Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[LongtimeAirman]

Chr6, Phosphorescence. Good way to talk about electron orbitals. I don’t recall Miles on the subject.

“The electrons in the mineral have essentially stored the energy of the initial activating light and then re-emit the phosphorescent light on a delayed basis.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorescence.

Refreshing. Sounds like recycling higher energy ultra-violet photons to me. I don’t know that we should accept that it is the just electrons doing the recycling, it may well be the atom itself. The electron positions may vary between two energy states, or even be knocked off by the higher energy, until a new equilibrium is reached based on the ambient charge field.

Do you have any thoughts?

REMCB

[Lloyd]

Apology. I had said: "As long as the mods fail to do their job here []." I apologize for that crude statement.
- Nick said: "Lloyd, what would you like done? You complain about "nonscientific name-calling" but have you followed forum procedure by reporting offending posts? (That is clicking the red exclamation point and filing a report of a post that you find in violation of forum rules.) You have not done so."
Thanks for the info, but I don't see the red exclamation point anywhere on this page. Does anyone know where it is? Oh, never mind. I didn't see them because I wasn't signed in at first.

MM vs EU. Cr6 quoted MM: "And when it comes to explaining winds, hot and cold poles, and other phenomena, my fields explain the data much more cleanly and clearly than EU models." I disagree that MM explains hot and cold poles better than EU does, since I think cold ions that reach poles explain cold poles better than photons can.

Electron Shells. Cr6 & Airman, thanks for discussion of electron shells etc.
- MM said Wikipedia doesn't even show a model of electron shells and energy levels and I see that he's right. But I do find some sites online that do show models. Here's one: http://www.tutorvista.com/content/scien ... s-atom.php. And following are some quotes.
Structure of an atom
[Diagram of electron shells and energy levels: http://images.tutorvista.com/content/st ... cture.jpeg]
- In this page we are going to discuss about explain the structure of an atom concept .Electrons revolve around the nucleus in different energy levels or shells and each shell is associated with definite energy. The energy of the K shell is the least while those of L, M, N and O shells increases progressively. We also know that any system that has least energy is the most stable.1st energy level is K shell2nd energy level is L shell3rd energy level is M shell4th energy level is N shell and so on
- Bohr Bury scheme -arrangement of electrons in an atom
- Bohr and Bury Scheme - Important Rules
- Maximum number of electrons that can be accommodated in a shell is given by 2n2 where n = shell number
Sl. No. - Electron Shell - Maximum Capacity
1 - K Shell - 2 electrons
2 - L Shell - 8 electrons
3 - M shell - 18 electrons
4 - N shell - 32 electrons
[Diagram of Mg electron shells and energy levels: http://images.tutorvista.com/content/st ... cture.jpeg]

Questions for You Guys. Can yous explain how the energy levels of each shell was determined? And can yous explain how MM explains those energy levels?
- Cr6, I read your posts, but I don't understand them clearly, so I hope the above will help you guys explain things in a way that I can fathom better.

[David]

Questions for You Guys. Can yous explain how the energy levels of each shell was determined? And can yous explain how MM explains those energy levels?

According to Mathis, a particle (actually a photon) will gain energy whenever an off-center collision occurs. The particle also gains an additional stacked-spin. The energy levels are discussed and calculated in the following article:

We begin this fundamental analysis by asking how the energy of a particle would increase when it goes from a state of no spin to a state of maximum spin. We start by arbitrarily assigning a non-spinning electron the energy 1. We also assign the number 1 to its radius. We do this because 1820 is a relative number, not an absolute number, so we don't care what the experimental values for mass are. We need only develop relative numbers. Obviously, the easiest way to do that is to start from a baseline of 1.

Next, we let the electron reach some small non-relativistic linear velocity v. That will be our baseline energy for the non-spinning state. To find how much energy the electron could gain by spin, we let the spin match the linear velocity. We let the tangential velocity of a point on the surface of the electron reach v. How much energy has the electron gained? Well, as the radius is to the velocity, the circumference will be to the spin. But we can't use 2πr, since we must be looking at the tangential velocity, not the orbital velocity. 2πr/t applies to the orbital velocity, but we can't use that since the energy of the electron or proton will be expressed mainly through its emitted field, and that field is emitted at a tangent, as a linear vector. We MUST use the tangential velocity here, which is why I have spent so much time in other papers separating the two mathematically and theoretically and developing a new equation for tangential velocity. What we find if we use my new equations is that the circumference is simply 8 times the radius. In kinematic or dynamic situations, we effectively replace π with 4. This gives us a spin energy of 8. We already had a non-spin energy of 1, so the total energy is 9. You may think of the non-spin energy as mass energy, or you may think of it as energy from linear velocity. Either way we must sum the two energies, since the total energy of the electron is a summation of spin and non-spin energies.

Unifying the Electron and Proton
http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html

[Lloyd]

Thanks, David, for a proper reply.

Electron Shells
_D1: Your quote of MM above refers to his idea about the energy of an electron in any situation, if I understand right, i.e. an electron that is alone or part of an atom or ion.
_L1: But I'm wanting to understand what scientists mean by electron shells and the energy levels of those shells.
_L2: And are such ideas of shells based on ionization energies? If so, how are ionization energies measured? Is there a good online site that explains that well?
_L3: Electrons with higher or lower energies are said to jump to a higher or lower level. Aren't they? If so, does that mean such an electron changes its distance from the nucleus?
_L4: What is MM's explanation for ionization energies? Here are the papers in which he mentions ionization energy:
https://www.google.com/search?q="ioniza ... mathis.com.

Propeller Action.

Lloyd believes that there is a sort of propeller action.

Oh yeah, there you go, add a "propeller" to the "little engine". Hey, how about a miniature pilot and navigator, too? Yep, that would explain "the spin of the photon wind".

I made a complaint about the sarcasm and harrassment of that post. Also, propeller action is not how I'd describe my model. Rather, I have the photons paired like two blades of a propeller. They would spin around each other like a propeller, but they would not produce any wind. The spinning would merely explain the sine wave pattern detected from photons. MM has each photon that has an x-spin turning around a point on its surface, which would resemble a one-bladed fan or propeller. Since that would obviously be off-balance and seems like an unlikely motion, unless there's an aether smaller than photons, it makes more sense to me that photons would have to pair up in order to have an x-spin that's balanced. Paired photons should produce the same sine wave motion, except that the waves would be doubled and 180 degrees out of phase. The y and z-spins would also have to have pairing.

Sparky. I made a complaint about Sparky's last post being off-topic and harrassing.

[Sparky]

The new Hydreno atomic model will have a huge impact on many fields of science, particularly chemistry and nuclear physics, which are now reunited under a single deterministic model constituting a framework for a Theory of Everything

unexplained chemical and nuclear properties and phenomena including:

• The relationship between nuclear, atomic and macroscopic reality.
• Isotopic distribution, abundance, missing isotopes & elements (Tc).
• The void of stability from Bi toTh & the upper limit of nuclear diameter.
• What causes the escalating neutron-proton ratio.
• Why U235 is thermal neutron fissionable, while U238 is not.
• The difference between thermonuclear and "cold" nuclear reactions.
• The strong force, nuclear geometry, nucleon structure, spin quanta.
• Atomic and nuclear based allotropes, isomers & crystal structure.
• Electron structure, orbital shells, orbital shapes and quantization.
• Chemical bonding, bond angles, bond types and bond strength.
• why matter and mass are not the same thing.
• What really causes gravitational and inertial forces.

http://techtonix.az.com/newsfeed/

[David]

Although I agree with Thornhill and the Thunderbolts on larger issues, especially the deficiencies of the standard model and the need to bring a second field into celestial mechanics, I find Thornhill's analysis deficient… So although it is true that EU explanations are much much better than mainstream explanations, they still aren't correct.

As I have made crystal clear in a series of recent papers where I unify Maxwell's equations, the charge field must be separated from the E/M field in order to understand and explain unification, dark matter, and all these problems the Thunderbolts are working on. Without that understanding, the EU analysis of the celestial field must remain flawed and incomplete.

The above was posted earlier (several comments back). Curiously, not one person disagreed. I’m not sure what to make of that. Either the EU theory has no supporters (doubtful), or the comments were simply shrugged off (consider the source).

[Sparky]

the EU analysis of the celestial field must remain flawed and incomplete.

Of course it's flawed and incomplete! And MM wants to correct it with a flawed and incomplete model! What arrogance!

[Chromium6]

The new Hydreno atomic model will have a huge impact on many fields of science, particularly chemistry and nuclear physics, which are now reunited under a single deterministic model constituting a framework for a Theory of Everything

unexplained chemical and nuclear properties and phenomena including:

• The relationship between nuclear, atomic and macroscopic reality.
• Isotopic distribution, abundance, missing isotopes & elements (Tc).
• The void of stability from Bi toTh & the upper limit of nuclear diameter.
• What causes the escalating neutron-proton ratio.
• Why U235 is thermal neutron fissionable, while U238 is not.
• The difference between thermonuclear and "cold" nuclear reactions.
• The strong force, nuclear geometry, nucleon structure, spin quanta.
• Atomic and nuclear based allotropes, isomers & crystal structure.
• Electron structure, orbital shells, orbital shapes and quantization.
• Chemical bonding, bond angles, bond types and bond strength.
• why matter and mass are not the same thing.
• What really causes gravitational and inertial forces.

http://techtonix.az.com/newsfeed/

This is the type of post we were looking for here Sparky. Even though it is a bit off topic the author like provides a new Electron-Bonding theory. Perhaps it is a rival theory? Miles Mathis jettisons QM completely and this author looks still wedded to it... hence not a clean-break with likely the same QM sub-particle baggage with this TOE. There are a couple of them out there.

So why not buy the book and get back with us in detail on it since you seem to like it better than Mathis' UFT.
http://milesmathis.com/uft2.html

[Chromium6]

After two beers I'd give it a nod.

[Lloyd]

the EU analysis of the celestial field must remain flawed and incomplete.

Of course it's flawed and incomplete! And MM wants to correct it with a flawed and incomplete model! What arrogance!

Sparky, that's harrassment: constantly calling MM and his model names without contributing anything useful to the discussion. You can do that all you want on the other MM thread. But if you do it any more here, I'll report your harrassment.

Electron Shells
Cr6 and Airman, can yous answer the questions I asked about electron shells and ionization energy etc previously?

[] I find Thornhill's analysis deficient.... [] the EU analysis of the celestial field must remain flawed and incomplete.

The above was posted earlier (several comments back). Curiously, not one person disagreed. I’m not sure what to make of that. Either the EU theory has no supporters (doubtful), or the comments were simply shrugged off (consider the source).

This thread is read by MM supporters who largely agree with MM, though I stated earlier that I disagree with one of his statements about his theory explaining hot and cold poles better than EU. I think EU explains cold poles better than MM does, but I don't know about hot poles. EU supporters probably aren't as interested in this thread.

[Sparky]

Amazing! Lloyd, I do not accept your interpretation of how one should post contrary ideas on a thread. Maybe nick will agree with you, so please go ahead now and report me! Forum rules prevent me from characterizing you accurately, so I will express my pity for those who need to control and manipulate so much.

cr6! still trying to manipulate and control!? Posting huge quotes of MM, as if they explain anything seems to be how you fortify your own beliefs. So, why not buy MM's books and find the true secrets of how his multiple stacked spins remain intact.
And your understanding that I do not do math, but , knowing that, your starting a thread to focus on that is an example of deviousness. Your posts and accusations are transparent attempts to attack me with condescending sarcasm. True, you are clever enough to get away with implied and oblique insults, so how wonderful!

I will post an alternative theory to MM's later, If nick allows my defense to cr6, and I am able to post . So, Lloyd, post some more gdawlful long quotes that you consider relevant, report me, and try to come up with a logical argument for your words and actions, as threat is a logical fallacy!

[Sparky]

http://www.milesmathis.com/magnet.html

In a magnet and it's field:

We assume the greater lines in the field are lines of motion of the electrons, but what causes the electrons to move?

WRONG~! The electrons are in the magnet, not the field!!! The electrons align, and being in a dipole, the alignment bends the aether to conform to the flux density of the magnet. At the same time the vacuum energy is being pumped through the magnet and around to the other pole. This force can be felt and measured. It is movement of the aether through the dipole. All dipoles have this ability to extract vacuum energy.

The spins of MM"s photons repelling or attracting by orientation of each upon the other is a desperate reach to satisfy his foregone conclusion of photon field. It won't work and will provide no useful information about magnetic fields.

I want my field to be titled appropriately, and set apart from all historical fields, which were either non-assigned or poorly assigned. You will say that the ether has been disproved anyway, but that is not really true.

MM has confused the photon charge field with the aether. The sub aether is where all of the energy is, and the EM fields are what is being powered by them and they in turn exert force upon matter.

[Lloyd]

Looks like Sparky wins. Good riddance y'all.

[LongtimeAirman]

Sparky,

Of course there are electrons in the field and in the magnet.

Once again, you insist that Miles is wrong while pressing the Bearden/Quantum Theory explanation.

Bent aether, and pumped vacuum energy, really doesn’t suffice as a mechanical explanation. Since its creation, QT declared that mechanics was unnecessary if not unknowable.

Miles’ charge field is a real mechanical model, and we would have liked to discuss and understand it well enough to make our own opinions or contributions without your constant objections.

REMCB

[Sparky]

charge field is a real mechanical model, and we would have liked to discuss and understand it well enough

So, you would prefer to hold onto a flawed model and not be shown a more reasonable one? Go ahead, My posts will not keep you from ignoring them and posting MM dogma.
And if you don't understand MM model, I suggest that you don't act like you do. I understand it, that is why I have moved on and attempt to show its flaws.
**************************************
Lloyd, no one won anything.


Move on, people!