© Lloyd

 

How Earth's Mass Changed

by Lloyd » Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:33 pm

Evidence of Low Gravity in the Past
Members of the EU team, esp. Ted Holden, consider that the large dinosaurs died out in part due to an increase in Earth's mass or in its force of gravity. If mass changes, then gravity should change too, since it depends largely on mass. Or does it? Mathis says the EM force depends on mass but the gravity force depends on volume. But the force of EM is already included in the gravity equation. So maybe a change in EM force would have a harmful effect on large fauna. Here's a quote from Mathis.
http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf

I was recently asked why light is going c, and now I believe I have a partial answer. The information is
contained in the equations above. We start with this equation
mγ = 2rγ / c√c
c = 2rγ / √c) mγ
c^3 = 4rγ^2 / mγ^2
c = 3√(4rγ^2 / mγ^2)
That means that the velocity c is a function of the photon's mass and radius. In other words, its speed is determined by its size in the field, just as we would expect. In the macro-world, we would need one other variable to solve, that being the density of the charge field as a whole. I have recently found the mass equivalence of the charge field relative to the matter field (baryonic matter), that being 19 times. This is where we are getting the "dark matter" number of 95%. But that doesn't give us a universal charge density. In fact, according to my theory and equations, there should be no universal charge density. Charge [i.e. PHOTONS] should be denser in galaxies than out of them, and denser near stars, and so on. By this analysis, it seems that the velocity of the photon would change in different densities. Because this appears not to be so, I assume that the mass of the photon may change depending on the charge density around it. Remember that mass is a function of energy according to the old equation Eγ = mγc^2, which means that the photon's mass is already a function of the charge density. As the charge density grows, so will m. So that variable m already includes the charge density, in a way. This feedback mechanism may be what keeps c constant.

Catastrophe: Change in Light = Change in Gravity?
Cardona, Talbott et al seem to agree that Earth was a satellite of Saturn till about 10,000 years ago, when the Saturn system entered the Solar system. So before that Earth was only getting light from Saturn when it was still a brown dwarf star. When Saturn reached the heliopause, it went nova and lost mass and became a gas giant. As Earth became a satellite of the Sun instead of Saturn, it entered an area of greater photon density near the Sun, and the photon density increase may have increased the mass of the Earth and its gravity or EM force enough to kill off large fauna. I'll see if I can get Mathis' view on that. He said in effect, No Comment yet.

Page: 1  2 

'14-04-10, 20:48   tharkun USA	Re: Earth Gravity Increase after Saturn System Breakup? I've wondered about this as well; but I was going the opposite way - with a denser charge field, you increase the opposition to solo gravity. If the earth's radius remained (relatively) stable, then more photons in the ambient field means more photons being emitted from the surface of the earth, thus negating more of the solo gravity field. I believe that this would help explain the gigantism in the fossil record that there is currently little biological explanation for. Perhaps an earth orbiting Saturn would provide this increased ambient field?
'14-04-10, 23:40   Lloyd St. Louis area	Re: Earth Gravity Increase after Saturn System Breakup? But he said: "As the charge density grows, so will m." If the mass increases, then the gravity should increase too. So in the Saturn system Earth would have had less mass and less gravity, allowing gigantism.
'14-04-16, 17:25   tharkun USA	Re: Earth Gravity Increase after Saturn System Breakup? OK, but in Miles work, you have to carefully distinguish between unified field, macro-gravity (what we actually measure) and acceleration, solo-gravity (which is macro-gravity minus the charge field). In his UFT, mass is assigned to the charge field component, not the gravitational component. In the quote above, he explicitly ties the mass to the density of the charge field. So while macro-gravity is dependent on mass due to the inclusion of the charge field in the current equations, Miles' expression of solo-gravity is dependent on radius alone. Since the charge field works in vector opposition to the solo gravity field, a denser charge field will result in more charge field flux emitted from the surface of any body, which will LOWER the measured macro-gravity unified field.   This is fleshed out more fully in his paper, "The Moon Gives Up a Secret" where he shows that macro gravity is more proportional to radius than mass. Since the moon's radius is much smaller than earth's, on the surface you are in a denser charge field which offsets solo-gravity more even the mass is less as well. This is clearly seen when comparing the gravity and mass differentials. Why is the gravity of the moon 1/6th of the earth's when the mass is something like 1/81? Denser charge field due to smaller radius, that's why.    There are at least two ways to lower macro gravity: 1) increase the ambient charge field for more through-put and cancellation of solo-gravity, or 2) decrease the radius of the body in question. Although I don't discout the possibility that the earth may have increased in size, I think a Saturnian orbit with a denser ambient charge field is an obvious explanation for gigantism. To me, the biological requirements for gigantism demand less gravity, not more.
'14-04-25, 16:08   Lloyd St. Louis area	Re: Earth Gravity Increase after Saturn System Breakup? If Earth's E/M field reduces the weight of objects on its surface, wouldn't the E/M fields of other planets nearby, as in the Saturnian polar configuration, increase the weight of objects on Earth? I agree that gigantism required less gravity.
'14-04-25, 17:52   tharkun USA	Re: Earth Gravity Increase after Saturn System Breakup? No, because the local charge field of the earth opposing gravity will trump the more distant charge field of other planets. Remember, according to Miles, charge drops of by the quad. At the surface of the earth, the charge field lines will be essentially parallel for any local measurement. But at the distance of other planets in an assumed polar configuration, or even at the distance of the moon, the charge field lines of those bodies will have spread out a lot by the time they intersect the earth. Even though the distant bodies might emit more charge flux than the earth, the measured density of the charge field will be dominated by the local field of the earth simply because it hasn't had time to spread out yet.    Another consideration that would need to be taken into account is the orientation of the planets in polar configuration. Are they all lined up pole-to-pole? Or are some line up pole-to-equator? Equator-to-equator? Remembering that the heaviest charge emission is from the equators and the heaviest charge input is at the poles for any body, so any weight increase from external charge coming down would need to maximize its chances by the right orientation to the bombarded body. And even then, I still think that the local field emission is going to win out.
'14-04-26, 14:43   Lloyd St. Louis area	Re: Earth Gravity Increase after Saturn System Breakup? F = H + E Okay. I misunderstood your model initially. I was assuming that the higher photon density from Saturn, when Earth, Venus and Mars trailed behind it, would have increased the mass and the gravity of the 3 planets. But I read a Mathis paper on Weight yesterday, which said F = H + E, where F is the total force and H is gravity force, which stays the same, if the radius stays the same, and E is the E/M force, which opposes H and thus reduces F. That, along with your explanation of the photon density (E/M field) coming from Earth's recycled emission of the Saturnian E/M field, seems to clear up your model for me, which model is about the same as Mathis' from his Weight paper. Planetary Orientation I thought Mathis' papers on planet axis tilts made sense, but it's hard for me to believe offhand that planets emit mainly equatorially and receive photons mainly polarly, because it doesn't look like there's any difference in emission and I think it's more likely that ions cool the poles than that photons do. If that model is correct, then in order for Mars, Venus and Saturn to have been above Earth's north pole, as ancient myths portray them, what orientations would the other 3 planets have had? Earth would have been oriented similar to Uranus' present tilt. What would be the easiest way to measure or calculate Earth's photon emission and reception? Could the emission be calculated by estimating the weight or mass of the atmosphere or ionosphere and calculating how much emission would be needed to balance that mass? Shouldn't there be holes in the atmosphere and ionosphere at the poles where photons are entering instead of emitting?
'14-04-28, 18:00   tharkun USA	Re: Earth Gravity Increase after Saturn System Breakup? The highest density emission is equatorially, but the planets emit all around. It's not an all or nothing game; the density changes as you move latitudinally. Miles has recently shown that the polar aurorae are are big clue to where the 'cross-over' point is between net out and net in. (See the paper here: http://milesmathis.com/aurora.pdf).   I'm not sure how to calculate the tilt in an assumed Saturnian system. Miles does it in his paper on Bode by using relative numbers and not absolute and because he has the sun as a baseline. I think it would depend a lot upon which bodies were considered primary. If Saturn is the baseline away from the sun, each new body would have to adjust and settle into a stable orbit as it encountered the other body's charge fields. Even with relative numbers, I would think it would possible to write a program that could set the bodies all up on a single axis and move them around until a relative stability is achieved. The complexity increases as you add more and more bodies however. And I don't think I have the skill to do it (yet).   Miles' Heat paper (http://milesmathis.com/core.pdf) goes some way toward calculating the emission of the earth but I'm not sure it gives absolute or complete numbers, but it seems to be a start. Due to the small size of the charge photons, I wouldn't expect to see any holes necessarily in the atmosphere. Any gas is going to be largely immune to such effects I would think since it is obviously very fluid and can fill any gaps quickly. The ionosphere is another question and may relate to the aurora paper above. But Miles has stated that the charge field is interpenetrable to a large degree. He does however argue that the unexpected negative tide on the moon's earth-facing side is strong evidence for a bombarding field from the earth.   It may be that ions cool the poles; but that only begs the question of what is driving the ions to the poles? Either way you arrive back at the incoming polar charge field that carried the ions along. If ions are moving, they need a potential to drive them; the charge field creates that potential. The ions are riding in the river of the photons.
'14-05-02, 14:29   Lloyd St. Louis area	Help Write Mathis Summary Papers? Polar Cooling Thanks for the info. I suppose it's reasonable that the Sun's charge emission may enter the planets' poles and drive the ions toward the polar surfaces in the process. It'd be nice to see Miles acknowledge that the ions probably do the cooling instead of the photons doing it. I don't think photons can transport heat. Do you? Help Write Summary Papers on MM's Model? That's something that Charles would like people to do on his website here. Write papers that show only relevant data and logical conclusions based on that. Would you like to do that? I started work on that with one or more of Mathis' papers. I removed all of his statements that were tangents and reorganized the remaining sentences as individual statements. My intent was to then insert F, T, or Q at the beginning of each statement to indicate Factual, Theoretical, or author's Question. All of the Theoretical statements and maybe Questions would then show where work is still needed before finding each such statement to be confirmed or disproven. First Topic: Electric Charge? If you're interested in helping write such a paper, what topic may you like to start with? I think the most helpful theory to prove might be that subatomic particles are moved by the fields and streams of photons. I'd appreciate if you may like to help with something like that. Could you help find which of MM's papers would be most relevant for this task? Which of the following might have the best explanations for charge, or do you recommend other of his papers as better than these? 88. Electrical Charge 93a. Heat 93b. The Drude-Sommerfeld Model 99d. The New LED Lightbulb 109. How a Battery Circuit Works 110a. The Electron Orbit 110c. The "Designer Electron" is a Photon 115. Dielectrical Polarization 126b. The Cometary Antitail 136. The Eccentricity of the Earth 137b. Birkeland Currents 138. Atmospheric Pressure MM Summary Worksite: Follow this route: QDL / Topics / Science / Physics / Documents / Miles Mathis Facebook Group Help? Patty said she had computer troubles sometime back and then lost her password for Facebook and hasn't taken the time to get back on there. If anyone in the Facebook group may like to help work on such a paper here or anywhere, would you like to invite them?
'14-05-02, 16:43   tharkun USA	Re: Earth Gravity Increase after Saturn System Breakup? "I don't think photons can transport heat. Do you?"  According Miles' charge field/photon model, photons ARE heat. Or more specifically, photon density. Heat is just a measurement of photon flux through any patch of space. So polar cooling is possible because you have downward travelling photons colliding with upward travelling photons, cancelling each other out. Its similar to his mechanics of magnetism - photons can either cancel or augment depending on the combined effects of their linear velocity and outer spin.   I wish I had time to contribute some summary papers. I don't really have the time right now which is why I post so little here on QDL. Ingeneral, I try clear up understanding of Miles' work where I can, but I don't have a lot of free time to complie my own thought about his work. I would like to see a summary of different aspects of his work - basic math/calculus, celestial mechanics, quantum mechanics, etc., etc. Maybe I'll have time someday.....
'14-05-02, 18:00   Lloyd St. Louis area	Re: Earth Gravity Increase after Saturn System Breakup? I'll try to work on a summary paper myself and ask you questions once in a while. We can see how that goes. I just happened to notice Mathis' definition of heat as photon density, as you say. But can heat be measured with just photons and no matter? I thought there had to be matter in order to measure it..

Page: 1  2