A response to Miles' paper: Why Gravity is not a Function of Charge

Go down

A response to Miles' paper: Why Gravity is not a Function of Charge

Post by Lichtmechaniker on Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:19 pm

Hi all, first post here. I've wanted to say this for years, just today did I find this site and people who might listen and understand.

A response to Miles' paper: Why Gravity is not a  Function of Charge
milesmathis.com/gravmag.pdf

I want to propose another possible explanation for gravity. Miles has given us both expansion theory and universal rotation as possible sources to the force. In the paper I linked above he is talking against charge pressure as a source. I am suggesting that photons are responsible for gravity, but not their charge. All of the charge properties and spins can stay in tack with the full effects of Miles' other theories while my theory of Photonic Gravity still works. See it's not the current local charge that creates gravity, it's not the spin of the photons, it's purely a mass effect. Almost like buoyancy, heat rises. The void of space has a weight of all the "dark matter" it is summed up and applied to the radius of the planet and pushes.

I will repeat my theory in other words for more clarity.

The sum of the mass of all the light pushes, the force of gravity is thus created.


Last edited by Lichtmechaniker on Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:50 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : ')

Lichtmechaniker

Posts : 11
Join date : 2018-03-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to Miles' paper: Why Gravity is not a Function of Charge

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:54 am

.
Welcome Lichtmechaniker,

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that our charge field understanding of recycling incoming and emitted charge remains the same. Your idea is that the presence of the much greater dark matter photonic mass present, 20x the visible matter causes a push gravity.

Your idea sounds new to me. I've often wondered how a charged particle or object interacts with the large additional dark matter charge present. Miles has described the vorticies of charge which enter charged particles, suggesting a dense charge cloud about the object. I should admit it took me years to accept Expansion theory, Lloyd and I were both partial to a push theory. This idea brings both those things together.

Did you mention it to Miles?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 777
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to Miles' paper: Why Gravity is not a Function of Charge

Post by Cr6 on Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:56 am

Welcome Lichtmechaniker!


Cr6
Admin

Posts : 911
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to Miles' paper: Why Gravity is not a Function of Charge

Post by Ciaolo on Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:52 pm

I think you should read this paper too, if you don’t already have: http://milesmathis.com/mach.pdf

Welcome to the forum.

I don’t understand exactly what you mean by mass effect and buoyancy and the heat rising. Can you be more precise about the origin of the vector up?

Thank you.

Ciaolo

Posts : 132
Join date : 2016-09-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to Miles' paper: Why Gravity is not a Function of Charge

Post by Lichtmechaniker on Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:34 pm

Thanks for the kind welcome.

I'll start by answering the questions, then go into more detail about this theory I have.

LongtimeAirman    "If I understand you correctly, you're saying that our charge field understanding of recycling incoming and emitted charge remains the same. Your idea is that the presence of the much greater dark matter photonic mass present, 20x the visible matter causes a push gravity."

Yes, this right here is correct.

LongtimeAirman    "Did you mention it to Miles?"

No, I'm not sure why but I've been hesitant to e-mail him always, perhaps we can discuss the idea here and if it holds enough weight as a logical mechanism then one of you can point him to this thread. I've read a bit here the past day and do see that a few members here are in contact with Miles.

Ciaolo    "I think you should read this paper too, if you don’t already have: milesmathis.com/mach.pdf"

Yes, a great paper to link to I was digging for it when I made the thread, it's this part about the rotation of the universe imposing gravity that I was alluding to in the first post. "Miles has given us both expansion theory and universal rotation as possible sources to the force." Here is a highlight from Miles' paper.

MM    "My reversal of the gravity vector [links to milesmathis.com/third.html], a la Einstein's equivalence principle, simplified both the math and the terminology of the field, since it automatically combined gravity, mass, and inertia, as well as returning us to a Euclidean field.  It also solved problem one in a thorough and very satisfying manner. If gravity is a real acceleration, then it isn't a force, doesn't require a force field, and doesn't require a mediating particle.  But my vector reversal only highlighted problems two and three, pulling them out of the shadows and putting a glaring spotlight on them."

MM    "So, we are left with an acceleration vector pointing out that we want to keep, but we don't want to assign it to real motion in the field, because we don't want expansion.  Is that possible?  Yes.  To see how it is possible, we switch from gravity to circular motion.  You will say that gravity and circular motion are linked—since the orbit is circular motion caused by gravity—but they are not necessarily linked.  You can have circular motion without gravity.  Think of the boy whirling a ball on a string, as we all remember from our physics textbooks in high school.  You have a centripetal vector there, but it is not caused by gravity."

Ciaolo    "I don’t understand exactly what you mean by mass effect and buoyancy and the heat rising. Can you be more precise about the origin of the vector up?"

Gladly, lets split it up into two parts, mass effect/buoyancy and heat rising/vector up.
1st) Mass effect/buoyancy; I'll have to admit(shamefully), I read(not believe) flat earth theory and got this buoyancy bit from them. I'm going to agree with Mathis that they are black washing things that point towards charge theory, just like he said in the cold moonlight paper about how flat earthers murky the waters there, so too I say they are doing here with this buoyancy thing. If we take buoyancy as we know it but go one step further, or better still one spin level deeper, we will find ourselves noting that hydrogen isn't the lightest thing anymore, light is. It does not matter in this sense if the photon is spinning up or down, if it's wavelength is wide or narrow, it's simply a basic property of the mass of the particle.

2nd) Heat rising/vector up; The phrase "heat rises" is a common one in English, possibly not your first language. By saying heat rises I hoped to invoke a visualization of all the photons that come near matter wanting to go back to space, think black body radiation. I'll add here that this heat loss is more than made up for by daily sunlight warming. But this local heat rising is not going to give us the vector up that Miles' theory requires. It is too varying and is actually already being used in charge theory as a tamping down of gravity. What I'm saying is that the vector up is mathematically true from Einstein's equivalence principle, while the reality is that the vector is a push down, not a pull, not an attraction from a distance. This is still fully in line with Mathis' work, but he does not have any mechanism for the push, here is my mechanism. Space is not empty, we here agree that the so called void is full of light, (mainstream says dark matter) light has a "mass equivalence" from E=mc^2 so space is filled with all the light coming from all the stars, all the radio waves from all the galaxies. And they have mass, the fact that it is pure energy mass makes it even better in my opinion. Gravity is a pure energy vector.

More ramblings now about mechanics. Here we will envision a bubble, but it's not a bubble of soap and water floating across your lawn as the kids play, this bubble is solid mass, a large rock, it's floating through space. The bubble is displacing the vacuum, the suction of space is pulling the heat out of the rock, "make it all cold" says space, "make it all nothing" says the void. But the void has eaten lots of light today and it's got more than it can chew, the sun is still radiating and the little bubble is floating along in this sea of charge/heat from the sun and the galactic core and the older things that are not hot anymore. All this light, all these photons surround us, they push down on the atmosphere, they keep surface tension between nothing and thing. They don't push north or south, they push in, from all sides, the weight of them is spread evenly across all the matter of the solid bubble in the empty, thus Gravity as we know it exists.
-Lichtmechaniker

Lichtmechaniker

Posts : 11
Join date : 2018-03-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to Miles' paper: Why Gravity is not a Function of Charge

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:40 pm

.
LongtimeAirman wrote. "Did you mention it to Miles?"

Lichtmechaniker wrote. No, I'm not sure why but I've been hesitant to e-mail him always, perhaps we can discuss the idea here and if it holds enough weight as a logical mechanism then one of you can point him to this thread. I've read a bit here the past day and do see that a few members here are in contact with Miles.

Airman. You had good reason to be hesitant. In Why Gravity is not a Function of Charge, Miles goes into some detail describing many of the comments he’s received on the subject; few were positive. In any case, I’m glad we all share a mutual interest - understanding Miles’ work. As individuals, a few of us here may have contacted him a time or two. I don’t see any evidence of anyone around here being “in contact” with him. I could brag, in one of his papers on pi, Miles acknowledged us once – without a link - as his internet buddies – HuAhh!

Lichtmechaniker wrote. If we take buoyancy as we know it, but go one step further, or better still one spin level deeper, we will find ourselves noting that hydrogen isn't the lightest thing anymore, light is. It does not matter in this sense if the photon is spinning up or down, if it's wavelength is wide or narrow, it's simply a basic property of the mass of the particle.

Airman. I mostly agree. Above the Earth’s surface, the Earth’s charge emission repels all larger, slow moving charged particles: electrons, ions, small atoms, or molecules to certain altitude limits, where they tend to sort themselves out; they stratify. Buoyancy is essentially the balance between E/M emissions and gravity. Within those limits, the amount of particles present will also bring their own additional charge conditions.

I’ll add that I also believe the spins of the larger, slow moving charged particles are also subject to stratification.  Photon emission in the northern hemisphere boosts the energy of atmospheric matter, tending to raise it higher, while at the same time spin dampening the energy of any anti-matter present – which tends to lower the altitude of the antimatter. Greater Earth emissions at lower altitudes would more quickly convert the anti-matter into matter particles. The opposite should be true in the southern latitudes.

Lichtmechaniker wrote. … here is my mechanism. Space is not empty, we here agree that the so called void is full of light, light has a "mass equivalence" from E=mc^2 so space is filled with all the light coming from all the stars, all the radio waves from all the galaxies. And they have mass, the fact that it is pure energy mass makes it even better in my opinion. Gravity is a pure energy vector.

Airman. This mechanism sounds like pure push gravity. All the photons coming from the Sun, the stars and the rest of the universe are in some sense stronger than the Earth’s own emissions, keeping us grounded to the surface. If that were true, I believe we should expect to see a variation in gravity as the Sun or Moon passes overhead, or whether we are deep in a mine or atop mount Everest. As far as I know, the gravity we feel does not vary with any of those changes, thus contradicting push gravity.
 
Ok, there’s 20x more photonic than visible matter present. But what does that actually mean? The photonic matter must include the so-called dark matter form. Are there always enough photons present to out mass every proton 20:1?

How about an alternative where charge can exist as large, sub c velocity particles? If so, those larger particles may form a massive charge blanket thicker than the ionosphere. Those same charge particles are driven to the poles by the faster and smaller light speed photons and begin to pile up, they would advance by slowly spiraling into the poles.

Please correct me when I'm wrong. I’m just guessing and can’t quite convince myself. Don’t let that bother you.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 777
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to Miles' paper: Why Gravity is not a Function of Charge

Post by Ciaolo on Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:23 am

In the paper I linked earlier, Mathis talks about this universal charge that pushes exactly as the gravity is expected to.
http://milesmathis.com/mach.pdf

Ciaolo

Posts : 132
Join date : 2016-09-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A response to Miles' paper: Why Gravity is not a Function of Charge

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum