Gravity, Mass, Expansion

Third Wave. On MM's Physics home page is this.
149. The Third Wave: a Redefinition of Gravity, Part I (http://milesmathis.com/third.html). No curved space, no force at a distance, no force-carrying particle. Gravity is explained here simply in terms of straight-line motion. Mass, inertia and gravity are all shown to be equivalent, reducible to the same motions. 9pp.

He said, they're all the same motion. Do you agree?

the UNIVERSAL GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT (http://milesmathis.com/ug.html)
let us move our twin spheres s distance apart for a moment. If there is a gravitational force, then after a time interval Δt, this distance will diminish by Δs. Why has the distance diminished? Because a force between the two spheres pulled them closer—this is the classical and current interpretation given to the situation. But can we give it another interpretation? Yes, we can say that both spheres are expanding and that they moved into the distance between them. By the classical interpretation, the centers of the spheres moved toward eachother. By my interpretation, they did not.
           With my change in theory, you can see that we no longer have to assign Δs to the diminishing distance between the spheres. We can assign it to a change in the radii of the spheres. This being so, we can move the spheres back together, touching at a point. After a time Δt, the radius of each sphere will have changed Δs/2.

This is one of the quotes I disagree with. Elsewhere MM refers to gravity as acceleration and that acceleration can be achieved by curved motion. Can it not? And in a paper in January, 2012 MM said the universe could have stacked spins and those could be the cause of gravity.

Regarding the statement, "we no longer have to assign Δs to the diminishing distance between the spheres. We can assign it to a change in the radii of the spheres", in reality we seldom if ever see that between two spheres, i.e. planets or stars, but only between a planet or star and an object. For distance relationships between planets and stars Δs is generally zero on average, with cyclic increases and decreases. Cannot the circular orbits and spinning of the bodies account for the "acceleration" of their gravity? And what about the stacked spins of the universe itself?

The Third Wave: a New Definition of Gravity (http://milesmathis.com/third.html)
The optical equivalence (angular diameter) of Sun and Moon as proof of my theory.
12. ... Bending of starlight by the planets as experimental proof of expansion.

I haven't reread that lately, so I don't know how he's saying bending of starlight is proof of expansion.

overhaul of QCD (http://milesmathis.com/quark.html)
Mathematically, it may be treated as a straight expansion of the .....
Since energy is mass, we may deduce that the mass equivalence of the ...

A mathematical expansion is not necessarily a physical expansion, is it? And mass equivalence isn't necessarily the exact same thing as mass, is it?

Lloyd said - He said, they're all the same motion. Do you agree?

Lloyd, Yes, I agree. Please recall that Miles reverses Einstein’s tensors, and thereby converts ‘curved’ space into simple Euclidean geometry. Matter behaves exactly as though it were expanding at the rate of gravity.  

This is one of the quotes I disagree with. Elsewhere MM refers to gravity as acceleration and that acceleration can be achieved by curved motion. Can it not? And in a paper in January, 2012 MM said the universe could have stacked spins and those could be the cause of gravity.

Gravity is an acceleration. A curved trajectory also demonstrates acceleration. It doesn’t necessarily follow that gravity is a curved motion, it is merely suggested, strongly. Matter expansion (Earth’s radius doubling every 17 minutes) is so radical that no one seems to be able to accept it at face value. Everyone rebels at that notion - me included. I believe that in this case (the only case I can recall), Miles seems to retreat from his expansion theory, to solicit suggestions from readers. A reader, in fact, suggested “Universal Rotation” to Miles. Unfortunately, he has not (as far as I know) followed up by working out the details and making the idea his own.  

I haven't reread that lately, so I don't know how he's saying bending of starlight is proof of expansion.

It is not, as I understand it, starlight bending, but rather the sun expands in the seven to eight minutes its light travels to us, and the sun's arc thereby obscures some of the starfield behind the sun. In 39. The Perihelion Precession of Mercury. http://milesmathis.com/merc.html (A long critique of the historical problem, showing the major errors of Einstein and others. 32pp.) Miles calculates the angle that Mercury expands while the light is travelling from the Sun to Mercury. He discusses how that “curvature” relates to precessions and perturbations. That ‘proof’ overturns Einstein’s mercury precession calculation and interpretation.

A mathematical expansion is not necessarily a physical expansion, is it? And mass equivalence isn't necessarily the exact same thing as mass, is it?

I believe that that’s a main reason expansion gravity cannot be accepted. What is the nature of mass if it is constantly expanding without detecting any other physical changes? That is why I’m careful to say that matter simply behaves as though it is constantly expanding (as ‘proven by Miles’ own Mercury precession calculation). Coming up with a stacked spin (or other) explanation would be a real coup.
REMCB

Airman, as I've said before, if matter expanded like that, it would be obvious. The distance between every material object would be getting shorter at a constantly increasing rate. The only way that might not be the case is if space were expanding at exactly the same rate that matter expands. So the idea seems extremely far-fetched to me. Steven Oostdyk seems to agree with me. MM mentioned him in one of his recent papers.

LongtimeAirman wrote:

I haven't reread that lately, so I don't know how he's saying bending of starlight is proof of expansion.

It is not, as I understand it, starlight bending, but rather the sun expands in the seven to eight minutes its light travels to us, and the sun's arc thereby obscures some of the starfield behind the sun. In 39. The Perihelion Precession of Mercury. http://milesmathis.com/merc.html (A long critique of the historical problem, showing the major errors of Einstein and others. 32pp.) Miles calculates the angle that Mercury expands while the light is travelling from the Sun to Mercury. He discusses how that “curvature” relates to precessions and perturbations. That ‘proof’ overturns Einstein’s mercury precession calculation and interpretation.

It is not the suns expansion that matters as the photon has already made it past the sun, it is the earths expansion that causes the apparent curved path of the photon. We expect the photon to arrive at a certain location (if the path was straight) but the photon is actually found somewhere else. The difference can be explained as bending the path of the photon or the earth expanded and therefore the expected location to receive the photon has moved, either way we receive the photon at a different location than expected with a straight path.

The proof Miles talks about is that in his model it is explained why you get different results depending on where you are on the earth but the bending light theory can not. That is, if you receive the photon on the right side of the earth, relative to the sun, then the results will be different than if you received it on the left (and it varies in between). We know this is true from experiment but it is unexplained and/or ignored. At least that is how I remember it, I would need to reread the paper to get more detail. I can't remember why the bending light theory doesn't explain the difference.

LongtimeAirman wrote:

A mathematical expansion is not necessarily a physical expansion, is it? And mass equivalence isn't necessarily the exact same thing as mass, is it?

I believe that that’s a main reason expansion gravity cannot be accepted. What is the nature of mass if it is constantly expanding without detecting any other physical changes? That is why I’m careful to say that matter simply behaves as though it is constantly expanding (as ‘proven by Miles’ own Mercury precession calculation). Coming up with a stacked spin (or other) explanation would be a real coup.
REMCB

It's not just mass though, it also explains inertia in a very straight forward manor. I would even go so far as to say it is the simplest possible explanation of inertia and gravity. You are free to think of it as a mathematical trick if you like, but it works so effectively that it is hard to ignore. Everyone has a prejudice against expansion, not a physical reason against it.

I also find it strange that everyone is happy to accept that space is curved because we can view it mathematically like that but are just as happy to throw out expansion when it fits better and produces much simpler math. Occam is turning over in his grave. At least expansion tells you what is expanding. Curved space doesn't tell you what is curving. Curvature can only apply to structure but no-one has shown the structure of space and then shown how it curves. Space has no structure! Space is nothing, the absence of anything, the void. To give space properties like curvature requires that space is something. Mainstream science has not left the aether behind at all, they just told everyone, and themselves, that they had until everyone believed it.

I am happy for someone to come up with an alternative to expansion, but it has to be pretty good to do so, in my opinion. I don't think universal spin is an answer as it requires a center of rotation (actually it implies at least 3 of them with 2 in motion themselves) which implies that some things spin more than others. Maybe a better way to say that is that objects closer to the center will have a tighter curve than those further away from the center. That implies more gravity the closer you get to the center. At least, that's how I see it and Miles hasn't expanded on the idea since his original paper on it.

LloydK wrote:Airman, as I've said before, if matter expanded like that, it would be obvious. The distance between every material object would be getting shorter at a constantly increasing rate. The only way that might not be the case is if space were expanding at exactly the same rate that matter expands. So the idea seems extremely far-fetched to me. Steven Oostdyk seems to agree with me. MM mentioned him in one of his recent papers.

If gravity were the only force in existence then it would look obvious, but it isn't. You have to remember the charge emission of the bodies you are studying which works against gravity. Also, if you think about objects attached to another body, such as you standing on the earth, then you have to factor in the motion that the earth imparts to you. The earth expands which pushes 2 objects away from each other and the objects also expand which appears to move them closer to each other but the net result is that they appear to be no further apart then they started. If they were 1m apart to begin with then they will still be 1m apart because everything, including the meter, has expanded.

Nevyn,

Thanks for your input. I believe that Miles' gravity expansion math, as given in his precession papers, is correct. And if the math works, well, however improbable, matter should be expanding at the rate of gravity. Of course, gravity is in balance with the charge field. If the Earth is doubling in radius every 17 minutes the charge field must somehow be overwhelming gravity to some degree, in order to maintain the apparent "constant" radial distances between all stable orbits within the solar system. Why then, orbits are not fixed, but actually spiral steeply outwards at the rate of gravity as well. And of course photons are expanding too, and impacting with just the correct amount of energy to maintain a stability which is an order more complex than is visible. That means that the charge field is even more powerful than it first appears.

So yeah, like most people, I hit a break point in logic and become wishy-washy in groping for alternatives. I certainly do not favor curved space. I apologize for my seeming lack of faith.

More important though; You must have modeled this. It seems almost too simple not too.

I have modeled expansion. I place spheres in my universe and then let them expand and collide. They all huddle together and find the smallest shape to hold them all. It is pretty cool. But the numbers get very large very quick so I had to find an alternative which was to let it expand for a certain amount of time and then reduce the size and move all objects to compensate. I don't like doing that but it was necessary. This made them all converge on 0, 0, 0 so I think my math to compensate for the size reduction needs improvement. However, it looks just like gravity (minus the charge field) which was enough for me at the time and I moved on to start my spin app.

I wasn't trying to attack you in the last post, I just wanted to point out some more detail and got carried away with the gravity stuff. It just seems strange to me that expansion gets dismissed so quickly while the current ideas are anywhere but logical and certainly not mechanical. I even saw a philosophical paper recently saying that if the math requires something, then it is real, no reasons other than the math needs it. I nearly fell off my seat when I read that. Physics has really surpassed reality and the math is everything and they think this is a good thing. It annoys me.

Nevyn, No attack taken. On the contrary, you seem to me to be careful to maintain neutrality. I, on the other hand, must adopt a mild form of aggression to allow me to communicate with others. I'm slowly getting past it. That is probably what you sense. That and an overall frustration with the state of science as politics. Etc.

But back to your model. Of course expansion acts like gravity. You stopped too soon. You really must try to create a stable orbit. You'll probably end up with a much better understanding of the relative strengths of gravity versus the charge field.

You guys are mesmerized by math. Math has to be interpreted correctly even if the math seems correct. I'm confident that, even if the math is correct, your interpretations are not correct.

It would make sense to say that the forces oppose each other and are in balance, but that would mean that the opposing force prevents expansion. If photons actually expanded, or if Earth expanded at the ridiculous rate mentioned, it would still be obvious, because space would diminish between objects at the same rate as photons or Earth expand. And how would that happen? It's still ridiculous.

LloydK wrote:You guys are mesmerized by math. Math has to be interpreted correctly even if the math seems correct. I'm confident that, even if the math is correct, your interpretations are not correct.

It would make sense to say that the forces oppose each other and are in balance, but that would mean that the opposing force prevents expansion. If photons actually expanded, or if Earth expanded at the ridiculous rate mentioned, it would still be obvious, because space would diminish between objects at the same rate as photons or Earth expand. And how would that happen? It's still ridiculous.

No, the charge field does not prevent expansion, nothing can prevent that, it just adjusts the field as the central object is expanding. Take the sun as our central object. The sun expands which moves its surface closer to the orbiting planets. But then its charge field, which is now also being emitted closer to the planets, pushes them away because they are out of balance. This effect also happens from the other direction. An orbiting body, let's say the earth, has expanded which puts its surface closer to the sun so it is even more out of balance and so the earth feels a force pushing it away from the sun. As all effects happen at the same time, the planets are always being pushed away, they will feel a constant force from the sun outwards. So if we could look at the true motion of the earth, that is the earth is expanding but we are not, we would see that the earth is not in a circular orbit but is in a spiral outwards.

This also applies to photon spins and may help explain stacked spins. I don't know how yet but it is an idea that has tried to surface in my mind a few times but I just can't see the link.

You would not see the space between all objects diminish. Some, maybe, if we could place 2 reasonably sized objects in an environment with no gravitational field, we would see them appear to move together but that is gravity. You can't claim that it is a problem that space diminishes between objects because that is the phenomenon we are trying to explain. Orbiting planets are in near equilibrium with their central body so you would not see them move closer since the charge field from the central body is balanced with the orbiting planet (or close enough) but as a body moves closer to the central body, we do see the space diminish. Since we are expanding at the same rate and the central body is pushing us away, it appears like the body is moving towards the central body at a faster rate as it gets closer. That is gravity. We know that happens so I don't see how it can be a problem.

I think your problem is with the expansion rate but it could be any rate and the effects would be the same, providing the force from charge emission was in the same ratio, because all objects expand at the same rate. Why does it matter if the earth doubles in size every 17 minutes, every year or every million years? The more important number is the expansion to charge force ratio. That ratio sets the distance of all orbits and it is not a constant either. It is a constant for a given size scale but as we move up or down in scale, the ratio changes. That is what Miles means when he says that gravity can overwhelm EM or vice-versa depending on what size scale you are at and also why you must transform your numbers when comparing different size scales.

I'm trying to explain this as best I can but I'm not sure I understand your precise problem here. Maybe you could explain it again with different language and I might get a better idea of what you are getting at.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Nevyn, No attack taken. On the contrary, you seem to me to be careful to maintain neutrality. I, on the other hand, must adopt a mild form of aggression to allow me to communicate with others. I'm slowly getting past it. That is probably what you sense. That and an overall frustration with the state of science as politics. Etc.

No worries. That mild form of aggression comes from the frustration, I get that and know it well. With familiarity of the material you get more understanding and then the aggression turns into confidence as you can better articulate what you are trying to get across. Then the problem becomes keeping the confidence while not letting it turn into hubris or the aggression comes back, but with more force. It's all a balance and some days I have it and some days I don't. That is why I like to take my time when writing a detailed post. I read it back to myself again and again to make sure it is saying what I want it to say in a manor that isn't too aggressive.

I find it easier to maintain neutrality by focusing on the concepts and remembering that it wasn't that long ago that I was struggling to understand this stuff (and still am,really). I have had to change my own ideas enough times to know that others are in the same boat. Humility comes from remembering that I could be wrong too.

But I don't notice any aggression in your posts so it might be something you feel but don't convey.

LongtimeAirman wrote:But back to your model. Of course expansion acts like gravity. You stopped too soon. You really must try to create a stable orbit. You'll probably end up with a much better understanding of the relative strengths of gravity versus the charge field.

I wrote an app about a year ago that modeled the solar system. I placed the planets and moons in their known orbits with their known orbital velocities, etc. It was just an animation, really, but I then tried to calculate the charge forces that each planet would feel at its current location which it would show as an arrow pointing in the direction of the force vector with a length proportional to the force. I thought I would see the vectors point either in the direction of the orbits or towards or away from the sun, and some did, but a lot of them just pointed straight up and I couldn't understand where I had gone wrong. Unfortunately, Miles math leaves a lot to be desired. It can be hard to decipher what he is doing sometimes. I'm sure it seems obvious and trivial to him but I don't have the background to fill in the blanks at a glance. And even when I do see the equations he is using, I have to translate it into my 3D world which is often different to how Physics problems are presented. It often seems to me that Physics is good at solving the problems it comes up with but these are not always in a form that fits a true 3D model. So I have the desire to create the model you mentioned but I still need to solidify some concepts into math and then into programming code to get it right. Of course, incorporating expansion is another hurdle to overcome.

Nevyn, the issue is unexplainable, so you can't explain it. Expansion theory has to be futile. If everything has been expanding and the expansion has been accelerating for billions of years, or more, how can there be never ending acceleration of expansion? How come the speed of light has a limit, but the acceleration of expansion doesn't? What if the universe always existed? Then the acceleration of expansion would be infinite. Is that plausible?

And how can you calculate anything when everything, including the measuring device, supposedly expands at an infinitely accelerating rate? And how can you call something expanded, if there's nothing to measure it with? That's just a mind game. Physics is about measuring reality, but there's no way to measure this theory. So it's fantasy based on math impressions. If physicists managed to get so much wrong up until now, how can you have confidence that MM suddenly has it all correct? Is he infallible? He admitted in at least one paper that his model likely has many errors.

Why not study his alternative theory of universal spin as the cause of gravity instead of expansion being the cause? Steve Oostdyk agrees with me, I think, that it's a far more plausible explanation.

LloydK wrote:Nevyn, the issue is unexplainable, so you can't explain it. Expansion theory has to be futile. If everything has been expanding and the expansion has been accelerating for billions of years, or more, how can there be never ending acceleration of expansion? How come the speed of light has a limit, but the acceleration of expansion doesn't?

There might be a limit to the velocity of the radius. If it was reached then gravity would behave differently. The universe would probably fall apart and break down into a photonic dust. That is just consequences of the theory. Is it any different from the current ideas of a slow heat death or black holes swallowing everything up? It might not be pretty and satisfy some peoples need for a comfy universe that will last us forever and a day but it doesn't have to be.

LloydK wrote:What if the universe always existed? Then the acceleration of expansion would be infinite. Is that plausible?

If you posit an infinite universe you can't disqualify something else for being infinite.

LloydK wrote:And how can you calculate anything when everything, including the measuring device, supposedly expands at an infinitely accelerating rate? And how can you call something expanded, if there's nothing to measure it with? That's just a mind game.

You calculate it the same way we already do, relatively. Nothing is absolute and all of our current calculations are already relative so nothing changes. What you are trying to do is measure from an absolute position with a size that does not change. Then you can say 'how can something get so big or move so fast?' but it is an impossibility. Which just made me realise that the speed of light is a relative value but the actual speed of the photon (from your impossible position) is not limited at all. This means the rate of expansion only needs to have a relative limit which it already does, 0.

LloydK wrote:Physics is about measuring reality, but there's no way to measure this theory. So it's fantasy based on math impressions.

To be a theory it only needs to be falsifiable, not measurable. You need to be able to test it but that does not require a direct measurement. You can measure the affects of the proposed mechanism.

LloydK wrote:If physicists managed to get so much wrong up until now, how can you have confidence that MM suddenly has it all correct? Is he infallible? He admitted in at least one paper that his model likely has many errors.

I don't think Miles is infallible. I started a topic last week querying his model of Aluminium and I emailed him with the query too. I also sent him the solution but he said he wants to look into it himself before looking at my solution. But Miles has made the most sense in his work, has connected the most pieces with only a few concepts and so I feel confident that his work is moving in the right direction. There are parts that I don't understand or can't see why something would work a certain way and that is why I build application to help me understand it or help me test it as best I can.

LloydK wrote:Why not study his alternative theory of universal spin as the cause of gravity instead of expansion being the cause? Steve Oostdyk agrees with me, I think, that it's a far more plausible explanation.

Universal spin requires a center of spin. The curvature of that spin is greater the closer you are to the center. Does that imply an object would feel more gravity the closer it is to the center? Would it appear to have more mass? Either way it seems illogical.

I can accept that the universe could have a spin (but there would be no way to tell because there is nothing to relate it to), but this requires stacked spins because the force of gravity needs to be in all directions. What could make the universe stack a spin? With BPhotons we have other particles to collide with to build spins but there is nothing for the universe to collide with to impart spin and even if there was (there can't be by definition of universe) the universe is not a single, rigid body. You have to impart the stacked spins all at once at the beginning of the universe which requires a god.

And this universal spin theory shows a misunderstanding of stacked spins and the motions they produce. Gravity is the same in all directions all the time, no exceptions. But stacked spins do not produce a motion that would create a constant force in all directions. The spins work on each other causing the core entity to speed up and slow down in certain spin directions over time. This would manifest as constant changes to gravity. You could try to say that our measurement of gravity is an average but to do so you have to have universal spin that is so fast that we can't even measure that small yet.

How about analyzing gravity based on what's known?
- We see and feel a force moving matter toward matter.
- As matter approaches matter, the smaller body accelerates toward the larger one, until the two join, at which point acceleration and velocity both stop or go to zero.
- If the larger body has an atmosphere, the smaller body stops accelerating when air resistance equals velocity, which remains steady above zero, until the bodies join.

If expansion can be supposed to account for gravity, then expansion can be supposed to account for all motions, including photon translational motion. Photons must accelerate in order to go from rest to the speed of light.

My sense is that expansion was just a convenience MM used when he couldn't explain gravitational attraction. Because Einstein noted that the accelerations would be indistinguishable, except for visual observation from outside, MM thought the simple thing to do was to turn the vector for gravity around, which supposedly implied matter expansion. But the vector is just a symbol for thinking, not a real thing. It indicates direction of motion. But the observed direction is inward, not outward.

LloydK wrote:How about analyzing gravity based on what's known?
- We see and feel a force moving matter toward matter.
- As matter approaches matter, the smaller body accelerates toward the larger one, until the two join, at which point acceleration and velocity both stop or go to zero.
- If the larger body has an atmosphere, the smaller body stops accelerating when air resistance equals velocity, which remains steady above zero, until the bodies join.

You have listed some assumptions based on a certain perspective but none of them are facts (in the way you have stated them). Let me re-write these from the perspective of expansion:

- We see what appears to be matter moving towards matter from our perspective as an expanding entity, within the model we are studying. Expanding objects will appear exactly the same as objects moving towards each other from this perspective.
- As the surface of matter approaches the surface of another body, the surfaces accelerate together until the two join, at which point the surfaces stop accelerating toward each other and the bodies actually start accelerating their own location away from each other while the surfaces remain touching.
- If the larger body has an atmosphere, the smaller body encounters resistance which pushes the body away with a net result of a slowed motion toward each other. This actually results in the body moving its location away from the other but not enough to overcome the surface expansion but it can match it.

Now, let me show some known properties of gravity that expansion explains but other models do not:

- Gravity operates on all bodies the same, regardless of their mass or size.
- Gravity is not blocked by a body in between 2 other bodies, it works through all bodies, regardless of mass, density or size.

Expansion explains both of these simply. Since the actual motion is only applied to the body, the body does not have to reach out to the other bodies to work on them. No need for messenger particles, which could be blocked unless you want to propose the gravitons can affect the first body and then continue on to affect the second at which point you have to explain how they do this (and how it tells the body to move closer). No need for curved space which has no mechanism to actually curve space and no way for the body to reach out into space in order to curve it. It also doesn't explain how the space around 2 bodies curves, they can't both curve it the same way. Does 1 body uncurve the space that the other curved? That would have to be the interpretation if you believe in Lagrange points. Not to mention that space is nothing, it is the absence of something and so it can not be curved or have any structure (curvature implies structure).

LloydK wrote:If expansion can be supposed to account for gravity, then expansion can be supposed to account for all motions, including photon translational motion. Photons must accelerate in order to go from rest to the speed of light.

Why does gravity need to explain ALL motion? It only needs to explain the apparent attraction, not every single motion in the universe. So it does not have to explain acceleration of a photon, which you have no evidence for anyway. You say that they must, but that is just an assumption because everything else you know of must accelerate. We have never measured a photon at rest, hence the 'Photons have no rest mass' mantra. We only measure photons going c. While that doesn't mean that photons always travel at c, only that we measure them as such, you wanted to work with what is known.

LloydK wrote:My sense is that expansion was just a convenience MM used when he couldn't explain gravitational attraction. Because Einstein noted that the accelerations would be indistinguishable, except for visual observation from outside, MM thought the simple thing to do was to turn the vector for gravity around, which supposedly implied matter expansion.

I agree. It can be thought of as a mathematical convenience if you want to. A convenience that leads to drastically simpler math and explains, at least some of, the known properties of gravity in a clean concise manor. I invoke Occam's Razor and choose the simplest explanation that explains the most.

LloydK wrote:But the vector is just a symbol for thinking, not a real thing. It indicates direction of motion. But the observed direction is inward, not outward.

All math is just a symbol for thinking. Yes, the observed motion appears to us as an inward direction but an outward motion produces the same results, so the point is moot. You said earlier that Einstein noted the accelerations would be indistinguishable, except for observations from outside. In the case of expansion, in order to get outside, you would have to be a non-expanding entity. You would have to be outside of the model itself and since we are always part of the model, there is no way to reach this perspective. But there is no requirement that we have to reach that perspective in order for expansion to be real. It would make it so much easier to prove expansion though. I can say the same thing about curved space too. If we could get outside the model and actually see the curvature of space then we could prove it, but we never can get outside of the model.

Expansion theory (ET) is, in fact, an old idea. As Miles points out in Expansion Theory, An Interlude, http://milesmathis.com/expan.html, ET is buried in many mainstream gravity assumptions. For example, gravity calculations based on Einstein’s curved space depend on ET to create initial motive force. Miles provides many additional examples. Yet by itself, ET is no better than Newton’s or Einstein’s ideas in explaining gravity.

However, combining ET with the Charge Field results in a complete, self-correcting system that explains all gravity behavior.

Lloyd, in your examples above, you are attributing ET to all apparent absurdities and motions. You have ignored the charge field. The charge field will maintain the relative distances between objects within our solar system.

Since studying Miles, I've always believed that the universe as we know it will end when the surface acceleration of matter reaches light speed. But As Nevyn indicated above, if lightspeed is relative, then I must reconsider that idea.

As I've said before, In The Cause of Gravity http://milesmathis.com/gravitycause.pdf Miles introduced the possibility that while galactic rotation may offer an alternative to ET, he has not worked out those details. As such, ET, (along with the Charge Field), is the only complete gravitational theory I'm aware of.

I's not just math, It explains all observational data with specific differences and predictions that enable comparison to all other theories.

I think I can trump that, but you're probably not interested in hearing what may trump it.

As an aside, pride could be involved in a discussion like this. Many of us probably were complimented enough for our intelligence at times, that we tend to believe that we are rather intelligent and capable of understanding whatever nearly anyone else understands.

But it seems to turn out that it doesn't seem worth a lot of effort to seek to explain something very thoroughly most of the time.

I do prefer learning the truth, rather than keeping up appearances like the mainstream.

Oops. Now I'll have to read Airman after posting this. Okay, done reading. I have nothing to add though.

If you've got an ace up your sleeve, then throw it on the table. If I didn't want to hear it I wouldn't have posted. I have no pride involved in this discussion and I am fine with being wrong. I would prefer to think for myself and be wrong than to follow everyone else and be right. I think you would to. Part of the reason I post is to be proven wrong because if I am wrong then I want to know it.

An ace up my sleeve? I didn't think those were supposed to be played? One of your statements during the chat sounded like you wouldn't be interested in my ace anyway.

Glad to hear you have no pride to defend here. I worded my last post so that it could be taken in more than one way. It could suggest that others here may have obstacles to objectivity, or it could suggest that I do. I do have pride that tells me I can understand whatever most anyone else does, but I know that's unrealistic, so I'm always having to tell my pride that it's a dummy.

How about analyzing how MM came to suppose that gravity is matter expansion?
- Did MM have no alternative, but expansion? Did he seek to explore other alternative explanations?
- Have you looked at Tom van Flandern's explanation of gravity?
- Have you read Dewey Larsen's model of gravity?
(So far I don't see "expansion" as any better explanation than "attraction" or "miracle" etc. But I don't know if I should be interfering with your discussion here.)

PS: Why don't yous discuss how to persuade science fans that expansion is real? If yous can't persuade others, will you still be satisfied having secret knowledge?

LloydK wrote:An ace up my sleeve? I didn't think those were supposed to be played?

There's no point having an ace up your sleeve if you don't play it. It won't do you any good after the game is over. (just trying to keep the poker analogy going)

LloydK wrote:One of your statements during the chat sounded like you wouldn't be interested in my ace anyway.

I assume you mean this statement:

Nevyn wrote:I've tried to stay soley focused on MM so as not to let other ideas float into it 19:02

I think it is a bit rough to use that considering my statement before that was:

Nevyn wrote:I have to find some time to look over his work 19:02

Referring to CC's work.

And then I was actually reading CC's material:

Nevyn wrote:I like the openning paragraph 19:07

But I can see why you might think that way given what I wrote. However, this discussion is specifically about expansion theory, not every theory on gravity. If you have some point against expansion then let's hear it but you can't just point to some other theory and say 'this is better', at least not in this thread. You can point it out as an alternative or even as an example of some argument but it is not an argument against expansion.

LloydK wrote:How about analyzing how MM came to suppose that gravity is matter expansion?

I don't think it matters how he came to the idea, only if the idea can explain what it needs to.

LloydK wrote:- Did MM have no alternative, but expansion? Did he seek to explore other alternative explanations?

While it is good to question a theory and seek alternative explanations, when you have a good idea you run with it until it runs out of steam or gets you were you want to go.

We don't throw out Einsteins theories because he didn't find all of the other possibilities. Which is especially relevant in this case because Miles used his work to get to expansion. A theory lives or dies on its own merits. It doesn't matter who came up with it (that is just appealing to authority) only that it explains what it is meant to and does so in a logical manor.

LloydK wrote:- Have you looked at Tom van Flandern's explanation of gravity?

Yes, but many years ago. It didn't seem that great to me at the time but he had some really good points, especially about the speed of gravity which supports expansion quite well.

LloydK wrote:- Have you read Dewey Larsen's model of gravity?

No.

LloydK wrote:So far I don't see "expansion" as any better explanation than "attraction" or "miracle" etc.

There is only one part of expansion that is miraculous and that is the constant energy input needed to expand BPhotons. The rest is just motion.

Does anyone ask where the energy comes from to curve space? What about the energy for the big bang? What about the motion of photons? What about gravitons, where does their energy come from?

Every theory hits a wall at some point and can not explain where the initial input (or constant) comes from. While I would prefer to know, there is just some things you can't know. Have a close look at whatever your favorite gravity theory is and I bet you'll find some point where you can't explain something.

LloydK wrote:But I don't know if I should be interfering with your discussion here.

This is your discussion, you started it with questions for Miles. I think it is better we discuss these things amongst ourselves before we take it to Miles to ensure we are clear in what we are asking and haven't just misunderstood something. I thought I could clear up some confusion so I posted how I see it. I'm just trying to convey my understanding of expansion theory. That doesn't mean I completely agree with it or think it is complete. I don't need to believe in something to argue for it. In this particular case I do like expansion theory because it explains a lot with a simple idea. At the same time though, I am happy if there is an alternative. I'm not tied to it.

LloydK wrote:Why don't yous discuss how to persuade science fans that expansion is real?

I'm not really interested in convincing others of these theories. I'm here to discuss them and am happy to write the way I think it works but others can take it or leave it. I am also here to listen to how others see it and am willing to think about how that affects my understanding and I will incorporate it if I think it is appropriate.

LloydK wrote:If yous can't persuade others, will you still be satisfied having secret knowledge?

Yes, I will be satisfied knowing how things work. That is my goal and if others find value in what I write, the work I produce or with Miles theories then that is great. I like to help others if I can but I don't require it. Knowledge is not given, it is found. You must seek it for yourself, for your own value.

My doubt about your interest in my trump or ace is based on your reply during the chat to Airman's comment about everything being a hologram.

Dewey Larsen had a theory in several books that everything is Motion. I still tend to suspect that's almost true, but he also had a theory like MM that gravity is from expansion. He thought the redshift evidence of expansion is correct and that as objects at the edge of the universe surpass the speed of light they become contiguous in time instead of space and they become separated in space instead of in time. So faster than light stars from the edge become cosmic rays in our part of the universe. I think he meant each ion in a star becomes a cosmic ray. He said everything is s/t, i.e. a reciprocal relation between space and time. He said mass is s^3/t^2 I think, which maybe he got from Maxwell, like MM did.

When I found that redshift obviously doesn't indicate distance, because of high redshift quasars in front of or connected to low redshift galaxies, I decided that the universe then is not expanding as thought. He described expansion as like raisins in raisin bread as it's rising. The raisins move apart from each other, not in a vector manner, but a scalar manner. The dough represents space.

I may be a bit inaccurate.

Anyway, I don't follow a lot of your logic for expansion.

And by the way, I don't believe space is curved, nor believe in the big bang, or gravitons.

LloydK wrote:My doubt about your interest in my trump or ace is based on your reply during the chat to Airman's comment about everything being a hologram.

Oh, ok. Yeah, I just can't subscribe to a holographic view. A hologram requires something to project something onto something else which is then viewed. Why would anyone ever think this is a good physical theory? It might be fun maths to play with but I don't think it is a good candidate to explain reality. But it is far enough out there that it will get printed in journals.

LloydK wrote:Dewey Larsen had a theory in several books that everything is Motion. I still tend to suspect that's almost true, but he also had a theory like MM that gravity is from expansion. He thought the redshift evidence of expansion is correct and that as objects at the edge of the universe surpass the speed of light they become contiguous in time instead of space and they become separated in space instead of in time. So faster than light stars from the edge become cosmic rays in our part of the universe. I think he meant each ion in a star becomes a cosmic ray. He said everything is s/t, i.e. a reciprocal relation between space and time. He said mass is s^3/t^2 I think, which maybe he got from Maxwell, like MM did.

Everything is motion, I totally agree with that.

This is a very different type of expansion though. Miles is talking about the expansion of something, a real entity. Expansion, as evidenced by redshifts, is the expansion of space. The expansion of nothing. If anything, it is the expansion of the imaginary grid they superimpose on the system under study, not the space that that grid is supposed to represent.

LloydK wrote:as objects at the edge of the universe surpass the speed of light they become contiguous in time instead of space and they become separated in space instead of in time.

I'm not even sure how to interpret that sentence. Firstly, objects can not surpass the speed of light, especially anything larger than a photon such as a star. They can have a relative velocity over c from a certain perspective but the objects themselves do not exceed c. So I will interpret that part to mean the relative velocity from our perspective on earth or our measuring devices in space near earth. Contiguous means to have a common border (touching) or to be next to each other in a sequence. Separated means to be not touching. I interpret space to mean distance which is validated by the s/t part. Time is a measurement of distance so time is distance. Therefore, that sentence says that something is touching at the same time that it is not touching and all just because it exceeds c from some perspective in some remote part of the universe. So I'm not sure exactly what it is supposed to be saying.

LloydK wrote:When I found that redshift obviously doesn't indicate distance, because of high redshift quasars in front of or connected to low redshift galaxies, I decided that the universe then is not expanding as thought. He described expansion as like raisins in raisin bread as it's rising. The raisins move apart from each other, not in a vector manner, but a scalar manner. The dough represents space.

Yeah, the raisin bread analogy is pretty common. I don't understand how something can move, not in a vector manner (which is magnitude and direction) but in a scalar manner (which is just magnitude) (and you've just made me realise that I have been using the wrong manner/manor in my posts). Magnitude of what? How can something move with no direction? Even if it moves in all directions, like expansion, that is still a direction (or many of them). The terms move and velocity are virtually synonyms. To move is to have a velocity during the time of motion. The magnitude of that velocity represents the speed and the direction, well, that's just the direction. To have no direction but to have speed is illogical. However, if I say it has all directions and it has speed and only the speed is changing, well, that sounds just like an accelerating expansion to me.

I think the raisin bread analogy is better suited to MM's expansion theory. However, the bread represents the charge field, not space.

LloydK wrote:I may be a bit inaccurate.

Yes, I may be attacking a straw man so I apologize if I have misinterpreted something.

LloydK wrote:Anyway, I don't follow a lot of your logic for expansion.

It may be wrong, and I am happy for anyone to point out where it is wrong or has problems, or maybe I haven't explained it very well. Maybe we have different definitions of some terms I am using.

LloydK wrote:And by the way, I don't believe space is curved, nor believe in the big bang, or gravitons.

I wasn't trying to say you did, just that these are the generally accepted views of gravity or other theories that have similar problems. I was trying to point out that physicists are happy to accept these theories even though they have the problems I mentioned but they will dismiss expansion at a glance.

The hologram model isn't actually the trump. It just leans in the direction of the trump. The trump is consciousness, which seems to be connected to the "everything is motion" idea. Everything is known only through consciousness and it's possible that nothing exists outside of consciousness. In which case motion and photons may exist as "units" of consciousness. That might solve the problem of origin of photons and the "energy" needed for "expansion" etc. Expansion would just be an illusion.

I don't think that helps. Everything would be an illusion in such a model, not just expansion. Even if that is true, and everything is just an experience (by whom? God?), there is still a common framework we all exist in. I am typing this and you will read exactly what I type. You may not interpret it the same way I meant it but you read the same words. If someone throws a rock at you, it will hit you and you will feel it (whether you saw it coming or not). We still have to explain that common framework.

It doesn't solve any problems like the origin of photons or energy, it just pushes them back into a hole we know very little about which Miles often refers to as a data hole. Now, I can say the same thing about expansion, or any model at the fundamental level, as I can't explain the impetus to expansion. However, I prefer one, or maybe a few, simple unknowns to just making everything unknown.

You also have to explain consciousness without using anything in what we refer to as reality. So it seems to me that this model creates a bigger mess because you have nothing to explain consciousness with and anything that you did explain it with would be completely outside of experience and therefore is completely unknowable. I don't think consciousness is that simple or that fundamental.

I don't understand your statement that consciousness is connected to the idea that everything is motion. The only way I can understand it is that everything is motion and therefore everything is an ultimate consequence of it, but you are trying to use it the other way around. You have consciousness first and then 'everything is motion' second.

I also don't understand your statement that it's possible nothing exists outside of consciousness. Everything we know is experienced through consciousness, as you rightly say, but that does not mean or even hint that consciousness is primary. I think it is more productive to assume things exist without consciousness, in their own right, than to require something to experience those things before they are real. That is just a chicken and egg problem. A paradox.

And it is quite easy to disprove it anyway. I have a consciousness which is completely separate from your consciousness which is completely separate from everyone else's consciousness. If nothing exists outside of consciousness, then how is it that an infinite number of consciousness's can exist? Not only can they exist but they can be created and destroyed. You would have to posit a single consciousness that is only apparently separate. A single consciousness that exists in the absence of reality as we know it. And since I know that I am conscious, then the rest of you are clearly a figment of my imagination and I am God .

The definition of consciousness: the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.

'the state' implies a machine to have a state.
'being aware of' implies input of some kind and the machine knowing about it.
'responsive to' implies being able to perform some action as a result of the input.
'one's surroundings' implies those surroundings exist outside of the machine, separate to it.

I don't see how your usage of consciousness fits that definition. The machine, the surroundings and the input all have to exist before you can have consciousness.

As I said, everything is known only via consciousness. Without consciousness, nothing is known. Therefore, consciousness has to be considered and cannot be assumed away.

Motion is an important aspect of consciousness, just as it is in conventional thinking about "physical reality". It's possible that the constituents of motion are the same in both consciousness and in observations of "physical reality".

The boundaries of consciousness are not clear and they may be flexible. Consciousness seems to start small, grow and possibly die, or it may keep growing after "physical" death.

There may be a universal consciousness which spawns individual conscious beings.

I've been considering the possibility for a couple years or so that consciousness is composed partly of photons or something similar. But the most important constituent of consciousness seems to be caring and I think caring may be primary, while motion, i.e. the relation between space and time, is the universal material.

Caring is what spurs our interest in learning etc.

Rupert Sheldrake's theory may prove important eventually, i.e. the theory of "morphic fields" etc.

I don't have much time at the moment, but I wanted to point out one thing.

There is a big difference between 'what is known' and 'what is'. Another way to say that is that there is a difference between 'knowing something' and the 'something' that you are knowing. The knowing relies on a consciousness, the something does not.

You are using very spiritual or mystical ideas here. I have no problem trying to tie spiritual or mystical concepts to physical things or ideas, for example, I believe what is known as the human aura (or the aura of anything, really) is just the charge field of that entity. There is no reason this couldn't be used to gather information about that entity which gives a physical basis to aura reading and medical diagnostics based on it. But to try to explain reality based on consciousness is a very different thing.

Well, the question for me is whether matter can "transform" during Expansion as per MM? Perhaps the charge field fills in gaps in certain cases? Expansion could be a transformation of certain structures.

Do you mean to transform from a photon to an electron to a proton?

I think expansion, a la gravity, helps to keep the structure together. It provides a reason for the protons to maintain their line up in an alpha and for alphas to stay together when bonded. I guess when atoms are bonding together to form molecules it could help as well but I'm not sure I understand what you mean by transformation of certain structures.

I have often wondered if expansion has a role in gaining a stacked spin but I still can't get my head around how.

Nevyn wrote "I have often wondered if expansion has a role in gaining a stacked spin but I still can't get my head around how".  

If your interpretation of the stacked spin is simply the addition of a new orthogonal motion on top of the previous 'spin orbit' then I don't see what gravity can add.

If, on the other hand, the stacked spin enables entraining photons which will need to wend their way through the stacked spins while recycling through the larger particle, then I believe the mass of recycling photons is very much subject to gravity.

You indicated that gravity is insufficient to bring together photons. And that your idea of recycling involves collisions of ambient photons with your single spin stacked photon. Have you refined that idea at all?

LongtimeAirman wrote:Nevyn wrote "I have often wondered if expansion has a role in gaining a stacked spin but I still can't get my head around how".  

If your interpretation of the stacked spin is simply the addition of a new orthogonal motion on top of the previous 'spin orbit' then I don't see what gravity can add.

It isn't so much what expansion can add, rather, it is the fact that expansion is a motion that is occurring while the spin collision is happening. It must affect the collision.

If 2 photons collide, each providing a velocity of c, and then we add in the expansion of each of their surfaces, that is more energy than just 2 colliding particles. It has to be accounted for.

LongtimeAirman wrote:You indicated that gravity is insufficient to bring together photons. And that your idea of recycling involves collisions of ambient photons with your single spin stacked photon. Have you refined that idea at all?

No, I haven't thought much about it lately as I have been knee deep in atomic and molecular models.

Nevyn said: There is a big difference between 'what is known' and 'what is'. Another way to say that is that there is a difference between 'knowing something' and the 'something' that you are knowing. The knowing relies on a consciousness, the something does not.

You're assuming there IS something apart from consciousness, but that assumption seems to be untestable. We rely on consciousness to do all our thinking, reasoning and drawing conclusions. Thinking is one of the kinds of consciousness. Perception and emotion are the other two kinds (And there are 3 kinds of subconscious as well). Motion still seems to be key. I think we can prove that things exist outside our individual consciousnesses, but it's doubtful that it can be proved that those things are not parts of another consciousness. I almost want to not post this, because it may seem irrelevant, but I think it may be worth posting anyway, because this is basic truth that might prove to be worth consideration eventually.

Speaking of spirit, some who've studied the paranormal show that there do seem to be nonmaterial intelligent beings which can be detected by psychics and by various instruments. I've seen some of the images and temperature readings and heard some recordings. Photons seem to be involved at least in the sensor readings. And consciousness seems to be there too. Spirit may not relate to virtual reality, but, if we seek truth, we surely need to be open to the possibility that physical "reality" is virtual, and maybe real as well. And that means that possibility should probably be tested by someone eventually, if possible. Spirit may be a route to testing it. There's a machine that can detect auras accurately now, I've read.

Lloyd wrote:You're assuming there IS something apart from consciousness, but that assumption seems to be untestable. We rely on consciousness to do all our thinking, reasoning and drawing conclusions. Thinking is one of the kinds of consciousness. Perception and emotion are the other two kinds (And there are 3 kinds of subconscious as well). Motion still seems to be key. I think we can prove that things exist outside our individual consciousnesses, but it's doubtful that it can be proved that those things are not parts of another consciousness. I almost want to not post this, because it may seem irrelevant, but I think it may be worth posting anyway, because this is basic truth that might prove to be worth consideration eventually.

Lloyd, the only reason I would not want to post something like this is due to the likely misunderstanding of your spiritual belief. Your next three words are "Speaking of spirit". With three kinds of this and another three kinds of that, you offer this "basic truth for consideration". If I understand correctly, to say that everything occurs through consciousness initially sounds like a claim of extreme anthropomorphic power - the universe only exists in my head. I'll grant you that Spirituality may be a third of my being, but in my opinion, the universe is complete without us. If "Consciousness" is a will to live, shared by all the creatures, and perhaps the Earth itself as a sentient being, then 'll respect your viewpoint. But generally, people like us (scientifically minded) try to plumb the depth of reality, to understand the operations and interactions of all bodies. Physics is usually separated from spirituality. For many of us, spirituality begins where physics leaves off. Is the photon conscious? Where does consciousness begin?

I'll point out the obvious. That here too, Miles is redefining things. His work not only extends physics, it redefines reality, and even spirituality.  I see the legitimization of astrology. Nevyn can see the aura as a humans' charge field (I don't think Gandhi would disagree).  Cr6 bathes in superconducting currents. We may be able to see spirit walkers. Through his Expanding Theory of Gravity, I can believe that a dust mote, I hold in the palm of my hand is an entire galaxy, just a few years younger than our own (h/t to MIB).

I'm not making any claims; This is a time for understanding and objectivity. Marvelous really.

I don't think the photon is conscious, but I have often wondered if we could consider electrons and protons, maybe even atoms and molecules, to be alive.

One definition of life:
Life is a characteristic distinguishing physical entities having signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Particles that emit the charge field have a signaling mechanism and could be said to be self-sustaining because the charge field sustains their spins. Some may not like that use of self-sustaining because the charge field is not really part of the particle but I question anything that is said to be self-sustaining because if you remove the charge field, I am confident that they will not sustain themselves any longer. Everything relies on the charge field (or it is the charge field) whether we know it or not.

It is a bit of a stretch and not very consequential so I leave it as something to think about every now and again.

Nevyn wrote:I don't think the photon is conscious, but I have often wondered if we could consider electrons and protons, maybe even atoms and molecules, to be alive.

One definition of life:
Life is a characteristic distinguishing physical entities having signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Particles that emit the charge field have a signaling mechanism and could be said to be self-sustaining because the charge field sustains their spins. Some may not like that use of self-sustaining because the charge field is not really part of the particle but I question anything that is said to be self-sustaining because if you remove the charge field, I am confident that they will not sustain themselves any longer. Everything relies on the charge field (or it is the charge field) whether we know it or not.

It is a bit of a stretch and not very consequential so I leave it as something to think about every now and again.

It is kind of interesting how Lithium -- a 2 alpha field (1 blue, 1 gray) has the Charge field ready for usage.  The brain uses Phosphorous for energy and thought... and the charge field may work with these two (Phosophorus, Lithium) in the same way. They each have blue alphas with a single black alpha and can combine with sulphur:
----------------
A bit dated and not that scientific but probably relative to "Conciousness":
Chemistry of Man
http://calypso53.com/jensen/phosphorus.html

http://www.livestrong.com/article/372795-the-benefits-of-calcium-phosphate/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/454483-elevated-calcium-phosphate-symptoms/ -- it can be detrimental at high amounts

Phosphorus plays an important role for all living organisms and is an essential nutrient element for plants and animals. It has a key position in the combustion processes of the cell, and in the total energy transfer of the plant. It is also a “building block” of the cell walls, the DNA, and all sorts of proteins and enzymes.

Reasons You May Have a Phosphorus Deficiency

If you think you are suffering from a phosphorus deficiency, there are a number of reasons why it could be happening. For instance, if you eat a lot of junk food as part of your diet, you could be susceptible to a phosphorus deficiency. Likewise, if you don't eat enough foods containing phosphorus or take a phosphorus supplement, you could be prone to phosphorus deficiency. If you're not getting enough magnesium in your diet, you actually might be getting enough phosphorus, but your body just may be having trouble absorbing it properly without enough magnesium. As always, consult your doctor if you feel that you are having trouble with your phosphorus levels.

----------------
Phosphorus

(Page 275) Phosphorus Has to do with Intelligence

Phosphorus is synonymous with intelligence-- the medium for coupling the soul with matter. It combines with sulphur in food form and with specific nerve and brain fats within the body.

(Page 276) Sensory seats in the brain, nerve networks, sympathetic (autonomic) nervous system, nerves, ganglia in general and sensory nerves are under the influence of phosphorus. The reproductive organs and bone producing functions are favorably affected when phosphorus is supplied in proper quantities. The higher intellectual capacity depends on phosphorus--psychic perceptions, idealistic tendencies, humanitarianism, philanthropy, the subjective functions of the brain, physical brain sensations (especially taste and touch). The organic (food) form of phosphorus, sulphur and nerve fats vitalizes and regenerates brain and nerves. Phosphorus is a nerve and brain tonic.

Thinking Consumes Phosphorus

The "light bearer" (phosphorus) becomes the medium of the soul's expression through the brain faculties. But to get the evolved form necessary for the brain to assimilate, phosphorus must undergo transformations beginning in the mineral kingdom, moving from there to the soil by decay, then into seeds and grains, into animals, fish and birds, and ultimately into the human brain. Without phosphorus, we could not study, memorize, read, reason, create, visualize, comprehend. With each thought, phosphorus is used up; each activity of every brain and nerve cell requires phosphorus. The mental worker particularly needs phosphorus,..

Thinking consumes phosphorus. The broken-down phosphate waste material from brain and bone catabolism must be eliminated by the liver. Tests have proven that after extreme mental exertion, there are greater quantities of phosphorus in the urin. This is a dramatic argument in favor of adeqate phosphorus in the diet.

Brain Phosphorus and Bone Phosphorus Differ

There is a distinction between the phosphorus needed for bones and that needed by the brain; they are vibrationally different, in that brain phosphorus is more highly evolved. Brain phosphorus comes from the animal kingdom (meat, fish, eggs and dairy products), and bone phosphorus is derived from the vegetable kingdom. Phosphorus is integral to bone formation and repair, and it also nourishes the brain and nerves. It increases the number of red blood corpuscles. It improves tissue nutrition in general. But its greatest function is in the brain and nervous system.


Lack of Phosphorus Causes Serious Problems

Without phosphorus,... Sterility is possible. The brain softens and decays. Pus is generated. Neuralgia develops. Intellect atrophies and vanishes. Children or anyone studying hard in school must have brain phosphorus in the daily diet.

Phosphorus Needed for Lecithin Production in the Body

Lecithin, which in its Greek form means egg yolk, is a complex fatty compound necessary in the human body. It is present chiefly in semen, bile, milk, nerve tissue, brain, white and red blood corpuscles, lymph and serous fluids, blood and pus....

If the diet is deficient in vitamins, nerve fats, phosphorus, oxygen, sulphur and specific nerve

(Page 277) salts, lecithin cannot be manufactured within the body; if this is the case, impotence, neuratrophia, brain decomposition, feeblemindedness, physical debility, suppuration and low nerve vitality are among the manifestations. If phosphorus is deficient, lecithin cannot be formed properly in the body

(Page 277 continued)

Phosphorus Vital for Brain and Nerves

The nervous system that pervades the entire body is extremely important. If nutrition is poor, the blood cannot nourish the brain and nerves. When phosphorus is deficient in the diet and sufficient lecithin is not manufactured, the brain and nerves atrophy, the brain decays and phthisis and neurasthenia appear.

Phosphorus' Role in Reproduction

The egg youlk contains vitelline which is the creative principle. Vitelline is a nucleo-protein containing a good deal of phosphorus. Phosphorus is necessary for reproduction in man and animals and for their proper growth.

Phosphorescence

The fluorescent quality of phosphorus is vital to life forms...

In man, the luminosity of phosphorus serves... to heighten his mental activity... It may be said that phosphorus holds the soul in the physical body, imprisons that life spark sometimes referred to as spirit. Phosphorescence is believed by some to be the "astral body" or the "aura".

Phosphorus and ESP

The properties of phosphorus implicate it in telephathy, ESP (extrasensory perception), dreams, wireless etheric communications, suggestive treatments, mediumship, psychogenesis, physical sense perception, sensory impulsion, obsession, delusion, hallucination, hypnotism, psychometry and other purported "strange phenomena."

Calcium Phosphate Essential to the Body

Calcium phosphate is essential to the body... ; it prevents excessive generation of pus and brain disintegration. Phosphorus is imperative for the brain, for all thought processes...

SIGNS OF PHOSPHORUS EXCESS

Optimism and Autosuggestion

The individual suffering from phosphorus excess... His philosophy is that "thoughts are tings." Autosuggestion, mental healing and Christian Science are attractive to him. The power of

(Page 278)
suggestion has great influence on his illneses, as well as on his health. Platitudes such as, "Believe in disease and it shall come to pass," and, "As you think, so you are." are expounded often. His optimism follows certain directions, such as those of speculative and idealistic philosophy. Speculation is constant; his imagination is prolific... The deluge of blood in the brain overstimulates the higher mental visualization centers. Optical illusions and visions are possible. Novels are of interest to him, as are fantastic tales of adventure, mystery, psychic phenomena, travel. His faith is in the infeasible and he dislikes everyday reality.

Emotions are Volatile (Phosphorus Overconsumption)

Phosphorus overconsumption affects the brain, personality and actions. Such an individual finds it easier to study at night between ten and three than dueing the day. He may be a sleepwalker--subjective mind alert while objective brain faculties are in slumber. Internal manifestations of phosohorus excess are many: brain and nerves may be feverish; the patient may feel a craving to know what the future holds, frequenting palm readers and psychics; he may entertain superiority feelings regarding his abilities, positions, genius; he may insist that he is influenced by invisible forces, receiving cosmic revelations--information from angels, space beings, saints and discarnate spirits--relevant to the code of ethics of the universe and the laws that govern the destiny of men. The manner is haughty and proud; emotions are volatile; thoughts and visualizations are vivid. Excitement causes faintness or weakness. Joy is ecstatic; laughter, excessive. The mind overworks, while will power, decision-making ability, practical judgement and concentration ability are feeble and faulty. Vigorous thoughts and emotions result in excessive heat production in the brain revealed by feverish forehead, chilled feet and hands, and inflamed nerves. Mental orientations are chaotic, instantaneous, immoderate and intermittent. Merriment, optimism, speculation, hope and confidence are exagerated. Stimulants are desired.

Mathis' P-N Junctions paper has this quote. Even the conception kinematically of + and - is kind of a higher spiritual/spirit type of thinking since these fields do not derive of themselves -- the universe isn't one big + or -:

It helps if we apply that diagram to some real elements, so that you understand what is going on here. The most common semiconductor is Silicon, of course, and it is often P-doped with Boron and N-doped with Phosphorus. Silicon is element number 14, while Boron is 5 and Phosphorus is 15. Doping just means those elements are added to Silicon to make it more conductive. But since the conductivity of the two doped areas are still different, a voltage is created across the junction. This built-in voltage can be later augmented by attaching the whole diode to a battery of some sort.

---

As you see, Si-P creates conductivity in the same way as Si-B, and it also has a weak carousel level. But here we have 29 protons channeling instead of the 19 of Si-B. So Si-P will both channel and conduct more. This means the charge field will move from Si-P to Si-B. In fact, that is what is known to happen. Consult the first mainstream diagram above, where the E field is moving right to left from Si-P to Si-B. In my theory, the E field simply follows the summed motion of the charge photons. Electrons then drift with that field. I do not allow, or need, electron holes.

I've read that P-N Junction paper but didn't notice that Miles has used different models for Boron and Phosphorous than I built. However, Phosphorous is a strange element as it has many forms that need to be accounted for. I recently mentioned that to Miles when we were discussing Aluminium and he said he was aware of it and it needed some work.

Looks like I will be remodeling some atoms tonight and will try to build some molecules based on Phosphorous and Boron.

Cr6, do you have a paper where it says Lithium is 1 blue and 1 black? I have it modeled as a 3 proton stack which seems to fit the known isotopes. I will look over that one again as well.

Nevyn, Is this what you're asking for?

From: HOW TO BUILD A NUCLEUS without a Strong Force http://milesmathis.com/stack.html

We can apply the same analysis to lithium. We have three protons and four neutrons. We stack our three disks, and need four posts to separate them.

But now we arrive at the beryllium nucleus. In this case we have four protons and five neutrons. Why that number? Why is the number 9 stable when the numbers 8 and 10 are not? If we use the same diagram as we used for helium and lithium, we would expect to need 6 neutrons to separate 4 protons, which would give us 10. Obviously, the nucleus has already discovered a more efficient method than our dual posts. Beryllium 10, with 6 neutrons, is actually very stable, with a half life of over a million years, so nature does use the six post model here. But the five post model is also effective, so given the chance, nature will prefer it. Beryllium can stack with only five posts due to the fact that the lithium model is already so stable. If we place the neutrons in lithium like this,

http://milesmathis.com/stack2.jpg

then we have such a solid spinning structure that the top level can be balanced by only one neutron, placed in the middle. The disk below cannot turn, so the central neutron must resist only the upper disk. Remember that the neutron is not a narrow pillar. It has a z-spin radius equal to that of the proton, so it is quite capable of providing stability in this way. If we let it spin in the same plane as the protons, this is even more obvious.

You will say, “Well, if we can balance disks so easily, why did we not let one neutron balance the third proton in lithium? Weren't the first two disks almost as stable?” Yes, they were, and we can. Lithium 6 is a stable isotope, existing abundantly in the universe. The reason it isn't as common as lithium 7 is probably due to the fact that it is burned more easily in stars. It is slightly easier to break that one post than the two posts of lithium 7, so stars will burn lithium 6 preferentially.

Topic?
It's not clear to me how the recent discussion here relates to the thread title.

Gravity/Expansion Illustration Request
Would anyone like to illustrate or diagram a situation where a spacecraft is stationary at the gravitational balance point between Earth and the Moon, showing expansion after each second for 3 seconds, or something like that? In my mind I see the 3 bodies expanding and colliding, but Nevyn says somehow the distances between the objects maintain a constant ratio without space between them expanding. I can't picture Nevyn's idea, so I hope any of you can picture it here for me.

L: I don't know how he's saying bending of starlight is proof of expansion.
A: It is not, as I understand it, starlight bending, but rather the sun expands in the seven to eight minutes its light travels to us, and the sun's arc thereby obscures some of the starfield behind the sun. In 39. The Perihelion Precession of Mercury. http://milesmathis.com/merc.html (A long critique of the historical problem, showing the major errors of Einstein and others. 32pp.) Miles calculates the angle that Mercury expands while the light is travelling from the Sun to Mercury. He discusses how that “curvature” relates to precessions and perturbations. That ‘proof’ overturns Einstein’s mercury precession calculation and interpretation.

L: This suggests to me that, if expansion were physical, rather than "equivalent", if expansion occurred at c, then photon motion should be zero. Or photon motion should be c + expansion velocity. So I suggest that expansion accelerates by curving rather than by increasing velocity, or that it means something not yet defined or understood, or it's a false lead.

.
L: This suggests to me that, if expansion were physical, rather than "equivalent", if expansion occurred at c, then photon motion should be zero. Or photon motion should be c + expansion velocity. So I suggest that expansion accelerates by curving rather than by increasing velocity, or that it means something not yet defined or understood, or it's a false lead.

A: As I understand it, gravitational acceleration is the expansion. Using this rate, I believe the Earth’s real radius would double after 17 minutes or so. How might this expansion tie into the Angular Velocity discussion?
.

(Previously) Miles calculates the angle that Mercury expands while the light is travelling from the Sun to Mercury. He discusses how that “curvature” relates to precessions and perturbations.

So I'm saying the "expansion" of Mercury is rotational, not volume expansion. As I recall, a change in velocity is called acceleration. The change can be either in quantity or direction, I guess because additional force is needed for either case. That's why rotational velocity is called acceleration; it's always changing direction. So the assumption of expansion wouldn't have to be a straight acceleration; it could be a rotational acceleration. That would be much more plausible to me. The velocity in rotation remains steady, so many rpms, but it's still an acceleration. So no increase in rpms is needed for it to remain an acceleration. So I think "expansion" could be acceleration due to rotation, not quantitative increase in velocity or volume.

Rotation does not cause gravity. Yes, it is an acceleration, but it in no way describes gravity, so it does not perform the same job as expansion. Miles has tried to use universal spin to describe gravity, but that is the spin of everything as a whole, not just a single body like Mercury.

The example given relates to the apparent bending of light by a gravitational body. How could rotation of that body cause this result? It can't. The motion is in the wrong form.

Expansion does not occur at c, that is too much velocity but even if it did, that would not make the photon's linear velocity 0 because the linear velocity that we measure already includes any expansion that is occurring. That velocity is already inside of the expansion because it is measured by an expanding device. Nothing can get outside of the expansion. If we could, then that photon velocity might look like an acceleration.

Expansion would not limit the linear velocity because expansion happens in all directions from the center of that body. This means that it expands in the same direction as the velocity and also in the opposite direction. Only an expansion in the opposite direction, with no other direction expanding, would drop the linear velocity. So the velocity that we measure may actually contain a certain amount that is expansion. This might be enough for the particle to seem like it is just a velocity and not an acceleration. In other words, what expansion takes away in one dimension, it also gives in the opposite direction in that dimension, offsetting itself.

Miles has shown that solo gravity is reliant only on the radius of the body, not the density. If gravity is explained by rotation of that body, then it would have nothing to do with the radius.

Expansion does have to be a straight line acceleration because that is what causes bodies to appear to move closer together, which we call gravity. Rotation doesn't even begin to explain that.

.
Lloyd, If we’re picking up a discussion from three years ago, I must re-read:

58. The Perihelion Precession of Mercury. http://milesmathis.com/merc.html. A long critique of the historical problem, showing the major errors of Einstein and others. 32pp.

I’m still in the middle of it. Gravity described by Expansion theory is manifest with an apparent curvature of space. The separate curvatures of the two fields, GR or SR, changing velocities or accelerations is still confusing. Overall, I'm comfortable with it, it keeps putting me to sleep.  

Nevyn’s provided a complete answer that should help clear up any confusion. At this point, three years later, I don’t see how a universal spin could explain gravity any better than Expansion theory already does.

I see you’ve provided an Electrodynamic Universe - theory rating list at CNPS. I hope a few will understand and comply by copying the list and adding their own rankings. I didn’t reply since I’m still an outsider and don’t want to look like a complete plant. I’m afraid to ask if the list is an expert-weeder or essential elements, but I’m sure I’m not supposed to know(?).
.

Airman, you can do the rating here or in the ATTENTION section, if you want. Then I can copy it to the CNPS forum.

Rotation may not cause gravity as far as we know, but if it did it would be much more believable than that straight expansion causes gravity. If all photons/matter were expanding at the same rate, space would still have to also expand at the same rate in order for us not to notice the expansion filling up the solar system with matter. It makes as much sense to say that gravity is magic as to say that it's due to expansion. Magic would make just as much sense as an explanation.

Expansion is motion, and motion is caused by other motion. So some kind of motion would have to cause the expansion of both matter and space at the same rate everywhere.