Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[Lloyd]

UEs
Mo, you may need to revise your terminology a little re UEs (universal emissions), because some models are similar to emission but don't involve it for the most part. Like LeSage and vanFlandern et al I don't think involved emissions, but just the universal inward pushing aether. So a term like "gravitational aether" (GA) might be more apt. What do you think?

Simulation
I contacted the guy who posted diagrams of photon stacked spin simulations in the 2009 Mathis thread and he said he's still working on improving them, so I hope we'll get to see his current simulations soon. I mentioned that what seems improbable re stacked spins is that the photon that makes up a proton would surely have to move much faster than normal photons in order to build a virtual wall of spherical spin that charge photons can enter polarly and exit equatorially. He says his program can calculate and simulate all that, so I look forward to details about that. If the calculations seem reasonable, then I'd be more persuaded of the hollow stacked spins model.

My Particle Model
Until then, I prefer my model, which supposes that photons pair up in order to spin like a propeller, which forms a disk shape whose axis of rotation is in the direction of overall motion, like a spinning propeller on a flying aircraft. That's the first stacked spin. The second would be rotation of the disk on an axis perpendicular to the main direction of motion, which would produce a sphere and would probably gain two more photons, because moving particles have lower pressure than stationary ones, and the extra photons are pushed into the gaps of the spinning pair, when the pair is knocked into the spherical spin. A second 4-photon spherically spinning group would then tend to attach to the first sphere, forming a higher level spinning propeller shape like the first level propeller = disk.

Simulation Challenge
Other ambient field photons would be drawn toward the poles of these disks and spheres, but instead of going inside the virtual sphere or disk and being emitted, they would roll along the outer surface and roll off equatorially where the centrifugal force is too strong for them to hold on. My model doesn't seem to be able to explain neutrons etc so far, but maybe it will eventually. There may be other problems with my model too, but the same is true of Mathis' model so far. So a simulation needs to show if a single photon can rotate around a point on its surface, as Mathis thinks, or it's more likely that a second photon would join the first and then both rotate around the same point like a propeller, as seems more likely to me. My idea is that 2 photons close together moving in the same direction will tend to pair up because movement produces lower pressure with respect to the surrounding ambient field.

[moses]

Mo, you may need to revise your terminology a little re UEs (universal emissions), because some models are similar to emission but don't involve it for the most part. Like LeSage and vanFlandern et al I don't think involved emissions, but just the universal inward pushing aether. So a term like "gravitational aether" (GA) might be more apt. What do you think?
Lloyd
An aether sounds like it is not moving, whereas emission gives the sense of something travelling in a straight line. But the UEs could account for an aether and particularly a zpe.

I was thinking that the electron needs to either block the proton's spin emission or retard the spin of the proton thus reducing the spin emission. Basically the spin emission is the charge field, so if something is positively charged then we need there to be more spin emissions, ie a greater charge field. The tiny electron does not seem to have much chance of blocking the proton spin emissions, so perhaps the electron gets in close or even inside the proton and there interferes with the proton spin.

Cheers,
Mo

[moses]

One has to consider whether the charge field ( the field generated by the emissions from the equator of a spinning proton ), is the same stuff as the universal emissions. Now that I have proposed a resonance emission from the nucleus this can account for substantial energy conversion giving rise to a resultant push on a nucleus by the blocked universal emissions being somewhat converted to the resonance emissions.

So for two nuclei A and B we get the force on B towards A is the force produced by the absorbed universal emissions ( now universal charge field ) by A in the direction of B, minus the force produced by the emitted charge field from A to B. There is also a small force produced by the impinging of the resonance emissions from A hitting B, but we are saying that this force is negligible. If it were not for these resonance emissions then the force on B towards A is the force produced by the absorbed universal emissions by A in the direction of B, minus the force produced by the emitted charge field from A to B, would be zero.

So now the spinning proton would account for gravity and electrostatics and the strong nuclear force ( by suitable stacking and fiddling ), and for resonance.

Cheers,
Mo

[Lloyd]

Mo's Emission Model

One has to consider whether the charge field ( the field generated by the emissions from the equator of a spinning proton ), is the same stuff as the universal emissions. Now that I have proposed a resonance emission from the nucleus this can account for substantial energy conversion giving rise to a resultant push on a nucleus by the blocked universal emissions being somewhat converted to the resonance emissions.

What do you mean by resonance? You mean the emitted photon frequency conforms to the frequency of something else? If so, what and how?

So for two nuclei A and B we get the force on B towards A is the force produced by the absorbed universal emissions ( now universal charge field ) by A in the direction of B, minus the force produced by the emitted charge field from A to B. There is also a small force produced by the impinging of the resonance emissions from A hitting B, but we are saying that this force is negligible. If it were not for these resonance emissions then the force on B towards A is the force produced by the absorbed universal emissions by A in the direction of B, minus the force produced by the emitted charge field from A to B, would be zero.

So now the spinning proton would account for gravity and electrostatics and the strong nuclear force ( by suitable stacking and fiddling ), and for resonance.

Maybe it would help if you could illustrate that. Do you think so?

[Lloyd]

Better Stacked Spins Animation Coming

This is from Steve, who did the animation in the 2009 Mathis thread and showed images from the animations.

I have had a read of those threads and started to write up a description of my app as well as a rebuttal to your idea that the spin photon must travel faster than light. It is already quite large though as it is difficult to talk about these things in just a few paragraphs. You seem to have a good understanding of Miles work, but I try to write for others reading it that do not. I think this helps to keep things clear as well.

Regarding the application itself, I have gone over things that were already discussed in that previous thread but I want to ensure everyone understands what the app can do so that they understand what the results can tell us. I think this also helps to understand stacked spins if some readers are still trying to get their head around it. I have created some videos and am already over 100Mb (and I foresee hundreds of Mbs more) so I need to find somewhere to upload them and make them available before I post this stuff.

I want to clear up a possible misunderstanding you made from my last email. On the TB forum you have said "He says his program can calculate and simulate all that, so I look forward to details about that.". My app can simulate the stacked spins. It does not simulate charge interaction. It does allow the user to think more clearly about charge interaction as it provides a solid base to begin your imaginings []. Being able to see the spin path, and the photon traveling around it, helps to imagine the charge field interactions. It is probably more of an art than a science.

The only calculations I have made (ignoring the spins themselves as that is just basic rotations and translations) is to determine the relative speed of the spins. This is all done outside of the app and I just plug in the values to see a particular spin path. I use another app I wrote which uses Miles angular velocity equation to find the values themselves. I still think this helps to answer your question regarding the speed of the spinning photon but it won't give you definite numbers if that is what you are looking for (unless you want those angular velocity numbers). The spin simulator is for visualisation, not calculation. I wrote it to help me see the stacked spins so that I could understand them better. I think it has fulfilled that aim. I have often thought about trying to simulate the actual photon interactions using spin mechanics but I haven't really gotten past that stage yet.

I hope that clears up what I meant. It will take me a few days to get organised for both time to write and web space to upload to. I might even post some of it if I can, but I feel it is best to have the videos available for people to see and relate to the text. Unfortunately, images don't really convey the same meaning that the videos do. I'll post some of them when I feel it helps the discussion but most of it needs to be in video form. That is what I learned from the previous thread, the images just didn't translate to the readers because most of my understanding came from watching the spin paths as they were being built.

You can quote some of this on the forum if you feel it helps or just want to keep people informed about what is going on.

[moses]

What do you mean by resonance? You mean the emitted photon frequency conforms to the frequency of something else? If so, what and how?
Lloyd
I think that all the complex spins in a nucleus causes the emission of something that has the same complex spin properties. I don't really want to call it a photon, just as I don't want to call the charge emission a photon. Anyway, when the resonance emission meets another nucleus there is the tendency to induce the same set of complex spins in that nucleus.

Of course the charge emissions could have these complex spins, and then we could get resonance through that, but the force produced by the absorbed universal emissions by A in the direction of B, needs to be not equal to the force produced by the emitted charge field from A to B. We need ideas that could produce this inequality.

Of course I am trying to avoid an illustration, but if I have to do the mathematics then I'll have to produce illustrations. But the diagrams I have written on paper and used to do some of the maths, are pretty unimpressive.
Cheers,
Mo

[Sparky]

there is the tendency to induce the same set of complex spins in that nucleus.

Subatomic multiplexing?!

[moses]

Subatomic multiplexing?!
Sparky
It is like that in that the incoming emissions are transformed into nuclear spins and then these spins are transformed into the emitted charge field which has properties very similar to the incoming emissions. If the emitted charge field is exactly the same as the incoming universal emissions then I think there would be no gravity.

So I guess I am suggesting that the emitted field has a lot more spin than the incoming field. So there is tranformation of push energy into spin energy. So instead of pushing nucleus B, the emitted charge field increases the complex spin of nucleus B. Then nucleus B loses that complex spin by emitting E/M radiation. Of course this makes one think of stars ! And there is nuclear magnetic resonance to consider.

So I am suggesting that the charge field is not E/M radiation. And that is why I don't want to call it photons. A nucleus shielded from E/M radiation (but not the charge field) would then have E/M radiation emitted from that nucleus, as related to the gravity of that nucleus.

I'm feeling more comfortable with this now.
Cheers,
Mo

[seasmith]

`
Moses wrote:

Anyway, when the resonance emission meets another nucleus there is the tendency to induce the same set of complex spins in that nucleus.

At the common EM spectrum Scale of photonics emissions, matter/emission resonances are increasingly an area of high-dollar research:


Resonant Coherent Excitation

Resonance fluorescence is fluorescence from an atom or molecule in which the light emitted is at the same frequency as the light absorbed. [1]

A photon is absorbed, causing an electron to jump to a higher energy level from which, after a delay, it falls back to its original level, emitting a photon having the same energy as the one absorbed. The emission direction is random.

A photon, generally in a higher energy range, can also be absorbed by an atomic nucleus, and then new photons having lower energies are emitted in random directions as the nucleus relaxes. See nuclear resonance fluorescence.

Nuclear resonance fluorescence (NRF) is a nuclear process in which a nucleus absorbs and emits high-energy photons called gamma rays. NRF interactions typically take place above 1 MeV, and most NRF experiments target heavy nuclei such as uranium and thorium[1]

Mode of interaction[edit]

NRF reactions are the result of nuclear absorption and subsequent emission of high-energy photons (gamma rays). As a gamma ray strikes the nucleus, the nucleus becomes excited (that is, the nuclear system as a quantum mechanical ensemble is put into a state with a higher energy). Much like electronic excitation, the nucleus will decay toward its ground state, releasing a high-energy photon at a number of possible, discrete energies. Thus, NRF can be quantified using spectroscopy.

Similar sub-atomic 'resonances' are, imho, the basis of that ubiquitous but verboten phenomenon termed "attraction".
Like why gold atoms glom on to other gold atoms, and iron on to iron, etc.
(also why whenever dabbling with glue or paint, i'm soon covered in the stuff]

[moses]

Thanks seasmith, this led me to looking into nuclear emissions, until I tried 'atomic emissions' and then it occurred to me that atoms emit a lot mainly due to being bombarded with so much E/M radiation. But what if some of these emissions were actually due to the atom being energised by the universal emissions or the charge emissions from another atom.

So I have casually swapped 'nucleus' for 'atom' and it is Miles that suggests that this is ok. The electron orbits are intimately connected with the nucleus, so emissions that are supposed to be due to electrons changing orbit could be due to the nucleus changing configuration or complex spin.

I thought that an ultra-cold atom might emit something and so give us a measure of the energy, but that proved too difficult.

The theory has now changed to the incoming universal emissions (which are not E/M) energising an atom which then emits E/M radiation plus charge field emissions (which are not E/M). The E/M produces a lot less push than the charge emissions, which accounts for gravity.

This would mean that in the universe there is conversion of charge emissions into E/M radiation. Get enough E/M radiation into an atom and it ionises which increases charge emissions. So there may be an equilibrium reached somehow.
Cheers,
Mo

[Sparky]

What "powers" an atom, electron, or proton? All of that spinning should use up quite a bit of energy?

[seasmith]

Moses wrote:

… incoming universal emissions (which are not E/M) energising an atom which then emits E/M radiation plus charge field emissions (which are not E/M). The E/M produces a lot less push than the charge emissions, which accounts for gravity.

This is pretty much along the lines of the gravity in my ever recurring Aethero-electric Circuit (or cycle):
ie: the four cardinal phases: Aether, Gravity, Matter & Light, mediated by the universal common electric denominator: Charge,

so of course i have to say, your insight is positively brilliant !



AC = AGML/E

~∞~

[moses]

What "powers" an atom, electron, or proton? All of that spinning should use up quite a bit of energy?
Sparky
I am suggesting that the matter and plasma of the universe emits something we shall call the universal charge emissions (UCEs). This is not E/M. These UCEs hit an atom and convey energy to that atom. If they hit the atom more on one side than the other then there is a force moving the atom.

But the energised atom ( from being hit by these UCEs) now increases in complex spin and this produces photon E/M emissions from the atom. So an ultra-cold atom should still have photon E/M emissions but possibly only a small amount.


seasmith, thanks again, you have got me considering the Aether now. Although the UCEs could account for the zero point energy (zpe), one wonders what the proton is made up of. There might be smaller and smaller particles and it might be possible to break down a proton into these smaller parts. And these smaller parts might not be affected by the UCEs (or at least not by gravity).

So all these smaller parts and whatever these smaller parts are made of, etc, could account for the Aether. Perhaps one could force a nucleus into it's smaller parts, then move this without having gravity effect it, and then allow these smaller parts to reconstitute the nucleus. And other such fantasies.
Cheers,
Mo

[Lloyd]

I'm getting behind in reading this thread. First, I'll post the latest discussion between me and Steve.

Steve: 1_[It's not] charge entering the poles and exiting the equator [as Mathis says].
_[It's] just random collisions that sends a majority of charge to the equator as a result of the spin path.
2_If you take the protons charge field as part of the proton itself, then that charge could stop some of the ambient charge from entering from the equator which would mean the ratio of equator to pole charge input would lean more towards the pole side.
_[T]he spin paths I am currently looking at have definite holes in their centers.
_The proton itself never touches this central region so it would not affect any charge moving through that area.
_This allows what Miles calls through-charge.
_This may cause the proton to align with the ambient field (assuming it has some definite direction) so most charge will come through the poles.
3_You also have to think about the density of the ambient charge field. I don't know how to figure that out just yet,
_but I have done some experiments in the spin simulator to find the minimum length of a spin path in order to produce the general shape of the complete path.
4_Most spin paths are represented by only 1/17th of the complete path.
_I've done some rough calculations trying to find how long it would take to travel this reduced spin path and the results show that even a photon with 7 spin levels (A, X, Y, Z, X, Y, Z) can travel that path 10^28 times in 1 second.
_That is a lot of time to collide with ambient charge.

Lloyd: 1) Let's call the proton particle a p-photon, the electron particle an e-photon, and an e- or p-photon an e,p-photon. I don't think it matters how complex a path the p- or e-photon travels. With just one e,p-photon making up the electron or proton, the ambient charge photons colliding with and bouncing off of it should be constantly reflecting in all directions at each point in its movement.
- But I can imagine that the ambient photon density would change on different sides of an e,p-photon as it rapidly changes position. I suppose the simplest way to observe these density changes would be to simulate the x-spin within the ambient charge field. Would you like to try that first?
- If an e,p-photon had no a-spin (axial spin), the B-photons (bombarding) would reflect in all directions with no density variation around the e,p-photon (assuming the B-photon density is uniform to begin with).
- If it had an x-spin (in which a photon rotates around a point on its surface), I think the density of B-photons at its surface should be greater on its forward side and lesser on its trailing side. The reflected B-photons should then, I think, show a density wave pattern similar to sound waves. Here's an animation of sound waves: http://dragonphysics.pbworks.com/Sound+ ... veanim.gif
- If you could show an x-spin without showing its translational motion, but just its axial spin and its spin around a point on its surface, and then add a field of B-photons incoming from all directions equally and reflecting in all directions, I imagine that should show the resulting compression wave pattern. I guess it should be done in 2-D first, then, if possible, try 3-D.
2) I guess the above simulation needs to assume the mass of the e,p-photon is that of the electron or proton, while that of each B-photon is what Mathis has calculated. If you're able to simulate the B-photons reflecting off the first x-spin, then maybe you can do so with the y-spin etc too, to see the final result for the electron or proton emission or reflection.
3) Maybe you'd need to pick a random high, low and medium density for each simulation.
4) Is a 7-spin-levels photon an electron? Are there any theories you know of to explain why photons with up to 6 spin levels would travel at c, while those at higher levels become stationary? Looks like that will require simulations eventually.

Steve: 5_Is spin mechanics valid? Hard to say. I don't know why something would move this way but it is a valid motion.
_I can simulate it so math does not disqualify it in any way.
_It produces interesting results that look like they can explain some things well.
_Miles only requires the doubling radius to match quantum numbers.
_Spin is a way to explain that without having the particle expand and contract all the time (expansion as gravity aside).
_Spin allows one single entity to become all others just by motion. I think that is pretty impressive considering everything must be caused by motion in the end.
6_If you posit two particles sticking together to spin, then you have to explain how they stick together.
_These particles are supposed to be the smallest thing in existence so they can't have some sort glue on their surface.
_Attraction is not mechanical.
_I don't see why they would stick together.
7_It also doesn't explain the third spin level.
_You have replaced the X spin level with 2 particles but how would the Y spin level be added on top of that?
_Would it need another particle to join, pefhaps another 2 particles stuck together so we end up with 4 all up?
8_Why do the particles stick together to spin but not when charge photons collide with it?
9_I have thought about something similar myself after seeing a video of 2 ball-bearings welded together and spun up to very fast speeds
_but it doesn't really answer any questions and produces more than stacked spins.
10_I think of it as the particle gains an axial spin until that spin reaches a tangential velocity of c.
_At this point, it can not gain anymore velocity so it adds a spin level which has to obey gyroscopic rules.
_The energy has to be used and we assume the linear velocity is already at c and spin is the only other way to use that energy.

Lloyd: 5) I agree that "everything" (perception?) may be motion, but it would have to be motion of something. Consciousness seems to be more basic than just motion.
6) Yes, I know the pairing needs to be explained and, luckily, I read Steven Rado's CD in which he explained that moving objects produce lower pressure than unmoving ones. If two balls are suspended a small distance apart, say half an inch, by blowing between them, the air between them is put in motion. The low pressure there causes the two balls to move toward each other due to the higher pressure of the air on the other sides of the balls.
7) The stacked spins would remain the same, except there would be more photons at each level, i.e. 2, 4, 8, etc.
8) They should stick together as long as they're in motion.
9) The pairing does answer the question of how light waves can be produced by photon translational motion under the known laws of motion. I don't believe rotation about a point on the surface is a known law of motion, except maybe in a sea of smaller particles, which is what explains how a baseball can curve in flight. The pairing may also help explain the increasing mass of each higher spin level.
10) I think a simulation would show that balanced photon pairs would produce the same stacking of spins as would a single photon with stacked spins. I don't think gyroscopic rules violate the normal rules of motion. I'm inclined to agree about the energy etc.

Steve: 11_I know it isn't exactly intuitive, but who are we to tell the universe how it should work.
_We live so far above the point where stacked spins can operate and we think things should be the way we see them that we assume straight line motion is the default.
_What if the universe preferred spin?

Lloyd: 11) Simulations may help our intuition. I hope you may have time and interest to simulate both Mathis' model and my modified model of balanced stacked spins.

[Sparky]

Thanks, moses....

I can not envision stacked spins exchanged from kinetic interactions. If there were a way to transmit the complex wave form by electrical or

As for Aether, I see no way around it. I suggest a solid Aether, a zpe, accessed by sharp , close, energy interactions. Pulsed electrolytic water breakdown may be the easiest way to get to it.

The EM field and gravity field would lay over/in the Aether and provide those effects.
The MM stacked spins may be a model, but have little relationship to reality.