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

Unread postby Sparky » Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:12 am

Well, it's obvious that I am dealing with dogmatic, cultish beliefs of the MM cult.
Making a mental picture of his nonsense and justifying it with more nonsense should be obvious to anyone outside the cult, but people who are prone to seek conspiracies ahead of logic are difficult to reach with logic.

Photon spins are "setting microscopic objects into rotation". Also, recent articles increasingly report the observed momentum and spin nature of light.


Bombardment can move objects to rotate. To call spin "the frequency" is nonsense!
To claim to understand "up and down" and direction of spin is just bizarre!
Think, people, Think! Don't just take the word of an online malcontent with some skill at math and promoting his delusional notions.

If what I suggest is a "softball", then the response should have been less delusional.
Though I will admit that I am not in your levels of intellect. But the world is full of very "smart" people believing really stupid things.

Off to find more nonsense....allowing those who will to wallow in their cult.... :roll:
"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

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:48 am

Sparky, your name-calling isn't really appreciated anywhere on the TB forum.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Sparky » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:41 pm

I'll deal with your non response tomorrow.....what name calling?
Just characterizing the nonsensical beliefs which should not be part of TB forums.
"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

Unread postby LongtimeAirman » Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:18 pm

Lloyd, You said that gravity may be due to photon pressure from earthward directed photons. Do you accept MM's calculation that photons being emitted from the earth exert a pressure one thousandth that of gravity? Then the photon pressure of incoming photons is1000x that of outgoing photons. If they are the same species of photons, then there are 1000x more incoming than outgoing photons. That is a huge field imbalance that redefines Miles' charge field.

John, Gravity is not known to propagate much faster than light. We just recognize that it would be impossible for gravity to maintain stable orbits unless gravity were much faster than'c'. But that's based on gravity alone. Miles has described a charge field in balance with the gravity field. The balance results in stable, self-correcting orbits that no longer require faster than light effects.

Sparky, I ain't smarter than anyone here. I've just 'seen the light', seriously. Miles has a new EM theory, you asked about it and were answered. I am not wrong in trying to understand it and I have yet to hear a good objection to it. The dogma belongs to the standard model which we know has plenty of problems.

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

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:04 pm

Probability of Mathis' Claims
Here I think are some of Mathis' main claims and I give each one a number from (1) to (9) to indicate how probable I think each one is, where 9 indicates nearly maximum probability.

1. (8) The "aether", if it exists, consists of photons.
(That's novel, because no one else seems to have thought of aether as moving fast like photons.)

2. (6) The EM waves of photons are waves of photon motion, (perhaps similar to electron helical motion along magnetic field lines in synchrotron radiation.)
(I actually think light waves would require pairing of photons, so the photons spin like two balls tied closely together. You can't make a wave when throwing just one ball.)

3. (9) There is no action at a distance, or "attraction", only repulsion, such as by photon collisions.
(I agree that action at a distance would seem to necessarily involve magic, not real mechanics.)

4. (7) Photon spin causes magnetic effects.
(That seems likely, but I don't understand the details well yet.)

5. (7) Photon spins can stack, somewhat like gyroscopic motions.
(I buy the gyroscopic motion etc, but as per #2 I think the photons would have to be paired and maybe quadrupled etc.)

6. (5) Stacked spins increase mass or mass equivalence and sufficient stacks build matter.
(It's easier for me to believe stacking increases mass if it involves pairing and multiplying of photons.)

7. (6) All matter takes in photons and emits them.
(Or it may be simpler if excess photons are drawn to the surface of the stacked multiple photons and roll off due to centrifugal force.)

8. (8) This photon emission is electrical repulsion and electric current.

9. (8) Photon emission is called charge, charge fields and charge streams.

10. (7) Matter emits photons in charge streams.
(I can see how polar emission would produce streams or channels, but it's hard to see how equatorial emission could do so.)

11. (8) Protons emit the most charge.

12. (7) Protons take in charge polarly and emit it equatorially.
(Similar comment as for #7.)

13. (7) Neutrons take in and emit charge polarly.
(If solar charge tamps down charge emitted from Mercury's poles, it looks like regular charge would tamp down neutron polar charge and prevent it from emitting polarly much.)

14. (9) All matter particles spin. All atoms spin. Unbalanced spin results in atoms breaking up.
(That makes eminent sense of the properties of elements.)

15. (8) Neutrons and neutral matter take in and emit very little charge, but keep recycling charge within themselves.
(I don't yet see how proton equatorial emission can be collected back into the internal charge stream, but it appears to occur somehow, since atoms or molecules exhibit neutrality.)

16. (8) Electrons, protons and other ions immediately reemit all the charge that enters them.

17. (7) Particles within neutral matter circulate charge in streams from particle to particle.

18. (6) Why osmium is the densest element.
(I may find this more probable if I'd reread the paper.)

19. (7) Why planetary axes are tilted as they are.
(This I may find more probable if I could comprehend math quickly.)

20. (8) The charge field, solar wind etc move comet tails.

21. (7) Why retrograde bodies are brighter.

22. (4) Why planetary poles are cold.
(Looks more likely that cold ions cool Mercury's and other planets' poles instead of incoming charge doing so.)

23. (4) The cause of continental drift.
(NewGeology.us shows that a major impact likely broke up an ancient supercontinent and caused rapid continental sliding, instead of slow drift.)

24. (4) The cause of ice ages.
(Ice core data seems to be greatly confused due to many layers having been laid down in some years and some layers having melted in other years. The ice caps seem likely to be less than 14,000 years old.)

25. (6) The cause of nebular accretion.
(I don't remember the details of Miles' paper, but it seemed similar to Charles Chandler's theory, which latter seems very thorough and logical.)

26. (5) The cause of tides.
(Again, I'd have to reread his papers and compare them with Charles' model, which latter again seems rigorous.)

27. (1) Gravity is caused by accelerating matter expansion.
(This seems implausible because expanding matter would seem to require an inner expanding matter, which would likewise require another and all these layers of inner expanding matter would seem to require a magical invisible insertion. Expansion is force, which is mass times acceleration. In order for a mass to keep accelerating outward, it would have to be pushed outward by an inner layer of accelerating mass, ad infinitum.)

28. (6) Gravity is caused by universal spin.
(Spin is rotation or revolution, which is a much more plausible source of acceleration than expanding outward pressure from inside all matter.)

29. (8) The charge field prevents the atmosphere from collapsing.

30. (7) The rainbow is a reflection of the Sun.
(The paper seems to make great sense, except that I'm not clear on what surface a reflection of the Sun would reflect from behind the rainbow and into a sheet of humid or misty air where the rainbow appears.)

31. (8) Miles' calculus and corrections of physics equations etc.
(I'm not adept enough at math to understand a lot of it readily, but I can understand that assigning numbers to points of no dimensions likely has screwed up a lot of equations etc.)

Addenda
32. (6) Large and small planets' orbits unstable.
(Miles says small planets want to get closer to the Sun, if I remember right, and that puts them in conflict with inner larger planets. It's only slightly plausible so far, since I don't see what would be pushing smaller planets inward, though I understand that larger planets may be pushed outward more strongly by the charge field.)

33. (6) Moon's near side smoothed out by Earth's charge field.
(That's interesting, but there might easily be other explanations. If it's true I'd be interested in a calculation of how much material could be eroded away in 5 thousand years, since the Moon likely hasn't been with Earth for longer than that, as found from comparative mythology. I can imagine that electrical scarring has occurred between the Moon and Earth or Mars.)

34. (7) Trojan asteroids kept at bay by Jupiter's charge field.
(I like the novelty of that and many of the above claims, and this one seems plausible.)

35. (6) Cause of magnetic fields.
(I'm more convinced of Charles Chandler's model for magnetic fields so far, though Mathis' model may be rather compatible.)
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:31 pm

Expanding Matter After All?
Airman said: Lloyd, You said that gravity may be due to photon pressure from earthward directed photons. Do you accept MM's calculation that photons being emitted from the earth exert a pressure one thousandth that of gravity? Then the photon pressure of incoming photons is1000x that of outgoing photons. If they are the same species of photons, then there are 1000x more incoming than outgoing photons. That is a huge field imbalance that redefines Miles' charge field.

If you know which paper Miles said that in, I and other readers may appreciate knowing that. I suppose he said something like that in discussing tides or something relating to the Moon.

I don't know if I have the patience to try to understand the details of such statements, but I just have a general idea that it seems to make sense that the incoming photons should be exerting about as much pressure inward as the emitted photons exert outward and it seems to make sense that the inward pressure would be gravity. Maybe it's only part of gravity.

Gravity = Little Tapping
I believe Steven Rado's CD on Aethrokinematics quoted some of the early scientists who had the idea that gravity might be a constant tapping force from an aether or something moving inward toward the Earth. Maybe it was DesCartes. I don't recall for sure. So, when I read Mathis' papers I thought of that idea. The little tapping could be from photons.

Earth Expansion?
I recognize that there is likely a problem with inward moving photons and outward moving ones. Apparently my idea would require that the inward moving ones are more massive in total than the outgoing ones. I guess that would entail an expanding Earth. Hmm. Maybe my variation on Mathis theory is potentially compatible with expanding Earth theory and even with Mathis' own expanding matter theory. Can you calculate how quickly Earth would expand by this potential theory? It does seem plausible to me that photons could convert into matter within matter. Does anyone agree? I guess we need to determine the total amount of photons incoming and total outgoing somehow. I'm sure there has to be at least close estimates somewhere. Was one such estimate stated earlier here?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby tharkun » Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:36 am

Apparently Sparky has problems visualizing that when you give a stationary stacked-spin object a linear motion, the spin creates a wave pattern. So, yes, Sparky, spin can be directly linked to frequency and wavelength by direct mechanical means.
tharkun
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:37 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby tharkun » Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:46 am

LongtimeAirman wrote: Do you accept MM's calculation that photons being emitted from the earth exert a pressure one thousandth that of gravity? Then the photon pressure of incoming photons is1000x that of outgoing photons. If they are the same species of photons, then there are 1000x more incoming than outgoing photons. That is a huge field imbalance that redefines Miles' charge field.


I don't think your calculations work. All you do going from incoming photons to outgoing photons is a vector reversal that adds at the poles instead of subtracting. The unified field offsets solo gravity by ~1/1000th through summed outgoing, but would augment gravity ~1/1000th through a summed incoming. I don't see any imbalance there.

LongtimeAirman wrote: John, Gravity is not known to propagate much faster than light. We just recognize that it would be impossible for gravity to maintain stable orbits unless gravity were much faster than'c'. But that's based on gravity alone. Miles has described a charge field in balance with the gravity field. The balance results in stable, self-correcting orbits that no longer require faster than light effects.


Yes, I realize that per MM expansion or universal spin model that gravity doesn't 'propagate' like a photon does. I was just pointing out that if per Lloyd's idea that a photonic 'vortex' at the atomic level were the mechanism for gravity, it would be limited to an effective propagation speed of 'c'.

LongtimeAirman wrote:Sparky, I ain't smarter than anyone here. I've just 'seen the light', seriously. Miles has a new EM theory, you asked about it and were answered. I am not wrong in trying to understand it and I have yet to hear a good objection to it. The dogma belongs to the standard model which we know has plenty of problems.

REMCB


Fully agree and applaud that sentiment.

John (tharkun)
tharkun
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:37 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby tharkun » Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:52 am

Lloyd wrote:

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?


No there are not different mechanics depending on direction; all MM proposes is gravity balanced by charge (and whatever innate motions a body may have). But the effective results depend on how you are measuring within the overall field. All charge emissions from a solo body fall-off at the quad. But the summed field towards the sun results in an overall fall off of 1/r.

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


I don't think gravity 'propagates' at all. As far as we can tell, any gravitational changes instantaneously affect the bodies in the field. That fits nicely with an expansion mechanism because the expansion is always local. But your 'photonic vortex' mechanism would be limited to 'c' as far as I can see. The 9.8m/s^2 is not a measure of the speed at which gravity occurs or propagates, it's a measure of the effect that the mechanism of gravity creates.


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.


Lloyd wrote: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.


Well you're right - photons would statistically move towards the poles, but, if I understand your gravity mechanism correctly, it is only in the area of the poles that your gravity would be effective. Don't you have the incoming photons creating the 'suction' of gravity toward the bodies? If so, then your gravity is only operational along the spin axis of the body itself and therefore to get to any kind of summed macro-field, all of the axes would have to be aligned with respect to the macro-body itself. And if you align to the incoming, you will naturally be aligning to the outgoing, which means a summed 'anti-gravity' perpendicular.


Lloyd wrote: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.


Again, I agree, but according to MM charge field and nuclear structure models, the summed field is determined by the relative make-up and positioning of the protons, neutrons and electrons themselves, therefore the summed field is going to vary by element/molecule and your gravity mechanism would necessarily vary as well. Maybe, I'm not really understanding your vortex/sump pump model with the incoming photons.

Lloyd wrote: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.


But again that only works for a constant velocity assuming no friction. Gravity is not a velocity, it is an acceleration (real or apparent, regardless of mechanism). An acceleration, requires a constant force, which means a constant energy input.

I think we're at the point of beating the dead horse; feels like we're starting to go in a circle. No harm; no foul. Happy to agree to disagree. Enjoy the dialogue!

John (tharkun)
tharkun
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:37 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Sparky » Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:00 am

airman:
Miles has a new EM theory,

and I understand his position and he seems to have strong proof of it...


Lloyd wrote:Probability of Mathis' Claims
Here I think are some of Mathis' main claims and I give each one a number from (1) to (9) to indicate how probable I think each one is, where 9 indicates nearly maximum probability.

1. (8) The "aether", if it exists, consists of photons.
(That's novel, because no one else seems to have thought of aether as moving fast like photons.)

His photons are the EM field...and LaSage has moving particles...

2. (6) The EM waves of photons are waves of photon motion, (perhaps similar to electron helical motion along magnetic field lines in synchrotron radiation.)
(I actually think light waves would require pairing of photons, so the photons spin like two balls tied closely together. You can't make a wave when throwing just one ball.)

Ever hear of a "knuckle ball?" :D Agree with EM photons..


3. (9) There is no action at a distance, or "attraction", only repulsion, such as by photon collisions.
(I agree that action at a distance would seem to necessarily involve magic, not real mechanics.)

Agree

4. (7) Photon spin causes magnetic effects.
(That seems likely, but I don't understand the details well yet.)

The magnetic effects are mass of aether, which is the alignment of those particles, and if it is a sold aether, the breaking of the bonds between the particles.

5. (7) Photon spins can stack, somewhat like gyroscopic motions.
(I buy the gyroscopic motion etc, but as per #2 I think the photons would have to be paired and maybe quadrupled etc.)

I have to regard photon spin and their stacking as nonsense...It just gets too complicated.

6. (5) Stacked spins increase mass or mass equivalence and sufficient stacks build matter.
(It's easier for me to believe stacking increases mass if it involves pairing and multiplying of photons.)

Mass is volume.

7. (6) All matter takes in photons and emits them. Easy enough to agree with.
(Or it may be simpler if excess photons are drawn to the surface of the stacked multiple photons and roll off due to centrifugal force.)

No stacks...no centrifugal force...

8. (8) This photon emission is electrical repulsion and [b]electric current.[/b]

Yes , and NO...electric current is from a deeper level, the solid aether, which is supporting photons and above...Tearing the solid aether releases the zero point energy, which is modulated by electrons, protons, and plasma ....


9. (8) Photon emission is called charge, charge fields and charge streams.

Yes, close enough..

10. (7) Matter emits photons in charge streams.
(I can see how polar emission would produce streams or channels, but it's hard to see how equatorial emission could do so.)

Yes...

11. (8) Protons emit the most charge.

Possibly...

12. (7) Protons take in charge polarly and emit it equatorially.
(Similar comment as for #7.)

Close enough...

13. (7) Neutrons take in and emit charge polarly.
(If solar charge tamps down charge emitted from Mercury's poles, it looks like regular charge would tamp down neutron polar charge and prevent it from emitting polarly much.)

There may be reasoning behind that, but I haven't looked at it///

14. (9) All matter particles spin. All atoms spin. Unbalanced spin results in atoms breaking up.
(That makes eminent sense of the properties of elements.)


Unbalanced spin? MM likes to spin spin....Me, not so much...I like vibrate, an oscillation.



15. (8) Neutrons and neutral matter take in and emit very little charge, but keep recycling charge within themselves.
(I don't yet see how proton equatorial emission can be collected back into the internal charge stream, but it appears to occur somehow, since atoms or molecules exhibit neutrality.)

but it appears to occur somehow,
MM magic... :D

16. (8) Electrons, protons and other ions immediately reemit all the charge that enters them.

Sometimes///

17. (7) Particles within neutral matter circulate charge in streams from particle to particle.

Not likely, but not worth worrying about.

18. (6) Why osmium is the densest element.
(I may find this more probable if I'd reread the paper.)

See if it says anything about dancing angels?? :D


19. (7) Why planetary axes are tilted as they are.
(This I may find more probable if I could comprehend math quickly.)

Seems to work..

20. (8) The charge field, solar wind etc move comet tails.

Duh?!

21. (7) Why retrograde bodies are brighter.
...don't remember the details.....is this the one about photons being inverted?

22. (4) Why planetary poles are cold.
(Looks more likely that cold ions cool Mercury's and other planets' poles instead of incoming charge doing so.)

That may be the lack of movement as compared to equator.... :?

23. (4) The cause of continental drift.
(NewGeology.us shows that a major impact likely broke up an ancient supercontinent and caused rapid continental sliding, instead of slow drift.)

Don't care about Pangea...

24. (4) The cause of ice ages.
(Ice core data seems to be greatly confused due to many layers having been laid down in some years and some layers having melted in other years. The ice caps seem likely to be less than 14,000 years old.)

Don't care....

25. (6) The cause of nebular accretion.
(I don't remember the details of Miles' paper, but it seemed similar to Charles Chandler's theory, which latter seems very thorough and logical.)

Close enough

26. (5) The cause of tides.
(Again, I'd have to reread his papers and compare them with Charles' model, which latter again seems rigorous.)

MM's charge field sweeps the tides ahead of it...
It's all figured out when, so I am not concerned with the cause....


27. (1) Gravity is caused by accelerating matter expansion.
(This seems implausible because expanding matter would seem to require an inner expanding matter, which would likewise require another and all these layers of inner expanding matter would seem to require a magical invisible insertion. Expansion is force, which is mass times acceleration. In order for a mass to keep accelerating outward, it would have to be pushed outward by an inner layer of accelerating mass, ad infinitum.)

You are conflating a mathematical convenience with reality. Universal Expansion is pure nonsense. If you accelerate mass, volume of matter, you get inertia YOou have to overcome it's rest inertia to begin the acceleration, so why not just use inertia to begin with?? F=Ia? F/I=a, I=F/a, I= kmR2, k as inertial constant..ans. as Kgm2....The maths use acceleration because it works and is convenient, until gravity is defined and quantified more...

28. (6) Gravity is caused by universal spin.
(Spin is rotation or revolution, which is a much more plausible source of acceleration than expanding outward pressure from inside all matter.)

Nonsense

29. (8) The charge field prevents the atmosphere from collapsing.

Good as any explanation..

30. (7) The rainbow is a reflection of the Sun.
(The paper seems to make great sense, except that I'm not clear on what surface a reflection of the Sun would reflect from behind the rainbow and into a sheet of humid or misty air where the rainbow appears.)

Don't care..

31. (8) Miles' calculus and corrections of physics equations etc.
(I'm not adept enough at math to understand a lot of it readily, but I can understand that assigning numbers to points of no dimensions likely has screwed up a lot of equations etc.)

If he can make it work out, then strong argument for his method....

Addenda
32. (6) Large and small planets' orbits unstable.
(Miles says small planets want to get closer to the Sun, if I remember right, and that puts them in conflict with inner larger planets. It's only slightly plausible so far, since I don't see what would be pushing smaller planets inward, though I understand that larger planets may be pushed outward more strongly by the charge field.)

Things seem to be working...and if not, what will we do? :?

33. (6) Moon's near side smoothed out by Earth's charge field.
(That's interesting, but there might easily be other explanations. If it's true I'd be interested in a calculation of how much material could be eroded away in 5 thousand years, since the Moon likely hasn't been with Earth for longer than that, as found from comparative mythology. I can imagine that electrical scarring has occurred between the Moon and Earth or Mars.)

Electrical scarring is a strong probability....


34. (7) Trojan asteroids kept at bay by Jupiter's charge field.
(I like the novelty of that and many of the above claims, and this one seems plausible.)

Don't care....

35. (6) Cause of magnetic fields.
(I'm more convinced of Charles Chandler's model for magnetic fields so far, though Mathis' model may be rather compatible.)


I'll agree....

. The little tapping could be from photons.

Not if you have an inhomogeneous field?! Gravity seems relatively stable...

First, consciousness is not nonsense.

Understanding of consciousness is...remember that it may be a constituent of all life..well of my cats, anyway..


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. Magnetism is not spinning photons...

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.

A wind will! Sound through a solid is more stable. It is not logical that an aether could transmit waves over great distances if it were not solid. I see that solid matrix something like Einstein's [i]space time , but not time![/i]

Photons are not aether, they are the charge field.

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

tharkunApparently Sparky has problems visualizing that when you give a stationary stacked-spin object a linear motion, the spin creates a wave pattern.

IF such a wobbly animal was spinning, yes. :D
"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

Unread postby CTJG 1986 » Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:59 am

If you accelerate mass, volume of matter, you get inertia YOou have to overcome it's rest inertia to begin the acceleration, so why not just use inertia to begin with??"


While I certainly don't deny the "mainstream" is filled with insanity of it's own it is statements like this that lead to the criticisms of the EU "crowd" being "anti-science".

Motion of any kind requires FORCE and force is energy(in some form), inertia is not a force that can initiate motion but is the resistance to said force initiating/altering motion. Just because you may not like that definition doesn't mean you can just arbitrarily change it to suit your views - come up with a new term for what you suggest instead of altering existing terminology that is well defined.

Sure maybe "bombardment"(by what? Photons?) can induce "spin" in an object/particle but whatever thing you want to be "bombarding" the other things requires MOTION itself - so where did the energy/force come from to set those things/photons in motion to "bombard" the other things into a state of motion?

An object at rest tends to stay at rest - because of inertia that resists the initial force to put it into motion!

You may as well just say "God provides the energy" or "God initiates the spin/motion".

You are suggesting that the effects of the force/energy is also the cause of the force/energy, which is definitely anti-science.

And no that's not me having trouble grasping what you are saying, it's you saying things that are opposed by hundreds of years of empirical science(objects at rest tend to stay at rest).

To suggest that the resistance to motion is what causes/induces motion is wacky, to put it kindly.

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
Location: Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Sparky » Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:45 pm

Johnny, you completely misunderstand what I said, and your presumption that I am anti science is not valid. I know what inertia is. I know what mass is. I know what force is. It seems that you have learned something of what inertia is, but are holding on to preconceived ideas about the mass, inertia, force relationship.

If you can not comprehend what I am saying, don't read it. :roll:
"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

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:36 pm

Suction Gravity?
John said [regarding my sump pump photon emission/reception model]: Don't you have the incoming photons creating the 'suction' of gravity toward the bodies? If so, then your gravity is only operational along the spin axis of the body itself and therefore to get to any kind of summed macro-field, all of the axes would have to be aligned with respect to the macro-body itself. And if you align to the incoming, you will naturally be aligning to the outgoing, which means a summed 'anti-gravity' perpendicular.

I'm not sure if suction describes my theory well. What I see happening is photons from higher photon density areas moving into lower photon density areas because of fewer obstructions there. The entire surface of a body seems to emit photons in all directions in total, and the photons travel for millions of miles in mere minutes, so the incoming photons would be coming from great distances, not attracted by low pressure but repelled from high pressure.

No Constant Energy Input Needed
Lloyd wrote: 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.

John replied: But again that only works for a constant velocity assuming no friction. Gravity is not a velocity, it is an acceleration (real or apparent, regardless of mechanism). An acceleration, requires a constant force, which means a constant energy input.

Look at how the solar wind accelerates away from the Sun for several solar radii before it attains a constant velocity. Photon pressure is what we think accelerates the solar wind. Since photons travel at very high speed, when they bombard ions, the latter accelerate until they reach the maximum speed they can reach. So incoming photons could do the same to produce gravity. An object within the Earth's sphere of influence would first slowly move toward Earth and the constant tapping of photons moving toward Earth's lower photon pressure would accelerate the object till it gets slowed by air resistance or by the Earth.

My Problem
I acknowledge that my model has problems. One is that, if incoming photon pressure is greater than photon emission from Earth, the atmosphere should perhaps get squashed down to the ground, unless there's another similarity to the Sun where some things are repelled and some things fall into it.

John's Problem
John said: I think we're at the point of beating the dead horse

I thought that at several points in the discussion, but I persevered because I thought some new info might come of it anyway. And it did. I'd still like to have a reply to my comment about accelerating expansion requiring mysterious endless inner layers of accelerating expansion, since accelerating motion of mass requires a constant force which requires an accelerating mass ad infinitum. But thanks for at least persevering this long.

Magnetism
Sparky, spinning photons are the best mechanical model of magnetism that I know of. Do you know of a better mechanical model that doesn't rely on a magical force of "attraction"?

Light Waves
And I don't know if you understand Mathis' idea of photon wave motion. He thinks as a photon moves along a straight line it can be caused to rotate around a point on its surface at the same time and that rotation would produce a wave if you took a bunch of mental pictures of the photon as it's moving past your stationary mental camera. I have stated that that sort of motion doesn't make sense to me, but if two photons were tied together and you threw them, they could make that wave motion
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Chromium6 » Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:36 pm

You guys might take a little break and check out this thread which in some ways is very similar to this one.:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/ ... -work.html
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

Unread postby Sparky » Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:58 am

Sparky, spinning photons are the best mechanical model of magnetism that I know of. Do you know of a better mechanical model that doesn't rely on a magical force of "attraction"?


Yes, alignment and moving of aether within the magnet, extending out to complete the loop/field to the other "pole",.. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sUP_iL6 ... Q&index=13

http://youtu.be/fgHfW8fqqXI
"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

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests