Highlights of Diagraming Thread

[LloydK]

<LK: We need to know the intensity and size of photons from all directions, esp. these:
1. from Earth's interior upward;
2. from Sun to Earth's surface at noon and sunrise/sunset;
3. from Moon to Earth's surface at full moon and quarter moon at zenith and just above horizon;
4. from solar interior to solar atmosphere;
5. from an electric smelting furnace.

<LK: I'd like to know if you could do a simulation for another MM statement. The statement is: "The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near. 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." The statement is from the What is Charge? paper.

<A: Did you leave out gravity? I assume the photons are all the same size. Direct (center-to-center) photon hits will be the most effective at driving protons and electron apart, but most hits aren't direct, especially against smaller targets, and gravity will bring those particles back toward each other again. Electrons will spend more time closer to protons than the average proton-proton separation. Approaching pole to pole would reduce the average separation distance. I believe that the charge hits per surface area for P-P, P-e, or e-e at the average separation distances would be equal to the size ratio differences.

<LK: Charge Field Calcs for p, e, & n
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14950&start=210#p96320

<LK: MM Quotes:
--- Electron Radius
http://milesmathis.com/elecrad.pdf
the radius of the electron at rest is 1.122 x 10^-17 m
--- Electron & Proton Radii
http://milesmathis.com/magneton.html
the radius of the electron proper is: re = 1.122 x 10^-17m - But the x-spin radius, 2.244 x 10^-17m, must be the effective border of the electron
we get the number 4.09 x 10^-14m for the proton radius
--- Photon Mass & Radius
http://milesmathis.com/photon.html
mass of the photon of 2.77 x 10^-37kg
the radius of the photon must be G times the proton radius, which gives us 2.74 x 10^-24m
7 × 10^-17eV is equal to 1.25 × 10^-36kg, and I just found a mass for the photon of 2.77 × 10^-37kg
--- Proton Radius & Acceleration
http://milesmathis.com/ug.html
If the proton has a radius of 3.173 x 10^-13m*, this yields a = 4.425 x 10-12m/s2

<LK: Different Simulation [Electrons & protons approaching protons]
I'd like to know if you could do a simulation for another MM statement: "The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near. 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." The statement is from the What is Charge? paper.

<N: I don't use the term orbit in relation to electrons. That is not what they do. They are just stuck in there and while they may be circling around the proton pole, it is not orbiting it. <But the electron orbits the proton's polar axis - LK>

<LK: Compare MM & CC. Charles Chandler has a lot of good material that helps a lot to explain a lot of astronomical and geological phenomena and he keeps adding to that.

[LloydK]

<N: I found the neutral electron about a year ago. I call it the nectron.

<A: I must say that I have a hard time accepting that an electron, (or even a proton) is the manifestation of a single photon. That the mass of the particle (alpha or higher) "is the sum of the spin vectors" of that photon. I understand that as energy is added, the lightspeed limit causes stacked spins. But I've convinced myself that the stacked spins caused a manifold, scooping photons into the particle. Thus the proton is a collection of approximately 1821 [electrons].  If the proton is recycling photons, how can you say that the proton is just a single photon?

<N: That idea of mass being the sum of spin vectors is purely my conjecture. Miles has not said anything along those lines it just occurred to me as I was thinking about how inner spins affect particle energy. I think it makes sense as mass is the resistance to motion and the spin vectors, which point in lots of different directions, would have an effect on the collision with another particle. The more spin levels the more affect it has which is exactly how mass works.
- I know it is hard to see why a tiny little photon could cause the results of a proton. Working with my spin app helped me here as I could see how the photon moved with many spin levels.

<A: Bolloxed up 1821 photons to a proton, I meant electrons, not photons, of course. (And alpha on one hand is the He atom, but I meant it as a stack spin particle smaller than an electron).

<N: On the one hand you can think of a proton as being both its actual photon and its charge field. So in this way, the proton is lots of photons. However, the actual proton is just one single photon with many, many stacked spins. The protons charge field is an affect of the stacked spins.
- But now I think that if it [the charge field] was that dense then the proton would soon lose its spin because every collision must affect it. But then again, Miles has stated that dense charge fields can add spin levels because of the increased collision rate.
- I was writing a paper about the neutral electron (nectron) at the time where I was talking about the nectron allowing what I called micro-atoms to be built (possibly, it is a bit of a stretch). Pure conjecture at this point but maybe you have some evidence for it?

<A: “Shoulders then shows that electrons travel easily together, contradicting what we are taught about repulsing charges. He provides data proving that although electrons have some repulsion, they have nothing like a repulsion of -1. I have shown that this is because electrons have a smaller charge profile than the proton. We do not have equal and opposite charges, and never have. The mainstream's own experiments and equations have long indicated the electron has a charge of 1/1821 that of the proton, but as with the charge field itself, that data is ignored to suit old standing theories.”
- “Furthermore, I have shown that it is the electrons' real spins and charge emissions through those spins that are keeping them apart, just as fans would keep one another apart. But in some cases, electrons can huddle even closer, stacking like the protons stack in the nucleus, pole to equator. To get there, they have to be driven by a non-linear charge field, which is rare. But this is the explanation of some quantum particles, such as the tau neutrino. The neutrino is not an indivisible particle: it is four x-spinning electrons.”
- “Curiously, the critical number density of the substructure matches Avogadro’s number. To a first approximation, the parts within are spaced the same as if they were in an atomic lattice.”

<N: Interesting thought about galactic filaments. I had assumed they were just charge photons (possibly even smaller than the normal IR charge) but Ken was working with extreme vacuums and that would match the environment of a charge filament. I like it.

<N: I spent a lot of time playing with this app and different spin speed ratios before I found what I believe is the actual spin ratio (relative spin speed of 1 spin level to another, adjacent, spin level)

[LloydK]

<N: The way I see it is that the B-Photon gains an axial spin until its tangential velocity reaches c. At this point it can not gain anymore spin on that level. If another particles hits the B-Photon it needs to use that energy somehow so it gains another spin level which is about a point on the surface of that B-Photon. So now we have an X spin. The colliding particle would need to hit the B-Photon in a certain area (of that B-Photons surface) to impart the right force in order to cause the new spin level. If the B-Photon had an axial spin about the Y axis, then the incoming particle would need to be moving in the direction of the XZ plane of the B-Photon and hit it somewhere near the poles on the Y axis OR it is moving in the Y axis direction and hits the B-Photon somewhere on the edge in the XZ plane. This causes the B-Photon to spin about that point of collision. The main point is that the incoming force is perpendicular to the spin.
- Any spin above the first X spin is NOT about a point on the surface of the B-Photon. <The Y spin is a spin around a point on the X spin photon surface - LK>
- I have thought about trying to simulate the collision to form new spin levels but there is no clear theory in this area.
- I don't see it quite that way in the case of alphas. The through-charge holes on the protons line up and the protons are held together by the charge flowing through both of them (the through-charge, not equatorial). The neutrons are not part of that charge path. They are further out from this central region and take charge (through their own central holes) from the equatorial charge of the protons, if at all.
- I don't remember Miles saying that the charge got stuck inside neutral atoms (neutrons, yes, but atoms, no).

<LK: Curved Photon Paths
    I said: In the atom, MM has 2 neutrons between 2 protons and the charge stream going through the poles of one proton, then through the poles of both neutrons side-by-side, then through the pole of the other proton. How could the charge stream do that: make an angle, instead of a straight line?
- It's in his Deuterium paper at http://milesmathis.com/deut.pdf - It's the 3rd image, which is helium, as well as the last image in the paper at the bottom. 
- And the curving of photon paths from the Earth is in his Equatorial Anomaly paper at http://milesmathis.com/equat.pdf
- Neutral Atoms
Nevyn said: I don't remember Miles saying that the charge got stuck inside neutral atoms
- He didn't use the words "get stuck", but he said the charge mostly circulates within the atom. I believe it was in his paper on the Atmosphere.


<N: Can a B-photon's linear velocity alone be less than c? I don't know. I have asked myself that question for years because I can't see any reason why it can't.
- I say that a B-Photon has an inherent property of spinning at c. This is just the axial spin, no stacked spins but what that does is provide a reason for the stacked spins. That axial spin changes all interactions with other entities. We are no longer talking about the sorts of collisions that we learnt in school. It introduces the gyroscopic interactions which I am still trying to understand myself but it seems that Miles has tied these motions to things that are on that wall.
- It took 3 steps to get stacked spins: create a sphere; make it move at c; make it spin at c. Let's have a close look at what just happened. We created a sphere which has 2 properties: a center and a radius. We took both of those properties and made them move at c (if we think of a single radius vector and rotate the end of that vector).
- That was pretty simple and very affective but you know what? I can take another step and make everything. There is only 1 motion left that I can do to this sphere. I can make its radius move (you don't know how bad I want to say "at c" but I can't, it seems too large, maybe 1/c). No, I don't mean add stacked spins, I mean extend it, expand it.

<N: Basically, my unscientific theory has 3 forces at the fundamental level: The force of constant motion; The force of constant rotation; The force of constant expansion. Stacked spins make use of the force of constant motion and the force of constant rotation. Given those 2 forces acting on the B-Photon it does what it can to use the energy it has. If it can't move any faster and it can't slow down so it has to spin.
- LloydK wrote: Stacked Spins = Paired Photons? ...
- You are talking about pressure but the only thing able to apply pressure at this level is other photons. Other photons that are the same size as your photons.
- LloydK wrote: Curved Photon Paths ...
- I am a little skeptical of this idea of split charge paths holding things together myself. Miles thinks he needs it for some reason
- I think the charge is better spent by moving it to the outside of the atom. That makes the atom stronger because it increases its charge field which protects it from other atoms and particles. This allows the atom to remain a stable structure. Charge that stays inside an atom is not being used for protection because it is always moving back inside rather than to the outside where the enemies are. However, charge directed inside is being used to keep the structure in place so it is not wasted.

<N: At the photon level there is no charge field. The photons are the charge field. Hypothesizing a sub-level beneath the photons just means you have to explain them. While I won't say that sub-level does not exist, it is not needed and there is no evidence for it. If you have some mechanism that could explain the sub-photons, then why not just use it on the photons?
- Lloyd said: I think photons would tend to gain and lose stacked spins mostly within planets and stars. Don't you agree? When a photon or particle reaches the surface, esp. on a star, it should remain as it is for a long time. Right? On a planet the photon or particle may remain the same once it leaves the Moho layer.
- To a certain extent. The charge field can still affect the spins on particles once they leave a star or planet.
- If the charge is leaving at the equator, then less will come in from the equatorial region and so more (as a percentage) is coming in from the poles.

<LK: MM: Molecules Don't Radiate Many Photons
In this post,https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t3p30-steve-diagraming-mm-s-models#119, Nevyn said: I don't remember Miles saying that the charge got stuck inside neutral atoms (neutrons, yes, but atoms, no).
- It was in this paper, http://milesmathis.com/atmo.html, that MM said: Ions are charged. What does that mean? It means that they are radiating photons. < cherry >Molecules do not radiate many photons, and this is because the electrons in the shells are blocking radiation from the nuclei. Molecules are mostly neutral, as we know, so few photons are escaping the electron/proton exchange. But with ions, this is not the case. I have shown that electrons also emit the charge field, so negative ions will be creating a charge field, not just positive ions. Both negative and positive ions are emitting a positive, real, bombarding field of photons. Therefore, when ions encounter the charge field of the Earth, they feel a greater repulsion than molecules, and must go higher in the atmosphere. This is why the ionosphere exists above the non-ionosphere. The charge field of the Earth both seeds and limits the ionosphere.
- Late Addition
Heat and the Curie temp http://milesmathis.com/heat.html
""But not all matter recycles in the same way, or in the same amount. All matter emits photons, and that is true of both electrons and protons. It does not matter what the "charge" of the particle is (except for neutrons and other neutral particles, which trap the charge field, negating it). But, although all matter emits charge, some matter emits a lot more. The proton emits a lot more than the electron, for example, simply due to size. Atoms and molecules can also trap or block parts of the charge field, acting neutral or partially neutral.
""What do I mean by that? Let's look at the "neutrality" of molecules and atoms more closely. Are they really neutral or uncharged? No. We know that ions are charged particles, which, according to my theory, means they are recycling the charge field directly: they are taking it in and emitting it, with little or no blockage. So they can transfer their heat or motion to other particles via the charge photons. The charge photons carry energy across space from one particle to the other. But in more complex groups like atoms and molecules, the charge field is not recycled in this way. The charge photons are captured by spins, but then they knock about internally, blocked by electrons or closely neighboring baryons. The charge field causes internal motion or heat or energy, but it is not re-emitted directly. It is either trapped, like with a neutron, going back on itself and creating zero energy pockets, or it is spit out in directionalized streams, between particles.
""What this means is that atoms and molecules ARE charged by the field, but they are mostly internally charged. By this I mean they cannot transmit this charge energy by sending out photons, since the photons are blocked. They can transmit this energy only by touch: by collision. You don't have to collide with an ion to feel its energy, since the ion can transmit its energy via the charge photons it is emitting. But you do have to collide with a molecule or an atom to feel its heat or charge.""
- Galactic Magnetism http://milesmathis.com/galmag.pdf
""Every electron and proton is charged, and that charge does not disappear when they combine in atoms. The atom is fairly neutral, but the ions are still charged inside. Charge offsets to some degree, but it doesn't disappear

[LloydK]

<A: I agree that we can describe the photon in terms of forward velocity, spin, and expansion (not at c, but at the photon's surface acceleration due to gravity. We can probably figure that out, I think Miles calculated the proton surface expansion). I just don't see how those motions can result in a single photon which travels in loops. I can see groups of 'unbalanced' photons with forward velocity well below light speed forming stacked spins, but I must find an answer to you describing how initial groups can remain together at lightspeed spin. Maybe 'slower' photons do clump together more than we believe. Your spins describe envelopes - the complex interior and exterior surfaces of the photon particle - until it is involved in a significant collision. 

<N: This is why I have spent so much time trying to figure out the relative spin speeds. You need to incorporate that in order to see the actual motion of the B-Photon. In order to find these spin speeds I took Miles' angular velocity equation and plugged in a tangential velocity of c for all spin levels and used a doubling radius to get these values:
r    w (omega)
1    24494.897387006953
2    34641.016035907494
4    48989.79452906493
8    69282.03137899467
16    97979.5870985381
Then, I looked at the ratio of w values compared to the first:
r    w (omega)    w/2494.897387006953    Rounded
1    24494.897387006953    1    1
2    34641.016035907494    1.41421356    1.414
4    48989.79452906493    1.99999998    2
8    69282.03137899467    2.82842709    2.828
16    97979.5870985381    3.9999999    4
Which shows that the ratio of each spin level to the first is the square root of the radius. If we look at adjacent spin levels we find that every spin level is square root of 2 (1.414) slower than the next inner spin level which is caused by the doubling radius. Don't be fooled by the increasing values for w. That value is the velocity as traveled on the circumference (not radians/s) and I have followed that path and ended up back at the same ratio values as above. Think of it this way: if all spin levels have the same tangential velocity then a greater radius will mean more distance to travel which means it takes more time to complete a rotation.
- The most important thing to realise here is that you can not just think of a complete spin level and then spin it to get the next level. That is naive. It is the motion of the B-Photon that we care about. The B-Photon is what interacts with other particles, not the spin levels.

<LK: More on Ions & Neutral Molecules
I added some MM quotes on this in a recently posted message at
https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t3p30-steve-diagraming-mm-s-models#128
- I think we need to diagram a collision between two photons to see how it might cause one or both of them to stack a spin.
<N: While that second image is better, it still gives the impression that the X spin is very fast compared to the Y spin. That is, you have drawn a complete torus and have shown that to be spinning about the Y axis. Now, I don't see a better way to diagram it in a single image, but it is misleading.
- It is the Y spin that is a problem because the X spin is only spinning 1.414 times faster than the Y spin. This means the Y spin has changed the motion of the X spin so you no longer have that nice torus that only an X spin would produce. If the X spin was, say, 100 times faster than the Y spin then you would have the torus from the X spin spinning about the Y axis and it would look something like what you have diagrammed.
- Eventually, as I was trying to understand Miles paper on Angular Momentum, I stumbled upon the correct spin speeds which I outlined in my post above.
- I can animate a collision but it will just be my way of seeing that collision. There is no way to simulate it.
- My way of thinking about it is to have 3 forces acting on every B-Photon. Note that my forces ONLY affect the B-Photon and are not about interactions between B-Photons (but they can affect those interactions).
- I would ask myself questions like "Why do the B-Photons spin?" and one day I realised that I was taking straight line motion as a given. Do I really know that straight line motion is normal and spin is esoteric? No, I don't. We all tend to think that what we experience is the norm but what if it wasn't? What if spin is the normal motion at the photon level? What if straight line motion only happens because it is not possible to add another spin level? Try thinking about it from that direction. Take spin as the given and then try to explain straight line motion. You end up at the same place but with reversed roles. If everything spins, why would anything move in straight lines?

<A: Creation or Distruction
I happen to believe in expanding earth theory. The theory can be explained by Miles' charge field recycling. The current period of slow creation of Earth's matter, resulting in an increase of 6 inches of diameter a year (and growing exponentially) is explained by an imbalance in Earth's recycling Charge Field. There are more incoming photons than there are emitted photons. There may be a critical density of photons, above which, matter will grow. If the density of recycling photons in our corner of the galaxy were too low, the Earth would emit more photons than it received, and so the Earth would begin shrinking. The critical charge field density could be related to the amount of time photons are trapped in neutrons and other neutral matter.* Constant creation or distruction. Any thoughts?

[Sponsored content]