(Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:09 pm

Steve,

Tried with a second device and browser, no change.

Thanks for sharing your work, and your encouragement. Family and work schedules/priorities are most demanding, but I do love this stuff, and I'm easy to confuse.

< cherry >Bolloxed up 1821 photons to a proton, I meant electrons, not photons, of course. (And alpha on one hand is the He atom, but I meant it as a stack spin particle smaller than an electron).

The proton is not billions of photons like some bingo ball cage?
What is recycling, if not discreet photons?

REMCB

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 582
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by Nevyn on Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:40 pm

Airman,
< cherry >  On the one hand you can think of a proton as being both its actual photon and its charge field. So in this way, the proton is lots of photons. However, the actual proton is just one single photon with many, many stacked spins. The protons charge field is an affect of the stacked spins.

  Yes, I imagine some charge gets stuck inside of the proton shell (it's not really a shell but the volume of space the photon moves around in as it spins). Also, some charge can pass straight through the proton volume without being touched by the protons photon (and I don't just mean through the central hole but through an area where it could have been hit by the protons photon but it wasn't there are that time).

  Recycling is the affect the protons photon has on the charge field just by simple collisions. The protons photon spends a lot of time performing fast moving arcs around the outside of its volume. These arcs look like they would push charge towards the equatorial region of the proton. When the protons photon is in the central region of its volume (near the central through-charge hole) it is usually moving along the axis of the central hole (ie if the hole is on the Z axis then the photon is moving along the Z axis but it does go both directions through this area at different times). This motion seems to be helping the through-charge.

  I think the density of the ambient charge field is an important factor. It is easy to think that it is so dense that the proton is constantly pushing these charge photons around (and to a certain degree it is) but if we could measure on a time scale that allowed us to see the actual protons photon motion, I think we would find the density is not quite as large as we thought.

  1 second is an extremely long time to a proton. In that time, as we know, it emits 19 times its own mass in charge photons which is a lot of charge. But if we could just slow that all down I think (and it is just a hunch) that we would find it is moving more than it is colliding with charge. It would be interesting to find that ratio of motion to collision.

  Initially I had the idea that it would be colliding nearly constantly because that is a lot of charge to move around. < cherry >But now I think that if it was that dense then the proton would soon lose its spin because every collision must affect it. But then again, Miles has stated that dense charge fields can add spin levels because of the increased collision rate. Mmm, need more thought on that one.

  Miles has stated that the charge field is actually quite sparse which allows light and charge to interpenetrate each other with little collision between 2 streams of photons. This must mean that the field density, at the scale of a proton, is not that dense either.

  Now, the proton spins very fast. The very first spin level, axial spin, has a tangential velocity of c (as all spin levels do but the radius is so small that the orbital velocity is extremely fast). This is a photon spinning that fast it is almost hard to think about how fast that is. However, the charge photons have a linear velocity that is just as fast. This means that a lot of charge can slip right by the proton without collision. But some of it will collide and this seems to be enough to generate 19 times its own mass every second (in a normal charge field).

  What I'm trying to get to is that the volume the proton takes up (just its spin volume, not its charge field) is 99% empty (ignoring ambient charge). So the proton is only pushing around a small amount of the charge that passes through its volume. But an important factor is that a proton (or any charged particle) is a director. It takes somewhat random charge and forces it into the equatorial region of the proton (mostly).

  When you think about that, it means that a charged particle is sort of creating force. It is not really creating it but it is adjusting it so that it presents a common front, if you will. It takes randomness and creates order which means it violates entropy because it is creating order from disorder, constantly. I take this to mean that entropy (and probably thermodynamics in general) do not apply at this scale. I believe that thermodynamics only applies above the charge/gravity threshold. ie. when gravity becomes the more dominant, or at least equal, force. Probably somewhere near the atomic size scale.

  Well, that is some of my understanding anyway. I better stop because one thing always leads to another and I end up writing a wall of text every time I post. I do love it though. It gets me thinking about things I might have blindly accepted without realising it.

  I will add one more thing. It is fine to think of alternative hypotheses but you have to match Miles math as well as his mechanics. Stacked spins aren't just about the mechanical motion but the equations that go along with them. The doubling radius is an important one as it links into the quantum equations. I know Lloyd tries to explain that using multiple photons rather than stacked spins but that brings along its own problems. Spins also allow particle transformation which is extremely important because it allows everything to be built from 1 single particle type. We don't need the zoo of particles the mainstream uses, we only need 1 and its many forms.

  Before I ever found Miles work, it was my intuition that physics would eventually be explained by a single entity and the complexity we see is just a result of extremely large quantities of these entities and their interactions. I got some flack for that by some more mainstream people I knew but once I found Miles site, it all started to come together into what I had wanted. No other theory I have found has been able to build so much from so little with such coherency.

  Ok, one more thing I forgot to mention in my last post to you. You mentioned electron matter and no, I haven't looked into that at all but I found it very amusing that you mention that because < cherry >I was writing a paper about the neutral electron (nectron) at the time where I was talking about the nectron allowing what I called micro-atoms to be built (possibly, it is a bit of a stretch). Pure conjecture at this point but maybe you have some evidence for it?

Cheers,
Steve.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by Nevyn on Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:50 pm

LongtimeAirman wrote:Steve,

Tried with a second device and browser, no change.

Forgot to mention that I checked where my server is hosted and it is in North Carolina. Are you in the US? I thought you might be British as you used the word bollocks. The DNS should have propagated to the whole world by now though so I don't know why you can't see it. I tried it from a friends network which uses a different ISP to mine and could see it fine but we are both in the same region.

What browsers have you tried? What OS are you using? Neither of those should matter, it is a very simple site but it does use Javascript. Do you have that enabled in your browser?
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Sep 13, 2014 1:50 pm

Steve,

Still no joy. Firefox and Internet Explorer. Windows 10.1 and Verizon. I’m American.

I really appreciate you taking the time to go over the basics with me. It's pretty much my current understanding, and it seems the only problem I have at present is not having seen your spin model and its relation to the charge field.

As far as electron matter goes, It’s my turn to chuckle. In:

197b. EVO's and the Charge Field. http://milesmathis.com/evo.pdf I analyze a paper by Ken Shoulders, showing more proof of the charge field. 4pp.

Miles says, “I am not a reifier, I am a modeler”. He talks about modeling and thanks Ken Shoulders for providing data which can be understood with the charge field.

< cherry >“Shoulders then shows that electrons travel easily together, contradicting what we are taught about repulsing charges. He provides data proving that although electrons have some repulsion, they have nothing like a repulsion of -1. I have shown that this is because electrons have a smaller charge profile than the proton. We do not have equal and opposite charges, and never have. The mainstream's own experiments and equations have long indicated the electron has a charge of 1/1821 that of the proton, but as with the charge field itself, that data is ignored to suit old standing theories.”

< cherry >“Furthermore, I have shown that it is the electrons' real spins and charge emissions through those spins that are keeping them apart, just as fans would keep one another apart. But in some cases, electrons can huddle even closer, stacking like the protons stack in the nucleus, pole to equator. To get there, they have to be driven by a non-linear charge field, which is rare. But this is the explanation of some quantum particles, such as the tau neutrino. The neutrino is not an indivisible particle: it is four x-spinning electrons.”

“Finally, here's the clincher:”

< cherry >“Curiously, the critical number density of the substructure matches Avogadro’s number. To a first approximation, the parts within are spaced the same as if they were in an atomic lattice.”



"Needing a model—and not having one—he left the door open for a good modeler".

Sounds like electron matter to me, and with all the emphasis on the modeler, I couldn't help but think of you. I believe that Cr6 has been considering it too. I speculate that galactic filaments are made from such matter.

REMCB

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 582
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by Nevyn on Sat Sep 13, 2014 7:05 pm

Hi Airman,
  I didn't realise you meant Miles paper on EVOs. Yes, I have read that and I started to read some of Kens papers too (I must get back to that, very interesting stuff) and I was using that in the paper I was writing as support for the idea. It was good to read the parts you posted above though. I really should re-read that paper as I remembered that Miles had tentatively suggested the idea but it was a bit more firm than I thought.

< cherry >  Interesting thought about galactic filaments. I had assumed they were just charge photons (possibly even smaller than the normal IR charge) but Ken was working with extreme vacuums and that would match the environment of a charge filament. I like it.

  Regarding the site problems, I had a look over the FAQ for my webhost and it mentioned that the servers are used to create lots and lots of accounts and this can degrade performance but it should only be for a few days as they will fill up the server I am on and move to another. It should not be a problem after that since they will not create new sites on that server anymore. Let's hope it is just a temporary thing. I have tried the site from a different ISP (but still local to me) and it seems fine. I would have thought you would get better access than me since you are in the states.

  Did you check to see if you have Javascript activated in your browser? The periodic table is totally run by Javascript and would not work without it. The other pages I have though are pretty straight forward HTML. No fancy stuff as it is more about the content than the presentation. I suspect you do have JS enabled though as I doubt you could use this forum without it. I'll have a talk with some other developers at work tomorrow and see if they have any ideas on what the problem could be. Thanks for being persistent.

  If you feel up to it, you could try doing a little bit of debugging in your browser. There is a Firefox plugin called Firebug which lets you see all the page code, styling and most importantly here, the network traffic. It will tell you each piece of the page that gets loaded and the time it took. It would be good to know if you are getting any pieces of the page and if so, which ones are the problem. The page is pretty small so it shouldn't timeout unless you were on dialup maybe and even then, you would still get the page but the models would take forever to download. I've heard some bad things about US ISPs but it wouldn't be that bad.

  Actually, you might not need Firebug as Firefox has some built-in tools (I think, I thought it was an addon but it does not show up in my list of addons or extensions so it might be built-in now). Go to my site using only the domain name http://www.nevyn.netai.net (notice that it is netai, as in net artificial intelligence, not an l) and then select the Tools menu and see if there is a Web Developer option. If it is there, then it has a menu item called Traffic, select that and it will do the same as Firebug.

  I do suspect that you are not even getting the raw HTML for some reason. You could try flushing your DNS cache. This will force your system to query for all domain names (until it fills the cache again). Just google "flush dns" and find one that applies to your OS (by the way, did you mean Windows 8.1?).

  I just tried to use some proxy sites to access my site and some worked and some didn't. Try to access my site through a site called FilterByPass, that worked for me, although it did change how some of the page works but you can still get the content it is just presented differently (no effects it just goes to the image like it is another page).

Regards,
Steve.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by LloydK on Sun Sep 14, 2014 8:24 pm

Number of Photons per Electron
Airman said: I must say that I have a hard time accepting that an electron, (or even a proton) is the manifestation of a single photon. That the mass of the particle (alpha or higher) "is the sum of the spin vectors" of that photon.
I understand that as energy is added, the lightspeed limit causes stacked spins. But I've convinced myself that the stacked spins caused a manifold, scooping photons into the particle. Thus the proton is a collection of approximately 1821 photons. If the proton is recycling photons, how can you say that the proton is just a single photon?
Have you looked at electron matter yet?
I agree that it makes more sense that electrons and protons should consist of numerous photons, not just one. I think each stack is likely to double the number in order to balance the initial photon so it can move in a sine-wave motion.

I may not get time to join this discussion for a spell, but it interests me.

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:06 pm

Hi Steve, You're right, Windows 8.1. And Filterbypass.me worked! Now I need to check out the models. How can such a complex spin path be maintained? And how can recycling occur?

Hi Lloyd, Thanks for the advice and support, of course I didn't realize I needed it. Wouldn't doubling a radius increase the volume 8-fold?

REMCB

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 582
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by Nevyn on Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:32 am

LongtimeAirman wrote:Hi Steve, You're right, Windows 8.1. And Filterbypass.me worked! Now I need to check out the models. How can such a complex spin path be maintained? And how can recycling occur?

Hi Lloyd, Thanks for the advice and support, of course I didn't realize I needed it. Wouldn't doubling a radius increase the volume 8-fold?

REMCB

Hi Airman,
  Glad you can finally see the content. I think the domain name (netai.net) may have been blacklisted by your ISP. As my site is on a shared domain, what others do with their own site can affect me in this way. I will let my host know and see if they can get it fixed. This usually results from mass emails being sent from a server so the ISP bans it to stop the problem for its users. Unfortunately, when on a shared domain, all sites on that domain get blocked.

  There is not much content on my site about stacked spins yet, just some images and a couple of videos showing the general path of a particle with a top level Z spin such as a proton, neutron or electron. I need to collate different things I have written for myself over the years and try to make it a coherent set of pages. A lot of it was posted on the TB forum, some of it going back a few years, so you might like to have a look there if you are struggling to understand what the images and videos are showing you. I plan to write a page that shows a single spin, then add another, and another and so on so that people can see how the complex path is built from many simple spins.

  A complex spin path can be maintained by collision with the charge field. Some will augment and some will suppress the spin but they can only affect the top level spin. So you have to de-spin every level individually to reduce a particle such as an electron to a photon. In order to affect the top level spin, you would need to be hit by another particle that is nearly the same size as your original particle and in just the right place (ie. in line with the spin path of that level). Also, using Newtons first law, the spin would continue forever unless hit by something else. But we do know it does get hit since an electron/proton can emit charge.

  Recycling is just collisions with the charge field photons. Nothing esoteric about it. The spin path allows the particle to affect a larger volume of space which allows it to affect more of the charge field than if it was not spinning on many levels. The path itself shows how often the particle is found in a certain area and how much energy it can have. It takes quite a while to get a feel for this. < cherry > I spent a lot of time playing with this app and different spin speed ratios before I found what I believe is the actual spin ratio (relative spin speed of 1 spin level to another, adjacent, spin level).This helped me to be able to think about other things interacting with the particle as it spins. I wish it wasn't so difficult to get this app running (it requires a few different pieces to all fit together and I can't supply some of them, the user needs to download them and install them for their particular system) or I would make it available for download and you can all play with it yourselves. I will probably do that anyway at some point but I am not ready at this point in time, unfortunately.

Regards,
Steve.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by LloydK on Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:29 am

Nectron. Hi you guys. Glad to see this forum come to life again. Thanks, Nevyn. By the way, have you figured out the difference between affect and effect yet? To affect is to have an effect.

It's nice to hear about your nectron. But you know there should also then be an anti-nectron, like the other anti-particles.

Stacked Spins
You said: I know it is hard to see why a tiny little photon could cause the results of a proton. Working with my spin app helped me here as I could see how the photon moved with many spin levels. I could imagine the charge field around it being pushed around by the complex motions of the photon. I could see areas that the photon would keep coming back to and others where it didn't. I could see where it was fast or slow, curving tightly or a more graceful arc. All this together helped me to see how a tiny little photon could cause major affects in a relatively large volume of space.
How would it be possible for an object, such as a spherical photon, to collide with something that makes it then spin around a point on the photon's surface. I had discussed this with Miles by email a couple years ago and I think it was as a result of that discussion that he concluded in a paper at that time that the photon is limited to stacking its spin (so as to spin around a point on its surface) because it can't go faster than the speed of light, which any other motion would have to involve (if I understood him correctly). Did he mean by that that the ambient charge field photons prevent the stacking photon from moving in any direction besides around a point on its surface? Would you like to simulate the collision that would result in such a stacked spin? It seems to me to violate the laws of motion, i.e. straight line motion. Miles dismissed that law in the same paper, or in his reply to me, but it seems to me it's an important law, which, if untrue, would make all progress in science baseless. Wouldn't it?

It is fine to think of alternative hypotheses but you have to match Miles math as well as his mechanics. Stacked spins aren't just about the mechanical motion but the equations that go along with them. The doubling radius is an important one as it links into the quantum equations. I know Lloyd tries to explain that using multiple photons rather than stacked spins but that brings along its own problems. Spins also allow particle transformation which is extremely important because it allows everything to be built from 1 single particle type. We don't need the zoo of particles the mainstream uses, we only need 1 and its many forms.
Yes, MM explains the doubling of the radius as the photon rotating around a point on its surface, which he calls a stacked spin, while to me it looks more plausible that the photon takes that motion of a stacked spin, because another photon joins it. Two photons side-by-side have double the radius of one. And both photons spin together around their common point of contact, like a two-bladed fan. A figure 8 is what they would look like in freeze-frame, but in normal rotation, they would look like an O. And I don't think my alternative would violate MM's math.

Sphere - Torus - Sphere. Miles acknowledged by email back then that the shape of the first stacked spin would actually be a torus, in answer to my query, but he said he preferred to discuss it as a sphere, for simplicity. I believe the next stacked spin would make the torus a sphere and the next would again make it a torus, each larger than the one before. Does everyone agree on that?

Crooked Light Paths. A related issue is ambient charge translational motion. In the atom, MM has 2 neutrons between 2 protons and the charge stream going through the poles of one proton, then through the poles of both neutrons side-by-side, then through the pole of the other proton. How could the charge stream do that: make an angle, instead of a straight line? MM says neutral atoms recycle exclusively the same charge stream never going outside the atoms, but just round and round through the same atomic particles, whereas ions don't retain the same charge stream. He said that's why ions are not neutral, but atoms and molecules are. Again, the charge stream would have to take a crooked path to stay within a single atom.

In another paper about a year ago he said Earth's charge field was found to leave Earth some degrees above and below the equator and then bending back to Earth's equatorial plane within the ionosphere, I think.

I consider those ideas plausible, but they seem to be a long way from being clearly explained in detail. I'd like to see that all make more complete sense too.

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by LloydK on Tue Sep 16, 2014 12:47 pm

MM Material at QDL Site
(Needs to be moved to this site or to some related site.)
Questions for MM: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9331
MM Glossary: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/13206.html
MM Papers Index: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/13056.html
MM Physics: Microcosm: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7050.html

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by Nevyn on Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:14 am

<Note: Lloyd added cherries ( cherry ) as markers.>

LloydK wrote:Nectron. Hi you guys. Glad to see this forum come to life again. Thanks, Nevyn. By the way, have you figured out the difference between affect and effect yet? To affect is to have an effect.

Hi Lloyd,
  I looked over my last post, where I used the word affect a few times, and I believe it has been used correctly. Affect is a verb. Effect is a noun. But I may have used them wrong at other times. I try to be careful with my language but I am not an expert in grammar/vocab. I care more about communicating my ideas than the grammar of that communication. A friend at work always corrects me when I say brought instead of bought even though I know the difference. It just gets lost in the brain to mouth transference.

LloydK wrote:Nectron.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       It's nice to hear about your nectron. But you know there should also then be an anti-nectron, like the other anti-particles.
I don't really think about the anti-particles much because they are no different than the normal particles. It is just a matter of relative orientation. They have no affect on the spin path. But they do affect the interactions.

LloydK wrote:Stacked Spins                                                                                                   How would it be possible for an object, such as a spherical photon, to collide with something that makes it then spin around a point on the photon's surface. I had discussed this with Miles by email a couple years ago and I think it was as a result of that discussion that he concluded in a paper at that time that the photon is limited to stacking its spin (so as to spin around a point on its surface) because it can't go faster than the speed of light, which any other motion would have to involve (if I understood him correctly). Did he mean by that that the ambient charge field photons prevent the stacking photon from moving in any direction besides around a point on its surface? Would you like to simulate the collision that would result in such a stacked spin? It seems to me to violate the laws of motion, i.e. straight line motion. Miles dismissed that law in the same paper, or in his reply to me, but it seems to me it's an important law, which, if untrue, would make all progress in science baseless. Wouldn't it?

< cherry >  The way I see it is that the B-Photon gains an axial spin until its tangential velocity reaches c. At this point it can not gain anymore spin on that level. If another particles hits the B-Photon it needs to use that energy somehow so it gains another spin level which is about a point on the surface of that B-Photon. So now we have an X spin. The colliding particle would need to hit the B-Photon in a certain area (of that B-Photons surface) to impart the right force in order to cause the new spin level. If the B-Photon had an axial spin about the Y axis, then the incoming particle would need to be moving in the direction of the XZ plane of the B-Photon and hit it somewhere near the poles on the Y axis OR it is moving in the Y axis direction and hits the B-Photon somewhere on the edge in the XZ plane. This causes the B-Photon to spin about that point of collision. The main point is that the incoming force is perpendicular to the spin.

  Any spin above the first X spin is NOT about a point on the surface of the B-Photon. <The Y spin is a spin around a point on the X spin photon surface - LK> Miles talks of them as spheres but they are not. The B-Photon is a sphere but once it has any spins above the axial spin, it is more of a torus because the top level spin has double the radius of the next inner spin level (as does every spin level above the axial spin) so it can not be a sphere. However, we can think of it like a sphere for simplicity (which Miles does). It is kind of irrelevant whether it is a sphere or torus except for the top level spin. Once a spin level has another spin level an top of it, it would not matter if it was a sphere or torus because it will take up the same amount of space regardless (it would affect the spin path somewhat). You can think of each spin level as being a sphere with a radius of that spin level as it makes it easier to talk about but strictly speaking, it is a torus.

  So now that we have an X spin, to gain another spin level a particle would have to be moving in the same direction as the X axis of the original B-Photon and hit it somewhere on the edge in the YZ plane. This is why the next spin level is orthogonal to the current spin level. Notice that it could gain a Z spin rather than a Y spin (or anywhere in between) but for simplicity we call it the Y spin because it is on top of the X spin. This is fine for discussion but it should be noted that real particles do not need to comply with the alphabet or spatial dimensions in this way.

  I don't think Miles meant that the B-Photon can only have 1 spin level above the axial spin since the whole theory of stacked spins is about having lots and lots of spin levels to build the different particles (I interpret the statement 'so as to spin around a point on its surface' as being the actual surface of the B-Photon, not just the imaginary surface of any spin level, although that is what I think Miles means when discussing spins above the axial). The limit at c is caused by the incoming particle which will not have a velocity above c. If the B-Photon is spinning at c and an incoming particle is moving at c and in the same direction as the spin, then there is no velocity difference and they would not impart any force in that dimension. If the incoming particle was moving in the opposite direction to the spin then it would slow that spin (how much depends on the mass differences).

  The ambient charge field photons do not prevent anything regarding adding new spins. The spin is not caused by the ambient field in this way (as in the particle moves in straight lines but collides with the ambient field which turns in inwards, again and again, ..., to create a circle). It is just a matter of velocity and mass differences.

  Stacked spin do not invalidate Newton's first law of motion, in fact they adhere to it as long as you remove the 'straight' part. Newton had no way of knowing how photons moved (since he didn't even know they exist) and physicists since him have not cared to think much about it either. They seem to prefer to define them away to nothing than do some actual physics. So Newton's laws are applicable on a macro scale, as they are written now, but I believe they need some extension to apply to the micro world of photons. You must remember that Newton was dealing with planetary orbits, not photon motion and the two are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

< cherry >  I have thought about trying to simulate the collision to form new spin levels but there is no clear theory in this area. I have tried to think of ways for it to happen but this is new physics and nothing is concrete enough for me at the moment. I have my own ideas (justifications?) of how it might work but it doesn't translate well to a simulation it would be more like an animation (ie faked).

LloydK wrote:
Yes, MM explains the doubling of the radius as the photon rotating around a point on its surface, which he calls a stacked spin, while to me it looks more plausible that the photon takes that motion of a stacked spin, because another photon joins it. Two photons side-by-side have double the radius of one. And both photons spin together around their common point of contact, like a two-bladed fan. A figure 8 is what they would look like in freeze-frame, but in normal rotation, they would look like an O. And I don't think my alternative would violate MM's math.                                                                                                                          

  If you want to explain photon motion by the joining of photons then you have to explain how they join. What keeps them together while spinning at c? Certainly not gravity. You would have to assume that each photon somehow glued itself to the other but then you have sticky photons everywhere, not just when you want to group them so how is it that charge photons bounce off of this sticky entity? Which leads to another problem, where does the force to emit charge come from? The top level spin imparts force because it is spinning at c (hence the charge photon is emitted at c) but a group of photons would just be blown apart from the collision (or we are back at the sticky photon theory). And I think it does violate the math once you get above 2 photons spinning together. Why not 3 or 11? You have no reason for a doubling radius above the first one. In fact, you can have up to 6 photons grouped together before you even increase the radius by a small amount, how many does it take to actually double that radius? And why does it not accept any until it has enough to double it? How does it know to not add some photons to the group but it will allow others if there is enough of them? You need all these little rules with no mechanical basis to explain it.

LloydK wrote:
Sphere - Torus - Sphere. Miles acknowledged by email back then that the shape of the first stacked spin would actually be a torus, in answer to my query, but he said he preferred to discuss it as a sphere, for simplicity. I believe the next stacked spin would make the torus a sphere and the next would again make it a torus, each larger than the one before. Does everyone agree on that?                                                      

  Yes, you will get no argument from me on this one because I can show it directly in my spin app. However, Miles is correct in that we can simplify it by thinking of each spin level as a sphere because that sphere is really the sphere of gyroscopic influence for that spin level. It just helps him describe it without confusing his readers too much.

LloydK wrote:
Crooked Light Paths. A related issue is ambient charge translational motion. In the atom, MM has 2 neutrons between 2 protons and the charge stream going through the poles of one proton, then through the poles of both neutrons side-by-side, then through the pole of the other proton. How could the charge stream do that: make an angle, instead of a straight line? MM says neutral atoms recycle exclusively the same charge stream never going outside the atoms, but just round and round through the same atomic particles, whereas ions don't retain the same charge stream. He said that's why ions are not neutral, but atoms and molecules are. Again, the charge stream would have to take a crooked path to stay within a single atom.                                                                                                                                                                         In another paper about a year ago he said Earth's charge field was found to leave Earth some degrees above and below the equator and then bending back to Earth's equatorial plane within the ionosphere, I think.                                                                                                                                                               I consider those ideas plausible, but they seem to be a long way from being clearly explained in detail. I'd like to see that all make more complete sense too.

< cherry >  I don't see it quite that way in the case of alphas. The through-charge holes on the protons line up and the protons are held together by the charge flowing through both of them (the through-charge, not equatorial). The neutrons are not part of that charge path. They are further out from this central region and take charge (through their own central holes) from the equatorial charge of the protons, if at all. I do remember Miles stating something like what you say but I can't remember the specifics. If you can tell me the paper it was stated in I will re-read it but I would guess that it is caused by the charge streams not following nice straight lines like humans tend to think of. Some charge will leak out to the sides, perhaps it could even be pushed there because the charge that went straight would collide with the neutrons and build up resistance until no more charge could enter this region (assuming the neutrons could not move sideways because of the equatorial charge streams of the protons).

< cherry >  I don't remember Miles saying that the charge got stuck inside neutral atoms (neutrons, yes, but atoms, no). While it is possible for a given charge photon to be inside the same atom for some time, I don't think it is a requirement. Maybe that was in an early paper before he had fleshed out his ideas on atomic structure. He does sometimes change his opinion in later papers and you need to remember this when reading his older ones, as you discovered with the charge strength of protons and electrons. I haven't given much thought to ions. I'm not sure they are even needed and might just be a side-effect of electron bonding theory. They could be caused by slight changes to the atomic structure like how Neodymium changes its structure to form strong magnets or maybe it is caused by electrons, not because they shield charge like the mainstream say but because they limit the through-charge of a proton (which could be called shielding but not in the same way as meant by the mainstream) which would affect how strongly a particular arm of an atom channeled. I don't know but I can say that an atom is full of near 90&deg; direction changes for a photon. It is a very violent world for charge so I don't think it needs crooked paths, the protons already provide enough possible direction changes.

Cheers,
Steve.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:47 pm

Hi Steve,

Thanks for you work and discussion.

I love your atomic models, and am trying to let my impressions stew so I can reply in a more constructive manner. I feel comfortable saying I consider them a tremendous help in understanding the nucleus. I can almost perceive the main octahedral growth, and the linear physical limits to the construction of the elements. Did you intend to continue this effort? How do you feel about modeling molecules? Or perhaps adding the charge field channel flows to your existing atoms? I like the idea that electrons may form miniature atoms.  

I really need to study your spin model further. I've stated my main objection already, it doesn't explain photon recycling.

You said "If you want to explain photon motion by the joining of photons then you have to explain how they join. What keeps them together while spinning at c? Certainly not gravity."

I protest. Why not gravity? The result would behave exactly like "sticky photons". You've dismissed gravity because the charge field is too "violent", but gravity and the charge field coexist at all levels. You should not dismiss gravity at the photon level without first understanding or explaining its behavior.

One of my longstanding questions is: Can photons travel in curves or orbits about local objects?  Your model seems to answer yes. First off, the photon as a proton travels with a low resultant linear velocity. Can a B-photon's linear velocity alone be less than c?

REMCB

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 582
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by LloydK on Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:35 am

Stacked Spins
Nevyn said: The way I see it is that the B-Photon gains an axial spin until its tangential velocity reaches c. At this point it can not gain anymore spin on that level. If another particles hits the B-Photon it needs to use that energy somehow so it gains another spin level which is about a point on the surface of that B-Photon. So now we have an X spin. []
- Stacked spin do not invalidate Newton's first law of motion, in fact they adhere to it as long as you remove the 'straight' part.

If all there is is a spinning photon moving in a straight line at c and it gets hit by another photon, spinning or not, also traveling at c, in a vacuum, why would not both photons simply bounce off in somewhat opposite directions from the directions they were going? I don't see a mechanism for making either photon spin around one of the points on its surface. And why would they spin around one of those points on their surfaces, instead of some other curved path? Curved paths don't make sense to me for a single force. A single force should only move something in a straight line. A curved path should require two forces. Where's the second force?

Stacked Spins = Paired Photons?
Nevyn said: If you want to explain photon motion by the joining of photons then you have to explain how they join.

I did that on the recent TB forum thread. Steven Rado had a theory of aethrokinematics to discuss his aether theory. He said moving objects have lower pressure than stationary objects, which is why two hanging balls a short distance apart move toward each other when you blow between them. The faster air is lower pressure, so the surrounding air pushes them closer together. In my scenario two photons may not be traveling toward each other from opposite directions and collide. They could be moving nearly parallel going the same direction. The ambient charge field could then push them together and continue to hold them together. They would tend to spin and the spinning would give them lower pressure too. They would then have their x-spin. A similar x-spinning pair could be traveling near the first pair and similarly get pushed together, making the two pairs a single y-spin photon, and so on.

< cherry >Curved Photon Paths
I said: In the atom, MM has 2 neutrons between 2 protons and the charge stream going through the poles of one proton, then through the poles of both neutrons side-by-side, then through the pole of the other proton. How could the charge stream do that: make an angle, instead of a straight line?

Nevyn replied: I do remember Miles stating something like what you say but I can't remember the specifics. If you can tell me the paper it was stated in I will re-read it

< cherry >It's in his Deuterium paper at http://milesmathis.com/deut.pdf - It's the 3rd image, which is helium, as well as the last image in the paper at the bottom.  

< cherry >And the curving of photon paths from the Earth is in his Equatorial Anomaly paper at http://milesmathis.com/equat.pdf

Neutral Atoms
Nevyn said: I don't remember Miles saying that the charge got stuck inside neutral atoms

< cherry >He didn't use the words "get stuck", but he said the charge mostly circulates within the atom. I believe it was in his paper on the Atmosphere.


Last edited by LloydK on Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:59 pm; edited 1 time in total

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by LloydK on Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:49 am

Photon Pairing?
Nevyn said: You said "If you want to explain photon motion by the joining of photons then you have to explain how they join. What keeps them together while spinning at c? Certainly not gravity."

Airman replied: I protest. Why not gravity? The result would behave exactly like "sticky photons".

I agree, Airman, although I see gravity as a push from outside inward by photons, instead of runaway expansion outwards caused by who-knows-what.

Curved Photon Paths?
Airman said: One of my longstanding questions is: Can photons travel in curves or orbits about local objects?  Your model seems to answer yes. First off, the photon as a proton travels with a low resultant linear velocity. Can a B-photon's linear velocity alone be less than c?

I think anything moving on a curved path has to have 2 different forces acting on it. Don't you? MM says photons can move faster or slower than c, but the local charge field quickly brings it back to average speed due to collisions (or maybe gravity too?).

PS, Thanks for importing my Questions for MM to this forum lately. I hope we get time to update them etc ere long.

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by Nevyn on Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:26 am

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Did you intend to continue this effort? How do you feel about modeling molecules? Or perhaps adding the charge field channel flows to your existing atoms?

Yes, I definitely do. I already have some molecules built but I have recently remodeled a lot of the atoms and I need to go back and make sure some of them are still valid. I have a lot of hydrocarbons, acids and bases, nitro, fluoro and sulfur based molecules. I even had a go at making the DNA building blocks which was very interesting but my biology knowledge needs improvement before I tackle that again.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
I really need to study your spin model further. I've stated my main objection already, it doesn't explain photon recycling.

All I can suggest is watching the videos I have of stacked spins and imagine a single charge photon colliding with the spinning photon and where it might go given the current direction of motion for the spinning photon. This will not happen in one quick look. You need to study it, think of different ways that charge will interact with it. See where the particle spends a lot of time (densely pact path) and therefore will push more charge around from this area. Look at where it is moving fast (path markers are spaced further apart, you can't rely on the speed of the video) and how this affects charge.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
I protest. Why not gravity? The result would behave exactly like "sticky photons". You've dismissed gravity because the charge field is too "violent", but gravity and the charge field coexist at all levels. You should not dismiss gravity at the photon level without first understanding or explaining its behavior.

Fair enough, I did brush past gravity pretty quickly. The reason I do so is because it just isn't strong enough at this scale. Yes, it is there but gravity becomes somewhere near an equal to charge at our scale and you are suggesting that it is already strong enough to keep 2 photons together at the smallest of scales while they are spinning at c. Spinning at c is nothing to be laughed at. That is a seriously fast velocity at the size of a photon (and still is at our own scale). If gravity were strong enough to do that then all charge would quickly clump together.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
One of my longstanding questions is: Can photons travel in curves or orbits about local objects?  Your model seems to answer yes.

Can Photons travel in curves? I accept the idea in order to see if it can explain what it needs to. Miles has taken it pretty far already and isn't slowing down. But I also accept that there may be a better way. I try to figure out the "why" of it sometimes but in order to make progress I just have to accept it and see where it leads. Test it, as best I can, to see if it can do what Miles says it can. Maybe see if it can do something Miles hasn't thought of.

Can photons orbit about local objects? I don't think so and I don't think my apps show that either. Curved motion does not equal an orbit even though an orbit involves curved motion.

LongtimeAirman wrote:
First off, the photon as a proton travels with a low resultant linear velocity. < cherry >Can a B-photon's linear velocity alone be less than c?

I don't know. I have asked myself that question for years because I can't see any reason why it can't. It seems we have never measured one doing so but I don't know how much weight to put into that. I prefer evidence to non-evidence but sometimes a lack of evidence is telling you something.

Mainstream science is quite happy to give particles (even space) inherent properties. I don't like this for all the reasons Miles doesn't but there is a wall that you just can't get past and anything beyond that wall is only ever going to be mysterious no matter how great our theories to understand it. We can never know if gravity works one way or another, for example. There are no absolutes. So, given that, I sometimes let myself think about what is on the other side of that wall.

The wall starts and stops with our ability to measure. That is all we know and all we can ever know. A theory is just an attempt to fill in what is on the other side of the wall in order to explain the side we do know. So any theory that gives the same results is as good as any other, even if it seems counter-intuitive. So if I say that a B-Photon always travels at c, and I have only ever measured B-Photons traveling at c, then I am saying that the B-Photon has an inherent property of traveling at c. I can't prove it but it hasn't been dis-proven either. Is it not better to go with the evidence you do have?

So now I take it a step further, stretching my first assumption a little, and I say that < cherry >a B-Photon has an inherent property of spinning at c. This is just the axial spin, no stacked spins but what that does is provide a reason for the stacked spins. That axial spin changes all interactions with other entities. We are no longer talking about the sorts of collisions that we learnt in school. It introduces the gyroscopic interactions which I am still trying to understand myself but it seems that Miles has tied these motions to things that are on that wall. Is that not a small piece of evidence? Or at least a tenuous thread attached to a wall you can't see but desperately need to get to?

< cherry >It took 3 steps to get stacked spins: create a sphere; make it move at c; make it spin at c. Let's have a close look at what just happened. We created a sphere which has 2 properties: a center and a radius. We took both of those properties and made them move at c (if we think of a single radius vector and rotate the end of that vector).

< cherry >That was pretty simple and very affective but you know what? I can take another step and make everything. There is only 1 motion left that I can do to this sphere. I can make its radius move (you don't know how bad I want to say "at c" but I can't, it seems too large, maybe 1/c). No, I don't mean add stacked spins, I mean extend it, expand it.

I know, I know, no-one likes expansion but I have to say that it is the simplest explanation. In 4 moves I can create a pretty effective universe. Yes, it seems to require constant input of energy but doesn't the current explanation of the photon do that as well? I take 1 measured assumption and use it in 2 other, unmeasured, places. I take a single entity, the simplest of entities, and use all of its properties in simple ways. From that we get what Miles has described. In the very least it is mathematical elegance.

While that is completely outside the realms of science, everything on the other side of that wall is and I like the simplicity of it. Some parts still need more detailed explanation but I have this beautifully simple concept on one side and all of Miles work on the other. I take that leap of faith and I will see where it leads me.

Only the Sith deal with absolutes.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by Nevyn on Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:33 am

LloydK wrote:Stacked Spins
If all there is is a spinning photon moving in a straight line at c and it gets hit by another photon, spinning or not, also traveling at c, in a vacuum, why would not both photons simply bounce off in somewhat opposite directions from the directions they were going? I don't see a mechanism for making either photon spin around one of the points on its surface. And why would they spin around one of those points on their surfaces, instead of some other curved path? Curved paths don't make sense to me for a single force. A single force should only move something in a straight line. A curved path should require two forces. Where's the second force?

See my post above for a quick spin into the esoteric world of the unknowable. It has the other force that you want. < cherry >Basically, my unscientific theory has 3 forces at the fundamental level: The force of constant motion; The force of constant rotation; The force of constant expansion. Stacked spins make use of the force of constant motion and the force of constant rotation. Given those 2 forces acting on the B-Photon it does what it can to use the energy it has. If it can't move any faster and it can't slow down so it has to spin.

The idea is not as solid as I would like but the motions are completely possible.

LloydK wrote:
Stacked Spins = Paired Photons?

I did that on the recent TB forum thread. Steven Rado had a theory of aethrokinematics to discuss his aether theory. He said moving objects have lower pressure than stationary objects, which is why two hanging balls a short distance apart move toward each other when you blow between them. The faster air is lower pressure, so the surrounding air pushes them closer together. In my scenario two photons may not be traveling toward each other from opposite directions and collide. They could be moving nearly parallel going the same direction. The ambient charge field could then push them together and continue to hold them together. They would tend to spin and the spinning would give them lower pressure too. They would then have their x-spin. A similar x-spinning pair could be traveling near the first pair and similarly get pushed together, making the two pairs a single y-spin photon, and so on.

While that experiment is interesting, it is so many scales above the photon scale that it just has no relevance. At the photon level there is no smaller entity. < cherry >You are talking about pressure but the only thing able to apply pressure at this level is other photons. Other photons that are the same size as your photons. Why would they spin together? Why would they not just go along with the rest of the field? Why do they stay together when you have so much charge around that there is no room left for any other motion than go with the flow?

You are using the ambient charge field like it is a constant pressure from all sides. In that experiment it almost is but at the photons scale it is nothing of the sort. Density is also a problem. In order for the ambient field to push your photons together it needs to be so dense that there is no room left for anything exciting to happen. How could they spin together in that environment? They need free space to spin but you need the ambient field to keep them together.

LloydK wrote:
Curved Photon Paths
I said: In the atom, MM has 2 neutrons between 2 protons and the charge stream going through the poles of one proton, then through the poles of both neutrons side-by-side, then through the pole of the other proton. How could the charge stream do that: make an angle, instead of a straight line?

Nevyn replied: I do remember Miles stating something like what you say but I can't remember the specifics. If you can tell me the paper it was stated in I will re-read it

It's in his Deuterium paper at http://milesmathis.com/deut.pdf - It's the 3rd image, which is helium, as well as the last image in the paper at the bottom.  

And the curving of photon paths from the Earth is in his Equatorial Anomaly paper at http://milesmathis.com/equat.pdf

Neutral Atoms
Nevyn said: I don't remember Miles saying that the charge got stuck inside neutral atoms

He didn't use the words "get stuck", but he said the charge mostly circulates within the atom. I believe it was in his paper on the Atmosphere.

Thanks, I'll give them a read or two.

I think you might be a little caught up in the idea of straight charge channels. Charge can and does go anywhere. A lot of it goes in certain directions, like the emission of a charged particle, but some goes straight through it with absolutely no interaction with that particle even though it traveled right through the spin path of that particle. The neutrons will take whatever charge they find, it doesn't have to be much and it doesn't have to be specifically channeled straight at them. < cherry >I am a little skeptical of this idea of split charge paths holding things together myself. Miles thinks he needs it for some reason and I may see it better after re-reading the relevant papers but I do remember being skeptical of it. Not adverse to it, I just wasn't sure it was needed.

I am happy with the charge channels through the Earth. There is much more space and time to turn the charge but that is a very different interaction than inside an atom. With a particle there is 1 chance to affect a specific charge photon. An atom has up to as many chances as there are protons and, to a certain degree, neutrons. It is easy to see that a specific charge photon could stay inside the atom for a considerable amount of time but personally,< cherry >I think the charge is better spent by moving it to the outside of the atom. That makes the atom stronger because it increases its charge field which protects it from other atoms and particles. This allows the atom to remain a stable structure. Charge that stays inside an atom is not being used for protection because it is always moving back inside rather than to the outside where the enemies are. However, charge directed inside is being used to keep the structure in place so it is not wasted.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by LloydK on Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:41 am

Pressure Principle
Nevyn said: While that experiment is interesting, it is so many scales above the photon scale that it just has no relevance.
If you're referring to the tethered spheres moving together by ambient air pressure when the air is moving between them, I was only using that to illustrate a principle that I suspect works at lower scales similarly.

Photon Pressure
Nevyn said: At the photon level there is no smaller entity. You are talking about pressure but the only thing able to apply pressure at this level is other photons. Other photons that are the same size as your photons. Why would they spin together? Why would they not just go along with the rest of the field? Why do they stay together when you have so much charge around that there is no room left for any other motion than go with the flow?
- You are using the ambient charge field like it is a constant pressure from all sides. In that experiment it almost is but at the photons scale it is nothing of the sort. Density is also a problem. In order for the ambient field to push your photons together it needs to be so dense that there is no room left for anything exciting to happen. How could they spin together in that environment? They need free space to spin but you need the ambient field to keep them together.
We don't really know if B-photons are the smallest entities that there are. I think there could well be subphotons which make up photons much like photons make up particles.

Anyway, charge field photons go in all directions, don't they? Here's an infrared image of Earth, which shows that the infrared charge field is going outward from the Earth in all directions: http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/c4/VIRTIS_IR2_410.jpg. If it were only going straight up from the surface, the satellite would not have gotten an image of the entire hemisphere of the Earth, but just a small area directly below it.

I think photons would tend to gain and lose stacked spins mostly within planets and stars. Don't you agree? When a photon or particle reaches the surface, esp. on a star, it should remain as it is for a long time. Right? On a planet the photon or particle may remain the same once it leaves the Moho layer. Or at least that's a vague idea.

Charge Channels
Nevyn said: I am happy with the charge channels through the Earth. There is much more space and time to turn the charge but that is a very different interaction than inside an atom. With a particle there is 1 chance to affect a specific charge photon.

I'm a bit skeptical about the channels in planets, stars etc. I don't see what would cause the photons to enter at the poles and leave at the equator, or a few degrees above and below the equator. I don't think MM has attempted to explain that at all. Do you know if he has? One of his papers, which I think I mentioned yesterday, seems to have pretty good evidence of more concentrated charge field photons emitted above and below the Earth's equator, but I don't think it's a strong case. I don't see evidence that photons mostly enter the Earth's poles either. Do you?

It's not at all clear that photons would enter the poles of particles either and leave at their equators, or sometime poles. How much work will it take you to simulate that well? If I'm distracting you too much with this discussion, I'll shut up so you can have more time to do your work. Okay?

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by Nevyn on Sat Sep 20, 2014 11:58 pm

LloydK wrote:Pressure Principle
Nevyn said: While that experiment is interesting, it is so many scales above the photon scale that it just has no relevance.
If you're referring to the tethered spheres moving together by ambient air pressure when the air is moving between them, I was only using that to illustrate a principle that I suspect works at lower scales similarly.

...

We don't really know if B-photons are the smallest entities that there are. I think there could well be subphotons which make up photons much like photons make up particles.

At a rough guess, I would suggest that the tethered spheres in that experiment move closer to each other because their charge fields are being diffused by the stream moving between them. Less hits means less force between them so they move together. < cherry >At the photon level there is no charge field. The photons are the charge field. Hypothesizing a sub-level beneath the photons just means you have to explain them. While I won't say that sub-level does not exist, it is not needed and there is no evidence for it. If you have some mechanism that could explain the sub-photons, then why not just use it on the photons?

LloydK wrote:
Anyway, charge field photons go in all directions, don't they? Here's an infrared image of Earth, which shows that the infrared charge field is going outward from the Earth in all directions: http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/c4/VIRTIS_IR2_410.jpg. If it were only going straight up from the surface, the satellite would not have gotten an image of the entire hemisphere of the Earth, but just a small area directly below it.

In general, the charge field goes in all directions but not in specific circumstances such as the emission of a particle or planet or star or in an intentionally directed charge stream such as a current. While there is still charge going in all directions, most of it is in certain directions.

I'm not sure what you mean by "If it were only going straight up from the surface, the satellite would not have gotten an image of the entire hemisphere of the Earth, but just a small area directly below it." That is not a single image but a collection of many images taken over time unless the satellite is so far away from the Earth that it is getting a full view of the Earth but then the charge has mingled with other charge and the image is of less value with regard to the Earths charge emission.

LloydK wrote:
< cherry >I think photons would tend to gain and lose stacked spins mostly within planets and stars. Don't you agree? When a photon or particle reaches the surface, esp. on a star, it should remain as it is for a long time. Right? On a planet the photon or particle may remain the same once it leaves the Moho layer. Or at least that's a vague idea.

To a certain extent. The charge field can still affect the spins on particles once they leave a star or planet.

LloydK wrote:
I'm a bit skeptical about the channels in planets, stars etc. I don't see what would cause the photons to enter at the poles and leave at the equator, or a few degrees above and below the equator. I don't think MM has attempted to explain that at all. Do you know if he has? One of his papers, which I think I mentioned yesterday, seems to have pretty good evidence of more concentrated charge field photons emitted above and below the Earth's equator, but I don't think it's a strong case. I don't see evidence that photons mostly enter the Earth's poles either. Do you?

It is more about less resistance than force. As most emission is about the equator, there is less charge at the poles so any charge moving that way will be able to continue on as it was. I think the image of heat emission Miles has published (and the known temperatures of the Earth at different latitudes) is plenty of evidence of emission at the equator. < cherry >If the charge is leaving at the equator, then less will come in from the equatorial region and so more (as a percentage) is coming in from the poles.

Yes, it would be easy to accept if Miles just said it was attracted to the poles but that is not mechanical in the slightest.

LloydK wrote:
It's not at all clear that photons would enter the poles of particles either and leave at their equators, or sometime poles. How much work will it take you to simulate that well?

I don't know how to simulate that at the moment as it relies on the ambient field a lot and simulating that is expensive and hard to work with. It is a long term goal.

LloydK wrote:
If I'm distracting you too much with this discussion, I'll shut up so you can have more time to do your work. Okay?
[/quote]

No, that's quite alright. Discussion is good and I've spent a lot of time trying to figure this stuff out on my own so new ideas and questions are welcome. I might not agree with you at times but answering questions and thinking more deeply about these things is a good thing.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by LloydK on Sun Sep 21, 2014 1:13 am

< cherry >MM: Molecules Don't Radiate Many Photons
In this post,http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t3p30-steve-diagraming-mm-s-models#119, Nevyn said:
I don't remember Miles saying that the charge got stuck inside neutral atoms (neutrons, yes, but atoms, no). While it is possible for a given charge photon to be inside the same atom for some time, I don't think it is a requirement. Maybe that was in an early paper before he had fleshed out his ideas on atomic structure. He does sometimes change his opinion in later papers and you need to remember this when reading his older ones, as you discovered with the charge strength of protons and electrons. I haven't given much thought to ions. I'm not sure they are even needed and might just be a side-effect of electron bonding theory. They could be caused by slight changes to the atomic structure like how Neodymium changes its structure to form strong magnets or maybe it is caused by electrons, not because they shield charge like the mainstream say but because they limit the through-charge of a proton (which could be called shielding but not in the same way as meant by the mainstream) which would affect how strongly a particular arm of an atom channeled. I don't know but I can say that an atom is full of near 90&deg; direction changes for a photon. It is a very violent world for charge so I don't think it needs crooked paths, the protons already provide enough possible direction changes.

It was in this paper, http://milesmathis.com/atmo.html, that MM said:
Ions are charged. What does that mean? It means that they are radiating photons. < cherry >Molecules do not radiate many photons, and this is 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. 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. This is why the ionosphere exists above the non-ionosphere. The charge field of the Earth both seeds and limits the ionosphere.

< cherry >Late Addition

Heat and the Curie temp http://milesmathis.com/heat.html
But not all matter recycles in the same way, or in the same amount. All matter emits photons, and that is true of both electrons and protons. It does not matter what the "charge" of the particle is (except for neutrons and other neutral particles, which trap the charge field, negating it). But, although all matter emits charge, some matter emits a lot more. The proton emits a lot more than the electron, for example, simply due to size. Atoms and molecules can also trap or block parts of the charge field, acting neutral or partially neutral.

What do I mean by that? Let's look at the "neutrality" of molecules and atoms more closely. Are they really neutral or uncharged? No. We know that ions are charged particles, which, according to my theory, means they are recycling the charge field directly: they are taking it in and emitting it, with little or no blockage. So they can transfer their heat or motion to other particles via the charge photons. The charge photons carry energy across space from one particle to the other. But in more complex groups like atoms and molecules, the charge field is not recycled in this way. The charge photons are captured by spins, but then they knock about internally, blocked by electrons or closely neighboring baryons. The charge field causes internal motion or heat or energy, but it is not re-emitted directly. It is either trapped, like with a neutron, going back on itself and creating zero energy pockets, or it is spit out in directionalized streams, between particles.

What this means is that atoms and molecules ARE charged by the field, but they are mostly internally charged. By this I mean they cannot transmit this charge energy by sending out photons, since the photons are blocked. They can transmit this energy only by touch: by collision. You don't have to collide with an ion to feel its energy, since the ion can transmit its energy via the charge photons it is emitting. But you do have to collide with a molecule or an atom to feel its heat or charge.
Galactic Magnetism http://milesmathis.com/galmag.pdf
Every electron and proton is charged, and that charge does not disappear when they combine in atoms. The atom is fairly neutral, but the ions are still charged inside. Charge offsets to some degree, but it doesn't disappear
Electron Charge
Nevyn, where you said: "He does sometimes change his opinion in later papers [], as you discovered with < cherry >the charge strength of protons and electrons." I don't really know that he changed his statement on that. Can you quote where he says how much charge electrons emit?


Last edited by LloydK on Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:22 am; edited 4 times in total

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by LloydK on Sun Sep 21, 2014 2:07 am

MM's Charge Model for Particles & Stars


Earth's Charge Emission?
This image is from the Equatorial Anomaly paper at http://milesmathis.com/equat.pdf.


What's the difference between the 3 different images?

Does red mean highest heat emission or IR emission?

Any idea why it would not be the same all around the Earth? Instead, it's higher along some parts of the equator than others.

Is there enough info in MM's paper to determine the rate of emission at various latitudes?

This site, http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/?n=uranus, says:
"Curiously though, Uranus is still warmer at its equator than the poles, even though the poles receive the direct sunlight with a very low sun angle over the equatorial region" because Uranus' equator is almost perpendicular to the Sun's radiation.

Does that info fit in well, or not?

Thought Experiment
If we were in a chamber below one of Earth's poles, would we detect IR flowing downward toward Earth's interior? And in a chamber below the equator would we detect it flowing upward toward the surface on its way through the atmosphere?

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by LloydK on Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:07 am

Stacked Spins True Model?
Do you guys agree that this is what the a, x, y and z-spins should look like approximately? I.e., a) a sphere?, x) a horn torus, y) a sphere, z) a horn torus?

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by LongtimeAirman on Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:30 am

Hi Lloyd, Let me know if you need anything else from qdl, or if you want to organize it here differently. I see what you meant about a Physics Section.
What's the difference between the 3 different images?
Does red mean highest heat emission or IR emission?
Any idea why it would not be the same all around the Earth? Instead, it's higher along some parts of the equator than others.
I thought the diagrams represented charge presence (rather than heat), either electrons or ions, at various altitudes. The highest altitude (top diagram) shows how the charge concentration more closely resembles an 'equatorial' emission, while the lowest altitude (middle diagram) shows the more diffuse emission obtained from photons emitted from slightly above the equator and antiphotons emitted from slightly below the equator. More charge appears in the slightly northern latitudes because of the larger number of photons compared to antiphotons.
Stacked Spins True Model?
Do you guys agree that this is what the a, x, y and z-spins should look like approximately? I.e., a) a sphere?, x) a horn torus, y) a sphere, z) a horn torus?
I think your diagrams are too simple. The A and X diagrams are OK, but I would have guessed that the Y spin would cause a rotation like a fast spinning automobile or bicycle tire that is also rotating around a vertical axis that just touched the tire's outside surface at the 6 and 12 o'clock directions. The Z diagram makes no sense to me at all.



Hi Steve, I would like to avoid a tag team with Lloyd against you. I agree that we can describe the photon in terms of forward velocity, spin, and < cherry >expansion (not at c, but at the photon's surface acceleration due to gravity. We can probably figure that out, I think Miles calculated the proton surface expansion). I just don't see how those motions can result in a single photon which travels in loops. I can see groups of 'unbalanced' photons with forward velocity well below light speed forming stacked spins, but I must find an answer to you describing how initial groups can remain together at lightspeed spin. Maybe 'slower' photons do clump together more than we believe. Your spins describe envelopes - the complex interior and exterior surfaces of the photon particle - until it is involved in a significant collision.  


We each have such different understanding. It's good to stir thing up a bit.

REMCB

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 582
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by Nevyn on Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:41 am

LloydK wrote:Stacked Spins True Model?
Do you guys agree that this is what the a, x, y and z-spins should look like approximately? I.e., a) a sphere?, x) a horn torus, y) a sphere, z) a horn torus?

No, I do not agree with that. It is an overly simplistic view of stacked spins and is incorrect above the X spin. You are thinking of each spin level as being individual but they are not. The B-Photon is spinning axially WHILE it is spinning about a translated X axis WHILE it is spinning about a translated Y axis and so on and so on. It is the motion of the B-Photon that you should be thinking about, not the spin levels themselves.

You have shown a Y spin that produces a sphere and that is incorrect because you put the Y axis straight through the middle of the X spin. That is not allowed. The axis of rotation for a spin level does not go through the previous spin level but is on the edge of it. This is why I do not use axial spins above the first, even though Miles seems to. All spin levels, above the axial, produce a torus. Also, ONLY the top level spin produces a torus. All other spin levels lose their torus as soon as another spin level is added on top of it. That is because the motion of the top spin destroys the motion that formed a torus on the previous level.

In order to produce something like you have shown, the relative spin speed between any 2 adjacent spin levels would need to be great. That is, the inner spin level would need to perform (at least) a complete rotation while the next outer spin level has only moved slightly. But that is not how they behave.

This is why I have spent so much time trying to figure out < cherry >the relative spin speeds. You need to incorporate that in order to see the actual motion of the B-Photon. In order to find these spin speeds I took Miles' angular velocity equation and plugged in a tangential velocity of c for all spin levels and used a doubling radius to get these values:

rw (omega)
124494.897387006953
234641.016035907494
448989.79452906493
869282.03137899467
1697979.5870985381
Then, I looked at the ratio of w values compared to the first:

rw (omega)w/2494.897387006953Rounded
124494.89738700695311
234641.0160359074941.414213561.414
448989.794529064931.999999982
869282.031378994672.828427092.828
1697979.58709853813.99999994
Which shows that the ratio of each spin level to the first is the square root of the radius. If we look at adjacent spin levels we find that every spin level is square root of 2 (1.414) slower than the next inner spin level which is caused by the < cherry >doubling radius. Don't be fooled by the increasing values for w. That value is the velocity as traveled on the circumference (not radians/s) and I have followed that path and ended up back at the same ratio values as above. Think of it this way: if all spin levels have the same tangential velocity then a greater radius will mean more distance to travel which means it takes more time to complete a rotation.

The most important thing to realise here is that you can not just think of a complete spin level and then spin it to get the next level. That is naive. It is the motion of the B-Photon that we care about. The B-Photon is what interacts with other particles, not the spin levels. That is why I built my spin app as you just can't keep more than 2 spin levels in your head. The motions are extremely complex and you have to watch them to get a good idea of how stacked spins operate. Watch the videos on this page to see a B-Photon with A, X, Y and Z spins for both protons and neutrons. These general shapes apply to any particle with a top level Z spin (with perturbations as you add more spin sets). I plan to write a page about building stacked spins where I show each spin level being added to the previous. That will help you to see how each level affects the previous one.

If this is your view of stacked spins then I can see why you have attempted to use photon groups to explain it but it is incorrect as < cherry >it breaks the rules of stacked spins. This highlights < cherry >a solution to a common problem. If you are disagreeing with someone then try to go to a deeper level in order to see where you differ or agree and work from there. Otherwise, neither of you will understand what the other is saying or what they are hearing from you.


Last edited by Nevyn on Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by Nevyn on Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:25 am

LongtimeAirman wrote:
Hi Steve, I would like to avoid a tag team with Lloyd against you. I agree that we can describe the photon in terms of forward velocity, spin, and expansion (not at c, but at the photon's surface acceleration due to gravity. We can probably figure that out, I think Miles calculated the proton surface expansion). I just don't see how those motions can result in a single photon which travels in loops. I can see groups of 'unbalanced' photons with forward velocity well below light speed forming stacked spins, but I must find an answer to you describing how initial groups can remain together at lightspeed spin. Maybe 'slower' photons do clump together more than we believe. Your spins describe envelopes - the complex interior and exterior surfaces of the photon particle - until it is involved in a significant collision.  


We each have such different understanding. It's good to stir thing up a bit.

REMCB

Hi Airman,
  I don't look at it as a fight (although I do worry that it looks that way to others). We are all here to try to understand Miles work and we will each have differing opinions and understandings. That is to be expected and even encouraged. A truly open forum is full of different views and we each have to find out which ones of our own we need to keep and which to change. Lloyd's (or anyone's) questions and views make me question what I think I know. Makes me realise that I have let some things slip by without a deeper understanding.

  So please, put your thoughts out there and we can all work through them. I don't feel like I am being ganged-up on. I am here to help others see what I have been able to through the use of, and building of, my applications. I am confident in my understanding of stacked spins because I had to look at them quite deeply to build my spin app. Then by using that app I was able to get a good understanding of the motions involved. Now I want others to get the same experience and deeper understanding of it as it is a key building block for Miles work. Similarly with the atomic models, I think they help get a 3D view of the structure with all entities involved which helps to think about the charge profile of an atom or molecule and how they might interact with other atoms or molecules.

  It is a great credit to Lloyd for putting his thoughts out there. For being open and honest enough, with the ever present possibility of being wrong, in order to search for a better understanding. It took me a long time to be that open and I am still working on it (the doubts came right back when I was setting up my website). I certainly don't mean to discourage anyone. Lloyd and I have discussed some of this stuff in emails a few months ago and he knew my opinions before he posted his material here. That's courage that I respect, whether we agree or not. With these latest posts I think we may have reached a point where we can see where our views differ and can now work towards a better understanding for both of us, all of us.

  I don't have much time at the moment, but I just wanted to say that you shouldn't really think of my spin paths as shells (even though I call them that sometimes, sorry). It is always about the motion of the B-Photon at any particular point on the path that matters. The motion is what affects collisions and a collision happens at a point, not over the complete path. However, the path is significant to how our machines may see a particle. I'll try to elaborate on that later.

Regards,
Steve.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: (Steve) Diagraming MM's Models

Post by LloydK on Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:04 am

Stacked Spins Diagram Redone
Gee, you guys are picky. I think I have the spins right this time.



Now I'm not showing the Z-spin, but just the 3 axes, so you can imagine the Y-spin photon spinning around the z-axis forming the Z-photon.

My new Paint program stinks. I had a much better one before.

Nevyn, why don't you animate these yourself to show the torus shapes that each spin forms? It ought to be a lot clearer with your animation tools.

< cherry >More on Ions & Neutral Molecules
I added some MM quotes on this in a recently posted message at
http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t3p30-steve-diagraming-mm-s-models#128

First Questions on Nevyn's Stacked Spins
Nevyn said: The most important thing to realise here is that you can not just think of a complete spin level and then spin it to get the next level. That is naive. It is the motion of the B-Photon that we care about. The B-Photon is what interacts with other particles, not the spin levels. That is why I built my spin app as you just can't keep more than 2 spin levels in your head. The motions are extremely complex and you have to watch them to get a good idea of how stacked spins operate.
My comments above were written before reading Nevyn's replies to my diagrams. Now that I've read them quickly, here are my initial comments.

A propeller is two ends spinning about its center. Anything that moves slowly enough through the spin zone gets hit by one of the ends, or blades. You're saying I'm wrong to see the X-spin as like a spinning propeller? And the Y-spin isn't like a little spinning propeller on a bigger spinning propeller? And a Z-spin ... etc?

I think we need to diagram a collision between two photons to see how it might cause one or both of them to stack a spin. How about doing that with animation? Or is that what you were saying? The simplest stacked spin is the X-spin, isn't it? Why would a photon after hitting another photon spin around a point on its own surface? Why wouldn't it bounce away in a straight line like a spinning pool ball?

And why would the stacked spin give the photon or pool ball more mass or momentum?


Last edited by LloydK on Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:47 am; edited 1 time in total

LloydK

Posts : 400
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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