Microcosm - Physics

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:07 pm

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:15 pm

Mathis' Microcosm Theory Condensed

First posted at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7809.html

© Lloyd

1. THE PHOTONIC CHARGE FIELD
http://milesmathis.com/charge2.html - (What is "Charge"?)
2. To explain the force between the electron and proton, the standard model now makes use of the "messenger photon," a so-called virtual particle that is made doubly virtual by always being "summed over" in a Feynmanian sense.
3. This allows the standard model to have a force with no energy transfer.
4. Physicists must be aware that you can't have forces without masses or energies, or the equivalent, but they also know that giving the charge field mass or energy of its own [would mean] quanta [matter?] must be radiating energy.
5. If they radiate it, they lose it.
6. The key to unlocking this mystery is contained in the realization that the idea of attraction is non-mechanical.
7. This [means] [] All attractions must be only apparent--the result of complex motions.
8. [W]e can now re-define the charge field as a bombarding field only. It is always repulsive; never attractive.
9. It is caused by radiation of these messenger photons, which I am going to re-dub B-photons (for bombarding photons).
10. The repulsion is caused by an old-fashioned force by contact.
11. Of course this means that the B-photons are not virtual: they have energy, mass equivalence, and even radius.
12. The other thing that my unified field allows us to do is discover the gravitational field at the quantum level.
13. These two fields allow us to explain charge mechanically because they are in vector opposition.
14. Gravity causes an apparent attraction and the B-field causes real repulsion.
15. What we have is a small electron and a large proton (to simplify).
16. Both are radiating B-photons.
17. Let us say that the radiation from the electron is relatively negligible, so that we can look only at the radiation from the proton.
18. The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near.
19. But it will drive off larger particles more successfully than smaller particles, since the smaller particles will encounter a smaller cross-section of the field.
20. Also remember that any other proton that enters the field of our first proton will also be emitting its own B-field.
21. [W]e have not brought the newly upgraded gravitational field into the mix.
22. This field is going to cause an apparent attraction to all particles, just like the traditional field.
23. What about current in a wire?
24. Free electrons travel at high speed in a conducting wire [LK: I think they travel at very low speed], or any conductor, because the B-field is moving in only one direction in that substance.
25. The B-field acts as a river, moving the electrons along by direct contact.
26. This B-field river can be created in any number of ways, either by having lots of radiating particles at one end of the wire and few or none at the other, or by directionalizing the B-field through the shape of the molecules in the substance.
27. http://milesmathis.com/spin.pdf (GALACTIC PROOF of my QUANTUM SPIN MODEL)
28. Charge is photons, E/M is ions.
29. In other words, spinning photons in huge numbers cause ions to spin.
30. But when we measure the E/M field, we are measuring the spin of the ions, not the photons.
31. The photons are too small for our machines to measure directly, and we only infer the spin of the photons based on the spin of the ions.
32. GYRO-STACKED PHOTON SPINS
PHOTON SPIN, ANTIMATTER, MAGNETISM
http://milesmathis.com/charge.html (Electrical Charge)
33. [Regarding] spin of the elementary particles in the repulsing objects, [] spin causes the ejection or radiation.
34. Charge is the mass or momentum of the ejected gas or radiation [of photons].
35. http://milesmathis.com/stack.html (HOW TO BUILD A NUCLEUS without a Strong Force)
36. The first postulate is that the E/M field is caused by an emission field.
37. Protons must be emitting something in order to create the repulsion.
38. The second postulate is that quanta are spinning.
39. [B]aryons (protons and neutrons) have four stacked spins.
40. It is these spins which will allow me to build the nucleus without the strong force.
41. To begin, we will look only at the outer or z-spin of the baryon.
42. The proton and neutron are both spinning, and since they are approximately the same size, their z-spins will have approximately the same angular momentum.
43. What makes the two particles so different is that the proton is emitting a charge field and the neutron is not.
44. The neutron is swallowing its charge field, since the photons cannot navigate [or exit] the maze of spins.
45. The four spins of the neutron bring the photons back to the center, while the four spins of the proton allow the photons to escape.
46. I have diagrammed this in previous papers.
47. What this means for our analysis here is that the proton must be treated as an extended particle, while the neutron is treated as a discrete particle.
48. In other words, in this first part of the analysis, the neutron is treated mainly as a z-spin, while the proton is treated as a z-spin plus the shell of emitted photons.
49. http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html (Unifying the Electron and Proton)
50. [L]ight motion and interaction could be explained by stacked spins, each spin outside the gyroscopic influence of inner spins.
51. I showed the existence of four spins, of relative size 1,2,4, and 8, each orthogonal to neighboring spins.
52. In other words, most photons are spinning every way they can spin, axially and in the x, y, and z planes.
53. In my paper on QCD, I applied this to baryons, showing that baryons also had all possible spins.
54. In that paper I unified the proton and the neutron, showing that the difference between the two is only a difference in z-spin.
55. We may [] deduce that the electron at rest is spinning only about its own axis.
56. An electron with all possible stable spins is a proton, anti-proton, or neutron.
57. An electron with no z-spin is a meson.
58. [T]he wave characteristic of matter and of light is caused by stacked spins.
59. http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html (Unifying the Electron and Proton)
60. The electron must be moving to express a wave [and] it must have a second spin [] from collision, we assume.
61. And this second spin will add to the energy and therefore the apparent mass of the electron.
62. A moving electron will become a sort of stable meson.
63. It is primarily gaining energy from x-spin.
64. http://milesmathis.com/photon.html (Unifying the Photon with other quanta)
65. The [photon] mass should be proportional to the energy, but the energy is determined by both a and x-spins.
66. The a-spin corresponds to the radius, but the x-spin is twice the a-spin.
67. [T]he photon is two full levels below the electron and three levels below the proton.
68. As the photon gather[s] spins, it stops acting like a simple particle with linear motion and starts acting like a little engine.
69. The spins allow it to trap other photons.
70. Specifically, the z-spin is orthogonal to the linear motion, which allows it to act like a scoop or an intake valve.
71. Photons with only axial spin cannot resist this intake, and they are temporarily absorbed by the photon with z-spin.
72. Intake of small photons begins to slow the large photon and it begins to turn into an electron.
73. It gains mass and loses velocity.
74. At some point it takes its fill of small photons and they start to spill out once more.
75. This photon exhaust of this little engine is what we call charge.
76. If you have enough of this exhaust, it begins to directionalize the residual photon wind, and this photon wind is what we call electricity.
77. The spin of the photon wind is what we call magnetism.
78. HOW PHOTONS TRAVEL
http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html (HOW DO PHOTONS TRAVEL?)
79. Even if the photon were spinning at velocity c, one rotation must take some real time.
80. While the surface of the photon is spinning, the photon as a whole is moving some linear distance x.
81. [T]he velocity stretch[es] out the wavelength[.]
82. [W]e developed the at-rest wavelength from the B-photon and the moving wavelength from the infrared photon.
83. We may assume that the infrared photon is about 4 times larger than our B-photon.
84. [T]he small mass of the photon allows it to stack spins over a wide range of radii.
85. The proton cannot add extra spins above the z-spin without creating instability.
86. This is why "mesons" over the baryon size are not stable.
87. The extra spins begin interfering with the energy of the inner spins.
88. But with the photon [e]xtra spin levels do not cause appreciable slowing, nor [] instability.
89. In other words, we find spins of a1, x1, y1, z1 and a2, x2, y2, z2 and a3, x3, y3, z3 and so on.
90. >>>LK: a1 makes sense, but a2, a3 etc don't.
91. This means that photons do not come in a continuous spectrum.
92. If we measure light with an average wavelength in between those numbers, we must have a mixture of photons.
93. ATOMIC FORCES
http://milesmathis.com/waals.pdf (Replacing van der Waals Forces with the Charge Field)
94. [Fudging of] the ideal gas laws [] to match data at [] (STP) [and then] a wider range of temperatures [] is where we get Keesom forces, Debye forces, the London dispersion force, and a host of other[s].
95. [Even though much of new physics is statistical, they always forget to apply probabilities to their confirmations, by asking themselves if the standing interpretation is the most probable match to the new direct measurement.]
96. We have never been told exactly how the Pauli Exclusion Principle prevents the collapse of molecules.
97. The electron simply doesn't have the energy to repel incoming molecules.
98. [I]t isn't tiny electrons that provide this molecular exclusion, [but] the [photonic] charge field.
99. The nucleus is emitting a heavy charge field of real photons, and these photons repel large intruders like molecules.
100. [E]lectron orbital bonding was dead on arrival, contradicting its own field definitions [and] van der Waals forces are all DOA for the same reason.
101. [T]here [are] no electron bonds, no electron orbitals, no PEP, and no electron wavefunction.
102. [T]he wavefunction has to be given to the photons, not the electrons [].
103. [T]he charge field is actually Maxwell's displacement field, which underlies and drives the E/M field.
104. Keesom forces are always charge forces, whether [] dealing with ions or not.
105. The multipole interactions prove that, since [] they [] match the charge profile of my diagrammed nucleus, which is taking in charge at the poles and emitting it via the [four-pointed] carousel level, [] a sort of quadrapole.
106. In many cases, that will give us [] a hexapole.
107. [] Debye force [] is defined as an attraction between a permanent multipole on one molecule and an induced multipole on another.
108. [T]hey [wrongly] explain the polar nature of the molecules in terms of electrons being attracted or repelled by ends of a molecule.
109. Molecules are more charge balanced than ions or even elements, but they still have field potentials.
110. Current theory is correct in its explanation of induced poles, since one molecule can indeed induce field changes upon another molecule.
111. But this is done through the already existing charge channels.
112. These existing charge channels are natural outcomes of the nuclear structure, and cannot be induced past a certain point; but as we saw in bonding of elements, one element certainly can influence the structure of another.
113. [] London dispersion forces [] (LDF) were thought to be necessary to explain molecules without permanent multipole moments.
114. However, [] every element is polar [and] every molecule must be as well.
115. [Each particle is constantly spinning and so is each atom, so unbalanced proton/neutron structures are unstable.]
116. Argon has a weak charge field, not a zero charge field.
117. We now know this is true of the noble gasses, since we have recently manufactured compounds with them.
118. BLACK-BODY RADIATION
http://milesmathis.com/bbody.pdf (Black-body Radiation is the Charge Field)
119. [A]ll of quantum mechanics was based on quantum energy steps on the electron when it should have been based on a quantized photon.
120. [B]lack-body radiation [] has always been known to be photonic.
121. If we take G as the size transform between the two fields [gravity and charge] — taking the volume of one down to the density of the other — we find that the charge photon must peak at a size G times less than the proton.
122. A simple calculation then shows that average charge photon is in the infrared, with a wavelength of about 2 μm.
123. Amazingly, this is where black-body radiation also peaks.
124. Since baryonic matter is taking up 5% of the energy field, that 5% isn't available to be recycled.
125. So a real body can't be a perfect black body [and] real radiation hits a limit at 95%.
126. Soil [] that exceeds .95 is soil still in the ground, and the IR thermometer is of course pointing down to the Earth to take the reading.
127. [T]hat must skew the measurement, since charge is coming out of the Earth.
128. [V]ery hot bodies peak in the visible [because] particles stack on new spins at higher energies.
129. [A]t a given charge energy level, the charge photons will stack on another spin, becoming more energetic.
130. They each then have more radius, more angular momentum, and [] move up the energy scale [] from IR to visible.
131. Black-body radiation is defined as E/M radiation that was converted from thermal energy.
132. But [b]lack-body radiation is not E/M radiation [but] photonic radiation, as I reminded you above.
133. [] I have shown that heat and thermal energy are also photonic.
134. Heat comes into a body from the outside, via the charge field.
135. The body then re-emits a part of this excess energy in the light spectrum, which is also charge.
136. Heat may be carrying ions, since charge normally does.
137. The Draper point [is the] temperature at which the charge photons stack on another spin.
138. You can [] see clear evidence of this from the colors at higher temperatures.
139. Black-body radiation doesn't move continuously through the visible band, giving us yellow, green, cyan, blue and purple.
140. Instead, it jumps from IR to red to white, with only a mix of red and white between.
141. [By] current theory, we would expect the peak to move above the visible.
142. [T]he IR photon has stacked on four spins.
143. It can stack on a fifth, but at that point [] the photon becomes an electron.
144. [It]s drop in velocity prevents the radiation peak from continuing to climb.
145. If [there were] orbiting electrons [] involved in this quantization, we should see the elemental and orbital energy signatures. But we don't.
146. [B]lack-body emission follows pretty much the same curve for all elements or substances, which is strong evidence the electrons are not involved.
147. This is precisely why they tell you that a black-body cavity can be taken as a photon gas.
148. No orbiting electrons in a photon gas [].

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:20 pm

MATHIS' TOP NINE FINDINGS

First posted at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/10120.html

© Lloyd

milesmathis.com/central.html

1. Variables in Physics Equations Must Have Dimensions
I show that you can't assign a cardinal number to a point, which begins the revolution in both physics and mathematics. The point and the instant are jettisoned from physics, and all math and science since Euclid must be redefined.

2. Unified Field Theory
In my Unified Field Theory, using Newton's gravitational equation as a compound equation, I separate out the foundational E/M field and then reunify, including Relativity transforms. In a related paper, I show that G acts as a transform between these two fields. Likewise, I pull apart Coulomb's equation, showing that it is another unified field equation in disguise. In another related paper I show that this foundational E/M field is emitted by the central wall in the double slit experiment, creating the interference pattern before a single photon moves through the apparatus.

3. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Superposition is False
Superposition is explained mechanically and visually, in a rather simple manner. Using the gyroscope, I physically create x and y spins and draw the physical waves created. This explains the wave motion, it dispels many statistical mysteries, and it falsifies the Copenhagen interpretation. Using this same spin model, I am able to show the make-up of all fundamental particles, including the electron and proton, without quarks. I am able to unify the electron, proton, neutron, and all mesons, by developing a simple spin equation. With four stacked spins I can produce all known particles and effects.

4. Calculus Must Reject Zero Differentials & Infinities
Calculus is redefined on the finite differential, which will revolutionize the teaching of calculus as well as QED and Relativity. In fact, the fields of all higher math must be redefined. This discovery ultimately bypasses renormalization, making it unnecessary.

5. Circular Motion & Orbit Formulas Are Corrected
I show that many of Newton's important lemmae are false, including his basic trig lemmae. His proof of a = v^2/r is compromised by this, which forces us to re-analyze circular motion. The mechanics of his orbit also falls, which requires us to hypothesize a third motion to stabilize the orbit in real time. I have shown that this motion must be caused by the E/M field. This also applies to Kepler's ellipse. And it explains the mechanics of tides. [] I also redrew the line between tangential velocity and orbital velocity, showing that the orbital velocity must be an acceleration. This requires a rewriting of many basic equations and cleans up many errors and mysteries, including a few of those in renormalization.

6. The Precession of Mercury Calculation Completion
I correct all the numbers involved in the perihelion precession of Mercury, proving that Einstein's analysis was very incomplete.

7. Relativity Solutions
I solved the problem of relativity, finding the simple and basic algebraic errors at their inception. I offered corrected transforms for time, length, velocity, mass, and momentum. I exploded the twin paradox, and did so by showing incontrovertibly that relative motion toward causes time contraction, not dilation. I solved the Pioneer Anomaly. I also proved that Newton's kinetic energy equation is not an approximation; it is an exact equation. I explain the cause of the mass limit for the proton in [an] accelerator.
- Some Minkowski & Einstein Postulates are False
[] Minkowski's four-vector field is shown to be false, not only because it uses Einstein's false postulates and axioms, but because its own new axiom—that time may travel orthogonally to x,y,z—is also false. [] I prove that General Relativity is falsely grounded on the same misunderstandings as the calculus, which is one reason it can't be joined to QED. I prove that curved space is an unnecessary abstraction and that the tensor calculus is a mathematical diversion, a hiding in esoterica. I prove this by expressing the field with simple algebra, taking five equations to do what Einstein did in 44 pages.
- Interferometer & Light Clock Diagram Fixes
I show the error in the interferometer and light clock diagrams, proving that no fringe effect should have been expected. The light clock creates the same mathematical triangle and falls to the same argument.

8. String Theory Falsehood
As a bonus, I prove that String Theory is an historical embarrassment.

9. Science Dictatorship
"I am not required to accept the word of any master." [Latin] This is the motto of the Royal Society of Science in England, meant to assert the independence of science from various authorities; but ironically we must now apply it to them, the various academic societies in the US, and to the standard model worldwide, which has taken over the dictatorial powers of the old Church and Monarch that Galileo and Newton had to resist. Mainstream science has itself become the authorita[arian] and tyrannical magister or master.

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:24 pm

THE PHOTONIC CHARGE FIELD
First posted at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/10686.html
© Lloyd
1. http://milesmathis.com/charge2.html - (What is "Charge"?)
2. For more than two centuries now, since the time of Franklin, charge has defined the electrical force, and for just as long it has come in two forms: positive and negative.
3. To explain the force between the electron and proton, the standard model now makes use of the "messenger photon," a so-called virtual particle that is made doubly virtual by always being "summed over" in a Feynmanian sense.
4. This allows the standard model to have a force with no energy transfer.
5. Physicists must be aware that you can't have forces without masses or energies, or the equivalent, but they also know that giving the charge field mass or energy of its own [], then quanta must be radiating energy.
6. If they radiate it, they lose it.
7. QED and QCD can't explain this loss of energy, and don't want to [], so they ignore it.
8. The key to unlocking this mystery is contained in the realization that the idea of attraction is non-mechanical.
9. Newton's friend Jonathan Swift knew this centuries ago.
10. This [means] [] All attractions must be only apparent--the result of complex motions.
11. The pluses and minuses of E/M theory are not only empty attributes, they are impossible attributes.
12. The gravitational field has also historically been defined as an attraction, and it turns out that the gravitational field has been hiding at the quantum level as well.
13. The way that all this impacts the problem of charge is that we can now re-define the charge field as a bombarding field only.
14. It is always repulsive; never attractive.
15. It is caused by radiation of these messenger photons, which I am going to re-dub B-photons (for bombarding photons).
16. The repulsion is caused by an old-fashioned force by contact.
17. Of course this means that the B-photons are not virtual: they have energy, mass equivalence, and even radius.
18. The other thing that my unified field allows us to do is discover the gravitational field at the quantum level.
19. These two fields allow us to explain charge mechanically because they are in vector opposition.
20. Gravity causes an apparent attraction and the B-field causes real repulsion.
21. This field differential is true at all levels of size, quantum and cosmic.
22. The math is unchanged, including most final equations of General Relativity; but we replace curvature with expansion [expansion equivalence, i.e. centrifugal force via universal spin].
23. According to my re-expansion of Newton's equation, we now have a compound field at the quantum level, with the two fields in vector opposition.
24. How does this solve the charge problem?
25. It solves it quite easily, since we can now create opposite potentials simply by size differentials.
26. What we have is a small electron and a large proton (to simplify).
27. Both are radiating B-photons.
28. Let us say that the radiation from the electron is relatively negligible, so that we can look only at the radiation from the proton.
29. The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near.
30. But it will drive off larger particles more successfully than smaller particles, since the smaller particles will encounter a smaller cross-section of the field.
31. Because the field is a field of discrete particles, a small enough electron could actually dodge the field almost entirely.
32. But we will not imagine the electron is that small.
33. We assume, for now, that it is much larger than the B-photon, and cannot dodge the field.
34. Also remember that any other proton that enters the field of our first proton will also be emitting its own B-field.
35. These fields may interfere to some extent, but we would still expect the combined field to be more repulsive than either field taken alone.
36. This must mean that any protons will be driven away from each other much faster than an electron will be driven away.
37. You will say that we still have repulsion of both the electron and the proton, but we have not brought the newly upgraded gravitational field into the mix.
38. This field is going to cause an apparent attraction to all particles, just like the traditional field.
39. All particles are going to appear to "fall" toward our gravitating proton, and they are all going to fall at the same rate.
40. Standard gravity theory, so far.
41. But let us use Einstein's equivalence principle to reverse only our terminology.
42. Instead of saying that all objects are falling toward our proton, we say that our proton is chasing all objects at the same rate.
43. An acceleration in one direction is equal to an acceleration in the other direction, in a rectilinear field.
44. So, in order to explain both positive charge and negative charge, we only have to propose that the proton is chasing the electron fast enough to catch it, but not fast enough to catch the proton.
45. This gives us an apparent attraction of one, and an apparent repulsion of the other.
46. Another way to state this is to give numbers to the two repulsions.
47. Say the repulsion of proton by proton by the B-field causes an acceleration of 10.
48. And say that the repulsion of electron by proton by the B-field causes an acceleration of 2.
49. All we have to propose is that our central proton is accelerating gravitationally at a rate greater than 2 and less than 5.
50. Anywhere in that gap, we will see repulsion of the two protons and an attraction of the electron.
51. That is the simple mechanical explanation of charge.
52. What about current in a wire?
53. You will ask how my theory explains that. Again, quite easily.
54. Free electrons travel at high speed in a conducting wire [LK: I think they travel at very low speed], or any conductor, because the B-field is moving in only one direction in that substance.
55. The B-field acts as a river, moving the electrons along by direct contact.
56. This B-field river can be created in any number of ways, either by having lots of radiating particles at one end of the wire and few or none at the other, or by directionalizing the B-field through the shape of the molecules in the substance.
57. Some molecules block certain directions of the B-field, simply by getting in the way.

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:38 pm

THE PHOTONIC CHARGE FIELD - 2
First posted at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7475.html
© Lloyd
1. http://milesmathis.com/elorb.html (The Electron Orbit - the greatest hole in Quantum Mechanics)
2. I have shown in a series of papers that if we make the charge force mechanical, we must get rid of the messenger or virtual photon that is now said to mediate it.opt
3. We must replace that virtual photon with a real photon, and give it mass equivalence.
4. [All Force is Repulsive] Moreover, we must make all force repulsive.
5. There is simply no way to explain attraction mechanically, so we give up on attraction, at the foundational level.
6. Underlying both electricity and magnetism, we have the charge field, or what I now call the foundational E/M field.
7. Although electricity may be either positive or negative, the foundational E/M field is always positive.
8. It is always repulsive.
9. This means that all protons and electrons are emitting real photons, and that all protons and electrons are repulsing all other protons and electrons, via simple bombardment.
10. Attraction is explained by noticing that protons repulse electrons much less than they repulse other protons.
11. In this way, the attraction is a relative attraction.
12. Relative to the speed of repulsion of protons with one another, electron appear to move backwards.
13. If protons are defined as the baseline, then electrons are negative to this baseline.
14. Classically, this can be explained by the size difference alone.
15. Due only to surface area considerations, electrons are able to dodge much of the emission of protons and nuclei, and so they seem to swim upstream.
16. You have guns mounted all around your spherical 'house'[;] they fire basketballs.
17. All your neighbors are protons, and you have found that you can keep these drifting neighbors away using these basketballs.
18. By long experience, you have found that using a given rate of fire, these neighboring protons never get closer to you than 100 feet.
19. You have also found that at 100 feet, these neighboring protons have an apparent size of one foot.
20. Everything is great until an electron moves into the neighborhood.
21. The problem is, he is a lot smaller and he can navigate the gaps between basketballs.
22. He can only move in a straight line, so many times he gets hit and you keep him away.
23. But over time, by trying again and again, he is able to get quite near.
24. After long years of this annoyance, you find from your records that this electron is able to get 10 feet from your house, but no nearer.
25. Here is the question: how big is the electrons apparent size at 10 feet? [] The answer is: one foot.
26. The electron can defy the field until he reaches the point of optical equivalence to the [nearest] neighboring protons.
27. At this point the pressure of basketballs on him at ten feet is equal to that on the neighboring protons at 100 feet.
28. Or, to say it in another way, if two basketballs per second hit the protons at 100 feet, two basketballs per second will hit the electron at 10 feet.
29. This short answer assumes that the electron and proton weigh the same, and so 'feel' the same force or pressure.
30. Of course they don't, so the answer is incomplete.
31. For optical equivalence to work, we would have to include the gravity field here, as well as the foundational E/M field, and I haven't wanted to get into that.
32. Gravity is present at the quantum level, so my answer is strictly correct.
33. Once we include gravity, all we have to do is assume that the proton and electron have the same density.
34. In which case the falling off of gravity exactly offsets the difference in mass.
35. The repulsive force is 100 times less, per unit area; but the 'attractive' force of gravity is also 100 times less, so they cancel.
36. http://milesmathis.com/spin.pdf (GALACTIC PROOF of my QUANTUM SPIN MODEL)
37. Charge is photons, E/M is ions.
38. In other words, spinning photons in huge numbers cause ions to spin.
39. But when we measure the E/M field, we are measuring the spin of the ions, not the photons.
40. The photons are too small for our machines to measure directly, and we only infer the spin of the photons based on the spin of the ions.
41. Since photons are about G times smaller than ions, it takes a lot of photons to affect ions.
42. Normal light levels don't change the ambient charge field that much, since the ambient charge field, though invisible to us, is so strong.
43. We happen to be living on a largish planet which recycles a staggering amount of charge, and we are near a Sun that recycles even more.
44. We are in the vicinity of lots of matter, in other words.
45. In the vicinity of matter, the ambient charge field actually outweighs the matter field by 19 to 1.
46. That's right, the full E/M spectrum outweighs baryonic matter by 19 to 1.

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:42 pm

PARTICLES FROM GYRO-STACKED PHOTON SPINS
First posted at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7610.html
© Lloyd
1. http://milesmathis.com/charge2.html (What is "Charge"?)
2. *In my UFT paper [] I showed that what we have always called the gravitational field at the macro-level is in fact a compound field that includes both gravity and the "charge" field.
3. Newton's gravity equation can be expanded, with G as the transform between the two fields.
4. Once we re-expand the equation, we find that "mass" is hiding two separable features, and that one of them goes to one field and one goes to the other.
5. *Specifically, if we write mass as density x volume, the volume goes to the gravitational field and the density goes to the charge field (or what I call the foundational E/M field).
6. *Gravity is no longer dependent on density; it is proportional to volume or radius, and nothing else.
7. *Density is important only in the E/M field.
8. The way that all this impacts the problem of charge is that we can now re-define the charge field as a bombarding field only.
9. It is always repulsive; never attractive.
10. It is caused by radiation of these messenger photons, which I am going to re-dub B-photons (for bombarding photons).
11. The repulsion is caused by an old-fashioned force by contact.
12. Of course this means that the B-photons are not virtual: they have energy, mass equivalence, and even radius.
13. http://milesmathis.com/double.html (The Double Slit Experiment)
14. I have proved in several previous papers that the charge field, if defined mechanically, must have mass equivalence.
15. If it has mass equivalence, it must have materiality.
16. *In other words, the field that mediates the charge between proton and electron must be made up of discrete particles itself.
17. What is now called the messenger photon cannot be a virtual particle with no mass or energy.
18. It must be a real particle and create a real field.
19. In my most recent paper on this subject I have already given this messenger photon a new name (the B-photon) and a definite radius (G times the hydrogen radius),
20. http://milesmathis.com/charge.html (Electrical Charge)
21. we are taken back to the spin of the elementary particles in the repulsing objects.
22. It would appear that the spin causes the ejection or radiation.
23. This would mean that charge is caused by spin; but charge is not spin.
24. *Charge is the mass or momentum of the ejected gas or radiation [of photons].
25. http://milesmathis.com/stack.html (HOW TO BUILD A NUCLEUS without a Strong Force)
26. *The first postulate is that the E/M field is caused by an emission field.
27. *Protons must be emitting something in order to create the repulsion.
28. *The second postulate is that quanta are spinning.
29. In fact, I have already shown that baryons (protons and neutrons) have four stacked spins.
30. These stacked spins are fully capable of explaining all the characteristics now given to quarks, without a quark model.
31. It is these spins which will allow me to build the nucleus without the strong force.
32. To begin, we will look only at the outer or z-spin of the baryon.
33. The proton and neutron are both spinning, and since they are approximately the same size, their z-spins will have approximately the same angular momentum.
34. What makes the two particles so different is that the proton is emitting a charge field and the neutron is not.
35. The neutron is swallowing its charge field, since the photons cannot navigate the maze of spins.
36. *The four spins of the neutron bring the photons back to the center, while the four spins of the proton allow the photons to escape.
37. I have diagrammed this in previous papers.
38. What this means for our analysis here is that the proton must be treated as an extended particle, while the neutron is treated as a discrete particle.
39. In other words, in this first part of the analysis, the neutron is treated mainly as a z-spin, while the proton is treated as a z-spin plus the shell of emitted photons.
40. http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html (Unifying the Electron and Proton)
41. My explanation begins by importing theory from my paper on superposition.
42. *There I showed that the mysteries of light motion and interaction could be explained by stacked spins, each spin outside the gyroscopic influence of inner spins.
43. I showed the existence of four spins, of relative size 1,2,4, and 8, each orthogonal to neighboring spins.
44. In other words, most photons are spinning every way they can spin, axially and in the x, y, and z planes.
45. *In my paper on QCD, I applied this to baryons, showing that baryons also had all possible spins.
46. In that paper I unified the proton and the neutron, showing that the difference between the two is only a difference in z-spin.
47. That is, the particle at the center of every baryon is the same.
48. Only the spins are different.
49. I will show in a subsequent paper how this applies to mesons as well.
50. Mesons are these same baryons stripped of outer spins.
51. This unifies all hadrons.
52. In this paper, I will show that the electron is also this same baryon stripped of outer spins.
53. In this way, I will prove that electrons, mesons, neutrons and protons are all the same fundamental particle.
54. The electron with all spins has an energy of 16,385.
55. The electron with no spin has an energy of 1.
56. The electron with axial spin has an energy of 9.
57. If we divide 16,385 by 9 we get 16,385/9 = 1820.56
58. We may therefore deduce that the electron at rest is spinning only about its own axis.
59. An electron with all possible stable spins is a proton, anti-proton, or neutron.
60. An electron with no z-spin is a meson.
61. This number is very close to the atomic mass unit or Dalton which has a value of 1822.
62. My margin of error may be explained by the presence of the gravitational field at the quantum level, but I will save that analysis for another paper.
63. I will be asked how the electron can show a wave motion with only an axial spin.
64. I have already shown that the wave characteristic of matter and of light is caused by stacked spins.
65. But here we have only the first spin.
66. How is the wave expressed?
67. Well, it isn't expressed by an electron at rest, and we are comparing rest masses here.
68. The electron must be moving to express a wave.
69. If the electron begins moving and expresses a wave, of course it must have a second spin.
70. It must get this spin from collision, we assume.
71. And this second spin will add to the energy and therefore the apparent mass of the electron.
72. A moving electron will become a sort of stable meson.
73. As you can see from the math above, we can predict that it will have an energy about 7.2 times (65/9) that of the electron at rest.
74. So in the first instance, the moving electron is not gaining energy only from Relativity.
75. It is primarily gaining energy from x-spin.
76. http://milesmathis.com/photon.html (Unifying the Photon with other quanta)
77. The [photon] mass should be proportional to the energy, but the energy is determined by both a and x-spins.
78. The a-spin corresponds to the radius, but the x-spin is twice the a-spin.
79. So, we have found a mass of the photon of 2.77 x 10^-37kg.
80. From a previous paper, we know that the radius of the photon must be G times the proton radius, which gives us 2.74 x 10^-24m.
81. Because if we use my simple equation from my first paper on G (relating mass and radius to surface acceleration), we get a = 4mG/r^2 = 9.8m/s^2
82. The photon, like the proton and the Earth, has a local acceleration at its surface of 9.8!
83. I have shown that the photon is two full levels below the electron and three levels below the proton.
84. Why don't we find a stable particle with a mass 1/1821 that of the electron mass, which would be 5 x 10^-34 kg?
85. If that were a photon, it would have an energy of 4.5 x 10^-17 J, and a frequency of 6.8 x 10^16/s.
86. So the answer is, we do have a stable particle at that mass equivalence: it is just an ultraviolet photon.
87. As the photon gather[s] spins, it stops acting like a simple particle with linear motion and starts acting like a little engine.
88. The spins allow it to trap other photons.
89. Specifically, the z-spin is orthogonal to the linear motion, which allows it to act like a scoop or an intake valve.
90. Photons with only axial spin cannot resist this intake, and they are temporarily absorbed by the photon with z-spin.
91. *Intake of small photons begins to slow the large photon and it begins to turn into an electron.
92. *It gains mass and loses velocity.
93. *At some point it takes its fill of small photons and they start to spill out once more.
94. The large photon has become an engine, driven by small photons.
95. It is now an electron.
96. This photon exhaust of this little engine is what we call charge.
97. *If you have enough of this exhaust, it begins to directionalize the residual photon wind, and this photon wind is what we call electricity.
98. The spin of the photon wind is what we call magnetism.
99. http://milesmathis.com/magneton.html (The Bohr Magneton and Bohr's second and third biggest mistakes)
100. Finally, let's check that value for the electron radius.
101. Actually, what I found [before] is the radius of the outer spin.
102. The electron in orbit has both an axial spin and an x-spin.
103. Therefore the radius of the electron proper is: r.e = 1.12 x 10^-17m
104. But the x-spin radius, 2.24 x 10^-17m, must be the effective border of the electron, since due to the end-over-end spin, the mass will inhabit this entire radius, during motion.
105. In another paper, I found the radius of the proton to be about 10^-13m, and the proton is known to have a mass of about 1836 times the electron.
106. Using those numbers, we get r = 5.45 x 10^-17m Which is very close.
107. We can use my number to re-estimate the radius for the proton, assuming it has the same density as the electron.
108. r.P = 4.11 x 10^-14m

'13-08-03, 18:16 CORRECTING HADRONIZATION https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t22-microcosm-physics#137

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:48 pm

CORRECTING HADRONIZATION
First posted at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/9279.html
© Lloyd
1. http://milesmathis.com/quark2.pdf - Hadronization
2. [Wikipedia says:] "In particle physics, hadronization is the process of the formation of hadrons out of quarks and gluons."
3. "The tight cone of particles created by the hadronization of a single quark is called a jet."
4. "In particle detectors, jets are observed rather than quarks" [].
5. Now we are being told that hadronizing a quark is turning it into a cone of particles.
6. And what are those particles? Whatever they are, it would appear the hadron is really made of them, not quarks.
7. We have no evidence for either quarks or antiquarks—they are just conjured.
8. I have composed my hadrons from photons with simple spin mechanics, and we already know about photons.
9. They are not confined, they are not virtual, they are not from the Dirac or Higgs sea, and they are not spontaneously created. They are recycled and channeled.
10. In going beyond Wikipedia, we can look at the 2006 Ghent meeting of particle physicists, where we get [a] lovely diagram:
11. And the last subdivision [] is labeled "decay", but what are the quarks decaying into?
12. Could it be photons? As it turns out, yes. Photons, neutrinos (which are photonic waves ), electrons/positrons, and various mesons.
13. All we know for sure is that in something like beta decay, a neutron is "decaying" into a proton and an electron.
14. That is the pre-detection and the post-detection.
15. I have proved previously that the logical inference from detections of things like beta decay is that the neutron isn't decaying at all. It is getting hit.
16. The resulting electron doesn't come out of the neutron, it is simply an un-predetected positron that has flipped over in the hit.
17. The neutron also has its outer spin reversed, becoming a proton.
18. That inference simplifies all the mechanics (while giving us mechanics instead of conjuring), and immediately jettisons all this claptrap about quarks and confinement and spontaneous creation out of the vacuum.
19. [T]hey have no evidence photons don't interact and they have reams of evidence they do interact.
20. What evidence? Well, let's see, just off the top of my head, the MOKE effect, the Faraday effect, the Kerr effect, the Zeeman effect, the Voigt effect, the Cotton-Mouton effect, the QMR effect, Rayleigh scattering, magnetic reconnection, over-unity albedo, through-charge in Iron, and all of magnetism.
21. Basically all of quantum mechanics since 1900 and all of E/M experimentation since 1800 is clear proof of photon interaction
22. but since Maxwell left his displacement field un-assigned in the 1860's and Bohr mistakenly assigned quantization to the electron instead of the photon in the 1920's, this has been buried for more than a century.
23. On the [Wikipedia] page for the strong force, we find: The failure of all experiments that have searched for free quarks is considered to be evidence for this phenomenon.
24. Yes, lack of detection is now used as proof for a theory.

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:53 pm

HOW PHOTONS TRAVEL
First posted at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7594.html
© Lloyd
1. http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html (HOW DO PHOTONS TRAVEL?)
2. From a previous paper, we know that the radius of the B-photon is G times less than the radius of the proton.
3. This gives us a photon radius of 2.74 x 10^-24m.
4. The z-spin is 8 times the radius, so we should find a basic wavelength of 2.2 x 10^-23m.
5. Obviously, we don't find photons with a wavelength that small.
6. *Why? Simply because the wavelength we measure has been stretched out by the velocity of the photon.
7. The photon would be measured to have a wavelength of 2.2 x 10^-23m only if it were at rest.
8. A spin is a motion: a motion that takes time.
9. Even if the photon were spinning at velocity c, one rotation must take some real time.
10. We know that the linear velocity of light is not infinite, so we must assume the speed of spin is also not infinite.
11. If it is not infinite, it must take time.
12. If it takes time, then it will be stretched by the linear motion.
13. While the surface of the photon is spinning, the photon as a whole is moving some linear distance x.
14. So how much does the velocity stretch out the wavelength?
15. We can discover that most easily by using this simple equation: E = mc^2 = hc/?; ? = h/mc
16. The mass equivalence of the infrared photon is 2.77 x 10^-37 kg, so we just solve: ? = h/mc = 8 x 10^-6m
17. If we compare that to the wavelength at rest, we find the wavelength has been stretched out by a factor of about 3.63 x 10^15.
18. Since that is very nearly c^2, we assume that the transform is in fact c^2, and that the difference is a difference between the size of the B-photon and of the infrared photon.
19. Remember that we developed the at-rest wavelength from the B-photon and the moving wavelength from the infrared photon.
20. Our assumption is borne out by the numbers, since if we divide 8 x 10^-6 m by c^2, we get 8.9 x 10^-23 m, which is almost exactly 4 times our B-photon wavelength.
21. We may assume that the infrared photon is about 4 times larger than our B-photon.
22. The most common photons appear at the size range of 1821^3 less than the proton mass and size.
23. But the small mass of the photon allows it to stack spins over a wide range of radii.
24. In this, it is unlike the electron or proton.
25. The proton cannot add extra spins above the z-spin without creating instability.
26. *This is why "mesons" over the baryon size are not stable.
27. The extra spins begin interfering with the energy of the inner spins.
28. But with the photon this appears not to be the case.
29. Extra spin levels do not cause appreciable slowing, nor do they cause appreciable instability.
30. *In other words, we find spins of a1, x1, y1, z1 and a2, x2, y2, z2 and a3, x3, y3, z3 and so on.
31. >>>LK: How can there be a2, a3 etc?
32. In fact, each spin has twice the radius of the spin under it.
33. This means that photons do not come in a continuous spectrum.
34. You will remember that number comes from (c^2) 8.8 x 10^-23 m.
35. If we want the next photon larger than that, we double the spin radius to 1.76 x 10^-22 m and multiply by c^2, which gives us 1.6 x 10^-5 m.
36. If we measure light with an average wavelength in between those numbers, we must have a mixture of photons.

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:57 pm

PHOTON SPIN, ANTIMATTER, MAGNETISM
First posted at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7492.html
© Lloyd
1. (Three Problems Solved Mechanically)
2. The reason we have a right-hand rule is that the charge field is right-handed itself.
3. [I]n my field, the charge itself has charge.
4. The first charge is the emission of the photons [which are the charge field].
5. Charge energy is transferred by the linear motion of these photons.
6. The second charge is the spin of these photons, since it can either be CW or CCW.
7. The entire and defining difference between matter and anti-matter is that [] matter emits photons upside-up, and anti-matter emits photons upside-down.
8. Emitted photons are always spinning, so anti-matter emits photons that are spinning "the wrong way."
9. Now, the Earth contains both matter and anti-matter, but it contains a preponderance of matter.
10. Contrary to popular opinion, matter and anti-matter do not annihilate one another when they meet.
11. Say you start with an anti-proton.
12. It collides with a proton and loses all four spins.
13. At this point it is like a non-spinning electron [which] I have shown [] is nine times smaller than an electron at rest with axial spin [].
14. A non-spinning electron is also invisible to normal detection, since ionization detectors and other detectors cannot detect non-spinning quanta.
15. They have no velocity relative to the field and make no tracks.
16. But very soon these quanta are bumped by other quanta, and they gain both velocity and spin in this way.
17. As I have shown with my stacked spins, you can build either a proton or an anti-proton from an electron.
18. Just as you can turn a neutron into a proton, simply by reversing the z-spin, you can turn a proton into an anti-proton simply by reversing the y-spin.
19. [Y]ou can do it by building the anti-proton from an electron or meson.
20. You simply have to hit it with the right fields in the right order.
21. But my point is, you do not have to build an anti-proton from a positron.
22. (Unifying the Electron and Proton)
23. The electron must be moving to express a wave. If the electron begins moving and expresses a wave, of course it must have a second spin. It must get this spin from collision, we assume. And this second spin will add to the energy and therefore the apparent mass of the electron. A moving electron will become a sort of stable meson. As you can see from the math above, we can predict that it will have an energy about 7.2 times (65/9) that of the electron at rest. So in the first instance, the moving electron is not gaining energy only from Relativity. It is primarily gaining energy from x-spin.
24. (Unifying the Photon with other quanta)
25. [T]he photon is simply another energy level of the quantum
26. [H]ow can a photon with seven or eight spins become an electron and start emitting large numbers of photons?
27. [T]he z-spin is orthogonal to the linear motion, which allows it to act like a scoop or an intake valve. Photons with only axial spin cannot resist this intake, and they are temporarily absorbed by the photon with z-spin. Intake of small photons begins to slow the large photon and it begins to turn into an electron. It gains mass and loses velocity.
28. [P]hoton wind is what we call electricity. The spin of the photon wind is what we call magnetism.

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 21, 2014 1:01 pm

ATOMIC FORCES
First posted at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7494.html
© Lloyd
1. http://milesmathis.com/waals.pdf - I have shown recently that the ideal gas laws were fudged to match data at standard temperature and pressure (STP), so of course to match a wider range of temperatures, they would have to be fudged in many other ways.
2. This is where we get Keesom forces, Debye forces, the London dispersion force, and a host of other pushes and finesses in math and theory.
3. Even though much of new physics is statistical, they always forget to apply probabilities to their confirmations, by asking themselves if the standing interpretation is the most probable match to the new direct measurement.
4. We have never been told exactly how the Pauli Exclusion Principle prevents the collapse of molecules.
5. The electron simply doesn't have the energy to repel incoming molecules.
6. As my readers know, it isn't tiny electrons that provide this molecular exclusion they are talking about.
7. It is the recycled charge field.
8. The nucleus is emitting a heavy charge field of real photons, and these photons repel large intruders like molecules.
9. Two nuclei are held at a distance by charge field structures, and these structures are dependent on the nuclear structures present.
10. But since I have shown that electron orbital bonding was dead on arrival, contradicting its own field definitions, we know that van der Waals forces are all DOA for the same reason.
11. Not only are there no electron bonds, there are no electron orbitals, no PEP, and no electron wavefunction.
12. I have already proved that the wavefunction has to be given to the photons, not the electrons, so nothing will stand.
13. Now let us look at number 2, or the Keesom forces.
14. When ions are involved, they pretty much admit this is a charge force.
15. I have shown that the charge field is actually Maxwell's displacement field, which underlies and drives the E/M field.
16. Keesom forces are always charge forces, whether we are dealing with ions or not.
17. The multipole interactions prove that, since what they are trying to do there is match the charge profile of my diagrammed nucleus, which is taking in charge at the poles and emitting it via the carousel level (see diagram of Argon below).
18. This creates a sort of quadrapole.
19. In many cases, that will give us not a quadrapole or octopole, but a hexapole.
20. All elements in the molecules are recycling this real field of real photons, and the field is really traveling physically between the molecules.
21. In my theory, the field potentials δ are caused by real charge field densities and directions.
22. Now number 3, the Debye force.
23. This is defined as an attraction between a permanent multipole on one molecule and an induced multipole on another.
24. This force is not far wrong in some ways, except again in its field assignment.
25. Once more, they explain the polar nature of the molecules in terms of electrons being attracted or repelled by ends of a molecule.
26. This isn't the mechanism.
27. The mechanism is again charge field structures.
28. Molecules are more charge balanced than ions or even elements, but they still have field potentials.
29. Current theory is correct in its explanation of induced poles, since one molecule can indeed induce field changes upon another molecule.
30. But this is done through the already existing charge channels.
31. These existing charge channels are natural outcomes of the nuclear structure, and cannot be induced past a certain point; but as we saw in bonding of elements, one element certainly can influence the structure of another.
32. Finally, number 4, London dispersion forces.
33. The LDF were thought to be necessary to explain molecules without permanent multipole moments.
34. However, my diagrams show us there is no such thing.
35. Since every element is polar, every molecule must be as well.
36. [Each particle is constantly spinning and so is each atom, so unbalanced proton/neutron structures are unstable.]
37. So here is my diagram of Argon:
38. Each blue disk represents an alpha, or two protons and two neutrons.
39. I have shown the noble gasses are nonreactive mainly because all those six outermost alphas are perpendicular to the external charge field.
40. It means that Argon is only relatively neutral, not completely neutral.
41. It maintains a small polarity, only due to its configuration.
42. Argon has a weak charge field, not a zero charge field.
43. We now know this is true of the noble gasses, since we have recently manufactured compounds with them.
44. If the noble gasses were completely nonpolar, they wouldn't have any working charge channels and couldn't be bonded in any circumstances.

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 21, 2014 1:04 pm

ATOMIC BONDS
First posted at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/13413.html
© Lloyd
1. _Electron Bonding is a myth
2. _The original reason electron bonding was invented was to explain the coming together and bonding of atoms.
3. _Since the charge field was not considered to be a real field, it wasn't used for this purpose.
4. _The current carrier of charge is the messenger photon, but this photon is virtual.
5. _It has no mass, no radius, and no energy.
6. _With no field to explain the bond, early particle physicists had to explain the bond with the electrons.
7. _But electron bonding has been illogical and contradictory from the beginning.
8. _We see the state of the art very quickly when we begin to read about ionic bonds: The formation of an ionic bond proceeds when the cation, whose ionization energy is low, releases some of its electrons to achieve a stable electron configuration.
9. _But wait, the ionic bond is used to explain the bonding of atoms, not ions.
10. _For instance, in the given example of NaCl, it is a Sodium atom that loses an electron to become a Sodium cation.
11. _But the Sodium atom is already stable.
12. _It doesn't need to release any of its electrons to achieve a stable configuration, because it is already stable.
13. _So what causes it to drop an electron in the presence of Chlorine? We aren't told.
14. _This problem becomes even bigger when we ask the same question for Chlorine.
15. _Has Chlorine dropped an electron to become an ion? No, we don't want Chlorine dropping electrons, we want Chlorine adding electrons.
16. _So in the beginning, Chlorine is just an atom, and as such is stable.
17. _Why should it want to borrow an electron from Sodium? We are told it is because Chlorine has an "electron affinity," but that is just a statement.
18. _In fact, Chlorine can't "want" an extra electron, because that would be a stable atom "wanting" to be unstable.
19. _That makes no sense.
20. _It is even worse if we ask for an explanation of electron affinity.
21. _The Electron Affinity of an atom or molecule is defined as the amount of energy released when an electron is added to a neutral atom or molecule to form a negative ion. But that is clearly circular.
22. _You can't define an affinity by a release of energy.
23. _The release of energy is the result. We want a cause.
24. _As a sort of answer, we are told Ionic bonding will occur only if the overall energy change for the reaction is favourable – when the reaction is exothermic.
25. _The atoms apparently have some desire to release energy.
26. _But that isn't an answer, either; it is another diversion.
27. _All that tells us is that there is a release of energy during the bond, but that energy could be released in any number of mechanical scenarios.
28. _As you will see, it happens in my scenario, which has nothing to do with electrons being shared or borrowed.
29. _So it is indication of nothing.
30. _We are told that all elements desire to become noble gases, and that this explains why atoms want to gain or lose electrons.
31. _But that is strictly illogical, and we have no evidence for it anyway.
32. _It is implied that Chlorine wants another electron to be more like Argon, but if that is true, what it really should want is another proton.
33. _Another electron won't make Chlorine into Argon, it will only make Chlorine an ion, which is unstable.
34. _Elements don't want to be ions, which is why ions take on electrons to become atoms.
35. _It is ions that want to be atoms, not the reverse.
36. _If there is any affinity, it is for having the same number of electrons and protons, as we know.
37. _Atoms have no affinity for becoming ions.
38. _Once I remind you of the fact, you can see that we have loads of evidence that atoms do not want to gain or lose electrons.
39. _It is ions that want to be atoms, not atoms that want to be ions.
40. _And it is positive ions that attract free electrons, as we know, not negative ions or atoms.
41. _Once Sodium becomes a cation, it should attract the free electron, not Chlorine.
42. _So there is no reason for Sodium to start releasing electrons just to suit theorists.
43. _There is no reason for a free electron to move from a cation to a stable atom.
44. _But there are lots of reasons for Sodium not to release electrons.
45. _free electrons do not move from cations to stable atoms.
46. _That is strictly backwards. 20th century theorists have sold you a contradiction.
47. _The anion, whose electron affinity is positive, then [supposedly] accepts the electrons, again to attain a stable electron configuration.
48. _ remind yourself that anions are given a negative sign. And so are electrons.
49. _So the theory of ionic bonding is that electrons move from plus to minus? So much for field potentials.
50. _The Na and Cl aren't ions until the electron moves over, I am told.
51. _And it moves over because Cl has more affinity for it.
52. _But that doesn't work because the Cl atom can't have more electron affinity than the Na ion.
53. _It might possibly have more affinity than the Na atom, and that is the way affinities are assigned.
54. _But the Cl atom cannot have more affinity for an electron than a Na ion.
55. _As soon as the electron is "released" by the Na, the Na is an ion.
56. _We then have the electron hovering over the Na+ and the Cl atom.
57. _Which way will it go? Are you telling me the electron will move from a cation to a neutral atom? It will move away from an open proton? Look at this diagram of the process.
58. _I have drawn the moment after the Na has released the electron, but before it is accepted by the Cl.
59. _Do you still think the electron will move to the Cl?
60. _Do you really think an atom can have more electron affinity than a cation?
61. _How could an atom be more receptive to a free electron than a cation?
62. _That goes against the definition of cation, of ion, of atom, and of field potential.
63. _ I present an explanation below that doesn't contradict the field definitions.
64. _This is not to say that elements have no affinity for one another. I will show that they do.
65. _But this affinity is has nothing to do with electrons. It has to do with charge.
66. _Elements don't want to gain or lose electrons, they want to balance the charge field around them, to gain even more nuclear stability.
67. _I now can diagram the nucleus, showing how the alphas and protons fit together to channel charge through the nucleus.
68. _charged particles are in fact recycling the charge field, by taking in charge photons at the poles and emitting them (most heavily) at the equators.
69. _They do this just like the Earth does it, though on a different scale.
70. _I draw the alphas and protons as disks seen from on-edge.
71. _This helps me to diagram without blocking your view of inner parts of the nucleus.
72. _In addition, each disk is assumed to have a hole in the middle, like a compact disk [CD].
73. _Although I still assume the protons are roughly spherical, I draw them as disks to indicate the spin and the charge emission.
74. _Because they are spinning very fast, the emission is heaviest in the equatorial plane of the sphere.
75. _Since I want to indicate the proton as an emitter of charge, this allows me to simplify the diagram into a circle rather than a sphere.
76. _The hole in the disk indicates one field potential and the equator indicates the opposite potential, since photons go in one and out the other.
77. _When we build the nucleus, we place edge to hole, to indicate positive to negative.
78. _This creates a channel through which charge can move.
79. _Because charge moves in defined and limited channels, it does not tend to dissolve the nucleus.
80. _In this way, charge is constantly expelled from the nucleus, explaining in a simple way why charge does not push protons apart.
81. _This is what has allowed me to dispense with the strong force entirely.
82. _This is the diagram of NaCl: The blues disks are alphas. The black disks are protons.
83. _All disks are spinning, and all disks have holes in the middle.
84. _The blue disks have holes that can accept alphas, which means they can accept two protons.
85. _This is why we can simply bring the two protons together to create NaCl.
86. _That link in the middle could now also be diagrammed as one blue disk, instead of two black disks.
87. _This means that hole is full, which creates a strong bond.
88. _Why is there a bond? Because the charge field is now moving through that bond, and therefore through both atoms.
89. _This particular configuration is strong for another reason, one we have studied in previous papers.
90. _Because the chain has an alpha in the hole on one end but not the other, we have a large potential difference across the molecule.
91. _The alpha is like a fan, pulling charge into the hole.
92. _Because we have a fan at one end and not the other, the charge "knows" which way to go through the chain.
93. _The charge is moving through this molecule very efficiently, which is why salt is a very good conductor.
94. _This also acts as the mechanical explanation for the polar nature of salt, which is strongly + on one end and strongly – on the other.
95. _It is the charge field that is causing the potential here, not the electrons.
96. _You have charge going in one end and out the other, so we can map potential exactly like wind.
97. _Charge IS a photon wind.
98. _Now, every proton in my diagram has an electron with it, and the alphas have two.
99. _So if we track only the electrons, it looks like single "valence" electrons are pairing up in the link.
100. _But since I have just explained the bond without mentioning electrons once, we can see that it is not electrons that create the bond.
101. _They are just along for the ride.
102. _What causes the affinity of these two atoms has nothing to do with electrons.
103. _It has to do with the unfilled holes in those outer alphas.
104. _That hole is caused by spin and by the channeling of the charge field, not by electrons.
105. _If we treat the holes as charge minima, and the charge field as a wind, the holes have very real suction.
106. _They will attract charge maxima like those single protons sticking out.
107. _Here is Born's model of the 4f electron shell [plate X, p. 149]: Look familiar?
108. _Here is my model of the 4th level of the atomic nucleus: Now, I made my models from scratch, as it were, just trying to match the Periodic Table.
109. _I was not trying to match any previous models or equations.
110. _But you can see that my carousel level, with four alphas spinning about a central alpha, matches the form of Born's 4f diagram.
111. _Is this a coincidence? No.
112. _We get a match because Born was diagramming Schrodinger's equation, and Schrodinger was matching charge data from experiments.
113. _That is, Schrodinger had no model, he had only data to match.
114. _But since he and I were matching the same data, it is no surprise we should arrive at similar models.
115. _What this means is that Schrodinger's equations are basically correct, they are just misassigned.
116. _I have said in many places that much of quantum physics is good physics, and that Schrodinger's equations are the best of the lot.
117. _But his equations are representing the charge field as channeled by the nucleus, not electron orbitals.
118. _I have shown that the foundation of electron bonding theory is composed of electrons moving away from cations and toward stable atoms.
119. _Since that is a contradiction of the field definitions, no math can save it.
120. _Electronegativity can be redefined as the charge potential surrounding a given atom.
121. _Atoms create currents in the field around them, as well as signature charge densities in that field, which other passing atoms must respond to.
122. _And, as current theory admits, this charge field is a function not only of the atoms present, but of the particular charge field present.
123. _The charge field can be affected by other things than just the local atoms, such as ambient E/M fields.
124. _But I can already tell you the main cause of electronegativity, a cause that current theory is totally ignorant of because they have no nuclear diagram.
125. _The main cause of electronegativity is the proton configuration in the outer shell.
126. _That's right, it has nothing to do with electrons or electron shells, since electrons don't orbit the nucleus to begin with.
127. _Because the proton configuration varies greatly, even from period to period, it won't follow a tight pattern across the Periodic Table.
128. _Nuclei aren't built by mathematical rules, they are built by structural rules, the main structural rule being stability.
129. _Each element seeks the most stability at that number, and the only way to discover the stability is know the structure.
130. _In other words, you have to know how the nuclei are built.
131. _You have to know that there are eight holes in the 4th level, for instance.
132. _You have to know how many protons each hole can take (it varies from period to period), so that you know how full or how empty each hole is.
133. _And you have to know how the position of the hole in the nucleus will cause it to act, as a matter of spin and angular momentum.
134. _For this, you must have a diagram. No general equation will work.
135. _I suggest you look at my diagram and analysis of Mercury to see how this works in practice.
136. _Of course we can build math to fit the structure after the fact, but we have to know the structure first.
137. _We get the math from the structure, not the structure from the math.
138. _My theory and diagrams also explain how things like affinity and electronegativity are communicated between atoms.
139. _Without a physical charge field as I have defined it, there is no way atoms can communicate affinities or electronegativities across free space.
140. _For instance, in the example above, how does Sodium know Chlorine is near, so that it may [supposedly] release electrons?
141. _In my field mechanics, such things are easily explained, since the charge field is composed of real photons with real mass, radius, spin and energy.
142. _I have already shown in a series of papers that real charge photons can and must be fit into the unified field equations, and I have shown you how to do it with real math.
143. _To read more about the death of electron orbital theory, you may now read my newest paper on Methane, where I show how to create the molecule with no talk of electrons.

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 21, 2014 1:08 pm

BLACKBODY RADIATION
First posted at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7093.html
© Lloyd
1. The photon was mistaken for the electron, and all of quantum mechanics was based on quantum energy steps on the electron when it should have been based on a quantized photon.
2. Any close look at black-body radiation should point us at the charge field, since the radiation has always been known to be photonic.
3. Why should all bodies be emitting photonic radiation? Where is it coming from? How does it conserve energy?
4. If atoms and molecules are mainly E/M field bodies, and if they are reprocessing incoming heat and re-emitting it as black-body radiation, why wouldn't black-body radiation be composed of ions, especially electrons?
5. Atoms are already composed of electrons, so the most direct thing would be to emit them, right?
6. If the electrons are already quantized, the body should be able to emit electrons at any energy level required.
7. So why photons, and where are the photons coming from?
8. photons don't have to be created, because they already exist in all bodies as charge.
9. Many years ago I surmised that Newton's equation was already unified, that it contained charge, and that G was the transform between the charge field and the solo gravity field.
10. If we take G as the size transform between the two fields — taking the volume of one down to the density of the other — we find that the charge photon must peak at a size G times less than the proton.
11. A simple calculation then shows that average charge photon is in the infrared, with a wavelength of about 2 μm.
12. Amazingly, this is where black-body radiation also peaks:
13. Another calculation that strongly indicates my theory is correct is the peak of gray body emissivity at .95 of black-body emissivity.
14. Infrared thermometers are commonly set at .95.
15. The reason real bodies can only approach 95% of a black body is that real bodies are composed of baryonic matter, not just compressed photons.
16. Since baryonic matter is taking up 5% of the energy field, that 5% isn't available to be recycled.
17. So a real body can't be a perfect black body.
18. A perfect black body would have to be composed of compressed photons.
19. The black body would have to be nothing but charge.
20. Since that is impossible (as far as we know), real radiation hits a limit at 95%.
21. For instance, if you take this link, you find that soil may exceed 95% emissivity. Soil.
22. Turns out, the soil that exceeds .95 is soil still in the ground, and the IR thermometer is of course pointing down to the Earth to take the reading.
23. By my theory, that must skew the measurement, since charge is coming out of the Earth.
24. The Earth itself is recycling charge, so soil still in the ground will be transmitting this charge recycling through the Earth.
25. It will be asked of me, "If black-body radiation is charge, and charge peaks in the IR, then why do very hot bodies peak in the visible?"
26. This is explained very simply by my quantum spin equation, by which particles stack on new spins at higher energies.
27. I have shown this is the physical and mechanical explanation of quantization, but the fundamental quantized particle is the photon, not the electron.
28. Since the photon gains energy via quantization in this way, at a given charge energy level, the charge photons will stack on another spin, becoming more energetic.
29. They each then have more radius, more angular momentum, and more of what we now call frequency.
30. In short, they move up the energy scale, moving from IR to visible.
31. Black-body radiation is defined [in Wikipedia] as E/M radiation that was converted from thermal energy.
32. But if thermal energy isn't E/M energy, what is it?
33. We will be told it is molecular or atomic energy from motion, as in wiggling, Brownian motion, etc.
34. But what causes that? What is heat if not some sort of E/M energy?
35. Black-body radiation is not E/ M radiation, since we should save that term for ionic radiation.
36. What we have here is photonic radiation, as I reminded you above.
37. Well, I have shown that heat and thermal energy are also photonic.
38. They are an outcome of an underlying charge field, and the charge field is the same as the photon field.
39. Planck's spectrum is just an extended version of the charge field.
40. The charge field IS the photon field IS the light spectrum.
41. Heat comes into a body from the outside, via the charge field.
42. This raises the energy of the body by increasing the body's internal charge density.
43. The body then re-emits a part of this excess energy in the light spectrum, which is also charge.
44. Heat may be carrying ions, since charge normally does.
45. But heat is [wrongly] defined by the charge stream carrying it.
46. The Draper point also confirms my analysis, since my quantized photon requires that there be a temperature at which the charge photons stack on another spin.
47. In other words, we don't see a continuum or a slow change.
48. We see a field jump at a given energy level, and the Draper point is one of those energy levels (798K).
49. You can also see clear evidence of this from the colors at higher temperatures.
50. Black-body radiation doesn't move continuously through the visible band, giving us yellow, green, cyan, blue and purple.
51. Instead, it jumps from IR to red to white, with only a mix of red and white between.
52. More evidence comes from the fact that the light from very high-temperature black-body radiation never becomes violet or disappears into the UV and above.
53. It just becomes whiter and more intense, seeming to us to turn a blue-white.
54. However, this blue-white should not be confused with prismatic blue, since nothing about the radiation matches the energy of prismatic blue.
55. It would seem that intense white appears slightly bluish to our eyes, perhaps from the complete lack of reds.
56. The reason this last fact confirms my theory is that, given current theory, we would expect the peak to move above the visible.
57. If the quantization of energy matched current models, there would be nothing to stop the peak from moving above the visible at very high temperatures.
58. What keeps it from doing so in my quantum spin theory is that the quantization hits a limit when the IR photon has stacked on four spins.
59. It can stack on a fifth, but at that point the particle is no longer a photon, so it doesn't push the peak above the visible.
60. The radius of the charge photon is now so great that the photon cannot maintain c.
61. It suffers too many collisions in the field to maintain c, and its linear velocity drops, becoming after that dependent upon its mass and its field surroundings.
62. In short, the photon becomes an electron.
63. This drop in velocity prevents the radiation peak from continuing to climb.
64. Instead, a feedback mechanism is created, and the high temperature strips spins from newly created electrons about as fast as they can be created.
65. This holds the peak at a limit, and any more added photons (or added temperature) will only increase the density of blue-white radiation.
66. If thermal energy is molecular motion, then larger molecules should have more inertia — more resistance to increased energy or temperature — than smaller molecules.
67. Atomic weight should matter, as should the density of the substance.
68. The only way the density and mass of the matter couldn't matter is if the matter field weren't the fundamental field here.
69. But in my theory, the photon is quantized.
70. The photon has energy levels due to spin stacking, and that is what we are seeing here in this black-body problem (and all other quantization problems).
71. According to current theory, different elements have different electron configurations, and therefore electrons at different energy levels.
72. If the orbiting electrons were involved in this quantization, we should see the elemental and orbital energy signatures. But we don't.
73. The mainstream admits the quantization in black-body emission follows pretty much the same curve for all elements or substances, which is strong evidence the electrons are not involved.
74. This is precisely why they tell you that a black-body cavity can be taken as a photon gas.
75. No orbiting electrons in a photon gas, are there? So where does the quantization come from?
(From: Black-body Radiation is the Charge Field by Miles Mathis)

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 21, 2014 1:14 pm

BLACKBODY RADIATION ATTRACTIVE FORCE
First posted at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/10554.html
© Lloyd
1. http://milesmathis.com/bb2.pdf (Blackbody Radiation as an Attraction)
2. [] PhysOrg.com (Lisa Zyga, July 25, 2013) [reported] a paper at PRL showing an attractive force from blackbody radiation.
3. This attractive force acts even on neutral atoms and molecules, and it persists up to a few thousand degrees K.
4. At lower temperatures, it is stronger than gravity.
5. [T]he standard model forbids photon-photon interaction, [but] I will show that is the only way to explain these new experiments sensibly.
6. My readers will understand immediately that this is a magnetic effect, or more precisely a submagnetic effect, since it is determined by the spins on the photons.
7. I have shown that all magnetism is a result of photon spin.
8. But here, we have neutral particles responding strongly to a magnetic effect, which is why it is so difficult for the mainstream to explain mechanically.
9. Notice that they are keeping their distance from magnetism in the explanation, although if the effect is an attraction and is not gravitational, it couldn't be anything but magnetic.
10. So how is the attraction in the field created mechanically?
11. First we need to explain the lower energy of the particles in the field.
12. Clearly that is caused by a spin cancellation.
13. Spin has energy, and if you cancel a part of it, your total field energy will drop.
14. It will drop in a quantized way, at the spin boundary of each spinning particle.
15. Therefore each particle will be sent to a lower-energy "ground state."
16. But how can we get spin cancellations from neutral particles?
17. We can do so because even neutral particles are spinning.
18. More importantly, their emitted charge fields are spinning, as a matter of the individual photons.
19. To understand this, you should have read my papers on the nucleus, and on the cause of charge channeling.
20. All quantum particles, even the neutral ones, are spinning.
21. They are also channeling charge.
22. Some channel more and some channel less, but they all channel.
23. So like the photons themselves, all particles are submagnetic, in a sense.
24. They are channeling charge and they are spinning, so they are capable of showing magnetic effects under the right circumstances.
25. However, in most common circumstances, what we call neutral particles are not creating a directionalized or coherent charge field, so the field of those particles will not sum to any overall spin or energy.
26. Specifically, if an atom is emitting charge in all directions with the same strength, its summed spin will appear to be near zero.
27. When we measure the spin of that atom, we are really measuring the spin of all its emitted photons.
28. We are measuring the summed spin of its charge field, not the real axial spin of the particle, you see.
29. For this reason, only particles that emit a coherent charge field will appear to us to be magnetic, since that is what we call magnetism.
30. Magnetism isn't the spin of the particle itself, it is the summed spin of the charge field.
31. It is the summed spin of the channeled and emitted photons.
32. Iron, for instance, is often very magnetic, and that is because Iron is emitting a very polar charge field.
33. If we then align the poles of Iron atoms, we get magnetism.
34. Other atoms have a much less coherent charge field, so even if you align them you will get a weak magnetic field. The spins don't align.
35. So, in the experiments in Innsbruck, we can confidently predict that their created blackbody and their chosen field of neutral particles are both fairly coherent.
36. This will turn out to be an accident of the experiment, and it will later be shown to vary.
37. What do I mean? I mean that their results indicate that their created blackbody is emitting a coherent field of photons.
38. A blackbody could be emitting about the same number of photons and antiphotons, in which case this experiment would show different results.
39. We would get less attraction in that case.
40. So it is likely that they chose to heat up their blackbody with coherent radiation (as from a laser for instance), and this caused their blackbody to emit coherent radiation.
41. When that coherent radiation impacted their neutral particles, it caused spin interactions which were all of the same sort, moving the ground states lower.
42. This then caused a relatively strong attraction.
43. But using a different set-up, they could cause their blackbody to emit equal numbers of photons and antiphotons, which would create much less attraction (or, depending on the coherence of their neutral particles, none).
44. They could even cause their blackbody to emit only antiphotons, in which case they could create a repulsion.
45. Even if you have understood all I have said above, and understand the spin mechanics, you may still not understand how the attraction is created.
46. Canceling spins will obviously lower the energy of each particle, and thereby of the field, but that by itself would not create an attraction. It would only negate any repulsion.
47. How is the attraction created? To understand it, you have to understand the ambient field prior to the experiment and prior to the measured attraction.
48. Say you start with a blackbody that hasn't yet absorbed any input energy. And you have your neutral particles nearby.
49. You then have no attraction or repulsion, and that is because the unified field between the blackbody and the particles is balanced.
50. Gravity and charge offset exactly (or are too weak to register) and so you have no motion.
51. But even then, your field is not empty. Charge exists everywhere at all times, even at 0 K.
52. It may be relatively sparse, it may have low spin, and it may sum to zero spin, but it is still there.
53. What we call a vacuum is an ion or molecule vacuum, not a photon vacuum. We cannot create a photon vacuum.
54. What this means is that particles are always being held apart by charge, even at 0 K.
55. Photons are always between them, and collisions are always happening.
56. If that weren't true, then at 0 K everything would fall into a dense ball.
57. Every super low temperature experiment would threaten us with a black hole.
58. Now let us energize our blackbody and see how that changes the field.
59. If the energy of our blackbody is spin coherent, and if our ambient charge field also has some coherence, then the increased spin coming out of the blackbody must either raise or lower the energy of that ambient field.
60. If the photons coming out of the blackbody are spinning opposite to the photons in the ambient field, we will get spin cancellations.
61. If we get spin cancellations, then the total energy of the ambient field will go down.
62. The charge photons holding the neutral particles away from the blackbody won't have as much repulsive energy as they had before, and so the particles will come nearer.
63. So once again, we don't have a real attraction, we have only an apparent attraction.
64. What we really have is less repulsion. In physics, attraction must always be explained as loss of repulsion.
65. In my unified field, attraction is always explained as loss of repulsion.
66. In the field and in the math and in the data, we will see attractions. But in the fundamental mechanics, we never will.
67. As Jonathan Swift tried to tell Newton, attractions are not mechanical.
68. Given all that, why would this apparent attraction become a repulsion at several thousand K?
69. The reason has to do with the fact that the charge energy is both electrical and magnetic.
70. So far we have explained the differentials by spins only, but we have to remember that charge also has linear energy, which we would call sub-electrical.
71. It depends on the linear motion of the photons, or upon c.
72. It also depends on the charge density, since although you can't take any one photon above c, you can add more photons to the local field.
73. Adding heat is adding more photons to the field. Heat is charge density.
74. What we see at the turning point in this experiment is that the electrical effect is trumping the magnetic effect.
75. At a given charge density, the repulsion from sub-electrical collisions is so strong that even the maximum spin cancellations cannot counteract it.
76. This sub-electrical effect cannot distinguish between photons and antiphotons, since the antiphoton is defined by its spin, not its linear energy.
77. The antiphoton is a submagnetic beast, not a sub-electrical beast.
78. Therefore, at some charge density, the entire potential of the antiphoton field will be overridden.
79. You [might] say, "That isn't logical.
80. If we keep adding heat, we keeping adding charge, in which case we should be able to keep adding spin coherence.
81. Magnetism should always follow electricity, in that regard."
82. [But it] turns out that high temperatures not only give us an increased charge density, they also give us a more random field.
83. Remember, in raising the temperature of our blackbody, what we are actually doing is recycling more charge through the atoms in the substance of the blackbody.
84. So we have to first increase the charge density of the input energy, whatever that is.
85. As we increase the density of that input energy, it becomes harder and harder to keep it coherent.
86. Even if we can keep our high-energy laser coherent, for instance, as this input field hits our blackbody, it will interact with it in a less orderly fashion as we increase the temperature.
87. All those photons may or may not go where they are supposed to go, or where they were going at lower temperatures, and some may act to flip atoms or molecules over in the blackbody [changing emitted photon spin directions].
88. As the charge travels to the blackbody, it may also pick up free ions, sending them with high energy into the blackbody.
89. That can also flip atoms in the blackbody. If that happens, the field loses coherence.
90. If it loses spin coherence, the magnetic effect goes down.
91. In a case like this, high temperature augments the sub-electrical effect while it diminishes the sub-magnetic effect.
92. And so the repulsion trumps the attraction.

'13-07-31, 22:58 Re: BLACKBODY RADIATION ATTRACTIVE FORCE

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 21, 2014 1:18 pm

Re: BLACKBODY RADIATION ATTRACTIVE FORCE
First posted at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/9390.html
© brant

Lloyd said:
So it is likely that they chose to heat up their blackbody with coherent radiation (as from a laser for instance), and this caused their blackbody to emit coherent radiation.

Why would it be likely that they use a laser when you can just use a heating element?

Does that mean his explanation wont work if they didnt use a laser and the BB didnt emit "coherent radiation"?

And blackholes are mathematical figments yet there is an energetic phenomena happening at them.....

by **LongtimeAirman** Sun Sep 21, 2014 1:21 pm

Summary Paper on Mathis' Electric Charge
First posted at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/12998.html
© Lloyd
(Asterisks indicate more important statements, some of which need support or clarification.)

WHAT IS CHARGE?
_1 The idea of attraction is non-mechanical.
_2 This means all attractions must be only apparent--the result of complex motions.
_3 We can now re-define the charge field as a bombarding field only. It is always repulsive; never attractive.
_4 It is caused by radiation of messenger photons, which I am going to re-dub B-photons (for bombarding photons).
_5 The repulsion is caused by an old-fashioned force by contact.
_6 Of course this means that the B-photons are not virtual: they have energy, mass equivalence, and even radius.
_7 We have a small electron and a large proton (to simplify).
_8 Let us say that the radiation from the electron is relatively negligible, so that we can look only at the radiation from the proton.
_9 The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near.
*_10 But it will drive off larger particles more successfully than smaller particles, since the smaller particles will encounter a smaller cross-section of the field.
_11 Also remember that any other proton that enters the field of our first proton will also be emitting its own B-field.
_12 What about current in a wire?
*_13a Free electrons travel at high speed in a conducting wire, or any conductor,
*_13b because the B-field is moving in only one direction in that substance.
*_14 The B-field acts as a river, moving the electrons along by direct contact.
*_15 This B-field river can be created in any number of ways, either by having lots of radiating particles at one end of the wire and few or none at the other, or by directionalizing the B-field through the shape of the molecules in the substance.

HOW A BATTERY CIRCUIT WORKS
.16 A reader sent me a link to an article from 2002 by Ian Sefton of University of Sydney, who tries to explain how a circuit works.
.17 However, Sefton's explanation of the circuit is still not mechanical, as I think he would admit.
_18 Can we fill in his field model? Yes, since we now have photons to work with.
_19 In a series of papers, I have resuscitated the old spinning corpuscle of Newton, or the vortex of Maxwell, updating past centuries more fully than anyone thought possible.
_20 If you read the page at Wiki on electrical circuits, you get the impression that electrons travel through the circuit, creating the energy transfer.
_21 Sefton shows us that is false, and I have nothing to say against him. His argument in that regard is convincing.
*_22 The electrons are simply moving too slow.
_23 The flow of electrons isn't causing the lightbulb to light up, and the field doesn't explain it either.
_24 It is thought that the circuit acts as a medium through which charge can pass, but Sefton has already shown that isn't really the case.
_25 Whatever is passing is passing both through the wires and through the space between them directly, so it would appear that charge photons don't require the wires to pass from battery to bulb.
_26 The wires are providing some link, but they are not providing the path.
*_27 We should read the wires as an extension of the battery, not as a path.
_28 If we think of charge as a density difference instead of abstract potential, we can clarify the mechanics here.
*_29 The ionic content of the battery has set up not a separation of charge, but a density difference in the photon field.
_30 The photons are much denser on one side of the battery than the other.
*_31 Why._It could be any number of reasons, but a common reason in normal batteries is that chemical reactions separate large ions from small ones.
_32 In other words, if free protons are pushed to one side and free electrons to the other, the protons will be recycling far more photons.
_33 The photon density will be far higher on one side than the other, and by the rules of entropy or statistics, they will move from high density to low.

_34 Now, if we extend wires to the bulb, we haven't provided the path to the bulb that the photons must take, since the photons need no path of that kind.
*_35 What we have done is prime the field, like what happens in wireless transmission.
_36 The wires allow for an initial induction or matching of the present fields, so that photons leaving the battery can affect the photons in the bulb.
_37 You can't build a path by multiplying E times B, since B is a spin.
_38 Linear motions make paths; but spins do not make linear paths.
_39 If we define S as the statistical motion of the photons of the battery, then a better equation is S + E the path to the bulb.
*_40 From it we can see that it is not photons or electrons traveling from battery to bulb that creates the energy rise in the bulb and its lighting.
*_41 It is actually photons moving across the bulb, just as they moved across the battery.
_42 Because the photons are denser at the bottom of the battery, they will also be denser at the bottom of the bulb, in Sefton's diagram.
_43 Remember, the top wire is positive [higher photon density?] all the way to the bulb, and the bottom wire is negative [lower photon density?] all the way to the bulb.
_44 To understand why this is, imagine that the bulb is more negative than any part of the battery.
_45 That doesn't have to be the case, but we will use it as the first example (and it does help).
*_46 Statistics tells us that all the photons in the battery will be attracted to all parts of the bulb.
*_47 But since density is spatial, it matters where the terminals are located in space.
*_48 As the photons move over to the bulb, they naturally "drag" their old densities with them, simply because more photons will be coming from the denser areas.
_49 If the negative terminal is low, for instance, the density will remain lower a few feet away.
_50 Unless the circuit is gigantic, we wouldn't expect the density differences to dissipate much.
_51 Distances don't mean much to photons, remember, since they are moving so fast.
_52 But if you check the latest theories, S is more strictly defined as the change of energy density .
*_53 You should find it interesting that current theory uses density here, since I am defining the entire circuit, at the fundamental level, as an outcome of photon density variation.
_54 If you say you have a field, that implies a field of some things.
_55 To remain mechanical, the field must contain something, either atoms or molecules or electrons or asteriods.
_56 Asking what is in the field is a mechanical question, and mechanics is physics, not metaphysics.
_57 In addition, we can't have equal energy entering the wires from all directions.
_58 That would create zero potential in the wire, wouldn't it.
_59 There is no impulse to motion in the field between two numbers that are the same.
_60 Therefore, saying that energy follows lines of equal potential is like saying that water flows up. _It is a contradiction.
_61 But the current theory does not tell us what is setting up any of these fields of potentials, or why a charged particle placed at any point in the triple field moves one way instead of another.
_62 He takes E as given, when it is what we are trying to explain. _That is called begging the question.
_63 IF E is moving along the wire, WHY is it doing so.
_64 In my theory, there is no S, so I don't have to explain it.
_65 There is only E, and E is the linear motion of the photons.
_66 In my theory, neither S nor E are moving through the wire.
*_67 As we will see below, some photons are initially moving in the wire to prime the field, but this movement isn't either S or E.
_68 It is a precursor to E, just as priming the field is a precursor to transmission in wireless.
*_69 And yes, electrons may be caused to drift by collisions with these passing photons, but, as Sefton just proved, E cannot be this movement of the electrons, since it is too slow.
*_70 The drift of electrons is just a side effect.
_71 The drift of electrons doesn't light the bulb, so it isn't what we are concerned with.
_72 If we had a true circuit, then both wires would be hot.
_73 But even in Sefton's field model, nothing is completing the circuit.
*_74 If this is the case, we must explain why we even need to complete the loop with the second wire.
_75 We know that we do, since if we don't, the bulb doesn't light up. _Why.
*_76 A related question is why we need the wires at all.
_77 My photon densities should be moving over there regardless, since photons are not contained.
_78 Therefore, if we are asking why we need the wires here, it may help to look at how wireless transmission works, to see why it isn't working here.
*_79 In a nutshell, in wireless transmission source and receiver have to be coupled, which means the field in the receiver has to be primed to match the source.
_80 This priming is done via the E/M field between the source and receiver.
_81 Since the Earth's atmosphere is already an E/M field, it can easily be used for this purpose, as Tesla discovered.
*_82 The problem is, in normal conditions, the field is not coherent in any way. _It is scrambled, relative to source and receiver. _Charge photons are rushing around in every direction.
*_83 But by sending out a pre-signal, as it were, a path is created for the photons. _A coherence in the field is created.
*_84 When this field reaches the receiver, the E/M field surrounding the atoms there is also made coherent.
*_85 This coherence can be a coherence of frequency or it can be a coherence of spin (magnetism), or both.
_86 This means that the charge emitted by particles in the receiver will be as like as possible in type to the charge emitted by the source.
_87 Like charge couples most easily. _Charge that is directionalized, frequency matched, and spin matched will maximize the coupling.
_88 With this in mind, we see that the reason there is no wireless transmission between a battery and a bulb is that there is no pre-signal. _The field hasn't been primed.
*_89 The photons at the source don't match the photons at the receiver in any way, so there isn't any appreciable coupling.
*_90 And this means that the wires in a wire circuit aren't really carrying charge, they are simply priming the field. _The wires supply the pre-signal.
_91 They mirror the function of the conductor in wireless.
_92 Some amount of photons pass through the wires, and they cohere the E/M field inside the bulb.
_93 This causes a sort of mutual induction, although most of the effect is going from battery to bulb (since most the photons are being recycled in the battery).
_94 And since the heaviest photon traffic is from battery to bulb, this traffic will cause the electrons in the wire to move toward the bulb, by direct bombardment.
_95 This is what has fooled everyone. _They see that electron movement toward the bulb and mistake it for the mechanism. _It isn't the mechanism, it is just a by-product.
*_96 But why must we have two wires then. _Why doesn't one wire work to prime the field. _Because one wire doesn't allow for induction.
*_97 Induction is caused by photon modulation of some sort, and you can't have this modulation without some appreciable width of influence.
*_98 If you had a really wide wire and a perfectly directionalized connection, you could create the induction with one wire, since in that case you would be mirroring the wireless set-up.
_99 In wireless, the atmosphere works like a really wide single wire with a pre-existing field.
_100 But a normal copper wire is too small in cross section to allow the photons to arrive at the source with the proper information.
_101 You can send information through a single wire, but you can't prime the E/M field through a small single wire (under normal circumstances).

_102 To simplify the mechanism for this paper, think of the photons arriving at the bulb and speeding out of the wire.
*_103 Following Huygens principle, we can imagine the photons fanning out, as from a point source.
*_104 That fanning out ruins the ability of the photons to cohere the field inside the bulb.
_105 The local field can't read what the new photons are trying to tell them, since the fanning out is changing the information every moment.
*_106 If the field is supposed to be modulated by frequency for instance, that fanning out is changing the frequency.
_107 Photons coming out near the edges of the wire—the ones fanning the most— will be shifted relative to the local field.
_108 The field inside the bulb doesn't know what to make of the new photons.
_109 Very little of the field inside the bulb will be modulated.
*_110 Induction requires a resonance, and a fan can't create this resonance.
*_111 But if we allow even two point sources to enter the bulb simultaneously, with some separation, the local field can read the information in the new photons.
*_112 How. _Because the two new fans will cross. _One new influence won't create a pattern, two will.
*_113 Remember that waves are basically very simple fixed patterns. _It is these waves we are modulating in some fashion to create the induction.
_114 Well, a fan doesn't create a new pattern or wave that will stand.
_115 A Huygens fan just looks like a stirring to the local field.
_116 If anything, it will decohere or mix the field inside the bulb, not modulate it.
_117 But two such fans create crossing points that make a consistent pattern.
_118 This pattern can be read as a wave by the local field, and the local field can therefore be influenced by it in a positive manner.
*_119 The field in the bulb can therefore be made like the field in the battery, and we have induction.
_120 I have said that the wires simply provide the induction.
*_121 But if that is so, then why does the induction cease when the wires are cut.
_122 According to my theory, shouldn't we have wireless transmission after the initial priming, even with a battery. _No, of course not.
*_123 In real wireless, do we continue to have transmission when the conductor is turned off. _No.
*_124 The reason for this is that the ambient field rushes back in in both cases, rescrambling the paths.
_125 The coherence has to be maintained or it will immediately be lost.
_126 We can imagine E/M fields that might maintain this coherence even after the wires were cut or the conductor turned off, but the Earth's atmosphere is not such a field.
_127 In addition, it might seem that by my theory, both wires would be hot.
_128 Since photons are moving from battery to bulb in both wires, why don't we see electrons moving the same in both wires.
_129 Because, again, the two poles aren't the same, as a matter of photon density. _We have a much larger density at one pole.
_130 That is what created the initial energy field in the battery.
_131 The photons moving to the bulb from that pole will be much denser in the wire, and will make it much hotter.
*_132 This means that the neutral wire is not really neutral, it is just relatively neutral.
_133 It is a lot "cooler" than the other wire, because very few photons need to move through it to create the induction.
_134 Therefore, we would expect some motion of electrons toward the bulb, but not much.
_135 The neutral or return wire in a battery is not a ground, so nothing is returning and nothing is neutral.
_136 If electricity was returning to the battery, the wire would be hot in the other direction, right.
_137 But under normal circumstances, we would actually expect the electrons to be moving very slowly toward the bulb, which means we have neither a circuit nor a return nor a ground.
*_138 S is the statistical linear motion of the photons, before we prime the field. _It is the linear motion before the induction and before the "circuit" is created.
*_139 After the mutual induction takes place, and the fields are cohered, then E will be created.
*_140 5) Anytime you have information that moves at the speed of light, you should assume you have photons involved, not electrons.
_141 6) Potential differences in this problem are actually variations in photon densities. _Rather than think of potential, we should think of wind. _But here, we let our wind vary in density, not speed.
*_142 7) Like everything else, electrical induction is a mechanical process. _It is photons colliding with other photons, and informing them via a resonance; just as one river entering a larger river will be informed by that river (as a matter of speed, say).
*_143 8)The wires in a simple circuit perform precisely the same field priming that a conductor does in wireless. _That is, the wires produce the initial induction, and after that, the field of the battery can pass to the receiver with or without the wires.
*_144 And finally, we have learned that different substances actually create different charge. _We can deduce this just from the fact that we need induction. _If all elementary particles and atoms and molecules were emitting the same charge photons, then we wouldn't need induction.
_145 The photons in the battery would already match the photons in the bulb, and we would have wireless connections between everything, without wires and without conductors.
_146 We wouldn't need towers creating paths; everything would be resonating with everything else, and it would be a mess, frankly.
_147 So we have discovered that different substances emit different photons.
*_148 The size and shape of the emitters determine the characteristics of the charge. _This means that we might create induction, or maximize it, by making our receivers out of the same material as our emitters.
_149 In some cases that might be impossible. _For instance, if our source of emission is free protons, it would be hard to make a lightbulb out of free protons. _Even hydrogen wouldn't mimic free protons, since the shape would be different.
_150 But it might be possible to make a battery and a bulb out the same materials, or out of materials that created charge of the same profile. _Just an idea.
_151 It might also facilitate transmission to have the receiver directly above the source, so that the charge field of the Earth will help rather than interfere. _The difference might be small, but it might also be measurable.

by Sponsored content

Microcosm - Physics

Microcosm - Physics

Re: Microcosm - Physics

MATHIS' TOP NINE FINDINGS

THE PHOTONIC CHARGE FIELD

Re: Microcosm - Physics

PARTICLES FROM GYRO-STACKED PHOTON SPINS

CORRECTING HADRONIZATION

HOW PHOTONS TRAVEL

PHOTON SPIN, ANTIMATTER, MAGNETISM

ATOMIC FORCES

ATOMIC BONDS

BLACKBODY RADIATION

BLACKBODY RADIATION ATTRACTIVE FORCE

Re: BLACKBODY RADIATION ATTRACTIVE FORCE

Summary Paper on Mathis' Electric Charge

Re: Microcosm - Physics