Good news, everyone

[silvergreylion]

Here is rev. 0.79:

Password is my username.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/f6opil1y ... 0d45e&dl=0

Pdf has been scanned for viruses and malware, but please do your own checking.


Added the structure of the electron, and did a few very minor corrections.

Also added a prediction regarding a spaceship coated with superconducting material.

[Lloyd]

PurplePete sais: I think you'll find that Miles Mathis's charge field has the benefit of Occam's Razor and explaining numerous other phenomena. The Aether just pops out naturally from his model.
Note that the main differences with Miles's model and everyone else's is that his has a HUGE number of ultra-small particles constantly moving around and through EVERYTHING we call mass at the speed of light - this is what forms the Aether. The majority are spinning and form "layers" of spin to create photons, electrons, protons et al - so everything we can detect is made out of the same basic stuff.

There's a section of the MM science forum called Questions for MM at https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/f2-questions-for-mm for which I probably contributed the most questions. And I don't know that MM or anyone else has answered any of them; maybe they've answered a few. Miles' theory of Charge and Matter seems to me better than anyone else's that I know of, but it's still a long way from explaining things in detail. Naturally, it's much harder to explain the microcosm in detail, but Charles Chandler seems to have an excellent detailed explanation of the macrocosm, which I've largely copied on my Substack at https://electricastrophysics.substack.com/archive .

MATTER = PHOTONS. Miles says electrons, protons and neutrons are made of photons with stacked spins. The stacking doesn't make complete sense to me. He seems to say that a photon can spin around a point on its surface, thus making a torus shape, where the photon is like a fan blade that spins around the hub of a fan. Except that a fan blade would need to be connected to a heavy object in order to spin around a point on the blade outer surface. The only way the spinning makes sense to me is if there are two photons in contact. That should be possible if two photons are moving close together in the same direction. If there is a sea of subphotons, the photons would have a vacuum behind each of them which cause the subphoton sea to push them together. So two photons together could be made to spin around each other due to collisions with other photons. Likewise a second pair of photons could be attracted to the first pair by the pressure of the subtron sea. And the stacking would make sense that way. Several layers could be stacked up till the outer layer has too much centrifugal force to stay together. Miles says the stacked photons axis of rotation is hollow, which could be caused by the centrifugal force. So single photons could enter the photon group and photons on the outer rim of the spinning group would fall away. He claims that there is just one photon with numerous spin levels, but that would not be able to capture photons through its poles.

Anyway, his model has numerous problems, but so does mine, but I think by discussing the models, solutions can be found.

[silvergreylion]

Anyway, his model has numerous problems, but so does mine, but I think by discussing the models, solutions can be found.

I consider it a complete waste of time discussing any model, that's based on photons being particles.

[crawler]

Anyway, his model has numerous problems, but so does mine, but I think by discussing the models, solutions can be found.

I consider it a complete waste of time discussing any model, that's based on photons being particles.

But it is certain that particles are photons.

[galaxy12]

Silvergreylion commented "I consider it a complete waste of time discussing any model, that's based on photons being particles."

Crawler commented "But it is certain that particles are photons."

Interesting discussion.

Perhaps there is no such thing as a "Photon" ??

[crawler]

Silvergreylion commented "I consider it a complete waste of time discussing any model, that's based on photons being particles."

Crawler commented "But it is certain that particles are photons."

Interesting discussion.

Perhaps there is no such thing as a "Photon" ??

Praps everything is a photon or photons.

[purplepete]

Anyway, his model has numerous problems, but so does mine, but I think by discussing the models, solutions can be found.

I consider it a complete waste of time discussing any model, that's based on photons being particles.

Even Einstein believed photons are particles; otherwise the photoelectric effect doesn't work. If you don't believe in photons being particles, then how do you explain why solar cells produce electricity? Also, presumably if you don't believe photons are particles you believe they are waves, in which case what are they waves in? Waves are, by definition, disturbances in an underlying medium. What is the medium? Standard physics proclaims the aether doesn't exist, but then gives "spacetime" aether properties under a different name, but then either version of the aether still needs it to be made up of particles for waves to exist...

[purplepete]

PurplePete sais: I think you'll find that Miles Mathis's charge field has the benefit of Occam's Razor and explaining numerous other phenomena. The Aether just pops out naturally from his model.
Note that the main differences with Miles's model and everyone else's is that his has a HUGE number of ultra-small particles constantly moving around and through EVERYTHING we call mass at the speed of light - this is what forms the Aether. The majority are spinning and form "layers" of spin to create photons, electrons, protons et al - so everything we can detect is made out of the same basic stuff.

There's a section of the MM science forum called Questions for MM at https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/f2-questions-for-mm for which I probably contributed the most questions. And I don't know that MM or anyone else has answered any of them; maybe they've answered a few. Miles' theory of Charge and Matter seems to me better than anyone else's that I know of, but it's still a long way from explaining things in detail. Naturally, it's much harder to explain the microcosm in detail, but Charles Chandler seems to have an excellent detailed explanation of the macrocosm, which I've largely copied on my Substack at https://electricastrophysics.substack.com/archive .

MATTER = PHOTONS. Miles says electrons, protons and neutrons are made of photons with stacked spins. The stacking doesn't make complete sense to me. He seems to say that a photon can spin around a point on its surface, thus making a torus shape, where the photon is like a fan blade that spins around the hub of a fan. Except that a fan blade would need to be connected to a heavy object in order to spin around a point on the blade outer surface. The only way the spinning makes sense to me is if there are two photons in contact. That should be possible if two photons are moving close together in the same direction. If there is a sea of subphotons, the photons would have a vacuum behind each of them which cause the subphoton sea to push them together. So two photons together could be made to spin around each other due to collisions with other photons. Likewise a second pair of photons could be attracted to the first pair by the pressure of the subtron sea. And the stacking would make sense that way. Several layers could be stacked up till the outer layer has too much centrifugal force to stay together. Miles says the stacked photons axis of rotation is hollow, which could be caused by the centrifugal force. So single photons could enter the photon group and photons on the outer rim of the spinning group would fall away. He claims that there is just one photon with numerous spin levels, but that would not be able to capture photons through its poles.

Anyway, his model has numerous problems, but so does mine, but I think by discussing the models, solutions can be found.

Lloyd - in Miles's model the the photons are not spinning around a point on their surface; they're all spinning around their centre. The stacking starts with an axial rotation (like Earth spinning 1/day) then x/y/z orbits - like Earth spinning around the Sun for x, then I suppose you could say with the solar system the Earth and Sun are in spinning around y and z as they spiral around the inside of a large Birkeland current traveling around the galaxy.

The spin layers are stable at certain quantised levels, similar to innate stability in a gyroscope requiring the various spins at right-angles to each other being a certain distance apart. So being "hit" by smaller particles doesn't generally disrupt the larger particles.

The larger particles can both channel and be channeled by the smaller particles; get enough together and you'll gradually get more of them to head in certain directions. Once you get enough spin layers to get to an electron it's being bumped around so much it can no longer maintain speed c, and it's channeling a lot of smaller particles, with a preference towards whatever the outside spin level is - which in Miles's model is axial, so more tend to go in through the poles and out along the equator. So it's not hollow per se, in that the internal spins result in many of the small particles inside getting knocked around a bit before being ejected. So this channeling is what results in electricity (pole to pole) and magnetism (equatorial ejection) and that then results in higher-level phenomena that result in what we call matter being attracted to other matter which in turn results in Birkeland currents, stars, galaxies etc.

So contrary to the standard physics view of Entropy the underlying nature of matter, if it's anything like Miles's model suggests, means that the Universe is actually evolving over time, with more density along filaments which is turn can lead to more complexity. Which only make sense if you think about it - if you believe in the conventional view of Entropy and the second "law" of Thermodynamics then you do not actually believe you yourself can exist, as how could anything as complex as a human (or any type of life) actually evolve if entropy is constantly making everything "hot" flow towards "cold" areas, which basically requires everything to be broken up into its constituent components?

[galaxy12]

Purpete wrote "Even Einstein believed photons are particles; otherwise the photoelectric effect doesn't work. If you don't believe in photons being particles, then how do you explain why solar cells produce electricity? Also, presumably if you don't believe photons are particles you believe they are waves, in which case what are they waves in? Waves are, by definition, disturbances in an underlying medium. What is the medium? Standard physics proclaims the aether doesn't exist, but then gives "spacetime" aether properties under a different name, but then either version of the aether still needs it to be made up of particles for waves to exist..."

This particle vs wave discussion has lasted over 200 years.

The biggest issue I have with photons being particles is that some electromagnetic wavelengths can be miles or even light-years long due to their low frequency. If electromagnetic waves (light,etc) are composed of photon particles, then we have to envision a photon that varies in size and can be light-years long. I have trouble envisioning a photon that large.

[crawler]

Purpete wrote "Even Einstein believed photons are particles; otherwise the photoelectric effect doesn't work. If you don't believe in photons being particles, then how do you explain why solar cells produce electricity? Also, presumably if you don't believe photons are particles you believe they are waves, in which case what are they waves in? Waves are, by definition, disturbances in an underlying medium. What is the medium? Standard physics proclaims the aether doesn't exist, but then gives "spacetime" aether properties under a different name, but then either version of the aether still needs it to be made up of particles for waves to exist..."

This particle vs wave discussion has lasted over 200 years.

The biggest issue I have with photons being particles is that some electromagnetic wavelengths can be miles or even light-years long due to their low frequency. If electromagnetic waves (light,etc) are composed of photon particles, then we have to envision a photon that varies in size and can be light-years long. I have trouble envisioning a photon that large.

I have answered this problem perfectly umpteen times.
EM waves are not photons, & photons are not em waves.
Radio waves are em waves. Actually, not some kind of natural wave, they are pulses (manmade pulses usually).

[galaxy12]

Crawler wrote "I have answered this problem perfectly umpteen times.
EM waves are not photons, & photons are not em waves.
Radio waves are em waves. Actually, not some kind of natural wave, they are pulses (manmade pulses usually)."

Interesting theory. At what frequency do electromagnetic waves cease being EM waves? Are microwaves EM waves? Is infrared EM waves? Is visible light EM waves? Are Xrays EM waves? Are gamma rays EM waves?

[Roshi]

Can anyone explain what's a "field"? Wikipedia is not really helping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

leading to an oscillation that propagates through space, known as an electromagnetic wave.[2][3]

Oscillation of what?

When talking about waves, I imagine a medium that makes waves, like - water. If there is no medium, what are EM waves, and EM field?
If there is a medium - what is it? What is waving?

[galaxy12]

Roshi commented "Can anyone explain what's a "field"? Wikipedia is not really helping."

Great question!

For a "field" we need to distinguish between the 2 fundamental fields, electrostatic/electrical and magnetic.

I can give my version of a definition of each:

Electrical/electrostatic field: The area in space that lies parallel to the movement or polar orientation of a charged particle (proton/electron/subatomic particle) whereby a parallel force will be applied to a second charged particle that lies within the space.



Magnetic: The area in space that lies perpendicular to the movement or polar orientation of a charged particle (proton/electron/subatomic particle) whereby a perpendicular force will be applied to a second charged particle that lies within the space.

[crawler]

Crawler wrote "I have answered this problem perfectly umpteen times.
EM waves are not photons, & photons are not em waves.
Radio waves are em waves. Actually, not some kind of natural wave, they are pulses (manmade pulses usually)."

Interesting theory. At what frequency do electromagnetic waves cease being EM waves? Are microwaves EM waves? Is infrared EM waves? Is visible light EM waves? Are Xrays EM waves? Are gamma rays EM waves?

Not only is my theory interesting. It is unique. Only one person on Earth has this theory, me. Or, if i have managed to convince others, then i can say that i created the theory. But, funnily enuff, my theory duznt i think need my name, nor duz it need any name. But a name would be good. Radio waves are due to probly just one field, the varying magnetic field. I say "the ", but there might be at least 2 kinds of varying magnetic field.

And all em fields of all kinds are due to a part of the photon, & i call that part the photaeno, which radiates out from the main helical central body of every photon all the time for ever, to infinity. I have detailed all of that on this forum.

EM pulses (radio) can have any manmade frequency. I am not sure about what radio frequencies can be produced by nature (ie in the cosmos).

[crawler]

Can anyone explain what's a "field"? Wikipedia is not really helping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

leading to an oscillation that propagates through space, known as an electromagnetic wave.[2][3]

Oscillation of what?

When talking about waves, I imagine a medium that makes waves, like - water. If there is no medium, what are EM waves, and EM field?
If there is a medium - what is it? What is waving?

The fundamental medium is praether. And excitation or something of praether gives us aether. Anyhow, we can ignore praether.
But that there waving business is interesting. An excitation or excitations of aether plus an annihilation of aether give us everything that we see & feel.
RE em fields, i think that there are a number of possible em fields, as follows.
1. A charge em field (2 kinds, positive & negative).
2. A mooving charge em field.
3. A varying charge em field.
4. An accelerating charge em field.
5. A varying mooving accelerating charge em field.
6. A magnetic em field (there might be a number of kinds)(or at least a number of causes).
7. A mooving magnetic em field.
8. A varying magnetic em field.
9. An accelerating magnetic em field.
10. A varying mooving accelerating magnetic em field.

Radio is in there somewhere.
And all em fields of all kinds are due to a part of the photon, & i call that part the photaeno, which radiates out from the main helical central body of every photon all the time for ever, to infinity. I have detailed all of that on this forum. So, all em is due to my photaenos. And if there is something waving then it is my photaenos.