Miles Mathis

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

Locked
User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread post by junglelord » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:44 pm

Is it not fun, talking to Alton?
:lol:
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread post by Siggy_G » Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:41 am

While I've found links to some of Miles Mathis papers on physics interesting, I must say these ones on pi are very puzzling... Perhaps he's attacking too many areas at once.

http://milesmathis.com/pi.html
http://milesmathis.com/pi2.html

Stating that the value of pi must be 4 and not 3,1415... That's like saying that both the circle and the square (with diameter/sides being 1) have the same circumference. Simply using a wheel with a mark, turning it one turn along a plane, should visually give an evident translation of the circumference... and it surely wouldn't turn out to be 4 times the diameter.

It's his reasoning regarding subdividing the circle, which is wrong. He adds up the decomposed x and y vectors literally, and not the vector between each circle segment (i.e. he adds up the decomposed catheti instead of using the hypotenuse value).

However, by turning the circle into a polygon and add up the outer catheti: the more geometric subdivisions, the more accurate the value of a circular circumference (more advanced algorithms exist).

Further on, the reason pi is an irrational number, is simply a cause of this ratio not being "compatible" with our numeral system. As to him applying time as a part of pi, seems like over-interpreted derivations from physics
formulas (curved dynamics). A circle as a static geometrical shape (and the ratio between the diameter and circumference) has nothing to do with the dynamic act of drawing it.

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread post by StevenO » Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:42 am

Siggy_G wrote:A circle as a static geometrical shape (and the ratio between the diameter and circumference) has nothing to do with the dynamic act of drawing it.
I think that says it all. The application of the circle as a static geometric shape is not applicable to physics problems concerning circular trajectories. To move an object around a circle you need two acceleration vectors: one to stop the motion in the current direction and another one to move "around the corner". That's why Miles is adding both x and y ACCELERATION vectors, not to be confused with the velocity vectors.

π=3.14159...still holds for static geometry problems.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread post by Siggy_G » Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:06 pm

StevenO wrote:To move an object around a circle you need two acceleration vectors: one to stop the motion in the current direction and another one to move "around the corner". .
I think you need two transformation vectors; one tangential velocity vector (don't need to stop any motion) and one sentripetal acceleration vector (to adjust its tangential path at any given point). The two results in a circular path, if both values are constant that is. If one of them increases, you'll get a spiral, towards or away from the centre.

If there is a vector that stops any motion, what accelerates it again in the same direction (after it is moved around the corner)?

jjohnson
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread post by jjohnson » Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:19 pm

It's 'centripetal' with a 'c' because the vector always points at the center of the circle, or the center of gravity in orbital circumstances, if it is not centered. I do not know the definition or use of transformation vectors, however. Miles makes some good arguments, but his best one is that the orbital velocity at any instant is the tangential velocity, in the sense that if you cut the thread at that instant, that would be the speed/direction vector at which the rotating mass would depart - cutting the string suddenly is the same as the centripetal vector's going to zero in that same instant - curved path changes to straight path.

Vectors in a gravitational field are complex and sometimes counter intuition. If you want to catch up with a body orbiting at your altitude , you do not thrust along your axial (i.e. tangential vector) because that will lift you to a higher, slower orbit. Instead, you thrust down, to place yourself in a lower (shorter-period and hence faster) orbital path, get a little ahead, and reverse thrust to slow down, which lifts you back up to your original orbit, now caught up with the companion object. It's harder than that in practice, obviously, but orbital mechanics are well known as long as you are dealing primarily with two objects and can ignore others. A nice little soft-cover reference book on this is Fundamentals of Astrodynamics by Bate, Mueller and White, Dover Books, 1971. You need to be a lot more proficient in matrices than I am (approximation: zero) to understand how all this works, though. Doh!

User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread post by Siggy_G » Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:52 am

jjohnson wrote: (...) Miles makes some good arguments, but his best one is that the orbital velocity at any instant is the tangential velocity, in the sense that if you cut the thread at that instant, that would be the speed/direction vector at which the rotating mass would depart - cutting the string suddenly is the same as the centripetal vector's going to zero in that same instant - curved path changes to straight path.
This is the exact definition of the mechanics of centripetal acceleration... It is the thread that causes the acceleration (centripetal pull), continuosly forcing the object in a circular manner, as I implied in my previous post.
jjohnson wrote:(...) If you want to catch up with a body orbiting at your altitude , you do not thrust along your axial (i.e. tangential vector) because that will lift you to a higher, slower orbit.
Partly true. It would lift you to a higher orbit. But a higher orbit isn't slower in terms of tangential velocity, but the object has a longer circumference to travel, in order to orbit once (appears slower). So with the same tangential veloctiy, it takes longer to do the orbit than at a lower height. In order to stay in a geocentral position, it actually requires exceedingly higher velocities at higher or outer orbits.

(Also, I believe "axial" is contrary to "tangential", depending on direction. For Earth, "axial" is (23,5 degrees off) perpendicular to its ecliptic plane and tangential velocity).
jjohnson wrote:reverse thrust to slow down, which lifts you back up to your original orbit, now caught up with the companion object.
Slowing down will make you spiral down towards the surface/centre, since the centripetal acceleration is still there. If this was about electrons and their energy, it is true that they will jump in or out to the respective energy shells/orbits, but that's different from gravitational fields.

Nevyn
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread post by Nevyn » Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:28 pm

I have my app generating videos now. They are quite large though so I have to encode them in a better format such as DivX to shrink them down. This is causing some problems but I have 1 for you guys to look at and hopefully it will help to understand what the spins are doing.

http://www.users.on.net/~nevyn/X4_Y2_Z1.avi

This is a 4:2:1 ratio which shows the most simple engine I can find. Notice how, when looking down the Z axis (bottom left view), it forms a few larger circles and a few smaller circles. The larger circles could work as an intake while the smaller circles would condense and expel them like an exhaust (assuming the linear velocity was in the Z direction and moving out of the screen).

Let me know what you think. The app records what I do so I can add and remove spins to show how they affect each other, if that helps anyone to understand them.

Miles has put up an animation of his own which shows an axial spin with 1 stacked spin on top of that and a linear velocity. This shows the wave motion that he describes.

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread post by altonhare » Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:03 pm

Corpuscles wrote:Examine this statement carefully:

"I did not say that Miles Mathis was absolutely correct".

Now, how did you interpret that?
As such: Corpuscles has not previously ever said the words "Miles Mathis is absolutely correct".
Corpuscles wrote:Mathis is saying he is turning the experiment backwards.He is starting with the actual null result of the MM experiment and working from that starting point
I'm glad you see his error.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:14 pm

* Your file is too big for me to download right now. If it's similar to your previous images, I have a question. In the previous images you were showing the path of a photon I think, so the paths shown in the images are like vapor trails following a particle, i.e. a photon. The question is, how can the "vapor trail" have any effect on other photons or particles? I still don't see how a rotation outside of the gyroscopic radius of a spinning photon can be a mechanical motion. It seems to me to require other forces to produce such a "rotation", or more like revolution.

Nevyn
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread post by Nevyn » Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:21 pm

Lloyd wrote:* In the previous images you were showing the path of a photon I think, so the paths shown in the images are like vapor trails following a particle, i.e. a photon. The question is, how can the "vapor trail" have any effect on other photons or particles?
You are correct, it is a trail, but it is not the trail that affects other photons it is the photon itself. Because the photon is so small, it can travel this path very quickly. This means that to anything traveling very slowly compared to that photon, such as a field photon, it would (sort of) see the photon in every position at the same time.

In the same way, anything that measured over a longer time interval than it takes to travel that path would see it as a complete path. Like taking a picture of something moving really fast, you get a blurry photo because the object has moved while the picture is being taken and you have actually taken a number of samples of where the object is.

When the photon collides with another photon, it pushes it in a certain direction depending on what direction they are both traveling and where on their surfaces they touch. A lot of them will fly off outside the range of our photon and we will never see them again. Others will be pushed back into the path of our photon and if our photon can get to the other side of its path fast enough, it will collide with that photon again.

The trail is to give you an idea of where you are going to find our photon. Kind of like a probability.
Lloyd wrote:* I still don't see how a rotation outside of the gyroscopic radius of a spinning photon can be a mechanical motion. It seems to me to require other forces to produce such a "rotation", or more like revolution.
I try to think about gyroscopes and apply it to this. If you try to push a gyroscope in any direction other than the one it is spinning, it fights against that force. It wants to stay as it is and can not apply that force in the direction it was received. If the force is 90deg from the direction of rotation, it will fight against that force the hardest. Maybe it is easier for the photon to add a spin level than to change the existing motions.

The question to ask is why does a gyroscope resist the force. The answer may help to understand why it gains another spin level.

I have had trouble with this myself and I am still trying to figure it out. I have asked Mathis about why a photon would gain spin levels rather than alter the existing axial spin and/or linear velocity and he agrees that it needs further study. He is playing with equations and numbers and finds that these spins give values that can be related to values we find in experiment. While this does not mean it is correct, it does mean it is worth investigating.

While I might not understand it completely, I want to study it to see if I can find something to help explain it. It is just like the EU. Most here will see the EU as a successful theory and yet it does not know what an electric or magnetic field is. This doesn't stop anyone from using those fields to explain things.

I like the EU, but it does not give me the understanding at the level I want. It requires some other theory to sit underneath it which can explain the entities that the EU uses as its building blocks. The EU assumes those entities exist in some form without complete knowledge of what they are or how they operate. That is where I am at regarding this theory of stacked spins. I am assuming it has something to give and am working with it in the hope that it does.

I know this doesn't really answer your question. I don't have the answer but sometimes we have to work with assumptions in order to make progress. If we ask for complete understanding at all points on the journey, we won't get anywhere. But it is very important that we do not forget those questions and that we are working with assumptions. I see any scientific study as the battle to reduce assumptions to knowledge. Turning those assumptions into facts.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread post by junglelord » Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:40 pm

I think your right on the money Nevyn. I envision gyroscopic spirograph, for lack of a better term, especially at the elemental level. Wheels in wheels a spiral array, a pattern so grand and complex....

The notion of spin and velocity is notable. Anything moving slower see's multiple frames at once and it appears to be in more then one place at the same time. Perfectly simple yet complete.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Nevyn
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread post by Nevyn » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:25 pm

I have some new animations. I've been studying what happens to the spin path as the relative rotation speed changes. I am only working on 2 axes as I have found that the top 2 axes produce the general shape of the path while any inner spins just create perturbations of that path (in a simplistic manner of speaking).

Here are 6 videos showing Y:Z ratios at 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, 10:1 and 20:1. Remember that means the Y axis is traveling more slowly as we go through the series and the Z axis stays the same speed.

The videos are encoded in DivX to keep the size down.

http://www.users.on.net/~nevyn/Y2_Z1.avi (602Kb)

http://www.users.on.net/~nevyn/Y3_Z1.avi (1Mb)

http://www.users.on.net/~nevyn/Y4_Z1.avi (1.3Mb)

http://www.users.on.net/~nevyn/Y5_Z1.avi (1.2Mb)

http://www.users.on.net/~nevyn/Y10_Z1.avi (1.5Mb)

http://www.users.on.net/~nevyn/Y20_Z1.avi (2Mb)

This shows how the shape of the path tends towards a torus as the Y axis gets slower compared to the Z. If you added an axial spin to that (on top, not underneath those spins) the torus would rotate and radiate more photons about that axial rotation (or equator). This is roughly what an electron is in this theory. If we measured that across a time interval that allowed the photon to form that torus and complete a revolution of the top axial spin it would appear like a sphere.

In my model, you can think of the particle as a photon, and use all 7 stacked spins or you can think of it as an electron and only apply the A, X, Y and Z spins. When I thought about this, I realised that the photon can produce an engine with its spins but the electron can also produce an engine. This gives us an engine within an engine, or as I like to call it, a turbo charged engine.

Thinking of it as an electron means you also have to think about the photons it will radiate. As the electron spins it is radiating photons in all directions (assuming it has spins) and then the path of the electron can affect those radiated photons. If the result of that is the electron pushes the majority of photons out through the funnel and away from the direction of travel, it will be pushing itself along. A self propagating particle.

This may help explain why we have a speed limit of c. The top linear speed would be a factor of how many field photons the particle can push away from itself. I don't know if this is true, I am just letting my mind wander as I think about what is going on.

I am currently working on adding a linear velocity to this spin model to see how that affects it. I hope to have some videos of that shortly.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread post by junglelord » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:58 pm

If we measured that across a time interval that allowed the photon to form that torus and complete a revolution of the top axial spin it would appear like a sphere.
Yes, thats APM again, it has both toroidal and spherical qualites and is actually both at the same time.
EM is Torodial, ES is Spherical, expanding and contracting, as a torodial increases, the spherical decrease and vica versa....which makes sense with your plots.

Thats the APM model in terms of the electron being a dual bipolar unit.
Amazing how much things agree.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:23 pm

* Nevyn, do you have time to check out this other thread? http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... =15#p28366 - That post is the first one in which I mentioned Joseph George's aether theory, which seems to make more sense to me than others do so far. His site is http://physics-edu.org. I mentioned that it seems that we might be able to come up with a sounder theory by taking the best parts of various theories and putting them together. He says aether particles [which he calls space matter] expand and contract and that's what causes the appearance of attraction and repulsion. That means if the aether between 2 particles expands, the particles will move apart and vice versa. That seems more sensible to me than the idea that everything in the universe is expanding, although there's then a need to understand how aether particles expand and contract.
* I think our key is to compile a list of experimental findings about atoms, particles and photons to see which theory/ies conform with the most such findings. George listed these findings, which he apparently is able to explain by his theory:
- Zeeman effect, Paschen-Back effect & Stark effect
- Absorption spectrum
- Emission spectrum
- Band spectra
- Mechanism of reflection (reflection of light)
- Photoelectric effect
- Thermionic emission
- Compton Effect
- Pair production
- Primakoff effect
* We should have brief descriptions of each of these phenomena, in order to see how well each theory conforms with each one.
* What other major findings should be included here?

Nevyn
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread post by Nevyn » Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:41 pm

Lloyd, I read that post but have not looked at the full theory. It seems to float above an undefined background. Much like the EU does but the EU isn't trying to explain things at the atomic or sub-atomic level like that theory seems to be. The EU happily sits above these concepts, assuming they have some theory to explain them but that is not required to study the EU. It would be extremely helpful though.

I don't like it when theories start talking about fields. That word says to me that it does not understand what is going on. There is some level underneath it and that is the level I want to get to.

That is not to say that the theory has nothing to offer. It may indeed have something worthy of noting and sometimes it takes researching another theory to see possibilities in others. It is always a good thing to see new ways of thinking.

My dream is to create a simulation that contains 1 type of particle and a few rules on how they interact. It is my intuition that our universe should be that simple. Complexity comes from viewing those interactions at a higher level, not by having an extremely complex framework.

Right now, Mathis has provided that low level theory and I'm trying to work my way through it as best I can. I don't want to contaminate that process just yet. As you point out, there are still things that don't make sense with Mathis and it may be they never will. It is the best candidate I have at the moment though.

I totally agree with you that a Fact List is needed. A list of all the things that any theory must explain. I would have thought that science would have created something along those lines a long time ago (I think Sir Francis Bacon may have started such a project around the time of Newton and realised what a huge task it is). It would be a project that never ended but a worthy endeavor.

It would be very hard to avoid interpretations creeping into such a list though. As we find when reading mainstream science articles, the interpretations are built in. It is hard to explain some things without using concepts of a certain theory.

If it is possible to explain things by observation, rather than by theory, then it may be possible to compile such a list. What I mean by that is, you completely explain an experiment as what you did and what results you got, not what you thought. This allows the experiment to be interpreted in many different ways.

I don't like how science makes a decision about some experiment and then never re-evaluates it. The discussion about Mathis and the Michelson/Morley experiment provides a prime example of that. It was interpreted to mean there is no Aether, but it really only said there is no Aether that behaves as they thought.

What amazes me about science is how much they don't know. They act like they are so close to the theory of everything and yet can not tell you what light is, what an electric or magnetic field is, what charge is. Basic building blocks for all their theories and they don't have a clue what they really are. Most of them aren't even looking.

This is why I try to get underneath them. Why I search for theories that at least try to explain that level. I give my full respect to those who tread this path, even if they are wrong. It takes a strong person to stand against the consensus (I hate that word being used anywhere near science) and they deserve to be encouraged, not ridiculed and immediately dismissed. Most will turn out to be wrong, but then ALL theories end up wrong at some point.

I would be happy to contribute what I can to such a list. My strength is seeing the connections between things and being able to make abstractions. That is basically what I do for a living as a Software Engineer. I think you should start a new thread and see where it leads. I think there will be a lot of arguing over what is fact and what is interpretation so you may need to think about how to separate the list from the arguments.

Good luck.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests