Miles Mathis

[StefanR]

In light of some previous remarks about neutrinos:

The Borexino collaboration of about 80 scientists from six countries, who have been working with a detector buried 1.5 km beneath the Gran Sasso mountain near l'Aquila in Italy have detected geo-neutrinos, which are electron antineutrinos created by radioactive decays inside the Earth's mantle and crust.

http://www.physorg.com/news187946006.html

[Naerylan]

Fascinating thread, guys. I found this page while trying (and failing) to google up the alleged NASA guy who promoted Mathis's upcoming book, as mentioned in the last update. (Anyone got a link about that?) Though I have been a long time lurker of this board and EU in general.

I'm inclined to believe that he's really on to something with the photon field and the expansion gravity. I also love the recent article about rainbows. Check it out if you haven't already: http://milesmathis.com/rainbow.html
His page was actually the second time I had heard of that sort of gravity solution, so when he put numbers to something I was already considering a valid possibility, it started to look more and more like a step in the right direction. (incidentally, the first mention I refer to is a page of Scott Adams' book The Dilbert Future, which is not a science thesis but a humorous and insightful look at where we might end up in a few decades. Toward the end he proposes 'gravity by expansion' as one of numerous ways the real world might look and feel one way but in truth be something else. Claims he never read it anywhere, just woke up one morning with the idea fully formed)

It has been really fun reading all the various counter arguments and alternate theories here. I have a couple questions...
1. I keep reading the term APM used to describe one of the competing theories. I don't like what I hear so far by reading the context, but I'd love to read over it and give it a fair shot at my brain Trouble is, no one ever includes a link back to the work (I guess everyone assumes the entire board has read up on this guy?) or even spells out what the abbreviation means.
2. To everyone who posted something containing the words "massless" or "nonmaterial"... have you guys actually read Miles's archive? Those are exactly the kind of crazy metaphysics that he's trying so hard to get rid of. As I see it, the very word "mass" literally describes the effect an object exerts on the physical world around it. Under his model, this effect has two components, thus the un-unifying of the variable 'm' into D and V. To propose that something is "massless" is to proclaim that it has absolutely no physical effect and may as well be a pink unicorn.
When I first read the D*V thing, I thought it was kind of circular. After all, I thought, isn't density by definition a ratio of mass to volume? Of course you'll get a V left if you move the M to the other side of the equation. It's a tautology! Then I pondered it a little, and realized that when we measure a 'mass' using for example a balance scale, we are assigning a number to the force the substance is pushing toward the earth with -- and the model states this is always by two separate causes. Putting the gravity cause into its own variable is the only way to see how much effect this 'emission field' is responsible for, assuming of course that there is one. It all makes sense in a weird way.

But I've rambled enough for one post. Looking forward to lurking around for the rest of it

[junglelord]

APM stands for the Aether Physics Model
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 21&start=0

[webolife]

Naerylan,
The density X volume view takes into account the two spacial observations associated with mass.
D has to do with its internal space [how compact it is], and V relates to its external space or field [its relation to other objects]. "Massless" seems to me to represent an understanding similar to what you said, that it is an abstraction of the effect bodies have upon each other, rather than some quality of "inherent amount of matter" which is actually a better description of density. Sure there is circularity in this all, but that is just the nature of mathematics. "Nonmaterial" for me is a way of thinking about the difference between matter and say, potential energy, or more slangly perhaps the diff between "stuff" and the forces acting on the "stuff". "Material" [stuff] becomes visible/observable to us because of the action of invisible "Nonmaterial" stuff like ES, light and gravity.

[Solar]

2. To everyone who posted something containing the words "massless" or "nonmaterial"... have you guys actually read Miles's archive? Those are exactly the kind of crazy metaphysics that he's trying so hard to get rid of. As I see it, the very word "mass" literally describes the effect an object exerts on the physical world around it. Under his model, this effect has two components, thus the un-unifying of the variable 'm' into D and V. To propose that something is "massless" is to proclaim that it has absolutely no physical effect and may as well be a pink unicorn.

I like what I've read of Mathis but I've only seen two references to "massless" in his works thus far:

Just to be clear, I treated mass as a 3D acceleration above, which allowed me to use the square root of the flux for the "field acceleration." I could take this pretty little mathematical shortcut since we are comparing an E/M radiation field to an ion radiation field. What I mean is that the Earth/Moon field is a field composed of E/M photons, which are treated as massless. But the Solar Wind is a field of ions, which are far from massless compared to the photons. - The Solution to Tides

The photon does not reach a size limit that causes slowing until it approaches the spin radius just beneath the electron. At that limit, the largest photons begin absorbing the smallest photons, and the mass increase snowballs. This turns the nearly massless photon into the small-mass electron. - How do Photons Trave

If I recall his 'B-photon' is not "massless". I can understand the practicality but without having looked into these matters yourself the statement is off the cuff.

It is the custom in quantum physics to equate the “electron volt” (eV) in terms of “mass” where “mass” and “energy” are interchangeable. As it relates to Aetherometry the term “massfree” or “massless” simply means ‘non-electromagnetic’. This is what Tesla argued in court as being the case concerning the waves that he experimented with. It wasn’t understood then either:

A fundamental feature of the aetherometric theory of the Aether is that the primary manifestations of the latter present both electric and nonelectric energy structures. Ambipolar radiation (Tesla energy) only constitutes the massfree form of the aether continuum responsible for all electrodynamic effects; this is at once a wave continuum of electric waves, and a massfree energy continuum. AToS shares with Aspden the view that the fundamental electric components of the Aether are exempt from inertia and from what are called the relativistic constraints (which phenomenologically appear to apply to the acceleration of massbound charges by electric fields): - “What is Massfree Energy”

The idea here is that those qualities and quantities “bound” by c form a “reference frame”. That is to say “mass-bound” i.e. they fall within “relativistic constraints”:

As we said above, Aetherometry views the electromagnetic and gravitational fields deployed by photons and gravitons as being composed of particles of massfree energy, such that these particles form a secondary pair of Aether components (in the mixed realm of Matter and Aether). These particles are secondary because, in the case (1) of the photons, they are merely punctual or local devolutions of kinetic energy shed back (from the decelerated motion of material particles) to the nonelectric Aether…

There is also a parallel radical departure with respect to the concept of Matter. Matter in the strictest sense only designates mass-energy - circularized, toroidal configurations of energy that affect the inertial and gravitational properties of mass. But no particles of Matter or bodies of mass exist without the coexistence of complex states of motion, internal and external. Mass-energy is always associated with gravitons and quantities of kinetic energy (electrokinetic, thermokinetic, gravitokinetic) that it discharges as mechanical work or photon production... - "What is Massfree Energy"

Interestingly, for comparison, the supposed “neutrino” was initially assumed to be “massless”, but they didn’t find enough according to the theory. To solve this problem they were made to “oscillate” and have “mass” as they propagate (eV). So, a similar dynamic exist(ed) with the supposed “neutrino”:

Neutrinos are similar to the more familiar electron, with one crucial difference: neutrinos do not carry electric charge. Because neutrinos are electrically neutral, they are not affected by the electromagnetic forces which act on electrons. Neutrinos are affected only by a "weak" sub-atomic force of much shorter range than electromagnetism, and are therefore able to pass through great distances in matter without being affected by it. If neutrinos have mass, they also interact gravitationally with other massive particles, but gravity is by far the weakest of the four known forces.

Three types of neutrinos are known; there is strong evidence that no additional neutrinos exist, unless their properties are unexpectedly very different from the known types. Each type or "flavor" of neutrino is related to a charged particle (which gives the corresponding neutrino its name). Hence, the "electron neutrino" is associated with the electron, and two other neutrinos are associated with heavier versions of the electron called the muon and the tau… - “What is a neutrino?"

The concept of not ‘carrying an electric charge’ until as such time as interactions with matter occurs is roughly analagous with “ambipolar” i.e. the ability to react both positively and negatively once such an interaction occurs. Prior to that ‘reaction’ one is not within the confines of the ‘electromagnetic spectrum’ i.e. non-electromagnetic and/or not ‘bound’ as “mass” within relativistic constraints. In other words, “massless” or “massfree”. That is all this means:

Aetherometry proposes that the world of Matter relates solely, in a strict sense, to the electromagnetic and inertial properties of mass-energy particles, and that even the motion of material or mass-carrying particles or bodies results from the interaction of mass-energy with massfree energy. However, its object of study is not, per se, massfree energy in states that are directly dependent on mass, such as the transient kinetic energy of massbound particles or the electromagnetic energy of blackbody photons. Rather, the primary focus of Aetherometry is the study of massfree energy in nonelectromagnetic forms. – Encyclopedia Nomadica

From Eric Dollard circa 1986 while at the last Tesla based Marconi Wireless station based in Bolinas, California:

Perhaps the most important feature of the O.C. transformer is that in the course of propagation along te coil axis the electric energy is dematerialized, that is, rendered mass free energy resembling Dr. Wilhelm Reich’s Orgone Energy in it behavior. It is this feature that renders the O.C. transformer usefull for the wirelsss power transmission and reception, and gives the O.C. transformer singular importance in the study of Dr. Tesla’s research. – The Oscillating Current Transformer

Until as such time someone; anyone, goes about the process of rigorously refuting the science and variety of working equipment based on these principles as demonstrated by K. Meyl, E. Dollard, the Correas, J. Bedini, Harold Aspden et al I’m hard pressed to simply dismiss the concept out of hand as you seem to have done. Especially since it appears that there has been no correlated effort on the part of the aforementioned in their respective discoveries to simply bandy such a thing about. One can also read Aetherometry’s “Energy Conversion” Patent which condenses the understanding.

But I'd recommend the work of Konstantin Meyl to you. Seriously. You don't have to deal with concepts such as "Aether", "massless", "massfree" etc if it not one's cup of tea. Meyl operates within the 'comfy' confines of recognizable physics (near field/far field) and the appropriate nomenclature with regard to the "scalar" wave/field and formation of vortices ("objects") citing Maxwell as a "special case". You might find this amenable.

In either case, nonetheless, and regardless; Pink Unicorns don’t produce working equipment.

I seriously need to figure out a way to make shorter post.

[Naerylan]

I like what I've read of Mathis but I've only seen two references to "massless" in his works thus far:
*snip*
If I recall his 'B-photon' is not "massless". I can understand the practicality but without having looked into these matters yourself the statement is off the cuff.

It is the custom in quantum physics to equate the “electron volt” (eV) in terms of “mass” where “mass” and “energy” are interchangeable. As it relates to Aetherometry the term “massfree” or “massless” simply means ‘non-electromagnetic’. This is what Tesla argued in court as being the case concerning the waves that he experimented with. It wasn’t understood then either:

In reference to your statement that massless can be taken to mean non-electromagnetic, we have once again circled back to the point I was trying to make: in Mathis's theory, everything is EM. If all fundamental particles are ultimately advanced forms of photons, and they constantly grab and emit other, smaller photons, then essentially everything in the universe has a "mass" or an "electron volts" or however you care to notate it. Anything you might call "mass-less" may as well not exist. I was trying to point out to those promoting other models here that it is kind of silly to ask Miles to accept into his theory the very things he just got through kicking out of it. He mentions in a few places that you can ignore the mass of the tiniest photons because it is so incredibly small the equations come out almost exactly the same (the almost being at the 'we couldn't notice the difference if we tried' level of precision).

Not going to run overly long by re-quoting the rest of your quotes, but I would like to poke at a couple more issues there:
Neutrinos, in the Mathis subatomic world, don't actually exist (funny how that works). Thus they don't need to "carry" anything, masslessly or otherwise. Which all relates to what I said earlier: in the model under discussion (the name is on the thread, right?) there is no such thing as motion without mass.
I read over a couple of your links, and I don't doubt that those guys are smart and self consistent in what they theorize. But whether the experiment works or not, there could be several explanations for the result, and I prefer the one that doesn't presume to imagine that "energy" is a substance that can jump around all by itself.
I enjoy reading the pure-mechanics viewpoint of Miles but if anyone can show experiments that directly prove him wrong, I'd be open to that too.

[borut]

My 5 cent:

In Mathis world the mass is not fundamental property of matter. Expansion is. Mass and gravity are caused by expansion.

[Solar]

I was trying to point out to those promoting other models here that it is kind of silly to ask Miles to accept into his theory the very things he just got through kicking out of it.

I enjoy reading the pure-mechanics viewpoint of Miles but if anyone can show experiments that directly prove him wrong, I'd be open to that too.

Err.... I thought you said you read this thread. The thread is 5 months old but within the first two-three pages the issue of an aether was brought up. To which, as noted by SteveO, Miles seems basically "neutral".

In Page 3 of this thread specific communications between Miles and Alton regarding MM experiment were brought up which also obviously relate to aether concepts. Alton shared some specifics of the rather practical points of Einstein's Idiots, The Aether Physics model has been cited, and Aetherometry. That these have gone into more specifics as relates those theories in particular has merely been an exercise in pointing out their nuances. There is also a link to "Tesla and Einstein were both Right" by Miles. That brings related theories directly into play as relates those individuals cited earlier.

So it's not off topic and there is/was no asking of Miles to "accept" any theory. People are, imho, contrasting theories they are amenable to with the practicality of Miles in this thread. This is excellent and a right and proper thing. I'm not trying to "convince" anyone of anything but merely pointing out those nuances that upon reflection can be contrasted with some Miles ideas. If the "mechanics" of "everything is EM" is the approach I don't have a problem with that assessment. It is the Electric Universe forum after all. Conveying, correlating, and contrasting the potentials of other theories is simply that; not tying to 'sell' them. Its just that it can sometimes come off that way when getting lost in the nuances and specifics.

[Corpuscles]

My 5 cent:

In Mathis world the mass is not fundamental property of matter. Expansion is. Mass and gravity are caused by expansion.

Borut, my friend

Your knowledge of Miles works is clear. Please do not think that any genuine attempt at explaination would be dismissed by your seeming language "difficulty"

So pls expand on that thought.

Any avid reader of Miles works knows how he defines the elusive "Newtonian concept of "....mass.

How he "expands" (pun intended) D * V into a photon expansion hypothesis ... requires much better cohesive explaination! Please help to clarify it!

my 2 cents
Corp

[borut]

Borut, my friend

Your knowledge of Miles works is clear. Please do not think that any genuine attempt at explaination would be dismissed by your seeming language "difficulty"

So pls expand on that thought.

Any avid reader of Miles works knows how he defines the elusive "Newtonian concept of "....mass.

How he "expands" (pun intended) D * V into a photon expansion hypothesis ... requires much better cohesive explaination! Please help to clarify it!

my 2 cents
Corp

Ok despite language barrier I will try.

Miles puts this way:

He defined matter and he gives a certain property of matter, expansion. Now he give us a story that goes something like this:

If you have a finite number of one kind of particles in universe and you would like to do something with that universe. What property would you give to that particles to achieve universe like we see today?

Answer is: you need to give expansion to that particle.

Now the problem is how you give the expansion to particle.

Answer: You link all the matter to the source. Your source is outside the universe you want to simulate. Now through that link you supply your own particle(not expanding) all the time and watch what is happening with your universe.

lp
Borut

[Corpuscles]

Ok despite language barrier I will try.

Miles puts this way:

He defined matter and he gives a certain property of matter, expansion. Now he give us a story that goes something like this:

If you have a finite number of one kind of particles in universe and you would like to do something with that universe. What property would you give to that particles to achieve universe like we see today?

Answer is: you need to give expansion to that particle.

Now the problem is how you give the expansion to particle.

Answer: You link all the matter to the source. Your source is outside the universe you want to simulate. Now through that link you supply your own particle(not expanding) all the time and watch what is happening with your universe.

lp
Borut

Thanks for trying but ...IMHO ....that only confirms the nonsense ,lack of cohesion, and confusion, created by Miles own unsubstantiated hypothesis.

But I do also tend to support a predominately "push"type of gravity, a compound field. But Miles Mathis "expansion" seems merely a method of creating a rationale for his mysterious!, unexplained ,constant "photon" ejections from all matter!?

It is likely that the Universe is expanding (not due to Big Bang), but a compound "push style" gravity predominately "electrical" effect on an incompressable dense fluid like, aether, will implicitly cause that anyway!

[borut]

Thanks for trying but ...IMHO ....that only confirms the nonsense ,lack of cohesion, and confusion, created by Miles own unsubstantiated hypothesis.

But I do also tend to support a predominately "push"type of gravity, a compound field. But Miles Mathis "expansion" seems merely a method of creating a rationale for his mysterious!, unexplained ,constant "photon" ejections from all matter!?

It is likely that the Universe is expanding (not due to Big Bang), but a compound "push style" gravity predominately "electrical" effect on an incompressable dense fluid like, aether, will implicitly cause that anyway!

Answer to yours first two lines: The story is not necessary true. It is just a mechanical explanation of expansion of photon, so that all can see that behind expansion is not anything non mechanic. In reality he is quite sure that nobody knows for sure what is behind.

Answer to yours second two lines: Photon is matter. It is fundamental particle of matter. Photon is not emitting anything. The spinning photon is just colliding with another photon.

Answer to yours last two lines: If you mean expanding matter that is ok, but if you start to expand space, then you need to define space. By Miles space is abstract thing, defined with matter.. length, time( time that photon needs to travel a distance i.e. defined by photon i.e. defined by matter).

[Cosmic Dick]

How does a scientist test the theory that all matter in the universe is expanding?
(cut)
Is it testable?
nick c

I haven't yet read the entire thread, please forgive me but it is 21 pages long so I've got some catching up to do, but I came across this comment early on page 2, and I have a point to make, so if this has already been answered I will apologise again later:

{how to test expansion theory}

This is not the first time I have come across this theory, some years ago I saw an advert in New Scientist for a book entitled "The Final Theory" subtitled "Rethimkimg our scientific legacy", by Mark McCutcheon, which I bought.

This book introduced me to the expanding matter theory, and also proposed a very simple method of testing it.

If I knew how to include graphics here I would.

You need a long tower with a platform on the top end for the astronaught to stand on.
The tower should be Earth radius in length, 6371km.
At the other end of the tower we need a counterweight that equals the mass of the tower, so that the centre of mass point is at the base of the tower.

If expansion theory is correct, an astronaught standing on the platform will experience the same acceleration force beneath him as if he were stood on Earth, creating an artificial gravity identical to that of our planet.

I know from reading Miles Mathis website that he uses pseudonyms (I love his artwork) and I wonder if Miles Mathis could also be Mark McCutcheon, same interest, same initials....

As for the theoretical side, I've only read about 50% of his work, and so far I have only one document I could disagree with, everything else so far read has impressed me, although I prefer the EU theory to his.

I intend to discuss that one document directly with Miles Mathis, eventually, when I get round to finishing all his other work....

CD

[jjohnson]

FYI, since I haven't seen mention of his upcoming book collection of many of his papers, Miles during the past week released the following announcement about his book:

3/21/2010. My book manuscript is now in the hands of the publisher, with the title, THE UN-UNIFIED FIELD and other problems. I have been given a tentative date of release of May 15. The book has 29 chapters and about 350 pages, being a sort of "best of" compilation from this website. It will be offered both paperback and hardback.

So, here's something we can thumb through and digest and mark up to our hearts' content.
Jim

[Osmosis]

I wonder if Miles' book will be available through Mikamar? Anybody?