Miles Mathis

[junglelord]

My magneto-dielectric field thread shows that control of spin domains, is a specific function of M-D fields.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=2882

It also seems that Tesla did create a different method of wave propagation based on a specific field effect.

I would imagine that since the magnetic and the dielectric field are in phase conjugation in a Series Capacitive, Parallel Inductive circuit, that this represents a different analysis of vectors and seems to break the EM right handed rule of thumb which is observed in a Series Inductive, Capacitive Parallel circuit.

Since all is spin, this particular MD field spin has different spin ratios then the EM field spin.

Since all is photons and all is spin, spin differences allow different subatomic units and I would venture allow different charge wave effects with different approaches from Phase Conjugation vs Right Hand Rules.

I am speaking here, I believe, of higher levels of dimensional complexity then Miles presents in his inital framework.

I think his framework supports the higher levels of reality, but does not necessarily gives us the framework of higher dimensional constructs, rather Miles work is possiblly more fundamental then APM, if anyone gets my drift...spindrift.


Concerning the terms of Aether, vs Field, I believe that they are mutally inclusive, not exclusive.
Space has more then Length, Area, Volume, it has Fields, with Vortex forms that create the fields.
Yes all is spin, yes all is light, I knew that long before I tried to understand Tesla.


We are frozen light.
If e- and photons exchange anything, they exchange spin domains, not energy.


A lot of what I think is what Miles says.

[seasmith]

JL.

Yes, spin domains

sfields

[StevenO]

I am speaking here, I believe, of higher levels of dimensional complexity then Miles presents in his inital framework.

I think his framework supports the higher levels of reality, but does not necessarily gives us the framework of higher dimensional constructs, rather Miles work is possiblly more fundamental then APM, if anyone gets my drift...spindrift.

I'll stick with the dual field approach of Miles (gravitation and charge) for the time being. The implied 4th dimension of the gravitational motion is already too much for my brain to handle at the moment, so I don't want to run the risk of getting lost in more dimensions.

We are frozen light.
If e- and photons exchange anything, they exchange spin domains, not energy.

I like that metaphor, though matter is probably better described as light spinning in place.

A lot of what I think is what Miles says.

That's what you always say.

[junglelord]

As an electrical engineer, you work in higher dimensions all the time.
Your electrical equations stem from a two force model, but are not determined with that model alone.
You use higher dimensions in circuit analysis....so we have models for each level of reality.
Clearly your mind works fine in many levels.

I do go on and on about spin, spin relationships, being frozen light, everything is light and different spin domains.

Miles finds the same thing via his tearing apart of Newton's work. I have no trouble seeing Miles work as complemetary to my way of thinking. I however do not think it is exclusive to understanding all levels of reality.

Higher domains, are a natural order of the EU, fractal as it is....Miles work is a fractal work.

[tayga]

This links you to a paper of interest whose purpose is to unify gravity and elecromagnetism.

Apologies if this has already been brought up and I'm probably being dense but in the paper, Mathis says:

"To know a mass, you have to know both a density and a volume....Density, like volume, can be measured only with a yardstick."

Could anyone explain how density is more fundamental than mass? This argument doesn't make sense to me. How do you measure density without knowing the mass in a unit volume?

[StevenO]

This links you to a paper of interest whose purpose is to unify gravity and elecromagnetism.

Apologies if this has already been brought up and I'm probably being dense but in the paper, Mathis says:

"To know a mass, you have to know both a density and a volume....Density, like volume, can be measured only with a yardstick."

Could anyone explain how density is more fundamental than mass? This argument doesn't make sense to me. How do you measure density without knowing the mass in a unit volume?

I think it is because you can measure density by counting the number of particles in a given volume. A mass requires a comparison with a known mass and the application of Newton's laws.

[junglelord]

Unified Fields in Disguise

by Miles Mathis

Abstract: I will show that we have had not one but two correct and successful unified field equations for centuries.


Both Newton’s and Coulomb’s famous equations are unified field equations in disguise. This was not understood until I pulled them apart, showing what the constant is in each equation and how it works mechanically.


A unified field equation does not need to unify all four of the presently postulated fields. To qualify for unification, it only has to unify two of them. The unified field equations that will be unmasked in this paper both unify the gravitational field with the electromagnetic field. This unification of gravity and E/M was the great project of Einstein and is now the great project of string theory. But neither Einstein nor string theory has presented a simple unified field equation. As time has passed this has seemed more and more difficult to achieve, and more and more difficult math has been brought in to attack the problem. But it turns out the answer was always out of reach because the question was wrong. We were seeking to unify fields when we should have been seeking to un-unify them. We already had two unified field equations: which is why they couldn’t be unified. We were trying to rejoin a couple that was already happily married.


Yes, both Newton and Coulomb discovered unified field equations. That is why their two equations look so much alike. But the two equations unify in different ways. Newton was unaware of the E/M field, as we know it now, so he did not realize that his heuristic equation contained both fields. And Coulomb was working on electrostatics, and likewise did not realize that his equation included gravity. So the E/M field is hidden inside Newton’s equation, and the gravitational field is hidden inside Coulomb’s equation.


Let’s look at Newton’s equation first.


F = GMm/r2


We have had this lovely unified field equation since 1687. But how can we get two fields when we only have mass involved? Well, we remember that Newton invented the modern idea of mass with this equation. That is to say, he pretty much invented that variable on his own. He let that variable stand for what we now call mass, but it turns out he compressed the equation a bit too much. He wanted the simplest equation possible, but in this form it is so simple it hides the mechanics of the field. It would have been better if Newton had written the equation like this:


F= G(DV)(dv)/r2


He should have written each mass as a density and a volume. Mass is not a fundamental characteristic, like density or volume is. To know a mass, you have to know both a density and a volume. But to know a volume, you only need to know lengths. Likewise with density. Density, like volume, can be measured only with a yardstick. You will say that if density and volume can be measured with a yardstick, so can mass, since mass is defined by density and volume. True. But mass is a step more abstract, since it requires both measurements. Mass requires density and volume. But density and volume do not require mass.


Once we have density and volume in Newton’s equation, we can assign density to one field and volume to the other. We let volume define the gravitational field and we let density define the E/M field. Both fields then fall off with the square of the radius, simply because each field is spherical. There is nothing mysterious about a spherical field diminishing by the inverse square law: just look at the equation for the surface area of the sphere:


S = 4πr2


Double the radius, quadruple the surface area. Or, to say the same thing, double the radius, divide the field density by 4. If a field is caused by spherical emission, then it will diminish by the inverse square law. Quite simple.


The biggest pill to swallow is the necessary implication that gravity is now dependent only on radius. If gravity is a function of volume, and no longer of density, then gravity is not a function of mass. We have separated the variables and given density to the E/M field, so gravity is no longer a function of density. If gravity is a function of volume alone, then with a sphere gravity is a function of radius, and nothing else.


It is only the compound or unified field that is a function of mass. Yes, Newton’s equation still works like it always did, and in that equation the total force field is a function of mass. But in my separated field, gravity is not a function of mass. It is a function of radius and radius alone.


Now we only need to assign density mechanically. I have given it to E/M, but what part of the E/M field does it apply to? Well, it must apply to the emission. Newton’s equation is not telling us the density of the bodies in the field, it is telling us the density of the emitted field. Of course one is a function of the other. If you have a denser moon, it will emit a denser E/M field. But, as a matter of mechanics, the variable D applies to the density of the emitted field. It is the density of photons emitted by the matter creating the unified field.


Finally, what is G, in this analysis? G is the transform between the two fields. It is a sort of scaling constant. As we have seen, one field--gravity--is determined by the radius of a macro-object, like a moon or planet or a marble. The other field is determined by the density of emitted photons. But these two fields are not operating on the same scale. To put both fields into the same equation, we must scale one field to the other. We are using both fields to find a unified force, so we must discover how force is transmitted in each field. In the E/M field, force is transmitted by the direct contact of the photons. That is, the force is felt at that level. It can be measured from any level of size, but it is being transmitted at the level of the photon. But since gravity is now a function of volume alone, it is not a function of photon size or energy. It is a function of matter itself, that is, of the atoms that make up matter. Therefore, G is a scaling constant between atoms and photons. To say it another way, G is taking the volume down to the level of size of the density, so that they may be multiplied together to find a force. Without that scaling constant, the volume would be way too large to combine directly to the density, and we would get the wrong force. By this analysis, we may assume that the photon involved in E/M transmission is about G times the atom, in size.


Now we continue on to Coulomb’s equation:


F = kq1q2/r2


One hundred years after Newton, we got another unified field equation. Here we have charges instead of masses, and the constant is different, but otherwise the equation looks the same as Newton’s. Physicists have always wondered why the equations are so similar, but until now, no one really knew. No one understood that they are both the same equation, in a different disguise.


I unveiled this equation using a different trick. With Newton’s equation, I pulled the veil off by writing the masses as densities and volumes. With Coulomb’s equation, it was the constant that got me in. In fact, if it weren’t for Bohr, I would never have unveiled Coulomb’s equation.


It happened like this: I noticed that the angular velocity equation in textbooks didn’t make any sense, so I went back to Newton to see how it was derived. I discovered that Newton had given us different values for tangential velocity and orbital velocity, but that the two numbers had gotten conflated since then. Meaning, the two numbers had become one. Modern physicists now think tangential velocity and orbital velocity are the same thing, but they aren’t. In correcting this muddle, I found that the angular momentum equation had to change. By my analysis, L = rmv was no longer true. After I corrected it, I went to Bohr’s equations for hydrogen, finding that they had to be redone. Once I fixed them, it turned out that the value for the Bohr radius was exactly the same as Coulomb’s constant (in reverse). The new Bohr radius is 9 x 10-9 meters. Coulomb’s constant is 9 x 109.


I could immediately see that Coulomb’s constant is another scaling constant, like G. Instead of scaling smaller, like G, k scales larger. Coulomb’s constant takes us up from the Bohr radius to the radius of macro-objects like Coulomb’s spheres. It turns the single electron charge into a field charge.


But where is the gravitational field in Coulomb’s equation? If we study charge, we find that it has the same fundamental dimensions as mass. The statcoulomb has dimensions of M 1/2 L3/2 T -1. This gives the total charge of two particles the cgs dimension ML3/T2 . But mass has the dimensions L3 /T2, which makes the total charge M2. So we can treat Coulomb’s charges just like Newton’s masses.


We write the equation like this:


F = k(DV)(dv)/r2


Once again, the volume is the gravitational field and the density is the E/M field. The single electron is in the emitted field of the nucleus, and D gives us the density of that field. But this time the expressed field is the E/M field and the hidden field is gravity. So we have to scale the electromagnetic field UP to the unified field we are measuring with our instruments.


If k and G had been the same number, all this would have been seen earlier. It would have then been easy to see that Coulomb’s equation was just the inverse of Newton’s equation. But because the constants were not the same number, the problem was hidden.


In scaling up and scaling down, we don’t simply reverse the scale. It is a bit more complex than that, as you have seen. In scaling down, we go from atomic size to photon size. In scaling up, we go from atomic size to our own size.


Unifying the two major fields of physics like this must have huge mathematical and theoretical consequences. Because Coulomb’s equation is a unified field equation, gravity must have a much larger part to play in quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics. Gravity must also move into the field of the strong force, and require a complete overhaul there.


By the same token, the E/M field must invade general relativity, requiring a complete reassessment of the compound forces. At all levels of size, we will find both fields at work, creating a compound field in which each field is in opposition to the other.


Yes, according to my new equations, the two fields are always in vector opposition. And since gravity, by itself, is a function of radius alone, it must be much larger at small scales than we thought--and somewhat smaller at large scales.

http://milesmathis.com/uft2.html

[junglelord]

Poor Steven O felt I had not read Miles, but I had, but I spent four hours last night just for kicks and giggles.
I have no problem digesting and understanding this model, or any other, so I must be brighter then you Steven.


With the information supplied about the two field UFT and how Newtons equation hides EM and the Coulomb Constant hides gravity, lets go forward and check out quantum spin.

However Miles work is all about no dipole electrons.
There is work is explain both electrons and protons and dual charge units.
Miles ovbiously has NEVER considered this, so lets follow his line of reasoning.
Whats up with quantum spin intergers?

THE STERN-GERLACH EXPERIMENT

by Miles Mathis


The Stern-Gerlach experiment was performed in 1922 on silver atoms passing through an inhomogeneous magnetic field. This is the experiment that gave us the current ½ spin values for fermions. I will show that the experiment was badly misinterpreted, and still is, compromising all of QM and QED in many ways.

The first thing we find when studying the experiment is that the physicists assumed going in that the electron was a classical dipole. After the experiment, they decided that the electron was not a classical dipole, but they only threw out the “classical” part of that, keeping the dipole assumption. Only by keeping the dipole assumption could they come to the conclusions they did. If they had discarded the dipole assumption, then none of the current conclusions of the experiment would hold, as I will show.

A dipole is a spinning object that is charged differently on each end. The Earth is common example, since we have a north pole and a south pole. Macro-objects that are charged are dipoles, so physicists simply assumed that the electron, being charged, was also a dipole. It turns out this is false, and it can be shown very easily, with simple mechanics.

Modern physics has still not provided us or itself with any field mechanics to explain electromagnetism. They have not explained how force is transferred in the field. The current mechanism is the virtual messenger photon, which can tell a quantum to move nearer or move farther away, depending on whether it is “talking” to a proton or an electron. Since particle physics is in such a naïve state, we should not be surprised that it gets itself into bigger jams every decade.

I have shown2 that charge requires real photons with real mass and real spin to mediate it. Yes, not only are the electrons really spinning, the photons are, too. Charged particles like protons and electrons are carried along and pushed around by photons, by direct bombardment.

Once we create a real mechanical field, many of the problems of QM and QED evaporate. We don't allow virtual fudges or borrowing from the vacuum or any other magic. This explains the current problem in this way: in macro-objects the dipole is created by the motion of electrons through one pole and not the other. This is already known, and requires no revolutionary theory to confirm it or explain it. But this can hardly be the case with an individual electron. An individual electron cannot be a dipole in this way, since we cannot propose that electrons are moving through or to or around the poles of the electron. The standard model buries this question, having no answer for it and therefore no motive for unburying it. But I have proposed that the electron creates the charge field by recycling charge photons through the poles (and emitting them at the equator). Although they are spinning, photons cannot be defined as having charge, since they create charge. In the same way, the electron is the cause of dipoles, therefore it cannot be dipole itself. If the electron is dipole itself, we create a reductio ad absurdum, since we must then explain what gives the electron a dipole. We have an infinite line of causes, and therefore no cause.

We cannot assign a dipole to the individual electron for yet another reason of logic. The entire E/M field has been explained as a potential difference between positive charge and negative charge. Franklin defined it like that, with pluses and minuses, Faraday and Maxwell confirmed it, and beneath QED that is still the only surviving pseudo-mechanics. The electron is assigned a minus sign. Well, if we make the individual electron a dipole, then the minus sign has just been transferred to one end of the electron, while the other end is positive. This makes the electron as a whole neutral, like we are told the Earth is. It would also mean that only one end of the electron is attracted to the nucleus, while the other end should be repelled. We can't have that. No, physicists should never have logically been allowed to assume the individual electron was dipole, since it contradicts their first postulates and their fundamental field mechanism (such as it is). The E/M field may show dipole characteristics, but the electron itself cannot be a dipole.

If the electron is not a dipole, this changes all the expectations of deflection by homogeneous or inhomogeneous fields. For instance, Wikipedia tells us, “If the particle travels in a homogeneous magnetic field, the forces exerted on opposite ends of the dipole cancel each other out and the trajectory of the particle is unaffected.” Well, if the electron is not a dipole, then the trajectory of the particle is also unaffected, but not due to any canceling. There are no forces on opposite ends, so there is nothing to cancel. The particle is unaffected simply because the field is homogeneous. If the field is inhomogeneous, then the silver particles are diverted simply because the atoms have not been made coherent. Some of the atoms are upside down, and the field simply sifts the upside-down atoms from the others.

In other words, in choosing silver atoms for this experiment, “a beam of neutral atoms each having an unpaired electron is used.” Well, since we have an unpaired electron, we have a given state with a certain chirality. If that electron is spinning, then it is emitting photons that are also spinning, and we have a normal field. But if we turn the atom over, the electron is spinning in the opposite direction relative to the device, and so are the photons. We then have an inverted field. And so we have two possible states. We can have atoms either upside-up or upside-down, relative to the measuring device. If the charge field emitted by the silver is upside down, it must react in the opposite way to the device. Only if we made the silver coherent before the experiment, by making sure all the atoms were upside-up, could we avoid this.

You see, the problem is that we are told the classical expectation of the Stern-Gerlach was a broad band from 1 to -1, going through and including zero. But that is assuming the electron is a dipole, and that is not really a “classical” expectation, it is an illogical expectation. The Stern-Gerlach experiment did not show that classical E/M theory was wrong, it showed that all E/M theory based on the electron dipole was wrong.

Even with quantum theory, the assumption was still illogical, since with a quantized charge, the experiment should have yielded (we are told) three quantum results at 1, 0, and -1. We do not see that, but it isn't because the spin quantum is less than 1. It is because the prediction of a 0 angular momentum is illogical. It is based on a dipole configuration for the individual electron that does not and cannot exist. No result of zero should have ever been expected, since the spin of the electron cannot be zero. That unpaired electron is either emitting an upside-up field of charge photons or it is emitting an upside-down field of charge photons, but it cannot be emitting both.

You will say that if we have silver atoms that are either up or down, then the charge field will sum to zero; but that isn't how it works. If that were the case, then the only expectation would be zero. We could not also have results of 1 or -1.

The spin or angular momentum of the charge field can sum to zero, but only in the case that we have a charge field meeting another charge field head on. But these silver atoms are all moving in the same direction through the machine. In other words, the two values for the charge field are moving parallel, with the same positive vector motion. They therefore cannot interfere with one another, or sum to zero. One atom will be moving in one charge field and another atom will be moving in another charge field, but the charge fields don't mix mathematically or physically, so there is no summing to zero in that way.

You see, it is once again the refusal of physicists to analyze the mechanics of the motions and forces that has doomed them. They have been satisfied with a mathematical analysis, or a cursory physical analysis. They will not go in and actually visualize the motions and forces, to find out the real logic of the situation, because they have been forbidden from doing so. The Copenhagen interpretation has doomed particle physics almost from the beginning.

The entire reason we now have spin ½ particles is due to this experiment, and this terrible interpretation of this experiment. Because the expectation of 1, 0, -1 did not happen, the physicists at the time thought that the quantum could not be 1. They thought a quantum of 1 would necessarily cause a value at zero. Therefore, since zero was not observed, the quantum must be less than one. That is so irrational it is difficult to stomach. I have shown why the value of zero was not observed, and could not be observed; but beyond that, the idea of a quantum of less than one is idiotic. You should always be able to assign any number to your quantum that you like, since the quantum is your unit. It is like saying that you are not free to assign the number 1 to the first integer. If you are not able to assign the number 1 to your first integer, your brain is some terrible state of disarray.

If you don't understand what I mean, just consider that a quantum is a one. A quantum is defined as a lowest divisor, something that cannot be further divided. If you are going to start dividing a quantum into halves, you might as well not have a quantum. Once you go below 1, you are into sub-quanta.

If spin is quantized, as I agree it is, then the spin quantum is 1. If you discover a lower quantum, then you should re-assign your integer 1 to the lower quantum, and make your old larger quantum a multiple of that lowest quantum. Any theory that has a spin ½ is a sign of theorists who don't understand the definition of quantum, or of 1.

Another way to say all that is that since there should have been no expectation of zero, the quantum expectations were not split three ways. Since they were not split three ways, the quantum was free to be 1 from the beginning.

The only thing the Stern-Gerlach experiment really proved was that the spin was quantized. It should have been quantized at 1 and -1. But it should have been defined as a real spin. Instead the experiment was used as proof that the spin was not real. Why? We are told that it is because if the spin were real, the energy of the electron would imply a spin speed well above c. More specifically, we are told by Wiki that if the radius of the electron were 1.4 x 10-8m, then the rotational velocity would be 2.3 x 1011m/s.1 But those numbers are found with a bunch of false equations. The writers at Wiki may be aware of the status of those equations, since they don't include them. We only get a footnote to a book published in part at Google books. The equations in question are on page 35. Is it a coincidence that pages 27 to 36 are not included?

Notice that these numbers at Wiki imply that charge is determined by the period of rotation, since those numbers can be found this way:

charge = 1/frequency = λ/c = πr/v

But of course the radius of the electron is nothing like that large. The classical electron radius is about 10-15m, not 10-8m, so it is unclear why Tomonaga would even be talking about the larger number. In my paper on the Bohr magneton3, I corrected early equations, and calculated that the electron radius is closer to 2.24 x 10-17m. Correcting the corrupted equations v = rω and L=mvr, we get

L = mω = h/2π
μB = eω/2

ω = 2(9.283 x 10-24)/1.602 x 10-19
ωe = 1.16 x 10-4m/s
v2 = (ω4/4r2) + ω2
v = c

Once we correct the equations, the velocity of the spin is not above c, it is precisely c. So there is no reason to claim that the spin of the electron is "a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon" or that is it some sort of "intrinsic angular momentum." Those are just two euphemisms for "we don't know what is happening mechanically, so we just refuse to talk about it anymore." Tomonaga's book1 should be titled, "The Story of Virtual Spin, or How a Bunch of False Equations Doomed Us."

Another thing is interesting about the Stern-Gerlach experiment. It is known that the Stern-Gerlach apparatus works like a polarizer. If we stack fields in sequence, we get mysterious outcomes as in superposition experiments. We are told these outcomes can only be explained with quantum laws, not with normal mechanics. But just as I solved the problem of superposition4 and detectors in sequence5, I can solve the Stern-Gerlach mystery. Both mysteries are solved with spin, in the same way. We simply have to closely monitor possible spins states, as above.

My analysis also gives us a straightforward mechanical explanation of the Rabi oscillation. This oscillation can be explained only in complex and mathematical terms by quantum mechanics, but with my mechanics of spin it can be explained as a flip of the initial spin state. The applied field acts to reverse the entire quantum, which of course reverses its emitted photons as well. That this is what is happening is confirmed once again by Ramsey's use of a similar device to polarize hydrogen molecules to create a maser. This is just the coherence I was talking about above. If we weren't dealing with real spins, then a polarizer could not possibly work. A polarizer can't work on "intrinsic" or non-physical properties. To polarize you have to have a real polarity, and I would think this is obvious. This polarity is not a dipole, it is just a pole: it is a spin about a real axis, with a real radius.

And once we have a real spin we can analyze, we don't need all the ridiculous Alexandrianisms of von Neumann measurement schemes or decoherence. It is the misinterpretation of this Stern-Gerlach experiment in the 20's that has led to 90 years of stacked misinterpretations and fudged corrections. If we go back and make some simple theoretical and mathematical corrections to these early experiments, we can throw out nine decades of very smelly garbage, collecting in ever greater piles. Something has long been rotten in Denmark, and we now should know it is the Copenhagen interpretation. When will the ghost of the dead King (Bohr) quit haunting us with his false tutelage? When will all the poor Yoricks and their bleached and blanched skulls quit oppressing us with their bad postulates and worse equations?
http://milesmathis.com/stern.html

[seasmith]

StevenO wrote:

The "Magneto-Dielectric Field" is not a different field. All matter emits a charge field through emission of photons. The linear motion of the photons powers the Electric field, the spin of the emitted photons powers the Magnetic field. How, depends on the configuration of protons and electrons inside the field.

This looks rather like a another real-world example of Charge field or M-D field at work.

The Max Planck scientists have now discovered that two adjacent water molecules can work together in such an autoionisation process. Working in conjunction, they achieve a state that is more favourable energy-wise when each of them releases an electron. What happens is that the molecular ion produced first transfers its excess energy to a second molecule, which then releases an electron of its own. This energy transfer even functions through empty space, no chemical bonding of the two molecules being necessary.

http://www.physorg.com/news183205589.html

sfield

[junglelord]

The experiments performed by Dollard indicate a phase conjugation with inductance and capacitance, in M-D circuits of capacitive series and parallel inductors, while the same two fields are 90 out of phase in EM circuits with series inductance and parallel capacitance....that seems ovbious, plus series capactiors with parallel inductors are supercharged but cold the further down the ciruit you go, yet the magnetic field is also at its peak....so phase conjugation is again a primary part of the underlying reality of the photon charge field spin.

Yes or no Steven?

[junglelord]

Dave Thomson of APM, is my friend, my teacher, and a very smart man.
I sent Dave the work on Miles and here is his reply.

Hi Dean,

Thanks for the link to Miles Mathis’ work. At least he quantified his ideas, which is a lot better than what most people do.

I like his rewrite of the gravitational constant and electrostatic constant in terms of volume and density. I will likely take a closer look at that, later. There is likely a practical use for this observation.

However, the density he refers to in the gravitational equation is mass density. He’s telling us we don’t need mass anymore, yet it is still there as a component of density. To me, this demonstrates an unfinished theory. Miles needs to explain what the mass is in density before he can say that density is more primary than mass.

Also, he uses logic to get rid of mass in the gravitational equation, but he doesn’t use the same logic to get rid of charge in the electrostatic equation. Why not? What is so special about charge that he thinks it can stay while mass has to go? The density in his electrostatic equation is charge density. What is charge that it can be dense? What is mass that it can be dense? He does not answer these questions.

Also, Coulomb’s constant is only relevant to electrostatic charge. It has nothing to do with magnetism. How does Miles write the equation for magnetism using magnetic flux density and volume? As you know from the APM, there is a third force law, which modern physics has missed. Maybe Miles would like to expand on his density and volume approach to determine the third force law?

Glad to hear you are still working on the APM. I’m setting up several web sites to develop communities around each of the core ideas of the APM. That’s why I haven’t been out there in the discussion lists.

Dave

As I figured, he is the ONE PERSON, who can ask Miles the tough questions....not me, not Steven.

I told you they are not in opposition....and I was right.
I like both mens work and I still do.
I understand both and I want Steven to realize one does not discredit the other.
Not to me and ovbiously not to Dave Thomson.

I think Miles would not be so unforgiving of APM as you are Steven and Miles could ask Dave the tough questions.

Basicly, if we can hook them up, which I know I can, as Miles has spoken to Alton, then he would love to speak to Dave....and lets see what we can combine and improve together as a TEAM, instead of this pissing match you want to engage in Steven.


God Bless Steven and I hope you re-consider, especially after the two men talk.
It will be interesting to see their dialoge.

Heres to TEAM work which is way more productive then a pissing match....one I will not participate in anyway.

So I have sent Miles this reply from Dave, explained who I am and what I would like to see happen between the two of them and also told him about the Thunderbolts forum....I look forward to his reply.

[junglelord]

Of course I could be wrong

Dean, thanks for the support. Dave didn't read very far in, which is understandable, given my page count now. I do explain charge in a bundle of papers as the motion of real photons with real mass and size. But you already know that. I also explain the volume of mass density as an accelerating radius.

Dave is more interested in his own theory, which is also understandable. I doubt you will have much luck bringing us together. Sorry.

Miles

[StevenO]

Poor Steven O felt I had not read Miles, but I had, but I spent four hours last night just for kicks and giggles.
I have no problem digesting and understanding this model, or any other, so I must be brighter then you Steven.

Did'nt I tell you that Miles is clear and transparent, while APM is mostly fairy tales?

Must be a relief for you after all these years of trying to comprehend counterrotating antimaterial/material five dimensional loxodromes.....

[StevenO]

Dave Thomson of APM, is my friend, my teacher, and a very smart man.
I sent Dave the work on Miles and here is his reply.

As I figured, he is the ONE PERSON, who can ask Miles the tough questions....not me, not Steven.

That's because you needed beliefs to "comprehend" APM. It does'nt explain most of its assumptions, it asks you to believe in them without asking questions. Miles explains everything such that anybody can ask the tough questions. I do and you can too. No higher maths or funny language required.

<snip>
I told you they are not in opposition....and I was right.
I like both mens work and I still do.
I understand both and I want Steven to realize one does not discredit the other.
Not to me and ovbiously not to Dave Thomson.

Too bad that Dave Thomson did'nt read far enough to see that charge equals the mass of the photons in the charge field and that ES and EM fields are both driven by them.

I think Miles would not be so unforgiving of APM as you are Steven and Miles could ask Dave the tough questions.

Basicly, if we can hook them up, which I know I can, as Miles has spoken to Alton, then he would love to speak to Dave....and lets see what we can combine and improve together as a TEAM, instead of this pissing match you want to engage in Steven.

It's not a pissing match, just the testing of a theory. You have never replied with explanations. If we don't accept black holes from the mainstream without proof here in EU, why should we believe in invisible five dimensional loxodromes without proof?

[junglelord]

I would rather concentrate on Miles work in this thread at this point.
Thanks for asking.