Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[Lloyd]

Airman, I started the MM Glossary/Index at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-50 ... 12310-8916.
I went through his list of papers with their descriptions and sifted out the main subjects of each paper up to paper 205 so far and I rearranged the subjects alphabetically. So all that needs to be done next is to find his definitions of each term on which he differs from the mainstream.

I hope to get back to the summary paper for MM Electric Current soon too. I sent some questions to MMR on Facebook and hope Steven or someone will answer soon.

[moses]

Great work Lloyd.
Mo

[LongtimeAirman]

Lloyd,

Referencing MM Glossary/Index at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-50 ... 12310-8916.
I see you have assembled a three (or 4) column list:
Col 1. The number of a paper as listed from Miles' Physics Homepage.
Col 2. '=G, '=L, '=M, '=P, '=Ps, '=S, '=X, and '= . Corresponding to the initial key at the top of the list, LGPMS: Light, Gravity, Particles, Math, Stars.
Col 3. Subject matter or category.
Col 4. (Actually part of col 3) The numbers of the statements, a separate list (not yet defined (?)), describing the subject matter or category.

What? Wow! I'm amazed to see http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7050.html, a page listing 11 papers you've converted to statement format, with a 12th, CORRECTING HADRONIZATION, included behind PARTICLES FROM GYRO-STACKED PHOTON SPINS. All ready for comment or debate. Plus 3 others, plus PREDICTIONS! You've made great progress.

I thought I would critique your Glossary & Index for MM Papers but I'm blown away instead. What could I possibly do to help you? I guess I need to register on QDL and do something.

REMCB

[Lloyd]

Thanks, you guys.
The numbers in the third column are more MM paper numbers on the same topic. I didn't put all the MM paper numbers in the first column, because it would have been harder to read with those numbers running into the second and third columns.

If you want to help with something, two things that could be done are:

1. Help make decisions about what to do on the QDL site for the MM discussions and whatever else you may like to do there. The site needs a lot of work, including suggestions.

2. Help work on the MM Glossary/Index by looking up MM's definitions of terms on the Index.

3. Keep discussing MM etc. I hope other MM supporters will be interested to help too. Tharkun, i.e. John, is at QDL sometimes and was discussing at Lloyd Blog a couple months ago here. Maybe we can get the QDL discussions and summary papers etc spruced up enough to attract other MM supporters to join us. Do you think?

[LongtimeAirman]

Yes, Sir

[Chromium6]

Cr6, how about explaining these terms from your spreadsheet: OrbitalGroup, GroupNumber, SlotNumber, SlotOccupied, AlphaType, NeutronsLeft, NeutronsRight?

The list looks good, but I think it would be much better if there were only one line per element and if it would stop at somewhere around #100, Firmium.

You said Radon is a noble gas, but Mathis said it's not. At http://milesmathis.com/mercliq.pdf he said: "Radon is not really a noble gas, as we have already seen".

I'm thinking about starting on the Mathis glossary Airman brought up.

Loyd,

That tab you mentioned from the first spreadsheet (v001) is going to be removed in any future versions. It was an early attempt to map Mathis' drawing to data points. I'll build a "pivoted" version of the "MathisPeriodicTable" tab in the second spread sheet (v002) and consolidate the two spreadsheets. Pivoting the layout is fairly trivial to do.

As for Radon, I was using the classical definition that it was a Nobel Gas. But yes, Radon is not "balanced" like his definition of a Noble gas with everything "filled" but it does characterize an "Orbital Group" in the classic sense. BTW, thanks for the link on the Mercury paper, I forgot that one.

If you do proceed with a glossary, try to make it web-link friendly if you can - with links back to Mathis' papers on his website. I'll try to add links into the next consolidated version of the two spreadsheets (version 003) for each element and then post it on Mediafire.

Also, I'm working on generating Mathis' formulas for each paper-web page on his site in Excel. Can't say at this point when it will be ready but I will try to make a master single master file (version 003) on:

• Mathis' Periodic Table
  NIST values next to Mathis' corrections of values where appropriate
  Mathis' formulas next to other classical formulas

These early versions of Excel spreadsheets were created just for myself to be able to quickly reference things. I like to treat them as "scratchpads" or a "drawing canvases"-- and not "Old Testament" vellum. I guess the QDL site is more like sheepskin.

[Lloyd]

I finished the MM Index a few hours ago at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-50 ... 12310-8916. So now it's ready for making a Glossary.

[LongtimeAirman]

Lloyd,
I started, but am still working out kinks and the basic how to. Sisiphus must envy you.
REMCB

[Lloyd]

Airman, I started a list of terms to start on for the MM Glossary at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-50 ... 8916-13206. Feel free to add terms to the list, if you like, in Comments. And you're welcome to post definitions. It may be good to post links to the papers where the definitions are found.
If you want to start your own thread there, click on a gear, which brings up a menu; in the menu on the line that says "New: Before, Inside, After", click on Before or After. That will open up a text box where you can start your thread and the title.

[Lloyd]

Simulate This
Statement from "What is Charge?"
_9 The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near.
_10 But it will drive off larger particles more successfully than smaller particles, since the smaller particles will encounter a smaller cross-section of the field.

I asked someone if he could do a simulation of that using MM's calculations of the masses and radii of photons, electrons and protons and the emission rate of 19 times the mass of the proton every second.

Any Volunteers?
If anyone else could do such a simulation, I'd be glad to see or learn of the results. I previously thought MM's reasoning was sound, but after thinking about it more, I figured that electrons would be driven farther away than would protons, so they may not be able to get any closer to the emitting proton than other protons could get. Whether the simulation proves or disproves MM's idea, the results would be worth obtaining. I think the only problem may be figuring out the emission of electrons, because I don't think MM has tried to calculate that. Has he? But the other info I believe he has determined.

Question for Airman
Do you remember this MM statement?
*_13a Free electrons travel at high speed in a conducting wire, or any conductor,
*_13b because the B-field is moving in only one direction in that substance.
The "high speed" is wrong for conducting wire. But my point is that he said "the B-field is moving in only one direction", whereas you said it's coming from two directions from both terminals. Didn't you? MM said we can always ask him a question, if we need something explained. Do you think we should ask him about this?

[LongtimeAirman]

Lloyd wrote,

I figured that electrons would be driven farther away than would protons, so they may not be able to get any closer to the emitting proton than other protons could get.

I cannot agree with that statement. You have not explained how the electron would be driven further away than a proton.

Question for AirmanDo you remember this MM statement?
*_13a Free electrons travel at high speed in a conducting wire, or any conductor,
*_13b because the B-field is moving in only one direction in that substance.

The "high speed" is wrong for conducting wire. But my point is that he said "the B-field is moving in only one direction", whereas you said it's coming from two directions from both terminals. Didn't you?

"High-speed" isn't light speed. I suppose the free electron speed is the electron drift velocity.

My thoughts are still developing and I can only give my best guess I have at the time.

When the wire is first connected to the terminal, the charge field of the wire and the charge field of the terminal must reach an equilibrium, a brief mixing. When the final connection is made, the two terminal charge fields must reach equilibrium, but now there is a motive e-field force. The electrons act like a paddle wheel in a river of photons.
There is an initial rush of current, the charge fields marry and current flow is established. Miles says there is a direct B-field transmission not limited to the wire once the two fields combine.

REMCB

[Chromium6]

This is from the Drude-Sommerfeld Model paper which was rejected:
-------------


But now that I have shown how the nucleus recycles charge, we don't need the pathetic Drude-Sommerfeld model anymore. We can throw out all this slop concerning imaginary phonons, changing masses, and vacuum substances, and replace it with physics. We don't need pseudo-potentials, since we can now show the real potentials.

To start with, we can show why Drude's model of free electrons moving through a lattice of real atoms worked fairly well, without any “quantum mechanical” additions. Before Sommerfeld mucked it up, the simple Drude model “provided a very good explanation of DC and AC conductivity in metals, the Hall effect, and thermal conductivity (due to electrons) in metals near room temperature. The model also explains the Wiedemann-Franz law of 1853.” Amazingly, the authors at Wikipedia even tell us why, although they don't know they are they are telling us why:

Historically, the Drude formula was first derived in an incorrect way, namely by assuming that the charge carriers
form a ideal gas. We know now that they follow Fermi-Dirac distribution and have appreciable interactions, but amazingly, the result turns out to be the same as Drude model because, as Lev Landau derived in 1957, a gas of interacting particles can be described by a system of almost non-interacting 'quasiparticles' that, in the case of electrons in a metal, can be well modelled by the Drude equation.

It isn't Lev Landau's quasiparticles that are matching Drude's electrons. It is my real charge photons that are doing that. Any free electrons are being driven by a sea of real photons, and this sea of photons is what we now call charge. Where the photons go, the electrons also go. But, as in the nucleus, the electrons are mainly along for the ride. It is the photons we should be tracking, not the electrons. The electrons are like buoys, signaling the charge strength and direction. But what is determining the field is the motion of the photons. The photon field is the real cause of everything, here and elsewhere. Since the photons interact much less than the larger ions, they act mathematically like Landau's quasiparticles. But whereas Landau's quasiparticles are virtual and heuristic, my photons are real.

The same can be said for Bloch waves. Bloch waves are imaginary waves manufactured to fit the data, and then a lot of math is created to fit free electrons to that imaginary wave. Since these old guys thought they were tracking electrons through the lattice, they thought they had to explain how electrons made it through without being scattered and without losing all kinds of energy. The only way they could do that is by letting the electron magically have a zero or negative mass at certain points, or by other hamhanded (and frankly embarrassing) tricks. But since it was always photons that were making it through and carrying the field energy, they didn't need to go to all that trouble. You don't need these tricks to show how photons pass through the lattice, since photons are around 100 million times smaller than electrons. They dodge the lattice more easily. And since charge photons are also channeling through the nucleus (and electrons aren't), even the photons that don't dodge the lattice also make it through.

[LongtimeAirman]

I'm slowly working through the following

On one hand, I imagine space, where photons are spinning motes immensely smaller than dust, light-speeding in all directions at once. Yet the photons, being so small, rarely impact one another.

Yet photons do meet photons. Within and about atomic matter photons flow like the sands through an hourglass where pinched photon paths within protons resemble sinuous files. The proton's dense, permeable mass is comprised of photons. All of matter is recycling photons all the time.

But how can that be! Photons cannot possibly pass through protons at light speed, at least not in the linear direction. It seems the spin is diminished as well. There is energy transfer within the proton nucleus. So are photons traveling at less than light speed still light? Are all photons exiting a proton, bursting with light speed?

I believe that I'm focused on a koan.
The transition of photon to matter.
Most of the Charge Field passes by without notice.

REMCB

[moses]

So are photons traveling at less than light speed still light? Are all photons exiting a proton, bursting with light speed? REMCB
Perhaps photons are absorbing smaller particles which increase the energy of the photon which accelerates it. And at the speed of light the emission of these smaller particles matches the absorption. This would require the energy to increase the spin of the photon and this spin energy to be transformed into kinetic energy. Or when a photon loses energy it is just spin enegy that is lost.

When an object collides with another object do nuclei collide, or as they get very close to each other the charge photons not only collide with the other nucleus but also with the other charge photons. Instead of annihilation, photons of increased energy are formed, and maybe antiphotons. Miles explains this somewhere. Thus the momentum of the nucleus is descibed by more charge photon interactions.

And when we consider that all matter is built of charge photons and now all motion and interactions is charge photon interactions, then charge photons describe everything that is physical.
Cheers,
Mo

[Chromium6]

So are photons traveling at less than light speed still light? Are all photons exiting a proton, bursting with light speed? REMCB
Perhaps photons are absorbing smaller particles which increase the energy of the photon which accelerates it. And at the speed of light the emission of these smaller particles matches the absorption. This would require the energy to increase the spin of the photon and this spin energy to be transformed into kinetic energy. Or when a photon loses energy it is just spin enegy that is lost.

When an object collides with another object do nuclei collide, or as they get very close to each other the charge photons not only collide with the other nucleus but also with the other charge photons. Instead of annihilation, photons of increased energy are formed, and maybe antiphotons. Miles explains this somewhere. Thus the momentum of the nucleus is descibed by more charge photon interactions.

And when we consider that all matter is built of charge photons and now all motion and interactions is charge photon interactions, then charge photons describe everything that is physical.
Cheers,
Mo

Hi Mo,

Your comments reminded me of these reports on Slow Light. Of course the vacuum speed is the key measure:

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/liquid ... illionfold
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_crystals

The idea of "slow light" is not a new one: Researchers at Harvard slowed light to a speed of about 17 meters per second in 1999. Those researchers were later able to stop light completely. In order to do that, the Harvard researchers pushed light through sodium atoms that were cooled to essentially absolute zero. Others who have achieved slow light have used lots of electricity to reach the effect.

The Chinese and French researchers, who published their research yesterday in the journal Optics Express, conducted their experiments at room temperature and without using much power. Umberto Bortolozzo, one of the researchers who worked on the project, said his method is a more practical way to slow light than the others, and could lead to real-world applications sooner.

Bortolozzo's method uses a liquid crystal helix—kind of a modified version of the LCD that's in your TV. When a pulse of light enters the liquid crystal helix, its waves are forced to separate as they travel through the helix. A series of dyes and the helix's shape slows down the waves, forcing the particle to wait for each individual wave before it can reconstitute itself.

Unfortunately, instead of getting quantum computers out of this approach, its main application will be measuring speeds—very slow ones. According to Bortolozzo, the method can be used to create an instrument that can measure speeds as slow as one trillionth of a meter per second.