Miles Mathis' Charge Field
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

+6
Vexman
Russ T
Cr6
LongtimeAirman
Nevyn
Jared Magneson
10 posters

Page 2 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  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 Nevyn Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:35 pm

mamuso wrote:
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)

If you think it can, then define pressure and provide a mechanical description of its operation. I'm not trying to be antagonistic. This is a really good exercise, with real value, even if you still end up disagreeing with me.

In your example of a single charge photon coming in from the side of a directional charge stream, you are ignoring half of the collision. For the incoming photon to join the stream, it must collide with one of the photons in the stream. What happens to the photon that was already in the stream? It takes on the velocity of that incoming photon, so all that has happened is that they have swapped places. The stream is still the same density, before and after. So you can say that the incoming photon was pushed into the stream, but you shouldn't ignore the photon that gets pushed out. Even given that, it is still just a collision, not pressure. It is still just a push, never a pull.

At the quantum level, you have to keep a lot of things going in your head to visualize it. I think most here, at the moment, are ignoring density. In order for the charge field to apply something like pressure to a photon, you need it to be very dense. Also, frequency is being ignored and these two concepts go hand in hand in this problem. How does frequency come into it and what frequency am I talking about? The frequency of collisions that create the pressure. There has to be a collision frequency, because pressure is constant application of force. We know that it can't be constant because we work in a mechanical way. However, it can be effectively constant from higher scale perspectives because the photons are so small and fast. Once we start looking at the photons themselves though, they aren't small and fast. They are the same as all of the others. Yes, there are some differences in the photons, it isn't a homogeneous field, but is fairly close to it for our purposes here. We assume that the field is made up of infra-red photons with some slightly larger and some slightly smaller. They are also going the same speed as all of the others, even if they have different sizes.

Why do you need a very dense charge field? To apply pressure you need a high collision frequency. To create a high collision frequency you need lots of collisions. To get lots of collisions you need lots of photons. However, even if that were all true and you did have a dense charge field, you still don't get pressure because you can't create the collision frequency. It only takes 1 collision to get that incoming photon into the stream. Once it is moving in the same direction as the others, they won't touch it again apart from a little jostling, side to side. You are probably thinking that it could take a few collisions to get the incoming photon into the right direction to be considered part of the stream, but it doesn't. All of the photons are the same mass, or close enough to it, so they pretty much just swap directions in a collision. There are probably some minor effects since each photon does have some stacked spins, but I think we can ignore them, at least for now. Even if we allow a second collision to get that photon into the stream, that still isn't pressure.

Why can't we have a dense charge field? Because there is evidence against it. The greatest evidence is the photons themselves and also charged particles. The defining characteristic of a photon is that it moves at c. Even the large photons, which are much larger than an infra-red photon. In order to maintain a velocity at c you have to avoid collisions. You can have the odd collision, which will just change the directions, but to slow a particle down, you need some sort of pressure. You need lots of collisions and they need to keep happening or the charge field will push it back up to c. Charged particles, at least the first of them, represent the boundary between small enough to stay at c and large enough to encounter cross traffic to slow it down. The electron is a lot larger than an infra-red photon, so the charge field can not be very dense from the perspective of an infra-red-charge photon. It isn't even dense enough to affect an X-ray, which is just a step down from an electron. Although I would be willing to accept than an X-ray photon does actually channel charge, just not enough of it to have a measurable effect on the ambient field.

So we have found another little nugget. Not only does a slower speed allow a particle to feel pressure from the charge field, but it actually requires a larger size in order to start slowing it down. This might mean that the X-ray is capable of channeling charge, but it can't do so because it is too fast.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:07 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote: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.

Yes, there are other particles around, but they are not part of this problem. Miles is not suggesting that another proton is emitting at the target proton in order to create a charge vortex. He is only using the charge field to do so, and that is what I have a problem with because it is not mechanically possible. At least, no-one has shown how it is possible.

Let me re-iterate that I completely agree with charge pressure applied to larger and slower particles. The charge field absolutely can push them around because of potential differences in the charge field. All I am saying is that the charge field can not effect itself through potential differences and pressure. Since a vortex requires potential differences and pressure, the charge field can not create one that will effect itself.  Therefore it is not a vortex and it is not an attraction or even an apparent attraction. Charge will only go into the pole if it was already going to do so or it experiences some random collision that allows it to go in that direction at which point I can still say that it was just going that way by accident, and not because of the vortex or any attraction.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:07 pm

.
Nevyn, I hope you don't mind my stepping in.

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.

mamuso wrote: 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)

Airman. Nevyn is absolutely correct. The very definitions of the words 'pressure' or 'push' involve accumulated force over periods of time. The only thing available for delivering "forces" are the photons. The force is a summation of many collisions. While the very large particles may be feeling that set of collisions as a push or pressure, all each individual photon can possibly 'feel' (bad word here) - is a single collision or not.

Does that help?

???????????????

Nevyn, Seeing your reply, I almost deleted this.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

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 Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:43 pm

Airmn wrote:Nevyn, I hope you don't mind my stepping in.



Last edited by Nevyn on Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:56 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Added quote that this is a response to)
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:09 am

LongtimeAirman wrote: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.

Circuit may be a better wording. What I was trying to say was that a longer rope will "store" more energy and maybe there is "inertia" or resistance to make it more energetic, via enlarging it and/or making it more dense. I was just throwing ideas out, I would not even call it an hypothesis.

mamuso

Posts : 11
Join date : 2014-08-10

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 Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:23 am

Nevyn wrote:If you think it can, then define pressure and provide a mechanical description of its operation. I'm not trying to be antagonistic. This is a really good exercise, with real value, even if you still end up disagreeing with me.

Yep, definitely pressure is not the word, but...

Nevyn wrote:In your example of a single charge photon coming in from the side of a directional charge stream, you are ignoring half of the collision. For the incoming photon to join the stream, it must collide with one of the photons in the stream. What happens to the photon that was already in the stream? It takes on the velocity of that incoming photon, so all that has happened is that they have swapped places. The stream is still the same density, before and after. So you can say that the incoming photon was pushed into the stream, but you shouldn't ignore the photon that gets pushed out. Even given that, it is still just a collision, not pressure. It is still just a push, never a pull.

It's a quantitative difference. Even in standard pressure, a collision is a collision.
ALL your statements apply to standard pressure.
To define pressure, as you point out, (capital for the target), you must have R >> r, and density d >> D  but the boundary of the two approximations are not sharp. Often we assume it valid on a difference of one order or magnitude. But the underlying mechanics is the very same.

As for the wording push and pull, I cannot think of using a different one for when the condition R >> r and d >> D does not apply. But the concept is the same: a particle of whichever radius will be more prone to move away or approach to the source of "push" or "pull". The only difference is that when the condition apply, you can ignore probabilities and assume it will always get pushed or pulled and assign a "force" with a number to that push/pull.


Last edited by mamuso on Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:25 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Dangling sentence)

mamuso

Posts : 11
Join date : 2014-08-10

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 Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:23 am


mamuso

Posts : 11
Join date : 2014-08-10

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 Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:52 am

Nevyn wrote: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 differenpce 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).


The basic assumption Miles has proposed is that we differentiate between photons and antiphotons by their most basic spin: photons are assumed as left spinning, while antiphotons are right-spinning.

I do agree with you in terms of difference in velocity at the moment of collision - if there's no difference in velocities, they will only change the direction of their linear motion (i.e. get redirected according to the angle of their collision).

However, it's not only about the linear velocity at the moment of collision, it's also about the photon's and antiphoton's angular velocity. The speed of their spin should be different if we expect for the spin-up to occur at the moment of collision. In case of Miles' proposal, which you quoted, he didn't specify any difference in terms of spin velocity, he only specified and attached opposite spin direction to each one of them. So we can only suppose photons and antiphotons have equal spins in terms of angular velocity. In such case, I agree with your criticism saying there can be no spin-up when such particles collide. Although, if their angular velocities differ, two photons with opposite spin direction will produce a spin up when they collide while in same linear motion when they collide - a slower spinning photon will obtain a spin-up and a faster spinning photon will have its spin slowed down, losing his momentum in in the same proportion, or spinned-down. In terms of preservetion of energy, this would be a balanced outcome, right?

Thanks for your efforts, each one of them makes me think really hard.

Vexman

Posts : 73
Join date : 2019-02-25

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 Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:13 pm

Don't want to derail this thread, but still wanted to reply to Nevyn's criticism of my rejection of expansion theory as erroneous. If you feel it belongs to a more appropriate thread, please feel free to move it.

Nevyn wrote:
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.

That was your answer to my statement about the expansion theory and the grid within it, which does not get expanded accordingly.

When you say that the grid is not a real thing or that it is a conceptual tool only, I have to partially object and here is why: when we want to approximate a distance between ourselves and some (distant) object, what we do is we attach a value to that distance according to our experience with the space in general. When without such experience, we have to walk that distance foot by foot, and measure it that way. Or we count all the steps, trying to keep the same space between them. Or we do it by laser meter. Anyway, what my point is - we are virtually trying to create that grid, which you say doesn't exist. That grid is what gives us the measurable experience of 3-dimensional space. It's not penciled out when we walk the Earth, but when we measure anything, it has to be there as a reference set of coherent points for the measured space.

In that particular aspect, the grid is essential if we want to measure such expansion as proposed by theory. Let's have an experimental setup of two bodies with some space between them - in expansion theory only the bodies get to experience that expansion, while the space between them does not. By what logical argument should proportions in observed experiment change, while bodies expand? I find such proposal inaccurate, with rule of expansion working selectively. You see, if you set the rule of expansion for the whole space, from our outer perspective as observers, everything should be expanding and thus allowing the proportions between all observed points to remain the same. In our above experimental setup, we would therefore notice no difference as only the overall sizes expanded while the proportions between them remained the same. So the grid does not get subjected to the expansion according to your choice, but it has to expand because of the rule you have set for such space. Your perspective as the observer is irrelevant in such case where we are looking at the physical properties of the observed space. That space has its initial grid within it at the start of an experiment - as it expands, the bodies, the space and the grid expand together. Therefore, a coherent expansion implies that centers of both bodies in our experimental setup do move as time passes.

To simplify, the only grid which qualifies as conceptual in this theory, is the mathematical one. Such mathematical grid postulates a background for the expansion, and it is freely created in order to be able to measure such expansion (roughly quoting Miles from http://milesmathis.com/third.html). Well, here is the issue: in reality, the actual grid already exists, it's just not penciled out - it represents the proportions between the (referential) points in space before any mathematical grid was imposed over it. The real one would expand, just like everything else if we consider expansion as the main postulate set for such space, while the mathematical one would and does not. If it did, it would render such theory meaningless.

Vexman

Posts : 73
Join date : 2019-02-25

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 Thu Mar 07, 2019 5:57 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.

I THINK that what you were getting at is that if the photons are spinning on any axis, we should NOT assume a certain amount of coherence. Without something larger to "cohere" or organize or sort the photons, their spins relative to each other should be completely random, given a random field?

As for visualizing it, we've done this previously with one of the videos:

https://vimeo.com/277391470
The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 HcnO44y

This was when we were exploring gravity AT the photon level, previously - which in Miles' new theory cannot exist. But we didn't know that or think that back then, so here it is again for any newcomers. I believe Miles previously thought expansion would also affect photons themselves, which is why we made that video.

So it shows a NO spin, same-direction collision (where gravity is bringing the photons together), a same-spin, an opposite-spin, and then the polar-spin collisions. I tried to show different ones so we could study the effects. The only artifices involved are of course 1) Gravity and 2) some measure of "friction", which really shouldn't exist at the photon level IF and only if they are truly perfectly smooth spheres (somehow). But anything less than an infinitely-smooth perfect sphere should have some measure of friction, be it tiny or not. So given those two postulates, that video should be pretty damn accurate from a mathematical level.

Point being, we should not experience ANY spin-ups or spin-downs if two photons are moving linearly together, no matter what. Why? Because to achieve a spin-up or spin-down the collision must happen orthogonaly, and in Miles' quote paragraph they are moving parallel, not orthogonal to each other. The spins may or may not be opposite but the linear motion is required to cause a spin-up, which is a "tumble over", per our other demonstrations such as here:

https://vimeo.com/276665562
The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 VEAjuFu

In my experience so far, the only way to achieve a stacked spin is via a collision at a certain point at a certain angle. All other collisions will produce standard pool-ball mechanics, repelling either or both photons off at some vector or other, but not cause a new stacked spin, up or down.

Does that make sense?

But since Miles has effectively nullified gravity at the photon level itself, giving gravity to field differentials, that video is useless. I merely offer it here as a demonstration.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11

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 Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:06 pm

mamuso wrote:It's a quantitative difference. Even in standard pressure, a collision is a collision.
ALL your statements apply to standard pressure.
To define pressure, as you point out, (capital for the target), you must have R >> r, and density d >> D  but the boundary of the two approximations are not sharp. Often we assume it valid on a difference of one order or magnitude. But the underlying mechanics is the very same.

If we assume a valid difference is one order of magnitude, then I think we have a fairly sharp boundary. I have shown that the boundary is between the X-ray and the electron. The difference between those particles, at least as a matter of size, it almost an order of magnitude. Technically, it is 8 times the size, but it's close enough to 10 for me. That is only 3 spin levels or what I call a spin set (contiguous X, Y and Z spins).

But I have to disagree that the underlying mechanics is the same. I've already given an example using wind compared to the charge field and the mechanics are definitely not the same.

mamuso wrote:As for the wording push and pull, I cannot think of using a different one for when the condition R >> r and d >> D does not apply. But the concept is the same: a particle of whichever radius will be more prone to move away or approach to the source of "push" or "pull". The only difference is that when the condition apply, you can ignore probabilities and assume it will always get pushed or pulled and assign a "force" with a number to that push/pull.

Terms like pull, attraction and statements like prone to move away or approach are statistical language. Statistics doesn't tell you anything about the mechanics other than general motions (which are implied, not explained) and as Miles has stated time and time again, if you don't know the mechanics, you don't know the math. The mechanics is what drives the math. It is what provides the math with variables to use and the relationships between them. The math should represent the mechanics and then we can use it to generate statistics for a higher level view point. Using such terms to define theory is often done as a quick way to express concepts, but we have to be very careful that those concepts do actually apply. That is my main argument here. I can't see how they can apply at the photon level.

Am I being pedantic? You bet. I would probably call it thorough, rather than pedantic, which seems to have a bit of a negative connotation. But really, it's just being mechanical. I expect physics to be feasible down to that level. I want to understand physics down to that level, so I strive to see it that way. If I find a problem, then I try to figure it out and if I can't, then I might ask how others see it in the hope that I have missed something or they spark a new idea. But, like a dog with a bone, I won't let it go easily. I might choose to ignore it for a while, in order to make progress in other areas and hope they give me something to fix it with, but it will still be there in the back of my mind until I can see it clearly.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:38 pm

Before I reply to any more responses, I would like to point out where I was wrong. In a previous post, I stated:

Nevyn wrote: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.

On another look at the original quote, I found that Miles is indeed using same linear velocity edge hits to explain spin-downs and head-on collisions to explain spin-ups. Which is exactly what I went on to state. I guess I was off and running and didn't look back as I got further and further away. So my original problem of photons and anti-photons still applies, but their usage to spin up and down is correct as long as the photon types are switched around. That is, it is photons-to-photons or anti-photons-to-anti-photons that cause each other problems and will cause spin-downs (when moving in the same direction).

There also may be some validity to head-on collisions requiring different photon types. This gets a little tricky because the only difference between a photon and an anti-photon is a matter of perspective, so you have to choose a view point and stick to it. Changing the view point will change what type of photon you are looking at.

Imagine we have 2 photons that are about to collide. We will call them P1 and P2. We are looking from behind P1. From that perspective, P1 is spinning CW and P2 is spinning CCW. So we might call P1 a photon and P2 an anti-photon. However, if we now look at it from behind P2, we find that they have switched and P2 is now the photon and P1 is the anti-photon. So pick one of those perspectives and stick to it to keep everything straight.

Now, given P1 and P2, looking from behind P1 again, we can see that as a matter of absolute direction, their spins are opposite. Therefore, when they collide, the force of those spins comes into the collision as much as the force from the linear velocity. More force is a good thing when trying to stack a new spin level.

However, I'm still not exactly convinced that a head-on collision between 2 photons or 2 anti-photons would not stack a new spin. We still have 2c of force just from the linear velocity alone and that may be enough to stack a new spin.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:20 pm

Nevyn wrote:However, I'm still not exactly convinced that a head-on collision between 2 photons or 2 anti-photons would not stack a new spin. We still have 2c of force just from the linear velocity alone and that may be enough to stack a new spin.

I think that an actual, exact head-on collision might cause a DE-spin or down-spin, but it seems like to me that to gain a new spin stack, it must be at some oblique angle or other - perpendicular to the current top-level spin, and that angle must cause a "topple" in the new, perpendicular direction. Am I wrong about this? That's how we diagrammed it in my "PhotonStory" video, and when I say "we" I mean me combined with input from you, LTA, Cr6, Miles, and a few others - applying your various critiques combined to come up with the "story". Each collision causing a new stacked spin is coming from a specific direction and hitting at a specific point on the bPhoton itself, and it took me quite some time to "get it right", if that even is right obviously. But we sure dug into the mechanics there and that video is definitely my best work so far, in any video. It seems to be workable. Spins might stack in that manner. We went over the motions considerably when I made it, and with that configuration it will produce the exact same spin-paths as your spin-path simulator does, with the addition of that linear velocity to "stretch" things out:

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Iw1kBwU

(granted you can't exactly see that at the end of the video, frame 1200, but once you apply the linear motion the photon of course appears to "corkscrew" through space)

But I don't really see how a head-on collision or a side-by-side collision a'la my Gravity at the Photon Level video (also linked above) could cause a new tumble.

These are old arguments of course, not necessarily related to charge-based gravity, but I think they're vastly important and as you've said many times, if we don't understand how things work at this level and scale properly then errors will just compound from there every time we try to move up.

In essence, I'm still a huge proponent of photon charge and all of Miles' work in general, just a few finer points need to be analyzed further and hashed over as much as necessary, so we can all figure things out better. I am by no means the last word on this stuff and hope that's pretty clear to everyone here. Just suggesting and attempting to illustrate and diagram this stuff, which I hope is helpful at some point.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11

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 Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:06 pm

Vexman wrote:However, it's not only about the linear velocity at the moment of collision, it's also about the photon's and antiphoton's angular velocity. The speed of their spin should be different if we expect for the spin-up to occur at the moment of collision. In case of Miles' proposal, which you quoted, he didn't specify any difference in terms of spin velocity, he only specified and attached opposite spin direction to each one of them. So we can only suppose photons and antiphotons have equal spins in terms of angular velocity. In such case, I agree with your criticism saying there can be no spin-up when such particles collide. Although, if their angular velocities differ, two photons with opposite spin direction will produce a spin up when they collide while in same linear motion when they collide - a slower spinning photon will obtain a spin-up and a faster spinning photon will have its spin slowed down, losing his momentum in in the same proportion, or spinned-down. In terms of preservetion of energy, this would be a balanced outcome, right?

I wasn't really thinking about different spin sizes (number of spin levels) apart from the spinning up and down to reach coherence. I must say that when discussing spin-ups and spin-downs, I was assuming the same number of stacked spins on each particle. I assumed coherence was already reached. At the moment, I'm not sure if all of those assumptions are valid. Even if they are valid, it is worth thinking about having different spin counts.

I think I have handled both the linear and spin velocities in my descriptions, different particle sizes aside, but may not have covered everything. I don't think it is necessary for different sized particles to collide head-on to stack on a new spin level. I think there is enough force in that collision, given the right trajectories, to create the next spin. Have a read of my post above and see if that clarifies or muddies things. Edge hits between different sized particles does produce an interesting problem. So let's run through it.

We have P1 which has less spins than P2. They are moving in the same direction but have come close enough to touch each other, edge to edge. They are both photons OR anti-photons, so we have opposing spin directions at the common edge. Let's say that the edge of P1 is moving down and the edge of P2 is moving up, and they collide in the middle, so 3 o'clock on P1 and 9 o'clock on P2. When they collide, P2 has more mass, because it has more spin levels (and I treat spin levels as mass). So we have an unbalanced collision. P1 is going to feel more of the force than P2 will. But force is a vector. We have to remember that it has direction as well as strength. The resultant force vector for P1 will be pointing up and it will be longer than the resultant force vector for P2 which will be pointing down and shorter.

What happens to P2?

There is not enough force to totally remove its top spin level, but it can slow it down. Miles has shown that stacked spins are quantized on the way up, but can be continuous on the way down. So P2 just loses a bit of angular momentum on its top spin level. It still has the same top spin, but it is now spinning at a slower tangential velocity.

What happens to P1?

There is more force than P1's top spin level contains, so that spin level will be annihilated, but there is still some force left over. We can't just dump it, it has to do something. We can't forget about that direction though. The force can only operate in that direction. Therefore, it will not stack on a new spin level, it will reverse the original spin level. So this collision turns P1 from a photon into an anti-photon. But even that relies on the difference in spins, although I am questioning that at the moment. I am questioning if spins are always quantized on the way up. For actual spin-ups from head-on collisions they are, but in this scenario, we have different forces involved. The directions of the forces are different and that changes everything. I believe that in this situation, the reversal of a spin level, it does not need to be quantized. But I also wouldn't call this a spin-up. I would call it a spin reversal. Some might say that the spin is removed before reversing it, but I don't think that is true. Force doesn't stop and start. It is applied all at once at the moment of collision, so the reversal is one motion.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:27 pm

Nevyn wrote:But I have to disagree that the underlying mechanics is the same. I've already given an example using wind compared to the charge field and the mechanics are definitely not the same.

Please explain me the mechanical difference between a photon being pushed in a photon wind and a larger particle being pushed in a photon wind.

mamuso

Posts : 11
Join date : 2014-08-10

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 Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:27 pm

Vexman wrote:Don't want to derail this thread, but still wanted to reply to Nevyn's criticism of my rejection of expansion theory as erroneous. If you feel it belongs to a more appropriate thread, please feel free to move it.

Sorry, I lied, I do want to defend it! I mainly said that because I, too, thought it was the wrong thread to be doing so. However, this thread is about gravity and I think (justify?) that it does fit in here, somewhat.

Vexman wrote:When you say that the grid is not a real thing or that it is a conceptual tool only, I have to partially object and here is why: when we want to approximate a distance between ourselves and some (distant) object, what we do is we attach a value to that distance according to our experience with the space in general. When without such experience, we have to walk that distance foot by foot, and measure it that way. Or we count all the steps, trying to keep the same space between them. Or we do it by laser meter. Anyway, what my point is - we are virtually trying to create that grid, which you say doesn't exist. That grid is what gives us the measurable experience of 3-dimensional space. It's not penciled out when we walk the Earth, but when we measure anything, it has to be there as a reference set of coherent points for the measured space.

This is tricky stuff, hence my statement that expansion is a complex topic. You have to keep things straight to get anywhere. The very first thing we need to get straight is what is real and what is not. In Miles theory, the only thing that is real is the BPhoton. There is nothing else. Does that mean that the electron, say, is not real? Not exactly, but yes as well. The electron is not real like the BPhoton is real. The electron is something that a BPhoton does as well as what it does to the charge field. The electron is a process or an interaction (or many of them). You can touch a BPhoton and it is the BPhoton that you will feel, but can we say the same of an electron? If you touch an electron, what exactly are you touching? You might only be touching its charge field, so you haven't even gotten to the electron itself. If you do manage to touch the electron, what are you touching? The BPhoton!

So everything else in the universe that we gives names to, are not real in the same sense that a BPhoton is real. It is all just BPhotons doing their thing. Therefore, anything you use to measure a distance is also made of BPhotons. Therefore, anything you measure with will be expanding because its BPhotons are expanding. Therefore, any distance you measure with that tool will also be expanding. The meter itself expands. Not only the meter, so does the second, or any time unit you want to use. If distance and time can expand, then so does velocity. How can you expand time? Because time is a secondary measurement of distance in order to compare it to another.

Your examples of measuring are all performed within the model and this is critical. We are inside of the model we are trying to explain. All of our measurements are from within the model. This complicates everything. Especially with expansion because you just can't escape it. The exact same problem applies to gravity even without expansion, or at least the previous theories of gravity as it may not be as applicable to gravity as binding. Essentially, you can't get to a non-gravitational location. You might be able to minimize it, but then you become the gravitating object, or your device does. To get around the problem of working from within the model, we realise that some things are not absolute, but are relative. The distances you are measuring are relative distances. Under expansion, the distance won't change as a relative value, but it will change as an absolute value, if such a measurement were possible.

Vexman wrote:In that particular aspect, the grid is essential if we want to measure such expansion as proposed by theory. Let's have an experimental setup of two bodies with some space between them - in expansion theory only the bodies get to experience that expansion, while the space between them does not. By what logical argument should proportions in observed experiment change, while bodies expand? I find such proposal inaccurate, with rule of expansion working selectively.

Expansion does work selectively. It selects real entities to expand and it excludes things that don't exist, such as space. I find that perfectly logical. How could it be any other way?

I don't understand your experiment here. You have 2 bodies that are expanding but you don't want the space between them to diminish. You want it to remain in the same proportion, but that is exactly the phenomenon that we are trying to explain with expansion. That is what gravity does, so I don't see how that could possibly be a problem. We don't want the proportions to remain the same because that is not what we have observed. So I will assume that you are measuring 2 points on the surface of the earth, as that is the only way you would want the distance to remain the same.

There is a big difference between measuring a distance on the earth and measuring the distance between 2 bodies in space. The difference is the earth itself, which is expanding beneath us. The earth gives us something that is going to move us, as we measure and even after we measure. We have 2 points on the surface of the earth that we want to measure the distance between. The earth is expanding, so it will effectively push those 2 points apart since the surface is now larger than it was some time ago. But we are also expanding, so in the same time we got larger too. That reduced the distance between those points at the same time that they were expanding apart which offsets the expansion and we don't see the distance expand. Our measuring rods expanded too, which means that we won't measure a difference either.

In space, things are different because there is nothing holding the bodies to their location and there is nothing moving them from it either. As they expand, they don't actually change their location, they just take up more space which we see as diminishing between them. Once they touch though, then they do start to change their locations such that they move away from each other. To us, it just looks like they moved towards each other and are now touching. We don't see the expansion and we don't see that they are changing their locations because to us, the locations are relative, not absolute. We can't see the absolute data.

I think your assumption that the space between things would change under expansion, assuming the surface of the earth example, is invalid. You have to keep track of everything that is expanding and you have to realise that they are all expanding at the same time and at the same rate. Therefore, you can't even measure out some distance without expansion happening. As you measure, let's say by walking the distance, the earth beneath you is expanding and you are expanding and the meter is expanding, all in the same proportions. You take the first step and you make it about 1m. You then take the second step which you think is the same distance, but it is not. Everything is bigger, so the second step is a larger distance than the first step, in an absolute sense. But, even as you take the second step, the first step actually grew too. Well, not really the step itself, since it is in the past, but the distance measured by it has grown. That is what it means that the meter has expanded. The absolute distance of 1m has changed, but we don't determine the meter in an absolute sense, we determine it by some real world object and as a real world object, it will expand.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:34 pm

Jared, I am still working with what we discussed back then about stacking new spins. Calling it a head-on collision is not accurate. I believe the photons must collide at the top edge of one and the bottom edge of the other in order to get the right forces to create a new spin level.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:46 pm

mamuso wrote:Please explain me the mechanical difference between a photon being pushed in a photon wind and a larger particle being pushed in a photon wind.

Easy, a photon being pushed by a photon wind is not actually being pushed by the wind, but a photon in the wind. Where-as a larger particle, say a proton, is being pushed by lots and lots of photon collisions from the photons in the wind. We can actually say that the wind is pushing the proton because of the number of photons doing the pushing. That push also happens over time, because of the mass of the proton, and so we can call it pressure. A photon only needs one, maybe stretched to 2 or 3, collisions. If it only collides with 1 or 2 photons in the wind, is it the wind that is doing it?

Let me give an analogy and see if you can see the difference. Imagine that I am walking through a forest. It is a very windy day (I'm not actually using the wind here, apart from incidentally) and it breaks a branch on one tree and that branch falls on top of my head. Would you say that the forest hurt me, or would you say that the tree hurt me?

Now image that as I am walking through that forest, it isn't just one tree breaking, every 2nd tree is breaking branches and they are raining down on me. Don't worry, I have a thick head. Would you now say that a tree is hurting me, or would you say that the forest is? It isn't the best of analogies, but I hope it gets the point across.

But the point is moot anyway, because Miles is not using an existing wind to push charge into the poles of a proton, he is using the proton to create the wind.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:17 am

Nevyn wrote:Jared, I am still working with what we discussed back then about stacking new spins. Calling it a head-on collision is not accurate. I believe the photons must collide at the top edge of one and the bottom edge of the other in order to get the right forces to create a new spin level.

Agreed. And any decent game of pool reinforces the point, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page with these collisions so everyone else could see the point there. I maintain that, within the parameters we fed the simulation, that Gravity at the Photon Level video is fairly accurate. I'm very much on the fence however on the cause of gravity (expansion does solve all these problems) being mediated at all by a particle. It's something I can't wrap my head around, given the charge field is strictly repulsive. Lesser repulsion can cause apparent "attractions", sure, but can it cause gravity? I remain unconvinced, but will work hard to create, frame, and answer questions on this topic until satisfied.

I also have absolutely no problem with Miles being wrong here. Whether he would admit it or not is up to him, but I find it odd that he would put himself out on such a ledge at this stage of the game. As usual, we'll need to actually diagram this stuff to get to the bottom of it and alas that's something he's not able to do. So here we are. And I can't think of any better work to be doing. Smile

Jared Magneson

Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11

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 Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:37 pm

Nevyn wrote:

Vexman wrote:In that particular aspect, the grid is essential if we want to measure such expansion as proposed by theory. Let's have an experimental setup of two bodies with some space between them - in expansion theory only the bodies get to experience that expansion, while the space between them does not. By what logical argument should proportions in observed experiment change, while bodies expand? I find such proposal inaccurate, with rule of expansion working selectively.

Expansion does work selectively. It selects real entities to expand and it excludes things that don't exist, such as space. I find that perfectly logical. How could it be any other way?

I don't understand your experiment here. You have 2 bodies that are expanding but you don't want the space between them to diminish. You want it to remain in the same proportion, but that is exactly the phenomenon that we are trying to explain with expansion. That is what gravity does, so I don't see how that could possibly be a problem. We don't want the proportions to remain the same because that is not what we have observed. So I will assume that you are measuring 2 points on the surface of the earth, as that is the only way you would want the distance to remain the same.

With all due respect, sir, I think you do understand my setup / experiment. This issue is exactly where we have different opinions about what is theoretically correct. The difference is in the way we understand what empty space represents in reality vs mathematical model.

I don't want just the distance to remain the same. I want everything in the "picture" to remain the same, as that is the only option which would allow me (or any other observer) not noticing that the proportions have changed. Only that does match my personal experience with space around me. When I look at the Moon, it's not getting closer to me by every second. If we stick to the explanation as used in expansion theory, where only physical bodies (i.e. me, the Earth, the Moon) experience expansion and their centers do not move in time, how can you explain it? I should see the space between me and the Moon diminish as the empty space between us doesn't get expanded according to the theory. But that is not the actual case, such theory does not reflect how we experience reality.

You claim that expansion selects real entities and excludes things that don't exist, such as space. This is the very issue why we have different opinions about it. If expansion did exclude the space between the two bodies, we would notice it. Why? Because the proportions in the observed "picture" (the two bodies and space between them as a whole) have changed. When proportions change, we notice it - if the space between two bodies diminishes, it means the objects are getting closer. If the space between them enlarges, the objects are moving apart. The only option which would allow me (or any other observer) not to notice the change during the expansion is if the proportions remained the same.

Nevyn wrote:
As they expand, they don't actually change their location, they just take up more space which we see as diminishing between them. Once they touch though, then they do start to change their locations such that they move away from each other. To us, it just looks like they moved towards each other and are now touching. We don't see the expansion and we don't see that they are changing their locations because to us, the locations are relative, not absolute. We can't see the absolute data.

Sir, that is an impossible scenario. If you have observed the diminishing space and two bodies eventually touching, it means you have noticed an expansion. That's not how this is supposed to be working. If everything expands and we don't notice it, it reflects our experience with the reality. But than this further implies the proportions remained the same, which is exactly the opposite of what expansion theory suggests.

We could now go back and forth refuting each other views of expansion, but in my opinion we would be going in circles, returning to the root of this issue. Which is in my understanding the issue I have already written about in my initial post: the expansion should not be working selectively. Once expansion is set as the postulate of an observed space, it affects everything within it. Empty space between objects is not an imaginative term in this case, it represents proportional part of the universe. If you change proportions within an observed space , you have a mismatch between such theory and perceived reality.

PS
The last thing I would like is to come across as some smartass who thinks he knows everything. Everything I've written are my most sincere thoughts. I've never had any chance to discuss these issues with Miles or anybody else, so as you can see, I allowed myself to present my views without anybody asking me to do so. I certainly hope none of you guys won't hold it against me.

Vexman

Posts : 73
Join date : 2019-02-25

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 Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:08 pm

Firstly, don't worry about how you might look. If you are discussing the science, then it is all good to me. I, too, spent a lot of time with Miles work, and some others, all by myself and it wasn't until I was invited to this place that I had others to bounce ideas off of. In the beginning, I was still a bit worried that I might be wrong and held back, but I soon learnt that it is better to be wrong and shown that you are, than to keep thinking what is wrong. Even more than that, having to explain myself to others made me look deeper at what I was explaining and that was probably the best thing of all.

Secondly, if someone says that they don't understand part of what you have written, the onus is on you to explain it better. They may understand some of it, but are confused about a little bit, or they might not see why you have come to the conclusions you have from what has been written. In this case your scenario was a bit vague so I tried to find a way to make it work. I didn't want to assume I was correct about your intentions so I stated them, that way you are aware of what my understanding is of your words. That allows you to correct me and supply more information if that assumption is incorrect. Which has now happened.

So...

On to the science.

Now I can see that you aren't talking about expansion exclusively, you actually want to know about orbits. All of my posts above about expansion are written about only expansion. It is only trying to show how expansion provides gravity. However, an orbit is not a gravity only scenario. Each body is also channeling charge so we can't ignore their emission field. And what does that emission field do? It pushes back out, the opposite direction to the apparent motion of the bodies, as we observe it. That is why the space doesn't diminish between them.

The moon is in equilibrium with the earths expansion and its emission. The expansion causes the earth to take up a bit more space which would cause the earth and moon to be closer together, but the earth is also pushing out on the moon using its emission field. Since the earth and moon are now a bit closer to each other, it upsets that equilibrium which then increases the force being applied to the moon. That pushes the moon back out a bit until it finds equilibrium again. It is all a balance of 2 forces. That is why orbits can be stable. It is why orbits can be self-correcting.

If we could see it all from a non-expanding perspective, we would see that orbits are not circular paths, but are a spiral outwards from the central body. Everything is getting bigger and everything apart from the central body is moving away from that body.

Vexman wrote:Empty space between objects is not an imaginative term in this case, it represents proportional part of the universe.

A proportionality is just a number that represents some relationship between things. It is not real in the way I am using that term. I am talking about existence. Physical existence. Space does not physically exist. It is the absence of that which exists. Therefore it will not expand because there is nothing to expand.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:52 pm

I don't really know how I feel about expansion, and myself prefer the Universal Stacked spin "model" despite its own flaws, but as a matter of math expansion works very well - also despite its flaws. Honestly I couldn't vote for any of the three camps but expansion describes the math best - except as we know, the math itself is just a description, not a cause.

Vexman wrote:I should see the space between me and the Moon diminish as the empty space between us doesn't get expanded according to the theory.

As Miles and Nevyn have explained in various places, in the gravitic expansion theory gravity's acceleration is counter-balanced by charge itself pushing out in all events. But again, Vex - by all means, keep the discussion going until you're either satisfied your questions are answered. In this gravity debate, no stone need be left unturned.

Honestly Miles' latest paper on the topic didn't really allay my questions either, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. I need to come up with ways to diagram it to better understand it. Most of my diagrams help satisfy me, but may or may not satisfy the questions other folks have, so if you can think of any video-diagrams that need to be done by all means suggest away! And I'll do my best to try and make it more visual, which is something I think is lacking in Miles' latest papers - but he's still exploring the theory too, so that's not a critique, just an observation.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11

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 Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:19 am

Nevyn wrote:
Now I can see that you aren't talking about expansion exclusively, you actually want to know about orbits. All of my posts above about expansion are written about only expansion. It is only trying to show how expansion provides gravity. However, an orbit is not a gravity only scenario.

My intention was not to bring in another aspect, such as orbits. I do understand the play of equilibrium, more or less. I should have thought of a better case instead of bringing Moon and Earth into the picture when talking about the expansion of two bodies. In essence, whichever two bodies we decide to look at (while we're discussing expansion) are charge emitting bodies. When close enough, they will repel each other for sure by emitting charge but that's not what my focus is. So I will presume I haven't explained my experimental setup well enough, which consequently brought you to a conclusion I want to include orbits in this discussion. Let me try better.

The experimental setup I had in my mind is only about the 2 physical bodies and some empty space between them. The two bodies are static, have no direction of movement and they don't orbit each other. The two bodies are at some distance from each other, they are not necessarily equal in size and they are not influencing each other. I tried to find a picture representing it:
The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 HSTBm

So returning back to the case I brought in here:  the setup I was referring to has no orbits, just two bodies in no relationship at the beginning, with some distance between them. If I was watching from body "m1" towards body m2 (or vice versa), I would notice space between them diminish according to the theory of expansion and its suggestion about the space not expanding. The edges of those two bodies would eventually touch unless charge emissions managed to keep them apart at some distance (unlikely to happen without involving / developing orbits).  Such outcome is not what we observe in reality. In reality, these two bodies would eventually touch only if they were already in gravity's zone of influence.

Nevyn wrote:
Vexman wrote:Empty space between objects is not an imaginative term in this case, it represents proportional part of the universe.

A proportionality is just a number that represents some relationship between things. It is not real in the way I am using that term. I am talking about existence. Physical existence. Space does not physically exist. It is the absence of that which exists. Therefore it will not expand because there is nothing to expand.

Physical existence or material things around you are one part of the space. Your image of space includes everything in between material as well, so your experience with reality is not just about the material things around you. If you change visual appearance of observed physical reality with such postulate that ignores proportionality, it further implies we would have noticed expansion at work. Which is not what we actually observe in reality, we don't notice expansion if it's really there. So we have two options based on our experience with reality:
a) expansion as suggested by theory doesn't exist since we would have noticed it or
b) expansion does exist, but we don't notice it as everything gets expanded including the grid / empty space .

Thinking about option a): in the proposed way how expansion theory works, we would have noticed such expansion at work, but we haven't been able to notice it so far. So I conclude there is no such version of expansion.  If option b) is the case here, it implies the whole universe is expanding including the space between objects - or else we would have run out of space for such expansion of mass as time passes. Since it means we're getting larger by each second, it also means we were once infinitesimally small. I'm having several issues with such scenario. In short, I have enough objections about both a) and b) options to be looking at some alternative explanation with more hope of finally explaining gravity. That's why I like charge binding theory better, even though it has its theoretical weaknesses at this stage.


Jared Magneson wrote:
As Miles and Nevyn have explained in various places, in the gravitic expansion theory gravity's acceleration is counter-balanced by charge itself pushing out in all events.

Thanks Jared, my issue is with the idea which expansion implies - we're not supposed to notice it (as we actually don't notice anything alike on the face of Earth or while observing nearby universe), yet it changes proportions of our observed reality as it excludes empty space while in action. That's a non sequitur from the start. And it is the essence about why I can't accept it as coherent.

In my opinion, the only workable theory of expansion is that we're experiencing it without noticing as it progresses - as everything is expanding, the physical bodies and the grid / empty space between them. Only then it matches our experience with reality. But we are consequently left with no reference points to allow expansion's measurement, so we can only attach the property of expansion to the universe as a whole and take gravity as granted. I don't like such idea of reality at all, but objectively it has some probability to be true.

Vexman

Posts : 73
Join date : 2019-02-25

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 Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:06 am

Vexman wrote:So returning back to the case I brought in here:  the setup I was referring to has no orbits, just two bodies in no relationship at the beginning, with some distance between them. If I was watching from body "m1" towards body m2 (or vice versa), I would notice space between them diminish according to the theory of expansion and its suggestion about the space not expanding. The edges of those two bodies would eventually touch unless charge emissions managed to keep them apart at some distance (unlikely to happen without involving / developing orbits).  Such outcome is not what we observe in reality. In reality, these two bodies would eventually touch only if they were already in gravity's zone of influence.

The problem isn't with expansion. The problem is in your scenario and your expectations which are impossible to match. You are creating a situation that only has gravity by defining everything else away. Then you expect me to match that against real observations.

Vexman wrote:Such outcome is not what we observe in reality.

You explicitly say that the bodies are not orbiting, but then you compare them to reality where all data is from orbiting bodies. You define away the charge field but reality still has the charge field. You've put me in an impossible situation. There is no way for me to succeed given your setup and expectations.

I see that you are trying to get at some problem. I take all of this as an honest search for answers or expression of understanding. I'm trying to find the root of the issue, I think the problem might be that the influence of expansion is instantaneous and reaches to infinity. If any body in the universe expands, then it got closer to all other bodies, no matter how far away they are from each other, but gravity is known to drop off with an inverse square relationship. So it appears that expansion has a serious problem here. It looks so obvious that expansion can't follow the inverse square law. It has no way to drop-off at all. If the body expands, then it expands, there's no way for distance to change that. Even if it could, how could it change it differently for different observers?

I'll be honest. I couldn't answer that. I wouldn't even know where to start answering that. I'd agree with you and try something else. Thankfully, Miles already has and it is one of his most important papers. It turns out that only expansion can explain the inverse square law. A problem he has now given to himself by re-writing gravity theory.

http://milesmathis.com/thrid3.html

If that isn't what the problem is, then you are going to have to find another way to state it. I'm not arguing just to be right. I'm more than willing to admit I am wrong. I'm just not sure what the real problem is. I don't feel that I have addressed your issue because I don't understand what the issue really is. If everything was clear that we were understanding each other, then I would be happy to just agree to disagree but I don't think it is clear.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Sat Mar 09, 2019 10:12 am

Vexman, you keep saying this is about 'being able to notice expansion', but the only way you are noticing it is by removing the charge field from me while keeping it yourself. You are creating a scenario to look at expansion only, but then comparing it to reality that includes effects from other forces. It is expansion + charge that creates a situation where we don't notice the expansion itself. You can't just take half away and expect it to still explain everything.

You talk about proportionality as if it is expansion alone that is responsible for it. Expansion creates the problem, but it is the charge field that solves it. This isn't a gravity only theory. Expansion doesn't exist alone as the only force in the universe. Expansion is the Ying and charge is the Yang. Two parts of the same thing. Working in conjunction. You can't explain everything with just one of them. Well, Miles is now trying to explain everything with just charge but the vectors are still working against each other. Expansion needs charge. By taking it away and still comparing to reality, you are creating a straw-man.
Nevyn
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Vexman Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:58 am

Nevyn, thanks for your patience so far.

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

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

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

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

Vexman

Posts : 73
Join date : 2019-02-25

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 Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:40 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:04 pm

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

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

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

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:36 am

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
The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Z30fGbm

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. Smile

Jared Magneson

Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11

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 Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:14 am

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

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

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

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

Vexman

Posts : 73
Join date : 2019-02-25

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 Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:15 pm

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

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:15 pm

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

Can anyone try to clarify that part?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11

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 Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:06 am

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

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

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


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

Vexman

Posts : 73
Join date : 2019-02-25

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 Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:33 am

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

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

Vexman

Posts : 73
Join date : 2019-02-25

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 Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:26 pm

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

particles moving up cause an acceleration down

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

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

Jared Magneson

Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11

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 Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:31 pm

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

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

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

Vexman

Posts : 73
Join date : 2019-02-25

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 Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:28 pm

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

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

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

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

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

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 Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:31 pm

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

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

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

Jared Magneson

Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11

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 Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:01 pm

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

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

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

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 2015
Join date : 2014-08-10

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 Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:58 pm

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:

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 CHc97Sv

Jared Magneson

Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11

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 Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:46 am

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

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

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

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

Vexman

Posts : 73
Join date : 2019-02-25

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 Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:49 pm

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
The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 M6SNkXe

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.

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 Nl5XBIr

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

Thoughts? Is this type of video remotely helpful?

Jared Magneson

Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11

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 Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:50 pm

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
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:11 pm

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

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

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

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

Jared Magneson

Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11

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 Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:19 pm

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:

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 HSzaaOl

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

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

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

Jared Magneson

Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11

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 Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:28 pm

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

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

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

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

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


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

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:26 am

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

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

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

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

Jared Magneson

Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11

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 Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:13 pm

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

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

Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia

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 Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:46 pm

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;

The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter - Page 3 NA3vuYS

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. Smile

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

Jared Magneson

Posts : 525
Join date : 2016-10-11

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 Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:50 am

I wish I could be of any use in programming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vexman

Posts : 73
Join date : 2019-02-25

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 2 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

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