Miles Mathis

[StevenO]

Each atom is connected by a "photon" rope. Each atom moves only along this already-present highway and it pulses signals to other atoms along this highway. In this sense it is indeed the "yardstick". The untorqued rope has a certain number of links per length. The torqued rope has a higher number of links per unit length. How difficult it is to torque the rope defines c. Since light is an undulation of this highway it is always in the "local frame" as Miles puts it, i.e. it is impossible to measure the speed of light to be any different.

I'm happy you can see it as a comparable view, I just have no clue why photons should be chained in ropes.

Would you have a diagram or such, so we can better understand your explanation vs. Miles'?

It is fairly simple. Look at Miles' scenario with the eyeball, plane, and 2 men. In this analogy the eyeball plays the part of the aether, the plane the apparatus, and the 2 men are the 2 light pulses. Miles assigns the men an equal velocity relative to each other and to the PLANE. But the hypothesis of the time was that the velocities were equal relative to the EYE.

Before you start throwing math at it, I want to understand why you think it is possible use the "aether" as the observer. Light pulses do always arrive locally in the eye of an observer, not in some background?

[altonhare]

Light pulses do always arrive locally in the eye of an observer, not in some background?

So replace the word "aether" with "stationary observer".

The point is Miles sets the velocities equal with respect to the moving plane and each other, not with respect to the stationary observer.

[Lloyd]

WHY THE ATOMIC WORLD IS 100 TIMES LARGER THAN WE THOUGHT
http://milesmathis.com/proton.html

1/.00736 = 136, so our new value for b must be about 136 times the current value. Which means that the nucleus is 136 times larger than the current estimate.
- In my first paper on G, I use 10^-13m instead of 10^-15m for the radius of the proton, and now I have finally told you why. That paper may now stand as confirmation or proof of this paper. In that paper, I use the number 10^-13m to confirm the age of the universe as about 15 billion years, by a pretty transparent method. Since that number comes from observables and equations that have nothing to do with our observables or equations here, that number stands as experimental evidence in favor of this paper and this finding. In other words, I have shown that 15 billion years confirms 10^-13m.
- Everything in the atomic and quantum world—including the atom, the nucleus, the proton, and the electron—is about 100 times larger than you were taught.

* I'm only showing here some of the basic conclusions of this paper. There's a lot of math there to back it all up and anyone who has the time should check it out. I didn't look closely at how he calculated the age of the universe, but I suspect it includes the assumption that redshift of light indicates distance [and velocity], which is very likely wrong. The known universe may be ten times or so smaller than suggested by conventional redshift assumptions. Or did he base his age estimate on something else?

[nick c]

From Lloyd's quote of Miles Mathis:

I use the number 10^-13m to confirm the age of the universe as about 15 billion years, by a pretty transparent method.

I like reading Mathis and much of what he writes makes sense. However, there are some things that I just don't get or agree with.
What was the universe before 15 billion years ago? nothing?
Where did everything come from, creation ex nihilo once again?

The known universe may be ten times or so smaller than suggested by conventional redshift assumptions. Or did he base his age estimate on something else?

The Big Bang?

Nick

[Nevyn]

Altonhare: Mathis' "expansion gravity" is based on the idea that everything is expanding proportionately. However, with respect to what? Expansion only has meaning by comparing something's size to something else. If everything's the same expansion loses meaning.

* Mathis says gravity is acceleration and the surface of every particle of matter is accelerating by expansion, but I agree with you; I think there has to be a location to compare our movement to, before we can claim to have movement. Also, since the acceleration would apply to the mass of objects, it would mean they have momentum etc. Maybe such effects would either prove or disprove this kind of expansion.
* I doubt if we can settle this matter beyond what we've already said, so I'd like to discuss either 1) alternative explanations of gravity without an attractive force, or 2) other findings by Mathis.

1) The expansion Miles is talking about is the expansion of the radius of a B-Photon (bombarding photon). This means that the expansion is relative to its center. When something measures its own gravity at its surface, it is measuring the rate of change of its radius. Since everything is expanding at the same rate, then they all measure the same acceleration at their own surfaces, 9.8m/s^2.

2) The location is the center of that which is expanding. How could you measure such movement though, since your measuring rods would also expand at the same rate and hence show no movement. You can only follow the idea and look for other evidence such as the apparent bending of light. The momentum you are asking about is what mainstream science calls inertia. 3D expansion of matter is the only reasonable explanation of inertia I have seen.

I have written a couple of programs to model Miles ideas. I started with his idea of particle spins as I wanted to see what kind of paths the particles would take given different rates of spin. I then modeled expansion to see if it looked like gravity. Unfortunately, combining the two is a monstrous task and I am still trying to figure out where to begin.

The photon spin model was extremely interesting. I have some screen shots if anyone is interested. With just 4 stacked spins, a photon can produce many different paths and shapes but it really gets interesting with another 3 spins on top of those. You can start to see why Miles calls them engines. Given a velocity, which would elongate the path in that direction, it is easy to see how they would affect other B-Photons in their way and cause them to alter their own movement (assuming they have no spin of their own which might affect the spin of the original photon).

I found the most stable paths occurred when the spin rates were relative to each other. I could create a triangular shape from the first 4 spins (actually, the first spin isn't very interesting as it is about its own axis and doesn't contribute to the paths beyond the direction the particle is pointing at a given time) with just one more spin on top of those which was slower than the inner spins, the triangular shape would move around the top spin and create a circular spiral. It looked just like some sort of cog or wheel. Maybe a Celtic Slinky would be a good term for it, a slinky with its ends joined.

Similarly, the expansion model does indeed look just like gravity. Starting with 2 photons, they slowly move towards one another. It gets really interesting when you put more particles in there and see how they start moving around each other once they touch, always searching for the most stable configuration. No matter how you oriented them, 3 particles always end up as a triangle, 4 as a cross. Essentially, they are always trying to find the roundest shape.

What I struggled with was the numbers. I found that the numbers started getting very large and this meant that the rate of change of their radii was very large. The difference between the radius at time t(n) and t(n+1) (1 frame in my model) quickly became too large and the particles started to jump away from each other. I fixed this by letting the expansion (scale) grow from 1 to 2 and then I would set the expansion back to 1 and halved the locations of all particles. This had its side affects since everything would move towards the absolute center rather than the center of the particles but it looked seamless.

[StevenO]

A continuous expansion of matter does not imply that more matter is created

Help me understand how an object can expand without new matter being created, while also retaining its former density etc.

You just have to drop your assumption that there are absolute scales in the universe. Everything is relative. Size, density, velocity, acceleration.

There is no proof that conservation of matter is a physical law on cosmic scales

You don't disprove contradictions. A contradictory statement is simply meaningless. Something from nothing is a contradiction.

What does this have to do with the law of conservation of matter? Where did I say "something for nothing"? Just show me the law and the reasonable proof for it. Does matter emitting/absorbing photons conserve matter or not? Is pair production conservation of matter? Is conservation of energy/charge conservation of matter?

By the way, his expanding model means that light from anywhere in the U that is ~1 AU away would produce an identical deflection of ~1.7?

I think light coming from far away is observed at a different location than expected indeed. Interesting observation that could provide food to explain some funny observations.

[Plasmatic]

altonhare wrote:
StevenO wrote:
A continuous expansion of matter does not imply that more matter is created
Help me understand how an object can expand without new matter being created, while also retaining its former density etc.
You just have to drop your assumption that there are absolute scales in the universe. Everything is relative. Size, density, velocity, acceleration.

Huh? It seems y'all are talking past one another here. If you want a balloon to expand you have to put something in it to do so. Which brings up the main problem with this theory. How could one even form the concept "expand" without non-uniform growth of an object? If everything was growing uniformly we would not even have the concept "expand", which refers to the relative increase of size in relation to what an entity is around.

Could you give an example of of what it would mean to think of expansion with an "absolute scale"? I don't even see the relevance.

[StevenO]

altonhare wrote:
StevenO wrote:
A continuous expansion of matter does not imply that more matter is created
Help me understand how an object can expand without new matter being created, while also retaining its former density etc.
You just have to drop your assumption that there are absolute scales in the universe. Everything is relative. Size, density, velocity, acceleration.

Huh? It seems y'all are talking past one another here. If you want a balloon to expand you have to put something in it to do so. Which brings up the main problem with this theory. How could one even form the concept "expand" without non-uniform growth of an object? If everything was growing uniformly we would not even have the concept "expand", which refers to the relative increase of size in relation to what an entity is around.

Could you give an example of of what it would mean to think of expansion with an "absolute scale"? I don't even see the relevance.

Alton assumes that if matter is expanding material has to be added to it to explain the growing size. I hold that is not necessary if the yardsticks (photons) scale (expand in length) the same way. Distances will all scale the same way in one dimension. In higher dimensions you will notice differences, which we call the forces of gravity or inertia.

You will find then that gravity is exactly proportional to diameter.

[StevenO]

Light pulses do always arrive locally in the eye of an observer, not in some background?

So replace the word "aether" with "stationary observer".

The point is Miles sets the velocities equal with respect to the moving plane and each other, not with respect to the stationary observer.

The plane is equivalent to the apparatus and the eye is the observer of the apparatus. That is how the relations are. But you also state:

But the hypothesis of the time was that the velocities were equal relative to the EYE.

You must then again assume that the eye is equivalent to the aether. That cannot be a valid hypothesis. The eye is a LOCAL observer, while the aether is a background.

[Plasmatic]

I hold that is not necessary if the yardsticks (photons) scale (expand in length) the same way.

Help me understand how photons are the "yardsticks" of perception.

[altonhare]

alternative explanations of gravity without an attractive force

[url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QmsngMRpE]Gravity 1[/url2]

[url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs]Gravity 2[/url2]

I didn't look closely at how he calculated the age of the universe, but I suspect it includes the assumption that redshift of light indicates distance [and velocity], which is very likely wrong. The known universe may be ten times or so smaller than suggested by conventional redshift assumptions. Or did he base his age estimate on something else?

Miles calculates the velocity of protons in accelerators based on his doppler-shift version of SR. He then calculates that, considering the acceleration rate of the proton, if it has been accelerating for ~15 billion years it is now going very near c. This is his explanation for why the proton cannot seem to be accelerated further.

3D expansion of matter is the only reasonable explanation of inertia I have seen.

See above.

You just have to drop your assumption that there are absolute scales in the universe. Everything is relative. Size, density, velocity, acceleration.

So expansion is relative. So relative to what?

What does this have to do with the law of conservation of matter? Where did I say "something for nothing"? Just show me the law and the reasonable proof for it. Does matter emitting/absorbing photons conserve matter or not? Is pair production conservation of matter? Is conservation of energy/charge conservation of matter?

The "law" is that something cannot come from nothing. The "proof" is that the alternative is contradictory. The sum total of objects in the U is always the same.

[Lloyd]

Nevyn: The photon spin model was extremely interesting. I have some screen shots if anyone is interested.

* Can you post those screen shots here? If they're too big, you can resize them. I'm sure folks would get more out of pictures than mere words.

[Nevyn]

Ok, I'll need to explain these first.

I have 4 views of the same universe. 3 views look down each axis, X, Y, and Z, the last view is rotated 45deg on each axis to give a more 3D view. The Red line is the X axis. The Green line the Y axis. The Blue line is the Z axis.

I will write the spin ratios before each image. These ratios are in the following order:

Axis, X, Y, Z, TX, TY, TZ.

The first 4 are self explanatory. The last 3 are like the X, Y and Z but are rotated 45deg.

A larger spin number is actually a slower rotation. So a value of 1 is the fastest rotation possible. A value of 10 is 10 times slower than 1. All of the spin values are multiplied by a base value which allows me to speed up and slow down the animation. Since all values are relative to this base value, it is basically meaningless here.

The red sphere is the photon. The colored cubes are the path of the photon. Each cube is exactly the same with each face having a different color. This allows you to see the orientation of the photon at that point in the path.

This is a spin in the X, Y and Z axes.

0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0

0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 30

0, 1, 1, 1, 10, 1, 0

0, 1, 1, 1, 10, 10, 1

0, 1, 1, 1, 10, 10, 3

0, 1, 1, 1, 30, 0, 0

0, 100, 100, 100, 1, 1, 1

As you can see, some pretty trippy shapes come out of these stacked spins.

[Nevyn]

This is 4 views of the same spin path to show how they appear in different perspectives.

I have expanded the size of the photon and cubes to help see the path better.

ratio: 0, 1, 10, 100, 0, 0, 0

[altonhare]

You must then again assume that the eye is equivalent to the aether. That cannot be a valid hypothesis. The eye is a LOCAL observer, while the aether is a background.

The important distinction here is that Mr. Mathis chose to make the velocity of the two men equal with respect to the plane. He could just as well decided they would be equal with respect to the eye. These two are just assumptions, givens of the thought experiment. If you assume the 1st you get no fringe effect, if you assume the 2nd you get a fringe effect. The purpose of the thought experiment is to say if this then that. So within Mr. Mathis' scenario there are both possibilities, but he only calculates the one that supports his assertion that a fringe effect was impossible.

If we repeat Mr. Mathis' calculation, setting the velocities of the men equal wrt the eye, we get a "fringe effect".