Gravity ...

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Gravity ...

Post by LloydK on Tue Aug 12, 2014 1:57 am

I hope to get all the best gravity info from these TB forum pages ere long:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14844&start=15
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14844&start=30
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14844&start=45
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14844&start=60
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14844&start=75

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gravity ...

Post by Cr6 on Tue Aug 12, 2014 7:22 pm

It may take a while to migrate things since most of [us] are pretty busy.  I'll try to copy over dialogue when I have time.  The site might look dead for awhile until we get searchable material ported and more posts going.  Basically, more activity means more visitors eventually.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Posts from TB Forum Lloyd Blog - Part 1

Post by LloydK on Fri Aug 15, 2014 5:23 pm

Thunderbolts Forum
Lloyd Blog

Postby Lloyd » Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:36 pm
_3. Charles thought Miles was making an irrational and deceptive leap by taking Maxwell's formula m = L^3/T^2 as a universal fact (m is mass; L is length; T is time). But Lloyd thought it could be taken as an acceleration of a volume. How do you interpret that formula and is it essential to his theory?
John McVay replied.
3) Maxwell himself showed that mass is reducible to more fundamental units from Newton's own work. Miles just took a next logical step. If we want to develop clear theory and mechanics, then keeping the fundamentals clear and in the open reduces development of bad theory. Coulombs constant is buried in about three layers of other constants for instance; no wonder we are so quick to give up on a mechanical answer. Substituting a volumetric acceleration for mass is entirely logical given the fundamental units; it's certainty better than hanging on to an entirely arbitrary and made up concept known an mass. Granted, it brings up physical implications that many will not like; but physics shouldn't be about our likes and dislikes.

Post by Lloyd » Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:00 am
_A3. Mass Equation. [Re Is it reasonable for Miles to use Maxwell's limited formula, m = L3/T2, or mass = length cubed over time squared, as a universal expression of m, mass?] It's a dimensional formula. It's nothing strange that all can be traced down to length and time, as it's the only thing we can really measure.
If you make G a number without units and use Newton's gravity and acceleration equations:
F =Gmm/r² = m•a gives a dimensional equation (Apply [] to a variable and you get it's dimensions)
[G][m]²/[r]² = [m][a]
[r] = L and [a] = L/T² so
[m]²/L² = [m] L/T²
Solving for [m]
[m] = L³/T²
[See also John's answer in previous post.]
_B2. Gravity. Miles originally thought gravity acts as an outward vector due to universal expansion, instead of an inward vector due to a pull, because he thought attraction is not mechanical or logical. (I agree that attraction doesn't seem physical). But in January 2012 or so he wrote a paper in which he decided that the outward vector is caused by universal spin, instead of expansion. He may have said that the universe has stacked spins like photons do and that the spins produce a centrifugal force or something. Do you favor either of these theories? Or do you know of a possibly better one to explain gravity?
- Universal expansion seems illogical, since it would seem to require something to cause the expansion, which would surely use energy, and, if space is "empty", it surely wouldn't expand at the same rate as matter would and different sorts of matter surely would not expand at exactly the same rate so that the changes would not be detectable to us. Right?
- Universal spin seems much more plausible, but I don't see how it could produce a universal outward gravitational vector on all matter, if everything isn't somehow rigid. Do you?
- I asked Miles if photons moving out of ions would leave a low pressure area in the ions which would be filled by photons from higher pressure outside, so that the outer pressure would act as an inward gravitational vector. Miles didn't think so, but what do you think about that? (Maybe think of a proton or ion as like a sprayer and the water as like photons.)
_Steven replied.
B2. Gravity. [Re Is gravity due to expanding universe or spinning universe?] I prefer the spinning universe explanation since it provides a mechanical explanation. Also it shows the mechanics at the lowest level(photons) and highest level(universe) are identical.
Your assumption that everything has to be rigidly connected is an unnecessary restriction. All forces are communicated through photons in Miles' model.

Post by Lloyd » Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:07 pm
More on Mass
We asked John re mass (see earlier post): would you like to say why you call mass a made-up concept? And would you like to mention some of the main physical implications of m = L^3/T^2 that many people would not like to consider?
_John replied: I say it because Newton invented it to make his gravitational equation work out. As I understand it, mass was intended to represent the ponderability of matter in the math. But since forces are ultimately the result of collisions due to velocities or accelerations, and they are both dependent on changes in positions over time, there is no reason to couch such interactions in an ambiguous concept called mass. It is much clearer to keep the fundamental characteristics in the open. Mass has always been a nebulous concept with fuzzy definitions.
_The first and most obvious implication of keeping mass in terms of length and time is that [it] appears to lead to an expansion theory of gravity.
_[Lloyd replies: L/T^2 (or length over time squared) is acceleration; L^2/T^2 is c^2, or acceleration of an area; L^3/T^2 is acceleration of a volume? By your reasoning plain acceleration would be linear expansion; area acceleration would be 2-D expansion and volume acceleration would be 3-D expansion. Why would expansion be implied here, if there is no 2-D or 1-D expansion?]
_B2) [Re Gravity]. I personally lean toward expansion theory but I don't have a problem with either mechanism. Every theory of gravity faces the infinite well problem; it doesn't matter if your mechanism for gravity is curved space, gravitons, universal spin or expansion. Everybody has to posit an infinite well of energy by which gravity works at some level.
_So long as the rates of expansion are identical, there would be no visible change in the relative sizes of anything. Space doesn't expand per [or according to] Miles; space is what everything is expanding into. The vacuum and empty space can have no characteristics by the definition of vacuum and empty and space.
_[Lloyd replies: If all matter were expanding and space were not expanding, all matter would expand in fixed space or volume and soon get crowded together and then, what?, start expanding inward? And where would the energy come from to fuel the expansion without being observable?]

Post by Lloyd » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:02 pm
_Universal Expansion
John's replies to my last replies.
_John said: [Re Why would expansion be implied here, if there is no 2-D or 1-D expansion?] The simple answer is that existence is 3-dimensional and not 2-D or 1-D. We can speculate about 1 or 2-D expansion, but it will [be] nothing more than theoretical since any expansion must take place in 3-D space. That’s why we can follow the fundamental units to a mechanical conclusion. In addition, this 3-D expansion is very specific in that it applies to the acceleration of the surface of the body in relation to its own center and not in relation to other bodies or a background per ‘normal’ acceleration.
_[Re matter expanding without space expanding and where the energy would come from to fuel the expansion without being observable?] But your rebuttal assumes that ‘space’ has physical presence and characteristics in the field. I disagree with the premise. As far as we know, space is infinite so there would be no ‘crowding’. In addition, gravity is not the only player in the field according to Miles’ UFT [unified field theory]. The charge field works in opposition to solo gravity; so as gravity (whatever the mechanism) seeks to bring bodies together, the charge field seeks to drive them away. So not only is balance achieved, but imbalances are correctable.

Post by tharkun » Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:38 am
Lloyd replies: John, you haven't looked closely enough at the universal expansion model to notice the impossibility of it yet.
_You'll have to expand a bit on what I "don't understand". Miles' universal expansion theory is not the same as the standard model's. 'Space' is nothing - it is the emptiness into which everything else (real stuff) expands. As soon as we give the vacuum characteristics, then we're no longer dealing with a vacuum. Then we have to posit a nothing beneath the vacuum through which those characteristics act.
_A photon doesn't follow field lines because field lines don't exist. A photon's linear velocity creates the E field and the spin velocity creates the M field; that's why M is orthogonal to E - the photon's outermost spin is orthogonal to its forward velocity.

Post by Lloyd » Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:48 pm
_Universal Expansion Problem/s Possibly
(depending on how well my mind is functioning)
1. Raisin Bread Dough Rising/Expanding
Matter Particles = Raisins; Space = Bread Dough. In order for all matter in the universe to expand undetectably, the space/dough between each pair of raisins/matter particles would have to expand at the same rate at which the raisins/matter particles expand. If the raisins continuously expand while the dough does not expand, the raisins eventually come in contact with each other and stop expanding at those points of contact, which would be very observable.
2. Light Speed
If a photon (and the universe) expands to ten times its initial size it would be going ten times as fast as before, increasing light speed by ten times or so.
3. Gravity
If gravity is a measure of universal expansion, the expansion would be a different rate for each body since the force due to gravity is different for each body. Thus the expansions of other bodies would be measurable/observable.
4. Photon Expansion
Photons would need to consist of subparticles in order to expand. And the subparticles would need to also, ad infinitum.
5. Energy
Something would have to provide an infinite amount of energy to cause infinite expansion.

Post by tharkun » Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:44 am
Universal Expansion Problem/s Possibly
(depending on how well my mind is functioning)
_1. Raisin Bread Dough Rising/Expanding
_But this analogy doesn’t hold with the version of expansion theory I’m discussing. Your criticism assumes that there is a substance to space that must expand into along with the matter; and it assumes a vacuum as a background by which to measure the expansion of both substantive space and matter. What I am saying is that real space is the true vacuum that thing expand into; the vacuum of free space can have no characteristics by the definition of ‘vacuum’, ‘free’, and ‘space’.
_And again, you have left the charge field out of equation. Expansion for gravity, by itself, would create the problem you are suggesting; but expansion for gravity is not by itself in the unified field. Expansion for gravity creates the appearance of attraction, but the charge field drives the bodies apart maintaining separation and thus creating the balance. Gravity and the charge field change at different rates so balances are correctible to a large extent.
_2. Light Speed
If a photon (and the universe) expands to ten times its initial size it would be going ten times as fast as before, increasing light speed by ten times or so.
_This is would only be true if the speed of light could be measured from a god-like perspective that measures a later speed in relation to a past coordinate system. Obviously, this is an impossible situation that can have no real meaning in the present coordinate system. Yes, the photon, like everything else would be expanding; but the size of your ruler you measure by is expanding at the same rate, so that the speed as measured will be constant.
_3. Gravity
If gravity is a measure of universal expansion, the expansion would be a different rate for each body since the force due to gravity is different for each body. Thus the expansions of other bodies would be measurable/observable.
_This criticism confuses the mechanism of gravity with the results of gravity. The measured forces resulting from gravity are different because the force is dependent upon distance from the center of the gravitating object. But the mechanism of gravity itself through fundamental expansion is at a constant rate of expansion (acceleration); thus no size changes between bodies would be observed.
_Note that this is to be understood within Miles’ unified field theory where the forces resulting from the mechanism of gravity are dependent on radius alone; and the mass variables are assigned to the charge field. It’s important to realize that knowing an acceleration alone is not sufficient information to tell you about velocities. Two bodies can have the same acceleration, but vastly different velocities. In the same way, two bodies can have the same velocity over one interval, and vastly different accelerations.
_4. Photon Expansion
Photons would need to consist of subparticles in order to expand. And the subparticles would need to also, ad infinitum.
_Actually, not just photons, but every fundamental entity (whether there is just one or a hundred) would be included in this expansion. Expansion theory, according to this form, is from the most fundamental level of existence. But since the Miles doesn’t address the source of expansion, you can’t say that sub-particles are required. But really, it’s not fair to question a theory because it can’t establish a starting point without assumptions. Every theory starts with an initial condition that is assumed to be true and every theory is subject to an ad infinitum line of cause-and-effect. This is not evidence against expansion theory or any other theory.
_5. Energy
Something would have to provide an infinite amount of energy to cause infinite expansion.
_As I pointed out before, every theory of gravity faces this question; so, again, this is not evidence against expansion theory. Gravity is an acceleration, accelerations require a continuous force, continuous forces require continuous energy input. It doesn’t matter if we assign the mechanism of gravitational acceleration to ‘curved space’, mass, gravitons or expansion; gravity requires a source of continuous energy input.

Post by Lloyd » Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:49 pm
_No Universal Expansion
Lloyd earlier1. Raisin Bread Dough Rising/Expanding
_John: But this analogy doesn’t hold with the version of expansion theory I’m discussing. Your criticism assumes that there is a substance to space that must expand into along with the matter; and it assumes a vacuum as a background by which to measure the expansion of both substantive space and matter. What I am saying is that real space is the true vacuum that thing expand into; the vacuum of free space can have no characteristics by the definition of ‘vacuum’, ‘free’, and ‘space’.
_Lloyd now: No, you're not supposed to see the bread dough as matter. It represents space. The raisins represent matter. If the distance between raisins doesn't change as the raisins grow in size, the distance between raisins will get smaller and smaller. And it would be obvious that matter is expanding, unlike what we see. Space does have distance or length, you know.

Post by tharkun » Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:24 am
_No Universal Expansion
Lloyd earlier1. Raisin Bread Dough Rising/Expanding
_Lloyd now: No, you're not supposed to see the bread dough as matter. It represents space. The raisins represent matter. If the distance between raisins doesn't change as the raisins grow in size, the distance between raisins will get smaller and smaller. And it would be obvious that matter is expanding, unlike what we see. Space does have distance or length, you know.
_Yes, I realize that you are using the dough as representing space; but what I am saying is that assigning any materiality or characteristic to the void (the ability to stretch) is a logical contradiction. The distances may increase through the void but that doesn't mean that the increase is happening because the void itself is somehow 'stretching'.
_Expansion BY ITSELF would decrease distances as you say; but you continue to leave out the other half of the Unified Field that Miles proposes: the charge field. It is the charge field working in vector opposition to the expansion that drives the bodies apart and maintains the relative distances. There is no need to assign stretching to the void when you have a field parameter in the form of the photonic charge field.

Post by Lloyd » Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:52 am
Space
If you would diagram what you're talking about, people might have a chance of understanding better. What's illogical to me is saying that space is nothing, because nothing does not exist, since it means non-existence. Space exists and has dimensions of length. It can't be measured directly, but it can by measuring the distance between objects in space. The distance between objects has to be a property of something and it can't be a property of a material object. That leaves space as what it's a property of.
_    You said: Expansion BY ITSELF would decrease distances as you say; but you continue to leave out the other half of the Unified Field that Miles proposes: the charge field. It is the charge field working in vector opposition to the expansion that drives the bodies apart and maintains the relative distances. There is no need to assign stretching to the void when you have a field parameter in the form of the photonic charge field.
_I don't assign stretching to space. Universal expansion theory is what would require that space expand at the same rate that matter (earlier represented by raisins) expands.
_Expansion = Gravity
My understanding of how expansion supposedly causes gravity is that (1.) expansion would involve a velocity outward in all directions from the center of object A - and (2.) other (similarly expanding) objects that encounter object A's expanding surface appear to move toward object A at the velocity of expansion, but this velocity is actually an acceleration, namely the acceleration due to gravity. So, instead of gravity being a pulling force between all objects, it's an expansion force, i.e. an accelerating expansion.
_Bringing the charge field into this seems to mean that object A, like other objects, is not only expanding but also emitting photons in all directions, so you have an outward expansion in all directions with an emission of photons outward in all directions on top of it and the photons are expanding as well. The only "opposition" I see there is that some of the photons collide with all other objects.
_So what's stopping you all from making diagrams to clarify your expansion theory, if it can be clarified? I don't think it can.

Post by tharkun » Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:45 pm
_Space
If you would diagram what you're talking about, people might have a chance of understanding better. What's illogical to me is saying that space is nothing, because nothing does not exist, since it means non-existence. Space exists and has dimensions of length. It can't be measured directly, but it can by measuring the distance between objects in space. The distance between objects has to be a property of something and it can't be a property of a material object. That leaves space as what it's a property of.
_But when you measure the spacing between objects, you are measuring from one material object to another through a void. Separation assumes an emptiness between objects to create the separation. There is nothing that precludes measuring a distance between objects across a vacuum with no matter or energy. That’s all I’m saying ‘space’ is; it is the universal background of the void that matter and energy exists within. The distance between objects in space is a function of the locations of the material items themselves and necessarily linked to the objects. If you have no objects, you have no distance. The only way to measure a distance is to have a starting point and an ending point within the void. It doesn’t matter if your points are real or abstract, you have to assign a something at either end to measure a distance. Those assignments then are within the void and can move within the void without restriction.
_I don't assign stretching to space. Universal expansion theory is what would require that space expand at the same rate that matter (earlier represented by raisins) expands.
_But Miles’ expansion theory does NOT require space to expand, as I keep saying. I think you are conflating Miles’ theory of expansion for gravity with the mainstream’s idea of universal expansion; they are not the same. Miles expansion for gravity applies only to real material objects themselves; space is what the matter is expanding into.
_Expansion = Gravity
My understanding of how expansion supposedly causes gravity is that (1.) expansion would involve a velocity outward in all directions from the center of object A - and (2.) other (similarly expanding) objects that encounter object A's expanding surface appear to move toward object A at the velocity of expansion, but this velocity is actually an acceleration, namely the acceleration due to gravity. So, instead of gravity being a pulling force between all objects, it's an expansion force, i.e. an accelerating expansion.
_Yes, this is the basic idea and it comes from Einstein’s own Equivalence Principle. A man in an elevator cannot tell the difference between a 1-g pull down or a 1-g acceleration up. All Miles does is flip the vector direction and give the acceleration to material objects instead of ‘curved space’, non-existent gravitons (etc.).
_Bringing the charge field into this seems to mean that object A, like other objects, is not only expanding but also emitting photons in all directions, so you have an outward expansion in all directions with an emission of photons outward in all directions on top of it and the photons are expanding as well. The only "opposition" I see there is that some of the photons collide with all other objects.
_Yep, that’s it. All objects are either photons or emit photons. That’s why Miles doesn’t need space to expand to maintain the distances between objects in stable positions. Expansion creates an appearance of attraction, but the charge field continually pushes objects a part through the direct bombardment of the emitted field. Expansion for gravity falls of by the square of the distance, and the charge field falls off by the quad; where these balance, stable distances are maintained.
_So what's stopping you all from making diagrams to clarify your expansion theory, if it can be clarified? I don't think it can.
_Why do I need to make a diagram for two opposite vectors? It’s not really that complicated: expansion creates an apparent vector in, charge field creates a real vector out.

Post by Lloyd » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:39 pm
John, it's fine with me if you don't want to bother illustrating your ideas, or making the universal expansion idea make any sense. Your description of it is reminiscent of all of the opaque claims made conventionally about QM, relativity, black holes etc. If you can't explain any better, I don't think anyone is going to buy it. And besides Miles already mentioned the universal spin idea as an alternative, which I think would be much easier to follow.

Post by tharkun » Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:22 pm
Again, please explain why I need to draw two vectors in opposition? Here you go:
_Charge Field -------> <--------Apparent Gravity Field
_Clear enough?
_You still haven't offered any evidence for why, according to Miles version of expansion, 'space' would need to expand. You keep using the term 'universal' with expansion; but nowhere does Miles indicate that the 'universe' as a whole is expanding, nor have I attempted to defend such an idea. Expansion applies to material objects, not the void in which they reside. What is 'opaque' about two fields working in vector opposition to each other?

Post by Lloyd » Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:50 pm
Ask people anywhere if they understand whatever kind of expansion Miles has discussed as explaining gravity etc. See how many do say they understand it. Ask the people in your FB group. I'll bet you get very few who say they understand. If I'm right, you're in a pretty exclusive club. If you want that to change, you gotta do something different. Don't shoot the messenger. - By the way, what is your "field" of gravity? I understand the photon charge field, but I don't know what the heck the gravity field is supposed to be.

Post by tharkun » Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:04 am
Sorry, but you're the only 'messenger' who has objected to the concept that I know of or have come across in discussing this across different forums for many years. There are plenty who disagree with physical implications of expansion as the mechanism for gravity (for reasons I understand); but the concept seems pretty easy to me. Just flip the gravity vector according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle. Instead of the acceleration being given to a made-up 'field' of space-time, gravitons, etc. give it to the object themselves. I really don't understand what is so hard about that conceptually; it's just a vector reversal. I think you're making it harder than it is.
_Regarding the vector diagram, I said 'Apparent Gravity Field'. I wasn't suggesting an actual material field for gravity; there isn't one according to this version of expansion.

Post by CTJG 1986 » Fri Mar 07, 2014 3:08 pm
_    tharkun wrote:Sorry, but you're the only 'messenger' who has objected to the concept that I know of or have come across in discussing this across different forums for many years. There are plenty who disagree with physical implications of expansion as the mechanism for gravity (for reasons I understand); but the concept seems pretty easy to me. Just flip the gravity vector according to Einstein's Equivalence Principle. Instead of the acceleration being given to a made-up 'field' of space-time, gravitons, etc. give it to the object themselves. I really don't understand what is so hard about that conceptually; it's just a vector reversal. I think you're making it harder than it is.
   John
_Okay, I thought I was coming to a decent understanding of your hypothesis until I read these last 2 posts, now I am confused a bit about the underlying concepts behind it all.(won't be the last time probably too, haha)
_    Instead of the acceleration being given to a made-up 'field' of space-time, gravitons, etc. give it to the object[s] themselves
_How do the objects produce or achieve/receive acceleration if you remove the entire "field" or "fabric"(medium) that is supposed to facilitate that acceleration?
_These fields working in vector opposition exist in the void made of nothing but the energy of the fields themselves? There is no medium for them act in or on, just a void?
_Is this is a "spooky action at a distance" model where it just is because it happens?
_    You still haven't offered any evidence for why, according to Miles version of expansion, 'space' would need to expand. You keep using the term 'universal' with expansion; but nowhere does Miles indicate that the 'universe' as a whole is expanding, nor have I attempted to defend such an idea. Expansion applies to material objects, not the void in which they reside. What is 'opaque' about two fields working in vector opposition to each other?
_But if there is nothing but 'the void' and the "physical matter" how can any material object expand into nothingness?
_What internal mechanisms could facilitate an increase of matter and/or energy to produce expansion without receiving input material or energy from outside sources?
_Or by 'the void' do you simply refer to a void of physical atomic matter that excludes ionized plasma?
_Anyways, I've never understood the universal expansion theories myself, the natural universe both gives and takes and although it's possible it could expand at times it is not the only logical deduction as some posit.
_I see only plasma(or just "stuff") myself as everything in the universe will start as it and return to "end" as it before the start of the next cycle where it forms something new for a while before it "dies" and turns to 'dusty plasma' to wait for the next cycle - there is never an increase in the amount of plasma/stuff and therefore no increase in the amount of other physical matter in the universe, as some of it enters the cycle of transforming into solids, liquids and gasses at the same time some of it is solids, liquids and gasses returning to plasma/stuff.
_There is a positive and negative cycle system to it and although at times there may be more production of matter than "destruction" of matter overall the the sum of "stuff"/plasma can not change.
_There is no "void", the concept of "empty space" to me is as empty as a promise from a politician - just because we can't define what that "stuff" is other than noting it's absence of everything else we already know and define doesn't mean it is actually "void" of everything we don't yet know of.
_If there is only void and that void makes up 95%+ of what we define as the "universe"(and presumably every/no-thing outside the "universe") then how could there be any material objects in the first place?
_How did a tiny proportional percentage of matter come to exist out of and in a void of material aka pure nothingness? Creation ex nihilo/Big-bang?
_You don't actually have to answer that although I am curious of your opinion on it, it's in an area of untestable theory that is not empirically relevant to the topics of this site or your current discussion.
_Does your theory work if there is not a void but rather a field of "stuff" or very low density 'dusty plasma'?

Post by LongtimeAirman » Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:34 pm
_Expansion Theory
I find Miles'Expansion Theory as the most difficult of all his ideas to accept; but it's the only one that I'm aware of that can explain gravity without the need of attraction at a distance (without invoking extra properties to space itself). It is, therefore, (IMO) the most valid gravitational theory. To be fair, it's not even his theory, but, instead, a logical conclusion of his Unified Field. I was happy to read that he was considering the possibility that gravity could be the result of larger spins (galactic,..., universal), but as far as I know he has not gotten beyond just suggesting the possibility.
As said above, the apparent gravity field is in opposition to the charge field. While all matter is expanding, where ever "gravity" is in balance with the charge field, the system maintains its relative distances. The charge field maintains the separation. Otherwise, the smaller object is observed to fall towards the larger object. Can the charge field between our solar system and its neighbors maintain the apparent distances? How can the charge field be so effective over large distances? Also, the idea that the earth is really doubling its size every 17 minutes is a large thing to swallow.
But my imagination is too small. I actually take comfort in the idea that the current state of the universe will end when the surface velocity of matter reaches the speed of light.

Post by Lloyd » Fri Mar 07, 2014 8:31 pm
_Origin of Gravity Concept: Inward Acceleration?
The basic fact seems to be that, when an object in the upper atmosphere or in space falls to Earth, it's velocity increases (accelerates) until it hits the Earth or until air resistance balances the acceleration and stops the increase in velocity, resulting in a somewhat steady velocity until the object hits the Earth.
_Although mathematically it may work to turn the gravity vector of the Earth around and pretend it's an outwardly accelerating expansion of Earth, that doesn't necessarily mean that that's actually what the math means.
_It seems far more reasonable to me to suppose that an outside force is pushing inward toward the Earth. The Earth is emitting photons in all directions, according to Miles. This emission is constantly reducing photon pressure in the Earth. The higher photon pressure outside then would naturally push photons and objects in toward the Earth to fill the partial vacuum that emission is constantly forming.
_Sump Pump Analogy as Better Explanation of Gravity
(Another Alternative to Action at a Distance)
_I find Mathis' claim reasonable that the atmosphere is held up by the outward emission of photons from the Earth. Just as raindrops gain enough mass to overcome the outward photon emission and fall through that emission, it seems reasonable to me that photons in space would be forced downward through the outward photon emission as well. And they would push other objects with them such as raindrops, accounting for the force of gravity.
_This is like a sump pump under water that's designed to spray water out in all directions. Water goes into the sump pump and is emitted in all directions, but the water outside is then at higher pressure and forces water in to the pump to fill the partial vacuum for recycling.
_Another Mind-Boggling Problem with Expansion Theory
_My model seems to bypass all the mind-boggling ideas involved in supposing universal matter expansion. If all matter expands at a constantly accelerating rate, the expansion would require a constant force outward instead of inward. The outward force would require an accelerating mass (pressure), since F = mA. So it seems that a never-ending series of layers of accelerating mass would be required for expansion, like a growing onion, because each layer would require outwardly accelerating mass below it.
_So I feel fairly confident that it's the concept behind Miles' math that needs changing. His math may be good, and just the meaning of it seems to be wrong.

Post by LongtimeAirman » Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
_Miles demonstrates in many of his papers how temporarily reversing the gravity vector greatly simplifies the math, (as in converting a problem of curved space tensors to simple Euclidean vectors). Of course the transformation isn't necessarily reality, but a little mind boggling is a good thing.
_    Origin of Gravity Concept: Inward Acceleration?
_    It seems far more reasonable to me to suppose that an outside force is pushing inward toward the Earth. The Earth is emitting photons in all directions, according to Miles. This emission is constantly reducing photon pressure in the Earth. The higher photon pressure outside then would naturally push photons and objects in toward the Earth to fill the partial vacuum that emission is constantly forming.
_You're completely redefining Miles' charge field. You are trying to turn the earth's emission field into a basis for some sort of photon vacuum gravity. I don't know where to begin to make sense of it let alone critique it. I will say that photon pressure on material objects is a real force but the photon fields themselves are interpenetrable and would not be "attracted" to a photon vacuum.
_Miles has calculated the strength of the earth's emission field on the earth's surface to be one percent that of gravity. But that is due to the photon's e-component.
_What if gravity is due to the earth's emission photons' orthogonal h-component?

Post by Lloyd » Sun Mar 09, 2014 9:26 pm
_    [LTA said, regarding Lloyd's sump pump model of photon emission:] You're completely redefining Miles' charge field. You are trying to turn the earth's emission field into a basis for some sort of photon vacuum gravity. I don't know where to begin to make sense of it let alone critique it. I will say that photon pressure on material objects is a real force but the photon fields themselves are interpenetrable and would not be "attracted" to a photon vacuum.
_The fields may be interpenetrable, but the photons themselves are not. Are they? Can two B-photons occupy the same space at the same time? Mathis says that photons collide with each other and bounce apart. (Do they bounce elastically or spongily?) There's a limit to possible photon density, isn't there? I presume the highest density would be in a massive body like the Sun or larger massive object. Mathis says the Sun's emission tends to guide the photons entering the Sun. I think he says the formula for emission is something like 1/r^4, while the incoming photon formula is 1/r.
_He has compared the photon charge field to an aether. An aether would have density and where there's greater density, same as higher pressure, random motions tend to even out the density by increasing the motion of particles into lower pressure areas, where there are fewer particles to block them. As photons are being emitted from an object, the photon pressure there has to be decreasing very briefly until other outside photons enter. You haven't explained why the sump pump model would be worse than the growing onion model, or what's illogical about the sump pump.
_    - Miles has calculated the strength of the earth's emission field on the earth's surface to be [.1] percent that of gravity. But that is due to the photon's e-component.
   - What if gravity is due to the earth's emission photons' orthogonal h-component?
_Miles uses the orthogonal spin to explain magnetism, so I don't see how it would explain gravity. How do you mean?

Post by Chromium6 » Sun Mar 09, 2014 10:31 pm
_What if a person wanted to create a "photon" charge weapon or "gravity" weapon based on photon pressure redirection? How might one do it?
http://milesmathis.com/photon.html
http://milesmathis.com/g.html
http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Posts from TB Forum Lloyd Blog - Part 2

Post by LloydK on Fri Aug 15, 2014 5:28 pm

http://milesmathis.com/photonspin.pdf
_        It has been known since the middle ages that light exerts a radiation pressure. Not so well known is that light also exerts a twist. The intricate nature of this twist was not recognised until the 1990s and we have been working on it ever since. Beyond the fascination of setting microscopic objects into rotation, this orbital angular momentum may hold the key to better communication sensing and imaging systems.
_    What that Miles doesn't say explicitly is that this orbital angular momentum OAM must be a real characteristic of light. Otherwise it could not possibly “set (real) objects into rotation,” could it? And if that is so, then this new knowledge that Prof. Miles Padgett is admitting must conflict strongly with the current gauge math, which gives photons no mass, no radius, and no real spin. Prof. Padgett says that the OAM may lead to new technology, but he does not tell you that it must overturn the foundations of quantum mechanics. What this real spin does, and must do, is redefine the entire nature of light, leading us to a totally new theory of photons and the photon field. In short, this experimental data is a strong indication of my new theory of photons and charge, which demands that photons must have real spin, real radius, and real mass equivalence.
_    That is what Newton’s equation is. And G is the transform from one dv to the other. Since dv is directly proportional to the radius, we may deduce that the radius of the messenger photon is 6.67 x 10-11 smaller than the radius of the hydrogen atom. This gives us the unified field.
_    This also explains variations in G. As I have shown, G is dependent on the make-up of the bodies in question. The Earth is not made up of hydrogen atoms only. G is the transform between the average size of the atoms present in the field being calculated and the size of the radiated photons. Therefore G is not really a constant. As the average atoms vary, G varies.

Post by tharkun » Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:37 am
_    How do the objects produce or achieve/receive acceleration if you remove the entire "field" or "fabric"(medium) that is supposed to facilitate that acceleration? These fields working in vector opposition exist in the void made of nothing but the energy of the fields themselves? There is no medium for them act in or on, just a void? Is this is a "spooky action at a distance" model where it just is because it happens?
_Your question, if I understand it, is: “If gravity is due to a constant material acceleration, what then causes the expansion itself?” So, we’ve basically gone from discussing the concept of expansion for gravity to discussing the source of the expansion for gravity. To which neither I, nor Miles, has an answer. I don’t know what would cause all material objects to constantly expand. However, this is the expansion version of the ‘infinite well’ I spoke of before.
_EVERY theory of gravity has an infinite well problem. For example, if we propose universal stacked spins (as Miles currently holds), we can always ask the question: What causes the constant spins? For gravitons: Where does the constant flow of gravitons come from? For ‘curved’ space: How does matter continuously ‘curve’ space? Every theory of gravity assumes some kind of unexplained constant input as a given to the theory. And so, a different assumption is not necessarily evidence for or against any theory. Theories should be judged on results and predictions and not necessarily their axioms.
_    But if there is nothing but 'the void' and the "physical matter" how can any material object expand into nothingness?
_I guess I have to ask what would prevent material objects from expanding is there is nothing surrounding them to prevent expansion? You seem insistent on giving some kind of reality to the vacuum. If everything is ‘something’ and there is no such thing as ‘nothing’, aren’t we back to the paradox of Parmenides where everything is substance and no motion is possible?
_    What internal mechanisms could facilitate an increase of matter and/or energy to produce expansion without receiving input material or energy from outside sources?
_See above comments on the ‘infinite well’ problem.
_    Or by 'the void' do you simply refer to a void of physical atomic matter that excludes ionized plasma?
_I’m defining ‘void’ as absent of all matter/energy/radiation/plasma/etc. within the limits (if any) of the universe that we exist in.
_    Anyways, I've never understood the universal expansion theories myself, the natural universe both gives and takes and although it's possible it could expand at times it is not the only logical deduction as some posit.
_Yes, I agree. Expansion is not a necessary conclusion by any means.
_    There is a positive and negative cycle system to it and although at times there may be more production of matter than "destruction" of matter overall the the sum of "stuff"/plasma can not change.
_So you’ve just basically given the 1st law of thermodynamics, to which I would agree.
_    There is no "void", the concept of "empty space" to me is as empty as a promise from a politician - just because we can't define what that "stuff" is other than noting it's absence of everything else we already know and define doesn't mean it is actually "void" of everything we don't yet know of.
_Well, I agree that there may be more ‘stuff’ than what we can currently observe/measure; and I’m not trying to make the case that we have complete knowledge of the ‘ingredients’ of space at all. All I’m saying is that whatever ‘stuff’ exists has to take up space (volume/extension) somewhere to the exclusion of other ‘stuff’. The emptiness where the ‘stuff’ exists and can move into and through is the ‘void’ between the ‘stuff’.
_    How did a tiny proportional percentage of matter come to exist out of and in a void of material aka pure nothingness? Creation ex nihilo/Big-bang? You don't actually have to answer that although I am curious of your opinion on it, it's in an area of untestable theory that is not empirically relevant to the topics of this site or your current discussion.
_So onto philosophy and logic. Very Happy There are only two logical choices that I’m aware of, either: 1) the universe is eternal and uncaused (necessary) or, 2) the universe is finite (temporally) and caused by something else (contingent). (Some argue for a third option that the universe is ‘self-caused’; but I find this illogical and contradictory because it proposes existing before you exist in order to cause your own existence.)
_Both options logically lead to un-caused, necessary, first-cause. The first option openly states this, and the second option leads to this because there cannot be an infinite regress of contingent beings. In general, the first leads to a sort-of pantheism/panentheism worldview and the other leads to a more deistic/theistic type of worldview. Since the observable universe gives indication of a continuous decay and ‘running down’, the ‘eternal universe’ option doesn’t fit with what I know about the universe. So my own view is that we live in a theistic universe. (All questions of who or what the ‘theos’ is aside.) I’m happy to discuss more along this line if you’d like to message me since, as you said, this isn’t necessarily a relevant topic to the board.
_    Does your theory work if there is not a void but rather a field of "stuff" or very low density 'dusty plasma'?
_The ‘stuff’ would be subject to the same expansion as everything else. The vacuum is where the stuff is and what is between the ‘stuff’.

Post by Lloyd » Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:51 pm
_The Main Problem with Accelerating Expansion Theory (reworded)
_In order for matter to expand there must be a force acting on it from within pushing outward in all directions. Force can only be applied by accelerating matter; F=mA. The substance of the expanding material body would thus require an inner expanding material body. That inner body would likewise require a further inner expanding material body, ad infinitum. Is not the theory thus illogical?
_I think it's the concept behind Miles' math that needs changing, whereas his math may be fine.
_Photon Pressure
Where there's greater density of photons, there is higher pressure. Random motions tend to even out the density by increasing the movement of particles into lower pressure areas, where there are fewer particles to block them. As photons are being emitted from an object, the photon pressure in that object has to be decreasing very briefly until other outside photons enter.
_Gravity Infinite Well Problem?
_    John said: EVERY theory of gravity has an infinite well problem. For example, if we propose universal stacked spins (as Miles currently holds), we can always ask the question: What causes the constant spins?
_What about the following model?
_Sump Pump Model
Photon pressure and emission should produce sump pump matter. In a sump pump under water that's designed to spray water out in all directions, water goes into the sump pump and is emitted in all directions, but the water outside is then at higher pressure than inside the pump, so water outside is forced into the pump by the outside water pressure, where it then sprays out again.
_I don't see an infinite well in that model. I just see continuous repetitive motion.

Post by LongtimeAirman » Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:25 pm
_    Lloyd said,
   The fields may be interpenetrable, but the photons themselves are not. Are they? Can two B-photons occupy the same space at the same time? Mathis says that photons collide with each other and bounce apart. (Do they bounce elastically or spongily?) There's a limit to possible photon density, isn't there? I presume the highest density would be in a massive body like the Sun or larger massive object. Mathis says the Sun's emission tends to guide the photons entering the Sun. I think he says the formula for emission is something like i/r^4, while the incoming photon formula is 1/r.
_    He has compared the photon charge field to an aether. An aether would have density and where there's greater density, same as higher pressure, random motions tend to even out the density by increasing the motion of particles into lower pressure areas, where there are fewer particles to block them. As photons are being emitted from an object, the photon pressure there has to be decreasing very briefly until other outside photons enter. You haven't explained why the sump pump model would be worse than the growing onion model, or what's illogical about the sump pump.
_Hi Lloyd,
On one hand, It's a good idea to discuss Miles Mathis' ideas to clear up our own questions. On the other, I believe most people are put off by the type of "discussion" you and tharkun were engaged in above. That's why I jumped in. I have the highest respect for the Thunderbolts crowd. They are motivated best with the sharing of new information, along with links (and yes, pictures!).
_Your gravity ideas seem to be based on your rejection of the expansionary model, even though you acknowledge that that interpretation is not necessary. IMO your description of the emission field is being warped by your effort to turn it from an outward to a resulting inward force. It is neither. It is a recycling field.
_Without getting too descriptive, as you are already aware, the emission is in all directions, but due to the geometry of spinning bodies, most of the photon emissions occur at the equator. At the same time photons are constantly entering the planet from all directions, but again, based on statistics and geometry, most of the incoming photons enter through the poles.
_Photons are real and they spin. Two photons cannot occupy the same space at the same time. They travel at up to the speed of light and they can also be spinning at up to the speed of light (as if measured at a point on the surface). I believe the collisions are elastic. Miles' aether at its simplest is the diffuse, distributed collection of photons within an otherwise empty space.
_There is no relative vacuum attraction. In the presence of higher orders of matter (such as atoms or molecules), photons can channel together through that matter. I imagine that the highest densities of photons in our solar system can be found in these channels within the sun's photosphere, or prehaps in the planetary cores.
_It gets more complicated as we include spin speeds and directions (up or down). The recycling field of earth occurs in the presence of the ambient solar and lunar recycling fields. We may assume that the number of photons emitted by the earth equal the number of photons admitted into the earth, but that doesn't need to be true.
_This is a brief description of my understanding. I hope I have answered your questions. I'm still working on mine.

Post by tharkun » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:45 am
_    "Sump Pump Model
   Photon pressure and emission should produce sump pump matter. In a sump pump under water that's designed to spray water out in all directions, water goes into the sump pump and is emitted in all directions, but the water outside is then at higher pressure than inside the pump, so water outside is forced into the pump by the outside water pressure, where it then sprays out again.
_    "I don't see an infinite well in that model. I just see continuous repetitive motion."
_I applaud the effort, but there are several problems with this in general and with trying to reconcile it with Miles’ charge field theories.
_First and foremost is that you can’t create the different fall-off rates with the same mechanism. Gravity falls off by the square, but Miles has shown that the charge field falls off by the quad. So that means that gravity also increases by the square and charge increases by the quad. The sump pump mechanism can’t create this that I can see at all. The fact that we have two different rates indicates that there is likely two different mechanisms employed.
_Next, the propagation of the charge filed is limited to ‘c’, but gravity is known to ‘propagate’ much faster than ‘c’. How could the gravity field propagate faster than the mediating particles that make up the field?
_Next, gravity is independent of orientation. But the sump pump model would require specific orientations of the particles themselves in order to sum to a larger gravity field. And that would only sum to gravity at the poles with a gradual diminishment, reversal and build up to anti-gravity at the equator. I’ve asked about this a couple of times on the QDL forum and never really gotten a response on this issue.
_Next, say we assign this ‘sump pump’ idea to the proton, since it is the major charge field setter in the universe. As soon as the proton takes on an electron or any other nuclear configuration, the charge field flux is going to change. The field flux is not constant across all forms of matter. That means gravity would not be constant either; and could even be wildly different depending on nuclear structure.
_Finally, the ‘sump pump’ model does not get around the infinite well problem it just hides it somewhere else. A sump pump only works as long as there is a constant source of energy input to the pump. Turn off the power and the pump stops; the pressure gradients created by the pump are not sufficient to maintain the flow itself. So he is assuming a constant energy input from ‘somewhere’ to keep his pump going. Now, the same criticism could be made against Miles’ model; but Miles’ doesn’t appeal to the charge field as a mechanism for gravity, which is what we’re discussing.
_There’s probably more I could think of; but I just don’t see how the ‘sump pump’ model is a more mechanical than expansion. It seems less mechanical to me. And I still maintain that gravity as an acceleration requires an ‘infinite well’ assumption in any theory that seeks to establish a mechanism for it. The charge field propagates at a constant velocity which requires only a single force; but gravity, BY DEFINITION, is an acceleration; an acceleration requires a constant force, a constant force requires a constant energy input.

Post by Lloyd » Tue Mar 11, 2014 6:15 pm
_Sump Pump Gravity
   Airman said: "I believe most people are put off by the type of 'discussion' you and tharkun were engaged in above. [] Your gravity ideas seem to be based on your rejection of the expansionary model, even though you acknowledge that that interpretation is not necessary. IMO your description of the emission field is being warped by your effort to turn it from an outward to a resulting inward force. It is neither. It is a recycling field. [] most of the photon emissions occur at the equator. [] most of the incoming photons enter through the poles. [] There is no relative vacuum attraction. [] We may assume that the number of photons emitted by the earth equal the number of photons admitted into the earth, but that doesn't need to be true."
_First, thanks for helping attract more discussion, but I wasn't particularly caring about that.
Second, my gravity idea was based on reading Mathis' photon model and noticing that he considers emission to be an outward force, called charge, but he didn't mention the photons that enter the recyclers, and that seemed to me to be a good candidate for gravity.
Third, I'm not trying to turn the emission field into a reception field; the photons that haven't yet been emitted are not part of the emission field; they're part of the cosmic background radiation.
Fourth, it would be interesting to see evidence that the emission field of stars and planetoids is mostly at the equators and the reception field is mostly polar. Miles had a paper a few months ago that showed a little such evidence regarding emission from Earth, but I don't know if that emission would be much greater than other emission.
Fifth, I don't claim that there is vacuum attraction; instead, random motion of particles in a limited volume tend to even out in density, since less dense areas have fewer obstacles to turn away incoming particles.
Sixth, I agree that the incoming photons may be greater than the number emitted, and I think Miles' nebular accretion model would likely lead to that situation, where stars and planetoids would be like batteries in which photons were stored suddenly by accretion and emitted gradually, as Charles Chandler's model explains (though ignoring photons).
_    John said: "[] you can’t create the different fall-off rates with the same mechanism. Gravity falls off by the square, but Miles has shown that the charge field falls off by the quad. So that means that gravity also increases by the square and charge increases by the quad. The sump pump mechanism can’t create this that I can see at all. The fact that we have two different rates indicates that there is likely two different mechanisms employed.
_In one paper, maybe the one on Uranus and Neptune, he seemed to suggest that photon emissions away from the Sun fall off at 1/r^4, but emissions toward the Sun are 1/r, because the solar emission guides the planetary sunward emissions, like funnels, if I understood right. Do you think the sunward and non-sunward planetary emissions have different mechanisms?
_    Steven said [on Facebook]: "The main problem with accelerating expansion....". I think this problem is only in the assumptions. The apparent acceleration vector is a result of relative motion, just like centripetal force. The relative motion here is then between matter and a spinning universe background.
_Yes, anything that rotates or revolves I think is said to be accelerating, even though the velocity is constant. So maybe the "acceleration" of "gravity" is the incoming photons entering a rotating or revolving body.
_    John said: Next, the propagation of the charge filed is limited to ‘c’, but gravity is known to ‘propagate’ much faster than ‘c’. How could the gravity field propagate faster than the mediating particles that make up the field?
_How do you know "gravity" propogates so fast? What happened to 9.8m/s^2?
_    Next, gravity is independent of orientation. But the sump pump model would require specific orientations of the particles themselves in order to sum to a larger gravity field. And that would only sum to gravity at the poles with a gradual diminishment, reversal and build up to anti-gravity at the equator. I’ve asked about this a couple of times on the QDL forum and never really gotten a response on this issue.
_The question may be too abstract for me. I don't see where photon orientation matters. I just see a decreasing photon pressure where photons are being emitted and an increasing pressure in the space around the emitter. Random motions of photons would tend to cause photons to move from high pressure areas to lower pressure areas.
_    Next, say we assign this ‘sump pump’ idea to the proton, since it is the major charge field setter in the universe. As soon as the proton takes on an electron or any other nuclear configuration, the charge field flux is going to change. The field flux is not constant across all forms of matter. That means gravity would not be constant either; and could even be wildly different depending on nuclear structure.
_The gravity of protons and individual atoms and molecules is so tiny that no one has as yet measured them with any accuracy. It's only in large bodies that gravity can be measured.
_    Finally, the ‘sump pump’ model does not get around the infinite well problem it just hides it somewhere else. A sump pump only works as long as there is a constant source of energy input to the pump. Turn off the power and the pump stops; the pressure gradients created by the pump are not sufficient to maintain the flow itself. So he is assuming a constant energy input from ‘somewhere’ to keep his pump going. Now, the same criticism could be made against Miles’ model; but Miles’ doesn’t appeal to the charge field as a mechanism for gravity, which is what we’re discussing.
_The sump pump model needs no constant source of energy input. It's like a ball bouncing forever where there is no friction. Or it's like a photon reflecting between two parallel perfectly reflective mirrors forever.

Post by LongtimeAirman » Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:18 pm
_Lloyd, You said that gravity may be due to photon pressure from earthward directed photons. Do you accept MM's calculation that photons being emitted from the earth exert a pressure one thousandth that of gravity? Then the photon pressure of incoming photons is1000x that of outgoing photons. If they are the same species of photons, then there are 1000x more incoming than outgoing photons. That is a huge field imbalance that redefines Miles' charge field.
_John, Gravity is not known to propagate much faster than light. We just recognize that it would be impossible for gravity to maintain stable orbits unless gravity were much faster than'c'. But that's based on gravity alone. Miles has described a charge field in balance with the gravity field. The balance results in stable, self-correcting orbits that no longer require faster than light effects.

Post by Lloyd » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:31 pm
Expanding Matter After All?
_    Airman said: Lloyd, You said that gravity may be due to photon pressure from earthward directed photons. Do you accept MM's calculation that photons being emitted from the earth exert a pressure one thousandth that of gravity? Then the photon pressure of incoming photons is1000x that of outgoing photons. If they are the same species of photons, then there are 1000x more incoming than outgoing photons. That is a huge field imbalance that redefines Miles' charge field.
_If you know which paper Miles said that in, I and other readers may appreciate knowing that. I suppose he said something like that in discussing tides or something relating to the Moon.
_I don't know if I have the patience to try to understand the details of such statements, but I just have a general idea that it seems to make sense that the incoming photons should be exerting about as much pressure inward as the emitted photons exert outward and it seems to make sense that the inward pressure would be gravity. Maybe it's only part of gravity.
_Gravity = Little Tapping
I believe Steven Rado's CD on Aethrokinematics quoted some of the early scientists who had the idea that gravity might be a constant tapping force from an aether or something moving inward toward the Earth. Maybe it was DesCartes. I don't recall for sure. So, when I read Mathis' papers I thought of that idea. The little tapping could be from photons.
_Earth Expansion?
I recognize that there is likely a problem with inward moving photons and outward moving ones. Apparently my idea would require that the inward moving ones are more massive in total than the outgoing ones. I guess that would entail an expanding Earth. Hmm. Maybe my variation on Mathis theory is potentially compatible with expanding Earth theory and even with Mathis' own expanding matter theory. Can you calculate how quickly Earth would expand by this potential theory? It does seem plausible to me that photons could convert into matter within matter. Does anyone agree? I guess we need to determine the total amount of photons incoming and total outgoing somehow. I'm sure there has to be at least close estimates somewhere. Was one such estimate stated earlier here?

Post by tharkun » Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:46 am
_    LongtimeAirman wrote: Do you accept MM's calculation that photons being emitted from the earth exert a pressure one thousandth that of gravity? Then the photon pressure of incoming photons is1000x that of outgoing photons. If they are the same species of photons, then there are 1000x more incoming than outgoing photons. That is a huge field imbalance that redefines Miles' charge field.
_I don't think your calculations work. All you do going from incoming photons to outgoing photons is a vector reversal that adds at the poles instead of subtracting. The unified field offsets solo gravity by ~1/1000th through summed outgoing, but would augment gravity ~1/1000th through a summed incoming. I don't see any imbalance there.
_    LongtimeAirman wrote: John, Gravity is not known to propagate much faster than light. We just recognize that it would be impossible for gravity to maintain stable orbits unless gravity were much faster than'c'. But that's based on gravity alone. Miles has described a charge field in balance with the gravity field. The balance results in stable, self-correcting orbits that no longer require faster than light effects.
_Yes, I realize that per MM expansion or universal spin model that gravity doesn't 'propagate' like a photon does. I was just pointing out that if per Lloyd's idea that a photonic 'vortex' at the atomic level were the mechanism for gravity, it would be limited to an effective propagation speed of 'c'.

Post by tharkun » Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:52 am
_    Lloyd wrote:
_    In one paper, maybe the one on Uranus and Neptune, he seemed to suggest that photon emissions away from the Sun fall off at 1/r^4, but emissions toward the Sun are 1/r, because the solar emission guides the planetary sunward emissions, like funnels, if I understood right. Do you think the sunward and non-sunward planetary emissions have different mechanisms?
_No there are not different mechanics depending on direction; all MM proposes is gravity balanced by charge (and whatever innate motions a body may have). But the effective results depend on how you are measuring within the overall field. All charge emissions from a solo body fall-off at the quad. But the summed field towards the sun results in an overall fall off of 1/r.
_    Lloyd wrote:How do you know "gravity" propogates so fast? What happened to 9.8m/s^2?
_I don't think gravity 'propagates' at all. As far as we can tell, any gravitational changes instantaneously affect the bodies in the field. That fits nicely with an expansion mechanism because the expansion is always local. But your 'photonic vortex' mechanism would be limited to 'c' as far as I can see. The 9.8m/s^2 is not a measure of the speed at which gravity occurs or propagates, it's a measure of the effect that the mechanism of gravity creates.
_    Next, gravity is independent of orientation. But the sump pump model would require specific orientations of the particles themselves in order to sum to a larger gravity field. And that would only sum to gravity at the poles with a gradual diminishment, reversal and build up to anti-gravity at the equator. I’ve asked about this a couple of times on the QDL forum and never really gotten a response on this issue.
_    Lloyd wrote:The question may be too abstract for me. I don't see where photon orientation matters. I just see a decreasing photon pressure where photons are being emitted and an increasing pressure in the space around the emitter. Random motions of photons would tend to cause photons to move from high pressure areas to lower pressure areas.
_Well you're right - photons would statistically move towards the poles, but, if I understand your gravity mechanism correctly, it is only in the area of the poles that your gravity would be effective. Don't you have the incoming photons creating the 'suction' of gravity toward the bodies? If so, then your gravity is only operational along the spin axis of the body itself and therefore to get to any kind of summed macro-field, all of the axes would have to be aligned with respect to the macro-body itself. And if you align to the incoming, you will naturally be aligning to the outgoing, which means a summed 'anti-gravity' perpendicular.
_    Lloyd wrote:The gravity of protons and individual atoms and molecules is so tiny that no one has as yet measured them with any accuracy. It's only in large bodies that gravity can be measured.
_Again, I agree, but according to MM charge field and nuclear structure models, the summed field is determined by the relative make-up and positioning of the protons, neutrons and electrons themselves, therefore the summed field is going to vary by element/molecule and your gravity mechanism would necessarily vary as well. Maybe, I'm not really understanding your vortex/sump pump model with the incoming photons.
_    Lloyd wrote:The sump pump model needs no constant source of energy input. It's like a ball bouncing forever where there is no friction. Or it's like a photon reflecting between two parallel perfectly reflective mirrors forever.
_But again that only works for a constant velocity assuming no friction. Gravity is not a velocity, it is an acceleration (real or apparent, regardless of mechanism). An acceleration, requires a constant force, which means a constant energy input.

Post by CTJG 1986 » Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:59 am
_    If you accelerate mass, volume of matter, you get inertia YOou have to overcome it's rest inertia to begin the acceleration, so why not just use inertia to begin with??"
_While I certainly don't deny the "mainstream" is filled with insanity of it's own it is statements like this that lead to the criticisms of the EU "crowd" being "anti-science".
_Motion of any kind requires FORCE and force is energy(in some form), inertia is not a force that can initiate motion but is the resistance to said force initiating/altering motion. Just because you may not like that definition doesn't mean you can just arbitrarily change it to suit your views - come up with a new term for what you suggest instead of altering existing terminology that is well defined.
_Sure maybe "bombardment"(by what? Photons?) can induce "spin" in an object/particle but whatever thing you want to be "bombarding" the other things requires MOTION itself - so where did the energy/force come from to set those things/photons in motion to "bombard" the other things into a state of motion?
_An object at rest tends to stay at rest - because of inertia that resists the initial force to put it into motion!
_You may as well just say "God provides the energy" or "God initiates the spin/motion".
_You are suggesting that the effects of the force/energy is also the cause of the force/energy, which is definitely anti-science.
_And no that's not me having trouble grasping what you are saying, it's you saying things that are opposed by hundreds of years of empirical science(objects at rest tend to stay at rest).
_To suggest that the resistance to motion is what causes/induces motion is wacky, to put it kindly.

Post by Lloyd » Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:36 pm
_Suction Gravity?
   John said [regarding my sump pump photon emission/reception model]: Don't you have the incoming photons creating the 'suction' of gravity toward the bodies? If so, then your gravity is only operational along the spin axis of the body itself and therefore to get to any kind of summed macro-field, all of the axes would have to be aligned with respect to the macro-body itself. And if you align to the incoming, you will naturally be aligning to the outgoing, which means a summed 'anti-gravity' perpendicular.
_I'm not sure if suction describes my theory well. What I see happening is photons from higher photon density areas moving into lower photon density areas because of fewer obstructions there. The entire surface of a body seems to emit photons in all directions in total, and the photons travel for millions of miles in mere minutes, so the incoming photons would be coming from great distances, not attracted by low pressure but repelled from high pressure.
_No Constant Energy Input Needed
_    Lloyd wrote: The sump pump model needs no constant source of energy input. It's like a ball bouncing forever where there is no friction. Or it's like a photon reflecting between two parallel perfectly reflective mirrors forever.
_    John replied: But again that only works for a constant velocity assuming no friction. Gravity is not a velocity, it is an acceleration (real or apparent, regardless of mechanism). An acceleration, requires a constant force, which means a constant energy input.
_Look at how the solar wind accelerates away from the Sun for several solar radii before it attains a constant velocity. Photon pressure is what we think accelerates the solar wind. Since photons travel at very high speed, when they bombard ions, the latter accelerate until they reach the maximum speed they can reach. So incoming photons could do the same to produce gravity. An object within the Earth's sphere of influence would first slowly move toward Earth and the constant tapping of photons moving toward Earth's lower photon pressure would accelerate the object till it gets slowed by air resistance or by the Earth.
_My Problem
I acknowledge that my model has problems. One is that, if incoming photon pressure is greater than photon emission from Earth, the atmosphere should perhaps get squashed down to the ground, unless there's another similarity to the Sun where some things are repelled and some things fall into it.
_John's Problem
_    John said: I think we're at the point of beating the dead horse
_I thought that at several points in the discussion, but I persevered because I thought some new info might come of it anyway. And it did. I'd still like to have a reply to my comment about accelerating expansion requiring mysterious endless inner layers of accelerating expansion, since accelerating motion of mass requires a constant force which requires an accelerating mass ad infinitum. But thanks for at least persevering this long.

Post by Chromium6 » Thu Mar 13, 2014 8:36 pm
_You guys might take a little break and check out this thread which in some ways is very similar to this one.:
_http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/ ... -work.html

Post by LongtimeAirman » Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:44 pm
_Miles calculates .009545 m/s2 for the charge field of the earth in "The Unified Field Theory", http://milesmathis.com/uft.html .
_He expands the idea in several papers including "the Unified Field explains the Atmosphere including the non-layering of O and N", http://milesmathis.com/atmo.html .
_He introduces the idea of universal spinning as the cause of gravity,  "The Source of Gravity", http://milesmathis.com/gravitycause.pdf .
_He shows that the speed of gravity is not c, but infinite in "The Speed of Gravity", http://milesmathis.com/fland.pdf . I guess I missed that one.


Last edited by LloydK on Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Posts from TB Forum Lloyd Blog - Part 3

Post by LloydK on Fri Aug 15, 2014 5:29 pm

Post by Lloyd » Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:22 pm
_Reasons why Push Gravity does not work
1. The gravity particles are thought of classical particles with classical interactions. This notion is inconsistent with current understanding of particle physics – there is no particle which could have all the characteristics required by PG without violating one or more physical laws
2. The particle flux filling all space must be perfectly isotropic and of very high density. No known form of radiation of particle flux has these characteristics to the degree required by the theory
3. The neutrino. Modern proponents of PG often posit the neutrino as the mediating particle of the theory. This has been conclusively disproved by Richard Feynman in 1995 [1].
4. Transparency of matter. With increasing mass the change in gravitational shielding becomes mathematically less then the sum of the shieldings of the two bodies. To overcome this one has to place an extremely high lower bound on the flux density of these particles. This is inconsistent with experiments conducted to detect such flux energies [2]
5. Drag. Any mechanical model of PG necessarily creates a drag force, or else there would be no interaction between the particles and a massive body. In order to reduce the amount of drag to levels consistent with observation, the speed at which these particles move must be in the region of 10^17 m/s, which is many orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light.
6. Heat energy. If the particles of PG really move at superluminal speeds, which is in violation of basic physical principles, they would impart a heat energy onto any massive body sufficiently high to instantly incinerate any form of normal matter.
7. Aberration. In any mechanical model of gravity, the gravitational force can only act with finite speed, creating an aberration effect. Such an effect has not been observed.
8. Sources of gravity. As we know today, and as is experimentally well verified [3], all forms of energy are a source of the gravitational field, not just mass. This is not explainable by PG.
9. Time dilation. PG has no consistent mechanism to explain the well verified phenomenon of time dilation.
10. Deflection of light. PG cannot explain deflection of light rays while at the same time avoiding aforementioned problems with drag.
11. Thermodynamics. The flux of particles in PG would be many orders of magnitude more energetic then mass at rest. However, not transmission of energy is observed, even though there must be a form of interaction with ordinary matter. This leads to a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
12. Perpetual motion. Due to shielding effects the existence of PG would make it possible to construct a perpetual motion machine. Again, this is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
13. Binding energy. Binding energy of elementary particles contributes to their gravitational energy, which is not explainable by PG.
14. Origin. There is no consistent explanation as to where those particles come from, why their flux never varies, why the field is perfectly isotropic, or why the total energy never decreases even if the universe is expanding.
15. Mathematics. The mathematics of PG are not self-consistent, and do not produce the correct results. [4]
16. Frame of reference. PG would create an absolute frame of reference, which means that the Theory of Relativity must be false. This is in contradiction to experiment and observation.
17. Large scale structure. Due to the necessary isotropy of the PG medium, over very large distances the net forces would cancel out. This does not explain the large scale structure of the universe.
18. Non-existence. No flux field or particle stream as needed by PG has ever been observed by experiment or observation.

Post by LongtimeAirman » Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:05 am
_Lloyd,
Thank you. So far, this has been a good introduction/review of several subjects. Quite enjoyable, especially just reading Sparky say "LaSage? Is that you??! :? " in a new thunderbolt post, viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14935 , on Push Gravity, "Gravity does not attract (seroius)".
_Thank you, Chromium6 for the link, http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/ ... -work.html . Markus Hanke has provided a comprehensive reality check list on the physics involved.
_I believe you would agree that the charge field does meet the demands on that list. I don't recall Miles saying it, but I happen to believe that the initial motive force for gravity, as well as magnetism are a result of the photons' h-component.
_The photon h component clearly delivers orthogonal force, something that was never explainable by either radial attraction or repulsion forces alone. The sum of the charge field's orthogonal spins describe the magnetic field while the orthogonal forces delivered by photon bombardment cause matter to move in orbital motion, an acceleration. What do you say to that?

Post by Chromium6 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:41 pm
No problem LTAM... just found that thread in the same ball-park so to speak. It brought me back to this article thankfully which ties with MM in many ways. Your photon analysis, btw, really is a great way to look at this. In essence, this is the basic building block. MM may give Le Sage a new "life" so to speak with his Charge field.
_The Observational Impetus For "Le Sage" Gravity
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/the_o ... ge_gravity

Post by LongtimeAirman » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:47 pm
_A gravity theory based on Miles Mathis' Charge Field model needs to be examined with respect to the existing demands of the Push Gravity theory. While the charge field model does not meet the classical definition of a PG (there is no everywhere-present, homogenous isotropic field which is partially shielded by matter), charge field gravity works by photon energy transfer from one mass centered charge field to another via photon collisions.
_1.      The gravity particles are thought of (as) classical particles with classical interactions. This notion is inconsistent with current understanding of particle physics - there is no particle which could have all the characteristics required by PG without violating one or more physical laws.
COMMENT. Invalid. Under Miles Mathis' Charge Field model, the "gravity particles" are Spinning Photons. Spinning photons are not classical particles with classical interactions. We are able to describe forward and orthogonal forces, delivered at a distance at light speed, without violating physical laws.
_2.      The particle flux filling all space must be perfectly isotropic and of very high density. No known form of radiation of particle flux has these characteristics to the degree required by the theory.
COMMENT. The Charge Field is highly isotropic (with a dependence on spin rate) and has a very high density (Miles calculates it at roughly 19x that of visible matter). Unlike the original PG concept, the charge field does not need to fill ALL space isotropicaly, just the space between two gravitationally interacting objects. Each mass (gravitational source) has its own charge field through which it emits and reabsorbs (recycles) photons. The charge fields of the separate masses overlap and interact within the resulting, so-called, unified field.
_3.      The neutrino. Modern proponents of PG often posit the neutrino as the mediating particle of the theory. This has been conclusively disproved by Richard Feynman in 1995 [1].
COMMENT. Invalid. The mediating particle of the charge field is the photon. The photon has a radius and spin. The forward and spin velocity of the photons can reach light speed. Photons, like neutrinos, can generally pass through higher matter without interaction, though Miles Mathis has calculated forces due to photon impacts.
_4.      Transparency of matter. With increasing mass the change in gravitational shielding becomes mathematically less then the sum of the shieldings of the two bodies. To overcome this one has to place an extremely high lower bound on the flux density of these particles. This is inconsistent with experiments conducted to detect such flux energies [2].
COMMENT. Invalid. Shielding does not apply. Both bodies provide charge field sources. Both fields together may be described as the unified field under consideration, which is the source for the "gravity field".
_5.      Drag. Any mechanical model of PG necessarily creates a drag force, or else there would be no interaction between the particles and a massive body. In order to reduce the amount of drag to levels consistent with observation, the speed at which these particles move must be in the region of 10^17 m/s, which is many orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light.
COMMENT. Requires Further Examination. The emission force of the earth's charge field has been calculated by Miles Mathis to be -.009545m/s2, or .097% of solo gravity alone. That is drag. The amount of gravity generated by the charge field is not yet calculated. The requirement that particles need to move faster than light (consistent with observation) is not substantiated.
_6.      Heat energy. If the particles of PG really move at superluminal speeds, which is in violation of basic physical principles, they would impart a heat energy onto any massive body sufficiently high to instantly incinerate any form of normal matter.
COMMENT. Requires Further Examination. The requirement that particles need to move faster than light (consistent with observation) is not substantiated. As in [5] we have drag without noticeably increasing heat.
_7.      Aberration. In any mechanical model of gravity, the gravitational force can only act with finite speed, creating an aberration effect. Such an effect has not been observed.
COMMENT. Requires Further Examination. From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(LeSage) ," Contrary to the drag effect, this component will act to accelerate both objects away from each other. In order to maintain stable orbits, the effect of gravity must either propagate much faster than the speed of light or must not be a purely central force. This has been suggested by many as a conclusive disproof of any Le Sage type of theory. In contrast, general relativity is consistent with the lack of appreciable aberration identified by Laplace, because even though gravity propagates at the speed of light in general relativity, the expected aberration is almost exactly cancelled by velocity-dependent terms in the interaction.[48]  ".
_8.      Sources of gravity. As we know today, and as is experimentally well verified [3], all forms of energy are a source of the gravitational field, not just mass. This is not explainable by PG.
COMMENT. Requires Further Examination. How does the charge field predict that all forms of matter are a source of gravity?
_9.      Time dilation. PG has no consistent mechanism to explain the well verified phenomenon of time dilation.
COMMENT. Requires Further Examination. Repeating [7], From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(LeSage) ," Contrary to the drag effect, this component will act to accelerate both objects away from each other. In order to maintain stable orbits, the effect of gravity must either propagate much faster than the speed of light or must not be a purely central force. This has been suggested by many as a conclusive disproof of any Le Sage type of theory. In contrast, general relativity is consistent with the lack of appreciable aberration identified by Laplace, because even though gravity propagates at the speed of light in general relativity, the expected aberration is almost exactly cancelled by velocity-dependent terms in the interaction.[48] ".
_10.     Deflection of light. PG cannot explain deflection of light rays while at the same time avoiding aforementioned problems with drag.
COMMENT. The charge field photons interfere with light directly, though only a small number of photons may yield the deflection results.
_11.     Thermodynamics. The flux of particles in PG would be many orders of magnitude more energetic then mass at rest. However, not transmission of energy is observed, even though there must be a form of interaction with ordinary matter. This leads to a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
COMMENT. Requires Further Examination. The photon fields which comprise the charge field have not been studied, though it is within the capability of science to do so. Current science denies that photons are real entities. Energy transfer due to photon bombardments has just begun to be looked at by Miles Mathis.
_12.     Perpetual motion. Due to shielding effects the existence of PG would make it possible to construct a perpetual motion machine. Again, this is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
COMMENT. There are no required "shielding effects" with gravity caused by the charge field. It may be possible to tap charge field energy flows to produce work similar to using electric circuits.
_13.     Binding energy. Binding energy of elementary particles contributes to their gravitational energy, which is not explainable by PG.
COMMENT. Miles Mathis has redefined binding mechanisms for elementary particles as well as atoms, etc., which are consistent with a charge field based gravity. The binding energies are based on charge field charge flows within channels through all matter. _14.     Origin. There is no consistent explanation as to where those particles come from, why their flux never varies, why the field is perfectly isotropic, or why the total energy never decreases even if the universe is expanding.
COMMENT. Invalid. Miles' charge field is the only known field that is defined in those terms. All matter recycles the charge field. All matter is surrounded by photonic matter which is either emitted or reabsorbed by that matter. The isotropic nature is a function of spin speed. Matter growth is a definite possibility within the charge field model.
_15.     Mathematics. The mathematics of PG are not self-consistent, and do not produce the correct results. [4]
COMMENT. The Charge Field basis of gravity avoids the all space filling, everywhere isotropic, shielding from nearby objects problems. The charge field math is self-consistent.
_16.     Frame of reference. PG would create an absolute frame of reference, which means that the Theory of Relativity must be false. This is in contradiction to experiment and observation.
COMMENT. Invalid. See [9]. It has been observed that PG would not violate general relativity "In contrast, general relativity is consistent with the lack of appreciable aberration identified by Laplace, because even though gravity propagates at the speed of light in general relativity, the expected aberration is almost exactly cancelled by velocity-dependent terms in the interaction.[48] ".
_17.     Large scale structure. Due to the necessary isotropy of the PG medium, over very large distances the net forces would cancel out. This does not explain the large scale structure of the universe.
COMMENT. Invalid. Large scale isotropy is replaced with distributed charge fields, collocated with all matter.
_18.     Non-existence. No flux field or particle stream as needed by PG has ever been observed by experiment or observation.
COMMENT. Invalid. The charge field is the first field described that behaves in a manner anticipated by PG.

Post by Lloyd » Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:46 am
_    Airman said: COMMENT. There are no required "shielding effects" with gravity caused by the charge field. It may be possible to tap charge field energy flows to produce work similar to using electric circuits.
_Airman, thanks much for evaluating all those claims against push gravity. I don't have time to read everything now, but this quote is especially interesting. Some of the Mathis followers have asked if an efficient energy source like LED flashlights could be made for general use, instead of just for flashlights etc. Mathis has a paper on LED I think, where he considered that the charge field is responsible for the efficiency somehow. Do you have ideas about how to plug in to the charge field to provide abundant energy?

Post by LongtimeAirman » Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:50 pm
_Push Gravity is the result of an all-space filling, isotropic particles that push in all directions. It is only when some of the field is shaded by an object like the earth below us, are we then pushed from above onto the planet.
I was making the point that with charge fields, there is NOT an all-space filling, isotropic particles that push in all directions. My charge field interacts with the earth's charge field. It's just between me and the earth, not all space.
_    airman: The forward and spin velocity of the photons can reach light speed. Photons, like neutrinos, can generally pass through higher matter without interaction,
   Sparky: So how is gravity effect transferred?
_The interacting charge fields are comprised of photons. Not all photons pass without interaction. All matter present will be bombarded with photons, as the matter itself is emitting bombarding photons as well. All matter present is also channeling the charge field. I propose that gravity is generated by the force delivered by the photon spins. The gravity field and magnetic fields are closely related.
_    Wiki: the effect of gravity must either propagate much faster than the speed of light or must not be a purely central force.
   Sparky: Why must it propagate? Gravity may be present at all times.  
_I understand the reasoning that says that if gravity traveled at light speed or slower, all orbits would become unstable. The charge field and gravity are observed to be in balance. There is no need for faster than light speeds. I agree, gravity and the charge field are present at all times.
_    airman: All matter recycles the charge field. All matter is surrounded by photonic matter which is either emitted or reabsorbed by that matter. The isotropic nature is a function of spin speed.
   Sparky: It may be that matter must consume charge to exist. The apparent emitting of charged particles may be the separation of neutral particle pairs to + and -, retaining the polarity of the opposite charge. Again, the introduction of the magical acrobatic photon....
   Here is an explanation of "charge field" gravity, using positive and negative charges.  No need for an acrobatic photon!...  
_Acrobatic photon? We are just adding spin. My question to you is, does a photon have mass? If so, then it must spin. We would then discuss what that spin entails.
_Thanks for the Distinti videos. I spent many hours looking into his work when you discussed him, I believe, back in January. As you said, he describes matter absorbing charge, what he calls pretons. You gotta admit, that's a significant change to the standard model. If matter is absorbing charge, then it should be able to release it as well. He is also proposing an influx type push gravity too.
_Distinti has no problem with pluses and negatives attracting. I cannot accept the notion of attraction without a mechanical cause.

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum