Miles Mathis

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

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
Corpuscles
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by Corpuscles » Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:07 pm

StevenO wrote:
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.

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?

BRAVO! StevenO

YOU....Nailed it!

Dave Thomson (perhaps even JL?) would be well served to observe/copy Miles "style" of anticipation objections and a more thorough simple prose explaination of the 'WHY IT MUST BE SO' question rather than ask the reader to accept a premise and follow pure complicated math.

Even a Klutz like me can read Mathis enough to be able to form an opinion even to disagree at times. ( Note I do believe there MUST BE a fundamental aether that is not MM's background photon field) but APM just does not submit itself to scrutiny..... nor thoroughly explain concepts it picks up from the contemporary "zoo" . Even the GForce web section about reader objections ....is dismissive rather than informative.

I admire both you blokes constant banter, and know you give (perhaps without realising it?) many around the world... an interesting method of self education.

There is a comon theme though ....and if Miles Mathis could drop his expanding earth rubbish! :o ... and get a fresh track to start with the fundamental "in the beginning" question... then he may go close to cracking the big UTOE

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

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by junglelord » Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:32 pm

You say he is simple to understand then make a statement about losing expansion.
:?
Without an expansion, his whole theory falls apart.
It is based on expansion, that is gravity, acceleration of radius.
No force field, just a force, same as you get in a fast car.
I was always taught that acceleration gives the "illusion" of gravity, if he is right its no illusion!
If he is wrong, then we are back to square one.
What could he be wrong about?
He is against a dipole electron.
In this way, the Sun is both anode and cathode, but only as regards the charge field. Due only to pressure differences, it attracts the charge field at its poles and emits the charge field everywhere else. You can now see this with your own eyes by watching a NASA film called The 3D Sun.† At minute 19:43 you will see the heaviest emission near the Solar equator and the lightest at the poles. If the Sun were spinning faster, this effect would be increased.

On a smaller scale, this also applies to the Earth. The Earth's spin makes it both anode and cathode to the charge field. It recycles the charge field, and the charge field drives the E/M field. This explains the genesis of the Earth's E/M field without postulating dynamos in the Earth. This also explains why the Earth, like all macro-bodies, often seems to be an infinite well of negative charge. Neither the standard model nor the electrical/plasma model can explain why the Earth should act like an infinite well of negative charge. For example, it absorbs a huge amount of mainly positive cosmic rays each year for billions of years with no drain. My unified field theory explains it by re-defining charge. The Earth recycles both protons and electrons, so both forms of charge are continuously renewed. There is no dipole, so the amount of one charge does not deplete the potential of the other. In fact, there is no potential at all, except the real pressure difference in the charge field, and the apparent electrical difference caused by the size differential between the electron and proton. And the magnetic field is not caused by potential either. It is caused by spin. In the magnetic field, quanta aren't turned by potential differences, they are turned by angular momentum.

This re-definition of the charge field and thereby the electromagnetic field resolves all at once the Velikovsky affair and the role of E/M in celestial mechanics. In fact, it solves all the problems of celestial mechanics, all the way back to Halley and Laplace.
Two people, Meyl and Thomson have shown how we get a dipole electron, dual charges.
Concerning the fact he may be wrong, then APM would be right.
It is simple lack of electrostatics as a fundamental field.

If he is right, and there is no dipole, then I grant, APM is wrong.

I am asking Miles to tutor me a bit.
I have a lot of reading to do and I was amazed to see he is into the thermonuclear sun model.
As well as it being both anode and cathode electric sun.
So I sent him a question on the coronal temperature and his model.

Here is his work on the Magnetosphere and his dual sun model.
It has been found that the Solar Wind works differently with positive ions and negative ions.* Protons are accelerated by the Wind in an even manner, passing the Earth in numbers and at velocities that can be predicted from various models by the temperature of the corona. But electrons behave in an unpredictable manner, not being accelerated at the proper velocity. They are moving too slowly. They have also been found to be diverted by magnetic field lines, while the protons were not.

This phenomenon, though long known, has never been explained. The standard model cannot explain it because the dipole field of electromagnetism is supposed to be balanced. That is to say, the proton is not given more charge than the electron, or vice versa. The electron attracts the proton just as much as the proton attracts the electron. Given a field of potential like this, there is no way to explain the different behavior of negative charge and positive charge. According to the standard model, the solar system is nearly neutral as a whole, so ions are accelerated due to very limited field or no fields. In other words, they are not being accelerated by some long-range potential between the Sun and outerspace, they are being accelerated by short-range potential differences in the outer layers of the Sun, or are being ejected directly from the interior as thermonuclear by-products. Other explanations are also advanced. But none can explain the data. If the ions are accelerated by charge, then the electrons should be going in opposite directions to the protons. If they are accelerated by mass, the electrons should be accelerated more, not less. The proton has more inertia, so it should resist acceleration better. Likewise if ions are ejected from the solar interior: electrons should be ejected at greater velocities, since they are smaller. Or, if they are both ejected near c, and are nearly equivalent due to the limit at c, then they should be nearly equal. In no case should the electron be accelerated less, or be more easily diverted.

But the plasma or electrical sun model can also not explain it. The only prominent competing theory of solar energy to attract any attention in the past half-decade has been the electrical model, which came (in twisted channels) from Velikovsky and plasma research. According to this theory, the Sun is a giant anode being fed energy from cathodes in the rest of the galaxy. But if this is so, then only the protons should be accelerated out from the Sun. The electrons should either never be ejected, or they should loop back immediately. This theory is also contradictory in the way it treats the Earth and the Solar Wind. According to Ralph Juergens (following Tesla), the Earth acts like a well of negative charge. As such, it should repel negative ions in the Solar Wind. Instead, we find that the Earth, via its magnetosphere, excludes both negative and positive ions. The E/M field, which is supposed to be field of potential in both the standard and plasma models, is not acting like a field of potential.

Both models use plasma to explain Solar Wind exclusion, but neither model is consistent. Let's look at how Wikipedia uses plasma to explain Solar Wind exclusion. On the page entitled “Magnetosphere”, we are told of the Solar Wind that:

Its composition resembles that of the Sun—about 95% of the ions are protons, about 4% helium nuclei, with 1% of heavier matter... and enough electrons to keep charge neutrality.

See a problem there? You cannot maintain charge neutrality with 99% positive charge. That leaves less than 1% negative charge, and <1% cannot balance >99%. The electron and proton have equivalent charges, by the first postulate of modern theory. Then we are told,

Physical reasons make it difficult for solar wind plasma with its embedded [interplanetary magnetic field] to mix with terrestrial plasma whose magnetic field has a different source. The two plasmas end up separated by a boundary, the magnetopause, and the Earth's plasma is confined to a cavity inside the flowing solar wind, the magnetosphere.

“Physical reasons.” I will have to remember that next time someone asks me a question about mechanics. “Physical reasons,” I will say. I am not questioning that plasmas may create these boundaries, I am pointing out that we require a mechanical explanation for it. An existential explanation will not do. “Because plasmas work like that” is not a mechanical explanation.

Since neither the standard model nor the plasma model has given us a satisfactory explanation for the electromagnetic action of the Solar Wind, I will offer a third model here, one that is far simpler and far more comprehensive.

In a series of other papers, I have shown that the Solar System is neither wholly gravitational, as the standard model would have it, nor mainly electrical, as the plasma model would have it. Like all else in the universe, the Sun and its environs are driven by the unified field. I have shown that Newton's main gravitational equation is really a simple unified field equation, and that it has contained the charge field from the beginning. I will now show how this explains various electrical anomalies in the Solar Wind and in the electrical fields of Solar System bodies.

The Sun is neither a classical anode nor a simple thermonuclear machine. Nor is it, at the foundational level, a direct outcome of plasma physics. Plasma physics, like all other physics, is underpinned by the unified field. Instead, the Sun is both a huge fusion reactor and a huge recycler of the charge field. In fact, it requires this recycling of the charge field in order to feed the fusion process.

http://milesmathis.com/pause.html
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

Post by junglelord » Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:52 pm

According to Miles and I have had good synesthesia for it, as it has come to me a long time ago, long before APM, which makes sense to me, but give me no synesthesia like Fullers work does and the Scalar Theory did. I figured this out back when I was 21 in electron school, everything is stacked spin, not energy.
A huge synesthesia my teacher said was not right....he said while everything spins, it is energy which matters....so I kinda did not know what to do with that back then. What does energy mean for a mental picture?
Spin I can see in my mind as well around me....energy is a combination of several levels, not elemental.
But I was right, spherical scalar vortexs make a lot of sense to me. The only fundamental sense.
Everything is photons and stacked spin with expansive acceleration (gravity).
http://milesmathis.com/meson.html

Then I had it figured out years ago, many years ago, I simply had no proof, we are frozen light, everything is stacked spin. I got that at 21.

Gravity is acceleration, I figured that out when I was 18, or at least I figured it made a lot of sense, since acceleration made the illusion of gravity in the first place.

LOL how elegant.
Thanks Miles.
8-)
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

Corpuscles
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by Corpuscles » Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:04 pm

JL

Simply. Are you saying you agree :shock: ...with his expansion theory?

I have re read those articles and it STILL seems to me Miles Mathis is saying real tangile increase in size... radius.

Maybe I am really TOTALLY missing it?

StevenO ,bless him, simply parrots Mathis ...but can't explain it to me in other terms.

Please if you agree... please try to explain it.


Miles Mathis
http://milesmathis.com/third.html
You will say, “Yes, that explains a decreasing distance between spheres, but it does not explain gravity in the real world, since we do not see spheres expanding.”
To answer that, let us imagine that our two spheres are expanding at the same rate. By that I mean that if sphere A is initially half the size of sphere B, then it remains half the size as the two expand. No matter how big they get, sphere A is always half the size of sphere B. Is it possible to imagine that? Of course. It is quite simple. It gives us small problems when we start thinking about mass and density, but structural spheres give us no trouble at all. It is no problem, mathematically, to postulate such expansions.
Notice that if we now make sphere A aware of itself and its surroundings, like a baby being born, it will have no way of knowing from its incoming data that it is getting bigger. It will assume that it is staying the same size, and that its companion sphere is staying the same size; and if it does so, then it will assume that there must be some force of attraction between it and the companion sphere. For this would be the easiest way of explaining why they were coming together. If it were a very precocious baby sphere, it might even invoke Occam’s razor to explain gravity as a force. But it would be wrong.

Not only gravity, but also inertia, is explained by the Third Wave. You can see that expanding spheres would resist any forces from any direction, since no matter which way you apply a force, the sphere is already moving against your force. This is why gravitational mass and inertial mass are always equal. Gravity and inertia are two names for the same motion. The expansion of the sphere causes both gravity and inertia.
Is it something to do with the bolded section???? :cry:




(Thats first, as it will take me more time to respond to clarify any comment on the dipole aspect)

Thanks Mate
Last edited by Corpuscles on Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by junglelord » Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:13 pm

I tried to teach myself quantum physics and stellar physics when I was a teen.
I figured out by the time I was 18 certain mantras of the trade....one being and its a big one,
Acceleration gives the Illusion of Gravity!
I reasoned, since no one knew what gravity was, what if it WAS acceleration?
I had a immediate mental picture of all things expanding, creating a imposed force with no field.
In Miles work there is only one field....the photon field.
Gravity is acceralation from expansion.

It works exactly like any acceleration, and its no illusion.

By the time I was 21 and figured in electronic school that no one was coming clean, but being brainwashed, I lost faith in my own intellect.

However for years in the Born Again Church, I told everyone, we are frozen light, acceleration gave the illusion of gravity, and black holes existed....well two out of three aint bad.
:lol:
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: new math by Miles Mathis

Post by tayga » Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:04 am

StevenO wrote: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.
Thanks. I was being slow; I hadn't thought of numerical density. I'll work with that and move on.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

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

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by StevenO » Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:27 am

Corpuscles wrote:JL

Simply. Are you saying you agree :shock: ...with his expansion theory?

I have re read those articles and it STILL seems to me Miles Mathis is saying real tangile increase in size... radius.

Maybe I am really TOTALLY missing it?
You consider Newton's "omnidirectional invisible force at a distance" or Einstein's "curved space" explanations OK, but Miles' theory "expanding matter" ludicrous? I think all three have their troubles regarding explanation.

In expansion theory all matter is moving outward. So, you are not attracted to the earth through an invisible force, the earth pushes you up because of its outward motion. The apparent attraction of gravity only comes into play when you introduce time differentials. It is a relativistic effect. E.g. during the eight minutes a photon travels from the sun to the earth, the earth moves outward by 1200 kilometers, so the photon is observed at a different location than one would expect when drawing a straight line.

What drives the expansion is not suggested by Miles, since he does not like to be mysterious. He just assigns the acceleration of gravity to the body and not the field (like Newton and Einstein). Again, a matter of relativity, like one can assign missing energies to virtual particles popping out of the vacuum.
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.

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by seasmith » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:55 am

What drives the expansion is not suggested by Miles, since he does not like to be mysterious. He just assigns the acceleration of gravity to the body and not the field (like Newton and Einstein). Again, a matter of relativity, like one can assign missing energies to virtual particles popping out of the vacuum.

He doesn't, but it is implied in his "stacking" of photon spins and scaling .

The composite spins of the light photons engender Space in their aetheric cycle.
Hence expansion.

http://milesmathis.com/ether.html

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... &start=210

Corpuscles
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by Corpuscles » Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:17 pm

StevenO wrote:
Corpuscles wrote:JL

Simply. Are you saying you agree :shock: ...with his expansion theory?

I have re read those articles and it STILL seems to me Miles Mathis is saying real tangile increase in size... radius.

Maybe I am really TOTALLY missing it?
You consider Newton's "omnidirectional invisible force at a distance" or Einstein's "curved space" explanations OK, but Miles' theory "expanding matter" ludicrous? I think all three have their troubles regarding explanation.

In expansion theory all matter is moving outward. So, you are not attracted to the earth through an invisible force, the earth pushes you up because of its outward motion. The apparent attraction of gravity only comes into play when you introduce time differentials. It is a relativistic effect. E.g. during the eight minutes a photon travels from the sun to the earth, the earth moves outward by 1200 kilometers, so the photon is observed at a different location than one would expect when drawing a straight line.

What drives the expansion is not suggested by Miles, since he does not like to be mysterious. He just assigns the acceleration of gravity to the body and not the field (like Newton and Einstein). Again, a matter of relativity, like one can assign missing energies to virtual particles popping out of the vacuum.

Are you just having fun with teasing my naivity? :D


AS an EE you would be familiar with omidirectional invisible forces via magnets and electricity. Newton didn't exactly know what caused it, perhaps we really don't understand magnetism or electricity either.
Einsteins curved space is the very reason I seek someone like Mathis to come up with a more plausible explaination of gravity.


So, in this "expansion" somehow the earth preserves relative features such as the Himilaya's...so the matter on the external crust expands quicker than the mantle and core?
The humple steel tape measure must expand at the same rate? HOW does the tape measure know whether it is on top of Everest or 4 miles deep in a mine? the expansion must be different to preserve the "appearance to the eye" of "relative"dimensions?

In the 8.3 minutes the earth expands 1200km presumably the Sun also expands considerably more to preserve it's relative size, and not only that the plasma filled space in between expands at a correspnding rate to preserve the "percieved" AU distance? So this imaginary expansion does not care what the nature of the matter is?

Tell me, my guitar strings appear to give me the same note, frequency & tone & timbre today as it did yesterday???

But it must be expanding too > Thicker strings & longer strings ought register a different tone??? Did the magic Mathis fairys continually tighten up the tension keys to keep it in tune too????


Rubbish! and I am surprised someone so intelligent would even contemplate it!

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

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by StevenO » Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:03 pm

C., you are the one getting offensed feelings. I'm just trying to explain to the best of my knowledge.

What you seem to overlook is that in expansion theory gravity is exactly proportional to radius. A proton will also measure an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 on its surface, like the earth. All objects will remain exactly in the same proportions, guitar strings, electrons et.al.

Miles has a reasonable explanation for the mechanics of EM, which is that his charge field photon linear motion drives the electric field and photon spin motion drives the magnetic field: How magnetism works mechanically.
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
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by junglelord » Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:26 pm

I was right when I was 18, acceleration gives the illusion the gravity...so what if gravity is acceleration?
Then its no illusion.
Very simple, very simple.
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

cutecub00
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by cutecub00 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:03 am

I have read Mathis's papers correcting Calculus and Differentiation before, but I see now that he has a lot of good stuff on many aspects of physics.

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

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by junglelord » Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:13 am

I was speaking to Miles on Mass and thought I would share his concise answer
For me, mass is always separable into density and volume. Mass is not a dimension, it is DV. Volume is just the radius, and all radius has an acceleration. The acceleration of the radius is gravity, inertia, and materiality, all three. This is true both at the quantum level and the macro level. No, I don't know what causes this acceleration of all things, anymore than the standard model knows what causes curves or pulls. I just propose the real motion rather than the curves or pulls, 1)because the math is easier, 2)because the theory is greatly simplified.

The density part of mass I assign to the charge field. I do this simply because in Newton's equation, that is what the density is referring to. I don't know if matter has its own density, but in perfecting the current equations, it doesn't really matter. Our current variable for density doesn't stand for the density of matter, it stands for the density of the charge field. You see, mass is basically Newton's invention, and in his equations, the mass breaks down as I have broken it down. If we write HIS masses as densities and volumes, the densities are coming from the charge field. They are photon densities, not matter densities.

That is where all my theory is coming from. There is a lot of hidden information in classical theory (and in modern theory like Relativity and QM), and that is what I am trying to unbury. I am trying to use what we already have: to simplify it, clarify it, and extend it. That is where I believe the future of physics is. I want to have nothing to do with string theory, or anything like it. That is the wrong path.

Miles
Cheers, hope that helps summerize his theory and thoughts on the subject.
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
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by webolife » Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:42 pm

Nice synopsis, JL.
I haven't been able to follow everything folks are saying from Miles M's work, but if you change the vocabulary* slightly, and add instantaneous light action, that's Robert Archer Smith's "Punctual Theory" [written in the 1960-70's], and derivatively, my theory in a nutshell.
*I avoid the term "photon" or "photonic", as it usually conveys particularity.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

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

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by junglelord » Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:03 pm

Miles theory is instant light.
So your supported Web, your supported.
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

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests