© LloydOn this thread, let's please just discuss Mathis' photonic Charge Field, since I think that's the crux of his theory.
Repulsion. I think one of Mathis' first questions was, What is charge? What is the repulsive force between particles, i.e. between proton and proton and between electron and electron?
It must be something that has mass and radius and it apparently must likely be emitted by each particle.
Then the question is, Why couldn't the cause be photons?
Quantum mechanics concluded that photons have no mass or radius, for math reasons. But Mathis found that QM is full of errors.
Requirements for Existence. My next questions are, How can anything exist without mass and radius? And how can anything have any effect on matter that doesn't have mass or radius? Isn't space the only thing that exists without mass?
Since it's fairly inconceivable that anything without mass or radius could exist or have any effect on matter, it seems that photons must have mass and radius.
Photon Emission. If photons have mass and radius and are emitted by particles, particles must lose mass upon emission. But, since they don't lose mass, they must first receive the photons, which they then emit.
Since it's known that photons travel in both transverse and longitudinal wave motions, the wave motion must likely be the result of gyroscopically stacked spins. And gyroscopic wave motion must likely be caused by photon collisions.
Photons to Particles. Since the gyroscopic motions make photons bigger, where there is greater photon density and more collisions, photons could become as big as electrons and then even protons. These particles could be made of single photons with stacked gyroscopic spins. And the spins could cause the intake and emission of photons. The particle size and photon density would cause the particles to lose most of their velocity.
Transition in Stars. The place where photon density is greatest and where collisions would form particles would be in galactic centers and in stars.
What better theory is there for how protons repel each other than by them shooting out photons equatorially?I didn't know if you wanted me to respond here, or on one of the other threads (i.e., Photon Models & Simulations, Particle Structure & Motion, or Mathis' Theory: Proton-Proton Repulsion). You can cut (or copy) the link to this post, and paste it into the appropriate threads.My first question about proton repulsion by photonic pressure would be: why don't we see the photons? I thought I saw Mathis saying somewhere that all matter emits photons, all the time, as black-body radiation (I think). But BB rad is a function of temperature. So at absolute zero, there isn't any. Is Mathis saying that at absolute zero, there is no Coulomb force? And that as temperature increases, so does the repulsion between protons? That just isn't correct.Charles: [1] My first question about proton repulsion by photonic pressure would be: why don't we see the photons? [2] I thought I saw Mathis saying somewhere that all matter emits photons, all the time, as black-body radiation (I think). But BB rad is a function of temperature. So at absolute zero, there isn't any. [3] Is Mathis saying that at absolute zero, there is no Coulomb force? And that as temperature increases, so does the repulsion between protons? That just isn't correct.
[1] In which proton repulsion experiment/s were photons not detected? Did any experiment ever look for photons as the cause of repulsion?*6233
[2] I'm not clear on the definition of blackbody radiation, but I don't think Mathis ever said all matter gives off BB radiation. Maybe it does, depending on the definition anyway. But what he did say is that BB radiation is photons, which he calls the charge field, and which I often call the photonic charge field. I welcome you to post a definition of BB radiation that you favor.
[3] No. In the first following quotation, Mathis is showing that the coulomb equation is the same as the gravitational equation and both equations involve both forces, gravity and "charge". In the second quotation he explains what happens at absolute zero.
WHY THE ATOMIC WORLD IS 100 TIMES LARGER THAN WE THOUGHT http://milesmathis.com/proton.html
_The proton radius [was] arrived at by scattering experiments [] first [] done [] in 1909 [] but the theory of scattering has not changed in a century. Rutherford's equation [] is arrived at by treating the scattering as due to the Coulomb force, with the nucleus as a point-charge Ze. This equation matches data up to a certain kinetic energy, but fails after that. [] I have discovered that the math used to analyze scattering is incomplete [] rather than false because it is correct as far as it goes. It simply fails to take into account the presence of gravity at the atomic level [which is stronger than conventionally assumed at that scale]. [] Rutherford assume[d] that the force can be expressed as the Coulomb force, and that therefore it is solely an electrostatic force. I will show that this is false. []
_If the charge field is present in Newton's equation, then the gravitational field must be present in Coulomb's equation. I have shown that the two equations are really the same equation, with one hiding the charge field and the other hiding the gravitational field. When we re-expand Newton's equation, we find the charge field:
_F = GMm/r^2 = H - E = [m(A + a)] - E
_When we re-expand Coulomb's equation, we find the gravitational field:
_F = kQq/r^2 = E - H = E - [m(A + a)]
_H is the gravitational field and it is found by the same equation at all levels of size. The variable "m" is the mass of the smaller of the two objects, being the gravitating object in Newton's equation and the scattered particle in Rutherford's experiment. "A" is the gravitational acceleration of the larger object and "a" of the smaller.
_As you see, this must impact the findings of Rutherford and all scattering experiments. It will not change the data, of course, but it must change the mechanical assumptions.Here Mathis explains why electrical conductivity increases at absolute zero. I don't know if this helps answer your question, but it should be close to an answer at least.
SUPERCONDUCTIVITY http://milesmathis.com/conduct.html
_Each particle is spinning, and this spin pulls in photons at the poles and spits them out at the equator.
_But when heat approaches absolute zero, motions slow down near a stop.
_When motions slow down, collisions decrease, and when collisions decrease, the spins cannot be maintained.
_The baryons and electrons slow their spins, and nearly stop recycling the charge field.
_Since the photons are not being sucked in, they are free to pass.
_The vortices around all particles are diminished, and the field has less resistance.
_The substance minimizes its collisions, and the charge field therefore maximizes its efficiency.
_If the charge field is carrying ions of its own, these ions will pass through the substance with minimal collision.
In which proton repulsion experiment/s were photons not detected? Did any experiment ever look for photons as the cause of repulsion?Actually, I think that people have been looking for this ever since Eddington first proposed it in the 1920s as the "force" that prevents the gravitational collapse of stars. But that's not the point. If the Coulomb force reduces to photonic pressure, that's a lot of force. The scattered photons should be easy to detect. We have a good idea of how much energy has to be converted to get photons, and that's the same amount of energy that gets absorbed when they land on something. If that same energy is responsible for the Coulomb force, I'd expect the force between the two terminals on a car battery to be blindingly bright. But alas, the Coulomb force doesn't glow in the dark, in visible wavelengths, or in any other wavelengths.
I welcome you to post a definition of BB radiation that you favor.BB radiation is definitely photonic (i.e., EM waves). The distinctive thing about it is that it is a smooth continuum of frequencies, rather than the spectral lines that we get from electron uptake. Also, the power distribution is a bell curve, with a peak occurring at a frequency that is temperature-dependent.
My first question about proton repulsion by photonic pressure would be: why don't we see the photons? I thought I saw Mathis saying somewhere that all matter emits photons, all the time, as black-body radiation (I think). But BB rad is a function of temperature. So at absolute zero, there isn't any. Is Mathis saying that at absolute zero, there is no Coulomb force? And that as temperature increases, so does the repulsion between protons? That just isn't correct.
We see them all the time, we just call them 'heat'. Miles has calculated that the charge field should peak in the infrared and that's exactly what we see. Heat is photons, a higher temperature means more photons and more energetic photons. The charge field is also what fills up the missing 95% of matter that dark matter/energy are supposed to fill. He has shown that a proton emits 19X its own mass every second. Since the proton is main constituent of all matter and 19/20 is 95%, he has a match. We just need to give photons extension and mass and the dark matter mystery is solved.
Absolute zero is a limit and not an achievable temperature. So long as you have matter, you will have some limited charge field recycling and therefore some emission and there will always be the associated forces (E/M) if the charge field is present.
Proton repulsion would need to be defined more carefulyy to correctly analyze. Are we talking repulsion between free protons, or repulsion with the elemental structure? One will be governed by the ambient charge field and the other will be governed by the resultant charge field through the nuclear structure itself. They are both caused by the same thing, but will behave differently due to the other influences around. Proton repulsion within the nuclear structure will not be subject to temperature fluctuations I don't believe; rather the increased heat (charge field) that is funneled through the structure will eventually blow the structure apart (aka fission).
BB radiation is definitely photonic (i.e., EM waves). The distinctive thing about it is that it is a smooth continuum of frequencies, rather than the spectral lines that we get from electron uptake. Also, the power distribution is a bell curve, with a peak occurring at a frequency that is temperature-dependent.
This is backwards to Miles' theory. Photons are not E/M waves, E/M is caused by photons. Modern theory assumes that the E/M waves are fundamental and that we have an E/M spectrum. Miles' maintains that the photons are what are fundamental and what we have is a photon spectrum. The photons are quantized due strictly to the spin mechanics, but the E/M spectrum is smooth because it is the result of the summed field. It is photons that drive ions and it is the driven ions that create the E/M fields.
I want to continue this discussion, but I think we could probably make discussion in general more efficient. Do you guys agree? So, if yous have ideas how to do that, would you please discuss them with me on the thread called Improve Scientific Method? I'll copy this post there.
What are some of the obstacles you can think of to coming to common understanding or agreement?
not defining terms clearly enough?
not describing data clearly enough?
not citing data accurately?
prejudice?
other?
What might improve discussion?
Charles, I posted your point at Re: Questions for Miles Mathis about the Coulomb force, or proton-proton repulsion e.g., seemingly needing to vary, if protons intake and emit photons and if the emission varies as with temperature change.
My initial guess is that protons can intake only so many photons per second, so after a certain photon density is reached, which might correlate sometimes with temperature somewhat, the rate of emission remains the same thereafter, regardless of the density, except where the photon density is extreme, as in stellar interiors, where the protons may often dissolve and reform frequently. If I get time, I'll see if I can find anything Mathis may have already said on this subject.
What Makes Sense? Charles, Brant et al, if two of the same kind of tiny objects are always seen to move apart at a consistent rate, isn't the most logical hypothesis that they shoot smaller masses outward in all directions at a constant rate? How could anything be more logical than that? What mechanical hypothesis do you have as an alternative for explaining how protons repel each other mechanically?
I'd like to get to the bottom of this issue of proton-proton repulsion etc asap, because that should tell us if compressive ionization, aetherometry etc are on the right track or if they need modification, so we can have a more complete understanding of the cosmos.
