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 tharkun » Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:53 pm

A few comments on some of these items…


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


From the MM paper on magnetism:
“So, when the two charge fields meet in fairly well-ordered straight lines, head-to-head, the photons will cancel their spins, canceling the magnetic component of the E/M field. The photons will not annihilate one another, but they will annihilate one another's spins. In other words, the electrical field will not be canceled, only the magnetic field. Nor will all photons be affected, since we don't imagine that all will collide. But the field coherence creates an unusually high number of collisions and spin cancellations, and the result is greatly reduced charge field. A greatly reduced charge field is the same as a greatly strengthened unified field, and the result is an apparent attraction. There is too little repulsion to counteract gravitational expansion, and the magnets come together.”

So the spin doesn’t directly cause the apparent attraction or repulsion. The spin lowers or raises the summed unified field and that’s what creates the apparent attraction or repulsion.

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.)


It wouldn’t and I don’t think Miles proposes such a thing. The equatorial emission would necessarily be planar (in general) which is why he simplifies his nuclear models for protons as discs. He does propose two basic paths that the recycled photons may take, equatorial and polar; depending on the effect being studied, it could be caused by either one or a combination.

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.)


Except that there’s a big difference between studying a single particle and planet. The scales greatly impact how the charge field operates. The mechanics are the same, but the outcomes are different simply because the neutron is much closer in size to the charge photon. The low polar emission of a neutron I would think would be more due to its spin make-up, than the ambient field it reside in. Mercury as a body is not composed of a single stack of spins, so the result is not quite analogous.

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


I’m not sure how ‘immediate’ is ‘immediate and I don’t know that MM has ever addressed this. ‘Dwell time’ of photons within a larger particle might be something good to pursue with him.

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


Same as my comment on #10. Charge is not emitted only in streams, it is emitted based on spin and linear velocity.

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


Based on MM nuclear structure theory, Osmium is the densest element because it is built on a Xenon base with triple alphas (6 protons) and with double alphas filling the interior holes in the pillar structure. That creates a tighter, more compact nucleus and therefore denser.

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


The math is a little difficult , but I think that is mainly because he is dealing with ratios and ignoring the units because it is the relative numbers that determine tilt not the absolute numbers. In short, each planet seeks a balance in the unified field with the baseline set by the sun’s field. It is the interactions of the summed field from the planets on either side of the body in question that contribute to the tilt. A comparison of Mercury and Uranus demonstrates this. Mercury is swamped by the field of the sun due to its position, and even though all of the other planets are working against the sun’s field, the sun’s field still dominates so Mercury has very little tilt at all (~3° I think). Uranus has larger planets on both sides of it so the summed field is nearly equivalent coming from both directions which is why it has a tilt of nearly 90°.

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.)


But this only begs the question of what drives the ions? Charge.

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.)


An impact is one scenario for the impetus of the break-up. I think that what we see now is more likely continental ‘shifting’ to a new equilibrium than continuation of ‘drifting’ that uniformitarianism/anti-catastrophism would have us believe. A catastrophic break-up followed by multiple relaxation/equilibrium adjustments seems more logical to me.

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.)


Ice core dating is fraught with assumptions driven by the worldviews of the people involved. The layers are commonly referred to as ‘annual’ layers, but the discovery of the ‘lost squadron’ killed this assumption. Even now it can be shown that multiple layers can be built up in a single day. Layers are built through warm-cold cycles, not (only) summer-winter cycles.

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.)


I haven’t read Charles’ theory on this so I can’t comment in that respect; but I don’t think MM addresses the causes of accretion. He does pick apart using accretion as the source of global heat in his paper on the heat of the earth.

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.)


And, again, I’m not familiar with Charles’ theory on this; but MM does a fairly thorough job of destroying gravity as the source of tides in his series of papers.

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.)


Somewhat addressed prior to this thread; but I think it misses that expansion of matter as the mechanism for gravity as the axiom of the argument. You don’t ‘prove’ axioms in your argument, axioms are what you are given that you build your argument from. Every theory gravity necessarily has axioms they are based on. The axiom of expansion is that the true ‘quantum’ of the physical universe (whatever that quantum is) is expanding at a constant rate. The rest of the argument is developed from this one axiom. You don’t divide a ‘quantum’ based on the definition of ‘quantum’. A ‘quantum’ by definition is indivisible; so positing a divisible quantum is a contradiction in terms. And this axiom is not some creation of expansion theory in order to make a case. We assume a ‘quantum’ in the SM as well or we are led to the same infinite regress. The axiom may not be agreeable to some (which I understand), but seeking proof of the axiom is illogical.

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.)


A different mechanism – yes; more plausible – why? You still run into an infinite regress/infinite energy input problem. If universal spin is the mechanism, what is it spinning in relation to? What is creating the continuous spins? Look, I don’t care either way; I’m happy with either expansion or universal spin just so long as we stay away from illogical ideas of ‘curved space’, actions at a distance or attraction by bombardment of ‘virtual’ particles.

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.


It doesn’t really matter in his theory so long as there is something rather than open sky. I believe he appeals to the cloud formations and/or terrain as the reflective backgrounds in that paper.

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.)


It’s not so much that the smaller planets would be pushed lower, it is that the summed field beneath them is unable (over time) to exclude them from a lower orbit where they would achieve a more long-term equilibrium.

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.)


I agree, MM projects the charge field ‘obliteration’ over a supposed ~4by age of the earth-moon system (regardless of origin); but large scale catastrophic events could easily bring that estimate down to within historical times.

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

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby LongtimeAirman » Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:44 pm

Miles calculates .009545 m/s2 for the charge field of the earth in "The Unified Field Theory", http://milesmathis.com/uft.html .

He expands the idea in several papers including "the Unified Field explains the Atmosphere including the non-layering of O and N", http://milesmathis.com/atmo.html .

He introduces the idea of universal spinning as the cause of gravity,  "The Source of Gravity", http://milesmathis.com/gravitycause.pdf .

He shows that the speed of gravity is not c, but infinite in "The Speed of Gravity", http://milesmathis.com/fland.pdf . I guess I missed that one.

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

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:22 pm

John's Catastrophism
John, nice to see you're aware of the problems with conventional dating of the ice sheets. Miles seemed to rely on conventional dating to make his conclusions about the supposed ice ages. And it's nice to see that you concur about the Moon being possibly a recent arrival and about its face possibly having been formed catastrophically, at least in part. I wasn't clear if you were in at least partial agreement about continental drift being a recent catastrophic effect.

Airman, if you want to emphasize any particular point or implication in what you said, please do so.

Chromium6, I'm copying here a list of supposed proofs against Push Gravity. If anyone agrees with any of these statements, feel free to admit and to explain why. Despite the claims, Pull Gravity is what I think can't work, unless we should believe in magic. It's obvious that collisions push. It's not apparent that anything can pull.

Reasons why Push Gravity does not work
1. The gravity particles are thought of classical particles with classical interactions. This notion is inconsistent with current understanding of particle physics – there is no particle which could have all the characteristics required by PG without violating one or more physical laws
2. The particle flux filling all space must be perfectly isotropic and of very high density. No known form of radiation of particle flux has these characteristics to the degree required by the theory
3. The neutrino. Modern proponents of PG often posit the neutrino as the mediating particle of the theory. This has been conclusively disproved by Richard Feynman in 1995 [1].
4. Transparency of matter. With increasing mass the change in gravitational shielding becomes mathematically less then the sum of the shieldings of the two bodies. To overcome this one has to place an extremely high lower bound on the flux density of these particles. This is inconsistent with experiments conducted to detect such flux energies [2]
5. Drag. Any mechanical model of PG necessarily creates a drag force, or else there would be no interaction between the particles and a massive body. In order to reduce the amount of drag to levels consistent with observation, the speed at which these particles move must be in the region of 10^17 m/s, which is many orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light.
6. Heat energy. If the particles of PG really move at superluminal speeds, which is in violation of basic physical principles, they would impart a heat energy onto any massive body sufficiently high to instantly incinerate any form of normal matter.
7. Aberration. In any mechanical model of gravity, the gravitational force can only act with finite speed, creating an aberration effect. Such an effect has not been observed.
8. Sources of gravity. As we know today, and as is experimentally well verified [3], all forms of energy are a source of the gravitational field, not just mass. This is not explainable by PG.
9. Time dilation. PG has no consistent mechanism to explain the well verified phenomenon of time dilation.
10. Deflection of light. PG cannot explain deflection of light rays while at the same time avoiding aforementioned problems with drag.
11. Thermodynamics. The flux of particles in PG would be many orders of magnitude more energetic then mass at rest. However, not transmission of energy is observed, even though there must be a form of interaction with ordinary matter. This leads to a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
12. Perpetual motion. Due to shielding effects the existence of PG would make it possible to construct a perpetual motion machine. Again, this is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
13. Binding energy. Binding energy of elementary particles contributes to their gravitational energy, which is not explainable by PG.
14. Origin. There is no consistent explanation as to where those particles come from, why their flux never varies, why the field is perfectly isotropic, or why the total energy never decreases even if the universe is expanding.
15. Mathematics. The mathematics of PG are not self-consistent, and do not produce the correct results. [4]
16. Frame of reference. PG would create an absolute frame of reference, which means that the Theory of Relativity must be false. This is in contradiction to experiment and observation.
17. Large scale structure. Due to the necessary isotropy of the PG medium, over very large distances the net forces would cancel out. This does not explain the large scale structure of the universe.
18. Non-existence. No flux field or particle stream as needed by PG has ever been observed by experiment or observation.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Sparky » Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:28 am

Lloyd:
2. The particle flux filling all space must be perfectly isotropic and of very high density. No known form of radiation of particle flux has these characteristics to the degree required by the theory


Yes, as with MM, QM, and especially particle physics, it is speculation.
But I subscribe now to a flexible, solid aether, which contains the zero point energy that is being expressed in various ways. It is possible that a homogeneous field of non-charge gravity particles exists within this matrix. There is, of course, charge particles present also. I do not confuse the role of each of these.

The aether matrix is transparent to all other particles and matter. But it will react to certain stimuli, releasing energy in the form of electricity as it breaks it bonds, node to node. Those bonds may be highly energetic "rods"/strings of dipole quality which have an affinity for each other at the nodes.

I don't know what a general hypothesis is called, other than a wild ass guess... :D

the speed at which these particles move must be in the region of 10^17 m/s, which is many orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light.


An unfounded assumption.....There is no need for the gravity effect to travel above c.
The reason that it has appeared to travel faster is strange and needs to be rechecked/.

Lloyd, your god awfully long posts overcome my time limitations to answer... :?
"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 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:05 am

Lloyd,

Thank you. So far, this has been a good introduction/review of several subjects. Quite enjoyable, especially just reading Sparky say "LaSage? Is that you??! :? " in a new thunderbolt post, viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14935 , on Push Gravity, "Gravity does not attract (seroius)".

Thank you, Chromium6 for the link, http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/ ... -work.html . Markus Hanke has provided a comprehensive reality check list on the physics involved.

I believe you would agree that the charge field does meet the demands on that list. I don't recall Miles saying it, but I happen to believe that the initial motive force for gravity, as well as magnetism are a result of the photons' h-component.

The photon h component clearly delivers orthogonal force, something that was never explainable by either radial attraction or repulsion forces alone. The sum of the charge field's orthogonal spins describe the magnetic field while the orthogonal forces delivered by photon bombardment cause matter to move in orbital motion, an acceleration. What do you say to that?

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

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Chromium6 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:41 pm

No problem LTAM... just found that thread in the same ball-park so to speak. It brought me back to this article thankfully which ties with MM in many ways. Your photon analysis, btw, really is a great way to look at this. In essence, this is the basic building block. MM may give Le Sage a new "life" so to speak with his Charge field.

The Observational Impetus For "Le Sage" Gravity
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/the_o ... ge_gravity

Just hope Sparky doesn't have a problem with Halton Arp and Le Sage together... ;)

Thanks Loyd, Tharkun and all for bringing this together coherently. It is a lot to wrap one's mind around. The bridging of two schools.
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 » Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:44 am

Just hope Sparky doesn't have a problem with Halton Arp and Le Sage together...


I like the LeSage theory, though I can't see gravity lensing effect....Gravity may very well produce such an effect/. If so, what kind of particle, under the LeSage theory, would affect light so.? :?

MM may give Le Sage a new "life" so to speak with his Charge field.


MM's chaarge field is just that, an inhomogeneous field of charge. How does an inhomogeneous field act as a homogeneous field? I see gravity anomalies, which are not falsification of homogeneous field.
"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 Chromium6 » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:59 am

Sparky wrote:
Just hope Sparky doesn't have a problem with Halton Arp and Le Sage together...


I like the LeSage theory, though I can't see gravity lensing effect....Gravity may very well produce such an effect/. If so, what kind of particle, under the LeSage theory, would affect light so.? :?

MM may give Le Sage a new "life" so to speak with his Charge field.


MM's chaarge field is just that, an inhomogeneous field of charge. How does an inhomogeneous field act as a homogeneous field? I see gravity anomalies, which are not falsification of homogeneous field.


AGAINST GRAVITATIONAL LENSING
by Miles Mathis
http://milesmathis.com/lens.html

Well, I didn't see you post here Sparky on this MM critique ... ;) :
Miles Mathis "Light Bending"
viewtopic.php?p=34400

Webolife/JL/et.al had good points here that MM can mostly answer:
------

Re: Miles Mathis "Light Bending"

Postby webolife » Fri May 07, 2010 11:42 am

From the old "What is a photon?" thread:

Webolife: "You didn't ask me.. or did you?... but my view of the "photon" is simply that it is a convenient unit of measurement of a very small [infinitesmal] but finite light action. It is neither a particle nor a wave in itself.
I agree with JL that therre is no wave-particle duality, no uncertainty principle, and no E =mc^2 in the universe.
I further agree with JL that electrons do not travel or "flow" through a wire. Furthermore the electrical action of a wire is slowed only by its resistance factor, not by slowing the electrons down... When you flick the switch the electrons at the lightbulb filament begin to immediately vibrate in response. And I mean immediately. The relationship between electrons and light in my view is simply this. Centropic force is manifested when electrons drop to a lower energy level about the atom. This force is felt by your retina [ as a "tug", though I say push in the direction of the light bulb, and the "light" goes on in your brain."

Elsewhere I tried to describe the shape of a photon as a "beam" [of small but finite diameter] of vectors operating on a photoreceptor/detector. The beam though virtually cylindrical, is actually conical in that the light action originates at an atomic level but is felt on a macroscopic level by the detector. Attending the beam, is a vectoral gradient "field" that manifests itself as a spectrum surrounding the central line of the beam. The altitude of the cone = the distance between observer and light action centroid, but is a timeless unit... the photon beam unit exists at its apex [the centroid] and its base simultaneously. This "base" from the observer's perspective is the area of eg. a photoreceptor "tip", but actually extends beyond/"behind" the observer to an indefinite distance, at some point of which the light action intensity [ie vector density] is too low to be phenomenal. I am not satisfied with this definition of the photon shape, in that it does not actually fit my understanding of light as an action rather than as an object. In this description however, it is incorrect to think of light as bending, but it is possible to recognize that there is a pressure gradient about the central line of sight/light action which is intercepted by the receptor from/at an angle to that central line, creating the possible effect of light "bending". Refraction in this view is not about light "bending" as much as it is about the direction of the light vector instantaneously changing to a new line as it transects a medium of different density. Refraction "laws" [so-called] have been used for over a century as a means of calculating variable light speed, based on what I believe is an erroneous understanding of light as moving waves.


Great thread on MM from a few years back:
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 2&start=15
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 » Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:11 pm

This force is felt by your retina [ as a "tug", though I say push in the direction of the light bulb, and the "light" goes on in your brain."


ahhhh, the mathematical, sucking vector, theory... ;)



:D

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

Well, I didn't see you post here Sparky on this MM critique ... ;) :
Miles Mathis "Light Bending"
viewtopic.php?p=34400


I have not yet achieved omni--presence.. :(

Working on it.... ;)
"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 » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:47 pm

OK, I'll give it a shot. I apologize for the length.

A gravity theory based on Miles Mathis' Charge Field model needs to be examined with respect to the existing demands of the Push Gravity theory. While the charge field model does not meet the classical definition of a PG (there is no everywhere-present, homogenous isotropic field which is partially shielded by matter), charge field gravity works by photon energy transfer from one mass centered charge field to another via photon collisions.

1.      The gravity particles are thought of (as) classical particles with classical interactions. This notion is inconsistent with current understanding of particle physics - there is no particle which could have all the characteristics required by PG without violating one or more physical laws.
COMMENT. Invalid. Under Miles Mathis' Charge Field model, the "gravity particles" are Spinning Photons. Spinning photons are not classical particles with classical interactions. We are able to describe forward and orthogonal forces, delivered at a distance at light speed, without violating physical laws.

2.      The particle flux filling all space must be perfectly isotropic and of very high density. No known form of radiation of particle flux has these characteristics to the degree required by the theory.
COMMENT. The Charge Field is highly isotropic (with a dependence on spin rate) and has a very high density (Miles calculates it at roughly 19x that of visible matter). Unlike the original PG concept, the charge field does not need to fill ALL space isotropicaly, just the space between two gravitationally interacting objects. Each mass (gravitational source) has its own charge field through which it emits and reabsorbs (recycles) photons. The charge fields of the separate masses overlap and interact within the resulting, so-called, unified field.

3.      The neutrino. Modern proponents of PG often posit the neutrino as the mediating particle of the theory. This has been conclusively disproved by Richard Feynman in 1995 [1].
COMMENT. Invalid. The mediating particle of the charge field is the photon. The photon has a radius and spin. The forward and spin velocity of the photons can reach light speed. Photons, like neutrinos, can generally pass through higher matter without interaction, though Miles Mathis has calculated forces due to photon impacts.

4.      Transparency of matter. With increasing mass the change in gravitational shielding becomes mathematically less then the sum of the shieldings of the two bodies. To overcome this one has to place an extremely high lower bound on the flux density of these particles. This is inconsistent with experiments conducted to detect such flux energies [2].
COMMENT. Invalid. Shielding does not apply. Both bodies provide charge field sources. Both fields together may be described as the unified field under consideration, which is the source for the "gravity field".

5.      Drag. Any mechanical model of PG necessarily creates a drag force, or else there would be no interaction between the particles and a massive body. In order to reduce the amount of drag to levels consistent with observation, the speed at which these particles move must be in the region of 10^17 m/s, which is many orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light.
COMMENT. Requires Further Examination. The emission force of the earth's charge field has been calculated by Miles Mathis to be -.009545m/s2, or .097% of solo gravity alone. That is drag. The amount of gravity generated by the charge field is not yet calculated. The requirement that particles need to move faster than light (consistent with observation) is not substantiated.

6.      Heat energy. If the particles of PG really move at superluminal speeds, which is in violation of basic physical principles, they would impart a heat energy onto any massive body sufficiently high to instantly incinerate any form of normal matter.
COMMENT. Requires Further Examination. The requirement that particles need to move faster than light (consistent with observation) is not substantiated. As in [5] we have drag without noticeably increasing heat.

7.      Aberration. In any mechanical model of gravity, the gravitational force can only act with finite speed, creating an aberration effect. Such an effect has not been observed.
COMMENT. Requires Further Examination. From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(LeSage) ," Contrary to the drag effect, this component will act to accelerate both objects away from each other. In order to maintain stable orbits, the effect of gravity must either propagate much faster than the speed of light or must not be a purely central force. This has been suggested by many as a conclusive disproof of any Le Sage type of theory. In contrast, general relativity is consistent with the lack of appreciable aberration identified by Laplace, because even though gravity propagates at the speed of light in general relativity, the expected aberration is almost exactly cancelled by velocity-dependent terms in the interaction.[48]  ".

8.      Sources of gravity. As we know today, and as is experimentally well verified [3], all forms of energy are a source of the gravitational field, not just mass. This is not explainable by PG.
COMMENT. Requires Further Examination. How does the charge field predict that all forms of matter are a source of gravity?

9.      Time dilation. PG has no consistent mechanism to explain the well verified phenomenon of time dilation.
COMMENT. Requires Further Examination. Repeating [7], From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(LeSage) ," Contrary to the drag effect, this component will act to accelerate both objects away from each other. In order to maintain stable orbits, the effect of gravity must either propagate much faster than the speed of light or must not be a purely central force. This has been suggested by many as a conclusive disproof of any Le Sage type of theory. In contrast, general relativity is consistent with the lack of appreciable aberration identified by Laplace, because even though gravity propagates at the speed of light in general relativity, the expected aberration is almost exactly cancelled by velocity-dependent terms in the interaction.[48] ".

10.     Deflection of light. PG cannot explain deflection of light rays while at the same time avoiding aforementioned problems with drag.
COMMENT. The charge field photons interfere with light directly, though only a small number of photons may yield the deflection results.

11.     Thermodynamics. The flux of particles in PG would be many orders of magnitude more energetic then mass at rest. However, not transmission of energy is observed, even though there must be a form of interaction with ordinary matter. This leads to a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
COMMENT. Requires Further Examination. The photon fields which comprise the charge field have not been studied, though it is within the capability of science to do so. Current science denies that photons are real entities. Energy transfer due to photon bombardments has just begun to be looked at by Miles Mathis.

12.     Perpetual motion. Due to shielding effects the existence of PG would make it possible to construct a perpetual motion machine. Again, this is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
COMMENT. There are no required "shielding effects" with gravity caused by the charge field. It may be possible to tap charge field energy flows to produce work similar to using electric circuits.

13.     Binding energy. Binding energy of elementary particles contributes to their gravitational energy, which is not explainable by PG.
COMMENT. Miles Mathis has redefined binding mechanisms for elementary particles as well as atoms, etc., which are consistent with a charge field based gravity. The binding energies are based on charge field charge flows within channels through all matter.

14.     Origin. There is no consistent explanation as to where those particles come from, why their flux never varies, why the field is perfectly isotropic, or why the total energy never decreases even if the universe is expanding.
COMMENT. Invalid. Miles' charge field is the only known field that is defined in those terms. All matter recycles the charge field. All matter is surrounded by photonic matter which is either emitted or reabsorbed by that matter. The isotropic nature is a function of spin speed. Matter growth is a definite possibility within the charge field model.

15.     Mathematics. The mathematics of PG are not self-consistent, and do not produce the correct results. [4]
COMMENT. The Charge Field basis of gravity avoids the all space filling, everywhere isotropic, shielding from nearby objects problems. The charge field math is self-consistent.

16.     Frame of reference. PG would create an absolute frame of reference, which means that the Theory of Relativity must be false. This is in contradiction to experiment and observation.
COMMENT. Invalid. See [9]. It has been observed that PG would not violate general relativity "In contrast, general relativity is consistent with the lack of appreciable aberration identified by Laplace, because even though gravity propagates at the speed of light in general relativity, the expected aberration is almost exactly cancelled by velocity-dependent terms in the interaction.[48] ".

17.     Large scale structure. Due to the necessary isotropy of the PG medium, over very large distances the net forces would cancel out. This does not explain the large scale structure of the universe.
COMMENT. Invalid. Large scale isotropy is replaced with distributed charge fields, collocated with all matter.

18.     Non-existence. No flux field or particle stream as needed by PG has ever been observed by experiment or observation.
COMMENT. Invalid. The charge field is the first field described that behaves in a manner anticipated by PG.

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

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:46 am

Airman said: COMMENT. There are no required "shielding effects" with gravity caused by the charge field. It may be possible to tap charge field energy flows to produce work similar to using electric circuits.

Airman, thanks much for evaluating all those claims against push gravity. I don't have time to read everything now, but this quote is especially interesting. Some of the Mathis followers have asked if an efficient energy source like LED flashlights could be made for general use, instead of just for flashlights etc. Mathis has a paper on LED I think, where he considered that the charge field is responsible for the efficiency somehow. Do you have ideas about how to plug in to the charge field to provide abundant energy?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Sparky » Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:10 am

airman:
Unlike the original PG concept, the charge field does not need to fill ALL space isotropicaly, just the space between two gravitationally interacting objects.

Not a well thought out statement.... :? What mechanism determines when a space is to be filled? :?

The forward and spin velocity of the photons can reach light speed. Photons, like neutrinos, can generally pass through higher matter without interaction,

So how is gravity effect transferred?

the effect of gravity must either propagate much faster than the speed of light or must not be a purely central force.

Why must it propagate? Gravity may be present at all times. :?



All matter recycles the charge field. All matter is surrounded by photonic matter which is either emitted or reabsorbed by that matter. The isotropic nature is a function of spin speed.

It may be that matter must consume charge to exist. The apparent emitting of charged particles may be the separation of neutral particle pairs to + and -, retaining the polarity of the opposite charge. :? Again, the introduction of the magical acrobatic photon.... :roll:


Here is an explanation of "charge field" gravity, using positive and negative charges. :? No need for an acrobatic photon!... :roll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMkrF6YK ... ture=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7quXzF6k ... ture=share
"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 » Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:50 pm

Lloyd: Mathis has a paper on LED I think, where he considered that the charge field is responsible for the efficiency somehow. Do you have ideas about how to plug in to the charge field to provide abundant energy?

hi
Lloyd,
If I did, I would be planning my trip to Tahiti (just joking)! The LED lightbulb taps the Charge Field."Atomic thermal energy" IS the charge field. http://milesmathis.com/led.pdf

airman:Unlike the original PG concept, the charge field does not need to fill ALL space isotropicaly, just the space between two gravitationally interacting objects. 
Sparky:Not a well thought out statement....  What mechanism determines when a space is to be filled?  


Sparky,
Push Gravity is the result of an all-space filling, isotropic particles that push in all directions. It is only when some of the field is shaded by an object like the earth below us, are we then pushed from above onto the planet.
I was making the point that with charge fields, there is NOT an all-space filling, isotropic particles that push in all directions. My charge field interacts with the earth's charge field. It's just between me and the earth, not all space.

airman: The forward and spin velocity of the photons can reach light speed. Photons, like neutrinos, can generally pass through higher matter without interaction,
Sparky: So how is gravity effect transferred?


The interacting charge fields are comprised of photons. Not all photons pass without interaction. All matter present will be bombarded with photons, as the matter itself is emitting bombarding photons as well. All matter present is also channeling the charge field. I propose that gravity is generated by the force delivered by the photon spins. The gravity field and magnetic fields are closely related.

Wiki: the effect of gravity must either propagate much faster than the speed of light or must not be a purely central force.
Sparky: Why must it propagate? Gravity may be present at all times.  


I understand the reasoning that says that if gravity traveled at light speed or slower, all orbits would become unstable. The charge field and gravity are observed to be in balance. There is no need for faster than light speeds. I agree, gravity and the charge field are present at all times.

airman: All matter recycles the charge field. All matter is surrounded by photonic matter which is either emitted or reabsorbed by that matter. The isotropic nature is a function of spin speed.
Sparky: It may be that matter must consume charge to exist. The apparent emitting of charged particles may be the separation of neutral particle pairs to + and -, retaining the polarity of the opposite charge. Again, the introduction of the magical acrobatic photon.... 
Here is an explanation of "charge field" gravity, using positive and negative charges.  No need for an acrobatic photon!...  


Acrobatic photon? We are just adding spin. My question to you is, does a photon have mass? If so, then it must spin. We would then discuss what that spin entails.

Thanks for the Distinti videos. I spent many hours looking into his work when you discussed him, I believe, back in January. As you said, he describes matter absorbing charge, what he calls pretons. You gotta admit, that's a significant change to the standard model. If matter is absorbing charge, then it should be able to release it as well. He is also proposing an influx type push gravity too.

Distinti has no problem with pluses and negatives attracting. I cannot accept the notion of attraction without a mechanical cause.

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

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby David » Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:20 am

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.

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.)


Lloyd,

Since you readily admit that you don't understand calculus (which is okay, not everyone does), exactly how did you arrive at the number "8"; which implies that Mathis' calculus has a high probability of being correct? Why not just flat-out state that you are not qualified to make a valid assessment of his mathematics?

By the way, the correct answer is 1. Mathis' calculus does not work; which has been demonstrated many times at many different web sites. Anyone who claims otherwise must provide a solution to the following simple problem:

Find the derivative of sqrt(x) using Mathis' method of differentiation.

The above problem can easily be solved using standard calculus; but it can't be solved using Mathis' calculus. Why? Because his calculus does not work for non-polynomials. For example: sin(x), exp(x), ln(x), log(x), sqrt(x), and so on. In other words, Mathis' calculus is basically useless.
David
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Sparky » Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:31 am

Acrobatic photon? We are just adding spin. My question to you is, does a photon have mass? If so, then it must spin. We would then discuss what that spin entails.

Thanks for the Distinti videos. I spent many hours looking into his work when you discussed him, I believe, back in January. As you said, he describes matter absorbing charge, what he calls pretons. You gotta admit, that's a significant change to the standard model. If matter is absorbing charge, then it should be able to release it as well. He is also proposing an influx type push gravity too.

Distinti has no problem with pluses and negatives attracting. I cannot accept the notion of attraction without a mechanical cause.


Distinti's gravity model shows a expulsion of opposite charge. He said that these were "gateway" models, and more specific details were on the way.

I believe that MJV calculated photon mass. It must have spin?! It has a frequency, therefore a oscillation/vibration. Spin, stacked upon spin is acrobatics.
MM's model is just that, a model. It has no relationship to reality.

If matter takes in charges/energy for it's existence, then the energy may be used to produce frequency... :?
"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 5 guests