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 altonhare » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:17 pm

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


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

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


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

Lloyd wrote:Slow expansion probably wouldn't bother me much


The quntity, how much, is irrelevant to evaluate the qualitative aspect. The quantity is just a matter of going out and measuring. The quantity of acceleration is common to all theories, the explanation is different. Expansion is his explanation. Again, expansion is only relative. If everything expands proportionately, then nothing really expanded. Additionally the creation of matter itself is contradictory.

By the way, his expanding model means that light from anywhere in the U that is ~1 AU away would produce an identical deflection of ~1.7?
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 Lloyd » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:43 pm

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

* Mathis says gravity is acceleration and the surface of every particle of matter is accelerating by expansion, but I agree with you; I think there has to be a location to compare our movement to, before we can claim to have movement. Also, since the acceleration would apply to the mass of objects, it would mean they have momentum etc. Maybe such effects would either prove or disprove this kind of expansion.
* I doubt if we can settle this matter beyond what we've already said, so I'd like to discuss either 1) alternative explanations of gravity without an attractive force, or 2) other findings by Mathis.
Last edited by Lloyd on Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:10 pm

The Moon Gives up a Secret, by Miles Mathis
http://milesmathis.com/moon.html
- the strength of the E/M field of the Earth at its surface is not sufficient to [a]ffect g until the third decimal point
- terrestrial scientists would assume that the Moon’s [E/M] field is proportionally weaker than the Earth’s, since the Moon is known to be almost non-magnetic, as a whole. This ignoring of the E/M field has been a grave error, however. An E/M field continues to exist even in the absence of the expression of its magnetic component, as we now know. Venus and Mars exclude the Solar Wind just as if they had powerful magnetospheres, even though they do not.
- the gravitational field doesn't actually change as the inverse square of the distance. Only Newton's equation changes as the inverse square, and Newton's equation is a compound equation, one that includes both the gravitional field and the foundational E/M field. The inverse square effect enters Newton's equation through the E/M part of it, not the gravitational part of it [at least for spheres].
- Gravity varies ONLY as the radius of the object, and no longer as the distance of separation.
- According to my theory, you cannot block the field of gravity, since it['s] just a real acceleration. You cannot block an acceleration. The E/M field should also be unblockable, for a different reason. You would try to block with some dense substance, like lead, but this lead will be emitting the field, too. In fact, lead would emit a denser field, giving you the opposite effect. Dropping ball bearings above a very thick sheet of lead would be likely to yield an acceleration measurably below 9.8 m/s^2, and I recommend experiments in this line.*
- The math above also implies that all celestial bodies, including exotics like black holes and neutron stars, have gravitational fields that vary as their radii vary. It suggests in the strongest possible way that the huge additional forces hypothesized for exotics are either wrong or are mainly a function of a super-strong E/M field, solar winds, or other as yet unknown interactions, interactions that have nothing to do with gravity per se. This means we must reconsider all our theories for exotics, and indeed for non-exotics. Our theory has existed with a very large hole in it and now we must re-calculate many things.
- December 2008: I have now discovered well-known proof for my predictions here. My number for the foundational E/M field of the Earth, .009545 m/s^2, is .1% of the total field, 9.8 m/s^2. In my paper on the Bohr magneton, I remind my reader that 80 years of experiments have shown a .1% error in the magneton. This is direct proof of the existence of the charge field at the macro-level, as I predict in this paper. I not only have found the field, I have found the right number for it.

* This suggests that, if the Earth ever had weaker gravity, it could only have been due to Earth having had a smaller radius. But I think it's possible that the E/M field could have differed in the past. Notice that Mathis doesn't agree with conventional definitions of "exotic" objects, like black holes, neutron stars etc.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby altonhare » Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:38 pm

Here I present an exchange between Mr. Mathis and myself regarding the Micelson Morley Interferometer. His analysis of the experiment is incorrect ([url2=http://milesmathis.com/mich.html]Mathis MM Interferometer[/url2]) because he assigns the two men on the plane (2 light pulses) equal velocities relative to the plane (apparatus) instead of equal velocities relative to the eye (aether). I have not been able to help him see his error and I believe he has lost patience, although he has generally been respectful and patient. I hope that viewers of this forum will be able to see his mistake upon reading his article and our exchange, and may help convince him of it. This would keep this mistake from detracting from Mr. Mathis' higher quality work, giving less excuses for people to dismiss him. He makes some statements which indicate he does not quite understand the aether hypothesis of the time, and we should help him with that.

Note, in these exchanges when I use the word "aether" unqualified it is meant to refer to a passive, stationary medium vis a vis Michelson et. al.

My words are in blue.

Miles' words are in navy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Mathis,

I have visualized, calculated, and otherwise evaluated your analysis of the MM setup. I do think you are mistaken on this particular and have made an error in your analysis.

Light speed is 1. Let us say the lab is moving to the right at .5. Let us say that the distance from the silvered mirror to either of the reflective mirrors is 2 unit distances. According to the aether the horizontal pulse will have to traverse 4 unit distances to get to its reflective mirror. However the vertical pulse will only have to traverse 2.309 {that's 2/sqrt(.75)}, again according to the aether. On the way back the horizontal pulse only has to traverse 1.5 unit distances to get to the silvered mirror, whereas the vertical pulse must again traverse 2.309.

5.5 != 4.619

You have to keep in mind that the pulse always travels the same speed wrt the underlying "grid" (aether). However the distance it must go on this grid varies because of how the interferometer moves.

I've done this over and over every which way. I've even draw it out on grid paper, redrawing the cross translated over .5 grid box lengths and the pulses moved 1 full grid box length over and over and watching the pulses travel. Each "unit time" each pulse must move exactly one box length on the grid. This means when it bounces off the mirror it only moves .866 box lengths toward the reflective mirror, although it still moves a full box length away from its previous location in the aether. The horizontal one moves a full box length relative to its previous location, but only .5 box lengths toward its respective reflective mirror.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Alton, Yes, your analysis of the diagram you are using is correct. But the diagram is not correct itself. The diagram you are drawing, in your head or on your paper, is not a correct representation of the situation.

You are using your own visualization instead of mine, so how can you say I am wrong? It is your visualization that is wrong, as I show in the paper. In the paper, I show why your diagram is wrong. Instead of plowing through the standard visualization over and over, look again at my correct visualization. Concentrate on my diagram of the two men in the airplane walking at right angles. That is a correct visualization. I have shown why the standard diagrams are wrong. Tell me why my new diagram is wrong.

You may also want to read my paper on the light clock, and my section on the Lorentz diagram in my long paper on SR. I hit the problem two more times, in slightly different language in those places, and that may jog something in your head where this M/M paper failed. It's tricky, I admit, but I stand by my correction.

Also, remember that I am not critiquing M/M in order to jettison SR. I believe in transforms, I just think the M/M experiment was improperly prepared and improperly diagrammed. The experiment could only find a null answer.

Miles

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your error is that the velocity of each man in the plane relative to the observer must be the same. This was by hypothesis, the aether stationary frame was "special" because light always propagated in it at the same speed, just like sound in a medium.

It is true that, according to Galileo and Newton, a uniformly translating frame may consider itself not to be moving. The aether physicists of the time, however, were positing that this classical law was broken. They were positing that a uniformly translating frame CAN consider itself to be moving with respect to the aether.

You are analyzing the problem without an aether, without a LCM. You are analyzing the situation as if light were bullets being fired from two perpendicular identical guns.

You are analyzing the same experiment with different coordinates. Of course the results of an experiment are independent of the coordinates used to analyze it. You have to perform (at least 2) *different* experiments. According to Michelson and Morley (and almost everyone else at the time), the difference between the lab moving through the aether at v and the motionless wrt the aether was not just a difference of coordinates. They were 2 physically distinct scenarios.

If there were, indeed, a passive and motionless underlying aether, then the experiment would have yielded a "fringe effect" and motion would no longer be considered "purely relative" as Galileo and Newton had proposed. These physicists were willing to overturn Newton on this because it was the only way they could conceive of light to propagate. This was the point of the experiment!

You are analyzing the experiment from the POV of someone who a priori assumes there is no such thing as "absolute motion". Of course if you posit there is no absolute motion, there would be no point in doing the experiment! The point is, these people thought there may indeed be "absolute motion" and the MM interferometer was implemented to test this idea.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Mathis,

Do not misunderstand me. We are both "correct", it's just that your analysis does not presuppose a stationary frame in which light always propagate with a certain velocity.

The mistake physics has made since then, however, is that despite the results of the experiment the concept of an underlying "grid" has not been foregone. The aether is still retained, pulses of light are still imagined to traverse these hypothetical "hypotenuses" between comoving source and receiver. The status quo has been to, instead of rejecting the aether, embracing mathematical abstractions that keep all the numbers coming out right. So, to save the diagonal aether trajectory there must be some amount of length contraction and time dilation as quantified by the Lorentz xformations.

You correctly point out that these xformations are derived by analyzing imaginary itineraries of light. I agree. Again they come from insisting upon the idea of an aether against all evidence, and against the very concept of relative motion itself! So we have, today, overly abstract mathematics because we are trying to force Nature to fit into our idea of an aether. The math is being contorted around a superfluous and unobservable hypothesis.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's stick to your first paragraph. You say that I hypothesize that each man in the plane must have the same velocity relative to the observer. But I don't. My given is that the men have equal velocities relative to eachother and to the plane. Then I seek the velocities relative to the observer. I actually find that the men don't have equal velocities relative to the eye. I say that in plain language. I only find that they must return to home at the same time. Completely different. And my finding is not found by making any hypothesis, it is found by analyzing the logic and kinematics. I don't get the feeling you are actually reading my words, you are pre-judging the sentences based on something else, I don't know what.

The fact is, there is no way to create a fringe effect, except by making false assumptions or by creating bad diagrams.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The assumption of the time was that the velocities of the men were equal with respect to the eye because the "eye" was actually a medium. Light was considered to be exactly like sound. If you perform the Michelson-Morley experiment with sound you will detect a "fringe effect", i.e. if you rotate such an apparatus (with tuning forks or some other sound apparatus) on a moving train you will detect "sound speed anisotropy".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"My given is that the men have equal velocities relative to eachother and to the plane."

And this is exactly the problem. The plane is the apparatus. You are declaring the light pulse velocities to be equal with respect to the apparatus. But that was not consistent with the aether hypothesis of the time. The aether hypothesis of the 18th century stated that the light pulse velocities were equal with respect to the "eye" (stationary aether).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are arguing in circles. In the first email, you say that my problem is that I assume the men have equal velocities relative to the ether. In the next email you say that my problem is that I assume they don't, but that I should because that is what they thought in the 19th century. I can find no futher reply to that sort of polemic.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reread my 1st e mail, I did not state your specific problem in the 1st e mail.

However the 1st sentence of my 2nd e mail is:

Your error is that the velocity of each man in the plane relative to the observer must be the same.

And in my 3rd e mail:

The assumption of the time was that the velocities of the men were equal with respect to the eye because the "eye" was actually a medium.

And my 4th and most recent e mail, quoting you and giving my response:

"My given is that the men have equal velocities relative to eachother and to the plane."

And this is exactly the problem. The plane is the apparatus. You are declaring the light pulse velocities to be equal with respect to the apparatus. But that was not consistent with the aether hypothesis of the time. The aether hypothesis of the 18th century stated that the light pulse velocities were equal with respect to the "eye" (stationary aether).


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry. I suppose I misread your second email. That sentence is ambiguous. My reading of it is valid, but it is clearly not the one you intended. I read it to mean that my error was that (in my explanation) the velocity of each man relative to the observer must be the same.

At any rate, all motion must be relative to a background, either in classical theory or relative theory. Relativity just makes that background local always. If you use a non-local background, you need a transform. So in this problem you must choose either the eye or the plane as the background. You say that the assumption in the 19th c. was that we choose the eye. The men are defined as equal from the start, relative to the ether. And my point in the various papers is that that is a stupid assumption from the beginning, one that leads to stupid diagrams. It is a stupid assumption even if you believe in the ether and don't believe in relativity. In my airplane example, I have an ether defined by the eye, and I don't use relativity to explain anything. But I still show, by simple logic, that the men must return to the same point at the same time, and be seen to do so from the eye. Neither classical mechanics nor relativists should expect a fringe.

The assumption that the velocities are equal relative to the eye leads to absurd local velocities (relative to the plane), ones that would conflict with commonsense data in the plane. That is why the boats analogy is so twisted. THe assumption is also absurd because it is immediately contradictory. It assumes the men have the same velocity relative to the ether, but that they don't. They do, in order to match a nebulous theory of propagation, but then they don't, in order to show a fringe. You see, if they have the same velocity relative to the ether, then they can't show a fringe. It is assumed that the directional difference will create a fringe, but if it does, then the absolute velocity relative to any point in the ether can't be the same. Since velocity is a vector, you can't define the velocity as equal, and then find that it is unequal. If you find that it is unequal, then your definition or assumption must have been wrong.


The real problem here is not the use of an ether, or no ether, since either with or without an ether there should be no fringe effect. The problem, as you point out, is that the 19th c. theorists assumed that light traveled like a sound wave, as a field wave. Contemporary physicists who accept relativity still believe that, since they can't figure out how else light can show a wave. But since light isn't a field wave, it should never have been expected to show a fringe. The M/M experiment was really a test of the field wave theory, not of the ether. I have shown that you can still do mechanics with or without an ether. You can do relativity with or without an ether. M/M was no proof or disproof of an ether, since you can't disprove an ether. An ether is a mathematical convenience, one you can take or leave. But M/M was a clear disproof of the field wave model of light, a disproof that contemporary physicists still haven't penetrated. That was the point of that paper and all my papers on M/M.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" But I still show, by simple logic, that the men must return to the same point at the same time, and be seen to do so from the eye."

This is only true if the men do not have a constant velocity relative to the aether/eye, contrahyp.

"The assumption that the velocities are equal relative to the eye leads to absurd local velocities (relative to the plane), ones that would conflict with commonsense data in the plane."
If the data on the plane indicate the two men are traveling equal velocities then that's what they're doing. If the data on the plane indicate the two men are traveling unequal velocities, that is what they're doing. Neither set of data is "absurd" or more/less "commonsense". It is measured one way or the other. Or, in a thought experiment, it is stated as one way or the other. Michelson et. al, in their thought experiment, considered the men to not be moving at the same velocity relative to the plane, but rather at the same velocity relative to the eye/aether. This is consistent with the behavior of sound.
"THe assumption is also absurd because it is immediately contradictory. It assumes the men have the same velocity relative to the ether, but that they don't."

Incorrect. They have the same velocity relative to the aether but different velocities relative to the plane and each other.

"You see, if they have the same velocity relative to the ether, then they can't show a fringe."
Again, incorrect. Each light pulse travels a different distance but identical velocity through the aether. Each pulse sees itself traveling at c. But each one watches its destination mirror get dragged away at a different rate.
"The real problem here is not the use of an ether, or no ether, since either with or without an ether there should be no fringe effect. The problem, as you point out, is that the 19th c. theorists assumed that light traveled like a sound wave, as a field wave."

I agree completely, and I think you make excellent points about light "being itself" (for lack of a better way to summarize everything you've said". i.e. it's not a motion of something else, it is a motion of itself.

I also agree that the luminiferous aether was poorly conceived from the beginning. It went against centuries of empirical and theoretical ideas from Galileo to Newton to Mach. It attempted to overturn the principle that all motion is only relative. However that doesn't make their idea "impossible". There was no way to know, as a physicist (i.e. barring philosophical and metaphysical arguments) that light wasn't an undulation/wave of some fluid.

As you correctly point out, the experiment debunked the notion that light was some kind of "field wave". It debunked the concept that atoms sent out pulses of light like a buoy in the ocean sends out ripples, haphazardly and indiscriminately. An atom in the silvered mirror does not pulse and send out a little ripple that must wade through a medium. An atom in the SM pulses and sends a signal straight to an atom in the other mirror. It does not see a medium, there is no "extra distance" through the aether. The pulse traverses the length of the arm and back, period. Objectively that's all we have before us, a distance from the silvered mirror to the other mirror.

As you cogently point out, modern physicists have incongruously retained the debunked "field wave" model of light! Instead of developing a different model:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

they retained this model, and the subsequent imaginary trajectories of light trough the aether (pythagorean trajectory in the perpendicular arm, (L/c+v)+(L/c-v) trajectory in the parallel arm). In retaining these trajectories they had to alter L to bring their debunked model into line with experiment, so in comes gamma.

Their conclusion: our model of light wasn't wrong, we just didn't account for the velocity-dependent contraction we just now made up a posteriori.

So I agree with the conclusions you draw, and I understand your point, but your presentation wrt the field wave theory of the pre-interferometer era is not fair to these theorists. As much as we may object to their "field wave" hypothesis there was no empirical reason for them to a priori reject it outright (although I'd argue there was reason for heavy doubt). The MM experiment was a definitive empirical refutation of any concept of absolute motion. It laid this idea to rest for good, no longer should there be any debates that there is such a thing as absolute motion or absolute rest, the MM experiment turned a debate that waxed a bit too philosophical for there to be a broad scientific consensus on into an unambiguous empirical result. For that Michelson/Morley do indeed deserve some credit, your presentation does not analyze the experiment in a fair or accurate scientific context. Their hypothesis was not mathematically contradictory (it was mostly opposed, by any that did oppose it, on philosophical and metaphysical grounds).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The data on the plane could not indicate they were traveling unequal velocities, given this problem. That is my point. The experiment needs to address that fact, and it can't. It just buries it under a bad diagram. If the velocities are equal from the eye, they can't be equal in the plane. But they must be equal in the plane, so they can't be equal from the eye. The 19th c. physicists thought, "If they can't be equal from the eye, there must be a fringe effect." But that was a false assumption, since, even though the velocities are unequal from the eye, the final position is equal, from both eye and plane. Since that is how the interferometer was set up, it couldn't find a fringe effect even with unequal velocities measured from the eye.

I am sure we must both be tired of saying the same things over and over. I am not "incorrect" about anything here. I appear to be stating things in a way you don't approve of, or don't agree with, or don't understand, but that is a different matter. At any rate, I would prefer to move on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The data on the plane could not indicate they were traveling unequal velocities, given this problem. That is my point. The experiment needs to address that fact, and it can't."

This is simply untrue. If the velocities of the men are equal with respect to the eye they are unequal with respect to the plane. This is simply an irrefutable kinematic fact. There is nothing contradictory or impossible going on in such a thought experiment. This is precisely what the experiment was trying to determine, if the velocities were constant with respect to the apparatus (plane) or with respect to a hypothetical eye (aether).


"The 19th c. physicists thought, "If they can't be equal from the eye, there must be a fringe effect." "

No, the 19th c. physicists thought the OPPOSITE. If the velocities ARE equal from the eye, there must be a fringe effect. Since there was no fringe effect, the conclusion is that the velocity with respect to the hypothetical eye is not constant. In effect, the plane behaves as if the eye were not there at all, and the conclusion was by many that there was indeed no aether there at all.

Actually to be thorough there is the 3rd route, which physics has unfortunatly decided to go, and that is in retaining the aether and stating the the velocity is constant wrt the eye AND wrt the plane, quite a magic trick that modern physics has pulled off.

"I am sure we must both be tired of saying the same things over and over. I am not "incorrect" about anything here."

You have made 2 incorrect statements in this past e mail. You have contradicted a basic fact of kinematics and you have stated that the postulate of Michelson et. al was the opposite of what it actually was.

It is not a matter of my inability to understand or my personal preference for your mode of communication. You are in error and I am striving to help you see it. Had I not such high respect for much of your work and your thinking in general I would not take such effort.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, I disagree: it is your inability to understand me, as you make clear again here. You twist everything I say to fit your own understanding, and fail to see that I am seeing things here that you are not. But I am finished. I don't have time to trade infinite emails with everyone who writes me.
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: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:02 pm

* Hi Altonhare. To me the subject of the aether is interesting, because it seems that there must be an aether that transmits light waves at least. But the subject of possible errors in the Michelson-Morley experiment and your discussions of it aren't interesting so far. It might become slightly interesting if you were to post a clear diagram or a link to one or to an animation or something.
* E.g., here's an animation that says the MM experiment was wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iYFWBYzxAY. And it has a link to an interesting website: http://www.physics-edu.org. I mean it looks interesting without having yet perused it much. The video didn't really get into the MM experiment, but maybe the website will.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby altonhare » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:28 pm

Lloyd,

There was nothing "wrong" with the MM interferometer. It was a perfectly reasonable way to test for a passive, stationary light carrying medium.

I recommend you execute the experiment on graph paper and convince yourself that there will indeed be a "fringe effect" if you insist that the light pulses always traverse one full grid square in each successive drawing (frame, unit time, etc.)

Mr. Mathis has made the mistake of insisting the light pulses traverse 1 grid square away from their source (the apparatus), without regard to how far this is according to the underlying grid/aether. This is correct from a modern standpoint but it is not a correct representation of the stationary aether hypothesis.

I agree that a physical entity must be responsible for light. In this sense I agree with an "aether", but not any kind of aether that has been prior considered. For illustrations/animations that you requested:

[url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM]Light[/url2]

[url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE]The H Atom[/url2]

[url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8]Electromagnetism[/url2]

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

[url2=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs]Gravity 2[/url2]
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: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby altonhare » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:35 pm

I don't know why the url2 function isn't working, nor why I can't seem to edit my previous post. But here they are again Lloyd:

Light:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

The H atom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

Electromagnetism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

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

Gravity 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs
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: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby junglelord » Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:20 pm

Aether is NOT stationary, thats the first problem.
:?
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: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby kevin » Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:19 am

altonhare,
That poor mathis bloke must have needed a long rest after encountering yourself?
The aether is flowing in all directions at once, it circulates about any created field, and each field interferes with every other field, it's all by field, biefeld-Brown.
The planet is not moving, it is switching from point to point, every single holographic pixel empowered by the available aether.

kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby StevenO » Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:45 am

What we call "ether" or "vacuum" is just photons. They are both the material and the yardsticks of the space surrounding us, that is why one can draw up theories with or without an aether. Miles argues that from that respect Tesla and Einstein Were Both Right.
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: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby StevenO » Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:03 am

altonhare wrote:You have to keep in mind that the pulse always travels the same speed wrt the underlying "grid" (aether). However the distance it must go on this grid varies because of how the interferometer moves.

You are completely confusing me here Alton. Was'nt the MM experiment setup to determine whether the aether was stationary or not? Miles shows that the experiment is poorly setup since one cannot logically assume a moving background in an experiment, so it was flawed from the start.

Would you have a diagram or such, so we can better understand your explanation vs. Miles'?
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: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby junglelord » Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:50 am

The aether is not photons.....it is a RMF.
It is the force b/t magnets.
It has a quantum spin of two...
It is NOT stationary.

Man you guys are SLOW....

If the aether was a photon field, then how would superluminal speed be possible?

Gravity wave and Coulomb wave speed and gravity wave force (2003): At the time of this prediction, most physicists and astronomers believed that gravity waves and Coulomb waves should always travel at the speed of light. They also concurred that the force exerted by such waves should scale in proportion to the field gradient.


Prediction No. 12 (2003): Subquantum kinetics predicts that an electron shock discharge should produce coinciding electric and gravity potential waves that travel faster than the speed of light and that the speed of these superluminal waves at any given point in time should depend on the electric potential gradient of the discharge (LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics, p. 130). This is predicted to be due to the movement of the ether wind created by the shocks, the velocity of the pulses being increased by the additional forward velocity of the ether wind reference frame relative to which they propagate. Furthermore subquantum kinetics also predicts that the gravitational force exerted by such shock waves should increase as the pulse's electric potential gradient increases.



Verification (2005 - 2006): LaViolette worked with research scientist Guy Obolensky to test this prediction with respect to the speed of electric potential waves. Earlier Obolensky had reported that he had measured the speed of electric shock fronts (Coulomb waves) propagating away from a Dome antenna and found that they traveled at a superluminal speed. Based on prediction 12, LaViolette theorized that since the shock front expanded radially outward from its emitting dome antenna, its electric field gradient should decrease inversely with increasing distance from the dome and that the superluminal speed of these shocks should correspondingly decrease inversely with distance from the dome. This prediction was confirmed. They made measurements of the time of flight of the shock pulse to six locations of progressively greater distance from the dome and found that the excess velocity of the shock (v - c) declined inversely with distance just as had been predicted. This experiment is summarized in chapter 6 of the book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion by Paul LaViolette. It should be mentioned that Tesla also reported that the speed of his pulses began at a near infinite speed at the dome of his antenna and progressively declined toward c as they traveled further away.

Verification (2008): The prediction with respect to the force exerted by the gravity potential component of such waves was verified qualitatively. Paul LaViolette contacted Dr. Eugene Podkletnov and inquired about the performance of his gravity impulse beam generator. Previously Drs. Podkletnov and Modanese had reported in a published paper that the impulse beam was able to deflect a test mass up to 14 centimeters when 2 million volts were discharged through the generator's superconducting cathode disc (Podkletnov and Modanese, 2002). Podkletnov had subsequently told LaViolette that the beam was able to punch 4 inch holes through concrete blocks when 10 million volt pulses were discharged through the disk. In January 2008, LaViolette asked Podkletnov if his team used a different electric pulse generator to produce the gravity pulses that punched holes through concrete blocks as compared with the ones that produced the 14 centimeter pendulum deflections and whether the former used a different Marx capacitor bank that was able to create a pulse with a steeper gradient. Dr. Podkletnov concurred that was indeed the case, the concrete smashing pulses were created with an electric discharge that had a much more rapid voltage rise-time.

Verification (2008): The prediction with respect to the superluminal speed of gravity potential component of such waves was verified qualitatively. Previously, Dr. Podkletnov had told LaViolette that he and Dr. Modanese had measured the speed of the pulses to be between 63 and 64 times the speed of light. In January of 2008, LaViolette asked Podkletnov whether the concrete smashing pulses produced by the steeper electric field gradients traveled much faster than the pendulum deflecting pulses. Podkletnov concurred and said that they had determined that these stronger pulses traveled at least several thousand times the speed of light.
http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Predict2.html


The only way to account for Tesla's longitudinal shock front, is with a RMF of aether.
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: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby altonhare » Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:54 am

StevenO wrote:What we call "ether" or "vacuum" is just photons. They are both the material and the yardsticks of the space surrounding us, that is why one can draw up theories with or without an aether. Miles argues that from that respect Tesla and Einstein Were Both Right.


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

I agree with Mr. Mathis in his assessment of "Einstein vs. Tesla". Viewing it as E vs. T is a gigantic oversimplification. Unfortunately people tend to oversimplify issues and render them black and white, thus leading to ignorant dogmatism. 90% of this crap is political.

StevenO wrote:You are completely confusing me here Alton. Was'nt the MM experiment setup to determine whether the aether was stationary or not? Miles shows that the experiment is poorly setup since one cannot logically assume a moving background in an experiment, so it was flawed from the start.


Yes, that was the purpose of the experiment. Mr. Mathis is incorrect in stating that the experiment was poorly set up. It can be (and has been) analyzed mathematically by keeping the aether background stationary and allowing the interferometer to move through it at v. Then, if one additionally insists that light pulses move through the aether background at c relative to this background, you woud expect a "fringe effect".

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


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

Miles Mathis wrote:The men walk at the same speed relative to the cabin. v1' = v2'.


Miles Mathis wrote:
v’ = velocity of man (2) relative to cabin
v = velocity of cabin relative to observer, measured by the cabin, not by the observer.
the sum v + v’ expresses a velocity (of man 2) relative to the observer

Man 1 also has a velocity v’ relative to the cabin. But v is perpendicular to v’. This gives man 1 a resultant velocity relative to the observer as
w = (v’2 + v2) 1/2


Mr. Mathis' "observer" is the eyeball in the diagram, and is the component analogous to the aether. The stationary aether hypothesis was that each man's velocity would be the same relative to the aether. Yet here Mathis assigns man 2 the velocity v+v' and man 1 the velocity (v’2 + v2) 1/2. This is his error.
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: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby altonhare » Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:03 pm

Yet here Mathis assigns man 2 the velocity v+v' and man 1 the velocity (v’2 + v2) 1/2. This is his error.
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: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby StevenO » Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:11 pm

junglelord wrote:The aether is not photons.....it is a RMF.
It is the force b/t magnets.
It has a quantum spin of two...
It is NOT stationary.

Man you guys are SLOW....

If the aether was a photon field, then how would superluminal speed be possible?
<snip>
The only way to account for Tesla's longitudinal shock front, is with a RMF of aether.

Nonsense, these APM guys have no idea what a photon is and how they relate to other particles. The base photon field fuels the force between magnets as well as electrical fields. Quantum constants is just hocuspocus like the mainstream quantum stuff. They better start reading Miles and maybe a little RST and learn some comparative thinking. As Popper said: "Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve".

Please show me a scientifically reviewed proof of superliminal speeds, since that could only be observed as pure random events as Larson's RST theory shows.
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

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests