Yet Another LENR Theory

@Caleon,

Smart people get fooled every time everywhere. But to argue in a discussion, that we can't question QM becasue of all the bright people founding QM must be right
is not a good argument to enlighten us. So please stop that, it is silly and no one learns anything.

To me QM, which is fitting quite nicely to data, but have weird consequences and is difficult to understand what physically it is.
We have Mills theory that also produces good agreement with observations - and I followed that math which can be daunting if you are not in a position
to be able to do some work by your own and skip unsessesary parts. But the thing with this theory is that it is physically understandable what is happening.

So obviously there is a link between those two theories, but it is not an obvious link. So this means that not knowing that Mills theory actually is sound, at least
in parts, you would be stuck in QM. Beeing stuck is not foolish and is not a sign of incompetence, just ignorance of the potential of Mills work and that there is
an alternative explanation to everything. I'm sure if Dirac, Hesienberg., Pauli etc knew there was a alternative explanation behind the path taken, they would
discover it and do that in a manner of great minds. The problem is that if the link is hidden, then an armada of scientists of great minds can fail to see it just
living in the current world of science - if the light is out in the room it is hard to find the switch, in a lightened room it is easier.

Oh BTW I have a semester of QM in the baggage - I was an A student in this subject at the time and was quite good at calculating and apply the theory.

@Robert,

There is 2 requirements I have to do this.
1. I would like to have a professor that is supportive - Mills theory would not open any doors here
2. I needs finansing - I do not want to leave my house just to prove a point and I have children. Where
can I get finansing for working on making Mills theory mathematically clear.

I'm a phd in math and would of cause focus my effort in developping the math around Mills theory and put his
work in a more rigid foundation. I would try to break out a few key theorems, that is mathematically interesting
maybe publish them in math litterature to get peer review from math experts. I already have one idea ready
where I plan to prove a theorem that Mills charge distributions indeed does not radiate and that those are the only
charge distributions that would be speherical shells and have this property. It's fun math and you can see how I plan to
do this in my sketch here: http://c-lambda.se/maxwell.pdf. Then I would spend time on chaining all the math theorems
together in a physics paper and publish as such to show that indeed Mills do have a point. Another paper that would be
great to do is of cause to provide the link between Mills and QM.

Quote from stefan

The standard theory is a mess and QM has fundamental flaws that is
too unbelievable to not search for something else

Andrea and Stefan,

Here is a link to a paper where I try to apply the theories of Miles Mathis to thinking about cold fusion: https://goo.gl/NslGFq

As is, the document probably sounds like crazy talk, but I encourage you to read the original papers I link to where the theory is built up through straightforward exposition and clear reasoning.

I think there is something here for both of you. Stefan, Miles shares your dissatisfaction with QM, arguing that it is largely a heuristic theory that uses math to describe experimental results but lacking a true mechanical explanation. He is especially good at exposing and picking apart the internal contradictions of established physics. I believe his theory can also be used to understand Mills's arguments, although I haven't tried to do that.

Andrea, your theory is very impressive, and you are to be congratulated for putting it together. I actually think your theory takes you several steps in Miles's direction (Miles, not Mills). For example, you state that nuclear binding energy is electromagnetic. This is very compatible with his theory. You'll see that I talk quite a bit here about the importance of what I call "tuning," is somewhat akin to what you call "coupling," which happens at certain frequencies. Miles's theory offers a different explanation as to why those frequencies are important and what is the mechanism, but you can see that they are both compatible with this basic part of the theory. You both talk quite a bit about spin or rotation, but in his case spin is a real physical phenomenon rather than an 'intrinsic' phenomenon that is basically a mathematical abstraction. Your statement that the electron "opens up" losing all its energy can be explained by his theory. Also, I believe your notion of the hydronion is somewhat compatible with his conceptualization of particles like protons and neutrons, though he actually argues that our estimates of the size of the proton and other nuclei is wrong:

http://milesmathis.com/proton.html

http://milesmathis.com/magneton.html

Also, you might be interested to know that Miles's theory explains what dark energy/matter is (and answers a whole bunch of other questions in physics), and at the end of the day one could say that all LENR reactions are basically different ways of tapping into this energy (or what he calls the charge field). One big pill to swallow with this theory is that the observed transmutation or fusion reactions of LENR are really more a byproduct of the LENR process that causes anomalous heat than the primary cause of the anomalous heat itself. Fusion is more an effect than a cause, in other words.

I find it interesting that despite your apparent attachment to QM principles, you seem to gravitate towards theories and concepts that fly in the face of QM. To give the biggest example, you refer to Cook's structural model of the Ni62 nucleus. But surely you must recognize that that model cannot be correct if the QM description of the nucleus is correct? Perhaps your defense of QM as unassailable is a bit too hasty? Or at least, I would counsel not to let it impair your ability to assess theories that reject basic tenets of QM.

@joshg, you are asking if Mills and Miles can be combined. I don't think so cause the changes in view that Miles suggests
is not used by Mills and is simply not needed. You'll be fine to derive Mills theory without Miles.

Quote from stefan

you are asking if Mills and Miles can be combined.

Actually I was suggesting that Mills's discoveries as well as LENR can both be explained using Miles Mathis's theory.

Quote from robert bryant

Their Lagrangian explanation does not mention zitterbewegung
or magnetic force??

Thanks for this reference. At least as a starter this theory of Krasnoholovet and Bounias is very interesting. Looking at the big picture (Gravitation) he comes to the same conclusion (formula) as Mills! He also can avoid dark matter and explains, that inertial frames - to a certain extent - have a local physic - as Mills did. Zitterbewegung is not used as a term, but the use of fractal dimensions of space is virtually the same explanation, which allows a more rigid mathematical treatment.

Now we have two (Mills and Krasno..) different explanations, which more or less the same conclusions.

To some extent both of them are cheating sometimes, claiming overwhelming prove, with flawed calculations. But compared to others (e.g. Widom) the presented errors are mild.

I personally think that the next step in basic physics theory is far more demanding than Einsteins ART, because we only have a few well documented experiment with "rare" / can not be explained results.
To make an other statement: If Physics can be explained by the standard modell and CERN like experiments, then it will remain to be a big pain in the ass.

Here again an overview of Krasnos... papers - Appendix with links.

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4768

Quote from Andrea Calaon

What do you mean with your comment about the multiplication?

In the first paper they made some shortcuts with wrong temporary results... The full paper was OK. The result fits very well with Krasno's theory.

@Andrea Calaon
Sorry for misspelling your name, I really struggle to get all letters correct and have always had that flaw in my writing.

Re Mess,
The standard model has introduced to many parameters in my view, and is to me a very good candidate for being called a mess of advanced curve fitting.
(It is a huge equation spanning more than a page) You can take as evidence (or at least a fact of point) that the parameters would not produce a habitable
universe if they where changed a little. Now you know that this is explained by the inflation theory and that they
are like they are because we exist. But there is another even better explanation, the parameters are decided by an unknown theory and not by fitting and the number
of freedoms are much lower than the standard model shows. That means that the real theory would only allow very specific variations and most tries would get you out
of that theory and produce inhabitates. But this is never shown to the public as an option which makes me wonder about the sanity of the ones pulling the strings.
Sometimes on my weakest moments I think that the true theory is suppressed for the best of the public and the interested public is spoon fed with half lies and bad science.
Maybe due to a fear of mad scientists going haywild or mad countries getting the hand on super weapons or that it is thought that a transparent theory is too
risky due to some consequences that is not yet known because the consequences are to complex to know beforehand and therefore all research is done in the
hidden. This is of cause wild speculation but it shows my feelings when seeing how the science is done and for sure these wild speculations would lend it self
to a quite cool storyline.

Re QM,
Yes QM has weird spots and we should have plastic brains ready to adapt whatever we catch in our nets. The problem is that more intuitive theories should be tried
first before accepting QM. QM has an interesting feature that cement's it's position. It's the Heisenbergs inequality. To me QM seam very much as a way to model basically
transportation in a more complex way as wave packets, note that e.g. plane wave looks like (modulo signs) exp(iE t + i p * x) where you would need derivatives to get the momentum. If you
think that locally at each point we have something like such a wave packet, the packet will transport itself in the direction of p. If you do the transportation in this way and constrain
the wave according to Einsteins special relativity and be smart like Dirac you will get QED. The transportation is blurry however and the Heisenbergs inequality basically states something
about the blur e.g. when the transportation description fails. This means that if QM is an approximation of a transportation phenomena the error bounds of this approximation would be indicated
with Heisenbergs inequality. But now comes the funny part. If a physisist measure something and it differs from QM, then the difference is whithin the error bound e.g. Heisenbers inequality
applies and the measurements is assigned as not in conflict from QM. The theory basically locks itself out of any alternative improvements by it's construction. I find that a very bad feature
of a physical theory or a call to be careful, especially when the logical conclusions lead to weird result. (Note that EM fields with the lorenz gauge have features that look a lot like transportation)

@Andrea, I'm not an expert in QM I only have one semester. I can't know everything. I lend you my observations and point of view. I would be glad to learn more however. But in my view the work
needs to be put on understanding the implications if Mills GUTCP and pick the goodies out of that. That path have not been taken seriously and holds potential due to probably all low hanging fruits.
The QM path have been hammered by a lot of people already and there is no low hanging fruit. I would expect improvements of understanding to come from that direction in stead. The problem
is that I don't consider GUTCP as a good reference to make. Basically all I talk to who read it get stuck and can't see the positive parts. A rigid rewrite is very much needed where normal people
who knows a bit of math can follow the argument and not be expected to spent hours doing calculations themselves. In a sense I feel that it is obfuscated too much. Will I do this work, nah If Mills
proves his device is working you will not need me. However if it is not working I would feel obligated to do something then we need to enhance our science understanding to perhaps solve the
problem we all are facing - and it's basically here my anger lies. Obfuscating weird theories that is unnesesary clumsy _is_ a lost oppertunity for us. It's not a game, we really need to unleash the
power of new understanding, maybe not know but certainly in the near future.

Quote from stefan

Yes QM has weird spots and we should have plastic brains ready to adapt whatever we catch in our nets

The main problem of QM is the notion of time. It involves tricky maths to handle space & time coordinates in one big compound expression.
Nevertheless the underlaying objects (atoms) of QM feel no time! Their basic internal motion is not affected by time. Time occurs if energy/mass is exchanged, which somehow depends on the speed of light. On the other side the timeless QM equations, which give us probability densities, work with infinite functions and with point particles. Both notions are obviously wrong. Not even the electron is a point particle. Depending on the measurements, we get different interaction cross sections. Krasnoholovet proposes that the range of interaction is finite at the bound of the De Broglie wave length of the underlaying particle.
Thus QM is a second order theory, which works well for “engineering purposes”. But (without proper base) it will never explain anything.
Einstein was the “first” who understood that the speed of light must have implications on all known physics. But what is the meaning of a finite velocity “c” of light? Is it just a measure how matter is reorganized in space? Can “c” be derived of a basic space property? E.g. of a fractal dimension of matter, as some claim.
Just to remind You: The physical property of spin is not bound to “c”! Information about spin can be spread at infinite speed ( Einstein was desperate about this) and as a consequence the Heisenberg uncertainty relation is not valid for some spin properties.
What we urgently need, is a theory of space. How is matter organized at the Plank scale? Such experiments can not be made with the CERN approach, because Plank scale effects don't know time (mass is a space property). At the Plank scale time is just the order of space and far away from being continuous. Krasnoholovet is looking at resonance effects of Plank scale effects on the macroscopic world. This could be one approach to get a deeper knowledge of our world. Resonances 'are the hooks' where the structure of basic space interacts with measurable matter/time.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Can “c” be derived of a basic space property?

Yes, in a manner of speaking: 'c' is a function of the radius of the photon and the density of the charge field: http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf

Here is a mechanical explanation of quantum entanglement: http://milesmathis.com/entang.html

Here is a paper on photons and time: http://milesmathis.com/photime.pdf

For other relevant papers, also see:

http://milesmathis.com/photon.html

http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html

http://milesmathis.com/photon4.html

http://milesmathis.com/elec3.html

http://milesmathis.com/elecrad.pdf

And on the double-slit experiment:

http://milesmathis.com/double.html

Quote from joshg

Yes, in a manner of speaking: 'c' is a function of the radius of the photon and the density of the charge field:

Hello Joshg: To say it the right way: Every thought about physics is a contribution to our knowledge, even if it was just one idea, which was pointing in a new direction.

What Miles Mathis does, is a lot of simple math, which can be understood by everybody, but in reality he construct's - to my opinion - no new knowledge. A theory is new, if it allows, contrary to an "old" theory, to make 'new' predictions or it allows to better understand 'old' facts.
Just one example: Mathis multiplies two constants and gets as a result: 19 and because 19/20 is good shot for 95% he makes you claim that this is an explanation that the universe consists out of 95% dark matter...

This is bare nonsene, to be polite, because we don't know any exact figure for dark matter...

I do not say you shouldn't read his stuff, because often the best ideas can be found in completly weird theories. There are hundreds of theories out on the www and I did read into many. Currently I study Krasnoholovet's stuff, also because I'm more familiar with the kind of 'basic math' he uses. (But he is somehow weird too...)

Finally: A theory survives, if it is used by many and is able to make accurate predictions! (Even the broadly accepted QM theory isn't able to always make correct predictions!, so QM (in its current incomplete form) is far from beeing totally accepted.)

Quote from Wyttenbach

but in reality he construct's - to my opinion - no new knowledge. A theory is new, if it allows, contrary to an "old" theory, to make 'new' predictions or it allows to better understand 'old' facts.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I would suggest to you not to simply brush him aside after casually reading one paper. He has written hundreds. Over 6,000 pages. Also, his 'simplistic' math is a deliberate choice. He is capable of doing complicated math, but he believes (and has shown) how it's easy to obfuscate and fudge complex math, so he likes to keep it simple. Actually physics before the 20th century used to be done with straightforward algebra. It's quite remarkable what he has been able to accomplish with 'just' algebra. I view it as a sign of parsimony and clarity, rather than simple-mindedness.

I also completely disagree with your appraisal of what Miles has accomplished. He constructs a lot of new knowledge, mainly in the form of a theory (supported by math) that provides a whole new perspective on physics. Well, it's not wholly new, since it is deeply rooted in many long-standing physics equations and solutions. And in fact much of what he has done is to go back and find errors in long-standing physics 'solutions.' Perhaps the most significant of the 'new knowledge' he has brought is his discovery of the charge field, composed of what he calls b-photons or charge photons. This discovery has enabled him to write paper after paper after paper where he is able to explain things that mainstream physics cannot explain, and in many cases explain things they haven't even asked about. And on top of that he is able to explain things they have but with his own postulates and method (such as wave-particle duality which is only the appearance of duality). I think it's quite remarkable.

As for your point about dark matter/energy, while it's true that we don't *know* how much dark energy/matter there is, current estimates do put it at around 95%. They need it to make their equations work. You know, he didn't just accidentally multiply some numbers together to come up with 1/19. They are derived from his theory. I personally find it quite remarkable that on the basis of his theory he was able to construct an equation whose product was a number that "just happens" to hit at the right ratio. Here are a couple of papers of his that deal directly with the dark energy/matter 'vaccum catastrophe':

http://milesmathis.com/dark2.pdf

http://milesmathis.com/catas.pdf

But put that aside. As I said, it's only one out of many standing scientific mysteries that he has been able to solve/explain or shed light on. His explanations follow clearly and logically from his theory and are fully consistent with it. This doesn't just happen by chance. I would actually call that new knowledge.

And as for testable predictions, there are several:

One is in the paper I linked to on the double slit experiment:

Another is about the heat of the Earth:

http://milesmathis.com/hight.pdf

Which had already been partly validated:

http://milesmathis.com/core.pdf

Here is a prediction about Jupiter bending light:

http://milesmathis.com/call.html

Here is a prediction related to quasi-crystals:

http://milesmathis.com/mangal.pdf

Ah, and here is some correspondence he had with a scientist doing NMR where he was able to make a prediction that was tested and validated:

http://milesmathis.com/main2.pdf

Finally, and I don't know if I mentioned this in an earlier post, but I can't be bothered now to check: at ICCF-18 Steven Jones gave a talk where he said that he doesn't think the anomalous excess heat from Pd-D experiments comes from fusion, but rather from something he calls 'Freedom Energy.' Well, it's clear to me that this Freedom Energy is nothing other than Mathis's 'charge field.'

http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/960…AtUnivMissouriOct2012.pdf

Quote from joshg

milesmathis.com/dark2.pdf

To try one more reply: (You should also ask the others...).

Dark matter is so called matter which does not radiate and only can be measured by gravitational effects. One candidate for dark matter is H* (H#) the collapsed Hydrogen. This Hypothesis is under "experimentation" now, because out of halos, which hold dark matter, we measure -511keV radiation. This is exactly the energy of electron/positron annihilation and also the expected energy when H₂ collapses to H₂*.
This is knowledge gathered out of actual "real" physics, but it might also "not be the truth".

One thought of Mills is correct. The field of a proton/electron can not be extent to infinity. This is a common error in classical physics, which, nevertheless is kept for simplification of the math. (Because is does not bother!)

But the following he has completely missunderstood:

See wiki: 1C = 2 x 10^-7 mkg/_s² ... Mills: 1C = 2 x 10^-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)

This is a proposal for a measurement method, how to define an Ampere: Its not an equivalent relation between C and A. Its equivalent in the measurement...

Sorry about that.

Quote from Wyttenbach

See wiki: 1C = 2 x 10-7 mkg/s2 ... Mills: 1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)

This is a proposal for a measurement method, how to define an Ampere: Its not an equivalent relation between C and A. Its equivalent in the measurement...

Sorry about that.

Display More

Sorry about what? Why the smug condescension? Or are you apologizing for not being able to make an intelligible point?

Please try again, because I don't understand what you're trying to get across. I will assume the root of misunderstanding is on my end, so please be a dear and explain it so even us simple folk can understand.

Three points of confusion:

First, I assume when you write "Mills" here you mean Miles Mathis, not Randell Mills. Perhaps you should just call him Mathis to avoid confusion.

Second, I presume from you writing out two equations, one in green and one in red, you're trying to say that the one in green (from Wikipedia, you say) is correct and the one in red (from Mathis's dark2.pdf) is incorrect. Can you please give me a link to where you found the first equation or how you derived it? I cannot find it on Wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter). It will help me to respond.

Third, I'm sorry but I just don't know what you mean when you write "This is a proposal for a measurement method, how to define an Ampere: It's not an equivalent relation between C and A. It's equivalent in the measurement..."

Do you mean that Miles's equation is proposing a measurement method rather than an equivalent relation? Or do you mean that the equation should be understood as a measurement equivalence rather than an 'equivalent relation'? Or something else? And what do you mean exactly by the distinction between 'equivalent measurement' vs. 'equivalent relation'?

I am hesitant to say more before getting some clarification on the point(s) you're trying to make, but I will say this: Miles is trying to make an equivalent relationship between mass and charge. It's not just a matter of equivalent measurements. He argues that charge can be understood as the force generated by a mass of the charge photons. In his words:

Here are some relevant papers that might help resolve the equation disparity and the theoretical issues at stake:

On the nature of electrical charge (see especially towards the end):

http://milesmathis.com/charge.html

"I have shown that charge must have a mass equivalent. Charge is the summed mass of sub-particles that are impacting the objects being repulsed or attracted. The electrical force cannot be imparted by an abstract field or a mechanically undefined charge; it must be imparted by something capable of imparting force, and the only thing that is mechanically capable of this is mass or mass equivalence."

On Coulomb's equation:

http://milesmathis.com/coul.html

"when you get down to the groundwork mechanics, you find that you need the velocity in order to sum the force. To get the force, you have to know how many particles are hitting your object over some time interval. The density at a given volume won’t tell you that. But if you have a velocity and a density, you can calculate the force, since you then have a field strength. You have both the area of impact and the time of impact"

And also relevant is this paper on where the fine structure constant comes from and why it has the value it does: http://milesmathis.com/fine.html

This quotation from that paper might answer your question about the equation (but I'm not sure in part because I'm not sure where you're getting that equation from):

"Now let's look at the dimensions. I have a force; the standard model Coulomb reduces to kg/s or Ns/m. But remember that the standard model is not too picky about its dimensions. The cgs system is still used, and in that system charge was kg or Ns2/m. Yes, before SI, charge used to reduce to mass, although they never promoted that fact. So the dimension changes with the system. It changes again with my system, so that charge is a force, not a mass. I can change the dimensions without changing the number, because s/m reduces to one in my mechanics. Charge is the mass of the photon field, but a mass cannot give us a strength of interaction or a force by itself. You need a mass and a velocity, as I have shown elsewhere. This will give you a field strength, which will give you a force. Well, velocity is m/s. If you multiply s/m by m/s, you get one, and the field dimension reduces to N."

Here are other relevant papers:

On Maxwell's displacement current:

http://milesmathis.com/disp.pdf

http://milesmathis.com/disp2.pdf

How to unify the constants G, k and alpha:

http://milesmathis.com/k.pdf

As a critic of quantum mechanics, you might enjoy this skewering of an article about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle:
http://milesmathis.com/hup.pdf

Oh, and I forgot to link you to these other two earlier papers of his on dark matter/energy:

http://milesmathis.com/lostmass.html

"To say it in the simplest possible way, the masses we have been measuring up to now have been unified field masses, coming out of Newton's unified field. But because we did not know Newton's field was a unified field, we did not know our masses were unified field masses. Because the unified field contains the sub-field of E/M, and because the sub-field of E/M is in vector opposition to the total field (causing it to be subtracted from the total), our current masses are deceiving. They are too small, and they are too small in the amount of the E/M field. To make the correction—to find the real mass—we have to add the E/M field to every mass in the universe. In other words, to make a correction to the total mass of the universe, we have to add the universal mass or mass equivalence of the entire E/M field. "

And here: http://milesmathis.com/mond.html

Quote from joshg

First, I assume when you write "Mills" here you mean Miles Mathis, not Randell Mills. Perhaps you should just call him Mathis to avoid confusion.

Yeas! Miles: .. The reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere on the right side... Miles Mathis simply cheated the units... N= Newton!

Thanks to both you and Wyttenbach for keeping up some civilized but nevertheless interesting dialog here. I find the point interesting in any case. Here is another view:

From Josh Guetzkow's updated review "A Preliminary Guide" Mathisian physics, p. 6:

"This wind acts on objects differently depending on their surface area. Because protons have larger (apparent) radius, and hence surface area, compared to electrons, they have more force applied to them from the charge particles of the wind (more particles are striking them), and hence they will be repelled further relative to the smaller electrons."

This may present a major problem: The proton is, by classical measures, smaller or even much smaller than the electron-- depending on how the diameter is being defined, a common measure being the "charge radius".

Comparing such relative dimensions for the proton and the electron in the 2006 CODATA resource for example has the proton at:

0.8768 femtometers with a standard uncertainty of 0.0069 femtometers. A new study using a novel technique found a value of 0.84184 femtometers, with a standard uncertainty of 0.0067 femtometers.

The electron: 2.8179403227 femtometers, thus using the former proton radius as an upper bound, a factor of about 3.2 smaller than the electron. Or using the newer method of measure, a factor of about 3.35 smaller.

Some argue persuasively that the electron is actually a point particle with no physical extent. That might fit with the Mathisian conception. Under that scheme, the proton with three fundamental quark constituents would likely be larger.

Cheers,
Longview

Quote from Longview

The electron: 2.8179403227 femtometers, thus using the former proton radius as an upper bound, a factor of about 3.2 smaller than the electron. Or using the newer method of measure, a factor of about 3.35 smaller.

Yeas: This is the classical viewpoint of the charge radius of a free particle. But who uses this? LENR happens in condensed matter where the coulomb barrier is measured in Angstroems and the electron covers a huge space compared to the volume of a proton.
Did You once model the charge/mass equivalence potential of the electron? Charge is repelling! R.Mills! Did it for the hydrogen atom. It explains why the electron 'seems' to be a point particle. It's mass horizon (thickness of the orbitsphere) is of the order 10^-57.

Yes, that is why I have argued here before that the effective radius of a proton is actually as low as 1000th that of an electrons. But some here and elsewhere don't seem to like that comparison, although it follows naturally from the size of electronic orbitals and their nuclear / nucleonic equivalents.

A key to LENR in a Copenhagen interpretation is to foster electron materialization within the nucleus. That may well be something that a chemical environment taken with magnetic and/or electrostatic and/or lattice and/or molecular orbital and/or vector potentials and/or effective mass alterations (e.g. lambda = h/mv) may enable or even dictate.

Quote from Longview

The proton is, by classical measures, smaller or even much smaller than the electron

Well, that's a good point. But the statement is consistent with Mathis's perspective, since he argues (persuasively, in my view) that the proton radius has been underestimated. In this paper he dissects (or re-analyzes) the classic Rutherford experiments:

http://milesmathis.com/proton.html

Here is an important follow-up to that paper: http://milesmathis.com/prorad.pdf

At the same time, he argues that the size of the electron has been over-estimated:

http://milesmathis.com/magneton.html

http://milesmathis.com/elec3.html

http://milesmathis.com/elecrad.pdf

(And related to both of these is his paper on the Bohr radius: http://milesmathis.com/bohr.html)

As for the electron as a point particle, Mathis rejects the notion of a point particle, since a point has no physical extension. As such, it is a mathematical abstraction and has no place in a mechanical theory of physics. (Here are two nice short papers on his approach to physics: http://milesmathis.com/pre.html and http://milesmathis.com/death.html)

He has calculated a radius and mass for the most elementary particle (in his theory), which is the b-photon or charge photon. That radius is 2.74 x 10^-24 m with a mass of 2.77 x 10^-37 kg. Here is one paper on that, with links to others: http://milesmathis.com/photon.html For him, all the other particles are simply spin states of this basic sphere-shaped particle, which has mass and physical extension in 3 dimensions.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Miles Mathis simply cheated the units... N= Newton!

I am still trying to figure out the answer to your point. I am quite certain that he didn't "cheat the units,"since he is extremely fastidious about such things, much more so than most.

I will show you where I've gotten so far, and I'm spelling everything out so you can see the steps in my logic, which you can then correct if you find a flaw.

He wrote in the dark2.pdf paper that:

"1C = 2 x 10^-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)"

Well,

1C = A * s

The C is a coulomb, A is ampere, and a coulomb is an ampere-second.

An ampere is 2 x 10^-7N

N (newton) is equal to m*kg/s2

(It is the amount of force needed to accelerate 1 kg of mass a the rate of 1 meter per second squared.)

So an ampere can be written as 2 x 10^-7 m*kg/s^2.

But a C is an Ampere-second, so that means you multiple the ampere by seconds, in which case the (presumably) correct equation should be:

2 x 10^-7 m*kg/s

So it appears to me that your "correction" was wrong. Were you cheating like you accuse Mathis of? Or were you just mistaken? I'll assume that you were mistaken (perhaps did the math sloppily), rather than cheating. I think you should assume the same of Mathis unless he provides you with some kind of evidence that his mistakes are deliberate.

Now, I still don't think his equation in the dark2.pdf paper is mistaken. But it appears to be based on an unstated assumption that allows him to cancel out the length, or to treat it's value as 1. He is concerned here with a mass, not a force, and the additional m/s in the Newton gives you the force. I believe it's related to this statement in his paper on the fine structure constant (milesmathis.com/fine.html), where he also uses that value for Coulomb derived from the Ampere (and which I already pointed out):

"Now let's look at the dimensions. I have a force; the standard model Coulomb reduces to kg/s or Ns/m. But remember that the standard model is not too picky about its dimensions. The cgs system is still used, and in that system charge was kg or Ns2/m. Yes, before SI, charge used to reduce to mass, although they never promoted that fact. So the dimension changes with the system. It changes again with my system, so that charge is a force, not a mass. I can change the dimensions without changing the number, because s/m reduces to one in my mechanics. Charge is the mass of the photon field, but a mass cannot give us a strength of interaction or a force by itself. You need a mass and a velocity, as I have shown elsewhere. This will give you a field strength, which will give you a force. Well, velocity is m/s. If you multiply s/m by m/s, you get one, and the field dimension reduces to N."

But again, I'm not sure, and that answer arguably raises as many (or more) questions as it answers. I haven't been able to find a clear answer from any of his other papers. I will e-mail him about it and see if (and what) he answers.

In the meantime, you might find this paper on Coulomb's constant interesting: http://milesmathis.com/coul.html