LLoyd's Questions for Miles Mathis

Universe Tensile Strength: Could the universe spin like a solid object if it has tensile strength, as Charles Chandler thinks galaxies do, due to plasma attraction?

Gravity: Do you consider gravity a centrifugal force?

- No. It's an expansion, or acts like expansion [due to universe spins].

Galactic Filaments: (July 8, '13) As shown at Alternative Science Studies (http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9670) plasma in the universe tends to form filaments. Can you explain that? If you can, you might get EU proponents to consider your model more carefully.

Cosmic B-Photon Locations: If 95% of quanta are recycled as free B-photons, what percentage of these B-photons are within each of these: stars; planetoids; and space?

Titan's Atmosphere: You say Mars is too small to ever have had an atmosphere. And Earth's atmosphere comes from the Earth itself. I suppose Titan's atmosphere comes from Titan. How could it accumulate such a dense atmosphere when it's smaller than Mars? Can a gas giant fission or eject a body with a large atmosphere? Is it likely that Titan is a young object? And what about Venus?

Photon Attraction to Matter: In your Pilot Waves paper at http://milesmathis.com/pilot.pdf you said: "Charge [or photon field] density is increased by the presence of other matter, since concentrations of matter tend to attract photons. But even nearly empty space will have photon traffic, as we know. What we don't seem to know is the baseline density of that traffic. It is far above what we have thought. Because most photons are dark to us, and because we have no way to measure photon traffic in the absence of ions, we have not understood that this baseline is very high. I have shown how to calculate this baseline straight from the fundamental charge, showing that what we call dark matter is actually photonic matter." 1. Since you generally say there is no attractive force, how can matter attract photons? If matter is like a sump pump, spraying out photons, the photon density in the location of matter would be reduced, making a local low pressure photon field. So it seems that the surrounding field would have higher photon pressure and the pressure would force photons toward the low pressure matter. Is that the mechanics of the "attraction" you meant? Shouldn't this higher pressure have a measurable effect on gravity and the photonic charge field in the outward spray of photons from matter? 2. Earlier in this paper you seemed to define photons as non-matter, then here you refer to them as photon matter. Shouldn't you explain this to your readers?

Electron & Proton Numbers & Repulsion: Why aren't there many more electrons than protons and why is hydrogen in space mostly neutral, since it seems it should be negatively ionized, if there are more electrons than protons, because protons are made from electrons? Why do electrons repel electrons as strongly as protons repel protons (assuming they do), if protons are much larger?

Neutron Decay: Each neutron outside of a nucleus decays into a proton and an electron within about 12 minutes. Why and how does it do so? What prevents decay inside a nucleus?

Alpha Particle Neutrons: (July 8, '13) It seems that most of the neutrons in your model of atomic structure reside in pairs within "alpha particles". But it seems that some do not, such as in oxygen. I think your oxygen model has 3 horizontal alphas in the center (consisting of 6 p and 6n) and 2 vertical protons at the top and bottom poles. Where would the remaining two neutrons fit in? And what would prevent each neutron from decaying?

Similar Photon Model: Isn't this photon model pretty close to yours? http://www.worldnpa.org/site/abstract/?abstractid=7098&~

- Somewhat, but cycloids need to be replaced with stacked spins etc.

Stacked Spins: In your Superposition paper, you said regarding stacked spins: "Let us say you have the Earth spinning about the x-axis, and you give the center of the Earth a constant velocity in the y-direction. Next, we add an end-over-end spin in this same y-direction." How can there be an end-over-end spin around a point on an object's surface, if its center of mass is not at that point?

- When a photon is hit by another photon, it can't go faster than light, so it tends to stack spins instead around the point where it gets hit.

Structure & Motion Illustration: Can we get an illustration of photons, electrons and protons with detailed internal motions and structure, including the paths of recycled photons?

Photon Motion Within Protons: What are the rate and pressure of photon motions during both proton inflow and outflow? How can the photon in a proton go fast enough to run circles around recycling photons in order to herd them into the emission disk (or the poles)? Must the recycling photons slow down inside protons and then get reaccelerated to light speed during emission? Why don't recycling photons disrupt the internal proton quantum motions? Is it because of the increased mass and momentum of the proton quantum in its stacked spins? If so, how can stacked spins increase its mass? Or is it because the photons get slowed down inside protons that they don't disrupt quanta? If so, how would they get slowed down? Would it be partly by being protected from external charge field pressure?

Ions Emit Photons; Molecules Don't: In your paper on Atmospheric Pressure you said: "Molecules do not radiate many photons, and this is because the electrons in the shells are blocking radiation from the nuclei. Molecules are mostly neutral, as we know, so few photons are escaping the electron/proton exchange. But with ions, this is not the case. I have shown that electrons also emit the charge field, so negative ions will be creating a charge field, not just positive ions. Both negative and positive ions are emitting a positive, real, bombarding field of photons. Therefore, when ions encounter the charge field of the Earth, they feel a greater repulsion than [do] molecules, and must go higher in the atmosphere." So I'd like to see how the B-photons get recycled within neutral molecules, without emitting many photons outside the molecule.

Proton Emission Disks: What are the radii of emission disks of electrons and protons and wouldn't they vary with cosmic location and the amount of recycling photons? And how are the disks able to function as rigid parts of hadrons/leptons? Is the model like that of a circle of machine guns spinning around shooting bullets out equatorially with respect to the spin?

Magnetopause Paper Error: In your Magnetopause paper at milesmathis.com/pause.html? it looks like you may have misunderstood a passage from Wikipedia about ions. You said: "Let's look at how Wikipedia uses plasma to explain Solar Wind exclusion. On the page entitled "Magnetosphere", we are told of the Solar Wind that: Its composition resembles that of the Sun-about 95% of the ions are protons, about 4% helium nuclei, with 1% of heavier matter ... and enough electrons to keep charge neutrality. - See a problem there? You cannot maintain charge neutrality with 99% positive charge. That leaves less than 1% negative charge, and <1% cannot balance >99%." I think their use of the word "ions" was meant as "positive ions" and that the solar wind is actually of equal parts positive ions and electrons. So their 95% protons, 4% helium nuclei and 1% heavier matter referred only to the positive ions, I think.

First posted at '13-07-09, 07:20 http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9331&rsPage=1#slice_9331

Lloyd
St. Louis area

Re: Questions for Miles Mathis (Survey)


Please answer the 20 Questions below:

These are 20 major points from Mathis' theory, which I'd like people to rate as:
P (probable >70%);
M (maybe or possible 30-70%); or
I (implausible

Four people filled out the questionnaire. The answers are shown below each statement. In some cases the statements probably weren't understood properly. The first and third respondents are likely supporters of Mathis. The second and fourth are likely doubters.

1. EM Waves: - EM sine wave motion is approximately the manner in which photons travel in empty space.
P, P, M, P

2. Photon Mass: - Photons must have radius and mass in order to have any effect on matter.
P, I, P, P

3. Heat: - Heat is IR photons emitted by all matter.
P, P, P, P

4. Photon Density: - The field of photons is dense everywhere there is matter and less dense where there is mostly only starlight.
P, I, P, P

5. Charge: - The repulsive force between like subatomic particles is caused by emission or radiation of smaller particles that have radius and mass, photons being the best candidate.
P, I, P, P

6. Photon Radiation: - All matter receives and radiates photons.
P, P, P, P

7. Heat Capacity: - Heat capacity of elements varies because of the way particle structure of different elements receive and radiate photons.
P, P, P, P

8. Element Properties: - Photonic radiation, called the charge field, in elements determines their conductivity, magnetic properties, chemical reactions, density etc.
P, I, P, P

9. Electricity: - The charge field moves electrons and ions in electric currents, wireless currents and stellar winds.
P, I, M, P

10. Atmospheres: - Photonic radiation, the charge field, levitates gases and ions in atmospheres and ionospheres.
P, I, P, M

11. Plasmaspheres: - Planetary radiation produces plasmaspheres and magnetospheres within solar or stellar wind.
P, I, P, I

12. Solar Wind: - Solar radiation produces the solar wind.
P, I, M, I

13. Blackbody Radiation: - Blackbody radiation is photonic radiation.
P, M, P, P

14. Comets: - Curved comet tails are curved by the magnetic effect of solar photonic radiation due to photon spin.
M, I, P, M

15. Unified Field: - The formula for gravity includes the charge field formula.
P, I, M, P

16. Orbits: - Elliptical or eccentric and normal orbits are caused by opposing forces between gravity and the charge field.
P, M, P, P

17. Planetary Repulsion: - Stellar and planetary charge fields are repulsive and tend to prevent collisions.
P, M, P, P

18. Trojan Asteroids: - Jupiter's Trojan asteroids are kept at a distance from Jupiter by its repulsive charge field.
M, M, P, P

19. Axial Tilts: - Planetary axial tilts are caused by interaction between their charge fields.
P, I, M, P,

20. Optical Equivalence Attraction: - Small bodies are able to move through the charge field closer to the primary than are larger bodies, so, when smaller ones are in higher orbits or locations, they tend to move toward the primary, but risk collision with any larger ones that may be in lower orbits or locations, as likely happened to a small planet that encountered Mars in the past, which became the asteroid belt, and Mars likely encountered Earth, causing other catastrophes here in the past.
P, -, M, M

First posted at '13-07-11, 09:57 http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9331&rsPage=1#slice_9331

Lloyd
St. Louis area

Mathis Theory Problems


1. Stacked spins seem to violate the first law of motion, i.e. straight line motion; the theory that photons stack spins on collision because of not being able to exceed light speed in any single dimension seems inadequate, because it seems that the photon could only get hit from the front or side, which would not make it exceed light speed.


2. The UFT gravity equation analysis seems incomplete, because, if gravity is simple acceleration, while the charge field is a force, or pressure, it doesn't seem that a force or pressure can oppose an acceleration, as the acceleration requires a mass to have force. So I don't see how the UFT equation can have gravity taking just volume and be just acceleration, unless the volume turns it into a Force of L^4/T^4.

First posted at '13-07-14, 11:24 http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9331&rsPage=1#slice_9331


Lloyd
St. Louis area

Re: Questions for Miles Mathis


Light in Space: Someone says: I think what I most would like an answer from Miles about is the night vision equipment, and if it would work in space. I got only 2 responses from over a dozen emails I sent, one from the manufacturer of an eyepiece that fits a regular telescope, and anther from Phil Plait, who says he doesn't know anything about the night vision equipment, but that if it works at all, it should work in space. Nobody else, including NASA, replied. Now, the night vision devices detect an IR photon, and the sensor produces an electron from that photon, but if there are no photons out there, it shouldn't work. And seeing as NASA makes no mention of augmented vision systems in space, I think it pretty safe to say that they don't work, which means there is something drastically wrong with our models of what light is, and how it travels in the vacuum. NASA is not going to 'come clean' about this whole subject without a lot of arm twisting though.

First posted at '13-07-15, 08:20 http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9331&rsPage=1#slice_9331

Lloyd
St. Louis area

Re: Questions for Miles Mathis


Charge Field & Electric Field: Tom Burwell's blog post has this statement: "Mathis's system preserves c also, by hypothesizing that all matter generates an electric field, in much the same way that all matter generates a gravitational field."

I haven't noticed Mathis ever saying all matter generates an electric field. He always says all matter generates a charge field. In his first axial tilt paper at http://milesmathis.com/tilt.html, he says: "The magnetic field is orthogonal to both the charge field and the electric field". This seems to prove that he regards the electric field as different from the charge field.

On the other hand, Mathis says in his paper at http://milesmathis.com/weak2.html that: "The electric field is carried by the linear momenta of the real photons, but the magnetic field is carried by the angular momenta." In this case it sounds like he's saying the electric field is parallel to the charge field, while in the other it's perpendicular. I guess that's a possible contradiction that needs to be corrected.

First posted at '13-07-17, 06:17 http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9331&rsPage=1#slice_9331


Lloyd
St. Louis area

Re: Questions for Miles Mathis


Proton-Proton Repulsion Variation: (from CC) If repulsion between protons etc depends on their intake and emission of photons, why doesn't the repulsion, called the Coulomb force, decrease with decreasing temperature down to absolute zero?
'13-07-17, 10:04

Lloyd
St. Louis area

Re: Questions for Miles Mathis


Photon Mass 19x Other Matter: Mathis often says total photon mass is 19 times that of other matter, as per the Dark Matter paper. More often it seems he says matter recycles 19 times its own mass per second. There's an infinity of difference between the two statements, so it seems that one of them must be wrong. If so, which is it? If not, how could there be such a coincidence?

First posted at '13-08-08, 05:44 http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9331&rsPage=1#slice_9331

Lloyd
St. Louis area

Re: Questions for Miles Mathis


Preventing Planetoid Collisions
How strongly do small outer planetoids (i.e., planets, moons, asteroids, comets) tend to move inward below the orbits of larger ones?
What formulae will tell us what these forces are and their timelines?
When will the following planetoids approach these orbits?
Mars to Earth's orbit?
Asteroids to Earth's orbit?
Saturn to Jupiter's?
Uranus and Neptune to Saturn's?
Pluto and Kuipers (i.e. Kuiper belt objects) to Neptune's?
What can be done to stabilize planetoidal orbits?
Can small ones be safely moved inward past larger ones?
Could their orbits be made highly elliptical and extra-ecliptical to get them past large ones, then be circularized?
What could ellipsize and circularize orbits and put them out of the ecliptic during passage?
Could asteroids be gathered together to make them larger?
Won't any collection of planetoids more than 200 miles in diameter condense into one body?
Could they be gathered together on Mars or Jupiter?
Or is it better to have lots of small planetoids where they are, for research, resources, inhabitation etc?
Could Mars be safely moved into Jupiter or into an outer orbit there?
Making Planetoids Habitable
What would be need to make Mars habitable?
Could Venus be made habitable by moving icy asteroids onto it?

First posted at '13-08-09, 14:29 http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9331&rsPage=1#slice_9331

Lloyd
St. Louis area

Re: Questions for Miles Mathis


Neutron Stability
Mathis says neutrons have a slightly different spin pattern than do protons and that the spin pattern changes to that of a proton when a positron collides with the neutron. The collision also transforms the positron to an electron. (The spins are what produce the wave patterns characteristic of EM radiation.) Is the neutron stable inside an atom because the atom shooting out charge photons keeps positrons away.

Proton Stability
If the neutron is unstable outside the atom because of positron collisions, shouldn't protons likewise be unstable because of electron collisions? Or is it stable for the same reason that atoms are, because the proton emits photons to keep other particles away, whereas neutrons emit very little photonic charge and are thus prone to collisions?

Neutronium
Might there be a process that could condense neutrons into neutronium, which is theorized to be the core of pulsars or neutron stars? I think in some versions of neutronium theory only the surface would be unstable, so the neutronium would decay very slowly from the outside inward. What about that?

First posted at '13-08-12, 11:03 http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9331&rsPage=1#slice_9331

tharkun
USA

Re: Questions for Miles Mathis


"Is the neutron stable inside an atom because the atom shooting out charge photons keeps positrons away."

I think this is a reasonable explanation. The emitted charge field of the greater atomic structure 'shields' the minimally emitting Neutron. on its own, the Neutron has little emission to knock any rogue particles from a collision course. To me, thise explains why free neutrons decay within about 15 min.



"If the neutron is unstable outside the atom because of positron collisions, shouldn't protons likewise be unstable because of electron collisions?"

It seems that stability is tied directly to the emitted charge field of the particle itself. The more charge it emits, the greater its ability to protect itself and thus remain stable.



"Might there be a process that could condense neutrons into neutronium, which is theorized to be the core of pulsars or neutron stars?"

It would have to be shown that such condensation could occur with a charge field through-put. As Miles explains it is the charge channels that determine the greater nuclear structure; but with minimal charge through a neutron, I'm not sure any condensation would be stable for any length of time. Its an interesting idea, I just never have bought into the 'neutron star' concept. Seems like to much fantasy to cover a hole in a gravity-only theory.



tharkun

First posted at '13-10-03, 14:59 http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9331&rsPage=1#slice_9331

Lloyd
St. Louis area

Re: Questions for Miles Mathis


Those answers seem to make sense.

Can you also hopefully answer this: Re: GTSM Discussion (problems with mass centered physics)

and this: Re: GTSM Discussion (problems with mass centered physics)Re: GTSM Discussion (problems with mass centered physics)?

I see you did now. Thanks. Mass, gravity etc is a little beyond my comprehension so far.

First posted at '13-12-25, 17:27 http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9331&rsPage=1#slice_9331

Lloyd
St. Louis area

Question for Miles Mathis re Colliding Photons


Quote from Unifying the Photon
http://milesmathis.com/photon.html

Photons do collide all the time, but because they are the same size, they normally don't cause much slowing. The odds of a direct hit are very small. Indirect hits cause spin, not slowing. So collisions do cause all the spins, without much slowing. Of course direct hits do happen, but these hits do not cause annihilation. They cause temporary stoppage of both photons. Stopped photons are sitting ducks: their odds of direct collision go way up. So they get re-boosted by other photons and eventually reach c again.

I think photons are more likely elastic, so, instead of two photons in a head-on collision stopping, I think both would simply reverse direction and maintain their velocity of c, similar to the way pool balls react in collision.

If one photon is more massive than the other, I suppose the larger one would continue moving forward, but at lower speed, while the smaller one would reverse direction but increase speed.

First posted at '14-02-09, 11:24 http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9331&rsPage=1#slice_9331

Lloyd
St. Louis area

Questions for Opponents of Miles Mathis


This is from Miles Mathis Revolution on Facebook. I think it's in reaction to "Physicists see 27th dimension of photons" at http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/01/29/27-dimensions-physicists-see-photons-in-new-light/?intcmp=fe atures

A few questions concerning this new, quantum revelation from a poor, uneducated, non-peer-reviewed layman with only a Bachelor's degree:

1) "...researchers...took a direct measurement of a photon's 27-dimensional quantum state. These dimensions are mathematical, not dimensions in space, and each one is a number that stores information."

If these dimensions are mathematical, how can there be a 'direct' measurement of a mathematical dimension? How do you directly measure something that only exists in the abstract?

2) "They measured the photon's orbital angular momentum, which is how much the particles of light "twist" as they travel through space."

How does a zero-dimensional, massless entity possess orbital angular momentum? Doesn't angular momentum require a spinning object, and doesn't a spinning object require extension in three dimensions in order to have a reference to spin around?

3) "To get rid of the errors, the scientists have to look at what results they got that are "disallowed" states ones that don't follow the laws of physics. But the only way to find them is to search through all the results and discard the ones that are impossible."

How is it possible to get a real result that is 'impossible' or that doesn't 'follow the laws of physics'? Doesn't the fact that you got a real result mean that it is NOT impossible and in accord with the real 'laws of physics'? Isn't this selective data mining?

4) "A light wave is a combination of an electric and magnetic field, each of which oscillates and makes a wave."

A field is a abstraction that represents a summed area of real, material objects. What objects compose an electric and magnetic field? If they are waves, what is 'waving'?
Waves are patterns in real objects, not real objects themselves.

5) "...in quantum mechanical systems the question of why some measurements spoil quantum states while others don't is a deeper philosophical question than it is about the quantum technologies themselves."

A philosophical question?!?! Aren't you doing physics? If your interaction of measurement physically alters the system you are trying to measure, isn't that a mechanical question? Shouldn't physics provide real, mechanical answers based on real physical interactions and not hide its holes under banners of 'philosophy' or 'metaphysics'. If your physical theory cannot account for the physical results, shouldn't you change your theory and not the department the answer comes from?

First posted at '14-06-02, 20:58 http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9331&rsPage=2#slice_9331

Lloyd
St. Louis area

Re: Questions for Miles Mathis


http://milesmathis.com/charge3.html
The fundamental charge, which we are told is either the charge on the electron or proton, is currently e = 1.602 x 10-19 C. Since 1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s, e = 3.204 x 10-26 kg/s. If we divide that by the proton mass, 1.67 x 10-27 kg, we get very nearly 19. We get 19.19, to be precise. This means that the proton is emitting a charge every second that outweighs it by 19 times. And that means that the charge field outweighs normal matter by about 19 times. Yes, photons outweigh everything else by 19 times.

LK: I explain at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14950&p=96320#p96307 why the flow rate does not indicate how much of the flowing stuff there is altogether.

http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html
"we find not only stacked spins, we find stacked levels. In other words, we find spins of a1, x1, y1, z1 and a2, x2, y2, z2 and a3, x3, y3, z3 and so on. By this analysis, a2 has twice the spin radius of z1. In fact, each spin has twice the radius of the spin under it."

LK: The a-spins don't double the radius; they leave it the same.

http://milesmathis.com/photon.html
"Of course direct hits do happen, but these hits do not cause annihilation. They cause temporary stoppage of both photons. Stopped photons are sitting ducks: their odds of direct collision go way up."

LK: As I think I said in a prior post here, I don't think photons would stop when colliding, but would bounce off each other, like pool balls etc.If a single pool ball hits several balls grouped together, it can stop or at least slow down a lot, but collisions ordinarily should involve single photons.

IR photon mass = 2.77 x 10-37kg [http://milesmathis.com/photon.html]
electron mass = 9.109 x 10-31kg [http://milesmathis.com/proton3.html]
proton mass = 1.6724 x 10-27 kg [http://milesmathis.com/charge3.html]
Protons recycle 19.19 proton masses in photons/sec = 11.59 bn IR photons/sec = 6.421 bn UV photons/sec
Neutrons recycle 13.15 proton masses in photons/sec = 7.936 bn IR photons/sec = 4.400 bn UV photons/sec
Electrons recycle 19.19 proton masses in photons/sec = 11.59 bn IR photons/sec

http://milesmathis.com/proton3.html
electron mass = 9.109 x 10-31kg
http://milesmathis.com/photon.html
IR photon mass = 2.77 x 10-37kg
= mass 1.66 x 10-10 or G smaller than the proton mass
IR photon radius = G times the proton radius = 2.74 x 10-24m
IR photon energy = 2.5 x 10-20J
IR photon frequency = 3.77 x 1013/s
photon radius =
UV photon mass = 5 x 10-34 kg
UV photon energy = 4.5 x 10-17 J
UV photon frequency = 6.8 x 1016/s
proton radius = 2.74 x 10-24m
http://milesmathis.com/charge3.html
proton mass = 1.67 x 10-27 kg
http://milesmathis.com/charge3.html
The fundamental charge, which we are told is either the charge on the electron or proton, is currently
e = 1.602 x 10-19 C. Since
1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s,
e = 3.204 x 10-26 kg/s. If we divide that by the
proton mass = 1.67 x 10-27 kg, we get very nearly 19
protons recycle 19.19 times proton mass per second

photon1 = 5 x 10-31g
photon2 = 2.77 x 10-34g
photon3 = 3 x 10-36g

As for the straight line stacked spins, MM quoted a paper by Ken Shoulder's (father of modern electronics) on the "electrons" growing from constant bombardment. Just seems to me Ken was watching MM's charge field aggregate on one of his EVOs.  

Personally, I highly value Ken's observations only because he had a Tesla like understanding of novel observations. He likely was tapping MM's Charge Field to accumulate "electron charge clusters".
----------

Electron Ensembles
by
Ken Shoulders © 2007
There is a fascinating new realm of physical effects not covered by present-day single particle physics
description, but still very much a part of the world we live in. These effects herald some forthcoming
events greater in extent than those found in the single electron world we are most aware of. This domain is
the multiple electron universe where the effects of electron ensembles dominate all others.
A Name: In the past, a litany of names has been used for this still emerging field (3). Such descriptors as EV
(Electrum Validum or strong electron as well as Electromagnetic Vortex), HDCC (Hi Density Charge
Clusters), Charge Clusters, Ectons (Used by Mesyats in Russia) and lately, EVO (Exotic Vacuum Object)
have been designations for any cluster of charge over the size of a few electrons. Some clustering rules
have been made evident by the author as described in references (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 36).

The Dividing Line: There is still an indistinct dividing line in numbers, for either electrons or protons,
beyond which these new effects occur, but it lies somewhere between that of electron pairs and the
hundreds of particles seen in nuclear clustering effects. One thing is clear in all instances, the normal
repulsion laws for the like sign of electric charge between single particles do not hold in this new realm (8).
The particles, or wavelets, are much more tightly bound than those in solids even though the number
density is virtually the same, being in the range of Avogadro’s number. This high binding energy is
demonstrably large when the ensemble is either suddenly disrupted or the group is caused to bore through
ordinary solid matter (4).

Charge and Mass non-Conservation: The most Holy laws of single particle, charge and mass
conservation are totally disregarded when electrons consort in this ensemble mode, as the values of both
charge and mass vary over a range of over a billion to one when the initial number of electrons used to
form an EVO are compared to the number of electrons contained within the EVO black state (9,10).
Energy Production: This gross reduction of charge and mass are at the root of, so-called, cold fusion
energy gain. The process of energy production in this case is not nuclear in its origin but rather traceable to
the high velocity of nucleon acceleration achieved efficiently through, first, mass reduction of nuclei by
EVO association, and then the concomitant interaction of this high velocity projectile, operating at high
mass by virtue of EVO entrainment loss, dumping its energy into the host lattice (11, 12).

This almost arbitrary change in charge and mass cause havoc with another Holy law, namely, the law of
energy conservation (13, 14). Factually, the only actual havoc caused is with those clinging to the old laws of
single particle theory and practice. Moving on to the new world of multi particle ensembles vanquishes this
disarray.

Although the nuclear world was bypassed for production of energy via the cold fusion process, it is
severely impacted through the ability of electron ensembles, EVOs, to transmute nucleons most easily as a
part of their normal interaction with matter. There is plenty of nuclear ash found in the cold fusion process,
but it is not necessarily a hallmark of nuclear energy release. Incidentally, almost all of this ash is nonradioactive
(15). The notable exception is the production of tritium.

Propulsion: As unusual as the energy production effects are, the propulsion effects are even more
fundamental, extremely useful and at the root of the energy production methods (16, 17, 18, 19, 20). These effects
vary from simple propulsion of nucleons for thermal energy production to the propulsion of EVOs for the
production of both electrical energy and large thrusting forces for lifting objects. The electrical energy
production method does not suffer the short-life defect found in thermal energy production, where nucleons
are moved, but rather gives what appears to be limitless lifetime in that no nucleons are disarranged from
their original position in the apparatus as propulsive energy is transferred via electrons. The static lifting
mechanism is grossly in violation of normal laws of thrusting as derived from single particle physics. Such
ancient theoretical laws cannot be used to evaluate EVO thrust producing methods and experimental
technique is the only recourse at this time.

Penetrating Universal Barriers: While such astral luminaries as WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive
Particles) and Black Holes (24, 25) might seem to be demoted and reduced in rank by associating them with
ordinary laboratory experiments, which can both make them and manipulate them through the use of EVO
techniques, their significance is not diminished because even the ordinary laboratory form can perform
admirably as intermediates and messengers (21) to something like another Universe (22).

The Dark Side of Electron Ensembles: For all the good EVOs and their kin seem to do, there is a very
dark side to their use by humans who do not yet know how to handle such extremely high energy densities
when coupled with the ease of use afforded (23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35). The problem introduced by EVO usage is
that they penetrate great distances into standard material and release their energy at whatever point their
level of accumulated disturbance indicates. This means that they can be initially set to a predetermined
level of excitation and then destruct at a chosen point for dispensing their contained energy. This amounts
to an electrical projectile being capable of destroying any known object bit by bit.

The real difficulty with this method of destruction is that the gun does not need to be reloaded as its energy
comes from the virtually inexhaustible source that drives all electron ensembles as EVO energy generators.
One should reflect on the difference between a bomb that destroys itself, thus giving rise to a finite energy
release, and a gun that can continue dispensing grief until it finally shoots away its own mount when
nothing else is left. The largest hope for surviving this kind of weapon, until we learn how to behave
socially, is held in the Shield (32) afforded by the same technology. Unfortunately, this shield is not as easy
to design and make as the gun.

Proceeding: All of the findings discussed here were discovered outside of any organized, institutionalized,
research environment. As such, they are heretical doctrine. Still, the facts discovered hold together well
enough to warrant further development. The time has come to combine the many elements discovered and
turn them into useful devices for energy creation and propulsion of the best kind. The next phase of this
work should be done by using the same methods by which they were originally discovered, namely, in the
freedom of the vast space outside of academia (33, 34). For a short time to come, possibly 2 or 3 years, the
work should continue on the very small scale where it was discovered. This gives maximum leeway for the
investigator to wiggle in and out of the various traps provided by nature, resulting in an early arrival for a
useful commercial product.

One must wonder what these consorting electron ensembles will think of next?
References:

[1] K. R. Shoulders, EV-- A Tale of Discovery, Austin, TX, 1987. A historical sketch of early EV work
having: 246 pages, 153 photos and drawings, 13 references. Available from the author at:
365 Warren Dr., Ukiah, CA 95482, (now-deceased :( )
[2] U.S. Patents issued to K. R. Shoulders on EVs. 5,018,180 (1991) - 5,054,046 (1991) - 5,054,047 (1991)
-5,123,039 (1992), and 5,148,461 (1992).

Reference essays by Ken Shoulders available for download from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
[3 ] What's an EVO
[4 ] Charge Clusters In Action
[5 ] Permittivity Transitions
[6] EVOs and Hutchison Effect
[7] EVO Life Cycle
[8] Short Range Electron Attractive Force
[9] Electric Charge Non-Conservation
[10] Which Mass
[11] Energy Conversion From The Exotic Vacuum Revised
[12] What is the Universe Made of
[13] Energy
[14] EVO Oscillation-The Friendly Enemy
[15] ICCF-10 Low Voltage Nuclear Transmutation
[16] An EVO Clutch and Microphone
[17] EVO Propulsion Basis 2
[18] Large-scale propulsion using EVOs
[19] Propulsion Using Zero Point Quantum Pressure
[20] Superluminal Particle Measurements
[21] Dark Matter Messengers
[22] A Leak From Our Universe to Another
[23] Disruptor
[24] Black Holes as EVOs
[25] EVOs as WIMPs
[26] Electromagnetic Pulse Source Using Fluidized Electrons
[27] Electromagnetic Pulse Source Using Fluidized Electrons-Appendix I
[28] Equalizer Two
[29] Projectiles From the Dark Side
[30] The Good The Bad And The Ugly
[31] Transmission of EVOs Through Metal
[32] Shielding From The Inevitable
[33] Elements of Support for New Technology
[34] Exploring
[35] Electric Gun Effects
[36] Electron Condenser

Regarding "electron charge clusters"

Nevyn said he thinks there should be neutral electrons, which he calls nectrons, just like there are neutral protons, called neutrons. He also suspected that they may form miniature atoms. If protons and neutrons can cluster in atomic nuclei, electrons and nectrons should be able to cluster similarly, but maybe they can't form neutral mini-atoms, since there's no mini-electron to neutralize mini-atoms the way there are electrons to neutralize normal atoms.

Prof. Kanarev of Russia says he found that electrons cluster in double rows of 4, which means 8 electrons. He says electrons are tori, but I figured he may have discovered the shape the electrons make as they orbit the proton's polar axis. He also said one set of 4 electrons is up-side-down with respect to the other adjacent set. That doesn't seem like MM's atomic nuclear arrangements. But the clustering would be correct for mini-atoms. They would actually be mini-ions apparently, since they couldn't be neutralized.

LloydK wrote:Regarding "electron charge clusters"

Nevyn said he thinks there should be neutral electrons, which he calls nectrons, just like there are neutral protons, called neutrons. He also suspected that they may form miniature atoms. If protons and neutrons can cluster in atomic nuclei, electrons and nectrons should be able to cluster similarly, but maybe they can't form neutral mini-atoms, since there's no mini-electron to neutralize mini-atoms the way there are electrons to neutralize normal atoms.

Prof. Kanarev of Russia says he found that electrons cluster in double rows of 4, which means 8 electrons. He says electrons are tori, but I figured he may have discovered the shape the electrons make as they orbit the proton's polar axis. He also said one set of 4 electrons is up-side-down with respect to the other adjacent set. That doesn't seem like MM's atomic nuclear arrangements. But the clustering would be correct for mini-atoms. They would actually be mini-ions apparently, since they couldn't be neutralized.

I wouldn't disagree with Nevyn on that.  I think in many cases -- what is ascribed to an "electron's" paths/orbitals/waves/rows are more of a Mathis' "crystal like" molecular constructions with aspects of the Charge Field causing the phenomenon.  The only thing I have not seen in Mathis, is whether his "atoms-molecules" can break off into smaller sections and recombine on the fly with other "atoms-molecules"...with "electron bonding" the "bond" just happens.... Mathis has parts that bond only in certain ways as the Charge Field rushes by. Can the Charge Field carry parts and pieces of a neutron/proton/electron? I don't mean this in a Quantum Mechnical way but more in a manner that matches with Ken Shoulder's research.  Is an exchange of "matter" among the parts possible? Or is it all a wobbling of the "charge field" which sometimes wobbles in a Quantum Mechanical like way, but can hook the single unmatched parts between them? Can the atoms reform from the parts to a whole new "atom" again with Mathis?  These are just thoughts at this point. Ken Shoulder's research appears to allow this.

Somebody is going to have to build a charge-field detector if Mathis is really going to get "wings" among a lot of published people. Otherwise he may remain a curiosity like Tesla or Ken Shoulders -- a theoretical "crank". I believe EVOs-Charge Field Clusters are manifestations of Mathis' Charge Field. Ken Shoulders has pics and fairly well documented accounts of what he witnessed-experimented with. He couldn't explain it... yet he knew exactly what he was working with unlike a lot people.

Here's another question.

What's kinetic energy?
Brant discussed it in this post http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15364&p=101294#p101294 but I have the impression that kinetic energy is the force due to collisions from photons that have mass. I think the transfer of energy is more like the transfer of momentum. But my impressions are not well informed. Maybe I'll have time to look up what MM says about it. I know it's in some of his equations, but I don't remember if he said what he thinks energy is. There's E = 1/2 mv^2, isn't there? And E = mc^2. Both involve mass and velocity etc.

It looks like LTAM's quote here points to MM using ions.

---------


Structure & Motion Illustration: Can we get an illustration of photons, electrons and protons with detailed internal motions and structure, including the paths of recycled photons?

Photon Motion Within Protons: What are the rate and pressure of photon motions during both proton inflow and outflow? How can the photon in a proton go fast enough to run circles around recycling photons in order to herd them into the emission disk (or the poles)? Must the recycling photons slow down inside protons and then get reaccelerated to light speed during emission? Why don't recycling photons disrupt the internal proton quantum motions? Is it because of the increased mass and momentum of the proton quantum in its stacked spins? If so, how can stacked spins increase its mass? Or is it because the photons get slowed down inside protons that they don't disrupt quanta? If so, how would they get slowed down? Would it be partly by being protected from external charge field pressure?

Ions Emit Photons; Molecules Don't: In your paper on Atmospheric Pressure you said: "Molecules do not radiate many photons, and this is because the electrons in the shells are blocking radiation from the nuclei. Molecules are mostly neutral, as we know, so few photons are escaping the electron/proton exchange. But with ions, this is not the case. I have shown that electrons also emit the charge field, so negative ions will be creating a charge field, not just positive ions. Both negative and positive ions are emitting a positive, real, bombarding field of photons. Therefore, when ions encounter the charge field of the Earth, they feel a greater repulsion than [do] molecules, and must go higher in the atmosphere." So I'd like to see how the B-photons get recycled within neutral molecules, without emitting many photons outside the molecule.

IONIZATION & PROTON POLES http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
-The south pole Chromium electron is more than twice as bound in the ion as in the atom.
-The north electron was blocking 21.8% of the charge.
-The electron has a magnetic moment 658 times larger than that of the proton.
-The electron would be capable of blocking 36.1% (658/1821) of the charge coming in, if the electron were no distance from the pole.
-From the difference between 36.1% and 21.8%, it must be about 1.5 electron radii away [.36x = .218. x ≈ 1.5] the radius of the eddy.
LK: What keeps the electron from touching the proton?
-This tells us why elements ionize before bonding, as Chromium can create a bond over 20% stronger by kicking that electron out of the eddy.
-What causes ionization before bonding is the other element nearby.
-When the two charge streams meet, the second charge stream blows that electron out of the hole before bonding.
LK: ___Diagram please?
-We can also blow the electron out of that hole when we introduce external charge via an electrical current or magnetic field.
LK: ___Diagram please?

LloydK wrote:Here's another question.

What's kinetic energy?
Brant discussed it in this post http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15364&p=101294#p101294 but I have the impression that kinetic energy is the force due to collisions from photons that have mass. I think the transfer of energy is more like the transfer of momentum. But my impressions are not well informed. Maybe I'll have time to look up what MM says about it. I know it's in some of his equations, but I don't remember if he said what he thinks energy is. There's E = 1/2 mv^2, isn't there? And E = mc^2. Both involve mass and velocity etc.

As far as I understand it, there's no difference between kinetic energy and any other energy. All energy is kinetic, per either equation. It's a mass in motion, colliding with another mass. Energy is the transfer of momentum from one physical body to another, or rather, the calculation of that transfer.

The mainstream refuses to define this of course, and we have the word, "energy," tossed around in all kinds of dysfunctional ways. Negative energy, potential energy, a person having good/bad energy, etc..