Miles Mathis Interview

[bill miller]

Pardon me, but "photons" already travel at c. They don't collide with each other.

That's what I was thinking. However, we're discussing Mathis' revolutionary theory of mechanical "billiard ball" photons, and we're looking to see whether it exhibits at least minimal self-consistency (as any theory must — a theory cannot contradict itself). I haven't seen that, either in his essays or in the responses that have been provided in this thread. Surely this could be explained in a short paragraph...if there is an explanation, of course.

The idea that perfectly elastic collisions can somehow positively accelerate photons toward c, such that they eventually reach c (??) — without ever being being slowed down by the same kinds of collisions — does not make sense. I cannot picture a situation in which a photon traveling subluminally collides with a photon at c, resulting in two photons at c. Maybe conservation of momentum is part of the worldwide conspiracy?

I worry that when some people saw that statement in the interview, they just nodded their head and said, "Sounds right." This is science, we aren't blogging about which Batman movie is best. So, let's try to do better.

[sjw40364]

is a neutron chargeless as standard cosmology asserts which means E=mc^2 is wrong, or is standard cosmology wrong and a neutron possess charge and E=mc^2 correct?

Neither. Energy and charge are two different things, according to the Standard Model of particle physics (not "standard cosmology," whatever that is). Surprise, this is not just a dumb oversight by stupid physicists.

Science by straw-man BS doesn't work. It doesn't work for Miles Mathis ("we are told the universe is 95% dark matter" - no we aren't; "we are told the coriolis force makes drain water swirl" - no we aren't, etc., etc.), and it won't work for you either.

Really? what is Energy? What is charge?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/187171/energy
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... ric-charge

So we see that energy can be many things, while charge is a basic property of matter. I don't believe when Einstein had E=mc^2 in mind he was contemplating thermal energy. He was trying to understand the Electromagnetic force, the basic charge of all particles even at rest. Hence the paper "On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies."

But Einstein did not understand his gravitational force, and was unsatisfied with the theory to the end. Because like "standard" cosmology, you leave the electro out of electromagnetism.

[Corpuscles]

Hi

There is no such thing as a "photon".

MM elegantly postulates that they exist, and even tells us the "virtual" ones don't . At least he has thought deeply about it but is still referent/respectful to the emporer Einstein... to allow such a misconception.

I hope you boys (Edi and Bills) enjoy finding out about EU and reading studiously the famework for EU especially ..... W Thornhill papers!

Meanwhile these our "visitors" with a barrow to push and seemingly a grievence, against free thought published in websites and later in paper form ought show they know how to derive E=mc 2, why they accept the fantasy of a "photon".

Please.. put every line of your "correct" calculus in your posts! and define your variables by experimental FACT... first!

Cheers
Corp

[David]

Meanwhile these our "visitors" with a barrow to push and seemingly a grievence against free thought...

Though he had the elegance of a ballerina, many still found,
the rickety wheels of his barrow were square, not round!

[bill miller]

Let's try this once more! I'll make the question simpler this time, and even multiple choice. The choices below are based on responses thus far given to similar inquiries on this thread. (In fairness, not everyone here has been so evasive.)

According to Mathis' interview, photons at rest get accelerated up to c by collisions with other photons. What is the speed of the faster photons — if it isn't higher than c, then how can the slower photons ever reach c?

Choices:
1. You are a pompous clown; I'm not answering you
2. You're just here to defend the official story and stifle free thought, so I'm not answering
3. What original ideas have you ever had? p.s. I'm not answering
4. Trust me, it makes sense...and I'm not answering
5. I e-mailed Miles, and he said answering this isn't worth his time
6. Read these 15 articles of his (with links) — the answer is in there
7. Mathis seems like an expert, and says he's an expert, so let's not think too hard about what he says
8. Who are you people? Just go away and let us believe whatever we want
9. I don't know, let's talk instead about actual scientists and how stupid they are
10. Hmm. That doesn't make any sense. Maybe Mathis isn't the accomplished revolutionary that he and his followers claim

[sjw40364]

MM is quite correct, photons do exist and virtual photons are pure bleep. Give me a break, virtual photons is the biggest fudge of the 21st century, as if something can be real and virtual at the same time. The universe is not a computer simulation. My god people, do you even hear what kind of nonsense you are spouting? You can't figure out how to explain the electromagnetic force gravitationally, so instead we will just say its virtual so we don't have to deal with the inconsistencies. You might as well say that a particle that contains equal amounts of positive and negative charges has no charge. My bad, you do that too, you call it a neutron. As if those equal number of positive and negative charges just sit there and aren't interacting with each other and every other charge in the vicinity. I mean does standard cosmology even listen to the stuff they say, or do you? You need to worry more about what errors lie in your own theories and less about someone on the fringe whose opinion in the end won't natter one bit. Or does he threaten your beliefs that badly?

[bill miller]

So then, non-answer #9, with a dash of #8 thrown in at the end. Thanks for playing.

For those who actually want to discuss this issue, I suspect that in Mathis' world, the force that maintains the speed of constantly colliding photons at (or near) c is the same unexplained force that powers a particle's supposed stacked spins. Funny, even Lloyd in his interview was flummoxed by that — "I don't understand how something physical can spin about a point on its surface, but...." (page 1 of this thread). Too bad he didn't see the need to follow up on that question.

[Chromium6]

Too bad he didn't see the need to follow up on that question.

Did he have to?
http://milesmathis.com/freq.pdf


Feed the web-kitty.

The spin of the photon

Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman is probably most famous for the discovery of the effect that bears his name — the Raman effect describes the change in frequency and phase of light as it is scattered in a medium. In 1930, Raman won the Nobel Prize in Physics for this work, and two years later he was still concerned with the passage of photons through materials. With his colleague S. Bhagavantam, he performed a careful study of the degree to which light becomes depolarized as it Rayleigh-scatters through gaseous oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. Their conclusion was clear and fundamental —"the light quantum possesses an intrinsic spin equal to one Bohr unit of angular momentum".
Nature 129, 22–23 (1932)
http://www.nature.com/physics/looking-b ... index.html

[Lloyd]

BM's Multiple Choice Exam

BM: Let's try this once more! I'll make the question simpler this time, and even multiple choice.

LK: Remember, questions and statements not only need to be easy enough to understand, they also need to be interesting to the readers. Non-responses etc don't necessarily mean inability to reply coherently, they often simply mean disinterest, or lack of time to devote to discussion, or forgetting to check this thread etc.

BM: The choices below are based on responses thus far given to similar inquiries on this thread. (In fairness, not everyone here has been so evasive.)
- According to Mathis' interview, photons at rest get accelerated up to c by collisions with other photons. What is the speed of the faster photons — if it isn't higher than c, then how can the slower photons ever reach c?

LK: Actually, I believe he has said that the fastest photons are or may be a bit faster than c.

BM: Choices:
1. You are a pompous clown; I'm not answering you
2. You're just here to defend the official story and stifle free thought, so I'm not answering
3. What original ideas have you ever had? p.s. I'm not answering
4. Trust me, it makes sense...and I'm not answering
5. I e-mailed Miles, and he said answering this isn't worth his time
6. Read these 15 articles of his (with links) — the answer is in there
7. Mathis seems like an expert, and says he's an expert, so let's not think too hard about what he says
8. Who are you people? Just go away and let us believe whatever we want
9. I don't know, let's talk instead about actual scientists and how stupid they are
10. Hmm. That doesn't make any sense. Maybe Mathis isn't the accomplished revolutionary that he and his followers claim

LK: Probably most of us are somewhat in category 1, pompous clowns, including me. It seems there's a chance that you're not #2, here to defend the establishment, but I can't tell for sure yet. I don't disrespect any of you Mathis disapprovers' intelligence, so I wouldn't choose #3, that you have no original ideas, even if it were true, which I wouldn't know. I doubt if any of us Mathis approvers or tolerators would choose #4, which is to take our word for it. Even Mathis says don't take his word for anything. Mathis himself chose #5, that it's not worth his time and that likely applies to some others here. It's probably not worth much of my time either, but maybe some of my time, apparently. Skipping ahead to #10, that Mathis doesn't make any sense, it seems that you Mathis disapprovers tend to see things as black or white, with no shades in between. Most of Mathis' ideas make quite a bit of sense to me, but there are seldom cases anywhere that seem to make complete sense. Almost any idea or claim seems to have contradictions, ranging from very minor to very major. So it's always a matter of estimating the probability of each one. There are very few things that to me seem 0% or 100% certain. And I think anyone who thinks that way is either naive or fairly omniscient.

BM: So then, non-answer #9, with a dash of #8 thrown in at the end. Thanks for playing.

LK: I wouldn't say the "go away" part of #8. I'd just say, if you want to discuss with me, discuss something I'm interested in. The speed of light is a little interesting to me, so here I am.

BM: For those who actually want to discuss this issue, I suspect that in Mathis' world, the force that maintains the speed of constantly colliding photons at (or near) c is the same unexplained force that powers a particle's supposed stacked spins. Funny, even Lloyd in his interview was flummoxed by that — "I don't understand how something physical can spin about a point on its surface, but...." (page 1 of this thread). Too bad he didn't see the need to follow up on that question.

LK: Mathis indicated that he can't yet explain stacked spins any better than he has and he couldn't readily think of a better alternative, so he'll work on other things until better ideas come to him. That's the way it was with his expanding universe idea. He eventually found a better idea last January, i.e. a spinning universe, so he switched to the better idea at that time, but likely didn't have time to change all the papers where he mentioned the expanding universe idea. I remain highly skeptical of stacked spins, but I don't know of a better alternative yet either, so I figure the truth may be something "similar to" stacked spins. I actually wasn't much interested in Mathis' ideas until he discarded his expanding universe idea. When he did that, his other ideas became much more plausible to me.

Now to try to answer your light speed question, it seems reasonable to me that photon collisions would be non-elastic. Pool balls are a little elastic, so, even without the friction of the pool table and the air, they would eventually come to rest. But there shouldn't be any friction to slow down photons. So, in this thought experiment, we can put a bunch of photons on our photon table, or in our photon box, let's say 15 of them. We throw in one cue photon at high speed. Then what happens? On a pool table, if the balls are grouped together, the cue ball can cause all of them to move. And, if there were no friction, they would keep moving and bouncing around forever, if we don't provide pockets for them to fall into. If they're not grouped together, it just takes a bit longer for all of the balls to be put in motion. On pool tables collisions can cause a moving ball to stop moving. Maybe that could happen with perfectly elastic photons in a frictionless environment too, if they hit just right, maybe when spin is involved. But after a very brief time another moving photon hits it and it's moving again.

I agree with you that some photons will be slowed down by some collisions, but I imagine they would soon be hit again and get accelerated again. I imagine the speeds of the 15 pool photons and the cue photon will be somewhat less than that of the initial cue photon. But after a short time, all of them should have the same speed. In the universe, photons are not confined like that, except where there are large bodies of matter. I believe a computer simulation would be pretty easy to make that would clarify this thought experiment. Does anyone volunteer to make such a simulation program for us?

[David]

The speed of light is a little interesting to me, so here I am.

Just for the record, the following Mathis articles all contain equations with Pi=4; that’s right, his mathematical analysis is dependent on the Pi=4 theory. Ouch!

How do photons travel?
http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html

Redefining the Photon
http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf

The Wavelength and Frequency of Light are Reversed
http://milesmathis.com/freq.pdf

Unifying the Electron and the Proton
http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html

The Fine Structure Constant and Planck’s Constant
http://milesmathis.com/fine.html

The Nuclear Shell Model of Wigner
http://milesmathis.com/wig.pdf

The Radius of the Electron is e^2
http://milesmathis.com/elecrad.pdf

You can’t just turn a blind eye to this; Mathis has dozens of papers at his web site that utilize the Pi=4 theory. When he said that “every single physical equation with Pi in it must now be thrown out and redone”, he unquestionably meant just that.

PS – I would like to welcome Pirouette, the web-kitty; even she has lost all confidence in Mathis and has run away from home.

[sjw40364]

So then, non-answer #9, with a dash of #8 thrown in at the end. Thanks for playing.

For those who actually want to discuss this issue, I suspect that in Mathis' world, the force that maintains the speed of constantly colliding photons at (or near) c is the same unexplained force that powers a particle's supposed stacked spins. Funny, even Lloyd in his interview was flummoxed by that — "I don't understand how something physical can spin about a point on its surface, but...." (page 1 of this thread). Too bad he didn't see the need to follow up on that question.

Because if you used common sense you would realize that particles are made up of quarks, electrified charges. Its center of mass is where the most charges are placed. If it is interacting with another positive charge then most of the negative charges are attracted towards the other particle, while the positive charges are repelled away from the other particle because mass is charge E=mc^2. The other particle is doing the same. this creates a mass distribution towards the surface of the particle, where the majority of charges are bunched from attraction or repulsion. Unlike Earth an atom is not solid, its charges are capable of movement within the particle and its center of mass is always where the majority of charge lies, which is controlled by its interaction with neighboring charges. Learn your physics first.

[bill miller]

Lloyd, thank you for taking the time and answering in good faith.

I believe he has said that the fastest photons are or may be a bit faster than c.

Yes that's the only way it could work, isn't it. There would always have to be a few photons around that exceed c, in order for any photon to actually reach c. Unfortunately, that directly contradicts experimental observation. No photon in a vacuum has ever been observed to exceed c. You recall the uproar that occurred when neutrinos were thought to go a few nanometers faster than c. Garden-variety photons have been tested and tested and tested for 100 years and the results always come up the same. Only a non-scientist would dismiss this fact with a wave of the hand because he supposes those observations to be wrong or a lie. Of course, if Mathis were serious about this hypothesis, he would suggest an experiment to produce a faster-than-light photon. But he's not; he's just supposing things, which is fine but it isn't a serious way of approaching problems in physics.

It would be awesome if Mathis had an alternative physics that was actually consistent with experimental evidence, perhaps with a radical reinterpretation of observations. Such an approach might actually be useful (it's the kind of thing I'm personally into and what initially drew me to Mathis). But instead, he approaches the evidence with the mindset that everything "we are told" in science is a lie due to this vast pan-cultural conspiracy, everything from pi to c needs to be redone, so I'll just make up a bunch of stuff that sounds better to the ear and trot it out in a long series of disjointed essays. That's an interesting way to spend one's time (some people clearly like to read it), but it isn't systematic or rigorous. It requires repugnant intellectual dishonesty at times to cover up inconsistencies, which is quite easy to see though. And most important, it isn't headed in any useful direction — new technologies such as faster-than-c communication in this case.

It's all just supposin' for the sake of supposin'. As long as you're cool with that, I'm cool with it.

[sjw40364]

Lloyd, thank you for taking the time and answering in good faith.

I believe he has said that the fastest photons are or may be a bit faster than c.

Yes that's the only way it could work, isn't it. There would always have to be a few photons around that exceed c, in order for any photon to actually reach c. Unfortunately, that directly contradicts experimental observation. No photon in a vacuum has ever been observed to exceed c. You recall the uproar that occurred when neutrinos were thought to go a few nanometers faster than c. Garden-variety photons have been tested and tested and tested for 100 years and the results always come up the same. Only a non-scientist would dismiss this fact with a wave of the hand because he supposes those observations to be wrong or a lie. Of course, if Mathis were serious about this hypothesis, he would suggest an experiment to produce a faster-than-light photon. But he's not; he's just supposing things, which is fine but it isn't a serious way of approaching problems in physics.

It would be awesome if Mathis had an alternative physics that was actually consistent with experimental evidence, perhaps with a radical reinterpretation of observations. Such an approach might actually be useful (it's the kind of thing I'm personally into and what initially drew me to Mathis). But instead, he approaches the evidence with the mindset that everything "we are told" in science is a lie due to this vast pan-cultural conspiracy, everything from pi to c needs to be redone, so I'll just make up a bunch of stuff that sounds better to the ear and trot it out in a long series of disjointed essays. That's an interesting way to spend one's time (some people clearly like to read it), but it isn't systematic or rigorous. It requires repugnant intellectual dishonesty at times to cover up inconsistencies, which is quite easy to see though. And most important, it isn't headed in any useful direction — new technologies such as faster-than-c communication in this case.

It's all just supposin' for the sake of supposin'. As long as you're cool with that, I'm cool with it.

And where did all these tests take place? In a man-made vacuum that contains a denser medium than even the medium in our solar system. I have yet to read one single experiment done with the speed of a photon performed in a true vaccum. Our solar system is not a true vacuum, yet supposedly photons travel at c in our solar system when the math requires a true vacuum with no matter present. That one would presume that the space between galaxies contains the same density of particles as within a galaxy has no supporting evidence. Light travels slower through a medium, it travels slower through water than air, through air slower than in our solar system. Since no measurements of its speed has ever been performed outside our solar system, on what grounds do you base the photon's max velocity is c, when all tests show it propogates slower in denser mediums?

[phyllotaxis]

Wouldn't it be possible to load some light speed testing equipment onto a rocket and shoot it out into space, taking precise measurements at continuing points as it escapes our system?
As in, emitter and receiver on platform.

Seems like a reasonable test of light propagation in different levels of "vacuum"....
Seems to me that would put to rest much debate about the quality of vacuum at various distances from Sol....

[nick c]

There was another thread, "Mathis and Pi" started by forum member Siggy_G from two years ago, here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=3183

This thread is now 12 pages long, I could not find the above link earlier in this thread, if not here it is, and if it appeared earlier.... it probably should be noted again.