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

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:24 pm

* Yeah, Gary, I started to notice a number of his conventional assumptions, despite his originality and deep insights in other areas.
* I read a bunch more of his stuff today and I see that he says black holes cannot be singularities, but he seems to assume that black holes nonetheless exist [as well as neutron stars], although I don't know what he thinks is the maximum density possible for an object to attain. He also says the universe cannot have started from a singularity, but he thinks the universe is expanding and that redshift proves such expansion.
* What's worse is he concurs with Dewey Larson's idea that all matter in the universe is expanding, although he doesn't seem to concur with much else of Larson's analysis. His papers mention another person who has such an idea, but he doesn't seem to mention Larson at all for some reason.
* He says gravity is the acceleration of our expansion, so Earth apparently is supposed to be expanding at the rate of 32 feet per second per second. And so is everything in and on Earth. So Earth would have started out at a radius of 32 feet after one second, then 32 + 64 ft the 2nd second, then 32 + 64 + 128 ft the 3rd second etc. After a few days I imagine it would be as big as a former galaxy and a little longer it would be bigger than the entire previous universe. He seems to say that photons would remain a constant size, so everything else would be expanding hugely while photons remain tiny, so it seems that photons would soon become totally undetectable.
* I found his email, so I'll ask him how he can call that logical.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread postby Corpuscles » Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:51 pm

The MM experiment was flawed from the beginning to the end ... it proved NOTHING!

Miles treatment of it is much better ..10^zillion...BUT!

On terra-firma earth we are travelling approx 1500mph in a circular rotation and 30miles per second in a orbit. Yet on a calm day there is no "wind". This means the atmosphere is (barring electomagnetic anomolies) stuck by forces yet to be fully understood or rather explained.

IF we designed an experiment to prove the existance of the invisible substance called "air".......

WE ( Michelson & Moreley) might suggest we have 2 persons ("A" & "B") located at a distance on a 45deg angle from a solid perfectly flat wall.The time taken for "A" to shout at the wall , and therefore the sound wave echo to bounce to be heard by "B" would be an identical period of time , if there was no wind.

Note...If there was a wind...., parallel to the wall,the force vectors would interfere with both "A" and "B" equally and there would still be NO time difference therefore ...NO WIND! ...NO AIR!!! If the speed was 300,000 km per sec the clock would not be accurate enough to record it and discount doppler effect either!

Michelson & Moreley... would be delighted!!!... they would say.... we have proved there is no such thing as the wind!!! :cry:

Sort of like smashing things that can't be seen by the naked eye, nor without concocting compromised circumstances and yet declaring... yep we knew it all along those squiggles we momentarily produced in a massive magnetic field are ....QUARKS! :lol:
Corpuscles
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby StevenO » Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:47 am

Lloyd wrote:* Yeah, Gary, I started to notice a number of his conventional assumptions, despite his originality and deep insights in other areas.
* I read a bunch more of his stuff today and I see that he says black holes cannot be singularities, but he seems to assume that black holes nonetheless exist [as well as neutron stars], although I don't know what he thinks is the maximum density possible for an object to attain. He also says the universe cannot have started from a singularity, but he thinks the universe is expanding and that redshift proves such expansion.
* What's worse is he concurs with Dewey Larson's idea that all matter in the universe is expanding, although he doesn't seem to concur with much else of Larson's analysis. His papers mention another person who has such an idea, but he doesn't seem to mention Larson at all for some reason.
* He says gravity is the acceleration of our expansion, so Earth apparently is supposed to be expanding at the rate of 32 feet per second per second. And so is everything in and on Earth. So Earth would have started out at a radius of 32 feet after one second, then 32 + 64 ft the 2nd second, then 32 + 64 + 128 ft the 3rd second etc. After a few days I imagine it would be as big as a former galaxy and a little longer it would be bigger than the entire previous universe. He seems to say that photons would remain a constant size, so everything else would be expanding hugely while photons remain tiny, so it seems that photons would soon become totally undetectable.
* I found his email, so I'll ask him how he can call that logical.

Hi Lloyd,

Miles holds that photons are expanding too (everything material is expanding at the same relative rate proportional to the diameter of an object at 9.8m/s^2). It is a relative expansion since size is relative. Wrt. to gravity you can either assume gravity pushes you up as Mathis and Larson do, which requires one to adjust their beliefs wrt. to size, or one can assume that empty space pushes you down as Einstein postulates, which requires one to believe that empty space has material properties. Both views are equivalent and give identical results but Mathis' treatment is 100x easier on the math, provides a mechanical explanation and no forces at a distance.

I don't think Miles believes in black holes or neutron stars.
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
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread postby altonhare » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:58 am

Corpuscles,

If you perform this experiment with sound you would indeed observe a "fringe effect".

Corpuscles wrote:Note...If there was a wind...., parallel to the wall,the force vectors would interfere with both "A" and "B" equally and there would still be NO time difference therefore ...NO WIND! ...NO AIR!!!


This is incorrect. Firstly, we aren't dealing with "force vectors". We're dealing only with velocities.

If you and I stand in the center of a platform facing 45 degrees from each other, on a "calm day", shout at the opposite wall, and time how long it takes for us to hear the echo, we will get the same answer. If the platform now moves along a train track at an appreciable speed and we do the same thing, we will not measure identical delays.

This is because the air atoms themselves simply cannot move faster than ~0.33 km/s (in this context). So while the atoms propagating my sound are, themselves, moving just as fast as the ones propagating your sound, the movement of the train alters the total distance that must be traveled. The "sound moves" ahead 0.33 km, but the train drags the destination away a bit. If the train is hurtling along the track at .165 km/s and the walls that we are shouting at are 0.33 km away then the atoms for one of our sounds will have to traverse a total of 1.815 km and the atoms for the other sound will have to traverse 1.5243 km.

Corpuscles wrote:Miles treatment of it is much better ..10^zillion...BUT!


Miles mistake is that he does not assign the men on the plane identical velocities relative to the stationary observer. This was the aether hypothesis of the time, that light pulses (men on the plane) always propagated with the same velocity relative to a stationary medium (in Mathis' case a stationary observer).

Miles analyzes the problem correctly in the sense that he does not a priori assume a stationary aether. But that was exactly the hypothesis of Michelson, Morley, et. al. We know, now, that we cannot invoke such a stationary aether because it does not describe the real world. Michelson and Morley did not know that until they operated their interferometer. Miles is analyzing the problem from a "modern" point of view, without an underlying stationary medium, instead of from a 18th/19th century view where they did assume an underlying stationary medium.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: Miles Mathis Top Ten

Unread postby junglelord » Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:09 am

This is a series of Q&A I did as I learned the APM theory. I present it here in hopes it will give some insight into the Aether model. I encourage everyone to purchase the Secrets of the Aether book from Dave Thompson, your library is not complete without one.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1021&start=0

12. What maintains onn spin?
Answer page 18
The Aether. Therefore, the aether maintains the structure of physical matter. Matter is a trace of the Aether. Physical structure comes from nonmaterial aether, it is the inherent property of the aether, not matter.

13. Does matter move in space time?
Answer page 18
No, matter is contained in the aether. Space-time moves relative to itself. Matter is carried through space-time, like dust in the wind or algae in the ocean.

14. What are the characteristics of the aether?
Answer page 18
Aether has a fluid like characteristic.

Chapter 2, SOTA third edition, Ontological Foundation, Aether Physics Model
Nonmaterial Aether

1. What is a quantum constant of the aether unit?
Answer Page 31
A non material aether unit is a two spin rotating magnetic field (rmfd). A quantum aether unit has a percise value equal to coulombs constant times 16pi^2
Au = rmfd = k C x 16pi^2

2. Is the rotating magnetic field concept of the aether presented in the Aether Physics Model similar to any other aether concepts?
Answer Page 31
John Bernoulli's Whirlpool Aether. All space, is permeated by a fluid Aether, containing an immense number of excessively small whirlpools. The elasticity which the aether appears to possess and in virtue of which it is able to transmit vibrations, is really due to the presence of these whirlpools. Due to centrifugal force, each whirlpool is continually striving to dilate, and so presses against the neighboring whirlpools.

3. Is there a simple experiment, one can do to prove the existence of the aether?
Answer Page 31
The first experiment requires a magnet and a cathode ray tube. The cathode ray tube could be your computer monitor, TV or oscilloscope screen. Make sure your cathode ray tube has a degaussing feature before doing this experiment, or you may permanently disfigure your viewing screen. Place the magnetic against the cathode ray tube with the North or South Pole facing the screen. You will notice a pattern seemingly caused by the magnetic flux of the magnetic as it reorganizes the electron beams. With the magnet flush against the screen, twisted back and forth. You will notice the pattern on the screen does not change. Had the magnet been the source of the magnetic flux, the pattern would have changed since the magnetic flux would link to the molecules and atoms of the magnet. However, the magnetic flux arises from the aether and thus exist relative to the aether. Twisting the magnet will not affect the magnetic flux of the aether. The same experiment works with ferrofluid.

4. Does aether move freely through matter?
Answer Page 32
Aether gives form to matter, but matter also occupies the aether and manipulates it. Aether can only move through matter that is not dense. Frame dragging is another euphemism of the standard model and tended to acknowledge the properties of aether, but without calling it Aether. The frame dragging of general relativity theory is tantamount to the notion of aether moving with matter.

5. Did Einstein write any papers dedicated to the aether?
Answer Page 33
Concerning the Investigation of the State of Aether in Magnetic Fields.
It states the magnetic flux is a potential state of the aether. It is a passive resistance to electric current that produces the magnetic field.

6. What is Dynamic Space in APM?
Answer Page 34-35
In APM space and time are united in such a way that the two are inseparable, producing a single unit called double cardioid (dcrd). We need a coordinate system that includes both space and time. The perception of space time through our bodies, gives us the appearance of just one dimension of linear time, just one linear time is an illusion. In reality, the time dimensions of aether are actually frequency dimensions, and there are two of them. Together these two dimensions of frequency produce a spherical unit of resonance. In reality, the quantum universe has the qualities of space-resonance, we perceive the physical, macro universe with the qualities of space-time. Space and resonance integrate through a shared geometry. In other words, space and resonance are the same entity, but viewed from two perspectives, which are orthogonal to each other.

7. What is the Geometric Structure of Aether?
Answer Page 35
The geometrical constant of the aether induces to be 16pi^2
This translates to a geometrical shape of a tubular loxodrome distributed over two adjacent spheres. Further induced is that the spheres have electrostatic polarity, the whole structure has magnetic polarity, and the spin directions has gravitational polarity. One fourth of the total loxodrome surrounding both spheres is a tube with the surface constant of 4pi^2, the toroid constant. Because toroids have two radii, the small radius and a large radius, they can have varying radii lengths but still have the same surface area. This is why all onta share the same quantum surface area as the Compton wavelength squared. It is because all onta have the same surface area that we can graphically represent them as twin tubular loxodromes while making use of the quantum distance squared as their surface area. The perfectly symmetrical representation only applies to the surface areas and to the electrostatic charges.

8. What constants are not symmetrical in APM?
Answer Page 36
Mass, distributed frequency, and strong charge dimensions are not symmetrical in a given aether unit. The unequal distributions of quantum distributed frequency effect the general form of the physical universe and give us shapes like flowers, butterflies, tree branching, leaf patterns, snail shells, skeletal structures, body organ composition, and every other pattern that arises from growth processes. The unequal mass division reflects in the observed difference between electron and proton masses in the proportional strong charges.

9. What does that toroid constant represent?
Answer Page 36-37
4pi^2 represents the surface geometry of 1/2 spin onta. The electron and the proton are examples of 1/2 spin onta. Half of the double loxodrome is a geometrical constant of 8pi^2, and is either the loxodrome around a single sphere or half a loxodrome around two spheres. A full loxodrome represents 1 spin, such as the photon posesses. The full loxodrome around both spheres represents 2 spin, such as the aether unit and supposed “graviton” possess. 16pi^2 is the square of 4pi, which is the spherical constant. The 4pi, spherical constant is also related to the speed of light squared constant and describes the geometrical qualities. All physical existence ultimately derives its geometry from the aether. The geometry represents the available spin positions for the angular momentum to reside in the aether unit. Aether images do not represent some kind of a particle are otherwise solid entity. The color coding is intended to show that each spin possession is a unique pathway, the blue path is for the electron, gold is for the positron, aqua is for the antiproton, and red is for the proton. The tubular loxodrome's are accurate only in relation to the surface constant. The surface area of each half spin loxodrome is always equal to the Compton wavelength squared. However, the small and large electron and proton radii vary in length, and therefore so do the sphere radii. The aether, being a two spin rotating magnetic field, is flexible in this regard, and allows for the centrifugal expansion as envisioned by Bernoulli. The aether unit is thus a field in which subatomic particles can exist. It is because of this geometry of aether that it is possible to model the structures of electrons, photons, protons, neutrons and their interactions. Further, the aether includes the dimension of mass and charge. An enormous force the Gforce is emanating from a nonmaterial source acts upon the strong charge dimension is giving rise to the aether.

The Physical Universe
10. What is at the core of the aether physics model?
Answer Page 37
At the core of the APM is a mathematically correct Unified Force Theory, the first such theory to exist in modern science. The Unified Force Theory develops from the concept of distributed charge and fine structures of the onta (fine structures are proportions of spherical elementary charge to equalivalent spherical strong charge). The strong force is mathematically and experimentally proven to have a charge that compliments, but is different from, elementary charge. They Casimir equation is proof that the electron has a strong charge and that it obeys a strong force law. The theory and experiments to prove the existence of electron strong force were not seen for what they were because of the investment and that pi meson (pion). When examining the Newton gravitational law, coulombs electrostatic law, and the strong force law, what seemed to be four distinct forces demonstrate to be three different manifestations of the Gforce with three different dimension's.

11. What is the Gforce comparable to?
Answer Page 38
The Gforce is comparable to the Sun and the three aspects of onto, (electrostatic charge, electromagnetic charge, and mass), are comparable to three different colors of glass. We see three different forces in the physical world, but they are all manifestations of one Gforce, as three different colors of light emanates from three different colored panes of glass, even though they are manifestations of one light source. This is an example of how force evolves into complexity similar to the way subatomic particles bind to become Atoms. The so called a weak force is really a proportion of electrostatic charge to electromagnetic charge.

12. What does Primary Angular Momentum explain?
Answer Page 38
Primary angular momentum explains the structure behind all matter and light interactions, thereby eliminating the mysterious wave particle duality theory of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Primary angular momentum is the primary form of material existence and explains the photoelectric effect, pair production, and Compton Effect in units that directly relate to the electron and photon.

13. What new equations does APM hypothesize?
Answer Page 38
The nuclear binding forces and electron binding energies of all isotopes. The preliminary steps towards the discovery of an atomic spectral equations, which predicts the spectra of all isotopes and their ions. The electron and nuclear binding energy equations and atomic spectra equations are destined to be the new holy grail of physics. We have already had significant success with the electron binding energy equation. From these three equations, we will likely develop molecular equations, which can predict the properties of any substance before it is known to exist.

Unified Force Theory
14. What is the foundation of the Aether Physics Model?
Answer. Page38
The Unified Force Theory is the foundation upon which the Aether Physics Model rests. The standard model of physics recognizes only one type of charge the elementary charge, which has a single dimension of charge. In APM we notate all charges as distributed. Charge is not a point, and we ignore structural characteristics that result from treating it as a point. Charge always appears over the surface of an object, even if the object is a single electron. Therefore the correct dimensions of charge are charge squared. Instead of presenting elementary charge as e, elementary charge the present as e squared (e^2).
e = 1.602 x 10^-19 coul
e^2 = 2.567 x 10^-38 coul^2

15. What replaces the gluons in APM?
Answer Page 39
According to the standard model gluons carry the strong force in quarks, and pions carry the strong force in nuclei. In APM, the strong force carries by strong charge. Strong charge is related to elementary charge, but it has a different geometry, spin and magnitude. Strong charge notates as e emax for the electron, e pmax for the proton, and e nmax for the neutron. But as in the case of elementary charge, Strong charge is always distributed. So for example, electron strong charge would notate as e emax^2

16. What is the weak interaction in APM?
Answer. Page 39
The weak interaction is the proportion of the elementary charge to the strong charge. The weak interaction is equal to 8pi times the fine structure of the onn. The relationship of the elementary charge, strong charge, and weak interaction for each onn appears as follows where * (alpha), p, n are the fine structures of the electron, proton and neutron respectively.
Electron onn = e^2/e emax^2 = 8pi *
Proton onn = e^2/e pmax^2 = 8pi p
Neutron onn = e^2/e nmax^2 = 8pi n

Primary Angular Momentum
17. How can we best describe subatomic particles and Atoms?
Answer Page 40
Atoms are more like multilayered, discrete, shimmering clouds. Each layer contains proportionally enormous amounts of energy and shimmers at a different and precise electromagnetic frequency. Only when atoms interact with one another in large numbers do they behave as expected in their classical state, what scientists call the visible world. In APM these multilayered clouds are the angular momentum of individual onta. Since these onta are the smallest stable form of material existence, it is proper to the view the onta as primary angular momentum. When we take the literal dimension of primary angular momentum we find that there is a mass dimension, they are two length dimensions, and there is a frequency dimension. Expressed in terms of quantum measurements angular momentum is
h = m(e) x Lq^2 x Fq

18. What is a good way to visualize primary angular momentum?
Answer Page 40-41
One way to visualize this is to see a line of mass moving perpendicular at a velocity. Take a straight object, like a pencil and hold it in front of you. The pencil represents a mass times length. In one quick motion move the pencil at a velocity perpendicular to its length across a table. The blurred image you see graphically represents the nature of primary angular momentum. Of course, an electron is not literally a straight line moving sideways. We must take into account the curvature of the Aether double loxodrome structure. Since the onn mass has to fit in the small circumference of the loxodrome tube, the line of mass would appear as a circle. Ligamen circulatus (LC) names this line of mass. The perpendicular path of the line of mass as it moves sideways also traces out a circular path. The resulting geometry is toroidal. The toroid, however, traces on as a sphere and from pole to pole, when viewed in space-resonance coordinates. When viewed in space-time coordinates as with human perception, the shape is actually that of a cardioid. The Aether imparts, and thus accounts for, the spin in the loxodrome structure of the onn. APM full equations for the toroid like geometry of primary angular momentum and its relationship to spin will be examined later.

19. What are the general characteristics of primary angular momentum?
Answer Page 41
Primary angular momentum is a circumferential line (ligament circulatus) moving sideways, the onto have only two dimension of length. The curvature of Aether acts as a mold and imparts geometry to the onta. The ligament circulators moves in time, which means that the onn exist as a function of time between one moment and the next moment. Time is consequently, a component of onta. We could not perceive time and space with our bodies if our senses were not composed of primary angular momentum. Primary angular momentum is the first cause of physical perception, intimately related to the distributed frequency or resonance of the Aether. Because the ligament circulators moves perpendicular to its circumference, in order to scan an area (strong charge), the onta are not solid. They more closely resemble a cloud, as does the scanned area of a pencil moving back and forth in our vision. It is the scanning of primary angular momentum, which gives onta the appearances of a wave and a particle. Primary angular momentum explains why onta can appear as particles when we look at their strong charge, and can appear as waves when we look at the moving LC. Yet these are only appearances. The particulate and wave nature of primary angular momentum are illusions, having meaning only from our macro perspective. The reality of the onn structure is primary angular momentum and nothing else. Interestingly, photons can also appear as primary angular momentum, except that they are also exploding outward at the speed of light.

End of Chapter 2 Ontological Foundation SOTA third edition
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
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby nick c » Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:13 am

How does a scientist test the theory that all matter in the universe is expanding?
ie, is there an experiment that can potentially yield results that will falsify this proposition? (Furthermore, when we observe distant galaxies, if their light has travelled to our eyes having been emitted at some time in the remote past, would they not be of a calculable smaller size?
But then, I can answer my own question... no, if the photons were expanding along with everything else, their size as we perceive it, would have expanded too.)
If everything, including all rulers and measuring devices, are also universally and uniformly expanding then it seems to be unverifiable. This appears to be another convenient conceptual device to describe gravity without scientifically (that is, providing a way to test the explanation) explaining the proposed phenomenon.
Is it testable?

nick c
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2464
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby junglelord » Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:09 am

It appears the supermind is constantly expanding....
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
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:11 pm

StevenO: Miles holds that photons are expanding too

* Hi Steven. Here's a quote that suggests that he considers photons to be not expanding, unlike everything else.
Genesis - http://milesmathis.com/third8.html
You study this god’s universe a bit longer before you rush home to steal (or borrow) his ideas. If his particles are getting bigger, then his photons must be getting relatively smaller. How does he keep his E/M from dropping off? Hmm, his universe achieves this without any fixes at all, since although the photons get smaller relative to his particles over time, his particles radiate more of them over time. This keeps the net E/M pressure steady. Same thing for the speed of his radiation. A bigger spherical container has less curvature; therefore, to achieve the same escape pressure from within, with relatively smaller photons, the sphere has to spin faster. The photons are radiated from a tangent, and the escape speed is determined by the radial speed at that tangent. And so the absolute speed of the radiation increases as the spheres expand. But the relative speed of the radiation (the speed of the photons relative to the size of the sphere) does not increase; it remains constant.
- It is the same reason his galaxies and stars and planets and moons all stay the same size relative to eachother over time. All these macro-structures are constituted by his elementary particles. If his elementary particles expand at the same rate, his macro-structures must also expand at the same rate.
- I believe that it ultimately makes much more sense to theorize that creation is a constant process, with entry points at every inhabited locale in the universe. Wherever there is matter, there must be creation.

Nick: How does a scientist test the theory that all matter in the universe is expanding?

* Hi Nick. Here are 2 webpages where he claims to have proof of universal expansion.
1. The Third Wave - A Redefinition of Gravity - Part VI - The Ideal Gas Law as Proof of Expansion Theory
http://milesmathis.com/third6.html
[The Ideal Gas Law as proof of the Third Wave. I make a prediction, verifiable within the next decade, that the Ideal Gas Law will prove the reality of [universal] expansion.]
* I skimmed through the article, but don't understand how he proves universal expansion via the ideal gas law.
2. Bending of Starlight by the Planets
http://milesmathis.com/ele.html
* I'll quote part of this webpage, which seems more promising. He claims to have gotten data himself on the outer planets from observing them that confirm his prediction and the expansion. I guess he has the data.
according to my theory, the bending of the starlight does not drop off with distance from the planet. All stars in the apparent vicinity of the planet would have equal bending, since the bending was an illusion to start with. As I showed in the previous paper, the appearance of bending—with the Sun and any planet—is caused not by the gravitational pull of the Sun or planet, but by the “gravity” of the Earth. It was caused by an increase in parallax due to the expansion of the Earth.
- As a reminder, in the previous paper I showed that if you give the acceleration g to the Earth outward instead of to the gravitating body inward (by just flipping the vector g), you find that while the light from both the star and Jupiter are traveling to Earth from the vicinity of Jupiter, the Earth will have expanded a certain amount that is easily calculable. This sounds preposterous at first, but I remind you that it is a simple mathematical outcome of one of Einstein’s first postulates. Einstein used his elevator car in space to illustrate his postulate of equivalence. This postulate states that there is no experimental difference between gravity and acceleration. According to Einstein, the man in the elevator car cannot tell if he is accelerating up or gravitating down. No experiment he can do on the elevator will tell him the difference. Well, the Earth is our elevator car, and I have simply proposed reversing the vector. Make it an acceleration up instead of a pull down. You can change the math only or you can believe that the Earth is really expanding. It doesn’t matter. Just do the math, see where it takes you, and see if it answers any questions or allows you to make any interesting predictions. That is all I have done.
- If you are at the central axis of the Earth, relative to the line from Jupiter, you won’t measure any parallax, standard or expansive, and won’t measure any bending of starlight. But if you are on any “edge” of the Earth, relative to Jupiter, you will see a much greater amount of parallax than current theory predicts, according to my theory. What this means experimentally is that if Jupiter is low in the sky, toward the horizon, my theory predicts at least 7 seconds of arc more parallax than current theory would provide.
- That is to say, Jupiter should appear to be in the wrong place in the sky, for some positions on Earth. As I studied the diagram more closely, I saw that not every “edge” would expect to see the parallax increase, even when Jupiter was near the horizon. It would depend on Jupiter’s motion across the sky. From all points on the Earth, Jupiter’s parallax would increase vertically, that is, up or down the sky. If Jupiter were also moving mainly perpendicular to the horizon, then this would be “observable” only with a clock. For you see that Jupiter would arrive at a point on its path early or late, but would not deviate from its path. This would be very difficult to measure.
- But from other points on the Earth, the deviation of Jupiter from the path would be a spatial deviation, not a time deviation. If Jupiter were moving mainly across the sky, then it might appear to be 7’’ too low. This was the observation I needed to seek.
- The first question many readers will have is, “Too low with regard to what?” Too low relative to its predicted path. Astronomers can now tell you, with an accuracy of 1 second of arc or better, where all the planets will be at any given time. There are dozens of software programs available on the internet that can track all the planets into the distant past and future. They can tell you what constellation Jupiter was in when Christ was born and what star Saturn will be eclipsing in the year 4000. I have checked the math of one or two of these programs, and while I wouldn’t trust them to within 1’’ for the year 4000, they can’t be far wrong for current predictions. This is because they are normally extrapolations of data taken in the past decade, and planet/star conjunctions can’t get too far wrong in just a few years, unless the math is complete garbage.
- This means that all I had to do is download some of these programs, look at planet/star conjunctions, and see if the data matched my observations. The first thing I did was see which software was giving the best predictions for my latitude and longitude, looking only at conjunctions high in the sky. I tried several, but found that an astrology program called ZET was the most accurate predictor.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:34 pm

* Although I didn't understand his proof of expansion, Mathis has some interesting things to say about gases, relating to EU theory, which I'll quote here. This is similar to the excerpt below from his paper on the atmosphere, which he says is weightless.
1. The Ideal Gas Law as Proof of Expansion Theory
http://milesmathis.com/third6.html
That pressure should be dependent upon number of molecules rather than mass has always been a curious fact, a fact that has never been explained. In general, the pressure would be expected to be a function of the summed momentum of particles, but in a gas this may not be the case*.
- The variable for temperature is a measurement of the velocity of the molecules. If we increase the temperature, we increase the average velocity of the gas. Therefore we would expect either the momentum or the kinetic energy of each molecule to be expressed by its mass and its velocity. In the macro-world, this would certainly be the case. Why is it not true at the molecular or atomic level?
- Some will say my explanation is unnecessary, since temperature is a measurement of kinetic energy, not of velocity. If kinetic energy already takes into account the mass of each molecule, then my theory is not needed. All gases at the same temperature and pressure will have the same kinetic energies, but the average velocity of the molecules is not thought to be equal. It is not equal precisely because the masses are not equal. If you increase the mass of the molecule, you decrease the velocity, so that the kinetic energy stays the same.
My answer is twofold, 1) This historical application of temperature to kinetic energy is just an assumption. It has never been proved. To prove it would require comparing the average velocities of two different gases. This would require a direct measurement of the velocity of many individual molecules, not a calculation of velocity from kinetic energy. Any calculation down from an energy equation would be begging the question. Some kind of speed trap that could measure individual molecules would be required, and this has never been done, to my knowledge. 2) It probably will be done at some point in the near future, and my prediction is that the variation in velocities of different gases will not be nearly as great as has been assumed from historical theory. If there are the same number of molecules in a mole of gas, no matter the gas, and if the kinetic energies must be equal to explain the equal pressure, then the average velocities of different gases should be very different. By the equation mv^2/2, a molecule of neon that has five times the mass of a molecule of hydrogen should be going 1/v^5 times as fast. That is, more than twice as slow as the hydrogen molecule. I predict that the data will not bear this out. A difference in velocities between lighter gases and heavier gases will no doubt be found, but this difference will be much less than current theory can explain.


2. ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE AND THE CHARGE FIELD
http://milesmathis.com/atmo.html
The piece of the puzzle they are missing is the charge field of the Earth. Physicists honestly don't know about the charge field. They have not been able to unwind Newton's equation, to find the field there, and they have refused to publish or read my papers—some are accidentally ignorant and some are willfully ignorant. The charge field solves this problem, like so many other problems, because it gives us a real bombarding field that can easily explain motions mechanically. The charge field of the Earth, like the quantum charge field, is mediated by photons. It underlies both the electric and the magnetic fields, at all levels, but is not equivalent to either one. I have called it the foundational E/M field, since it causes all motions that we have given to electromagnetism. The photon wind drives electrons and other ions, and these larger particles create measurable atomic and molecular motions. In some cases, the photon wind can cause measurable motions itself, without ions, but at the macro-level this motion is usually hidden, as we will see again below. The photons in the charge field have both linear momentum and angular momentum: the photons are also spinning. Therefore, both the photon field and the induced ion field have angular momentum.The linear momentum of photons is charge, the linear momentum of ions is electricity, the angular momentum of photons is symmetry loss or charge conjugation (it also stands for the neutrino pseudo-field), and the angular momentum of ions is magnetism.
- The charge field explains the zero-weight of the atmosphere because the levitating force is not pressure, but bombardment. In other words, the air is being levitated directly by the charge field, by a bombardment of photons.
- As a first step, we can propose new theory for the ionosphere. Currently, the ionosphere is believed to be created almost entirely by solar radiation, but the given model cannot explain why ionization should start at about 50 km. Why is the entire atmosphere not ionized? Why is the ionosphere held at a distance, and, likewise, why is the magnetosphere at an even greater distance? Regarding the first question, it is thought that the atmosphere itself blocks radiation from coming nearer than 50 km, but there is no proof or even indication that it is capable of doing that on its own. Regarding the second question, there is no current theory to explain it.
- Obviously, my charge field supplies a mechanics capable of answering both questions, without dynamos in the Earth. My charge field is a summation of the charge fields of all the quanta in the Earth, so no dynamo is necessary.
- Most of the ionization in the ionosphere is indeed due to solar radiation, I assume, but the placement of the ionosphere is not an accident or an outcome of solar radiation and the atmosphere alone. The Earth's charge field drives all ions above the non-ionized molecules, by a simple mechanism. Ions are created at all levels of the atmosphere, including at the surface, and these are driven up by the same process I have already explained. But the ions have a charge field of their own.
- Ions are charged. What does that mean? It means that they are radiating photons. Molecules do not radiate many photons, and this is because the electrons in the shells are blocking radiation from the nuclei. Molecules are mostly neutral, as we know, so few photons are escaping the electron/proton exchange. But with ions, this is not the case. I have shown that electrons also emit the charge field, so negative ions will be creating a charge field, not just positive ions. Both negative and positive ions are emitting a positive, real, bombarding field of photons. Therefore, when ions encounter the charge field of the Earth, they feel a greater repulsion than molecules, and must go higher in the atmosphere. This is why the ionosphere exists above the non-ionosphere. The charge field of the Earth both seeds and limits the ionosphere.
- The Earth creates its own atmosphere. Did you think the atmosphere was captured from space, from passing black holes? No, the oxygen and nitrogen are both "exhaled" by the Earth itself.
- Logically, the crust must contain enough nitrogen to continue to seed the atmosphere, else the levels in the atmosphere would be dropping. If you have a cycle like this, and one part of the cycle is nutrient poor and the other part is nutrient rich, the nutrient (nitrogen) will move from rich to poor, to create balance. Nitrogen would be moving from atmosphere to soil. We don't see this, and we have never seen this.

* He claimed that, if the air has weight, it should be weighable on a bathroom scale; so the fact that the scale registers no weight is evidence of its weightlessness. I think a bathroom scale placed at the bottom of a bathtub full of water would also register no weight. If so, does that mean liquids are weightless too? Does anyone want to experiment with that and report here your finding? His reasoning seems a bit flawed in this regard.
* What interested me about these articles is the idea that the atmosphere may be levitated by EM forces at least to some extent - also the explanations of electricity, magnetism etc shown in red above.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby altonhare » Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:35 pm

Miles wrote:That pressure should be dependent upon number of molecules rather than mass has always been a curious fact, a fact that has never been explained. In general, the pressure would be expected to be a function of the summed momentum of particles, but in a gas this may not be the case*.


Has Mr. Mathis derived the ideal gas equation from first principles himself? At a certain temperature the average velocity (momentum) of a more massive atom is lower than for a lighter atom. It turns out that this cancels (kinetic gas equations, often called the "kinetic theory of gasses"). The kinetic theory of gasses is one of the most empirically succesful quantitative patterns recognized in chemistry.

His analogy to the macro world doesn't hold water. Pressure is a scalar derived by statistical assumptions on vectors (force and momentum). The ideal gas equation and the kinetic gas equations are intrinsically empirical. That is, they cannot be "wrong" so long as they calculate the right quantities. Mr. Mathis cannot critique kinetic gas equations on the atom scale because there are no such concepts as temperature and pressure on this scale. Temperature and pressure are defined on the macro scale, they are defined by their statistical assumptions.

I've gotta disagree with Mr. Mathis on this one.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby StevenO » Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:40 pm

Lloyd wrote:
StevenO: Miles holds that photons are expanding too

* Hi Steven. Here's a quote that suggests that he considers photons to be not expanding, unlike everything else.
Genesis - http://milesmathis.com/third8.html
You study this god’s universe a bit longer before you rush home to steal (or borrow) his ideas. If his particles are getting bigger, then his photons must be getting relatively smaller. How does he keep his E/M from dropping off? Hmm, his universe achieves this without any fixes at all, since although the photons get smaller relative to his particles over time, his particles radiate more of them over time. This keeps the net E/M pressure steady. <...>

Hi Lloyd,

This part was just some story running wild. There are at least two other places where he describes the opposite:

1) In his Unified Field Theory he explains that the gravitational constant is a scaling factor between the size of a base E/M field photon and the size of the proton. Since G is constant the photon would expand similar to the proton. He states: "the radius of the messenger photon is 6.67 x 10^-11 smaller than the radius of the hydrogen atom".(What mainstream calls "messenger photon" is what Miles has as his base E/M field photon). See here: What is G?

2) In his paper on unifying the photon with other quanta he claims that also photons have an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^s at their surface, which would mean they expand at the same rate as bigger particles.
He states: "The photon, like the proton and the Earth, has a local acceleration at its surface of 9.8!".
See here: Unifying the Photon with other quanta.
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
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:09 pm

* Well, here are some more things he's said about photons that's interesting to me.
Unifying the Photon with other quanta
http://milesmathis.com/photon.html
The truth is, it only took a few moments on the calculator to discover that the photon is simply another energy level of the quantum. Notice I said quantum, since we appear to have only one now. I have already unified the electron, positron, proton, anti-proton, neutron, all the neutrinos and all the mesons. I have shown that they are all spin levels or multiples of the same particle.
- This unification was made easier since I had already applied G to the radius of the photon. I have shown that the universal gravitational constant in Newton’s equation is actually a scaling constant between the photon and the hydrogen atom or proton. Newton’s equation contains the E/M field, hidden by the un-mechanical variables. G acts as a scaling constant between the gravitational field in the equation and the E/M field in the equation. Which means that the photon is G times smaller than the hydrogen atom. This explains many things, not the least of which is why G seems to vary slightly in experiment: it varies depending on the elements present. G, as a scaling constant, depends on the size of the atoms present: if most of the atoms are bigger than the hydrogen atom, G will have a margin of error.
- Still, how can a photon with seven or eight spins become an electron and start emitting large numbers of photons? The short answer is that it is not emitting them, it is re-emitting them. As the photon gather[s] spins, it stops acting like a simple particle with linear motion and starts acting like a little engine. The spins allow it to trap other photons. Specifically, the z-spin is orthogonal to the linear motion, which allows it to act like a scoop or an intake valve. Photons with only axial spin cannot resist this intake, and they are temporarily absorbed by the photon with z-spin. Intake of small photons begins to slow the large photon and it begins to turn into an electron. It gains mass and loses velocity. At some point it takes its fill of small photons and they start to spill out once more. The large photon has become an engine, driven by small photons. It is now an electron. This photon exhaust of this little engine is what we call charge. If you have enough of this exhaust, it begins to directionalize the residual photon wind, and this photon wind is what we call electricity. The spin of the photon wind is what we call magnetism.

* I don't understand the levels of spin and how quanta make waves yet, according to Mathis, but these aspects of his info sound very plausible and rational.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby altonhare » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:39 am

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.

Assuming everything is expanding, this would be a violation of conservation of matter, creation from nothing, a contradiction.

It is a very useful mathematical trick but not a physical explanation.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h
altonhare
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby StevenO » Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:24 am

altonhare wrote: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.

Assuming everything is expanding, this would be a violation of conservation of matter, creation from nothing, a contradiction.

It is a very useful mathematical trick but not a physical explanation.

I can't see any problem here except maybe a change of beliefs. A continuous expansion of matter does not imply that more matter is created, it only requires to adopt the view that "size is relative", which seems pretty basic in a universe where we have already adopted that position, velocity and acceleration are relative.

There is no proof that conservation of matter is a physical law on cosmic scales, at least I'm not aware of it. Matter will have to be created/converted or recycled at some moment in time.
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
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:45 am

Steven: A continuous expansion of matter does not imply that more matter is created, it only requires to adopt the view that "size is relative", which seems pretty basic in a universe where we have already adopted that position, velocity and acceleration are relative.

* Slow expansion probably wouldn't bother me much, but a rapid expansion seems absurd. I'd like to hear specifically just how fast things are supposed to be expanding. It's supposed to be enough to cause the acceleration of gravity, which is 32 feet per second per second. If it means the earth's radius is increasing at that rate, it seems very preposterous. The present rate of expansion would seem to have to be [whether measured in feet or miles or whatever] 10 to the trillionth power to the trillionth power etc. That's one followed by a trillion times a trillion zeroes.
* Nonetheless, I'm open to it, if that's where the evidence predominantly leads us. After all, if all the measuring rods expand too, no harm done. We don't need to adapt to using such huge numbers, unless we want to interact with the past or the future. So far the evidence for expansion doesn't seem significant. Mathis seems to have accepted the idea only because he doesn't like so-called action at a distance, i.e. a pulling or attraction force, because it can't be accounted for mechanically. I don't like attraction either for the same reason, but I dislike expansion even more. Expansion requires constant creation or at least filling from all locations of matter. The only way expansion seems potentially plausible to me is if the universe, matter, space etc consists of consciousness, since consciousness can do whatever it wants with itself, since it's unrestrained.
* I got an email from Mathis yesterday, which he said is okay to share. Here it is.
Actually, I say that photons also expand, since they are physical. You may be reading an old form of one of my papers. The up to date versions are on my own site. It is a work in progress, and is fairly new.
- My universe expansion is not like the standard model's. I have argued against their models at length. You might want to read my paper on gravitational lensing, for instance. I am not convinced of the big bang, although I mention it occasionally in passing. I don't think we know enough to say one way or the other, at this point. I am trying to make a lot of other fundamental corrections before I make a decision on that.
- As for the plasma model on quasars, against black holes, and so on, I have an open mind. I know the standard model is wrong about most things, but I am not convinced the plasma model is correct. It's critiques of the standard model are good, but its own explanations are incomplete. I know you guys are right about the ubiquity and strength of E/M, and its importance, but beyond that, it all becomes rather murky. We will both keep working, and maybe we will come together.

* I then suggested that he join the Thunderbolts team, after they invite him, because his analyses would likely be very helpful, like his paper on the magnetopause posted elsewhere on this forum. I also informed him of some of the exciting discoveries the TB team is making and how it may soon help transform science and education for the better.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests