What actually is 'charge'?

[Sparky]

Michael;
I think that i understand this gravity theory. Now, how well do the consensus maths align with what you have come up with. Will Mercury's orbit decay and allow it to fall into the sun? Or is there another consideration that would prevent that?

[Michael V]

Sparky,

Will Mercury's orbit decay and allow it to fall into the sun?

What prompted you ask this?

Low Earth orbits decay due to atmospheric drag, but otherwise I would have thought that an orbit should remain stable; catastrophes notwithstanding.

What do you suppose may cause an orbit to decay?

Michael

[Sparky]

Well, I have heard of our moon possibly changing obit, and even coming into Earth.

Mercury is in an atmosphere of sorts, the solar "wind". That would also tend to push it out, wouldn't it?

I don't know why I thought of that... got this terrible headache..

[Lloyd]

Michael V said:

... where do you get the concept of aether particles "sticking" together.

- When two objects come into proximity, the following occurs:
Some of the aether particles approaching object A in the direction of object B are blocked/deflected by collision with object A and so a smaller "pressure" of particles reaches object B from the direction of object A.
Likewise some of the particles approaching B in the direction of A are blocked/deflected by B and so a smaller pressure reaches A from the direction of B. The result is that both objects cast mutual "momentum shadows" on each other and so there is a net greater force from "outside" that pushes them towards each other - the gravitational force is proportional to MASS1 x MASS2 as per Mr Newton's instructions (and also to the inverse square of the distance between the objects).
- You can also see from this that mass density is extremely important - a small dense object can have the same gravitational force as a large less-dense object. The aether field is still only operating-on/interacting-with the mass of an object, but the resultant force depends on the mass density and size of objects. In this respect you can start to think of the two objects and the, mutually shared, space between them as a single system.

Aether Pressure = Slow Photon Pressure = Gravity
* The concept of aether particles sticking together comes from the theory that Object A and Object B consist of subatomic particles and that these particles are composed of aether particles. Are you postulating more than one kind of material substance or particle?
* Your explanation of gravity above is the same as what I was talking about, though I added "sticking together" to explain how Object A and Object B differ from aether particles, i.e. they are composed of aether particles that somehow stick together. And I went on to paraphrase how Mathis explains the sticking together, i.e. with stacked spins of photons, which photons are the aether particles.
* You stated before that electrons emit aether particles, or APs. I think you also stated that the APs have mass. So, if electrons emit APs, then the density of the APs must get reduced in the immediate vicinity of each electron, and the APs farther away will be under higher pressure, which will force those APs to move toward the electron. And that inward pressure could be what gravity is, similar to the explanation you gave above.

[Sparky]

So, if electrons emit APs, then the density of the APs must get reduced in the immediate vicinity of each electron, and the APs farther away will be under higher pressure, which will force those APs----

Lloyd, I don't think there will be any change in density anywhere. It's not like a fluid or gas. There is no "pressure" except the force exerted on mass by the aether, by bombardment. As i understand it, when an electron absorbs an AP, it emits one... Even if it didn't immediately, that space once occupied by the AP would be overrun by other AP's...Net sum zero?...

[Lloyd]

* As I stated in the other thread, I think you misunderstand Mathis' theory. Electrons and protons are emitting a constant stream of photons equatorially, each in a disk pattern. As they are emitted, a brief vacancy is left behind, which is immediately filled by slow photons in the surroundings, which are under pressure due to constant, but slow, random motion.

[Michael V]

Lloyd,

First of all, an object may spin axially and radially and that's your lot. Miles' stacked spins are absurd and non-physical - they are no better than QCD using "spin" and colour (where spin isn't even spin, it's just some arbitrarily designated non-physical property that uses the word spin, but exists only as a mathematical variable).

Sparky is quite correct. A fluid or a gas moves the way that it does because the particles of which it consists are subject to "attractive" and repulsive forces. Any medium capable of patterned motion must have another force mediating medium operating at a lower level. A force conveying aethereal field logically demands neutrality from patterns of motion. Additionally, the mass hinted at by Planck's constant should really be considered as a maximum, which puts an aethereal particle as no larger than 1019 times less massive than an electron.

Two objects in space, such as a planet and a spacecraft, depend absolutely on the uniformity of the gravitational effect. This can only be achieved with an aethereal field that is homogeneous in speed and density and that operates as entirely random non-associated particles. It is absolutely essential that the aether particles have no "knowledge" of each other. We have to accept the occasional field collision, but that simply results in a change of direction and randomness is maintained. You cannot maintain the logical integrity by introducing waves and current and flows.

Miles has used some dubious maths to select a particular photon "particle" as the base model for all other particles, including smaller ones. sorry, but his stacked spins are nonsense; not to mention a photon tumbling end-over-end through space so as to describe a wave - impossible, non-physical nonsense.

Charge and light are quite clearly initiated by the operation of matter (and almost certainly exclusively electrons). There is no physical method by which gravity can be assigned to matter. A continuously operating external agent is required. Any medium hoping to fulfil the duties of a gravitational agent must consist of extremely small, extremely separated, rapidly and randomly moving particles.

Michael

[Lloyd]

Michael said: Sparky is quite correct.

* You're not an authority who can say who's correct. You're only making meaningless statements without explanation.

[Michael V]

Lloyd,

Think it through yourself. Aethereal particles pushing each other around in some kind of displacement motion will not produce the consistent and reliable gravitational "attraction" that you seek from a physical mechanism. I make no outrageous statements based on wishful thinking and as I say you may contemplate this yourself at great length. Only a randomly moving field of particles will provide the observed effects.

I am perfectly open to an explanation or demonstration of how a physical object may have more than two simultaneously axis of spin.

As regards any correlation between Planck's constant are quantum aether particles, I plead guilty to idle supposition.

Michael

[Sparky]

Michael,

Miles has used some dubious maths to select a particular photon "particle" as the base model for all other particles, including smaller ones. sorry, but his stacked spins are nonsense; not to mention a photon tumbling end-over-end through space so as to describe a wave - impossible, non-physical nonsense.

I was not able to grasp Miles' hypothesis. Yours is difficult for me to imagine, but it seems more correct to me.

************************
****************
****************************
Lloyd, what do you mean by "slow" photons?

[Lloyd]

Random Aether Motion

Michael said: Aethereal particles pushing each other around in some kind of displacement motion will not produce the consistent and reliable gravitational "attraction" that you seek from a physical mechanism.

* If the aether is photons and if electrons and protons emit lots of photons at a steady rate, then the photons that are emitted will leave vacancies near the electrons and protons which will be filled by the pressure of photons just beyond the vacant area around the electrons and protons, like a sump pump. The random motions of the local photons produce the pressure that causes them to fill the vacant areas.

Only a randomly moving field of particles will provide the observed effects.

* That's what we have, a randomly moving field of photons.

I am perfectly open to an explanation or demonstration of how a physical object may have more than two simultaneously axis of spin.

Stacked Photon Spins
* Mathis' idea of photon stacked spins isn't convincing to me, but the fact that his idea of how elements are built of protons, electrons and neutrons fits so well the observed properties of the elements makes me think he may be very close to correct. Dewey Larson had the idea that everything is motion, which is a reciprocal relation between space and time, with up to 3 dimensions each. I don't accept his idea of universal expansion, nor does Mathis now, but if mass is motion, then it seems to me that Mathis' idea of a sphere rotating about a point on its surface should be possible. It could be that it's not possible at a macro-scale because of friction, or something. If stacked spins aren't really possible, then I'd go with Kanarev's ideas next.
Kanarev
* Kanarev shares your view about electrons emitting a constant stream of photons and he says protons are smaller in size than electrons and emit smaller frequency photons. He says all are torus-shaped. Kanarev does not agree with you that electrons orbit nuclei. As I said before, he says they hover above protons, because the magnetic fields pull them together, but the electric fields hold them apart. Or I may have the fields backwards.

As regards any correlation between Planck's constant are quantum aether particles, I plead guilty to idle supposition.

* I haven't yet come to a good understanding of Planck's constant. Mathis says it's a scaling ratio, like the gravitational constant.
Slow Photons

Sparky said: Lloyd, what do you mean by "slow" photons?

* That would be the photons that stay nearby for a long time, because their velocities are near zero. When they get sucked into electrons and protons, they get emitted equatorially at light speed, apparently because the electrons and protons spin at the speed of light. When they get emitted, the pressure of more local slow photons

[Sparky]

When they get sucked into --

So, your model has photons at or near zero velocity, that electrons and protons vacuum up to replace the ones that they emit? I have heard of "stopping" light photons, but that is in a laboratory setting. Highly speculative that it occurs naturally. Not so sure there is a "sucking vector" associated with electrons and protons...

[Lloyd]

Mechanism of Photon Emission

Sparky said: Not so sure there is a "sucking vector" associated with electrons and protons

* If the aether is photons and if the photons have mass, which numerous observations indicate that they do, then slow photons should exert pressure much like air or water pressure. If you suck on a straw in a glass of water, your lungs expand and remove air from the straw, leaving low pressure in the straw, and surrounding higher air pressure and water pressure in the glass push water into the low pressure area in the straw and in your mouth. If protons and electrons are toruses with holes at their poles and the toruses spin at light speed or so, any photons within the protons or electrons will be emitted equatorially by centrifugal force and surrounding photon pressure will force more photons into their polar openings, which is just like sucking through a straw. Only it's more like a sump pump action, because it's constant rotation, emission and sucking.
* Michael agrees that there is no positive or negative charge and that electrons emit photons. He just hasn't explained the mechanism. Mathis has.

[Sparky]

any photons within the protons or electrons will be emitted equatorially by centrifugal force and surrounding photon pressure will force more photons into their polar openings, which is just like sucking through a straw.

That is nonsense. There is no medium! No pressure. No sucking. The aether (if there is one) is not a gas or fluid. Michael V's hypothesis makes way way more sense.