Miles Mathis

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

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

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

Re: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Post by Corpuscles » Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:28 pm

Lloyd wrote:
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.

I was mainly refering to attraction/repulsion in the sense of magnets and "electric" charge. But also as JUST one example to all the opposites seemingly evident everywhere in nature. (Credit concept to Walter Russell "The Universal One")

Take 2 permanent magnets. (everyone should carry them and handle them regularly ;) )

What causes opposed dissimilar poles to cause them to jump together , or when like poles opposed move them apart?

The magnet material is tuned to interact with the aether or to act as a focusing lense for it.

Is the North Pole really attracted to South or is it that the North wants to align with the other North? Just as when we break a PM we create a 2 new N/S pieces.... so too ....when 2 magnets join there is no longer a N/S connection at the join, but the entirety l behaves as if it is one magnet.

The Power is not in the magnet it is the all pervasive external and constantly inflowing aether.

Try this:

On a reasonably frictionless plane like a shiny wooden table place small (lets say oblong bar) magnets a distance apart with like poles opposed. Edge one slowly closer to the other.You will observe an intial "repulsion" on the eah other...note the strength of that influence and compare it to the relatively higher amount of effort the non restrained magnet finds from "somewhere" for the further distant pole to "flip" (it will somersult in air) to snap together with the other magnet.

See the omnipresent aether is preset programmed to behave as the universal ordering mechanism :) and behaves differentlyto different entities. The stuff creates matter, and grows trees..... rotating magnetic fields!!

Nevyn
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by Nevyn » Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:47 am

Lloyd wrote:*
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?
I changed the photon color to yellow because it worked better with the transparent axes than the red. It is the same photon as before.

There is no axial spin on any of those shots because it doesn't really help with understanding the path, in fact it can get in the way sometimes. It is extremely important to the theory because that energy would be transmitted to any field photons that our photon collides with. In these screen shots I am trying to understand the path the photon takes rather than how it interacts with other photons.

With the X, Y and X+Y shots I was trying to show how the stacked spins operate and how they add together. By showing just the spin about the X axis which is 1R (radius of photon) away from the center of the photon and showing just the Y spin, which is 2R from the center. Then adding these 2 together to produce a more complex path.

You can start to see why the axis of rotation has to be moved away from the center of the photon because you can see the circle made by just the X or Y path, The circle created by the X spin is 2R in diameter. This means that the next level of spin must rotate about an axis that far away from the center of the photon. The next level above that will need to be 4R because the Y spin takes up 4R space.
Lloyd wrote:*
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"?
When we measure the speed of light, c, we are measuring the linear velocity of the photon. This has nothing to do with the stacked spins. The spins happen while the photon is moving at c in some direction. Think of the photon with all its stacked spins as a complete entity, it is this that has a linear velocity, c. It can probably have any velocity up to c. I am imagining a sea of photons that are waiting to be recycled by collisions with faster traveling and/or spinning photons.

It is interesting to think about how the linear velocity affects the spin path. What you get is a wave. This is why scientists have been confused by light acting like both a wave and a particle. It is, by this theory, a particle with a built in wave.

I do not know how fast photons could spin. The spins and the linear velocity are gained by simple collisions with other photons. They are also slowed down by collisions. This can affect both the linear velocity and the spin. It seems it is also possible for a particular spin level to be affected while leaving the others untouched, or at least minimally.

For example, lets take an electron with all 4 of its spin levels in operation. If it collides with a positron, which is just an electron with a Z spin in the opposite direction, then they will cancel each others Z spin (assuming the same Z spin rate for simplicity). This causes them to lose their electric charge and it appears like they annihilate each other because our detectors can not see them anymore.
Lloyd wrote:*
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.
This is nothing like an orbit. It is exactly the same as an orbital path, because that is just a circle, as is each spin level taken in isolation. An orbit is a complex relationship between expansion and the E/M field being emitted by an entity and how it interacts with the E/M field of the orbiting body.

The circular path is the spin for that level. If the photon only had this 1 level of spin, that is the path that it would take, assuming no linear velocity. So you could say that it is an orbit about the axis for that level, if you only view an orbit by its geometry, but in the sense of a moon orbiting a planet, or a planet orbiting the sun they are nothing alike.

I don't know why the photons spin other than gathering them by random collisions. I can easily imagine collisions causing linear velocity and an axial spin. I see that the axial spin changes the next collision because of how gyroscopes work. I have trouble seeing why it ends up with a stacked spin. At this point I am letting that go in order to see where it leads because Miles papers are making sense of things that have seemed chaotic and senseless.
Lloyd wrote:*
4. If a spinning photon captures normal photons, does it make them spin in order to capture them?
No, that is not required. Actually I would think that if the field photon had any spin then it would affect the engine photon in some way. As I understand it, the field photons are basically photons that have had all of their spins stripped by collisions. They are relatively slow compared to the engine photons linear velocity. Essentially they are dead. This is why I think of them as a sea. It could also be because I recently read about Dirac's sea of negative energy and that is clouding my interpretation a bit as I saw some parallels.

The engine would impart some of its spin and linear velocity to the field photons. It does not do this to capture them, but it will happen because any collision must transfer energy.

When a neutron, or any other particle, captures photons, what I see is something like this. The neutron is traveling along at some great velocity, let's say c. It collides with a field photon. The collision pushes the field photon forward and towards the inside of the neutrons path. The neutron continues to spin and as it reaches the other side of its path it collides with the field photon again. This causes the field photon to bounce back towards the other side of the path where the neutron is there to meet it again. The field photon keeps bouncing around inside the spin path of the neutron.

I don't think that this could continue on forever so I imagine that some field photons fall out and are replaced by other photons from the field.

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Post by altonhare » Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:29 am

Corpuscles:

Your objections are misguided. I will address your hula hoop.

If, indeed, the detectors are always equidistant from the origin of the sound, the sounds will arrive simultaneously. The question, then, is if it is possible for the detectors to always be equidistant from the sound's source

The aether proposal of the time did not involve the mirrors etc. being attached to the aether, so we will suppose our hammer to be disembodied from the hoop and the detectors to be likewise detached from the hoop. When the hoop moves, now, the detectors and hammer maintain their relative distances.

The aether proposal of the time postulated that the velocity of light was constant wrt the aether. In other words, the velocity of the sound is constant with respect to the hoop. If we now rotate the hoop in the direction toward one detector and away from the other, and then strike it with the hammer, the sounds will not be arriving simultaneously. Rather the sound moving toward the detector which the hoop is also moving toward will arrive first. This is because, as the sound moves ahead in the hoop, the hoop is also moving ahead toward the detector. Vice versa for the other sound, it moves ahead toward the other detector, but the rod moves away from the detector.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

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

Re: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Post by StevenO » Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:03 am

altonhare wrote:Corpuscles:

Your objections are misguided. I will address your hula hoop.

If, indeed, the detectors are always equidistant from the origin of the sound, the sounds will arrive simultaneously. The question, then, is if it is possible for the detectors to always be equidistant from the sound's source

The aether proposal of the time did not involve the mirrors etc. being attached to the aether, so we will suppose our hammer to be disembodied from the hoop and the detectors to be likewise detached from the hoop. When the hoop moves, now, the detectors and hammer maintain their relative distances.

The aether proposal of the time postulated that the velocity of light was constant wrt the aether. In other words, the velocity of the sound is constant with respect to the hoop. If we now rotate the hoop in the direction toward one detector and away from the other, and then strike it with the hammer, the sounds will not be arriving simultaneously. Rather the sound moving toward the detector which the hoop is also moving toward will arrive first. This is because, as the sound moves ahead in the hoop, the hoop is also moving ahead toward the detector. Vice versa for the other sound, it moves ahead toward the other detector, but the rod moves away from the detector.
This is bare nonsense. You are now changing the description of the experiment to suit your needs.

The experiment included lightwaves reflected by mirrors. In your description you will have to add sound reflectors that send the sounds back to the hammer and put the detectors at the location of the hammer. You will find that Doppler effects back and forth exactly compensate the movement of the hoop and you will get a null result.
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.

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

Re: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Post by Corpuscles » Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:28 pm

altonhare wrote:Corpuscles:

Your objections are misguided. I will address your hula hoop.

.....smip for brevity
Alton , mate!. :D
I have to praise your ability to inspire and vigourously persue debate! I can hardly be critical as the "forum" is designed for that purpose, and fortunately this site has a lienient "Mad" section.

I admit that both examples here and in the Mile Mathis Top 10 thread are,... very simplictic concept examples which were not intended to replace Miles excellent and better more thorough treatment.

Perhaps I should quote Miles ( genius) last private communication with you?

Miles Mathis to Alton
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.
Pls..Think harder about the excellent advice he gave you. ;)

I will however reply in part to your post and also thankyou for your "considered" reply.

I think you almost..... answered your own objection!.... to my somewhat 'silly' simplistic example

AltonHare
The aether proposal of the time did not involve the mirrors etc. being attached to the aether
IMHO for the experiment MM to have been valid, one light detector would have had to be anchored relative to the source earth frame, the other anchored relatively to the aether!(YES IMPOSSIBLE!) but then MM would not have detected minimal to null deviations but likely substantial +ve results.

ie MMorley..had the light source, and both detectors... fixed equally distant , relatively to each other.Therefore the "hammer"and detectors in my example must be affixed to the imaginary "hoola hoop" rod to replicate the MM conditions of their invalid, flawed experiment.We NOW both seem to agree their set up was WRONG! :lol:

Finally I saw a signature from a poster (separate forum)it went something like:

"You can NEVER be wrong, unless you believe it or know it to be wrong, in which case you are again... right!!!

Alton,if I was a gambler I would guess you have a reasonably thorough extensive conventional academic physics background? Unfortunately the effect is dogma and rigourous defence of the "known" accepted position and an inability to see anothers point of view. IMHO is the major retardation of science today.

I mean this in the kindest possible way,next time you don't understand,then suggest you repectfully ask questions first to make sure you see the others point, before launching in to an arguement, based on the singleminded belief that you are more correct!

I think I should step out of this thread and give others have a go. Remember... you ...are always right!!!
It matters little to me, that we disagree, clearly Miles ultimately had the same opinion
Cheers& thanks, it was interesting
Corp

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

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by Corpuscles » Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:53 pm

Nevyn


Silly post really but I just was compelled to thank you for your efforts.

Well done. :)

Maybe contact Miles?... you both share appeciation of the visual arts!... and it would be a great contribution if you could animate your program and then share with world.

I have a gut feeling Mathis would see all the depths of it!

LOL! ... but he would no doubt!!!... in some way... correct you!

Thanxs

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

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by Corpuscles » Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:16 pm

StevenO

Your intellect astounds me! You and all others give this site great insight and momentum. Thank you.

If i could be a pest? ..again :o

I just don't get how Miles got Pi to equal 4... any profound insights?...( yep read it several times still don't get it?)

His repulsion idea rather than predominate attraction idea makes sense to me. An opposed magnet works the exactly the same

Here is a rediculous question for you if you have time to "donate" to a science mental "leper"

Einsteins box and/or elevator "thought experiment" .....intricallly linked interia with gravity.

I absolutely loved the paper the math fresher (i had to brush up to catch up) of Miles exposure of the inherent acceleration in a circular/ eliptical motion. I am sure that is old hat to you?

I despise Math as the basis for science as best articulated in your hopefully award winning ..... brilliant paper!

(But others a F18 pilot experiences multiple "g" forces in turning in a curve... the tighter the more "g's")


$64 dollar question!!!!????... translated from Aussie into Dutch means ;) ... "silly nonsense but worth a lot to me"




If we are moving in a near circular path, brilliantly expounded by Miles Mathis as inherently accelerating, at 23.5 deg off they axis of rotation (slight wobble) at approx 1500 km/h and then movingin the "x" plane (although apparently 4deg from the planer right angle?....at over 108,000 km

Doesn't that give us .....the reaction via inherent repulsive to inertia which ought be expressed as an gravitational accleration? Particularly if we factor in the massive electric differential between ionosphere to ground surface? (and beyond earth)


Sorry if that makes nonsense

I luv your work!
Corp

Nevyn
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by Nevyn » Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:30 pm

Corpuscles wrote:Nevyn


Silly post really but I just was compelled to thank you for your efforts.

Well done. :)

Maybe contact Miles?... you both share appeciation of the visual arts!... and it would be a great contribution if you could animate your program and then share with world.

I have a gut feeling Mathis would see all the depths of it!

LOL! ... but he would no doubt!!!... in some way... correct you!

Thanxs
Thanks, Corpuscles, to be honest though, I have really enjoyed it. In no way did it feel like a lot of effort even as I look back and realise how much I have written.

I have thought about contacting Miles, even more so since writing about it here. I wrote this app to help me understand his theory and have already seen where I think it is wrong (in implementation, not necessarily operation, although likely) so I would be more than happy to be shown where I have gone wrong. Even more happy if that comes with new direction to build a better model. As I said earlier, I really want a complete working model of this theory and this has not lead me down that path exactly as I wanted it to. But the fun is in the journey, not the final result, so no doubt I will try again some day.

I have already discussed how to incorporate animation into this app with other developers at work. From this discussion I realised how much seeing the path being built was more, or at least as, important than the final path. I took it for granted because I was always there watching it being built and this led to insights when I would think about how it might interact with field photons. Unfortunately for you guys, I just threw you all in the deep end and expected you to swim. Sorry about that.

I would like to thank everyone contributing here. Having to explain this to others has given me a better understanding of it myself. It has made me look at it from different perspectives and try to get to the bottom of them all. I don't realise how fast concepts flow through my mind until I have to slow down and teach it to someone else. I start to see the small steps I am taking for granted. This helps me to solidify these concepts while at the same time allowing others to show me new ways to think. A true win-win situation.

Thank you.

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

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by StevenO » Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:16 am

Corpuscles wrote: StevenO

Your intellect astounds me! You and all others give this site great insight and momentum. Thank you.
I think you should thank Miles, but otherwise it's my pleasure. Beware to be always critical though! This days theory is next days garbage paper.
Corpuscles wrote:If i could be a pest? ..again :o

I just don't get how Miles got Pi to equal 4... any profound insights?...( yep read it several times still don't get it?)
In abstract static geometry π describes a ratio of lenghts and is supposed to equal 3.1415926535897932... However, the point is that π is a misnomer. Physically, the diameter of a circle is a (linear) distance and the circumference of a circle describes a two dimensional curved trajectory. To curve something in real life takes acceleration and accelerating something around circle of diameter R takes as much acceleration as curving it around a square of size R. (The total acceleration required is the same). Just imagine how you would have to travel around the square: to turn around a corner you need an acceleration that cancels your current velocity in one direction and apply an orthogonal acceleration of the same size to create your velocity towards the new corner. To travel around the circle you apply the same perpendiculars and then it shows that the circumference equation is C = 8r = 4d. But in fact π kind of loses it's meaning. It also means that any formula you encounter using π is suspect.
For geometry one can still use the number, for real life circular trajectories it equals 4.
Corpuscles wrote:His repulsion idea rather than predominate attraction idea makes sense to me. An opposed magnet works the exactly the same

Here is a rediculous question for you if you have time to "donate" to a science mental "leper"

Einsteins box and/or elevator "thought experiment" .....intricallly linked interia with gravity.

I absolutely loved the paper the math fresher (i had to brush up to catch up) of Miles exposure of the inherent acceleration in a circular/ eliptical motion. I am sure that is old hat to you?

I despise Math as the basis for science as best articulated in your hopefully award winning ..... brilliant paper!

(But others a F18 pilot experiences multiple "g" forces in turning in a curve... the tighter the more "g's")

$64 dollar question!!!!????... translated from Aussie into Dutch means ;) ... "silly nonsense but worth a lot to me"

If we are moving in a near circular path, brilliantly expounded by Miles Mathis as inherently accelerating, at 23.5 deg off they axis of rotation (slight wobble) at approx 1500 km/h and then movingin the "x" plane (although apparently 4deg from the planer right angle?....at over 108,000 km

Doesn't that give us .....the reaction via inherent repulsive to inertia which ought be expressed as an gravitational accleration? Particularly if we factor in the massive electric differential between ionosphere to ground surface? (and beyond earth)

Sorry if that makes nonsense

I luv your work!
Corp
I don't think I understand your question like I should. In space there is no "x" plane, we can only take the earth's or solar rotational axis as a reference...I could'nt find your 4 deg and 108,000km numbers in a description of the earth's movement: http://answers.google.com/answers/threa ... 25504.html
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.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by Lloyd » Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:16 pm

* Nevyn, do you think you might be able to do a simulation that I described at
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 290#p28290?
* It's to see if Mathis's ideas about particle distribution would pan out in a simulation. E.g., would nucleons end up in nuclear arrangements; would electrons end up at proper distances from nuclei; would atoms form into molecules and what distances would they be apart?

Nevyn
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by Nevyn » Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:40 pm

Lloyd wrote:* Nevyn, do you think you might be able to do a simulation that I described at
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 290#p28290?
* It's to see if Mathis's ideas about particle distribution would pan out in a simulation. E.g., would nucleons end up in nuclear arrangements; would electrons end up at proper distances from nuclei; would atoms form into molecules and what distances would they be apart?
I have thought along those lines myself but that is the complete theory and requires all parts of it to be implemented and operating together. While this is possible, it is a big project and will require some thorough planning. At the moment I have decided to start with smaller pieces of the puzzle and build up.

I have been trying to figure out if I can fake it in order to get some tentative results quickly. Rather than implement the stacked spins, I could just create particles that radiate photons. ie. they create them on the spot (a huge breach of the conservation of energy but it's just a model). Or maybe I could have the sea of field photons and when they come within the radius of the particle of interest it radiates them. This mimics the theory more closely but the stacked spins affect the way the field photons are radiated and that has an affect on how they interact with other field photons and particles.

For example, the axial spin imparted onto the field photon is what creates left-handed and right-handed systems. ie. in our environment, electricity operates by a right-hand-rule. This is because the earth imparts a certain spin to all of the field photons it radiates. If the earths particles had a different spin, it could radiate particles which are up-side-down from what it radiates now and these would be what science calls anti-particles. Then electricity would have a left-hand-rule.

It is all in the details, I'm afraid. If I faked it I might get something that resembles this theory but it might not look anything like it too. Would such a model tell us anything? I see it as modeling plasma with MHD. Close, but no cigar.

In saying that, though, I do hope to get to this point. I just don't expect it will be anytime soon. Sorry.

Nevyn
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by Nevyn » Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:55 pm

I was reading Miles new paper today (about the Roche Limit) and because this thread was still in my mind I started to get a new idea for a model to investigate the E/M Field interactions discussed in that paper. Miles uses calculations to see what happens so, obviously, I can do the same and apply it to a 3D model.

I will go over his papers again and try to find all of the appropriate equations and see what I can do with them. It sometimes takes me a while to see how to use an equation within a model. I would appreciate input from anyone who has played with the math involved (I think StevenO said he had calculated the accel for the planets in our solar system) as this can speed up development considerably. In 3D graphics development, the visuals are relatively easy, it's the interactions that are hard.

Although this model would be about orbits, I think it may apply to the atomic realm as well. In the very least it would give me something to evolve into an atomic model once I understand the differences.

Food for Thought.

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Post by altonhare » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:51 pm

This is bare nonsense. You are now changing the description of the experiment to suit your needs.
That was Corp's description/analogy, and my response as to why it is misguided. I agree that the two-way velocity will be the same in the situation you describe.

The two-way velocity would not, however, be the same if you were to alter the hoop's velocity as the sound were traveling. If the hoop is spinning right and spins right slower after the first sound is bounced off the right deflector, then the sound that was deflected first will arrive at the source of the sound first. This is roughly analogous to rotating the interferometer apparatus.
Corpuscles wrote:Pls..Think harder about the excellent advice he gave you.
Mr. Mathis was unable to address the point I kept raising, evading it every time. Here are Mr. Mathis' "points":
Mathis wrote:The data on the plane could not indicate they were traveling unequal velocities, given this problem. That is my point.
This is a priori assuming no fringe effect. Circular argument.

I hope people can manage to travel unequal velocities on a plane or things could get very weird.
Mathis wrote: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.
Again, a priori assuming no fringe effect. Circular argument.

I hope that we can measure different velocities for different people on a plane, or again things could get very weird.
Mathis wrote:My given is that the men have equal velocities relative to eachother and to the plane.
A priori assuming no fringe effect. Circular argument. In the 19th c nobody KNEW that the "men on the plane" had equal velocity relative to the "plane" and to each other. Mr. Mathis takes the result of the experiment as given, and then calculates the result of the experiment.

Mr. Mathis' MM argument assumes from the outset that there will be no fringe effect, and then calculates that there is no fringe effect.

Corp, please think long and hard without bias. You obviously like Mr. Mathis very much, but everyone can be wrong (yes including me).
Corpuscles wrote:ie MMorley..had the light source, and both detectors... fixed equally distant , relatively to each other.Therefore the "hammer"and detectors in my example must be affixed to the imaginary "hoola hoop" rod to replicate the MM conditions of their invalid, flawed experiment.We NOW both seem to agree their set up was WRONG!
You misunderstood. The source/detectors can be fixed equally distant without being connected to the hoop/aether. They can simply be connected to each other by some other means and the hoop allowed to move freely relative to them (or them relative to the hoop). The setup was fine.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis

Post by Lloyd » Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:55 pm

* In the thread, called "Is there a theory of the atoms based on electricity?" I just posted at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 369#p28366 some images and text about another theory of atoms, aether etc. Nevyn, maybe that theory could provide good material for a simulation too.
* I think Mathis may have quite a few things right, like his corrections of formulas and how particles repel each other by shooting photons and maybe that they are formed from photons. And I think this other guy, Joseph George, has a lot right too, about the structure of atoms, molecules, aether particles, photons etc. There are also possibly good additions that APM, VPM, aethrokinematics etc can provide.

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

Re: Mathis and the MM Interferometer

Post by Corpuscles » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:33 pm

Alton

OK I now understand where you are coming from.

Mate, this must somehow be really important or interesting to you? , so I will try one more time.

I humbly suggest it is a language or interpretation problem, not only between us due to my silly colloquial laymans terms, but also with Miles eloquent ability to present complicated subjects in easy to understand terms.

I think Miles does this firstly so the not so bright or knowledgeable can understand what he is saying, but secondly to avoid the need to reduce everything to mathematics in an attempt to eliminate any risk of misinterpretation.

If you read the paper you refer to again . You will note Miles goes to great pains, to indicate upfront, that he is going to massively simpify the concept then later repeat in greater sophistication.

Examine this statement carefully:

"I did not say that Miles Mathis was absolutely correct".

Now, how did you interpret that? (LOL! :D to eliminate further misinterpreation )... Please pick one of the options which most closely matches your ( Alton) personal opinion of the key intended thrust and meaning of Corps statement?)

a. As a denial that I said it
b. As a denial that I hold a positive view
c. That someone else said instead of me
d.That I may have wrote it, but I did not verbalise it
e.That the degree of correctness was not stated
etc etc I could go on & on...

That is in part what Miles meant when he said to you, "you do not understand my point"


From your post above I will give you an example.

----
Mathis wrote:
My given is that the men have equal velocities relative to eachother and to the plane.

Alton wrote:
A priori assuming no fringe effect. Circular argument. In the 19th c nobody KNEW that the "men on the plane" had equal velocity relative to the "plane" and to each other. Mr. Mathis takes the result of the experiment as given, and then calculates the result of the experiment.
---------------------------------------------

Mathis is saying he is turning the experiment backwards.He is starting with the actual null result of the MM experiment and working from that starting point

He is not saying ......lets have passenger A walk from window to window accross an aeroplane and passenger B walk an equal distance at right angles along an aisle and then lets try and figure out their velocites!

You also, applied different variables to my silly thought experiment. It doesn't matter to me that you think I am wrong.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests