Lloyd wrote:Probability of Mathis' Claims
Here I think are some of Mathis' main claims and I give each one a number from (1) to (9) to indicate how probable I think each one is, where 9 indicates nearly maximum probability.
1. (8) The "aether", if it exists, consists of photons.
(That's novel, because no one else seems to have thought of aether as moving fast like photons.)
His photons are the EM field...and LaSage has moving particles...
2. (6) The EM waves of photons are waves of photon motion
, (perhaps similar to electron helical motion along magnetic field lines in synchrotron radiation.)
(I actually think light waves would require pairing of photons, so the photons spin like two balls tied closely together. You can't make a wave when throwing just one ball.)
Ever hear of a "knuckle ball?"
Agree with EM photons..
3. (9) There is no action at a distance, or "attraction", only repulsion, such as by photon collisions.
(I agree that action at a distance would seem to necessarily involve magic, not real mechanics.)
4. (7) Photon spin causes magnetic effects.
(That seems likely, but I don't understand the details well yet.)
The magnetic effects are mass of aether, which is the alignment of those particles, and if it is a sold aether, the breaking of the bonds between the particles.
5. (7) Photon spins can stack, somewhat like gyroscopic motions.
(I buy the gyroscopic motion etc, but as per #2 I think the photons would have to be paired and maybe quadrupled etc.)
I have to regard photon spin and their stacking as nonsense...It just gets too complicated.
6. (5) Stacked spins increase mass or mass equivalence and sufficient stacks build matter.
(It's easier for me to believe stacking increases mass if it involves pairing and multiplying of photons.)
Mass is volume.
7. (6) All matter takes in photons and emits them. Easy enough to agree with
(Or it may be simpler if excess photons are drawn to the surface of the stacked multiple photons and roll off due to centrifugal force.)
No stacks...no centrifugal force...
8. (8) This photon emission is electrical repulsion and electric current.
Yes , and NO...electric current is from a deeper level, the solid aether, which is supporting photons and above...Tearing the solid aether releases the zero point energy, which is modulated by electrons, protons, and plasma ....
9. (8) Photon emission is called charge, charge fields and charge streams.
Yes, close enough..
10. (7) Matter emits photons in charge streams.
(I can see how polar emission would produce streams or channels, but it's hard to see how equatorial emission could do so.)
11. (8) Protons emit the most charge.
12. (7) Protons take in charge polarly and emit it equatorially.
(Similar comment as for #7.)
13. (7) Neutrons take in and emit charge polarly.
(If solar charge tamps down charge emitted from Mercury's poles, it looks like regular charge would tamp down neutron polar charge and prevent it from emitting polarly much.)
There may be reasoning behind that, but I haven't looked at it///
14. (9) All matter particles spin. All atoms spin. Unbalanced spin results in atoms breaking up.
(That makes eminent sense of the properties of elements.)
Unbalanced spin? MM likes to spin spin....Me, not so much...I like vibrate, an oscillation.
15. (8) Neutrons and neutral matter take in and emit very little charge, but keep recycling charge within themselves.
(I don't yet see how proton equatorial emission can be collected back into the internal charge stream, but it appears to occur somehow, since atoms or molecules exhibit neutrality.)
16. (8) Electrons, protons and other ions immediately reemit all the charge that enters them.
17. (7) Particles within neutral matter circulate charge in streams from particle to particle.
Not likely, but not worth worrying about.
18. (6) Why osmium is the densest element.
but it appears to occur somehow,
(I may find this more probable if I'd reread the paper.)
See if it says anything about dancing angels??
19. (7) Why planetary axes are tilted as they are.
(This I may find more probable if I could comprehend math quickly.)
Seems to work..
20. (8) The charge field, solar wind etc move comet tails.
21. (7) Why retrograde bodies are brighter.
...don't remember the details.....is this the one about photons being inverted?
22. (4) Why planetary poles are cold.
(Looks more likely that cold ions cool Mercury's and other planets' poles instead of incoming charge doing so.)
That may be the lack of movement as compared to equator....
23. (4) The cause of continental drift.
(NewGeology.us shows that a major impact likely broke up an ancient supercontinent and caused rapid continental sliding, instead of slow drift.)
Don't care about Pangea...
24. (4) The cause of ice ages.
(Ice core data seems to be greatly confused due to many layers having been laid down in some years and some layers having melted in other years. The ice caps seem likely to be less than 14,000 years old.)
25. (6) The cause of nebular accretion.
(I don't remember the details of Miles' paper, but it seemed similar to Charles Chandler's theory, which latter seems very thorough and logical.)
26. (5) The cause of tides.
(Again, I'd have to reread his papers and compare them with Charles' model, which latter again seems rigorous.)
MM's charge field sweeps the tides ahead of it...
It's all figured out when, so I am not concerned with the cause....
27. (1) Gravity is caused by accelerating matter expansion.
(This seems implausible because expanding matter would seem to require an inner expanding matter, which would likewise require another and all these layers of inner expanding matter would seem to require a magical invisible insertion. Expansion is force, which is mass times acceleration. In order for a mass to keep accelerating outward, it would have to be pushed outward by an inner layer of accelerating mass, ad infinitum.)
You are conflating a mathematical convenience with reality. Universal Expansion is pure nonsense. If you accelerate mass, volume of matter, you get inertia YOou have to overcome it's rest inertia to begin the acceleration, so why not just use inertia to begin with?? F=Ia? F/I=a, I=F/a, I= kmR2, k as inertial constant..ans. as Kgm2....The maths use acceleration because it works and is convenient, until gravity is defined and quantified more...
28. (6) Gravity is caused by universal spin.
(Spin is rotation or revolution, which is a much more plausible source of acceleration than expanding outward pressure from inside all matter.)
29. (8) The charge field prevents the atmosphere from collapsing.
Good as any explanation
30. (7) The rainbow is a reflection of the Sun.
(The paper seems to make great sense, except that I'm not clear on what surface a reflection of the Sun would reflect from behind the rainbow and into a sheet of humid or misty air where the rainbow appears.)
31. (8) Miles' calculus and corrections of physics equations etc.
(I'm not adept enough at math to understand a lot of it readily, but I can understand that assigning numbers to points of no dimensions likely has screwed up a lot of equations etc.)
If he can make it work out, then strong argument for his method....
32. (6) Large and small planets' orbits unstable.
(Miles says small planets want to get closer to the Sun, if I remember right, and that puts them in conflict with inner larger planets. It's only slightly plausible so far, since I don't see what would be pushing smaller planets inward, though I understand that larger planets may be pushed outward more strongly by the charge field.)
Things seem to be working...and if not, what will we do?
33. (6) Moon's near side smoothed out by Earth's charge field.
(That's interesting, but there might easily be other explanations. If it's true I'd be interested in a calculation of how much material could be eroded away in 5 thousand years, since the Moon likely hasn't been with Earth for longer than that, as found from comparative mythology. I can imagine that electrical scarring has occurred between the Moon and Earth or Mars.)
Electrical scarring is a strong probability....
34. (7) Trojan asteroids kept at bay by Jupiter's charge field.
(I like the novelty of that and many of the above claims, and this one seems plausible.)
35. (6) Cause of magnetic fields.
(I'm more convinced of Charles Chandler's model for magnetic fields so far, though Mathis' model may be rather compatible.)