Miles' Model vs. E.U. Models

The following is copied from https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=648&p=9512#p9512

FORUM
_Lloyd1 wrote: Do you want to discuss these issues in your thread? If so, I can invite Mozina and some of Miles' supporters to join in the discussion. Otherwise, do you favor some other location for discussion? Would you like to discuss on the Miles' Sci forum at https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/ ?

_Anon2: ... The above {below} is a bit of a mishmash of both EU and Miles's stuff so not really suitable for either of the forums. If we can come up with a Miles-specific discussion then we could move it onto https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/ ....

_Lloyd3: How about if we copy the discussion to both forums? I don't think it hurts the members of either forum to hear ideas that differ from what they're used to. I'll try that and, if it doesn't work, I'll give in.

SOLAR RADIATION
_Lloyd1 wrote: The external power model is one of my main disagreements with EU and MM. As Michael Mozina (the other MM) and Charles Chandler said, it would be easy to tell if the Sun were externally powered. There would have to be a very detectable very strong magnetic field from the current and there would be very obvious currents of megalightning that would look similar to the lightning bolts in a plasma globe. The current going into the Sun would have to have as much power as all of the radiation coming out of the Sun.

_Anon2: Under the EU model (and Miles's) the majority of the energy going into the Sun is going in via the poles, is coming in from a huge volume and is on the sparse side. As per https://www.electricuniverse.info/electric-sun-theory/ calculations by Juergens in 1972 (and to a certain extent Cook before him) support the possibility of there being enough ions/electrons moving in this fashion to power a star. There have been limited observations by Voyager on the "edge" of the solar system that support the EU extension of this theory with a "virtual cathode", and there are (admittedly minimal) observations of the areas extending from the poles that also support movement of ions/electrons towards/away from the poles. So not a slam-dunk, but there is moderate evidence to support the basic idea.

_Lloyd3: In order for radiation going into the Sun at the poles to equal that coming out from all over the Sun, the incoming radiation obviously would need to be much brighter than the radiation coming out, because the cross section area of the current supposedly going in at the poles is much smaller than the surface area of the rest of the Sun. If radiation is concentrated into a smaller cross-section area, it has to be brighter. The Ulysses satellite orbited the poles of the Sun and I never heard of data indicating that there is much more concentrated radiation entering the Sun's poles. Have you?

Miles' idea that significant photon radiation enters the poles of the Sun and planets (and moons?) doesn't seem plausible to me. I don't think such radiation has been detected anywhere. I think Miles calculated that the axial tilts of the planets are caused by the photon and antiphoton radiation entering the poles. But I think the axial tilts are caused by gyroscopic forces and electrical forces. A small amount of radiation contacts the surfaces of all bodies. Any photon radiation that contacts the poles would not enter into the body. Some would be absorbed into the surface and some would be reflected away. Some would be absorbed as heat, but more heat is likely emitted than is absorbed. I don't know how anyone can suggest that photons enter the poles and exit at the equator (or the opposite pole). There's way too much matter in the way for photons to get anywhere quickly within a body.

ELECTRIC CIRCUITS
_Lloyd1: Batteries exist as stored charge and it makes way more sense that stars radiate stored charge than that they recycle charge. The Sun is c. 864,000 miles wide, it would take a photon a few seconds to go all the way through, if there were no obstacles, but it's full of dense obstacles and most photons within the Sun have to be reflecting back and forth constantly between atoms or ions. That's called storage.

_Anon2: No, not even the consensus model (once you get past high school) claims that batteries "store" charge anymore. Despite still being taught as being the "movement of electrons and ions" we know that this is definitely NOT electricity; the movement of charged particles are the result of electricity, not the cause. We know this because we now have instruments sensitive enough to measure the movement of electrons in wires - and they don't move very fast, whereas electricity moves at the speed of light (or close to it). There is also nowhere the number of electrons moving to explain the amount of work we get out of electricity. Also consider alternating current - exactly what is causing the electricity there? It can't be electrons and ions, as they are basically vibrating in place, given the "direction" of the current is changing 50+ times per second. Wires are basically wave guides, and that's pretty much what they teach in Uni now, although they still fail to explain precisely what is being guided. Eric Dollard has a few explanations that are suitably more advanced and can explain a number of phenomena that the consensus model fails to, but you need a model like Miles's to explain the actual electricity. What the battery does do is to help concentrate the charge particles. See e.g. http://milesmathis.com/seft.pdf
The consensus model about the Sun being incredibly dense, especially in the middle, is a theory. I've seen nothing to support that theory apart from broken maths like gravity only models that ignore charge and are self-inconsistent. If you want a REAL alternative to Miles's theory for "storage" that at least has some evidence from lab experiments, then you need to be looking at a plasmoid, although strictly speaking plasmoids don't preclude Miles's theory; they could be an emergent phenomena that he's not yet covered.

_Lloyd3: I know electrons don't move much in electric circuits. But I think the electric charges, i.e. positive and negative ions, have to be separated in order to get power. Miles doesn't accept positive and negative, but to me it's apparent that the different ions have different pressures. So positive may mean high pressure and negative mean low pressure. Batteries maintain ion separation for a time. If a conductor circuit with a load is connected with the battery, power is supplied to the load, presumably coming from the positive high pressure side and going to the negative side. After a battery dies and ion separation is lost, no power is available. So the photons, which apparently constitute the power, are unable to maintain power without the ion separation at the battery. The Sun, containing CFDLs, i.e. current-free double-layers, is a battery that is gradually "discharging", i.e. losing its double-layers.

FILAMENTS
_Anon2: I think it's quite possible that the Universe is changing (in terms of becoming more complex), with the emergent effects of electricity and magnetism resulting in more and more of the charge particles being concentrated, which would explain why everywhere we look we see mass concentrated on exceptionally long filaments - a web of creation, with vast abysses between the strands.

_Lloyd3: There are filaments within galaxies and there are larger filaments connecting galaxies. The intra-galactic filaments apparently form stars. I guess the larger filaments may form galaxies. Charles has a paper on galaxy formation. I don't know of evidence that the intra-galactic filaments provide electricity to power stars. Such filaments form stars as double-layers and the DLs are what provide the power to the stars. You already noted that electrons don't flow within electric circuits. Electrons do flow in the star-forming filaments. And so do the +ions. See http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15482

I am "Anon2".  I am happy to welcome constructive criticism or an exchange of views, although as I have a full-time job and various life issues I may take some time to respond.

Before commenting, if you are unfamiliar with Miles's theory (and the various Electric Universe theories-EUT) I would ask that you please read my summary at
https://thehonestscientist.com/miles-mathis/
I have done my best to be succinct and have linked back all references to the relevant papers on Miles's site.  I only cover the minimal basics that I believe need to be combined with the EUT to come up with a comprehensive theory that explains the majority of phenomena we see in the Universe - well, the very small and very large bits; the squishy bits in the middle we call life and consciousness will probably need a few more centuries of work.  

Miles has confirmed that he does not think I am misrepresenting him with the summary in question, but rightly points out that this only covers a small portion of his body of work.

.
Welcome purplepete. I'm glad to meet an honest to gosh scientist. I recall Cr6 sharing your https://thehonestscientist.com link here, so I’d previously visited it and bookmarked your site as a great go-to starting point for contrast and comparison discussions of charge field theory and the electric universe (and plasma cosmology) - as well as quantum mechanics. Staying Healthy is a subject I should be paying more attention to. Thanks for including plenty of references and links.

I on the other hand am a completely biased charge field proponent. A great man one wrote something to the effect that engineers are interested in how things really work. Looking at Miles Mathis’ first book copyright date I’m shocked to realize I’ve been mainly considering the charge field theory perspective now for over twenty years. Yes I'm a slow learner.

I should also mention that Lloyd and I have bumped heads more than a few times, and I know know difficult it is to change his mind.

Thank you both for sharing your discussion here, it certainly helps me understand things better  

SOLAR RADIATION

_Lloyd1 wrote: The external power model is one of my main disagreements with EU and MM. As Michael Mozina (the other MM) and Charles Chandler said, it would be easy to tell if the Sun were externally powered. There would have to be a very detectable very strong magnetic field from the current and there would be very obvious currents of megalightning that would look similar to the lightning bolts in a plasma globe. The current going into the Sun would have to have as much power as all of the radiation coming out of the Sun.

Airman. By virtue of its mass, spin and position in the universe, the Sun can only recycle charge between its galactic neighborhood, itself and the solar system. Charge into and out of the sun must balance. I do not agree that it’s easy to tell if the sun were ‘externally powered’ since all of our electromagnetically based detectors can only ‘see’ EM sources such as electrons, protons and ions which amounts to just 5% of the total charge matter present. Furthermore, em radiation over the poles vice em radiation over the equator result from entirely different charge conditions and cannot be directly equated.

_Anon2 wrote: Under the EU model (and Miles's) the majority of the energy going into the Sun is going in via the poles, is coming in from a huge volume and is on the sparse side. As per https://www.electricuniverse.info/electric-sun-theory/ calculations by Juergens in 1972 (and to a certain extent Cook before him) support the possibility of there being enough ions/electrons moving in this fashion to power a star. There have been limited observations by Voyager on the "edge" of the solar system that support the EU extension of this theory with a "virtual cathode", and there are (admittedly minimal) observations of the areas extending from the poles that also support movement of ions/electrons towards/away from the poles. So not a slam-dunk, but there is moderate evidence to support the basic idea.

Airman. “Energy coming in … is on the sparse side.” Our understanding of the universe must of course be based on what we can directly observe; however, according to charge field theory, not accounting for the presence of photonic matter omits 95% of the total matter present and cannot adequately explain any charge behavior.    

_Lloyd3 wrote: In order for radiation going into the Sun at the poles to equal that coming out from all over the Sun, the incoming radiation obviously would need to be much brighter than the radiation coming out, because the cross section area of the current supposedly going in at the poles is much smaller than the surface area of the rest of the Sun. If radiation is concentrated into a smaller cross-section area, it has to be brighter. The Ulysses satellite orbited the poles of the Sun and I never heard of data indicating that there is much more concentrated radiation entering the Sun's poles. Have you?

Airman. Cross sections of incoming vs outgoing energy as measured by detected em radiation over the poles or equator do not balance because the em radiation production rates over the poles or equator are not the same. This is easily explained with additional charge field details. All spinning charged particles, including the sun are charge engines, taking charge in at the poles and emitting charge at the equator. The reason massive bodies tend to emit photons from their equatorial latitudes is because those surface latitudes are moving at the spinning (and traveling) mass’ highest velocity; the very low surface velocity at the mass’ pole results in the least amount of charge emissions. Given that, incoming galactic photons entering either of the sun’s poles are more in-phase and traveling in the same direction. The incoming photons greatly outnumber the solar pole’s outgoing photons, resulting in a lower number of head-to-head photon/anti-photon collisions and less em radiation. This makes the sun’s charge intake less detectable – appearing somewhat ‘sparse’. Meanwhile, photons emitted from the sun’s equatorial latitudes exceed oppositely phased incoming galactic photons; resulting is a greater number of increased energy head-to-head collisions and so more em radiation is observed over the equator.

_Lloyd3 wrote: Miles' idea that significant photon radiation enters the poles of the Sun and planets (and moons?) doesn't seem plausible to me. I don't think such radiation has been detected anywhere. I think Miles calculated that the axial tilts of the planets are caused by the photon and antiphoton radiation entering the poles. But I think the axial tilts are caused by gyroscopic forces and electrical forces. A small amount of radiation contacts the surfaces of all bodies. Any photon radiation that contacts the poles would not enter into the body. Some would be absorbed into the surface and some would be   reflected away. Some would be absorbed as heat, but more heat is likely emitted than is absorbed. I don't know how anyone can suggest that photons enter the poles and exit at the equator (or the opposite pole). There's way too much matter in the way for photons to get anywhere quickly within a body.

Airman. Due to their size difference alone, photons can easily pass through proton matter such as the sun. Photons mainly enter the poles because that’s where the charged particle emits the least, the incoming direction with the least resistance. Only a small number of incoming photons would collide with ‘the pole’, I believe most collisions are photon/photon or photon/anti-photon, side-to-side or head-to-head collisions. But yes, I believe most photons passing through the sun at some distance away from the sun’s most ‘porous’ spin axis will likely recycle through the proton matter within the sun, and that each such photon contributes to the sun’s overall energy level.

Here’s something that has always bothered me. Like the sand through an hourglass,  photons spiral-in(?), waiting for a void to fill(?) before entering the pole and perhaps recycling through the particle(?). To me that suggests massive photons – with a large mass energy radius, much smaller than an electron(?) in close contact advancing at well under light speed.  

ELECTRIC CIRCUITS

_Lloyd1 wrote: Batteries exist as stored charge and it makes way more sense that stars radiate stored charge than that they recycle charge. The Sun is c. 864,000 miles wide, it would take a photon a few seconds to go all the way through, if there were no obstacles, but it's full of dense obstacles and most photons within the Sun have to be reflecting back and forth constantly between atoms or ions. That's called storage.

_Anon2 wrote: No, not even the consensus model (once you get past high school) claims that batteries "store" charge anymore. Despite still being taught as being the "movement of electrons and ions" we know that this is definitely NOT electricity; the movement of charged particles are the result of electricity, not the cause. We know this because we now have instruments sensitive enough to measure the movement of electrons in wires - and they don't move very fast, whereas electricity moves at the speed of light (or close to it). There is also nowhere the number of electrons moving to explain the amount of work we get out of electricity. Also consider alternating current - exactly what is causing the electricity there? It can't be electrons and ions, as they are basically vibrating in place, given the "direction" of the current is changing 50+ times per second. Wires are basically wave guides, and that's pretty much what they teach in Uni now, although they still fail to explain precisely what is being guided. Eric Dollard has a few explanations that are suitably more advanced and can explain a number of phenomena that the consensus model fails to, but you need a model like Miles's to explain the actual electricity. What the battery does do is to help concentrate the charge particles. See e.g.  http://milesmathis.com/seft.pdf
The consensus model about the Sun being incredibly dense, especially in the middle, is a theory. I've seen nothing to support that theory apart from broken maths like gravity only models that ignore charge and are self-inconsistent. If you want a REAL alternative to Miles's theory for "storage" that at least has some evidence from lab experiments, then you need to be looking at a plasmoid, although strictly speaking plasmoids don't preclude Miles's theory; they could be an emergent phenomena that he's not yet covered.

Airman. I had to review plasmoids first, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid, but I agree, plasmoids are emergent phenomena, an alternative behavior of proton matter in a high energy state emitting more charge than it can take in, quickly depleting its high energy state.

I agree that photons traveling through the sun and off the sun’s spin axis likely recycle through the proton matter within the sun. I believe the internal structure of the sun will eventually be found to contain stacked spins, but I don’t see how photons ‘reflecting back and forth’ would constitute ‘storage’. We know we can deplete or recharge batteries. As I imagine it, “stored charge” amounts to the energy state of the battery’s molecular mass. The physical size of some of the protons within the ion are larger when the battery is charged.

Furthermore, as you know Lloyd, you asked me what I thought about a video not too long ago that supposedly explained how current flows in a dc circuit. Yes, things are hard to find at this site. I answered, at some length, explaining that I thought the guy in the video, or the university team running the experimental setup showing how the circuit behaved like a transmission line, was clearly aware of Miles’ How a Battery Circuit Works paper. There’s plenty I have difficulty understanding in that paper, but here’s an important quote, “The ionic content of the battery has set up not a separation of charge, but a density difference in the photon field.” When turned on, I have no problem believing that a fully charged battery contains ions in their highest energy state and highest local charge density, that are able to prime (or prompt) the local charge field to prefer one predominant circuit direction over the other, at which time the local charge field is doing most of the work, enhancing electron flow in the desired circuit path direction. Ions that return to their lower energy state can no longer prime the metallic circuit path to recycle at the higher energy level.

_Lloyd3 wrote: I know electrons don't move much in electric circuits. But I think the electric charges, i.e. positive and negative ions, have to be separated in order to get power. Miles doesn't accept positive and negative, but to me it's apparent that the different ions have different pressures. So positive may mean high pressure and negative mean low pressure. Batteries maintain ion separation for a time. If a conductor circuit with a load is connected with the battery, power is supplied to the load, presumably coming from the positive high pressure side and going to the negative side. After a battery dies and ion separation is lost, no power is available. So the photons, which apparently constitute the power, are unable to maintain power without the ion separation at the battery. The Sun, containing CFDLs, i.e. current-free double-layers, is a battery that is gradually "discharging", i.e. losing its double-layers.

Airman. There’s plenty I have difficulty understanding in How a Battery Circuit Works, but with respect to the notion of ion charge separation in a battery, here’s an important quote, “The ionic content of the battery has set up not a separation of charge, but a density difference in the photon field.” The electromagnetic energy is entirely the result of initial linear charge motion. Energetic atoms in the battery, wire and bulb are good source for photons. The local charge field to initiate a higher energy charge recycling start that primes the circuit wire prefer one circuit direction over the other, at which time the local charge field enhances electron flow in the desired direction. Ions soon lose their higher energy states and then can no longer direct higher energy charge field recycling along the circuit path.  Charge particles such as electrons, protons or atoms are subject to their local charge conditions and environments.

Another thing, I recall a video of a high voltage direct current electrical display between positive and negative plates that, according to the researchers, resembles a paillon – or butterfly, which I thought was a good description. Haven’t seen that link in a long time either. Another example that displays two directional charge flow is a flame study conducted in orbit that showed how flames burn their fuel in orbit.


Cool Fire, from a post somewhere around here on or about Monday, ‎March ‎28, ‎2016. Some of the information can be found at,
Fire Burns Differently in Space, Space Station Experiment Shows
https://www.space.com/13766-international-space-station-flex-fire-research.html
By Space.com Staff published November 29, 2011

My point is, in a direct circuit, at any given moment, photons and anti-photons, electrons and positrons, protons and upside down protons will be energized by photon and anti-photon charge at the same time (usually in a 2:1 ratio) and move in opposite directions through the wires.  Charge particles flowing in opposite directions makes no sense when, as you suggest,  the flow of electricity should be explained as a single pair of high and low electric pressure points.

FILAMENTS

_Anon2 wrote: I think it's quite possible that the Universe is changing (in terms of becoming more complex), with the emergent effects of electricity and magnetism resulting in more and more of the charge particles being concentrated, which would explain why everywhere we look we see mass concentrated on exceptionally long filaments - a web of creation, with vast abysses between the strands.

_Lloyd3 wrote: There are filaments within galaxies and there are larger filaments connecting galaxies. The intra-galactic filaments apparently form stars. I guess the larger filaments may form galaxies. Charles has a paper on galaxy formation. I don't know of evidence that the intra-galactic filaments provide electricity to power stars. Such filaments form stars as double-layers and the DLs are what provide the power to the stars. You already noted that electrons don't flow within electric circuits. Electrons do flow in the star-forming filaments. And so do the +ions. See http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15482

Airman. I tend to view matter filaments in space as overlapping and intersecting charge field domains where matter can form and grow. Where ever there’s matter, there’s recycling charge. The evolution of mater in the universe is some heady stuff. Where did all these photons and space come from in the first place? The last time I thought about where the universe was headed, I’d pretty much accepted Miles’ notion of the expanding universe, where matter will continue to expand until a proton’s radius is expanding outward at light speed.
.

Thanks, Airman.

Looks like you're pretty much covered everything better than I could have; not sure if there's anything you'd like me to comment on, although there's one thing I should probably mention:

Airman wrote:The last time I thought about where the universe was headed, I’d pretty much accepted Miles’ notion of the expanding universe, where matter will continue to expand until a proton’s radius is expanding outward at light speed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're referring to Miles's first attempt to explain gravity, being that everything was expanding at c.  Frankly I always thought that theory was terrible; yes, it gave the right maths, but it made no sense from a physical point-of-view and it's general "feel" compared to the rest of Miles's papers always struck me as not being correct.  Nor did I think much of theory #2 (http://milesmathis.com/gravitycause.pdf).  Now, theory #3 has some merit (http://milesmathis.com/grav3.pdf), although I'm still waiting for Miles to get back to me concerning one issue I had with it.  It's now up to version 4, although it's really version 3.1 as http://milesmathis.com/grav4.pdf is a minor update to #3, which I'm still trying to wrap my head around.  

I think it's a great explanation for friction and the difference between static and non-static friction (which I still need to write up a decent explanation of using Miles's theory), but I'm not entirely convinced it's sufficient to explain everything we associate with gravity and the structure of the solar system.  I did suggest a modification to Miles which I think might work, but that would result in stuff other than gravity being the cause of some observations we ascribe to gravity, and would also probably do away with any way of traveling faster than c, so I don't think Miles is terribly keen.

Anyway, my point regarding your comment is that as far as I know Miles no longer supports the view of an expanding universe, and in many of his papers he makes arguments similar to those of EUT (although coming from a different angle) that all reports purporting to prove an expanding universe (especially one expanding at an ever-increasing rate) are based on bad maths and theories.

.
Modeling atoms has led me to stick my neck out at times and make questionable charge field observations and assertions, such as: 1. displaying and arguing that proton emissions occur mainly between +/- 30-40 deg latitudes, and are not strictly equatorial planar emissions as suggested by Miles’ diagrams; 2. adding some rather lose molecular bonding details - there’s nothing preventing the proton bonds formed; 3. or the ‘fact’ that an ion’s energy level is; of course, not related to missing or excess electrons but is instead a measure of the sum total of the quantized energy states’ of all the protons within the atom. Protons at a higher energy level have an extra spin and doubled radius and so can recycle more charge at a higher energy level than protons without an added spin. Sure, Miles has described photons in (A,X,Y,Z) radius doubling manner, but I don’t recall him ever adding an x, y or z spin to protons. Nor do I recall Miles describing ions. My model may be wrong, but I do my best to conform to charge field theory. I added my ‘energetic ions include extra proton spins’ assertion to the above discussion and half expected a brief mention. None is required, but your opinion/feedback is certainly welcome.

Expansion theory is indeed terrible; I suffered long term brain damage because of it, but if it explains everything mathematically then so be it. On the other hand, as you point out and Miles apparently agrees, Expansion theory may indeed be bad math – not a true description of gravity. I’m afraid gravity as a function of charge doesn’t seem to seem to suggest any dramatic end to the universe. One of the consequences is I can never resist a plug for the expanding proton theory, inside humor.

Miles gravity 3.1. Gravity as a function of the charge field. As I see it, matter above the earth aligns its preferred vertical, upward charge orientation direction with earth’s upward vertical charge emissions, such that free protons will align with either left or right spins. At which time, upward earth emissions become mostly pole-to-pole through charge, resulting in a minimum amount of charge collision resistance. Meanwhile, charge incoming from space is colliding with all locations on the object’s topside. The space facing pole is doing most all the object’s pole to equator charge recycling. Atoms and molecules are messier but the effect is the same. With mostly vertical aligned charge channels, incoming charge from space will provide gravity’s net downward force.

I almost think of the vertical channels as objects in and of themselves. An object moving through earth’s emission field in any other direction constantly breaks and renews charge channels with the earth.  Charge channels may help to describe lightning bolts and filaments in space. Charge gravity is closely related to lift, at a sufficiently high sideways velocity, an object can glide -  by breaking existing vertical charge coherency in the atmosphere, deflecting charge sideways, thereby benefiting by the resulting net upward thrust felt by the object from earth’s upward charge emissions - no longer vertically charge coherent. During lift, incoherent upward earth emissions result in increased numbers of upward collisions – abundant bouyancy where the downward push gravity is overuled. If the object is moving sideways more slowly, the increased charge coherency and diminished lift results in push gravity’s downward effect.

I also await any further theory developments. Your idea of Sliding vs Static friction could fit right in. We can look forward to your write up on the subject.
.

Thanks, Airman.
WRT proton emissions, I suppose it depends how fast the protons are spinning axially at the outermost level, but I'm inclined to stick with Miles's assertion that the vast majority of them would be at the equator, because otherwise it would cause a problem with his atomic and molecular models; it would be hard to have stable atoms and molecules without the vast majority of charge particles being processed being either through charge or spun-out at the equator.

If a proton had an extra x, y and/or z spin then it's no longer something that acts like a proton, so I don't think an atom containing such a particle would be very stable.  There's nothing in his model that I'm aware of stopping there from being a particle that is a proton with an extra x/y/z/axial spin added that would have similar properties to the electron and proton in terms of through charge and equatorial charge emission.  Such a particle in standard terms would have a minimum mass of 1,723,000 MeV, i.e. 1723 GeV.  The so-called Higgs particle, which requires a supercollider to make, is "only" 125 GeV, so that would suggest they're likely to be rare due to the amount of energy concentration required to create them.

Miles mentions ions in a few papers without further comment so I don't believe he has any disagreement with the standard view that an ion is an atom that has an unbalanced number of electrons vs protons.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying re the charge channels and using that to explain gravity (plus lift, plus friction); the primary concern in my mind is that would make gravity even less likely to be effective over long distances, especially in areas of low mass density.  If, for example, the moon is being held to an orbit primarily in this fashion it means that there is a huge concentration of charge connecting the Earth to the Moon, and similarly there are huge charge channels running between the Sun and all of the planets, and between all of the planets, etc.  

I don't particularly have a problem with this as I'd already come to a similar conclusion that such channels exist in the form of Birkeland currents (in terms of what we can detect with current technology), but it means that gravity is definitely NOT instantaneous.  Which is also something I (currently) no longer have a problem with, but many proponents of EUT do (based on the findings of e.g. Tom van Flandern, which I agree show gravity definitely doesn't operate as per the concensus view).  I'm unsure what Miles's current feeling are regarding faster than light travel; he has never outright said it should be possible, but in some of his writings from memory I think he implied it shouldn't be ruled out.  

He does make a few comments here and there that suggest that c is not necessarily "fixed", and that it is a result of the density of the background charge field at the point that it is measured.  So, for example, in the void between galaxies (not where there are Birkeland currents connecting them) the charge field would be virtually non-existent, so there's nothing stopping particles from traveling at a speed vastly in excess of what we call c as there's so little for them to run into.

I believe this also means that gravity is something that builds up over time and isn't even necessarily as fast as c, and may not even be that effective in terms of objects within a heliosphere affecting those beyond it.  For example, if an object pierces the solar heliosphere and is traveling at speed and especially if it is at some distance from the Sun it may not obey the "rules" of gravity as it would presumably be difficult for a stable Birkeland current (or charge channel) to form between the Sun and this object.  Assuming Oumuamua was indeed an extra-solar object then this might explain some of its weird behaviour.  

Or maybe the formation of charge channels is a lot more efficient than I'm thinking; it's a bit hard to be sure without some level of experimentation that would be difficult with current technology.

Sorry I lost track of this thread.

Can anyone here calculate how long it would take a naked person's body in Antarctica to achieve ambient temperature? Or how long would it take in outer space, say 1,000 miles above the surface? Would it be instant? Or would it take a few seconds, or minutes, or hours?

How long would it take a full-grown blue whale to reach ambient temperature in space? Bing A.I. tells me that the largest whale would weigh about 200 tons. And 200 tons of water would occupy a little over 7,000 cubic feet. How long would it take a sphere of 7,000 cubic feet of water to reach ambient temperature in space? It wouldn't be instant, would it? Wouldn't it take a few hours?

An ice ball asteroid of 1 cubic mile volume would be 21 million times the volume of the blue whale. How long would it take such an asteroid starting at room temperature to achieve ambient temperature in space? Wouldn't it take over 21 million times longer? A cube 1,000 miles on each side would be a billion time larger than that 1 cubic mile asteroid. Wouldn't it take over a billion times longer to cool down to ambient temperature?

Heat is photons, isn't it? So an object the size of a large moon starting out at room temperature should take a billion years or more to cool down to near absolute zero. Bing A.I. says 333,000 moon masses equals one solar mass, so it should take the Sun trillions of years to cool down. Right?

Miles' and EU have a similar idea about "charge". Both claim that the Sun is supplied with all of its radiated energy immediately and constantly. Am I right? If its supply of photons or electrons were cut off, it would supposedly immediately stop radiating charge. Is that what the theory says? Both theories seem to deny that charge or heat or photons can be stored.

I disagree with that on the basis of the fact that heat doesn't dissipate instantly. And that means massive objects store heat and radiate it away at various rates, depending on the volume and shape.

Charles Chandler found that it's only the surface of the Sun that is mostly hydrogen and helium and they are supercritical liquids to a great extent. Below the liquid helium layer is iron, nickel, platinum & osmium, all ionized.

Bing A.I. says the Sun radiates 4 x 10^26 joules of energy per second. Do you have reason to doubt that? It also says the energy from other directions is negligible. Why would that not be true? It says the Sun radiates per square meter of its surface 63 megawatts or 63 joules per second. That's 63 million megawatts per square kilometer of surface. If the nearest star is 4 lyr's away and it radiates 63 million megawatts per square kilometer of its surface, the amount reaching the Earth would be awfully tiny. Add up the tinier amounts from all of the other stars in the galaxy and it's still nothing. So I don't see where anyone can come up with a constant supply of 63 million megawatts per square kilometer reaching the Sun and being recycled outward immediately.

Miles uses this diagram for protons etc.

Initially, I thought he meant that the spin of the proton caused the incoming photons to move toward the equator due to centrifugal force, but I think he later said centrifugal force isn't involved. But I don't think he ever said what force would cause the photons to move in such a tightly curved path. Does anyone know what force he claims is involved? I don't see how photons could follow such a path. Doesn't he claim that photons move through celestial bodies in that way too? How can photons move through dense matter without getting reflected back and forth between atoms, ions & photons constantly?

.
Lloyd wrote. Can anyone here calculate how long it would take a naked person's body in Antarctica to achieve ambient temperature? Or how long would it take in outer space,  
...
so it should take the Sun trillions of years to cool down. Right?

Airman. Agreed. Larger things take longer amounts of time to reach equilibrium.

Your questions, too much for me, are classic Thermodynamics problems with initial and final state conditions including systems, objects, masses, pressures and temperatures. Energy can be transferred as work or heat, generally from hotter to colder systems or bodies. According to thermo laws, the total energy remains the same. Two objects with different initial states will likely end at the same final temperature while the system’s overall entropy increases. No engine is 100% efficient, (car engines used to be, at best, 30-35% efficient), some energy will be lost as ‘wasted heat’. Thermo includes plenty of valid scientific data, obtained over hundreds of years, such as heat transfer rates and energy losses between systems, objects or black boxes at different initial conditions. According to thermo Increasing entropy appears to be the driving force of the Universe.

I believe your main point is, thermodynamic-ly speaking, any object or system can be considered as stored energy, why doesn’t the charge field – or my understanding of it, consider the Sun stored energy?

I’m confidant Thermodynamics can be improved by: 1. Recognizing the charge field exists and it is massive,  19X that of visible, proton matter. 2. The basic unit of heat or energy transfer should be charge of known radii or infrared photons. 3. Recognize that the charge field is responsible for all energy flows. Replace the commonly known energy flow concept of entropy – from hotter to colder objects or from order to disorder - with well defined charge fields and charge channels.  

I may not understand thermodynamics or the charge field as well as I should, thanks for the opportunity to review my thoughts. Protons are particles of known radius, energy state and present according to some distribution that may or may not have anything to do with a thermo problem. The main point being, the charge field is driving all the potentials, not the proton matter.

Lloyd wrote. Miles' and EU have a similar idea about "charge". Both claim that the Sun is supplied with all of its radiated energy immediately and constantly. Am I right?

Airman. All I said was, charge input and output must balance. Large objects like the Sun - or ourselves for that matter, are part of much larger structures of charge flows we cannot perceive. Photons travel at light-speed. The charge field includes its own sort of inertia. As photons are quickly expelled outward having recycled through protons, more photons soon arrive to take their place.

Lloyd wrote. If its supply of photons or electrons were cut off, it would supposedly immediately stop radiating charge. Is that what the theory says? Both theories seem to deny that charge or heat or photons can be stored.

Airman. I’m not denying anything, I’m just trying to express a valid charge field perspective. You’re welcome to think of matter as energy storage for some thermo reason, the charge field is the main consideration. There’s no way to stop incoming charge.

As far as I know, Miles has not tried to describe what would happen if the charge field were somehow “turned off”. That would be impossible, since everything is made of charge. Proton matter has well-defined, quantized mass/radius energy levels and spin-inertia. While recycling 19X its own weight in photons every second. Protons might gain a spin to become an ion, but once a proton loses its outer spins, its very unlikely its going to regain those spins to become a proton again.  

Lloyd wrote. I disagree with that on the basis of the fact that heat doesn't dissipate instantly. And that means massive objects store heat and radiate it away at various rates, depending on the volume and shap
Airman. The fact that heat doesn't dissipate rapidly doesn’t seem to me to be an argument against the charge field. The Earth may be subject to various relatively small charge surpluses or deficiencies each and every day for eons on end, in accordance with the earth/solar system interaction with the local galactic neighborhood. A slowly changing, dynamical equilibrium which evolves over time. Another opportunity for me to repeat my belief that Earth is growing; due to a slightly imbalanced charge intake/output over the history of the planet.

Lloyd wrote. Charles Chandler found that it's only the surface of the Sun that is mostly hydrogen and helium and they are supercritical liquids to a great extent. Below the liquid helium layer is iron, nickel, platinum & osmium, all ionized.

Bing A.I. says the Sun radiates 4 x 10^26 joules of energy per second. Do you have reason to doubt that?

Airman. I have no reason to disagree with Charles Chandler's solar surface description or a Bing A.I. estimated/calculated value of the Sun’s energy output; other than to point out, as I did in an earlier post, and am anxious to hear your reply; em detected over the equator is greater than emissions over the poles. Two different c.f. situations - its much harder to detect incoming polar charge. The mainstream greatly underestimates charge entering the poles.

Lloyd wrote. It also says the energy from other directions is negligible. Why would that not be true? It says the Sun radiates per square meter of its surface 63 megawatts or 63 joules per second. That's 63 million megawatts per square kilometer of surface. If the nearest star is 4 lyr's away and it radiates 63 million megawatts per square kilometer of its surface, the amount reaching the Earth would be awfully tiny. Add up the tinier amounts from all of the other stars in the galaxy and it's still nothing. So I don't see where anyone can come up with a constant supply of 63 million megawatts per square kilometer reaching the Sun and being recycled outward immediately.

Airman. Nevertheless, just because we do not directly detect the Sun’s charge field or charge flows should not be taken as proof the charge flow doesn’t exist.

Lloyd wrote. Miles uses this diagram for protons etc.


Initially, I thought he meant that the spin of the proton caused the incoming photons to move toward the equator due to centrifugal force, but I think he later said centrifugal force isn't involved. But I don't think he ever said what force would cause the photons to move in such a tightly curved path. Does anyone know what force he claims is involved? I don't see how photons could follow such a path. Doesn't he claim that photons move through celestial bodies in that way too? How can photons move through dense matter without getting reflected back and forth between atoms, ions & photons constantly?

Airman. As I understand it, that diagram shows not an actual but an average path for charge entering near a charged particle’s poles and exiting near the opposite side of particle’s equator. Incoming photons up from below do convey their spins to help spin-up or down the charged particle. At a two-to-one charge/anticharge ratio, final surface velocities soon develop. The charge particle may be a proton, planet or sun. Yes, the particle’s equatorial surface does travel at the greatest particle velocity, expediting photon charge emissions between +/- 40 deg. I believe a proton’s equatorial velocity does reach light speed. I believe the curves represent average paths – a kind of interference pattern built up from many separate collisions because no photon can travel along a curved path through a charged particle. The diagram does allow us to see where +/- 30-40deg latitude emissions mainly come from.  
.

Lloyd what do you think of B-Photons? Does C.C. address them? Are they involved with the Sun's energy radiation?
--------------

https://thehonestscientist.com/miles-mathis/

Airman, does it seem like I doubt the charge field? That's not the case. The charge field being the field of all photons in motion.

Cr6, I believe B-photons means bombarding photons. Right? And I think those are supposed to be mainly IR photons. Aren't they?

Airman. As I understand it, that diagram shows not an actual but an average path for charge entering near a charged particle’s poles and exiting near the opposite side of particle’s equator. Incoming photons up from below do convey their spins to help spin-up or down the charged particle. At a two-to-one charge/anticharge ratio, final surface velocities soon develop. The charge particle may be a proton, planet or sun. Yes, the particle’s equatorial surface does travel at the greatest particle velocity, expediting photon charge emissions between +/- 40 deg. I believe a proton’s equatorial velocity does reach light speed. I believe the curves represent average paths – a kind of interference pattern built up from many separate collisions because no photon can travel along a curved path through a charged particle. The diagram does allow us to see where +/- 30-40deg latitude emissions mainly come from.

The diagram seems illogical to me for any size object.
1. A proton in space orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Venus and Earth, as an example, is supposed to be receiving photons in one pole and antiphotons in the other.
What causes the ratio of antiphotons to diminish with distance? (I don't remember what Miles said about that.)
2. The proton would be spinning rapidly in various directions.
How would the photons and antiphotons know which pole to enter?
3. What would cause them to enter either proton pole, if the proton is made of a single photon traveling in circles at the speed of light, when the incoming photons are also traveling at the speed of light? What are the incoming photons and antiphotons bouncing off of?

Instead of consisting of a single photon running around in complex circles, I think it's more plausible that a proton consists of lots of photons. They, as well as electrons etc, could then be made within large objects, such as stars, where photons are concentrated together and bouncing back and forth between closely packed ions. Isn't that plausible?

In conventional physics, photons are detected from atoms only when an electron is supposedly knocked out of one orbital into another. Right? Why aren't photons detected constantly, if atoms or ions are constantly emitting them? Even if photons were detected constantly, how could we tell they're being recycled and not just reflected?

4. Have yous read Charles Chandler's paper on Filaments at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15482 ? He explains there how stars seem to be formed. Miles does away with negative charge, but I think that greatly reduces the flexibility of his model. I've stated before that his model could allow for negative charge by turning it into low pressure, versus high pressure for positive charge. Wouldn't that help to make sufficient sense of Charles' model etc? And doesn't his model show that "charge" is stored in large objects? If charge is not stored, but immediately dissipated, why is the incoming charge not detectable as is outgoing charge, i.e. raditaion?

Lloyd wrote. Airman, does it seem like I doubt the charge field? That's not the case. The charge field being the field of all photons in motion.
Airman. Really? You must admit, your first loyalty has always been to Charles Chandler. I’ve never objected.


Lloyd wrote. The diagram seems illogical to me for any size object.
1. A proton in space orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Venus and Earth, as an example, is supposed to be receiving photons in one pole and antiphotons in the other.
What causes the ratio of antiphotons to diminish with distance? (I don't remember what Miles said about that.)
Airman. That example sounds wrong. I don’t believe a proton, by itself, somewhere between Venus and the Earth could possibly be said to be ‘orbiting the sun’.

Starting with a single proton at that location, I believe the stream of charge it receives directly from the Sun soon turns the proton such that the proton’s pole and spin axis point directly to the Sun.

I believe infra-red B-photons would be correct when describing Earth’s own charge emissions, solar emissions are somewhat higher energy visible wavelength photons.

Some of the solar charge the proton receives will be straight through charge, while the remainder will be in accordance with the diagram.

The same basic example is to place a proton more conveniently above the Earth’s northern hemisphere surface. The proton will align itself such that the observer will say the proton is spinning either left or right. A charge channel will exist between the proton and the earth directly below. Some of the earth emissions the proton receives will follow the diagram’s blue curve.

That diagram also applies to all protons occupying proton stacks which pass charge and anticharge (up to 19 such stacks) in all atoms. Up to 6 adjacent aligned protons with right or left spins sharing a single charge channel.

Above the earth’s surface we can imagine well separated yet vertically aligned stacks of protons sharing a charge channel, for which the same diagram applies.

I’ll assume you don’t have a problem seeing how the diagram applies to charge entering near planetary or solar poles.

Lloyd wrote. 2. The proton would be spinning rapidly in various directions.
How would the photons and antiphotons know which pole to enter?
Airman. One of the advantages of this forum discussion format is that I can place the answers to your questions before you ask them. I set up the viewpoint above.

The protons are oriented such that they are spinning left or right, the vertically aligned parallel/anti-parallel protons share a common vertical charge channel through which charge flows one way (say up) and anti-charge flows the other (say down).
 
Lloyd wrote. 3. What would cause them to enter either proton pole, if the proton is made of a single photon traveling in circles at the speed of light, when the incoming photons are also traveling at the speed of light? What are the incoming photons and antiphotons bouncing off of?
Airman. Charge/anticharge is moving up/down the spin axis charge channel. Photons can enter either proton pole because the proton is essentially open or porous to photons. I believe Miles describes protons as the largest known particles with A spins, implying a single radius solid particle, which is somehow permeable to photons, especially along the proton’s spin axis. I myself imagine photons traveling through the proton’s internal nested and gyrating stacked spins, the only impenetrable places within the proton. With expanding gravity I thought those photons could be found in gravitational contact. With charge gravity, I don’t imagine photons behaving so well.  

Lloyd wrote. Instead of consisting of a single photon running around in complex circles, I think it's more plausible that a proton consists of lots of photons. They, as well as electrons etc, could then be made within large objects, such as stars, where photons are concentrated together and bouncing back and forth between closely packed ions. Isn't that plausible?
Airman. See, we can agree on something. But you knew that already. Actually, photons cannot simply bounce back and forth, new charge entering the proton forces the previous charge outwards.

Lloyd wrote. In conventional physics, photons are detected from atoms only when an electron is supposedly knocked out of one orbital into another. Right? Why aren't photons detected constantly, if atoms or ions are constantly emitting them? Even if photons were detected constantly, how could we tell they're being recycled and not just reflected?
Airman. That doesn’t sound right. We cannot detect photons, or rather we could only detect electron sized photons. Electrons are too large to enter a proton, electrons detected might have collided and bounced off the proton’s surface.  

Lloyd wrote. 4. Have yous read Charles Chandler's paper on Filaments at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15482 ? He explains there how stars seem to be formed. Miles does away with negative charge, but I think that greatly reduces the flexibility of his model. I've stated before that his model could allow for negative charge by turning it into low pressure, versus high pressure for positive charge. Wouldn't that help to make sufficient sense of Charles' model etc? And doesn't his model show that "charge" is stored in large objects? If charge is not stored, but immediately dissipated, why is the incoming charge not detectable as is outgoing charge, i.e. raditaion?
Airman. I’ve read sections at Charles Chandler’s site plenty of times, you’ve referred to them often enough. I don’t recall the Filaments section, figure 2 seems to be missing; as usual, it looks good. CC has always struck me as a mostly mainstream, Electric Universe type theoretician who can produce a quality product with electromagnetic ideas.

My formal education was based on electromagnetism. After years of study I've come to believe in the charge field. Circuits with ‘low pressure’, versus ‘high pressure’ for ‘positive charge’, or  ‘hydrodynamic jets producing electrostatic filaments’ that can hydrodynamically collapse into large bodies like moons or stars doesn't spark my interest.

Miles on the other hand, has come up with many entirely new ideas, like his Unified Field theory, where he's gotten beyond Electromagnetism. As he reminds us in his latest paper, Light is not a Field Wave; no, light is a spin wave, caused by real spinning photons.  


* NEW PAPER, added 6/30/23, Light is not a Field Wave, http://milesmathis.com/field4.pdf. A return to this important discovery, 18 years later.
.

Lloyd 7:23.
Charles Chandler never got into studying subatomic particles or electromagnetism much. He read a little of Miles' stuff, but didn't get much out of it. I like Charles' model for the macroscale and Miles' for the micro. There's some crossover and that's where I think it may help to regard protons as high-pressure and electrons as low-pressure, which can act like positive and negative charge. Are you dead-set against that possibility?

You're right, Airman, that a proton wouldn't likely be orbiting the Sun, at least not on the ecliptic, because it would be part of the solar wind, which I forgot about. I guess they wouldn't orbit off of the ecliptic either, because they'd have to cross it. Neutral atoms are surely orbiting the Sun though, as in dust grains, as well as atoms that escape from planets, comets, asteroids and meteors.

Lloyd 8:27.

Lloyd said: ... Even if photons were detected constantly, how could we tell they're being recycled and not just reflected?
Airman. That doesn’t sound right. We cannot detect photons, or rather we could only detect electron sized photons. Electrons are too large to enter a proton, electrons detected might have collided and bounced off the proton’s surface.

Lloyd: Where do you get the idea that we can't detect photons? We can detect visible light photons with our eyes. We can detect other photons with instruments. What photons can we not detect?

Lloyd 8:33.

Lloyd wrote. Instead of consisting of a single photon running around in complex circles, I think it's more plausible that a proton consists of lots of photons. They, as well as electrons etc, could then be made within large objects, such as stars, where photons are concentrated together and bouncing back and forth between closely packed ions. Isn't that plausible?
Airman. See, we can agree on something. But you knew that already. Actually, photons cannot simply bounce back and forth, new charge entering the proton forces the previous charge outwards.

Lloyd: You believe in stacked spins, don't you? Why do you need stacked spins, if a proton consists of numerous photons?
And I didn't mean that photons bounce back and forth within a proton. I meant they bounce back and forth between atoms or ions within large objects, usually reflecting off of them and sometimes recycling through them.

.
Lloyd 7:23.
… I like Charles' model for the macroscale and Miles' for the micro. There's some crossover and that's where I think it may help to regard protons as high-pressure and electrons as low-pressure, which can act like positive and negative charge. Are you dead-set against that possibility?
Airman. You’ve only briefly mentioned your high or low pressure electric circuit idea in this and maybe one other thread. The possibility that protons may be regarded as high-pressure positive charge sources and electrons may be regarded as low-pressure negative charge sources sounds to me to be close to the historical definition of charge.

Unfortunately the historical viewpoint has led to plenty of confusion and misinformation, such as like charges repel and unlike charges attract. The charge field teaches us that there is no attractive force, only apparent attraction, since all emission fields are strictly repulsive. According to the charge field we know electrons can approach protons much closer than other protons can, and electrons can in fact orbit proton poles. The charge field easily explains why scientists have historically viewed - incorrectly, that the proton is positive and the electron negative.  

Am I dead-set against a charge definition that seems little different than the historical definition? I don’t see how your charge definition differs from mainstream or conforms to the charge field.

Lloyd: You're right, Airman, that a proton wouldn't likely be orbiting the Sun, at least not on the ecliptic, because it would be part of the solar wind, which I forgot about. I guess they wouldn't orbit off of the ecliptic either, because they'd have to cross it. Neutral atoms are surely orbiting the Sun though, as in dust grains, as well as atoms that escape from planets, comets, asteroids and meteors.
Airman. I’d argue that dust and small clumps of proton mater - neutral or not, is simply captured by the solar system; the solar wind can certainly accelerate such particles which travel within the system’s space. I wouldn’t think such particles could actually form a proper ‘orbit’ around the Sun unless maybe they were caught in some debris zone, like Saturn’s rings.

Lloyd 8:27.

Lloyd said ... Even if photons were detected constantly, how could we tell they're being recycled and not just reflected?
Airman. That doesn’t sound right. We cannot detect photons, or rather we could only detect electron sized photons. Electrons are too large to enter a proton, electrons detected might have collided and bounced off the proton’s surface.

Lloyd: Where do you get the idea that we can't detect photons? We can detect visible light photons with our eyes. We can detect other photons with instruments. What photons can we not detect?
Airman. I guess you’re right, visible wavelength photons do appear to be visible, and they must be very large, almost electron sized (?) photons. Special infra-red equipment allows one to see infra red. I must assume that below some radius, photons would be undetectable by any of our current instruments.

Lloyd 8:33.

Lloyd wrote. Instead of consisting of a single photon running around in complex circles, I think it's more plausible that a proton consists of lots of photons. They, as well as electrons etc, could then be made within large objects, such as stars, where photons are concentrated together and bouncing back and forth between closely packed ions. Isn't that plausible?
Airman. See, we can agree on something. But you knew that already. Actually, photons cannot simply bounce back and forth, new charge entering the proton forces the previous charge outwards.

Lloyd: You believe in stacked spins, don't you? Why do you need stacked spins, if a proton consists of numerous photons?
Airman. Yes, I believe in stacked spins. Miles has explained that the only way a photon traveling and spinning at c can add any new energy obtained by collision is by adding a new top-level radius doubling end-over-end spin on top of the photon’s previous top-level-spin. The fact that for all but the smallest photons, sub-spins are present – is an integral part of Miles’ charge field theory.

As for "Why do you need stacked spins?”, here's Light is not a Field Wave’s * final two paragraphs.
Miles wrote.

If my critic is especially clever, he may laugh and say, “touché, however you still lack a difference in the wave that would explain a different expression at different times. I don't see how you are going to get that heterogeneity in your photon without an emitted field”. But I have, and again very simply. We don't need an emitted field or even an out-of-round photon. All we need is at least two stacked spins. In my paper on superposition, I showed that mystery was solved by stacked spins, and we have that to work with here as well. In most cases when I am using stacked spins, I am using them to explain the composition of somewhat larger quanta, like mesons or baryons. In that case we can build larger radii, explaining ever larger particles, up to W's and Z's and Higgs. But it is also true at the level of the photon itself, which I have pointed out before requires at least two spins to explain not only superposition, but the spin wave itself. And now you are seeing exactly why.

If we propose a photon with only an axial spin, we have a sort of potential wave created by the stretched-out radius and the spin, but no real way to express it (see it) from our level. Locally, a person camped on the surface of the photon might see it by watching for an object in his sky to re-appear. Or, if we could look on the surface of the photon with a microscope, we might track a little mountain there, noting its periodic re-appearance. But without that, we have no way of knowing where in its own wave the photon is, and would have no way to know even if the photon collided with us. The collision would be no different at time x than time y, so the wave could not be expressed. But if the photon is two waves stacked, the problem is solved, since in that case the photon acts differently at different times in its spin cycle. In one part of the larger cycle it is moving forward relative to c, and in one part it is moving back. So we have that heterogeneity my critic was talking about, you see.

Airman. I’m not at all clear in trying how to imagine what a proton looks like. I don't believe it has a fixed “surface”, the surface might be defined by the traveling and spinning edges of the proton's sub-spins. The only way that I can imagine sub-spins could possibly retain their structure over time would be if the sub-spins themselves were somehow defined by appropriate sized photons.

Lloyd: And I didn't mean that photons bounce back and forth within a proton. I meant they bounce back and forth between atoms or ions within large objects, usually reflecting off of them and sometimes recycling through them.
Airman. My answer remains the same, no loitering. The charge field is providing charge flows that generally moves even the charge along.

* NEW PAPER, added 6/30/23, Light is not a Field Wave, http://milesmathis.com/field4.pdf. A return to this important discovery, 18 years later.
.

Lloyd: And I didn't mean that photons bounce back and forth within a proton. I meant they bounce back and forth between atoms or ions within large objects, usually reflecting off of them and sometimes recycling through them.
Airman. My answer remains the same, no loitering. The charge field is providing charge flows that generally moves even the charge along.

There are millions of atoms in even a small speck of dust in space. In a meteor, or asteroid, planet or star, there are far more atoms & ions concentrated in very small volumes. Photons reflect off of atoms & ions, as well as apparently sometimes recycle through them. It's not possible for photons inside such concentrations of atoms and/or ions to leave immediately, since they would have to encounter vast numbers of barriers that individually often substantially change their directions of motion. Just picture a pinball moving inside a maze of millions of randomly arranged bumpers. It would take a long time for it to exit the maze. Do you care to check it out mathematically? Bing A.I. tells me the distance between atoms in steel at STP is ~30 nm. It says the number of atoms in a cc of steel at STP is ~10^24. Besides the atoms, there are also vast numbers of photons within the object moving in all directions. The speed of light in water at STP is 75% of c. In glass at STP it's 67% of c. Doesn't that prove that photons are bouncing back and forth within such objects? Isn't heat IR photons? Bing A.I. says "the time it takes for heat to travel through insulation can be calculated using the formula t = R x K x A / Q where t is time in hours, R is the R-value of the insulation, K is the thermal conductivity of the insulation material in BTU-in/hr-ft²-°F, A is the area of the surface in ft² and Q is the heat flow rate in BTU/hr." Can you use that to calculate how long it takes IR photons to go through a foot of R-10 insulation? And doesn't this prove that photons bounce back and forth within insulation? Pueblos stay warm in winter because of their thick walls. The rocks in the walls have a low R-value, but because of the thickness, it still takes a long time for the IR photons to get through.

I'd like for you guys to admit eventually that heat is "stored" in objects and, since heat is charge, charge is stored. By stored, I don't mean it's motionless. Instead, it's moving back and forth between atoms and photons and it takes time for the heat or the charge to dissipate.

Did this topic become uninteresting? Or is everyone busy with other things for a while?

.
You're right about me being busy Lloyd.

Last week I reviewed "The Cause of Gravity, the Next Chapter" and realized I must point out that Miles' recycling diagram is necessary to describe charge field gravity.

NEW PAPER, added 2/20/19, http://milesmathis.com/grav3.pdf The Cause of Gravity, the Next Chapter. Possibly the most important paper I have published in several years.
http://milesmathis.com/index.html
.

Explain this:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/in-space-flames-behave-in-ways-nobody-thought-possible-132637810/

Does Miles have anything on combustion on his science site?
I assume that combustion is a type of ionization. Isn't it?
I think he has discussed ionization. So has Charles Chandler. As I recall, I think their ideas are similar. I can't discuss with Charles any more, as he had a stroke 2 years ago (My guess is due to Covid vax.)

.
Lloyd wrote. Does Miles have anything on combustion on his science site?
Airman.  I don’t believe so. I’ve searched Miles’ science site for fire before. No returns on ‘combustion’, ‘fire’ or oxidation on his science homepage. I haven’t gotten any good hits word searching his papers either.
 
Lloyd wrote. I assume that combustion is a type of ionization. Isn't it?
Airman. Nope, fire’s a rapid oxidation. Googling “Is fire a ‘rapid oxidation? ’ returned:

NFPA 921 defines fire as “A rapid oxidation process, which is a chemical reaction resulting in the evolution of light and heat in varying intensities.” Fire is also defined1 as an “uncontrolled combustion”.

Googling ‘What is the definition of ionization?’ returns:

Ionization is the process by which ions are formed by gain or loss of an electron from an atom or molecule. If an atom or molecule gains an electron, it becomes negatively charged (an anion), and if it loses an electron, it becomes positively charged (a cation). Energy may be lost or gained in the formation of an ion.

Lloyd wrote. I think he has discussed ionization. So has Charles Chandler. As I recall, I think their ideas are similar.
Airman. I don’t recall Miles ever discussing the mainstream definition of ionization. In the first paragraph of “Splitting the Electron” Miles wrote.

Since physicists then and now have no good maps of the various nuclei—as I have—and since they don't understand how the charge field is channeled by nuclei and ions, they are forced to continue to try to give all variances or ordering to the electron. I have shown that they have been giving all “quantum numbers” to the electron from the beginning, based mostly on a hunch (and bad math by Bohr), and they are continuing to do it here. They see mysterious effects, unexplainable by current theory, so they immediately begin tacking new motions or characteristics* on to the old electron. What else could be causing it, they think.

I don’t think Charles Chandler ever believed electrons are just pushed along by the charge field.

Miles has indicated that the presence of electrons enables bonding between protons and so I believe electrons cannot be lost or gained in the way ionization is currently defined. Instead, I believe an atom’s ionization level refers to the ratio of higher energy protons to the total number of protons the atom contains, which varies according to differing energy conditions in which the atom is channeling charge. I’ve briefly mentioned my ionization definition with purplepete, “The Honest Scientist” earlier in this thread.

Lloyd wrote. I can't discuss with Charles any more, as he had a stroke 2 years ago (My guess is due to Covid vax.)
Airman. Sorry to hear that Charles has had a stroke Lloyd. I'm also sorry to hear you attributing the stroke to the Covid vax.
.

Hi Lloyd so sorry to hear about Charles. That is very sad news.

The below is interesting regarding combustion:
-----Snip

In Space, Flames Behave in Ways Nobody Thought Possible
Combustion experiments conducted in zero gravity yield surprising results

Ker Than

December 2012

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/in-space-flames-behave-in-ways-nobody-thought-possible-132637810/




Moreover, the data obtained aboard the space station—through experiments such as comparing how fire spreads on flat objects versus spherical ones—will help engineers better understand the behavior of fuel and flames on Earth, where approximately 75 percent of our power comes from some form of combustion.

NASA scientists are especially excited about the potential applications for a bizarre, unprecedented type of combustion they observed in space this past spring: When certain types of liquid fuel catch fire, they continue to burn even when the flames appear to have been extinguished. The fuel combustion occurs in two stages. The first fire burns with a visible flame that eventually goes out. But shortly afterward, the fuel reignites, taking the form of “cool flames” that burn at lower temperatures and are invisible to the naked eye.

Scientists do not yet have an explanation for this phenomenon. But engineers say that if this chemical process could be duplicated on Earth, the result could be diesel engines that use cool flames to produce fewer air pollutants.

NASA researcher Paul Ferkul says the microgravity experiments provide a unique opportunity to study the underlying dynamics of fire “from a more fundamental point of view” by looking at combustion processes “that would otherwise be masked or at least complicated by gravity.”

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Miles has indicated that the presence of electrons enables bonding between protons and so I believe electrons cannot be lost or gained in the way ionization is currently defined. Instead, I believe an atom’s ionization level refers to the ratio of higher energy protons to the total number of protons the atom contains, which varies according to differing energy conditions in which the atom is channeling charge. I’ve briefly mentioned my ionization definition with purplepete, “The Honest Scientist” earlier in this thread.

Miles doesn't really treat ionization any differently from the mainstream; the main difference is where he puts the electron.  As per http://milesmathis.com/electron.pdf the bulk of atomic properties are due to the location of the protons, with the neutrons acting as stability pillars.  Electrons do very little except swirl around the incoming charge streams like ping pong balls in a sink full of water when you pull the plug - they sit on the top and spin around but are too small to go down the hole, but they are big enough so that only a certain number of them can sit inside the charge streams of the nucleus, and they can block access to the proton, preventing chemical bonds, and slightly impede the charge stream.

If something hits the balls with enough force then they can be knocked out of "sink" and that then leaves an "open plug" where another proton (or atom) can more easilty slot into, to e.g. form a "chemical bond".

Note that this idea with the electron being in the nucleus, rather than "around" it is becoming more common; it's a key part of both the Structured Atomic Model (SAM) of Kaal/Sorenson/Otte/Emming and also the toroidal Zitterbewegung model of Kovacs/Zatelepin/Baranov/Siplia/Vassallo, although in both cases they have the electron magically changing size and/or mass when it enters the nucleus, unlike Miles's model.

.

Mainstream - wiki image of electron bonding which Miles cites in Electron Bonding is a Myth.

purplepete wrote. Miles doesn't really treat ionization any differently from the mainstream; the main difference is where he puts the electron. … .

Hi purplepete! I must emphatically disagree.

For the mainstream definition, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization.

Ionization (or ionisation specifically in Britain, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand) is the process by which an atom or a molecule acquires a negative or positive charge by gaining or losing electrons, often in conjunction with other chemical changes.

Comparing the charge field to mainstream theory, here’s the opening paragraph of Miles’ paper, Electron Bonding is a Myth.

In this paper I will show that both Covalent and Ionic bonding are a myth. Now that I have diagrammed the
nucleus, I can show that electron bonding is a myth in toto. Atomic bonds are not created by sharing or borrowing electrons, they are created by channeling the charge field through the nucleus. This will destroy both valence bond theory and molecular orbit theory, both of which will be shown to be pushed like this diagram at Wiki.

Miles explains how ionization is one the many ways the mainstream theory currently misinterprets the available data. In What Rutherford really Proved about the Electron, (thanks for the reference, I haven't reread this paper in a long time), Miles describes how, due to Earth’s 2:1 charge/anti-charge imbalance, more weakly bound electrons are found near spinning protons’ north pole anti-charge intake, while positrons are found orbiting protons’ south pole charge intake. The two are upside down from each other. Since the electron’s discovery, mainstream scientists usually observed mostly electrons, confusing the two, now referring to both electrons and positrons as simply electrons.

Before bonding occurs between larger nucleon like atoms, smaller, more loosely bound electrons and positrons are blown out of the way.

Discussion of neutrons acting like little pillars or posts, keeping the proton disks from turning and repulsing one another” can be found in How to Build a Nucleus.

In Diatomic Hydrogen Miles explains how a proton with an electron orbiting one of proton poles results in a low charge field pressure zone near the proton’s other pole, that enables bonding between protons. Such bonds are held in place by a surrounding higher charge pressure.

There’s nothing like any of Miles' ideas above in mainstream theory.  

I watched the ThunderboltsProject youtube video - Edwin Kaal: Proposal for the Structured Atom Model | EU2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlrEtFvkKEQ. No disrespect intended, I would have loved this theory back in my old R. Buckminster Fuller days. In summary, according to the SAM theory, there are only protons and smaller electrons, held together by a central attractive force that can be mimicked with spherical magnets in direct contact. At the time of the video, about 40% the elements had been modeled using this theory.

I didn't see any source on the Toroidal Zitterbewegung model of Kovacs/Zatelepin/Baranov/Siplia/Vassallo yet.

http://milesmathis.com/updates.html
NEW PAPER 7/5/2009. How to Build a Nucleus without a Strong Force, http://milesmathis.com/stack.html with simple postulates and diagrams.
PAPER UPDATE 1/15/2012. Electron Bonding is a Myth. http://milesmathis.com/electron.pdf I show that my nuclear diagrams match Max Born's charge diagrams from 1935.
NEW PAPER, 9/28/2012. Diatomic Hydrogen. http://milesmathis.com/diatom.pdf. My new charge bonding explains this much better than electron sharing. Plus an analysis of spin isomers.
NEW PAPER, added 1/13/18. What Rutherford really Proved about the Electron.  http://milesmathis.com/electron.pdf Also more information about the positron.

P.S. Added a missing "anti-" to the north pole charge intake.
.

Related update on "Cool Flames": https://www.issnationallab.org/upward62-cool-flames-research/
=========

Cool Flames in Space Could Lead to More Efficient Engines on Earth
JUNE 29, 2023

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER (FL), June 29, 2023 – A new type of flame produced on the International Space Station (ISS) doesn’t just look cool with its spherical blue glow—it is cool. Cool flames, which burn at temperatures much lower than traditional hot flames, could be the key to improving internal combustion engine efficiency and reducing the emission of harmful pollutants. Currently, internal combustion engines in most cars burn gasoline at only 35% efficiency; however, incorporating cool flame chemistry into engines could theoretically increase the efficiency to as high as 60%. To gain a better understanding of cool flame chemistry, researchers are turning to the ISS National Laboratory.

On Earth, cool flames are difficult to study because gravity-driven buoyancy quickly snuffs them out. This makes the space station’s microgravity environment an ideal platform to study these unique flames. A team of scientists, led by University of Maryland researcher Peter Sunderland, used microgravity conditions on the space station to produce cool diffusion flames from liquid fuel for the first time, providing new insight into cool flame chemistry.

The latest issue of Upward, official magazine of the ISS National Lab, delves into findings from this exciting research. Upward is dedicated to communicating the results of space station experiments that demonstrate the value of space-based research and development. Read the article “Going Cool to Go Green” to see how studying cool flames in space could lead to cleaner, more efficient internal combustion engines on Earth.

Download a high resolution image for this release: NASA Astronaut Kate Rubins

Notice of correction: The lead photo for this press release has been replaced. The initial photo showed an astronaut working on a previous cool flames investigation.

Media Contact:      
Patrick O’Neill
904-806-0035
PONeill@ISSNationalLab.org

# # #

About the International Space Station (ISS) National Laboratory:  The International Space Station (ISS) is a one-of-a-kind laboratory that enables research and technology development not possible on Earth. As a public service enterprise, the ISS National Lab allows researchers to leverage this multiuser facility to improve life on Earth, mature space-based business models, advance science literacy in the future workforce, and expand a sustainable and scalable market in low Earth orbit. Through this orbiting national laboratory, research resources on the space station are available to support non-NASA science, technology and education initiatives from U.S. government agencies, academic institutions, and the private sector. The Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), Inc. manages the ISS National Lab, under Cooperative Agreement with NASA, facilitating access to its permanent microgravity research environment, a powerful vantage point in low Earth orbit, and the extreme and varied conditions of space. To learn more about the ISS National Lab, visit www.ISSNationalLab.org.

.
Hi Cr6, I'm disappointed the ISS National LAB org link doesn’t include any additional information.

Surprised to see "Cool flame" in Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_flame
Quoting the opening paragraph and History.

A cool flame or invisible flame is a flame having a typical temperature of about 400 °C (752 °F).[1] It is usually produced in a chemical reaction of a certain fuel-air mixture. In contrast to an ordinary flame, the reaction is not vigorous and releases little heat, light, or carbon dioxide. Cold flames are difficult to observe and are uncommon in everyday life, but they are responsible for engine knock – the undesirable, erratic, and noisy combustion of low-octane fuels in internal combustion engines.[2][3][4]

History
Cool flames were accidentally discovered in the 1810s by Sir Humphry Davy, who was inserting a hot platinum wire into a mixture of air and diethyl ether vapor. "When the experiment on the slow combustion of ether is made in the dark, a pale phosphorescent light is perceived above the wire, which of course is most distinct when the wire ceases to be ignited. This appearance is connected with the formation of a peculiar acrid volatile substance possessed of acid properties."[5]: 79  After noticing that certain types of flame did not burn his fingers or ignite a match, he also found that those unusual flames could change into conventional ones and that at certain compositions and temperatures, they did not require an external ignition source, such as a spark or hot material.[2][5][6]

Harry Julius Emeléus was the first to record their emission spectra, and in 1929 he coined the term "cold flame".[7][8]

Pretty cool indeed. Still trying to interpret, or understand the reaction from the charge field perspective.

P.S.
Cool Flames Created During a First for International Space Station Research
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/cool-flames-created-during-a-first-for-international-space-station-research/
which includes a very short video.

And a technical introductory 8 pg chapter.  
Cool-Flames - Perspectives on their importance in combustion systems
https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Cool-Flames-Overview1.pdf
NASA (.gov)
https://www1.grc.nasa.gov › wp-content › uploads
PDF

Strictly speaking, cool flames are a result of a very particular family of exothermic reactions that occur in hydrocarbon fuels over a limited range of ...

.