## 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

Make that emission strength point one percent that of gravity.

REMCB
LongtimeAirman

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

### Re: Lloyd Blog

[LTA said, regarding Lloyd's sump pump model of photon emission:] 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.

The fields may be interpenetrable, but the photons themselves are not. Are they? Can two B-photons occupy the same space at the same time? Mathis says that photons collide with each other and bounce apart. (Do they bounce elastically or spongily?) There's a limit to possible photon density, isn't there? I presume the highest density would be in a massive body like the Sun or larger massive object. Mathis says the Sun's emission tends to guide the photons entering the Sun. I think he says the formula for emission is something like i/r^4, while the incoming photon formula is 1/r.

He has compared the photon charge field to an aether. An aether would have density and where there's greater density, same as higher pressure, random motions tend to even out the density by increasing the motion of particles into lower pressure areas, where there are fewer particles to block them. As photons are being emitted from an object, the photon pressure there has to be decreasing very briefly until other outside photons enter. You haven't explained why the sump pump model would be worse than the growing onion model, or what's illogical about the sump pump.
- Miles has calculated the strength of the earth's emission field on the earth's surface to be [.1] 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?

Miles uses the orthogonal spin to explain magnetism, so I don't see how it would explain gravity. How do you mean?
Lloyd

Posts: 4282
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

What if a person wanted to create a "photon" charge weapon or "gravity" weapon based on photon pressure redirection? How might one do it?

http://milesmathis.com/photon.html
http://milesmathis.com/g.html
http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html
--------

http://milesmathis.com/photonspin.pdf

It has been known since the middle ages that light exerts a radiation pressure. Not so well known is that light also exerts a twist. The intricate nature of this twist was not recognised until the 1990s and we have been working on it ever since. Beyond the fascination of setting microscopic objects into rotation, this orbital angular momentum may hold the key to better communication sensing and imaging systems.

What that Miles doesn't say explicitly is that this orbital angular momentum OAM must be a real
characteristic of light. Otherwise it could not possibly “set (real) objects into rotation,” could it? And
if that is so, then this new knowledge that Prof. Miles Padgett is admitting must conflict strongly with
the current gauge math, which gives photons no mass, no radius, and no real spin. Prof. Padgett says
that the OAM may lead to new technology, but he does not tell you that it must overturn the
foundations of quantum mechanics. What this real spin does, and must do, is redefine the entire nature
of light, leading us to a totally new theory of photons and the photon field. In short, this experimental
data is a strong indication of my new theory of photons and charge, which demands that photons must
have real spin, real radius, and real mass equivalence.

...

That is what Newton’s equation is. And G is the transform from one dv to the other. Since dv is directly proportional to the radius, we may deduce that the radius of the messenger photon is 6.67 x 10-11 smaller than the radius of the hydrogen atom. This gives us the unified field.

This also explains variations in G. As I have shown, G is dependent on the make-up of the bodies in question. The Earth is not made up of hydrogen atoms only. G is the transform between the average size of the atoms present in the field being calculated and the size of the radiated photons. Therefore G is not really a constant. As the average atoms vary, G varies.
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6

Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

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?

Your question, if I understand it, is: “If gravity is due to a constant material acceleration, what then causes the expansion itself?” So, we’ve basically gone from discussing the concept of expansion for gravity to discussing the source of the expansion for gravity. To which neither I, nor Miles, has an answer. I don’t know what would cause all material objects to constantly expand. However, this is the expansion version of the ‘infinite well’ I spoke of before.

EVERY theory of gravity has an infinite well problem. For example, if we propose universal stacked spins (as Miles currently holds), we can always ask the question: What causes the constant spins? For gravitons: Where does the constant flow of gravitons come from? For ‘curved’ space: How does matter continuously ‘curve’ space? Every theory of gravity assumes some kind of unexplained constant input as a given to the theory. And so, a different assumption is not necessarily evidence for or against any theory. Theories should be judged on results and predictions and not necessarily their axioms.

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

I guess I have to ask what would prevent material objects from expanding is there is nothing surrounding them to prevent expansion? You seem insistent on giving some kind of reality to the vacuum. If everything is ‘something’ and there is no such thing as ‘nothing’, aren’t we back to the paradox of Parmenides where everything is substance and no motion is possible?

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

See above comments on the ‘infinite well’ problem.

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

I’m defining ‘void’ as absent of all matter/energy/radiation/plasma/etc. within the limits (if any) of the universe that we exist in.

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.

Yes, I agree. Expansion is not a necessary conclusion by any means.

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.

So you’ve just basically given the 1st law of thermodynamics, to which I would agree.

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.

Well, I agree that there may be more ‘stuff’ than what we can currently observe/measure; and I’m not trying to make the case that we have complete knowledge of the ‘ingredients’ of space at all. All I’m saying is that whatever ‘stuff’ exists has to take up space (volume/extension) somewhere to the exclusion of other ‘stuff’. The emptiness where the ‘stuff’ exists and can move into and through is the ‘void’ between the ‘stuff’.

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.

So onto philosophy and logic. There are only two logical choices that I’m aware of, either: 1) the universe is eternal and uncaused (necessary) or, 2) the universe is finite (temporally) and caused by something else (contingent). (Some argue for a third option that the universe is ‘self-caused’; but I find this illogical and contradictory because it proposes existing before you exist in order to cause your own existence.)

Both options logically lead to un-caused, necessary, first-cause. The first option openly states this, and the second option leads to this because there cannot be an infinite regress of contingent beings. In general, the first leads to a sort-of pantheism/panentheism worldview and the other leads to a more deistic/theistic type of worldview. Since the observable universe gives indication of a continuous decay and ‘running down’, the ‘eternal universe’ option doesn’t fit with what I know about the universe. So my own view is that we live in a theistic universe. (All questions of who or what the ‘theos’ is aside.) I’m happy to discuss more along this line if you’d like to message me since, as you said, this isn’t necessarily a relevant topic to the board.

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

The ‘stuff’ would be subject to the same expansion as everything else. The vacuum is where the stuff is and what is between the ‘stuff’.

John
tharkun

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

### Re: Lloyd Blog

'
'
'
.................
"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

So onto philosophy and logic.

It seems to me that is the topic we have been on all the time - philosophy. MM's expansion to explain gravity is a philosophical exercise (not that there is anything wrong with that, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking it is something that it is not)... unless someone can come up with a test that presents a possibility for falsification.
Has MM or anyone made such a proposal?
Is it possible? since any measuring stick would be expanding too.

There are only two logical choices that I’m aware of, either: 1) the universe is eternal and uncaused (necessary)
The problem with this is that it is a reification. "Eternal" is "Infinite" applied to existence and is therefore an abstract mathematical concept which is undefined. But, if the universe does have boundaries, then what is on the other side? and why is that not part of the universe?
For that reason, I think a better (scientific) answer is "that we just do not know the extent of the universe at this point in our development, nor are we able to define its' limits."

or, 2) the universe is finite (temporally) and caused by something else (contingent). (Some argue for a third option that the universe is ‘self-caused’; but I find this illogical and contradictory because it proposes existing before you exist in order to cause your own existence.)
How could the universe be caused by something else? By definition the universe is everything that is, therefore the statement "caused by something else" is a contradiction.

It seems to me it is impossible at this stage of the development of the human understanding of science to make assertions about the size, age, and scope of the universe without running into contradictions.
For that job, the proper tools are not presently in the tool box.

nick c
Moderator

Posts: 2381
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

### Re: Lloyd Blog

For that job, the proper tools are not presently in the tool box.

You mean that my collection of rocks and sticks won't work??!
"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

The Main Problem with Accelerating Expansion Theory (reworded)

In order for matter to expand there must be a force acting on it from within pushing outward in all directions. Force can only be applied by accelerating matter; F=mA. The substance of the expanding material body would thus require an inner expanding material body. That inner body would likewise require a further inner expanding material body, ad infinitum. Is not the theory thus illogical?

I think it's the concept behind Miles' math that needs changing, whereas his math may be fine.

Photon Pressure
Where there's greater density of photons, there is higher pressure. Random motions tend to even out the density by increasing the movement of particles into lower pressure areas, where there are fewer particles to block them. As photons are being emitted from an object, the photon pressure in that object has to be decreasing very briefly until other outside photons enter.

Gravity Infinite Well Problem?
John said: EVERY theory of gravity has an infinite well problem. For example, if we propose universal stacked spins (as Miles currently holds), we can always ask the question: What causes the constant spins?

Sump Pump Model
Photon pressure and emission should produce sump pump matter. In 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 than inside the pump, so water outside is forced into the pump by the outside water pressure, where it then sprays out again.

I don't see an infinite well in that model. I just see continuous repetitive motion.
Lloyd

Posts: 4282
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

I just missed the chance to add this to my last post.
Philosophy
John said: So onto philosophy and logic. There are only two logical choices that I’m aware of, either: 1) the universe is eternal and uncaused (necessary) or, 2) the universe is finite (temporally) and caused by something else (contingent). (Some argue for a third option that the universe is ‘self-caused’; but I find this illogical and contradictory because it proposes existing before you exist in order to cause your own existence.)

Everything that is known about the universe exists within consciousness. Without consciousness nothing is known. It's possible that consciousness is all that exists. This may mean that photons, matter etc are forms of consciousness. Both time and space may be illusions or misconceptions within consciousness. If that is the case, then eternity and infinity may not be particularly meaningful. By the way, caring seems to be the most important type of consciousness, which seems to be the true "cause" of everything.
Lloyd

Posts: 4282
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Whose consciousness? Yours? Mine? Mine is not yours, it is mine. I have similar views as you, Lloyd, but I am not you so the universe is not contained in either one of us it is external.

Even if we live in a simulation, as has been recently raised, it is still external to you and me. We do not share consciousness, I think. I say it is individual. That leads to the understanding that the universe, or our current simulation, is beyond us, apart from us.
4realScience

Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:20 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Lloyd said,
The fields may be interpenetrable, but the photons themselves are not. Are they? Can two B-photons occupy the same space at the same time? Mathis says that photons collide with each other and bounce apart. (Do they bounce elastically or spongily?) There's a limit to possible photon density, isn't there? I presume the highest density would be in a massive body like the Sun or larger massive object. Mathis says the Sun's emission tends to guide the photons entering the Sun. I think he says the formula for emission is something like i/r^4, while the incoming photon formula is 1/r.

He has compared the photon charge field to an aether. An aether would have density and where there's greater density, same as higher pressure, random motions tend to even out the density by increasing the motion of particles into lower pressure areas, where there are fewer particles to block them. As photons are being emitted from an object, the photon pressure there has to be decreasing very briefly until other outside photons enter. You haven't explained why the sump pump model would be worse than the growing onion model, or what's illogical about the sump pump.

Hi Lloyd,
On one hand, It's a good idea to discuss Miles Mathis' ideas to clear up our own questions. On the other, I believe most people are put off by the type of "discussion" you and tharkun were engaged in above. That's why I jumped in. I have the highest respect for the Thunderbolts crowd. They are motivated best with the sharing of new information, along with links (and yes, pictures!).

Your gravity ideas seem to be based on your rejection of the expansionary model, even though you acknowledge that that interpretation is not necessary. IMO your description of the emission field is being warped by your effort to turn it from an outward to a resulting inward force. It is neither. It is a recycling field.

Without getting too descriptive, as you are already aware, the emission is in all directions, but due to the geometry of spinning bodies, most of the photon emissions occur at the equator. At the same time photons are constantly entering the planet from all directions, but again, based on statistics and geometry, most of the incoming photons enter through the poles.

Photons are real and they spin. Two photons cannot occupy the same space at the same time. They travel at up to the speed of light and they can also be spinning at up to the speed of light (as if measured at a point on the surface). I believe the collisions are elastic. Miles' aether at its simplest is the diffuse, distributed collection of photons within an otherwise empty space.

There is no relative vacuum attraction. In the presence of higher orders of matter (such as atoms or molecules), photons can channel together through that matter. I imagine that the highest densities of photons in our solar system can be found in these channels within the sun's photosphere, or prehaps in the planetary cores.

It gets more complicated as we include spin speeds and directions (up or down). The recycling field of earth occurs in the presence of the ambient solar and lunar recycling fields. We may assume that the number of photons emitted by the earth equal the number of photons admitted into the earth, but that doesn't need to be true.

This is a brief description of my understanding. I hope I have answered your questions. I'm still working on mine.

REMCB
LongtimeAirman

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

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Everything that is known about the universe exists within consciousness. Without consciousness nothing is known. It's possible that consciousness is all that exists. This may mean that photons, matter etc are forms of consciousness. Both time and space may be illusions or misconceptions within consciousness. If that is the case, then eternity and infinity may not be particularly meaningful. By the way, caring seems to be the most important type of consciousness, which seems to be the true "cause" of everything.

Mostly wrong or nonsense...

Because I care...

*********************************************************

Photons are real and they spin

How do you see the spin?

Come now! That's obvious nonsense!

Miles' aether at its simplest is the diffuse, distributed collection of photons

Nonsense ..You need a medium that will transmit waves, and a moving, diffuse aether can not do that! It would self destruct any wave!

It gets more complicated as we include spin speeds and directions (up or down)

Speeds? ...How about frequencies? Complicated? Yes..Complexity of the absurd???!...No!

Up or down? Nonsense! You need a new guru!
"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

"Sump Pump Model
Photon pressure and emission should produce sump pump matter. In 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 than inside the pump, so water outside is forced into the pump by the outside water pressure, where it then sprays out again.

"I don't see an infinite well in that model. I just see continuous repetitive motion."

I applaud the effort, but there are several problems with this in general and with trying to reconcile it with Miles’ charge field theories.

First and foremost is that you can’t create the different fall-off rates with the same mechanism. Gravity falls off by the square, but Miles has shown that the charge field falls off by the quad. So that means that gravity also increases by the square and charge increases by the quad. The sump pump mechanism can’t create this that I can see at all. The fact that we have two different rates indicates that there is likely two different mechanisms employed.

Next, the propagation of the charge filed is limited to ‘c’, but gravity is known to ‘propagate’ much faster than ‘c’. How could the gravity field propagate faster than the mediating particles that make up the field?

Next, gravity is independent of orientation. But the sump pump model would require specific orientations of the particles themselves in order to sum to a larger gravity field. And that would only sum to gravity at the poles with a gradual diminishment, reversal and build up to anti-gravity at the equator. I’ve asked about this a couple of times on the QDL forum and never really gotten a response on this issue.

Next, say we assign this ‘sump pump’ idea to the proton, since it is the major charge field setter in the universe. As soon as the proton takes on an electron or any other nuclear configuration, the charge field flux is going to change. The field flux is not constant across all forms of matter. That means gravity would not be constant either; and could even be wildly different depending on nuclear structure.

Finally, the ‘sump pump’ model does not get around the infinite well problem it just hides it somewhere else. A sump pump only works as long as there is a constant source of energy input to the pump. Turn off the power and the pump stops; the pressure gradients created by the pump are not sufficient to maintain the flow itself. So he is assuming a constant energy input from ‘somewhere’ to keep his pump going. Now, the same criticism could be made against Miles’ model; but Miles’ doesn’t appeal to the charge field as a mechanism for gravity, which is what we’re discussing.

There’s probably more I could think of; but I just don’t see how the ‘sump pump’ model is a more mechanical than expansion. It seems less mechanical to me. And I still maintain that gravity as an acceleration requires an ‘infinite well’ assumption in any theory that seeks to establish a mechanism for it. The charge field propagates at a constant velocity which requires only a single force; but gravity, BY DEFINITION, is an acceleration; an acceleration requires a constant force, a constant force requires a constant energy input.

John
tharkun

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

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Consciousness
4Real said: "the universe, or our current simulation, is beyond us, apart from us."

There could be a universal consciousness and we could be like subconscious minds within it.

Sump Pump Gravity
Airman said: "I believe most people are put off by the type of 'discussion' you and tharkun were engaged in above. [] Your gravity ideas seem to be based on your rejection of the expansionary model, even though you acknowledge that that interpretation is not necessary. IMO your description of the emission field is being warped by your effort to turn it from an outward to a resulting inward force. It is neither. It is a recycling field. [] most of the photon emissions occur at the equator. [] most of the incoming photons enter through the poles. [] There is no relative vacuum attraction. [] We may assume that the number of photons emitted by the earth equal the number of photons admitted into the earth, but that doesn't need to be true."

First, thanks for helping attract more discussion, but I wasn't particularly caring about that.
Second, my gravity idea was based on reading Mathis' photon model and noticing that he considers emission to be an outward force, called charge, but he didn't mention the photons that enter the recyclers, and that seemed to me to be a good candidate for gravity.
Third, I'm not trying to turn the emission field into a reception field; the photons that haven't yet been emitted are not part of the emission field; they're part of the cosmic background radiation.
Fourth, it would be interesting to see evidence that the emission field of stars and planetoids is mostly at the equators and the reception field is mostly polar. Miles had a paper a few months ago that showed a little such evidence regarding emission from Earth, but I don't know if that emission would be much greater than other emission.
Fifth, I don't claim that there is vacuum attraction; instead, random motion of particles in a limited volume tend to even out in density, since less dense areas have fewer obstacles to turn away incoming particles.
Sixth, I agree that the incoming photons may be greater than the number emitted, and I think Miles' nebular accretion model would likely lead to that situation, where stars and planetoids would be like batteries in which photons were stored suddenly by accretion and emitted gradually, as Charles Chandler's model explains (though ignoring photons).

John said: "[] you can’t create the different fall-off rates with the same mechanism. Gravity falls off by the square, but Miles has shown that the charge field falls off by the quad. So that means that gravity also increases by the square and charge increases by the quad. The sump pump mechanism can’t create this that I can see at all. The fact that we have two different rates indicates that there is likely two different mechanisms employed.

In one paper, maybe the one on Uranus and Neptune, he seemed to suggest that photon emissions away from the Sun fall off at 1/r^4, but emissions toward the Sun are 1/r, because the solar emission guides the planetary sunward emissions, like funnels, if I understood right. Do you think the sunward and non-sunward planetary emissions have different mechanisms?

Steven said [on Facebook]: "The main problem with accelerating expansion....". I think this problem is only in the assumptions. The apparent acceleration vector is a result of relative motion, just like centripetal force. The relative motion here is then between matter and a spinning universe background.

Yes, anything that rotates or revolves I think is said to be accelerating, even though the velocity is constant. So maybe the "acceleration" of "gravity" is the incoming photons entering a rotating or revolving body.

John said: Next, the propagation of the charge filed is limited to ‘c’, but gravity is known to ‘propagate’ much faster than ‘c’. How could the gravity field propagate faster than the mediating particles that make up the field?

How do you know "gravity" propogates so fast? What happened to 9.8m/s^2?

Next, gravity is independent of orientation. But the sump pump model would require specific orientations of the particles themselves in order to sum to a larger gravity field. And that would only sum to gravity at the poles with a gradual diminishment, reversal and build up to anti-gravity at the equator. I’ve asked about this a couple of times on the QDL forum and never really gotten a response on this issue.

The question may be too abstract for me. I don't see where photon orientation matters. I just see a decreasing photon pressure where photons are being emitted and an increasing pressure in the space around the emitter. Random motions of photons would tend to cause photons to move from high pressure areas to lower pressure areas.

Next, say we assign this ‘sump pump’ idea to the proton, since it is the major charge field setter in the universe. As soon as the proton takes on an electron or any other nuclear configuration, the charge field flux is going to change. The field flux is not constant across all forms of matter. That means gravity would not be constant either; and could even be wildly different depending on nuclear structure.

The gravity of protons and individual atoms and molecules is so tiny that no one has as yet measured them with any accuracy. It's only in large bodies that gravity can be measured.

Finally, the ‘sump pump’ model does not get around the infinite well problem it just hides it somewhere else. A sump pump only works as long as there is a constant source of energy input to the pump. Turn off the power and the pump stops; the pressure gradients created by the pump are not sufficient to maintain the flow itself. So he is assuming a constant energy input from ‘somewhere’ to keep his pump going. Now, the same criticism could be made against Miles’ model; but Miles’ doesn’t appeal to the charge field as a mechanism for gravity, which is what we’re discussing.

The sump pump model needs no constant source of energy input. It's like a ball bouncing forever where there is no friction. Or it's like a photon reflecting between two parallel perfectly reflective mirrors forever.

Nonsense
Sparky said: [regarding consciousness being basic reality] Mostly wrong or nonsense... Because I care...
[Regarding] "Photons are real and they spin"
How do you see the spin? Come now! That's obvious nonsense!
[Regarding] "Miles' aether at its simplest is the diffuse, distributed collection of photons"
Nonsense ..You need a medium that will transmit waves, and a moving, diffuse aether can not do that! It would self destruct any wave!
[Regarding] "It gets more complicated as we include spin speeds and directions (up or down)"
Speeds? ...How about frequencies? Complicated? Yes..Complexity of the absurd???!...No!
Up or down? Nonsense! You need a new guru!

First, consciousness is not nonsense.
Second, there's nothing to prevent photons from spinning, and the spinning is most apparent with magnetism, due to most of the photons spinning in the same direction, clockwise or counterclockwise.
Third, air molecules don't destroy sound waves, so an aether would not destroy waves either. Sound waves are field waves, where the medium, which is molecules, forms a wave, i.e. a compression wave. Photon waves are not field waves though; they seem to be waves of individual photon travel, similar to synchrotron radiation in which electrons travel helically in a magnetic field. Waves are equivalent to frequency.
Lloyd

Posts: 4282
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

### Re: Lloyd Blog

Hi Sparky, You know you could pick on someone your own size so you wouldn't have to lower youself by throwing me such softballs. You are very kind.

Photons are real and they spin

How do you see the spin?

Come now! That's obvious nonsense!

Chromium6 provides good references above as well as the following quote:
What that Miles doesn't say explicitly is that this orbital angular momentum OAM must be a real characteristic of light. Otherwise it could not possibly “set (real) objects into rotation,” could it? And if that is so, then this new knowledge that Prof. Miles Padgett is admitting must conflict strongly with the current gauge math, which gives photons no mass, no radius, and no real spin. Prof. Padgett says that the OAM may lead to new technology, but he does not tell you that it must overturn the foundations of quantum mechanics. What this real spin does, and must do, is redefine the entire nature of light, leading us to a totally new theory of photons and the photon field.

Photon spins are "setting microscopic objects into rotation". Also, recent articles increasingly report the observed momentum and spin nature of light.
Miles' aether at its simplest is the diffuse, distributed collection of photons

Nonsense ..You need a medium that will transmit waves, and a moving, diffuse aether can not do that! It would self destruct any wave!

The notion that a medium must be present to convey wave actions is the result of early scientific work with air and water. I believe that it has retarded a better understanding of EM theory. The spinning photon itself is the wave.

It gets more complicated as we include spin speeds and directions (up or down)

Speeds? ...How about frequencies? Complicated? Yes..Complexity of the absurd???!...No!

Up or down? Nonsense! You need a new guru!

The photon spin is the frequency. The faster the spin, the greater the energy, the higher the frequency and the shorter the wavelength.

Up or down simply refers to counterclockwise or clockwise spin. It is an important detail when photons collide with other photons or other forms of matter. It is the basis of the magnetic field. Forgive me but it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that spin.

REMCB
LongtimeAirman

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

PreviousNext