© LloydHere, Brant and I are discussing Mathis' theory in comparison to Aetherometry. Anyone's welcome to join in.
20 Questions for Mathis' Theory are listed starting on July 4.
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.B: An electric field is typically said to be composed of virtual photons.... How is Miles model different than that?
>L: In his model the electric field consists of real photons, with real radius and mass or mass-equivalence and the field (of photons) is emitted by all matter, especially ionized matter. I think of protons as sump pumps that suck photons in at the poles and pump them out mostly equatorially. Photons and all particles are constantly spinning. I think photons' angular velocity is c. Protons are arranged a bit differently in each element, so some elements are more efficient electrical conductors or more magnetic than others. And I posted Mathis' latest info on heat capacity of elements lately.
B: Do you think that there is information transfer in the universe faster than light?? If so what is the mechanism that allows that?
>L: I read Van Flandern's material before. It seemed to make sense, but I don't remember Mathis addressing that point. I'll try to check asap and maybe ask him. Mathis found that Newton's gravity equation is actually a unified field equation, part of it calculating gravity and part calculating charge. --- Okay, I checked Mathis' site. He had a paper that said the speed of gravity is infinite and it discussed Van Flandern and other theorists. But it seems it's not on his site now. So I'll try to ask him about that.
B: T: Tom Van Flandern [said]: [] gravity [] has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target.
>L: Do you have access to his pulsar data? Does "sources of gravity" mean the pulsars? Do you know what is meant to be accelerating so much? And what is it that's going faster than c?
"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: No, its the electric field (virtual photons - what ever virtual photons are).
>L: They're not virtual, they're real.
B: In the cathode spot paper it specifically says that experiments? indicate [] the electrons drag the ions along for the ride which is what I am saying for my Iron Sun model....
>L: I take it you're talking about the solar wind. The ionized matter (of the Sun or the cathode) emits a dense field of photons that drags along the electrons and the ions. You and Mathis both consider energy or aether to be derived from the galactic centers and then from objects in the galaxies, esp. stellar objects. Your explanation of aether seems vague, but Mathis explains it as photons. What's wrong with that? Why can't photons have radius and small mass, as his reasoning shows? And how can anything without radius exist and how can anything without mass transfer energy or momentum to anything else? Mathis explains in detail where other physicists went wrong in their theorizing and in their math etc.Here are some of Mathis' statements that may help explain how virtual photons should be replaced with real photons.
The Electron Orbit (the greatest hole in Quantum Mechanics)
I have shown in a series of papers that if we make the charge force mechanical, we must get rid of the messenger or virtual photon that is now said to mediate it. We must replace that virtual photon with a real photon, and give it mass equivalence. Moreover, we must make all force repulsive. There is simply no way to explain attraction mechanically, so we give up on attraction, at the foundational level. Underlying both electricity and magnetism, we have the charge field, or what I now call the foundational E/M field. Although electricity may be either positive or negative, the foundational E/M field is always positive. It is always repulsive. This means that all protons and electrons are emitting real photons, and that all protons and electrons are repulsing all other protons and electrons, via simple bombardment. Attraction is explained by noticing that protons repulse electrons much less than they repulse other protons. In this way, the attraction is a relative attraction. Relative to the speed of repulsion of protons with one another, electron appear to move backwards. If protons are defined as the baseline, then electrons are negative to this baseline. - Classically, this can be explained by the size difference alone. Due only to surface area considerations, electrons are able to dodge much of the emission of protons and nuclei, and so they seem to swim upstream.
Magnetic Reconnection and Coronal Temperatures
_[Re the solar wind:] While the plasma people don't have much, they do have something here the mainstream doesn't. They have the possibility of a second field. Most plasma physicists understand that space isn't anything close to a vacuum. They understand the huge potential of space, though most can't say what causes it. Refreshingly, most plasma physicists don't seem to give this potential to a Dirac field, a Higgs field, or any other sort of virtual field. Those that do aren't helpful at all.
_Which brings us to why I am here. I have shown my readers in scores of papers the cause of this potential in space. It isn't a Dirac field, a Higgs field, a zero-point energy field, a nebulous or mysterious ether, dark matter, hidden-sector field, neutrino field, or WIMP field. Nor is it some undefined field differential between the Sun and distant objects or distant space. It is simply charge — the same charge in Coulomb's equation, the same charge that is moving through the nucleus, the same charge that is "on" the electron. This charge isn't carried by virtual photons, messenger photons, neutrinos, or any other mysterious particles unknown to us. It is carried by the real photons we already know about in the spectrum. The "hidden-sector" actually exists in the known spectrum, and it is "hidden" only in the sense that it is poorly understood. Nothing remains as incomplete as our knowledge of real photons, that is, and it is this incomplete knowledge that rears its head on a daily basis, stopping all new theory in its tracks.
_It is probably worth mentioning here that part of the problem has always been that we have named the photon spectrum the "electromagnetic spectrum." As I have shown, that is beyond imprecise. It is simply wrong. When drawing and theorizing about the electrical and magnetic fields, physicists have always been following ions, not photons. We see that again here, with the diagram above.
... Modern theory acts like charge and E/M are the same thing, but they aren't. Charge is photons, E/M is ions. They are far from equivalent.
_Modern theory conflates photons and electrons in its field theory. This was always true back to Maxwell
GALACTIC PROOF of my QUANTUM SPIN MODEL
... _Charge is photons, E/M is ions.
_In other words, spinning photons in huge numbers cause ions to spin.
_But when we measure the E/M field, we are measuring the spin of the ions, not the photons.
_The photons are too small for our machines to measure directly, and we only infer the spin of the photons based on the spin of the ions.
_Since photons are about G times smaller than ions, it takes a lot of photons to affect ions.
_Normal light levels don't change the ambient charge field that much, since the ambient charge field, though invisible to us, is so strong.
_We happen to be living on a largish planet which recycles a staggering amount of charge, and we are near a Sun that recycles even more.
_We are in the vicinity of lots of matter, in other words.
_In the vicinity of matter, the ambient charge field actually outweighs the matter field by 19 to 1.
_That's right, the full E/M spectrum outweighs baryonic matter by 19 to 1.It's important to realize that Mathis' main goal is for physics to remain physical; i.e. mechanical. He has little patience for virtual particles or forces. Real forces are created by real collisions of real particles with either linear or spin velocities or a combination of both. His charge field is the fundamental field of all physical interaction and is mediated by photons with real extension (size) and mass. There is no such thing as a 'point' particle; you can't have something at a 'point'. This field is roughly equivalent to Maxwell's displacement field and is what drives E/M forces. The linear velocity of the photons create the electric field and the spin velocity creates the magnetic field. This fundamental field is in vector opposition to gravity and what we call 'gravity' is actually the resultant field composed of both the charge field and true gravity; thus, unification was achieved in the first instance by Newton and Coulomb but nobody realized the two equations were equivalent.
Hi. Should I call you T? Welcome to Charles' website. I'm glad to have someone to discuss with who's familiar with Mathis' material and hopefully has some time to discuss.
Would you like to mention your background a little? Do you have education in physics or other science? How much of Mathis' material have you read and understood fairly well? I haven't read a lot on relativity or QM etc, but most on electrical forces, astronomy, the gravity papers etc.
Would you be able to discuss with me and possibly one or more others at a set time each week or something? I could get a list of questions wrote up in advance etc.
Miles and Charles have the best material that I can understand well. Then Brant and Michael have a lot of helpful additional info. Their theories are interesting too, but they're harder for me to understand so far.
I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering and work as a Manufacturing Engineer in the medical device manufacturing world. I first found Miles through the Thunderbolts forum I believe about 4 years ago. I was immediately hooked! His critiques, analysis and ideas make so much sense to me. I have read everything on his physics website at least once and much of it I have read several times, so I can probably at least do a ground level discussion on just about any of his theories.
I tend to agree with Miles that modern physics long ago left the path of being physical and that a paradigm shift is long overdue to return physics back to mechanics and real, collisions of real particles. Mathematicians have taken over physics; and while the math is important, it should be the tool and not the guide. Today, physicists tend push the math in new directions first and then try to find the reality to fit. This is the opposite of the way it should work. We should study the reality first and then try to develop the math to match.
I would be more than happy to discuss any of his ideas on a regular basis if you would like. I think his ideas are critically important to the future of physics; and, whether he ends up being correct on everything or not, his emphasis on mechanics and his refusal to entertain 'virtual' anything (forces or particles) will ultimately be what save physics, IMO.
If you're interested, there's a Mathis fanpage on Facebook where Miles' papers are posted and discussed. We're rather small right now, but occasionally we get a good discussion going. I look forward to your questions and discussions.
tharkun (or whatever)
Thank you for mentioning the Facebook page. I'll try to find it soon. Sorry I didn't notice your post here. I don't know yet how to get notified when I get replies, if there is a way. I look forward to joining discussion.
I'm afraid I don't find the fanpage. Please provide a link somehow. Thanks.
Thanks, much. I started posting there. Now I hope to get into discussions soon.
Please answer the 20 Questions at https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1daYjyCA2EkTzCBtBWlbKRjBXHp~.
Brant replied to my 20 questions yesterday on the Mathis' Errors thread. BC below means quotes of Brant. LK means me.
BC: Heat is the motion of molecules or atoms.. IR would be considered radiation.
LK: I don't think heat is ever detected without IR photons.
BC: If everything emits photons you should be able to detect them everywhere from everything.
http://www.livescience.com/7799-strange-humans-glow-visible-light.html
LK: I think everything does emit photons, but mostly in the IR range. Biophotons is an interesting subject, which deals with photons produced in DNA or something and which guides all chemical reactions in the body, I think.
BC: I disagree with the premise the photons are the prime mover and the lowest energy field in the universe... Zero point, or aether or background energy is the lowest energy.
LK: Why can't photons be the aether and the background energy? I guess Mathis was the first to propose that the aether moves at the speed of light (because it is light).
BC: How come there are no photons detected for a static electric field.
LK: Have the fields been observed through the entire spectrum? How would you sort out the electric field photons from the normal photon density? I think it's just hard to set up an experiment to do that.
BC: You also read the Tesla summary by Aetherometry concerning near field Tesla coil operation... If Mathis performed experiments to back up his theory that would go a long way. Yeah I get the part about no money but you have to do a little something.
LK: It seems to be more productive to correct errors in the experiments that have already been done and in those still being done, as well as the errors in the math of science.
BC: What transmits gravity? What is responsible for FTL information transmission if photons go the speed of light?
LK: Probably the spin of the universe (produces gravity). Or, in my opinion, it might be partly or entirely the result of inward photon flow to all matter. Where's the evidence for faster than light motion?
BC: There is something else beside photons that transmits information...
LK: What do you mean?
BC: There are experimental forces measured that can account for plasma leaving the solar surface. "Anomalous cathode reaction forces varying in proportion to the square of the input current were first identified separately by Tanberg and Kobel, in 1930, during studies of cathode vaporization in "vacuum"-arc discharges (VADs) and stationary cathode spots (1,2). In his original paper, Tanberg made a case for the presence of longitudinal forces on electrodynamic interactions, which he attributed to the counterflow of vaporized cathode particles (1), but K. Compton demonstrated that the vapor jet only accounted for <2% of the reaction force's magnitude (3). He suggested a different interpretation of the the electrodynamic anomaly, arguing for a mechanical rebound, at the cathode, of charge-neutralized gas ions that hit the cathode in the course of the discharge (bombardment rebound) (3).'
http://www.aetherometry.com/Labofex_Plasma_Physics/Archive/PwrfromAEemissions.html
BC: LK: "Solar radiation produces the solar wind by levitating electrons, protons off the surface."
BC: You mean the electric field causes electrons to accelerate from the solar surface dragging ions along with it? (From the Cathode spot paper).
LK: No, the photons drag along the electrons and protons etc.
BC: "It turns out that the photons which make up a static electric or magnetic field are "virtual" — their energy and momentum doesn't satisfy the relationship for "real" photons — E=p*c (E is energy, p=momentum, and c is the speed of light). The virtual photons are constantly emitted and reabsorbed. A charged object with an electric (and possibly also a magnetic) field is surrounded by an entourage of photons, constantly being emitted and reabsorbed. "
So how could a real photon be used in this scenario?
LK: I believe only real photons can have real effects on real matter. Virtual ones are imaginary. Are you willing to read a Mathis paper on that? Or do you want it summarized?
BC: There are mechanisms in place for most of this stuff... I dont see how Mathis model helps.
LK: The mechanisms in place seem to be awful rickety, or there wouldn't be so many alternative theories. Would there? I think his model explains proton-proton repulsion etc much better than any other theory.