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?

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!

.
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!
.

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?

.
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.
.

This gets me thinking to of the inner core of the earth and charge field flows through it.
----------
https://www.space.com/17777-what-is-earth-made-of.html    

What Is Earth Made Of?

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.

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.

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.

.
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.
.

.
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.
.

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 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.
.

"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.

Lift on a wing....yes I must re-read the latest version when he updates it. One of my favourite papers.

I shall re-read his Allais paper later today.

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.

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.
.

.
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.
.

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
https://techlinkcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RTSC.pdf




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


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.html#jCp


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.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-02-navy-patent-room-temperature-superconductor.html#jCp

.
“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 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.
.

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.

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...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fWSTXDQ8eE

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.

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.

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.

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.

.

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.  
.

.

Boris T wrote. 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

Airman. Hi Boris T. Thanks for joining in.

Recently, I believe Miles pointed out that ‘pool ball mechanics’ might be a bit oversimplified. I would suggest changing it to ‘spin-ball mechanics'. I suppose I should mention that here at the site, Jared, Nevyn and I have had many simulator/model based discussions, aimed at clarifying some of Miles' charge field ideas. I’d like nothing better than to provide a worthy charged particle collision simulator – something the ten year old in me would enjoy. Another half constructed idea of mine is a two body collision armillary. It sits in one of our Possible Charged Particle Field collision scenarios, written in three.js, allowing one to display all the forces associated with any given 2 body spin collision.
I might say - explaining it to a ten year old is more difficult.

Boris T wrote. 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.

Airman. I disagree. You’re describing planetary charge recycling, and not proton charge channeling. I believe the vortecies you describe are due to the extent and presence of larger charged particles, such as electrons, each of which is also recycling charge, traveling at less than light speed toward the poles, given the Earth’s magnetic field. In my comments to Vexman I mentioned how the charged particle - such as a proton, aligns itself to the charge source, maximizing charge received, and minimizing disruptive charge collisions from the source. That alignment and resulting charge exchange between the proton and the charge source is what defines charge channeling.

I'll need to consider the 'Bernoulli' aspects. Glad for the discussion and I somewhat overwhelmed at present.  

Or, given the discussion thus far, you might restate a question or two.
.

I'm still trying to figure this out, but it can not be based on either the linear velocity (electric component) or the spin (magnetic component) directly. Neither of those have any way to create a force back to the source of that emission. The electric component can only push away, never towards the source, and the magnetic component can only create a torque, which is a shove to one side or the other. It is orthogonal to the electric force, not opposed to it. So we have to go beyond simple collisions and look at charge circuits.

We need some of the charge photons moving in some other direction, not straight out from its source. They may start out coming straight from the source, but by the time they reach the body, they must be in some other trajectory. The bow shock of a planet would change their direction, moving them towards the poles of that planet, but it is still not in the right direction. I think it is when the charge is moving through the planet, or body, that we will find the forces we need.

During this phase, the charge is moving mostly perpendicular to its original emission direction. We can use the magnetic component to give it a torque that could now point back to the source, but I don't think that is it. Mostly because there is no reason for it to only be in that direction. Being a force based on spin, it happens around the source (the charge photon), in a complete circle, so any one of those directions could receive that force, not just the line back to the gravitational source.

Then we have to deal with Uranus. With such a large axial tilt, it doesn't fit into this polar input paradigm. It points its north pole at the sun for 42 years and then its south pole for 42 years (with some variance in between as it transitions). If its poles stayed perpendicular to the line back to the sun, then it would fit, but it doesn't. How can this binding as gravity theory account for that?

What about galaxies? How can a galaxy keep a hold on its star systems through binding energy? The larger the system, the smaller the binding effect. We haven't even reached galaxies attracting each other yet.

That shows a few issues with orbits, but how about we look at some properties of gravity itself.

Size and mass does not effect the rate of fall of 2 bodies in the same gravitational field. They will both fall at the same rate. How can binding present like that? How can mass have no effect on any force based on charge? This is the main reason I like expansion. It solves this with no effort what-so-ever. It isn't even a question that need be asked. It is just self-evident given the postulates of the theory. But gravity as binding brings the composition of the bound objects into it. Surely it has to. How can you bind something without thinking about what that thing is and what it is made of? What exactly are you binding to?

Distance is also a problem, although one I touched on earlier. While gravity diminishes with distance, it does not go away. At least according to current theory. It seems to me that there must be some definite limit to binding energy (I don't like calling it binding energy, but don't have a better term). That is, some distance at which the binding stops. It can't be infinite, but it needs to be for galaxies to hold themselves together and for galaxies to attract each other.

Sorry, I don't have any answers just yet, mostly just questions and failed ideas, but a few boundaries might be able to push us in the right direction. I must say that I am not convinced of this theory. I'm not against it either, but it seems to create more problems than it solves right now. What does it even solve? Expansion solves the fall rate issue perfectly. It solves the distance issue perfectly. It solves the timing issue perfectly (gravity seems to travel faster than light, or infinite, depending on where you look. See Tom van Flandern's work). The only argument against expansion seems to be that it requires expansion. That's a prejudice, not an argument. So I, for one, will need more convincing. But I haven't given it a lot of thought yet either, so I'm not giving up on it. I'm probably missing some key things that might help answer some of these questions.

I think the reason I'm having such a tough time with this is due to one of Miles' previous papers, "The Speed of Gravity". In which he argues rather successfully that gravity has no speed, it is instantaneous, and against the mainstream propaganda that gravity moves at the speed of light, which he falsifies.

But now it's moving at the speed of light again? I mean an acceleration isn't determined by that speed, but it seems if charge is the mediator in gravity then it will only be able to move at maximum the top speed of charge itself. Light speed. So his newer theory seems counter to his older proof.

From the paper (http://milesmathis.com/fland.pdf) which Nevyn also sparked upon:

"In this case, the speed is not really infinite, because there is no speed. No particle is moving betweenobjects, so there is no speed. To understand this, let us return to the equivalence principle. This is whyit is important that the physicists in the late 1970's proved the strong form of the principle, but not theweak (see above). The strong form says that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. Just reversethe vector. And the strong form says that mass has nothing to do with it. Particle physicists comingfrom QED, following their own weak form of the equivalence principle, expected mass to be important,because that is what their own equations predicted and required. But the experiments said no. Thecurrent princes of quantum mechanics and GR like to ignore that. They ignore all data they don't like.But Einstein's original reversal of the vector is how it is: gravity and acceleration are completelyindistinguishable, both mathematically and empirically. Because of that alone, gravity must travel atinfinity, not at c. Accelerations don't travel at c, so why would gravity, which is an acceleration?"

And then:

"So instead of discussing the speed of gravity or of a force, let us discuss the speed of acceleration.What is the speed of the transmission of an acceleration? You will say, “What? The question makes nosense!” Right, that is my point. Asking what is the speed of gravity makes no sense, either. Because,like acceleration, gravity is not a force, it is a motion. "

And I agree with him there. Force is mass times acceleration. F=ma. In that force equation, gravity is the "a", the acceleration. It is not the mass. Thus, gravity itself is not a force - according to him, and according to the equation, and according to myself and my reading of it.

What I think might be possible is that in that equation the MASS should be instead represented somehow by charge, or maybe it already is? But a photon is NOT an acceleration. It is a particle. It's in motion, and thus has mass, but it isn't a motion itself. Motion is the attribute, not the thing. A thing not in motion is still the thing, and one cannot have motion without some THING moving, by definition.

Anyway, that's where I'm stuck at on this one. Might have to wait for Miles to expand the theory, since I'm not getting anywhere myself. That of course only tells us I can't theorize here, not anything about him not being able to. I just don't understand his theory yet.

I'll bring all this up with him of course once I can formulate good, solid questions. But at the same time the guy deserves some room to breathe; it's only a few days old still.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.

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.

I meant potential between the poles of i.e. proton as the most basic form of such charge engine. Stream of charge within it is created and based on potential between the poles. Different charge engines have different potentials and thus recycle more or less charge. This charge recycling process is responsible for a stream of charge, which I think is the issue here. What if this charge stream creates pull / binding force by its motion that we consequently experience as gravity "field"?  I think there may be a connection between the (volume of) charge stream and the (amount of) binding force / gravity exhibited. Let me try to explain.

Miles talks about field potentials or nuclear vortices being the cause for the pull force, here's an excerpt from his latest gravity paper (grav3.pdf):

" Here, the important thing has already been said: the nuclear vortices pull photons through the nucleons. [Yes, that is an apparent pull, caused by field potentials. Mechanically, it is actually a push, since there is no such thing as a real pull in physics. But the word “pull” remains highly descriptive, and I do not disallow myself from
using it.] Again, photons are recycled through nuclei via field vortices, creating an apparent pull. This “pull” is what creates the “bind”. This pull is why nucleons come together into nuclei and why atoms come together into molecules. This pull creates the binding energy of both the nucleus and the molecule. It also creates the binding energy of the gas, the liquid, and the solid."


The "pull" force Miles is describing as well creates the stream of charge photons, which is not touched upon in this quote (I have to re-check the rest of this paper though). Within a charge stream of more complex charge engines such as for instance a planet, there is probably high level of established order in context of photons movement direction. However, there are many photons side by side but there are as well many collisions within such complex charge engine, thus proportion of photons having a spin, bearing magnetic force with them and all of them moving at great speed. I can visualize this stream creating a pulsating pattern according to the structure of such charge stream - the more spun photons, the larger number of "pull" (push?) pulses could be counted as they would be passing by (if we were able to get close enough and measure it). Considering the near light speed of actual charge stream, this effect would seem continuous over the entire length of charge stream. So, what if the charge stream actually relates to the pull force? Could we somehow transform the field potential in order to show the amount of binding force it carries? What would happen if we had no photons to begin charge recycling process with, would nucleons still bind together due to these vortices alone?  I don't think we could even make an experiment like this as there can be no charge engines without photons in the first place. Which begs another question, would a charge engine fall apart without any photons to feed it? That makes me think there's more to the dynamics of this phenomenon, with many components playing their part in the complex process.

I think therein lies the quandary, for me. We have an apparent "pull" at the poles of a planet due to his original charge dynamics, and an actual push out (chiefly at 30° N and S, and the equator, but SOME push out everywhere - just less at the poles).

But now we have an apparent "pull" everywhere, over the entire surface. Gravity isn't quite uniform but it's uniform enough to be the chief factor in planetary and lunar orbits, balanced by push-charge. So I'm confused how we can have an apparent pull coupled with an actual push at the surface. Yes, I know he reversed the vectors using the Equivalence Principle, but it still seems to me we have contradictory motions.

As for an experiment, I'm working on a simple setup in Maya to demonstrate either, both, or all effects here with some level of clarity. I'll use colors to denote actual pushes and apparent pulls, or something. It may take awhile though as I'm swamped with work too.

This whole idea is based on apparent attraction at the poles of nuclei, and then extrapolated upwards. So I want to take a closer look at that apparent attraction and what causes it.

Firstly, I want to get one thing out of the way before we even begin. The apparent attraction at the poles is not caused by spin. The only force spin can cause is through contact, and it is definitely not an attraction. Apparent or not. However, spin does have a role to play, it just doesn't have anything to do with forces, or, at least, not in creating them. Effectively, it allows them to happen.

Let's look at a typical particle, built with stacked spins:



That is a very basic spin set with only AXYZ spins, but all spins share the same general shape, with only small perturbations as you add more spins. We are looking down the Z axis and can see a large hole in the center. The hole is not quite as large as that image makes it out to be, because we are seeing the green lines which represent the path, not the particle. The particle takes up more space, so the hole is smaller than it looks. However, as we add more spins, a larger particle will have quite a large hole in there compared to the size of a charge photon.

That hole is what allows the apparent attraction. That is the path that through-charge takes and we are looking down along that path. Therefore, in that image, the poles are in front of and behind the particle. We are looking down into one pole, through the particle, and out the other pole. That is what spin creates. Nothing more, nothing less. We still don't have any attraction, apparent or not.

Let's assume that the straight red, green and blue lines are directions that we can shoot smaller particles. They actually represent the axes, X, Y and Z respectively. If we shoot some particles along the red line (X dimension), we can see that they will (or are very likely too) collide with the particle. There is a mass of green lines (the particles path) and the bullet is unlikely to make it through. Similar for the straight green line (Y dimension) which also hits a mass of curved green lines (sorry for using the same color for different things). However, the blue line has a clear path through the particle. Anything we shoot along that line will make it out the other side (assuming the bullets are much smaller than the particle).

You can clearly see how the equatorial emission of charged particles is created from that description. Also, you can see how the poles are created. Nothing esoteric about it. So what forces have we created so far? Only the emission force. Bullets coming in from the X or Y dimensions, or anywhere on the XY plane, will be pushed away and create the equatorial emission field. But we have not created any attraction at the poles, apparent or not. Strictly speaking, we haven't even created the emission force yet, because there is no emission.

This is the key point, the forces created for both the equator and the poles are not actually created by the particle. They are created by the ambient field. Well, really it is both of them together. The particle does provide the motions, but the ambient field provides the bullets. The particle is the gun, but the ambient field is the magazine. However, there is a difference between the equatorial emission and the polar regions. For the emission, the particle provides something to bounce off of and the ambient field provides something to bounce. The poles actually work in the complete opposite way. The poles provide a lack of something to bounce off of, so charge can just keep on going through.

But even that doesn't create an attraction at the poles, you guessed it, apparent or not. The attraction at the poles is purely provided by the ambient field. The particle helps by not obstructing it, but the field provides everything else. So, effectively, we have the ambient field working on itself to provide the apparent attraction at the poles. All the particle is doing is not being there.

You know what? I started writing this to explain the apparent attraction, but I've ended up negating it. There is no attraction at the poles. The ambient field is either sending charge photons its way, or it is not. It won't push them in there. It won't change the direction of some charge photon, that was almost going into the pole, so that it will. Except by accident.

However, I have not negated the idea of nuclear or molecular bonding. In these cases, the nuclei or atoms are already emitting charge at the bonding points. The other nuclei or atom can accept that charge through its own channels, so it provides less resistance. It doesn't attract the other nuclei/atom, it just doesn't run away. Once close enough, they effectively create a single channel from the previous 2 individual channels. Then the ambient field can provide outside pressure to keep them together.

So, we have found that the emission field is a real field and the particle does do something to create that. But the poles do not. They don't do anything. They can't do anything because they have no substance. They are the lack of substance. Anything we assign to them is really the ambient field in the vicinity of the particle. That is what I had assumed Miles meant by apparent. It is really the ambient field pushing photons into that region, but I can't even see that right now. Why would it push charge to the poles?

Please feel free to attack what I have written here. I would be happy to be shown wrong, but I'm just not seeing this binding theory working at the moment.

I think that's very helpful, Nevyn. As clear and concise as possible, especially for any newcomers. I would add something if possible, if it fits and works, because it seems pretty important to me to the charge field in either or any theory, and in my opinion should be considered as well.

Through-charge (as we've discussed) moves very fast of course, so there's little chance of a major collision or recursion (multiple bounces) inside the axial "envelope", shall we say - the tube of through-path - but given a dense enough charge field the propensity for multiple collisions I think increases, in the same way that Miles had outlined in previous papers. We have less ambient charge coming in towards the center from those outer "borders", but not zero, since the chief particle itself cannot be in all places at once of course. Some ambient charge will make it through, and I think given enough charge density we would see some recursion in there, some bounces.  Some collisions could or would occur. And in s dense enough field, some collisions could or would occur simply in the ambient field up and down. Perhaps not very many, but perhaps some fraction and I imagine that fraction is a cause of many of the postulates Miles has used in his math, knowingly or not.

And this is what I think "causes" the vectors in his main diagram for charge throughput:



So what I think is happening is that some collisions between ambient charge photons are occurring in this central axial zone, and most of those are knocking a photon out at some oblique angle or other. With the average angle coming out along those 30° N and S areas, as per Miles theory. Of course I could be wrong about this as the particles are moving very fast, but how many such collisions per second would be necessary to augment those emission zones? We're talking about billions of billions of photons pouring through this gap every second, more in denser ambient fields and less of course in sparser fields, but still a phenomenal amount of charge photons.

Here's an example from a recent video we made diagramming Helium charge:

https://vimeo.com/264207959


So while I agree entirely with Nevyn's proposals and explanations here, I think this augmentation needs also be considered. I agree that rotation at the quantum level plays less part than one might think, and that through-charge at this size is a matter of NO interaction, not a pull. One can call that a field potential and not be wrong, but as we dig ever further I think Nevyn's description is of the utmost important and clarity. But I think many collisions in through-charge would or could result in the vectors we've seen in Miles' theories, which he's proven time and time again in other areas such as axial tilt and like 300 other papers.

But I also am at the same point still personally and find the new charge-gravity theory to cause more problems than it solves, so far. We'll see how it evolves but also let's be as skeptical as necessary. Critical, rather. If it is a valid theory and Miles does bolster it along the way, he's going to want our questions to help refine it and fill the gaps. Perhaps these things will propel him to do just that.

Nevyn wrote:

You can clearly see how the equatorial emission of charged particles is created from that description. Also, you can see how the poles are created. Nothing esoteric about it. So what forces have we created so far? Only the emission force. Bullets coming in from the X or Y dimensions, or anywhere on the XY plane, will be pushed away and create the equatorial emission field. But we have not created any attraction at the poles, apparent or not. Strictly speaking, we haven't even created the emission force yet, because there is no emission.

I always understood Miles as the equatorial emission of charged particles is the consequence of high-velocity spin and its centrifugal force guiding charged particles towards the equatorial zone where such centrifugal force would be highest. I don't want to be nit picking, but if you assume a bullet/photons coming in / entering a simple stacked-spin charge engine that is not neutron, than it should also get emitted.  

Nevyn wrote:
This is the key point, the forces created for both the equator and the poles are not actually created by the particle. They are created by the ambient field. Well, really it is both of them together. The particle does provide the motions, but the ambient field provides the bullets. The particle is the gun, but the ambient field is the magazine. However, there is a difference between the equatorial emission and the polar regions. For the emission, the particle provides something to bounce off of and the ambient field provides something to bounce. The poles actually work in the complete opposite way. The poles provide a lack of something to bounce off of, so charge can just keep on going through.

So, we have found that the emission field is a real field and the particle does do something to create that. But the poles do not. They don't do anything. They can't do anything because they have no substance. They are the lack of substance. Anything we assign to them is really the ambient field in the vicinity of the particle. That is what I had assumed Miles meant by apparent. It is really the ambient field pushing photons into that region, but I can't even see that right now. Why would it push charge to the poles?

As much as I understood Miles explanation, the force at the poles is created by the difference in field potential. I searched for his most simple explanation, which I may have found ( from his ionic.pdf):

"If we treat the holes as charge minima, and the charge field as a wind, the holes have very real suction. They will attract charge maxima like those single protons sticking out."

And then a few sentences below (ionic.pdf paper):

""It is the charge field that is causing the potential here, not the electrons. You have charge going in one end and out the other, so we can map potential exactly like wind. Charge IS a photon wind. "

I do find this explanation more than reasonable and I think nature has similar situations where we can visualize it. Like seen in wind stream when it pulls / attracts nearby gas molecules to it due to difference in pressure. So this mechanism of attraction creates force / potential by movement of gas stream. I somehow think it may be just the same in relation to the stream of charge particles.

Thanks so much for your time and inputs so far.

.
Great discussion Everyone, I'm trying to keep up. It’s interesting that we all seem to have our own questions/difficulties with understanding charge gravity. No one seems to accept it verbatim as miles has written it, or maybe they do, just not well enough to describe it to the rest of us. I know I’ve always been a difficult student, but I suppose Miles might have expected a little more support from us. Oh well, of course no slight is intended, we're all trying to help each other understand. It may not seem like it, but I'm feeling better about charge binding as gravity.

Jared wrote. I think the reason I'm having such a tough time with this is due to one of Miles' previous papers, "The Speed of Gravity". In which he argues rather successfully that gravity has no speed, it is instantaneous, and against the mainstream propaganda that gravity moves at the speed of light, which he falsifies.
Airman. I recall reading Tom Van Flandern's work several years ago, where he proved gravity exceeded light speed as light speed exceeds my normal walking speed. But that's due to the fact that Van Flandern didn't have dual opposing fields, gravity and charge. With respect to orbits, gravity is in balance with charge whether charge propagates at the speed of light speed or not. If the object gets too close to the planet, like a fishing bob pulled under water, charge will kick the object away from the planet with greater outgoing force - a reaction apparently much faster than light.

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. Short video demonstration using two inflated balloons here...
Airman. Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply Boris. I agree with you; that is, if you haven’t changed your thinking by now. The Bernoulli analogy sounds good to me.
When the proton is aligned with the charge source, a charge channel is established between the proton and the charge source. Depending on its size and distance to the proton, (say between the earth and a proton in the Van Allen belt). The charge source will create a charge current through the proton, as well as a steady supply of charge that will collide with the particle - the source for the proton’s equatorial emission field. Two alternate charge effects, the balance between charge binding, or charge repulsion sets up a dynamic equilibrium that will then interact with the particle’s ambient field.

I agree that the ‘pressure outside the charge particle’ is greater than the pressure inside the channel, with a fairly constant proton through current and emission field. The charge flow from the Earth cannot be matched by any other direct charge entering the proton. The outward flow of charge from the proton will cause a negative pressure inside the nucleus. The proton will move to a position closer to or further from the Earth depending on the ratio of the two forces, charge binding vice charge repulsion. But what starts the charge binding acceleration? Unlike gravity only, the proton’s ambient field is the prime mover. The proton loses energy with most of the direct charge/anti-charge collisions between the Earth charge and the nucleus. The nucleus would show little resistance to ambient charge collisions from behind resulting in motion back toward the Earth, until a balance of forces between binding and repulsion is reached.

Vexman wrote. Within a charge stream of more complex charge engines such as for instance a planet, there is probably high level of established order in context of photons movement direction. However, there are many photons side by side but there are as well many collisions within such complex charge engine, thus proportion of photons having a spin, bearing magnetic force with them and all of them moving at great speed. I can visualize this stream creating a pulsating pattern according to the structure of such charge stream - the more spun photons, the larger number of "pull" (push?) pulses could be counted as they would be passing by (if we were able to get close enough and measure it). Considering the near light speed of actual charge stream, this effect would seem continuous over the entire length of charge stream.
Vexman wrote. I meant potential between the poles of i.e. proton as the most basic form of such charge engine. Stream of charge within it is created and based on potential between the poles. Different charge engines have different potentials and thus recycle more or less charge. This charge recycling process is responsible for a stream of charge, which I think is the issue here.
Vexman wrote. So, what if the charge stream actually relates to the pull force? Could we somehow transform the field potential in order to show the amount of binding force it carries? What would happen if we had no photons to begin charge recycling process with, would nucleons still bind together due to these vortices alone?  I don't think we could even make an experiment like this as there can be no charge engines without photons in the first place. Which begs another question, would a charge engine fall apart without any photons to feed it? That makes me think there's more to the dynamics of this phenomenon, with many components playing their part in the complex process.
Airman. I can see how the charge received in the main N/S nucleus without collision will form a unique stream of charge - mostly photons with various stack levels but also electrons too - stretching out into space. Wouldn’t that charge stream be lost to space? Although I suppose charge binding may be able to turn the larger charged particles, such as electrons back toward the planet. I don't see how this stream of charge connects to charge binding.
I envy your visualizations. I certainly believe that without photons, charge engines could not exist.   

Nevyn wrote. Why would it push charge to the poles?
Airman. Thanks for the great description Nevyn, the stacked spin diagram definitely adds to our understanding of the nucleus, but I have one criticism with it. Strictly speaking, your stacked spin diagram doesn’t include charge. You describe charge passing through or colliding with just the stacked spin. I believe the poles aren’t as open as they appear; the direct path through the nucleus is blocked by the 95% of charge that happens to be recycling through the proton at any given moment. I imagine the proton fills with charge before its spin is able to emit as much charge as it receives. before it can form a 'pressure differential' inside the nucleus/charge channel and out. I believe the particle must be filled with spinning/recycling charge before it can properly demonstrate the tugging/binding force.
My big problem is not being able to understand how incoming recycling charge – mostly light speed photons - could form vorticies while in cue in order  to recycle through the nucleus.

Cr6, That latest Navy room temperature Superconductor is an incredible development that probably needed it's own post.
.

Vexman wrote:I always understood Miles as the equatorial emission of charged particles is the consequence of high-velocity spin and its centrifugal force guiding charged particles towards the equatorial zone where such centrifugal force would be highest.

Except there is no centrifugal force, inside the proton. Or the neutron, or electron. Centrifugal force, like any force, must be cause be a collision of matter, of mass, and accelerated by a constant or consistent such collision. No mass, no collision, no acceleration:

F=ma

So let's look again at Nevyn's spin-path diagram:



As he said, we're looking at this proton "from the top", the way incoming polar charge might "see" it. Any photon going through the proton's polar gaps cannot feel any force from the proton itself, which is not a solid sphere like a planet or star but a single particle traveling along a path which creates a spheroid type path-shape, in 3D of course.

So any incoming photon at this scale could NOT feel any "centrifugal force" unless it collides with the proton's actual particle, somewhere along that path. There's nothing to push the photon OUT along the equator at this scale - except for maybe other charge photons, either coming up from the other end or in from the sides, having missed that proton's particle itself.

Does that make sense? I can make a video demonstrating this pretty easily.

At the same time, per my previous comment (which Nevyn may or may not agree with, and I would tend to defer to him) we MIGHT have a mechanism for this outward push, due to collisions between photons in the center of the nucleon. Not ALL photons will collide with others, just as not all photons would collide with the proton as it moves rapidly along its path - but we have potentials there, which I believe cause or augment the equatorial emission.

It is these potential collisions that cause Miles' to say that the poles "pull in charge", which is inaccurate as he's stated himself but the word has some value for conciseness. Only it's not a pull at all, in any way. It's simply an APPARENT attraction, caused by a lack of repulsion in those polar zones relative to the proton's path. Photons are more likely to pass through pole-to-pole than they are from side to side.

Thus, any and all "binding energy" is simply a consistent push from without. The neutron doesn't stick to the proton, nor the electron, in any physical way - they are both pushed into those positions by charge and held there by the ambient field. It's easier for them to huddle together and recycle charge together than it is to blast them apart, which the ambient field normally doesn't do in nature, except for of course in natural fission or natural explosions or reactions of that sort, where charge is for whatever reason amplified into the volume an atom might contain.

All that said, I think centrifugal force might play a part at larger scales, such as planets or moons. We have a lot more matter, much greater charge densities (since matter IS charge, of course), and a much greater volume than a single proton or nucleon. A photon coming into Earth at the North Pole might collide seven times on its way through and out the equatorial zones, or it might collide none and shoot straight through the south pole. But the Earth is also moving laterally AND spinning, so this increases the chance of a collision during that photon's travel-time through the Earth, and thus augments the propensity to bounce a photon "out".

Does that make any sense?

Jared Magneson wrote:

Vexman wrote:I always understood Miles as the equatorial emission of charged particles is the consequence of high-velocity spin and its centrifugal force guiding charged particles towards the equatorial zone where such centrifugal force would be highest.

Except there is no centrifugal force, inside the proton. Or the neutron, or electron. Centrifugal force, like any force, must be cause be a collision of matter, of mass, and accelerated by a constant or consistent such collision. No mass, no collision, no acceleration:

F=ma

With all respect, I don't agree. The stacked spin structure is already made of spinning photons. Stacked spin wobbling is the reason we encounter vortices or empty space between the poles. But to assume the spinning photons, which are stacked in order to assemble a charge engine, and then not allowing the same mechanism which got photons spinning (i.e. collisions between the photons) to interact with the engine itself, is not a correct assumption in my opinion. The environment (i.e. charge field) has to has identical properties for each end every particle, end-to-end in all directions throughout the entire universe. For the first spinning photon to appear we either need to assume it was spinning a priori or we can assume it got its spin from numerous collisions with other photons while moving at c. If you can imagine how two photons might have met in the space - they were going at c before they collided. Even if the angle of collision was small when they got close enough to form stacked-spin structure, they would be spinning over a particular axis. So in my opinion Nevyn's spin-path diagram is very accurate in showing the formation of vortice or empty space between the poles of wobbling stacked-spin charge engine, however it is a laboratory version of such structure, where it is "frozen" (i.e. shown as static and out of the influence of charge field which created it) and which may not be even possible to reproduce in nature. How could anyone reproduce a stacked-spin structure without charge photons present in the same field and no collisions whatsoever? I can understand the above diagram where it depictures wobbling of stacked-spin structure, but for any other use it should incorporate or assume a complete charge field full of photons running at c from all directions. The probability of not colliding in a charge field is close to or equal 0 in my opinion. Thus the static (non-spinning) stacked-spin structure can't exist in the way as diagrammed other than in theory.

Jared Magneson wrote:
So any incoming photon at this scale could NOT feel any "centrifugal force" unless it collides with the proton's actual particle, somewhere along that path. There's nothing to push the photon OUT along the equator at this scale - except for maybe other charge photons, either coming up from the other end or in from the sides, having missed that proton's particle itself.

Looking at F = ma, we do have mass present. Proton has mass just like a charge photon has mass or any other structure made of stacked, spinning photons. Photons can't exist at 0 speed, which mean they bear one component of "a", that is linear velocity. Any thing spinning exhibits centrifugal force among others. How would it be possible to avoid the impacts of centrifugal force from within, for instance, a spinning proton influence zone? It isn't possible. But we have a disagreement about the presence of the initial spin, so we disagree here in consequence. There are cases where charge goes directly from entering one pole and exiting the other despite the structure's spin, but as much as I remember Miles' explanation, the reason is that in such structures / chemical elements / molecules, the path to the equatorial emission zone gets blocked.

I do agree though, that two charge streams coming in from the opposite poles can as well be the reason for charge emission at the equatorial zone. I just think that most of the charge redirection towards equatorial emission zone gets done by centrifugal force. I visualize that collisions between two such incoming charge particles are mostly encountered "behind the curve" where they get redirected.



As you can see from the diagram, it does not de-picture a direct stream collision. Why do these streams get redirected before they collide? I can only imagine centrifugal force acting upon them.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.

I don't see how this stream of charge connects to charge binding. I envy your visualizations. I certainly believe that without photons, charge engines could not exist.   

I gave my best and tried to create a diagram out of my words so you'd have the same picture in front of you as I had in my mind when discussing it.

The analogy with the stream of air :



And how it would be seen in 2D from above i.e. Earth in context of charge stream:



I hope these two diagrams can clarify my idea more than words did. One still needs to visualize a full blown 3D model of a sphere in the second diagram + its spinning, though, and all those gray arrows pointing inward the sphere.

Thinking as I type this, I'd have huge issue with explaining why would binding force/ gravity point at apparent center of the sphere. Why would center of the sphere have any role in such case where charge stream is creating pull?

Vexman wrote:As you can see from the diagram, it does not de-picture a direct stream collision. Why do these streams get redirected before they collide? I can only imagine centrifugal force acting upon them.

Hmm, I'm not sure I'm explaining my previous response very well, Vexman. I'll try again.

What I meant to say is that, inside a proton, there is no mechanism for centrifugal force from the proton itself, without a collision. So any incoming polar charge photons cannot "feel" any force pushing them outwards towards the equator, without either:

A) striking the proton itself and being bounced out
   or
B) colliding with other charge photons

A charge photon flying through from pole to pole must collide with another moving mass to change directions. Centrifugal force isn't mediated in any other way - no force is, actually. All changes of direction, velocity, and spin must come from a direct collision, including an acceleration which must be a series of collisions.

So while I see your point about all photons already spinning, it's not to the point here regarding centrifugal force. A charge photon entering either pole will simply corkscrew on through and out the other pole, depending on angle obviously, but if it doesn't collide with anything it cannot feel any force exerted upon it. That is what "through-charge" is. Charge photons that don't make any hits on their pathway.

I think some of this theory is where Nevyn has added to Miles' theory and in some cases corrected it, and you likely haven't been exposed to these additions yet. Miles touches on the topics a lot but I don't believe he's explicitly stated what I just did, which is just paraphrasing Nevyn's assessment from other conversations.

So to sum up, without a collision there can be no "force" imparted, upon anything, centrifugal or otherwise. In face to get that "a" for acceleration in the equation, we must have multiple, constant or consistent collisions to achieve an acceleration. You can't achieve an acceleration by just one collision - it has to be multiple, compounding collisions over any given delta-t (change in time, or timeframe). So for any centrifugal force to occur, there must be consistent or constant collisions pushing the charge photon out. It couldn't even be just one collision; that's just a bounce out, you see. For a force of this nature to exist inside the proton, we would need multiple collisions at all times deep inside of it, where the proton itself never actually goes, so those would have to be photon-photon collisions, since those charge photons never actually touch the proton itself, spiraling very far away and outside of their path.

But that's just the proton. In macroscale, say the size of the Earth, we do have that kind of charge density. Protons and photons collide far more often, the denser the field. So at this much larger scale what we see is some measure of centrifugal force, due to the compound vectors of there Earth's spin, the Earth's linear (orbital) velocity, its linear velocity relative to a rest viewpoint, and so on. My point being, centrifugal force doesn't exist the same way in the proton as it does in the macroscale.

So regarding Miles' famous charge diagram, it is a naive but effective way of showing the net vectors, but shows no collisions at all. I know he doesn't explain it like that but I believe he would agree with me, which is also why I try to make my videos show those collisions better or at least represent them:

https://vimeo.com/101761844

That one is older but might help visualize things? Of course, the proton isn't a wireframe sphere at all, but that's just a representation of its boundary abstractly. Here's a newer one, except the sphere is solid so you can't see the photon-photon collisions inside as well, but the output is better:

https://vimeo.com/145068938


If we go with Miles' new charge bonding theory of gravity, this would also include gravity. There must be more collisions "pushing" matter down towards the gravitic body than there are pushing up. Any attractions and "pulls" are only apparent motions, based on collision differentials.

Thanks, Jared. And you did explain yourself more than well previously. I just apparently have to do some more heavy thinking. This no-collision - no centrifugal-force issue is where my intuition fails. But correct me if I'm wrong, centrifugal force on Earth's surface has nothing to do with charge collisions?

So Nevyn has added parts to this particular part of Miles theory, right? If so, would you be so kind to link it here? I'd greatly appreciate it. It's really fundamental for the construct I had developed based on charge theory and I'd really like to know, of course, if there's anything of importance that was already corrected or added to already published papers.

Thanks Jared, I've tried a few times to write out what you just said, but didn't like the way it sounded each time. The key point is that we have to be careful with the tools we use at this level. Once you get into the quantum realm, there is nothing lower than it, so every force must come from some mechanical collision. Ideas like pressure and centrifugal force lose all meaning. The charge field can create pressure, but it can not feel it itself. Which is just saying that a field can not act on itself. It can not be the cause of its own motions.

Vexman, I really like the way you are thinking about this. We've had a bit of a head-start and have attempted to flesh out certain parts of Miles work. Whether we have been successful or not is a matter of opinion, but we enjoy it anyway. Finding it all can be a bit painful. Sometimes a key idea in one field is actually in a thread about another, so it is difficult to find them later. I'll try to track down a few and provide some links.

No worries here, Vex, and I'm often wrong about stuff so take it all as ideological and not "canon". Not fact, just (hopefully) solid, mechanical theory. Centrifugal force isn't a real "force" in the actual sense, but rather a displacement of velocity vectors. That is to say, on a carousel you are constantly shifting your direction, which is a form of acceleration, but there's no actual "out" vector except along a tangent to the center.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-centrifugal-force-exist.16669/

"So we feel this force, but it doesn't really exist? Is the "disproof" of centrifugal force that if you were on a carosel and you feel this force pushing you outward, if it existed and you let go of the carosel it would push you away from it, but in reality you would follow the the line tangent to the circle?"

(Chen) "The centrifugal force isn't unique only to circular motion and carousels... when you drive in your car and step on the gas paddle, aren't you pushed agains the back of your seat? It appears that a force is pushing you back, while in reality you are going forward. (Of course it's not called a centrifugal force there, but it acts on the same principle.)

"Why? Because your acceleration, relative to the car / carousel, is zero. And for it to be zero, the sum of forces on you must be zero. The difference is that in your car you only feel it when accelerating/decelerating, because at any other time your velocity is constant, whereas in the carousel you feel it all the time because while your velocity is constant, its direction changes all the time and your acceleration is never zero."

Vexman wrote:But correct me if I'm wrong, centrifugal force on Earth's surface has nothing to do with charge collisions?

Correct in a way, centrifugal "force" is not necessarily related to charge collisions - except that it's charge collisions which spin the planet itself, magnetically. So they cause the motion that causes the apparent "force" or vector-change, due to the spinning Earth.

But one thing to keep in mind is that ALL velocity changes are due to collisions, at the quantum level. ALL that energy really is is a transfer of motion (momentum) from one body to another. Other than the perhaps-unexplained gravitic acceleration we're discussion, nothing changes motion without a collision, ever. All changes in direction or vector must come from an actual, tangible collision - either in particles or in larger matter.

There are some interesting discussions in this thread:

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t213-proposal-electricity-animation

although it jumps all over the place.

Some more here:

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t235-c-the-speed-of-light-and-the-bphoton

There's some good stuff here:

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t3-steve-diagraming-mm-s-models

I think that is actually the first thread I posted on at this forum. Very early ideas and understanding that gets fleshed out over many other threads.

Some more pertinent info in here:

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t23-gravity-mass-expansion

although it devolves a bit towards the end.

I can't find some of the more important ones I remember. There is a thread somewhere that I go into defining mass of a particle as the sum of spin velocities. It is mentioned in one of the links above, but I went into more detail somewhere else.

There is also another thread where I talk about building a universe with 4 easy steps, all performed on the BPhoton. I've been looking for that thread for some time now, but can never find it when I want it. Perhaps someone else can remember where that it.

Maybe we need to start a 'Best of' thread and link to the important discussions in there. Or maybe a primer thread that leads new members through our discussions.

Indeed, I'd really like to compile a lot of our commentary into some form or other, but a lot of it is also very contextual so it's hard. It would be a good idea however in case this site ever disintegrates on us, too. I'll see what I can do in my spare time this week!

But it's sure nice to see a few newcomers here, as well. Hope you folks find it as interesting as I do.

Airman wrote:Strictly speaking, your stacked spin diagram doesn’t include charge. You describe charge passing through or colliding with just the stacked spin. I believe the poles aren’t as open as they appear; the direct path through the nucleus is blocked by the 95% of charge that happens to be recycling through the proton at any given moment.

The charge inside of the particle can not block the incoming charge, except through random collisions which are rare, and even then it is blocking a single photon, not a stream of them. The reason they can't block incoming charge is because they all move at the same speed. Blocking requires a difference in speed or opposing directions, but all charge moves at c and it rarely collides. So any charge inside of a particle while another photon is approaching is going to be gone by the time it gets there.

Airman wrote:I imagine the proton fills with charge before its spin is able to emit as much charge as it receives. before it can form a 'pressure differential' inside the nucleus/charge channel and out. I believe the particle must be filled with spinning/recycling charge before it can properly demonstrate the tugging/binding force.

In order for the particle to become filled with charge, you must stop that charge. Wait for more to come in and then, at some limit, start them all going again. During all of that, the original particles BPhoton must be moving around all of that charge with no, or very little, hindrance. I don't think that is feasible. Even if it was, it still doesn't setup an attraction.

Try to avoid thinking about charge as something that a particle has, and try to think of it as something that the particle does. The particles BPhoton is spinning around and that has an effect on the ambient charge field. The charge field has the energy, but it lacks direction. The particle provides that direction which creates structure, or order, within the ambient field. The difference between that order and the usual randomness (or pre-existing structure of the ambient field) is what creates the effects we measure.

When thinking about charge photons, then you have to treat them as photons so they can't sit around and wait for other things to happen. They come in fast and they leave fast. There is no time for anything other than collision or no collision. If there is a collision, then what direction will the charge photon go and how does it effect the particles motion. That is all there is to it. Multiply that by 19 times its own mass per second and you start to see things happen. Only when talking about lots of charge photons, over some appreciable time frame, can we use concepts like pressure and potential differences.

Airman wrote:My big problem is not being able to understand how incoming recycling charge – mostly light speed photons - could form vorticies while in cue in order  to recycle through the nucleus.

They can't form vortices and they can't queue up. A vortex requires a driving force, a substance to drive, and a restriction on that substance from following the driving force. We have the substance to drive, which are the charge photons, but nothing can drive them and nothing can restrict them. You may think the particle provides the restriction, but it doesn't because a vortex is setup before the restriction. It requires a build up of the substance but we can't do that with charge photons. They just won't stop.

This is one of my main points. An attraction happens at a distance from that which is attracting. It is that distance that can not be justified to my liking. Even saying it is an apparent attraction still requires that things happen at a distance, it just changes the direction of the forces. I'm happy with that. I accept that any charge photons that want to go into that area will do so, but they will not have their direction changed to do so. Either they were already going that way, or they were not and therefore they won't. Therefore there is no attraction, no apparent attraction, no vortex and no potential difference. All there is is a lack of resistance. We might even call it an acceptance, but I can't call it an attraction.

Now, this isn't all doom and gloom. Once we rise above the photon level and start looking at charged particles, we can use the charge field to provide pressure. We can use the lack of resistance to create potential differences because of that pressure. But now we are talking about interactions between larger entities and not looking directly at the charge field itself. We are using large numbers of charge photons over some time period rather than individual photons. The charge field can drive larger entities, but it can not drive itself.

.
Vexman wrote. I hope these two diagrams can clarify my idea more than words did.
Airman. Thank you Sir. I see now what you called the charge stream, I’ve called ‘the charge current flow into the nucleus’. The “air flow analogy” of a charge stream shows a sort of Bernoulli Effect pulling charge along and into the nucleus as BorisT has suggested, and I’ve also agreed with.  

Jared wrote. So regarding Miles' famous charge diagram, it is a naive but effective way of showing the net vectors, but shows no collisions at all. I know he doesn't explain it like that but I believe he would agree with me, which is also why I try to make my videos show those collisions better or at least represent them:
Airman. I must disagree. The curved net vectors show the average path of an average charged particle recycling from the poles to emission at about +/-30 degrees about the equator. Why would you say it shows no collisions at all when we know that the curved paths themselves indicate accelerations – which, as you said, are attainable only through multiple collisions? The curved ‘net vectors’ in the charge diagram do, in fact, indicate multiple collisions.

I believe Nevyn’s Spin Path Generator and Spin Simulator apps display high level stacked spin particles as the summed stacked spin motions of one, repeat: one, b-photon. That is a mathematical model. We should all agree any given photon can have only a single linear motion and a single spin motion - including a stacked spin B-photon. A single B-photon with 22 properly scaled simultaneous stacked spins is crazy talk. Very few collisions indeed. How could the proton survive any charge collision?

The other big problem that you've already admitted is that there’s simply no way that the stacked spin model as you’ve described or shown in your vimeos can produce the disc-like equatorial emissions of Miles’ atomic diagrams, see the single proton, atomic Hydrogen model. Declaring that atomic proton model as “naïve” and that Miles would agree is completely unjustified. I don't believe your model is possible, but don't take my opinion. Please ask Miles for his opinion before you throw out his proton model for a couple of no good reasons.  

Airman wrote: Strictly speaking, your stacked spin diagram doesn’t include charge. You describe charge passing through or colliding with just the stacked spin. I believe the poles aren’t as open as they appear; the direct path through the nucleus is blocked by the 95% of charge that happens to be recycling through the proton at any given moment.
Nevyn wrote. The charge inside of the particle can not block the incoming charge, except through random collisions which are rare, and even then it is blocking a single photon, not a stream of them. The reason they can't block incoming charge is because they all move at the same speed. Blocking requires a difference in speed or opposing directions, but all charge moves at c and it rarely collides. So any charge inside of a particle while another photon is approaching is going to be gone by the time it gets there.
Airman. Granted. I understand that charge and a proton defined as a single b-photon would rarely meet, for all the reasons you mention.
The problems with the proton as a b-photon make that model unacceptable to me. We don’t need to belabor that here. Before dismissing the charge diagram I would attempt to offer something different.

Such as, I believe that all the stacked spins within a proton can and do channel charge.

Most of the charge being recycled is the slightly larger and slower variety, they came into the nucleus thru the charge channel, and collided with the very substantial rotating mass of recycling charge close to the proton’s spin axis. The larger charge particles tend to block up the works, but they soon lose energy and size, becoming homogenized in the Proton whirlitzer.

I would change that initial quote of mine from. "In order for the particle to become filled with charge" to "In order to fill the particle’s spins with charge". I believe the proton has a surface, mostly spherical with a tiny through channel, comprised of charge spinning thru those spins. As such, I believe that concepts like pressure and potential differences and gravity as charge binding do occur in my charge cycling through the proton's stacked spins model.

//////////////////////////////////

P.s. I should clarify, I haven't built such a model. Its only a possibility that, in my opinion, is worth investigating. More in keeping with my understanding of the charge field.
.

Airman wrote:I understand that charge and a proton defined as a single b-photon would rarely meet, for all the reasons you mention.

I wasn't talking about the proton's BPhoton, only charge photons in and around the proton. The potential for a collision with the proton's BPhoton is higher because of its spins. It stays in the general vicinity, where-as charge photons come and go. My discussion has been centered around charge to charge interactions, not charge to particle interactions or particle to particle interactions. I am trying to show that the charge field can not cause changes to itself. Using terms like pressure and attraction are only allowed when talking about larger entities that are in the charge field.

Airman wrote:Most of the charge being recycled is the slightly larger and slower variety, they came into the nucleus thru the charge channel, and collided with the very substantial rotating mass of recycling charge close to the proton’s spin axis. The larger charge particles tend to block up the works, but they soon lose energy and size, becoming homogenized in the Proton whirlitzer.

I understand the slightly larger part, but not the slower variety bit. Photons are not going slower than any other photons, different sizes or not. They all move at c. It's a defining characteristic. That aside though, I must ask larger and slower than what? The ambient field that they came from? The other charge in the proton? Neither make much sense to me, but I don't understand the model you are trying to create. You seem to be treating spins as entities in their own right and I don't see how that can happen, but I'm still working in the Single BPhoton Theory, so I may be muddying the waters a bit.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Declaring that atomic proton model as “naïve” and that Miles would agree is completely unjustified. I don't believe your model is possible, but don't take my opinion. Please ask Miles for his opinion before you throw out his proton model for a couple of no good reasons.

You misread or misinterpreted my comment:

Jared Magneson wrote:
So regarding Miles' famous charge diagram, it is a naive but effective way of showing the net vectors, but shows no collisions at all. I know he doesn't explain it like that but I believe he would agree with me, which is also why I try to make my videos show those collisions better or at least represent them:

Where in his diagram here do you see any collisions? There are none. There is a circle and two colored arrows, which are curving before they even enter the circle. That's what I meant by "naive diagram" - he's showing the net vectors here, not any collisions. He's not showing the cause of the collisions or real photons, but rather the potential motions and outcomes. Do you see a collision? Do you mean the crossover of the colored arrows? That's way after the curvature begins. What collision do you see that is causing the curves to start curving in the first place? There's no collisions in that diagram at all, so I don't really understand your irritation.

Miles explains the curvature and thus equatorial emissions in several ways as we all know, as a propensity similar to centrifugal "force" and also as I have explained it above, as a result of intercolliding charge photons as they flash through the nucleon. But nowhere in that diagram are there any collisions shown. You may imply them if you like, but there are none.

LongtimeAirman wrote:The other big problem that you've already admitted is that there’s simply no way that the stacked spin model as you’ve described or shown in your vimeos can produce the disc-like equatorial emissions of Miles’ atomic diagrams, see the single proton, atomic Hydrogen model.

I don't know where or why or how you think I said that, but I've already diagrammed Hydrogen and produced the disc-like equatorial emission of Miles diagrams with my videos. Perhaps you missed that one, which is entirely forgivable, but I've never said or shown anything contrary to his model in any of my accessory works.

I've shown them in all my videos, in fact, so it's odd that you would say something like that - including the ones I posted in this thread, and even the ones I posted in the comment you were quoting. That was Helium. But here's the Hydrogen video directly, for your reference, clearly showing the equatorial emissions of a proton's (yellow sphere) charge at 30° N and S:

https://vimeo.com/206370190


If I seem irritated, I am. I don't know why you think I would contradict Miles' theory on something we've been doing since the very first time I came here - posting vids and diagrams that augment or expand his theory, not contradict it. This gravity-charge stuff is actually the first time I've disagreed with his theories, albeit that is still my initial reaction and we're here to study the theory and either accept or falsify it, if possible. That's science, and I believe that's what he wants us to do. Challenge him with real, mechanical questions so he can refine or discard his theory.

Hi all.
First allow me to introduce myself.
I don't remember when I discovered MM but I have read ALL his papers... I'm a MM page refresher as I think most of you are xD.
I'm mainly a lurker, the only contribution I did was when I used to translate some of its papers into Spanish, as it is my mother tongue, so sorry by my English. I try to do the best I can and I hope nothing get lost on translation.

The last paper on gravity has been really EXCITING. It was the only important thing that was left to be explained mechanically in the MM view of the world, and I really NEED mechanical explanations. My feel is that any theory is incomplete or just false if it can't explain things based on mechanics. My view is that of a local realist, if you ask me. The other two attempts he did, and I think he will agree, weren't really convincing.

Well, I think its enough about me. Now about my questions, ideas and suggestions. Feel free to answer, ignore, insult and please correct my English so I don't repeat things that sound confusing.

What is the mechanics of binding?

The only apparent pull (from now on, just pull, as I assume you are also local realists and the only possible accepted pull is apparent, or say, a second order effect of pushes) a body can feel that I can grasp is either:

• A lack of push in the direction of repulsion in a field full of particles that are moving in all directions and thus pushing in all directions but the direction of the pull. LeSage style gravity theories fit in this view pretty nicely and I clearly see the pull in them, but that is another story.
  
• An excess of push in the direction of attraction.
  

From the last paper, I don't have any clear idea of the mechanics of the binding he is envisioning, so let's discuss the ones I can think of. Feel free to add others if you can think of more. They are not exclusive.
I think we have to address at least 3 things. How we model that hypothesis (M) in order to make predictions, what things explains well (+), and the contradictions or counterexamples that may destroy the hypothesis(-).

Charge ropes

The establishment of charge channels between solid bodies makes the motion harder in the direction that makes the ropes larger, so in an ambient field plenty of collisions in all directions, the preferred direction is to  other bodies. The larger and nearer the body, the stronger the rope.

M
+
-

Magnetic net effect

Somehow the spin of the photons exchanged by bodies, when colliding inside them, have a net effect that result in attraction*.  
An imbalance of photons or antiphotons may somehow affect this.

M
+
-

The magnetic hypothesis would be "excess of push in the direction of attraction" one, and I think the rope hypothesis would be like a "lack of push in the direction of repulsion" but instead of a lack of push it is more inertia, so "more inertia in the direction of repulsion".

I don't discard another item being cloaking effects a la LeSage, but I think it is out of scope here.

* Right now I have no idea how, and I cannot see how this would work in non-celestial bodies, and makes me question the Newton idea: Are we really sure the apple and the Moon fall for the same and ONLY reason? As I said above, the causes for pull I'm babbling about are not exclusive, and the way I view it "gravity" is only a name given to a net effect seen in planets and free falling objects that happen to result in the same rough acceleration. But you know, when you approach two magnets they are also attracted by "gravity", the magnitude of each cause in each setup is key...

Sorry, by its late in Spain. I have to sleep, feel free to fill the voids and add new entries while I sleep on it

Airman wrote:I believe Nevyn’s Spin Path Generator and Spin Simulator apps display high level stacked spin particles as the summed stacked spin motions of one, repeat: one, b-photon. That is a mathematical model. We should all agree any given photon can have only a single linear motion and a single spin motion - including a stacked spin B-photon. A single B-photon with 22 properly scaled simultaneous stacked spins is crazy talk. Very few collisions indeed. How could the proton survive any charge collision?

I don't see any other way to interpret stacked spins if it is not the spins that are stacking. It isn't called the stacked photon theory, which would imply many photons somehow stacked together. Given only the name, it is clearly the spins that are being stacked. But we don't have to rely on the name alone, or even Miles words describing it, we can look at the animation Miles provides (by Chris Wheeler) that explicitly shows a single stacked spin. There is only 1 particle in that animation, but there are 2 spins. So the Single BPhoton Theory is not just some idea of ours, it comes directly from Miles. I have taken that to many, many spin levels, much further than Miles could feasibly show in his papers, but I stand by my interpretation of his theory. Crazy? Maybe, but it is the theory we are working with.

I get that there are issues with the motions involved in a stacked spin particle. It is not intuitive. If it was, then Miles wouldn't need to supply it, because physicists would have proposed it long ago. But being un-intuitive does not falsify the theory. I have extrapolated from Miles words and animation, linked it to his work on angular momentum to find the correct timings, and from that we have spin paths that show regular structure (across many different spin levels). Throw in some charge interactions and I think it is feasible to say that the spin paths my apps generate can produce the charge field that Miles describes.

One thing to remember is that Miles did not have my apps to see stacked spins with. He didn't come up with the charge profile of a charged particle by looking at spin paths. He came to those conclusions because of existing data. The fact that my spin paths can match his charge profile is quite compelling, to me at least. I didn't expect to see the through-charge holes in the spin paths. I didn't expect the neutron to have a different sized hole than the proton. But they do. All based on his theory. I didn't have to make little changes to the code to get it to work like I wanted it to. I just followed the spin stacking idea, and the angular momentum editions, and ended up somewhere near the right place. Is that likely to happen if either of us is wrong? The theory itself may be wrong, but working with it, then it seems to fall together pretty well.