Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

[Chromium6]

Sparky, in this post http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 688#p97592 I made relevant comments on July 12 on some of your previous comments. Had you responded directly to those comments, some useful discussion might have occurred. But, instead, you went off-topic with irrelevant complaints about our supposed irrationality etc. If you're really interested in this thread, why don't you comment on my above post? Like doesn't it make more sense to attribute properties like energy to matter, which has radius and mass, instead of to vacuum or space, which has no dimensions, except between matter objects? If energy were a property of vacuum, it would have no specific location, because vacuum/space has no specific location except relative to matter. And, since all of space contains photons, but not all of space contains larger units of matter, doesn't it make sense to attribute energy to photons, rather than to vacuum?

Some of my disagreements with MM are regarding gravity, photon motion and the cold poles of Mercury, which I discussed a few months ago on a thread called Lloyd Blog or something like that. I don't think universal expansion of matter and space makes sense at all as the explanation of gravity, which MM originally proposed. I don't think it makes sense that photons would travel in a single wave motion as MM says, such as where a photon would spin around a point on its surface. But I think it would be simple to fix that problem with a double wave motion by paired photons spinning around each other like a two-bladed propeller as they travel through space in a straight line. And it doesn't make sense that photons would cool Mercury's poles, but it makes sense that ions from cold space would cool them.

Just to add to Lloyd's comment above. MM's theories can definitely be expanded and improved with new theory and experiments based on evidence (e.g., paired photons as Lloyd describes). MM appears to have most parts of his theory very firm. However, there are sides to it that are "frontier" or "boundary" that he firms up once clear evidence is found or new findings are made. I think he relies more on the observations of the powers that "be" (NASA,EU programs) for his macro-perspectives (Universe, Galaxy, planets, etc.) over his micro-perspectives (Elements, Charge Field, EM fields, etc.) which have a much longer documented history. I think his calling out the base "theory" of these is valuable for even those who don't agree with him because he is very sharp deductively. No one is 100% perfect of course.

He does revise his papers which I admire and, hence, calls it as he sees it from the best understanding. There are many areas he hasn't touched yet. I do think that with his 3-D diagrams of the elements-charge field, he may need to get a few programmers to help him animate these fields in a programmatic way. Lord knows the current 3-D movies of current Electron Bonding theories are pretty primitive to explain all that we see. There are several gargantuan holes in it with several ad-hoc pushes. A clear interactive program allowing 3-D programming of the Charge-Field would prove very useful in proving him "right" or "wrong". Most of his detractors can be ignored until they can prove this in pure "code" that MM himself can critique.

I don't ask everyone to believe in Pi=4 orthogonally, but to see the logic behind it in terms of real world measures (there is always a "kink" to go up and over).
One thing that MM has done is to clearly delineate that QM theory, as it is today,is a confused mess logically. Most articles at phys.org prove this "mess", IMHO:

http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists ... ysics.html
http://phys.org/news/2014-07-physicists ... ticle.html (really?)

"Only about one in 100 trillion proton-proton collisions would produce one of these events," said Marc-André Pleier, a physicist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory who played a leadership role in the analysis of this result for the ATLAS collaboration. Complicating matters further, finding one such rare event is not enough. "You need to observe many to see if the production rate is above or on par with predictions," Pleier said. "We looked through billions of proton-proton collisions produced at the LHC for a signature of these events—decay products that allow us to infer like Sherlock Holmes what happened in the event."

That's a 100 trillion Sparky faces...or the USA's debt load (or Cayman Island Hedge Fund bets) in terms of awkward, goofy smiles on who really "wins".

[David]

He does revise his papers which I admire and, hence, calls it as he sees it from the best understanding.

True. Mathis has revised his pi=4 papers. He added the “Manhattan metric” and the “cycloid” as further slipshod evidence that pi equals 4. Although, admiration isn’t exactly the word I would have chosen for this self-serving revision.

Most of his detractors can be ignored until they can prove this in pure "code" that MM himself can critique.

“Until they can prove…”? Oh, so that’s how it works. Mathis is automatically assumed to be correct unless one of his detractors can provide undisputable evidence to the contrary. Isn't that the textbook definition of “ass backwards”?

[Sparky]

Lloyd:

If energy were a property of vacuum, it would have no specific location, because vacuum/space has no specific location except relative to matter

Can't argue with that... Unless one understands that the "vacuum energy" of QM is not a real vacuum, but a transition area. From the "vacuum energy" particles carry energy from an unobserved state to our observed state. That is the transfer of energy that you seem to need, particle to particle. "Vacuum Energy" has nothing to do with a vacuum, as far as I know. Is it a correct model? Seems to be.

If a simple dipole can extract this energy, and it is not considered, even excluded from the maths, then why?

[Lloyd]

L = Lloyd; S = Sparky; (A = Airman; C = Cr6; D = David. I'm largely ignoring you last 3 guys for now, but in a friendly way.)
_L: If energy were a property of vacuum, it would have no specific location, because vacuum/space has no specific location except relative to matter
_S1: Can't argue with that... Unless one understands that the "vacuum energy" of QM is not a real vacuum, but a transition area.
_S2: From the "vacuum energy" particles carry energy from an unobserved state to our observed state.
_S3: That is the transfer of energy that you seem to need, particle to particle.
_S4: "Vacuum Energy" has nothing to do with a vacuum, as far as I know.
_S5: Is it a correct model? Seems to be.
_S6: If a simple dipole can extract this energy, and it is not considered, even excluded from the maths, then why?
_L1a: I don't follow QM, so I don't know if QM says anything about vacuum energy. Does it? Or are you alluding to Bearden or someone else?
_L1b1: What's a transition area? A transition between what and what? Between matter and vacuum?
_L2a: Do you mean particles carry energy from a vacuum's unobserved state to something else's observed state? If so, what's the something else? And what are the particles?
_L3: Energy transfers from what particle to what particle?
_L4: Does vacuum energy have to do with particles other than normal matter?
_L5: So far you're too vague to be able to tell anything about the model. You need to answer the questions before I can have a better clue.
_L6a: By a dipole do you mean an atom with electrons and protons? Or what is your dipole?
_L6b: Does extracting energy mean something different from transferring energy? Collisions transfer energy; do they not? What exact action of what object extracts the energy you're talking about?
_L6c: If you theorize dipoles, you must theorize opposite charges, which are a mystery. MM shows that charge is mass, so it solves the mystery.
_L1b2: Back to S1 again, any transition area outside of matter contains only one kind of known objects: Photons. Right?
_L2b: Photons can transfer energy as their masses collide with the masses of matter. Right?

[Chromium6]

Most of his detractors can be ignored until they can prove this in pure "code" that MM himself can critique.

“Until they can prove…”? Oh, so that’s how it works. Mathis is automatically assumed to be correct unless one of his detractors can provide undisputable evidence to the contrary. Isn't that the textbook definition of “ass backwards”?

Consider this scenario David.
--------
Let's say a small group of MM groupies created a physics engine similar to say PhysX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX that is not single-perspective dependent. With this MM physics engine they attempt to create a "world" with a Zoom lens allowing people to zoom in and out almost to infinity. They create a Universe with this engine that allows people to see all forms of energy and interact with it.

Now another large group of Physicists-Chemists-et.al. build another physics engine based on QM-Electron Bonding-Current EM. This engine would have all aspects as acting as a "Unified" physics engine. It has the same Zoom lens as the MM's engine. All your formulas are there because you can customize it as necessary. Just toss out all that cannot be resolved. Let's just call this the "textbook" physics engine.

Now whose engine just works and looks like the "reality" before you in this world?

Why isn't a good approximate engine built today that allows for all "interactions" of matter at all levels and speeds of mass/waves/photons/elements/etc.?

If you only have ad-hoc dismissive answers, then you should build the "textbook" physics engine for us David... perhaps with QMs, electron-bonds, and quaternion maths?

If you can imagine this, it should be indisputably possible without looking at yourself in a room full of mirrors.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/vi ... -Realistic

[David]

If you only have ad-hoc dismissive answers, then you should build the "textbook" physics engine for us David...

You are asking the wrong person. As Mathis has shown, all of the equations and formulas that I use are faulty. In fact, I don’t even use the correct value for pi. So anything I built would have to be defective, and couldn’t possibly work.

On the other hand, Mathis has the distinct advantage of knowing all the correct formulas. So maybe you should ask Mathis to design something; starting with an experiment to confirm his theories (assuming he can take time away from his painting and ballet dancing).

[Sparky]

<moderator edit>

Lloyd,

So far you're too vague to be able to tell anything about the model. You need to answer the questions before I can have a better clue.

It has been said that if you understand QT, you don't understand QT..

I gave link to Bearden, http://www.cheniere.org/references/maxwell.htm , who has a model that may work. If you don't see that, then what can I say. I am looking at many things, and I have to assume that I don't understand any of them. So, at my level, all I can do is point out the obvious nonsense..

[Lloyd]

I won't try to have a discussion with Sparky any more. I tried twice to have a sensible discussion, but he ignores sensible questions and just promotes Bearden on this thread for MM discussion. I hope the moderators take note.

[Chromium6]

I won't try to have a discussion with Sparky any more. I tried twice to have a sensible discussion, but he ignores sensible questions and just promotes Bearden on this thread for MM discussion. I hope the moderators take note.

I agree Lloyd. I also hope the moderators take note. He doesn't post very much on MM's material or papers which are the focus of this thread. If anything, these last posts by Sparky (on Bearden) should belong in the "Why MM is Wrong!" thread. If he really seek to reconcile these two approaches, Bearden and MM, then he should create his own thread and post his findings and thoughts there. Otherwise, it comes across as an intentional distraction with only surface-level commentary on theories and research. Basically, it becomes an annoyance increasingly hard to ignore. He's tossing blankets on conversations and wants special attention. <-- Annoying isn't it?

[David]

Regardless of the topic, without fail one of the Mathis [supporters] will routinely post a link to a Mathis paper. There are literally dozens of threads where this annoying ritual has occurred. Yet, here we have these very same people criticizing the behavior, of which they themselves are invariably the worst offenders.

[Sparky]

Evans:

" A photon is a magnetic dipole. It is an elementary magnet.

Well, if it is, then the photon is tapping into the vacuum field for it's energy.
http://www.cheniere.org/references/electret.htm

Indeed, a so-called “isolated charge” is engaged in an ongoing energetic exchange with its surrounding virtual state vacuum. It polarizes its vacuum, producing opposite virtual charges surrounding it.------Since any charge or dipole is a special form of electret, which continuously radiates real EM energy, then the problem in the present energy crisis is not in having any shortage of energy, but in our scientists and engineers having totally failed to understand “static” EM fields and potentials and things such as electrets, and having totally failed to develop circuits and systems which freely collect and use EM energy from these steady EM energy flow sources that are universally available in every circuit and system. Instead, our scientists have misunderstood completely, erroneously assumed away Whittaker’s constituent energy flows, and have developed only that very limited class of EM system which is Lorentz-symmetric and continually kills its dipolar (electret) source of energy faster than it will power the loads. Hence we pay the power company (i) to deliberately engage in a giant wrestling match inside its generators and lose, and (ii) to require us to continually input – and pay for – the mechanical energy to crank the generator shaft, just to continually restore the dipolarity inside the generator and the resulting free energy flow from the vacuum, that the inane circuits keep destroying.

[Chromium6]

So Sparky,

What does Bearden-Evans say about Quantum Computing? Ever come across any articles or publications on this?

I'm kind of curious how Mathis' charge field and atom structures could create something similar to a quantum computer (Charge Field computer). Like Superconductors, Quantum computing is beginning to reach a dead-end of sorts apparently.
-----
Simulating a quantum magnet with trapped ions
A. Friedenauer1, H. Schmitz1, J. T. Glueckert, D. Porras & T. Schaetz
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v4/ ... s1032.html

Emergence and Frustration of Magnetism with Variable-Range Interactions in a Quantum Simulator

Magnetic Frustration

The study of magnetic frustration has a long history in solid-state physics, but cold-atom systems now offer the possibility of simulating the problem with exquisite control. Islam et al. (p. 583) study a system of 16 trapped ions, using the Coulomb interactions between the ions to simulate exchange interactions present in magnetic systems. The measured spin correlations provide a window into the behavior of the system, as the effective magnetic field and the range of the interactions are tuned.

Abstract

Frustration, or the competition between interacting components of a network, is often responsible for the emergent complexity of many-body systems. For instance, frustrated magnetism is a hallmark of poorly understood systems such as quantum spin liquids, spin glasses, and spin ices, whose ground states can be massively degenerate and carry high degrees of quantum entanglement. Here, we engineer frustrated antiferromagnetic interactions between spins stored in a crystal of up to 16 trapped 171Yb+ atoms. We control the amount of frustration by continuously tuning the range of interaction and directly measure spin correlation functions and their coherent dynamics. This prototypical quantum simulation points the way toward a new probe of frustrated quantum magnetism and perhaps the design of new quantum materials.

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/ ... 3.abstract

---------

Since chemistry and nanotechnology rely on understanding quantum systems, and such systems are impossible to simulate in an efficient manner classically, many believe quantum simulation will be one of the most important applications of quantum computing.[20]

There are a number of technical challenges in building a large-scale quantum computer, and thus far quantum computers have yet to solve a problem faster than a classical computer. David DiVincenzo, of IBM, listed the following requirements for a practical quantum computer:[21]

scalable physically to increase the number of qubits;
qubits can be initialized to arbitrary values;
quantum gates faster than decoherence time;
universal gate set;
qubits can be read easily.

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

[Sparky]

<moderator edit>

Maxwell's real "primary theory" was published as James Clerk Maxwell, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field," Royal Society Transactions, Vol. CLV, 1865, p 459. The paper was read before the Society on Dec. 8, 1864. It is included in The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, 2 vols. bound as one, edited by W. D. Niven, Dover, New York, 1952, Vol. 1, p. 526-597. Two errata are given on the unnumbered page prior to page 1 of Vol. 1.

In this 1865 paper Maxwell presents his seminal theory of electromagnetism, containing 20 equations in 20 unknowns. His general equations of the electromagnetic field are given in Part III, General Equations of the Electromagnetic Field, p. 554-564. On p. 561, he lists his 20 variables. On p. 562, he summarizes the different subjects of the 20 equations, being three equations each for magnetic force, electric currents, electromotive force, electric elasticity, electric resistance, total currents; and one equation each for free electricity and continuity. In the paper, Maxwell adopts the approach of first arriving at the laws of induction and then deducing the mechanical attractions and repulsions.

Maxwell himself was pressured intensely to change from his "horrid" quaternion-like mathematics theory (20 equations in 20 unknowns). Hamilton's quaternions were advanced and backed by a gruff, quarrelsome fellow, Tate, who almost no one could get along with. The math of the day was quite simplified. Vector algebra, e.g., had not yet been born, and in fact it got born because of the work (by Heaviside, Gibbs, Hertz and others) to simplify Maxwell's work. -------------Maxwell's own previous electromagnetic theorizing had been very "mechanical" and generally followed Faraday's belief in "lines of force" in space around conductors etc. To Maxwell, these were very material things -- in short, the material ether was a very firm part of his thinking, and also was a firm part of the thinking of Faraday and most others.------------During this time, the Maxwell theory had not really made very much progress, and though considered of importance, it was not considered anything very spectacular -- much of this being because of its "considered too difficult" mathematics and the residues of the "terrible quaternions".-------------"Heaviside vastly simplified Maxwell's 20 equations in 20 variables by squeezing their essence into two equations written in two variables (the variables described the magnetic and electric field vectors). Much of the theoretical work was done in parallel with Hertz, who graciously noted in his book on electric waves that "Mr. Heaviside has the priority." ... "For some years the reformulated equations were called the Hertz-Heaviside equations, and later the young Einstein referred to them as the Maxwell-Hertz equations. Today only Maxwell's name is mentioned." ...------------- Today, in modern quantum theory we know that it is the potentials that have the primary reality, and the force fields are merely constructed from them (by their interaction in and with charged matter). ---------------The much-reduced Heaviside-Gibbs-Hertz limited version of Maxwell's theory, with the added Lorentz symmetrization and arbitrary discarding of all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, has since been taught as "Maxwell's theory". It is Heaviside's equations and Heaviside's notations, as further limited by Lorentz.-----------------The conventional EEs were and are trained in a symmetrical theory which only prescribes Lorentz-symmetrical circuits. They were and are taught to build circuits where the source dipole inside the generator is left wired into the source generator's own external circuit as a load while current is flowing. The result is to equalize the back emf (translation force field that must be opposed by all current pumped back through the generator) and the forward emf (translation force field that pushes the current to flow through the external circuit and thus enables powering the external circuit's loads and losses.

Quote excerpts from---

http://www.cheniere.org/images/EMfndns1 ... trnssm.jpg Maxwell's equations and their reductions.

Regauging :http://www.cheniere.org/images/EMfndns1/MaxRegag2sm.jpg

Reduced to: http://www.cheniere.org/images/EMfndns1/MeqnsRegsm.jpg

Reduced to #2http://www.cheniere.org/images/EMfndns1 ... 2wmfsm.jpg

Has MM gone back to the original equations and fixed them?

[LongtimeAirman]

From, Re: Was the Great Pyramid an electric generator?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =75#p97379
Sparky wrote.

Derail a thread? How does one person derail a thread? Especially one about a strong belief? No, the idea that one could do that is in itself distorted thinking. But, it was meant as a immature dig, I know. So, what argument can one make against a mind so absorbed in it's own superiority of thought? None that would make any difference!

Sparky, You are shutting down debate and intentionally derailing this thread. Ignoring our comments except to twist and justify your bad behaviour. Your entries concern Bearden's work. You have already started a thread on that subject - Free Energy? Critical examination?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =8&t=15120

"So, what argument can one make against a mind so absorbed in it's own superiority of thought? None that would make any difference."

So, is this your thread now?

REMCB

[Sparky]

Airman, I mostly respond to your and cr6's off topic attacks on me.....I have been trying to compare models, and critique MM's papers. How does one person, responding to attacks and posting on topic shut down debate. Anyone that wants to can come here and debate you. Try real hard to not whine. Stack some spins and chill....