obstacles more directly than photons.

Obstacles in space includes zero-point photons. Neutrinos can therefore overtake photons as they slalom through space.

The fact that neutrinos can overtake photons in a race trough space was demonstrated and confirmed a few years back, but has later been demented by the researches who performed the experiment. However, in the Velcro model, neutrinos must be able to do this in order to affect photons correctly with regards to gravity.

Neutrino in the process of overtaking a photon.

Although both the neutrino and the photon travel at the speed of light, neutrinos always has a slightly shorter route to travel. In a race between photons and neutrinos, neutrinos come out the winner, just like red photons always end up the winner over blue photons in a race through a transparent medium.

It should also be noted that neutrinos communicate their information with other neutrinos. Incoming neutrinos are informed of the presence of massive bodies through collisions with outgoing neutrinos.

Photons do not move through an empty space, but a space filled with neutrinos carrying information about the location and size of nearby objects. This information includes the presence of photons.

Collisions between neutrinos carrying information about a photon, and neutrinos carrying information about a nearby massive object, create under-pressure in the exact same way under-pressure is created by collisions between neutrinos carrying information about massive objects.

This means that neutrinos affect photons in the same way they affect inertial matter.

What applies to inertial matter regarding gravity applies to photons as well.

However, photons behave slightly different from inertial matter under the influence of gravity.

Unable to slow down, outgoing photons have no choice but to loose some of their energy through shrinkage, so outgoing photons experience a red-shift.

Incoming photons on the other hand cannot speed up, so they have to blue-shift in order to keep their speed constant.

It is only when photons travel parallel to a gravitational field that they behave exactly like inert matter. In such cases, they will bend towards the massive object as if space was curved.

However, there is no curved space. All that is happening is that neutrinos interact with photons in the exact same way that they interact with massive objects.

Planets, Moons and Stars

We know from measuring the electric potential gradient of our atmosphere that our planet is negatively charged compared to the ionosphere. The potential difference is about 300,000 volt.

It is the potential difference between the ionosphere and the surface of our planet that keeps our atmosphere from escaping into space. The much weaker gravitational force would not be able to do this on its own.

However, since everything on the surface of our planet, including ourselves, is at electric equilibrium with earth, it is gravity, rather than the electric force, that pulls on us. It is also the gravitational force that keeps Earth in orbit around the Sun, and the Moon in orbit around Earth.

The motion of planets and moons in our solar system are demonstrably due to a well defined force. This was first formalized by the German astronomer Johannes Kepler in 1609.

However, since all planets, moons and stars are likely to have negatively charged surfaces, just like our own planet, there must be electrostatic repulsion between these objects.

It cannot be regular electrostatic attraction that keeps the solar system together. Something else must be going on.

Furthermore, for negative charge to stick to the surface of astronomic bodies, there must be a corresponding positive charge at their centre. There must therefore be electric pressure inside all planets, moons and stars.

Since we know that gravity is measured from the centre of astronomic bodies, and not from their surfaces, as is the case with the electrostatic force, there can be no net gravity at the centre of planets, moons and stars. However, there must be net outward electric pressure at the centre of such bodies.

If a cavity was to develop inside an astronomic body, there would be no way to make it disappear.

This was first recognized by Isaac Newton in his mathematical work on gravity. In his shell theorem he demonstrated that there is nothing to stop astronomic bodies from developing empty cavities. When the astronomer Edmond Halley suggested to Newton that our planet may be hollow, Newton did not object. There was nothing in Newton's theory to counter Edmond Halley's suggestion.

Now that we know that there must be electric pressure inside all astronomic bodies, there is even less reason to object to the notion that such bodies are hollow.

Seismic analysis by Jan Lamprecht and recent observations of Jupiter by NASA, collaborate further in support of the hollow planet theory.

Cross section of a hollow planet with neutrino over-pressure at its core.

If the electric pressure inside a planet is sufficiently strong, it may even expand.

As it happens, there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that Earth is in fact expanding. If we cut away all the oceans on our planet, the continents of our planets would fit perfectly together into a smaller sphere.

Also, no ocean is older then 300 million years, while the continents are estimated to be 4,000 million years old. Oceans appear to be the rifts produced by the expansion of our planet.

The electrostatic force inside astronomic bodies is very strong. The same must be the case between astronomic bodies. Yet, the much weaker gravitational force manages to overcome this force at a distance. It even becomes dominant to the extent that the electrostatic repulsion between astronomic bodies is rarely considered in astronomy.

How is this possible?

The answer to this lies in the fact that electrostatic repulsion is measured between surfaces, while gravity is measured from the centre of objects.

From Coulomb's Law, we know that two similarly charged bodies will produce an enormous repelling force when in close proximity to each other. In fact, they cannot get into direct contact with each other without first harmonizing their charges.

It is therefore close to impossible to produce a collision between astronomic bodies. For such a collision to happen, enormous discharges must first occur.

Gravity on the other hand is measured from the centre of astronomic bodies.

This means that if there is enough gravity produced by a planet, gravity can become dominant at a distance. As we move away from the planet, the relative difference in distance between its centre and its surface becomes smaller. At large distances, the difference can be ignored, and we can simply add up the two forces to calculate an overall force.

For large bodies, gravity always ends up dominant at great distances, and we get the orbits that we are familiar with.

From earlier chapters, we know that electrical force is produced by collisions between neutrinos. When collisions are bouncy, neutrinos stay in the field, we get over-pressure and hence repulsion. If collisions are abrasive, neutrinos make a turn, they leave the field. The result is under-pressure and hence attraction.

In the case of equally charged surfaces, we have bouncy collisions of neutrinos in the field between them. There is over-pressure in the form of electrostatic repulsion.

However, neutrinos are extremely small. They have no trouble finding their way into the centre of astronomic bodies. Many neutrinos zip right through. But many others bounce off atomic nuclei and electrons inside such bodies. When neutrinos exit astronomic bodies, many of them carry information about their internals.

Neutrinos do not only carry information about the charge present at the surface of astronomic bodies. They carry information about the entire body. Neutrinos leave planets with a footprint of the last nucleus or electron that they hit.

At large distances, astronomic bodies appear as point sources with a net charge of zero. This means that we have much the same situation in the space between astronomic bodies that we have in molecules. There is a net charge of zero. But since positive hook covered neutrinos have a slight affinity for each other, there is a tiny overall attracting force keeping astronomic bodies in their orbits.

Planets held together by net neutrino under-pressure, also known as gravity.

Gravity is due to the imbalance in reactivity between hooks and hoops. This imbalance is also the reason we have molecular bindings between atoms, and why protons are so much bigger than electrons.

In the Velcro model, gravity is no mystery. It is merely one of many phenomena attributed to the fact that hooks have a slight affinity for each other.

The force of gravity is communicated by neutrinos. This means that it depends on the availability of neutrinos, just like the electric force.

Gravity is also dependent on the size of atomic nuclei (inertia). The bigger the nuclei, the more neutrinos are informed of their presence. The charge remains unchanged, but more neutrinos get involved in the communication. This increases the gravitational effect which relies on the number of neutrinos involve rather than the overall charge of the system.

Gravity is therefore a variable force, just like any other force or phenomenon dependent on the availability of neutrinos, zero-point photons, or inertia.

Specifically, the constant G in Newton's universal law of gravity is a variable, not a constant.

From this we can conclude that the orbits of planets around our sun, the orbits of moons around planets, and the gravitational condition on all planets, including Earth, may have been different in the past.

Atoms

In the Velcro model, positive and negative quanta blend into each other when structures are made. This was mentioned in the chapter on the positron as an explanation to why positrons and electrons are less reactive than single positive and negative quanta.

All structures in the Velcro model have their hooks and hoops mixed into each other, making them less reactive than single positive or negative quanta.

The larger the structure, the more opportunity there is for mixing, and the less reactive are the surfaces.

Considering that the proton has thousands of quanta, yet a net charge of only one, it must be almost as smooth as a neutrino. Add neutrons with no net charge into the mix, and we get nuclei with remarkably smooth and non-reactive surfaces.

This is the reason why free electrons do not readily attach themselves to atomic nuclei.

Instead of attaching themselves to lone atomic nuclei, passing electron will bounce off of them. If they come into the collision with a lot of energy, the electrons will disappear into space after the collision.

However, if an electron has too little energy to escape the electric force between itself and the nucleus, it will be dragged down again for another bounce.

Neither able to attach itself to the nucleus, nor escape its electric field, the free electron is trapped. It bounces about wildly in all directions, neither loosing energy nor gaining energy because the collisions are completely elastic.

This bouncing about is the electron cloud that standard quantum mechanics talk of.

An atomic nucleus is able to trap as many free electrons as its overall positive charge, and each electron will find its own place to bounce about as far away as possible from other trapped electrons. After all, there is electric repulsion between the electrons.

Electric attraction keep the trapped electrons from escaping the nucleus. Electric repulsion between electrons keep each electron bouncing about in its own little area as a so called electron cloud.

Again, we have found a perfectly non-magical and entirely kinetic explanation for a subatomic phenomenon.

As long as the bounces are in complete harmony with the tiny counter-bounce of the nucleus, there is no net transfer of energy from the nucleus to the electron or the other way around.

The bounce of each electron is quickly brought into resonance with the nucleus, once it is trapped.

This is comparable to the resonance that a trampoline jumper exploits when jumping up and down on a trampoline. The jumper must never violate the harmonics of the trampoline, or there will be a violent transfer of energy between the jumper and the trampoline. Anyone who has been unfortunate enough to land on a trampoline in disharmony with it knows how painful that can be.

But the nucleus of an atom is no ordinary trampoline. It does not have a gliding range of harmonics to offer bouncing electrons. Electrons can only bounce off of it with precisely defined energy levels. It is an either or thing. There is a low, minimum bounce, and there are higher bounces. Each with their own well defined energy level.

In some cases, the energy level between a high bounce and a low bounce is exactly that of visible light of some particular colour. In such cases, an electron moving one level down in its bouncing will emit light.

An electron going down one or more energy levels must rid itself of energy, and the only way it can do this is to kick zero-point photons up in energy.

Conversely, if an electron is hit by a photon with a sufficiently strong energy level, it may jump up one or more levels in its jumping by absorbing energy from the photon.

Note that the height of the electron bounces depend on the mass (inertia) of the nucleus. The more massive a nucleus with a certain proton count is, the higher are the resonant jumps. This explains why the light of the heavy deuterium isotopes of hydrogen is bluer than the light of regular hydrogen, as mentioned in the chapter on atomic nuclei.

Helium atom with one excited and one base energy electron bouncing off of it.

Atoms like to join together to form molecules, crystals and metal structures.

This is strange because atoms are electrically neutral. There should be no electric affinity to other atoms. Why, for instance, do hydrogen atoms always join together in pairs to produce hydrogen molecules, or team up with an oxygen atom to form water?

The answer to this lies in the fact that positive quanta are slightly more reactive than negative quanta.

In the chapter on the positron, this fact was used to explain why positrons have a greater tendency than electrons to get tangled into complex structures. This imbalance in reactivity between hooks and hoops explained why there are positively charged protons and neutrally charged neutrons, but no equally large negatively charged structure.

This very same mechanism is behind a minuscule, but vital imbalance in the electric force.

Consider a simple hydrogen molecule.

Two protons, each with their trapped electron bouncing off their surface, come into close proximity of each other.

There are neutrinos flying about, communicating electric force between the four particles.

There is repulsion between the protons, there is repulsion between the electrons, and there is attraction between the electrons and protons.

All together, there is a zero net force. Except, the hook covered neutrinos communicating repulsion between the electrons are slightly reactive. They do not stay as perfectly in the field as the hoop covered neutrinos communicating repulsion between the protons.

The net result is a tiny under-pressure, big enough to keep the molecule together.

Net under-pressure of neutrinos keeps hydrogen molecule together.

The reason atoms join together to produce all the chemical structures that we see around us is that positively charged neutrinos are hook covered and therefore slightly more reactive than the hoop covered negatively charged neutrinos.

Chemical bindings are a function of the electric force, the imbalance between hooks and hoops, and the mass (inertia) of atomic nuclei.

Of these three factors, only the imbalance between hooks and hoops are constant. The electrical force is dependent on the availability of neutrinos in the space we occupy, and the inertia of protons and neutrons depend on their size, which is known to grow over time.

We can therefore conclude that the strength of chemical bindings are likely to be variable too.

Also, buoyancy of liquids and gases depend on the relative density of atoms, which in turn depends on the mass of atomic nuclei and how closely the electric force is tying atoms together.

Buoyancy too, is variable.

The mega-insects and heavily armoured fishes that existed in a distant past, long before the dinosaurs, were only possible because the buoyancy of air and water relative to carbon and calcium was greater back then. The reason we have no mega-insects or heavily armoured fishes today is due to a change in buoyancy.

Electron-Positron Pair Production

Gamma ray photons are known to spontaneously produce electron-positron pairs when in close vicinity of massive atomic nuclei. At the exact moment that a gamma-ray disappears, an electron-positron pair appears.

The standard explanation for this is that virtual electron-positron pairs get transformed into real electron-positron pairs by gamma-rays when inside the strong electric fields that surround massive atomic nuclei.

However, as explained in the chapter on the photon, the spontaneous appearance of an electron-positron pair can be explained entirely as a transformation of the photon itself. Photons in the Velcro model consist of three negative and three positive quanta, precisely what's needed to produce an electron and a positron.

Furthermore, the strong electric fields in the vicinity of massive nuclei are unlikely to have anything to do with the transformation. The gamma ray is hugely larger than the neutrinos carrying electric force, and unlikely to have much trouble dealing with them.

However, a collision with an atomic nucleus would have some serious consequences for a high energy photon.

Gamma rays are as big as photons get. They are enormously stretched, and cannot stretch much more without breaking apart.

When a gamma ray strikes a massive atomic nucleus in such a way that it must yield most of its energy to the nucleus, the gamma ray has a huge problem. The nucleus has inertia. It resists change to its energy. It takes time to transfer energy from the gamma ray to the nucleus. But the gamma ray cannot slow down. It must therefore stretch while the transfer of energy takes place.

In head on collisions with massive atomic nuclei, gamma rays end up tearing themselves apart, thereby producing an electron-positron pair.

Gamma ray photon heading for trouble.

Atomic Nuclei

Electron, proton and neutron.

According to Morton Spears' calculations, the proton consists of exactly 1089 positive quanta, 1088 negative quanta, and an unknown number of neutral quanta.

This leaves the proton with a net positive charge of one.

The neutron consists of exactly 1090 positive quanta, 1090 negative quanta, and an unknown number of neutral quanta.

This leaves the neutron with a net charge of zero.

Note that the difference in charged particles between the proton and the neutron is exactly two negative quanta and one positive quantum. This is the electron, as explained in the chapter on that particle.

When we combine this with what we know about free neutron decay, it is clear that there is in addition to the three charged quanta, one neutral quantum separating the proton from the neutron.

Free neutron decay.

Free neutrons decay into one proton, one electron and one anti-neutrino. For some reason, Morton Spears did not recognize this in his book on the subject. He incorrectly believed the electron to be a single negative quantum.

The fact that a neutron cannot exist as a free particle in nature without decaying into a proton, electron and anti-neutrino, tells us that the electron and anti-neutrino must form the glue that holds protons together, and that neutrons do not in fact exist as anything but a transient particle.

In the Velcro model of the atomic nucleus, we have protons held together by electrons and neutrinos. The anti-neutrino is just a particular "flavour" of the neutrino, as explained in the chapter of the neutrino. It is not a separate particle. It merely has a particular footprint due to its particular function as glue.

When a piece of inertial matter is split off from a large atomic nucleus through nuclear fission, it always manifests itself as some multiple of protons and neutrons. The smallest possible unit that can be fissioned off is a proton or a neutron, depending on whether or not the "glue" of an electron and a neutrino is included in the piece.

If a proton comes off together with the glue, we refer to it as a neutron. However, the proton soon rids itself of the glue, and this is what is known as free neutron decay.

After the decay, we are left with a proton, known to us as a regular hydrogen nucleus.

If the glue stays with the nucleus, we get a free proton directly. Any decay of the glue will happen in the nucleus that gave up the proton.

What holds the neutrons and protons from falling apart in the Velcro model is not a force as such, but the hooks and hoops of positive, neutral and negative quanta.

The idea that there must be a strong force keeping the nucleus together is based on a misunderstanding about what constitutes a force. Conventional physics view forces as something that is communicated without anything kinetic going on. There is therefore a need to counter the supposed enormous repelling force between positive quanta in the proton due to incessant communication.

However, in the Velcro model the electric force is communicated by colliding neutrinos. The electric force exist only when there is space between charged particles in which neutrinos can move. If there is no space between particles, there is no force.

From this, it follows that there is no electric force between particles in a closely knit structure like the proton or the photon. There is therefore no need for the so called strong force in the Velcro model.

Protons and neutrons are enormous structures, and are therefore capable of storing enormous amounts of energy. However, this comes at a price. Just like the electron, protons and neutrons need time to absorb energy. They have inertia, and their inertia is greater than that of the electron in direct proportion to their relative larger size.

The sluggish absorption of energy by structures larger than a photon is directly proportional to the number of quanta in them, not because quanta have inertia, but because the manner in which larger particles are put together is identical.

Compared to photons, inertial matter are bloated structures full of energy.

Protons and neutrons may well be hollow. If so, some of them may have neutrinos bouncing about inside of them. However, any neutrinos trapped inside protons or neutrons are unlikely to produce any net electric force. The space is too small, and almost certainly sealed off in such a way that no over-pressure can build up inside.

However, when protons come together to form large atomic nuclei in combination with electrons and neutrinos as glue, the pressure inside the structure becomes an issue.

Atomic nuclei are almost certainly hollow structures, bloated, and full of little holes that allows neutrinos to enter and leave the core.

Since atomic nuclei have positive charge in direct proportion to how many protons they have, large atomic nuclei have significant over-pressure inside of them.

This explains why large atomic nuclei tend to be radioactive, and why there is an upper limit to how large atomic nuclei can be.

Atomic nuclei larger than a certain size cannot exist because they would immediately get torn apart by internal pressures. Nuclei that are large, but not so large that they get immediately torn apart, are radioactive in direct relation to how likely they are to get torn apart by a particularly unfortunate combination of neutrino impacts.

Since positive quanta are slightly more reactive than negative quanta, they get more easily entangled into large structures. This is why large particles are either positively or neutrally charged but never negatively charged.

However, this does not explain why protons and neutrons are more than 300 times larger then the electron.

The relative size difference between electrons and protons seems arbitrary. Could it not just as well be some other relationship? Why over 300? Why not under 200?

As it happens, there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that protons and neutrons are not the same size throughout the universe, and may have been substantially smaller in our own region of space in the past.

The astronomer, Halton Arp, noted in his work on young galaxies, so called quasars, that they appear to have lighter, less massive atoms than older galaxies.

The light spectra coming from quasars is heavily red-shifted. This is interpreted by most astronomers as an indication that quasars are distant objects in an expanding universe. However, Halton Arp, noted that quasars often appear to be relatively close to us. The red-shift would therefore have to be due to something different than distance.

Halton Arp's conclusion was that young structures in the universe are not necessarily very distant, but lacking in mass (inertia).

We know from observing the difference in light spectra between a regular hydrogen atom and the more massive hydrogen isotope known as deuterium, that the light spectra of deuterium is blue-shifted relative to regular hydrogen.

The less massive a hydrogen nucleus is, the more red-shifted it is. The physics behind Halton Arp's conclusion is in other words entirely correct.

However, there is an even more compelling reason to believe that protons and neutrons tend to grow over time.

The enormous size of dinosaurs can easily be explained if we are willing to accept that they may have lived in an environment in which there was less inertia.

The inertia we have today, with its accompanying gravity, is greater and stronger than it was in the time of the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs lived in an environment of less inertia and less gravity.

Atomic nuclei were smaller during the time of the dinosaurs. This would have given the nuclei less inertia, and it would have made big nuclei less radioactive, since radioactivity depends on overall size.

Uranium, which is dangerously radioactive to us, may have been quite inert and harmless in the past.

Inertia and radioactivity are not constants in the universe. They are variable, just like the electric and magnetic force.

Radio Transmission

Radio waves were thought of as electromagnetic waves in an ether when they were first discovered back in 1887. However, even radio waves have been demonstrated to be photons, so there is no need for an ether to carry information through the universe.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as an electromagnetic wave in the Velcro model. There is electric force, carried by the neutrino, and the magnetic force carried by the photon. The fact that variations in the two forces tend to correlate is entirely due to the fact that charges in motion induce magnetic force into nearby photons, and magnetic force can induce electric charge into wires if pulsed or otherwise changed.

The way a radio transmitter works is that an alternating current is sent up and down a wire. This is the transmitting antenna.

The alternating current polarize any photon hitting it, so that photons leave the antenna with whatever magnetic footprint the current gave them at the moment of impact. If the current is going up the antenna, photons will be sent off spinning one way. If the current is going down the antenna, photons are sent off spinning the other way.

The polarized photons rush off in all directions at the speed of light. If an antenna is designed in a certain manner, the polarized photons can be directed and focused. The particular design chosen for an antenna depends on whether a signal is to be broadcast to the world, or communicated directly from one point to another. However, this is besides the point. What should be noted is that radio signals are nothing more than polarized low energy photons.

When some of these photons hit a receiving antenna at a distance, they induce electricity into it. How this happens is covered in the chapter on induction of current into a copper wire.

Radio transmission.

The received current is very weak, so it must be amplified in order to produce a useful signal. However, this is also beside the point. What is significant is that the creation, transmission and reception of a radio signal is fully explained by the Velcro model. There is nothing mysterious going on. It is all quite simple and straight forward.

What should be noted is that the above described transmission cannot work unless the photons crossing the space between the transmitter and the receiver carry some energy with them.

This is because electrons have inertia. It takes energy together with spin to put them into motion.

Since zero-point photons carry no energy, we know that the photons used in radio transmission cannot be zero-point photons. They have to be larger. The transmitting antenna does not only set zero-point photons spinning, it pumps them up in size too.

Inducing Current Into a Copper Wire

Imagine a copper wire connected to an ammeter to measure current.

If placed at rest on top of the north or south pole of a magnet, nothing happens. There is no measurable effect of the magnet on the copper wire if nothing moves.

However, if either the magnet or the wire is moved in such a way that the copper wire cuts into the stream of polarized photons coming out of the magnet, then we will register a current.

This can be explained with the two orb Velcro model of the photon as follows.

When a copper wire lies at rest inside a magnetic field, electrons inside the wire are affected by the field in equal measure at either side. The spinning photons streaming into and out of the magnet push electrons at one side of the wire in one direction and electrons at the other side of the wire in the other direction.

This does not produce a net current in the wire since all that happens is that electrons move down one side of the wire and back up on the other side of the wire, completing a local circuit in the stretch of copper wire inside the field.

Electrons spin and move a bit as their hoops get latched onto by the hooks of positive orbs of spinning photons, but there is no net current in the wire.

If we move the copper wire up and down inside the field, nothing change as far as the electrons inside the copper wire is concerned. The spinning photons still affect the electrons equally on both sides of the wire.

However, if we move the copper wire to the side so that it cuts through the field of polarized photons, photons on the cutting side of the copper wire get more traction than the trailing side. The electrons in the wire start moving according to the spin of the photons on the cutting side, and we get a current.

Induction of current into a wire.

Move the copper wire the other way through the field of polarized photons, and the spinning photons on the other side of the wire get more traction. The current starts moving in the other direction.

Turn the magnet, so the other pole points up. Repeat the experiment, and note that the current flows the opposite ways relative to the motion of the wire. The photons are spinning the other way, causing electrons to move in the opposite direction when they get traction.

Keep the wire in position and wave the magnet about instead, and current is also induced. It does not matter if it is the copper wire or the magnetic field that is moved. As long as the wire cuts through the magnetic flux lines, there will be current induced into it.

The flow of electrons inside the rest of the copper wire can be envisioned as a variant of Newton's cradle, with electrons pushing on each other, moving energy down the wire at a tremendous speed.

However, the electrons never touch each other directly. What is happening is that neutrinos between the electrons transfer energy down the line. As explained in the chapter on the neutrino, there is neutrino pressure between electrons. This transfers energy down the line while keeping the electrons from colliding.

Since neutrinos move about at the speed of light, also inside copper wires, a pressure wave develops in which the kinetic energy of electrons affected by the magnetic field is transmitted to the ammeter in an instance.

The Magnetic Field

As we have already seen with ferrofluids, magnetic fields fan out to the side. Outgoing photons allow incoming photons to come in between them. To do this, the outgoing photons have to yield to the incoming ones.

If we place a bar magnet under a sheet of paper, and sprinkle iron filings on top of it, we can see that this fanning out continues in all directions so that we get a pattern that connects the north pole to the south pole.

Magnetic field lines illustrated by iron filings on paper above a magnet.

By Newton Henry Black - Newton Henry Black, Harvey N. Davis (1913) Practical Physics, The MacMillan Co., USA, p. 242, fig. 200, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73846

This is sometimes interpreted as some kind of overall flow between the poles. However, polarized photons stream out from the north and the south pole of magnets in equal measure. There is no overall flow. All that is happening is that the polarized photons arrange themselves in the most efficient manner possible. Magnets polarize photons which in turn polarize all photons in the entire space around the magnet.

If two magnets are placed so that their north poles or south poles face each other, polarized photons from the magnets will meet head on in a non-reactive collision. Since the colliding orbs are of the same charge, there is no latching onto each other. There are no hard turns, so the photons will tend to stay in the field. The result is over-pressure and hence repulsion between the poles.

Photons do not react with each other, so they stay in the field and produce over-pressure.

Conversely, if a north pole is facing a south pole, the polarized photons will collide with hooks against hoops. The collisions will be abrasive. The photons will latch onto each other. They will make a hard turn and exit the field. There will be under-pressure and therefore attraction between the magnets.

Photons react to each other, so they exit the field and produce under-pressure.

This is identical to how neutrinos produce over-pressure and under-pressure through collisions with each other. The magnetic force is communicated by photons in the exact same way that the electric force is communicated by neutrinos.

From this it follows that the magnetic force is just as dependent on the availability of photons as the electric force is dependent on neutrinos.

The magnetic force is therefore just as unlikely as the electric force to be constant throughout space and time. The strength of a magnetic force does not depends solely on the strength of the magnet. It depends just as much on much on the availability of photons.

Finally, it should be noted that the fact that magnets polarize photons in their vicinity, including visible light has been known since Victorian times. Polarization of light in the presence of a magnet was first observed by Michael Faraday in 1845, and is today known as the Faraday effect. However, the effect has been largely misinterpreted as merely one of many properties of magnetic fields. But polarized light is not merely an effect of magnetism. Polarized light is magnetism.

Magnets and Ferrofluids

The precise mechanism of what's going on inside magnets is impossible to know without detailed knowledge of their structure. However, there are nevertheless quite a few things that can be said about magnets in terms of the two orb Velcro model of photons.

What we know about metals is that they are not random collections of atoms. They are mega-structures. Treated the right way, they have orientation, like crystals.

A random zero-point photon finding its way into a magnet will find atoms structured in such a way that there are quick ways out of it, and lengthy ways out of it.

Bouncing about inside a magnet, many zero-point photon will find the quick exits. These are tunnels in the lattice going in the north-south direction.

This is not unique to magnets. All crystals have this feature, yet very few crystals, if any, are magnets. So the presence of quick exit routes do not in themselves explain magnets.

What makes magnets special is that the walls of their tunnels are lined with electrons that give the photons the required spin and direction to form sustainable polarization. The more coordinated and vigorous the electrons spin, the stronger is the magnet.

The tunnels are necessarily uniformly lined with spinning electrons throughout the metal, so photons come out spinning the same way whichever end they come out of.

However, they will come out with opposite direction. That means that the ones coming out of the north pole spin opposite of the ones coming out of the south pole, when viewed in the direction they are travelling.

Magnet inducing spin into photons streaming out of the south and north poles.

However, viewed from the north, all photons coming out of the magnet spin with their negative orbs rotating in a clockwise direction. This fact can be derived from Ampère's right-hand grip rule, and also from how current is induced into copper wires.

The fact that photons come streaming out in equal measure from both ends of a magnet tells us that there must be a lot of tunnels going through the metal, and that they must have entry points as well as exit points at the poles. Otherwise, there would be a permanent photon over-pressure at the poles and a corresponding under-pressure at the sides. This would violate the laws of thermodynamics, and is obviously not happening since it would produce a noticeable wind.

The way magnets allow for incoming photons at the poles is by setting them spinning in the same direction as the outgoing photons.

When outgoing photons meet incoming photons, they brush into them, sharing some of their spin. This polarize the incoming photons as they head towards the magnet. Even before they enter the magnet, they have a certain degree of polarization.

Photons entering and leaving both ends of a magnet.

Note that spin is transferred between opposite charge orbs. Like charge orbs do not react with each other since they cannot latch onto each other. Negative orbs communicate their spin to positive orbs and visa versa. The fact that the negative and positive orbs spin in opposite direction to each other allows for spin to be maintained and shared.

The sharing of spin from outgoing to incoming photons produces a pattern in which highly polarized outgoing photons are surrounded by progressively less polarized photons. Between each highly polarized outgoing photon, there is a valley, so to speak, of less polarized photons.

Interestingly enough, it is in fact possible to observe this pattern.

When a ferrofluid is placed on top of a magnet, it morphs into sharp peaks surrounded by shallow valleys. Highly polarized outgoing photons are producing the peaks, while less polarized incoming photons are producing the valleys.

Ferrofluid

By Steve Jurvetson - http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/136481113/, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=906519

Ampère's Right-Hand Grip Rule

A positive ion moving through space will develop a magnetic field around it in such a way that if we point our right hand thumb in the direction of the ion's motion, our gripping fingers curve the same way the magnetic field curves around the ion. This is called Ampère's right-hand grip rule in honour of the man who discovered it.

In general, the rule states that an electric current will always generate a magnetic field around it that curves in such a way that when we point our right hand thumb in the direction of the current, our gripping fingers curve in the direction of the magnetic field.

Ampère's right-hand grip rule.

The way this is explained using the two orb Velcro photon is that the hooks covering the positive ion latch onto the hoops covering the negatively charged orbs of photons. This orients the affected photons in such a way that they start spinning with their axis perpendicular to the direction of motion of the ion.

Since zero-point photons are everywhere in great numbers, a lot of photons are affected by the ion.

There is no lack of photons. Magnetism does not require light or the existence of any other high energy photons. However, high energy photons will also be affected should they strike an ion.

Since photons move in all directions at the speed of light, all photons are uniquely affected by their particular encounter with the ion. But the overall tendency will be to spin in harmony with the direction of motion of the ion. The faster the ion moves, the more photons will harmonize their spin with the ion, and the stronger will be the magnetic field around it.

If we imagine the positive ion moving from right to left, then the photons bouncing off the top of the ion will tend to end up with their negative orbs spinning clockwise. Photons bouncing off the bottom of the ion will also tend to end up with their negative orbs spinning clockwise.

Positive ion producing magnetism in photons by setting their negative orbs spinning.

A ring of magnetism develops around the ion as it sets negative orbs of photons spinning perpendicular to its motion.

An interesting feature of electric currents is that a positive ion moving in one direction has the exact same effect as an identically strong negative ion going in the opposite direction, and herein lies the reason that the Velcro model of the photon has two orbs that spin at the exact same rate but in opposite direction to each other.

To illustrate this, let us consider a negative ion moving from left to right. This should produce the exact same effect as the positive ion moving from right to left.

Just like the positive ion, the negative ion will interact with photons bouncing off of it, causing them to spin. However, instead of a surface covered with hooks, the negative ion has a surface covered with hoops. The negative ion latches onto the hooks of the positive orbs of photons.

Since the negative ion is moving from left to right, it sets photons bouncing off its top spinning with their positive orbs turning in a counter-clockwise direction. Photons bouncing off the ion's bottom also start spinning with their positive orbs in a counter-clockwise direction.

Negative ion producing magnetism in photons by setting their positive orbs spinning.

This means that the negative orbs are spinning in the same direction in both cases. The magnetic field developed around the two ions are therefore identical.

The two orb Velcro model of the photon behaves precisely the way it has to in order to model real world magnetism around charges in motion.