From the MM paper on magnetism:4. (7) Photon spin causes magnetic effects.
(That seems likely, but I don't understand the details well yet.)
“So, when the two charge fields meet in fairly well-ordered straight lines, head-to-head, the photons will cancel their spins, canceling the magnetic component of the E/M field. The photons will not annihilate one another, but they will annihilate one another's spins. In other words, the electrical field will not be canceled, only the magnetic field. Nor will all photons be affected, since we don't imagine that all will collide. But the field coherence creates an unusually high number of collisions and spin cancellations, and the result is greatly reduced charge field. A greatly reduced charge field is the same as a greatly strengthened unified field, and the result is an apparent attraction. There is too little repulsion to counteract gravitational expansion, and the magnets come together.”
So the spin doesn’t directly cause the apparent attraction or repulsion. The spin lowers or raises the summed unified field and that’s what creates the apparent attraction or repulsion.
It wouldn’t and I don’t think Miles proposes such a thing. The equatorial emission would necessarily be planar (in general) which is why he simplifies his nuclear models for protons as discs. He does propose two basic paths that the recycled photons may take, equatorial and polar; depending on the effect being studied, it could be caused by either one or a combination.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.)
Except that there’s a big difference between studying a single particle and planet. The scales greatly impact how the charge field operates. The mechanics are the same, but the outcomes are different simply because the neutron is much closer in size to the charge photon. The low polar emission of a neutron I would think would be more due to its spin make-up, than the ambient field it reside in. Mercury as a body is not composed of a single stack of spins, so the result is not quite analogous.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.)
I’m not sure how ‘immediate’ is ‘immediate and I don’t know that MM has ever addressed this. ‘Dwell time’ of photons within a larger particle might be something good to pursue with him.16. (8) Electrons, protons and other ions immediately reemit all the charge that enters them.
Same as my comment on #10. Charge is not emitted only in streams, it is emitted based on spin and linear velocity.17. (7) Particles within neutral matter circulate charge in streams from particle to particle.
Based on MM nuclear structure theory, Osmium is the densest element because it is built on a Xenon base with triple alphas (6 protons) and with double alphas filling the interior holes in the pillar structure. That creates a tighter, more compact nucleus and therefore denser.18. (6) Why osmium is the densest element.
(I may find this more probable if I'd reread the paper.)
The math is a little difficult , but I think that is mainly because he is dealing with ratios and ignoring the units because it is the relative numbers that determine tilt not the absolute numbers. In short, each planet seeks a balance in the unified field with the baseline set by the sun’s field. It is the interactions of the summed field from the planets on either side of the body in question that contribute to the tilt. A comparison of Mercury and Uranus demonstrates this. Mercury is swamped by the field of the sun due to its position, and even though all of the other planets are working against the sun’s field, the sun’s field still dominates so Mercury has very little tilt at all (~3° I think). Uranus has larger planets on both sides of it so the summed field is nearly equivalent coming from both directions which is why it has a tilt of nearly 90°.19. (7) Why planetary axes are tilted as they are.
(This I may find more probable if I could comprehend math quickly.)
But this only begs the question of what drives the ions? Charge.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.)
An impact is one scenario for the impetus of the break-up. I think that what we see now is more likely continental ‘shifting’ to a new equilibrium than continuation of ‘drifting’ that uniformitarianism/anti-catastrophism would have us believe. A catastrophic break-up followed by multiple relaxation/equilibrium adjustments seems more logical to me.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.)
Ice core dating is fraught with assumptions driven by the worldviews of the people involved. The layers are commonly referred to as ‘annual’ layers, but the discovery of the ‘lost squadron’ killed this assumption. Even now it can be shown that multiple layers can be built up in a single day. Layers are built through warm-cold cycles, not (only) summer-winter cycles.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.)
I haven’t read Charles’ theory on this so I can’t comment in that respect; but I don’t think MM addresses the causes of accretion. He does pick apart using accretion as the source of global heat in his paper on the heat of the earth.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.)
And, again, I’m not familiar with Charles’ theory on this; but MM does a fairly thorough job of destroying gravity as the source of tides in his series of papers.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.)
Somewhat addressed prior to this thread; but I think it misses that expansion of matter as the mechanism for gravity as the axiom of the argument. You don’t ‘prove’ axioms in your argument, axioms are what you are given that you build your argument from. Every theory gravity necessarily has axioms they are based on. The axiom of expansion is that the true ‘quantum’ of the physical universe (whatever that quantum is) is expanding at a constant rate. The rest of the argument is developed from this one axiom. You don’t divide a ‘quantum’ based on the definition of ‘quantum’. A ‘quantum’ by definition is indivisible; so positing a divisible quantum is a contradiction in terms. And this axiom is not some creation of expansion theory in order to make a case. We assume a ‘quantum’ in the SM as well or we are led to the same infinite regress. The axiom may not be agreeable to some (which I understand), but seeking proof of the axiom is illogical.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.)
A different mechanism – yes; more plausible – why? You still run into an infinite regress/infinite energy input problem. If universal spin is the mechanism, what is it spinning in relation to? What is creating the continuous spins? Look, I don’t care either way; I’m happy with either expansion or universal spin just so long as we stay away from illogical ideas of ‘curved space’, actions at a distance or attraction by bombardment of ‘virtual’ particles.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.)
It doesn’t really matter in his theory so long as there is something rather than open sky. I believe he appeals to the cloud formations and/or terrain as the reflective backgrounds in that paper.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.
It’s not so much that the smaller planets would be pushed lower, it is that the summed field beneath them is unable (over time) to exclude them from a lower orbit where they would achieve a more long-term equilibrium.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.)
I agree, MM projects the charge field ‘obliteration’ over a supposed ~4by age of the earth-moon system (regardless of origin); but large scale catastrophic events could easily bring that estimate down to within historical times.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.)