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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

.
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.  

.

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.

.
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.
.

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 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 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?

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 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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

That's a good overview, Vexman, but I hope you can help with some inconsistencies I may have noticed, or I am misunderstanding.

Vexman wrote: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.

I would expect emitted charge to have a higher coherency than random charge and I don't think we are allowed to assume the lowest spin energy from it. I believe that Miles has stated that it is stars and planets, basically dense bodies, that cause most spin-ups. So emitted charge should be larger than it is received as, as an average. This would make the up-charge larger than the down-charge and cause problems for binding gravity. But I think Miles is assuming the charge is mostly the same in size, no matter the direction. He is trying to get the spin-ups to work only on the down-charge in order to cause the gravity vector which must be much larger than the up-charge vector. This is also a problem when you switch the gravitating body from a planet to the sun. Can you still assume the lowest energy on the sun's emission as well as the planets? If so, how does it become larger before it reaches the planets?

Vexman wrote: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.

A photon and an anti-photon have opposite directions of spin, if both are viewed from the same position, but you state that their direction of spin will be the same. Is that an inconsistency or just not explained well?

However, you have made me realise that I have made a mistake and it is not a photon to anti-photon collision that I wanted, I actually need the same type of photon (I don't care which). The reason being that I want the spin to oppose at the point of collision, but I wasn't thinking about the relative positions of the BPhotons in their spin cycles. In order for the collision to be at the top of one photon and at the bottom of the other, while having opposing directions at the point of collision (only the spin motion, not the linear velocity), the BPhoton of the first must be at the top of its spin cycle but the second BPhoton must be at the bottom of its own spin cycle. That puts them in opposing directions during the collision. To get that, we actually need them to be spinning the same way. Maybe you are getting at the same point.

Vexman wrote: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.

But why can't we have opposite spin directions? Why do you want that? What is it doing? Wouldn't removing the spin from the equation just bring us back to a standard collision which will only change direction?

Vexman wrote: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.

But you absolutely need different sized charge to do that, which I don't think is a valid assumption. You would need the galaxy to emit the largest charge. The sun takes that in and makes it smaller. The planets take that in and makes it smaller again. That seems backwards to me. I believe the galaxy emits small charge which the sun makes a bit bigger and maybe the planets make it a bit bigger again. Although I would be willing to accept that planets do not spin-up as many photons as a star would. Maybe not even enough to call planets a spin-up machine. My main argument against bodies making charge smaller is that we see charge in solar systems (when viewed from a great distance) but we don't see the charge between them. Well, actually, sometimes we do see it, when viewing a galaxy for example, but we can still see the solar systems within that charge, so the solar systems must be denser, at least, but it can also be higher energy which requires a spin-up.

Another problem here is that it breaks what Miles is trying to do. He is trying to use spin-ups to increase the force down (by increasing mass). He is doing that inside of the nucleus and the planets are made from nuclei, so if anything, they are also spinning-up the charge, not spinning-down.

Vexman wrote: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.

I don't think we can rely on probability here, because we are talking about gravity. It seems to me that we need these forces working more often than that would imply. We don't need all photons to be spun-up, but we do need a lot of them to be. We don't care about the total amount of charge being affected, we care about the ratio of affected to unaffected charge. We need that to be highly in favor of affected charge to create gravity. We need it to equal 9.81/0.009545 which is nearly 1028. So we need 1028 photons spun-up to every photon not spun up. Although that calculation may not be correct. We may need to account for mass differences which, if the down-charge is spun-up and hence increases its mass, then it would bring the ratio down a bit. Even if we could halve that ratio though, that is still over 500 affected photons per unaffected ones. That sounds more like a process than randomness to me. As a process, it requires explanation.

I do like the way you are thinking about it though. I hope you can take my criticisms and either show me what I am not understanding or improve your idea. It may even be a mix of the two.

Nevyn wrote:

Vexman wrote: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.

I would expect emitted charge to have a higher coherency than random charge and I don't think we are allowed to assume the lowest spin energy from it. I believe that Miles has stated that it is stars and planets, basically dense bodies, that cause most spin-ups. So emitted charge should be larger than it is received as, as an average. This would make the up-charge larger than the down-charge and cause problems for binding gravity. But I think Miles is assuming the charge is mostly the same in size, no matter the direction. He is trying to get the spin-ups to work only on the down-charge in order to cause the gravity vector which must be much larger than the up-charge vector. This is also a problem when you switch the gravitating body from a planet to the sun. Can you still assume the lowest energy on the sun's emission as well as the planets? If so, how does it become larger before it reaches the planets?

I didn't explain that as good as I should've, the term "coherent" was a bad choice of word on my side. What I meant was that the level of spin energies of the emitted charge is lower in average.

My idea was that the photon going from i.e. the Sun towards the planets gets hit n-times from all possible directions. So this gives plenty of opportunity for such photon to acquire stacked spins.The more time it is travelling, the more probability for it to become larger in terms of spin energies. I do get your point, will have to re-think this scenario more thoroughly.

Nevyn wrote:

Vexman wrote: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.

A photon and an anti-photon have opposite directions of spin, if both are viewed from the same position, but you state that their direction of spin will be the same. Is that an inconsistency or just not explained well?

It's not explained well, sorry. Opposite directions of spin if both are viewed when moving in the same direction. Which means same direction of spin when they are viewed going in opposite direction, as when such two photons are heading for a frontal collision.

Nevyn wrote:

Vexman wrote: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.

But why can't we have opposite spin directions? Why do you want that? What is it doing? Wouldn't removing the spin from the equation just bring us back to a standard collision which will only change direction?

I was trying to solve the question of arbitrary result, which absolutely needs to be solved for the process to work "properly", i.e. with the correct result each time. I wanted only incoming charge photon to receive the energy lost by the photon coming up, so I assumed one photon as unable to lose its spin, which means it could only lose its linear velocity. Spin shouldn't be removed from the equation, it's just that the higher stacked spin is only present with the incoming charge. In other words, I assumed more spin energy present in the incoming charge. And I somehow thought it solves this arbitrary position where either one colliding photon can be spun-up.

Nevyn wrote:

Vexman wrote: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.

But you absolutely need different sized charge to do that, which I don't think is a valid assumption. You would need the galaxy to emit the largest charge. The sun takes that in and makes it smaller. The planets take that in and makes it smaller again. That seems backwards to me. I believe the galaxy emits small charge which the sun makes a bit bigger and maybe the planets make it a bit bigger again. Although I would be willing to accept that planets do not spin-up as many photons as a star would. Maybe not even enough to call planets a spin-up machine. My main argument against bodies making charge smaller is that we see charge in solar systems (when viewed from a great distance) but we don't see the charge between them. Well, actually, sometimes we do see it, when viewing a galaxy for example, but we can still see the solar systems within that charge, so the solar systems must be denser, at least, but it can also be higher energy which requires a spin-up.

Another problem here is that it breaks what Miles is trying to do. He is trying to use spin-ups to increase the force down (by increasing mass). He is doing that inside of the nucleus and the planets are made from nuclei, so if anything, they are also spinning-up the charge, not spinning-down.

I have to re-think this all. Your points are well thought of, I can't answer them. Like I said, my intention was to get rid of the possibility of an arbitrary result of the collision. Will try to add some more thoughts about this later today.

Yeah, I thought that was the case. I could see how it all solved my question of the arbitrary result. Different sized photons would be a good idea if Miles wasn't already trying to use it in a different way. It probably is the reason that dense bodies cause spin-ups.

I got confused earlier today when reading your reply, Nevyn. Couldn't see where I got my own assumption from at first.

Looking at the list again and the rule:

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 Miles says here that charge does get de-spun and it's a considerable spin-down. That's why I than assumed that emitted charge has less spin energy than the incoming charge. If you say he said elsewhere that denser bodies produce more energized charge when they recycle it, then this is a sort of inconsistency in Miles' own domain. Maybe it's coming from an era when he didn't perceive the charge as the cause of gravity. Anyway, if the rule from the list is to be taken as accurate, that would imply emitted charge is less energized. I do find this explanation more reasonable, somehow, by intuition. And I can't explain exactly why would this happen during the recycle process.
I think the reason for the higher spin energies of incoming charge comes from the field itself. It seems that the field is in average chaotic in a sense that it's full of photons going in all possible direction, in average. Bigger bodies do change such field's characteristic, but only locally. So maybe it's opposite of what is expected and all charge bodies actually "reset" all charge, while the field makes it all complex again.  

What I can't wrap my head around is the fat that all incoming charge is coming in orthogonal to the Earth's surface. What exactly is causing the surrounding charge field to turn direction directly towards the Earth? Is it possible that Earth's magnetic field is causing them to align in the "right" way? At the same time, is this Earth's magnetic field in some way the consequence of the de-spin energy loss which occurs inside, while recycling process is going on? If the force of emitted charge can be transferred as a "lift", what kind of photons are creating Earth's magnetosphere? It's all so complicated....

I think we could assume that the earth's charge field is more dense than the sun's emission close to the earth. Actually, we know that is the case and it ends at 11 earth radii from the surface, which is the location of the charge-pause (which also sets the magneto-pause). Therefore, the earths emission will channel the sun's charge the same way the sun's charge channels the outer planets charge as it moves back in towards the sun.

That does change this mechanism slightly, in the same way it changes the inward charge from the planets. It will compress it and drive it into defined channels. I'm not sure of the implications of that at the moment. I don't remember Miles mentioning that in the papers, so maybe the earth's charge is not dense enough to channel it as effectively as the sun does to the planets charge. But, maybe, it gives us a reason for the downward charge to be spun-up preferentially. We have the earth's charge that is more dense, so the sun's charge must encounter more of it than the earth's charge encounters from the sun. Density give us spin-ups.

The problem with that is that it would imply that gravity also stops at the charge-pause. Which we know is not true.

Bloody complicated, indeed.

Vexman wrote:What I can't wrap my head around is the fat that all incoming charge is coming in orthogonal to the Earth's surface. What exactly is causing the surrounding charge field to turn direction directly towards the Earth?

I don't think that all incoming charge need be orthogonal at all. In face, very little of it would actually be except direct insolation, sunlight we see and feel during the daytime. Charge coming in at the poles isn't necessarily orthogonal either - much of it may enter at oblique angles and simply bounce around through the planet, perhaps many trillions of times, before emerging as "heat" or terrestrial charge.

Here's a diagram/video I was working on awhile back to show how charge causes the tilts and inclinations of the planets, but we can perhaps use it here to track insolation (solar charge).



That's from the side, of course. I'm using the correct tilts and inclinations, as well as the correct radii and masses of the sun and all planets relative to each other. Only the orbital distances are compressed so we can see them all at once and study the charge vectors more handily. So take that part with a grain of salt.

Here's the scene with no charge, so you can see the orbits and whatnot:


And here it is after running the charge emission particles for several minutes:


And here is a quick animation zooming in on the Earth and rotating around it a bit so we can examine the solar charge, the Earth's equatorial-ish charge, and incoming planetary charge as well:



Now the charge OUTPUTS are just indicators. The actual, real-life densities would be much, much higher but then also the SIZE of the photons would be much smaller relative to the planets and sun. But the vectors might help us a bit.

As the Earth tilts, one pole or other is pointed more towards the sun and receives a lot more insolation - but the other pole is receiving a lot more ambient, planetary, and galactic charge. Here its the North Pole of course. It's not receiving much direct insolation at all. But its taking in all kinds of "bounce charge", as the solar wind meets the incoming charge from the other planets, the galaxy, and distant stars, etc..

So I don't really think any of these inputs necessitate a true, perpendicular incoming charge. Very little incoming charge WOULD be orthogonal, actually, compared to the amount of oblique charge. In my opinion ortho charge might penetrate further, but it would also take longer to pass through if it didn't collide with anything than an oblique photon. An oblique photon that passes through must always take less time than a perpendicular one, since the distance is always less. But those obliques may also collide, spin up, and charge up the Earth itself just the same. It all adds up, when considering the total input.

Of course, this does nothing to help us with the charge-gravity theory. I'm just tossing out ideas and analyzing you folks' ideas as best we can right now.

Jared Magneson wrote:
I don't think that all incoming charge need be orthogonal at all. In face, very little of it would actually be except direct insolation, sunlight we see and feel during the daytime. Charge coming in at the poles isn't necessarily orthogonal either - much of it may enter at oblique angles and simply bounce around through the planet, perhaps many trillions of times, before emerging as "heat" or terrestrial charge.

But doesn't that further diminish the probability of the right kind of angle needed for the spin-up to occur? I think it does. The emitted charge is already much denser at the surface if compared to the incoming charge. But if you add to this that the incoming charge isn't orthogonal to the surface, we have even bigger difference in charge densities going in opposite directions causing the continuous spin-up process.

Vexman wrote:But doesn't that further diminish the probability of the right kind of angle needed for the spin-up to occur?

I don't think so. A new spin can occur in ANY collision - that is to say, it only takes a tiny difference (half the size of a photon) to go from a direct, head-on collision to an edge-hit which might cause a new spin or a despin. The angle and vector are important, or perhaps head-on spins almost always cause a despin while edge hits almost always cause an upspin.

I'll try to diagram several of these and see where that takes us.

Nah, not any collision. You must have the vectors in the right directions to stack on a new orthogonal spin. We do have 2 vectors, or I should say 2 sets of 2 (2 from each particle: 1 spin, 1 linear), to play with. So there is some flexibility, but we don't actually want any collision to cause spin changes, since we want it to be fairly rare. Or at least we used to want that, now that it is being used for gravity, things have changed but I still think we want a good reason why it is less rare for gravity rather than just to start assuming that spin changes happen all the time.

I think spin changes should get more rare the larger the particle is. After all, the proton needs 19 times its own mass to emit per second, so if spin changes were not rare, then we would have more protons and less charge. Of course, the larger the particle is the less chance of colliding with another large particle that could spin it up, but we want charge to average in the infra-red, not to keep growing. So I am fairly happy with the idea that spin-ups happen a bit less rare up to the infra-red photon, but after that I want spin-ups to calm down a bit.

I agree with all of that, Nevyn, and mispoke or miswrote, in my last post. A new spin canNOT occur in just any collision, it has to be the right direction and some kind of edge-hit too. Sorry for my confusion there, Vexman.

No worries, Jared. I wanted to object anyway

Just a quick recap - so we don't need / have orthogonal direction of incoming charge as a prerequisite for spin-ups?

If not, why is gravity's vector always orthogonal to the surface? How does that happen (("orthogonality")) each  time with every spin-up collision? How does a spin-up occur if two particles don't meet in a head-on direction and still keeps orthogonal direction of its acceleration force?

If so, what makes incoming charge align to orthogonal direction of "impact"?

Maybe this seems unrelated, but I think it helps understand the mechanism of spin-ups. I would be extremely happy to be able to understand the mechanism and role of the E/M field in all of this. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it too has its share in complexity of all this we're discussing.

Vexman wrote:If so, what makes incoming charge align to orthogonal direction of "impact"?

I don't think incoming charge aligns orthogonally at all. It cannot, in my opinion, since that would mean something was "herding" it into an alignment. That "something" could only be other photons and their effects. Direct sunlight isn't aligned this way - it is solar photons simply striking the surface of the Earth. We only perceive it coming down orthogonal at high noon on a few days out of the year, at best. Most of the time the sun is at one oblique angle or another, not just due to the time of day but due to the seasons. Right now in March here in the Pacific Northwest NO photons from the sun directly hit orthogonally (perpendicular to the surface, or "straight down"). They are ALL coming from a sharp angle, but of course it's almost spring so that's changing. On June 21st, we'll have some true orthogonal photons, sure. But that's the only day of the year that would hold close to mathematically true. That said, the atmosphere itself may bounce a great many photons straight down, but that's not the direct sunlight I mean here.

Vexman wrote: Maybe this seems unrelated, but I think it helps understand the mechanism of spin-ups. I would be extremely happy to be able to understand the mechanism and role of the E/M field in all of this.

First, photons CREATE the E/M field. So it's actually the same field we've been discussing here throughout. E/M is how charge photons affect larger matter (protons, neutrons, electrons), so in one sense Miles is trying to connect E/M to gravity. Charge-gravity cannot exist at the photon level, and still be cause by photons. So if he's on to anything it would have to be at the next level up, which is electromagnetism.

Second, I actually feel like between Nevyn's simulations (which are mathematically stronger than mine, in general and in specific) and with my last major Stacked Spin video we have pretty-well established the situations and mechanisms visually that Miles has outlines in words, for what can cause a stacked spin. And how that works. Give this video another shot, if you haven't seen it already:

https://vimeo.com/276665562


It's not just a video - we slaved over the vectors, directions, and mechanisms that COULD cause a new spin-over state. And each is orthogonal to the current/previous spin level. There would/could be some other vectors that could cause a spin-over, but in my opinion this is my best video on the topic and by far my most accurate.

As you can see, each new upspin is caused by a direct collision from another photon at a certain angle. Most angles will NOT cause an upspin or downspin, but simply bounce or redirect the key photon off into some direction or other. Only certain "hits" at certain times and certain directions AND certain positions on collision can cause a flip into a new spin. I tried to show how this would work, but again it's still an assumptive theory. We're assuming photons CAN move this way.

How this helps us analyze charge-gravity though is not something I can muster. Miles is working his theory from FIELD effects, not at the quantum level quite. I'm still struggling at that level and have many questions still to be answered. It's quite a struggle.

Jared, thanks for all the efforts invested in creating these videos. And to Nevyn too.  Just so that you know - I've watched them all. I watched some of them tens of times, over and over again. I think I understand this fairly well now.

So analyzing the video you've referred to in your comment in relation to the gravity vector - I still don't see how the gravity vector could be pointing orthogonal to the Earth's surface with each spin level gained. In your video the photon's acquired acceleration has its vector pointed in a new direction with each impact, implying randomness to direction of photon's acceleration vector rather than repeated result of the same (showing vector as orthogonal to the Earth's surface). That's why I started to bring in this issue - what's the mechanism for the incoming photons to repeatedly acquire g-vector orthogonal to Earth's surface? Doesn't that kind of process require two fields almost directly opposed to each other?

If I try to imagine the incoming field / photon coming down non-aligned to orthogonal direction, I see no "right" kind of angle at impact when it hits the upcoming photon (which is coming orthogonal from the Earth's surface). So how then does this process work? According to your explanation, we don't need two photons / fields directly opposed to each other, yet they can produce the right direction of gravity's vector. Repeatedly. In my opinion, that's just not workable scenario to produce the correct result.

Vexman wrote:In my opinion, that's just not workable scenario to produce the correct result.

That is also my opinion, currently. Miles will either discard his theory or bolster it, but I myself cannot make it work yet. I've re-read those two new papers a dozen times but still am stumped. Doesn't mean he's wrong, I just can't figure it out - not the way I've managed to figure out (for the most part) all his other 300+ papers, anyway. But it's a puzzle and maybe we just need more pieces, or maybe he's wrong anyway. Everyone makes mistakes. It's not a point of contention for me (as in, I won't discard anything else he's written because of one mis-theory), but rather a puzzle I want to figure out. A challenge. Just, for now I'm defeated.

Jared Magneson wrote:First, photons CREATE the E/M field. So it's actually the same field we've been discussing here throughout. E/M is how charge photons affect larger matter (protons, neutrons, electrons), so in one sense Miles is trying to connect E/M to gravity. Charge-gravity cannot exist at the photon level, and still be cause by photons.

I'm aware of the cause of the E/M field. I also understand that E/M field cannot affect photons as they are basic component of it. But the E/M field can and does affect larger mass, i.e. photons with stacked spins that have morphed into "higher photon order" by doing so. So they could be aligned using the E/M field and they could also be hit by the most/more basic photons. What about the scenario where E/M field is "turning the wheels" of larger matter while the basic photons give it a push? Could that set them on the "correct" angle for the impact so they could be incoming at the "right" angle and later spun-up?

Do you or anybody else possibly have any other idea about how can we meet the necessary criteria for this spin-up? It is  a default that we all agree about the process of stacking spins.

Just thinking, the charge represents cca 95% of all matter around us. It means the empty space is just a term or a word, while we're basically submerged into a dense charge field. So looking at the Earth and the charge recycling process going on, an insane volume of charge goes through it every second. It cannot feel either gravity nor E/M force until it reaches, say, approximately size of an electron. There has to be a way to "deliver" an insane quantities of charge at the right angle. We don't have many options which would allow such stream / flux to occur "properly". The dense charge field has to be around us all the time, going in all possible directions with  observable local disruption of its composition and/or direction of movement. And I think this is exactly what's going in the vicinity of any gravitational mass. Somehow, the incoming charge is able to align its direction of movement*, so it arrives at an orthogonal angle to the surface of such matter. The larger mass somehow (but certainly mechanically possible) disrupts the chaotic characteristic of an average charge field, bringing more order to it. This locally higher level of order is than causing more complex charge field characteristics, such as gravity and / or E/M field.


I'm somehow convinced we're so damn close to seeing through it. Just how does this happen, mechanically?

*of course, the charge emitting body aligns to the charge source, too. Are these two alignments related?

.
Hey Vexman, thanks for asking. After some serious initial doubts, I can now say I’m OK with Charge Only (gravity as charge binding). I like charge coherence - nuclear matter will align its main n/s axis with the local dominant charge source. Objects in the dominant emission (gravitational) field will acquire energy and acceleration in the downward direction.  

I believe these are the sticking points. I've identified them before and received summary criticism, but I didn't hear any good reasons against them.

1. Protons cannot be represented at the charge scale as a single b-photons. Blindly sticking to the stacked spin as a single b-photon model omits the presence of 95% of the known proton’s mass, the charge it is recycling at any given moment. The stacked spin single b-photon model may have the correct field pole profile, but by itself, it cannot explain the proton’s disc-like emission profile. The stacked spin single b-photon model needs to be expanded to include charge.

2. The charge field is NOT a uniform field of charge photons. Charge comes in a wide range of sizes, a consequence of the charge interaction between the local dominant charge source, as well as the charge source feeding that. For example, the Sun does not emit only charge photons, but the full breadth of the solar wind, with plenty of electrons and proton matter included. Over time, random charge emission collisions between the primary and secondary sources time will result in a differentiation of the charge field, a random growth of higher energy charge that may also begin recycling charge.

3. Giving the fact that charge comes in a wide range of sizes, the charge field is not homogeneous; larger bodies with low velocities will be ‘captured’, and so wait their turn to recycle through the charge nucleus. This causes the vorticies as the largest local charge bodies wait their turns to recycle through the proton.
.

To me, the idea of charge alignment is a big problem. We can't even see how it would align to a single body, so how is it going to align to multiple bodies? Should the moon align to the earth or to the sun? The obvious answer is to the earth, because that is what it is orbiting. However, the moon doesn't exist only in the earths charge field. It is at all times also in the sun's charge field. Yet the moon is in gravity-lock with the earth, so it is acting like the sun has no effect on it. The moon is 60 earth radii from the earth, well outside the 11 earth radii of the charge-pause, so the sun's charge field should dominate. The moon isn't even in the earth's charge field. It is no where near it.

LongtimeAirman wrote:...nuclear matter will align its main n/s axis with the local dominant charge source. Objects in the dominant emission (gravitational) field will acquire energy and acceleration in the downward direction.

I'm fine with the first statement at the atomic level anyway, but the second statement contradicts it and itself.

"dominant emission" in this case would be the Earth, correct? So if it's emitting UP, how does this cause an acceleration DOWN? That's the main, critical crux of the gravity-charge theory, to me. How could the Earth's charge photons blasting the moon cause it to move DOWN in one case and then correct its orbit by repulsion in the other case?

Miles has tried to explain it but I have failed to see how an emission UP causes an acceleration down. Through-charge should be NO collisions, so we can't use that. Recycled, magnetic charge would still be collisions going UP. If you have an up-vector, how would that cause a down-vector? As Nevyn has said, if we're using the magnetic spin then it would be radiating in all directions except polar, and the spin doesn't know what up or down is, since it's individual photons...

LongtimeAirman wrote:1. Protons cannot be represented at the charge scale as a single b-photons. Blindly sticking to the stacked spin as a single b-photon model omits the presence of 95% of the known proton’s mass, the charge it is recycling at any given moment. The stacked spin single b-photon model may have the correct field pole profile, but by itself, it cannot explain the proton’s disc-like emission profile. The stacked spin single b-photon model needs to be expanded to include charge.

I disagree, but not entirely. I think the proton MUST be a single photon, with a complex motion and larger radius due to this motion, as Miles, Nevyn, and myself have shown many times. The "disc" is simply a way to visualize its charge emission, which is basically equatorial. This is due to the central "hole" going through its motion path. Ambient photons cannot hit the proton since it's never there; though they may collide with other photons passing through, in which case they will bounce some direction or other, but most likely NOT directly up and down. That would require a perfect head-on collision, which is the least likely of all collisions.

LongtimeAirman wrote:2. ...Over time, random charge emission collisions between the primary and secondary sources time will result in a differentiation of the charge field, a random growth of higher energy charge that may also begin recycling charge.

If by "higher energy charge" you mean electrons and above, then I agree with your #2 entirely.

LongtimeAirman wrote:3. Giving the fact that charge comes in a wide range of sizes, the charge field is not homogeneous; larger bodies with low velocities will be ‘captured’, and so wait their turn to recycle through the charge nucleus. This causes the vorticies as the largest local charge bodies wait their turns to recycle through the proton.

How would they be captured, though? I don't see how charge photons existing in multiple sizes (radii) leads to that assumption at all. Why are they waiting their turn? How does this waiting cause a spiral motion (vortex) at all?

Now the ELECTRON can be pushed into that position, as we've all discussed, and kind of bob around in the charge stream as Miles has detailed (and I've shown in several videos), but I don't see how that would cause the "vortex" you speak of. Charge photons are already moving into those polar regions more often because the proton's particle isn't there to bounce them out, so we already have a field potential which we may or may not CALL a vortex, but there's nothing there to "suck" or attract photons. They just tend to move freely through the poles (electricity) since there's no resistance to do so.

Something I think we have all failed to remember, is that Miles has switched the vectors around. He is proposing that gravity is not the 9.81 down and earth's emission is not the 0.009545 up. He has switched them around so that the earth's emission is 9.81 up and the gravity vector is 0.009545 down. Although I probably shouldn't call it a gravity vector.

To help explain those number reversals, he is saying that we can't just look at it as poolball mechanics. We have to look at how things bind together such as solids, liquids, and gases. In a molecule, we have charge channeling through the nuclei but it doesn't push them apart, it somehow pulls them together. That is the mechanism that Miles is using to explain how bodies don't actually feel the full 9.81 up vector. Most of the charge is not hitting you, it is being channeled through you.

Now, how exactly that happens is still a mystery to me. When discussing molecular bonding, I could use the external charge field to provide inward pressure to both nuclei. The charge channels do not provide resistance, so we end up with a bound molecule. It doesn't seem to me that charge pressure is enough for this, though. I could also use expansion to explain an outwards pressure that would also keep the nuclei bound to each other. Can't use that here though, can we.

.
Airman. I have a very low expectation of convincing either of you, nevertheless, here are a few comment/questions and answers intended to show I'm not just disagreeing for argument's sake.

Nevyn wrote. To me, the idea of charge alignment is a big problem. We can't even see how it would align to a single body, so how is it going to align to multiple bodies? Should the moon align to the earth or to the sun? The obvious answer is to the earth, because that is what it is orbiting. However, the moon doesn't exist only in the earths charge field. It is at all times also in the sun's charge field. Yet the moon is in gravity-lock with the earth, so it is acting like the sun has no effect on it. The moon is 60 earth radii from the earth, well outside the 11 earth radii of the charge-pause, so the sun's charge field should dominate. The moon isn't even in the earth's charge field. It is no where near it.
Airman. “charge alignment is a big problem”. "How is it going to align to multiple bodies?" By charge alignment I assume you mean ‘Charge coherence’. Charge coherence occurs when the nuclei’s top level spin axis (n or s pole) is pointing either directly toward (or away from) the charge source. At which time one can say the nuclei’s spin plane would be orthogonal to the Earths emissions. The nucleus can only align to one charge source at a time; unless it is part of a larger structure, passing charge through direct channels with adjacent matter. The charge in a field shared by two dominant charge sources will result in random collisions where some photons gain mass and radius and would then orient toward one source or the other. If the nucleus were aligned with spin axis orthogonal to the emission plane, it would be receiving imbalanced emissions that would tend to turn the nucleus until the emissions received are completely balanced – spin axis pointing downward.

In my opinion, and I gather yours too, a single b-photon cannot form a spin plane. As I keep insisting, we must expand the definition of the electron or the proton to include the ever present recycling charge. The electron is a million times larger than a photon; the electron's top level spin may be comprised of many thousands of charge photons sharing that spin loop at any given moment, giving the nuclei spin levels gyroscopic tendencies.

Given the upward emission field, the total energy of top level spin direction will be assisted or diminished depending on whether nucleus is correctly oriented up or down. If the nucleus is losing energy, I imagine the nucleus could slow to the point where the top spin could be lost or knocked into the correct up.

The moon seems to offer proof that the whole satellite is charge coherent and in balance with the repulsive force of the Earth.

Jared wrote. "dominant emission" in this case would be the Earth, correct? So if it's emitting UP, how does this cause an acceleration DOWN? That's the main, critical crux of the gravity-charge theory, to me. How could the Earth's charge photons blasting the moon cause it to move DOWN in one case and then correct its orbit by repulsion in the other case?
Airman. Here’s how I see it. The nucleus is subject to the charge source’s emission field. If the nucleus were aligned with spin axis orthogonal to the emission plane, it would be receiving imbalanced emissions that would quickly turn the nucleus until the emissions received were completely balanced – at which time its top spin axis spin axis pointing upward/downward. In such position, it is charge coherent. Given the upward emission field, the top level spin direction is acting like a gyroscope. The top level spin can be augmented or diminished - sped up or slowed down depending on whether nucleus is correctly oriented up or down given the predominant photon/antiphotons present in the earth’s upward emission field. If the proton is gaining energy, it is speeding up, and the charge recycling through the nucleus is also speeding up. More charge recycling through the nucleus making room for more collisions from directly above, causing increased downward acceleration. Or until the repulsive force of the emitted charge balances the force downward due to charge binding.

Jared wrote. How would they be captured, though? I don't see how charge photons existing in multiple sizes (radii) leads to that assumption at all. Why are they waiting their turn? How does this waiting cause a spiral motion (vortex) at all?
Airman. The high energy proton is recycling charge in two opposing simultaneous charge current flows along the n/s spin axis. Larger charge particles, which is also recycling charge cannot make it through the proton as straight through current before experiencing many collisions which slows both charge currents down, and briefly stops the flow of larger charge. Generally the larger charge particle is soon stripped of energy, it won't go anywhere until it is recycled. I think it’s likely that a proton can recycle a steady supply of electrons.
.

By 'charge alignment', I meant the aligning of nuclei so that the earth's emission can move through them as through-charge. I probably should have called it nuclei alignment instead, since that is what is aligning. The charge is what does the aligning, but it is the nuclei that actually align to that charge field.

I wouldn't call that charge coherence. To me, at least, charge coherence is talking about the types of photons that make up that charge and whether they are, roughly, the same size or not. It can also mean the direction of that charge. Basically, coherence means to 'be alike' in some way and the context of usage provides the property that is alike.

My main point was that it can only be aligned to one source at a time. If gravity requires that alignment, then a single body can only feel gravity from a single source. That rules out Lagrange Points because they rely on the intersection of multiple gravitational fields.

I was using the moon's gravity-lock as an argument against binding gravity, or at least a problem to be overcome. If the charge-pause is at 11 earth radii from its surface, then that is the extent of its charge field. Outside of that, it is the sun's field that dominates. The moon is at 60 earth radii, so it is well outside of the earth's field, so how can it align to it? I can accept that the earth's field does reach the moon. Just that it isn't the main field at that point. If the moon has to align to the earth to feel its gravity, then it should be orbiting the sun.

I see your point, Nevyn, and find it to be a rather fatal flaw in the theory. I'm not sure how Miles might respond to something like that. It's a logical, straight-forward "axe chop" that is even cleaner than my questions about repulsion, so without further closing of the gaps I'm pretty content on this one, personally. That doesn't mean anyone else needs to be. I'll just politely disagree with Miles for the first time, and that's fine.

Other than that, my only real questions about his otherwise very solid charge theory have to do with axial spins higher than A1, which I believe can't exist, and then maybe the amount of stacked spins that would match each named particle state (infrared, electron, etc.), which I haven't explored heavily enough yet to be definitive. Is the electron the 9th spin or the 11th? I know we've talked about it before so I'll look for those conversations and see if I can find our answers there.

But by all means, discuss away! I just don't know how much more time I'll invest in this until or unless he brings us more to work with.

Nevyn wrote:To me, the idea of charge alignment is a big problem. We can't even see how it would align to a single body, so how is it going to align to multiple bodies? Should the Moon align to the Earth or to the Sun? The obvious answer is to the earth, because that is what it is orbiting. However, the moon doesn't exist only in the earths charge field. It is at all times also in the sun's charge field. Yet the moon is in gravity-lock with the earth, so it is acting like the sun has no effect on it. The moon is 60 earth radii from the earth, well outside the 11 earth radii of the charge-pause, so the sun's charge field should dominate. The moon isn't even in the earth's charge field. It is no where near it.

That's not entirely true. We may not be able to see the incoming photon charge field aligning to a particular larger body / mass, but we certainly can see a larger mass aligning to the dominant charge field (as a source). For instance, that's the reason all planets orbit around the Sun in its equatorial plane, rather than orbiting in all possible planes around the Sun. So the alignment is happening and we do understand it to a point. I don't see any real argument here which would negate the idea of incoming charge alignment per se as impossible or not mechanically feasible.

You should as well include density of the charge field as it has a large impact on the local charge field  order. In the case of Moon-Earth-Sun while looking at the Moon: the Earth has much denser charge field compared to the Sun's simply due to its vicinity to the Moon, even though it is much smaller in mass. The Sun's emitted charge photons are also being hit throughout their journey, diminishing such field's coherence (of linear direction and/ or spin energies) for longer amount of time if compared to the Earth's. Considering the distances which have crucial impact on charge field's density , Earth's charge field toward the Moon has more density and thus carries more binding force. I believe this is the reason we see the Moon locked-in to the Earth, as it has enough needed force to overcome Sun's force, doesn't it? What we can observe is then the balance of these forces.

So local density of the charge field plays a crucial role. The basic characteristic of the charge field is that it is not homogeneous, it's chaotic in sense of movement direction and spin energies (therefore sizes). Larger mass starts to change this field's characteristic as soon as it starts recycling charge. So by the order of appearance - the first charge body doesn't align to anything as there is no dominant charge source. But the second charge body will align to the first and vice versa, if they are close enough, depending on the "power" of recycling engine - the bigger the mass, the more dominant and far-reaching is its charge field.

On top of all that, I don't agree with the idea of a charge pause at all. The charge field is apparently omnipresent so there can be no charge pause in physical terms where it (the pause) means there is no charge present. Maybe at the 11th Earth radii, the Earth's emitted charge loses its ability to create and sustain the E/M field, creating the so-called magnetopause at that distance. But it doesn't imply or say anything about the end-reach of emitted charge photons not being able to cross that imaginary line. What would make photons abruptly stop en massè, anyway?

I also don't agree that Earth's charge doesn't reach Moon. Sure it does, but it's not as dense as it would have been at a closer distance. If we compare it to the density of Sun's emitted charge at Moon's surface, I would think that Earth's emitted charge is still more dense than Sun's. Earth's charge has relatively larger impact than Sun's but only locally. That is why the Moon is locked to the Earth, the local charge field is dominated by the Earth rather than the Sun.

Nevyn wrote:My main point was that it can only be aligned to one source at a time. If gravity requires that alignment, then a single body can only feel gravity from a single source. That rules out Lagrange Points because they rely on the intersection of multiple gravitational fields.

Alignment is only a general fact, it doesn't mean that absolutely all nuclei of a larger mass need to align to the same source simultaneously. Alignment is also a process, not a single event or occurence. Looking at the larger bodies, for instance the Moon, it aligns most of its nuclei to the Earth for the most part, but it also aligns smaller portion of them to the Sun, simultaneously. Moon's position in the orbit around the Earth is then in perfect balance between the two binding forces (and repelling charge emitted by both the Sun and Earth). I don't see it necessarily as black&white, there is no particular reason for this to be so. If distances between bodies change, so does the alignment and the balance between the charge sources / forces is re-established. In essence, Lagrangian points represent the points in space where we can find all gravities (and other forces) balanced out.