Etherpad MM Discussions

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Etherpad MM Discussions

Post by Lloydd on Mon Nov 16, 2015 1:40 pm

My Questionnaire got about 5 takers. Votes made yesterday or after the conference are not shown here.
The topics here are organized in the order of most to least votes.
1. (5votes) MAGNETISM: Photon spin causes magnetic effects.
2. (4v) CHARGE STREAMS: Matter receives and emits photons in charge streams. Particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) within neutral matter (atoms, molecules) circulate charge in streams [among internal] particles.
3. (3v) ELECTRICITY: Photon emission by matter is the cause of electrical repulsion and electric current.
4. (2v) ATMOSPHERE: The charge field prevents the atmosphere from collapsing.
5. (2v) SPIN STACKING: Photon spins can stack, somewhat like gyroscopic motions, or coils of coils.
6. (1v) GRAVITY: Gravity is caused by universal spin [or matter expansion].
7. (1v) AETHER: The "aether", if it exists, consists of photons [that have radius, spin & mass].
8. (1v) ICE AGES: The cause of ice ages.
9. (0v) PHOTON TRAVEL: The sine wave is the path of photon travel, instead of a straight line path.
10. (0v) STAR FORMATION: The cause of nebular accretion in star formation is the galactic magnetic field and ionization.
what day and time: Weekends, evenings (EU time); Sat, Sun afternoon/evening

NOTE: MM quotes below start with MM:. My replies start with LK:. S and Z joined in discussion. S knows MM's papers well; Z does not.

Photon spin causes magnetic effects. Paper on Magnetism:
Paper on Nuclear Magnetism:
LK: How do spinning photons cause magnetic attraction and repulsion of some material objects and why are some objects not affected?
S: OK, first I think Miles' most important discoveries are the workings of the charge field and that is everywhere (even in a vacuum) and then the stacked spins that build particles out of this charge field.
How magnetism works mechanically is also very important since it adds solution dimensions that are missing in the current mainstream teachings.
LK: I tried to answer my first question above by quoting some of MM's writings below, where I ask some more questions.
[MM: Magnetic strength has ... to do with charge conduction in both directions along the [atom's rotational] axis.
-Electrical conduction is better when there is a proton differential from top to bottom, so that we get conduction in one direction only.]
LK: But photons are supposed to outnumber antiphotons (at Earth's orbital distance) and are supposed to enter the opposite end of the atomic axis, so having the same number of protons at each end of the axis should allow more photon charge in one direction than antiphoton charge in the other direction.
-By the way, why should photons and antiphotons enter opposite poles of particles?]
S: That is just spin mechanics. In the same spin direction the photon particles get sucked in, otherwise blown out.
LK: So the stronger charge stream goes through and the weaker one gets blown out?
S: Eh, I mean the photon particles prefer to go into one pole and the anti-photon particles prefer the other pole. Just a matter of going with the flow.
It helps to see the particle poles as vortices.
LK: Vortices shouldn't distinguish between CW and CCW photons, though, should they?
S: Yes, they do since the vortices itself are made of CW or CCW spinning photons.
That is how a particle is built.
LK: You mean particles are built from stacked spins, I suppose, Right?
Yes, but a stacked spin is a photon path.
Z: I like the idea of vortices..
LK: I do too.
Z: How does MM deal with superposition?  (Quantum physics)
LK: Have you seen his paper on Superposition?
Z: No
LK: I can link it in a second. and
Z: Ok thanks. reading.
Read most of it. I think he does not understand superposition.
He is confusing it with sinewaves and rotations.
LK: We can get back to that some time.
S: Miles has written many papers on Superposition. Is possible because of stacked spins.
Z: I skipped MM because I often find him confusing one thing with another. His ideas are more artistic in some way.
S: His visual insights as an artist help a lot with finding the right mechanics.
I agree Miles'  papers are sometimes confusing since his older papers do not have his whole theory build out and his newer papers assume you know all the old stuff already.
Z: I often think that he is confused. But I'll just have a look at some of his ideas.
LK: ZZ, I think you learn more here quicker, since I'm trying to get into basics like that somewhat.
S: I do not think Miles is confused but agree his papers can be a confusing read. You mostly have to read it multiple times and check his older papers.
LK: SO, ready to proceed?
S: I am. What is the next question?
LK: Below, but I may have more above later.
[MM: Magnetism is not just a matter of charge strength, nor of charge density.
-What we have [with magnetism] is charge going straight through in both directions (north and south).
-When that happens, we don't have a conducted charge (going in one direction and capable of strongly carrying current with it)]
[LK: But iron does conduct electric charge.]
LK: Steven, do you get my question here above? Anyway, iron has the same number of protons on both ends of its axes, so more photons should enter than antiphotons. Right?
S: All forces come from charge streams. You do not need electric current for magnetism, just charge streams aligning.
LK: The atoms need to be aligned too, don't they? The iron atoms in a magnet I mean.
S: Eh, yes, to get the magnetic force aligned with the iron bar.
LK: The photons are said to outnumber antiphotons, so, if both poles have the same number of protons, the photons should outnumber the antiphotons still, shouldn't they? MM is saying that magnets have the atoms' poles bringing in the same amount of charge at both ends. Right?
Z: Antiphotons are not really an existing thing. Photons can cancel themselves out.
LK: MM means photons with counterclockwise spin are antiphotons. Clockwise spinning photons are just photons.
S: On iron Miles has discussed that in his third book. Let me look it up.
This paper, page 7

"Having all those protons on the axis also helps us explain the magnetic qualities of Iron (and other elements built like this). Magnetic strength is now given to domain alignment, but that has never been connected to any real mechanics. Here we can see that magnetic strength has more to do with charge conduction in both directions along the axis. Magnetism is not just a matter of charge strength. Nor is it a matter of charge density, since as we saw with Silver and as we will see with Copper, electrical conduction is better when there is a proton differential from top to bottom (see below), so that we get conduction in one direction only. What we have here is charge going straight through in both directions, or a sort of conduction in both directions (north and south). When that happens, we don't just have a conducted charge—which means the charge is going in one direction, and is capable of strongly carrying current with it. When we have conduction in both directions, we actually have doubly spun or magnetic charge. This charge may be weak in current, because photons are going both directions. But it has an augmented magnetism precisely because the charge and anticharge are being
made spin coherent."
=> so Iron is electrically not a very good conductor, because the top/bottom proton charge streams go both directions but that property makes it a very good conductor for the magnetic field.
LK: Steven, I quoted some of that below too. And I asked some questions about that below.
Z: The idea of light having more components, is not a bad idea. It is a bit more complicated than that I believe.
Electrons can be split up in 3 different components, spin, charge and momentum. Neutrons can be split too. I believe that light has more components too, with different speeds. (momentum = quantum wave, charge/energy = electric transfer, spin = magnetism)
LK: MM says the photon spins are real, not virtual. I think the spin is perpendicular to the translational motion.
Z: Spin can be in any direction.
LK: If so, then there wouldn't be clockwise and counterclockwise spins, would there?
Z: A current from A to B creates a magnetic field around it. This magnetic field is static, and is around the current.
It has no direction, but is in a circle. If you get near another current, it will give a magnetic force. The force itself is perpendicular to the currents. So I do not understand the up/down concept.
In quantum physics we use spin-up/down, to distinguish between two random oriented spins that align themselves under a magnet. This magnet works like a polarizer. So it removes the spin in the other directions. That is why I do not understand the anti-photon model. It does not fit with the electro-magnetism that I know.
S: Beacuse part of [QM] is not mechanics currently. Miles give a fully mechanical explanation.
LK: I'm trying to get enough clarity on some of the ideas so we can hopefully diagram them in order to test if they make sense in diagrams.
- ZZ, can you make models of what MM is describing here and in his papers? Especially, the quotes here where I ask for diagrams and video?
Z: The models of MM are not clear. They seem logical at first, but break logic as soon I get deeper into it.
Just like the anti-photon idea. There is still no anti-photon. You can have spin CC /CCW. But that is always compared to a fixed direction. If you change the direction, you have a different CC/CCW. If you put your direction upside down, you can make your anti-photons into photons suddenly.
S: An anti-photon is the same as a photon. The spin is relative against another particle's spin. You cannot suddenly turn them, just like you cannot suddenly turn any spinning particle.
LK: You can throw a baseball and make it spin clockwise or counterclockwise. Same with photons, apparently.
Z: But in this other part he states that you can have more anti-photons than photons. This is not valid, unless you have a fixed direction. And he relates this to planets. (Which have all directions).
LK: As I say with throwing a ball, it can spin CW or CCW.
Z: Related to what? If you throw it is related to you, the thrower.
LK: Related to the direction of travel. o-------------------------------------->
Z: Travel direction of light, of electric field, or of current, or of magnetism?
LK: Travel of photons, which are what all of those are.
Z: If you have a static electric field, there are no photons. If you have a "static' magnetic field there are none too. (I do not believe photons are the correct model for it).
LK: MM contends that an electric current is photons and that magnetic fields have coherently spinning photons causing the field.
Z: That is what I mean. He seems to confuse things that are related to each other, and creates a new model that mixes them together. The mix produces confusion in my opinion.
LK: That's because he doesn't provide enough diagramming, I think.
Z: I can not visualize his ideas, because they are merely words, but not very well related to reality (or some model).
LK: You can visualize a ball thrown straight ahead with a spin CW or CCW.
Z: If I see a photon as a ball. Current science says that a photon is 'thrown" from a light-source. If I have a current, what direction does the ball go in MM's logic?
LK: I have to think about that, but Steven can probably answer much quicker. How about it, Steven?
Z: From the normal photon model, the light-photons go perpendicular from the wire, when the current is changing. That is the EM-wave.
But in a static current, even the mainstream photon model does not have a real answer for that. Still there is a magnetic field.
S: In Miles model's everything is build from photons and photon motions. The wave of the photon is the spin of the photon layed out against it's motion in a straight line in Miles model.
Z: What? Which photon? ill check link.
S: Photons are real particles in Miles' models. Particles with spins.
LK: I found a paper online which stated that too, that photons reflect in a way that they must have their mass off-center, so they move in a sinewave motion. MM says photons have mass and radius, so they're not virtual. And it makes sense to me that they must have mass, or they wouldn't be able to have an effect on anything.
S: Yes, if photons collide and they are real particles then most collisions will be off-center, transferring spin energy instead of straight line motion energy.
Z: I think the first confusion that MM creates is that he is not really talking about photons anymore, but about his own particle that models light, magnetism, electricity etc. He can call it Mhoton!
LK: You mean photon?
Z: It is not a photon if it is not the same as the photon that we use in mainstream models. It is really confusing.
S: Yes, main mistake in mainsteam models is to ignore photon mass says Miles.
In Miles theories:
   photon = real particle with spin
   light = photons of a particular energy range
   charge field = all photons passing by
   Electricity = straight line photon energy
   Magnetism = photon spin energy
Z: As I read this. His Mhotons are more like electrons. Found this strange thing in his article (photon2.html)
"..radius of the B-photon is G times less than the radius of the proton.  This gives us a photon radius of 2.74 x 10^-24m.  The z-spin is 8 times the radius.."
The spin is measured in radius? That is like saying rotations per second is measured in meters. MM is mixing up things.
S: [Pi = 4] has to do with pi being a different value in circular motions than in static geometry.
The Z-spin is the third level stacked spin, first level = 2x radius, second level = 4x radius, etc... Each spin orthogonal to previous one.
Z: You describe how different spins are related to each other. And relate to the radius. The spin is still a different thing.
S: In QM spin is not assigned to anything mechanical. In Miles' theories everything is mechanical. So Miles' term "spin" does not equate with QM "spin".
Z: Is every photon (Mhoton) in the same dimension?
S: Not sure what you mean by "dimension"?. In Miles' theories everything has three mechanical dimensions. The spins are purely mechanical, defined with gyroscopic rules.
LK: Do you mean spatial dimension? Photons have 3 spatial dimensions.
Z: Yes. If you describe everything as particles with mass, they will likely behave as little balls and bump against each other. But light does not bump against other light. Normal photons do not have mass and behave like particles. So I still think MM is confusing his interesting ideas about particles with a phenomenon that does not behave as particles.
S: Yes, photons will bump into eachother. That is how they create higher energy particles. All particles recycle photons in Miles' theories. But the photon density of the "vacuum" is pretty low compared to inside a proton or electron, so very little "collisons".
LK: Or anywhere there is matter.
Z: I have never heard of photons bumping in[to] each other. Sorry. But lets go further with the other ideas.
LK: Do you mean the ideas below?
S: Well, you assume photons can interact with electrons and protons, so why would they not hit eachother? Likelyhood is smaller since they are very small.
Z: Sorry, but the model of Mhotons is a bit far from the model of photons that I use for reality. While I like the idea of spins and such, I think that he is confusing different visual models with each other to explain things that are even more different. I do not want to bring his ideas down, but MM does not describe his models very clearly. And I think that he does not do that, because he can not do that. If you make actual visuals of the models that he makes, they seem to conflict with reality or with eachother as far I understand now.
LK: I think it's easier to follow his ideas if you start with some of the main early papers.
S: Even universities start to work with idea's that photons have real spin (and mass):
Z: I agree that light has more directions. It contains both electric and magnetic force. And it contains momentum.  It seems that MM just mixes them together into normal particles. But that is too simple. And when you try to visualize his models, they do not really work so well in my opinion.
S: Momentum is something mechanical.
LK: That's why I'm trying to diagram them and video some of them, to see if we can get clearer pictures and see what problems there may be that need correcting etc.
Z: The way he writes is a bit similar to some other people. Sansbury's papers are very hard to read too. I think it is very important for these people to have their models written down clearer.
LK: In the mean time, we can see if we can make them clearer too. I'm introducing the second topic now. Are we ready to discuss it?
LK: See my first 2 questions here below? Do yous want to discuss this next question, or a different one? There are three more topics further down the page.

2. CHARGE STREAMS: Matter receives and emits photons in charge streams. Particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) within neutral matter (atoms, molecules) circulate charge in streams ... ^among internal^ ... particles.
Z: In this article he is talking about how wrong other people are on pressure and weight of atmosphere. I did not come to his alternative model. But it makes it very hard to read. If you have a different model for something, first show a bit how the model works. I you think other scientists did it wrong, that does not mean that your model is correct, whatever that is.
LK: MM admits that his model could be wrong too. But he seems to be right about a lot of the errors in conventional physics etc.
S: I think Miles explains it all very patiently. Think most people have trouble understanding the pervasiveness of his charge field which make his papers poorly accessible for an incidental read. We should perhaps write a "Miles Mathis for dummies" to give people more background information that is needed when he talks about "charge field', "stacked spins", charge streams, etc...
Z: If I would summarize his ideas. I would say. The atmosphere is not the result of gravity and weight. It is the result of electric charge.
LK: No, MM doesn't mean Electric charge, when he uses the word Charge. He usually means the charge field, which he says is photons. So he's talking about infrared photons that are emitted by the Earth, which cause the atmosphere to remain a large volume, instead of collapsing onto the solid or liquid surface of the Earth.
S: The charge field is the underlying cause of the electric and magnetic fields but also planetary motions etc.
Z: The charge field as I read it, seems more a philosophical idea than a real model.
LK: Photons aren't just philosophical ideas. Are they?
Z: Normal photons are not, but models without photons can still work. His photons (Mhotons) are not really photons as we know them. He has a different version that explains everything. According to him.
LK: I regard MM's photons as the photons we are familiar with every day. I don't accept some of the details of his photon model, but I accept a lot of his description as realistic.
Z: Ok. Let me put this in a more positive way. He describes a new model for photons. In a very mechanical way. And he thinks that it can explain a lot of physical phenomena.
LK: That's right.
S: I think the properties of Miles' photons are never in conflict with the properties that are now assigned to them. He just makes them fully mechanical. Einstein received a Nobel prize for the photon as a particle.
Z: Photons are not real in quantum physical models. They are more like waves that only appear as a particle when observed. I think Einstein was wrong. But that is not the discussion here. I think the model of photons as described by MM is wrong, but I understand that he wants a more mechanical model than the mainstream uses.
LK: We know about that conflict. QM works with photons and electrons that have zero radius. How can that work?
S: QM just does not have a lot of mechanics at all. Gives them a lot of wiggle room.
Z: I have a different way to put mechanics back into QM.. But that is by doing things totally different than we are used to.
LK: That's what MM did. He started with the assumption that electrons and photons etc have actual diameters etc.
Z: In the model that I use, photons and electrons are more the result of interactions than real objects. They are real only as a (temporary) structure of something else. Instead MM makes a model with mechanical photons. With spins and other properties. They are not really as we know it, but some modern scientists come to conclusions that are similar. Like in quantum field theory they believe that a photon does have a mass. Yet this after using a totally different model of reality as MM uses. His work reminds me a bit of the idea of magnetic flow. By the creator of Coral Castle.
LK: ZZ, do you want to discuss paranormal things briefly?
Z: We can look a bit at it. What topic? Everything is paranormal in some way ;-)
LK: Coral Castle etc.
Z: Ahh.. Nice idea. And still related to MM I believe. Ok. Do you think that some kind of gravity reducing trick has been used in making coral castle? Has anyone actually been there?
LK: I haven't been there. That's what it seems like (gravity reduction), but I don't know much, other than that sound might also have that effect. Jonathan Gray has info at etc that some cultures and the ancients were able to levitate large weights to considerable heights using sound or something.
Z: OK as far I read. It seems that the creator (what is his name?) [Ed Leedskalnin?] has a magnetic model of gravity. The magnetic model is related to the fact that every particle has a magnetic property. This magnetic property creates magnetic flow lines in some way. And these can be influenced with changing magnetic fields. If you loosen the magnetic flow lines enough, the graviy is reduced and you can lift a large object much easier. That is the theory.
LK: Thanks for the info, ZZ. I guess we should return to MM theory now or so.
Z: Tesla has a similar model. And he has reported some anti-gravity stuff too.
Z: OK returning to MM. What exactly is a charge stream? How does that relate to a beam of light or an electric current?
LK: A charge stream is a stream of photons within atoms that then travel to nearby atoms etc and outward.
S: Can be inward/outward. Basically a river of photons. You have charge streams at all scales. But scale matterS: on atomic scales a charge stream is like a whirlpool, but at the galactic level it is a very minor "wind".
Z: That is very much like a beam of light, if I use the normal photon model.
LK: That's why I asked the second question below about galactic filaments.
Z: Maybe we can look at the solar level first. What does the sun do. Does it create streams?
S: Yes, all spinning particles create charge streams, in at the poles and out at the equator.
LK: Neutrons are said to take photons in at the poles and emit them out at the poles too.
S: Yes, not at the equator. That is why they can act as "bearings" in an atomic structure. Protons act more like "flying saucers" because of the emitted photon streams at the equator.
LK: It's more like a photon sheet from the proton's equator. Isn't it?
S: Schematically only I think, The protons are porous. The basic flow is in at the poles and out at the equator, but at a lower level it is still collissions.
Z: Where does MM get his ideas from. Does he know the model as put forward by Leadbeater in his books about Occult Chemistry? There is a lot of interesting stuff in it, a bit similar to MM´s idea of a photon. Steven do you want to see the ideas from Leadbeater?
S: Never heard of him, but tell me.
Here is free e-book:
S: Found that article.
BTW: quarks are the lower level spins in an atom in Miles' theories.
Z: I think his ideas are a bit related. Still different.
S: After four levels, the stacked spins or nested spins repeat in Miles spin theory. The electron is a few spin levels down from the proton.Each spin level doubles the energy. The particles have to stack spins since when the surface spins at lightspeed the particle cannot speed up any further, only possible extra motion is to add a pole-over-pole spin of the particle. This spins at the double radius.
Z: I get that. I think the philosophical ideas are not bad. The practical side is very strange. And in my opinion often not correct. But I like some of his approaches and ideas. What do you think? I like the etherpad idea. You can discuss with more people quite easy.
S: Yes, let's do it another time with Lloyd and the others. This etherpad thing works pretty well.
Z: OK cya.. Do we need to save this stuff? I believe mozilla keeps it online.
S: Eh, think so yes. I have copied it into a word document but then the colors disappear.
Z: Ok Ill let lloyd do the copy work then.. OK CYA CIAO AJU PARAPLU
S: Trusten!
Z: Trusten...


LK: What causes photons to stay within charge streams? Does anyone know this? It seems like there must be an aether, or subphoton field, that can have channels that guide photons.
- Are galactic filaments charge streams?

MM: Ions are charged [which] means that they are radiating photons.
-Molecules do not radiate many photons, ... because the electrons in the shells are blocking radiation from the nuclei.
-Molecules are mostly neutral, as we know, so few photons are escaping the electron/proton exchange.
LK: MOLECULAR CHARGE FIELD: ___Diagram charge streams within neutral Molecules please?
MM: But with ions, this is not the case.
-I have shown that electrons also emit the charge field, so negative ions will be creating a charge field, not just positive ions.
-Both negative and positive ions are emitting a positive, real, bombarding field of photons.
-Therefore, when ions encounter the charge field of the Earth, they feel a greater repulsion than molecules, and must go higher in the atmosphere.
MM: We actually have doubly spun or magnetic charge, because the charge and anticharge are being made spin coherent.
-[Clockwise? spinning] Photons and [CCW] antiphotons are only opposite if they are traveling side by side in the same direction.
-In that case, their spins cancel and the magnetic field goes to zero.
-But if they are traveling in opposite directions [as through an atom's axis], their spins actually [add], since they are [spinning] the same.
LK: PHOTON SPIN ADDING & CANCELING: ___ Video this please?]
=Image from the Magnetism paper:
MM: That is what we see here with Iron:
MM: With magnetic attraction, we have two opposite spin fields meeting, and these fields are a creation of the nucleus.
-Some elements create much stronger spin fields via magnetic conduction through the nuclear pole, and these elements are the most magnetic.
-When these strong spin fields meet from opposing directions, we get high spin cancellations.
-When the two charge fields meet in fairly well-ordered straight lines, head-to-head, the photons will cancel their spins, canceling the magnetic component of the E/M field.
-The photons will not annihilate one another, but they will annihilate one another's spins.
LK: PHOTON SPIN ANNIHILATION: ___ Diagram or Video this please?]
MM: In other words, the electrical field will not be canceled, only the magnetic field.
-Nor will all photons be affected, since we don't imagine that all will collide.
-But the field coherence creates an unusually high number of collisions and spin cancellations, and the result is greatly reduced charge field.
-A greatly reduced charge field is the same as a greatly strengthened gravity field, and the result is an apparent attraction.
-There is too little repulsion to counteract gravitational expansion, and the magnets come together.
LK: ATTRACTED MAGNETS: ___Diagram please?]
MM: [For magnetic repulsion] turn one of the magnets 180 degrees.
-All the electrons are then upside-down, compared to where they were before, and all emitted photons have just been reversed as well.
-If all the photons in magnet A were previously spinning clockwise relative to B, they are now spinning counter-clockwise relative to B.
-If the photons in B were spinning counter-clockwise to begin with, we now have CCW photons meeting CCW photons.
-Instead of having the spins cancel, they now [add].
-The magnetic repulsion is at maximum strength, since the torque at the front of each photon is added to the other.
-Instead of torque minus torque, we now have torque plus torque.
-And, since the fields have been made coherent, the two torques are as close to parallel as we can make them.
-The addition of torques is as near a straight doubling as it can be.
=Image from the Magnetism paper:
LK: PHOTON TORQUES: How exactly do these torques act on objects? ___Diagram please?]
MM: This is why normal objects don't act like magnets.
-One: they don't have the right elemental structure, and since it is the nucleus that creates the possibility of magnetism, these objects won't have the magnetic conduction through the nuclear pole.
-Two: because they don't have this inherent charge-field spin, they can't be made coherent by an external magnetic field. There is much less to cohere.
-Three: when the charge fields of two normal objects meet, the magnetic component of the charge field is neither at a maximum or a minimum.
-We get all sorts of random meetings of photons, and we get the sort of flabby magnetic repulsion that most objects have for one another: a repulsion large enough to counteract gravity, but not enough to take it well above or below normal.
LK: WEAK NONMAGNETS: ___Diagrams please?]

__Solid Light?
- primary charge stream is from pole to equator. But when we are looking at what we call electrical conduction, we are looking at the stream from ...
__The Fourth Phase of Water, part 1.
- absorbed light is simply joining a charge stream that matches its own energy. Light with a greater energy passes through and light with a lesser ...
__THe Fourth Phase of Water, part 2.
- Since we are dealing with a charge stream, the minus is now assigned to where the charge goes into the nucleus, and the plus to where it comes out.
__Reaction Noble Gasses
- emitting charge in a full circle, basically, so the charge stream is not linear. Larger elements create channels that could be called more or less ...
- The nucleus naturally aligns itself to the external and introduced charge stream, you see, so there is no way to spin the nucleus with it.
__The Phosphorus-Hydrogen Bond
- When Phosphorus is positive, it is because that proton on the south pole is being used as a plug, to plug into another nuclear charge stream.
__Gas Discharge Lamps
- What is more, the gas will align to this charge stream. ... will point its south pole toward the incoming charge stream, to facilitate its channeling.
__NASA's Space Caterpillar
- some of these nuclei and electrons will be knocked out of the plasma, joining the charge stream out. This is all the Solar Wind is. This is why the ...
__The Great Methane Stink
- Those bonds simply follow the main charge stream through the nuclei, and these nuclei are bonding pole to pole to pole. The blue disks are ...
__Deuterium and Tritium
- Although the down charge stream also exists, it is being ... all these baryons exist in a charge stream to start with:
__P-N Junctions without Holes
- The forward charge stream is no longer contained by the forward path of the Si-P to Si-B, and it overflows the banks. It begins spilling out into ...
__Period Four
- When the two charge streams meet, the second charge stream blows that electron out of the hole before bonding. It is not a choice, it is a ...
The Hall Effect: a Charge Field Explanation.
- If we match the diagram above and let the first charge stream go into the page, then the south pole of each nucleus will be pointing right at us.
Black-body Radiation the Charge Field
- But heat is defined by the charge stream carrying it. You should be surprised that Planck and others never noticed that both heat and black-body radiation were ...
The Polar Aurorae
- Everything comes to us on the charge stream. Therefore, we simply increase the density of charge recycled, and calculate how that would affect ...
The Cause of the Solar Cycle
- they can create a secondary charge stream that strongly interferes with the first. But when we are looking at photons, two orthogonal charge ...
Robert Hofstadter and Nuclear Bombardment
- stream, secondary charge stream, tertiary charge stream. Now let us return to the problem of the blip, or the turn-around on the graph. We have ...

3. (3v) Recycled photon emission by matter is the cause of electrical repulsion and electric current.
LK: Do electrons flow within photon charge streams and what percentage do they contribute to electromotive force?

4. (2v) The charge field prevents the atmosphere from collapsing.
LK: How is the outward photon pressure from rocky bodies calculated and can you give an example?

5. (2v) Photon spins can stack, somewhat like gyroscopic motions, or coils of coils.
LK: Where is Miles' clearest explanation of this and what is the explanation?

Q. LK: What is a good strategy for promoting Miles' ideas better and for improving science?


Posts : 15
Join date : 2015-11-05

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