-they will expel quantum mass, en masse, as photons.
Thus a photon is a "string" of quantums. The kinetic energy of a single quantum is equal to Planck's constant. Because the photon presents such a tiny cross-section it is able to travel through empty space with very little interaction with the field. An average "wavelength" visible light photon contains some 10^14 quantums,-
-the speed of the proton’s surface relative to its radius is the same as the speed of the Earth’s surface relative to its radius, at any given time.
My maths - go some way to predicting precession, but not accurately.
One must assume that, due to the accuracy of Newton's gravity equations, that the effects of planetary charge fields are already included in the equations - perhaps by G.
I have shown that the universal gravitational constant in Newton’s equation is actually a scaling constant between the photon and the hydrogen atom or proton. Newton’s equation contains the E/M field, hidden by the un-mechanical variables. G acts as a scaling constant between the gravitational field in the equation and the E/M field in the equation.
-it was searching for information on the precession of Mercury, that first lead me to Miles Mathis.
The most important thing to remember when considering physical reality is that action/force at a distance is not allowed.
Maxwell's repeated mutual generation of magnetic and electric fields (apparently supported by the Thunderbolts EU Draft) is clearly bogus. Quite apart from anything else there is no given cause for the fields.
@ http://www.milesmathis.com/magnet.html then goes on to say that magnetism is photon spin??...so he agrees with you about "fields"....what do you think of his explanation of magnetism? Or, what do you think the mechanical explanation of fields would be?I have always insisted on a mechanical explanation. I do not allow dodges into field lines or pluses and minuses.
I'd love to spend a evening or two chatting with him over a bottle or two of wine or a few beers.)
That we are unable to detect that agent is not proof of its non-existence.
The fact that the force is detected is, in fact, proof that a physical agent is operating.
Here come into play the "tubes of force" (Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, J.J. Thomson) that - due to independent charge ratio depending on density and electrical content - are absorbed by bodies and impart a downward momentum (thus "gravity" is a downward push, not a pull) creating the sensation of a "gravity field". It is the interaction between the electrical content of every "dynamic" body with aether carriers (comprising tubes of force) that results in momentum being imparted to a body (an electromagnetic to mechanical interconversion).
How does one interpret Tesla's language? If we try to impose our own understanding onto what he says, without tolerance for his "time and place" and his education, then we may miss some important point within what we may otherwise consider advanced but simplistic observations.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest