## Lloyd Blog

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Universal Expansion Problem/s Possibly
(depending on how well my mind is functioning)

But this analogy doesn’t hold with the version of expansion theory I’m discussing. Your criticism assumes that there is a substance to space that must expand into along with the matter; and it assumes a vacuum as a background by which to measure the expansion of both substantive space and matter. What I am saying is that real space is the true vacuum that thing expand into; the vacuum of free space can have no characteristics by the definition of ‘vacuum’, ‘free’, and ‘space’.

And again, you have left the charge field out of equation. Expansion for gravity, by itself, would create the problem you are suggesting; but expansion for gravity is not by itself in the unified field. Expansion for gravity creates the appearance of attraction, but the charge field drives the bodies apart maintaining separation and thus creating the balance. Gravity and the charge field change at different rates so balances are correctible to a large extent.

2. Light Speed
If a photon (and the universe) expands to ten times its initial size it would be going ten times as fast as before, increasing light speed by ten times or so.

This is would only be true if the speed of light could be measured from a god-like perspective that measures a later speed in relation to a past coordinate system. Obviously, this is an impossible situation that can have no real meaning in the present coordinate system. Yes, the photon, like everything else would be expanding; but the size of your ruler you measure by is expanding at the same rate, so that the speed as measured will be constant.

3. Gravity
If gravity is a measure of universal expansion, the expansion would be a different rate for each body since the force due to gravity is different for each body. Thus the expansions of other bodies would be measurable/observable.

This criticism confuses the mechanism of gravity with the results of gravity. The measured forces resulting from gravity are different because the force is dependent upon distance from the center of the gravitating object. But the mechanism of gravity itself through fundamental expansion is at a constant rate of expansion (acceleration); thus no size changes between bodies would be observed.

Note that this is to be understood within Miles’ unified field theory where the forces resulting from the mechanism of gravity are dependent on radius alone; and the mass variables are assigned to the charge field. It’s important to realize that knowing an acceleration alone is not sufficient information to tell you about velocities. Two bodies can have the same acceleration, but vastly different velocities. In the same way, two bodies can have the same velocity over one interval, and vastly different accelerations.

4. Photon Expansion
Photons would need to consist of subparticles in order to expand. And the subparticles would need to also, ad infinitum.

Actually, not just photons, but every fundamental entity (whether there is just one or a hundred) would be included in this expansion. Expansion theory, according to this form, is from the most fundamental level of existence. But since the Miles doesn’t address the source of expansion, you can’t say that sub-particles are required. But really, it’s not fair to question a theory because it can’t establish a starting point without assumptions. Every theory starts with an initial condition that is assumed to be true and every theory is subject to an ad infinitum line of cause-and-effect. This is not evidence against expansion theory or any other theory.

5. Energy
Something would have to provide an infinite amount of energy to cause infinite expansion.

As I pointed out before, every theory of gravity faces this question; so, again, this is not evidence against expansion theory. Gravity is an acceleration, accelerations require a continuous force, continuous forces require continuous energy input. It doesn’t matter if we assign the mechanism of gravitational acceleration to ‘curved space’, mass, gravitons or expansion; gravity requires a source of continuous energy input.

John
tharkun

Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:37 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Saturn Configuration
Lloyd earlier: No, the polar configuration requires that the planets of Saturn followed behind Saturn like the SL9 comet ...

John: Ok, that’s the first time I’ve heard that the proposed Saturnian system travelled single-file and not as a mini solar system with Saturn as the ‘sun’. As I recall from Dave Talbott’s first documentary Remembering the End of the World, the computer simulation created showed the Saturnian system ‘rolling’ around the sun with the Earth, Venus, Mars, etc. orbiting around Saturn perpendicular to the ecliptic. Also, doesn’t Symbols of an Ancient Sky propose that Jupiter was a part of the Saturnian system but that it was on the opposite side of Saturn and not visible until the break-up occurred?

Lloyd now: Alien Sky shows Jupiter behind Saturn at one point, but I don't think he talks about that in the video, since that's likely still very speculative. I didn't see the Remembering CD or video, but I don't recall Dave's model doing as you describe. I just know he and Cardona independently concluded in the 70s I think that Saturn, Venus, Mars and Earth were depicted by the ancients as all lined up in a fairly stationary position in the sky. The Saturn Theorists speculated for years on how that could have been possible; then, when SL9 crashed into Jupiter in 1994, at least some of them eventually realized that that could be how the Saturn system moved on entering the solar system. Cardona gave SL9 as an example in an interview I posted on the TB forum about 3 years ago. He also mentioned Herbig-Haro objects which seem to have a similar arrangement. Anyway, that single file comet-like motion explained how Saturn, Venus and Mars could have appeared stationary in the sky at the point where the pole star appears to be now. Since Earth was rotating, the bright crescent side of Saturn would have appeared to be rotating around Saturn resembling a ship.

Velikovsky's Theory
John: And yes, I’m aware that the EU/Thunderbolts group does not embrace all of Velikovsky’s conclusions. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen any real reason given for this. I hope it’s not for any possible bias against giving credence to the Biblical record that Velikovsky was comfortable aligning with. We should follow evidence wherever it leads and regardless of who it agrees or disagrees with.

Lloyd now: I'm pretty sure they wanted to verify Velikovsky's claims, but they just weren't able to verify many of them, though quite a bit was verified. The claim that Venus resembled a great comet they verified, as well as the claim that Venus clashed with Mars etc. I read a lot of their papers in Kronos magazine in the 70s and 80s and then some of their Aeon articles and later their Thoth online newsletter and I'm satisfied that they, expecially Cardona, have been very scholarly and careful in their research.

Solar System Instability
Lloyd earlier: I believe Miles contends that all of the smaller bodies in the solar system are "trying" to move closer to the Sun...

John: Actually, in the Bode paper, he implies that the natural alignment should be largest to smallest. The fact that Jupiter (et al.) has smaller bodies beneath its orbit signifies a celestial time bomb.

Lloyd now: I thought Miles said in one of his papers that Saturn appears to have tried to get below Jupiter in the past and is on the way to making another such effort in the future. I thought he had suggested that planets can approach the Sun closer if they're smaller, like electrons can get closer to a proton than other protons can. He has stated that if one were at the Sun's position, Mercury, Earth and Saturn all appear the same size or the same number of arcseconds each in diameter. By the way, that suggests that Venus may be too close or that Mercury could get closer and then also Earth and Saturn.

No Universal Expansion
Lloyd earlier1. Raisin Bread Dough Rising/Expanding

John: But this analogy doesn’t hold with the version of expansion theory I’m discussing. Your criticism assumes that there is a substance to space that must expand into along with the matter; and it assumes a vacuum as a background by which to measure the expansion of both substantive space and matter. What I am saying is that real space is the true vacuum that thing expand into; the vacuum of free space can have no characteristics by the definition of ‘vacuum’, ‘free’, and ‘space’.

Lloyd now: No, you're not supposed to see the bread dough as matter. It represents space. The raisins represent matter. If the distance between raisins doesn't change as the raisins grow in size, the distance between raisins will get smaller and smaller. And it would be obvious that matter is expanding, unlike what we see. Space does have distance or length, you know.
Lloyd

Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

No Universal Expansion
Lloyd earlier1. Raisin Bread Dough Rising/Expanding

Lloyd now: No, you're not supposed to see the bread dough as matter. It represents space. The raisins represent matter. If the distance between raisins doesn't change as the raisins grow in size, the distance between raisins will get smaller and smaller. And it would be obvious that matter is expanding, unlike what we see. Space does have distance or length, you know.

Yes, I realize that you are using the dough as representing space; but what I am saying is that assigning any materiality or characteristic to the void (the ability to stretch) is a logical contradiction. The distances may increase through the void but that doesn't mean that the increase is happening because the void itself is somehow 'stretching'.

Expansion BY ITSELF would decrease distances as you say; but you continue to leave out the other half of the Unified Field that Miles proposes: the charge field. It is the charge field working in vector opposition to the expansion that drives the bodies apart and maintains the relative distances. There is no need to assign stretching to the void when you have a field parameter in the form of the photonic charge field.

John
tharkun

Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:37 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Space
If you would diagram what you're talking about, people might have a chance of understanding better. What's illogical to me is saying that space is nothing, because nothing does not exist, since it means non-existence. Space exists and has dimensions of length. It can't be measured directly, but it can by measuring the distance between objects in space. The distance between objects has to be a property of something and it can't be a property of a material object. That leaves space as what it's a property of.

You said: Expansion BY ITSELF would decrease distances as you say; but you continue to leave out the other half of the Unified Field that Miles proposes: the charge field. It is the charge field working in vector opposition to the expansion that drives the bodies apart and maintains the relative distances. There is no need to assign stretching to the void when you have a field parameter in the form of the photonic charge field.

I don't assign stretching to space. Universal expansion theory is what would require that space expand at the same rate that matter (earlier represented by raisins) expands.

Expansion = Gravity
My understanding of how expansion supposedly causes gravity is that (1.) expansion would involve a velocity outward in all directions from the center of object A - and (2.) other (similarly expanding) objects that encounter object A's expanding surface appear to move toward object A at the velocity of expansion, but this velocity is actually an acceleration, namely the acceleration due to gravity. So, instead of gravity being a pulling force between all objects, it's an expansion force, i.e. an accelerating expansion.

Bringing the charge field into this seems to mean that object A, like other objects, is not only expanding but also emitting photons in all directions, so you have an outward expansion in all directions with an emission of photons outward in all directions on top of it and the photons are expanding as well. The only "opposition" I see there is that some of the photons collide with all other objects.

So what's stopping you all from making diagrams to clarify your expansion theory, if it can be clarified? I don't think it can.
Lloyd

Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

My understanding of how expansion supposedly causes gravity is that (1.) expansion would involve a velocity outward in all directions from the center of object A - and (2.) other (similarly expanding) objects that encounter object A's expanding surface appear to move toward object A at the velocity of expansion, but this velocity is actually an acceleration, namely the acceleration due to gravity. So, instead of gravity being a pulling force between all objects, it's an expansion force, i.e. an accelerating expansion.

Oh dear... "Acceleration" has nothing to do with "expansion". It is a convenient way to express gravity in an equation. Yes, a free falling object will accelerate, but that is not an observation of the universe expanding.

So, instead of gravity being a pulling force between all objects, it's an expansion force,
And they all lived happily ever after...
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky

Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Space
If you would diagram what you're talking about, people might have a chance of understanding better. What's illogical to me is saying that space is nothing, because nothing does not exist, since it means non-existence. Space exists and has dimensions of length. It can't be measured directly, but it can by measuring the distance between objects in space. The distance between objects has to be a property of something and it can't be a property of a material object. That leaves space as what it's a property of.

But when you measure the spacing between objects, you are measuring from one material object to another through a void. Separation assumes an emptiness between objects to create the separation. There is nothing that precludes measuring a distance between objects across a vacuum with no matter or energy. That’s all I’m saying ‘space’ is; it is the universal background of the void that matter and energy exists within. The distance between objects in space is a function of the locations of the material items themselves and necessarily linked to the objects. If you have no objects, you have no distance. The only way to measure a distance is to have a starting point and an ending point within the void. It doesn’t matter if your points are real or abstract, you have to assign a something at either end to measure a distance. Those assignments then are within the void and can move within the void without restriction.

I don't assign stretching to space. Universal expansion theory is what would require that space expand at the same rate that matter (earlier represented by raisins) expands.

But Miles’ expansion theory does NOT require space to expand, as I keep saying. I think you are conflating Miles’ theory of expansion for gravity with the mainstream’s idea of universal expansion; they are not the same. Miles expansion for gravity applies only to real material objects themselves; space is what the matter is expanding into.

Expansion = Gravity
My understanding of how expansion supposedly causes gravity is that (1.) expansion would involve a velocity outward in all directions from the center of object A - and (2.) other (similarly expanding) objects that encounter object A's expanding surface appear to move toward object A at the velocity of expansion, but this velocity is actually an acceleration, namely the acceleration due to gravity. So, instead of gravity being a pulling force between all objects, it's an expansion force, i.e. an accelerating expansion.

Yes, this is the basic idea and it comes from Einstein’s own Equivalence Principle. A man in an elevator cannot tell the difference between a 1-g pull down or a 1-g acceleration up. All Miles does is flip the vector direction and give the acceleration to material objects instead of ‘curved space’, non-existent gravitons (etc.).

Bringing the charge field into this seems to mean that object A, like other objects, is not only expanding but also emitting photons in all directions, so you have an outward expansion in all directions with an emission of photons outward in all directions on top of it and the photons are expanding as well. The only "opposition" I see there is that some of the photons collide with all other objects.

Yep, that’s it. All objects are either photons or emit photons. That’s why Miles doesn’t need space to expand to maintain the distances between objects in stable positions. Expansion creates an appearance of attraction, but the charge field continually pushes objects a part through the direct bombardment of the emitted field. Expansion for gravity falls of by the square of the distance, and the charge field falls off by the quad; where these balance, stable distances are maintained.

So what's stopping you all from making diagrams to clarify your expansion theory, if it can be clarified? I don't think it can.

Why do I need to make a diagram for two opposite vectors? It’s not really that complicated: expansion creates an apparent vector in, charge field creates a real vector out.
tharkun

Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:37 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

John, it's fine with me if you don't want to bother illustrating your ideas, or making the universal expansion idea make any sense. Your description of it is reminiscent of all of the opaque claims made conventionally about QM, relativity, black holes etc. If you can't explain any better, I don't think anyone is going to buy it. And besides Miles already mentioned the universal spin idea as an alternative, which I think would be much easier to follow.
Lloyd

Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Again, please explain why I need to draw two vectors in opposition? Here you go:

Charge Field -------> <--------Apparent Gravity Field

Clear enough?

You still haven't offered any evidence for why, according to Miles version of expansion, 'space' would need to expand. You keep using the term 'universal' with expansion; but nowhere does Miles indicate that the 'universe' as a whole is expanding, nor have I attempted to defend such an idea. Expansion applies to material objects, not the void in which they reside. What is 'opaque' about two fields working in vector opposition to each other?

John
tharkun

Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:37 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Ask people anywhere if they understand whatever kind of expansion Miles has discussed as explaining gravity etc. See how many do say they understand it. Ask the people in your FB group. I'll bet you get very few who say they understand. If I'm right, you're in a pretty exclusive club. If you want that to change, you gotta do something different. Don't shoot the messenger. - By the way, what is your "field" of gravity? I understand the photon charge field, but I don't know what the heck the gravity field is supposed to be.
Lloyd

Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Sorry, but you're the only 'messenger' who has objected to the concept that I know of or have come across in discussing this across different forums for many years. There are plenty who disagree with physical implications of expansion as the mechanism for gravity (for reasons I understand); but the concept seems pretty easy to me. Just flip the gravity vector according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle. Instead of the acceleration being given to a made-up 'field' of space-time, gravitons, etc. give it to the object themselves. I really don't understand what is so hard about that conceptually; it's just a vector reversal. I think you're making it harder than it is.

Regarding the vector diagram, I said 'Apparent Gravity Field'. I wasn't suggesting an actual material field for gravity; there isn't one according to this version of expansion.

John
tharkun

Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:37 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

tharkun wrote:Sorry, but you're the only 'messenger' who has objected to the concept that I know of or have come across in discussing this across different forums for many years. There are plenty who disagree with physical implications of expansion as the mechanism for gravity (for reasons I understand); but the concept seems pretty easy to me. Just flip the gravity vector according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle. Instead of the acceleration being given to a made-up 'field' of space-time, gravitons, etc. give it to the object themselves. I really don't understand what is so hard about that conceptually; it's just a vector reversal. I think you're making it harder than it is.

John

Okay, I thought I was coming to a decent understanding of your hypothesis until I read these last 2 posts, now I am confused a bit about the underlying concepts behind it all.(won't be the last time probably too, haha)

Instead of the acceleration being given to a made-up 'field' of space-time, gravitons, etc. give it to the object[s] themselves

How do the objects produce or achieve/receive acceleration if you remove the entire "field" or "fabric"(medium) that is supposed to facilitate that acceleration?

These fields working in vector opposition exist in the void made of nothing but the energy of the fields themselves? There is no medium for them act in or on, just a void?

Is this is a "spooky action at a distance" model where it just is because it happens?

You still haven't offered any evidence for why, according to Miles version of expansion, 'space' would need to expand. You keep using the term 'universal' with expansion; but nowhere does Miles indicate that the 'universe' as a whole is expanding, nor have I attempted to defend such an idea. Expansion applies to material objects, not the void in which they reside. What is 'opaque' about two fields working in vector opposition to each other?

But if there is nothing but 'the void' and the "physical matter" how can any material object expand into nothingness?

What internal mechanisms could facilitate an increase of matter and/or energy to produce expansion without receiving input material or energy from outside sources?

Or by 'the void' do you simply refer to a void of physical atomic matter that excludes ionized plasma?

Anyways, I've never understood the universal expansion theories myself, the natural universe both gives and takes and although it's possible it could expand at times it is not the only logical deduction as some posit.

I see only plasma(or just "stuff") myself as everything in the universe will start as it and return to "end" as it before the start of the next cycle where it forms something new for a while before it "dies" and turns to 'dusty plasma' to wait for the next cycle - there is never an increase in the amount of plasma/stuff and therefore no increase in the amount of other physical matter in the universe, as some of it enters the cycle of transforming into solids, liquids and gasses at the same time some of it is solids, liquids and gasses returning to plasma/stuff.

There is a positive and negative cycle system to it and although at times there may be more production of matter than "destruction" of matter overall the the sum of "stuff"/plasma can not change.

There is no "void", the concept of "empty space" to me is as empty as a promise from a politician - just because we can't define what that "stuff" is other than noting it's absence of everything else we already know and define doesn't mean it is actually "void" of everything we don't yet know of.

If there is only void and that void makes up 95%+ of what we define as the "universe"(and presumably every/no-thing outside the "universe") then how could there be any material objects in the first place?

How did a tiny proportional percentage of matter come to exist out of and in a void of material aka pure nothingness? Creation ex nihilo/Big-bang?

You don't actually have to answer that although I am curious of your opinion on it, it's in an area of untestable theory that is not empirically relevant to the topics of this site or your current discussion.

Does your theory work if there is not a void but rather a field of "stuff" or very low density 'dusty plasma'?

Cheers,
Jonny
The difference between a Creationist and a believer in the Big Bang is that the Creationists admit they are operating on blind faith... Big Bang believers call their blind faith "theoretical mathematical variables" and claim to be scientists rather than the theologists they really are.
CTJG 1986

Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:46 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Expansion Theory
I find Miles'Expansion Theory as the most difficult of all his ideas to accept; but it's the only one that I'm aware of that can explain gravity without the need of attraction at a distance (without invoking extra properties to space itself). It is, therefore, (IMO) the most valid gravitational theory. To be fair, it's not even his theory, but, instead, a logical conclusion of his Unified Field. I was happy to read that he was considering the possibility that gravity could be the result of larger spins (galactic,..., universal), but as far as I know he has not gotten beyond just suggesting the possibility.
As said above, the apparent gravity field is in opposition to the charge field. While all matter is expanding, where ever "gravity" is in balance with the charge field, the system maintains its relative distances. The charge field maintains the separation. Otherwise, the smaller object is observed to fall towards the larger object. Can the charge field between our solar system and its neighbors maintain the apparent distances? How can the charge field be so effective over large distances? Also, the idea that the earth is really doubling its size every 17 minutes is a large thing to swallow.
But my imagination is too small. I actually take comfort in the idea that the current state of the universe will end when the surface velocity of matter reaches the speed of light.
REMCB
LongtimeAirman

Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Origin of Gravity Concept: Inward Acceleration?

The basic fact seems to be that, when an object in the upper atmosphere or in space falls to Earth, it's velocity increases (accelerates) until it hits the Earth or until air resistance balances the acceleration and stops the increase in velocity, resulting in a somewhat steady velocity until the object hits the Earth.

Although mathematically it may work to turn the gravity vector of the Earth around and pretend it's an outwardly accelerating expansion of Earth, that doesn't necessarily mean that that's actually what the math means.

It seems far more reasonable to me to suppose that an outside force is pushing inward toward the Earth. The Earth is emitting photons in all directions, according to Miles. This emission is constantly reducing photon pressure in the Earth. The higher photon pressure outside then would naturally push photons and objects in toward the Earth to fill the partial vacuum that emission is constantly forming.

Sump Pump Analogy as Better Explanation of Gravity
(Another Alternative to Action at a Distance)

I find Mathis' claim reasonable that the atmosphere is held up by the outward emission of photons from the Earth. Just as raindrops gain enough mass to overcome the outward photon emission and fall through that emission, it seems reasonable to me that photons in space would be forced downward through the outward photon emission as well. And they would push other objects with them such as raindrops, accounting for the force of gravity.

This is like a sump pump under water that's designed to spray water out in all directions. Water goes into the sump pump and is emitted in all directions, but the water outside is then at higher pressure and forces water in to the pump to fill the partial vacuum for recycling.

Another Mind-Boggling Problem with Expansion Theory

My model seems to bypass all the mind-boggling ideas involved in supposing universal matter expansion. If all matter expands at a constantly accelerating rate, the expansion would require a constant force outward instead of inward. The outward force would require an accelerating mass (pressure), since F = mA. So it seems that a never-ending series of layers of accelerating mass would be required for expansion, like a growing onion, because each layer would require outwardly accelerating mass below it.

So I feel fairly confident that it's the concept behind Miles' math that needs changing. His math may be good, and just the meaning of it seems to be wrong.
Lloyd

Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Gravity acts upon the styrofoam particles to attract them to an air filled balloon and hold them upon it. Then gravity pulls the balloon, with attached styrofoam, down within range of the cat.

The anti gravity force inside or near some tornadoes will lift objects and allow the wind to fling them into a gravity field, where the exercise becomes serious.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky

Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Miles demonstrates in many of his papers how temporarily reversing the gravity vector greatly simplifies the math, (as in converting a problem of curved space tensors to simple Euclidean vectors). Of course the transformation isn't necessarily reality, but a little mind boggling is a good thing.

Origin of Gravity Concept: Inward Acceleration?
...
It seems far more reasonable to me to suppose that an outside force is pushing inward toward the Earth. The Earth is emitting photons in all directions, according to Miles. This emission is constantly reducing photon pressure in the Earth. The higher photon pressure outside then would naturally push photons and objects in toward the Earth to fill the partial vacuum that emission is constantly forming.

You're completely redefining Miles' charge field. You are trying to turn the earth's emission field into a basis for some sort of photon vacuum gravity. I don't know where to begin to make sense of it let alone critique it. I will say that photon pressure on material objects is a real force but the photon fields themselves are interpenetrable and would not be "attracted" to a photon vacuum.

Miles has calculated the strength of the earth's emission field on the earth's surface to be one percent that of gravity. But that is due to the photon's e-component.

What if gravity is due to the earth's emission photons' orthogonal h-component?

REMCB
LongtimeAirman

Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm

PreviousNext