8/8/15 - The Gas Discharge Lamp

View previous topic View next topic Go down

8/8/15 - The Gas Discharge Lamp

Post by Cr6 on Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:45 pm

8/8/15, The Gas Discharge Lamp.
Or, why Noble Gasses make good lamps. A better theory, using nuclear charge channeling rather than electron orbitals.

http://milesmathis.com/gas.pdf

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 677
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

Re: 8/8/15 - The Gas Discharge Lamp

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:44 pm

http://milesmathis.com/gas.pdf

Cr6, OK, Where'd that truck come from?

I'll add my testimony. The Gas Discharge Lamp paper (Changes Everything!) contains a new nuclear mechanism (alpha neutron re-alinements). It clarifies many alpha/nuclear charge flow ideas. My mind latched on these:

1 - the non-linear, multiplicative nature of charge flow through alphas/nuclei. Alphas as engines/valves;
2 – the importance of repositioning, not just of neutrons within an alpha, but also the orientation of the atoms to the local charge field flows. i.e. nearby large atoms.
3 – comparing the explanations and close parallels between mainstream (primarily involving involving electron orbital changes or collisions); against the simpler, direct charge field/atomic interactions (such as ionizing atoms within the lamp).

I was especially pleased to see my concern so easily dispatched. http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t113-di-radicals-and-occo-in-the-news-does-this-molecule-exist-or-not#817

Next - Can V.04 handle it?

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 8/8/15 - The Gas Discharge Lamp

Post by Cr6 on Tue Aug 11, 2015 3:00 am

LongtimeAirman wrote:http://milesmathis.com/gas.pdf

Cr6, OK, Where'd that truck come from?

I'll add my testimony. The Gas Discharge Lamp paper (Changes Everything!) contains a new nuclear mechanism (alpha neutron re-alinements). It clarifies many alpha/nuclear charge flow ideas. My mind latched on these:

1 - the non-linear, multiplicative nature of charge flow through alphas/nuclei. Alphas as engines/valves;
2 – the importance of repositioning, not just of neutrons within an alpha, but also the orientation of the atoms to the local charge field flows. i.e. nearby large atoms.
3 – comparing the explanations and close parallels between mainstream (primarily involving involving electron orbital changes or collisions); against the simpler, direct charge field/atomic interactions (such as ionizing atoms within the lamp).

I was especially pleased to see my concern so easily dispatched. http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t113-di-radicals-and-occo-in-the-news-does-this-molecule-exist-or-not#817

Next - Can V.04 handle it?

It looks like Mathis is trying to take things down to the most granular level at this point. But what does the lowest level comprise of in the physical world of "hits". I think EVOs (charge clusters) are still in here somewhere but that might take another explanation further down the road. Perhaps the "Charge field" is the wildest variable after all? How do atoms reposition with the charge field? What makes them align like they do?

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 677
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

Re: 8/8/15 - The Gas Discharge Lamp

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:23 pm

It looks like Mathis is trying to take things down to the most granular level at this point. But what does the lowest level comprise of in the physical world of "hits".
I believe we are adequately describing the behavior of the “lowest” level, at least well enough to understand the basic interaction between matter and a photonic charge field. If anything, we aren’t familiar with the “highest” levels, partly because we do not recognize them or they haven’t had enough time to develop or manifest.

However, as I elaborate below, “hits” is too simple as it ignores spin, and the transfer of angular momentum.

I think EVOs (charge clusters) are still in here somewhere but that might take another explanation further down the road. Perhaps the "Charge field" is the wildest variable after all?
The “Charge field” idea is pretty wild. But the important thing is that it answers questions better than any other theory I’m aware of. I’m completely certain that EVOs are alive and well. It’s just a form of matter Miles or the mainstream haven’t adequately examined yet. It probably exists at all the scales that matter does, including as in Dr. K’s vision of universe spanning current flows.

How do atoms reposition with the charge field? What makes them align like they do?
I’ll try to give a comprehensive answer. I won’t likely say anything you don’t already know. Just ordering my thoughts. Alignment…

Let’s say gravity has loosely drawn together a collection of material bodies, kept apart by the mutual repulsion of their respective charge fields. We understand that the charge field is created by photons recycling through the matter which comprises a material body, generally entering a pole, then later emitted closer to the equator thereby available to possibly repel a nearby body. Keep in mind that the “visible” mass of the objects amounts to 20 times less than the total charge field photons’ mass in our system.

The photons move and spin at light speed. In any collision we have more than a simple "hit", or just repulsion. We have a transfer of angular momentum sufficient to generate, for example, planetary rotations and orbits. It’s just a question of the coherence of the charge field and factors like: mass, distance, position, velocity - of the target that determines how quickly, and in what direction, the target begins to rotate.
 
We can see how Sol’s emission field favors CCW spinning and orbiting planets. Several planets such as Venus (CW spin) are adjusting their orbital particulars like rotation, tilt, and precession by their interaction with the solar charge field; or at least as far as possible given the positions of the major planets in our system. What starts out as a rough or random distribution of static local matter ends up being a synchronized (increased angular momentum), and accelerating (given a constant charge field), solar-system. For example, earth’s magnetic field can only occur if earth is aligned to the sun’s charge field.

Meanwhile Sol, along with the rest of the heliosphere (albeit it ever so much slower than any planet), is orienting its system intake to maximize the receipt of available charge flows from the local arm of the galaxy. In a balanced local galactic charge field (equal CW and CCW), the solar system will present its heliospheric equator toward the galactic “equator”. If the field is unbalanced, the system will align its appropriate “pole” toward the galactic “equator”.

As above so below. It works the same in the atomic world. In comparing the atomic level to the planetary, I guess the only significant change is the time scale. Atoms are much closer to the scale of photons than we are, and so they react correspondingly faster, and can achieve closer to light speed tangential velocities.

Angular momentum, charge field currents, magnetism and system stability all increase when the object, either a planet or an atom, aligns with its incoming charge. These forces act like a feedback loop to reinforce the alignment.

Well, an increased wordcount doesn't necessarily indicate better understanding. Any feedback would be welcome. Of course, you can simply knock me off my feet as usual.
   

Another Alpha item: Here are two German Researchers examining an alpha-infused proto-product, Heli-YUM. (Auf deutsch, naturliche). Lack of language is no barrier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fww0OPfyOfg

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 8/8/15 - The Gas Discharge Lamp

Post by Cr6 on Wed Aug 12, 2015 12:24 am

LongtimeAirman wrote:
It looks like Mathis is trying to take things down to the most granular level at this point. But what does the lowest level comprise of in the physical world of "hits".
I believe we are adequately describing the behavior of the “lowest” level, at least well enough to understand the basic interaction between matter and a photonic charge field. If anything, we aren’t familiar with the “highest” levels, partly because we do not recognize them or they haven’t had enough time to develop or manifest.

However, as I elaborate below, “hits” is too simple as it ignores spin, and the transfer of angular momentum.

How do atoms reposition with the charge field? What makes them align like they do?
I’ll try to give a comprehensive answer. I won’t likely say anything you don’t already know. Just ordering my thoughts. Alignment…

Let’s say gravity has loosely drawn together a collection of material bodies, kept apart by the mutual repulsion of their respective charge fields. We understand that the charge field is created by photons recycling through the matter which comprises a material body, generally entering a pole, then later emitted closer to the equator thereby available to possibly repel a nearby body. Keep in mind that the “visible” mass of the objects amounts to 20 times less than the total charge field photons’ mass in our system.

The photons move and spin at light speed. In any collision we have more than a simple "hit", or just repulsion. We have a transfer of angular momentum sufficient to generate, for example, planetary rotations and orbits. It’s just a question of the coherence of the charge field and factors like: mass, distance, position, velocity - of the target that determines how quickly, and in what direction, the target begins to rotate.
 
We can see how Sol’s emission field favors CCW spinning and orbiting planets. Several planets such as Venus (CW spin) are adjusting their orbital particulars like rotation, tilt, and precession by their interaction with the solar charge field; or at least as far as possible given the positions of the major planets in our system. What starts out as a rough or random distribution of static local matter ends up being a synchronized (increased angular momentum), and accelerating (given a constant charge field), solar-system. For example, earth’s magnetic field can only occur if earth is aligned to the sun’s charge field.

(Great point!)

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Meanwhile Sol, along with the rest of the heliosphere (albeit it ever so much slower than any planet), is orienting its system intake to maximize the receipt of available charge flows from the local arm of the galaxy. In a balanced local galactic charge field (equal CW and CCW), the solar system will present its heliospheric equator toward the galactic “equator”. If the field is unbalanced, the system will align its appropriate “pole” toward the galactic “equator”.

As above so below. It works the same in the atomic world. In comparing the atomic level to the planetary, I guess the only significant change is the time scale. Atoms are much closer to the scale of photons than we are, and so they react correspondingly faster, and can achieve closer to light speed tangential velocities.

Angular momentum, charge field currents, magnetism and system stability all increase when the object, either a planet or an atom, aligns with its incoming charge. These forces act like a feedback loop to reinforce the alignment.

Well, an increased wordcount doesn't necessarily indicate better understanding. Any feedback would be welcome. Of course, you can simply knock me off my feet as usual.


You are too quick for that LTAM...

I see your points on Angular moment.  Sorry if I'm looking at this in a bit oversimplified way.  I'm trying to just track the big picture-- that is, interactions between:

1. The charge field directionally - internal to an atom-molecule and external via photons
2. Spinning up or spinning down Electrons (gaining/losing energy). Electron interactions on the charge field.
3. Changing charge paths with alphas - bending alphas to an angle in an atom or molecule due to charge flows or restrictions.
4. Degrees of Freedom between atoms-molecules
5. Situations where directional flows are overcome and reverses occur particularly for neutron-proton charge channeling.
6. Spin direction - positive and negative charge flows from (Photons/Anti-photons, Neutrons, Electrons, Protons) both Ambient and "Induced" directional
Mathis - Gas.pdf wrote:The ambient field here on Earth is mixed, with about
2/3 photons and 1/3 antiphotons.
7. Planetary charge flows.
8. New experiments that prove a discrepancy with the old model
9. ???

From the recent Fermi.pdf:
Mathis wrote:There is nothing said about either charge or nuclear structure. They are still trying to solve these problems with naïve degrees of freedom they got from early Fermi models—models that don't even mention charge interactions or field structures. Yes, they say that heat capacity “is a function of the structure of the substance itself,” but they then define that structure not from experiment but from ridiculous models that ignore charge channels. Notice, for instance, that they claim the degrees of freedom are independent. But that only applies to the old models, which just assert something and go from there. In reality, the degrees of freedom are not independent. All the energy levels are dependent, as we see when we study the cause of spin. Spin is one degree of freedom in the field, as they admit. But once you understand that charge is causing everything here, you see that spin is a function of linear motion. All magnetism is a function of linear motion, since the linear motion of charge photons create the E field and the spin of the photons creates the B field. In other words, photons have to collide to maintain the spins, and these collisions are functions of the linear motions. So nothing is independent.

Here's another interesting quote from "A New Experiment Proves my Quantum Spin Equation":


Mathis wrote:The reason that indicates a spin is that a spin would naturally produce a half cycle difference here. As I have shown, we have multiple spins, even with an electron, with outer spins doubling inner spins simply due to gyroscopic rules. Since it is the charge field of the electron that is interacting with the photons of the laser, and since the photonic charge field is being emitted through the spins, we will naturally obtain ionization in a wave, with maxima and minima.

Mathis wrote:
If that still doesn't convince you, we can use the actual numbers to prove my theory. We are told in this article that the gap was on the order of 10-18s. In my paper on the Bohr magneton, I showed that by correcting the angular momentum equations, I could find a moving electron radius of 4.48 x 10-17m and an electron angular momentum of 5.8 x 10-5m/s. In 10-18s, an electron would spin 5.8 x 10-23m. But as I also showed, this spin motion would be stretched out by the linear motion of the electron. If we assume that motion is at speed c, we just multiply by c, which gives us 6.96 x 10-14m. Since the spin gives us a circumference, not a radius, and since I have shown that pi=4 in this situation, the effective circumference is 3.58 x 10-16m. Which means we are off by a factor of about 194. [6.96 x 10-14m/3.58 x 10-16m = 194] Which means the electron is actually not travelling at c, it is travelling at .0051c. To make the equations work with these numbers, we have to assume the electron is not going c. Why does that prove anything, you will ask? Because the number .0051 is not an accident. I will show you how to get it from the other direction.

Since we are dealing with the interaction of the electron and photon (laser) here, we can use the scaling constant G (right out of Newton's gravitational equation). I have shown that G is actually a scaling constant between photons and atoms, and the electrons are embedded in krypton atoms during this experiment. If we take the fourth root of G (times 2), we get .0057. Not a direct match, you will say, but we used a rounded number when we used 10-18s. To get an exact match, we only have to use the number 3.61 x 10-18s as our attosecond time. The article does not tell us the exact time, but we will assume it is close to that number.

You will say, “Even if that math is true, and even if we discover that is the real time for the gap or oscillation, what does that prove? Why take the fourth root of G?”

Well, .0057c is a scaling of velocity. We are finding the speed of the electron relative to the photon, right? But G is a scaler of size, or radius. The photon size is G times the atomic size. So we need an equation to relate velocity and size. Do we have one? Yes:

E = ½mv2

It is not masses or velocities that are interacting in this experiment, it is energies. For instance, the scientists don't know the velocity of the electron here. I can calculate it, but they have no way to do so. No, it is masses with velocities that are interacting in the experiment, and a mass with velocity is an energy. Therefore, we can use this equation in a new way. We can use it as a scaling equation rather than in the usual way. All we do is let energy stand for size. With spins, a particle must get larger to gain energy. So we can rewrite the equation as

2G = mv2

That is where the “times 2” comes from in my math above [If we take the fourth root of G (times 2), we get .0057.] Then we just remember my latest paper, where I show that the mass of the quantum is its radius squared. More specifically, the mass is the change in the radius, which is the velocity of the radius over a defined interval. Therefore, mass can be written as velocity squared. So we can rewrite the equation again

2G = v4

That is why the electron in this experiment is going .0057c. It is strictly a matter of size and energy. The electron is hit by a photon, and the energy differential determines the escape velocity. Which means I have a simple way to calculate the attosecond interval. By working my equations backwards, I can tell you that the interval must be on the order of 3.61 x 10-18s. Not only does the article avoid telling you this number, it is clear from the results announced that these scientists have no idea why the interval was around an attosecond rather than any other small time. Not only can they not calculate the number 3.61 x 10-18s, or the velocity of the escaping electron, they cannot even say why it is on the order of 10-18s. Why not 10-21s or 10-24s? I have just shown you why, with both math and mechanics.

From the EVO.pdf:

Mathis wrote:Actually, the machines they have here are measuring the photon fields quite well, but these researchers and theorists are blind to the data. Even the field numbers are direct confirmation of the charge field, but since they have the wrong equations, they don't see that either. I have tweaked their own equations, giving them back in a form which allows them to solve these things, but no one has accepted my gift.
e = 1.602 x 10-19C
1C = 2 x 10-7kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)
e = 3.204 x 10-26kg/s
That's 19 proton masses per second, and that is just the ambient charge field. In an induced field, the charge densities may be even greater, which easily explains the huge energies in Shoulders' data.

From the  213b. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance paper:

Mathis wrote:When I said the quote was right, I meant it was right in that there are opposing vectors here that cause magnetism. But it is not fake or virtual or intrinsic opposing ½ spins that are causing it, it is opposing real spins on real charge photons. You have charge moving up through the nuclear axis, and anticharge moving down. They meet and spin one another up, which is what we call magnetism. This is what I have called through-charge, that moves from pole to pole. But nothing about it is ½, nothing about it creates a 30 degree angle, and no differential in the through-charge creates a ΔE that we could assign to our resonance.
(snip)
That nucleus is spinning around its axis, like all nuclei (or at least the three blue disks of the nuclear interior are spinning around the axis). Amazingly, the mainstream gets that right as well, although they don't know it.

At Wikipedia, you will find,
A spinning charge generates a magnetic field that results in a magnetic moment proportional to the spin.

That's right, but the spinning charge has to actually be spinning. It can't have a virtual or intrinsic spin. The three blue disks here represent the nuclear core, and they are spinning around the nuclear pole with a real spin. The photons going through these protons and neutrons are also spinning, with a real spin. That is the “spinning charge” that is generating the magnetic field in a real and mechanical way.

And if this unbalanced nucleus of O17 weren't locked vertically by a strong vertical field (magnetic or electrical), it might also spin clockwise. But since it IS locked vertically by the NMR field, its pole orientation is not free to move. It is polarized. So you can already see that the mainstream theory of nuclear spin can't work. The odd neutron does indeed give the nucleus an imbalance, and this imbalance might cause a real spin or wobble in other situations. But in an NMR situation, it doesn't. The strong magnetic field prevents the neutron imbalance from causing a CW spin here, so the theory fails on a first look. This is why they have to make the spins intrinsic. Anyone who actually draws them sees immediately that the given theory is a non-starter.

From the  240b. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table  paper:

Mathis wrote:
The reason all ionization is coming from the top and bottom positions is easy to understand if you follow the charge channeling. Since charge is coming in those positions, it will be far easier to ionize those electrons than the ones in the carousel positions. Why? Because charge is coming out the carousel positions, and so any energy you apply to the nucleus will be blocked by charge released along the equator. When you apply energy to the atom to knock out an electron, that energy is going to be applied preferentially to those pole positions. The energy you apply will be either moving photons or moving ions, and both must follow charge channels.

We see proof of this straight from the ionization energies of Chromium. The first ionization energy is 653 and the second is 1591, which is a ratio of about 2.5 to 1.

From my explanation, we would have expected a ratio of 2, but the second ionization energy is measured on Chromium that is already singly ionized, and we would expect an ion to be holding onto its second electron a bit more strongly than the atom was. Why? Because once you knock that first electron out of the hole, the hole is unblocked and can therefore admit more charge. In our example of Chromium, the north pole electron will be knocked out first, you see, because less charge is holding it in that hole.

Remember, I explained the electron circling the proton pole like a pingpong ball circling a drain. It wants to go down but it can't because it is too large. So the current pressure makes it circle the drain. Well, if you get the pingpong ball out of the drain, the current is blocked less and it actually strengthens. Same thing with the nucleus. The newly created ion isn't just charged more because it now has an empty eddy for an electron to fall into, it is actually charged more absolutely—as a matter of local charge strength— because that eddy isn't blocking any charge. Well, if the suction at the north pole increases, the suction at the south pole will also increase. Our potentials all around the nucleus will change, not just the potentials at the north pole. Why? Because all the potentials are of a piece. All potentials are ultimately measures of charge densities, and the charge field, although split into photons and antiphotons, is basically a single field. If a low is created, it will attract both photons and antiphotons without discrimination. Therefore, in most situations a charge density increase will imply an equal anti-charge density increase, and vice versa.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 677
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

Re: 8/8/15 - The Gas Discharge Lamp

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:38 pm

I see your points on Angular moment.  Sorry if I'm looking at this in a bit oversimplified way.  I'm trying to just track the big picture-- that is, interactions between:

1. The charge field directionally - internal to an atom-molecule and external via photons

A. Miles has conceded that he doesn’t have a perfect theory, just a better one - based upon real, spinning photons. To me, “granular”, or “the big picture”, starts there. He’s described proton behavior - how spin stacking leads to the creation of matter, but he hasn’t described the photon structure, or the recycle mechanism. In fact, we’re missing lots of details; they’re all hiding, maybe close.

Of course, we have matter and antimatter, beginning with the photon which aligns itself either CW or CCW with respect to its forward motion. Each new spin must align itself to the photon’s forward direction since if the photon were to travel forward as a frisbee, one side would be traveling at 2C while the other could be standing still. That’s my current thinking.

Incoming photons probably do not align to the earth’s field, but they will enter atomic structures within the earth’s charge domain that do. Photons are then aligned and channeled as they recycle at light speed through the nuclear matter. Atoms somehow remain coherent indefinitely despite being comprised of channeled photons.

Charge field directionality. I believe that the shape of the charge field can be like a dandelion or a CD disc; presumably as a function of the spin rate of the charge field source. That is the first charge channeling mechanism - Spinning your source. A 3D field of photons can be channeled into a plane. Miles always describes protons as discs, so all protons spin at high speeds.

Neutrons channel pole-to-pole, though with the new alpha mechanism is seems the neutron allows only CW or CCW passage depending on which pole is entered. The neutron can turn two-way input (CW and CCW) into a sort of one-way (just CW or CCW) output. Maybe it should be modeled as a 2-way diode that essentially “sorts” photons CW or CCW to their respective poles. It is unstable, I think it's because reflecting photons of opposing polarity transfers a forces directly to the neutron’s structure.

There seems to be bustling charge channel property, like they are in close quarters, vibrating and bumping into one another as they move to their respective destinations, like passing through Grand Central Station.

Miles has described a mechanism that I have great difficulty with. I don’t recall the name of the paper. Photons to/from the sun and planet can channel each other. It acts like a direct channel that can focus more photons into the beam. How could that channel form, given light speed ant-iparallel interference and angular direction changes?

Another inexplicable charge field behavior, as far as I can tell; think of all the photons that are constantly lost, emitted into space, yet somehow, for all intents and purposes, it seems we can describe the charge field as some kind of etheric fluid flow, that will not escape. How? WAG. Maybe that seeming fluid exists as sub atomic particles, trapped at the charge field source by the charge field itself like the E/M field.

I consider recycling as part of channeling. Visualizing recycling through nuclear matter still eludes me. Whether it’s simply straight-through pole to pole or, for a time, part of the very structure of the object. I guess until I work out how photons recycle at light speed through protons I’m stuck.  

2. Spinning up or spinning down Electrons (gaining/losing energy). Electron interactions on the charge field.

A. I think that electrons consist of 6 million or so photons. The electron also spins CW or CCW with respect to its forward motion, depending on the aggregate of photons from which it is comprised; but when part of a larger structure, such as an atom, it will align itself with respect to the nuclear charge flow where it is located. It too is a stable entity with no apparent end to its lifetime.

By hitting an electron with a “high energy” photon, I would expect either: 1) no mass/energy transfer; a mild recoil or 2) transfer mass/energy to the electron (say a photon spin or two or more); 3) break or fragment the electron into smaller baryon and or photons; or 4) some combination resulting in a specific photon (say frequency) production. “High energy” implies more than the electron should be able to handle, but not nearly enough necessary for nuclear reactions like transforming an electron to a proton (just 4 spins!).

3. Changing charge paths with alphas - bending alphas to an angle in an atom or molecule due to charge flows or restrictions.

A. Alphas. As I see it, “Gas” expands the definition of an alpha, primarily through refining charge channeling through neutrons (I share my interpretations above). Also, a neutron can realign (by rotation) one of its two neutrons 180deg, which greatly increase (0.33 to 6) its charge channeling capacity. This clearly increases the energy regime/stability of the atom. It acts like an overcurrent switch, I would assume that the alpha would return to its original neutron configuration if the charge flow were to return to its original level.


4. Degrees of Freedom between atoms-molecules

A. The earth will align nuclear matter. I suppose we wouldn’t want nuclear channels to work against each other, to channel charge inefficiently. Spinning about a charge channel axis should be allowed, but I’m don’t see how channeling equator-to-core-to-equator changes the basic disc shape of protons. I see atomic matter as mostly octahedral, but that hardly limits possible combinations. Any number of molecular bonds are possible. I dunno.

5. Situations where directional flows are overcome and reverses occur particularly for neutron-proton charge channeling.

A. Beyond aligning, only the neutron, as far as I can imagine, can perform a switching function, and that happens in an alpha.

6. Spin direction - positive and negative charge flows from (Photons/Anti-photons, Neutrons, Electrons, Protons) both Ambient and "Induced" directional

I think I answered that above. Let me quit here. I’m sorry I said “hits is too simple”.  Crying or Very sad

Let me know what our differences are.

You may have noticed that I'm in the middle of "Maxwell's Lines of Force" -
 
89. Maxwell's Equations are Unified Field Equations. http://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf I show that the displacement field is really my charge field, and that Maxwell's equations are unified. 11pp.

90. Maxwell's Equations are Unified Field Equations, part 2. http://milesmathis.com/disp2.pdf I show how Maxwell's vortices fail, how to correct them, and how to calculate the charge field C from the Electrical Field E. 7pp


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Fri Aug 14, 2015 9:11 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Too many typos)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 8/8/15 - The Gas Discharge Lamp

Post by Cr6 on Sat Aug 15, 2015 12:31 am

LongTimeAirman wrote:I think I answered that above. Let me quit here. I’m sorry I said “hits is too simple”.

And LTAM let me say that I was angry and depressed by the comment!!! Shocked

Lol... just kidding.  I know you want very clear and unambiguous statements. Mathis' work deserves this.  

LongTimeAirman wrote:Let me know what our differences are.

Well here goes. You did get me curious on what characteristics each "piece" of an atom has in terms of Mathis' papers.  I'd like to start with the electron. Let's see how your "4" above hold up. I noticed that Mathis emphasizes the corrected radius/mass/spins (linear versus end over end) of the electron:
----------
Points on the Electron

1. I could immediately see that Coulomb’s constant is another scaling constant, like G. Instead of scaling smaller, like G, k scales larger. Coulomb’s constant takes us up from the Bohr radius to the radius of macro-objects like Coulomb’s spheres. It turns the single electron charge into a field charge.
...
Once again, the volume is the gravitational field and the density is the E/M field. The single electron is in the emitted field of the nucleus, and D gives us the density of that field. But this time the expressed field is the E/M field and the hidden field is gravity. So we have to scale the electromagnetic field UP to the unified field we are measuring with our instruments
( 3. Unified Fields in Disguise )

2. But I have shown in many other papers that the gravitational field is actually a compound field made up of two separate vectors. One of these vectors I continue to call gravity, since it is an apparent attraction. In the Unified Field, this vector points in. I call it solo gravity, since it is the gravitational field without the second field. The second field is the foundational E/M field or charge field. This is the field that underlies both electricity and magnetism, and mechanically it causes the charge between proton and electron. I have shown that although the electrical field may appear to be either negative or positive in interactions, the foundational E/M field is always positive or repulsive. It is caused by simple bombardment, via a particle I have dubbed the B-photon. This B-photon replaces the virtual photon or messenger photon of the standard model.  ( 43. A Mathematical Explanation of the Orbital Distance of Mercury)

3. Two things allowed me to discover what I am about to tell you. One, I had already begun to touch on the problem of the increase of the electron's energy with velocity in other papers, especially my papers on the Compton Effect and Compton Scattering. There I showed that the electron's energy increase at velocity cannot be caused only by time transforms. The electron is gaining energy from the charge field as it accelerates, which means it is gaining spin energy. At a certain point, it will even stack on another spin entirely. I showed how this conflicted with the energy transform due to Relativity. The electron has to be gaining energy from wavelenth increase, that is, and this is ignored in giving all the increase to Relativity. Although I have mentioned that in passing, I haven't devoted a paper to it, or really said what it means for Relativity or for charge.  
...
This means that the energy transforms are false. Yes, they get nearly the right number, but they imply by their form that the electron is always in its original state locally, when it isn't. At velocity, its mass isn't its rest mass and its local energy isn't its rest energy. I show this incontestably in my mass and energy transform papers. There I reprove the fundamental equations of Relativity, confirming the existence and even the basic form of the equations. But I show that the electron is not unaffected locally. Both the local and the relative numbers of the particle change at the same time, though not in the same amount. This is because the electron is not just changing its energy due to relative motion. It is changing its energy due to charge interaction. The faster the electron goes, the more charge it collides with.
( 45. The Principle of Relativity - or how Relativity has hidden the charge field )

4.  I have shown that the circle describes not a velocity, but an orbital acceleration. This acceleration is the vector addition of the tangential velocity and the centripetal acceleration. To find it we use the equation
a┴ = aorb2/2r.

     This is another very useful new equation for tangential velocity. It will allow us to calculate velocities and energies that have so far eluded us, such as the energy of a photon emitted by an electron in orbit.

5. The Planck relation is just an equation relating the energy of a moving particle to its frequency, via the de Broglie wave. The particle does not have to be a photon; it can be any quantum, like an electron.

E=hf

Where h is Planck's constant. However, since I have shown that Planck's constant is hiding the mass of the photon, we may now unwind this equation, finding much more information buried beneath it. Using simple mechanical postulates, I have calculated that the mass of the infrared photon is h/2,400. To find this, I simply used G to scale down from the proton mass. You can also use the Dalton, 1821, to find this same mass. Simply cube the Dalton and invert it. The Dalton is an outcome of spin mechanics, and the photon is three levels below the proton and two levels below the electron. Using the Dalton, you will get 2,400, but using G will require you multiply by an additional 2.5. This is because G is a scale for size, not mass, and the density of the photon is not equal to the density of the proton.

If we apply these new findings to the Planck relation, we see that the relation is between mass and energy, just like Einstein's equation E=mc2. And this means that the dimensions of h have been hiding something. Planck's constant is given complex dimensions to account for the transform to f, but if h contains a photon mass, then we are really transforming E into a mass, a frequency, and x:

E = xmc f

Let us apply the equation to the photon itself, to begin with. In that case

x = cλ
E = mc cλf
cλ = 2,400
λ = 8 x 10-6m

Which is the infrared photon I chose to begin with.

E = mc cλf = mc2

Yes, Planck's relation is just a restatement of Einstein's equation, but the two together are used to hide the mass of the photon. The standard model forbids you from applying Einstein's equation to the photon, or from seeking this photon mass in the Planck relation. Why? Because that would mess up their gauge math.

We can do the same thing for the electron:

E = ½ me vλf = ½ mev2
h = ½ me vλ

The mass of the electron is 3.3 x 106 times greater than the mass of the infrared photon, so vλ must be much less than cλ.

vλ = 2h/m = .00146
In the famous Davisson-Germer experiment of 1927, electrons were fired at a crystalline nickel target. We are told they were slow-moving, but are not given a velocity. We may now calculate it directly. The wavelength was measured from the experiment to be .165nm, which makes the velocity of the electrons 8.8 x 106m/s or .03c. Not so slow.
(http://milesmathis.com/planck2.html)

6. (On B-Photons) This simple mechanical explanation not only solves the single photon problem, it also shows why different particles are affected in different ways by the same field. It is quite easy to see that an electron will be funneled by this B-photon field in a different manner than a photon, due only to the size difference. If the photon is like a baseball moving through a field of golfballs, the electron will be like a bowling ball moving through a field of golfballs. Put simply, the electron will be funneled much less efficiently. It will resist the field more successfully, and the field will be upset by its presence to a greater degree. All this will now be visualizable, predictable, and mechanically transparent, due only to the discovery of the pre-existing interference pattern and the real field that creates it.
(http://milesmathis.com/double.html)

7. In a different paper, I showed that the radius of the electron at rest is 1.122 x 10-17m. I corrected the Bohr equations to discover that. What I did not realize until today is that number is 1/c2. It actually required a derivation for me to discover that. I was re-reading my paper on Compton scattering, when I ran across this equation:

But of course this means that the radius of the electron is just the square of the fundamental charge!
r = e2
Since I have shown that the fundamental charge is the charge on the proton but not the electron, this cannot be read to mean that the radius of the electron is its own charge squared. No, the radius of the electron is determined by the charge field recycled by the proton. The radius of the electron is determined by the charge field around it: the standard charge field. This must mean the radius of the electron is determined by charge pressure.
But since the charge field is not a constant, the radius of the electron must also be variable. Charge can be increased in any experiment by increasing the energy or number of photons present, in which case we might at first assume that the radius of the electron decreases due to this increased pressure. But that is not how it works, as we know from my reworking of the Bohr and Schrodinger equations. A greater charge field is quantized, and actually increases either the radius or the velocity of the electron  in a quantized manner. It does this by transfering spin energies in real collisions. In other words, the photons gain energy from stacking spins, and then transfer this energy to the electron. If the electron is in an atomic structure, it increases energy by gaining velocity. But if the electron is free (as in a particle accelerator), the electron can begin stacking spins itself. With enough energy, the electron can become a meson and then a proton. I have provided the equations for this spin stacking. In current accelerators, much of the energy goes to linear motion, but if we could hold the electron still, just adding spin energy, we could actually create stable protons from electrons (or even photons).

8. Nor is this a non-mechanical “field” statement, since I can expand on it if you push me. Since the particles are recyling the field around them, any change in that field will change the particle itself. If the electron's immediate charge field is forced to switch spin, via straight collisions of photons, the electron will also. The incoming charge wouldn't be able to maintain the spin on the electron, and the first thing that would happen is that the outer spin of the electron would be “stripped.” This is because the spin maintains the charge and the charge maintains the spin, so that if the spins on the photons are stripped, the spin on the electron will be damped and then lost.
This means that the electron is not “braking” in a linear sense. It is not slowing down. It is losing energy, yes, but it is losing angular energy by losing its spin. The spin is what is braking. And the

closer the electron comes to the proton, the more spins it loses. If it loses enough spins, it is no longer really an electron. By my spin equation, an electron that loses more than two spin levels actually becomes a photon. That is simply what we call a particle with that number of spins. The electron doesn't contain the photon, like our glass jar with photons inside. An electron simply IS a photon with extra spins. We call a photon with two extra spins an electron, and a photon with six extra spins is a proton or neutron.
( 262. BREMSSTRAHLUNG RADIATION a better mechanism)

9. Now, each photon can be spinning either CW or CCW, so even the charge has charge, in a way. This is how we get particles and anti-particles, for a start. Anti-particles are simply upside down compared to particles, with reversed z-spins. But if we look at the field of photons, we can also get a field or an anti-field. Some photons are CW, some are CCW. We sum the angular momenta of all the photons in the field to create the magnetic strength of the field, and each CW cancels a CCW. So if we have an equal amount of CW and CCW photons, we will have an electric field without a magnetic field. The photons cancel each other’s spins, but they do not thereby cancel each other’s linear momenta.

Normally this doesn’t happen, because normally we are measuring small or limited fields that are created by homogeneous substances or objects. These objects tend to emit their E/M fields in a pretty consistent way, so that most of the photons are CW, for example. This tends to match the electrical field strength to the magnetic field strength. But given a very heterogeneous makeup, or a large body, the magnetic field can sum to a low number, due to the amount of CCW photons present.

Nor is it only anti-protons or anti-matter that can give a large object this heterogeneity. I have shown that positrons and electrons also emit the E/M field (although to a smaller extent). Yes, electrons and positrons both have a positive charge, in this respect. Therefore, a large number of positrons could provide the CCW photons necessary to flatten out a magnetic field.
(http://milesmathis.com/venus.html)

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 677
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

Re: 8/8/15 - The Gas Discharge Lamp

Post by Cr6 on Sun Aug 16, 2015 11:50 pm

Related to your points above Airman is this latest video from Wal Thornhill. Puts another spin on things a bit. The gravity charges was a good reminder:

--------
Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity | EU2015
Posted on August 16, 2015 by sschirott

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/08/16/wallace-thornhill-the-long-path-to-understanding-gravity-eu2015/


Cr6
Admin

Posts : 677
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

Re: 8/8/15 - The Gas Discharge Lamp

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:42 pm

Cr6 wrote:Well here goes. You did get me curious on what characteristics each "piece" of an atom has in terms of Mathis' papers.  I'd like to start with the electron. Let's see how your "4" above hold up. I noticed that Mathis emphasizes the corrected radius/mass/spins (linear versus end over end) of the electron:
----------
Points on the Electron

1.
I could immediately see that Coulomb’s constant is another scaling constant, like G. Instead of scaling smaller, like G, k scales larger. Coulomb’s constant takes us up from the Bohr radius to the radius of macro-objects like Coulomb’s spheres. It turns the single electron charge into a field charge.

...
Once again, the volume is the gravitational field and the density is the E/M field. The single electron is in the emitted field of the nucleus, and D gives us the density of that field. But this time the expressed field is the E/M field and the hidden field is gravity. So we have to scale the electromagnetic field UP to the unified field we are measuring with our instruments
( 3. Unified Fields in Disguise )

“Unified Fields in Disguise” http://milesmathis.com/uft2.html is an amazing paper. It’s just 4 pages, but it shows how Newton’s and Coulomb’s Force laws are actually the same. A powerful introduction to Miles’ “Unified Field” theory. OK, number three; definitely “big picture”. Historic too, I’d say. Required reading.

Trying to address your point, “It turns the single electron charge into a field charge.” To me that means that Coulomb was able to describe the inverse square force law between electron charges by including a new constant. Of course I have no idea what he thought about the physical basis of his constant. It agreed with the experimental results. Here, Miles is explaining how the constant works.  

The two famous formulas are describing two opposing fields, charge and gravity, but at different “scales”. Miles’ descriptions of scaling between photon, atomic, or human realms gives us, his readers, a useful perspective and better understanding of physics.
 
Yes, the smallest matter, including electrons, as well as energetic photons, have emission fields. They also have gravity fields.

Going off the deep end, I’ll repeat myself. Matter, let’s say electrons, within a gravity field will be drawn together, until repulsion from their respective emission fields prevents them from collapsing together any further. The Emission fields present will begin to organize the electrons via photon collision linear and angular momentum transfers. Since electrons are very much closer in size to photons, it happens quickly.

Why couldn’t a proton entrain a large number of electrons? The ambient field, and its variations directly impact these structures and assemblies, and they easily wreck against far stabler and more massive nuclear matter. Nevertheless, electron field structures exist.

On the Earth, and above its surface, you see electrons continually reacting to charge field changes of the Sun and Earth, conveyed through the natural elements. Electrons will naturally be guided to all charge channel intakes. Electrons of greatly varying concentrations cover the planet, or indeed, all material interfaces should see electron charge flows. Lightning is a well-known (or should be) electron structure (of some sort) that transfers high energy and at high speed.

Unlike Nuclear matter which apparently require extremely high energies to create, and molecular bonds that require strong charge channels, electrons and their structures can easily form in the charge field, especially near existing nuclear matter or in charge channels.

Mind you, I’m just trying to come up with a complete working interpretation myself. You’re kind to let me rant.

2.
But I have shown in many other papers that the gravitational field is actually a compound field made up of two separate vectors. One of these vectors I continue to call gravity, since it is an apparent attraction. In the Unified Field, this vector points in. I call it solo gravity, since it is the gravitational field without the second field. The second field is the foundational E/M field or charge field. This is the field that underlies both electricity and magnetism, and mechanically it causes the charge between proton and electron. I have shown that although the electrical field may appear to be either negative or positive in interactions, the foundational E/M field is always positive or repulsive. It is caused by simple bombardment, via a particle I have dubbed the B-photon. This B-photon replaces the virtual photon or messenger photon of the standard model.
 ( 43. A Mathematical Explanation of the Orbital Distance of Mercury)

This paper shows how the opposing fields of gravity and charge are used to determine the orbital radius of Mercury; in contrast to the standard model method of “back-calculating” from the observed orbital “velocity”.

We can start by understanding how our weight, how gravity, has historically been measured, is not true solo-gravity. What we see when we stand on the scale is the resultant of solo-gravity and the earth’s charge, (remember that they are always in vector opposition).

This is the field that underlies both electricity and magnetism, and mechanically it causes the charge between proton and electron

We have developed a lot of experience with E/M over the last century, even though we didn’t have a decent explanation. Well, now Miles has introduced the “foundational E/M field” underlying all E/M behavior. It’s actually the charge field.

Previously, one of the E/M givens appeared to be: “opposites attract”, protons and electrons, even though it violates “action-at-a-distance”. Understanding charge mechanics well enough to explain the attraction may not be so easy. Try to win over a skeptic by the weight of your apparent attraction argument. You should win, but it’s difficult.

Another detail, Miles’ has offered charge cancellation along with gravitational expansion as a possible cause of magnetic attraction. My criticism may be unjustified. I convinced myself long ago that orthogonal spin action doesn’t remain strictly orthogonal. Orthogonal angular momentum can sometimes knock objects closer together, a one way ratchet action that mimics attraction, precession may be part of it. I doubt I can convince anyone else, or even try.

I also haven’t been real enamored with B-photons. I believe they are low-energy, infra-red variety photons. Or they might represent some other, undefined subclass of photons. Rather than get into the recursion question; are B-photons the smallest things? I’ll avoid it and assume yes, until its structure is revealed.

Sorry, I don’t see much of a tie-in to electrons. Maybe the two papers provide sufficient math to begin calculations?

3.
Two things allowed me to discover what I am about to tell you. One, I had already begun to touch on the problem of the increase of the electron's energy with velocity in other papers, especially my papers on the Compton Effect and Compton Scattering. There I showed that the electron's energy increase at velocity cannot be caused only by time transforms. The electron is gaining energy from the charge field as it accelerates, which means it is gaining spin energy. At a certain point, it will even stack on another spin entirely. I showed how this conflicted with the energy transform due to Relativity. The electron has to be gaining energy from wavelenth increase, that is, and this is ignored in giving all the increase to Relativity. Although I have mentioned that in passing, I haven't devoted a paper to it, or really said what it means for Relativity or for charge.  
...
This means that the energy transforms are false. Yes, they get nearly the right number, but they imply by their form that the electron is always in its original state locally, when it isn't. At velocity, its mass isn't its rest mass and its local energy isn't its rest energy. I show this incontestably in my mass and energy transform papers. There I reprove the fundamental equations of Relativity, confirming the existence and even the basic form of the equations. But I show that the electron is not unaffected locally. Both the local and the relative numbers of the particle change at the same time, though not in the same amount. This is because the electron is not just changing its energy due to relative motion. It is changing its energy due to charge interaction. The faster the electron goes, the more charge it collides with.
( 45. The Principle of Relativity - or how Relativity has hidden the charge field )

I’m pretty weak at Relativity. Even though Miles is quite good in his explanations. I do understand that electron energy can vary greatly, as some combination of spin rate, radius and a forward velocity that can reach a significant fraction of light speed, depending of course on favorable charge conditions. Otherwise, the charge field can strip an electron of mass, spin, and angular momentum. Much of that high energy experimental variability was previously explained by relativistic mass increase. While that is true to some extent, Miles has reworked relativity, like recalculating gamma, based on the Unified Field’s more robust charge field electrons’ behavior.

4.  
I have shown that the circle describes not a velocity, but an orbital acceleration. This acceleration is the vector addition of the tangential velocity and the centripetal acceleration. To find it we use the equation
a┴ = aorb2/2r.

This is another very useful new equation for tangential velocity. It will allow us to calculate velocities and energies that have so far eluded us, such as the energy of a photon emitted by an electron in orbit.

I didn't find this paper, but I agree. Orbital velocity is not a velocity, it is an acceleration. That mistake is one of original problems in mainstream theory, due to Newton himself. Miles has assailed current theories in ways that seem unbelievable, at first…
Describing real photons, with real radii enable us to relate dimensions and energy in a way never realized before. The math is greatly simplified and the mechanics are straightforward. He has provided a wealth of examples; he has a knack for seeing much more than most people. Often, I’m in awe.  

5.
The Planck relation is just an equation relating the energy of a moving particle to its frequency, via the de Broglie wave. The particle does not have to be a photon; it can be any quantum, like an electron.

E=hf

Where h is Planck's constant. However, since I have shown that Planck's constant is hiding the mass of the photon, we may now unwind this equation, finding much more information buried beneath it. Using simple mechanical postulates, I have calculated that the mass of the infrared photon is h/2,400. To find this, I simply used G to scale down from the proton mass. You can also use the Dalton, 1821, to find this same mass. Simply cube the Dalton and invert it. The Dalton is an outcome of spin mechanics, and the photon is three levels below the proton and two levels below the electron. Using the Dalton, you will get 2,400, but using G will require you multiply by an additional 2.5. This is because G is a scale for size, not mass, and the density of the photon is not equal to the density of the proton.

If we apply these new findings to the Planck relation, we see that the relation is between mass and energy, just like Einstein's equation E=mc2. And this means that the dimensions of h have been hiding something. Planck's constant is given complex dimensions to account for the transform to f, but if h contains a photon mass, then we are really transforming E into a mass, a frequency, and x:

E = xmc f

Let us apply the equation to the photon itself, to begin with. In that case

x = cλ
E = mc cλf
cλ = 2,400
λ = 8 x 10-6m

Which is the infrared photon I chose to begin with.

E = mc cλf = mc2

Yes, Planck's relation is just a restatement of Einstein's equation, but the two together are used to hide the mass of the photon. The standard model forbids you from applying Einstein's equation to the photon, or from seeking this photon mass in the Planck relation. Why? Because that would mess up their gauge math.

We can do the same thing for the electron:

E = ½ me vλf = ½ mev2
h = ½ me vλ

The mass of the electron is 3.3 x 106 times greater than the mass of the infrared photon, so vλ must be much less than cλ.

vλ = 2h/m = .00146
In the famous Davisson-Germer experiment of 1927, electrons were fired at a crystalline nickel target. We are told they were slow-moving, but are not given a velocity. We may now calculate it directly. The wavelength was measured from the experiment to be .165nm, which makes the velocity of the electrons 8.8 x 106m/s or .03c. Not so slow.
(http://milesmathis.com/planck2.html)

Continuing my previous comment (4) above, “The PLANCK RELATION and the MASS OF THE PHOTON”, is a good example. I may as well include Miles’ addition to it.

Addendum [February 2010]: we can use the above math to discover what quantum Planck's constant is really hiding. I have said that Planck's constant is hiding the mass of the photon, but since photons have different energies, we may ask which photon it is hiding. Well, we can see from above that h = mcλ. So we just make cλ = 1, and we will have h = m, you see. The photon that has a wavelength of 1/c is a photon with a wavelength of 3.3 x 10-9m, which is an X-ray. Since current physics is using h as the quantum of action, they must be using the X-ray as a quantum. This is not logical. It is much more logical to use the charge photon as a quantum. We should be using the infrared photon as the field quantum, not the X-ray.

The basis of Plank’s constant was not known. Now Miles tells us which photon was used to determine it.

6.
(On B-Photons) This simple mechanical explanation not only solves the single photon problem, it also shows why different particles are affected in different ways by the same field. It is quite easy to see that an electron will be funneled by this B-photon field in a different manner than a photon, due only to the size difference. If the photon is like a baseball moving through a field of golfballs, the electron will be like a bowling ball moving through a field of golfballs. Put simply, the electron will be funneled much less efficiently. It will resist the field more successfully, and the field will be upset by its presence to a greater degree. All this will now be visualizable, predictable, and mechanically transparent, due only to the discovery of the pre-existing interference pattern and the real field that creates it.
(http://milesmathis.com/double.html)

In “The Double-Slit Experiment”, Miles provides an entirely new solution to the 200 year old mystery of the interference pattern created in the experiment. Staying true to his mechanical charge field, he describes that the pattern is basically due to the B-photon field emitted by the double slit barrier itself, and its interaction with the experimental source photons, or electrons. Miles predicts that a similar pattern would form if we let our original photons escape through the slits and just concentrate on the pattern formed by reflected photons.

The fine directional changes caused by the interaction between the particles and B-photon emission field is another form of channeling.

7.
In a different paper, I showed that the radius of the electron at rest is 1.122 x 10-17m. I corrected the Bohr equations to discover that. What I did not realize until today is that number is 1/c2. It actually required a derivation for me to discover that. I was re-reading my paper on Compton scattering, when I ran across this equation:

But of course this means that the radius of the electron is just the square of the fundamental charge!
r = e2
Since I have shown that the fundamental charge is the charge on the proton but not the electron, this cannot be read to mean that the radius of the electron is its own charge squared. No, the radius of the electron is determined by the charge field recycled by the proton. The radius of the electron is determined by the charge field around it: the standard charge field. This must mean the radius of the electron is determined by charge pressure.
But since the charge field is not a constant, the radius of the electron must also be variable. Charge can be increased in any experiment by increasing the energy or number of photons present, in which case we might at first assume that the radius of the electron decreases due to this increased pressure. But that is not how it works, as we know from my reworking of the Bohr and Schrodinger equations. A greater charge field is quantized, and actually increases either the radius or the velocity of the electron  in a quantized manner. It does this by transfering spin energies in real collisions. In other words, the photons gain energy from stacking spins, and then transfer this energy to the electron. If the electron is in an atomic structure, it increases energy by gaining velocity. But if the electron is free (as in a particle accelerator), the electron can begin stacking spins itself. With enough energy, the electron can become a meson and then a proton. I have provided the equations for this spin stacking. In current accelerators, much of the energy goes to linear motion, but if we could hold the electron still, just adding spin energy, we could actually create stable protons from electrons (or even photons).

It took me awhile to find “The Radius of the Electron is e2”, http://milesmathis.com/elecrad.pdf. Just a single page. I never understand Miles' papers on the first read. His language and comprehensiveness are fine, it’s the ideas I have to grip with. Using the Charge Field, Miles shows the radius/mass/energy relationship of the electron to be r=e^2, where e is the old, electron charge – given a proton charge field.

Electrons exist at greatly varied energy levels. It may also be true that our definition of electrons allows more than 1 spin level. Electron mass variations due to B-photon recycling, is occurring constantly, as with a noise background, in the charge field’s equilibrium.

8.
Nor is this a non-mechanical “field” statement, since I can expand on it if you push me. Since the particles are recycling the field around them, any change in that field will change the particle itself. If the electron's immediate charge field is forced to switch spin, via straight collisions of photons, the electron will also. The incoming charge wouldn't be able to maintain the spin on the electron, and the first thing that would happen is that the outer spin of the electron would be “stripped.” This is because the spin maintains the charge and the charge maintains the spin, so that if the spins on the photons are stripped, the spin on the electron will be damped and then lost.
This means that the electron is not “braking” in a linear sense. It is not slowing down. It is losing energy, yes, but it is losing angular energy by losing its spin. The spin is what is braking. And the

closer the electron comes to the proton, the more spins it loses. If it loses enough spins, it is no longer really an electron. By my spin equation, an electron that loses more than two spin levels actually becomes a photon. That is simply what we call a particle with that number of spins. The electron doesn't contain the photon, like our glass jar with photons inside. An electron simply IS a photon with extra spins. We call a photon with two extra spins an electron, and a photon with six extra spins is a proton or neutron.
( 262. BREMSSTRAHLUNG RADIATION a better mechanism)

I began answering these nine questions without reading them first.

I do not have any serious objection with the B-photon (I can change) to proton/neutron (mass/radius/spin) ‘contiguum’.  It is elegant and as far as I know it can explain all the experimental evidence. What makes an electron an electron seems to be its spin level, its relative stability, and misunderstood charge capabilities.

9.
Now, each photon can be spinning either CW or CCW, so even the charge has charge, in a way. This is how we get particles and anti-particles, for a start. Anti-particles are simply upside down compared to particles, with reversed z-spins. But if we look at the field of photons, we can also get a field or an anti-field. Some photons are CW, some are CCW. We sum the angular momenta of all the photons in the field to create the magnetic strength of the field, and each CW cancels a CCW. So if we have an equal amount of CW and CCW photons, we will have an electric field without a magnetic field. The photons cancel each other’s spins, but they do not thereby cancel each other’s linear momenta.

Normally this doesn’t happen, because normally we are measuring small or limited fields that are created by homogeneous substances or objects. These objects tend to emit their E/M fields in a pretty consistent way, so that most of the photons are CW, for example. This tends to match the electrical field strength to the magnetic field strength. But given a very heterogeneous makeup, or a large body, the magnetic field can sum to a low number, due to the amount of CCW photons present.

Nor is it only anti-protons or anti-matter that can give a large object this heterogeneity. I have shown that positrons and electrons also emit the E/M field (although to a smaller extent). Yes, electrons and positrons both have a positive charge, in this respect. Therefore, a large number of positrons could provide the CCW photons necessary to flatten out a magnetic field.
(http://milesmathis.com/venus.html)

Cr6, Well, near as I can tell, you didn’t send me too far. I agree with almost all the above. I don’t know if it was your intent or not, but I’m renewed in my confidence. Thanks for the exercise.

The “structure” seems like a dream I might have had. I just can’t get a hold of it.

How does this sound? Each new spin requires the addition of tangible mass, i.e. B-photons. The new mass will not be added “inertly”, or into a jar. It will, I suppose, be added photon by photon, into the charge field of the existing particle such that it will, say, orbit our existing particle. There is no direct contact. The new mass is converted into angular momentum. When enough mass is added, its new momentum completely overcomes the angular momentum of its sub-spins. A new spin is thus created.

Yikes, I've fallen behind.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 8/8/15 - The Gas Discharge Lamp

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:51 pm

Cr6, Thanks for the Wallace Thornhill Gravity video. I hope you don't mind my feedback (heh heh):

Gravity is a field of offset electrostatic dipoles. Positive charges are interior to the planet and negative charges are above the surface.  Short range attraction to the earth's surface and long range repulsion as from other planets.

Attraction and repulsion, instantaneous electrostatic gravity. One force to rule them all!

I liked the variable gravity info, and evidence of lower gravity in the past. I like the atomic model: the ping pong ball proton nucleus, orbited by a flea sized electron somewhere outside a 100,000 seat cricket stadium. Of course my ears were perked for the electron structure. Mass transfer to outer planets. Pleasant entertainment.

At 55min we see a Laithwaite gyro demonstration where a gyro rose while my jaw dropped. I saw many of his videos back in January, but not this segment.

I found MM through TB. We are allies.

I guess we've abused the topic "The Gas Discharge", with this gravity post. I would have moved it to its own thread but the video flummoxed me.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 8/8/15 - The Gas Discharge Lamp

Post by Cr6 on Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:39 am

LongtimeAirman wrote:Cr6, Thanks for the Wallace Thornhill Gravity video. I hope you don't mind my feedback (heh heh):

Gravity is a field of offset electrostatic dipoles. Positive charges are interior to the planet and negative charges are above the surface.  Short range attraction to the earth's surface and long range repulsion as from other planets.

Attraction and repulsion, instantaneous electrostatic gravity. One force to rule them all!

I liked the variable gravity info, and evidence of lower gravity in the past. I like the atomic model: the ping pong ball proton nucleus, orbited by a flea sized electron somewhere outside a 100,000 seat cricket stadium. Of course my ears were perked for the electron structure. Mass transfer to outer planets. Pleasant entertainment.

At 55min we see a Laithwaite gyro demonstration where a gyro rose while my jaw dropped. I saw many of his videos back in January, but not this segment.

I found MM through TB. We are allies.

I guess we've abused the topic "The Gas Discharge", with this gravity post. I would have moved it to its own thread but the video flummoxed me.

You do Yeoman's work Airman. Your explanation is quite good IMHO. Your comments really help to put things into perspective...at least for me...it reads kind of like a Mathis "Cheat Sheet" for the Charge Field.  I guess in the earlier posts I was looking for any internal inconsistencies with the electron and the Charge Field per straight Mathis -- that's why I put them there. I thought you might have found something with your own view. Besides, after a few beers I tend to do these things anyway. drunken

Thanks for sharing your dogged pursuit of these pieces on the electron. I'd like to step through articles on the Neutron and then Proton as well. In fact these could be broken off into their threads.  It may not be the best way, but I gain some clarity if I put paragraphs of Miles' papers that concern one topic or item in a simple list - with each piece providing a bit more information.  Your commentary actually helps stitch this together in my own head.

You know, with that Thornhill TB video, I was pretty shocked on their new POV... they appear to be backing away from Quantum theory themselves and looking to move towards integrating a direct physical model into their Thunderbolts cosmology-physics? I dunno where that will go but it should be worth checking out the TB board more often. Looks like they might put out more aggressive claims against the standard theory. That video on the gyroscopes was a good sign. A basic experiment that can't be explained that easily. geek

LongTimeAirman wrote:
How does this sound? Each new spin requires the addition of tangible mass, i.e. B-photons. The new mass will not be added “inertly”, or into a jar. It will, I suppose, be added photon by photon, into the charge field of the existing particle such that it will, say, orbit our existing particle. There is no direct contact. The new mass is converted into angular momentum. When enough mass is added, its new momentum completely overcomes the angular momentum of its sub-spins. A new spin is thus created.

That sounds pretty good. I'm still hazily forming this one. Looks like with the latest paper even more "balls" are put on the pool-table.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 677
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

Back to top Go down

Re: 8/8/15 - The Gas Discharge Lamp

Post by Cr6 on Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:54 am

My reader will now say, “I think I get it.  The fringes are caused by the jostling photons, which create
interference.  But won't that jostling create distance gaps that we could call wavelengths?  Isn't that
what the interferometer is doing: assigning the wavelength to that jostling?”  Yes, that's exactly right.
“And if so, what is wrong with that?  What is wrong with assigning wavelength to this jostling caused
by spin phases?”  What is wrong is that it gives us the wrong frequency for the photons themselves.  If
we assign the wavelength to the interference in the jostling, then the frequency goes along with that
wavelength.  We make a sine wave out of that wavelength and then manufacture a frequency from that.
But it isn't the right frequency.  Or, it isn't the frequency the photons themselves have.  It is upside-
down to the frequency the photons themselves actually have, as I have shown.  We think the photons
have a low frequency when they have a high.  This is important, because although the current variable
assignments work well for many mundane and experimental uses, they have blocked our deeper
understanding of the photon and therefore of light itself.  We have to quit thinking of light as just an
experimental entity.  To advance theory, we must start thinking of light as a real entity, like other
matter.  Instead, we are beginning to think of matter more like we have historically thought of light: as
an imaginary entity we can represent anyway we like, the less physical the better.  Rather than move
light from virtual to real, we have moved matter from real to virtual.  This is not what I would call
progress in physics.

This means current theory is both right and wrong.  What they are calling long wavelength photons are
indeed less energetic photons.  So they are right about the energies.  But the less energetic photon does
not have either a long wavelength or a low frequency.  It has a high spin frequency and a small radius.
It has nothing that we would call a wavelength, since no sine wave is created in the field.  If we want to
assign a wavelength, we have to transform the radius into a wavelength, as I do below.  
You will say, “I still don't understand how a smaller, less energetic photon can have a higher
frequency.”  It is all based on the radius.  The redder photon has a smaller radius.  This gives it a
smaller circumference.  If the spin velocity is c, then the time of one rotation gives us a frequency.
That frequency must be greater than a photon with a larger radius.  Hence, more spin velocity, less
energy.  Just the opposite of what we are taught. If that still isn't clear, look at two planets in orbit.  Give them the same local velocity v.  If planet b has a greater orbital radius than planet a, its period will be greater.   Since frequency is 1/period, its frequency will be less.  It will return to the same spot less often.

This is why I said above that we needed a radius in the wave equations.  c =  λυ
doesn't give us enough to solve this problem.  And once we put the radius in the equations, the other variables flip.  

Part 7: the Ether

Before I correct the equations, let me pause for a moment to summarize what we have found so far.  We have found that less energetic photons are smaller, have a higher spin rate, and have nothing that we would currently call a wavelength.   No sine wave or field wave is produced. The gaps in the interferometer data are not indications of wavelengths.  They are lengths in the data only, not lengths that belong to the photons or the light. The lengths in the data should be interpreted as spin differentials, not wavelengths.  All this is much more logical than what we have been told.  In my new theory, less energetic photons are smaller, as they should be.  As the photon gains energy, it also gains radius, which is also logical.

And assigning wavelength to the photon radius—rather than to some manufactured sine wave—is also much more satisfying as theory.  How could a greater radius cause a smaller wavelength?

In this way, we have also resolved contradictions in current theory, regarding the ether.  Current theory has thrown out the ether as untenable, teaching us that light does not travel via an ether.  And yet every time it draws light as a sine wave, it implies motion relative to an ether.  A sine wave is a field wave or ether wave.  It requires a background.  But since the wave of light is created by the spin of each photon, no ether is required.  Mainstream theory was correct that no field was required to explain either the motion or the wave of light, and yet they kept drawing and explaining light as a field wave. No more.

Light doesn't travel via an ether, light is the ether.  Light was never an analogue to sound, because sound is the motion of a field.  Light is not the motion of a field.  The wave of light is not a pattern in a field, it is the spin of each photon.  Physicists must learn the difference.

What this means is that we should ditch the whole sine wave diagram of light.  It is just a method of confusion.  Now that we have unwound the whole problem, it is much clearer and more efficient to assign the variables to the photon than to the sine wave.  In which case the variable assignments are as I have assigned them in previous papers: the wavelength to the spin radius and the frequency to the spin velocity.  Once we make the switch, we have to change all the charts and equations.  Ultraviolet now has a longer local wavelength than infrared.  An ultraviolet photon is bigger than an infrared photon, which is why it is more energetic.  And it has a smaller local frequency.   As we increase energy, it is wavelength (photon radius) that increases and frequency that decreases.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 677
Join date : 2014-08-09

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

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