The Cause of Gravity - the next major chapter

.

Boris T wrote. Hi everybody, this looks like the ideal place to gain knowledge and float a few ideas, especially about grav3, which has left me foundering in a sea of spinning photons.

Now that Miles has intuited that gravity is caused by charge channelling, pushing and pulling at the same time, his excellent paper got my head spinning as I'd like to be able to explain to my old brain how charge-gravity works using 'pin-ball mechanics', preferably in a simple way so a 10 year old child could make sense of it

Airman. Hi Boris T. Thanks for joining in.

Recently, I believe Miles pointed out that ‘pool ball mechanics’ might be a bit oversimplified. I would suggest changing it to ‘spin-ball mechanics'. I suppose I should mention that here at the site, Jared, Nevyn and I have had many simulator/model based discussions, aimed at clarifying some of Miles' charge field ideas. I’d like nothing better than to provide a worthy charged particle collision simulator – something the ten year old in me would enjoy. Another half constructed idea of mine is a two body collision armillary. It sits in one of our Possible Charged Particle Field collision scenarios, written in three.js, allowing one to display all the forces associated with any given 2 body spin collision.
I might say - explaining it to a ten year old is more difficult.

Boris T wrote. As I understand it, Miles' photon charge channelling theory is that a continuous vortex of through-charge enters at the poles of a spinning particle of matter and is recycled through it, being ejected from around its equator - roughly orthogonal to the through-charge stream.

Airman. I disagree. You’re describing planetary charge recycling, and not proton charge channeling. I believe the vortecies you describe are due to the extent and presence of larger charged particles, such as electrons, each of which is also recycling charge, traveling at less than light speed toward the poles, given the Earth’s magnetic field. In my comments to Vexman I mentioned how the charged particle - such as a proton, aligns itself to the charge source, maximizing charge received, and minimizing disruptive charge collisions from the source. That alignment and resulting charge exchange between the proton and the charge source is what defines charge channeling.

I'll need to consider the 'Bernoulli' aspects. Glad for the discussion and I somewhat overwhelmed at present.  

Or, given the discussion thus far, you might restate a question or two.
.

I'm still trying to figure this out, but it can not be based on either the linear velocity (electric component) or the spin (magnetic component) directly. Neither of those have any way to create a force back to the source of that emission. The electric component can only push away, never towards the source, and the magnetic component can only create a torque, which is a shove to one side or the other. It is orthogonal to the electric force, not opposed to it. So we have to go beyond simple collisions and look at charge circuits.

We need some of the charge photons moving in some other direction, not straight out from its source. They may start out coming straight from the source, but by the time they reach the body, they must be in some other trajectory. The bow shock of a planet would change their direction, moving them towards the poles of that planet, but it is still not in the right direction. I think it is when the charge is moving through the planet, or body, that we will find the forces we need.

During this phase, the charge is moving mostly perpendicular to its original emission direction. We can use the magnetic component to give it a torque that could now point back to the source, but I don't think that is it. Mostly because there is no reason for it to only be in that direction. Being a force based on spin, it happens around the source (the charge photon), in a complete circle, so any one of those directions could receive that force, not just the line back to the gravitational source.

Then we have to deal with Uranus. With such a large axial tilt, it doesn't fit into this polar input paradigm. It points its north pole at the sun for 42 years and then its south pole for 42 years (with some variance in between as it transitions). If its poles stayed perpendicular to the line back to the sun, then it would fit, but it doesn't. How can this binding as gravity theory account for that?

What about galaxies? How can a galaxy keep a hold on its star systems through binding energy? The larger the system, the smaller the binding effect. We haven't even reached galaxies attracting each other yet.

That shows a few issues with orbits, but how about we look at some properties of gravity itself.

Size and mass does not effect the rate of fall of 2 bodies in the same gravitational field. They will both fall at the same rate. How can binding present like that? How can mass have no effect on any force based on charge? This is the main reason I like expansion. It solves this with no effort what-so-ever. It isn't even a question that need be asked. It is just self-evident given the postulates of the theory. But gravity as binding brings the composition of the bound objects into it. Surely it has to. How can you bind something without thinking about what that thing is and what it is made of? What exactly are you binding to?

Distance is also a problem, although one I touched on earlier. While gravity diminishes with distance, it does not go away. At least according to current theory. It seems to me that there must be some definite limit to binding energy (I don't like calling it binding energy, but don't have a better term). That is, some distance at which the binding stops. It can't be infinite, but it needs to be for galaxies to hold themselves together and for galaxies to attract each other.

Sorry, I don't have any answers just yet, mostly just questions and failed ideas, but a few boundaries might be able to push us in the right direction. I must say that I am not convinced of this theory. I'm not against it either, but it seems to create more problems than it solves right now. What does it even solve? Expansion solves the fall rate issue perfectly. It solves the distance issue perfectly. It solves the timing issue perfectly (gravity seems to travel faster than light, or infinite, depending on where you look. See Tom van Flandern's work). The only argument against expansion seems to be that it requires expansion. That's a prejudice, not an argument. So I, for one, will need more convincing. But I haven't given it a lot of thought yet either, so I'm not giving up on it. I'm probably missing some key things that might help answer some of these questions.

I think the reason I'm having such a tough time with this is due to one of Miles' previous papers, "The Speed of Gravity". In which he argues rather successfully that gravity has no speed, it is instantaneous, and against the mainstream propaganda that gravity moves at the speed of light, which he falsifies.

But now it's moving at the speed of light again? I mean an acceleration isn't determined by that speed, but it seems if charge is the mediator in gravity then it will only be able to move at maximum the top speed of charge itself. Light speed. So his newer theory seems counter to his older proof.

From the paper (http://milesmathis.com/fland.pdf) which Nevyn also sparked upon:

"In this case, the speed is not really infinite, because there is no speed. No particle is moving betweenobjects, so there is no speed. To understand this, let us return to the equivalence principle. This is whyit is important that the physicists in the late 1970's proved the strong form of the principle, but not theweak (see above). The strong form says that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. Just reversethe vector. And the strong form says that mass has nothing to do with it. Particle physicists comingfrom QED, following their own weak form of the equivalence principle, expected mass to be important,because that is what their own equations predicted and required. But the experiments said no. Thecurrent princes of quantum mechanics and GR like to ignore that. They ignore all data they don't like.But Einstein's original reversal of the vector is how it is: gravity and acceleration are completelyindistinguishable, both mathematically and empirically. Because of that alone, gravity must travel atinfinity, not at c. Accelerations don't travel at c, so why would gravity, which is an acceleration?"

And then:

"So instead of discussing the speed of gravity or of a force, let us discuss the speed of acceleration.What is the speed of the transmission of an acceleration? You will say, “What? The question makes nosense!” Right, that is my point. Asking what is the speed of gravity makes no sense, either. Because,like acceleration, gravity is not a force, it is a motion. "

And I agree with him there. Force is mass times acceleration. F=ma. In that force equation, gravity is the "a", the acceleration. It is not the mass. Thus, gravity itself is not a force - according to him, and according to the equation, and according to myself and my reading of it.

What I think might be possible is that in that equation the MASS should be instead represented somehow by charge, or maybe it already is? But a photon is NOT an acceleration. It is a particle. It's in motion, and thus has mass, but it isn't a motion itself. Motion is the attribute, not the thing. A thing not in motion is still the thing, and one cannot have motion without some THING moving, by definition.

Anyway, that's where I'm stuck at on this one. Might have to wait for Miles to expand the theory, since I'm not getting anywhere myself. That of course only tells us I can't theorize here, not anything about him not being able to. I just don't understand his theory yet.

I'll bring all this up with him of course once I can formulate good, solid questions. But at the same time the guy deserves some room to breathe; it's only a few days old still.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.

Vexman wrote. Photons are not recycling engines, so there's no gravity force present in the most basic charge field. As soon as there is even a single structure made out of stacked photons, charge recycling process begins, creating the charge flux based on potential existing between the poles of such charge engine. This charge flux has impact on / influences all surrounding mass as it 'pulls' / attracts other photon-emitting mass (or other freely traveling photons). If these photons are responsible for the creation of E/M field with its own potential, I assume it's the same in the case of gravity.

Airman. To be as nit picking as possible, I was enjoying your description of the emergence of the charge binding gravity field until I read “potential existing between the poles of such charge engine”. The potential between poles may account for through charge – pole to pole charge channeling – but how does it apply to charge binding? Or do you mean between the poles of the two main bodies?
There is also the potential that exists between the emission plane and the pole. The photon emitted near the equator causes an internal vacancy/initial tug that results in a new photon entering the pole.

I meant potential between the poles of i.e. proton as the most basic form of such charge engine. Stream of charge within it is created and based on potential between the poles. Different charge engines have different potentials and thus recycle more or less charge. This charge recycling process is responsible for a stream of charge, which I think is the issue here. What if this charge stream creates pull / binding force by its motion that we consequently experience as gravity "field"?  I think there may be a connection between the (volume of) charge stream and the (amount of) binding force / gravity exhibited. Let me try to explain.

Miles talks about field potentials or nuclear vortices being the cause for the pull force, here's an excerpt from his latest gravity paper (grav3.pdf):

" Here, the important thing has already been said: the nuclear vortices pull photons through the nucleons. [Yes, that is an apparent pull, caused by field potentials. Mechanically, it is actually a push, since there is no such thing as a real pull in physics. But the word “pull” remains highly descriptive, and I do not disallow myself from
using it.] Again, photons are recycled through nuclei via field vortices, creating an apparent pull. This “pull” is what creates the “bind”. This pull is why nucleons come together into nuclei and why atoms come together into molecules. This pull creates the binding energy of both the nucleus and the molecule. It also creates the binding energy of the gas, the liquid, and the solid."


The "pull" force Miles is describing as well creates the stream of charge photons, which is not touched upon in this quote (I have to re-check the rest of this paper though). Within a charge stream of more complex charge engines such as for instance a planet, there is probably high level of established order in context of photons movement direction. However, there are many photons side by side but there are as well many collisions within such complex charge engine, thus proportion of photons having a spin, bearing magnetic force with them and all of them moving at great speed. I can visualize this stream creating a pulsating pattern according to the structure of such charge stream - the more spun photons, the larger number of "pull" (push?) pulses could be counted as they would be passing by (if we were able to get close enough and measure it). Considering the near light speed of actual charge stream, this effect would seem continuous over the entire length of charge stream. So, what if the charge stream actually relates to the pull force? Could we somehow transform the field potential in order to show the amount of binding force it carries? What would happen if we had no photons to begin charge recycling process with, would nucleons still bind together due to these vortices alone?  I don't think we could even make an experiment like this as there can be no charge engines without photons in the first place. Which begs another question, would a charge engine fall apart without any photons to feed it? That makes me think there's more to the dynamics of this phenomenon, with many components playing their part in the complex process.

I think therein lies the quandary, for me. We have an apparent "pull" at the poles of a planet due to his original charge dynamics, and an actual push out (chiefly at 30° N and S, and the equator, but SOME push out everywhere - just less at the poles).

But now we have an apparent "pull" everywhere, over the entire surface. Gravity isn't quite uniform but it's uniform enough to be the chief factor in planetary and lunar orbits, balanced by push-charge. So I'm confused how we can have an apparent pull coupled with an actual push at the surface. Yes, I know he reversed the vectors using the Equivalence Principle, but it still seems to me we have contradictory motions.

As for an experiment, I'm working on a simple setup in Maya to demonstrate either, both, or all effects here with some level of clarity. I'll use colors to denote actual pushes and apparent pulls, or something. It may take awhile though as I'm swamped with work too.

This whole idea is based on apparent attraction at the poles of nuclei, and then extrapolated upwards. So I want to take a closer look at that apparent attraction and what causes it.

Firstly, I want to get one thing out of the way before we even begin. The apparent attraction at the poles is not caused by spin. The only force spin can cause is through contact, and it is definitely not an attraction. Apparent or not. However, spin does have a role to play, it just doesn't have anything to do with forces, or, at least, not in creating them. Effectively, it allows them to happen.

Let's look at a typical particle, built with stacked spins:



That is a very basic spin set with only AXYZ spins, but all spins share the same general shape, with only small perturbations as you add more spins. We are looking down the Z axis and can see a large hole in the center. The hole is not quite as large as that image makes it out to be, because we are seeing the green lines which represent the path, not the particle. The particle takes up more space, so the hole is smaller than it looks. However, as we add more spins, a larger particle will have quite a large hole in there compared to the size of a charge photon.

That hole is what allows the apparent attraction. That is the path that through-charge takes and we are looking down along that path. Therefore, in that image, the poles are in front of and behind the particle. We are looking down into one pole, through the particle, and out the other pole. That is what spin creates. Nothing more, nothing less. We still don't have any attraction, apparent or not.

Let's assume that the straight red, green and blue lines are directions that we can shoot smaller particles. They actually represent the axes, X, Y and Z respectively. If we shoot some particles along the red line (X dimension), we can see that they will (or are very likely too) collide with the particle. There is a mass of green lines (the particles path) and the bullet is unlikely to make it through. Similar for the straight green line (Y dimension) which also hits a mass of curved green lines (sorry for using the same color for different things). However, the blue line has a clear path through the particle. Anything we shoot along that line will make it out the other side (assuming the bullets are much smaller than the particle).

You can clearly see how the equatorial emission of charged particles is created from that description. Also, you can see how the poles are created. Nothing esoteric about it. So what forces have we created so far? Only the emission force. Bullets coming in from the X or Y dimensions, or anywhere on the XY plane, will be pushed away and create the equatorial emission field. But we have not created any attraction at the poles, apparent or not. Strictly speaking, we haven't even created the emission force yet, because there is no emission.

This is the key point, the forces created for both the equator and the poles are not actually created by the particle. They are created by the ambient field. Well, really it is both of them together. The particle does provide the motions, but the ambient field provides the bullets. The particle is the gun, but the ambient field is the magazine. However, there is a difference between the equatorial emission and the polar regions. For the emission, the particle provides something to bounce off of and the ambient field provides something to bounce. The poles actually work in the complete opposite way. The poles provide a lack of something to bounce off of, so charge can just keep on going through.

But even that doesn't create an attraction at the poles, you guessed it, apparent or not. The attraction at the poles is purely provided by the ambient field. The particle helps by not obstructing it, but the field provides everything else. So, effectively, we have the ambient field working on itself to provide the apparent attraction at the poles. All the particle is doing is not being there.

You know what? I started writing this to explain the apparent attraction, but I've ended up negating it. There is no attraction at the poles. The ambient field is either sending charge photons its way, or it is not. It won't push them in there. It won't change the direction of some charge photon, that was almost going into the pole, so that it will. Except by accident.

However, I have not negated the idea of nuclear or molecular bonding. In these cases, the nuclei or atoms are already emitting charge at the bonding points. The other nuclei or atom can accept that charge through its own channels, so it provides less resistance. It doesn't attract the other nuclei/atom, it just doesn't run away. Once close enough, they effectively create a single channel from the previous 2 individual channels. Then the ambient field can provide outside pressure to keep them together.

So, we have found that the emission field is a real field and the particle does do something to create that. But the poles do not. They don't do anything. They can't do anything because they have no substance. They are the lack of substance. Anything we assign to them is really the ambient field in the vicinity of the particle. That is what I had assumed Miles meant by apparent. It is really the ambient field pushing photons into that region, but I can't even see that right now. Why would it push charge to the poles?

Please feel free to attack what I have written here. I would be happy to be shown wrong, but I'm just not seeing this binding theory working at the moment.

I think that's very helpful, Nevyn. As clear and concise as possible, especially for any newcomers. I would add something if possible, if it fits and works, because it seems pretty important to me to the charge field in either or any theory, and in my opinion should be considered as well.

Through-charge (as we've discussed) moves very fast of course, so there's little chance of a major collision or recursion (multiple bounces) inside the axial "envelope", shall we say - the tube of through-path - but given a dense enough charge field the propensity for multiple collisions I think increases, in the same way that Miles had outlined in previous papers. We have less ambient charge coming in towards the center from those outer "borders", but not zero, since the chief particle itself cannot be in all places at once of course. Some ambient charge will make it through, and I think given enough charge density we would see some recursion in there, some bounces.  Some collisions could or would occur. And in s dense enough field, some collisions could or would occur simply in the ambient field up and down. Perhaps not very many, but perhaps some fraction and I imagine that fraction is a cause of many of the postulates Miles has used in his math, knowingly or not.

And this is what I think "causes" the vectors in his main diagram for charge throughput:



So what I think is happening is that some collisions between ambient charge photons are occurring in this central axial zone, and most of those are knocking a photon out at some oblique angle or other. With the average angle coming out along those 30° N and S areas, as per Miles theory. Of course I could be wrong about this as the particles are moving very fast, but how many such collisions per second would be necessary to augment those emission zones? We're talking about billions of billions of photons pouring through this gap every second, more in denser ambient fields and less of course in sparser fields, but still a phenomenal amount of charge photons.

Here's an example from a recent video we made diagramming Helium charge:

https://vimeo.com/264207959


So while I agree entirely with Nevyn's proposals and explanations here, I think this augmentation needs also be considered. I agree that rotation at the quantum level plays less part than one might think, and that through-charge at this size is a matter of NO interaction, not a pull. One can call that a field potential and not be wrong, but as we dig ever further I think Nevyn's description is of the utmost important and clarity. But I think many collisions in through-charge would or could result in the vectors we've seen in Miles' theories, which he's proven time and time again in other areas such as axial tilt and like 300 other papers.

But I also am at the same point still personally and find the new charge-gravity theory to cause more problems than it solves, so far. We'll see how it evolves but also let's be as skeptical as necessary. Critical, rather. If it is a valid theory and Miles does bolster it along the way, he's going to want our questions to help refine it and fill the gaps. Perhaps these things will propel him to do just that.

Nevyn wrote:

You can clearly see how the equatorial emission of charged particles is created from that description. Also, you can see how the poles are created. Nothing esoteric about it. So what forces have we created so far? Only the emission force. Bullets coming in from the X or Y dimensions, or anywhere on the XY plane, will be pushed away and create the equatorial emission field. But we have not created any attraction at the poles, apparent or not. Strictly speaking, we haven't even created the emission force yet, because there is no emission.

I always understood Miles as the equatorial emission of charged particles is the consequence of high-velocity spin and its centrifugal force guiding charged particles towards the equatorial zone where such centrifugal force would be highest. I don't want to be nit picking, but if you assume a bullet/photons coming in / entering a simple stacked-spin charge engine that is not neutron, than it should also get emitted.  

Nevyn wrote:
This is the key point, the forces created for both the equator and the poles are not actually created by the particle. They are created by the ambient field. Well, really it is both of them together. The particle does provide the motions, but the ambient field provides the bullets. The particle is the gun, but the ambient field is the magazine. However, there is a difference between the equatorial emission and the polar regions. For the emission, the particle provides something to bounce off of and the ambient field provides something to bounce. The poles actually work in the complete opposite way. The poles provide a lack of something to bounce off of, so charge can just keep on going through.

So, we have found that the emission field is a real field and the particle does do something to create that. But the poles do not. They don't do anything. They can't do anything because they have no substance. They are the lack of substance. Anything we assign to them is really the ambient field in the vicinity of the particle. That is what I had assumed Miles meant by apparent. It is really the ambient field pushing photons into that region, but I can't even see that right now. Why would it push charge to the poles?

As much as I understood Miles explanation, the force at the poles is created by the difference in field potential. I searched for his most simple explanation, which I may have found ( from his ionic.pdf):

"If we treat the holes as charge minima, and the charge field as a wind, the holes have very real suction. They will attract charge maxima like those single protons sticking out."

And then a few sentences below (ionic.pdf paper):

""It is the charge field that is causing the potential here, not the electrons. You have charge going in one end and out the other, so we can map potential exactly like wind. Charge IS a photon wind. "

I do find this explanation more than reasonable and I think nature has similar situations where we can visualize it. Like seen in wind stream when it pulls / attracts nearby gas molecules to it due to difference in pressure. So this mechanism of attraction creates force / potential by movement of gas stream. I somehow think it may be just the same in relation to the stream of charge particles.

Thanks so much for your time and inputs so far.

.
Great discussion Everyone, I'm trying to keep up. It’s interesting that we all seem to have our own questions/difficulties with understanding charge gravity. No one seems to accept it verbatim as miles has written it, or maybe they do, just not well enough to describe it to the rest of us. I know I’ve always been a difficult student, but I suppose Miles might have expected a little more support from us. Oh well, of course no slight is intended, we're all trying to help each other understand. It may not seem like it, but I'm feeling better about charge binding as gravity.

Jared wrote. I think the reason I'm having such a tough time with this is due to one of Miles' previous papers, "The Speed of Gravity". In which he argues rather successfully that gravity has no speed, it is instantaneous, and against the mainstream propaganda that gravity moves at the speed of light, which he falsifies.
Airman. I recall reading Tom Van Flandern's work several years ago, where he proved gravity exceeded light speed as light speed exceeds my normal walking speed. But that's due to the fact that Van Flandern didn't have dual opposing fields, gravity and charge. With respect to orbits, gravity is in balance with charge whether charge propagates at the speed of light speed or not. If the object gets too close to the planet, like a fishing bob pulled under water, charge will kick the object away from the planet with greater outgoing force - a reaction apparently much faster than light.

BorisT wrote. I think it is possible that the observed apparent attraction we call gravity is caused by a reduced density charge stream in the gap between two bodies, as the high levels of through-charge is pushed through the bodies and causes the photon density in the space in-between them to be greatly reduced. This reduced density, and the Bernoulli effect, using the photon charge field as it's working fluid, is the cause of gravity. Short video demonstration using two inflated balloons here...
Airman. Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply Boris. I agree with you; that is, if you haven’t changed your thinking by now. The Bernoulli analogy sounds good to me.
When the proton is aligned with the charge source, a charge channel is established between the proton and the charge source. Depending on its size and distance to the proton, (say between the earth and a proton in the Van Allen belt). The charge source will create a charge current through the proton, as well as a steady supply of charge that will collide with the particle - the source for the proton’s equatorial emission field. Two alternate charge effects, the balance between charge binding, or charge repulsion sets up a dynamic equilibrium that will then interact with the particle’s ambient field.

I agree that the ‘pressure outside the charge particle’ is greater than the pressure inside the channel, with a fairly constant proton through current and emission field. The charge flow from the Earth cannot be matched by any other direct charge entering the proton. The outward flow of charge from the proton will cause a negative pressure inside the nucleus. The proton will move to a position closer to or further from the Earth depending on the ratio of the two forces, charge binding vice charge repulsion. But what starts the charge binding acceleration? Unlike gravity only, the proton’s ambient field is the prime mover. The proton loses energy with most of the direct charge/anti-charge collisions between the Earth charge and the nucleus. The nucleus would show little resistance to ambient charge collisions from behind resulting in motion back toward the Earth, until a balance of forces between binding and repulsion is reached.

Vexman wrote. Within a charge stream of more complex charge engines such as for instance a planet, there is probably high level of established order in context of photons movement direction. However, there are many photons side by side but there are as well many collisions within such complex charge engine, thus proportion of photons having a spin, bearing magnetic force with them and all of them moving at great speed. I can visualize this stream creating a pulsating pattern according to the structure of such charge stream - the more spun photons, the larger number of "pull" (push?) pulses could be counted as they would be passing by (if we were able to get close enough and measure it). Considering the near light speed of actual charge stream, this effect would seem continuous over the entire length of charge stream.
Vexman wrote. I meant potential between the poles of i.e. proton as the most basic form of such charge engine. Stream of charge within it is created and based on potential between the poles. Different charge engines have different potentials and thus recycle more or less charge. This charge recycling process is responsible for a stream of charge, which I think is the issue here.
Vexman wrote. So, what if the charge stream actually relates to the pull force? Could we somehow transform the field potential in order to show the amount of binding force it carries? What would happen if we had no photons to begin charge recycling process with, would nucleons still bind together due to these vortices alone?  I don't think we could even make an experiment like this as there can be no charge engines without photons in the first place. Which begs another question, would a charge engine fall apart without any photons to feed it? That makes me think there's more to the dynamics of this phenomenon, with many components playing their part in the complex process.
Airman. I can see how the charge received in the main N/S nucleus without collision will form a unique stream of charge - mostly photons with various stack levels but also electrons too - stretching out into space. Wouldn’t that charge stream be lost to space? Although I suppose charge binding may be able to turn the larger charged particles, such as electrons back toward the planet. I don't see how this stream of charge connects to charge binding.
I envy your visualizations. I certainly believe that without photons, charge engines could not exist.   

Nevyn wrote. Why would it push charge to the poles?
Airman. Thanks for the great description Nevyn, the stacked spin diagram definitely adds to our understanding of the nucleus, but I have one criticism with it. Strictly speaking, your stacked spin diagram doesn’t include charge. You describe charge passing through or colliding with just the stacked spin. I believe the poles aren’t as open as they appear; the direct path through the nucleus is blocked by the 95% of charge that happens to be recycling through the proton at any given moment. I imagine the proton fills with charge before its spin is able to emit as much charge as it receives. before it can form a 'pressure differential' inside the nucleus/charge channel and out. I believe the particle must be filled with spinning/recycling charge before it can properly demonstrate the tugging/binding force.
My big problem is not being able to understand how incoming recycling charge – mostly light speed photons - could form vorticies while in cue in order  to recycle through the nucleus.

Cr6, That latest Navy room temperature Superconductor is an incredible development that probably needed it's own post.
.

Vexman wrote:I always understood Miles as the equatorial emission of charged particles is the consequence of high-velocity spin and its centrifugal force guiding charged particles towards the equatorial zone where such centrifugal force would be highest.

Except there is no centrifugal force, inside the proton. Or the neutron, or electron. Centrifugal force, like any force, must be cause be a collision of matter, of mass, and accelerated by a constant or consistent such collision. No mass, no collision, no acceleration:

F=ma

So let's look again at Nevyn's spin-path diagram:



As he said, we're looking at this proton "from the top", the way incoming polar charge might "see" it. Any photon going through the proton's polar gaps cannot feel any force from the proton itself, which is not a solid sphere like a planet or star but a single particle traveling along a path which creates a spheroid type path-shape, in 3D of course.

So any incoming photon at this scale could NOT feel any "centrifugal force" unless it collides with the proton's actual particle, somewhere along that path. There's nothing to push the photon OUT along the equator at this scale - except for maybe other charge photons, either coming up from the other end or in from the sides, having missed that proton's particle itself.

Does that make sense? I can make a video demonstrating this pretty easily.

At the same time, per my previous comment (which Nevyn may or may not agree with, and I would tend to defer to him) we MIGHT have a mechanism for this outward push, due to collisions between photons in the center of the nucleon. Not ALL photons will collide with others, just as not all photons would collide with the proton as it moves rapidly along its path - but we have potentials there, which I believe cause or augment the equatorial emission.

It is these potential collisions that cause Miles' to say that the poles "pull in charge", which is inaccurate as he's stated himself but the word has some value for conciseness. Only it's not a pull at all, in any way. It's simply an APPARENT attraction, caused by a lack of repulsion in those polar zones relative to the proton's path. Photons are more likely to pass through pole-to-pole than they are from side to side.

Thus, any and all "binding energy" is simply a consistent push from without. The neutron doesn't stick to the proton, nor the electron, in any physical way - they are both pushed into those positions by charge and held there by the ambient field. It's easier for them to huddle together and recycle charge together than it is to blast them apart, which the ambient field normally doesn't do in nature, except for of course in natural fission or natural explosions or reactions of that sort, where charge is for whatever reason amplified into the volume an atom might contain.

All that said, I think centrifugal force might play a part at larger scales, such as planets or moons. We have a lot more matter, much greater charge densities (since matter IS charge, of course), and a much greater volume than a single proton or nucleon. A photon coming into Earth at the North Pole might collide seven times on its way through and out the equatorial zones, or it might collide none and shoot straight through the south pole. But the Earth is also moving laterally AND spinning, so this increases the chance of a collision during that photon's travel-time through the Earth, and thus augments the propensity to bounce a photon "out".

Does that make any sense?

Jared Magneson wrote:

Vexman wrote:I always understood Miles as the equatorial emission of charged particles is the consequence of high-velocity spin and its centrifugal force guiding charged particles towards the equatorial zone where such centrifugal force would be highest.

Except there is no centrifugal force, inside the proton. Or the neutron, or electron. Centrifugal force, like any force, must be cause be a collision of matter, of mass, and accelerated by a constant or consistent such collision. No mass, no collision, no acceleration:

F=ma

With all respect, I don't agree. The stacked spin structure is already made of spinning photons. Stacked spin wobbling is the reason we encounter vortices or empty space between the poles. But to assume the spinning photons, which are stacked in order to assemble a charge engine, and then not allowing the same mechanism which got photons spinning (i.e. collisions between the photons) to interact with the engine itself, is not a correct assumption in my opinion. The environment (i.e. charge field) has to has identical properties for each end every particle, end-to-end in all directions throughout the entire universe. For the first spinning photon to appear we either need to assume it was spinning a priori or we can assume it got its spin from numerous collisions with other photons while moving at c. If you can imagine how two photons might have met in the space - they were going at c before they collided. Even if the angle of collision was small when they got close enough to form stacked-spin structure, they would be spinning over a particular axis. So in my opinion Nevyn's spin-path diagram is very accurate in showing the formation of vortice or empty space between the poles of wobbling stacked-spin charge engine, however it is a laboratory version of such structure, where it is "frozen" (i.e. shown as static and out of the influence of charge field which created it) and which may not be even possible to reproduce in nature. How could anyone reproduce a stacked-spin structure without charge photons present in the same field and no collisions whatsoever? I can understand the above diagram where it depictures wobbling of stacked-spin structure, but for any other use it should incorporate or assume a complete charge field full of photons running at c from all directions. The probability of not colliding in a charge field is close to or equal 0 in my opinion. Thus the static (non-spinning) stacked-spin structure can't exist in the way as diagrammed other than in theory.

Jared Magneson wrote:
So any incoming photon at this scale could NOT feel any "centrifugal force" unless it collides with the proton's actual particle, somewhere along that path. There's nothing to push the photon OUT along the equator at this scale - except for maybe other charge photons, either coming up from the other end or in from the sides, having missed that proton's particle itself.

Looking at F = ma, we do have mass present. Proton has mass just like a charge photon has mass or any other structure made of stacked, spinning photons. Photons can't exist at 0 speed, which mean they bear one component of "a", that is linear velocity. Any thing spinning exhibits centrifugal force among others. How would it be possible to avoid the impacts of centrifugal force from within, for instance, a spinning proton influence zone? It isn't possible. But we have a disagreement about the presence of the initial spin, so we disagree here in consequence. There are cases where charge goes directly from entering one pole and exiting the other despite the structure's spin, but as much as I remember Miles' explanation, the reason is that in such structures / chemical elements / molecules, the path to the equatorial emission zone gets blocked.

I do agree though, that two charge streams coming in from the opposite poles can as well be the reason for charge emission at the equatorial zone. I just think that most of the charge redirection towards equatorial emission zone gets done by centrifugal force. I visualize that collisions between two such incoming charge particles are mostly encountered "behind the curve" where they get redirected.



As you can see from the diagram, it does not de-picture a direct stream collision. Why do these streams get redirected before they collide? I can only imagine centrifugal force acting upon them.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.

I don't see how this stream of charge connects to charge binding. I envy your visualizations. I certainly believe that without photons, charge engines could not exist.   

I gave my best and tried to create a diagram out of my words so you'd have the same picture in front of you as I had in my mind when discussing it.

The analogy with the stream of air :



And how it would be seen in 2D from above i.e. Earth in context of charge stream:



I hope these two diagrams can clarify my idea more than words did. One still needs to visualize a full blown 3D model of a sphere in the second diagram + its spinning, though, and all those gray arrows pointing inward the sphere.

Thinking as I type this, I'd have huge issue with explaining why would binding force/ gravity point at apparent center of the sphere. Why would center of the sphere have any role in such case where charge stream is creating pull?

Vexman wrote:As you can see from the diagram, it does not de-picture a direct stream collision. Why do these streams get redirected before they collide? I can only imagine centrifugal force acting upon them.

Hmm, I'm not sure I'm explaining my previous response very well, Vexman. I'll try again.

What I meant to say is that, inside a proton, there is no mechanism for centrifugal force from the proton itself, without a collision. So any incoming polar charge photons cannot "feel" any force pushing them outwards towards the equator, without either:

A) striking the proton itself and being bounced out
   or
B) colliding with other charge photons

A charge photon flying through from pole to pole must collide with another moving mass to change directions. Centrifugal force isn't mediated in any other way - no force is, actually. All changes of direction, velocity, and spin must come from a direct collision, including an acceleration which must be a series of collisions.

So while I see your point about all photons already spinning, it's not to the point here regarding centrifugal force. A charge photon entering either pole will simply corkscrew on through and out the other pole, depending on angle obviously, but if it doesn't collide with anything it cannot feel any force exerted upon it. That is what "through-charge" is. Charge photons that don't make any hits on their pathway.

I think some of this theory is where Nevyn has added to Miles' theory and in some cases corrected it, and you likely haven't been exposed to these additions yet. Miles touches on the topics a lot but I don't believe he's explicitly stated what I just did, which is just paraphrasing Nevyn's assessment from other conversations.

So to sum up, without a collision there can be no "force" imparted, upon anything, centrifugal or otherwise. In face to get that "a" for acceleration in the equation, we must have multiple, constant or consistent collisions to achieve an acceleration. You can't achieve an acceleration by just one collision - it has to be multiple, compounding collisions over any given delta-t (change in time, or timeframe). So for any centrifugal force to occur, there must be consistent or constant collisions pushing the charge photon out. It couldn't even be just one collision; that's just a bounce out, you see. For a force of this nature to exist inside the proton, we would need multiple collisions at all times deep inside of it, where the proton itself never actually goes, so those would have to be photon-photon collisions, since those charge photons never actually touch the proton itself, spiraling very far away and outside of their path.

But that's just the proton. In macroscale, say the size of the Earth, we do have that kind of charge density. Protons and photons collide far more often, the denser the field. So at this much larger scale what we see is some measure of centrifugal force, due to the compound vectors of there Earth's spin, the Earth's linear (orbital) velocity, its linear velocity relative to a rest viewpoint, and so on. My point being, centrifugal force doesn't exist the same way in the proton as it does in the macroscale.

So regarding Miles' famous charge diagram, it is a naive but effective way of showing the net vectors, but shows no collisions at all. I know he doesn't explain it like that but I believe he would agree with me, which is also why I try to make my videos show those collisions better or at least represent them:

https://vimeo.com/101761844

That one is older but might help visualize things? Of course, the proton isn't a wireframe sphere at all, but that's just a representation of its boundary abstractly. Here's a newer one, except the sphere is solid so you can't see the photon-photon collisions inside as well, but the output is better:

https://vimeo.com/145068938


If we go with Miles' new charge bonding theory of gravity, this would also include gravity. There must be more collisions "pushing" matter down towards the gravitic body than there are pushing up. Any attractions and "pulls" are only apparent motions, based on collision differentials.

Thanks, Jared. And you did explain yourself more than well previously. I just apparently have to do some more heavy thinking. This no-collision - no centrifugal-force issue is where my intuition fails. But correct me if I'm wrong, centrifugal force on Earth's surface has nothing to do with charge collisions?

So Nevyn has added parts to this particular part of Miles theory, right? If so, would you be so kind to link it here? I'd greatly appreciate it. It's really fundamental for the construct I had developed based on charge theory and I'd really like to know, of course, if there's anything of importance that was already corrected or added to already published papers.

Thanks Jared, I've tried a few times to write out what you just said, but didn't like the way it sounded each time. The key point is that we have to be careful with the tools we use at this level. Once you get into the quantum realm, there is nothing lower than it, so every force must come from some mechanical collision. Ideas like pressure and centrifugal force lose all meaning. The charge field can create pressure, but it can not feel it itself. Which is just saying that a field can not act on itself. It can not be the cause of its own motions.

Vexman, I really like the way you are thinking about this. We've had a bit of a head-start and have attempted to flesh out certain parts of Miles work. Whether we have been successful or not is a matter of opinion, but we enjoy it anyway. Finding it all can be a bit painful. Sometimes a key idea in one field is actually in a thread about another, so it is difficult to find them later. I'll try to track down a few and provide some links.

No worries here, Vex, and I'm often wrong about stuff so take it all as ideological and not "canon". Not fact, just (hopefully) solid, mechanical theory. Centrifugal force isn't a real "force" in the actual sense, but rather a displacement of velocity vectors. That is to say, on a carousel you are constantly shifting your direction, which is a form of acceleration, but there's no actual "out" vector except along a tangent to the center.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-centrifugal-force-exist.16669/

"So we feel this force, but it doesn't really exist? Is the "disproof" of centrifugal force that if you were on a carosel and you feel this force pushing you outward, if it existed and you let go of the carosel it would push you away from it, but in reality you would follow the the line tangent to the circle?"

(Chen) "The centrifugal force isn't unique only to circular motion and carousels... when you drive in your car and step on the gas paddle, aren't you pushed agains the back of your seat? It appears that a force is pushing you back, while in reality you are going forward. (Of course it's not called a centrifugal force there, but it acts on the same principle.)

"Why? Because your acceleration, relative to the car / carousel, is zero. And for it to be zero, the sum of forces on you must be zero. The difference is that in your car you only feel it when accelerating/decelerating, because at any other time your velocity is constant, whereas in the carousel you feel it all the time because while your velocity is constant, its direction changes all the time and your acceleration is never zero."

Vexman wrote:But correct me if I'm wrong, centrifugal force on Earth's surface has nothing to do with charge collisions?

Correct in a way, centrifugal "force" is not necessarily related to charge collisions - except that it's charge collisions which spin the planet itself, magnetically. So they cause the motion that causes the apparent "force" or vector-change, due to the spinning Earth.

But one thing to keep in mind is that ALL velocity changes are due to collisions, at the quantum level. ALL that energy really is is a transfer of motion (momentum) from one body to another. Other than the perhaps-unexplained gravitic acceleration we're discussion, nothing changes motion without a collision, ever. All changes in direction or vector must come from an actual, tangible collision - either in particles or in larger matter.

There are some interesting discussions in this thread:

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t213-proposal-electricity-animation

although it jumps all over the place.

Some more here:

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t235-c-the-speed-of-light-and-the-bphoton

There's some good stuff here:

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t3-steve-diagraming-mm-s-models

I think that is actually the first thread I posted on at this forum. Very early ideas and understanding that gets fleshed out over many other threads.

Some more pertinent info in here:

https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t23-gravity-mass-expansion

although it devolves a bit towards the end.

I can't find some of the more important ones I remember. There is a thread somewhere that I go into defining mass of a particle as the sum of spin velocities. It is mentioned in one of the links above, but I went into more detail somewhere else.

There is also another thread where I talk about building a universe with 4 easy steps, all performed on the BPhoton. I've been looking for that thread for some time now, but can never find it when I want it. Perhaps someone else can remember where that it.

Maybe we need to start a 'Best of' thread and link to the important discussions in there. Or maybe a primer thread that leads new members through our discussions.

Indeed, I'd really like to compile a lot of our commentary into some form or other, but a lot of it is also very contextual so it's hard. It would be a good idea however in case this site ever disintegrates on us, too. I'll see what I can do in my spare time this week!

But it's sure nice to see a few newcomers here, as well. Hope you folks find it as interesting as I do.

Airman wrote:Strictly speaking, your stacked spin diagram doesn’t include charge. You describe charge passing through or colliding with just the stacked spin. I believe the poles aren’t as open as they appear; the direct path through the nucleus is blocked by the 95% of charge that happens to be recycling through the proton at any given moment.

The charge inside of the particle can not block the incoming charge, except through random collisions which are rare, and even then it is blocking a single photon, not a stream of them. The reason they can't block incoming charge is because they all move at the same speed. Blocking requires a difference in speed or opposing directions, but all charge moves at c and it rarely collides. So any charge inside of a particle while another photon is approaching is going to be gone by the time it gets there.

Airman wrote:I imagine the proton fills with charge before its spin is able to emit as much charge as it receives. before it can form a 'pressure differential' inside the nucleus/charge channel and out. I believe the particle must be filled with spinning/recycling charge before it can properly demonstrate the tugging/binding force.

In order for the particle to become filled with charge, you must stop that charge. Wait for more to come in and then, at some limit, start them all going again. During all of that, the original particles BPhoton must be moving around all of that charge with no, or very little, hindrance. I don't think that is feasible. Even if it was, it still doesn't setup an attraction.

Try to avoid thinking about charge as something that a particle has, and try to think of it as something that the particle does. The particles BPhoton is spinning around and that has an effect on the ambient charge field. The charge field has the energy, but it lacks direction. The particle provides that direction which creates structure, or order, within the ambient field. The difference between that order and the usual randomness (or pre-existing structure of the ambient field) is what creates the effects we measure.

When thinking about charge photons, then you have to treat them as photons so they can't sit around and wait for other things to happen. They come in fast and they leave fast. There is no time for anything other than collision or no collision. If there is a collision, then what direction will the charge photon go and how does it effect the particles motion. That is all there is to it. Multiply that by 19 times its own mass per second and you start to see things happen. Only when talking about lots of charge photons, over some appreciable time frame, can we use concepts like pressure and potential differences.

Airman wrote:My big problem is not being able to understand how incoming recycling charge – mostly light speed photons - could form vorticies while in cue in order  to recycle through the nucleus.

They can't form vortices and they can't queue up. A vortex requires a driving force, a substance to drive, and a restriction on that substance from following the driving force. We have the substance to drive, which are the charge photons, but nothing can drive them and nothing can restrict them. You may think the particle provides the restriction, but it doesn't because a vortex is setup before the restriction. It requires a build up of the substance but we can't do that with charge photons. They just won't stop.

This is one of my main points. An attraction happens at a distance from that which is attracting. It is that distance that can not be justified to my liking. Even saying it is an apparent attraction still requires that things happen at a distance, it just changes the direction of the forces. I'm happy with that. I accept that any charge photons that want to go into that area will do so, but they will not have their direction changed to do so. Either they were already going that way, or they were not and therefore they won't. Therefore there is no attraction, no apparent attraction, no vortex and no potential difference. All there is is a lack of resistance. We might even call it an acceptance, but I can't call it an attraction.

Now, this isn't all doom and gloom. Once we rise above the photon level and start looking at charged particles, we can use the charge field to provide pressure. We can use the lack of resistance to create potential differences because of that pressure. But now we are talking about interactions between larger entities and not looking directly at the charge field itself. We are using large numbers of charge photons over some time period rather than individual photons. The charge field can drive larger entities, but it can not drive itself.

.
Vexman wrote. I hope these two diagrams can clarify my idea more than words did.
Airman. Thank you Sir. I see now what you called the charge stream, I’ve called ‘the charge current flow into the nucleus’. The “air flow analogy” of a charge stream shows a sort of Bernoulli Effect pulling charge along and into the nucleus as BorisT has suggested, and I’ve also agreed with.  

Jared wrote. So regarding Miles' famous charge diagram, it is a naive but effective way of showing the net vectors, but shows no collisions at all. I know he doesn't explain it like that but I believe he would agree with me, which is also why I try to make my videos show those collisions better or at least represent them:
Airman. I must disagree. The curved net vectors show the average path of an average charged particle recycling from the poles to emission at about +/-30 degrees about the equator. Why would you say it shows no collisions at all when we know that the curved paths themselves indicate accelerations – which, as you said, are attainable only through multiple collisions? The curved ‘net vectors’ in the charge diagram do, in fact, indicate multiple collisions.

I believe Nevyn’s Spin Path Generator and Spin Simulator apps display high level stacked spin particles as the summed stacked spin motions of one, repeat: one, b-photon. That is a mathematical model. We should all agree any given photon can have only a single linear motion and a single spin motion - including a stacked spin B-photon. A single B-photon with 22 properly scaled simultaneous stacked spins is crazy talk. Very few collisions indeed. How could the proton survive any charge collision?

The other big problem that you've already admitted is that there’s simply no way that the stacked spin model as you’ve described or shown in your vimeos can produce the disc-like equatorial emissions of Miles’ atomic diagrams, see the single proton, atomic Hydrogen model. Declaring that atomic proton model as “naïve” and that Miles would agree is completely unjustified. I don't believe your model is possible, but don't take my opinion. Please ask Miles for his opinion before you throw out his proton model for a couple of no good reasons.  

Airman wrote: Strictly speaking, your stacked spin diagram doesn’t include charge. You describe charge passing through or colliding with just the stacked spin. I believe the poles aren’t as open as they appear; the direct path through the nucleus is blocked by the 95% of charge that happens to be recycling through the proton at any given moment.
Nevyn wrote. The charge inside of the particle can not block the incoming charge, except through random collisions which are rare, and even then it is blocking a single photon, not a stream of them. The reason they can't block incoming charge is because they all move at the same speed. Blocking requires a difference in speed or opposing directions, but all charge moves at c and it rarely collides. So any charge inside of a particle while another photon is approaching is going to be gone by the time it gets there.
Airman. Granted. I understand that charge and a proton defined as a single b-photon would rarely meet, for all the reasons you mention.
The problems with the proton as a b-photon make that model unacceptable to me. We don’t need to belabor that here. Before dismissing the charge diagram I would attempt to offer something different.

Such as, I believe that all the stacked spins within a proton can and do channel charge.

Most of the charge being recycled is the slightly larger and slower variety, they came into the nucleus thru the charge channel, and collided with the very substantial rotating mass of recycling charge close to the proton’s spin axis. The larger charge particles tend to block up the works, but they soon lose energy and size, becoming homogenized in the Proton whirlitzer.

I would change that initial quote of mine from. "In order for the particle to become filled with charge" to "In order to fill the particle’s spins with charge". I believe the proton has a surface, mostly spherical with a tiny through channel, comprised of charge spinning thru those spins. As such, I believe that concepts like pressure and potential differences and gravity as charge binding do occur in my charge cycling through the proton's stacked spins model.

//////////////////////////////////

P.s. I should clarify, I haven't built such a model. Its only a possibility that, in my opinion, is worth investigating. More in keeping with my understanding of the charge field.
.

Airman wrote:I understand that charge and a proton defined as a single b-photon would rarely meet, for all the reasons you mention.

I wasn't talking about the proton's BPhoton, only charge photons in and around the proton. The potential for a collision with the proton's BPhoton is higher because of its spins. It stays in the general vicinity, where-as charge photons come and go. My discussion has been centered around charge to charge interactions, not charge to particle interactions or particle to particle interactions. I am trying to show that the charge field can not cause changes to itself. Using terms like pressure and attraction are only allowed when talking about larger entities that are in the charge field.

Airman wrote:Most of the charge being recycled is the slightly larger and slower variety, they came into the nucleus thru the charge channel, and collided with the very substantial rotating mass of recycling charge close to the proton’s spin axis. The larger charge particles tend to block up the works, but they soon lose energy and size, becoming homogenized in the Proton whirlitzer.

I understand the slightly larger part, but not the slower variety bit. Photons are not going slower than any other photons, different sizes or not. They all move at c. It's a defining characteristic. That aside though, I must ask larger and slower than what? The ambient field that they came from? The other charge in the proton? Neither make much sense to me, but I don't understand the model you are trying to create. You seem to be treating spins as entities in their own right and I don't see how that can happen, but I'm still working in the Single BPhoton Theory, so I may be muddying the waters a bit.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Declaring that atomic proton model as “naïve” and that Miles would agree is completely unjustified. I don't believe your model is possible, but don't take my opinion. Please ask Miles for his opinion before you throw out his proton model for a couple of no good reasons.

You misread or misinterpreted my comment:

Jared Magneson wrote:
So regarding Miles' famous charge diagram, it is a naive but effective way of showing the net vectors, but shows no collisions at all. I know he doesn't explain it like that but I believe he would agree with me, which is also why I try to make my videos show those collisions better or at least represent them:

Where in his diagram here do you see any collisions? There are none. There is a circle and two colored arrows, which are curving before they even enter the circle. That's what I meant by "naive diagram" - he's showing the net vectors here, not any collisions. He's not showing the cause of the collisions or real photons, but rather the potential motions and outcomes. Do you see a collision? Do you mean the crossover of the colored arrows? That's way after the curvature begins. What collision do you see that is causing the curves to start curving in the first place? There's no collisions in that diagram at all, so I don't really understand your irritation.

Miles explains the curvature and thus equatorial emissions in several ways as we all know, as a propensity similar to centrifugal "force" and also as I have explained it above, as a result of intercolliding charge photons as they flash through the nucleon. But nowhere in that diagram are there any collisions shown. You may imply them if you like, but there are none.

LongtimeAirman wrote:The other big problem that you've already admitted is that there’s simply no way that the stacked spin model as you’ve described or shown in your vimeos can produce the disc-like equatorial emissions of Miles’ atomic diagrams, see the single proton, atomic Hydrogen model.

I don't know where or why or how you think I said that, but I've already diagrammed Hydrogen and produced the disc-like equatorial emission of Miles diagrams with my videos. Perhaps you missed that one, which is entirely forgivable, but I've never said or shown anything contrary to his model in any of my accessory works.

I've shown them in all my videos, in fact, so it's odd that you would say something like that - including the ones I posted in this thread, and even the ones I posted in the comment you were quoting. That was Helium. But here's the Hydrogen video directly, for your reference, clearly showing the equatorial emissions of a proton's (yellow sphere) charge at 30° N and S:

https://vimeo.com/206370190


If I seem irritated, I am. I don't know why you think I would contradict Miles' theory on something we've been doing since the very first time I came here - posting vids and diagrams that augment or expand his theory, not contradict it. This gravity-charge stuff is actually the first time I've disagreed with his theories, albeit that is still my initial reaction and we're here to study the theory and either accept or falsify it, if possible. That's science, and I believe that's what he wants us to do. Challenge him with real, mechanical questions so he can refine or discard his theory.

Hi all.
First allow me to introduce myself.
I don't remember when I discovered MM but I have read ALL his papers... I'm a MM page refresher as I think most of you are xD.
I'm mainly a lurker, the only contribution I did was when I used to translate some of its papers into Spanish, as it is my mother tongue, so sorry by my English. I try to do the best I can and I hope nothing get lost on translation.

The last paper on gravity has been really EXCITING. It was the only important thing that was left to be explained mechanically in the MM view of the world, and I really NEED mechanical explanations. My feel is that any theory is incomplete or just false if it can't explain things based on mechanics. My view is that of a local realist, if you ask me. The other two attempts he did, and I think he will agree, weren't really convincing.

Well, I think its enough about me. Now about my questions, ideas and suggestions. Feel free to answer, ignore, insult and please correct my English so I don't repeat things that sound confusing.

What is the mechanics of binding?

The only apparent pull (from now on, just pull, as I assume you are also local realists and the only possible accepted pull is apparent, or say, a second order effect of pushes) a body can feel that I can grasp is either:

• A lack of push in the direction of repulsion in a field full of particles that are moving in all directions and thus pushing in all directions but the direction of the pull. LeSage style gravity theories fit in this view pretty nicely and I clearly see the pull in them, but that is another story.
  
• An excess of push in the direction of attraction.
  

From the last paper, I don't have any clear idea of the mechanics of the binding he is envisioning, so let's discuss the ones I can think of. Feel free to add others if you can think of more. They are not exclusive.
I think we have to address at least 3 things. How we model that hypothesis (M) in order to make predictions, what things explains well (+), and the contradictions or counterexamples that may destroy the hypothesis(-).

Charge ropes

The establishment of charge channels between solid bodies makes the motion harder in the direction that makes the ropes larger, so in an ambient field plenty of collisions in all directions, the preferred direction is to  other bodies. The larger and nearer the body, the stronger the rope.

M
+
-

Magnetic net effect

Somehow the spin of the photons exchanged by bodies, when colliding inside them, have a net effect that result in attraction*.  
An imbalance of photons or antiphotons may somehow affect this.

M
+
-

The magnetic hypothesis would be "excess of push in the direction of attraction" one, and I think the rope hypothesis would be like a "lack of push in the direction of repulsion" but instead of a lack of push it is more inertia, so "more inertia in the direction of repulsion".

I don't discard another item being cloaking effects a la LeSage, but I think it is out of scope here.

* Right now I have no idea how, and I cannot see how this would work in non-celestial bodies, and makes me question the Newton idea: Are we really sure the apple and the Moon fall for the same and ONLY reason? As I said above, the causes for pull I'm babbling about are not exclusive, and the way I view it "gravity" is only a name given to a net effect seen in planets and free falling objects that happen to result in the same rough acceleration. But you know, when you approach two magnets they are also attracted by "gravity", the magnitude of each cause in each setup is key...

Sorry, by its late in Spain. I have to sleep, feel free to fill the voids and add new entries while I sleep on it

Airman wrote:I believe Nevyn’s Spin Path Generator and Spin Simulator apps display high level stacked spin particles as the summed stacked spin motions of one, repeat: one, b-photon. That is a mathematical model. We should all agree any given photon can have only a single linear motion and a single spin motion - including a stacked spin B-photon. A single B-photon with 22 properly scaled simultaneous stacked spins is crazy talk. Very few collisions indeed. How could the proton survive any charge collision?

I don't see any other way to interpret stacked spins if it is not the spins that are stacking. It isn't called the stacked photon theory, which would imply many photons somehow stacked together. Given only the name, it is clearly the spins that are being stacked. But we don't have to rely on the name alone, or even Miles words describing it, we can look at the animation Miles provides (by Chris Wheeler) that explicitly shows a single stacked spin. There is only 1 particle in that animation, but there are 2 spins. So the Single BPhoton Theory is not just some idea of ours, it comes directly from Miles. I have taken that to many, many spin levels, much further than Miles could feasibly show in his papers, but I stand by my interpretation of his theory. Crazy? Maybe, but it is the theory we are working with.

I get that there are issues with the motions involved in a stacked spin particle. It is not intuitive. If it was, then Miles wouldn't need to supply it, because physicists would have proposed it long ago. But being un-intuitive does not falsify the theory. I have extrapolated from Miles words and animation, linked it to his work on angular momentum to find the correct timings, and from that we have spin paths that show regular structure (across many different spin levels). Throw in some charge interactions and I think it is feasible to say that the spin paths my apps generate can produce the charge field that Miles describes.

One thing to remember is that Miles did not have my apps to see stacked spins with. He didn't come up with the charge profile of a charged particle by looking at spin paths. He came to those conclusions because of existing data. The fact that my spin paths can match his charge profile is quite compelling, to me at least. I didn't expect to see the through-charge holes in the spin paths. I didn't expect the neutron to have a different sized hole than the proton. But they do. All based on his theory. I didn't have to make little changes to the code to get it to work like I wanted it to. I just followed the spin stacking idea, and the angular momentum editions, and ended up somewhere near the right place. Is that likely to happen if either of us is wrong? The theory itself may be wrong, but working with it, then it seems to fall together pretty well.

First, welcome to the forum, Mamuso! I'm eager to look at your ideas as well, but need to process them a bit to comment or critique them. But I read your entire comment and didn't see any glaring contradictions or holes so far. Nice to have more people around to bounce these ideas about! Welcome.

Second, I've been conversing in emails with Russell Taylor about charge inside the nucleons (proton/neutron/electron), and we discussed better videos to help people visualize what we're talking about. This is all highly dependent on both Miles' theory and Nevyn's augmentations and additions - so when I'm wrong on this stuff, blame THEM. Joking. Blame me. It's my video and I made it to attempt to explain their ideas, which are awesome. My videos are still rough and a long way from where I want them to be, but when I make a breakthrough myself I want to share it.

So here is my first video in awhile of this type: the X2 spin photon shown in motion, scaled to an ambient field of regular ol' B-photons with the A1 spin:

https://vimeo.com/321162565


Why is this relevant to our topic of charge gravity? Because many people have a hard time visualizing what's happening inside the nucleon as charge passes through it. We've had discussions of centrifugal force and other issues people have with the charge-gravity theory but a lot of the time people simply can't visualize it - and I can't either, until we MAKE a visual representation. So here's my first in hopefully a long line of such videos as we make progress on these ideas.

Why just an infrared photon? Because I'm not as good as Nevyn at the coding and it gets REALLY dicey at this level, deciding and determining where and when spins start, stack, and how fast they go at each new level. I believe this one is accurate; I'm using Nevyn's math and Miles' theory as best I can, with one omission being the lack of an A2 spin, since I don't believe those exist.

So that's an A1, X1, Y1, Z1, X2 photon, which I believe is the infrared range. That could be wrong, but this is what it looks like as best as I know currently - and it appears to match Nevyn's spin stacking pretty close, so hopefully I'm on the right track here.

The orange paths are the X2 photon's motion trail - it's always only at one position on that path, but that's the path's "ghost", as we say in animation. The yellow spheres are photons with no stacked spins, just axial spins. This is to show their scale relation and to show exactly how much EMPTY space even a small infrared (X2) photon has in its volume of influence. This photon is far too small to induce recycling of course, but I'll go higher if it's accurate and helpful. I'd love to reach the Proton level. It's just some heavy shit.

Let me know if this helps at all or if not, or if it's wrong, I'll go another direction at this issue?

.
Mamuso, Welcome. Thanks for joining in. It looks like you're tasking us, I'll turn my attention to it shorty and see if I can add something.

Jared wrote. I don't know why you think I would contradict Miles' theory on something we've been doing since the very first time I came here.
Airman. Contradicting Miles’s theory is all well and good, I have no problem with that.
I agree that given our current understanding of the proton as a single B-photon model, there aren’t enough charge/charge collisions to create the charge diagram’s path.  
I do have a problem with your conclusion - the charge diagram is therefore not valid with respect to the proton, and that Miles would agree. I strongly disagree, and tried to not let my anger show.

No insult intended, I don’t recall any of your emission vimeos suggesting the clean proton disc-like emissions present in Miles’ atomic diagrams. The +/-30 degree emissions in your previous post look great. But that’s beside the point, you can make any vimeo you like, what’s important is your depiction of the proton as the single B-photon and how it supports or contradicts your conclusion that the charge diagram no longer applies to protons.

In throwing out Miles’ famous charge flow diagram as invalid for protons, you are also tossing out Miles’ atomic models, which are based the on the proton charge recycling capacities which the proton as a single B-photon model cannot explain. This, it seems to me is a major problem for the proton as a single B-photon model and not for the famous charge flow diagram. Solve that B-photon model’s problem before casually dismissing our atomic proton model.

Nevyn, as usual, thanks for the detailed explanations and insights. I was defending the charge flow diagram and atomic proton models by attacking what I felt were fatal flaws in your model - i.e. it doesn't seem to support gravity as charge binding either. In any case, I expect you'll eventually develop the proton as a single b-photon model to everyone's satisfaction.   
.

I don't understand why you say stuff like that. I didn't throw out Miles' diagram or theory in any way. I added to it by creating a more detailed, animated model showing the exact same thing Miles has described and diagrammed.

You can't straw man me, sir. I never came to the conclusion you stated that I did - you made that up yourself, for some reason. I never said his diagram wasn't valid - you simply fabricated that as well.

I don't know why you're upset at me for saying his diagram is a vector diagram and naive, but you keep making up shit and putting words into my mouth and I'll gladly just disappear. I'm not here to fight but I do that ALL THE TIME in every other forum and frankly, you're simply not armed for such a word battle. And Im not here to battle but to discuss and learn. If you're no longer interested in that, fine.

Nevyn wrote:Thanks Jared, I've tried a few times to write out what you just said, but didn't like the way it sounded each time. The key point is that we have to be careful with the tools we use at this level. Once you get into the quantum realm, there is nothing lower than it, so every force must come from some mechanical collision. Ideas like pressure and centrifugal force lose all meaning. The charge field can create pressure, but it can not feel it itself. Which is just saying that a field can not act on itself. It can not be the cause of its own motions.

I read most of those links you've left previously, thanks a lot.

A general question: when does E/M force start to manifest itself? Isn't the spin bearer of this E/M force? If so, precisely which photon's spin does define E/M field?

What I'm aiming at with my question - you say that in quantum level every force must come from some mechanical collision. Which makes binding force at distance seem magic instead of mechanic if actually defined by charge field. But then magnetic influence remains ignored. So at which point do photons gain E/M capability?


I'd also kindly ask you (or anybody else inspired enough) to comment on this excerpt from Miles' (http://milesmathis.com/photon.html):

"So, we have found a mass of the photon of 2.77 x 10^-37kg. From a previous paper, we know that the radius of the photon must be G times the proton radius, which gives us 2.74 x 10^-24m. Does that tell us anything? Sit down and hold onto your chair before you calculate. Because if we use my simple equation from my first paper on G (relating mass and radius to surface acceleration), we get

a = 4mG /r2 = 9.8m/s2

The photon, like the proton and the Earth, has a local acceleration at its surface of 9.8! "

Leaving expansion theory of gravity alone (which I never accepted anyway, considering it assumes expansion of everything except the grid, being a philosophically unsound postulate), doesn't that quote imply photon is already "packed" with gravity / binding force? If not, what is the source of that acceleration? Since photon is small in terms of mass, it would exhibit small amount of such binding force, which than explains why it starts to play a more important role at relatively bigger particle's sizes.

Ok, let's not let this get personal. Stick to the concepts and attack those all you want, but don't take it personally and don't make it personal. That can be difficult. We get attached to our own ideas and understanding and it can get frustrating when others don't understand us. But we just have to strive a little bit harder to explain ourselves. If you feel that you have done so, but still others aren't seeing it, then just say you think you have explained it enough and want to move on. If it goes beyond that, then it is up to the moderators to step in. We don't need to agree on everything and we all need to stay humble. When you venture into the unknown, you are bound to be wrong about a lot of things. That applies to all of us, it applies to Miles, it applies to me, and it applies to every single scientist in the history of the universe.

This is an exciting time and as such, it gets our blood boiling. It is easy to let that get the better of us, but we need to be better than that. We need each other to remind us of what we have forgotten or tell us what we may have missed. We need each other to support us as we delve into the mysteries that we love. Even if you think someone is going down the wrong path, they may need to in order to find something that you already know. Discovered knowledge is a lot better than received knowledge.

Let's get this discussion back on track, and in that vein, I want to admit that I have been looking too deep on this one. I tried to reach the bottom and work my way back up, but in doing so, I got hung up on some issues. Pedantic issues that may have some relevance, but are getting in my way at the moment. I think re-reading this paper and a few others will help. Cr6 has supplied some great reading material in another thread and that is a good place to start.

Good questions, Vexman, I'll try to answer them as best I can.

Vexman wrote:A general question: when does E/M force start to manifest itself? Isn't the spin bearer of this E/M force? If so, precisely which photon's spin does define E/M field?

What I'm aiming at with my question - you say that in quantum level every force must come from some mechanical collision. Which makes binding force at distance seem magic instead of mechanic if actually defined by charge field. But then magnetic influence remains ignored. So at which point do photons gain E/M capability?

The EM forces manifest when they have something that they can affect (effect? I never know which one to use). It can't work on itself, so it needs something bigger to work on. Therefore, EM forces arrive when charged particles arrive. The electron is the first particle that can feel the forces of the charge field. As the electron is bigger and slower than the charge field, it can feel pressure from it. It can react to potential differences because it is the charge field that is providing those differences and it is the charge field that is pushing it from all directions, but less where there is less charge. To be clear, individual photons can and do get struck by other charge photons, but that is an interaction between 2 particles, not a field. There is no pressure involved, just collisions.

While the spin of charge photons is what creates the magnetic field, what we call magnetism is a larger concept than just the spin of a single photon. You can already tell from that sentence that we are talking about a field, not individual particles. I didn't even realise I had called it a field until contemplating the follow up sentences. It is that far ingrained into the concept. You have to separate what magnetism is caused by, from what magnetism is or at least what we call magnetism. So, again, magnetism, while already existing at the charge field level, doesn't manifest until it has something to work on, which are larger particles.

Velocity is a key concept that is easy to overlook. It seems so simple, but it is extremely important. In fact, I have argued that it is the only thing that matters apart from the entities that can have a velocity. Here, we are finding that a difference in velocity is important for the charge field to be able to operate on other entities. If the larger particles moved at c too, then the charge field could not supply pressure to them. Their slowness, caused by their size, allows them to be struck by many photons instead of individuals and that creates a field. You could probably say that the charge field is not really a field without larger entities to work on.

Vexman wrote:I'd also kindly ask you (or anybody else inspired enough) to comment on this excerpt from Miles' (http://milesmathis.com/photon.html):

Miles Mathis wrote:So, we have found a mass of the photon of 2.77 x 10^-37kg. From a previous paper, we know that the radius of the photon must be G times the proton radius, which gives us 2.74 x 10^-24m. Does that tell us anything? Sit down and hold onto your chair before you calculate. Because if we use my simple equation from my first paper on G (relating mass and radius to surface acceleration), we get

a = 4mG /r2 = 9.8m/s2

The photon, like the proton and the Earth, has a local acceleration at its surface of 9.8!

Leaving expansion theory of gravity alone (which I never accepted anyway, considering it assumes expansion of everything except the grid, being a philosophically unsound postulate), doesn't that quote imply photon is already "packed" with gravity / binding force? If not, what is the source of that acceleration? Since photon is small in terms of mass, it would exhibit small amount of such binding force, which than explains why it starts to play a more important role at relatively bigger particle's sizes.

That excerpt is about expansion. Miles is just showing that if the photon is expanding and we calculate the rate of that expansion from the perspective of the photon, then it matches what we calculate as the earth's gravity, from the perspective of the earth. He is just showing that if we account for scale, then they match. He may be doing math in circles, if he found the radius of the photon using gravity in any way (and since he used G, he is and I believe he admits that), but it may also be something important or at least indicative.

If that statement is true, then it doesn't just imply, it directly states that the BPhoton (being the only real entity) already contains gravity. Not binding gravity, but expansion gravity. This is purely about expansion and can not be related to binding gravity. The numbers would be used differently with binding gravity.

While I don't want to get into a defense of expansion, I do want to point out that your dismissal of it is incorrect. The grid you mention is not a real thing. It is a conceptual tool used in physics, but it does not exist. Therefore, it expands if we want it to expand and it doesn't if we don't want it to. We live within the model we are trying to explain, so we have to deal with that. We don't think that the grid expands, but then we also don't think that we do, either. But that is just a matter of perspective. We expand, therefore we can't see the expansion. You have to get your perspectives straight if you want to delve into expansion. It is not a simple concept, even if it is a simple motion.

Nevyn wrote:Ok, let's not let this get personal. Stick to the concepts and attack those all you want, but don't take it personally and don't make it personal. That can be difficult. We get attached to our own ideas and understanding and it can get frustrating when others don't understand us. But we just have to strive a little bit harder to explain ourselves.

Indeed, I got a bit hot there, LongtimeAirman. But please forgive me - we're on the same side here and you guys are my best teachers and strongest allies. We do have our differences, and that's a GOOD thing! Without them, we'll get nowhere. All I ask is that you not put words in my mouth. But feel absolutely free to tell me I'm wrong or that you disagree! By all means, I am often wrong and need you guys to help me see it, often. In fact you folks (and Miles) are the only ones who can do so, and I value that.

.
Mamuso wrote.

What is the mechanics of binding?
Charge ropes. The establishment of charge channels between solid bodies makes the motion harder in the direction that makes the ropes larger, so in an ambient field plenty of collisions in all directions, the preferred direction is to other bodies. The larger and nearer the body, the stronger the rope.
Magnetic net effect. Somehow the spin of the photons exchanged by bodies, when colliding inside them, have a net effect that result in attraction*.

* Right now I have no idea how, and I cannot see how this would work in non-celestial bodies, and makes me question the Newton idea: Are we really sure the apple and the Moon fall for the same and ONLY reason? As I said above, the causes for pull I'm babbling about are not exclusive, and the way I view it "gravity" is only a name given to a net effect seen in planets and free falling objects that happen to result in the same rough acceleration. But you know, when you approach two magnets they are also attracted by "gravity", the magnitude of each cause in each setup is key...

Airman. I’ve also described charge binding with charge channels, linking the charge received at the nuclei’s south-pole, and the Earth directly below. One possible language error, I believe by larger, you may have meant longer. Charge binding can be balanced with charge repulsion as with an orbital body and so the ‘channel’ or ‘ropes may be longer or shorter.
I'd say the mechanism Magnetic net effect is of secondary importance, and I would suggest replacing it with the primary mechanism, Recycling via field vortices. The mechanism’s description is a quote from The Cause of Gravity, the Next Chapter. http://milesmathis.com/grav3.pdf.

Recycling via field vortices. We start with the fact that the body is composed of semi-spherical nuclei.  These nuclei are spinning, and this spin sets up north and south pole vortices, just like on the Earth.  These vortices pull photons through the nucleus, creating a charge engine.

So, as long as charge - charge particles as well as charge photons - is entering the nucleus from the primary source below, ambient charge from outside the nucleus is being forced into vortices in order to recycle into and thru the nucleus, mainly the nuclei's north poles. I don't see how these definitions wouldn't apply to the non-celestial case, do you still believe that to be true, or does this Recycling via field vertices change your understanding?

///////////////////////////////////////

Thanks Jared. Sorry, I'm usually looking for a good fight disagreement, but I didn't realize I was putting words into your mouth. I hope you don't mind my saying, I've always thought of us as charge field team mates good buddy.    
.

Vexman, your question about the BPhoton already containing gravity reminded me of something that I noticed about binding gravity when I first read the paper. I guess it is because I generally rely on expansion to explain gravity, because it is so easy to do so, so I already had the idea of gravity being available from the very first stages. However, with gravity as binding, that is no longer the case. That means that photons do not feel gravity or experience it in any way. If gravity is a charge interaction, then the charge field can not experience it. It can create it or take part in it, but it can not feel it.

If binding gravity can be made to work, and therefore photons don't feel gravity, then the one thing the mainstream thinks it knows about dark matter, that it is gravitational, will be wrong. Yet Miles' usage of the charge field to explain dark matter doesn't use gravity. It uses drag, so it still stands up. Wouldn't that be funny?

.
http://milesmathis.com/updates.html.

NEW PAPER, added 3/3/19, More on Gravity. http://milesmathis.com/grav4.pdf This may clarify for some readers.
.

LongtimeAirman wrote:One possible language error, I believe by larger, you may have meant longer.

Yep, I meant longer. But now that you point it out, I think that the inertia would be to change the rope to be either longer and/or denser, say more energetic, but in what affects gravity, longer.
BTW I think Mathis does not use this concept in grav4. If I understood him, its a matter of balance between charge channeled and charge not available for channeling that then is only allowed to collide. It makes sense, but I have problems visualizing this

LongtimeAirman wrote:So, as long as charge - charge particles as well as charge photons - is entering the nucleus from the primary source below, ambient charge from outside the nucleus is being forced into vortices in order to recycle into and thru the nucleus, mainly the nuclei's north poles. I don't see how these definitions wouldn't apply to the non-celestial case, do you still believe that to be true, or does this Recycling via field vertices change your understanding?

This may be a problem I have to understand key concepts of Miles theory. I think if any of you can answer the following questions, it will make me see a lot of topics with more clarity:

I have a vertical rod of material. It's in an ambient field of photons with +X direction. Whats the orientation of its atoms?
Take that rod and put it horizontal. Do the orientation of the atoms change?
Make the rod spin. What happens? And if faster?
Do the answers change in an imbalanced field of photons and antiphotons with the same total differential density?

The relation of the previous question with celestial or non-celestial bodies is that I can see that the average orientation in celestial bodies should be biased by the ambient field, but with small rigid bodies, I see a lot of problems on their atoms' orientation changing in response to the field.

Nevyn wrote:That means that photons do not feel gravity or experience it in any way. If gravity is a charge interaction, then the charge field can not experience it. It can create it or take part in it, but it can not feel it.

I think they cannot with the bind gravity Mathis is envisioning in grav4 (imbalance in channeling/collisions, as they don't channel) but they would feel pull in vortexes and cloaked zones in average from the lack of collisions on the repulsion side. I think it would be VERY nice to have terms for referring to each kind of pull, and PERFECT if MM was whom named them From now on, unless he changes the terms, I will use the following adjectives to refer to the different pulls: binding, vortex and cloak.

Jared wrote:Indeed, I got a bit hot there, LongtimeAirman.

I think we are all pretty excited with the latest papers. I was really worried you were engaging to the extent some of you quit. I am now relieved PLEASE keep on with the animations. I think if you reach the proton level and it is accurate, it can be the best tool ever to understand and improve Mathis' theories. And if he is (and I think he is) on the right track... well, humanity will be in debt with you forever.

Was that new paper supposed to be an improvement? I am barely into it before I find a glaringly obvious mistake. A mistake too simple to make. A mistake that fails to follow his own advice in the same paragraph.

Miles Mathis wrote:So although photons can be spinning on any axis, we can assume a certain amount of coherence. To simplify the math and mechanics, we then average the field and assign all particles either a left spin or a right spin. The left spin is photon, the right spin is an antiphoton, say. If a photon and antiphoton are moving in the same linear direction and edge-hit, they spin one another down. If they meet head-to-head, they spin one another up. So you have to keep track of spins and linear motions at the same time.

I'm not even going to point it out. I want you all to think hard about these motions and tell me what the problem is. You don't even have to think that hard about it. Just visualize it.

I'm really disappointed at the moment.

.
LongtimeAirman wrote: One possible language error, I believe by larger, you may have meant longer.
mamuso wrote: Yep, I meant longer. But now that you point it out, I think that the inertia would be to change the rope to be either longer and/or denser, say more energetic, but in what affects gravity, longer.
BTW I think Mathis does not use this concept in grav4. If I understood him, its a matter of balance between charge channeled and charge not available for channeling that then is only allowed to collide. It makes sense, but I have problems visualizing this

Airman. I don't see how inertia is involved. I disagree with the notion that charge received from earth is ‘denser’ or ‘more energetic’. The charge received is always a balance of charge binding and charge repulsion. Given an atom deep in space, it will eventually align itself to its dominant charge source due to many collisions between the atom, the charge it is receiving from the dominant charge source and charge received from the ambient field. The ambient field of the proton might then accelerate it toward the Earth until earth’s charge repulsion stops the freefall. If the body is far from the charge source, it takes longer for it to cohere to a charge source.

LongtimeAirman wrote: So, as long as charge - charge particles as well as charge photons - is entering the nucleus from the primary source below, ambient charge from outside the nucleus is being forced into vortices in order to recycle into and thru the nucleus, mainly the nuclei's north poles. I don't see how these definitions wouldn't apply to the non-celestial case, do you still believe that to be true, or does this Recycling via field vertices change your understanding?
mamuso wrote: This may be a problem I have to understand key concepts of Miles theory. I think if any of you can answer the following questions, it will make me see a lot of topics with more clarity:

I have a vertical rod of material. It's in an ambient field of photons with +X direction. Whats the orientation of its atoms?
Take that rod and put it horizontal. Do the orientation of the atoms change?

Airman. These are my opinions, please feel free to correct me. Let +x be aligned to the earth's vertical emission field. The rod is solid, the atoms/molecules of the rod are fixed with respect to the materials lattice and do not have the freedom to change their location with respect to the solid matrix. On the other hand, I don't see why the atoms would't have the ability to reorient themselves with respect to the solid matrix's charge channels to which the atoms are connected, so the atoms will reorient themselves the solid matrix x,y or z charge channel which is producing the most charge at any given time; the atom turns it’s south pole to one of those pre-chanelized directions.

With those givens, I believe that whatever direction the rod is held in will result in the charge flow entering the rod from directly below (-x) with upward emission (+x) in the most efficient means possible using the existing solid rod’s existing charge channeling atomic network.

If I hold the rod vertically, emissions from the Earth below will travel from the bottom end of the rod’s length (-x) to the top end (+x) and is entering each atom’s south pole. Charge binding would occur as perpendicular (horizontal, x is constant) cross-sections of charge emission along the rods vertical length. Holding the rod out horizontally, most emissions would pass directly upward into the rod’s ‘bottom edge’ along the length of the rod to travel straight up to top edge along the length of the rod, that distance being the rod’s diameter as measured along the x-axis; charge binding occurs in planes parallel to the earth’s surface ( x is constant), the ends of the rod (left/right, front/back)would then emit recycled charge most strongly.

mamuso wrote. Make the rod spin. What happens? And if faster?
Airman. If I spin the rod the upward emissions of the earth do not change. At any given moment, only the direction of the rod with respect to up is ‘slowly’ changing - the charge field is traveling at light speed. The atoms of the rod quickly realign as necessary (+/- x,y,or z channels), cohering themselves to the upward charge current flow within the rod as it changes direction.
If I spin the rod faster, the faster end of the rod is less able to establish a good coherent charge link, and charge repulsion increases, the ends of the spinning rod grow lighter.

mamuso wrote. Do the answers change in an imbalanced field of photons and antiphotons with the same total differential density?
Airman. That’s a bit confusing, but I don’t believe so. If I understand correctly, we have a 2/3 photon to 1/3 antiphoton field, the nucleus will always align its main n/s charge axis to the strongest available charge source. The atom is likely too ‘massive’ to respond to momentary charge ratio differences.

mamuso wrote. The relation of the previous question with celestial or non-celestial bodies is that I can see that the average orientation in celestial bodies should be biased by the ambient field, but with small rigid bodies, I see a lot of problems on their atoms' orientation changing in response to the field.
Airman. Despite photon/antiphoton ‘fluctuations’ the upward field of the Earth doesn’t change. I don’t believe celestial bodies point in an average direction. The direct charge from the system’s dominant establishes the charge link. The planet must then recycle charge in response to the ‘direct’ channel flow; the direction of the planet will determine the direction of the planet’s recycling charge vortices.

////////////////////////////////

Hey Nevyn. I'll look at your comment next.
.

Nevyn wrote:Was that new paper supposed to be an improvement? I am barely into it before I find a glaringly obvious mistake. A mistake too simple to make. A mistake that fails to follow his own advice in the same paragraph.

Miles Mathis wrote:So although photons can be spinning on any axis, we can assume a certain amount of coherence.  To simplify the math and mechanics, we then average the field and assign all particles either a left spin or a right spin.  The left spin is photon, the right spin is an antiphoton, say.  If a photon and antiphoton are moving in the same linear direction and edge-hit, they spin one another down.  If they meet head-to-head, they spin one another up.   So you have to keep track of spins and linear motions at the same time.

I'm not even going to point it out. I want you all to think hard about these motions and tell me what the problem is. You don't even have to think that hard about it. Just visualize it.

I'm really disappointed at the moment.

Well, we all make mistake sometimes. That first edge-hit of photon and antiphoton would spin them up, not down. Only photons with same left spin would spin one another down if they edge-hit while moving in same linear direction.

Maybe one of us should send him an email.

mamuso wrote:

Nevyn wrote:That means that photons do not feel gravity or experience it in any way. If gravity is a charge interaction, then the charge field can not experience it. It can create it or take part in it, but it can not feel it.

I think they cannot with the bind gravity Mathis is envisioning in grav4 (imbalance in channeling/collisions, as they don't channel) but they would feel pull in vortexes and cloaked zones in average from the lack of collisions on the repulsion side. I think it would be VERY nice to have terms for referring to each kind of pull, and PERFECT if MM was whom named them From now on, unless he changes the terms, I will use the following adjectives to refer to the different pulls: binding, vortex and cloak.

No, not for the photon. Larger particles, yes, photons, no. A photon can not, in any circumstance, feel a pull. While it can feel a push, the way it is being used here is not a push, but pressure. Pressure is lots of pushes over some time period, not a single push. Photons don't experience pressure, they can only experience collisions and each collision is an isolated event.

There are no vortices on a charged particle. There is no way to create one. A vortex requires an underlying field that is doing the pushing, but from the higher level it looks like an attraction. But what we see as being attracted is not what makes up that underlying field, it is the larger things being pushed by it. Let's take wind as an example, since Miles uses it so often to explain this part. Wind is not made up of photons, it is made of atoms and molecules. It is those atoms and molecules that are being attracted or moved around as a result of potential differences and pressure. The charge field is doing the moving, but it is not that which is moved. Of course, the charge is moving, but it is not what we are looking at and measuring the motion of in this problem.

If we then try to take that analogy down to the particle level, we find that there is no underlying field to drive the photons into a vortex or to create pressure or potential differences. Miles is using terms like vortex and angular momentum to create forces that can't be created. He is doing exactly what he has bitched at the mainstream about for years. How often have you heard Miles say that 'Math can't create curvature' or 'Math can't create force', well, he is doing the same thing, but not with math, just the terms. The term angular momentum does not create force just because you use it. It doesn't explain the motions and collisions involved, it is just an abstract concept that implies motion out from the equator of a spinning entity.

Here's a quote from the latest paper showing this:

Miles Mathis wrote:He (Einstein) started with a given field curvature, but never explained its mechanical genesis.Basically, he chose a curved math, and the math curved the field.  But that isn't mechanics.  Math can't curve a field.

Well, neither can terms or concepts. The term angular momentum does not 'explain its mechanical genesis', does it? You may be thinking that Miles is just using them as abstract concepts to explain the theory. If so, I encourage you to attempt to explain those concepts at the photon level. With only collisions. Seriously, this is what it means to be mechanical. Really think about a single charge photon as it travels through a proton or nucleus. Think about all of the possible ways that it could go, and more importantly, think about why it would go there. You'll soon find that there is no such thing as centrifugal force and the photons are not being pulled anywhere as a result of spin alone. They can collide with the proton or they can collide with the protons charge, but in no way are they pulled or pushed out because of angular momentum.

The main argument I hear against my stacked spin paths, which even Miles himself used, is that the particles are moving, and as such the paths don't really look like the images I produce. They should be stretched out. This is absolutely correct with photons, but absolutely incorrect with electrons, protons, and neutrons. These entities can remain in a single location for some time. Even more so when you think about them being within an atom. So when talking about protons, my spin paths do represent the shape that its BPhoton will form over some time period. They do represent the location density (the probability of finding the BPhoton in a particular place within the protons volume). So we can use them to determine how they will affect the charge field they are in.

Miles Mathis wrote:As charge and anticharge meet along the pole, they not only spin each other up, creating current and magnetism, they also create a
bond.  How?  Again, by pressure differences, or field potentials.  The same pressure differences that cause the vortices cause the bind, you see.  The spin of the proton and nucleus creates a semi-spherical field with polar angular momentum weaknesses.  The force in at the poles creates the vortex, and the same force creates the “gravity” or “strong force”

Well, if it is the same force creating the vortex and binding gravity, then this theory is a non-starter. If it can't create the vortex, then it certainly can't create the gravity.

Ding, Ding Ding! We have a winner!

Well, almost. You are on the right path, at least, but a photon and anti-photon moving in the same direction will not affect each other at all, as a matter of spin (they will affect each others linear velocity). Their common edges are moving in the same direction as each other. Either both up or both down. Therefore, they do not have any difference in velocity. No difference in velocity, no force. That's what force is, a difference in velocity between 2 particles in collision. So they will not create spin-ups or spin-downs.

Conversely, that means that it is actually the coherent photons with the same spins that have problems with edge hits between each other. When their edges hit, they are both moving in opposite directions (the edges, not the photons) and so they experience 2c of velocity difference (since each is moving at c, tangentially).

Everyone makes mistakes. Yes, but this is a colossal mistake. This is a fundamental mistake. This is basic visualization, which Miles is supposed to be great at. Besides, we actually have 2 mistakes in the same paragraph here. Not only are the photon-to-anti-photon and photon-to-photon edge hits wrong, but only one of those scenarios is capable of creating a spin-up or spin-down.

I'm not even convinced that they can do that. We have 2 photons with the same linear velocity and the same number of stacked spins and the same top level spin direction. They come close enough to touch each other. Let's call one photon the lefty and the other the righty. The common edge of lefty is moving down, say, and the common edge of righty is moving up. Their spin axes are parallel and their spins are equal. So the only thing that can happen is a spin-down.

They negate each others motions with equal and opposite force, so they remove each others top spin level. There is no way for that scenario to create a spin-up. The only way to create a spin-up is through head-on collisions and those collisions do not require photons meeting anti-photons. It doesn't care what each photon is because it is working orthogonal to the top spin levels. Creating a spin-up requires the incoming photons linear velocity to be orthogonal to the photons top spin level and for the particles to collide at their top/bottom edges.

Which leads me into a 3rd mistake, or is it the 4th, 5th, I've lost count. In the very least it is a lack of explanation. Throughout this paper, Miles is using spin-ups. Never spin-downs. Spin-downs are mentioned when talking about coherence of the photons, but it is never used to explain the theory. Now, I don't have a problem with needing spin-ups to explain something. What I do have a problem with is only having spin-ups with no mechanism for selecting spin-ups and excluding spin-downs.

Given my explanation above of spin-ups requiring head-on collisions, Miles can actually use them when talking about through-charge streams in opposite directions. The problem is that that is not what he has explained earlier. He explicitly shows the exact opposite of what he needs.

Is this a theory ender? Some of it is, maybe. My arguments against vortices is, but there may be some other way to explain it without losing everything else. My arguments here about photons and spin-ups can probably be sorted out. We will see how it goes, I guess.

Nevyn wrote:Creating a spin-up requires the incoming photons linear velocity to be orthogonal to the photons top spin level and for the particles to collide at their top/bottom edges.

To be clear, when I say that the linear velocity must be orthogonal to the photons top spin level, I am talking about the motion of that spin level and not its spin axis. The linear velocity must be in the same direction as the other particles top level spin axis.

LongtimeAirman wrote: I disagree with the notion that charge received from earth is ‘denser’ or ‘more energetic’.

I didn't say so.

The view you show about my questions is what I assumed is the consequence of MM theories, and I see that consequence very strange for solid bodies. Atoms continuously and quickly reorienting depending on the orientation of the body. Spinning the body in the up axis making almost no internal change but in the horizontal axis changing it all. This preference should be measurable. Also I see very strange that the shape of the edge of the body is not affected by this convulsion. Magnets seem to also imply the opposite, fixed atom orientation inside the body (yep it's supposed to be the "domains", not the atoms but I assume it's for the same reason). For all this I hoped there were another solution to my questions. But hey, that it's strange for me is not a decisive

Nevyn wrote: A photon can not, in any circumstance, feel a pull. While it can feel a push, the way it is being used here is not a push, but pressure. Pressure is lots of pushes over some time period, not a single push. Photons don't experience pressure, they can only experience collisions and each collision is an isolated event.

I don't understand why you don't allow pressure pull to apply to particles of the same size of the field that make the pressure. They also collide. Of course they will not feel the same pressure a bigger object will, that's why depending on the size, if we talk about protons or macroscopic objects we have to apply field transforms. In the case of particles with the same size of the field it may not be that simple, but I don't see why, in a wind of photons, a photon coming in the perpendicular direction, for example, will not feel a push to be aligned with the field, so I cannot see how it will not feel a pull when there is a vortex (or a cloak, btw)

.
Jared, This is beyond a doubt, a wonderful thread; including joys, tempers and disappointments. We definitely need a good proton depiction. The charge field too.

Nevyn, you've made so many well considered points, I'm almost devastated. Well, I'm happy to disagree with at least one, Vortices.

Miles wrote: The spin of the proton and nucleus creates a semi-spherical field with polar angular momentum weaknesses. The force in at the poles creates the vortex, and the same force creates the “gravity” or “strong force”.
Nevyn wrote: There are no vortices on a charged particle. There is no way to create one. A vortex requires an underlying field that is doing the pushing, but from the higher level it looks like an attraction. But what we see as being attracted is not what makes up that underlying field, it is the larger things being pushed by it.  
Airman. Yes, it is the larger things that feel the pushing effects of charge photons.
The proton’s ambient charge field contains more than just charge photons. The charge field contains many and various sized charged particles as a result of random collisions between charge photons. The prime example is the electron. Any charged particle which is large enough to recycle charge will be traveling linearly at less than light speed - you've also noted that previously. Given the various sizes and speeds of charged particles, the charge field itself can be differentiated accordingly.
The spinning proton charge engine’s coherent photon emissions creates its own E/M field which drives the larger, slower charged particles to the proton poles. There, those larger and slower particles form vortices as the pole admits narrow, two-way traffic. When the larger particles enter the nucleus, they will probably be spun down to charge photons during recycling.
.

.
mamuso wrote: Yep, I meant longer. But now that you point it out, I think that the inertia would be to change the rope to be either longer and/or denser, say more energetic, but in what affects gravity, longer.
Airman wrote. I disagree with the notion that charge received from earth is ‘denser’ or ‘more energetic’.

mamuso wrote. I didn't say so.

The view you show about my questions is what I assumed is the consequence of MM theories, and I see that consequence very strange for solid bodies. Atoms continuously and quickly reorienting depending on the orientation of the body. Spinning the body in the up axis making almost no internal change but in the horizontal axis changing it all. This preference should be measurable. Also I see very strange that the shape of the edge of the body is not affected by this convulsion. Magnets seem to also imply the opposite, fixed atom orientation inside the body (yep it's supposed to be the "domains", not the atoms but I assume it's for the same reason). For all this I hoped there were another solution to my questions. But hey, that it's strange for me is not a decisive

Airman wrote. Please don’t let my opinions give you any wrong ideas. I'm trying to answer you as accurately as I could; but I have very low confidence in interpreting your comments and questions, especially given plenty of word errors.

What I referred to as a charge channel from the atom to the earth below, you referred to as ‘rope’.
“change the rope to be either longer and/or denser, say more energetic”
I suppose I should have pointed out that rope is noteworthy in its ability to withstand a tensile force. To describe an atomic orientation or charge channel as ‘rope’ implies that the charge alignment could somehow control its own length. Or Rope as many fibers, each fiber a charge channel – no, no, I don’t believe it is correct to refer to the input charge stream or orientation of the atom or any aspect of the coherence mechanism as rope.

With respect to Solid bodies, and the ‘rod’, while I strongly believe that the atoms in the rod are bound in position, I’m not in the least certain the atoms are free to reorient themselves. If I cannot rule it out, why not include it in the discussion.

Come to think of it, I’m sure that the atoms in my Light Sabre reorient!   .

Thanks for the discussion.
.