Miles Mathis

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

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:14 pm

* I guess you need to explain those ratios a little better. You said: "I have 4 views of the same universe." What do you mean by universe? I thought this was a photon, or a stack of photons. Do the images relate to this quote from you earlier above?
Nevyn: I have written a couple of programs to model Miles ideas. I started with his idea of particle spins as I wanted to see what kind of paths the particles would take given different rates of spin. I then modeled expansion to see if it looked like gravity. Unfortunately, combining the two is a monstrous task and I am still trying to figure out where to begin.
- The photon spin model was extremely interesting. I have some screen shots if anyone is interested. With just 4 stacked spins, a photon can produce many different paths and shapes but it really gets interesting with another 3 spins on top of those. You can start to see why Miles calls them engines. Given a velocity, which would elongate the path in that direction, it is easy to see how they would affect other B-Photons in their way and cause them to alter their own movement (assuming they have no spin of their own which might affect the spin of the original photon).
- I found the most stable paths occurred when the spin rates were relative to each other. I could create a triangular shape from the first 4 spins (actually, the first spin isn't very interesting as it is about its own axis and doesn't contribute to the paths beyond the direction the particle is pointing at a given time) with just one more spin on top of those which was slower than the inner spins, the triangular shape would move around the top spin and create a circular spiral. It looked just like some sort of cog or wheel. Maybe a Celtic Slinky would be a good term for it, a slinky with its ends joined.

* It's not clear what a photon path has to do with particles. Are the stacks of photons anywhere? It looks to me like just the path of a single photon. And you said: [color=#000080]The red sphere is the photon. The colored cubes are the path of the photon. So I don't see what's stacked, what's an engine, etc. Aren't stacks supposed to make different particles and isn't a particle engine supposed to inhale and exhale photons?[/color]
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4385
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby StevenO » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:35 pm

altonhare wrote:
StevenO wrote:You must then again assume that the eye is equivalent to the aether. That cannot be a valid hypothesis. The eye is a LOCAL observer, while the aether is a background.


The important distinction here is that Mr. Mathis chose to make the velocity of the two men equal with respect to the plane. He could just as well decided they would be equal with respect to the eye.

It makes no sense to say that. Miles is translating how a local observation: the motion of two men aboard a plane translates into a remote observation in the eye. It is not a case of "just as well". One cannot postulate that two men have the same speed if they are not in the same local system.

altonhare wrote:These two are just assumptions, givens of the thought experiment. If you assume the 1st you get no fringe effect, if you assume the 2nd you get a fringe effect. The purpose of the thought experiment is to say if this then that. So within Mr. Mathis' scenario there are both possibilities, but he only calculates the one that supports his assertion that a fringe effect was impossible.

If we repeat Mr. Mathis' calculation, setting the velocities of the men equal wrt the eye, we get a "fringe effect".

Some assumptions are reasonable and others not. It is not reasonable to postulate that two independent objects have the same velocity since there is no way to determine that between them. They can only have an equal velocity in a local system with a non-moving background (like a plane or train,...).
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Nevyn » Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:35 am

I'll try to explain it a little better. The theory written by Miles is based on stacked spins. Ultimately, there are only photons which, using stacked spins, appear like electrons, protons, etc and give rise to electric and magnetic fields. I wanted to see how a particle with stacked spins would move and built this program to do it. It models a single photon as it spins and does not change from its original location, but rotates around it. The path is recorded by the cubes showing the location and orientation at specified time intervals.

My use of the term universe is slightly misleading on a science forum. I meant the virtual universe which any 3D graphics program uses. In some ways they are the same thing, a place for things to exist. When using the program, you see 4 views of the universe as I explained earlier. I had forgotten that the screen shots were not saved like that so it probably didn't make much sense. You may notice that some of the screen shots are from different perspectives and there are other images of the same instant from the other view points.
Nevyn
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Nevyn » Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:45 am

Lloyd wrote:* It's not clear what a photon path has to do with particles. Are the stacks of photons anywhere? It looks to me like just the path of a single photon. And you said: [color=#000080]The red sphere is the photon. The colored cubes are the path of the photon. So I don't see what's stacked, what's an engine, etc. Aren't stacks supposed to make different particles and isn't a particle engine supposed to inhale and exhale photons?[/color]


Sorry, I thought you were more familiar with the theory being discussed and I will try to explain stacked spins.

We start with a single particle or photon. This can move, but I am ignoring that in this model, and it can rotate. Once it has a rotation about its own axis, any axis through its center, it can not gain another rotation about some other axis through its center because of the laws of gyroscopes. Miles has theorized that it could gain another spin about an axis that is outside the gyroscopic influence of the inner spin.

The first spin is about the photons own axis. The second spin axis is 1R in any direction from the center of the photon where R is the radius of the photon. This gives it an end over end spin as it rotates about its own axis at the same time. The second spin is rotating about an axis that is a tangent to the photons surface.

Think of a soft drink can. place a ruler on the top of the can as if you were measuring the diameter of its lid. Now rotate the can around the ruler such that the bottom of the can always stays the same distance from the ruler. Notice that while doing this, you could also rotate the can around a line that ran down through the center of the cans lid and out through the center of the bottom.

Doing this can explain how a particle can spin 360deg but be facing the opposite way to where it started which Quantum Physics has struggled with for a hundred years.

The next level of spin must be about an axis that is 2R from the center of the photon in a direction that is orthogonal to the inner spin. If the second spin was about the X axis, then this might be about the Y or Z. Let's say it was the Y to keep our alphabet intact. The next spin must be about the Z axis and it will be 4R from the center of the photon since it needs to be outside the influence of the next inner level of spin.

It took me a while to get around this and this program helped in a big way.

When Miles talks about engines he is referring to the path of a single photon as it spins through all of its levels of spin. As you can see from my screen shots, there are often holes in the path which would funnel other photons that our photon would encounter if it had a linear velocity through a field of spinless photons. It is this field of photons that he calls the E/M field. While it is spinless, it does not exhibit the electric or magnetic fields. The photon traveling through this field, with spins, is what gives the field direction by collisions with the photons in the field. The spin on the traveling photon causes the field photons to be knocked in certain directions which is what we measure as electric and magnetic fields.

My program shows the path of a single photon as I wanted to see if that path could produce the required shape showing intake and exhaust funnels. I have found that while the final shape is interesting, it is how it makes the path that matters.

I have found that I can create a shape, lets take the screen shot that looks like a wheel as an example. That screen shot was produced by having a fast spin on the X, Y and Z axes but a slow spin on one of the outer TX, TY, or TZ axes. This produces a slow spiral because the most outer spin is so slow. If you reverse the situation and have slow spins on the inner axes and a fast spin of the single outer axis then you get the same shape but it is produced in a completely different way. The second method is created more randomly as cubes seem to show up in unrelated positions. As the path builds though, it ends up with the same shape as before.

This lead me to see the shape as a kind of probability of where to find the photon at any given point in the path. If an area contains a lot of densely packed cubes then you are more likely to find the photon there.

I have no idea how fast the photons may be able to spin but I took some calculations to see how long it would take to travel the length of the path going the speed of light. The more levels of spin the longer the path but even with an extremely complex path, giving it a long distance, a particle traveling that path at the speed of light would complete the path 10^29 (10 to the power of 29) times in 1 second. This means that the shape of that path would appear quite stable to something that measured anywhere less precise than around 10^27Hz.

This is why we think of electrons as particles since we can't measure that precisely. At least, that is according to this theory.

I know this is confusing and I have tried to be as clear as I can. It takes the author many pages to explain this stuff and I doubt I could do it justice here so I encourage you to go through Miles papers to get a better understanding.
Nevyn
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Nevyn » Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:19 am

I just realised I forgot to explain the ratios.

The 3D graphics engine I am using allows me to apply a rotation by specifying the angle and the number of times I want to sample it. This means that as time passes, you get a series of angles which move towards the full angle. I want a complete rotation so my angle is 360deg. If I then ask for N samples, Each sample will change by 360/N deg. The series can be described by the function f(n) = n(360/N).

Each spin level, or stack, is a rotation about some axis. The program has controls that allow you to specify the number of samples (N) for any spin level. As you make N larger, you are slowing down the rotation. If you set all levels to 0 then there is no rotation. Set the A level to 1 and it will spin about its own axis as fast as it can. Set it to 100 and it will spin slower. 1000 slower still.

You can set each spin level individually to any value you want within the valid range. I found that interesting things happened when the different levels were set to values according to ratios. Setting the X, Y and Z axes according to a 1:2:3 ratio and then seeing what happened when I used a 3:2:1 ratio gave good results. A ratio of 1:2:3 means that the X axis is spinning the fastest. The Y axis is spinning half that speed and the Z axis is a third of that speed.

So I added another control panel to allow you to set each spin level according to these ratios. Essentially, you specify the ratio, it sets the rotations to comply. When I specify these ratios on each screen shot I am saying how slow each axis is spinning compared to some base value (which is also settable in the application).

Each screen shot has 7 numbers above it to specify these ratios of spin levels. They are written from the smallest to the largest radius. ie. the number of radii away the rotation axis is from the center of the photon.
The first number if the rotation about its own axis, referred to as A. The second number is the X level, then the Y and Z levels. On top of those we have the TX, TY and TZ levels.

This gives us A, X, Y, Z, TX, TY, TZ for each image which tells you everything needed to recreate that path. The A level is not very useful here but plays a bigger role in the theory. It is usually set to 0. If we take the wheel pattern as an example, this has the ratio 0, 1, 1, 1, 30, 0, 0. This tells us that the A level has no spin, then X, Y and Z levels are all spinning at the same rate relative to each other and the TX level is spinning 30 times slower than the X, Y and Z levels. The TY and TZ levels are not spinning. You can then see why it gives such a spiral pattern. It is taking the fast X, Y and Z spins and slowly rotating them about the TX level which has a much larger radius than the inner levels.

ratio-0_1_1_1_30_0_0-X.jpg
Nevyn
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby StevenO » Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:40 am

Hi Nevyn,

Would you have a picture of what an electron should look like according to Miles? The 7 layers of spins stacked on the basic photon spin. Could you visualize the particle's photon spin together with the photons that are sucked in at the poles and spewed out at the equator because of the engine operation?

I have a little trouble getting Miles' x,y,z spins out of your diagrams. You are using the 1,2,4,8 ratio's with constant photon speed? How would the diagram change if the photon axial spin frequencies are different?
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 altonhare » Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:56 am

StevenO wrote:
altonhare wrote:
StevenO wrote:You must then again assume that the eye is equivalent to the aether. That cannot be a valid hypothesis. The eye is a LOCAL observer, while the aether is a background.


The important distinction here is that Mr. Mathis chose to make the velocity of the two men equal with respect to the plane. He could just as well decided they would be equal with respect to the eye.

It makes no sense to say that. Miles is translating how a local observation: the motion of two men aboard a plane translates into a remote observation in the eye. It is not a case of "just as well". One cannot postulate that two men have the same speed if they are not in the same local system.


I see things going the same speed all the time, even if they are aboard a moving plane or train!

If the local observations on the plane indicate the two men have unequal velocities, we will see a fringe effect. Nobody a priori knew the two light pulses in the interferometer had identical velocities relative to the apparatus. If the experiment was done with sound, we would get a fringe effect. At least postulating that light is "like sound" is reasonable, especially pre-quantum.

StevenO wrote:
altonhare wrote:These two are just assumptions, givens of the thought experiment. If you assume the 1st you get no fringe effect, if you assume the 2nd you get a fringe effect. The purpose of the thought experiment is to say if this then that. So within Mr. Mathis' scenario there are both possibilities, but he only calculates the one that supports his assertion that a fringe effect was impossible.

If we repeat Mr. Mathis' calculation, setting the velocities of the men equal wrt the eye, we get a "fringe effect".

Some assumptions are reasonable and others not. It is not reasonable to postulate that two independent objects have the same velocity since there is no way to determine that between them. They can only have an equal velocity in a local system with a non-moving background (like a plane or train,...).


This doesn't make any sense. What possible reason can you have from forbidding the two men to have equal velocity relative to the eye? Does God conspire against it?

More importantly, what reason can you have from forbidding the two men to have unequal velocity relative to the plane? In this case there is, of course, a "fringe effect".

I can measure the velocity of 2 objects aboard a moving train. In fact Miles provides a mechanism for this, each man hits a button and sends the eye a light pulse. The eye can then use this information to calc their velocities etc. Miles actually does that in his scenario. He just assumes the two men have equal velocity relative to the plane. But this was not a priori known before the experiment was done.
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 Nevyn » Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:55 pm

StevenO wrote:I have a little trouble getting Miles' x,y,z spins out of your diagrams. You are using the 1,2,4,8 ratio's with constant photon speed? How would the diagram change if the photon axial spin frequencies are different?


I guess it is difficult to get much out of the final picture rather than seeing the path build.

The 1,2,4,8 that you are referring to are not the ratios I am talking about above. You are talking about the radius ratios that refer to the amount of translation applied to each level of spin. ie. the amount the spin level rotation axis must move to be outside the gyroscopic influence of the inner spin level. The first level is 0R, then 1R, 2R, 4R, 8R, 16R and finally 32R. Each of these define a circle that a given spin level will move around.

My program lets you set the rate of spin for each level, in other words, its frequency. The radius ratios never change. These are defined only by the radius of the photon and will always remain relative to that. The spin speed ratios are what I manipulate to see what happens. To see how the photon moves with the different spin levels.

Here is a screen shot of the application itself, not a capture from inside the application as the other images have been.

app.jpg


On the control panel on the right, in the top section are the spin controls.

SpinControl.jpg


In this forum I labeled the top 3 spins TX, TY and TZ but in the app I labeled them YZ, XZ and XY which are the planes that these spin levels move in (in a rough sense). I now prefer the terms TX, TY and TZ as it keeps it clearer so I will stick with those now and change the app later.

This is a screen shot of just an X spin.
XSpin.jpg


This is just a Y spin.
YSpin.jpg


Notice that these only move in 2 dimensions because the photon is rotating about 1 axis.

This is an X and a Y spin with a 1:1 ratio.
XYSpin.jpg


See how the path now moves in 3 dimensions as it is rotating about the X axis at the same time as it rotates about the Y axis. The path becomes more complex because of the stacked spins.

Here is 3 stacked spins on the X, Y and Z axes with a 1:1:1 ratio.
XYZSpin.jpg


The path gets even more complex as it rotates about 3 axes.

I will now add a slow rotation about the TX level. This gives us a 1:1:1:30 ratio which is the same ratio as the screen shots showing the wheel. This 3 images show how the path is built.

Wheel1.jpg

Wheel2.jpg

Wheel3.jpg


See how it takes the XYZ spin and slowly rotates it around to form the spiral. When it gets back to the start position it forms the shape of a wheel or donut.

StevenO wrote:Would you have a picture of what an electron should look like according to Miles? The 7 layers of spins stacked on the basic photon spin. Could you visualize the particle's photon spin together with the photons that are sucked in at the poles and spewed out at the equator because of the engine operation?


This app can show an electron with all 7 levels of spin. The problem is what ratios to use?

Ultimately, this is my goal. However, modeling stacked spins and collisions with other photons is complicated to say the least. I created this app just to see how the photon moves only with stacked spins. As I watch the photon move around, I imagine those field photons colliding with it and try to work out what would happen.

This is an electron, with a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio (ignoring the axial spin).
Electron1.jpg


Not exactly interesting. I don't think that the spin ratios would be in this 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio. If I use a reverse binary relationship between the stack it shows I much more interesting picture.

I can't add anymore images so I'll continue in the next post.
Nevyn
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Nevyn » Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:55 pm

32:16:8:4:2:1
Electron2.jpg


In this image, especially in the top left view, you can see the funnel that would be an intake and exhaust for an engine. Although it is wrong to thing of it in that way. You can see from this that photons traveling down through the hole would not be affected as they would not collide with this photon. As you move further out from that central hole though, the field photons would collide with the photon as it moves around this path and they would be pushed in different directions based on what the photon would be doing at that exact moment.

This gives you an idea of how this photon would affect the field photons to appear like it is radiating those field photons. It would push them in many different directions but certain spin ratios would cause it to push them in some directions more than others. This is what Miles means by it being an engine.

However, the direction of linear velocity would also affect how the photon pushes the field photons around. In the paragraph above I am assuming that the photon is traveling in such a direction that the hole moves in that direction but this need not be the case. If the hole was moving slightly rotated to the direction of travel (think of looking down into a glass, now keeping the top in the same position move the bottom of the glass to the left) then it would cause the field photons to move to the left (looking at it from in front of the photon relative to its direction of travel).

If I understand this theory correctly, then it is this movement that we measure as electric and magnetic fields. This makes some sense as we see large particles such as electrons and protons being moved, this shows that simple mechanics can cause that movement without using action at a distance or unnecessary forces.

I might add something here that some might not be aware of. Everything is made of photons. That is all there is in this theory. A photon with 7 stacked spins, in some unknown (at least to me) ratio, will form an electron. This electron can then have its own spin levels but only up to 4 as they become very unstable above that.

So, on top of the 7 stacked spins of the photon to form the electron, there can be another 4 spin levels which are A, X, Y and Z spins. If you take that image above and spin it around its central axis, you can see that the hole would spin around that axis and cause field photons to be pushed in all directions around that same axis. Appearing like it is radiating those field photons about that axis.

I believe it is the electron spin levels that cause electric and magnetic fields, not those on the base photon. The electrons Y spin gives rise to the magnetic field and the Z spin causes the electric field.

An electron with all 4 of its spin levels is a proton or a neutron depending on which way the spins rotate. The difference is that a proton can still radiate field photons but a neutron has such a spin path that all of the field photons it comes in contact with can not get out from the inside of that path. Therefore it does not radiate those field photons but keeps them inside itself which explains why a neutron is slightly heavier than the proton. It also explains why the neutron is considered electrically neutral since it doesn't radiate field photons and so has no defense against those field photons.

While I definitely want to write an app to model the photon field and how spin levels affect it, this requires a collision avoidance system which are notoriously hard to program. In my other app which models photon expansion I have an avoidance mechanism but this is very simplistic and would not work with spin levels. I am not entirely happy with the way this stacked spin model has been created and it is this that causes the headaches when I try to add collisions.

I hope this helps you understand what is going on in this app. I will try to answer any question you still might have but it might be easier if you play with the app yourself. This gave me a better understanding as I could add spins and see how the path changed which is very hard to show with screen shots. I hesitantly offer this app to anybody that wants to play with it. I am hesitant because it uses Java 3D which must be installed by you, I can't distribute it with my app, and this may cause problems for some. I haven't tried to run this app outside of my development environment which often hides a developer from some of the complexities of deploying an application. But if anyone feels up to it, I suggest you download Java 1.6 and Java 3D 1.5.2 and see if you can get some of the Java 3D samples running. I am also unsure of how to get it to you. Maybe a private message will allow me to attach a zip file containing the app so send me one if you are interested.
Nevyn
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby Corpuscles » Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:59 pm

Alton I mean absoltely no disrespect to you, but sometimes your style appears somewhat belligerent.

The respect I hold for Miles Mathis has yet again grown by the demonstrated dignity, politeness and considerable effort he made in the quoted exchanges!

Miles paper made absolute sense to me on the first read.

I do not concur with all his views and hythoseses, yet I believe he makes a very valuable contribution to science.


As you know and as Miles endeavoured to point out the MM notion of earths rotation and orbit causing a cutting through the aether did not even comply with the then known range of various "guesses" about the qualities of such aether nor their limited knowledge concerning the nature of light, and even less thought about likely interaction between both. As Miles states to you privately the experiment could only produce a null result!

If they speculated aether was the media in which light travelled? Lets give aether the Maxwellian propertiesof the tensegrity of steel but fine structure capable of passing through anything

Imagine a 1" steel rod circling the earth at the equator. Like a giant "hoola hoop"! :o We know itisapproximately travelling at 1000mph or 1600km/h with the earths rotation.We know the speedof sound through steel.

Set up a "hammer" with attached to rod with sound recording devices equally distant from "hammer" and measure the time it takes for both to record the sound wave. Now like the little girl in the playground accelerate the "hoola hoop" either in the direction of earths rotation or opposing it, it will make no difference to the similtaneous arrival of the sound wave at each recording device!



And since this is the MAD section :D

Whether Mickelson and Morely originally had all the greatest honourable intentions IMHO the subsquent interpretation /effect of the MM experiment is one of the greatest tragedies in Science!

I think its undue prominance was mainly to discredit Tesla, to elevate Einsteins GR notion of gravity! Avoiding the unwanted disclosure of free abundant longitudinal "electricity" which he demonstrated even before the turn of the 20th century.

LOL! (as Miles points out in his Tesla V Einstein paper) Einstein inherently by giving "space time" curved properties structure and dimension was infact inadvertently infering an aether!!!

Most have our "pet" sciencific views, some bordering on scientific religiousity!

But the aether makes more sense to me. It complies with the KISS principle but lends the basis for developed universal and quantum complexity.

The rotating magnetic opposed helical vortex's in a contant state of compression and expansion. Provides the building block basis forthe observed fractal pattern in nature (DNA, Birkland currents, Plasmic double layers etc etc), no need for imaginary "virtual" particles, antimatter, blackholes etc

It conforms with basic simple observed law of opposites in nature. Female/ Male, Hot/ Cold , EM , Attraction/Repulsion...radiation, Gravity and universal rotation!
Corpuscles
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:08 pm

* Getting back to Altonhare's post of yesterday, he referred to the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QmsngMRpE as one of "alternative explanations of gravity without an attractive force".
* That first video says:
"Weight and gravity require TWO objects. The relativistic fraud experiment alleges that, if the sun and the Earth were the only objects in the universe and we removed the sun, the Earth continues to have weight. ... Weight is not a force. Weight is a tension and a tension is not a force. Tension differs from a force in that it is a static concept. Under tension no one wins the tug of war. Newton's ... equation is not about force but about tension. The equation says there are two objects separated by a distance. ... If the distance between objects changes the weight of either object changes instantaneously."

* This tension concept is from Rope Theory, I think, and I don't see Rope Theory as such an alternative explanation of gravity without attraction. Whatever the ropes are made of would have to involve forces of attraction one way or another. A force of attraction seems to me to imply magic that can't be explained. Only repulsion makes sense to me [aside from the theory of consciousness].
* Mathis has apparently found that Newton's and Einstein's equations etc actually are unified field equations and that the two objects in the equation only apply to the EM force, not the force of gravity. He found that gravity depends only on the radius of an object and a second object is irrelevant.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4385
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby junglelord » Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:33 pm

Well said Corpuscles.
:geek:
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby junglelord » Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:41 pm

Nevyn wrote
When Miles talks about engines he is referring to the path of a single photon as it spins through all of its levels of spin. As you can see from my screen shots, there are often holes in the path which would funnel other photons that our photon would encounter if it had a linear velocity through a field of spinless photons. It is this field of photons that he calls the E/M field. While it is spinless, it does not exhibit the electric or magnetic fields. The photon traveling through this field, with spins, is what gives the field direction by collisions with the photons in the field. The spin on the traveling photon causes the field photons to be knocked in certain directions which is what we measure as electric and magnetic fields.


This is what I call sub-quantum quanternion spirograph kinetics.
Well explained Nevyn.
:ugeek:

The concept of quantum engines was a clear and concise vision, and its called quantum containment.
The little engines of a single hydrogen atom are very powerful.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Miles Mathis

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

* Nevyn, thanks for the great effort.
1. Would you explain today's screen shots of the X spin and the Y spin and the X&Y spin combined? What kind of photon is the yellow ball? Is that a photon that's spinning on its axis?
2. Do normal photons that travel at "c" spin, or not spin? Do photons that spin stop moving at "c"? What causes them to spin? What makes them stop moving at "c"?
3. Is the screen shot of the X spin a spinning photon revolving on a circular path? How is that different from an orbital path? It looks like there would be an attractive force to keep it on a circular path, instead of going off on a straight line path.
4. If a spinning photon captures normal photons, does it make them spin in order to capture them?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4385
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:08 pm

Corpuscles: It conforms with basic simple observed law of opposites in nature. Female/ Male, Hot/ Cold , EM , Attraction/Repulsion...radiation, Gravity and universal rotation!

* What's attraction? If I shoot a cue ball into a one ball and make it move toward the two ball, the cue ball was repelled from the cue stick. Is its motion toward the one ball an attraction? When it hits the one ball, the one ball is repelled. Is the one ball's motion toward the two ball an attraction? I don't think so. A force of attraction makes no sense to me. It seems like unexplainable mysterious magic, so I think it's merely an appearance and an illusion, as Mathis seems to think as well. However, I don't see universal expansion of everything as a solution either. That seems to bring up way more new problems than answers to old problems. I think the answer is in aether, not expansion.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4385
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests