IR View of Magnetic Field?

It occurred to me this morning that magnetic fields should be viewable in IR light.

Here's an IR image with this caption. It just looks like a blob giving off heat.

An infrared camera shows iron particles heating a tumor to liquefication, while adjacent healthy tissue
http://www.nanoprobes.com/newsletters/2013-08-Curing-Cancer-with-Magnetic-Nanoparticles/images/infrared-liquefy-tumor-1338x728.jpg

Here's a dog in IR.
http://www.pvs4.com/Infrared_camera_thermacam_SDC_mascot.jpg

I can't find any IR views of a magnetic field. Shouldn't a strong magnet have a field that's visible in IR?

.
L. It occurred to me this morning that magnetic fields should be viewable in IR light.

A. Hi Lloyd. What makes you think so?

I suppose it depends on what’s making the field, its size, strength and location, but if there are no iron filings, ferro-fluid, metal dust or some other marker, I don't see how we could “see” the magnetic field in Infrared or any other band. IR allows us to easily distinguish between temperatures, I’m not aware that magnetic fields noticeably heat up anything besides maybe high voltage electric transformers, conductors and circuits under load.

L. Here's an IR image with this caption. It just looks like a blob giving off heat.

An infrared camera shows iron particles heating a tumor to liquefication, while adjacent healthy tissue
http://www.nanoprobes.com/newsletters/2013-08-Curing-Cancer-with-Magnetic-Nanoparticles/images/infrared-liquefy-tumor-1338x728.jpg

A. As your picture ‘60C=140F’ shows, we can easily see the temperatures. I don't see any liquefication, thank goodness.

L. Here's a dog in IR.
http://www.pvs4.com/Infrared_camera_thermacam_SDC_mascot.jpg

I can't find any IR views of a magnetic field. Shouldn't a strong magnet have a field that's visible in IR?

A. Cute.
In your local electrical distribution system, IR monitors are primarily used to survey circuits in order to find “hot spots”. If mechanical connections between conductors are slightly loose, the point will become many degrees hotter. If not corrected, over time a failure at that point becomes certain, something will burn open.

Giving you my best WAG, In order to see a magnetic field I’d guess you would need to be able to distinguish how strongly electrons or ions are polarized, seems a much more complicated prospect to measure compared to a temperature increase.
.

I also couldn't find so much as a single infrared photo of a magnet, kinda frustrating. Perhaps there's nothing to see, other than the temperature of the magnet?

But I was able to find multiple citations of using a magnet to warp a decent camera's images from visible to infrared! Kinda interesting, though I don't know how accurate it is or how well it works. Perhaps the magnet is up-spinning the incoming infrared photons into a more-or-less visible range?

After a rather heated discussion with my brother the other day, he found some fun new data for us to play with regarding infrared and Earth imagery.

It appears the Russians are doing great in this area:

https://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels

The full image:
http://gigapan.com/gigapans/103187

Hi Jared.
Spectral Lines. Have you tried simulating how photons produce spectral lines, according to Miles' explanation?

Moon Landings. Miles told me lately that he does still consider the moon landings to have been faked. But he didn't explain why he said in one of his papers that the astronauts left laser equipment on the Moon. Anyway, if they were faked, does it mean humans can't survive going through the van Allen belts? Or does it mean it's too hard to land on the Moon? And does it mean the planned Moon and Mars missions are fake?

Nukes. Have you guys read his papers about the faking of nuclear weapons? His arguments sounded reasonable to me. Does it mean that there's no way to make a real bomb from fissioning or fusing atoms? Or does it mean that the bombs are much weaker than claimed?

Debate Team. Do any of you guys have time and interest in debating with other teams? The purpose is to improve everyone's models. The other teams have other alternative science models.

Enthusiasm. Does everyone still have enthusiasm for working together on Miles' model? I do.

Infrared. To me it's obvious that the Sun emits extremely way more photons than it receives, including over the entire spectrum. And I think that's measurable. That's why I think stars and planets store charge, like a battery does. Miles says the image below shows how photons enter subatomic particles as well as planets and stars, but I don't see it applying to anything larger than particles. And even for particles it seems questionable, because it seems only centrifugal force could cause that equatorial emission, but there's no obvious way for centrifugal force to apply, unless the photons tend to stick together in clumps, so the spin can then produce centrifugal force.

Spectral Lines: I'm still working on my model, it's rough going and frustrating because I know the inaccuracies will pile up rapidly and potentially ruin it. My models are animational, not mathematical like Nevyn's, so there's a huge margin for error: me.

Moon Landings: I believe them to be faked. Everything else in history is, and so much in physics is false, and watching the ISS videos doesn't help. I haven't studied it hard enough to have a smoking gun the way we do with the Mars rovers yet, though.

Nukes: I've read all of his papers, multiple times. I have reasonable doubt that nukes are real. I've argued it a hundred times, and managed to convince a handful of people, but most people will buckle on this one. It's simply too huge a hoax. My chief issue with runaway fission explosions is illustrated in this short video I made:

Neutron Collisions in Alpha
https://vimeo.com/206186105

Debate Team: I'm too engaged in my regular science/political arguments and debates to take on more, really. These forums are different, since we usually just do work and rarely debate. And we're not hostile to each other, which is helpful.

Enthusiasm: I am a bit frustrated that he's not working much on physics these days, but upon reading all his history/geneaology/politics papers I understand why he's doing it. It's a gold mine. Just, not for physics. Still, I find it very helpful to have a better idea of what's actually happened in history, in his work and that of many others from other forums (Josh, Vexman). If not "what actually happened", then still a far better representation of events. I enjoy it though it is quite tedious with all the begattings.

Infrared: How is it obvious that it emits more photons than it receives? We're not anywhere near the sun to measure such a phenomenon, and it also contradicts conservation of energy blatantly. It must be emitting as much as it receives. The spectra will change, but unless you're proposing that the sun is creating photons somehow then it must be a net equality.

LloydK wrote:Miles says the image below shows how photons enter subatomic particles as well as planets and stars, but I don't see it applying to anything larger than particles.

Mathis has shown in countless papers how this applies at the macroscale as well as the micro. He's effectively proven the theory in his orbital papers, explaining the planet's positions and for example the tilt of Uranus and many other problems the standard model can't touch or is outright wrong about.

Here's the Earth, showing those emissions:


And here's the sun, showing them as well:


Centrifugal force doesn't cause the emissions, the path of the photons causes it. The central mass is spinning, yes, but it's the path that introduces the collisions necessary to propel charge out, or take it in. Something spinning doesn't change motion simply by getting near to something else that's spinning. There has to be a contact to impart transfer of momentum (energy), a mechanical way for one object to influence the movement of another.

Sometimes I wonder why you say things like that, which pretty much contradict Mathis's model blatantly. Prior, you said you support his work, then you pretty much hamstring it but in a way that makes me think you're purposely ignoring like 9/10ths of the papers we've all discussed, here. It's quite strange.

Look at the Sun Now site, which posts up new pics of the sun every day in multiple spectra. Some show the emission better than others, but it's always just north and south of the equator as an average:

https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/









My point is that we're not cherry-picking solar data here. Those pics are from today. And I look at that site every week, at least once. You will always see indications of its charge emission, and Mathis's theory as to why it looks like this is pretty much the only theory on why, and explains it the best so far.

Here, I overlaid his diagram on both sides to illustrate the emissions:

Questioning. It's okay to question things. Even Miles acknowledges that he doesn't have it all figured out. I never did care for the expansion model for gravity and we've discussed that here early on. I'm open-minded about it, but it seems illogical to me. I think Steven Oostdyk agrees, or at least he used to. I mentioned another guy about a month or so ago on here who also has an expansion model and his version seemed a little more plausible to me, but I'm still not cozy with it.

Testing. Models have to be tested. The claim that the Sun receives as much energy or photons as it radiates should be tested too. If you look toward the Sun you detect lots of photons; if you look away, you detect very few. That suggests that the Sun radiates many more photons than it receives and that must be because the photons are stored. And why can't they be stored there?

Photon Storage. If a visible light photon is stuck in a mirrored room, wouldn't it just keep bouncing back and forth forever? In the Sun there'd be lots of photons bouncing off each other like that under the surface. Right? The volume is maximal and the surface minimal, which allows for great storage potential. Even the Earth has stored photons IMO. Earth gives off much more heat than it receives. All of that heat surely comes from the planet or star-forming process. Lots of matter and photons all got imploded together into big balls. The low surface area to volume ratio of the balls means it takes a long time for the photons to get back out.

Data. Would it be so hard to test whether the Sun receives the same amount of photons that it radiates? I think there are instruments that can measure the whole range of the spectrum. And I think it's known how much energy the Sun radiates compared to how much it receives. Charles Chandler has figures on how much it radiates, but maybe not on how much it receives. Does anyone know where to find the data?

Earth Photons. I think the Earth can be tested easily too. I assume that your images of equatorial emissions from the Earth are infrared. Would you say that if IR cameras were placed all around the Earth facing outward, they would detect a lot more IR entering the Earth at the poles than anywhere else? Once the IR photons enter the poles, do you think they follow the paths toward the equator as Miles diagrammed? What would cause them to follow those curved paths within the Earth? And when the photon sheets from each pole meet, how would they go through each other as diagrammed?

Particles. On the scale of protons and electrons, how would photons follow curved paths instead of their normal straight lines? Miles' model seems like a good start, but I think it still needs a lot of tweaking.

Rovers. Jared, are you telling me the Mars Rovers are frauds too?

I think the point is that for any entity to give off more energy than it receives, it would break conservation and where would that energy come from? You're saying that solar and terrestrial energy is something from nothing. You're breaking the first law of thermodynamics here by fiat alone. It's the first law for a reason.

LloydK wrote:If you look toward the Sun you detect lots of photons; if you look away, you detect very few.

Irrelevant. You cannot "look away" from the sun and detect photons entering the sun, because they would be moving towards the sun, not your eyes. If you could see them, they would be moving towards you, not the sun. You can't see light entering anything, you can only see the light reflecting or bouncing off of that thing. You can't see light entering anything except your own eyes. Period.

As I stated earlier, we have no detectors around the sun to measure incoming charge. We can only see the sun's emission, not its reception. The only way to accurately measure photons going into the sun would be to create a spherical detector larger than and encompassing the sun. How else could you measure input charge?

I'll tell you how else: output charge. They are equal. It doesn't matter if the sun "stores" charge or not, the energy in cannot be less than the energy out, or else you're wishing photons into existence. If the sun were emitting more than it was receiving it would cool rapidly and "die".

It's the same with your own body. If you're emitting more heat than you're generating, guess what? You freeze to death. Are you alive, and not frozen to death? That's because the energy input of your body (via food, sunshine) is equal to its output. When they're imbalanced, you sweat and overheat or you cool and freeze. These are among the most basic principles of physics.

And along the same lines, how can the Earth possibly give off much more heat than it receives? If that were so, it would be vastly cold, since all the heat would have escaped and we only have a few major inputs. If Jupiter were opposite the sun, the Earth would freeze solid every time, even the oceans, according to your logic. If more heat is going out than coming in, how can you explain the fact that the Earth is still warm and the seasons still exist and we are not frozen to death?

Please read Mathis's paper on that very topic and get back to us. It is a bit frustrating that you haven't read it yet to be honest.

What Causes the Earth's Heat?
Charge.

http://milesmathis.com/core.pdf

Mathis wrote:This also proves that the Earth must be radiating rather than trapping energy. The crust cannot be trapping internal energy for 4.5 billion years, or the buildup would long ago have been fatal. The heat content of the Earth is far from static. Charge is moving through the Earth all the time.

As for the curved paths, they aren't curved paths at all, but charge channels. The photons bounce around constantly and at great speed, but due to the body's spin tend to bounce out more often at the equatorial zones than at the poles. It's a propensity, not a path. Same at the microscale.

HOW CHARGE IS STORED

Jared Magneson wrote:I think the point is that for any entity to give off more energy than it receives, it would break conservation and where would that energy come from? You're saying that solar and terrestrial energy is something from nothing. You're breaking the first law of thermodynamics here by fiat alone. It's the first law for a reason.

I don't say that. I said the charge was all stored up when stars and planets first formed and the stored charge is emitted gradually over a long time period. The Sun is giving off a lot of energy/photons right now, while receiving very few now, but it's mostly giving off what it received long ago. So I'm not saying the charge is being created from nothing.

LloydK wrote:If you look toward the Sun you detect lots of photons; if you look away, you detect very few.

Jared: Irrelevant. You cannot "look away" from the sun and detect photons entering the sun, because they would be moving towards the sun, not your eyes. If you could see them, they would be moving towards you, not the sun. You can't see light entering anything, you can only see the light reflecting or bouncing off of that thing. You can't see light entering anything except your own eyes. Period. -- As I stated earlier, we have no detectors around the sun to measure incoming charge. We can only see the sun's emission, not its reception. The only way to accurately measure photons going into the sun would be to create a spherical detector larger than and encompassing the sun. How else could you measure input charge?

_If you look at the sky in the middle of the night, you detect with your eyes and with instruments charge on its way to the Sun and it's measurable. And the measurements show that there's way less charge coming toward the Sun than what it's emitting.
_Heat is charge and the more matter that clumps together, the more charge it has, and the more slowly it radiates its charge. The more matter there is in a clump, the longer the charge can be trapped inside, bouncing around from one particle to another, before it finally escapes from the clump. If the clump is very large and a lot of heat entered it in the formation process, then it will take a long time before the heat is all radiated away again. That's why the clump can later be radiating away much more than it's then receiving.
_A proton in space emits all its charge as fast as it receives the charge. A small clump of matter, like an asteroid, is probably at equilibrium, radiating as much heat as it receives. The Moon is probably only a little above equilibrium, since it likely has some stored charge. Mars likely has more than the Moon. Earth and Venus have much more than Mars. The gas giants have even more and the Sun has way more than those. I believe the temperature and volume of a planet or star tells how much charge is stored.

LloydK wrote:If you look at the sky in the middle of the night, you detect with your eyes and with instruments charge on its way to the Sun and it's measurable. And the measurements show that there's way less charge coming toward the Sun than what it's emitting.

No, you don't detect charge on its way to the sun - for the reason I stated previously. If you can see it, that photon is hitting YOUR eyes, not the sun. It doesn't hit your eyes, bounce around inside your brain, then somehow magically know that it's supposed to be a sun-photon and scoot off towards the sun after exiting your eyes again.

LloydK wrote:And the measurements show that there's way less charge coming toward the Sun than what it's emitting.

What measurements? You stated earlier that we had none, but now we do? Where are they?

The rest of your post contradicts the first law of thermodynamics as well as all of Mathis's charge theory. According to your idea, the Earth and the sun and all bodies would have had to be much, much hotter as we move into the past. Vastly hotter.

Mathis wrote:The only way that could work is if all parts being accreted were fabulously hot to start with. Every dust speck or rock that was being accreted would have to be even hotter than 110,000K. Since that is 17X hotter than the surface of the Sun, the Earth must have accreted inside the Sun somewhere. But that is not the current theory. It is not my theory, either, so don't worry.

Regarding radioactive heat in the Earth and decay...

Mathis wrote:And, logically, if 80% of current heat is caused by radioactivity, and if there was so much more radioactive material in the past, the Earth must have had 20 to 50 times more heat from radioactivity in the past. Let's use the lower number, to be generous to current theory. The Earth in the past would have had 20 times more heat from radioactivity, and 10 times more residual heat. That's a total of 17 times more heat than it has now. That's a heat content approaching 2 x 10^32 Joules and an internal temperature of something like 180,000F. How can dust particles accreting at 1,500F create temperatures of 180,000F?

Mathis wrote:Also notice that according to the isotope theory, the rate of cooling should be increasing with time. Half-life is a power decrease, which means we should be seeing a power decreases in heat with time. The Earth should be cooling at a power of 2, by the definition of half -life. I think that would be pretty hard to miss, 4.5 billion years after the fact.

LloydK wrote:Heat is charge and the more matter that clumps together, the more charge it has, and the more slowly it radiates its charge. The more matter there is in a clump, the longer the charge can be trapped inside, bouncing around from one particle to another, before it finally escapes from the clump.

Heat is charge, yes, but it doesn't belong to the matter itself, clumping or otherwise. Charge is an ambient field of moving, rushing, colliding photons. It's not trapped inside at all, in anything. It is moving through. Nevermind the question of how matter "clumps" (it doesn't, which Mathis also addressed in that paper on Earth's heat which you refuse to read), you're proposing that mass alone generates its own heat - again, something from nothing. You're wishing photons into existence.

We've seen that trick plenty of times before, and I'm immune to it.

While I disagree with the idea that photons are stored in a planet or star, I can and do agree that energy can be stored in them. The energy does come from the photons as they pass through, but they are not what store it. That is the matter that the photons collide with as they move through the body. Each proton in those atoms can take a bit of energy and store it in their top spin level. When the charge input drops, they can impart some of that energy back to the charge photons that are currently moving through. This allows more output than input for a short amount of time, but it also allows more input than output for a short amount of time as well. Over the complete lifetime, there is no more output than input, but over short periods there can be.

We should be able to measure the charge input of the Sun by putting a satellite over its poles and pointing away from the Sun. You have to be careful about what you are looking for though. I think that a star can spin-up the charge that goes through it, probably planets too, so the input may be smaller sized photons than what comes out.

I don't think the problem is being able to measure this, it is convincing people with billion dollar budgets that they should do so. And if you can get that to happen, that they will publish the raw results without finessing them first.

I completely agree with you yet again, Nevyn.

I didn't mean to imply that energy levels were constant, only that they would be conserved as a matter of avoiding "something from nothing". It all comes from somewhere. Charge fluctuations occur from many sources, but it's still conserved over time as input/output.

We could also plop a few satellites equatorially and at various other points around the sun to measure the contrast. That would be another verification (potentially) of the charge model. So far, I don't believe we even have any satellites outside the ecliptic, and I was digging for that information very recently.

Also, I apologize for derailing your thread, Lloyd. I somehow got confused between this one and the one regarding IR maps of the Earth proper. Sorry for the confusion.

ANOTHER SIMULATION REQUEST. I was just rereading part of Miles' Quark paper at http://milesmathis.com/quark.html and trying to understand his explanation of how certain arrangements of stacked spins cause neutrons to have no charge. He has a diagram of a baryon 2/3 of the way down the page with the different spin levels forming a square. If it's easier to explain in words, I'm fine with that too, but I don't understand what there is about stacked spins that would form a square or how that would prevent charge emission. Do you guys understand all that?

REPEATING DENIALS. Jared, you seem to insist that I claim that charge is created from nothing, when I know very well I made no such claim. Say someone grants me a million physical dollars to my bank account. Those dollars didn't come from nothing. Say I and my heirs spend those dollars at the rate of 100 dollars a week. They would last 10,000 weeks or 192 years. You're claiming that no matter how much is put into my bank account, it all gets spent right away.

Heat is IR photons. Say a clump of iron is heated to 1 million BTUs. Would it not be possible for the iron to lose that heat at the rate of 100 BTUs per second, thus lasting 10,000 seconds? If the iron loses heat faster than 100 BTUs per second, wouldn't it be possible to insulate the clump of iron well enough to reduce its heat loss to 100 BTUs per second, or less? Is that not a case of stored heat, which is stored photons?

MEASURING. Miles' theory that planetary axial tilts are caused by charge streams from the Sun and other planets seems somewhat plausible, but, as I said, it needs to be tested. It's always possible that there could be some other cause, maybe even one related to charge. The same applies to the equatorial heat. Maybe that heat came from input through the poles, or maybe it's stored heat. It should be much easier to measure the charge input at Earth's poles than at the Sun's poles. Maybe there have been satellites with IR cameras pointed outward when orbiting over the poles. Maybe scientists have aimed IR cameras upward while standing on either pole. Or maybe we can persuade someone or a group to send a drone with an IR camera over one of the poles.

What's the smallest sized object that would receive charge through its poles and give it an axial tilt? Do asteroids have axial tilts? Does the Earth cause the Moon's axial orientation? What about Mars' moons? And other moons? Would satellites in deep space be similarly affected?

http://milesmathis.com/atmo.html
Ions are charged. What does that mean? It means that they are radiating photons. Molecules do not radiate many photons, and this is because the electrons in the shells are blocking radiation from the nuclei. Molecules are mostly neutral, as we know, so few photons are escaping the electron/proton exchange.

How is that not stored charge within neutral atoms and molecules? He says most of the charge stays within the cluster of particles for some time instead of escaping.

I have no problem with charge/energy storage over any given ⌂t, or the discrepancy related to our observation. Just reiterating that even in a molecule, energy is conserved, and that applies to the macroscale as well.

If most charge is dark, as an average, then we should predict temperature differences at the poles of the sun (where it's entering more than emitting, according to theory). And that's what we see, in multiple spectra.

Here's a 25-image composite over an Earth-year period, for example:



So over the lifespan of a star, it will take in as much charge as it emits. Is it emitting more currently than it's taking in? I see no reason to assume so, same with everything micro or macroscale. Consider a radioactive isotope: it's channeling too much charge, which causes it to break down more or less rapidly compared to stable elements. Although the sun (for example) has a much longer lifespan, could it not be doing basically the same thing?

LloydK wrote:ANOTHER SIMULATION REQUEST. I was just rereading part of Miles' Quark paper at http://milesmathis.com/quark.html and trying to understand his explanation of how certain arrangements of stacked spins cause neutrons to have no charge. He has a diagram of a baryon 2/3 of the way down the page with the different spin levels forming a square. If it's easier to explain in words, I'm fine with that too, but I don't understand what there is about stacked spins that would form a square or how that would prevent charge emission. Do you guys understand all that?

Miles is not actually saying that the stacked spins form a square relationship, he is using it as a way to explain the concepts. Take note of these words, just before he presents the square path diagram:

Miles Mathis wrote:To show this in a simple illustration, let us transpose the fields into one plane, so that it can be drawn in photoshop.

The key words are transpose the fields into one plane which means to convert the real 3D concept into a single 2D plane, which is his presentation medium. It is a crude illustration of a complex concept. This is the reason we have spent time to create 3D representations. We want to see those motions. Attempt to understand how charge might flow through such a particle or how it would interact with the ambient field, even other particles. A lot of it is still up to your imagine. You can take the simple models that we create and use them to help you visualise other concepts.

AXIAL TILTS. If powerful charge streams are ever discovered going to the poles of the planets, I'll probably give up on the following theory, which I otherwise am starting to think is more probable. I suspect that the axial tilts are a gyroscopic effect, although right off the bat the Moon may contradict this theory, since it doesn't seem to have much of a gyroscopic effect, with only one rotation every 29 days or so. On the other hand, I don't know if Miles analyzed the Moon's tilt.

Since we see that any force on the axis of a gyroscope seems to cause it to gyrate, I suspect that electric charge can supply the force. Charles Chandler found that the spacing of planets in the Solar System appears to be caused by electric charge. He said plasma Debye cells in the lab follow the same formula for spacing as the planets do and also the same as the stars in globular clusters.

I think Miles said in his paper on How a Battery Circuit Works that charge moves from the proton-heavy side toward the electron-heavy side. This suggests high and low photon pressure to me. The protons emit high pressure and the electrons low pressure. A high photon pressure area should repel another high photon pressure area and a low photon pressure area should repel another low photon pressure area, although not as strongly as two highs. A high photon pressure should be "attracted" to a low photon pressure area and vice versa, as we see with high and low pressure air masses. This seems to be possibly how protons and electrons can attract. Miles has said that they do attract, but didn't explain how very well. Maybe this also explains the attraction and repulsion we saw in the video with balloons or bubbles etc.

So proton-heavy planets would repel each other and that repulsion may be what makes the axes tilt. And that may also maximize the charge streams to the poles. But I think the charge streams must be much weaker than what you guys and Miles seem to expect. If the Sun were receiving the amount of charge that it radiates it would have been detected by spacecraft that orbited the Sun's poles. In fact the heat from the charge stream would surely have destroyed the spacecraft. The same would apply to spacecraft and aircraft crossing the Earth's poles. There would have to be concentrated charge streams there to equal the charge output of the equator and that would have to have been detected and would likely cause accidents and injuries, probably fatal.

What formula did Chandler use for the spacing of the planets? The mainstream doesn't have one and say that it is just a coincidence. The only formula that I have seen is from Miles. He has shown the equations behind Bode's Law.

Axial tilt is not gyroscopic because that tilt is a change in the rotation axis itself, not a new rotation containing the existing one. The point of that tilt is the center of the planet, the same as its axial rotation.

Having protons on one side and electrons on the other does not necessarily create high and low pressure areas. If you have the same number of electrons as protons then yes, the electron side will have a lower pressure but you can always have more electrons and if you have enough, then you create a high pressure on the electron side. If this was what caused axial tilt, then I think we would have noticed those pressure differences by now. You also need some mechanism for this separation of charges.

How do you know that the charge streams haven't been detected but written-off as something else because there is nothing in their theories to describe it? Could you differentiate it from the solar wind?

Miles doesn't have some vague idea about axial tilt. He has calculated those tilts.

GYROSCOPE TILT. Nevyn, are you saying the axis of a gyroscope can't be changed, i.e. tilted from the original direction? If so, are you saying the planets aren't gyroscopes? If so, how do you define a gyroscope?

TITIUS-BODE LAW. Charles' calculations for the Titius-Bode law are at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15369 with details on a separate page linked at the bottom of this page from the word "Calculations" which are in a computer language.

PHOTON PRESSURE. Since you agree that equal numbers of separated protons and electrons should have higher photon pressure from the protons, but you seem to think the pressure in reality is equal from both due to larger numbers of electrons, where do you think the extra electrons would come from? If celestial objects are close to neutral in electric charge, do you think the universe contains about equal numbers of protons and electrons? I think I asked Miles something like that a few years ago and I don't think he replied. So I don't know if he's thought about that. Since electrons seem to be much smaller than protons, it seems like there should be a lot more of them that are formed, but relative neutrality in the universe suggests that there are equal numbers of each. Right? If so, then wherever protons and electrons are concentrated in nearby locations, there should be photonic pressure from protons toward electrons. Should there not?

ELECTRIC CHARGE SEPARATION. You ask how protons and electrons would be separated, but you apparently agree with Miles that they are separated in batteries. Have you read how those are separated? I don't remember reading about that, but in Charles' model I think there are at least two ways they get separated. First, at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15482 , with an illustration at Fig. 4, he says in space collisions between molecular clouds or pressure on molecular clouds from supernova explosions, causes "positive" and "negative" particles to line up into filaments, in which they shield each other from nearby "like" particles, like in strings of p-e-p-e- etc. That's not separation yet, but the filaments in a molecular cloud tend to implode when a critical level aligned filaments is reached and when the filaments reach high velocity the magnetic fields cause the protons and electrons or positive and negative dust grains to separate into separate nearby streams. Then when the implosion is completed, streams from opposite directions merge and form electric double layers within stars and planets. In that case it's gravity that separates the electric charges, where the gravitational pressure is too great for many electrons to remain with protons and they float to a higher level, but still attracted to the lower level. He explains these current-free double-layers at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=7224

A gyroscope deflects any force that is trying to change the existing rotation. Can you change the direction? Yes, but it creates (or directs) a force that works against it. That is why we use them for navigation. We can tell which way they are pointing and which way they want to point through that force. Am I saying planets aren't gyroscopes? Not exactly, but I am saying that axial tilt is not created by precession.

Lloyd wrote:Since you agree that equal numbers of separated protons and electrons should have higher photon pressure from the protons, but you seem to think the pressure in reality is equal from both due to larger numbers of electrons, where do you think the extra electrons would come from?

No, that is not what I said. My statement was that you could have more electrons than protons which would create a different pressure difference. You are the one that needs to explain why there would be an equal number. Random is the default and that includes both these scenarios, having an equal number is a statistical anomaly.

Lloyd wrote:If celestial objects are close to neutral in electric charge, do you think the universe contains about equal numbers of protons and electrons? I think I asked Miles something like that a few years ago and I don't think he replied. So I don't know if he's thought about that.

I don't think celestial objects are neutral and I don't think there is any need for an equal number of protons and electrons. If planets, stars and even galaxies take charge in at their poles and emit it at their equators, then they are not neutral. How can you call that neutral but a proton or electron is not? It is the same thing.

Conservation of charge was created by humans because they had existing work without charge and they wanted to add it in so they had to convince everybody that they were already right while needing to add something new in (which should be seen as the contradiction that it is, but we are good at convincing ourselves of such things). They started from a position of neutrality and tried to force-fit charge into it.

I actually don't believe in conservation of charge (in that way). That is because I don't have to start form a position of neutrality. Everything is motion and all of the effects that we see are a result of differences in motion, not sameness. Neutrality is the exception that must be explained (once you get above photons), not charge.

Lloyd wrote:Since electrons seem to be much smaller than protons, it seems like there should be a lot more of them that are formed, but relative neutrality in the universe suggests that there are equal numbers of each. Right? If so, then wherever protons and electrons are concentrated in nearby locations, there should be photonic pressure from protons toward electrons. Should there not?

There is no requirement for any ratio between electrons and protons. That comes from mainstream physics where all of these things are created at the same time, in the same place (i.e. the big bang). However, I don't need to limit myself to something so far away (in time), because Miles has created a framework that allows such particles to be transformed. If a charge photon flows through the sun and is converted into an electron, does the universe suddenly feel the need to create a proton to offset it? That is absurd. Therefore, charge neutrality is wrong and not needed.

Charge neutrality comes from the idea that nothing can be created or destroyed. I completely agree with that. Nothing can be created and nothing can be destroyed. However, things can be changed. Photons can become electrons, electrons can become protons, etc. Therefore, charge neutrality is not needed. We need a framework based on change, as Miles has created, not one based on pre-existence of unchanging entities.

I think the idea of astronomical neutrality is caused by the size difference between electrical effects and celestial bodies. Planets and stars are huge, while electrons and protons are tiny. The charge photons are even tinier. It takes a lot of charge to affect a planet.

Lloyd wrote:You ask how protons and electrons would be separated, but you apparently agree with Miles that they are separated in batteries. Have you read how those are separated?

A battery is a man-made thing. We take charges and separate them. You are explaining a natural phenomenon, so you need to show how it arises. You need protons on one side of a planet and electrons on the other, without us ever noticing this, to create a tilt on the rotation of that planet. The onus is on you to show how this could happen. You can't just point at a battery and say "It happens here, so it happens there.". The two scenarios are completely different.

I quoted Miles a couple posts back regarding neutral atoms and molecules. They have the same number of protons and electrons. All of Miles' models of all elements he suggests have equal numbers of protons and electrons. If there's an unequal number, the element is an ion. Is this not true? In the quote Miles said neutral atoms and molecules channel very little charge outside themselves, while ions channel a larger amount. He has said that in neutral atoms the electrons block charge from going out. Do you believe ions can have either an excess or deficit of electrons, such as Ca++ or OH-?

I haven't suggested that one side of any planet has excess electrons and one side has excess protons. Have you not heard of electric double layers? Charles has shown that there are likely double layers within planets, stars etc, a negative layer inside and a positive layer outside.

Do you think everything has poles and equators, including everything between the size of planets and protons? Would a meteor traveling through space have poles and an equator? Would a meteorite on the ground have poles and an equator, where charge enters the poles and exits the equator? That should be easy to measure, shouldn't it? I can see protons having poles and equators where charge channels, and atoms channel charge somewhat similarly, but without equators. A mixture of elements, such as a ball of mud, doesn't have poles and an equator. Does it? I can see planets having gyroscopic poles and equators, but I don't see how a planet would have charge poles, since a ball of mud surely doesn't, and a planet seems to be just a larger ball of mud. Do you figure that gyroscopes have charge poles and equators?

To reduce Miles ideas on ions to 'unequal numbers of protons and electrons' is basically throwing out the baby with the bath water. You've missed the most important parts. It isn't about some naive idea of charge separation or neutrality, it is about blocking charge streams. It is about the flow of charge photons, not adding up little +'s and -'s. Miles also does not use the concept of excess electrons to explain positive ions. That is explained by the protons and what positions they are in.

You are correct that you did not say planets have protons on one side and electrons on the other. That was me trying to figure out what you were trying to say. My apologies.

I could see through electric double layers the moment I read about them in the EU, long before I found Miles. Once I did find Miles, I saw that he had a framework that could make my idea work. They are just photon pressure from the inside, working against photon pressure from the outside. Exactly what a planet is in its stars charge field. So you aren't saying anything special by bringing double layers into this. However, your statement was that planets are positive and that is why they cause each other to tilt. If that is so, then how is the inside negative and the outside positive? Why does the opposite charge, that is outside the planet, not affect the charge before it reaches another planet? Wouldn't they neutralize?

I did not say that everything has poles and equators. I explicitly stated that electrons and protons do, and that planets and stars do. Somehow that led to you thinking that everything in between them must as well. Not so.

Lloyd wrote:Would a meteor traveling through space have poles and an equator?

Why not? They could if they have an axial spin. I don't have a firm idea one way or the other. It could be both where some do and some don't.

Lloyd wrote:Would a meteorite on the ground have poles and an equator, where charge enters the poles and exits the equator?

Completely different scenario. You seem to have trouble differentiating between very different environments. You are implying that a meteorite on the ground is analogous to a meteor in space. What you are missing is that a meteorite on the ground is now a part of the Earth, but a meteor in space is its own entity. You are missing that the meteorite is within the Earth's charge field while the meteor is in the Sun's charge field. You are missing that the meteor is free to spin while the meteorite is not. You are missing that the meteorite is affected by the Earth's gravity by being in contact with the Earth, while the meteor is not.

Lloyd wrote:I can see protons having poles and equators where charge channels, and atoms channel charge somewhat similarly, but without equators.

Atoms most certainly do have equators, Miles calls it the carousel level. It is how magnetism is produced by an atom where-as conductivity is produced by the through-charge.

Lloyd wrote:A mixture of elements, such as a ball of mud, doesn't have poles and an equator. Does it? I can see planets having gyroscopic poles and equators, but I don't see how a planet would have charge poles, since a ball of mud surely doesn't, and a planet seems to be just a larger ball of mud.

By your logic, planets can't have gyroscopic poles and an equator either, since a ball of mud doesn't.

A planet is not just a ball of mud. You are trying to take an entity, move it to a different environment and say that it is still the same thing. That doesn't work and is very naive. You can't separate the entity from the environment that it is in and expect it to be exactly the same. Take that ball of mud and put it into a body of water. Is it still a ball of mud? No, it is now nothing because it has dissolved. That blows your idea out of the water (unintentional pun, but I'll take it) and I didn't even have to leave the Earth to do so.

Lloyd wrote:Do you figure that gyroscopes have charge poles and equators?

You are mistaking the cause for the effect. A gyroscope only requires spin. How that spin comes to be is of no consequence. It could be caused by charge channeling, but it can also be caused by applying a force. Look at any of the videos showing gyroscopes and they are physically spinning them. They aren't using charge channeling. So being a gyroscope does not mean that it has charge poles and an equator and I have not said that it does.

Well, I would say that a gyroscope has an equator, because every spinning object does.

Here is a definition of equator: An equator is the intersection of the surface of a rotating spheroid (such as a planet) with the plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation and midway between its poles.

However, I assume that you meant equatorial emission, which requires charge, so a gyroscope does not necessarily have equatorial emission.