# Michael Vaicaitis' Model Discussions

## Michael Vaicaitis' Model Discussions

Questions to Everyone re Photon Pairing.
(in light of Michael's model)
[A is probably Airman, who answered the questions below, just after the 15 questions to Michael.]

PP1: Has everyone seen a simple spinning gyroscope on a tower precessing around the point of contact with the tower?

PP2: Does everyone agree that the center of gravity of a non-spinning gyroscope is in the center of the gyroscope?

PP3: Does everyone agree that the center of gravity of a rapidly spinning gyroscope is at the point of contact with the tower?

PP4: If so, does it seem reasonable to conclude that the center of gravity of a rapidly spinning object is focused at the main point of force on it and that the object is forced to precess around that point?

PP5: Since the mass of the gyroscope is the same, whether it is spinning and precessing or not, why would an a-spinning photon's mass increase, if it gets an extra spin as an x-spin, where the photon precesses around a point on the photon surface?

PP6: Isn't the likeliest source of the extra mass of an x-spin the addition of a second photon?

PP7: Would not two spinning photons that make soft contact at the spin axes tend to maintain the force of contact and precess together around that contact point?

PP8: Can such precessing photon pairs be simulated?

PP9: Should two precessing photon pairs be able to make contact and precess around each other in the same way that two individual photons may?

PP10: Can this be simulated as well?

-----

Questions to Michael.

L1: Michael, what was the inspiration for your theory?
L2: Was it Miles Mathis? Fatio/LeSage? Other?
L3: Have you done lab work with gyroscopes personally?
L4: Does your aether consist of photons that have radius and mass?
L5: What are the kinds of photons? What are the differences between kinds?
L6: Is matter made of photons?

M: The push of ALL motive force effects upon matter, follows a specific method. A force can only be applied to an electron or proton by a momentum density fluctuation of the aethereal field.
L7: What's momentum density?
L8: Can momentum density fluctuation force be applied to photons?

M: matter actually travels via several nested precessional helices.
L9: Do photons travel this way as well? If they do, it seems the view of the universe would be greatly distorted or blurry, if photons follow curved paths.

M: the actual accelerative force comes directly from a particle’s inherent helical precession.
L10: Are you talking about directional or velocity acceleration? Is it connected to gravity?
L11: Do you have any simulations of any part of your model?

M: c is the constant velocity of electron precession.
L12: Do you mean the aether field [of photons?] somehow causes electrons to precess at light speed?

M: Matter can only travel through the aethereal field by helical precession.
L13: Can't matter travel just by momentum?

M: Electrons and protons are spinning and following their inherent precessional helices at the speed of c. The push of gravity derives from a field momentum density fluctuation that acts as a point of force, and a point of force becomes a pivot point.
L14: Can you simulate that?

M: Gravity. In order to keep spinning, electrons and protons must take momentum from the continuous collisional attention of the aethereal field. As a consequence there is a permanent reduction in field momentum density vectored away from spinning matter particles. Due to the spin of electrons and protons, there is always a greater net momentum density towards spinning sub-atomic matter particles and this leads to the effect called gravity. When objects approach, each object presents the other with a reduced field momentum density from its direction so that there is a net force ”pushing” them together, which gives us the effect of a gravitational ”attraction”. Since momentum has been removed from the outward vector, there is a net inward vector, which leads to gravity and is understandably proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance. F = GM1M2 r2
L15: Can you simulate that?

-----
-----

Answers

PP1: Has everyone seen a simple spinning gyroscope on a tower precessing around the point of contact with the tower?
-A1: Yes. http://gyroscopes.org/movies.asp Gyroscopes.org

PP2: Does everyone agree that the center of gravity of a non-spinning gyroscope is in the center of the gyroscope?
-A2: Yes.

PP3: Does everyone agree that the center of gravity of a rapidly spinning gyroscope is at the point of contact with the tower?
-A3: Yes – as long as the tower contacts an extension of the spin axis. I presume the surface of the spinning object will not support a point of force.

PP4: If so, does it seem reasonable to conclude that the center of gravity of a rapidly spinning object is focused at the main point of force on it and that the object is forced to precess around that point?
-A4: Yes

PP5: Since the mass of the gyroscope is the same, whether it is spinning and precessing or not, why would an a-spinning photon's mass increase, if it gets an extra spin as an x-spin, where the photon precesses around a point on the photon surface?
-A5: That sounds reasonable to me, even though through mass energy equivalence, as energy is increased, the mass, in some sense, must be increasing. Two independent spinning spheres in “soft contact” (I learned “kissing” from R Buckminster Fuller (no snickering!)) would only precess by tiny amounts, since contact can only be maintained  close to the spin axis. I see no problem with contact precession if the two photons were not perfect spheres.

PP6: Isn't the likeliest source of the extra mass of an x-spin the addition of a second photon?
-A6: Yes. I prefer this to the idea of a single photon somehow becoming an electron or a proton through mass energy equivalence. I personally believe that is most likely that it takes approx 6 billion photons to make a single proton.

PP7: Would not two spinning photons that make soft contact at the spin axes tend to maintain the force of contact and precess together around that contact point?
-A7: Yes, but as in A5, I tend to think they would stabilize each other, and tend to align to each other rather than precess, though it must depend on the shape of the spinning photon

PP8: Can such precessing photon pairs be simulated?

-A8: I don’t see why not. I hope to be able to eventually.

PP9: Should two precessing photon pairs be able to make contact and precess around each other in the same way that two individual photons may?
-A9: Why not. Geometry is important. I don’t see how oblates or disks can work at all. My imagination starts with 4 spheres in a line, but I don’t see this stack as being the stacked spins I would expect. There needs to be a spin axis extension as with our gyroscope models.

PP10: Can this be simulated as well?
-A10: It's not simple, and there are a lot of assumptions. Someday.

Last edited by LloydK on Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:12 pm; edited 4 times in total

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Michael Vaicaitis' Model Discussions

Torsion Fields: Potential Ally?
(This is not really a priority topic. I just wanted to put it here for potential interest later on.)

In the MM thread at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14950&p=102775#p102775 Spektralscavenger shared some links and comments on Kozyrev's Torsion Field findings.

At this link http://freespace.virgin.net/ahcare.qua/literature/science/torsionwaves.html is the following quote.
During the spinning of gyroscopes Kozyrev discovered the remarkable phenomenon that they lost small but measurable amounts of weight. The same occurred with objects that were shaken badly. This is, from our classical physics point of view of course, total nonsense. When we believe that matter is made up out of little hard balls (atoms), then this observation would be a real mystery. Kozyrev showed, however, that the gyroscopes during the shaking or spinning lose some of the etheric energy, that has created the material gyroscopes, to its environment, the etheric background. It is this temporar[]y loss of etheric energy that is responsible for the weight loss of the object.

Questions
1. Is it true that gyroscopes lose some weight? If so, how?

2. Kozyrev apparently states that the torsion field can achieve velocities of 10^9 c. Are torsion fields the same as helical precession of matter or of photons? And is there any reason such superluminal velocities would not be possible?

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Michael Vaicaitis Chat Room Discussion 12/20/2014

Chat Room Discussion
A=Airman, C=Cr6, L=LloydK, M=Michael, N=Nevyn
HIGHLIGHTS FIRST
Re: Questions about Michael Vaicaitis's Model
A: I don't think photons as spheres work
A: Spheres in contact don't seem to me to allow much precession and remain in contact
M: First off, I am still in the process of writing (in essay style) a "paper". My previous paper "On The Motion of Matter" is not entirely correct and I have not since had any thoughts about gyros, so I can give no assurances as to efficacy of those previous ideas.
M: a lot of my intended audience is so far removed from thinking about the problem correctly.
M: I come from an IT career: analyst/programmer.
M: My new work is entitled "The Mechanical Universe: An Analysis From First Principles"
A: If the spheres rotate at all, the contact point moves from the spin axis pole to a point on the sphere surface that is moving away from the axis pole
A: The contact point must stay on the spin pole/extension
L: the point of force should remain the same, if no other force intervenes.
M: I started with gravity
- Some of Mathis' critiques are quite good and quite entertaining, but most of his ideas are off the mark. I have only studied gyros at home, but unfortunately that led me to reason by analogy and make a error in that paper.
M: Questions 4,5,6 all refer to "photons", but to address that, we should first establish some ideas on "aether".
M: I do not consider the idea of an aether "medium" to be correct or even logical. The notion of an aethereal medium comes to us from consideration of waves and in no small part from Young's 1803 demonstration of light diffraction.
L: The aether was logical in Fatio's sense quite a bit.
A: The aether is a void
L: If photons have diameter and mass, they seem to work as an aether.
M: To continue... The aether medium is then reached by analogy with atomic/molecular materials (particularly fluids) in combination with unjustified presumptions of how waves work. In other words the aether is derived thru reasoning by analogy.
C: is aether a medium of sorts in your view?
M: NO

N: So you just have a field of real particles that can only collide with each other and the resulting motions of those particles form into helices?
M: N: Yes.
- "by real I mean have mass an[d] extension
"
N: I think the photons are just motions of the field particles, sort of how Miles describes neutrinos
C: Do you see precession of planets, and photon-helices as similar then?
M: Real, yes, most definitely. But no mass - mass is an emergent property of matter
L: Mass isn't a property of photons?
N: interesting, I see mass (or at least part of what we call mass) as the sum of spin velocities (in a stacked spin model), does your idea of mass go in that direction as well?
M: Lloyd, I'm not so sure if I had written that "photons" have mass, but if I did, it was an error.
L: I can't imagine anything without mass being able to have an effect on anything.
N: Michael, do you think that mass and inertia are the same thing?
M: Inertia is a resistance to a change of motion, the quantification of that resistance is called mass. This is actually the mainstream view
N: Yes, and that is why I tend to think of the sum of the spin velocities being the mass, as in each spin velocity resists motion
A: After all my MV reading, I would call mass inertia as gyroscopic. This agrees with MV and Nevyn
M: Consider completely empty space. Place into it a particle - it is solid with no substructure. We will not call it matter, just simply: substance. We can conceptually say that the particle can move or travel across space, but it cannot spin. If anyone wishes to give such a particle the capability of spin, then you first need to describe how and why that could occur.
N: You can also say the same thing about linear motion as well. Why would it move if there is nothing to push it?
N: We need more than 1 particle to cause spin if the only allowed input is linear velocity, edge hits by other particles can cause an axial spin
- spin is a valid motion, just as much as linear motion
M: Edge hits. Edge hits would not cause axial spin
M: Spin is an acceleration. To accelerate requires a force to be applied.
- No the particle has no mass ->​ mass comes later

N: I'm not so sure spin is an acceleration, it can be described just by a tangential velocity, curved motion is an acceleration but spin is a bit different (I think).
L: Acceleration is a change in velocity I think. [i.e. a change in its magnitude or direction]]
N: yes, that is why curved motion is an acceleration but spin is different but I am struggling to put it into words
C: Here's Mathis: If light is a particle with spin, then the wave belongs to the particle itself, and will not diminish with dimming light.
- http://milesmathis.com/feyn3.html
L: Is the answer man still around?
C: Mathis again: So, as the linear velocity gets larger, the tangential velocity gets smaller relative to it. [] nearly a perfect inverse relationship. [] the tangential velocity can be estimated [] with just [] 1/c.
M: No, spin is definitely an acceleration. In order to spin, the object needs the constant application of force. An edge hit would only serve to affect its direction of travel and the direction in which it faces. Think very carefully, why would such a fundamental particle be persuaded to spin about an axis. It is quite difficult to get here from observation of composites systems that sit within a field of smaller particles.
M: Caveat: When I say "force", it's not quite right, because there is no mass. There is an "amount of substance", but mass is emergent at a higher level and so does not apply.

-----

Chat Room Discussion
A=Airman, C=Cr6, L=LloydK, M=Michael, N=Nevyn

Re: Questions about Michael Vaicaitis's Model
Post by LloydK Yesterday at 4:56 pm
Next Chat is at 9 pm (2100) Michael's time = Universal Time Saturday (Sunday in Tasmania)
Michael Vaicaitis joined the chat xx hours ago
L: Hi Michael. I just happened to drop in and I see you were apparently here about hours ago. So it looks like you know now how to join us for our next chat. I guess I'd better remind everyone of the new time [].
---
Let's post questions for Michael in this thread: http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/post?p=586
Michael is free to answer anything before, during, or after the chat. So are all of us.
---
Click the Join Chat button to start chatting.
A: Hi Lloyd. Just eating a couple of burritos
L: Hi Airman. Are they spinning and precessing?
- I'm getting hungry now.
A: Ha. May as well be. I'm thinking a lot about gyros presently
L: Thanks for your answers. I skimmed through them, so I'll need to look closer later.
A: I don't think photons as spheres work
- Hello Michael
M: hello
L: Do you mean stacked photons as spheres?
- Hi Michael. You spelled out your whole name.
A: Spheres in contact don't seem to me to allow much precession and remain in contact, but I would love to be wrong
L: Right.
Here are my first 6 questions, Michael.
L1: Michael, what was the inspiration for your theory?
L2: Was it Miles Mathis? Fatio/LeSage? Other?
L3: Have you done lab work with gyroscopes personally?
L4: Does your aether consist of photons that have radius and mass?
L5: What are the kinds of photons? What are the differences between kinds?
L6: Is matter made of photons?
- I forgot to ask what's your line of work, if you don't mind saying.
- Airman, I assume two photon spheres in contact would each have one point touching the other sphere. Do you assume that?
A: Yes, on their respective spin axis poles or extensions
L: So what problem do you foresee with that?
M: First off, I am still in the process of writing (in essay style) a "paper". My previous paper "On The Motion of Matter" is not entirely correct and I have not since had any thoughts about gyros, so I can give no assurances as to efficacy of those previous ideas.
- I am not a fast typist.
L: So that's not your occupation then?
- I'm thinking about what to munch on.
M: The problem I am having with my new work is not theoretical. I am struggling to find the right turn of phrase to convey the message correctly. Much of this comes from the knowledge that a lot of my intended audience is so far removed from thinking about the problem correctly.
A: What's the subject matter?
L: The problem of motion of matter?
A: I promise to be nice
L: Why?
M: I come from an IT career: analyst/programmer. I did an "escape to the country" and moved to rural Wales. A failed relationship later I find myself in a new relationship and playing the house husband, but with the major advantage that I have more time to think!.
L: I know Robert Howe in Swansea.
M: My new work is entitled "The Mechanical Universe: An Analysis From First Principles"
- Swansea is about an hours drive.
A: How can you not think of gyros then?
L: Do you plan to answer my opening 6 questions? Or would you rather ad lib?
M: 6 questions first....
L: Airman, did you see my question to you? I asked what problem you foresee with 2 spheres precessing around each other on one point each.
A: If the spheres rotate at all, the contact point moves from the spin axis pole to a point on the sphere surface that is moving away from the axis pole
M: With no longer having a career, I was considering some further education and physics interested me. However, after scratching the surface of established physics, I quickly discovered absolutely no content below, just fairy magic and nonsense.
A: The contact point must stay on the spin pole/extension
- Halleluja, another believer
L: I think we agree with Michael. And regarding the contact point it looks to me like the point of force should remain the same, if no other force intervenes.
M: I decided to think about the problems myself. I started with gravity, and after a couple of days I came up with a method of pushing gravity. Unfortunately, a subsequent google search revealed that Fatio had beaten me to the punch by 350 years.
- Some of Mathis' critiques are quite good and quite entertaining, but most of his ideas are off the mark. I have only studied gyros at home, but unfortunately that led me to reason by analogy and make a error in that paper.
A: When was this?
L: It had to be by 2011.
- I'm still hungry. It's almost time for the chat to start. Maybe someone will show up.
A: Take 5 then
M: It was 2011
L: So Michael, did you read Mathis then?
M: Questions 4,5,6 all refer to "photons", but to address that, we should first establish some ideas on "aether".
L: After Fatio?
- Okay. Aether.
M: I have read quite a lot of Mathis, and to be honest, forgotten much of it.
A: Hi Nevyn
- What is the Aether?
L: Hello Nevyn. Is it mate in Tasmania too?
N: Hi guys, just catching up on the discussion
- It's too early here, I'm still waking up
L: We cheated and started half an hour early.
N: I noticed, I spent that time rereading Michaels paper
L: Michael, are you ready to say what the minor errors were in your paper?
- Were they in regard to gyros?
M: I do not consider the idea of an aether "medium" to be correct or even logical. The notion of an aethereal medium comes to us from consideration of waves and in no small part from Young's 1803 demonstration of light diffraction.
N: Glad to hear that Michael, I really like the way you are thinking mechanically
L: The aether was logical in Fatio's sense quite a bit.
A: The aether is a void
M: I am a "Mechanist" to the core and have been since long before I even knew that such a theoretical categorisation existed.
L: If photons have diameter and mass, they seem to work as an aether.
N: The word aether has too many conflicting meanings and not enough substance
C: Hi
N: Hey Cr6
A: Hey Cr6
C: Hey Nevyn, Airman
- Lloyd too
L: Hello Cr6. You make 5 of us, if I count right.
C: ok
L: 3's company so I think we have about 2 companies here.
C: just catching up
L: I meant 2's company.
M: To continue... The aether medium is then reached by analogy with atomic/molecular materials (particularly fluids) in combination with unjustified presumptions of how waves work. In other words the aether is derived thru reasoning by analogy.
C: is aether a medium of sorts in your view?
M: NO

L: I think he's arguing against a conventional aether.
M: Sorry that should have been NO!!!!!!
- yes Lloyd, that is correct
N: So you just have a field of real particles that can only collide with each other and the resulting motions of those particles form into helices?
- by real I mean have mass and extension
L: Photons too.
M: N: Yes.
- "by real I mean have mass an[d] extension
" sorry, is there a typo here?
N: I think the photons are just motions of the field particles, sort of how Miles describes neutrinos
- yes, a typo, should be mass and extension
- gees, more typos, it's early
L: Early in the millennium'
A: Ah, the new Age
C: Do you see precession of planets, and photon-helices as similar then?
M: Real, yes, most definitely. But no mass - mass is an emergent property of matter
L: Mass isn't a property of photons?
C: depends on "whose" photon... [wink]
N: interesting, I see mass (or at least part of what we call mass) as the sum of spin velocities (in a stacked spin model), does you idea of mass go in that direction as well?
A: The photons themselves don't have helical paths
L: MV's paper said photons have mass and I think diameter.
M: Lloyd, I'm not so sure if I had written that "photons" have mass, but if I did, it was an error.
L: I can't imagine anything without mass being able to have an effect on anything.
C: So what is the power behind your UFT Michael?
N: I think the word mass has no solid definition and means different things to different people. Michael, do you think that mass and inertia are the same thing?
M: UFT?
C: the irreducible constant or constant action...
L: unified field theory
M: Inertia is a resistance to a change of motion, the quantification of that resistance is called mass. This is actually the mainstream view, although they have no theory for what mass "is" and largely resort to assigning it as an "intrinsic" property.
N: Yes, and that is why I tend to think of the sum of the spin velocities being the mass, as in each spin velocity resists motion
A: After all my MV reading, I would call mass inertia as gyroscopic. This agrees with MV and Nevyn
C: I agree Airman. That's what I was seeing too.
- That each reached it independently is confirmation of sorts. [smile]
L: You mean the smart ones reached it independently.
- I haven't reached that.
C: Or Occam'
- or Occam's razor shaves the same beard?
- or stubble
M: Consider completely empty space. Place into it a particle - it is solid with no substructure. We will not call it matter, just simply: substance. We can conceptually say that the particle can move or travel across space, but it cannot spin. If anyone wishes to give such a particle the capability of spin, then you first need to describe how and why that could occur.
L: There's not much to bump into it and make it spin yet.
N: You can also say the same thing about linear motion as well. Why would it move if there is nothing to push it?
L: Right.
N: What causes the first push? or the first spin?
C: Maybe higher powers?
N: With only 1 particle, you can't even tell if it is moving because motion is relative
L: Where does the second marble come from?
- From the vacuum!
M: we are god in this thought experiment and we give the particle a push so that it can move. Now ask yourself how we could make it spin.
N: If we are god then we just make it spin [smile]
L: Create it spinning.
M: we are a god that obeys the laws of motion
N: We need more than 1 particle to cause spin if the only allowed input is linear velocity, edge hits by other particles can cause an axial spin
- spin is a valid motion, just as much as linear motion
M: Edge hits. Edge hits would not cause axial spin
C: And if it is at absolute Zero it just sits?
M: no that is not correct either
N: Why not? If the force transferred is very close to a tangent on the edge of the particle, why can't that cause spin?
- I do assume the particle has some intrinsic mass which gives it something to spin and something to transfer momentum in a collision
M: Spin is an acceleration. To accelerate requires a force to be applied.
- No the particle has no mass ->​ mass comes later

N: No mass ->​ no momentum ->​ no force ->​ no acceleration ->​ no motion
C: Can the spin occur at different speeds? Zero->​ near Infinity?
N: hang on, we have to explain how the spin starts before we get to that Cr6 [smile]
C: Zero spin = zero mass?
A: Michael has described the basic particle as without mass. He has yet to describe how mass emerges. Spin must be tied to mass.0
M: Forget mass, it is not helping
C: Didn't know if it was already worked out before hand?
M: Yes I have worked it out beforehand - I know all the answers [smug] ​
C: On a side note, how might this work: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archiv...
N: I'm not so sure spin is an acceleration, it can be described just by a tangential velocity, curved motion is an acceleration but spin is a bit different (I think).
C: That's why we invited you... lol
L: That's why?
C: yes.. sorry. [smile]
L: Acceleration is a change in velocity I think. [i.e. a change in its magnitude or direction]]
A: I agree with you Nevyn
N: yes, that is why curved motion is an acceleration but spin is different but I am struggling to put it into words
L: The motion of the surface of the particle is curved.
N: yes, but a point on that surface has a constant tangential velocity
L: The tangential velocity is instantaneous, which I think is 0.
- Or infinity.
N: According to Miles, the tangential velocity is c
L: But it only exists for an instant, then the "point" curves.
N: there is not such thing as an instantaneous velocity because velocity has a time component
- the point doesn't curve, its motion appears to curve, well it does, but only because it is attached to the rest of the particle
C: Here's Mathis: If light is a particle with spin, then the wave belongs to the particle itself, and will not diminish with dimming light. In this case, each photon has a wave, and this solves the first big mystery all by itself. The wavelength does not belong to the wavefront or to a large group of photons; it belongs to each photon individually. In this way, the wave can be carried full strength to the detector, even with only one photon.
- http://milesmathis.com/feyn3.html
L: Is the answer man still around?
A: Michael is here to describe his ideas.
C: Don't let us be a bump in the road Michael.
- Mathis again: So, as the linear velocity gets larger, the tangential velocity gets smaller relative to it. And the difference between the two is so large that the relationship becomes nearly a perfect inverse relationship. In other words, c2 is so large that the tangential velocity can be estimated very successfully with just the transform 1/c.
N: It is hard to stay on one track in these chats
M: No, spin is d

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Vaicaitis: No spin is definitely an acceleration. In order to spin, the object needs the constant application of force. An edge hit would only serve to affect its direction of travel and the direction in which it faces. Think very carefully, why would such a fundamental particle be persuaded to spin about an axis. It is quite difficult to get here from observation of composites systems that sit within a field of smaller particles.
Nevyn: I extend Newton's laws of motion to include spin such that once started, the spin keeps going until another force is applied
Michael Vaicaitis: Caveat: When I say "force", it's not quite right, because there is no mass. There is an "amount of substance", but mass is emergent at a higher level and so does not apply.
Nevyn: Force is defined as the cause of motion and later the mass is used in the math (which is based on much larger entities than we are discussing here)
Michael Vaicaitis: Nevyn, yes I understand why you might do that - we have been doing that for hundreds of years, but in this circumstance you cannot do that.
Nevyn: that is why I give the particle some intrinsic mass
Michael Vaicaitis: "Force is defined as the cause of motion and later the mass is used in the math (which is based on much larger entities than we are discussing here)" yes
Nevyn: Why can't we do that here though?
Lloyd: I'm going to take off shortly. Will one or more of you copy the chat to the forum please? I copied most of what's here, but not the last few lines.
Airman: I'll copy it
Cr6: I'm drinking some beers. I
Airman: Thanks again Lloyd
Cr6: I'm not the best guy to do it right now. Thanks Airman.
Cr6: Thanks Lloyd.
Nevyn: Thanks for setting this up Lloyd, See you next time.
Michael Vaicaitis: Nevyn - we can't use mass, because we have no "matter" yet.
Lloyd: I look forward to reading the rest of this later. G'Day.
Cr6: I bet the Human Brain is wired to detect the Charge Field: For example, even when more than 50 percent of the odor molecules in two scents were identical, participants were still able to distinguish between the two smells. While this may not sound that impressive, when you consider the sheer number of possible odor combinations available, this indicates we’re actually pretty good at telling them apart.
Nevyn: Ah, I assume the base particles are the only thing that have the actual mass and matter (electrons, protons, etc) are photons with stacked spins which bring in a different kind of mass
Nevyn: ie, the sum of spin velocities
Cr6: What about anti-matter?
Cr6: But very soon these quanta are bumped by other quanta, and they gain both velocity and spin in this way. In most cases, they are bumped by photons, since photons make up the charge field. Photons outnumber everything else by a very large margin, so the odds are very good that this non-spinning electron will gain its new energy from photons. But most of these photons are right-handed photons, so the particle will rebuild as a proton. It gets its spin from the field, and if the field is right-handed, the particle’s new spin will also be right-handed. This means that a normal charge field, as we know it, will turn anti-matter into matter, through this simple process. Over time, all local anti-matter will be turned into matter, and the entire local field and everything in it will become right-handed. Only the fact that the macro-field is not homogeneous, rectilinear, and unidirectional keeps the field from being completely right-handed. Because the field of the Earth is spherical, and receives emission from all directions, it maintains a fraction of anti-matter. It also receives anti-matter via the Solar Wind.
Airman: Nevyn, I didn't agree with your mass definition before. I'm glad for the change
Michael Vaicaitis: I think I get what your saying. I would have been inclined to think way too in the past, but we must be very careful to distinguish between what we think we know, from observation of matter, to what are genuine logic truths that can be applied to fundamental systems.
Nevyn: Michaels paper discusses left-handed and right-handed helices which leads to Miles idea of anti-matter
Cr6: got it.
Nevyn: Yes, I agree Michael, but at this level, there are no true observations, only interpretations of what we observe so I try to find logical rules to give rise to what we observe.
Nevyn: That is also why I do not all it science
Nevyn: in a strict sense, it is below science at the fundamental level
Michael Vaicaitis: I must sign-off too. Tonight (10pm here) is just a start, but I have not properly laid the ground work for you, to make myself understood. I will continue to think of better ways of communicating my ideas. cheers
Nevyn: it is trying to explain what we do know with what we can't know (if that makes any sense)
Airman: Thanks Michael
Cr6: Cosmology comes before science....

Michael Vaicaitis: "there are no true observations, only interpretations of what we observe so I try to find logical rules to give rise to what we observe" Absolutely agreed

Cr6: Thanks Michael.

Nevyn: Ok, thanks Michael, I look forward to more discussion like this. I will go over your paper a few more times to get a better idea of where you are coming from.

Airman: I think that went well

Nevyn: Me too, better than I was expecting actually

Cr6: same here.

Airman: I could see some strain as well

Nevyn: It is difficult to keep a coherent structure in these chats

Cr6: We are not exactly doe eyed.

Cr6: Very true.

Airman: The brain can operate on several levels

Nevyn: I think the forum is a better, more linear, method but it takes a lot of time

Cr6: Have you guys seen any longer descriptions of the Photon for Mathis? I wasn't sure if one of his books goes in-depth.

Cr6: from Mathis?

Nevyn: His books are just the papers, nothing else added

Cr6: Ah...okay.

Airman: Motion to declare this chat ended for record keeping. The rest is off the record[/u]
[/u]

Last edited by LloydK on Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:22 pm; edited 10 times in total

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Michael Vaicaitis' Model Discussions

It might be worthwhile to recap this link with MV's papers:

http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t19p15-lloyd-s-questions-for-miles-mathis

As well as this link:

http://milesmathis.com/pyramid.html
--

[size=32]A Preliminary Study of the Pyramid
as an Electrical Structure
by Miles Mathis[/size]

In fact, we detect the charge field indirectly every time we detect the electric field or the magnetic field. The E/M field, as it is known now, cannot act as it does without a mechanical cause, and the charge field is that mechanical cause. The potentials and field lines cannot be caused by the electrons that are moving by them and within them: that would be a causa sui. The field lines and potentials can only be caused by a sub-field, and this sub-field is made up of what I have called B-photons. That is, by bombarding photons that are real and mechanical.

Beyond that, the charge field is detected indirectly in many unexplained phenomena and experiments. Many of the current mysteries of physics and the paranormal can be explained as detections of the charge field. The pyramid is just one of these
...

Only the pyramid and cone can act as greater lightning rods, given equal density, and they do it by creating greater fluxes or changes in pressure in the atmosphere above them. With equal density, they create equal changes in pressure, but because they cover larger areas at their bases, they create larger low pressure areas. This gives their funnels increased coverage, if not increased strength.
Given what we have discovered about the charge field, can we add somewhat to the theory of lightning creation during storms? Yes, since we can see that it is not the rain or the clouds or the winds that create the lightning, it is something else entirely. It is pressure that creates the clouds, the storm and the lightning; but a different sort of pressure creates the lightning, without any rubbing of raindrops or clashing of clouds. Moisture in the air certainly increases its conductivity, but it does not have much to do with the creation of free electrons. Free electrons already exist in abundance in the atmosphere, even on the driest days, so we do not have to explain charge separation or polarization, a la Wikipedia. We only have to explain the focusing and motion of charge.
Lightning always has a direction and a path. The path may be explained by the conductivity of water vapor, as I said above; but the direction must be explained as a motion from a point of higher pressure to a point of lower pressure—defining pressure not in terms of weather but in terms of the charge field. What we see is visible light discharged as electrons rush from one place to another. Therefore the electrons must have a reason to move from A to B. The lower pressure area must have a less dense charge field, since that is how we now define potential or pressure. How does a storm create that low potential area? Simply by varying cloud densities. The clouds are material and so must block the charge field just like the pyramid does, though on a smaller scale. There must be a pocket of low charge pressure above any dense cloud. This pocket must attract both B-photons and electrons.
But what of the focusing of electrons, at the start of the lightning? Why are they gathered there? We may assume that this beginning spot is also above a dense cloud, and so is also an area of low charge pressure. In this way, lightning is the motion of electrons from an area of low charge pressure to an area of even lower pressure. The electrons keep seeking lower areas of pressure, until they reach a final state, where they have no more potential difference between cloud tops to utilize. At that point they have nothing to do but disperse with the storm or find a path to the ground.
This also explains sprites, which until recently were completely unknown--since they normally occur at altitudes above ten miles. Sprites are just now being studied for the first time, and although the mainstream has rushed to propose them as an explanation for some UFO's, they admit the cause and function of sprites is a mystery. They fit into my theory here because they are above the clouds that contain lightning, and because they are already admitted to be functional. That is, they are not just a side effect, they are a cause. According to my theory, this is where the lightning is first generated. The low pressure is not in the cloud, it must be above the cloud. This is where the electrons gather, pushed by the B-photons. The sprite is a visible signal of this first gathering, as it swells and prepares to discharge fully. The electrons will be coming from many different directions, and the sprite is an output of this directional inequality. In other words, the electrons coming from weaker directions will be forced to get in line, and in doing so they will emit photons. This is what we see. Of course this is a non-technical and non-mathematical explanation, but I suspect it is the correct one.

So far I have explained horizontal lightning, but not vertical lightning. How does a difference in charge pressure explain strikes that move from cloud to Earth? Shouldn’t the Earth be a well of high charge pressure, in this regard, thereby repelling all strikes? Yes, it should be and is, which is why lightning never strikes the Earth. It always strikes objects on the Earth. Even when lightning appears to hit bare ground, we must assume there is some object near the surface of a density or shape to attract lightning. This object, like objects above ground, is blocking the field emitted by the Earth as a whole, thereby creating a pocket or funnel of low charge pressure reaching up into the sky.
Of course this begs the question of how the field is summed. If an object on the Earth is not part of the Earth, and even an object buried near the surface is not part of the Earth, what is? I give a more complete answer to this elsewhere, but the last paragraph begs its so obviously I feel I have to give a short answer here. Every object both emits and blocks the foundational E/M field. Every proton and every electron, every house and every planet and every sun. Every apple and every orange. The density and size determine both the emitting and the blocking, but they determine each in a different way. Say that our pyramid and the Earth are the same density. In that case, the Earth must be emitting much more than the pyramid, per unit area, simply because the Earth has a lot more mass behind every unit of area. Each part of the Earth blocks some of the emission behind it, but not all, so that at the surface of the Earth we have a summation of all the mass behind that surface (minus the blocked emission). This is also true of the pyramid, but the pyramid has much less mass summing behind each surface. So the Earth must have exponentially stronger emission than the pyramid, even with equal densities.
You will say that the pyramid, having only one density, must block as much as it emits, keeping the field the same above and below it, but this is not true. Any object must block more than it emits, so long as the blocked field is denser than its own. This is because it is blocking through its entire length and width, but it is emitting (in a summed sense) only from its surfaces. I say summed sense, since it is true that all quanta in the object are emitting; but the emission of the object as a whole is not a straight addition of this quantum emission. Just as with the Earth, outer parts of any object will block inner parts; and so not all parts of the object will be represented by surface emission equally. For this reason, objects block more than they emit under these circumstances.

This also explains why objects at or above the surface of the Earth act independently in many ways. As long as they have discrete surfaces, and especially if they have greater densities than the Earth, they must act independently of the main summed field of the Earth. Which is to say that they must alter the field that is emitted into the atmosphere in measurable and detectable ways, by changing the charge pressure as it rises and spreads out.
With objects above the surface (like our pyramid) this is easy to see: the pyramid must block more than what is around it, since it is surrounded by air on four sides. With buried objects, this could only work if the object had a greater density than the Earth around it, or had other distinguishing properties that would cause a change in charge pressure.
--
[size=32]5In my paper on QCD, I show that the neutrino field actually IS this foundational B-photon field, at least in the case of beta decay.
[/size]

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-09

## Discussion got partly deleted.

.................................................................Discussion Is Partly Lost

I or something screwed up and part of the last discussion got deleted at
http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t69-questions-about-michael-vaicaitis-s-model#586

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Michael Vaicaitis' Model Discussions

http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t69-questions-about-michael-vaicaitis-s-model#586

Hi Lloyd, I filled in both gaps above.
between:
M: No spin is d,
and
C: Cosmology comes before science.

I guess you should delete this message and yours when you finish organizing the chat.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 982
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Discussion #7 - 12/20/2014

Thanks, Bud. I'll repost it here.

Chat Room Discussion
A=Airman, C=Cr6, L=LloydK, M=Michael, N=Nevyn
HIGHLIGHTS FIRST
Re: Questions about Michael Vaicaitis's Model
A: I don't think photons as spheres work
A: Spheres in contact don't seem to me to allow much precession and remain in contact
M: First off, I am still in the process of writing (in essay style) a "paper". My previous paper "On The Motion of Matter" is not entirely correct and I have not since had any thoughts about gyros, so I can give no assurances as to efficacy of those previous ideas.
M: a lot of my intended audience is so far removed from thinking about the problem correctly.
M: I come from an IT career: analyst/programmer.
M: My new work is entitled "The Mechanical Universe: An Analysis From First Principles"
A: If the spheres rotate at all, the contact point moves from the spin axis pole to a point on the sphere surface that is moving away from the axis pole
A: The contact point must stay on the spin pole/extension
L: the point of force should remain the same, if no other force intervenes.
M: I started with gravity
- Some of Mathis' critiques are quite good and quite entertaining, but most of his ideas are off the mark. I have only studied gyros at home, but unfortunately that led me to reason by analogy and make a error in that paper.
M: Questions 4,5,6 all refer to "photons", but to address that, we should first establish some ideas on "aether".
M: I do not consider the idea of an aether "medium" to be correct or even logical. The notion of an aethereal medium comes to us from consideration of waves and in no small part from Young's 1803 demonstration of light diffraction.
L: The aether was logical in Fatio's sense quite a bit.
A: The aether is a void
L: If photons have diameter and mass, they seem to work as an aether.
M: To continue... The aether medium is then reached by analogy with atomic/molecular materials (particularly fluids) in combination with unjustified presumptions of how waves work. In other words the aether is derived thru reasoning by analogy.
C: is aether a medium of sorts in your view?
M: NO

N: So you just have a field of real particles that can only collide with each other and the resulting motions of those particles form into helices?
M: N: Yes.
- "by real I mean have mass an[d] extension
"
N: I think the photons are just motions of the field particles, sort of how Miles describes neutrinos
C: Do you see precession of planets, and photon-helices as similar then?
M: Real, yes, most definitely. But no mass - mass is an emergent property of matter
L: Mass isn't a property of photons?
N: interesting, I see mass (or at least part of what we call mass) as the sum of spin velocities (in a stacked spin model), does your idea of mass go in that direction as well?
M: Lloyd, I'm not so sure if I had written that "photons" have mass, but if I did, it was an error.
L: I can't imagine anything without mass being able to have an effect on anything.
N: Michael, do you think that mass and inertia are the same thing?
M: Inertia is a resistance to a change of motion, the quantification of that resistance is called mass. This is actually the mainstream view
N: Yes, and that is why I tend to think of the sum of the spin velocities being the mass, as in each spin velocity resists motion
A: After all my MV reading, I would call mass inertia as gyroscopic. This agrees with MV and Nevyn
M: Consider completely empty space. Place into it a particle - it is solid with no substructure. We will not call it matter, just simply: substance. We can conceptually say that the particle can move or travel across space, but it cannot spin. If anyone wishes to give such a particle the capability of spin, then you first need to describe how and why that could occur.
N: You can also say the same thing about linear motion as well. Why would it move if there is nothing to push it?
N: We need more than 1 particle to cause spin if the only allowed input is linear velocity, edge hits by other particles can cause an axial spin
- spin is a valid motion, just as much as linear motion
M: Edge hits. Edge hits would not cause axial spin
M: Spin is an acceleration. To accelerate requires a force to be applied.
- No the particle has no mass ->​ mass comes later

N: I'm not so sure spin is an acceleration, it can be described just by a tangential velocity, curved motion is an acceleration but spin is a bit different (I think).
L: Acceleration is a change in velocity I think. [i.e. a change in its magnitude or direction]]
N: yes, that is why curved motion is an acceleration but spin is different but I am struggling to put it into words
C: Here's Mathis: If light is a particle with spin, then the wave belongs to the particle itself, and will not diminish with dimming light.
- http://milesmathis.com/feyn3.html
C: Mathis again: So, as the linear velocity gets larger, the tangential velocity gets smaller relative to it. [] nearly a perfect inverse relationship. [] the tangential velocity can be estimated [] with just [] 1/c.
M: No, spin is definitely an acceleration. In order to spin, the object needs the constant application of force. An edge hit would only serve to affect its direction of travel and the direction in which it faces. Think very carefully, why would such a fundamental particle be persuaded to spin about an axis. It is quite difficult to get here from observation of composites systems that sit within a field of smaller particles.
N: I extend Newton's laws of motion to include spin such that once started, the spin keeps going until another force is applied
M: Caveat: When I say "force", it's not quite right, because there is no mass. There is an "amount of substance", but mass is emergent at a higher level and so does not apply.
N: Force is defined as the cause of motion and later the mass is used in the math (which is based on much larger entities than we are discussing here)
M: Nevyn - we can't use mass, because we have no "matter" yet.
C: I bet the Human Brain is wired to detect the Charge Field: For example, even when more than 50 percent of the odor molecules in two scents were identical, participants were still able to distinguish between the two smells. While this may not sound that impressive, when you consider the sheer number of possible odor combinations available, this indicates we’re actually pretty good at telling them apart.
N: Ah, I assume the base particles are the only thing that have the actual mass and matter (electrons, protons, etc) are photons with stacked spins which bring in a different kind of mass
- ie, the sum of spin velocities

C: What about anti-matter?
M: I think I get what your saying. I would have been inclined to think [that] way too in the past, but we must be very careful to distinguish between what we think we know, from observation of matter, to what are genuine logic truths that can be applied to fundamental systems.
N: Michaels paper discusses left-handed and right-handed helices which leads to Miles idea of anti-matter
N: Yes, I agree Michael, but at this level, there are no true observations, only interpretations of what we observe so I try to find logical rules to give rise to what we observe.
M: "there are no true observations, only interpretations of what we observe so I try to find logical rules to give rise to what we observe" Absolutely agreed

Chat Room Discussion
A=Airman, C=Cr6, L=LloydK, M=Michael, N=Nevyn

Re: Questions about Michael Vaicaitis's Model
Post by LloydK Yesterday at 4:56 pm
Next Chat is at 9 pm (2100) Michael's time = Universal Time Saturday (Sunday in Tasmania)
Michael Vaicaitis joined the chat xx hours ago
L: Hi Michael. I just happened to drop in and I see you were apparently here about hours ago. So it looks like you know now how to join us for our next chat. I guess I'd better remind everyone of the new time [].
---
Let's post questions for Michael in this thread: http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/post?p=586
Michael is free to answer anything before, during, or after the chat. So are all of us.
---
Click the Join Chat button to start chatting.
A: Hi Lloyd. Just eating a couple of burritos
L: Hi Airman. Are they spinning and precessing?
- I'm getting hungry now.
A: Ha. May as well be. I'm thinking a lot about gyros presently
L: Thanks for your answers. I skimmed through them, so I'll need to look closer later.
A: I don't think photons as spheres work
- Hello Michael
M: hello
L: Do you mean stacked photons as spheres?
- Hi Michael. You spelled out your whole name.
A: Spheres in contact don't seem to me to allow much precession and remain in contact, but I would love to be wrong
L: Right.
Here are my first 6 questions, Michael.
L1: Michael, what was the inspiration for your theory?
L2: Was it Miles Mathis? Fatio/LeSage? Other?
L3: Have you done lab work with gyroscopes personally?
L4: Does your aether consist of photons that have radius and mass?
L5: What are the kinds of photons? What are the differences between kinds?
L6: Is matter made of photons?
- I forgot to ask what's your line of work, if you don't mind saying.
- Airman, I assume two photon spheres in contact would each have one point touching the other sphere. Do you assume that?
A: Yes, on their respective spin axis poles or extensions
L: So what problem do you foresee with that?
M: First off, I am still in the process of writing (in essay style) a "paper". My previous paper "On The Motion of Matter" is not entirely correct and I have not since had any thoughts about gyros, so I can give no assurances as to efficacy of those previous ideas.
- I am not a fast typist.
L: So that's not your occupation then?
- I'm thinking about what to munch on.
M: The problem I am having with my new work is not theoretical. I am struggling to find the right turn of phrase to convey the message correctly. Much of this comes from the knowledge that a lot of my intended audience is so far removed from thinking about the problem correctly.
A: What's the subject matter?
L: The problem of motion of matter?
A: I promise to be nice
L: Why?
M: I come from an IT career: analyst/programmer. I did an "escape to the country" and moved to rural Wales. A failed relationship later I find myself in a new relationship and playing the house husband, but with the major advantage that I have more time to think!.
L: I know Robert Howe in Swansea.
M: My new work is entitled "The Mechanical Universe: An Analysis From First Principles"
- Swansea is about an hours drive.
A: How can you not think of gyros then?
L: Do you plan to answer my opening 6 questions? Or would you rather ad lib?
M: 6 questions first....
L: Airman, did you see my question to you? I asked what problem you foresee with 2 spheres precessing around each other on one point each.
A: If the spheres rotate at all, the contact point moves from the spin axis pole to a point on the sphere surface that is moving away from the axis pole
M: With no longer having a career, I was considering some further education and physics interested me. However, after scratching the surface of established physics, I quickly discovered absolutely no content below, just fairy magic and nonsense.
A: The contact point must stay on the spin pole/extension
- Halleluja, another believer
L: I think we agree with Michael. And regarding the contact point it looks to me like the point of force should remain the same, if no other force intervenes.
M: I decided to think about the problems myself. I started with gravity, and after a couple of days I came up with a method of pushing gravity. Unfortunately, a subsequent google search revealed that Fatio had beaten me to the punch by 350 years.
- Some of Mathis' critiques are quite good and quite entertaining, but most of his ideas are off the mark. I have only studied gyros at home, but unfortunately that led me to reason by analogy and make a error in that paper.
A: When was this?
L: It had to be by 2011.
- I'm still hungry. It's almost time for the chat to start. Maybe someone will show up.
A: Take 5 then
M: It was 2011
L: So Michael, did you read Mathis then?
M: Questions 4,5,6 all refer to "photons", but to address that, we should first establish some ideas on "aether".
L: After Fatio?
- Okay. Aether.
M: I have read quite a lot of Mathis, and to be honest, forgotten much of it.
A: Hi Nevyn
- What is the Aether?
L: Hello Nevyn. Is it mate in Tasmania too?
N: Hi guys, just catching up on the discussion
- It's too early here, I'm still waking up
L: We cheated and started half an hour early.
N: I noticed, I spent that time rereading Michaels paper
L: Michael, are you ready to say what the minor errors were in your paper?
- Were they in regard to gyros?
M: I do not consider the idea of an aether "medium" to be correct or even logical. The notion of an aethereal medium comes to us from consideration of waves and in no small part from Young's 1803 demonstration of light diffraction.
N: Glad to hear that Michael, I really like the way you are thinking mechanically
L: The aether was logical in Fatio's sense quite a bit.
A: The aether is a void
M: I am a "Mechanist" to the core and have been since long before I even knew that such a theoretical categorisation existed.
L: If photons have diameter and mass, they seem to work as an aether.
N: The word aether has too many conflicting meanings and not enough substance
C: Hi
N: Hey Cr6
A: Hey Cr6
C: Hey Nevyn, Airman
- Lloyd too
L: Hello Cr6. You make 5 of us, if I count right.
C: ok
L: 3's company so I think we have about 2 companies here.
C: just catching up
L: I meant 2's company.
M: To continue... The aether medium is then reached by analogy with atomic/molecular materials (particularly fluids) in combination with unjustified presumptions of how waves work. In other words the aether is derived thru reasoning by analogy.
C: is aether a medium of sorts in your view?
M: NO

L: I think he's arguing against a conventional aether.
M: Sorry that should have been NO!!!!!!
- yes Lloyd, that is correct
N: So you just have a field of real particles that can only collide with each other and the resulting motions of those particles form into helices?
- by real I mean have mass and extension
L: Photons too.
M: N: Yes.
- "by real I mean have mass an[d] extension
" sorry, is there a typo here?
N: I think the photons are just motions of the field particles, sort of how Miles describes neutrinos
- yes, a typo, should be mass and extension
- gees, more typos, it's early
L: Early in the millennium'
A: Ah, the new Age
C: Do you see precession of planets, and photon-helices as similar then?
M: Real, yes, most definitely. But no mass - mass is an emergent property of matter
L: Mass isn't a property of photons?
C: depends on "whose" photon... [wink]
N: interesting, I see mass (or at least part of what we call mass) as the sum of spin velocities (in a stacked spin model), does you idea of mass go in that direction as well?
A: The photons themselves don't have helical paths
L: MV's paper said photons have mass and I think diameter.
M: Lloyd, I'm not so sure if I had written that "photons" have mass, but if I did, it was an error.
L: I can't imagine anything without mass being able to have an effect on anything.
C: So what is the power behind your UFT Michael?
N: I think the word mass has no solid definition and means different things to different people. Michael, do you think that mass and inertia are the same thing?
M: UFT?
C: the irreducible constant or constant action...
L: unified field theory
M: Inertia is a resistance to a change of motion, the quantification of that resistance is called mass. This is actually the mainstream view, although they have no theory for what mass "is" and largely resort to assigning it as an "intrinsic" property.
N: Yes, and that is why I tend to think of the sum of the spin velocities being the mass, as in each spin velocity resists motion
A: After all my MV reading, I would call mass inertia as gyroscopic. This agrees with MV and Nevyn
C: I agree Airman. That's what I was seeing too.
- That each reached it independently is confirmation of sorts. [smile]
L: You mean the smart ones reached it independently.
- I haven't reached that.
C: Or Occam'
- or Occam's razor shaves the same beard?
- or stubble
M: Consider completely empty space. Place into it a particle - it is solid with no substructure. We will not call it matter, just simply: substance. We can conceptually say that the particle can move or travel across space, but it cannot spin. If anyone wishes to give such a particle the capability of spin, then you first need to describe how and why that could occur.
L: There's not much to bump into it and make it spin yet.
N: You can also say the same thing about linear motion as well. Why would it move if there is nothing to push it?
L: Right.
N: What causes the first push? or the first spin?
C: Maybe higher powers?
N: With only 1 particle, you can't even tell if it is moving because motion is relative
L: Where does the second marble come from?
- From the vacuum!
M: we are god in this thought experiment and we give the particle a push so that it can move. Now ask yourself how we could make it spin.
N: If we are god then we just make it spin [smile]
L: Create it spinning.
M: we are a god that obeys the laws of motion
N: We need more than 1 particle to cause spin if the only allowed input is linear velocity, edge hits by other particles can cause an axial spin
- spin is a valid motion, just as much as linear motion
M: Edge hits. Edge hits would not cause axial spin
C: And if it is at absolute Zero it just sits?
M: no that is not correct either
N: Why not? If the force transferred is very close to a tangent on the edge of the particle, why can't that cause spin?
- I do assume the particle has some intrinsic mass which gives it something to spin and something to transfer momentum in a collision
M: Spin is an acceleration. To accelerate requires a force to be applied.
- No the particle has no mass ->​ mass comes later

N: No mass ->​ no momentum ->​ no force ->​ no acceleration ->​ no motion
C: Can the spin occur at different speeds? Zero->​ near Infinity?
N: hang on, we have to explain how the spin starts before we get to that Cr6 [smile]
C: Zero spin = zero mass?
A: Michael has described the basic particle as without mass. He has yet to describe how mass emerges. Spin must be tied to mass.0
M: Forget mass, it is not helping
C: Didn't know if it was already worked out before hand?
M: Yes I have worked it out beforehand - I know all the answers [smug] ​
C: On a side note, how might this work: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archiv...
N: I'm not so sure spin is an acceleration, it can be described just by a tangential velocity, curved motion is an acceleration but spin is a bit different (I think).
C: That's why we invited you... lol
L: That's why?
C: yes.. sorry. [smile]
L: Acceleration is a change in velocity I think. [i.e. a change in its magnitude or direction]]
A: I agree with you Nevyn
N: yes, that is why curved motion is an acceleration but spin is different but I am struggling to put it into words
L: The motion of the surface of the particle is curved.
N: yes, but a point on that surface has a constant tangential velocity
L: The tangential velocity is instantaneous, which I think is 0.
- Or infinity.
N: According to Miles, the tangential velocity is c
L: But it only exists for an instant, then the "point" curves.
N: there is not such thing as an instantaneous velocity because velocity has a time component
- the point doesn't curve, its motion appears to curve, well it does, but only because it is attached to the rest of the particle
C: Here's Mathis: If light is a particle with spin, then the wave belongs to the particle itself, and will not diminish with dimming light. In this case, each photon has a wave, and this solves the first big mystery all by itself. The wavelength does not belong to the wavefront or to a large group of photons; it belongs to each photon individually. In this way, the wave can be carried full strength to the detector, even with only one photon.
- http://milesmathis.com/feyn3.html
L: Is the answer man still around?
A: Michael is here to describe his ideas.
C: Don't let us be a bump in the road Michael.
- Mathis again: So, as the linear velocity gets larger, the tangential velocity gets smaller relative to it. And the difference between the two is so large that the relationship becomes nearly a perfect inverse relationship. In other words, c2 is so large that the tangential velocity can be estimated very successfully with just the transform 1/c.
N: It is hard to stay on one track in these chats

[Airman resupplied the rest of the chat, luckily.]

M: No, spin is definitely an acceleration. In order to spin, the object needs the constant application of force. An edge hit would only serve to affect its direction of travel and the direction in which it faces.
Think very carefully, why would such a fundamental particle be persuaded to spin about an axis. It is quite difficult to get here from observation of composites systems that sit within a field of smaller particles.
N: I extend Newton's laws of motion to include spin such that once started, the spin keeps going until another force is applied
M: Caveat: When I say "force", it's not quite right, because there is no mass. There is an "amount of substance", but mass is emergent at a higher level and so does not apply.
N: Force is defined as the cause of motion and later the mass is used in the math (which is based on much larger entities than we are discussing here)
M: Nevyn, yes I understand why you might do that - we have been doing that for hundreds of years, but in this circumstance you cannot do that.
N: that is why I give the particle some intrinsic mass
M: "Force is defined as the cause of motion and later the mass is used in the math (which is based on much larger entities than we are discussing here)" yes
N: Why can't we do that here though?
L: I'm going to take off shortly. Will one or more of you copy the chat to the forum please? I copied most of what's here, but not the last few lines.
A: I'll copy it
C: I'm drinking some beers.
A: Thanks again Lloyd
C: I'm not the best guy to do it right now. Thanks Airman.
- Thanks Lloyd.
N: Thanks for setting this up Lloyd, See you next time.
M: Nevyn - we can't use mass, because we have no "matter" yet.
L: I look forward to reading the rest of this later. G'Day.
C: I bet the Human Brain is wired to detect the Charge Field: For example, even when more than 50 percent of the odor molecules in two scents were identical, participants were still able to distinguish between the two smells. While this may not sound that impressive, when you consider the sheer number of possible odor combinations available, this indicates we’re actually pretty good at telling them apart.
N: Ah, I assume the base particles are the only thing that have the actual mass and matter (electrons, protons, etc) are photons with stacked spins which bring in a different kind of mass
- ie, the sum of spin velocities

C: What about anti-matter?
- [MM said:] But very soon these quanta are bumped by other quanta, and they gain both velocity and spin in this way. In most cases, they are bumped by photons, since photons make up the charge field. Photons outnumber everything else by a very large margin, so the odds are very good that this non-spinning electron will gain its new energy from photons. But most of these photons are right-handed photons, so the particle will rebuild as a proton. It gets its spin from the field, and if the field is right-handed, the particle’s new spin will also be right-handed. This means that a normal charge field, as we know it, will turn anti-matter into matter, through this simple process. Over time, all local anti-matter will be turned into matter, and the entire local field and everything in it will become right-handed. Only the fact that the macro-field is not homogeneous, rectilinear, and unidirectional keeps the field from being completely right-handed. Because the field of the Earth is spherical, and receives emission from all directions, it maintains a fraction of anti-matter. It also receives anti-matter via the Solar Wind.
A: Nevyn, I didn't agree with your mass definition before. I'm glad for the change
M: I think I get what your saying. I would have been inclined to think [that] way too in the past, but we must be very careful to distinguish between what we think we know, from observation of matter, to what are genuine logic truths that can be applied to fundamental systems.
N: Michaels paper discusses left-handed and right-handed helices which leads to Miles idea of anti-matter
C: got it.
N: Yes, I agree Michael, but at this level, there are no true observations, only interpretations of what we observe so I try to find logical rules to give rise to what we observe.
- That is also why I do not [c]all it science
- in a strict sense, it is below science at the fundamental level
M: I must sign-off too. Tonight (10pm here) is just a start, but I have not properly laid the ground work for you, to make myself understood. I will continue to think of better ways of communicating my ideas. cheers
N: it is trying to explain what we do know with what we can't know (if that makes any sense)
A: Thanks Michael
C: Cosmology comes before science....
M: "there are no true observations, only interpretations of what we observe so I try to find logical rules to give rise to what we observe" Absolutely agreed
C: Thanks Michael.
N: Ok, thanks Michael, I look forward to more discussion like this. I will go over your paper a few more times to get a better idea of where you are coming from.
A: I think that went well
N: Me too, better than I was expecting actually
C: same here.
A: I could see some strain as well
N: It is difficult to keep a coherent structure in these chats
C: We are not exactly doe eyed.
- Very true.
A: The brain can operate on several levels
N: I think the forum is a better, more linear, method but it takes a lot of time
C: Have you guys seen any longer descriptions of the Photon for Mathis? I wasn't sure if one of his books goes in-depth.
- from Mathis?
N: His books are just the papers, nothing else added
C: Ah...okay.
A: Motion to declare this chat ended for record keeping. The rest is off the record

Last edited by LloydK on Thu Dec 25, 2014 4:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Michael Vaicaitis' Model Discussions

Michael, are these paraphrases of you from the recent chat accurate enough?
- aether "medium" is not correct or logical. comes from consideration of waves
- The aether medium idea is reached by analogy with atomic/molecular materials (particularly fluids)
- aether is not a medium
- aether is a field of real particles
- they have mass and extension
- mass is an emergent property of matter
- photons are real, But have no mass
- Inertia is a resistance to a change of motion
- Place a particle into completely empty space.
- the particle can move across space, but it cannot spin.
- the particle has no mass -​ mass comes later
- spin is definitely an acceleration. In order to spin, the object needs the constant application of force.
- why would such a fundamental particle be persuaded to spin about an axis.
- we can't use mass, because we have no "matter" yet.
- agree that there are no true observations, only interpretations of what we observe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lloyd's New Questions for Michael
L1: Re: "aether is a field of real particles; they have mass and extension; photons are real, But have no mass;" what are photons? Are photons not part of the aether?
L2: Re: "mass is an emergent property of matter"; how does mass emerge?
L3: Re: "spin is definitely an acceleration. In order to spin, the object needs the constant application of force"; what proof is there that spin is acceleration? Is it because change in direction is called acceleration? Wouldn't that depend on inertia being a straight line phenomenon, instead of curved motion?
L4: What can stop spin, if there's no friction?
L5: What constant force maintains spin?
L6: Re: basic principles; should that not begin with consideration of features of sense perception (such as the field of vision), which are surely the patterns for thought and the working material for logic?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following are paraphrases of Michael from the Dec. 20 chat. The questions above do not pertain to this more complete list of paraphrases. This is just for reference for members.

Michael Vaicaitis
- have IT career: analyst/programmer.
- still writing a "paper". previous paper "On The Motion of Matter" is not entirely correct
- have not since had any thoughts about gyros
- we need to be thinking about the problem correctly.
- started with gravity
- most of Mathis' ideas are off the mark.
- studied gyros at home led to reason by analogy and to make an error
- Questions 4,5,6 refer to "photons", but should first establish ideas on "aether".
- aether "medium" is not correct or logical. comes from consideration of waves
- The aether medium is reached by analogy with atomic/molecular materials (particularly fluids)
- aether is not a medium
- aether is a field of real particles
- they have mass and extension
- mass is an emergent property of matter
- photons are real, But have no mass
- if I had written that "photons" have mass, it was an error.
- are mass and inertia the same thing?
- Inertia is a resistance to a change of motion
- Place a particle into completely empty space.
- it is solid with no substructure.
- the particle can move across space, but it cannot spin.
- to give such a particle spin, you first need to describe how and why that could occur.
- Edge hits from other particles would not cause axial spin
- Spin is an acceleration. To accelerate requires a force to be applied.
- the particle has no mass -​ mass comes later
- spin is definitely an acceleration. In order to spin, the object needs the constant application of force.
- An edge hit would only serve to affect its direction of travel and the direction in which it faces.
- why would such a fundamental particle be persuaded to spin about an axis.
- It is difficult to get here from observation of composites systems that sit within a field of smaller particles.
- there is no mass. There is an "amount of substance", but mass is emergent at a higher level
- we can't use mass, because we have no "matter" yet.
- we must distinguish between what we think we know, from observation of matter, to what are genuine logic truths
- agree that there are no true observations, only interpretations of what we observe

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## MV Discussion - 12/27/2014

M=
= aether "medium" is not correct or logical. comes from consideration of waves
# it is not correct and the reasoning is flawed. it comes from a wish to consider waves, but does not explain waves ->​ its greatest failing
= The aether medium idea is reached by analogy with atomic/molecular materials (particularly fluids)
# yes
= aether is not a medium
# not a "medium", therefore not an aether
- aether is a field of real particles
# yes
= they have mass and extension
# extension yes, but "mass" does not apply at this level, mass is a property of matter (i.e. electrons and protons) that emerges from its interaction with the vacuum field
= mass is an emergent property of matter
# yes
= photons are real, But have no mass
# this implies something about "photons" which requires a more precise definition of the term "photon".
= Inertia is a resistance to a change of motion
# yes
= Place a particle into completely empty space. - the particle can move across space, but it cannot spin.
# yes
= the particle has no mass - mass comes later
# yes
= spin is definitely an acceleration. In order to spin, the object needs the constant application of force.
# yes
= why would such a fundamental particle be persuaded to spin about an axis.
= we can't use mass, because we have no "matter" yet.
= agree that there are no true observations, only interpretations of what we observe
# yes.
- Logic is primary here. It must come first from the rejection of superstition. Since we can't fully rely of "empirical" data, we need to take generalised logical truths and work backwards; thus starting at first principles
N: Hi Michael, I thought I would let you have some room to build a foundation.
- Set the scene and we can see where it leads us.
M= OK, Q: what is the simplest scenario we can imagine. A: nothing. (Caveat: some people resort to saying that "nothing" does not exist. This is a prelude to infinite regression. We can discuss this if you wish, but I see the argument for the regressionalists is decidedly limited.)
N: That is my starting position too. The void, nothing else, no thing at all.
M= Excellent.
- The purpose for this starting point is to arrive at a plausible model for the "vacuum field". Vacuum Field is the non-committal/neutral name for the agent (field/vacuum/aether) that produces for the action-at-a-distance force effects that provides for the interaction (and thus interactive properties) of matter.
- Once we grant that there are spatially separated bodies to interact, the defining requirement for that interaction is motion. To have motion we must have substance that moves, and to allow freedom of movement, we must also embrace the concept of separation across volumetric space. In the context of fundamental existence, spatial separation is more simply and usefully defined as empty space, and substance, as discrete material particles. In short we have two classes of volume occupying entity. One is inert and quite literally, nothing, with its only property being volume via distance, and that is completely empty space. The other is interactive and quite literally, something, and that is particles of substance.
- The term "substance" comes from my own limited dictionary, but tallies reasonably well with "substance theory", albeit coincidental.
- do you follow so far?
N: yes, I was a bit worried with the mention of vacuum fields but I trust you will remain mechanical so I will wait for a more solid idea as we go.
M= By the way, it was not lost on me that you said "no thing", rather than "nothing".
N: Yes, very intentional
M= Given that motion!!!!!!!!!, requires (requires = as in the only logical truth that our cognitive existence can provide) discrete particles of substance/material/solid​-something separated by nothing/"no thing", we must populate the "background" of "completely empty volumetric space" with PARTICLES.
N: I believe your use of the term substance is what Newton was trying to get at with the term mass, the ponderability of something within nothing.
- but mass has become so much more now
M= I am heading towards, and encircling, the defences of aetherism. The aether, as a fluidic medium, cannot stand. It is derived from reasoning by analogy. It is given magical abilities, beyond the analogy from which it is derived.
N: Agreed
M= The destruction of the aether medium model is very much side issue for me, but I am attacking it first, to remove it from the really important discussion.
N: Ok, continue on, sir
M= I realise the idea of "mass" is important to you, but do your very best to let it go. Instead think only in terms of substance and the amount/size of substance.
N: Yeah, I didn't mean to head down that road again (yet), just saw the parallels to Newtons original intent
M= Newton was so close and yet so far from the real answer - I have traveled that road!.
N: I suppose we can forgive him for not getting all the answers hundreds of years ago
M= (There are many opportunities for profundity here - sometimes I cannot help myself)
N: I know the feeling
M= Back to the nothingness/no-thing-nes​s/completely-empty-volum​etric-space
- This is a 3-dimensional Euclidean space - it is volume as we experience it and understand it - it is not somw Reimannian/Minkowski counterintuitive insanity that cannot be justified by human cognition.
N: Good, just to be clear, a mathematical space is something humans super-impose onto actual space, they are separate things and only 1 of them is real.
M= It is simple "space", it is "volume". It is a logically certain concept. There is no proof, since the "proof" comes directly from the way in which we think and perceive, and certainly not a mathematical proof (which must first be derived from some logical, or pseudo-logical, process anyway).
- In other words, don't try to find something in the geometry of no-thing.
N: Yes, I think we all agree that "no thing" can not have "some thing" which geometry would be
M= So, NOTHING. Into this "completely empty volumetric space" we must introduce two classes of "something". First, is a field of substantive particles[/u] (the-vacuum-field/the-va​cuum/the-aether/???), the second is the "ponderable matter that is electrons and protons.
N: Can we discuss the difference between "substantive particles" and "ponderable matter", I get the major distinction of matter being the larger entities, but the sub-level particles should be ponderable as well.
M= Sorry mate, I understand your impatience, but bear with me a little longer.
N: No worries, I thought we might get to it a bit later but the question was worth asking.
M= It is SO!!!!! important to *****ACTUALLY THINK IN TERMS OF A SUB-MATTER FIELD*****
- This may sound a little loony, but let me assure you, there is method in my madness
N: Not at all, at least, not to someone who tries to think mechanically
M= Back to the "aether" then - for the purposes of making the point that so many fail to understand.
- The fluidic materials from which the aether is analogied, operate as a system of particles connected by a system of "force effects".
M= (I say "force effects", rather than "forces" for good reason)
N: Yes, that did worry me at first, but then I realised you were divorcing it from the idea of force itself
- since we have no mass yet
M= The sub-field to matter -that is to say, the vacuum field, or the action-at-a-distance field, must operate without the interactional "PROPERTIES" that we associate with matter.
- It is not matter, yet, by the very undeniable existence of action-at-a-distance, that field, that contains no matter, MUST exist.
- The only route that we have to that particle field (i.e. the vacuum field) is logic. We cannot experiment on it, we cannot observe, examine or detect it. We only know, with absolutely certainty, that it is there - because of its effect upon matter.
N: Sorry to interrupt, but do you think we will ever be able to experiment on it?
M= No - there may be some statistical inference available to us, but the only tools we have are matter. You (i.e we matter beings) simply cannot use a more delicate or refined tool than an electron.
N: Not even a photon?
- I probably should wait until we have defined photons before asking that
M= In examining any artifact of the "vacuum field" (including whatever one may consider photons to be) the smallest unit of measure is the motion of electrons - we/no-thing can know anything about anything else except by motion and collision.
- The only way we can know that an electron (our lowest level of matter measurement) has intercepted any "signal" (such as a "photon"?) is by its motion and communication (by motion/mediated-interact​ion) with other matter
- typos are now in charge
N: That's fine, we can fix them in the post-processing, the obvious ones anyway.
M= The deep deep profound...wise...point of my spiel, is that at the lowest level of fundamental "substantive" existence, we cannot arbitrarily assign action-at-a-distance interactional properties, such as mass and charge. We must instead rely only on direct contact - i.e. COLLISION. The laws/rules/logic of collision are the first and third laws of motion. These are not derived by experiment nor equational wishful thinking - they are logical certainties, derived from the very core of our cognitive conscience. That is to say, they are logical truths, or in other words, they are first principles.
- Have I piqued your interest?
N: Yes, I somewhat disagree with them being absolute truths, but they are a good start. I like to leave rooom for changes later.
- I can see that you are setting the stage to use these collision based interactions to build concepts like mass and charge.
M= That's correct.
- Before going further it might be worth exploring "I somewhat disagree with them being absolute truths".
N: Ok, we are talking about things that are underneath most, if not all, experiment so we are trying to find logical rules to explain that which we can experiment on or know from. At this level, how can we say what is true and what is not?
- We can say what can be used to logically create a theory, but we can't know if it is absolutely true.
- I am getting a bit philosophical [smile]
M= No it's not philosophical.
- Imagine you are a brain in a jar, or a simulation on an alien computer, or a fool pretending to be scientifically sceptical. What do you know?.
N: You only know what you experience but that is laced with interpretations.
M= Well that a good place to finish and a good place to start next time. The plausible nature of the vacuum field (i.e. the matter sub-field) and its interaction with matter, can only come from our cognitive "certainties".
N: Yes, it is the idea that cognitive certainties can produce logical truths that worries me. It can produce logical rules but truth is an absolute concept.
- Thanks for this primer. I look forward to moving on to describe the larger entities we have hinted at.
M= "....mocing...", what are you talking about you fool. As soon as I've finished spanking my proof-reader, I shall be spanking yours; assuming of course, I'm sober enough to stand. Bye for now. Keep thinking!!!
N: Yeah, typos again, I meant moving on. See you next time.
L: See you MV.
A: Thanks MV
L: Nevyn, do you want to join us in the other room for a bit?
N: Already there
L: I think I have the entire copy of this, which I'll post on the forum.

---- discrete particles of substance/material/solid​-something separated by nothing/"no thing", we must populate the "background" of "completely empty volumetric space" with PARTICLES.

L: Chat Room MM2: Airman and Lloyd will discuss in this room while monitoring Room MM1 at http://us22.chatzy.com/96918077779816
Cr6 probably won't attend. And Lloyd will probably arrive at 1:30 Pacific Time.
- Lloyd has 6 New Questions for Michael. If Airman wants Nevyn to ask any of these questions, Airman can copy the question/s and put a smiley [smile] before and after it or them [smile]
- Here are Lloyd's Questions:
1: Re: "aether is a field of real particles; they have mass and extension; photons are real, But have no mass;" what are photons? Are photons not part of the aether?
2: Re: "mass is an emergent property of matter"; how does mass emerge?
3: Re: "spin is definitely an acceleration. In order to spin, the object needs the constant application of force"; what proof is there that spin is acceleration? Is it because change in direction is called acceleration? Wouldn't that depend on inertia being a straight line phenomenon, instead of curved motion?
4: What can stop spin, if there's no friction?
5: What constant force maintains spin?
6: Re: basic principles; should that not begin with consideration of features of sense perception (such as the field of vision), which are surely the patterns for thought and the working material for logic?
- If Airman has other questions or comments before Lloyd arrives, Airman can enclose them in [smile] smileys [smile] until Lloyd arrives.
L: Airman or Nevyn, could one of you copy the discussion about every 20 minutes till I arrive, so we don't lose anything?
A: I'll copy the chat to two word documents
- [smile] Testing testing
- [smile] Testing Testing [smile]
- Hi Nevyn
N: Hi Airman
A: You're not supposed to address me in the other room
- It's going to be hard trying to be invisible
N: Sorry, I woke up like 5 minutes ago [smile]
A: Well his prepared response is overflow, so "set the scene" is nice
- And do some jumping jacks
- I would call it an empty stage
- What is the basic identity or particle or force, what have you
- Yeah
- The substance is still without form
- Massless Particles
- HooAhh
- Do you think he is rederiving his basics or educating you. Never mind
N: Both, a big problem in these discussions is getting around definition of terms
A: Thanks
- He allowed himself to be influenced.
- Wiseacre is off, Thank God
- OK
L: Greetings.
A: Hey Lloyd
L: I'll read the above and catch up.
A: Are you already "on the other side"?
L: No. I'll go read the other chat room now.
A: I agree that clearing up semantics is the best first step
- What a leap
- See, that's why you are in there and I'm not. Good thing
- Do you dance?
- That's not semantics, that's scary
L: I wonder who you were talking to. It must be Nevyn. Well, I caught up. Now I'll see if I have any relevant questions.
A: I don't think any more questions will help move things along any faster
L: We can discuss questions among the two or three of us.
A: MV seems in transmit mode
N: I thought it best to let him do that so he can build his theory
A: Understood
L: In MV's earlier paper he made it sound like there is aether, but there are 2 kinds of photons, which are different from aether. Did you notice that?
A: Yes. And the photons were emitted by electrons, But MV is building the basics at present
L: Yeah, I'm wondering if his new model will be anything like the paper he wrote before. He said that paper only had a few "errors".
N: I think the original paper said photons were patterns in the aether, not real particles themselves
A: photons being massless
N: in a way, but not quite as the mainstream means it
A: MV never said what was wrong with his first paper
L: That might be a good question.
A: I don't think he can give a straight answer
- If it affects/effects matter than it can be experimented on
L: Everything might be susceptible to experiment psychically.
A: Wow
N: You always have to be mindful of the tools you are using and they are made from matter so any experiment would be indirect at best.
A: Yes, but electrons are within our grasp
N: Lloyd, did you mean psychically or physically?
- these typos are catchy [catching]
L: Psychically of course.
- MV indicated last time that helical motion may not be part of his new model. Didn't he?
A: Motion is still prime in MV's model
L: I hope it will be part of it, personally.
- I mean helical motion.
A: Sub matter properties?
L: I'll buy that. [smile] What are Sub matter properties? [smile]
A: MV is supposed to be describing those now
N: I think this refers to the properties of the aether field [submatter field?] that form the basis of the properties of matter
L: Airman, you said you do engineering. Didn't you?
A: Yes sir. I work/have worked with many engineers, mostly mechanical
L: Is engineering what you do yourself?
A: Mostly provide technical expertise, my only authority
L: What engineering jobs do you like most?
A: I like solving each problem as it comes along
L: I read a bio of James Eads who built Eads bridge in St. Louis.
- He also built one or more iron-clad boats for the Civil War on the Mississippi River.
- They helped Grant, I think, to open the river to Union forces.
A: Structures are great, St Louis Arch is nice and right beside it
L: He laid down rules for building the bridge, including not [eating or] drinking [right] after work and resting a lot, i.e. regarding those who worked in caissons.
A: Vessels are also in a special category , but I don't want to make a lot of noise for Nevyn's sake
L: Only one person died working on the bridge, or the caissons. It was someone who ignored the rules.
A: My mind goes to the Brooklyn Bridge
L: Nevyn is supposed to be looking for our smileys.
- Both used steel, but I think different kinds.
A: All those who died there
L: Eads had experience doing salvage before the Civil War for wrecks in the river. He knew how to handle the currents safely while in a diving suit [or bell].
L: Do you know how the Brooklyn bridge deaths occurred?
A: In the caisons. A fear of mine
L: Have you worked in them?
A: No, and I never had a permit to
L: What's the fear then?
A: What do you mean by you being a "drifter"?
L: I've lived all over the country, usually for a few months or a few years at a time [in each place].
A: Just did another copy set.
- So what's you job?
L: Odd jobs.
- I was prepping for painting trim on someone's house this morning.
A: Are you an itinerant laborer?
- A handy man?
L: I can do carpentry, gardening, word processing etc.
- I grew up on a farm.
A: You sound awfully refined at times. And a great organizer. It takes a lot of skill to depend on just yourself
- Courage too
- Show' over
- Nevyn, You fool
N: Haha [smile]
L: Hiya.
N: Reminded me of Gandalf: "Run, you fools!"
L: I don't know Gandalf. But MV ran off in a hurry. It's going on 11 pm his time, I think.
N: Yeah, we were heading into a long discussion so it was best to leave it for next time.
- Gandalf is a wizard from Lord of the Rings.
A: Both chats are copied onto word docs Lloyd, but I expect you to do your routine.
N: Just keep those copies in case Lloyd deletes some of it again [smile]
L: Yeah. I have most of the MM1 chat copied, but I didn't finish this one yet. So I may need your MM2 copy.
A: Nevyn. Are you OK with the discussion, or would you like to reserve judgement?
N: What do you mean Airman? Reserve judgement on MV's ideas so far?
L: Looks like it's best if just one person interviews Micheal. It doesn't seem that the second chat room is of much use.
A: Not on his ideas. You're overall impression of the process here. Was it worthwhile, or not?
N: Lloyd, I think we need to let MV build his case first and then question it once we have all the pieces in place otherwise we end up arguing about things we haven't discussed yet.
- I think the process is good. MV had a lot more room to build his ideas without being bombarded with questions he hasn't had a chance to get to yet.
- That was my intent, anyway.
L: If one person wants to interview him, that should be okay. Have you guys heard of Robert Distinti and Ethereal Mechanics?
- Hi MV.
- Again.
- Anyone hear of Distinti?
M= just back for a few minutes, can't stay long
N: No, I haven't read that. Does it contain actual mechanics?
A: Yes, but I don't see any connection
L: Yes, it's rather mechanical. He has some good points that I want to bring up eventually.
M= got to go...Happy New
L: He has some interesting videos and papers and I'll provide links to some of them, the ones I think are most useful.
- Happy NY to you.
A: Happy New Year
N: Ok, but we have to be careful not to pull MV into comparisons with other theories, keep it to the concepts and precise points.
M= Happy New Year (and happy non-typo's, darn fingers, damn keyboard)
A: A fine resolution
L: Don't they make keyboards wired to the brain?
N: They're working on it, I'm sure
A: They probably do on a few poor souls
L: They have gear for pilots that allows them to look in a direction to do things.
- There are also prosthetic arms that can detect nerve impulses to operate artificial hands.
A: Yep.
N: Do you actually want to be plugged in to the computer?
- I'm not sure I do.
L: What's me?
A: Hell no
L: My body?
- What about wirelessly?
N: I would say "you" are your thoughts, what ever they are.
A: In today's world, you will end up in the collective
L: It's better to have independence.
N: I don't want some chip in me no matter how it communicates.
A: I agree
L: Psychokinesis would be handy though.
N: I guess that means we will not be part of the Internet 3.0 [smile]
L: I haven't seen psychics able to type that way though.
- Where do they talk about Internet 3.0?
N: I'e been re-watching a show called "Fringe" where they type in 1 universe and it types on a type writer in another universe.
- No-one is talking about Internet 3.0, but they do discuss 2.0 so I thought I would skip that number.
L: Is that part of the alien contact program?
A: Happy New Years to you two as well. I'm off to the store
L: Fringe?
- Buy Airman.
N: Lloyd, do you mean Fringe? No, just a functional TV show about parallel universes and time travel, all the things I don't believe in.
- See you, Airman. Have a good new year.
L: And Buy!.
N: How much is he?
L: 140 pounds. I saw maybe two episodes of Fringe.
N: that would be a fictional show, not a functional one, although I suppose it is on some levels [smile]
- I watched it when it was on TV but have been watching it again because I loved it so much, despite it being about things I don't believe in.
L: Right. Like Star Trek too. Do you want to interview MV again? You're probably best qualified.
- If not, I'll ask the others.
N: Sure, I think that went well. It is hard to forget what I think I know and just let MV build his concepts but it is worth it in the long run.
L: I can invite everyone to listen in again, but I think I'll try to get a second chat on possibly a somewhat different topic.
- And the second chat might be at a different time.
- Maybe the time we did initially.
- Comments?
N: So you don't think the second chat room is worth it?
L: It's probably worth having available, just in case some worthwhile discussion might happen, but a different time seems likely to have better content. Right?
N: I think this particular discussion is still in its infancy so questions are not so useful at this point. Once it builds into a larger theory though, questions will be more useful and on point.
- But another chat after the first could be beneficial too
L: I mean the 2nd one could be available during the chat with MV. But a second time for additional chat might be good to have also.
N: Sure, we can always use the forum to discuss things too
L: Maybe it's best to have a chat with MV at 1pm my time, 8am? your time and a different chat topic at 2 pm my time.
N: Sure. The 2pm chat could just be like our original chats where anyone asks anything, MV related or not.
L: The forum is good for leisurely hit-or-miss discussion and for building papers or articles etc.
N: Yeah, it is also good to just leave a question out there and see what others think without the need for an immediate response.
L: Being able to edit our posts at any time allows us to add material to a post, for doing papers etc.
- It's a good place for images.
- As long as it doesn't crash.
N: Yeah, I was going to do that with the Chemistry section at first but then I realised it is better to keep adding posts because you can link to a particular post when discussing it.
- IF it is all in one post, it is hard to point out
- other than to quote it, I guess, which does work well
L: Well, do you have any more you want to discuss or mention?
N: I have to go. Have a good new year and I will see you next time [smile]
L: I need to copy this soon.
- Good Day to Taz people.
N: We're willing for the rest of you's to have a good day too [smile]
L: Is it optional, I hope?
- Anyway, See ya.
N: Sure, if you really want to have a bad day. See ya.

Last edited by LloydK on Sat Dec 27, 2014 10:36 pm; edited 4 times in total

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## MV Discussion - 12/27/2014 - Highlights

Highlights of Today's MV Discussion

M= Logic is primary
M= OK, Q: what is the simplest scenario we can imagine. A: nothing.
M= The purpose for this starting point is to arrive at a plausible model for the "vacuum field".
- Once we grant that there are spatially separated bodies to interact, the defining requirement for that interaction is motion. To have motion we must have substance that moves, and to allow freedom of movement, we must also embrace the concept of separation across volumetric space.
- In the context of fundamental existence, spatial separation is more simply and usefully defined as empty space, and substance, as discrete material particles.
- In short we have two classes of volume occupying entity. One is inert and quite literally, nothing, with its only property being volume via distance, and that is completely empty space.
- The other is interactive and quite literally, something, and that is particles of substance.
- The term "substance" comes from my own limited dictionary, but tallies reasonably well with "substance theory", albeit coincidental.
M= Given that motion!!!!!!!!!, requires (requires = as in the only logical truth that our cognitive existence can provide) discrete particles of substance/material/solid​-something separated by nothing/"no thing", we must populate the "background" of "completely empty volumetric space" with PARTICLES.
M= I am heading towards, and encircling, the defences of aetherism. The aether, as a fluidic medium, cannot stand. It is derived from reasoning by analogy. It is given magical abilities, beyond the analogy from which it is derived.
M= Back to the nothingness/no-thing-nes​s/completely-empty-volum​etric-space
- This is a 3-dimensional Euclidean space - it is volume as we experience it and understand it - it is not somw Reimannian/Minkowski counterintuitive insanity that cannot be justified by human cognition.
M= It is simple "space", it is "volume". It is a logically certain concept. There is no proof, since the "proof" comes directly from the way in which we think and perceive, and certainly not a mathematical proof (which must first be derived from some logical, or pseudo-logical, process anyway).
- In other words, don't try to find something in the geometry of no-thing.
M= So, NOTHING. Into this "completely empty volumetric space" we must introduce two classes of "something". First, is a field of substantive particles[/u] (the-vacuum-field/the-va​cuum/the-aether/???), the second is the "ponderable matter that is electrons and protons.
M= It is SO!!!!! important to *****ACTUALLY THINK IN TERMS OF A SUB-MATTER FIELD*****
M= Back to the "aether" then - for the purposes of making the point that so many fail to understand.
- The fluidic materials from which the aether is analogied, operate as a system of particles connected by a system of "force effects".
M= (I say "force effects", rather than "forces" for good reason)
M= The sub-field to matter -that is to say, the vacuum field, or the action-at-a-distance field, must operate without the interactional "PROPERTIES" that we associate with matter.
- It is not matter, yet, by the very undeniable existence of action-at-a-distance, that field, that contains no matter, MUST exist.
- The only route that we have to that particle field (i.e. the vacuum field) is logic. We cannot experiment on it, we cannot observe, examine or detect it. We only know, with absolutely certainty, that it is there - because of its effect upon matter.
M= No - there may be some statistical inference available to us, but the only tools we have are matter. You (i.e we matter beings) simply cannot use a more delicate or refined tool than an electron.
M= In examining any artifact of the "vacuum field" (including whatever one may consider photons to be) the smallest unit of measure is the motion of electrons - we/no-thing can know anything about anything else except by motion and collision.
- The only way we can know that an electron (our lowest level of matter measurement) has intercepted any "signal" (such as a "photon"?) is by its motion and communication (by motion/mediated-interact​ion) with other matter
M= The deep deep profound...wise...point of my spiel, is that at the lowest level of fundamental "substantive" existence, we cannot arbitrarily assign action-at-a-distance interactional properties, such as mass and charge. We must instead rely only on direct contact - i.e. COLLISION. The laws/rules/logic of collision are the first and third laws of motion. These are not derived by experiment nor equational wishful thinking - they are logical certainties, derived from the very core of our cognitive conscience. That is to say, they are logical truths, or in other words, they are first principles.
N: I can see that you are setting the stage to use these collision based interactions to build concepts like mass and charge.
M= That's correct.
L: Lloyd has 6 New Questions for Michael.
1: Re: "aether is a field of real particles; they have mass and extension; photons are real, But have no mass;" what are photons? Are photons not part of the aether?
2: Re: "mass is an emergent property of matter"; how does mass emerge?
3: Re: "spin is definitely an acceleration. In order to spin, the object needs the constant application of force"; what proof is there that spin is acceleration? Is it because change in direction is called acceleration? Wouldn't that depend on inertia being a straight line phenomenon, instead of curved motion?
4: What can stop spin, if there's no friction?
5: What constant force maintains spin?
6: Re: basic principles; should that not begin with consideration of features of sense perception (such as the field of vision), which are surely the patterns for thought and the working material for logic?
A: What is the basic identity or particle or force, what have you
- The substance is still without form
L: In MV's earlier paper he made it sound like there is aether, but there are 2 kinds of photons, which are different from aether. Did you notice that?
A: Yes. And the photons wee emitted by electrons, But MV is building the basics at present
N: I think the original paper said photons were patterns in the aether, not real particles themselves
A: photons being massless
N: in a way, but not quite as the mainstream means it
A: MV never said what was wrong with hs first paper
A: If it affects/effects matter than it can be experimented on
L: Everything might be susceptible to experiment psychically.
N: You always have to be mindful of the tools you are using and they are made from matter so any experiment would be indirect at best.
L: MV indicated last time that helical motion may not be part of his new model. Didn't he?
A: Motion is still prime in MV's model
L: I'll buy that. [smile] What are Sub matter properties? [smile]
N: I think this refers to the properties of the aether field [submatter field?] that form the basis of the properties of matter

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## MV Discussion - 1/17/2015

L: Michael will hopefully explain today how mass emerges and what it emerges from. And maybe he'll explain what are primary particles, what photons are and how motion occurs.
- And Steve will hopefully interview Michael again, if both can come today.

A: Howdy Lloyd
M= is there anybody there?
- Just got to put the kids to bed, and I'll be with you
L: Hi Michael.
- Sorry, I was watching a video and forgot about this for quite a while.
- Airman and I can interview you, if you check back in.
M= kids in bed
L: Good. Do you want to get into either of what I mentioned at the top?
M= where were we?
A: Hello Sir. It seems Nevyn has not joined us today
L: I can retrieve the link to the previous chat if you like.
M= I think we were about to fall into the pit of pointless despair labelled philosophy
L: Here's the chat: http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t69-michael-vaicaitis-model#618
A: Natural philosophy is nice
M= The basis of many peoples thinking, and almost certainly the confused ramblings of Einsteinians, is External World Scepticism
A: MJV was about to disabuse us of the notion of philosophy, I believe
M= We don't need to spend much time here, although we inevitably do
L: Maybe I misplaced the last part, but here's what was close to last: M= The deep deep profound...wise...point of my spiel, is that at the lowest level of fundamental "substantive" existence, we cannot arbitrarily assign action-at-a-distance interactional properties, such as mass and charge. We must instead rely only on direct contact - i.e. COLLISION. The laws/rules/logic of collision are the first and third laws of motion. These are not derived by experiment nor equational wishful thinking - they are logical certainties, derived from the very core of our cognitive conscience. That is to say, they are logical truths, or in other words, they are first principles. N: I can see that you are setting the stage to use these collision based interactions to build concepts like mass and charge. M= That's correct.
A: External World Skepticis. Do you mean, the sub-atomic world?
M= In almost all scientific musing we do, and should, be sceptical of our conclusions
A: Of course
M= A: WE believe ourselves to be thinking "beings". We realise that our consciousness is fed by our senses, but, how do we trust the data supplied by our senses?
A: The scientific model is supposed to have skepticism built in
M= We might be human minds, inside human brains, inside human bodies, on Earth, etc
A: Our senses are like tiny portholes peeking into the universe
M= Equally we could be brains in jars fed by false inputs, or sentient agents inside some alien super-computer
- By the theory of external world scepticism, all possibilities may be valid
- HOWEVER
L: Yes, that's realistic to be open-minded.
M= However, we believe ourselves to be human minds inside human bodies, etc etc. To allow the assumption that we may be the result of some other reality is false on (at least) two counts
A: And those views are more like sensations, with no real assurance they are real. Yes, there are many possible realities
M= (When I refer to "we", I mean the thought conglomeration that we refer to as "I" or "self" or, in the plural, "we"
L: Identity.
M= On the first account, if we are not who we "believe" ourselves to be, then what is the point? - we are at the mercy of our "overlords" and the reality we perceive is false
L: Reality could be distorted, rather than false.
- And the distortions could be findable.
A: "overlords", Do you mean the information source
L: the source of our perceptions.
M= More importantly though, if we are not "INDIVIDUALS", generated by separate and distinct brains, then we are the result of a *false* reality
A: Is this falseness beingg controled?
L: I'm skeptical of that conclusion.
M= if we are being "generated", either directly by software, or by false hardware inputs, then we can have no intellectual or even cognitive authority
A: Bummer
L: It occurred to me quite some time ago that it makes sense to identify with whatever makes my decisions, even if I'm unaware of the decision making process.
M= If we are not who and what we think we are, then we can and must assume that we are not the authors of our own thoughts, consciousness and cognition
L: See what I said before that.
A: Michael, How does this dismiss philosophy?
M= Lloyd, it is quite evident that the "self" that we call ourselves is the result of the thoughts DELIVERED to us by our brains - "we","I","me","self" is the result of our mammalian/terrestrially evolved brain function
- A: The point is this:
- External world scepticism is not only pointless, but it is a route of far less confidence
L: I remain skeptical of many such conclusions and look forward to discussion of emergence of mass etc.
M= Our cognitive logic is clearly formed by the reality we believe we experience. To make the assumption that we are anything but what we believe we are is effectively, and literally, to surrender all and any confidence we may have in our own ability to construct plausible models of the universe
- Lloyd, I am sceptical of 10-dimensional space, parallel universe and the idea that it is far more likely that we are a simulation than that we are real
A: Does that mean that all ur speculation is a waste of time, a distraction from the fact that we have no control whatsoever
M= The reasoning that we may be a simulation, presupposes that "WE" are superior to the system that generated and supports us. That "we" are thinking beings/agents that can be aware of the "artificial" system that created us and that we can "out think it".
A: We can never know reality
M= This is clearly anthropomorthic arrogance at its worst
A: That happens when people think we exist just because they think so
M= "That happens when people think we exist just because they think so"
- What we can draw from this is that the rules and principles of physical systems that we believe to be true, are as true as we can possibly attain.
A: We have to start somewhere
M= Any other "truths" reached by scepticism of our reality are less confident than the actual reality presented to us by our innate consciousness
A: I can easily agree wih that
- There will always be a gap between reality and our understanding of most anything
M= All of this is to give credence to the concept that we must give more priority to what we cognitively and logically believe to be true, than what we may refer to as data"
- As such, and I think this is where we entered the "perception of reality" philosophical arena, is that there are some concepts that are crucial to the way we think and construct logical truths
- The most central of these is the principle of causality!!!!!!!!
- Something happens because something caused it to happen
A: Can you build an entire universe on just that logical truth alone
M= Airman, You MUST build an entire universe on "just that logical truth alone"
A: Granted
M= To do otherwise is to doubt the cognitive logic that we use to construct rational thoughts
A: Or else we may behave with less consciousness
- As an animal
- I would like to understand as much as my head will hold
M= Once you abandon trust/confidence in our own logical processes, we can end up with any theory we like, regardless of whether it agrees with notion of plausible: behold relativity, string theory, quantum mechanics
- These theories might just as well include unicorns and fairies
A: We must work as hard as we can
M= Anyhow, I suspect that we are all on the same page with regards to absurd bizarreness posing as intellectual science
- However, even if you feel that I have wasted some of your time in this "philosophical" digression, it is important to realise that we must be physically causal in all aspects of theoretical model construction
A: No problem. I like to think we are working for what we believe are the most sensible ideas
M= "physically causal in all aspects of theoretical model construction"
A: I generally cannot agree with non mechanical models
- Mechanical consistency is essential to my thinking
- I greatly enjoyed your precession ideas
M= The central, and effectively ONLY, part of model, is the physical collision (i.e. direct contact) of substantive bodies
A: Absolutely
M= A: Sorry to disappoint, but those precession ideas are not quite correct - that paper was close but no cigar
A: Nevertheless they demonstrate mechanical thinking
M= Are you good to carry on a bit longer
A: Sure
M= I have been writing/thinking quite a bit this week, but am still struggling with how best to describe "true reality"
L: I was having a discussion with my housemate.
A: I think we are close to starting
M= (I could have said "my thinking", but I genuinely think I have hit upon what is actually going on at a fundamental level
A: Great
M= Contrary to relativistic mathematical abstraction and quantum mechanical spookiness, I think/believe/intellectu​alise that the universe is the result of substantive bodies in mechanical collision
A: Good Start
M= OK, lets jump straight in then
A: Can you describe these "substantive bodies"
M= Substance is that which is not nothing - simple as that
A: That's simple enough to send me into logic loops
M= I say simple, but for most terrestrial bound humans, that usually entails the addition of several traits and properties that are unjustified
- I have since discovered "Substance Theory", which correlates reasonably well with where I am trying to start from
A: "Substance Theory". Not Nothing
M= Basically, one needs to envision/imagine particles of "somethingness", of substance, of solid material, that is not nothingness
A: OK, but don't go so far as to define it yet, I suppose?
M= please repeat
A: Don't GO so far as describing their materiality. We look first at their interactions?
M= No. We simply cannot in any way investigate the nature of substance - the nature of that which interacts. All we can say is that it is "not nothing". I have chosen from the English language the word "substance". It simply means a discrete lump of "something".
- Anyhow, lets cut to the chase a little
- Here is my list of the constituents of the entire universe:
A: I'm following ya
M= Space & Substance (The entities of existence, motion and interaction):
> Completely Empty Space - simple 3-Dimensional (Euclidean) volumetric space;
> Vacuum Particle Field - consisting of one particle type to provide matter’s mediated interaction;
> Electrons & Protons - just two particle types to construct all matter. Motion & Collision - (the principles for the interaction of substance):
> Motion - movement is only in absolutely straight lines,
> Collision - elastic collision; fundamentally, the only form of interaction.
> Laws of Physics (The only fundamental laws of physics (all other laws are emergent)):
> Cause and Effect -
> Newton’s First Law of Motion: the fact of collision Body to Body Collision;
> Newton’s Third Law of Motion: the process of collision;
> Conservation of Energy- fundamentally there is no way to exchange energy;
> c, the Speed of Light - the only speed of motion.

- This is a bit of a cut and paste, and looks better in a formatted document.
A: What do I say. Have you created a document with this content
- Can you direct us to it
M= I am still writing it, but I can provide some previews
A: There are a lot of interesting headings there. And you have made them all consistent? That sounds like a lot of work
M= Actually, I was hoping that you guys might serve as judges of common-sense
- I have a complete and CONSISTENT model, but am struggling as to how best present it.
- I am painfully aware that most potential readers believe in unicorns and fairies
A: I think we might oblige. Just don't be too sensitive to our criticisms, a couple of steps beyond fairytales
- I believe
M= I am not at all sensitive. From my standpoint there are many hurdles to cross before the "scientific" world at large can be persuaded to abandon its dependence on primitive superstition disguised as science
- As long as most people believe in the plausibility of "big bang inflation fields" and "pure energy" and "electromagnetic waves" and "electr
A: Well we'll be happy to provide inputs.
L: How does mass emerge?
M= Am getting tired in this time zone
A: We will be able to begine if you provide us with your document for review
M= Lloyd, I have perhaps been overly cautious in my preamble (these past few weeks), but I believe it important to hammer home the basic principles.
- I will email some portions of my present document/paper/essay for your perusal before next Saturday
A: Thanks. I think the rest of us will enjoy it too
M= My eyes are a getting a little bleary, so I'll say goodnight.
A: Goodnight
L: Goodnight.

Last edited by LloydK on Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:06 pm; edited 1 time in total

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Michael Vaicaitis' Model Discussions

17 January 2015, 1300PST
M = Michael, N = Nevyn, and A = Airman
The discussion ended around 1600PST

M= Nevyn said that fundamental particles colliding by a glancing blow would be induced to spin.
- I disagree
and urge you to think again. A fundamental particle must be considered as a solid indivisible body with no internal structure.
- Furthermore it must exist and move within Completely Empty Space. Its environment provides it with no outside force effects, no radiative signals and no friction of any kind.
- The effect of collision on such a particle would result only in a change of direction. There are no sub-components or internal structure or external forces by which to set up a spinning action.
- A change of direction would result in a different area of its surface becoming its leading face.
But between collisions there is no source of forces from which to posit the formation of a spin.
- Furthermore (I like using furthermore), we must also consider both Newton's Third Law of Motion and the Conservation of Energy (which at a fundamental level are actually the same thing).
- In considering the "vacuum field" that is the mediating agent for the action-at-a-distance force effects by which matter interacts, we can only assume that all vacuum field particles are identical in size and speed.
. [Lloyd's comment: Action at a distance is nonsense. And objects without mass would surely interpenetrate, rather than collide.]
N: Hi Michael
M= To lose energy from linear motion to spin, would result in contravening both the above laws.
- hi Nevyn
N: I don't want to dwell on this too long but since you mentioned not being able to induce spin, I think I have found a way.
M= Also, it would require us to assign a certain frictional quality to the surfaces of these indivisible, structureless particles.
- go on
N: Given 3 particles, let's assume 1 is motionless, the other 2 are approaching the first particle from opposite directions and slightly off center so that they collide, at the same time, with the first particle on each side of it, almost at the tangent. The central particle will not be able to just change direction and so it must spin.
M= There are three counts on which I reject your proposal:
N: Hey Airman
M= By my unpublishable estimation, we should likely consider vacuum field particles to be likely separated from one another by at least 8 or 9 or more orders of magnitude times their radius - imagine meter wide objects separated by 100,000 km.
A: Hi! I'll try to read and catch up
M= So the regularity of such a fortuitously coincidental event would be quite rare.
N: Rare, yes, but the universe has lots and lots of time, so I think low odds are not really a problem.
M= Secondly, the speed of light is constant, the speed of gravity is constant, the speed of electromagnetism is constant. This really requires that all vacuum field particles remain at the same speed with no loss of energy.
- Thirdly, the scenario you describe would not produce spin in any case. The piggy in the middle particle receives a equal push from opposite directions which would cancel out.
- Also, I have already mentioned friction. What precise coefficient of friction shall we assign?
[Lloyd's comment:] Rupert Sheldrake said in his banned TED talk that before 1928 the speed of light was measured to be about the same as now. Then from 1928 to 1945 it was found to be about 20 km/sec slower and then after 1945 it was found to be the previous higher value again. He said something similar about G.]
N: That touches on something I have been struggling with from our first chat. How can massless particles collide? Or, rather, if they did collide, how can they transfer energy? If there is no mass, hence no resistance to motion, then the energy is transferred but not lost. Both particles end up with the energy of the first. Everything gains energy but never loses.
M= Of course, we can assign none. We are not in a position to designate these particles as having a certain level surface features.
- You are confusing the term "mass" with the amount of substance that a particle is comprised of - vacuum particles would not have mass - only matter has mass by an emergent process - I will get to it eventually - promise.
N: While the middle particle does feel equal forces from both sides, they are not directed at each other and so the central particle would spin.
- Yeah, I've been trying to wait with regard to mass, but it is such a hard concept to dismiss.
M= If particles are travelling at the same speed, collision will result in a mutual change of direction as dictated by Newton's Third Law - there will be no transfer of energy - there will never be a transfer of energy!!!!!!
- "While the middle particle does feel equal forces from both sides, they are not directed at each other and so the central particle would spin." It may turn through 90 deg, but by what reasoning could an indivisible particle perpetually spin about its centre of substance?.
- hi Airman
N: I have enjoyed playing with the idea of massless particles, but I did get bogged down with the energy transfer, and I don't like losing spin.
- What would stop the particle from spinning? Spin is a valid motion, just as much as linear velocity. If it starts to spin, it will only stop if given another force.
A: Hi. I'm just not seeing this massless, indivisible vacuum particle yet.
N: I should not have used the word force (which induces mass) but you get what I mean, I hope.
M= I do not believe that you can assign perpetual spin to fundamental particles.
N: Then why can you assign perpetual motion?
M= You can use the word "force", but in Physics (with a capital P) it has been defined as applying to mass and acceleration.
- You need to really accept the concept of an indivisible body of substance. Where one part of its utterly solid form goes the rest must follow. There is no environmental resistance that would cause it to rotate about a centre.
A: Why are your particles so diffuse?
N: I have no problem with indivisibility, how could it be any other way.
M= The evidence is, such as we have it, that the universe operates at only one speed: c. If vacuum particles are not all moving at c, and instead exchange energy between spin and linear motion, then we should expect light to travel at between zero and 2c.
N: Why 2c?
M= Airman - they are diffuse with regard to one another, but not with regard to matter particles. An internally diffuse field is absolutely required for the free transfer of signals of large distances.
- If c were the average and zero the low limit - though I have spoken entirely off the top of my head.
N: Miles also has a diffuse charge field like this, but I don't think it is quite as diffuse. He says collisions can occur, but photons are largely interpenetrable to each other.
M= Have you decided what the coefficient of friction will be? What the size surface features will be in comparison to the body as a whole?.
N: I should say photon streams are largely interpenetrable.
M= You mean crossed laser beams do not interfere
N: No, I haven't thought about friction like this before. I just assumed there was some. Can we assume none? I think if there is collisions, then there must be something there.
- Not just laser beams, but light streams in general.
- Collisions can and do occur, but most of the stream is not affected.
M= We must assume none, since we cannot make any other legitimate claim
A: Michael, How can you assume none? For what purpose?
- How is matter created?
M= We must assume perfectly elastic collision, since we cannot make any legitimate claim for compressability. We must assume no deformation and perfectly elastic collision - the only other choice is to arbitrarily select a number we want
- (bathroom break)
A: Nevyn, I am unable to keep up. My typing becomes stale as the discussion moves faster than me.
N: Yes, I agree with using elastic collisions, I just think that there is more than 1 way to use that energy and spin is one of them.
- Yeah, just get what you want out there, we all have to go back over what is written when we can and we might be able to get back to it.
A: I take spin as a priori
M= (energy transfer complete)
A: What power
N: I have spent so much time getting used to spin from Miles work that it is really hard to let it go.
M= I confess that I used/assumed spin a priori, same as you
N: Should we move on and let Michael continue with his theory? It might help us to understand some of this as we learn more.
A: Please proceed
M= but when you think hard about an indivisible particle of substance in completely empty space, there is no longer any way to justify spin
- OK moving on
A: Sure
M= Into this arena of empty space and vacuum field particles we can add two more sizes of particle: electrons and protons. This is the entirety of the forms of substance: just three particle sizes
N: How much larger are we talking about?
- Sorry, I did assume they were larger.
M= I have made no recent calculations, so I would be proposing a guess
N: that's fine
A: Are they created out of the same "substance"?
M= Protons are 1836 times the size of electrons (that would be surface area, not volume) and electrons would be larger than vacuum particles by 10-20 orders of magnitude
- They are all made of substance: I use the term substance, purely for want of a better word. Hopefully, no one will argue that we simply can never know the true nature of the material of which the universe is made. All that we can say is that it is something that is not nothing.
N: Do you mean electron are 1836 times the size of a photon?
M= (grammar correction: that should be "disagree" not "argue)
N: Yes, I agree, there are things we can never know.
M= Proton!. Protons are 1836 times the size of electrons
N: Ahh, sorry.
- Those numbers closely match Miles numbers
M= pasuing for thought
A: I didn't realise it was "surace area"
M= 1836 is the experimental mass difference between protons and electrons
A: Why do you say surface area and not volume then?
M= By introducing electrons and protons, I am unfortunately relying on received wisdom.
- (Henceforth, I will refer almost exclusively to electrons. They are at least 1836 [times] more interesting than protons and it's easier to type. For the most part electrons represent matter perfectly well)
A: Electrons and protons spin, or do they not?
N: Airman, I assume at this point that the answer to "why surface area" relates to how mass emerges.
M= MASS: mass is resistance to travel of electrons (and protons ...OK I'm breaking my reduced typing effort rule already)
- You assume correctly
- I am jumping the gun a little here, but it gives you a little bit of a heads up
N: Are electrons and protons rigid particles too?
M= Vacuum particles, electrons and protons all MOVE at c, at all times (and they are fundamental solid structureless particles, so they cannot spin either)
- Because all particles are moving at the same speed there is no transfer or exchange of energy and all collisions result only in changes of direction

A: Interesting
M= This notion that, quite literally, EVERYTHING is moving at c, at all times, appears at first to contradict our experience.
A: But what of electrons that are clearly traveling slower than C, like the time delay between solar flare and incoming particles
N: I was thinking that. Don't we have experiments showing electrons moving slower than c?
M= However, as I will explain (eventually) that there is no contradiction between experience and reality.
N: just the interpretation that sits between the two of them
M= I DIDN'T SAY TRAVELLING, I SAID MOVING!!!!!
N: Ok, I need a definition to know the difference. If there is no spin, then how does something move at c but not travel at c?
M= "just the interpretation that sits between the two of them" - however, my interpretation is based entirely upon straight line motion and elastic collision
- Imagine the following scenario:
- An electron is "moving" in a perfectly straight line through absolutely empty space. A vacuum particle comes along and they collide. Because they are moving at the same speed (of c) there is no transfer of energy, but both particles change direction (Newton's Third Law)
- Obviously, the vacuum particle gets the thick end of the direction change.
N: Why, there is no mass?
M= There is no mass yet
N: Yes, so there is no difference between the particles to give the photon[?] a different result.
A: Except size
M= Now introduce upwards of 10^22 vacuum particles a second to collide with the electron
N: The only difference I see is surface curvature which could change the direction a bit.
A: Each resulting in changes of direction
M= Because they are traveling at the same speed, the larger particle cannot accelerate the smaller particle's speed. The collision is elastic, so neither party is able to gain or steal energy from the other. The smaller particle experiences a large change in direction and the large particle experiences a small change in direction, but the Third Law is obeyed and all is well.
A: So the rain of photon collisions results in a sort of friction for the electron traveling
M= Because the electron is moving and so is moving in a particular direction it experience collisions in several different ways with regard to changes of direction.
M= "So the rain of photon collisions results in a sort of friction for the electron traveling" yes, kind of
N: I was thinking this is leading to Brownian Motion.
M= Conceptually it is related to Brownian Motion, but with some important differences.
- Because the vacuum field has no forces acting between the particles, they are not in any way associated to each other. This means that the vacuum particle field is a randomly moving field - homogeneous and isotropic, but random
N: So the leading edge of a moving particle experiences more hits and the trailing edge receives none, which leads to resistance of motion, which gives us mass?
M= No
N: Oh, sorry, continue on
[u]M= The leading face experiences "hard" collisions, because its speed and the vacuum particle speed are added, which results in a greater change of direction. The vacuum field is perfectly homogeneous and isotropic so the electron receives the same number of collisions from all directions.

N: but if all particles are traveling at c, then the trailing edge can not be hit from directly behind.
M= Remember, all particles are moving at the same speed, so there is no exchange of energy - all vacuum and matter particles continue to move at c at all times.
- This is where previous analyses of mechanical particle fields have come unstuck. The conclusion had been that the matter particle could make no headway through the mechanical field, but there are two important adjustments to be made.
- Firstly, previous analyses have assumed that the matter particle was being accelerated by the mechanical field (you can find this usually as a criticism of pushing gravity models).
- However, as I have already said, the matter particle is already MOVING at c and there is no energy exchange and so no change of speed
- The only change is changes of direction.
- The second correction comes from the assumption that matter particles move in straight lines.
- To clarify: between collisions the electron is moving through completely empty space and so moves in a straight line. However, because the electron experiences leading face collisions as "harder", producing a greater change of direction, the direction it is moving in is constantly being adjusted.
N: So if you measure 'as the crow flies' then the velocity will be below c because it is moving in a zig-zag fashion?
A: The electron is vibrating at c
- Not with respect to freq, but moving speed
M= No, the opposite. It is MOVING at c, along the zig-zag (or helix), but its VELOCITY (as measured by beings that like to measure shit) will be its progress across volumetric space
- Airman: "The electron is vibrating at c" yes
N: "progress across volumetric space" - is what I meant by 'as the crow flies'
A: I thought so too
M= I beg your pardon , you were correct "the velocity will be below c" (I missed the "below" the first time I read)
N: Are we talking about a small vibration or a large one? How far would the electron zig before it gets zagged again?
- as a rough guess
M= Furthermore, the vacuum particles colliding along the electron's line of motion (at the front and at the back) will be reflected almost directly backwards along their paths and as this happens with consecutive collisions it produces a pattern of reflected vacuum particles that matches the electron's helical (or zig-zag) motion.
- This helical pattern of reflected vacuum particles stands out amongst the otherwise isotropic white noise of the field. We call this pattern "charge".
- As the electron moves through the field, there will naturally be random confluences of collisions to one side or the other. So although its generally trajectory might be categorized as helical it would still be MOVING in all directions over a given period of time.

A: The integrated zig-zags somehow became a helical path crossing volumetric space?
N: Wouldn't it only be moving in the plane orthogonal to the helical motion (relative to the particle itself)?
M= We do have some data about the electron charge radius and the fine structure constant, so the electron moves around in a helix about 10^21 times a second. Think of it as vibrating at a rate of 10^21 times a second.
N: And the forward, general, motion but not backwards from that.
M= Volumetric space is 3-dimensional, particles of substance are 3-dimensional, collisions are experienced with a 3-dimensional distribution
N: But if a particle experiences motion in all directions then it does not actually move anywhere, it just vibrates on the spot.
M= It helps to think of the "harder" leading face collisions as though the electron were rolling through the field.
N: The helical motion implies an overall direction
A: No rolling allowed
M= "But if a particle experiences motion in all directions then it does not actually move anywhere, it just vibrates on the spot." When you say on the spot. Are you thinking of a human terms spot or are you thinking in electron time. You have to be the electron....and the vacuum particle...and a god-like observer
M= (I got nothing to roll - had no stash for years)
A: Oh well
- Even stationary electrons are then moving at c
N: I mean an absolute location. If it experiences motion in all directions, and I assume the amount is the same, then it doesn't really change its location that much.
- How would we get an actual velocity from equal motion in all directions?
M= Instead of thinking of 10^22 collisions a second, imagine one collision a year for 10^22 years.
- "How would we get an actual velocity from equal motion in all directions?" You start with interaction with other matter.
- Leaving aside mass and gravity a bit longer and just thinking about charge.
A: The only differentiation we have are changes in direction
- And number of collisions
M= The disturbance caused by other matter introduces a non-isotropic variance in the field.
- Not the number of collisions, but the direction they come from.... and the sequence in which they arrive.
A: How can you see non-isotropic changes in the field if the underlying field is random?
M= The variation in the field, that is charge, is "emitted" with a helical pattern. This gives a different road of hard collisions for the electron to roll along.
- The non-isotropic changes in the field come from the effect of other matter.
A: Michael, Last week you indicated that you would provide us with your current paper. Do you still intend to let us review it?
M= This is matter interacting with matter, mediated (that is to say transferred) by the field. Each matter particle reacts only to the field as it experiences it
A: Did you say matter - ie mass?
M= The particularly interesting thing about charge is that it is emitted with a helical distribution. And the electron receiving is prone to be "forced" into a helical pattern of motion.
- no, we haven't got to mass yet
- (I expect we'll do mass next week)
N: Is the receiving electron forced into helical motion because of the rate that it receives hits? That is, as the charged particle moves to the left (in its helical motion) and if the receiver is on the right, then the rate of emission is low. But when it is moving to the right, then its rate is higher?
- By rate I mean there is more time between hits because of the relative motion
M= Previously, it has been assumed that an electron would make no progress through a mechanical field. When humans try to make something go fast it is limited by resistance.
- In nature, where there is no human agenda regarding direction, a body will take the path of least resistance.
- Nevyn - you still need to think 3-dimensionally.
N: I am, but it is hard to write it down concisely
- I don't get how the receiver is forced into helical motion from the charge emission.
- I was just trying to say that the relative motion of the particles matters and as that distance increases, then the rate should drop and as it decreases, the rate should rise.
M= Also, instead of thinking in terms of collision rates, try to think in terms of rate of collision change of direction - where are the harder collisions coming from?
- The rolling along a narrow track analogy is quite useful. A slight random (or probabilistic) variation on one side of the electron and it moves the other way. Forget its general direction of travel from a human perspective - think about the direction it is traveling in at any given instant.
N: As I understand it, a helical motion implies less collisions from the inside of that helical path. That is why it moves in a spiral. Or at least, the collisions from the inside are providing less force or are incurred at a lesser rate. There must be some reason for the particle to travel back towards the center of the path.
- I should say travel in the general direction of the center, not really directly at it.
M= As it veers in a new direction it has a slightly different leading face which is met with harder collisions leading to another slight change of direction.
N: Yes, that variation is what I am trying to get at.
- But couldn't that direction change be in either direction? Not just in a continuous spiral in one direction?
- I mean spin direction there, not linear.
M= "As I understand it, a helical motion implies less collisions from the inside of that helical path." yes - but its leading face is always shifting - you can't paint a face on it and expect the face to always be pointing in the line of instantaneous motion.
- The notion of rolling along a track of hard collisions is actually quite accurate
N: Is that 'face' pointing away from the center of the spiral?
M= Where a vacuum particle cannot spin because it does not have any forces acting upon it - an electron does spin - or more accurately "roll". And it also "spins" around in a helix. It is not spinning about its centre due to its own two hemispheres battling for forward motion - like a composite body would. It is spinning due to the constant effect of mechanical collision
N: Yeah, I get that part, but once you introduce a receiver of the charge emission, it only receives that charge from one side so how does that lead to helical motion of the receiver?
M= I think you may be stuck thinking of the centre line of the helix as a straight line.
N: Yes, that has been my assumption (or pretty close to a straight line, not exactly perfectly straight).
- That straight line is what we measure as part of the velocity.
M= The general interaction with the field produces a messy helical motion.
- It goes every which way. So picture a cloud of helices
(or is that helixes)
N: Yes, but messiness aside, we can still, at least conceptually, think of the general line of motion as straight, for simplicity.
M= Think of this as its intrinsic helical motion.
- Accelerated to a "velocity" it would have another larger "velocity helix"

N: So if it had no 'velocity' as we measure it, would it be moving around in a sphere? Since it has motion in all directions.
M= Only when it is accelerated to maximum velocity, so that it is travelling along its intrinsic helix would both intrinsic and velocity helix coincide
- "So if it had no 'velocity' as we measure it, would it be moving around in a sphere? Since it has motion in all directions."
- Yes, we would call this absolute zero - but the electron is still moving at c and still emitting/reflecting a coherent pattern into the field.

N: Absolute zero velocity or temperature?
M= Its the same thing
N: Not really. Temperature is defined as the motion of matter so if it is spinning in a sphere, it still has motion.
- Spinning is not really the best term to use there, sorry.
M= Temperature is simply motion. In an atomic or molecular context it results (I see your comment) in a jiggling motion
- how about jiggling? - I was going to use "higgledy-piggledy"
N: I'm not sure jiggling really expresses the idea either, but we can use that term if you like.
M= How about "propensity to move in any and all directions"
N: Given that definition, I guess jiggling does serve well.
M= But like I say, in a diffuse matter environment, temperature is velocity.
- Temperature of atomic structures is a different matter, and is where the concept of temperature comes from
N: Agreed, let's forget about temperature for now.
A: I'm about to turn into a pumpkin. Thank You both. I'll transfer the conversation to The Site later if you like, Nevyn.
- And Michael, will we see your Paper?
M= Yes, it's near midnight here
N: Thanks, Airman. I have to go soon too.
- Ok, so we will wrap it up there and I look forward to mass finally emerging next week. See you both then.
M= I am making good progress with the writing. My problem is how to convey the ideas and I'm finding these discussions helpful in that regard.
A: Thanks again
N: That is always a hard thing to do, Michael. It might be helpful to give it to us and see what parts we question or don't understand.
- I think we all understand that it is a draft version.
M= I will pass on each "chapter" as I complete it. I have written pretty much the whole thing, but in note form that would read as gibberish to anyone but me. Its a matter of tidying and polishing.
- goodnight
N: Ok, thanks. See you both.

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Michael Vaicaitis' Model Discussions

I'm just curious on how might Michael's theory might "deconstruct" this particular Mathis paper?

HOW MAGNETISM WORKS MECHANICALLY
http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 1080
Join date : 2014-08-09

## Re: Michael Vaicaitis' Model Discussions

Re: Michael Vaicaitis' Model
Post by Nevyn on Sat Jan 24, 2015 8:53 pm
2015-01-24 discussion of Michael's model.

M= Can fundamental particles spin? Utterly and absolutely solid particles, Particles with no substructure. I would suggest that they cannot spin "about their axis". The phenomena of axial spin is common in our macro world, but in all cases it is a function of composite bodies.
M= I would suggest that linear motion of fundamental particles is not interchangeable with angular motion. Indeed, I do not see that angular motion about some centre of "being" is even possible without repeated outside influence via the collision of other particles.
M= Something that immediately caught my attention, was: "...but the universe has lots and lots of time..."
M= Of course it does. Despite the social and political dominance of creationism, in the form of exploding singularity theory, any genuinely scientific approach must surely take the view that the universe is very very old, i.e. an ancient universe.
M= What would we expect from an ancient universe?. We would expect maximum entropy - complete thermal equilibrium - complete thermalisation - all particles of substance moving at the same speed.
M= All the particles in the universe are "moving" at the same speed, the speed of c. c is the temperature of the universe. Humans have been spending too much time considering the universe through their own limited sensual perceptions.
M= Instead, they should have been considering the universe as a mechanical system.
M= see you at 2300 UTC.
A: Hi Michael. Lloyd sent a message that we would meet in two hours. I was just looking "in case" someone showed up
M= I'm buzzing between the pc and the kids until I can get them to bed, so I am here, but I'm not here, if you see what I mean - after 2300 (UTC) I should be here
M= post a question, query, thought if you like - perhaps we can get a head start
A: Sorry, I'm wandering around mostly elsewhere at present too. Are you familiar with Victor Schauberger?
M= No. but my 30 second googling reveals much - in particular....good beard! Tell me more
A: Oh, There's too much. Implosive versus explosive technology. Try http://free-energy.xf.cz/SCHAUBERGER/Liv... for starters
A: Oops, That's Viktor. Hi Nevyn
N: Hi Airman
A: Cr6 had me going after Shauberger and the Windhexe. Good stuff
- That''s Schauberger
M= Well that's far too much to read in a hurry, but here's some cut and paste:
M= Energy is a quantitative description of a body’s potential to do work on other bodies. Physics has come to describe the energy of a matter body as a function of its mass and velocity. However, conceptually, energy is a description of substance in motion, whether or not mass and velocity can be attached to that substance is of no concern, the concept of energy remains valid. You cannot separate the concept of energy from the concept of substance in motion, it would be a complete nonsense. By example, speed is a measure of how quickly something traverses a distance or of how much distance something traverses in a period of time. But, you couldn’t and wouldn’t say that there is an amount of “pure speed”. You can’t have speed without the something that is moving. The suggestion of “pure energy” is of the same intellectual quality. Energy is, and can only be, a descriptive property of substance in motion. Without substance or, without motion, there can be no energy.
N: Michael, making something spin aside, why would a spinning object stop spinning without some external force applied? Why does it need constant input but a velocity does not?
- I agree with those last 2 sentences but I don't see the difference between substance in motion and mass with velocity. Mass is substance and velocity is motion.
A: There is equivalent energy present whether the object is moving or not
N: I know you are trying to separate mass and substance Michael, but I still see them as the same. I may change my opinion once we discuss how you see mass emerging.
- If everything comes down to motion, then there is no energy when there is no motion.
A: Moving as a velocity doesn't affect the inherent energy of the object itself
N: What inherent energy?
A: The energy present comprising the object itself. Its energy equivalence
- Its mass is how I would prefer it but I'm keeping an open mind
N: Its energy equivalence is caused by its mass or motion, without those two, it has nothing.
A: I would like to hear the answer to Nevyn's questions, "why would a spinning object stop spinning without some external force applied? Why does it need constant input but a velocity does not?"
M= sorry guys, stepped away, just catching up now
- "Mass is substance and velocity is motion." No, neither of these are "real", they are both emergent!
- "why would a spinning object stop spinning..."
- The question should be asking is "How could a fundamental particle spin?"
N: I am intentionally ignoring that part for now to understand why if it was spinning that it would stop with no force applied.
M= Visualise two bodies (particles if you like), attached/joined by some method. This is a description of a simple composite body.
- Let me highlight that; COMPSITE body
- One body/particle is traveling/moving, but is also attached to the other. The second body also wants to travel, but is attached to the first. In this scenario, a spin around a centre could be envisaged.
N: I would expect both bodies to be moving in near opposite directions to induce spin. With only one of them moving, it would just drag the other along with it.
- I guess the drag could induce spin with the center of spin in motion itself.
M= If one "hemisphere" of a solid fundamental structureless particle moves/travels, the other hemisphere goes with it - this other hemisphere is not a different lump of substance!!!!
- " I would expect both bodies to be moving in near opposite directions to induce spin. With only one of them moving, it would just drag the other along with it." I was trying (badly) to describe a scenario where spin could be considered a reasonable consequence of the "tussle"/interaction/con​nection between the two parts of a composite body.
N: You are assuming a solid, rigid body can only have 1 velocity. Which seems like a good assumption on the face of it, but could not one side have a velocity and the other side have a different velocity? That is what spin is effectively. The velocity does not belong to the center of the particle but may be attached to an edge of it.
A: Sounds like inelastic matter. Michael, Last week, you described protons and electrons as substance vibrating at light speed, yet they cannot spin because they aren’t part of composite bodies. Do they become composite when they group together as molecules?
M= N: I have also tried using/allocating spin in a lowest-level/fundamental​ particle. However, when I came to try to justify how that "spin" could actually be described at a most basic and fundamental level.
- A: Electrons & protons "vibrate", that is move in a "messy" helical trajectory, because they are larger particles surrounded by the constant collisional effect of a mechanical field of smaller particles - that helical/vibratory motion is emergent.
N: Did you forget to finish that last sentence directed at me?
M= If the vacuum particle field (the mechanical field of particles that surround matter) were removed, then electrons and protons would also travel/move in perfectly straight lines and would also not be capable of spin.
M= N: ""I have also tried using/allocating spin in a lowest-level/fundamental​ particle. However, when I came to try to justify how that "spin" could actually be described at a most basic and fundamental level"", I could not objectively justify the spin about "a centre" for fundamental particles.
N: As I described last week, when a particle experiences 2 forces on opposite sides, in near opposite directions, spin is created.
- While it takes 2 forces to create the spin, it doesn't need any more input to keep spinning.

M= NO, I just don't see how you can justify this assertion.
- It is a fundamental, perfectly solid, absolutely structureless and componentless particle body.
N: It is the same as you are describing with composite bodies, one part wants to go one way and another part wants to go another way. They are both applied to the same entity and they both must be obeyed so the entity spins. I realise a rigid body does not have parts, and that is why I am putting the velocity vectors on the edge of the particle.
M= By what logic can you assert that it can be sub-divided into different, and thus separate, parts that are antagonistic to each other.
- You are describing the dynamics of a composite body - a body of two or more parts, associated together by a system of forces.
N: I am not saying it has divided parts, just that you have to be careful where you place the velocity vector. For a spin, it can't be at the center so it must be at an edge. If it is at an edge, then there are many different places for it to attach to. The whole surface becomes a place to attach velocity vectors.
A: Tangential velocity vectors
N: yes
M= "The whole surface becomes a place to attach velocity vectors." Again NO. The surface and the interior are inextricably linked - there is no discontinuation between the surface and any part of the interior.
N: In the case of spin, anyway
M= What you are describing and pursuing can be applied to planets and atoms, but not to fundamental particles. If a point on the surface is asked to move the entire rest of the particle must move with it.
N: You are assuming a massless particle. If it has mass then a collision at the tangent will induce spin because of that mass.
M= If two or more points on the surface are simultaneously contacted, then there is a net effect to be accounted for, but there is no justification for assigning spin about a central point.
M= "You are assuming a massless particle. If it has mass then a collision at the tangent will induce spin because of that mass." And you have NOT defined mass. You are using it as an intrinsic property.
M= (two minute child break)
N: I can assign mass to a motion, not an intrinsic property, by making the radius of the particle grow. This creates resistance to motion in all directions and agrees with Maxwells conclusion that mass is l^3/t^2 (length cubed over time squared). Of-cource, this means that radius expansion is intrinsic or at least un-explainable, but it does explain a lot.
M= Well, maybe it's time to explain what mass is.
N: If I had my drums setup, I would give you a drum-roll [smile]
M= As a matter particle moves through and is jostled by the vacuum field it experiences a resistance to motion.
A: My jaw's dropped
M= That resistance to motion is ONLY in the direction in which it is moving.
A: Don't you mean the opposite?
M= Yes, quite right - in opposition to the direction in which it is moving.
- Given the influence of other matter particles - via variances/fluctuations/p​atterns in the field - it may assume a general direction of "travel" in one particular direction - which we recognise as velocity
- Thus the resistance to "travel" through the field is associated with and proportional to its velocity.
A: No mention yet of accelerations, associated with all velocities
M= Explain please
A: Gee, how do we get to a velocity? Collisions with other matter?
- All collisions involve accelerations to the entire body
- Sorry to change the subjec, But what of mass?
N: An acceleration is just a change of velocity. 2 or more velocities added together to produce a new velocity. Each collision is actually an acceleration but we are focusing on the resusltant velocity of the central entity. We are looking at it after each acceleration has been applied.
- Think about it in frames. We start with a given velocity in the first frame, then another velocity is applied which produces the next frame.
A: Sure. Keeping it simple
N: That is pretty much the basis of calculus.
M= Leaving the definitions and actual physical mechanics of velocity aside for a moment.
- A particle/body moving in a preferred direction would be "observed" to have a velocity - a speed in a particular direction.
- Since it is moving in that direction for more of the time than in any other direction, its resistance to travel is "concentrated" in that direction

- That's not quite right
- OK, it might help to take this to the extreme.
- A matter particle cannot move in a perfectly straight line through the field - it is forced into a helical trajectory. At slower "velocities" it is still "moving" in all directions, whilst at the same time it has a general drift/trend of travel in one particular direction.
- The fastest it can travel through the field is limited to an intrinsic helical trajectory - whereby it is moving along that helix in only one direction.
- Of course, the fact of moving in a helix means that it is only fully moving in its direction of travel 50% of the time. This is the origin of 1/2mv^2. The spin of matter is the "spin" of its helix of travel.
- Anyhow, it is moving in that one particular direction - which means its resistance to travel in that particular direction. If you wanted to change its direction of travel, or to change its speed of travel, you have to deal with its resistance to travel.
- That resistance to travel is associated with its "velocity".

N: Wouldn't it always be moving in the direction of travel but only some of its motion is in that direction? It doesn't stop traveling in that direction half the time.
A: A helical path is comprised of two separate velocities in different directions. Parallel to the helix's center axis, and a tangential velocity, itself the sum of two velocities
N: I am assuming the helix is around the direction of travel.
A: Me too
M= You are quite right - this is a problem of linguistic decription that I am struggling with.
- However, I think you can visualise a particle "moving" along a helical path, such that it is "traveling" in a particular direction.
- The actual speed of motion of the particle is c - along the helix. The velocity of travel in a particular direction depends on how much the helix is pointed in that "direction of travel".

N: That gives the particle 2 velocities which is what I was doing above and you didn't like it.
M= No, this is the whole of the particle moving along its intrinsic helix at c. There is a logical separation here of particle and helix.
- The physical particle is moving at c.

N: But it is moving in a spiral which requires a constant change to the velocity, which is supplied by the field, but it is still 2 velocities.
M= OK let's deal with this
- You're using the term "velocity" - and I understand why you would - but what do you mean by it?.
N: A velocity is the distance that will be traveled during the next amount of unit time.
- It is the difference between the current frame and the next one.
- It also has the direction of travel.
A: Sounds like you are substituting frames for time
M= I confess, I am trying to separate the definitional meaning of the term "velocity" and the human recognition of an objects "velocity".
- There is an unfortunate semantic contradiction here.
N: Yes, Airman, each frame is separated by time and that time is the same time that goes into the velocity.
M= The fundamental, and only "speed" of motion of all particles is c.
N: I am afraid I don't see the difference, Michael.
- I have been assuming you mean the difference between what we measure as velocity and what the particle is actually doing.
M= c, by definition, and quite correctly, is a velocity.
N: That is, the helix is too small for us to measure so we assume the general 'travel' is the velocity.
M= EXACTLY
A: Agreed
N: I have no problem with that, or with the helix motion since the field supplies the impetus to that motion.
M= The helix diameter is referred to as "charge radius" - and is often called or thought of as the radius of matter particles.
N: I thought you defined charge as the field perturbations?
- Or is this another case of 'what we think it is' vs 'what it actually is'?
M= The "charge" signal that "radiates" away from a matter particle, is a pattern of perturbation in the field.
- It is the fact of the pattern that distinguishes it from the white noise of the field and leads to a reaction from "receiving" matter particles.
N: yep, happy with that. How does that differ from the 'charge radius'? I assumed a charge radius was formed by charge.
[u]M= The receiving matter particles are deemed to have been affected by "charge". And are also deemed to have issued/emitted their own "charge".
- The significant efficacy of this charge reaction is referred to as an "electric" effect - hence the term "electric charge".

- Electric and magnetic effects stem from this "charge".
- Anyway - back to MASS.
N: I don't have much time left so I will try to stop interrupting you.
M= In order to affect a particle with "velocity" (not its velocity of motion along its helical trajectory thru the field, but its velocity "across" cosmological space.
- The velocity that us humans recognise as "travel".
N: let's just call it travel from now on so we can leave velocity to its actual definition.
M= OK
- No, hold on - the difference is crucial to the point.
A: Dang, It’s supper time here mass must wait. Please carry on.
M= A particle's/body's velocity of travel is what gives it mass. It is the resistance to "travel" - to overall motion in a particular direction - that is mass.
- To change/affect a body's velocity of travel, you have to accelerate it - change its "speed" along the same directional vector, or change its direction of travel.
N: Not sure if you meant that you are leaving, Airman, if so, good bye.
A: Thanks, I've got it copied to here. Good day to you both
M= See you, cheers mate.
- An acceleration must deal with the body's present resistance to travel - which is a function of its velocity of travel.
N: should that be 'with the body's present motion'?
- same thing really
M= No, I am trying to draw a distinction between "motion at c" and "travel at a given velocity as recognised by us gawky apes".
- We associate "inertia" with being a resistance to acceleration and we quantify inertia as mass: F=ma
- However, that mass is an emergent quantity associated with a body's "velocity of travel".
- So when a body has no discernable velocity, i.e it is at rest, then any interaction with it that elicits an acceleration only encounters its "rest mass".
N: What is its rest mass if mass is only overcoming its current motion?
- Seems like a contradiction of terms.
M= When a body has a very high "velocity of travel" then any attempt to accelerate it encounters its "relativistic" mass.
- "What is its rest mass if mass is only overcoming its current motion?" Mass is only encountered, when one body is affecting, i.e. accelerating, another.
N: I'm not sure we should be bringing Relativity into this as we are looking at it as a god. Relativity only applies to measurements.
M= The actual "rest" mass is a theoretical number at the bottom of a graph
- (Relax, there is no relativity involved)
N: phew, I would be interested to discuss Relativity with you at some other time.
M= Any body has some sort of "velocity of travel". ANY interaction with that body, must, quite definitionally, be an acceleration. As such we associate, inertia, and therefore mass with acceleration.
N: Yes, acceleration is just a name for adding velocities.
- But saying 'rest mass' implies no motion, at least to me.
- Well, no travel.
M= However, a body must be traveling through the vacuum field - there is no escaping this reality - therefore it has a resistance to travel in whatever direction it is traveling.
- "Well, no travel." - well if it was at rest (i.e. moving at c in a very compact space) then it wouldn't be traveling, until you accelerated it - which would happen as soon as you attempt any interaction.
N: It is the moving at c while not traveling that is a problem. I can accept that with spin but not without it.
M= Well lets go back to saying that it is "vibrating" at c.
- For an electron, we might be talking about a particle of say 10^-30m vibrating (or moving at c) in a space of 10^-12m (the "radius" of an electron).
- That would be like a human "vibrating" around a space of 100,000,000,000,000 km
- So yes the electron has traveled 10^-12m, but, in interactional terms with other matter, that 10^-12m is considered to "be the electron".
- So, whilst "at rest", the electron (moving at c along its field induced helix) is confined to that sphere of space of 10^-12m.
- The MASS of the particle is its resistance to its "velocity of travel" through the field.
- When an electron is moving along its helix, where the helix is in a straight line (not a whizzy cloud of helix), then it is traveling at its physically maximum possible velocity - which for electrons is 99.99997% of c.
- The electron is "moving" at c, but with a travel velocity of 99.99997% c. At "rest", the electron is moving at c, with a travel velocity of zero - it is moving within the confines of its charge radius.
- The electron is made of some sort of substance - something that is not nothing. However, we cannot measure or quantify that amount of substance - we can only measure and quantify its interactional resistance to travel.
N: So the vacuum field can make it move in its charge radius, but a collision with other matter would give a travel velocity?
M= It cannot collide directly with other matter - the collision is performed by proxy by the field - that is, it is "mediated" by the field.
N: So it gets more hits from the direction of the other matter particle because of that charge field?
- I'm trying to get at the impetus to travel as opposed to impetus to vibrate.
M= That is the gist of it - although the term "charge field" might end up confusing us.
N: Sorry, I'm used to calling it the charge field, which I think is a better term than vacuum field as it is not a vacuum.
M= Sorry to go at such a useful point - but its 01:40, I'm getting tired and the dogs are getting twitchy to go out before bedtime
N: Another case of what we humans call a vacuum which is nowhere near an actual vacuum.
- That's fine, I have to go myself and get some thing done.
- Thanks again. We have reached mass, at least. See you next time.
M= Cheers Nevyn, thanks a lot

Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 1294
Join date : 2014-09-11

## Re: Michael Vaicaitis' Model Discussions

Re: Michael Vaicaitis' Model
Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Jan 31, 2015 6:45 pm
Michael, Nevyn and Airman, 31 Jan 2015

M= "Sorry, I'm used to calling it the charge field, which I think is a better term than vacuum field as it is not a vacuum."
- No, it should be called the charge/gravity/light field
- Vacuum means devoid of electrons and protons, but quite obviously, inside atoms - the spaces between the nucleus and the surrounding electrons and also the space between protons and "neutrons" - there is also vacuum.
- So I am referring to this field of substantive physical particles as the "vacuum field". We could also call it a "sub-field", since it is a "field" of physical substantive particles that "underlies" particles of "matter" (i.e. electrons and protons).
- Last time I looked at Mathis' description of an electron, it was a complex convoluted device that sucked in "charge field particles" (photons in Mathis world) at the poles and spit them out at the equator. It's like some sort of devious Victorian machine - presumably steam powered.
- so if we look at Mathis' basic "spin" here http://milesmathis.com/freq.pdf and wave.wmv . First of all it should, I hope, be obvious that this is nonsense. The only way that a particle could possibly move like that is if it had another underlying field acting upon it - the aether medium fails for a similar reason.
- Any substantive field that hopes to lay claim to being "fundamental", MUST!!! have no action-at-a-distance forces acting upon it. The individual particles of such a fundamental field would only be capable of two activities: motion and collision.
A: Mass
- Pardon me, Mass is the resistance to travel.
- "The only way that a particle could possibly move like that is if it had another underlying field acting upon it". You have described how your basic substance, not-nothing, is massless and cannot spin.
- Isn't the resistance to travel the same thing as underlying field?
- Hi You Guys
N: Hey
A: I've been looking at several subjects, anticipating possible discussion directions. Quick reviewing Miles' light paper too.
- Nevyn, Do you believe that light paths are helical? That the spinning photons themselves could form helical paths through space?
M= "Isn't the resistance to travel the same thing as underlying field?"
- That is exactly what I am describing. Larger "matter" particles experience a resistance to travel through the (smaller and vastly more numerous) vacuum/sub-field particles.

N: Michael, your initial paper we read started with a discussion of gyroscopes which lead directly into Miles spin model. Once the precession reaches its limit (at 90 deg from the original axis that is precessing) you have a stacked spin matching the wave.wmv you mentioned above. I have modeled these spins and they produce quite complex paths which could drive the charge field to create what we call charge once you get enough spins stacked. It also has one property that I believe is very important: it only has 1 real particle which is then spun up to produce all other particles. This ability of one particle to transform into another is why we have to hear about creation and destruction in mainstream physics so much, even though such things used to be known to be non-physical concepts. I like the simplicity of it, that just one particle is responsible for everything. That has been my intuitive belief for a very long time as I don't like having a zoo of particles.
- Airman, I can see how a sub-field could cause helical motion. It would probably be a bit more messy than what we picutre in our heads as a helical path, but overall, it could be close enough. We do know that other particles, such as electrons in synchrotron radiation, travel in helical paths.
M= N, The "stacked" spins is impossible without a sub-field - the "bounce" shown in the wave.wmv is impossible without a sub-field
N: Miles is not averse to the idea of a sub-field beneath what he calls B Photons, but has not found that he needs it yet. He is just running with the idea of gyroscopic motion at the photonic level.
M= Mathis is trying to coax "spins" without a sub-field - he is trying to get his "spins" directly from his "photon" particles
- All the briefly lived particles of quantum mechanics "decay" into an electron or a proton
N: No, electrons are known to collide in accelerators and vanish, so even electrons are not fundamental.
M= They all originate from some "high energy" matter collision event
N: I use the term vanish but I really mean become a smaller particle because of the collision.
M= Ask yourself, how might an electron/proton behave if it were caught in such a circumstance?
- Instead of seeking for "stacked spins", you should be looking at "stacked wavelengths"

N: You will have to explain stacked wavelengths to me, please.
M= The resistance to "travel" thru the field means that matter has a "mass" that is proportional to its "velocity" (thru the field).
- This effect is described by the Lorentz transformation and very wrongly ascribed as "relativistic mass"
A: Something at rest, aside from vibrational "speed", should have no mass.
M= A, yes
- N, sorry, I have been typing without reading
- "No, electrons are known to collide in accelerators and vanish, so even electrons are not fundamental."
- How exactly would you detect an electron using other matter, if that electron were not behaving in some extraordinary way?
- It would disappear into "the forest of matter"
- This is not evidence that it is not "fundamental"
N: The accelerators are set up to measure matter, not photons, that is why they 'dissappear'.
M= It is evidence that it is difficult to detect unless it is behaving in some manner that is considerably different from the matter being used to detect it.
- Accelerators cannot detect "photons"
- the notion is a non sequitur
A: Michael, After reading your paper, I believe now that gyroscopic stability is itself a form of "mass"
N: If we are using photons to do the detection, then no electrons (which are much larger than photons in your model) would ever blend into the background.
M= How exactly would you go about using "photons" to detect anything - you have NO access to the 2photons"
- You ONLY have access to matter
N: We can detect photons so you just send a stream and see what does and doesn't make it out the other side.
M= "We can detect photons"
- HOW
A: Photo Voltaic cells detect the presense of photons
- By outputting a voltage
N: We have known materials that react to photons. Basic photography.
M= What is this "photon" that you are talking about?
A: It is the minimum energy packet
M= What does that mean in fundamental mechanical and physical terms?
A: I belive that that is so. But because I believe the photon has mass and spin
- That is a mechanical definition
M= "Photo Voltaic cells detect the presense of photons" and "By outputting a voltage" and "We have known materials that react to photons. Basic photography." CONFLATION!!!!!
- "That is a mechanical definition" - It is nowhere near a mechanical definition - it is a unicorn definition
- You need to delve deeper - what could mass be? How could spin occur?
- You can't just pull these out of a hat and use them
N: But we all do all the time. How can linear motion occur?
- What causes the very first motion, no matter how that motion happens?
M= Do you mean, how did the universe of substance originate?
N: No, that is another question. I mean what causes the first one to move.
- You ahve defined your particles as moving at c. You have not supplied a reason for moving at c.
M= "I mean what causes the first one to move." : [] years ago - basically, to all intents and purposes, an infinite time ago, the universe began
- We can have no insight as to how or why we are now part of a universe of something (matter and the field of particles that provides gravity/light/electromagnetism) and nothing (vast and continous volumetric space)
A: We can imagine the box we are in
- And the forces that make up that box
M= Creationists will have us believe that "god" and/or a "big bang" happened a week last Tuesday (on any reasonable cosmological time scale)
- "We can imagine the box we are in" HOW?
A: As you have said, Through logical deduction
M= Exactly how do you justify a boundary to the universe?
- "Through logical deduction" Please take me thru this deduction
A: The mechanical rules should be consistent throughout the universe, inside and out
N: Nothing is infinite so we assume there is some point where there is just space and no substance present.
M= Infinity is infinite - the concept of volumetric space is infinite
A: And you have included time in that infinity as well
M= "there is some point where there is just space and no substance present." No, you cannot justify this argument and then use it as a reasoning tool
- Objectivity dictates that you must assume infinity
N: No, only 'some thing' can be infinite. 'No thing' can not be infinite, for it is just the absence of some thing. You may think of it as infinite, but you are then applying a concept about some thing to no thing.
- Quibbling, maybe, but I belive it is wrong to think of the absence of something as something itself.
- What I am trying to get at is that infinity is a counting concept, you can only count things, not no-things.
M= You cannot find an edge in your imagination and then work inwards
N: I don't think an edge matters at all here. Neither does talking about beginnings. My question was, what causes the first motion.
M= "What I am trying to get at is that infinity is a counting concept, you can only count things, not no-things." I disagree - infinite is an unavoidable concept
A: The boundary is the fact that we are on the inside, and cannot look from "the outside"
M= Of course, we cannot "visualise" infinity
N: Infinite is a human concept used to describe an unbelievably large number of things. Only concepts are infinite, not physical things.
M= "The boundary is the fact that we are on the inside, and cannot look from "the outside" - I repeat, we cannot visualise infinity, but that is no proof of its non-validity
- "Only concepts are infinite, not physical things." Yes, but that does not justify putting bounds on the extent of physical objects
- We are indeed on the "inside" and we cannot specify the extent of that
A: We cannot visualize your "substance" either, but it is a starting point for ideas
M= Thus we use the term "infinite" to describe limitlessness and without boundary
N: I just don't see how infinity is helping here. It doesn't matter if there is an edge to the universe or if space is infinite. What causes the first motion? Certainly not infinity and certainly not an edge to the universe.
A: We are talking about what is, or is not, knowable
M= Given that we cannot justify going to a boundary in terms of volumetric space, the extent to which "substance" occupies volumetric space, or the amount of time for which it has occupied that space
- We must assume that the universe of "substance" (that which is not the nothingness of completely empty volumetric space) is very very very ancient
- Given this assumption, it stands to reason that all motion/movement/travel of all the particles (of whatever description) have reached a state of thermal equilibrium

A: Nevyn asked about the first motion
N: That is dodging the question. The question is not what state it has reached but how it started. You have assumed motion from the very beginning. You won't allow spin because you can't see how it could form but I ask the same question of linear motion. How could it form?
M= That is, ALL particles are in motion at exactly the same speed - entropy is maximised
N: I know I am being a bit hard on you here because no theory has ever answered this question. But you bring it to the front by ruling out spin.
M= Without linear motion across volumetric space, there is absolutely no possibility of interaction
N: Ahh, so you assume it because we see it. We are comfortable with it. But why can't I say the same about spin? What if spin is the basic motion of particles and linear motion is secondary?
M= If nothing, that is no particles of substance, is able to traverse across volumetric space, then there is no possibility of interaction
N: Actually, not true. If all particles are expanding then they will interact without actually moving from their locations. This will also give rise to linear velocity once they start touching each other. Of-course, it doesn't explain the expansion.
A: Valid
M= OK, volumetric space is populated with particles of substance - we will allow that all these particles are able to "spin" - so now we have a volumetric space populated by spinning particles that have no method whatsoever of interacting with each other
- "If all particles are expanding then they will interact without actually moving from their locations." WHAT????
- What kind of invocation of magic is this?
- The particles are expanding?
N: An expanding particle does not move its center (its location) but still takes up 'space' as it expands. Eventually, it will reach another particle which means it will have to move its center because it meets a resistence to its expansion.
A: The Big Bang was for starting the universe. The constant bang is just as valid a theory
M= If that is so then all volumetric space will be quickly filled with "particle substance" and then shortly after no motion of any sort will ever be possible.
A: Not if it is infinite
M= "The Big Bang was for starting the universe. The constant bang is just as valid a theory" The big bang is a load of pseudo-intellectual creationist shite
N: Yes, an expanding particle is no more exotic than a moving one. It is a possible motion. We can't explain the first motion, whether linear or spin, so we can't rule out expansion either.
M= It has no intellectual validity of any sort
A: Agreed about the BB. But the Constant Bang hasn't been debated yet
M= the "constant bang" is even worse - creation ex nihilo : in other words the fairies and the unicorns did it
- You can't use creation as a reasoning tool
- We are here, In this universe
A: Nevyn's just making the point that motion isn't a priori
N: That has been my point here, Michael. Everything requires some form of creation. The particles, the motions. You either think the universe is infinite (which just dodges the questions) or it has a beginning (which just leads us into religion). You require that a spin is created and can't see how it could, but linear motion is just the same.
M= No, you are wrong
N: I don't have a problem with assuming motion, just with ruling out spin at the same time.
M= Now we have to go back to the philosophy of existence
- "I don't have a problem with assuming motion, just with ruling out spin at the same time." I was also seeking to use "axial spin", but on closer examination it cannot be justified
N: Yes, I can follow your reasoning on that one but you have not justified linear motion either and have just assumed it because we humans are comfortable with it and don't question it.
- But it is slightly different because you have stated that particles are moving at c, which is not just any motion but a very specific one. That does require justification.
- To use thermal equilibrium imples that particles once had random motions that have smoothed out over time. Is that how you see it?
M= "which is not just any motion but a very specific one" It is the "specific" motion that we have in the universe - entropy chose it
N: Entropy is an entity now? Is it God?
M= "We are here, In this universe"
N: I would think that if entropy chose any motion, it would be no motion. That is much simpler and is the ultimate disorganisation.
M= Two points here - wait
- Firstly: at the point/process of the creation/beginning/initiation of substance, some effective infinity of time ago, we cannot assume any particular amount of motion
- We can be sure, based on the logic by which our external and internal world is formed, that linear motion must be included, because without it there could be no interaction of particles across volumetric space.
- That origin of substance - the start of that which we call our universe - is beyond our reasonable justification to make any specific assumption about
- All we can say is that we are here now and that the rest of the universe is here now and that it behaves in a particular way
N: No, that is just what makes it an assumption. We can assume all we want, and have to in order to create theories about it.
M= One specific property of the universe is that light, gravity and electromagnetism all propagate from their sources at the very specific and constant speed of c
N: Are you sure gravity travels at c? I believe Tom van Flanden had some good arguments against that.
M= Einstein approached this as a problem of measurement via Galileo's principle of relativity - big logical error on his part
- The name is familiar, but I have not read van Flanden
- "No, that is just what makes it an assumption. We can assume all we want, and have to in order to create theories about it."
- Please explain
N: He worked with Hubble for many years and has some good material on his site. I suggest you have a look when you have time.
M= (I have been given a wink and a nod - 15 mins till bedtime)
A: The effect of gravity is thought to be instantaneous, since if it was as slow as c all orbits would be unstable
N: "beyond our reasonable justification to make any specific assumption about" - an assumption is something we don't know but are using to see if it helps. We can make any assumption we want to, and when discussing fundamentals like we are, you can't really avoid it, you just can't know if they are correct or not..
M= "The effect of gravity is thought to be instantaneous, since if it was as slow as c all orbits would be unstable" - I have heard this oft repeated, but the unstable orbits argument holds no water. - An effectively "emitted" gravitational influence is always ahead of the bodies that it influences
A: Ah, the charge field. I agree
M= This "instantaneous" nonsense comes from a false interpretation of Newtonian gravity
A: Without the charge field there is no escaping instaneous considerations
N: Even Newtonian gravity assumes it is something that reaches out to other things but expansion does not. The particles are just taking up space between entities. There is no time of travel because nothing is really traveling.
M= "The charge field" as you refer to it - vacuum particle field or sub-field, as I call it, must be responsible for all action-at-a-distance effects: gravity, electromagnetism, light
N: Expansion also explains why you can not block gravity, because there is nothing to block.
M= (I read it as escaping - and didn't notice the error until you pointed it out - brains, who needs 'em?)
N: It also explains why all things react to gravity in the same way, regardless of mass, size, etc.
M= This "expansion" thing, where all objects expand, and the space between them also expands, but somehow there is enough of a disparity between the two to produce a particular effect - it strikes me as designer science: fantastical invention despite no evidence, logical, rational or physical
N: No, the space between them does not expand.
M= The space between does not expand??????????????
- So why is there any space?
N: How can you expand nothing?
- Why do you need it to?
A: Space is infinite
M= Are you suggesting that the concept of volumetric space is invalid?
A: Not at all. The rulers of the volumetric space grow too
N: Just limited by human experience. If ALL particles expand then we expand with them. We don't see it because everything expands at the same rate, therefore no relative difference.
N: As Airman said, our measureing devices also expand so we don't really 'see' it.
M= "just limited by human experience. If ALL particles expand, then we expand with them. We don't see it because everything expands at the same rate, therefore no relative difference." What?
A: The Constant Bang Theory
M= We are the particles - I am no closer to the Sun than I was yesterday - according to what you are saying I should have merged with by now
N: Think of 2 particles alone together. If one of them expands then the other can see it getting bigger. But if both expand, then they remain the same relative size and do not 'see' it. However, they do get closer to each other. Gravity!
- No, because the sun is emitting charge which pushes you away again. So an orbit is the result of apparent attraction inwards, gravity, and a real repulsion outwards, charge.
M= Rubbish!!!
- So now you have an expanding backdrop to reality and within that context you have a charge field for electromagnetism and light
A: And to keep things from mashing together
M= If two objects are expanding, then the nearest sides will get closer, but the furthest sides will get more distant - cancellation of gravity!!!
N: No, there is 1 and only 1 entity, the B Photon, which expands at some rate. Everything is made from B Photons and so everything expands at that rate. It is not the 'backdrop' that is expanding but the actual entities that make the universe.
- As measured by who? An expanding entity or a non-expanding entity?
- The far side will appear to be the same distance away as it started to any expanding entity.
M= Willful delusion.
N: No, you just don't see the finer differences between expanding and non-expanding measurements.
- We humans ALWAYS measure as an expanding entity, how could we do anything else? Everything we experience is as an expanding entity. We never see anything from the non-expanding state but that is how everyone sees it when it is brought up.
A: You lost me there Nevyn
M= Well this has taken a turn that I had not expected
- This picture you are painting requires that every particle sees itself as the centre of the universe
N: From the perspective of any entity, it is the center of everything. That is what a perspective is.
A: I don't agree with the conclusion/interpretation - each point being the center - falls out of this expansion
N: If the 2 particles are 2r apart (r=radius of particles), then their outside edges are 6r apart. Well, if we expand both entities and they each take up 1r of space between them, then they are now touching and their outside edges are 4r apart. This is because r is expanding and the measurement of distance has also expanded.
- Our basis of measurement has expanded so our unit length has expanded and therefore all measurements relative to the length have expanded.
M= That means that if the expansion at the centre (of the universe) particle is c, the expansion of the rest of universe will be at an ever increasing speed - but not all particles can experience the same speed, perspective or not
N: I am not saying every particle is the center of the universe, I am saying that picking some perspective means you are choosing to measure from that position and therefore everything is relative to the position.
- I don't understand that one Michael.
A: Negative there Michael. I believe the universe is over for us when the surface acceleration reaches c
M= This reminds me very much of Einsteinian GR. Gravity is given a special place as a property of "geometric and volumetric space"
N: Expansion happens from the center of every particle, not from the center of the universe.
- The idea comes from Einsteins principle of equivilence.
- But at least expansion is the expansion of something, not the curvature of nothing.
M= I am not happy with genuine magic, of either flavour
N: But that is what I have been trying to get at. If you choose to look low enough, then even linear motion is 'magic'.
- Existence is magic.
A: Unicorns are starting points
M= My time is up, and just as well since I will have to go away and think up some new logical tools to bash the unicorns with.
N: Ok, see you guys next time.
M= I will just add that in my universe all acceleration occurs by the same mechanism, with no additional magic required
N: 'additional'
M= Cheers guys
A: Same bat time, same bat adventure
- Nevyn, my turn to copy

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 982
Join date : 2014-08-10

## 7 Feb chat with Michael Vaicaitis

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Feb 07, 2015 8:45 pm
7 Feb chat with Michael Vaicaitis, Nevyn and Airman, I entered around 1250
M= Things that are not magic: linear motion, spin motion, collision, existence of substance, 3-dimensional volumetric space
M= Things that are fantastically invented magic: creation ex nihilo, expansion resulting from creation ex nihilo, true action at a distance, non 3-dimensional space, non flat Euclidean space
M= Linear Motion is logically required, otherwise there is no possibility of interaction
M= Collision is logically required - it is the only possible form of interaction
M= Existence must be accepted - after all we are here. Attempts to invoke a specific point(s) of creation from nothing cannot be objectively supported. If spontaneous ad hoc creation is given theoretical credence, then anything can be created at any time to provide whatever theoretical bandaid is required.

M= Our world and our brains operate strictly on flat 3-dimensional Euclidean volumetric space. There is no other type of volumetric space accessible to us. All "expanding space" requires some sort of non flat or non-3-dimensional space to operate. Such spaces are only accessible mathematically - they are not even directly accessible to internal visualisation.
- Hi Airman
A: Oh, Hi Michael. I'll set up the text doc for copying things down, and try to catch up too
M= Spin motion of fundamental particles cannot be logically supported. Axial spin can only be supported by the mutual-interaction of bodies that make up larger composite bodies. Non-axial spin is also a possible result of repeated collision.
A: Yep, Only collisions happen
- But colission has both impact and torque
M= Please justify that
- i.e. explain please
A: Well, a spinning particle colliding with an object transfers both forward motion plus the addition of rotation
M= hi Nevyn
N: Hey guys
A: It complicates things, but it also simplifys things. Hi Nevyn
- Oops
M= A, let's restrict ourselves only to a field of fundamental particles - B Photons if you will
A: Great
- The addition of spin is a whole new dimension from what we were taught
N: I don't think expansion requires non-3D space, it just requires you to realise that what you think is 3D space might be more complicated than first thought.
- Well, not really the actual 'space' but what is in it.
- It is no different to having a moving reference frame.
M= I don't see any validity in moving reference frames - not in any theory
N: It is actually expansion that allows you to use a Euclidian space in Relativity.
M= I don't BELIEVE in relativity
N: Only by defining it as non-moving, but moving references exist because objects move and we need to see how things are from that perspective.
- Which parts of Relativity?
M= A, I'm still waiting to find out the physical mechanism by which fundamental particles can be said to spin
- N, The physical and spatial parts - I don't particularly disagree with "observational" relativity
A: I like Miles' B-photon
N: I believe in Relativity as a theory of measurement. Not as a theory of existance and definitely not with curved space.
A: The B-photon spins because it is the most basic mass unit
- It is not the same as your "substance, not nothing"
- I was reading about tetrahedral coordinates for space
- Just this afternoon
N: Was there anything of use in it, Airman? Or just another matematician playing with his toys?
M= "The B-photon spins because it is the most basic mass unit" - how are you defining and justifying mass? - how does that definition help to give justification to the premise or assertion that b-photons should be capable of axial spin?
N: Haha, matematician, the Aussie mathematician
M= mathemagician perhaps
N: Yeah, seems to be a few of those around these days.
A: Don't worry, I see the difficulties.
M= We can write computer code using matrices with almost any number of indices (within the limitations of the language), but that does not in any way suggest that the stored data is held in twelve dimensional space
A: Michael, your vibrating at c is certain to be sensed as mass, is that it?
M= "cetain"?
N: And also just because your exponents go above 3 does not mean it is more than 3D.
A: certain
- The cartesian coordinates do dominate much of our thinking
M= A, no. The smaller particles of the vacuum-field/sub-field/mediating-field (roughly the equivalent of B-Photons) do not experience mass
- Only matter "experiences" mass as it moves through the field of smaller particles

A: The emergence of mass
N: That is a hard part to swallow, Michael. You have different sized particles but since they do not experience mass, they would act the same, regardless of size. I am struggling to see how massless particles would collide. What effects do they have on each other, especially when they are different sizes.
M= An analogy might be drag/fricition, when moving though a fluid medium, such as air or water
A: is not based on physicality, but on motiom
M= Three particles sizes: not only by radial size, but by the quantity of substance contained within their volume
N: Quantity of substance, but not mass?
M= No not mass - we cannot legitimately attribute "mass" to particles with which there is no possibility of direct examination
M= Our smallest tool is the electron
N: That just means we can't measure it, not that it doesn't exist.
- Measure it yet.
M= No, it means that you cannot examine any smaller particles than the ones you actually have any access to, i.e. electrons and protons
A: Michael, what is a photon?
M= Shall we move to photons then?
N: Yes, but I am saying we might one day have access to the smaller particles and find that they do have mass.
M= How?
A: By using photons
M= ?
A: We can certainly use electrons
N: If I knew how I would be taking advantage of it to advance physics. Not knowing something does not mean it is impossible to know.
M= A, by your description the smaller particles are photons, how can you use the photons that you don't have access to to access photons?
A: You cannot control the charge field, but you can inject charge flows
N: We use electrons now because we use electromagnetism to control things. But photons cause EM while we measure the results on the larger particles. All EM is using the underlying field but we only see the electrons and protons.
A: Yes
M= N, We do have some degree of inference, but we can only make that inference from what knowledge we can glean of the operation of the particles that we do have at least some access to.
- "We use electrons now because we use electromagnetism to control things. But photons cause EM while we measure the results on the larger particles. All EM is using the underlying field but we only see the electrons and protons."
- This is exactly what I am saying - the underlying field (the charge field or B-photon field) is the vaccum-field that medaites the interactions of matter
A: What about we can build the world with our logic alone
M= But we cannot access the mediating field directly - we can only [access?] the bodies being mediated
- "What about we can build the world with our logic alone" - I have done exactly this
A: Not if you exclude below electrons
M= But this necessitates using the smallest possible number of assumptions
N: Yes, I have absolutely no problem with that. Just limiting mass to only matter. I like the way you have done it, by emerging from the field, that is mechanical, but we don't actually know if mass is limited to matter or not. It is up for speculation but I can see why you would not use it when trying to remain in 'what we do know'.
M= "Not if you exclude below electrons" - We have some knowledge of how matter behaves and how the mediating forces and effects of gravity/electromagnetism/light propagate between matter, BUT, we do not have any direct access to the field of particles that provides those medaiting force effects
N: That was in response to "This is exactly what I am saying - the underlying field (the charge field or B-photon field) is the vaccum-field that medaites the interactions of matter"
M= (5 mins please)
A: Things do seem to take on their own confused logic in these conversations
N: yes, it can be hard to link answers with questions sometimes.
A: Almost a free for all
- N, That was in response to "This is exactly what I am saying - the underlying field (the charge field or B-photon field) is the vaccum-field that medaites the interactions of matter"
N: Yeah, by the time I typed out the answer there were other topics in between so I thought I should link it.
A: I was just making sure Michael would start with it
- But now it's gone
- M= "Not if you exclude below electrons" - We have some knowledge of how matter behaves and how the mediating forces and effects of gravity/electromagnetism/light propagate between matter, BUT, we do not have any direct access to the field of particles that provides those medaiting force effects
M= What's gone?
A: The thread of conversation
M= OK let's return to your earlier topic: What is the MASS of B-photons? (not quantitatively)
N: A thread is a good term for it and we are in a multi-threaded conversation. Multi-threaded programming is hard enough to understand and control but these conversations can get bloody hectic to follow.
A: Are you explaining or asking?
M= Asking?
N: While Miles does not like the idea of expansion, he first used it to define mass at the fundamental level. B Photons expand which provides a force in all directions which is a resistance to motion which is mass.
M= BPs expand which provides a force? How?
N: How do they expand or how does a force arise from it?
M= Both
N: We can't know how they expand, only posit that they do. The force is self-explanatory. It is motion and force is motion in collision.
A: Light speed expands yet appears constant
M= Obviously, I am not happy with using ongoing creation-from-nothing as a reasoning tool
N: But are happy with an initial creation form nothing?
- We can't explain either of them so why rule out either of them?
A: Logic and passion
N: Now I need 5 mins
M= Because in this case, you are using it as a fundamental operation of your model.
A: Self reference problems?
- Sorry, I'm serious
M= Self referencing indeed.
A: Constant bang goes against many first principles
- Conservation of mass and charge
- And energy
- But where does all the energy come from?
- The first step is always unknown
N: But you are using motion as a fundamental operation and that also requires energy input at some point.
- What I like about expansion is that it is such a simple thing. At least mathematically, it is just a changing radius. But it provides some answers as to what is mass and what is gravity and how they interact.
A: I'm most surprised that we see what we see. Everything expanding is invivible to us
- I mean it all looks rather constant
N: Yes, that is the hardest part for most to comprehend. You have to really think about expanding vs non-expanding reference frames.
- The first thing everyone does is think about it from a non-expanding perspective but all of our measurements are from an expanding perspective.
A: Photons racing before the blast radius
M= Yes, but you are inventing some weird Riemanian type of volumetric space - you need the nothingness of volumetric space between b-photons to be expanding too
N: No, I am not and no it does not require expanding space. Why do you think that it does?
- Sorry, I misread that.
M= Because if it did not then all of volumetric space would be seized solid with expanded particles
N: If you did not allow linear motion, then maybe, but once particles collide they move away from each other.
A: As we mentionrd last week, the photons keep everything apart too
- The charge field is much stronger than gravity at closer distance

N: Yes, the missing piece here is charge and spin. Spin allows particles to impart forces on each other, even with no linear motion, and charge emission (just photons bouncing off each other) provides a force away from the particle of interest.
M= Not only are you asking to use creation from nothing but you are also requiring that as expansion occurs all partciles in the universe simultaneously teleport themselves to new positions so as to maintain freedom of movement
N: What? No.
M= "as we mentionrd last week, the photons keep everything apart too" NO they don't - we are only talking about the b-photons of the charge field
- What yes
N: How does teleportation come into this?
M= Visualise this:
- Take some arbitrary volume of volumetric space. If all the particles (b-photons) in that volume are expanding then soon they will consume all the emptiness within that volume
A: There is an infinity to expand into
M= Thats fine if you happen to be one of the b-photons on the very edge of the physical universe
A: They will maintain their respective positions only roughly, slowly responding to the rotations of larger objects
- By virtue of their emission fields.
M= there are no larger objects, there are no emission fields - just b-photons expanding from within volumetric space
N: Even though I don't follow the Big Bang theory, what you described would cause a Big Bang.
A: It essentially amounts to a force field of sorts, around all matter
M= Forget the matter for now - lets concentrate only on the b-photon field
N: Yes, expansion leads to density. Density leads to adding stacked spins. Stacked spins lead to larger particles which eventually (at the electron) are large enough to start recycling the charge field through emission which then provides a force to keep things apart.
M= How does the b-photon field survive its own expansion?
N: B Photons are indestructible. How could they not survive?
M= How do they retain freedom of movement - since they are expanding to fill all empty space
N: These pockets of great density are actually a feature of this theory. Mainstream science usually calls them black holes but they seem to emit more than they swallow so I think that is a misnomer.
N: The Sun emits charge that the Earth uses. The galactic core emits charge that the Sun uses.
- Also, how can you fill all of empty space? You are placing boundaries on nothing.
M= No let's just think about a small volume of space - say the size of a tennis ball - that volume of space as defined at that moment will never ever change - it is purely a volume - at the moment of definition we could say that it contains a 10^50 b-photons (the number is not really important)
- At some future time, the b-photons will expand - the volume of volumetric space that we have defined will be consumed by that expansion - there will be no empty space left to allow any further expansion
N: What is stopping the expansion?
- The boundary is only in your imagination. Nothing is constraining the B Photons.
- Furthermore, who is observing this? All B Photons do not 'see' the expansion, just that they seem to be 'attracted' to each other.
A: They are not static, they are moving elsewhere at all times and the size of the volume increased with light speed increase
M= There is no empty volume remaining to be occupied - the b-photons will be expanding directly against each other
A: If there was a container to hold us, but there isn't
N: From the perspective of a B Photon, the volume has not changed because the B Photons measuring tools have also expanded and so the volume measures the same.
- You are viewing this from a non-expanding perspective but no actual entity in the model can do that.
- Humans are entities in the model.
A: Now that's self referential
- I'm getting more comfortable with it over time
M= "You are viewing this from a non-expanding perspective but no actual entity in the model can do that." A volume of space, is a volume of space -it cannot expand, it is definitionally and logically and in all other ways non-expanding and non-expandable.
- You are then placing physical objects inside that fixed volume and positing that they are increasing their volume
N: Because it doesn't exist. It is an imaginary construct. The real question is can you measure that? We can only go by our measurements and if those measurements are expanding then we will never see a non-expanding measurement.
- At some point those volume increasing physical bodies must run out of empty volumetric space into which to expand
N: You yourself have defined space as nothing, no thing. I do as well. So how can we run out of it?
M= Of course, it exists - it is not an "imaginary" construct, it is a conceptual construct.
- If you are not allowing empty space to have the property of volume, then how do you justify assigning volume to physical bodies?
N: You have to ask what a volume is. What are you measuring that volume with?
- You are putting a non-expanding volume into a theory based on expanding entities. There is no way for anything in that model to ever measure that volume as you want to.
M= There is no measuring occurring, there is no observation or examination of any kind - measuring has absolutely nothing to do with it.
N: Yes, it has everything to do with it. In order to define any volume, you have to define the units of that volume. That is a measurement.
- What is a volume of 5? I don't know. But I know what a volume of 5cm^3 is.
M= We are not talking about a quantitatively defined volume
N: Then it is not a volume.
M= We are talking about a conceptual volume
- OK, lets define some arbitrary volume that at time T1, is able to contain 10^50 b-photons.
- We are not measuring and drawing a boundary anywhere
N: As I said, an imaginary volume. It is not part of the model itself, you are arbitrarily putting it in there and defining it as non-expanding but you also want it to restrict motion which means it must be part of the model. Contradiction.
A: Later, It would contain the same amount of B-photons.
M= At some time in the future, time T2, that volume, previously conceptually defined at T2, will no longer be able to contain those 10^50 b-photons because they have increased in size
N: Yes, but the volume is not real. It is not part of the model. It has no impact on anything in the model.
A: I repeat, It would contain the same amount of B-photons.
M= http://us22.chatzy.com/96918077779816#
- what?
N: Airman, only if it was a measured volume. An imaginary, non-expanding volume would be shrinking from a B Photon perspective.
A: I understand
M= " I repeat, It would contain the same amount of B-photons" how could it, the b-photons have expanded - but the conceptual volume has not expanded
A: Michaels volume is a snapshot in time
N: What is the point of this imaginary volume? What does it prove?
M= Correct
N: No, a snap shot in time would not allow expansion.
- Nothing can expand in 'no time'.
M= "What is the point of this imaginary volume? What does it prove?" It proves that either the empty space would be completely filled by expansion, or that the completely empty [space] between b-photons is also expanding
N: I completely disagree with it requiring expanding space of any kind. Not a logical conclusion to any problem (even if it is used by mainstream science). However, even if all expanding particles eventually end up as a big ball of particles, how do you know that isn't what will happen at some point in the future?
- We could still be in the lead up to that congregation.
M= Because the rate of acceleration of the gravitational effect would be noticeable as a rapid decrease in the separation of presently separated bodies.
- Expanding measuring sticks is no help in this regard
N: Yes, if not for the charge emission which helps to keep things apart.
- Gravity and emission are vectors against each other.
A: The charge field is in balance with gravity and the expanding universe
N: Gravity points in while emission points out.
M= The b-photons are the charge emission - you can't invoke a charge emission to resist the expansion of the charge emission particles
A: They don't resist expansion, emission simply keeps everything apart
N: Yes I can because it is not the gravity of the charge photons that is being measured, it is the gravity of larger objects like the Earth which has a charge field which pushes other bodies away from it.
M= You are applying gravity as an interaction between b-photons - and at the same time there can definitionally not be any charge field effects upon the b-photons
N: No, gravity is the expansion. What we measure as gravity is part expansion and part charge emission.
A: Right
N: Gravity applies to size while charge applies to density. Newton defined mass as V*D but if we split them apart we find that gravity itself only applies to the volume while charge emission is caused by the density.
- The addition of those 2 vectors is what we think is gravity alone.
- 'we' being science, not me personally.
M= "Newton defined mass as V*D" ???
N: Volume times Density
M= ????
- That is not a definition of mass
A: The variable, mass, can be decomposed to volume times density
M= You need to have predefined the concept of mass before being able to define the concept of density (in this context)
A: We do keep coming back to that point in our discussions
N: It is a mathematical definition, not an existential definition.
A: The universe as the basic mass unit
M= It is not a mathematical definition
- In this context you need mass to define density AND you need volume to define density
- taking the volume back out of density does not make a definition of mass.
A: And you can do both with just one expanding ruler
N: I only need 'substance' and 'volume' to define density. Not mass.
- As you yourself have done.
M= "I only need 'substance' and 'volume' to define density." I will agree with this
- But now where is the mass?
N: "Michael: You are applying gravity as an interaction between b-photons - and at the same time there can definitionally not be any charge field effects upon the b-photons" - Gravity is not an interaction between anything when defined as expansion because the expansion happens to each entity, from within. It does this whether or not it is interacting with another entity.
N: B Photons can and do affect each other through linear and spin motion.
- The mass is the expansion. As each entity expands, it is moving in all dimensions, outwards. This is a resistance to any other motion that might be applied to that entity.
M= OK, got that now.
- I still do not see how you have justified volumetric expansion
N: In what way?
- Expansion of the B Photon or the volume you were using earlier?
- If you means expansion of the particle, I can't explain it. I can propose it and see where it leads and it leads to some interesting results. Like every other theory in existance, there is always some level that you can't explain. Some level that can never be explained, only hypothesised.
M= How, without positing the expansion of empty space, do you separate the concepts of volumetric space and particle volume - if particle volume is expanding, then the amount of empty space must be decreasing even
N: From what perspective? That makes all the difference. If you want to define a non-expanding volume, then yes, it will be shrinking from an expanding perspective. So what? It is just an imaginary volume, not a real one which would have to be measured and anything measured will be done so with an expanding tool.
A: No attributes for aether other than void should be allowed
M= Still with the measuring. The perspective is the CONCEPT of volume. The concept of volume in crucial to the concept of expansion. So from the perspective of nearby (yes they are moving and mingling) b-photons, an increase in the volume of substance must mean a decrease in the available volume of non-substance
N: Yes, space can have no properties.
- Yes, but you can't define that volume of empty space. There is no limit to nothing.
M= If space has no properties, then the concept of separation cannot be defined
N: Not at all. Separation is a measurement of things, not of no-things.
M= Distance and volume are logically immutable.
N: That is a prejudice, not a logical conclusion.
M= No separation does not measure things - it measures the "no-thing" between them
N: They are immutable from our perspective, which is an expanding perspective and our measuring tools expand so they appear to measure the smae distance or volume.
- No, it does not measure the no-things between, it actually measures a length between things, not the actual space itself.
- That doesn't sound right either, this is hard to explain.
M= I think that argument is purely semantic - the concept of volume is not
N: Length may be a measurement of space, but it is not space itself. Space is nothing, no thing, the void, emptiness. It can have no properties because only 'things' can have properties.
M= You are relying on the concept of volume, you need it to define expansion - yet you deny that the concept of volume has any validity.
N: No, I did not say that. I am just saying that you have to be careful what you are defining as a volume. Is it expanding with everything else or is it not real and is non-expanding.
M= "Space is nothing, no thing, the void, emptiness. It can have no properties because only 'things' can have properties." This is incorrect. Distance and volume are logical concepts - they are not measurements
N: What? Not measurements? Show me any distance that is not a measurement or any volume that is not a measurement.
M= Quantitatively distance and thus volume are defined by measurements, but the logical concepts must be in place before the measurements are made.
N: Semantics!
- You can not use a distance or a volume that is not a measurement.
M= Quantitatively distance and thus volume are defined by measurements, but the logical concepts must be in place before the measurements are made.
- Without the logical concepts of distance, and thus volume, already in place, it is not possible to make or even propose measurements. The logical concept is required a priori.
- The logical concept is required a priori to the quantitative process.
N: We define concepts for things we know, not what we don't know. Someone once saw a distance and then came up with the definition of it.
- But all of this is just semantics. I am talking from the perspective of a running model. What can you do inside that model? What are the repercussions of certain concepts in the model? I don't care about how distance was defined, I just care about how I can use it.
- To be clear, I care about what the definition is, just not about how it came to be.
A: I've got everything copied up to here. Thanks guys! Gotta go
N: Ok, I'll get the rest, See you, Airman.
A: Or you can let me get it later. No problem
N: Ok, I'll let you get it later as I'm already running overtime myself and have things to get done today. But I just don't want to leave either!
M= Yes, it's late here too - thanks guys - next week then
N: Ok. See you next week.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 982
Join date : 2014-08-10

## MV Discussion - 2/14/2015

1. Let's please not discuss MM's expansion model at least until Micheal finishes explaining his own model.
2. Space obviously exists; it's not "nothing". It may not have mass or matter, that's not certain yet, but it does have the property of length in 3 dimensions. If it did not have that property, length, there would be no distance between spatially separated objects.
3. Michael's idea that an aether particle cannot spin, because spin is acceleration, which requires constant force, seems to make sense, but from the perspective of the particle itself, it would not be spinning; instead, everything else would be revolving around it. Likewise, from the perspective of a traveling particle, it's at rest and everything around it is in motion.
4. The idea that mass emerges as a result of a sort of friction from collisions with aether seems incorrect, since massless particles seemingly should not be able to have any effect on mass particles.
5. There seems to be great evidence that photons are particles that are much more numerous than other particles and have large effects on mass particles, such as holding up the atmosphere.

Lloyd joined the chat

Michael Vaicaitis joined the chat 18 seconds ago

Michael Vaicaitis

"but from the perspective of the particle itself, it would not be spinning; instead, everything else would be revolving around it. Likewise, from the perspective of a traveling particle, it's at rest and everything around it is in motion.
4. The idea that mass emerges as a result of a sort of friction from collisions with aether seems incorrect, since massless particles seemingly should not be able to have any effect on mass particles.
5. There seems to be great evidence that photons are particles that are much more numerous than other particles and have large effects on mass particles, "

Michael Vaicaitis: Relativity is NOT a physical proposition - it is an observational proposition - DO NOT BE FOOLED INTO TO BELIEVING OTHERWISE. Einsteinians et al have pulled this snake oil trick on the intellectual examination of mechanical process for over a hundred years.

Michael Vaicaitis: Bodies in motion are either in actually definitely certainly for sure in motion or they are not. When the conversation (usually framed as a thought experiment) involves just two bodies then the notion that one or the other or both are in motion is valid enough. But when the entirety of the universe is considered, then the idea of motion is absolutely certain - unless you want to assert that a particular percentage of bodies are at absolute rest and the rest of the universe in moving relative to them, then you must consider that all bodies are in motion. This principle that all bodies are moving does not help in the quantification or measurement of that motion, but also it does not, IN ANY WAY, detract from the validity of the proposal.

Michael Vaicaitis: Thus, any motion of a body, OR, any emission of a "mediating" agent from that body, IS DEFINITELY AND ABSOLUTELY, IN MOTION.

Michael Vaicaitis: In denying an absolute frame, and let's be honest here, Einstein was referring to absolute REST, he created/invented a frame of "absolute experience".

Michael Vaicaitis: Einstein was attempting to find a way to make Maxwell's equations "velocity" invariant - to do this he had to resort to making distance and time variant. The claim that this makes the universe "counterintuitive" is vastly erroneous.

Michael Vaicaitis: Our "intuition" of distance (i.e. volumetric space") and time (i.e. the instantaneous configuration of all substance in the entire universe) is perfectly correct.

Michael Vaicaitis: "The idea that mass emerges as a result of a sort of friction from collisions with aether seems incorrect, since massless particles seemingly should not be able to have any effect on mass particles." Where to start?

Michael Vaicaitis: The implied certainty of knowledge in this statement is obvious - or at least it should be

Lloyd: Hi Michael.

Lloyd: I'll email the others and see if they're coming.

Michael Vaicaitis: Hello Lloyd

Michael Vaicaitis: I was just about to continue taking issue with some of your summary statements - but dinner has arrived to slow ny typing efforts

Lloyd: I emailed Airman and Nevyn.

Lloyd: I'll let you proceed with taking issue.

Michael Vaicaitis: "...since massless particles seemingly should not be able to have any effect on mass particles"

Michael Vaicaitis: This statement implicitly predefines "mass" as "something substantial"

Lloyd: In order to prevent interrupting your train of thought, would it be helpful for you to end your statement with something like "Reply"?

Lloyd: Then we could reply. Si?

Michael Vaicaitis: Instead of taking "matter" (i.e. electrons and protons) as the only substantial bodies in the universe, I have taken the attitude/approach that anything that can affect "matter" (i.e. gravity/light/electromag​netism) must also be substantial.

Michael Vaicaitis: Umm, what does "Si" stand for?

Lloyd: Si means "yes" or okay.

Michael Vaicaitis: (Oh Spanish..ish)

Lloyd: Si.

Lloyd: Is this the time you guys normally have been chatting?

Michael Vaicaitis: To continue....To be able to interact and produce a reaction, the concept of "substantialness" is required

Michael Vaicaitis: " Is this the time you guys normally have been chatting?" yes

Michael Vaicaitis: Hence my use of the term/word "substance"

Lloyd: I wonder why they haven't joined in yet.

Michael Vaicaitis: I am using the word "substance" to mean "something more basic than "matter" "

Michael Vaicaitis: To mean "something that can interact mechanically by collision and affect the body that it collides with".

Michael Vaicaitis: (" I wonder why they haven't joined in yet." Perhaps they are occupying a parallel universe that doesn't exist.

Lloyd: But only mass seems capable of having an effect on motion. Anything without mass should not be an impediment to motion at all.

Michael Vaicaitis: You are thinking in a very matter-centric way

Lloyd: Space apparently has no mass, and it has no effect on the motion of a body.

Lloyd: Anything without mass seems likely to have the same non-effect.

Michael Vaicaitis: stop right there - do not reply....yet

Michael Vaicaitis: "Space apparently has no mass, and it has no effect on the motion of a body."

Michael Vaicaitis: What you are saying with this statement is that gravitational/electromag​netic "fields" do not affect matter (i.e. matter= objects with mass)

Michael Vaicaitis: This is clearly not the case

Lloyd: Those fields apparently comprise photons or aether which has mass.

Michael Vaicaitis: Strangely enough you have used the two words that are both incorrect in this context, i.e. "photons" and "aether"

Lloyd: Those words are okay by me.

Michael Vaicaitis: With that said, my suggestion is that, to move through the field of "photons" or "aether", bodies of matter (i.e. electrons and protons) experience a resistance to that motion, which we have come to refer to as "mass".

Michael Vaicaitis: This means that mass is not an "intrinsic" property of matter, but an emergent property.

Lloyd: Why do you not accept resistance to motion as mass?

Michael Vaicaitis: ACTION AT A DISTANCE!!!!

Lloyd: Not so.

Michael Vaicaitis: The idea of TRUE action-at-a-distance is a definition of "magic"

Lloyd: If aether has mass, it can push bodies toward each other as in gravity, and it can have magnetic and electric effects.

Lloyd: by collisions.

Michael Vaicaitis: OK, what is the mass of a "photon"? What is the mass of "aether"?

Michael Vaicaitis: You cannot say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!​!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!​!!!

Lloyd: I can look up the mass of a certain size photon that Mathis has calculated.

Lloyd: It's posted on our forum somewhere.

Michael Vaicaitis: I will wait

Lloyd: Infrared emission by all bodies explains why atmospheres don't compact onto the surfaces.

Lloyd: The emission is strong enough to hold the air molecules up and apart.

Lloyd: It's similar with ions as in stars.

Lloyd: What do you mean, saying you'll wait? Are you going to discuss anything more now?

Michael Vaicaitis: Temperature and thus volatility, in opposition to gravity, also explains the phenomena of an atmosphere.

Lloyd: Those are conventional explanations, but Mathis as I recall explained why they don't suffice.

Lloyd: I can link you to his paper on Atmospheres.

Michael Vaicaitis: yes please

Lloyd: There are two of them: http://milesmathis.com/atmo.html and http://milesmathis.com/atmo2.pdf

Michael Vaicaitis: Would it be too far from the truth to say that you are most impressed by Mathis from his calculation of a planetary repulsion field that supports atmospheres?

Lloyd: That's one of his interesting findings to me. I also like his avoidance of action at a distance and basing all events on collisions. His idea that photons are the aether makes sense to me. I don't agree with his idea about matter expansion.

Michael Vaicaitis: Whilst you think about that:

Michael Vaicaitis: "Why do you not accept resistance to motion as mass?" This is actually the definition of mass. The resistance to motion is called "inertia". The quantification of inertia is called "mass".

Michael Vaicaitis: However, I have made this conclusion indepently from "mainstream" definition, and subsequently agreed with it.

Michael Vaicaitis: Effectively, mainstream physics has said "we don't know, and are not prepared to speculate about, what mass is"

Lloyd: I don't like to get bogged down in too many intracacies. The word mass makes more sense to me.

Michael Vaicaitis: " I don't like to get bogged down in too many intracacies. The word mass makes more sense to me." Would you please explain this.

Lloyd: Our senses observe motion. Our sense of touch or feeling observes mass or force.

Lloyd: We can feel the weight of something.

Michael Vaicaitis: "Our sense of touch or feeling observes mass or force." So which is it? mass or force?

Michael Vaicaitis: "weight", implies that you mean "force"

Lloyd: Force is a combination of mass and changing velocity.

Michael Vaicaitis: Yes, that is the second law of motion: a formal definition of the mathematical meaning of "force"

Michael Vaicaitis: Question: What has velocity?

Lloyd: Anything observed to be in motion has velocity.

Lloyd: I need to leave in a couple minutes or so.

Michael Vaicaitis: Are you saying that bodies that are not "observed", do not have velocity?

Lloyd: It would be nice to hear your comments on Mathis' two papeers above.

Michael Vaicaitis: Ok mate, I take a look at those and we'll get to it next week.

Lloyd: Only things observed in motion are known to have velocity. Things may have velocity without being observed, but then it's not known.

Lloyd: Okay, Michael. See you then.

Michael Vaicaitis: cheers

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## MV Discussion - 2/21/2015

Lloyd left this message 20 minutes ago:

Hi Michael and Other Friends.
.
I hope Michael will have plenty of comments about MM's Atmosphere papers.
If I get time, I'll pop in to read or join the discussion.
I hope others will join in too.
I've been saying that photons or aether must have mass in order to have any effect on matter and that's why I brought up the Atmosphere papers. The Earth must emit photons, such as IR, in order to hold the atmosphere and ionosphere up. Otherwise the molecules should squeeze together on Earth's surface. Si?

Nevyn joined the chat 15 minutes ago

Nevyn: Hi guys

Michael Vaicaitis was timed out 13 minutes ago

Airman joined the chat 7 minutes ago

Michael Vaicaitis joined the chat 7 minutes ago

Airman: Hey hey

Michael Vaicaitis: "I've been saying that photons or aether must have mass in order to have any effect on matter"

Michael Vaicaitis: ....this is begging the question rather than answering the question

Airman: What question is that?

Lloyd joined the chat

Lloyd: Hi Folks. I think the question is what mass is or the like.

Lloyd: I'll mostly listen, I think.

Airman: Thanks Nevyn, but you make quicker sense than I usually do

Airman: Michael, do you then not want to discuss Miles' atmosphere papers?

Michael Vaicaitis: "What question is that?" & "I think the question is what mass is or the like.!"

Airman: Sorry, Lloyd, did't see you standing there

Michael Vaicaitis: "do you then not want to discuss Miles' atmosphere papers?" Not really. Isee something different and fresh in them, but not objective answers to the actual real problems.

Nevyn: What are the real problems?

Michael Vaicaitis: sorry guys... I'm doing "bedtime". likely to be a tad distracted for the next few minutes

Michael Vaicaitis: Nevyn: oh, oh , oh...... that is the question

Airman: By the way, Last week turned into an unexpected family emergency, routine

Nevyn: I just slept right through it

Airman: I've been reading Miles' wavelength and freq, along with the atmos papers this morning. The freq paper is always a source of new revelations

Nevyn: Yeah, that frequency paper is a good one. I read that a week or so ago. I remember wondering why no-one could understand why frequency and wavelength had been reversed as my stacked spin app shows it quite clearly. I forget that others don't have such tools to visualise it.

Michael Vaicaitis: Well, Miles starts, and continues at unnecessary length, by posing/asking the question of atmospheric "weight" vs pressure

Michael Vaicaitis: ok, point me to this MM paper on "frequency"

Airman: http://milesmathis.com/freq.pdf

Airman: I concentrated in Fields and Waves. This is the hardest medicine of all of Miles' papers to me

Airman: Overturns everything I found most interesting - E/M

Nevyn: What do you mean Airman? Realising that light is not a field wave?

Airman: Everything I learned was attached to the frequency as a sine wave.

Airman: Conjugate e+-j components and such

Airman: But now, What a waste off time it was?

Airman: And now it is still my favorite subject

Airman: Probably my favorite Miles paper as well.

Michael Vaicaitis: I think I am not well

Michael Vaicaitis: sorry to be the wimp,but I am too tired to think straight

Michael Vaicaitis: The start of the "frequency" paper is interesting (in contrast to the atmosphere papers), but I am too tired to concentrate. I am so sorry to inconvenience you guys

Airman: That's quite alright

Nevyn: That's fine. Give that frequency paper a good read and we can discuss it next week. I know you have your problems with spin, but just try to ingore that and take in what the paper has to offer.

Nevyn: If you are having trouble visualising stacked spins, send me an email and I will send you some images and videos to help with that. I have built an application to show stacked spins which is very handy to understand them.

Michael Vaicaitis: I'd best crawl off to bed. thankyou for your understanding.

Airman: Good night Sir

Michael Vaicaitis: Nevyn - yes a proper appreciation of stacked spins would help - I'll be in touch

Michael Vaicaitis: goodnight and thanks again

Nevyn: No worries. See you next time.

Airman: Nevyn, share your latest with us too if you've updated any of them

Airman: Have you ever talked with Chris Wheeler?

Nevyn: I don't think I have anything new. I haven't looked at it for a while. But I'll keep it in mind as I look over it.

Nevyn: o, I don't know Chris Wheeler.

Nevyn: That was supposed to be No, ...

Airman: He put together Miles' stacked wave .mov

Nevyn: That is just an animation, quite different to my spin app which was built to study the relationship between spin levels. Chris' animation does what it is meant to do very well, but I was looking for something quite different.

Airman: Making the math work?

Airman: Can you explain how adding energy increases radius?

Nevyn: Not really. My app is based on mathematical operations, but not really in the same way that Miles uses his math. I am just using translations and rotations to see the motions.

Nevyn: Ok.

Airman: I understand that there is that relationship, but is it causal?

Airman: Does the increased radius just appear?

Nevyn: Once a given spin level, let's start with the axial spin, reaches c, it can not gain anymore tangential velocity but it has the energy from a collision that must be used. So it adds a new spin level. Adding a new spin level means moving outside the gyroscopic influence of the previous level so the radius of the particle has now doubled. With a doubled radius, the circumference is now larger and so the top level spin has further to travel per revolution. Therefore its frequency is less because it takes more time to complete a revolution.

Nevyn: I can't give you the specific details of how that spin level is added. We have discussed that on the forums a bit but it is a difficult area to crack.

Airman: Agreed. You just add the "energy from a collision" as a real mass increase. I cannot see that

Nevyn: The relationship is definately causal. Everything is. I don't care what the mainstream say, I will hold on to cause and effect until my dieing breath.

Airman: I would suspect that collisions transfer mass directly instead

Airman: While you are transferring energy

Airman: This is a real source of confusion to me.

Nevyn: Don't think about it as mass or energy, it is all just motion.

Airman: An energy that results in complex stacked motion is baffling me

Nevyn: That is why, on the forum, I started talking about the relative orientations of spin level and the collision direction. The colliding particle must be orthogonal to the top spin level of the target particle for the target to gain a spin level.

Nevyn: This allows the complete collision energy to be given to the new spin level which explains why it reaches c in a quantised manner.

Airman: But the complex motion of a single photon is always exposed

Nevyn: exposed in what way?

Nevyn: I think a group of photons is exposed much, much more as any collision will blow it apart.

Airman: I've been thinkig about it alot, but I don't think photon aggregates are loosley bound at all

Nevyn: Then you have to explain the binding. What could hold them together?

Airman: Again, I say gravity.

Nevyn: What kind of gravity? Only expansion could do that.

Airman: Yes

Nevyn: And if gravity could hold some photons together, why not ALL photons?

Nevyn: What I mean is, if gravity were that strong, there would be nothing that could ever overcome it.

Nevyn: These photons are being hit at c, if that can't break them apart, then nothing can.

Airman: I'll continue to give it thought. Photons have to be brought together closely together enough first, Simple recycling isn't close enough.

Airman: Sorry I keep coming back to this point.

Nevyn: I don't understand what you mean by recycling isn't close enough.

Nevyn: That's fine, you have to keep coming back until it is understood. No point moving on (as the mainstream prefers to do).

Nevyn: By the way, I don't mean that recycling is close enough, I just don't understand how recycling is coming into this.

Airman: Photon recycling defines matter. Matter is an energy pattern.

Airman: I don't see that as motion

Nevyn: Not really. It is an intergral part of it, but not the complete definition. And Matter is not just an energy pattern, there are definite particles involved. Unless you mean that all energy is just motion and therefore everything is just patterns on motion. That I can agree with.

Nevyn: patterns of motion, that is.

Nevyn: Don't see what as motion? The recycling?

Airman: How does your electron recycle many photons if it is just a single photon

Airman: How can the motion of the single photon corral millions of photons?

Nevyn: We have a spinning particle, with many, many spin levels, moving in complex ways at the same time that it is moving in some linear direction. The spinning increases the radius of the particle so that it covers a much larger cross-section of the field as it moves along its linear direction. This allows it to collide with more charge. If the proton emits 19.19 times its own mass every second, that sounds like a lot of charge but you have to remember that 1s to a photon is an extremely long time. 300,000km long, in fact.

Nevyn: Even if we remove the linear velocity, or slow it down considerably, the charge field is still moving at c so the number of charge photons it could collide with does not really change that much.

Airman: The linear distance the single photon to maintain the form of say, an electron, would not allow th electron velocities observed

Airman: Sorry, The complex stacked motion resuls in a greatly increased linear distance

Nevyn: Ahh, no it doesn't. The spin is happening at the same time as the linear velocity. The complete spinning particle is traveling at the linear velocity, not the actual photon at the heart of the particle (which would actually be travelling faster than c some of the time if you add the spin velocities with the linear velocity).

Nevyn: Take the spinning photon that makes an electron and think of it as its shell. That is, the top level spin is thought of as a sphere. Like we do now for the electron in mainstream theory. This sphere is what is travelling at the linear velocity and then you have to add the spin velocity to that linear velocity if you want to see the actual velocity of the photon.

Nevyn: But you have to also remember that any velocity added by a spin is also subtracted during half of the spin cycle for that level.

Nevyn: This means it removes what it adds and so averages out to zero.

Nevyn: And some spin level may not add or remove any velocity to the linear velocity because they are orthogonal to it.

Airman: Thanks for the answers. You seem confident. I must continue to think about it.

Airman: I don't recall any other difference of opinion I have with you, thank goodness

Nevyn: I'm not sure confident is the right word. I am confident in my understanding of what Miles is expressing, most of the time, but I am not exactly confident that it is all correct.

Airman: Has he given yo any direct feedback in this subject?

Nevyn: I think it is the best I have found but I must admit that I don't look around as much as I used to since I have enough things to understand in Miles work.

Nevyn: Some. I have not really discussed these collision aspects with Miles too much. He knows that it does need work but hasn't applied himself to it much, unfortunately.

Airman: Oh, did you have any thoughts on that permanent magnet vorticular motion?

Nevyn: I'll have refresh my memory on that one. Do you have a link?

Nevyn: IS that the rotating vortices topic?

Airman: http://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t87-magn... Yes

Nevyn: It sounded very straight forward from a Mathision perspective. Magnetism is the top level spin of a particle which naturally sets up vortices.

Airman: Great, I was afraid you had dismissed that as some free energy thing

Nevyn: The north and south poles are based on the spin direction (CW vs CCW) so swapping the polarity is expected to reverse the vortices.

Nevyn: No, I was just saying that I knew of Howard Johnson and what I knew him for.

Nevyn: I found a series of videos on the net called 'Energy from the Vacuum'. 18 videos in all. Most of it quite interesting.

Nevyn: I was building a Bedini motor at the time and that is why I found it.

Airman: Free energy is real. But it is far outnumbred by bogus claims, perhaps the permanent magnet motor is an example of a hoax

Nevyn: Another guy on those videos was Tom Bearden, but I have since found out that Miles thinks he is a dis-informer. Not sure myself, he seemed to have some interesting things to say on the videos, mostly about the math.

Airman: You actually built a Bedini? Wow

Nevyn: Free energy is real if you define free energy in the right way. Nothing is actually free, but we don't have to pay for all of it.

Nevyn: Yeah, Bedini motors are really easy to build. The circuit is quite small, only a few parts to it really. I used a PC fan as the motor and the rest is just a transistor and some resisters.

Nevyn: It was reall interesting watching it on my oscilloscope.

Nevyn: I had a 12V input driving a neon bulb that should only light up above 90V. In my first few attempts, which I have on video, my potentiometer broke down and the neon bulb started arcing out. Huge amounts of light were being thrown out, it actually scared the shit out of me at first.

Nevyn: I put some different capacitors across the charging path and I could get some of them up to 150V from a 12V source.

Lloyd was timed out 3 minutes ago

Nevyn: I couldn't get it to charge batteries very well though. It did to a certain degree but I needed to build a bigger one for that.

Airman: Why isn't it called a transformer?

Nevyn: Because it doesn't transform the voltage. The windings are 1:1. No up or down scaling involved.

Nevyn: What it is doing, is using the voltage spikes generated as the magnetic polarity changes. This is often called back EMF, but it isn't really that at all.

Airman: I was waiting for what it really is. On the edge of my seat

Nevyn: If I thought about it in Mathis terms, I would say that the magnetic field is changing from all CW (say) to all CCW and at the middle point, there is a mixed jumble of CW and CCW so the charge has an easier time getting through at this point. It is not affected as much so the voltage rises. Voltage is just charge photon pressure.

Nevyn: Or maybe the mixed magnetism itself allows those photons to become voltage.

Nevyn: That is, because there is a mix of CW and CCW, they cancel out and just become normal charge photons which we see as voltage.

Nevyn: In this way, the alternating (in polarity) magnets setup zero points in between them and when the circuit is at these points, it allows the charge to go somewhere which we see as voltage.

Nevyn: Does that make sense?

Airman: Not enough. I'll be rereading your answers several times. I wish I could better translate into Mathis terms. He seems to have slowed down a bit. I thought maybe he was coming to come out with a next book.

Nevyn: Yeah, I've noticed that myself. I even started reading his conspiracy papers (which got me thinking in a completely different way) as I really wanted something new to read.

Airman: Same here. I don't read too far afield these days

Airman: He referenced Beauty in his latest paper

Airman: I can enjoy that too

Nevyn: Yeah, I love the way Miles takes a common saying and makes you see it in a different way.

Nevyn: I think Miles work often shows how we can take things for granted or think we understand them but a closer inspection can change all of that.

Airman: Your guilty of scrambling my thoughts, just a few more ahas please. I need to start dinner. Thanks for the company. Till next time

Nevyn: It'

Nevyn: It's what I do best.

Nevyn: See you later.

Airman: Oh, I've copied the conversation an will post it later. Bye

LloydK

Posts : 448
Join date : 2014-08-10

## Re: Michael Vaicaitis' Model Discussions

Sponsored content

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