Sparky, I'm reformatting slightly for clarity.
Sparky wrote:
Some bits can be found at
http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html
I want to comment on MM's models. If spin is real, and the basis of his model, then each variation of spin would be a separate particle?
Agreed. (I would say the basis of Miles' physics is the charge field, where photons are real and have mass and spin, but that's quibling). There are many possible spin combinations. How many forms of electrons or protons are there? We don't know. Some may not be stable, i.e. free neutrons. There are certainly lots of hadrons and such, and now we have a good reason why.
the entire electromagnetic spectrum can be taken as a charge field.
the charge field is probably an average motion of the entire E/M field
Miles doesn't know whether all photons (the entire E/M spectrum) are charge field particles. It seems likely that high energy x-ray photons are not. The best candidates for charge field photons are from the low energy end of the E/M spectrum, infrared photons. I don't understand the, "an average motion" statement.
Electricity is the linear or near-linear motion of free electrons and other quanta by a river of photons.
But magnetism is caused by the spin of those same photons.
I always say that bombarding photons impact with a force that can be described by two orthogonal components: the forward e, and the orthogonal (sideways) h. The sum of all the charge field e and h components results in the pre-electric and pre-magnetic fields. There will actually be no measurable E/M fields present until they are revealed by ions.
This spin tends to be either a clockwise or a counter-clockwise spin,magnetism works by either driving the E/M field out of a small area of space between the magnets, allowing only gravity to remain, or by augmenting the angular part of the E/M field, creating a greater repulsion than before.
OK. Spinning particles makes absolute sense to me. Long before I heard of Miles Mathis, one of my first personal software projects was developing a 3-d pool game. I spent a great deal of time thinking about spin and spin interactions. Maybe that was why I was so quick to accept Miles' charge field.
A magnet provides a coherent charge field, with strongly aligned e and h components. The interactions of two magnets, attraction and repulsion, can be described in terms of spin additions or cancellations. The only "attraction" Miles allows is that of gravity, but that's because matter behaves as though it were expanding at the rate of gravity (another contentious Miles idea).
Charge fields only repel. When magnetic like poles are brought toward each other the h and e fields add, and the result is repulsion. When magnetic unlike poles are brought together the h fields cancel and we are left with just e field repulsion and gravitational attraction. The gravitational attraction wins. This is a simple yet unexpected explanation of magnetism, based on spin.
There is too little repulsion to counteract gravitational expansion, and the magnets come together.
The attraction of magnets is due to gravity. This is logically consistent, as I tried to describe in the previous reply. Try to see the sense of it before rejecting it.
the acceleration of gravity to a real motion, not just a field inclination or a hovering gradient or a mathematical curve. That is to say, all objects are expanding at a rate defined by their gravitational presence, i.e, their volume.
Miles has greatly simplified gravity mathematics, throwing out tensors and curved space, and replacing them with simple euclidean problems, by reversing the gravity vector from inward to outward. He just took Einstein's idea that there is no difference between an accelerating elevator or a gravity acceleration field. He doesn't say that all matter is expanding, but the math does suggest it.
you turn one of your magnets 180 degrees. Or, you have turned your macro-object upside-down. Just by doing that, you have turned all your quanta upside-down as well.A complete reversal of 50/50 is still 50/50.
Turning a magnet by 180 deg is the same as reversing the h field of the magnet, the field remained coherent, but it is reversed. If , instead of a magnet, you were to consider a non magnetic object, with no coherent h field, turning the object over does flip all the h components, but since they weren't coherent to begin with, they will not be coherent after the object is flipped.
Yes, you can make a photon act like an antiphoton just by turning it upside-down.
Yep. It's that simple. Matter-antimatter reactions don't annihilate, they just spin cancel.
we have eight different kinds of protons and eight different kinds of anti-protons, as well as four different electrons and four different positrons.
We've looped back to your first question above. There's still a particle zoo, but we can now see the sense of it. Miles hasn't provided all the answers yet, but what he has provided is a simple, comprehensive theory.
I have to agree with some of this, but then comes the MAJIK`!
I agree. I just think it's good MAJIK.
Lloyd, Why do you ask? The list is intended to be my glossary entry for Miles' charge or charge field. I offered it for comments. I'm grateful for replies. It's fun. I haven't figured out your suggested changes yet.
REMCB
I find it difficult to accept that my little doggie magnets clink together because of gravity. 
