Weekly Discussions

Re: Weekly Discussion #1
- Post by LloydK on Sun Nov 09, 2014 12:16 am
- Does everyone agree that the chatroom worked pretty well?
- I condensed our discussion today into just 4 posts, thinking they're easier to read that way.
- Maybe next time two or more of us could try another experiment, trying to collect relevant facts and maybe questions and ideas too.

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

Practice Discussion Experiment
Post by LloydK Today at 12:35 pm
- 1.
- Hi. I was replying on the proposal thread. Nevyn said he didn't want to lose anyone's input. But I didn't think we'd lose any input. We should just get increasingly long texts.
Are you guys still here somewhere? Hi Airman. The other two wandered off it seems
- Airman, in this thread I was thinking of each of us using our own text box and keep editing it to add more discussion. Okay? So you can get your text box back and discuss there. That way we won't have to mention our name each time we post.
- Okay, Airman, I was having PM discussion with Nevyn.
- Nevyn, too. Temporary confusion is usually unavoidable. Everyone want to say where you are?
I'm Palo Alto and going to Ventura soon.
- It looks like we'd better use the normal method, since our text boxes get out of range on the screen anyway. Agreed?
- I'm replying down below now, since this seems unlikely to work. And I'm getting a chatroom ready.
Last edited by LloydK on Sat Nov 08, 2014 9:42 pm; edited 13 times in total

Post by Nevyn Today at 6:13 pm
Is the loneliest number that you ever did see! [LloydK had started the first post with "1." and edited it later.]
- 1. Ok, Im here and finally realise we each edit our own single post as we go. I was a bit confused about it before.
- 2. Tasmania, Australia represent'n the southern hemisphere.
Last edited by Nevyn on Sat Nov 08, 2014 9:38 pm; edited 2 times in total

Post by Cr6 Today at 6:19 pm
  Nevyn wrote:Is the loneliest number that you ever did see!
lol...

Post by LongtimeAirman Today at 9:28 pm
- - REM It does seem like a funhouse maze. I'll want to clean up loose ends later.
Lloyd, Our own boxes make more sense than a single one. Easier to keep our identities straight as well.
2. Very confusing so far.
3. I'll delete your box above mine, as I must keep moving the screen up and down to see your top box.
4. OK you deleted it first. Is there anything you had in mind here today, or just the exersize?
5. Any ideas on how to keep the timeline straight? 6:36
6. I'm NW of Sacramento, the map app shows where. Lloyd, you moved recently, and are moving again? 6;38
Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Sat Nov 08, 2014 9:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

Post by LloydK Today at 9:38 pm
It looks like we'd better use the normal method, since our text boxes get out of range on the screen anyway. Agreed?

Post by LloydK Today at 9:39 pm
Would yous rather use a chatroom? I can make one real quick.

Post by Nevyn Today at 9:39 pm
Yeah, I think it is easier to find new content with the normal post method.

Post by Nevyn Today at 9:45 pm
Here is a model of the latest superconductor Miles talked about:

Here is a model of the latest superconductor Miles talked about:

Post by LongtimeAirman Today at 9:47 pm
When I tried to include a picture, I needed to set up a separate web site. How did you add it Nevyn?

Post by LloydK Today at 9:47 pm
I made a chatroom here: http://us20.chatzy.com/27985249236108
Click it and see if you see a chatroom. Okay?
- If we want images in the chatroom, I'll need to reset it for that.
Last edited by LloydK on Sat Nov 08, 2014 9:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

Post by Nevyn Today at 9:48 pm
In the toolbar on a reply (quick reply in this case) there are 2 buttons to add an image. The first one will host it for you and the other expects a URL to the image. Use the button 3 left of the You tube button.

Post by LloydK Today at 10:15 pm
Here's our Chat room discussion:

Superconducting Molecule
A: No way to add any pictures here. Nevyn, can you give me your definition of supeconductivity?
N: I see it as a substance that provides an extremely clean path through it for charge to flow. It may even help that charge through in some way.
L: You can add images now I think.
A: Both directions, or does the earth's emitted field become the main ingredient?
N: I'm not sure if direction matters. A given current will only have 1 direction and the molecule may be able to spin around in order to provide the best path through it.
L: I'll leave a message for Cr6.
N: In the image I posted, it is bidirectional.
L: Do you want to post it here?
A: I believe a given current can be roughly doubled with current and anticurrent simultaneously
L: It may be clearer to say antiphoton current.
A: Sure. But the earth emitted field is responsible for levitation, isn't it?
N: I don't think there is an anti-current. A current is a stream of photons (or anti-photons) which has a definite direction. No need for anti-photons to flow the other way.
https://i.servimg.com/u/f59/19/05/20/66/superc10.png
A: Both current flows are necessary for magnetism, but not for superconductivity? That's surprising.
N: You have to be careful to define your context. In the nucleus, both directions are present and important, but a current is its own thing, not part of the nucleus.
L: With magnetism it's a field rather than a current, I thought.
N: I see magnetism created from a current as the effect of that current on the ambient field. Or maybe part of the current that leaves the main stream. Probably both.
A: I thought it was how easily the current flows, and where and how the current exited that created the field.
L: How about a diagram? We're part of the current that left the main stream.
N: [bravo] ​
A: I can use Neveyn's to see ease of current flow, both in and out, and in both directions. I just don't see how that is a superconductor yet.
N: My image doesn't really help that. A superconductor provides a straight through-charge with very little resistance. The molecules connect top to bottom (in my image) and keep making the path longer. 19:07
- No (or little) charge is being directed to the left, right, front or back so most can just flow straight through. 19:08
L: Which elements did MM have in his superconductor? 19:08
- Is that what's in the image above? 19:09
N: Calcium, Barium, Mercury, Copper and Oxygen. 19:09
- Yes, that's what is in that image. 19:09
- That is the order from bottom to top. 19:09
- No, sorry, Calcium, Mercury, Barium, Copper and Oxygen. 19:10
N: Miles didn't put the Oxygen atom in there and I assumed in went on the top 19:11

Topics & Nectrons & Subatoms
L: Has he discussed supercritical fluids at all? Do you know anything about those? 19:10
A: It became common to think that "We are star stuff". It is more satisfying to think that we are light itself. 19:11
L: In another section of our MM forum I posted material about biophotons being able to substitute for normal matter nutrition. 19:12
- So that means photons can replace food and drink and air I guess. Don't ask me how yet. 19:13
A: 92b. Superfluids Explained by the Charge Field. No "holographic duality", just charge. 8pp. 19:14
N: Cool, another paper to re-read. 19:16
L: Nevyn, I don't notice your accent here. 19:14
N: [smile] Sorry mate, howz dat? 19:15
A: Get off 19:15
L: Oh! 19:15
Post by LloydK Today at 10:40 pm 19:15
A: The only Tazmanian I knew split the beer atom 19:16
L: Foster's? 19:17
N: Is that a reference to Yahoo Serious? 19:17
Real Aussie's don't drink Fosters. 19:18
L: You're a Tasmanian. 19:18
A: Yes. And Texas imports Fosters. Oops 19:18
N: Technically, I'm not a Tasmanian, I just live here. 19:18
L: I guess I'm not a Californian either. 19:19
N: Is that a good think? 19:19
thing? 19:19
L: Irrelevant. 19:19
A: A beer would be good about now. 19:19
N: true 19:19
L: I have about half an hour yet, till I need to make a phone call. 19:20
- If we meet each week, we can get used to preparing a little better in advance maybe. 19:21
- Nev, are you working on any simulations or animations? 19:21
N: I've been getting back into chemistry and rebuilding some molecules. 19:22
- Thinking about spin collisions a bit too. 19:22
L: It's hard to imagine how colliding photons could stack spins. Are you working on simulating that? 19:23
N: I've had a really sore back for the last month and it was too painful to work at home for a while. Just getting back to it now. 19:23
L: I mean I can imagine photon pairing to stack spins, but not collisions doing it. 19:23
N: I've been trying to figure it out. It's tough. 19:23
L: Have yous thought about where particles are made? I think within stars. 19:24
- Outside of stars they seem to be stable, except for neutrons. 19:24
A: I'm always thinking about spins in the back of my mind for many months now. I think matter can grow the best in stars. 19:25
L: I guess nectrons would be unstable like neutrons, though. Right? 19:25
N: I don't think particles are made, I think if they were created then they were all created at the same time. 19:26
- But if you mean turning photons into larger entities, then yes, inside stars for sure. 19:26
L: Nev, I just saw your sore back line. I got a sore back today carrying water. Now I probably need to see a chiropractor. 19:27
N: I don't think nectrons have to be unstable just because neutrons are. They are at different size scales in comparison to the charge field. 19:27
A: Nectrons will form the basis for a new technology 19:27
N: Definitely, if we can use them effectively. 19:28
L: You mean electrons and nectrons. Right? 19:28
A: Ken S describes them as propulsion, weapons, and shields 19:28
L: That's funny. We're ahead of MM on the nectron-subatom idea. 19:28
Ain't we? 19:29
N: I have emailed him about them Nov 8 but yes, I think so 19:29
L: Ken S talks about nectrons? 19:29
N: No, Ken does not talk about nectrons, he has no reason to think they exist 19:29
A: Miles knows about Ken, and has cited him. Ken thinks the EVOs are electrons. 19:30
L: What are EVOs? 19:31
N: Groups of electrons that Miles says stack like protons in an alpha 19:31
A: Exotic Vacuum Objects. Very fast. 19:31
N: If you add the nectron, then you can build mini-atoms with electrons and nectrons just like atoms are build with protons and neutrons 19:32
L: Faster than photons? What papers has he mentioned them in? Recent ones? 19:32
N: Not faster than photons 19:32
A: No, not faster than photons, just faster than all higher matter 19:32
N: recent paper: http://milesmathis.com/evo.pdf 19:33
A: I'm surprised Miles hasn't mentioned Ken's work since. 19:33
L: Yes, subatoms from nectrons and electrons surely already exist. But, if so, what objects do we observe that are really subatoms? 19:33
N: I don't think we have seen them as they require extreme vacuums 19:34
A: Lightning, and such 19:34
L: I'm not surprised MM hasn't kept up on Ken; busy people like him have too much to do. 19:35
N: There is a lot of Kens work to go through too 19:35
L: Would subatoms tend to look like electron clusters? 19:35
A: Yes. I think they are the main ingredient to filaments too 19:35
N: yes 19:35
L: If subatoms are neutral, would they move through lightning? 19:36
A: They are the lightning 19:36
L: I guess they wouldn't be neutral though. Right? Since there are no subelectrons? 19:36
N: Neutral is not about electrons but the charge flow through the structure 19:37
A: They still recycle charge, and are therefore not neutral 19:37
N: a charge differential from top to bottom will create a conductor 19:37
L: The lightning we see is photons. The lightning channel is not just photons. 19:37
A: I disagree, we see the charge photons recycled from the lightning 19:38
L: MM says atoms and molecules are neutral because they don't emit many photons outside themselves. 19:38
N: lightning is much the same as I mentioned earlier about superconductors affecting the ambient field 19:38
L: He says something to the effect that electrons plug atoms to prevent photons going out much. 19:39
A: Electrons, along with Neutrons, enable stable matter 19:40
N: why are the electrons needed to be stable? 19:40
A: Stable matter allows a moderate charge recycling. Electrons slow the charge volume down 19:41
N: I can see how electrons can restrict through-charge which would limit the amount of charge through those channels, but not the ambient charge. 19:42
A: True. I'm not clear on how pervasive the ambient field is either, as a matter of sharing space or energy levels 19:43
A: The ambient field doen't interpenetrate all charge recycling, does it? 19:44
N: I think the ambient field keeps the structure stable while the structure provides channels for certain parts of the ambient field to flow through and create charge as we know it. 19:45
- Effectively a current through the atom 19:45
A: I mean as intrepenetrating cross currents irrespective of the matter charge recycling. 19:46
L: I've been posting this discussion to where we started it at https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t29-prac... . I need to leave now. Can yous post the rest of this there? I ended at the 19:40 mark. 19:47
N: I think any cross current has to have collisions but are there enough to be statistically significant? I don't know. 19:47
L: See yous later. 19:47
A: Thank You Sir 19:47
N: See you next time 19:47
L: G'night 19:48
A: Good night 19:48
- Nevyn, are you there? 19:49
N: Yeah, sorry, I was writing an email to Miles about some molecules 19:51
A: Good for you. I'll leave now too. Thanks 19:52
N: Ok, great to talk with you guys. See ya 19:52
- I updated the forum 19:55
Last edited by LloydK on Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:02 pm; edited 1 time in total

Post by LloydK Today at 10:39 am
- Is everyone ready for another discussion today at 6 pm PST, 9 pm EST, 1 pm Nevyn Time?
- If so, we can use the same chat room as last time. I deleted the previous chat there, since I copied it to the thread above, called Weekly Discussion #1.
- Here's the chat room again: http://us20.chatzy.com/27985249236108
- I'll try to post the discussion here when we're done.
- And I hope to list some questions or topics for discussion in advance.
- Here's the first part of the discussion. It started early, it seems.

Topics
L: Do we want to discuss any of these Recent Discussions?
-- Nevyn: Nuclear Structure of Aluminum: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t30-nucl
-- Molecular Structure of Acids: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t31-mole
-- LloydK: MM's Evolution paper and Biophotons: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t17-evol
-- LloydK: Questions for Miles Mathis: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t19p15-l
Ions Emit Photons; Molecules Don't: In MM's paper on Atmospheric Pressure he said: "Molecules do not radiate many photons, and this is because the electrons in the shells are blocking radiation from the nuclei. Molecules are mostly neutral, as we know, so few photons are escaping the electron/proton exchange. But with ions, this is not the case. I have shown that electrons also emit the charge field, so negative ions will be creating a charge field, not just positive ions. Both negative and positive ions are emitting a positive, real, bombarding field of photons. Therefore, when ions encounter the charge field of the Earth, they feel a greater repulsion than [do] molecules, and must go higher in the atmosphere." So I'd like to see how the B-photons get recycled within neutral molecules, without emitting many photons outside the molecule.
-- LloydK, Cr6: Electron Clusters & Electron-Nectron Mini-Atoms: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t19-lloy
- Or does anyone want to discuss other topics?

MM Elements Database & Bonding Simulator
L: I'm visiting my cousin, who's taking me along to his Mom's soon. He says we'll be back before the chat starts here, but in case I'm late, please go ahead and start chatting. Besides Cr6, Airman & Nevyn, I also invited CSmith & DArcher. 15:37
C: Hope I'm not too late. 16:34
Oh, actually a bit early. [wink] 16:40
Hi Nevyn 17:01
N: G'day 17:02
C: Hope all is well down South. Getting cold up here in the USA. 17:02
N: We're heading into summer but it was a pretty good winter this year 17:03
C: Was really impressed with your diagrams. 17:03
N: Cool, thanks 17:03
C: I've been trying to create a database linking system for the MM version of atoms. It has not been easy so far. 17:04
N: I've been working through hydrocarbons lately, it was going really well but I've hit a wall with some complex ring structures 17:04
Finding stuff on Miles site is really hard 17:05
C: I hear that. lol... 17:05
N: I've often thought about some sort of index but it is a monstrous task 17:05
C: I had to put all of his works into a single OneNote file to search at one time on one word. 17:06
N: nice 17:06
C: I'm able to pull out something like 50 works citing "Newton" 17:07
correction 219 works. 17:07
N: The relativity papers were some of the first I really found useful on Miles site, it took many reads but I think I have a much better understanding now 17:08
C: His 110c paper Designer Electrons are really photons. Might be helpful to look at for Carbons. 17:08
N: I read through his paper on methane again yesterday and freaked out cause I had forgoten about those structure changes 17:09
C: Yeah, there is always a surprise here or there. 17:10
Your work is a massively great step since it helps to "see" his structures. 17:10
N: that's why I wrote those apps, I needed to see it to think about it fairly 17:11
C: It is easy to keep out all the other factors influencing those structures. 17:12
N: it also makes it easy for me to play with them and try different structures 17:13
C: I'm trying to currently find a linking system between atoms and the single "alpha" to allow joins of the the Mathis periodic table. 17:14
Similar to your diagrams-app. 17:14
I started to re-write how my models are described so that I could calculate things like charge strength 17:15
N: it was more centered around the atomic levels 17:16

Feldspar
C: By the way ever check out Feldspar?
N: "Charge" that's what I'm leaving out right now just to start as simple as possible. 17:16
I hoped it would lead to an atomic and molecular bonding simulator 17:16
C: KAlSi3O8 – NaAlSi3O8 – CaAl2Si2O8 17:16
N: No, haven't heard of Feldspar 17:16
C: Something like 60% of the Earth's crust is made from it. 17:17
N: looks like fun, are there any ideas on the structure of it? 17:17
C: It has Al and Si. No ideas yet but looked like a pretty useful structure to try and model. 17:18
The atomic bonding simulator with a database is what I'm trying to do now. 17:18
N: it does, I will give it a go and see what I can build 17:18
yeah, good idea 17:19
C: Al can join 3 times on XX molecules with single Alphas. 17:19
N: I don't see how, it is a pretty simple structure 17:19
unless it is charged up by other atoms attached 17:20
C: Ah...I was just looking at the single (black) alphas sticking out from Al. Maybe I'm oversimplifying. 17:21
N: yes, Al only has the 1 hook proton 17:21
but it can accept protons in the bottom that has no hook protons 17:21
you could bond 2 atoms to the bottom and 1 to the top 17:21
I would say Si is the center atom of that molecule though 17:22
C: I see now. 17:23
I was just looking at "slots" open with the unpaired alpha. 17:23
Hope that makes some sense. 17:24
Found three at slots 6,7 and 14. 17:25
N: what do the numbers mean? 17:26
C: The slots are basically the "sticks" that Mathis uses in his atom building. 17:27
I have them numbered 1-15. 17:27
N: sorry, I was thinking of Na, not Al. Al has no empty slot on the bottom it is filled with an alpha 17:28
C: the "stick" color changes as it is energized to the higher alpha. 17:28
This is pretty small but you can see the "slots" in this pic: https://servimg.com/view/19056402/1 17:29
N: I was wondering what that was about when you posted that the other day 17:31
it was too hard to read in the image 17:31
C: slots 16,17,18,19 can take an alpha but can't be used for bonding. 17:31
Slots 1-5 form the "box". 17:33
N: so 1-5 are neon 17:34
C: Or better yet. 1-5 for the "post" and 1-9 form the "box". 17:35
Yes. 17:35
Do you have Excel? 17:35
N: so 1=center, 2 and 3=pillars, 4 and 5 are the caps 17:35
C: yes 17:35
N: yes, I have excel at work, not at home 17:35
C: okay.. I have a link to the Excel but I have to find it. 17:39
Excel file. 17:39
It is posted on the MM site. 17:39
the-talk.net site. 17:39
N: I don't remember seeing it, I'll have a look 17:40
C: I'll have to give it to you when I find it. lol... 17:40
Was looking for it so my posts were kind of slow. 17:40
I have things like argon filled with 2 alphas for 9 slots = 18 atomic number. I've tried to follow mathis' models in his papers. 17:42
I don't have "Sulphur" yet but add the structures as I see them. 17:43
N: I just found your posts on ionization, I'll have to give that a read 17:43

Crystals & Transmutation
N: Hi Airman 17:43
C: Hi Airman. 17:44
A: Hello, How are yas, I'll try to catch up bu reading the above. 17:44
N: no worries 17:45
C: We are just talking about Nevyn's cool models and "bonding" in the Mathis scheme of things. 17:45
A: I agree entirely. I've been thinking about them and the only complaint is the rather restricted reaction directions, if that makes any sense.. 17:47
C: You mean with the isotopes? 17:48
A: It seems that the basic reaction direction is linear, next, octahedral. Miles hasn't gotten beyond that except for the odd angle caused by the proton and neutron at one end. in water. 17:49
C: Ah... okay. 17:50
A: Sorry, it's dark and my typing isn't what it should be. 17:50
C: I know he has things "bending". I don't know if he'll have to employ something like that? 17:50
N: bending of molecular structures is known with hydrocarbon rings 17:50
C: np. yes. that's what I was talking about. thx. 17:51
A: Hi Nevyn, The chemistry books are filled with various crystalline forms. I don't see that with Miles yet. 17:52
C: referring to... 17:52
Airman... do you think the crystal shapes could follow the charge field dynamics? 17:53
N: He has talked about it a little bit in his papers on uranium 17:53
A: Of course. That's the strongest evidence,not ionic bonding. 17:54
C: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/photogalleries/giant-crystals-cave/images/primary/crystal-cave-1.jpg 17:54
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/photogalleries/giant-crystals-cave/ 17:54
just posted for fun. 17:55
N: I see crystal structure as bonds in all 6 directions, charge flows through in all 3 dimensions 17:55
L: Hi folks. I've been reading the discussion for a few minutes. How come everyone is here early? Anyway, transmutation is something I'd like to discuss eventually. 17:55
A: Nice picture. 17:55
Hi LLoyd, transmutation is a given, I use the chicken model with my friends. Converting potassium into calcium. 17:56
L: Do you guys favor any EU theory? I guess you saw the TPODs on the crystal caves. Right?
L: Hi Airman. N2 converts to CO, carbon monoxide. Right? 17:57
C: that's a good question. What is causing the transmutation in MM's charge field versus Electron Bonding-Isotopes. 17:58
L: Nevyn, would you like to explain the crystal bonds in 6 directions? I guess you mean the 6 ends of each atom. 17:58
N: yes, 6 bonding points on each atom connected to all other atoms so the charge streams can flow straight through the structure 17:59
this is known to cause changes in the crystals 17:59
L: Any Electric Universe connection with those 6 directions of bonding? 18:00
A: I'm not aware of an EU transmutation model, except perhaps at the Birkland pinch site creating matter, which shouldn't count. 18:00
C: What this means in this current experiment is that the spacing of the carbon monoxide in the molecular structure is creating the potentials that then energize these photon/electrons. We are seeing part of the great power tied up in the charge field. That's Miles. 18:00
L: Thornhill has talked about the lines on Europa being sulfur formed from oxygen in the ice. Similar on Io. 18:01
N: I really don't see how N2 can convert into CO, there is no way to get the O atom from N 18:02
there must be a catalyst 18:02
A: Lloyd, you haven't given a mechanism? 18:03
C: 239. Uranium TetraFluoride -- this paper has the Uranium crystal. 18:04
L: In the case of nitrogen to CO, one proton from one nitrogen atom goes to the other nitrogen, converting one into carbon and one into oxygen, just from the moving of one proton. 18:04
Kervran said that heating N2 to 600 degrees or so is enough to make the transmutation, but I'm not sure if that's in the air or within an animal organism. 18:05
In the case of sulfur, one atom splits into two oxygens. 18:06
[I meant to say 2 oxygens combine into 1 sulfur.]
A: Hi Cr6, Ken S has all kinds of transmutation products in a small voltage anode configuration, running hundreds of times. 18:06
C: saw that. 18:06
It makes me think Miles gives a window into this. 18:06
L: I had a good thread on transmutation on the TB forum, which I can link to later. 18:07
[ http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=209 ]
A: Best evidence so far 18:07
C: that's why I saw the Charge Field in his work. At least I assumed it. 18:07
A: The energies involved can be much smaller than assumed necessary 18:08
C: first time I'm looking over the Uranium paper.. he has a lot of configurations I didn't expect. 18:09
L: Nevyn, I see you said there must be a catalyst to get O from N. Yes, Kervran's book showed that enzymes etc seem to be required for biological transmutations. 18:09
C: that's right. If the charge field can be shot out as a 'gun' it can do those effects apparently. 18:09

N: EVO's? 18:10
C: yes EVOs...this maybe an area that even MM hasn't clearly conceived of. 18:11

Biophotons & EU Theory
L: Don't forget about biophotons. 18:09
MM had a recent paper about biophotons, but he didn't bother to call them that. It was possibly in the Evolution paper. 18:10
A: I don't have a grip on biological processes yet. Catalysts and neurons are so much less efficient compared to conductors. 18:11
L: Biophotons are able to organize 100 thousand reactions in each cell per second, apparently. 18:12
C: The only thing I can say on biophotons is that our "thinking" and "imagination" probably is fueled by them to a degree. 18:12
N: sounds like strong charge streams 18:13
C: if there is not enough glucose... the brain doesn't "think". or "receive". 18:13
just a thought... 18:14
A: Thinking as charge streams. Nice 'thought'. 18:14
C: exactly. dreams are passive reception even? 18:14
A: And God speaks with light 18:15
C: lol... yes. 18:15
It makes me reconsider all the people who "talked" about "crystals". making them feel better...etc. 18:16
A: Even astrology makes sense now too 18:16
C: ..lol... maybe indeed. 18:16
kind of mean this in a joking manner btw. 18:17
L: Nevyn and others, have you thought about laser light and holograms produced by charge streams, esp. within organisms? 18:17
A: No, but why not. Another argument that reality is a hologram 18:18
L: Nevyn, I know the other two here are somewhat interested in EU theory. But I don't remember if I've heard you express any interest in it. Do you have any? 18:18
N: Not really anymore, I think I found Miles through EU and looked at both for a while but now I focus on Miles work 18:19
C: well...in the big picture...what we see and hear are photonic manifestations of the charge field if we get rid of QM. 18:19
N: Havn't thought much about laser light or holograms but I can say I absolutely do not like any theory that reality is a hologram 18:20
L: Some of the biophoton literature suggests that memories and maybe other info is stored in organisms as holograms, I think. 18:22
- And laser light is used in making them or reading them [thoughts], I guess. 18:22

Crystals, Carbon Molecules & EU Theories
L: Thornhill had apparently suggested to the other Steven Smith that electric discharges somehow formed the crystals in crystal cave/s. Do any of you guys find that at all plausible? Or do yous favor other theories on that? If so, what? 18:20
N: I can agree that it is possible not sure if required 18:21
C: Could be. I know a cave is usually needed with water for most caverns to form the crystals. 18:22
N: I just went down into a cave last week 18:23
all of the stalagmites and tites are crystals 18:23
a cave is full of them even though most don't look like what we think of as crystals 18:23
oops, mis-hit 18:23
A: I've given up on electric current. Charge current is much more inclusive. we don't need electric discharges anymore. 18:23
L: We need to explain how electric current is photon current, I'd say. 18:24
C: I have too actually on the EU. 18:25
- It is unclear why glucose, as opposed to other hexose sugars, is so widely used in living organisms -- wikipedia. 18:24
A: Sugar is the power source 18:25
C: that's right and ketones. 18:25
- Why are these used in most living organisms? Our brains especially need this and will starve the body for glucose. 18:26
L: Ketones are converted to glucose, I believe. 18:26
L: You probably know I still like CC's EU model, even better than MM's model. 18:25
A: But CC must present a conventional model for acceptance 18:26
L: CC's model is not conventional. That's a misconception. 18:27
C: I'm not against CC's model exactly. I just think it is going to have to grow to account for a lot more phenomenon. 18:27
A: Lloyd, Excuse me then. Please elaborate for me some time later 18:28
L: Okay, Airman. 18:28
- Nevyn, chime in. 18:28
N: sorry, I'm floating in and out as I do other things 18:29
I don't know anything about CC's work, but I do like his corn chips 18:30
A: Hahaha 18:30
C: ...lol. 18:30
L: Nevyn, are you interested in looking at transmutations? 18:30
- I'll be back soon. 18:31
N: I haven't look at transmutations so far but it sounds like an interesting way to test MM nuclear models 18:31
C: Are you working on any particular molecules right now? 18:30
N: hydrocarbons 18:30
C: any particular challenges with modelling the hydrocarbons? 18:31
N: I have gone through a few variations 18:31
the rings are currently giving me some trouble 18:32
C: I know that how MM sticks a single "alpha" into a center is a bit of mystery for me. The how/when part of it. 18:32
A: Because of implied charge current direction limitations? 18:32
N: what do you mean? 18:33
- I haven't seen a single proton as the core of an atom 18:33
C: like he'll have 3 "black" single alphas sticking out of another atom/alpha. 18:34
A: Rings seem inherently unstable in a given charge field direction 18:34
C: tetra-flourine in the Uranium paper... he has four single alphas. 18:35
sticking out of a blue or red alpha. 18:35
N: rings are awesome, they would be strong in any direction 18:36
L: Are yous talking about carbon rings? 18:36
N: yes benzene for example 18:36
C: also: Carbon tetraFluoride 18:36
N: Carbon tetraFluoride? What is the formula for that? 18:37
L: They're usually 5 or 6 carbons in a ring. Doesn't glucose have both? I remember MM discussing both 5 and 6, I think. 18:37
- Must be the same formula as for carbon tetrachloride, I suppose. 18:37
N: I have modelled many carbon flurorides 18:38
C: CF4 18:38
N: yeah, got that 18:38
L: Yes, a central carbon and 4 fluorides 18:38
C: Carbon tetraFluoride, CF4, also known as tetrafluoromethane. I will draw the Fluorides in a more compact way this time, with one blue disk and one red disk; but that is still three alphas in the center of each Fluorine. 18:39
N: yes, even perpendicular, rings radiate a lot of charge back to themselves 18:40
N: CF4 - https://servimg.com/view/19052066/58 18:41
L: Here's feldspar supposedly: https://staff.aist.go.jp/nomura-k/common/STRUCIMAGES/KAlSi3O8-Feldspar.gif
N: Benzene - https://servimg.com/view/19052066/59 18:44

Charge Flow
A: " rings are awesome, they would be strong in any direction" Perpendicular too? 18:39
C: The dynamics of the single "alphas" in the center are still a mystery to me. 18:40
- I see them in his papers but couldn't conceive of "when" they form like that yet. 18:40
- As opposed to a single-single overlap. 18:41
A: Dwell time for charge flow. Do you think about "infinite loops"? 18:41
N: Infinite charge loops within the structure? 18:42
A: Why can't the charge flow loop indefinitly? 18:44
C: https://servimg.com/view/19056402/2 --mm 18:44
N: nothing is indefinite, a given charge photon will escape at some point 18:45
L: I'm going to start copying our chat. 18:45
A: Nice guys 18:45
C: nicely done. 18:46
N: I see what you mean now Cr6 18:47
-that is caused by a strong charge field 18:47
C: That's what I'm trying to nail down... when can these forms "form" in the c.f.? 18:48
N: they need a strong, directional charge stream to push the protons around into different positions 18:48
essentially, the structure needs to channel the surrounding charge as efficiently as possible, this becomes even more important as the charge strength increases 18:49
C: Did Mathis ever come up with a way to gauge c.f. strength? 18:49
N: I don't remember him mentioning it specifically 18:50
C: maybe by the alpha level? 18:50
N: I had a go at it once, I tried to relate the amount of charge strength of an alpha with the amount of protons it could push away 18:51
C: ahh... I see. 18:51
N: that is, if single protons do not bond orthogonally, then the equatorial charge of a proton is stronger than the weight of a proton 18:51
C: I just don't know if a backward jump from a "blue" double into two single "blacks" is possible. He might have mentioned it. 18:52
N: we also don't see just a single proton orthogonally bonded to a helium so it can push that much away 18:52
read his methane paper, it goes into that quite a bit 18:53
C: thanks. That does clarify. 18:53
A: Once matter is created it is stable in broad variations of cf 18:53
- I need to reread to see your point Cr6 18:54
N: to a certain extent, Airman, I think very exotic atomic structures are created in the cores of stars but they fall apart as they move to the outer regions 18:55
C: Well an axiomatic short-hand to new bonding approach would be cool. 18:55
- Like step 1. Check that whether there are single unbounded protons. 18:56
N: I hear ya, Cr6, I went through, still am, when I starting building atomic models 18:56
C: It maybe different for different molecules with different alphas. 18:56
- ...lol... then I read a new paper and have to throw out half of "my" thinking. 18:57
N: there is great complexity to reality and the moment you think you have it nailed down, it jumps up and shows you something really special 18:57
C: guys... I have to go. wife and all.. It's been great. 18:59
N: Ok, thanks for the chat. 18:59
A: Good Day and Night All 18:59
C: thanks 18:59
L: G'Night Cr 18:59

Compare CC & MM on Star Formation
L: Nevyn, we need to compare CC's star core model with MM's. 19:01
- I don't think MM's is well developed, but CC's is. 19:02
N: I have to find some time to look over his work 19:02
L: I could probably get him to discuss in a chat room with us, if you like. 19:02
N: I've tried to stay soley focused on MM so as not to let other ideas float into it 19:02
- not yet, at least for me, I need to look over his published work to get an idea of where he is coming from 19:03
L: I can answer quite a few questions sometime. 19:03
N: I'm sure that will come in handy at some time 19:04
L: Oh, I didn't notice that Airman left too. 19:04
- Or did I misread that above? 19:05
N: yeah, he's gone too 19:05
- what's CC URL? 19:05
L: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6031.html 19:05
CC and MM say nearly the same about how giant molecular clouds implode into stars. 19:07
N: I like the openning paragraph 19:07
- resonates with MM's word 19:07
L: CC just discovered a day or two ago that GRBs are likely the first stage of star formation after GMC implosions. 19:08
- Are you very familiar with astronomical terms? 19:09
N: some 19:10
L: Do you know about GRBs? Gamma ray bursters? 19:10
N: some, read about them over the years, bu I wouldn't say I've studied them 19:11
L: I just know that they're not understood conventionally, because they produce so much energy for a short time. But they know now that they're associated with supernovas. 19:12
N: Know or think? 19:12
L: Some GRBs are associated with supernovas. 19:13
N: I don't trust a lot of astronomy because it is based on faulty models 19:13
- I trust the data, not the interpretations 19:14
L: CC said today that the time between when a supernova starts the implosion process can take a million years or more to get finished imploding and produce a GRB. 19:14
- At least I think he said that. 19:14
N: makes sense, slowly building up pressure until it gets too much 19:14
- sounds like a capacitor 19:15
L: Charles is good, I think, at separating the data from the interpretations.' 19:15
N: excellent, I find it hard to get data 19:15
- actually, that sounds just like a spark gap 19:16
- Tesla used spark gaps to produce some brilliant effects 19:16
L: I'll tell CC you said that about the implosion sounding like a capacitor or a spark gap. 19:17

Planning
L: Do you have a plan? Or should we think about making one together, the four or more of us? 19:16
N: Plan for what? 19:16
L: Research. 19:17
N: Not really, I just go with what interests me at the time until I burn out and leave it for a while then come back and try to make sense of it 19:17
L: Maybe we can coordinate a little what we each try to make sense of. 19:18
- Maybe not. 19:18
N: I guess a good start is to find out who like to research what and see how that pans out 19:18
L: Right. 19:19
N: start a topic about it and we can all write down what we know and what we like to research and maybe what we want to research into the future 19:19
L: One of my top interests is connecting the charge field with electric current. 19:19
N: I have interests there myself, I try to think about electronics in an MM kind of way 19:20
L: Okay. I'll see if I can start a topic on our research interests etc. 19:20
Yeah, I'd like to be able to explain positive and negative charge attraction in terms of photon motions. 19:21
N: when you read about things like corona (electric, not solar) it is impossible to not think of the charge field 19:21
- yeah, that is tricky but very important 19:21
L: CC is good at electronics like that. 19:21
N: good, electronics is heading towards the smaller and smaller so they are going to come up against the type of physics MM is doing at that level 19:22
L: I'm about talked out. Do you want to discuss anything else yet? 19:24
- I can answer questions. 19:24
- But I can't think of other questions to ask now, I guess. 19:25

Ion & Atom Formation Locations & Catastrophism
N: I had a thought that planets create molecules, stars create atoms, galaxy cores create large charge so there may be more levels that create lesser sized charge until the basic 19:25
not sure what happens at the smallest of levels though 19:26
L: Interesting thought. Sounds like it's connected to something discussed earlier here. 19:26
N: Maybe, I was thinking about molecules yesterday and it struck me that planets can create molecules and stars can create atoms so why not keep going back 19:27
L: Stars may become planets, if they keep losing mass. 19:28
N: sure, I have no problem with that, I believe Saturn may have been a star once 19:28
- I think a star becomes a planet when it spreads our its density 19:29
L: Cardona found that it seems to have been a brown dwarf star, the smallest kind. 19:29
What's your reason for thinking Saturm may have been a star? 19:30
N: I got the idea from somewhere, can't remember now, but they were trying to link cave paintings, it must have been on the EU site somewhere 19:31
- old legends suggest some things like the arrival of Venus to the system 19:31
L: Okay. 19:31
- Venus, Mars and Earth seem to have been satellites of Saturn. 19:32
N: I think the solar system has had a much more chaotic history than currently thought 19:32
- yes, or maybe Venus and Mars arrived later as it appears Mars may have collided with what is now the asteroid belt 19:32
- So if saturn was the sun and then our current sun came along, did it steal all of galactic charge which shut down saturn? 19:33
L: Charles pointed out that the supercontinent must have formed after Earth had already formed and it likely formed from a large impact. So the supercontinent was part of the Moon. 19:34
N: did the moon collide with the earth or was it part of it? 19:34
L: I'll have to think about what you say about the Sun stealing Saturn's charge field. 19:35
- The supercontinent I guess was pulled off of the Moon at a close approach, I think. 19:35
N: Oh, ok, the supercontinent was added to the earth? 19:36
L: Yes. Otherwise, it would have eroded into a thin layer, instead of remaining a thick continent. 19:36
N: that would show up in core samples wouldn't it? 19:37
L: Core samples of what? 19:37
N: the earth, if the continent was added then it would be different to the material it landed on 19:38
L: Yes. The continents are granite mostly. I don't know if the Moon is similar. 19:38
N: what's underneath the granite? 19:39
L: It's denser, probably ultramafic rock, below the continents. 19:39
- I think mafic means magnesium and iron. 19:40
N: I work with some geologists but I don't know anything about it myself 19:40
L: Who was discussing feldspar earlier? Cr6? 19:40
N: yes looks like a tricky molecule to model 19:40
L: I think it looked tetrahedral, didn't it? 19:41
N: not sure 19:42
L: Now that I look again, they look like rings. 19:43
N: I have to get going now, thanks for the discussion, see you next time 19:43
L: Okay, Nevyn. G'Day. 19:44
- I was going to say though that it's aluminosilicates that look like tetrahedra. 19:45

Discussion at http://us20.chatzy.com/27985249236108 from 6 to 7:20 pm or so PST

L: My favored topic is: "Opposite Charge Attraction".
- We're all interested in doing animations for Youtube, so I hope we may discuss that briefly.
- What topics are the rest of you most interested in today?

Superconductivity & Magnetism
C: Hi Loyd I don't know if I'm early or late for 9pm?
- Came across this info today: http://io9.com/this-2000-year-old-pigment-can-eliminate-the-third-dime-1661476168
- http://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/june7/flat-060706.html 3-D insulator called Han Purple loses a dimension to enter magnetic 'Flatland'. Dye first made 2,500 years ago is focus of quantum spin study
L: Hi Cr6. That last statement is kind of opaque. Want to elaborate?
C: That's the title of the article. The first line.
L: How's it interesting?
C: The top article describes the phenomenon that Han Purple has.
L: It says: Han purple, they found, eliminates an entire dimension. It makes waves go two-dimensional! Do you know what that means?
C: Barium copper-silicate (han purple) is described the following properties:
- Something unusual happens as the temperature drops and as a magnetic field is applied, although the temperature has to drop pretty far, going down to between one and three degrees Kelvin, and the magnetic field has to be about 800,000 times the strength of Earth's magnetic field. The results are worth it — the electrons seem to merge, taking on one spin, and acting as one electron. That sounds like an ordinary superconductor, you say. Then you're as foolish as a Phoenician in sub-par purple! Han purple still has a trick up its sleeve. Drop the temperature some more and something happens to the magnetic wave traveling through the substance. At higher temperatures, it propagates like a regular wave, traveling in three dimensions. Get under one degree Kelvin, and it no longer has a vertical component. It propagates in two dimensions only. Scientists think that this has something to do with the structure of barium copper silicate. It's components are arranged like layers of tiles, so they don't stack up neatly. Each layers' tiles are slightly out of sync with the layer below them. This may frustrate the wave and force it to go two dimensional.
- Just found it interesting.
L: Seems relevant for modeling atoms etc.
- I don't understand magnetic fields well, even by MM's explanation. Someone needs to model that accurately. Eh?
C: BaCuSi_​2​O_​​6​ -- yep, I'd say so. I know Mathis' did a paper on explaining this. Forgot the name of the paper.
L: So a 2-D magnetic field isn't any more meaningful for me than a 3-D one. What's your understanding of magnetic fields? Want to say?
A: Hi Cr6, Lloyd
C: His Solid Light paper mentions
L: Howdy.
- I guess another paragraph is coming.
A: Cr6, this reduction to under 3deg K sounded like the entire structure lost a spin simultaneously
C: But when we are looking at what we call electrical conduction, we are looking at the stream from south pole to north. This stream is linear, directionalized, and coherent. If we align the poles of adjacent nuclei, we create longer lines of conduction. As you can probably see already, this explains the Meissner Effect in superconductivity, where interior magnetic lines disappear. We have never been given a simple mechanical explanation for that, but my diagram of Copper supplies it immediately. If this Copper nucleus begins superconducting, that simply means that all photons being recycled are going from pole to pole.
- Meissner effect? Forgot about that one.
A: The magnetic field is becoming clearer to me over time. It is truly no more complex than spin alignment given off the object
C: Hi Airman. That's the cool thing about it.
- I see it as kind of "pinball machine" and Pachinko machine in a way.
- There are areas where the charge must go.
L: So MM said there that the magnetic field disappears in superconductivity? How does that relate to the field going 2-dimensional in the above case?
C: I do know if MM explained how the cold temperatures affected the BaCuSiO ceramic S.C.
- I don't know.
- That's a good question. [smile]
L: I think I recall something about the coherently spinning photons causing ions to spin coherently and the ions cause the magnetic force on objects.
C: A Colder temperature may re-channel the Charge field or shut off central recycling for particular parts of molecules.
A: L"So MM said there that the magnetic field disappears in superconductivity?" I don't agree with that, we want to achieve superconductivity at as high a temperature as posssible. At the very coldest temps the field simplifies, and leaves less resistance to the earth's emitted field.
C: There probably needs to be another group of elements added for high temperatures.
L: Do the Han Purple articles discuss superconductivity?
- Oh, I see they do.
- What would the other elements do for higher temps?
C: I'm creating a database of MM element structures to allow element to element joins on charge levels and single protons. I'm going to start with Han Purple and see how far I get with it.
L: You mean right now?
C: It will look similar to my spreadsheets I sent out a few months ago.
- And mirror Nevyn's diagrams in certain ways but show a table result.
L: Do yous have any other topics yous want to discuss?
C: Welcome Nevyn.
- Sorry guys I'll go quiet a bit.
L: Hi Nevyn, if you catch up with us. How about making a video for Youtube or something?
N: Hey guys, I don't have much time but I am eating some lunch so I thought I would see what you are all chatting about.
L: You saw what I just said about doing a video. We were discussing some articles connected to superconductivity.
C: We are talking about "Han Purple" and the Solid Light paper.
N: reading through it now
L: Where's the Solid Light paper? Is it related to the Designer Electrons paper?
C: Kind of wondering how temperature is translated by MM into structures-molecular forms. I see things here and there but not really the full picture.
L: By temperature, do you mean IR photons?
C: http://milesmathis.com/solidlight.pdf
L: Yeah, I just found it too.
C: Temperature as related to spin mechnics?
- photons-- yes.
- If you all want to discuss other topics, I'm fine with that.
L: He did say I think that at zero K particles may stop recycling.
- Airman, do you have any topics to suggest?
A: OK read the article. I really think we need a new definition of superconductivity. Currently, to me, it represents a perfect conductor, zero resistance, current lasting "indefinitly". As such, it is impossible.
C: Do certain elements recycle less first/last?
A: This is fine, I let someone else suggest
L: I only remember mention of protons stopping recycling [near zero K], I think.
C: Agreed there Airman.

Youtube Video Project
L: What do yous think would be the easiest topic to do a 5 minute video on?
- I'd like to find some local students who'd be interested in doing animation for MM models.
- Oh, you're still discussing superconductivity then.
C: I've been thinking the same thing Lloyd.
L: Cr6, what have you thought of animating?
C: I threw a lot reading out there. Maybe everyone is looking it over?
A: Photon behaviors and interactions. , (assume spheres for starters)
L: To explain electric current or magnetic fields?
C: How two elements bond?
N: Miles core concepts are expansion and stacked spins, both of them are really hard to nail down into a short video.
A: Bonding involves dual direction charge flows, and adjacent emitted field backgrounds. Too complex
N: Bonding would be a good one to do but you need to understand the basics of Miles model first.
L: What about alpha formation? As in the deuterium paper?
N: My atomic models make no sense on their own, you have to know Miles work.
A: What's wrong with photon collisions?
L: Collisions to do what?
C: Well, if it is too much detail. Maybe we could skip but it is a good exercise to consider.
- How "bonding" works according to Mathis with charge flow directions/protons/photo​n cycling, etc.
A: L, You said you're still unsure of magnetism, that is one collission, of a sort.
N: I think an easier subject to animate is relativity.
L: Actually, it might be easier to show the structure of elements and why they have the characteristics they do, like conductivity, magnetic effects, instability etc.
- A, I just noticed your statement. You favor demonstrating magnetism?
A: Bonding is too complicated for five minutes. Like simulating blood flow through cell tissue
L: I was saying that the photons give the ions spins, which latter produce the magnetic effects. Agree?
N: Sorry, guys, I've got to go. See you's next time.
C: Have a good one Nevyn.
A: Bye, Nevyn
L: G'Day Mate.
C: Guys...fyi... whenever I hear Spin Mechanics - I think of "how" to demonstrate this with a program?
A: Lloyd, Yes. Provided that the emitted up field and down are in synch with each other
C: It is possible to create a frame by frame example of it. But to create a framework for mimicing it like 3-D game engine could [be] challenging.
- Magenetism sounds good.
A: I remember an algebra matrix designed for motion and rotation,
C: yes...that's where I'm going with it.
- an engine to demonstrate the "mechanics".
L: What about the Logo program or similar ones? A video stating that the aether is photons might get popular?
C: Programming an engine would take a "team" but a few videos of certain things like Nevyn has done may be possible with just a few people.
- I think you are going in the right direction Lloyd.
A: I think opposing photons, with target zone would make good competition
L: What's target zone?
C: for aether theories?
A: Call it spinning ions, in a background field, allowing two opposing players control of direction, or spin up, or spin down for a given turn for their particles
C: photon-spin mechanics. We will have to demonstrate all of this at some point... what is the low hanging fruit for demoing is the question.
- Or, yes, making it a game.
- That's why I posted the javascript library https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t15-3d-engine-for-mathis-charge-field-elements-famous-with-javascript
A: There'd be a lot of bouncing, like breaking friends tops when I was playing such games
C: lol...
L: I think MM's idea about atoms spinning would be impressive to show why they have to be symmetrical and why they can become unstable.
C: this javascript library has quaternion functions built in. It would be a matter of some just programming it in HTML 5. I good sophmore project.
- A good project for a college sophmore.
L: Would it be easier to meet them [student animators] online?
A: Nevyn recommended I start back at Java
C: I don't know. I don't know anyone I could pitch this too. Yeah, I was thinking graphically driven like "Flash" in HTML 5 with just javascript.
- It is kind of cutting edge.
L: I think I'll look for animation forums first. Know of any?
C: But would get a lot of attention if it is done. Basically some young programmers might just do it to use these new libraries.
- This video kind of shows the "coolness" factor for animations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzBC20B5dsk famo.us 3D template [ hello world ]YouTube · 2:42
L: I guess I'll start a thread for an animation project. Si?
- Actually, if we find local animators, we could each do separate videos.
C: yes... since it is javascript we don't need someone to spend a lot of lab time or buy 3-D studio max...etc. to make a demo.
L: I'd like to insert another topic, if we're ready.
C: In the demo they have spin and sensitivity for "kinematics-mechanics". There are templates for building "objects" that can be moved and respond to other objects. Collision math-detection etc. is built into the library.
- okay.
A: It looked like everything is there already
C: Just wanted to make it clear that at some point... to really "sell" this and to just prove it. A 3-D engine will need to be created.

"Opposite Charge Attraction for Star Formation"
L: Here are some statements from MM and CC on nebular accretion: _MM1: In the vicinity of baryonic matter, these photons are recycled by the spinning protons and electrons (and other particles), and that is how they interact. _MM2: And since photons move in straight lines very quickly, they can link together molecules or ions, even molecules or ions with a very tenuous density. _MM11: The plasma cannot tell incoming ions from its own ions, and since free electrons and protons attract one another, the plasma tends to gain weight, as it were. _CC11:Any dust particle with more than a couple million atoms is capable of hosting a net negative charge, while the surrounding plasma has a net positive charge. _CC37: We know that UV radiation from the supernova ionizes the dust cloud. _CC39: Recent research has shown that a spherical dusty plasma first resolves into filaments, and then the filaments collapse into a star.8,9,10
A: Thank You Cr6
C: np... I see things a little differently after reading MM's works. [wink]
L: Both MM and CC mentioned the magnetic field, but MM seems to think it's mandatory, but I don't think CC does.
- MM says the galactic magnetic field is necessary. Right?
- I'm talking about for star formation.
C: Well, I just remember he needed it to Spin.
L: Both mention attraction between "opposite charges". Would the attraction occur as electrons riding charge streams toward proton poles?
A: Its only mandatory if it is synchronized, otherwise it is more an electric field. The ambient also presents various emitted fields that may or may not interfere with the given particle's mag field. In the case of acrection we want minimum interference with the individual, dispersed, gravity fields
L: MM says it's the E/M field though that causes the accretion. Right?
A: The charge field organized the particles so that they can begin to interact and channel
C: You might have to ask him on that one. His Cycles paper kind of hints at a lot factors involved (photons/anti-photons).
L: What does MM mean by electrons and protons attracting?
A: Only through gravity, up to a point, as long as energy levels in the surrounding field allows it
L: I recall he said gravity wouldn't have an effect until the accretion has occurred. Ain't that right?\
A: I don't agree. Just gravity brings them together, if by chance
- bonds will occur, then the particleis acreatins
C: He has charge flows... with objects (electrons, protons, neutrons) configured and angled to accept charge according to their level of charge (1,2,4,5,6). Holes are filled to make bonds.
A: Bad fingers
C: You might just pitch him CC's papers/synopsis and just ask him to just critique them? It might be interesting for him if he has time of course.
A: The point, for me, is the greatly increased complexity of building matter
L: I'm pretty sure he said gravity has little effect till it's already all concentrated.
C: We can only "model" this.
- Objects need a radius to have gravitational effects right?
L: I'm supposed to meet the landlord's relatives soon. I'll stay here till they arrive.
A: The collisions occur first, causing a large group of slow objects, that are then free to react to each other
L: Collisions of what?
A: We are jumping scales when discussing photon and proton collisions in one breath
L: This all occurs in molecular clouds, which have higher density than other parts of the galaxy.
C: I agree... [smile]
A: Yes
L: No suggestions on how protons and electrons attract?
C: For me Lloyd, I can't make a lot out of big Cosmological points of view. Build a program and just "model" these things.
- attract in terms of Mathis, QCD, classical...?
L: Attract in terms of MM's use of the word attract in the quote above.
A: All such attractions are merely apparent. Somethmes lucky catches occur, but most interaction is by the slow moving adjacent particles, in response primarily do to gravity.Oh, oh, the wife is cleaning for company, Gotta do my part
L: _MM2: And since photons move in straight lines very quickly, they can link together molecules or ions, even molecules or ions with a very tenuous density
A: Good night guys. I gotta think of these as lightning rounds, good for your toes
C: Are you looking for how ions are formed to cause attraction?
- I have to run as well. Have a good one everyone until next time?
A: Great
C: Goodnight.
L: G'Night here too.

Re: Chat Room Discussion #3
Post by LloydK on Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:59 pm
I checked out the Solid Light paper and find two things there I didn't notice before, i.e. regarding magnetism and atomic spin cessation.

http://milesmathis.com/solidlight.pdf
Magnetism
_If this Copper nucleus begins superconducting, that simply means that all photons being recycled are going from pole to pole. None are being recycled out the equatorial or carousel level.
_As we know, the magnetic field lines are always orthogonal to the electrical field lines. Well, the electrical fields lines go with the conduction. They run south to north here. The magnetic field lines are then orthogonal to that and in a circle, by the old right hand rule.
_Well, since we have no photons being emitted out the equator in this case, we have no magnetic field being created. []
_Photons that are recycled from south to north in a line create the electrical field, and photons that are recycled through the carousel level create the magnetic field. So if all charge is channeled south to north as through charge, nothing is left to create the magnetic field. It disappears. This disappearance is what we call the Meissner Effect.
_Since all photons are spinning, the external electrical field will still have a potential magnetic component, but in the atoms themselves, there is nothing that we would call a magnetic field. Given superconduction, those internal field lines are gone. []

Through Charge and Atomic Spin Cessation
_See how we have no disks plugged into the carousel level, pointing out? Calcium has only two outer
level protons, and they are both plugged in the poles. So both Calcium and Barium are being used here
to tell Mercury to recycle charge on the pole instead of out the carousel.
_The fans of both Calcium and Barium pull the charge of Mercury through on his pole instead of letting him recycle out his equator.
_Given that, we don't even have to stop Mercury's carousel level with supercold. Once Calcium and Barium linearize Mercury's charge stream, Mercury stops spinning. With no photons moving through
his carousel level, Mercury cannot maintain his carousel spin.

Re: Chat Room Discussion #3
Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Nov 23, 2014 7:18 pm
Lloyd, I did not recall seeing Miles' definition of the Meissner Effect. Nor a definition of superconductor as recycling strictly pole-to-pole. Serve me a slice of humble pie.

1. Topics
2. Elements
3. Three Neutrons
4. Windhexe
5. Expansion
6. Transmutation

A: Hi Lloyd! I came early expecting to find a subject.
- I'll go eat dinner
L: Hi Airman. Go ahead and think of topics you may like to discuss and I'll do likewise.

Topics
A: Hi, You and Cr6 will want to talk transmutation. Then we have to thank Nevyn and Cr6 for building the Chemisty Section. Next, the 'animation' of expansion theory you requested.
- https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t52-transmutation#492
- I'rm reading the Anvil doc
C: Sorry I'm late guys
A: Like heck, you're late. Nice work with yur chem posting today

Elements
C: Hey no problem I just wanted to get the models assembled from the papers.
L: Greetings again.
C: Greetings
- There's a few of them out there that are still hard to call in their final form.
L: Elements?
C: yes
A: Would Miles object to a single text searchable doc of all his papers?
C: How the alphas are arranged. Nitrogen for example.
N: It gets really hard with the larger elements, as you've found Cr6
C: That's what I'm seeing and to match it to experimental evidence is a challenge.
N: yeah, I try to use the known isotopes first to find a structure capable of fulfilling them all
C: Ahh...I see.
N: but sometimes Miles comes up with something else
C: lol...
N: he's more willing to go out on a limb than I am
- it is his theory after all
C: I didn't see that Methane Molecule CH4 coming.
N: neither did I
C: With the slot's changed from the carousel.
- carousel style.
N: that's why I didn't include it in my hydrocarbon discussion, it doesn't fit like the others
C: I see.
- I'm still working on programming a "joining" for the elements to form molecules either in SQL or Python.
N: how are you doing that? It seems to me that it is all charge field vectors that dictate bonds.
- that's the way I have been moving with it, trying to redesign how I create my models to give me data about the element or molecule
C: It is nothing spectacular but I'm just working on getting the single alphas to match up.
N: then I can use that to see what can bond to what
- Ah, I see. You will have to think about the charge strength of the entire atom for some of them
- Miles talked about it in a recent paper but I can't find it again.
C: That's what I'm aiming for a set of what is allowable to bond element to element.
- Yeah, it isn't neutron or charge strength direction ready right now.
- vector ready
- It is just a set of hacks right now.
N: all programs start out that way
- even some of the big ones like Word are very hacky
C: Sorry guys I don't mean to talk too much about programming. Lol... I expect this to have numerous patches. [smile]
L: Miles talked about what in a recent paper?
N: He talks about how the core 9 slots in an atom dictate how much charge flows through it
- and this leads to bonds with other elements that match that charge strength
C: aka the carousel 9-slots.
N: 4 of them are the carousel slots, the other 5 are the core, pillars and caps
A: I hope I don't sound trivial. What makes an element an element? Just counting the protons and neutrons? Or just the alphas the Key. Or is it the interaction with the charge field of other elements.
N: the type of bond
- nuclear bonds are formed in stars with great pressure
L: I'd say it's the number of protons.
N: atomic bonds (atom to atom) are weaker
- molecular bonds are even weaker still
- nuclear bonds push the protons and alphas together tightly but atomic bonds aren't that close
L: Transmutation shows that the bonds may be more malleable than thought. Even MM's Methane paper shows flexibility with CO2 and CH4.
N: I think the bonds form first then the charge strength changes the structure
C: Potassium... Miles doesn't have a model? https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t51p15-mathis-chemistry-graphics
- I've looked through the papers but can't find it.
- I've just used a best guess at this point for the structure.
L: MM ignores neutrons in most of his element models. That makes things easier.
N: but the neutrons are important, that's why I use the isotopes
- potassium is a Neon structure with 1 proton hook in the top
- sorry, Argon
C: I know it works similar to Calcium. Just assumed the single black alpha was on top.
- yes... sounds good.

Three Neutrons
L: I wonder if 3 neutrons could occur sometimes between two adjacent protons.
- instead of just 2.
C: It does open the question as to the electron bonding theory. Perhaps there are experiments Miles structures allow that Electron Bonding doesn't?
A: The third neutron would be unable to escape collisions with the other two
N: it does seem unlikely, but I can't rule it out
L: 3 neutrons should make an alpha stabler than 2.
N: I haven't found I have needed it so far
- not really, Lloyd, the 2 provide support because the protons are spinning
L: I know, but 3 should still provide more stability.
C: You mean 3 like in Copper? https://i.servimg.com/u/f59/19/05/64/02/copper10.jpg
L: I didn't have a particular place in mind.
N: no, that is what I thought at first, but I think he means 3 neutrons in between the 2 protons in an alpha
C: oh got it.
L: Yes, just in alphas etc.
A: I agree with the location, not it's stability
L: Anyone ready to make a video of any of this, starting with a talky and maybe hand-drawn illustrations?
C: Check out the 213b. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance paper it has a few graphics.
L: Graphics of what?
N: I'm not ready for videos yet. I can make some animations of atoms coming together to form molecules but I am creating a new animation framework to help with this
L: Right.
N: You led me to that Lloyd, when you asked for an animation of the gravity stuff
- although, I was already thinking about one, you just pushed me over the edge
L: And you couldn't get back out?
N: Ha ha, it is a bit like that, I get obsessed with my work at times
L: We need to do more comedy like in our first chat. Eh?
N: A neutron walks into a bar and the bartender says 'No charge for you', ok I need to work on my material
L: Your matter?
C: Two alpha males are fighting for a female neutron to spin their direction?

Windhexe
C: I was think about the Windhexe again.
A: There were no pictures in Wiki of the windhexe
C: how it takes elements down to the micron size.
A: Waste management?
N: Yeah, that is a nice picture, Airman
C: Or everyday items down to the micron size of base elements.
- and molecules.
L: Is that like a plasma torch?
A: How
C: It's based on objects twisting in a vortex.
A: Water vortex?
C: and billions of little edge hits on the side of the tube of the windhexe.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windhexe
- Compressed air is injected at the top through nozzles. Small deflection plates then force that air to flow in a counterclockwise direction, creating a miniature tornado in the funnel-shaped can. Using just a fraction of the energy employed by conventional crushers and dryers, the Windhexe breaks solid material down to roughly micron size, increasing its surface area so that heated air can dehydrate the material quickly. The Windhexe operates without any moving parts and can quickly and loudly disintegrate and dehydrate materials ranging from shoes, rocks, sludge, concrete and industrial waste to glass, agricultural and animal waste.[4]
L: What's it cost to make a windhexe?
C: Not much as far as I know. Probably just a lot of time and effort.
N: how do you pronounce that?
A: Sounds like Tesla's vaneless pump
C: Wind Hex?
- Like a witches' spell.
N: ok, why the e on the end then?
L: Let's make a video of us making a windhexe? Or is there such a video?
A: A cartoon would suffice
C: I think it is based on another device like that? Don't know really.
L: I see there are already have some videos about it.
N: I wonder if it needs to be clockwise to work in the southern hemisphere?
L: https://www.google.com/search?q=windhexe&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3CIMG%20src=
C: They have a few of them out there working.
N: thinking that it goes against the charge flow of the earth
L: I heard that's a myth about vortexes going opposite directions in opposite hemispheres.
C: How does the charge field work in it? It's an interesting question considering surface areas and edge hits.
L: At least in toilets.
N: my toilet disaggrees with you
C: What direction does your toilet flush?
N: hang on
A: Wow, I almost believed that Kleiner Windhexe was rescued from a Windhexe
L: What's that?
N: neither, must be caused by the way water is pushed into the toilet
- I think it is clockwise down the sink though
A: I was with my son, as a boy, at the drain of an olympic pool. We were standing in a tornado
C: That's the famous story!
- Of the Windhexe!
N: Sorry guys, I have to go a bit early today. See you all next week and indirectly in the discussions.
A: Good Luck Sir
C: I think something electrostatic is also probably happening with the Windhexe.
- Have a good one!
L: ecstatic?
- CU then.
- Electrostatic might make it something like a plasma torch then.
C: Yeah, I just think it is working like that to separate everything out to the degree it does.
- The micronization.
L: Normal tornadoes appear to definitely move by electric forces.
- Charles has a paper on that I think.
A: I think the micronization occurs as a result of tension forces within the vortex
C: I've looked at Charles' work on it quite good.
A: Tension and high surface resistance, tear everything apart
C: I just wonder if something like this could be related to the charge field - EU style transmutations or if it is strictly physical.
- Okay.
L: Heat and pressure etc ionize everything, and MM says ions emit charge, while neutral atoms and molecules don't much.
C: In all three methods described, the effect that causes the small diameter of the solid particles is the supersaturation that occurs at the time of the particle formation, like it was described in more detail in the case of the RESS process. The PGSS method has the advantage that because of the supercritical fluid, the melting point of the solid material is reduced. Therefore, the solid melts at a lower temperature than the normal melting temperature at ambient pressure. In addition, all these new techniques do not demand long processing times, like in the case of the traditional methods. As a result, they are thought to be more appropriate when thermo-labile materials need to be processed (like pharmaceuticals and foodstuff ingredients).
C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronization
- Sorry to just dump that on you guys.
- Apparently a way of micronizing things.
L: It'll be dumped onto the forum thread.
C: ha.
- Modern methods use supercritical fluids in the micronization process. The most widely applied techniques of this category include the RESS process (Rapid Expansion of Supercritical Solutions), the SAS method (Supercritical Anti-Solvent) and the PGSS method (Particles from Gas Saturated Solutions).
L: Supercritical fluids are at high pressure, aren't they, and therefore ionized?
- What's PGSS?
- Am I right that supercritical fluids are under high pressure and therefore ionized?
C: I believe so?
A: There are many forces at work
C: Not really an expert on this field.
- in this field.
A: Time does fly this way
L: Now I'm going to have to correct the word "Therde" when I edit this.
A: My fingers are probabilistic

Expansion
A: I think a complete Lagrange Set would be sexiest
N: Lagrange set is sexist? Please explain.
- Oh, sorry, sexiest, my bad
C: As long as no one is naked it's okay.
A: THE CHARGE FIELD causes the LAGRANGE POINTS. Cover picture is nice
L: Airman, did you say at the outset here that you have an illustration of expansion?
A: I was saying I would start an illustration with the LaGrange picture, much as you've asked for
L: Okay.
A: Lloyd, it remains static, in appearance, until you add the orbital motion

Transmutation
L: Xenon-129 is found in Mars atmosphere and some speculate that there were people on Mars and had a nuclear war. But Charles shows that meteors and asteroids impact at high enough pressure and temperature to produce thermonuclear explosions.
- You need to follow observations, such as transmutations, to help determine the structures of elements. That's why I mentioned Xenon-129 on Mars.
- Are you resistant to considering transmutation? Airman mentioned in the second discussion that Shoulders discusses it a lot.
N: I'm not resistent I just think it is not as simple as make this into that
- I think it is very difficult to break atoms apart
- but given the way Miles has rearranged elements, maybe not as hard as I think
L: Right. It requires high heat, or electricity, or catalysts, or enzymes etc.
A: Transmuttations occur all the time. There's no denying it
L: And I think it makes sense to have the transmutations etc help determine the element models.
C: I agree LTAM.
- Hey guys got to run.
L: Is there no stopping you?
- Pro-ballistic?
C: lol... not Superman here just a guy drinking beer.
L: Healthy beer?
- Have a good one.
C: Good probability though .999999 correct?
- Yes bought from a Green Store with Green credits.
L: I said good night already.
C: Good night all. Night.
L: Or was there some stopping you anyway?
- G.N. again.;
A: Good Night Cr6. Lloyd, do we get along OK?
- Looked pretty determined to me
L: Get along on what?
A: Do you see yourself as a taskmaster of sorts?
L: As one interested in the subject, who doesn't mind asking for discussions.
A: You are wonderful at generating discussion
L: I prefer not to be a control freak.
- I need to escort my friend to the store soon.
A: Well then I'll say good night to you as well. Happy Holidays
L: It's good that there are good discussers to entice.
- Happy weekend to ye.

Stars Store Charge?

L: At this thread https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t58-earth-s-sun-s-charge-fields-storage I show that: Earth emits about 50 W/m^2 more charge than it receives;
and the Sun emits about 63 million W/m^2 more charge than it receives.
Therefore, stars and planets must store charge, somewhat like batteries do.
- I believe a battery produces much more light from a light bulb than the battery is receiving charge from the ambient charge field. If so, then the battery must have stored charge.
I think the amount of charge a battery receives on Earth is about 250 W/m^2 from below and 200 from above. A battery with about 40 cm^2 of surface area could only receive less than .02 W, way too little to power a 100 W bulb [or a 10 W bulb either] etc.
- Does anyone agree that charge must be stored in batteries, planets and stars?
Since MM said in the Star Formation paper that free electrons and protons are attracted to one another, if electrons are held away from protons, does anyone agree that they store potential energy, like the potential energy of a body of water held back by a dam?
A: Hello?
L: Hi Airman.
A: Are you hunting bear?
L: Don't think so. What bear? Is someone doing that? Been getting a little discussion with the MM Facebook group too. Hopefully, that and the MM forum can accomplish something significant.
A: Significant. OK
L: Is bears the topic you want to discuss tonight?
A: Trying to topple charge recycling shouldn't be too hard
L: How are you thinking of toppling it?
A: Not at all. I want to defend it
L: Is your mind made up then? First you said you're trying to topple it.
A: Make your point.
L: We've already been discussing it on the forum, so I plan to pursue it more there. But I've been thinking that photons could be slowed down to near zero motion inside large bodies, and maybe that would be a way to store the charge.
- CC said degrees of freedom would somehow be removed under great pressure inside stars, so atoms would have zero motion, I think. I don't understand degrees of freedom as yet.
A: That reminds me of Cr6's article last week. Where an ancient color ingredient lost "freedom" as the temperature was reduced. No problems there.
- But great pressure seems like the opposite of low temp.
L: I guess pressure increases temperature at first, but as degrees of freedom are lost, it lowers. Is temperature reduced? I was just trying to remember, but it seems like CC said the temperature would be near zero. Does motionlessness of atoms mean zero temperature?
A: I think so. The lowest temps result in the smallest vibration of matter, reduced cross photon interference, and such
- But again, increasing pressure increases temps, it's pretty much definitional
L: Is it conceivable to you that charge could be stored in batteries, stars etc?
A: Charge is photonic matter. Storing charge implies charge separation. On the level of the battery, charge separations make perfect sense.
L: Normally, charge separation means separation of electrons and protons. Right?
- What kind of photonic matter charge separation might you mean?
A: Kicked me out twice now
L: Any idea why?
A: Separation of electrons and protons is not necessary for charge recycling.
L: e and p separation is necessary for charge emission outside of atoms or molecules, as MM says neutral matter doesn't emit much beyond itself; only ions emit much.
A: Separation of electrons and protons can alter charge flow, but I don't think attraction occurs at all
L: Here's another chatroom http://us20.chatzy.com/12181000828625 Maybe it will be nicer to you. Want to try it?
- MM said free electrons and protons attract one another.
A: I'll carry on in case someone else shows up. You neglected to answer my first Miles quote. “Protons and electrons that far apart shouldn't be able to affect one another via E/M, since the field should have long dissipated. Super tenuous gases simply shouldn't be E/M structures, according to the standard model. That is why we get these ridiculous gravitational collapse models.”
L: Where's that quote from? I'll reply shortly.
A: http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf
L: Firstly, the tenuous gases in stars are at the surface in the photosphere and heat keeps the electrons from sticking to the protons there.
- Below the photosphere, the plasma becomes increasingly dense.
A: OK. But we are also talking about collapsing plasma clouds to form stars
L: CC concluded that the negative layer below the positive photosphere is liquid hydrogen and helium, I think, or a supercritical fluid. The photosphere is supercritical too.
L: Regarding plasma clouds, CC said plasma in space tends to form electron-rich cores surrounded by electron-poor sheaths, I guess of mostly protons, i.e. hydrogen nuclei.
- These cores and sheaths form into filaments which implode similar to MM's version.
- Did you see the video I linked to that shows an electron-rich balloon (after being rubbed on a person's hair) attracting a neutral tin can?
A: I don't understand "implosion". Miles indicated that matter could possibly keep accumulating until it begins to slowly collapse.
L: He didn't say slowly, did he?
A: I saw the videos. I''m still trying to reinterpret them in light of MM. Yes, slowly
L: I don't find "slow" in that paper.
A: He talks about curvature
L: Did you see John's (Tharkun's) comment? He said high and low photon pressure may be involved in the can attraction to the balloon.
A: I saw Tharkun join in. I don't disagree with him
- I don't remember hi and low pressure photons though
L: Do you consider that there is pressure on electrons to join protons?
- When they do join, they emit a flash of light. Right?
A: My wife just came home from a day of shopping. I may need to help.
L: That's why the photosphere is so bright and why meteors in the atmosphere get so bright. Right?
- Oh. Okay.
A: "Pressure on electrons to join protons", yes, in atomic assembly mainly
L: What about the balloon and the can?
A: I see the joining of electron to protons, results in more moderate charge flows
L: You haven't heard that the "recombination" produces a flash of light?
A: I don't think we've exhausted Miles' definition of magnetism. No, not really, but it isn't a surprise at all
L: What produces the brightness of meteors?
- And do you think a magnetic field attracts the can to the balloon?
A: Recombination of electrons and protons causing flashes is in perfect accord with quanta being photons.
L: If the joining of e and p produces a neutral atom or molecule, then they stop emitting externally.
A: I do need to consider static vs 'normal' current. I saw Tharkun ask about that too
L: Electrostatics vs electrodynamics? Is that what you mean?
A: I guess. I don't believe that electrons would join protons except in some very high energy locations
- They don't "join" in atomic matter. They are just close
L: e- joins p+ to form hydrogen. Don't they?
A: atoms are ionized all the time. No big deal
L: MM says if they're ionized they emit more charge, than if they're not.
- They emit almost none if they're neutral.
A: I agree, electrons modulate atomic charge streams. I do entertain e structures, or e-matter.
L: e and p are attracted to one another. Right?
A: Just gravitationally, on the atomic order of distances
L: They're not attracted by the electric field?
A: But I'll give more thought to the videos. Gotta go. Good night Lloyd
L: Later then.

L: Okay, I'm here if anyone else is.
N: Hi Lloyd, found the room
L: Hi.
- There's a slight chance that Michael may come along.
- Also Tom
N: I have read Michaels paper but am still digesting it, good work though
L: He said he's working on fixing some errors in it and updating it.
- I'm a little distracted by a housemate with some possible problem.
- Nev, do you think you'll have time to discuss at 1:30 your time?
N: I don't think so
L: Okay.
- Did you get Michael's point about how the center of gravity, as I'm calling it for now, moves to the point of outside influence?
N: No, still trying to understand that one
L: I'm talking about the gyroscope section.
N: Ok, I was thinking about his explanation of gravity itself
L: Do you agree that the behavior of gyroscopes suggests that the "center of gravity" moves to that point where it meets a force, i.e. the solid structure of the tower?
L: Otherwise, it should fall off the tower.
N: Well, from a gravity as expansion point of view, the tower is where the gravity comes from, that is , it provides a push up since it is expanding and so it what it is reasting on
L: When you bring expansion into it, I get totally confused.
N: As the earth expands, it pushes the tower up (and a little bit from the towers own expansion) so the force is coming from the bottom and moving to the top of the tower where it meets the gyroscope
L: I don't observe such expansion.
N: that's because you also expand and are being pushed up by the earth so you don't see the motion
L: Have you tried simulating expansion in the way you're describing it?
N: the openning Newton quote in Michaels paper described expansion very well.
- No, still trying to figure it all out
L: It seems to me that expansion should result in everything getting squeezed together in one mass.
N: yes, until you bring charge into it
- what we call gravity is really a unified field of expansion and charge
L: And the charge stops the expansion?
N: yes, because it is a real repulsion
- it doesn't stop the expansion, it works against it
- so the net result is a limitation to raw gravity
L: Two opposing equal forces stop each other.
N: given the right masses and sizes, they can equally offset each other
L: If you simulate it, maybe it'll make some sense.
N: Miles wrote a paper about it, it is called 'Black holes and exotic objects' or something like that
L: Does it say black holes are everywhere?
N: no, he was just saying that his theory can produce an object that does not emit light, hence black, and can even go further and bounce all incoming photons
L: Anyway, it all still seems implausible.
- Charles came up with a black hole model too.
- based on electrical and magnetic forces.
N: Miles works from 2 concepts: expansion (or some other gravity explanation) and charge-field repulsion and builds everything from them, not just an isolated explanation of black holes
L: Do you think MM is totally convinced of expansion? I don't like to commit to one model.
N: I don't know CC's model so I am not commenting on that just saying what I like about MM's model
- No, MM is not convinced, but it is my preferred model at the moment
- nothing else explains so much with so little
L: that you know of.
- But is MM totally convinced of expansion?
N: yes, but I can't work with what I don't know
- No, MM is still trying to find other ways, hence his paper of universal spin
- that paper doesn't convince me though
L: I forgot if you said your occupation is programing, or if you said what it is. Do you want to say?
N: Yes, I am a Software Engineer
L: Airman is in engineering, I think.
- I forgot if Cr6 is also in programing or something else.
N: seems like Cr6 knows at least some programming
- even if only Excel and databases
L: Even I know Excel.
N: Ahh, lots of people think they do but to program it is a different thing
- the language for equations in excel is basically a programming language itself
L: Right. Do you think you can do objective simulations to test other models besides expansion?
N: maybe, it depends on how well I can understand them
L: I suppose you do 3-D simulations. Don't you?
N: that is my preference since existence is 3D
L: I worked with 2-D Logo a few years ago, but 3-D was too hard for me to try yet then.
N: I don't mind showing a concept in 2D but the real stuff is in 3D
- what is 2D Logo?
L: Have you messed with Logo?
N: Do you mean a logo as in an image or is that an application?
L: Turtle graphics.
- I think there was one called Pilot.
- Like HT means Hide Turtle. Fd1 means forward one step. Rt1 means turn 1 degree right etc.
N: Ok, an animation language?
- or is that drawing commands?
L: Graphics, which can become animation. Yes drawing.
N: I've been working on an animation language where you can create objects and apply velocities, rotations, scaling, etc
L: I don't know if physics formulas and calculations can be incorporated into it for simulations.
- I mean regarding Logo.
N: Yes, I should include equations in my anim language, good idea
L: Well, if we have trouble understanding Michael's paper, it looks like he'll be available to explain. I'm wondering what he thinks of MM's model, since his is so similar.
N: I kept reading his paper thinking it was ripping off MM's work but with slight changes
- It seems to be in between MM's position and mainstream science
L: I don't see much mainstream in it. What do you mean there?
N: Based on electrons, still talks of absorbing and emitting photons, etc
- No connection between the aetheral field and particles
- like the way Miles builds particles by adding stacked spins
L: Well, I guess we'll soon find out how he thinks subparticles form.
N: I think he sees them as pre-existing the same way mainstream physics does
L: Is there any topic you'd like us to discuss later today?
N: He hasnt tried to unify them like MM has
- I won't have time as I have to go out just before 2
L: I mean to discuss in your absence.
N: Oh, well I would like to see everyone else's take on Michaels paper
L: Starting where?
- Same as where we started?
N: Well, for me, I want to understand gyroscopes a lot better than I do
- I haven't put in enough research on it but I must
- that is the basis for stacked spins
L: I thought Michael's model may suggest that two photons colliding might end up spinning around each other. Does that seem plausible to you? The result could be a stacked spin. Right?
N: Miles has a habit of using a word and thinking everyone know everything about it, Michael explained gyroscopic action a lot better
- No, not really. It causes the pivot point but the particles do not need to stay together.
L: Do you suppose it would depend on the speed of collision? Like a soft or hard collision?
N: No, the gyroscopic forces are internal to the particle, the speed of collision just causes more or less precession
L: It seems to me that a soft collision could result in the particles staying together.
N: enough torque and the precession reaches 90 degrees and you have a stacked spin
- maybe but BPhotons are travelling at c, so no soft collisions
- maybe a glancing blow might cause less direct force and cause a softer collision
- either way, the precession does not rely on the particles sticking together
L: If two photons are traveling in the same direction, one slightly slower than the other, they could collide very softly.
N: yes, that is true
L: I'd like to see a simulation of such collisions.
N: me too and I think Michaels paper has helped me get a little bit closer
L: Using the gyroscope model
- I'd better go talk to my housemate soon.
N: Yeah, I better go now anyway, sorry Michael didn't have time to talk
L: Any last points?
N: There are no points in physics! [smile]
L: Quasi-points?
N: Well, at least in calculus
- Don't even got there [smile]
- or go there either
L: Okay, see you and others.
- Good Day.
N: See you, mate.

L: Hi Cr6.
C: Hi Lloyd
- Am I early or late?
L: Both.
C: okay. lol.
L: Early for the 9:30 chat.
C: Ah... that's what I thought. I was checking the link from the MM's forum.
L: I was just ready to post the highlights of our earlier chat.
C: Sounds good. Looks like it covered interesting material.
- I don't have much really to chat about. I've been reading alot and especially the new paper.
- And Michael V's paper as well.
L: Airman said he won't be able to make it.
C: No problem. I know it is a busy time of year for a lot of people.
L: If you like we could just chat now for a minute or two and not bother later. Right?
C: That'd be cool.
L: I already posted our previous chat above to the forum.
C: That's good. Any topics of interest this week?
L: Here's what I considered the highlights to be: Nevyn and Lloyd's Chat [above] included the following.
- Do you agree that the behavior of gyroscopes suggests that the "center of gravity" moves to that point where it meets a force,
- gravity as expansion point of view
- Have you tried simulating expansion
- expansion should result in everything getting squeezed together in one mass until you bring charge into it
- the net result is a limitation to raw gravity
- they can equally offset each other
- 'Black holes and exotic objects'
- Turtle graphics
- I should include equations in my anim language
- No connection between the aetheral field and particles
- I want to understand gyroscopes a lot better
- Michael's model may suggest that two photons colliding might end up spinning around each other
- Michael explained gyroscopic action a lot better
- enough torque and the precession reaches 90 degrees and you have a stacked spin
- two photons are traveling in the same direction, one slightly slower than the other, they could collide very softly
- simulation of such collisions
L: I'll sort that out on the forum.
C: Micheal V's explanation of Gravity with gyroscopes is pretty novel.
- Sounds sensible enough.
L: Yeah, he says all matter has both spin and helical precession from gyroscopic action.
- So there's no linear motion. Like Nevyn said before.
C: So everything is self contained.
L: I don't get the connection.
C: It is not from a force hitting.
L: I meant instead of straight line motion, it's all helical, but with large radii of curvature, the helical path looks pretty straight.
C: I see.
L: It's not obvious to me that Michael is right about such helical motion, but it seems like a good theory.
C: Yeah, it kind of ties with Hamiltonian-Euler math.
L: It's hard to see how photon translational motion would be helical. It seems like that would warp the shape of the universe.
- I'm not familiar with that math.
C: I'm not an expert in this field but can see something of the +/-/* with quaternions.
- I might be off on a tangent with this...just a thought really.
L: Maybe Micheal meant only subparticles have helical motion, not photons, but it sounded like he was saying everything.
-----
L: I lived in Austin a few months in 87 to 88.
C: Oh, really?
L: I was at the AFB by San Antonio for 6 weeks in 69.
C: Wow, that's awhile back.
- I kind of developed an interest in alternative physics from living in Austin.
- Ah, okay.
L: A friend worked in the building in Austin where a guy killed 13 people in 1966.
- What got you into alternative physics?
C: I remember the story on that. Pretty shocking. I think he had a brain tumor or something.
L: Velikovsky's books etc got me into alternative science.
- An art student roommate told me to check out Velikovsky's book, Worlds in Collision.
C: There was a company doing research on alternative physics based in Austin. Forgot the name of it but looked cool.
- Velikovsky inspired a lot of people that's for certain.
L: Did you take physics in college?
C: Just the introductory stuff.
- I'm not that advanced in "classical" physics.
L: I just had a year of college physics from 68-69.
C: Same here.
- It does require putting on a different type of "hat" when thinking about these questions.
- Are you looking to invent or just research?
L: I mainly just want to understand physical reality fairly well. I'd like to see the best alternatives get a lot of publicity too.'
- Esp. among the younger generation.
C: Okay, I see. I think the TB attracts a lot of people like that.
L: I'd like to see the education system greatly reformed.
C: They don't have a "paper" in the fight but are active in the pursuit of truth.
- Yeah, same here. I'm all for importing the education system books from Asia-Europe.
L: Yeah. Their best topic though I think is catastrophism, rather than physics.
- I mean for TB.
C: Pretty much use the Finns, Koreans, Japanese, Germans, Dutch...etc. Curriculum and all.
L: They need to remove authoritarianism from education though. Compulsory education is miseducation.
C: Ah, okay.
L: Needs to be self-directed learning, at least in later years of youth.
- from 6 or so onward.
C: I kind of think they should just have pretty thorough "tests" that indicate achievement.
L: Yeah, like driver license tests, just pass-fail.
C: Yes, exactly.
- It kind of puts the onus of education back on the individual.
L: Did you say you're familiar with Logo programing?
C: And less on the government.
- A bit. Not that good at it.
L: I'd like to be able to do the 3-D version of Logo, as I discussed with Nevyn.
C: Yeah, I've been looking around at 3-D tools myself.
- It is a huge undertaking to demo something.
L: I found a site online where a person can do some Logo, but I don't remember that site. I had the program on my other computer.
- It was simple and could do a lot.
C: Hmm... I might look around for a GUI tool then.
L: What's that?
- Logo is called Turtle Graphics too, I think.
C: This is javascript: http://www.calormen.com/jslogo/
L: Ah so.
C: Another similar tool: http://www.kogics.net/sf:kojo
L: Thanks.
C: no problem found them from a searches.
L: Did the searches look for GUI tools?
C: I was looking for those. Nothing popped for Logo for me. It might be out there though.
L: Unfortunately, logo has too many meanings, though logo program should be specific enough.
C: Makes sense.
L: Anything more to say on the topic of MJV's paper etc? or MM?
C: No not really. I just wanted to plug MM's latest paper.
L: Okay. Thanks.
- No comment on it?
C: I think the finding of the omni-present Charge-Field in deep space is significant.
http://milesmathis.com/startrek.pdf
L: Is that in the upper atmosphere?
- Or was that the previous paper?
C: Related to the TB posting by Seasmith.
L: Okay.
C: I noticed Mathis is writing a lot of conspiracy stuff lately.
L: I'll see you on the forum soon, I suppose.
- I didn't notice that.
- Is it in his last paper?
C: Okay Lloyd have a good one. Yeah, kind of makes me worry he is more into the conspiracy stuff than his physics. But oh well.
L: It's not a problem for me.
- See you then.
C: He has pretty good insight into topics. It's on his www.mileswmathis.com site.
- cool.
- see you around the forums. [wink]
L: Or read you around.

.
.
Discussion #7 is posted at: https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t69-questions-about-michael-vaicaitis-model#603
.
.

.
.
Discussion *8 is posted at https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t69-michael-vaicaitis-model#617
.
.

.
Chat Highlights: Designer Electrons & Photons

L: Mass seems to be the name of something that modifies velocity.
N: I would say mass is that which has velocity
A: I follow the expansion angle too
N: What do you guys think would happen if 2 massless particles collided?
L: My main question about massless objects is, if they have no mass, how can they have an effect on anything?- They surely wouldn't be able to transfer energy.
N: L: Electrons aren't so much larger than large photons.
A: All I'm trying to say is that mass is supplemented by spin inertia
N: Oh, yes, he has said that they gain spin levels as they move (in a particle accelerator at least)
N: Yeah, MV's idea that mass is emergent rather than intrinsic interested me but I still have problems with it
A: As you say, above spin level three, inertia exists in all directions, but not at the same strengths
A: Consider a gyroscope, you can move it anywhere effortlessly, but you are not affecting the spin axis
- When you try to change the spin direction, you meet resistance
L: Inertia, Distinti points out, seems to be the actual item in the equations E=mc^2 and 1/2 mv^2 etc, where I substitutes for mass. Thus E=Ic^2 and 1/2 Iv^2. This explains that it's the inertia, not mass, that increases at near light speed.
L: Mass is the substance. Inertia must involve mass and a force or something.
N: - Lloyd, so inertia is the result of mass in collision?
L: What would mass be colliding with at near light speed? Photons?
N: Yes, I can agree with that, assuming mass and inertia are not the same thing.
A: Lloyd, what you're saying does kind of tie with what I'm saying. Not all mass is intrinsic
[L: MM's charge field photons are certainly the facilitator of the motion of the solar wind and comet tails and maybe electric currents etc.]
L: What did the Designer Electron paper tell us? That photons can be made to increase mass to become electrons and then transform back to photons? If so, what conditions did the experiment use to make that happen?
N: The energy of the field causes the electron to gain or lose spins which transforms it up and down
L: Anyway, is it worth finding out specifically what conditions were involved in that experiment to give us clues?
L: This video mentions graphene and designer electrons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7NxWZF5NF4
L: youtube.com/watch?v=B7Nx​WZF5NF4
- It seems to say electron magnetic fields are increased from near zero to 60 Teslas.
L: They use a scanning electron microscope to help move carbon atoms to make graphene.
N: They said that they stretched the graphene to create the magnetic field (although they don't think it actually exists) which to me says they let out some of the charge inside the graphene
A: The media beneath the atom arrangement is flexible?
- I think the matter begins to distort under its own fields
L: They put the graphene on a copper crystal.
N: the scanning tunneling microscope uses a voltage to 'attract' the entity
L: At the beginning of the video they show what they say is electron bonds being broken, which makes squeaky sounds.
N: that is my interpretation
- he definitely says the squeaks 'represent' the bond breaking
A: Miles shows us how in Cr6's latest entry in the same string as mentioned before
A: The "sounds" can be resistance, inertia, like balloons
- That represents a certain number of photons stripped from the surface
- That we would only see as electrons
L: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3890&sid=c5303585a662908777d21056e088ffd8&start=30#p77476
- That's what I was thinking of initially, when I mentioned Designer Electrons, that link above.
- Here's the main point: The lowest temperature reached is half a nanoKelvin. At such temperatures atoms clump together and synchronize motions, all behaving the same way. These super cold substances can stop light in its tracks. We can stop a beam of light, or slow it down, play with it and release it again. You can stop light, turn it into an electrical signal, and then release it and turn it back into light, which has all kinds of applications in electronics.
N: I remember Miles talking about super-conductors and saying that there was very little charge present so the current had no resistance to flow
N: yes, Miles has written a paper about this slow light, probably need to read it again
L: Come on, Airman, why not go check out the labs?

-----

Complete Chat

L: Now, who's ready with an alternative topic, since Michael won't make it today apparently?
N: Did MV just cancel this particular chat and is still willing to discuss things at a later date?
A: Yes
L: I said that.
A: I mean, he is anxious to start with dismissing philosophy
L: What have yous been discussing or thinking about regarding MM?
- Who's dismissing philosophy?
N: Poor old philosophy, always cops it.
A: MJV would like to start his next discussion so
L: Okay. What have yous been discussing or thinking about regarding MM?
N: I'm been getting really low level, at the fundamental level again, and am trying to figure out mass.
L: Has anyone been on the forum that last few days?
A: I like Nevyns latest particle mass entries
N: I've been monitoring it but not much activity. I still have a post from Airman to respond to.
L: I see Airman has been there.
- What specifically about his particle mass posts?
A: Lloyd, you haven't seen the [discussion] in your Stack spin breakthrough string? https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t65p15-stacked-spin-breakthrough#623
- Anyway Nevyn, I am really enjoying that discussion
L: I see this at the top: Mass is the measure of substance, of something. It is an attempt to declare some thing from no thing in order to differentiate it from the void or space or vacuum, whatever you want to call it.
- Mass seems to be the name of something that modifies velocity.
A: That is the beginning to one of Nevyn's last two entries, I believe
N: I would say mass is that which has velocity
A: I follow the expansion angle too
N: Well, I guess you could have velocity without mass but the transfer of energy becomes strange and I don't see how it could work
L: I'll let you guys discuss expansion. I don't want to bother discussing that myself.
N: What do you guys think would happen if 2 massless particles collided? Massless means no resistance to motion so how would the transfer of energy happen?
A: And spin is added to the "intrinsic" mass, but spin only presents inertia in not all directions
L: My main question about massless objects is, if they have no mass, how can they have an effect on anything?- They surely wouldn't be able to transfer energy.
- Right?
N: Given more than 3 spin levels it does present in all directions, or more precisely, it is a sum of the directions all at the same time.
- Lloyd, I expect that they would both end up with the same velocity, that of the initial particle. (assuming one was moving and the other at rest)
L: But energy is mass x velocity. Masslessness means zero x velocity.
N: I can't see how a 'transfer' happens without resistance to motion
- Try to forget the equations for now and just think about the real-ness of mass
- In a way, I am trying to redefine the laws of motion
L: But mass comes from equations based on observations of objects.
N: Yes, objects at a very large size scale compared to photons
L: Electrons aren't so much larger than large photons.
A: Intrinsic mass is real, but it is not all of the total mass
N: Yes, but electrons still have a lot more mass than photons, if for no other reason that the absorbsion of charge photons.
A: Yes
L: According to MM electrons at rest are much less massive than others.
N: Than other what?
L: Electrons.
A: All I'm trying to say is that mass is supplemented by spin inertia
N: Oh, yes, he has said that they gain spin levels as they move (in a particle accelerator at least)
- I should say as they gain speed from the field
A: True
L: Well, MV's old paper was potentially leading into a new direction, such as the possibility that photons would have helical motion and might pair up spinning around each other. So spin levels would have a different explanation. But now he says his old paper had errors, but we don't know what errors.
N: Yeah, MV's idea that mass is emergent rather than intrinsic interested me but I still have problems with it
- I was willing to wait until he reached that far in the discussions before commenting too much
- Airman, I still don't understand your usage of 'negative apparent mass', except as a relative value, can you explain that a bit further?
A: It is spin direction "backwards"
- Or at least I thought that at first.
N: Ah, that's right, I read your latest post late last night but didn't want to comment until I read it again
A: As you say, above spin level three, inertia exists in all directions, but not at the same strengths
N: I think the spin direction of a particular spin level can cause a change in the collision but I don't think I would call it negative mass but I think I get your meaning now
A: Inertia emerges, as it is added to the total mass
N: the idea of inertia being different in certain directions is confusing but if we are measuring an average, we would see it as the same in all directions
A: Consider a gyroscope, you can move it anywhere effortlessly, but you are not affecting the spin axis
- When you try to change the spin direction, you meet resistance
N: yes, it moves about freely but changing that spin axis is very hard, I think this leads to stacked spins fairly directly
A: At higher levels, the spin inertia is washed out into all directions
N: but the top level spin is always twice the radius of the next inner spin level so there is always a difference and the difference gets more noticeable the larger the particle
A: But at the lower levels, you have a limited inertia
L: Inertia, Distinti points out, seems to be the actual item in the equations E=mc^2 and 1/2 mv^2 etc, where I substitutes for mass. Thus E=Ic^2 and 1/2 Iv^2. This explains that it's the inertia, not mass, that increases at near light speed.
N: but what is the difference between inertia and mass?
L: Mass is the substance. Inertia must involve mass and a force or something.
N: Airman, even though the top level spin is twice the radius, it has the same tangential velocity, so maybe they will look very similar
- Lloyd, so inertia is the result of mass in collision?
L: What would mass be colliding with at near light speed? Photons?
A: Mass is the substance. Inertia involves mass. But spin can provide additional inertia – resistance to movement
N: Lloyd, you seem to be assuming that near light speed means no collisions but it actually increases the chance because the distance traveled is so large
L: Does anyone agree with Distinti about Inertia instead of Mass in those equations?
- Yes, Nevyn, that's what I was asking. Does mass collide with more photons?
N: I haven't read Distinti's work directly but from what I understand, Airman's critique seemed on point
L: at near light speed I meant.
- I don't know his critique of Distinti offhand.
N: Lloyd, we can assume only photon collisions for simplicity
L: I agree with Distinti that it seems to make sense that the mass doesn't increase near light speed, but just the inertia does.
N: I didn't like all the talk of aether and the consuming of it, it talks of a medium which I find to be totally unnecessary.
- Yes, I can agree with that, assuming mass and inertia are not the same thing.
L: MM says photons can be considered as an aether.
A: Lloyd, what you're saying does kind of tie with what I'm saying. Not all mass is intrinsic
N: MM has said that his field could be considered an aether of sorts, but does not call it that because the aether was initially conceived as the facilitator of motion, which his field is not
[L: MM's charge field photons are certainly the facilitator of the motion of the solar wind and comet tails and maybe electric currents etc.]
L: But his photons are "eaten" by matter (and then regurgitated.)
N: Not eaten, recycled
A: The regurgitating is a guess
L: Eaten and regurgitated.
N: that means they are not destroyed, just used for a new purpose
A: If that's true, then it's recycling of sorts
N: I was just as skeptical of Miles until he reached the idea of recycling the charge field, not just emission of photons
L: What did the Designer Electron paper tell us? That photons can be made to increase mass to become electrons and then transform back to photons? If so, what conditions did the experiment use to make that happen?
N: The energy of the field causes the electron to gain or lose spins which transforms it up and down
L: Did the experiment use electric forces or extreme cold or what?
N: I can't remember exactly, I think he was talking about particle accelerators
A: It should be charge field density and flow
L: I don't think accelerators were involved. I read about it separately from MM's paper.
A: Electrical equipment does set up such conditions
- Back to Ken Shoulders and his work
N: From that paper: Today's news [March 17, 2012] included a report from the National Accelerator Laboratory SLAC that “designer electrons” were being created in manufactured structures that resembled graphene
L: The experimenters thought they had slowed the photons, but MM suggested instead that they transformed them to electrons and back.
- Your memory must have been closer to correct.
A: Electron structures
L: Anyway, is it worth finding out specifically what conditions were involved in that experiment to give us clues?
A: Lloyd, I do appreciate the importance of experiments
N: I have skimmed the paper but can't see any specifics on the experiments other than they involved graphene sheets and electrons in them
A: Miles himself said that he is using the experimental results of others
L: This video mentions graphene and designer electrons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7NxWZF5NF4
A: The link is lost
L: www.youtube.com/watch?v=​B7NxWZF5NF4
- There it is.
A: This video does not exist - youtube msg
L: I'm watching a nonexistent video?
A: No, I did a u tube search and am watching
L: youtube.com/watch?v=B7Nx​WZF5NF4
- It seems to say electron magnetic fields are increased from near zero to 60 Teslas.
- It doesn't seem to mention photons.
- Probably because they're blind to photons.
A: Organizing matter does enhance pre e and mag field
L: They use a scanning electron microscope to help move carbon atoms to make graphene.
N: They said that they stretched the graphene to create the magnetic field (although they don't think it actually exists) which to me says they let out some of the charge inside the graphene
L: Okay. I guess the instrument for moving the CO is a magnet?
A: The media beneath the atom arrangement is flexible?
- I think the matter begins to distort under its own fields
L: They put the graphene on a copper crystal.
N: the scanning tunneling microscope uses a voltage to 'attract' the entity
L: Not magnetism then? Or is it electromagnetic?
N: well, where you have voltage you have magnetism it is just a matter of in what proportions
A: It is charge field flow - not attraction
L: At the beginning of the video they show what they say is electron bonds being broken, which makes squeaky sounds.
N: their simulator makes squeaky sounds, they are not real sounds
L: I was wondering if there are bond breaking effects that are turned into the squeaky sounds.
A: A coin on dry ice can make such a sound
N: a sound involves entities much larger than electrons so the breaking of electron bonds could not possibly have that much energy
A: But I'm not suggesting we have ears good enough to hear atoms
N: assuming a single electron bond as they diagram
N: A new question to distract the 'intellectuals': How many electron bonds need to be broken to create a squeak? [smile]
L: But any input can be programed as almost any output.
- So there may be bond breaking effects that were then programed to display as sounds.
N: that is my interpretation
- he definitely says the squeaks 'represent' the bond breaking
A: Miles shows us how in Cr6's latest entry in the same string as mentioned before
L: Airman, do you want to quote anything relevant from Cr6's post?
A: Jouleswize
- Cr6 quoted directly from Miles describing how Pv is filled
L: What's PV? How is it filed?
A: Numbers of photons, electron, making up a volume
- Plural
L: Is that filed or filled?
A: filling up a volume
- Most of the volume is space, of course
L: My screen has the L's too close together for me to tell if they're two or one.
A: Two
- But photons, electrons and protons and all the rest can take up calculable volumes
- The "sounds" can be resistance, inertia, like balloons
- That represents a certain number of photons stripped from the surface
- That we would only see as electrons
- Stunned silence?
- Bad sign
L: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3890&sid=c5303585a662908777d21056e088ffd8&start=30#p77476
- That's what I was thinking of initially, when I mentioned Designer Electrons, that link above.
- Go to the quote there which starts with: Yet until recently there was one thing we couldn't do with light: pause it. Stopping light in its tracks and releasing it again unchanged was beyond human ken. - But now scientists have figured out how to do even that.
- Actually, I quoted the most relevant parts earlier above the quote it seems.
- Here's the main point: The lowest temperature reached is half a nanoKelvin. At such temperatures atoms clump together and synchronize motions, all behaving the same way. These super cold substances can stop light in its tracks. We can stop a beam of light, or slow it down, play with it and release it again. You can stop light, turn it into an electrical signal, and then release it and turn it back into light, which has all kinds of applications in electronics.
A: And they still say light is virtual
L: Whatever they say it is, the information about freezing matter etc seems likely to be helpful.
- Doesn't it?
A: Of course
N: It is, but the whole experiment needs to be re-interpreted in a mechanical theory
- They invoke the gods of quantum stupidity again
L: Half a nanokelvin is practically absolute zero, I think.
N: close enough
L: Is it believable that they got the matter down to almost zero?
A: Defined by a lack of Motion
L: I assume they at least got the temp correct.
N: My question is what is absolute zero?
- Is that absolutely no photons present?
A: No motion
N: If photons are present then there is motion
A: Of atomic matter
L: It's no proton or electron spin, is what I think MM suggested.
N: No atomic motion I could agree with but since heat is photon density, I don't think absolute zero is no motion at all
L: But zero temp means no proton spin, doesn't it? I think MM said that.
A: Photons are still moving, but their channeling is least resisted by matter
N: What kind of spin, Lloyd? Not stacked spins so I assume the spin of the particle as a whole
- I remember Miles talking about super-conductors and saying that there was very little charge present so the current had no resistance to flow
A: It would be nice to know additional technical details
L: I thought he just said the matter isn't spinning out the photons.
N: yes, Miles has written a paper about this slow light, probably need to read it again
L: Well, Airman, you aren't far from Stanford and Berkeley, so are you going to check them out?
A: It may be that absorption and emission are present in their most rudimentary form
L: Come on, Airman, why not go check out the labs?
N: yes, I think they will always be present but in this case they are limited by the sparse charge field
A: I'm not part of academia
N: Do they let anyone check out the labs?
L: You can interview the people involved.
- at least.
- If you befriend them, they'll let you see it in person, I'm sure (somewhat).'
- I know some people at Stanford.
A: I know no one at either school
L: So I can introduce you.
A: They are far from all my experience
L: Engineering?
A: And geographically
L: 50 miles?
A: Several hours away
L: 100 miles? I thought you were by Sacramento.
A: A bit further North
- Got me located yet?
L: I think you told me where you were. I don't remember if it's Davis or what. Well, I'm about ready to quit, if there's nothing much left to discuss.
A: I know I can't hide, but it's still difficult
N: Yeah, me too. See you guys later.
L: You too, Airman? Bye Nevyn.
A: Bye Nevyn

L: - Rain & Snow + Bode's Law
Here's Charles' new finding that Debye cells explain precipitation in the atmosphere and similar electric forces between planets explain Bode's Law:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB...
- MM said in the Star Formation paper that electrons and protons attract each other. Such attraction is how CC now explains both star formation and precipitation etc.
- EM Greater than Gravity
In this post Charles explains that the electric force between planets is likely greater than the force of gravity between them:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15230&p=103266&sid=dd1ea56a1c4d23e6063ec6c8bef19a3d#p103266
- This is very similar to MM's finding that Newton's law of gravity is actually a unified field equation with EM already in it.
L: Hi Guys. Feel free to bring up any MM or MV topic here, if you like, once you arrive, if you do.
A: Here To
- For the last hour I reviewed your suggested reading
- Just after seeing your recent message
- Wow, it looks like me and you Lloyd, can we discuss debeye cells?
L: Oops,
- I was watching a video.
- Hi Airman.
A: Make that Debye. The universe results from gravity and electricity
- Hi Lloyd. Seem like minimal entusiasm today
L: Yeah. How's yours?
A: I've got both screens up. I'm fine
L: I hope Michael returns. But we can discuss here in the mean time.
- Have you read any of Charles' material on Debye cells?
A: I'd like to see Michael join in as well.
L: I left a message for Michael in MM1. If he returns, we can both interview him there. Right?
A: Yes, but just the third page of the TB string that you referenced in your directions yesterday
L: Apparently, space should be pretty full of such plasma cells.
A: Sure, I can help interview Michael. He seems a bit particular
L: I had a chart showing that over 70% of the galaxy is ionized.
A: A cell defined as dust surrounded by electrons
- That's a question, by the way
L: And the ionized matter should form cells as CC says. The cells are opposite charges like that.
- I mean "opposite".
A: CC has confused me in that Debye cells both attract and repell
L: They attract opposite charge and repel same charge.
- With quotes.
- I don't remember if there was a better model for attraction than that the photon charge streams entering protons carry electrons along and they stick there [to the proton/s].
A: Debye cells are much stronger than gravity.
- Natural philosophy is nice
- Oops, wrong screen
L: Yes, the electric forces overwhelm gravity.
- He had Debye cells forming filaments to explain star formation, such as several stars or planets in a line.
- Now he found that precipitation seems to occur similarly via tiny Debye cells in the atmosphere.
- Just as clouds have to be seeded with dust to get precipitation, giant molecular clouds have to be seeded with dust grains to get star formation.
A: Debye is being used for a lot of things
L: Like gravity is used in the conventional model.
- Or like photons are used in MM's model.
A: This two at one time is to much for me, I'll concentrate on the other side
L: Okay. Feel free. CC's model doesn't dig as deeply as MM's to explain charge etc, so it's potentially compatible with CC's.
A: Don't worry, we will continue this
L: I expect so, if reality doesn't change excessively soon.
A: Reality?
- Lloyd, are your ears on?
- I've copied the two chats. Thanks Lloyd.
- I'm moving to chores here. Have a good evening
L: See you later.

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

M: Nevyn said that fundamental particles colliding by a glancing blow would be induced to spin.
- I disagree and urge you to think again. A fundamental particle must be considered as a solid indivisible body with no internal structure.
- Furthermore it must exist and move within Completely Empty Space. Its environment provides it with no outside force effects, no radiative signals and no friction of any kind.
- The affect of collision on such a particle would result only in a change of direction. There are no sub-components or internal structure or external forces by which to set up a spinning action.
- A change of direction would result is a different area of its surface becoming its leading face. But between collisions there is no source of forces to from which to posit the formation of a spin.
- Furthermore (I like using furthermore), we must also consider both Newton's Third Law of Motion and the Conservation of Energy (which at a fundamental level are actually the same thing).
- In considering the "vacuum field" that is the mediating agent for the action-at-a-distance force effects by which matter interacts, we can only assume that all vacuum field particles are identical in size and speed.

Nevyn joined the chat 6 minutes ago

N: Hi Michael

M: To lose energy from linear motion to spin, would result in contravening both the above laws.
- hi Nevyn

N: I don't want to dwell on this too long but since you mentioned not being able to induce spin, I think I have found a way.

M: Also, it would require us to assign a certain frictional quality to the surfaces of these indivisible, structureless particles.
- go on

N: Given 3 particles, let's assume 1 is motionless, the other 2 are approaching the first particle from opposite directions and slightly off center so that they collide, at the same time, with the first particle on each side of it, almost at the tangent. The central particle will not be able to just change direction and so it must spin.

M: There are three counts on which I reject your proposal:

Airman joined the chat

N: Hey Airman

M: By my unpublishable estimation, we should likely consider vacuum field particles to be likely separated from one another by at least 8 or 9 or more orders of magnitude times their radius - imagine meter wide objects separated by 100,000 km.

A: Hi! I'll try to read and catch up

M: So the regularity of such a fortuitously coincidental event would be quite rare.

N: Rare, yes, but the universe has lots and lots of time, so I think low odds are not really a problem.

M: Secondly, the speed of light is constant, the speed of gravity is constant, the speed of electromagnetism is constant. This really requires that all vacuum field particles remain at the same speed with no loss of energy.
- Thirdly, the scenario you describe would not produce spin in any case. The piggy in the middle particle receives a equal push from opposite directions which would cancel out.
- Also, I have already mentioned friction. What precise coefficient of friction shall we assign?

N: That touches on something I have been struggling with from our first chat. How can massless particles collide? Or, rather, if they did collide, how can they transfer energy? If there is no mass, hence no resistance to motion, then the energy is transferred but not lost. Both particles end up with the energy of the first. Everything gains energy but never loses.

M: Of course, we can assign none. We are not in a position to designate these particles as having a certain level surface features.
- You are confusing the term "mass" with the amount of substance that a particle is comprised of - vacuum particles would not have mass - only matter has mass by an emergent process - I will get to it eventually - promise.

N: While the middle particle does feel equal forces from both sides, they are not directed at each other and so the central particle would spin.
- Yeah, I've been trying to wait with regard to mass, but it is such are hard concept to dismiss.

M: If particles are travelling at the same speed, collision will result in a mutual change of direction as dictated by Newton's Third Law - there will be no transfer of energy - there will never be an transfer of energy!!!!!!
- "While the middle particle does feel equal forces from both sides, they are not directed at each other and so the central particle would spin." It may turn through 90deg, but by what reasoning could an indivisible particle perpetually spin about its centre of substance?.
- hi Airman

N: I have enjoyed playing with the idea of massless particles, but I did get bogged down with the energy transfer, and I don't like losing spin.
- What would stop the particle from spinning? Spin is a valid motion, just as much as linear velocity. If it starts to spin, it will only stop if given another force.

A: Hi. I'm just not seeing this massless, indivisible vacuum particle yet.

N: I should not have used the word force (which induces mass) but you get what I mean, I hope.

M: I do not believe that you can assign perpetual spin to fundamental particles.

N: Then why can you assign perpetual motion?

M: You can use the word "force", but in Physics (with a capital P) it has been defined as applying to mass and acceleration.
- You need to really accept the concept of an indivisible body of substance. Where one part of its utterly solid form goes the rest must follow. There is no environmental resistance that would cause it to rotate about a centre.

A: Why are your particles so diffuse?

N: I have no problem with indivisibility, how could it be any other way.

M: The evidence is, such that we have it, that the universe operates at only one speed: c. If vacuum particles are not all moving at c, and instead exchange energy between spin and linear motion, then we should expect light to travel at between zero and 2c.

N: Why 2c?

M: Airman - they are diffuse with regard to one another, but not with regard to matter particles. An internally diffuse field is absolutely required for the free transfer of signals of large distances.
- If c were the average and zero the low limit - though I have spoken entirely off the top of my head.

N: Miles also has a diffuse charge field like this, but I don't think it is quite as diffuse. He says collisions can occur, but photons are largely interpenetrable to each other.

M: Have you decided what the coefficient of friction we be? What the size surface features will be in comparison to the body as a whole?.

N: I should say photon streams are largely interpenetrable.

M: You mean crossed laser beams do not interfere

N: No, I haven't thought about friction like this before. I just assumed there was some. Can we assume none? I think if there is collisions, then there must be something there.
- Not just laser beams, but light streams in general.
- Collisions can and do occur, but most of the stream is not affected.

M: We must assume none, since we cannot make any other legitimate claim

A: Michael, How can you assume none? For what purpose?
- How is matter created?

M: We must assume perfectly elastic collision, since we cannot make any legitimate claim for compressability. We must assume no deformation and perfectly elastic collision - the only other choice is to arbitrarily select a number we want
- (bathroom break)

A: Nevyn, I am unable to keep up. My typing becomes stale as the discussion moves faster than me.

N: Yes, I agree with using elastic collisions, I just think that there is more than 1 way to use that energy and spin is one of them.
- Yeah, just get what you want out there, we all have to go back over what is written when we can and we might be able to get back to it.

A: I take spin as a priori

M: (energy transfer complete)

A: What power

N:  
- I have spent so much time getting used to spin from Miles work that it is really hard to let it go.

M: I confess that I used/assumed spin a priori, same as you

N: Should we move on and let Michael continue with his theory? It might help us to understand some of this as we learn more.

A: Please proceed

M: but when you think hard about an indivisible particle of substance in completely empty space, there is no longer any way to justify spin
- OK moving on

A: Sure

M: Into this arena of empty space and vacuum field particles we can add two more sizes of particle: electrons and protons. This is the entirety of the forms of substance: just three particle sizes

N: How much larger are we talking about?
- Sorry, I did assume they were larger.

M: I have made no recent calculations, so I would be proposing a guess

N: that's fine

A: Are they created out of the same "substance"?

M: Protons are 1836 times the size of electrons (that would be surface area, not volume) and electrons would be larger than vacuum particles by 10-20 orders of magnitude
- They are all made of substance: I use the term substance, purely for want of a better word. Hopefully, no one will argue that we simply can never know the true nature of the material of which the universe is made. All that we can say is that it is something that is not nothing.

N: Do you mean electron are 1836 times the size of a photon?

M: (grammar correction: that should be "disagree" not "argue)

N: Yes, I agree, there are things we can never know.

M: Proton!. Protons are 1836 times the size of electrons

N: Ahh, sorry.
- Those numbers closely match Miles numbers

M: pasuing for thought

A: I didn't realise it was "surace area"

M: 1836 is the experimental mass difference between protons and electrons

A: Why do you say surface area and not volume then?

M: By introducing electrons and protons, I am unfortunately relying on received wisdom.
- (Henceforth, I will refer almost exclusively to electrons. They are at least 1836 more interesting than protons and it's easier to type. For the most part electrons represent matter perfectly well)

A: Electrons and protons spin, or do they not?

N: Airman, I assume at this point that the answer to why surface area relates to how mass emerges.

M: MASS: mass is resistance to travel of electrons (and protons ...OK I'm breaking my reduced typing effort rule already)
- You assume correctly
- I am jumping the gun a little here, but it gives you a little bit of a heads up

N: Are electrons and protons rigid particles too?

M: Vacuum particles, electrons and protons all MOVE at c, at all times (and they are fundamental solid structureless particles, so they cannot spin either)
- Because all particles are moving at the same speed there is no transfer or exchange of energy and all collisions result only in changes of direction

A: Interesting

M: This notion that, quite literally, EVERYTHING is moving at c, at all times, appears at first to contradict our experience.

A: But what of electrons that are clearly traveling slower than C, like the time delay between solar flare and incoming particles

N: I was thinking that. Don't we have experiments showing electrons moving slower than c?

M: However, as I will explain (eventually) that there is no contradiction between experience and reality.

N: just the interpretation that sits between the two of them

M: I DIDN'T SAY TRAVELLING, I SAID MOVING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

N: Ok, I need a definition to know the difference. If there is no spin, then how does something move at c but not travel at c?

M: "just the interpretation that sits between the two of them" - however, my interpretation is based entirely upon straight line motion and elastic collision
- Imagine the following scenario:
- An electron is "moving" in a perfectly straight line through absolutely empty space. A vacuum particle comes along and they collide. Because they are moving at the same speed (of c) there is no transfer of energy, but both particles change direction (Newton's Third Law)
- Obviously, the vacuum particle gets the thick end of the direction change.

N: Why, there is no mass?

M: There is no mass yet

N: Yes, so there is no difference between the particles to give the photon a different result.

A: Except size

M: Now introduce upwards of 10^22 vacuum particles a second to collide with the electron

N: The only difference I see is surface curvature which could change the direction a bit.

A: Each resulting in changes of direction

M: Because they are traveling at the same speed, the larger particle cannot accelerate the smaller particle's speed. The collision is elastic, so neither party is able to gain or steal energy from the other. The smaller particle experiences a large change in direction and the large particle experiences a small change in direction, but the Third Law is obeyed and all is well.

A: So the rain of photon collisions results in a sort of friction for the electron traveling

M: Because the electron is moving and so is moving in a particular direction it experience collisions in several different ways with regard to changes of direction.

M: "So the rain of photon collisions results in a sort of friction for the electron traveling" yes, kind of

N: I was thinking this is leading to Brownian Motion.

M: Conceptually it is related to Brownian Motion, but with some important differences.
- Because the vacuum field has no forces acting between the particles, they are not in any way associated to each other. This means that the vacuum particle field is a randomly moving field - homogeneous and isotropic, but random

N: So the leading edge of a moving particle experiences more hits and the trailing edge received none which leads to resistance of motion which gives us mass?

M: No

N: Oh, sorry, continue on

M: The leading face experiences "hard" collisions, because its speed and the vacuum particle speed are added, which results in a greater change of direction. The vacuum field is perfectly homogeneous and isotropic so the electron receives the same number of collisions from all directions.

N: but if all particles are traveling at c, then the trailing edge can not be hit from directly behind.

M: Remember, all particles are moving at the same speed, so there is no exchange of energy - all vacuum and matter particles continue to move at c at all times.
- This is where previous analyses of mechanical particle fields have come unstuck. The conclusion had been that the matter particle could make no headway through the mechanical field, but there are two important adjustments to be made.
- Firstly, previous analyses have assumed that the matter particle was being accelerated by the mechanical field (you can find this usually as a criticism of pushing gravity models).
- However, as I have already said, the matter particle is already MOVING at c and there is no energy exchange and so no change of speed
- The only change is changes of direction.
- The second correction comes from the assumption that matter particles move in straight lines.
- To clarify: between collisions the electron is moving through completely empty space and so moves in a straight line. However, because the electron experiences leading face collisions as "harder", producing a greater change of direction, the direction it is moving in is constantly being adjusted.

N: So if you measure 'as the crow flies' then the velocity will be below c because it is moving in a zig-zag fashion?

A: The electron is vibrating at c
- Not with respect to freq, but moving speed

M: No, the opposite. It is MOVING at c, along the zig-zag (or helix), but its VELOCITY (as measured by beings that like to measure shit) will be its progress across volumetric space
- Airman: "The electron is vibrating at c" yes

N: "progress across volumetric space" - is what I meant by 'as the crow flies'

A: I thought so too

M: I beg your pardon , you were correct "the velocity will be below c" (I missed the "below" the first time I read)

N: Are we talking about a small vibration or a large one? How far would the electron zig before it gets zagged again?
- as a rough guess

M: Furthermore, the vacuum particles colliding along the electron's line of motion (at the front and at the back) will be reflected almost directly backwards along their paths and as this happens with consecutive collisions it produces a pattern of reflected vacuum particles that matches the electron's helical (or zig-zag) motion.
- This helical pattern of reflected vacuum particles stands out amongst the otherwise isotropic white noise of the field. We call this pattern "charge".
- As the electron moves through the field, there will naturally be random confluences of collisions to one side or the other. So although its generally trajectory might be categorized as helical it would still be MOVING in all directions over a given period of time.

A: The integrated zig-zags somehow became a helical path crossing volumetric space?

N: Wouldn't it only be moving in the plane orthogonal to the helical motion (relative to the particle itself)?

M: We do have some data about the electron charge radius and the fine structure constant, so the electron moves around in a helix about 10^21 times a second. Think of it as vibrating at a rate of 10^21 times a second.

N: And the forward, general, motion but not backwards from that.

M: Volumetric space is 3-dimensional, particles of substance are 3-dimensional, collisions are experienced with a 3-dimensional distribution

N: But if a particle experiences motion is all directions then it does not actually move anywhere, it just vibrates on the spot.

M: It helps to think of the "harder" leading face collisions as though the electron were rolling through the field.

N: The helical motion implies an overall direction

A: No rolling allowed

M: "But if a particle experiences motion is all directions then it does not actually move anywhere, it just vibrates on the spot." When you say on the spot. Are you thinking of a human terms spot or are you thinking in electron time. You have to be the electron....and the vacuum particle...and a god-like observer

M: (I got nothing to roll - had no stash for years)

A: Oh well
- Even stationary electrons are then moving at c

N: I mean an absolute location. If it experiences motion in all directions, and I assume the amount is the same, then it doesn't really changes its location that much.
- How would we get an actual velocity from equal motion in all directions?

M: Instead of thinking of 10^22 collisions a second, imagine one collision a year for 10^22 years.
- "How would we get an actual velocity from equal motion in all directions?" You start with interaction with other matter.
- Leaving aside mass and gravity a bit longer and just thinking about charge.

A: The only differentiation we have are changes in direction
- And number of collisions

M: The disturbance caused by other matter introduces a non-isotropic variance in the field.
- Not the number of collisions, but the direction they come from.... and the sequence in which they arrive.

A: How can you see non-isotropic changes in the field if the underlying field is random?

M: The variation in the field, that is charge, is "emitted" with a helical pattern. This gives a different road of hard collisions for the electron to roll along.
- The non-isotropic changes in the field come from the effect of other matter.

A: Michael, Last week you indicated that you would provide us with you current paper. Do you still intend to let us review it?

M: This is matter interacting with matter, mediated (that is to say transferred) by the field. Each matter particle reacts only to the field as it experiences it

A: Did you say matter - ie mass?

M: The particularly interesting thing about charge is that it is emitted with a helical distribution. And the electron receiving is prone to be "forced" into a helical pattern of motion.
- no, we haven't got to mass yet
- (I expect we'll do mass next week)

N: Is the receiving electron forced into helical motion because of the rate that it receives hits? That is, as the charge particle move to the left (in its helical motion) and if the receiver is on the right, then the rate of emission is low. But when it is moving to the right, then its rate is higher?
- By rate I mean there is more time between hits because of the relative motion

M: Previously, it has been assumed that an electron would make no progress through a mechanical field. When humans try to make something go fast it is limited by resistance.
- In nature, where there is no human agenda regarding direction, a body will take the path of least resistance.
- In nature, where there is no human agenda regarding direction, a body will take the path of least resistance.
- Nevyn - you still need to think 3-dimensionally.

N: I am, but it is hard to write it down concisely
- I don't get how the receiver is forced into helical motion from the charge emission.
- I was just trying to say that the relative motion of the particles matters and as that distance increases, then the rate should drop and as it decreases, the rate should rise.

M: Also, instead of thinking in terms of collision rates, try to think in terms of rate of collision change of direction - where are the harder collision coming from
- The rolling along a narrow track analogy is quite useful. A slight random (or probabilistic) variation on one side and the electron and it moves the other way. Forget its general direction of travel from a human perspective - think about the direction it is traveling in at any given instant.

N: As I understand it, a helical motion implies less collisions from the inside of that helical path. That is why it moves in a spiral. Or at least, the collisions from the inside are providing less force or are incurred at a lesser rate. There must be some reason for the particle to travel back towards the center of the path.
- I should say travel in the general direction of the center, not really directly at it.

M: As it veers in a new direction it has a slightly different leading face which is met with harder collisions leading to another slight change of direction.

N: Yes, that variation is what I am trying to get at.
- But couldn't that direction change be in either direction? Not just in a continuous spiral in one direction?
- I mean spin direction there, not linear.

M: "As I understand it, a helical motion implies less collisions from the inside of that helical path." yes - but its leading face is always shifting - you can't paint a face on it and expect the face to always be pointing in the line of instantaneous motion.
- The notion of rolling along a track of hard collisions is actually quite accurate

N: Is that 'face' pointing away from the center of the spiral?

M: Where a vacuum particle cannot spin because it does not have any forces acting upon it - an electron does spin - or more accurately "roll". And it also "spins" around in a helix. It is not spinning about its centre due to its own two hemispheres battling for forward motion - like a composite body would. It is spinning due to the constant effect of mechanical collision

N: Yeah, I get that part, but once you introduce a receiver of the charge emission, it only receives that charge from one side so how does that lead to helical motion of the receiver?

M: I think you may be stuck thinking of the centre line of the helix as a straight line.

N: Yes, that has been my assumption (or pretty close to a straight line, not exactly perfectly straight).
- That straight line is what we measure as part of the velocity.

M: The general interaction with the field produces a messy helical motion.
- It goes every which way. So picture a cloud of helices (or is that helixes)

N: Yes, but messiness aside, we can still, at least conceptually, think of the general line of motion as straight, for simplicity.

M: Think of this as its intrinsic helical motion.
- Accelerated to a "velocity" it would have another larger "velocity helix"

N: So if it had no 'velocity' as we measure it, would it be moving around in a sphere? Since it has motion in all directions.

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

N: Absolute zero velocity or temperature?

M: Its the same thing

N: Not really. Temperature is defined as the motion of matter so if it is spinning in a sphere, it still has motion.
- Spinning is not really the best term to use there, sorry.

M: Temperature is simply motion. In an atomic or molecular context it results ( i see your comment) in a jiggling motion
- how about jiggling? - I was going to use "higgledy-piggledy"

N: I'm not sure jiggling really expresses the idea wither, but we can use that term if you like.
- either, not wither

M: How about "propensity to move in any and all directions"

N: Given that definition, I guess jiggling does serve well.

M: But like I say, in a diffuse matter environment, temperature is velocity.
- Temperature of atomic structures is a different matter, and is where the concept of temperature comes from

N: Agreed, let's forget about temperature for now.

A: I'm about to turn into a pumpkin. Thank You both. I'll transfer the conversation to The Site later if you like, Nevyn.
- And Michael, will we see your Paper?

M: Yes, it's near midnight here

N: Thanks, Airman. I have to go soon too.
- Ok, so we will wrap it up there and I look forward to mass finally emerging next week. See you both then.

M: I am making good progress with the writing. My problem is how to convey the ideas and I'm finding these discussions helpful in that regard.

A: Thanks again

N: That is always a hard thing to do, Michael. It might be helpful to give it to us and see what parts we question or don't understand.
- I think we all understand that it is a draft version.

M: I will pass on each "chapter" as I complete it. I have written pretty much the whole thing, but in note form that would read as gibberish to anyone but me. Its a matter of tidying and polishing.
- goodnight

N: Ok, thanks. See you both.

Interesting discussion guys, sorry I missed it.  Just wanted to post this one M. Mathis paper to cap this discussion:


 242b. Hollow Neon Atoms?
http://milesmathis.com/neon.pdf
(snip)
A close reader will say, “Aha! But what about that electron to the right. That is an outer electron, and it should be ejected first. Doesn't that contradict your theory?”

No, it doesn't. It is more proof of my theory, since that electron is outer in my diagram only. It isn't considered to be “outer” by current theory. In my diagram, that would be a carousel electron, orbiting a carousel proton. And in my theory and diagram, that electron is normally one of the hardest to strip away from the nucleus. Why? Simply because the charge wind is moving out there. Under normal circumstances, electrons aren't stripped by the charge field. They exist all the time in a normal charge wind, so it doesn't have the strength to strip them. They are stripped by an external field, either applied by us (like a manufactured magnetic field) or by a nearby larger nucleus. In other words, the field that is stripping the electrons doesn't go through the nucleus like charge, it simply passes by like an external wind. It is stronger than the element's normal charge field, so it blows right by the normal charge channels. Well, if you apply such an external field to an atom, it has to get by the normal charge field. Since the normal charge field is moving strongly out at that point, it resists any external field coming in or passing by. Those electrons in the carousel level are protected by the charge coming out, you see. For this reason, those electrons are not considered to be “outer” by current theory. Since they require higher energies to strip, they are considered to be inner electrons. They aren't inner, as you see, but in the current tables, they exist in inner orbitals. Therefore, when they arrive at detectors, they have energies corresponding to (what the mainstream thinks are) inner orbitals.

This also explains how outer electrons can seem to fall into inner positions, which then have to be blasted away by a second hit in experiments like this. According to current theory, that shouldn't be possible. They propose it all the time—and have for decades—but it has never made any sense. Since outer electrons are supposed to be less energetic and less strongly bound, they shouldn't be able to just fall into open inner positions. The energies don't match, and it is unentropic for particles to “fall” from a less energetic position to a more. They make you think this fall is somehow caused by a gravitational potential, but if you do the math, you find the gravitational potential is way too small to account for the move down. Remember, gravity is said to be something like 10-³⁸ less than E/M at the quantum level. In current theory, there is no mechanical reason those outer electrons should fall into inner positions. In fact, using current equations and theory, the E/M potential of the nucleus should strongly prevent such a fall. Electrons and protons repel one another in current theory, remember? And the closer they are, the more they should repel. So the nucleus not only doesn't allow the fall, it should prevent it. The nucleus should exclude those less energetic outer electrons from falling. To propose that outer electrons simply fall into inner positions is once again to flout the very definitions of the field. These physicists are contradicting themselves to suit the filling of their holes.

Thanks for the 1/17 discussion and Airman for posting it.

I copied and edited the discussion and posted it at https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t69-michael-vaicaitis-model#645

I thought it might be better to keep the MV discussions separate from the MM discussions.

2015-01-24 discussion of Michael's model.

Michael Vaicaitis: Can fundamental particles spin? Utterly and absolutely solid particles, Particles with no substructure. I would suggest that they cannot spin "about their axis". The phenomena of axial spin is common in our macro world, but in all cases it is a function of composite bodies.

Michael Vaicaitis: I would suggest that linear motion of fundamental particles is not interchangeable with angular motion. Indeed, I do not see that angular motion about some centre of "being" is even possible without repeated outside influence via the collision of other particles.

Michael Vaicaitis: Something that immediately caught my attention, was: "...but the universe has lots and lots of time..."

Michael Vaicaitis: Of course it does. Despite the social and political dominance of creationism, in the form of exploding singularity theory, any genuinely scientific approach must surely take the view that the universe is very very old, i.e. an ancient universe.

Michael Vaicaitis: What would we expect from an ancient universe?. We would expect maximum entropy - complete thermal equilibrium - complete thermalisation - all particles of substance moving at the same speed.

Michael Vaicaitis: All the particles in the universe are "moving" at the same speed, the speed of c. c is the temperature of the universe. Humans have been spending too much time considering the universe through their own limited sensual perceptions.

Michael Vaicaitis: Instead, they should have been considering the universe as a mechanical system.

Michael Vaicaitis: see you at 2300 UTC.

Airman joined the chat 95 minutes ago

Airman: Hi Michael. Lloyd sent a message that we would meet in two hours. I was just looking "in case" someone showed up

Michael Vaicaitis: I'm buzzing between the pc and the kids until I can get them to bed, so I am here, but I'm not here, if you see what I mean - after 2300 (UTC) I should be here

Michael Vaicaitis: post a question, query, thought if you like - perhaps we can get a head start

Airman: Sorry, I'm wandering around mostly elsewhere at present too. Are you familiar with Victor Schauberger?

Michael Vaicaitis: No. but my 30 second googlising reveals much - in particular....good beard! Tell me more

Airman: Oh, There's too much. Implosive versus explosive technology. Try http://free-energy.xf.cz/SCHAUBERGER/Liv... for starters

Nevyn joined the chat

Airman: Oops, That's Viktor. Hi Nevyn

Nevyn: Hi Airman

Airman: Cr6 had me going after Shauberger and the Windhexe. Good stuff

Airman: That''s Schauberger

Michael Vaicaitis: Well that's far too much to read in a hurry, but here's some cut and paste:

Michael Vaicaitis: Energy is a quantitative description of a body’s potential to do work on other bodies. Physics has come to describe the energy of a matter body as a function of its mass and velocity. However, conceptually, energy is a description of substance in motion, whether or not mass and velocity can be attached to that substance is of no concern, the concept of energy remains valid. You cannot separate the concept of energy from the concept of substance in motion, it would be a complete nonsense. By example, speed is a measure of how quickly something traverses a distance or of how much distance something traverses in a period of time. But, you couldn’t and wouldn’t say that there is an amount of “pure speed”. You can’t have speed without the something that is moving. The suggestion of “pure energy” is of the same intellectual quality. Energy is, and can only be, a descriptive property of substance in motion. Without substance or, without motion, there can be no energy.

Nevyn: Michael, making something spin aside, why would a spinning object stop spinning without some external force applied? Why does it need constant input but a velocity does not?

Nevyn: I agree with those last 2 sentences but I don't see the difference between substance inmotion and mass with velocity. Mass is substance and velocity is motion.

Airman: There is equivalent energy present whether the object is moving or not

Nevyn: I know you are trying to separate mass and substance Michael, but I still see them as the same. I may change my opinion once we discuss how you see mass emerging.

Nevyn: If everything comes down to motion, then there is no energy when there is no motion.

Airman: Moving as a velocity doesn't affect the inherent energy of the object itself

Nevyn: What inherent energy?

Airman: The energy present comprising the object itself. Its energy equivalence

Airman: Its mass is how I wwould prefe it but I'm keeping an open mind

Nevyn: Its energy equivalence is caused by its mass or motion, without those two, it has nothing.

Airman: I would like to hear the answer to Nevyn's questions, "why would a spinning object stop spinning without some external force applied? Why does it need constant input but a velocity does not?"

Michael Vaicaitis: sorry guys, stepped away, just catching up now

Michael Vaicaitis: "Mass is substance and velocity is motion." No, neither of these are "real", they are both emergent!

Michael Vaicaitis: "why would a spinning object stop spinning..."

Michael Vaicaitis: The question should be asking is "How could a fundamental particle spin?"

Nevyn: I am intentionally ignoring that part for now to understand why if it was spinning that it would stop with no force applied.

Michael Vaicaitis: Visualise two bodies (particles if you like), attached/joined by some method. This is a description of a simple composite body.

Michael Vaicaitis: Let me highlight that; COMPSITE body

Michael Vaicaitis: One body/particle is travelling/moving, but is also attached to the other. The second body also wants to travel, but is attached to the first. In this scenario, a spin around a centre could be envisaged.

Nevyn: I would expect both bodies to be moving in near opposite directions to induce spin. With only one of them moving, it would just drag the other along with it.

Nevyn: I guess the drag could induce spin with the center of spin in motion itself.

Michael Vaicaitis: If one "hemisphere" of a solid fundamental structureless particle moves/travels, the other hemisphere goes with it - this other hemisphere is not a different lump of substance!!!!

Michael Vaicaitis: " I would expect both bodies to be moving in near opposite directions to induce spin. With only one of them moving, it would just drag the other along with it." I was trying (badly) to describe a scenario where spin could be considered a reasonable consequence of the "tussle"/interaction/con​nection between the two parts of a composite body.

Nevyn: You are assuming a solid, rigid body can only have 1 velocity. Which seems like a good assumption on the face of it, but could not one side have a velocity and the other side have a different velocity? That is what spin is effectively. The velocity does not belong to the center of the particle but may be attached to anedge of it.

Michael Vaicaitis: "You are assuming a solid, rigid body can only have 1 velocity. Which seems like a good assumption on the face of it, but could not one side have a velocity and the other side have a different velocity? That is what spin is effectively. The velocity does not belong to the center of the particle but may be attached to anedge of it."

Airman: Sounds like inelastic matter. Michael, Last week, you described protons and electrons as substance vibrating at light speed, yet they cannot spin because they aren’t part of composite bodies. Do they become composite when they group together as molecules?

Michael Vaicaitis: Nevyn: I have also tried using/allocating spin in a lowest-level/fundamental​ particle. However, when I came to try to justify how that "spin" could actually be described at a most basic and fundamental level.

Michael Vaicaitis: Airman: Electrons & protons "vibrate", that is move in a "messy" helical trajectory, because they are larger particles surrounded by the constant collisional effect of a mechanical field of smaller particles - that helical/vibratory motion is emergent.

Nevyn: Did you forget to finish that last sentence directed at me?

Michael Vaicaitis: If the vacuum particle field (the mechanical field of particles that surround matter) were removed, then electrons and protons would also travel/move in perfectly straight lines and would also not be capable of spin.

Michael Vaicaitis: Nevyn: I have also tried using/allocating spin in a lowest-level/fundamental​ particle. However, when I came to try to justify how that "spin" could actually be described at a most basic and fundamental level, I could not objectively justify the spin about "a centre" for fundamental particles.

Nevyn: As I described last week, when a particle experiences 2 forces on opposite sides, in near opposite directions, spin is created.

Nevyn: While it takes 2 forces to create the spin, it doesn't need any more input to keep spinning.

Michael Vaicaitis: "As I described last week, when a particle experiences 2 forces on opposite sides, in near opposite directions, spin is created." NO, I just don't see how you can justify this assertion.

Michael Vaicaitis: It is a fundamental, perfectly solid, absolutely structureless and componentless particle body.

Nevyn: It is the same as you are describing with composite bodies, one part wants to go one way and another part wants to go another way. They are both applied to the same entity and they both must be obeyed so the entity spins. I realise a rigid body does not have parts, and that is why I am putting the velocity vectors on the edge of the particle.

Michael Vaicaitis: By what logic can you assert that it can be sub-divided into different, and thus separate, parts that are antagonistic to each other.

Michael Vaicaitis: You are describe the dynamics of a composite body - a body a two or more parts, associated together by a system of forces.

Michael Vaicaitis: You are describing the dynamics of a composite body - a body a two or more parts, associated together by a system of forces.

Nevyn: I am not saying it has divided parts, just that you have to be careful where you place the velocity vector. For a spin, it can't be at the center so it must be at an edge. If it is at an edge, then there are many different places for it to attach to. The whole surface becomes a place to attach velocity vectors.

Airman: Tangential velocity vectors

Nevyn: yes

Michael Vaicaitis: "The whole surface becomes a place to attach velocity vectors." Again NO. The surface and the interior an inextricably linked - there is no discontinuation between the surface and any part of the interior.

Nevyn: In the case of spin, anyway

Michael Vaicaitis: What you are describing and pursuing can be applied to planets and atoms, but not to fundamental particles. If a point on the surface is asked to move the entire rest of the particle must move with it.

Nevyn: You are assuming a massless particle. If it has mass then a collision at the tangent will induce spin because of that mass.

Michael Vaicaitis: If two or more points on the surface are simultaneously contacted, then there is a net affect to be accounted for, but there is no justification for assigning spin about a central point.

Michael Vaicaitis: "You are assuming a massless particle. If it has mass then a collision at the tangent will induce spin because of that mass." And you have NOT defined mass. You are using it as an intrinsic property.

Michael Vaicaitis: (two minute child break)

Nevyn: I can assign mass to a motion, not an intrinsic property, by making the radius of the particle grow. This creates resistence to motion in all directions and agrees with Maxwells conclusion that mass is l^3/t^2 (length cubed over time squared). Of-cource, this means that radius expansion is intrinsic or at least un-explainable, but it does explain a lot.

Michael Vaicaitis: Well, maybe it's time to explain what mass is.

Nevyn: If I had my drums setup, I would give you a drum-roll [smile]

Michael Vaicaitis: As a matter particle moves through and is jostled by the vacuum field it experiences a resistance to motion.

Airman: My jaw's dropped

Michael Vaicaitis: That resistance to motion is ONLY is the direction in which it is moving.

Airman: Don't you mean the opposite?

Michael Vaicaitis: Yes, quite right - in opposition to the direction in which it is moving.

Michael Vaicaitis: Given the influence of other matter particles - via variances/fluctuations/p​atterns in the field - it may assume a general direction of "travel" in one particular direction - which we recognise as velocity

Michael Vaicaitis: Thus the resistance to "travel" through the field is associated with and proportional to its velocity.

Airman: No mention yet of accelerations, associated with all velocities

Michael Vaicaitis: "No mention yet of accelerations, associated with all velocities" Explain please

Airman: Gee, how do we get to a velocity? Collisions with other matter?

Airman: All collisions involve accelerations to the entire body

Airman: Sorry to change the subjec, But what of mass?

Nevyn: An acceleration is just a change of velocity. 2 or more velocities added together to produce a new velocity. Each collision is actually an acceleration but we are focusing on the resusltant velocity of the central entity. We are looking at it after each acceleration has been applied.

Nevyn: Think about it in frames. We start with a given velocity in the first frame, then another velocity is applied which produces the next frame.

Airman: Sure. Keeping it simple

Nevyn: That is pretty much the basis of calculus.

Michael Vaicaitis: Leaving the definitions and actual physical mechanics of velocity aside for a moment.

Michael Vaicaitis: A particle/body moving is a preferred direction, would be "observed" to have a velocity - a speed in a particular direction.

Michael Vaicaitis: Since it is moving in that direction for more of the time than in any other direction, its resistance to travel is "concentrated" in that direction

Michael Vaicaitis: That's not quite right

Michael Vaicaitis: OK, it might help to take this to the extreme.

Michael Vaicaitis: A matter particle cannot move in a perfectly straight line through the field - it is forced into a helical trajectory. At slower "velocities" it is still "moving" in all directions, whilst at the same time it has a general drift/trend of travel in one particular direction.

Michael Vaicaitis: The fastest it can travel through the field is limited to an intrinsic helical trajectory - whereby it is moving along that helix in only one direction.

Michael Vaicaitis: Of course, the fact of moving in a helix means that it is only fully moving in its direction of travel 50% of the time. This is the origin of 1/2mv^2. The spin of matter is the "spin" of its helix of travel.

Michael Vaicaitis: Anyhow, it is moving in that one particular direction - which means its resistance to travel in that particular direction. If you wanted to change its direction of travel, or to change its speed of travel, you have to deal with its resistance to travel.

Michael Vaicaitis: That resistance to travel is associated with its "velocity".

Nevyn: Wouldn't it always be moving in the direction of travel but only some of its motion is in that direction? It doesn't stop travelling in that direction half the time.

Airman: A helical path is comprised of two separate velocities in different directions. Parallel to the helix's center axis, and a tangential velocity, itself the sum of two velocities

Nevyn: I am assuming the helix is around the direction of tracel.

Airman: Me too

Michael Vaicaitis: You are quite right - this is a problem of linguistic decription that I am struggling with.

Michael Vaicaitis: However, I think you can visualise a particle "moving" along a helical path, such that it is "travelling" in a particular direction.

Michael Vaicaitis: The actual speed of motion of the particle is c - along the helix. The velocity of travel in a particular direction depends on how much the helix is pointed in that "direction of travel".

Nevyn: That gives the particle 2 velocities which is what I was doing above and you didn't like it.

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

Michael Vaicaitis: The physical particle is moving at c.

Nevyn: But it is moving in a spiral which requires a constant change to the velocity, which is supplied by the field, but it is still 2 velocities.

Michael Vaicaitis: "But it is moving in a spiral which requires a constant change to the velocity, which is supplied by the field, but it is still 2 velocities." OK let's deal with this

Michael Vaicaitis: You're using the term "velocity" - and I understand why you would - but what do you mean by it?.

Nevyn: A velocity is the distance that will be travelled during the next amount of unit time.

Nevyn: It is the difference between the current frame and the next one.

Nevyn: It also has the direction of travel.

Airman: Sounds like you are substituting frames for time

Michael Vaicaitis: I confess, I am trying to separate the definitional meaning of the term "velocity" and the human recognition of an objects "velocity".

Michael Vaicaitis: There is an unfortunate semantic contradiction here.

Nevyn: Yes, Airman, each frame is separated by time and that time is the same time that goes into the velocity.

Michael Vaicaitis: The fundamental, and only "speed" of motion of all particles is c.

Nevyn: I am afraid I don't see the difference, Michael.

Nevyn: I have been assuming you mean the difference between what we measure as velocity and what the particle is actually doing.

Michael Vaicaitis: c, by definition, and quite correctly, is a velocity.

Nevyn: That is, the helix is too small for us to measure so we assume the general 'travel' is the velocity.

Michael Vaicaitis: "That is, the helix is too small for us to measure so we assume the general 'travel' is the velocity." EXACTLY

Airman: Agreed

Nevyn: I have no problem with that, or with the helix motion since the field supplies the impetus to that motion.

Michael Vaicaitis: The helix diameter is referred to as "charge radius" - and is often called or thought of as the radius of matter particles.

Nevyn: I thought you defined charge as the field perturbations?

Nevyn: Or is this another case of 'what we think it is' vs 'what it actually is'?

Michael Vaicaitis: The "charge" signal that "radiates" away from a matter particle, is a pattern of perturbation in the field.

Michael Vaicaitis: It is the fact of the pattern that distinguishes it from the white noise of the field and leads to a reaction from "receiving" matter particles.

Nevyn: yep, happy with that. How does that differ from the 'charge radius'? I assumed a charge radius was formed by charge.

Michael Vaicaitis: The receiving matter particles are deemed to have been affected by "charge". And are also deemed to have issued/emitted their own "charge".

Michael Vaicaitis: The significant efficacy of this charge reaction is referred to as an "electric" effect - hence the term "electric charge".

Michael Vaicaitis: Electric and magnetic effects stem from this "charge".

Michael Vaicaitis: Anyway - back to MASS.

Nevyn: I don't have much time left so I will try to stop interrupting you.

Michael Vaicaitis: In order to affect a particle with "velocity" (not its velocity of motion along its helical trajectory thru the field, but its velocity "across" cosmological space.

Michael Vaicaitis: The velocity that us humans recognise as "travel".

Nevyn: let's just call it travel from now on so we can leave velocity to its actual definition.

Michael Vaicaitis: OK

Michael Vaicaitis: No, hold on - the difference in crucial to the point.

Airman: Dang, It’s supper time here mass must wait. Please carry on.

Michael Vaicaitis: A particle's/body's velocity of travel is what gives it mass. It is the resistance to "travel" - to overall motion in a particular direction - that is mass.

Michael Vaicaitis: To change/affect a body's velocity of travel, you have to accelerate it - change its "speed" along the same directional vector, or change its direction of travel.

Nevyn: Not sure if you meant that you are leaving, Airman, if so, good bye.

Airman: Thanks, I've got it copied to here. Good day to you both

Michael Vaicaitis: See you, cheers mate.

Michael Vaicaitis: An acceleration must deal with the bodies present resistance to travel - which is a function of its velocity of travel.

Nevyn: should that be 'with the bodies present motion'?

Nevyn: same thing really

Michael Vaicaitis: No, I am trying to draw a distinction between "motion at c" and "travel at a given velocity as recognised by us gawky apes".

Michael Vaicaitis: We associate "inertia" with being a resistance to acceleration and we quantifier inertia as mass: F=ma

Michael Vaicaitis: However, that mass is an emergent quantity associated with a body's "velocity of travel".

Michael Vaicaitis: So when a body has no discernable velocity, i.e it is at rest, the any interaction with it that elicits an acceleration only encounters its "rest mass".

Nevyn: What is its rest mass if mass is only overcoming its current motion?

Nevyn: Seems like a contradiction of terms.

Michael Vaicaitis: When a body has a very high "velocity of travel" then any attempt to accelerate it encounters its "relativistic" mass.

Michael Vaicaitis: "What is its rest mass if mass is only overcoming its current motion?" Mass is only encountered, when one body is affecting, i.e. accelerating, another.

Nevyn: I'm not sure we should be bringing Relativity into this as we are looking at it as a god. Relativity only applies to measurements.

Michael Vaicaitis: The actual "rest" mass is a theoretical number at the bottom of a graph

Michael Vaicaitis: (Relax, there is no relativity involved)

Nevyn: phew, I would be interested to discuss Relativity with you at some other time.

Michael Vaicaitis: Any body has some sort of "velocity of travel". ANY interaction with that body, must, quite definitionally, be an acceleration. As such we associate, inertia, and therefore mass with acceleration.

Nevyn: Yes, acceleration is just a name for adding velocities.

Nevyn: But saying 'rest mass' implies no motion, at least to me.

Nevyn: Well, no travel.

Michael Vaicaitis: However, a body must be travelling through the vacuum field - there is no escaping this reality - therefore it has a resistance to travel in whatever direction it is travelling.

Michael Vaicaitis: "Well, no travel." - well if it was at rest (i.e. moving at c in a very compact space) then it wouldn't be travelling, until you accelerated it - which would happen as soon as you attempt any interaction.

Nevyn: It is the moving at c while not travelling that is a problem. I can accept that with spin but not without it.

Michael Vaicaitis: Well lets go back to saying that it is "vibrating" at c.

Michael Vaicaitis: For an electron, we might be talking about a particle of say 10^-30m vibrating (or moving at c) in a space of 10^-12m (the "radius" of an electron).

Michael Vaicaitis: That would like a human "vibrating" around a space of 100,000,000,000,000km

Michael Vaicaitis: So yes the electron has travelled 10^-12m, but, in interactional terms with other matter, that 10^-12m is considered to "be the electron".

Michael Vaicaitis: So, whilst "at rest", the electron (moving at c along its field induced helix) is confined to that sphere of space of 10^-12m.

Michael Vaicaitis: The MASS of the particle is its resistance to its "velocity of travel" through the field.

Michael Vaicaitis: When an electron is moving along its helix, where the helix is in a straight line (not a whizzy cloud of helix), then it is travelling at its physically maximum possible velocity - which for electrons is 99.99997% of c.

Michael Vaicaitis: The electron is "moving" at c, but with a travel velocity of 99.99997% c. At "rest", the electron is moving at c, with a travel velocity of zero - it is moving within the confines of its charge radius.

Michael Vaicaitis: The electron is made of some sort of substance - something that is not nothing. However, we cannot measure or quantify that amount of substance - we can only measure and quantify its interactional resistance to travel.

Nevyn: So the vacuum field can make it move in its charge radius, but a collision with other matter would give a travel velocity?

Michael Vaicaitis: It cannot collide directly with other matter - the collision is performed by proxy by the field - that is, it is "mediated" by the field.

Nevyn: So it gets more hits from the direction of the other matter particle because of that charge field?

Nevyn: I'm trying to get at the impetus to travel as opposed to impetus to vibrate.

Michael Vaicaitis: That is the gist of it - although the term "charge field" might end up as a confusing us.

Nevyn: Sorry, I'm used to calling it the charge field, which I think is a better term than vacuum field as it is not a vacuum.

Michael Vaicaitis: Sorry to go at such a useful point - but its 01:40, I'm getting tired and the dogs are getting twitchy to go out before bedtime

Nevyn: Another case of what we humans call a vacuum which is no where near an actual vacuum.

Nevyn: That's fine, I have to go myself and get some thing done.

Nevyn: Thanks again. We have reached mass, at least. See you next time.

Michael Vaicaitis: Cheers Nevyn, thanks a lot