# The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Page 5 of 12   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10, 11, 12

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

Nevyn, thanks for your patience so far.

You say that I'm trying to create a scenario that has only gravity by defining everything else away. Though I tried to include it by saying two bodies are emitting charge. I just think charge wouldn't account for much difference in the scenario I was proposing.

I do admit all data is coming from orbiting bodies if we consider our own galaxy and all bodies within it orbiting its center. In the setup I proposed I wanted no interaction between two bodies, yet they could be orbiting center of the galaxy. I would be delighted if you could help me out here by proposing a better scenario where we can exclude as many influences as possible.

I also admit it looks as if I didn't include charge while thinking about experimental result. In such case I kindly ask you to show me where I took the wrong turn. I re-read my post several times before posting and couldn't figure out where such setup or its results could be improved.

Your idea about expansion creating the problem and charge solving it could be a solution to the issue of proportionality. But I would need to be convinced that charge can influence / repel another body at equal distance as gravity does. At the same time, charge would have to 'repair' all other proportionalities 'corrupted' by expansion. It also means the universe expands at same rate or else we would run out of space for expansion as time passes. There are a lot of assumptions in such scenario and I'm not sure they'll can be tested at all.

Vexman

Posts : 56
Join date : 2019-02-25

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

You can create the setup that you have, but it is only useful for investigating what a particular theory would do in isolation. You can't compare it to reality that doesn't work in isolation. So we can think about what only expansion would do, and then we could think about what binding gravity would do or Newtonian gravity, etc. We can see the differences between the theories. But we can't expect them all to work the same way as each other. To get to your problem, I don't think working in isolation is the right choice. We need an holistic view.

I think I can see some issues with your expectations which are causing you to jump to certain conclusions. You need to work out if your expectations are correct, or just what you are used to, or if they are valid to begin with.

Vexman wrote:But I would need to be convinced that charge can influence / repel another body at equal distance as gravity does.

Charge doesn't work at the distance that gravity does, in any theory of gravity. Charge drops off with an inverse quad relationship while gravity drops off with an inverse square. But as Miles has shown, only expansion can explain that inverse square, and it does it using time differentials. Those time differentials are caused by the charge, not the expansion.

But you have to remember that everything we know about gravity comes from within the model. All of our measurements, even though we think they are measuring gravity only, are actually measuring the charge field as well. That's why Miles had to fit charge within the existing equations. He had to find them in there, because there is no room to add them in, which is what MOND tries to do, for example.

You also have to realise that our measurements are made from the earth. That is what creates the inverse square relationship. If we measured things from the earth and then from saturn, say, then the values would be different from each other and we would not find the inverse square relationship. Measuring the gravity of saturn from the earth and measuring it from saturn itself are very different things. Of course, this is not a geo-centric theory, it doesn't have to be the earth that you measure from. I am only trying to show that you have to pick a reference frame and you have to stick to it in order to get the inverse square relationship.

Vexman wrote:At the same time, charge would have to 'repair' all other proportionalities 'corrupted' by expansion.

The word corrupted implies that you know how everything already works, then expansion changes that expectation but you think it still needs to live up to it. Do you absolutely know that these repairs are required? Or are you just expecting it to work the way you always thought gravity worked? Are you comparing it to reality, or just what you thought gravity must do, based on different theories with different assumptions and different mechanisms?

The fact is that man has not measured gravity outside of our own solar system (or our own planet really). Therefore all of that data is about orbiting bodies, which you have admitted but I don't think you are realising how important that is. What I'm trying to get at is that we have not observed anything outside of that small volume of space, so we can't go making assumptions about what would happen on the outside or at the very least, we must remember that they are assumptions. We can use theory to make an attempt, but we are not using reality. We can't say that the results are true and therefore all other theories of gravity must live up to them as well. Therefore, we don't have anything to compare to and say that such a theory has corrupted it and therefore must repair it.

Vexman wrote:It also means the universe expands at same rate or else we would run out of space for expansion as time passes.

How do we run out of space? What is space such that we can run out of it? The universe is not a thing, it is a collection of things. It has no boundary, or, at best, you can say that its boundary is the radius where there is no thing outside of that radius, but it is still not a hard boundary. If a stray photon goes beyond that radius, then the universe just got bigger. It didn't expand in the way we are using expansion, but it did expand, just because some lone photon is further than anything else from some center point.

Or maybe you mean that galaxies would have crashed together by now, or even solar systems. Since expansion seems to reach further out than other theories and it does so instantaneously. Well, are you sure that they haven't? Or there could just be more space between things than we thought (based on other theories of gravity). Or maybe they are moving towards each other at an alarming rate. Wouldn't it be better to know that, or at least investigate if it is going to be a problem? Either way, it is just a consequence of the theory and we have no data to say if it is true or not.

It is important to realise what your data is in physics. How you collected it. How your devices work. What other influences are involved. If you are using an equation, then you must know that it is actually usable in the way you want to use it. It is important to realise where that equation comes from and how it was built. In the case of gravity, we made some measurements here on earth, or within its near environs. We then assumed that Newton's equations were absolutely correct and calculated the gravity of the other bodies in the solar system. That is how we came to the inverse square law. We didn't measure the earth from the earth and then measure saturn from saturn, for example.

But then Miles came along and showed us that Newton's equation isn't just gravity. It already contains the charge field. That hasn't been sorted out yet. So there are some assumptions about gravity, thinking that it is only gravity at work, that actually are the charge field. We can't just say that 2 bodies are not interacting via charge if the concept of gravity is already using it. It's a mess, really. It is very hard to find your way through it all.

So, in the interest of progress, I think we need to look at this in a different way. Instead of saying 'the theory does this and this, but I know that and that, therefore the theory is wrong'. How about we just build a collection of 'the things the theory does'. A list of consequences of the theory, in isolation. Not to bring it down, but just to flesh it out a bit. Make sure that we have the right assumptions before we start to use them as weapons. We can do that for all of the gravity theories and get a feel for their differences. Given that we now have a new theory of gravity, that sounds like a good way to meander through them. A way to compare their implications without attacking them. But to do so, we must allow them to operate within their own realm. We can't go making expectations. We just follow the theory to its logical conclusions and state them.

Nevyn

Posts : 1614
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Maybe I can make another observation about those galaxies being gravitationaly attracted to each other. The currently accepted assumption is that gravity can be added. We assume that we can add up all of the individual mass in the solar system and come to a total that is then used to calculate the gravity of that solar system. Same with galaxies. It is all just added up and assumed to be correct.

Expansion doesn't work like that, though. You can't add up all of the expansion over some time period and then make it represent the system. You can only look at the individuals. This reduces the expectations of those larger systems from attracting one another, which helps to keep your proportions the same as you expected at such large distances. Given the large distances involved, the size of the actual bodies are extremely small in comparison.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think I may have just answered your question. Or at least shown that there is more involved with it than a quick glance will provide.

Nevyn

Posts : 1614
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Vexman, I made a quick video trying to illustrate the way or method that gravity offsets charge emission - which I believe holds true no matter which theory we use to explain the cause of gravity. To keep it simple, I went with the 2-body problem we've been discussing:

https://vimeo.com/322543176

Both bodies have the same mass, radius, and charge emissions. I simply colored them red and yellow for the sake of illustration and discussion. As you can see, the bodies accelerate towards each other but when they reach a certain distance, the charge emission pushes them apart again. This happens over and over until they find a sort of equilibrium - though never really a static gap between them, because gravity and charge emissions fall off at different rates (inverse-square for gravity and inverse-quad for charge). So there's always a little bit of a "bounce".

And this is of course why all natural orbits are elliptical. The bodies approach, then "bounce" out due to charge when they are close enough that the charge emission "trumps" the gravitic acceleration.

This is how Miles proposed his expansion to work, and also his other two theories for the most part. This is how he explains orbits, and why they are always elliptical to some extent. This is why the moon gets closer and recedes in its orbit, for example. In my video they aren't orbiting because there's nothing else in the universe to cause a sideways, orthogonal torque in this case, but they could be orbiting each other and it would look exactly the same, except for the bodies would be spinning around their barycenter and spinning relative to the grid. Or you could just spin the grid. Same thing.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 514
Join date : 2016-10-11

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

Uff, there were so many question to answer I got overwhelmed. I can't answer them even to my own satisfaction, so I guess I'll need to spend some more time chewing on this issues. Want to be sure I understand them all before delving more deeply in search for the right answers.

I've already prepared some of my questions that are in connection to third3.html paper for posting here, but will refrain from doing so until I'm 100% sure that I understand the issue in question. Relativity does complicate expansion analysis at my level, but so does Miles' experimental principle of applying expansion to only one celestial body while others are treated under ceteris paribus assumption. Wrapping my head around that only and understanding properness and applicability of such assumption will probably take me a while. I can only hope I'll manage to do so, eventually.

So if you agree, I'd like to digress here from analysis of expansion and its theoretical postulates. While understanding it has value, I want to better understand charge binding first. We can always return to this expansion theory at any time and maybe in a different thread, dedicated to it.

Your idea about building a collection of "things that theory does" sounds excellent. That would certainly help with understanding each theoretical principle and moreover, it would help understand essential differences between them. I really have no clue how to do it though. If you do have enough know-how and time on your hands, I can only say go for it. If there's any way I can assist you in such project, I'll be more than happy to do so.

Vexman

Posts : 56
Join date : 2019-02-25

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

Sure, no problem. Sorry for all the questions. I wasn't trying to overwhelm you, just trying to find the target. I didn't think that I was getting it. You've made me think a bit deeper about all of this, which is always a good thing to me, but it is distracting us from the new theory, which is hard enough to understand. So let's get back to that.

Nevyn

Posts : 1614
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Indeed, distractions or none I'm still having a terrible time understanding his new theory. With the expansion vector reversal, it was cut and dry to me. With his new vector reversals, I'm not really sure what's going up and what's going down anymore.

Can anyone try to clarify that part?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 514
Join date : 2016-10-11

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

I've composed a list of "things that the theory does" for charge binding, items are taken directly from http://milesmathis.com/grav3.pdf and http://milesmathis.com/grav4.pdf. It's divided in two parts, first one for gravity at photon level and the second one for gravity at Earth-size (larger mass) level.

Charge binding at photon level :
⦁ Edge hits cause spin changes rather than speed changes
⦁ Hits can either cause spin-ups or spin-downs :
⦁ same linear direction vs chaotic movement (lateral vs head-on collisions)
⦁ same spin hits vs different energies of spin hits (lateral vs head on)
⦁ left vs right spin hits
⦁ over time, the spin axes will be made coherent
⦁ photons move through matter on two schemes:
⦁ pole - to - equator
⦁ pole - to - pole
⦁ If the nucleus has a strong carousel level, the main scheme is pole-to-equator.
⦁ If the nucleus has a weak or non-existent carousel level, the charge also moves pole-to-pole
⦁ protons and neutrons don't repel one another in the nucleus
⦁ no photon bombardment inside the nucleus
⦁ nuclei are bound by charge pressure from outside
⦁ nuclei are bound by their own charge recycling
⦁ nucleus is recycling from both poles, charge and anticharge meet and cross
⦁ As charge and anticharge meet along the pole, they not only spin eachother up, creating current and magnetism, they also create a bond by pressure differences, or field potentials
⦁ The same pressure differences that cause the vortices cause the bind.
⦁ The force in at the poles creates the vortex, and the same force creates the “gravity” or “strong force”
⦁ opposing photon fields creating another sort of bind
⦁ charge pressure at the nuclear equator is vastly increased by the spin mechanics at the boundary
⦁ incoming photons of the ambient field are spun-up by the exiting photons of the channeled field. So when they impact a nucleon, they have more force than they would have, causing a net force in
⦁ photons moving along the nuclear pole meet and spin one another up, creating current and magnetism

Charge binding at Earth-sized (larger mass) level:
⦁ recycled charge field has to pass through the Earth
⦁ During this recycling, charge and anticharge have to cross, despinning both
⦁ It isn't a total spin-down or magnetic loss, but it must be considerable
⦁ rising charge will dissipate as it rises
⦁ particles moving up cause an acceleration down
⦁ And greater photon densities near the surface actually cause acceleration
⦁ gravity definitely IS a magnetic effect, since it relies on photon spins
⦁ 2 charge schemes: pole-to-equator and pole-to-pole
⦁ Pole-to-pole, the Earth is acting as a gigantic conductor.
⦁ Pole-to-equator, it is acting as a gigantic insulator
⦁ Photons are channeled to all places on the surface of a very large sphere and suffer a huge number of collisions along the way
⦁ charge coming out of the nucleus is channeled, but incoming charge at the equator is not channeled
⦁ 9.8 is simply telling us the relative strength of the rising photon field compared to the falling photon field
⦁ Charge is coming both from below and from above. Your body [or any other body?] has to align to one field or another, and can't align to both at the same time --> Since the charge field coming up out of the Earth is stronger, you align to that one and channel that one --> You are already channeling up, so you can't also channel down --> So the photons coming down from above don't channel, they impact (photons moving up spin up the photons moving down, raising their energy. So when they hit you they have more force. Since there are more photons moving up, the photons moving down will be spun up more)
⦁ The total force on you is still always a field differential, with forces going both ways

There was one single spark in my head as I was editing this here and it was about the explanation of what 9.8 actually represents. Like Miles said, 9.8 is the ratio of strengths of two opposing fields: the one falling down and the one rising up. As ludicrously simple as this may sound - the force of gravity is than simply the force of bombarding charge field. It's not a far fetched idea if we know charge / light represents cca 95% of all matter. I can imagine incredible amount of charge "raining" down on Earth, if we were able to calculate the mass of all "processed" charge to and from Earth, it would be simply amazing. So, what we can measure as gravitational acceleration is the "push" or "pressure" of falling (incoming) charge field diminished by the force of recycled charge field coming from below, or rising up.

Vexman

Posts : 56
Join date : 2019-02-25

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

In fact, the volume of charge can be roughly estimated . If we know the proton recycles 19 times its own mass every second, we can assume Earth is, say, between half and 3/4 as efficient in charge recycling. Mass of the Earth is cca 5.9722×10^24 kg, which means the volume of recycled charge would be between 2,9861 - 4,47915 x 10^24 kg per second. It's more impressive when written like this : up to 4.479.150.000.000.000.000.000.000 kg per second.

I can't even imagine what it would be like if we were able to see all of this going on in real time. Or to include it in the videos about it, probably a true nightmare to figure out

Vexman

Posts : 56
Join date : 2019-02-25

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

The first one that stands out to me as being odd (or impossible, rather) is this one, from your second list:

particles moving up cause an acceleration down

If we have an up-vector, there can not also be a constant down vector. Since there is no down-vector to begin with. And an acceleration down must be cause by multiple, consistent/constant downward collisions. An upward vector would only cause upward collisions, by definition.

Thoughts on this? I can make a quick video if that helps, but so far they haven't been very helpful on this topic judging from the lack of response alone.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 514
Join date : 2016-10-11

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

I think he meant acceleration comes from constant head-on collisions, particles moving up spinning-up the particles moving down.

For what in concerns me, your videos were always more than a million words, Jared. I would still be wondering what stacked spin means if it wasn't for your videos showing it clearly. If you have any clue how to include all that above into a video, please do it.

You asked about the vector reversal earlier. I think that the force/vector is coming with the incoming charge field. I just can't understand how the field can be coherent with charge coming in across the sphere equally at the same time? If the "pressure" of incoming charge is the cause of what we feel as gravity, binding us down, and we experience it across the sphere equally, than charge field isn't coherent, right? It means that charge field is coming towards sphere from all directions at the same rate.

Vexman

Posts : 56
Join date : 2019-02-25

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

.
Good observation Vexman, the calculation of the Earth recycling its own charge/mass every second or two is amazing. We must recycle our own mass a bit faster.

And a great reference list as well, thanks for making it, it will no doubt help others. Good that the effort included at least one ah hah moment for you. We all should study it. I would suggest, since you made the effort, you are now free to task others. Requesting formal review comments are in order. Otherwise, you're likely to get onesie/twosie or no responses.
Jared wrote.
Vexman wrote. particles moving up cause an acceleration down
If we have an up-vector, there can not also be a constant down vector. Since there is no down-vector to begin with. And an acceleration down must be cause by multiple, consistent/constant downward collisions. An upward vector would only cause upward collisions, by definition.

Thoughts on this? I can make a quick video if that helps, but so far they haven't been very helpful on this topic judging from the lack of response alone.
Vexman wrote. I think he meant acceleration comes from constant head-on collisions, particles moving up spinning-up the particles moving down.
Airman. I agree. The comment is true for the general case in that it goes opposite to expectation. Upward collisions resulting in an acceleration downward is literally true since we have a photon and antiphoton fields meeting head-on. Here's the pertinent quote.
Miles wrote.
The next step is noticing that our photon field seems to be acting the precise opposite of a ballistic field, since particles moving up cause an acceleration down.  And greater photon densities near the surface—which would normally cause slowing (in the case of poolballs, say)—actually cause acceleration.  Of course, the counter-intuitive nature of the field is why it wasn't unwound before.  Plus, remember that 9.8 is simply telling us the relative strength of the rising photon field compared to the falling photon field.  It isn't telling us the photons have that acceleration themselves.  The number 9.8 applies to the body in freefall, or the body being pulled, not to the rising photon field.  No photon or field of photons is accelerating at 9.8, obviously.  Fields don't have accelerations, they create accelerations.  And they must create them with gradients.  The only question is, can a rising photon field cause a gradient down?

It is due to photon spins, and specifically the presence of antiphotons in the field.  When photon and antiphoton fields meet, we do not get the sort of annihilations they sell us when matter meets antimatter (which are also false).  Rather, we get photon spin-downs.  These spin-downs are an energy loss, which causes cooling as well as attraction.  Normally when particles meet, we get spin ups and an increase in heat; but when antiphotons are involved, we get the opposite.  Well, in our current problem, we have an antiphoton field created.  Since one charge field is moving up and the other down, and since they came from the same place (the Sun), one field has to be upside down to the other.  As I have shown, this flips all our expectations, creating attraction where we would expect repulsion or bombardment, and creating cooling where we would expect heating [see my paper on Rayleigh scattering for more on this question].  In our current problem, it acts to reverse our expectation of a repulsion.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1242
Join date : 2014-08-10

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

It seems to me then that in a perfectly balanced field, where we have equal photons and antiphotons, there would be no gravity in the charge-gravity theory? Or perhaps its the other way around - in a much more imbalanced field, where say we have a 5 : 1 ratio of photons to antiphotons, we would have LESS gravity or more?

I'm really not understanding how photon spin-ups or downs where the fields meet could cause a NEW net vector down when we already had two net vectors: incoming ambient (or solar) charge and upcoming planetary charge. Especially on the magnitude of an entire planet. Or a planet's orbit around the sun. It seems to me that if that is such an important part of the theory, we would find more or less gravity as we move out from the sun. But we don't. Yes, it falls off at the inverse square but if it also falls off due to photon/antiphoton imbalances, wouldn't we find no solar gravity out towards the outer planets?

I'm thinking aloud (a-type) here so if that's not making sense, it's my fault. This gravity-charge thing is a real struggle for me and at this point I'm no closer to understanding it than when we began - again, this is my fault. The theory may or may not hold water, but currently it just slips right through my hands.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 514
Join date : 2016-10-11

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

.
You are not alone Jared, I don't see how it all works yet either.

I can agree with the idea of a single Earth emission field; the field interacts with atomic matter either repulsively - charge bombardment, or with charge binding. The vertical gradient is the balance of forces between the two.

The photon/antiphoton collisions resulting in increased spin-downs and downward accelerations as a factor in gravity seems at odds and is hard to reconcile with my charge binding/repulsion understanding. Are the photon/antiphoton collisions Miles described part of the charge binding mechanism? It certainly adds to the complexity of objects in the emission field. Wouldn't we notice more gravitational variations? I'll stop there.
.

LongtimeAirman

Posts : 1242
Join date : 2014-08-10

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

I'm fine with "binding energy" at the material level, of course. That's what we've been working on with charge this entire time, if you look at things one way. Making the photons DO what Miles has theorized. I'm much closer now with all your input (Nevyn especially has pushed me much, much further and helped tremendously with the technical side of things, over the past two years or whatever). But all that binding energy is already in use, binding the atomic, molecular, and macro structures together.

So I don't really know how it could also be used to bind everything else together at the instantaneous "speed" (acceleration) of gravity.

This doesn't mean Miles is wrong. It just means I am not satisfied yet and while he owes us personally absolutely nothing further on anything, it's the one theory from his science side I'm having nothing but trouble with. It's kind of a first time for me. I'm stuck. Again, not his fault out of hand, but my own damn problem. I'm just hoping further exploration and ideas from other people will help me make sense of it. So far I'm still at the same point as I was when we started this thread - mystified, outright.

I am working on a new simulation technique as a result, however, which has finally yielded individual spin and rotation on all my particles. Next step, scripting in stacked spins. But for now there's some progress on these things, just my latest videos haven't seemed very helpful and may not be very well done either, so I'm gonna work on this next one for awhile and get feedback first before I post it here. It's a charge-meeting-anticharge simulation, which so far simply looks like this:

Jared Magneson

Posts : 514
Join date : 2016-10-11

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

Jared Magneson wrote:I'm really not understanding how photon spin-ups or downs where the fields meet could cause a NEW net vector down when we already had two net vectors: incoming ambient (or solar) charge and upcoming planetary charge. Especially on the magnitude of an entire planet.

It's not new in the sense that such collisions are something which hasn't occurred before while we observe the charge field. Anywhere two photons of the right kind of spin meet and collide head-on we'll be able to notice one spun-up while the other will be spun-down. While it depends whether you are looking from below or above such collision, the result is the same. So any charge emitting body will face the results of such collisions as there are always two main directions of charge field present around it - charge coming down will be accelerated. The difference in the strengths of these two opposing fields is what we can than measure as gravity pull or vertical gradient, although it's mechanically a "push" of the incoming charge stream / field. Anyway, the vector is not new because it always represents the same force - the incoming charge is always being accelerated as it meets anticharge coming from charge-emitting body. In essence, when you first drew it on your paper within the influence zone of anticharge field, it meant acceleration. The closer to the surface where such upcoming charge is coming from, the more denser its field, and consequently the more accelerated incoming charge field gets. Which is consistent with our observation that the force of gravity diminishes with distance, which means gravity is growing bigger when we get closer to its source. That acceleration is constant because the collisions are constant. That's why the vector towards the charge emitting body always means acceleration (besides its general directional meaning). Only a small part / ratio of collisions is obviously not producing acceleration force while on their way up through the incoming charge field, which is why there exists charge repelling force. Those anticharge photons that somehow avoided head-on collisions can now collide with matter, giving them slight upward push.

Jared Magneson wrote:It seems to me then that in a perfectly balanced field, where we have equal photons and antiphotons, there would be no gravity in the charge-gravity theory? Or perhaps its the other way around - in a much more imbalanced field, where say we have a 5 : 1 ratio of photons to antiphotons, we would have LESS gravity or more?

The acceleration will occur anyway if they meet head-on, regardless if their number is balanced on each side, it just won't be yielding that much force. The more head-on collisions, the more acceleration, so it's more related to the density of the charge field than it's overall volume in either direction. If my logic is right in this case, more photons than antiphotons would mean less acceleration possible, as there are less proper collisions resulting in lesser number of accelerated photons.

Vexman

Posts : 56
Join date : 2019-02-25

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

Vexman wrote:Anywhere two photons of the right kind of spin meet and collide head-on we'll be able to notice one spun-up while the other will be spun-down.

Except that isn't necessarily true - it's just a statement of opinion, effectively. Why? Because it takes a very specific vector to cause an up-spin OR a down-spin, and head-on is not necessarily that vector. A head-on collision may be absolutely the wrong vector, so we have to analyze that collision individually before we can accurately say anything about it causing a change in spin-stacking.

Remember that Miles stated in the Grav3.pdf:
"So you can already see that this isn't strictly a poolball problem, although I love those.  I have been selling poolball mechanics for almost twenty years, to counter the rise of mysticism in mainstream physics, so you can see why I was fooled by this one as well.  We will keep it mechanical,but it isn't a naïve poolball mechanics.  It is a charge mechanics.  Charge mechanics is still poolball mechanics at the fundamental level, but it has many complexities we have to be aware of."

So my issue with that as it pertains to your statement is that while Miles is great at theorizing and visualizing stuff in his head and in his writing, he definitely has not analyzed these spin collisions at their foundational level in the same way we have been here, with our various simulations and videos. That is not an insult to Miles at all - it's tough stuff, and without Nevyn's various apps I myself would still be lost as well, on the specifics. The theory needs this kind of analysis, so here we are!

So to return to my previous video-style, detailing the infrared photon's motion and volume, here we will "collide" two infrared photons and see how that looks, up close. In that video the photon had no linear motion, since we were trying to examine the volume alone. This time, I'm showing the volumes as a "ghost" trail and then mashing the two photons together linearly:

https://vimeo.com/323291394

Granted this one is a demonstration and not a "simulation", so I likely made an error or two (or three) along the way. But what I think this shows is that a "head-on" collision is very, very rare. It's not impossible, but there's only one single vector between the two where the linear motion and the spin (tangential) motion would equal out. That is to say, in all other collisions except for that one specific one, there would be no "head-on"-ness to it, and the tangential motion would bonk one or both photons sideways or impart spin-momentum to some degree or other. Only in one possible collision would the two actually balance out.

In that video, the photons do NOT meet "head-on", despite their close appearance to doing so. They appear to at a glance, but note that the trails showing the motion-vectors aren't directly parallel at the time of collision. There is some offset still due to their positions along their spin-paths.

But does this mean we have a despin or an upspin, in the case of a "true" head-on collision? Or would the particles simply "stop", cancelling out all motion? In this video demonstration, I think we would have a bounce out at some vector or other, but NOT a spin cancellation, despin, or upspin.

Thoughts? Is this type of video remotely helpful?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 514
Join date : 2016-10-11

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

A couple of things I want to add. Firstly, photons do not have an acceleration, they accelerate other, larger, entities. Doesn't change Vexman's statements much, but must be pointed out. I believe Miles is using the spin-up to gain mass on the photons moving downwards so that they can then provide more impact to the larger entities that they collide with. Secondly, head-on collisions do not guarantee a spin-up and a spin-down. In fact, I'm struggling to see how that could happen in any case. This is the problem with thinking in laws. In this case we have the Law of Conservation of Energy being used to assume that if one gains then the other must lose. It seems straight-forward enough, how could it be any other way? Well, how could it be this way either? Mechanically, that is.

We have a photon and an anti-photon from a given reference frame, let's say it is from behind P1 which is the photon. They are moving towards each other such that they will collide. Which one will spin-up and which one will spin-down? They have opposite spin directions, but they are equal, so the spins themselves will be moving towards each other as well (just the motion of the top spin levels). That gives us 2c worth of linear velocity difference and 2c worth of spin difference in an orthogonal direction to the linear velocity.

We can split this collision into 2 parts: the linear velocity collision; and the spin collision. If we only looked at the spin collision, we would assume that both photons get spun-down. Equal and opposite force means loss of force. If we only looked at the linear collision, then I would assume that both get spun-up. Why isn't that a loss of linear velocity? Because it can't be a strictly head-on collision. Such a collision would lose velocity or result in a directional change if there is some angle to the collision (which we do not have here). To spin-up, though, we need a linear collision that is almost about to miss. We need an edge hit. That provides a way for the photons to spin around that point of collision which a truly head-on collision does not. Of course, that is a statement of faith, rather than a hard fact, but it is the only way I can see it working. Happy to be shown another way to see it.

So we have ended up with 2 parts to a collision that each want to do opposite things. How do we resolve that? Probably by showing that I am wrong, but I have to work with what I have at the moment, so that doesn't really help me. Maybe you can while I move on to my main point.

Even if you can pick one of those photons to spin-up and one to spin-down, we still have a symmetry problem. The collision is symmetrical along the linear velocity direction. That is, if we now change our reference frame and watch the collision again, now from behind P2, we find that they have switched places and P1 is now the anti-photon and P2 is the photon, but nothing else has changed. They still have the same velocity vectors, they still collide in the same place. Can you still justify choosing one of those photons to spin-up and the other to spin-down? I can't.

But the Conservation of Energy law must apply. We can't have more energy after the collision than we started with and if they both spin-up then we have gained energy and if they both spin-down, then we have lost it. I can accept that we can lose energy, opposite velocities cancel each other, but can we gain it? That seems like too much of a stretch, but that means that the universe can lose energy through collision, but it can't gain it. Doesn't that break the Conservation of Energy law? Doesn't that mean that the universe is on a downward spiral in relation to total energy content? So what decides how this collision operates? How do we pick one from the other? What am I missing?

Nevyn

Posts : 1614
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Nevyn wrote:But the Conservation of Energy law must apply. We can't have more energy after the collision than we started with and if they both spin-up then we have gained energy and if they both spin-down, then we have lost it. I can accept that we can lose energy, opposite velocities cancel each other, but can we gain it? That seems like too much of a stretch, but that means that the universe can lose energy through collision, but it can't gain it. Doesn't that break the Conservation of Energy law? Doesn't that mean that the universe is on a downward spiral in relation to total energy content? So what decides how this collision operates? How do we pick one from the other? What am I missing?

Hmm, that's a tough one. But perhaps it helps to ask, "What IS energy?", which we know is of course a transfer of momentum in a collision. E=mc².

So we've rather established that a photon can GAIN mass, yes? By stacking new spins, its mass or "ponderability" is increased. Its propensity to transfer momentum. I am trying to follow your prior descriptions here to see if I understand them and where it leads us.

So if a photon can gain mass simply by a change in its motion, then we DO have a mechanism to "gain" in energy in the Universe. I think it's probably both ways - some lost, some gained, but as a WHOLE if we looked at all matter (photons) in the Universe, it would be conserved? Universal conservation, not local?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 514
Join date : 2016-10-11

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

Which lead me to tweak and analyze that last video. I made a mistake - I duplicated the original infrared-spin photon and moved it, but didn't flip it. So technically it wouldn't be considered an anti-photon. And after fixing it, that lead me to attempt to diagram the "edge-hit" you mentioned, Nevyn:

I didn't do anything except for flip the spins and lob them at each other. In this case, the infrareds are at exactly the same starting point in their spins, which probably rarely happens in nature, but some starting point or other must be chosen. That shouldn't matter though - only the rotations and linear contact forces exchanged on impact matter.

So these two photons are spinning A1, X1, Z1, Y1. Four spins. This is just one example of how they might collide to produce a new spin-level, but of course it's crap in, crap out. My model may not be as accurate as I'd like (Nevyn's are). But for the sake of illustration maybe this will help.

Thoughts? As usual, we need to nail down these fundamentals before we can make accurate progress on the big stuff.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 514
Join date : 2016-10-11

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

I would say that energy is just velocity. Everything is reducible to velocity. Sometimes we call it velocity, sometimes we call it mass, sometimes we call it spin. Sometimes we call it gravity, sometimes we call it magnetism, sometimes we call it electricity. These are all just names to give certain types of velocities in order to differentiate them. That is how I interpret the 'everything is motion' mantra. In this way, a particle can have energy, even without being in collision. A collision is the use of, or the transference of, energy.

I think that treating mass as spin velocity removes the 'ponder-ability' of it. Not that it isn't ponder-able, just that we don't need that idea anymore. We have a solid concept to work with, so we can get rid of silly nonsense like ponder-ability.

Jared wrote:So if a photon can gain mass simply by a change in its motion, then we DO have a mechanism to "gain" in energy in the Universe. I think it's probably both ways - some lost, some gained, but as a WHOLE if we looked at all matter (photons) in the Universe, it would be conserved? Universal conservation, not local?

Not necessarily. I think the general assumption would be that to gain a spin, another must lose an equal amount of energy. The conservation laws do work on the system, not necessarily a local event, but a collision has its own conservation laws, depending on what type of collision it is. You can either maintain the kinetic energy (elastic), or you can maintain the momentum (inelastic), but you can't keep both at the same time. I have generally worked with inelastic collisions, but I am thinking that photon collisions are probably elastic. We care more about maintaining c than maintaining momentum and since we are talking about spin-ups and downs, then we certainly aren't maintaining the mass. Although we are maintaining the amount of mass, just not who has it.

So if one photon gains a spin level, then it has gained mass. If the other loses a spin level, then it has lost mass. We would call that a transfer of mass, maybe. The amount of energy has not changed, it has just changed who owns it and how it is expressed. Seems simple enough and looking at it from a purely theoretical perspective, that would be enough. But we need to be mechanical, so we need to take those assumptions and put them into a collision. We need a collision that satisfies those requirements, but I'm not seeing it. I can't see what chooses one photon to gain a spin and one to lose it. The collision looks the same from both perspectives, so how can one photon be chosen over the other?

Last edited by Nevyn on Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:21 am; edited 1 time in total

Nevyn

Posts : 1614
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Nevyn wrote:I think the general assumption would be that to gain a spin, another must lose an equal amount of energy.

Indeed, that is the assumption we need to dissect. I'm getting pretty damn close - in that last video, that was the first time I have been able to work with more than one multi-spin particle in one "scene". I learned a LOT in the past day about how to pull this off, FINALLY! Some real progress getting Maya to do what I want it to do...

...but it's still not quite there and I still feel like you're light-years ahead of me. My next step will be to instance hundreds or thousands of those infrareds and toss them at each other and see what that looks like. But even then, in its current state it will just bounce them around AS infrareds, with no mechanism yet for spin-ups and spin-downs in my math expressions right now. So I'll likely need your help for that, since you've already been writing those kinds of things.

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion and am re-reading Miles latest two papers over and over. It's starting to make more sense, even though I have a lot of questions still. I agree with your previous thoughts that it creates more problems than it solves - for now. I'm trying to keep an open mind.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 514
Join date : 2016-10-11

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

Yeah, you may have noticed that I've been picking on low-level assumptions lately. I think the new gravity theory really pushed me into that. I've always had issues with various areas and tried to find solutions, sometimes with good results and sometimes not, but I didn't like the way Miles just breezed through the new theory like it was obvious. When I don't understand something, I look at the deeper level and try to work my way back up. I'm not looking for a religion, I won't accept much on faith even if I do let if go for a while to make some progress.

With respect to working on spin stacking collisions, we have a long way to go. I have a general idea of what the algorithm might look like, but have not even tried to implement it yet. I probably just need to start writing something and let if fall together. But it will be difficult on your side. This will require scripting so we need to get over that hurdle before too long. That will actually open up a whole new world for you. For example, if I can port my SPL language parser to Python (a language I have never used before), then you can use it to define particles and it will generate the motions for you. You should be able to create a node for it, define the SPL expression to represent the particle, attach the SPL script to it and let it go. Then you can give linear velocities to the particles by your standard methods. Imagine how quickly you could get animations up and running with that.

Nevyn

Posts : 1614
Join date : 2014-09-11

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

Indeed, there's still a LOT of work to do and I haven't even found the best way to show my animations, which is why they often look very different and probably lack cohesion in this sense. I've been digging and working at them a lot more since Miles released Grav3.pdf though and making some measure of progress. But again, it's only in a demonstration/illustration sense. Those infrared vids do not use dynamic particles yet, but simply a NURBS sphere on circular motion paths, each of which describes that spin-level's motion relative to the previous one.

I think you helped me write the expression I'm using above, which looks like this:

nurbsCircle4.rotateY = frame*0.249;
nurbsCircle3.rotateZ = frame*0.353;
nurbsCircle2.rotateY = frame*0.5;
nurbsCircle1.rotateX = frame*0.707;
nurbsSphere1.rotateY = frame;

So this setup is only useful for animation purposes, obviously. The object hierarchy (on the left) means this thing cannot ever spin-up or spin-down into another stack; it's just static animation. And if you look closely at those circles, they probably don't line up properly at all compared to the real stacked spins we've been playing with both in all your apps and in my previous "Photon Story" animation, which I believe is accurate. This one is probably not, just the best I could do for now.

But YES! If we could get such a script into Python (PyMEL, "Python Maya Embedded Language", on my end) we could simply "instance" the photons however we wanted into particle emitters, similar to a lot of my other videos but then they could BEHAVE like real photons, gaining or losing spin-levels upon collision, etc.. We'd be much closer to a real simulation. Of course, the actual numbers of photons in say a simple Proton simulation might grind my computers to a snail's pace to calculate, but fortunately I have nothing but time.

I'm rambling again. Off-topic. But meanwhile I'm still going to keep trying and attacking the scripting as best I can. I just wish I could verify my own accuracy better, without having to bother you and Miles all the damn time.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 514
Join date : 2016-10-11

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

I wish I could be of any use in programming.

After thinking harder about this acceleration issue, I've come to a conclusion that both of you are right - only a specific kind of collision may be able to produce the acceleration that makes the theory "work". Head-on direction yes, but the two photons would have to impact edge-to-edge in order to accelerate the incoming photon.

But then for this collision to produce a right kind of result, I think it requires another postulate. What I was thinking of is maybe related to two of the items from the list:

During this recycling, charge and anticharge have to cross, despinning both
It isn't a total spin-down or magnetic loss, but it must be considerable

So what it means actually is that the emitted charge has lower spin coherency if compared to the incoming charge. We are allowed to assume that emitted charge would be of the lowest spin energy, having only the most basic spin around its axis.

Another assumption that would be needed in the scenario with the right collision result - the emitted charge would need to have exactly the opposite direction of spin of the incoming charge. Effectively, it means that the emitted charge would need to be anticharge to make it work. Only when charge and anticharge meet, we have the same direction of their spin as they are opposed to each other's direction of movement.

The reason is that we can't have opposite direction of spin when they collide, there should be no difference in the speed and direction of their spin at the moment of impact. At the same time, emitted charge has to be of the lowest spin energy, meaning it bears only axial spin. So when they collide at the right edge-to-edge position, moving in the opposite direction, the photon going up will only be redirected. It will lose a part of it's linear velocity and get redirected, while its spin won't get affected. The exact proportion of its lost energy will be transferred to the incoming photon, adding another spin level to it.

In such scenario we would have only one of the impacting photons able to change both linear velocity and/or spin. So the collision could not end with an arbitrary result, where any one of them could be accelerated while the other lost its energy. Such collision requires one colliding photon unable to change anything else but his linear velocity / linear direction of its movement, while its spin ought not to be affected.

Just another note when looking at the proper kind of collision required for the theory to work mechanically: if we look at the volume of charge going through Earth each second, and divide that number with the mass of a single proton photon , we come to an estimated, but incredible number of photons that are involved in the process over a single second. So by mere probability, the right kind of collision can be provided in similarly insane number of occurrences.

Does that make any sense? And if it does, are such assumptions even possible?

Vexman

Posts : 56
Join date : 2019-02-25