CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
4 posters
Page 1 of 1
CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LloydK Tue May 16, 2017 1:36 pm
CNPS plans to use their forum as a means to assemble papers for the CNPS Alternative Science Wiki.
I volunteered to help, so they made me a facilitator, like a moderator.
So I figure what's needed mainly is DATA that supports the MM Model and DATA that undermines the mainstream model.
Which data do you folks think best supports MM and undermines the mainstream?
You may discuss here and I can post it on the CNPS forum, or to make it easier for me, you may discuss at http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=82 in the discussion thread. The sticky threads there are just for me to put the paper together etc.
I volunteered to help, so they made me a facilitator, like a moderator.
So I figure what's needed mainly is DATA that supports the MM Model and DATA that undermines the mainstream model.
Which data do you folks think best supports MM and undermines the mainstream?
You may discuss here and I can post it on the CNPS forum, or to make it easier for me, you may discuss at http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=82 in the discussion thread. The sticky threads there are just for me to put the paper together etc.
Last edited by LloydK on Sun May 21, 2017 2:17 pm; edited 3 times in total
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by Nevyn Tue May 16, 2017 7:51 pm
I can't think of anything to help you off the top of my head, but I think you are going to run into a big problem. Miles generally uses the same data as the mainstream, it is the interpretation that is different.
Angular velocity is the only thing I can think of, since I wrote a paper about that recently, where you have differing data. Showing the scaling issue when the radius goes below 1 could be beneficial.
Maybe look at the Moon gives up a secret paper and its related papers. That gets into splitting gravity into two components: charge emission and solo gravity. You can also talk about the presence of an ionosphere on Venus but the absence of a magnetic field (was that Venus or Mars, whichever).
In a similar vein, Miles paper on calculating the magneto-pause could be an interesting one to do. No-one can do that in the mainstream.
Ok, so I had a few more ideas than I realised!
Good luck.
Angular velocity is the only thing I can think of, since I wrote a paper about that recently, where you have differing data. Showing the scaling issue when the radius goes below 1 could be beneficial.
Maybe look at the Moon gives up a secret paper and its related papers. That gets into splitting gravity into two components: charge emission and solo gravity. You can also talk about the presence of an ionosphere on Venus but the absence of a magnetic field (was that Venus or Mars, whichever).
In a similar vein, Miles paper on calculating the magneto-pause could be an interesting one to do. No-one can do that in the mainstream.
Ok, so I had a few more ideas than I realised!
Good luck.
Nevyn- Admin
- Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia -
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LongtimeAirman Tue May 16, 2017 10:17 pm
.
No specific MM data set comes to my mind. By giving photons mass, radius and spin, Miles has redefined the basis of physics and forces a new interpretation of all data. We now have a better explanation for any number of subjects, including those you've identified in your Photonic Aether - discussion http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=110&pid=586#pid586 posting. The CNPS folk aren't showing much interest yet: you answered Ray just over a month ago but he hasn't replied back; there's been no answer to Nevyn's Twin Paradox post either.
How does one lead a discussion with serious QM people on non-QM solutions? Which subjects do you find most convincing or defensible?
.
No specific MM data set comes to my mind. By giving photons mass, radius and spin, Miles has redefined the basis of physics and forces a new interpretation of all data. We now have a better explanation for any number of subjects, including those you've identified in your Photonic Aether - discussion http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=110&pid=586#pid586 posting. The CNPS folk aren't showing much interest yet: you answered Ray just over a month ago but he hasn't replied back; there's been no answer to Nevyn's Twin Paradox post either.
How does one lead a discussion with serious QM people on non-QM solutions? Which subjects do you find most convincing or defensible?
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Possible discussion - Mass as Motion, Length over time
by LongtimeAirman Tue May 16, 2017 11:20 pm
.
Possible discussion - Mass as Motion, Length over time.
From Miles Mathis' Physics Homepage http://milesmathis.com/index.html
41. How New Transforms in Special Relativity Affect Mass, Momentum and Energy Equations. http://milesmathis.com/emc.html Here I show that Einstein’s mass and energy transforms are also incorrect, including the famous E=mc2. I also show, for the first time, that the classical equation E=mv2/2 is not an approximation. Finally, I derive the number 108 for the proton. 41pp.
42. New Mass and Energy Transforms—a Gloss. http://milesmathis.com/emc2.html A much shortened argument, compressing the paper in Chapter 41. 11pp.
Quote from 42, footnote 4.
Possible discussion - Mass as Motion, Length over time.
From Miles Mathis' Physics Homepage http://milesmathis.com/index.html
41. How New Transforms in Special Relativity Affect Mass, Momentum and Energy Equations. http://milesmathis.com/emc.html Here I show that Einstein’s mass and energy transforms are also incorrect, including the famous E=mc2. I also show, for the first time, that the classical equation E=mv2/2 is not an approximation. Finally, I derive the number 108 for the proton. 41pp.
42. New Mass and Energy Transforms—a Gloss. http://milesmathis.com/emc2.html A much shortened argument, compressing the paper in Chapter 41. 11pp.
Quote from 42, footnote 4.
.4) The explaining of mass as motion is a huge step in the quest for a unification theory. One important implication of my new theory is explaining why gravity doesn’t seem to exist at the atomic level. It doesn't seem to exist simply because we have assigned the motion to another "field" or cause. At the atomic level we have decided to call this force "charge", but it is the same force as gravity, it is just hiding under another name. But at both the quantum level and the macrolevel, gravity is not a force at all. According to the new theory, you can assign mass, gravity, charge, strong force, and inertia all to the same basic motion. All these concepts are not separate ideas, they are different expressions of the same thing. And they all resolve to length over time. These last claims were not proved in my long paper, much less here, but they are proved in links to other papers, and my mass increase paper is one of the central pillars in that proof.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LloydK Thu May 18, 2017 2:26 pm
It took me a couple days to get back here. Thanks for your ideas, you guys.
In the Summary and Coordination thread at http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=82 at CNPS, I have this posted now:
The MM Photonic Universe model is explained in detail at http://MilesMathis.com
Our goal is to assemble a paper that explains that model in some detail and then submit the paper to the CNPS Wiki editor/s for inclusion in the Wiki.
What we need now is data that supports the MM model and undermines the mainstream model, as well as logical arguments about the data.
SUMMARY
Here's a Summary of this discussion to date.
LK:
Important Points from Miles Mathis' Theory:
1. aether consists of photons
2. photon spin stacks build matter
3. photon emission is the cause of electrical repulsion
4. Gravity is universal expansion or universal spin
5. magnetic fields are fields of coherently spinning photons or ions
Ray:
1. How do his aether photons exist without exceeding the Planck oscillator energy?
2. How do his photons produce rotating electric and magnetic fields? In other words where is the rotating charge dipole?
LK:
R1. lot wrong with Quantum Mechanics
See paper re Planck constant and free space oscillators
R2. low pressure must act like an attractive force
(Our group is working on simulating the fields)
Nevyn:
Re what data proves MM's model:
(A problem is that the same data has different interpretations)
1. Angular velocity
2. scaling when the radius goes below 1
3. Moon gives up a secret: splitting gravity into two components
4. ionosphere on Venus but the absence of a magnetic field
5. calculating the magneto-pause
Airman:
Re what data proves MM's model:
1. giving photons mass, radius and spin
2. Twin Paradox
3. non-QM solutions
4. Mass as Motion, Length over time
a. 41. How New Transforms; 42. New Mass and Energy Transforms
b. unification theory
c. At the atomic level we ... call this force "charge", but it is the same force as gravity
d. they all resolve to length over time
COORDINATION
I propose we seek to prove the following:
1. Aether and matter consist of photons with mass equivalence, radius and spin;
2. Unified field theory: all forces are photon motions: gravity, electric force, magnetic force.
What data seems best to prove photon mass?
In the Summary and Coordination thread at http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=82 at CNPS, I have this posted now:
The MM Photonic Universe model is explained in detail at http://MilesMathis.com
Our goal is to assemble a paper that explains that model in some detail and then submit the paper to the CNPS Wiki editor/s for inclusion in the Wiki.
What we need now is data that supports the MM model and undermines the mainstream model, as well as logical arguments about the data.
SUMMARY
Here's a Summary of this discussion to date.
LK:
Important Points from Miles Mathis' Theory:
1. aether consists of photons
2. photon spin stacks build matter
3. photon emission is the cause of electrical repulsion
4. Gravity is universal expansion or universal spin
5. magnetic fields are fields of coherently spinning photons or ions
Ray:
1. How do his aether photons exist without exceeding the Planck oscillator energy?
2. How do his photons produce rotating electric and magnetic fields? In other words where is the rotating charge dipole?
LK:
R1. lot wrong with Quantum Mechanics
See paper re Planck constant and free space oscillators
R2. low pressure must act like an attractive force
(Our group is working on simulating the fields)
Nevyn:
Re what data proves MM's model:
(A problem is that the same data has different interpretations)
1. Angular velocity
2. scaling when the radius goes below 1
3. Moon gives up a secret: splitting gravity into two components
4. ionosphere on Venus but the absence of a magnetic field
5. calculating the magneto-pause
Airman:
Re what data proves MM's model:
1. giving photons mass, radius and spin
2. Twin Paradox
3. non-QM solutions
4. Mass as Motion, Length over time
a. 41. How New Transforms; 42. New Mass and Energy Transforms
b. unification theory
c. At the atomic level we ... call this force "charge", but it is the same force as gravity
d. they all resolve to length over time
COORDINATION
I propose we seek to prove the following:
1. Aether and matter consist of photons with mass equivalence, radius and spin;
2. Unified field theory: all forces are photon motions: gravity, electric force, magnetic force.
What data seems best to prove photon mass?
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LloydK Fri May 19, 2017 1:25 pm
What data seems best to prove photon mass?
I copied some quotes on mass from Miles below. Do any of these help much to prove photon mass? Or can you all come up with other quotes or info that proves photon mass?
Matter from Light http://milesmathis.com/limat.pdf
... The mainstream has run many experiments showing that if the photon has mass, it must be below 10^-36 kg
More Problems with Bohr http://milesmathis.com/bohr2.pdf
... In my mind, the most pressing problem is explaining the cause of the absorption bands and the equations that describe them. But to do that I must first analyze at some length the standing theories. And to do that, I must go back to the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom and his equations which claimed to have explained the Rydberg series and the absorption lines.
... we are told that a problem with the electron orbital models of the atom
before Bohr was that, classically, an electron in orbit must accelerate—and therefore radiate electromagnetic energy continuously. This is contradicted by the data from line spectra.
... Then ... we hear Bohr's solution to this: the orbits are quantized, and the quantized orbits are stable. When going from one quantized orbit to another, the electron emits a photon of a certain energy. This photon energy corresponds to the energy difference between the two orbits.
- Does Bohr answer the question? Not at all.
... We start by comparing the electron in orbit to a planet in orbit.
... We have the kinetic energy of the orbiting electron, so now we need the energy of the emitted photon, which we are told is hν. Since Planck's constant won't help us, the author suggests replacing it with equivalent dimensions. He lets nh = (mv)(vt)
... h is first said to be part of the energy of the photon, remember? E = hν? That energy is explicitly assigned to the emitted photon. When the electron emits that photon to make the jump between orbits, the energy change is the energy of the emitted photon, not the energy of the electron. For it to be the energy of the electron, the electron would have to emit itself. Notice that the expanded equation was E1 - E2 = hv.
- The change in energy is the energy of the emitted photon, which means that the frequency ν belongs to the photon, and h is a constant that is modifying that frequency, to give us E. That is what the equation means. So why do they then assign mv to the momentum of the electron? Shouldn't they assign it to the momentum of the photon?
... [In] my papers on the photon and Planck's constant, ... I show that the constant is hiding the mass of the photon.
Unifying the Photon with other quanta http://milesmathis.com/photon.html
- The [photon] mass should be proportional to the energy, but the energy is determined by both [photon] a and x-spins.
... The energy of a photon is around 10^-19 J, which, using the equation E = mc^2, gives us a mass equivalence of 1.11 x 10^-36 kg.
... A photon with a mass equivalence of 2.77 x 10^-37 kg, or an energy of 2.5 x 10^-20J, which is a frequency of 3.77 x 10^13/s, which is an infrared photon.
- An infrared photon has a mass equivalence that is 1.66 x 10^-10 smaller than the proton mass.
... [I]f we use my simple equation from my first paper on G (relating mass and radius to surface acceleration), we get a = 4mG/r^2 = 9.8m/s^2
- The photon, like the proton and the Earth, has a local acceleration at its surface of 9.8!
Redefining the Photon http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf
... I was recently asked why light is going c, and now I believe I have a partial answer. The information is contained in the equations above. We start with this equation
mγ = 2rγ/c√c
c = (2rγ/√c)mγ
c3 = 4rγ^2/mγ^2
c = 3√(4rγ^2/mγ^2)
That means that the velocity c is a function of the photon's mass and radius. In other words, its speed is determined by its size in the field, just as we would expect. In the macro-world, we would need one other variable to solve, that being the density of the charge field as a whole. I have recently found the mass equivalence of the charge field relative to the matter field (baryonic matter), that being 19 times. This is where we are getting the “dark matter” number of 95%. But that doesn't give us a universal charge density. In fact, according to my theory and equations, there should be no universal charge
density. Charge should be denser in galaxies than out of them, and denser near stars, and so on. By this analysis, it seems that the velocity of the photon would change in different densities. Because this appears not to be so, I assume that the mass of the photon may change depending on the charge density around it. Remember that mass is a function of energy according to the old equation Eγ = mγc2, which means that the photon's mass is already a function of the charge density. As the charge density grows, so will m. So that variable m already includes the charge density, in a way. This feedback mechanism may be what keeps c constant.
The Photon spin is REAL! milesmathis.com/photonspin.pdf
... [S]ome research physicists have known since the 1990's that quantum spins are real.
... Prof. Miles Padgett at the University of Glasgow [said at http://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/physics/research/groups/optics/research/orbitalangularmomentum ] It has been known since the middle ages that light exerts a radiation pressure. Not so well known is that light also exerts a twist. The intricate nature of this twist was not recognised until the 1990s and we have been working on it ever since. Beyond the fascination of setting microscopic objects into rotation, this orbital angular momentum may hold the key to better communication sensing and imaging systems.
... this orbital angular momentum OAM must be a real characteristic of light. Otherwise it could not possibly “set (real) objects into rotation”....
... this experimental data is a strong indication of my new theory of photons and charge, which demands that photons must have real spin, real radius, and real mass equivalence.
Fine structure constant http://milesmathis.com/fine.html
... Planck's constant is a paper wall built to hide the mass of the photon.
I copied some quotes on mass from Miles below. Do any of these help much to prove photon mass? Or can you all come up with other quotes or info that proves photon mass?
Matter from Light http://milesmathis.com/limat.pdf
... The mainstream has run many experiments showing that if the photon has mass, it must be below 10^-36 kg
More Problems with Bohr http://milesmathis.com/bohr2.pdf
... In my mind, the most pressing problem is explaining the cause of the absorption bands and the equations that describe them. But to do that I must first analyze at some length the standing theories. And to do that, I must go back to the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom and his equations which claimed to have explained the Rydberg series and the absorption lines.
... we are told that a problem with the electron orbital models of the atom
before Bohr was that, classically, an electron in orbit must accelerate—and therefore radiate electromagnetic energy continuously. This is contradicted by the data from line spectra.
... Then ... we hear Bohr's solution to this: the orbits are quantized, and the quantized orbits are stable. When going from one quantized orbit to another, the electron emits a photon of a certain energy. This photon energy corresponds to the energy difference between the two orbits.
- Does Bohr answer the question? Not at all.
... We start by comparing the electron in orbit to a planet in orbit.
... We have the kinetic energy of the orbiting electron, so now we need the energy of the emitted photon, which we are told is hν. Since Planck's constant won't help us, the author suggests replacing it with equivalent dimensions. He lets nh = (mv)(vt)
... h is first said to be part of the energy of the photon, remember? E = hν? That energy is explicitly assigned to the emitted photon. When the electron emits that photon to make the jump between orbits, the energy change is the energy of the emitted photon, not the energy of the electron. For it to be the energy of the electron, the electron would have to emit itself. Notice that the expanded equation was E1 - E2 = hv.
- The change in energy is the energy of the emitted photon, which means that the frequency ν belongs to the photon, and h is a constant that is modifying that frequency, to give us E. That is what the equation means. So why do they then assign mv to the momentum of the electron? Shouldn't they assign it to the momentum of the photon?
... [In] my papers on the photon and Planck's constant, ... I show that the constant is hiding the mass of the photon.
Unifying the Photon with other quanta http://milesmathis.com/photon.html
- The [photon] mass should be proportional to the energy, but the energy is determined by both [photon] a and x-spins.
... The energy of a photon is around 10^-19 J, which, using the equation E = mc^2, gives us a mass equivalence of 1.11 x 10^-36 kg.
... A photon with a mass equivalence of 2.77 x 10^-37 kg, or an energy of 2.5 x 10^-20J, which is a frequency of 3.77 x 10^13/s, which is an infrared photon.
- An infrared photon has a mass equivalence that is 1.66 x 10^-10 smaller than the proton mass.
... [I]f we use my simple equation from my first paper on G (relating mass and radius to surface acceleration), we get a = 4mG/r^2 = 9.8m/s^2
- The photon, like the proton and the Earth, has a local acceleration at its surface of 9.8!
Redefining the Photon http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf
... I was recently asked why light is going c, and now I believe I have a partial answer. The information is contained in the equations above. We start with this equation
mγ = 2rγ/c√c
c = (2rγ/√c)mγ
c3 = 4rγ^2/mγ^2
c = 3√(4rγ^2/mγ^2)
That means that the velocity c is a function of the photon's mass and radius. In other words, its speed is determined by its size in the field, just as we would expect. In the macro-world, we would need one other variable to solve, that being the density of the charge field as a whole. I have recently found the mass equivalence of the charge field relative to the matter field (baryonic matter), that being 19 times. This is where we are getting the “dark matter” number of 95%. But that doesn't give us a universal charge density. In fact, according to my theory and equations, there should be no universal charge
density. Charge should be denser in galaxies than out of them, and denser near stars, and so on. By this analysis, it seems that the velocity of the photon would change in different densities. Because this appears not to be so, I assume that the mass of the photon may change depending on the charge density around it. Remember that mass is a function of energy according to the old equation Eγ = mγc2, which means that the photon's mass is already a function of the charge density. As the charge density grows, so will m. So that variable m already includes the charge density, in a way. This feedback mechanism may be what keeps c constant.
The Photon spin is REAL! milesmathis.com/photonspin.pdf
... [S]ome research physicists have known since the 1990's that quantum spins are real.
... Prof. Miles Padgett at the University of Glasgow [said at http://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/physics/research/groups/optics/research/orbitalangularmomentum ] It has been known since the middle ages that light exerts a radiation pressure. Not so well known is that light also exerts a twist. The intricate nature of this twist was not recognised until the 1990s and we have been working on it ever since. Beyond the fascination of setting microscopic objects into rotation, this orbital angular momentum may hold the key to better communication sensing and imaging systems.
... this orbital angular momentum OAM must be a real characteristic of light. Otherwise it could not possibly “set (real) objects into rotation”....
... this experimental data is a strong indication of my new theory of photons and charge, which demands that photons must have real spin, real radius, and real mass equivalence.
Fine structure constant http://milesmathis.com/fine.html
... Planck's constant is a paper wall built to hide the mass of the photon.
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LloydK Fri May 19, 2017 7:30 pm
Bruce said the first things we should do for the Wiki paper is this:
A. Write an outline for the paper.
B. List the critical elements of MM's model, organized by importance; include definitions for each element on the list.
So I'll work on those and you guys are welcome to do so as well.
A. Write an outline for the paper.
B. List the critical elements of MM's model, organized by importance; include definitions for each element on the list.
So I'll work on those and you guys are welcome to do so as well.
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
From Glenn Borchardt - The 4th assumption - That motion is matter
by LongtimeAirman Fri May 19, 2017 10:24 pm
.
Lloyd, Do I understand correctly, do you intend to submit a paper for the CNPS 2017 International Conference (Wednesday, July 19- July 22, 2017, University of British Columbia at Vancouver - 2017 CNPS Proceedings Now Accepting Abstracts and Papers)? When’s the deadline? Is the subject matter based on the discussion above? Mass as Motion, Length over Time, The Photon is Real, Etcetera!
Forgive me, that seems a tad unlikely. Why is the wiki paper so important? I believe you mentioned that Miles had no particular interest. What is it you are trying to achieve here? Wouldn’t be a bit more realistic to communicate with the locals first? For example. From -
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/glennborchardt/2017/03/15/distinguishing-matter-from-motion/
Distinguishing Matter from Motion.
Glenn Borchardt wrote.
Airman. I edited the quote twice for clarity. My opinion, start a discussion with Glenn first. He might appreciate it.
.
Lloyd, Do I understand correctly, do you intend to submit a paper for the CNPS 2017 International Conference (Wednesday, July 19- July 22, 2017, University of British Columbia at Vancouver - 2017 CNPS Proceedings Now Accepting Abstracts and Papers)? When’s the deadline? Is the subject matter based on the discussion above? Mass as Motion, Length over Time, The Photon is Real, Etcetera!
Forgive me, that seems a tad unlikely. Why is the wiki paper so important? I believe you mentioned that Miles had no particular interest. What is it you are trying to achieve here? Wouldn’t be a bit more realistic to communicate with the locals first? For example. From -
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/glennborchardt/2017/03/15/distinguishing-matter-from-motion/
Distinguishing Matter from Motion.
Glenn Borchardt wrote.
Consequently, we must guard against four types of errors of logic that violate the assumption of INSEPARABILITY:
1. That matter could exist without motion.
2. That motion could occur without matter.
3. That matter is motion.
4. That motion is matter.
…
... So, my good Captain Bligh, please try to help me understand what you get out of continuing to have difficulties distinguishing matter and motion. Do you need that confusion in order to maintain belief in wave-particle duality? Does the confusion help you to achieve financial gain or reputation? Will it help in getting published by the mainstream?
I must admit that I once believed in photons too, mostly, I suppose because everyone else did. And that was after I wrote “The Ten Assumptions of Science.” It was not until I looked into the situation with greater detail than the average high school physics teacher that I found the the remedy: I needed to apply the 4th assumption in the strictest sense. Also, what brings you and Bill to the dissident table need not be all of the hundreds of contradictions in regressive physics and cosmogony—just a few will start the journey. In science, we often start a project by looking for contradictions. The project is not finished until the resolution. Now, you have to ask yourself: Why don’t I think that wave-particle duality is a contradiction?
Airman. I edited the quote twice for clarity. My opinion, start a discussion with Glenn first. He might appreciate it.
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LloydK Sat May 20, 2017 7:44 am
No, Airman, the paper is for the CNPS Wiki, not for their conference. Miles is free to submit papers for the conference (as well as for the Wiki) if he likes.
Their Wiki is intended to provide alternative information on science for the public online, like Wikipedia does for (often half-baked) mainstream science. I guess it would be a good idea for me or anyone to tell Miles that we're working on the Wiki paper for his model. I'd actually like to include his corrections of many errors in physics math (and logic). Miles may have said he wasn't interested in doing a paper or presentation at the CNPS Conference, but I don't think I told him about the Wiki yet.
I'll consider contacting Glenn, as you suggest, but I'm not sure I'll have time, although I suppose I will, if I don't forget.
Their Wiki is intended to provide alternative information on science for the public online, like Wikipedia does for (often half-baked) mainstream science. I guess it would be a good idea for me or anyone to tell Miles that we're working on the Wiki paper for his model. I'd actually like to include his corrections of many errors in physics math (and logic). Miles may have said he wasn't interested in doing a paper or presentation at the CNPS Conference, but I don't think I told him about the Wiki yet.
I'll consider contacting Glenn, as you suggest, but I'm not sure I'll have time, although I suppose I will, if I don't forget.
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Natural Philosophers Wikipedia
by LongtimeAirman Sat May 20, 2017 12:10 pm
.
Ok. I just saw it for the first time. From
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/, under wiki,
http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Main_Page
In addition to Bruce's directions above, do you have any specific instructions for submitting wiki entries?
.
Ok. I just saw it for the first time. From
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/, under wiki,
http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Main_Page
Natural Philosophers Wikipedia.
The purpose of this wikipedia is to provide a place where students of science and critical thinkers can access a more encompassing, update-to-date repository of scientific knowledge that includes viable alternatives to consensus-driven knowledge collection. For it is only outside the mainstream where you will find the next revolutions in science.
In addition to Bruce's directions above, do you have any specific instructions for submitting wiki entries?
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LloydK Sat May 20, 2017 11:21 pm
No. Those are pretty much the only instructions so far.
I wrote a brief outline and I put up links to some of our material for the critical elements of MM's theory.
This link is to the CNPS Photonic Universe forum: http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=82
The thread called Working Paper is where I'm posting the outline, which is intended to become the Wiki paper, or the guide for it.
If anyone has suggestions for the outline, I can add to it, if it seems helpful.
I have to sort through our/my list of MM definitions to pick out those that are critical elements of his theory.
I'll also have to sort through the open questions etc. Anyone is welcome to help, comment etc.
A. Write an outline for the paper.
B. List the critical elements of MM's model, organized by importance; include definitions for each element on the list.
I wrote a brief outline and I put up links to some of our material for the critical elements of MM's theory.
This link is to the CNPS Photonic Universe forum: http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=82
The thread called Working Paper is where I'm posting the outline, which is intended to become the Wiki paper, or the guide for it.
If anyone has suggestions for the outline, I can add to it, if it seems helpful.
I have to sort through our/my list of MM definitions to pick out those that are critical elements of his theory.
I'll also have to sort through the open questions etc. Anyone is welcome to help, comment etc.
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LloydK Sun May 21, 2017 2:13 pm
I looked briefly at the CNPS Wiki, which they've started working on lately. My impression is that it will just be a bunch of alternative science papers, similar to the plethora of papers in mainstream science.
I think the only way their Wiki will be useful is if they develop a way to rate theories/models by how thoroughly they explain their subjects.
The list of essential elements of a theory, as Bruce suggested, would be an important part of a system for evaluating theories IMO. But then a process for knowledgeable readers to rate the plausibility of each essential element is also needed. And a process for rating the knowledge of such readers would be needed too. Logic tests and knowledge tests would be needed.
I'll think about that. I guess a reformed public education system needs to be considered too. I mean for ongoing education. Presently, the major media serve to inform and misinform the public. And the internet has the potential to greatly improve that.
I think the only way their Wiki will be useful is if they develop a way to rate theories/models by how thoroughly they explain their subjects.
The list of essential elements of a theory, as Bruce suggested, would be an important part of a system for evaluating theories IMO. But then a process for knowledgeable readers to rate the plausibility of each essential element is also needed. And a process for rating the knowledge of such readers would be needed too. Logic tests and knowledge tests would be needed.
I'll think about that. I guess a reformed public education system needs to be considered too. I mean for ongoing education. Presently, the major media serve to inform and misinform the public. And the internet has the potential to greatly improve that.
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
CNPS Wiki Survey
by LongtimeAirman Sun May 21, 2017 4:49 pm
.
I also surveyed the CNPS Wiki. The main page indicates 13,167 pages. One category/topic listed is the Electric Universe, which alone is 197 pages. 81 of the EU's 197 pages list prominent “individuals”, (not counting Immanuel Velikovsky who I consider a subject), I opened one or two individual links just to verify. I also reviewed about two dozen subjects. They all seem to have been entered 1 or 2 January 2017. Half of the Electric Universe subjects I looked at were ok, including pages with brief descriptions of ebooks available solely for purchase; my personal opinion of that aside, there are many obvious errors that should be corrected. An example is the subject:
L?szl? K?rtvely?ssy (sic). The corresponding NP wiki page contains a brief bio of Dr. László Körtvélyessy, along with links to his 2002 Abstract - "Ion Jets in the Fifth State of Matter" (that title is also a separately listed subject, containing an abstract without a link); and 1998 book "The Electric Universe", (a link, "Read in full" leads to a web address that’s working, but is up for sale at Dr. K’s Electric Universe site). The subject listed as, “The Electric Universe”, is a description of the book by Wallace Thornhill, and David Talbott which includes a link to purchase the book, with no separate entry for Dr. K's book. All in all, I’m not impressed with the organization or upkeep of the CNPS Wiki Electric Universe pages.
It seems to me you're forging ahead with the working outline you posted previously; I'm afraid that will result in a great deal of additional work and frustration since that outline contains our limited interpretations. That may be good for discussions but poor for organization. As an alternative, perhaps the easiest way forward would be to create an outline copied from Miles' physics site; much easier to maintain or expand.
.
I also surveyed the CNPS Wiki. The main page indicates 13,167 pages. One category/topic listed is the Electric Universe, which alone is 197 pages. 81 of the EU's 197 pages list prominent “individuals”, (not counting Immanuel Velikovsky who I consider a subject), I opened one or two individual links just to verify. I also reviewed about two dozen subjects. They all seem to have been entered 1 or 2 January 2017. Half of the Electric Universe subjects I looked at were ok, including pages with brief descriptions of ebooks available solely for purchase; my personal opinion of that aside, there are many obvious errors that should be corrected. An example is the subject:
L?szl? K?rtvely?ssy (sic). The corresponding NP wiki page contains a brief bio of Dr. László Körtvélyessy, along with links to his 2002 Abstract - "Ion Jets in the Fifth State of Matter" (that title is also a separately listed subject, containing an abstract without a link); and 1998 book "The Electric Universe", (a link, "Read in full" leads to a web address that’s working, but is up for sale at Dr. K’s Electric Universe site). The subject listed as, “The Electric Universe”, is a description of the book by Wallace Thornhill, and David Talbott which includes a link to purchase the book, with no separate entry for Dr. K's book. All in all, I’m not impressed with the organization or upkeep of the CNPS Wiki Electric Universe pages.
It seems to me you're forging ahead with the working outline you posted previously; I'm afraid that will result in a great deal of additional work and frustration since that outline contains our limited interpretations. That may be good for discussions but poor for organization. As an alternative, perhaps the easiest way forward would be to create an outline copied from Miles' physics site; much easier to maintain or expand.
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LloydK Sun May 21, 2017 5:08 pm
Thanks for the review, Airman.
What do you think of my view that any alternative science wiki would need to have a good evaluation process?
I suggested on the CNPS Philosophy of Science forum that readers should be tested for logic and subject matter knowledge in order to evaluate the essential elements of theories. Maybe 20 questions each might be enough to suggest that a reader is qualified to evaluate such theory elements.
I also suggested that unqualified readers could still give evaluations, but theirs would be separate from those of the qualified readers.
The outline for MM's site (= online book) doesn't seem ideal for the general public. I like Bruce's idea to list essential elements of each theory and define each element, because that seems to be the most efficient means to evaluate theories.
Do you all agree that the following are the main essential elements of MM's theory and do you agree with my definitions? If not, please elaborate.
Essential Elements of MM Theory
Photon: the building block of all matter in the universe; a particle of a fundamental mass and radius, or a multiple thereof, according to the number of gyroscope-like stacked spins
Photon Spin: the spin of a photon, or the spin of the gyroscope-like layers of a photon; Photon Spin Velocity is c
Electricity: work done on a load by photon translational forces
Magnetism: work done on a load by coherent photon spins
Heat: infrared photons
Antiphoton: photon with the reverse outer spin of Earth's predominant photon
Stacked Spins: gyroscope-like paths in shells of a photon's fundamental particle motion
Charge: emission of photons from subatomic particles; photon pressure, or photon streams emitted by subatomic particles; equivalent to mass
Charge Channel: path that a stream of photons follows through the nucleons of an ion, atom, or molecule
Charge Neutrality: the state of an atom or molecule that emits little photon pressure due to saturation of electrons
Axis: diameter of a subatomic particle around which it spins
Pole: two points on the subatomic particle surface on the spin axis, where ambient field photons enter and sometimes exit
Equator: circumference of the subatomic particle surface 90 degrees from each pole, where photons largely exit from protons and electrons (by centrifugal force?)
Electron: smallest subatomic particle too large (with too many spin levels) to reach the speed of light; in atoms it orbits the pole of a proton and neutralizes charge
Proton: primary subatomic particle responsible for charge, 4 spin levels above the size of an electron
Neutron: a less charged subatomic particle than the proton; in larger atoms having up to 2/3 the charge of the proton; its outer spin is reverse that of the proton, thus blocking its equatorial emission
Nectron: an electron with outer spin reverse that of full charge electrons, causing it to block its equatorial emission
Alpha: alpha particle having two protons and two neutrons; the core of larger atoms; alphas can stack up
Carousel: square arrangement of four protons around the axis protons of larger atoms
Quantum Mechanics Errors: flawed calculations of microcosm based on zero diameter of electrons and photons and zero mass of photons
What do you think of my view that any alternative science wiki would need to have a good evaluation process?
I suggested on the CNPS Philosophy of Science forum that readers should be tested for logic and subject matter knowledge in order to evaluate the essential elements of theories. Maybe 20 questions each might be enough to suggest that a reader is qualified to evaluate such theory elements.
I also suggested that unqualified readers could still give evaluations, but theirs would be separate from those of the qualified readers.
The outline for MM's site (= online book) doesn't seem ideal for the general public. I like Bruce's idea to list essential elements of each theory and define each element, because that seems to be the most efficient means to evaluate theories.
Do you all agree that the following are the main essential elements of MM's theory and do you agree with my definitions? If not, please elaborate.
Essential Elements of MM Theory
Photon: the building block of all matter in the universe; a particle of a fundamental mass and radius, or a multiple thereof, according to the number of gyroscope-like stacked spins
Photon Spin: the spin of a photon, or the spin of the gyroscope-like layers of a photon; Photon Spin Velocity is c
Electricity: work done on a load by photon translational forces
Magnetism: work done on a load by coherent photon spins
Heat: infrared photons
Antiphoton: photon with the reverse outer spin of Earth's predominant photon
Stacked Spins: gyroscope-like paths in shells of a photon's fundamental particle motion
Charge: emission of photons from subatomic particles; photon pressure, or photon streams emitted by subatomic particles; equivalent to mass
Charge Channel: path that a stream of photons follows through the nucleons of an ion, atom, or molecule
Charge Neutrality: the state of an atom or molecule that emits little photon pressure due to saturation of electrons
Axis: diameter of a subatomic particle around which it spins
Pole: two points on the subatomic particle surface on the spin axis, where ambient field photons enter and sometimes exit
Equator: circumference of the subatomic particle surface 90 degrees from each pole, where photons largely exit from protons and electrons (by centrifugal force?)
Electron: smallest subatomic particle too large (with too many spin levels) to reach the speed of light; in atoms it orbits the pole of a proton and neutralizes charge
Proton: primary subatomic particle responsible for charge, 4 spin levels above the size of an electron
Neutron: a less charged subatomic particle than the proton; in larger atoms having up to 2/3 the charge of the proton; its outer spin is reverse that of the proton, thus blocking its equatorial emission
Nectron: an electron with outer spin reverse that of full charge electrons, causing it to block its equatorial emission
Alpha: alpha particle having two protons and two neutrons; the core of larger atoms; alphas can stack up
Carousel: square arrangement of four protons around the axis protons of larger atoms
Quantum Mechanics Errors: flawed calculations of microcosm based on zero diameter of electrons and photons and zero mass of photons
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by Cr6 Sun May 21, 2017 8:38 pm
That's a nice summary for the newbie Lloyd!
Essential Elements of MM Theory
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by Nevyn Sun May 21, 2017 9:05 pm
LloydK wrote:Charge Neutrality: the state of an atom or molecule that emits little photon pressure due to saturation of electrons
Charge neutrality is not caused by the saturation of electrons. You could say that atomic ions approach charge neutrality as a result of electrons, but that is only one thing having a reduced charge through-put. A neutron is said to be charge neutral but this is not because of electrons. Maybe just state it as a reduced charge emission compared to the proton, which is the base line for charge emission. Of course, even with that definition, the electron fits that, so it may need more work.
LloydK wrote:Axis: diameter of a subatomic particle around which it spins
The spin axis is not a diameter. It is just an imaginary vector we place at the center of the particle or spin level. It has no real size and does not relate to any size of the object being spun. Even the length of the vector is not required. The direction of the vector tells us the plane of rotation, which will be orthogonal to it. You could encode the rotational velocity in the vector length, if you wanted.
LloydK wrote:Neutron: a less charged subatomic particle than the proton; in larger atoms having up to 2/3 the charge of the proton; its outer spin is reverse that of the proton, thus blocking its equatorial emission
The part stating in larger atoms having up to 2/3 the charge of the proton refers to through-charge, not normal charge emission. This is not obvious in this list and will be unknown to people reading the target Wiki. I don't think it needs to be stated until in a discussion about neutrons and their role in atoms.
LloydK wrote:Carousel: square arrangement of four protons around the axis protons of larger atoms
I don't think that is a good description. They are not always square, which would require 4 proton stacks around an atom. Sometimes there is only 2 of them.
Maybe describe it as: Proton stacks attached around the equator of a nucleus such that they can spin around that nucleus in a free atom. Usually come in pairs or quads to maintain the balance of the atom.
Other than those little qualms, that is a good list.
Nevyn- Admin
- Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia -
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LongtimeAirman Sun May 21, 2017 9:09 pm
.
Hi Cr6! One must be careful when encouraging Lloyd.
Lloyd. What do you think of my view that any alternative science wiki would need to have a good evaluation process?
Airman. I’ve always associated “wiki” with “dictionary”. You’re describing wiki with processes. A good evaluation process is essential with testing, training or development. Outside of that I find the idea of an evaluation process intrusive and objectionable.
Lloyd. I suggested on the CNPS Philosophy of Science forum that readers should be tested for logic and subject matter knowledge in order to evaluate the essential elements of theories. Maybe 20 questions each might be enough to suggest that a reader is qualified to evaluate such theory elements.
Airman. Only if done in a mutually agreeable noninvasive non-coercive manner; though even then I would find it hard to agree. I suggest you give everyone a list of questions AND answers, then let that person rank herself.
Lloyd. I also suggested that unqualified readers could still give evaluations, but theirs would be separate from those of the qualified readers.
Airman. I would argue that everyone’s answers are always separate and unique, everyone’s entitled to an opinion, or abstaining from one.
Lloyd. The outline for MM's site (= online book) doesn't seem ideal for the general public. I like Bruce's idea to list essential elements of each theory and define each element, because that seems to be the most efficient means to evaluate theories.
Airman. Please define “evaluation”. Why is “evaluation” the main organizing principle? Science is not something to rank or vote on, especially by the general public. Any process you’re suggesting here doesn't sound like science.
Miles Physics Homepage is a list of 394 Papers divided into ten logical sections. He has three printed books with their own limited outlines. If you expect honest expert evaluations I would suggest that the organization of The Third Wave: a Redefinition of Gravity, Parts I – IX looks entirely suitable for evaluation purposes. A good proponent would be better.
Lloyd. Do you all agree that the following are the main essential elements of MM's theory and do you agree with my definitions? If not, please elaborate.
Airman. Ok. I'll list my recommended changes, take 'em or leave 'em.
Essential Elements of MM Theory
Lloyd. Photon: the building block of all matter in the universe; a particle of a fundamental mass and radius, or a multiple thereof, according to the number of gyroscope-like stacked spins.
Airman. BPhoton: the building block of all matter in the universe; approx. 1e-24 in radius, moves and spins at c. With additional energy the BPhoton can increase radius through spin stacking., thereby becoming a more massive charged particle.
Lloyd. Photon Spin: the spin of a photon, or the spin of the gyroscope-like layers of a photon; Photon Spin Velocity is c.
Airman. Charged Particle Spin: BPhotons may have a series of stacked spins, the total of which is the charged particle, such as an electron or proton. Each spin’s tangential velocity is c.
Lloyd. Electricity: work done on a load by photon translational forces.
Airman. Ok.
Lloyd. Magnetism: work done on a load by coherent photon spins.
Airman. Ok.
Lloyd. Heat: infrared photons.
Airman. Ok.
Lloyd. Antiphoton: photon with the reverse outer spin of Earth's predominant photon.
Airman. Antiphoton: photon spinning upside-down (following the right hand rule) with respect to Earth's predominant photon.
Lloyd. Stacked Spins: gyroscope-like paths in shells of a photon's fundamental particle motion.
Airman. Redundant. Charged Particle Spin is included above.
Lloyd. Charge: emission of photons from subatomic particles; photon pressure, or photon streams emitted by subatomic particles; equivalent to mass,
Airman. Charge: emission of photons from charged particles; photon pressure, or photon streams emitted by atomic and subatomic particles; equivalent to mass
Lloyd. Charge Channel: path that a stream of photons follows through the nucleons of an ion, atom, or molecule,
Airman. Charge Channel: a path that a stream of photons follows through the nucleus of an ion, atom, or molecule. With a nucleus at the origin, the main charge channels through an atom are the six directions: +/-X, +/-Y, and +/-Z.
Lloyd. Charge Neutrality: the state of an atom or molecule that emits little photon pressure due to saturation of electrons.
Airman. Charge Neutrality: the state of an atom or molecule that emits little photon pressure due to the presence of electrons blocking charge intake.
ADD: Charge Recycling: The process of photon intake at the charge particle poles, and photon emission, primarily at the charged particle equator.
Lloyd. Axis: diameter of a subatomic particle around which it spins.
Airman. Axis: The top spin level’s diameter about which the charged particle spins.
Lloyd. Pole: two points on the subatomic particle surface on the spin axis, where ambient field photons enter and sometimes exit.
Airman. Pole: two points on the charged particle surface on the spin axis. The poles spin with least tangential velocity, making it the easiest points through which photons may enter charged particles.
Lloyd. Equator: circumference of the subatomic particle surface 90 degrees from each pole, where photons largely exit from protons and electrons (by centrifugal force?).
Airman. Equator: circumference of the charged particle surface 90 degrees from each pole, where photons usually exit due to the equator’s maximum tangential velocity.
Lloyd. Electron: smallest subatomic particle too large (with too many spin levels) to reach the speed of light; in atoms it orbits the pole of a proton and neutralizes charge.
Airman. Electron: smallest charged particle too large (with too many spin levels) to reach the speed of light. In atoms electrons and positrons generally orbit the +/-Z poles. Electrons and positrons may also be found about the atom’s +/-X and +/-Y channel poles. Or within the alpha, an atomic building block (Helium atom) comprised of: 2 each, protons, neutrons and interior electrons.
Lloyd. Proton: primary subatomic particle responsible for charge, 4 spin levels above the size of an electron.
Airman. Proton: the charged particle, 4 spin levels above the size of an electron.
Lloyd. Neutron: a less charged subatomic particle than the proton; in larger atoms having up to 2/3 the charge of the proton; its outer spin is reverse that of the proton, thus blocking its equatorial emission
Airman. Neutron: The largest known charged particle, like the proton, the neutron is 4 spin levels above the size of an electron. The neutron’s outer spin minimizes charge emission when compared to a proton. The lack of emission exposes the neutron to incoming photons, making it more vulnerable and leading to the 15 minute rule for free neutrons.
Lloyd. Nectron: an electron with outer spin reverse that of full charge electrons, causing it to block its equatorial emission.
Airman. Nectron: A charged particle slightly larger than an electron, and with outer spin recapturing, or minimizing charge emission.
Lloyd. Alpha: alpha particle having two protons and two neutrons; the core of larger atoms; alphas can stack up.
Airman. Alpha: Also known as the Helium atom. The alpha is an atomic building block comprised of 2 each: protons, neutrons and central electrons.
Lloyd. Carousel: square arrangement of four protons around the axis protons of larger atoms
Airman. Carousel: Found in Silicon and larger atoms, a square arrangement of alphas distributed around the atom’s spin axis. In addition to the atom’s main +/-Z spin axis pole, the carousal enables the creation of +/-X and +/-Y channels.
Lloyd. Quantum Mechanics Errors: flawed calculations of microcosm based on zero diameter of electrons and photons and zero mass of photons.
Airman. Quantum Mechanics Errors: I’ll pass.
Your list, The Essential Elements of MM Theory, can be covered by 2 or 3 of Miles’ papers, (except for oddities like the nectron).
Then by implication I would strongly suggest you submit the outlines and detailed descriptions necessary to “evaluate” individual papers and not an arbitrary collection of facts.
Just being difficult.
.
Hi Cr6! One must be careful when encouraging Lloyd.
Lloyd. What do you think of my view that any alternative science wiki would need to have a good evaluation process?
Airman. I’ve always associated “wiki” with “dictionary”. You’re describing wiki with processes. A good evaluation process is essential with testing, training or development. Outside of that I find the idea of an evaluation process intrusive and objectionable.
Lloyd. I suggested on the CNPS Philosophy of Science forum that readers should be tested for logic and subject matter knowledge in order to evaluate the essential elements of theories. Maybe 20 questions each might be enough to suggest that a reader is qualified to evaluate such theory elements.
Airman. Only if done in a mutually agreeable noninvasive non-coercive manner; though even then I would find it hard to agree. I suggest you give everyone a list of questions AND answers, then let that person rank herself.
Lloyd. I also suggested that unqualified readers could still give evaluations, but theirs would be separate from those of the qualified readers.
Airman. I would argue that everyone’s answers are always separate and unique, everyone’s entitled to an opinion, or abstaining from one.
Lloyd. The outline for MM's site (= online book) doesn't seem ideal for the general public. I like Bruce's idea to list essential elements of each theory and define each element, because that seems to be the most efficient means to evaluate theories.
Airman. Please define “evaluation”. Why is “evaluation” the main organizing principle? Science is not something to rank or vote on, especially by the general public. Any process you’re suggesting here doesn't sound like science.
Miles Physics Homepage is a list of 394 Papers divided into ten logical sections. He has three printed books with their own limited outlines. If you expect honest expert evaluations I would suggest that the organization of The Third Wave: a Redefinition of Gravity, Parts I – IX looks entirely suitable for evaluation purposes. A good proponent would be better.
Lloyd. Do you all agree that the following are the main essential elements of MM's theory and do you agree with my definitions? If not, please elaborate.
Airman. Ok. I'll list my recommended changes, take 'em or leave 'em.
Essential Elements of MM Theory
Lloyd. Photon: the building block of all matter in the universe; a particle of a fundamental mass and radius, or a multiple thereof, according to the number of gyroscope-like stacked spins.
Airman. BPhoton: the building block of all matter in the universe; approx. 1e-24 in radius, moves and spins at c. With additional energy the BPhoton can increase radius through spin stacking., thereby becoming a more massive charged particle.
Lloyd. Photon Spin: the spin of a photon, or the spin of the gyroscope-like layers of a photon; Photon Spin Velocity is c.
Airman. Charged Particle Spin: BPhotons may have a series of stacked spins, the total of which is the charged particle, such as an electron or proton. Each spin’s tangential velocity is c.
Lloyd. Electricity: work done on a load by photon translational forces.
Airman. Ok.
Lloyd. Magnetism: work done on a load by coherent photon spins.
Airman. Ok.
Lloyd. Heat: infrared photons.
Airman. Ok.
Lloyd. Antiphoton: photon with the reverse outer spin of Earth's predominant photon.
Airman. Antiphoton: photon spinning upside-down (following the right hand rule) with respect to Earth's predominant photon.
Lloyd. Stacked Spins: gyroscope-like paths in shells of a photon's fundamental particle motion.
Airman. Redundant. Charged Particle Spin is included above.
Lloyd. Charge: emission of photons from subatomic particles; photon pressure, or photon streams emitted by subatomic particles; equivalent to mass,
Airman. Charge: emission of photons from charged particles; photon pressure, or photon streams emitted by atomic and subatomic particles; equivalent to mass
Lloyd. Charge Channel: path that a stream of photons follows through the nucleons of an ion, atom, or molecule,
Airman. Charge Channel: a path that a stream of photons follows through the nucleus of an ion, atom, or molecule. With a nucleus at the origin, the main charge channels through an atom are the six directions: +/-X, +/-Y, and +/-Z.
Lloyd. Charge Neutrality: the state of an atom or molecule that emits little photon pressure due to saturation of electrons.
Airman. Charge Neutrality: the state of an atom or molecule that emits little photon pressure due to the presence of electrons blocking charge intake.
ADD: Charge Recycling: The process of photon intake at the charge particle poles, and photon emission, primarily at the charged particle equator.
Lloyd. Axis: diameter of a subatomic particle around which it spins.
Airman. Axis: The top spin level’s diameter about which the charged particle spins.
Lloyd. Pole: two points on the subatomic particle surface on the spin axis, where ambient field photons enter and sometimes exit.
Airman. Pole: two points on the charged particle surface on the spin axis. The poles spin with least tangential velocity, making it the easiest points through which photons may enter charged particles.
Lloyd. Equator: circumference of the subatomic particle surface 90 degrees from each pole, where photons largely exit from protons and electrons (by centrifugal force?).
Airman. Equator: circumference of the charged particle surface 90 degrees from each pole, where photons usually exit due to the equator’s maximum tangential velocity.
Lloyd. Electron: smallest subatomic particle too large (with too many spin levels) to reach the speed of light; in atoms it orbits the pole of a proton and neutralizes charge.
Airman. Electron: smallest charged particle too large (with too many spin levels) to reach the speed of light. In atoms electrons and positrons generally orbit the +/-Z poles. Electrons and positrons may also be found about the atom’s +/-X and +/-Y channel poles. Or within the alpha, an atomic building block (Helium atom) comprised of: 2 each, protons, neutrons and interior electrons.
Lloyd. Proton: primary subatomic particle responsible for charge, 4 spin levels above the size of an electron.
Airman. Proton: the charged particle, 4 spin levels above the size of an electron.
Lloyd. Neutron: a less charged subatomic particle than the proton; in larger atoms having up to 2/3 the charge of the proton; its outer spin is reverse that of the proton, thus blocking its equatorial emission
Airman. Neutron: The largest known charged particle, like the proton, the neutron is 4 spin levels above the size of an electron. The neutron’s outer spin minimizes charge emission when compared to a proton. The lack of emission exposes the neutron to incoming photons, making it more vulnerable and leading to the 15 minute rule for free neutrons.
Lloyd. Nectron: an electron with outer spin reverse that of full charge electrons, causing it to block its equatorial emission.
Airman. Nectron: A charged particle slightly larger than an electron, and with outer spin recapturing, or minimizing charge emission.
Lloyd. Alpha: alpha particle having two protons and two neutrons; the core of larger atoms; alphas can stack up.
Airman. Alpha: Also known as the Helium atom. The alpha is an atomic building block comprised of 2 each: protons, neutrons and central electrons.
Lloyd. Carousel: square arrangement of four protons around the axis protons of larger atoms
Airman. Carousel: Found in Silicon and larger atoms, a square arrangement of alphas distributed around the atom’s spin axis. In addition to the atom’s main +/-Z spin axis pole, the carousal enables the creation of +/-X and +/-Y channels.
Lloyd. Quantum Mechanics Errors: flawed calculations of microcosm based on zero diameter of electrons and photons and zero mass of photons.
Airman. Quantum Mechanics Errors: I’ll pass.
Your list, The Essential Elements of MM Theory, can be covered by 2 or 3 of Miles’ papers, (except for oddities like the nectron).
Then by implication I would strongly suggest you submit the outlines and detailed descriptions necessary to “evaluate” individual papers and not an arbitrary collection of facts.
Just being difficult.
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by Cr6 Sun May 21, 2017 9:23 pm
Yeah I agree with Airman and Nevyn. You'll need to link out to Mathis' site to really give the context.
There are always problems with making dictionaries that have different models and reference points though share a few terms....like Mathis' electron is not their electron... but we all have to start somewhere.
There are always problems with making dictionaries that have different models and reference points though share a few terms....like Mathis' electron is not their electron... but we all have to start somewhere.
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LloydK Sun May 21, 2017 11:47 pm
Hey, this is educational, getting everyone's definition of things. Just doing that seems to help me understand the model better.
Yous have given me a lot to digest. I'll reread everything a few times tomorrow (Monday) and will likely have some questions for yous.
Thanks much. & Later.
Yous have given me a lot to digest. I'll reread everything a few times tomorrow (Monday) and will likely have some questions for yous.
Thanks much. & Later.
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LloydK Mon May 22, 2017 4:07 pm
First I reply to Airman's concerns. Then I show the revised list of essential elements of MM's model below. Thanks for your help & always feel free to add to the discussion.
THEORIES EVALUATION
_L: What do you think of my view that any alternative science wiki would need to have a good evaluation process?
_A: I’ve always associated “wiki” with “dictionary”. You’re describing wiki with processes. A good evaluation process is essential with testing, training or development. Outside of that I find the idea of an evaluation process intrusive and objectionable.
_L2: This Wiki would involve Testing theories. The purpose of the CNPS Wiki is to show why some alternative theories are better than mainstream ones. That's why it's surely necessary to find the main flaws in mainstream theories and then to point out alternative theories with fewest flaws. The essential elements of alternative theories would be claims or ideas which are better than mainstream claims. There surely needs to be an evaluation process to show which claims or ideas are best. And that process needs to be efficient. Right? Without such an evaluation process, I don't think the Wiki would have significant value to the public.
_L: I suggested on the CNPS Philosophy of Science forum that readers should be tested for logic and subject matter knowledge in order to evaluate the essential elements of theories. Maybe 20 questions each might be enough to suggest that a reader is qualified to evaluate such theory elements.
_A: Only if done in a mutually agreeable noninvasive non-coercive manner; though even then I would find it hard to agree. I suggest you give everyone a list of questions AND answers, then let that person rank herself.
_L: I also suggested that unqualified readers could still give evaluations, but theirs would be separate from those of the qualified readers.
_A: I would argue that everyone’s answers are always separate and unique, everyone’s entitled to an opinion, or abstaining from one.
_L: The outline for MM's site (= online book) doesn't seem ideal for the general public. I like Bruce's idea to list essential elements of each theory and define each element, because that seems to be the most efficient means to evaluate theories.
_A: Please define “evaluation”. Why is “evaluation” the main organizing principle? Science is not something to rank or vote on, especially by the general public. Any process you’re suggesting here doesn't sound like science.
- Miles Physics Homepage is a list of 394 Papers divided into ten logical sections. He has three printed books with their own limited outlines. If you expect honest expert evaluations I would suggest that the organization of The Third Wave: a Redefinition of Gravity, Parts I – IX looks entirely suitable for evaluation purposes. A good proponent would be better.
_L2: The essential elements of any theory need to be evaluated to show that they are superior to other theories. The mainstream uses an authoritarian/dictatorial method of evaluation and pretends that the mainstream theory is superior to all others without even discussing the others. We should use a method of evaluation that is scientifically proven to be the most accurate.
_A: Your list, The Essential Elements of MM Theory, can be covered by 2 or 3 of Miles’ papers, (except for oddities like the nectron).
_A: Then by implication I would strongly suggest you submit the outlines and detailed descriptions necessary to “evaluate” individual papers and not an arbitrary collection of facts.
_L2: Which papers? The list I made isn't arbitrary; it's not a list of random claims from MM's model; it's a list of what I think are most of the essential elements of his model. Do one or more of his papers sum up these essential elements?
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF MM'S MODEL
Photon: a particle of a fundamental mass and radius, or a multiple thereof, according to the number of (gyroscope-gimbal-like) layers of spin, which is detected as visible light, or so-called electromagnetic radiation; also, the building block of subatomic particles (all matter in the universe) with additional layers of spin (Regarding layers of spin, see e.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Gyroscope_operation.gif/250px-Gyroscope_operation.gif )
Spin: the rotation of a photon, or revolution of any spin-layer of a photon or subatomic particle, where the layer's tangential velocity is c
Antiphoton: a photon spins clockwise or counterclockwise; whichever is predominant at Earth is a photon; and the opposite is an antiphoton
Electricity: work done on a load by photon translational forces
Magnetism: work done on a load by coherent photon surface spins
Heat: infrared photons
Charge: photon pressure (equivalent to mass), ie emission of photons from subatomic particles (neutrons emit very little)
Charge Channel: path that a stream of photons follows through the nucleons of an ion, atom, or molecule, usually parallel or orthogonal to the nuclear axis and/or carousel
Atomic Charge Neutrality: the state of an atom or molecule that emits little photon radiation due to electrons in the shells blocking radiation from the nuclei
Charge Recycling: in subatomic particles, polar photon intake and equatorial or polar emission
Axis: center line of- and around-which- a photon, subatomic particle, atom, or ion spins
Pole: two points on the subatomic particle surface on the spin axis, where ambient field photons enter (because of minimal rotational velocity) and sometimes exit
Equator: circumference of the subatomic particle surface 90 degrees from each pole, where photons largely exit from protons and electrons due to maximal tangential velocity
Electron: smallest subatomic particle, too large (having too many spin layers) to reach the speed of light; in atoms it orbits the pole of a proton and neutralizes (partly blocks) charge
Proton: primary subatomic particle responsible for charge, 4 spin layers larger than an electron
Neutron: a nearly neutral subatomic particle, due to its reverse outer spin to that of the proton blocking its equatorial emission; free neutrons decay because of lesser emission which exposes them to ambient field photon collisions
Alpha: alpha particle having two each of protons, neutrons and electrons; it forms the core of larger atoms, either single or up to five combined
Carousel: opposing pair/s of protons in one equatorial plane around the axis of a nucleus
Quantum Mechanics Errors: flawed calculations of microcosm based on zero diameter of electrons and photons and zero mass of photons etc
THEORIES EVALUATION
_L: What do you think of my view that any alternative science wiki would need to have a good evaluation process?
_A: I’ve always associated “wiki” with “dictionary”. You’re describing wiki with processes. A good evaluation process is essential with testing, training or development. Outside of that I find the idea of an evaluation process intrusive and objectionable.
_L2: This Wiki would involve Testing theories. The purpose of the CNPS Wiki is to show why some alternative theories are better than mainstream ones. That's why it's surely necessary to find the main flaws in mainstream theories and then to point out alternative theories with fewest flaws. The essential elements of alternative theories would be claims or ideas which are better than mainstream claims. There surely needs to be an evaluation process to show which claims or ideas are best. And that process needs to be efficient. Right? Without such an evaluation process, I don't think the Wiki would have significant value to the public.
_L: I suggested on the CNPS Philosophy of Science forum that readers should be tested for logic and subject matter knowledge in order to evaluate the essential elements of theories. Maybe 20 questions each might be enough to suggest that a reader is qualified to evaluate such theory elements.
_A: Only if done in a mutually agreeable noninvasive non-coercive manner; though even then I would find it hard to agree. I suggest you give everyone a list of questions AND answers, then let that person rank herself.
_L: I also suggested that unqualified readers could still give evaluations, but theirs would be separate from those of the qualified readers.
_A: I would argue that everyone’s answers are always separate and unique, everyone’s entitled to an opinion, or abstaining from one.
_L: The outline for MM's site (= online book) doesn't seem ideal for the general public. I like Bruce's idea to list essential elements of each theory and define each element, because that seems to be the most efficient means to evaluate theories.
_A: Please define “evaluation”. Why is “evaluation” the main organizing principle? Science is not something to rank or vote on, especially by the general public. Any process you’re suggesting here doesn't sound like science.
- Miles Physics Homepage is a list of 394 Papers divided into ten logical sections. He has three printed books with their own limited outlines. If you expect honest expert evaluations I would suggest that the organization of The Third Wave: a Redefinition of Gravity, Parts I – IX looks entirely suitable for evaluation purposes. A good proponent would be better.
_L2: The essential elements of any theory need to be evaluated to show that they are superior to other theories. The mainstream uses an authoritarian/dictatorial method of evaluation and pretends that the mainstream theory is superior to all others without even discussing the others. We should use a method of evaluation that is scientifically proven to be the most accurate.
_A: Your list, The Essential Elements of MM Theory, can be covered by 2 or 3 of Miles’ papers, (except for oddities like the nectron).
_A: Then by implication I would strongly suggest you submit the outlines and detailed descriptions necessary to “evaluate” individual papers and not an arbitrary collection of facts.
_L2: Which papers? The list I made isn't arbitrary; it's not a list of random claims from MM's model; it's a list of what I think are most of the essential elements of his model. Do one or more of his papers sum up these essential elements?
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF MM'S MODEL
Photon: a particle of a fundamental mass and radius, or a multiple thereof, according to the number of (gyroscope-gimbal-like) layers of spin, which is detected as visible light, or so-called electromagnetic radiation; also, the building block of subatomic particles (all matter in the universe) with additional layers of spin (Regarding layers of spin, see e.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Gyroscope_operation.gif/250px-Gyroscope_operation.gif )
Spin: the rotation of a photon, or revolution of any spin-layer of a photon or subatomic particle, where the layer's tangential velocity is c
Antiphoton: a photon spins clockwise or counterclockwise; whichever is predominant at Earth is a photon; and the opposite is an antiphoton
Electricity: work done on a load by photon translational forces
Magnetism: work done on a load by coherent photon surface spins
Heat: infrared photons
Charge: photon pressure (equivalent to mass), ie emission of photons from subatomic particles (neutrons emit very little)
Charge Channel: path that a stream of photons follows through the nucleons of an ion, atom, or molecule, usually parallel or orthogonal to the nuclear axis and/or carousel
Atomic Charge Neutrality: the state of an atom or molecule that emits little photon radiation due to electrons in the shells blocking radiation from the nuclei
Charge Recycling: in subatomic particles, polar photon intake and equatorial or polar emission
Axis: center line of- and around-which- a photon, subatomic particle, atom, or ion spins
Pole: two points on the subatomic particle surface on the spin axis, where ambient field photons enter (because of minimal rotational velocity) and sometimes exit
Equator: circumference of the subatomic particle surface 90 degrees from each pole, where photons largely exit from protons and electrons due to maximal tangential velocity
Electron: smallest subatomic particle, too large (having too many spin layers) to reach the speed of light; in atoms it orbits the pole of a proton and neutralizes (partly blocks) charge
Proton: primary subatomic particle responsible for charge, 4 spin layers larger than an electron
Neutron: a nearly neutral subatomic particle, due to its reverse outer spin to that of the proton blocking its equatorial emission; free neutrons decay because of lesser emission which exposes them to ambient field photon collisions
Alpha: alpha particle having two each of protons, neutrons and electrons; it forms the core of larger atoms, either single or up to five combined
Carousel: opposing pair/s of protons in one equatorial plane around the axis of a nucleus
Quantum Mechanics Errors: flawed calculations of microcosm based on zero diameter of electrons and photons and zero mass of photons etc
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by Nevyn Mon May 22, 2017 6:24 pm
LlyodK wrote:I also suggested that unqualified readers could still give evaluations, but theirs would be separate from those of the qualified readers.
LlyodK wrote:The essential elements of any theory need to be evaluated to show that they are superior to other theories. The mainstream uses an authoritarian/dictatorial method of evaluation and pretends that the mainstream theory is superior to all others without even discussing the others. We should use a method of evaluation that is scientifically proven to be the most accurate.
These two statements seem to contradict each other. If you separate evaluations, then you are giving precedence to an authority.
With respect to the list, replace Axis with Spin Axis. An axis is more than a spin axis, even though a spin axis is an axis. It is a specific kind of axis, one which involves a spinning object.
Nevyn- Admin
- Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia -
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LongtimeAirman Mon May 22, 2017 9:48 pm
.
_L: What do you think of my view that any alternative science wiki would need to have a good evaluation process?
_A: I’ve always associated “wiki” with “dictionary”. You’re describing wiki with processes. A good evaluation process is essential with testing, training or development. Outside of that I find the idea of an evaluation process intrusive and objectionable.
_L2: This Wiki would involve Testing theories. The purpose of the CNPS Wiki is to show why some alternative theories are better than mainstream ones. That's why it's surely necessary to find the main flaws in mainstream theories and then to point out alternative theories with fewest flaws. The essential elements of alternative theories would be claims or ideas which are better than mainstream claims. There surely needs to be an evaluation process to show which claims or ideas are best. And that process needs to be efficient. Right? Without such an evaluation process, I don't think the Wiki would have significant value to the public.
_A2: Judging the merits of an alternative theory based on the fewest flaws and the best claims - that’s the principle behind Occam’s razor - simplest is best. Sounds good but it’s oversimplified and over rated. It may be impressive gathering a large number of expert opinions, but that’s all it is - opinion - not science. Miles replaces quantum mechanics with photon mechanics, the charge field. Everything must change to reflect the new mechanics. Miles charge field theory thus fails Occam’s rule.
_L2: The essential elements of any theory need to be evaluated to show that they are superior to other theories. The mainstream uses an authoritarian/dictatorial method of evaluation and pretends that the mainstream theory is superior to all others without even discussing the others. We should use a method of evaluation that is scientifically proven to be the most accurate.
_A2: Essential elements do not determine the superiority of one theory over another, the key measure of a scientific theory is supposed to be its ability to predict outcomes. A method of evaluation scientifically proven to be the most accurate is a bunch of hooey, you’re simply replacing one type of non-scientific authoritarian/dictatorial method for another.
_A: Your list, The Essential Elements of MM Theory, can be covered by 2 or 3 of Miles’ papers, (except for oddities like the nectron).
_A: Then by implication I would strongly suggest you submit the outlines and detailed descriptions necessary to “evaluate” individual papers and not an arbitrary collection of facts.
_L2: Which papers? The list I made isn't arbitrary; it's not a list of random claims from MM's model; it's a list of what I think are most of the essential elements of his model. Do one or more of his papers sum up these essential elements?
_A2: When I read your list, with photons, stacked spins, charged particles, charge emission, …, I immediately thought of the micro-world, and Miles’s papers “The Electron Radius as a Function of C“, and “Unifying the Electron and Proton”. The list doesn’t seem to include gravity or the macro-world. The list includes electricity, magnetism and heat in the most rudimentary forms. E/M requires the presence of ions and electrons, without which we wouldn’t be aware of the underlying charge field. The list of essential elements doesn’t include Miles' findings of hundreds of mainstream mistakes along with their corrections. Note that those corrections themselves undercut the rationale of a simplest is best evaluation process.
Your list is a start. I'll reserve my opinion on whether the evaluation process is of significant value or not, I'll wait and see.
.
_L: What do you think of my view that any alternative science wiki would need to have a good evaluation process?
_A: I’ve always associated “wiki” with “dictionary”. You’re describing wiki with processes. A good evaluation process is essential with testing, training or development. Outside of that I find the idea of an evaluation process intrusive and objectionable.
_L2: This Wiki would involve Testing theories. The purpose of the CNPS Wiki is to show why some alternative theories are better than mainstream ones. That's why it's surely necessary to find the main flaws in mainstream theories and then to point out alternative theories with fewest flaws. The essential elements of alternative theories would be claims or ideas which are better than mainstream claims. There surely needs to be an evaluation process to show which claims or ideas are best. And that process needs to be efficient. Right? Without such an evaluation process, I don't think the Wiki would have significant value to the public.
_A2: Judging the merits of an alternative theory based on the fewest flaws and the best claims - that’s the principle behind Occam’s razor - simplest is best. Sounds good but it’s oversimplified and over rated. It may be impressive gathering a large number of expert opinions, but that’s all it is - opinion - not science. Miles replaces quantum mechanics with photon mechanics, the charge field. Everything must change to reflect the new mechanics. Miles charge field theory thus fails Occam’s rule.
_L2: The essential elements of any theory need to be evaluated to show that they are superior to other theories. The mainstream uses an authoritarian/dictatorial method of evaluation and pretends that the mainstream theory is superior to all others without even discussing the others. We should use a method of evaluation that is scientifically proven to be the most accurate.
_A2: Essential elements do not determine the superiority of one theory over another, the key measure of a scientific theory is supposed to be its ability to predict outcomes. A method of evaluation scientifically proven to be the most accurate is a bunch of hooey, you’re simply replacing one type of non-scientific authoritarian/dictatorial method for another.
_A: Your list, The Essential Elements of MM Theory, can be covered by 2 or 3 of Miles’ papers, (except for oddities like the nectron).
_A: Then by implication I would strongly suggest you submit the outlines and detailed descriptions necessary to “evaluate” individual papers and not an arbitrary collection of facts.
_L2: Which papers? The list I made isn't arbitrary; it's not a list of random claims from MM's model; it's a list of what I think are most of the essential elements of his model. Do one or more of his papers sum up these essential elements?
_A2: When I read your list, with photons, stacked spins, charged particles, charge emission, …, I immediately thought of the micro-world, and Miles’s papers “The Electron Radius as a Function of C“, and “Unifying the Electron and Proton”. The list doesn’t seem to include gravity or the macro-world. The list includes electricity, magnetism and heat in the most rudimentary forms. E/M requires the presence of ions and electrons, without which we wouldn’t be aware of the underlying charge field. The list of essential elements doesn’t include Miles' findings of hundreds of mainstream mistakes along with their corrections. Note that those corrections themselves undercut the rationale of a simplest is best evaluation process.
Your list is a start. I'll reserve my opinion on whether the evaluation process is of significant value or not, I'll wait and see.
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by Nevyn Mon May 22, 2017 10:28 pm
I wouldn't say that Miles' theory fails Occam's razor. In fact, I would say it succeeds. You shouldn't judge based on the change required, as that has nothing to do with the theory and only to do with the existing work and the mistakes it has. Occam's Razor must be applied to the theory itself with no regard for any other theory (apart from that which you are comparing it to) or the work required to convert from one to the other. Given that Miles has only a few concepts such as stacked spins, charge emission, expansion or spin as gravity, and everything else is built up from those low level concepts, I would say it fits the idea of Occam's Razor quite well compared to mainstream theory which is a collection of disparate theories that don't always work together but only in isolation.
Nevyn- Admin
- Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia -
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LongtimeAirman Mon May 22, 2017 10:53 pm
.
And I thought I had an expert opinion. I agree, Miles fits Occam's Razor quite well. Your observation changes my understanding and opinion, and perhaps those of others as well.
A scientific theory should include experts, discussion, verification and recognition of how well the theory explains things.
The evaluation process is not well defined.
I'll behave.
.
And I thought I had an expert opinion. I agree, Miles fits Occam's Razor quite well. Your observation changes my understanding and opinion, and perhaps those of others as well.
A scientific theory should include experts, discussion, verification and recognition of how well the theory explains things.
The evaluation process is not well defined.
I'll behave.
.
LongtimeAirman- Admin
- Posts : 2078
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LloydK Tue May 23, 2017 6:42 pm
Google says: noun: axis; plural noun: axesNevyn wrote:With respect to the list, replace Axis with Spin Axis. An axis is more than a spin axis, even though a spin axis is an axis. It is a specific kind of axis, one which involves a spinning object.
1. an imaginary line about which a body rotates.
2. Mathematics
a fixed reference line for the measurement of coordinates.
So it looks like Axis would be okay, but I guess it might be a little clearer to say Spin Axis. So I'll go with that until I hear too many objections.
Spin Axis: center line of- and around-which- a photon, subatomic particle, atom, or ion spins
I'm wondering now if we should say Spin Axis/Axes. If a photon or subatomic particle is just a single photon going through one or more stacked spin motions, even the outer "surface" is not really spinning around a single axis, unless it's just an a-spin photon. Right? That seems to really complicate magnetism and I'm questioning if it's even possible for photons and ions to have semi-coherent spins. Hurry up and simulate that you guys.
A: Essential elements do not determine the superiority of one theory over another....
L: Evaluating the essential elements does. It's greatly more efficient to evaluate the essential elements than to try to evaluate all of the elements of theories.
A: The list doesn’t seem to include gravity or the macro-world. The list includes electricity, magnetism and heat in the most rudimentary forms. E/M requires the presence of ions and electrons, without which we wouldn’t be aware of the underlying charge field. The list of essential elements doesn’t include Miles' findings of hundreds of mainstream mistakes along with their corrections.
L: I didn't include gravity because it doesn't seem to be settled yet. It was on the list initially, but it doesn't seem well-defined. And I'm not clear that it's an essential element of Miles' model. I can add it, if we can define it well and if it seems essential.
_I think I can satisfy your second concern by restating the last essential element as Math, Physics and Quantum Mechanics Errors.
Last edited by LloydK on Tue May 23, 2017 8:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by Nevyn Tue May 23, 2017 8:16 pm
Magnetism is really only concerned with the top spin level. The inner spins do complicate it a bit, but it is not a problem for the mechanics, just the math.
Each spin level is spinning around an axis, not the BPhoton except for the axial spin. You can talk about an individual spin level having a spin axis, but you can't talk about the whole particle having a spin axis except for the most basic of particles. If someone does say that a particle has a certain spin axis, then it must be the top level spin that they are talking about. To be strict, a spin level has a spin axis but a particle has many spin axes with all but one (the top) of those axes in motion themselves.
Each spin level is spinning around an axis, not the BPhoton except for the axial spin. You can talk about an individual spin level having a spin axis, but you can't talk about the whole particle having a spin axis except for the most basic of particles. If someone does say that a particle has a certain spin axis, then it must be the top level spin that they are talking about. To be strict, a spin level has a spin axis but a particle has many spin axes with all but one (the top) of those axes in motion themselves.
Nevyn- Admin
- Posts : 1887
Join date : 2014-09-11
Location : Australia -
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LloydK Wed May 24, 2017 5:28 pm
I went ahead and included gravity in the list of essential elements of Miles' model. I included 4 alternative definitions. See http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=82
I added a thread called "theory rating" where you can rate each essential element of his model, although you'd have to copy and paste the elements into your rating post.
I gave it this RATING: 21P, 13M, 1I
where P means high probability, M means medium probability, and I means improbability.
The I-ratings could show either what the reader didn't read or understand, or what the theorist needs to explain better. The M's could show that too, but the I's should presumably usually deserve highest priority of explaining better.
I added a thread called "theory rating" where you can rate each essential element of his model, although you'd have to copy and paste the elements into your rating post.
I gave it this RATING: 21P, 13M, 1I
where P means high probability, M means medium probability, and I means improbability.
The I-ratings could show either what the reader didn't read or understand, or what the theorist needs to explain better. The M's could show that too, but the I's should presumably usually deserve highest priority of explaining better.
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LloydK Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:00 pm
Would anyone like to comment on this?
On the CNPS forum I'm calling Miles' theory PUT, for Photonic Universe Theory. In this thread there
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=173
I'm saying the purpose is to prove PUT by proving the main parts of PUT, i.e.
1a. photon mass or mass equivalence;
1b. photon radius;
2. stacked levels of photon spin & mass doubling with each additional spin level;
3. electrons & protons as high-level stacked-spin photons;
4. atoms, ions & molecules as spinning particles recycling photons in charge streams;
5. gravity as expansion, or expansion equivalence, or universal spin;
6. electricity as force-generating translational photon motion in charge streams;
7. magnetism as force-generating coherent spin motion of photons in magnetic fields;
8. heat as IR photons.
I started different threads to prove each of those parts and in each thread I listed the MM papers that I think might help most to prove each part. Here are the thread titles and links.
Prove photon mass & radius
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=119
Prove photon stacked spins & doubling of mass & radius
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=118
Prove electrons & protons are high-level stacked-spin photons
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=117
Prove atoms are spinning particles recycling photons in charge streams
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=105
Prove gravity is expansion or universal spin
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=202
Prove electricity is force-generating translational photon motion in charge streams
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=203
Prove magnetism is force-generating coherent photon spin in magnetic fields
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=204
Prove heat is IR photons
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=205
On the CNPS forum I'm calling Miles' theory PUT, for Photonic Universe Theory. In this thread there
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=173
I'm saying the purpose is to prove PUT by proving the main parts of PUT, i.e.
1a. photon mass or mass equivalence;
1b. photon radius;
2. stacked levels of photon spin & mass doubling with each additional spin level;
3. electrons & protons as high-level stacked-spin photons;
4. atoms, ions & molecules as spinning particles recycling photons in charge streams;
5. gravity as expansion, or expansion equivalence, or universal spin;
6. electricity as force-generating translational photon motion in charge streams;
7. magnetism as force-generating coherent spin motion of photons in magnetic fields;
8. heat as IR photons.
I started different threads to prove each of those parts and in each thread I listed the MM papers that I think might help most to prove each part. Here are the thread titles and links.
Prove photon mass & radius
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=119
Prove photon stacked spins & doubling of mass & radius
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=118
Prove electrons & protons are high-level stacked-spin photons
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=117
Prove atoms are spinning particles recycling photons in charge streams
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=105
Prove gravity is expansion or universal spin
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=202
Prove electricity is force-generating translational photon motion in charge streams
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=203
Prove magnetism is force-generating coherent photon spin in magnetic fields
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=204
Prove heat is IR photons
http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/showthread.php?tid=205
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Re: CNPS Science Improvement Wiki
by LloydK Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:07 pm
Adding to my previous post, it looks like there's a 9th part of MM's theory to prove, i.e. errors in calculus and physics formulas.
LloydK- Posts : 548
Join date : 2014-08-10
Similar topicsPage 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum