The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Page 3 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by Jared Magneson on Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:47 am

First, welcome to the forum, Mamuso! I'm eager to look at your ideas as well, but need to process them a bit to comment or critique them. But I read your entire comment and didn't see any glaring contradictions or holes so far. Nice to have more people around to bounce these ideas about! Welcome.

Second, I've been conversing in emails with Russell Taylor about charge inside the nucleons (proton/neutron/electron), and we discussed better videos to help people visualize what we're talking about. This is all highly dependent on both Miles' theory and Nevyn's augmentations and additions - so when I'm wrong on this stuff, blame THEM. Joking. Blame me. It's my video and I made it to attempt to explain their ideas, which are awesome. My videos are still rough and a long way from where I want them to be, but when I make a breakthrough myself I want to share it.

So here is my first video in awhile of this type: the X2 spin photon shown in motion, scaled to an ambient field of regular ol' B-photons with the A1 spin:

https://vimeo.com/321162565
The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 ZAQwQSq

Why is this relevant to our topic of charge gravity? Because many people have a hard time visualizing what's happening inside the nucleon as charge passes through it. We've had discussions of centrifugal force and other issues people have with the charge-gravity theory but a lot of the time people simply can't visualize it - and I can't either, until we MAKE a visual representation. So here's my first in hopefully a long line of such videos as we make progress on these ideas.

Why just an infrared photon? Because I'm not as good as Nevyn at the coding and it gets REALLY dicey at this level, deciding and determining where and when spins start, stack, and how fast they go at each new level. I believe this one is accurate; I'm using Nevyn's math and Miles' theory as best I can, with one omission being the lack of an A2 spin, since I don't believe those exist.

So that's an A1, X1, Y1, Z1, X2 photon, which I believe is the infrared range. That could be wrong, but this is what it looks like as best as I know currently - and it appears to match Nevyn's spin stacking pretty close, so hopefully I'm on the right track here.

The orange paths are the X2 photon's motion trail - it's always only at one position on that path, but that's the path's "ghost", as we say in animation. The yellow spheres are photons with no stacked spins, just axial spins. This is to show their scale relation and to show exactly how much EMPTY space even a small infrared (X2) photon has in its volume of influence. This photon is far too small to induce recycling of course, but I'll go higher if it's accurate and helpful. I'd love to reach the Proton level. It's just some heavy shit.

Let me know if this helps at all or if not, or if it's wrong, I'll go another direction at this issue?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 514
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:42 pm

.
Mamuso, Welcome. Thanks for joining in. It looks like you're tasking us, I'll turn my attention to it shorty and see if I can add something.

Jared wrote. I don't know why you think I would contradict Miles' theory on something we've been doing since the very first time I came here.
Airman. Contradicting Miles’s theory is all well and good, I have no problem with that.
I agree that given our current understanding of the proton as a single B-photon model, there aren’t enough charge/charge collisions to create the charge diagram’s path.  
I do have a problem with your conclusion - the charge diagram is therefore not valid with respect to the proton, and that Miles would agree. I strongly disagree, and tried to not let my anger show.

No insult intended, I don’t recall any of your emission vimeos suggesting the clean proton disc-like emissions present in Miles’ atomic diagrams. The +/-30 degree emissions in your previous post look great. But that’s beside the point, you can make any vimeo you like, what’s important is your depiction of the proton as the single B-photon and how it supports or contradicts your conclusion that the charge diagram no longer applies to protons.

In throwing out Miles’ famous charge flow diagram as invalid for protons, you are also tossing out Miles’ atomic models, which are based the on the proton charge recycling capacities which the proton as a single B-photon model cannot explain. This, it seems to me is a major problem for the proton as a single B-photon model and not for the famous charge flow diagram. Solve that B-photon model’s problem before casually dismissing our atomic proton model.

Nevyn, as usual, thanks for the detailed explanations and insights. I was defending the charge flow diagram and atomic proton models by attacking what I felt were fatal flaws in your model - i.e. it doesn't seem to support gravity as charge binding either. In any case, I expect you'll eventually develop the proton as a single b-photon model to everyone's satisfaction.   
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1240
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by Jared Magneson on Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:03 pm

I don't understand why you say stuff like that. I didn't throw out Miles' diagram or theory in any way. I added to it by creating a more detailed, animated model showing the exact same thing Miles has described and diagrammed.

You can't straw man me, sir. I never came to the conclusion you stated that I did - you made that up yourself, for some reason. I never said his diagram wasn't valid - you simply fabricated that as well.

I don't know why you're upset at me for saying his diagram is a vector diagram and naive, but you keep making up shit and putting words into my mouth and I'll gladly just disappear. I'm not here to fight but I do that ALL THE TIME in every other forum and frankly, you're simply not armed for such a word battle. And Im not here to battle but to discuss and learn. If you're no longer interested in that, fine.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 514
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by Vexman on Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:07 pm

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

I read most of those links you've left previously, thanks a lot.

A general question: when does E/M force start to manifest itself? Isn't the spin bearer of this E/M force? If so, precisely which photon's spin does define E/M field?

What I'm aiming at with my question - you say that in quantum level every force must come from some mechanical collision. Which makes binding force at distance seem magic instead of mechanic if actually defined by charge field. But then magnetic influence remains ignored. So at which point do photons gain E/M capability?


I'd also kindly ask you (or anybody else inspired enough) to comment on this excerpt from Miles' (http://milesmathis.com/photon.html):

"So, we have found a mass of the photon of 2.77 x 10^-37kg. From a previous paper, we know that the radius of the photon must be G times the proton radius, which gives us 2.74 x 10^-24m. Does that tell us anything? Sit down and hold onto your chair before you calculate. Because if we use my simple equation from my first paper on G (relating mass and radius to surface acceleration), we get

a = 4mG /r2 = 9.8m/s2

The photon, like the proton and the Earth, has a local acceleration at its surface of 9.8! "

Leaving expansion theory of gravity alone (which I never accepted anyway, considering it assumes expansion of everything except the grid, being a philosophically unsound postulate), doesn't that quote imply photon is already "packed" with gravity / binding force? If not, what is the source of that acceleration? Since photon is small in terms of mass, it would exhibit small amount of such binding force, which than explains why it starts to play a more important role at relatively bigger particle's sizes.

Vexman

Posts : 56
Join date : 2019-02-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by Nevyn on Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:24 pm

Ok, let's not let this get personal. Stick to the concepts and attack those all you want, but don't take it personally and don't make it personal. That can be difficult. We get attached to our own ideas and understanding and it can get frustrating when others don't understand us. But we just have to strive a little bit harder to explain ourselves. If you feel that you have done so, but still others aren't seeing it, then just say you think you have explained it enough and want to move on. If it goes beyond that, then it is up to the moderators to step in. We don't need to agree on everything and we all need to stay humble. When you venture into the unknown, you are bound to be wrong about a lot of things. That applies to all of us, it applies to Miles, it applies to me, and it applies to every single scientist in the history of the universe.

This is an exciting time and as such, it gets our blood boiling. It is easy to let that get the better of us, but we need to be better than that. We need each other to remind us of what we have forgotten or tell us what we may have missed. We need each other to support us as we delve into the mysteries that we love. Even if you think someone is going down the wrong path, they may need to in order to find something that you already know. Discovered knowledge is a lot better than received knowledge.

Let's get this discussion back on track, and in that vein, I want to admit that I have been looking too deep on this one. I tried to reach the bottom and work my way back up, but in doing so, I got hung up on some issues. Pedantic issues that may have some relevance, but are getting in my way at the moment. I think re-reading this paper and a few others will help. Cr6 has supplied some great reading material in another thread and that is a good place to start.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1612
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by Nevyn on Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:24 pm

Good questions, Vexman, I'll try to answer them as best I can.

Vexman wrote:A general question: when does E/M force start to manifest itself? Isn't the spin bearer of this E/M force? If so, precisely which photon's spin does define E/M field?

What I'm aiming at with my question - you say that in quantum level every force must come from some mechanical collision. Which makes binding force at distance seem magic instead of mechanic if actually defined by charge field. But then magnetic influence remains ignored. So at which point do photons gain E/M capability?

The EM forces manifest when they have something that they can affect (effect? I never know which one to use). It can't work on itself, so it needs something bigger to work on. Therefore, EM forces arrive when charged particles arrive. The electron is the first particle that can feel the forces of the charge field. As the electron is bigger and slower than the charge field, it can feel pressure from it. It can react to potential differences because it is the charge field that is providing those differences and it is the charge field that is pushing it from all directions, but less where there is less charge. To be clear, individual photons can and do get struck by other charge photons, but that is an interaction between 2 particles, not a field. There is no pressure involved, just collisions.

While the spin of charge photons is what creates the magnetic field, what we call magnetism is a larger concept than just the spin of a single photon. You can already tell from that sentence that we are talking about a field, not individual particles. I didn't even realise I had called it a field until contemplating the follow up sentences. It is that far ingrained into the concept. You have to separate what magnetism is caused by, from what magnetism is or at least what we call magnetism. So, again, magnetism, while already existing at the charge field level, doesn't manifest until it has something to work on, which are larger particles.

Velocity is a key concept that is easy to overlook. It seems so simple, but it is extremely important. In fact, I have argued that it is the only thing that matters apart from the entities that can have a velocity. Here, we are finding that a difference in velocity is important for the charge field to be able to operate on other entities. If the larger particles moved at c too, then the charge field could not supply pressure to them. Their slowness, caused by their size, allows them to be struck by many photons instead of individuals and that creates a field. You could probably say that the charge field is not really a field without larger entities to work on.

Vexman wrote:I'd also kindly ask you (or anybody else inspired enough) to comment on this excerpt from Miles' (http://milesmathis.com/photon.html):

Miles Mathis wrote:So, we have found a mass of the photon of 2.77 x 10^-37kg. From a previous paper, we know that the radius of the photon must be G times the proton radius, which gives us 2.74 x 10^-24m. Does that tell us anything? Sit down and hold onto your chair before you calculate. Because if we use my simple equation from my first paper on G (relating mass and radius to surface acceleration), we get

a = 4mG /r2 = 9.8m/s2

The photon, like the proton and the Earth, has a local acceleration at its surface of 9.8!

Leaving expansion theory of gravity alone (which I never accepted anyway, considering it assumes expansion of everything except the grid, being a philosophically unsound postulate), doesn't that quote imply photon is already "packed" with gravity / binding force? If not, what is the source of that acceleration? Since photon is small in terms of mass, it would exhibit small amount of such binding force, which than explains why it starts to play a more important role at relatively bigger particle's sizes.

That excerpt is about expansion. Miles is just showing that if the photon is expanding and we calculate the rate of that expansion from the perspective of the photon, then it matches what we calculate as the earth's gravity, from the perspective of the earth. He is just showing that if we account for scale, then they match. He may be doing math in circles, if he found the radius of the photon using gravity in any way (and since he used G, he is and I believe he admits that), but it may also be something important or at least indicative.

If that statement is true, then it doesn't just imply, it directly states that the BPhoton (being the only real entity) already contains gravity. Not binding gravity, but expansion gravity. This is purely about expansion and can not be related to binding gravity. The numbers would be used differently with binding gravity.

While I don't want to get into a defense of expansion, I do want to point out that your dismissal of it is incorrect. The grid you mention is not a real thing. It is a conceptual tool used in physics, but it does not exist. Therefore, it expands if we want it to expand and it doesn't if we don't want it to. We live within the model we are trying to explain, so we have to deal with that. We don't think that the grid expands, but then we also don't think that we do, either. But that is just a matter of perspective. We expand, therefore we can't see the expansion. You have to get your perspectives straight if you want to delve into expansion. It is not a simple concept, even if it is a simple motion.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1612
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by Jared Magneson on Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:05 pm

Nevyn wrote:Ok, let's not let this get personal. Stick to the concepts and attack those all you want, but don't take it personally and don't make it personal. That can be difficult. We get attached to our own ideas and understanding and it can get frustrating when others don't understand us. But we just have to strive a little bit harder to explain ourselves.

Indeed, I got a bit hot there, LongtimeAirman. But please forgive me - we're on the same side here and you guys are my best teachers and strongest allies. We do have our differences, and that's a GOOD thing! Without them, we'll get nowhere. All I ask is that you not put words in my mouth. But feel absolutely free to tell me I'm wrong or that you disagree! By all means, I am often wrong and need you guys to help me see it, often. In fact you folks (and Miles) are the only ones who can do so, and I value that.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 514
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:04 pm

.
Mamuso wrote.
What is the mechanics of binding?
Charge ropes. The establishment of charge channels between solid bodies makes the motion harder in the direction that makes the ropes larger, so in an ambient field plenty of collisions in all directions, the preferred direction is to other bodies. The larger and nearer the body, the stronger the rope.
Magnetic net effect. Somehow the spin of the photons exchanged by bodies, when colliding inside them, have a net effect that result in attraction*.

* Right now I have no idea how, and I cannot see how this would work in non-celestial bodies, and makes me question the Newton idea: Are we really sure the apple and the Moon fall for the same and ONLY reason? As I said above, the causes for pull I'm babbling about are not exclusive, and the way I view it "gravity" is only a name given to a net effect seen in planets and free falling objects that happen to result in the same rough acceleration. But you know, when you approach two magnets they are also attracted by "gravity", the magnitude of each cause in each setup is key...
Airman. I’ve also described charge binding with charge channels, linking the charge received at the nuclei’s south-pole, and the Earth directly below. One possible language error, I believe by larger, you may have meant longer. Charge binding can be balanced with charge repulsion as with an orbital body and so the ‘channel’ or ‘ropes may be longer or shorter.
I'd say the mechanism Magnetic net effect is of secondary importance, and I would suggest replacing it with the primary mechanism, Recycling via field vortices. The mechanism’s description is a quote from The Cause of Gravity, the Next Chapter. http://milesmathis.com/grav3.pdf.

Recycling via field vortices. We start with the fact that the body is composed of semi-spherical nuclei.  These nuclei are spinning, and this spin sets up north and south pole vortices, just like on the Earth.  These vortices pull photons through the nucleus, creating a charge engine.

So, as long as charge - charge particles as well as charge photons - is entering the nucleus from the primary source below, ambient charge from outside the nucleus is being forced into vortices in order to recycle into and thru the nucleus, mainly the nuclei's north poles. I don't see how these definitions wouldn't apply to the non-celestial case, do you still believe that to be true, or does this Recycling via field vertices change your understanding?

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

Thanks Jared. Sorry, I'm usually looking for a good fight disagreement, but I didn't realize I was putting words into your mouth. I hope you don't mind my saying, I've always thought of us as charge field team mates good buddy.    
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1240
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by Nevyn on Mon Mar 04, 2019 10:34 pm

Vexman, your question about the BPhoton already containing gravity reminded me of something that I noticed about binding gravity when I first read the paper. I guess it is because I generally rely on expansion to explain gravity, because it is so easy to do so, so I already had the idea of gravity being available from the very first stages. However, with gravity as binding, that is no longer the case. That means that photons do not feel gravity or experience it in any way. If gravity is a charge interaction, then the charge field can not experience it. It can create it or take part in it, but it can not feel it.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1612
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by Nevyn on Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:15 am

If binding gravity can be made to work, and therefore photons don't feel gravity, then the one thing the mainstream thinks it knows about dark matter, that it is gravitational, will be wrong. Yet Miles' usage of the charge field to explain dark matter doesn't use gravity. It uses drag, so it still stands up. Wouldn't that be funny?
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1612
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:13 am

.
http://milesmathis.com/updates.html.

NEW PAPER, added 3/3/19, More on Gravity. http://milesmathis.com/grav4.pdf This may clarify for some readers.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1240
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by mamuso on Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:44 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:One possible language error, I believe by larger, you may have meant longer.
Yep, I meant longer. But now that you point it out, I think that the inertia would be to change the rope to be either longer and/or denser, say more energetic, but in what affects gravity, longer.
BTW I think Mathis does not use this concept in grav4. If I understood him, its a matter of balance between charge channeled and charge not available for channeling that then is only allowed to collide. It makes sense, but I have problems visualizing this Sad

LongtimeAirman wrote:So, as long as charge - charge particles as well as charge photons - is entering the nucleus from the primary source below, ambient charge from outside the nucleus is being forced into vortices in order to recycle into and thru the nucleus, mainly the nuclei's north poles. I don't see how these definitions wouldn't apply to the non-celestial case, do you still believe that to be true, or does this Recycling via field vertices change your understanding?

This may be a problem I have to understand key concepts of Miles theory. I think if any of you can answer the following questions, it will make me see a lot of topics with more clarity:

I have a vertical rod of material. It's in an ambient field of photons with +X direction. Whats the orientation of its atoms?
Take that rod and put it horizontal. Do the orientation of the atoms change?
Make the rod spin. What happens? And if faster?
Do the answers change in an imbalanced field of photons and antiphotons with the same total differential density?

mamuso

Posts : 11
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by mamuso on Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:54 pm

The relation of the previous question with celestial or non-celestial bodies is that I can see that the average orientation in celestial bodies should be biased by the ambient field, but with small rigid bodies, I see a lot of problems on their atoms' orientation changing in response to the field.

mamuso

Posts : 11
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by mamuso on Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:08 pm

Nevyn wrote:That means that photons do not feel gravity or experience it in any way. If gravity is a charge interaction, then the charge field can not experience it. It can create it or take part in it, but it can not feel it.

I think they cannot with the bind gravity Mathis is envisioning in grav4 (imbalance in channeling/collisions, as they don't channel) but they would feel pull in vortexes and cloaked zones in average from the lack of collisions on the repulsion side. I think it would be VERY nice to have terms for referring to each kind of pull, and PERFECT if MM was whom named them Very Happy From now on, unless he changes the terms, I will use the following adjectives to refer to the different pulls: binding, vortex and cloak.


Last edited by mamuso on Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:11 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : binding pull better than bind pull?)

mamuso

Posts : 11
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by mamuso on Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:20 pm

Jared wrote:Indeed, I got a bit hot there, LongtimeAirman.

I think we are all pretty excited with the latest papers. I was really worried you were engaging to the extent some of you quit. I am now relieved Smile PLEASE keep on with the animations. I think if you reach the proton level and it is accurate, it can be the best tool ever to understand and improve Mathis' theories. And if he is (and I think he is) on the right track... well, humanity will be in debt with you forever.

mamuso

Posts : 11
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by Nevyn on Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:46 pm

Was that new paper supposed to be an improvement? I am barely into it before I find a glaringly obvious mistake. A mistake too simple to make. A mistake that fails to follow his own advice in the same paragraph.

Miles Mathis wrote:So although photons can be spinning on any axis, we can assume a certain amount of coherence. To simplify the math and mechanics, we then average the field and assign all particles either a left spin or a right spin. The left spin is photon, the right spin is an antiphoton, say. If a photon and antiphoton are moving in the same linear direction and edge-hit, they spin one another down. If they meet head-to-head, they spin one another up. So you have to keep track of spins and linear motions at the same time.

I'm not even going to point it out. I want you all to think hard about these motions and tell me what the problem is. You don't even have to think that hard about it. Just visualize it.

I'm really disappointed at the moment.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1612
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:51 pm

.
LongtimeAirman wrote: One possible language error, I believe by larger, you may have meant longer.
mamuso wrote: Yep, I meant longer. But now that you point it out, I think that the inertia would be to change the rope to be either longer and/or denser, say more energetic, but in what affects gravity, longer.
BTW I think Mathis does not use this concept in grav4. If I understood him, its a matter of balance between charge channeled and charge not available for channeling that then is only allowed to collide. It makes sense, but I have problems visualizing this

Airman. I don't see how inertia is involved. I disagree with the notion that charge received from earth is ‘denser’ or ‘more energetic’. The charge received is always a balance of charge binding and charge repulsion. Given an atom deep in space, it will eventually align itself to its dominant charge source due to many collisions between the atom, the charge it is receiving from the dominant charge source and charge received from the ambient field. The ambient field of the proton might then accelerate it toward the Earth until earth’s charge repulsion stops the freefall. If the body is far from the charge source, it takes longer for it to cohere to a charge source.

LongtimeAirman wrote: So, as long as charge - charge particles as well as charge photons - is entering the nucleus from the primary source below, ambient charge from outside the nucleus is being forced into vortices in order to recycle into and thru the nucleus, mainly the nuclei's north poles. I don't see how these definitions wouldn't apply to the non-celestial case, do you still believe that to be true, or does this Recycling via field vertices change your understanding?
mamuso wrote: This may be a problem I have to understand key concepts of Miles theory. I think if any of you can answer the following questions, it will make me see a lot of topics with more clarity:

I have a vertical rod of material. It's in an ambient field of photons with +X direction. Whats the orientation of its atoms?
Take that rod and put it horizontal. Do the orientation of the atoms change?


Airman. These are my opinions, please feel free to correct me. Let +x be aligned to the earth's vertical emission field. The rod is solid, the atoms/molecules of the rod are fixed with respect to the materials lattice and do not have the freedom to change their location with respect to the solid matrix. On the other hand, I don't see why the atoms would't have the ability to reorient themselves with respect to the solid matrix's charge channels to which the atoms are connected, so the atoms will reorient themselves the solid matrix x,y or z charge channel which is producing the most charge at any given time; the atom turns it’s south pole to one of those pre-chanelized directions.

With those givens, I believe that whatever direction the rod is held in will result in the charge flow entering the rod from directly below (-x) with upward emission (+x) in the most efficient means possible using the existing solid rod’s existing charge channeling atomic network.

If I hold the rod vertically, emissions from the Earth below will travel from the bottom end of the rod’s length (-x) to the top end (+x) and is entering each atom’s south pole. Charge binding would occur as perpendicular (horizontal, x is constant) cross-sections of charge emission along the rods vertical length. Holding the rod out horizontally, most emissions would pass directly upward into the rod’s ‘bottom edge’ along the length of the rod to travel straight up to top edge along the length of the rod, that distance being the rod’s diameter as measured along the x-axis; charge binding occurs in planes parallel to the earth’s surface ( x is constant), the ends of the rod (left/right, front/back)would then emit recycled charge most strongly.

mamuso wrote. Make the rod spin. What happens? And if faster?
Airman. If I spin the rod the upward emissions of the earth do not change. At any given moment, only the direction of the rod with respect to up is ‘slowly’ changing - the charge field is traveling at light speed. The atoms of the rod quickly realign as necessary (+/- x,y,or z channels), cohering themselves to the upward charge current flow within the rod as it changes direction.
If I spin the rod faster, the faster end of the rod is less able to establish a good coherent charge link, and charge repulsion increases, the ends of the spinning rod grow lighter.

mamuso wrote. Do the answers change in an imbalanced field of photons and antiphotons with the same total differential density?
Airman. That’s a bit confusing, but I don’t believe so. If I understand correctly, we have a 2/3 photon to 1/3 antiphoton field, the nucleus will always align its main n/s charge axis to the strongest available charge source. The atom is likely too ‘massive’ to respond to momentary charge ratio differences.

mamuso wrote. The relation of the previous question with celestial or non-celestial bodies is that I can see that the average orientation in celestial bodies should be biased by the ambient field, but with small rigid bodies, I see a lot of problems on their atoms' orientation changing in response to the field.
Airman. Despite photon/antiphoton ‘fluctuations’ the upward field of the Earth doesn’t change. I don’t believe celestial bodies point in an average direction. The direct charge from the system’s dominant establishes the charge link. The planet must then recycle charge in response to the ‘direct’ channel flow; the direction of the planet will determine the direction of the planet’s recycling charge vortices.

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

Hey Nevyn. I'll look at your comment next.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1240
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by Vexman on Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:38 pm

Nevyn wrote:Was that new paper supposed to be an improvement? I am barely into it before I find a glaringly obvious mistake. A mistake too simple to make. A mistake that fails to follow his own advice in the same paragraph.

Miles Mathis wrote:So although photons can be spinning on any axis, we can assume a certain amount of coherence.  To simplify the math and mechanics, we then average the field and assign all particles either a left spin or a right spin.  The left spin is photon, the right spin is an antiphoton, say.  If a photon and antiphoton are moving in the same linear direction and edge-hit, they spin one another down.  If they meet head-to-head, they spin one another up.   So you have to keep track of spins and linear motions at the same time.

I'm not even going to point it out. I want you all to think hard about these motions and tell me what the problem is. You don't even have to think that hard about it. Just visualize it.

I'm really disappointed at the moment.

Well, we all make mistake sometimes. That first edge-hit of photon and antiphoton would spin them up, not down. Only photons with same left spin would spin one another down if they edge-hit while moving in same linear direction.

Maybe one of us should send him an email.





Vexman

Posts : 56
Join date : 2019-02-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by Nevyn on Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:28 pm

mamuso wrote:
Nevyn wrote:That means that photons do not feel gravity or experience it in any way. If gravity is a charge interaction, then the charge field can not experience it. It can create it or take part in it, but it can not feel it.

I think they cannot with the bind gravity Mathis is envisioning in grav4 (imbalance in channeling/collisions, as they don't channel) but they would feel pull in vortexes and cloaked zones in average from the lack of collisions on the repulsion side. I think it would be VERY nice to have terms for referring to each kind of pull, and PERFECT if MM was whom named them Very Happy From now on, unless he changes the terms, I will use the following adjectives to refer to the different pulls: binding, vortex and cloak.

No, not for the photon. Larger particles, yes, photons, no. A photon can not, in any circumstance, feel a pull. While it can feel a push, the way it is being used here is not a push, but pressure. Pressure is lots of pushes over some time period, not a single push. Photons don't experience pressure, they can only experience collisions and each collision is an isolated event.

There are no vortices on a charged particle. There is no way to create one. A vortex requires an underlying field that is doing the pushing, but from the higher level it looks like an attraction. But what we see as being attracted is not what makes up that underlying field, it is the larger things being pushed by it. Let's take wind as an example, since Miles uses it so often to explain this part. Wind is not made up of photons, it is made of atoms and molecules. It is those atoms and molecules that are being attracted or moved around as a result of potential differences and pressure. The charge field is doing the moving, but it is not that which is moved. Of course, the charge is moving, but it is not what we are looking at and measuring the motion of in this problem.

If we then try to take that analogy down to the particle level, we find that there is no underlying field to drive the photons into a vortex or to create pressure or potential differences. Miles is using terms like vortex and angular momentum to create forces that can't be created. He is doing exactly what he has bitched at the mainstream about for years. How often have you heard Miles say that 'Math can't create curvature' or 'Math can't create force', well, he is doing the same thing, but not with math, just the terms. The term angular momentum does not create force just because you use it. It doesn't explain the motions and collisions involved, it is just an abstract concept that implies motion out from the equator of a spinning entity.

Here's a quote from the latest paper showing this:

Miles Mathis wrote:He (Einstein) started with a given field curvature, but never explained its mechanical genesis.Basically, he chose a curved math, and the math curved the field.  But that isn't mechanics.  Math can't curve a field.

Well, neither can terms or concepts. The term angular momentum does not 'explain its mechanical genesis', does it? You may be thinking that Miles is just using them as abstract concepts to explain the theory. If so, I encourage you to attempt to explain those concepts at the photon level. With only collisions. Seriously, this is what it means to be mechanical. Really think about a single charge photon as it travels through a proton or nucleus. Think about all of the possible ways that it could go, and more importantly, think about why it would go there. You'll soon find that there is no such thing as centrifugal force and the photons are not being pulled anywhere as a result of spin alone. They can collide with the proton or they can collide with the protons charge, but in no way are they pulled or pushed out because of angular momentum.

The main argument I hear against my stacked spin paths, which even Miles himself used, is that the particles are moving, and as such the paths don't really look like the images I produce. They should be stretched out. This is absolutely correct with photons, but absolutely incorrect with electrons, protons, and neutrons. These entities can remain in a single location for some time. Even more so when you think about them being within an atom. So when talking about protons, my spin paths do represent the shape that its BPhoton will form over some time period. They do represent the location density (the probability of finding the BPhoton in a particular place within the protons volume). So we can use them to determine how they will affect the charge field they are in.

Miles Mathis wrote:As charge and anticharge meet along the pole, they not only spin each other up, creating current and magnetism, they also create a
bond.  How?  Again, by pressure differences, or field potentials.  The same pressure differences that cause the vortices cause the bind, you see.  The spin of the proton and nucleus creates a semi-spherical field with polar angular momentum weaknesses.  The force in at the poles creates the vortex, and the same force creates the “gravity” or “strong force”

Well, if it is the same force creating the vortex and binding gravity, then this theory is a non-starter. If it can't create the vortex, then it certainly can't create the gravity.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1612
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by Nevyn on Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:46 pm

Ding, Ding Ding! We have a winner!

Well, almost. You are on the right path, at least, but a photon and anti-photon moving in the same direction will not affect each other at all, as a matter of spin (they will affect each others linear velocity). Their common edges are moving in the same direction as each other. Either both up or both down. Therefore, they do not have any difference in velocity. No difference in velocity, no force. That's what force is, a difference in velocity between 2 particles in collision. So they will not create spin-ups or spin-downs.

Conversely, that means that it is actually the coherent photons with the same spins that have problems with edge hits between each other. When their edges hit, they are both moving in opposite directions (the edges, not the photons) and so they experience 2c of velocity difference (since each is moving at c, tangentially).

Everyone makes mistakes. Yes, but this is a colossal mistake. This is a fundamental mistake. This is basic visualization, which Miles is supposed to be great at. Besides, we actually have 2 mistakes in the same paragraph here. Not only are the photon-to-anti-photon and photon-to-photon edge hits wrong, but only one of those scenarios is capable of creating a spin-up or spin-down.

I'm not even convinced that they can do that. We have 2 photons with the same linear velocity and the same number of stacked spins and the same top level spin direction. They come close enough to touch each other. Let's call one photon the lefty and the other the righty. The common edge of lefty is moving down, say, and the common edge of righty is moving up. Their spin axes are parallel and their spins are equal. So the only thing that can happen is a spin-down.

They negate each others motions with equal and opposite force, so they remove each others top spin level. There is no way for that scenario to create a spin-up. The only way to create a spin-up is through head-on collisions and those collisions do not require photons meeting anti-photons. It doesn't care what each photon is because it is working orthogonal to the top spin levels. Creating a spin-up requires the incoming photons linear velocity to be orthogonal to the photons top spin level and for the particles to collide at their top/bottom edges.

Which leads me into a 3rd mistake, or is it the 4th, 5th, I've lost count. In the very least it is a lack of explanation. Throughout this paper, Miles is using spin-ups. Never spin-downs. Spin-downs are mentioned when talking about coherence of the photons, but it is never used to explain the theory. Now, I don't have a problem with needing spin-ups to explain something. What I do have a problem with is only having spin-ups with no mechanism for selecting spin-ups and excluding spin-downs.

Given my explanation above of spin-ups requiring head-on collisions, Miles can actually use them when talking about through-charge streams in opposite directions. The problem is that that is not what he has explained earlier. He explicitly shows the exact opposite of what he needs.

Is this a theory ender? Some of it is, maybe. My arguments against vortices is, but there may be some other way to explain it without losing everything else. My arguments here about photons and spin-ups can probably be sorted out. We will see how it goes, I guess.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1612
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by Nevyn on Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:53 pm

Nevyn wrote:Creating a spin-up requires the incoming photons linear velocity to be orthogonal to the photons top spin level and for the particles to collide at their top/bottom edges.

To be clear, when I say that the linear velocity must be orthogonal to the photons top spin level, I am talking about the motion of that spin level and not its spin axis. The linear velocity must be in the same direction as the other particles top level spin axis.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1612
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by mamuso on Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:00 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote: I disagree with the notion that charge received from earth is ‘denser’ or ‘more energetic’.

I didn't say so.

The view you show about my questions is what I assumed is the consequence of MM theories, and I see that consequence very strange for solid bodies. Atoms continuously and quickly reorienting depending on the orientation of the body. Spinning the body in the up axis making almost no internal change but in the horizontal axis changing it all. This preference should be measurable. Also I see very strange that the shape of the edge of the body is not affected by this convulsion. Magnets seem to also imply the opposite, fixed atom orientation inside the body (yep it's supposed to be the "domains", not the atoms but I assume it's for the same reason). For all this I hoped there were another solution to my questions. But hey, that it's strange for me is not a decisive

mamuso

Posts : 11
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by mamuso on Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:18 pm

Nevyn wrote: A photon can not, in any circumstance, feel a pull. While it can feel a push, the way it is being used here is not a push, but pressure. Pressure is lots of pushes over some time period, not a single push. Photons don't experience pressure, they can only experience collisions and each collision is an isolated event.

I don't understand why you don't allow pressure pull to apply to particles of the same size of the field that make the pressure. They also collide. Of course they will not feel the same pressure a bigger object will, that's why depending on the size, if we talk about protons or macroscopic objects we have to apply field transforms. In the case of particles with the same size of the field it may not be that simple, but I don't see why, in a wind of photons, a photon coming in the perpendicular direction, for example, will not feel a push to be aligned with the field, so I cannot see how it will not feel a pull when there is a vortex (or a cloak, btw)

mamuso

Posts : 11
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:30 pm

.
Jared, This is beyond a doubt, a wonderful thread; including joys, tempers and disappointments. We definitely need a good proton depiction. The charge field too.

Nevyn, you've made so many well considered points, I'm almost devastated. Well, I'm happy to disagree with at least one, Vortices.

Miles wrote: The spin of the proton and nucleus creates a semi-spherical field with polar angular momentum weaknesses. The force in at the poles creates the vortex, and the same force creates the “gravity” or “strong force”.
Nevyn wrote: There are no vortices on a charged particle. There is no way to create one. A vortex requires an underlying field that is doing the pushing, but from the higher level it looks like an attraction. But what we see as being attracted is not what makes up that underlying field, it is the larger things being pushed by it.  
Airman. Yes, it is the larger things that feel the pushing effects of charge photons.
The proton’s ambient charge field contains more than just charge photons. The charge field contains many and various sized charged particles as a result of random collisions between charge photons. The prime example is the electron. Any charged particle which is large enough to recycle charge will be traveling linearly at less than light speed - you've also noted that previously. Given the various sizes and speeds of charged particles, the charge field itself can be differentiated accordingly.
The spinning proton charge engine’s coherent photon emissions creates its own E/M field which drives the larger, slower charged particles to the proton poles. There, those larger and slower particles form vortices as the pole admits narrow, two-way traffic. When the larger particles enter the nucleus, they will probably be spun down to charge photons during recycling.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1240
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:37 pm

.
mamuso wrote: Yep, I meant longer. But now that you point it out, I think that the inertia would be to change the rope to be either longer and/or denser, say more energetic, but in what affects gravity, longer.
Airman wrote. I disagree with the notion that charge received from earth is ‘denser’ or ‘more energetic’.

mamuso wrote. I didn't say so.

The view you show about my questions is what I assumed is the consequence of MM theories, and I see that consequence very strange for solid bodies. Atoms continuously and quickly reorienting depending on the orientation of the body. Spinning the body in the up axis making almost no internal change but in the horizontal axis changing it all. This preference should be measurable. Also I see very strange that the shape of the edge of the body is not affected by this convulsion. Magnets seem to also imply the opposite, fixed atom orientation inside the body (yep it's supposed to be the "domains", not the atoms but I assume it's for the same reason). For all this I hoped there were another solution to my questions. But hey, that it's strange for me is not a decisive

Airman wrote. Please don’t let my opinions give you any wrong ideas. I'm trying to answer you as accurately as I could; but I have very low confidence in interpreting your comments and questions, especially given plenty of word errors.

What I referred to as a charge channel from the atom to the earth below, you referred to as ‘rope’.
change the rope to be either longer and/or denser, say more energetic
I suppose I should have pointed out that rope is noteworthy in its ability to withstand a tensile force. To describe an atomic orientation or charge channel as ‘rope’ implies that the charge alignment could somehow control its own length. Or Rope as many fibers, each fiber a charge channel – no, no, I don’t believe it is correct to refer to the input charge stream or orientation of the atom or any aspect of the coherence mechanism as rope.

With respect to Solid bodies, and the ‘rod’, while I strongly believe that the atoms in the rod are bound in position, I’m not in the least certain the atoms are free to reorient themselves. If I cannot rule it out, why not include it in the discussion.

Come to think of it, I’m sure that the atoms in my Light Sabre reorient!  Very Happy .

Thanks for the discussion.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 1240
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Empty Re: The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 12 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

Back to top


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