Mo quoted Miles: As the charge field of the comet interacts with the ambient charge field, we get spin cancellations at the photon level (and therefore at all higher levels). These spin cancellations are caused by actual edge-to-edge collisions of real photons (like opposite cogs colliding), and in these collisions a higher number of photons are re-directed. Being re-directed means they are given escape trajectories from the normal radial trajectory they were previously on. This creates more light escaping the vicinity, which leads to greater brightness for viewers.
Mo said: Basically I have trouble differentiating between his charge photons and light photons. I am thinking that a right spin charge photon interacts with a left spin charge photon and produces a whole range of photons, some of which is visible light. - I did lose interest in Miles because his astronomy explanations completely disregarded plasma physics, and that annoyed me. But I think there is value in his basic ideas.
In Miles' quote above, "the charge field of the comet" means the photons emitted by the comet. And "the ambient charge field" means the photons emitted from the Sun, the main emitter in the solar system. He also calls his charge photons B-photons, I believe, which means bombarding photons. He doesn't seem to talk much about slow photons, but when he says the charge field is recycled, he means photons are absorbed by matter at the poles of protons etc and emitted from matter at the equators of protons etc. In the case of neutrons they emit photons via the poles. It's the photons as they're emitted that he mostly talks about, which are part of the "charge field" of any particle or body of matter. - Miles doesn't ignore plasma physics, he explains that the law of gravitation is a misnomer, so he calls it the unified field theory, being a combination of gravity and EM forces. He explains that the EM portion predominates at some scales, while gravity predominates at the planetary scale. But even there EM forces can be substantial. He actually says the magnetic force allows planetoids to orbit stars and planets. I think he's helping to explain plasma phenomena.
GaryN
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
@Lloyd
He also usually doesn't answer me very usefully.
Same here. Lets leave him alone for now.
@fosborn
Hi Gary... Do you have some examples of this?
Hey Frank, how's things? This Apollo 15 experiment seems to show that the stars are more visible in and around the Zodiacal light region. From Earth, the false dawn From the ISS, this one is just befor sunrise, seems to me the stars are more visible inside the bright region than outside. The last one may not be Zodiacal light, but it seems backwards that if the Sun is somehow interacting with Earths atmosphere that the stars would seem more numerous, I'd think they would be washed out. I'm thinking an analogy is that the dust disk is acting like the target of a vidicon tube?
fosborn_
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
@fosborn
Hi Gary... Do you have some examples of this?
GaryN
Hey Frank, how's things? This Apollo 15 experiment seems to show that the stars are more visible in and around the Zodiacal light region.
[/quote]
Things are well with me and I pray for you as well..
Thanks for your response.. But I was thinking of the comets light. Are there any space photography that could show a difference in light seen here and that seen from beyond earths effects? Thanks...
GaryN
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
But I was thinking of the comets light. Are there any space photography that could show a difference in light seen here and that seen from beyond earths effects?
There are no images AFAIK of comets taken with a regular camera, from space, that do not show Earths atmosphere too. As there are comets presently visible, and more on the way, I'd have thought NASA could have found a little time to image one of them. The best viewing times (from the ISS) can be determined using Celestia or Eyes on the Solar System. There should be many opportunities for such a shot that is looking out to deep space, but I bet you will only see a shot through the atmosphere. Giotto went to Halleys comet, and saw this apparently: I don't know which instrument it used, but chances are it was a Lyman UV image, and a long exposure. No colour out there, only down here, and nothing if they'd have had a regular camera on board. IMO of course.
It's called The Brightness of the Sky Here are some quotes.
[Quoting someone:] The luminosity on the Earth's surface is about 10,000 footcandles. But according to a paper at JGR, the luminosity at altitude is much lower: The brightness of the daytime sky has been measured using rocket-borne stereocameras. An upper limit of 0.0075 candle/ft 2 was found for the brightness at altitudes ranging from 80 to 220 km. This limit is consistent with the brightness being due entirely to Rayleigh scattering. No evidence of high altitude clouds was found.
- What do they mean by "this limit is consistent with the brightness being due entirely to Rayleigh scattering"? Well, they simply mean that if we are given the first number for brightness near the surface, then the brightness at altitude is consistent with that number, given the loss in atmospheric density. But they don't mean that the brightness at the surface is explained, because it isn't. The baseline brightness is never derived straight from equations, because — given current equations and theory — it can't be. - Even the Rayleigh equation is back-engineered to match the known brightness.
You will say, "Prove it. Do you have some data they are hiding from us?" I don't have to prove it with hidden data from SOHO or something like that, I can prove it straight from logic and from the numbers above. Even without any numbers from scientific papers or orbiting satellites, we know that it gets darker as you go higher in the atmosphere. Every high-altitude pilot knows that. We are told that is caused by the thinner atmosphere, which doesn't scatter as much. OK, so that means that lower altitudes scatter more, and they scatter more because they are denser. See the problem yet? According to the Rayleigh equation we just studied, each particle causes a dimming. A denser atmosphere is composed of more particles, therefore a denser atmosphere should cause greater dimming. More and more photons should be reflected up or scattered to the sides (where they would also escape back into space). - ... So this scattering mechanism and equation are both opposite to data. A denser atmosphere should reflect or absorb more, but they have a denser atmosphere reflecting less . Increasing brightness at lower altitudes contradicts the equation above and any logical application of scattering.
I hope you are beginning to see that the brightness of the atmosphere is a huge mystery, one that has never been explained by the mainstream. Like the brightness of the Moon, it is another gigantic piece of data that is strongly negative to current theory. Rather than admit that and post it as a question, they hide it. They build big equations to conceal it. They then borrow energy from the vacuum while you aren't looking, creating new photons from nothing. Borrowing from the vacuum isn't only a trick used in symmetry breaking and other esoteric problems. It is used here in Rayleigh scattering, though it is (somewhat) better concealed.
I will show you how to solve this mystery. I think you will be shocked at how simple it is. All we need is my charge field. I have shown that the Earth is recycling charge that it gets from the Sun. Some light and heat comes directly from the Sun, without being recycled through the Earth. But what turns out to be a majority of the charge from the Sun is taken in by the Earth at her poles, recycled through the core, and emitted most heavily near the equator (or 30o N and S, to be more precise). It is the Earth's spin, combined with the spherical shape, that allows for this charge channeling. All bodies channel charge like this, from the electron to the proton to the nucleus to the Moon to the Sun to the Galaxy. - Since charge is made of real photons, we have a field of photons rising up from the surface of the Earth at all times. Since these photons are rather small as photons go, and since they peak in the infrared, they get mistaken for heat in many situations, and are given to many other causes. But I have shown they are best understood as charge — the same charge that is represented by the minus sign on the electron. Once we have this field, the gradient of brightness is easy to explain. Since the charge is emitted by the Earth, its density falls off with altitude, by the surface area equation. In other words, we have denser charge nearer the surface. It is this charge field that incoming light is mainly interacting with. Yes, molecules in the atmosphere then rechannel this charge, and charge fields are always denser near matter. But when it gets right down to it, what we have here is another charge interaction. Without rising charge, there is no way to explain the brightness gradient on the Earth.
GaryN
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Thanks for the heads-up Lloyd, I'll give it a read.
@M.M.
Some light and heat comes directly from the Sun
I'll have to e-mail him about that to find out what he is basing that statement on. If he has proof, then I guess I'm back to the drawing board with my model. But I doubt it.
Lloyd
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
I think by saying some and heat and light come directly from the Sun, Miles means the heat comes as IR light. The part that comes from the Sun I gather would be the part we can see from here coming from the Sun, but only part of that would be entering the polar regions and being recycled through the Earth, mostly out through the equatorial region.
