B: [] Is it that you dont understand aetherometry?
L: Yes. Its terminology and model are so vague that I don't know of anything that it helps me understand.
B: Because its much more complete and accommodates a whole range of phenomena that Miles model cant...
L: What phenomena can't Mathis' model explain? Did you read my post of his Blackbody Radiation paper?
B: What is the field composed of in Miles model?
L: Photons, which make up much more mass than does regular matter.
B: Aetherometry says: " 1.2. If photons do not travel through space, what is it that travels through space and is the cause of the transmission of the light stimulus, and ultimately of any local production of photons?
L: I don't see anything preventing photons from traveling through space. If electrons can approach the speed of light, it seems that even smaller particles should be able to actually reach light speed.
B: Aetherometry contends that what travels through space and transmits the light impulse is electrical radiation composed of massfree charges and their associated longitudinal waves (the true phase waves), not electromagnetic radiation composed of photons and their transverse waves.
L: I think Mathis or someone said longitudinal (light) waves were disproved. I'll look for it. He regards EM as ionic, distinct from light, and photons as having a wavy linear motion, as the video clip shows. See the quotation above in bold.
B: The wave transmission of all electromagnetic signals depends on the transmission of nonelectromagnetic energy, specifically the transmission of electric massfree charges (the propagation of 'the field')."
L: Mathis shows that charge is mass, or mass-equivalent, and I think EM only applies to ions.
B: 1.3. There are two types of photons: ionizing and nonionizing (blackbody). [] the two spectra are different as to the very conditions necessary for the production of one or the other type of photons.
L: Doesn't ionizing mean converting neutral molecules to ions? I'll call Correa's aether theory CAT. If in CAT plasma supposedly gives off ionizing radiation and neutral matter gives off nonionizing radiation, that may be related to Mathis' idea that ions (take in and) emit radiation, but neutral molecules emit very little.
B: Specifically, [] nonionizing or blackbody photons are locally generated whenever material particles that act as charge-carriers decelerate. Thus photons mark the trail of deceleration of massbound particles. This punctual generation of photons that marks the trails of decelerating massbound charges, combined with the decay in the kinetic energy of these charges, their release and scattered reabsorption by other adjacent massbound charges (thus causing so called conversion of electromagnetic energy into longer wavelength radiation), is what accounts for (1) the dispersion of energy through conversion into electromagnetic radiation (and Tesla's persistent claim that his power transmitters were not transmitters of electromagnetic radiation) and for (2) the approximate suitability of the stochastic model for the dispersion of a ray and the scatter of light.
L: Are those massbound charges ions? If photons were massless, I think there'd be nothing to hold up atmospheres (as explained in one of the 4 posts I just told you guys about), so atmospheres could not exist around a liquid or solid cosmic body without photons (having mass) being emitted. They'd either stay on the surface or move outward into space. Photons (emitted from cosmic bodies etc) make the air molecules weightless, by opposing the gravitational vector. Are you going to explain the stochastic model? I don't know what that is.
B: Conversely, material particles or massbound charges accelerate when an electrical, magnetic, or electrical-cum-magnetic field is applied to them.
L: It's photons emitted by the Sun that accelerate the solar wind and photons emitted by plasma, I think, that accelerates particles in accelerators etc.
B: Aetherometry contends that, in nature, an applied field is composed of massfree electric radiation, the effect of the radiation of massfree charges being the acquisition of their energy by the massbound charges they encounter (ergo the addition of a kinetic energy term to the energy associated with the rest mass of a material particle), and thus the acceleration of these massbound charges [http://aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v2B.html#abstractAS2-16].
L: I can understand energy transferred to matter by impact with mass photons, but that CAT idea is unclear to me.
B: In summary, Aetherometry claims that 'radiation' of massfree charges is responsible for the acceleration of massbound charges, whereas it is the deceleration of the latter which converts the lost kinetic energy into a local generation of blackbody photons.
L: I don't think massfree entities can have an effect on matter.
B:  2.3. Photons and massfree charges also differ in their physical effects. Photons are not deviated, displaced or disturbed by electrical or magnetic fields. Yet one can magnetically polarize the transmission of light.
L: I'll see if Mathis has anything on polarized light. Yes, the following is from http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html.

PAPER UPDATE, 1/29/2010. How do Photons Travel? Another update to this paper, showing that the wave of light is neither transverse nor longitudinal, although the stacked spins can mimic either case.

... Some will say that I am assuming a longitudinal wave for light, whereas Fresnel proved that light has a transverse wave. If I am able to multiply my local spin wavelength by c^2 to get a visible wavelength, my local wave must be longitudinal. But that is not correct. Since the wave of light belongs to each photon, via spin, the wave is neither longitudinal nor transverse. Longitudinal and transverse waves are defined as field waves, and light is not a field wave. Light is a spin wave, and the spin is neither transverse nor longitudinal. The local wavelength is just a radius of spin. However, since I have shown (in my paper on superposition) that any electromagnetic radiation must have at least two stacked spins to show a physical wave, this stacking can mimic either transverse or longitudinal waves, depending on the experiment and the effect studied. Fresnel was studying polarization, and although Young had already shown both longitudinal characteristics and transverse characteristics, the polarization experiments seemed to confirm only the transverse part of this duality. And, indeed, polarization can be explained with only the transverse characteristics of the stacked wave. Other experiments and effects are better explained as the stacked spins mimicking longitudinal waves. This is what is happening with Tesla or plasma waves which are longitudinal. In plasmas, the spins beneath the outer spin come into play, and the axial spin of the moving electron is no longer hidden. The charge field coheres or links these inner spins, creating uncommon effects. At any rate, wave theory will not advance beyond its current wall unless it comes to see that both transverse and longitudinal waves are a misconception, built upon a mistaken field wave theory that is an analogue of fluid or sound dynamics. Light waves are not field waves, they are spin waves. Light is its own field, since light is both the linear motion and the spin motion of the photon.

B: This is because the transmission of light is effectuated by massfree charges and their longitudinal waves, not by photons and their transversal vibrations.
L: Again, Mathis shows that charge is mass or equivalent.
B: So-called plane polarization of light is, in effect, a magnetic filter, and the addition of a magnet and its rotation or movement will gate the wave function and twist of the longitudinal wave and massfree charge transmitting the light-stimulus.
L: ...
B:  3. Are photons massfree particles or massbound particles?
L: I think they can't affect anything or be detected unless they have mass or equivalence to it.
B: 3.1. It is currently held that photons have zero rest mass, and thus that they are massfree. Consensus on this matter is a controversial subject. Operationally, if photons have mass, it is so small that one 'feels permitted' to disregard it. But disregard is not proof of zero rest mass. And smallness is not a characteristic that impugns the physical properties of an object. Moreover, de Broglie himself (so say the authorities A.P. French and E.F. Taylor) began by assuming that 'every particle of light, whatever its quantum energy, has a certain rest mass m0' (An Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, p. 56). A.S. Goldhaber and M.M. Nieto placed strict upper limits on the rest mass of photons (Rev Mod Phys, 1971, 43:277), but there is no evidence that indicates that the rest mass of a photon is anything but zero.
L: Atmospheres and many things do inidicate it, though photons seldom rest.
B: Aetherometry contends that the relationship (m0 c2 = hυ) proposed by de Broglie is a fictional relationship; that, effectively, the photon has no rest energy or mass-energy. But it also proposes that there is truth to the de Broglie relation, because the structure of the photon, being massfree, is what should be written as (λ0 c2 = hυ).
L: Does λ0 mean initial wavelength? Mathis' photons don't involve field waves, just wavy translational motion, not related to EM. And, speaking of c, if c is the speed of photons, it makes sense, but if not, I don't think there's an explanation for it. Mathis also shows that many constants like h and G are for scaling between the microcosm and macrocosm.
http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/English/photon.php --- http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/index.html
B: One thing th[at] Miles agrees with Aetherometry on, is that everything can be decomposed to a length and velocity. Aetherometry uses meters per second as its basic unit.
L: This is something Charles asked about last year during our discussions, but I didn't have a clear answer. I think he asked where Mathis gets mass = L^2/T^3 (length squared over time cubed), if I have those exponents right. I think Mathis said that's something Maxwell had stated and Mathis found that it seemed to be correct. But I don't know that he's given a detailed explanation of that yet.