# The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Page 1 of 12 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12

## The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

The Cause of Gravity
the next major chapter

by Miles Mathis

First published February 20, 2019

http://milesmathis.com/grav3.pdf

I'm having a hard time with this one. It seems as though Miles has reversed the vectors (EEP) and considers the "binding energy" of charge to be the foundational cause of gravity, now. I'm really curious how you guys feel about this one. Give it a read and let's see if we can make sense of it?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 518
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Yep, totally flipped me! One day he's bored with physics and the next he's redefining gravity. Maybe I keep myself too busy. I should let the boredom set in for a while, I might be more productive!

As you guys know, I have been a proponent of expansion and didn't like the spin gravity theory, but this goes in a whole new direction, with many different implications. Many things to be re-thought. Many things to be un-thought. My work with the nucleus helps a bit, but it still feels like a new beast. I can't fathom scaling up those binding forces. I can accept charge pushing very small particles around, even binding whole atoms together, but the size differences are relatively small (still large is some sense, but so small in this one). A planet (or even a star since a galaxy is held together with the same mechanism) is so much larger that it looks like it should swamp any binding effects.

A question: Why do planets orbit the equator of their star?

If gravity is binding energy, then everything should happen at the poles. That is where the photons are moving in. But I'm still thinking in terms of simple collisions. I'm just not getting the idea that charge moving outwards can cause an attraction. It might take a while. Please don't hold you breath!

Nevyn

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2014-09-11

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

.
Hey Jared, what a pleasant surprise – Miles has eliminated gravity, or rather, gravity can be explained with charge alone. As you can tell, I did a quick review.

You must have received advance notice. I check updates every day and didn’t see this latest paper listed till after I finished it. Congratulations for helping Miles. I see he thanks you, Josh, Dennis and a mass of science Muses. You probably feel compelled to respond. Miles also provides a link to an 18 Feb 2019 paper THE KUIPER CLIFF http://milesmathis.com/kuiper.pdf which I hadn’t seen on the updates page either. I must read that too and the Anti-stokes Fudge again. In a fit, I went back to the updates page, jumped up and down said "habbida-habbida", reloaded the page and both papers were listed - like magic.

I don’t see how this new gravity explanation reverses the gravity or charge vectors just yet. I really need to do re-reads. I believe that Miles is saying that all nuclei near large matter bodies such as one of us standing on the planet are recycling photons primarily coming directly upward from the Earth below that results in the gradient/acceleration toward the Earth at 9.81m/s^2. The mechanics are more complicated than ballistic particles we naturally assume, in that we must include spin interactions dominated by the main charged bodies upon all the surrounding bodies. I'd say the binding force is created by long range charge channels between the nuclei and the Earth. Just pushing my thoughts at the moment. I'll mention it if I get a better understanding/interpretation in the very near future.

Hu Ahh!
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Yeah, LTAM I too had to do a full refresh on the page myself to see the update and was like "whoa there it is! A new gravity paper!".

Just read it and was impressed. This is a great and non-intuitive "Capstone"...also glad Miles mentioned you in the paper Jared.  The muses are active...

Makes me think that we may need to put "inventor" caps on if this is really the way it all works with gravity as Miles explains (spin/anti-spin charge) ...which after some tweaks I bet it will be.

Great questions Nevyn... makes one think that if an object was placed in different parts of the earth would the weight/mass change at some almost imperceptible level as the field strength changes...?

Nevyn wrote:
As you guys know, I have been a proponent of expansion and didn't like the spin gravity theory, but this goes in a whole new direction, with many different implications. Many things to be re-thought. Many things to be un-thought. My work with the nucleus helps a bit, but it still feels like a new beast. I can't fathom scaling up those binding forces. I can accept charge pushing very small particles around, even binding whole atoms together, but the size differences are relatively small (still large is some sense, but so small in this one). A planet (or even a star since a galaxy is held together with the same mechanism) is so much larger that it looks like it should swamp any binding effects.

A question: Why do planets orbit the equator of their star?

Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Feb 23, 2019 2:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

Cr6

Posts : 1155
Join date : 2014-08-09

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

.
Hey Cr6, you sound well.

I've also accepted expansion gravity, but I'm more than happy to entertain a new charge field theory. I'm liking this charge binding energy more and more. Many, many radially parallel charge channels, between the nuclei of our bodies and deep into the Earth below, those channels are limited by the number of nuclei, charge channel diameters the charge density of the massive body.

A question: Why do planets orbit the equator of their star?

I believe I know the answer. THE KUIPER CLIFF, identifies the capture radius of the sun as 50 AU, in which the charge binding energy exceeds charge repulsion, they are two different things. All bodies captured within 50 AU will tend to lower solar orbits depending primarily on their own radii; at which point, charge binding and charge repulsion are balanced, and the planet can orbit at that distance from the sun.

Assuming charge binding is spherically uniform, charge repulsion is a function of latitude; the strongest repulsion occurs at about +/- 30 degrees elevation, based primarily on the Earth’s spin speed. The orbiting planet drifting to a lower orbit about the sun will drift down between the two main +/-30 degree lobes to a stable position within that equatorial wedge. Moving to a higher solar latitude obit would require additional energy, and result in increased repulsion periods during the orbital extremes. All while the charge binding energy is more or less constant. I suppose the binding energy must help prevent the planet from crossing those lobes. The planets are stuck at the relative minimum energy positions in the sun's equatorial charge repulsion field minimum. They are stuck in the equatorial crack between the sun's two effective charge fields.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

This gets me thinking to of the inner core of the earth and charge field flows through it.
----------

By Tim Sharp November 14, 2017 Science & Astronomy

San Andreas Fault The space shuttle Endeavor captured this image of the San Andreas Fault on Feb. 11, 2000. The fault marks the slippery yet sticky boundary between two of Earth's tectonic plates, where the North America plate meets the Pacific plate.
(Image: NASA/JPL/NIMA)

Earth is unique among the known planets: it has an abundance of water. Other worlds — including a few moons — have atmospheres, ice, and even oceans, but only Earth has the right combination to sustain life.

Earth's oceans cover about 70 percent of the planet's surface with an average depth of 2.5 miles (4 kilometers). Fresh water exists in liquid form in lakes and rivers and as water vapor in the atmosphere, which causes much of Earth's weather.

Earth has multiple layers. The ocean basins and the continents compose the crust, the outermost layer. Earth's crust is between three and 46 miles (five and 75 km) deep. The thickest parts are under the continents and the thinnest parts are under the oceans.

Crust

According to "Essentials of Geology" (7th Ed., Prentice Hall, 2000) by Frederick K. Lutgens and Edward J. Tarbuck, Earth's crust is made up of several elements: oxygen, 46.6 percent by weight; silicon, 27.7 percent; aluminum, 8.1 percent; iron, 5 percent; calcium, 3.6 percent; sodium, 2.8 percent, potassium, 2.6 percent, and magnesium, 2.1 percent.

The crust is divided into huge plates that float on the mantle, the next layer. The plates are constantly in motion; they move at about the same rate as fingernails grow, according to NASA. Earthquakes occur when these plates grind against each other. Mountains form when the plates collide and deep trenches form when one plate slides under another plate. Plate tectonics is the theory explaining the motion of these plates.

Mantle

The mantle under the crust is about 1,800 miles deep (2,890 km). It is composed mostly of silicate rocks rich in magnesium and iron. Intense heat causes the rocks to rise. They then cool and sink back down to the core. This convection — with the consistency of caramel — is thought to be what causes the tectonic plates to move. When the mantle pushes through the crust, volcanoes erupt.

Core

At the center of the Earth is the core, which has two parts. The solid, inner core of iron has a radius of about 760 miles (about 1,220 km), according to NASA. It is surrounded by a liquid, outer core composed of a nickel-iron alloy. The outer core is about 1,355 miles (2,180 km) thick. The inner core spins at a different speed than the rest of the planet. This is thought to cause Earth's magnetic field. When charged particles from the solar wind collide with air molecules above Earth's magnetic poles, it causes the air molecules to glow, causing the auroras — the northern and southern lights.

Cr6

Posts : 1155
Join date : 2014-08-09

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Regarding the orbits, previously I just thought that (as LTA says) the outgoing solar charge kinda "sandwiches" the planets into the plane of the ecliptic. If an approaching body comes in too high, say at 60° N or S to the sun, then it perhaps swings in too hard and tosses off into space. If it comes in below 30°, it gets repelled more, perhaps slowed, and if it's there long enough the solar wind and charge wind slowly push it down, while the other planets play their part too.

But now that we have charge also causing a "binding" instead of Olde Gravity, all my assumptions are kinda thrown off. I'll admit some heavy confusion, maybe even frustration.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 518
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

I, too, thought that the charge well sort of trapped the planets in between +-30°. Now I am starting to think about the circuit of charge from the star and through the planet. If the planets did not take charge into their poles, acting just like a solid ball, then they would be pushed out by the stars charge. However, because they do take some charge in at their poles, this causes an apparent attraction because it takes away the resistance (or at least a large part of it).

Each planet also emits that charge about its own equator which interacts with the stars incoming charge to push it up to the planets poles because it creates a bow shock. This further reduces the amount of incoming charge that actually strikes the surface. The bow shock kind of acts like a tongue for the planet, shoveling that yummy charge into its 2 mouths.

Nevyn

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2014-09-11

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

.
Similar to a previous discussion of ours - on the subject of galactic charge, we broke the charge field into indirect versus direct charge. Charge entering the Earth’s poles is mainly redirected charge.

I think it's safe to say that Charge Binding and Charge Repulsion would both be the two possible outcomes from direct charge from the sun. That direct charge either recycles through orbiting nuclei or collides with those nuclei. Two different outcomes resulting in two separate charge field effects, apparent attraction versus repulsion.

I also believe it's safe to say that both charge functions can be related to the angular sizes of both the sun and Earth.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

.
Jared, Nevyn, you asked for it, glad to oblige. I'm very grateful for Miles' new gravity paper and I do enjoy the discussion, even though I'm clearly the most gibberish of the lot of us. Charge through poles or not through the poles, direct or indirect. Neither do I see nor appreciate the problems you guys are implying. Don't let me slow you down.

I'm hung up on the scale of charge recycling through nuclei versus planetary poles. If the nucleus is aligned with the charge source, then it's easy to see how the individual nuclei can 'bond' to that charge source. However on the planetary scale, charge within the solar system must be larger, mostly slower than lightspeed photons. I don't see how Lightspeed photons would be able to join vorticies of charge recycling through the planetary poles. Why should the planet point its pole at the sun for charge? Does anyone agree?

Meanwhile, is it my imagination or not? At all times there's a charge source and a direct line, or narrow cone between it (the sun) and the planet. I'll call it the charge channel since that's how the individual nuclei aligned to it see it. It always exists between the two bodies. The charge coming down that pike will either recycle through nuclei or collide with the nuclei.

Thanks again Miles, a new gravity theory that will clearly take some getting used to.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Hi everyone.

Dipping my toes in the waters of progress registering here. Be gentle with me!

The difference in gravity mentioned above is seen but maybe not recognised. Gravity varies across the globe slightly - anomalies - and weakens as we move away from the planets surface. That much is already a given. As for different objects, we see that difference in bonding as weight. More mass = more bonding = more weight. The bonding force glueing everything down should be affected by mountains - it is - as the pendulum experiment showed I believe.
If you try to measure any differences across the planet, don't forget that the weighing instrument will be affected too.
A pilot in a high flying aircraft is very slightly lighter than he is on the ground but not that they would notice.

It's going to be difficult to get to grips with this because it's so far reaching (no pun intended).

What part does the Sun - Earth magnetic portal play in this, if any?
My goodness! Just imagine for a moment, that this magnetic portal could be feeding a focussed beam (LongTimeAirmans cone?) of charge at the Earth causing enough bonding to hold it in orbit, like a huge magnetic rope with glue on the end, sticking it to the Earth. A very simplistic view I agree but what if? NASA state that this magnetic portal dumps hundreds of tons of charged particles into the Earth's poles every 8 minutes...like clockwork. That's a lot of charged particles. I don't think they are usually measured in tons! But they feed into the poles - aka Miles charge photons?... This is in addition to the basic solar wind stream?
Often, a brilliant aurora is seen, even though there have been no solar flares or coronal holes pointing at Earth. Considering they occur over the poles, these unexpected light shows could be caused by a sudden burst of particles being delivered by this weird magnetic portal. Neutrons, electrons, photons...all charged particles. All part of the charge field.

Russ T

Posts : 3
Join date : 2019-02-24

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Russ T wrote. Dipping my toes in the waters of progress registering here. Be gentle with me!
Welcome, Russ T, thanks for jumping into our charge gravity discussion. Please understand that we take the charge field as a given, and we’re trying to improve our understanding of it. It's no easy thing for even us to change our basic beliefs or understandings, i.e. gravity.

The difference in gravity mentioned above is seen but maybe not recognised. Gravity varies across the globe slightly - anomalies - and weakens as we move away from the planets surface. That much is already a given. As for different objects, we see that difference in bonding as weight. More mass = more bonding = more weight. The bonding force glueing everything down should be affected by mountains - it is - as the pendulum experiment showed I believe.
If you try to measure any differences across the planet, don't forget that the weighing instrument will be affected too.
A pilot in a high flying aircraft is very slightly lighter than he is on the ground but not that they would notice.
Miles has described lift according to the charge field, Lift on a Wing (see below). Forward velocity increases the amount of upward charge the aircraft intercepts/receives from the Earth. His new gravity idea actually suggests an alternative possibility. Forward motion through a vertical charge emission field involves both bonding and repulsion. Forward motion decreases the total number of nuclei bonding while increasing charge/nuclei collisions. The total amount of charge received by the aircraft is actually the same - since is traveling slowly compared with charge, the ratio of charge bonding or charge colliding with nuclei has changed.

Miles has many papers on gravity. Granted, there are gravitational variances, Miles addresses that too. I’m not sure I follow which pendulum experiment you’re referring to. If you have not already done so, please read, The Allais Effect and Majorana (see below). I don’t seem to recall Miles saying that nearby mountains had any effect on gravity’s downward direction.

With respect to charge binding, this being a charge gravity discussion, I don’t see how mountains can affect the downward direction of gravity as indicated by nearby pendulums.  The mountain cannot present a focused charge source sufficient to bond with the pendulum nuclei – especially when the mountain is orthogonal to the 10,000km of earth below. Above is a separate matter, I’m sure Aircraft and satellites passing directly over the mountain would see a shift from the vertical downward direction, as the center of the mountain deflects the Earth’s center.

It's going to be difficult to get to grips with this because it's so far reaching (no pun intended).

What part does the Sun - Earth magnetic portal play in this, if any?
My goodness! Just imagine for a moment, that this magnetic portal could be feeding a focussed beam (LongTimeAirmans cone?) of charge at the Earth causing enough bonding to hold it in orbit, like a huge magnetic rope with glue on the end, sticking it to the Earth. A very simplistic view I agree but what if? NASA state that this magnetic portal dumps hundreds of tons of charged particles into the Earth's poles every 8 minutes...like clockwork. That's a lot of charged particles. I don't think they are usually measured in tons! But they feed into the poles - aka Miles charge photons?... This is in addition to the basic solar wind stream?
Often, a brilliant aurora is seen, even though there have been no solar flares or coronal holes pointing at Earth. Considering they occur over the poles, these unexpected light shows could be caused by a sudden burst of particles being delivered by this weird magnetic portal. Neutrons, electrons, photons...all charged particles. All part of the charge field.
Hallelujah brother, I like your enthusiasm, thanks for joining in. I hope I haven't been too rough, you’ve certainly helped my thinking, as with lift.

Magnetic portal indeed, yesterday, I incorrectly called it indirect charge. Planetary recycling is primarily a type of Electromagnetic effect.

I believe Gravity (charge bonding) and charge repulsion are independent of planetary E/M.

http://milesmathis.com/index.html

264a. Lift on a Wing http://milesmathis.com/lift.pdf. Plus extended comments on buoyancy and on the raindrop problem. 14pp.

186. The Allais Effect and Majorana. http://milesmathis.com/allais.html. Plus commentary on LeSage, Podkletnov, NASA, Wiki, and others. Showing how my compound field answers anomalies where other fields do not. 32pp.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

"I don’t see how mountains can affect the downward direction of gravity as indicated by nearby pendulums."

In one of Miles papers he describes possible effects caused by pyramids made from certain types of granite and limestone, guiding rising charge. A mountain, even a small one like Shiehallion, has hundreds of times the mass of the largest pyramid, so any effect on rising charge should be larger in some respects, depending on the type of rock.

"I don’t seem to recall Miles saying that nearby mountains had any effect on gravity’s downward direction."

But isn't Miles latest paper proposing that gravitational attraction, no matter what the source - any massive object will do - will recycle enough charge as to create bonding with any other nearby mass, thereby creating what we perceive as gravitational attraction? Even distant objects like planets moving through the same part of the charge field. So a mountain, being quite a large lump of mass should cause at least some perturbation in the rising field....I would have thought.

This experiment has probably been proven useless by modern standards but I can't help seeing similarities with Miles pyramid description.
Look up Wikipedia 'The Shiehallion Experiment'. Can't post a link for 7 days.

I shall re-read his Allais paper later today.

Russ T

Posts : 3
Join date : 2019-02-24

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Hi folks. I'm jumping into this discussion hoping to get some better understanding of gravity. I do have some basic understanding of Mathisian physics and charge, which all led me to zillion questions when Miles published his latest piece.

I've done many re-readings of his earlier gravity essays and still don't understand the essential mechanics of this gravity=binding idea. I've read all the posts touching on gravity (including this one) here as well, but I still feel like I'm lost here
.
Philosophically, reversing the gravity vector as opposite to the gravity vector, which is shown in his expansion theory, isn't my issue in understanding this theory. Drawing an arrow in opposite direction is easy, but the essence of this reversal is not about drawing a vector. I noticed neither of you have that particular problem. But what does reversing the g-vector actually mean? Where is this force coming from and in what way is it manifested? Is this force only the consequence of charge recycling process that's going on beneath our feet while all Earth's nuclei are at work? Is this recycling process and consequential charge flux somehow attracting all other nearby mass? And is this what we than feel as gravity? If one face of charge is the E/M field, could it be that the charge flux itself "produces" some kind of attraction force?

At the moment, this is my only "premise", the only way in which I can explain myself probable mechanics of this binding force.

Vexman

Posts : 56
Join date : 2019-02-25

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Russ T wrote. This experiment has probably been proven useless by modern standards but I can't help seeing similarities with Miles pyramid description.
Look up Wikipedia 'The Shiehallion Experiment'. Can't post a link for 7 days.
Airman. Glad to oblige. Schiehallion, and Earth Mass. Two Wiki links and pertinent paragraphs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion#The_Schiehallion_experiment.

Schiehallion's isolated position and regular shape led it to be selected by Charles Mason for a ground-breaking experiment to estimate the mass of the Earth in 1774.[8] The deflection of a pendulum by the mass of the mountain provided an estimate of the mean density of the Earth, from which its mass and a value for Newton's Gravitational constant G could be deduced. Mason turned down a commission to carry out the work and it was instead coordinated by Astronomer Royal, Nevil Maskelyne. He was assisted in the task by mathematician Charles Hutton, who devised a graphical system to represent large volumes of surveyed heights, later known as contour lines.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_mass

An expedition from 1737 to 1740 by Pierre Bouguer and Charles Marie de La Condamine attempted to determine the density of Earth by measuring the period of a pendulum (and therefore the strength of gravity) as a function of elevation. The experiments were carried out in Ecuador and Peru, on Pichincha Volcano and mount Chimborazo.[19] Bouguer wrote in a 1749 paper that they had been able to detect a deflection of 8 seconds of arc, the accuracy was not enough for a definite estimate on the mean density of the Earth, but Bouguer stated that it was at least sufficient to prove that the Earth was not hollow.[14]

Airman wrote. "I don’t see how mountains can affect the downward direction of gravity as indicated by nearby pendulums."
Russ T wrote. In one of Miles papers he describes possible effects caused by pyramids made from certain types of granite and limestone, guiding rising charge. A mountain, even a small one like Shiehallion, has hundreds of times the mass of the largest pyramid, so any effect on rising charge should be larger in some respects, depending on the type of rock.[/quote]
Airman. Agreed. Mountains and pyramids have charge ‘focusing’ capacities - above the mountains or pyramids. Measurements associated with the contours lines of a mountain are at an elevation – on the surface above the mountain. If planes and satellites above the mountain, would see deflections, then I suppose pendulums on the mountain’s elevated surface would also see deflections.

Airman wrote. "I don’t seem to recall Miles saying that nearby mountains had any effect on gravity’s downward direction."
Russ T wrote. But isn't Miles latest paper proposing that gravitational attraction, no matter what the source - any massive object will do - will recycle enough charge as to create bonding with any other nearby mass, thereby creating what we perceive as gravitational attraction? Even distant objects like planets moving through the same part of the charge field. So a mountain, being quite a large lump of mass should cause at least some perturbation in the rising field....I would have thought.[/quote]
Airman. Agreed. All us lumps are causing perturbations in the rising field. The charge binding force (gravity), and charge repulsion result from a vertical field gradient in the Earth/Sun, photon/antiphon fields.

Charge links between objects orthogonal to the vertical emission field - not above or below one another - is a separate subject.
The charge field can and does ‘link’ objects like people and places, but those links requires something other than this new charge gravity’s vertical charge gradient.

Television and radio stations establish charge links between transmitters and receivers - undeniable proof of charge links. You mentioned the Magnetic Portal dumping tons of material near the poles; absolutely, they are real. It just takes the charge field to explain them.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

.
Hi Vexman. Good to meet you. Sorry, I for one am afraid all I've got are unsatisfactory replies.

I don’t understand the charge binding force well enough to explain it. At present I’m perfectly happy defending my direct line charge channels between the two bodies interpretation. Charge along that channel involves both charge recycling and spin collisions. As Miles pointed out, gravity can now be considered magnetic.

I just don’t see how indirect charge recycling back from the approaching heavenly body in loops above and below the orbital plane can have anything to do with it. It seems to me the direct channel is sufficient to establish gravity on its own. Anyway, I’m probably wrong in my initial understanding. Despite this, I'm very happy with a charge based gravity as I'm sure Miles is too. Before this, Miles offered two non-charge based explanations for gravity: Matter Expansion and Universal Spin. I myself complained to Miles about the literal interpretation of Expansion theory once. I urge you to study it for the math. His Spin explanation of Gravity was never well fleshed.

He may shake things up further. I hope we continue working toward understanding charge binding to our mutual satisfaction. I agree with the general sentiment of support behind Miles’ latest idea. Gravity as charge binding looks good enough to be a great step in advancing all Miles' Charge Field Theories.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

The timing of this is curious. Could be as big as the internet:
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.html

Navy files for patent on room-temperature superconductor
February 22, 2019 by Troy Carter, TechLink

A scientist working for the U.S. Navy has filed for a patent on a room-temperature superconductor, representing a potential paradigm shift in energy transmission and computer systems.

Salvatore Cezar Pais is listed as the inventor on the Navy's patent application made public by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday.

The application claims that a room-temperature superconductor can be built using a wire with an insulator core and an aluminum PZT (lead zirconate titanate) coating deposited by vacuum evaporation with a thickness of the London penetration depth and polarized after deposition.

An electromagnetic coil is circumferentially positioned around the coating such that when the coil is activated with a pulsed current, a non-linear vibration is induced, enabling room temperature superconductivity.

"This concept enables the transmission of electrical power without any losses and exhibits optimal thermal management (no heat dissipation)," according to the patent document, "which leads to the design and development of novel energy generation and harvesting devices with enormous benefits to civilization."

No data was included in the patent documents.

A room-temperature superconductor is a material that is capable of exhibiting superconductivity at temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit.

Current superconductors work when cooled near absolute zero, and the warmest superconductor, hydrogen sulfide, works at -95 degrees Fahrenheit.

Cr6

Posts : 1155
Join date : 2014-08-09

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

.
“In short, the field is a compound field of gravity and charge, and there is a degree of freedom between the two. This degree of freedom is due to the fact that they scale differently. Charge is mediated by photons while gravity isn’t, so charge gets bigger as we get closer to the size of the photon. Gravity doesn’t. For this reason, you have to scale the two fields to one another in each and every problem. There is no standard scaling of the two fields. The sizes of your objects have to be included at all times, not only their relative sizes, but their sizes relative to the photon.”
.

Perturbation theory essay (Perturbation Theory in the Light of Charge, lap2.pdf)

I have an idea following this line of Miles' thought, which predates his latest gravity paper. If you read this above paragraph closely, you may see he was thinking about the field as a compound field of gravity and charge, with a degree of freedom between the two. Now, if gravity is as well a component of the basic charge field, maybe this "degree of freedom between the "positive" charge vector (i.e. charge flux going in direction outward from the mass / body) and "negative" charge vector ((i.e. charge flux going in direction toward the mass / body) remains a correct postulate.

There is actually a relationship between two observable bodies and the charge force, "pulling" / attracting on one hand and "pushing" on the other hand. We all know that Earth's gravity force diminishes with distance, just like magnet's attraction force diminishes with distance. The closer you get to either of them just mentioned, more "pulling" force can be measured to act upon another mass / body / magnet. Miles does mention that there exists a potential in each charge recycling nucleus between its north and south poles. This potential would be responsible for the flux of charge through any particular nuclei.

Now, my idea is that this may all have an analogy in observable nature outside the charge field. What I'm somehow visualizing here is similar to an effect, where large flux of i.e. running water can pull any incoming water along, joining the already established "order". Same is with air / gas flux, where this flux shows measurable force and "pulls" other gas molecules to such flux. I know, in both of the two cases we are dealing with difference in pressure, which causes "pull" force. But still, could it be that the charge flux contains the same "pull" potential? That would be somewhat logical conclusion, considering we have the two poles of one nucleus as default.

So any body / mass with some volume of charge flux has measurable potential between the poles, which can be translated into "pull" force aka gravity. I wonder what would happen to this binding force if we were able to slow down photons entering nucleus. Would that diminish the binding force? I suppose it would, just like smaller overall charge flux volume manifests in diminished gravity pull when compared to a larger mass / body with greater charge flux. In both cases, we have lower value of charge flux so effects should be equal.

Vexman

Posts : 56
Join date : 2019-02-25

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Vexman wrote:
“In short, the field is a compound field of gravity and charge, and there is a degree of freedom between the two. This degree of freedom is due to the fact that they scale differently. Charge is mediated by photons while gravity isn’t, so charge gets bigger as we get closer to the size of the photon. Gravity doesn’t. For this reason, you have to scale the two fields to one another in each and every problem. There is no standard scaling of the two fields. The sizes of your objects have to be included at all times, not only their relative sizes, but their sizes relative to the photon.”

Perturbation theory essay (Perturbation Theory in the Light of Charge, lap2.pdf)
I have an idea following this line of Miles' thought, which predates his latest gravity paper. If you read this above paragraph closely, you may see he was thinking about the field as a compound field of gravity and charge, with a degree of freedom between the two. Now, if gravity is as well a component of the basic charge field, maybe this "degree of freedom between the "positive" charge vector (i.e. charge flux going in direction outward from the mass / body) and "negative" charge vector ((i.e. charge flux going in direction toward the mass / body) remains a correct postulate.
Airman. I believe the quote remains "a correct postulate". Of course, the subject matter of this particular quote from Miles' Paper (not essay) Perturbation Theory in the Light of Charge begs comment. Like - How does the fact that gravity actually is based on charge reconcile with Miles’ previous reasoning? What about the need for two fields and scaling? Where Newton tries to build dual fields with gravity only, Miles is building dual fields with only charge.

Miles mentioned the need to update many papers to include his latest insights. Clearly, apparent contradictions like this demand his attention. Still, it’s such a good question I must make a guess. In other words, feel free to tear anything I say apart.
1. Charge collisions are bigger at the photon level. I.e. mc^2 energy collisions. That remains the same.
2. Gravity is redefined as charge binding. At the photon level, there is no gravity. With charge binding, there is no gravity until we reach the nuclei scale: protons, neutrons, and atomic matter.
Thus, the charge field provides two opposing charge field effects, with scaling difference. This result in no way conflicts with Miles' 'postulate'.

Sir, your post is entirely reasonable, I haven't come to grips with the pulling force yet. This dual field conclusion above seems important enough to stand on its own. Please correct me before Miles does.

http://milesmathis.com/index.html

200 (moved). Perturbation Theory in the Light of Charge. http://milesmathis.com/lap2.pdf This is a continuation of my paper on Laplace, showing specific examples of the charge field in historical field equations. I also show Newton's close pass to the Lagrangian. 8pp.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

I don't think I'm competent enough to correct you or myself for the same matter.

I do think there's something worth considering within Miles' postulate about the duality of charge field.

Like you've listed it, I find even more reason to think that charge recycling process (charge flux) is the cause of what we recognize as gravity force.

Photons are not recycling engines, so there's no gravity force present in the most basic charge field. As soon as there is even a single structure made out of stacked photons, charge recycling process begins, creating the charge flux based on potential existing between the poles of such charge engine. This charge flux has impact on / influences all surrounding mass as it 'pulls' / attracts other photon-emitting mass (or other freely traveling photons). If these photons are responsible for the creation of E/M field with its own potential, I assume it's the same in the case of gravity.

My analogy with flux of water or air isn't that hard to get grasp on. Although there are no pipes or vent shafts in the case of photons which can be seen, the photons can't move entirely free when they encounter E/M field - they get 'guided' or 'directed' to follow the path, created by the existence of larger 'charge field order'. Photon's path is in such case similar to water piping or vent shafts, where established flux has 'sucking' / pulling effect.

I'm just trying to make some more sense, hope you find it helpful.

Vexman

Posts : 56
Join date : 2019-02-25

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Hi everybody, this looks like the ideal place to gain knowledge and float a few ideas, especially about grav3, which has left me foundering in a sea of spinning photons.

Now that Miles has intuited that gravity is caused by charge channelling, pushing and pulling at the same time, his excellent paper got my head spinning as I'd like to be able to explain to my old brain how charge-gravity works using 'pin-ball mechanics', preferably in a simple way so a 10 year old child could make sense of it.

As I understand it, Miles' photon charge channelling theory is that a continuous vortex of through-charge enters at the poles of a spinning particle of matter and is recycled through it, being ejected from around its equator - roughly orthogonal to the through-charge stream. Charge accounts for >95% of an atoms mass due to the high photon density streaming through it at all times. Because of their stacked spins, most of the volume occupied by a particle of matter is space. e.g. size average atom is about 10^-10m and the nucleus 10^-15m, or about 1/100,000 smaller. Most of the photon charge goes through the tiny nucleus and this results in a super-high photon density within and around it, compared to the average level in the solar system.

Conjecture 1
Bernoulli's principle is that 'A fluid flowing horizontally over the surface of a body exerts a force on it perpendicular to the bodies surface'. This is the force which can blow rooves upwards and off buildings in strong winds. The fast air-stream above the roof has less density and, therefore, less pressure than the still air inside the building and it is this force which dislodges the roof.

The I think it is possible that the observed apparent attraction we call gravity is caused by a reduced density charge stream in the gap between two bodies, as the high levels of through-charge is pushed through the bodies and causes the photon density in the space in-between them to be greatly reduced. This reduced density, and the Bernoulli effect, using the photon charge field as it's working fluid, is the cause of gravity. Short video demonstration using two inflated balloons here...

I've got some other ideas which need more thought/simplification before I air them, but I'd be grateful if you'd can kick this one around a bit first to see if it has any legs. I'm not particularly attached to this idea, so be as critical as you like as it won't hurt my feelings one bit.

BorisT

Posts : 2
Join date : 2018-05-21

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

I'm actually stuck on this one, myself. I keep thinking back to what Nevyn said in his first response here, about the orbits of planets.

While I can kinda see how charge might "create" or cause gravity at, say, a planet's surface as the binding energy for matter, I don't yet see how this could apply to the planetary orbits around the sun. They aren't at the surface. They are very, very far away from it - so it seems like any binding energy should be long lost by the time it could reach a planet, even Mercury. What would cause Mercury then to move towards the sun?

Yes, we have a sparse charge field between Mercury and the sun, and the solar wind of course. So in the new theory, is the ambient (galactic/universal) charge pushing Mercury towards the sun, while the sun is pushing Mercury out, but then also pulling it in?

I can't wrap my head around it yet. I'm probably gonna sit this one out until Miles gets a bit further along in the theory. My questions keep compounding and I don't want to muddy the waters.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 518
Join date : 2016-10-11

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

BorisT wrote:

I think it is possible that the observed apparent attraction we call gravity is caused by a reduced density charge stream in the gap between two bodies, as the high levels of through-charge is pushed through the bodies and causes the photon density in the space in-between them to be greatly reduced. This reduced density, and the Bernoulli effect, using the photon charge field as it's working fluid, is the cause of gravity.

If I understand your suggestion correctly, the bigger the difference of charge density in the gap between the two individual bodies, the bigger gravitational pull can be expected.

Mainstream physics admits there is larger gravitational acceleration measured at the poles if compared to measurements at the equator, which by itself confirms Miles' theory saying all charge enters at the poles.

At the poles there's factually larger density of incoming charge stream, which would according to your postulate diminish the effect of gravity. Data shows the opposite is true, so in my opinion reduced density of charge stream is not the correct mechanism that explains the cause of gravity.

I think that the body's volume of charge stream / flux is in direct connection to the level of gravity it produces. In other words, level of gravity force depends on volume of charge stream. Less mass = less charge being recycled = lesser charge stream = less binding force aka gravity.

Vexman

Posts : 56
Join date : 2019-02-25

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Jared Magneson wrote:...While I can kinda see how charge might "create" or cause gravity at, say, a planet's surface as the binding energy for matter, I don't yet see how this could apply to the planetary orbits around the sun. They aren't at the surface. They are very, very far away from it...

Yes, I agree.  There has to be a simple mechanical effect, beyond the bonding energy holding atoms and molecules together.  My gut feel tells me it will turn out to be a simple property of the photon charge field bombardment or the orthogonal magnetic field, combined with interactions with matter - perhaps a charge.matter boundary effect?   Still plenty to think about regarding gravity.

BorisT

Posts : 2
Join date : 2018-05-21

## Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

.
Vexman wrote. Photons are not recycling engines, so there's no gravity force present in the most basic charge field. As soon as there is even a single structure made out of stacked photons, charge recycling process begins, creating the charge flux based on potential existing between the poles of such charge engine. This charge flux has impact on / influences all surrounding mass as it 'pulls' / attracts other photon-emitting mass (or other freely traveling photons). If these photons are responsible for the creation of E/M field with its own potential, I assume it's the same in the case of gravity.
Airman. To be as nit picking as possible, I was enjoying your description of the emergence of the charge binding gravity field until I read “potential existing between the poles of such charge engine”. The potential between poles may account for through charge – pole to pole charge channeling – but how does it apply to charge binding? Or do you mean between the poles of the two main bodies?
There is also the potential that exists between the emission plane and the pole. The photon emitted near the equator causes an internal vacancy/initial tug that results in a new photon entering the pole.
And then there’s random charge from all directions. Generally speaking, the proton has the distinction of being able to take charge received from any direction, and emitting it in the proton’s emission plane, or the charge may become channelized as part of a larger structure.

I believe we should begin as Miles has described it in the past, the charge engine - i.e. proton - will align its main north/south charge channel toward the dominant charge source, thereby maximizing the charge received while minimizing disruptive charge collisions from that object. I believe that is the basic orientation / geometry of charge binding. As well as magnetism. I’m unable to differentiate between charge biding and magnetism at this point.

Vexman wrote. My analogy with flux of water or air isn't that hard to get grasp on. Although there are no pipes or vent shafts in the case of photons which can be seen, the photons can't move entirely free when they encounter E/M field - they get 'guided' or 'directed' to follow the path, created by the existence of larger 'charge field order'. Photon's path is in such case similar to water piping or vent shafts, where established flux has 'sucking' / pulling effect.
Airman. Agreed. It’s not hard to grasp. I believe 'sucking' or pulling is accurate enough given the charge pressure differential. In my formal coursework I had to learn semiconductors. P and n materials with either electron, or electron hole conduction which also sucked.

Vexman wrote. I'm just trying to make some more sense, hope you find it helpful.
Airman. You make plenty of sense and this a fine discussion. I usually limit myself to a single post per day so I can sound halfway intelligent. I’m usually guilty of oversimplification and certainty, I mean you no slight. Participating in open discussion can result in deeper understanding; this discussion definitely falls into that category, and I very much appreciate it.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1306
Join date : 2014-08-10