On Sep 6, 1:21*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

So the question remains where does a photon come from if it is not an
internal function of a free electron. Frankly the capacitor suggests
that the photon is a charge possesed by
a free electron.

photons have no charge.
Could be I believe Cecil thinks otherwise but first we need to verify
the first statement made to determine what path to take. As yet
photons are not in Maxwells laws as we know it. That is Cecil,s track
without the beginning disclosed or a position on my beginning
and he has a problem with that, hopefully he comes down on my side



So again we are back to the Gauss/Maxwell question.

separate guass and maxwell. *gauss wrote laws, maxwell made a collection of
equations and tied them all together... some of which were written
originally by gauss. *the basic laws that went into maxwell's collection
have been well proven separately for over a century,

We are in agreement up to here, a drum roll please!
and as a collection to
explain electromagnetic waves almost as long.
Nope. He added to the laws dt becau8se the metrics must add up to zero
per Newton
From this addition the metrics supply a clue to accellaration of
charge

*but note that maxwell does
not talk about particles, his equations describe fields and waves.

Yes but not a explanation of the addition referring to acelaration of
charge dt

Theories alone have come along by others, waves, particles (photons)
and a little bit of both as yet none have been conclusive.

*They do
contain terms for charge, but do not tie it to any given particle..

Back again we are in agreement

.. and if
you include the force equation then you can talk about mass and charge, but
again not tied to any specific particle.

Again we are in agreement, this is terrific !


Einstein insinuated that the weak force is part of radiation and I
have applied my theorem to that.

ah, so that is where you have crossed up the weak for and radiation...
unfortunately the radiation being described in relation to the weak force is
not electromagnetic radiation,

That is a matter of contention which is why I turned to boundary laws
which exhibit all forces. The one I chose was Gaussion law of statics
to procede upon since it was the basis
for placing a weak force in position which up to that point had not
been applied.
Thus to keep in line with Maxwells laws I was forced to make a static
field dynamic
which is accepted by physics unless I want to make it a special case
as others seem to think

but rather radiation caused by nuclear
decay... most often beta decay

Well the Sun did provide these particles when equilibrium was broken
so if residue from the sun is radio active OR includes such I can
accept that. No problem


where the nucleus emits an electron and
converts a neutron to a proton and an anti-neutrino.

I have "hinted" at neutrinos because it is presently hinted that
several typed of Neutrinos (flavors are emited by the Sun) we also see
light on contact with the Aurora but I decided to hang my hat on a
particle/ free electron because a lot can happen between the Sun and
its travels to Earth.

Well now you are into theory and just like the Higgs field all are
searching for conformation
via existing laws to give some substance to particles between the sun
and the Earth!.


*hmm, do anti-neutrinos
cancel out your magical levitating diamagnetic solar neutrinos?

I have no idea. We do not know what is the difference to flavours
emmitted or their characteristics., What we do know is they enter the
earth as the smallest mass known
( from the Italian world of Enrico)
All of this starts with the Gauss/Maxwell aproach where I say you can
turn a static field into a dynamic field which is against the
perception of those on the group that are educated ,
academically.At least so far as those who are comfortable with both of
these laws.