Lloyd Blog

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Feb 02, 2014 7:23 pm

Humans from Moon of Jupiter
I see at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=14854 that Ted Holden has a new book, Cosmos in Collision, and he has a link to his site that has 3 sections of his book that can be read online there. One webpage of it show how the Saturn system and or solar system may have formed from a Herbig-Haro object, which is a string of stars and starlets found in star-forming regions. He argues that the central object I think would be the largest and would have been the Sun with a brown dwarf companion, namely Jupiter. And the Saturn system would have formed a bit further out in the same string of starlets. On the other webpage there he says creatures in the Saturn system would have evolved large eyes, which included dinosaurs. In the Sun-Jupiter system they would have developed small eyes with less nocturnal vision. So he concludes that humans formed on a moon of Jupiter close to the Sun, I guess. But that doesn't seem to jive with mythology. I guess I'll have to ask him about that. Anyway, a lot of the material is interesting. He also says humans must have evolved on a wet world. I guess he's suggesting that humans came from a moon of Jupiter that was wet and warm, but later moved out far from the Sun.
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:00 pm

What Causes Protons to Repel Each Other?

Likewise, why do electrons repel each other. I think Miles Mathis has the answer. They spray photons in all directions and the photons have enough mass in quantity to repel other particles.

Actually, he says they spray photons from their equators, except for neutrons, which spray them out polarly.

However, particles would often likely have combination spins, such as where the spin axes spin lengthwise. That would rotate the equators over the poles and back, so the spray would become all-directional.
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:02 pm

I'm thinking of contacting scientists at NPA's worldsci.org site to discuss this issue of repulsion between protons etc.

Here's what Mark Antrobus says there.
No electron in the Hydrogen atom. Quantum whacked at its root. Einstein is wrong. Particles ripple waves. Dogma is up for rebuttal. We are light. The void-I am.
No electron in a nascent hydrogen atom. Input electron volts causes the manufacture of an electron.
69 million photons comprise the shell of a hydrogen atom. Proof.
Energy is just a measure of mass accelerated thru a distance. Mad. It is not a new kind of thing.
Ether is a fabric of space.
A complete theory will be circular. Even a linear event is a new beginning or end of another event. Like a circuit that is complete.
Photons have mass and ripple etheric waves.
The void is not defined but allows existence. Theologically - I am.
Matter emanates from ether. The material changes in texture with change in pulsate velocity.
The solution to the hand of god is the dynamic pulsate activity of a photon to electron by a factor of 137 cubed.
1.86 x 10-9 kg is the fundamental building block of ether & unifies the gravitational and electric forces.
Math is independent of the observer.
Statistics and probability iron out errors and absence of variables. They do not represent a factual depiction of an event.
Dogma for deeper understanding via rebuttal. Kairos or fullness of time.
Retrosynthesis to check assumptions, construction of a theory - theory of knowledge - tok.
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Feb 08, 2014 7:48 pm

Relativity is Real
I posted a good passage from Mathis at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5734&p=92487#p92487. It's good because it explains relativity in a way that even I can understand it. With his explanation it seems pretty simple to understand and it seems that it must obviously be true, the way it's explained.
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:29 am

Space News | Hydrogen River Between Galaxies

"Scientists using the Green Bank Telescope have observed what they describe as a river of neutral hydrogen streaming into the Galaxy NGC 6946. The researchers conclude that this tenuous filament of gas is providing the necessary fuel for the high rate of star formation in the spiral galaxy." [The filaments have magnetic fields. There are smaller similar filaments of hydrogen seen near the Sun by Verschuur.]

Solar Supernova Feb 24, 2014
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/02 ... supernova/

"How do supernovae relate to the Sun? On June 7, 2011 the Sun erupted with the largest plasma event yet recorded by the Solar Dynamics Observatory. SDO waslaunched on February 11, 2010 into a geosynchronous orbit, with plans for a five-year mission. It is capable of observing the Sun in multiple wavelengths, including extreme ultraviolet."
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:36 pm

Miles Mathis Theory

A friend posted these questions on a Mathis Facebook page.
- 1. Did you read and understand much or most of what Miles wrote about Calculus, Physics Formulae, and his theory of photons as the charge field and the constituents of matter?
- 2. Do you think any of his statements in those areas is wrong or doubtful? If so, which ones specifically and why?
- 3. Charles thought Miles was making an irrational and deceptive leap by taking Maxwell's formula m = L^3/T^2 as a universal fact (m is mass; L is length; T is time). But Lloyd thought it could be taken as an acceleration of a volume. How do you interpret that formula and is it essential to his theory?
- 4. Do you have a background in math, physics, astronomy, or philosophy etc?

John McVay replied.
1) Yes I've read and understood, at least conceptually, his theories.

2) I don't know that right or wrong is a necessary conclusion; rather, I prefer most of his theories to the mainstream's because it seems to me that he does real physics with real mechanics instead of leading with math. Physics should be about finding mechanical answers to the phenomena we observe and not about finding any mathematical model that matches the data with no regard for logic and reality.

3) Maxwell himself showed that mass is reducible to more fundamental units from Newton's own work. Miles just took a next logical step. If we want to develop clear theory and mechanics, then keeping the fundamentals clear and in the open reduces development of bad theory. Coulombs constant is buried in about three layers of other constants for instance; no wonder we are so quick to give up on a mechanical answer. Substituting a volumetric acceleration for mass is entirely logical given the fundamental units; it's certainty better than hanging on to an entirely arbitrary and made up concept known an mass. Granted, it brings up physical implications that many will not like; but physics shouldn't be about our likes and dislikes.

4) I have a BS in Mechanical engineering, was a physics major for awhile prior to that, and have studied philosophy and other subjects on my own for many years.
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby David » Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:34 pm


I would suggest that you start a new thread titled the "Miles Mathis Theories"; rather than having this discussion buried deep inside a thread labled "Lloyd Blog".

Also, I would further suggest that you extend an invitation to the members of "The Work of Miles Williams Mathis" Facebook group to participate in the discussion.


Steve David Urich
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:00 am

Hi David. I'll reply by PM for now. Thanks.

More Answers Re Miles Mathis' Theory
I'll call the first 4 questions above A1 to A4 and the next 3 below B1 to B3.

Roberto replied: . . . All what I'll write here is my opinion, so I will omit "IMO" "IMHO" and so on.
A2. Mathis Errors. [Re Have you found any errors in Miles' material online?] I've already told him the two possible errors I've found while translating his articles. In the paper on the Goldbach Conjecture there's a critical error that makes the claim [wrong]. In the Redefinition of Calculus there's a tiny error in the charts that can be easily corrected.
A3. Mass Equation. [Re Is it reasonable for Miles to use Maxwell's limited formula, m = L3/T2, or mass = length cubed over time squared, as a universal expression of m, mass?] It's a dimensional formula. It's nothing strange that all can be traced down to length and time, as it's the only thing we can really measure.
If you make G a number without units and use Newton's gravity and acceleration equations:
F =Gmm/r² = m·a gives a dimensional equation (Apply [] to a variable and you get it's dimensions)
[G][m]²/[r]² = [m][a]
[r] = L and [a] = L/T² so
[m]²/L² = [m] L/T²
Solving for [m]
[m] = L³/T²
[See also John's answer in previous post.]

Next 3 Questions for Mathis Supporters.

B1. Calculus. Someone claimed on the Thunderbolts forum a few years ago that Miles' calculus doesn't work and he apparently showed an example of a simple problem that Miles' method got wrong. Have you tested Miles' calculus to see if it works properly? Could you give a simple example of that?

B2. Gravity. Miles originally thought gravity acts as an outward vector due to universal expansion, instead of an inward vector due to a pull, because he thought attraction is not mechanical or logical. (I agree that attraction doesn't seem physical). But in January 2012 or so he wrote a paper in which he decided that the outward vector is caused by universal spin, instead of expansion. He may have said that the universe has stacked spins like photons do and that the spins produce a centrifugal force or something. Do you favor either of these theories? Or do you know of a possibly better one to explain gravity?
- Universal expansion seems illogical, since it would seem to require something to cause the expansion, which would surely use energy, and, if space is "empty", it surely wouldn't expand at the same rate as matter would and different sorts of matter surely would not expand at exactly the same rate so that the changes would not be detectable to us. Right?
- Universal spin seems much more plausible, but I don't see how it could produce a universal outward gravitational vector on all matter, if everything isn't somehow rigid. Do you?
- I asked Miles if photons moving out of ions would leave a low pressure area in the ions which would be filled by photons from higher pressure outside, so that the outer pressure would act as an inward gravitational vector. Miles didn't think so, but what do you think about that? (Maybe think of a proton or ion as like a sprayer and the water as like photons.)

B3. Photon Spins. Do you understand Miles' stacked spins? How can a photon move in a wave motion? I think Miles said in one paper that when a photon is hit by another photon, it can't go faster than light speed, so it's constrained to rotating about a point on its surface, causing a stacked spin. It looks to me like that would only be possible if the photon were connected to a second photon so they would rotate aroud each other like a propellor. Wouldn't it be possible for two photons traveling nearly parallel to touch and stay connected due to lower pressure due to motion? A propellor motion of two photons makes sense to me. The photon pair would form a torus shape and the torus if impacted could be made to spin on one of its long diameters to form a sphere, which could absorb two or more photons. This double pair could then join a second double pair doing a large propellor movement and so on. When it reaches the proton stage of growth, the proton would be torus shaped and photons would be attracted to it due to lower pressure of motion and would be thrown off of it like water off of a spinning wheel. Does this idea seem to have any merit?
- Miles' proton seems to be only one photon that spins in a large complicated fashion forming a sphere with a hole at the pole where photons enter and they leave through the sphere's equator. I don't see how one photon spinning in the shape of a sphere would be able to move fast enough to guide photons entering at light speed to exit the sphere at its equator. Do you? Have you tried to calculate how fast the proton's photon would have to move in its spherical shape to capture photons and shoot them out equatorially?

Steven replied.
B1. Calculus. [Re Does Miles' Calculus work?] I found that most people that claim Miles' calculus is wrong apply it in the wrong way. Miles' calculus very easy to check as it based on simple tables of differentials. An example can be found here:
"We could make a table of the motion of a dropped object in our gravity field. Let’s assume we drop it from a building that is 100 meter high and that x is the height of the dropping object.

Then we could get a table that reads like this (assuming G ~10m/s^2):

Time, x: Δx: ΔΔx: ΔΔΔx:
0s 100m 0m
1s 95m 5m 5m
2s 80m 20m 15m 10m
3s 55m 45m 25m 10m
4s 20m 80m 35m 10m
5s 0m 100m 20m 15m
6s 0m 100m 0m 20m
7s 0m 100m 0m 0m

(Actually, to be precise, x should already read “Δx” since any physical value represents already a differential. E.g. if the sound pressure of your speakers is 0dB the air pressure is still around 1000mBar. The sound pressure level is a Δ wrt. to the equilibrium pressure.)

Now, Δx represents the displacement curve, ΔΔx the velocity curve and ΔΔΔx the acceleration curve. As you see the velocity curve is a constantly increasing differential (until the object hits the ground) and the acceleration curve is a constant (until the object hits the ground)."

B2. Gravity. [Re Is gravity due to expanding universe or spinning universe?] I prefer the spinning universe explanation since it provides a mechanical explanation. Also it shows the mechanics at the lowest level(photons) and highest level(universe) are identical.
Your assumption that everything has to be rigidly connected is an unnecessary restriction. All forces are communicated through photons in Miles' model.

Next post will be on photon spins. Do not want to make posts too long.
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Mar 02, 2014 12:21 pm

More on Miles' Calculus Tables
Someone suggested by PM that Miles' tables work for polynomial equations, like x^2, but not for non-polynomials like sin(x), ln(x), sqrt(x). Isn't sqrt(x) the same as x^-2? Can anyone show a simple example with any of these non-polynomials that Miles' tables work with them or not?

Steven replied.
B1: Calculus. For non-polynomials the question is if the graph/function "straightens out". If it doesn't then taking the derivative runs into interpretation problems IMHO.

As a simple example we can calculate the derivative for an exponential function like y=2^x. Create a differential table:

x: y: Δy: ΔΔy: ΔΔΔy:
1 2
2 4 2
3 8 4 2
4 16 8 4 2
5 32 16 8 4
6 64 32 16 8
. ... .. .. ..

And you find that the derivatives of y are identical to y. Actually the function does not straighten out at any value, it is infinitely variable, which makes the derivative, defined as "the instantaneous rate of change" a strange concept here.
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:07 pm

More on Mass
We asked John re mass (see earlier post): would you like to say why you call mass a made-up concept? And would you like to mention some of the main physical implications of m = L^3/T^2 that many people would not like to consider?

John replied: I say it because Newton invented it to make his gravitational equation work out. As I understand it, mass was intended to represent the ponderability of matter in the math. But since forces are ultimately the result of collisions due to velocities or accelerations, and they are both dependent on changes in positions over time, there is no reason to couch such interactions in an ambiguous concept called mass. It is much clearer to keep the fundamental characteristics in the open. Mass has always been a nebulous concept with fuzzy definitions.

The first and most obvious implication of keeping mass in terms of length and time is that [it] appears to lead to an expansion theory of gravity.

[Lloyd replies: L/T^2 (or length over time squared) is acceleration; L^2/T^2 is c^2, or acceleration of an area; L^3/T^2 is acceleration of a volume? By your reasoning plain acceleration would be linear expansion; area acceleration would be 2-D expansion and volume acceleration would be 3-D expansion. Why would expansion be implied here, if there is no 2-D or 1-D expansion?]

B1) [Re Calculus]. Steven has addressed so I will defer except to reinforce that most of the criticisms aimed at Miles calculus work misapplies or misunderstands what he has said.

B2) [Re Gravity]. I personally lean toward expansion theory but I don't have a problem with either mechanism. Every theory of gravity faces the infinite well problem; it doesn't matter if your mechanism for gravity is curved space, gravitons, universal spin or expansion. Everybody has to posit an infinite well of energy by which gravity works at some level.

So long as the rates of expansion are identical, there would be no visible change in the relative sizes of anything. Space doesn't expand per [or according to] Miles; space is what everything is expanding into. The vacuum and empty space can have no characteristics by the definition of vacuum and empty and space.

[Lloyd replies: If all matter were expanding and space were not expanding, all matter would expand in fixed space or volume and soon get crowded together and then, what?, start expanding inward? And where would the energy come from to fuel the expansion without being observable?]

B3) [Re Photon Spins]. Anything can create a wave pattern against the background through a spin through an axis external to the entity itself. This along with linear motion creates the wave we observe. I don't really understand the need for a second photon. We'll end up with a toroidal structure either way.
- A photon with stacked spins will naturally emit lesser photons at the equator due to simple gyroscopic motions. This naturally creates low pressure at the poles; in that way photons work like air molecules: high pressure areas push into low pressure areas.

[Lloyd replies: You say you don't see the need for a second photon for it to make a wave motion. Did you ever see a propeller with one blade? You know the law of motion that says a body in motion remains in motion in a straight line and at constant speed. I can't see a photon traveling in a spiral or gyroscopic motion without another force being involved to knock it off of a straight line motion. But if a second photon sticks to the first one, such as due to external pressure, I can see them both turning together like a 2-bladed propeller. They would then both be balanced by each other, like Miles' atomic spin theory. It looks like you agree with my idea of low and high photon pressure areas having an effect on photon field motion, at least in part.]
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:02 pm

Universal Expansion
John's replies to my last replies.

John said: [Re Why would expansion be implied here, if there is no 2-D or 1-D expansion?] The simple answer is that existence is 3-dimensional and not 2-D or 1-D. We can speculate about 1 or 2-D expansion, but it will [be] nothing more than theoretical since any expansion must take place in 3-D space. That’s why we can follow the fundamental units to a mechanical conclusion. In addition, this 3-D expansion is very specific in that it applies to the acceleration of the surface of the body in relation to its own center and not in relation to other bodies or a background per ‘normal’ acceleration.

[Re matter expanding without space expanding and where the energy would come from to fuel the expansion without being observable?] But your rebuttal assumes that ‘space’ has physical presence and characteristics in the field. I disagree with the premise. As far as we know, space is infinite so there would be no ‘crowding’. In addition, gravity is not the only player in the field according to Miles’ UFT [unified field theory]. The charge field works in opposition to solo gravity; so as gravity (whatever the mechanism) seeks to bring bodies together, the charge field seeks to drive them away. So not only is balance achieved, but imbalances are correctable.

Photon Like a Propeller with One Blade
[Re photons traveling like a propeller with one blade?] Yes, Miles often speaks of the charge field in terms of ‘wind’ or ‘pressure’ and they are analogous mechanically in his theory. But I think there may be a misunderstanding on the stacked-spin mechanism: Miles posits a feedback-type loop for the spins in that a stacked spin is not just started by a single collision and then left to spin; rather the collision stacks the next spin which is then maintained by the ambient field as the photon [proton] begins to take-in smaller photons and emit them largely equatorially. Given that the ratio of photonic matter to ‘normal’ [atomic] matter is 19:1 and that most of that ‘normal’ matter is ordinary Hydrogen, there seems to me more than enough charge in the ambient field to maintain stable spins.

Lloyd replies: John, you haven't looked closely enough at the universal expansion model to notice the impossibility of it yet. But it doesn't seem worthwhile for me to explain further for now. As for photon travel, I believe Mile's model has it traveling like an electron coiling along around magnetic field lines as in synchrotron radiation. But I don't think Miles has a force that can cause such a coiling motion by a photon.
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:21 pm

John Answers My Third Round of Questions
C1: Miles' Photon/Proton Simulation. Why hasn't anyone written a computer program to simulate the motion of a photon as it develops stacked spins up to the level of becoming a proton that recycles photons? Why should not such a program be able to show how a single photon can move so fast like a fan blade that it forms a semi-hollow proton sphere that sucks in and emits photon beams? The x, y and z-spin formulae that Miles describes are fairly simple to write mathematically, are they not? So who knows math well enough to help write a computer program to simulate his model in detail?

C1: I would think that such a program could be modeled, and Miles has a link to an axial spin with a stacked x-spin on his website (here: http://milesmathis.com/wave.wmv); but I don’t have the knowledge or software to do it. It would be helpful to have such a clear visual when trying to explain his ideas. I would love for someone to take that up as a challenge.

Lloyd replies: My impression is that the 3 perspectives, side-view, front-view and top-view, complicate the image of the photon in that clip, instead of clarifying it. I believe there is much better 3-D math software available.

C2: Solar and Planetary Magnetic Fields. Charles Chandler thinks large bodies like the Earth and the Sun have current-free double layers of internal matter, due to gravitational compressive ionization forcing electrons out of atoms in deep layers into shallower layers, so that the deep layers are positive and the shallower ones negative. He thinks this accounts for the Earth's and Sun's magnetic fields, where the inner layer rotates more slowly than the outer layer (and is farther from the surface), so the net magnetic field is not neutral. By Miles' theory the charge field produces the solar wind and a similar photon radiating "wind" from Earth and other bodies. Is there evidence that the photonic charge field would be the cause of pushing electrons out of deeper layers of the Sun or the Earth into shallower ones to form the CFDLs, instead of gravitational compressive ionization doing so, or would both be involved? Charles estimates that his model accounts for almost all solar radiation. Can anyone do the math to see whether Charles' or Miles' model best accounts for all solar radiation?

C2: One potential problem I see with Charles idea is that it seems to hit a limit: how many electrons could be driven out of lower layers before the E/M attraction overcomes any gravitational collapse potential? The earth is certainly not a perfect capacitor, so how would such a field be maintained and/or replenished long term? I don’t really understand a need to account for all solar radiation? Miles source is external to the earth and is driven by the sun, so there is no concern [about] replenishment or sustainability (so long as the sun keeps going!). But before we even get that far, it seems that Miles’ theory addresses at a more fundamental level what magnetism is and why it is orthogonal to electricity.

Lloyd replies: Yeah, but Charles doesn't have time to look into things that deeply yet. And his model has tide-like actions on the Sun by the planets causing the electric double layers in the Sun to release stored up energy observed as light, heat and solar wind. That's why I'm trying to quantify input and output, to see if his model falls short there.

C3: Photons in Stellar and Planetary Cores. Miles says that all matter, including large aggregates like planetoids and stars, recycles photons. So does the total charge field or charge stream entering the Sun equal the total field including the solar wind emitted by the Sun? Most of the total emitted radiation has been calculated, has it not? Has infrared radiation been observed entering the Sun's polar regions? Or would that not be detectable? When photons enter the Sun, would they likely be mostly recycled within subatomic particles for long periods before being re-emitted? Would the photon density be so high that they constantly form and destroy electrons, protons etc? Would the incoming photons be a constant source for replenishing electrons, protons etc that are emitted in the solar wind? In the core of the Sun and maybe planets, would half-lives of electrons, protons etc be very short? Is there a known way to find that out? Could dense elements like osmium ions form in the Sun's core, as the Sun's mass seems to indicate?

C3: Not sure how to approach all of these….In general charge in should equal charge out as I understand it; otherwise we would be able to observe significant mass changes. I’m not sure about ‘dwell’ time within the sun or how long it would take for a specific photon to enter from the poles and exit the equator. I don’t think Miles has ever tried to quantify that. Certainly there are lots of interactions that could take place within the sun before the overall potential drives it out again. As the received field increases or decreases from the galaxy, the average charge would move accordingly and is what we observe with the sun’s 11-yr cycles and thus what greatly affects earth climate change. Photons would tend to only form or destroy electrons, protons, etc. if they were unbound from normal matter. Once elements begin to form, the overall emitted charge field from the elemental nuclei will overpower most of the rogue photons seeking to mess things up. An electron can be knocked out here and there (we do that in the lab with lasers); but the ambient field will immediately try to ‘push’ a new electron into the hole. Since neutrons emit almost no field themselves, they are easy targets outside the nucleus, thus explaining their short half-lives (~15min). The emitted charge field protects other particles like protons and electrons from quick destruction.

Lloyd replies: We need to find out how much photonic radiation enters the Sun and compare that with all the radiation, including solar wind, emitted, to see if they're about equal. Don't we?
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby tharkun » Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:38 am

Lloyd replies: John, you haven't looked closely enough at the universal expansion model to notice the impossibility of it yet. But it doesn't seem worthwhile for me to explain further for now. As for photon travel, I believe Mile's model has it traveling like an electron coiling along around magnetic field lines as in synchrotron radiation. But I don't think Miles has a force that can cause such a coiling motion by a photon.

You'll have to expand a bit on what I "don't understand". Miles' universal expansion theory is not the same as the standard model's. 'Space' is nothing - it is the emptiness into which everything else (real stuff) expands. As soon as we give the vacuum characteristics, then we're no longer dealing with a vacuum. Then we have to posit a nothing beneath the vacuum through which those characteristics act.

A photon doesn't follow field lines because field lines don't exist. A photon's linear velocity creates the E field and the spin velocity creates the M field; that's why M is orthogonal to E - the photon's outermost spin is orthogonal to its forward velocity.

Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:37 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:48 pm

Universal Expansion Problem/s Possibly
(depending on how well my mind is functioning)

1. Raisin Bread Dough Rising/Expanding
Matter Particles = Raisins; Space = Bread Dough. In order for all matter in the universe to expand undetectably, the space/dough between each pair of raisins/matter particles would have to expand at the same rate at which the raisins/matter particles expand. If the raisins continuously expand while the dough does not expand, the raisins eventually come in contact with each other and stop expanding at those points of contact, which would be very observable.

2. Light Speed
If a photon (and the universe) expands to ten times its initial size it would be going ten times as fast as before, increasing light speed by ten times or so.

3. Gravity
If gravity is a measure of universal expansion, the expansion would be a different rate for each body since the force due to gravity is different for each body. Thus the expansions of other bodies would be measurable/observable.

4. Photon Expansion
Photons would need to consist of subparticles in order to expand. And the subparticles would need to also, ad infinitum.

5. Energy
Something would have to provide an infinite amount of energy to cause infinite expansion.
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lloyd Blog

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:11 pm

More Questions for Miles Mathis Supporters

Question D1. Polar Cooling. (Under construction)
Question D2. Planetary Radiation. (Under construction)

Question D3. Mathis Says a Tilted Planet Entered the Solar System.
(That's what the EU Team says too!)
In his paper, "The MAGNETIC FIELDS of Uranus and Neptune", at http://milesmathis.com/uran4.pdf, Mathis said the existing tilts of the planets "requires that we have some original tilted planet or planets whose tilts were not caused by other planets, but that only means we need one tilted planet in the past to enter the Solar system and cause a line of instability. I don't see that assumption as a problem."
- Mars Changed Orbits In his paper, "WHERE is the MAGNETISM of MARS?", at http://milesmathis.com/marsmag.pdf, Mathis said: "We know that although Mars has a low current magnetism, some of the rocks on Mars have a much higher residual magnetism. This has been taken to mean that Mars had more magnetism in the past. I think this is entirely possible, and that this reading is probably correct. But I do not think the magnetism was knocked off the planet by asteroids. No, this residual magnetism in the rocks on Mars is telling us something very important, not about Mars, but about the make-up of the Solar system in the past. It means that either Mars was not at its current orbital distance at that time, or the big outer planets were not. Something was vastly different. Given the asteroid belt and other glaring evidence, this is not hard to imagine. From this we see that my theory of planetary magnetism will give us the tool to work backward in time, rebuilding previous Solar system relationships. These rocks, which we find on other planets and moons as well, are like tablets with numbers on them. They will be very useful in future."
- Are Mathis supporters (besides me) aware of the Thunderbolts team's many years of research in comparative mythology and other sciences (since about 1970)? And are yous aware of their findings from all the ancient myths that Earth, Mars and Venus were satellites of Saturn when Saturn entered the solar system around 10,000 years ago? Since Miles has discovered part of what may be the same story, are yous willing to investigate the team's findings? A good place to start is probably the video, Symbols of an Alien Sky, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY . Any takers?

John replied: D3) I am fully aware of the Thunderbolts/EU group and follow their work. Their comparative mythology investigation is very intriguing and, I think, very compelling. While Miles neither endorses or denies Velikovsky-ism and its derivatives, he does point out in several places where his theory adds evidence to recent solar system wide catastrophism. ‘The present is the key to the past’ is a false assumption, IMO.

I have often wondered if Miles’ celestial mechanics could provide an answer on how a Saturnian micro-system might be at least semi-stable in orbit around the sun. The mechanics is the biggest problem I have with their work. How would the Saturn-system be stable at all if it is aligned orthogonally to the ecliptic? What are the odds that such a system would enter the sun’s influence at such a velocity and trajectory to enable capture without immediately disrupting the entire system? Doesn't the polar configuration require that the earth be orbiting Saturn end-over-end in relation to the sun, and wouldn't that combined with daily rotation make a mess of the day/night cycle and the apparent motion of the stars? I really need a good 3-D model of what they’re proposing to get a handle on how it works.

Lloyd replies: No, the polar configuration requires that the planets of Saturn followed behind Saturn like the SL9 comet fragments followed each other in single file as they plowed into Jupiter in 1994. I believe they were moving in single file like that for about two years before that. Had Jupiter not interfered, they might have continued like that for many years. So I believe the Saturn Theory contends that Venus, Mars and Earth (assuming Venus was already in existence like the others) trailed behind Saturn as the Saturn system entered the heliosphere. The whole procession took about 5,000 years of circling around the Sun before it finally reached near where the asteroid belt is now, where the system came apart, producing the asteroid belt in the process.
- By the way, the EU team does not accept a lot of Velikovsky's conclusions. They do not accept his ideas that Venus nearly collided with Earth 3500 years ago, nor that Mars nearly collided with Earth 2700 years ago. They also disagree with a number of his identifications of which gods were which planets or other phenomena. They do find that Venus and Mars apparently did follow erratic orbits about 4500 years ago. And they investigated his theory that Earth was a former satellite of Saturn and found it compelling, although not in the same way he had modeled it.

Steven replied: D3) according to Miles our solar system is still unstable: http://milesmathis.com/mars.html THE MAIN CAUSE OF ALL SOLAR SYSTEM INSTABILITY by Miles Mathis

Lloyd replies: I believe Miles contends that all of the smaller bodies in the solar system are "trying" to move closer to the Sun to their point of balance with the "solar wind" but they tend to encounter the larger bodies as their orbits diminish and are then in danger of collision, unless they luck out and can sneak past. I think he also says all bodies tend to repel each other with their photon emissions, so that may help prevent collisions.
Posts: 4280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests